What would prime Tim Duncan be in todays era?

[CavaliersFTW]

Prime Tim Duncan happened over a decade ago in the 2003 pre-defensive 3 second rule era (according to some here it changed the landscape of basketball to the point that it made defenses against big men more "sophisticated" and thus it became impossible for traditional big men to make the same impact particularly offensively)

So going along with this idea, now that the game is more sophisticated, and keeping in mind prime Duncan never had to face modern post-3-second era trained bigs like Blake Griffin, Marc Gasol, Al Jefferson or Dwight Howard how would a time traveled MVP Tim Duncan cope? MVP candidate still or nah, too many rule changes and sophisticated shit thrown at him? Same stats or nah? Is it unfair to even make or suggest such a comparison actually given that the rules are so different?

lol

[DonDadda59]

He'd be just like Marc Gasol today, frustrated and held back somehow. 14/8 at his absolute best. Couldn't win any titles.

Why? Well... just because.

[fpliii]

Wouldn't affect Timmy too much since even though he's not Shaq, he can operate inside as well as outside with that nice bank shot of his.

The rule change hurts average post up bigs more.

[LoneyROY7]

Significantly better than Wilt in today's era.

[CavaliersFTW]

He'd be just like Marc Gasol today, frustrated and held back somehow. 14/8 at his absolute best. Couldn't win any titles.

Why? Well... just because.
damn that sounds awful

[DonDadda59]

Wouldn't affect Timmy too much since even though he's not Shaq, he can operate inside as well as outside with that nice bank shot of his.

The rule change hurts average post up bigs more.

Like Big Al Jefferson :(


damn that sounds awful

It's hard out here for a pimp.

But... why?

Your guess is as good as mine.

[Lebronxrings]

He'd be just like Marc Gasol today, frustrated and held back somehow. 14/8 at his absolute best. Couldn't win any titles.

Why? Well... just because.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
Why are you posting about duncan without pop

Its clear he probably has pop in these scenarios so he goes something like 18/10.

[robert_shaww]

pretty much the same

[DonDadda59]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
Why are you posting about duncan without pop

Its clear he probably has pop in these scenarios so he goes something like 18/10.

Everyone needs pop.

http://img1.targetimg1.com/wcsstore/TargetSAS//img/p/12/95/12953518.jpg

Fanta... ain't nothing wrong with that :applause:

[CavaliersFTW]

Wouldn't affect Timmy too much since even though he's not Shaq, he can operate inside as well as outside with that nice bank shot of his.

The rule change hurts average post up bigs more.
I'm not trying to rustle your jimmies, so I'll give you a heads up before you get too invested in this thread, I posted this tongue in cheek. I personally believe talent > rules is primarily why today's game currently doesn't showcase the big man. The composition of talent in today's game is just in a slump as far as bigs go. I think guys like Duncan, Shaq, or even Brad Daugherty or Zelmo Beatty could and would still leave similar impact today as they could and did relative to their day. I think players adjust to rules, I don't think big men are "held back" today. Just my opinion.

[fpliii]

Like Big Al Jefferson :(
Playing before the rule change would help him a bit, but if a guy is anchoring a bottom 5 or 6 offense, not sure how much it would matter. Teams would be content to let him keep doing his thing.

[ralph_i_el]

He'd put up close to the same stats. Maybe 2-3 less ppg and .5-1 more TO per game.

He'd be just as dominant as a big because its all relative.

I know we got heated yesterday over this, but the real difference in terms of bigs impact isn't huge. It just changed the balance between perimeter and inside play IMO, and also PnR vs. Iso play.I don't believe bigs today are less talented though.

Even if rule changes only impact efficiency to a small degree, it changes how teams gameplan in the long run.

[fpliii]

I'm not trying to rustle your jimmies, so I'll give you a heads up before you get too invested in this thread, I posted this tongue in cheek. I personally believe talent > rules is primarily why today's game currently doesn't showcase the big man. The composition of talent in today's game is just in a slump as far as bigs go. I think guys like Duncan, Shaq, or even Brad Daugherty or Zelmo Beatty could and would still leave similar impact today as they could and did in their day. I think players adjust to rules, I don't think big men are "held back" today. Just my opinion.
I'm not sure how I feel on the matter, but I do think it has an effect. It's not going to make stars scrubs or scrubs superstars, however it does seem like average post up big men will have an easier time if they're not getting doubled off ball (which still happened when the illegal defense rules were in place, but it could be circumvented by drawing defenders away from the paint by keeping their assignments away from the inside action).

[DonDadda59]

Playing before the rule change would help him a bit, but if a guy is anchoring a bottom 5 or 6 offense, not sure how much it would matter. Teams would be content to let him keep doing his thing.

How? Please provide details.

Where is this idea coming from that the NBA style of play today is hindering average-slightly above average offensive big men from being good-great big men? :confusedshrug:

The rule changes were made to HELP perimeter players, not HURT bigs. Guys like Duncan, Big Al, etc who know how to play in the post do just fine. The others are either limited skill-wise or are SGs trapped in 7 ftrs bodies.

And like Cavs said, it's a dearth of talent, not rules changes. Pretty much every young C who looked like they could be potentially great has had their career derailed by injury. Bynum at just 24, just 2 years ago, was putting up 19/12 on 56% FG. Only thing that stopped him was injury.

Greg Oden was supposed to be the next great C... injury killed that. Even now with Embiid- a guy who looks to have the tools to potentially thrive as a traditional big... he's already started down the path Oden laid out.

[ralph_i_el]

How? Please provide details.

Where is this idea coming from that the NBA style of play today is hindering average-slightly above average offensive big men from being good-great big men? :confusedshrug:

The rule changes were made to HELP perimeter players, not HURT bigs. Guys like Duncan, Big Al, etc who know how to play in the post do just fine. The others are either limited skill-wise or are SGs trapped in 7 ftrs bodies.

And like Cavs said, it's a dearth of talent, not rules changes. Pretty much every young C who looked like they could be potentially great has had their career derailed by injury. Bynum at just 24, just 2 years ago, was putting up 19/12 on 56% FG. Only thing that stopped him was injury.

Greg Oden was supposed to be the next great C... injury killed that. Even now with Embiid- a guy who looks to have the tools to potentially thrive as a traditional big... he's already started down the path Oden laid out.
You understand that by helping perimeter players it makes big men comparably less effective right? That's basic economics.

Right now in the NBA its nearly impossible to run a good offense if you have more than one guy on the floor who can't shoot out to 18ft.

[DonDadda59]

You understand that by helping perimeter players it makes big men comparably less effective right? That's basic economics

I'm still waiting for you to sort out your bullshit in that other thread my dude :lol

And I didn't know we were discussing economics here. Fascinating.

But here's Andrew Bynum from just 2 seasons ago, before the injuries, who was putting up 19 PPG/ 12 RPG on 56% FG as a strictly post up player (as the THIRD option, mind you):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPhM1Y8EUdw

Walk me through the footage... what are the defenses he faced doing to make him less effective? Is it some Keynesian economic tactic coaches were using then? :confusedshrug:

[fpliii]

How? Please provide details.

Where is this idea coming from that the NBA style of play today is hindering average-slightly above average offensive big men from being good-great big men? :confusedshrug:
Here are the illegal defense rules, put into place starting in 81-82:
[CODE]Zone defense rules clarified with new rules for Illegal Defensive Alignments.
a. Weak side defenders may come in the pro lane (16

[ralph_i_el]

I'm still waiting for you to sort out your bullshit in that other thread my dude :lol

And I didn't know we were discussing economics here. Fascinating.

But here's Andrew Bynum for just 2 seasons ago, before the injuries, who was putting up 19 PPG/ 12 RPG on 56% FG as a strictly post up player (as the THIRD option, mind you):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPhM1Y8EUdw

Walk me through the footage... what are the defenses he faced doing to make him less effective? Is it some Keynesian economic tactic coaches were using then? :confusedshrug:
Economics is the study if human decision making under scarcity. In this case scarcity is shots/plays/amount of time in a game.

If rules make one type of player or possession more effective, it also makes other types of player and possessions LESS effective.

You literally just keep posting stat lines and individual highlights. You understand highlights only show when they player did something that supports your argument. No one makes turnover highlight reels, or vids of all the times the post player is forced to pass out, or all the times when they don't even get a play called for them because their coach doesn't want to run post ups.

Nobody is saying you can score from the post, or even be very successful scoring from the post. What I'm saying is:

Teams do it less (fact)
Its less effective (fact)

In reference to your video....who's to say bynum wouldn't have been the FIRST option in the 80's or 90's? You don't think in another era bynum would get more post opportunities and put up 22ppg instead of 19? That's all I'm saying.

[fpliii]

I'm still waiting for you to sort out your bullshit in that other thread my dude :lol

And I didn't know we were discussing economics here. Fascinating.

But here's Andrew Bynum from just 2 seasons ago, before the injuries, who was putting up 19 PPG/ 12 RPG on 56% FG as a strictly post up player (as the THIRD option, mind you):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPhM1Y8EUdw

Walk me through the footage... what are the defenses he faced doing to make him less effective? Is it some Keynesian economic tactic coaches were using then? :confusedshrug:
I like Drew a ton and as a Lakers fan I'm disappointed with how things have turned out, but looking at raw box score stats and a highlight mix isn't going to tell us the whole story. His passing out of the double left much to be desired, and with his ability to make quick moves, if he's not getting doubled before receiving the entry pass, he's going to punish a single defender.

I don't know how much his numbers would improve, but his passing ability would be less of an issue if illegal defense guidelines were still in place.

[CavaliersFTW]

You understand that by helping perimeter players it makes big men comparably less effective right? That's basic economics.

Right now in the NBA its nearly impossible to run a good offense if you have more than one guy on the floor who can't shoot out to 18ft.
When has it ever not been this way? Even successfull teams built around centers in the past all had guys that could shoot.

In what way are traditional pivot players (of any skill or impact level, ranging from last guy on the bench to superstar) prior to the 2003 era, suddenly handicapped to a degree that they now make less impact than they would have in the past? What exactly are you suggesting, would Bob Lanier, a 22 and 10 guy, not be able to put up 22 and 10 today? But Al Jefferson can? Or are you saying it's not that the stats can't be put up, it's that the impact of said stats no longer benefits a team?

[DonDadda59]

Economics is the study if human decision making under scarcity. In this case scarcity is shots/plays/amount of time in a game.

If rules make one type of player or possession more effective, it also makes other types of player and possessions LESS effective.

This is as blatant an example of faulty logic as I've ever seen. That should be applauded. :applause:

AGAIN... Explain HOW a player like Marc Gasol is being held back, being made less effective. Old Man Duncan was posting 18/10 at age 36 and competing/winning championships playing in the deep post.


You literally just keep posting stat lines and individual highlights. You understand highlights only show when they player did something that supports your argument.

OK, so go ahead and post ANYTHING (not counting a local Memphis article making excuses for their offensively mediocre center :oldlol: ) that supports your misguided argument. Would love to see a video breakdown of this super secret defense that's keeping Marc Gasol from magically transforming into David Robinson.


Nobody is saying you can score from the post, or even be very successful scoring from the post. What I'm saying is:

Teams do it less (fact)
Its less effective (fact)

Teams do it less because the talent pool is shallow in terms of guys who know how to play out of the post. If it so ineffective... why is it that every team that has won a championship since the advent of the 3-second rule has featured at least 1 good-great post up player who was either a first or second option?



In reference to your video....who's to say bynum wouldn't have been the FIRST option in the 80's or 90's? You don't think in another era bynum would get more post opportunities and put up 22ppg instead of 19? That's all I'm saying.

Jesus :facepalm

So Marc Gasol is Patrick Ewing in shackles and Andrew Bynum is Shaq now, being the first option over Kobe and Pau (both excellent post players themselves)?

Wow.


I like Drew a ton and as a Lakers fan I'm disappointed with how things have turned out, but looking at raw box score stats and a highlight mix isn't going to tell us the whole story. His passing out of the double left much to be desired, and with his ability to make quick moves, if he's not getting doubled before receiving the entry pass, he's going to punish a single defender.

I don't know how much his numbers would improve, but his passing ability would be less of an issue if illegal defense guidelines were still in place.

Yup, definitely something I noticed about Bynum. His court awareness wasn't the best, but that could be chalked up to him being a young player who really was drafted because of his raw ability. He learned a lot from the beginning of his career to his peak (sad he was only 24). If he had stayed healthy and loved basketball more than bowling, I'm sure that's a skill he would've learned just like how he improved drastically in post scoring.

