Bucks: Tim Duncan is the third best player of all time..

[ambchang]

This?



Think you just proved my point.

You had a point?

Even with advanced stats, Shaq peaked at a higher level than Duncan in every category.

Thus, Shaq was better. Its really not that hard.

Sure, but then Duncan's peak was longer, and was comparable.

I had no problem saying Shaq had a higher peak, never argued otherwise my argument was this:

The fact is Duncan was good but not great and at no point in his career was even close to the dominance of Shaq and Hakeem.

Duncan was great as the numbers showed.

Duncan's peak was close to Shaq, the numbers showed as such.

Duncan's peak and Shaq's peak overlapped, and they led the league in advanced stats about the same number of times.

We haven't even got into the comparison vs. Hakeem yet, which I will do now.
Hakeem / Duncan
PER: 27.3/27.1
WS: 15.8/17.8
WS/48: .234/.257
BPM: 8.4/7.6
VORP: 8.5/8.1

To put the numbers into perspective with the eras, Hakeem never led any of those categories in the league, Duncan did in WS, BPM and VORP

[da_suns_fan]

You had a point?



Sure, but then Duncan's peak was longer, and was comparable.

I had no problem saying Shaq had a higher peak, never argued otherwise my argument was this:

If Shaq had a higher peak (in EVERY category) then Duncan has no business being above Shaq on any top ten list. When we talk about "greatest of all time" were not talking about consistency or longevity. If we were the list would like this:

1) Kareem
2) Karl Malone
3) Everyone else

No one cares that Duncan was good but not great for a long time. For two seasons Shaq obliterated the compe ion in a way we'd never seen. His 2001 season was a step down from his MVP 2000 year but once the playoffs started he simply hit the switch and no one had a chance. I'll never forget the hype of the Spurs/Lakers "showdown" of 2001. Both teams were undefeated going into WCF and the Spurs were convinced they were still the champs since (Duncan missed the previous year's playoffs).

Duncan and the Spurs lost the first two games at home and then lost games 3 & 4 by a combined 70 points.

And you think Duncan was "better"?

We've shown Shaq's numbers blow Duncan's away. We showed even in advanced stats Shaq's peak was higher in every category. In Shaq's peak they met two times in the playoffs and the Spurs managed to win one game. What would it possibly take to convince Spurs fans that Shaq was better? What could you POSSIBLY learn that might change your mind?

As I said before, I dont even think you guys REALLY believe it. I think you just want to believe it since he was on the Spurs and it makes you feel better about yourselves. But no ones buying it. You cant un-see what Shaq did.

[ambchang]

If Shaq had a higher peak (in EVERY category) then Duncan has no business being above Shaq on any top ten list. When we talk about "greatest of all time" were not talking about consistency or longevity. If we were the list would like this:

1) Kareem
2) Karl Malone
3) Everyone else

It's a combination of both, obviously. If it was just peak, then I have no problem saying Shaq/Lebron/Jordan/Kareem/Bird in that order as all time greats, but the it wasn't Longevity factors in, and that is why Shaq falls. His failures offset his peak somewhat, and his comparatively short dominance also gets into play.

Duncan was consistently excellent from 98 all the way till around 07/08, being an MVP candidate every one of those years, and leading the Spurs to 4 championships during that time. Shaq's peak was pretty much 99 to around 04.

No one cares that Duncan was good but not great for a long time. For two seasons Shaq obliterated the compe ion in a way we'd never seen. His 2001 season was a step down from his MVP 2000 year but once the playoffs started he simply hit the switch and no one had a chance. I'll never forget the hype of the Spurs/Lakers "showdown" of 2001. Both teams were undefeated going into WCF and the Spurs were convinced they were still the champs since (Duncan missed the previous year's playoffs).

Duncan was good not great? Then a lot of people were never great. Duncan was going head to head with Shaq as the best player in the league at that time, head to head against a player you said was so dominant he obliterated the compe ion in a way we'd never seen. Then of course, Shaq averaged 22 points per game in one of the series against the Spurs.

Duncan and the Spurs lost the first two games at home and then lost games 3 & 4 by a combined 70 points.

And you think Duncan was "better"?

And yet throughout their careers, Duncan outscored, outrebounded and outblocked Shaq in their h2hs.

We've shown Shaq's numbers blow Duncan's away. We showed even in advanced stats Shaq's peak was higher in every category. In Shaq's peak they met two times in the playoffs and the Spurs managed to win one game. What would it possibly take to convince Spurs fans that Shaq was better? What could you POSSIBLY learn that might change your mind?

So 99 and 03 were not Shaq's peak? I guess you just answered your own question about why Shaq was ranked lower, because a two year peak isn't really that long in NBA terms. You are cherry picking like crazy. Shaq didn't blow away Duncan's numbers at all.

As I said before, I dont even think you guys REALLY believe it. I think you just want to believe it since he was on the Spurs and it makes you feel better about yourselves. But no ones buying it. You cant un-see what Shaq did.

I think Shaq had a higher peak, no question, I just think Duncan had the better career and was the greater NBA player.

[djohn2oo8]

Like what?

You actually pointed me to the way that showed Duncan had a higher peak than Hakeem.

Thanks.

No you didn't. Advanced stats? So Chris Paul has better advanced stats than Duncan. Must mean he is better right?

[Killakobe81]

It's a combination of both, obviously. If it was just peak, then I have no problem saying Shaq/Lebron/Jordan/Kareem/Bird in that order as all time greats, but the it wasn't Longevity factors in, and that is why Shaq falls. His failures offset his peak somewhat, and his comparatively short dominance also gets into play.

Duncan was consistently excellent from 98 all the way till around 07/08, being an MVP candidate every one of those years, and leading the Spurs to 4 championships during that time. Shaq's peak was pretty much 99 to around 04.



Duncan was good not great? Then a lot of people were never great. Duncan was going head to head with Shaq as the best player in the league at that time, head to head against a player you said was so dominant he obliterated the compe ion in a way we'd never seen. Then of course, Shaq averaged 22 points per game in one of the series against the Spurs.



And yet throughout their careers, Duncan outscored, outrebounded and outblocked Shaq in their h2hs.



So 99 and 03 were not Shaq's peak? I guess you just answered your own question about why Shaq was ranked lower, because a two year peak isn't really that long in NBA terms. You are cherry picking like crazy. Shaq didn't blow away Duncan's numbers at all.



I think Shaq had a higher peak, no question, I just think Duncan had the better career and was the greater NBA player.

Shaq averaged 22 battling two HoF elite level defensive bigs ...or am I getting the year wrong?

[djohn2oo8]

Btw, Hakeem could defend every position...

[Thread]

...& he loved denying the Suns. Allah bless him.

[Killakobe81]

...& he loved denying the Suns. Allah bless him.

The semester of Thread

[ambchang]

No you didn't. Advanced stats? So Chris Paul has better advanced stats than Duncan. Must mean he is better right?

I didn't say I did something, I said you did something, and I thanked you for that.

And no, Chris Paul does not have better advanced stats than Duncan. Duncan had way better BPM, VORP and ORtg - DRtg figures.

Also, Chris paul never approached Duncan in playoffs advanced stats, which you also pointed me to review.

If it wasn't for you, I'd still be wallowing in my own ignorance of Hakeem's Peak > Duncan's Peak.

Thank you once again.

[ambchang]

Shaq averaged 22 battling two HoF elite level defensive bigs ...or am I getting the year wrong?

The year was right. So did Duncan, he battled against the Wallace brothers on two bad ankles.

[ambchang]

Btw, Hakeem could defend every position...

Duncan defended Mark Jackson, who was a PG, he defended PF and C on the regular as well.

Who did Hakeem defend at the PG, SG and SF positions?

[TD 21]

Only pussies & assholes blame injury.

Only Lakers fans pretend they don't play a role.

No. Curry has a ring AND got back to another finals (without injuries). Stop giving that lame ass excuse, teams have injuries every season. And so now you've moved on from advanced stats because I showed you Chris Paul has gaudy advanced stats...to using all star games as a criteria when Yao got voted in without even having to play a single game while he was injured

Rings - Duncan has had 2 probable Hall of Famers (Manu being the real MVP of that 2005 playoff run) to play with in his prime, and a hall of fame coach, as opposed to Hakeem, who was surrounded with crackheads who got banned from the league early in his career, and a brittle Sampson.

MVPs - Nash has two MVPs like Duncan. Must mean he's just as good as Duncan right?

It's funny how you left of DPOY awards, where Hakeem has 2 and Duncan has none. Picking and choosing awards I see...

If Paul had the same situation in '15, he'd have a ring too. But that doesn't change the fact that small guards can't have the same all around impact as dominant bigs.

I wasn't using antiquated/casual like All-Star appearances seriously. What I meant was, if you're going to use it, don't forget all the ones Duncan trumps Olajuwon in.

Popovich, Parker and to a lesser extent Ginobili (he'd have gotten in based on his international resume) are future Hall-of-Famers, in large part due to Duncan.

In the '05 Finals, he played with two sprained ankles against an all-time defensive front line. If the league changed Finals MVP to Playoff MVP, as they should, he'd have 5.

[djohn2oo8]

I didn't say I did something, I said you did something, and I thanked you for that.

And no, Chris Paul does not have better advanced stats than Duncan. Duncan had way better BPM, VORP and ORtg - DRtg figures.

Also, Chris paul never approached Duncan in playoffs advanced stats, which you also pointed me to review.

If it wasn't for you, I'd still be wallowing in my own ignorance of Hakeem's Peak > Duncan's Peak.

Thank you once again.

Paul's career win shares were higher than Duncan's. Paul's career high in win shares and WS/48 were higher than Duncan's career high. Paul's VORP best was higher than Duncan's. So your logic states that makes him better than Duncan. Unless you are picking and choosing which advanced stats you want to use...Because in another thread, you said playoff advanced stats didn't matter because they were only over a sample size of 20 games. So are you moving the goalposts again?

[djohn2oo8]

Oh and Paul's career high in BPM was higher than Duncan's best...So you are wrong again...Do those stats mean he is better than Tim?

[djohn2oo8]

Only Lakers fans pretend they don't play a role.



If Paul had the same situation in '15, he'd have a ring too. But that doesn't change the fact that small guards can't have the same all around impact as dominant bigs.

I wasn't using antiquated/casual like All-Star appearances seriously. What I meant was, if you're going to use it, don't forget all the ones Duncan trumps Olajuwon in.

Popovich, Parker and to a lesser extent Ginobili (he'd have gotten in based on his international resume) are future Hall-of-Famers, in large part due to Duncan.

In the '05 Finals, he played with two sprained ankles against an all-time defensive front line. If the league changed Finals MVP to Playoff MVP, as they should, he'd have 5.

Actually, Paul has had some stacked teams and done nothing with them. (see. Last second pass to Janero Pargo)

So in the same sentence you say you won't use all star game appearances seriously yet you do in the same paragraph.

And lastly, Ginobli was more efficient that entire playoff run, shooting the ball at least.

[apalisoc_9]

I just skimmed through this thread and I read Karl Malone in the same sentence as Kareem, Hakeem, TD...

Who's the dumbass that posted that ?

[TD 21]

Actually, Paul has had some stacked teams and done nothing with them. (see. Last second pass to Janero Pargo)

So in the same sentence you say you won't use all star game appearances seriously yet you do in the same paragraph.

And lastly, Ginobli was more efficient that entire playoff run, shooting the ball at least.

At inferring to the '08 Hornets as "stacked". Only a historically great (should have been MVP) season by Paul propped them up to near contender status.

He's never had a "stacked" team. The Clippers core four are excellent, but have lacked the requisite surrounding pieces.

Outside of '15 (and had the Thunder been healthy, this would be no exception), there was never a time his team should have made the WCF.

No, I never used them seriously. Somehow you don't get it, even though it couldn't be more basic.

Who needs advanced stats though? According to you, counting stats are the end all be all. In that case, Duncan averaged 24/12/3/2 compared to Ginobili's 21/6/4/1.

In any event, Duncan won a lone star le in '03 and aside from '99, never played with another clear top ten player on a championship team. Popovich was no one until Duncan made him who he is.

[djohn2oo8]

At inferring to the '08 Hornets as "stacked". Only a historically great (should have been MVP) season by Paul propped them up to near contender status.

He's never had a "stacked" team. The Clippers core four are excellent, but have lacked the requisite surrounding pieces.

Outside of '15 (and had the Thunder been healthy, this would be no exception), there was never a time his team should have made the WCF.

No, I never used them seriously. Somehow you don't get it, even though it couldn't be more basic.

Who needs advanced stats though? According to you, counting stats are the end all be all. In that case, Duncan averaged 24/12/3/2 compared to Ginobili's 21/6/4/1.

In any event, Duncan won a lone star le in '03 and aside from '99, never played with another clear top ten player on a championship team. Popovich was no one until Duncan made him who he is.

1. And they went 7 games with the Spurs....Then Paul passed off in the last seconds to Janero Pargo...

2. So Paul and Griffin aren't enough to guide their team to the WCF? That is godawful and honestly a pathetic excuse for why they haven't succeeded. Funny how you say there was never a time Paul's team should have made the WCF when they were up 22 on the Rockets in the 3rd quarter of a closeout game TO GET TO the WCF.

3. Duncan has played with 2 probable hall of famers in their prime, 2 all star level players who helped ease the burden on Duncan by ALOT...Duncan didn't make Parker who he is, Pop did.

[djohn2oo8]

Yet TD21 wants to ignore Pop doing this:

• Developing numerous young players into impactful starters (e.g. Stephen Jackson, Tiago Splitter, Kawhi Leonard, Tony Parker)
• Turning no-names and castoffs into contributors (e.g. Malik Rose, Bruce Bowen, Gary Neal, Danny Green)
• Extending the careers of veterans chasing a ring (e.g. Brent Barry, Michael Finley, Boris Diaw)

[ambchang]

Paul's career win shares were higher than Duncan's. Paul's career high in win shares and WS/48 were higher than Duncan's career high. Paul's VORP best was higher than Duncan's. So your logic states that makes him better than Duncan. Unless you are picking and choosing which advanced stats you want to use...Because in another thread, you said playoff advanced stats didn't matter because they were only over a sample size of 20 games. So are you moving the goalposts again?

144.1 > 206.4 now?

[ambchang]

Oh and Paul's career high in BPM was higher than Duncan's best...So you are wrong again...Do those stats mean he is better than Tim?

You do realize what BPM means, and that Paul is still in his prime and Duncan was way off his, right?

[djohn2oo8]

You do realize what BPM means, and that Paul is still in his prime and Duncan was way off his, right?

Yes or no question. Do those stats mean he was better than Tim?

[TD 21]

1. And they went 7 games with the Spurs....Then Paul passed off in the last seconds to Janero Pargo...

2. So Paul and Griffin aren't enough to guide their team to the WCF? That is godawful and honestly a pathetic excuse for why they haven't succeeded. Funny how you say there was never a time Paul's team should have made the WCF when they were up 22 on the Rockets in the 3rd quarter of a closeout game TO GET TO the WCF.

3. Duncan has played with 2 probable hall of famers in their prime, 2 all star level players who helped ease the burden on Duncan by ALOT...Duncan didn't make Parker who he is, Pop did.

Right, but they were never a real contender and the Clippers, although clearly better, haven't quite been either. Paul has never been on a top 2 team in the West, no matter how the standings read in '08 or the cir stances in '15. That doesn't absolve him from not making it in '15 though.


At "Pop making Parker who he is". Parker, Engelland and Forcier, made Parker the player he is, but Duncan made the championships possible (which led to a lot of his individual accolades). As good as Parker was, he's a future Hall-of-Famer based primarily on cir stance.

It's not a knock on Pop or the profession to say Duncan made him. Who the were Riley, Jackson and Belichick, etc., before Johnson, Abdul-Jabbar, Jordan and Brady? That's how it works.

[ambchang]

Yes or no question. Do those stats mean he was better than Tim?

Just the few cherry picked ones? Yes. He was indeed better than Duncan with those stats.

[djohn2oo8]

Look at amb go. They should call it ambchanging