Similarly OT: Tim Duncan is not a PF

[G35]

Do you understand the difference between a player working his way into the zone with the ball and a real low post player who receives the ball there? Duncan is the latter who also has a nice mid-range game. Barkley could not survive in the low post (other than getting offensive rebounds) without being the ballhandler from the beginning.

If that's what you think. But if you can somehow explain how Duncan "a real post player" can't even come close to the shooting percentages of Barkley who "is not a real post player."

Career FG%

Barkley 54%
Duncan 50%

Career TS%

Barkley 61%
Duncan 55%

Career eFG%

Barkley 55%
Duncan 50%

Single season best

Barkley 60% FG, 66% TS%, 60% eFG

Duncan 54% FG, 57% TS%, 54% eFG

Your analysis of how Barkley plays doesn't match up with the numbers. Barkley scored primarily close to the basket. Barkley had more team success with the Suns but he played at a higher level with the Sixers. It's not even close. Duncan shoots more midrange jumpers than Barkley ever did....

[Masigond]

Where did I say that Duncan doesn't rely on his game outside the zome just as much as on his game down low? That is essential nowaday as bigs don't get enough ball possessions if playing strictly in the low post (see Dwight Howard who barely manages to score more than 20 points per game - the whole team strategy is to have him be doubled and use the space created by the Magic's shooters).

Anyway, don't compare stats achieved in different eras. Barkley never had to deal with zone defenses (these hurt classical low post players the most as it got more complicated to get ball possessions against double and triple teams, see above) and could score in way more isolation situations. Real big guys like Duncan for one thing don't have the same drive to the basket anyway, and for the other thing, even if they had it, it would have been more difficult during the bulk of Duncan's prime between 2001 (zone defenses are allowed) and 2005 (when handchecking rules were changed) to play like Barkley did in his prime.

Players like Drexler and Jordan did a lot of damage in the low post, too, even with less posting up than Barkley, and reached comparable shooting percentages (also true shooting % and eFG%) as Duncan. See the pattern of different eras: The 80s and early 90s were the time of centers not having to deal with zone defenses and slashers who could drive to the basket at will. Barkley did a lot of the latter, and I think I've seen enough games to have the right impression of his game.

[G35]

Blah blah blah. Excuse excuse more excuses. Irrelevant tangent.

You may think you have seen enough games. But I know I have and Barkley did the majority of his work in the post after receiving the ball. You have already made the excuse about clarifying between when Barkley played with the Sixers and Suns. Which says alot. No one needs to be told how Jordan played when he was with the Bulls compared to when he played with the Wizards......

[Masigond]

Getting aggressive?

I made a difference between Barkley's time with the Sixers with Erving and Malone still on the team (for sure he did not have so much chances to be an all-court first option on these teams, duh...) and the years after that. Don't tell me he did play the same in the early 90s just like he did in the 80s.

[G35]

Getting aggressive?

I made a difference between Barkley's time with the Sixers with Erving and Malone still on the team (for sure he did not have so much chances to be an all-court first option on these teams, duh...) and the years after that. Don't tell me he did play the same in the early 90s just like he did in the 80s.

No, that would be gay.

Barkley didn't play the same way as he did in the 80's as he did in the 90's. It's like how Kobe drives less now than he did when he was younger. That's because of diminished athletic ability. But Barkley's primary move throughout his career was posting up....

[Masigond]

Yeah, diminished athleticism at the age of 28. Riiight.

Either way, there's no need to argue anymore and annoy other users who'd think that it's a thread about Duncan. I don't see Barkley as a typical power forward because he also did too much of other aspects of the game, and you don't see him as a power forward (despite scoring a lot down low), either. If that's the only thing we agree about, so be it.

[G35]

Yeah, diminished athleticism at the age of 28. Riiight.

Either way, there's no need to argue anymore and annoy other users who'd think that it's a thread about Duncan. I don't see Barkley as a typical power forward because he also did too much of other aspects of the game, and you don't see him as a power forward (despite scoring a lot down low), either. If that's the only thing we agree about, so be it.

I gave you an example for why players games change. Barkley started shooting more three's as soon as he joined the Suns. The Suns played more uptempo in the WC. It's obvious if you followed Barkley how his game changed for the worse playing for the Suns. Barkley settled for outside shots and yes his athleticism started to diminish.

I know this may be news to you, but there are other ways to lose your athleticism besides age. Like drugs, drinking, staying out to early morning instead of preparing yourself physically. Barkley was not the physical beast he was in Phx that he was in Philly. He did things in Philly he stopped doing in Phx.

I do think his best position was PF because he didn't have the ability to run with SF's and he was too short for C.

Look at this youtube mix and you can see the difference in athletic moves from when he was in Philly, then Phx, and then Houston. Duncan is more of a prototypical PF than Barkley but Barkley played there because he didn't fit anywhere else....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v9XE7BijJA[/youtube]

[Sedale Threatt]

Doesn't the fact that Duncan was a true defensive anchor -- one of the most important job descriptions of a center -- while Barkley couldn't guard a chair factor somewhere into the debate?

[G35]

Doesn't the fact that Duncan was a true defensive anchor -- one of the most important job descriptions of a center -- while Barkley couldn't guard a chair factor somewhere into the debate?

Yeah it does. I was also going to mention another anomaly is Ben Wallace. 4 time DPOY playing C but is only 6'7 and has one one of the most inept offensive games ever.

How much does your ability/skill level on offense/defense determine your position....

[Sedale Threatt]

Duncan's ability/role on defense is a massive reason why I chafe at considering him a PF. As if his offensive game wasn't centric enough, defense is where he really fit the part. How many PFs have ever anchored the paint like he has?

But Wallace -- both Ben and Rasheed on that Pistons team -- are more good examples of how difficult it is to pigeon-hole players. The 6-7 guy was dominating the glass and blocking shots, while the 6-11 guy was out shooting 3s and whatnot.

So again, I get that it's probably an exercise in futility to try to stick guys in a box.

But there just wasn't enough versatility to Duncan for me to think of him than anything than a pretty pure C. Yeah, he has a solid J and a very good face up game for a big man. But those are just appetizers to the main course, which is a dominant post-up game, and a major defensive presence.

The only reason it's even a debate is because of a fluke in San Antonio's roster. He ends up in Boston, and we're not even having this discussion.

But again, it's tough to stick guys into a single position in basketball. It's a great point, and it needs to be respected.

[G35]

Duncan's ability/role on defense is a massive reason why I chafe at considering him a PF. As if his offensive game wasn't centric enough, defense is where he really fit the part. How many PFs have ever anchored the paint like he has?

But Wallace -- both Ben and Rasheed on that Pistons team -- are more good examples of how difficult it is to pigeon-hole players. The 6-7 guy was dominating the glass and blocking shots, while the 6-11 guy was out shooting 3s and whatnot.

So again, I get that it's probably an exercise in futility to try to stick guys in a box.

But there just wasn't enough versatility to Duncan for me to think of him than anything than a pretty pure C. Yeah, he has a solid J and a very good face up game for a big man. But those are just appetizers to the main course, which is a dominant post-up game, and a major defensive presence.

The only reason it's even a debate is because of a fluke in San Antonio's roster. He ends up in Boston, and we're not even having this discussion.

But again, it's tough to stick guys into a single position in basketball. It's a great point, and it needs to be respected.

I agree with what you're saying except the ending in Boston and this isn't a discussion. Too many what if's.

Too many teams would love to have the twin tower combination. I think the Spurs were the first to actually make it work.....

[Sedale Threatt]

Exactly. How many teams have not only two good 7-footers, but two good 7-footers who mesh well?

Robinson and Duncan were perfectly matched, not only because Robinson was never a true post-up player, and had the game to compliment Duncan, but he had the selflessness to cede top billing to the rookie. Not every former MVP is going to willingly give up that kind of role.

Contrast that with the Lakers, where you have two excellent 7-footers whose games don't really blend at all. They're both most comfortable isolating in the low post, and they tend to take touches away from one another. It's just tough to make those tandems work.

[GJense4181]

I can't see any reason why Gasol and Bynum don't work, though. Gasol is a PF-C that came into the league as a SF!

[Sedale Threatt]

I can't see any reason why Gasol and Bynum don't work, though. Gasol is a PF-C that came into the league as a SF!

Gasol a SF? Those days are long gone, if they ever really existed in the first place.

It's not like they're terrible; far from it. It's a measure of how good both are that this team has won as many games as it has with so many deficiencies.

Just watching them on a nightly basis, there isn't any sort of interplay whatsoever, which is surprising considering how well Gasol passes. Both of them prefer to post up, neither is much of a hustle player, Gasol can shoot but you don't want a steady diet of it. There's not enough diversity there for the two to truly blend.

It just seems like one is standing around while the other one has the ball. And that's when they're not both standing around because Kobe's got it.

[G35]

I can't see any reason why Gasol and Bynum don't work, though. Gasol is a PF-C that came into the league as a SF!

Gasol a SF? Those days are long gone, if they ever really existed in the first place.

It's not like they're terrible; far from it. It's a measure of how good both are that this team has won as many games as it has with so many deficiencies.

Just watching them on a nightly basis, there isn't any sort of interplay whatsoever, which is surprising considering how well Gasol passes. Both of them prefer to post up, neither is much of a hustle player, Gasol can shoot but you don't want a steady diet of it. There's not enough diversity there for the two to truly blend.

It just seems like one is standing around while the other one has the ball. And that's when they're not both standing around because Kobe's got it.

Yeah i agree. Individually the Lakers have some really great parts but blending them all together has been difficult. I think when you have players dominating at their positions you need an all around talent that brings it all together.

Like the Celtics with Ray/KG/Pierce/Rondo. Not too much overlap and KG (with some Rondo was the glue)

With the Bulls Pippen was the best glue guy I have ever seen. In that he could lead the Bulls when MJ was on the bench but he could also do so many other things.

You know the more I look at Joakim Noah I think the Lakers might drop off in pure talent but an exchange for either Gasol or Bynum would benefit them. LA doesn't have any energy/hustle guy that makes those intangible plays. I know many people want to say that's Artest but I think he is slipping athletically. The Lakers would have been better keeping Ariza.

That's what I think is going to be the difference if the Cavs meet the Lakers is Varejao; he is going to kill them on hustle plays.....

[Sedale Threatt]

I would dump Bynum for Noah/Hinrich in a heartbeat. I'm not a big trade guy, but I've been pushing that one for months. We add some energy, get much better defensively, upgrade significantly at the 1 and get rid of any ambiguity in our pecking order.

Nothing against Andrew; for a 10th pick, he's been awesome. But I've kind of cooled on him this season. I think he's a marginal defender for what his abilities are, and after the third straight significant injury it's hard to be confident he's ever going to be fully healthy.

If we could get two starters for him -- I couldn't say 'yes' fast enough.

Don't agree with Artest, though. I liked Ariza, but we didn't have anybody to match up with big SFs like LeBron, Carmelo and Pierce. I think he's had a very solid season.

[tsherkin]

Olajuwon had more range and used his jumper more frequently than Duncan, and he was rather blatantly a center. I don't really think Duncan's ability to hit a jumper really characterizes him positionally. Ewing was the same way, more range, more prolific use of the J. They used the jumper to get more possessions and therefore increase the number of scoring chances they got. Between that and the difference in minutes played, it's one of the major reasons Duncan's never really looked like those guys offensively (which is in large part due to coaching design more than anything else).

But yeah, you'd never confuse Ewing or Olajuwon for PFs, and Duncan's an exceptionally similar type of player... primarily a low post guy who received the ball on the block but who could catch it at 10-12 feet and start his offense from there or get involved in a PnR.

It's semantic, I suppose, but Duncan's style of basketball is pretty much exactly what you'd find if there were to be a "textbook" definition of what you want from a center... and how star centers have played, historically speaking.

[ahonui06]

I'm a Mavs fan and I don't care if Tim Duncan is listed as a PF/C he is a beast and a first ballot HOF. If the Spurs want to list him as a PF or C who cares. If the other players want to make the All-NBA Team just play better. DIRK has beaten out Timmy for several years because he has played slightly better. If Amar'e and all those other PFs want to make the team just play better.

[Bucs80]

Tim has always been a PF... Only reason he's a Center now, and has been playing that position is because they haven't had a real center since Nazr was on the team; which wasn't too long ago.

He's a top 10 player of all-time and is the best PF of all-time.

sheeeshhh...

[Puertorique]

If Tiago Splitter ever comes to the Spurs TD will be moved back to the PF spot with Splitter playing the C.