quote:

---

NBA history books show that Malik was a 6th man candidate in 2003. He got more votes than Ginobili has received in recent seasons.

---

Malik was a spare, which is why his career died after Pop stopped coddling him.

I'm sure Ginobili's lack of votes had nothing to do with him missing half a season last year and being a starter two years ago. I'm sure you just somehow overlooked that.

quote:

---

Anyone who can't see that he had an important role as the Spurs 6th Man in 2003 is an idiot.

---

Anyone that lets Duncan rest for 4 minutes a game has some importance. But the fact remains that he never shot outside the paint and he shot less than 42% while putting up 9/5. 9/5 is not a significant contribution. If there was WAR in basketball, his wouldn't be high. His PER was 13.3. in the playoffs. About the same as Corey Brewer or Peja. Great performance out of such a crucial part of the Spurs team?

Why can you not admit that Dirk got better performance out of his role players than Duncan did? The stats are more than obvious.

Chandler 11 > Robinson 03 (Chandler 10/9, Robinson 7/6)
Terry 11 > SJax 03 (Terry 18/3; SJax 13/4
Kidd 11 > Parker 03 (Parker with 14.7/3.5; Kidd with 8/8 plus great three shooting)
Marion 11 > Bowen 03 (Marion 13/6; Bowen 7/3)
JJ Barea 11 = Rose 03 (9/3; 9/5)
Peja 11 = Ginobili 03 (Maybe slight adv for Ginobili 9 vs 7 points off the bench, but Ginobili only shot .386)
Stevenson 11 = Speedy 03 About the same for bottom rotation player

Arguments over those comparisons?

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/1/2013 1:51p).]

quote:

---

I don't know where all the Dirk/Mavs stuff comes from.

---

Someone had a throwaway line about how Duncan, Hakeem and Dirk all won titles as the only superstar, with Dirk having the most impressive win. Guitarsoup couldn't help himself as usual and ran with it, to the point of posting his argument twice hoping someone would take the bait

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/1/2013 1:54p).]

quote:

---

Why can you not admit that Dirk got better performance out of his role players than Duncan did? The stats are more than obvious.

---

I never said Dirk's teammates weren't better. I said it was a great debate after you said it was completely undebatable. Dirk's team had tougher competition in the Western Conference and definitely in the Finals.

The teams had a similar build which is worth looking at:

Superstar PF
All-Defense caliber but 1 dimensional starter
6th Man award caliber bench player
Hall of Famer on last legs but still effective
Crazy Guy
etc

quote:

---

Chandler 11 > Robinson 03 (Chandler 10/9, Robinson 7/6)
Terry 11 > SJax 03 (Terry 18/3; SJax 13/4
Kidd 11 > Parker 03 (Parker with 14.7/3.5; Kidd with 8/8 plus great three shooting)
Marion 11 > Bowen 03 (Marion 13/6; Bowen 7/3)
JJ Barea 11 = Rose 03 (9/3; 9/5)
Peja 11 = Ginobili 03 (Maybe slight adv for Ginobili 9 vs 7 points off the bench, but Ginobili only shot .386)
Stevenson 11 = Speedy 03 About the same for bottom rotation player

Arguments over those comparisons?

---

Malik > Haywood
Barea = Ginobili
Peja = Kerr (can't deny Kerr's huge contribution which is the 2nd thing people usually bring up about 03 after mentioning Duncan's dominance - well maybe the 3rd thing now that we know the Nets had a gay center. Peja was ineffective due to injury after he Kerr'd the Lakers)

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/1/2013 2:15p).]

11 Heat > > > > 03 Nets
11 Lakers > 03 Lakers
11 Thunder > 03 Dirkless Mavs

11 Lebron+Wade+Bosh > 03 Shaq+Kobe
11 Kobe+Gasol+Bynum > 03 Dirk+Nash+Finley
11 Durant+Westbrook+Harden > 03 Kidd+Jefferson+Kenyon

Dirk outplaying 6 of the top 10 All-NBA team > Duncan outplaying 3 of the top 10 All-NBA team

no

pretty much. lol mavs lol rockets

quote:

---

11 Lakers > 03 Lakers

---

Uhhhh....

The '03 Lakers were a Robert Horry three away from beating the Spurs. They were much better than they are being given credit for...

And the difference between '03 Shaq and Kobe vs the '11 Bron/Wade/Bosh is only three (consecutive) championship. Seems completely logical to make that conclusion...

Hakeem has higher career averages than Duncan in points, blocks, steals, FG%, and tied in rebounds.

Duncan's career high in points is 25.5. Hakeem had 4 seasons higher than that.

Duncan's career high in rebounds is 12.9. Hakeem had 4 seasons higher than that.

Duncan's career high in blocks is 2.9. Hakeem had 9 seasons higher than that (Hakeem's career average is higher than Duncan's career best). Hakeem's career high of 4.6 is almost double Duncan's.

Duncan has never averaged more than 0.9 steals/game. Hakeem had 1 season at 0.9 in his entire career, when he was getting 23.8 minutes/game. He is still the all time steals leader among big men.

Hakeem averaged over 20 points/game until he was 35 (13 seasons). Duncan dropped below 20 points/game when he was 29 (05-06), had exactly 20 the next season, and hasn't hit it since. 9 seasons total.


No one will question that Duncan is a great player. Quite possibly the best PF ever. However, Horry is right. Duncan has been a part of better teams, but Hakeem was a better individual player and did it in an era with much better big men. I highly doubt anyone that isn't a Spurs fan would even contend this.

quote:

---

The '03 Lakers were a Robert Horry three away from beating the Spurs.

---

Seriously? Then the 11 Lakers were a Kobe three away from beating the Mavs. The 11 Lakers were favored to win the title headed into the playoffs. The 03 Lakers were barely in the playoffs.

And none of those dispute the fact that Hakeem has better career averages and career highs. Duncan has been better over the age of 35, but that's it.

Yes seriously...Horry hits that shot at the end of Game 5 and the Lakers no doubt have command of that series. Perhaps you don't remember that do you? That would have been a lesser version of .04. Do seriously believe anyone else would have beaten that Lakers team that year had they won that series?

I also remember plenty of analysts talking how the Lakers of '11 having to turn it "on". They weren't a regular season juggernaut you are making them out to be...and they were unceremoniously swept out of the playoffs without a pulse. The '03 Lakers were legit title contenders. Besides, how many times have any NBA teams won four titles in a row?

Quit acting like that '03 Lakers team was a bunch scrubs while pretending the '11 Lakers were a version of the '96 Chicago Bulls.

The Mavs had a great title run no doubt. But the Spurs have had a great run titles and they are about to go after another...

quote:

---

Seriously? Then the 11 Lakers were a Kobe three away from beating the Mavs. The 11 Lakers were favored to win the title headed into the playoffs. The 03 Lakers were barely in the playoffs.

---

lol...50 win teams don't "barely" make the playoffs. The Lakers were never in contention for the series against Dallas in '11. They were clearly the inferior team. I never believed they would it that season. And I will admit, as a Spurs fan, rooting for Dirk to win it after our debacle in the first round.

Please tell me again how any shot Kobe hits in that '11 series would have put Dallas on the brink of elimination...

quote:

---

Yes seriously...Horry hits that shot at the end of Game 5 and the Lakers no doubt have command of that series. Perhaps you don't remember that do you? That would have been a lesser version of .04.

---

I do. I also remember the Lakers surviving a dogfight to escape Minnesota in round 1. I remember Stern changing round 1 to 7 games and we all assumed it was with the obvious goal of allowing the Lakers+refs to have a chance in the 1st round. The Lakers were 3 games out of the 8 seed.

quote:

---

Please tell me again how any shot Kobe hits in that '11 series would have put Dallas on the brink of elimination...

---

You may be familiar with Phil Jackson's record when his team wins game 1? And you don't show any confidence that your Spurs could comeback from 3-2? The series was over if Horry hits that shot? I'm just using your logic here. Phil's teams winning game 1 are better odds than coming back from 3-2.

quote:

---

lol...50 win teams don't "barely" make the playoffs. The Lakers were never in contention for the series against Dallas in '11. They were clearly the inferior team. I never believed they would it that season. And I will admit, as a Spurs fan, rooting for Dirk to win it after our debacle in the first round.

---

clearly inferior huh. Show me some quotes before the series where anyone said the Lakers were clearly inferior to the Mavs. It was only 2 years ago so shouldn't be hard.

[This message has been edited by Internetfan02 (edited 6/1/2013 6:41p).]

[This message has been edited by Internetfan02 (edited 6/1/2013 6:43p).]

So you don't believe the Lakers winning a pivotal game 5, on the road none the less, in dramatic fashion with Game 6 in LA wouldn't have been in complete control of the series at that point? Of course I think the Spurs could have still win the series, but lets face facts. Teams that win game 5 when it's 2-2 are most likely going to win the series...

It is just ironic considering we saw the exact same scenario play out a year later, just the opposite result.

And yes, teams that drop the first two games at home in a series are inferior. You can post all day about why people were "talking" about, fact of the matter is that Lakers team was bunk and you know it. They were barely competitive in that series. At least the '03 Lakers had a realistic shot at winning the series in which thy were eliminated.

This thread is out of control

quote:

---

So you don't believe the Lakers winning a pivotal game 5, on the road none the less, in dramatic fashion with Game 6 in LA wouldn't have been in complete control of the series at that point? Of course I think the Spurs could have still win the series, but lets face facts. Teams that win game 5 when it's 2-2 are most likely going to win the series...

---

Thank you for back tracking on your dumb claim that the Lakers were 1 shot away from winning the series. If Kobe hits the shot to win game 1 then the lakers would have been in complete control given the knowledge of Phil's record when winning game 1s and the Lakers general mental domination of the Mavs for years.

quote:

---

And yes, teams that drop the first two games at home in a series are inferior. You can post all day about why people were "talking" about, fact of the matter is that Lakers team was bunk and you know it. They were barely competitive in that series. At least the '03 Lakers had a realistic shot at winning the series in which thy were eliminated.

---

the first 3 games were all competitive and could have gone either way in the 4th quarter. The Mavs earned the sweep over a heavily favored team that was also favored to win the title.

[This message has been edited by Internetfan02 (edited 6/1/2013 7:38p).]

You can continue to tell yourself whatever makes you feel better. You are the only one making dumb claims by comparing teams separated by nearly a decade.

I remember Horry had a horrible series shooting the ball in '03. The Admiral grabbed that rebound and you could hear the sigh of relief in that arena. You can not say that the series would have been effectively over at that point. Your entire argument is stupid since we can look back at 2004 and see the exact result you are claiming to be a "dumb" claim.

I have seen plenty of teams win game 1 and lose the series, the Spur more than once...I have seen teams lose game 1 and win the series. It isn't unheard of...

I am not denying the Mavs run in 2011 wasn't great. I loved seeing them oust the Lakers. But you are trying to compare a single championship to one championship in a string of many...it makes you look foolish blindly saying team x was better than team y when there is absolutely no way to objectively prove the comparison.

And this is coming from someone who thinks the Rockets could have beaten the Bulls...

DC,

Hakeem is higher than Duncan for the regular season in literally every category you listed, plus several others. And his playoff averages are all higher than Duncan's.

quote:

---

I remember Horry had a horrible series shooting the ball in '03. The Admiral grabbed that rebound and you could hear the sigh of relief in that arena. You can not say that the series would have been effectively over at that point. Your entire argument is stupid since we can look back at 2004 and see the exact result you are claiming to be a "dumb" claim.

---

You're arguing with yourself here. You already back tracked and admitted that the series was only "effectively" over, saying that you could still see the Spurs winning even if Horry makes it. Fortunately for you the Spurs were able to avoid losing to a clearly inferior Lakers team. It's easy to look back now and forget that the Lakers were not the exact same heavily favored team every year. In 2003 the Spurs were justifiably favored to win, as the Lakers had a season of turmoil compared to other years.

quote:

---

I have seen plenty of teams win game 1 and lose the series, the Spur more than once...I have seen teams lose game 1 and win the series. It isn't unheard of...

---

You've never seen a Phil Jackson team win game 1 at home and lose a series... Everyone was aware of the consequences and mental effect of that stat.

quote:

---

I am not denying the Mavs run in 2011 wasn't great. I loved seeing them oust the Lakers. But you are trying to compare a single championship to one championship in a string of many..

---

the only comparison being argued is the 3 teams in NBA history that won titles with only 1 all-star. So 03 vs 94 vs 11.

quote:

---

.it makes you look foolish blindly saying team x was better than team y when there is absolutely no way to objectively prove the comparison.

---

welcome to Texags? Welcome to sports? This is what we do

Kobe was playing injured when the Mavs won.

And Kobe was playing injured when the Spurs won. Why the focus on 2011?

As a fan of course I could still the Spurs winning that series if that shot went down. But that is an awfully hard feat to accomplish. How many Phil Jackson teams have won Game 5 to take a 3-2 lead and lost the series?

No one thought a number 8 seed could beat a number 1 in seven game series either...looks like both our teams proves that wrong. Thanks for being first...

Kobe and Westbrook both injured.

Diet Cokehead,

I'm discrediting all those career stats because you're combining regular season and playoff stats. As the NBA doesn't recognize playoff stats as official stats, your list is complete BS. Olajuwon leads Duncan in every freaking category in not only career totals, but career averages.

Duncan no doubt has had the better career because of the championships, but Hakeem is the better player. You ask any coach in the NBA if they had their choice of either Duncan or Hakeem in their prime, the majority would pick Hakeem.

Asking if you would rather have Hakeem and Duncan is like choosing between one million dollars or a million and one dollar...you can't go wrong with that pick.

Maybe someone would be bold and pick Greg Oden...but it would be hard to get that choice wrong.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1998/weekly/980316/5bestmoves1.html

Ryan nailed it. Hakeem is so much better than Duncan. This thread is stupid. Timmy is the greatest power forward ever.

quote:

---

Peja = Kerr (can't deny Kerr's huge contribution which is the 2nd thing people usually bring up about 03 after mentioning Duncan's dominance - well maybe the 3rd thing now that we know the Nets had a gay center. Peja was ineffective due to injury after he Kerr'd the Lakers)

---

Kerr hit 5 threes in the playoffs. Peja hit more than Dirk in the playoffs - 29.

Kerr had a good impact on one game, but played 46 total minutes in 24 games. So a little less than two minutes per game.

Peja had a lot more impact than Kerr on the playoff run. 21 points on 7-7 shooting I am sure rings a bell.

quote:

---

The '03 Lakers were a Robert Horry three away from beating the Spurs. They were much better than they are being given credit for...

And the difference between '03 Shaq and Kobe vs the '11 Bron/Wade/Bosh is only three (consecutive) championship. Seems completely logical to make that conclusion...

---

Indeed. The 03 Lakers were the only Lakers team in a 5 year stretch to not make the Finals because the Spurs beat them.

quote:

---

Duncan's career high in blocks is 2.9. Hakeem had 9 seasons higher than that (Hakeem's career average is higher than Duncan's career best). Hakeem's career high of 4.6 is almost double Duncan's.

---

The rules have also changed a lot which has had an effect of limiting the blocks in the league. In the past five years, the leader in blocks per game has only had more than 3.1 once. No one has averaged four per season in over 15 years.

quote:

---

And none of those dispute the fact that Hakeem has better career averages and career highs. Duncan has been better over the age of 35, but that's it.

---

Duncan has been consistently better. He never had the maturity problems that Hakeem had. Hakeem had a higher peak, but he didn't sustain his amazing play in the 95 playoffs that everyone associates with him for his whole career.