Tim Duncan is the third best player of all time..

[apalisoc_9]

Only behind Jordan and kareem...

Top 3

[Spurtacular]

Second only behind Larry Bird, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

Faggot who called TD nothing more than a stat padder trying to talk.....

[Darth_Pelican]

Short term memory? Amnesia? Schtick change? You already said that Lebron was the greatest player of all time. Suddenly he isn't even in your top 3?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261460

[Spurtacular]

Short term memory? Amnesia? Schtick change? You already said that Lebron was the greatest player of all time. Suddenly he isn't even in your top 3?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261460

OP is ST GFOAT

[apalisoc_9]

I changed my mind about Lebron. He's fourth in the list. People change their minds. Its not a big deal.

[Arcadian]

I changed my mind about Lebron. He's fourth in the list. People change their minds. Its not a big deal.

Good call, I agree. I have Kareem 1 (I have a bias toward bigs), Jordan 2, Duncan 3, Lebron 4, and Hakeem 5.

[apalisoc_9]

Good call, I agree. I have Kareem 1 (I have a bias toward bigs), Jordan 2, Duncan 3, Lebron 4, and Hakeem 5.

No way Hakeem is 5. Don't get me wrong, hes pretty underrated...In large part because of who he prays to...but hes not top 5, imo.

[Arcadian]

No way Hakeem is 5. Don't get me wrong, hes pretty underrated...In large part because of who he prays to...but hes not top 5, imo.

Who you got at 5? I place a lot of value in the peak, and you gotta admit Hakeem's peak was legendary. That's interesting that you say he's underrated but not top 5, because I see a lot of people saying he's top 10, and some even consider him the goat center. So to me, 5 is a perfect placement.

[Pelicans78]

I would put Magic over Kareem and in the top 3.

[Bynumite]

System player, couldn't win outside the system with a stacked team, wasn't the best player on his team for over half of his career, is a cuckold.

[Fabbs]

Schtick change?
:lol good term. Should be a staple around here.

[Seventyniner]

:lol good term. Should be a staple around here.

I'd prefer "schtick shift."

[Seventyniner]

System player, couldn't win outside the system with a stacked team, wasn't the best player on his team for over half of his career, is a cuckold.

Why would you bring Kobe into this?

[ambchang]

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Duncan
5. Hakeem
6. Shaq
7. Moses
8. Lebron
9. Bird
10. Wilt
11. Russell
12. Oscar

1. and 2. are pretty much set, 3 and 4 are interchangeable, 5 to 9, maybe 8, is a group that you can switch around. 10 to 12 can be moved up, depending on how much weight you give old timers.

Dr. J, Dirk, Garnett, Robinson, Barkley, Stockton, Pippen, McHale, and Kobe comes next.
Then there are the other old timers like Pettit, Neil Johnston and West can be placed in that next-tier group.

[spurraider21]

7. Moses
8. Lebron
:lol

[ambchang]

:lol

Yeah, maybe gone too far with my Moses love.

But like I said, 5 to 8 is pretty much interchangeable. I should have probably put Lebron on the higher range, in the order of Lebron, Hakeem, Shaq, Moses.

[da_suns_fan]

To play for the Spurs?

[da_suns_fan]

Again, you'd have to be the worlds biggest homer to put Duncan ahead of Shaq and Hakeem.

[I. Hustle]

Again, you'd have to be the worlds biggest homer to put Duncan ahead of Shaq and Hakeem.

You're kidding, right? This is a troll job, isn't it? It has to be.

[140]

You're kidding, right? This is a troll job, isn't it? It has to be.
No, it isn't. Duncan didn't repeat.

[HarlemHeat37]

Hakeem is extremely overrated, tbh..elite 2-season peak that was matched by very few, but unimpressive resume compared to his peers..

It's a product of nostalgia and aesthetics..

Top 3 finish in WS/48:
Shaq- 7
Duncan- 4
Hakeem- 2

BPM:
Shaq- 4
Duncan- 3
Hakeem- 2


VORP:
Duncan- 5
Shaq- 2
Hakeem- 2

PER:
Shaq- 11
Duncan- 4
Hakeem- 4

MVP votes:
Shaq- 5
Duncan- 5
Hakeem- 2


You can list the accomplishments and accolades, and you'll see that Shaq and Duncan are significantly more decorated than Hakeem the Pedo..

[ambchang]

Hakeem is extremely overrated, tbh..elite 2-season peak that was matched by only a few, but unimpressive resume compared to his peers..

It's a product of nostalgia and aesthetics..

Agreed to a degree.

He was always dominant individually, but there were prime years he was finishing 2nd and 3rd teams behind Ewing and a young Robinson because he didn't play in the right system.

Rudy T saved Hakeem's legacy.

[AlexJones]

1. Dad Killer
2. Lebron
3. AIDS
4. Duncan
5. Shaq
6 Hakeem the Pedo
7 Moses Malone
8. KG
9. Kobe
10. Nowitzki

A top 10 list without that certain person* in it? you asking for 100000000 notifications from white posters?

[HarlemHeat37]

Agreed to a degree.

He was always dominant individually, but there were prime years he was finishing 2nd and 3rd teams behind Ewing and a young Robinson because he didn't play in the right system.

Rudy T saved Hakeem's legacy.

I don't feel like looking it up on my phone, but didn't he miss the playoffs during his prime years, too, IIRC?

I'm not one of those ignorant fans that judges players solely by wins and losses(not even close), but an NBA player missing the playoffs in a prime year is a severe indictment IMO, regardless of supporting cast..an individual player in the NBA won't win you a championship all by himself, but he should absolutely be able to carry a team to the playoffs..

[I. Hustle]

I don't feel like looking it up on my phone, but didn't he miss the playoffs during his prime years, too, IIRC?

I'm not one of those ignorant fans that judges players solely by wins and losses(not even close), but an NBA player missing the playoffs in a prime year is a severe indictment IMO, regardless of supporting cast..an individual player in the NBA won't win you a championship all by himself, but he should absolutely be able to carry a team to the playoffs..

Geez, compare that to how many times TD missed the playoffs.

[Killakobe81]

I don't feel like looking it up on my phone, but didn't he miss the playoffs during his prime years, too, IIRC?

I'm not one of those ignorant fans that judges players solely by wins and losses(not even close), but an NBA player missing the playoffs in a prime year is a severe indictment IMO, regardless of supporting cast..an individual player in the NBA won't win you a championship all by himself, but he should absolutely be able to carry a team to the playoffs..

Looking at things in absolutes without some context is silly ...
Anthony davis missed the playoffs last year are we going to judge him harshly for that years from now and pretend that he and his team were not devastated by injuries?
Is kiwi a better young stud because he has not missed the playoffs but Unibrow has?
Although i agree a great should be able to make the playoffs you do need to have some perspective ...

[TD 21]

Hakeem is extremely overrated, tbh..elite 2-season peak that was matched by very few, but unimpressive resume compared to his peers..

It's a product of nostalgia and aesthetics..

Top 3 finish in WS/48:
Shaq- 7
Duncan- 4
Hakeem- 2

BPM:
Shaq- 4
Duncan- 3
Hakeem- 2


VORP:
Duncan- 5
Shaq- 2
Hakeem- 2

PER:
Shaq- 11
Duncan- 4
Hakeem- 4

MVP votes:
Shaq- 5
Duncan- 5
Hakeem- 2


You can list the accomplishments and accolades, and you'll see that Shaq and Duncan are significantly more decorated than Hakeem the Pedo..

:tu

How does Abdul-Jabbar not make your top 10? I know he played in the 70s, but so did Malone, though more of his prime was in the 80s.


Duncan is in the top four, along with Jordan, James and Abdul-Jabbar.

[StrengthAndHonor]

Again, you'd have to be the worlds biggest homer to put Duncan ahead of Shaq and Hakeem.
In retrospect, I agree. Olajuwon's run in the 90's and O'Neals peak puts Duncan's success to shame.

[lefty]

Bird is the GOAT tbh

[apalisoc_9]

Bird is the GOAT tbh

A brownie sucking up to a white man. Yikes. The least respectable of the human folks, imo.

[Clipper Nation]

Duncan is the second best player of all time - only behind LeGOAT.

MVPippen's sidekick isn't even in the conversation, tbh.

[lefty]

A brownie sucking up to a white man. Yikes. The least respectable of the human folks, imo.

I'm white tbh
(But I do tan easily)

[apalisoc_9]

Duncan is the second best player of all time - only behind LeGOAT.

MVPippen's sidekick isn't even in the conversation, tbh.

Dad killer wouldnt even be a top 10 player in this league tbh.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Duncan is the second best player of all time - only behind LeGOAT.

MVPippen's sidekick isn't even in the conversation, tbh.

You have no business discussing greatness. Literally, NO business.

[Silver&Black]

Dad killer wouldnt even be a top 10 player in this league tbh.

Then why in the OP do you have him top 2 of all time?

Did you change your mind again?

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Dad killer wouldnt even be a top 10 player in this league tbh.

ISOball just won a championship. :lol

:lol todays NBA

[Silver&Black]

You have no business discussing greatness. Literally, NO business.

His favorite NBA team has 5 NBA Championships. He's qualified IMO.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

His favorite NBA team has 5 NBA Championships. He's qualified IMO.

:lol

[Buddy Mignon]

His stats don't show it.

[lefty]

ISOball just won a championship. :lol

:lol todays NBA

:lol my niglet

:lol sophistocatedball beaten by 90sball

:lol today's NBA

[poeticism707]

Why would you bring Kobe into this?

:rollin :rollin :rollin

[da_suns_fan]

In 2000, Shaq averaged 30 points, 13.6 rebounds and 3 blocks a game on .574% shooting.

Who the fuck is Tim Duncan?

[z0sa]

In 2000, Shaq averaged 30 points, 13.6 rebounds and 3 blocks a game on .574% shooting.

Who the fuck is Tim Duncan?

The guy who swept him the previous season.

[da_suns_fan]

The guy who swept him the previous season.

And got swept by him the following season.

[Silver&Black]

Who the fuck is Tim Duncan?

He's the reason why you're still 0 & Forever

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Horry's the reason why you're still 0 & Forever

[td4mvp2k]

In retrospect, I agree. Olajuwon's run in the 90's and O'Neals peak puts Duncan's success to shame.
5>4

[spurraider21]

Then why in the OP do you have him top 2 of all time?

Did you change your mind again?
shtick shift

[Arcadian]

In 2000, Shaq averaged 30 points, 13.6 rebounds and 3 blocks a game on .574% shooting.

Who the fuck is Tim Duncan?

The guy who did this to him:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR6AgYWdoBQ

Duncan made Shaq look like a lazy piece of shit in '03. For example, there is one play shown in this video (6:30) when Duncan missed a shot, and Shaq started running the other direction without even trying to rebound. Here's a 325-pound man who could box out every other NBA player on one leg if he tried, and he's abandoning that rebound just so he can plod his way down the court to set up in his one spot where he's effective on offense :lol... Fucking unbelievable. Then Duncan easily grabbed the rebound over Horry and scored. And that's why Tim Duncan is greater than Shaq: he had the complete game, he put in way more effort, and he was a much better defensive player.

[ambchang]

I don't feel like looking it up on my phone, but didn't he miss the playoffs during his prime years, too, IIRC?

I'm not one of those ignorant fans that judges players solely by wins and losses(not even close), but an NBA player missing the playoffs in a prime year is a severe indictment IMO, regardless of supporting cast..an individual player in the NBA won't win you a championship all by himself, but he should absolutely be able to carry a team to the playoffs..

Hakeem did miss the playoffs in 92, but he missed 12 games that year, and the Rockets finished 9th that year, missing out by one game. In the 12 games Hakeem missed, the Rockets were something like 2-10 or something like that. They would have made the playoffs if Hakeem played just one or two more games that year. But such is luck.

I give Hakeem a pass on this part because of that. Hakeem was rated about fairly during his days, but then people look back at what he did in 94 and 95, and then looked up his stats, and thought "guy was as good as 94 and 95 as he was in 88 to 96, he just didn't have a good team". But the truth is, he wasn't. He pouted openly, he was very much a ballhog who didn't trust his teammates all the way up to about 92. Allah helped him calm down, and Rudy T put a system around him to succeed.

Kareem missed two playoffs in his prime (75 with the Bucks and 76 with the Lakers), but it is sort of a little different.

In 75, the Bucks finished 38-44 that season, but Kareem only played 65 games. The Bucks started 2-14 in the first 16 games without Kareem, and really never recovered. The Bucks would have easily been 4th or 5th seed that season if Kareem played a few more games.

In 76, the Lakers actually had the forth best record in the West, and should have made the playoffs, but unfortunately, they were in the Pacific division and playoffs seeding was determined by top 2 teams in each division + 1 more based on better record in the conference (so max 3 per division), the Lakers missed it despite having a better record than the 2nd and 5th seed that year.

76 I can give him a pass, 75 is a little iffy.

[Kawhitstorm]

Hakeem is extremely overrated, tbh..elite 2-season peak that was matched by very few, but unimpressive resume compared to his peers..

Hakeem at his PEAK played with a bunch of nobodies, Kareem at his PEAK was missing the postseason playing w/a similar cast.:lol


You can list the accomplishments and accolades, and you'll see that Shaq and Duncan are significantly more decorated than Hakeem the Pedo..

Karl Malone's individual accolades.:wow

[da_suns_fan]

Stupid Spurs fans use team accomplishments vs individual accomplishments when it suits them.

Duncan doesnt have great individual numbers so they use team accomplishments. A player whose team never missed the playoffs must be better than a player whose team did miss the playoffs.

But by that logic it was DUNCAN who lost to an eighth seed. It was DUNCAN who lost to OKC with home court advantage TWICE. It was Duncan who never repeated.

The fact is Duncan was good but not great and at no point in his career was even close to the dominance of Shaq and Hakeem.

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan's best year: 25 points, 12.7 rebounds 3 blocks , 4 assists on 50% shooting playing 40 minutes a game.

If a player did that today we would be saying he's an all-star or all-nba but not greatest of all time.

Shaq's best year: 30 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3 blocks, 4 assists on 57% shooting playing 40 minutes a game.

If a player did that today we would be calling him the greatest ever etc.

These respective seasons were three years apart so you cant go with the "era" excuse.

30 points on 57% shooting. Thats fucking ridiculous and you almost forget how at that time the rest of the league basically said "fuck it...we just have to wait this out".

Again, you have to be the biggest fucking homer to put Duncan ahead of Shaq or Hakeem. He wasnt on their level.

[Arcadian]

All of Shaq's shots were at the basket or three feet away at most. Duncan had a midrange and high post game. That accounts for the difference in FG%.

Play style affects stats more than you think.

[da_suns_fan]

All of Shaq's shots were at the basket or three feet away at most. Duncan had a midrange and high post game. That accounts for the difference in FG%.

Play style affects stats more than you think.

Uh-huh...so why didnt Duncan just move closer to the basket then?

Oh..because he couldnt. He couldnt muscle his way inside like Shaq could. Thats what made Shaq so dominant.

[Arcadian]

Uh-huh...so why didnt Duncan just move closer to the basket then?

Oh..because he couldnt. He couldnt muscle his way inside like Shaq could. Thats what made Shaq so dominant.

Well yes, you have to play the way that is best suited to your physical stature. Duncan was still one of the strongest players in the league though. He played primarily out of the low post, but he was way more versatile on offense than Shaq. And stop brushing aside the defensive end. Duncan was the superior defensive player by Shaq's own admission. Therefore Duncan was a superior two-way player, i.e. the superior player in general.

[da_suns_fan]

Well yes, you have to play the way that is best suited to your physical stature. Duncan was still one of the strongest players in the league though. He played primarily out of the low post, but he was way more versatile on offense than Shaq. And stop brushing aside the defensive end. Duncan was the superior defensive player by Shaq's own admission. Therefore Duncan was a superior two-way player, i.e. the superior player in general.

:lol

Any advantage Duncan had on Shaq defensively hardly counters the ENORMOUS differences offensively. The thing about Duncan's best year (25ppg) was that it was an anomaly. The best he ever did besides that year was 23 a game.

