Duncan/Kobe/Shaq and the others of this era..

[KNICKS1970]

Back to Duncan. Two games now where he's turned in substandard performances. That's why I don't consider him a top talent of all time. Those guys wanted it. They came at it hard every game and would take over games. Timmy can't be counted on for that and I just never get the feeling he's going to stay awake at night after a loss.

So you're basing an entire career on two bad games? Wow.

Do you also not consider Wilt Chamberlain or Karl Malone all time talents? Because they both had their fair share of clunkers in the playoffs too.

[Frosty]

-= original quote snipped =-
So you're basing an entire career on two bad games? Wow.

How many concepts does your brain insert into my post when you read them?

I'm not talking 2 games I'm talking his career. He's had some monster games but you can't count on them. He's just as likely to have a 20/10 game as he is to strap his team on his back and carry them. I'm thinking about past series where he's had some competition that forces him to work for his game.

Do you also not consider Wilt Chamberlain or Karl Malone all time talents? Because they both had their fair share of clunkers in the playoffs too.

If people want to put him into the top 10 all time he better be a true superstar. Not a guy who crumbles under a double team.

[BubbaTee]

-= original quote snipped =-



Were you even born then? STATS does not say the whole story. If it does, then they should have Hollingers' silhouette as the new NBA Logo.

But I do think SHAQ > Hakeem

Actually, I remember the series quite clearly. Most especially Drexler doing his best Barbosian, one man fast break impression. I'm still waiting for Dennis Scott to hustle his fat, rage-filled can back on defense at least once.

You don't think a C should have to shoot 50+% to qualify as "dominating" someone? This wasn't Jack Sikma shooting 3s, either.

Do you even remember the 1995 Finals, or are you just remembering Hakeem's dismantling of Robinson and assuming he was equally effective vs Orlando? He wasn't.

Obviously Hakeem beat Shaq on a fair amount of of spins and up and unders. But that hardly means Shaq was getting schooled, anymore than Hakeem getting dunked on a fair amount means Hakeem was weak and unable to hold position. Good luck shutting down a HOFer on his bread and butter move.

[HarlemHeat37]

Back to Duncan. Two games now where he's turned in substandard performances. That's why I don't consider him a top talent of all time. Those guys wanted it. They came at it hard every game and would take over games. Timmy can't be counted on for that and I just never get the feeling he's going to stay awake at night after a loss.

well I guess Lebron sucks because he couldn't "handle doubles" last year in the finals..I guess Kobe sucks because he couldn't "handle attention" vs. the Pistons in the finals..everyone has a bad series..

do I really have to post all the consistently huge games Duncan has put in the playoffs?..

Olajuwon is really the only big man in the NBA history to sustain consistent dominance on a top team at Duncan's current age..

apparently some clowns still haven't looked up or watched the entire 2003 playoffs, which is was one of the greatest individual years in NBA history from Duncan..that's dominance..****, even look at the other playoffs in Duncan's prime, even when they lost..

[JordansBulls]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabaar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Bill Russell
5. Shaquille O'neal
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Larry Bird
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Kobe Bryant

Just wanted to catch you in your list.

[tkb]

Shaq is not a talented basketball player, he dominated through size, power and force. He does not have a jumpshot and can't shoot freethrows.

Hakeem on the other hand was amazingly talented.

Couldn't disagree more. Sure, Shaq's FT shooting sucked, but he was a talented player for sure.

[Frosty]

Olajuwon is really the only big man in the NBA history to sustain consistent dominance on a top team at Duncan's current age..

apparently some clowns still haven't looked up or watched the entire 2003 playoffs, which is was one of the greatest individual years in NBA history from Duncan..that's dominance..****, even look at the other playoffs in Duncan's prime, even when they lost..

I see this was bumped. Just noticed the "clown" comment that must have been directed at me.

Greatest individual years ever? Only big man in history at his age?

Educate yourself before making these claims.

24/15 isn't exactly amazing for a guy that's touted as being a top 10 of all time big.

At the same age these guys were putting up these stats in the playoffs

Wilt - 35/25
Shaq - 27/12
Kareem - 32/16
Moses - 24/17

All of those guys were also putting up big numbers at Timmy's ripe old current age.

Heck both Karl Malone and Kevin Mchale were putting up bigger numbers then Timmy at 26.

The only fallback people have when judging Timmy is team success which is a product of the team a player is on and the quality of competition they faced.

When judging my top players I look at them individually as they can't be penalized for being in a league with dominant teams like the Lakers/Celts/Bulls.

[HarlemHeat37]

I meant Olajuwon was the only big man at Duncan's CURRENT age to continue to dominate the NBA with team success and individual success, so downplaying Duncan simply due to his current performances is stupid..

I don't know how it couldn't be one of the best individual years ever..regular season MVP, finals MVP, 25-15-5-3 in the playoffs(all leading his team) on a slow-paced team without good teammates is amazing IMO..playing without a good supporting cast, but carrying them to a title..

he had years without having the luxury of his teammates making him better..years of Robinson declining, only until 2004-2005 where his teammates started reaching the all-star caliber level..

your comparison is laughable..Moses Malone's 24-17 were in 3 games..Shaq in 8..Kareem did it in 16 on a team that averaged a 105.4 pace compared to Duncan's 90..Wilt is Wilt..

[DwayneSchintzus]

24/15 isn't exactly amazing for a guy that's touted as being a top 10 of all time big.

At the same age these guys were putting up these stats in the playoffs

Wilt - 35/25
Shaq - 27/12
Kareem - 32/16
Moses - 24/17

All of those guys were also putting up big numbers at Timmy's ripe old current age.

pace.

[The_Believer]

In order to gauge this accurately, some of you need to understand that several of today's stars (ie KG, Shaq) were drafted when the greats of the golden era where still playing well. When KG and Shaq were young, they were playing very, very well against the 90's teams/stars, and even some 80's players past their prmes. So some of today's stars could definitely hold their own against the best. However, IIRC, Kobe was outplayed by a 38-40 year old Jordan routinely. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, b/c idk.

[HarlemHeat37]

Shaq did very well in the same league as some of the greats..

KG and Duncan both played great, but they weren't playing against the same greats during their primes..Garnett wasn't anything special in his 1st 2 years..

Kobe was still really young in those years, so getting outplayed by Jordan doesn't mean much..Kobe's prime is 2005-present..

[Sedale Threatt]

Bryant outscored Mike in all four meetings post-Bulls, including a 55-point bomb near the end of the 2002-03 season.

Also, regarding Olajuwon being the only big man to dominate on a top team at 31/32...categorically false.

Kareem averaged 20-plus in seven straight seasons and helped the Lakers win FOUR championships at or beyond 32. He also won the Finals MVP in 85 at 37 by averaging 30.2 points, 11.3 rebounds, 6.5 assists and 2.0 blocks in L.A.'s four victories, something I doubt you'll ever see again.

Shaq averaged 23 and 10 and won his fourth championship at 32.

Bill Russell averaged 19 rebounds in consecutive seasons at 33 and 34 and played his usual stellar defense while earning championship rings No. 10 and 11.

Then we have Wilt.

33: 27 and 18.
34: 21 and 18.
35: 15 and 19, 65% FGs, Finals MVP as Lakers won first title in L.A.
36: 13 and 19, 73% FGs.

Olajuwon might have been the only guy amongst the top big men to reach his peak as late as he did. But as far as dominating at 31 or 32 for a top team, it's nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed, all of the truly great big men have done it -- including Duncan.

The idea that he's not one of the best of all time, or "doesn't want it," is just foolish. He's following up a 19-and-11 regular season by averaging 20 and 14 in the playoffs, and he's very much alive for the fifth championship of his career. If that isn't great, then no one is.

[HarlemHeat37]

I'm strictly looking at playoffs..

I don't consider Shaq to be dominant at 32..I'm looking at the playoffs, where he put up worse numbers than Duncan is now, and I don't consider Duncan to be a dominant player anymore..Shaq was also non-existent in the finals..great player? yes..one of the top players in the L? yes..dominant? no..

I think Kareem's the 2nd/3rd best player ever, but I wouldn't call him dominant after age 32(he was still dominant at 32) in the playoffs..supporting cast obviously helped..I could see why you would name him though..I'd be interested in seeing his game by game statistics in the playoffs post-32 to see how consistently dominant he was at the time, I obviously could be wrong..

I know where you're coming from, but your definition of dominant is different than mine..Olajuwon peaked at 32 like you said, leading a team to a title in those years and still putting up consistently dominant numbers and defensive presence in the playoffs..

I never mention Wilt and Russell, because I don't feel like I'm qualified enough to talk about them..

[Sedale Threatt]

Understood about the definition. I've always considered 20/10 to be dominant, but you've got a higher stanards. I personally do still consider Duncan a dominant player. Maybe not what he was, but if you're putting up 30/18 and 20/20 in consecutive playoff games, I don't see how that can't be considered dominant.

And I must say, what Kareem did in the 85 Finals, regardless of pace or supporting cast or any other qualification you can think of, was dominance in every sense of the word. Go back and look at those numbers again. He thrashed one of the best frontcourts in NBA history, and he did it at 37 years old.

Then the following season, at 38, he followed that up by averaging 26 points on 56% shooting in 18 playoff games.

[HarlemHeat37]

I agree with most of what you're saying..

my definition is CONSISTENTLY dominant, which is what I said in my 1st argument against Frosty, I should have specified in my last post..I can definitely see how Kareem was showing signs of dominance all the time, just like Duncan does now, and what Shaq did in Miami..these guys all dominated consistently in their primes though, which is what I meant..

I can definitely see how teams would have still treated Kareem like he could dominate them, just like they do with Timmy now..there are always going to be games where these guys are feeling it and show signs of their primes..Duncan putting up 30-18 and 20-20 is pure dominance, but as most of us Spurs fans have seen this year, we can no longer expect him to dominate in 8-9 out of every 10 games, which is what he did in his prime during the playoffs..

none of these guys are going to dominate night in and night out at this age, which is expected..

Kareem did it at 32, but there's obviously a difference between a guy that's ranked 1st-3rd all time, compared to a guy like Duncan who is ranked from 8th-12th all time..

[cwas2882]

^^^^ Problem is POST SHAQ this is the first time his team has even been NEAR comparable to anything Prime TD or Prime Shaq had as a team and even then it wasnt necessarily that great.

Remember one thing.....Kobe's current team is WEAK defensively and on the boards.

Shaq and TD's teams were both great in both.

Same applies to Jordan's teams.

The key is to have a defense and rebounding.

Weak defensively and rebounding? Really? 5th in the league in defensive rating is weak? 7th in total rebounding percentage is weak?


Also teehee to everyone who says Shaq wasn't/isn't talented and could only out-muscle everyone. ****. Bunch of tards.

[BubbaTee]

Also teehee to everyone who says Shaq wasn't/isn't talented and could only out-muscle everyone. ****. Bunch of tards.

You mean you would DENY the HOF to Stanley Roberts and Benoit Benjamin?

[KDRE]

Everyone is always biased to whom they watch... some even go so far as to claim you cannot understand a player unless you saw him in person. No one's sample size or memory is sufficiently large enough to make a rational judgment on every player in the league, and now nobody's old enough to go all the way back to the very beginning either. This is even assuming everyone is rational and objective about things like A) positions ("center is the most important position," "point guards run the team," etc.), B) league style (i.e., people who love an up-and-down game vs. hardcore defense+rebounding), C) player style (Shaq is fun to watch for his physicality, Bird for shooting, Magic for his passing...), and D) famousness of team/league (always good to play for the Celtics or Lakers, the 80s were the best, no the 2000s have the best athletes, no in the 50s players were smarter, etc.).

When best player conversations come up, who starts talking about Mikan or Pettite? If you're lucky someone talks about Wilt, but most of the time nobody even makes it earlier than the 80s. In twenty years, when the people who are now, say, 20 (and thus were kids when Jordan was starting to decline) will say the same things about LeBron, Duncan, Paul that the 30 year olds now say about Bird and Magic... and will laugh at the "ignorant" kids of the future who will argue for Jesus Shuttlesworth or whoever is good at the time.

So to answer the OP question, I would say that modern players are typically underrated... until they retire, at which point they typically become overrated, and then eventually fade into the abyss of sporting history and dismissed as "another era."

The best you can do is try to come up with some very clearly defined criteria by which to judge; at least decide whether you care about era, and wins, and playoff success, and awards voting... the degree to which you weight these things inevitably will give you very different results. Wilt Chaimberlain, for instance, is really indisputably the most dominant player of his era ever to play; but if you base it on titles, you inevitably choose Russell, and if you base it on personal stats you usually pick MJ.

How about basing it on how a player outperformed the players in his era and who did it most consistently?

There is a way, just not what some of these people are doing, going off of what they hear on ESPN.