Spurs: Why do some of you consider Duncan to be top 10 all time?

[Strange Love]

Consider? There is nothing to consider, he IS a top 10 player.

[Sean Cagney]

"some of us"

Tim Duncan is universally considered top 10 all time, and anyone who disagrees is instantly outed from all serious discussion.

This is about what I was going to say in this thread but you beat me to it, this is not just us on a message board or Spurs fans saying this. Experts say it, writers say it and x players etc. This is well known, not SOME of us but most people with any sense or not hating like some LA fans in here will admit he is top 10 all times. I know LA fans who think he is top 10, only a stupid troll or hater would say otherwise.

Consider? There is nothing to consider, he IS a top 10 player.

Close thread, end of story.

[midnightpulp]

Here'a an example of how raw per game stats can be a misleading indicator of value and impact.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...-to-Tim-Duncan

So whose blocked shots are the most valuable? Mr. Huizinga closed the presentation by going over what he calls “Block Value.” To determine block value, he used the formula Points Saved + Points Created where Points Saved equals the effect of a Block on Opponents Expected Points during this possession and Points Created equals the effect of a Block on Own Team’s Expected Points During the next possession.

Using this formula, we found out who had the best season since the data started being collected (2002-03) in terms of overall block value. It ended up being Theo Ratliff during his 2003 season. Ratliff ac ulated a block value of 300 (287 coming from points prevented while 13 came from points created), which when transformed into wins ends up being right around 5.

Interesting Numbers

Just thought it would be interesting to include some numbers towards the end of Mr. Huizinga’s presentation, showing how number of blocks can’t really be used when determining who is the best “shot blocker.”

So why was Mr. Huizinga’s paper called From “…Dwight Howard to Tim Duncan?” Well as he explained, through a series of charts, Tim Duncan has had the best season in history when it came down to value/block with 1.12, meaning he saved 1.12 points with every block and Dwight Howard ended up with the worst season in terms of value/block with with .53 (both came during the 2008 season).

In the referred season (2008), Dwight averaged 1 more block per game than Duncan. Simple-minded per game stats would tell us that Dwight is the better shot blocker, but it turns out that Dwight's blocks didn't generate as many points as Duncan's (likely because of how Dwight blocks shots, not controlling them to regain possession, instead preferring to send blocks into the second row).

tl;dr per game stats

[da_suns_fan]

Here'a an example of how raw per game stats can be a misleading indicator of value and impact.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...-to-Tim-Duncan



In the referred season (2008), Dwight averaged 1 more block per game than Duncan. Simple-minded per game stats would tell us that Dwight is the better shot blocker, but it turns out that Dwight's blocks didn't generate as many points as Duncan's (likely because of how Dwight blocks shots, not controlling them to regain possession, instead preferring to send blocks into the second row).

tl;dr per game stats

This is quite the odd defense. Usually "per possession" stats are used to explain that bench guy or someone who doesnt get a lot of minutes is actually pretty good despite his limited in role.

In this case, Duncan doesnt have a lot of "big games" relative to other superstars and you defend this with Duncan's "era" having a lower number of possessions than say, Barkley or Malone.

Okay, but what about Shaq? Shaq and Duncans career's were in the same "era" yet Shaq BLEW AWAY the accolades of players from the 80s He was just that dominant. He didnt need the EXCUSES youre giving Tim Duncan.

Maybe Duncan just wasnt capable of dominating night in and night out the way Shaq was and this is why it didnt hapen? Occams Razor, buddy.

[da_suns_fan]

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.

So if hes not a superstar, who is? Curry? James? Are there only two superstars in the entire league?

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3992/james-harden

Harden just averaged 28 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in the WCF. He had a 38 point, 10 rebound 9 assist game (AND shot 61%). Has anyone in the league EVER done that?

[da_suns_fan]

First off. Regular season stats

Lets look at monster playoff games. 40 points and 20 rebounds. Barkely did it once. Hakeem did it twice. Duncan never did it.

Shaq did FOUR times (all came during the 2000 and 2001 playoffs). I guess Duncan couldnt have games that insane because he didnt play basketball during that era, right?

