Penny was a star in 95. So were Stockton & Malone (94 and 95), Robinson & Rodman (95) and KJ & Barkley (94 and 95).
And by star, I am speaking of NBA susperstar, HOF caliber player. I can count 1 on those Suns teams (Nash) and one on the Mavs (Dirk). Who else are you speaking of?
I think i clearly posted my point. Did you not see it?
And my point is equally simple (and I think more valid) and I have stated it 3 or 4 times myself.
Two teams, one shoots on average 15 3 pters a game and makes 35% of them, scoring 15.75 points on 3 pters a game.
The other shoots 10 3 pters a game and makes 38% of them, scoring an average of 11.4 points a game on 3's, and you are telling me that the 2nd team is more potent because it shoots a whopping 3% better than the first team?
Me seeing it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.
Coincidentally, Nash and Dirk were on the same team in 03, didn't do much now did they?
Stoudemire is definitely a hall of fame player, unless his knee goes out. It's a joke that KJ's not already in there; he's the most underrated point in the games' history, but Springfield shows no respect for the pro game.
Tell that to bobbyjoe, who has somehow convinced himself that 4 les don't mean squat today because the players today don't compete against the gods of yesteryear. Every sports journal and reference site I've check still have Duncan with 4 les and Hakeem with only 2. Even now, I think you'll agree Tim Duncan is regarded as the best power forward to ever play, and hopefully and he continues to win another le or two, and win additional accolades, his stature will do nothing but improve and his legend grow even larger then life. I think someone just has an agenda, maybe because as of late, bobbyjoe's and mav>spurs' teams haven't been relevant. Why else would he be pimping Hakeem over Duncan so passionately? Heck I'm a Spurs homer and you probably spend more time on this board then I do. But I digress, mediocrity and irrelevance is a , huh?
Dude lose the fanaticism, you're on a Spurs board, it's too close to call and your feeble attempts to cram or force feed your opinion aren't going to influence or change anyone's mind.
I am telling you that you can't draw a conclusion that the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team because they took a lot of threes. If they made a high percentage of their threes then that means they were a great 3 point shooting team. The numbers show they were an ok 3 point shooting team that took a lot of them. Why did we take so many? Because we had a great post that no one could cover 1-1 and for some reason our coaches couldn't come up with any other plays besides post Hakeeem, or post Drexler after we traded for him.
Your analysis basically says one team shoots more three's than the other (even though at a lower %), so they are a better 3 point shooting team. Sorry, but that is one of the worst cases of trying to twist stats that I can think of. Your analysis shows that the Rockets scored more off 3 point shots. Looking at the numbers further shows that they scored more because they shot it more. Even in your above case it took them 5 more attempts per game to score 4 more points from behind the arc (basically 1 3 point shot plus one). Using your logic, I guess I would be able to conclude that Duncan is a better ft shooter than Finley (91% last year) because he was one of the league leaders in FT attempts? See how silly that sounds?
It's ok to admit you were wrong dude. If you want to change your statement to say the Rockets at that time relied on the 3-point shot more, then that's fine. But attempting a lot of shots at a decent % does not make you great at that shot....
You don't have to agree...but if you saw it then why ask me again?
Nope, Nash and Dirk lost in 03. I still don't see how that nullifies my point that in this era a team doesn't need to have more than 1 superstar, surrounded by quality talent to win. Do you always dodge the point being made by trying to twist it someway, with a follow up question that has nothing to do with the original point?
Every team in the Finals this decade, save for the LA Lakers, has had one star. Noting that, I don't see the point of constantly mentioning that Duncan won without a second star. Maybe you can fill me in on how that is relevant, especially in this debate since Hakeem clearly did the same thing in an era where every other team had two.....
I don't think Amare's going to the Hall but I res[ect your opinion and can see why you would say so. I think he needs to make more of an impact defensively and on the boards. I also think he gets a lot of his points from Nash. He is still young though and has plenty of time to grow. The fact that he has already added a jumper shows that he is putting in offseason work....
I don’t think he, or anyone else in the pro Hakeem camp is saying 4 les in today’s day don’t mean squat. Is there really a need to twist folks words around?
Folks are simply saying you can’t mention the les without including all of the other factors in your analysis (the era won, the compe ion faced, the supporting talent, etc). I would be just as silly to say Horry > Malone or Horry > Barkley because Horry has 7 rings. Further analysis would show me that Horry was a roleplayer while the other dudes weren’t, or that the other dudes carried their squads and lost to a dynasty while Horry’s teams beat worse teams in the Finals. It isn’t as simple as 7 > 6, or whatever.
If that’s the case Bill Russell is the greatest NBA player in league history, undisputed, and no player ever has a chance of topping him. Ignore the fact that Russell said Wilt was better, or all the HOF talent he had on his squad. He has the most rings…right???
Not to distort your point, but Dirk went down to injury in the WCF in 2003. So even if Dallas normally had two "stars," they didn't when it really counted that year.
Whatever you want to say, fact is the Rockets were comparable to the Spurs in 3 pt shooting % in every one of their championship winning years except 2007, but no, just because the Spurs were better in one single year translates to the Rockets being an average 3 pt shooting team, and the Spurs being a great one.
The point is, the Rockets had 3 pt shooting as an integral part of their offense, and yes, a huge part of it was because Hakeem drew so much attention in the low post, but it also speaks to the fact that, 1995 in particular, that the Rockets can have 4 3 pt shooting threats on the floor with Hakeem without having anyone play out of position, and they took advantage of that and shot a huge about of 3 pters.
If Duncan ever shot 88% from the line vs. Finley 91%, and shot a significantly higher amount, I would say Duncan is much more dangerous from the FT line than Finley. And if the Rockets were making 12% of their 3 pters compared to the league average, then yeah, let them go nuts. But the fact is that neither were the case. Your case is much more like saying Miller is a worse 3 pt shooter than Kevin Johnson in 1997 because he shot 42.8% compared to 44.1%, despite making much much more (229 vs. 89)
You are making it sound like there is a huge difference in shooting percentage between the two teams, while all the while, the Rockets are only 3.4% from the team with the best 3pt% in 1994 while making 133% more 3pters (that’s 2.33 x), and shot 3 % worse than the team with the best 3pt % and shot 15% more 3 pters.
But if you were ever the coach, you will tell me that you will put more emphasis in covering a team that shot 3% from the 3 pt line, rather than a team that is slightly worse in %, but integrate it much more in their offense. But then again, only shooting a good % means you are a good 3 pt shooting team, not a team that uses it as a huge part of their offense.
Last edited by ambchang; 09-24-2007 at 03:54 PM.
That's the clincher for me, anyway. Everyone criticizes certain players for their lack of defense. As in, "Player X can't be the GOAT, becuase he only played one end of the floor." However, it is often forgotten that Russell had virtually no offensive game. My understanding is that most of his points came off of put-backs and free throws, at least early in his career. It is very difficult for me to serously consider someone the GOAT when they were never a primary scoring threat in their entire pro career.
My point has always been that there is no single set of criteria for comparing players at different positions and/or from different generations. If you go by career accomplishments without weighing them, Russell is the clear winner of GOAT. If you go by overall basketball skills in relation to contemporaries, it's Oscar Robertson. Given the "questions," the above "answers" are not debateable; it's just simple arithmetic. The real issue then becomes how to ask the right "questions" in the first place.
The problem is that any attempts to weigh the different eras or positions are essentially forging new territory, as there is no commonly accepted method or methods for doing so in basketball. (As opposed to baseball, for example.) One cannot evaluate players "objectively," becuase no generally recognized "objective" criteria exist at the moment. The APBR is approaching the stage where they can seriously compare their work with that of SABR, but they still have a long way to go. At least basketball fans can take some comfort in knowing that even baseball has trouble modelling defense statistically.
Given that in this era, the Spurs and the Lakers won all but two of the championships makes it a moot point.
And let's forget about the fact that in the 90's, the Jordan Bulls won 6 of the 10. What about the late 80's Pistons, two championships back to back, Isiah Thomas as the only star. If you are not counting 06 Shaq as a star, then neither was Dumars, if you are not counting Ben Wallace as a star, then neither was Rodman/Laimbeer.
I also found something shocking, from 57 to 69, your team needs 5+ HoF on your team to win a championship, it happened 11 out of 13 times. That decade must be the best decade ever. Comparatively, the 80's was a disgrace.
TD in playoff series:
98 1-1
99 4-0
01 2-1
02 1-1
03 4-0
04 1-1
05 4-0
06 1-1
07 4-0
TOTAL
22-5
this blows Hakeem out of the water, and it would be a lot better had SA been in the eastern conference.
By way of Comparison, here is Jordan's #'s
85 0-1
86 0-1
87 0-1
88 1-1
89 2-1
90 2-1
91 4-0
92 4-0
93 4-0
95 1-1
96 4-0
97 4-0
98 4-0
TOTAL
30-7
Duncan needs to go 8-2 to tie Jordan.
He could do it this way:
Duncan:
08 4-0
09 3-1
10 1-1
or
08 4-0
09 2-1
10 2-1
or
08 4-0
09 4-0
10 0-1
11 0-1
But it doesn't matter, because the compe ion today is crap because the league is so watered-down, remember?
Nevermind the fact that it is not like Duncan has superior teammates to other teams in the league for all 4 championship and that the watered-down effect affected every single team, not just the opponents of the Spurs.
Nevermind that Hakeem couldn't lead his team to the playoffs because he missed an amazing 12 games in a season! Could you imagine Duncan missing 12 games in any given season? I am sure the Spurs would miss the playoffs because Duncan is not as strong as Hakeem and can't lead his team to a better than 40-30 record in 70 games.
When the Rockets suffer, it's because Hakeem's teammates sucked, when the Spurs win, it's because he's got a great supporting cast, just remember that.
The lower tier playoff teams are better today than in the 80's because 16 out of 30 teams make the playoffs, rather than 16 out of 23 teams.
In the 80s, you were way more likely to draw a sub 500 team in round one, and basically get a bye.
Good point, ambchang.
Duncan missed more than 12 games in both '04 and '05 and the Spurs still made the playoffs.
More stats:
Duncan's W/L record in first round of playoffs:
32-10 = 76%
Spurs record without Duncan:
1-4 = 20%
I do not think you will find this disparity in the history of the NBA. Duncan is the greatest winner outside of maybe Bill Russell.
FACTOID:
The Spurs have had on ONE Lottery pick since 1989 and that Lottery pick was Tim Duncan.
Yep, the Spurs have sure stockpiled lots of talent to hoist Duncan up by his bootstraps!
I think we should start a thread comparing Duncan to Jordan.
Here is a JORDAN FACTOID:
1993 Bulls 57-25 (Jordan 3rd in MVP)
1994 Bulls 55-27 (Pippen 3rd in MVP)
There you have it.
Jordan is worth 2 wins for your team each year.
I'll take Duncan.
kill yourself
That would be suicidal.
It could also be said that you probably suck more s than I do.
Amazing how just because I agree with everyone outside of San Antonio, all the sudden I have an agenda.
My opinion may not change anyones mind, but the FACTS and evidence presented by myself, bobbyjoe, and several others tell the story.
Yes, such as the fact that the Spurs won with teams with and without good 3 pt shooting, and yet you claim that Duncan can only win with good 3 pt shooters on his team, right?
Oh wait, I forgot, it's not about how dangerous you are behind the 3 pt line, but what % you shoot at. We all know Malik Rose is a better 3 pt shooter than Stephen Jackson that year, because he shot 40% vs. 32% for SJax. Wait, there's more, Parker, who everybody said couldn't shoot, was actually a better 3 pt shooter than SJax too, he shot 33.7%. Damn! Finally, Malik was better than Kerr, if only ever so slightly! 40% vs. 39.5%. Malik, simply the 2nd best 3 pt shooter on the Spurs in 2003 despite making only 2 of them.
Both the spurs and rockets shot alot more than 2 three pointers, so quit trying to act like the % isn't relevant
Maybe it's because your posts are completely devoid of any class or decency.
It's a message board. If you need to start tossing insults, save us. Go outside. Have a cookie. You do nothing but undermine any sort of legitimacy presented by your arguments with that kind of adolescent playground commentary.
The insults came after i was attacked by this demo marcinko and told i had a so called "agenda" for voicing the same opinions as several other posters.
You want to preach to someone, at least save your breath for someone who gives a .
This thread is for discussing Tim vs Hakeem, get with the program or get lost
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote