Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1112131415161718192021
Results 401 to 420 of 420

Thread: 2008-2009 NBA Season

  1. #401
    Senior Member i_fotted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangs View Post
    Give it a rest guys. I'm sure Duncan deserves recognition but I'm not sure if he is better than Karl Malone or sir Chuck as a player. I'd say he is on par with them.

    Here are their career averages:
    --------Chuck-Malone-Duncan
    FG%--54.1----51.6------50.7
    FT%--73.5----74.2------68.5
    RPG--11.7----10.10-----11.7
    APG--3.9------3.6--------3.2
    SPG--1.54----1.41-------.8
    BPG--.83-------.70-------2.3
    PPG--22.1------25-------21.4

    Taken from the NBA official website.
    As you can see, the stats aren't that too far off. Duncan is better in BPG but the other two are better in SPG so that doesn't mean Duncan is better in defense. Also IMO, Chuck and Malone faced better opposition compared to Duncan.
    Heh, those defensive numbers doesn't mean jack squat. Barkley has always been known for his liability on the defensive end, and Karl Malone was an average defender throughout his career. Duncan, on the other hand is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, defensive forward in the history of the NBA and have been anchoring a top defensive team for the past decade.

    It amazes me how Duncan has not received a Defensive player of the year award yet. I imagined they would give him a random one in one of those years, but it never happened. He has been in the top 5 in Defensive player of the year voting every year and has been First or Second team ALL-defense every year he has been in the league(8 first team, 4 second team). Some of those Second Team honors were due to injuries.

    You are right, their numbers are comparable but their defense, which the stat sheet doesn't show, is not comparable. So their disparity on dense combined with Duncan's 4 rings and 3 finals MVP gives him the edge.

  2. #402
    Senior Member Bangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Home sweet home
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    When you say the stat sheet doesn't show his defense, I completely understand what you are saying. I play basketball myself on a regular basis so I know what you are getting into. Just causing an opponent's shot to miss is great defense, the stat sheets don't show that.

    Well you did get me on that one, still I do believe that Duncan doesn't trumph them both. If he does, its not by a landslide considering that I believe Chuck and Malone has better offensive moves than Duncan.

    EDIT: Also Duncan pretty much had less competition when he started winning. And both Chuck and Malone's SPG means they both get 1 or 2 steals a game, that's not really bad at all. It could be possible that if you were to swap either of them in their prime with Duncan during the times he won, they could have won too. That's just an if so don't bash me.
    Last edited by Bangs; 08-19-09 at 10:36 AM.

  3. #403
    Senior Member i_fotted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangs View Post
    When you say the stat sheet doesn't show his defense, I completely understand what you are saying. I play basketball myself on a regular basis so I know what you are getting into. Just causing an opponent's shot to miss is great defense, the stat sheets don't show that.

    Well you did get me on that one, still I do believe that Duncan doesn't trumph them both. If he does, its not by a landslide considering that I believe Chuck and Malone has better offensive moves than Duncan.

    EDIT: Also Duncan pretty much had less competition when he started winning. And both Chuck and Malone's SPG means they both get 1 or 2 steals a game, that's not really bad at all. It could be possible that if you were to swap either of them in their prime with Duncan during the times he won, they could have won too. That's just an if so don't bash me.
    Its obviously not a land slide when you are comparing the best to the second best, because I do believe Karl Malone is the second best PF ever and Chuck is in my top5 list. But if you look at it objectively, there is a clear distinction and an obvious winner(no pun intended).

    Malone's offensive numbers is a bit inflated due to playing almost his entire career next to Stockton, All-time assist leader and easily a top 5 PG of all time. Still, you can't deny his second place on the all time scoring list, his longevity, and durability was remarkable. Barkley, I can't deny has an edge on Duncan as far as offensive tools, but their huge disparity on defense cannot offset the slight edge he has on offense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangs View Post
    EDIT: Also Duncan pretty much had less competition when he started winning. And both Chuck and Malone's SPG means they both get 1 or 2 steals a game, that's not really bad at all. It could be possible that if you were to swap either of them in their prime with Duncan during the times he won, they could have won too. That's just an if so don't bash me.
    IMO, steals might be the most overrating statistic on the stat sheet. Some guys gamble more, others play better position defense. To say one guy has better defense because he gambles more is just silly. Stockton is the ALl-Time leader in steals, does that make him one of the best defensive player of all time? No.

    I have already said this but I don't mind saying it again. Using eras to discredit a great player's winning is a myth used to diminish their accomplishments. For every great Power Forward Barkley or Malone had to face(or any player for that matter) you name, I can name a player in Duncan's era worth comparing to. Don't forget Malone's era overlapped the beginning of the Duncan era and you have guys like Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Dwayne Wade, and Lebron James that(injuries aside, knock on wood) will eventually become an all time great.

    Winning 1 title is an accomplishment in its own, ask guys like Oscar, Wilt Chamberlain, or Jerry West. They didn't pick up their ring until they were at the tail end of their career. Duncan won 4 titles that expanded accross an entire decade with different casts.
    Last edited by i_fotted; 08-19-09 at 12:58 PM.

  4. #404
    Senior Member duguxiaojing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    (Why does it matter if they own his rights or not if he didn't play for them? If he didn't play how is he supposed to contribute which is the whole basis of the argument.)

    Sorry. Quote botton isn't working.
    It wasn't an argument against bird. The wiki article mentioned it because they said they had his rights earlier and the statement was used to explain that Bird had nothing to do with their failure.




    (No they did not revamp their roster because their main core remained the same. Dave Cowens, Maxwell, and Tiny Archibald were all there. Seriously, who cares if they added Gerald Henderson who gave them 6 points, 1 rebound, 1 assist per game or a 10th or 11th man on the bench?)


    They obviously had some chemistry and other issues the two seasons before. If not why else would they swap half their team twice? Again, like I stated before I am not arguing that Bird was not a huge factor, but stating that he made a 30 game team to an elite team without any other contributing factors is ridiculous. Basketball is a team game and one player can only do so much.



    (They lost their number 1 guy but they also added Caron Butler and Lamar Odom. Yea, Shaq was obviously better than those guys combined, but that wasn't the point. Put Duncan on that team and he'd at least carry them to the plyaoffs.)


    No. I don't think so. Not after they lost or traded 3 starters (malone,shaq and payton) and 2 guys in (fox, fisher) who had been a core part of the team from the start. Not after they forced out a coach who had so much influence. Not after their replacement HOF coach quite half way through the season because of health issues. And especially not if Duncan missed nearly 20 games and they needed a 46 game winning season to get into the playoffs. Caron was a good support player at best during that time..he did not become and allstar calibre player until 2 or 3 years later with the wiz. Adding two 15 ppg support players with Duncan the first year they are together does not equate to a playoff team.

    (Honestly man, those numbers are not close not to mention they are misleading, because you didn't include their field goal percentage. Yea, the scoring maybe somewhat close but Kobe takes about twice as manay shots. I'm pretty sure Kobe's FG% decreased in the playoffs especially in the finals where he has had some awful games. Shaq on the other hand played his best ball on the biggest stage. Those 3 finals MVP were no fluke.)


    Shaq has one of the highest FG% in nba history and owns the record for most seasons as the FG% leader (tied with wilt) and consecutive leader per year. Kobe is a career 45% guy...obviously shaq would have the better FG%. ....That does not change the fact that Kobe contributed nearly as much offensively. Shaq averaged only what 0.5 to 2 points more in the last two seasons? You can't explain the whole thing off by throwing up their FG%. While Kobe at times did play outside of the offense, there were many times where they needed Kobe to take over, as dumping the ball down to shaq and having shaq kick it out when doubled is pretty predictable.


    (Man, Shaq was clearly the first option on all those Lakers team. I don't know how you argue otherwise. Their game plan was pretty simple, dump the ball into Shaq and let him dunk on someone or let him get triple team then kick it out to a shooter. Kobe was the primary second option. )



    Again, it's not as simple as you make it out. If all the Lakers had to do was dump it into shaq for a 60% chance of making a bucket every play, you don't think that a coach of Jackson's talent would have done so? Shaq had troubles against teams with a big body centre and either a strong help defender and or quick long arm wings who could come in to double and then recover after the kick out. That's why the Lakers had a more diffcult time against the trailblazers, spurs and kings then any team they played in the finals (pacers, 76ers, nets).

    The first season aside (I already coincided that shaq was the definite first option the firs season) there were series where Kobe was needed take over the offense and either setup shaq or take over the reigns as the primary option. Outside of Kobe the Lakers did not have another player who could consistently create their own shot. (Fox, Horry, Fish, George) That's why they were always searching for that new third option (rice, richmond, rider) which never really worked out. This is reflected in their ppg averages which is near identical and should not be ignored.

    The Shaq and Kobe combo was different from nearly every other championchip winnning combo in nba history in that both players were so close to one another skill wise. It was not like the bulls (Jordan >pippen, kukok), lakers (Magic> worthy, Kareem) or celtics (bird>>Mchale, Parish) case where one superstar was clearly the best player and first option on the team.


    Furthermore, I will bring up the point again about Kobe being the primary option when the game was close or tied. Shaq's freethrow problems pretty much elimiated him as a viable option. Honestly, how many times have you seen shaq score the game winning bucket after a set play (stealing an inbounds pass and duncking dont count). I can remember exactly one vs utah back in 96 or 97, where he threw a jump hook over ostretags out stretched arms.

    Kobe on the other hand was pretty much guranteed to ball to either setup or take the game winners. Coupled with what Kobe did for the teams defensively for the team, I would defenitly say that Kobe contributed nearly as much to those titles as shaq...certainly more than what you would call a "coat tailer rider."



    whooaa...honestly it's been fun but i'm tired out lol..and to be honest I doubt that we will change each other's opinion if we went on another 20 pages..here just to restate:


    kobe has what? (sorry again you cant take these 4 rings away from him especially if you condiser what he contributed)

    4 rings
    1 Mvp
    1 finals mvp
    (7-8 all nba first team =2-3 second or third teams combined)
    ( 7-8 all nba defensive team)
    2? scoring titles

    and he is 30 atm..(soon 2 be 31! =P)

    He is arguably the most unstoppable scorer in nba history+ one of the best lock down defenders in nba history when he wants to be.

    I think you could at least make a debate that he is top 10 calibre. I still disagree with your statements that kobe is not even close to goat, should not be on anyones list and that their are 10 guys who are unquestionably better than kobe.

    The fact that we have been debating for this long + their are 3-4 other guys who do not agree with you in the last few pages is proof enough that its debatable.....Brian Shaw = non debatable top 10, Jason Kidd = still not debatable
    Isain Thomas = getting closer but not quite there.....Kobe Bryant = definatley debatable and already on alot of people's list.
    Last edited by duguxiaojing; 08-19-09 at 12:44 PM.
    wow..04-08....4 years just like that..time flies..

  5. #405
    Senior Member duguxiaojing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Oh, and while it may seem like im just some kobe jocker strap sniffer lol...i'm far from a kobe fan. I'm a Lakers fan whose greatest dream is either Kobe gets traded for Lebron or shaq comes back and wins another title wit LA when his contracts up in 2010.

    Shaq is my favorite player and has been since he pulled down that back board vs Knicks back in his rookie season. In fact, I didnt forgive kobe for breaking up my dynasty until they won he title this year (im sure he was losing sleep at night knowing that I hated him lol)..

    But I watched the bling dynasty days and despite what I think of him personally you can't deny what he did for those teams and how talented the guy is.
    wow..04-08....4 years just like that..time flies..

  6. #406
    Senior Member i_fotted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duguxiaojing View Post
    (Why does it matter if they own his rights or not if he didn't play for them? If he didn't play how is he supposed to contribute which is the whole basis of the argument.)

    Sorry. Quote botton isn't working.
    It wasn't an argument against bird. The wiki article mentioned it because they said they had his rights earlier and the statement was used to explain that Bird had nothing to do with their failure.




    (No they did not revamp their roster because their main core remained the same. Dave Cowens, Maxwell, and Tiny Archibald were all there. Seriously, who cares if they added Gerald Henderson who gave them 6 points, 1 rebound, 1 assist per game or a 10th or 11th man on the bench?)


    They obviously had some chemistry and other issues the two seasons before. If not why else would they swap half their team twice? Again, like I stated before I am not arguing that Bird was not a huge factor, but stating that he made a 30 game team to an elite team without any other contributing factors is ridiculous. Basketball is a team game and one player can only do so much.



    (They lost their number 1 guy but they also added Caron Butler and Lamar Odom. Yea, Shaq was obviously better than those guys combined, but that wasn't the point. Put Duncan on that team and he'd at least carry them to the plyaoffs.)


    No. I don't think so. Not after they lost or traded 3 starters (malone,shaq and payton) and 2 guys in (fox, fisher) who had been a core part of the team from the start. Not after they forced out a coach who had so much influence. Not after their replacement HOF coach quite half way through the season because of health issues. And especially not if Duncan missed nearly 20 games and they needed a 46 game winning season to get into the playoffs. Caron was a good support player at best during that time..he did not become and allstar calibre player until 2 or 3 years later with the wiz. Adding two 15 ppg support players with Duncan the first year they are together does not equate to a playoff team.

    (Honestly man, those numbers are not close not to mention they are misleading, because you didn't include their field goal percentage. Yea, the scoring maybe somewhat close but Kobe takes about twice as manay shots. I'm pretty sure Kobe's FG% decreased in the playoffs especially in the finals where he has had some awful games. Shaq on the other hand played his best ball on the biggest stage. Those 3 finals MVP were no fluke.)


    Shaq has one of the highest FG% in nba history and owns the record for most seasons as the FG% leader (tied with wilt) and consecutive leader per year. Kobe is a career 45% guy...obviously shaq would have the better FG%. ....That does not change the fact that Kobe contributed nearly as much offensively. Shaq averaged only what 0.5 to 2 points more in the last two seasons? You can't explain the whole thing off by throwing up their FG%. While Kobe at times did play outside of the offense, there were many times where they needed Kobe to take over, as dumping the ball down to shaq and having shaq kick it out when doubled is pretty predictable.


    (Man, Shaq was clearly the first option on all those Lakers team. I don't know how you argue otherwise. Their game plan was pretty simple, dump the ball into Shaq and let him dunk on someone or let him get triple team then kick it out to a shooter. Kobe was the primary second option. )



    Again, it's not as simple as you make it out. If all the Lakers had to do was dump it into shaq for a 60% chance of making a bucket every play, you don't think that a coach of Jackson's talent would have done so? Shaq had troubles against teams with a big body centre and either a strong help defender and or quick long arm wings who could come in to double and then recover after the kick out. That's why the Lakers had a more diffcult time against the trailblazers, spurs and kings then any team they played in the finals (pacers, 76ers, nets).

    The first season aside (I already coincided that shaq was the definite first option the firs season) there were series where Kobe was needed take over the offense and either setup shaq or take over the reigns as the primary option. Outside of Kobe the Lakers did not have another player who could consistently create their own shot. (Fox, Horry, Fish, George) That's why they were always searching for that new third option (rice, richmond, rider) which never really worked out. This is reflected in their ppg averages which is near identical and should not be ignored.

    The Shaq and Kobe combo was different from nearly every other championchip winnning combo in nba history in that both players were so close to one another skill wise. It was not like the bulls (Jordan >pippen, kukok), lakers (Magic> worthy, Kareem) or celtics (bird>>Mchale, Parish) case where one superstar was clearly the best player and first option on the team.


    Furthermore, I will bring up the point again about Kobe being the primary option when the game was close or tied. Shaq's freethrow problems pretty much elimiated him as a viable option. Honestly, how many times have you seen shaq score the game winning bucket after a set play (stealing an inbounds pass and duncking dont count). I can remember exactly one vs utah back in 96 or 97, where he threw a jump hook over ostretags out stretched arms.

    Kobe on the other hand was pretty much guranteed to ball to either setup or take the game winners. Coupled with what Kobe did for the teams defensively for the team, I would defenitly say that Kobe contributed nearly as much to those titles as shaq...certainly more than what you would call a "coat tailer rider."



    whooaa...honestly it's been fun but i'm tired out lol..and to be honest I doubt that we will change each other's opinion if we went on another 20 pages..here just to restate:


    kobe has what? (sorry again you cant take these 4 rings away from him especially if you condiser what he contributed)

    4 rings
    1 Mvp
    1 finals mvp
    (7-8 all nba first team =2-3 second or third teams combined)
    ( 7-8 all nba defensive team)
    2? scoring titles

    and he is 30 atm..(soon 2 be 31! =P)

    He is arguably the most unstoppable scorer in nba history+ one of the best lock down defenders in nba history when he wants to be.

    I think you could at least make a debate that he is top 10 calibre. I still disagree with your statements that kobe is not even close to goat, should not be on anyones list and that their are 10 guys who are unquestionably better than kobe.

    The fact that we have been debating for this long + their are 3-4 other guys who do not agree with you in the last few pages is proof enough that its debatable.....Brian Shaw = non debatable top 10, Jason Kidd = still not debatable
    Isain Thomas = getting closer but not quite there.....Kobe Bryant = definatley debatable and already on alot of people's list.
    I don't want to quote/post your this post because it gave me a headache reading it, lol. I will say a few things.

    Just because Kobe has the ball at the end of the game doesn't make him a first option. Usually, the guy that has the best chance to create a shot opportunity will get the ball and that guy is Kobe for the Lakers.

    Let me give you a few examples. The Rockets used Vernon Maxwell in game closing moments, does that make him the first option or better than Hakeem? The Spurs use Manu Ginobli for final possessions, and when he is injured they used ROger Mason Jr. Does that make him a first option and comparable to Duncan? Is Aaron Brooks better than Yao?

    There are many reasons why you don't want to give the ball to your big man in the final seconds for obvious reasons. They are inferior ball handlers, all defenders will clog up the lane taking away easy baskets, and makes it virtually impossible to dumb it down low. Freethrow shooting, etc.

  7. #407
    Senior Member i_fotted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duguxiaojing View Post
    Oh, and while it may seem like im just some kobe jocker strap sniffer lol...i'm far from a kobe fan. I'm a Lakers fan whose greatest dream is either Kobe gets traded for Lebron or shaq comes back and wins another title wit LA when his contracts up in 2010.

    Shaq is my favorite player and has been since he pulled down that back board vs Knicks back in his rookie season. In fact, I didnt forgive kobe for breaking up my dynasty until they won he title this year (im sure he was losing sleep at night knowing that I hated him lol)..

    But I watched the bling dynasty days and despite what I think of him personally you can't deny what he did for those teams and how talented the guy is.
    Honestly, I find this hard to believe. Anyone who has watched the Lakers from 2000-2002 knows the reason why they got those titles, and that reason is not Kobe.

  8. #408
    Senior Member duguxiaojing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Okay...final post this time I swear lol...


    don't want to quote/post your this post because it gave me a headache reading it, lol. I will say a few things.

    Just because Kobe has the ball at the end of the game doesn't make him a first option. Usually, the guy that has the best chance to create a shot opportunity will get the ball and that guy is Kobe for the Lakers.

    Let me give you a few examples. The Rockets used Vernon Maxwell in game closing moments, does that make him the first option or better than Hakeem? The Spurs use Manu Ginobli for final possessions, and when he is injured they used ROger Mason Jr. Does that make him a first option and comparable to Duncan? Is Aaron Brooks better than Yao?

    There are many reasons why you don't want to give the ball to your big man in the final seconds for obvious reasons. They are inferior ball handlers, all defenders will clog up the lane taking away easy baskets, and makes it virtually impossible to dumb it down low. Freethrow shooting, etc.

    Completely different situation as Kobe was the primary option against certain teams. And again...the point differntial between both player the final two season and during playoffs was around (.5 and 2 points). And even a guy like Ginobili is clearly not as good as Duncan. The same could not be said about Kobe.


    Honestly, I find this hard to believe. Anyone who has watched the Lakers from 2000-2002 knows the reason why they got those titles, and that reason is not Kobe.

    Wow that's a pretty ignorant/arrogant statement. Last time I checked their were other basketball fans other than yourself who did watch their reign...and their opinion is just as good as yours. I watched it..im sure the other people on this board who argued against you watched it....again from the realgm board I looked at their were a wack of people who had Kobe in the top 10...im sure at least some of them watched it....and we all disagree with you.

    Heck slam magazines new top 50 list which was put together by a bunch of their editors (like lang and scoop) already had kobe at 12 before he won his fourth title. I guarantee that if they put out a list this month Kobe would definitely be top 10....not saying their list is the be all end all, but again a lot of these guys are professional analyst (espn...ect and yes I am sure that they did watch the season and are just as qualified as you to make an informed judgement)...so please....just because you believe Kobe isn't anywhere near top 10 contention does not mean there are alot of people who believe otherwise.
    Last edited by duguxiaojing; 08-19-09 at 01:53 PM.
    wow..04-08....4 years just like that..time flies..