Lets not forget the league INVENTED A RULE to stop teams from Hack-a-Shaq-ing in the final two minutes. Teams decided their only defense against Shaq was to foul at the start of every possession.

Duncan wasnt a good free throw shooter either (one year he averaged .599). Teams didnt need to foul because he could be guarded by individual player. You didnt need to send three guys to try and stop him if he got down low.

Shaq was just a different breed and its comical to watch Spurs fans desperately try to make a case for why Duncan was "better". Shaq was the most dominant player in probably any sport outside of maybe Barry Bonds.

[ambchang]

Stupid Spurs fans use team accomplishments vs individual accomplishments when it suits them.

Duncan doesnt have great individual numbers so they use team accomplishments. A player whose team never missed the playoffs must be better than a player whose team did miss the playoffs.

But by that logic it was DUNCAN who lost to an eighth seed. It was DUNCAN who lost to OKC with home court advantage TWICE. It was Duncan who never repeated.

The fact is Duncan was good but not great and at no point in his career was even close to the dominance of Shaq and Hakeem.

Duncan ranks #6 in career win shares (above all PF except Karl Malone, above Shaq and Hakeem). 13th in ws/48 (Above Hakeem, Malone), 13th in PER(Above malone and Hakeem), 17th in rebounding % (above everyone you listed), #12 in BPM (Above everyone you listed), #7 in DBPM (Above everyone you listed), and #6 in VORP (Above Hakeem, Shaq).

He won b2b MVPs during Shaq's prime.
He won 3 FMVPs
He had comparable or higher per 100 possession stats than Hakeem and Shaq in their primes
He outscored, outrebounded and outblocked Shaq in their h2h

[Fabbs]

Lets not forget the league INVENTED A RULE
You mean the one where Shaqs fat ass was allowed to camp in the key for 7 seconds, catch the inlet pass, steamroll over a completely set defender and then have millions of Laker Phans jerk off as the ref remembered his orders from Stern?

Ya.

Watch a game Sparky.

[Arcadian]

:lol

Any advantage Duncan had on Shaq defensively hardly counters the ENORMOUS differences offensively. The thing about Duncan's best year (25ppg) was that it was an anomaly. The best he ever did besides that year was 23 a game.

Lets not forget the league INVENTED A RULE to stop teams from Hack-a-Shaq-ing in the final two minutes. Teams decided their only defense against Shaq was to foul at the start of every possession.

Duncan wasnt a good free throw shooter either (one year he averaged .599). Teams didnt need to foul because he could be guarded by individual player. You didnt need to send three guys to try and stop him if he got down low.

Shaq was just a different breed and its comical to watch Spurs fans desperately try to make a case for why Duncan was "better". Shaq was the most dominant player in probably any sport outside of maybe Barry Bonds.

And yet the general consensus is that Duncan > Shaq. You're in the minority, sorry. Most people see what you can't because they don't have an extreme bias against one of those two players, as you obviously do.

All you can really say is that Shaq was more "dominant," which is always ambiguous. If you use any other adjective, Duncan wins. More skilled? Duncan. Better career? Duncan. Better legacy? Duncan. Better teammate? Duncan. Better winner? Duncan.

Better basketball player? Duncan.

25 ppg was not an "anomaly." During his prime, an NBA scout once wrote, "Tim Duncan could average 35 ppg if he wanted to." This report was published in ESPN magazine; I remember reading it when I was a kid. Obviously it's just one guy's opinion, but his opinion means more to me than yours. Everyone knows Tim was, if anything, statistically limited by his coach and system. And he was an extremely team-oriented superstar. Stop conveniently forgetting things we all know to be true.

His FT% was all over the place, but at least Tim proved he was capable of shooting 80% from the line in two seasons, unlike Shaq who was just consistently bad.

[mystargtr34]

Tbh when comparing stats between players who played similar minutes/similar roles it's best to use per-100 possession stats if you want to look at statistical dominance. That's when Duncan's number really start to pop, because the Spurs were always the bottom 5 in pace throughout Duncan's first 10-12 years.

Per 100 possessions, Duncan's scoring was actually very similar to Hakeem's, given Hakeem's Rockets, like most teams in the late 80's and early 90's played at higher paces, which lead to slightly inflated stats.

Career points per 100 possessions
Hakeem - 30.3 (career high = 35.8)
Duncan - 29.7 (career high = 33.5)
Shaq - 35.2 (career high 40.1 :lol)

Career rebounds, assists, blocks per 100 poss.
Hakeem 15.5 REB, 3.4 AST, 4.3 BLK
Duncan 16.9 REB, 4.7 AST, 3.4 BLK
Shaq - 16.1 REB, 3.7 AST, 3.4 BLK

Peak
Hakeem 18.2 REB, 4.7 AST, 5.8 BLK
Duncan 18.3 REB, 5.7 AST, 4.5 BLK
Shaq 18.2 REB, 5.0 AST, 4.6 BLK

There's no doubt Shaq was a more dominant scorer than Duncan and Hakeem (by points scored anyway), but Duncan had both covered in rebounding and assists, while Hakeem was head and shoulders above in blocked shots.

[Killakobe81]

Duncan ranks #6 in career win shares (above all PF except Karl Malone, above Shaq and Hakeem). 13th in ws/48 (Above Hakeem, Malone), 13th in PER(Above malone and Hakeem), 17th in rebounding % (above everyone you listed), #12 in BPM (Above everyone you listed), #7 in DBPM (Above everyone you listed), and #6 in VORP (Above Hakeem, Shaq).

He won b2b MVPs during Shaq's prime.
He won 3 FMVPs
He had comparable or higher per 100 possession stats than Hakeem and Shaq in their primes
He outscored, outrebounded and outblocked Shaq in their h2h

Mvps?
Really?
As for the rest, your numbers make a great case for Duncan over Shaq and hakeem. Not a great one for top 5 or in some cases even a top 10 player tbh

[K...]

Pace pace pace pace pace pace pace pace pace.....Duncan is not a shooting guard! ! .


Two....you can use team accomplishments for players who were clearly alpha. Jordan, Duncan, hakeem, Dirk, best players on their team.

Kg (celtics), Kobe, not exactly beta but not team alpha therefore team accomplishments aren't as good as evidence.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

All of Shaq's shots were at the basket or three feet away at most. Duncan had a midrange and high post game. That accounts for the difference in FG%.

Play style affects stats more than you think.

:lmao Shaq was so dominant he didnt need to shoot from anywhere else.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Stupid Spurs fans use team accomplishments vs individual accomplishments when it suits them.

Duncan doesnt have great individual numbers so they use team accomplishments. A player whose team never missed the playoffs must be better than a player whose team did miss the playoffs.

But by that logic it was DUNCAN who lost to an eighth seed. It was DUNCAN who lost to OKC with home court advantage TWICE. It was Duncan who never repeated.

The fact is Duncan was good but not great and at no point in his career was even close to the dominance of Shaq and Hakeem.

Gotdayum truth bombs. Oh and the fact that Duncan's teams were the best team no longer than 1 year at a time.

[DPG21920]

Mvps?
Really?
As for the rest, your numbers make a great case for Duncan over Shaq and hakeem. Not a great one for top 5 or in some cases even a top 10 player tbh

The crazy thing about just those numbers is it's not really factoring in how much better of a defender Tim was than Shaq and Hakeem. :lmao Saying those numbers don't make a case from Tim in top 10. That is honestly the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard unless I am not getting what you meant.

Obviously Tim was amazing defensively, but people ignoring one whole side of the ball in these debates shows you just how great Tim was.

Normally, when you are literally one of the top 5 defenders of all time (Tim) you aren't supposed to have offensive numbers like Tim.

[djohn2oo8]

The crazy thing about just those numbers is it's not really factoring in how much better of a defender Tim was than Shaq and Hakeem. :lmao .
Hakeem's career high for defensive win shares in a season was 8.7, Tim's was 7.2...And their Drating's are nearly identical with Hakeem playing less games than Duncan.

[DPG21920]

Hakeem's career high for defensive win shares in a season was 8.7, Tim's was 7.2...And their Drating's are nearly identical with Hakeem playing less games than Duncan.

Don't care to get into this, but no, Hakeem was not as good of a defender as TIm (especially factoring in longevity). It was probably not good to lump Hakeem in with Shaq (not the intent there) as Dream was obviously a fine defender, but Tim is literally a top 5 defensive player of all time. Hakeem is up there, but in my opinion he's not as good on the all-time defensive list as Tim.

[DPG21920]

Djohn: Not sure if you read this - but this gives some context to the all around numbers and defense for Tim that I found very interesting:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/farewell-to-tim-duncan-the-greatest-two-way-player-in-modern-nba-history/


And on defense, Duncan was uniformly incredible throughout his career. He was named to 15 All-Defensive teams — the last of which came at age 38 — and led the league in defensive Win Shares five times, to go with nine other top-five finishes. In terms of suppressing offensive efficiency (relative to league average), Duncan’s Spurs were the NBA’s best defensive dynasty since Bill Russell’s Celtics. And even in the twilight of his career, Duncan consistently ranked among the league’s top five defensive players according to the plus/minus metrics. He’s undeniably on the shortlist of the best defenders in basketball history.

[djohn2oo8]

Don't care to get into this, but no, Hakeem was not as good of a defender as TIm (especially factoring in longevity). It was probably not good to lump Hakeem in with Shaq (not the intent there) as Dream was obviously a fine defender, but Tim is literally a top 5 defensive player of all time. Hakeem is up there, but in my opinion he's not as good on the all-time defensive list as Tim.
Who is your top 5?

[djohn2oo8]

Djohn: Not sure if you read this - but this gives some context to the all around numbers and defense for Tim that I found very interesting:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/farewell-to-tim-duncan-the-greatest-two-way-player-in-modern-nba-history/
Regarding the point about best defensive dynasty, Duncan did have damn good defenders around him.

[DPG21920]

Honestly, I struggle with lists like that. While it's subjective to some, there is so much bias and hard habits to break for most that I find it tough. I think advanced numbers give us a better picture and should be leaned on more, but at the same time for defense it's still hard to quantify (so you then run into the same old tired arguments and mindsets).

I would probably have Tim/Lebron/Jordan/Rodman/KG/Russell/Robinson/Hakeem in the core group of top (obviously it's debatable for others like Kareem/Payton/Pippen etc..

[DPG21920]

Regarding the point about best defensive dynasty, Duncan did have damn good defenders around him.

When your team is great for two decades and there is one constant it would be wise not to dismiss it especially when you grade out well individually every single year.

[HarlemHeat37]

Stupid Spurs fans use team accomplishments vs individual accomplishments when it suits them.

Duncan doesnt have great individual numbers so they use team accomplishments. A player whose team never missed the playoffs must be better than a player whose team did miss the playoffs.

But by that logic it was DUNCAN who lost to an eighth seed. It was DUNCAN who lost to OKC with home court advantage TWICE. It was Duncan who never repeated.

The fact is Duncan was good but not great and at no point in his career was even close to the dominance of Shaq and Hakeem.

:lol this clown nitpicking the ONE mention I made of a team accomplishment(missing the playoffs)..your team logic is stupid, as well, since Duncan was well past his prime in 2011..

Duncan's individual advanced numbers are superior to Hakeem's, as I posted earlier..their 2-year peaks are similar, but Duncan's full prime was sustained longer, as the numbers will show..:lol counting stats in 2016..

Hakeem's absolute peak that everybody loves to cite:
1994 playoffs: 27.7 PER(#2), Win Shares 4.3(#1), Box Plus Minus 9.1(#1), Value Over Replacement Player 2.8(#1)

Duncan's absolute peak:
2003 playoffs: 28.4 PER(#2), Win Shares 5.9(#1), Box Plus Minus 11.6(#1), Value Over Replacement Player 3.5(#1)

Duncan's 2003 playoff run is matched by very few, tbh..similar peak, but Duncan has him destroyed in longevity..

[Thread]

da has SF snortin' all over again.

tee, hee.

[DPG21920]

^ You are so so disingenuous it's hilarious.

[djohn2oo8]

:lol this clown nitpicking the ONE mention I made of a team accomplishment(missing the playoffs)..your team logic is stupid, as well, since Duncan was well past his prime in 2011..

Duncan's individual advanced numbers are superior to Hakeem's, as I posted earlier..their 2-year peaks are similar, but Duncan's full prime was sustained longer, as the numbers will show..:lol counting stats in 2016..

Hakeem's absolute peak that everybody loves to cite:
1994 playoffs: 27.7 PER(#2), Win Shares 4.3(#1), Box Plus Minus 9.1(#1), Value Over Replacement Player 2.8(#1)

Duncan's absolute peak:
2003 playoffs: 28.4 PER(#2), Win Shares 5.9(#1), Box Plus Minus 11.6(#1), Value Over Replacement Player 3.5(#1)

Duncan's 2003 playoff run is matched by very few, tbh..similar peak, but Duncan has him destroyed in longevity..
Duncan played less minutes starting at the age of 28. Of course that helped his longevity. Duncan didn't have to carry his team as much as he did when Prime Manu and Parker came onto the scene.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Duncan played less minutes starting at the age of 28. Of course that helped his longevity. Duncan didn't have to carry his team as much as he did when Prime Manu and Parker came onto the scene.

didnt have to play big minutes cause the game was over, first to 80pts wins

90s bball = first to 100pts win

[spurraider21]

Lets not forget the league INVENTED A RULE to stop teams from Hack-a-Shaq-ing in the final two minutes.
yes excellent point. the league needed a rule to cover up shaq's biggest weakness and artificially increase his effectiveness

[spurraider21]

Hakeem's career high for defensive win shares in a season was 8.7, Tim's was 7.2...And their Drating's are nearly identical with Hakeem playing less games than Duncan.
d-rating isn't affected by how many games you've played. its a per possession type stat

[DPG21920]

Duncan played less minutes starting at the age of 28. Of course that helped his longevity. Duncan didn't have to carry his team as much as he did when Prime Manu and Parker came onto the scene.

What? You understand using that logic then dictates that Dreams numbers were inflated. If Tim played less minutes he had less time to inflate numbers.

[da_suns_fan]

Tbh when comparing stats between players who played similar minutes/similar roles it's best to use per-100 possession stats if you want to look at statistical dominance. That's when Duncan's number really start to pop, because the Spurs were always the bottom 5 in pace throughout Duncan's first 10-12 years.

Per 100 possessions, Duncan's scoring was actually very similar to Hakeem's, given Hakeem's Rockets, like most teams in the late 80's and early 90's played at higher paces, which lead to slightly inflated stats.

Career points per 100 possessions
Hakeem - 30.3 (career high = 35.8)
Duncan - 29.7 (career high = 33.5)
Shaq - 35.2 (career high 40.1 :lol)


It really was unfair how unstoppable he was. What that number doesnt show is how many defenders he drew every time he touched the ball. How he got your team in foul trouble early in every quarter. How your teams guards thought twice about driving to the basket because they were afraid of getting physically hurt. King fucking Kong is standing under the basket.

If you had to pick any player in their respective primes for a playoff series, wouldnt you have to at least CONSIDER taking prime Shaq over prime Jordan? Sure Jordan is greatest of all time, but if you have prime 2000/2001 Shaq on your team youre going to have such a huge advantage. The other team is basically fucked.

The 2001 Lakers had prime Shaq, a 23 year old Kobe and a bunch of role players and they lost ONE GAME in the playoffs (including curb-stomping Tim Duncan and the Spurs who had HCA).

Tim Duncan?

Please.

[da_suns_fan]

Regarding the point about best defensive dynasty, Duncan did have damn good defenders around him.

Yes, and Spurs fans act like they had Deion Sanders on their team. As if Tim Duncan took something away from you offensively because he was such a defensive presence.

Amare Stoudemire average 37 ppg in a playoff series against Duncan running the same stupid pick and roll over and over.

Dont get me wrong, he was a good defender. But acting as if he's on par with Shaq because of his defensive skill is ridiculous.

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan ranks #6 in career win shares (above all PF except Karl Malone, above Shaq and Hakeem). 13th in ws/48 (Above Hakeem, Malone), 13th in PER(Above malone and Hakeem), 17th in rebounding % (above everyone you listed), #12 in BPM (Above everyone you listed), #7 in DBPM (Above everyone you listed), and #6 in VORP (Above Hakeem, Shaq).

