Why do some of you consider Duncan to be top 10 all time?

[Alex's foreskin]

?

[DPG21920]

Great content OP :tu. Starting a thread where all you bring is posting one piece of punctuation.

[Alex's foreskin]

So you can't even give a reason?

[midnightpulp]

He's not top 10 all-time.

He's top-3 all-time.

And there's plenty of "reasons," you're just too retarded to understand them, Tit.

[DPG21920]

Great thread OP, such rich content and a well framed thesis.

[Alex's foreskin]

He's not top 10 all-time.

He's top-3 all-time.

And there's plenty of "reasons," you're just too retarded to understand them, Tit.


Great thread OP, such rich content and a well framed thesis.
What are the reasons? Still haven't heard them.

[midnightpulp]

What are the reasons? Still haven't heard them.

No point in laying them out since you'll just move the goal posts to things like repeats or gold medals, basically scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a couple of things that Kobe has done that Duncan hasn't, which you'll conveniently use as your standards of greatness.

[Silver&Black]

Great content OP :tu. Starting a thread where all you bring is posting one piece of punctuation.


Great thread OP, such rich content and a well framed thesis.

Two thumbs up :tu :tu

[Alex's foreskin]

No point in laying them out since you'll just move the goal posts to things like repeats or gold medals, basically scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a couple of things that Kobe has done that Duncan hasn't, which you'll conveniently use as your standards of greatness.

Again. You can't even give a reason.

[midnightpulp]

Again. You can't even give a reason.

I'll simplify it for you in a picture.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/basketball/131923d1403679294-tim-duncan-vs-kobe-bryant-poll-nba-most-trophys.jpg

[Alex's foreskin]

I'll simplify it for you in a picture.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/basketball/131923d1403679294-tim-duncan-vs-kobe-bryant-poll-nba-most-trophys.jpg

Three of those times he was outplayed by a teammate. :lol

[Clipper Nation]

I'll boil it down further:

http://i.imgur.com/w9PVxSZ.png

[midnightpulp]

Three of those times he was outplayed by a teammate. :lol

According to what metrics/stats?

Go on...

[Silver&Black]

Just off the top of my head:

1. Longevity
2. 5 rings. Took a franchise with zero championships to the 4th most successful franchise in the NBA.
3. Best player since Jordan
4. All-time postseason records. Double-Doubles, blocks, minutes...
5. Never missed the playoffs
6. 50 wins seasons are routine.
7. Almost always a contender to win it all

Is that enough?

[Mitch]

He's top 10, somewhere between 6-9

Never repeated, but achieved.

[Koolaid_Man]

Duncan is top 30 player...I have Rasheed Wallace, KG, Lebron, Barkley, and Malone all ahead of him...but he's next on that power forward list....he was decent just overrated...Rasheed and KG didn't get to play with multiple Allstars in their prime like Tammy did....they were real men real studs tbh...Pop hid Duncan and covered for him his entire career but when he went to Athens in 2004 Pop couldnt hide and cover for him....so he melted down and straight up quit on his country.....real unfortunate

[Koolaid_Man]

I'll simplify it for you in a picture.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/basketball/131923d1403679294-tim-duncan-vs-kobe-bryant-poll-nba-most-trophys.jpg

Media awarss don't count since they typically favor gay people

[Alex's foreskin]

According to what metrics/stats?

Go on...

Parker in 07, Leonard in 14, and Ginobli's entire playoffrun in 05.

[DPG21920]

Media awarss don't count since they typically favor gay people

Kobe is the only one with a gay sex tape, right? So he should have been sweeping the awards. The fact he didn't is another knock against him. Damn, thanks KM, I never even considered that valid angle but it's a great point.

[spurraider21]

Duncan is top 30 player...I have Rasheed Wallace, KG, Lebron, Barkley, and Malone all ahead of him...but he's next on that power forward list....he was decent just overrated...Rasheed and KG didn't get to play with multiple Allstars in their prime like Tammy did....they were real men real studs tbh...Pop hid Duncan and covered for him his entire career but when he went to Athens in 2004 Pop couldnt hide and cover for him....so he melted down and straight up quit on his country.....real unfortunate
i know you're trolling as usual, but try harder than that one :lol

http://i.gyazo.com/a89a5b66cefdcbeb5a19c635ec505ff0.png

[spurraider21]

According to what metrics/stats?

Go on...


Parker in 07, Leonard in 14, and Ginobli's entire playoffrun in 05.
do you know what the words "metrics" and "stats" mean?

[Alex's foreskin]

do you know what the words "metrics" and "stats" mean?

I can post them, they certainly don't favor Duncan.

[Chucho]

Why is the sky blue? Why is the sun hot? Why is 95% of this board filled with fucking unfunny morons?

IT JUST IS.

Same applies to Duncs being top 5 all time. He just is. Kinda like how Kobe is probably the most over rated player to ever lace them up. A volume chucker similar to TMac and Iverson, he was just fortunate enough to get piggy backed to titles by Daddy and MVPau. It is what it is; Tim>Kobe. FACT.

[Ignignokt]

Media awarss don't count since they typically favor gay people

How many endorsements does kobe have?

[DPG21920]

I can post them, they certainly don't favor Duncan.

Well, that's at least a thread. No one can have an opinion on a "?". That is not a question, nor a thought, nor a well researched opinion.

Provide the answers/proof mid asked for, then start a thread because that is something that can be discussed. Unless your name is Prince, no one knows what the hell you mean by posting a "?"

[midnightpulp]

Parker in 07, Leonard in 14, and Ginobli's entire playoffrun in 05.

07 playoffs:

Duncan: 27.4 PER, 3.3 WS, .214 WS/48

Parker: 18.7 PER, 1.6 WS, .100 WS/48

And the Suns were the Spurs toughest matchup in that run, and guess who was better:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2007_WCS_SAS-PHO.html

'14 playoff run:

Duncan: 21.1 PER, 3.2 WS, .204 WS/48

Leonard: 18.7 PER, 2.9 WS, .191 WS/48

Manu's metrics were better in '05, though.

Times Kobe's led the Laker title teams in those categories?

1

[hater]

His resume alone puts him squarely top 10.
And that's not even considered the 10 years or so where he was unstoppable.

Easily top 5 player all time career wise

[Koolaid_Man]

No one in their right mind have Duncan in the top 10...let alone top 5...Sour fan have bIG dreams but as usual are delusional.....please tell me the analysts who have him in their top 5

[Koolaid_Man]

One title on a locked out season..2003 title when Kobe and Shaq were infighting....that one was a gift we gave you....not defending the title is proof it was one fluke after another

[midnightpulp]

If I recall, I think Tit likes using WS/48 as his go to metric:

Number 46 all-time :lmao

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_career_p.html

[spurraider21]

If I recall, I think Tit likes using WS/48 as his go to metric:

Number 46 all-time :lmao

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_career_p.html
and behind pau, per par

[midnightpulp]

If I recall, I think Tit likes using WS/48 as his go to metric:

Number 46 all-time :lmao

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_career_p.html

Yep:


MVPippen my ass :lmao

Jordan Win Shares (Regular Season with Pippen)



YEAR

WIN SHARES

WS PER 48



87-88

21.2

.308



88-89

19.8

.292



89-90

19.0

.285



90-91

20.3

.321



91-92

17.7

.274



92-93

17.2

.270



94-95

2.3

.167



95-96

20.4

.317



96-97

18.3

.283



97-98

15.8

.238




















VS Pippen Win Shares with Jordan (RS)




YEAR

WIN SHARES

WS PER 48



87-88

2.3

.066



88-89

4.0

.080



89-90

5.7

.087



90-91

11.2

.179



91-92

12.7

.192



92-93

8.6

.132



94-95

11.8

.188



95-96

12.3

.209



96-97

13.1

.203



97-98

6.6

.193




Move them goalposts, Tit.

"H-How m-many 60 point games does Duncan have? :cry"

[Alex's foreskin]

07 playoffs:

Duncan: 27.4 PER, 3.3 WS, .214 WS/48

Parker: 18.7 PER, 1.6 WS, .100 WS/48

And the Suns were the Spurs toughest matchup in that run, and guess who was better:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2007_WCS_SAS-PHO.html

'14 playoff run:

Duncan: 21.1 PER, 3.2 WS, .204 WS/48

Leonard: 18.7 PER, 2.9 WS, .191 WS/48

Manu's metrics were better in '05, though.

Times Kobe's led the Laker title teams in those categories?

1

:lol not posting Kawhi's final s stats or his RS Metrics, which were both better than Duncan's


:lol not posting Parker's finals

24.5 PPG, 56% Shooting

Duncan

18.3 PPG, 44% shooting :lol Nigga couldn't get hard against Big Z and Varejo :lmao

Not to mention Duncan in his prime getting shit on by Amare :rollin

[Buddy Mignon]

I had him at around 8... but after failing to defend more times than any other player he's fallen to between 12-19

[midnightpulp]

:lol not posting Parker's finals

24.5 PPG, 56% Shooting

Duncan

18.3 PPG, 44% shooting :lol

Not to mention Duncan in his prime getting shit on by Amare :rollin

Oh, now, now it's only ABOUT Finals performances.

Okay:

'00 Finals:

Shaq: 38.0, 16, 2.3, 2.7 on 61%

Kobe: 15.6, 4.6, 4.2 on 37%


Not to mention Duncan in his prime getting shit on by Amare

Sure:

http://oi58.tinypic.com/23ksw00.jpg

If that is getting your "shit pushed in" then what is this:

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2ngezqf.jpg

[Alex's foreskin]

I had him at around 8... but after failing to defend more times than any other player he's fallen to between 12-19

:lmao

[Alex's foreskin]

Oh, now, now it's only ABOUT Finals performances.

Okay:

'00 Finals:

Shaq: 38.0, 16, 2.3, 2.7 on 61%

Kobe: 15.6, 4.6, 4.2 on 37%



Sure:

http://oi58.tinypic.com/23ksw00.jpg

If that is getting your "shit pushed in" then what is this:

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2ngezqf.jpg

Must not have much to say about Duncan other than getting outplayed :lmao

[midnightpulp]

I had him at around 8... but after failing to defend more times than any other player he's fallen to between 12-19

I think titles should only count (as an individual achievement) when you outperform your counterpart. Kobe's only done that twice. Duncan has never been outplayed by the opposing PF/C in the Finals, and he's faced some good ones, like your boy Bosh and the Wallaces. Kobe has to wait for players like Kerry Kittles :lol

[midnightpulp]

Must not have much to say about Duncan other than getting outplayed :lmao

Duncan's stats are much better than Amare's. Higher shooting percentage, nearly 5 more board per game, more blocks, more assists.

If that's "outplayed", then what do you call Kobe vs. Croshere?

[midnightpulp]

Outplayed by Rip Hamilton, who doubled him in boards :lol

http://oi59.tinypic.com/11vru2u.jpg

[Alex's foreskin]

Mid is melting down, predicitable. Just relax, it's okay that Duncan wasn't the best player in the finals THREE goddamn times. It happens. Just like how he never dominated any greats at his position. That happens too.

[Infinite_limit]

1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. James

[midnightpulp]

Just like how he never dominated any greats at his position. That happens too.

Kobe hasn't even outplayed a prime all-star at his position in the playoffs :lol (Only Melo, but he kinda sucks).

It happens, bro. Kerry Kittles can't always be your matchup.

[hater]

His resume alone puts him squarely top 10.
And that's not even considered the 10 years or so where he was unstoppable.

