How underrated is James Worthy

[BobaFett1]

I always felt like this cat never got the props he deserved. What say you?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Worthy.jpg

[racm]

One of the best third bananas ever.

Also a pretty objective analyst; I remember him calling out the Lakers earlier in the season.

[lefty]

A bit overrated IMO

[Killakobe81]

Best baseline spin from the low block ever ...
Very underrated tbh ... and by the end of the 80's dynasty he was the main scorer, not a third banana he was the leading scorer and 2nd best player on at least two title teams ...

I saw him eviscerate the vaunted Badboy Pistons frontline by himself, when Magic and Byron pulled their hammies. Prime Rodman (defensively not rebounding wise) could not handle him, Salley, Mahorn etc had even less luck.

Really great player and glad he got the props he deserved. Could of been a bigger star (numbers wise) on a shit ballclub.

Only negatives: The Pass he threw across court n the finals that Gerald Henderson stole in 1984 ...and that one time in Houston when hookers and police were involved. Class act, decent analyst.Never talked much shit and was even a better leaper before he broke his leg. If you you tube his 360 layup in like 1982 or 1982 or 1983 (IIRC) sick ...

[Killakobe81]

He also was the best player on Jordan's title UNC team ...

Mj never led a team to a title at UNC after Worthy left ...and Mj had Perkins and Brad Daugherty on some of those teams (sophmnore/junior years) IIRC

[hater]

Worthy eventually got his due

He was not only in the cover of the best video bball game ever but he was also the best player in it

f20C8DiYk7o

[Killakobe81]

Worthy eventually got his due

He was not only in the cover of the best video bball game ever but he was also the best player in it

f20C8DiYk7o

I loved that game the signature moves were hilarious ...

[Jacob1983]

One of the best goggle wearing players in NBA history.

[whitemamba]

big game was the fucking man, underrated tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I always felt like this cat never got the props he deserved. What say you?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Worthy.jpg

He's as underrated as Jabbar is overrated.

[BobaFett1]

He's as underrated as Jabbar is overrated.

truth^

[JamStone]

Not really underrated. Not really overrated. For the most part, generally rated appropriately.

[Medvedenko]

I loved Worthy growing up and he was my favourite Laker during the 80's and early 90's even over Magic. Still, his career was short lived and I wasn't too pleased when he quit while still very capable of a player. Once he lost that HOF talent around him he regressed and while still effective didn't want to deal with a rebuild process.

[mindcrime]

How overrated are BobaFett1's posts tbh?

[Blake]

Not really underrated. Not really overrated. For the most part, generally rated appropriately.

Pretty much my opinion.

I always thought that Byron Scott was the least talked about, most underrated player of the '80s.

[ambchang]

First off, this thread would have been a legit discussion if it was standalone, but it was obviously a spin off of the annoyingly stupid Paul Pierce thread.

There are factors working for and against Worthy here.

First thing, he played on the Lakers, and we know that all Lakers players are overrated. That overratedness usually eases up a few years after they leave the Lakers (Shaq) or retire (Magic), but still, they are all more highly regarded than their actual play warranted.

On the other hand, Worthy played his entire career under the shadows of Magic and Kareem, so he got underrated a little due to it.

That said, I feel Worthy was slightly overrated. People always claimed that he could have a Nique like career (ridiculous stats, no rings) if he played on another non-LA/Celtic team in the league, but I do no think it's true. Worthy was a great low post scorer, have great handles for a big guy, can pass, can defend, and shows up at the biggest moments, but let's face it, a lot of his points came on running the court like a mad man. Sure, you can attribute those points to him being one of the best running big man in the game, but fact remains that he was not the creator of those points, Magic was.

We saw a glimpse of what Worthy was capable of on an average team (post Magic Lakers) in 92, and the results aren't in favour in him. His statistics went south a bit despite taking the same amount of shots (nagging injuries could have something to do with it). In fact, his stats were getting better and better in Magic's last few years as Worthy took on more of the scoring role with the aging of Jabbar, but his efficiency kept going down. He became a better passer, as the offense runs through him more, but his efficiency plummeted, which further supports the theory that Worthy is a great finisher, but not a fantastic creator.

[Budkin]

Don't think he was underrated. Great player that's always mentioned as a major part of Showtime.

[lefty]

lol at his " great fucking spin move "

He used to hug his defender with one arm and got away with it

[Richie]

Never saw him play, but I think he's a great analyst. Called out Kobe regularly early in the season for his hero ball. He would be a huge upgrade over some of the trash on ESPN.

[CitizenDwayne]

How exactly is he underrated, and who is underrating him? He's acknowledged as a middle- or lower-tier legend, which is what is deserved.

[Ashy Larry]

Finals MVP, triple double in a game 7 and voted one of the 50 greatest. J Dub was the truth. Probably won't get just due while being on a squad with Magic and Cap but dude was money in the post and one of the game's best finishers on the break.

[Latarian Milton]

dude lived in the shadow of his teammates and he probably deserved more hype than his actually got. could've been the #1 on an average team during his era but i doubt he would want to play on a mediocre team and end up retiring w/o a ring

[The Whopper]

Probably more overrated than underrated. However, really good.

[The Whopper]

When Tom Chambers roasted Magic, James and then reversed dunked on Orlando Woolridge he was smart enough to know he had more yesterdays than tomorrows. For you youngsters that don't remember that, look it up.

[BobaFett1]

How overrated are BobaFett1's posts tbh?

Bout overrated as the sex I had with your Mom last nite.

[Thread]

dude lived in the shadow of his teammates and he probably deserved more hype than his actually got. could've been the #1 on an average team during his era but i doubt he would want to play on a mediocre team and end up retiring w/o a ring

No.

He needed that shadow, most particularly Magic's. Without that he woulda most likely ruined himself after the '84 debacle.

[TDMVPDPOY]

couldve been franchise player, but drafted onto stack team to play banana role...

[dunkman]

He's overrated, considering 'Nique barely made the HOF and wasn't selected to the NBA 50 best team.

They were the same draft class, both SF's. But 'Nique was clearly better.

[LkrFan]

He's overrated, considering 'Nique barely made the HOF and wasn't selected to the NBA 50 best team.

They were the same draft class, both SF's. But 'Nique was clearly better.
:rollin :lmao :rollin

[dunkman]

:rollin :lmao :rollin

You obviously didn't saw 'Nique play. The difference between him and Worthy was ridiculous.

[LkrFan]

You obviously didn't saw 'Nique play. The difference between him and Worthy was ridiculous.
And you're either drunk (again) or English is not your first language. It's OK, I'll give you a pass.

I've seen them both play. The only two things Dominique was better than Worthy at: dunking and not winning championships. :lol

[dunkman]

And you're either drunk (again) or English is not your first language. It's OK, I'll give you a pass.

I've seen them both play. The only two things Dominique was better than Worthy at: dunking and not winning championships. :lol

Just say no to drugs, Lkrtag. You must stop already. Worthy was a good dunker too. Give 'Nique Magic and Jabbar and Worthy Doc and Willis and let's see who's winning championships.

[LkrFan]

Just say no to drugs, Lkrtag. You must stop already. Worthy was a good dunker too. Give 'Nique Magic and Jabbar and Worthy Doc and Willis and let's see who's winning championships.
:rollin - if you're trying to insult me, at least spell it right ole inebriated :lolne

Worthy is a winner. If he had his own team and was #1 option, he'd have even better numbers than he put up. Thing is, we didn't need him to go off every night and score tons of buckets. He did a little bit of everything.

BTW - ask Bird who he thought was the better player. Guarantee you he won't say Wilkins tbh.

[Blake]

Just say no to drugs, Lkrtag.

gonna pop some tags...only got 20 bucks in my pocket....this is fuckin awesome...

[Blake]

He's overrated, considering 'Nique barely made the HOF and wasn't selected to the NBA 50 best team.

They were the same draft class, both SF's. But 'Nique was clearly better.

Nique not making the 50 greatest list was a crock of biased shit.

[Thread]

^I don't do "50 greatest" & HOF & MIP & MVP. All that nonsense. No.

But, [they've] always treated Wlkins with derision & snickers. It happens like that sometimes. Yer cut-out, roped off and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

[Blake]

^I don't do "50 greatest" & HOF & MIP & MVP. All that nonsense. No.


You just do TOSB

[dunkman]

Nique not making the 50 greatest list was a crock of biased shit.

Not sure what happened there, tbh. Worthy was good too, but Nique was at another level.

[BobaFett1]

Nique played on some Hawk teams that could never go far,

[Blake]

Not sure what happened there, tbh. Worthy was good too, but Nique was at another level.

same thing with McHale, imo.

[Blake]

And Robert Parish.

Celtics have always been overrated. East Coast media bias and all that.

[Thread]

You just do TOSB

I invented itPERIOD

[Blake]

I invented itPERIOD

It's a moniker that fits Kobe and even Nash well these days.

[Thread]

It's a moniker that fits Kobe

Please.

[Killakobe81]

First off, this thread would have been a legit discussion if it was standalone, but it was obviously a spin off of the annoyingly stupid Paul Pierce thread.

There are factors working for and against Worthy here.

First thing, he played on the Lakers, and we know that all Lakers players are overrated. That overratedness usually eases up a few years after they leave the Lakers (Shaq) or retire (Magic), but still, they are all more highly regarded than their actual play warranted.

On the other hand, Worthy played his entire career under the shadows of Magic and Kareem, so he got underrated a little due to it.

That said, I feel Worthy was slightly overrated. People always claimed that he could have a Nique like career (ridiculous stats, no rings) if he played on another non-LA/Celtic team in the league, but I do no think it's true. Worthy was a great low post scorer, have great handles for a big guy, can pass, can defend, and shows up at the biggest moments, but let's face it, a lot of his points came on running the court like a mad man. Sure, you can attribute those points to him being one of the best running big man in the game, but fact remains that he was not the creator of those points, Magic was.

We saw a glimpse of what Worthy was capable of on an average team (post Magic Lakers) in 92, and the results aren't in favour in him. His statistics went south a bit despite taking the same amount of shots (nagging injuries could have something to do with it). In fact, his stats were getting better and better in Magic's last few years as Worthy took on more of the scoring role with the aging of Jabbar, but his efficiency kept going down. He became a better passer, as the offense runs through him more, but his efficiency plummeted, which further supports the theory that Worthy is a great finisher, but not a fantastic creator.

Though I agree Pierce thread was silly, not sure every Laker is overrated. Shaq is to a degree how the fuck does Duncan have more career rebounds?! Pau is a bit too by Kobe haters. Baylor is underrated for example ...
Kobe is overrated by some and underrated by others ...

[Blake]

Please.

Begging ain't your style

[lefty]

And Robert Parish.

Celtics have always been overrated. East Coast media bias and all that.

The East was tougher than the West in the 80’s

[ambchang]

Though I agree Pierce thread was silly, not sure every Laker is overrated. Shaq is to a degree how the fuck does Duncan have more career rebounds?! Pau is a bit too by Kobe haters. Baylor is underrated for example ...
Kobe is overrated by some and underrated by others ...

I am probably contradicting mysel, what the hell, I am. Pau is actually underrated by lots. Baylor wasn't really underrated, just that people didn't care because he was so long ago. Compared to the other players in his era, Baylor got not cred (eg petit domes to mind).

Kobe is probably he most overrated superstar in the league. Every single statistic shows that he was not, and never will be, as valuable as shaq and Duncan, and yet the 5 rings argument pushes him way above the two in most casual fans minds.

[Thread]

Begging ain't your style

:rolleyes

[Blake]

The East was tougher than the West in the 80’s

To clarify, Celtic players themselves have always been overrated......Robert Parish being a good example of that.

There is absolutely no way that dude deserves to be on the top 50 list when you look at who got left off

[Phillip]

To clarify, Celtic players themselves have always been overrated......Robert Parish being a good example of that.

There is absolutely no way that dude deserves to be on the top 50 list when you look at who got left off
Definitely some truth to this.

Although I hope Bird isn't a part of your list of overrated Celtics players. Bird IMO was the best player of the 80s, not Magic.

[Killakobe81]

I am probably contradicting mysel, what the hell, I am. Pau is actually underrated by lots. Baylor wasn't really underrated, just that people didn't care because he was so long ago. Compared to the other players in his era, Baylor got not cred (eg petit domes to mind).

Kobe is probably he most overrated superstar in the league. Every single statistic shows that he was not, and never will be, as valuable as shaq and Duncan, and yet the5 rings argument pushes him way above the two in most csual fans minds.

