OhayoKD wrote:AEnigma wrote: This is 2001, though, and while I see a lot of language hiding behind how Shaq had more support (true) and how that advantage in support is the primary reason for the blowout (true), for some reason no one is bothering to argue that Duncan played better than Shaq that series. Shaq outperformed Duncan regardless of Kobe incinerating the Spurs’ wings or the non-Duncan Spurs trailing by 15 points a game on the perimetre alone.
Well that's not true.
They get dominated in the conference finals but Duncan probably outplays Shaq and idt Kobe was even the Lakers best player for most of the season. Punishing him because they lost feels like punishing Lebron in 2018 almost. Not as easy as 1999 but it’s prolly still Duncan. Definitely should have won MVP.
He loses but his stats look pretty close to shaq with 2 more assists and 2 less points and he's a much better defender right? Also Idk what to think of OneandDone's opinioins on players but he's not wrong about the minutes. If all of Duncan's teammates have some injury issues and are playing alot less it's honestly just impressive to me he's maybe still outplaying the guy I think most people say was the best in the world?
Granted the latter case has a factual error (4 points, not 2), but I'm seeing more of an attempt at an argument being made for Duncan that series
I see two declarations. The closest thing to an argument, once we removed the factual error, is an assumption that Duncan must have been the better defender in the series (reasonable enough) and an implication from that assumption that the defensive advantage therefore makes up for any offensive inferiority, which is a thought process so attenuated that it can be applied to any two players where one can be interpreted as better defensively by any degree that abstractly feels like it
could be larger than the degree to which the other player is better offensively.
than for Shaq which thus far doesn't seem to extend beyond "look how much the Lakers beat the Spurs by!".
…
the burden should be on Shaq voters to explain why they think Shaq outperformed him,
I would not expect posters who have exclusively focused on their assessment of the individual rather than weighing any such “team accomplishments” to care about results, but in this case the poster a) specifically highlights that he is impressed by the Lakers only losing once, b) praises Iverson for being responsible for that one loss, and c) has repeatedly criticised Shaq for being swept.
If anything, given we all agree Duncan was the best player heading into that series,
Do not confuse being the consensus regular season MVP with the consensus better player.
If they have made especially if those Shaq voters are also going to put Shaq's teammate above him,
If a committed regular season voter suddenly voted Kobe ahead of Duncan this year, I agree that would read as inconsistent, but I do not see the inconsistency in the most dominant playoff run in league history grabbing the top two spots from those who prefer to prioritise playoff results.
and double especially if they're going to then signal a preference for larger samples rather than a few games.
Which has also not been the case for this poster — nor for you and your Kobe #1 vote.
I don't think anyone has made an especially strong case either way, but I imagine if the only information anyone had to work of(and to a great extent, this does describe the information offered in this thread) was that Duncan scored 23 on .7 better efficiency, had more assists, and similar rebounds as his team fell apart while Shaq averaged 27 and less assists next to maybe Kobe having the best series of his career, most Shaq voters here would assume Duncan played better. Paticularly if Duncan was the better regular season player
Well first, no, Duncan was not more efficient.
More pertinently, it is not about whether it is “wrong” to think Duncan played better than Shaq in that series. It is about saying Kobe was the best postseason performer and therefore should be second over Shaq, but not over Duncan, and also that we may as well throw Garnett ahead of Shaq too. Like I said, not only does that approach seem moderately contradictory with previous ballots, it also does not seem to be based in any remotely consistent application of a process player to player.
If the degree of the blowout is enough for you to assume a disparity in Shaq's favor, so be it, but it's wierd to frame Duncan voters as hiding when the counterpoint from the people whose argument far more significantly revolves around those 4 games is essentially a variant of "Wow look how much the cavs lost by in 2018, and KD had better scpring! KD outplayed Lebron" (In your case it's "Steph and KD outplayed Lebron!').
You have this habit of drawing analogies that do not really work. Starting with “Durant had better scoring”.
Is it possible Shaq's gravity just went unrewarded, it was a more favorable defensive matchup for Duncan, and/or Shaq was playing similarly good defense? Sure. But possibility is not much of an argument inofitself.
And while that does not
need to matter if you think Duncan was better in the season preceding those four games, it certainly seems like it should matter to the people attempting to put both Duncan
and Kobe ahead of Shaq.
.
Personally I think "Duncan was the best regular season player", "Duncan translated well in the playoffs", "Duncan is not even top 2" is a thinner line to walk. The Lakers did well enough in the playoffs for that to be plausible, but with little attempt at arguing Shaq outplayed Duncan individually, meh.
Not really; it is pretty easy when “best regular season player” is a minimally valued consideration.
