Reply With Quote
You sure backed it up, alright.What a crappy statWhat exactly is this supposed to prove........nothing. (seriously.....what a dumb meaningless stat)
Not only was Hakeem easily the better defender, He played against BETTER COMPE ION.
This proves that Duncan blocked more shots per foul than Hakeem. The only reason Duncan has fewer blocks than Hakeem is that he doesn't take as many risks.What a crappy stat
Not only was Hakeem easily the better defender, He played against BETTER COMPE ION.
Duncan never gets in foul trouble like Hakeem used to sometimes.
You sure backed it up, alright.What a crappy stat
Not only was Hakeem easily the better defender, He played against BETTER COMPE ION.
This has absolutely jack shit to do with defense.....absolutely nothing.
How about you also list the steals there buddy, Hakeem owned Duncan in that department.....he wasn't just a alltime great post defender/shot blocker.
Last edited by Tmac&Luther; 10-18-2008 at 12:05 AM.
Selective reading I guess....look harder.
Still not seeing it, sorry.
I don't necessarily consider either Olajuwon or Duncan as being head and shoulders above the other, defensively, but you're not putting forth as good an argument for Olajuwon as others are for Duncan.
Back up what you're saying, and you'll sound more convincing.
Over his career, Tim Duncan has definitely been one of the best defenders in the league, but saying he's the best defender of this generation is definitely an awfully biased statement. For a six year stretch, from 2000-01 to 2005-06, Ben Wallace dominated defense in the NBA. While his decline has been significant the last few years due to changing teams and systems, back injury, and getting older, he left his imprint on defense in this decade as the best defender of this generation.
that's why considering consistency in the last ten years... Bowen>Wallace>Artest>TD>Camby>KG
what? where?
it might interest you to note that duncan (12.7) is ranked 13th all-time in rebounds in the playoffs while hakeem (11.2) is ranked 21st. Duncan is also ranked 2nd (9.3) in defensive rebounds while Hakeem (7.9) is 12th. And while Hakeem (3.3) is 1st on the all-time playoffs blocks list, Duncan (2.7) is not far behind at 3rd. The only stat that Hakeem dominates in the head-to-head is steals (24th at 1.7), where Duncan is nowhere near the top 50 in that category.
And looking at those numbers, this comment is not warranted. Duncan holds his own.
You hit the nail right on the head there.
Last edited by m33p0; 10-18-2008 at 06:20 AM.
I think Wallace was significantly overrated and his decline was as much and probably more due to changing teams as it was to age.
Wallace was overrated in some regards. He was not an elite low post defender, but not bad either. But, other than that, he deserved the recognition he got as a defender. Again, in that six year stretch, he dominated defense, and it wasn't just holding down the paint. He clogged the lane, caused deflections, got steals, was a great team defender, played passing lanes, was quick enough to switch on many if not most perimeter players out in space.
His decline was significant, but during 2000-06, he was the best defender in the league.
you're right JamStone..but you also have to consider that Duncan was putting in MAJOR effort offensively, being the #1 option on a team..that's obviously going to take up more energy than Ben Wallace, who was STRICTLY a defensive and rebounding specialist..
I'd take Duncan over Wallace, but I know where you're coming from..Tim should have had at least 1 of Wallace's DPOY, but Ben deserved the rest..Wallace was a better help defender and rebounder, while Duncan was a better anchor and post defender..
Bowen is IN NO WAY a better defender than Tim..I still don't understand how Spurs fans can say that..Duncan ANCHORS our D, and has every year..Bowen is a PERIMETER defender..Bruce can only impact ONE GUY at a time, while Tim controls an entire area of the floor..when Bowen gets beat, Duncan is the guy to protect him..that surely makes his job A LOT easier, as you can see when Bowen shades his defender into Tim..
Take Tim Duncan off the Spurs and put him on any other team in the league and his defensive impact would be exactly the same.
Take Ben Wallace away from a team with Rasheed Wallace and Tayshaun Prince and he's nowhere near as effective.
Wallace was a great defensive player, but the irony is that if he had been a better offensive player, the media would have given him fewer awards. Wallace winning four DPOYs while Duncan won none is a complete joke.
Duncan has been named to the NBA defensive team 11 times. Only Duncan and Jabber have done that. And Jabber had only five 1st team selections, while Duncan has 8. Duncan is not done yet, either. He could easily make the defensive team 2 or 3 more times (or more, who knows). Duncan will probably end up his craeer as a defensive specialist and spot offensive player. So five years from now, Duncan might be averaging 9 or 10 points a game, yet still make the all-defensive team.
Hakeem made the NBA defensive team 9 times, 5 on the 1st team.
All-Defensive Selections by Player
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...by_player.html
I didn't say there wasn't a reason why Ben was a better defender. That's precisely why Ben was, because he could focus almost exclusively on the defensive end. That's precisely the reason Ben was better.
Which one of Ben's four DPOYs should Tim have had?I'd take Duncan over Wallace, but I know where you're coming from..Tim should have had at least 1 of Wallace's DPOY, but Ben deserved the rest..Wallace was a better help defender and rebounder, while Duncan was a better anchor and post defender..
Ben Wallace was a dominant before Prince and Rasheed. Two of his DPOYs were before Rasheed played on the Pistons and before Tayshaun got significant minutes.
Ben started experiencing really bad back problems I believe around 2005. His defensive numbers started to really decline last season, but he also saw a drop in mpg. Even his one full season in Chicago, the Bulls went from 7th in the league in defensive rating to 1st in the league in defensive rating. Hard to argue your point when you see that.
In that 6 year stretch, you could have taken Ben Wallace and put him on any team in the league and they would have been significantly greater defensive team.
Pistons defensive stats in 2005-2006 with Ben Wallace, DPOY:
FGA 0.452
Points allowed 90.2
Points per 100 possessions 103.1 (5th out of 30)
in 2006-2007 without Ben Wallace, DPOY:
FGA 0.445
Points allowed 91.8
Points per 100 possessions 104.2 (7th out of 30)
Maybe a little worse overall, but certainly not a compelling argument for him being the best defensive player in the league.
Why ignore the fact that the Bulls went from 7th in the league in defensive rating to 1st in the league in defensive rating by adding Ben Wallace?
And if we're going to do the "look how good the team is without him" game, let's take a look at the Spurs as a defensive unit without Duncan. In 2004-05, he missed 16 games. I threw out two games because they went into double overtime.
In the other 14 games, the Spurs without Duncan gave up 91.2 ppg on 43.7% FG shooting.
On that 2004-05 season, the Spurs gave up 88.4 ppg on 42.6% FG shooting. The difference is not much at all. Now based on that would you go ahead and say that Duncan didn't have the defensive impact of best defensive player in the league? I doubt it.
Look, part of defense is how good your teammates are and how good the coaches put you in position to succeed with coaching, scouting, and whatever else. The Pistons already had a good foundation of defense without Ben Wallace just like the Spurs do without Duncan. It's the same reason why the Spurs actually got better the year after David Robinson retired and replaced him with Rasho. Are you going to argue Rasho was a better defensive player than Robinson (even acknowledging Robinson's decline in his last few years)? Of course not. But, the system helped make Rasho serviceable.
Your evidence is good on the surface, not much substance when you think about it deeper. The Pistons still had quality defenders, including McDyess who stepped in as an underrated low post defender and rebounder. That drop-off wasn't nearly as bad as David Robinson to Rasho Nesterovic and the Spurs actually improved. David Robinson sucked at defense his last season?
Gee, then why wasn't he DPOY that year? Could it be because the voters don't know what the they're doing?
Nice. Ignore the games that would blow your point to smithereens.And if we're going to do the "look how good the team is without him" game, let's take a look at the Spurs as a defensive unit without Duncan. In 2004-05, he missed 16 games. I threw out two games because they went into double overtime.
First, I don't remember anyone claiming that DRob was the DPOY in 2003. Second, Rasho was a surprisingly effective defender that year. Third, anyone will tell you that the major reason the Spurs improved was because of the improved perimeter and wing defense, a lot of which had to do with *cough* Hedo.Look, part of defense is how good your teammates are and how good the coaches put you in position to succeed with coaching, scouting, and whatever else. The Pistons already had a good foundation of defense without Ben Wallace just like the Spurs do without Duncan. It's the same reason why the Spurs actually got better the year after David Robinson retired and replaced him with Rasho. Are you going to argue Rasho was a better defensive player than Robinson (even acknowledging Robinson's decline in his last few years)? Of course not. But, the system helped make Rasho serviceable.
Again, show me where we're talking about Robinson being the DPOY the last few years.Your evidence is good on the surface, not much substance when you think about it deeper. The Pistons still had quality defenders, including McDyess who stepped in as an underrated low post defender and rebounder. That drop-off wasn't nearly as bad as David Robinson to Rasho Nesterovic and the Spurs actually improved. David Robinson sucked at defense his last season?
Ben Wallace was allegedly the best defender in the league, and yet when he left there was almost no impact on the Pistons' defense.
Two double overtime games that went scored in the 120s and 130s. Yeah, it would have skewed the numbers. And, 14 games is still a big enough sample that should provide insight to Duncan's defensive impact. It shouldn't need two double overtime games to skew the numbers.
We were talking impact. You note the Pistons defense and still ignore the Bulls defense improving all the way to the #1 defensive rating by adding Ben Wallace. And, all you say is: "see the voters are dumb."
You'd think that 14 games is enough to show a huge difference in Duncan's defensive impact, but similar to Ben, it appeared to be nominal and we both know it wasn't. Who you view as the best defender in the league should have been much clearer in those 14 games he missed even without those two double overtime games. But, guess what? It's also about coaching and teammates and schemes.
In that six stretch from 2000 to 2006, Ben Wallace was a better rebounder, shot blocker (except once), and steals guy, while fouling less each of those seasons. Tim Duncan was the more effective low post defender. Everything else, Ben did better on the defensive end, including altering shots, getting deflections, switching out on the perimeter, and defending the pick-and-roll.
Your only argument is that a team he helped make great defensively was able to remain close to as great defensively, but you still refuse to acknowledge that he made Chicago go from very good to the best defensively by scoffing at that fact.
And, Rasho Nesterovic and Hedo Turkoglu (also a drop-off from Stephen Jackson) were surprisingly effective because of the schemes and all of the teammates. Just the same, Duncan does well because of the coaching schemes and his teammates.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
