Reply With Quote
That had nothing to do with an all world defender at C in Robinson (the one that allowed him not to guard Shaq) and the other all world defender at SF? These are luxuries I wish Hakeem had.
Was 3 seconds on defensive players even a rule before?
The league went to a perimeter friendly league in 01 or so. Come on you should know why it got harder for big men.
That had nothing to do with an all world defender at C in Robinson (the one that allowed him not to guard Shaq) and the other all world defender at SF? These are luxuries I wish Hakeem had.
Abused in 01 and 02????
Horry is a good defender. I'm sure one would rather go against him then Ewing, Robinson or Shaq. Just a guess. I'm not even counting the yr super old Karl Malone shut him down (2004). And if you can count Horry as helping in 95, then can't I count Rodman, Grant, Oakley and Mason all as helping in 94/95? They were all very good defenders as well.
In 01 Duncan averaged 23 and 12. In 02 he had like 29 and 17 or so. I believe that's abuse. In 04 despite being able to guard Duncan one on one at times Malone had help because the Lakers were allowed to clog the paint because the Spurs were shooting somethng like 20% from the 3 point line in that series. Duncan still had 21 and 12 in that series. Anything else?
It made the game easier for defensive big men. Zone defense allows a big man to always be near the basket to protect it.
The defensive 3 second rule applies when a defender is in the paint for 3 seconds and not guarding anyone. In the past, this would've been called an illegal defense.
The previous illegal defense rule enforced a man-to-man defense unless the defense was double teaming the ball.
Zones did make it harder for offensive big men, but I think this is somewhat offset by the league calling more fouls and reducing physical defense.
Robinson from 1999-2003 painfully regressed due to an 89 year old back. He was half the player then and was simply a role player.
And to the notion that Duncan benefited because he joined a championship caliber team is ludicrous.
Robinson, Elliott, Elie and Johnson were all way past their prime in 1999 and were all nothing more than role players. Saying those four players made up a championship caliber team without Duncan is so wrong to say.
In 2003, Robinson had hardly anything left in the tank, Parker was getting replaced by Speedy Claxton to close quarters, and Manu Ginobili was a rookie averaging an inefficient 7 points per game. Those two players weren't anything near to what they were by 2007.
Do I need to bring back Bill Simmons quote to demonstrate this?
"Helplessly, we've watched him carry the Spurs to three les, a number that could have been five if not for Derek Fisher's miracle shot in 2004 and Manu Ginobili's stupid foul of Dirk Nowitzki last season." - Bill Simmons
"Assuming the Spurs win the 2007 le and Duncan captures his fourth Finals MVP award (both decent bets), his first professional decade will have concluded with four rings, two regular-season MVP awards and nine first-team All-NBA nods. His best teammates have been David Robinson (who turned 33 in Duncan's rookie year), Manu Ginobili (never a top-15 player) and Tony Parker (ditto). In fact, Duncan has never played for a dominant team; the Spurs have never had quite enough talent to roll through the league. Trapped at the top of the standings, they've been forced to rely on others' failed lottery picks, foreign rookies, journeymen and head cases with baggage. Zoom through San Antonio's past 10 rosters on basketball-reference.com some time. You'll be shocked. Tim Duncan has never played on a great basketball team. Not once." - Bill Simmons
"Duncan is the hub of it all, the oversize big brother who looks out for everyone else. During breaks in the action, you can always count on him to throw an arm around a teammate before dispensing advice or to wave everyone over for an impromptu pep talk. He's their defensive anchor, smartest player, emotional leader, crunch-time scorer and most compe ive gamer, one of those rare superstars who simply can't be measured by statistics alone. Fifty years from now, some stat geek will crunch numbers from Duncan's era and come to the conclusion that Kevin Garnett was just as good. And he'll be wrong. No NBA team that featured a healthy Duncan would have missed the playoffs for three straight years. It's an impossibility.
Now ...
I'm not a fan of the whole overrated/underrated thing. With so many TV and radio shows, columnists, bloggers and educated sports fans around, it's nearly impossible for anything to be rated improperly anymore. Everyone is constantly searching for fresh topics to dissect, so could anything slip under the radar at this point? Think back to when Duncan entered the league: The web was still rounding into shape, sportswriters weren't screaming at each other on TV, radio hosts were confined to talking about their local teams and everyone read their local columnists. That's it. Ten years later, a hyperactive sports world means that, if anything, underrated players (like Ben Wallace, for instance) quickly become overrated because everyone spends so much time discussing how underrated they are. Well, I say Tim Duncan is underrated. You know what else? He's wildly underrated." - Bill Simmons
Forget the championships, forget the teams.
