Reply With Quote
7-27
when they were attempting to repeat:
2000 - DNP
2004:
.472FG, 20.6ppg, 12.3rpg, 3.3apg, 1.6blk
2nd option (Tony Parker):
.380FG, 16.6ppg, 6apg, 1.6stl
2006:
.555FG, 32.8ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.7apg, 2.57blk
2nd option (Manu Ginobili):
.488FG, 21.2ppg, 4.2rpg, 2rpg, 2.28stl
2008:
.425FG, 22.4ppg, 17.4rpg, 4.8apg, 2blk
2nd option (Manu was supposed to be the 2nd option, but since he was terrible in that series, I'll include Tony Parker's stats instead):
.476FG, 21.2ppg, 5.6apg, .80stl
Now for comparison's sake, let's take a look at Kobe Bryant and his "2nd option's" stats in the series where the Lakers repeated or were eliminated as they attempted to repeat.
2001:
.415FG, 24.6ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.8apg, 1.4stl
2nd option (Shaquille O'Neal):
.572FG, 33ppg, 15.8rpg, 4.8apg, 3.4blk
2002:
.505FG, 26.7ppg, 4.6rpg, 4.2apg, 1.5stl
2nd option (Shaq):
.596FG, 38.7ppg, 12.25rpg, 3.75apg, 2.75blk
2003:
.434FG, 32.3ppg, 5rpg, 3.5apg, .66stl
2nd option (Shaq):
.636FG, 25.1ppg, 14.3rpg, 3.6apg, 2.6blk
2010:
.408FG, 28.5ppg, 8rpg, 3.8apg, 2.14stl
2nd option (Pau Gasol):
.478FG, 18.6ppg, 11.6rpg, 3.7apg, 2.6blk
As you can see, Kobe Bryant was outplayed by his second option in every repeat campaign except the most recent, while Duncan, who gets criticized by the uneducated basketball fan for not being able to repeat, outplayed his second option in every series. Furthermore, when you compare Kobe's stats with Duncan's, they're relatively about equal (I can show with advanced stats that Duncan's stats are superior, but I know how we all hate advanced stats).
Do I think Duncan deserves some of the blame for not being able to repeat? Sure. If he plays up to his standards in '04, the Spurs get past the Lakers and have a shot against the Pistons for the O'Brien. But Tony Parker deserves considerably more criticism for playing outstanding basketball the first two games and then proceeding to disappear the last 4 games because he got mind ed by Phil Jackson's "pack-the-paint" defensive strategy.
On the other hand, when Kobe had a subpar series, his 2nd option always stepped up and either played near his season averages or raised his game beyond. Duncan never had that luxury.
That said, what I'm really trying to illuminate is the erroneous belief that a repeat, or even winning a championship, somehow adds to an individual player's legacy.
The media would like us to believe that, because they can take a player who has achieved every individual accomplishment possible (Jordan in '90, Lebron today) and wrap an interesting story line around the only thing he's failed to achieve. This leads to all sorts of hand wringing by whichever crew of talking heads are analyzing the situation, "Does he deserve a place among the all-time greats if he's never won a championship?" Dramatic discussion ensues and all the mouthbreathing fans who accept this kind of soundbite analysis as legitimate tune in en masse.
Truth be told, at the end of the day, championships are a team accomplishment, and no amount of clever advertising and insubstantial basketball analysis that celebrates and focuses on the individual player is going to change that fact.
7-27
Is that how many unsuspecting boys you were able to capture out of 27 at the Cluck Box?
tee, hee.
What the does that even mean?
lol @ anyone trying to claim Kobe is better than Duncan because of his "5 les." When the focal point of your team is putting up close to 40ppg 12rpbg 4apg and 3bpg, that is HIS team, his championship. It's insane to think how Duncan would've done over his career had he a player on his team who could average 40 in a series.2002:
.505FG, 26.7ppg, 4.6rpg, 4.2apg, 1.5stl
2nd option (Shaq):
.596FG, 38.7ppg, 12.25rpg, 3.75apg, 2.75blk
That means that your Duncan is no different than my Bryant if you piggyback Neal for rapist purposes.
Let's stay on topic. I know rape is perpetually on your mind (as it was that day when you were driving out to the Chuckbox), but that has nothing to do with the content of this thread.
What drags Duncan down is his chronic inability across the spectrum to repeat. But, he dwells there in that hole south of Oklahoma so he's got a soft seat and can relax and take it at his leisure. No repeat/No pressure/No repeat.
Let us proceed...
So John Havilcek > than Kobe Bryant?
You say that if Kobe wins 6 this year, we're gonna get down to brass tacks. Why? He'll still be 2 away from Hondo, and 5 away from Russell.
Christ, do you forget a f'in thing I say, Mid? You're like my gd mother-in-law.
My memory is a curse. I don't forget much, Cul.
So does this mean "outplaying the second option on your team" >>> repeating as champion?
I don't get it.
Regardless you guys must be made to pay dearly for Duncan's failure to repeat. It's only right and only proper that you be tortured this way off & on. Christ, just take your medicine and try and do better. When you had us down on the ground rubbing our face in our makings over Kobe's inability to ring/sans Daddy we rolled up our sleeves went to work and rang that bell. Now we're straightened out. Ipso facto, it can happen. But, you asshole, you:::you can't hitch your adorable ass to the Heat wagon and get Duncan off the repeat snide. One or the other, dummy.
Am I gettin' thru to ya, big fella?
No, it means how do you logically give credit to an individual player for a repeat when 7 to 10 other players have a significant influence on the outcome.
Say if the media was comparing two players, trying to determine who deserves superior all-time great status. All other things being equal between the two, however, Player A repeated, but his stats were a notch worse than Player B who won two les 4 years apart. Most likely the media, along with some of the idiot members of this forum, would automatically deem Player A the greater player because he repeated (even if Player A had the comparatively better team).
Do you think Kobe played better than Duncan in his respective repeat campaigns than Duncan did in his?
I'm simply trying to show how using team accomplishments to exalt an individual player is a fallacy.
You weren't anywhere to be found during that time. You only came around when you had the advantage of the Larry O backing you up.
Chicken , I say.
I was around just outcast, in the winds, nary a place to hang my hat. I couldn't get in anywhere. I was blackballed, it was a gentlemen's agreement type sitch. Then I sat down with Ellis Inc, and came in out of the cold.
Then don't give any individual player credit for winning championships period. Not even Jordan or Hakeem. It's a team sport and championships are team accomplishments. Even in 2003, Duncan didn't do it alone.
If your point is that Duncan was a more dominant no. 1 guy than Kobe has been, ok. Have that. So what? Do you think Duncan would care if he wasn't significantly more dominant than his "second option" if it means say two more championship rings? Do you think he was really hurt when Tony Parker won the Finals MVP in 2007?
Your act has gotten super stale. Seriously.
History remembers championship winners, not game or series statistics. There are some of us (myself included) who are hoops geeks that look deeper into the statistics of the games and playoff series. It still is just basically pointless rhetoric.Say if the media was comparing two players, trying to determine who deserves superior all-time great status. All other things being equal between the two, however, Player A repeated, but his stats were a notch worse than Player B who won two les 4 years apart. Most likely the media, along with some of the idiot members of this forum, would automatically deem Player A the greater player because he repeated (even if Player A had the comparatively better team).
Yes. Because Kobe's teams repeated. Duncan's didn't. Bottomline business.Do you think Kobe played better than Duncan in his respective repeat campaigns than Duncan did in his?
If we're just going by individual statistics, Tracy McGrady is one of the best playoff performers in the history of the game despite never playing beyond the first round. The point is winning, not "let's see how I can manipulate stats to praise the guy I root for and discredit the guy I dislike."
And it goes beyond what you posted anyway. I'll say this. If Duncan played with Shaq in his prime, Shaq still puts up 35+ PPG, 12 RPG and Duncan puts up around 20 PPG, 12 RPG. Shaq would have still significantly outplayed Duncan like he did Kobe. Shaq was that dominant.
