PDA

View Full Version : Why Jordan, Duncan and Hakeem are the best players since 1990



sheesh
09-29-2015, 10:21 PM
It's pretty simple why these guys were the best of the last 25 years.

It comes down to this, they couldn't be defended. That is they came and had a gameplan in mind and if they executed you just couldn't do anything to stop it. They were just so fundamentally sound that they were going to play their game and you just had to deal with it.

For example guys like Shaq, LeBron, Durant, Kobe can be gameplaned and defended. There are ways to try and go at them. Like this.

Shaq- Foul him
Durant- Get underneath him
Kobe- Let him literally shoot the Lakers out of the game
LeBron- Sag off and clog the lane

You look at Duncan and Hakeem. They had all those moves, they just weren't going to be defended, you just had to hope for an off night. And if there shot wasn't falling they would defend and crash the boards hard.

Jordan would find some easy layups and lock people down if his shot wasn't falling. He could impact the game in so many ways.

tredigs
09-29-2015, 10:28 PM
Yet the 4 players you mentioned have an incredible amount of offensive success, in many ways more potent than Duncan and/or Dream. Why do you suppose that is... defenses just weren't trying?

sheesh
09-29-2015, 10:34 PM
Yet the 4 players you mentioned have an incredible amount of offensive success, in many ways more potent than Duncan and/or Dream. Why do you suppose that is... defenses just weren't trying?

1. They were vastly superior defenders.

2. Basketball is a team game. Analytics cannot measure offensive effectiveness. Five men work as a team. As it pertains to a flow of offense Duncan and dream simply couldn't be defended.

tredigs
09-29-2015, 10:45 PM
1. You made exactly no mention of defense, hence me ignoring it. But Kobe and Lebron at their peak are two incredible wing defenders, and Shaq was no slouch in the post. KD is a + defender, but not amazing.

2. Yes, certain analytics do precisely that. Whether or not you choose to research and understand why certain stats say what they do is up to you. You're going to have to do better than that to convince me that Dream (who was by no means an offensive juggernaut for a decent portion of his career) or Duncan are more effective offensive pieces than a guy like Lebron. It's much easier to make the argument that Lebron is a tier above on offense than the take you have. Shaq was a player who demanded so much attention in the block that his teammates were automatically in the most comfortable position they could ever hope for. AND he was a terrific passer out of the block. Again, you're in an uphill battle trying to convince me that Dream and specifically Duncan have him one upped on that end from a career standpoint.

sheesh
09-29-2015, 10:50 PM
1. You made exactly no mention of defense, hence me ignoring it. But Kobe and Lebron at their peak are two incredible wing defenders, and Shaq was no slouch in the post. KD is a + defender, but not amazing.

2. Yes, certain analytics do precisely that. Whether or not you choose to research and understand why certain stats say what they do is up to you. You're going to have to do better than that to convince me that Dream (who was by no means an offensive juggernaut for a decent portion of his career) or Duncan are more effective offensive pieces than a guy like Lebron. It's much easier to make the argument that Lebron is a tier above on offense than the take you have. Shaq was a player who demanded so much attention in the block that his teammates were automatically in the most comfortable position they could ever hope for. AND he was a terrific passer out of the block. Again, you're in an uphill battle trying to convince me that Dream and specifically Duncan have him one upped on that end from a career standpoint.

There was a way to defend Shaq. Foul him.

I made mention of defense. That's why I said when their shot wasn't falling they would crash the boards and defend.

tredigs
09-29-2015, 10:53 PM
There was a way to defend Shaq. Foul him.

I made mention of defense. That's why I said when their shot wasn't falling they would crash the boards and defend.

If Lebron's shot wasn't falling he'd crash the boards, defend, and be the most dynamic playmaking forward of all time. If Shaq's shot wasn't falling he'd accumulate fouls on the opposing team, have + rebounding and defense and leave his teammates as open as possible by being an AUTO double team in the block. Did you watch Shaq play? I honestly have to ask, because you can't just foul a guy on every possession my man, and VERY often it wouldn't matter if they fouled him. He'd just dunk on you anyway.

Your analysis is pathetically trite and sorry for the points you're trying to make.

tredigs
09-29-2015, 10:57 PM
There are absolutely arguments to be made for those 3 players as being the best in that time frame, by the way. It just is not the way you're going about it. Hint: You should have led with defense.

flea
09-29-2015, 11:27 PM
Shaq was double-teamed a fair amount, but it depended on the opponent. Lots of times they played him straight up until that went bad. Yeah he collects fouls and you need help ready, but lots of elite bigs can say that. Think people just remember Shaq because of Lakers, his public persona, etc. Generally you knew where Shaq was, which is a huge benefit for a defense. Duncan, Dream, Barkley, etc. were all doubled as much or more in prime I'm sure.

Think about Lebron, he's basically never double-teamed. In Miami it was because his team was designed to make it impossible, and in Cleveland the first time because there's really no place he demands a double. Just have help ready because you know where he's going to hurt you. Nobody has ever feared Lebron's post-ups, you don't even need to be big to defend him down there just disciplined and strong.

Now think about MJ and Bird, or even Dirk. First your defense has to work hard at ball denial on them since none of them were primary ballhandlers. Effective ball denial takes 1 heady defender hustling constantly and every other defender's head on a swivel because all 3 were top notch shooters (meaning, eg, if you're fronting in the paint and they flare, you're just as screwed as if they cut). Then, in prime, doubles on those guys were pretty much automatic. Sometimes they'd come faster depending on area of the floor and all, but never do you let them attack you 1v1. With guys like Lebron and Shaq you're fine with that for a lot of the game.

I think there's a great argument any one of these 3 are better than Shaq offensively. Shaq demanded touches, complained when he didn't get them, and to his credit deserved them (unlike some stars). That doesn't necessarily mean that a strictly low-post big man without much of a P&R game is definitely better than more versatile and equally effective 1v1 weapons. But all these guys are among the best.

G-Menfan4lyfe
09-29-2015, 11:33 PM
Jordan also played in an era where zone defense was illegal...... Just saying

FlashBolt
09-29-2015, 11:38 PM
Jordan also played in an era where zone defense was illegal...... Just saying

Which made it easier for him to get to the lane... Not discounting Jordan's accomplishment but once he got past his man, Jordan had a head start to the basket. Not like today in which guys are able to brush you aside and focus on you.

Here's a pretty simple picture:

http://www.48minutesofhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Screen-Shot-2013-06-08-at-2.10.14-PM.png

And it works against LeBron because he isn't a great shooter. He can get past Kawhi but not with Duncan and countless other defenders packing the paint.

Spurs admitted to this gameplan: We can't let LeBron score at all costs.
Translation: Make his team score because chances are, they will have a better chance defending them than LeBron.

flea
09-29-2015, 11:41 PM
Jordan also played in an era where zone defense was illegal...... Just saying

Didn't mean team defense was illegal. Lebron did mid-post ISOs for like half the Finals last year, the exact same area MJ and Bird would occupy. There were maybe a handful of doubles in the whole series, and pretty much only when Lebron got deep post position. Demanding a double in the mid-post is way more valuable than drawing paint defenders (every quick guard draws paint defenders).

I suspect most people are too young, probably only watch highlights. Do yourselves a favor and watch a game or two of the 84 Finals or 93 Finals to see what defenses look like against top-notch scorers. Hell even the 03 Finals is a great example of how a dominant and versatile big man can destroy an excellent defense.

flea
09-29-2015, 11:44 PM
Which made it easier for him to get to the lane...

It's way easier to get into the lane now. Why do you think every team bases their offense around it? It's low-risk and high reward. Aaron Brooks would have been Craig Hodges in a prior era. If slashing were difficult these days we'd see guys like Z-Bo putting up Karl Malone-lite numbers. It's a faster and more pass-heavy era, compared to the more tactical 1v1 matchup style before.

FlashBolt
09-29-2015, 11:44 PM
Didn't mean team defense was illegal. Lebron did mid-post ISOs for like half the Finals last year, the exact same area MJ and Bird would occupy. There were maybe a handful of doubles in the whole series, and pretty much only when Lebron got deep post position. Demanding a double in the mid-post is way more valuable than drawing paint defenders (every quick guard draws paint defenders).

I suspect most people are too young, probably only watch highlights. Do yourselves a favor and watch a game or two of the 84 Finals or 93 Finals to see what defenses look like against top-notch scorers. Hell even the 03 Finals is a great example of how a dominant and versatile big man can destroy an excellent defense.

Why are you so enamored with the past? It's clear as day that zone defense has made it more difficult for post presence. Team defense wasn't illegal but it surely wasn't as brutal as it can be now. And you don't have to look any further: why are teams transitioning to playing small ball?

flea
09-29-2015, 11:46 PM
I'm not enamored with anything, just calling you out on making things up to pump up Lebron's heroic efforts. He's a good slasher, MJ is the best slasher the game has seen and that was only part of his game.

flea
09-30-2015, 12:02 AM
Check out some highlights from the '03 Lakers/Spurs series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR6AgYWdoBQ). Always amuses me when people call Duncan "boring." Yeah I guess he is, if basketball is boring to you. Post fade, hooks, floaters with a left hand, mid-range jumpers, passes out of doubles, post passing, top-notch handles in the post. You see it all in this set. Like they say in the video, it seems like he never scores the same way twice.

FlashBolt
09-30-2015, 12:04 AM
Check out some highlights from the '03 Lakers/Spurs series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR6AgYWdoBQ). Always amuses me when people call Duncan "boring." Yeah I guess he is, if basketball is boring to you. Post fade, hooks, floaters with a left hand, mid-range jumpers, passes out of doubles, post passing, top-notch handles in the post. You see it all in this set. Like they say in the video, it seems like he never scores the same way twice.

Personally, he isn't boring to me. His personality may be somewhat dull but I'd take him any day on the court than some guy like J.R. Smith who is more concerned with untying shoelaces.

Ty Fast
09-30-2015, 01:54 AM
I say Shaq was better than Duncan. When you fouled Shaq it sent the opposing players to the bench.

numba1CHANGsta
09-30-2015, 02:52 AM
It's pretty simple why these guys were the best of the last 25 years.

It comes down to this, they couldn't be defended. That is they came and had a gameplan in mind and if they executed you just couldn't do anything to stop it. They were just so fundamentally sound that they were going to play their game and you just had to deal with it.

For example guys like Shaq, LeBron, Durant, Kobe can be gameplaned and defended. There are ways to try and go at them. Like this.

Shaq- Foul him
Durant- Get underneath him
Kobe- Let him literally shoot the Lakers out of the game
LeBron- Sag off and clog the lane

You look at Duncan and Hakeem. They had all those moves, they just weren't going to be defended, you just had to hope for an off night. And if there shot wasn't falling they would defend and crash the boards hard.

Jordan would find some easy layups and lock people down if his shot wasn't falling. He could impact the game in so many ways.

And this is your logic to why these players aren't considered one of the best in the past 25 years? LOL KD is a beast when healthy, not considered one of the best just yet but he's getting there. LeBron is a triple-double machine, best SF of all time. Shaq isn't good cuz he gets fouled? that makes no sense at all, even when he got fouled they still won most of the games. And if Kobe shoots a lot, the Lakers lose? Kobe has always shot a lot and won 5 rings, so this thread makes no sense at all.

Past 25 years:

MJ-best all around player
Shaq-dominated both offensively and defensively
Hakeem-dominated defensively, above average offense
Kobe-dominated offensively, average defense
Duncan-above average defense, average offense
LeBron-above average offense, average defense

Raps18-19 Champ
09-30-2015, 05:40 AM
Well you couldn't have picked a more obvious group.

Hawkeye15
09-30-2015, 10:09 AM
It's pretty simple why these guys were the best of the last 25 years.

It comes down to this, they couldn't be defended. That is they came and had a gameplan in mind and if they executed you just couldn't do anything to stop it. They were just so fundamentally sound that they were going to play their game and you just had to deal with it.

For example guys like Shaq, LeBron, Durant, Kobe can be gameplaned and defended. There are ways to try and go at them. Like this.

Shaq- Foul him
Durant- Get underneath him
Kobe- Let him literally shoot the Lakers out of the game
LeBron- Sag off and clog the lane

You look at Duncan and Hakeem. They had all those moves, they just weren't going to be defended, you just had to hope for an off night. And if there shot wasn't falling they would defend and crash the boards hard.

Jordan would find some easy layups and lock people down if his shot wasn't falling. He could impact the game in so many ways.

so tell me why all 4 of them still put up stupid numbers.....

Hawkeye15
09-30-2015, 10:13 AM
1. They were vastly superior defenders.

2. Basketball is a team game. Analytics cannot measure offensive effectiveness. Five men work as a team. As it pertains to a flow of offense Duncan and dream simply couldn't be defended.

yes, they can.

IndyRealist
09-30-2015, 10:41 AM
Which made it easier for him to get to the lane... Not discounting Jordan's accomplishment but once he got past his man, Jordan had a head start to the basket. Not like today in which guys are able to brush you aside and focus on you.

.

Only if you're ignoring handchecking and 3 seconds rules. People used to get the snot beaten out of them driving to the rim, and then have a big man ready to knock them on their arse when they got there. Now you can't touch a driving wing, and you can't camp the paint. That's why the 90's were dominated by big men aside from Jordan.

IndyRealist
09-30-2015, 10:44 AM
2. Basketball is a team game. Analytics cannot measure offensive effectiveness. Five men work as a team. As it pertains to a flow of offense Duncan and dream simply couldn't be defended.
I will never understand how these myths continue to persist. The data is out there, a lot of it publicly available, and every successful team uses it. This is not in dispute. Yet fans still deny it exists.

sheesh
09-30-2015, 11:02 AM
I will never understand how these myths continue to persist. The data is out there, a lot of it publicly available, and every successful team uses it. This is not in dispute. Yet fans still deny it exists.

Since we're in the twitter era I'll say it again.

Basketball is a team game.

Basketball is about how well 5 men work together in the flow of the system.

It's not an individual sport and it never will be one.

Chronz
09-30-2015, 11:57 AM
It's pretty simple why these guys were the best of the last 25 years.

It comes down to this, they couldn't be defended. That is they came and had a gameplan in mind and if they executed you just couldn't do anything to stop it. They were just so fundamentally sound that they were going to play their game and you just had to deal with it.

For example guys like Shaq, LeBron, Durant, Kobe can be gameplaned and defended. There are ways to try and go at them. Like this.

Shaq- Foul him
Durant- Get underneath him
Kobe- Let him literally shoot the Lakers out of the game
LeBron- Sag off and clog the lane

You look at Duncan and Hakeem. They had all those moves, they just weren't going to be defended, you just had to hope for an off night. And if there shot wasn't falling they would defend and crash the boards hard.

Jordan would find some easy layups and lock people down if his shot wasn't falling. He could impact the game in so many ways.

Fouling Shaq didn't stop him tho, because even the worst foul shooters hit at about 50%, which is still a point per possession on average(not even counting the offensive rebounds they sometimes get). Added on to that, was the fact that it got the opposing team into foul trouble AND allowed his team to get back on defense, essentially eliminating the opposing teams transition attack. Its pretty funny how a Shaq free throw was STILL a better option than a Hakeem/Duncan midrange shot. Thats just how dominant he was, not to mention he would still dunk in your grill.

I honestly believe they allowed zones in part because Shaq was sooo unstoppable, the very same zones that Dream feared and was stifled by vs the Sonics, whereas zones had very little effect on Shaq.


If those guys were better offensively, then why did they lead inferior offenses throughout their careers whilst putting up inferior individual stats+team influence on that end? Surely theres some kind of evidence that validates your opinion. I know watching all those guys play, only MJ was truly elite offensively.

Chronz
09-30-2015, 12:04 PM
Since we're in the twitter era I'll say it again.

Basketball is a team game.

Basketball is about how well 5 men work together in the flow of the system.

It's not an individual sport and it never will be one.
Heres the thing, its a team game that leaves large traces of individual impact. And even when looking at TEAM SUCCESS offensively, those same teams seemed to score more effectively with individuals like Shaq anchoring them.

So a guy like Shaq led superior offenses AND put up superior production individually. You gotta have more than this cop-out to substantiate your opinion, those players dont have to apologize for having more than conjecture backing their superiority. The onus is on you to tell us what those stats are missing out on, because watching them play, nobody drew the attention that Shaq did. Bron and Kobe are also in that category IMO, just less influential than Shaq.

Thats not even mentioning how mediocre offensively(relatively speaking) Hakeem was throughout the beginning of his career. It took him a long time to learn how to utilize his teammates in a comparison vs Shaq.

Chronz
09-30-2015, 12:20 PM
Only if you're ignoring handchecking and 3 seconds rules. People used to get the snot beaten out of them driving to the rim, and then have a big man ready to knock them on their arse when they got there. Now you can't touch a driving wing, and you can't camp the paint. That's why the 90's were dominated by big men aside from Jordan.

You can however overload the strongside box, which has stunted isolation play and placed a premium on outside shooting.

Im not seeing how you cant camp in the paint when all teams do is the 2.9 second in and out, whereas back then you literally HAD to guard your man. You couldn't camp in the paint and sag unless your teammates were in the middle of trapping someone. You couldn't even double off the ball. Theres a vid somewhere on youtube that shows all the illegal defense rules that are common place toda. Today you slash to find shooters, back then it was to challenge rotating bigmen who had to wait to double.

And teams still handcheck IMO, just not as blatant as the 90-94 era.

You ask all those bigmen, Duncan, Dream even KG, they all hate zones and wish they were never legalized. Zones (and poor reffing) are practically why Duncan quit playing for FIBA. I was watching some old footage and I've almost forgotten how much more 1v1 it was back then, how everyone use to just back people down to protect the ball and avoid the hand check almost exclusively. It was definitely a post heavy league.


I honestly dont know how different or harder the leagues are but it might vary from player to player. The only era I think everyone thrives the most in are the free flowing 80's.

Chronz
09-30-2015, 12:40 PM
Simply put, there isn't a star isolation scorer who didn't hate zones. Even guys like Bird who you figure would love open set shots coming his way off the pass used to loath the emphasis on 3pt shooting but he understands its a result of superior defensive organization.

In the words of the great Kobe (who actually misses hand checking), I dont care if you hand check with 3 hands, if you got nobody behind you, you're not going to stop us. And zones allowed for more room to operate on iso clear outs. The guys who best adapted were the guys who were used to playing in a crowd down low and/or were incredibly gifted passers. I like to think all greats would adjust, but I do not deny that zones have placed a greater importance on supporting casts and its why you can get away with small ball centers now, you dont need a hulking deterrent at the rim when you can wall it off completely. You need guys who can roam and recover more than ever. I highly doubt Draymond Green is a DPOY caliber defender in the 90's.

IndyRealist
09-30-2015, 01:02 PM
Since we're in the twitter era I'll say it again.

Basketball is a team game.

Basketball is about how well 5 men work together in the flow of the system.

It's not an individual sport and it never will be one.

And i'll say it again. Almost all teams use analytics. It works. What part of that is hard to understand? Because you cannot understand how to analyze a 5 man system doesn't mean it's not possible.

Controlling for age and experience curves, an individual's statistics in basketball are more consistent year to year than any other major American team sport, regardless of changes in team, teammates, coaching, or strategies. That means that a basketball player's statistics are more determined by his own performance than in baseball, football, soccer, hockey, etc. How can we accept individual metrics in baseball but not in basketball? Blanket statements about how basketball is a team game and cannot be analyzed are outdated by about 10 years.

"If i have seen further than other men it is because i have stood on the back of giants." Basketball analytics has benefitted from pioneering work done in baseball. The sophistication of metrics has grown at a much faster rate than baseball did, in no small part from sharing data through the internet. 20 years a ago something like Sloan would never have gotten off the ground.

IndyRealist
09-30-2015, 01:50 PM
"You can however overload the strongside box, which has stunted isolation play and placed a premium on outside shooting.

Im not seeing how you cant camp in the paint when all teams do is the 2.9 second in and out, whereas back then you literally HAD to guard your man. You couldn't camp in the paint and sag unless your teammates were in the middle of trapping someone."

The way illegal defense rules used to be you had to guard a player at all times, yes, but practically you could stay in the paint as a big at all times, unless the opposing big pulled back to the corner 3pt line which was not a normal strategy at the time. Spacing was seen vastly differently in the 90s, where 16ft was an outside jump shot for wings and bigs were almost alway within 2 strides to the rim.

The emphasis on 3s is more about marginal cost vs. reward of the long 2s they used to take rather than the de-emphasis of iso. Essentially basketball now is about scoring behind the arc AND at the rim. This is not at the cost of the iso player driving to the rim but rather at the cost of the midrange jump shooter. As we all agree, post play is minimal these days due to zone, so the players getting to the rim ARE the iso players, and the cleanup guys.

Overloading the strongside post is a valid strategy to inhibit iso now, but that is exactly how the DeAndre Jordans and Mason Plumlees feast at the rim, by spacing weakside when their defender crowds the strongside and getting easy layups on the weakside backboard where their guy has to recover and then challenge across the rim. If the defense stacks strongside then the iso has succeeded even if it's not a score for the ballhandler.

Chronz
09-30-2015, 02:12 PM
The way illegal defense rules used to be you had to guard a player at all times, yes, but practically you could stay in the paint as a big at all times, unless the opposing big pulled back to the corner 3pt line which was not a normal strategy at the time. The way illegal defense rules used to be you had to guard a player at all times, yes, but practically you could stay in the paint as a big at all times, unless the opposing big pulled back to the corner 3pt line which was not a normal strategy at the time.
I dont know about that, I remember games where non-scoring bigs would just run to the top of the key to force an illegal defensive call for guys who werent paying attention to their positioning, I specifically remember the Bulls-Heat series where Rodman would do this for MJ to keep Zo off of him. Its because of zones that bigs are able to stay in the paint longer (thus forcing more outside jumpers), especially since you can double off the ball. If there was a post player near the lane, you could double off the ball and stay in the paint indefinitely. The lane has never been more clogged than when zones were legalized IMO.


The emphasis on 3s is more about marginal cost vs. reward of the long 2s they used to take rather than the de-emphasis of iso. Essentially basketball now is about scoring behind the arc AND at the rim. This is not at the cost of the iso player driving to the rim but rather at the cost of the midrange jump shooter. As we all agree, post play is minimal these days due to zone, so the players getting to the rim ARE the iso players, and the cleanup guys.

A good point, analytics have changed the game as much as the rules have, overall I dont think its a tremendous difference, without the statistical revolution, the rule changes would have been more damaging for longer but eventually offenses figure it out. Do we have any data on inside shots between the eras. I feel like the inside game has given way to the perimeter game in general, not just midrange vs outside shots.


Overloading the strongside post is a valid strategy to inhibit iso now, but that is exactly how the DeAndre Jordans and Mason Plumlees feast at the rim, by spacing weakside when their defender crowds the strongside and getting easy layups on the weakside backboard where their guy has to recover and then challenge across the rim. If the defense stacks strongside then the iso has succeeded even if it's not a score for the ballhandler.

Another good point and consequence of those rule changes, but those guys tend to be role players. I see what you mean tho, a great rebounding star would feast more on these scrambled bodies.

I remember some in the rules committee suggesting that offensive rebounding has declined because of the offensive sets placing players away from the paint in order to clear out for the star. Pros and cons either way, but when I speak of go-to players from prior eras, it has more to do with isolation-post clear outs that were staples back then. Today its a PnR league which requires more teamwork than simply beating your man 1v1 with little behind him in comparison.

Hawkeye15
09-30-2015, 08:24 PM
I dont know about that, I remember games where non-scoring bigs would just run to the top of the key to force an illegal defensive call for guys who werent paying attention to their positioning, I specifically remember the Bulls-Heat series where Rodman would do this for MJ to keep Zo off of him. Its because of zones that bigs are able to stay in the paint longer (thus forcing more outside jumpers), especially since you can double off the ball. If there was a post player near the lane, you could double off the ball and stay in the paint indefinitely. The lane has never been more clogged than when zones were legalized IMO.


A good point, analytics have changed the game as much as the rules have, overall I dont think its a tremendous difference, without the statistical revolution, the rule changes would have been more damaging for longer but eventually offenses figure it out. Do we have any data on inside shots between the eras. I feel like the inside game has given way to the perimeter game in general, not just midrange vs outside shots.


Another good point and consequence of those rule changes, but those guys tend to be role players. I see what you mean tho, a great rebounding star would feast more on these scrambled bodies.

I remember some in the rules committee suggesting that offensive rebounding has declined because of the offensive sets placing players away from the paint in order to clear out for the star. Pros and cons either way, but when I speak of go-to players from prior eras, it has more to do with isolation-post clear outs that were staples back then. Today its a PnR league which requires more teamwork than simply beating your man 1v1 with little behind him in comparison.

remember Mark Eaton's role at times haha?

"stand way the **** up here so their center gets out of the way"

JAZZNC
09-30-2015, 10:33 PM
remember Mark Eaton's role at times haha?

"stand way the **** up here so their center gets out of the way"

Yep haha! Not because he was any kind of threat offensively but because the rules forced the defender to be close.

FlashBolt
09-30-2015, 10:42 PM
I don't think there is anything wrong with what the OP said. He certainly has a case that Hakeem/Duncan/Jordan are the best players but his arguments for why they are? That's baloney. All those guys on the list are top ten players in NBA history (besides Durant -- who is an absolute beast anyhow) are lethal weapons who can't be stopped. To stop Shaq you foul him? If it were that easy, Shaq wouldn't be a top ten player.

minato_17
09-30-2015, 11:16 PM
Which made it easier for him to get to the lane... Not discounting Jordan's accomplishment but once he got past his man, Jordan had a head start to the basket. Not like today in which guys are able to brush you aside and focus on you.

Here's a pretty simple picture:

http://www.48minutesofhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Screen-Shot-2013-06-08-at-2.10.14-PM.png

And it works against LeBron because he isn't a great shooter. He can get past Kawhi but not with Duncan and countless other defenders packing the paint.

Spurs admitted to this gameplan: We can't let LeBron score at all costs.
Translation: Make his team score because chances are, they will have a better chance defending them than LeBron.
Yeah that worked against the Dubs in the finals. Oh wait.

FlashBolt
10-01-2015, 01:55 AM
Yeah that worked against the Dubs in the finals. Oh wait.

What didn't work? GSW won because Cavs were just outnumbered.

basch152
10-01-2015, 03:45 AM
And this is your logic to why these players aren't considered one of the best in the past 25 years? LOL KD is a beast when healthy, not considered one of the best just yet but he's getting there. LeBron is a triple-double machine, best SF of all time. Shaq isn't good cuz he gets fouled? that makes no sense at all, even when he got fouled they still won most of the games. And if Kobe shoots a lot, the Lakers lose? Kobe has always shot a lot and won 5 rings, so this thread makes no sense at all.

Past 25 years:

MJ-best all around player
Shaq-dominated both offensively and defensively
Hakeem-dominated defensively, above average offense
Kobe-dominated offensively, average defense
Duncan-above average defense, average offense
LeBron-above average offense, average defense

Shaq did not dominate defensively. He wasn't in the same league as any top tier defensive center.

Also, duncan to you is above average defensively, but shaq is "dominant"? You think shaq is a better defender? Are you serious right now?

Anyways, I agree with the op, but I'd also say the arguments he's presenting are terrible.

minato_17
10-01-2015, 05:57 AM
What didn't work? GSW won because Cavs were just outnumbered.
Lebron being the go to scorer does not work for his team's good. He needs to have a triple double type of numbers and a great shooting efficiency. Yes cavs were outnumbered in that series and I believe they would have won if kyrie was playing. And they could have swept gs if love was not injured.

LakersIn5
10-01-2015, 08:43 AM
Yeah i guess thats why duncan has won the championship every year the last 15 yrs. Because he couldnt be stopped.

YAALREADYKNO
10-01-2015, 02:47 PM
shaq was a beast but I think he was more predictable than a guy like hakeem.

YAALREADYKNO
10-01-2015, 02:54 PM
Lebron being the go to scorer does not work for his team's good. He needs to have a triple double type of numbers and a great shooting efficiency. Yes cavs were outnumbered in that series and I believe they would have won if kyrie was playing. And they could have swept gs if love was not injured.


Minato where you at man? Madara's whoopin that *** right now lol

Chronz
10-01-2015, 03:09 PM
shaq was a beast but I think he was more predictable than a guy like hakeem.

When you're a beast, you can afford to be predictable.

minato_17
10-01-2015, 03:38 PM
Minato where you at man? Madara's whoopin that *** right now lol

I have been dead for a while. You know. Saving konoha and my son. [emoji23]

YAALREADYKNO
10-01-2015, 03:54 PM
When you're a beast, you can afford to be predictable.

not criticizing shaq just pointing out what those two other dudes are basically arguing about lol
I'd prefer shaq over any Center in NBA history IMO

YAALREADYKNO
10-01-2015, 03:57 PM
I have been dead for a while. You know. Saving konoha and my son. [emoji23]

That's cool but madara already done activated the infinite tsukuyomi so everyone's pretty much screwed

Chronz
10-01-2015, 04:06 PM
not criticizing shaq just pointing out what those two other dudes are basically arguing about lol
I'd prefer shaq over any Center in NBA history IMO

Same here , just wish I could argue why. KAJ and Wilt are just so mythical

minato_17
10-01-2015, 05:09 PM
That's cool but madara already done activated the infinite tsukuyomi so everyone's pretty much screwed
Well im pretty sure that they would be fine because Naruto and Kakashi did not join me in after life. As a matter of fact i heard that i have got a grandson now.

YAALREADYKNO
10-01-2015, 05:12 PM
Well im pretty sure that they would be fine because Naruto and Kakashi did not join me in after life. As a matter of fact i heard that i have got a grandson now.

yeah you're right but your grandson boruto hates his father your son naruto and would rather learn from sasuke lmao

YAALREADYKNO
10-01-2015, 05:13 PM
Same here , just wish I could argue why. KAJ and Wilt are just so mythical

never watched kareem or wilt so cant really speak about them but I did watch shaq and he dominated the league for so many years. Clearly should've been MVP more than once in his career

Hawkeye15
10-01-2015, 08:45 PM
Same here , just wish I could argue why. KAJ and Wilt are just so mythical

make a case why Shaq is over those 2. I have them as tier 2, ahead of Shaq

numba1CHANGsta
10-01-2015, 10:30 PM
Shaq did not dominate defensively. He wasn't in the same league as any top tier defensive center.

Also, duncan to you is above average defensively, but shaq is "dominant"? You think shaq is a better defender? Are you serious right now?

Anyways, I agree with the op, but I'd also say the arguments he's presenting are terrible.

Sooo you're saying Duncan was a better defender than Shaq? LOLOLOLOL

flea
10-01-2015, 10:37 PM
Sooo you're saying Duncan was a better defender than Shaq? LOLOLOLOL

Uh he was, and it's not close. For my money Duncan is the best defensive player I've seen. Russell, Deke, and your favorite of the big 3 90s centers (Ewing/Robinson/Dream) got arguments. Nobody else IMO.

Rodman was great but not a rim protector and his perimeter abilities are constantly overstated. He was Shawn Marion with no offense but an uncanny ability on the glass. Wilt, no, you've got to be the best of your era. Ben Wallace, no. One of my favorite players of all time but he was never better than Duncan defensively. Pippen is as close as they come for quicks/non-bigs IMO (and has a better argument than Rodman). Shaq, he just flat-out didn't want it, and was a liability laterally. He was good, he was not great.

YAALREADYKNO
10-01-2015, 11:05 PM
Shaq was a good defender when he actually wanted too be but Duncan was as good as it gets when protecting the rim

D-Leethal
10-01-2015, 11:23 PM
I buy it a little more if you throw Shaq in the first tier with those guys. There is something to be said for the ability to counter each and every way you can be shaded and defended - I think the 4 you mentioned could all do that, Shaq mostly because of his passing ability out of doubles - the only way you can stop him is with multiple defenders and he had the answer for that.

People on this forum will argue til they are blue in the face that "production" in a vaccum trumps all, but I think most purists would agree with you that fundamentals, footwork, fakes, counters and the ability to dissect and pick apart any type of defense you throw at them trumps huge production if that production doesn't involve all of the above. Duncan didn't need to out-produce someone to be completely unguardable and have an answer for any defense.

Eventually a guy like LeBron meets his match, there was no one on Earth who was that guy for MJ, because there was no way to defend him. We've seen LeBron get marginalized on numerous occasions, on numerous teams, against numerous, non-HOF defenders. That doesn't mean LeBron can't out-produce Duncan for a playoff series, put up a monster triple double or dominate a series, or get his teammates involved like no one else can when his shot isn't falling.

But there is certainly merit to skillset, fundamentals, counters being more reliable than tremendous production that comes with exploitable weaknesses.

tredigs
10-01-2015, 11:39 PM
Sooo you're saying Duncan was a better defender than Shaq? LOLOLOLOL

Do you have any clue how far in the minority you are in thinking Shaq > Duncan defensively? Like, does that seriously allude you? Duncan's an All Time Great defensive big. Shaq was strong at his peak defensively, but not even CLOSE to as consistently dominant as TD. You're a funny one.

Chronz
10-02-2015, 12:13 AM
make a case why Shaq is over those 2. I have them as tier 2, ahead of Shaq

I've tried man. Its just hard to escape the resume of KAJ. Wilt is on his tier simply because the 2 careers overlapped somewhat, we've seen both guys face off against similar opponents and Wilt wasnt locked up the way KAJ was by similar opponents.