Mano-E-Mano One on One Hakeem would beat Duncan.
Is 21 ppg on 47% shooting from the field and 67% from the line something to be proud of?
Robinson from 1999-2003 painfully regressed due to an 89 year old back. He was half the player then and was simply a role player.
And to the notion that Duncan benefited because he joined a championship caliber team is ludicrous.
Robinson, Elliott, Elie and Johnson were all way past their prime in 1999 and were all nothing more than role players. Saying those four players made up a championship caliber team without Duncan is so wrong to say.
In 2003, Robinson had hardly anything left in the tank, Parker was getting replaced by Speedy Claxton to close quarters, and Manu Ginobili was a rookie averaging an inefficient 7 points per game. Those two players weren't anything near to what they were by 2007.
Do I need to bring back Bill Simmons quote to demonstrate this?
"Helplessly, we've watched him carry the Spurs to three les, a number that could have been five if not for Derek Fisher's miracle shot in 2004 and Manu Ginobili's stupid foul of Dirk Nowitzki last season." - Bill Simmons
"Assuming the Spurs win the 2007 le and Duncan captures his fourth Finals MVP award (both decent bets), his first professional decade will have concluded with four rings, two regular-season MVP awards and nine first-team All-NBA nods. His best teammates have been David Robinson (who turned 33 in Duncan's rookie year), Manu Ginobili (never a top-15 player) and Tony Parker (ditto). In fact, Duncan has never played for a dominant team; the Spurs have never had quite enough talent to roll through the league. Trapped at the top of the standings, they've been forced to rely on others' failed lottery picks, foreign rookies, journeymen and head cases with baggage. Zoom through San Antonio's past 10 rosters on basketball-reference.com some time. You'll be shocked. Tim Duncan has never played on a great basketball team. Not once." - Bill Simmons
"Duncan is the hub of it all, the oversize big brother who looks out for everyone else. During breaks in the action, you can always count on him to throw an arm around a teammate before dispensing advice or to wave everyone over for an impromptu pep talk. He's their defensive anchor, smartest player, emotional leader, crunch-time scorer and most compe ive gamer, one of those rare superstars who simply can't be measured by statistics alone. Fifty years from now, some stat geek will crunch numbers from Duncan's era and come to the conclusion that Kevin Garnett was just as good. And he'll be wrong. No NBA team that featured a healthy Duncan would have missed the playoffs for three straight years. It's an impossibility.
Now ...
I'm not a fan of the whole overrated/underrated thing. With so many TV and radio shows, columnists, bloggers and educated sports fans around, it's nearly impossible for anything to be rated improperly anymore. Everyone is constantly searching for fresh topics to dissect, so could anything slip under the radar at this point? Think back to when Duncan entered the league: The web was still rounding into shape, sportswriters weren't screaming at each other on TV, radio hosts were confined to talking about their local teams and everyone read their local columnists. That's it. Ten years later, a hyperactive sports world means that, if anything, underrated players (like Ben Wallace, for instance) quickly become overrated because everyone spends so much time discussing how underrated they are. Well, I say Tim Duncan is underrated. You know what else? He's wildly underrated." - Bill Simmons
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 05-25-2010 at 01:21 PM.
You obviously never watched Duncan or the Spurs for that matter.
Popovich has ran the zone probably 2 times during the Duncan era. Pop hates the zone and never runs it.
Making any point you make on Duncan insignificant. You never watched him.
It may be ludicrous, but it's true. At that time, how many big men were considered better than Robinson? 3 years removed from his MVP year and you consider him a role player?
Robinson from 1999-2003 painfully regressed due to an 89 year old back. He was half the player then and was simply a role player.
And to the notion that Duncan benefited because he joined a championship caliber team is ludicrous.
Robinson, Elliott, Elie and Johnson were all way past their prime in 1999 and were all nothing more than role players. Saying those four players made up a championship caliber team without Duncan is so wrong to say.
To be honest, I don't know who Bill Simmons is so I'm not sure why you put so much faith in his opinion. In any case, it hurts your argument when you're unable to support your own assertions.
And let's not forget that in 2006, Mario Elie said that Olajuwon was the greatest player he ever played with (Duncan being the 2nd greatest).
So whose opinion would you trust more....Bill Simmons (whoever he is) or an unbiased player (now an assistant coach) who won championships with both Duncan and Olajuwon?
Did I say that the Spurs ran the zone? In fact, did I say anything untrue?
I was responding to the poster who said that the new rules were detrimental to bigs.
I was merely pointing out how the rule changes benefitted defensive bigs by allowing them to stay near the basket regardless of where their assigned man was.
No offense, but your attempt to discredit me is laughable.
