Better Defender: Dennis Rodman or Tim Duncan

[history2b]

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.

Re-explaining what you failed to comprehend is not "conceding" lol.

You can't be this dumb... No way. I don't believe it.

[tbonewalker]

Wow, History2b, you have this z0sa chick pegged.

Exceptionally dumb, indeed. I'm beginning to see that 90% of Spur fans are delusional fans that began watching in June of 99, then you have the 10% exceptions.

I used to think the exceptions were the smart ones (even though I had never encountered one, I held hope) but now I'm beginning to see that the 10% are just the exceptionally dumb ones.

[tbonewalker]

You can't be this dumb... No way. I don't believe it.

He's in the 10 percent.

[LnGrrrR]

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

That's an ad hominem fallacy. You're attacking me, instead of the argument. Your previous argument that the statistics are flawed using certain players as examples is a decent one, and might have merit. Your argument that Defensive Win Shares are dumb because they are for "nerds" and you can't picture old coaches using them (because, uhm, they didn't exist back then) is laughable.

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.

Don't feel the need to make that argument, since it has no bearing.

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

Another ad hominem fallacy. You're not very good at this debating thing.

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.

So why are the statistics that you cite (rebounding) more important/better than the statistics others cite (defensive win shares)? If you're using something other than statistics

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.

Actually, I never said that Larry Brown, Pop and Phil are talking about Defensive Win Shares. They might be though. Do you have something to prove that they aren't, other than your beliefs?

[midnightpulp]

Just think about this for a sec.

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

What's the argument here?

Nice analysis of Kobe Bryant, Luva.

[history2b]

Hakeem, who was a much better player than Duncan I might add never made up such excuses for himself.

MJ never made up such excuses.

Yet, both of those guys were more of the focal point on offense than Duncan was. Duncan has been playing alongside a Big three for some time now. Before that, he had DRob. He never was the focal point of , which is why Parker won the finals MVP while Duncan was still in his prime. If it hadn't been for Manu ( who has been the Spurs best all around player for some time now) coming off the bench when he should have been starting, Duncan's numbers would look even more average when compared to other greats than they already do.

Stop speaking the truth Luva, it's too much for one brain in one day.

This numb nut doesn't understand that I was never conceptually objecting to what he inferred; it was always a matter of whether it logically held up. It does not.

Is Duncan a better overall player than Rodman? Sure. That's when you factor the offense. That should be obvious.

But when we're talking exclusively about defensive abilities and a Dildo dipping Duncan rationalizes Duncan's heavier offensive load means his defense is actually more worthy somehow.

[history2b]

That's an ad hominem fallacy. You're attacking me, instead of the argument. Your previous argument that the statistics are flawed using certain players as examples is a decent one, and might have merit. Your argument that Defensive Win Shares are dumb because they are for "nerds" and you can't picture old coaches using them (because, uhm, they didn't exist back then) is laughable.



Don't feel the need to make that argument, since it has no bearing.



Another ad hominem fallacy. You're not very good at this debating thing.



So why are the statistics that you cite (rebounding) more important/better than the statistics others cite (defensive win shares)? If you're using something other than statistics



Actually, I never said that Larry Brown, Pop and Phil are talking about Defensive Win Shares. They might be though. Do you have something to prove that they aren't, other than your beliefs?

I'm just pointing out how absurd and off base your analogy is. Do I really want to construct a 2-3 paragraph analysis breaking down the absurdity to correlate Washington politics to modern day politics and the absence of advanced stats in basketball of yesteryear and basketball today. No. I choose to just call you an idiot for doing it. Just stick to basketball and we'll be ok.

As for why statistics like rebounds (which I never cited once btw) and scoring for that matter "count" whereas "defensive wins shared" do not is pretty obvious.

A rebound is a tangible measure of something that took place on the floor, a loose ball retained after a missed shot attempt.

Your advanced stat is not measured in a tangible way. It is based on a formula.

[z0sa]

Re-explaining what you failed to comprehend is not "conceding" lol.

You ceded the point I made, whether you realize it or not.

Now answer the question with a "Yes" or "no" so we can further specify which camp of stupidity you're in.

as for tbone calling me a chick ... he must be used to referencing his got lovers (luva, 2b, koolaid?) as such. I'm afraid I don't swing that way, guy.

[z0sa]

Your advanced stat is not measured in a tangible way. It is based on a formula.

Umm, that formula is based on the very stats you agree are tangible.

Either dispute, specifically, which players the advanced metrics have trouble with, and why, and how those players, and furthermore the shortcomings of the metric they expose, are relevant to this discussion, or STFU already.

[z0sa]

Hakeem, who was a much better player than Duncan I might add never made up such excuses for himself.

MJ never made up such excuses.

Yet, both of those guys were more of the focal point on offense than Duncan was. Duncan has been playing alongside a Big three for some time now. Before that, he had DRob. He never was the focal point of , which is why Parker won the finals MVP while Duncan was still in his prime. If it hadn't been for Manu ( who has been the Spurs best all around player for some time now) coming off the bench when he should have been starting, Duncan's numbers would look even more average when compared to other greats than they already do.

wtf are you rambling about?

No one made an excuse for Duncan, got. No one (IE, you) has specified which part of the outrageously long span of time he's been dominating we're even talking here, if you want to start mentioning teammates.

[z0sa]

Ok, let me make this as simple as possible. Rodman could guard player from Hakeem, Barkley, Magic, MJ, Pippen, Drexler, Shaq and Ewing. Can Duncan do that even on his best day?

LOL @ appealing to a hypothetical for your evidence. Tim Duncan never played any of those players in their prime except Shaq, and had multiple dominating performances on both ends against him. Your argument is more stained than your after a nightcap with Kool's "chocolate pussy".

btw, nice lane change after that last post. Deflection is worth a few troll points.

[z0sa]

completely oblivious to the fact you just proved one point I've been arguing this thread.

Why do you think Tim many times played help D on the opposing best big man? Besides the obvious fact that he is a monstrous help defender, of course?

Foul trouble. Since Tim is the focal point of the offense (#1 or #2 throoughout his entire career to this season), he couldn't afford sitting out long stretches. Our offense needed him too badly to take any risk of ticky tack calls.

Luva FTW.

[ElNono]

Who made Kobe cry? Answer the damn question!

[ohmwrecker]

The Spurs. That was a great year for you guys, you should be proud, even though it has nothing to do with this thread.

All of a sudden he gives a about the integrity of the thread.

[z0sa]

A better comparison would be Rodman vs. say, Ben Wallace or some other no O role player, not a two way dominant superstar like Tim. It's just apples to oranges completely.

Credit tbonefailure.

[jsandiego]

If the only "legit" stats are ones that aren't based on a formula, then I guess:

1) Duncan's edge in the steals-per-game category indicate perhaps he was a better 1-on-1 & post defender.

2) Duncan's advantage in blocks show he's a better weakside help & dribble-penetration defender.

3) Rodman's advantage in rebounds indicates he's a better rebounder.

Rodman's 14-year career:
1st Team All-Defense: 7
2nd Team All-Defense: 1
Rodman named a top defender in 8 of his 14 seasons.

Duncan's 13-year career:
1st Team All-Defense: 8
2nd Team All-Defense: 5
Duncan named a top defender in EVERY SINGLE ONE of his 13 seasons.

[ohmwrecker]

A better comparison would be Rodman vs. say, Ben Wallace or some other no O role player, not a two way dominant superstar like Tim. It's just apples to oranges completely.

Credit tbonefailure.

That's why it's not a legit argument. It's an agenda driven flimflam.

[tbonewalker]

completely oblivious to the fact you just proved one point I've been arguing this thread.

Why do you think Tim many times played help D on the opposing best big man? Besides the obvious fact that he is a monstrous help defender, of course?

Foul trouble. Since Tim is the focal point of the offense (#1 or #2 throoughout his entire career to this season), he couldn't afford sitting out long stretches. Our offense needed him too badly to take any risk of ticky tack calls.

Luva FTW.

Wow, you just don't get it. You are truly the 10% exception.

Now you try to claim Duncan is the better defender because foul trouble? Absolutely pathetic.

Let me get this straight, ol lady...



"Duncan is a better defender than Rodman because of foul trouble."

"Duncan is a better defender than Rodman because he couldn't afford to sit out for long stretches."

"Duncan is a better defender than Rodman because he didn't/coudln't guard the opposing teams best big man consistently."

"Duncan is a better defender than Rodman because he couldn't pick up ticky-tack fouls...his offense needed him badly."

[tbonewalker]

A better comparison would be Rodman vs. say, Ben Wallace or some other no O role player, not a two way dominant superstar like Tim. It's just apples to oranges completely.

Credit tbonefailure.

LMAO!!!

It's a better comparison FOR YOU because it doesn't involve putting another player above your daddy Duncan. Good job exposing yourself as the #2 Duncan fanboy of the board.

You are too easy, ladybug.

[z0sa]

I accept your omission of defeat.

lol

[tbonewalker]

lol

"Duncan is a better defender than Rodman because of foul trouble."

"Duncan is a better defender than Rodman because he couldn't afford to sit out for long stretches."

"Duncan is a better defender than Rodman because he didn't/coudln't guard the opposing teams best big man consistently."

"Duncan is a better defender than Rodman because he couldn't pick up ticky-tack fouls...his offense needed him badly."




Can you explain yourself?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm just pointing out how absurd and off base your analogy is. Do I really want to construct a 2-3 paragraph analysis breaking down the absurdity to correlate Washington politics to modern day politics and the absence of advanced stats in basketball of yesteryear and basketball today. No. I choose to just call you an idiot for doing it. Just stick to basketball and we'll be ok.

I'm sorry, your original idea that because Red Auerbach didn't talk about Defensive Win Shares made it a stupid statistic was so asinine that I had trouble coming up with an equally re ed example. Forgive me.

As for why statistics like rebounds (which I never cited once btw) and scoring for that matter "count" whereas "defensive wins shared" do not is pretty obvious.

Feel free to explain why. "It's pretty obvious" is not a strong argument.

A rebound is a tangible measure of something that took place on the floor, a loose ball retained after a missed shot attempt.

Your advanced stat is not measured in a tangible way. It is based on a formula.

Fair enough. So, we are only counting statistics that are directly measurable then. Are we only going by individual statistics as well? (For instance, if Team A lowers the amount of points Team B scores by an average of 10 pts when Player X is in, do you count that?)

Also, I don't see how you can discount Defensive Win Shares as something "not mentioned in a tangible way" without also noting that man-to-man defense is not measured in a tangible way either.

Finally, just because a stat is based off a formula doesn't necessarily make it a poor stat. You'll need better evidence for this. What happened to your argument that certain players have Defensive Win Shares that don't seem to match up? That point seemed stronger. (I will say that statistics like rebounds/steals/etc are certainly easier to see the effect of.)

[z0sa]

LMAO!!!

It's a better comparison FOR YOU because it doesn't involve putting another player above your daddy Duncan.

Incorrect. Rodman certainly has a debatable case. Yet it's a foolish comparison - he was a defensive roleplayer who shouldered little if any load offensively.

You're a fool.

It's a better comparison for several reasons listed throughout this thread. Some by me, some by others.

Stick to the little girl chat when you're in the womens' with luva and 2b.

[tbonewalker]

I'm sorry, your original idea that because Red Auerbach didn't talk about Defensive Win Shares made it a stupid statistic was so asinine that I had trouble coming up with an equally re ed example. Forgive me.



Feel free to explain why. "It's pretty obvious" is not a strong argument.



Fair enough. So, we are only counting statistics that are directly measurable then. Are we only going by individual statistics as well? (For instance, if Team A lowers the amount of points Team B scores by an average of 10 pts when Player X is in, do you count that?)

Also, I don't see how you can discount Defensive Win Shares as something "not mentioned in a tangible way" without also noting that man-to-man defense is not measured in a tangible way either.

Finally, just because a stat is based off a formula doesn't necessarily make it a poor stat. You'll need better evidence for this. What happened to your argument that certain players have Defensive Win Shares that don't seem to match up? That point seemed stronger. (I will say that statistics like rebounds/steals/etc are certainly easier to see the effect of.)

Dude, just shot your pie hole about Defensive Win Shares. You make yourself out to be more of an advanced statgeek that knows next to nothing about the game.

You have probably never stepped foot on a court with men.

[z0sa]

Dude, just shot your pie hole about Defensive Win Shares. You make yourself out to be more of an advanced statgeek that knows next to nothing about the game.

You have probably never stepped foot on a court with men.

Do you have any actual argument against it (besides ad hominem attacks) or is it the same pansy, runaway from any opposition in thought, white flag waving bull for you, too?