Easily top 5 player all time career wise

[Alex's foreskin]

Kobe hasn't even outplayed a prime all-star at his position in the playoffs :lol (Only Melo, but he kinda sucks).

It happens, bro. Kerry Kittles can't always be your matchup.

Yet spurfan keeps shouting that Duncan is the best PF of all time, when he hasn't dominated anyone great at his position. :lol

[midnightpulp]

Yet spurfan keeps shouting that Duncan is the best PF of all time, when he hasn't dominated anyone great at his position. :lol

Yet Lakerfan keeps shouting that Kobe is the 2nd best SG of all-time when he's never outplayed an all-star level SG in the playoffs. Not once, Tit.

A.I.? Outplayed him
Reggie Miller? Outplayed him.
Richard Hamiltion? Outplayed him.
Prime Ray Allen? Outplayed him.
Penny Hardaway (played SG for the Suns in '00)? Outplayed him.

Unless it's Kerry Kittles, old Kobe has a tough time :lol

[Alex's foreskin]

Yet Lakerfan keeps shouting that Kobe is the 2nd best SG of all-time when he's never outplayed an all-star level SG in the playoffs. Not once, Tit.

A.I.? Outplayed him
Reggie Miller? Outplayed him.
Richard Hamiltion? Outplayed him.
Prime Ray Allen? Outplayed him.
Penny Hardaway (played SG for the Suns in '00)? Outplayed him.

Unless it's Kerry Kittles, old Kobe has a tough time :lol
Outplayed Harden in 2010. Now get on your knees and pucker up bitch :lol

[midnightpulp]

Outplayed Harden in 2010. Now get on your knees and pucker up bitch :lol

James Harden was a rookie and only averaged like 15 minutes a game :lmao

Scraping the bottom of the barrel, per par, Tit.

[Alex's foreskin]

James Harden was a rookie and only averaged like 15 minutes a game :lmao

Scraping the bottom of the barrel, per par, Tit.


You said all star level, you never said WHEN they had to be. :lmao

:lmao mid
:lmao meltdown

[midnightpulp]

James Harden was a rookie and only averaged like 15 minutes a game :lmao

Scraping the bottom of the barrel, per par, Tit.

Actually, Westbrook was kind of their SG, and Kobe guarded him frequently.

Guess what happened?

Kobe was outplayed :lol

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2010_WC1_OKC-LAL.html

[Splits]

Mid going in RAW

[DMC]

Duncan is top 30 player...I have Rasheed Wallace, KG, Lebron, Barkley, and Malone all ahead of him...but he's next on that power forward list....he was decent just overrated...Rasheed and KG didn't get to play with multiple Allstars in their prime like Tammy did....they were real men real studs tbh...Pop hid Duncan and covered for him his entire career but when he went to Athens in 2004 Pop couldnt hide and cover for him....so he melted down and straight up quit on his country.....real unfortunate
Says the faggot with "The Rebirth - Tim Duncan" above his avatar of the person he hopes the Lakers will be able to draft. Why not the rebirth of KG, Barkley, Malone, Wallace?

You can't even pretend to be that stupid.

[da_suns_fan]

He's not top 10 all-time.

He's top-3 all-time.

And there's plenty of "reasons," you're just too retarded to understand them, Tit.

Thats absurd.

[midnightpulp]

Mid going in RAW

I admit I'm a BBallRef addict at times, and I was sincerely looking for a prime/near prime All NBA level SG that Kobe outplayed in a playoff series. Every team that featured an SG of that caliber outplayed Kobe. Pretty surprised, really.

The only decent SGs he outplayed were Manu in '08 (who was fuckin' garbage because of a twisted ankle or a torn vagina) and a 34 year old Ray Allen in '10, who was more a roleplayer by then.

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan was never as dominant as Shaq or Hakeem and doesnt belong in the same breath as Jordan, Magic and Bird.

[Leetonidas]

Tim Duncan is widely regarded as a top 8 player of all-time by most people who watch basketball. Except for retarded Laker trolls like the ones in this forum tbh

[midnightpulp]

Thats absurd.

I was trolling Tit somewhat, but Duncan is no worse than 6th all-time, and all the metrics and stats support that. I don't even have to invoke "rings," which I know is a sore spot for you since you think that's the only thing that keeps fatass Barkley from being more celebrated.

[midnightpulp]

Duncan was never as dominant as Shaq or Hakeem and doesnt belong in the same breath as Jordan, Magic and Bird.

Duncan actually has the second most "dominant" title run of all-time.

There's more to impact than obsolete per game stats, which I thought even you abandoned with your Dudley>Melo retardation.

I know Duncan slaughtering your Suns has you sore at him, but the statistical proof is there, like it or not.

[ambchang]

Duncan was never as dominant as Shaq or Hakeem and doesnt belong in the same breath as Jordan, Magic and Bird.

Untrue. I dug up these posts I had back in 2009:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132810&highlight=Duncan+Shaq
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133031&highlight=Duncan+Shaq

[Silver&Black]

Says the faggot with "The Rebirth - Tim Duncan" above his avatar of the person he hopes the Lakers will be able to draft. Why not the rebirth of KG, Barkley, Malone, Wallace?

You can't even pretend to be that stupid.

I just found this out, but Kool played D1 basketball. He's forgot more about the game than we'll ever know tbh.

[szkorhetz]

Duncan is top 30 player...I have Rasheed Wallace, KG, Lebron, Barkley, and Malone all ahead of him...but he's next on that power forward list....he was decent just overrated...Rasheed and KG didn't get to play with multiple Allstars in their prime like Tammy did....they were real men real studs tbh...Pop hid Duncan and covered for him his entire career but when he went to Athens in 2004 Pop couldnt hide and cover for him....so he melted down and straight up quit on his country.....real unfortunate
:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol: lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao: lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao

[midnightpulp]

Untrue. I dug up these posts I had back in 2009:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132810&highlight=Duncan+Shaq
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133031&highlight=Duncan+Shaq

Interestingly, Duncan's top 3 title run metrics (BPM) are better than 3 peat Shaq's. Shaq's DRAPM is pretty mediocre.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/bpm_season_p.html

And his playoff win shares per 48 are better than Shaq's, as well.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_career_p.html

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan actually has the second most "dominant" title run of all-time.

There's more to impact than obsolete per game stats, which I thought even you abandoned with your Dudley>Melo retardation.

I know Duncan slaughtering your Suns has you sore at him, but the statistical proof is there, like it or not.


Untrue. I dug up these posts I had back in 2009:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132810&highlight=Duncan+Shaq
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133031&highlight=Duncan+Shaq

A) Tell me what constitutes a "dominant" game.

B) Show me how Duncan has a "lot" of these games (for example I dont care about the one time Duncan had 27, 15 rebounds, 5 blocks, 7 assists etc).

C) I'll show you how Shaq had LOTS more of these games than Duncan.

For example:

Number of games a player had 30 points and 15 rebounds (pretty great game for a big man). Its Shaq number one and no one else even comes close. Thats just how dominant he was.


1 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 105
2 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 83
3 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 72
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 2000 70
5 Patrick Ewing* C 1986 1999 51
6 David Robinson* C 1990 2000 49
7 Tim Duncan F 1998 2013 44

[da_suns_fan]

Or how about "30 points, 15 rebounds and 2 blocks":

Its Shaq and Hakeem and then everyone else. Shaq had twice as many games as Duncan:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=N&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=trb&c2comp=gt&c2val=15&c3stat=blk&c3comp=gt&c3val=2&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts

[da_suns_fan]

Or how about "30 points, 15 rebounds and 2 blocks":

Its Shaq and Hakeem and then everyone else. Shaq had twice as many games as Duncan:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=N&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=trb&c2comp=gt&c2val=15&c3stat=blk&c3comp=gt&c3val=2&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts

This is actually kind of pathetic.

Duncan had 30 30/15/2 games and Charles Barkely had 28 despite being 5-7 inches shorter. Shaq had 79.

[Malik Hairston]

Or how about "30 points, 15 rebounds and 2 blocks":

Its Shaq and Hakeem and then everyone else. Shaq had twice as many games as Duncan:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=N&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=trb&c2comp=gt&c2val=15&c3stat=blk&c3comp=gt&c3val=2&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts

:lol You're using random, arbitrary, single-game examples using an antiquated method like raw points and rebounds numbers..

[da_suns_fan]

In 2000 and 2001, Shaq AVERAGED a 30/15/2 game in the playoffs (remember this isnt one series...this across FOUR playoff series).

Thats just RIDICULOUS.

[da_suns_fan]

:lol You're using random, arbitrary, single-game examples using an antiquated method like raw points and rebounds numbers..

Arbitrary, yes. Random, no. Points, rebounds and blocks are "typical" stats we look at for a F/C.

Pick your categories. SHow me that Duncan did this a lot of times. I'll show you Shaq did it more.

[Malik Hairston]

Duncan does extremely well in virtually all advanced metrics, which is the method today's fans and new-media use to judge players..going forward, it's only going to become more data-based, rather than the old methods like raw numbers and unquantifiable traits like "killer instinct" and aesthetics..based on data + longevity + accolades, Duncan will be remembered as a top 5 player of all-time..I'm pretty sure RealGM did their top 100 and he was in the top 5 IIRC.,

[Malik Hairston]

Arbitrary, yes. Random, no. Points, rebounds and blocks are "typical" stats we look at for a F/C.

Pick your categories. SHow me that Duncan did this a lot of times. I'll show you Shaq did it more.

Shaq was unquestionably more dominant than Duncan, I don't disagree with that..

[da_suns_fan]

Oh, and Shaq shot > 55% in 2000 and 2001 in the playoffs while averaging those crazy numbers.

I dont remember ANY other player who just made the rest of the league throw their hands in the air and say "Fuck it". Not even Jordan.

[da_suns_fan]

Shaq was unquestionably more dominant than Duncan, I don't disagree with that..

Im trying to think if Shaq was more dominant that anyone, ever.

[ImDaNuts]

Duncan will be around 6-8 when it's all said and done.

[Sean Cagney]

Oh, and Shaq shot > 55% in 2000 and 2001 in the playoffs while averaging those crazy numbers.

I dont remember ANY other player who just made the rest of the league throw their hands in the air and say "Fuck it". Not even Jordan.

Shaq for that stretch of a few years was one of the most unstoppable forces the game has ever seen. You could not slow him down. I am a huge Tim fan but as far as Shaq goes for that run he had of a few years nobody was as dominant (Jordan maybe). Tims obviously has the longevity and stayed far more consistent for longer but I admit Shaq was a monster and I have not seen anything like that since. He was a nightmare.
:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol: lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao: lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao

I don't even bother with that dude, his posts are just outlandish.

[ImDaNuts]

Shaq>Duncan in their prime. But Duncan has also had a better foundation around him, better coaching and his role led him to be successful throughout his entire career. Nothing flashy, but he got the job done.

[Sean Cagney]

Shaq>Duncan in their prime. But Duncan has also had a better foundation around him, better coaching and his role led him to be successful throughout his entire career. Nothing flashy, but he got the job done.

I can agree on this.

[DMC]

Duncan was never as dominant as Shaq or Hakeem and doesnt belong in the same breath as Jordan, Magic and Bird.
Right up there with the semi-auto revolver. Honestly, some of these troll accounts try too hard.

[da_suns_fan]

Shaq>Duncan in their prime. But Duncan has also had a better foundation around him, better coaching and his role led him to be successful throughout his entire career. Nothing flashy, but he got the job done.


I can agree on this.

:tu

[ambchang]

A) Tell me what constitutes a "dominant" game.

A game where the player was clearly better than anybody else and willed them victory.


B) Show me how Duncan has a "lot" of these games (for example I dont care about the one time Duncan had 27, 15 rebounds, 5 blocks, 7 assists etc).

Why did you quote "lot", was it quoting one of us?
In the 2003 playoffs alone:
23/17/6 and 6 blks vs. the Suns
28/8/7 vs. the Lakers
36/9/5 vs. the Lakers
37/16/4 vs. the Lakers, then the next game
40/15/7 vs. the Mavs, then the next game
32/15/5 vs. the Mavs, then the next game
34/24/6 vs. the Mavs, then the next game
21/20/7 vs. the Mavs, then the next game
23/15/6 vs. the Mavs (that's 6 consecutive dominant games)
32/20/7 and 6 blks vs. the Nets
21/16/7 vs. the Nets
23/17 and 7 blks vs. the Nets
29/17/4 and 4 blks vs. the Nets
21/20/10and 8 blks vs. the Nets

I'd say 14 out of 24 games in a playoff run is "lot"


C) I'll show you how Shaq had LOTS more of these games than Duncan.

For example:

Number of games a player had 30 points and 15 rebounds (pretty great game for a big man). Its Shaq number one and no one else even comes close. Thats just how dominant he was.


1 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 105
2 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 83
3 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 72
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 2000 70
5 Patrick Ewing* C 1986 1999 51
6 David Robinson* C 1990 2000 49
7 Tim Duncan F 1998 2013 44

A) The fact that you had Barkley over Hakeem illustrates how useless this criteria is
B) Totally random cut off point, Favors players who score a lot of points.
C) Does not factor in pace, at all. Duncan played his prime on the slowest paced team in the league, O'Neal on some of the fastest
D) Dwight Howard had 38 of those games, so?

Games with minimum of 25 points, 15 rebounds, 5 assists and 5 blks, regular season and playoffs
Shaq 16
Hakeem 15
Robinson 9
Duncan 9
Barkley 3
Ewing 1
Malone 1


Games with minimum of 20 points, 20 rebounds, 5 assists and 5 blks
Hakeem - 4
Duncan - 3
Shaq - 2
Robinson -2
Ewing - 1
Barkley - 1
Malone - 0

Now if we look at a minimum of 25 points, 15 rebounds, 10 assists and 5 blks, Ralph Sampson was the only guy who did it since 85-86, I guess Sampson is the most dominant guy then.
And this is before factoring in pace.

[ambchang]

In 2000 and 2001, Shaq AVERAGED a 30/15/2 game in the playoffs (remember this isnt one series...this across FOUR playoff series).

Thats just RIDICULOUS.

You didn't read these, obviously


Untrue. I dug up these posts I had back in 2009:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132810&highlight=Duncan+Shaq
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133031&highlight=Duncan+Shaq

Read it again.

[da_suns_fan]

A game where the player was clearly better than anybody else and willed them victory.

......

Why did you quote "lot", was it quoting one of us?
....

Games with minimum of 20 points, 20 rebounds, 5 assists and 5 blks
Hakeem - 4
Duncan - 3
Shaq - 2
Robinson -2
Ewing - 1
Barkley - 1
Malone - 0
[/B]


You didnt follow directions:


Show me how Duncan has a "lot" of these games (for example I dont care about the one time Duncan had 27, 15 rebounds, 5 blocks, 7 assists etc).

Duncan having 3 of these games (in your criteria) is not "a lot". I picked "arbitrary" criteria and showed you that Shaq had 100+ games that matched this criteria.

As I said, determine what constitutes a "dominant" game. By your own admission Duncan only had 3 "dominant" games in his entire career.

btw - Your "pace" EXCUSE is pathetic. Funny how Shaq came into the league just five years prior and he BLEW AWAY everyones stats from running 80s.

[Clipper Nation]

There's more to impact than obsolete per game stats, which I thought even you abandoned with your Dudley>Melo retardation.

He just blindly copy/pasted from the Wages of Wins, a site that is the joke of the analytic community because of its flawed core assumptions that scoring is risk-free, predictable, and involuntary and that shooting percentage and scoring are not dependent on offensive roles, as well as how it responds to the mainstream overvaluing of scoring by just arbitrarily overvaluing other stats (like rebounds) instead. These assumptions are why they come up with awful takes like Dudley > Melo. Let's not pretend that he understands anything about advanced stats, he just copy/pasted an article that hyped up his loverboy Jared Dudley.

[ambchang]

You didnt follow directions:



Duncan having 3 of these games (in your criteria) is not "a lot". I picked "arbitrary" criteria and showed you that Shaq had 100+ games that matched this criteria.

As I said, determine what constitutes a "dominant" game. By your own admission Duncan only had 3 "dominant" games in his entire career.

btw - Your "pace" EXCUSE is pathetic. Funny how Shaq came into the league just five years prior and he BLEW AWAY everyones stats from running 80s.

When nobody else has 4, 3 is a lot.

And no, you don't set the rules as to what dominant means. You are a nobody.

[da_suns_fan]

When nobody else has 4, 3 is a lot.

And no, you don't set the rules as to what dominant means. You are a nobody.

So are you saying Duncan only had three dominant games in his whole career? Or maybe youre just willing to admit that Shaq was superior to Duncan?

[da_suns_fan]

He just blindly copy/pasted from the Wages of Wins, a site that is the joke of the analytic community because of its flawed core assumptions that scoring is risk-free, predictable, and involuntary and that shooting percentage and scoring are not dependent on offensive roles, as well as how it responds to the mainstream overvaluing of scoring by just arbitrarily overvaluing other stats (like rebounds) instead. These assumptions are why they come up with awful takes like Dudley > Melo. Let's not pretend that he understands anything about advanced stats, he just copy/pasted an article that hyped up his loverboy Jared Dudley.

Of course, wages of wins DID predict that 6th man James Harden was actually a superstar whereas you said........well...you know :lol

[da_suns_fan]

He just blindly copy/pasted from the Wages of Wins, a site that is the joke of the analytic community because of its flawed core assumptions that scoring is risk-free, predictable, and involuntary and that shooting percentage and scoring are not dependent on offensive roles, as well as how it responds to the mainstream overvaluing of scoring by just arbitrarily overvaluing other stats (like rebounds) instead. These assumptions are why they come up with awful takes like Dudley > Melo. Let's not pretend that he understands anything about advanced stats, he just copy/pasted an article that hyped up his loverboy Jared Dudley.

Actually why am I bothering? I thought you went to a cave after your post-season of shitty predictions blew up in your face. Or was it Chris Paul jizzing on your face? Get back in your cave and dont forget how I like my eggs, bitch.

[DMC]

Of course, wages of wins DID predict that 6th man James Harden was actually a superstar whereas you said........well...you know :lol
He really showed it in the WCF... superstar indeed.

[DMC]

Actually why am I bothering? I thought you went to a cave after your post-season of shitty predictions blew up in your face. Or was it Chris Paul jizzing on your face? Get back in your cave and dont forget how I like my eggs, bitch.

I'm thinking you like your eggs poached... so open your mouth I'll help you.

[da_suns_fan]

He really showed it in the WCF... superstar indeed.

You dont think James Harden is a superstar? How did the Rockets do what the Spurs couldnt (beat the clippers)? Was it Dwight Howard?

[99 Problems]

PF in all time nba team. That makes him top 5, so wot follows is top 10, 20,25,50,100 naturally.

[Arcadian]

:lol "some of us"

Tim Duncan is universally considered top 10 all time, and anyone who disagrees is instantly outed from all serious discussion.

[Clipper Nation]

Actually why am I bothering? I thought you went to a cave after your post-season of shitty predictions blew up in your face. Or was it Chris Paul jizzing on your face? Get back in your cave and dont forget how I like my eggs, bitch.
My predictions were correct all year long. Choke Paul choked AGAIN. The team lost in the second round AGAIN. Meanwhile, you as a fan of another team are celebrating that fluke-ass Game 7 performance in the first round like it's a championship. Then again, you do root for the franchise that threw a parade for being the best losers, so I can understand why that's your mindset.

How'd that "Suns are winning it all in 2008" prediction work out for you, BTW? Or the "Dragic will wash out of the league" take?

[DMC]

You dont think James Harden is a superstar? How did the Rockets do what the Spurs couldnt (beat the clippers)? Was it Dwight Howard?
I think James Harden is popular, so in that sense he is a superstar, but superstars where talent is concerned don't go tits up on the biggest stage. That's pseudo-stars.

[Clipper Nation]

You dont think James Harden is a superstar? How did the Rockets do what the Spurs couldnt (beat the clippers)? Was it Dwight Howard?
Your boy Choke Paul choked again, that's why. The Game 6 meltdown happened with Harden on the bench :lol

[Thread]

You look at his field of work across 3 Junes and you end up with a 2nd 5th. By all rights he should be at twins, the triplet imminent in two weeks. But, no, he got caught short by his wife & his wealth guy. What he needs is to be beat with a stick. You know, a backyard sapling, saber saw a firm branch, then turn toward the Duncan picnic table and go to work.

[Splits]

^ fuck I just realized why enjoyed the board so much the past 24 hours.

Back to the reading room until you come up with some decent material old man.

[Thread]

^ fuck I just realized why enjoyed the board so much the past 24 hours.

Back to the reading room until you come up with some decent material old man.

Fine. I'll be in the Reading Room.

[Splits]

Fine. I'll be in the Reading Room.

Before you go give me a good flick to watch tonight. Nothing before '85.

[midnightpulp]

A) Tell me what constitutes a "dominant" game.

B) Show me how Duncan has a "lot" of these games (for example I dont care about the one time Duncan had 27, 15 rebounds, 5 blocks, 7 assists etc).

C) I'll show you how Shaq had LOTS more of these games than Duncan.

For example:

Number of games a player had 30 points and 15 rebounds (pretty great game for a big man). Its Shaq number one and no one else even comes close. Thats just how dominant he was.


1 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 105
2 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 83
3 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 72
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 2000 70
5 Patrick Ewing* C 1986 1999 51
6 David Robinson* C 1990 2000 49
7 Tim Duncan F 1998 2013 44

First off. Regular season stats :lmao

Second of all, cross comparing raw per game stats across eras or of players on different teams is useless (teams do run different systems, which may or may not be conducive to generating higher per game stats). You chided Amb for the "pace excuse." It's not an excuse. It's a measurable fact. If a player played in an era when the pace was significantly faster, that means more possessions. More possessions=higher per game stats across the board. If we're to use your idiotic criteria of "dominant" games based on raw per game stats as a standard to judge great players, then Wilt is unquestionably the best player of all-time and Elgin Baylor and Elvin Hayes are better rebounders than your beloved Charles Barkley and Shaq.

A more accurate metric to use is per 100 possessions: Let's take a look at those for a few of the players you cited:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html#playoffs_per_poss::none

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html#playoffs_per_poss::none

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barklch01.html#playoffs_per_poss::none

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html#playoffs_per_poss::none

I'd say the respective per 100 playoff stats of these players is pretty equal across the board (Hakeem, Duncan, and Barkley have the exact same +11 point spread in offensive/defensive rating). Barkley actually winds up being the worst scorer of the group (by only .1, so it's almost not worth mentioning) and Hakeem is the worst rebounder of the group (further confirmed by him having the lowest rebounding percentage, as well).

As far as individual title/finals run go, Duncan's '03 effort is the most dominant, and by a good margin. He maintained a ridiculous +24 offensive/defensive rating spread. Shaq's highest was +17. Hakeem + 18. Barkley + 13. The dominance of Duncan's '03 campaign is also further confirmed with other stats. As I've said before, it's the second highest rated title run (per BPM) of all-time. And it's the highest rated title run per win shares: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_season_p.html

Win shares is indeed a flawed stat, since as your overall team gets better, it can lower a player's individual win share contribution, but it's still more accurate than appealing to per game stats.

Your criteria also doesn't consider defense. A player can record as many "dominant" games as he wants, but it's all for naught if he can't keep the other players/team from equalizing him. As I've stated prior, Shaq's defensive metrics were painfully average for a big man during the 3 peat. In fact, Shaq's top three title runs are statistically inferior to Duncan's top 3 in almost every advanced metric you can think of (it's also worth noting that Duncan's top two title runs had him playing Shaq, who Duncan even outperformed on a raw per game basis):

http://oi60.tinypic.com/hvwhfl.jpg

http://oi58.tinypic.com/x1ykub.jpg

Feel free to launch into a tirade against advanced stats, but even if you point out their flaws (of which there are a few), they still have more predictive and correlative power of player/team success than raw per game stats.

I'm sure you'll handwave and stubbornly stick to your outdated criteria, since you'd rather try to win an argument at all costs than sincerely debate, but there's no substantial argument you can make that prime Duncan wasn't, at the very least, as dominant as prime Shaq (and other top tier greats), outside of appealing to your invented standard of 30-15, which no one with a brain would take seriously.

[Splits]

Mid is feeling it today.

Mid

[Strange Love]

Consider? There is nothing to consider, he IS a top 10 player.

[Sean Cagney]

:lol "some of us"

Tim Duncan is universally considered top 10 all time, and anyone who disagrees is instantly outed from all serious discussion.

This is about what I was going to say in this thread but you beat me to it, this is not just us on a message board or Spurs fans saying this. Experts say it, writers say it and x players etc. This is well known, not SOME of us but most people with any sense or not hating like some LA fans in here will admit he is top 10 all times. I know LA fans who think he is top 10, only a stupid troll or hater would say otherwise.
Consider? There is nothing to consider, he IS a top 10 player.

Close thread, end of story.

[midnightpulp]

Here'a an example of how raw per game stats can be a misleading indicator of value and impact.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?464973-The-Value-of-a-Blocked-Shot-in-the-NBA-From-Dwight-Howard-to-Tim-Duncan


So whose blocked shots are the most valuable? Mr. Huizinga closed the presentation by going over what he calls “Block Value.” To determine block value, he used the formula Points Saved + Points Created where Points Saved equals the effect of a Block on Opponents Expected Points during this possession and Points Created equals the effect of a Block on Own Team’s Expected Points During the next possession.

Using this formula, we found out who had the best season since the data started being collected (2002-03) in terms of overall block value. It ended up being Theo Ratliff during his 2003 season. Ratliff accumulated a block value of 300 (287 coming from points prevented while 13 came from points created), which when transformed into wins ends up being right around 5.

Interesting Numbers

Just thought it would be interesting to include some numbers towards the end of Mr. Huizinga’s presentation, showing how number of blocks can’t really be used when determining who is the best “shot blocker.”

So why was Mr. Huizinga’s paper called From “…Dwight Howard to Tim Duncan?” Well as he explained, through a series of charts, Tim Duncan has had the best season in history when it came down to value/block with 1.12, meaning he saved 1.12 points with every block and Dwight Howard ended up with the worst season in terms of value/block with with .53 (both came during the 2008 season).

In the referred season (2008), Dwight averaged 1 more block per game than Duncan. Simple-minded per game stats would tell us that Dwight is the better shot blocker, but it turns out that Dwight's blocks didn't generate as many points as Duncan's (likely because of how Dwight blocks shots, not controlling them to regain possession, instead preferring to send blocks into the second row).

tl;dr :lol per game stats

[da_suns_fan]

Here'a an example of how raw per game stats can be a misleading indicator of value and impact.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?464973-The-Value-of-a-Blocked-Shot-in-the-NBA-From-Dwight-Howard-to-Tim-Duncan



In the referred season (2008), Dwight averaged 1 more block per game than Duncan. Simple-minded per game stats would tell us that Dwight is the better shot blocker, but it turns out that Dwight's blocks didn't generate as many points as Duncan's (likely because of how Dwight blocks shots, not controlling them to regain possession, instead preferring to send blocks into the second row).

tl;dr :lol per game stats

This is quite the odd defense. Usually "per possession" stats are used to explain that bench guy or someone who doesnt get a lot of minutes is actually pretty good despite his limited in role.

In this case, Duncan doesnt have a lot of "big games" relative to other superstars and you defend this with Duncan's "era" having a lower number of possessions than say, Barkley or Malone.

Okay, but what about Shaq? Shaq and Duncans career's were in the same "era" yet Shaq BLEW AWAY the accolades of players from the 80s He was just that dominant. He didnt need the EXCUSES youre giving Tim Duncan.

Maybe Duncan just wasnt capable of dominating night in and night out the way Shaq was and this is why it didnt hapen? Occams Razor, buddy.

[da_suns_fan]

I think James Harden is popular, so in that sense he is a superstar, but superstars where talent is concerned don't go tits up on the biggest stage. That's pseudo-stars.

So if hes not a superstar, who is? Curry? James? Are there only two superstars in the entire league?

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3992/james-harden

Harden just averaged 28 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in the WCF. He had a 38 point, 10 rebound 9 assist game (AND shot 61%). Has anyone in the league EVER done that?

[da_suns_fan]

First off. Regular season stats :lmao

Lets look at monster playoff games. 40 points and 20 rebounds. Barkely did it once. Hakeem did it twice. Duncan never did it.

Shaq did FOUR times (all came during the 2000 and 2001 playoffs). I guess Duncan couldnt have games that insane because he didnt play basketball during that era, right?

I hate Phil Jackson but I give him credit for getting the message into Shaq's head that "you are the most dominant player of all time and should play that way". Shaq was just given physical attributes that no one else can compete with. That doesnt mean Duncan wasnt a great player, he was. But he just wasnt on the same level as Shaq. If Duncan got the ball within 5 feet of the basket, the other team didnt say "might as well start going the other way" as teams did when Shaq was in his prime.

But why a I even bothering? Youre a Spurs fan. I dont think I could present any evidence to change your mind. Was Shaq better than Duncan? OF COURSE he was. It was as plain as day.

[da_suns_fan]

:lol "some of us"

Tim Duncan is universally considered top 10 all time, and anyone who disagrees is instantly outed from all serious discussion.

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Magic
4) Lebron
5) Bird
6) Shaq
7) Chamberlin
8) Kobe
9) Hakeem
10) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Couldnt you also say that all of these guys are "universally considered top 10 all time"? I mean you could say that old guys "shouldnt count" since their era was a completely different game or that Duncan was better than Kobe or Kareem but that AT LEAST would be "debatable".

[ambchang]

So are you saying Duncan only had three dominant games in his whole career? Or maybe youre just willing to admit that Shaq was superior to Duncan?

Neither.

So are you saying you draw up all the rules of what dominance is, and done with defining what I said?

:lol Authority on the definition of basketball.

One player had 200 games of 30 points and 15 rebounds, but zero games with 5 blks

Another player had 120 games of 30 points and 15 rebounds, but also have 20 games with 20 points, 20 rebounds and 5 blks

But the first player is more dominant because I defined it. :(:(:(:(:(

[ambchang]

Lets look at monster playoff games. 40 points and 20 rebounds. Barkely did it once. Hakeem did it twice. Duncan never did it.

Shaq did FOUR times (all came during the 2000 and 2001 playoffs). I guess Duncan couldnt have games that insane because he didnt play basketball during that era, right?

I hate Phil Jackson but I give him credit for getting the message into Shaq's head that "you are the most dominant player of all time and should play that way". Shaq was just given physical attributes that no one else can compete with. That doesnt mean Duncan wasnt a great player, he was. But he just wasnt on the same level as Shaq. If Duncan got the ball within 5 feet of the basket, the other team didnt say "might as well start going the other way" as teams did when Shaq was in his prime.

But why a I even bothering? Youre a Spurs fan. I dont think I could present any evidence to change your mind. Was Shaq better than Duncan? OF COURSE he was. It was as plain as day.

So Shaq only had 4 dominant games in his career?

[Arcadian]

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Magic
4) Lebron
5) Bird
6) Shaq
7) Chamberlin
8) Kobe
9) Hakeem
10) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Couldnt you also say that all of these guys are "universally considered top 10 all time"? I mean you could say that old guys "shouldnt count" since their era was a completely different game or that Duncan was better than Kobe or Kareem but that AT LEAST would be "debatable".

Not Kobe and not Russell. They are arguably out of the top 10. Especially not Kobe. There's no rational argument that Kobe ranks higher than Duncan (despite what you might read on this forum, lol).

If your point is that one can construct a decent list without Duncan, obviously. There were more than 10 superstars in league history. But if you really get down to details, Duncan is better than most of them.

[ambchang]

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Magic
4) Lebron
5) Bird
6) Shaq
7) Chamberlin
8) Kobe
9) Hakeem
10) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Couldnt you also say that all of these guys are "universally considered top 10 all time"? I mean you could say that old guys "shouldnt count" since their era was a completely different game or that Duncan was better than Kobe or Kareem but that AT LEAST would be "debatable".

Kobe isn't top 10, none individual success, team success, or stats support Kobe > Duncan. none.

Duncan trumps Bird, Lebron, Shaq, Chamberlain, and Hakeem in team success.

Duncan trumps Shaq, Chamberlain, Hakeem, in individual accolades

Duncan ties or is comparable to Magic and Lebron in individual accolades and team success.

Duncan have better career stats than Russell, Magic, Bird, Shaq, and Hakeem in stats.

[Silver&Black]

8) Kobe :lol :lmao :lol :lmao :lol :lmao :lol

[Clipper Nation]

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Magic
4) Lebron
5) Bird
6) Shaq
7) Chamberlin
8) Kobe
9) Hakeem
10) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Couldnt you also say that all of these guys are "universally considered top 10 all time"? I mean you could say that old guys "shouldnt count" since their era was a completely different game or that Duncan was better than Kobe or Kareem but that AT LEAST would be "debatable".
:lmao Having Kirby in the top 1000, let alone the top 10
:lmao Ranking Kirby ahead of Hakeem, Kareem, and Duncan
:lmao Your takes are so retarded that you should be banned from watching the sport. Please don't breed.

[DMC]

So if hes not a superstar, who is? Curry? James? Are there only two superstars in the entire league?

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3992/james-harden

Harden just averaged 28 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in the WCF. He had a 38 point, 10 rebound 9 assist game (AND shot 61%). Has anyone in the league EVER done that?

James has folded how many times on the biggest stage? He shit the bed in the Finals, and shit the bed again in the WCF this season. He's only any good at the FT line and coming off the bench against scrubs. Face it, your superstar criteria is based on hype. Plus you're a faggot.

[Buddy Mignon]

:lol "some of us"

Tim Duncan is universally considered top 10 all time, and anyone who disagrees is instantly outed from all serious discussion.

Not according to me and Jordan. Jordan thinks his career is greater than Magics and Birds because he accomplished a three-peat. I agree.

[da_suns_fan]

James has folded how many times on the biggest stage? He shit the bed in the Finals, and shit the bed again in the WCF this season. He's only any good at the FT line and coming off the bench against scrubs. Face it, your superstar criteria is based on hype. Plus you're a faggot.

Never lost to an 8th seed as a 1st seed.

Never blew a finals winning layup. :lol

Lebron > Duncan (and its not even close). The narrative these days is "could Lebron beat MJ". The only narrative Duncan was ever involved in "why is he so boring" and "is he a homosexual?"

[da_suns_fan]

Neither.

So are you saying you draw up all the rules of what dominance is, and done with defining what I said?

:lol Authority on the definition of basketball.

One player had 200 games of 30 points and 15 rebounds, but zero games with 5 blks

Another player had 120 games of 30 points and 15 rebounds, but also have 20 games with 20 points, 20 rebounds and 5 blks

But the first player is more dominant because I defined it. :(:(:(:(:(

Again, I challenge you

1) Define what constitutes a dominant game

2) Show that Duncan had "a lot" of these games

You cant because, offensively, Duncan wasnt that great. Good but not dominant like Shaq or Hakeem.

I think I proved my point. As you just pointed out, Shaq didnt have "20" great games, he had 120.

[da_suns_fan]

I tried to find a list that had Duncan at the top by entering in "duncan-esque" stats. 22 points, 12 rebounds and 2 blocks. The quintessential Duncan game. He was still a distant third to both Shaq and Hakeem:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts&c1comp=gt&c1val=22&c2stat=trb&c2comp=gt&c2val=12&c3stat=blk&c3comp=gt&c3val=2&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts

The problem is Duncan just wasnt that great of a scorer. He wasnt a great passer (like Barkley, Malone and KG). Even if you dilute the stats your looking at to scoring, rebounding and blocks, he usually comes up fifth.

[Arnold Toht]

It's simple, nobody outside Mexico thinks Duncan belongs in the Kobe, Jordan, Magic, Kareem conversation.

[midnightpulp]

This is quite the odd defense. Usually "per possession" stats are used to explain that bench guy or someone who doesnt get a lot of minutes is actually pretty good despite his limited in role.

No it isn't, since the players in question played roughly the same amount of minutes per game.


In this case, Duncan doesnt have a lot of "big games" relative to other superstars and you defend this with Duncan's "era" having a lower number of possessions than say, Barkley or Malone.


Your "big game" criteria is invented by you. I can easily throw an arbitrary line and call it a "big game," as well. And again, measuring floor impact with just points, rebounds, and blocks is insufficient, since there is so much a player does on the floor that isn't measured by traditional raw per game stats. Not to mention that raw per game stats are actually inaccurate (see my Value of a Blocked Shot example). For instance, rebound rate tells us who is a better rebounder than RPG.


Okay, but what about Shaq? Shaq and Duncans career's were in the same "era" yet Shaq BLEW AWAY the accolades of players from the 80s He was just that dominant. He didnt need the EXCUSES youre giving Tim Duncan.

No he didn't. And he didn't "blow away" Duncan on a raw per game basis, either, so no "excuses" needed.

Shaq's best title run (per game): 30.7ppg, 15.4rpg, 3.1apg, 2.4blk, .556TS%

Duncan's best: 24.7ppg, 15.4rpg, 5.3apg, 3.3blk, .577TS%

Shaq's always been a better scorer, so no argument there, but Duncan's always been a better defender.




Maybe Duncan just wasnt capable of dominating night in and night out the way Shaq was and this is why it didnt hapen? Occams Razor, buddy.

The more accurate stats show otherwise. They actually show that Duncan was just as dominant as Shaq.

You can continue to use per game stats, but I must tell you that we're not in the 90's anymore.

[midnightpulp]

My big game criteria for a big man is 25 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists, and 3 blocks. This shows a level of dominance across the board without overly favoring one of the "big 4" catergories.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=4&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=25&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

In the playoffs (the real season), Duncan has recorded 10 of these games, tied with Shaq. Note that Duncan recorded them in less games, as well.

I'll even bump up scoring to 27 points.

Oh, look, Duncan is still tied with Shaq:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=4&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

Let's bump up assists to 5.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=5&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

We'll bump up blocks to 5 now.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=5&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=5&order_by=pts

Or how about 30 points, 20 boards, and 5 blocks. Now THAT is a dominant big man game (leaving out blocks for bigs is a huge oversight, like in your 40/20 example, but I understand you did that to include Sir Zero Rings :lol).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=30&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=20&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=5&order_by=pts





tl;dr Barkley wasn't on any of these lists :lmao

[RD2191]

Simply because imo no other multiple champion has done more with less.

[Thomas82]

Just off the top of my head:

1. Longevity
2. 5 rings. Took a franchise with zero championships to the 4th most successful franchise in the NBA.
3. Best player since Jordan
4. All-time postseason records. Double-Doubles, blocks, minutes...
5. Never missed the playoffs
6. 50 wins seasons are routine.
7. Almost always a contender to win it all

Is that enough?

Good enough for me.

[da_suns_fan]

My big game criteria for a big man is 25 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists, and 3 blocks. This shows a level of dominance across the board without overly favoring one of the "big 4" catergories.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=4&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=25&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

In the playoffs (the real season), Duncan has recorded 10 of these games, tied with Shaq. Note that Duncan recorded them in less games, as well.

I'll even bump up scoring to 27 points.

Oh, look, Duncan is still tied with Shaq:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=4&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

Let's bump up assists to 5.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=5&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

We'll bump up blocks to 5 now.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=5&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=5&order_by=pts

Or how about 30 points, 20 boards, and 5 blocks. Now THAT is a dominant big man game (leaving out blocks for bigs is a huge oversight, like in your 40/20 example, but I understand you did that to include Sir Zero Rings :lol).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=30&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=20&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=5&order_by=pts





tl;dr Barkley wasn't on any of these lists :lmao

Once agian, you failed to find me a set of stats that matched the second criteria (like ambchang):

b) Show me how Duncan had "a lot of these games".

I clicked on your last link and Duncan had three of these games. So are you suggesting that Tim Duncan had three great games in his career?

The fact is that Shaq had a LOT of games where he had a lot of points and rebounds and blocks. Regular season AND playoffs. Duncan had a lot too...but just nowhere near as many Shaq or Hakeem.

They didnt need "per minute" or "pace" or "era" excuses that defensive Spurs fans continue to give Duncan.

Because they were better.

Game. Set. Match.

[TDfan2007]

My big game criteria for a big man is 25 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists, and 3 blocks. This shows a level of dominance across the board without overly favoring one of the "big 4" catergories.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=4&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=25&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

In the playoffs (the real season), Duncan has recorded 10 of these games, tied with Shaq. Note that Duncan recorded them in less games, as well.

I'll even bump up scoring to 27 points.

Oh, look, Duncan is still tied with Shaq:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=4&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

Let's bump up assists to 5.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=5&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=3&order_by=pts

We'll bump up blocks to 5 now.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=ast&c1comp=gt&c1val=5&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=15&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=5&order_by=pts

Or how about 30 points, 20 boards, and 5 blocks. Now THAT is a dominant big man game (leaving out blocks for bigs is a huge oversight, like in your 40/20 example, but I understand you did that to include Sir Zero Rings :lol).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=pts&c2comp=gt&c2val=30&c3stat=trb&c3comp=gt&c3val=20&c4stat=blk&c4comp=gt&c4val=5&order_by=pts





tl;dr Barkley wasn't on any of these lists :lmao

I'm not really sure why you're bothering with this guy. It's like talking to Kool's retarded cousin...

[midnightpulp]

Once agian, you failed to find me a set of stats that matched the second criteria (like ambchang):

b) Show me how Duncan had "a lot of these games".

I clicked on your last link and Duncan had three of these games. So are you suggesting that Tim Duncan had three great games in his career?

The fact is that Shaq had a LOT of games where he had a lot of points and rebounds and blocks. Regular season AND playoffs. Duncan had a lot too...but just nowhere near as many Shaq or Hakeem.

They didnt need "per minute" or "pace" or "era" excuses that defensive Spurs fans continue to give Duncan.

Because they were better.

Game. Set. Match.

:lol "Game. Set. Match."

You're bad at this.

As I've predicted, you fail to accept any other statistical methods but your own highly arbitrary "big game" criteria and handwave away or outright ignore proof to the contrary because of your obvious bias toward Duncan (it's because he slaughtered the Suns, I get it).

Since I can't help myself, I'll try again. Maybe it will get through your thick skull this time.

Raw per game are fuckin' antiquated, especially those recorded during the regular season, where a variety of factors can influence player production (if a team is good or great, they will have won many games in blowout fashion, which results in a team's best player(s) playing less minutes). And in the case of Duncan, his minutes have been managed for the last 7 years. That's why I use playoff stats, because it's a better sample of how Duncan (and other players) perform when minute restrictions are off and the players in question are playing against superior competition. Who gives a fuck about a "big game" against a lottery team in January? It doesn't tell us anything. David Robinson had plenty of "big games" yet floundered in the playoffs with worse raw per game stats. No one gives a shit about the regular season.

So since raw per game stats have been shown to be an inaccurate indicator of total player value, why do you continue to use them? If you want me to continue this debate with you, I want a cogent answer to that question.


They didnt need "per minute" or "pace" or "era" excuses that defensive Spurs fans continue to give Duncan.

Duncan doesn't need that excuse, either. I've shown that his raw per game stats are on par with Hakeem and Shaq. Granted, they're slightly worse in some categories (as I've admitted, Duncan wasn't as good a scorer as those players), but Duncan's advanced (playoff) stats are about a wash with Hakeem's and actually superior to Shaq's. The latter might come as a surprise with Shaq's reputation as the "Most Dominant Ever," but as I've stated before, Shaq was about an average defender for a bigman and could be exploited with the pick-n-roll or quicker bigs (Shaq could never guard Duncan, KG, Hakeem) something Lakerfans used to complain about for YEARS. There could also be issues with him affecting spacing since he lacked any short of shot outside of 6 six feet.


Once agian, you failed to find me a set of stats that matched the second criteria (like ambchang)

What criteria? If you're talking about my "big game" criteria, I don't care about finding more games to "match it" because it's an arbitrary invention of mine. It holds no explanatory power. Player impact goes much deeper than just how he can fill up limited categories in a box score. Especially those recorded during the regular season.


They didnt need "per minute" or "pace" or "era" excuses that defensive Spurs fans continue to give Duncan.

More on this point:

Shaq had 16 of my big games from his rookie year to 1994 (two seasons). The early 90's were still very much in the vein of fast paced 80's basketball (although still not as quick).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=career&year_min=1992&year_max=1994&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=N&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts&c1comp=gt&c1val=27&c2stat=trb&c2comp=gt&c2val=15&c3stat=blk&c3comp=gt&c3val=4&c4stat=fg_pct&c4comp=gt&c4val=.50&order_by=pts

'95 saw the first changes toward a slower game and the game slowed down significantly from here on out (the league average in team shot attempts dropped from 7048 in 92-93 to 6682 in 94-95). Shaq had 28 of my "big games" from 95-03, an 8 season period that included his absolute peak. So when the game started slowing down, he went from having 8 big games per season to under 4 (note: He was higher usage player at his peak than when he was with the Magic, so don't give me any of that: "It's because he had to share the ball with Kobe" crap).

Hakeem sees a similar dropoff. As does Malone, Barkley, etc.

That said, I do agree that Shaq is probably the most dominant "box score" big man in league history, but again, raw box score stats don't really tell us anything. Stop using them. This isn't the 90's.