No you're wrong there. Robinson was nothing more than a role player from 1999-2003.
Wow you don't know who Bill Simmons is?
First you claim Duncan benefited from the 3 second rule, implying that the Spurs used a zone.
Which they never did and never will.
Then you don't even know who the best journalist and sports mind the biggest sports network has to offer.
The more and more I talk to you, the less and less credible you are becoming from actually being aware of the NBA outside of you're beloved Rockets.
You claim that Robinson wasn't a role player during the years he played with Duncan.
You claim an old Elliott, Johnson, Elie and 34-35 year old Robinson to being championship caliber without Duncan.
BTW, I am supporting my own assertions by quoting Bill Simmons, the most well respected journalist the biggest sports network has to offer.
Here's his website..
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/simmons/
And he's an NBA Fan first and foremost, and a Celtics fan at heart. Has no ties to San Antonio.
Where the quotes?
I can sit here and say a bunch of things too that I've " heard". But without quotes they're insignificant.
So much dumb here.
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/...-olajuwon.html
"Elie: "I love Tim. I think he may be the second best player I played with but 'Dream,' just his performance in pressure situations—when David Robinson got the '95 MVP, 'Dream' told me, 'Mario, he’s borrowing my trophy.' When I heard that I said, 'Somebody’s in trouble tonight.' That guy put on a performance—under that pressure against the MVP and we have no home court advantage—and 'Dream' just dominated that position."
Want more quotes, to see what kind of player Duncan was?
"He is probably the best player to ever play the position the way he plays it," said Utah coach Jerry Sloan, who coached Jazz great Karl Malone. -From the coach of Karl Malone of 18 years.
"I think all around, there's never been a big forward quite like him," said Hall of Fame coach and analyst Jack Ramsay. "Bob Pet was a great scorer and rebounder. Karl Malone was a more powerful player, but they didn't have the versatility Tim does. Kevin McHale was probably the best low-post, back-to-the-basket big forward, and he was a good defender, but he, too, couldn't do the things Duncan can do."
"He's pretty unique in how he plays," Pet said. "He can play with his back to the basket or facing it. I spent 95%-97% of the time facing the basket. He's pretty versatile as a player. It also seems that he's stepped it up in the playoffs."
"In my 20 years in the NBA, Duncan is the best big to play the game," says former Houston Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy. " O'Neal always had the benefit of a dominant perimeter player, from [Penny] Hardaway to [Kobe] Bryant to [Dwyane] Wade. Duncan has had very good players, but he's never had that dominant player, so that's why I give him the edge."
Then answer in the question. In 1999, name the big men that you considered better than Robinson.
That's when you lost me. Shows clearly you have no ing idea what your talking about.
Even though he says he thinks he may. Not Tim is the second best player.
" I think he may" isn't as solid of a premise as Tim is the second best player. But that's because I took two philosophy classes in college, so I may be nit picking and over analyzing the statement. So forgive me there.
If you read more of the article, Friedman goes on to say:
Even though he says he thinks he may. Not Tim is the second best player.
" I think he may" isn't as solid of a premise as Tim is the second best player. But that's because I took two philosophy classes in college, so I may be nit picking and over analyzing the statement. So forgive me there.
So at some point, Elie did say that Olajuwon was greater than Duncan.
- Kevin Garnett
- Shaq
- Rasheed Wallace
- Chris Webber
- Antonio McDyess
- Alonzo Mourning
- Hakeem Olajuwon
- Charles Barkley
- Shawn Kemp
- Karl Malone
- Dikembe Mutombo
- Patrick Ewing (had a more productive year even if he got injured right before the playoffs)
- Tom Gugliotta (yes he had a better year)
- Divac (yes he had a better year)
- Rik Smits (yes he had a better year)
I don't care about more playoff success or more championships in this argument, because that has just as much to do with your teammates as you. For everyone who actually saw them both play, arguing that Tim is better than Hakeem is dumb, unrealistic, and just plain hard to validate. However arguing that Hakeem was better than Tim is a lot easier to prove. You wouldn't be losing out if you picked either, but only Spurs fans would pick Tim and that's only out of loyalty (understandable). I have been a fan of Tim's since he was at Wake Forest, but if I had the choice between he and Hakeem, I would always pick Hakeem because I think he would give me the best chance to win.
Of course you don't... because it wouldn't help your argument............
No, says everyone else except Spur fans. I understand you being loyal to Tim, but I don't function that way. If my team would be better with Tim I would say to with Hakeem. As a fan I care more about team success over all else, so if Tim were better I would chose him, but he's not. Go google Duncan vs Olajuwan and tell me it's just me.
But that's where your argument falls apart. Don't you see that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