  9. #409
    Senior Member i_fotted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duguxiaojing View Post
    Okay...final post this time I swear lol...





    Completely different situation as Kobe was the primary option against certain teams. And again...the point differntial between both player the final two season and during playoffs was around (.5 and 2 points). And even a guy like Ginobili is clearly not as good as Duncan. The same could not be said about Kobe.





    Wow that's a pretty ignorant/arrogant statement. Last time I checked their were other basketball fans other than yourself who did watch their reign...and their opinion is just as good as yours. I watched it..im sure the other people on this board who argued against you watched it....again from the realgm board I looked at their were a wack of people who had Kobe in the top 10...im sure at least some of them watched it....and we all disagree with you.

    Heck slam magazines new top 50 list which was put together by a bunch of their editors (like lang and scoop) already had kobe at 12 before he won his fourth title. I guarantee that if they put out a list this month Kobe would definitely be top 10....not saying their list is the be all end all, but again a lot of these guys are professional analyst (espn...ect and yes I am sure that they did watch the season and are just as qualified as you to make an informed judgement)...so please....just because you believe Kobe isn't anywhere near top 10 contention does not mean there are alot of people who believe otherwise.
    Again you bring up point differential without supplying field goal percentages and if you do some research you will find that Kobe's career final's performance left nothing to be desired. His FG% goes down significantly in the finals as he has been known to force he issue and take horrible shots. The Lakers demise in the 2004 finals could be greatly contributed to Kobe's selfishness.

    Slam magazine is garbage, and there is something in this world call marketing. Kobe is the hot stuff right now so its very marketable to hype him and undermine other greats in the past. Its easy to make Jordan comparisons. Everyone loves it so why not?

  10. #410
    Senior Member Bangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Home sweet home
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post
    Malone's offensive numbers is a bit inflated due to playing almost his entire career next to Stockton, All-time assist leader and easily a top 5 PG of all time. Still, you can't deny his second place on the all time scoring list, his longevity, and durability was remarkable. Barkley, I can't deny has an edge on Duncan as far as offensive tools, but their huge disparity on defense cannot offset the slight edge he has on offense.
    I agree on everything except Malone's stats getting inflated. You see if Malone wasn't good enough as a finisher, Stockton wouldn't be the all time assist leader. I believe their game complemented each other so well that they both benefitted from it, Malone is very consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post
    IMO, steals might be the most overrating statistic on the stat sheet. Some guys gamble more, others play better position defense. To say one guy has better defense because he gambles more is just silly. Stockton is the ALl-Time leader in steals, does that make him one of the best defensive player of all time? No.
    Its not overrated, stealing is part of defending. If you can do it well, it means you are a good defender. I do agree that stealing is not everything in defense, playing good defense in basketball involves mind reading, you have to anticipate where the opponent wants to go and what he intends to do. You have to be able to limit his options, make him go where you want him to not where he wants to. Anticipation is a key ability in basketball, knowing where, what, and when will help you position yourself and deal with the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post
    I have already said this but I don't mind saying it again. Using eras to discredit a great player's winning is a myth used to diminish their accomplishments. For every great Power Forward Barkley or Malone had to face(or any player for that matter) you name, I can name a player in Duncan's era worth comparing to. Don't forget Malone's era overlapped the beginning of the Duncan era and you have guys like Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Dwayne Wade, and Lebron James that(injuries aside, knock on wood) will eventually become an all time great.
    This is the reason why we can't really compare greats from different eras. If you replace Chuck or Malone with prime Duncan during the times they went up against MJ's Bulls in the finals, do you think Duncan can lead those teams to a championship? There is no way to know. Those two had to face Michael Jordan, widely accepted as the greatest player of all time.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post
    Winning 1 title is an accomplishment in its own, ask guys like Oscar, Wilt Chamberlain, or Jerry West. They didn't pick up their ring until they were at the tail end of their career. Duncan won 4 titles that expanded accross an entire decade with different casts.
    Who did Duncan face during his finals run?
    1999 Knicks - Old Ewing, Johnson, Sprewell. Spurs won 4-1.
    2003 Nets - Kidd, Old Mutombo. Spurs won 4-2.
    2005 Pistons - stacked. Spurs won 4-3.
    2007 Cavs - Lebron. Spurs won 4-0.
    You see the only finals Duncan's team didn't breeze through was the 2005 Detroit Pistons which was stacked with superstars but so are the Spurs. That NJ Nets in 2003 winning 2 games of the finals was a fluke, other than that the Spurs blew them away.

    Also Duncan himself is going past his prime now, I really don't think the Spurs will get another title anytime soon. The competition is stacked at this point.

    I hope you don't think I'm hating on Duncan. I like him a lot, he is an unselfish team player. I do believe he is one of the greatest PFs ever.
    Last edited by Bangs; 08-20-09 at 11:58 AM.

  11. #411
    Moderator Ken Cheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    24,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangs View Post
    pare greats from different eras. If you replace Chuck or Malone with prime Duncan during the times they went up against MJ's Bulls in the finals, do you think Duncan can lead those teams to a championship? There is no way to know. Those two had to face Michael Jordan, widely accepted as the greatest player of all time.
    Even before that, Malone had to contend with Magic's Lakers during the 1980s and Barkley (during his 76ers years) with Bird's Celtics. Malone and Barkley had the misfortune of having their championship paths cross time and again with the three best players of the 1980s and 1990s.

