Reply With Quote
And if you wanna go by stats, Karl Malone > Olajuwon.
Olajuwon wouldn't have lead scrubs like Jaren Jackson and a kidney ailed elliot, and shot for s avery to a le.
And if you wanna go by stats, Karl Malone > Olajuwon.
What was so much different about 01 Shaq and 95-96 Shaq? Looks like the same no free throw shooting, lazy guy just a little bit bigger. Your whole arguement is woulda, shoulda, coulda which means nothing. IMO Olajuwon in his prime would have owned Shaq in 01.
And Karl Malone is better than Duncan in every aspect except height and the most important intangible, team play and winning. That's why most would give the slight edge to Duncan. Malone was a smart defender, but since he was short for a PF and didn't have long arms he wasn't allowed to play d like Duncan, staying low and not going for any pumpfakes, so Timmy has an edge over him defensively as well. That said, both players > Malone, not sure what point you were trying to make here.
Elliott was still a major contributor that year despite his kidney problems. Don't forget about Robinson who was still able to contribute, at least defensively, and Mario Elie. Remember Sean Elliots miracle shot against Portland, and Avery's game winner in game 5 of the finals? Don't act like Duncan did it all alone. If it wasn't for Elliott, the Spurs go home in game 7 of the West finals.
Also, I did a little research and Mario Elie shot significantly better from the field playing with Olajuwon during their championship years than he did playing with Duncan in 99. Robert Horry shot about the same playing on both teams, so you probably can't use that theory to see who made their teammates better. But I do know that Duncans so called scrubs help him to a great regular season record every year. You can't win 60 games by yourself, the load has to be spread evenly over the coarse of 82 games. I did notice that Olajuwon's Rockets finished a mediocre 47-35 in 94-95, and 48-34 in 95-96. This means that Hakeem really had to step it up in the playoffs in order for his team to win championships. In reality you are backwards it was actually Duncan who has had better teammates.
My point was that opinions mean nothing, you have to back it up with stats, facts, something else. I guess you are a little slow. When I say "IMO, Hakeem would have owned 01 shaq" I am being sarcastic, just stating opinions with no facts like the previous poster.
You haven't put one fact in here.
Ayou are comming with the bull 2>4 and that people were shorter 40 years ago
That is so sarcastic it's beyond me
Read it and weep,You haven't put one fact in here.
Ayou are comming with the bull 2>4 and that people were shorter 40 years ago
That is so sarcastic it's beyond me
http://basketball-players.suite101.c...ate_todays_nba
It's the age-old debate whether or not stars of the yesteryears, like Wilt Chamberlain, would fare in today's NBA game. Some argue, for example, that Wilt Chamberlain was before his time, and that his freakish athleticism could be seen in his great high jumping ability as a Track athlete. Others contend that basketball has reached a new echelon of athletic superiority, where everyone's big and fast.
Throughout his career, Wilt "the Stilt" Chamberlain averaged 30.1 points per game (ppg) and an amazing 22.9 rebounds per game (rbpg). In 1961-62, he did something that nobody may ever be able to do again, averaging 50.4 ppg in 80 games. In the same season, Chamberlain scored 100 points in a single game.
In addition, Wilt won the scoring le in each of his first seven seasons and led the league in rebounding 11 times. He is the only center to lead the league in assists, and never fouled out in his career.
Perhaps the most unusual statistic of all, Chamberlain actually averaged more than 48 minutes per game in a season. In 1961-62, his Philadelphia Warriors played in ten overtime quarters, and he played in all but eight of a possible 3,980 minutes that season.
Yet, the question still remains whether Wilt could have dominated in today's NBA game.
Consider that by the end of his career, Chamberlain was listed as about 7-1 275lbs, which is considerably large by even today's standards.
Now consider that the bulk of his compe ion at the center position was significantly smaller than he was. There's a lot of hoopla surrounding the Wilt Chamberlain versus Bill Russell matchup. Yet, Russell was only listed as 6-9 to 6-10 220lbs. Another Hall of Famer, Dave Cowens, was listed as 6-8 230lbs. Wes Unseld was only listed at about 6-6 to 6-7, and Willis Reed was only 6-9 240lbs. Of course, one could say that Shaquille O'Neal is much larger than most of his opponents, but the fact was, Chamberlain dwarfed everybody, where O'Neal is at least used to frequently facing other seven footers.
With modern advances in weight lifting programs and physical fitness, it's silly to think that a player in the 1960s could compare to a player in 2007, where the size of a lot of perimeter players and even shooting guards is larger than the typical center of that era. Moreover, players were not paid a fraction as much back then as they are now, making the incentive to get in the best shape possible not as high.
Watching game tapes of Chamberlain make it apparent that his slow speed and lack of a left hand wouldn't get him very far in today's game. This is not to say that he couldn't have been a great player had he developed in this era, with the advantages of modern nutrition, weight programs, etc... It only means that taking players out of their era and comparing them to players of a different era is pointless and unfair.
Wilt Chamberlain was one of the most dominant players to play in one period, but if taken out of that era and placed into today's NBA game, Wilt's skill would have been lacking and he would not have been able to rely so much on his size.
Thanks for giving some arguments to my advantage.
If you put a boat made in 1888 'era' it would not survive in 2007 'era'
I knew your brain haven't eveluated
btw.
Are you seriously this ing stupid? Learn some ing english before you come try to talk trash on an english speaking message board.
It is fact that the average center was closer to about 6ft 7 back in Wilt's day compared to about 7 foot today. You lose.
In Russell era the height of the players were without shoes
and btw. if you don't get my haotic english that is your problem not mine
Wilt and Russell were both great, dominant players in their time, but the guys they went up against would be guards in today's NBA. That's like saying Duncan is the best because he can post up Kobe. Neither of those guys would put up anywhere near the same numbers in today's league, not a chance.
When you watch old clips of those guys, do they actually do anything that really makes you say wow? Do you see anything special that Duncan can't do? The answer is no.
Where do you have 5 inches you moron?
And wtf height got to do with dominance.
Tims teams were always better then Hakeems.
At least Tim helped his team more.
Tim changed the whole concept of play, on offence and defence and the spurs were always an elite on defence.
While hakeem could block from the weak side Tim changing the whole game by his defence just like Russell previously.
And what elie shooting better got to do with anythng?
That was not the same year and the player was not in the same role, plus the NBA had the 3pt line closer when Hakeem was winning les. As I remember correctly the Rox were hitting treys like machines. You got Cassell elie Drexler, Horry. Jeez it's looks like Hakeem was alone out there. Esp with the Rox style of play (inside-ouside). And haotic '90 play.
The fact is that Tim was a better winner, and the leauge remember the winners.
Mikan was a winner, Russell was a winner, Bird, Magic (less), Jordan (needed to grow) Shaq, Duncan
Wilt was the best in history as an indyvidual but it's a team sport. That's why Russell was so special, that's why the winners are special cause they are doing everything what is in the need of a team.
And Duncan is a freaking winner, and I take him over the athleticism and highlights of Akeem.
there really aren't a bunch of 7ft centers today... on average probably around 6-9 to 6-11.
Are you insane?
Your brain just not work right.
I was explaining the evolution of the game and life of the players and you still in your own ...
Just a few posts back you were calling me a re for saying that players were shorter back then. Now you realize you are wrong and change the subject.
And lmao the 3 point line was NOT shorter back in the 90's, you moron. This just further proves that you are talking out of your ass. I'm done, there's no use arguing with the village idiot who doesn't even speak english. Good day
They were not shorter. But I can't find the stats to prove it. When I will find them I will post them.
Just a few posts back you were calling me a re for saying that players were shorter back then. Now you realize you are wrong and change the subject.
And lmao the 3 point line was NOT shorter back in the 90's, you moron. This just further proves that you are talking out of your ass. I'm done, there's no use arguing with the village idiot who doesn't even speak english. Good day
In '90 3pt line was not closer?
Are you realy was watching NBA?
Defensively, Hakeem also moved laterally FAR better than Duncan, was an impact defender on the perimeter (Duncan is absolutely not an impact defender up top), got into the passing lanes and stole the ball more, defended better offensive players, and won multiple Defensive Player of the Year Honors.
You are really on crack if you think DUncan > Hakeem defensively. That's just flat out ignorant. It's not even close.
Can you name me one time in Hakeem's career a contemporary went off on him for 38 ppg like Amare in 2005 playoffs? Good luck finding it... Duncan is not a great individual defender, Hakeem was.
I was talking about defense as a whole
Can you name who was actually guarding Amare in that series?Can you name me one time in Hakeem's career a contemporary went off on him for 38 ppg like Amare in 2005 playoffs?
But I do agree Hakeem was a better individual defender.
I take that back, they did shorten the 3 point line from the top of the key for a few years. The distance from the corners was still the same, though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
