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

[midnightpulp]

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.

"Game. Set. Match."

You're bad at this.

As I've predicted, you fail to accept any other statistical methods but your own highly arbitrary "big game" criteria and handwave away or outright ignore proof to the contrary because of your obvious bias toward Duncan (it's because he slaughtered the Suns, I get it).

Since I can't help myself, I'll try again. Maybe it will get through your thick skull this time.

Raw per game are in' antiquated, especially those recorded during the regular season, where a variety of factors can influence player production (if a team is good or great, they will have won many games in blowout fashion, which results in a team's best player(s) playing less minutes). And in the case of Duncan, his minutes have been managed for the last 7 years. That's why I use playoff stats, because it's a better sample of how Duncan (and other players) perform when minute restrictions are off and the players in question are playing against superior compe ion. Who gives a about a "big game" against a lottery team in January? It doesn't tell us anything. David Robinson had plenty of "big games" yet floundered in the playoffs with worse raw per game stats. No one gives a about the regular season.

So since raw per game stats have been shown to be an inaccurate indicator of total player value, why do you continue to use them? If you want me to continue this debate with you, I want a cogent answer to that question.

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

Duncan doesn't need that excuse, either. I've shown that his raw per game stats are on par with Hakeem and Shaq. Granted, they're slightly worse in some categories (as I've admitted, Duncan wasn't as good a scorer as those players), but Duncan's advanced (playoff) stats are about a wash with Hakeem's and actually superior to Shaq's. The latter might come as a surprise with Shaq's reputation as the "Most Dominant Ever," but as I've stated before, Shaq was about an average defender for a bigman and could be exploited with the pick-n-roll or quicker bigs (Shaq could never guard Duncan, KG, Hakeem) something Lakerfans used to complain about for YEARS. There could also be issues with him affecting spacing since he lacked any short of shot outside of 6 six feet.

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

What criteria? If you're talking about my "big game" criteria, I don't care about finding more games to "match it" because it's an arbitrary invention of mine. It holds no explanatory power. Player impact goes much deeper than just how he can fill up limited categories in a box score. Especially those recorded during the regular season.

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

More on this point:

Shaq had 16 of my big games from his rookie year to 1994 (two seasons). The early 90's were still very much in the vein of fast paced 80's basketball (although still not as quick).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...0&order_by=pts

'95 saw the first changes toward a slower game and the game slowed down significantly from here on out (the league average in team shot attempts dropped from 7048 in 92-93 to 6682 in 94-95). Shaq had 28 of my "big games" from 95-03, an 8 season period that included his absolute peak. So when the game started slowing down, he went from having 8 big games per season to under 4 (note: He was higher usage player at his peak than when he was with the Magic, so don't give me any of that: "It's because he had to share the ball with Kobe" crap).

Hakeem sees a similar dropoff. As does Malone, Barkley, etc.

That said, I do agree that Shaq is probably the most dominant "box score" big man in league history, but again, raw box score stats don't really tell us anything. Stop using them. This isn't the 90's.

[HemisfairArena]

In the end,,,, we all know Duncan is above Kobrick on ALL Time list,,,,

[Arnold Toht]

Kobe: 3
Duncan: 0

[HemisfairArena]

Kobe: 3
Duncan: 0

gay lover count thus far?,,,,,

[DMC]

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?"

Was never a 1st seed.His team never got to 1st seed until the year after he left.

Lost in the 1st round last year.

Bailed out by bench after allowing opponent to go up 19 points, while he sat on his ass on the floor on the sideline and watched.

Folded in his biggest moment in the NBA with a NBA playoff record 13 turnovers.

Superstar..

"Just how bad was superstar James Harden compared to the rest of his season? In 62 regular-season games and 15 postseason games before the finals, superstar Harden scored in single digits just four times.He's now done it three times in the past five games.
But that's just scratching the surface of what was wrong with Superstar Harden in this series.
Superstar Harden was outplayed by LeBron James every time he had to guard him, but there's no real way to fault him for that. LeBron is bigger and stronger, and there's no way Superstar Harden could have grown an inch or two to really keep him in check.
There wasn't another player in this series that looked as uncertain as Superstar Harden. That uncertainty and lack of confidence was worse than Russell Westbrook shooting too much, Serge Ibaka and Kendrick Perkins faltering late in games or Scotty Brooks refusing to budge on his lineups—even when it made more sense to go with one guy over another."


"Superstar James Harden committed 13 turnovers in Game 5 against the Golden State Warriors, setting a new record for most turnovers in a playoff game. It might not shock you that the Rockets lost the game and are now eliminated. They are eliminated because they lost four games in the series, but they might as well have been eliminated because everybody watched superstar James Harden playing basketball and realized it was inhumane to allow him to continue playing basketball.

Superstar James Harden's night was a rare combination of questionable decisions, passes apparently thrown by somebody lacking basic motor skills and ill-fated dribbles. This happened against a team completely keyed-in defensively on superstar Harden, set to destroy him. It gets ugly, it gets uglier and it gets ugliest."

[Arnold Toht]

Kobe: 3
Duncan: 0

[midnightpulp]

Kobe: 3
Duncan: 0

Times each player missed the playoffs

[ambchang]

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.

Why is dominant tied to "offensively" not that great? You can only dominate a game on offense?

You did show Shaq only had 4 monster games though.

Games with 30 points, 15 rebounds and 5 assists:

Rk Player Pos From To Count
1 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 38
2 Tim Duncan F 2000 2013 27
3 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 24
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 1998 22
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 20
6 David Robinson* C 1990 1998 18
7 Kevin Garnett F 2001 2006 16
8 LeBron James F 2004 2015 10
9 Larry Bird* F 1986 1991 9
10 Chris Webber F 2000 2006 9
11 Michael Jordan* G 1989 1996 6
12 Kevin Love F 2011 2014 6
13 DeMarcus Cousins C 2014 2015 5
14 Blake Griffin F 2011 2015 5
15 Derrick Coleman F 1993 1997 4
16 Tom Gugliotta F 1993 1997 4
17 Grant Hill F 1995 1997 4
18 Amar'e Stoudemire F 2005 2011 4
19 Elton Brand F 2004 2006 3
20 Vince Carter G 2002 2007 3

Dear God, I just proved Duncan is more dominant than Jordan, and Barkley is the most dominant player of all time.

And you still cannot grasp the idea of what pace means. A player who scored 40 points in a game where his team scored 120 points is better than a player who scored 38 points in a game where his team scored 80 points.

[jsandiego]

But ESPN told us that Shaq was the MDE. It must be true, right?

[da_suns_fan]

Why is dominant tied to "offensively" not that great? You can only dominate a game on offense?

You did show Shaq only had 4 monster games though.

Games with 30 points, 15 rebounds and 5 assists:

Rk Player Pos From To Count
1 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 38
2 Tim Duncan F 2000 2013 27
3 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 24
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 1998 22
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 20
6 David Robinson* C 1990 1998 18
7 Kevin Garnett F 2001 2006 16
8 LeBron James F 2004 2015 10
9 Larry Bird* F 1986 1991 9
10 Chris Webber F 2000 2006 9
11 Michael Jordan* G 1989 1996 6
12 Kevin Love F 2011 2014 6
13 DeMarcus Cousins C 2014 2015 5
14 Blake Griffin F 2011 2015 5
15 Derrick Coleman F 1993 1997 4
16 Tom Gugliotta F 1993 1997 4
17 Grant Hill F 1995 1997 4
18 Amar'e Stoudemire F 2005 2011 4
19 Elton Brand F 2004 2006 3
20 Vince Carter G 2002 2007 3

Dear God, I just proved Duncan is more dominant than Jordan, and Barkley is the most dominant player of all time.

And you still cannot grasp the idea of what pace means. A player who scored 40 points in a game where his team scored 120 points is better than a player who scored 38 points in a game where his team scored 80 points.

This latest query just shows what a great passer Barkley was (for a big man). Look at the jump from number two to number one. When you add in an assist parameter, Barkley is almost always at the top (usually filtered by KG). Likewise as you increase scoring, Duncan falls further and further to the bottom.

And your PACE excuse is pathetic. Did you forget that Shaquille Oneal had his highest playoff scoring numbers in years in which he faced Duncan and the Spurs? And which team did Shaq play off that averaged "120" points or anything even close?

You cant blame Duncan's deficiencies on era or pace. He just simply wasnt the scorer that Oneal and Hakeem were. Another thing stats dont account for is the amount of double (or triple teams) each player saw. Shaq probably saw a record number of double or triple teams in his prime years.....YOU HAD TO. If you didnt he was dunking it. He was THAT dominant.

[da_suns_fan]

Why is dominant tied to "offensively" not that great? You can only dominate a game on offense?

You did show Shaq only had 4 monster games though.

Games with 30 points, 15 rebounds and 5 assists:

Rk Player Pos From To Count
1 Charles Barkley* F 1986 1999 38
2 Tim Duncan F 2000 2013 27
3 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2007 24
4 Karl Malone* F 1987 1998 22
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 1997 20
6 David Robinson* C 1990 1998 18
7 Kevin Garnett F 2001 2006 16
8 LeBron James F 2004 2015 10
9 Larry Bird* F 1986 1991 9
10 Chris Webber F 2000 2006 9
11 Michael Jordan* G 1989 1996 6
12 Kevin Love F 2011 2014 6
13 DeMarcus Cousins C 2014 2015 5
14 Blake Griffin F 2011 2015 5
15 Derrick Coleman F 1993 1997 4
16 Tom Gugliotta F 1993 1997 4
17 Grant Hill F 1995 1997 4
18 Amar'e Stoudemire F 2005 2011 4
19 Elton Brand F 2004 2006 3
20 Vince Carter G 2002 2007 3

Dear God, I just proved Duncan is more dominant than Jordan, and Barkley is the most dominant player of all time.

And you still cannot grasp the idea of what pace means. A player who scored 40 points in a game where his team scored 120 points is better than a player who scored 38 points in a game where his team scored 80 points.

btw - Comparing Guards (Jordan) to bigs using 10+ rebound games wouldnt make sense now would, it?

Jordan was a good scorer and passer...if you look at the number of games a player had 40 points and 5 assists (what I'll call the "Jordan" game), he had 91 of these games and the next closest is AI at 56. No one was even close.

But Lebron was/is a better rebounder. Not quite the scorer but more a "triple threat". If I look for "the lebron game" of 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists, Lebron is number one at 122 and the next closest is MJ at 79. Nobody will probably EVER have more 30/7/7 games than Lebron.

As I said, the "Shaq game" would be 30/15/2. Nobody will probably ever have as many of these games as Shaq (he had 80). The "Barkley Game" would be 26/12/5.

So whats "The Duncan game"?

[ambchang]

This latest query just shows what a great passer Barkley was (for a big man). Look at the jump from number two to number one. When you add in an assist parameter, Barkley is almost always at the top (usually filtered by KG). Likewise as you increase scoring, Duncan falls further and further to the bottom.

And your PACE excuse is pathetic. Did you forget that Shaquille Oneal had his highest playoff scoring numbers in years in which he faced Duncan and the Spurs? And which team did Shaq play off that averaged "120" points or anything even close?

You cant blame Duncan's deficiencies on era or pace. He just simply wasnt the scorer that Oneal and Hakeem were. Another thing stats dont account for is the amount of double (or triple teams) each player saw. Shaq probably saw a record number of double or triple teams in his prime years.....YOU HAD TO. If you didnt he was dunking it. He was THAT dominant.

So after all of this, all you wanted to say was that O'Neal and Hakeem were better scorers? O'Neal? Sure, why not? Hakeem not so much. But why did you say that he wasn't in the same level of dominance as those two? Do you understand dominance and scoring are two different things?

Per 100 possessions, which actually does take into account pace, Duncan averaged 30.1pp100, while Hakeem had 30.3pp100. Duncan had a peak of 33.5 and Hakeem 35.8. not really that big of a difference. But if you factor in assists, Duncan averaged 4.7ap100, and Hakeem had 3.4ap100. Duncan's peak was 5.7, while Hakeem's peak was 4.7 (same as Duncan's average).

O"Neal was his most dominant during the three peat. The Lakers scored 100.8, 100.6 and 101.3 ppg.

Duncan was most dominant from 2001 to 2004, in those years, the Spurs averaged 96.2, 96.7, 95.8 and 91.5 ppg. That alone accounted for 5 to 10% of the difference. And the 120 ppg was an illustration to explain to you what pace means, since you either do not understand what it means, or is actively trying to avoid the topic.

And no, Shaq had the lowest average in his prime in a series vs. the Spurs, averaging 21.4ppg in 2002. In the same series, Duncan averaged 29. In the next year, Shaq averaged 25.3ppg in the series vs. the Spurs, while Duncan aveaged 28. Even in the peak of his prime, in 2001, Shaq "only" averaged 27 ppg vs. the Spurs, while Duncan averaged 23. In 1999, Duncan averaged 29 while Shaq managed 23.8ppg in the same series. In 2004, Shaq averaged 22.5 while Duncan averaged 20.7. To summarize for you, Duncan out scored Shaq 3 out of 5 times in h2h series between 1999 and 2004. Fact check your garbage before you spew it out.

[ambchang]

btw - Comparing Guards (Jordan) to bigs using 10+ rebound games wouldnt make sense now would, it?

Jordan was a good scorer and passer...if you look at the number of games a player had 40 points and 5 assists (what I'll call the "Jordan" game), he had 91 of these games and the next closest is AI at 56. No one was even close.

But Lebron was/is a better rebounder. Not quite the scorer but more a "triple threat". If I look for "the lebron game" of 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists, Lebron is number one at 122 and the next closest is MJ at 79. Nobody will probably EVER have more 30/7/7 games than Lebron.

As I said, the "Shaq game" would be 30/15/2. Nobody will probably ever have as many of these games as Shaq (he had 80). The "Barkley Game" would be 26/12/5.

So whats "The Duncan game"?

So what you are penalizing players who are consistent, and rewarding those with more variance? A typical duncan game is a simple double double.

1 Tim Duncan F 1998 2015 830
2 Karl Malone* F 1986 2004 814
3 Kevin Garnett F 1996 2015 742
4 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2011 727
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 2002 719
6 John Stockton* G 1986 2003 709
7 Charles Barkley* F 1986 2000 681
8 Patrick Ewing* C 1986 2002 580
9 Dwight Howard C 2005 2015 575
10 David Robinson* C 1990 2003 544

[da_suns_fan]

So what you are penalizing players who are consistent, and rewarding those with more variance? A typical duncan game is a simple double double.

1 Tim Duncan F 1998 2015 830
2 Karl Malone* F 1986 2004 814
3 Kevin Garnett F 1996 2015 742
4 Shaquille O'Neal C 1993 2011 727
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* C 1986 2002 719
6 John Stockton* G 1986 2003 709
7 Charles Barkley* F 1986 2000 681
8 Patrick Ewing* C 1986 2002 580
9 Dwight Howard C 2005 2015 575
10 David Robinson* C 1990 2003 544

When we talk about "dominance", yes.

[ambchang]

When we talk about "dominance", yes.

As in there are no consistently dominant players then.

Also, thanks once again for avoiding comments you couldn't address like the post above the one you responded. I notice you do that often.

[da_suns_fan]

So after all of this, all you wanted to say was that O'Neal and Hakeem were better scorers? O'Neal? Sure, why not? Hakeem not so much. But why did you say that he wasn't in the same level of dominance as those two? Do you understand dominance and scoring are two different things?

Per 100 possessions, which actually does take into account pace, Duncan averaged 30.1pp100, while Hakeem had 30.3pp100. Duncan had a peak of 33.5 and Hakeem 35.8. not really that big of a difference. But if you factor in assists, Duncan averaged 4.7ap100, and Hakeem had 3.4ap100. Duncan's peak was 5.7, while Hakeem's peak was 4.7 (same as Duncan's average).

O"Neal was his most dominant during the three peat. The Lakers scored 100.8, 100.6 and 101.3 ppg.

Duncan was most dominant from 2001 to 2004, in those years, the Spurs averaged 96.2, 96.7, 95.8 and 91.5 ppg. That alone accounted for 5 to 10% of the difference. And the 120 ppg was an illustration to explain to you what pace means, since you either do not understand what it means, or is actively trying to avoid the topic.

And no, Shaq had the lowest average in his prime in a series vs. the Spurs, averaging 21.4ppg in 2002. In the same series, Duncan averaged 29. In the next year, Shaq averaged 25.3ppg in the series vs. the Spurs, while Duncan aveaged 28. Even in the peak of his prime, in 2001, Shaq "only" averaged 27 ppg vs. the Spurs, while Duncan averaged 23. In 1999, Duncan averaged 29 while Shaq managed 23.8ppg in the same series. In 2004, Shaq averaged 22.5 while Duncan averaged 20.7. To summarize for you, Duncan out scored Shaq 3 out of 5 times in h2h series between 1999 and 2004. Fact check your garbage before you spew it out.

So Duncan had good series against the Lakers.

Shaq had GREAT series against everybody. He was so dominant in 2000 and 2001 I doubt anyone will be able to duplicate those playoff averages again. You disagree?

btw - "pace" is not the same as "points per game". The Lakers could score more points at same pace if they were more efficient (which they probably were since they had Shaq).

[da_suns_fan]

As in there are no consistently dominant players then.

Also, thanks once again for avoiding comments you couldn't address like the post above the one you responded. I notice you do that often.

I did respond. I notice you cherry pick Shaqs numbers from 99 and 2002 and skip over 2001 and 2002. Nice try.

[RsxPiimp]

Damn, you nigs have a lot of time in y'all's hands

[ambchang]

So after all of this, all you wanted to say was that O'Neal and Hakeem were better scorers? O'Neal? Sure, why not? Hakeem not so much. But why did you say that he wasn't in the same level of dominance as those two? Do you understand dominance and scoring are two different things?

Per 100 possessions, which actually does take into account pace, Duncan averaged 30.1pp100, while Hakeem had 30.3pp100. Duncan had a peak of 33.5 and Hakeem 35.8. not really that big of a difference. But if you factor in assists, Duncan averaged 4.7ap100, and Hakeem had 3.4ap100. Duncan's peak was 5.7, while Hakeem's peak was 4.7 (same as Duncan's average).

O"Neal was his most dominant during the three peat. The Lakers scored 100.8, 100.6 and 101.3 ppg.

Duncan was most dominant from 2001 to 2004, in those years, the Spurs averaged 96.2, 96.7, 95.8 and 91.5 ppg. That alone accounted for 5 to 10% of the difference. And the 120 ppg was an illustration to explain to you what pace means, since you either do not understand what it means, or is actively trying to avoid the topic.

And no, Shaq had the lowest average in his prime in a series vs. the Spurs, averaging 21.4ppg in 2002. In the same series, Duncan averaged 29. In the next year, Shaq averaged 25.3ppg in the series vs. the Spurs, while Duncan aveaged 28. Even in the peak of his prime, in 2001, Shaq "only" averaged 27 ppg vs. the Spurs, while Duncan averaged 23. In 1999, Duncan averaged 29 while Shaq managed 23.8ppg in the same series. In 2004, Shaq averaged 22.5 while Duncan averaged 20.7. To summarize for you, Duncan out scored Shaq 3 out of 5 times in h2h series between 1999 and 2004. Fact check your garbage before you spew it out.

I did respond. I notice you cherry pick Shaqs numbers from 99 and 2002 and skip over 2001 and 2002. Nice try.

Are you blind?

[ambchang]

So Duncan had good series against the Lakers.

Shaq had GREAT series against everybody. He was so dominant in 2000 and 2001 I doubt anyone will be able to duplicate those playoff averages again. You disagree?

btw - "pace" is not the same as "points per game". The Lakers could score more points at same pace if they were more efficient (which they probably were since they had Shaq).

Duncan had a "good" series when he averaged when he averaged 29 and 17 and 5, but SHaq had GREAT series against everybody when he averaged 30/15/3 in 2001 and 29/13/3 in 2001 and 2002 that will not be duplicated?

Duncan averaged 28/14/5/4 in 2002 and 25/15/5/3 in 2002 and 2003 playoffs, but those were just good series.

[da_suns_fan]

Are you blind?

Excuse me. I meant 2000 and 2001 (Shaqs most dominant years).

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan had a "good" series when he averaged when he averaged 29 and 17 and 5, but SHaq had GREAT series against everybody when he averaged 30/15/3 in 2001 and 29/13/3 in 2001 and 2002 that will not be duplicated?

Duncan averaged 28/14/5/4 in 2002 and 25/15/5/3 in 2002 and 2003 playoffs, but those were just good series.

Those werent SHaq's "Series" averages. They were his PLAYOFF averages.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...onealsh01.html

That means across 8 straight playoff series between 2000 and 2001 Shaquille ONeal averaged 30 points, 15 rebounds, 2 blocks and 55% shooting. Thats INSANE and Duncan could never touch those number. AT BEST, you could argue "well if Duncan's team played at same pace he could have duplicated these number extrapolating his per possession blah blah blah" but thats ridiculous.

[vander]

didn't read the whole thread, but did OP ever give his top 10 players and why he considered them?

[Arnold Toht]

Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Wilt
Kobe
Lebron
Russell
Bird
Hakeem
Oscar
Moses Malone
Karl Malone
Isiah Thomas
Stockton
Garnett
Durant

[midnightpulp]

Those werent SHaq's "Series" averages. They were his PLAYOFF averages.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...onealsh01.html

That means across 8 straight playoff series between 2000 and 2001 Shaquille ONeal averaged 30 points, 15 rebounds, 2 blocks and 55% shooting. Thats INSANE and Duncan could never touch those number. AT BEST, you could argue "well if Duncan's team played at same pace he could have duplicated these number extrapolating his per possession blah blah blah" but thats ridiculous.

Quit using per game stats.

This isn't the 90's.

I also like how you ignored my counterargument when I directly asked you why you place such importance on per game stats when they're proven to be inaccurate.

You're either trolling or stuck in the stone ages with Lakers fans.