Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: DuPree's Rankings
Well, I dunno....my version would be "If you have Shaq at the top,
your rating system either undervalues defense, undervalues actual
time on the court - or overvalues All-Interview Team selections,
bad rapping and atrocious movies". <grin>
Seriously, my "sniff test" is basically something along the lines
of "If you don't have Shaq, Duncan and Garnett in the top 6 -
preferably with at least 2 of them among the top three - for
each of the last 3 years then I'm not gonna spend much time looking
at your system"
> I like the more organic "laugh test" which just sort of arose here
> by mutual consent a couple of years ago, I think it was in the context
> of a discussion of Dave Berri's rankings, which had Dennis Rodman as
> the top player from some late 1990s season. The Shaq rule will become
> obsolete someday, when Shaq no longer rules the NBA (or if you're a
> CharlesB type who says Duncan has already been ruling it).
Geez...I know I'm vocal, but it's not like I'm out on a limb by
myself. 120 or so voters *have* picked Duncan ahead of Shaq for
four of the last five years (they - and I - may be wrong, but
they *do exist*), and he is the reigning two-time MVP.
I think if you're not going to vote Shaq, then Duncan is the only reasonable alternative, assuming that one of the other two top echelon players (McGrady and Garnett) don't play completely out of their minds. Over the course of the season, Duncan probably is more valuable, simply because he plays more games and minutes then Shaq. I view it much like the argument of Zito/Halladay vs. Pedro Martinez for the Cy Young - Do you take peak performance (Shaq) or the extra games (Duncan)?
And NBA GM's picked Duncan over Shaq by a two to one margin when asked
who they would sign to be the cornerstone of a franchise. [
http://www.nba.com/preview2003/gm_survey_031024.html ] (The one that
really surprised me was the 95%-5% margin Tim got for "best post
Two different arguments. A general manager has to think primarily about the *future* of the franchise; Shaq has a gimpy toe and he's on the wrong side of 30 now. At best, he's going to give you two more completely healthy and dominating years. Duncan is on pace to be the greatest power forward of all-time, or at least in the discussion with Karl Malone. He's also only 27, and has the attitude that NBA GMs love - unquestioning and total devoted to the coach.
As for the post moves, Duncan may or may not have better post moves. It doesn't matter, because Shaq is just so dominating in the post due to his unique combination of soft hands, massive bulk, and incredible footwork. It's like a McGrady vs. Iverson argument for peremiter skills - Iverson has an incredible crossover, but even though McGrady's isn't that good, his superior athletic abilities enable him to be the more valuable offensive weapon.
- On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Mike G wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>This is certainly something deserving of more intense scrutiny, I'll agree with that much. My take on Cummings and Gilmore, based only on personal observation (more in Top Cat's case than in Gilmore's) and reading/hearing analysis of his play is that they're sort of basketball equivalents of Jim Kaat, Rusty Staub, Tommy John, or Jerry Reuss (more valuable than Reuss, but you get the idea). That is, they had very long careers of being 2nd tier stars. Is that kind of player HOF worthy? I don't know. It's a good question. Certainly they aren't as famous as a Bill Walton type who is incredible for a couple years and then gets hurt.
> > I like the more organic "laugh test" which just sort of arose here
> > by mutual consent a couple of years ago, I think it was in the
> > of a discussion of Dave Berri's rankings, which had Dennis Rodman
> > the top player from some late 1990s season. The Shaq rule will
> > obsolete someday, when Shaq no longer rules the NBA (or if you're a
> > CharlesB type who says Duncan has already been ruling it). But the
> > laugh test will work forever.
> The laugh test is somewhat subject to the general tenor of the
> discussion. Just as in real life, one person laughing becomes 2
> laughing, becomes a room full of laughers, sometimes.
> Now the joke may have been truly funny, or it may have just struck
> the first laugher a certain way. In any case, it's always better if
> the idea being laughed at is truly funny (or ridiculous).
> When I listed Terry Cummings in the Alltime Top 50 (he's since
> slipped out, due to the rise of Iverson, Kidd, Bryant, Garnett..),
> it's because he shares statistical attributes with everyone else in
> that range.
> I feel the burden is on others to explain why the rebounds and
> points that Cummings got are not due the consideration of the same
> points and rebounds gotten by a more glamorous player. I'm never
> going to penalize a player due to his lack of popularity.
> I don't think I'll ever be convinced that Artis Gilmore isn't
> deserving of the Hall of Fame. He was never in an NBA Finals;
> neither was Cummings. So what? They still had long, productive