Baller2014 wrote:Plancar is the definition of an ongoing injury, which continues over the year. Duncan missed games as a result of it. But hey, your "I feel like I would have remembered something like that" response clearly trumps medical science. Look, I'm not even trying to get sympathy for Duncan's injury, I'm just saying we should all stop trying to milk injuries as an excuse for how guys actually played.
More ridiculous spinning things on your part. I said if Duncan has an injury in the 2004 playoffs that limited him AS MUCH as Shaq in the 2002 WCSF then I'm pretty certain I'd remember it because it'd have been very notable. I'm not stating this as a fact or anything, but that's what I suspect because Shaq's injuries were VERY noticeable. It has absolutely nothing to do with medical science. Nothing so stop trying those type of condescending replies when they don't even apply here.
It's like Bird in the 1985 finals, he had a number of injuries he was dealing with that were documented, except I've seen both series, and I'd say it was more obvious that Shaq was thrown off particular parts of his game by the injury.
The trade off for Shaq putting on more weight, so he could dominate more, was ongoing, niggling injuries. Everyone knew this. But none of that stopped him from being prime Shaq in the non-Duncan series he played. I pointed this out already so many times I've come to the conclusion you're not reading my posts, and am going to stop trying to reason with you soon. When we see Shaq dominate the 1st, 3rd and 4th round of the playoffs no problems with those same niggling injuries, and see him play markedly worse against Duncan, the answer is not "oh, he must have had an undocumented injury flare up that series, because there's no way the glorious Shaq could have possibly played worse than Duncan". The answer is the opposite of that, because shockingly playing against an all-time great big can have a detrimental effect on your play. Astonishing stuff I know.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? We're not saying "he must have had an undocumented injury", we're saying he had
documented injuries, FIVE of them, and they visibly limited him physically. Do you think we're stupid enough to not notice you trying to spin this? Who are you trying to kid? Nobody said he "must have had an injury", we're saying he did have injuries, emphasis on that being plural, and we've supported that assertion with sources.
I'm going to go through the entire series again and take extremely thorough notes simply because your misinformation on the series has irritated me that much. I'll come with a lot of plays where you'll see Shaq try to release a turnaround, or try to finish at the rim, and some will be against Rose. Most reasonable people will come away noting how much Shaq was affected by his injuries, of course, I said reasonable people, so I'm sure you'll ignore this.
And I wouldn't necessarily deny that Shaq's extra weight contributed to the big toe injury, but that doesn't change the fact that he was injured, and he wasn't healthy and in his usual prime form. Again, he looked more like Miami Shaq than prime Shaq. Besides, we have no idea if Shaq would have had the toe problem without the extra weight. He's a massive guy regardless. We're talking about someone who weighed over 300 pounds when he was drafted at 20 years old, and wasn't what you'd call overweight at all. He didn't start lifting weights until the offseason prior to his last season in Orlando, and in the '95-'96 season he wound up weighing 332 despite the fact that he was only 24 that season. The weight he played at when he peaked in 2000 as a 28 year old was 340. Even Shaq in shape was enormous, and as we've seen with big men, even ones much smaller than that, they're injury prone. It's a miracle, he had the type of career he did considering what we saw with Yao, Oden who is shorter and lighter than Shaq, Bynum who isn't as big as Shaq, Walton who wasn't anywhere near as heavy as Shaq, Ralph Sampson who was a good 100 pounds lighter than Shaq, Sam Bowie who was also much lighter than Shaq, and now even look at Joel Embiid, he hasn't even played a game, he's nowhere near Shaq's size and he has a stress fracture.
As for the ankle injuries, those simply happen in basketball and as for cutting his right index finger on the rim, that obviously had nothing to do with Shaq's weight. Anyway, this is all irrelevant to the point.
But if you want to see a hall of fame big man see how being guarded by another hall of fame big man can be detrimental, go watch the Christmas games between the Lakers and Spurs in 2000. Duncan and Robinson were supposed to alternate guarding Shaq that game, but Robinson was in foul trouble, so Duncan ended up guarding Shaq quite a bit, but Shaq also guarded Duncan and outplayed him at both ends.
Shaq outplayed Duncan as he wound up with 32 points, 11 rebounds, 2 assists and 5 blocks with just 2 turnovers on 13/22 shooting and 6/12 from the line, while Duncan had 28 points, 9 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 block and 4 turnovers on 8/23 shooting and 12/15 from the line.
But because you can't just list the stats for the entire game as head to head stats, even in a game like this one when Shaq and Duncan matched up more than they did in the 2002 WCSF for example, I'll point out that Duncan shot just 1/11 or 2/12 when Shaq was guarding him and Duncan actually did a solid job defending Shaq while Shaq shot 6/12 or 7/13 when Duncan was guarding him. even so, that is what I'd call being outplayed badly, despite a solid defensive job by Duncan.
Also, I don't trust you at all and would be stupid to take you at your word so I'll look into Duncan's 2004 injury myself. Unfortunately, google archives is terrible now compared to how good it use to be.
You obviously didn't read my reply. Obviously the Suns were worse off in game 5 when Amare, Diaw and Horry were out. But the Suns had Amare and Boris Diaw back in game 6. And we still didn't have Horry. And.they.got.blown.out. They had their chance... and they got blown out in the 6th game. There's really no reason to think the Suns were about to win the series or anything, the Spurs had been the better team since they formed in 05, and 07 seemed to just continue that trend. Which isn't to say they weren't an amazing, title worthy team. But the Spurs were better.
Because the suspension completely changed the momentum. That game 5 was on the Suns homecourt while game 6 was in San Antonio, and they went from being a team many would have favored to win game 5 to the underdogs in that game due to the idiotic suspension.
I don't necessarily disagree that the Spurs were the better team. I think they were more well-rounded with their combination of offense and defense, certainly better coached, had the best player on either team in Duncan who I think was a top 2 player in the entire league that year and the Spurs led the league in point differential.
With that said, I think the teams were very close that year, and I still believe it would have gone 7 and prior to the ridiculous suspension, the series was tied 2-2 with 2 of the final 3 games set to be played in Phoenix. There's a very good chance the Spurs wouldn't have pulled that out, and at the very least, you have to admit the suspension dramatically changed how that series looked. It would have been nice to see the Suns get a fair shot. Especially since those playoffs sucked because while an upset like the Warriors over the Mavs is nice to watch in the moment, it hurts the quality of the later rounds because the Mavs were one of 3 real championship-caliber teams along with the Spurs and Suns, while the Warriors were shown to be an inferior opponent when they didn't have the ideal match up, as we saw when a Utah team was nowhere as good as Dallas easily knocked them out of the playoffs. This was especially bad because the East was as bad as it's been.
Obviously guys switch all the time on D, but the idea that all Horry had to do is move away from the basket and Duncan would sag off to leave his man wide open, is obvious comedy. Sure, sometimes Duncan switched, usually to Shaq... that's to his credit too. You have a choice here. You can argue Duncan matched up on Shaq most of the time, or on Horry. Whichever is true, it's good for Duncan. It was Horry mostly as it happens, but you're just dodging with your above reply. If Duncan switched when Horry was on the 3 ball line, who did he switch on to then? Hint; which Laker big man does that leave, who never scores outside the paint?
Actually, Duncan did often sag off his man to the lane where he was more valuable. The reality was, Horry was getting his shots as he always did, he just happened to miss every one of them, with the big miss being the 3 that rimmed out in game 5. The difference between the results in the 2002 and 2003 playoffs was probably Horry hitting the 3 in game vs Sacramento and his 3 in game 5 vs the Spurs rimming out.
Your point about Horry was wrong. His poor shooting was not the deciding factor in the games they lost, bar 1, and that's wholly offset by S.Jax shooting 0% from 3 in those games anyway.
It definitely hurts when he shoots 0/18 on 3s, and that one game, hell, the one shot in game 5 probably decided the series, and ultimately who won the 2003 title. As far as Jackson, that was the benefit of the Spurs depth because Manu came off the bench to shoot 21/41 overall that series, 8/13 on 3s and he got to the line repeatedly making 20 of 28 free throws for a TS% of 65.6% and 11.7 ppg with 2.2 spg in just 24.7 mpg.
Not to mention, as I noted above, Duncan should get some credit for Horry's poor performance.
Actually, that shouldn't be mentioned because it's a laughable idea.
On the other hand, the poor shooting of the Spurs in 01, 02 and 04 was decisive. It completely killed the Spurs chances to win, and made it easy to double Duncan at will (making his performances even more impressive).
Except those weren't impressive series for Duncan. They're really among the few blemishes in his playoff career actually.
In 01 the Lakers had the stronger team and would have won anyway (the shooting didn't help though), but in 02 and 04 it clearly cost the Spurs the chance to win the series (series only Duncan was even giving them a chance in, by outplaying everyone else, especially in 02). The poor shooting of the Spurs "shooters" is even more important to note, because the only value some of those guys had was as shooters. The corposes of S.Smith, Ferry, Porter, etc, wouldn't have been in the NBA if not for hitting open 3s (and arguably they shouldn't have been in the NBA anymore, they sure fell out of it quickly after their bad finishes with the Spurs).
In '01, there were a lot of factors. The 2001 Lakers in playoff form were simply the better team, matched up well, while the Spurs in playoff form with Anderson injured weren't as great and when even Derek Fisher is shooting as well as he did vs the Spurs, they don't have much of a shot. Duncan completely disappeared the final 2 games, though and he deserves blame for that since he only averaged 12 ppg and 10 rpg on 33.3% shooting in games 3 and 4. And both Shaq and Kobe did clearly outplay Duncan in the 2001 WCF while Duncan really wasn't too impressive outside of game 2.
As for 2002, for different reasons, but just like 2001, the Lakers were clearly the better team, especially with another key injury, this time to Robinson on a team that even when healthy, relied on Duncan more than any of their other teams, particularly at the offensive end. But Duncan wasn't the best player in that series. That was Kobe.
As for 2004, yeah, the shooting was horrible, but whenever a player plays below their standard and their team loses, I always give them blame. Even when they're going up against a superior opponent like the '07 Cavs vs the '07 Spurs. Lebron played terribly and they lost so I blame him even though it's unlikely the Cavs would have won the series regardless. Even with the terrible shooting of Duncan's teammates, though, the series was close enough that it's possible they win with a better performance from Duncan. I mean after the Spurs 2 wins, Duncan averaged just 17.5 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 4.3 TO and 1.8 bpg on 38.3% shooting in the 4 losses. That can't be ignored for a player of that caliber.
But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the point about Horry in 2003. Just because Duncan has had series where his teammates shot horribly doesn't mean Shaq hasn't as well. You do know that those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?
And it seems like you're trying to get into a Duncan vs Shaq thing. I have no interest in that, and if I were to debate that, I wouldn't be emphasizing head to head series anyway since that's never the deciding factor for me when judging any player. I happen to think Shaq was the better player than Duncan, I'd guess you disagree, and that's fine with me, but this is about Hakeem vs Duncan. I happen to think Hakeem is better, and that's what we should be discussing here.
I edited my post to link an article and ensure you wouldn't make these sorts of claims. Evidence Rice was still an all-star in 99:
Nobody thinks Rice played like an all-star in 1999. Stop making a fool of yourself.
- Rice's numbers in 99 look like we imagine they should, compared to his previous all-nba year, given his reduced role as the 3rd man in LA (since he lived at the 3pt line, you should use his TS%, not his FG%).
17.5 ppg, 3.6 rpg and 2.6 apg on 43.2 FG% and 54.2 TS% are not typical all-star numbers, especially when you consider Rice was a bad defender as well. And nobody is going to be declaring him an all-star after 27 games of that. I'm using both FG% and TS% and both are disappointing for a player who was playing with. Shaq was unquestionably the best offensive player in the game in '99 and received the most defensive attention, plus Kobe had the ability to break down the defense off the dribble, and that's still the best percentages Rice managed.
- After the season, the Lakers picked up Rice's contract option for $7 million ($10 million in today's dollars).
How is this evidence of Rice still being an all-star? By the way, you should know that Rice was the subject of trade rumors from the start of the 2000 season. Why would that be if he had a good 1999 season? The reality is, the Lakers were still hoping they'd get more out of Rice and probably thought 27 games was too small of a sample size. Phil had also expected Rice to be much better than he was in the triangle because of his shooting, but that didn't work out.
Clearly the Lakers valued Rice's impact as worth the all-star money his contract option dictated, and picked it up because they were scared other teams would agree (and offer him even more).
Not necessarily since they were trying to trade him before the 2000 season even star. They may have just wanted to get something in return for him, or maybe give him more time before declaring him a bust with the Lakers.
- Rice's surgery wasn't until after 99, there was no physical reason he couldn't play. The reason he missed games in 99 was due to a contract dispute, he was faking an injury basically until the Hornets would agree to not pick up his contract option next year. As soon as the Lakers agreed not to pick it up, they traded for him and he suited up immediately.
Are you sure about that? Well, I remember the elbow surgery being some time in '99. I guess it could be either, though that would explain why Rice's 3 point shooting dropped off so much in the '99-'00 season even from '99, then again the sample size is small in '99. Can you at least provide a link for that?
I'm not even going to dignify the innuendo here with a serious reply. Horry was 28 and played until his late 30's. His stats, performance and proven market value all tell us he was still regarded as being Robert Horry.
Actually, Horry's stats were much better with the Rockets, and his market value wasn't the same. People thought Horry had all-star potential with Houston.
I'm not sure why you're denying this, everyone knows Horry was much better with Houston and that he was a different, much more limited player after bulking up to play the 4 with the Lakers and Spurs. Grant Hill played until his 40, that doesn't mean he was in his prime when he was 30.
Whether or not this was Fisher's peak, he could still clearly shoot (your original claim to the contrary was wrong), and he was as mobile and athletic as he'd ever been. It was no anomaly that Fisher shot 392 from the 3, he was taking 3.1 threes per 36 minutes, which was only 0.1 less than in 2001 (when you claimed he learnt how to shoot).
This is ridiculous, judging Fisher's percentages by per 36? That's among the dumbest things I've heard. The whole problem with his percentage is that he wasn't taking that many, per 36 projects that he's taking significantly more than he actually did and that he'd maintain the same percentage.
The fact is, Fisher attempted just 1.9 threes per game. That's not a lot at all, certainly not enough to make any sort of big deal about his percentage, and to put things in perspective, Fisher made an average of 0.8 threes per game. And ultimately, Fisher's FG% was a horrific 37.6% in '99. That's not a good shooter, and Fisher's TS% was just 49.7%. Given all of that, a good 3P% on not even 2 attempts per game is enough for you to praise his shooting? There's no question you have an agenda.
Fisher had 4 seasons pre-2001, and his career FG% up to that point was 38.5%, his 3P% was a mediocre 34.3% despite playing his rookie year with the shortened line and his FT% was even just 72.4%. His eFG% was 43.7% and his TS% was 48.9% in 290 games through 2000.
It's obvious that Fisher was not a good shooter until 2001.
This I really am not going to deign reply to. Nonsense. You have no evidence to support this assertion either.
I actually have in the past. I've posted quotes from Phil Jackson about how erratic Fox was until that in his book "More Than A Game". Depending on how much time I feel like wasting on you, I might go through the book later and post some quotes.
Either way, this is irrelevant because the 1999 Lakers were not a particularly good team, and it makes sense that they weren't.
Nobody can expect a team to start a 50 game lockout season with some new players, then make another significant trade midway through a short season, then deal with the Rodman distraction who they had to realize AND have a midseason coaching change and then win a title in such a short season. I wouldn't expect a team to have a serious shot at a title even in full season with that.
The rest I've covered repeatedly, including in the last few posts. Go back and read them again please.
Nah, I've read enough of your garbage for one lifetime. You haven't covered anything. You've just made things up to support your Duncan fanboy agenda.
Rice was no longer an all-star with the Lakers. Get real. Granted, he was a bit better in '99 than he'd be in 2000, but still a disappointment after the elbow surgery. Horry wasn't in his prime with the Lakers, his prime was with Houston and Fisher wasn't in his prime either. His prime started after he came back from the injury in 2001, but prior to that, Fisher was a mediocre shooter and not much of a role player because he really couldn't do anything offensively.
. But I'll say this, Shaq was the best big big man in the game, he was strong, he was immovable in the post, he broke rings and backboards, nothing could hurt him. If Duncan was a player of skills Shaq would be a player of natural abilities. But he was offensively limited to making dunk or shooting less than 5 feet from the basket, probably requiring no less than 3 moves to make a basket. Shaq couldn't make a midrange jumpshot to save his life.