Reply With Quote
Magic in '79, before you got your green cardAt least he has one, Adelio.
I can understand liking Horry, but he's not a top five player in history
Magic in '79, before you got your green card
If Kobe had Pop for his whole career, he wouldn't have had a rape charge in Colorado. He was a bad bad man.
If Kobe had Pop he would have had averaged 15 ppg
Did you not read my post just two posts above this? Advance stats by themselves rarely if ever tell the entire story. I don't discredit them. Better if used along with other standard statistical evidence and in context.
Both win shares and vorp are advanced stats that are formulated at least in part with team performance and team success. Not a great reflection of individual statistical production. PER is a better advanced stat for that. And Duncan does have the advantage in career regular season. Hakeem has a bigger advantage in career playoffs PER. Would you concede Hakeem had the better playoff career than Duncan? Your call.
Never once said that. In fact, I don't mind using advanced stats at all. I just prefer a more complete picture using both.
That's a fair point. Based on PER 100 possession production, the two are statistically comparable. Duncan the slightly better rebounder and playmaker; Hakeem the better and more efficient scorer and a better or more active "statistical" defender. But both pretty close to each other statistically.
Remember, my entry into the discussion started in response to DAF's assertion that Duncan's longevity gave him the definite, overall edge. If I can concede looking at per100 statistics that the two are essentially statistically negligible, it still stands that I don't believe Duncan has the definite overall edge, based on longevity or otherwise. In fact, I still haven't read from DAF explaining the longevity point.
Precisely why I wouldn't use advanced stats "exclusively" to argue a point, the way DAF did above.Paul is the advanced stats king, and the reason is because his teams revolves almost exclusively around him. Fact that his team failed every year with him as the centre is indicative of where he stands as an all time great, something that's not applicable to Duncan nor hakeem.
Again, fair point as I just said responding to amchang.
The problem with your examples are they don't fit your argument. Both Robinson and Ewing had a couple to a handful of seasons of better statistics than Hakeem. Not entire careers. Hakeem has better overall stats than either. If you want to go season by season, sure each had a few better seasons. Just not overall. And that's why we evaluate entire careers, not just 2 or 3 or 5 isolated seasons.
Shaq is interesting and has a more arguable point especially because of sheer dominance scoring the ball. But the rest of his game doesn't reall stack up, particularly on the defensive end. Really good assist guy and good but not all time great rebounder. An average defender considering his size and athletically ability, especially earlier in his career.
So while I do and already have conceded the point about pace adjusted statistical production, your examples are left wanting.
Well, "the more complete picture", using both, doesn't show Hakeem's stats are "clearly better", as you said. So, either way you look at it, you are still wrong.
-Duncan's first all-NBA team was in '98, his last was in 2015. That's a 17 years difference. Olajuwon's first all-NBA team came in '86, his last in '99. 13 years difference. That leaves Duncan with a 4 year advantage. Not to mention Duncan has a 15 to 12 all-NBA team advantage and a 10 to 6 all-NBA first team.advantage.
-Duncan was elite for everysingle year of his career, with the exception of maybe the last one (in which he was still ranked number 1 in DPM). Hakeem's last years (and some in between) were a disgrace (Raptors' Hakeem).
-And finally, but not least, Duncan won his first championship in 1999, his last one in 2014. 5 championships in total, at least one in three different decades. And yeah, you can point, with some validity, that those are teams' accomplishments; but the fact that Duncan won all those championships as the best player on his team should not only matter but it should be held up high as one of the most incredible feats in the history of the league.
So, no matter how important each individual believes those things, I listed, to be, I think pretty much everybody will agree that Duncan does have a longevity advantage, how big of an advantage? That's for each one to decide, but an advantage at least. And that's how you prove something to be "clear"; not by posting some raw stats and just stating that it is, tbh.
Hakeem nearly carried his drugged out teammates to a le against Boston. Go back and show me his best teammates from those 10 years.
But given the two are similar in adjusted stats and Duncan did it longer, with better team success, and also with multiple types of teams, it reasons that Duncan > hakeem.
Again, one on one: hakeem, build a team: Duncan.
So when hakeem sucked it's because of his teammates, but when hakeem beat Robinson it was because of individuals, nothing to do with one coach deciding to go single team and the other go triple, nothing to do with rodman leaving his man open to chase rebound so Robinson had to guard two positions, nothing to do with robinsons teammates failing to bail wide open shots. Stick to a lane.
And btw, don't blame Hakeem's teammates, everyone was drugged out in the mid 80s, it's just that you guys and Dallas were threatening the league cashcow of lakers vs celtics so those two had to be sacrificed for the greater good.
Wait, so because Hakeem's best teammates were drugged out it's okay because everyone else but the Celtics were doing it?
Yeah I can blame those Rockets from getting banned from the league in the 80's because of drug use.
And Vanessa could have French and Filipino kids.
Kobe....I can understand liking Horry, but he's not a top five player in history
Hakeem went from 87-94 with pretty trash teams. Sampson ,Loyd, Wiggins, Lucas In 87, Loyd, Wiggins, Lucas were kicked out of the league and Sampson was done. So chang, who were his best teammates from that time?
Last edited by djohn2oo8; 06-08-2017 at 06:20 AM.
Point, engaged in flying motion <-----Wait, so because Hakeem's best teammates were drugged out it's okay because everyone else but the Celtics were doing it?
You, particularly your head <------
And Robinson's best PG in his career was cut by the Rockets, twice! Robinson relied on teammates like JR Reid and Vinny Del Negro, his best sidekick was Sean Elliott (who I love, but clearly not the caliber of Drexler even the washed up version). People kept talking about how bad the support cast Hakeem had in 94 (95 was decent), but Kenny Smith was a 17/8 guy (before he reached his prime) on those horrible Kings teams, he as actually still a 17/7 when he first joined the Rockets. He was a decent player on a bad team, not unlike the Kemba Walkers or Nikola Vucevics in
The point is that if you want to talk about Hakeem > Robinson because of one h2h playoff series and rings, yet totally ignore quality of teammates, then don't say teammates is a factor when comparing Duncan and Hakeem.
My stance is pretty clear and simple, Duncan > Hakeem from a career perspective because they both had similar normalized stats, and yet Duncan won more and with more diverse teams. Duncan's 03 supporting cast is comparable to Hakeem's 94 supporting cast, and Duncan dragged deeply flawed teams from 00 to 02 to the playoffs every year, something Hakeem wasn't able to do with his deeply flawed team in 89 (albeit injuries). For peaks, Duncan's 03 playoff run is most definitely comparable to Hakeems championship runs, just that Hakeem did it twice (99 was also a great run btw).
People talk about Hakeem's peak >>>>>> Duncan's peak, and it's simply not the case. They are very comparable.
I am not saying Hakeem's got great teammates, but I am asking you (and general posters) to be consistent.
-Duncan's first all-NBA team was in '98, his last was in 2015. That's a 17 years difference. Olajuwon's first all-NBA team came in '86, his last in '99. 13 years difference. That leaves Duncan with a 4 year advantage. Not to mention Duncan has a 15 to 12 all-NBA team advantage and a 10 to 6 all-NBA first team.advantage.
-Duncan was elite for everysingle year of his career, with the exception of maybe the last one (in which he was still ranked number 1 in DPM). Hakeem's last years (and some in between) were a disgrace (Raptors' Hakeem
-And finally, but not least, Duncan won his first championship in 1999, his last one in 2014. 5 championships in total, at least one in three different decades. And yeah, you can point, with some validity, that those are teams' accomplishments; but the fact that Duncan won all those championships as the best player on his team should not only matter but it should be held up high as one of the most incredible feats in the history of the league.
So, no matter how important each individual believes those things, I listed, to be, I think pretty much everybody will agree that Duncan does have a longevity advantage, how big of an advantage? That's for each one to decide, but an advantage at least. And that's how you prove something to be "clear"; not by posting some raw stats and just stating that it is, tbh.
Thank you for finally explaining your contention, however flawed the logic is.
1. Your first point needs context in the worst way. Duncan's last all-NBA team in 2015 was a third team all-NBA honor in a season where Duncan averaged 13.9 PPG. 14 points a game all-NBA? On a forum that criticizes, discredits, and bemoans media voted awards like Kobe's all-Defense honors, you're going to use all-NBA honors as your first point? Really? If you think Duncan didn't "earn" third team all-NBA in 2015 because of name and reputation over guys like Jimmy Butler and Gordon Hayward in a season where guys like Kevin Durant and Paul George were injured, you're fooling yourself.
Here's more context: Hakeem in his rookie year averaged 21 points and 12 rebounds and didn't make all-NBA. Two huge points: in 1985, there were only two all-NBA teams, not the expanded three all-NBA teams that happened in 1989. Two spots. Duncan's last all-NBA came in 2015 as a forward where there are 6 spots for forwards. Two spots for centers in 1985. Six spots for forwards in 2015 where Duncan was likely the 6th forward honored. Pretty important piece of information. Oh and the two centers who were all-NBA in 1985 were just guys named Kareem and Moses. Oh just that too.
Your all-NBA argument is superficial and lacks true substance. "Yeahhh Kobe was an elite defender through the 2012 season when he was 33 years old!" Agree with that, do you?
2. Hakeem was not good his last few years, absolutely, when he had certainly regressed and injuries really started to stunt his production. But he was never a disgrace "in between" the start of his career and those last few seasons. Your bias is showing. Duncan stopped being a dominant player in his own right around the same age (mid 30s) when he became less of a focal point on offense and became more of a role player. His last three years were nothing to right home about either. Even before his last season, the prior two seasons before that, he was a 14-15 point scorer and essentially a role player at that. Not "elite." , he was a 13 point scorer in his age 33-34 season.
Come on with the "elite" le every year but his last. Really? It sounds silly. Of course, based on your Manu is a franchise player, maybe 13 points a game is still "elite" in your mind...
Let's look at their actual year-by-year production instead of just media voted awards.
Duncan stats / Hakeem stats
1. 21.1 P, 11.9 R, .549 FG% / 20.6 P, 11.9 R, .538 FG%
2. 21.7 P, 11.4 R, .495 FG% / 23.5 P, 11.5 R, .526 FG%
3. 23.2 P, 12.4 R, .490 FG% / 23.4 P, 11.4 R, .508 FG%
4. 22.2 P, 12.2 R, .499 FG% / 22.8 P, 12.1 R, .514 FG%
5. 25.5 P, 12.7 R, .508 FG% / 24.8 P, 13.5 R, .508 FG%
6. 23.3 P, 12.9 R, .513 FG% / 24.3 P, 14.0 R, .501 FG%
7. 22.3 P, 12.4 R, .501 FG% / 21.2 P, 13.8 R, .508 FG%
8. 20.3 P, 11.1 R, .496 FG% / 21.6 P, 12.1 R, .502 FG%
9. 18.6 P, 11.0 R, .484 FG% / 26.1 P, 13.0 R, .529 FG%
10. 20.0 P, 10.6 R, .546 FG% / 27.3 P, 11.9 R, .528 FG%
11. 19.3 P, 11.3 R, .497 FG% / 27.8 P, 10.8 R, .517 FG%
12. 19.3 P, 10.7 R, .504 FG% / 26.9 P, 10.9 R, .514 FG%
13. 17.9 P, 10.1 R, .518 FG% / 23.2 P, 9.2 R, .510 FG%
14. 13.4 P, 8.9 R, .500 FG% / 16.4 P, 9.8 R, .483 FG%
15. 15.4 P, 9.0 R, .492 FG% / 18.9 P, 9.6 R, .514 FG%
16. 17.8 P, 9.9 R, .502 FG% / 10.3 P, 6.2 R, .458 FG%
17. 15.1 P, 9.7 R, .490 FG% / 11.9 P, 7.4 R, .498 FG%
18. 13.9 P, 9.1 R, .512 FG% /7.1 P, 6.0 R, .464 FG%
19. 8.6 P, 7.3 R, .488 FG% / N/A
The longevity argument doesn't make sense to me. They both started to regress in their mid 30s. Difference was that Duncan was still playing on great teams when he started to regress. That's not due to his greatness. That's because the team was simply still good.
3. Championships are won by teams, not individual players. And Duncan wasn't the best player on all those championship teams. To assert that is stupefying to say the least. In Duncan's last championship, he was a role player. Even in 2007, he was a second banana to Tony Parker in the Finals. he shot under 45% from the field in the 2007 NBA Finals, against that "juggernaut defensive" Cavaliers team.
The championship argument is almost as silly as Manu was a franchise player assertion.
It's not an incredible feat to be part of great teams. It's a credit to the organization and, the drafting and acquiring of players, the longterm development of those players, and the coaching of those teams.
In Duncan's last season, when he was really limited to a much smaller role, 25 minutes a game, less than 10 points a game, and the team was truly handed over to Kawhi and even Aldridge to a lesser extent, what happened? Oh they were a 67 win team, their best record in the Tim Duncan era... with Duncan as a small role player. What happened when the all-time great Duncan retired and the team no longer had his elite production from their best player to carry them? 61 wins, 2nd best record in the league.
Great players help teams win. They aren't the sole reason team's have success, certainly not Duncan in his later years. And not just his last 2-3 seasons, but heck Pop started transitioning from Duncan as the focal point in the offense as early as "around" the 2007 season, but certainly by 2010-2011. 5 years before Duncan retired.
Longevity... your argument, your points are all very weak. Posting media voted awards and team accomplishments is much worse than posting raw stats. Honestly...
But hey, at least you tried to explain yourself, finally.
For a guy that says that wants to provide context, some of your arguments sure lack that, tbh.
First of all, your "Duncan was a second banana in 2007" comment was downright embarrassing, but you know that, so no reason to expand on that.
Second, do you limit everything to points per game? There's only two possible explanations for you saying Duncan wasn't the best Spur player up to the team's most recent championship:
1) you are twisting reality to fit your agenda or;
2) You haven't watched those Spurs play enough, not only that, you didn't even care to check the numbers either (and not the raw numbers. The numbers that actually show how important a player is to a team. On this case, you would be comparing players on the exact same roster, so you don't have the "advanced stats are influenced by teammates" copout, tbh).
And finally, if you think that the best player of the team that won a championship isn't "elite", then we have very different conceptions of what elite represents. To me an elite player is someone who influences the game enough to make a team a championship contender (for example, your own Ben Wallace was an elite player in the mid '00's, imho), to you it seems to be a player who puts up high pts totals.
Anyway, do you want to change the word "elite" for "very good"? For me it's the same. Duncan has been "very good" for the entirety of his career with the exception of the maybe the last one (and even that last year can be arguable for the fact that I have already mentioned), Hakeem hasn't.
P/S: I would like to read your opinion on why you think Ginobili couldn't have been a franchise player to see how obtuse your bb reasoning can get. I had you as smarter than that, tbh. but I guess there's a reason why you always were one of the biggest Kobe apologists in here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions