If Barkley and Malone had the same amount of rings as Duncan...... [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

PDA

View Full Version : If Barkley and Malone had the same amount of rings as Duncan......

HOoopCityJones

06-07-2015, 05:02 PM

Would he still be considered The Goat PF?

Rose'sACL

06-07-2015, 05:03 PM

Defense......defense......defense

SouBeachTalents

06-07-2015, 05:04 PM

That'd be a hell of a debate. He'd still have as good an argument as anyone though

BlakFrankWhite

06-07-2015, 05:05 PM

I thought we do the 'what if' scenarios in the summers

HOoopCityJones

06-07-2015, 05:06 PM

I thought we do the 'what if' scenarios in the summers

It's June.

Dro

06-07-2015, 05:06 PM

SamuraiSWISH

06-07-2015, 05:12 PM

Duncan is a Center ...

Spurs5Rings2014

06-07-2015, 05:14 PM

To anybody with a brain he would be.....His defense is clearly better, and so is his ability to make his teammates better by being unselfish, yet still having a huge impact......He's one of the smartest players ever......

Yep. The reason those guys didn't win is because they lacked things Duncan possesses.

For Barkley it was work ethic, similar to Shaq. He let himself get lazy and out of shape. He also was more injury prone towards the end of his career. His mental fortitude wasn't as strong as Duncan's either, who Shaq even said couldn't be shaken. Jordan took Barkley out for a round of golf and Barkley never touched him again. Duncan would have none of that.

For Malone, he just shrank in the finals. He was similar to a Wilt or a LeBron in that his production got worse when it was needed the most. Even Pippen said, "The mailman doesn't deliver on Sundays." A hell of a regular season player, though, no doubt. Duncan always shines brightest on the biggest stage. Even as old as 38 years old last year against OKC in the Game 6 OT with the score tied, the "system" became to dump the ball to Duncan in the high post and let him carry us to the finals. Multiple consecutive contested "off the glass" banks later and we're in the finals blowing out the Heat. No need for our franchise player to take over then as he already did it when we needed him to the most.

Just a few reasons why Duncan was greater than Barkley and Malone.

SCdac

06-07-2015, 05:14 PM

Even disregarding Duncan's HOF defense, if Tim had missed ~1,500 three pointers over the course of his career, the same amount Charles Barkley missed, would Duncan have been less successful ya think? And as far as karl, you know what Pippen said, "the mailman don't deliver on sundays"

Spurs5Rings2014

06-07-2015, 05:15 PM

Duncan is a Center ...

Maybe on defense now since he's older and slower, but on offense he's still the PF and is in the high post.

HOoopCityJones

06-07-2015, 05:15 PM

Duncan is a Center ...

Not according to his fans and the media.

warriorfan

06-07-2015, 05:17 PM

Yes he would, Duncan is the only two way player out of those guys you mentioned.

Duncan is a PF and a C. He has true Center size and the skillset of a Power Forward. He has the best of both worlds.

SamuraiSWISH

06-07-2015, 05:19 PM

Not according to his fans and the media.
It's an excuse to call him "the best PF ever" ... he's always been a center, forced to at times in his career due to other competent centers being on the roster to play the PF spot. And if he's labeled appropriately as center, it isn't near as glamorous. He's behind Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem on the all-time list.

Anaximandro1

06-07-2015, 05:23 PM

Duncan played in the Western Conference, competed against all time greats in their prime ...

relative to his era, prime Duncan was a ruthless killing machine in the playoffs.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dqCSLxOe2Wk/VOJiOfuQL3I/AAAAAAAAD0U/pCwTWXJg6G4/s1600/26.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h6mQeKNkxbo/VNJ_sqknSqI/AAAAAAAADuc/8Yv_Fc9l7kY/s1600/4.jpg

TOP individual Playoff Runs (Title Runs since 1974) -> Duncan #2

BPM -> Box Score Estimate of the points per 100 Possessions a player contributed above a league-average player, translated to an average team

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bsqHo2AUZ_o/VNngkPAie1I/AAAAAAAADxA/wvbBCAwmKI8/s1600/8.jpg

Playoffs -> Prime Duncan has better stats and more rings than Prime Shaq (higher BPM, WS/48 ... defense matters a lot)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pWcdp1I6n4s/VN5goBaUhVI/AAAAAAAADzQ/zhJT9ECdYa8/s1600/20.jpg

[NBA Finals] -> Duncan is the second best combination of O/D, only defeated by Ray Allen

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WHZTWy3n-0A/VNffUGmjdOI/AAAAAAAADvs/iYT_IO919gw/s1600/3.jpg

BasedTom

06-07-2015, 05:24 PM

If OP didn't suck dick would he be considered straight?

warriorfan

06-07-2015, 05:26 PM

It's an excuse to call him "the best PF ever" ... he's always been a center, forced to at times in his career due to other competent centers being on the roster to play the PF spot. And if he's labeled appropriately as center, it isn't near as glamorous. He's behind Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem on the all-time list.

Forcing someone out of their natural position and having them thrive at it to the extent where they are labled the best ever at their new position is an incredible accomplishment.

Hakeem and Shaq are below Duncan in all time list. Way less consistency and longevity.

Russell should be below Duncan in all time list. Russell was not a two way player and played for very stacked teams his whole career in a questionable era.

Duncan is equal to Kareem now. Duncan is pretty much the modern day KAJ. After adjusting for pace, Duncan and KAJ's stats have been pretty much identical for the majority of their careers.

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 05:26 PM

OP thread backfire....

Dude...just give it up...you are so shook it's sad

:roll:

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 05:28 PM

SamuraiSWISH

06-07-2015, 05:30 PM

Regardless of position. He was a better player than the guys in the OP. Doesn't matter if he was a center, pf, or sg, or pg...he was the better player.

OP getting roasted.
I don't disagree, but Duncan is very much a Center. He isn't a PF. Is LeBron a PG? He basically handles the ball, playmakes, and facilitates the vast majority of his career for his teams. He's not a PG though. He defends, and is the size of a SF. I think your position is more based on what you defend.

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 05:36 PM

I don't disagree, but Duncan is very much a Center. He isn't a PF. Is LeBron a PG? He basically handles the ball, playmakes, and facilitates the vast majority of his career for his teams. He's not a PG though. He defends, and is the size of a SF. I think your position is more based on what you defend.

I would simply put Duncan as a pf/c as his position. He can play either position with the best of all time.

But I don't really care about position....it's just about overall impact.

CP3 being a point doesn't make him better or worse than Durant or something just because they play different positions.

Yes, it's easier to compare bigs to bigs and smalls to smalls...but in this case...pf or center...really means nothing.

chazzy

06-07-2015, 05:42 PM

[NBA Finals] -> Duncan is the second best combination of O/D, only defeated by Ray Allen
This may be the first time this sentence has been uttered in human history. Huh? lol

HOoopCityJones

06-07-2015, 05:53 PM

OP thread backfire....

Dude...just give it up...you are so shook it's sad

:roll:

How is it a thread backfire you insecure fucc? I have no dog in this fight :lol I decided to bring an interesting discussion to a broader audience.

SHAQisGOAT

06-07-2015, 06:05 PM

Still could definitely be argued but then the other two would have just as good of a case, let's say.

Hard to **** with Malone's longevity at a great level, but Tim has had great longevity while still having plenty of impact.
Hard to **** with Barkley's peak at the position but Tim also has one of the greatest peaks.
...

Anyways, removing those hypotheticals, going by what actually happen... Duncan's the GOAT PF, considering everything.

Spurs5Rings2014

06-07-2015, 06:09 PM

He's behind Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem on the all-time list.

Even if we evaluate him at C, he's not behind those guys.

Russell? Duncan is a far better 2-way player, can actually be your team's #1 option on offense. Russell needs to be complimented by good scorers to win. Duncan proved he could win in 2003 with Tony Parker as his second option averaging 14 PPG on 38%. It's not comparable.

Wilt? Didn't win enough. Lacked the clutch gene. Wasn't as great of a leader or team player. Possibly the GOAT scorer, but just didn't get it done when he needed to the most.

Kareem? Probably has more of an argument than anyone here and I wouldn't be adverse to him being over Duncan, but the more and more I read about his career, the less I think he's a top 2 player of all time. And that's why now I am going to list not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7, but 8! Yes, you read that correctly. 8 Reasons why Duncan should be ranked higher than Kareem all-time.

1.) Never played with another top 10 player of all time and still managed to win almost as much in way lesser attempts (6/10 vs. 5/6).

2.) Similar to the first point, never played with a GOAT or even 2nd GOAT at their position (Magic and Oscar). Imagine if Duncan played with 2nd 3peat Jordan when he was younger and then with Kobe as he was exiting his prime for a decade? How many rings would he win then? The best he played with was an old Robinson, a young Parker (who later turned into a hobbled cancer), an entered the league really late Manu (not a lengthy prime) and now a young green Kawhi who has cost us maybe 2-3 chips already due to not developing into a more clutch, mentally strong player yet.

3.) Didn't play in the 70's with literally 1 other top 10 during that time and even then that 1 top 10 was an old man by that time and only around for a few seasons. The second best player during that time (Dr. J) was in a whole different league and racking up MVP's over there as well. Literally no competition for those MVP's or chips and guess what? He only won ONE single chip during that time playing with the SECOND GOAT PG in Oscar Robertson. He lost with HCA to a bunch of roleplayers. He didn't make the play offs some years. Hard for me to take those MVP's seriously considering all of that. If anything, the 70's brings down Kareem's status for me.

4.) Kareem only won ONCE as the man with Magic and the Lakers. Immediately after joining the Lakers in his rookie season in which Kareem even won an MVP in, Magic snatches the FMVP from him. How many times has Duncan lost the FMVP in an MVP season? ZERO. How many other top 10's have as well? I'll let you figure that one out. Not only that, but he lost it because he was sitting at home watching from his couch while Magic put up 42 points and another "roleplayer" threw up close to 40 as well. Which brings me to m next point...

5.) Duncan never played on anything nearly as STACKED as those 80's Lakers squads. They had not only multiple MVP level players, arguably the GOAT C and GOAT PG, but also HOF'ers out the ass including even another FMVP later on. I mean, that'd be one thing, but then you add to that...

6.) Duncan never played in as weak of a conference as the 80's West. Duncan has played in the better (even vastly most years, especially recently) conference his ENTIRE career. Imagine putting Duncan in the East? With the GOAT PG for a DECADE? With a plethora of other HOF'ers on the starting line up and even some COMING OFF the bench? C'mon now, it's a wrap. Hell, it was basically a wrap for him even in the West a lot of years.

7.) Duncan has NEVER missed the play offs! In fact, not only has he never missed them, but his teams have virtually contended EVERY SINGLE season of his ENTIRE career! The most consecutive 50 win seasons of all time. OF ALL TIME! No one else is even close. The impact that this man has had on BOTH ends of the floor for his WHOLE career is unparalleled. Which leads me to my next point...

8.) Kareem, as he got older, actually STOPPED defending and rebounding. Duncan stayed doing the things that impacted the game the most and helped his team win as much as he could. One of, if not the most, unselfish players to EVER play the game. His one goal is to win, regardless of box score and pretty little numbers, and THAT'S why he is one of the greatest winners of all time.

Shaq? Didn't win as much, lacked the work ethic, not as much of a team player, worse leader, worse longevity (but still good). Most importantly, though, played with the 2nd GOAT SG both in their prime. I'm talking a guy that legit was a 1b to him at his absolute PEAK putting up 30 PPG RIGHT ALONG SIDE him. That's insane. This dude had someone like that right next to him to take the scoring load off and he STILL managed to win less rings. Not only that, but after he team hopped due to not being as great of a teammate/leader (WHATEVER you want to call it, it's a negative), he joins up with ANOTHER top 5 SG that puts up like 35+ in the finals.

Are you kidding me? When did Duncan EVER have anyone that had that kind of an output? Those players weren't even slouches on defense either, 3peat Frobe was one of the nastiest perimeter defenders in the league and we already know about how good Wade was on that end being the greatest shot blocking guard of all time.

Duncan has also historically outplayed Shaq in their H2H's. If you actually have seen the games, it was also Kobe who played well against us and won them that match up. Our perimeter was horrific during those years and Kobe utterly feasted. And that's why it's nice to have another top 10 player by your side, he can take the pressure off you and feast when you have a bad match up or aren't playing well. With Duncan in those early 2000's, there was no one to take the pressure off. He was going to be doubled and tripled every night, and STILL performed at an all time great level anyways.

So what it all comes down to is Shaq having all-time great help during his career and producing less. His peak was possibly GOAT, though.

Hakeem? I do think Hakeem deserves a lot of credit for taking those teams to a chip those years as those were some of the worst championship teams ever, but I can't put him over Duncan just for that. The rest of his career is littered with first round exit after first round exit. He wasn't even considered better than Robinson before that one series where he outplayed him. Robinson has outplayed Hakeem plenty of times outside of that one occurrence.

Either way, I just can't see the argument for Hakeem over Duncan at this time. Just not in the same tier of winner. He was a GOAT level 2-way player and defender, though. His impact was monstrous during his peak. Just the rest of the years during his career, he didn't get it done.

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 06:10 PM

How is it a thread backfire you insecure fucc? I have no dog in this fight :lol I decided to bring an interesting discussion to a broader audience.

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Take the L...in fact...take all the L's that have been dealt to you today

It's ****ing ugly dude...take a break and regroup

HOoopCityJones

06-07-2015, 06:16 PM

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Take the L...in fact...take all the L's that have been dealt to you today

It's ****ing ugly dude...take a break and regroup

You seem to be losing your lil old mind. :lol

Poor soul, you're just high strung.

https://33.media.tumblr.com/66e3e50f0a3880a502837c0f74e861f2/tumblr_n06uuqxsTB1rsiv4fo1_500.gif

Spurs5Rings2014

06-07-2015, 06:29 PM

NBAplayoffs2001

06-07-2015, 06:40 PM

I would consider Barkley P4P king for all time PFs. I still kind of do.

warriorfan

06-07-2015, 06:48 PM

I would consider Barkley P4P king for all time PFs. I still kind of do.

Pound 4 pound? Barkley weighed more than most of the PF's in the league :lol more like I4I

DonDadda59

06-07-2015, 06:50 PM

Nope, Malone would be the clear cut #1 PF of all time and considered a near universal Top 5 ATG. The debate between Duncan and Barkley would be great.

Defense......defense......defense

The Mailman made a few all defensive squads in his day. Plus the difference between his and Duncan's defense is probably the same as the difference in their offensive prowess.

Spurs5Rings2014

06-07-2015, 07:04 PM

Nope, Malone would be the clear cut #1 PF of all time and considered a near universal Top 5 ATG. The debate between Duncan and Barkley would be great.

The Mailman made a few all defensive squads in his day. Plus the difference between his and Duncan's defense is probably the same as the difference in their offensive prowess.

:biggums:

Dumbest post I've read in a long time.

Duncan has 30 All-NBA/Defensive selections (15 a piece). That's more than ANYONE EVER. Malone has literally 4 Defensive selections.

:wtf:

Are you serious?

And as far as their offensive being comparable, Duncan in his absolute peak in 2003 led a team far worse than Malone had in those Bulls finals to a chip (defeating the 3-time defending champion Lakers en route) as the #1 option and his team's leading scorer, rebounder, assister, shot-blocker, etc. But yet the gap between their offense is the same as the gap between their defense?! Duncan won 4 titles as The Man for his team.

You can't do that if your offense is just "ok" or "decent" like Malone's defense. That's the difference between being 15x All-NBA and being 4. Now if Duncan was only 4x All-NBA like Malone is All-Defensive, you'd have a point. Unfortunately for you, my dear boy, Duncan is 15 and 15 aka the GOAT 2-way player of all time. OF ALL TIME!

T_L_P

06-07-2015, 07:05 PM

Nope, Malone would be the clear cut #1 PF of all time and considered a near universal Top 5 ATG. The debate between Duncan and Barkley would be great.

The Mailman made a few all defensive squads in his day. Plus the difference between his and Duncan's defense is probably the same as the difference in their offensive prowess.

Playoff PER (offensive stat): 24.6 - 21.1 in Duncan's favor

TS%: .549 - .526 in Duncan's favor

Offensive Box +/-: 2.1 - 1.2 in Duncan's favor

ORtg: 110 - 106 in Duncan's favor

Per 100 Poss-

PPG: 32.6 - 31.1 in Malone's favor
APG: 4.4 - 4.2 in Duncan's favor
ORB: 4.5 - 3.4 in Duncan's favor

Then consider everything outside of rings and stats.

All-Stars: 15 - 14 in Duncan's favor

All-NBA Teams: 15 - 14 in Duncan's favor

All-Defensive Teams: 15 - 4 in Duncan's favor

Karl has a slightly higher MVP Share (4.296 - 4.278).

Duncan was better on both ends when it really mattered.

No way Malone is considered a universal top five great with the Finals choking he put on display. Scottie never said anything more potent.

Spurs5Rings2014

06-07-2015, 07:10 PM

Playoff PER (offensive stat): 24.6 - 21.1 in Duncan's favor

TS%: .549 - .526 in Duncan's favor

Offensive Box +/-: 2.1 - 1.2 in Duncan's favor

ORtg: 110 - 106 in Duncan's favor

Per 100 Poss-

PPG: 32.6 - 31.1 in Malone's favor
APG: 4.4 - 4.2 in Duncan's favor
ORB: 4.5 - 3.4 in Duncan's favor

Then consider everything outside of rings and stats.

All-Stars: 15 - 14 in Duncan's favor

All-NBA Teams: 15 - 14 in Duncan's favor

All-Defensive Teams: 15 - 4 in Duncan's favor

Karl has a slightly higher MVP Share (4.296 - 4.278).

Duncan was better on both ends when it really mattered.

No way Malone is considered a universal top five great with the Finals choking he put on display. Scottie never said anything more potent.

Killin' 'em softly.

:applause:

Rocketswin2013

06-07-2015, 07:20 PM

For Barkley and especially Malone, it would take being consistently dominant in the postseason to win 5 rings. That's something neither came close to doing.

warriorfan

06-07-2015, 07:23 PM

2003 Tim Duncan was just as good offensively as any version of Karl Malone

Even though Karl Malone is an underrated defender, Tim Duncan is twice the defender he is. Duncan is at an All Time Great level defensively.

DonDadda59

06-07-2015, 07:49 PM

:biggums:

Dumbest post I've read in a long time.

Duncan has 30 All-NBA/Defensive selections (15 a piece). That's more than ANYONE EVER. Malone has literally 4 Defensive selections.

:wtf:

Are you serious?

Bruh, I never argued Malone being on Duncan's level defensively, so I have no idea why you're getting so emotional over this. :confusedshrug:

And as far as their offensive being comparable, Duncan in his absolute peak in 2003 led a team far worse than Malone had in those Bulls finals to a chip (defeating the 3-time defending champion Lakers en route) as the #1 option and his team's leading scorer, rebounder, assister, shot-blocker, etc. But yet the gap between their offense is the same as the gap between their defense?! Duncan won 4 titles as The Man for his team.

If the Jazz faced the Nets instead of Jordan's Bulls, Malone would've done the same. Duncan's teams have had the benefit of facing some pretty shitty teams in the finals. The Knicks without Ewing in a lockout year, the offensively anemic Nets, the one man army Cavs. Not exactly comparable to the competition Malone had in the finals.

You can't do that if your offense is just "ok" or "decent" like Malone's defense. That's the difference between being 15x All-NBA and being 4. Now if Duncan was only 4x All-NBA like Malone is All-Defensive, you'd have a point. Unfortunately for you, my dear boy, Duncan is 15 and 15 aka the GOAT 2-way player of all time. OF ALL TIME![/QUOTE]

Malone averaged 25 PPG for his career and had 12 seasons where he averaged over 25 PPG. Duncan is at 19.5 PPG for his career and only made it over the 25 PPG hump once.

Malone is the 2nd all time leading scorer in league History while Duncan is 14th, more than 11,000 points behind him. At age 34 Duncan was putting up only 13 PPG, never going higher than 17 since then. At the same age Malone was a 27 PPG scorer, more than double Timmy and was scoring at least 20 PPG a year until he hit 40 years old.

Karl is the better offensive player by a very comfortable margin, especially in their later years.

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 07:53 PM

Out_In_Utah

06-07-2015, 07:58 PM

It's June.

Fine. In the off season.

DonDadda59

06-07-2015, 08:00 PM

Playoff PER (offensive stat): 24.6 - 21.1 in Duncan's favor

TS%: .549 - .526 in Duncan's favor

Offensive Box +/-: 2.1 - 1.2 in Duncan's favor

ORtg: 110 - 106 in Duncan's favor

Per 100 Poss-

PPG: 32.6 - 31.1 in Malone's favor
APG: 4.4 - 4.2 in Duncan's favor
ORB: 4.5 - 3.4 in Duncan's favor

No offense, but these are just meaningless stats that don't mean much to anyone but stat nerds. I mean really... what am I suppose to take away from a hypothetical per 100 stat?

And as Yao showed above, you can fit them into any agenda you want. Looks like according to advanced metrics, Duncan is at best 2nd to Barkley all time. :confusedshrug:

No way Malone is considered a universal top five great with the Finals choking he put on display. Scottie never said anything more potent.

But the question was what if everyone in question had the same amount of rings... so Malone's 'choking' wouldn't be a factor.

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 08:11 PM

Career Win Shares

1. Malone
2. Duncan
3. Garnett
4. Barkley

Career Win Shares per minute

1. Barkley
2. Duncan
3. Malone
4. Garnett

Career PER

1. Barkley
2. Duncan
3. Malone
4. Garnett

Career Plus/Minus

1. Barkley
2. Duncan
3. Garnett
4. Malone

Career VORP

1. Malone
2. Garnett
3. Barkley
4. Duncan

Per the "objective data" it looks like Duncan's superior defensive reputation did not translate into overall more impact compared to the other 3 PF legends of the last 20 years.

Could you explain why you are only posting part of the picture? Like...why aren't you at least posting playoff stuff as well?

I mean...I'm not gonna take the time to go through all this shit, but I know you didn't post playoff career win shares. Why not? Playoff games matter more. I'll post that just for fun.

1. Duncan 37 win shares .196 ws/48
2. Malone 23 win shares .140 ws/48
3. Barkley 19.5 win shares .193 ws/48
4. Garnett 16.4 win shares .149 ws/48

Just for fun I will post Dirk as he belongs in this conversation after Duncan:

Dirk 23 win shares .193 ws/48

Again...why didn't you offer to post all the data? Why just cherrypicked regular season data that we all know is of lesser value than playoff data?

I know your dumbass ways will convince the morons here, but just know it doesn't fool anyone with a brain.

Because it's easy....playoff PER:

1. Duncan 24.6
2. Barkley 24.2
3. Dirk 24.0
4. Malone 21.1
5. KG 21.1

Again...why didn't you post the data on the most important games of their careers?

Playoff VORP

1. Duncan 14.2....easily the best here.

Again...why didn't you post this? Are you trying to be balanced and paint the entire picture?

I don't have their career playoff plus/minus so I can't post that, but you'll notice that Duncan led every category you posted earlier in the playoffs. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

And you are still creating a straw man. I never said that is all that matters. I said it all matters. Stats, advanced stats, eye test, performance in big moments, regular season play, playoff play...etc. It all matters. You hear that...and you list only 4 things...and do so with an agenda and only list the most meaningless of it all...regular season stats.

Ether...take the L

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 08:14 PM

Could you explain why you are only posting part of the picture? Like...why aren't you at least posting playoff stuff as well?

I mean...I'm not gonna take the time to go through all this shit, but I know you didn't post playoff career win shares. Why not? Playoff games matter more. I'll post that just for fun.

1. Duncan 37 win shares .196 ws/48
2. Malone 23 win shares .140 ws/48
3. Barkley 19.5 win shares .193 ws/48
4. Garnett 16.4 win shares .149 ws/48

Just for fun I will post Dirk as he belongs in this conversation after Duncan:

Dirk 23 win shares .193 ws/48

Again...why didn't you offer to post all the data? Why just cherrypicked regular season data that we all know is of lesser value than playoff data?

I know your dumbass ways will convince the morons here, but just know it doesn't fool anyone with a brain.

Well Einstien... if you win 5 rings do you think your win shares and win shares per minute rate goes up or down. The entire premise of the question is based on hypothetical comparable playoff runs resulting in rings.

And I'm not sure why allegedly couldn't find the playoff plus/minus for these players. I found it right next to the other numbers you cited.

1. Barkley 7.28
2. Duncan 5.97

:facepalm

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 08:24 PM

Well Einstien... if you win 5 rings do you think your win shares and win shares per minute rate goes up or down.

:facepalm

Well genius...it matters that a player can play well enough in the playoffs to allow that to happen. Also, it's still more based on how well you play...not just winning.

Don't get mad, but here is an example:

Kobe 28.3 win shares .157 ws/48
Dirk 23.0 win shares .193 ws/48
Barkley 19.5 win shares .193 ws/48

So...uhhhhh....no....winning 5 rings doesn't mean you'll have better metrics here.

It likely means you'll have better win shares as that is largely based on games played, but not the per 48 metric.

Again...why not just use it all. Why do you want to throw out so much?

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 08:27 PM

Well genius...it matters that a player can play well enough in the playoffs to allow that to happen. Also, it's still more based on how well you play...not just winning.

Don't get mad, but here is an example:

Kobe 28.3 win shares .157 ws/48
Dirk 23.0 win shares .193 ws/48
Barkley 19.5 win shares .193 ws/48

So...uhhhhh....no....winning 5 rings doesn't mean you'll have better metrics here.

It likely means you'll have better win shares as that is largely based on games played, but not the per 48 metric.

Again...why not just use it all. Why do you want to throw out so much?

Why are getting accusing me of doing something you actually did?

:roll:

Why couldn't you find the playoff box plus minus numbers? What about the fact that Barkley smokes Duncan's playoff VORP per game?

Overall Barkley has better metrics and more "impact".

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 08:32 PM

Why are getting accusing me of doing something you actually did?

:roll:

Why couldn't you find the playoff box plus minus numbers?

I didn't know that you were referencing the playoff bpm or just their on/off playoff numbers you clown.

Hence why I posted I didn't have them.

I don't do this at all. I'd certainly never post the regular season numbers solely and make an argument off that alone. So that is a straw man right off the bat.

You still don't listen. I said we should use everything. That includes your titles and awards man. All I have ever said is that I don't like using just titles and awards as I don't think it's enough to actually evaluate how good players really were.

That's it.

And I absolutely stand by my assertion that Duncan would still be known as better than those guys if nobody had a title. But you act like those guys all aren't great players in their own right. Barkley at his peak might have been the best of them all...I've actually posted about this before. How I can't remember seeing a player play much better than Barkley did in the 93 finals other than MJ.

Barkley, Malone, KG, Pettit, and Dirk are all firmly in my top 20 all time.

Is there a difference between them and Duncan imo? Yes...is it like this huge gap that it's not even remotely comparable? Nah...not really.

So what is your point again?

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 08:37 PM

Why are getting accusing me of doing something you actually did?

:roll:

Why couldn't you find the playoff box plus minus numbers? What about the fact that Barkley smokes Duncan's playoff VORP per game?

Overall Barkley has better metrics and more "impact".

I don't think he does actually. I think Duncan beat him in all the categories you posted other than the plus minus I didn't look at. Which again...was not because Barkley beat Duncan... I literally didn't know if it was plus/minus or bpm.

Duncan had better longevity as well.

And Duncan's true value is found in his dominant defense...which I don't think is fully appreciated in a lot of those stats.

Win shares does an alright job, but I think it tends to over value offense as it values rebounds a bit too much imo.

Stop acting like you've presented a real case for Barkley. All you've done is cherry pick some regular season advanced metrics and ignored playoff play and team success and longevity and what kind of teammate/leader he is....

I could go on and on.

And I know you don't believe any of this shit...because the same shit would rank Barkley over Kobe. But I rank Kobe over Barkley as a player...so am I a Barkley hater according to you? Yes, part of my reasoning is tied to team success...which has always been part of my formula for looking at players.

You, once again, have created a complete straw man here.

You aren't fooling anyone other than morons.

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 08:40 PM

I didn't know that you were referencing the playoff bpm or just their on/off playoff numbers you clown.

Hence why I posted I didn't have them.

I don't do this at all. I'd certainly never post the regular season numbers solely and make an argument off that alone. So that is a straw man right off the bat.

You still don't listen. I said we should use everything. That includes your titles and awards man. All I have ever said is that I don't like using just titles and awards as I don't think it's enough to actually evaluate how good players really were.

That's it.

And I absolutely stand by my assertion that Duncan would still be known as better than those guys if nobody had a title. But you act like those guys all aren't great players in their own right. Barkley at his peak might have been the best of them all...I've actually posted about this before. How I can't remember seeing a player play much better than Barkley did in the 93 finals other than MJ.

Barkley, Malone, KG, Pettit, and Dirk are all firmly in my top 20 all time.

Is there a difference between them and Duncan imo? Yes...is it like this huge gap that it's not even remotely comparable? Nah...not really.

So what is your point again?

That Duncan's claim to the best PF of all time title relies heavily on his five rings.

As you said yourself people started calling him the best PF of all time back in 2002 after winning just 1 despite Barkley and Malone legendary careers still on our minds.

:confusedshrug:

Pointguard

06-07-2015, 08:43 PM

Rocketswin2013

06-07-2015, 08:48 PM

Malone and Barkley get hurt in their rankings because of not having rings so they would greatly benefit by having 5. Malone wouldn't have much flaws if he won a lot. His defense was under-rated. And people way overestimate the rings argument. Duncan is the only one that gets a lot of mileage on the ring argument. But his play was very well rounded - much like Garnetts. So if Garnett isn't the second best PF on your list I don't see how TD would out pace Malone with five rings.
Malone choking like a bitch in the postseason is what kept him from winning rings. We are literally in this thread hypothetically handing chokers rings and acting as if it would make them better because they have that arbitrary(in this case) piece of metal... For instance Dirk EARNED(NOT GIVEN lol) his ring. So did KG.

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 08:49 PM

That Duncan's claim to the best PF of all time title relies heavily on his five rings.

As you said yourself people started calling him the best PF of all time back in 2002 after winning just 1 despite Barkley and Malone legendary careers still on our minds.

:confusedshrug:

It relies more on his actual ability to play the game.

Again, if they all had 0 rings...Duncan would still be known as the best of the group.

Of course it would be closer, but that is mainly because Duncan would have had to play worse in the playoffs for that to happen. So his play would essentially be forced to be worse.

But that still seems like a straw man because I never said that winning and team success isn't a factor for evaluating players. In fact I've repeatedly said the exact opposite.

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 08:59 PM

It relies more on his actual ability to play the game.

Again, if they all had 0 rings...Duncan would still be known as the best of the group.

Of course it would be closer, but that is mainly because Duncan would have had to play worse in the playoffs for that to happen. So his play would essentially be forced to be worse.

But that still seems like a straw man because I never said that winning and team success isn't a factor for evaluating players. In fact I've repeatedly said the exact opposite.

So you just got done saying everyone is comparable and there wasn't a huge gap, now you are claiming Duncan surpassed both of them as early as 02 not because he won a ring but because people noticed his "ability to play the game" was so great that it overshadowed two entire legendary careers.

:facepalm

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 09:03 PM

So you just got done saying everyone is comparable and there wasn't a huge gap, now you are claiming Duncan surpassed both of them as early as 02 not because he won a ring but because people noticed his "ability to play the game" was so great that it overshadowed two entire legendary careers.

:facepalm

I said people were calling him that as early as that. Which is a fact.

I'm saying people put him on that level that quickly because he was so ****ing good.

And his continued dominance...and even better play/peak he reached in 03 combined with everything else puts him over the top.

Are you seriously arguing this? Duncan came into the league and was immediately recognized as one of the best players. I think he finished 2nd in the MVP voting in 99....and top 5 in 98 iirc.

And it's not just MVP votes. He has the numbers and impact to back it up.

You are so seriously under-rating just how good he was at the damn game it's ****ing hilarious.

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 09:09 PM

I said people were calling him that as early as that. Which is a fact.

I'm saying people put him on that level that quickly because he was so ****ing good.

And his continued dominance...and even better play/peak he reached in 03 combined with everything else puts him over the top.

Are you seriously arguing this? Duncan came into the league and was immediately recognized as one of the best players. I think he finished 2nd in the MVP voting in 99.

You are so seriously under-rating just how good he was at the damn game it's ****ing hilarious.

Duncan was not so good over his first few seasons that any reasonable person would claim he was the greatest PF of all time based on "ability to play the game" over the entire careers of Malone or Barkley.

He wasn't even doing anything in the playoffs in the early 00s aside from being featured in Kobe playoff highlight reels.

It's just a ridiculous premise that exposes the depths of your delusion.

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 09:15 PM

Duncan was not so good over his first few seasons that any reasonable person would claim he was the greatest PF of all time based on "ability to play the game" over the entire careers of Malone or Barkley.

He wasn't even doing anything in the playoffs in the early 00s aside from being featured in Kobe playoff highlight reels.

It's just a ridiculous premise that exposes the depths of your delusion.

I said people were already calling him that early on in his career. I never said everyone immediately thought that. And yes, by 03 after he dominated the playoffs like none of those guys ever did...he was known as better than all of them.

You are just arguing to argue at this point.

Duncan would still be known as the GOAT PF with the same amount of titles as all the other guys because he was a better player. Would it be as big of a gap? Of course not. As winning and team success is part of my formula...this is obvious to me.

Not sure why it's hard to grasp.

T_L_P

06-07-2015, 09:17 PM

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 09:23 PM

I said people were already calling him that early on in his career. I never said everyone immediately thought that. And yes, by 03 after he dominated the playoffs like none of those guys ever did...he was known as better than all of them.

You are just arguing to argue at this point.

Duncan would still be known as the GOAT PF with the same amount of titles as all the other guys because he was a better player. Would it be as big of a gap? Of course not. As winning and team success is part of my formula...this is obvious to me.

Not sure why it's hard to grasp.

Why were the calling him the greatest PF of all time in 2002 if not because he got a sidekick ring while Barkley and Malone had none?

What exactly did he do in the regular season or playoffs that overshadowed two legendary careers?

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 09:24 PM

Ming, can you confirm that Barkley is head and shoulders above Kobe in your rankings? The objective data says so according to you.

Regular Season:

Higher PER
WS
WS per minute
WS/48
Box +/-
VORP

Playoffs:

Higher PER
WS
WS per minute
WS/48
Box +/-

I tried simple logic like this with him earlier. Yet he still insists on creating an absurd straw man where apparently someone said that winning and titles don't matter at all.

The best part is...Kobe is the one player in history who has his spot in history impacted the most by titles. Remove them and he's a fringe top 20 or so player of all time.

According to that new study....6 of his finals team were in the top 18 out of 60 in the last 30 years.

In 02 he had the most help....and in 00 he had the 3rd most help out of any team making the finals in the last 30 years.

ROFL....

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 09:24 PM

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 09:24 PM

Why were the calling him the greatest PF of all time in 2002 if not because he got a sidekick ring while Barkley and Malone had none?

What exactly did he do in the regular season or playoffs that overshadowed two legendary careers?

It didn't overshadow the longevity of their careers.

His play so far in his career was as good or better than those guys.

Do you realize what Duncan did in his first 4 years in the playoffs?

Dude was a 24/12/3 defensive monster that absolutely dominated at times. And that play in both the regular season and playoffs put him in that conversation early on.

Just like Kobe was known as the 2nd or 3rd best sg after the 02 season by most. It was his play...not just his actual "sidekick rings" (LOL at calling Duncan a sidekick) while piggybacking the best and 3rd best supporting casts in the modern era to titles.

Like really? You don't follow this?

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 09:26 PM

It didn't overshadow the longevity of their careers.

His play so far in his career was as good or better than those guys.

Like really? You don't follow this?

No I don't follow.

Should we call Anthony Davis the greatest PF of all time?

T_L_P

06-07-2015, 09:29 PM

Does Barkley have five rings in this comparison?

Doesn't matter. You brought up impact earlier.

According to you and your own established logic, Barkley's impact was head and shoulders above Kobe's, yes?

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 09:31 PM

No I don't follow.

Should we call Anthony Davis the greatest PF of all time?

If you remove Duncan...and Davis does what he did this year for 2 more years. People will absolutely be saying he's on the level of Malone and Barkley as a player.

Again...not in terms of longevity...but give Davis a 3 year stretch with some deep playoff runs at 27/12/3 or something and hell yes people will talk.

And they won't be crazy to do so.

Again...you are just arguing to argue.

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 09:31 PM

Just like Kobe was known as the 2nd or 3rd best sg after the 02 season by most. It was his play...not just his actual "sidekick rings" (LOL at calling Duncan a sidekick) while piggybacking the best and 3rd best supporting casts in the modern era to titles.

Like really? You don't follow this?

Weren't you saying earlier saying how replaceable Kobe during the first three peat?

Now you are calling him the 2nd or 3rd best SG of all time (but not because of the rings of course).

Do you ever pick a lane and stay in it or just fling a bunch of crap to the wall and hope something sticks?

:facepalm

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 09:34 PM

Weren't you saying earlier saying how replaceable Kobe during the first three peat?

Now you are calling him the 2nd or 3rd best SG of all time (but not because of the rings of course).

Do you ever pick a lane and stay in it or just fling a bunch of crap to the wall and hope something sticks?

:facepalm

My point actually is the most consistent.

That it was Kobe's play in 01 and 02...not the rings...that vaulted him up that high.

Just like it was Duncan's play...not the rings.

Of course the rings matter, but Kobe could have not won a ring those three years and if he's putting up 27/5/5 and playing quality defense and doing the things he did. He's gonna be known as in the conversation or better than anyone at the sg position not named MJ or West.

I'm sorry you can't follow simple logic.

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 09:41 PM

My point actually is the most consistent.

That it was Kobe's play in 01 and 02...not the rings...that vaulted him up that high.

Just like it was Duncan's play...not the rings.

Of course the rings matter, but Kobe could have not won a ring those three years and if he's putting up 27/5/5 and playing quality defense and doing the things he did. He's gonna be known as in the conversation or better than anyone at the sg position not named MJ or West.

I'm sorry you can't follow simple logic.

So if Kobe's play alone with Shaq placed him within the conversation of West and Jordan what was it that you were saying earlier about Kobe needing his rings more than any other player to justify his legacy status?

:facepalm

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 09:46 PM

So if Kobe's play alone with Shaq placed him within the conversation of West and Jordan what was it that you were saying earlier about Kobe needing his rings more than any other player to justify his legacy status?

:facepalm

Depends where you place Kobe. There weren't that many great shooting guards in NBA history. Depending on where people listed Hondo....it really was MJ/West...Clyde...Sam Jones...hell, Iverson by that time as well. So it wasn't a loaded position like center or something. Ray...Reggie....

Kobe played at a high enough level to enter that conversation with West or just behind him with those next guys

If we are talking about putting Kobe in the top 8 all time over guys like Hakeem and Lebron? Yea...his rings are more heavily used as his play wasn't above those guys.

Again...how is this shit not obvious?

I don't mean to be rude, but it's not my fault you aren't following simple logic.

There is a difference comparing Kobe to Clyde Drexler and Gervin than there is comparing him to Hakeem, Bird, Shaq, and Lebron.

Do you at least understand that?

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 09:53 PM

Depends where you place Kobe. There weren't that many great shooting guards in NBA history. Depending on where people listed Hondo....it really was MJ/West...Clyde...Sam Jones...hell, Iverson by that time as well.

Kobe played at a high enough level to enter that conversation with West or just behind him with those next guys

If we are talking about putting Kobe in the top 8 all time over guys like Hakeem and Lebron? Yea...his rings are more heavily used as his play wasn't above those guys.

Again...how is this shit not obvious?

I don't mean to be rude, but it's not my fault you aren't following simple logic.

There is a difference comparing Kobe to Clyde Drexler and Gervin than there is comparing him to Hakeem, Bird, Shaq, and Lebron.

Do you at least understand that?

How is that any different than the argument that would be made for Duncan compared to Dirk, Malone, Garnett and Barkley?

That's just at his position.

And yeah if you compare him to Hakeem, Bird, Shaq, and Lebron rings would be one of the first things brought up.

I don't know why you pretend otherwise.

:confusedshrug:

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 09:57 PM

How is that any different than the argument that would be made for Duncan compared to Dirk, Malone, Garnett and Barkley?

That's just at his position.

And yeah if you compare him to Hakeem, Bird, Shaq, and Lebron rings would be one of the first things brought up.

I don't know why you pretend otherwise.

:confusedshrug:

Simple.

Kobe wasn't as good as Duncan or Hakeem or Lebron. So you have to resort to heavily valuing rings.

Rings won while playing with some of the most help of the last 30 years. Again, according to that study...the most and 3rd most talented teams for two of his rings with Shaq.

Yao Ming's Foot

06-07-2015, 10:06 PM

Simple.

Kobe wasn't as good as Duncan or Hakeem or Lebron. So you have to resort to heavily valuing rings.

Rings won while playing with some of the most help of the last 30 years. Again, according to that study...the most and 3rd most talented teams for two of his rings with Shaq.

By metrics Dirk, Barkley, Malone and Garnett all have varying cases against him. Yet Duncan is routinely labeled the greatest PF of all time. If metrics were valued as much as you wish they were we would the who is the greatest PF of all time debate to be as contentious as the who is the greatest bigman of all time debate.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Kobe first threepeat rings when you just said his play alone during that vaulted him among some of the greatest guards of all time. You are 100% in agreement with "Kobe fans" with that sentiment.

:confusedshrug:

comerb

06-07-2015, 10:10 PM

Barkley was a monster offensively, but he was so awful defensively he could never be considered above Duncan.

DMAVS41

06-07-2015, 10:12 PM

By metrics Dirk, Barkley, Malone and Garnett all have varying cases against him. Yet Duncan is routinely labeled the greatest PF of all time. If metrics were valued as much as you wish they were we would the who is the greatest PF of all time debate to be as contentious as the who is the greatest bigman of all time debate.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Kobe first threepeat rings when you just said his play alone during that vaulted him among some of the greatest guards of all time. You are 100% in agreement with "Kobe fans" with that sentiment.

:confusedshrug:

I have to run, but I don't think what you say is true. I don't think Dirk has a case on Duncan.

And I don't think Kobe has a case on Lebron on the metrics like you say....or you imply by saying it's similar...I don't think it is.

That's all I can say....but again...I never said it's all the metrics. I said it's everything. You are the one arguing against a position nobody ever advocated for.

The only things I've said is that we should take everything into account...and that Kobe's position in NBA history is more reliant on rings than most.

Pointguard

06-07-2015, 10:16 PM

Malone choking like a bitch in the postseason is what kept him from winning rings. We are literally in this thread hypothetically handing chokers rings and acting as if it would make them better because they have that arbitrary(in this case) piece of metal... For instance Dirk EARNED(NOT GIVEN lol) his ring. So did KG.
If he had 5 rings don't you think the choker argument would be useless???

Round Mound

06-07-2015, 10:46 PM

All Broken Down Stats Point At Barkley as The Best Player Playing The 4. But He Is Considered Like That of Wilt Cause of No Rings (or Lesser Rings). :confusedshrug:

JtotheIzzo

06-07-2015, 11:27 PM

All Broken Down Stats Point At Barkley as The Best Player Playing The 4. But He Is Considered Like That of Wilt Cause of No Rings (or Lesser Rings). :confusedshrug:

These f*cking kids have no clue how good Barkley was, they see his buffoonery on TNT and think he is second rate. It is sad.

Round Mound

06-08-2015, 03:28 AM

These f*cking kids have no clue how good Barkley was, they see his buffoonery on TNT and think he is second rate. It is sad.

:applause:

No Player Today Could Guard This Version of Barkley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITjsE6wu-lE

:eek: :bowdown:

navy

06-08-2015, 03:48 AM

Depends. Are we talking longevity rings (2007, 2014) or prime rings(1999, 2003, 2005)?

kshutts1

06-08-2015, 07:57 AM

Well Einstien... if you win 5 rings do you think your win shares and win shares per minute rate goes up or down. The entire premise of the question is based on hypothetical comparable playoff runs resulting in rings.

And I'm not sure why allegedly couldn't find the playoff plus/minus for these players. I found it right next to the other numbers you cited.

1. Barkley 7.28
2. Duncan 5.97

:facepalm
You are likely my favorite poster on this site. I have, literally, zero clue if you're a fan of any team at all, but you seem to make a point to use everyone's argument against them, and I love it.

kshutts1

06-08-2015, 08:00 AM