Spurs: Advanced Stats for Duncan

[ambchang]

So why doesn't Jordan's rings get discounted since he won in a weak era? Why not Russell's? How does Dr. J get ranked ahead when most of his career was played in a weak ABA?

picking and choosing simply because you personally don't like Kobe.

How was the Bulls era weak? Ewing Knicks, Jazz, Sonics, Blazers, Suns, Spurs were all decent teams that were better than any non Celtics/Lakers team from 08 to 10.

Dr. J played well in the NBA from 77 onwards in the NBA.


[QUOTE=Phillip;7720466]I don't know many Kobestans at all who rank Magic ahead of Kobe, considering 99% of them rank Kobe ahead of MJ.

Nobody ranks Kobe ahead of MJ anymore. Give this a rest.

not horrible. That's just laughable when you look at his squads from about 04-07.

Odom and Butler were decent players.

True... then again, individual awards-wise, Nash has more MVPs than Shaq and Dirk, but I certainly wouldn't say he's greater than either of those by any means.

Individual awards includes more than MVPs.

lol picking and choosing again

How so?

No one said anything about scoring being a knock on him. Just that he wouldn't have won all those les leading a team in any era since the 80's. He would have been lucky to get more than 2-3. He dominated in some of the worst eras of basketball where basically 75% of the good talent in the league ended up all stacked on his team in a league with 8 teams. yeah real impressive

No question the era was weak and the Celtics were the most stacked team, but Russell was integral to the style of play of that team. People make Russell out to be a Ben Wallace type of player, but Russell was much better on offense. His ability to pass was one of the best of any big man, outside of maybe Walton.

Good player who dominated among weak compe ion, never really proved he was truly top 10 all-time material against elite compe ion. Very good, but you're overrating him.

Why was that weak compe ion? He played against the Lakers in the finals, he went through the Bird Celtics multiple times.

Again, very good player against weak compe ion in weak eras of basketball, and as you put it, the one good team that he ran up against, he couldn't do anything against them. Good guy to watch and learn basics of basketball from, but does he put up such monster numbers in more compe ive eras? Highly doubtful.

Again, why was that weak compe ion? He led the playoffs in WS and other advanced metrics multiple times.

You seem to have Dr. J, West and Russell against weak compe ion, but no problems with Kobe winning it all in 09 and 10 with some of the weakest compe ion the league has seen since the late 70s.

Early stages, AGAIN being the key word.

Players should be evaluated based on their compe ion and place in history rather than absolutes. Would Kobe beat those players if he was transported back in time? Sure, but that is with all the advances in the game, including some of the elements created by those players.

These guys are all great, transcendent players of the NBA, and the game wouldn't be what it is without them, no question about it. But it doesn't mean that they are superior to modern talent either. To illustrate, it would be like ranking how good light bulbs are, and saying that the original light bulbs that Edison invented are superior to the highly efficient LED bulbs of today, when they in no way are. Granted, we wouldn't have these fantastic LED bulbs if Edison hadn't gotten things started with his bulb, but that doesn't make it superior to modern bulbs. It's called progression and innovation, and it's not limited to technology, it very much applies to skills and talents as well, such as basketball.

But I would say Edison is a better engineer than some guy working in GE though.

[Killakobe81]

So why doesn't Jordan's rings get discounted since he won in a weak era? Why not Russell's? How does Dr. J get ranked ahead when most of his career was played in a weak ABA?

picking and choosing simply because you personally don't like Kobe.



I don't know many Kobestans at all who rank Magic ahead of Kobe, considering 99% of them rank Kobe ahead of MJ.



not horrible. That's just laughable when you look at his squads from about 04-07.



True... then again, individual awards-wise, Nash has more MVPs than Shaq and Dirk, but I certainly wouldn't say he's greater than either of those by any means.



lol picking and choosing again



No one said anything about scoring being a knock on him. Just that he wouldn't have won all those les leading a team in any era since the 80's. He would have been lucky to get more than 2-3. He dominated in some of the worst eras of basketball where basically 75% of the good talent in the league ended up all stacked on his team in a league with 8 teams. yeah real impressive



Good player who dominated among weak compe ion, never really proved he was truly top 10 all-time material against elite compe ion. Very good, but you're overrating him.



Again, very good player against weak compe ion in weak eras of basketball, and as you put it, the one good team that he ran up against, he couldn't do anything against them. Good guy to watch and learn basics of basketball from, but does he put up such monster numbers in more compe ive eras? Highly doubtful.



Early stages, AGAIN being the key word.


These guys are all great, transcendent players of the NBA, and the game wouldn't be what it is without them, no question about it. But it doesn't mean that they are superior to modern talent either. To illustrate, it would be like ranking how good light bulbs are, and saying that the original light bulbs that Edison invented are superior to the highly efficient LED bulbs of today, when they in no way are. Granted, we wouldn't have these fantastic LED bulbs if Edison hadn't gotten things started with his bulb, but that doesn't make it superior to modern bulbs. It's called progression and innovation, and it's not limited to technology, it very much applies to skills and talents as well, such as basketball.

Phillip with so much win, here.

1. Duncan not sure if top 5 but definitely over Shaq, and Bird and edges Kobe.
2. Kobe is definitely overrated by some but on this board he is actually underrated by most non Laker fans, so glad Phillip adds neutral perspective.
3. Amb though he makes some good pints picks and chooses stats, when to count rings, and especially punishes for missed playoffs or a poor record but says rings are a team accomplishment ...so wouldn't a playoff failure or crappy season be the same?

But like Pimp i have no interest in it anymore ... but it's funny how threatened by Kobe, duncan fans, are on here ... that when a thread is made (at least that was the published intent) to give duncan props ...yall es STILL gotta bring up Kobe. Duncan is better but if it was as clear and decisive as Amb would like for you to believe why do you have to spend SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much time making the same point over and over? I no longer make the Kobe was the MVP and Pau the #2 argument anymore because it is a stupid argument or a troll job and besides I really like Pau. No one spends time arguing how much greater Jordan was over Drexler or Ewing but everyday Kobe is brought in to 90% of threads on here even one meant to praise Timmy. Obsessed or threatened?

Crazy.

[midnightpulp]

Phillip with so much win, here.

1. Duncan not sure if top 5 but definitely over Shaq, and Bird and edges Kobe.
2. Kobe is definitely overrated by some but on this board he is actually underrated by most non Laker fans, so glad Phillip adds neutral perspective.
3. Amb though he makes some good pints picks and chooses stats, when to count rings, and especially punishes for missed playoffs or a poor record but says rings are a team accomplishment ...so wouldn't a playoff failure or crappy season be the same?

But like Pimp i have no interest in it anymore ... but it's funny how threatened by Kobe, duncan fans, are on here ... that when a thread is made (at least that was the published intent) to give duncan props ...yall es STILL gotta bring up Kobe. Duncan is better but if it was as clear and decisive as Amb would like for you to believe why do you have to spend SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much time making the same point over and over? I no longer make the Kobe was the MVP and Pau the #2 argument anymore because it is a stupid argument or a troll job and besides I really like Pau. No one spends time arguing how much greater Jordan was over Drexler or Ewing but everyday Kobe is brought in to 90% of threads on here even one meant to praise Timmy. Obsessed or threatened?

Crazy.

Blowback for all the Duncan threads Kool, Luva, et al started for 5 straight years and for the constant spamming of 5>4 by you know who.

[DPG21920]

You don't see Spurs fans on LG. Obsessed or threatened?

[SupremeGuy]

You don't see Spurs fans on LG. Obsessed or threatened?

[lefty]

He's a lock for the hall of fame, imo.

Are you sure ?

[Johnny RIngo]

at Kobe being top 5 all-time. Impact stats(RAPM) tell us he wasn't even top 5 of his own era.

[barbacoataco]

Kobe had all the moves and in terms of certain skills he was top 5-10 all time. But he was low % for the most part. He had his biggest stat years when the Lakers were weak, and was clearly #2 to Shaq on the best Lakers teams.

I think besides his efficiency issues, the part people question is his character, "chemistry" and team basketball skills. Since basketball is a team sport, the ability to play as a team, and to build winning teams, is a factor when determining the greatest players. If we were all picking teams in a sandlot you would consider who plays as a team and who doesn't. The fact that the Lakers have had periods of awfulness, not even making the playoffs, speaks to Kobe's value as a player.

[barbacoataco]

Kobe had all the moves and in terms of certain skills he was top 5-10 all time. But he was low % for the most part. He had his biggest stat years when the Lakers were weak, and was clearly #2 to Shaq on the best Lakers teams.

I think besides his efficiency issues, the part people question is his character, "chemistry" and team basketball skills. Since basketball is a team sport, the ability to play as a team, and to build winning teams, is a factor when determining the greatest players. If we were all picking teams in a sandlot you would consider who plays as a team and who doesn't. The fact that the Lakers have had periods of awfulness, not even making the playoffs, speaks to Kobe's value as a player.

[Blake]

Are you sure ?

The 2000 all star game co-mvp award sealed it

[scanry]

You don't see Spurs fans on LG. Obsessed or threatened?

I doubt someone like amb would even last a day with his takes takes tbh. The Kobe s run that forum.

[Killakobe81]

You don't see Spurs fans on LG. Obsessed or threatened?

1. Yes, we do. They post LG related content here all the time.
2. This is the NBA forum and how many threads have I made in a negative way about Duncan? I'll wait ...
3. SO Amb, makes a thread hailing duncan and his advanced metrics Phillip says he is a no doubt all-time top 5 great, but Kobe MUSt be dragged in to the discussion?

4.@Amb, LOL moses Malone over Kobe .... like I said I won't waste my time Phillip already destroyed your post.

[DPG21920]

Philip didn't destroy any post. There is no objective measure that has Kobe as top 5.

[Buddy Mignon]

impressive.

Anyone who says he's not a top 5 all time player is insane IMO.

No way is Jim a top 5 player. He's been coat riding for his last three les.

[Killakobe81]

Philip didn't destroy any post. There is no objective measure that has Kobe as top 5.

1. You have your opinions I have mine, huckleberry ...1
2. There are no objective measures all stats are juked and all cases made on the subject matter are all "biased"
3. Again this thread was dedicated to the advanced metric brilliance of Timothy Duncan please stay on target, DPG. You are better than the rest.

[Clipper Nation]

After all the Kirby stans talked about Duncan for YEARS, they're now playing the "obsessed" card now that they're getting it right back.

They can dish it, but they can't take it.

[Killakobe81]

After all the Kirby stans talked about Duncan for YEARS, they're now playing the "obsessed" card now that they're getting it right back.

They can dish it, but they can't take it.

Find the one where I talked about Duncan, CN?
Who says I cannot take it ...I actually find your "digs" (I lol @ the "is he gonna kick his own ass?") humorous.
But Amb, was talking about his stats and they are amazing ...again what doe sthat have to do with Kobe?
And why not just add to the numerous bash threads? (Kobe cusses team-mate, Kobe shooting under 40%, 48.5 etc.)
Plenty of Kobe material to discuss but why in Advanced stats for Duncan thread?
Doesnt make sense, tbh ...