Best Big Men to Ever Play the Game

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're ignoring minutes again. Garnett is playing ~5 minutes more per game in that stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is KG's durability being used as an argument against him rather than for him? I'd think only missing 15 regular season games over the past 8 seasons while averaging 39.4 mpg would be considered a good argument in KG's favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously not able to understand this?

If someone scores 20 points in 30 minutes thats better than someone scoring 21 points in 35 minutes because we assume that the backup will score more than 1 point in 5 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you're saying a guy like Craig Smith who averages 7/5 over 18 mpg should really be thought of as a 16/11 guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, come on. Its clear I'm not saying that at all. Do you or do you not agree that 20 points in 30 minutes is better than 22 points in 35 minutes?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to use your per 40 minute stats, for a 20 ppg player at 30 minutes to equal a 22 ppg player at 35 minutes you would need to have a bench player that averages 16 pts/40 which is definitely not standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing and just answer my question. I really don't think you disagree with me and you're just arguing to do it. I'll repeat:

Do you or do you not agree that 20 points in 30 minutes is better than 22 points in 35 minutes?

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
Hakeem's stats through his first 13 seasons aka before his last 5 which was a big decline

24.2 ppg 12.0 rpg 2.7 apg 3.4 bpg

Seeing how big timmy is already dropping off from his peak, do you really think his stats come close to comparing after 3 more seasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

He hasn't dropped off at all! After an injury plagued season he came back, played 80 games, and put up a 26 PER. This is exactly what I was saying.

I agree Hakeem's better, though.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
KG has had to carry the offensive load for his team, whereas Duncan has had a better supporting cast and coach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of points: wouldn't that suggest more touches and more shots -> more scoring? Because they take the same amount of shots per 40. And Duncan rates better on a per 40 basis. They're pretty much offensive equals.

2. Wally was a scorer. Spree and Cassell both dropped >13 a game. Ricky Davis dropped 17 a game this year, Blount 12. It's well known that KG's cast has sucked, but he's had a few guys who could score buckets with him.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're ignoring minutes again. Garnett is playing ~5 minutes more per game in that stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is KG's durability being used as an argument against him rather than for him? I'd think only missing 15 regular season games over the past 8 seasons while averaging 39.4 mpg would be considered a good argument in KG's favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously not able to understand this?

If someone scores 20 points in 30 minutes thats better than someone scoring 21 points in 35 minutes because we assume that the backup will score more than 1 point in 5 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you're saying a guy like Craig Smith who averages 7/5 over 18 mpg should really be thought of as a 16/11 guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, come on. Its clear I'm not saying that at all. Do you or do you not agree that 20 points in 30 minutes is better than 22 points in 35 minutes?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to use your per 40 minute stats, for a 20 ppg player at 30 minutes to equal a 22 ppg player at 35 minutes you would need to have a bench player that averages 16 pts/40 which is definitely not standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing and just answer my question. I really don't think you disagree with me and you're just arguing to do it. I'll repeat:

Do you or do you not agree that 20 points in 30 minutes is better than 22 points in 35 minutes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was pretty obvious from my previous post that I do not. If one guy averages 20 ppg over a long period of time and another averages 22, and other stats such as rebounds, assists, steals, turnovers are all in his favor, trying to tell me that the other guy is better because he's played on average 4 mpg less over the past three seasons when up til then they had been virtually even is ridiculous.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hakeem's stats through his first 13 seasons aka before his last 5 which was a big decline

24.2 ppg 12.0 rpg 2.7 apg 3.4 bpg

Seeing how big timmy is already dropping off from his peak, do you really think his stats come close to comparing after 3 more seasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

He hasn't dropped off at all! After an injury plagued season he came back, played 80 games, and put up a 26 PER. This is exactly what I was saying.

I agree Hakeem's better, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant his raw stats numbers have dropped off. When you do per 40 stats you're giving a guy credit for numbers he didnt put up, and thats ridiculous to do so.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to use your per 40 minute stats, for a 20 ppg player at 30 minutes to equal a 22 ppg player at 35 minutes you would need to have a bench player that averages 16 pts/40 which is definitely not standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meb,

Of course, but we're comparing a 35 mpg guy with a 40 mpg guy. Garnett's durability is impressive and quite an asset, but you also can't fault Duncan because the wise play from SA's perspective is to play him 35. For his career, he's averaged 40 mpg in the playoffs putting up 24.1/12.7 (2003 being particularly impressive, at 42.5 MPG and averaging 24/15).

[kidcolin]

Meb,

Fair enough. I think some of that is a concentrated effort on SA's part, and it's a smart one. His playoff numbers this season are consistent with his past 2 years and his raw numbers are on par.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If each team averaged 6 more points per game, then 12 more points per game were scored.

Yes, I could find two seasons where it is over 20. Here you go: In 1998-99, 183.2 points were scored per game. In 1989-90, 214 points per game were scored. Thats a difference of 30.8.....way more than 20!

Ok, so based upon your last line, we're basically in agreement then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, that's ridiculous. How can the points the other team scores inflate David Robinson's stats? That's just so laughable. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was simply referencing points scored per game to show that the league was differnet back then...thats all. Maybe it doesn't average out to exactly 20..I didn't average every year out. But some years were definitely way over 20.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Duncan averages 21.8, 11.9, and 3.2. Hakeem averages 21.8, 11.1, and 2.5. And thats not even factoring in pace and era.

Hakeem's career PER is 23.6, Duncan's is 25.2.

[/ QUOTE ]

these numbers include Hakeem's last 6 years, where he was no where near as productive as the first 12. FWIW Hakeem's averages through his first 10 seasons are 23.5/12.5/3.6. If Duncan plays 8 more years (which he probably won't, no offense to him, an 18 year career is unreal) his overall numbers will dip well below Hakeem's.

[ QUOTE ]
More titles despite having at best a similar cast over the coures of his career, better stats despite playing on a slower paced team and in a lower scoring era, more awards and honors, better PER....how can you say "i'm not sure how anyone can argue on Duncan's side"?

[/ QUOTE ]

comparing number of titles is a poor way to compare players, and especially here. Hakeem had to compete against the best player and the best team in NBA history, as well as another historically great team (Jazz), while Duncan has not. Stats are slightly in favor of Duncan because he's still in his peak. Comparing peak seasons or first 10 years and it's clear Hakeem's stats are better.

I'll say it again, Hakeem was better offensively and defensively, and it's not really that argueable.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL at the Jazz being "another great team." Kobe/Shaq's Lakers were way better than those Jazz- the two main stars are better and the supporting cast.

And since Hakeem NEVER FACED MJ'S BULLS IN THE PLAYOFFS, you can't use that as an excuse for them not winning more.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at your LOL. you consistantly have a hard on for players you've seen play, and underrate earlier players. Kobe on those early Lakers teams being better than Stockton is the most rediculous thing you've posted yet in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kobe during the Lakers(and Spurs) championship seasons was better player than STockton ever was. Go start a new thread asking people who was better, those Jazz teams or those Lakers teams. You can't honestly believe that the Jazz were better, can you?

So since Hakeem never played MJ's Bulls and since the Lakers were better than the Jazz, then the statement that Hakeem didn't win as much as Duncan just because there were better teams in the league then is flat out wrong.

[rubbrband]

[ QUOTE ]

Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
KG


[/ QUOTE ]

Wilt???? Kareem???