Shaq is so far removed from that era that he loses brownie points. TBH tho, Shaq would have pummeled KAJ into submission. Shaq was a better post defender than most realize, didn't require as much help and I've never heard or seen him get locked up as badly as KAJ.

I feel like people dont care about individual matchups as much as what they did vs their league. Which I respect and totally agree with, I just feel like Shaq could have accomplished much more as well had he been gifted that era/team.

IKnowHoops
10-02-2015, 12:56 AM
Uh he was, and it's not close. For my money Duncan is the best defensive player I've seen. Russell, Deke, and your favorite of the big 3 90s centers (Ewing/Robinson/Dream) got arguments. Nobody else IMO.

Rodman was great but not a rim protector and his perimeter abilities are constantly overstated. He was Shawn Marion with no offense but an uncanny ability on the glass. Wilt, no, you've got to be the best of your era. Ben Wallace, no. One of my favorite players of all time but he was never better than Duncan defensively. Pippen is as close as they come for quicks/non-bigs IMO (and has a better argument than Rodman). Shaq, he just flat-out didn't want it, and was a liability laterally. He was good, he was not great.

I don't see any argument for Duncan being better defensively than Drob or Dream, and I'd bet that Shaq's best year defensively is a good bit better than Duncan's using the applicable stats.

IKnowHoops
10-02-2015, 12:59 AM
I've tried man. Its just hard to escape the resume of KAJ. Wilt is on his tier simply because the 2 careers overlapped somewhat, we've seen both guys face off against similar opponents and Wilt wasnt locked up the way KAJ was by similar opponents.

Shaq is so far removed from that era that he loses brownie points. TBH tho, Shaq would have pummeled KAJ into submission. Shaq was a better post defender than most realize, didn't require as much help and I've never heard or seen him get locked up as badly as KAJ.

I feel like people dont care about individual matchups as much as what they did vs their league. Which I respect and totally agree with, I just feel like Shaq could have accomplished much more as well had he been gifted that era/team.

Agree 100%, especially in the 1 on 1 matchup. Kareem would have been completely annihilated by Shaq's power and athletic ability. Id take Shaq easily as my center based on how I see the 1 on 1 match ups going between Shaq, KAJ, and Wilt.

IKnowHoops
10-02-2015, 01:07 AM
I buy it a little more if you throw Shaq in the first tier with those guys. There is something to be said for the ability to counter each and every way you can be shaded and defended - I think the 4 you mentioned could all do that, Shaq mostly because of his passing ability out of doubles - the only way you can stop him is with multiple defenders and he had the answer for that.

People on this forum will argue til they are blue in the face that "production" in a vaccum trumps all, but I think most purists would agree with you that fundamentals, footwork, fakes, counters and the ability to dissect and pick apart any type of defense you throw at them trumps huge production if that production doesn't involve all of the above. Duncan didn't need to out-produce someone to be completely unguardable and have an answer for any defense.

Eventually a guy like LeBron meets his match, there was no one on Earth who was that guy for MJ, because there was no way to defend him. We've seen LeBron get marginalized on numerous occasions, on numerous teams, against numerous, non-HOF defenders. That doesn't mean LeBron can't out-produce Duncan for a playoff series, put up a monster triple double or dominate a series, or get his teammates involved like no one else can when his shot isn't falling.

But there is certainly merit to skillset, fundamentals, counters being more reliable than tremendous production that comes with exploitable weaknesses.

Jordan has been put in the same position. The Pistons shut him down. Dumars and Rodman got in his head. KAJ has been shut down. Everyone has had bad game bro...a lot of them.

Chronz
10-02-2015, 01:43 AM
Agree 100%, especially in the 1 on 1 matchup. Kareem would have been completely annihilated by Shaq's power and athletic ability. Id take Shaq easily as my center based on how I see the 1 on 1 match ups going between Shaq, KAJ, and Wilt.

I never said anything about Wilt. 1V1, Wilt is on par with him. Only KAJ had his troubles rebounding and only KAJ had a phase where the brutes pummeled him.

Chronz
10-02-2015, 01:46 AM
I buy it a little more if you throw Shaq in the first tier with those guys. There is something to be said for the ability to counter each and every way you can be shaded and defended - I think the 4 you mentioned could all do that, Shaq mostly because of his passing ability out of doubles - the only way you can stop him is with multiple defenders and he had the answer for that.

People on this forum will argue til they are blue in the face that "production" in a vaccum trumps all, but I think most purists would agree with you that fundamentals, footwork, fakes, counters and the ability to dissect and pick apart any type of defense you throw at them trumps huge production if that production doesn't involve all of the above. Duncan didn't need to out-produce someone to be completely unguardable and have an answer for any defense.

Eventually a guy like LeBron meets his match, there was no one on Earth who was that guy for MJ, because there was no way to defend him. We've seen LeBron get marginalized on numerous occasions, on numerous teams, against numerous, non-HOF defenders. That doesn't mean LeBron can't out-produce Duncan for a playoff series, put up a monster triple double or dominate a series, or get his teammates involved like no one else can when his shot isn't falling.

But there is certainly merit to skillset, fundamentals, counters being more reliable than tremendous production that comes with exploitable weaknesses.

I havent seen anyone argue stats in a vacuum, I have however seen people ignore them entirely hoping to take their unsubstantiated opinion as gospel. There is something to be said for having counters, there is more to be said for being more productive and influential to their teams success.

I disagree with Duncan not having to produce, some players require less counters than others simply because they are overwhelming. There were ways to defend MJ, sadly those ways were illegal back then, its why Phil Jackson *****ed till his faced turn blue about the zones he rarely faced.

Chronz
10-02-2015, 01:51 AM
Skill set doesn't mean **** in the face of impact. I could care less if you could fadeaway from 3 or if you were a sumo wrestler who happened to create more dunks. What matters is the end result. Individual impact + team influence is all I care about, couldn't give a **** how you accomplish that, be it by overwhelming athleticism or immense skill. IMPACT is all that matters.

Hawkeye15
10-02-2015, 12:13 PM
Skill set doesn't mean **** in the face of impact. I could care less if you could fadeaway from 3 or if you were a sumo wrestler who happened to create more dunks. What matters is the end result. Individual impact + team influence is all I care about, couldn't give a **** how you accomplish that, be it by overwhelming athleticism or immense skill. IMPACT is all that matters.

It's why when I hear how much more versatile Melo or Kobe is than LeBron as a scorer, I just don't care. At the end of the day, LeBron scores just as many points, in less shot attempts. That matters. And it's all that matters.

valade16
10-02-2015, 12:59 PM
I wouldn't say "impact" is all that matters but yes I agree that your output and impact trumps skills if those skills don't translate into better production.

You can nitpick Shaq's faults all you want, but his production showed that his strengths more than made up for those faults to a greater degree than say Hakeem's lack of faults allowed him to impact the game in a well rounded manner.

FlashBolt
10-02-2015, 05:51 PM
It's why when I hear how much more versatile Melo or Kobe is than LeBron as a scorer, I just don't care. At the end of the day, LeBron scores just as many points, in less shot attempts. That matters. And it's all that matters.

I disagree with this because there is value in being a more potent scorer. LeBron is going to have to be really innovative if he wants to play till his 35+. His game isn't designed for old men.

Hawkeye15
10-02-2015, 05:53 PM
I disagree with this because there is value in being a more potent scorer. LeBron is going to have to be really innovative if he wants to play till his 35+. His game isn't designed for old men.

disagree with what? That impact trumps style points?

FlashBolt
10-03-2015, 01:35 AM
disagree with what? That impact trumps style points?

That having an arsenal of scoring ability is also important. You're completely neglecting how it can affect certain aspects of the game indirectly.

Hawkeye15
10-03-2015, 01:50 AM
That having an arsenal of scoring ability is also important. You're completely neglecting how it can affect certain aspects of the game indirectly.

what? I am not ignoring anything. Impact is impact. If someone give you a boner doing something less efficient than the guy doing it more efficient, you just wasted a perfectly good hard on.

FlashBolt
10-03-2015, 02:00 AM
what? I am not ignoring anything. Impact is impact. If someone give you a boner doing something less efficient than the guy doing it more efficient, you just wasted a perfectly good hard on.

You are ignoring it if you are stating that you don't care. Having a wide set of scoring ability is very important. Efficiency is definitely one thing but by your logic, everyone should be passing the ball to DeAndre Jordan.. but they don't do that because it doesn't work that way.

basch152
10-03-2015, 03:21 AM
You guys are being ignorant.

Being able to sci in different ways forces defenses to play you differently.

Just an example - someone like dirk stretches the floor and defenses cant cheat when hes outside and leave him open. This mean the lane is more clear and creates more scoring opportunities for other players.

So him being able yo stretch the floor might not make him a better scorer tham shaq, but it opens things for other players that shaq doesn't.

This is DEFINITELY not to say dirk is Better than shaq, it's just to give an example of why more skill, even if your direct stats dont go way up, can create more for other players.

Don't be a sheeple.

Dont be one of those that go "herpderp, shaq has more points hes a better scorer"

IndyRealist
10-04-2015, 01:55 PM
You are ignoring it if you are stating that you don't care. Having a wide set of scoring ability is very important. Efficiency is definitely one thing but by your logic, everyone should be passing the ball to DeAndre Jordan.. but they don't do that because it doesn't work that way.

See the problem with that statement is now someone's going to claim "stat nerds said always pass to DeAndre Jordan" when no one said any such thing. That's a classic strawman argument. The reason he said Lebron and not Jordan is because DeAndre does not see nearly the same usage as #1 options, so it's an apples to oranges comparison. If player A gets 28 ppg in 20 possessions and player B gets 18 ppg in 20, player A is a better scorer regardless of how he got those points. Player B may have a more diverse skillset and flashy highlight reels, but by comparison he wastes 8 possessions a game more than player A.

FlashBolt
10-04-2015, 02:01 PM
See the problem with that statement is now someone's going to claim "stat nerds said always pass to DeAndre Jordan" when no one said any such thing. That's a classic strawman argument. The reason he said Lebron and not Jordan is because DeAndre does not see nearly the same usage as #1 options, so it's an apples to oranges comparison. If player A gets 18 ppg in 12 possessions and player B gets 18 ppg in 20, player A is a better scorer regardless of how he got those points. Player B may have a more diverse skillset and flashy highlight reels, but by comparison he wastes 8 possessions a game more than player A.

Right, but read what he said: He does not care when about the argument that people say Melo/Kobe are better scorers. That tells me that he doesn't care about Melo/Kobe's offensive arsenal of talent but rather, just on the sheer numbers of production. Melo/Kobe may not be more efficient than LeBron (which is what Hawkeye values most here), but they can attack you in so many different ways that I think LeBron would be rather limited to. LeBron can't shoot consistently. Spurs/GSW let him shoot and he has failed three times in doing so. He's a threat when he's attacking the paint and using his athleticism to brush off defenders. But would I rather have that kind of player when he's 35 or someone like Melo/Kobe -- who can shoot from anywhere? Even ignoring DeAndre and just getting into the general concept, why is the three point line so prestigious when guys can just score as close to the basket? So while it may look more "inefficient", it spreads the floor and allows for guys to score on the inside much easier. That's why it's just as important as being efficient. Just using DJ as another example, a PG may shoot 45% from the field but has to be the center of attention on the offensive end because his teammates lack in that area. Would you trust DJ with your offense more than Allen Iverson? I wouldn't. Even Dwight. He gave you 20 PPG in his prime but would you trust him to simply dominate offensively? The guy has one post move and it's a small baby hook.

tredigs
10-05-2015, 01:51 PM
So you're comparing a 10 ppt one dimensional center to a 30 ppg scoring point guard now?

Also your comment on 3's being inefficient makes no sense. It's a 3. If you hit them at a 33% clip that is equal to 50% from inside the arc. The one point that made a modicum of sense is the ability to space the floor from a shooter over a slasher.

Chronz
10-05-2015, 01:54 PM
It's why when I hear how much more versatile Melo or Kobe is than LeBron as a scorer, I just don't care. At the end of the day, LeBron scores just as many points, in less shot attempts. That matters. And it's all that matters.

Thats just individual efficiency tho, by impact I mean a broader range of influence, those you make on ur teammates as well as your own production.


I wouldn't say "impact" is all that matters but yes I agree that your output and impact trumps skills if those skills don't translate into better production.

You can nitpick Shaq's faults all you want, but his production showed that his strengths more than made up for those faults to a greater degree than say Hakeem's lack of faults allowed him to impact the game in a well rounded manner.
Better team influence is how I put it. That can be based on a wide variety of factors, some more important than others.

FlashBolt
10-05-2015, 04:14 PM
So you're comparing a 10 ppt one dimensional center to a 30 ppg scoring point guard now?

Also your comment on 3's being inefficient makes no sense. It's a 3. If you hit them at a 33% clip that is equal to 50% from inside the arc. The one point that made a modicum of sense is the ability to space the floor from a shooter over a slasher.

You just answered it for me, thanks. "One dimensional center." Hawk says he doesn't care, therefore, thank you.

Hawkeye15
10-05-2015, 04:52 PM
You are ignoring it if you are stating that you don't care. Having a wide set of scoring ability is very important. Efficiency is definitely one thing but by your logic, everyone should be passing the ball to DeAndre Jordan.. but they don't do that because it doesn't work that way.

ah, I get what you mean now. No, of course I mean position by position and the specifics we are asking. Like, Melo and Kobe have way more sexy moves than LeBron ever will, but give me LeBron every day for his sheer level of efficiency.

It also depends some on team need of course. I simply mean, at the end of the day, the team that scores the most points per possession wins. You want to be looking for that on an individual basis, 5 man unit basis, every basis.

Hawkeye15
10-05-2015, 04:54 PM
You guys are being ignorant.

Being able to sci in different ways forces defenses to play you differently.

Just an example - someone like dirk stretches the floor and defenses cant cheat when hes outside and leave him open. This mean the lane is more clear and creates more scoring opportunities for other players.

So him being able yo stretch the floor might not make him a better scorer tham shaq, but it opens things for other players that shaq doesn't.

This is DEFINITELY not to say dirk is Better than shaq, it's just to give an example of why more skill, even if your direct stats dont go way up, can create more for other players.

Don't be a sheeple.

Dont be one of those that go "herpderp, shaq has more points hes a better scorer"

nope, you are right. Shaq's IMPACT was greater than Hakeem's, or Dirks. Defenses completely changed with him on the floor, shading the entire defense at him, opening up a ton of weakside open looks and drive lanes. Shaq just standing on the floor had more positive impact on an offense than most centers in the league. Even if he didn't score a point his team probably is a plus on that side. Shaq's teams were awesome offensively, and he was the constant in all of them.

Hawkeye15
10-05-2015, 04:55 PM
Thats just individual efficiency tho, by impact I mean a broader range of influence, those you make on ur teammates as well as your own production.


Better team influence is how I put it. That can be based on a wide variety of factors, some more important than others.

of which I have written/spoken about a zillion times regarding Shaq. Him just being on the floor created easier offense for everyone that played with him. Hence, his teammates became more efficient as individuals, and units.

tredigs
10-06-2015, 12:25 AM
You just answered it for me, thanks. "One dimensional center." Hawk says he doesn't care, therefore, thank you.

Yet you apparently have zero understanding of the difference between a 30 ppg #1 option who collapses D's and a single-digit PPG rebound hawk. Your ignorance is noted. Once again. You're making quite a name for yourself Flash.

FlashBolt
10-07-2015, 05:05 PM
Yet you apparently have zero understanding of the difference between a 30 ppg #1 option who collapses D's and a single-digit PPG rebound hawk. Your ignorance is noted. Once again. You're making quite a name for yourself Flash.

Yet apparently, you can't seem to understand the meaning of "I don't care." Let me clarify: He basically ignores how they score but as long as they are "efficient" from the field in doing so. Okay fine, let me use Dwight Howard as an example. Would you rather have him as your offensive weapon or Kyle Korver? Both guys are rather one-dimensional but Korver has an indirect impact because he's a threat on the three pointer. Dwight can't score on anyone unless he's getting a lob but clearly is much more efficient in getting the points.

So the logic stays the same whether or not I use DJ. So it's very simple to understand. The moment he says he doesn't care, it basically washes away the notion that a scoring arsenal is irrelevant to him. I don't know what school taught you in the 1950's but it probably wasn't a very good education.

Hawkeye15
10-07-2015, 08:48 PM
Yet apparently, you can't seem to understand the meaning of "I don't care." Let me clarify: He basically ignores how they score but as long as they are "efficient" from the field in doing so. Okay fine, let me use Dwight Howard as an example. Would you rather have him as your offensive weapon or Kyle Korver? Both guys are rather one-dimensional but Korver has an indirect impact because he's a threat on the three pointer. Dwight can't score on anyone unless he's getting a lob but clearly is much more efficient in getting the points.

So the logic stays the same whether or not I use DJ. So it's very simple to understand. The moment he says he doesn't care, it basically washes away the notion that a scoring arsenal is irrelevant to him. I don't know what school taught you in the 1950's but it probably wasn't a very good education.

did you completely miss the response I gave you above bud? Don't put words in my mouth. I am comparing similar positions with similar roles. In that regard, IMPACT is all I care about. It doesn't mean I will take some 8 ppg bench guy who shoots a TS% of 60 over Kobe in his prime. It means, if all is equal (role, usage, etc), impact is all that matters. You don't get style points in basketball.

Easy enough, right?

Chronz
10-08-2015, 12:09 PM
Yet apparently, you can't seem to understand the meaning of "I don't care." Let me clarify: He basically ignores how they score but as long as they are "efficient" from the field in doing so. Okay fine, let me use Dwight Howard as an example. Would you rather have him as your offensive weapon or Kyle Korver? Both guys are rather one-dimensional but Korver has an indirect impact because he's a threat on the three pointer. Dwight can't score on anyone unless he's getting a lob but clearly is much more efficient in getting the points.

So the logic stays the same whether or not I use DJ. So it's very simple to understand. The moment he says he doesn't care, it basically washes away the notion that a scoring arsenal is irrelevant to him. I don't know what school taught you in the 1950's but it probably wasn't a very good education.
Hawk never implied anything of the sort and did you really call Dwight more efficient than Kyle ****ing korver? Mucho fail

FlashBolt
10-11-2015, 02:05 AM
did you completely miss the response I gave you above bud? Don't put words in my mouth. I am comparing similar positions with similar roles. In that regard, IMPACT is all I care about. It doesn't mean I will take some 8 ppg bench guy who shoots a TS% of 60 over Kobe in his prime. It means, if all is equal (role, usage, etc), impact is all that matters. You don't get style points in basketball.

Easy enough, right?

It's why when I hear how much more versatile Melo or Kobe is than LeBron as a scorer, I just don't care. At the end of the day, LeBron scores just as many points, in less shot attempts. That matters. And it's all that matters.


Hawk never implied anything of the sort and did you really call Dwight more efficient than Kyle ****ing korver? Mucho fail

It's why when I hear how much more versatile Melo or Kobe is than LeBron as a scorer, I just don't care. At the end of the day, LeBron scores just as many points, in less shot attempts. That matters. And it's all that matters.

FlashBolt
10-11-2015, 02:07 AM
Hawk never implied anything of the sort and did you really call Dwight more efficient than Kyle ****ing korver? Mucho fail

If you're looking at TS%, of course not. But I'm basing it off what Hawk said which is "Scores the same amount of points in less shots."

JordansBulls
10-11-2015, 07:44 PM
It's because they took organizations that never won to titles, that is why they are the best.

FlashBolt
10-12-2015, 01:02 AM
It's because they took organizations that never won to titles, that is why they are the best.

So there are equally only 30 possible true best players in NBA history?

GrkGawdofWalkz
10-12-2015, 09:54 AM
Versatility, mental toughness, near precision on defense. Those are the three things about Tim Duncan and Hakeem that you could always expect. Both had quality teammates around them, but they had the ability to do all the little parts of the big mans game to compete and have longevity. Jordan had the will power, mental toughness and drive to push everyone out of his way. Never a great defensive player, he was good enough to handle anyone he went against.