I hate Phil Jackson but I give him credit for getting the message into Shaq's head that "you are the most dominant player of all time and should play that way". Shaq was just given physical attributes that no one else can compete with. That doesnt mean Duncan wasnt a great player, he was. But he just wasnt on the same level as Shaq. If Duncan got the ball within 5 feet of the basket, the other team didnt say "might as well start going the other way" as teams did when Shaq was in his prime.

But why a I even bothering? Youre a Spurs fan. I dont think I could present any evidence to change your mind. Was Shaq better than Duncan? OF COURSE he was. It was as plain as day.

[da_suns_fan]

"some of us"

Tim Duncan is universally considered top 10 all time, and anyone who disagrees is instantly outed from all serious discussion.

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Magic
4) Lebron
5) Bird
6) Shaq
7) Chamberlin
8) Kobe
9) Hakeem
10) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Couldnt you also say that all of these guys are "universally considered top 10 all time"? I mean you could say that old guys "shouldnt count" since their era was a completely different game or that Duncan was better than Kobe or Kareem but that AT LEAST would be "debatable".

[ambchang]

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?

Neither.

So are you saying you draw up all the rules of what dominance is, and done with defining what I said?

Authority on the definition of basketball.

One player had 200 games of 30 points and 15 rebounds, but zero games with 5 blks

Another player had 120 games of 30 points and 15 rebounds, but also have 20 games with 20 points, 20 rebounds and 5 blks

But the first player is more dominant because I defined it.

[ambchang]

Lets look at monster playoff games. 40 points and 20 rebounds. Barkely did it once. Hakeem did it twice. Duncan never did it.

Shaq did FOUR times (all came during the 2000 and 2001 playoffs). I guess Duncan couldnt have games that insane because he didnt play basketball during that era, right?

I hate Phil Jackson but I give him credit for getting the message into Shaq's head that "you are the most dominant player of all time and should play that way". Shaq was just given physical attributes that no one else can compete with. That doesnt mean Duncan wasnt a great player, he was. But he just wasnt on the same level as Shaq. If Duncan got the ball within 5 feet of the basket, the other team didnt say "might as well start going the other way" as teams did when Shaq was in his prime.

But why a I even bothering? Youre a Spurs fan. I dont think I could present any evidence to change your mind. Was Shaq better than Duncan? OF COURSE he was. It was as plain as day.

So Shaq only had 4 dominant games in his career?

[Arcadian]

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Magic
4) Lebron
5) Bird
6) Shaq
7) Chamberlin
8) Kobe
9) Hakeem
10) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Couldnt you also say that all of these guys are "universally considered top 10 all time"? I mean you could say that old guys "shouldnt count" since their era was a completely different game or that Duncan was better than Kobe or Kareem but that AT LEAST would be "debatable".

Not Kobe and not Russell. They are arguably out of the top 10. Especially not Kobe. There's no rational argument that Kobe ranks higher than Duncan (despite what you might read on this forum, lol).

If your point is that one can construct a decent list without Duncan, obviously. There were more than 10 superstars in league history. But if you really get down to details, Duncan is better than most of them.

[ambchang]

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Magic
4) Lebron
5) Bird
6) Shaq
7) Chamberlin
8) Kobe
9) Hakeem
10) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Couldnt you also say that all of these guys are "universally considered top 10 all time"? I mean you could say that old guys "shouldnt count" since their era was a completely different game or that Duncan was better than Kobe or Kareem but that AT LEAST would be "debatable".

Kobe isn't top 10, none individual success, team success, or stats support Kobe > Duncan. none.

Duncan trumps Bird, Lebron, Shaq, Chamberlain, and Hakeem in team success.

Duncan trumps Shaq, Chamberlain, Hakeem, in individual accolades

Duncan ties or is comparable to Magic and Lebron in individual accolades and team success.

Duncan have better career stats than Russell, Magic, Bird, Shaq, and Hakeem in stats.

[Silver&Black]

8) Kobe

[Clipper Nation]

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Magic
4) Lebron
5) Bird
6) Shaq
7) Chamberlin
8) Kobe
9) Hakeem
10) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Couldnt you also say that all of these guys are "universally considered top 10 all time"? I mean you could say that old guys "shouldnt count" since their era was a completely different game or that Duncan was better than Kobe or Kareem but that AT LEAST would be "debatable".

Having Kirby in the top 1000, let alone the top 10
Ranking Kirby ahead of Hakeem, Kareem, and Duncan
Your takes are so re ed that you should be banned from watching the sport. Please don't breed.

[DMC]

So if hes not a superstar, who is? Curry? James? Are there only two superstars in the entire league?

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3992/james-harden

Harden just averaged 28 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in the WCF. He had a 38 point, 10 rebound 9 assist game (AND shot 61%). Has anyone in the league EVER done that?

James has folded how many times on the biggest stage? He the bed in the Finals, and the bed again in the WCF this season. He's only any good at the FT line and coming off the bench against scrubs. Face it, your superstar criteria is based on hype. Plus you're a got.

[Buddy Mignon]

"some of us"

Tim Duncan is universally considered top 10 all time, and anyone who disagrees is instantly outed from all serious discussion.

Not according to me and Jordan. Jordan thinks his career is greater than Magics and Birds because he accomplished a three-peat. I agree.

[da_suns_fan]

James has folded how many times on the biggest stage? He the bed in the Finals, and the bed again in the WCF this season. He's only any good at the FT line and coming off the bench against scrubs. Face it, your superstar criteria is based on hype. Plus you're a got.

Never lost to an 8th seed as a 1st seed.

Never blew a finals winning layup.

Lebron > Duncan (and its not even close). The narrative these days is "could Lebron beat MJ". The only narrative Duncan was ever involved in "why is he so boring" and "is he a sexual?"

[da_suns_fan]

Neither.

So are you saying you draw up all the rules of what dominance is, and done with defining what I said?

Authority on the definition of basketball.

One player had 200 games of 30 points and 15 rebounds, but zero games with 5 blks

Another player had 120 games of 30 points and 15 rebounds, but also have 20 games with 20 points, 20 rebounds and 5 blks

But the first player is more dominant because I defined it.

Again, I challenge you

1) Define what cons utes a dominant game

2) Show that Duncan had "a lot" of these games

You cant because, offensively, Duncan wasnt that great. Good but not dominant like Shaq or Hakeem.

I think I proved my point. As you just pointed out, Shaq didnt have "20" great games, he had 120.

[da_suns_fan]

I tried to find a list that had Duncan at the top by entering in "duncan-esque" stats. 22 points, 12 rebounds and 2 blocks. The quintessential Duncan game. He was still a distant third to both Shaq and Hakeem:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...=&order_by=pts

The problem is Duncan just wasnt that great of a scorer. He wasnt a great passer (like Barkley, Malone and KG). Even if you dilute the stats your looking at to scoring, rebounding and blocks, he usually comes up fifth.

[Arnold Toht]

It's simple, nobody outside Mexico thinks Duncan belongs in the Kobe, Jordan, Magic, Kareem conversation.

[midnightpulp]

This is quite the odd defense. Usually "per possession" stats are used to explain that bench guy or someone who doesnt get a lot of minutes is actually pretty good despite his limited in role.

No it isn't, since the players in question played roughly the same amount of minutes per game.

In this case, Duncan doesnt have a lot of "big games" relative to other superstars and you defend this with Duncan's "era" having a lower number of possessions than say, Barkley or Malone.

Your "big game" criteria is invented by you. I can easily throw an arbitrary line and call it a "big game," as well. And again, measuring floor impact with just points, rebounds, and blocks is insufficient, since there is so much a player does on the floor that isn't measured by traditional raw per game stats. Not to mention that raw per game stats are actually inaccurate (see my Value of a Blocked Shot example). For instance, rebound rate tells us who is a better rebounder than RPG.

Okay, but what about Shaq? Shaq and Duncans career's were in the same "era" yet Shaq BLEW AWAY the accolades of players from the 80s He was just that dominant. He didnt need the EXCUSES youre giving Tim Duncan.

No he didn't. And he didn't "blow away" Duncan on a raw per game basis, either, so no "excuses" needed.

