If you wanted to start a franchise, who would you pick?

[dg7md]

is that Cameron in your sig?

Yeah

[5ToolMan]

IIRC, both Horry and Elie left Houston under some bitter terms and were pretty unhappy with the franchise. Horry was traded and Elie wasn't wanted back.

Horry's comments came while he was a teammate of Duncan. If anything as a player, you're not going to want to piss off a fellow teammate.

I think the right answer is "because that's the way they honestly feel"

Elie played with the Dream when he was at the very top of his game and with Duncan when he was a 2 and 3 year player. Horry played with Dream and Shaq when both were at the very top of their games.

The Dream is dead and gone and Shaq in a steep decline. If you are paying attention and you might consider we may just be starting to see the best of Duncan.

Horry made his comments about who "was" best after his first year with Tim and multiple rings with Dream and Shaq. After Tim led him to another ring in 05, Robert said the gap is certainly closing and learning more about Duncan he may have to reconsider.

In my view, by the Time Tim has finished his career his collection of rings and finals MVP's will make this a very one sided poll ... in favor of Duncan.

[bobbyjoe]

Good point. I always think that TD's more consistent while Hakeem had higher peak years. Did Hakeem play with not so great teammates those years ?

IMHO, TD got a rather weak supporting casts in 01-02 & 03-04. The Spurs still had a 50+ wins season those years.

After the Finals Appearance in 86, Houston lost 4 of it's best 6 players to injuries and drug suspensions in Sampson, Lloyd, Wiggins, and Lucas.

It'd be like if Tim lost Manu, Parker, Bowen, and Finley this offseason. I think that'd put a little bit of a hit to the Spurs regular season success if the team was just gutted for whatever reason, don't you? They'd be going through a retooling phase.

I'll never understand why team records and achievements are used by some to try to compare individual players. There are a myriad of factors which go into them. Eras (watered down now vs. late 80's), teammates, coaching, etc.

Was Dirk a better player than Duncan last year because the Mavs beat SA in the playoffs and had a better regular season record or did the Mavs just have the better team?

This argument would carry more weight if Hakeem during these 4 years you mention struggled individually in either the regular or postseason. But instead he won 2 rebounding les, 2 scoring les these years you cite and was very consistent overall.

In one of these years you mention (89), Hakeem averaged 24 pts, 14 rebounds, 4.6 blocks, 2.9 assists, and 2.2 steals a game. That's probably one of the best all around seasons by a big man in the history of the NBA.

Yes, the team sucked but your ceiling is pretty limited when your starting 5 is Sleepy Floyd, Buck Johnson, Wiggins post drug suspension, etc. Not exactly Manu/Parker backccourt there.

[bobbyjoe]

So, if two seven footers is the answer, why did the Olajuwan/Sampson duo make only one Finals appearance? Hakeem had his partner.

Sampson's career which was short-lived due to injuries. Him and Hakeem played 2 1/2 seasons together and then Sampson was traded the next year after the Finals Apperance.

In one of the years they were together, they knocked off one of the best dynasties in NBA history, a team with Magic, Kareem, Worthy, etc, then ran into Bird, McHale, etc in the NBA Finals.

They were looked on back then as the beginning of the next dynasty after beating the Lakers before the Sampson fallout and drug suspensions.

[bobbyjoe]

Amare is not a great center. he has few post moves, he cant back you down and score on you 1 on 1. he just feeds off Nash. thats a terrible argument. Martin is nowhere close to the centers Hakeem had to go up against and he is currently out of the league. WHAT A TALENT! and he's only matched up against Garnett once in 00-01, and the T-Wolves were a pathetic 8-seed.

Hakeem was easily the better player in his prime. he had to go through Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq to get those championships.

Not to even mention that in 99, 01,02, 03, and 04 the Spurs didnt' use Tim Duncan to guard Shaq. That duty primarily went to David RObinson the first 4 matchups in the playoffs and then Rasho/Willis the last one. Duncan only had to guard Hakeem in spot duty where Hakeem in 95 had to guard Shaq the entire game and was guarded by O'Neal at the other end.

Comparing Amare, Martin, etc to DRob/Ewing/Shaq is just comical! The hits keep coming. Didn't Amare average 38 ppg on Duncan in 2005 as well, setting the record for ppg in a WCF? The Spurs won because they had a better team but Amare dominated that series.