  12. #412
    Senior Member i_fotted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangs View Post

    This is the reason why we can't really compare greats from different eras. If you replace Chuck or Malone with prime Duncan during the times they went up against MJ's Bulls in the finals, do you think Duncan can lead those teams to a championship? There is no way to know. Those two had to face Michael Jordan, widely accepted as the greatest player of all time.
    This really contradicts your argument. You are the ones comparing Duncan's competition against Malone and Barkley's competition. I simply stated that there are great players in every era and I think that argument does not hold water. There is currently at least 10 players in the NBA that would crack the top 50 GOAT list. There maybe even more if I count guys like Lebron, Dwight, or Wade, or Paul but I chose not to include them because I don't think its fair to put them there yet.

    If you can't compare them using hypothetical situations then the only thing you have is statistics and accolades. Duncan has them beat if you look at it objectively. Duncan, follow by Malone. Chuck really isn't close IMO. I have him at 5th.

  13. #413
    Moderator Ken Cheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    24,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post
    This really contradicts your argument. You are the ones comparing Duncan's competition against Malone and Barkley's competition. I simply stated that there are great players in every era and I think that argument does not hold water.
    It does if you look beyond the obvious superstars and consider who else manned some of those teams that Malone's and Barkley's teams ran into during the 1980s and 1990s.

    Note: I use 1985 as a starting year because I believe that's the first year that both Barkley and Malone were in the NBA. The second of the two years is the last year that that franchise won an NBA Championship during the relevant era (circa 1985-1998)

    Los Angeles Lakers (1985-1989)

    Magic Johnson
    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
    James Worthy
    Byron Scott
    Kurt Rambis
    Michael Cooper
    A.C. Green
    Mychal Thompson

    Boston Celtics (1985-1987)

    Larry Bird
    Kevin McHale
    Robert Parish
    Dennis Johnson
    Danny Ainge

    Detroit Pistons (1985-1990)

    Isiah Thomas
    Joe Dumars
    Dennis Rodman
    Bill Laimbeer
    Adrian Dantley
    Mark Aguirre
    Vinnie Johnson
    James Edwards

    Chicago Bulls (1991-1998)*

    *Outlier because this team started its period of domination during the 1990s rather than the 1980s.

    Michael Jordan
    Scottie Pippen
    Horace Grant
    Dennis Rodman
    Toni Kukoc
    Steve Kerr

    Where you need to look is beyond the first-tier players. In addition to the obvious Hall of Famers and All-Stars, these teams featured some of the best supporting players the NBA has ever seen. Michael Cooper came off the bench for the Lakers. People forget how Danny Ainge often turned the tide in big games for the Celtics. No titles for Isiah Thomas without such bulwarks of strength as Bill Laimbeer and James Edwards. Beyond Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen and even Dennis Rodman, the Bulls had sharpshooters such as Steve Kerr and John Paxson and one of Europe's best players, Toni Kukoc, coming off the bench.

    Not only did the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls have great Hall of Famers, but their *supporting* players were more awesome than we've seen in most conference finalists' lineups during the 1999-2007 period mostly dominated by the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the Duncan Spurs. Many of the opposing teams for both the Lakers and Spurs weren't that deep beyond their obvious stars (nor were the Lakers or Spurs themselves, really; depth was a big problem for most teams until recently).

    The best competition the Lakers and Spurs had during the 2000s was mostly each other (although the Lakers had some classic clashes with the Blazers and Kings as well). The NBA Finals opponents for both teams during this past decade have been...meh (except 2008's Celtics, who really were a powerhouse).

  14. #414
    Senior Member Bangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Home sweet home
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post
    Even before that, Malone had to contend with Magic's Lakers during the 1980s and Barkley (during his 76ers years) with Bird's Celtics. Malone and Barkley had the misfortune of having their championship paths cross time and again with the three best players of the 1980s and 1990s.
    This is only half true, Malone only played half of that decade.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post
    This really contradicts your argument. You are the ones comparing Duncan's competition against Malone and Barkley's competition. I simply stated that there are great players in every era and I think that argument does not hold water. There is currently at least 10 players in the NBA that would crack the top 50 GOAT list. There maybe even more if I count guys like Lebron, Dwight, or Wade, or Paul but I chose not to include them because I don't think its fair to put them there yet.

    If you can't compare them using hypothetical situations then the only thing you have is statistics and accolades. Duncan has them beat if you look at it objectively. Duncan, follow by Malone. Chuck really isn't close IMO. I have him at 5th.
    I said we can't REALLY compare, I didn't say we couldn't. We can take facts and form a realistic result, that's the best we can do. But that in itself remains just a speculation, we can't prove it.

    Duncan played about at the same time Kobe played, that is his era. Duncan is one of the greatest PFs if not the greatest PF, I do believe that. But it is also true and safe to say he didn't face better competition than Malone or Barkley. Take note I said "better", I didn't say he didn't face any competion. Of course every era has its superstars, but the level of competition for each era is not the same.

