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

[midnightpulp]

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.

Are you re ed? Serious question?

I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you since you don't even have the ability to understand how "averages" work. Shaq having his overall best playoff stats during years in which he played the Spurs means nothing if he's averaging 38 and 16 in other playoff series.

If you weren't so fundamentally hard-headed and biased (only searching for information that supports your argument), you'd find that Shaq averaged lower numbers against the Spurs than all other playoff teams during his better years.

Head-to-head playoff stats vs. Duncan:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...playoffs::none

Duncan wins the majority of categories, even outscoring Shaq by 3 points per game. Granted, these stats factor in the '08 series against your ty Suns, but even if we adjust the stats, Duncan is still on par with Shaq.

Shaq vs. Malik Rose, who was with the Spurs from 99 to 04, meaning these are "prime/peak" Shaq's stats against the Spurs:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...playoffs::none

Duncan still wins the PPG category by a point.

Amb even cited data (in a long ago post) that showed Shaq shot lower than 50% in isolation post-up situations against Duncan. This was done to debunk the claim that Robinson did all the heavy defensive lifting against Shaq while Duncan coasted. Duncan and Robinson both guarded Shaq a similar amount, and Shaq actually shot worse against Duncan.

"Pace excuse"

I already shown how pace affects per game stats in my earlier post that you conveniently ignored. A rookie/sop re Shaq actually had more "big games" per season than peak Shaq, despite the former having a lower usage rate. Like I said, the average pace was much quicker in 92-93/93-94 than it was even a year later, with the average shot attempts per team dropping by almost 400.

You've pretty much ran out of valid arguments. But, by all means, continue to spin. It's amusing.

[da_suns_fan]

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.

LOL...you want to bust out a randomized 2^k factorial experiment with blocking of external factors to determine the win co-efficient for both Duncan and Shaq, be my guest.

But of course, you cant because it doesnt exist. The best analysts can do is try to make sense of statistical noise. I do agree that stats can be misleading. For instance a chucker my put up a lot of points but take an insane amount of shots to achieve it. This isnt the case with Shaq. He averaged 30 & 15 while shooting 55%. If a player did that today in ONE playoff series we would be calling him a generational player. Shaq averaged that across 8 straight playoff series.

The best you and ambchang can do is make excuses for pace and number of possessions. You can ARGUE that Duncan could have put up similar number if he played at the same pace as Shaq, but thats all you can do. Argue. You dont know if Duncan's production would have seen diminishing returns as he had to play more possessions or was asked to carry a larger offensive burden.

In Shaq's case, we dont have to argue. He did it. He averaged 30, 15 and 2 blocks for the entire playoffs TWICE. He put up 40 points and 20 rebounds in the playoffs four times (in that two year span). His team won 12 straight playoffs series.

How many of those things has Duncan done?

If you want to argue that stats dont tell the whole story, I agree. Stats dont show that Shaq put up those insane numbers despite being double and triple teamed almost every time he got the ball. They dont show how teams resorted to "Hack-a-Shaq" to try and somehow contain him. How the league introduced a shorter three point line to help defenses collapse on him (it didnt work). He was too big and too strong.

The only player I can think that was as dominant as Shaq in 2000 & 2001 was Barry Bonds (and he was on steroids). I remember the Danny Ainge quote around 2001 was "its like watching an 8th grader play against a bunch of 5th graders".

Tim Duncan? Please.

The only thing capable of stopping Shaq was Shaq himself. In his later years Im sure Duncan outplayed him, but when asked "who was better" or "more dominant" the answer is easily Shaq to anyone outside of San Antonio.

But you and ambchang can continue to grasp straws if you want. No ones buying it.

[midnightpulp]

LOL...you want to bust out a randomized 2^k factorial experiment with blocking of external factors to determine the win co-efficient for both Duncan and Shaq, be my guest.

But of course, you cant because it doesnt exist. The best analysts can do is try to make sense of statistical noise. I do agree that stats can be misleading. For instance a chucker my put up a lot of points but take an insane amount of shots to achieve it. This isnt the case with Shaq. He averaged 30 & 15 while shooting 55%. If a player did that today in ONE playoff series we would be calling him a generational player. Shaq averaged that across 8 straight playoff series.

Yes, and the modern statistical methods we use now make much better (and more accurate sense) of statistical noise. Rally against them all you want, but they correlate better to success than raw per game stats can ever hope to. If you have evidence to the contrary that raw per game stats are more accurate, I'd love to see it. You also again fail to consider defensive impact, where Shaq is measurably average.

The best you and ambchang can do is make excuses for pace and number of possessions. You can ARGUE that Duncan could have put up similar number if he played at the same pace as Shaq, but thats all you can do. Argue. You dont know if Duncan's production would have seen diminishing returns as he had to play more possessions or was asked to carry a larger offensive burden.

I've never made "excuses" for Duncan. His per game stats are dominant. He only trails Shaq in PPG and out produces him other categories. But for the sake of the argument, let's see how Duncan functioned in a high pace environment (I'll use his playoff stats against Steve Nash, who always played at a high pace under Nelson and then under D'Antoni).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...playoffs::none

Looks pretty dominant to me, close to your coveted 30, 15, 2 (note: One of those series was in Duncan's rookie year, while the other was in '10, when he was on the decline. In both, Duncan averaged about 20 ppg and 10 rpg. If we exclude those, Duncan would be much closer to 30, 15, 2). Of course, Duncan wasn't the scorer Shaq was, and no one is arguing that, but Duncan was the superior defender, a fact you keep glossing over.

In Shaq's case, we dont have to argue. He did it. He averaged 30, 15 and 2 blocks for the entire playoffs TWICE. He put up 40 points and 20 rebounds in the playoffs four times (in that two year span). His team won 12 straight playoffs series.

And? If you want to invoke "team" accomplishments, Duncan also wins out there, despite never playing alongside a top ten player in the league his entire career (although Leonard was arguably a top ten player in the league this year). You'll say Duncan had better overall rosters, but I disagree. Tony Parker was proven to have an average impact, even in his prime. And Manu was inconsistent. And David Robinson was past his prime. Duncan never had any teammate close to the level of Kobe Bryant.

And again, why the arbitrary citing of 40/20? Because it looks nice? Why not 28, 15, 5, and 5? or 20, 20, 8, and 3? Or some other arbitrary number chosen out of a hat?

If you want to argue that stats dont tell the whole story, I agree. Stats dont show that Shaq put up those insane numbers despite being double and triple teamed almost every time he got the ball. They dont show how teams resorted to "Hack-a-Shaq" to try and somehow contain him. How the league introduced a shorter three point line to help defenses collapse on him (it didnt work). He was too big and too strong.

The Spurs rarely doubled him, and Shaq had his worst playoff series against them. I can also break out various eye-test qualifications for Duncan, especially on the defensive end. Further, +/- seeks to quantify a player's overall floor impact, so the amount of double teams a player receives (that leads to easier scoring opportunities for his teammates) would factor in.

The only thing capable of stopping Shaq was Shaq himself. In his later years Im sure Duncan outplayed him, but when asked "who was better" or "more dominant" the answer is easily Shaq to anyone outside of San Antonio.

Did you just watching basketball last year? Duncan destroyed him in their very first playoff matchup.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...S_LAL-SAS.html

Shaq got his revenge in '01. And in '02, I'd say Duncan won the player battle, while Shaq's team won the series.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...S_SAS-LAL.html

And we know what happened in '03.

But you and ambchang can continue to grasp straws if you want. No ones buying it.

Yeah, I'm only backing up my claims using modern stats and cogent arguments, while you stubbornly stick to outmoded per game stats and arbitrary ideas of "big games." You also haven't once acknowledged defensive impact.

I don't care if you think Shaq was a better player than Duncan. That's not what irritates me. It's the terrible way you're trying to support it, by appealing to raw per game stats, media hyperbole, and "big games."

[Arcadian]

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

That...is quite possibly the worst list ever constructed for anything in history.

[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.

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

Really, what the is wrong with you? Shaq and Duncan didn't even face off in 2000

[ambchang]

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.

Duncan had 28/14/5/4 in the 2002 playoffs, that's 37/19/6.6/5.7 p100
25/15/5/3 per game and 31/19/6.6/4 p100 in 2003 playoffs

Shaq, in 2001 - 38/19/4/3 (pts/reb/asst/blks) p100
Shaq, in 2000 - 38/19/4/3 p100

Please, look things up.

[ambchang]

da_suns_fan, what happened to the scoring comparison with Hakeem?

[Clipper Nation]

Da_suns_rag just soaking in all the ITT

[da_suns_fan]

LOL...you want to bust out a randomized 2^k factorial experiment with blocking of external factors to determine the win co-efficient for both Duncan and Shaq, be my guest.

But of course, you cant because it doesnt exist. The best analysts can do is try to make sense of statistical noise. I do agree that stats can be misleading. For instance a chucker my put up a lot of points but take an insane amount of shots to achieve it. This isnt the case with Shaq. He averaged 30 & 15 while shooting 55%. If a player did that today in ONE playoff series we would be calling him a generational player. Shaq averaged that across 8 straight playoff series.

The best you and ambchang can do is make excuses for pace and number of possessions. You can ARGUE that Duncan could have put up similar number if he played at the same pace as Shaq, but thats all you can do. Argue. You dont know if Duncan's production would have seen diminishing returns as he had to play more possessions or was asked to carry a larger offensive burden.

In Shaq's case, we dont have to argue. He did it. He averaged 30, 15 and 2 blocks for the entire playoffs TWICE. He put up 40 points and 20 rebounds in the playoffs four times (in that two year span). His team won 12 straight playoffs series.

How many of those things has Duncan done?

If you want to argue that stats dont tell the whole story, I agree. Stats dont show that Shaq put up those insane numbers despite being double and triple teamed almost every time he got the ball. They dont show how teams resorted to "Hack-a-Shaq" to try and somehow contain him. How the league introduced a shorter three point line to help defenses collapse on him (it didnt work). He was too big and too strong.

The only player I can think that was as dominant as Shaq in 2000 & 2001 was Barry Bonds (and he was on steroids). I remember the Danny Ainge quote around 2001 was "its like watching an 8th grader play against a bunch of 5th graders".

Tim Duncan? Please.

The only thing capable of stopping Shaq was Shaq himself. In his later years Im sure Duncan outplayed him, but when asked "who was better" or "more dominant" the answer is easily Shaq to anyone outside of San Antonio.

But you and ambchang can continue to grasp straws if you want. No ones buying it.

Bumping this gem for monospulp to pour salt into today's wound

[dbreiden83080]

Uh

5 NBA les
3 finals MVP's
2 league MVP's
15 time all star
10 time all NBA fist team
8 time first team defense
NBA rookie of the year

He's pretty good..

[dbreiden83080]

Parker in 07, Leonard in 14, and Ginobli's entire playoffrun in 05.

You obviously didn't watch the playoff run in 05. And who was the best player in the playoffs in 2007? It sure as wasn't Tony Parker..

2007 VS the Suns was the toughest series by far. Duncan dropped 27 and 14 on 57%..

[midnightpulp]

Bumping this gem for monospulp to pour salt into today's wound

Your "gem" got crushed into dust by my response, and you promptly gave up, as usual.

Basing your whole argument on "Per game" stats

[ambchang]

Regardless, both Duncan and Shaq deserves a parade.

[DMC]

Someone needs to update that trophy pic for Lebron