Fine, back to the first point I made. Don't exalt any individual player for championships. None. Not Kobe. Not Duncan. Not Shaq. Not Jordan. Not Hakeem. Not Magic or Bird. None.I'm simply trying to show how using team accomplishments to exalt an individual player is a fallacy.
There's no "act" here. This is a legitimate thread, not a troll job. I in no way, shape, or form discredited Kobe. I simply pointed out that during the majority of his repeat attempts (which mostly wound up successful and are something that people, namely Lakers fans, use as ammunition when comparing the two players) he wasn't the best player on his team. I'm illuminating their failure to realize that (a) Duncan never had a "2nd option" as strong as Shaquille, and (b) that rings, as well as repeats, are a team accomplishment.
Who cares what "history remembers?" Just because something is accepted as "history," doesn't mean it's the truth. Are you going to let popular media, who manipulates, shapes, and rewrites history so that's it's compatible with whatever political, economic, or philosophical agenda they're selling, influence you to where you don't further investigate the issue at hand? It's not "just basically pointless rhetoric" if the evidence uncovers something meaningful.History remembers championship winners, not game or series statistics. There are some of us (myself included) who are hoops geeks that look deeper into the statistics of the games and playoff series. It still is just basically pointless rhetoric.
What evidence do you have to support that? The stats don't suggest that. Bottomline, they played about equal, and Kobe had the luxury of playing alongside one the greatest bigmen of all time, while Tim Duncan's second options were less than stellar.Yes. Because Kobe's teams repeated. Duncan's didn't. Bottomline business.
Not a valid comparison. McGrady's sample size is way too small. It's also worth mentioning that McGrady's second option was Gordon Giricek. Maybe if he had a player comparable to Shaquille, things would've turned out differently and those stats wouldn't be "empty."If we're just going by individual statistics, Tracy McGrady is one of the best playoff performers in the history of the game despite never playing beyond the first round. The point is winning, not "let's see how I can manipulate stats to praise the guy I root for and discredit the guy I dislike."
Yeah, and Duncan would be celebrated as a "repeat champion." Even being outplayed by Shaq, the "repeat" would add to his legacy, possibly vaulting him over such greats as Larry Bird, which would be undeserved. But since he "repeated," stats and his role within the team would be overlooked, the only focus being on the fact that he repeated and Larry didn't. This is the main crux of my argument (aside from my "rings are a team accomplishment" argument). How we gloss the details over, ignore the means, and only consider the end result.And it goes beyond what you posted anyway. I'll say this. If Duncan played with Shaq in his prime, Shaq still puts up 35+ PPG, 12 RPG and Duncan puts up around 20 PPG, 12 RPG. Shaq would have still significantly outplayed Duncan like he did Kobe. Shaq was that dominant.
I agree. When comparing individual players, we should consider what they accomplished on their own and not as part of a team.Fine, back to the first point I made. Don't exalt any individual player for championships. None. Not Kobe. Not Duncan. Not Shaq. Not Jordan. Not Hakeem. Not Magic or Bird. None.
Holy , it's crazy to look back at those numbers Shaq put up 10 years ago.
Damn, yet another "I'm threatened by Kobe's legacy" thread. Very original Mid. Kobe has had more help etc etc.
Answer this question: Has Tim Duncan ever played with anyone as good as Shaq?Damn, yet another "I'm threatened by Kobe's legacy" thread. Very original Mid. Kobe has had more help etc etc.
Player A .415FG, 24.6ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.8apg, 1.4stl
Player B .572FG, 33ppg, 15.8rpg, 4.8apg, 3.4blk
Who's team is it? If you take away the names it's pretty easy.
The other 2 championship years the disparity is even worse. So Kobe has 1 championship as the leaddog while Tim has 4.
Tim>>>>Kobe. Glad that's finally settled
Duncan: 4
Kobe: 5
That's it and that's all.
Havilcek: 8
Kobe: 5
That's it and that's all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
