Dino

[This message has been edited by Houston Summit (edited 5/30/2013 12:02p).]

duncan isn't better than shaq. not a chance in hell.

He's not better than Kobe either.

quote:

---

But as a Rockets fan with zero ties to LA or SA, Kobe is the clear winner every time. He is the closest player we've ever seen to Jordan. His ability to take over a game is unmatched by anyone else in his time

---

Kobe's ability to destroy a team or game is also unmatched.

quote:

---

Listen, I understand as a Spurs fan y'all will pick Duncan over Kobe. Same reason I pick Dream over Duncan.

But as a Rockets fan with zero ties to LA or SA, Kobe is the clear winner every time.

---

Well, then you need to alert all the media types who like San Antonio more than LA, because they are picking Duncan these days.

If Duncan wins #5 this year with the Spurs (and he isn't showing a big decline and is still a starter instead of a role player) it'll be 14 years between the first championship and this potential one. That will be the largest year difference of anyone with 4+ according to the below wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_players_with_most_championships

Who are these "media types" you speak of? I've only seen Bill Simmons' name on here, and it's already been established that Bill is a well-documented Laker hater (and I respect him for that, but it still makes his views irrelevant)

Ganondorf

Making arguments based on irrelevant commentators and random, non-material statistics

I can see the argument for Kobe over Duncan. Kobe is incredible and has been for a long time. Shaq, though, is not better than Duncan. Hakeem was just a smidge ahea of my time, so I won't compare him and Duncan, but if Duncan wins a fifth ring, seems like the argument isn't really valid.

One of my favorite Akeem moments of all time:

quote:

---

Well, then you need to alert all the media types who like San Antonio more than LA, because they are picking Duncan these days.

---

I thought the argument was Duncan over Bryant, not San Antonio over LA. I'm pretty sure that having Manu and Parker, but especially having Pop on the bench is better than Dantoni (sp)...give Kobe Phil and your "media types" are picking LA over San Antonio.

quote:

---

the greatest PF of all time

---

This is the better debate.

Duncan or Karl Malone. I could go either way on this one.

from the eye test, Malone was much better than Duncan

the guy had 9 straight 2000 point seasons, and would've had 13 if it weren't for the 1999 lockout

sadly, Malone never won any titles, only won One MVP. It's funny, the same people who say "robert horry winning 7 rings shouldn't mean anything" will say "duncan has 4 ringzzz!!!!!" when comparing Duncan with other players.

quote:

---

Duncan or Karl Malone. I could go either way on this one.

---

This get's thrown out right now!!! Not even debatable!!!

As a Dallas Cowboys fan, I hear all about how Romo will never be considered with the top players because of "his failures" in the post season. Fair enough. Using the same "rules", Karl Malone is officially not even allowed in this discussion!!!

Duncan - 4 Rings... now back to the Kobe/Shaq/Olajuwon argument.

Well, Duncan was the best player on his team when they won, which is probably why they mention it. But I agree, rings sometimes are given too much weight. They are definitely important, but it is not the only thing

Duncan only won titles because he had an elite PG playing with him which Malone never had.






Oh wait . . .





Still, I love me some Karl Malone. He and Duncan are the two best PFs. Picking one over the other to me is a hard thing to do. Malone was so good - - just never won a title. Duncan does the little things better than any bigman I have seen.

Malone had to deal with Jordan, Duncan & Robinson won a title the year after jordan retired for a second time. Funny, olajuwon gets **** for winning a title without jordan around, but robinson wins the year after jordan again retires, clearly still in his prime, and it's all good

That argument has always been silly. If Jordan being gone made a championship so easy to win then why didn't your team win that year?

(Not directing that at you, just people who make that argument in general)



[This message has been edited by Frok (edited 5/30/2013 1:07p).]

Malone was also playing with Ostertag, Bryon Russell, Olden Polynice, Shandon Anderson, Howard Eisley, and Antoine Carr. The only guys he played with that were good were Stockton and Jeff Hornaceck. Always hated Hornaceck.

And to Tokens point, the last few NBA champs we've had would've gotten **** on by those 90s teams (Bulls, Rockets, Jazz, 94 Knicks, etc.)

It will be a tremendous day for sports fans everywhere when people stop using Bill Simmons as reference for backing up their point.

quote:

---

Malone was so good - - just never won a title.

---

If this is your only argument against Malone, you don't have one. I don't know how many times an example like Robert Horry should be brought up to debunk the "rings" argument (I'm pretty sure someone previous on this thread already mentioned it in passing.) Rings don't define you as a great player. Rings are team awards. When picking the best team of all time I can see using rings, but if you're determining the best of all time at an individual position, rings are irrelevant...because Mark Madsen isn't a better post player than Karl Malone...neither is Luc Longly, Toni Kukoc, and a million other players that happen to have rings.

Speaking of which, Hornacek coaching the Suns was a bit of a head-scratcher

quote:

---

Olajuwon was better at his peak

Duncan has the better overall career

It's close. You really can't be wrong either way.

---

quote:

---

sadly, Malone never won any titles, only won One MVP. It's funny, the same people who say "robert horry winning 7 rings shouldn't mean anything" will say "duncan has 4 ringzzz!!!!!" when comparing Duncan with other players.

---

good lord. Malone and the Jazz choked against Hakeem in 95. He won his 2nd MVP in 99 and would have been favored to beat the Spurs if his playoff choking ass had gotten out of the 2nd round. He'll never be on the same level historically as Duncan and Nowitzki because of consistent playoff underachieving. Even his stats in the playoffs are worse than in the regular season. How is that possible?

quote:

---

Even his stats in the playoffs are worse than in the regular season

---

This may be a whole different argument, but what about a guy like Tracy McGrady? The dude never made it out of the first round (unless you count this year, which I really don't because he hasn't done anything), yet his playoff stats have been better than his regular season stats in just about every single year. Is he an underachiever too?

That's why I think ring count and team performance in the postseason can be a misleading stat sometimes. It's definitely important, but some great players have just had unfortunate luck in the postseason

All I know is that Tim Duncan has been the star player, and leader, on a team that has been in the playoffs every year since I was 9, brought home 4 championships, and I think is in the top 3 of all time winning percentage (with the top 2 being Tony and Manu). As a fan of his, and the Spurs, I don't really care about anything else. I don't care if anyone else thinks another player is better, and I know that all the accomplishments listed above would have been damn near impossible without Tim.

So basically I'm saying I wouldn't trade this stretch of Tim's time with Spurs for Hakeem's and the Rockets and don't really care who was the better player.

Oh and this thread is stupid.

IMO, the other thing going in Olajuwon's favor is that the quality of big men was much better during his career.

To me it boils down to who do I think the league GMs would rather build a team around. I would GUESS that a clear majority would pick Hakeem. The one thing Duncan has over him is that it took Olajuwon a few years to 'grow up'. Duncan was a more mature kid coming out of school, so he didn't have any of the 'trade me' or behavior issues that H.O. had for the first few years.

quote:

---

so he didn't have any of the 'trade me' or behavior issues that H.O. had for the first few years.

---

actually, it would have been A.O. for the first few years.

I'm not going to get into any of the "who's better than who" arguments, because honestly you wouldn't be making a wrong choice with any of these guys. They're all hall of famers and among the top 20 players of all time.

What I will say is that IMO Hakeem and Duncan are the two most complete post players ever. There just wasn't anything either of these guys didn't do well. The amount of different moves that both of these guys could use to consistently score is really unmatched by any other post player. They could shoot jumpers out to the midrange, score with both hands going over either shoulder, they both had really good turn around jumpers. Hakeem used ball fakes better than any other big I've ever watched and Duncan's jumper off the glass is something you just don't see other players doing. They also handle the ball very well for big men and, especially Hakeem, good passers. They're both elite defenders and extremely smart players. You can make arguments for other guys being better players or whatever, but no one was as versatile as these two.

Maybe his horrendous injuries disqualify him, but Bill Walton should probably be in the conversation for most versatile big men. Rightfully never really gets into discussions for great players because he was never able to put together a stretch of full seasons, but at various points in his career he averaged 19 points, 14 rebounds, 3.6 blocks, and 5 assists.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 5/30/2013 2:31p).]

quote:

---

What I will say is that IMO Hakeem and Duncan are the two most complete post players ever. There just wasn't anything either of these guys didn't do well. The amount of different moves that both of these guys could use to consistently score is really unmatched by any other post player. They could shoot jumpers out to the midrange, score with both hands going over either shoulder, they both had really good turn around jumpers. Hakeem used ball fakes better than any other big I've ever watched and Duncan's jumper off the glass is something you just don't see other players doing. They also handle the ball very well for big men and, especially Hakeem, good passers. They're both elite defenders and extremely smart players. You can make arguments for other guys being better players or whatever, but no one was as versatile as these two.

---