Definitely some truth to this.
Although I hope Bird isn't a part of your list of overrated Celtics players. Bird IMO was the best player of the 80s, not Magic.
Not just casual fans, hardcore fans, GM and media types including Simmons have Kobe over Duncan. In fact Duncan passing Shaq in rebounds further proof that Tim is greater than Shaq who was dominant aty his peak more so than Kobe or Tim but not as consistent orgreat a player as either to be honest
There you go, even hardcore fans, GM and media types (which are pretty much casual fans to happens to write) have Kobe > Duncan shows you have ridiculously overrated Kobe is.
Shaq, at his peak, was an absolute monster, he was > Kobe by quite a wide margin, and > Duncan by a little (advanced statistics show that they are closer than raw numbers show). Sure he didn't do it 12 years in a row, but his 5 or 6 years of absolute dominance in the league more than offsets the longetivity part. It's like saying Malone > Jordan because he did it longer and have more career points, and that's just plain re ed.
I give Magic the edge over Bird for a lot of reasons, but lol the irony here is that I think Bird, in all his greatness as it is, still tends to get underrated at times..........especially on defense.
McHale, Parish, and Dennis Johnson though: all overrated, imo
cant argue with any of this
I give Bird the slight edge over Aids
- Better defender, more clutch, as good a passer as Magic, dived for loose balls unlike Magic
- And, contrary to poular belief, Bird's back problems didnt start in 87 or 88; It started in the summer of 84; to think that he kept playing at a high level with bad back is really impressive.
- Plus, the Celts, unlike the Lakers, didnt have a bench
- And they had a black coach
- On top of that, the EC was tougher than the WC back then
Look you not gonna suck me in to this, we will debate this like gentlemen when they are both done. The MJ and Malone comparison is horse because Malone though a great player is ringless and his numbers dip in the playoffs not increase like the other guys in this conversation. Shaq was a beast but if you gonna let some bull advanced stats guideyou (of course you will cuz they favor Duncan over Kobe) be my guest ...but Duncan was the better all around player imho due to his range, durability and being the better skilled offensive and defensive player . I would take 2000 MVP Shaq over every player I have seen (MJ included) but how often did we see THAT Shaq outside of the Finals? ...but that is the only season of his Laker career where he gave close to 100% effort for 82 plus the playoffs .... but you can't say that about Tim or Kobe on the positive or negative side. Their peaks arent as great as Shaq but their valleys werent as ty either. If peaks are all that matter than Hakeem is greater than Duncan as well, but I do think the body of work is important.
We all know you have issues with Kobe cuz he steals shine from Timmy but it doesn't change 5>4 ... and though there is a part of the metrics community that will agree with your Duncan over Kobe premise, the people that truly matter peers, GMs, HOF, and ALL NBA voters do not ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 03-25-2013 at 02:32 PM.
LOL Im actually arguing with a Spur fan that Duncan is greater than Shaq and he is using precious advanced stats to argue otherwise ...what kind of bizarro world is this?!
Please Amb, I would love to hear you wax poetic on how is Shaq better than Duncan? Just the stats? Inquiring minds want to know. So duncan in less seasons has more career rebounds than the guy who is bigger stonger and according to you more dominant than Timmy. So are you gong to pull some stat that shows rebound rate or rebounds per 48 minutes?! How about % of a team's rebounds?
Fact remians no matter what advanced stats say Duncan has been the greater rebounder even if you factor in the games Shaq took off to get healthy on company time, the raw numbers prove what my eyes tell me ... if I need someone over the course of their careers to get a key rebound (or block for that matter) I want tim not Shaq. And thoug O'neal is the greater scorer when you factor in FT's and range please tel me how he is greater than Timmy?
Last edited by Killakobe81; 03-25-2013 at 02:38 PM.
^Well, if Kobe hadn't hunted Shaq down & sent him into retirement on the ty end of the stick this wouldn't be happening.
tee, hee.
But of course, Amb is clinging to that metric because it is the only world where Duncan is greater than Kobe (outisde of SA) is on a PC ...
Im not saying it's not close despite Kobe being superior every season since Duncan last rang and winning twice to make it 5-4 ....
I have given Tim the benefit of the doubt and maintained that it's still (relatively) close.
Amb though acts like it doesnt even warrant debate and yet he still tries to suck me in to one even though I have asked to table it for now, but Im his huckleberry and I will enjoy watching another season pass with 5>4 ... Cully ...
LOL ^ Funny thing is I could care less overall how Kobe is percieved if we could win another le without him ...
But you Spur fans have made me care about Kobe's legacy ....when I still think Magic is greater than Kobe ... I remember the Magic vs. Bird debates I had as a kid ...that is the only thing that compares ... because MJ ended all debates when he got "6" funny how time changes. Bulls fans loved to throw around 6>5 or 3 ... but now that is a "team accomplishment". GTFO ... teams are led by great players and in my book if you are a real leader (not a locker room one) on teh court your rings count ...PERIOD.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 03-25-2013 at 02:53 PM.
^Yep, yep.
I agree with your assessment on Shaq vs. Duncan, they have a healthy peak vs. longevity between the two, with Shaq better at the peak, and Duncan being able to sustain his excellence quite a bit longer.
I don't think Shaq > Duncan, because Shaq requires a very specific team around him to be effective (bunch of shooters, and elite wing, rebounding/defensive PF next to him, little leadership responsibilities), and Duncan is most definitely easier to build around and much more easier to sustain than a prima dona Shaq, but Shaq does have an incredible peak.
And it's not just SOME advanced stats showing Duncan > Kobe, almost all of them do. Also, could you quote the GMs and peers picking Kobe over Duncan? All NBA voters is tough to apply, because they play different positions, and HoF, as we all learned through the years, are mostly a bunch of old senile guys who like to live in past glory, and are generally horrible at picking players, but I would like to see the list as well.
Interestingly, in MVP award shares, Duncan leads Kobe despite less years and playing in San Antonio vs. the LA limelight, so I am not exactly sure if the media types, as clueless as they are, picked Kobe over Duncan.
Speaking of peaks, when was Kobe's BTW? I define Shaq's as 99 to 03, Duncan's as 98 to 07, but am having trouble pinpointing Kobe's.
I think you misread me, I think we are on the same boat where I think Shaq > Duncan in their absolute primes (few people > Shaq, but 91 to 93 Jordan is there, if not > Shaq), but Duncan likely beats Shaq in terms of being a better player, maybe by a hair, with defense being the strongest, but not only, reason.
I want Tim as a big over Shaq over the course of their careers if I were to start a team, just easier to build around, actually listens, gives his all on the court, no drama, better defensively, better range, equal passers, better leader, though not as dominant an offense force as Shaq.
Another point for Duncan > Kobe
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6...ressive-career
Bleacher Report picked Kobe, and given it's BR, we know it MUST be wrong, so Duncan is in fact better.
LOL at Kobe is already a top 5 player of all time crap. BR.
OK so we agree on something ... that is a start. But the reasons you gave on Why Duncan is better are not ALL tied to stats ...THAT was my point. I could care less if the advanced stats show Shaq is better than Duncan I saw back in 1999 that Tim was going to be teh greater player. I have said it many times onhere I turned to my co-workers during those Finals and said I would trade Shaq for Tim straight up no extra picks or players needed. And they all called me crazy. Then Shaq went off in 2000 and they called me stupid ...and I started to doubt if I were wrong. then he pulled his season surgery crap ...two straight years ... andI knew then what I know now. Though I hate to admit it but being honest Duncan is a greater player than O'Neal. LikeI said last week Shaq was a beast and watching Dwight look pretty human on offense reminds me of what he was ...
But playing ball is more than a baseline spin, drop-step and a shoulder charge power move to the middle. And when I heard that Tim passed Shaq in rebounds last week I was dumbfounded. No WAY in should Tim have more rebounds in less seasons that Shaq. Im sorry but it's not as close as you say it is despite Shaq being uber-dominant at his peak.
Funny.
But Keep in mind he makes my top 5 because I dont count guys that I havent seen. Duncan is right there in my top 5 as well ...
Career guys I have seen:
1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Kobe
5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Bird
8. Hakeem
9. Isiah
10. Moses
Peak:
1. MJ
2. Shaq
3. Hakeem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Lebron
8. Kobe
9. Isiah
10. Chuck
Im giving huge weight in the peak to great playoffs and Finals performances ... Lebron has one great one and two stinkers and Kobe's Finals have been uneven as well ...chuck had one of the better losing Finals performances and some other great playoff games at his peak. I did not catch Kareem in his full prime so he makes my first list but not the 2nd ...
Enjoy it it may be the only place where I will place Duncan over Kobe unless he rangs or builds a hot-tub time machine.
And yet they actually COULD be showed by stats, and that is the consistency of win shares of Duncan as compared to Shaq. Shaq's win shares were actually quite a bit over the place, even during his prime, his time at LA actually gave him only 4 LA seasons of WS > 13.0, and that shows his lack of consistency, leadership, and is easier to build around. Duncan on the other hand, has 6 of those seasnos. This consistency shows that Duncan is simply easier to build around, have less injury issues, and is a generally better leader.
Kobe's numbers pale in comparison, getting only 4 of those seasons despite a much, much longer prime, and never having a season of 16 + (Both Shaq and Duncan had two in their careers).
Also, advanced stats shows Duncan destroys Shaq in defense through defensive ratings and defensive win shares. So yes, the stats backed it up.
Since you brought up 99, let's look at the stats, Shaq was 115 offensive rating (higher the better), 102 defensive rating (lower the better), 7.2/1.9/9 offensive winshare/DWS/WS vs. 106/91/4.0/4.7/8.7, so yes, the numbers show that Shaq is massively better offensively, but equally inferior defensively.
As for rebounds, Shaq was actually quite average in rebounding throughout his career relative to his size and athletic ability, part of it was because he was oft injured (less games = less rebounds), and part of it was because he just wasn't as mobile vs. the Duncan's, Robinsons, Howards and Hakeems. Duncan actually had 10 seasons of 11+ rebounds per game, including 9 straight. While Shaq also had 10 seasons, you would (at least I did) expect more from him due to his size, and also his games missed pulled down his totals.
Shaq vs, Duncan is like Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam, one burned brighter, one burned longer.
Don't want to open up a new can of worms, you have obviously not seen Bird if you rank his peak below Magic's or Hakeem's. He was every bit as dominating as MJ and Shaq was during the mid 80s. He was unbelievable. In fact, Bird vs. Magic is similar to Shaq vs. Duncan, though to a smaller scale, of peak vs. longevity. And I have no idea how you can leave out Moses's peak, and not have Kareem's peak (or did you miss the 70s) in your top ten. WTF?
And you must have recently bumped your head if you would ever rank Kobe's career above Duncan, Shaq, Bird, Hakeem, Isiah and Moses.
Wasnt old enough, sons (to see 70's) and I REFUSE to make lists or rankings SOLELY on stats. Bird was amazing in his peak but go back son, read my post. I gave extra weight for Finals performances and Magic's 1980 closer (my first game I ever saw) and his amazing run in 1987 when he beat Bird to take a 4-2 lead in chips to me give him the edge. I originally had Bird over Magic... but that game in 1980 kept calling me ...how many Final games matches what Magic did in a clincher, since you are older than me? ... please name them. As good as Moses, Shaq, Lebron MJ Kobe Duncan whoever not many can say they had a game Like Magic's in 1980. Maybe Im being sentimantal since it's the game that made me fall in love with the sport as a youngster ... but that along with the baby hook game (and series) does not allow me to put Bird over Magic ...DAMN what the stats say ...2-1 and 5-3 are what matters when players are that close. And if you say Magic and Bird are not close than you must not have watched the 80's ...
And why Amb must you ALWAYS come back to Kobe? I took Kobe out of the equation a few posts back and focused on Tim and Shaq and yet you still cant keep Kobe out your mouth. Dont you think you area LITTLE bit obsessed? Or at the very least on a personal crusade to "properly rate him" (in your eyes) ...can you at LEAST admit that?
lol david robinson.
But that is the thing about me, you posted all those great numbers just to prove what I already said ...Duncan is greater than Shaq. No numbers needed. I mentioned only one career rebounds and we STILL came up to the same cinclusion. So why do I need advanced stats. Someone can pull some new stat out their ass that says Lebron is better than MJ ... I wont care I saw them both (just like Kobe) and neither are as good as MJ. I dont think MJ is untouchable btw ...people I respect that coached at a high level have told me Kareem deserves consideration ...but I never saw most of Kareem's prime so I give Mj the edge based on the 1980 and on stanza I use to rate players ...
We just rank things differently, I look at the performance over a long period of time (career, season, playoff run), and not in games, because if you look into games, you can see lots of variation, and you tend to favour the peaks (80 Finals Game 6), and ignore the valleys (82). 87 was absolutely phenomenal, but Bird was equally dominant in the 86 playoff run. That 80s game was magical, especially given the cir stances of KAJ being out, but Jordan puts up some very underrated games vs. Phoenix, Barkley's 56 point outburt, Duncan's near quad-dub, Shaq's total dominance of Mutombo in 01, Lebron's 48 vs. Pistons are all up there (yes, Barkley's game, even though he lost the series, was phenomenal). Again, ranking players based on one game is a slippery slope, and I will not go down that route. Yes, Magic is no doubt phenomenal, and he is my favourite non-Spur player of all time, and I would rank him one of the top 3 (with Jordan and KAJ), with varying positioning based on the day, but Bird's peak was higher.
As for your refusal to rank players based strictly on stats, fair enough, but keep in mind that impact to the game of basketball was important as well. Sure Russell wasn't a huge stats guy and was surrounded by 7 other HoFers, but it was him who made most of those HoFers due to the championships, he changed the way the game was played, and was instrumental in changing the peach basket game into the modern game.
I wouldn't say Bird's peak was not close to Magic's, I am saying it was just a little, but clearly better.
As for Kobe, you ranked him in your list.
It would be tough to pull stats, at this point, to say Lebron > MJ. Really. Look it up. Jordan 3 seasons of 20+ WS, and two other 19+ ones, that is just criminally good. Lebron, so far, has one 20+, and no other 19+ seasons. My point is, eye test is important, but in order to remove biases in our assessment, we have to look at stats sometimes, and the stats, though not 100% all the time, is reliable and objective.
tee, hee.
I was no MJ or Bird fan but yet I respect their games. Stats are just tools used to support peopled preconceived notions. We are humans and are ALL biased. Sure, it sounds great in theory but stats are used to support biast you cling to them when they support your case (Duncan over Kobe) but use intangibles and things you see or feel to edge Duncan over Shaq. Since few folks Only go by stats which would be stupid ...just like eye test only or rings alone ... Would be foolish.all are factors imho but rings and my eyes are what I trust most. Rings are the ultimate goal and should be weighted appropriately. When I watch a gameI know enough to not just watch the ball or get swayed by idiot commentators. Box score analysis alone is extremely dangerous a fair criticism of Kobe is he get garbage points. But sometimes the game requires it others it is misguided if you don't watch said game how do you know if he is being a compeitor or a selfish prick? Or both?
Last edited by Killakobe81; 03-26-2013 at 09:57 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote