Jeff McDonald: Duncan as Kareem?

[whottt]

Actually, until Magic arrived, the Lakers had no leader and won nothing with Kareem. Ditto, Milwaukee without Oscar. Or as Kareem, himself, put it before Magic arrived, "I just show up and shoot a few hook shots."

And how many les did they win without him?

No one in a position to hire NBA coaches has ever concurred.

And since all of them are so successful....

He could rebound, no doubt, he just chose not to. Given his longeveity and height, his career rebound stats were bound to be good -- just nowhere close to what they could have been. Russell and Chamberlain averaged twice as many rebounds/game as Kareem.

He lead the league in rebounding....

How many times has Duncan lead the league in rebounding?

Or blocks?

Blocks = D?

Yes...blocks = d...effort put out on the defensive end of the court...

You got a better stat?

[whottt]

When you assume, you make an ass of...

My bad...


I ASSUmed there was a point and reason for asking that question...

I won't make that mistake with you again.

I was just curious why I hadn't heard about it. I would agree that it was more likely he started as a teenager or at UCLA.

Because you either weren't watching basketball then, or weren't paying attention?

EDIT: He was also a student of Bruce Lee, who smoked reefer or hashish (not sure which). Supposedly, an allergic reaction to hashish played a role in Lee's edema. Obviously, there are a lot of conspiracy theories and disinformation surrounding Lee's death, so who knows?

If Lee was killed by Hash he's the first and only person in history to be so...allergic reaction, or otherwise...

[Russ]

Yes...blocks = d...effort put out on the defensive end of the court...

You got a better stat?

Not really. Maybe points/game allowed by your team? That's the problem, individual defensive play doesn't translate to stats. (No one would suggest steals as a barometer, right?)

It's a matter of opinion.

Same with leadership, etc.

You think Kareem was a great leader. I disagree.

You think Kareem was an intellectual. I disagree -- he was just in a position as a top player on a popular team to intimidate those (like reporters) who questioned his stony demeanor. Thus, they presented it as thoughtfulness.

You think Kareem would make a great coach. I disagree. We'll never know.

You think Kareem played better D and rebounded better than Duncan. I disagree.

But the comparison between Kareem and Duncan re longevity, I think, is quite corrrect.

[polandprzem]

Kareem was a bad, bad dude.

Ask Bruce Lee...

http://refernet.typepad.com/jdragon/...lee_vs_ka.html

That's why there should be a seprate MMA forum

[polandprzem]

[Reggie Miller]

What ever happended to that Lew Alcindor fellow? I hear he was a pretty good big man...

[mystargtr34]

Kareem was a very solid rebounder until he hit his mid 30's. His rebound rate, adjusted for minutes played and pace factor (important to consider when comparing different eras). He hovered around 18 for most of his career, topped at 19.6 one year (Duncan's career high is 19.4). But Tim has been right on about 19 nearly every season except his first couple. Kareem had a few seasons around the 15 mark during his prime which isnt particularly great for a C.

Wilt was at a consistent 20, which shows how inflated the rebounding numbers were in the 60's, his rate was about the same as a Kevin Garnett or Dwight Howard.

[Man In Black]

EDIT: He was also a student of Bruce Lee, who smoked reefer or hashish (not sure which). Supposedly, an allergic reaction to hashish played a role in Lee's edema. Obviously, there are a lot of conspiracy theories and disinformation surrounding Lee's death, so who knows?

Sorry. True Bruce Lee fans know that Bruce died of from swelling of the brain which was caused by an allergic reaction to a medication called Eqaugesic.

And Whott talks about Kareem's ability with this statement:

But here's the deal...Kareem went 7'2 and was arguably the best conditioned bigman in the league, one of the most co-ordinated, and as well one of the fastest...even when he got old, he was a mismatch for most 7 footers...

I'd like to point out that when one truly relies on his fundamental brilliance, it doesn't matter as much about his athleticism. Also, if we're talking conditioning, they why is it you don't talk about Tim's past life as a US-ranked swimmer? It's something that Tim has mentioned on Inside The NBA. 10,000 meters everyday in the off-season. It helps keep up his endurance and since it's non weight-bearing, it helps keep his body in tip-top shape. I don't want to discredit Kareem but at the same time, I don't want someone's opinion to misrepresent the work that TD does to continue his assault on the ALL-NBA and ALL-NBA D teams.

[whottt]

Sorry. True Bruce Lee fans know that Bruce died of from swelling of the brain which was caused by an allergic reaction to a medication called Eqaugesic.

And Whott talks about Kareem's ability with this statement:


I'd like to point out that when one truly relies on his fundamental brilliance, it doesn't matter as much about his athleticism.

Athleticism + Skill > Skill


Speed + skill > Skill


Kareem was IMO, the best running bigman in the NBA, until his very last day on the court.

Also, if we're talking conditioning, they why is it you don't talk about Tim's past life as a US-ranked swimmer? It's something that Tim has mentioned on Inside The NBA. 10,000 meters everyday in the off-season. It helps keep up his endurance and since it's non weight-bearing, it helps keep his body in tip-top shape. I don't want to discredit Kareem but at the same time, I don't want someone's opinion to misrepresent the work that TD does to continue his assault on the ALL-NBA and ALL-NBA D teams.

I'm not misrepresenting anything about Duncan...nor am I attacking...


What occurred here was, someone said Kareem couldn't rebound...when in fact, he lead the league in rebounding...


If that's misrepresenting Duncan...you're being a subjective homer. I merely stated a fact.

A
Fact.


Stating that Kareem was ahead of his time in conditioning and was a superb athletic in addition to a well conditioned, and a skilled one...isn't misrepresenting either...nor is it an attack on Duncan.


It's merely the truth...


Misreprsenting would be oh like...when someone says they think the pursuit of Kidd is going to make Tony Parker mad...being questioned by someone else...and then a year later when it coems out that it did in fact Parker mad...the questioner fails to admit that guy saying it would make Parker mad, was in fact, right....fails to admit it...as much as years later.

[whottt]

Not really. Maybe points/game allowed by your team? That's the problem, individual defensive play doesn't translate to stats. (No one would suggest steals as a barometer, right?)

No...ppg allowed is not always indicative of good defense...

Some teams shoot the ball faster than others on offense...that doesn't mean they can't play defense.


More possessions = more ppg



How about Kareem's 11 ALL NBA Defense Teams?

You think that means maybe the man could play a little D? Just a tad?

You think Kareem was a great leader. I disagree.

And I'd say he won every where he went...sometimes he needed help...and so has every other player in history.

You think Kareem was an intellectual. I disagree -- he was just in a position as a top player on a popular team to intimidate those (like reporters) who questioned his stony demeanor. Thus, they presented it as thoughtfulness.

I think he's obviously a very intelligent man....you can tell that just by listening to him talk. I can anyway...

You think Kareem would make a great coach. I disagree. We'll never know.

Actually...we do know...he's coached one season as a pro coach, and won a championship that season.


Again...like the 11 ALL NBA D teams...that would seem to indicate he has some potential there...


Pop's barely had a winning record anywhere on teams without 2 or more HOF'ers them..

You think Kareem played better D and rebounded better than Duncan. I disagree.

#1. I didn't say he could play D better than Duncan.


But the man did make 11 ALL NBA D teams...

He's also blocked over 3000 shots...chopping off 5 years of his pro career...

He also actually was one of the best bigmen at stealing the ball as well.


You think that because he played on up tempo teams he couldn't play D at an extremely high level...

Guess what? He could...

And unlike Duncan? He often took the toughest defensive assignment...something Duncan has seldom done.



As for rebounding...


The man lead the NBA in rebounding...

Has Duncan?

How do Duncan's best rebounding years compare to Russell and Wilt's?


Who has the higher career average...Kareem? or Duncan?

Who has the best single season average...Kareem? or Duncan?

And if you tell me players got more rebounds then...I am going to say..guess what, Kareem still lead the league in rebounding, he was still the best...something Duncan has yet to do.


The man lead the league rebounding...

He also lead the league in block shots...

Has Duncan ever done those things?


No, he hasn't...he's never been the best in the league at those things, therefore...


As with the ALL NBA D Teams...as with your assessment of his defensive abilities, as with his ability as a leader, and a coach...

You do not have shred of factual evidence to back up your stance...



While I have at least some factual basis for every opinion I have, including some plain old cold hard facts...

But the comparison between Kareem and Duncan re longevity, I think, is quite corrrect.

Thanks

[Russ]

No...ppg allowed is not always indicative of good defense...

Some teams shoot the ball faster than others on offense...that doesn't mean they can't play defense.


More possessions = more ppg



How about Kareem's 11 ALL NBA Defense Teams?

You think that means maybe the man could play a little D? Just a tad?




And I'd say he won every where he went...sometimes he needed help...and so has every other player in history.





I think he's obviously a very intelligent man....you can tell that just by listening to him talk. I can anyway...









Actually...we do know...he's coached one season as a pro coach, and won a championship that season.


Again...like the 11 ALL NBA D teams...that would seem to indicate he has some potential there...


Pop's barely had a winning record anywhere on teams without 2 or more HOF'ers them..










#1. I didn't say he could play D better than Duncan.


But the man did make 11 ALL NBA D teams...

He's also blocked over 3000 shots...chopping off 5 years of his pro career...

He also actually was one of the best bigmen at stealing the ball as well.


You think that because he played on up tempo teams he couldn't play D at an extremely high level...

Guess what? He could...

And unlike Duncan? He often took the toughest defensive assignment...something Duncan has seldom done.



As for rebounding...


The man lead the NBA in rebounding...

Has Duncan?

How do Duncan's best rebounding years compare to Russell and Wilt's?


Who has the higher career average...Kareem? or Duncan?

Who has the best single season average...Kareem? or Duncan?

And if you tell me players got more rebounds then...I am going to say..guess what, Kareem still lead the league in rebounding, he was still the best...something Duncan has yet to do.


The man lead the league rebounding...

He also lead the league in block shots...

Has Duncan ever done those things?


No, he hasn't...he's never been the best in the league at those things, therefore...


As with the ALL NBA D Teams...as with your assessment of his defensive abilities, as with his ability as a leader, and a coach...

You do not have shred of factual evidence to back up your stance...



While I have at least some factual basis for every opinion I have, including some plain old cold hard facts...






Thanks

I think the comparison is bang on and I have believed it for some time.

But it's not just athleticism vs. fundamentals. It's body type mostly. Also efficiency of motion, smoothness -- they even play with that same impassive look (although Tim's aloofness is much more benign than Kareem's was).

There are significant differences as well -- Kareem played true center and never rebounded or played D like Tim. He wasn't a leader or a popular locker-room guy like Tim, either. But the similarities that go to longevity are striiking.

That's why I sometimes wonder just how many rings Tim may get if he wants them (and I think he does). And just how long (decades?) that we'll have to listen to the "experts'" desperate, wishful thinking that the Spurs are simply too old, that they're on their last legs and not athletic enough. They've been saying it now, about an ever-changing supporting cast, for about seven years.

Take a tranquilizer -- this is all I said.

[whottt]

And I said...

11 ALL NBA D Teams.
Lead league in rebounding....and blocks. Not to mention lead at least one postseason in those same categories...joining one David M Robinson as the only player to do so(who also was the only guy other than Kareem to the league the league in scoring blocks and boards, and incidentally, was the man guarding Shaq when the Spurs went through the Lakers for their les).
Won multiple championships at every level, high school, college and pro.
Won a championship in his only year as a head coach.


No tranq necessary...

[mystargtr34]

No...ppg allowed is not always indicative of good defense...

Some teams shoot the ball faster than others on offense...that doesn't mean they can't play defense.


More possessions = more ppg



How about Kareem's 11 ALL NBA Defense Teams?

You think that means maybe the man could play a little D? Just a tad?




And I'd say he won every where he went...sometimes he needed help...and so has every other player in history.





I think he's obviously a very intelligent man....you can tell that just by listening to him talk. I can anyway...









Actually...we do know...he's coached one season as a pro coach, and won a championship that season.


Again...like the 11 ALL NBA D teams...that would seem to indicate he has some potential there...


Pop's barely had a winning record anywhere on teams without 2 or more HOF'ers them..










#1. I didn't say he could play D better than Duncan.


But the man did make 11 ALL NBA D teams...

He's also blocked over 3000 shots...chopping off 5 years of his pro career...

He also actually was one of the best bigmen at stealing the ball as well.


You think that because he played on up tempo teams he couldn't play D at an extremely high level...

Guess what? He could...

And unlike Duncan? He often took the toughest defensive assignment...something Duncan has seldom done.



As for rebounding...


The man lead the NBA in rebounding...

Has Duncan?

How do Duncan's best rebounding years compare to Russell and Wilt's?


Who has the higher career average...Kareem? or Duncan?

Who has the best single season average...Kareem? or Duncan?

And if you tell me players got more rebounds then...I am going to say..guess what, Kareem still lead the league in rebounding, he was still the best...something Duncan has yet to do.


The man lead the league rebounding...

He also lead the league in block shots...

Has Duncan ever done those things?


No, he hasn't...he's never been the best in the league at those things, therefore...


As with the ALL NBA D Teams...as with your assessment of his defensive abilities, as with his ability as a leader, and a coach...

You do not have shred of factual evidence to back up your stance...



While I have at least some factual basis for every opinion I have, including some plain old cold hard facts...






Thanks

You talk about opponent ppg not being a good defensive measurement because of factors such as team putting up shots quicker than others, or pace factor (which i totally agree with).

Yet, when you compare Kareem's rebounding with Duncan you hint that Kareem was better because he averaged more rebounds, or he led the league in rebounding while Duncan didnt.

You completely disregard your previous reasoning about opponent ppg. The pace of a game effects rebounds also. Wilt averaged 27 rebounds per game one season, Dennis Rodman peaked at 18.7 rpg. Who was the better rebounder? Wilt? Not quite, and it wasnt really that close.

Back to Duncan and Kareem. Kareem's peak rebounding value was 16.9 rebounds, in 75/76. In 04/05 Duncan averaged 11.1 rebounds per game, you would think Kareem dominated Duncan in rebounding in comparison.

Kareem's rebound rate = 19.6
Duncan's rebound rate = 19.4

This isnt the best example as Duncan only played 33.4 minutes while Kareem played 42 minutes. But pace factor is big when comparing different eras.

Duncan has had 3 seasons with a rebound rate higher than 19.
Kareem as 1 such season.

At 32, Kareem dipped down to 15, which isnt exactly great for a C.

Its a close comparison, but i would say Duncan was a better rebounder.

[mystargtr34]

So Cal.... Wilt or Kareem?

[Indazone]

Yao baby!

Yao > Duncan

LOL

[mathbzh]

Yao baby!

Yao > Duncan

LOL

No
Scola > Wilt

[whottt]

You talk about opponent ppg not being a good defensive measurement because of factors such as team putting up shots quicker than others, or pace factor (which i totally agree with).

Yet, when you compare Kareem's rebounding with Duncan you hint that Kareem was better because he averaged more rebounds, or he led the league in rebounding while Duncan didnt.

That's becasuse the guy I was arguing with asked me to look at Kareem's rebounds comprared to Wilt and Russell's...first.

If I am going to do that for Kareem, you know...compare him to arguably the two greatest rebounders in league history, and then say he can't rebound because he never averaged as many as they did, I'm going to do it for Duncan.


They weren't averaging 25 rebounds per game by the time Kareem got into the league...




As for my other point...

Kareem lead the league in rebounding...that means he was the best in the league at it...

That is a point that cannot be challenged.

Kareem was the best in the league at it...at least once.

You completely disregard your previous reasoning about opponent ppg. The pace of a game effects rebounds also. Wilt averaged 27 rebounds per game one season, Dennis Rodman peaked at 18.7 rpg. Who was the better rebounder? Wilt? Not quite, and it wasnt really that close.

Back to Duncan and Kareem. Kareem's peak rebounding value was 16.9 rebounds, in 75/76. In 04/05 Duncan averaged 11.1 rebounds per game, you would think Kareem dominated Duncan in rebounding in comparison.

Kareem's rebound rate = 19.6
Duncan's rebound rate = 19.4

This isnt the best example as Duncan only played 33.4 minutes while Kareem played 42 minutes. But pace factor is big when comparing different eras.

So Kareem gets penalized for playing 42 mins per game? I think he should be rewarded for that...I consider it a plus, not a negative


It also could be indicative of the fact that Kareem played on some teams that had point guards capable of averaging close to 10 board per game...not to mention the other guys...while Duncan had Rasho.

Duncan has had 3 seasons with a rebound rate higher than 19.

And how many of those came before David Robinson was broken? Or retired? My guess is none.

Kareem as 1 such season.

At 32, Kareem dipped down to 15, which isnt exactly great for a C.

Well...tell you what, let me know when Duncan hits 32, and then we'll see if we can talk about what Kareem did at 32...deal?

Its a close comparison, but i would say Duncan was a better rebounder.

And I'd say...yet he was never the best in the league at it, better than the other guys at just plain old pulling down boards...not even when he was the only true rebounding force on his team...


And since Duncan did play on some teams that's sole focus was defense, and causing their opponents to miss a lot of shots...

There's really no case that he's a superior rebounder to Kareem.




What we have here is a case of...a HOF player having an obvious weakest area of his game, and someone exaggerating that into the statement, that he sucked in that area...and then getting their ass handed to them for their exaggeration.

[Russ]

What we have here is a case of...a HOF player having an obvious weakest area of his game, and someone exaggerating that into the statement, that he sucked in that area...and then getting their ass handed to them for their exaggeration.

At the risk of beating a dead horse . . .

Had you admitted early on (as you do now) that rebounding was "a weakness area" of AJ's games, I would have agreed. In fact that's more than I was saying about Kareem (whom by the way I consider to be one of the few that may be argued as the greatest player ever). To translate for you, I never said that he "sucked in that area."

What I actually said was . . .

I think the comparison is bang on and I have believed it for some time.

But it's not just athleticism vs. fundamentals. It's body type mostly. Also efficiency of motion, smoothness -- they even play with that same impassive look (although Tim's aloofness is much more benign than Kareem's was).

There are significant differences as well -- Kareem played true center and never rebounded or played D like Tim. He wasn't a leader or a popular locker-room guy like Tim, either. But the similarities that go to longevity are striiking.

That's why I sometimes wonder just how many rings Tim may get if he wants them (and I think he does). And just how long (decades?) that we'll have to listen to the "experts'" desperate, wishful thinking that the Spurs are simply too old, that they're on their last legs and not athletic enough. They've been saying it now, about an ever-changing supporting cast, for about seven years.

Everyone (including Kareem) admits that he could have been a better rebounder than he was (especially later in his career). The point is that Tim is a very good rebounder who comes closer to reaching his potential as a rebounder than AJ did. That's all -- they're both among the best statistically.

Same with defense. Kareem would have had to literally work at, or try, not to be a great defensive player given his physical stature and skills. As good as he was, however, he didn't each his potential in that area as well as Russell or even Wilt did. He just wasn't as interested and, as a matter of conscious strategy, his team concurred -- he was more valuable to the Lakers by saving his energy for the offensive end.

In fact, toward the latter stages, Kareem often did not even run back to the defensive end after the Lakers missed baskets in order to conserve energy. That fact could never be gleened through statistics but only by watching Kareem play. And that is the problem with relying soley upon statistics to attempt to compare players or make points.

[mystargtr34]

That's becasuse the guy I was arguing with asked me to look at Kareem's rebounds comprared to Wilt and Russell's...first.

If I am going to do that for Kareem, you know...compare him to arguably the two greatest rebounders in league history, and then say he can't rebound because he never averaged as many as they did, I'm going to do it for Duncan.




They weren't averaging 25 rebounds per game by the time Kareem got into the league...

Obviously, the league was slowing down during the 70's. Wilt's rebound rate actually improved throughout his career up until he was 36 while hes rebound per game were going DOWN. That shows how dramatically the pace of the game changed. As you said, its obviously an unfair comparison to say Wilt was a better rebounder than Kareem ONLY because Wilt averaged 25 boards and Kareem averaged 16 (completely different era's). Wilt was the better rebounder though but thats not my point.

As for my other point...

Kareem lead the league in rebounding...that means he was the best in the league at it...

That is a point that cannot be challenged.

Kareem was the best in the league at it...at least once.

Are you going to stick to that point. Duncan was top 2 in rebounding twice in his career so far, same as Kareem. Is that much of a difference?

So Kareem gets penalized for playing 42 mins per game? I think he should be rewarded for that...I consider it a plus, not a negative

It is a plus, its one of the things that made him one of a kind. Minutes dont effect rebound rate because its adjusted to 40 minutes. My point was that it would be better to compare rebound rate when they played similar minutes (removes any potential outside factors) even though it is adjusted for minutes, you get my drift? Its more accurate to compare scorers who played say 35 and 40 minutes, than it is to compare a scorer who played 20 minutes to a scorer who played 40 minutes (exaggerating). Anyway, its a moot point because Duncan's minutes are limited because of Pop, hes played 40 minutes before and had no problems doing so.

It also could be indicative of the fact that Kareem played on some teams that had point guards capable of averaging close to 10 board per game...not to mention the other guys...while Duncan had Rasho.

Duncan also had D-Rob, a doube digit rebounde for basically Duncan's first 3 seasons, and a solid rebounder for Duncan's first 6 seasons. Rasho actually had 2 seasons with the Spurs with a rebound rate basically the same as that of a 32 year old Kareem. Nazr was a double digit rebounder in New York and always grabbed a good rate of rebounds.

And how many of those came before David Robinson was broken? Or retired? My guess is none.

Duncan's career rebound rate is 18.3. His rookie year with a healthy D-Rob, his rate was 17.6, a ROOKIE remember, players are expected to get better.

Well...tell you what, let me know when Duncan hits 32, and then we'll see if we can talk about what Kareem did at 32...deal?

Umm ok, its not like hes 25 anymore, hel be 32 in about 5 months, last season he put up a rate of 18.7, higher than all but two of Kareem's seasons.

And I'd say...yet he was never the best in the league at it, better than the other guys at just plain old pulling down boards...not even when he was the only true rebounding force on his team...


And since Duncan did play on some teams that's sole focus was defense, and causing their opponents to miss a lot of shots...

You have no argument there, the early Duncan spurs probably had the slowest pace in league HISTORY, thus less shots put up, so your probably favouring Duncan with that argument.

There's really no case that he's a superior rebounder to Kareem.

Ive listed the cases above.

What we have here is a case of...a HOF player having an obvious weakest area of his game, and someone exaggerating that into the statement, that he sucked in that area...and then getting their ass handed to them for their exaggeration.

Yes he sucked at it more than Duncan, but thats not to say he wasnt a good rebounder.

[whottt]

Obviously, the league was slowing down during the 70's. Wilt's rebound rate actually improved throughout his career up until he was 36 while hes rebound per game were going DOWN. That shows how dramatically the pace of the game changed. As you said, its obviously an unfair comparison to say Wilt was a better rebounder than Kareem ONLY because Wilt averaged 25 boards and Kareem averaged 16 (completely different era's). Wilt was the better rebounder though but thats not my point.

And I'd say the fact that Wilt's rebounding rate improved once he could barely walk, should probably indicate to you that there's something rotten in Denmark with rebounding rate....


I assure you, he wasn't a better rebounder at 36...

Are you going to stick to that point. Duncan was top 2 in rebounding twice in his career so far, same as Kareem. Is that much of a difference?

Yes...it's that much of a difference, because you are saying a guy that was clearly the best in the league at it one time, is not as good as guy who has yet to be.

Best in the league...

It is a plus, its one of the things that made him one of a kind. Minutes dont effect rebound rate because its adjusted to 40 minutes. My point was that it would be better to compare rebound rate when they played similar minutes (removes any potential outside factors) even though it is adjusted for minutes, you get my drift? Its more accurate to compare scorers who played say 35 and 40 minutes, than it is to compare a scorer who played 20 minutes to a scorer who played 40 minutes (exaggerating). Anyway, its a moot point because Duncan's minutes are limited because of Pop, hes played 40 minutes before and had no problems doing so.

And I think you have to use stats like rebound rate with some common sense...


Tell you what...I have yet to look at a single rebound rate stat for any of the players mentioned...


But I can say with all certainty...when Dennis Rodman was paired with David Robinson in Drob's prime...his rebound rate likely suffered for it...tremendously.

Duncan also had D-Rob, a doube digit rebounde for basically Duncan's first 3 seasons, and a solid rebounder for Duncan's first 6 seasons. Rasho actually had 2 seasons with the Spurs with a rebound rate basically the same as that of a 32 year old Kareem. Nazr was a double digit rebounder in New York and always grabbed a good rate of rebounds.

And Kareem played with two greatest rebounding PG's in league history...not to mention of couple of other HOF's bigmen who were superior rebounders as well...


If it is your goal to trash the rebound rate stat and prove emphatically why it should never a primary judge, and only be used as a secondary one with a great deal of reservation...

You've succeeded.








[quote]Duncan's career rebound rate is 18.3. His rookie year with a healthy D-Rob, his rate was 17.6, a ROOKIE remember, players are expected to get better.




Umm ok, its not like hes 25 anymore, hel be 32 in about 5 months, last season he put up a rate of 18.7, higher than all but two of Kareem's seasons.]/quote]

And his front line was Bruce Bowen and Fabricio Oberto...

You have no argument there, the early Duncan spurs probably had the slowest pace in league HISTORY, thus less shots put up, so your probably favouring Duncan with that argument.

They actually did have the lowest opp FGA allowed in NBA history, several times, which means they also had an unusually high amount of missed shots to go along with that low pace...

Yes he sucked at it more than Duncan, but thats not to say he wasnt a good rebounder.

And I've yet to see a convincing argument that Duncan is the better rebounder...


Only secondary stats being used to make a primary judgement...


And what did happen to DRob's rebound rate anyway when he was paired with Rodman?

And how do you rank Bruce Bowen as a rebounder at the SF position?


I think Mugsey Bogues could give him a run for his money...



In short...rebound rate is highly influenced by supporting cast....and should not be a primary judge of anything...nor should it even be given a great deal of credence in the secondary stat category when it comes to judgements like this...


Whereas, a guy actually leading his league in rebounding...cannnpt be argued with...he was the best that season. Period.


Kinda lik when Dennis Rodman left...Drob decided to prove a point and lead the league in rebounding...which he then did.

[whottt]

And furthermore...Kareem's saying he could have been a better rebounder doesn't prove anything either...

Duncan undoubtedly thinks he could improve in every facet of his game...most of the great ones do...that's one of the reasons they were great.




Russ...Duncan plays for a coach that lives and breathes defense...Kareem played for a coach(well really a PG) that lived and breathed transition offense...

Kareem executed the desires of his teams...same as Duncan...it proves nothing emphatically about either one being a superior offensive or defensive player to the other....only exemplifies why they were great...because they provided what they were asked to provide to such a great degree...

I assure you, if Riley had wanted Kareem getting his but back down the court and he wasn't doing it...he wouldn't have been on the court as much.

And if Duncan wasn't often the only player on the Spurs crashing the offensive glass, per Pops wishes...he wouldn't be on the court as much either.

[Man In Black]

Just remember that Kareem only played with Riley for 8 of his 20 seasons.
As a Buck, he played for Larry Costello. His coaches as a Laker preceding Riley were Bill Sharman, Jerry West, Jack McKinney, and Paul Westhead. And many of his best years were as a Buck.
That is all.
Can we just admit that each player arguably is the best player to ever play his position?