Not just casual fans, hardcore fans, GM and media types including Simmons have Kobe over Duncan. In fact Duncan passing Shaq in rebounds further proof that Tim is greater than Shaq who was dominant aty his peak more so than Kobe or Tim but not as consistent orgreat a player as either to be honest

[ambchang]

There you go, even hardcore fans, GM and media types (which are pretty much casual fans to happens to write) have Kobe > Duncan shows you have ridiculously overrated Kobe is.

Shaq, at his peak, was an absolute monster, he was > Kobe by quite a wide margin, and > Duncan by a little (advanced statistics show that they are closer than raw numbers show). Sure he didn't do it 12 years in a row, but his 5 or 6 years of absolute dominance in the league more than offsets the longetivity part. It's like saying Malone > Jordan because he did it longer and have more career points, and that's just plain retarded.

[Blake]

Definitely some truth to this.

Although I hope Bird isn't a part of your list of overrated Celtics players. Bird IMO was the best player of the 80s, not Magic.

I give Magic the edge over Bird for a lot of reasons, but lol the irony here is that I think Bird, in all his greatness as it is, still tends to get underrated at times..........especially on defense.

McHale, Parish, and Dennis Johnson though: all overrated, imo

[Phillip]

I give Magic the edge over Bird for a lot of reasons, but lol the irony here is that I think Bird, in all his greatness as it is, still tends to get underrated at times..........especially on defense.

McHale, Parish, and Dennis Johnson though: all overrated, imo

cant argue with any of this

[lefty]

I give Magic the edge over Bird for a lot of reasons, but lol the irony here is that I think Bird, in all his greatness as it is, still tends to get underrated at times..........especially on defense.

McHale, Parish, and Dennis Johnson though: all overrated, imo
I give Bird the slight edge over Aids

- Better defender, more clutch, as good a passer as Magic, dived for loose balls unlike Magic

- And, contrary to poular belief, Bird's back problems didnt start in 87 or 88; It started in the summer of 84; to think that he kept playing at a high level with bad back is really impressive.

- Plus, the Celts, unlike the Lakers, didnt have a bench

- And they had a black coach

- On top of that, the EC was tougher than the WC back then

[Killakobe81]

There you go, even hardcore fans, GM and media types (which are pretty much casual fans to happens to write) have Kobe > Duncan shows you have ridiculously overrated Kobe is.

Shaq, at his peak, was an absolute mounster, he was > Kobe by quite a wide margin, and g> Duncan by a little (advanced statistics show that they are closer than raw numbers show). Sure he didn't do it 12 years in a row, but his 5 or 6 years of absolute dominance in the league more than offsets the longetivity part. It's like saying Malone > Jordan because he did it longer and have more career points, and that's just plain retarded.

Look you not gonna suck me in to this, we will debate this like gentlemen when they are both done. The MJ and Malone comparison is horseshit because Malone though a great player is ringless and his numbers dip in the playoffs not increase like the other guys in this conversation. Shaq was a beast but if you gonna let some bullshit advanced stats guideyou (of course you will cuz they favor Duncan over Kobe) be my guest ...but Duncan was the better all around player imho due to his range, durability and being the better skilled offensive and defensive player . I would take 2000 MVP Shaq over every player I have seen (MJ included) but how often did we see THAT Shaq outside of the Finals? ...but that is the only season of his Laker career where he gave close to 100% effort for 82 plus the playoffs .... but you can't say that about Tim or Kobe on the positive or negative side. Their peaks arent as great as Shaq but their valleys werent as shitty either. If peaks are all that matter than Hakeem is greater than Duncan as well, but I do think the body of work is important.

We all know you have issues with Kobe cuz he steals shine from Timmy but it doesn't change 5>4 ... and though there is a part of the metrics community that will agree with your Duncan over Kobe premise, the people that truly matter peers, GMs, HOF, and ALL NBA voters do not ...

[Killakobe81]

LOL Im actually arguing with a Spur fan that Duncan is greater than Shaq and he is using precious advanced stats to argue otherwise ...what kind of bizarro world is this?!

Please Amb, I would love to hear you wax poetic on how is Shaq better than Duncan? Just the stats? Inquiring minds want to know. So duncan in less seasons has more career rebounds than the guy who is bigger stonger and according to you more dominant than Timmy. So are you gong to pull some stat that shows rebound rate or rebounds per 48 minutes?! How about % of a team's rebounds?

Fact remians no matter what advanced stats say Duncan has been the greater rebounder even if you factor in the games Shaq took off to get healthy on company time, the raw numbers prove what my eyes tell me ... if I need someone over the course of their careers to get a key rebound (or block for that matter) I want tim not Shaq. And thoug O'neal is the greater scorer when you factor in FT's and range please tel me how he is greater than Timmy?

[Thread]

^Well, if Kobe hadn't hunted Shaq down & sent him into retirement on the shitty end of the stick this wouldn't be happening.

tee, hee.

[Killakobe81]

^Well, if Kobe hadn't hunted Shaq down & sent him into retirement on the shitty end of the stick this wouldn't be happening.

tee, hee.

But of course, Amb is clinging to that metric because it is the only world where Duncan is greater than Kobe (outisde of SA) is on a PC ...
Im not saying it's not close despite Kobe being superior every season since Duncan last rang and winning twice to make it 5-4 ....
I have given Tim the benefit of the doubt and maintained that it's still (relatively) close.

Amb though acts like it doesnt even warrant debate and yet he still tries to suck me in to one even though I have asked to table it for now, but Im his huckleberry and I will enjoy watching another season pass with 5>4 ... Cully ...

[Killakobe81]

LOL ^ Funny thing is I could care less overall how Kobe is percieved if we could win another title without him ...

But you Spur fans have made me care about Kobe's legacy ....when I still think Magic is greater than Kobe ... I remember the Magic vs. Bird debates I had as a kid ...that is the only thing that compares ... because MJ ended all debates when he got "6" funny how time changes. Bulls fans loved to throw around 6>5 or 3 ... but now that is a "team accomplishment". GTFO ... teams are led by great players and in my book if you are a real leader (not a locker room one) on teh court your rings count ...PERIOD.

[Thread]

^Yep, yep.

[ambchang]

Look you not gonna suck me in to this, we will debate this like gentlemen when they are both done. The MJ and Malone comparison is horseshit because Malone though a great player is ringless and his numbers dip in the playoffs not increase like the other guys in this conversation. Shaq was a beast but if you gonna let some bullshit advanced stats guideyou (of course you will cuz they favor Duncan over Kobe) be my guest ...but Duncan was the better all around player imho due to his range, durability and being the better skilled offensive and defensive player . I would take 2000 MVP Shaq over every player I have seen (MJ included) but how often did we see THAT Shaq outside of the Finals? ...but that is the only season of his Laker career where he gave close to 100% effort for 82 plus the playoffs .... but you can't say that about Tim or Kobe on the positive or negative side. Their peaks arent as great as Shaq but their valleys werent as shitty either. If peaks are all that matter than Hakeem is greater than Duncan as well, but I do think the body of work is important.

We all know you have issues with Kobe cuz he steals shine from Timmy but it doesn't change 5>4 ... and though there is a part of the metrics community that will agree with your Duncan over Kobe premise, the people that truly matter peers, GMs, HOF, and ALL NBA voters do not ...

I agree with your assessment on Shaq vs. Duncan, they have a healthy peak vs. longevity between the two, with Shaq better at the peak, and Duncan being able to sustain his excellence quite a bit longer.

I don't think Shaq > Duncan, because Shaq requires a very specific team around him to be effective (bunch of shooters, and elite wing, rebounding/defensive PF next to him, little leadership responsibilities), and Duncan is most definitely easier to build around and much more easier to sustain than a prima dona Shaq, but Shaq does have an incredible peak.

And it's not just SOME advanced stats showing Duncan > Kobe, almost all of them do. Also, could you quote the GMs and peers picking Kobe over Duncan? All NBA voters is tough to apply, because they play different positions, and HoF, as we all learned through the years, are mostly a bunch of old senile guys who like to live in past glory, and are generally horrible at picking players, but I would like to see the list as well.

Interestingly, in MVP award shares, Duncan leads Kobe despite less years and playing in San Antonio vs. the LA limelight, so I am not exactly sure if the media types, as clueless as they are, picked Kobe over Duncan.

Speaking of peaks, when was Kobe's BTW? I define Shaq's as 99 to 03, Duncan's as 98 to 07, but am having trouble pinpointing Kobe's.


LOL Im actually arguing with a Spur fan that Duncan is greater than Shaq and he is using precious advanced stats to argue otherwise ...what kind of bizarro world is this?!

Please Amb, I would love to hear you wax poetic on how is Shaq better than Duncan? Just the stats? Inquiring minds want to know. So duncan in less seasons has more career rebounds than the guy who is bigger stonger and according to you more dominant than Timmy. So are you gong to pull some stat that shows rebound rate or rebounds per 48 minutes?! How about % of a team's rebounds?

Fact remians no matter what advanced stats say Duncan has been the greater rebounder even if you factor in the games Shaq took off to get healthy on company time, the raw numbers prove what my eyes tell me ... if I need someone over the course of their careers to get a key rebound (or block for that matter) I want tim not Shaq. And thoug O'neal is the greater scorer when you factor in FT's and range please tel me how he is greater than Timmy?

I think you misread me, I think we are on the same boat where I think Shaq > Duncan in their absolute primes (few people > Shaq, but 91 to 93 Jordan is there, if not > Shaq), but Duncan likely beats Shaq in terms of being a better player, maybe by a hair, with defense being the strongest, but not only, reason.

I want Tim as a big over Shaq over the course of their careers if I were to start a team, just easier to build around, actually listens, gives his all on the court, no drama, better defensively, better range, equal passers, better leader, though not as dominant an offense force as Shaq.

[ambchang]

Another point for Duncan > Kobe
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/623123-kobe-bryant-vs-tim-duncan-who-has-had-the-more-impressive-career

Bleacher Report picked Kobe, and given it's BR, we know it MUST be wrong, so Duncan is in fact better.

LOL at Kobe is already a top 5 player of all time crap. BR.

[Killakobe81]

I agree with your assessment on Shaq vs. Duncan, they have a healthy peak vs. longevity between the two, with Shaq better at the peak, and Duncan being able to sustain his excellence quite a bit longer.

I don't think Shaq > Duncan, because Shaq requires a very specific team around him to be effective (bunch of shooters, and elite wing, rebounding/defensive PF next to him, little leadership responsibilities), and Duncan is most definitely easier to build around and much more easier to sustain than a prima dona Shaq, but Shaq does have an incredible peak.

And it's not just SOME advanced stats showing Duncan > Kobe, almost all of them do. Also, could you quote the GMs and peers picking Kobe over Duncan? All NBA voters is tough to apply, because they play different positions, and HoF, as we all learned through the years, are mostly a bunch of old senile guys who like to live in past glory, and are generally horrible at picking players, but I would like to see the list as well.

Interestingly, in MVP award shares, Duncan leads Kobe despite less years and playing in San Antonio vs. the LA limelight, so I am not exactly sure if the media types, as clueless as they are, picked Kobe over Duncan.

Speaking of peaks, when was Kobe's BTW? I define Shaq's as 99 to 03, Duncan's as 98 to 07, but am having trouble pinpointing Kobe's.



I think you misread me, I think we are on the same boat where I think Shaq > Duncan in their absolute primes (few people > Shaq, but 91 to 93 Jordan is there, if not > Shaq), but Duncan likely beats Shaq in terms of being a better player, maybe by a hair, with defense being the strongest, but not only, reason.

I want Tim as a big over Shaq over the course of their careers if I were to start a team, just easier to build around, actually listens, gives his all on the court, no drama, better defensively, better range, equal passers, better leader, though not as dominant an offense force as Shaq.

OK so we agree on something ... that is a start. But the reasons you gave on Why Duncan is better are not ALL tied to stats ...THAT was my point. I could care less if the advanced stats show Shaq is better than Duncan I saw back in 1999 that Tim was going to be teh greater player. I have said it many times onhere I turned to my co-workers during those Finals and said I would trade Shaq for Tim straight up no extra picks or players needed. And they all called me crazy. Then Shaq went off in 2000 and they called me stupid ...and I started to doubt if I were wrong. then he pulled his season surgery crap ...two straight years ... andI knew then what I know now. Though I hate to admit it but being honest Duncan is a greater player than O'Neal. LikeI said last week Shaq was a beast and watching Dwight look pretty human on offense reminds me of what he was ...

But playing ball is more than a baseline spin, drop-step and a shoulder charge power move to the middle. And when I heard that Tim passed Shaq in rebounds last week I was dumbfounded. No WAY in hell should Tim have more rebounds in less seasons that Shaq. Im sorry but it's not as close as you say it is despite Shaq being uber-dominant at his peak.

[Killakobe81]

Another point for Duncan > Kobe
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/623123-kobe-bryant-vs-tim-duncan-who-has-had-the-more-impressive-career

Bleacher Report picked Kobe, and given it's BR, we know it MUST be wrong, so Duncan is in fact better.

LOL at Kobe is already a top 5 player of all time crap. BR.

Funny.
But Keep in mind he makes my top 5 because I dont count guys that I havent seen. Duncan is right there in my top 5 as well ...

Career guys I have seen:
1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Kobe
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Bird
8. Hakeem
9. Isiah
10. Moses

Peak:
1. MJ
2. Shaq
3. Hakeem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Lebron
8. Kobe
9. Isiah
10. Chuck

Im giving huge weight in the peak to great playoffs and Finals performances ... Lebron has one great one and two stinkers and Kobe's Finals have been uneven as well ...chuck had one of the better losing Finals performances and some other great playoff games at his peak. I did not catch Kareem in his full prime so he makes my first list but not the 2nd ...

Enjoy it it may be the only place where I will place Duncan over Kobe unless he rangs or builds a hot-tub time machine.

[ambchang]

OK so we agree on something ... that is a start. But the reasons you gave on Why Duncan is better are not ALL tied to stats ...THAT was my point. I could care less if the advanced stats show Shaq is better than Duncan I saw back in 1999 that Tim was going to be teh greater player. I have said it many times onhere I turned to my co-workers during those Finals and said I would trade Shaq for Tim straight up no extra picks or players needed. And they all called me crazy. Then Shaq went off in 2000 and they called me stupid ...and I started to doubt if I were wrong. then he pulled his season surgery crap ...two straight years ... andI knew then what I know now. Though I hate to admit it but being honest Duncan is a greater player than O'Neal. LikeI said last week Shaq was a beast and watching Dwight look pretty human on offense reminds me of what he was ...

But playing ball is more than a baseline spin, drop-step and a shoulder charge power move to the middle. And when I heard that Tim passed Shaq in rebounds last week I was dumbfounded. No WAY in hell should Tim have more rebounds in less seasons that Shaq. Im sorry but it's not as close as you say it is despite Shaq being uber-dominant at his peak.

And yet they actually COULD be showed by stats, and that is the consistency of win shares of Duncan as compared to Shaq. Shaq's win shares were actually quite a bit over the place, even during his prime, his time at LA actually gave him only 4 LA seasons of WS > 13.0, and that shows his lack of consistency, leadership, and is easier to build around. Duncan on the other hand, has 6 of those seasnos. This consistency shows that Duncan is simply easier to build around, have less injury issues, and is a generally better leader.

Kobe's numbers pale in comparison, getting only 4 of those seasons despite a much, much longer prime, and never having a season of 16 + (Both Shaq and Duncan had two in their careers).

Also, advanced stats shows Duncan destroys Shaq in defense through defensive ratings and defensive win shares. So yes, the stats backed it up.

Since you brought up 99, let's look at the stats, Shaq was 115 offensive rating (higher the better), 102 defensive rating (lower the better), 7.2/1.9/9 offensive winshare/DWS/WS vs. 106/91/4.0/4.7/8.7, so yes, the numbers show that Shaq is massively better offensively, but equally inferior defensively.

As for rebounds, Shaq was actually quite average in rebounding throughout his career relative to his size and athletic ability, part of it was because he was oft injured (less games = less rebounds), and part of it was because he just wasn't as mobile vs. the Duncan's, Robinsons, Howards and Hakeems. Duncan actually had 10 seasons of 11+ rebounds per game, including 9 straight. While Shaq also had 10 seasons, you would (at least I did) expect more from him due to his size, and also his games missed pulled down his totals.

Shaq vs, Duncan is like Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam, one burned brighter, one burned longer.

[ambchang]

Funny.
But Keep in mind he makes my top 5 because I dont count guys that I havent seen. Duncan is right there in my top 5 as well ...

Career guys I have seen:
1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Kobe
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Bird
8. Hakeem
9. Isiah
10. Moses

Peak:
1. MJ
2. Shaq
3. Hakeem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Lebron
8. Kobe
9. Isiah
10. Chuck

Im giving huge weight in the peak to great playoffs and Finals performances ... Lebron has one great one and two stinkers and Kobe's Finals have been uneven as well ...chuck had one of the better losing Finals performances and some other great playoff games at his peak. I did not catch Kareem in his full prime so he makes my first list but not the 2nd ...

Enjoy it it may be the only place where I will place Duncan over Kobe unless he rangs or builds a hot-tub time machine.

Don't want to open up a new can of worms, you have obviously not seen Bird if you rank his peak below Magic's or Hakeem's. He was every bit as dominating as MJ and Shaq was during the mid 80s. He was unbelievable. In fact, Bird vs. Magic is similar to Shaq vs. Duncan, though to a smaller scale, of peak vs. longevity. And I have no idea how you can leave out Moses's peak, and not have Kareem's peak (or did you miss the 70s) in your top ten. WTF?

And you must have recently bumped your head if you would ever rank Kobe's career above Duncan, Shaq, Bird, Hakeem, Isiah and Moses.

[Killakobe81]

Don't want to open up a new can of worms, you have obviously not seen Bird if you rank his peak below Magic's or Hakeem's. He was every bit as dominating as MJ and Shaq was during the mid 80s. He was unbelievable. In fact, Bird vs. Magic is similar to Shaq vs. Duncan, though to a smaller scale, of peak vs. longevity. And I have no idea how you can leave out Moses's peak, and not have Kareem's peak (or did you miss the 70s) in your top ten. WTF?

And you must have recently bumped your head if you would ever rank Kobe's career above Duncan, Shaq, Bird, Hakeem, Isiah and Moses.