[HemisfairArena]

In the end,,,, we all know Duncan is above Kobrick on ALL Time list,,,,

[Arnold Toht]

Kobe: 3
Duncan: 0

[HemisfairArena]

Kobe: 3
Duncan: 0

gay lover count thus far?,,,,,

[DMC]

Never lost to an 8th seed as a 1st seed.

Never blew a finals winning layup. :lol

Lebron > Duncan (and its not even close). The narrative these days is "could Lebron beat MJ". The only narrative Duncan was ever involved in "why is he so boring" and "is he a homosexual?"

Was never a 1st seed.His team never got to 1st seed until the year after he left.

Lost in the 1st round last year.

Bailed out by bench after allowing opponent to go up 19 points, while he sat on his ass on the floor on the sideline and watched.

Folded in his biggest moment in the NBA with a NBA playoff record 13 turnovers.

Superstar.. :lol

"Just how bad was superstar James Harden compared to the rest of his season? In 62 regular-season games and 15 postseason games before the finals, superstar Harden scored in single digits just four times.He's now done it three times in the past five games.
But that's just scratching the surface of what was wrong with Superstar Harden in this series.
Superstar Harden was outplayed by LeBron James every time he had to guard him, but there's no real way to fault him for that. LeBron is bigger and stronger, and there's no way Superstar Harden could have grown an inch or two to really keep him in check.
There wasn't another player in this series that looked as uncertain as Superstar Harden. That uncertainty and lack of confidence was worse than Russell Westbrook shooting too much, Serge Ibaka and Kendrick Perkins faltering late in games or Scotty Brooks refusing to budge on his lineups—even when it made more sense to go with one guy over another."


"Superstar James Harden committed 13 turnovers in Game 5 against the Golden State Warriors, setting a new record for most turnovers in a playoff game. It might not shock you that the Rockets lost the game and are now eliminated. They are eliminated because they lost four games in the series, but they might as well have been eliminated because everybody watched superstar James Harden playing basketball and realized it was inhumane to allow him to continue playing basketball.

Superstar James Harden's night was a rare combination of questionable decisions, passes apparently thrown by somebody lacking basic motor skills and ill-fated dribbles. This happened against a team completely keyed-in defensively on superstar Harden, set to destroy him. It gets ugly, it gets uglier and it gets ugliest."

[Arnold Toht]

Kobe: 3
Duncan: 0

[midnightpulp]

Kobe: 3
Duncan: 0

Times each player missed the playoffs :lmao

[ambchang]

Again, I challenge you

1) Define what constitutes a dominant game

2) Show that Duncan had "a lot" of these games

You cant because, offensively, Duncan wasnt that great. Good but not dominant like Shaq or Hakeem.

I think I proved my point. As you just pointed out, Shaq didnt have "20" great games, he had 120.

Why is dominant tied to "offensively" not that great? You can only dominate a game on offense?

You did show Shaq only had 4 monster games though.

Games with 30 points, 15 rebounds and 5 assists:

Rk Player Pos From To Count
1 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 38
2 Tim Duncan F 2000 2013 27
3 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 24
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 1998 22
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 20
6 David Robinson* C 1990 1998 18
7 Kevin Garnett F 2001 2006 16
8 LeBron James F 2004 2015 10
9 Larry Bird* F 1986 1991 9
10 Chris Webber F 2000 2006 9
11 Michael Jordan* G 1989 1996 6
12 Kevin Love F 2011 2014 6
13 DeMarcus Cousins C 2014 2015 5
14 Blake Griffin F 2011 2015 5
15 Derrick Coleman F 1993 1997 4
16 Tom Gugliotta F 1993 1997 4
17 Grant Hill F 1995 1997 4
18 Amar'e Stoudemire F 2005 2011 4
19 Elton Brand F 2004 2006 3
20 Vince Carter G 2002 2007 3

Dear God, I just proved Duncan is more dominant than Jordan, and Barkley is the most dominant player of all time.

And you still cannot grasp the idea of what pace means. A player who scored 40 points in a game where his team scored 120 points is better than a player who scored 38 points in a game where his team scored 80 points.

[jsandiego]

But ESPN told us that Shaq was the MDE. It must be true, right?

[da_suns_fan]

Why is dominant tied to "offensively" not that great? You can only dominate a game on offense?

You did show Shaq only had 4 monster games though.

Games with 30 points, 15 rebounds and 5 assists:

Rk Player Pos From To Count
1 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 38
2 Tim Duncan F 2000 2013 27
3 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 24
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 1998 22
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 20
6 David Robinson* C 1990 1998 18
7 Kevin Garnett F 2001 2006 16
8 LeBron James F 2004 2015 10
9 Larry Bird* F 1986 1991 9
10 Chris Webber F 2000 2006 9
11 Michael Jordan* G 1989 1996 6
12 Kevin Love F 2011 2014 6
13 DeMarcus Cousins C 2014 2015 5
14 Blake Griffin F 2011 2015 5
15 Derrick Coleman F 1993 1997 4
16 Tom Gugliotta F 1993 1997 4
17 Grant Hill F 1995 1997 4
18 Amar'e Stoudemire F 2005 2011 4
19 Elton Brand F 2004 2006 3
20 Vince Carter G 2002 2007 3

Dear God, I just proved Duncan is more dominant than Jordan, and Barkley is the most dominant player of all time.

And you still cannot grasp the idea of what pace means. A player who scored 40 points in a game where his team scored 120 points is better than a player who scored 38 points in a game where his team scored 80 points.

This latest query just shows what a great passer Barkley was (for a big man). Look at the jump from number two to number one. When you add in an assist parameter, Barkley is almost always at the top (usually filtered by KG). Likewise as you increase scoring, Duncan falls further and further to the bottom.

And your PACE excuse is pathetic. Did you forget that Shaquille Oneal had his highest playoff scoring numbers in years in which he faced Duncan and the Spurs? And which team did Shaq play off that averaged "120" points or anything even close?

You cant blame Duncan's deficiencies on era or pace. He just simply wasnt the scorer that Oneal and Hakeem were. Another thing stats dont account for is the amount of double (or triple teams) each player saw. Shaq probably saw a record number of double or triple teams in his prime years.....YOU HAD TO. If you didnt he was dunking it. He was THAT dominant.

[da_suns_fan]

Why is dominant tied to "offensively" not that great? You can only dominate a game on offense?

You did show Shaq only had 4 monster games though.

Games with 30 points, 15 rebounds and 5 assists:

Rk Player Pos From To Count
1 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 38
2 Tim Duncan F 2000 2013 27
3 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 24
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 1998 22
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 20
6 David Robinson* C 1990 1998 18
7 Kevin Garnett F 2001 2006 16
8 LeBron James F 2004 2015 10
9 Larry Bird* F 1986 1991 9
10 Chris Webber F 2000 2006 9
11 Michael Jordan* G 1989 1996 6
12 Kevin Love F 2011 2014 6
13 DeMarcus Cousins C 2014 2015 5
14 Blake Griffin F 2011 2015 5
15 Derrick Coleman F 1993 1997 4
16 Tom Gugliotta F 1993 1997 4
17 Grant Hill F 1995 1997 4
18 Amar'e Stoudemire F 2005 2011 4
19 Elton Brand F 2004 2006 3
20 Vince Carter G 2002 2007 3

Dear God, I just proved Duncan is more dominant than Jordan, and Barkley is the most dominant player of all time.

And you still cannot grasp the idea of what pace means. A player who scored 40 points in a game where his team scored 120 points is better than a player who scored 38 points in a game where his team scored 80 points.

btw - Comparing Guards (Jordan) to bigs using 10+ rebound games wouldnt make sense now would, it?

Jordan was a good scorer and passer...if you look at the number of games a player had 40 points and 5 assists (what I'll call the "Jordan" game), he had 91 of these games and the next closest is AI at 56. No one was even close.

But Lebron was/is a better rebounder. Not quite the scorer but more a "triple threat". If I look for "the lebron game" of 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists, Lebron is number one at 122 and the next closest is MJ at 79. Nobody will probably EVER have more 30/7/7 games than Lebron.

As I said, the "Shaq game" would be 30/15/2. Nobody will probably ever have as many of these games as Shaq (he had 80). The "Barkley Game" would be 26/12/5.

So whats "The Duncan game"?

[ambchang]

This latest query just shows what a great passer Barkley was (for a big man). Look at the jump from number two to number one. When you add in an assist parameter, Barkley is almost always at the top (usually filtered by KG). Likewise as you increase scoring, Duncan falls further and further to the bottom.

And your PACE excuse is pathetic. Did you forget that Shaquille Oneal had his highest playoff scoring numbers in years in which he faced Duncan and the Spurs? And which team did Shaq play off that averaged "120" points or anything even close?

You cant blame Duncan's deficiencies on era or pace. He just simply wasnt the scorer that Oneal and Hakeem were. Another thing stats dont account for is the amount of double (or triple teams) each player saw. Shaq probably saw a record number of double or triple teams in his prime years.....YOU HAD TO. If you didnt he was dunking it. He was THAT dominant.

So after all of this, all you wanted to say was that O'Neal and Hakeem were better scorers? O'Neal? Sure, why not? Hakeem not so much. But why did you say that he wasn't in the same level of dominance as those two? Do you understand dominance and scoring are two different things?

Per 100 possessions, which actually does take into account pace, Duncan averaged 30.1pp100, while Hakeem had 30.3pp100. Duncan had a peak of 33.5 and Hakeem 35.8. not really that big of a difference. But if you factor in assists, Duncan averaged 4.7ap100, and Hakeem had 3.4ap100. Duncan's peak was 5.7, while Hakeem's peak was 4.7 (same as Duncan's average).

O"Neal was his most dominant during the three peat. The Lakers scored 100.8, 100.6 and 101.3 ppg.

Duncan was most dominant from 2001 to 2004, in those years, the Spurs averaged 96.2, 96.7, 95.8 and 91.5 ppg. That alone accounted for 5 to 10% of the difference. And the 120 ppg was an illustration to explain to you what pace means, since you either do not understand what it means, or is actively trying to avoid the topic.

And no, Shaq had the lowest average in his prime in a series vs. the Spurs, averaging 21.4ppg in 2002. In the same series, Duncan averaged 29. In the next year, Shaq averaged 25.3ppg in the series vs. the Spurs, while Duncan aveaged 28. Even in the peak of his prime, in 2001, Shaq "only" averaged 27 ppg vs. the Spurs, while Duncan averaged 23. In 1999, Duncan averaged 29 while Shaq managed 23.8ppg in the same series. In 2004, Shaq averaged 22.5 while Duncan averaged 20.7. To summarize for you, Duncan out scored Shaq 3 out of 5 times in h2h series between 1999 and 2004. Fact check your garbage before you spew it out.

[ambchang]

btw - Comparing Guards (Jordan) to bigs using 10+ rebound games wouldnt make sense now would, it?

Jordan was a good scorer and passer...if you look at the number of games a player had 40 points and 5 assists (what I'll call the "Jordan" game), he had 91 of these games and the next closest is AI at 56. No one was even close.

But Lebron was/is a better rebounder. Not quite the scorer but more a "triple threat". If I look for "the lebron game" of 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists, Lebron is number one at 122 and the next closest is MJ at 79. Nobody will probably EVER have more 30/7/7 games than Lebron.

As I said, the "Shaq game" would be 30/15/2. Nobody will probably ever have as many of these games as Shaq (he had 80). The "Barkley Game" would be 26/12/5.

So whats "The Duncan game"?

So what you are penalizing players who are consistent, and rewarding those with more variance? A typical duncan game is a simple double double.