He won b2b MVPs during Shaq's prime.
He won 3 FMVPs
He had comparable or higher per 100 possession stats than Hakeem and Shaq in their primes
He outscored, outrebounded and outblocked Shaq in their h2h

:lol

Chang loves advanced stats with Duncan but even here its easy to prove Shaq was better (because he WAS). Lets look at who had the highest peak numbers:

Peak Vorp Winner: Shaq (9.4)
Peak BPM Winner: Shaq (9.7)
Peak Win Shares/48 Winner: Shaq (.283)
Peak Win Shares Winner: Shaq (18.6)
Peak PER Winner: Shaq (30.6)

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

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Shaq had higher peak advanced stats in every single category.

Bummer Chang.

[da_suns_fan]

da has SF snortin' all over again.

tee, hee.

The thing is I dont even think they REALLY believe Duncan was better (I mean...seriously). They just WANT to believe he was because it makes them feel better about themselves.

[Thread]

^ You are so so disingenuous it's hilarious.

You have to be to get passed the guard at the door.

[djohn2oo8]

What? You understand using that logic then dictates that Dreams numbers were inflated. If Tim played less minutes he had less time to inflate numbers.
Except it isn't about numbers, it's about staying healthy. Duncan had the chance to play less minutes since he was 28, which prolonged his career. Manu and Parker also helped prolong his career. So when someone says longevity, his body may have broken down sooner had he played heavier minutes like Hakeem did and playing without Manu and Parker.

[TD 21]

Except it isn't about numbers, it's about staying healthy. Duncan had the chance to play less minutes since he was 28, which prolonged his career. Manu and Parker also helped prolong his career. So when someone says longevity, his body may have broken down sooner had he played heavier minutes like Hakeem did and playing without Manu and Parker.

That's speculative though. What's fact, is that Duncan trumps Olajuwon in terms of longevity.

Also, it's not all about offense. Duncan went 12 consecutive seasons playing without another surefire starting big, between Robinson and Aldridge. Splitter was the closest thing to one.

Between Bowen and Leonard, Splitter and Green, he almost single handedly kept them a fringe top 10 defense and after Robinson, almost single handedly kept them an elite defensive rebounding team.

He may have played less regular season minutes than Olajuwon in the back half of their careers, but he played more playoff minutes.

[djohn2oo8]

That's speculative though. What's fact, is that Duncan trumps Olajuwon in terms of longevity.

Also, it's not all about offense. Duncan went 12 consecutive seasons playing without another surefire starting big, between Robinson and Aldridge. Splitter was the closest thing to one.

Between Bowen and Leonard, Splitter and Green, he almost single handedly kept them a fringe top 10 defense and after Robinson, almost single handedly kept them an elite defensive rebounding team.

He may have played less regular season minutes than Olajuwon in the back half of their careers, but he played more playoff minutes.
Less regular season minutes meant Duncan could be fresher in the playoffs. At ages 31 and 32, Dream's best seasons, he played 41 and 39.6 MPG in the regular season, and 43 and 42 MPG in the playoffs in those seasons. In the back half of their careers, Hakeem played 3793 minutes in the playoffs from age 31 to retirement in 83 playoff games, Duncan with 3833 in 113 po games. So, in the back half of their careers, Duncan played 40 more minutes in the playoffs than Dream. Which means, Duncan didn't play a high amount of minutes in the playoffs either once he got into his 30's, while Hakeem was playing 40 MPG until he was 34.

[HarlemHeat37]

Duncan played less minutes starting at the age of 28. Of course that helped his longevity. Duncan didn't have to carry his team as much as he did when Prime Manu and Parker came onto the scene.

That's true, but then we're getting into hypothetical and simulated scenarios(similar to questioning how many rings a player would have with a different supporting cast, etc)..

[TD 21]

Less regular season minutes meant Duncan could be fresher in the playoffs. At ages 31 and 32, Dream's best seasons, he played 41 and 39.6 MPG in the regular season, and 43 and 42 MPG in the playoffs in those seasons. In the back half of their careers, Hakeem played 3793 minutes in the playoffs from age 31 to retirement in 83 playoff games, Duncan with 3833 in 113 po games. So, in the back half of their careers, Duncan played 40 more minutes in the playoffs than Dream. Which means, Duncan didn't play a high amount of minutes in the playoffs either once he got into his 30's, while Hakeem was playing 40 MPG until he was 34.

30 extra playoff games means 30 extra times they needed him to perform at a high level, even if the overall minutes are close. So many players have said a playoff game feels like 2 regular season ones.

Again, Duncan supposedly breaking down sooner is speculative. Either way, Olajuwon looses on both peak and longevity.

[djohn2oo8]

30 extra playoff games means 30 extra times they needed him to perform at a high level, even if the overall minutes are close. So many players have said a playoff game feels like 2 regular season ones.

Again, Duncan supposedly breaking down sooner is speculative. Either way, Olajuwon looses on both peak and longevity.
Doesn't lose on peak. Doing what he did at 31 and 32, is pretty much almost unmatched.

[TD 21]

Doesn't lose on peak. Doing what he did at 31 and 32, is pretty much almost unmatched.

Does lose on peak and when the peak occurred is irrelevant.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=olajuha01&y1=1994&y2=2003&p2=duncati01&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

[Arcadian]

:lmao Shaq was so dominant he didnt need to shoot from anywhere else.

Yeah yeah, that's the typical line, but it's disingenuous because he really wasn't capable of doing anything else. You can argue that he didn't need a jumpshot or handles, and that's fine. But it means he was less skilled at basketball, and that's a fact.

Anybody can learn to play like Tim Duncan and benefit from it, regardless of physical stature. (There are a few exceptions to this, like not everybody can make a right hand leaner over their right shoulder with a defender in their face, because you need to be 6'11 with a ridiculous wingspan to pull that off.) But nobody can learn to play like Shaq without being a gigantic human being. His game was completely dependent on his physical features. He didn't need to learn many skills, but he was less skilled. You can't avoid that conclusion.

[djohn2oo8]

Does lose on peak and when the peak occurred is irrelevant.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=olajuha01&y1=1994&y2=2003&p2=duncati01&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=
MVP, Finals MVP, and DPOY all in the same year, advanced stats won't tell you that. Peak goes to Hakeem.

[Spurtacular]

No way Hakeem is 5. Don't get me wrong, hes pretty underrated...In large part because of who he prays to...but hes not top 5, imo.

:lmao Always bringin' in this faggoty stuff into the convo.

[HarlemHeat37]

:tu

How does Abdul-Jabbar not make your top 10? I know he played in the 70s, but so did Malone, though more of his prime was in the 80s.


Duncan is in the top four, along with Jordan, James and Abdul-Jabbar.

My list was a joke, I was just taking a shot at Larry Bird and his cult:lol

I stay away from rankng players, overall, tbh..too many factors to consider, too many different eras, etc..

If I had to rank them, I would have to split it in several different categories..

If I take the impact of pre-80s players seriously(which I don't:lol), I would divide it by peak and overall career..

Career:
1. Dad Killer
2. Lebron
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic
5. Jabbar
6. Duncan
7. Bird
8. Hakeem
9. Shaq
10. Kobe

Peak:
1. Lebron
2. Dad Killer
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. Kareem

Regular Season Peak:
1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Lebron
4. Dad Killer
5. Curry
6. David Robinson
7. Shaq
8. KG

[TD 21]

MVP, Finals MVP, and DPOY all in the same year, advanced stats won't tell you that. Peak goes to Hakeem.

What's next, points per game?

Who knows how many DPOY Duncan would have, if defensive metrics were around in his prime and it wasn't based off of who averaged the most blocks per game and looking the part of an intimidating defender.

You'll inevitably use speculative against me, but :lol thinking a silly award is a greater measure than advanced metrics.



My list was a joke, I was just taking a shot at Larry Bird and his cult:lol

I don't rank players, overall, tbh..too many factors to consider, too many different eras, etc..

If I had to rank them, I would have to split it in several different categories..

If I take the impact of pre-80s players seriously(which I don't:lol), I would divide it by peak and overall career..

Career:
1. Dad Killer
2. Lebron
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic
5. Jabbar
6. Duncan
7. Bird
8. Hakeem
9. Shaq
10. Kobe

Peak:
1. Lebron
2. Dad Killer
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. Kareem

Yeah, I don't know how to put Chamberlain into context, but I see no argument for him having a better career than Abdul-Jabbar or Duncan.

[djohn2oo8]

What's next, points per game?

Who knows how many DPOY Duncan would have, if defensive metrics were around in his prime and it wasn't based off of who averaged the most blocks per game and looking the part of an intimidating defender.

You'll inevitably use speculative against me, but :lol thinking a silly award is a greater measure than advanced metrics.

.

Still a hard feat, as is beating 4 50 win teams on the way to a ring without homecourt. Again, advanced stats won't show that. Peak Dream was just better.

[TD 21]

Still a hard feat, as is beating 4 50 win teams on the way to a ring without homecourt. Again, advanced stats won't show that. Peak Dream was just better.

No question. There's no debate about it being one of the great runs of all time or him being one of the great players of all time, but there's nothing credible to suggest he was better than Duncan.

[djohn2oo8]

No question. There's no debate about it being one of the great runs of all time or him being one of the great players of all time, but there's nothing credible to suggest he was better than Duncan.
Most blocks all time, top 10 in steals, better peak. Better scorer, better free throw shooter. Listen, if it was all about advanced stats, Chris Paul would be a champion already.

[TD 21]

Most blocks all time, top 10 in steals, better peak. Better scorer, better free throw shooter. Listen, if it was all about advanced stats, Chris Paul would be a champion already.

:lmao Relying on counting stats in 2016.

Paul is the greatest small guard in the history of the game, but there's only so much a 6-0 player can do. He can't do what '94 Olajuwon or '03 Duncan did, which is drag an otherwise unworthy roster to a championship and he's never quite had a real championship caliber roster around him.

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao Relying on counting stats in 2016.

Paul is the greatest small guard in the history of the game, but there's only so much a 6-0 player can do. He can't do what '94 Olajuwon or '03 Duncan did, which is drag an otherwise unworthy roster to a championship and he's never quite had a real championship caliber roster around him.
This is what I'm saying. Paul's career high in win shares is more than Duncan and Hakeem, and a better PER than Duncan or Hakeem. Does that mean he is better than them? This is exactly why advanced stats are not the end all be all.

[TD 21]

This is what I'm saying. Paul's career high in win shares is more than Duncan and Hakeem, and a better PER than Duncan or Hakeem. Does that mean he is better than them? This is exactly why advanced stats are not the end all be all.

No, because he couldn't have the all around affect that they did.

Individually, none are the end all be all, but if damn near everyone points in favor of one player over the other and they're similar players and played in somewhat similar eras . . . just admit it's nostalgia and aesthetics.

It's funny how all the antiquated/casual fans underrate Duncan's ability to score because he was unselfish and in his later years played on a team that didn't need him to score big or play major regular season minutes. He's also a better shot blocker than given credit for because he didn't seek them out.

[djohn2oo8]

No, because he couldn't have the all around affect that they did.


Yes he could if he was a winner. Curry is a PG and has won a ring...A PG can at least get his team to the WCF. Hell Nash had done it. So, if Paul's advanced stats are not a criteria to determine that he is better than Duncan, then neither are Duncan's advanced stats a criteria to use to say he was better than Hakeem.

[BD24]

I still don't understand why any of you respond to da sun fans. He is a troll, and a shitty one at that. Plus why should anyone take anything a fucking Suns fan says seriously.

[Thread]

I still don't understand why any of you respond to da sun fans.

He's got ya's snortin' that for sure.

[BD24]

He's got ya's snortin' that for sure.
Good to see you defending your fellow Suns fan Dale.

[Thread]

Good to see you defending your fellow Suns fan Dale.

Absolutely. Me & da go back decades.

[ambchang]

Mvps?
Really?
As for the rest, your numbers make a great case for Duncan over Shaq and hakeem. Not a great one for top 5 or in some cases even a top 10 player tbh

H2H MVPs when they have overlapping primes? Sure. It's not like you are comparing players in different eras or different primes.

As for the numbers, one or two may not support it, you put it all together and Duncan most definitely belongs there. Nobody other than Jordan, Kareem or wilt have these consistently stellar numbers across so many categories.

[ambchang]

:lol

Chang loves advanced stats with Duncan but even here its easy to prove Shaq was better (because he WAS). Lets look at who had the highest peak numbers:

Peak Vorp Winner: Shaq (9.4)
Peak BPM Winner: Shaq (9.7)
Peak Win Shares/48 Winner: Shaq (.283)
Peak Win Shares Winner: Shaq (18.6)
Peak PER Winner: Shaq (30.6)

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

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Shaq had higher peak advanced stats in every single category.

Bummer Chang.

Too bad we are talking career and not peak only. Duncan had slightly lower peak than shaq but did it for much longer and much more consistently.

Fact that shaqs peak was considered one of the best of all time and Duncan's numbers were very close to those just showed you Duncan's prime was great, contrary to what you tried to as you claim earlier on.

Bummer dsf

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Too bad we are talking career and not peak only. Duncan had slightly lower peak than shaq but did it for much longer and much more consistently.

Fact that shaqs peak was considered one of the best of all time and Duncan's numbers were very close to those just showed you Duncan's prime was great, contrary to what you tried to as you claim earlier on.

Bummer dsf

You are wrong again. Duncan did not do it much longer. They averaged around the same in their latter years. And no, Duncan's prime was nowhere close to.Shaq's.

[dbestpro]

Future generations will dismiss Duncan like current generations dismiss Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson.

[ambchang]

You are wrong again. Duncan did not do it much longer. They averaged around the same in their latter years. And no, Duncan's prime was nowhere close to.Shaq's.

Laker fan making being wrong a science.

WS > 10: Shaq 9 seasons, Duncan 12 seasons
WS/48 > .2: Shaq 9 Seasons, Duncan 11 seasons
BPM > 5: Shaq 10 seasons, Duncan 10 seasons
VORP > 5: Shaq 6 seasons, Duncan 7 seasons

With their primes pretty much overlapping each other, Shaq led the league in WS twice, so did Duncan.
Shaq led the league in BPM twice, Duncan once
Shaq led the league VORP once, Duncan once.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Laker fan making being wrong a science.

WS > 10: Shaq 9 seasons, Duncan 12 seasons
WS/48 > .2: Shaq 9 Seasons, Duncan 11 seasons
BPM > 5: Shaq 10 seasons, Duncan 10 seasons
VORP > 5: Shaq 6 seasons, Duncan 7 seasons

With their primes pretty much overlapping each other, Shaq led the league in WS twice, so did Duncan.
Shaq led the league in BPM twice, Duncan once
Shaq led the league VORP once, Duncan once.

Do advanced stats show Shaq needed to be triple teamed? What about averaging 40 PPG in the finals? :lmao Ambching

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Advanced stats should also show why Duncan couldn't stop the threepeat right?

[ambchang]

Do advanced stats show Shaq needed to be triple teamed? What about averaging 40 PPG in the finals? :lmao Ambching

Cause nobody triple teamed Duncan.

Cause Duncan didn't get a near triple double in the finals.

Your arguments are shit and I just want to let you know.

[ambchang]

Advanced stats should also show why Duncan couldn't stop the threepeat right?

He did. By putting up 37/16 h2h vs shaq.

I think what you meant was how no one was able to stop shaq from a three peat.

Although having 20+FTA differential in two elimination games doesn't help, either.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

He did. By putting u/p 37/16 h2h vs shaq.
No he did not stop the threepeat. Or are you dumb?

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Cause nobody triple teamed Duncan.

Cause Duncan didn't get a near triple double in the finals.

Your arguments are shit and I just want to let you know.
Amb is maddddddddddddd :lol

[ambchang]

No he did not stop the threepeat. Or are you dumb?
See above edit. Your sentence could have been interpreted as stop the threepeat team led by shaq, which Duncan actually did.

What you meant was to stop shaqs team from three peating.