[bobbyjoe]

The best Guard Hakeem had the privelege of worrying about penetrating and creating during his run was John Starks and Vinny.


Tims has been Kobe, Kidd, Nash, Iverson, Marbury..and he still had his assignment in guarding Amare, Martin, Shaq, Garnett.

I'd say Tim Duncan did a a of a lotta Good on the defensive end, his teams have been at the top of the NBA in fewest opponent ppg.



IF TIM Duncan was in the 90's his team would have been the best in the league in DEfense and that alone would put him on all Nba Defensive 1st team.

Honestly, where do you come up with this flat out nonsense?

The best guard Hakeem faced in his run was Vinny? Yeah, if you want to exclude Clyde Drexler, Kevin Johnson, John Stockton, and Afernee Hardaway.

And there was this guy named Magic Johnson Hakeem had to face in the playoffs early in his career. Maybe you've heard of him, or maybe you think contemporary studs like Stephon Marbury are tougher to go against. Maybe you've heard of Gary Payton too.

[Warlord23]

Again, let's be clear what we are discussing. It is the entire body of work over a career, not a player's 2-year prime. And since you want to use stats, let me throw up a few more.

Career PER: Hakeem's career PER is lower than the people he is compared against:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ER_career.html

The top 10 includes Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Tim, Kareem, Pet , Barkley. Hakeem is # 16.

How about Single-season PER:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ER_season.html
Hakeem's name appears twice on that list (#57 and #97).
Duncan appears 5 times (# 63, # 64, #66, #69, #93)
Shaq appears 11 times, DRob appears 7 times, Kareem 7 times, Wilt 8 times, Pet 4 times, Malone 6 times, Barkley 4 times.

Curious, because if Hakeem had bad teammates after the drug suspensions, you would expect him to put up the numbers (a-la McGrady's 30+ PER when on the Orlando Magic).

Hakeem's consistency and dominance are blown out of proportion because he had 2 great post-seasons (which might have been laid waste if Jordan hadn't left basketball). He was the leader of mediocre teams for the most part of his career.

Whereas Duncan won a le with Stephen Jackson as the 2nd threat, won 60+ games with Derek Anderson as the 2nd banana, led the Spurs to the highest win% in all of professional sports in the entire last decade, etc.

When it comes to career consistency, Hakeem is not even in the same ballpark as the other great big men across eras.

[whottt]

Not to even mention that in 99, 01,02, 03, and 04 the Spurs didnt' use Tim Duncan to guard Shaq. That duty primarily went to David RObinson the first 4 matchups in the playoffs and then Rasho/Willis the last one. Duncan only had to guard Hakeem in spot duty where Hakeem in 95 had to guard Shaq the entire game and was guarded by O'Neal at the other end.

Comparing Amare, Martin, etc to DRob/Ewing/Shaq is just comical! The hits keep coming. Didn't Amare average 38 ppg on Duncan in 2005 as well, setting the record for ppg in a WCF? The Spurs won because they had a better team but Amare dominated that series.

Yeah...well the Rockets didn't use Hakeem to guard Drob(in the games they won).


Seriously...you realize that you are are contradicting every argument you have made in arguing Hakeem over Drob, to argue Hakeem over Duncan...

A consistent and definable position will prevent this...as opposed to selectively over or under emphasising the determining factors depending on which player you are putting Hakeem up against.


For all the reasons you have argued Hakeem over Drob....you have dealt precursory self buttcking to your argument of Hakeem over Duncan. I know...I was there.


Duncan
More MVP
More les
More playoff success
List of opponents is just as Impressive(Duncan went through a 3 timje champ to win one of his les, Olajuwon did it while the 3 time champ was playing baseball).

If you want to argue peaks and who they beat...then you better start giving Drob some credit...becuase his peaks were insane. Including in the playoffs.



Otoh hand...my arguments do not contradict each other....I can point to Duncan's regular season success and consistency to justify ranking him over Hakeem...much like I did with Drob...


People like to discount the regular season...why?

It's longer, it's a truer sample, a great player can have more of a determinable impact during it...


Great Teams win championships...

If all it took was a great player....then how in the did Hakeem miss the playoffs smack dab in his prime? And what about all those years he didn't win championships?

