Reply With Quote
Could you boil it down?
If you do any query on a high number of points, rebounds, blocks etc you will see hes usually WAY behind Shaq, behind Barkley and Malone and often behind even Jordan.
For instance:
Since 1985, number of games a player had 40 points and ten rebounds...Duncan is seventeenth and behind the likes of Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Dirk, McGrady, Carmelo etc. Shaq is head and shoulders above everyone else
Okay...forget the big 40 point games..hes got to be tops for consistency sinces hes "greatest PF of all time", right?
1 Shaquille O'Neal 55
2 Michael Jordan 35
..
..
17 Tim Duncan F 9
Number of games a player had 30 pts and 10 rebounds:
Duncans not even close to the likes of Barkley whos not even close to Shaq whos not even close to Karl Malone.1 Karl Malone* 349
2 Shaquille O'Neal C 296
3 Hakeem Olajuwon* 215
4 Charles Barkley* F 211
5 Patrick Ewing* C 161
6 David Robinson* C 145
7 Tim Duncan F 138
How about 30 points and 20 rebounds:
Duncans fourth but not even close to Barkley or Shaq.1 Shaquille O'Neal C 28
2 Charles Barkley* F 27
3 Hakeem Olajuwon* 16
4 Tim Duncan F 10
Okay..well lets throw in blocks (since Duncan is really a center pretending to be a PF)...30 points, 10 rebounds AND two blocks:
Duncans a respectable fifth..but again he doesnt even have HALF as many games as Shaq! Can that be right?!!1 Shaquille O'Neal C 210
2 Hakeem Olajuwon* 184
3 Patrick Ewing* C 127
4 David Robinson* C 119
5 Tim Duncan F 98
Final thougths: Its a good think Duncan lists himself as a power forward because he was never even CLOSE to as dominant as Shaq. As far as forwards go, he has "the rings" but really never matched Barkley in terms of talent or the long term consistency of Malone. You can understand why hes always labeled "boring" when he really never really had the "big" games as often as his peers.
Could you boil it down?
compared stat padders to someone who only needs 20/10 to win games...cmon man dont play that card
Duncan's really consistent. We already know this.
Great analysis.
Tim was never a "big numbers in the regular season" guy (except for his 2 MVP seasons). Nonetheless, when you watch him play it is obvious that he was the best player on the floor against any compe ion. He does a lot of things that aren't reflected in the traditional stats (advanced stats are helpful). However, his playoff stats are more impressive.
da_suns_ 's takes
Boiled down:::
4 Rings
3 Finals MVPs
2 MVPs
Let us proceed...
Sure,,,
Kobe: 5
the tired old tramp stamp Duncan: 4
BTW, I am not sure what you are trying to say.
With the first criteria, you are saying Shaq > Jordan
Then in the second criteria, you are saying Malone > Hakeem, while all 7 > Jordan
In the 3rd criteria, you are saying Barkley > Hakeem, and all 4 > Jordan
In the 4th criteria, you are saying Ewing > Duncan, and all five > Jordan?
I guess Jordan really sucked then.
He's trying to say Duncan takes it up the ass by other guys.
Except hes really not.
He barely has half as many "25 points, 10 rebound" games as Malone and he'll retire without even get close to Barkley:
1 Karl Malone* F 600
2 Shaquille O'Neal C 520
3 Hakeem Olajuwon* 411
4 Charles Barkley* F 377
5 Tim Duncan F 314
Im saying Jordan had more amazing games using "forward/center" statistics than Duncan did (and Jordans not even a F/C).
Try to keep up.
I appreciate it. Great analysis.
Tim Duncan, unlike Malone learned that its not all about chasing scoring records, but about making teammates better and only taking over when need be
Why would 25/10 games be the standard of consistency? Would a player averaging 20/10 and notching all games with 20/10 be less consistent than a guy averaging 20/10 with a bunch of 25/10 games? I would imagine the word consistency actually say the first player is more consistent.
How so? You just wrote that Duncan had MJ beat in 3 of the 4 categories? Could you please keep up with what you wrote?
One little detail that you're missing from your analysis is defense. Duncan is arguably the best defender out of all those listed there.
Suns fan doesn't know what defense is.
Thank Christ, otherwise O & 45 wouldn't be O & 45.
Number of 20/10 games:
Anyway you slice it, Duncan gets a big "meh".1 Karl Malone* F 818
2 Shaquille O'Neal C 723
3 Hakeem Olajuwon* 598
4 Tim Duncan F 570
5 Charles Barkley* F 558
As far as Jordan/Duncan, youre probably too dense to understand: Jordan had far more 40/10 games even though he was a shooting guard (who tend not to have double digit rebounds) because it was FAR more likely that Jordan would grab 10 rebounds (to go along with his usual 40 points) than Duncan having a 40 point game (to go along with his usual ten rebounds). And its not just Jordan. Its Dirk, Lebron, Kobe, Melo etc.
Bottom line: Duncan isnt a great scorer.
"yay points" definition of greatness
Only someone know didn't watch Duncan play in his prime would think he wasn't a great scorer. Boy, was he...
"Yay points" thesis indicates it doesnt matter how many times you miss as long as you score points. So lets throw in "and shot the ball well":
20 points, 10 rebounds AND shot at least 50%:
1 Shaquille O'Neal C 612
2 Karl Malone* F 502
3 Charles Barkley* F 436
4 Hakeem Olajuwon* 417
5 Tim Duncan F 388
OP thinks a revolver is a semi-automatic.
Nothing to see here.
So now all of a sudden, Duncan > Barkley? How do you determine the criteria? Did you take into account pace? How was the criteria determined? Was opposition and teammates factored in? Not exactly sure how this worked.
As for the Jordan comment, why are you ignoring 3 of the 4 criterion you set yourself when comparing Jordan to Duncan and declared Jordan the winner despite Duncan was "better" in 3 of the 4 criterion? You my be too dense to realize this, but you just contradicted yourself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
