Best Big Men to Ever Play the Game

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, even if I say Wallace is better, the overall top to bottom competition in Hakeem's era is still better, as blindside expanded upon so well.

[/ QUOTE ]

MEbenhoe,

I love to debate. I'm wrong sometimes. I could be wrong here. But its frustrating right now for me to debate with you because you're 100% out to prove yourself right and you couldn't care less about actually finding truth or coming to some compromises imo. The Eaton/Wallace example is the biggest proof of that possible.

I provided some matchups, and about one minute later you responded telling me who you thought was better and you greatly favored the side the helps your argument. Instead of doing that, why don't you actually sit down and look up all of their stats and achievements, then come to a conclusion.

As you can tell, I argue my points with a lot of passion and determination. But I believe that I've earned the right to do this by being more than willing to change my viewpoints at times and always willing to consider the other side. You're not doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me which matchup you think i got wrong other than the eaton/wallace one?

[Mano]

[ QUOTE ]

Regarding Duncan vs Hakeem, I think that several of you aren't looking at the stats fairly. Even ignoring the tail end of Hakeem's career, Hakeem's stats are just slightly better than Duncans. Now factor in the facts that:

-Hakeem played in a higher scoring era
-Hakeem's teams played at a faster pace
-Hakeem played more minutes

And I think that Duncan's stats are more impressive.

I will admit that Hakeem's first title had a worse supporting cast than any of Duncan's(although the 2002-03 team is very close, as Ginobli was just a bench player then and Parker was good but not close to an all star yet). I think that Hakeem's 2nd cast was better than Duncan's 02-03 cast.

I rank Duncan as either the 2nd or 3rd best player of my lifetime. I rank Hakeem as the 6th or 7th best(KG is right there too)...so its really not a huge gap at all, and the differences are tiny.

One thing I hate about heated debates like this are how each side argues as if it isn't even close(because if they didn't then it'd make their argument look weaker)...fact is, these players are very closely ranked and without watching every single game they ever played, it really is somewhat of a tossup. Hell, I'd bet that you could find different NBA scouts that would agree with both sides here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assani,
First of all I am glad to see you admit Hakeem's supporting cast was weaker than any of Duncan's - I think you would look silly trying to claim otherwise. I still think you underrate Spurs supporting cast, but kudos on conceding the first point.

Second: I think you are correct that it's close between Hakeem and Duncan, but here is where my confusion lies - in an earlier post you stated that you thought Duncan was on a tier above HOFers Bird and Magic (tier above implies not that close). I (and most people) would most likely rate Bird and Magic >> Hakeem, so it appears to me that you rate Duncan quite a bit higher than Hakeem.

Third: You say I have an 80's bias, and perhaps I do, but I believe you underrate the 80's. I think the bad boys Piston's teams of the late 80's are most likely better than the Kobe/Shaq Lakers teams, and at least at the same level, but you fail to include them in your "great teams". You even say the last Pistons championship team is > than the bad boys, which just sounds insane to me.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]


In Duncan's 2nd title, I don't believe he had a single player in the top 50 in the league on his team.

[/ QUOTE ]

that team had aging david robinson who was still good for something around 8/8 in 25 mpg, stephen jackson, ginobili, parker, bowen, and a bunch of solid bench contributors like malik rose, steve smith, steve kerr, and speedy claxton. So while you may be right about not having another top 50 player that season, that team was still way loaded.

[Assani Fisher]

Mano,

I've never been afraid to give Hakeem props or to concede certain points. I'm not here to bash Hakeem, and I try to argue objectively.

My first tier is MJ, Shaq, and Duncan. My second tier is 4.Bird, 5.Magic, 6.Hakeem, 7.KG. I don't think its really "quite a bit higher" at all. I think its very close among all 7 of the players I listed there.

I really have no reason to underrate the 80s. I think MJ is the best of all time. As you can tell by my list, I think that several 80s stars are great. I definitely think that you think those Pistons are better than they really were, and I would take Shaq/Kobe's Lakers over them in a second. I think the 2004 Pistons were very close to them, and I'm really not sure who I'd favor.

[joel2006]

[ QUOTE ]


When this is your argument, you lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is an explanation forthcoming or is this some kind of Biblical proclamation that settles everything and we can all just pack up and go home?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Eaton/Ben Wallace - eaton


[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously feel like I'm the victim of a practical joke right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total agreement with you here. Your earlier stats comparison included some funky years from both. Just look at their primes, seven years, playing full minutes: Eaton - 84-91, Wallace 00-07. Basically, Eaton just has a one block per game edge over Wallace, and that's it.

Eaton:
7.0 PPG
46% FGP
9.0 RPG
1.0 APG
0.5 SPG
3.9 BPG

Wallace:
7.7 PPG
47% FGP
12.6 RPG
1.8 APG
1.6 SPG
2.7 BPG

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In Duncan's 2nd title, I don't believe he had a single player in the top 50 in the league on his team.

[/ QUOTE ]

that team had aging david robinson who was still good for something around 8/8 in 25 mpg, stephen jackson, ginobili, parker, bowen, and a bunch of solid bench contributors like malik rose, steve smith, steve kerr, and speedy claxton. So while you may be right about not having another top 50 player that season, that team was still way loaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

We must have a different definition of "loaded." If we were to take every championship team ever and take away teh best player and then compare the teams, this one would be bottom 5 definitely.

First off....a 34 year old Steve Smith, a 38 year old STeve Kerr, and Speedy Claxton shouldn't even be mentioned.

Secondly, its unfair for you to list Ginobli because most people think of him as the player he is today, but he only averaged 7 points per game that year on 43.8% shooting.

As you said, DR was giving them 8/8 in 25 minutes...thats good, but its not anything special.

Parker and Stephen Jackson were ok players.

Take away Duncan and thats one of the worst teams in the league though.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


When this is your argument, you lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is an explanation forthcoming or is this some kind of Biblical proclamation that settles everything and we can all just pack up and go home?

[/ QUOTE ]

apparently you don't know THAY3R that well.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In Duncan's 2nd title, I don't believe he had a single player in the top 50 in the league on his team.

[/ QUOTE ]

that team had aging david robinson who was still good for something around 8/8 in 25 mpg, stephen jackson, ginobili, parker, bowen, and a bunch of solid bench contributors like malik rose, steve smith, steve kerr, and speedy claxton. So while you may be right about not having another top 50 player that season, that team was still way loaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

We must have a different definition of "loaded." If we were to take every championship team ever and take away teh best player and then compare the teams, this one would be bottom 5 definitely.

First off....a 34 year old Steve Smith, a 38 year old STeve Kerr, and Speedy Claxton shouldn't even be mentioned.

Secondly, its unfair for you to list Ginobli because most people think of him as the player he is today, but he only averaged 7 points per game that year on 43.8% shooting.

As you said, DR was giving them 8/8 in 25 minutes...thats good, but its not anything special.

Parker and Stephen Jackson were ok players.

Take away Duncan and thats one of the worst teams in the league though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, but teams like this with a good mix of experienced vets contributing solid minutes and young up and coming players, mixed in with one or two superstar players perform very well in the NBA.

[rubbrband]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, its unfair for you to list Ginobli because most people think of him as the player he is today, but he only averaged 7 points per game that year on 43.8% shooting.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL at sighting Ginobli's regular season stats for a playoff run. Do you remember the playoffs that year? Ginobli came out of nowhere during the playoffs and was insanely good.