[whottt]

You act like Robinson never lost teamates or had coaches fired...

Drob had his whole cast come down with injuries 92-93...lost his PG..

He had a different coach just about every year of his career after Larry Brown...one time, he had 3 coaches in a single year...just so happens to be the same year he lost all his teamates to injury...


You know what he did? He carried his team to the second best record in the division...even missing the last 3 weeks injured his team won 47 games(losing hteir ass off the 3 weeks he was injured before getting swept out of the playoffs)...which would be like the 4th or 5th best record of Hakeem's career. It was Drob's worst.

And what happened to those teams when those stars were injured?

Hakeem's teams barely registered Hakeem's injuries during the regular season...in fact, sometimes they performed better without him...that was never the case for a single season of Drob's prime. When he was out...the Spurs lost their asses, every year, for the time he was out..whether it was a single game....or a stretch...not a single winning record without him.

Not true of Hakeem...not true of Duncan...not true of Kareem...or Wilt...not true of Jordan either, his teams went to the conference finals without him...only true of David(biggest single season positive turnaround in NBA history, twice, and biggest single season negative turnaround when he was injured)...Magic, Larry Bird and Dr. J. And don't ing tell me Drob had as much talent as any one of those guys. Not even ing close. Most of them had guys you say are better than DRob in fact.



If you wanna to talk playoffs....Duncan clearly>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hakeem when it comes to winning...which is the only stat that matters if you are arguing the post season. As you like to do.

[bobbyjoe]

Again, let's be clear what we are discussing. It is the entire body of work over a career, not a player's 2-year prime. And since you want to use stats, let me throw up a few more.

Career PER: Hakeem's career PER is lower than the people he is compared against:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ER_career.html

The top 10 includes Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Tim, Kareem, Pet , Barkley. Hakeem is # 16.

How about Single-season PER:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ER_season.html
Hakeem's name appears twice on that list (#57 and #97).
Duncan appears 5 times (# 63, # 64, #66, #69, #93)
Shaq appears 11 times, DRob appears 7 times, Kareem 7 times, Wilt 8 times, Pet 4 times, Malone 6 times, Barkley 4 times.

Curious, because if Hakeem had bad teammates after the drug suspensions, you would expect him to put up the numbers (a-la McGrady's 30+ PER when on the Orlando Magic).

Hakeem's consistency and dominance are blown out of proportion because he had 2 great post-seasons (which might have been laid waste if Jordan hadn't left basketball). He was the leader of mediocre teams for the most part of his career.

Whereas Duncan won a le with Stephen Jackson as the 2nd threat, won 60+ games with Derek Anderson as the 2nd banana, led the Spurs to the highest win% in all of professional sports in the entire last decade, etc.

When it comes to career consistency, Hakeem is not even in the same ballpark as the other great big men across eras.

Actually, it's not clear that we are discussing that in the least bit.

The only thing that needs to be said about PER rating is that you come with ridiculous results like:

David Robinson ranking over Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell ending up #97 on the list
Yao Ming over Oscar Robertson
Tracy McGrady over Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon.
Barkley over Moses Malone and Bill Russell.

Any rating system which doesn't have Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Julius Erving, Bill Russell in it's top 16 is obviously flawed and tainted.

It's also statistically deceptive to compare a current player in his prime (peak level stats) to a guy who's retired and played a long career by the end of which time his average stats were getting dragged down.

It's already been shown that Hakeem in 89 had a year with 24.3 ppg, 14.0 rbg, 4.6 bpg, and 2.2 steals per game in the era you say he should have been putting up "Tracy McGrady orlando" type stats. Leading the league in rebounding and blocks, and giving your team basically a combo of 7 blocks and steals EVERY NIGHT is about as good a season as you will find out of any bigman ever. You don't need any PER stat to tell you that.

And staying Hakeem only had 2 prime years or 2 years of great work in the postseason is flat out ignorant and ridiculous. Show me when any big aside from Shaq and Kareem and Wilt put up #'s like this? Duncan certainly didnt.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...olajuha01.html

86 playoffs (faced Kareem, Magic, Bird): 27 ppg, 11 rpg, 53% shooting, 3.5 bpg

87 playoffs: 29.2 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 4.3 bpg, 61% FG

88 playoffs (this is the year some have chastised Hakeem for only winning 42 games): 37.5 ppg, 17 rpg, 57% FG

93 playoffs: 25.8 ppg, 14.0 rpg, 4.9 assists per game, 4.9 blocks per game

If this isn't being consistently dominant in the postseason, nothing Tim has done is either. All 4 of these playoff runs came outside of the supposedly "only 2 great prime years".

[thewatcher]

keep the ownage bobbyjoe

[Warlord23]

So let me get this straight:

Tim has more les, MVPs, Finals MVPs, All-NBA awards, and better career statistics than Hakeem. And your only response to that is "he played better against the Lakers in so-and-so year, he got so many blocks in that year".

Tim's career > Hakeem's career ... bring me one fact that proves otherwise

[Warlord23]

By the way, PER is the best statistic to measure player contributions, but it doesn't prove who the better player was.

As for your comparisons:
David Robinson ranking over Wilt Chamberlain (Wilt's last few years were statistically poor; you can clearly see his dominance in the single-season PER)
Bill Russell ending up #97 on the list (he played with 5 HOFs, and was the 4th offensive option; what do you expect?)
Yao Ming over Oscar Robertson (Oscar's later years sucked ass; Yao's PER will decline as he ages, why dont we keep the conversation limited to players who've played at least 10 seasons?)
Tracy McGrady over Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon (Bird played with multiple HOFs, McGrady's numbers will decline over time just like Yao's)
Barkley over Moses Malone and Bill Russell (Barkley was a monster in his prime, same as Moses, difference being Moses needed Doc and Cheeks to win a 'ship)

And that's precisely my point: At least in Russell's case, you can say stuff like "Russell was a great leader who won 11 rings while sacrificing his stats". 11 rings > PER

In this case, Hakeem has lesser rings, a short prime, and lower stats than Duncan. Apart from his short prime, Hakeem is behind Duncan on all parameters.

[bobbyjoe]

So let me get this straight:

Tim has more les, MVPs, Finals MVPs, All-NBA awards, and better career statistics than Hakeem. And your only response to that is "he played better against the Lakers in so-and-so year, he got so many blocks in that year".

Tim's career > Hakeem's career ... bring me one fact that proves otherwise

Hakeem had better career stats, both regular and postseason. More ppg, higher FG%, higher FT%, more blocks, more steals. The only area Tim edges is assists.

Hakeem faced tougher compe ion and thrived against it.

Hakeem had more moves and defended better. No discussion of top defensive players in NBA history either excludes Hakeem Olajuwon or includes Tim Duncan.

The argument about rings is all about context. Duncan was drafted onto a squad which had consistently won 55-60 games every year before he got there (excluding 97 injury filled year). Hakeem on balance had weaker supporting casts than TD and didnt have the benefit of playing in today's watered down league where a guy like Mehmet Okur is arguably the best Center in the NBA (since Duncan is at PF and Shaq is on a deep decline). Expansion and the high school invasion have weakened the league from the 80s and 90s.

Duncan's first finals he faced the 8 seed Knicks of A Hou/Lat Spre. Hakeem's he got by Magic/Kareem (which is a better team than any Duncan has ever defeated or beaten) but lost to arguably the best team ever in Boston. If you want to only look at who got the ring, yes it's Tim. But Hakeem's accomplishment here was clearly more impressive when you factor in quality of compe ion.

Duncan would not have had near as many all-team NBA awards defense or overall playing Center in the 90's playing alongside Hakeem, DRob, Ewing, Shaq, Alonzo, and Mutombo all their primes. He's benefitted greatly from playing the forward position in terms of All NBA rankings so using those in this argument is weak and deceptive.

Duncan's an awesome talent. If starting a team with today's NBA players, I'd pick him first and not think twice about it.

I have him in my top 10 NBA players of all time. But no, unlike the homer talk you see here, he is just not better than guys like Larry Bird, Shaq O'Neal, or Hakeem Olajuwon (if you look at accomplishments to date since Duncan's career isn't over yet). He's in the tier of those guys but not ahead of them.

[whottt]

If Duncan had played C on defense his entire career his numbers would probably be better IMO...especially his block totals.


You can say Hakeem was such a great defender...but he wasn't doing any more defending than Duncan does in the post season.

Unless you can explain to me how they allowed Hakeem 8 PF per game in 94-95....he wasn't guarding(fouling) Drob.

If Duncan had played in some of the offense those guys played in...his offensive numbers would be better.

Duncan has played in a grind it out low scoring offensive system for virtually his entire career...yeah the Spurs are more high scoring now...but they have other players taking those shots.

[bobbyjoe]

You didnt see anyone drop 37 ppg on Hakeem in the playoffs like Amare did to TD, did you?

He held Ewing to 35% shooting (15% below his career average) and just 18 ppg in the 94 Finals. Robinson's offensive #'s also went down in the series against Houston.

Hakeem was a better one on one defender than Tim and a better team defender as well.

Regardless of what Duncan played officially, he's always defended the paint like a Center. The reason Hakeem got more blocks is that he was quicker and more hops and was a quicker leaper. Plus early in his career Duncan had the luxury of a David Robinson who would guard the other team's best big which allowed Duncan to conserve more energy defensively and made weakside defense much easier. He doesn't have that benefit now but did for several years.

If anything, hakeem would have averaged a lot more blocks (Drob as well) if their careers had been in the 2000's with the more lax zone rules. Back in the day, Hakeem and DRob were pulled out of the paint at times to avoid illegal defense violations.

Duncan has played in grind it out scoring systems but any team with a dominant big will always want to play a slowdown, halfcourt game (see Shaq, LA, Hakeem, Houston)

[Warlord23]

Hakeem had better career stats, both regular and postseason. More ppg, higher FG%, higher FT%, more blocks, more steals. The only area Tim edges is assists.

Here's the snag with that reasoning. What you're saying is "If player A scores more PPG than player B, player A is a better offensive player than player B". That doesn't take into account that possibility that player A might have played in an era where teams took more FGAs across the board, what was the league average of FG% etc.

Which is where PER comes into play. Hollinger has set up PER so that the league average, every season, is 15.00. So that we don't end up comparing apples to oranges. Duncan's PER > Hakeem's. So I stick to my point about career statistics being in Duncan's favor.

No discussion of top defensive players in NBA history either excludes Hakeem Olajuwon or includes Tim Duncan.

I thought we would stick to facts, not conjecture and opinions. I do concede that Hakeem in his prime was the better defender. But Duncan has kept this up for a full decade, and the consistency on defense is awesome. At best he falls behind Olajuwon by a small margin on defense, but the difference is nowehere as large as you imply.

Duncan would not have had near as many all-team NBA awards defense or overall playing Center in the 90's playing alongside Hakeem, DRob, Ewing, Shaq, Alonzo, and Mutombo all their primes. He's benefitted greatly from playing the forward position in terms of All NBA rankings so using those in this argument is weak and deceptive.

Again, conjecture. Mourning, Ewing and Mutombo in their primes are not on Duncan's level. Speaking of prime Shaq, do you honestly believe Hakeem would have held his own vs a 2000 Shaq. 2000 Shaq was a whole different animal compared to 1995 Shaq. Duncan beat 2002-03 Shaq, who was superior to 1994-95 Shaq.

And finally, the most remarkable thing about this argument is that Duncan is not done yet. He is just 30 years old. At 30, Hakeem had no les, no MVPs. He played his best ball at ages 31 to 33. If Duncan steps it up even more in the next 3 years, we won't be having this particular argument, as Duncan would have moved up into the GOAT debate.

[bobbyjoe]

PER is always going to underrate a star defensive player. If you have a lockdown defender like Hakeem or Bruce Bowen or Scottie Pippen who is shutting his man down and playing great team D, altering shots, and resulting in a lower FG%, PER gives absolutely zero credit for this. Look at Bruce Bowen's PER and he'd be about the worst starter in the league even though he obviously has tremendous value.

Hakeem was an easily better defender than Duncan. He locked down his man (like Duncan does) but gave you the added plus of better overall range and verstality. Better shotblocker than Duncan and he ranks in top 10 all time in steals, unheard of for a big and a trait Duncan doesn't have. This wasn't just something Hakeem did in his prime, but from day one. Him and Robinson are just on a different level defensively than TD.

