[biggdh99]

This sharks game is fucking crazy.

[biggdh99]

Wow. Read the thread wrong.


HAHA sorry.

[fu-noob]

Originally Posted by Saku4me

The thing is, how are we to compare NBA players then? You compare them by their actual talent (which is the least viable one), actual accomplishments (wins, rings, all stars, all nba teams, all nba defensive teams, MVP, and so on), their career stats, and mental ability. The reason why actual talent is the least important one is because there have been so many talented guys who just couldn't hack it. So in order to be able to compare players accurately, you have to take these things into account.

That's why a guy like Stockton will probably be considered better than Parker, even if Parker ends up with 4-5 rings. Stockton's actual talent may be on par with Parker (everything taken into consideration), but his actual accomplishments outside of NBA rings is way beyond what Parker has accomplished so far, his career stats won't be matched by Parker, and his mental toughness is more than Parker will ever have. All in all, outside of the rings, Stockton has Parker beat everywhere else.

We can look at a guy like KG and compare him to Duncan.

-Let's look at their actual talent. I think it's fair to say that all in all, their actual talent is pretty close (KG might get the edge because he's faster).

-Now we look at their actual accomplishments and KG pales in comparison to Duncan in almost every area.
-Duncan has one less all star appearance than KG but KG has been in the league two years longer.
-Duncan has more all NBA teams, more all NBA defensive teams, 2 NBA MVPs compared to KG's 1, 4 Championship rings compare KG's 0, 3 NBA Final MVP to KG's 0. Keep in mind, all NBA teams are voted voted by members of the Associated Press. All NBA Defensive teams are voted by the head coaches. The NBA MVP is voted by sportswriters and members of the press.

So basically, the coaches and the press have all considered Duncan to be a better defensive player due to the number of All NBA Defensive Teams he's won, and better overall NBA player due to more All NBA teams as well as MVP.

So if you argue by career stats, Duncan is the clear winner. Argue by rings, Duncan is the winner. Argue by All NBA teams, Duncan is the winner. Argue by All NBA Defensive Teams, Duncan is the winner. Argue by MVPs, Duncan is the winner. Argue by wins, Duncan is the winner. Argue by ESPN's PER (Player Efficiency Rating) and Duncan is the winner. Talk about mental ability, Duncan has made a ton of important shots in big time games and nothing was bigger this year than his 3pt shot that he made to force double overtime. Keep in mind he hadn't made a single 3 the whole year and with less than 10 secs left in the game, he takes a 3 without hesitation...that's cold blooded. If you want to talk popularity among fans, sure KG might have the edge...but that's about it. How else can you make an argument about another player being better than another? I used stats, I used rings, I used his peers (coaches), I used the press, I used defensive ability, I used offensive ability, I don't know what else you can say.

All this said, I love KG every bit as much as I love Duncan but no real argument can be made as to why KG could even be considered as better than Duncan. People see this and they may think that I dislike KG but I've used nothing but solid evidence. I've been a KG fan since he came into the league. I spent 3 years in MN when KG was there ('96-'98) and have been a big follower ever since. Same as LBJ, but some people see stuff like this and think that I have some agenda against guys like KG and LBJ, but I don't. It's just how I feel and what can be proven.

I will leave this argument here as nothing needs to be said, from me, now. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. We all have our favorite players and what not but let's not let that blind us.

Talent in my mind, is much like potential. If it isn't used, you can assume all you want, but again, its all assumptions. KG isn't all potential. There is a reason he led the league in all around efficiency for almost 5 straight years. He's an absolute animal.

I'd like to refer to prime stats if you will. KG came into the league as a HS player into a terrible franchise with a terrible front office and was given time and responsibility of course, but nowhere near the amount Duncan was given. Once both have settled into their roles on their respective teams, Duncan doing so a bit earlier, we can see what I like to call their real skill set. You are seeing what they are playing with, and the skills they possess.

And to mention Duncan as more versatile in my opinion holds no weight. Garnett can basically play any position on the floor while Duncan plays like a 5, listed as a 4. He has limited outside game, and no way in hell would Duncan be able to lead a fast break or give an outlet pass for one on a consistent basis. KG has a great inside game, can nail threes and is money from 20 feet in, as well as defending the passing lanes and the weak side and finding open teammates all around the floor, not just from inside the paint. You all seem to take for granted KG's stealing ability, at 1.4 a game for his career for a big man while Duncan has never averaged over 1.

As an objective sports fan, I like to watch players play. It's as simple as that. If you know the sport, and I mean you really know it, watching a player play will suffice. Combine that with stats and other things for opinions and you are likely to get a clearer picture, but again, winning certainly is NOT everything because as we all know, winning requires a team. I'd rather not punish players for having to play with poor talent and take their skills for what they are worth.

As you all know, I am a person who likes stats. And as I said earlier in this post, KG has been the most efficient player for almost 5 years straight, while Duncan held that title for about 2 years max. And you are talking about a guy who played 28 minutes when he came into the league, as opposed to someone who played 38. There's a level of maturity that needs to be reached, especially from young players, before you can really judge their talent.

You are dealing with a player who's potential is 24 14 6 1.5 stls and 2 blocks at over 50% fg and over 80% ft...you are all overlooking how versatile and truly extraordinary KG is and can be. And don't tell me I don't appreciate Duncan, because I do. It's not as if I'm saying KG is THAT much better than Duncan. It's very close, but I like what KG works with more than what Duncan possesses as I've outlined in my posts.

[das omen]

Let's see how the Utah Jazz reacts to Kobe's offense in game 2

[ManBearPig187]

Originally Posted by fu-noob

You see where you start looking like an idiot? At least stay consistent douche bag.

Learn to read numbnuts... I said Duncan has never played on an extraordinarily great team, not that Duncan has never played on a great team. There's a difference. The Lakers team that won three straight championships, THAT was an extraordinarily great team. Jordan's Bulls, which one three straight championships twice, THOSE were extraordinarily great teams. The Spurs meanwhile have managed to win 4 championships without ever really being the overwhelming favorites heading into a season. But hey, great job of pulling out a quote from like 2 weeks ago... it proves how desperate/pathetic you really are.

I'm through arguing with you. I mean, your avatar says it all: You're the type of fan that idolizes their favorite players and hugs their nuts so hard that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that another player might be better, even in the presence of insurmountable evidence and support. I mean, is that a Lebron James Glamour-shot for Christ's sake? Can you be gayer?

Well regardless, at least you picked the right player's nuts to squeeze just a tad bit harder... LBJ and Cleveland over KG and Boston in 7.

[White Snake]

Originally Posted by Saku4me

The thing is, how are we to compare NBA players then? You compare them by their actual talent (which is the least viable one), actual accomplishments (wins, rings, all stars, all nba teams, all nba defensive teams, MVP, and so on), their career stats, and mental ability. The reason why actual talent is the least important one is because there have been so many talented guys who just couldn't hack it. So in order to be able to compare players accurately, you have to take these things into account.

That's why a guy like Stockton will probably be considered better than Parker, even if Parker ends up with 4-5 rings. Stockton's actual talent may be on par with Parker (everything taken into consideration), but his actual accomplishments outside of NBA rings is way beyond what Parker has accomplished so far, his career stats won't be matched by Parker, and his mental toughness is more than Parker will ever have. All in all, outside of the rings, Stockton has Parker beat everywhere else.

We can look at a guy like KG and compare him to Duncan.

-Let's look at their actual talent. I think it's fair to say that all in all, their actual talent is pretty close (KG might get the edge because he's faster).

-Now we look at their actual accomplishments and KG pales in comparison to Duncan in almost every area.
-Duncan has one less all star appearance than KG but KG has been in the league two years longer.
-Duncan has more all NBA teams, more all NBA defensive teams, 2 NBA MVPs compared to KG's 1, 4 Championship rings compare KG's 0, 3 NBA Final MVP to KG's 0. Keep in mind, all NBA teams are voted voted by members of the Associated Press. All NBA Defensive teams are voted by the head coaches. The NBA MVP is voted by sportswriters and members of the press.

So basically, the coaches and the press have all considered Duncan to be a better defensive player due to the number of All NBA Defensive Teams he's won, and better overall NBA player due to more All NBA teams as well as MVP.

So if you argue by career stats, Duncan is the clear winner. Argue by rings, Duncan is the winner. Argue by All NBA teams, Duncan is the winner. Argue by All NBA Defensive Teams, Duncan is the winner. Argue by MVPs, Duncan is the winner. Argue by wins, Duncan is the winner. Argue by ESPN's PER (Player Efficiency Rating) and Duncan is the winner. Talk about mental ability, Duncan has made a ton of important shots in big time games and nothing was bigger this year than his 3pt shot that he made to force double overtime. Keep in mind he hadn't made a single 3 the whole year and with less than 10 secs left in the game, he takes a 3 without hesitation...that's cold blooded. If you want to talk popularity among fans, sure KG might have the edge...but that's about it. How else can you make an argument about another player being better than another? I used stats, I used rings, I used his peers (coaches), I used the press, I used defensive ability, I used offensive ability, I don't know what else you can say.

All this said, I love KG every bit as much as I love Duncan but no real argument can be made as to why KG could even be considered as better than Duncan. People see this and they may think that I dislike KG but I've used nothing but solid evidence. I've been a KG fan since he came into the league. I spent 3 years in MN when KG was there ('96-'98) and have been a big follower ever since. Same as LBJ, but some people see stuff like this and think that I have some agenda against guys like KG and LBJ, but I don't. It's just how I feel and what can be proven.

I will leave this argument here as nothing needs to be said, from me, now. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. We all have our favorite players and what not but let's not let that blind us.

Arguing by rings is pretty baseless. If that were the case, then Robert Horry can be compared to Bill Russell. Let's face it, if you listed the 100 greatest players in NBA history, a good 50 of them never or wont win a championship in their careers.

[Saku4me]

Originally Posted by White Snake

Arguing by rings is pretty baseless. If that were the case, then Robert Horry can be compared to Bill Russell. Let's face it, if you listed the 100 greatest players in NBA history, a good 50 of them never or wont win a championship in their careers.

I don't get your point WS? I completely agree wthat you can't argue how good a player is just by rings. It has to be their overall body of work. Stats alone doesn't work and neither do rings. You have to take a look at all of their stats, their rings, their accomplishments and accolades, and work ethic. That's what my entire post was about. Just in case you didn't see it, here's an important part

Originally Posted by Saku4me

That's why a guy like Stockton will probably be considered better than Parker, even if Parker ends up with 4-5 rings. Stockton's actual talent may be on par with Parker (everything taken into consideration), but his actual accomplishments outside of NBA rings is way beyond what Parker has accomplished so far, his career stats won't be matched by Parker, and his mental toughness is more than Parker will ever have. All in all, outside of the rings, Stockton has Parker beat everywhere else.

[fu-noob]

Originally Posted by ManBearPig187

Learn to read numbnuts... I said Duncan has never played on an extraordinarily great team, not that Duncan has never played on a great team. There's a difference. The Lakers team that won three straight championships, THAT was an extraordinarily great team. Jordan's Bulls, which one three straight championships twice, THOSE were extraordinarily great teams. The Spurs meanwhile have managed to win 4 championships without ever really being the overwhelming favorites heading into a season. But hey, great job of pulling out a quote from like 2 weeks ago... it proves how desperate/pathetic you really are.

I'm through arguing with you. I mean, your avatar says it all: You're the type of fan that idolizes their favorite players and hugs their nuts so hard that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that another player might be better, even in the presence of insurmountable evidence and support. I mean, is that a Lebron James Glamour-shot for Christ's sake? Can you be gayer?

Well regardless, at least you picked the right player's nuts to squeeze just a tad bit harder... LBJ and Cleveland over KG and Boston in 7.

Hahaha now you want to argue semantics? I know what you meant, and you clearly contradicted yourself. Spurs were favorites 3 out of the last 4 seasons to win the Championships hahahaha (Source: Sports and NFL stats, news and information). This gets better and better...

[NewbZor]

Originally Posted by fu-noob

Talent in my mind, is much like potential. If it isn't used, you can assume all you want, but again, its all assumptions. KG isn't all potential. There is a reason he led the league in all around efficiency for almost 5 straight years. He's an absolute animal.

I'd like to refer to prime stats if you will. KG came into the league as a HS player into a terrible franchise with a terrible front office and was given time and responsibility of course, but nowhere near the amount Duncan was given. Once both have settled into their roles on their respective teams, Duncan doing so a bit earlier, we can see what I like to call their real skill set. You are seeing what they are playing with, and the skills they possess.

And to mention Duncan as more versatile in my opinion holds no weight. Garnett can basically play any position on the floor while Duncan plays like a 5, listed as a 4. He has limited outside game, and no way in hell would Duncan be able to lead a fast break or give an outlet pass for one on a consistent basis. KG has a great inside game, can nail threes and is money from 20 feet in, as well as defending the passing lanes and the weak side and finding open teammates all around the floor, not just from inside the paint. You all seem to take for granted KG's stealing ability, at 1.4 a game for his career for a big man while Duncan has never averaged over 1.

As an objective sports fan, I like to watch players play. It's as simple as that. If you know the sport, and I mean you really know it, watching a player play will suffice. Combine that with stats and other things for opinions and you are likely to get a clearer picture, but again, winning certainly is NOT everything because as we all know, winning requires a team. I'd rather not punish players for having to play with poor talent and take their skills for what they are worth.

As you all know, I am a person who likes stats. And as I said earlier in this post, KG has been the most efficient player for almost 5 years straight, while Duncan held that title for about 2 years max. And you are talking about a guy who played 28 minutes when he came into the league, as opposed to someone who played 38. There's a level of maturity that needs to be reached, especially from young players, before you can really judge their talent.

You are dealing with a player who's potential is 24 14 6 1.5 stls and 2 blocks at over 50% fg and over 80% ft...you are all overlooking how versatile and truly extraordinary KG is and can be. And don't tell me I don't appreciate Duncan, because I do. It's not as if I'm saying KG is THAT much better than Duncan. It's very close, but I like what KG works with more than what Duncan possesses as I've outlined in my posts.

Not to quote Skip Balis, but I like his logic on this one. If you were going to start a franchise and could pick KG or Tim Duncan as your franchise player, who would you go with? I think your crazy if you say KG.....

[fu-noob]

Originally Posted by NewbZor

Not to quote Skip Balis, but I like his logic on this one. If you were going to start a franchise and could pick KG or Tim Duncan as your franchise player, who would you go with? I think your crazy if you say KG.....

Again, that's MVP vs better player. I would probably build a franchise around Shaq in his prime over any other player to play the game, but that doesn't mean he's "better" than Michael Jordan. Understand?