[Jlamb47]

He'd be just like Marc Gasol today, frustrated and held back somehow. 14/8 at his absolute best. Couldn't win any titles.

Why? Well... just because.

The funny thing is old duncan puts better stats then that now
So why the fvck would prime duncan put up them stat?S

[DonDadda59]

The funny thing is old duncan puts better stats then that now
So why the fvck would prime duncan put up them stat?S

That's what the hell I'm trying to figure out. So far the best theory is-

https://www.nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/shia-labeouf-magic-gif.gif

Magic. :cletus:

[ralph_i_el]

This is as blatant an example of faulty logic as I've ever seen. That should be applauded. :applause:




OK, so go ahead and post ANYTHING (not counting a local Memphis article making excuses for their offensively mediocre center :oldlol: ) that supports your misguided argument. Would love to see a video breakdown of this super secret defense that's keeping Marc Gasol from magically transforming into David Robinson.


Jesus way to exaggerate:facepalm Saying that Marc could put up 22ppg is very far from saying he's could even be close to the admiral

post something? gotcha http://grantland.com/features/packing-paint-nba-defensive-strategy-forcing-coaches-rethink-their-offense/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUTeqg_CefM check out the second Lakers possession especially
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAdtTE14PMQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nepmd2ygMK4





And to my "faulty" logic That's just basic microecon.


Obviously this is simplified but let me do a quick run down for you. X and Y must equal whole numbers (you can't take a half a shot lol)

X=Low post shot attempts
Y= Shot attempts from the rest of the floor

W= Expected points per shot from Low Post shots
Z= Expected points per shot from the rest of the floor

U=Utility (in this case, total points)

The "-.1X^2" and "-.1Y^2" terms symbolize diminishing returns from taking too many of one type of shot.

U= ((W*X)-[.1X]^2)+((Z*Y)-[.1Y]^2)

Now if the multiplier we use for W decreases, the marginal value of Z is increased, so the optimal amount Y will increase.

Likewise if the number we use for W increases, the optimal U would call for more X.

Lets just say pre-rules change that W and Z equal 1 for the sake of easy math

U=((1*X)-[.1X]^2)+((1*Y)-[.1Y]^2)

Now lets set the parameter for total available shots at 50=X+Y
The optimal bundle would be: (X,Y)=(25,25) ie: half your shots from the low post, half from everywhere else



NOW lets change the value of W and Z. Lets make Z=1.1 and have W=1 still.

U=((1*X)-[.1X]^2)+((1.1*Y)-[.1Y]^2)

NOW the bundle that gives us the greatest value for U is (X,Y)=(23,27) or (22,28). The exact answer is a fractional amount in the middle of those values, but like I said, there are no half shot attempts.

Because the shot value everywhere else INCREASES, the AMOUNT of X (post shots) DECREASES. What they say in Econ is that the MARGINAL VALUE of X has decreased. I left my example simple so you can check the math on your own if you wanted to.




Now this is contingent on the assumption that basketball teams want to score as many points as possible, but I think you'll accept that:roll: You may not accept my assumptions, but never question my logic.







I'm just trying to demonstrate that any changes that make one option more or less attractive will have an impact on the value of other options.

[DonDadda59]

Jesus way to exaggerate:facepalm Saying that Marc could put up 22ppg is very far from saying he's could even be close to the admiral

post something? gotcha http://grantland.com/features/packing-paint-nba-defensive-strategy-forcing-coaches-rethink-their-offense/


:facepalm

That whole article is based on this idea that Thibs created this system that takes away from post players... yet here is the type of production our favorite Big Al put up the past 2 seasons vs the Bulls and the DPOY Noah:

26.8 PPG (58%FG)/ 10.8 RPG

I've already posted several videos of him absolutely abusing the Bulls and scoring at will and asked you nicely to tell me what exactly it was that Thibs was doing to slow him down. You still haven't.

And this is what Big Al thinks about the defenses he faces on a nightly basis:

[INDENT]"I'll tell you, (Houston Rockets coach) Kevin McHale let me know that it was OK to still play old-school," he said. [B]"I'm one of the few guys

[ralph_i_el]

Then you wasted a whole lot of time and energy, again... using the most flawed logic possible. But props to your Econ 101 professor, I'm sure he'd be thrilled to find out you're putting everything he taught you to good use... in a discussion about post players in the NBA

:wtf:

multivariable calculus in Econ 101 :facepalm not likely
btw that whole example took ~10 minutes because I had to study that shit years ago.

You still haven't said why my logic is flawed, because you obviously don't understand the concept and how it applies to the situation.

You want me to post videos that don't exist because no one makes compilations of post up turnovers, and it's impossible to a make video compilation of players choosing NOT to use a particular strategy. All I can tell you is to watch the games and pay attention to the defense :confusedshrug:



Oh btw, Al Jefferson is 1-4 against the Bulls the last two seasons, and the only game they won he went 4/14 for 10 points.

But that's small sample sizes for ya :confusedshrug:

[ralph_i_el]

here's a vid that should clear this all up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewOzi5-AZXU

[SCdac]

Duncan would still beast.

He's not unskilled by any means. Can pass well, dribble, shoot, read the defense, block shots and defend, can run an offense around him, etc.

Any he was really athletic in his prime, despite an aged Duncan being slower.

[oarabbus]

Duncan would be a 25/10 guy.

[DonDadda59]

here's a vid that should clear this all up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewOzi5-AZXU

Sadly, this is actually the best argument you've made :roll:


Duncan would be a 25/10 guy.

38 year old Duncan would be a 22/12 player in the 90s while a 23 year old Duncan would be putting up 14/8 like Marc Gasol if he played today.

That's the correct formula, right Ralph? :confusedshrug:

[juju151111]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]:facepalm

That whole article is based on this idea that Thibs created this system that takes away from post players... yet here is the type of production our favorite Big Al put up the past 2 seasons vs the Bulls and the DPOY Noah:

26.8 PPG (58%FG)/ 10.8 RPG

I've already posted several videos of him absolutely abusing the Bulls and scoring at will and asked you nicely to tell me what exactly it was that Thibs was doing to slow him down. You still haven't.

And this is what Big Al thinks about the defenses he faces on a nightly basis:

[INDENT]"I'll tell you, (Houston Rockets coach) Kevin McHale let me know that it was OK to still play old-school," he said. [B]"I'm one of the few guys

[juju151111]

here's a vid that should clear this all up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewOzi5-AZXU
Bro Duncan is 36 putting up 18/10 50%with elite defense. So you expect me the believe a prime Duncan can't put up 23-25 ppg on 50%?

[ralph_i_el]

Bro Duncan is 36 putting up 18/10 50%with elite defense. So you expect me the believe a prime Duncan can't put up 23-25 ppg on 50%?

yes, that is exactly what that video should lead you to believe.

You're going to hang on to the thing I said about Marc Gasol just like you held on to your random as Al Jefferson non-point. Neither of us is going to convince the other. Neither of us is going to change what is actually happening on the court. idgaf anymore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBGXZZhhVaU <---If you don't believe this you're a fool

[oarabbus]

Sadly, this is actually the best argument you've made :roll:



38 year old Duncan would be a 22/12 player in the 90s while a 23 year old Duncan would be putting up 14/8 like Marc Gasol if he played today.

That's the correct formula, right Ralph? :confusedshrug:


Prime Duncan would be like 25/10 maybe up to 26/14. Old Duncan this season was 15/10.

[DonDadda59]

Prime Duncan would be like 25/10 maybe up to 26/14. Old Duncan this season was 15/10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N4f4sR_QpY

[oarabbus]

Ralph, Anthony Davis posted 21/10 this year in his 2nd season and he is nowhere near the player Prime Duncan is. In fact, Duncan came in more NBA ready - and with a better jumpshot /bankshot than Anthony Davis.

Your Moreyball econ scarcity example holds up only when controlling for the shots taken by the entire team; not for one player. You've basically looked at the post shots/long distance shots dichotomy from a "macroeconomic" sense i.e. the entire team but using microeconomic principles. For a big, talented PF/C like Duncan, your "W" will be quite high and your "Z" considerably lower. You say


NOW the bundle that gives us the greatest value for U is (X,Y)=(23,27) or (22,28). The exact answer is a fractional amount in the middle of those values, but like I said, there are no half shot attempts.

Because the shot value everywhere else INCREASES, the AMOUNT of X (post shots) DECREASES.

Precisely, but again as I said before you're looking at it from the team level. Duncan will STILL take 20 low post shots. Maybe he take 18 low post shots and 2 more jumpers. It's other players that will be taking less low post shots. You've applied economic theory remarkably poorly (and let's not even get started on physiology) if your conclusion is that Prime Duncan today would be negligably better than Old Duncan.

[DonDadda59]

Ralph, Anthony Davis posted 21/10 this year in his 2nd season and he is nowhere near the player Prime Duncan is. In fact, Duncan came in more NBA ready - and with a better jumpshot /bankshot than Anthony Davis. Your Moreyball econ scarcity example holds up only when controlling for the shots taken by the entire team; not for one player. You've basically looked at the post shots/long distance shots dichotomy from a "macroeconomic" sense i.e. the entire team, which doesn't apply here.

Anthony Davis would've been a 30/15 player in the 90s much like 38 year old Timmy would've been a 22/14 player in '97-'98.

But if you took '97-'98 Duncan and dropped him into the league now, he'd barely put up 14/8.

It's economics, bro.

[oarabbus]

Anthony Davis would've been a 30/15 player in the 90s much like 38 year old Timmy would've been a 22/14 player in '97-'98.

But if you took '97-'98 Duncan and dropped him into the league now, he'd barely put up 14/8.

It's economics, bro.


:oldlol:

That damn David Stern and his rule changes! More than doubling the stats of 90s big men :mad:

[04mzwach]

Everyone needs pop.

http://img1.targetimg1.com/wcsstore/TargetSAS//img/p/12/95/12953518.jpg

Fanta... ain't nothing wrong with that :applause:
brominated vegetable oil :facepalm

[juju151111]

yes, that is exactly what that video should lead you to believe.

You're going to hang on to the thing I said about Marc Gasol just like you held on to your random as Al Jefferson non-point. Neither of us is going to convince the other. Neither of us is going to change what is actually happening on the court. idgaf anymore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBGXZZhhVaU <---If you don't believe this you're a fool
You never address anything that's directed to you or provide anything to support your argument. The Al Jefferson point still stands. You still haven't told me how Al Jefferson avg 22ppg on 51%. You still don't get it we agree al Jefferson is garbage. You haven't tackled any points made by us.

[LAZERUSS]

In 32 mpg, the 6-11 270 lb. Cousins averaged a 23-12 last year.
The 6-10 Dwight had a 23-14 season in 38 mpg a few years ago.

In the '04 Finals, Shaq averaged 27-11 in 42 mpg against the best defensive team in the league. Furthermore, when he was basically played straight up by four-time DPOY Ben Wallace, he was putting up huge games of 34 on 13-16 and 36 on 16-21. In the second round against the Spurs he hung a 23-15 .635 series (Duncan was at 21-12 .473 BTW.) And an '04 Shaq was already on the decline.


The real problem is that true post-up centers have become rare. My god, seven-foot high school soph Thon Maker took 93 three's last year, and keep in mind that the NBA 3pt line is considerably longer,...and shot .279 from the arc. Even his 2pt FG%, against many players who will probably not make a college team, was only 54%. What was his coach thinking?

Another point that is seldom mentioned is that the game continues to slow down to a snail pace. Teams don't even think about running anymore. It is all about running the shot clock down, and taking a worse shot near the end of the shot clock, than they had earlier. A peak Shaq would run down the floor, get post position near the basket, with a single defender, take a pass, and throw down a point blank dunk. And even that strategy was never used anywhere near as much as it should have been.

With the spacing of the floor in today's game, the best post-up centers of the past, playing 40 mpg, would still put up 30 ppg seasons. Not that Cousins would continue to play at the same level for 40 mpg, but had he been capable of doing so, his numbers would have been at over 28 ppg. Does anyone here honestly believe that Cousins, last year, was even remotely close to a peak Shaq?

[SHAQisGOAT]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]:facepalm

That whole article is based on this idea that Thibs created this system that takes away from post players... yet here is the type of production our favorite Big Al put up the past 2 seasons vs the Bulls and the DPOY Noah:

26.8 PPG (58%FG)/ 10.8 RPG

I've already posted several videos of him absolutely abusing the Bulls and scoring at will and asked you nicely to tell me what exactly it was that Thibs was doing to slow him down. You still haven't.

And this is what Big Al thinks about the defenses he faces on a nightly basis:

[INDENT]"I'll tell you, (Houston Rockets coach) Kevin McHale let me know that it was OK to still play old-school," he said. [B]"I'm one of the few guys

[ralph_i_el]

Ralph, Anthony Davis posted 21/10 this year in his 2nd season and he is nowhere near the player Prime Duncan is. In fact, Duncan came in more NBA ready - and with a better jumpshot /bankshot than Anthony Davis.

Your Moreyball econ scarcity example holds up only when controlling for the shots taken by the entire team; not for one player. You've basically looked at the post shots/long distance shots dichotomy from a "macroeconomic" sense i.e. the entire team but using microeconomic principles. For a big, talented PF/C like Duncan, your "W" will be quite high and your "Z" considerably lower. You say



Precisely, but again as I said before you're looking at it from the team level. Duncan will STILL take 20 low post shots. Maybe he take 18 low post shots and 2 more jumpers. It's other players that will be taking less low post shots. You've applied economic theory remarkably poorly (and let's not even get started on physiology) if your conclusion is that Prime Duncan today would be negligably better than Old Duncan.

Anthony Davis is still more of a faceup/ quickness big with a decent jumper.

I'm not saying cousins would be Shaq or Marc Gasol would be Ewing. I'm just saying the balance today is different and there are good bigs that would put up slightly better stats in different eras.

Dondadda already admitted the rules benefit perimeter play more. My econ example was just a basic depiction on what happens if one strategy gets a boost. It wasn't meant to be an accurate depiction of anything or a simulation or w/e. Admitting perimeter play has gotten a boost is the equivalent if saying inside play is comparatively weaker. That's all I was trying to demonstrate.

Without question the demand for stretch big men has increased. Can you even debate that? So what are the implications if that?

How have I not addressed Al Jefferson? He's inefficient and the centerpiece of a failed offense. He shoots a ton of shots close to the hoop and doesn't hit them at a great rate and doesn't draw fouls.


Y'all know that D cousins takes a ton of midrange jumpers right?

[juju151111]

Anthony Davis is still more of a faceup/ quickness big with a decent jumper.

I'm not saying cousins would be Shaq or Marc Gasol would be Ewing. I'm just saying the balance today is different and there are good bigs that would put up slightly better stats in different eras.

Dondadda already admitted the rules benefit perimeter play more. My econ example was just a basic depiction on what happens if one strategy gets a boost. It wasn't meant to be an accurate depiction of anything or a simulation or w/e. Admitting perimeter play has gotten a boost is the equivalent if saying inside play is comparatively weaker. That's all I was trying to demonstrate.

Without question the demand for stretch big men has increased. Can you even debate that? So what are the implications if that?

How have I not addressed Al Jefferson? He's inefficient and the centerpiece of a failed offense. He shoots a ton of shots close to the hoop and doesn't hit them at a great rate and doesn't draw fouls.
Bro when Duncan came in the league he was a face up quickness player jumpshootering. He actually just could post up. Marc Gasol wouldn't and you still haven't give any good treason why he would

[ralph_i_el]

Bro when Duncan came in the league he was a face up quickness player jumpshootering. He actually just could post up. Marc Gasol wouldn't and you still haven't give any good treason why he would

When Duncan came into the league he was everything. Hes one of the greatest to ever do it. But its not like they're pounding it to him in the post today. He gets lots of easy finishes because he has good hands, and the spurs run good motions to free him for 1v1 post touches.
They also have a shitload of shooting to space.

First off Gasol would get more tasty touches TODAY without zbo on his team. He has legit post moves and a jumper too. There are teams today where he could be putting 18-19/a game (aka if he replaced Nene/gortat for the wiz).

[GODbe]

He's on the Spurs still right? If so, he'd still put up the same old numbers he did back then, but his impact would be no different than :facepalm Pau Gasofts:facepalm or Stoudemire. He honestly was never that good of a player. Just had the greatest coach of all time, and a system that was built to pad his stats and win games at the same time.

[ralph_i_el]

He's on the Spurs still right? If so, he'd still put up the same old numbers he did back then, but his impact would be no different than :facepalm Pau Gasofts:facepalm or Stoudemire. He honestly was never that good of a player. Just had the greatest coach of all time, and a system that was built to pad his stats and win games at the same time.
Which is why teams were tripping over themselves to tank and get him coming out of WF?

[GODbe]

Which is why teams were tripping over themselves to tank and get him coming out if WF?
Teams were tripping over Kwame at one point:confusedshrug: . Nobody's ever seen Duncan play outside of a Spurs system. Teams would be stupid to tank for a :facepalm Pau Gasoft:facepalm calibre player, just like that one team was stupid to trade :facepalm Pau:facepalm for Kwame.

[ralph_i_el]

Teams were tripping over Kwame at one point:confusedshrug: . Nobody's ever seen Duncan play outside of a Spurs system. Teams would be stupid to tank for a Pau Gasoft calibre player, just like that one team was stupid to trade Pau for Kwame.
:facepalm

1. The spurs have played multiple systems since Duncan has been a spur
2. Kwame at #1 was a surprise. MJ is just retarded. Passed on Tyson chandler and Pau.

3. I'm pretty sure the rights to Marc Gasol were the centerpiece to that trade?

[Dragonyeuw]

Duncan is light-years away from his prime, and still a top big man at 38. No reason to think prime TD wouldn't adapt to any rule changes in the past decade and be just as good today.

[ScarSymmetry]

He's on the Spurs still right? If so, he'd still put up the same old numbers he did back then, but his impact would be no different than :facepalm Pau Gasofts:facepalm or Stoudemire. He honestly was never that good of a player. Just had the greatest coach of all time, and a system that was built to pad his stats and win games at the same time.

You're a ****ing moron and I can see why you have no rep.

Such insightful comments on that "system".

[Lebronxrings]

He's on the Spurs still right? If so, he'd still put up the same old numbers he did back then, but his impact would be no different than :facepalm Pau Gasofts:facepalm or Stoudemire. He honestly was never that good of a player. Just had the greatest coach of all time, and a system that was built to pad his stats and win games at the same time.
a good post? Wow.

[ralph_i_el]

a good post? Wow.
Now hop on the rest of your alts and get this thread popping

[DonDadda59]

Duncan is light-years away from his prime, and still a top big man at 38. No reason to think prime TD wouldn't adapt to any rule changes in the past decade and be just as good today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRmc9IPGmiA

[Paul George 24]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRmc9IPGmiA

moron
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yy6t_gnJKz0/T8On8z1wtbI/AAAAAAAABzA/3eV9_urslR0/s1600/moron.jpg

[DonDadda59]

moron
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yy6t_gnJKz0/T8On8z1wtbI/AAAAAAAABzA/3eV9_urslR0/s1600/moron.jpg

As soon as you take your nostalgia glasses off.

38 year old Duncan = 22/12 player in 1997.

1997 Duncan = 14/8 player in 2014.

Simple economics... Simponomics. Learn it.

[Paul George 24]

As soon as you take your nostalgia glasses off.

38 year old Duncan = 22/12 player in 1997.

1997 Duncan = 14/8 player in 2014.

Simple economics... Simponomics. Learn it.
moron :facepalm

[Paul George 24]

He's on the Spurs still right? If so, he'd still put up the same old numbers he did back then, but his impact would be no different than :facepalm Pau Gasofts:facepalm or Stoudemire. He honestly was never that good of a player. Just had the greatest coach of all time, and a system that was built to pad his stats and win games at the same time.

what about kome :roll:

[Round Mound]

The 2nd Best Player In The Game after Lebron James. He Was Infact The 2nd Best Player in The Game after Shaq from 99-2007.

[Paul George 24]

The 2nd Best Player In The Game after Lebron James. He Was Infact The 2nd Best Player in The Game after Shaq from 99-2007.

he is better than lebron for sure

[BoutPractice]

Hypothetically, and that's being very optimistic, he might surprise us and turn out to be, say, the most important piece on a championship team at 38 years old.

But who knows, it's not like we have a time machine after all... we'll be stuck with what ifs until the end of time.