Duncan>Hakeem.

[mavs>spurs2]

You also fail to prove you have any kind of reading skills to speak of.

The previous post states that the Rockets were a slightly above average 3 point shooting team, and has a link with data to back it up. Not great as one poster tried to claim, but a far cry from your "sucking at three point shooting" comment

Next

[kingmalaki]

Hmm, ok...I said I was done but I can't let these completely false statements slide. I'm done arguing who was better though....

And no, Hakeem DID have great 3 point shooters, if you haven’t watched how the Rockets bombed the out of the opposing team in the mid-90s, go dig up some tape. See how the other teams struggle to contain Hakeem because once they double him, one of the 3 pt shooters would make them pay.

No, he didn't. The stats clearly show that the only Rocket who could be considered a great 3 point shooter was Kenny Smith (about a 40% shooter, similar to Bruce Bowen). Look at the %'s for the other Rockets. They were not hitting them at a great %. They were hitting the shot in the lower 30% range...THAT IS NOT GREAT. Yes, I watched them take a lot of 3's and make them at a decent clip compared to the rest of the league. Why are you still trying to deflect that you were in error? You did not say that the 3 point shot was a big part of the Rockets offense (the argument you are trying to rely on now). You stated that Hakeem only won because he was surrounded by great 3 point shooters. Taking a lot of 3's does not make you a great 3 point shooter. Why is this so hard to comprehend....

Hakeem also had the same teammates with the same poor shot selection, and they missed the playoffs! Why would Rudy Tomjonavich all of a sudden as those players to jack up shots …. Perhaps it helped them win!

So you are still ignoring the fact that the Hakeem missed 12 games that season, with his team going 2-10 without him..when they missed the playoffs by 3 games? They were on pace to have the #5/#6 seed with him. And the last time I checked, the starting SF from that season was Buck Johnson, and our top bench players were Sleepy Floyd and Matt Bullard. Yeah, that sure looks like the le winning team with key cogs like Horry, Cassell, Elie, etc.

but the Rocket’s shooters getting almost 25 ppg for the Rockets with 3 pters opened up the paint for Hakeem to operate.

Yes Dream had more room to operate when the team hit 3's...the same way Duncan has more room to operate. The only reason the Spurs don't rely on the 3 point shot as much is because you have two guards that can create their own shot off the dribble. Bobbyjoe has already posted the stats from your le teams, and it is clear that the Spurs players were hitting their 3's at the same or better %'s that the Rockets players around Hakeem that season. So now your argument is somehow the Rockets relied on the 3 point shot heavily, which somehow made them great at making them even though their %'s were around the average????

[kingmalaki]

Umm ... so I said the Rockets were a great 3 pt shooting team, then I said I never stated they were particularly accurate, but the fact that they made a lot of them made a them a great 3 pt shooting team, so what is the problem?
Aren't you just stating something that has been said a million times before? It's not like you stumbled in the circle of enlightenment.
Read this for the 8th time:
1) The Rockets were a great 3pt shooting team in 94 and 95.
2) THe reason they were great was because they were #1 in makes, and bombed the crap out of all the other teams that doubled Hakeem.
3) The Rockets whole offense was around inside out, with 3pters being an integral part of it. The reason they were able to do that was because they had great shooters at 4 positions, and backups as well.
Rehashing an old point that was made by other posters long ago does not qualify as being constructive, however, continually avoiding questions like "Why is Bird a better 3 pt shooter than Matt Bullard when 3pt% is all you care about?" is.

Again, for like the tenth time...no, it doesn't. JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE ON A WORSE % MAINLY BECAUSE YOU SHOOT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE DOES NOT MAKE YOU GREAT AT MAKING THE SHOT.

Your logic is flawed.....very flawed. Corey Maggette made the 3rd most FT's this season. He shot 82%, which is not great. LeBron James made the 5th most FT's this season. He shot 70%, which is not great. AI made the 6th most FT's this season. He shot 80%, which is not great. Chris Bosh made the 8th most FT's this season. He shot 79%, which is not great. Etc. Just admit you were wrong dude.....

[kingmalaki]

Bull! Why does that even factor into the equation? The only folks saying that it has to be brought up are you pro-hakeem folks on this thread. I think you'll agree with me, I've never ever seen a sports record book or any internet sports web site that has a disclaimer for any of the NBA championships won. I've never heard John Q. Casualfan or Joe Hardcorefan talk about current or past championship teams by qualifying that they won because Jordan, or the Showtime Lakers or Wilt did not compete against them. I think you guys may be the ones guilty of twisting words and stats to suit your argument.

It factors into the equation when comparing players from different era's, or championship teams. When these comparisons are made you hear these disclaimers all the time. They aren't meant to discredit anyone's accomplishments...just to point out the surrounding situations behind each one. It's the same reason folks realize it's easier to win a MLB le now when wild card teams can get into the playoffs, compared to the past when less teams got in. It's the same reason folks realize how different NFL teams were pre salary cap (how they could hoard talent, i.e. the 49ers having Steve Young on the bench for all those years).

If the Spurs are guilty of playing in a watered down league, and Duncan doesn't have the mandatory 2 HOF's playing alongside him, isn't it amazing what Tim has accomplished playing on essentially different rosters every year since 1999. Please don't tell me that DRob 99-2003 was the same DRob of 1995. Please don't tell me that a 20 year old french guard or a first year Manu were the superior talents that Hakeem didn't have. Tony and Manu were not the impact players they are today until 2005 and 2007.

What Tim has accomplished is amazing. Again as my earlier post stated, it isn't mandatory to have as much help on your team to win a le anymore. Yes, a 20 yr old Parker and first year Manu were better swingmen than what Hakeem played with for a lot of his NBA seasons...the same applies to David Robinson and Patrick Ewing. Since when can you not make an impact in your first or 2nd year? Drafting Robert Horry and Sam Cassell is what finally put us over the top.

[kingmalaki]

Tony and Manu weren't the consistant offensive creators until 2005 and 2007. Who did we have in 99 and 2003? Here's a hint, no one.

What do you mean by creating offense? If you are referring to setting others up, you had a very good PG in Avery Johnson. If you are referring to someone creating their own shot, Sean Elliott and David Robinson were pretty good at that in 99. Additionally, Many and TP have been good at penetrating and getting their own shot since they entered the league. TP's main issue at first was his jumper, while Manu's was his turnovers.

It may snow, I agree with you. But tell the complete story. Again in 2005 the Spurs had a revamped roster. Tony did not make the all star roster until 2006 and it's a good thing because 2006 was an injury plagued year for Manu. He was selected as an all star reserve in 2005.

You had a revamped roster with quality NBA vet's still chasing rings (Robert Horry, Brent Barry). Manu was back starting, and even though TP wasn't an all-star he still put up 17 and 6 on 48% from the field. Bowen also came in 2nd for DPOY that season, and he was not a revamp...actually none of the core cogs were (Duncan, TP, Manu, Bowen).

Again tell the whole story, while Hakeem didn't have a pure slasher in 94 (Clyde arrived in 95) it's not like the cupboard was bare:

Otis Thorpe 14 pts
Vernon Maxwell 13.6 pts
Kenny Smith 11.6 pts
Chris Jent 10.3 pts
Robert Horry 9.9 pts
Mario Elie 9.3 pts
Sam Cassell 6.7 pts

Not your Showtime Lakers, but it's not like the roster was devoid of talent. Solid role players. No more, no less.

No one said the Hakeems talent in 94 and 95 sucked...just that no one else could really create their own offense..hence us relying so much on the three...which we were great at jacking up, but slightly above average at making. We just made so many because we shot so many. It's similar to a guy that asks 20 girls for their number at a bar...just because he pulls 5 doesn't make him a mack. He just hit on every chick in sight.

[kingmalaki]

Sorry little man, but you have an over inflated opinion of yourself. I caught ambchang's message eons before it will ever dawn on you. If you shoot more threes, and thereby make more threes (think sheer numbers and timely clutch threes here) then that is a great thing, no? Afterall the total threes made represented a large chunk of the rockets total offensive output. He's already given you the numbers and percentages, but don't let the facts get in the way.

Come on dude...what you are describing is the 3 point shot being a big part of a teams offensive game plan...as in we are just going to keep launching these things and we will be happy as long as we make them at a decent clip. That isn't what he said at all. He said Hakeem couldn't win until he was surrounded by great 3 point shooters...not that the Rockets as a team were great at living/dying by the three. Shooters...individuals...not as in a team concept. It's cool...he stuck his foot in his mouth....

[ambchang]

Quit trying to bury your mistake under a ton of meaningless facts.

You have been backpeddling so fast ever since your idea that the rockets were a great 3 point shooting team was shot down with facts, that i can't even keep up.

Just man up, admit your mistake, and carry on with the discussion

And go back and read where I explained to you why Bird was a better 3 point shooter than Matt Bullard.

First of all, we are talking about less than a % difference with these two, keep in mind. Now I see that your trying to come up with clever ways to use my own logic against me, but this wasn't a good choice on your part.

Larry Bird was constantly the focus of every defense. He was usually guarded by the opposing teams best perimeter defender and his shots were well contested because he was a superstar and people knew the damage he could do. Matt Bullard on the other hand, was just a spot up shooter who benefitted from kick outs from Hakeem drawing double teams. His main skill and job during his time in this league was to spread the floor and make open 3 pointers, benefitting from the open looks that his teammates created. Creating your own shots is alot harder than benefitting from another superstar doing drawing double teams. If you left Larry Bird open and focused on everyone else, his 3 point % would be alot higher than 38%.

You are putting more qualitative arguments around 3pt%. And by your definition, that is backpeddling.
I am just demonstrating how stupid it is to put your own definitions on somebody else's statements, and force others to use yours. I never once said the Rockets were accurate.
Quit putting your definitions into my words, and quit forcing me to admit that great three point shooting teams HAS to be exceptionally accurate. This is your definition, not mine.
This is the same as saying 4<2 with all those qualitative arguments, you have what is defined as greatness, and I have mine, I won't go in and claim that you made a mistake by saying Hakeem > Duncan without looking at 4>2, and claim that you are backpeddling when somebody brought up that obvious claim. If you jump to conclusions on my meaning of what a great shooting team is, that is your problem, not mine.

[ambchang]

Purposely misquoting and putting words in someones mouth is the universal sign for waving the white flag

You mean how you are forcing me to use your definition of a great shooting team is pages ago? Thanks for finally getting the irony of the last 5 pages of posts.
I fully expect you to come in and claim that it was more than 5 pages ago that the 3pt shooting argument was raised, and that I am back-peddling when what I meant was many pages ago instead of exactly 5.

[Phenomanul]

I guess clutchness really doesn't matter.

If I recall correctly Horry beat San Antonio in Game 2 of the 1995 series with two threes in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Elie had already delivered a similar blow in Game 1 (or was it the other way around?) All I remember is that both of them delivered knock out blows in the first two games of that series. Of course it didn't help that Rodman somehow came to the realization that he was a downtown threat by launching 3-4 ill-advised threes in that series. Or that he failed to play a lick of defense on Horry. Or that Avery and Del Negro couldn't buy a jumper to save their lives. The Rockets' gameplan was simple. Deny Robinson the ball and make everyone else beat you. The rest of the Spurs shriveled up. San Antonio, conversely could not play Houston with the same strategy because Houston's core of bombers made you pay dearly if you doubled off of Hakeem. Game... Set... and Match.

Truth be told - the timely 3pt shot was an essential piece of the pie that enabled Houston to obtain back-to-back les. To say that it wasn't would be to deny the facts. PEOPLE.... just look at the game tapes!!! Regular season stats are worthless in this debate, when ultimately we are trying to compare how Hakeem's teams won vs. how Duncan's teams won.

Houston was a great 3pt team simply because they beat you with that weapon when it mattered most. Those trying to twist the logic by playing semantics, and pointing out insignificant statistical differences are doing so at the cost of impartiality.

[ambchang]

Hmm, ok...I said I was done but I can't let these completely false statements slide. I'm done arguing who was better though....

No, he didn't. The stats clearly show that the only Rocket who could be considered a great 3 point shooter was Kenny Smith (about a 40% shooter, similar to Bruce Bowen). Look at the %'s for the other Rockets. They were not hitting them at a great %. They were hitting the shot in the lower 30% range...THAT IS NOT GREAT. Yes, I watched them take a lot of 3's and make them at a decent clip compared to the rest of the league. Why are you still trying to deflect that you were in error? You did not say that the 3 point shot was a big part of the Rockets offense (the argument you are trying to rely on now). You stated that Hakeem only won because he was surrounded by great 3 point shooters. Taking a lot of 3's does not make you a great 3 point shooter. Why is this so hard to comprehend....

Even though repe ion doesn’t seemed to have delivered the message, I will have to say this at least one more time ….
I consider a team that is #1 in 3PM, and only 3 % off of the top team in % to be a great 3 point shooting team. Being exceptionally high in %, but not making a whole lot of it makes you an accurate shooter. If a guy comes into the game shooting 50% from 3, and I know that he plays only 5 minutes a game and only shoots on average once a game, I am not going to revolve my whole defense around him. But if a guy comes in shooting 35%, and I know that he is going to jack it up any chance he got, and is averaging 8 makes a game, I am definitely going to concentrate my defense on him.

So you are still ignoring the fact that the Hakeem missed 12 games that season, with his team going 2-10 without him..when they missed the playoffs by 3 games? They were on pace to have the #5/#6 seed with him. And the last time I checked, the starting SF from that season was Buck Johnson, and our top bench players were Sleepy Floyd and Matt Bullard. Yeah, that sure looks like the le winning team with key cogs like Horry, Cassell, Elie, etc.

Oh yes, I know how Hakeem can make a marginal playoff team, awesome!

Yes Dream had more room to operate when the team hit 3's...the same way Duncan has more room to operate. The only reason the Spurs don't rely on the 3 point shot as much is because you have two guards that can create their own shot off the dribble. Bobbyjoe has already posted the stats from your le teams, and it is clear that the Spurs players were hitting their 3's at the same or better %'s that the Rockets players around Hakeem that season. So now your argument is somehow the Rockets relied on the 3 point shot heavily, which somehow made them great at making them even though their %'s were around the average????

So are we not ranking the teams relative to their compe ion, but we are doing that to individual players.

You: Hakeem won two less championships than Duncan, but his compe ion in his era was greater.

You Later on: Spurs shot the same % as the Rockets in 3s, nevermind that they were ranked 25th in the league in 99, and the Rockets were 14th and 15th in the two championship years. I just like to pull out the relative to compe ion card / different era card whenever it suits me.

[ambchang]

Again, for like the tenth time...no, it doesn't. JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE ON A WORSE % MAINLY BECAUSE YOU SHOOT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE DOES NOT MAKE YOU GREAT AT MAKING THE SHOT.

Your logic is flawed.....very flawed. Corey Maggette made the 3rd most FT's this season. He shot 82%, which is not great. LeBron James made the 5th most FT's this season. He shot 70%, which is not great. AI made the 6th most FT's this season. He shot 80%, which is not great. Chris Bosh made the 8th most FT's this season. He shot 79%, which is not great. Etc. Just admit you were wrong dude.....

Again, for the millionth time, your definition of a great 3 point shooting team is not the same as mine. The Spurs were #3 in FG% last year, but 12 in FGM, but I would never consider them a great shooting team, got it?

[ambchang]

While you are at it kingmalaki and mavs>spurs, could you define for me what success in life is? See, I am not living my life according the way that you want me to, and I am deeply distressed, I may have to admit that my whole life upto this point was wrong, and that I need your guidance to the path of light.
Oh mighty kings, please show me thy way!

[kingmalaki]

I guess clutchness really doesn't matter.

If I recall correctly Horry beat San Antonio in Game 2 of the 1995 series with two threes in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Elie had already delivered a similar blow in Game 1 (or was it the other way around?) All I remember is that both of them delivered knock out blows in the first two games of that series. Of course it didn't help that Rodman somehow came to the realization that he was a downtown threat by launching 3-4 ill-advised threes in that series. Or that he failed to play a lick of defense on Horry. Or that Avery and Del Negro couldn't buy a jumper to save their lives. The Rockets' gameplan was simple. Deny Robinson the ball and make everyone else beat you. The rest of the Spurs shriveled up. San Antonio, conversely could not play Houston with the same strategy because Houston's core of bombers made you pay dearly if you doubled off of Hakeem. Game... Set... and Match.

I think your memory is off, no offense. Horry hit a game winning 17 foot jumper to win Game 1. He was wide open and and a doubled Dream gave him the rock. Has the same thing not happened on the Spurs countless times? We would not have won without the perimeter players making key shots, but I think Dream putting up 40 a game on Robinson/Rodman had more to do with us winning.

Truth be told - the timely 3pt shot was an essential piece of the pie that enabled Houston to obtain back-to-back les. To say that it wasn't would be to deny the facts. PEOPLE.... just look at the game tapes!!! Regular season stats are worthless in this debate, when ultimately we are trying to compare how Hakeem's teams won vs. how Duncan's teams won.

Houston was a great 3pt team simply because they beat you with that weapon when it mattered most. Those trying to twist the logic by playing semantics, and pointing out insignificant statistical differences are doing so at the cost of impartiality.

Who ever stated the 3 point shot wasn’t an essential piece of the Rockets offense? They took a lot and made a lot. But to imply that Dream only won when he was surrounded by great shooters is completely false, and a completely different point than the backpeddling that amchbag is doing now, by trying to convert his statement into the 3 pointer was a big part of the Rockets offense. Additionally, he brought up the point as if to say Duncan won les when he wasn’t surrounded by “great” shooters, while Hakeem couldn’t. The stats clearly show that Duncan’s shooters were just as good, if not better, than Hakeems. Yes, The Rockets took more threes because we didn’t have swingmen that could create their own offense like TP, Manu or Elliott.

And if you want to use your logic that they were a great shooting team because they made clutch 3’s, then how does that not apply to the Spurs as well? What about the miracle 3 that Elliott hit in 99? The killer 3’s by Kerr in the Finals? Horry’s barrage in Game 5 against Detroit in 05? Again, we can go for tat in naming big shots hit by role players.

Show me a Spurs team that won a le without consistent perimeter threats. Isn’t this the specific reason that y’all lost in 02 or 04 (one of those seasons against LA, I forget)…Parkers inability to hit a jumper? The following season you went out and got jumpshooters…and TP worked on his. Is that not correct?

[baseline bum]

I guess clutchness really doesn't matter.

If I recall correctly Horry beat San Antonio in Game 2 of the 1995 series with two threes in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Elie had already delivered a similar blow in Game 1 (or was it the other way around?) All I remember is that both of them delivered knock out blows in the first two games of that series. Of course it didn't help that Rodman somehow came to the realization that he was a downtown threat by launching 3-4 ill-advised threes in that series. Or that he failed to play a lick of defense on Horry. Or that Avery and Del Negro couldn't buy a jumper to save their lives. The Rockets' gameplan was simple. Deny Robinson the ball and make everyone else beat you. The rest of the Spurs shriveled up. San Antonio, conversely could not play Houston with the same strategy because Houston's core of bombers made you pay dearly if you doubled off of Hakeem. Game... Set... and Match.

Truth be told - the timely 3pt shot was an essential piece of the pie that enabled Houston to obtain back-to-back les. To say that it wasn't would be to deny the facts. PEOPLE.... just look at the game tapes!!! Regular season stats are worthless in this debate, when ultimately we are trying to compare how Hakeem's teams won vs. how Duncan's teams won.

Houston was a great 3pt team simply because they beat you with that weapon when it mattered most. Those trying to twist the logic by playing semantics, and pointing out insignificant statistical differences are doing so at the cost of impartiality.

3 or 4 in the series?

Rodman shot three threes in the first quarter of a must-win game 2 (I have the game on my computer). He was basically begging Bob Hill to bench him for the rest of the game, which he did. I guess Rodman's ass was too lazy to want to run with Horry or something. I hated seeing that guy do his little half-ass jog up the court with his 'I don't give a ' expression on his face while Horry was beating him to the rim in transition. I still have never seen as pathetic a display in professional sports as Rodman's quitting on the team in 95. He was so worthless and such a cancer to the Spurs that Chicago was the only team in the league that expressed interest in Rodman. The only reason the Spurs even got Perdue was because Jordan hated him, and forced Chicago's hand.

[Phenomanul]

I think your memory is off, no offense. Horry hit a game winning 17 foot jumper to win Game 1. He was wide open and and a doubled Dream gave him the rock. Has the same thing not happened on the Spurs countless times? We would not have won without the perimeter players making key shots,

Of course the 3pt shot was an element of the Spurs' Championships... it wasn't the key element though. DEFENSE has always been the Spurs' 'bread and butter' in the Poppovich era... not a prolific inside/outside game.

but I think Dream putting up 40 a game on Robinson/Rodman had more to do with us winning.

Olajuwon averaged 35 ppg against David's 24.... David however, had to score most of his points against double and triple teams. And unfortunately for Robinson, no one on his team ever stepped up to help him shoulder the burden. Olajuwon despite his superhuman efforts still relied on game winning jumpers from his teammates to win the series. That was the difference.

Who ever stated the 3 point shot wasn’t an essential piece of the Rockets offense? They took a lot and made a lot. But to imply that Dream only won when he was surrounded by great shooters is completely false, and a completely different point than the backpeddling that amchbag is doing now, by trying to convert his statement into the 3 pointer was a big part of the Rockets offense. Additionally, he brought up the point as if to say Duncan won les when he wasn’t surrounded by “great” shooters, while Hakeem couldn’t.

Duncan never missed the playoffs... and only lost to eventual conference champions (Stockton & Malone Jazz his rookie year, Shaq & Kobe Lakers from '01 to '02 and '04, Dirk's Mavs in '06) Other than that Duncan has always triumphed over his opposition.

Not counting his twilight seasons in Toronto, Olajuwan missed the playoffs once, and was eliminated twice in the first round. Duncan has yet to do either.

Draw your own conclusions.

The stats clearly show that Duncan’s shooters were just as good, if not better, than Hakeem's. Yes, The Rockets took more threes because we didn’t have swingmen that could create their own offense like TP, Manu or Elliott.

And if you want to use your logic that they were a great shooting team because they made clutch 3’s, then how does that not apply to the Spurs as well? What about the miracle 3 that Elliott hit in 99?

The killer 3’s by Kerr in the Finals? Horry’s barrage in Game 5 against Detroit in 05? Again, we can go for tat in naming big shots hit by role players.

It does apply to the Spurs... I never said it didn't.

I'm just trying to point out that using volume stats to imply that Houston had average 3pt shooting teams was lame. They had awesome 3 point shooters just based on the fact that they made them when it mattered most - during playoff games.

BTW the Spurs swept Portland in 1999... had Elliott missed his three, the Spurs still win that series. And Kerr's 3pt barage was against Dallas in the Conf. Finals (not the Finals).

Show me a Spurs team that won a le without consistent perimeter threats. Isn’t this the specific reason that y’all lost in 02 or 04 (one of those seasons against LA, I forget)…Parkers inability to hit a jumper?

'01 Loss of Derek Anderson for the entire series against LA was crucial

'02 Lack of swingmen to take pressure off of Duncan, Robinson's back injury were the key factors of defeat.

'04 Hedo Turkoglu's and Horry's brickfest against LA. and the infamous 0.4 were the key factors of defeat.

The following season you went out and got jumpshooters…and TP worked on his. Is that not correct?

We let go of Hedo, lost Stephen Jackson to FA and picked up Brent Barry.....

I think that the emergence of SuperManu in '05 was more important than anything in the line above. He was an unstoppable force in those playoffs, and had he not been hurt for Game 3 & 4, he could have legitimately taken the Finals MVP that year.

[telecomguy]

Has anyone looked at the PER comparison between Duncan and Hakeem? I understand PER is not the be-all and the end-all of deciding who the best player is but it is certainly fairly comprehensive, well thought-out metric that takes into consideration offence, defence, and other key variables in 48 minute pro-rated, pace-adjusted calculation. Here are the all-time PER leaders in their CAREER.

Duncan is substantially ahead of Olajuwon, and more amazingly Duncan comes out at no. 6 in ALL TIME PER calculation which may further validate the argument that TD is not out of place in the top 10 GOAT player of all time considering all the rings, MVP's, first-team all-NBA, first-team All-Defence, etc.etc. which does not even get factored into PER.

Total

Name PER
1 Michael Jordan 27.91
2 Shaquille O'Neal 27.63
3 David Robinson 26.18
4 Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
5 Bob Pet * 25.34
6 Tim Duncan 25.17
7 Charles Barkley* 24.63
8 Neil Johnston* 24.62
9 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.58
10 LeBron James 24.24
11 Magic Johnson* 24.11
12 Karl Malone 23.89
13 Tracy McGrady 23.88
14 Dirk Nowitzki 23.84
15 Kevin Garnett 23.84
16 Hakeem Olajuwon 23.59
17 Julius Erving* 23.57
18 Larry Bird* 23.50
19 Kobe Bryant 23.49
20 Yao Ming 23.22
21 Oscar Robertson* 23.18
22 Jerry West* 22.90
23 Elton Brand 22.75
24 Elgin Baylor* 22.70
25 Vince Carter 22.01
26 Moses Malone* 22.00
27 Dolph Schayes* 21.91
28 John Stockton 21.83
29 Pau Gasol 21.71
30 Bob Lanier* 21.69
31 Amare Stoudemire 21.67
32 Clyde Lovellette* 21.64
33 Paul Pierce 21.58
34 Dominique Wilkins* 21.56
35 Adrian Dantley 21.51
36 Allen Iverson 21.48
37 Harry Gallatin* 21.41
38 Artis Gilmore 21.39
39 Dan Issel* 21.39
40 George Gervin* 21.38
41 Grant Hill 21.36
42 Alonzo Mourning 21.31
43 Arvydas Sabonis 21.17
44 Rick Barry* 21.10
45 Clyde Drexler* 21.07
46 Patrick Ewing 21.01
47 Chris Webber 20.99
48 Shawn Marion 20.95
49 Gilbert Arenas 20.81
50 John Drew 20.74
51 Bob McAdoo* 20.73
52 Kevin Johnson 20.70
53 George Yardley* 20.48
54 Michael Redd 20.34
55 Ed Macauley* 20.32
56 Ray Allen 20.26
57 Andrei Kirilenko 20.25
58 Larry Foust 20.12
59 Marques Johnson 20.11
60 Bill Walton* 20.04
61 Billy Cunningham* 20.04
62 George McGinnis 20.04
63 Mel Daniels 20.02
64 Kevin McHale* 20.02
65 Steve Nash 19.95
66 Connie Hawkins* 19.94
67 Larry Nance 19.92
68 David Thompson* 19.90
69 Alex English* 19.87
70 Walt Bellamy* 19.85
71 Cliff Hagan* 19.83
72 Bob Cousy* 19.72
73 Terrell Brandon 19.69
74 John Beasley 19.68
75 Sam Cassell 19.67
76 Paul Arizin* 19.63
77 Chris Bosh 19.62
78 Mark Price 19.61
79 Carmelo Anthony 19.57
80 Zach Randolph 19.50
81 Zydrunas Ilgauskas 19.44
82 Paul Westphal 19.43
83 Cedric Ceballos 19.33
84 Robert Parish* 19.22
85 Bernard King 19.18
86 Walt Frazier* 19.12
87 Bailey Howell* 19.11
88 Spencer Haywood 19.11
89 Shawn Kemp 19.08
90 Walter Davis 19.07
91 Stephon Marbury 19.06
92 Shareef Abdur-Rahim 19.05
93 Mark Aguirre 19.02
94 Larry Jones 19.02
95 Jermaine O'Neal 19.01
96 Gary Payton 18.88
97 Bill Russell* 18.88
98 Jerry Lucas* 18.86
99 Jason Kidd 18.86
100 Brad Daugherty 18.85

[Phenomanul]

3 or 4 in the series?

Rodman shot three threes in the first quarter of a must-win game 2 (I have the game on my computer). He was basically begging Bob Hill to bench him for the rest of the game, which he did. I guess Rodman's ass was too lazy to want to run with Horry or something. I hated seeing that guy do his little half-ass jog up the court with his 'I don't give a ' expression on his face while Horry was beating him to the rim in transition. I still have never seen as pathetic a display in professional sports as Rodman's quitting on the team in 95. He was so worthless and such a cancer to the Spurs that Chicago was the only team in the league that expressed interest in Rodman. The only reason the Spurs even got Perdue was because Jordan hated him, and forced Chicago's hand.

Validates my statement even more...

Rodman..

[Phenomanul]

Has anyone looked at the PER comparison between Duncan and Hakeem? I understand PER is not the be-all and the end-all of deciding who the best player is but it is certainly fairly comprehensive, well thought-out metric that takes into consideration offence, defence, and other key variables in 48 minute pro-rated, pace-adjusted calculation. Here are the all-time PER leaders in their CAREER.

Duncan is substantially ahead of Olajuwon, and more amazingly Duncan comes out at no. 6 in ALL TIME PER calculation which may further validate the argument that TD is not out of place in the top 10 GOAT player of all time considering all the rings, MVP's, first-team all-NBA, first-team All-Defence, etc.etc. which does not even get factored into PER.

Total

Name PER
1 Michael Jordan 27.91
2 Shaquille O'Neal 27.63
3 David Robinson 26.18
4 Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
5 Bob Pet * 25.34
6 Tim Duncan 25.17
7 Charles Barkley* 24.63
8 Neil Johnston* 24.62
9 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.58
10 LeBron James 24.24

After incorporation of Shaquille's stats this upcoming season, Shaq's PER will probably drop and bump Robinson up to the No. 2 spot - Further legitimizing the Admiral's efficiency.

[mavs>spurs2]

Thank you

[mavs>spurs2]

Ambchang, all i'll say is that your twisted definition of a great 3 point team is very flawed. There is such thing as a team that shoots alot of 3's and and the same time shoots a pretty damn good percentage. See, the Dallas Mavericks and Sacramento Kings of old. Jacking a bunch at an average % doesn't make you a great shooting team, it just means that it's a big part of your gameplan. Nobody ever argued that the 3 point shot wasn't a big part of Houstons success.

You took it out of context and said that having great 3 point shooters was the reason for Hakeems success. That's just not the case, and I know you know the truth too because of the way you're flip flopping your argument all over the place.

kingmalaki summed it up pretty well with this line

He (meaning ambchang) said Hakeem couldn't win until he was surrounded by great 3 point shooters...not that the Rockets as a team were great at living/dying by the three.

You aren't pulling the wool over anyones eyes, you made a mistake just man up to it instead of changing your argument.

[Galileo]

There is nothing worse for a Spurs or Rockets fan than seeing Duncan or Olajuwon get into foul trouble. Nor is there a better way to lose a game.

This is another area where Duncan is superior to Olajuwon; Duncan was much less likely to get into foul trouble:

Tim

regular season career:

minutes 27,964

steals 595

blocks 1840

fouls 2036

fouls per 48 minutes = 3.49

blocks per foul = 0.90

blocks + steals per foull = 1.20

playoffs:

minutes 5537

steals 93

blocks 380

fouls 426

fouls per 28 minutes = 3.69

blocks per foul = 0.89

steals + blocks per foul = 1.11

Hakeem

regular season career:

minutes 44222

steals 2162

blocks 3830

fouls 4383

fouls per 48 minutes = 4.76

blocks per foul = 0.87

steals + blocks per foul = 1.37

playoffs:

minutes 5749

steals 245

blocks 472

fouls 562

fouls per 48 minutes = 4.69

blocks per foul = 0.84

steals + blocks per foul = 1.28

Please note that Duncan beats Olajuwon by over one foul per 48 minutes, which is huge; and Duncan also gets more blocks per foul than Olajuwon.

So the 'Olajuwon is better on defense' is out the window.

Based on what I've seen on TV, Duncan is better on defense than Olajuwon.

PS - since Duncan plays more physical, and went to the free throw line more, it is probable that a higher proportion of Duncan's fouls were offensive charging fouls, rather than defensive fouls. If so, that would only add to Duncan's advantage on defense.

[ambchang]

(After putting a little smiley face with a white flag attributed as my quote)

Thank you

Purposely misquoting and putting words in someones mouth is the universal sign for waving the white flag

I believe I am not the only one who noticed the irony of this post.

[bobbyjoe]

There is nothing worse for a Spurs or Rockets fan than seeing Duncan or Olajuwon get into foul trouble. Nor is there a better way to lose a game.

This is another area where Duncan is superior to Olajuwon; Duncan was much less likely to get into foul trouble:

Tim

regular season career:

minutes 27,964

steals 595

blocks 1840

fouls 2036

fouls per 48 minutes = 3.49

blocks per foul = 0.90

blocks + steals per foull = 1.20

playoffs:

minutes 5537

steals 93

blocks 380

fouls 426

fouls per 28 minutes = 3.69

blocks per foul = 0.89

steals + blocks per foul = 1.11

Hakeem

regular season career:

minutes 44222

steals 2162

blocks 3830

fouls 4383

fouls per 48 minutes = 4.76

blocks per foul = 0.87

steals + blocks per foul = 1.37

playoffs:

minutes 5749

steals 245

blocks 472

fouls 562

fouls per 48 minutes = 4.69

blocks per foul = 0.84

steals + blocks per foul = 1.28

Please note that Duncan beats Olajuwon by over one foul per 48 minutes, which is huge; and Duncan also gets more blocks per foul than Olajuwon.

So the 'Olajuwon is better on defense' is out the window.

Based on what I've seen on TV, Duncan is better on defense than Olajuwon.

PS - since Duncan plays more physical, and went to the free throw line more, it is probable that a higher proportion of Duncan's fouls were offensive charging fouls, rather than defensive fouls. If so, that would only add to Duncan's advantage on defense.

Based on your comment's that Duncan > Jordan, no one will ever take you seriously again.

Duncan wasn't close to Jordan and he wasn't close to Hakeem defensively.

[ambchang]

Ambchang, all i'll say is that your twisted definition of a great 3 point team is very flawed. There is such thing as a team that shoots alot of 3's and and the same time shoots a pretty damn good percentage. See, the Dallas Mavericks and Sacramento Kings of old. Jacking a bunch at an average % doesn't make you a great shooting team, it just means that it's a big part of your gameplan. Nobody ever argued that the 3 point shot wasn't a big part of Houstons success.

You took it out of context and said that having great 3 point shooters was the reason for Hakeems success. That's just not the case, and I know you know the truth too because of the way you're flip flopping your argument all over the place.

kingmalaki summed it up pretty well with this line


You aren't pulling the wool over anyones eyes, you made a mistake just man up to it instead of changing your argument.

I have maintained from the start that the Rockets have had great shooters, and were a great 3 pt shooting team, I haven't changed that at all.
It was you and kingmalaki who imposes your definition of what a great 3 pt shooting team is into my arguments. You have been changing my arguments for me, and forcing me to admit that I was wrong in an argument that you thought I meant from the get go.

Well, no, I never said the Rockets were particularly accurate, it was your interpretation.

This was my first post in this thread regarding 3 pt shooting from the Rockets:

Post 411

What is so ridiculous about that? All the plaers benefitted from the system. The Rockets plan was simple, have Hakeem in the middle, and the 3 point shooters bomb away. The Spurs had the exact game plan with Duncan instead from 99 to 04, and it was proven that without 3 pt shooters, the Spurs don't win. The same was true for Hakeem and the Rockets.

And this was your response

Post 413

You need to go back and look at the stats, Hakeem's so called 3 point shooters sucked ass. Drexler shot a massive 33% in 95-96. Maxwell shot 32% in 94-95, Horry shot 36-37% which isn't much better, Sam Cassel 33-34%, Elie 32% in 95-96, etc. The only one that ever shot a respectable percentage was Kenny Smith in 94-95, he shot 42.9%. And like Bobbyjoe pointed out, what happened to him after Hakeem?

Clearly from the get go, you interpreted me saying the rockets shooter bombing away as some indication of their accuracy, but that was never my intention, and I never understood why you would think that.

In fact, upon review, YOU were the one who said Hakeem's shooters sucked ass using %s, when they were, at worst, average. Perhaps it was you who was spinning the whole time.

Later on, bobbyjoe even put in quotation marks about something I never said and tried to attribute this to me:

Do you ever even listen to how ridiculous you sound? Your orgiinal argument was that Maxwell "opened up the floor for Hakeem with his accurate shooting". When this nonsense was debunked because it was shown that Maxwell'ls ability to shoot from the perimiter was clearly poor by league standards, you go on some useless tirade about how Iverson didn't shoot well either?

WTF does that have to with your original erroneous statement that "Maxwell opened up the floor for Hakeem?

Given the amount of 3pters made by Maxwell, it is pretty clear that he opened up the offense for the Rockets (I originally said he opened up the floor for Drexler), but it was his inability to fully digest my post before posting that led to him intrepreting what I said and thought I said Maxwell's shooting was accurate, or that he opened up the floor for Hakeem.

Up till now, the 3 of you had no ability to quote me on saying either, and is trying to twist my wording around into saying something you two felt I said through your own misinterpretation.

If the two of you does not like to read my post but still like to respond to them, it is up to you, but please do not try to twist my word around and say I said something I never said, and try to show that things I never said to be incorrect and attribute the error to me.

[Galileo]

Duncan's '06 foot injury

The single best indicator of how the Spurs do has always been Duncan's health.

Here is a little known factoid regarding how the foot injury affected Duncan's playoff performance:

Duncan

2006 Playoffs;

blocks per foul 0.50

2007 Playoffs;

blocks per foul 1.05

This is an astounding difference!

Other tidbits

Duncan was the youngest player in history to be named 1st Team, All-NBA, when he won the award after a season in which he was only a 21 year old rookie. This despite staying 4 years in college.

Lebron James beat him out for the honor in '06, but only by a few months, because Duncan's stats took a late season nosedive from a seroius foot injury, and despite James being a third year veteran rather than a rookie.

Bonus tidbit:

Let's talk about raising your level of play during crunch time.

In the '06 playoffs, w/ a serious foot injury, Duncan avaeraged 18 points/game in round 1, versus a below average playoff team not expected to give the Spurs any problems.

But in round 2, a grueling 7 game series versus an elite team (Dallas), Duncan raised his point production by 15 points per game, to 32 points per game.

Amazing!

This accomplishement, of course, has been almost forgotten, since the Spurs did not win the NBA le that year.