Reply With Quote
Right up there with the semi-auto revolver. Honestly, some of these troll accounts try too hard.
I can agree on this.
Right up there with the semi-auto revolver. Honestly, some of these troll accounts try too hard.
A game where the player was clearly better than anybody else and willed them victory.
Why did you quote "lot", was it quoting one of us?
In the 2003 playoffs alone:
23/17/6 and 6 blks vs. the Suns
28/8/7 vs. the Lakers
36/9/5 vs. the Lakers
37/16/4 vs. the Lakers, then the next game
40/15/7 vs. the Mavs, then the next game
32/15/5 vs. the Mavs, then the next game
34/24/6 vs. the Mavs, then the next game
21/20/7 vs. the Mavs, then the next game
23/15/6 vs. the Mavs (that's 6 consecutive dominant games)
32/20/7 and 6 blks vs. the Nets
21/16/7 vs. the Nets
23/17 and 7 blks vs. the Nets
29/17/4 and 4 blks vs. the Nets
21/20/10and 8 blks vs. the Nets
I'd say 14 out of 24 games in a playoff run is "lot"
A) The fact that you had Barkley over Hakeem illustrates how useless this criteria is
B) Totally random cut off point, Favors players who score a lot of points.
C) Does not factor in pace, at all. Duncan played his prime on the slowest paced team in the league, O'Neal on some of the fastest
D) Dwight Howard had 38 of those games, so?
Games with minimum of 25 points, 15 rebounds, 5 assists and 5 blks, regular season and playoffs
Shaq 16
Hakeem 15
Robinson 9
Duncan 9
Barkley 3
Ewing 1
Malone 1
Games with minimum of 20 points, 20 rebounds, 5 assists and 5 blks
Hakeem - 4
Duncan - 3
Shaq - 2
Robinson -2
Ewing - 1
Barkley - 1
Malone - 0
Now if we look at a minimum of 25 points, 15 rebounds, 10 assists and 5 blks, Ralph Sampson was the only guy who did it since 85-86, I guess Sampson is the most dominant guy then.
And this is before factoring in pace.
You didn't read these, obviously
Read it again.
You didnt follow directions:
Duncan having 3 of these games (in your criteria) is not "a lot". I picked "arbitrary" criteria and showed you that Shaq had 100+ games that matched this criteria.Show me how Duncan has a "lot" of these games (for example I dont care about the one time Duncan had 27, 15 rebounds, 5 blocks, 7 assists etc).
As I said, determine what cons utes a "dominant" game. By your own admission Duncan only had 3 "dominant" games in his entire career.
btw - Your "pace" EXCUSE is pathetic. Funny how Shaq came into the league just five years prior and he BLEW AWAY everyones stats from running 80s.
He just blindly copy/pasted from the Wages of Wins, a site that is the joke of the analytic community because of its flawed core assumptions that scoring is risk-free, predictable, and involuntary and that shooting percentage and scoring are not dependent on offensive roles, as well as how it responds to the mainstream overvaluing of scoring by just arbitrarily overvaluing other stats (like rebounds) instead. These assumptions are why they come up with awful takes like Dudley > Melo. Let's not pretend that he understands anything about advanced stats, he just copy/pasted an article that hyped up his loverboy Jared Dudley.
When nobody else has 4, 3 is a lot.
And no, you don't set the rules as to what dominant means. You are a nobody.
So are you saying Duncan only had three dominant games in his whole career? Or maybe youre just willing to admit that Shaq was superior to Duncan?
Of course, wages of wins DID predict that 6th man James Harden was actually a superstar whereas you said........well...you know
Actually why am I bothering? I thought you went to a cave after your post-season of ty predictions blew up in your face. Or was it Chris Paul ing on your face? Get back in your cave and dont forget how I like my eggs, .
He really showed it in the WCF... superstar indeed.Of course, wages of wins DID predict that 6th man James Harden was actually a superstar whereas you said........well...you know
I'm thinking you like your eggs poached... so open your mouth I'll help you.
You dont think James Harden is a superstar? How did the Rockets do what the Spurs couldnt (beat the clippers)? Was it Dwight Howard?
