Duncan vs Kareem

[sportjames23]

Completely disagree. You are not guaranteed to win 4 or 5 titles replacing Duncan with any top 10 players.

I would actually take Duncan over Kareem. I didn't see Wilt or Russell play...so I can't really weigh in on those two much.

I have Russell over Duncan and Magic over Duncan right now though.

I definitely wouldn't take Bird over Duncan. Duncan's longevity trumps Bird here.

I won't argue much with someone taking Shaq, but I think Duncan's ability to play any role and his leadership on and off the court make him a more valuable player than Shaq all time.

But you say he might be 6 all time...yet you have an issue with someone putting him 4? LOL...after certain tiers....there is a lot of subjectivity in the top 10.



I never agree with DMAVs, but I have to agree with him on this one.

At the very least Duncan over Kareem is an argument that can be had. Kareem has the edge offensively, obviously, but Duncan has the edge defensively.

Kareem never won a ring without another Top 10 player by his side (first ring with Big O, next 4 with Magic).

Duncan had good teams but he's never had another Top 10 player as a teammate like Kareem and Shaq had.

Not to mention that Duncan has the edge in Finals MVP. Funny how no one ever brings up Kareem's 2 Finals MVP to 6 rings ratio...


Discuss.

[IllegalD]

Kareem's Hall of Fame/Allstar Teammates:

Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, James Worthy, Gail Goodrich, Jamaal Wilkes, Bob McAdoo, Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, Bob Dandridge, Jim Price, Flynn Robinson

Final Tally: 11 Allstars (7 HOFs; 2 Top-10 GOATs)



Duncan's Hall of Fame/Allstar Teammates:

David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Sean Elliot, Kawhi Leonard (hasn't made an Allstar but Finals MVP and DPOY are enough to list him)

Final Tally: 5 Allstars (3 HOFs)

[Goro]

Kareem obviously. There aren't many people I take over Duncan, but he is one of the few.

[dhsilv]

Kareem's Hall of Fame/Allstar Teammates:

Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, James Worthy, Gail Goodrich, Jamaal Wilkes, Bob McAdoo, Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, Bob Dandridge, Jim Price, Flynn Robinson

Final Tally: 11 Allstars (7 HOFs; 2 Top-10 GOATs)



Duncan's Hall of Fame/Allstar Teammates:

David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Sean Elliot, Kawhi Leonard (hasn't made an Allstar but Finals MVP and DPOY are enough to list him)

Final Tally: 5 Allstars (3 HOFs)

That's 4 hall guys for Duncan. There's no way at this point Kawhi isn't on his way. The first three clearly being locks.

[IllegalD]

That's 4 hall guys for Duncan. There's no way at this point Kawhi isn't on his way. The first three clearly being locks.

How about we wait til he makes ONE Allstar game first...?:confusedshrug:

Cedrick Maxwell won a Finals MVP and he never made an allstar game nor did he make the HOF.

[dunksby]

I take Kareem over Jordan, Duncan is easy.

[dhsilv]

I don't see a strong argument for Duncan. It would require one to really pick and choose how they evaluate a player, would require a massive amount of bias for his era without similar bias against Duncan's. It basically would require a massive number of subjective arguments.

If we just look at what they did and assume the league is always consistent. Kareem's career in minutes played is 25% longer (pretty impressive given who we're talking about). His best year statistically were more dominate both in all time terms and compared to peers in those seasons.

I can see argument's for Duncan's leadership. His general contribution to a franchise. I just don't see that being strong enough.

Similarly while Duncan was a much better defender it wasn't that big a gap.

Anyway my two cents.

[dhsilv]

How about we wait til he makes ONE Allstar game first...?:confusedshrug:

Cedrick Maxwell won a Finals MVP and he never made an allstar game nor did he make the HOF.

Anyone with a finals MVP and a defensive player of the year not in the hall?

[Smoke117]

:facepalm

[IllegalD]

Not surprising to me that all the ISHpocrites are scoffing at this notion.

The same people that discredit Kobe for winning his first 3 rings with Shaq and how he "only" has 2 Finals MVP for his 5 rings.

Yet here is Kareem... Never won a ring without another Top 10 Player (Big O and Magic, who are both GOAT candidates in their own rights), and only 2 Finals MVPs for his 6 rings...

Ahhhh.

Dat ISH double-standard... :pimp:

Kill your idols, homies.

Duncan is on par with Kareem. Just deal with it. And I'm a Lakers fan, btw.

[DoctorP]

Kareem had a more dominant prime than Duncan.

[dhsilv]

Not surprising to me that all the ISHpocrites are scoffing at this notion.

The same people that discredit Kobe for winning his first 3 rings with Shaq and how he "only" has 2 Finals MVP for his 5 rings.

Yet here is Kareem... Never won a ring without another Top 10 Player (Big O and Magic, who are both GOAT candidates in their own rights), and only 2 Finals MVPs for his 6 rings...

Ahhhh.

Dat ISH double-standard... :pimp:

Kill your idols, homies.

Duncan is on par with Kareem. Just deal with it. And I'm a Lakers fan, btw.

Oscar top 10? :banghead: :banghead:

That said all this finals and finals MVP stuff is so absurdly overblown on these boards it's insane.

[feyki]

Kareem.

[fpliii]

I don't consider accolades at all when evaluating/comparing players, but for those who do, keep in mind that the circumstances surrounding the 1980 Finals MVP are pretty shady. Not that Magic didn't have a terrific game 6, but the thread below is worth a read:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=301909

Either way though, I think Kareem vs Duncan can be an interesting discussion depending on what you value.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

I don't consider accolades at all when evaluating/comparing players, but for those who do, keep in mind that the circumstances surrounding the 1980 Finals MVP are pretty shady. Not that Magic didn't have a terrific game 6, but the thread below is worth a read:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=301909

Either way though, I think Kareem vs Duncan can be an interesting discussion depending on what you value.

This is pretty damning evidence in itself that Duncan > Kareem. When did Duncan ever have anyone that could put up 42-15-7 en route to clenching a chip while he sat at home watching from his couch? Then another dude on his team throwing up 37-10 just 'cause hurr durr stacked af roster. Duncan carried absolute ass to a chip in 2003.

No where near a top 10 player or top 15 on that roster. Kareem never did anything like that despite playing in the 70's where he had ample opportunity against much worse competition. Duncan was just a much more impactful player and a greater winner. Don't let Kareem's playing with the top 2 PG's of all time cloud your judgement. We seen what he was capable of without them and that was 0 rings while most of Duncan's are without playing with another All-NBA teammate.

:coleman:

[GIF REACTION]

This is pretty damning evidence in itself that Duncan > Kareem. When did Duncan ever have anyone that could put up 42-15-7 en route to clenching a chip while he sat at home watching from his couch? Then another dude on his team throwing up 37-10 just 'cause hurr durr stacked af roster. Duncan carried absolute ass to a chip in 2003.

No where near a top 10 player or top 15 on that roster. Kareem never did anything like that despite playing in the 70's where he had ample opportunity against much worse competition. Duncan was just a much more impactful player and a greater winner. Don't let Kareem's playing with the top 2 PG's of all time cloud your judgement. We seen what he was capable of without them and that was 0 rings while most of Duncan's are without playing with another All-NBA teammate.

:coleman:
What makes you say this? As far as parity goes, the 1970's had pretty much a different NBA champion every year

[kshutts1]

I love that people like to call Kareem's rosters stacked without providing proper context. Near the start of Kareem's career, the ABA folds, and all those great players enter the NBA. Then, the NBA expanded, drastically, right near/at the end of Kareem's career.

Of course the rosters prior to said expansion will be stacked relative to today/Duncan. But were his rosters stacked relative to the league? That I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that they were considered one of the better teams, but likely not by a large margin.

Keep in mind, Celtics, Sixers, Blazers all had teams during Kareem's career that are considered some of the best ever.

Then the Knicks, Bullets, Lakers (pre-Kareem) were solid teams in the 70's.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Not saying it's not close but I'd definitely take Kareem, can't see how one wouldn't...

Peak/prime Kareem is one of the GOAT scorers, one of the best passing bigmen with one of the highest IQ's ever, a top rebounder in the league, played DPOY-level defense... His scoring prowess (mostly/especially) is what puts him above Timmy, to me.

The level that KAJ was at in 1977? Just scary... And go watch him play to see his dominance.
His team wasn't stacked by any means and they won 53 games; then in the Playoffs two of their best players get injured (Lucius Allen and Kermit Washington) and Kareem was still wrecking shit up... He got them over the Warriors, shitting on Clifford Ray and Parish, then vs the eventual champions he was dominating Walton and some great defense, he was seeing doubles all the time and still scoring big... They got swept because his team wasn't much though, go watch those games, their guards were having trouble taking the ball past half-court and such, or geting it to Jabbar.

Jabbar has a top5 peak of all-time, Duncan more like top10... And considering everything, Kareem's clearly above on the all-time list.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Kareem got to play in the 70's. Duncan didn't. Why don't people compare Wilt's 50 ppg season to any of Jordan's in a vacuum like that? Because different eras are different. Transport Duncan to the 70's and he puts up insane numbers there, too. Offensive or otherwise.

[HOoopCityJones]

The double standard for Kareem is real. He played with two of the greatest PGs of all time , if not the greatest in Magic and only has two Finals MvPs to his name.

While Kobe gets thrashed for playing with prime Shaq and Pau Gasol, lol.

Still take him over Duncan, but ID has made a great case for why Tim is better.

[feyki]

Kareem got to play in the 70's. Duncan didn't. Why don't people compare Wilt's 50 ppg season to any of Jordan's in a vacuum like that? Because different eras are different. Transport Duncan to the 70's and he puts up insane numbers there, too. Offensive or otherwise.

:facepalm

[SHAQisGOAT]

Kareem got to play in the 70's. Duncan didn't. Why don't people compare Wilt's 50 ppg season to any of Jordan's in a vacuum like that? Because different eras are different. Transport Duncan to the 70's and he puts up insane numbers there, too. Offensive or otherwise.

:facepalm

Kareem at close to 40 could still drop 40 on Hakeem and Ewing, and such... How about that?

Jabbar was CLEARLY a better scorer than Duncan, no question about it...

[BlakFrankWhite]

The only players I'd take over Duncan are MJ, Kareem and Durant

[ClipperRevival]

If KAJ had bad longevity, you can make the case for Duncan. But KAJ has GOAT tier longevity and his peak was noticeably better.

KAJ put up:

27.8 ppg
13.7 rpg
4.3 apg
26.5 PER

For his first 13 seasons. Those are numbers Duncan could never touch, let alone average over a 13 season stretch. KAJ was just a more dominant, more impactful player at his peak and prime and for most of his career.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Not saying it's not close but I'd definitely take Kareem, can't see how one wouldn't...

Peak/prime Kareem is one of the GOAT scorers, one of the best passing bigmen with one of the highest IQ's ever, a top rebounder in the league, played DPOY-level defense... His scoring prowess (mostly/especially) is what puts him above Timmy, to me.

The level that KAJ was at in 1977? Just scary... And go watch him play to see his dominance.
His team wasn't stacked by any means and they won 53 games; then in the Playoffs two of their best players get injured (Lucius Allen and Kermit Washington) and Kareem was still wrecking shit up... He got them over the Warriors, shitting on Clifford Ray and Parish, then vs the eventual champions he was dominating Walton and some great defense, he was seeing doubles all the time and still scoring big... They got swept because his team wasn't much though, go watch those games, their guards were having trouble taking the ball past half-court and such, or geting it to Jabbar.

Jabbar has a top5 peak of all-time, Duncan more like top10... And considering everything, Kareem's clearly above on the all-time list.

I feel like that's hard doing Duncan, I feel like Duncan's peak was more like at 7 ish.

But that being said, Kareem wins this easily. I honestly don't rate his rs in 77 that highly (though obviously it's a ridiculously good rs) but his post season was just ungodly.

Arguably the best post season ever. It's in my top 3 for sure

[Pointguard]

Not saying it's not close but I'd definitely take Kareem, can't see how one wouldn't...

Peak/prime Kareem is one of the GOAT scorers, one of the best passing bigmen with one of the highest IQ's ever, a top rebounder in the league, played DPOY-level defense... His scoring prowess (mostly/especially) is what puts him above Timmy, to me.

This.

Kareem also had an unstoppable shot that went out to 17 feet. As mentioned above, lead the league in rebounding, scoring, FG% and lead the league in WS and PER for like 9 years. But there was a bigger separation in the eye test. Duncan never looked as dominant as Hakeem or Shaq in their peaks. Defensively, Hakeem was better than Duncan too. As Lazaruss here showed that a greatly slowed, near retirement, Kareem had a very definite advantage on Hakeem.

[Marchesk]

Kareem and (for realz), it's not even close.

Duncan getting a tad overrated on here. He never put up prime Kareem numbers. Put Duncan on the Wolves in place of Garnett and Love, and see how many titles he has.

[gcvbcat]

abdul is so overrated, just like shakeel & hakeem.


Duncan has made & kept Spurs relevant for 2 decades.

[Bankaii]

Not surprising to me that all the ISHpocrites are scoffing at this notion.

The same people that discredit Kobe for winning his first 3 rings with Shaq and how he "only" has 2 Finals MVP for his 5 rings.

Yet here is Kareem... Never won a ring without another Top 10 Player (Big O and Magic, who are both GOAT candidates in their own rights), and only 2 Finals MVPs for his 6 rings...

Ahhhh.

Dat ISH double-standard... :pimp:

Kill your idols, homies.

Duncan is on par with Kareem. Just deal with it. And I'm a Lakers fan, btw.

The double standard for Kareem is real. He played with two of the greatest PGs of all time , if not the greatest in Magic and only has two Finals MvPs to his name.

While Kobe gets thrashed for playing with prime Shaq and Pau Gasol, lol.

Still take him over Duncan, but ID has made a great case for why Tim is better.
2000-2002 Lakers Finals-
Shaq: 36/15/4/.6/3 on 59%
Kobe: 22/6/5/1/1 on 43%

Showtime Lakers Finals-
Kareem: 22/8/3/.8/2.6 on 52% (this in including his bad series at 40 years old)
Magic: 21/9/11/2/.2 on 54%

If you can't the difference in the two you're an idiot.

Kareem and Magic was co leading, Shaq and Kobe was hero and sidekick.
Shaq got all FMVPs and they aren't debatable. Almost all of the Showtime's FMVPs are debatable because the gap between the two is so small and Kareem should have 3 (over magic in 1980) and Magic should have 3 (over Worthy in 1988).

There is no double standard Kobetards just don't know basketball.

[IGOTGAME]

imo, if you take Duncan over Kareem ---> then you also gotta take Duncan over Magic and Bird.

[k0kakw0rld]

Kareem is the GOAT, The end.

[r0drig0lac]

Kareem - top 3
Duncan - top 5

Kareem is better

[DMAVS41]

I don't see a strong argument for Duncan. It would require one to really pick and choose how they evaluate a player, would require a massive amount of bias for his era without similar bias against Duncan's. It basically would require a massive number of subjective arguments.

If we just look at what they did and assume the league is always consistent. Kareem's career in minutes played is 25% longer (pretty impressive given who we're talking about). His best year statistically were more dominate both in all time terms and compared to peers in those seasons.

I can see argument's for Duncan's leadership. His general contribution to a franchise. I just don't see that being strong enough.

Similarly while Duncan was a much better defender it wasn't that big a gap.

Anyway my two cents.

I'm not arguing it's definitive for me or that I have an issue with someone taking Kareem. I think in this range you really can get into a number of different rankings.

I do take huge issue with the bold though.

Whether or not it should matter is a different debate, but the 70's were absolutely not equal to the 00's and current era.

So while I think there is obviously sound ground and arguments for Kareem over Duncan...one of them, in my opinion, is not that they played in equal eras competitively.

Also, another bad argument is Kareem winning 6 mvps...when most of them came in simply the worst era in NBA history by far.

I mean...just think about how many MVP's Duncan wins if just Iverson and KG don't exist. He wins 4 if you remove those two guys essentially as he finished 2nd those years iirc.

It's stuff like that....but I don't care to really argue Duncan over Kareem.

I will argue that it's reasonable to put Duncan right there with him...slightly above or below. I don't really see the argument as to why Kareem was clearly better than Duncan...

[DMAVS41]

This is pretty damning evidence in itself that Duncan > Kareem. When did Duncan ever have anyone that could put up 42-15-7 en route to clenching a chip while he sat at home watching from his couch? Then another dude on his team throwing up 37-10 just 'cause hurr durr stacked af roster. Duncan carried absolute ass to a chip in 2003.

No where near a top 10 player or top 15 on that roster. Kareem never did anything like that despite playing in the 70's where he had ample opportunity against much worse competition. Duncan was just a much more impactful player and a greater winner. Don't let Kareem's playing with the top 2 PG's of all time cloud your judgement. We seen what he was capable of without them and that was 0 rings while most of Duncan's are without playing with another All-NBA teammate.

:coleman:

You can't penalize a player for having great teammates. Kareem is no better or worse just because he happened to play with a ton of help in the 80's.

You make it sound like people think Kareem was arguably the GOAT because of his titles. This simply isn't the case.

It all depends on the reasons why people rank a player a certain way. I don't want to hate, but Kobe is usually a player that is ranked more off of his titles...or at least that is the argument his fans make...more than other players.

So I think that is an important distinction...

[Straight_Ballin]

Oscar top 10? :banghead: :banghead:

That said all this finals and finals MVP stuff is so absurdly overblown on these boards it's insane.

Actually it's not. You are talking the biggest stage, in the most competitive league, with the most pressure and everyone playing as hard as they can. You come out of a finals series with the FMVP, it's the end all be all measure of greatness to recognize an individuals performance in a game designed to be played as a team. You start adding more FMVP's for the same player into the discussion, and it becomes an exponential impact. You then start adding perfection in multiple finals appearances into the discussion along with FMVP, and the result is GOAT.

[DMAVS41]

This.

Kareem also had an unstoppable shot that went out to 17 feet. As mentioned above, lead the league in rebounding, scoring, FG% and lead the league in WS and PER for like 9 years. But there was a bigger separation in the eye test. Duncan never looked as dominant as Hakeem or Shaq in their peaks. Defensively, Hakeem was better than Duncan too. As Lazaruss here showed that a greatly slowed, near retirement, Kareem had a very definite advantage on Hakeem.

I really don't think Hakeem was better defensively than Duncan.

Also, of course Kareem led the league in PER for like 9 years...he played in a very weak era. That doesn't mean anything really...just means I think it's a very weak argument to use "leading the league" in something as an argument.

Notice how you didn't just list their PER for their careers. Why?

Here...I'll do it for you.

But if you are going to use PER...I think it's only right to list them both:

Regular season PER

Kareem 24.6
Duncan 24.5

Playoffs PER

Kareem 23.0
Duncan 24.6

And I'll do Kareem through 18 years as well:

Regular season

Kareem 25.3

Playoffs

Kareem 24.4

You just aren't getting anything of substance here on PER.

So I don't think arguing PER gets you anywhere here.

[jayfan]

:facepalm



/:Thread.




.

[choppermagic]

Duncan is probably the GOAT PF of all time but comparing him to Kareem is just not realistic.

Duncan never reached the heights that Kareem could elevate his game. Kareem reached 35ppg/17rpg one season. That guy is GOAT candidate. Add to that, scoring more points than anyone in the history of the NBA. He didn't even have his blocks counted for 4 seasons either. Better FT shooting too. Add to that the most unstoppable shot in the history of basketball, and NBA coaches pick Kareem over Duncan for their teams every single time. I can't even think Pops would pass up Kareem to pick Duncan.

Again, no disrespect to Duncan who is incredible, but Kareem is another tier above him.

blocking shots:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/38/47/95/384795e63f95a34e51c782c7629cc6be.jpg

Maybe Magic and Oscar never won without Kareem...

On top off all of the above, the guy fought Bruce Lee and piloted Airplane! Can't beat those bonus credentials! ha ha

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6p4dUQGsTMG5XfV9Aa--gQoTdrK2fE9w6LmOwo8A5qP9X9MCK
http://i.imgur.com/pm4h26G.jpg

https://fogsmoviereviews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/kareem_abdul_jabbar_roger_murdoch_airplane2.png

[West-Side]

Hakeen isn't better than Duncan defensively? What?

Hakeem

3.1 BPG
1.7 SPG
2 x DPOTY

Duncan

2.2 BPG
0.7 SPG
0 x DPOTY

The man averaged nearly 1 more block a game and 1 more steal a game.

Duncan's DWS during his peak (98' - 07') - 66.00 [lead the league 5 times]
Hakeem's DWS during his peak (87' - 96') - 66.80 [lead the league 4 times]

The highest DWS Duncan ever had was 7.2.
Hakeem eclipsed that mark FOUR times in his career [8.7, 8.0, 7.9, 7.8].

Duncan's DBPM was 4.1 during that span.
Hakeem's DBPM was 4.5 during that span.

The highest DBPM Duncan ever had in a single season was 5.1.
Hakeem exceeds that mark THREE times in his career [5.8, 5.9, 5.4].

Sure Duncan had more 1st team selections, but consider the difference in TALENT at the C/PF positions during 85' to 98' and 97' - now.

The gap is staggering, Hakeem had far more competition for those All-Defense teams.

Hakeem averaged 8.92 DRPG during his peak.
Duncan averaged 8.70 DRPG during his peak.

What exactly makes Duncan better?

[jayfan]

Duncan is probably the GOAT PF of all time but comparing him to Kareem is just not realistic.

Duncan never reached the heights that Kareem could elevate his game. Kareem reached 35ppg/17rpg one season. That guy is GOAT candidate. Add to that, scoring more points than anyone in the history of the NBA. He didn't even have his blocks counted for 4 seasons either. Better FT shooting too. Add to that the most unstoppable shot in the history of basketball, and NBA coaches pick Kareem over Duncan for their teams every single time. I can't even think Pops would pass up Kareem to pick Duncan.

Again, no disrespect to Duncan who is incredible, but Kareem is another tier above him.

Thank you. Perhaps sanity is not entirely lost after all.



.

[DMAVS41]

Hakeen isn't better than Duncan defensively? What?

Hakeem

3.1 BPG
1.7 SPG
2 x DPOTY

Duncan

2.2 BPG
0.7 SPG
0 x DPOTY

The man averaged nearly 1 more block a game and 1 more steal a game.

Duncan's DWS during his peak (98' - 07') - 66.00 [lead the league 5 times]
Hakeem's DWS during his peak (87' - 96') - 66.80 [lead the league 4 times]

The highest DWS Duncan ever had was 7.2.
Hakeem eclipsed that mark FOUR times in his career [8.7, 8.0, 7.9, 7.8].

Duncan's DBPM was 4.1 during that span.
Hakeem's DBPM was 4.5 during that span.

The highest DBPM Duncan ever had in a single season was 5.1.
Hakeem exceeds that mark THREE times in his career [5.8, 5.9, 5.4].

Sure Duncan had more 1st team selections, but consider the difference in TALENT at the C/PF positions during 85' to 98' and 97' - now.

The gap is staggering, Hakeem had far more competition for those All-Defense teams.

Hakeem averaged 8.92 DRPG during his peak.
Duncan averaged 8.70 DRPG during his peak.

What exactly makes Duncan better?

The exact reason Duncan doesn't have as many blocks and steals per game actually. Hakeem chased, imo, frequently on defense. He favored the block or steal over making the correct defensive play.

Duncan was a smarter defender imo.

Not saying Hakeem wasn't a great defender...I'd just prefer Duncan anchoring my defense.

I'm curious...do you think Hakeem or Duncan was a better player?

[IllegalD]

2000-2002 Lakers Finals-
Shaq: 36/15/4/.6/3 on 59%
Kobe: 22/6/5/1/1 on 43%

Showtime Lakers Finals-
Kareem: 22/8/3/.8/2.6 on 52% (this in including his bad series at 40 years old)
Magic: 21/9/11/2/.2 on 54%

If you can't the difference in the two you're an idiot.

Kareem and Magic was co leading, Shaq and Kobe was hero and sidekick.
Shaq got all FMVPs and they aren't debatable. Almost all of the Showtime's FMVPs are debatable because the gap between the two is so small and Kareem should have 3 (over magic in 1980) and Magic should have 3 (over Worthy in 1988).

There is no double standard Kobetards just don't know basketball.


Riiiiiiight....

Which is why you conveniently only used the Finals averages as opposed to entire playoff averages...

No agenda there, and you're absolutely not just being conveniently selective about which stats you chose to backup your opinion...

[West-Side]

The exact reason Duncan doesn't have as many blocks and steals per game actually. Hakeem chased, imo, frequently on defense. He favored the block or steal over making the correct defensive play.

Duncan was a smarter defender imo.

Not saying Hakeem wasn't a great defender...I'd just prefer Duncan anchoring my defense.

I'm curious...do you think Hakeem or Duncan was a better player?

Well, Duncan has a slight edge in DWS but that has a lot to do with his superior longevity.

Which is exactly why I'd definitely take Duncan above Hakeem as an overall player. His longevity is extremely rare for a big man.

Hakeem in his PRIME was clearly a better defensive player.
This is retarded, you say he goes for more blocks and steals?
Yet a PEAK Hakeem has better DWS, D-PM, DRPG, SPG & BPG. He won 2 DPOTY as well, Duncan won none.

Only when you look at their CAREER numbers, you'd think they were pretty even. That's only because Hakeem didn't have the longevity that Duncan has had.

[ClipperRevival]

2000-2002 Lakers (entire playoffs)
Shaq - 29.9 PPG, 14.5 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.4 BPG, 29.3 PER, .562 TS
Kobe - 25.3 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 4.9 APG, 1.5 SPG, 21.3 PER, .527 TS

Showtime Lakers (entire playoffs)
Magic - 19.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 12.5 APG, 1.9 SPG, 23.0 PER, .595 TS
Jabbar - 21.4 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 2.2 BPG, 20.8 PER, .577 TS

[ClipperRevival]

And Jabbar playoff stats prior to Showtime Lakers (1970 - 1979)

30.2 PPG, 16.4 RPG, 4.1 APG, 3.2 BPG, 26.4 PER, .563 TS

[West-Side]

2000-2002 Lakers (entire playoffs)
Shaq - 29.9 PPG, 14.5 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.4 BPG, 29.3 PER, .562 TS
Kobe - 25.3 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 4.9 APG, 1.5 SPG, 21.3 PER, .527 TS

Showtime Lakers (entire playoffs)
Magic - 19.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 12.5 APG, 1.9 SPG, 23.0 PER, .595 TS
Jabbar - 21.4 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 2.2 BPG, 20.8 PER, .577 TS

2000 Kobe was not a focal point of the Lakers, however, they did have Glen Rice. So that balance is the main reason LA won the title. I have no problem with people saying Shaq "carried" Kobe to his 1st ring, even though Kobe had some critical performances that would have left Shaq ringless if he didn't.

He was spectacular in at least 4-5 games during the 2000 playoffs and he did get injured against the Pacers, early in that series.

However, Shaq didn't carry jack shit in 2001 & 2002. Kobe was a superstar during those years and they won those titles together, as focal points of the team. Shaq was the better player (he was the best in the league) but Kobe was easily the 2nd best player in the 2001 playoffs and a top 3/4 player in 2002.

If Shaq & Duncan were together and won from 00' to 02', would you guys say the same shit about Timmy? Of course not, he was a superstar in his own right.

[DMAVS41]

Well, Duncan has a slight edge in DWS but that has a lot to do with his superior longevity.

Which is exactly why I'd definitely take Duncan above Hakeem as an overall player. His longevity is extremely rare for a big man.

Hakeem in his PRIME was clearly a better defensive player.
This is retarded, you say he goes for more blocks and steals?
Yet a PEAK Hakeem has better DWS, D-PM, DRPG, SPG & BPG. He won 2 DPOTY as well, Duncan won none.

Only when you look at their CAREER numbers, you'd think they were pretty even. That's only because Hakeem didn't have the longevity that Duncan has had.

Retarded? Retarded would be someone saying they viewed it as a negative that Hakeem left proper position to chase on defense for blocks/steals...then listing, yet again, blocks steals like they matter to me....and then listing DBPM like it's something different. It's all the same thing. DBPM just uses the defensive box score metrics to formulate a number.

Also, using total defensive rebounds is more flawed here as well.

Even cutting off Hakeem's last 3 years...his defensive rebound percentage is 24%.

Duncan's is 26.6% for his career. So you are just factually wrong about the defensive rebounding.

And if you are going to list DBPM and the stuff above...why aren't you listing defensive rating in which Duncan bests Hakeem?

The defensive player of the year stuff means nothing to me. It's one of the most absurd things in NBA history that Duncan doesn't have multiple defensive player of the year awards.

He only anchored elite defense after elite defense from day 1 for the Spurs....

[ClipperRevival]

2000-2002 Lakers (entire playoffs)
Shaq - 29.9 PPG, 14.5 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.4 BPG, 29.3 PER, .562 TS
Kobe - 25.3 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 4.9 APG, 1.5 SPG, 21.3 PER, .527 TS

Showtime Lakers (entire playoffs)
Magic - 19.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 12.5 APG, 1.9 SPG, 23.0 PER, .595 TS
Jabbar - 21.4 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 2.2 BPG, 20.8 PER, .577 TS

These stats show how dominant Shaq was. Kobe, Magic and Jabbar are all time greats but Shaq took his play to GOAT tier level from 2000-2002.

[fpliii]

The exact reason Duncan doesn't have as many blocks and steals per game actually. Hakeem chased, imo, frequently on defense. He favored the block or steal over making the correct defensive play.

Duncan was a smarter defender imo.

Not saying Hakeem wasn't a great defender...I'd just prefer Duncan anchoring my defense.

I'm curious...do you think Hakeem or Duncan was a better player?
I think this characterization is very unfair to Hakeem. He didn't gamble as much after his first few years, and the high blocks/steals are more so a function of his mobility/motor. In general I agree that we shouldn't trust box score stats much at all when evaluating players.

Duncan was a ridiculous defender. Great floor awareness, terrific length. Not as mobile as a Robinson, KG, or Hakeem, but very good in that regard. But Olajuwon could switch onto tons of smaller guys thanks to his quickness, and was great at covering the PnR. Also as he got older, he became a near GOAT level one on one post defender. 93 vs SEA and 94 vs NYK are two of the GOAT defensive series.

I think a strong case can certainly be made for Duncan having the superior career, since he was so good for so long (and still is pretty awesome). But if you watch any of Hakeem's games from 86 through 94 you see a ridiculous activity level, and his offense very much looks like it was already there from that second year (the difference offensively being that he was more willing to make the pass later on instead of going against continuous double and triple teams). You can set aside 91 (injuries) and 92 (contract stuff and mid-season coaching change), but those other seven years we're talking about a ridiculous player. It's insane to me that people view him as a fringe top ten player, though that's a discussion for another day.

Again, Duncan has a very good case for the better career (I have no problem with people putting him in their top 5s or whatever), but it's all about consistency and longevity. His prime was ridiculous, but Hakeem just seems to look clearly better (and we don't have any legitimate advanced from during his career to the contrary due to the lack of play-by-play data, aside from plus minus from 94 which has him near the top of the league, and with/without SRS studies that view him very favorably).

[DMAVS41]

I think this characterization is very unfair to Hakeem. He didn't gamble as much after his first few years, and the high blocks/steals are more so a function of his mobility/motor. In general I agree that we shouldn't trust box score stats much at all when evaluating players.

Duncan was a ridiculous defender. Great floor awareness, terrific length. But Olajuwon could switch into tons of smaller guys thanks to his quickness, and was great at covering the PnR. Also as he got older, he became a near GOAT level one on one post defender. 93 vs SEA and 94 vs NYK are two of the GOAT defensive series.

I think a certain strong case can be made for Duncan having the superior career, since he was so good for so long (and still is pretty awesome). But if you watch any of Hakeem's games from 86 through 94 you see a ridiculous activity level, and his offense very much looks like it was already there from that second year (the difference offensively being that he was more willing to make the pass later on instead of going against continuous double and triple teams). You can set aside 91 (injuries) and 92 (contract stuff and mid-season coaching change), but those other seven years we're talking about a ridiculous player. It's insane to me that people view him as a fringe top ten player, though that's a discussion for another day.

Again, Duncan has a very good case for the better career (I have no problem with people putting him in their top 5s or whatever), but it's all about consistency and longevity. His prime was ridiculous, but Hakeem just seems to look clearly better (and we don't have any legitimate advanced from during his career to the contrary due to the lack of play-by-play data, aside from plus minus from 94 which has him near the top of the league, and with/without SRS studies that view him very favorably).

This is me comparing two of the best defenders/players of all time. I'm not saying one was good or one was bad.

I think it's fair to say that Hakeem chased more on defense. However, that is only part of the reason why Hakeem has more blocks/steals. I completely agree he was more athletic.

I just prefer Duncan's defense for the reasons I've given...that doesn't mean I don't think Hakeem was great.

I do very much disagree that Hakeem looks clearly better, but I don't really care to argue that.

[ClipperRevival]

2000 Kobe was not a focal point of the Lakers, however, they did have Glen Rice. So that balance is the main reason LA won the title. I have no problem with people saying Shaq "carried" Kobe to his 1st ring, even though Kobe had some critical performances that would have left Shaq ringless if he didn't.

He was spectacular in at least 4-5 games during the 2000 playoffs and he did get injured against the Pacers, early in that series.

However, Shaq didn't carry jack shit in 2001 & 2002. Kobe was a superstar during those years and they won those titles together, as focal points of the team. Shaq was the better player (he was the best in the league) but Kobe was easily the 2nd best player in the 2001 playoffs and a top 3/4 player in 2002.

If Shaq & Duncan were together and won from 00' to 02', would you guys say the same shit about Timmy? Of course not, he was a superstar in his own right.

Lakers 2001 - 2002 (entire playoffs)
Kobe - 27.9 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 5.3 APG, 1.5 SPG, 22.5 PER, .531 TS
Shaq - 29.4 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.5 BPG, 28.5 PER, .566 TS

It's closer and Kobe was no doubt a superstar but still doesn't change who "the man" was and who defenses geared their game plan against stopping first and foremost. That was #34. He was the one who made it all happen. Without him, the Lakers are NOTHING. Without Kobe, they might still be a very good team if they can replace him with a very good SG. But Shaq's level of play was something reached by few in history and not just another good big would've made them good.

[IllegalD]

Lakers 2001 - 2002 (entire playoffs)
Kobe - 27.9 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 5.3 APG, 1.5 SPG, 22.5 PER, .531 TS
Shaq - 29.4 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.5 BPG, 28.5 PER, .566 TS

It's closer and Kobe was no doubt a superstar but still doesn't change who "the man" was and who defenses geared their game plan against stopping first and foremost. That was #34. He was the one who made it all happen. Without him, the Lakers are NOTHING. Without Kobe, they might still be a very good team if they can replace him with a very good SG. But Shaq's level of play was something reached by few in history and not just another good big would've made them good.

Why don't you stop focusing so much on stats and focus more on the fact that Kareem never won any rings without another Top 10-15 GOAT (Big O and Magic)? :confusedshrug:

Please list ONE Duncan teammate that's on the level as Big O, Magic, and Kobe (I mention Kobe because I also believe Duncan over Shaq is an argument that can be had, for the same reasons as Kareem Better help...)

I'll wait... :pimp:

[Sarcastic]

Not only is this an insult to Kareem, but now Hakeem getting insulted too. :facepalm

[ClipperRevival]

I think this characterization is very unfair to Hakeem. He didn't gamble as much after his first few years, and the high blocks/steals are more so a function of his mobility/motor. In general I agree that we shouldn't trust box score stats much at all when evaluating players.

Duncan was a ridiculous defender. Great floor awareness, terrific length. Not as mobile as a Robinson, KG, or Hakeem, but very good in that regard. But Olajuwon could switch onto tons of smaller guys thanks to his quickness, and was great at covering the PnR. Also as he got older, he became a near GOAT level one on one post defender. 93 vs SEA and 94 vs NYK are two of the GOAT defensive series.

I think a strong case can certainly be made for Duncan having the superior career, since he was so good for so long (and still is pretty awesome). But if you watch any of Hakeem's games from 86 through 94 you see a ridiculous activity level, and his offense very much looks like it was already there from that second year (the difference offensively being that he was more willing to make the pass later on instead of going against continuous double and triple teams). You can set aside 91 (injuries) and 92 (contract stuff and mid-season coaching change), but those other seven years we're talking about a ridiculous player. It's insane to me that people view him as a fringe top ten player, though that's a discussion for another day.

Again, Duncan has a very good case for the better career (I have no problem with people putting him in their top 5s or whatever), but it's all about consistency and longevity. His prime was ridiculous, but Hakeem just seems to look clearly better (and we don't have any legitimate advanced from during his career to the contrary due to the lack of play-by-play data, aside from plus minus from 94 which has him near the top of the league, and with/without SRS studies that view him very favorably).

:applause:

Hakeem was the most fluid and agile C ever. That enabled him to impact the game and get to balls and spots like few could ever do. He is 29th all time in SPG at 1.75. Think about that for a second! A C ranking 29th all time in SPG! Next C on the list is DRob, another all time great athlete C at 1.41 SPG at 55th.

Hakeem is also 3rd all time in BPG behind giants in Eaton (7'4") and Bol (7'6"). So he was the best normal sized shot blocking C ever. I understand Russell, KAJ and Wilt might've had greater numbers if they calculated them but it is what it is.

Hakeem was next level in his prime as a defender. Just so impactful.

[DMAVS41]

:applause:

Hakeem was the most fluid and agile C ever. That enabled him to impact the game and get to balls and spots like few could ever do. He is 29th all time in SPG at 1.75. Think about that for a second! A C ranking 29th all time in SPG! Next C on the list is DRob, another all time great athlete C at 1.41 SPG at 55th.

Hakeem is also 3rd all time in BPG behind giants in Eaton (7'4") and Bol (7'6"). So he was the best normal sized shot blocking C ever. I understand Russell, KAJ and Wilt might've had greater numbers if they calculated them but it is what it is.

Hakeem was next level in his prime as a defender. Just so impactful.


I'm not saying Hakeem wasn't great at defense though. And you could certainly write the bold about Duncan.

I think this is the kind of sentiment that makes Duncan so under-rated. Duncan has been a "next level" defender since the jump. He may go about his game in less appealing ways, but I don't care much about how one looks while playing...I care about the impact.

And Tim Duncan is one of the highest impact defenders the NBA has ever seen.

[IllegalD]

Also.

In 76 during Kareem's first season with the Lakers he MISSED THE PLAYOFFS (but still got Regular Season MVP :lol ).

I mean, how can you be considered the "2nd GOAT" and not be able to carry your team to the playoffs IN YOUR PRIME?

How many playoffs has Timmy missed...? :confusedshrug:

[ClipperRevival]

[/B]

I'm not saying Hakeem wasn't great at defense though. And you could certainly write the bold about Duncan.

I think this is the kind of sentiment that makes Duncan so under-rated. Duncan has been a "next level" defender since the jump. He may go about his game in less appealing ways, but I don't care much about how one looks while playing...I care about the impact.

And Tim Duncan is one of the highest impact defenders the NBA has ever seen.

I can agree with that.

[DMAVS41]

Not only is this an insult to Kareem, but now Hakeem getting insulted too. :facepalm

I think this post perfectly encapsulates what I'm arguing against. It is simply not an insult to Hakeem or Kareem to be compared to Duncan.

I don't really care where they all ultimately rank...and don't care to argue that.

But I do care to argue the notion that Kareem...and it seems like now Hakeem...are just on different levels as players.

I think that is just more perception than reality. I can't imagine what Duncan's legacy and popularity would be like if he had his exact career for the Lakers, Knicks, or Celtics.

[AlphaWolf24]

better question....

who here ( picking Kareem) ever watched him play?....watched Basketball when he was playing?

people who never even seen the man play....and picking Cap are talking outta yo azz...
:lol

[IllegalD]

better question....

who here ( picking Kareem) ever watched him play?....watched Basketball when he was playing?

people who never even seen the man play....and picking Cap are talking outta yo azz...
:lol

Exactly.

Its ridiculous how automatically most fans will latch on to old school players like Wilt, Kareem, and Russell, when they've never even seen them play.

Yet the disrespect for someone like Duncan, Kobe and LeBron (who you get to watch every single game of) is insane.

Throw away your grandaddy's "Top 10 list" and stop listening to BSPN and form your own opinions... :facepalm

[AlphaWolf24]

Lakers 2001 - 2002 (entire playoffs)
Kobe - 27.9 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 5.3 APG, 1.5 SPG, 22.5 PER, .531 TS
Shaq - 29.4 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.5 BPG, 28.5 PER, .566 TS

It's closer and Kobe was no doubt a superstar but still doesn't change who "the man" was and who defenses geared their game plan against stopping first and foremost. That was #34. He was the one who made it all happen. Without him, the Lakers are NOTHING. Without Kobe, they might still be a very good team if they can replace him with a very good SG. But Shaq's level of play was something reached by few in history and not just another good big would've made them good.


...don't know sh!t about basketball

Kobe was the primary facilitator, the #1 option in the 4th quarters and crunchtime....and the teams best defender ( I.E. played a much more stretched out defense and was the key to control the games pace on Offense and DEFENSE)

Shaq Dominated 3' from the Hoop...Kobe was doing everything else...

replace Snaq with a soft European center (...hmm...Like Gasol For example)and The Lakers would still 3peat in the early 00's...

2001 Kobe was the best allaround player in the NBA....same for 02' and 03' ...06' - 10'

[West-Side]

Retarded? Retarded would be someone saying they viewed it as a negative that Hakeem left proper position to chase on defense for blocks/steals...then listing, yet again, blocks steals like they matter to me....and then listing DBPM like it's something different. It's all the same thing. DBPM just uses the defensive box score metrics to formulate a number.

Also, using total defensive rebounds is more flawed here as well.

Even cutting off Hakeem's last 3 years...his defensive rebound percentage is 24%.

Duncan's is 26.6% for his career. So you are just factually wrong about the defensive rebounding.

And if you are going to list DBPM and the stuff above...why aren't you listing defensive rating in which Duncan bests Hakeem?

The defensive player of the year stuff means nothing to me. It's one of the most absurd things in NBA history that Duncan doesn't have multiple defensive player of the year awards.

He only anchored elite defense after elite defense from day 1 for the Spurs....

:facepalm Because the scoring was up during Hakeem's era, so using defensive rating isn't appropriator at all.
Defensive efficiency (DefRtg) = 100 x (Opponent points / Opponent possessions)

There were far more possessions in the 80's/early 90's, the FG% was higher and the scoring was up so you'd naturally expect Duncan to have a higher Def. rating.

Oh my god shocking, Tim Duncan has a higher rebounding % playing in an era with weak ass centers.

Think about it, besides an old ass Robinson, who else did Duncan play with in the front court? I sure as hell expect him to grab more defensive rebounds than Hakeem. There's a reason he is a hybrid C/PF. He always had a relatively small team around him. Malik Rose? Splitter? Thomas? :oldlol:

[West-Side]

PS - I do think Duncan is a terrific defender. His awareness is incredible on defense. He is extremely underrated and should have received at least one DPOTY award. However, we are comparing him to arguably the best or 2nd best defensive center of all-time here.

I am old enough to have watched Hakeem in the 90's; his quickness and versatility defensively was out of this world and he also had great awareness. He was like Ben Wallace with size but was as athletic as Rodman.

[Sarcastic]

I think this post perfectly encapsulates what I'm arguing against. It is simply not an insult to Hakeem or Kareem to be compared to Duncan.

I don't really care where they all ultimately rank...and don't care to argue that.

But I do care to argue the notion that Kareem...and it seems like now Hakeem...are just on different levels as players.

I think that is just more perception than reality. I can't imagine what Duncan's legacy and popularity would be like if he had his exact career for the Lakers, Knicks, or Celtics.


You're overlooking statistical dominance too much, and giving too much credit to "winning", which is always a function of the team. There's only 1 other player in which " winning" defines his career, and that's Bill Russell, and we only do that with him because he won at an absurd rate. Duncan's winning is no where near Russell's though. He never even won a back to back title.

[ClipperRevival]

...don't know sh!t about basketball

Kobe was the primary facilitator, the #1 option in the 4th quarters and crunchtime....and the teams best defender ( I.E. played a much more stretched out defense and was the key to control the games pace on Offense and DEFENSE)

Shaq Dominated 3' from the Hoop...Kobe was doing everything else...

replace Snaq with a soft European center (...hmm...Like Gasol For example)and The Lakers would still 3peat in the early 00's...

2001 Kobe was the best allaround player in the NBA....same for 02' and 03' ...06' - 10'

:roll: :hammerhead:

Why even bother. You're a die hard Kobe fan. You can say whatever you want.

[West-Side]

:roll: :hammerhead:

Why even bother. You're a die hard Kobe fan. You can say whatever you want.

No they wouldn't.
Maybe in 2001, they could possibly win a title with a prime Pau Gasol because of Kobe's dominance but they get destroyed by 2002 Kings or 2000 Blazers.

[KirbyPls]

imo, if you take Duncan over Kareem ---> then you also gotta take Duncan over Magic and Bird.

I think Duncan is a better two-way player than both and also has a higher impact. I think Kareem is slightly better, but not by much. I think Duncan might be the third best player ever, when it is all said and done:

1. MJ;
2. Kareem; and
3. Duncan

I am simply not amazed by the competition levels for Wilt, Russell and to a lesser extent Kareem (early career). What Duncan has done (very arguably the best player on perennial 50-win teams and 5 (very nearly 6) champions for nearly two decades) is more impressive than anything Wilt, Russell, Bird or Magic ever did, especially when factoring in competition and supporting casts.

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm Because the scoring was up during Hakeem's era, so using defensive rating isn't appropriator at all.
Defensive efficiency (DefRtg) = 100 x (Opponent points / Opponent possessions)

There were far more possessions in the 80's/early 90's, the FG% was higher and the scoring was up so you'd naturally expect Duncan to have a higher Def. rating.

Oh my god shocking, Tim Duncan has a higher rebounding % playing in an era with weak ass centers.

Think about it, besides an old ass Robinson, who else did Duncan play with in the front court? I sure as hell expect him to grab more defensive rebounds than Hakeem. There's a reason he is a hybrid C/PF. He always had a relatively small team around him. Malik Rose? Splitter? Thomas? :oldlol:

A few things:

1. You brought up defensive rebounding. So now when it favors Duncan it doesn't matter...seems biased

2. Defensive rating is far from perfect and has many issues and can be impacted by eras...so can all the other things listed. More possessions leads to the ability to get more blocks and steals per game.

3. So see how your own arguments don't work here? You say defensive rating doesn't matter because of more possessions...but more possessions clearly gives you a better chance to accumulate more blocks and steals. You say drtg has problems...but so do DBPM and defensive win shares. Again, you brought up defensive rebounding...now you claim of course Duncan should have been better.

Just don't see much here other than improper use of stats and logically flawed positions.

Now, that doesn't mean Duncan was a better defender than Hakeem. I just don't think you are on firm ground with the arguments you have made. They are flawed and weak.

[rmt]

That we're having this conversation is telling. IMO, Kareem's career resume > Duncan's. The only things Duncan has on him are defense (admittedly half of the game), leadership/camaraderie (KAJ was not as good a teammate, a bit standoffish) and lesser team mates.

I'd rather spend my time defending Duncan at 4-5 than going against KAJ who has a resume 2nd only to MJ.

[DMAVS41]

You're overlooking statistical dominance too much, and giving too much credit to "winning", which is always a function of the team. There's only 1 other player in which " winning" defines his career, and that's Bill Russell, and we only do that with him because he won at an absurd rate. Duncan's winning is no where near Russell's though. He never even won a back to back title.

I haven't brought up winning once in this thread...and I think you are overlooking Duncan's statistical dominance on both ends actually.

And it's really not the winning for me. It's what Duncan has been able to do on and off the court throughout his career. Which is be in the running, along with Magic and Russell for me... as best teammate / team player of all time. Yes, that matters to me...but I haven't even brought up that part of my argument.

Part of being a great basketball player is playing the best style for your team to win. Duncan is one of the best players ever at this.

I mean...are we really questioning Duncan's ability to put up better stats if that is what he wanted to do?

LOL...if Duncan wanted to focus on stats...dude could have, with ease, been a better statistical player. I just don't think he'd be a better player for it...in fact, I think he would have been worse for it.

[feyki]

Why don't you stop focusing so much on stats and focus more on the fact that Kareem never won any rings without another Top 10-15 GOAT (Big O and Magic)? :confusedshrug:

Please list ONE Duncan teammate that's on the level as Big O, Magic, and Kobe (I mention Kobe because I also believe Duncan over Shaq is an argument that can be had, for the same reasons as Kareem Better help...)

I'll wait... :pimp:

2005 Manu playoff 100 poss stats ;

34 pts , 9.5 rib , 7 ast and with elite defence(way better than Magic or Oscar at defence)

1999 Admiral playoff 100 poss stats ;

25 pts , 16 rib , 4 ast and with goat tier defence .

Tony Parker playoff 100 poss stats at between 2006-2014 ;

31 pts , 4.5 rib , 8.5 ast

And ..

1974 Oscar playoff 100 poss stats ;

16 pts , 4 rib , 10.5 ast and with no defence .

[West-Side]

A few things:

1. You brought up defensive rebounding. So now when it favors Duncan it doesn't matter...seems biased

2. Defensive rating is far from perfect and has many issues and can be impacted by eras...so can all the other things listed. More possessions leads to the ability to get more blocks and steals per game.

3. So see how your own arguments don't work here? You say defensive rating doesn't matter because of more possessions...but more possessions clearly gives you a better chance to accumulate more blocks and steals. You say drtg has problems...but so do DBPM and defensive win shares. Again, you brought up defensive rebounding...now you claim of course Duncan should have been better.

Just don't see much here other than improper use of stats and logically flawed positions.

Now, that doesn't mean Duncan was a better defender than Hakeem. I just don't think you are on firm ground with the arguments you have made. They are flawed and weak.

Well, I'm considering context.
Duncan has a SLIGHT advantage when it comes to defensive rating and rebounding percentage. Hakeem has a LARGE lead when it comes to BPG & SPG.

My arguments are far from weak. I place context when I evaluate numbers.

Hakeem has a DRtg of 98.
Duncan has a DRtg of 96.

Now this is where I use my thinking hat and explain to you what I mean by context.

Hakeem had the BEST DRtg of 99 & 98 in the entire league [in 87' & 88'].
Duncan had DRtg of 89 & 91, and it WASN'T the best in the league.

What does that tell you about the era in which each respective player played in?

PS - I love how you always try to sound so condescending and will always insult the poster who doesn't agree with your opinion. :rolleyes:

[KirbyPls]

That we're having this conversation is telling. IMO, Kareem's career resume > Duncan's. The only things Duncan has on him are defense (admittedly half of the game), leadership/camaraderie (KAJ was not as good a teammate, a bit standoffish) and lesser team mates.

I'd rather spend my time defending Duncan at 4-5 than going against KAJ who has a resume 2nd only to MJ.

I can't see an ironclad argument to put 4 players above Duncan all-time, maybe not even 3.

On a side note, I find it disingenuous that winning as the man is used so heavily against Lebron and Kobe at the expense of PO stats (especially for Lebron), and yet, Duncan has an arguable top-3 ratio of winning as the man with amazing, consistent stats, and people are now using Kareem's superior stats in a weaker era, where Kareem only won one time pre-Magic, to prop up Kareem. Double-standards are double here on ISH.

[IllegalD]

2005 Manu playoff 100 poss stats ;

34 pts , 9.5 rib , 7 ast and with elite defence(way better than Magic or Oscar at defence)

1999 Admiral playoff 100 poss stats ;

25 pts , 16 rib , 4 ast and with goat tier defence .

Tony Parker playoff 100 poss stats at between 2006-2014 ;

31 pts , 4.5 rib , 8.5 ast

And ..

1974 Oscar playoff 100 poss stats ;

16 pts , 4 rib , 10.5 ast and with no defence .


OK, now do Magic.

Why not use regular averages, instead of selective stats? :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Well, I'm considering context.
Duncan has a SLIGHT advantage when it comes to defensive rating and rebounding percentage. Hakeem has a LARGE lead when it comes to BPG & SPG.

My arguments are far from weak. I place context when I evaluate numbers.

Hakeem has a DRtg of 98.
Duncan has a DRtg of 96.

Now this is where I use my thinking hat and explain to you what I mean by context.

Hakeem had the BEST DRtg of 99 & 98 in the entire league [in 87' & 88'].
Duncan had DRtg of 89 & 91, and it WASN'T the best in the league.

What does that tell you about the era in which each respective player played in?

PS - I love how you always try to sound so condescending and will always insult the poster who doesn't agree with your opinion. :rolleyes:

Condescending? You called my points retarded.

Hate to tell you, but Hakeem doesn't have a large advantage in DBPM...it's no different than the drtg and defensive rebounding stuff.

It's all close...

Again, I'm not arguing that Duncan clearly was a better defender than Hakeem. My opinion is that Duncan was better on defense overall, but I have no issue with someone taking Hakeem.

My issue is when someone says it is retarded to take Duncan like you did.

I think you are either vastly under-rating Duncan or over-rating Hakeem.

Has nothing to do with you personally at all...it's your arguments.

Also, I don't think you strictly adhere to these numbers anyway. Because things like win shares vastly favor Duncan. You said Hakeem was better, but Duncan wins on longevity.

Okay, but why?

If we look at win shares per 48...again cutting off Hakeem's late years you get:

Hakeem ws/48 .184
Duncan ws/48 .211

BPM...which combines your beloved dbpm and obpm...again cutting off Hakeem's late years you get:

Hakeem 5.3
Duncan 5.5

Offensive rating?

Hakeem 109
Duncan 110

Defensive rating?

Hakeem 98
Duncan 96



You see my point? Even using the numbers you claim prove Hakeem was better defensively...actually show Duncan to be the better player overall...again...not talking about longevity. The above is removing Hakeem's late years.

So why don't you view Duncan as the better player regardless of longevity if those numbers matter so much?

[IllegalD]

Also I love how every single person here skirted over the fact that Kareem has had more All-star level/HOF teammates than Duncan throughout his career.

[HOoopCityJones]

Also I love how every single person here skirted over the fact that Kareem has had more All-star level/HOF teammates than Duncan throughout his career.

They don't wanna acknowledge it, just like all the stacked rosters Bird and Magic played on.

It'd mean Lebron and Kobe would get a pass for who they played with.

[KirbyPls]

They don't wanna acknowledge it, just like all the stacked rosters Bird and Magic played on.

It'd mean Lebron and Kobe would get a pass for who with played with.

:applause: Nostalgic hero worship cannot sustain fairly applied, uniform standards.

[feyki]

OK, now do Magic.

Why not use regular averages, instead of selective stats? :confusedshrug:

1981 is end of the Kareem's prime. Kareem wasn't lucky from him teammates at him prime. Old Oscar , 4 year Dandridge and 35 years old Gail . Kareem's best teammate is Bobby Dandridge . And he's as good as prime Josh Howard . Oscar only one year put around 20-10(with Kareem) at playoffs . 74 Oscar 14-9 level player and Kareem with him and Dandridge(17-8-2 level) go to the finals. And Oscar had worst game (2/13 fg ) last game at finals.

Don't underrate prime Kareem.

[DMAVS41]

Also I love how every single person here skirted over the fact that Kareem has had more All-star level/HOF teammates than Duncan throughout his career.

This would be more valid if their arguments were about championships and success though.

So far they have stuck to impact and level of play.

I don't see many arguments talking about MVP's and Rings...if so...then I'd agree it's not remotely a fair comparison given the weak 70's and the loaded rosters Kareem got to play with.

But again...Duncan has won 5 titles...so it's not like there is an edge here anyway.

[West-Side]

Condescending? You called my points retarded.

Hate to tell you, but Hakeem doesn't have a large advantage in DBPM...it's no different than the drtg and defensive rebounding stuff.

It's all close...

Again, I'm not arguing that Duncan clearly was a better defender than Hakeem. My opinion is that Duncan was better on defense overall, but I have no issue with someone taking Hakeem.

My issue is when someone says it is retarded to take Duncan like you did.

I think you are either vastly under-rating Duncan or over-rating Hakeem.

Has nothing to do with you personally at all...it's your arguments.

Also, I don't think you strictly adhere to these numbers anyway. Because things like win shares vastly favor Duncan. You said Hakeem was better, but Duncan wins on longevity.

Okay, but why?

If we look at win shares per 48...again cutting off Hakeem's late years you get:

Hakeem ws/48 .184
Duncan ws/48 .211

BPM...which combines your beloved dbpm and obpm...again cutting off Hakeem's late years you get:

Hakeem 5.3
Duncan 5.5

Offensive rating?

Hakeem 109
Duncan 110

Defensive rating?

Hakeem 98
Duncan 96



You see my point? Even using the numbers you claim prove Hakeem was better defensively...actually show Duncan to be the better player overall...again...not talking about longevity. The above is removing Hakeem's late years.

So why don't you view Duncan as the better player regardless of longevity if those numbers matter so much?

Who said Hakeem is a better player than Duncan?
I was talking about their defense.

[feyki]

This would be more valid if their arguments were about championships and success though.

So far they have stuck to impact and level of play.

I don't see many arguments talking about MVP's and Rings...if so...then I'd agree it's not remotely a fair comparison given the weak 70's and the loaded rosters Kareem got to play with.

But again...Duncan has won 5 titles...so it's not like there is an edge here anyway.

:facepalm

[DMAVS41]

Who said Hakeem is a better player than Duncan?
I was talking about their defense.

You said you'd take Duncan overall....because of longevity.

I assumed that meant you thought Hakeem was better because of your wording combined with you thinking Hakeem was superior defensively.

Are you saying Duncan was so much better offensively?

Now I'm confused.

Forget the longevity....who was the better player for the first 13 years of their careers or whatever you want to cut if off at?

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm

Dude...the 70s were weak as ****.

And the Lakers weren't loaded?

What are you on?

[West-Side]

You said you'd take Duncan overall....because of longevity.

I assumed that meant you thought Hakeem was better because of your wording combined with you thinking Hakeem was superior defensively.

Are you saying Duncan was so much better offensively?

Now I'm confused.

Forget the longevity....who was the better player for the first 13 years of their careers or whatever you want to cut if off at?

I think Duncan's the better overall player because of his longevity.
I think Hakeem & Duncan are pretty much identical as players if you consider their peak years (span of 7/8 years). But Duncan simply achieved more than Hakeem.

He has won more.
He was dominant longer.
He has more personal accolades.

Where things become difficult is when I consider their competition. It's hard to compare their stats and advanced stats when Hakeem faced prime Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Shaq etc.

Whereas Duncan didn't have nearly as much competition up front.
So I'd say they are pretty even; when considering their peak years.

[DMAVS41]

I think Duncan's the better overall player because of his longevity.
I think Hakeem & Duncan are pretty much identical as players if you consider their peak years (span of 7/8 years). But Duncan simply achieved more than Hakeem.

He has won more.
He was dominant longer.
He has more personal accolades.

Where things become difficult is when I consider their competition. It's hard to compare their stats and advanced stats when Hakeem faced prime Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Shaq etc.

Whereas Duncan didn't have nearly as much competition up front.
So I'd say they are pretty even; when considering their peak years.

Interesting.

So you think Duncan was a considerably better offensive player than Hakeem. Very interesting...

[feyki]

Dude...the 70s were weak as ****.

And the Lakers weren't loaded?

What are you on?

Who is a great player at 75-79 Lakers?

Early 70's competition is best in nba history. Knicks,Lakers,Celtics,Bullets..

1974 is weak year , agreed. But 1974 Celtics great team .

Nba only weak at 74-76 , cause ABA .

In the between 1977-1979 ;

Rox(Moses,Calvin) , Phila (Erving,Mcginnis) , Blazers(Bill,Lucas) , Sonics(Gus,Dennis,Sikma) , Bullets(Wes,Dandridge,Elvin),Nuggets(SkyWalker,Dan Issel) .

[DMAVS41]

Who is a great player at 75-79 Lakers?

Early 70's competition is best in nba history. Knicks,Lakers,Celtics,Bullets..

1974 is weak year , agreed. But 1974 Celtics great team .

Nba only weak at 74-76 , cause ABA .

In the between 1977-1979 ;

Rox(Moses,Calvin) , Phila (Erving,Mcginnis) , Blazers(Bill,Lucas) , Sonics(Gus,Dennis,Sikma) , Bullets(Wes,Dandridge,Elvin),Nuggets(SkyWalker,Dan Issel) .


I'll do what you did because you think it's a good argument...:facepalm

[West-Side]

Interesting.

So you think Duncan was a considerably better offensive player than Hakeem. Very interesting...

Duncan was not considerably better offensively, if at all; I believe Duncan has the edge as the playmaker while their scoring is pretty similar (when you consider league averages). However, Hakeem was the better defender during their prime years.

So I consider them to be pretty similar during their best 8/9 years in the NBA.
What honestly puts Duncan over Hakeem is his longevity.
The fact that he has been a great player for so long, accumulating all kinds of awards and winning 5 titles.

Winning has more to do with competition and Gregg Popovich than Duncan actually being the better player than Hakeem.

If Duncan played from 85' - 97' and Hakeem played from 97' to now; I bet their accolodes and championships will look quite different.

I don't see Duncan winning more than 2 titles against Jordan and other greats, but I do see Hakeem winning a lot more than 2 titles on those Spurs teams.

So yeah, both players are pretty even to me.
Duncan's longevity allowed his resume to look more impressive and thus he is 6th or 7th best player while Hakeem is 10th or 11th.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan was not considerably better offensively, if at all; I believe Duncan has the edge as the playmaker while their scoring is pretty similar (when you consider league averages). However, Hakeem was the better defender during their prime years.

So I consider them to be pretty similar during their best 8/9 years in the NBA.
What honestly puts Duncan over Hakeem is his longevity.
The fact that he has been a great player for so long, accumulating all kinds of awards and winning 5 titles.

Winning has more to do with competition and Gregg Popovich than Duncan actually being the better player than Hakeem.

If Duncan played from 85' - 97' and Hakeem played from 97' to now; I bet their accolodes and championships will look quite different.

I don't see Duncan winning more than 2 titles against Jordan and other greats, but I do see Hakeem winning a lot more than 2 titles on those Spurs teams.

So yeah, both players are pretty even to me.
Duncan's longevity allowed his resume to look more impressive and thus he is 6th or 7th best player while Hakeem is 10th or 11th.

But this doesn't make sense to me.

You have vehemently argued that Hakeem was better defensively.

If you don't think Duncan was better offensively.

How can you say they are even?

[West-Side]

But this doesn't make sense to me.

You have vehemently argued that Hakeem was better defensively.

If you don't think Duncan was better offensively.

How can you say they are even?

Because I'm considering team accomplishments (obviously). :hammerhead:
As an individual player, I definitely think Hakeem has the edge.
Offensively, they are pretty similar to me.
Defensively, Hakeem is better.
Team Success, Duncan had more of it (4 titles to 2).

[feyki]

I'll do what you did because you think it's a good argument...:facepalm

I think it's truth .

[West-Side]

Hakeem: 24.6 PPG, 12.13 RPG, 2.85 APG, 1.9 SPG, 3.53 BPG on 51.4% [88' to 97']
Duncan: 21.81 PPG, 11.86 RPG, 3.13 APG, .8 SPG, 2.41 BPG on 50.2% [98' to 07']

FYI.

[DMAVS41]

Because I'm considering team accomplishments (obviously). :hammerhead:
As an individual player, I definitely think Hakeem has the edge.
Offensively, they are pretty similar to me.
Defensively, Hakeem is better.
Team Success, Duncan had more of it (4 titles to 2).

Team success makes a player better? How am I supposed to know that is how you view things.

Ok...so as an individual player you think Hakeem "definitely has the edge"

Great.

Now my question is why...because a lot of the numbers you list for defense...those same numbers favor Duncan.

Just take BPM overall...a stat you obviously like.

First 13 years...hardly based on longevity:

Hakeem 5.5
Duncan 6.0

Win shares and VORP and PER also favor Duncan iirc.

You kind of see what I'm getting at? My point is that I don't think those numbers you listed as your reasons why Hakeem was clearly better defensively...I don't think you really care about those numbers. Because I can list those same numbers that favor Duncan overall as a better player.

That was my point.

[HoopologyPhD]

I really like Duncan but Kareem>> as a scorer and is at least as good if not better than Duncan at everything else too.

[DMAVS41]

Hakeem: 24.6 PPG, 12.13 RPG, 2.85 APG, 1.9 SPG, 3.53 BPG on 51.4% [88' to 97']
Duncan: 21.81 PPG, 11.86 RPG, 3.13 APG, .8 SPG, 2.41 BPG on 50.2% [98' to 07']

FYI.

Hakeem 88-97

5.8 BPM
.188 WS/48
55.6 VORP
24.8 PER
109 ortg
97 drtg


Duncan 98-07

6.3 BPM
.224 WS/48
58.4 VORP
25.2 PER
109 ortg
94 drtg

FYI.

See my point why I don't think you really care about those numbers you listed for defense?

Logically you of course can't...because if you cared about those numbers...you'd never say Hakeem "definitely" was better than Duncan.

[West-Side]

Team success makes a player better? How am I supposed to know that is how you view things.

Ok...so as an individual player you think Hakeem "definitely has the edge"

Great.

Now my question is why...because a lot of the numbers you list for defense...those same numbers favor Duncan.

Just take BPM overall...a stat you obviously like.

First 13 years...hardly based on longevity:

Hakeem 5.5
Duncan 6.0

Win shares and VORP and PER also favor Duncan iirc.

You kind of see what I'm getting at? My point is that I don't think those numbers you listed as your reasons why Hakeem was clearly better defensively...I don't think you really care about those numbers. Because I can list those same numbers that favor Duncan overall as a better player.

That was my point.

Yet once again you fail to look at competition.
Put Duncan in an era of ShowTime Lakers, Jordan's Bulls; heck even Malone's Jazz probably beats him. Duncan had the luxury of winning titles in an era that lacked truly great teams. When Shaq & Kobe were together, he lost. When Pau & Gasol were together he lost.

He essentially won a title in a shortened season, beat LeBron with a weak supporting cast, won in 2005 (beat a Detroit squad in 7 games that would never reach the finals from 85 to 97') and beat the Heat in 7 (where he wasn't even the FMVP).

Duncan has better BPM, Win Share etc. mostly because he didn't win with a lot but every-time he won a title, the league lacked a truly great team.

[DMAVS41]

Yet once again you fail to look at competition.
Put Duncan in an era of ShowTime Lakers, Jordan's Bulls; heck even Malone's Jazz probably beats him. Duncan had the luxury of winning titles in an era that lacked truly great teams. When Shaq & Kobe were together, he lost. When Pau & Gasol were together he lost.

He essentially won a title in a shortened season, beat LeBron with a weak supporting cast, won in 2005 (beat a Detroit squad in 7 games that would never reach the finals from 85 to 97') and beat the Heat in 7 (where he wasn't even the FMVP).

Duncan has better BPM, Win Share etc. mostly because he didn't win with a lot but every-time he won a title, the league lacked a truly great team.

But I'm not arguing titles at all actually. This argument would make sense if Duncan led teams just didn't routinely win at a historic rate for nearly two decades now.

While playing in the toughest and most competitive conference the NBA has ever seen for this length of time.

BPM really isn't dependent on the league either...it's a box score stat normalized by the average player. So there is a little in there, but not a lot.

Also the 99 through 04 era defensively was much tougher than any time Hakeem played (the years you designated) in terms of defense. You have granted that when you argue about the more possessions of Hakeem's time.

But what you fail to then realize...is that it was easier to play offense back then.

So when Duncan beats Hakeem on obpm it's not a good look for you if you value that stat like you claim to.

[JellyBean]

Kareem. Nothing else needs to be said.

[Pointguard]

I really don't think Hakeem was better defensively than Duncan.

Also, of course Kareem led the league in PER for like 9 years...he played in a very weak era. That doesn't mean anything really...just means I think it's a very weak argument to use "leading the league" in something as an argument.

Notice how you didn't just list their PER for their careers. Why?


I never cared to. I was speaking of Kareem's dominance as compared to Duncan's. Different if Duncan lead the league once or twice.



Here...I'll do it for you.
LOL

[DMAVS41]

I never cared to. I was speaking of Kareem's dominance as compared to Duncan's. Different if Duncan lead the league once or twice.


LOL

Not sure the LOL...I think it's only fair to list as much information as possible.

But I'm especially interested in your take because you have been very critical of Kareem in the past.

Kareem turned on Magic when Magic got the franchise contract and threatened to leave the team. <-- leadership at its best. And Kareem who was on a serious drought of playing inspired winning ball for a long time before Magic came along was never even a great teammate to Magic much less the other players. The talk in '87 was how management was no longer interested in placating Kareem.


Kareem in his 20 years was never part of a team that won like the Lakers did, the next five years, once he stepped out of the way. Not in the regular season, not in the playoffs. And Kareem played through league expansion and a league rival that greatly siphoned talent.



There is no mirror that is going to make Nixon look like Magic. Kareem in the late 80's was a by product of Magic featuring him. He would have very likely retired in '85 latest if he wasn't on Magic's team. He was very spoiled.

Have you changed your tune on Kareem? I happen to agree with a lot of what you said, not all of it, but this seems odd as I know how much value you place on leadership and being a great teammate etc....and Duncan had that over Kareem hugely.

[Bankaii]

No they wouldn't.
Maybe in 2001, they could possibly win a title with a prime Pau Gasol because of Kobe's dominance but they get destroyed by 2002 Kings or 2000 Blazers.
The shit said on this forum:roll:

[Pointguard]

I think this characterization is very unfair to Hakeem. He didn't gamble as much after his first few years, and the high blocks/steals are more so a function of his mobility/motor. In general I agree that we shouldn't trust box score stats much at all when evaluating players.

Duncan was a ridiculous defender. Great floor awareness, terrific length. Not as mobile as a Robinson, KG, or Hakeem, but very good in that regard. But Olajuwon could switch onto tons of smaller guys thanks to his quickness, and was great at covering the PnR. Also as he got older, he became a near GOAT level one on one post defender. 93 vs SEA and 94 vs NYK are two of the GOAT defensive series.

I think a strong case can certainly be made for Duncan having the superior career, since he was so good for so long (and still is pretty awesome). But if you watch any of Hakeem's games from 86 through 94 you see a ridiculous activity level, and his offense very much looks like it was already there from that second year (the difference offensively being that he was more willing to make the pass later on instead of going against continuous double and triple teams). You can set aside 91 (injuries) and 92 (contract stuff and mid-season coaching change), but those other seven years we're talking about a ridiculous player. It's insane to me that people view him as a fringe top ten player, though that's a discussion for another day.

Again, Duncan has a very good case for the better career (I have no problem with people putting him in their top 5s or whatever), but it's all about consistency and longevity. His prime was ridiculous, but Hakeem just seems to look clearly better (and we don't have any legitimate advanced from during his career to the contrary due to the lack of play-by-play data, aside from plus minus from 94 which has him near the top of the league, and with/without SRS studies that view him very favorably).

:applause:

Hakeem was the most fluid and agile C ever. That enabled him to impact the game and get to balls and spots like few could ever do. He is 29th all time in SPG at 1.75. Think about that for a second! A C ranking 29th all time in SPG! Next C on the list is DRob, another all time great athlete C at 1.41 SPG at 55th.

Hakeem is also 3rd all time in BPG behind giants in Eaton (7'4") and Bol (7'6"). So he was the best normal sized shot blocking C ever. I understand Russell, KAJ and Wilt might've had greater numbers if they calculated them but it is what it is.

Hakeem was next level in his prime as a defender. Just so impactful.

:cheers:
Hakeem's mobility, motor, anticipation, quick feet, quick hands, quick leaping ability, bounce and superior athleticism were all very definitive advantages that he had on Duncan. Hakeem might have explored going after blocks for a year but it wasn't some out of control habit. I don't recall seeing it but heard Kenny Smith say that Hakeem wanted the block. But when he was killing other great centers you don't see him out of position, as much as they were trying to guard him. He was a superior rim protector, a better one on one defender, much quicker on the switch, much quicker on help defense in general. Duncan was longer but Hakeems timing and jumping eliminated the effectiveness of the length as Hakeem was a better shot blocker. Hakeem was the best ever at getting to a ball while on defense. His deflections steals and blocks were unmatched. And he was better at getting to the desired defensive spot better than Duncan as well.

Ask anybody who seen Hakeem in his prime, if these things were not very noticeable in contrast with Duncan.

[rmt]

I can't see an ironclad argument to put 4 players above Duncan all-time, maybe not even 3.

On a side note, I find it disingenuous that winning as the man is used so heavily against Lebron and Kobe at the expense of PO stats (especially for Lebron), and yet, Duncan has an arguable top-3 ratio of winning as the man with amazing, consistent stats, and people are now using Kareem's superior stats in a weaker era, where Kareem only won one time pre-Magic, to prop up Kareem. Double-standards are double here on ISH.

Please, you're preaching to the choir. I'm one of the biggest Duncan fans, and if I had to start a franchise, there probably isn't anyone I'd take over TD. But going by career resume, Duncan has no case vs KAJ or MJ. I'd rather spend my time strengthening the 4-5 case.


Yet once again you fail to look at competition.
Put Duncan in an era of ShowTime Lakers, Jordan's Bulls; heck even Malone's Jazz probably beats him. Duncan had the luxury of winning titles in an era that lacked truly great teams. When Shaq & Kobe were together, he lost. When Pau & Gasol were together he lost.

He essentially won a title in a shortened season, beat LeBron with a weak supporting cast, won in 2005 (beat a Detroit squad in 7 games that would never reach the finals from 85 to 97') and beat the Heat in 7 (where he wasn't even the FMVP).

Duncan has better BPM, Win Share etc. mostly because he didn't win with a lot but every-time he won a title, the league lacked a truly great team.

The competition argument goes both ways. Of course, the ShowTime Lakers, Russell's Celtics etc had better competition (in the later rounds) because the league was not as diluted/more stars per team. Otoh, those stars had more help.

But lets not belittle the competition that the Spurs have gone through - a brutal West and an even more brutal Southwest division - 5 playoff teams (4 times/yr) last year. It's not like the Spurs have had easy paths to the Finals (like Lebron) - every year is a drag out, vicious fight just to get out of the West - whether it was getting past Shaq/Kobe, Mavs, Suns, OKC, etc.

Look, no one has control over who they play - you play whoever is in front of you.

[Replay32]

:facepalm

What the hell is going on?

[DMAVS41]

Please, you're preaching to the choir. I'm one of the biggest Duncan fans, and if I had to start a franchise, there probably isn't anyone I'd take over TD. But going by career resume, Duncan has no case vs KAJ or MJ. I'd rather spend my time strengthening the 4-5 case.



The competition argument goes both ways. Of course, the ShowTime Lakers, Russell's Celtics etc had better competition (in the later rounds) because the league was not as diluted/more stars per team. Otoh, those stars had more help.

But lets not belittle the competition that the Spurs have gone through - a brutal West and an even more brutal Southwest division - 5 playoff teams (4 times/yr) last year. It's not like the Spurs have had easy paths to the Finals (like Lebron) - every year is a drag out, vicious fight just to get out of the West - whether it was getting past Shaq/Kobe, Mavs, Suns, OKC, etc.

Look, no one has control over who they play - you play whoever is in front of you.

We aren't arguing career resume though.

[Pointguard]

Not sure the LOL...I think it's only fair to list as much information as possible.

But I'm especially interested in your take because you have been very critical of Kareem in the past.

Kareem turned on Magic when Magic got the franchise contract and threatened to leave the team. <-- leadership at its best. And Kareem who was on a serious drought of playing inspired winning ball for a long time before Magic came along was never even a great teammate to Magic much less the other players. The talk in '87 was how management was no longer interested in placating Kareem.

Kareem in his 20 years was never part of a team that won like the Lakers did, the next five years, once he stepped out of the way. Not in the regular season, not in the playoffs. And Kareem played through league expansion and a league rival that greatly siphoned talent.

There is no mirror that is going to make Nixon look like Magic. Kareem in the late 80's was a by product of Magic featuring him. He would have very likely retired in '85 latest if he wasn't on Magic's team. He was very spoiled.

Have you changed your tune on Kareem? I happen to agree with a lot of what you said, not all of it, but this seems odd as I know how much value you place on leadership and being a great teammate etc....and Duncan had that over Kareem hugely.

Duncan had that on Kareem. No problem there. Kareem's ego could get the best of him. He rarely ever talks of how great Magic was til this day. Kareem wasn't horrible with it but Duncan was flawless. Magic came to town and stole all the thunder for the team. It was almost a natural response.

[AlphaWolf24]

:roll: :hammerhead:

Why even bother. You're a die hard Kobe fan. You can say whatever you want.

I'm a Kobe fan true....I'm also a diehard basketball fan....

been watching / following basketball before Fab 5 Freddy was on MTV...

It's funny hearing..." replace Kobe with ______ " and the Lakers are still a great team....ok....:rolleyes:

If you can say that...then you can easily say " Replace Shaq with a decent 5 and The Lakers could still 3 peat"..( In fact in real life....it almost happened)

Kobe has had far more success without Shaq...then Vice Versa....



I can say whatever I want.......but don't hate me when I speak the truth







2EZ next

[AlphaWolf24]

No they wouldn't.
Maybe in 2001, they could possibly win a title with a prime Pau Gasol because of Kobe's dominance but they get destroyed by 2002 Kings or 2000 Blazers.

2000 team IMO was better then 01'....it was all mental with L.A.

added the Shaq vs Kobe...Shaq hating on Kobe everyday because Kobe was more popular and much better looking....

- Shaq is a straight Hater.....If Gasol was on the team....he would have accepted his role better and the Lakers would have played at a higher level in the playoff's.

- 2001 - playoff's...Shaq accepted Kobe as the more dangerous player/better overall player....and fell into the Beta role more.....

" Kobe is the best player in the NBA" - Shaq 2001 WCFinals...the real NBA Finals ( accepting his beta)

2002 - the only threat is the Kings...( LA destroys NJ no matter what)
I think Gasol matches up better against Divac....and stays outta foul trouble.

[Thesmallmamba]

Both are worse than LeBron


Replace LeBron with Duncan/Kareem, neither would win a ring with any of LeBrons teams

[sportjames23]

Both are worse than LeBron


Replace LeBron with Duncan/Kareem, neither would win a ring with any of LeBrons teams


:facepalm

[kshutts1]

Also I love how every single person here skirted over the fact that Kareem has had more All-star level/HOF teammates than Duncan throughout his career.
I didn't skirt over it, but my point was ignored...

It's originally on page 2, but I copied it here for your reading pleasure....


I love that people like to call Kareem's rosters stacked without providing proper context. Near the start of Kareem's career, the ABA folds, and all those great players enter the NBA. Then, the NBA expanded, drastically, right near/at the end of Kareem's career.

Of course the rosters prior to said expansion will be stacked relative to today/Duncan. But were his rosters stacked relative to the league? That I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that they were considered one of the better teams, but likely not by a large margin.

Keep in mind, Celtics, Sixers, Blazers all had teams during Kareem's career that are considered some of the best ever.

Then the Knicks, Bullets, Lakers (pre-Kareem) were solid teams in the 70's.

[greatest-ever]

Well, it's more of an legit discussion now than it was say 4 seasons ago. Duncan has been the better and more consistent defender, and his longevity is catching up, but i still take Kareem for the fact that he was a superior offensive player.

[Sarcastic]

I haven't brought up winning once in this thread...and I think you are overlooking Duncan's statistical dominance on both ends actually.

And it's really not the winning for me. It's what Duncan has been able to do on and off the court throughout his career. Which is be in the running, along with Magic and Russell for me... as best teammate / team player of all time. Yes, that matters to me...but I haven't even brought up that part of my argument.

Part of being a great basketball player is playing the best style for your team to win. Duncan is one of the best players ever at this.

I mean...are we really questioning Duncan's ability to put up better stats if that is what he wanted to do?

LOL...if Duncan wanted to focus on stats...dude could have, with ease, been a better statistical player. I just don't think he'd be a better player for it...in fact, I think he would have been worse for it.

Any and every case for Duncan begins and ends with his winning. From a pure statistical and accolades achieved point of view he's not even top 7. Jordan, Wilt, Lebron, Magic, Russell, Jabbar, and Bird are all ahead of him by a lot.

[DMAVS41]

Any and every case for Duncan begins and ends with his winning. From a pure statistical and accolades achieved point of view he's not even top 7. Jordan, Wilt, Lebron, Magic, Russell, Jabbar, and Bird are all ahead of him by a lot.

sure...if you think stats are the only thing that encapsulates how good a player was/is.

hakeem is statistically better than duncan (depending on what you look at), but i think duncan was the better player...and that has nothing to do with winning actually.

also, in a full stats take...Bird is absolutely not ahead of Duncan by a lot.

[Sarcastic]

sure...if you think stats are the only thing that encapsulates how good a player was/is.

hakeem is statistically better than duncan (depending on what you look at), but i think duncan was the better player...and that has nothing to do with winning actually.

also, in a full stats take...Bird is absolutely not ahead of Duncan by a lot.

I'm not saying that. I do give him credit for his winning. You just can't divorce if from any conversation about Duncan, or his case falls apart.

Larry Bird won 3 straight MVPs and has a case for GOAT peak. He is statistically ahead of of Duncan. Duncan has longevity on Bird, and that's it (not including winning).

[DMAVS41]

I'm not saying that. I do give him credit for his winning. You just can't divorce if from any conversation about Duncan, or his case falls apart.

Larry Bird won 3 straight MVPs and has a case for GOAT peak. He is statistically ahead of of Duncan. Duncan has longevity on Bird, and that's it (not including winning).

i think this is a straw man though.

for starters I'm not arguing Bird vs Duncan...but if I were...I wouldn't make the case peak vs peak.

I do think Duncan's best is under-rated, but would give that edge to Bird.

The reason I'd take Duncan is because of his longevity and dominant defense. I those two attributes combined with everything else Duncan has make him a little more valuable a player over the course of his career vs bird.

i don't think his case falls a part either. i don't take duncan over bird because of 5 titles at all. again...you keep asserting things that simply aren't true.

I'd take Duncan over Lebron because of his ability to play any style much better and dominate the game without the ball in a way Lebron really can't...or it least didn't for long stretches of his career. Duncan seems to get the most out of his teammates while Lebron can only get the most out of very specific teammates.

Those are the type of arguments I'd be making...etc. Not arguments along the lines of Duncan has 5 rings and Lebron has 2.

Now, results are a reflection of basketball ability, but it's not everything....and you really have to delve into circumstances.

I think it's silly to only look at one thing or another. We should look at everything.

[Sarcastic]

Lol Lebron is an entire tier ahead of Duncan, just on stats/accolades. Lebron's only competition is Wilt and Jordan.

[DMAVS41]

Lol Lebron is an entire tier ahead of Duncan, just on stats/accolades. Lebron's only competition is Wilt and Jordan.

okay. that is fine...

if you want to have a conversation pretty much solely talking about stats/accolades...then i'm not your person to discuss this stuff with.

nothing wrong with going off of stats/accolades...i just don't think that gives you the best answers to these questions. and i like stats...a lot...but you have to use context as well. and you have to dig deeper than a lot of the surface level stuff most fans use as those can be really misleading...

on stats, surface level, could definitely see someone ignorant to the NBA making the case that Carmelo was a more valuable player than Duncan from 07 to present...

why not? he averaged 26/7/3 on solid efficiency

[Pointguard]

sure...if you think stats are the only thing that encapsulates how good a player was/is.

hakeem is statistically better than duncan (depending on what you look at), but i think duncan was the better player...and that has nothing to do with winning actually.

also, in a full stats take...Bird is absolutely not ahead of Duncan by a lot.
What do you think Duncan, defensively does better than Hakeem?

[ArbitraryWater]

Kareem, in a landslide.. disrespectful, tbh.

[EllEffEll]

Also.

In 76 during Kareem's first season with the Lakers he MISSED THE PLAYOFFS (but still got Regular Season MVP :lol ).

The Lakers had to trade Junior Bridgeman, Dave Meyers, Elmore Smith, and Brian Winters to get Kareem.
==================
The only thing this thread has changed my mind about is that the strength of the weed being smoked these days must be far more powerful than it has been in the past. Far more so than it was previously believed to be.

[TheBigVeto]

Kareem is better. He had to carry guys like Magic Johnson.
Duncan's load is lighter, he only had to carry Tony Parker.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This is a legit discussion? Kareem wins by a land slide.

More impact, greater longevity, and had the better peak.

People continue to overrate Duncan acting like he's a Top 3-5 player all-time. Absurd.

[T_L_P]

I really like Duncan but Kareem>> as a scorer and is at least as good if not better than Duncan at everything else too.

Kareem = Duncan or > Duncan as a defensive player? :roll: As a rebounder?

[Thesmallmamba]

Kareem = Duncan or > Duncan as a defensive player? :roll: As a rebounder?

yup? :confusedshrug:


Duncans defense has always been overrated

[T_L_P]

Any and every case for Duncan begins and ends with his winning. From a pure statistical and accolades achieved point of view he's not even top 7. Jordan, Wilt, Lebron, Magic, Russell, Jabbar, and Bird are all ahead of him by a lot.

Duncan - 2 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs, 15 All-Stars, 15 All-NBA, 15 All-Defense

Bird - 3 MVPs, 2 Finals MVPs, 12 All-Stars, 10 All-NBA, 3 All-Defense

In what way does Bird have more accolades? And if you're going to point to Duncan's achievements purely as 'longevity achievements', then I'm gonna only be able to compare Bird's first 12-13 years to Duncan's.

23-35 yr old Bird in Playoffs: 23.8 / 10.3 / 6.5 / 1.8 / 0.9 (total of 43.3)

21-34 yr old Duncan in Playoffs: 23.3 / 12.6 / 3.5 / 0.7 / 2.6 (total 42.7)

Bird's TS% was a whole .002 points higher, while Duncan played astronomically better defense.

Bird has no place on that 'top 7'. Duncan clearly beats him resume wise (more titles, Finals MVPs, All-Stars, All-NBAs, All-Defenses). His stats are basically the same (a 0.6 difference in their Playoff numbers), while Duncan played much better defense which doesn't show up on box scores (both are two of the best ever in terms of intangibles).

[dhsilv]

Any and every case for Duncan begins and ends with his winning. From a pure statistical and accolades achieved point of view he's not even top 7. Jordan, Wilt, Lebron, Magic, Russell, Jabbar, and Bird are all ahead of him by a lot.

What statistical advantages to Magic or Bird have on him Even when we talk awards they have him on MVP's and really nothing else.

Now if we drop winning you have to move Karl Malone into the discussion.

[Thesmallmamba]

Duncan - 2 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs, 15 All-Stars, 15 All-NBA, 15 All-Defense

Bird - 3 MVPs, 2 Finals MVPs, 12 All-Stars, 10 All-NBA, 3 All-Defense

In what way does Bird have more accolades? And if you're going to point to Duncan's achievements purely as 'longevity achievements', then I'm gonna only be able to compare Bird's first 12-13 years to Duncan's.

23-35 yr old Bird in Playoffs: 24.3 / 10.0 / 6.3 / 1.7 / 0.8 (total of 43.3)

21-34 yr old Duncan in Playoffs: 23.3 / 12.6 / 3.5 / 0.7 / 2.6 (total 42.7)

Bird's TS% was a whole .002 points higher, while Duncan played astronomically better defense.

Bird has no place on that 'top 7'. Duncan clearly beats him resume wise (more titles, Finals MVPs, All-Stars, All-NBAs, All-Defenses). His stats are basically the same (a 0.6 difference in their Playoff numbers), while Duncan played much better defense which doesn't show up on box scores (both are two of the best ever in terms of intangibles).

Now compare Duncans stats to LeBron :oldlol:

[T_L_P]

Now compare Duncans stats to LeBron :oldlol:

What does that have to do with my post about Larry Bird?

[Thesmallmamba]

What does that have to do with my post about Larry Bird?

LeBron > Duncan > Bird

Therefore Duncan is 7th all time

[dhsilv]

sure...if you think stats are the only thing that encapsulates how good a player was/is.

hakeem is statistically better than duncan (depending on what you look at), but i think duncan was the better player...and that has nothing to do with winning actually.

also, in a full stats take...Bird is absolutely not ahead of Duncan by a lot.

Dream over Duncan on stats?

What stats are you people using for this? I'd get they were close in a lot of ways but better? Magic better? Bird better?

We're talking about careers here right? Not a peak couple of years, but careers. Duncan's stats take a back seat to very very few players in NBA history.

[Harison]

I like Timmy, but come on now, lets be realistic here :lol Other than few Duncan vampires, nobody else in the World would be picking TD over Kareem.

[julizaver]

I like Timmy, but come on now, lets be realistic here :lol Other than few Duncan vampires, nobody else in the World would be picking TD over Kareem.

:cheers:

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

:biggums: :biggums:

Kareem is the GOAT IMO

[Rocketswin2013]

Duncan was better in the playoffs.

Depends on what you value.


I think their longevity is comparable considering teammates, coaching, and Duncan's massive defense edge.


I'm sure many here value KAJ's 30/14/4/3 RS statlines.

[IllegalD]

The Lakers had to trade Junior Bridgeman, Dave Meyers, Elmore Smith, and Brian Winters to get Kareem.
==================
The only thing this thread has changed my mind about is that the strength of the weed being smoked these days must be far more powerful than it has been in the past. Far more so than it was previously believed to be.

I'm not gonna lie. I'm high as f*ck when I post. :pimp:

[DoctorP]

I'm not gonna lie. I'm high as f*ck when I post. :pimp:

we can tell. dumbass.

https://media.giphy.com/media/sOVueselOTje8/giphy.gif

[julizaver]

Duncan was better in the playoffs.

Depends on what you value.


I think their longevity is comparable considering teammates, coaching, and Duncan's massive defense edge.


I'm sure many here value KAJ's 30/14/4/3 RS statlines.

:facepalm

Duncan is a center, but for the most of his career he played at PF in Spurs system.
Kareem is one of the greatest players ever - better peak, beter individual and is not behind Duncan in terms of longevity.
He was the best player in the NBA for almost a decade, where Duncan was probably/arguibly for no more than 2 years.
And I will always took Kareem offense over Duncan's defense.
And if not for David Robinson injury Tim Duncan would be chosen by far lesser team and I doubt he would have the resume he had nowadays.

[OldSchoolBBall]

There's no contest here: KAJ was clearly the superior and more decorated player.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Duncan was better in the playoffs.

Err, no. KAJ is on the short list of best playoff performers EVER. Duncan, not so much. He's probably 10-15% better than Duncan in the playoffs over each of their best 8 seasons.

[LAZERUSS]

A prime Kareem was considerably greater than a prime Duncan, and a peak KAJ just blows a peak Duncan away.

In terms of defense, a young Kareem anchored the Bucks from '70 thru '75, and of those, the '71 thru '74 Bucks were/are among the greatest defenses of all-time.

In terms of scoring and efficiency, Kareem was MILES ahead of Duncan.

My only problem with Kareem was that I believe he underachieved, and lacked motivation throughout his career. A '70 thru '72 Kareem has a case as the GOAT, but after that, he seemed to lose interest and focus. BUT, as evidenced by his play against Walton, and later Hakeem (and Ewing), when motivated, he would carpet-bomb those guys.

As for Duncan, if anything, he played to his maximum potential. He also seemed to elevate the play of his teammates that only a few other all-time greats can claim (guys like Russell, Bird, and Magic come to mind.)

Still, he has zero case over Kareem. KAJ was Duncan's equal defensively and on the glass, and was a much greater scorer, and far more efficient.

[T_L_P]

A prime Kareem was considerably greater than a prime Duncan, and a peak KAJ just blows a peak Duncan away.

In terms of defense, a young Kareem anchored the Bucks from '70 thru '75, and of those, the '71 thru '74 Bucks were/are among the greatest defenses of all-time.

In terms of scoring and efficiency, Kareem was MILES ahead of Duncan.

My only problem with Kareem was that I believe he underachieved, and lacked motivation throughout his career. A '70 thru '72 Kareem has a case as the GOAT, but after that, he seemed to lose interest and focus. BUT, as evidenced by his play against Walton, and later Hakeem (and Ewing), when motivated, he would carpet-bomb those guys.

As for Duncan, if anything, he played to his maximum potential. He also seemed to elevate the play of his teammates that only a few other all-time greats can claim (guys like Russell, Bird, and Magic come to mind.)

Still, he has zero case over Kareem. KAJ was Duncan's equal defensively and on the glass, and was a much greater scorer, and far more efficient.

Not that I disagree with your stance on Kareem as a scorer and overall player (I too have Kareem over Duncan), but Kareem was not his equal defensively or on the glass.

Sure, you can make the case that prime Kareem was as good as or slightly better than Duncan defensively (not that I buy that), but Duncan has been playing at least very good defense for 18 straight years, whereas Kareem basically gave up on it in the last third of his career. Duncan is the better defensive player.

As for the Rebounds:

Kareem's TRB% is 15.7%
Duncan's is 18.5%

From 71-78 (his absolute prime years) it was 18.2% , which is still less than Duncan's career.

Playoff TRB% for Kareem is 14.5%
Duncan's is 17.8%

He's not an equal on the glass. Duncan is better.

[LAZERUSS]

Not that I disagree with your stance on Kareem as a scorer and overall player (I too have Kareem over Duncan), but Kareem was not his equal defensively or on the glass.

Sure, you can make the case that prime Kareem was as good as or slightly better than Duncan defensively (not that I buy that), but Duncan has been playing at least very good defense for 18 straight years, whereas Kareem basically gave up on it in the last third of his career. Duncan is the better defensive player.

As for the Rebounds:

Kareem's TRB% is 15.7%
Duncan's is 18.5%

From 71-78 (his absolute prime years) it was 18.2% , which is still less than Duncan's career.

Playoff TRB% for Kareem is 14.5%
Duncan's is 17.8%

He's not an equal on the glass. Duncan is better.

Good points.

I was basically covering primes, though.

You can argue that Timmy has been better defensively and on the glass in the last halves of their careers, but even an old Kareem was a better and much more efficient scorer.

IMO, I have Kareem at #4 all-time, and Duncan at #7.

[ArbitraryWater]

Duncan was better in the playoffs.

Depends on what you value.


I think their longevity is comparable considering teammates, coaching, and Duncan's massive defense edge.


I'm sure many here value KAJ's 30/14/4/3 RS statlines.

The **** he was.. stop smoking that good shit.

[Odinn]

No argument can be made for Duncan.

Peak: Kareem
Prime: Kareem
Accolades: Kareem
Longevity: Kareem

/Kareem

[DMAVS41]

No argument can be made for Duncan.

Peak: Kareem
Prime: Kareem
Accolades: Kareem
Longevity: Kareem

/Kareem

I wouldn't give longevity to Kareem just yet.

Also, not sure that is a very good way to break down a player vs player. I know most do that, but that isn't the conversation I'm interested in having.

Just counting up rings and mvps...and looking at stats.

I think it's fair to say Kareem's peak was better...based on his basketball ability....but after that I think we can get into a very interesting conversation about being a leader and teammate for a franchise. Having the passion to work hard and the ability to always do what is best for your team.

I think we could have a conversation about Duncan's defensive impact that I would argue is extremely underrating from what I hear on here. We could talk about Duncan's rebounding on both ends which is far more dominant and consistent than he gets credit for.

We could talk about the different levels of competition in which both players played their primes...etc.

But if you want to just add up mvps and rings...go ahead...nobody in the world would argue Duncan has had a better career on paper than Kareem. It's just a fact Kareem has had that, but that isn't an interesting conversation at all to me.

[choppermagic]

Also I love how every single person here skirted over the fact that Kareem has had more All-star level/HOF teammates than Duncan throughout his career.

LOL, this argument fails. Yes, Kareem's teammates were better in many years than Duncans. But you know what? Those Laker teams were also BETTER than the Spurs.

For example if the 87 Lakers have a quality rating of, say 150 points and Kareem is 45 points of that total, and the 2003 Spurs have a rating of 100 points, with Duncan having say, 35 points of that, Kareem can still be better than Duncan, even though his teammates were better and contributed to an overall better team. Just because a player has good teammates doesn't make his talent crappier. It usually just means his team is better overall.

[kennethgriffin]

kareem had arguably the greatest career

college and pro's

i take him over jordan in an nba draft... forget duncan




message boards overrate the f*ck outa tim for some reason


every day people dont give a f*ck about the guy cause he never made a significant impact on the basketball world.

his contributions flew so far under the radar that he literally might be forgotten 5 years after retirement

he always had a great coach, great wingman, all around team

he was a 2nd and 3rd man for more than half of his career



any guy whos lower rated than tony parker when theyre in their early 30's ... isnt much of a legend IMO

the guy was never a dominant offensive force. he relies mostly on his defensive reputation yet never even won DPOTY

[dunksby]

Why are we having this argument? Why is this stupid shit being forced?

[Spurs5Rings2014]

IMO, I have Kareem at #4 all-time, and Duncan at #7.

Wilt is #11 for me, just outside the top 10 behind Dream and Bran.

:pimp:

[Sarcastic]

I'm retarded

:pimp:

Thanks for sharing.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

:facepalm

Kareem at close to 40 could still drop 40 on Hakeem and Ewing, and such... How about that?

Jabbar was CLEARLY a better scorer than Duncan, no question about it...

80's west was notorious for not playing defense, not to mention pace, but nice try. Duncan's Spurs teams were also notorious for playing a slow, grind it out style that practiced defense first during the entirety of his prime. Duncan could get his points when his team needed them, in the post season. Kareem could get his in the regular season in the 70's and the no defense, fast paced 80's.

:confusedshrug:

[Odinn]

I wouldn't give longevity to Kareem just yet.

Also, not sure that is a very good way to break down a player vs player. I know most do that, but that isn't the conversation I'm interested in having.

Just counting up rings and mvps...and looking at stats.

I think it's fair to say Kareem's peak was better...based on his basketball ability....but after that I think we can get into a very interesting conversation about being a leader and teammate for a franchise. Having the passion to work hard and the ability to always do what is best for your team.

I think we could have a conversation about Duncan's defensive impact that I would argue is extremely underrating from what I hear on here. We could talk about Duncan's rebounding on both ends which is far more dominant and consistent than he gets credit for.

We could talk about the different levels of competition in which both players played their primes...etc.

But if you want to just add up mvps and rings...go ahead...nobody in the world would argue Duncan has had a better career on paper than Kareem. It's just a fact Kareem has had that, but that isn't an interesting conversation at all to me.
You just bend the arguments to make 'em in favour of Duncan but it doesn't work.

If you want to use "level of play" argument;
Kareem was an all-time great scorer, an offensive weapon which possibly reached the top. Duncan was better rebounder and better defender but those aren't good enough to make up the difference in offense.

One example can kill entire longevity & competition argument intends;
Kareem averaged 26/9/5 on .629 ts against Celtics frontcour (Parish&McHale) at the age of 38. There's no way Duncan could have pull it of against that duo at his 38.

Also, Kareem played against nearly half of top 15 Cs ever. There is your competition.


No person with sane logic would claim Duncan has a case over Kareem. It's simple as that. You are not objective on this matter and act like hell of a revisionist.

[ArbitraryWater]

You just bend the arguments to make 'em in favour of Duncan but it doesn't work.

If you want to use "level of play" argument;
Kareem was an all-time great scorer, an offensive weapon which possibly reached the top. Duncan was better rebounder and better defender but those aren't good enough to make the difference in offense.

One example can kill entire longevity & competition argument intends;
Kareem averaged 26/9/5 on .629 ts against Celtics frontcour (Parish&McHael) at the age of 38. There's no way Duncan could have pull it of against that duo at his 38.

Also, Kareem played against nearly half of top 15 Cs ever. There is your competition.


No person with sane logic would claim Duncan has a case over Kareem. It's simple as that. You are not objective on this matter and act like hell of a revisionist.

Bingo. Good Duncan fan, you are :applause:

[Lebron23]

Thanks for sharing.

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Your best posts so far in this forum.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

You just bend the arguments to make 'em in favour of Duncan but it doesn't work.

If you want to use "level of play" argument;
Kareem was an all-time great scorer, an offensive weapon which possibly reached the top. Duncan was better rebounder and better defender but those aren't good enough to make the difference in offense.

One example can kill entire longevity & competition argument intends;
Kareem averaged 26/9/5 on .629 ts against Celtics frontcour (Parish&McHael) at the age of 38. There's no way Duncan could have pull it of against that duo at his 38.

Also, Kareem played against nearly half of top 15 Cs ever. There is your competition.


No person with sane logic would claim Duncan has a case over Kareem. It's simple as that. You are not objective on this matter and act like hell of a revisionist.

The problem with your argument is that Kareem stopped playing defense and rebounding by that age, whereas Duncan was still doing those things to a high degree. I mean, we can't really see what Duncan hypothetically could of averaged if he just didn't defend or rebound into his later years and instead continued to "get his" night in and night out.

His numbers would stand up better against Kareem's on the offensive end, but that isn't tantamount to winning basketball. Duncan is just more concerned with winning and helping his team to do that any way he can. He's very similar to Russell in that regard. Doing what his team needs of him instead of what makes him look better overall and on all-time lists.

Kareem had the luxury of playing "half of the top 15 C's ever" during transitional phases. He caught most when they were either on the downswing or the upswing of their careers, not many in their absolute prime/peak. One that he did face at their absolute best was Moses and we all know how that went for him.

Whereas you look at someone like Duncan, who also faced some of the absolute best at his position and he without a doubt came out on top. You gonna really sit here and say KG, Dirk, Pau, prime Amare, etc aren't some of the greatest PF's of all time, too? Duncan's faced plenty of stiff competition himself, so you can miss me with that BS.

I don't see how Duncan doesn't have a case unless you don't look at anything with proper context. Like that Kobe stan in here was saying earlier, Kobe gets pushed out of the top 10 on countless people's lists because of his shortcomings in FMVP count and being a sidekick, but for some reason that doesn't apply to Kareem and he's undisputed top 2 GOAT? How is that looking at things objectively?

Either receiving less than .500 FMVP's should drop both of them down or neither of them down if we're being objective, or if you want to drop both down, Kareem has to go down even more for having even a worse ratio. I mean, dude was basically a corpse for his last two rings, but he still gets full credit while Duncan is still one of the best players on his squad for his 5th and possibly even his 6th if he wins another.

It's not objective at all for him to not have an argument if you look at things that way, unless you only value peak/offensive game or value them to such insane degrees in comparison to defensive/overall impact throughout entire career (50 win teams every single year, never missing the play offs, etc).

[Round Mound]

70s Prime Kareem :bowdown:

[IllegalD]

we can tell. dumbass.

https://media.giphy.com/media/sOVueselOTje8/giphy.gif

Don't be jelly just because you can't blaze living in your mom's basement. :pimp:

[DMAVS41]

You just bend the arguments to make 'em in favour of Duncan but it doesn't work.

If you want to use "level of play" argument;
Kareem was an all-time great scorer, an offensive weapon which possibly reached the top. Duncan was better rebounder and better defender but those aren't good enough to make up the difference in offense.

One example can kill entire longevity & competition argument intends;
Kareem averaged 26/9/5 on .629 ts against Celtics frontcour (Parish&McHale) at the age of 38. There's no way Duncan could have pull it of against that duo at his 38.

Also, Kareem played against nearly half of top 15 Cs ever. There is your competition.


No person with sane logic would claim Duncan has a case over Kareem. It's simple as that. You are not objective on this matter and act like hell of a revisionist.


I'm not bending any arguments. I saw them both play and I'd take Duncan for a variety of reasons.

It sure as hell isn't as simple as saying "Duncan couldn't do something" in one series...LOL

This is my exact point...the fact that one thinks someone has to be "insane" to think Duncan and Kareem can be debated is absurd.

It's you that is bending...you are just bending to history...like Kareem is this untouchable player. For some he is...some he isn't.

[Thesmallmamba]

Ironically they are close in PER also

All time

#12 Kareem 24.58

#13 Duncan 24.47

[ArbitraryWater]

I'm not bending any arguments. I saw them both play and I'd take Duncan for a variety of reasons.

It sure as hell isn't as simple as saying "Duncan couldn't do something" in one series...LOL

This is my exact point...the fact that one thinks someone has to be "insane" to think Duncan and Kareem can be debated is absurd.

It's you that is bending...you are just bending to history...like Kareem is this untouchable player. For some he is...some he isn't.

You're really taking Duncan? :rolleyes: Thats absurd.

[kennethgriffin]

Ironically they are close in PER also

All time

#12 Kareem 24.58

#13 Duncan 24.47


those pers are incorrect

but on that topic


LOL@ p.e.r

1. Michael Jordan* 28.60
2. George Mikan* 28.51
3. LeBron James 27.43
4. Shaquille O'Neal 26.13
5. Hakeem Olajuwon* 25.69
6. Chris Paul 25.16
7. Tim Duncan 24.58
8. Kevin Durant 24.35
9. Charles Barkley* 24.18
10. Dirk Nowitzki 23.98
11. Tracy McGrady 23.40
12. Dolph Schayes* 23.29
13. Dwight Howard 23.13
14. Jerry West* 23.06
15. David Robinson* 23.02
16. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 23.01
17. Magic Johnson* 22.95
18. Russell Westbrook 22.75
19. Wilt Chamberlain* 22.75
20. Dwyane Wade 22.70
21. Bob Pettit* 22.59
22. Kobe Bryant 22.40
23. Stephen Curry 22.24
24. Amar'e Stoudemire 22.08
25. Julius Erving* 22.05
26. Blake Griffin 22.01
27. Elgin Baylor* 21.83
28. Rick Barry* 21.81
29. Moses Malone* 21.57
30. Larry Bird* 21.41
31. Baron Davis 21.36
32. Allen Iverson 21.24
33. George Gervin* 21.16
34. Karl Malone* 21.12
35. Kevin Garnett 21.12
36. Oscar Robertson* 20.99
37. James Harden 20.98
38. Bob Lanier* 20.81
39. Pau Gasol 20.73
40. George Yardley* 20.72
41. Cliff Hagan* 20.62
42. Shawn Kemp 20.55
43. Gus Williams 20.37
44. Artis Gilmore* 20.36
45. Paul Arizin* 20.33
46. Dan Issel* 20.07
47. Carmelo Anthony 19.94
48. Alex English* 19.92
49. Walter Davis 19.91
50. John Stockton* 19.84
51. Walt Frazier* 19.84
52. Steve Nash 19.84
53. Isiah Thomas* 19.80
54. Manu Ginobili 19.79
55. Anfernee Hardaway 19.76
56. George McGinnis 19.73
57. Clyde Lovellette* 19.72
58. Clyde Drexler* 19.71
59. Patrick Ewing* 19.63
60. Reggie Miller* 19.55
61. Bill Russell* 19.40

[DMAVS41]

You're really taking Duncan? :rolleyes: Thats absurd.

It's absurd if you only focus on the paper resumes. I completely grant that.

However, for those that actually lived Kareem's career...I don't think it's that absurd to be honest. Kareem was absolutely not the kind of franchise leader and rock that Duncan has been. He had a far bigger ego and absolutely did not put the team first in the way Duncan did.

I think Duncan's defensive impact really gets lost in these discussions....especially late in Duncan's career...he's still an elite defender that can control games without the ball to this day (if he can repeat last years performance)

Again, my argument is not claiming Duncan was definitely better or something. Not all. My argument is solely with people saying there is no discussion to be had.

And if you really want to get into the stats beyond the impressive raw numbers by kareem...you get into some really comparable numbers imo.

[SHAQisGOAT]

80's west was notorious for not playing defense, not to mention pace, but nice try. Duncan's Spurs teams were also notorious for playing a slow, grind it out style that practiced defense first during the entirety of his prime. Duncan could get his points when his team needed them, in the post season. Kareem could get his in the regular season in the 70's and the no defense, fast paced 80's.

:confusedshrug:

So much :facepalm worthy comments in that post...

**** you talking about, not playing defense? Kareem at 38 years old dropped 46 and also 43 on Hakeem and Sampson with dudes like Rodney McCray on the perimeter... Wait, so one of the greatest defenders of all-time didn't play defense or something? And the pace for those games was about 101, that highly fast pace :rolleyes:
As if Jabbar wouldn't be able to get his shots today or something :rolleyes: Like he was just running up and down the break at that age and scoring mostly from that, as if he didn't do most of his damage in half-court situations throughout his career :rolleyes:

KAJ, also at 38, was putting Ewing into foul trouble and dropping 40 on the Knicks. Duncan can't **** with that.

No defense in the 80's? You're basing it on what? It's clear you didn't saw much from that era while DRtg and eFG% from right now are more or less the same than in those days :confusedshrug:
In the 70's, DRtg was even lower than nowadays... While Kareem went up against the likes of Wilt, Thurmond, Walton, Reed, Lanier, Cowens... What gives? Better defense in the 70's? With Jabbar facing all those HoF'ers? Damn :bowdown:

"Could get his in the regular-season"? :wtf: Kareem's one of the best post-season scorers ever...
Jabbar is above Timmy in PPG per 100 possessions, with higher FG% and FT%, for their careers in the Playoffs; also better/above at their primes... Bring up pace though, smdh...
Like Kareem didn't score when was needed or something, like he wasn't clutch :facepalm

And let me get this straight, you're really trying to make an argument for Timmy being as good of a scorer as Jabbar?
:biggums:

I even like Duncan more than Kareem but c'mon, get real...

Kareem has GOAT-level longevity, collected numerous accolades, he's a big time winner, was clutch, brought great intangibles, in his prime/peak was one of the best rebounders in the league while playing DPOY-level defense, he's one of the best passing bigmen ever, at his best he was CLEARLY a better scorer than Duncan at his best, and he has the best offensive move of all-time...

[bizil]

The only big men (PF or C) I would consider taking over Kareem peak wise are Shaq and Wilt. It would have to be guys who could bully Kareem down low if all else failed. As great as Hakeem, Timmy, Robinson, Walton, Ewing, or Moses were, there are only two bigs I could see taking over Kareem. The things peak Kareem could do at 7'2 are UNEQUALED!!

Awesome agility for a man that tall. epic on the block, and had the overall skills of players much smaller. And of course had the greatest weapon of all time with the Skyhook! As great as Timmy was, he wasn't as unique among centers as he was among PF's.

[HighFlyer23]

Fvck off with this outrageous Duncan ******ging

Kareem is second only to MJ according to most and if you include all levels of competition then he is a strong GOAT candidate over MJ

Duncan isn't better than Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt

[bizil]

Two big man legends that I find interesting are KG and Duncan. In the two way sense, I think they are the top two PF's of all time. Peak wise, I think both are top 5 PF ever as well. BUT when compared to some of the other legendary bigs, their THIRST for dominating scoring wasn't as high.

I think both showed enough to be considered alpha dog material. But when u compare a Duncan to Kareem, the scoring is the determining factor. When it comes to scoring skillset, defense, rebounding, and passing, Duncan is on Kareem's level or damn close. But when it comes to DOMINATING SCORING, Kareem has the clear edge. It's not even arguable.

[HighFlyer23]

Two big man legends that I find interesting are KG and Duncan. In the two way sense, I think they are the top two PF's of all time. Peak wise, I think both are top 5 PF ever as well. BUT when compared to some of the other legendary bigs, their THIRST for dominating scoring wasn't as high.

I think both showed enough to be considered alpha dog material. But when u compare a Duncan to Kareem, the scoring is the determining factor. When it comes to scoring skillset, defense, rebounding, and passing, Duncan is on Kareem's level or damn close. But when it comes to DOMINATING SCORING, Kareem has the clear edge. It's not even arguable.


What does Duncan do better?

Passing and that's it

[Sarcastic]

I'm not bending any arguments. I saw them both play and I'd take Duncan for a variety of reasons.

It sure as hell isn't as simple as saying "Duncan couldn't do something" in one series...LOL

This is my exact point...the fact that one thinks someone has to be "insane" to think Duncan and Kareem can be debated is absurd.

It's you that is bending...you are just bending to history...like Kareem is this untouchable player. For some he is...some he isn't.

It might not be "insane", but it's definitely "delusional". I mean they are in the same ball park. It's not like "Kris Humphries vs Kareem" argument, but Kareem has the edge on Duncan.

And that is no slight to Duncan. He is clearly in the top 10 all time, which is outstanding.

[T_L_P]

Kareem's 46 pts vs Hakeem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsHLOq22UFI

Dream's defense is flat-out terrible here. His movements are poor, his timing is atrocious. He's just hoping to jump the passing lanes and when that fails he lets Kareem walk to the basket. He'd have been benched for playing such shitty defense today (because playing D is actually a requirement these days).

I'll say it again: I'm taking Kareem here too. But some of these posts, my God. They'd have you believe teams understood what a defensive scheme was back in Kareem's day.

The difference in defensive play between the 1980s and the 2000s onward is astronomic. You must be blind to not see that just by watching a few games from the 80s.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Kareem's 46 pts vs Hakeem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsHLOq22UFI

Dream's defense is flat-out terrible here. His movements are poor, his timing is atrocious. He's just hoping to jump the passing lanes and when that fails he lets Kareem walk to the basket. He'd have been benched for playing such shitty defense today (because playing D is actually a requirement these days).

I'll say it again: I'm taking Kareem here too. But some of these posts, my God. They'd have you believe teams understood what a defensive scheme was back in Kareem's day.

The difference in defensive play between the 1980s and the 2000s onward is astronomic. You must be blind to not see that just by watching a few games from the 80s.

If Duncan could play in such weak defensive eras as Kareem, he'd have had just as many PPG, if not more. His other numbers surely would of went up as well since he's a much better defender than most of those guys, so more blocks, etc, too.

:coleman:

[Rocketswin2013]

People will never discuss this because people hate the idea of Duncan being that good a lot.

But I really believe they're close.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Kareem's 46 pts vs Hakeem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsHLOq22UFI

Dream's defense is flat-out terrible here. His movements are poor, his timing is atrocious. He's just hoping to jump the passing lanes and when that fails he lets Kareem walk to the basket. He'd have been benched for playing such shitty defense today (because playing D is actually a requirement these days).

I'll say it again: I'm taking Kareem here too. But some of these posts, my God. They'd have you believe teams understood what a defensive scheme was back in Kareem's day.

The difference in defensive play between the 1980s and the 2000s onward is astronomic. You must be blind to not see that just by watching a few games from the 80s.


Funny... Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9wOz1fBtmg

^Easy fastbreak dunks, poor ball denial and help defense, easy baskets at the rim, Dirk getting bodied/bullied left and right, lots of bail outs with some dumb fouls... And I'll give 0 credit to Timmy, just like you did with Jabbar...

That defense on Kareem instead of Hakeem/Sampson and the Rockets that night, and he might have even dropped 60 at 38 years old :lol

Yea, Hakeem was just a shitty defensive player :rolleyes: :facepalm
Dude was already making all-defensive, at the top in blocks, DWS and DRtg... But I guess he suddendly became a GOAT-level defensive player in the 90's, just overnight :rolleyes:

---> Right... So astronomic that league average's DRtg and eFG% have remained more or less the same since :confusedshrug:
Glad you're being honest there, because I'm sure your ass ain't seen more than a few games from that era...



If Duncan could play in such weak defensive eras as Kareem, he'd have had just as many PPG, if not more. His other numbers surely would of went up as well since he's a much better defender than most of those guys, so more blocks, etc, too.

:coleman:

:roll:

Delusional ass stans :facepalm

[kshutts1]

It's absurd if you only focus on the paper resumes. I completely grant that.

However, for those that actually lived Kareem's career...I don't think it's that absurd to be honest. Kareem was absolutely not the kind of franchise leader and rock that Duncan has been. He had a far bigger ego and absolutely did not put the team first in the way Duncan did.

I think Duncan's defensive impact really gets lost in these discussions....especially late in Duncan's career...he's still an elite defender that can control games without the ball to this day (if he can repeat last years performance)

Again, my argument is not claiming Duncan was definitely better or something. Not all. My argument is solely with people saying there is no discussion to be had.

And if you really want to get into the stats beyond the impressive raw numbers by kareem...you get into some really comparable numbers imo.
I completely agree with your point, DMAVS, that the game is played beyond a box score. I actually try my best to rank players in my all-time lists that way.

What I struggle with, though, are those players that I have not seen play live.

For that reason, I ask you.... do you have a top 10 list? If not, what ranking system do you use (I do tiers)? May I see the top 10 or 15 players, or 2 or 3 tiers if you do it that way?

[feyki]

Fvck off with this outrageous Duncan ******ging

Kareem is second only to MJ according to most and if you include all levels of competition then he is a strong GOAT candidate over MJ

Duncan isn't better than Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt

No , Duncan is better than Shaq . Hakeem and Duncan same level players . Bill,Wilt,Kareem are goat tier players.

And Mikan's peak best center in nba history . He put 30-35 points in the 80 pace and %35 eFg era . I believe he'll be goat if he's played at global era .

[SHAQisGOAT]

And if y'all wanna see some defense and some Playoffs play:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was

:bowdown:

2 out of 3 Jabbar's best teammates were injured... Lakers looking pretty weak, and sometimes couldn't even bring the ball past half-court... KAJ just wrecking shit up...
He's dominating Walton, hitting skyhooks right and left from close or mid range with people drapped all over him, some turnaround jumpers, Bill denying him the middle and Mo Lucas helping on the weakside but Jabbar getting buckets regardless, dude passing out of double/triple-teams then getting it back and scoring, he gets swarmed and it doesn't matter, look at how smart and how quick (at 7'2) he is without the ball, tremendous fluidity, terrific footwork and soft-touch...
Not to mention, he was rebounding like a madman and playing great defense.
40 points on 17/23 from the field.

Timmy never QUITE reached 1977 Kareem's level.

At 38 years old, Kareem still had one of the GOAT Finals series... Look at him straight up dominating Parish and the Celtics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKeFI8q1zQ




And Mikan's peak best center in nba history . He put 30-35 points in the 80 pace and %35 eFg era . I believe he'll be goat if he's played at global era .

:coleman:

24 shot-clock, black players.......

Just no, not even close.

[feyki]

And if y'all wanna see some defense and some Playoffs play:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was

:bowdown:

2 out of 3 Jabbar's best teammates were injured... Lakers looking pretty weak, and sometimes couldn't even bring the ball past half-court... KAJ just wrecking shit up...
He's dominating Walton, hitting skyhooks right and left from close or mid range with people drapped all over him, some turnaround jumpers, Bill denying him the middle and Mo Lucas helping on the weakside but Jabbar getting buckets regardless, dude passing out of double/triple-teams then getting it back and scoring, he gets swarmed and it doesn't matter, look at how smart and how quick (at 7'2) he is without the ball, tremendous fluidity, terrific footwork and soft-touch...
Not to mention, he was rebounding like a madman and playing great defense.
40 points on 17/23 from the field.

Timmy never QUITE reached 1977 Kareem's level.

At 38 years old, Kareem still had one of the GOAT Finals series... Look at him straight up dominating Parish and the Celtics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKeFI8q1zQ




:coleman:

24 shot-clock, black players.......

Just no, not even close.


Black?

He put 40 points against Globotrotters many times .

http://chicagosidesports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Minneapolis_lakers_harlem_globetrotters_chicago_19 48.jpg

24 second rule disadvantage for Mikan .

[ClipperRevival]

Kareem's 46 pts vs Hakeem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsHLOq22UFI

Dream's defense is flat-out terrible here. His movements are poor, his timing is atrocious. He's just hoping to jump the passing lanes and when that fails he lets Kareem walk to the basket. He'd have been benched for playing such shitty defense today (because playing D is actually a requirement these days).

I'll say it again: I'm taking Kareem here too. But some of these posts, my God. They'd have you believe teams understood what a defensive scheme was back in Kareem's day.

The difference in defensive play between the 1980s and the 2000s onward is astronomic. You must be blind to not see that just by watching a few games from the 80s.

:facepalm

Oh lordy. That was Hakeem's 2nd season. You do realize he started playing basketball around 15 right? The guy was still very raw in his 2nd year. His feel for the game, bball iq, etc was very low at that time. That is NOT representative of the GOAT level defender he became later in his career.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Black?

He put 40 points against Globotrotters many times .

http://chicagosidesports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Minneapolis_lakers_harlem_globetrotters_chicago_19 48.jpg

24 second rule disadvantage for Mikan .

Not professional players/teams/games...

Disadvantage? Don't think so, he/they had all the time in the world in order for him to score... But, anyways, he didn't dominate with the shot-clock so we cant' say shit; that's a MAJOR change.... He was a shell and not doing much at all when he played the shot-clock.

[Derka]

Kareem for me. I've always been a Duncan fan, but watching Kareem even at the end of his career was just something else.

I can remember being 7 years old and immediately running to my bedroom to practice Skyhooks on the hoop I had hanging on the door after watching a Celtics/Lakers regular season game in 1988.

[SHAQisGOAT]

:facepalm

Oh lordy. That was Hakeem's 2nd season. You do realize he started playing basketball around 15 right? The guy was still very raw in his 2nd year. His feel for the game, bball iq, etc was very low at that time. That is NOT representative of the GOAT level defender he became later in his career.

Not true, or at least a big overstatement... He was already making all-defensive as a rookie, by his 2nd year he was the best player on a team that made it to the Finals, amongst the top in DWS/DRtg, averaging like 3 blocks and 2 steals per game.

He wasn't the defender nor the player he later became but his feel and IQ wasn't very low at that time by ANY MEANS... He was already a smart player, very good defender and very good overall player/impact, great athlete with lots of skill... You don't reach the level he was at in his peak OVERNIGHT or something.

But hey, let's give no credit to Kareem for dominating Olajuwon like that, at 38 years old...
And like I've showed, let's give no credit to Duncan's career high 53 points, so on...

[feyki]

Not professional players/teams/games...

Disadvantage? Don't think so, he/they had all the time in the world in order for him to score... But, anyways, he didn't dominate with the shot-clock so we cant' say shit; that's a MAJOR change.... He was a shell and not doing much at all when he played the shot-clock.

Yeah , it was major change from by Mikan to the Nba .

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1d/0b/ed/1d0bed94e5274c341967cfe5f447ffc3.jpg

Look at front guy calves , they are physically as Admiral,Lebron etc..

Harlem was beat the Nba champ if Mikan hadn't astronomic numbers .

There is boxscores ;

http://www.apbr.org/trotters-lakers.html

[ClipperRevival]

Not true, or at least a big overstatement... He was already making all-defensive as a rookie, by his 2nd year he was the best player on a team that made it to the Finals, amongst the top in DWS/DRtg, averaging like 3 blocks and 2 steals per game.

He wasn't the defender nor the player he later became but his feel and IQ wasn't very low at that time by ANY MEANS... He was already a smart player, very good defender and very good overall player/impact, great athlete with lots of skill... You don't reach the level he was at in his peak OVERNIGHT or something.

But hey, let's give no credit to Kareem for dominating Olajuwon like that, at 38 years old...
And like I've showed, let's give no credit to Duncan's career high 53 points, so on...

No doubt. Hakeem was an impactful, near dominant player from the moment he stepped on an NBA court but he wasn't nearly as refined as later in his career. It's just a testament to his natural abilities that he was able to have such a big impact on the game on both ends early in his career despite playing the game for only several years.

[SHAQisGOAT]

If Duncan could play in such weak defensive eras as Kareem, he'd have had just as many PPG, if not more. His other numbers surely would of went up as well since he's a much better defender than most of those guys, so more blocks, etc, too.

:coleman:

Adding on...

Kareem lead the league in PPG twice... Duncan never did, and was only top5 once while Jabbar was 10 times.

Jabbar once lead the league in FG% and was 15 times top5! Duncan never did it and was only once top5.


Playoffs per 100:

Kareem...

Top3 scoring years-
37.8 on 60.7 / 72.5 (11 games)
36.4 on 57.2 / 79.0 (15 games, champ, best player, deserved FMVP)
35.6 on 55.7 / 78.7 (14 games, 38 years old)

career - 31.1 on 53.3 / 74.0

Duncan...

Top3 scoring years-
37.1 on 57.3 / 71.8 (13 games)
36.5 on 45.3 / 82.2 (9 games)
34.3 on 46.4 / 71.7 (23 games, champ, best player, FMVP)

career - 30.1 on 50.2 / 68.9

But yea, Timmy was just as good of a scorer or even better :rolleyes: :facepalm :facepalm
And call it what you want to but Kareem never went to the line as much as Duncan, neither.

DRtg throughout the 70's (Kareem's prime) was at less than 100, and in recent times it hovers around 105, with FG% being about the same... So, guess Jabbar was doing his thing in a better defensive era, huh? :confusedshrug:
OR can you explain why, in your opinion, it was a weaker defensive era, hit us with some facts, son... I just gave you something palpable, you just talk and talk without saying shit...
Jabbar faced Wilt, Walton, Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Unseld, Reed... In the 70's, btw.
And in the 80's, DRtg and eFG% are about the same as right now... While Kareem was still dominating dudes like Hakeem, Ewing or Eaton... past his mid-30s.


In their prime/peak:
-Kareem was definitely a better scorer.
-Jabbar has a slight edge on the rebounding department.
-Nobody has a big edge in terms of passing the ball, I'd probably give the slight edge to KAJ though.
-I'd take Timmy on defense but it's close enough... Kareem was a DPOY-level defender in his best years, he would've won 2 DPOY's if the award was already given out (Timmy not having even one is shameful though).

And you can't say that Duncan has more longevity or more accolades/awards.

Jabbar is a top3/5 player of all-time with a top5 peak... Timmy more like top10(close to 5 though) with a top10 peak.

Now, get real... ****ing fanboys :facepalm

[feyki]

Adding on...

Kareem lead the league in PPG twice... Duncan never did, and was only top5 once while Jabbar was 10 times.

Jabbar once lead the league in FG% and was 15 times top5! Duncan never did it and was only once top5.


Playoffs per 100:

Kareem...

Top3 scoring years-
37.8 on 60.7 / 72.5 (11 games)
36.4 on 57.2 / 79.0 (15 games, champ, best player, deserved FMVP)
35.6 on 55.7 / 78.7 (14 games, 38 years old)

career - 31.1 on 53.3 / 74.0

Duncan...

Top3 scoring years-
37.1 on 57.3 / 71.8 (13 games)
36.5 on 45.3 / 82.2 (9 games)
34.3 on 46.4 / 71.7 (23 games, champ, best player, FMVP)

career - 30.1 on 50.2 / 68.9

But yea, Timmy was just as good of a scorer or even better :rolleyes: :facepalm :facepalm
And call it what you want to but Kareem never went to the line as much as Duncan, neither.

DRtg throughout the 70's (Kareem's prime) was at less than 100, and in recent times it hovers around 105, with FG% being about the same... So, guess Jabbar was doing his thing in a better defensive era, huh? :confusedshrug:
OR can you explain why, in your opinion, it was a weaker defensive era, hit us with some facts, son... I just gave you something palpable, you just talk and talk without saying shit...
Jabbar faced Wilt, Walton, Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Unseld, Reed... In the 70's, btw.
And in the 80's, DRtg and eFG% are about the same as right now... While Kareem was still dominating dudes like Hakeem, Ewing or Eaton... past his mid-30s.


In their prime/peak:
-Kareem was definitely a better scorer.
-Jabbar has a slight edge on the rebounding department.
-Nobody has a big edge in terms of passing the ball, I'd probably give the slight edge to KAJ though.
-I'd take Timmy on defense but it's close enough... Kareem was a DPOY-level defender in his best years, he would've won 2 DPOY's if the award was already given out (Timmy not having even one is shameful though).

And you can't say that Duncan has more longevity or more accolades/awards.

Jabbar is a top3/5 player of all-time with a top5 peak... Timmy more like top10(close to 5 though) with a top10 peak.

Now, get real... ****ing fanboys :facepalm


But 70's weak , lol :roll: .

Truths hurts modernistic kids .

[Pointguard]

And if y'all wanna see some defense and some Playoffs play:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was

:bowdown:

2 out of 3 Jabbar's best teammates were injured... Lakers looking pretty weak, and sometimes couldn't even bring the ball past half-court... KAJ just wrecking shit up...
He's dominating Walton, hitting skyhooks right and left from close or mid range with people drapped all over him, some turnaround jumpers, Bill denying him the middle and Mo Lucas helping on the weakside but Jabbar getting buckets regardless, dude passing out of double/triple-teams then getting it back and scoring, he gets swarmed and it doesn't matter, look at how smart and how quick (at 7'2) he is without the ball, tremendous fluidity, terrific footwork and soft-touch...
Not to mention, he was rebounding like a madman and playing great defense.
40 points on 17/23 from the field.

Timmy never QUITE reached 1977 Kareem's level.

At 38 years old, Kareem still had one of the GOAT Finals series... Look at him straight up dominating Parish and the Celtics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKeFI8q1zQ
[/B]
Great examples of the defense back then. There are so few good big men down low its hard to make a comparison. Kareem's range is what makes him one of the best ever. His hook shot wasn't defend-able and it was killer 12 feet and below.

I think Tyson Chandler is the best big man one on one defender in the league for a minute now. Not sure who is in comp with him, but he has an effect on Duncan's game. Duncan takes like 4 less shots per game against him since 2011. In the playoffs in 2008, he took 3 less shots per game and 42% and 7 less ppg against him. Once Ben Wallace had his confidence going, the numbers were bigger than that of Tyson's. With FG% taking a bigger hit. When he plays against DH... less shots by about 2 per game. So he approaches the game differently when he has hard defense on him, not that he's a top tier scorer anyway.

With Kareem there is no need to go thru adaptions. All adjustments were made to him - not his defenders.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Great examples of the defense back then. There are so few good big men down low its hard to make a comparison. Kareem's range is what makes him one of the best ever. His hook shot wasn't defend-able and it was killer 12 feet and below.

I think Tyson Chandler is the best big man one on one defender in the league for a minute now. Not sure who is in comp with him, but he has an effect on Duncan's game. Duncan takes like 4 less shots per game against him since 2011. In the playoffs in 2008, he took 3 less shots per game and 42% and 7 less ppg against him. Once Ben Wallace had his confidence going, the numbers were bigger than that of Tyson's. With FG% taking a bigger hit. When he plays against DH... less shots by about 2 per game. So he approaches the game differently when he has hard defense on him, not that he's a top tier scorer anyway.

With Kareem there is no need to go thru adaptions. All adjustments were made to him - not his defenders.

Well put.

And I've forgot to mention the spacing... Lakers weren't hitting nothing from the outside, with Kareem straight up dominating with considerably less spacing than most bigs in recent times (due to no 3pt-line also), like Timmy.

[Odinn]

Adding on...

Kareem lead the league in PPG twice... Duncan never did, and was only top5 once while Jabbar was 10 times.

Jabbar once lead the league in FG% and was 15 times top5! Duncan never did it and was only once top5.


Playoffs per 100:

Kareem...

Top3 scoring years-
37.8 on 60.7 / 72.5 (11 games)
36.4 on 57.2 / 79.0 (15 games, champ, best player, deserved FMVP)
35.6 on 55.7 / 78.7 (14 games, 38 years old)

career - 31.1 on 53.3 / 74.0

Duncan...

Top3 scoring years-
37.1 on 57.3 / 71.8 (13 games)
36.5 on 45.3 / 82.2 (9 games)
34.3 on 46.4 / 71.7 (23 games, champ, best player, FMVP)

career - 30.1 on 50.2 / 68.9

But yea, Timmy was just as good of a scorer or even better :rolleyes: :facepalm :facepalm
And call it what you want to but Kareem never went to the line as much as Duncan, neither.

DRtg throughout the 70's (Kareem's prime) was at less than 100, and in recent times it hovers around 105, with FG% being about the same... So, guess Jabbar was doing his thing in a better defensive era, huh? :confusedshrug:
OR can you explain why, in your opinion, it was a weaker defensive era, hit us with some facts, son... I just gave you something palpable, you just talk and talk without saying shit...
Jabbar faced Wilt, Walton, Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Unseld, Reed... In the 70's, btw.
And in the 80's, DRtg and eFG% are about the same as right now... While Kareem was still dominating dudes like Hakeem, Ewing or Eaton... past his mid-30s.


In their prime/peak:
-Kareem was definitely a better scorer.
-Jabbar has a slight edge on the rebounding department.
-Nobody has a big edge in terms of passing the ball, I'd probably give the slight edge to KAJ though.
-I'd take Timmy on defense but it's close enough... Kareem was a DPOY-level defender in his best years, he would've won 2 DPOY's if the award was already given out (Timmy not having even one is shameful though).

And you can't say that Duncan has more longevity or more accolades/awards.

Jabbar is a top3/5 player of all-time with a top5 peak... Timmy more like top10(close to 5 though) with a top10 peak.

Now, get real... ****ing fanboys :facepalm

Leave them be.

Duncan is my all-time favourite but even I say Kareem because I know enough to judge 'em two, yet they throw some accusations just because they do not know enough.

[LAZERUSS]

Forget the designations...Duncan has primarily been a center in his career.

And for those here that (laughably) have ripped Kareem's competition, Duncan has faced very few elite centers in his career.

For those that actually watched the Spurs-Lakers battles from '01 to '04, ...Phil Jackson used to let Duncan torch whoever his PF was at the time...for the first three quarters. Then, he would single-cover Timmy with Shaq in those 4th quarters. Duncan was almost completely helpless against Shaq in those games, as these FG/FGA numbers prove:




00-01 5-13

01-02 11-30

02-03 7-23

03-04 12-21


Totals:


35-87

.402




Interesting too, that Duncan gts so much credit for leading his Spurs to a title in '03. Yet, take a look at that awful 4th quarter FG%!

Again, for those that actually watched their playoff H2H in '03, Duncan PUKED all over the floor at critical times in that series.

In the key fifth game of that series, the Spurs led by as many as 25 points in the 3rd quarter, and with 38 seconds left in that period, they led by 22. The Lakers put Shaq on Duncan in the 4th quarter, and he just folded his tent. Nothing but clanks and TOs. It got so bad that he was waving off incoming passes. LA came all the way back, and Robert Horry's potentially winning 3 with 3 secs left went down, and came out. The Spurs went on to rout the Lakers in game six, but fortunately for Duncan, he didn't have to take over the in the final quarter.

And for those that recall Fisher's ".4" shot in game five of the '04 WCSF's, ...Duncan hit the go-ahead shot. BUT, it was almost comical. He took the inbounds pass, stumbled around, and flung up a prayer, while falling down, that Shaq came within a fingernail of blocking...and it somehow went in. Even he couldn't believe it. It was poetic justice that Fisher hit the game winner. BTW, the Spurs lost the last four straight games of that series.

Furthermore, when Duncan was primarily defended by Ben Wallace in the '05 Finals, he again, couldn't hit a shot to save his life. Overall, he shot .419 from the floor (with a TS% of .471.) And in game their game seven win...he went 10-27 from the floor.


Kareem battled centers like Wilt, Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, McAdoo, Walton, Gilmore, Moses, Parish, and Hakeem in his career. Sorry Duncan fans, but aside from Shaq, and perhaps Dwight and Ben,...Duncan has been facing mostly cannon-fodder at the center position. BTW, in his 23 career H2H's against Yao...Timmy shot...get this... .435 from the field.

Defense...

watch this footage of KAJ against not only a peak Walton, but being swarmed as well...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was&playnext=1&videos=YqP06ya0k4w

Someone mentioned a 38 year old Kareem against the Celtics in the '85 Finals. Subtract game one, in which he was sleep-walking, and he hung a 28.4 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 6.0 apg, .610 FG%, .769 FT% stat-line against one of the greatest front courts in NBA history.

We all know by now that a 38-39 year old Kareem averaged a staggering 32 ppg on a .630 FG% against a 23-24 year old Hakeem in their first ten straight H2H's (including games of 40, 43, and 46 points), but even a 40 year old Kareem outscored a 25 year old Hakeem in their four H2H's, and outshot him by a stunning .563 to .403 margin. And that was against a first team all-defense Hakeem. All of which is interesting...considering that a peak Shaq's high game against Hakeem, (against a fading Hakeem BTW), was 37 points.

One can only wonder what a peak 23 year old Kareem would have hung on a 39 year old Hakeem?

In any case, Duncan was not even remotely close to the offensive force that Kareem was. Hell, an old Kareem was a better offensive player than a peak Duncan.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I'll just leave this here if it hasn't already been mentioned...

Categories each players has led in:

Regular season
Kareem: points per game 2x, blocks per game 4x, rebounds per game 1x

Playoffs
Kareem: points per game 5x, blocks per game 6x, rebounds per game 1x

Duncan: blocks per game 2x

[dunksby]

I'll just leave this here if it hasn't already been mentioned...

Categories each players has led in:

Regular season
Kareem: points per game 2x, blocks per game 4x, rebounds per game 1x

Playoffs
Kareem: points per game 5x, blocks per game 6x, rebounds per game 1x

Duncan: blocks per game 2x
And blocks weren't even tracked for Kareem's first four years in the league.

[Legends66NBA7]

And blocks weren't even tracked for Kareem's first four years in the league.

And to add to that, of the major basic stats, Kareem is the only player to lead the league in 4 (ppg, rpg, bpg, and fg%) of them. Wilt would have been the 1st player to do it if they recorded blocks in his playing day

[LAZERUSS]

And to add to that, of the major basic stats, Kareem is the only player to lead the league in 4 (ppg, rpg, bpg, and fg%) of them. Wilt would have been the 1st player to do it if they recorded blocks in his playing day

Wilt likely would have accomplished that feat in the same season, as well. He had three seasons in which he led the league in ppg, rpg, and FG% at the same time.

[Paul George 24]

Kareem got to play in the 70's. Duncan didn't. Why don't people compare Wilt's 50 ppg season to any of Jordan's in a vacuum like that? Because different eras are different. Transport Duncan to the 70's and he puts up insane numbers there, too. Offensive or otherwise.
DUNCAN WOULD NOT ABLE TO BLK KAREEM'S SKY HOOK :banana:

[julizaver]

Kareem's 46 pts vs Hakeem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsHLOq22UFI

Dream's defense is flat-out terrible here. His movements are poor, his timing is atrocious. He's just hoping to jump the passing lanes and when that fails he lets Kareem walk to the basket. He'd have been benched for playing such shitty defense today (because playing D is actually a requirement these days).


NO.

1) Hakeem's defense is not poor, Kareem made it looks like. Hakeem's plan was try to prevent the ball reaching Kareem, because one it reaches Kareem hands near the basket or the post it is almost sure goal (when Kareem is hot). Just a bad decision. As his coach said after the game: "Akeem made some bad decisions on defense trying to go for steals," said Fitch
2) Hakeem was capable defender at the time. Kareem after that game:
"What he tried didn't work at all for him," said Abdul-Jabbar, who also had 11 rebounds. "I know he can play a whole lot better than that."
3) Even at that advance age Kareem possesed quick moves, do a lot of faking before going for a shot. And a lot of opponents try to prevent Kareem (positoning theirselfs) from scoring with his right hand - leaving him some space to the other side. A testimony of how lethal was Kareem with his right hooks. Sometimes this strategy works, sometimes not against a past his prime Kareem. Anyway even an old Kareem was a tough match for everyone. In that particiluar game he made his first 10 shots and the game was almost over at halftime.

And had Kareem bein guarded by Duncan one on one, who is in no way better defender and is less athletic than Hakeem, the results will be the same.

[DMAVS41]

Funny... Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9wOz1fBtmg

^Easy fastbreak dunks, poor ball denial and help defense, easy baskets at the rim, Dirk getting bodied/bullied left and right, lots of bail outs with some dumb fouls... And I'll give 0 credit to Timmy, just like you did with Jabbar...

That defense on Kareem instead of Hakeem/Sampson and the Rockets that night, and he might have even dropped 60 at 38 years old :lol

Yea, Hakeem was just a shitty defensive player :rolleyes: :facepalm
Dude was already making all-defensive, at the top in blocks, DWS and DRtg... But I guess he suddendly became a GOAT-level defensive player in the 90's, just overnight :rolleyes:

---> Right... So astronomic that league average's DRtg and eFG% have remained more or less the same since :confusedshrug:
Glad you're being honest there, because I'm sure your ass ain't seen more than a few games from that era...




:roll:

Delusional ass stans :facepalm

Straw man argument. Nobody is claiming Dirk is one of the best defenders ever...or a better defender than Duncan.

The claim about Hakeem was that he was clearly a better defensive player than Duncan....and that is the actual "rolls eyes" statement.

Obviously a few clips on youtube don't prove anything...and TLP wasn't claiming that Hakeem was a "shitty" defender. He obviously wasn't...he was an all time great defender.

However, I do think his defense tends to get overrated by people that didn't see him play and only have box scores and basketball reference to evaluate him on.

And yes, absolutely, the defense of this era...especially early 00's was way better than the defense of the 80's on the whole.

[dhsilv]

Straw man argument. Nobody is claiming Dirk is one of the best defenders ever...or a better defender than Duncan.

The claim about Hakeem was that he was clearly a better defensive player than Duncan....and that is the actual "rolls eyes" statement.

Obviously a few clips on youtube don't prove anything...and TLP wasn't claiming that Hakeem was a "shitty" defender. He obviously wasn't...he was an all time great defender.

However, I do think his defense tends to get overrated by people that didn't see him play and only have box scores and basketball reference to evaluate him on.

And yes, absolutely, the defense of this era...especially early 00's was way better than the defense of the 80's on the whole.

Yeah but that was more the result of rules/refs and how they call/coaching. IMO the biggest problem with Hakeem imo is that offensively he peaked well after his defensive peak. The end result is that at his "best" he wasn't both his beat defensively and offensively. Makes it hard to judge him imo.

When he won the title he was much better offensively (I think he'd finally learned that you can pass the ball), but he wasn't the disruption defensively (he was past his athletic prime). It makes judging him and duncan on a "better defender" or "better offensive player" kinda hard.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah but that was more the result of rules/refs and how they call/coaching. IMO the biggest problem with Hakeem imo is that offensively he peaked well after his defensive peak. The end result is that at his "best" he wasn't both his beat defensively and offensively. Makes it hard to judge him imo.

When he won the title he was much better offensively (I think he'd finally learned that you can pass the ball), but he wasn't the disruption defensively (he was past his athletic prime). It makes judging him and duncan on a "better defender" or "better offensive player" kinda hard.

All of it is going to be "hard" when comparing players across eras that are so similar in level of play / impact.

[dhsilv]

All of it is going to be "hard" when comparing players across eras that are so similar in level of play / impact.

Agree, but Hakeem is while not unique, different in that he had imo two distinct peaks only he peaked differently in those cases. Made it really difficult to judge him against someone like duncan.

[Pointguard]

And yes, absolutely, the defense of this era...especially early 00's was way better than the defense of the 80's on the whole.

Not for big men. For the SF, SG and PG positions, there is an argument there, I could agree with that, but it was still rougher, tougher, more athletic, better skilled and better big men defenders. For the most part Duncan might have had the title as best best one-on-one defender for one or two years in the league? KG was the best team defender. Hakeem was the best defender in three ways in a much more skilled, longer, stronger, more athletic big man league. And during Duncan's prime the best 1 on 1 center defender was only like 6'7 in height and wasn't Barkley thick. And Wallace held that down for like four or five years.

Dikembe, Robinson, Mourning, Hakeem, Ewing and Eaton were all better than Chandler, DH and Wallace, much less Duncan as rim protectors and affecting the offense. Duncan rarely had to guard stellar big men.

[IGOTGAME]

Not for big men. For the SF, SG and PG positions, there is an argument there, I could agree with that, but it was still rougher, tougher, more athletic, better skilled and better big men defenders. For the most part Duncan might have had the title as best best one-on-one defender for one or two years in the league? KG was the best team defender. Hakeem was the best defender in three ways in a much more skilled, longer, stronger, more athletic big man league. And during Duncan's prime the best 1 on 1 center defender was only like 6'7 in height and wasn't Barkley thick. And Wallace held that down for like four or five years.

Dikembe, Robinson, Mourning, Hakeem, Ewing and Eaton were all better than Chandler, DH and Wallace, much less Duncan as rim protectors and affecting the offense. Duncan rarely had to guard stellar big men.

Hold up, at no time was Wallace a better one on one post defender than Duncan. I dont even think Wallace was all time good at guarding the post. Id even go as far to say that Rasheed was better on his own team

[Pointguard]

Hold up, at no time was Wallace a better one on one post defender than Duncan. I dont even think Wallace was all time good at guarding the post. Id even go as far to say that Rasheed was better on his own team
Wallace had a monopoly on DPOY during Duncan's prime. Look at what he did to Duncan and Shaq in his prime - Shaq got his numbers but he was effectively isolated from his team. Rasheed was the better team defender.

[IGOTGAME]

Wallace had a monopoly on DPOY during Duncan's prime. Look at what he did to Duncan and Shaq in his prime - Shaq got his numbers but he was effectively isolated from his team. Rasheed was the better team defender.

since when is DPOY guarantee that someone was the better defender. Its an award voted on by the media, most of whom no very little about defense.

Also, Wallace was a better help defender than man defender in the post. Rasheed was talented and really good at both. I'd argue that Duncan was a better defender than Wallace throughout most of those DPOY votes and is one of the most underrated defenders ever, which is crazy when you think about how highly he is regarded.

I've never seen anyone shut down pick and roll coverage like Tim Duncan when he is engaged. Only time i remember jumping out of my seat and cheering pick and roll coverage.

[Pointguard]

since when is DPOY guarantee that someone was the better defender. Its an award voted on by the media, most of whom no very little about defense.

Also, Wallace was a better help defender than man defender in the post. Rasheed was talented and really good at both. I'd argue that Duncan was a better defender than Wallace throughout most of those DPOY votes and is one of the most underrated defenders ever, which is crazy when you think about how highly he is regarded.
Aren't you a Laker fan??? That was the best one on one defense I ever seen. Not that it did much to Shaq but it totally unbalanced your Lakers because he could hold down the fort like that. Detroit won on defense primarily. Rasheed was never able to carry a team defensively much less slow down Duncan and Shaq. I mean do you hate Ben for what he did.

[IGOTGAME]

Aren't you a Laker fan??? That was the best one on one defense I ever seen. Not that it did much to Shaq but it totally unbalanced your Lakers because he could hold down the fort like that. Detroit won on defense primarily. Rasheed was never able to carry a team defensively much less slow down Duncan and Shaq. I mean do you hate Ben for what he did.

I'm a Lakers fan but saying Wallace wasn't as good of a defender as Duncan isn't really a knock. The reason Detroit won that series were because Shaq was getting older, Kobe faced a bad matchup in Prince and they loaded up on him, and the rest of the talent didnt fit. It wasn't some masterful Wallace performance.

Wallace was a better overall defender than Wallace but if your talking about post defense than Rasheed is better. Wallace never great there, he was more help side.

edit: those Lakers were injured and the pieces didnt fit well. Same thing when the Lakers got Howard and Nash. pieces just didnt fit and it was just that Kobe and Shaq were good enough to mask it for a while.

Also, after the rape allegations Kobe stopped getting the same foul calls he used to and I'm not sure that had anything to do with this series but I know it happened.

[dhsilv]

While I think Duncan was the better defender, he was either missing games or on rest mode when Ben was getting his DPOY awards. As a result Wallace had more minutes played while being very similar in impact as Duncan.

KG at his prime was a better defender from all the advanced stats. I still someone question it as the whole spurs defense for so long was about forcing people into shooting against Duncan, and even last year Duncan had above average stats on field goal percentage by offensive players when at the rim near him.

Sadly defensive stats are still largely a black hole.

[Pointguard]

I'm a Lakers fan but saying Wallace wasn't as good of a defender as Duncan isn't really a knock. The reason Detroit won that series were because Shaq was getting older, Kobe faced a bad matchup in Prince and they loaded up on him, and the rest of the talent didnt fit. It wasn't some masterful Wallace performance.

Wallace was a better overall defender than Wallace but if your talking about post defense than Rasheed is better. Wallace never great there, he was more help side.
Shaq was still dominant so that wasn't it. If Ben couldn't do what he did, the Piston's don't win. The Lakers were a VERY experienced championship team and were totally confused by what Wallace was able to do. Everybody could see that the Laker's were confused and scrambling. This was obvious as day.

Rasheed played 10 minutes less per game than Ben in that series, which is typical of Rasheed getting into foul trouble in big games. Ben was rocking 40 mpg guarding Shaq mano a mano. They won that series on Ben's post defense.

[IGOTGAME]

Shaq was still dominant so that wasn't it. If Ben couldn't do what he did, the Piston's don't win. The Lakers were a VERY experienced championship team and were totally confused by what Wallace was able to do. Everybody could see that the Laker's were confused and scrambling. This was obvious as day.

Rasheed played 10 minutes less per game than Ben in that series, which is typical of Rasheed getting into foul trouble in big games. Ben was rocking 40 mpg guarding Shaq mano a mano. They won that series on Ben's post defense.
btw...lets also remember that this was the end of dominant Shaq...it actually ended after that series was over. we never saw him again, its not a crazy thing to wonder whether he had already lost some of it during that series. he looked overweight and out of shape. the team was burdened with Kobe's problems and a ton of injuries.


The Lakers were confused because the rest of the team was bad outside of Kobe. Malone was hurt, GP didnt fit and couldnt shoot and the backups were garbage.

It wasn't something crazy Wallace was doing. If anything what hurt the lakers the most was Kobe playing bad vs Prince.

Lastly, we are comparing Wallace and Duncan. I'm 1000% sure if you replaced both of those guys only on defense that nothing changes. Even looking at the Spurs series Shaq had games where he only scored 11 points and 17 points. This was your typical dominant Shaq. that time had passed. Next year in the playoffs he didnt score over 25 points once in the first 2 rounds

[Pointguard]

While I think Duncan was the better defender, he was either missing games or on rest mode when Ben was getting his DPOY awards. As a result Wallace had more minutes played while being very similar in impact as Duncan.

KG at his prime was a better defender from all the advanced stats. I still someone question it as the whole spurs defense for so long was about forcing people into shooting against Duncan, and even last year Duncan had above average stats on field goal percentage by offensive players when at the rim near him.

Sadly defensive stats are still largely a black hole.

I can see the argument that Duncan was a better defender than Ben Wallace. But Wallace was a better at blocking shots and getting position and affecting greats in the post. I am precise in what I write. Duncan was a great all around defender but its hard to really say he was the best at one thing. Hakeem was a great all around defender but was the best at a lot of things in an era with better defenders and offensive players.

[Pointguard]

btw...lets also remember that this was the end of dominant Shaq...it actually ended after that series was over. we never saw him again, its not a crazy thing to wonder whether he had already lost some of it during that series. he looked overweight and out of shape. the team was burdened with Kobe's problems and a ton of injuries.

The Lakers were confused because the rest of the team was bad outside of Kobe. Malone was hurt, GP didnt fit and couldnt shoot and the backups were garbage.

It wasn't something crazy Wallace was doing. If anything what hurt the lakers the most was Kobe playing bad vs Prince.

Lastly, we are comparing Wallace and Duncan. I'm 1000% sure if you replaced both of those guys only on defense that nothing changes. Even looking at the Spurs series Shaq had games where he only scored 11 points and 17 points. This was your typical dominant Shaq. that time had passed

The point of confusion was on how Shaq was played. Wallace played KG and Duncan extremely well too. The numbers are posted earlier in the thread. Comparing Rasheed and Ben is also off. Rasheed fouls a lot, and you can't depend on him to be on the court in pressure times. He would frequently get too tense and get ejected a lot too.

[IGOTGAME]

The point of confusion was on how Shaq was played. Wallace played KG and Duncan extremely well too. The numbers are posted earlier in the thread. Comparing Rasheed and Ben is also off. Rasheed fouls a lot, and you can't depend on him to be on the court in pressure times. He would frequently get too tense and get ejected a lot too.

Wallace played on great teams that were focused on defense. Any other team wouldnt have Wallace on it bc he hurts the offense. So it makes sense that great players would have worst stats against great defenses...wallace was small and as soon as you turned over the shoulder there wasn't really much he could do...he was an all time great defender but I think his DPOY awards overstate his greatness. For example, i think peak Howard was a better defender.

[dhsilv]

I can see the argument that Duncan was a better defender than Ben Wallace. But Wallace was a better at blocking shots and getting position and affecting greats in the post. I am precise in what I write. Duncan was a great all around defender but its hard to really say he was the best at one thing. Hakeem was a great all around defender but was the best at a lot of things in an era with better defenders and offensive players.

Duncan's best ability is his ability to impact shots around the rim and his ability to cover space. Sadly we don't have sports vue data on this in his prime. Again he's still exceptionally good at the first part. Spacing....he covers in sane amount given he's got one leg and can barely move, but he's not longer prime level. This made him a piece that the spurs could BUILD their defense around. It allowed guys like Bowen and lesser defenders like Parker and Manu (manu not being bad btw) to over play the ball and gamble more. Or in other words case people from 3's and leave them mid range shots.

As for shot blocking. Duncan 6 years with a block percentage over 5% and Wallace 6.

Best year Wallace at 6.7% and Duncan's best was 6.4%. Of their 6 best year Wallace did have 4 of them, but of the top 10 they're split.

Now that said DBPM LOVES Wallace and completely disagrees with what I saw when watching these two play. I feel like Wallace got credit in the stats for his teammates playing great defense and Duncan for some reason never did. Not sure I can explain it beyond Duncan didn't and still doesn't really ever go for steals and Wallace does. Stats LOVE steals and I'd normally agree with them.

[Pointguard]

Wallace played on great teams that were focused on defense. Any other team wouldnt have Wallace on it bc he hurts the offense. So it makes sense that great players would have worst stats against great defenses...wallace was small and as soon as you turned over the shoulder there wasn't really much he could do...he was an all time great defender but I think his DPOY awards overstate his greatness. For example, i think peak Howard was a better defender.
That's how this all got started. Kareem had an unstoppable shot. He played against great defenses. It didn't matter. At 38 years old he was still able to put up offensive number comparable to Duncan's prime against the tallest/nimble duo ever and one of the best defensive centers ever.

Wallace had quick hands and feet. It was hard to square up on him as he got good defensive position early and denied ball and position. Was one of the quickest jumpers as well.

[DMAVS41]

Not for big men. For the SF, SG and PG positions, there is an argument there, I could agree with that, but it was still rougher, tougher, more athletic, better skilled and better big men defenders. For the most part Duncan might have had the title as best best one-on-one defender for one or two years in the league? KG was the best team defender. Hakeem was the best defender in three ways in a much more skilled, longer, stronger, more athletic big man league. And during Duncan's prime the best 1 on 1 center defender was only like 6'7 in height and wasn't Barkley thick. And Wallace held that down for like four or five years.

Dikembe, Robinson, Mourning, Hakeem, Ewing and Eaton were all better than Chandler, DH and Wallace, much less Duncan as rim protectors and affecting the offense. Duncan rarely had to guard stellar big men.

Individually big men defenders really have been great throughout NBA history until recently.

However, the game was just played a different way back in the era we are talking about. It just wasn't as difficult to get points. No doubt there were some great individual defenders that made for some tough matchups, but teams gave up way more easy baskets in the flow of the game.

And just 1 extra easy basket a game for a player actually goes a long way when comparing players across eras when the numbers are as close as they are.

Ben Wallace would still be a great defender in any era, but his impact simply wouldn't be as great as it was now as it was in the early 00's before the rules change. I think that is the best example to underscore what I'm talking about.

[Pointguard]

Individually big men defenders really have been great throughout NBA history until recently.

However, the game was just played a different way back in the era we are talking about. It just wasn't as difficult to get points. No doubt there were some great individual defenders that made for some tough matchups, but teams gave up way more easy baskets in the flow of the game.

And just 1 extra easy basket a game for a player actually goes a long way when comparing players across eras when the numbers are as close as they are.

Ben Wallace would still be a great defender in any era, but his impact simply wouldn't be as great as it was now as it was in the early 00's before the rules change. I think that is the best example to underscore what I'm talking about.
When Duncan was playing his best ball Wallace was killing it as a contemporary. I can't really gauge how the rule changes affect big men overall because there have been so few good deep post players to distract one on one defense or rim protection. Its a harder figure now because of that, along with the low number of solid finishers around the basket.

I noticed that Camby was much more agile and quick his first five years but started leading the league with frequency after the rule changes, after he was definitely slower and not as quick to the ball. I haven't thought about what that might mean but I noticed it earlier to day and then you brought it up here.

[sportjames23]

Not gonna lie--this discussion turned out better than I thought it would. I thought we'd get people saying how it's not close at all, with Kareem dominating, but this has been a good discussion.

Good show, fellas. I'm enjoying this debate.

[dhsilv]

When Duncan was playing his best ball Wallace was killing it as a contemporary. I can't really gauge how the rule changes affect big men overall because there have been so few good deep post players to distract one on one defense or rim protection. Its a harder figure now because of that, along with the low number of solid finishers around the basket.

I noticed that Camby was much more agile and quick his first five years but started leading the league with frequency after the rule changes, after he was definitely slower and not as quick to the ball. I haven't thought about what that might mean but I noticed it earlier to day and then you brought it up here.

I recall Camby jumping his way out of position a lot in Denver. He got a lot of blocked shots but man, he gave up some bunnies too. Not sure if I'm remembering everything correctly there but just the impression I had everytime I watched.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

:facepalm

Kareem at close to 40 could still drop 40 on Hakeem and Ewing, and such... How about that?

Jabbar was CLEARLY a better scorer than Duncan, no question about it...

No defense 80's with an absurd pace. Also had the GOAT PG dishing him easy buckets on the most stacked roster of all time in a historically weak conference. Plenty of other all-stars/HOF'ers on his team to take the pressure off and make his job that much easier. He also didn't play defense at that point or rebound the ball.

Different roles. Duncan isn't asked to score like he did in the past, we need him for defense. Even still, he's dropped 30 in a half in the finals at 38+, 27/11, last play offs Game 7 and that's in ADDITION to anchoring #1 defenses and still rebounding at a high level.

You really do have to take into account opportunity cost between offense and defense when it comes to evaluating who is better, especially at an advanced age between Kareem and Duncan. Just looking at scoring while ignoring defense, rebounding, etc in a vacuum doesn't do either of these men justice.

:confusedshrug:

[La Frescobaldi]

funny thing tho
i just saw this a few days ago on Duncan's website

http://www.slamduncan.com/news-21questions.php

Q& A with Tim Duncan:

7. Who had been your favorite basketball player as a child?

Magic Johnson. I loved watching him play as a kid.

21. If you could play one on one with any player (past or present), Who would it be?

Kareem Abdul-Jabber in his prime or Wilt Chamberlain.