Advanced Stats for Duncan

[ambchang]

Pretty impressive advanced stats for Duncan from a career perspective.

Regular Season:
- #13 in PER
- #2 in Drating behind Gar Heard
- #2 in DWS behind Russell
- #6 in WS
- #12 in WS/48
- #13 in boxscore +/-
- #6 in defensive BSPM
- #7 in VORP

Playoffs:
- Ranked #2 in WS behind Jordan. Note that Lebron James is already #4 on the list, which is insane
- #2 in DWS behind Russell
- #8 in OWS
- #8 in WS/48
- #7 in PER
- #14 in D-Rating

While these are not hard rankings of a player, advance stats do provide a directionally correct way of evaluating a player. Duncan is pretty much top 20 in all of these metrics, with the exception of OWS in the regular season.

[Phillip]

impressive.

Anyone who says he's not a top 5 all time player is insane IMO.

[DPG21920]

impressive.

Anyone who says he's not a top 5 all time player is insane IMO.

lol Kobe

[Phillip]

lol Kobe

What about him

[Blake]

He's a lock for the hall of fame, imo.

[Proxy]

He's a lock for the hall of fame, imo.
http://media.giphy.com/media/HyDAt79JnlY4M/giphy.gif

[DPG21920]

What about him

People putting him top 5 (or even top 10 is very suspect)

[Arcadian]

Note that Lebron James is already #4 on the list, which is insane

But WS is not a cumulative stat, right? So it could just as easily go up or down in the remainder of his career? I just wondered why you emphasized "already."

[Phillip]

People putting him top 5 (or even top 10 is very suspect)

Top 5 arguments certainly can be made, even though I may not agree fully with them. Anything less than top 10 is stupid.

[Phillip]

But WS is not a cumulative stat, right? So it could just as easily go up or down in the remainder of his career? I just wondered why you emphasized "already."

Incorrect. WS/48 is not cumulative. WS is.

[Arcadian]

Top 5 arguments certainly can be made, even though I may not agree fully with them. Anything less than top 10 is stupid.

It's not unreasonable to place him 11-15.

Edit: Ah, thanks for the clarification on WS.

[ambchang]

But WS is not a cumulative stat, right? So it could just as easily go up or down in the remainder of his career? I just wondered why you emphasized "already."

It is a cumulative stat, it will only go up from this point on.

WS/48, on the other hand, could go up or down. I believe Lebron is tops or top 2 in that category.

[DPG21920]

Top 5 arguments certainly can be made, even though I may not agree fully with them. Anything less than top 10 is stupid.

There is no argument that has Kobe in the top 5. None.

[ambchang]

Top 5 arguments certainly can be made, even though I may not agree fully with them. Anything less than top 10 is stupid.

Tough to make him top 5.

Jordan
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Kareem
Hakeem
Shaq
Moses
Lebron

are all modern players who are undoubtedly better than Kobe.

Then older timers such as Wilt and Russell who are also definitely better.

This puts Kobe at #12.

Arguments could be made for Thomas, Dr. J and West, which puts Kobe at the 12 to 15 range, and that is him with the benefit of playing on some of the most loaded teams of their years.

[Kool Bob Love]

Timmy the GAWD. :worthy:

[Phillip]

There is no argument that has Kobe in the top 5. None.

Monster stats combined with 5 rings against some tough competition are a pretty good starting point tbh.


Tough to make him top 5.

Jordan
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Kareem
Hakeem
Shaq
Moses
Lebron

are all modern players who are undoubtedly better than Kobe.

All of the bolded can have arguments to be bumped behind him for various, good reasons.


Then older timers such as Wilt and Russell who are also definitely better.

This puts Kobe at #12.

Arguments could be made for Thomas, Dr. J and West, which puts Kobe at the 12 to 15 range, and that is him with the benefit of playing on some of the most loaded teams of their years.

:lmao none of those have truly legit arguments above Kobe, especially Russell, Dr J, West, and Isiah.

[DMC]

At some point we're going to have to split the shares. The term "modern" being applied to people who played 35 years go but not 45 years ago is cherry picking, unless NBA rules are being considered. At some point we're going to need a middle category between early NBA and "modern".

[ambchang]

Monster stats combined with 5 rings against some tough competition are a pretty good starting point tbh.

Other than scoring, I won't say any of his stats were monstrous. And even then, they came in an inefficient manner.

Kobe's advanced stats were great, just not top 10 all time material, let alone top 5.

And of the 5 rings, three were won as a clear side kick to Shaq during the tough competition period. The other two were won in a very weak era of basketball, during a transition period when talent was essentially consolidated to two teams (The Lakers and the Celtics).



All of the bolded can have arguments to be bumped behind him for various, good reasons.
I can't see arguments over Magic, even most Kobestans rank Magic as the best Laker of all time.

Bird, Shaq, Hakeem, Lebron and Moses all had way higher peaks than Kobe ever did, where they combined their individual dominance and led their teams to success. Kobe puts up his best stats on losing team that had mediocre support (not horrible, but definitely not championship winning).

Individual awards-wise, all the those players were more accomplished than Kobe.

Stats-wise, all those players exceed Kobe. Same with Advanced Stats.


:lmao none of those have truly legit arguments above Kobe, especially Russell, Dr J, West, and Isiah.

Russell is getting severely underrated. Yes, he didn't score a lot, but he was one of earliest great passing big men in the game. His outlet passes were phenomenal. His defense was one of the best of all time, and the Celtics built a dynasty based on those two skills.

Dr. J had his prime with the ABA. He had great advanced stats, was an underrated rebounder and defender. People remember Dr. J as that old creak supporting Moses to a championship, and they forgot his early days with Philly leading a talented but flawed team deep into the playoffs.

West was one of the greatest ever, and it's sad that his game is not appreciated today. he had great range, passes extremely well, and was one of the first superstars who can man the PG and SG positions He puts up similar stats as Kobe, had way better advanced stats, led his team deep into the playoffs only to be stopped by a Celtics Dynasty that had 8 HoFers. Yes, he's an old-timer, but he was great.

Oh, and I forgot the Big O, the guy put up monsters in the early stages of the league. he is the Wilt and Russell camp, so Kobe is top #13, at best if you could the old timers, and #10 if you don't.

[ambchang]

At some point we're going to have to split the shares. The term "modern" being applied to people who played 35 years go but not 45 years ago is cherry picking, unless NBA rules are being considered. At some point we're going to need a middle category between early NBA and "modern".

I personally define it as pre/post ABA

[RsxPiimp]

This gook really has no life outside ST :lol

[Splits]

At some point we're going to have to split the shares. The term "modern" being applied to people who played 35 years go but not 45 years ago is cherry picking, unless NBA rules are being considered. At some point we're going to need a middle category between early NBA and "modern".

:lmao dat avi

[Phillip]

Other than scoring, I won't say any of his stats were monstrous. And even then, they came in an inefficient manner.

Kobe's advanced stats were great, just not top 10 all time material, let alone top 5.

And of the 5 rings, three were won as a clear side kick to Shaq during the tough competition period. The other two were won in a very weak era of basketball, during a transition period when talent was essentially consolidated to two teams (The Lakers and the Celtics).

So why doesn't Jordan's rings get discounted since he won in a weak era? Why not Russell's? How does Dr. J get ranked ahead when most of his career was played in a weak ABA?

:lol picking and choosing simply because you personally don't like Kobe.


I can't see arguments over Magic, even most Kobestans rank Magic as the best Laker of all time.

I don't know many Kobestans at all who rank Magic ahead of Kobe, considering 99% of them rank Kobe ahead of MJ.


Bird, Shaq, Hakeem, Lebron and Moses all had way higher peaks than Kobe ever did, where they combined their individual dominance and led their teams to success. Kobe puts up his best stats on losing team that had mediocre support (not horrible, but definitely not championship winning).

:lol not horrible. That's just laughable when you look at his squads from about 04-07.


Individual awards-wise, all the those players were more accomplished than Kobe.

True... then again, individual awards-wise, Nash has more MVPs than Shaq and Dirk, but I certainly wouldn't say he's greater than either of those by any means.


Stats-wise, all those players exceed Kobe. Same with Advanced Stats.

lol picking and choosing again


Russell is getting severely underrated. Yes, he didn't score a lot, but he was one of earliest great passing big men in the game. His outlet passes were phenomenal. His defense was one of the best of all time, and the Celtics built a dynasty based on those two skills.

No one said anything about scoring being a knock on him. Just that he wouldn't have won all those titles leading a team in any era since the 80's. He would have been lucky to get more than 2-3. He dominated in some of the worst eras of basketball where basically 75% of the good talent in the league ended up all stacked on his team in a league with 8 teams. :rolleyes yeah real impressive


Dr. J had his prime with the ABA. He had great advanced stats, was an underrated rebounder and defender. People remember Dr. J as that old creak supporting Moses to a championship, and they forgot his early days with Philly leading a talented but flawed team deep into the playoffs.

Good player who dominated among weak competition, never really proved he was truly top 10 all-time material against elite competition. Very good, but you're overrating him.


West was one of the greatest ever, and it's sad that his game is not appreciated today. he had great range, passes extremely well, and was one of the first superstars who can man the PG and SG positions He puts up similar stats as Kobe, had way better advanced stats, led his team deep into the playoffs only to be stopped by a Celtics Dynasty that had 8 HoFers. Yes, he's an old-timer, but he was great.

Again, very good player against weak competition in weak eras of basketball, and as you put it, the one good team that he ran up against, he couldn't do anything against them. Good guy to watch and learn basics of basketball from, but does he put up such monster numbers in more competitive eras? Highly doubtful.


Oh, and I forgot the Big O, the guy put up monsters in the early stages of the league. he is the Wilt and Russell camp, so Kobe is top #13, at best if you could the old timers, and #10 if you don't.

Early stages, AGAIN being the key word.


These guys are all great, transcendent players of the NBA, and the game wouldn't be what it is without them, no question about it. But it doesn't mean that they are superior to modern talent either. To illustrate, it would be like ranking how good light bulbs are, and saying that the original light bulbs that Edison invented are superior to the highly efficient LED bulbs of today, when they in no way are. Granted, we wouldn't have these fantastic LED bulbs if Edison hadn't gotten things started with his bulb, but that doesn't make it superior to modern bulbs. It's called progression and innovation, and it's not limited to technology, it very much applies to skills and talents as well, such as basketball.

[RsxPiimp]

This whole Kobe debate thing is tiring, but I'm glad some of the finer points in this thread we're not made by a Laker fan, props to Phillip.

[Phillip]

I'm not some huge Kobe fan, and I think he gets terribly overrated by some. But he's not as bad as many here make him out to be.

I really don't know why I even bother arguing with ambchang considering he is about as illogical of a Kobe hater as it gets. Then again, at least he can somewhat bring a decent (although heavily flawed) argument to the table, unlike other morons such as Cry Havoc.

[DPG21920]

Saying Kobe gets terribly overrated by some. Argues Kobe is top 5 ever.

[ambchang]

So why doesn't Jordan's rings get discounted since he won in a weak era? Why not Russell's? How does Dr. J get ranked ahead when most of his career was played in a weak ABA?

:lol picking and choosing simply because you personally don't like Kobe.

How was the Bulls era weak? Ewing Knicks, Jazz, Sonics, Blazers, Suns, Spurs were all decent teams that were better than any non Celtics/Lakers team from 08 to 10.

Dr. J played well in the NBA from 77 onwards in the NBA.



I don't know many Kobestans at all who rank Magic ahead of Kobe, considering 99% of them rank Kobe ahead of MJ.

Nobody ranks Kobe ahead of MJ anymore. Give this a rest.


[QUOTE=Phillip;7720466]:lol not horrible. That's just laughable when you look at his squads from about 04-07.

Odom and Butler were decent players.



True... then again, individual awards-wise, Nash has more MVPs than Shaq and Dirk, but I certainly wouldn't say he's greater than either of those by any means.

Individual awards includes more than MVPs.



lol picking and choosing again

How so?


No one said anything about scoring being a knock on him. Just that he wouldn't have won all those titles leading a team in any era since the 80's. He would have been lucky to get more than 2-3. He dominated in some of the worst eras of basketball where basically 75% of the good talent in the league ended up all stacked on his team in a league with 8 teams. :rolleyes yeah real impressive

No question the era was weak and the Celtics were the most stacked team, but Russell was integral to the style of play of that team. People make Russell out to be a Ben Wallace type of player, but Russell was much better on offense. His ability to pass was one of the best of any big man, outside of maybe Walton.


Good player who dominated among weak competition, never really proved he was truly top 10 all-time material against elite competition. Very good, but you're overrating him.

Why was that weak competition? He played against the Lakers in the finals, he went through the Bird Celtics multiple times.


Again, very good player against weak competition in weak eras of basketball, and as you put it, the one good team that he ran up against, he couldn't do anything against them. Good guy to watch and learn basics of basketball from, but does he put up such monster numbers in more competitive eras? Highly doubtful.

Again, why was that weak competition? He led the playoffs in WS and other advanced metrics multiple times.

You seem to have Dr. J, West and Russell against weak competition, but no problems with Kobe winning it all in 09 and 10 with some of the weakest competition the league has seen since the late 70s.


Early stages, AGAIN being the key word.

Players should be evaluated based on their competition and place in history rather than absolutes. Would Kobe beat those players if he was transported back in time? Sure, but that is with all the advances in the game, including some of the elements created by those players.


These guys are all great, transcendent players of the NBA, and the game wouldn't be what it is without them, no question about it. But it doesn't mean that they are superior to modern talent either. To illustrate, it would be like ranking how good light bulbs are, and saying that the original light bulbs that Edison invented are superior to the highly efficient LED bulbs of today, when they in no way are. Granted, we wouldn't have these fantastic LED bulbs if Edison hadn't gotten things started with his bulb, but that doesn't make it superior to modern bulbs. It's called progression and innovation, and it's not limited to technology, it very much applies to skills and talents as well, such as basketball.

But I would say Edison is a better engineer than some guy working in GE though.

[Killakobe81]

So why doesn't Jordan's rings get discounted since he won in a weak era? Why not Russell's? How does Dr. J get ranked ahead when most of his career was played in a weak ABA?

:lol picking and choosing simply because you personally don't like Kobe.



I don't know many Kobestans at all who rank Magic ahead of Kobe, considering 99% of them rank Kobe ahead of MJ.



:lol not horrible. That's just laughable when you look at his squads from about 04-07.



True... then again, individual awards-wise, Nash has more MVPs than Shaq and Dirk, but I certainly wouldn't say he's greater than either of those by any means.



lol picking and choosing again



No one said anything about scoring being a knock on him. Just that he wouldn't have won all those titles leading a team in any era since the 80's. He would have been lucky to get more than 2-3. He dominated in some of the worst eras of basketball where basically 75% of the good talent in the league ended up all stacked on his team in a league with 8 teams. :rolleyes yeah real impressive



Good player who dominated among weak competition, never really proved he was truly top 10 all-time material against elite competition. Very good, but you're overrating him.



Again, very good player against weak competition in weak eras of basketball, and as you put it, the one good team that he ran up against, he couldn't do anything against them. Good guy to watch and learn basics of basketball from, but does he put up such monster numbers in more competitive eras? Highly doubtful.



Early stages, AGAIN being the key word.


These guys are all great, transcendent players of the NBA, and the game wouldn't be what it is without them, no question about it. But it doesn't mean that they are superior to modern talent either. To illustrate, it would be like ranking how good light bulbs are, and saying that the original light bulbs that Edison invented are superior to the highly efficient LED bulbs of today, when they in no way are. Granted, we wouldn't have these fantastic LED bulbs if Edison hadn't gotten things started with his bulb, but that doesn't make it superior to modern bulbs. It's called progression and innovation, and it's not limited to technology, it very much applies to skills and talents as well, such as basketball.

Phillip with so much win, here.

1. Duncan not sure if top 5 but definitely over Shaq, and Bird and edges Kobe.
2. Kobe is definitely overrated by some but on this board he is actually underrated by most non Laker fans, so glad Phillip adds neutral perspective.
3. Amb though he makes some good pints picks and chooses stats, when to count rings, and especially punishes for missed playoffs or a poor record but says rings are a team accomplishment ...so wouldn't a playoff failure or crappy season be the same?

But like Pimp i have no interest in it anymore ... but it's funny how threatened by Kobe, duncan fans, are on here ... that when a thread is made (at least that was the published intent) to give duncan props ...yall bitches STILL gotta bring up Kobe. Duncan is better but if it was as clear and decisive as Amb would like for you to believe why do you have to spend SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much time making the same point over and over? I no longer make the Kobe was the MVP and Pau the #2 argument anymore because it is a stupid argument or a troll job and besides I really like Pau. No one spends time arguing how much greater Jordan was over Drexler or Ewing but everyday Kobe is brought in to 90% of threads on here even one meant to praise Timmy. Obsessed or threatened?

Crazy.

[midnightpulp]

Phillip with so much win, here.

1. Duncan not sure if top 5 but definitely over Shaq, and Bird and edges Kobe.
2. Kobe is definitely overrated by some but on this board he is actually underrated by most non Laker fans, so glad Phillip adds neutral perspective.
3. Amb though he makes some good pints picks and chooses stats, when to count rings, and especially punishes for missed playoffs or a poor record but says rings are a team accomplishment ...so wouldn't a playoff failure or crappy season be the same?

But like Pimp i have no interest in it anymore ... but it's funny how threatened by Kobe, duncan fans, are on here ... that when a thread is made (at least that was the published intent) to give duncan props ...yall bitches STILL gotta bring up Kobe. Duncan is better but if it was as clear and decisive as Amb would like for you to believe why do you have to spend SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much time making the same point over and over? I no longer make the Kobe was the MVP and Pau the #2 argument anymore because it is a stupid argument or a troll job and besides I really like Pau. No one spends time arguing how much greater Jordan was over Drexler or Ewing but everyday Kobe is brought in to 90% of threads on here even one meant to praise Timmy. Obsessed or threatened?

Crazy.

Blowback for all the Duncan threads Kool, Luva, et al started for 5 straight years and for the constant spamming of 5>4 by you know who.

[DPG21920]

You don't see Spurs fans on LG. Obsessed or threatened?

[SupremeGuy]

You don't see Spurs fans on LG. Obsessed or threatened?:lol

[lefty]

He's a lock for the hall of fame, imo.
Are you sure ?

[Johnny RIngo]

:lol at Kobe being top 5 all-time. Impact stats(RAPM) tell us he wasn't even top 5 of his own era.

[barbacoataco]

Kobe had all the moves and in terms of certain skills he was top 5-10 all time. But he was low % for the most part. He had his biggest stat years when the Lakers were weak, and was clearly #2 to Shaq on the best Lakers teams.

I think besides his efficiency issues, the part people question is his character, "chemistry" and team basketball skills. Since basketball is a team sport, the ability to play as a team, and to build winning teams, is a factor when determining the greatest players. If we were all picking teams in a sandlot you would consider who plays as a team and who doesn't. The fact that the Lakers have had periods of awfulness, not even making the playoffs, speaks to Kobe's value as a player.

[barbacoataco]

Kobe had all the moves and in terms of certain skills he was top 5-10 all time. But he was low % for the most part. He had his biggest stat years when the Lakers were weak, and was clearly #2 to Shaq on the best Lakers teams.

I think besides his efficiency issues, the part people question is his character, "chemistry" and team basketball skills. Since basketball is a team sport, the ability to play as a team, and to build winning teams, is a factor when determining the greatest players. If we were all picking teams in a sandlot you would consider who plays as a team and who doesn't. The fact that the Lakers have had periods of awfulness, not even making the playoffs, speaks to Kobe's value as a player.

[Blake]

Are you sure ?

The 2000 all star game co-mvp award sealed it

[scanry]

You don't see Spurs fans on LG. Obsessed or threatened?

I doubt someone like amb would even last a day with his takes takes tbh. The Kobetards run that forum.

[Killakobe81]

You don't see Spurs fans on LG. Obsessed or threatened?

1. Yes, we do. They post LG related content here all the time.
2. This is the NBA forum and how many threads have I made in a negative way about Duncan? I'll wait ...
3. SO Amb, makes a thread hailing duncan and his advanced metrics Phillip says he is a no doubt all-time top 5 great, but Kobe MUSt be dragged in to the discussion?

4.@Amb, LOL moses Malone over Kobe .... like I said I won't waste my time Phillip already destroyed your post.

[DPG21920]

Philip didn't destroy any post. There is no objective measure that has Kobe as top 5.

[Buddy Mignon]

impressive.

Anyone who says he's not a top 5 all time player is insane IMO.


No way is Jim a top 5 player. He's been coat riding for his last three titles.

[Killakobe81]

Philip didn't destroy any post. There is no objective measure that has Kobe as top 5.

1. You have your opinions I have mine, huckleberry ...1
2. There are no objective measures all stats are juked and all cases made on the subject matter are all "biased"
3. Again this thread was dedicated to the advanced metric brilliance of Timothy Duncan please stay on target, DPG. You are better than the rest.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol After all the shit Kirby stans talked about Duncan for YEARS, they're now playing the "obsessed" card now that they're getting it right back.

They can dish it, but they can't take it.

[Killakobe81]

:lol After all the shit Kirby stans talked about Duncan for YEARS, they're now playing the "obsessed" card now that they're getting it right back.

They can dish it, but they can't take it.

Find the one where I talked shit about Duncan, CN?
Who says I cannot take it ...I actually find your "digs" (I lol @ the "is he gonna kick his own ass?") humorous.
But Amb, was talking about his stats and they are amazing ...again what doe sthat have to do with Kobe?
And why not just add to the numerous bash threads? (Kobe cusses team-mate, Kobe shooting under 40%, 48.5 etc.)
Plenty of Kobe material to discuss but why in Advanced stats for Duncan thread?
Doesnt make sense, tbh ...