PF in all time nba team. That makes him top 5, so wot follows is top 10, 20,25,50,100 naturally.
Tim Duncan is universally considered top 10 all time, and anyone who disagrees is instantly outed from all serious discussion.
My predictions were correct all year long. Choke Paul choked AGAIN. The team lost in the second round AGAIN. Meanwhile, you as a fan of another team are celebrating that fluke-ass Game 7 performance in the first round like it's a championship. Then again, you do root for the franchise that threw a parade for being the best losers, so I can understand why that's your mindset.
How'd that "Suns are winning it all in 2008" prediction work out for you, BTW? Or the "Dragic will wash out of the league" take?
I think James Harden is popular, so in that sense he is a superstar, but superstars where talent is concerned don't go s up on the biggest stage. That's pseudo-stars.
Your boy Choke Paul choked again, that's why. The Game 6 meltdown happened with Harden on the bench
You look at his field of work across 3 Junes and you end up with a 2nd 5th. By all rights he should be at twins, the triplet imminent in two weeks. But, no, he got caught short by his wife & his wealth guy. What he needs is to be beat with a stick. You know, a backyard sapling, saber saw a firm branch, then turn toward the Duncan picnic table and go to work.
^ I just realized why enjoyed the board so much the past 24 hours.
Back to the reading room until you come up with some decent material old man.
Fine. I'll be in the Reading Room.
Before you go give me a good flick to watch tonight. Nothing before '85.
First off. Regular season stats
Second of all, cross comparing raw per game stats across eras or of players on different teams is useless (teams do run different systems, which may or may not be conducive to generating higher per game stats). You chided Amb for the "pace excuse." It's not an excuse. It's a measurable fact. If a player played in an era when the pace was significantly faster, that means more possessions. More possessions=higher per game stats across the board. If we're to use your idiotic criteria of "dominant" games based on raw per game stats as a standard to judge great players, then Wilt is unquestionably the best player of all-time and Elgin Baylor and Elvin Hayes are better rebounders than your beloved Charles Barkley and Shaq.
A more accurate metric to use is per 100 possessions: Let's take a look at those for a few of the players you cited:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...per_poss::none
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...per_poss::none
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...per_poss::none
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...per_poss::none
I'd say the respective per 100 playoff stats of these players is pretty equal across the board (Hakeem, Duncan, and Barkley have the exact same +11 point spread in offensive/defensive rating). Barkley actually winds up being the worst scorer of the group (by only .1, so it's almost not worth mentioning) and Hakeem is the worst rebounder of the group (further confirmed by him having the lowest rebounding percentage, as well).
As far as individual le/finals run go, Duncan's '03 effort is the most dominant, and by a good margin. He maintained a ridiculous +24 offensive/defensive rating spread. Shaq's highest was +17. Hakeem + 18. Barkley + 13. The dominance of Duncan's '03 campaign is also further confirmed with other stats. As I've said before, it's the second highest rated le run (per BPM) of all-time. And it's the highest rated le run per win shares: http://www.basketball-reference.com/..._season_p.html
Win shares is indeed a flawed stat, since as your overall team gets better, it can lower a player's individual win share contribution, but it's still more accurate than appealing to per game stats.
Your criteria also doesn't consider defense. A player can record as many "dominant" games as he wants, but it's all for naught if he can't keep the other players/team from equalizing him. As I've stated prior, Shaq's defensive metrics were painfully average for a big man during the 3 peat. In fact, Shaq's top three le runs are statistically inferior to Duncan's top 3 in almost every advanced metric you can think of (it's also worth noting that Duncan's top two le runs had him playing Shaq, who Duncan even outperformed on a raw per game basis):
Feel free to launch into a tirade against advanced stats, but even if you point out their flaws (of which there are a few), they still have more predictive and correlative power of player/team success than raw per game stats.
I'm sure you'll handwave and stubbornly stick to your outdated criteria, since you'd rather try to win an argument at all costs than sincerely debate, but there's no substantial argument you can make that prime Duncan wasn't, at the very least, as dominant as prime Shaq (and other top tier greats), outside of appealing to your invented standard of 30-15, which no one with a brain would take seriously.
Mid is feeling it today.
Mid
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