Also, as we know looking at Hakeem's PER is misleading when comparing him to a current player in his prime because Hakeem has many years of average or poor play after his prime to drag down career #'s. To accont for this, you'd have to look at Hakeem's PER as of 1995-1996, not his whole career.

Isn't there another comprehensive rating system used which is similar to PER but with a different strucure? I seem to remember one and would be curious to see how that one looks vs. PER.

I think I've already said that I would rank Shaq as the best out of the 3 in terms of prime value. Hakeem 95 vs. Shaq 00 is a tough call, but I would lean O'Neal.

I just can't give 100% credit for Duncan beating 2002-2003 as you say because DRob was the primary defender on O'Neal the year. They weren't matched head to head all series. That's where the real problem comes in in defending Shaq. Him wearing you down on offense and zapping your energy to attack him on the other end. Tim was able to avoid this challenge thanks to the Admiral.

Mourning, Ewing, and Mutombo were indeed not on Duncan's level as overall players, but Duncan is third in that group defensively most probably and so he wouldnt have the All team defense awards that he does now.

I've never bought into the "league FG% btw". Are you telling me a guy like George Gervin who shot 50% for his career many times benefitted from playing in a league with higher FG% or that overall FG%'s in the league were higher because you had more offensively skilled and talented players in that era (which is what I think is the case easily).

I mean Gervin wouldnt shoot 50% in today's NBA? MJ wouldnt shoot 50% in the 2000's, just because the league is watered down today and overall league FG% is down from the MJ era along with scoring? Personally, I think that's baloney.

[BUMP]

Tim's career > Hakeem's career ... bring me one fact that proves otherwise

Hakeem had better career stats, both regular and postseason. More ppg, higher FG%, higher FT%, more blocks, more steals. The only area Tim edges is assists.

WOOOOOOOOOW

talk about getting

[Warlord23]

Well I personally think Duncan himself is one of the players who specializes in a lot of things that don't show up on the stat sheet (e.g. altered shots, opponents FG% when being defended, hockey assists etc). For instance, Duncan passing out of a double team, then the extra pass leading to a 3 is a very common play for the Spurs. Hakeem is another such player, so i don't think either is dsadvantaged too much.

Regarding defense, the most difficult thing is to separate the impact of individual defense vs team defense. A team's defensive system can maximize an individual's defensive contribution, or waste it altogether. With Duncan as the centerpiece, the Spurs are always a top 3 team in opp PPG and opp FG%. Over a decade, that counts for a lot. This coninues even after Robinson's decline and retirement. Not sure how you can compare that with Zo's/Ewing's defensive contritbution to their teams and conclusively establish Zo's/Ewing's superiority. I'll just say that being the anchor of the top D in the league clearly includes Duncan in the discussion of the top 3 defensive players in the last decade. Just like Hakeem gets included in his decade. Only I think in Duncan's case it'll continue (probably and hopefully) for 15 years. Which is something Hakeem, Ewing and Mourning can't claim.

Regarding league FG%, it's an iffy topic since you can't simulate Gervin's performance in this era. But a few trends are visible. When the Celtic dynasty dominated, the FG% was low throughout the league except for freaks like Wilt (Bob Cousy had a career 37.5% FGP and is included in the 50 greatest). It increased in the 70s and especially in the 80s, then started on a gradual decline through the 90s. Dunno what the reason is, maybe invention/prevalence of new defensive schemes, rules, officiating patterns etc. But the trend is a discernible one.

[Warlord23]

WOOOOOOOOOW

talk about getting

Read post # 117 about PER. And try to apply rational thought before posting cute emoticons. Thanks.

[thewatcher]

ownage count:

bobbyjoe: 8797419028741209879

spurs homers: 0

[whottt]

ownage count:

bobbyjoe: 8797419028741209879

spurs homers: 0

Fans of teams who trade their Dynasty and choke or miss the playoffs every year thereafter, are not in charge of deciding who is owned...you are the example of what owned is at this particular time in NBA history.

You can start judging who is owned, once it is no longer you...Raja.

[thewatcher]

^^^ keep in the topic please

[whottt]

^^^ keep in the topic please

It is in the topic...it's about your qualifications to decide who is owned...of which there is none.


You can tell us we're owned when you don't have to root for our team to beat the team that just eliminated you.