One thing though, given how shaq was clearly greater than Duncan because of the threepeat (your primary and only argument), how would your username ring true? Your argument of shaq > Duncan due to the threepeat already admitted shaq led those lakers team, meaning Kobe was the beta.

[ambchang]

Amb is maddddddddddddd :lol

Default response when your arguments are destroyed.

Look, somebody is mad so I win. Not sure if you realize how retarded it makes you look.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

See above edit. Your sentence could have been interpreted as stop the threepeat team led by shaq, which Duncan actually did.

What you meant was to stop shaqs team from three peating.

One thing though, given how shaq was clearly greater than Duncan because of the threepeat (your primary and only argument), how would your username ring true? Your argument of shaq > Duncan due to the threepeat already admitted shaq led those lakers team, meaning Kobe was the beta.
Just like a Spurfan, lose an argument then bring up Kobe...Without Shaq, Duncan has won a total of 1 games against Kobe in the playoffs...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2008-nba-western-conference-finals-spurs-vs-lakers.html

[ambchang]

Just like a Spurfan, lose an argument then bring up Kobe...Without Shaq, Duncan has won a total of 1 games against Kobe in the playoffs...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2008-nba-western-conference-finals-spurs-vs-lakers.html

Just pointing out the logical contradiction of your argument and your own username.

Hey, Kobe was 2-1 vs Nash, does Nash own Kobe or is Nash > Kobe? Maybe both?

[spurraider21]

My list was a joke, I was just taking a shot at Larry Bird and his cult:lol

I stay away from rankng players, overall, tbh..too many factors to consider, too many different eras, etc..

If I had to rank them, I would have to split it in several different categories..

If I take the impact of pre-80s players seriously(which I don't:lol), I would divide it by peak and overall career..

Career:
1. Dad Killer
2. Lebron
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic
5. Jabbar
6. Duncan
7. Bird
8. Hakeem
9. Shaq
10. Kobe

Peak:
1. Lebron
2. Dad Killer
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. Kareem

Regular Season Peak:
1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Lebron
4. Dad Killer
5. Curry
6. David Robinson
7. Shaq
8. KG
:lol..

"stays away from ranking players"

has 3 rankings in the same post

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Just pointing out the logical contradiction of your argument and your own username.

Hey, Kobe was 2-1 vs Nash, does Nash own Kobe or is Nash > Kobe? Maybe both?
Put your hands up timothy

jCG0JIorzGI

[ambchang]

Put your hands up timothy

jCG0JIorzGI

YouTube videos? What's next? A photo?

Kobe couldn't even win one game vs dirk. DirkownsKobe

[DMC]

Again, you'd have to be the worlds biggest homer to put Duncan ahead of Shaq and Hakeem.
Both, sure. However ESPN and SI put Tim ahead of Shaq.

[TD 21]

Yes he could if he was a winner. Curry is a PG and has won a ring...A PG can at least get his team to the WCF. Hell Nash had done it. So, if Paul's advanced stats are not a criteria to determine that he is better than Duncan, then neither are Duncan's advanced stats a criteria to use to say he was better than Hakeem.

Curry has a ring because he was the beneficiary of unprecedented opponent injury luck (given the Cavs' state, he didn't have to face a single contender). If Paul had that, he'd be a champion too. Getting to a certain round is sometimes more so about luck than your actual ceiling.

It's not just advanced stats that Duncan has Olajuwon beat by, but accomplishments too. If you're going to use antiquated/casual fan arguments, then you can't leave out rings, Finals/regular season MVP, All-NBA/defense teams and All-Star games.

[Thread]

Curry has a ring because he was the beneficiary of unprecedented opponent injury luck

Only pussies & assholes blame injury.

[da_suns_fan]

Chang is resorting to career averages type numbers.

Nobody cares.

The fact is we saw Shaq reach a pinnacle unmatched by anyone not named Hakeem.

If you want to compare Duncan to KG, be my guess. But as the numbers showed, Shaq's peak was was greater. Not in one or two categories. ALL OF THEM.

Thats the Shaq we remember. The uber-dominant guy who couldnt be stopped no matter how many guys you threw at him.

Tim Duncan.....

Who?

[da_suns_fan]

Put your hands up timothy

jCG0JIorzGI


YouTube videos? What's next? A photo?

Kobe couldn't even win one game vs dirk. DirkownsKobe

Spurs fans get upset when everyone calls Tim Duncan boring but I challenge you to find a Tim Duncan highlight. The only one I can think of his hitting a three pointer against my Suns. A 6'11" guy who never shoots three pointers hit a three pointer.

Yay.

Now think of Shaq's highlights.

The diving for the loose ball and sliding into the camera man his rookie year.

Tearing down the entire hoop.

The Kobe lob.

The Dunk and shove on Chris Dudley.

[djohn2oo8]

Curry has a ring because he was the beneficiary of unprecedented opponent injury luck (given the Cavs' state, he didn't have to face a single contender). If Paul had that, he'd be a champion too. Getting to a certain round is sometimes more so about luck than your actual ceiling.

It's not just advanced stats that Duncan has Olajuwon beat by, but accomplishments too. If you're going to use antiquated/casual fan arguments, then you can't leave out rings, Finals/regular season MVP, All-NBA/defense teams and All-Star games.
No. Curry has a ring AND got back to another finals (without injuries). Stop giving that lame ass excuse, teams have injuries every season. And so now you've moved on from advanced stats because I showed you Chris Paul has gaudy advanced stats...to using all star games as a criteria when Yao got voted in without even having to play a single game while he was injured :lol

Rings - Duncan has had 2 probable Hall of Famers (Manu being the real MVP of that 2005 playoff run) to play with in his prime, and a hall of fame coach, as opposed to Hakeem, who was surrounded with crackheads who got banned from the league early in his career, and a brittle Sampson.

MVPs - Nash has two MVPs like Duncan. Must mean he's just as good as Duncan right?

It's funny how you left of DPOY awards, where Hakeem has 2 and Duncan has none. Picking and choosing awards I see...

[LkrFan]

Put your hands up timothy

jCG0JIorzGI

That Ole Paul Revere was jamming! :lol

[LkrFan]

No. Curry has a ring AND got back to another finals (without injuries). Stop giving that lame ass excuse, teams have injuries every season. And so now you've moved on from advanced stats because I showed you Chris Paul has gaudy advanced stats...to using all star games as a criteria when Yao got voted in without even having to play a single game while he was injured :lol

Rings - Duncan has had 2 probable Hall of Famers (Manu being the real MVP of that 2005 playoff run) to play with in his prime, and a hall of fame coach, as opposed to Hakeem, who was surrounded with crackheads who got banned from the league early in his career, and a brittle Sampson.

Can you imagine swapping Dream out with Jim? Better teams, better coach, better system too? 6-8 rangs for Dream tbh

[djohn2oo8]

Can you imagine swapping Dream out with Jim? Better teams, better coach, better system too? 6-8 rangs for Dream tbh
Would have been interesting....They want to use advanced stats and awards(while leaving out certain awards), but raw numbers tell the story...
95' run w/o homecourt
1st round: 35ppg for Dream (vs. Karl Malone)
WC semis: 30ppg (vs. Barkley)
WCF: 35.3ppg (vs. DRob)
Finals: 32.8ppg (vs. Shaq)
Hakeem had five 40+ point games those playoffs, and got awfully close to a couple 40-20 games. Even had a 10-assist game.

[Chucho]

Only pussies & assholes blame injury.

Only pussies and assholes steal their schtick from Reddit.

[Thread]

Only pussies and assholes steal their schtick from Reddit.

They were selling your shit.

[Chucho]

Both, sure. However ESPN and SI put Tim ahead of Shaq.

/thread.

Fact.Deal with it. Tim>Shaq and Kobe Fact. Deal with it

Only faggots and pussies blame homers for the media putting it like it is.

[Chucho]

They were selling your shit.

You were stealing your shit.

[Thread]

You were stealing your shit.

They were selling your shit.

[LkrFan]

Would have been interesting....They want to use advanced stats and awards(while leaving out certain awards), but raw numbers tell the story...
95' run w/o homecourt
1st round: 35ppg for Dream (vs. Karl Malone)
WC semis: 30ppg (vs. Barkley)
WCF: 35.3ppg (vs. DRob)
Finals: 32.8ppg (vs. Shaq)
Hakeem had five 40+ point games those playoffs, and got awfully close to a couple 40-20 games. Even had a 10-assist game.

He went Beast Mode det year. I always dreamt of the Logo "trading" for Dream. Never happened though :lol

[ambchang]

Spurs fans get upset when everyone calls Tim Duncan boring but I challenge you to find a Tim Duncan highlight. The only one I can think of his hitting a three pointer against my Suns. A 6'11" guy who never shoots three pointers hit a three pointer.

Yay.

Now think of Shaq's highlights.

The diving for the loose ball and sliding into the camera man his rookie year.

Tearing down the entire hoop.

The Kobe lob.

The Dunk and shove on Chris Dudley.

A) people say the Spurs are boring. Duncan is only part of Spurs
B) Duncan's dunk on Wallace, alleyoop while falling down, left handed rebound then two handed dunk in one motion vs Garnett and the lakers.
C) don't care people say Duncan is boring
D) Vince carter and Nique are no where near to too nba players of all time.

[ambchang]

Would have been interesting....They want to use advanced stats and awards(while leaving out certain awards), but raw numbers tell the story...
95' run w/o homecourt
1st round: 35ppg for Dream (vs. Karl Malone)
WC semis: 30ppg (vs. Barkley)
WCF: 35.3ppg (vs. DRob)
Finals: 32.8ppg (vs. Shaq)
Hakeem had five 40+ point games those playoffs, and got awfully close to a couple 40-20 games. Even had a 10-assist game.

A player who scores 30 point in a game with 200 possessions must be letter than the player who scores 25 points in a game with 150 possessions according to you.

[djohn2oo8]

A player who scores 30 point in a game with 200 possessions must be letter than the player who scores 25 points in a game with 150 possessions according to you.

Sorry Duncan didn't have a peak like that. Advanced stats are not the end all be all.

[DMC]

Sorry Duncan didn't have a peak like that. Advanced stats are not the end all be all.

Says the guy with James Harden as his best player.

[da_suns_fan]

A) people say the Spurs are boring. Duncan is only part of Spurs
B) Duncan's dunk on Wallace, alleyoop while falling down, left handed rebound then two handed dunk in one motion vs Garnett and the lakers.
C) don't care people say Duncan is boring
D) Vince carter and Nique are no where near to too nba players of all time.

This?

YZyzJTnnNdQ

Think you just proved my point.

[da_suns_fan]

A player who scores 30 point in a game with 200 possessions must be letter than the player who scores 25 points in a game with 150 possessions according to you.

Even with advanced stats, Shaq peaked at a higher level than Duncan in every category.

Thus, Shaq was better. Its really not that hard.

[ambchang]

Sorry Duncan didn't have a peak like that. Advanced stats are not the end all be all.

Like what?

You actually pointed me to the way that showed Duncan had a higher peak than Hakeem.

Thanks.

[ambchang]

This?

YZyzJTnnNdQ

Think you just proved my point.

You had a point?


Even with advanced stats, Shaq peaked at a higher level than Duncan in every category.

Thus, Shaq was better. Its really not that hard.

Sure, but then Duncan's peak was longer, and was comparable.

I had no problem saying Shaq had a higher peak, never argued otherwise my argument was this:


The fact is Duncan was good but not great and at no point in his career was even close to the dominance of Shaq and Hakeem.

Duncan was great as the numbers showed.

Duncan's peak was close to Shaq, the numbers showed as such.

Duncan's peak and Shaq's peak overlapped, and they led the league in advanced stats about the same number of times.

We haven't even got into the comparison vs. Hakeem yet, which I will do now.
Hakeem / Duncan
PER: 27.3/27.1
WS: 15.8/17.8
WS/48: .234/.257
BPM: 8.4/7.6
VORP: 8.5/8.1

To put the numbers into perspective with the eras, Hakeem never led any of those categories in the league, Duncan did in WS, BPM and VORP

[da_suns_fan]

You had a point?



Sure, but then Duncan's peak was longer, and was comparable.

I had no problem saying Shaq had a higher peak, never argued otherwise my argument was this:


If Shaq had a higher peak (in EVERY category) then Duncan has no business being above Shaq on any top ten list. When we talk about "greatest of all time" were not talking about consistency or longevity. If we were the list would like this:

1) Kareem
2) Karl Malone
3) Everyone else

No one cares that Duncan was good but not great for a long time. For two seasons Shaq obliterated the competition in a way we'd never seen. His 2001 season was a step down from his MVP 2000 year but once the playoffs started he simply hit the switch and no one had a chance. I'll never forget the hype of the Spurs/Lakers "showdown" of 2001. Both teams were undefeated going into WCF and the Spurs were convinced they were still the champs since (Duncan missed the previous year's playoffs).

Duncan and the Spurs lost the first two games at home and then lost games 3 & 4 by a combined 70 points.

And you think Duncan was "better"?

We've shown Shaq's numbers blow Duncan's away. We showed even in advanced stats Shaq's peak was higher in every category. In Shaq's peak they met two times in the playoffs and the Spurs managed to win one game. What would it possibly take to convince Spurs fans that Shaq was better? What could you POSSIBLY learn that might change your mind?

As I said before, I dont even think you guys REALLY believe it. I think you just want to believe it since he was on the Spurs and it makes you feel better about yourselves. But no ones buying it. You cant un-see what Shaq did.

[ambchang]

If Shaq had a higher peak (in EVERY category) then Duncan has no business being above Shaq on any top ten list. When we talk about "greatest of all time" were not talking about consistency or longevity. If we were the list would like this:

1) Kareem
2) Karl Malone
3) Everyone else

It's a combination of both, obviously. If it was just peak, then I have no problem saying Shaq/Lebron/Jordan/Kareem/Bird in that order as all time greats, but the it wasn't Longevity factors in, and that is why Shaq falls. His failures offset his peak somewhat, and his comparatively short dominance also gets into play.

Duncan was consistently excellent from 98 all the way till around 07/08, being an MVP candidate every one of those years, and leading the Spurs to 4 championships during that time. Shaq's peak was pretty much 99 to around 04.


No one cares that Duncan was good but not great for a long time. For two seasons Shaq obliterated the competition in a way we'd never seen. His 2001 season was a step down from his MVP 2000 year but once the playoffs started he simply hit the switch and no one had a chance. I'll never forget the hype of the Spurs/Lakers "showdown" of 2001. Both teams were undefeated going into WCF and the Spurs were convinced they were still the champs since (Duncan missed the previous year's playoffs).

Duncan was good not great? Then a lot of people were never great. Duncan was going head to head with Shaq as the best player in the league at that time, head to head against a player you said was so dominant he obliterated the competition in a way we'd never seen. Then of course, Shaq averaged 22 points per game in one of the series against the Spurs.


Duncan and the Spurs lost the first two games at home and then lost games 3 & 4 by a combined 70 points.

And you think Duncan was "better"?

And yet throughout their careers, Duncan outscored, outrebounded and outblocked Shaq in their h2hs.


We've shown Shaq's numbers blow Duncan's away. We showed even in advanced stats Shaq's peak was higher in every category. In Shaq's peak they met two times in the playoffs and the Spurs managed to win one game. What would it possibly take to convince Spurs fans that Shaq was better? What could you POSSIBLY learn that might change your mind?

So 99 and 03 were not Shaq's peak? I guess you just answered your own question about why Shaq was ranked lower, because a two year peak isn't really that long in NBA terms. You are cherry picking like crazy. Shaq didn't blow away Duncan's numbers at all.


As I said before, I dont even think you guys REALLY believe it. I think you just want to believe it since he was on the Spurs and it makes you feel better about yourselves. But no ones buying it. You cant un-see what Shaq did.

I think Shaq had a higher peak, no question, I just think Duncan had the better career and was the greater NBA player.

[djohn2oo8]

Like what?

You actually pointed me to the way that showed Duncan had a higher peak than Hakeem.

Thanks.

No you didn't. Advanced stats? So Chris Paul has better advanced stats than Duncan. Must mean he is better right?

[Killakobe81]

It's a combination of both, obviously. If it was just peak, then I have no problem saying Shaq/Lebron/Jordan/Kareem/Bird in that order as all time greats, but the it wasn't Longevity factors in, and that is why Shaq falls. His failures offset his peak somewhat, and his comparatively short dominance also gets into play.

Duncan was consistently excellent from 98 all the way till around 07/08, being an MVP candidate every one of those years, and leading the Spurs to 4 championships during that time. Shaq's peak was pretty much 99 to around 04.



Duncan was good not great? Then a lot of people were never great. Duncan was going head to head with Shaq as the best player in the league at that time, head to head against a player you said was so dominant he obliterated the competition in a way we'd never seen. Then of course, Shaq averaged 22 points per game in one of the series against the Spurs.



And yet throughout their careers, Duncan outscored, outrebounded and outblocked Shaq in their h2hs.



So 99 and 03 were not Shaq's peak? I guess you just answered your own question about why Shaq was ranked lower, because a two year peak isn't really that long in NBA terms. You are cherry picking like crazy. Shaq didn't blow away Duncan's numbers at all.



I think Shaq had a higher peak, no question, I just think Duncan had the better career and was the greater NBA player.

Shaq averaged 22 battling two HoF elite level defensive bigs ...or am I getting the year wrong?

[djohn2oo8]

Btw, Hakeem could defend every position...

[Thread]

...& he loved denying the Suns. Allah bless him.

[Killakobe81]

...& he loved denying the Suns. Allah bless him.
The semester of Thread

[ambchang]

No you didn't. Advanced stats? So Chris Paul has better advanced stats than Duncan. Must mean he is better right?

I didn't say I did something, I said you did something, and I thanked you for that.

And no, Chris Paul does not have better advanced stats than Duncan. Duncan had way better BPM, VORP and ORtg - DRtg figures.

Also, Chris paul never approached Duncan in playoffs advanced stats, which you also pointed me to review.

If it wasn't for you, I'd still be wallowing in my own ignorance of Hakeem's Peak > Duncan's Peak.

Thank you once again.

[ambchang]

Shaq averaged 22 battling two HoF elite level defensive bigs ...or am I getting the year wrong?

The year was right. So did Duncan, he battled against the Wallace brothers on two bad ankles.

[ambchang]

Btw, Hakeem could defend every position...

Duncan defended Mark Jackson, who was a PG, he defended PF and C on the regular as well.

Who did Hakeem defend at the PG, SG and SF positions?

[TD 21]

Only pussies & assholes blame injury.

Only Lakers fans pretend they don't play a role.


No. Curry has a ring AND got back to another finals (without injuries). Stop giving that lame ass excuse, teams have injuries every season. And so now you've moved on from advanced stats because I showed you Chris Paul has gaudy advanced stats...to using all star games as a criteria when Yao got voted in without even having to play a single game while he was injured :lol

Rings - Duncan has had 2 probable Hall of Famers (Manu being the real MVP of that 2005 playoff run) to play with in his prime, and a hall of fame coach, as opposed to Hakeem, who was surrounded with crackheads who got banned from the league early in his career, and a brittle Sampson.

MVPs - Nash has two MVPs like Duncan. Must mean he's just as good as Duncan right?

It's funny how you left of DPOY awards, where Hakeem has 2 and Duncan has none. Picking and choosing awards I see...

If Paul had the same situation in '15, he'd have a ring too. But that doesn't change the fact that small guards can't have the same all around impact as dominant bigs.

:lol I wasn't using antiquated/casual shit like All-Star appearances seriously. What I meant was, if you're going to use it, don't forget all the ones Duncan trumps Olajuwon in.

:lmao Popovich, Parker and to a lesser extent Ginobili (he'd have gotten in based on his international resume) are future Hall-of-Famers, in large part due to Duncan.

In the '05 Finals, he played with two sprained ankles against an all-time defensive front line. If the league changed Finals MVP to Playoff MVP, as they should, he'd have 5.

[djohn2oo8]

I didn't say I did something, I said you did something, and I thanked you for that.

And no, Chris Paul does not have better advanced stats than Duncan. Duncan had way better BPM, VORP and ORtg - DRtg figures.

Also, Chris paul never approached Duncan in playoffs advanced stats, which you also pointed me to review.

If it wasn't for you, I'd still be wallowing in my own ignorance of Hakeem's Peak > Duncan's Peak.

Thank you once again.

Paul's career win shares were higher than Duncan's. Paul's career high in win shares and WS/48 were higher than Duncan's career high. Paul's VORP best was higher than Duncan's. So your logic states that makes him better than Duncan. Unless you are picking and choosing which advanced stats you want to use...Because in another thread, you said playoff advanced stats didn't matter because they were only over a sample size of 20 games. So are you moving the goalposts again?

[djohn2oo8]

Oh and Paul's career high in BPM was higher than Duncan's best...So you are wrong again...Do those stats mean he is better than Tim?

[djohn2oo8]

Only Lakers fans pretend they don't play a role.



If Paul had the same situation in '15, he'd have a ring too. But that doesn't change the fact that small guards can't have the same all around impact as dominant bigs.

:lol I wasn't using antiquated/casual shit like All-Star appearances seriously. What I meant was, if you're going to use it, don't forget all the ones Duncan trumps Olajuwon in.

:lmao Popovich, Parker and to a lesser extent Ginobili (he'd have gotten in based on his international resume) are future Hall-of-Famers, in large part due to Duncan.

In the '05 Finals, he played with two sprained ankles against an all-time defensive front line. If the league changed Finals MVP to Playoff MVP, as they should, he'd have 5.

Actually, Paul has had some stacked teams and done nothing with them. (see. Last second pass to Janero Pargo)

So in the same sentence you say you won't use all star game appearances seriously yet you do in the same paragraph.

And lastly, Ginobli was more efficient that entire playoff run, shooting the ball at least.

[apalisoc_9]

I just skimmed through this thread and I read Karl Malone in the same sentence as Kareem, Hakeem, TD...

Who's the dumbass that posted that shit?

[TD 21]

Actually, Paul has had some stacked teams and done nothing with them. (see. Last second pass to Janero Pargo)

So in the same sentence you say you won't use all star game appearances seriously yet you do in the same paragraph.

And lastly, Ginobli was more efficient that entire playoff run, shooting the ball at least.

:lmao At inferring to the '08 Hornets as "stacked". Only a historically great (should have been MVP) season by Paul propped them up to near contender status.

He's never had a "stacked" team. The Clippers core four are excellent, but have lacked the requisite surrounding pieces.

Outside of '15 (and had the Thunder been healthy, this would be no exception), there was never a time his team should have made the WCF.

No, I never used them seriously. Somehow you don't get it, even though it couldn't be more basic.

Who needs advanced stats though? According to you, counting stats are the end all be all. In that case, Duncan averaged 24/12/3/2 compared to Ginobili's 21/6/4/1.

In any event, Duncan won a lone star title in '03 and aside from '99, never played with another clear top ten player on a championship team. Popovich was no one until Duncan made him who he is.

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao At inferring to the '08 Hornets as "stacked". Only a historically great (should have been MVP) season by Paul propped them up to near contender status.

He's never had a "stacked" team. The Clippers core four are excellent, but have lacked the requisite surrounding pieces.

Outside of '15 (and had the Thunder been healthy, this would be no exception), there was never a time his team should have made the WCF.

No, I never used them seriously. Somehow you don't get it, even though it couldn't be more basic.

Who needs advanced stats though? According to you, counting stats are the end all be all. In that case, Duncan averaged 24/12/3/2 compared to Ginobili's 21/6/4/1.

In any event, Duncan won a lone star title in '03 and aside from '99, never played with another clear top ten player on a championship team. Popovich was no one until Duncan made him who he is.
1. And they went 7 games with the Spurs....Then Paul passed off in the last seconds to Janero Pargo...

2. :lmao :lmao :lmao So Paul and Griffin aren't enough to guide their team to the WCF? That is godawful and honestly a pathetic excuse for why they haven't succeeded. Funny how you say there was never a time Paul's team should have made the WCF when they were up 22 on the Rockets in the 3rd quarter of a closeout game TO GET TO the WCF.

3. Duncan has played with 2 probable hall of famers in their prime, 2 all star level players who helped ease the burden on Duncan by ALOT...Duncan didn't make Parker who he is, Pop did.

[djohn2oo8]

Yet TD21 wants to ignore Pop doing this:



Developing numerous young players into impactful starters (e.g. Stephen Jackson, Tiago Splitter, Kawhi Leonard, Tony Parker)
Turning no-names and castoffs into contributors (e.g. Malik Rose, Bruce Bowen, Gary Neal, Danny Green)
Extending the careers of veterans chasing a ring (e.g. Brent Barry, Michael Finley, Boris Diaw)

[ambchang]

Paul's career win shares were higher than Duncan's. Paul's career high in win shares and WS/48 were higher than Duncan's career high. Paul's VORP best was higher than Duncan's. So your logic states that makes him better than Duncan. Unless you are picking and choosing which advanced stats you want to use...Because in another thread, you said playoff advanced stats didn't matter because they were only over a sample size of 20 games. So are you moving the goalposts again?

144.1 > 206.4 now?

[ambchang]

Oh and Paul's career high in BPM was higher than Duncan's best...So you are wrong again...Do those stats mean he is better than Tim?

You do realize what BPM means, and that Paul is still in his prime and Duncan was way off his, right?

[djohn2oo8]

You do realize what BPM means, and that Paul is still in his prime and Duncan was way off his, right?
Yes or no question. Do those stats mean he was better than Tim?

[TD 21]

1. And they went 7 games with the Spurs....Then Paul passed off in the last seconds to Janero Pargo...

2. :lmao :lmao :lmao So Paul and Griffin aren't enough to guide their team to the WCF? That is godawful and honestly a pathetic excuse for why they haven't succeeded. Funny how you say there was never a time Paul's team should have made the WCF when they were up 22 on the Rockets in the 3rd quarter of a closeout game TO GET TO the WCF.

3. Duncan has played with 2 probable hall of famers in their prime, 2 all star level players who helped ease the burden on Duncan by ALOT...Duncan didn't make Parker who he is, Pop did.

Right, but they were never a real contender and the Clippers, although clearly better, haven't quite been either. Paul has never been on a top 2 team in the West, no matter how the standings read in '08 or the circumstances in '15. That doesn't absolve him from not making it in '15 though.


:lmao At "Pop making Parker who he is". Parker, Engelland and Forcier, made Parker the player he is, but Duncan made the championships possible (which led to a lot of his individual accolades). As good as Parker was, he's a future Hall-of-Famer based primarily on circumstance.

It's not a knock on Pop or the profession to say Duncan made him. Who the hell were Riley, Jackson and Belichick, etc., before Johnson, Abdul-Jabbar, Jordan and Brady? That's how it works.

[ambchang]

Yes or no question. Do those stats mean he was better than Tim?

Just the few cherry picked ones? Yes. He was indeed better than Duncan with those stats.

[djohn2oo8]

Look at amb go. They should call it ambchanging

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/vampirediaries/images/1/1a/Moonwalk-1.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140406032813

[djohn2oo8]

Just the few cherry picked ones? Yes. He was indeed better than Duncan with those stats.
No, do those stats mean he was a better player? Stop dancing around the question.

[cobbler]

Look at amb go. They should call it ambchanging

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/vampirediaries/images/1/1a/Moonwalk-1.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140406032813

He's an idiot. Talks in circles. Repeats shit over and over thinking his moronic comment will magically come true. It's comical to watch him get so frustrated and insecure. Entertainment at it's best!


Summarized...

KOD:He couldn't stop the 3peat.

AMB: Yes he did.

KOD: Are you stupid?

AMB: He stopped the 3peat TEAM on the 4peat. (Which is answering the previous question with a resounding YES)

Next he will reply with show me where I was wrong. :lol

[ambchang]

Look at amb go. They should call it ambchanging

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/vampirediaries/images/1/1a/Moonwalk-1.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140406032813

What did I change? Even if I did, what is wrong with that? Things change, I get additional insights, and criteria change. You appear to be entrenched in your opinion without the ability to open up.

EDIT: I know what I changed, I used to think Hakeem's peak > Duncan's peak, but thanks to you, I can now say they are very similar, with either side having a case.


No, do those stats mean he was a better player? Stop dancing around the question.

No, not those stats alone.

[ambchang]

He's an idiot. Talks in circles. Repeats shit over and over thinking his moronic comment will magically come true. It's comical to watch him get so frustrated and insecure. Entertainment at it's best!

:lol piling on because you got your takes thrown back at your face.


Summarized...

DOK:He couldn't stop the 3peat.

AMB: Yes he did.

DOK: Are you stupid?

AMB: He stopped the 3peat TEAM on the 4peat. (Which is answering the previous question with a resounding YES)

Next he will reply with show me where I was wrong. :lol

This is an improvement, at least you are showing examples of what you thought was wrong, but DOK phrased his wording horribly. Duncan did stop the 3peat team, you are just too stupid to realize that my point was that DOK didn't phrase what he meant to have said clearly.

[cobbler]

:lol piling on because you got your takes thrown back at your face.

Haven't seen anything thrown in my face. Certainly not by a moron like yourself.


This is an improvement, at least you are showing examples of what you thought was wrong, but KOD phrased his wording horribly. Duncan did stop the 3peat team, you are just too stupid to realize that my point was that KOD didn't phrase what he meant to have said clearly.

I absolutely love this! And you wonder why everyone, including Spurs fans are calling you an idiot almost daily here. Let me school you some more.

Here is KOD's quote...


Advanced stats should also show why Duncan couldn't stop the threepeat right?

It's worded just fine and grammatically correct. Nowhere in that post is the word team used. Lets look at "stop the threepeat". Three peat is the term used when a team accomplishes the goal of winning three titles in a row. Got that? The Lakers had gone back to back. Let me make this easier of you. They were sitting on a two peat and attempting to three peat. Make sense? I'm guessing probably not but let's move forward regardless. Had he said "threepeat team" then you would be correct. He did not. He said the "threepeat". And no, Duncan nor his team stopped it. In fact, they caved to the Lakers 4-1 in the conference semi-finals thus allowing the Lakers to go forward (quite easily) and obtain the three peat.

Here's another fact for you that further validates KOD's comment and well, looks bad for your take. The Lakers went through the Spurs on their two peat also. So Duncan could have stopped both the back to back and the three peat. Failed at both to the tune of 1 win and 8 losses. :lol

And you call me out for being stupid and KOD for not wording a perfect worded comment correctly? This is what you constantly do and everyone sees it. Even when shown to be the fool you try to spin it to give your idiotic comments some sort of validity and it only makes you look more foolish.

You sir, quite simply, are a dumb shit.

[ambchang]

Haven't seen anything thrown in my face. Certainly not by a moron like yourself.

:cry you shouldn't insult people by calling them retards
:lol every single one of your posts has been nothing but attacks
:lol admitting to being wrong and that is not being thrown back in your face


I absolutely love this! And you wonder why everyone, including Spurs fans are calling you an idiot almost daily here. Let me school you some more.

Here is DOK's quote...



It's worded just fine and grammatically correct. Nowhere in that post is the word team used. Lets look at "stop the threepeat". Three peat is the term used when a team accomplishes the goal of winning three titles in a row. Got that? The Lakers had gone back to back. Let me make this easier of you. They were sitting on a two peat and attempting to three peat. Make sense? I'm guessing probably not but let's move forward regardless. Had he said "threepeat team" then you would be correct. He did not. He said the "threepeat". And no, Duncan nor his team stopped it. In fact, they caved to the Lakers 4-1 in the conference semi-finals thus allowing the Lakers to go forward (quite easily) and obtain the three peat.

And you call me out for being stupid and DOK for not wording a perfect worded comment correctly? This is what you constantly do and everyone sees it. Even when shown to be the fool you try to spin it to give your idiotic comments some sort of validity and it only makes you look more foolish.

You sir, quite simply, are a dumb shit.

Nope, not worded correctly.

It should have been:
Advanced stats should also show why Duncan couldn't stop Shaq from completing a threepeat, right?

I recalled you as the only one who really goes out of his way in calling me stupid, but my memory is short, I rely on logic most of the time.

[Arcadian]

DOK
You mean KOD? Or are those the same person?

[cobbler]

:cry you shouldn't insult people by calling them retards.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice before admonishing others? It was you who threw out the first retard comment AMB. Again, you are looking like a fool. :lol


:lol every single one of your posts has been nothing but attacks

Have to call it as I see it AMB. See above.


:lol admitting to being wrong and that is not being thrown back in your face

I admitted misunderstanding ONE post and acknowledged I was wrong. It's what mature people do when shown you weren't correct. Unlike your MO which is to constantly repeat that you are correct when you clearly are not. Talking in circles, it's comical.




Nope, not worded correctly.

It should have been:
Advanced stats should also show why Duncan couldn't stop Shaq from completing a threepeat, right?

Nope. It's worded just fine. Completing a three peat and thee peating are one in the same in this context. Yikes. Same ole MO AMB. No matter how much you try to spin this you cannot make it work. You were wrong!


I recalled you as the only one who really goes out of his way in calling me stupid, but my memory is short, I rely on logic most of the time.

I see your recollection is on par with your memory. Very short. :)

[cobbler]

You mean KOD? Or are those the same person?


Fixed. Thanks for pointing out the error.

[ambchang]

Perhaps you should follow your own advice before admonishing others? It was you who threw out the first retard comment AMB. Again, you are looking like a fool. :lol

I don't really have a problem with it, just that you were the one getting all sensitive over it, but not following your own advice. I find your hypocrisy amusing.


Have to call it as I see it AMB. See above.

:lol As Thread would say, can dish it but can't take it. You were the one crying about the insults, I never had a problem, it's just that you tried to put yourself on a higher ground, but failed miserably.


I admitted misunderstanding ONE post and acknowledged I was wrong. It's what mature people do when shown you weren't correct. Unlike your MO which is to constantly repeat that you are correct when you clearly are not. Talking in circles, it's comical.

Wouldn't mind what you have shown.

Your logical failure of the top 10 list and the "I agree/we agree" issue. That's two by my count. So you are more mature than you give yourself credit for. But a better thing to do is not be wrong then accuse others at being wrong to begin with.


Nope. It's worded just fine. Completing a three peat and thee peating are one in the same in this context. Yikes. Same ole MO AMB. No matter how much you try to spin this you cannot make it work. You were wrong!

Disagree. Three-peat, by the way, isn't even a proper word. Riley came up with it after 88, and the proper usage of it is not set in stone. You just failed to realize it.


I see your recollection is on par with your memory. Very short. :)

Not entirely sure how you can use recollection and memory in this context without it being one and the same.

[cobbler]

I don't really have a problem with it, just that you were the one getting all sensitive over it, but not following your own advice. I find your hypocrisy amusing.



:lol As Thread would say, can dish it but can't take it. You were the one crying about the insults, I never had a problem, it's just that you tried to put yourself on a higher ground, but failed miserably.



Wouldn't mind what you have shown.

Your logical failure of the top 10 list and the "I agree/we agree" issue. That's two by my count. So you are more mature than you give yourself credit for. But a better thing to do is not be wrong then accuse others at being wrong to begin with.



Disagree. Three-peat, by the way, isn't even a proper word. Riley came up with it after 88, and the proper usage of it is not set in stone. You just failed to realize it.



Not entirely sure how you can use recollection and memory in this context without it being one and the same.

WOW. How can someone be so wrong on so many levels? Truly amazing! I do have to give you credit though for sticking to your comments no matter how absurd they are. But again, no matter how hard you try to spin them, you will never make your takes come true.

:downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin:

[ambchang]

WOW. How can someone be so wrong on so many levels? Truly amazing! I do have to give you credit though for sticking to your comments no matter how absurd they are. But again, no matter how hard you try to spin them, you will never make your takes come true.

:downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin::downspin: :downspin::downspin::downspin:

You lecture me on personal insults. You throw out personal insults on a large proportion of your responses.

You lecture me on repeating the same points over and over. You repeat the same points (incorrectly, I might add) over and over.

[cobbler]

You lecture me on personal insults. You throw out personal insults on a large proportion of your responses.

You lecture me on repeating the same points over and over. You repeat the same points (incorrectly, I might add) over and over.

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin: :blah:downspin::blah

[ambchang]

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin: :blah:downspin::blah

Totally descended into craziness.

[cobbler]

Totally descended into craziness.

You're just another idiot. Proving it daily I might add. Heck, "idiot" is probably overrating. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah

[ambchang]

You're just another idiot. Proving it daily I might add. Heck, "idiot" is probably overrating. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah

Two repeats in the same post and two personal insults in the same post.

Do you follow anything you "lecture" other people to do?

Or more precisely, do you NOT do anything you "lecture" other people not to do?

[cobbler]

You're just another idiot. Proving it daily I might add. Yep "idiot" is definitely overrating with respect to you. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah

[ambchang]

You're just another idiot. Proving it daily I might add. Yep "idiot" is definitely overrating with respect to you. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah


Two repeats in the same post and two personal insults in the same post.

Do you follow anything you "lecture" other people to do?

Or more precisely, do you NOT do anything you "lecture" other people not to do?

[cobbler]

You're just another idiot. Proving it daily I might add. Yep "idiot" is definitely overrating with respect to you. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah

[ambchang]

You're just another idiot. Proving it daily I might add. Yep "idiot" is definitely overrating with respect to you. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah


Two repeats in the same post and two personal insults in the same post.

Do you follow anything you "lecture" other people to do?

Or more precisely, do you NOT do anything you "lecture" other people not to do?

[cobbler]

You're just another idiot. Proving it daily I might add. Yep "idiot" is definitely overrating with respect to you. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah

[da_suns_fan]

Spurs fan tries to turn every argument into a meta argument.

I dont care what his grammar was. It doesnt change the fact that Duncan never repeated.

And didnt peak as high as Shaq in any single advanced statistical category.

And lost to an eighth seed.

And won a bronze medal.

So no, he's definitely not the third best player of all time.

Not even close.

[ambchang]

You're just another idiot. Proving it daily I might add. Yep "idiot" is definitely overrating with respect to you. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah


Two repeats in the same post and two personal insults in the same post.

Do you follow anything you "lecture" other people to do?

Or more precisely, do you NOT do anything you "lecture" other people not to do?

[ambchang]

Spurs fan tries to turn every argument into a meta argument.

I dont care what his grammar was. It doesnt change the fact that Duncan never repeated.

And didnt peak as high as Shaq in any single advanced statistical category.

And lost to an eighth seed.

And won a bronze medal.

So no, he's definitely not the third best player of all time.

Not even close.

so who's the third best of all time? You find any single player who ever played, and I can give you blemishes that equal or exceed Duncan's.

[djohn2oo8]

What did I change? Even if I did, what is wrong with that? Things change, I get additional insights, and criteria change. You appear to be entrenched in your opinion without the ability to open up.

EDIT: I know what I changed, I used to think Hakeem's peak > Duncan's peak, but thanks to you, I can now say they are very similar, with either side having a case.



No, not those stats alone.
So your advanced stats don't sway the argument.

[cobbler]

You're just another idiot AMB. Proving it daily I might add. Yep "idiot" is definitely overrating with respect to you. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah

[ambchang]

So your advanced stats don't sway the argument.

That's why it's an argument. I take a larger sample of numbers using advanced stats and you shrink it down and said all advanced stats are invalid because of it.

It's like you using a large number of traditional stats, then I said mark eaton has more blocks than Hakeem during his peak therefore you are saying eaton is better than Hakeem. It's being intellectually dishonest.

[ambchang]

You're just another idiot AMB. Proving it daily I might add. Yep "idiot" is definitely overrating with respect to you. :lol

:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah:down spin::blah:downspin::blah:downspin::blah


Two repeats in the same post and two personal insults in the same post.

Do you follow anything you "lecture" other people to do?

Or more precisely, do you NOT do anything you "lecture" other people not to do?

[cobbler]

ding ding ding ding. We have a WINNER!!! Cha-Ching!!!

Thanks Amb! Much appreciated.

:clap

[ambchang]

ding ding ding ding. We have a WINNER!!! Cha-Ching!!!

Thanks Amb! Much appreciated.

:clap

In the race to the bottom, you will always be the winner.

[cobbler]

In the race to the bottom, you will always be the winner.

No, you don't understand at all. I'll explain for your pea little brain. You see, the other day when I was enlightening you on how moronic your "three-peat" logic was I had a few friends over and they were amused at just how stupid, illogical, and defensive some people can be when they come to the realization they were completely wrong. Especially so on the internet. So I went on to tell them how you do this ALL the time and how you just keep repeating yourself and talking in circles as if some magic will make your false statements come true.

Following so far?

So I go on to tell them this happens a lot with you and not just with me and that I have been finding humor showing you to be the fool you obviously are. I say and I quote myself here for accuracy, "This guy is such a puppet, I could pull his strings and get him to repeat the exact same sentences over and over at my will". They laugh and put up $100.00 that I could not get you to repeat yourself 5 times. The life of the bet was put at one month.

It took two days! They obviously set the bar too low with five as well. Though twenty five wouldn't have been so difficult either. :lol

Easy money!!!! Cha-Ching!!!!!!

So again, thanks AMB! Much appreciated! :toast

[ambchang]

No, you don't understand at all. I'll explain for your pea little brain. You see, the other day when I was enlightening you on how moronic your "three-peat" logic was I had a few friends over and they were amused at just how stupid, illogical, and defensive some people can be when they come to the realization they were completely wrong. Especially so on the internet. So I went on to tell them how you do this ALL the time and how you just keep repeating yourself and talking in circles as if some magic will make your false statements come true.

Following so far?

So I go on to tell them this happens a lot with you and not just with me and that I have been finding humor showing you to be the fool you obviously are. I say and I quote myself here for accuracy, "This guy is such a puppet, I could pull his strings and get him to repeat the exact same sentences over and over at my will". They laugh and put up $100.00 that I could not get you to repeat yourself 5 times. The life of the bet was put at one month.

It took two days! They obviously set the bar too low with five as well. Though twenty five wouldn't have been so difficult either. :lol

Easy money!!!! Cha-Ching!!!!!!

So again, thanks AMB! Much appreciated! :toast

Congratulations on having these friends. Not entire sure what your point is as if me not knowing you having friends who make bets with you is a reflection of my intelligence.

At the same time, you repeated yourself over the period as well, so if I am stupid in doing it, so are you.

PS. Much appreciated that I have so affected you that you have to share with your friends about me. FYI, no one in my social circle in real life knows about you.

[cobbler]

Congratulations on having these friends. Not entire sure what your point is as if me not knowing you having friends who make bets with you is a reflection of my intelligence.

At the same time, you repeated yourself over the period as well, so if I am stupid in doing it, so are you.

Just a puppet master doing what puppet masters do Amb.

Thanks so very much for being the puppet. Really!!! I'm being sincere here. I think I'll go pick up an nice bottle of Glenmorangie Port Cask on you and tip one back in your honor. :toast

Cha cha cha cha-ching!!!!

[ambchang]

Just a puppet master doing what puppet masters do Amb.

Thanks so very much for being the puppet. Really!!! I'm being sincere here. I think I'll go pick up an nice bottle of Glenmorangie Port Cask on you and tip one back in your honor. :toast

Cha cha cha cha-ching!!!!

Same could be said the other way. This logic of you are doing what I wanted you to do is faulty, as I can just easily say you are responding to me in a way that is expected as well.

I can say though people calling the shots usually don't let the Internet life and actual social life impact each other.

[djohn2oo8]

That's why it's an argument. I take a larger sample of numbers using advanced stats and you shrink it down and said all advanced stats are invalid because of it.

It's like you using a large number of traditional stats, then I said mark eaton has more blocks than Hakeem during his peak therefore you are saying eaton is better than Hakeem. It's being intellectually dishonest.

I could use a larger number of advanced stats that Chris Paul has that are better than Duncan's. Does it mean he is better? No it doesn't. That's my point

[ambchang]

I could use a larger number of advanced stats that Chris Paul has that are better than Duncan's. Does it mean he is better? No it doesn't. That's my point

And I can use a larger number of traditional stats that speaks to David Robinson being better than Hakeem too.

[djohn2oo8]

And I can use a larger number of traditional stats that speaks to David Robinson being better than Hakeem too.

No you can't. Especially from their playoff series together

[ambchang]

No you can't. Especially from their playoff series together

So you are looking at one single series now?

Robinson/Hakeem career highs:

Points: 29.8/27.8
RPG: 13/14
BLK: 4.5/4.6
AST: 4.8/3.6
STL: 2.3/2.6
FG%: .552/.538
FT%: .774/.787
TOV: 3.3/3.9
FOULS: 3.2/4.2

As you can see, based on traditional stats, Robinson >= Hakeem.

[djohn2oo8]

So you are looking at one single series now?

Robinson/Hakeem career highs:

Points: 29.8/27.8
RPG: 13/14
BLK: 4.5/4.6
AST: 4.8/3.6
STL: 2.3/2.6
FG%: .552/.538
FT%: .774/.787
TOV: 3.3/3.9
FOULS: 3.2/4.2

As you can see, based on traditional stats, Robinson >= Hakeem.

You said you would post the larger stats. Where are they? Funny how you didn't post how David's numbers went down in the playoffs on the regular, and the numbers Hakeem put on his ass.

[ambchang]

You said you would post the larger stats. Where are they? Funny how you didn't post how David's numbers went down in the playoffs on the regular, and the numbers Hakeem put on his ass.

I used 9 of those numbers, isn't that large enough?

Playoffs, I am not sure how we can compare averages. Hakeem played in 3 title runs in his prime, Robinson didn't, so I can't compare totals.

If I am doing averages, one player playing one series vs. another playing 2 series isn't apples to apples, so I can't really compare that way either.

Finally, if you want to do H2H:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=robinda01

Robinson won 30 of 12 games:
Comparison (Robinson/Hakeem):
Points: 19.6/21.9
REB: 11.2/11.2
BLK: 3.3/3.4
ASST: 2.9/2.8
STL: 2.2/1.9
TOV: 3.0/2.9
FOULS: 3.4/4.0
FG%: .488/.441
FT%: .717/.768

All keeping in mind Robinson faced Hakeem when he first came in the league as a young buck when Hakeem was already established, and Robinson's prime ended around the time Hakeem ended his prime because of injuries

But then again, this shouldn't be a huge surprise. If Robinson didn't have a PG who made ONE career 3 pter, as opposed to someone who can actually open up the lane, his legacy would be very different. I doubt he'd be able to dominate like Hakeem did in the post season as his game really wasn't a 90s post up game and much more suited to today's game, but his face up game, quickness and general mobility would allow him to dominate today's game. Hakeem would dominate in any era, but I don't think his style would be as conducive today's game as it did in the 90s.

[ambchang]

Actually, looking at advanced stats, it's really a blood bath.

Hakeem's career high in WS was 15.8, Robinson had 4 seasons with a higher WS than that
WS/48: .234, 10 seasons
BPM: 8.4, 3 seasons over, 2 more seasons tied
VORP: 1 season over, 1 season tied
PER: 27.3, 7 seasons.

It's sad, if Robinson had the right team around him (a PG who can shoot, a SG who can shoot and defend, Elliott was fine, and a PF who does the dirty work, like Terry Cummings in Robinson's rookie season), he'd be known as a top 10 player of all time. Instead, he was swarmed game after game after game, and got labelled as a choker because he couldn't beat triple teams of sagging defenses in the playoffs.

[spurraider21]

In the race to the bottom, you will always be the winner.
i dont think he's capable of winning any kind of race

[benefactor]

i dont think he's capable of winning any kind of race
crofl

[da_suns_fan]

so who's the third best of all time? You find any single player who ever played, and I can give you blemishes that equal or exceed Duncan's.

Shaq. Magic. Hakeem. Bird.

Id take all four of them in their prime before taking Duncan in his prime (without question).

Then you get into tougher ones, but those four go without saying.

[djohn2oo8]

i dont think he's capable of winning any kind of race

Raider fans should be banned from discussing races.

[djohn2oo8]

I used 9 of those numbers, isn't that large enough?

Playoffs, I am not sure how we can compare averages. Hakeem played in 3 title runs in his prime, Robinson didn't so I can't compare totals.



So basically you established that Robinson wasn't good enough in the playoffs, that's why you can't compare totals. I agree with that. Every single year Robinson's number dropped in the playoffs. Amb being amb again.

[djohn2oo8]

Shaq. Magic. Hakeem. Bird.

Id take all four of them in their prime before taking Duncan in his prime (without question).

Then you get into tougher ones, but those four go without saying.

Would any of those four have ever been outplayed by Ginobli for an entire playoff run?

[ambchang]

Shaq. Magic. Hakeem. Bird.

Id take all four of them in their prime before taking Duncan in his prime (without question).

Then you get into tougher ones, but those four go without saying.

Sure you can, but want to focus on the blemishes, so I will play that game:


Compared to the ones you listed:


I dont care what his grammar was. It doesnt change the fact that Duncan never repeated. Neither did Bird


And didnt peak as high as Shaq in any single advanced statistical category. Duncan beat Hakeem Bird and Magic here.


And lost to an eighth seed.
Shaq was swept 5 times, missed the playoffs twice (off prime, rookie year and 3rd last season), was on wrong end of one of the biggest upsets in NBA history
Hakeem missed the playoffs in his prime (injuries played a big role), was destroyed by the Sonics in his prime and outplayed by Shawn Kemp, perennial first round fodder until the right system was put in place.
Magic massively underwhelmed in 81 and got his coach fired. Lost to the lowest seed in the conference as well. Only reason it wasn't the 8th seed was because the league had 6 playoff teams per conference back in the day. They lost to a sub .500 team in the playoffs in the first round, for Pete's sake.
Bird got murdered by Philly (lower seed) in 80 and 82, swept by a lower seed in 83 (Bucks? Really, Bucks?), and then swept by the Pistons in 89 (Bird couldn't even get them higher than 8th seed).


And won a bronze medal. Unsure how this factors into how you rank NBA players, as the olympics isn't really part of the NBA.


So no, he's definitely not the third best player of all time.

Not even close.

Perhaps you can say the same for every single other player as well.

[ambchang]

So basically you established that Robinson wasn't good enough in the playoffs, that's why you can't compare totals. I agree with that. Every single year Robinson's number dropped in the playoffs. Amb being amb again.

Did Hakeem magically became good enough for the playoffs in 86, then somehow took a break for 8 years, then suddenly became good enough for 94 and 95, then wasn't good enough for the playoffs again afterwards?

:lol not good enough for the playoffs with Clyde, Pippen and/or Barkley
:lol greatest PG Robinson played with couldn't even make it as a 3rd string PG for Hakeem

[ambchang]

Would any of those four have ever been outplayed by Ginobli for an entire playoff run?

Hakeem did get outplayed by Shawn Kemp one on one though. And how did you figure Ginobili outplayed Duncan in the 05 playoff run? Advanced stats? Because Duncan got more points than Manu (of course rebounds and blks, but those are big man stats).

Guess how Hakeem and Clyde measured up in the 95 playoff run?

:lol Shooting yourself in the foot.
:lol Bird got outplayed by McHale in the 85 playoff run and Cedric Maxwell in 81

[spurraider21]

Raider fans should be banned from discussing races.
im not getting the reference

[djohn2oo8]

Did Hakeem magically became good enough for the playoffs in 86, then somehow took a break for 8 years, then suddenly became good enough for 94 and 95, then wasn't good enough for the playoffs again afterwards?

:lol not good enough for the playoffs with Clyde, Pippen and/or Barkley
:lol greatest PG Robinson played with couldn't even make it as a 3rd string PG for Hakeem

Hakeem upped his performance in the playoffs. David did not. That is a difference.

And to go to show how stupid Amb's arguments are, Clyde and Barkley were well broken down and past their prime, happened to play alot less minutes than Hakeem and they got to the WCF in 97. When Pippen arrived, him and Barkley hated each other. Kinda like when Robinson ran Rodman off with that bible.

[djohn2oo8]

Hakeem did get outplayed by Shawn Kemp one on one though. And how did you figure Ginobili outplayed Duncan in the 05 playoff run? Advanced stats? Because Duncan got more points than Manu (of course rebounds and blks, but those are big man stats).

Guess how Hakeem and Clyde measured up in the 95 playoff run?

:lol Shooting yourself in the foot.
:lol Bird got outplayed by McHale in the 85 playoff run and Cedric Maxwell in 81

Really? Look at the traditional stats. Manu scored 3 less points on 6 less shots than Duncan, while also shooting 43%, (FORTY THREE percent from 3 during those playoffs), with more assists and steals all while coming off the bench for 8 games in the playoffs.

[djohn2oo8]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=robinda01

Robinson won 30 of 12 games:
Comparison (Robinson/Hakeem):
Points: 19.6/21.9
REB: 11.2/11.2
BLK: 3.3/3.4
ASST: 2.9/2.8
STL: 2.2/1.9
TOV: 3.0/2.9
FOULS: 3.4/4.0
FG%: .488/.441
FT%: .717/.768

All keeping in mind Robinson faced Hakeem when he first came in the league as a young buck when Hakeem was already established, and Robinson's prime ended around the time Hakeem ended his prime because of injuries

But then again, this shouldn't be a huge surprise. If Robinson didn't have a PG who made ONE career 3 pter, as opposed to someone who can actually open up the lane, his legacy would be very different. I doubt he'd be able to dominate like Hakeem did in the post season as his game really wasn't a 90s post up game and much more suited to today's game, but his face up game, quickness and general mobility would allow him to dominate today's game. Hakeem would dominate in any era, but I don't think his style would be as conducive today's game as it did in the 90s.
Robinson still won MVP and had a better record, yet proceeded to get curbstomped in the playoffs. EVERY year...That's not a PG issue...How was it a PG issue when he let Dream score 35 PPG on him in one series? Robinson's numbers seemed to be fine in the regular season lol

[K...]

So if I have this right the Lakers rockets fans have the following arguments:

Shaq/Hakeem have higher peaks (a so so argument)

No repeats (an irrelevant argument)

Is this it? Duncan's main argument is that he did it all with the least for the longest. Not a top five most dominant season (see the recent ranking of all time great seasons put his 2003 at number 10)

I basically see a bunch of nonsense rebutting the argument. It's one thing if you find the main Duncan argument unpersuasive, but it's much worse when you spin shIt arguments all over your hands.

[K...]

Robinson still won MVP and had a better record, yet proceeded to get curbstomped in the playoffs. EVERY year...That's not a PG issue...How was it a PG issue when he let Dream score 35 PPG on him in one series? Robinson's numbers seemed to be fine in the regular season lol

Holy shit all day, team argument being spun into a individual argument! You guys never learn

[djohn2oo8]

:lol, 20 game sample playing against 4 teams. Much like how Drexler led the Rockets in ws in 95 playoffs.


.


Also, Chris paul never approached Duncan in playoffs advanced stats, which you also pointed me to review.

.

Amb laughing at playoffs advanced stats, then trying to use Duncan's as a measuring post. Guy seriously can't stop flip flopping.

[djohn2oo8]

So if I have this right the Lakers rockets fans have the following arguments:

Shaq/Hakeem have higher peaks (a so so argument)

No repeats (an irrelevant argument)

Is this it? Duncan's main argument is that he did it all with the least for the longest. Not a top five most dominant season (see the recent ranking of all time great seasons put his 2003 at number 10)

I basically see a bunch of nonsense rebutting the argument. It's one thing if you find the main Duncan argument unpersuasive, but it's much worse when you spin shIt arguments all over your hands.

1. It's not a so/so argument, they both had higher peaks.

2. Repeating is a relevant argument

3. What do you mean the least for the longest?

[K...]

1. It's not a so/so argument, they both had higher peaks.

2. Repeating is a relevant argument

3. What do you mean the least for the longest?

There's no set standard for how long a peak must last to be meaningful. I mean we can all agree Steph curry looked top ten at times but isn't because he sucks in the playoffs.

Spurs fans assume that Duncan's homogeneous performance > shaq, hakeem peaks. And you know what? Many sports writers agree.

Now you can disagree, but nonsense like repeats isn't the answer. And there won't be a consensus of peak vs longevity.

Repeats are a team issue.. You can't compare the Lakers having two top 20 all times players to any spurs roster. So don't.

[da_suns_fan]

Sure you can, but want to focus on the blemishes, so I will play that game:


Compared to the ones you listed:

Neither did Bird

Duncan beat Hakeem Bird and Magic here.


Shaq was swept 5 times, missed the playoffs twice (off prime, rookie year and 3rd last season), was on wrong end of one of the biggest upsets in NBA history
Hakeem missed the playoffs in his prime (injuries played a big role), was destroyed by the Sonics in his prime and outplayed by Shawn Kemp, perennial first round fodder until the right system was put in place.
Magic massively underwhelmed in 81 and got his coach fired. Lost to the lowest seed in the conference as well. Only reason it wasn't the 8th seed was because the league had 6 playoff teams per conference back in the day. They lost to a sub .500 team in the playoffs in the first round, for Pete's sake.
Bird got murdered by Philly (lower seed) in 80 and 82, swept by a lower seed in 83 (Bucks? Really, Bucks?), and then swept by the Pistons in 89 (Bird couldn't even get them higher than 8th seed).

Unsure how this factors into how you rank NBA players, as the olympics isn't really part of the NBA.



Perhaps you can say the same for every single other player as well.

But they never lost to an eighth seed!

Could you even imagine a team with Shaq, Hakeem, Bird or Magic even close to their respective primes losing to an eighth seed? It wouldnt happen. They were too dominant. Too competitive. Too aggressive.

Duncan lost to lower seeds time and time again. Hey, it happens. But losing to an eighth seed?

Duncan likes to call himself a forward which is just ridiculous. What, exactly, did he do that centers dont?

He was a center. Played like a center. As tall as a center etc.

But if you compare him to other centers he plummets down the list. Could you even make a case for him being top five? We already established Hakeem and Shaq were clearly better. Kareem was clearly better. Does Duncan's modern accomplishments outweigh Chamberlin or Bill Russel?

So you got:

1) Jordan
2) Lebron
3) Shaq
4) Magic
5) Hakeem
6) Bird
7) Russell
8) Kareem
9) Chamberlin

Does Duncan really deserve the 10th spot over other players from the modern era? Was he really BETTER than Kobe or KG? Its certainly debate-able. I dont really care, but calling him top 3 is just stupid.

[djohn2oo8]

There's no set standard for how long a peak must last to be meaningful. I mean we can all agree Steph curry looked top ten at times but isn't because he sucks in the playoffs.

Spurs fans assume that Duncan's homogeneous performance > shaq, hakeem peaks. And you know what? Many sports writers agree.

Now you can disagree, but nonsense like repeats isn't the answer. And there won't be a consensus of peak vs longevity.

Repeats are a team issue.. You can't compare the Lakers having two top 20 all times players to any spurs roster. So don't.

1. When you compare peaks, you look at who was more dominant. Shaq and Hakeem were clearly more dominant.

2. Repeats, threepeats generally tell you that those players were dominant for more than just one year. Damn near unstoppable actually. Actually, retarded spur fans may agree with your take, but rational oned admit Shaq and Hakeem's peaks were better. There wasn't anyone who could stop them during their peaks. Duncan was stopped after every run.

3. I like how you say repeats are a team issue when Duncan had a HOF coach and two HOF players around him, to lessen his minutes (His minutes started going down at age 27, while Shaq and Hakeem played heavy minutes into their 30's) to give him a better shot at repeating. Don't give me that shit.

[Arcadian]

Tim Duncan would fucking destroy Bill Russell in a matchup. He's a modern, better version of him.

He's also been compared with Kareem in a lot of ways. Just the fact that you can compare him to the all-time greats means he is among them. Stop making faggy hand-waving arguments where you try to assert your opinion that he "clearly doesn't compare with these other guys." Yes he does, and repeating the opposite won't make it any more true.

[ambchang]

Hakeem upped his performance in the playoffs. David did not. That is a difference.

There are two ways to stop a team with one superstar. You either leave the other guys opened and gang up on the superstar, or you guard the other guys and force the superstar to beat you on his own. What you actually do depends on two things, whether you think the superstar can beat you on his own, and whether the other guys have the ability to step up.

In 88 vs. the Mavs, Hakeem was a total monster because the Mavs realized that they can't really stop Hakeem, so much as well shut down the other guys and let Hakeem get his. And it worked, Mavs won in 4.

Whereas in 90, the Lakers figured that with a swarming defense on Hakeem, they can beat the Rockets. That's why Otis Thorpe was the leading scorer on the Rockets because the lakers were just leaving him open throughout the entire series, letting him grab offensive rebounds and get easy put ins to stop Hakeem. Did Hakeem decide to just step up in 88 and felt, "screw this, I am not going to step up in this series vs. the Lakers"? Of course not. You get what the defensive gives you.

Robinson stepped up just fine when he had Rod Strickland as his teammate in 90 and 91, and then it all started down hill after that, and I wonder why. Oh, how about have Negele Knight as your start PG playing next to Willie Anderson with two steel rods for legs when your opposition has John Stockton and Jeff Hornacek? How about him doing horribly vs. the Nuggets and Rodman would miraculously average double digits that series, with Avery Johnson and Del Negro both playing like they belong in the NBA, then in the next series vs. the Lakers, he would average 30 ppg and his teammates would start to suck again, and then horribly against the Rockets when both Johnson and Del Negro suddenly started to look like NBA players again? You seem to think that Avery Johnson and Del Negro just decided to step up, then not step up, then step up again all in the same playoff run, and Robinson decided to do the opposite. I, on the other hand, remembered it was because how the opposition played, how they left players opened to double/triple Robinson and let players on the Spurs who can't shoot shoot.


And to go to show how stupid Amb's arguments are, Clyde and Barkley were well broken down and past their prime, happened to play alot less minutes than Hakeem and they got to the WCF in 97. When Pippen arrived, him and Barkley hated each other. Kinda like when Robinson ran Rodman off with that bible.

Oh, congratulations on stumbling into the circle of enlightenment, because you finally seemed to realize teammates make a difference. Based on your precious traditional stats, Barkley averaged 19/13.5/5 with Drexler's 18/6/6 in 96-97. The next year, Drexler averaged 18/5/5.5 and Barkley 15/12/3 the next year. The following year, Barkley got 16/12/5 and Pippen 14.5/5/6.5. Do you know which Spurs put up those numbers during Robinson's prime? No one! Elliott, right at the peak of his prime, was the closest, and yet, to you, those guys were not good enough and were broken down the past their prime. Robinson would KILL to have teammates like that during his prime.

Robinson made the WCF with DENNIS RODMAN AND AVERY JOHNSON as his #2 and #3. Would you rather have Rodman and Avery Johnson, or Clyde Drexler and Barkley (although broken down ones)?


Really? Look at the traditional stats. Manu scored 3 less points on 6 less shots than Duncan, while also shooting 43%, (FORTY THREE percent from 3 during those playoffs), with more assists and steals all while coming off the bench for 8 games in the playoffs.

So efficiency matters now? Drexler had a higher shooting efficiency, scored 20ppg on 12 less shots a game. TWELVE! Less fouls, less TO, higher BPM, same VORP, higher WS. Drexler got more assists and steals as well (well, duh, they are guards and are expected to be those things than a Center, right? Oh, wait, not, you just like to cram those numbers in as if Drexler didn't have more assists and steals than Hakeem in the 95 playoff run).


Robinson still won MVP and had a better record, yet proceeded to get curbstomped in the playoffs. EVERY year...That's not a PG issue...How was it a PG issue when he let Dream score 35 PPG on him in one series? Robinson's numbers seemed to be fine in the regular season lol

Every year? He was fine individually in 90 and 91, he was fine vs. the Lakers in 95. He was fine vs. Phoenix in 93 and 96.

Dream was dropping 30+ in every series that year, and Robinson was guarding Hakeem and Horry because Rodman just decided to grab rebounds and left his man open for jumper after jumper after jumper.

And of course he was fine in the regular season, because teams do not prepare to the level of a playoff. Hey, Hakeem stunk vs. the Mavs in 90 and then vs. the Sonics, did he just decide to take those two series off?


Amb laughing at playoffs advanced stats, then trying to use Duncan's as a measuring post. Guy seriously can't stop flip flopping.

You were talking about playoffs, so I went playoffs. I am just following your lead.


But they never lost to an eighth seed!

Magic lost to the lowest seed with a sub .500 record.


Could you even imagine a team with Shaq, Hakeem, Bird or Magic even close to their respective primes losing to an eighth seed? It wouldnt happen. They were too dominant. Too competitive. Too aggressive.

It happened. And they were so competitive, so dominant, so aggressive that Shaq got swept multiple times, Hakeem missed the playoffs, and Magic lost to a sub .500 team.


Duncan lost to lower seeds time and time again. Hey, it happens. But losing to an eighth seed?

So did Hakeem, so did Magic, so did Bird, so did Shaq.


Duncan likes to call himself a forward which is just ridiculous. What, exactly, did he do that centers dont?

He was a center. Played like a center. As tall as a center etc.

And yet he is better than Shaq, better than Hakeem.


But if you compare him to other centers he plummets down the list. Could you even make a case for him being top five? We already established Hakeem and Shaq were clearly better. Kareem was clearly better. Does Duncan's modern accomplishments outweigh Chamberlin or Bill Russel?

So you got:

1) Jordan
2) Lebron
3) Shaq
4) Magic
5) Hakeem
6) Bird
7) Russell
8) Kareem
9) Chamberlin

Does Duncan really deserve the 10th spot over other players from the modern era? Was he really BETTER than Kobe or KG? Its certainly debate-able. I dont really care, but calling him top 3 is just stupid.

ESPN disagrees with you.

Oh, and bleacherreport, a site that is pretty anti-Spurs over the years, still recognized Duncan's 02-03 season as one of the top 10 seasons of all time. Better than Hakeem's 94, better than Magic and Bird's best. Shaq sits up top, which really gets no arguments from me (May be a Kareem or Jordan peak can compete with that).

http://uproxx.com/dimemag/10-greatest-individual-seasons-nba-history/
Dime magazine ranked Duncan's 02-03 as #7 of all time. Shaq's sit at the top again, Hakeem came in 4th.

[Brazil]

Was he really BETTER than Kobe or KG? Its certainly debate-able.

no it is not debate able :lmao

You are such a massive faggot...

[djohn2oo8]

lol ambchang

1. Robinson generally shot 40% in the playoffs alot of years he made it, that has nothing to do with anybody but David.
2. Rodman turned out to be damn good for the Bulls, not offensively but defensively. That Spurs team was obviously good enough to get homecourt, but are you saying an MVP player shouldn't be expected to carry his team? :rollin

Blaming his point guards for David shooting horribly is gold.

3. No, you said playoff advanced stats don't matter for one player, and then said they do for another player. You lost.

[djohn2oo8]

David's FG%, FT%, and PPG generally went down in the playoffs. Guy was a choker plain and simple. His teammates don't have anything to do with him getting about the same number of shots in the playoffs as the regular season (94-95) and his FG% dropping off 9 percent. Yeah, teammates matter, but teammates didn't get in the way of Robinson. His own shitty play did.

[ambchang]

lol ambchang

1. Robinson generally shot 40% in the playoffs alot of years he made it, that has nothing to do with anybody but David.

Yes, people shoot lower % when they are triple teamed. But let's not talk in generalities.

From 90 to 96, he shot the following %ages in the playoffs:

.533/.686/injured/.465/.411/.446/.516

So 40's half the time, 50s twice, and 60s once. He normally shoots in the low to mid 50s in the regular season.

Compare that to Hakeem, from 85 to 99 (not sure which ones I should go for because he had a longer prime):
.477/.530/.615/.571/.519/.443/missed/.578/.517/.519/.537/.510/.590/.394/.426

40's or lower 4 times
50s 9 times
60s once

Definitely better %, but then again, Hakeem shot .443 when he was swarmed.


2. Rodman turned out to be damn good for the Bulls, not offensively but defensively. That Spurs team was obviously good enough to get homecourt, but are you saying an MVP player shouldn't be expected to carry his team? :rollin

Bulls needed interior defense. Spurs needed scoring, and more specifically, outside shooting.

No, MVPs are not expected to "carry" his team to a title. In fact, MVPs carrying his teams to the finals is not the norm.


Blaming his point guards for David shooting horribly is gold.

Because it is true. Guess where Hakeem went when Avery Johnson was his 3rd string point guard? Oh, he got bounced out the first round 4 straight times, averaging 18.3ppg on .443 shooting in one year, and 22ppg the next. But even then, he had guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell opening up the floor for him, you know, guys who made 11 3pters in 3 games in 91, and Vernon Maxwell and Sleepy FLoyd who made 11 3pters in 4 games in 90.

Compare that to the Spurs starting guards.
90 - 2 3PM in 10 games
91 - 2 in 4
92 - Robinson injured
93 - 2 in 10 (Willie Anderson made 6 coming off the bench)
94 - 3 in 4
95 - 9 in 15
96 - 16 in 10 (all by Vinny Del Negro because he was wide opened the entire playoffs. Avery Johnson couldn't even hit ONE despite how opened he was).

Now guess how many 3s Hakeem's starting backcourt made in the 94 and 95 runs?
94 - 79 3PM in 23 games, and another 34 by Horry
95 - 76 in 22 games, and another 44 by Horry.

But you and only you would think that a good 3 pt shooting team won't open the floor for their center. Let's say I am defending the Spurs. I see Negro and Avery Johnson, one guy 27 three pointers in 1,054 regular season games, on .145 shooting. Yes, you got that right, 14.5% 3 pt shooting. That's 14.5%. With 1 out of 18 attempts in his entire playoff career

The other guy made 243 in 771 games in the regular season, on 36% shooting.

They have this center who averages 24 to 30 points a game, pretty much all in the paint. Hmmm ... guess what I am going to do? I will cram the middle and let those losers take threes all day, especially the guy who shoots 14.5% in his career.

Then you have this other team, 664 3PM over 737 games on 40% shooting, and another guy 1256 3PM on 855 games on 32% shooting, or a guy who at that point was the 2nd best shooting guard of all time, 827 3pm over 1024 games on 32% shooting. Hmmmm ... oh, then there is this SF with 795 3PM in 1107 on 34% shooting, but they also have this crazy center who dominates. I don't know how to guard them, really, you double/triple the man in the middle, and they nail 3 pointers all over your face, you single team this guy, and he gets two points. I guess I will guard the three pointers because they are worth one point more.

You are the only person I know who didn't think 3 pt shooting would open up the lane.


3. No, you said playoff advanced stats don't matter for one player, and then said they do for another player. You lost.

I was following your lead. You said you want to talk about playoff stats, and I used playoff advanced stats. Simple as that.

[ambchang]

David's FG%, FT%, and PPG generally went down in the playoffs. Guy was a choker plain and simple. His teammates don't have anything to do with him getting about the same number of shots in the playoffs as the regular season (94-95) and his FG% dropping off 9 percent. Yeah, teammates matter, but teammates didn't get in the way of Robinson. His own shitty play did.

See above.

You can say Robinson is easier to defend due to his reliance on FTs and his face up game, vs. those of Hakeem, which is really much harder to guard against even with game planning. i will give you that. But to say a player did worse because he is a choker is just plain ignorant, especially when presented with streams of evidence of how the opposition can just collapse on Robinson and take him out.

Really, did Robinson just somehow decide not to choke vs. the Phoenix all those years, or was it because Phoenix was ill equipped to defend Robinson, so they shut down the perimeter to win both series? Did Robinson decide to choke against the Jazz, or did the Jazz decide that it is easier to let Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott beat them because they have the personnel to handle Robinson?

Did Hakeem felt like choking vs. the Mavs in 90? Did he just quit vs. Seattle in 96? or is it because those teams were filled with the right personnel and devised the game plan specifically to stop Hakeem, feeling that is the best way to defeat the Rockets?

Robinson shot .708 from the line in the playoffs vs. .732 in the regular season, with more games played later in the career in the playoffs where he shot worse from the FT line. He shot 87% vs. the Warriors in 92, did he decide not to choke that series? he shot 81% in the 95 playoff run? Why is that?

[ambchang]

Oh, and djohn2oo8, good call dropping the Barkley, Pippen and Drexler were washed up and sucked so Hakeem couldn't lead their sorry butts to multiple titles angle, when it was shown that they were better players than Robinson ever had in his prime.

Props.

[djohn2oo8]

See above.

You can say Robinson is easier to defend due to his reliance on FTs and his face up game, vs. those of Hakeem, which is really much harder to guard against even with game planning. i will give you that. But to say a player did worse because he is a choker is just plain ignorant, especially when presented with streams of evidence of how the opposition can just collapse on Robinson and take him out.

Really, did Robinson just somehow decide not to choke vs. the Phoenix all those years, or was it because Phoenix was ill equipped to defend Robinson, so they shut down the perimeter to win both series? Did Robinson decide to choke against the Jazz, or did the Jazz decide that it is easier to let Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott beat them because they have the personnel to handle Robinson?

Did Hakeem felt like choking vs. the Mavs in 90? Did he just quit vs. Seattle in 96? or is it because those teams were filled with the right personnel and devised the game plan specifically to stop Hakeem, feeling that is the best way to defeat the Rockets?

Robinson shot .708 from the line in the playoffs vs. .732 in the regular season, with more games played later in the career in the playoffs where he shot worse from the FT line. He shot 87% vs. the Warriors in 92, did he decide not to choke that series? he shot 81% in the 95 playoff run? Why is that?
His playoff numbers are even less impressive when you factor in who the few big offensive series(statistically) came against.

1 was the 1990 Nuggets who defined the run and gun style.

27.7 ppg, 59.3 FG%, 63 TS% (pace in the series was 108.8)

The next series vs Portland he was down to 22.9 ppg on 50.4 FG%/55.8 TS%

Not bad, but not great and among the better series from his prime.

His playoff numbers also benefited from the run and gun early 90's West when he faced the Run TMC Warriors. When you see his numbers, you'll think he dominated.

25.8 ppg, 68.6 FG%, 76 TS%

But watch the series and not only will you see that he wasn't taking over those games, but you'll hear the commentators mention that his numbers seemed quiet. And then keep in mind that the Warriors were the 5th worst defensive team in the entire league and that Robinson's 55 win Spurs lost to the 44 win Warriors.

In fact, it was very normal for stars to put up huge numbers against the Warriors of this era. And this is one of the cases where the numbers look a lot better than the impact, as evidenced by him losing in 4 games to a team that won 11 fewer games.

The 3rd big playoff series offensively came against the '96 Suns when he averaged 30 ppg on 55.6 FG%/62 TS%, but similar to Golden State in '91, Phoenix was the 7th worst defensive team in the entire league(in a league with several expansion teams), and the worst in the entire playoffs. You'll see the drop vs Utah in that same playoffs.

And then there are these other series from Robinson's '90-'96 prime.

1993 1st round vs Portland- 19.3 ppg, 42.6 FG%, 48.7 TS%
1994 1st round vs Utah- 20 ppg, 41.1 FG%, 47.1 TS%
1995 1st round vs Denver- 19 ppg, 42.9 FG%, 49.3 TS%
1996 semifinals vs Utah- 19.3 ppg, 47.5 FG%, 52.6 TS%

Shows you that he was never as good of a scorer as his regular season numbers suggest. Choker.

[djohn2oo8]

Yes, people shoot lower % when they are triple teamed. But let's not talk in generalities.

From 90 to 96, he shot the following %ages in the playoffs:

.533/.686/injured/.465/.411/.446/.516

So 40's half the time, 50s twice, and 60s once. He normally shoots in the low to mid 50s in the regular season.

Compare that to Hakeem, from 85 to 99 (not sure which ones I should go for because he had a longer prime):
.477/.530/.615/.571/.519/.443/missed/.578/.517/.519/.537/.510/.590/.394/.426

40's or lower 4 times
50s 9 times
60s once

Definitely better %, but then again, Hakeem shot .443 when he was swarmed.



Bulls needed interior defense. Spurs needed scoring, and more specifically, outside shooting.

No, MVPs are not expected to "carry" his team to a title. In fact, MVPs carrying his teams to the finals is not the norm.



Because it is true. Guess where Hakeem went when Avery Johnson was his 3rd string point guard? Oh, he got bounced out the first round 4 straight times, averaging 18.3ppg on .443 shooting in one year, and 22ppg the next. But even then, he had guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell opening up the floor for him, you know, guys who made 11 3pters in 3 games in 91, and Vernon Maxwell and Sleepy FLoyd who made 11 3pters in 4 games in 90.

Compare that to the Spurs starting guards.
90 - 2 3PM in 10 games
91 - 2 in 4
92 - Robinson injured
93 - 2 in 10 (Willie Anderson made 6 coming off the bench)
94 - 3 in 4
95 - 9 in 15
96 - 16 in 10 (all by Vinny Del Negro because he was wide opened the entire playoffs. Avery Johnson couldn't even hit ONE despite how opened he was).

Now guess how many 3s Hakeem's starting backcourt made in the 94 and 95 runs?
94 - 79 3PM in 23 games, and another 34 by Horry
95 - 76 in 22 games, and another 44 by Horry.

But you and only you would think that a good 3 pt shooting team won't open the floor for their center. Let's say I am defending the Spurs. I see Negro and Avery Johnson, one guy 27 three pointers in 1,054 regular season games, on .145 shooting. Yes, you got that right, 14.5% 3 pt shooting. That's 14.5%. With 1 out of 18 attempts in his entire playoff career

The other guy made 243 in 771 games in the regular season, on 36% shooting.

They have this center who averages 24 to 30 points a game, pretty much all in the paint. Hmmm ... guess what I am going to do? I will cram the middle and let those losers take threes all day, especially the guy who shoots 14.5% in his career.

Then you have this other team, 664 3PM over 737 games on 40% shooting, and another guy 1256 3PM on 855 games on 32% shooting, or a guy who at that point was the 2nd best shooting guard of all time, 827 3pm over 1024 games on 32% shooting. Hmmmm ... oh, then there is this SF with 795 3PM in 1107 on 34% shooting, but they also have this crazy center who dominates. I don't know how to guard them, really, you double/triple the man in the middle, and they nail 3 pointers all over your face, you single team this guy, and he gets two points. I guess I will guard the three pointers because they are worth one point more.

You are the only person I know who didn't think 3 pt shooting would open up the lane.



I was following your lead. You said you want to talk about playoff stats, and I used playoff advanced stats. Simple as that.
Not reading any of that due to the simple fact amb doesn't know that 3 point shooters don't open up the floor for the center, the center opens up the floor for the 3 point shooters to get open shots :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Olajuwon: In our system, we knew that our strength was inside and that teams would try to guard me one-on-one. So it was our responsibility to force them to double-team. When they double-teamed, we had to spread the court with our shooters. So my job was to establish that inside game so that the outside guys could do their jobs: extend the court, make the 3-pointers.
But the problem was that if I didn't do my job and don't force them to double-team me, then my teammates all were affected. So the point was to make them pay by establishing that. So you have to have a single player with that ability to make the other teams pay. And there are some teams and coaches who will say, "Let him go one-on-one." We would change our game plan then to go inside, just to force them to double-team.

:lol Amb. Guess David couldn't open up the floor in the playoffs

[spurraider21]

david didnt have shooters that could capitalize... so the defense never had to respect them. the inside-out strategy doesn't work when the "out" isn't respected

[Brazil]

david didnt have shooters that could capitalize... so the defense never had to respect them. the inside-out strategy doesn't work when the "out" isn't respected

you won't convince them with this... those two clowns like their robinson is clown narrative

[djohn2oo8]

david didnt have shooters that could capitalize... so the defense never had to respect them. the inside-out strategy doesn't work when the "out" isn't respected
Why would it matter if the defense had to respect them if Robinson was getting doubled and tripled? There would be open shots anyway.