Wasnt old enough, sons (to see 70's) and I REFUSE to make lists or rankings SOLELY on stats. Bird was amazing in his peak but go back son, read my post. I gave extra weight for Finals performances and Magic's 1980 closer (my first game I ever saw) and his amazing run in 1987 when he beat Bird to take a 4-2 lead in chips to me give him the edge. I originally had Bird over Magic... but that game in 1980 kept calling me ...how many Final games matches what Magic did in a clincher, since you are older than me? ... please name them. As good as Moses, Shaq, Lebron MJ Kobe Duncan whoever not many can say they had a game Like Magic's in 1980. Maybe Im being sentimantal since it's the game that made me fall in love with the sport as a youngster ... but that along with the baby hook game (and series) does not allow me to put Bird over Magic ...DAMN what the stats say ...2-1 and 5-3 are what matters when players are that close. And if you say Magic and Bird are not close than you must not have watched the 80's ...

And why Amb must you ALWAYS come back to Kobe? I took Kobe out of the equation a few posts back and focused on Tim and Shaq and yet you still cant keep Kobe out your mouth. Dont you think you area LITTLE bit obsessed? Or at the very least on a personal crusade to "properly rate him" (in your eyes) ...can you at LEAST admit that?

[GoodOdor]

lol david robinson.

[Killakobe81]

And yet they actually COULD be showed by stats, and that is the consistency of win shares of Duncan as compared to Shaq. Shaq's win shares were actually quite a bit over the place, even during his prime, his time at LA actually gave him only 4 LA seasons of WS > 13.0, and that shows his lack of consistency, leadership, and is easier to build around. Duncan on the other hand, has 6 of those seasnos. This consistency shows that Duncan is simply easier to build around, have less injury issues, and is a generally better leader.

Kobe's numbers pale in comparison, getting only 4 of those seasons despite a much, much longer prime, and never having a season of 16 + (Both Shaq and Duncan had two in their careers).

Also, advanced stats shows Duncan destroys Shaq in defense through defensive ratings and defensive win shares. So yes, the stats backed it up.

Since you brought up 99, let's look at the stats, Shaq was 115 offensive rating (higher the better), 102 defensive rating (lower the better), 7.2/1.9/9 offensive winshare/DWS/WS vs. 106/91/4.0/4.7/8.7, so yes, the numbers show that Shaq is massively better offensively, but equally inferior defensively.

As for rebounds, Shaq was actually quite average in rebounding throughout his career relative to his size and athletic ability, part of it was because he was oft injured (less games = less rebounds), and part of it was because he just wasn't as mobile vs. the Duncan's, Robinsons, Howards and Hakeems. Duncan actually had 10 seasons of 11+ rebounds per game, including 9 straight. While Shaq also had 10 seasons, you would (at least I did) expect more from him due to his size, and also his games missed pulled down his totals.

Shaq vs, Duncan is like Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam, one burned brighter, one burned longer.

But that is the thing about me, you posted all those great numbers just to prove what I already said ...Duncan is greater than Shaq. No numbers needed. I mentioned only one career rebounds and we STILL came up to the same cinclusion. So why do I need advanced stats. Someone can pull some new stat out their ass that says Lebron is better than MJ ... I wont care I saw them both (just like Kobe) and neither are as good as MJ. I dont think MJ is untouchable btw ...people I respect that coached at a high level have told me Kareem deserves consideration ...but I never saw most of Kareem's prime so I give Mj the edge based on the 1980 and on stanza I use to rate players ...

[ambchang]

Wasnt old enough, sons (to see 70's) and I REFUSE to make lists or rankings SOLELY on stats. Bird was amazing in his peak but go back son, read my post. I gave extra weight for Finals performances and Magic's 1980 closer (my first game I ever saw) and his amazing run in 1987 when he beat Bird to take a 4-2 lead in chips to me give him the edge. I originally had Bird over Magic... but that game in 1980 kept calling me ...how many Final games matches what Magic did in a clincher, since you are older than me? ... please name them. As good as Moses, Shaq, Lebron MJ Kobe Duncan whoever not many can say they had a game Like Magic's in 1980. Maybe Im being sentimantal since it's the game that made me fall in love with the sport as a youngster ... but that along with the baby hook game (and series) does not allow me to put Bird over Magic ...DAMN what the stats say ...2-1 and 5-3 are what matters when players are that close. And if you say Magic and Bird are not close than you must not have watched the 80's ...

And why Amb must you ALWAYS come back to Kobe? I took Kobe out of the equation a few posts back and focused on Tim and Shaq and yet you still cant keep Kobe out your mouth. Dont you think you area LITTLE bit obsessed? Or at the very least on a personal crusade to "properly rate him" (in your eyes) ...can you at LEAST admit that?

We just rank things differently, I look at the performance over a long period of time (career, season, playoff run), and not in games, because if you look into games, you can see lots of variation, and you tend to favour the peaks (80 Finals Game 6), and ignore the valleys (82). 87 was absolutely phenomenal, but Bird was equally dominant in the 86 playoff run. That 80s game was magical, especially given the circumstances of KAJ being out, but Jordan puts up some very underrated games vs. Phoenix, Barkley's 56 point outburt, Duncan's near quad-dub, Shaq's total dominance of Mutombo in 01, Lebron's 48 vs. Pistons are all up there (yes, Barkley's game, even though he lost the series, was phenomenal). Again, ranking players based on one game is a slippery slope, and I will not go down that route. Yes, Magic is no doubt phenomenal, and he is my favourite non-Spur player of all time, and I would rank him one of the top 3 (with Jordan and KAJ), with varying positioning based on the day, but Bird's peak was higher.

As for your refusal to rank players based strictly on stats, fair enough, but keep in mind that impact to the game of basketball was important as well. Sure Russell wasn't a huge stats guy and was surrounded by 7 other HoFers, but it was him who made most of those HoFers due to the championships, he changed the way the game was played, and was instrumental in changing the peach basket game into the modern game.

I wouldn't say Bird's peak was not close to Magic's, I am saying it was just a little, but clearly better.

As for Kobe, you ranked him in your list.

[ambchang]

But that is the thing about me, you posted all those great numbers just to prove what I already said ...Duncan is greater than Shaq. No numbers needed. I mentioned only one career rebounds and we STILL came up to the same cinclusion. So why do I need advanced stats. Someone can pull some new stat out their ass that says Lebron is better than MJ ... I wont care I saw them both (just like Kobe) and neither are as good as MJ. I dont think MJ is untouchable btw ...people I respect that coached at a high level have told me Kareem deserves consideration ...but I never saw most of Kareem's prime so I give Mj the edge based on the 1980 and on stanza I use to rate players ...

It would be tough to pull stats, at this point, to say Lebron > MJ. Really. Look it up. Jordan 3 seasons of 20+ WS, and two other 19+ ones, that is just criminally good. Lebron, so far, has one 20+, and no other 19+ seasons. My point is, eye test is important, but in order to remove biases in our assessment, we have to look at stats sometimes, and the stats, though not 100% all the time, is reliable and objective.

[Thread]

lol david robinson.

tee, hee.

[Killakobe81]

It would be tough to pull stats, at this point, to say Lebron > MJ. Really. Look it up. Jordan 3 seasons of 20+ WS, and two other 19+ ones, that is just criminally good. Lebron, so far, has one 20+, and no other 19+ seasons. My point is, eye test is important, but in order to remove biases in our assessment, we have to look at stats sometimes, and the stats, though not 100% all the time, is reliable and objective.

I was no MJ or Bird fan but yet I respect their games. Stats are just tools used to support peopled preconceived notions. We are humans and are ALL biased. Sure, it sounds great in theory but stats are used to support biast you cling to them when they support your case (Duncan over Kobe) but use intangibles and things you see or feel to edge Duncan over Shaq. Since few folks Only go by stats which would be stupid ...just like eye test only or rings alone ... Would be foolish.all are factors imho but rings and my eyes are what I trust most. Rings are the ultimate goal and should be weighted appropriately. When I watch a gameI know enough to not just watch the ball or get swayed by idiot commentators. Box score analysis alone is extremely dangerous a fair criticism of Kobe is he get garbage points. But sometimes the game requires it others it is misguided if you don't watch said game how do you know if he is being a compeitor or a selfish prick? Or both?

[Fabbs]

lol at his " great fucking spin move "

He used to hug his defender with one arm and got away with it
this.
just part of the marketing hype.

The Rockets kicked the Fakers asses in '86 so Sternfish suspends Lewie Lloyd and Mitchell Wiggins for 1987. :lol
'87 had to be the most pussified West Conference run in history.
In turn leading to a lucky title over the injury ravaged Celts.

[Thread]

this.
just part of the marketing hype.

The Rockets kicked the Fakers asses in '86 so Sternfish suspends Lewie Lloyd and Mitchell Wiggins for 1987. :lol
'87 had to be the most pussified West Conference run in history.
In turn leading to a lucky title over the injury ravaged Celts.

Lloyd was a load. A consciousless brute. He was having none of Magic's skin & grin BS. I was glad to see him disappear like a fart in the wind.

Christ-a-mighty, that fucker.

[Killakobe81]

We just rank things differently, I look at the performance over a long period of time (career, season, playoff run), and not in games, because if you look into games, you can see lots of variation, and you tend to favour the peaks (80 Finals Game 6), and ignore the valleys (82). 87 was absolutely phenomenal, but Bird was equally dominant in the 86 playoff run. That 80s game was magical, especially given the circumstances of KAJ being out, but Jordan puts up some very underrated games vs. Phoenix, Barkley's 56 point outburt, Duncan's near quad-dub, Shaq's total dominance of Mutombo in 01, Lebron's 48 vs. Pistons are all up there (yes, Barkley's game, even though he lost the series, was phenomenal). Again, ranking players based on one game is a slippery slope, and I will not go down that route. Yes, Magic is no doubt phenomenal, and he is my favourite non-Spur player of all time, and I would rank him one of the top 3 (with Jordan and KAJ), with varying positioning based on the day, but Bird's peak was higher.

As for your refusal to rank players based strictly on stats, fair enough, but keep in mind that impact to the game of basketball was important as well. Sure Russell wasn't a huge stats guy and was surrounded by 7 other HoFers, but it was him who made most of those HoFers due to the championships, he changed the way the game was played, and was instrumental in changing the peach basket game into the modern game.

I wouldn't say Bird's peak was not close to Magic's, I am saying it was just a little, but clearly better.

As for Kobe, you ranked him in your list.

I said Finals and though Kobe and LeBron have some great Finals showings along with some stinkers their best work came before June. That is no knock on either just being honest.

[Thread]

In turn leading to a lucky title over the injury ravaged Celts.

I remember 'em linmpin' around on "sprained ankles." Jabbar pulled 'em aside: "Don't believe it, not for a second. It's a ploy. Go for the throat. Now. Go, NOW!"
& Jabbar was correct. He'd been rinsed before. It was propogated by CBS in association with NYC. Though Stern by then had stepped away from the con and was letting them settle it twixt the coasts.

[Killakobe81]

this.
just part of the marketing hype.

The Rockets kicked the Fakers asses in '86 so Sternfish suspends Lewie Lloyd and Mitchell Wiggins for 1987. :lol
'87 had to be the most pussified West Conference run in history.
In turn leading to a lucky title over the injury ravaged Celts.

Lol in 2007 GSW and LeBron and his Cavs did all the heavy lifting if you want to head down this slippery slope.

[ambchang]

I was no MJ or Bird fan but yet I respect their games. Stats are just tools used to support peopled preconceived notions. We are humans and are ALL biased. Sure, it sounds great in theory but stats are used to support biast you cling to them when they support your case (Duncan over Kobe) but use intangibles and things you see or feel to edge Duncan over Shaq. Since few folks Only go by stats which would be stupid ...just like eye test only or rings alone ... Would be foolish.all are factors imho but rings and my eyes are what I trust most. Rings are the ultimate goal and should be weighted appropriately. When I watch a gameI know enough to not just watch the ball or get swayed by idiot commentators. Box score analysis alone is extremely dangerous a fair criticism of Kobe is he get garbage points. But sometimes the game requires it others it is misguided if you don't watch said game how do you know if he is being a compeitor or a selfish prick? Or both?

Stats tell the story, and if they are close (Shaq vs. Duncan), the eye tests tell the rest.

Rings are a HORRIBLE way of weighing players tbh, rings are the ultimate goal, but it should be how much an individual contributes to the rings. And that is where stats come in, where WS, defensive rating, offensive ratings and such allows people to see how valuable a player is.

[ambchang]

I said Finals and though Kobe and LeBron have some great Finals showings along with some stinkers their best work came before June. That is no knock on either just being honest.

Can't recall any great Kobe Finals games, tbh.

[Thread]

Can't recall any great Kobe Finals games, tbh.

Those 2 suicide drives into the front of the rim in Game 7, '10 came in handy.

You get your jollies from a stat line. Knock yerself out.

I get mine from:::

Kobe: 5

the tired old shit bag Duncan: 4

[Killakobe81]

Can't recall any great Kobe Finals games, tbh.

How about his OT performance when Shaq fouled out in Game 5 (IIRC) Not sure it was transcendant numbers wise ... but the timing and the place of it was spectacular. But like I said many of his best were in the playoffs.

[lefty]

Well, undersized Mark Jackson was guarding him

I dont know what Bird was thinking TBH

MJ dropped 50+ games in the playoffs vs the likes of Dumars and Starks

[Killakobe81]

Stats tell the story, and if they are close (Shaq vs. Duncan), the eye tests tell the rest.

Rings are a HORRIBLE way of weighing players tbh, rings are the ultimate goal, but it should be how much an individual contributes to the rings. And that is where stats come in, where WS, defensive rating, offensive ratings and such allows people to see how valuable a player is.

I think it is vital and important we agree to disagree ...

[spurraider21]

LOL ^ Funny thing is I could care less overall how Kobe is percieved if we could win another title without him ...

But you Spur fans have made me care about Kobe's legacy ....when I still think Magic is greater than Kobe ... I remember the Magic vs. Bird debates I had as a kid ...that is the only thing that compares ... because MJ ended all debates when he got "6" funny how time changes. Bulls fans loved to throw around 6>5 or 3 ... but now that is a "team accomplishment". GTFO ... teams are led by great players and in my book if you are a real leader (not a locker room one) on teh court your rings count ...PERIOD.

I think MJ pretty much sealed it by #4 tbh. The fact that he proved he can pretty much win a title whenever he felt like it put him on another level altogehter. #5 sorta padded it and 6 with the game winner was just over kill :lol

I mean, he 3peated with 3 finals MVP, a prime-Shaq-like stretch. As good as any 3 year stretch you could imagine. He retires for a year, comes back in the tail end the next year and wasn't in perfect game shape (as evidenced by his uncharacteristic 41% from the field). The next year got back into shape and crushed the league on route to a record of 72-10 and another title. at that point, I think MJ was GOAT already. by this point of his career, he really had no rival besides boredom

[Thread]

Rings are a HORRIBLE way of weighing players tbh

Yeah, I know. It was the same horse-shit when we finally broke thru in Boston in '85. They wanted to change the rules, change the way home. Uh, uh. Now that Kobe leads the tired old shit bag Duncan 5-4 you want to change the rules, the way home. Uh, uh. We started together and that's the way we're going to go/together.

And that's just the way it's gonna be, Amb.

[Killakobe81]

Yeah, I know. It was the same horse-shit when we finally broke thru in Boston in '85. They wanted to change the rules, change the way home. Uh, uh. Now that Kobe leads the tired old shit bag Duncan 5-4 you want to change the rules, the way home. Uh, uh. We started together and that's the way we're going to go/together.

And that's just the way it's gonna be, Amb.

Tell em, Cully a couple nerds with toomuch time on his hands is not gonna change the rules of this here game ...

It's all in the game, yo ...

[Blake]

Rings are a HORRIBLE way of weighing players tbh,

lolwut

[ambchang]

How about his OT performance when Shaq fouled out in Game 5 (IIRC) Not sure it was transcendant numbers wise ... but the timing and the place of it was spectacular. But like I said many of his best were in the playoffs.

Not sure if those were in the same league as the ones I mentioned or the Magic game. Sure he put up some good games, but like you said, probably no transcendent games.

[ambchang]

Yeah, I know. It was the same horse-shit when we finally broke thru in Boston in '85. They wanted to change the rules, change the way home. Uh, uh. Now that Kobe leads the tired old shit bag Duncan 5-4 you want to change the rules, the way home. Uh, uh. We started together and that's the way we're going to go/together.

And that's just the way it's gonna be, Amb.


I never subscribed to more titles = better, it's part of the oversimplified black and white culture that breeds ignorance and errors. I am not surprised you like to wallow in it though (I am assuming you are the real Giuseppe, even though, seriously, I am having strong doubts).


Tell em, Cully a couple nerds with toomuch time on his hands is not gonna change the rules of this here game ...

It's all in the game, yo ...

Cully agreeing you is not a good thing, you know that, right?

[ambchang]

lolwut

If you like to say that ignoring teammates, competition, make up of team, system, coaching, and many other circumstances is the right way to do things, be my guest.

[Killakobe81]

Stats tell the story, and if they are close (Shaq vs. Duncan), the eye tests tell the rest.

Rings are a HORRIBLE way of weighing ROLE players tbh, rings are the ultimate goal, but it should be how much an individual contributes to the rings. And that is where stats come in, where WS, defensive rating, offensive ratings and such allows people to see how valuable a player is.

Fixed it for ya ...

[Blake]

If you like to say that ignoring teammates, competition, make up of team, system, coaching, and many other circumstances is the right way to do things, be my guest.

I don't like to say any of that. I also don't know why including rings with all that is HORRIBLE.

[ambchang]

Fixed it for ya ...

Why? They are all players, they all are part of an equation to team success, just that some of them played a bigger role doesn't mean that they should be held to a different standard.

If player A is 90% responsible for a championship.
Player B is 51% responsible for a championship.

Both players won 1 championship, and have similar stats.

Your logic is that these two players are equal.

Better yet, player A had a major role in all 4 of his championships, including being irreplaceable and named MVP in 3 of them (arguably irreplaceable in 4).
Player B played a major role in 3 championships, including being irreplaceable and named MVP in 2 of them, but won 5 in total.

You are saying B > A.

[ambchang]

I don't like to say any of that. I also don't know why including rings with all that is HORRIBLE.

Here is a tip for you, read the whole sentence.


Stats tell the story, and if they are close (Shaq vs. Duncan), the eye tests tell the rest.

Rings are a HORRIBLE way of weighing players tbh, rings are the ultimate goal, but it should be how much an individual contributes to the rings. And that is where stats come in, where WS, defensive rating, offensive ratings and such allows people to see how valuable a player is.