Shaq's best le run (per game): 30.7ppg, 15.4rpg, 3.1apg, 2.4blk, .556TS%

Duncan's best: 24.7ppg, 15.4rpg, 5.3apg, 3.3blk, .577TS%

Shaq's always been a better scorer, so no argument there, but Duncan's always been a better defender.

Maybe Duncan just wasnt capable of dominating night in and night out the way Shaq was and this is why it didnt hapen? Occams Razor, buddy.

The more accurate stats show otherwise. They actually show that Duncan was just as dominant as Shaq.

You can continue to use per game stats, but I must tell you that we're not in the 90's anymore.

[midnightpulp]

My big game criteria for a big man is 25 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists, and 3 blocks. This shows a level of dominance across the board without overly favoring one of the "big 4" catergories.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

In the playoffs (the real season), Duncan has recorded 10 of these games, tied with Shaq. Note that Duncan recorded them in less games, as well.

I'll even bump up scoring to 27 points.

Oh, look, Duncan is still tied with Shaq:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

Let's bump up assists to 5.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

We'll bump up blocks to 5 now.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...5&order_by=pts

Or how about 30 points, 20 boards, and 5 blocks. Now THAT is a dominant big man game (leaving out blocks for bigs is a huge oversight, like in your 40/20 example, but I understand you did that to include Sir Zero Rings ).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...5&order_by=pts





tl;dr Barkley wasn't on any of these lists

[RD2191]

Simply because imo no other multiple champion has done more with less.

[Thomas82]

Just off the top of my head:

1. Longevity
2. 5 rings. Took a franchise with zero championships to the 4th most successful franchise in the NBA.
3. Best player since Jordan
4. All-time postseason records. Double-Doubles, blocks, minutes...
5. Never missed the playoffs
6. 50 wins seasons are routine.
7. Almost always a contender to win it all

Is that enough?

Good enough for me.

[da_suns_fan]

My big game criteria for a big man is 25 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists, and 3 blocks. This shows a level of dominance across the board without overly favoring one of the "big 4" catergories.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

In the playoffs (the real season), Duncan has recorded 10 of these games, tied with Shaq. Note that Duncan recorded them in less games, as well.

I'll even bump up scoring to 27 points.

Oh, look, Duncan is still tied with Shaq:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

Let's bump up assists to 5.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

We'll bump up blocks to 5 now.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...5&order_by=pts

Or how about 30 points, 20 boards, and 5 blocks. Now THAT is a dominant big man game (leaving out blocks for bigs is a huge oversight, like in your 40/20 example, but I understand you did that to include Sir Zero Rings ).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...5&order_by=pts





tl;dr Barkley wasn't on any of these lists

Once agian, you failed to find me a set of stats that matched the second criteria (like ambchang):

b) Show me how Duncan had "a lot of these games".

I clicked on your last link and Duncan had three of these games. So are you suggesting that Tim Duncan had three great games in his career?

The fact is that Shaq had a LOT of games where he had a lot of points and rebounds and blocks. Regular season AND playoffs. Duncan had a lot too...but just nowhere near as many Shaq or Hakeem.

They didnt need "per minute" or "pace" or "era" excuses that defensive Spurs fans continue to give Duncan.

Because they were better.

Game. Set. Match.

[TDfan2007]

My big game criteria for a big man is 25 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists, and 3 blocks. This shows a level of dominance across the board without overly favoring one of the "big 4" catergories.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

In the playoffs (the real season), Duncan has recorded 10 of these games, tied with Shaq. Note that Duncan recorded them in less games, as well.

I'll even bump up scoring to 27 points.

Oh, look, Duncan is still tied with Shaq:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

Let's bump up assists to 5.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...3&order_by=pts

We'll bump up blocks to 5 now.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...5&order_by=pts

Or how about 30 points, 20 boards, and 5 blocks. Now THAT is a dominant big man game (leaving out blocks for bigs is a huge oversight, like in your 40/20 example, but I understand you did that to include Sir Zero Rings ).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...5&order_by=pts





tl;dr Barkley wasn't on any of these lists

I'm not really sure why you're bothering with this guy. It's like talking to Kool's re ed cousin...