  15. #415
    Senior Member i_fotted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Kent,

    Lol@ Steve Kerr. Come on man, that's ridiculous. I can't believe you name dropped Steve Kerr. It wouldn't be as ridiculous if you had said Ron Harper or BJ armstrong, but you said Steve Kerr. Jesus, that guy sucks.

    Like, I understand you are overrating these role players to support your argument but Steve Kerr is really stretching it. I know exactly how good AC Green or Danny Aigne is. They are role players that stand out because they have rings. They are your Robert Horry or Derek Fisher of this era. They are fine role players, but without superstars that carry them to titles, you won't know who they are. It really wasn't necessary for you to name drop those role players.

    Man, you named a bunch of Eastern Conference teams and the Lakers. Are you making a case for Malone or Charles? You can't have it both ways. Malone's career lasted so long and went through so many different eras, he obviously had to face a wider range of players. How often does Karl Malone had to go through Larry Bird or Isaih Thomas? How do they effect his chances of winning a title(which is the basis of your argument)?

    Has your argument been turned to the Malone/Barkley era have better role players? If this is the case, I'll just concede.
    Last edited by i_fotted; 08-20-09 at 09:42 PM.

  16. #416
    Moderator Ken Cheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    24,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post
    Kent,

    Lol@ Steve Kerr. Come on man, that's ridiculous. I can't believe you name dropped Steve Kerr. It wouldn't be as ridiculous if you had said Ron Harper or BJ armstrong, but you said Steve Kerr. Jesus, that guy sucks.
    Steve Kerr was not versatile, but what he did do well, he did *extremely* well. He's the player that the current Lakers wish Sasha ("The Machine") Vujavic could be. Many times in crucial junctures for the Chicago Bulls when Michael Jordan wasn't available (foul trouble, need for rest time, etc.), the Bulls didn't need to pay too badly for MJ having to take five or six minutes out of the game because Kerr would stroke consecutive three-pointers to keep the opposition honest. Kerr did for the Bulls what Fisher does for the Lakers, except I think Kerr was more reliable. I've seen Fisher brick many open shots; Kerr didn't put up many bricks. The guy was money when MJ and the Bulls needed him to be.

    I know exactly how good AC Green or Danny Aigne is. They are role players that stand out because they have rings.
    AC was kind of two-dimensional. He was a tough defender, solid rebounder, very good on the break (which is necessary when you're playing with Magic Johnson), and one of the best hustle-players I've ever seen in any sport. He didn't have much of a jump shot (although he was surprisingly accurate from fifteen feet directly in front of the basket with this awkward, almost comical-looking shot). Still, if I had to pick between a young AC Green and a Rick Fox at the same age, I think I'd take AC over Fox. AC was more reliable game-to-game.

    Danny Ainge, however, was just an awesome bench relief player. He was sort of like a "Larry Bird Lite." Not nearly as great as the real Larry, of course, but when Larry had to rest or had to sit out with foul trouble, Ainge was pretty effective in bringing to the Celtics the same kind of game that Larry did...albeit at not quite so high a level. I'll never forget how, in his post-Celtics years, Ainge (as a member of the Portland Trailblazers) led an overtime blitz that allowed the Blazers to win one of their only two games in the 1992 NBA Finals series against MJ and the Bulls. That was an older Ainge too...a little past his prime from the Celtics days.

    I hated that punk (Ainge), but he was one hell of a mofo on the court. I used to hate seeing him step on the floor because it usually meant problems for the Lakers.


    They are your Robert Horry or Derek Fisher of this era. They are fine role players, but without superstars that carry them to titles, you won't know who they are. It really wasn't necessary for you to name drop those role players.

    The difference between the role players that we saw during the 1980s and early 1990s and those we see today is consistency. During the 1980s, I saw guys such as Green, Rambis, Ainge, etc., deliver game after game after game. They hardly ever totally had completely stinko games in which they contributed nothing of value to their team, and if they did, you could bet the farm that they'd make up for it with an extraordinarily good next game.

    In contrast, guys like Horry and Fisher have their moments, but it's often punctuated by long periods of relative mediocrity. There've been long stretches between heroics wherein Horry and Fisher (and the like) kind of just disappear from the game...something that didn't happen as often with the 1980s and early 1990s role players.

    Man, you named a bunch of Eastern Conference teams and the Lakers. Are you making a case for Malone or Charles? You can't have it both ways. Malone's career lasted so long and went through so many different eras, he obviously had to face a wider range of players.
    Malone was with Utah for all but one season of his career, from 1985 to 2003. From 1985 - 1991, it was either the Lakers or the very potent and deep Seattle Supersonics, Portland Trailblazers, or Houston Rockets who thwarted him and John Stockton (for a long, long time, the Jazz were just those two guys deep...and maybe that Frankenstein monster of a center named Mark Eaton that they had for a few years who used to give Kareem Abdul-Jabbar nightmares). As for Barkley, he started his career with the 76ers, which means that Bird's Celtics or Isiah's Pistons got in his way often. In '93, he moved out west to the Suns, and they had a pretty potent team with Kevin Johnson, Dan Majerle, Tom Chambers, and others, but that team fell to MJ's Bulls. By the time that Barkley joined the Rockets in the late-1990s, Olajuwon was past his prime, and Barkley and Pippen had chemistry problems that prevented their team from gelling.

    Barkey, Olajuwon, and Pippen...sounds like an all-time great frontcourt. It would have been had each player been about three to five years younger than they actually were when they got together on the Rockets.

    How often does Karl Malone had to go through Larry Bird or Isaih Thomas? How do they effect his chances of winning a title(which is the basis of your argument?
    Malone never had to face Bird or Isiah in the playoffs, but he faced Magic's Lakers when the latter was peaking. After the Lakers fell into decline, the Jazz had to go up against teams like the very deep Clyde Drexler/Kevin Duckworth/Terry Porter/Clifford Robinson Blazers and Hakeem's Rockets (and Hakeem was a beast during the mid-1990s). When the Jazz finally broke through all those obstacles, *then* they ran into MJ's Bulls.

    Not the easiest path to the championship...probably harder than most of Duncan's, anyway.

    Has your argument been turned to the Malone/Barkley era have better role players? If this is the case, I'll just concede.
    That's exactly what I'm arguing. The best role players of the 1980s and 1990s might be star players on some of today's good teams. The 2008 Lakers who got so badly beaten by the Celtics could have used a Kurt Rambis or an AC Green...or even a Steve Kerr to draw defenses away from Kobe.

  17. #417
    Member ChuckC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Irvine
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by i_fotted View Post

    Like I have mentioned before, last year was a huge year for Kobe's legacy. After he won it all last year, he immediately jumped in everyone's poll and deservedly so but top10 is really stretching it IMO. My top 10 is pretty solid.

    1. Michael Jordan
    2. Wilt Chamberlain
    3. Bill Russel
    4. Kareem Abdul Jabar
    5. Magic Johnson
    6. Larry Bird
    7. Oscar Robertson
    8. Tim Duncan
    9. Shaq
    10. Hakeem Olajuwon
    Well I definitely view sports through a different lens. Your list is basically a top 10 finals MVP award winners list. Mine wouldn't differ super drastically because those are all prototype players, but I would put Kobe in the top 10, certainly above Hakeem Olajuwon. MVP Finals MVP-centric ranking is fine in and of itself, but it doesn't leave room for any real discussion outside of those specific stats -- like you suggested, it's rigid and rock SOLID. Therefore, other types of sports-defining talent like Dr. J and Kobe are being left out of the picture.

    I prefer a more evolutionary viewpoint... Identify prototypical players, then study the branching until you identify other worthy archetypes. It's not really a ranking, per se, because different adaptations apply to different situations. Watch players as they come, and enjoy them for what they are. There is no ranking system, but you would see a lot of players on my "list" that appear on others top lists.

    Rankings are one-dimensional. So by definition, they should only measure one dimension - like "fastest 40 yard sprinter". However, it makes more sense to look at players in a progressive or radiative manner, so you can identify which ones have the best features for any specific setting:

    $this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://www.hras.org/sw/swnov04a.jpg')
    In the above diagram, Darwin is only comparing Finches. All Finches are birds, but not all birds are finches. That's why I never really compare players of different positions. Guards are not Forwards, etc. Finches don't compare to Ostriches. If you need something to fly around, go with a Finch. If you need something to kick your *** on the ground, go with an Ostrich.

    Second, while it's extremely fun, you can't really hold onto any one player for too long because they're transient. Blue Whales are becoming extinct not only through attrition and ship-strikes, but because they are now breeding with the smaller and more agile Minke whales. We can never really go back to the "pure" blue model of whales. They're going to be bred out through natural selection. At different points, speed becomes more important than size, and sometimes both size and speed needs to be increased (Modern NFL, Lebron James, etc).

    Don't get me wrong, I love and grew up with Jordan. But I feel it is too simplistic to keep rehashing outdated stats, when the reality is that there is no way to duplicate those stats or the situations each player was in. Kobe played a different game than Jordan, with different rules. You can certainly have a "favorite" but the definition of "best" will always be changing. There will come a point where Jordan's build/design would not be optimal.

    I certainly appreciate the value behind a Finals MVP-centric analysis. However, an NBA finals MVP award only tells you:

    1. This player was on a team that reached the NBA finals
    2. This player shined the most within that team's system

    But it is very outcome-based. In order for that analysis to apply, a player has to be in the championship -- something not entirely within his control. It does not isolate skill and talent. However, the player's responses to his environment ARE in his control, and that's how I like to rate them as ideal or prototypical.

  18. #418
    Senior Member Bangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Home sweet home
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Speaking of MJ, what did you guys think of his HOF speech? A yahoo writer pretty much blasted MJ for it. As for me, I thought he was just trying to share how he became successful by citing examples of things that motivated him. At least that's how it looked to me, I don't think MJ said those things to get back at old foes or anything like that.

  19. #419
    Senior Member milKBoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sexy Island
    Posts
    550

    Default

    The speech was so long, i cant believe i watched it yet i had an exam the following day..
    It was good, added a few chuckles and overall sensible. I would of thought he could of congratulated Tim Grover, his longtime personal trainer.
    ~ I'm so awesome.. the greatest ever after Kobe!! ~
    ~ aka Mini T-mac here ~

  20. #420
    Member JoeLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    156

    Default

    stockton had the funniestand imo the best speech that night....

Similar Threads

  1. Born Rich 《富貴門》
    By sehseh in forum TVB Series
    Replies: 193
    Last Post: 06-02-10, 10:53 AM
  2. Who will win the 2008 NBA Finals?
    By Ken Cheng in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-16-08, 06:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •