where does Dirk rank among all time greatest PFs?

[kenny817]

And Pierce will be right behind him. I guess PP is the 2nd best small forward after Bird.

And Paul Pierce was a glorified LOSER before the franchise gifted him two all time greats

Dirk > about 80 others players > Paul Pierce

[kenny817]

1. Duncan.
2. dirk.

who cares

dirk > kg, don't even bring him up

Dat accuracy

[JohnnySic]

How many MVP's and All-NBA First teams does he have? How many times did he lead his teams to 50+ wins. Does he average 26/10/1/1 on 58% TS for his CAREER in the Playoffs?

Lol @ McHale being above Dirk.

McHale could have averaged 30 ppg and 10 rpg during his peak if we wasn't playing with a bunch of other hall of famers including an arguable GOAT. Hell he almost did that anyway in '87 (26/10).

As good as Dirk is from mid to long range, McHale was even better in the post. Best low post arsenal of all time, even better than Hakeem. Automatic.

McHale was a better rebounder than Dirk, better post defender, better shot blocker and at least an equal passer (despite his nickname "black hole" )

For a near 7 footer, Dirk is a curiously weak rebounder. But hey, lets ignore the things he doesn't do well and focus on the things he does well to puff up his stature. Call it James Worthy Effect (or Dennis Rodman effect, take your pick). Lets hang our hats on that great run he had in '11 and forget the times he was ordinary or worse (the great Golden State meltdown of '07 comes to mind; also game 5 in the '06 Finals...)

[aj1987]

And Paul Pierce was a glorified LOSER before the franchise gifted him two all time greats

Dirk > about 80 others players > Paul Pierce

Paul Pierce is legit top 50 all time.

[JohnnySic]

Why are people upset about my ranking? Top 7 all time is pretty good.

You can argue Dirk over McHale. But he was not better than Malone, Barkley, and KG. And if you saw those guys in their prime, you'd get it.

[longhornfan1234]

1. Duncan
2. Charles
3. Malone
4. KG
5. Dirk
6. Petit
7. Mchale

Who cares after that.

Why are people so down on Malone?

[DMAVS41]

It's times like these where stats distort the absolute shit out of what's actually going on.

That San Antonio offense was on another level compared to Houston's offense. It was obvious to anyone who consistently watched both teams in the playoffs...it's not even close when you go beyond bare points scored and efficiency numbers.

Houston played a mediocre defensive playoff team and still dropped clearly in efficiency outside of free throw shooting, with one half of its star duo completely bombing.. Again, I would've loved to see how that Houston offense stacked up against a terrific defensive team like Memphis, Indiana before they collapsed, and a playoff version of San Antonio, not the pushover early regular season version. Slightly scoring more on worse efficiency against a meh defensive team for a 6 game sample size doesn't put you on the same level as an all-time great offense like last playoffs' Spurs.

San Antonio was putting on an offensive clinic most nights. Completely blowing teams away offensively..they were a machine from top to bottom, from every angle, getting contributions from all over the court from everyone, and on a consistent basis, maximizing the talent of everyone on the roster. They were without a doubt one of the most incredibly well-executing offenses I've ever seen. And they did it for 4 straight round against better defenses than Portland. And not just better, but different..they had to adapt night after night.

this is where just not liking a style is getting away of reality.

Look...the Rockets played all the teams all year in the regular season. They had a better offense than the Spurs. It was marginal, but to act like there was a huge difference in favor of the Spurs is absurd in the regular season.

The Rockets actually scored slightly more points per 100 possessions.

We can talk about specific things like situational scoring or adapting...etc, but broadly, the Rockets were slightly better offensively than the Spurs in the regular season.

In the playoffs...it's hard to read much into only 6 games for the Rockets. They did score awfully well against the Blazers, but the Blazers were poor on defense.

Having said that though...just expecting the Rockets offense to fail because you don't like the style they play isn't very objective. We don't know what would or wouldn't have happened with that offense. All I know is that in the 88 games that team played last year...they had an offense as good as anyone in the league.

You guys are projecting what you think would have happened far too hugely here. We simply don't know...

Yea...I'd guess the Rockets offense would have dipped down to like 111 points per 100 if they had advanced to the finals...etc., but I don't think it drops off hugely or anything. They had a ****ing great offense...denying that is silly.

The issue always was defense for the Rockets.

I'm sorry you guys don't like the style, but it worked offensively.

The stats don't skew anything. They simply tell you what actually happened. And if you compared the first 88 games of the Rockets with the first 88 games of the Spurs...you'd have the Rockets edging them out in offense slightly.

What would or wouldn't have happened to the Rockets if they had to play 15 more games is purely guess work...and acting like you all know they would crumble is absurd.

Defense was the difference. Sorry if you don't like it...reality doesn't give a crap what you like or don't like.

[DMAVS41]

Points scored per 100 possessions...easily the best indication of offensive power:

Regular season:

Rockets 111
Spurs 110.5

Total toss up:

Playoffs through round 1:

Rockets 114.8
Spurs 113.1

Spurs ended the playoffs with a 114.2 rating.

We can talk about situational stuff and adapting and adjusting...etc, but the truth is that the Rockets just likely weren't going to drop anywhere below 111 or 112...they had an elite offense.

Again...sorry if you don't like reality. You have an 88 game sample size in which the Rockets essentially had the best offense in basketball. That's enough to put them on par with anyone else in the league.

Now, like I said before, I'd take the Spurs offense for a lot of the reasons you guys say, but to act like there is some huge gap here is absurd. Just absolutely absurd.

[magnax1]

99-07 (Duncan's prime): 24/13/4/3/.560 TS%

01-04 KG (his prime was really 00-07 but he didn't make the Playoffs those last 3 years): 24/15/5/1/2/.524 TS%

Calling 06 and 07 (or 99 in Duncan's case) their prime is a stretch. Both fell off clearly after 05.
Either way, it doesn't change their numbers much.

Now, those are the numbers, and Duncan clearly has the upper-hand.

Clearly? There's not uper hand at all. His only clear advantage is shooting % and blocked shots. What's clear is you're just spewing shit. There's no advantage either way. KG is the considerably better passer, Duncan the better scorer, KG the more versatile player on defense, and Duncan the better rim protector.

Anyway, I've got to go, but I've never heard someone try and say KG had more help either. He had some help one year in his career, and then both Casell, and the backup PG were injured in the conference finals, allowing playing time for the great Darrick Martin. Even KG was playing PG because there only PG was a scrub who played 118 games total from 02-07. Duncan had two all time great defenders on his squad and then two all time great guards after Robinson retired.

[bizil]

I gotta give Petitt mad props for being the GOAT PF for as long as he was. It took Barkley and Malone to pass him by GOAT wise in the 90's. I guess some may argue McHale as well. But for sure it took Chuck and Mailman to get past Petitt

[Pointguard]

Points scored per 100 possessions...easily the best indication of offensive power:

If a team wins a game in 75 possessions they can throw away the last 25. Winning the game is superior to 100 possessions. Players don't play in the context of 100 possessions. It can help explain something but it can't be the story within itself. Every stat needs a context and very rarely does one stat will tell most of the story.

Again...sorry if you don't like reality. You have an 88 game sample size in which the Rockets essentially had the best offense in basketball. That's enough to put them on par with anyone else in the league.

Now, like I said before, I'd take the Spurs offense for a lot of the reasons you guys say, but to act like there is some huge gap here is absurd. Just absolutely absurd.

I don't think you have a television.

You are trying to convince yourself of something that is as obvious as day: SA had 9 working pieces with 4 of them very dependable. Houston had 3 working pieces with none of them dependable in the playoffs. Think of it as a car, or a gang fight.* Either way, you would have to be crazy to go the Houston route. The more players that are involved in the offense in anything in an organized system is better than less players and less dependable players every time.

*A car with 9 working pieces and four dependable pieces will always be better than one with 3 and no dependable pieces. Self explanatory. A gang fight with 9 on one side with 4 loaded guns will always beat another gang with 3 guys with no guns.

[DMAVS41]

If a team wins a game in 75 possessions they can throw away the last 25. Winning the game is superior to 100 possessions. Players don't play in the context of 100 possessions. It can help explain something but it can't be the story within itself. Every stat needs a context and very rarely does one stat will tell most of the story.



I don't think you have a television.

You are trying to convince yourself of something that is as obvious as day: SA had 9 working pieces with 4 of them very dependable. Houston had 3 working pieces with none of them dependable in the playoffs. Think of it as a car, or a gang fight.* Either way, you would have to be crazy to go the Houston route. The more players that are involved in the offense in anything in an organized system is better than less players and less dependable players every time.

*A car with 9 working pieces and four dependable pieces will always be better than one with 3 and no dependable pieces. Self explanatory. A gang fight with 9 on one side with 4 loaded guns will always beat another gang with 3 guys with no guns.

Dude. You just have no evidence at all that the Rockets offense was going to collapse like you seem to think.

What we have is 88 games and the best metric we have to measure offense rates them slightly better than the Spurs.

Again, I agree that the Spurs offense is the one I'd take if someone made me choose, but our dispute has been about what separated those teams.

And it wasn't the offense. It was the defense. If the Spurs played their offense, but defended like the Rockets...they wouldn't have made it out of the West last year.

That is what you continue to miss. And you can't just knock something that works because you don't like the style...the Rockets offense worked last year for 88 games. More than enough information to conclude it was just really ****ing good.

[Round Mound]

I`d Take Kevin McHale Over Dirk Any Day.

1-Duncan
2-Barkley
3-Malone
4-McHale
5-Pettit
6-Dirk or Garnett
8-Hayes
9-Webber
10-Schayes.

[Pointguard]

Dude. You just have no evidence at all that the Rockets offense was going to collapse like you seem to think.

They collapsed against the worst defensive team in the playoffs??? Did I miss something?

What we have is 88 games and the best metric we have to measure offense rates them slightly better than the Spurs.

The best way to beat a team that has more talent than you, is to be very organized and play team ball. Teams without great firepower could win series playing like SA. Teams with talent would constantly lose playing like Houston.

Here is a good article on that.

http://thesportsbloggers.com/nba/170

Here are a slew of articles to have you understand that this isn't me picking on you. If you think that calamity of offense in Houston would ever be called among the best offenses ever... read these articles.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/...selfish-teams/

http://www.si.com/nba/point-forward/...em-tony-parker

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...-system-shines

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/06/the-...ve-performance

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/sp...ndup.html?_r=0

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-t...are-1403029930

http://insidethefilmroom.com/miami-h...ensive-clinic/

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/9...haring-spacing

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ive-juggernaut

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/thompso...s-new-offense/


And here is a good article on how advanced metrics can't measure how good the Spurs offense is:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-s...ure-1586650316

That is what you continue to miss. And you can't just knock something that works because you don't like the style...the Rockets offense worked last year for 88 games. More than enough information to conclude it was just really ****ing good.

Its obvious that people are seeing what you don't see. People are calling this offense among the best ever. Not just fing good.

[DMAVS41]

Dude...having a 114.8 offensive rating in the playoffs is not collapsing. We don't even have words for how far apart we are on this. 114 points per 100 is absurdly good...and you call that collapsing????

I'll just keep repeating it...the bit thing that separated the Rockets and the Spurs was defense. We can talk about all the stuff you are...and some of it matters...some of it doesn't...

But that is all meaningless noise until the Rockets defend like the Spurs. If they did...then that stuff would potentially matter....but until then it's pointless to even discuss these teams in that sense.

You just don't like their style...even though it straight up raped teams all year for 88 games. So did the Spurs, but the difference is that the Spurs defended the ball 10 points better per 100 possessions than the Rockets did in the playoffs.

That is the big difference. Why can't you just admit that? The big difference was the defense. It wasn't any of the shit you are talking about...the details you are talking about is what separates two pretty close teams at times like the Thunder and Spurs or Heat and Spurs from the last few years.

What do you think would happen if the Rockets just all of a sudden got 10 points better per 100 possessions on defense? Do you really not think they'd be absurdly good?

Jesus...what is so hard to understand? The Mavs probably have the best offense in the league so far. Why are they only 4-3? Because the defense sucks. Why are the Rockets 6-1? Because their defense is a shockingly good 3rd best in the league so far....so even though their offense has regressed a bit to 10 in the league...they are simply a better team right now than they were last year if this holds.

Again...this is so simple. It's truly pathetic you can't grasp this.