Better Defender: Dennis Rodman or Tim Duncan

[z0sa]

Tim is a much better help defender. Certainly arguable about who is the better man defender especially on the perimeter, but factoring in help and the fact Tim always had a huge load on offense as well, it's pretty obvious who the answer is.

[LnGrrrR]

Simple.

But you're going to have to respond to my questions if we are going to make any progress here...

First of all, I think statistics are a useful tool as they can provide a fair amount of insight. The problem is when people, like yourself, attempt to use them as the end all be all fact on the matter.

Who is the better defensive player:

Kobe Bryant or Dirk Nowitzki?

Nope. That's not how it works. After all, this is about Duncan and Rodman, right? So no point in introducing other players quite yet.

If you think statistics are useful, that's great. You obviously don't think that Defensive Win Shares are a useful statistic. Please explain why.

And can I assume that you tbone, and just forgot to switch over to your other account? Or are you answering independently why you also think Defensive Win Shares are a poor stat.

Finally, saying "people like myself" is pretty stupid, when I never claimed that Duncan was better.

[history2b]

Nope. That's not how it works. After all, this is about Duncan and Rodman, right? So no point in introducing other players quite yet.

If you think statistics are useful, that's great. You obviously don't think that Defensive Win Shares are a useful statistic. Please explain why.

And can I assume that you tbone, and just forgot to switch over to your other account? Or are you answering independently why you also think Defensive Win Shares are a poor stat.

Finally, saying "people like myself" is pretty stupid, when I never claimed that Duncan was better.

To understand the fundamental reason behind that specific statistic is flawed you have to examine all data, not just selective data.

In my personal view, Bill Russell impacted the game defensively like no other player in the history of the sport and coincidentally, your statistic supports this idea. But my perspective was not formed based on this.

But there are too many examples of poor defenders who are ranked too high and great defenders ranked too low to use this a legitimate measure defense. Useful but so flawed it is darn near irrelevant.

Put it this way, if Red Auerbach was sitting at a table with Dean Smith and John Wooden and they started talking about defense do you think they are going to talk about "Defensive win shared" statistics? Lol, please. That's internet statboy talk. Anyone who knows the game of basketball wouldn't resort to this.

[history2b]

Tim is a much better help defender. Certainly arguable about who is the better man defender especially on the perimeter, but factoring in help and the fact Tim always had a huge load on offense as well, it's pretty obvious who the answer is.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Duncan gets the nod defensive because he shouldered more of the load on offense? lol

The things you guys rationalize is purely comical.

[z0sa]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

You realize, of course, this is a compliment.

Thank you.

Duncan gets the nod defensive because he shouldered more of the load on offense?

You, in your shortness of rationality, fail to understand that shouldering a huge load on offense tires you out. Shouldering the load on both ends is definitely worthy of consideration and is definitely a factor. Conversely, a second factor is the concept Rodman was focused only on defense and rebounding, and never was an offensive option.

Tim had to do much, much more than Rodman on the basketball court.

You fail.

[LnGrrrR]

To understand the fundamental reason behind that specific statistic is flawed you have to examine all data, not just selective data.

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. Now, let's see where you go with this opening statement.

In my personal view, Bill Russell impacted the game defensively like no other player in the history of the sport and coincidentally, your statistic supports this idea. But my perspective was not formed based on this.

Ok, so you've stated that Defensive Win Shares agrees with your contention that Bill Russell was a great defender, but you still think Defensive Win Shares are a dumb stat. Let's read on. (Also, it's not "my" statistic. I would be making alot more money if I came up with it.)

But there are too many examples of poor defenders who are ranked too high and great defenders ranked too low to use this a legitimate measure defense. Useful but so flawed it is darn near irrelevant.

Fair enough. What defenders in particular are glaring deficiencies in Defensive Win Shares? Do you think that other statistics have examples that might point to a flawed reasoning behind them? (For instance, has there ever been a good rebounder/steal/block player who was a poor defender?)

Put it this way, if Red Auerbach was sitting at a table with Dean Smith and John Wooden and they started talking about defense do you think they are going to talk about "Defensive win shared" statistics? Lol, please. That's internet statboy talk. Anyone who knows the game of basketball wouldn't resort to this.

Just because they didn't talk about it back in the day doesn't mean it's a poor stat. Do you think that the great coaches in baseball talked about on-base percentage, VORP, or any number of advanced metrics? Of course not. That doesn't mean they are bad statistics though; many GM's/coaches use those statistics today in baseball.

It's a fallacious argument. It's akin to saying, "We're going to let women vote? Can you imagine George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin talking about that?

[ElNono]

America, eatin' my lunch from a single bowl in my parents basement, where I'm livin'. Happy Birthday, I'm forty-three.

Don't want to waste those precious calories...chewin'. Jesus come move my jaw for me, help me get my sloppy food down my throat.

[z0sa]

It's a fallacious argument. It's akin to saying, "We're going to let women vote? Can you imagine George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin talking about that?

Of course, this argument doesn't include (or ignores) the obvious fact that none of us are all-time great basketball minds (as much as h2b deludes himself into thinking he is) at a round table with years and years of pro experience with pro players first hand. Although considering 2b has overlooked that, maybe it's not so obvious...

[history2b]

You realize, of course, this is a compliment.

Thank you.



You, in your shortness of rationality, fail to understand that shouldering a huge load on offense tires you out. Shouldering the load on both ends is definitely worthy of consideration and is definitely a factor. Conversely, a second factor is the concept Rodman was focused only on defense and rebounding, and never was an offensive option.

Tim had to do much, much more than Rodman on the basketball court.

You fail.

No you twit, it's not that I don't understand what you were trying to rationalize, it is that the concept is absurd.

Lets pretend for a second that defense was quan ative...

Lets say Tim Duncan overall is a 89 defensively and Dennis Rodman is a 91. Your rationalization is that 89 is actually higher than 91 because Duncan shoulders more responsibility on offense.

You really don't understand how stupid that is?

[z0sa]

Defensive isn't quan ative, though, obviously. It's the hardest thing to quantify in basketball, in fact.

Additionally, I never based my argument on that - it's just one part. Reading comprehension check.

[history2b]

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. Now, let's see where you go with this opening statement.



Ok, so you've stated that Defensive Win Shares agrees with your contention that Bill Russell was a great defender, but you still think Defensive Win Shares are a dumb stat. Let's read on. (Also, it's not "my" statistic. I would be making alot more money if I came up with it.)



Fair enough. What defenders in particular are glaring deficiencies in Defensive Win Shares? Do you think that other statistics have examples that might point to a flawed reasoning behind them? (For instance, has there ever been a good rebounder/steal/block player who was a poor defender?)



Just because they didn't talk about it back in the day doesn't mean it's a poor stat. Do you think that the great coaches in baseball talked about on-base percentage, VORP, or any number of advanced metrics? Of course not. That doesn't mean they are bad statistics though; many GM's/coaches use those statistics today in baseball.

It's a fallacious argument. It's akin to saying, "We're going to let women vote? Can you imagine George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin talking about that?

Lol what a moronic analogy. And typical of a advanced stats geek moron.

Perhaps you'd like to share how the game of basketball has evolved in the last 20 years to involve more people by utilizing more statistics.

I love when people who aren't smart make stupid analogies that have no logical foundation, lol.

Coaches talk about the game from a fundamental perspective, one of deep understanding of what individual players want to achieve singularly and as a unit. Stats attempt to measure these things but will never ever ever in a million years do so conclusively. Far too many intangible factors.

Take the coaches from today; Larry Brown, Pop and Phil... according to you they are talking about advanced stats like Defensive win shared in order to arrive at their conclusions. If you or anyone actually believes that, lol, I feel sorry for you.

[z0sa]

I think I'm an actual employee in the NBA.

[ElNono]

LOL once a wingman, always a wingman
LOL dumb, blind and stupid

[history2b]

Defensive isn't quan ative, though, obviously. It's the hardest thing to quantify in basketball, in fact.

Additionally, I never based my argument on that - it's just one part. Reading comprehension check.

Of course it isn't, which is why I said "pretend for a minute" as a hypothetical situation to highlight what you were attempting to rationalize.

And you are wrong to say "I never based my argument on that." You did. It was one of two parts. You could have said "I never based my argument entirely on that" and that would be accurate. Be accurate.

Here is your quote:

"...but factoring in help and the fact Tim always had a huge load on offense as well, it's pretty obvious who the answer is."

"Factoring in help" and "Tim had a huge load on offense" = "pretty obvious who the answer is...

Obvious. Something that is clear and without any real consideration? Because of "help" and "a huge offensive load."

Absolute failure.

[tbonewalker]

You, in your shortness of rationality, fail to understand that shouldering a huge load on offense tires you out. Shouldering the load on both ends is definitely worthy of consideration and is definitely a factor. Conversely, a second factor is the concept Rodman was focused only on defense and rebounding, and never was an offensive option.

Tim had to do much, much more than Rodman on the basketball court.

You, in fools paradise (aka Spur fandom), fail at being able to objectively evaluate/compare defensive talents of basketball players because you have the Timmy thong riding above your shoulders.





If you could relieve the thong straps from your shoulder and take the Spur homer goggles off, you might see the topic is Better Defender. Having to carry a load on the other side of the ball does not make a player a better defender.

Your logic is completely flawed. Your unhealthy affinity for everything Spurs is what gets in the way of you understanding how your logic is flawed.

"Huhh huhh.. snort... listen to me reasoning... Me thinks Tim Duncan better defensive backsetbawl pwayer becwoz.. snort... he play good offense."

"Shouldering the load on offense" has absolutely nothing to do with who is the better defender between Rodman and Duncan.

It is very telling when Spur fans can't come up with any better reasoning behind pumping their daddy Duncan up than this junk.

[history2b]

Duncan is not even recognized as a great defensive stopper. In fact, he was great at nothing. He was just a good solid player for 8-10 years.

EXACTLY.

This is what I've been saying for freakin' years. Does nothing exceptionally. Nothing.

He's that solid B average guy at almost everything but did not well. All of the true great ones did at least 1 thing really well.

Lakaluva, I am glad you are on this board to help me maintain some semblance of balance to these in homers' irritating delusions.

[tbonewalker]

Just think about this for a sec.

Is he a great shot blocker? No
Is he a great scorer? No
Is he a great FT shoter? No
Is he a great rebounder? No
Is he a great defender? No, in fact he was usually protected and avoided guarding the other teams great big man.
Is he great at making his teammates better? No

What's the argument here?

LOL, well said. The only arguments are coming from the Duncan fanboy camp.

Should I compile a list of all their reasons why they think Duncan was a better defender than Rodman? It would be hilarious

[z0sa]

Of course it isn't, which is why I said "pretend for a minute" as a hypothetical situation to highlight what you were attempting to rationalize.

You can't pretend for a minute about something that's impossible to quantify.

There is no way one can pretend "Tim is a 91 and Rodman is an 89", or whatever you said. That's actually, one of the most re ed things ever said on these here interwebs.

And you are wrong to say "I never based my argument on that."

No, I wasn't. Reading comprehension, your biggest foe.

"Factoring in help" and "Tim had a huge load on offense" = "pretty obvious who the answer is...

That's not my whole post, dumbass.

Only idiots would think carrying the load on offense has no effect on your defense. So, you and tbone.

[history2b]

just think about this for a sec.

Is he a great shot blocker? No
is he a great scorer? No
is he a great ft shoter? No
is he a great rebounder? No
is he a great defender? No, in fact he was usually protected and avoided guarding the other teams great big man.
Is he great at making his teammates better? No

what's the argument here?

hal-lel-u-jah!!

[ohmwrecker]

If you could relieve the thong straps from your shoulder and take the Spur homer goggles off, you might see the topic is Better Defender. Having to carry a load on the other side of the ball does not make a player a better defender.

Your logic is completely flawed.

Isn't the whole subject flawed? Putting aside the obvious anti-Spurs agenda for a minute . . . the comparison is flawed. You just admitted as much . . . on the thread you started.

At least you can start threads . . .

[z0sa]

Just think about this for a sec.

Is he a great shot blocker? No
Is he a great scorer? No
Is he a great FT shoter? No
Is he a great rebounder? No
Is he a great defender? No, in fact he was usually protected and avoided guarding the other teams great big man.
Is he great at making his teammates better? No

What's the argument here?

@ how quick tbone and 2b slurpied this inaccurate post. "Logic" escapes all 3 of you quite easily.

[history2b]

You can't pretend for a minute about something that's impossible to quantify.

There is no way one can pretend "Tim is a 91 and Rodman is an 89", or whatever you said. That's actually, one of the most re ed things ever said on these here interwebs.



No, I wasn't. Reading comprehension, your biggest foe.



That's not my whole post, dumbass.

Only an idiot would think carrying the load on offense has no effect on your defense. So, you and tbone.

Oh boy, we got an exceptionally dumb one here.

You could have said "I never based my argument ---->entirely<---- on that" and that would be accurate. Please be accurate.

Lol, you don't even understand what you wrote.

And for the record the question was never whether or not shouldering more of the offensive load affects your defense. I think most people understand that it does.

The question is whether that means your defense should be considered superior to someone elses based on this factor. I say no and that is the objection that eludes your brain.

[ohmwrecker]

What they'll come back with is, "oh, but in limited minutes... yada yada yada.".

Pretty sure this is more of a career discussion, but good try there, spanky.

[tbonewalker]

Nice to see loincloth and history still have a hard on for Duncan and anything Spurs. Hilarity.

Duncan has been a better defender in every way you can measure it, including the "eye test". The only part of Rodman's game I give him a nod would be perimeter defense. Protecting the paint and the rim, which has the most effect on the game is where the comparision's end. Rodman wasn't on the same level as Duncan.

[z0sa]

. And for the record the question was never whether or not shouldering more of the offensive load affects your defense. I think most people understand that it does.

LOL @ you ceding it graciously now.

Now we can move onto the second part where I make you my once again for perhaps the 30th or 40th time total. Answer me this hypothetical (a real one, unlike the fantastical unrealistic one you laughably attempted):

Player A is the focal point of their offense and expels at least 50% of their energy on that side of the floor.

Player B rarely touches the ball and expels 10% of his energy on offense.

Do you hold both to the same standard on defense? A simple yes or no will suffice - either way you're a dumbass.