1 Tim Duncan F 1998 2015 830
2 Karl Malone* F 1986 2004 814
3 Kevin Garnett F 1996 2015 742
4 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2011 727
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 2002 719
6 John Stockton* G 1986 2003 709
7 Charles Barkley* F 1986 2000 681
8 Patrick Ewing* C 1986 2002 580
9 Dwight Howard C 2005 2015 575
10 David Robinson* C 1990 2003 544

[da_suns_fan]

So what you are penalizing players who are consistent, and rewarding those with more variance? A typical duncan game is a simple double double.

1 Tim Duncan F 1998 2015 830
2 Karl Malone* F 1986 2004 814
3 Kevin Garnett F 1996 2015 742
4 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2011 727
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 2002 719
6 John Stockton* G 1986 2003 709
7 Charles Barkley* F 1986 2000 681
8 Patrick Ewing* C 1986 2002 580
9 Dwight Howard C 2005 2015 575
10 David Robinson* C 1990 2003 544

When we talk about "dominance", yes.

[ambchang]

When we talk about "dominance", yes.

As in there are no consistently dominant players then.

Also, thanks once again for avoiding comments you couldn't address like the post above the one you responded. I notice you do that often.

[da_suns_fan]

So after all of this, all you wanted to say was that O'Neal and Hakeem were better scorers? O'Neal? Sure, why not? Hakeem not so much. But why did you say that he wasn't in the same level of dominance as those two? Do you understand dominance and scoring are two different things?

Per 100 possessions, which actually does take into account pace, Duncan averaged 30.1pp100, while Hakeem had 30.3pp100. Duncan had a peak of 33.5 and Hakeem 35.8. not really that big of a difference. But if you factor in assists, Duncan averaged 4.7ap100, and Hakeem had 3.4ap100. Duncan's peak was 5.7, while Hakeem's peak was 4.7 (same as Duncan's average).

O"Neal was his most dominant during the three peat. The Lakers scored 100.8, 100.6 and 101.3 ppg.

Duncan was most dominant from 2001 to 2004, in those years, the Spurs averaged 96.2, 96.7, 95.8 and 91.5 ppg. That alone accounted for 5 to 10% of the difference. And the 120 ppg was an illustration to explain to you what pace means, since you either do not understand what it means, or is actively trying to avoid the topic.

And no, Shaq had the lowest average in his prime in a series vs. the Spurs, averaging 21.4ppg in 2002. In the same series, Duncan averaged 29. In the next year, Shaq averaged 25.3ppg in the series vs. the Spurs, while Duncan aveaged 28. Even in the peak of his prime, in 2001, Shaq "only" averaged 27 ppg vs. the Spurs, while Duncan averaged 23. In 1999, Duncan averaged 29 while Shaq managed 23.8ppg in the same series. In 2004, Shaq averaged 22.5 while Duncan averaged 20.7. To summarize for you, Duncan out scored Shaq 3 out of 5 times in h2h series between 1999 and 2004. Fact check your garbage before you spew it out.

So Duncan had good series against the Lakers.

Shaq had GREAT series against everybody. He was so dominant in 2000 and 2001 I doubt anyone will be able to duplicate those playoff averages again. You disagree?

btw - "pace" is not the same as "points per game". The Lakers could score more points at same pace if they were more efficient (which they probably were since they had Shaq).

[da_suns_fan]

As in there are no consistently dominant players then.

Also, thanks once again for avoiding comments you couldn't address like the post above the one you responded. I notice you do that often.

I did respond. I notice you cherry pick Shaqs numbers from 99 and 2002 and skip over 2001 and 2002. Nice try. :lol

[RsxPiimp]

Damn, you nigs have a lot of time in y'all's hands

[ambchang]

So after all of this, all you wanted to say was that O'Neal and Hakeem were better scorers? O'Neal? Sure, why not? Hakeem not so much. But why did you say that he wasn't in the same level of dominance as those two? Do you understand dominance and scoring are two different things?

Per 100 possessions, which actually does take into account pace, Duncan averaged 30.1pp100, while Hakeem had 30.3pp100. Duncan had a peak of 33.5 and Hakeem 35.8. not really that big of a difference. But if you factor in assists, Duncan averaged 4.7ap100, and Hakeem had 3.4ap100. Duncan's peak was 5.7, while Hakeem's peak was 4.7 (same as Duncan's average).

O"Neal was his most dominant during the three peat. The Lakers scored 100.8, 100.6 and 101.3 ppg.

Duncan was most dominant from 2001 to 2004, in those years, the Spurs averaged 96.2, 96.7, 95.8 and 91.5 ppg. That alone accounted for 5 to 10% of the difference. And the 120 ppg was an illustration to explain to you what pace means, since you either do not understand what it means, or is actively trying to avoid the topic.

And no, Shaq had the lowest average in his prime in a series vs. the Spurs, averaging 21.4ppg in 2002. In the same series, Duncan averaged 29. In the next year, Shaq averaged 25.3ppg in the series vs. the Spurs, while Duncan aveaged 28. Even in the peak of his prime, in 2001, Shaq "only" averaged 27 ppg vs. the Spurs, while Duncan averaged 23. In 1999, Duncan averaged 29 while Shaq managed 23.8ppg in the same series. In 2004, Shaq averaged 22.5 while Duncan averaged 20.7. To summarize for you, Duncan out scored Shaq 3 out of 5 times in h2h series between 1999 and 2004. Fact check your garbage before you spew it out.


I did respond. I notice you cherry pick Shaqs numbers from 99 and 2002 and skip over 2001 and 2002. Nice try. :lol

Are you blind?

[ambchang]

So Duncan had good series against the Lakers.

Shaq had GREAT series against everybody. He was so dominant in 2000 and 2001 I doubt anyone will be able to duplicate those playoff averages again. You disagree?

btw - "pace" is not the same as "points per game". The Lakers could score more points at same pace if they were more efficient (which they probably were since they had Shaq).

Duncan had a "good" series when he averaged when he averaged 29 and 17 and 5, but SHaq had GREAT series against everybody when he averaged 30/15/3 in 2001 and 29/13/3 in 2001 and 2002 that will not be duplicated?

Duncan averaged 28/14/5/4 in 2002 and 25/15/5/3 in 2002 and 2003 playoffs, but those were just good series.

[da_suns_fan]

Are you blind?

Excuse me. I meant 2000 and 2001 (Shaqs most dominant years).

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan had a "good" series when he averaged when he averaged 29 and 17 and 5, but SHaq had GREAT series against everybody when he averaged 30/15/3 in 2001 and 29/13/3 in 2001 and 2002 that will not be duplicated?

Duncan averaged 28/14/5/4 in 2002 and 25/15/5/3 in 2002 and 2003 playoffs, but those were just good series.

Those werent SHaq's "Series" averages. They were his PLAYOFF averages.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

That means across 8 straight playoff series between 2000 and 2001 Shaquille ONeal averaged 30 points, 15 rebounds, 2 blocks and 55% shooting. Thats INSANE and Duncan could never touch those number. AT BEST, you could argue "well if Duncan's team played at same pace he could have duplicated these number extrapolating his per possession blah blah blah" but thats ridiculous.

[vander]

didn't read the whole thread, but did OP ever give his top 10 players and why he considered them?

[Arnold Toht]

Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Wilt
Kobe
Lebron
Russell
Bird
Hakeem
Oscar
Moses Malone
Karl Malone
Isiah Thomas
Stockton
Garnett
Durant

[midnightpulp]

Those werent SHaq's "Series" averages. They were his PLAYOFF averages.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

That means across 8 straight playoff series between 2000 and 2001 Shaquille ONeal averaged 30 points, 15 rebounds, 2 blocks and 55% shooting. Thats INSANE and Duncan could never touch those number. AT BEST, you could argue "well if Duncan's team played at same pace he could have duplicated these number extrapolating his per possession blah blah blah" but thats ridiculous.

Quit using per game stats.

This isn't the 90's.

I also like how you ignored my counterargument when I directly asked you why you place such importance on per game stats when they're proven to be inaccurate.

You're either trolling or stuck in the stone ages with Lakers fans.

[midnightpulp]

This latest query just shows what a great passer Barkley was (for a big man). Look at the jump from number two to number one. When you add in an assist parameter, Barkley is almost always at the top (usually filtered by KG). Likewise as you increase scoring, Duncan falls further and further to the bottom.

And your PACE excuse is pathetic. Did you forget that Shaquille Oneal had his highest playoff scoring numbers in years in which he faced Duncan and the Spurs? And which team did Shaq play off that averaged "120" points or anything even close?

You cant blame Duncan's deficiencies on era or pace. He just simply wasnt the scorer that Oneal and Hakeem were. Another thing stats dont account for is the amount of double (or triple teams) each player saw. Shaq probably saw a record number of double or triple teams in his prime years.....YOU HAD TO. If you didnt he was dunking it. He was THAT dominant.

Are you retarded? Serious question?

I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you since you don't even have the ability to understand how "averages" work. Shaq having his overall best playoff stats during years in which he played the Spurs means nothing if he's averaging 38 and 16 in other playoff series.

If you weren't so fundamentally hard-headed and biased (only searching for information that supports your argument), you'd find that Shaq averaged lower numbers against the Spurs than all other playoff teams during his better years.

Head-to-head playoff stats vs. Duncan:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=duncati01#stats_playoffs::none

Duncan wins the majority of categories, even outscoring Shaq by 3 points per game. Granted, these stats factor in the '08 series against your shitty Suns, but even if we adjust the stats, Duncan is still on par with Shaq.

Shaq vs. Malik Rose, who was with the Spurs from 99 to 04, meaning these are "prime/peak" Shaq's stats against the Spurs:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=rosema01&p2=onealsh01#stats_playoffs::none

:lol Duncan still wins the PPG category by a point.

Amb even cited data (in a long ago post) that showed Shaq shot lower than 50% in isolation post-up situations against Duncan. This was done to debunk the claim that Robinson did all the heavy defensive lifting against Shaq while Duncan coasted. Duncan and Robinson both guarded Shaq a similar amount, and Shaq actually shot worse against Duncan.

"Pace excuse"

I already shown how pace affects per game stats in my earlier post that you conveniently ignored. A rookie/sophomore Shaq actually had more "big games" per season than peak Shaq, despite the former having a lower usage rate. Like I said, the average pace was much quicker in 92-93/93-94 than it was even a year later, with the average shot attempts per team dropping by almost 400.

You've pretty much ran out of valid arguments. But, by all means, continue to spin. It's amusing.

[da_suns_fan]

Quit using per game stats.

This isn't the 90's.

I also like how you ignored my counterargument when I directly asked you why you place such importance on per game stats when they're proven to be inaccurate.

You're either trolling or stuck in the stone ages with Lakers fans.

LOL...you want to bust out a randomized 2^k factorial experiment with blocking of external factors to determine the win co-efficient for both Duncan and Shaq, be my guest.

But of course, you cant because it doesnt exist. The best analysts can do is try to make sense of statistical noise. I do agree that stats can be misleading. For instance a chucker my put up a lot of points but take an insane amount of shots to achieve it. This isnt the case with Shaq. He averaged 30 & 15 while shooting 55%. If a player did that today in ONE playoff series we would be calling him a generational player. Shaq averaged that across 8 straight playoff series.

The best you and ambchang can do is make excuses for pace and number of possessions. You can ARGUE that Duncan could have put up similar number if he played at the same pace as Shaq, but thats all you can do. Argue. You dont know if Duncan's production would have seen diminishing returns as he had to play more possessions or was asked to carry a larger offensive burden.

In Shaq's case, we dont have to argue. He did it. He averaged 30, 15 and 2 blocks for the entire playoffs TWICE. He put up 40 points and 20 rebounds in the playoffs four times (in that two year span). His team won 12 straight playoffs series.

How many of those things has Duncan done?

If you want to argue that stats dont tell the whole story, I agree. Stats dont show that Shaq put up those insane numbers despite being double and triple teamed almost every time he got the ball. They dont show how teams resorted to "Hack-a-Shaq" to try and somehow contain him. How the league introduced a shorter three point line to help defenses collapse on him (it didnt work). He was too big and too strong.

The only player I can think that was as dominant as Shaq in 2000 & 2001 was Barry Bonds (and he was on steroids). I remember the Danny Ainge quote around 2001 was "its like watching an 8th grader play against a bunch of 5th graders".

Tim Duncan? Please.

The only thing capable of stopping Shaq was Shaq himself. In his later years Im sure Duncan outplayed him, but when asked "who was better" or "more dominant" the answer is easily Shaq to anyone outside of San Antonio.

But you and ambchang can continue to grasp straws if you want. No ones buying it.

[midnightpulp]

LOL...you want to bust out a randomized 2^k factorial experiment with blocking of external factors to determine the win co-efficient for both Duncan and Shaq, be my guest.

But of course, you cant because it doesnt exist. The best analysts can do is try to make sense of statistical noise. I do agree that stats can be misleading. For instance a chucker my put up a lot of points but take an insane amount of shots to achieve it. This isnt the case with Shaq. He averaged 30 & 15 while shooting 55%. If a player did that today in ONE playoff series we would be calling him a generational player. Shaq averaged that across 8 straight playoff series.

Yes, and the modern statistical methods we use now make much better (and more accurate sense) of statistical noise. Rally against them all you want, but they correlate better to success than raw per game stats can ever hope to. If you have evidence to the contrary that raw per game stats are more accurate, I'd love to see it. You also again fail to consider defensive impact, where Shaq is measurably average.


The best you and ambchang can do is make excuses for pace and number of possessions. You can ARGUE that Duncan could have put up similar number if he played at the same pace as Shaq, but thats all you can do. Argue. You dont know if Duncan's production would have seen diminishing returns as he had to play more possessions or was asked to carry a larger offensive burden.

I've never made "excuses" for Duncan. His per game stats are dominant. He only trails Shaq in PPG and out produces him other categories. But for the sake of the argument, let's see how Duncan functioned in a high pace environment (I'll use his playoff stats against Steve Nash, who always played at a high pace under Nelson and then under D'Antoni).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=nashst01#stats_playoffs::none

Looks pretty dominant to me, close to your coveted 30, 15, 2 (note: One of those series was in Duncan's rookie year, while the other was in '10, when he was on the decline. In both, Duncan averaged about 20 ppg and 10 rpg. If we exclude those, Duncan would be much closer to 30, 15, 2). Of course, Duncan wasn't the scorer Shaq was, and no one is arguing that, but Duncan was the superior defender, a fact you keep glossing over.


In Shaq's case, we dont have to argue. He did it. He averaged 30, 15 and 2 blocks for the entire playoffs TWICE. He put up 40 points and 20 rebounds in the playoffs four times (in that two year span). His team won 12 straight playoffs series.

And? If you want to invoke "team" accomplishments, Duncan also wins out there, despite never playing alongside a top ten player in the league his entire career (although Leonard was arguably a top ten player in the league this year). You'll say Duncan had better overall rosters, but I disagree. Tony Parker was proven to have an average impact, even in his prime. And Manu was inconsistent. And David Robinson was past his prime. Duncan never had any teammate close to the level of Kobe Bryant.

And again, why the arbitrary citing of 40/20? Because it looks nice? Why not 28, 15, 5, and 5? or 20, 20, 8, and 3? Or some other arbitrary number chosen out of a hat?


If you want to argue that stats dont tell the whole story, I agree. Stats dont show that Shaq put up those insane numbers despite being double and triple teamed almost every time he got the ball. They dont show how teams resorted to "Hack-a-Shaq" to try and somehow contain him. How the league introduced a shorter three point line to help defenses collapse on him (it didnt work). He was too big and too strong.

The Spurs rarely doubled him, and Shaq had his worst playoff series against them. I can also break out various eye-test qualifications for Duncan, especially on the defensive end. Further, +/- seeks to quantify a player's overall floor impact, so the amount of double teams a player receives (that leads to easier scoring opportunities for his teammates) would factor in.


The only thing capable of stopping Shaq was Shaq himself. In his later years Im sure Duncan outplayed him, but when asked "who was better" or "more dominant" the answer is easily Shaq to anyone outside of San Antonio.

Did you just watching basketball last year? Duncan destroyed him in their very first playoff matchup.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1999_WCS_LAL-SAS.html

Shaq got his revenge in '01. And in '02, I'd say Duncan won the player battle, while Shaq's team won the series.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2002_WCS_SAS-LAL.html

And we know what happened in '03.


But you and ambchang can continue to grasp straws if you want. No ones buying it.

Yeah, I'm only backing up my claims using modern stats and cogent arguments, while you stubbornly stick to outmoded per game stats and arbitrary ideas of "big games." You also haven't once acknowledged defensive impact.

I don't care if you think Shaq was a better player than Duncan. That's not what irritates me. It's the terrible way you're trying to support it, by appealing to raw per game stats, media hyperbole, and "big games."

[Arcadian]

Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Wilt
Kobe
Lebron
Russell
Bird
Hakeem
Oscar
Moses Malone
Karl Malone
Isiah Thomas
Stockton
Garnett
Durant

That...is quite possibly the worst list ever constructed for anything in history. :lol

[ambchang]

So after all of this, all you wanted to say was that O'Neal and Hakeem were better scorers? O'Neal? Sure, why not? Hakeem not so much. But why did you say that he wasn't in the same level of dominance as those two? Do you understand dominance and scoring are two different things?

Per 100 possessions, which actually does take into account pace, Duncan averaged 30.1pp100, while Hakeem had 30.3pp100. Duncan had a peak of 33.5 and Hakeem 35.8. not really that big of a difference. But if you factor in assists, Duncan averaged 4.7ap100, and Hakeem had 3.4ap100. Duncan's peak was 5.7, while Hakeem's peak was 4.7 (same as Duncan's average).

O"Neal was his most dominant during the three peat. The Lakers scored 100.8, 100.6 and 101.3 ppg.

Duncan was most dominant from 2001 to 2004, in those years, the Spurs averaged 96.2, 96.7, 95.8 and 91.5 ppg. That alone accounted for 5 to 10% of the difference. And the 120 ppg was an illustration to explain to you what pace means, since you either do not understand what it means, or is actively trying to avoid the topic.

And no, Shaq had the lowest average in his prime in a series vs. the Spurs, averaging 21.4ppg in 2002. In the same series, Duncan averaged 29. In the next year, Shaq averaged 25.3ppg in the series vs. the Spurs, while Duncan aveaged 28. Even in the peak of his prime, in 2001, Shaq "only" averaged 27 ppg vs. the Spurs, while Duncan averaged 23. In 1999, Duncan averaged 29 while Shaq managed 23.8ppg in the same series. In 2004, Shaq averaged 22.5 while Duncan averaged 20.7. To summarize for you, Duncan out scored Shaq 3 out of 5 times in h2h series between 1999 and 2004. Fact check your garbage before you spew it out.


Excuse me. I meant 2000 and 2001 (Shaqs most dominant years).

Really, what the hell is wrong with you? Shaq and Duncan didn't even face off in 2000

[ambchang]

Those werent SHaq's "Series" averages. They were his PLAYOFF averages.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

That means across 8 straight playoff series between 2000 and 2001 Shaquille ONeal averaged 30 points, 15 rebounds, 2 blocks and 55% shooting. Thats INSANE and Duncan could never touch those number. AT BEST, you could argue "well if Duncan's team played at same pace he could have duplicated these number extrapolating his per possession blah blah blah" but thats ridiculous.

Duncan had 28/14/5/4 in the 2002 playoffs, that's 37/19/6.6/5.7 p100
25/15/5/3 per game and 31/19/6.6/4 p100 in 2003 playoffs

Shaq, in 2001 - 38/19/4/3 (pts/reb/asst/blks) p100
Shaq, in 2000 - 38/19/4/3 p100

Please, look things up.

[ambchang]

da_suns_fan, what happened to the scoring comparison with Hakeem?

[Clipper Nation]

Da_suns_rag just soaking in all the jizz ITT :lol

[da_suns_fan]

LOL...you want to bust out a randomized 2^k factorial experiment with blocking of external factors to determine the win co-efficient for both Duncan and Shaq, be my guest.

But of course, you cant because it doesnt exist. The best analysts can do is try to make sense of statistical noise. I do agree that stats can be misleading. For instance a chucker my put up a lot of points but take an insane amount of shots to achieve it. This isnt the case with Shaq. He averaged 30 & 15 while shooting 55%. If a player did that today in ONE playoff series we would be calling him a generational player. Shaq averaged that across 8 straight playoff series.

The best you and ambchang can do is make excuses for pace and number of possessions. You can ARGUE that Duncan could have put up similar number if he played at the same pace as Shaq, but thats all you can do. Argue. You dont know if Duncan's production would have seen diminishing returns as he had to play more possessions or was asked to carry a larger offensive burden.

In Shaq's case, we dont have to argue. He did it. He averaged 30, 15 and 2 blocks for the entire playoffs TWICE. He put up 40 points and 20 rebounds in the playoffs four times (in that two year span). His team won 12 straight playoffs series.

How many of those things has Duncan done?

If you want to argue that stats dont tell the whole story, I agree. Stats dont show that Shaq put up those insane numbers despite being double and triple teamed almost every time he got the ball. They dont show how teams resorted to "Hack-a-Shaq" to try and somehow contain him. How the league introduced a shorter three point line to help defenses collapse on him (it didnt work). He was too big and too strong.

The only player I can think that was as dominant as Shaq in 2000 & 2001 was Barry Bonds (and he was on steroids). I remember the Danny Ainge quote around 2001 was "its like watching an 8th grader play against a bunch of 5th graders".

Tim Duncan? Please.

The only thing capable of stopping Shaq was Shaq himself. In his later years Im sure Duncan outplayed him, but when asked "who was better" or "more dominant" the answer is easily Shaq to anyone outside of San Antonio.

But you and ambchang can continue to grasp straws if you want. No ones buying it.

Bumping this gem for monospulp to pour salt into today's wound :lol

[dbreiden83080]

Uh

5 NBA titles
3 finals MVP's
2 league MVP's
15 time all star
10 time all NBA fist team
8 time first team defense
NBA rookie of the year

He's pretty good..

[dbreiden83080]

Parker in 07, Leonard in 14, and Ginobli's entire playoffrun in 05.

You obviously didn't watch the playoff run in 05. And who was the best player in the playoffs in 2007? It sure as shit wasn't Tony Parker..

2007 VS the Suns was the toughest series by far. Duncan dropped 27 and 14 on 57%..

[midnightpulp]

Bumping this gem for monospulp to pour salt into today's wound :lol

Your "gem" got crushed into dust by my response, and you promptly gave up, as usual.

Basing your whole argument on "Per game" stats :lol

[ambchang]

Regardless, both Duncan and Shaq deserves a parade.

[DMC]

Someone needs to update that trophy pic for Lebron