MHSL82
Well-Known Member
Posts #s 34, 37, 38 - not quoted for sake of brevity.
Why you gotta poke holes in my argument with stupid "facts" and "objectivity", man? Duncan, to me, is a center who can and does shoot from anywhere inside the three point line. I think he plays and is used like a power forward, but it's like a QB who runs like a runningback is still a QB despite his skill and use of his legs.
As to minutes, I am probably alone here, I think that's like usage rate, where part of the minutes played is due to the player's durability, role in the offense, reliability when others would be tired, the quality of backup, hack a Shaq, etc. Bear with me, because I feel this will be hard to explain what I mean. I hate the 36 minutes stat because I think you make your money in the minutes after 36, too. I understand that it's a rate - it doesn't literally mean the first 36 minutes, but I'll explain why I don't like it, despite it being a legitimate method. Again, bear with me.
Presumably, players are less effective the more tired they could be, as in the minutes before being subbed out and in the waning minutes of a game (as accumulated time takes a toll). Taking a player out at 2 minutes left of the quarter is different than taking them out at the 4 minute mark. If one player's substitution pattern removes him at the 4 minute mark because he's less durable physically or less effective or more foul prone, his rate of when he is in would be artificially higher than if he had played those last two minutes tired. The difference between Malone and Duncan's minutes is so small that I don't think it changes anything, because no coach is going to take a player out a quarter of 2 minutes (30 seconds) earlier because of concerns for efficiency and Duncan's in great shape, too; so this is a moot point, but since you cite the 1.9 minutes as a factor, I'll address it here.
I think physical and mental stamina are important in an all-encompassing comparison. Duncan and Malone are very similar in this regard, but when comparing everybody, this stands out for Malone. I think it's part of what made him great. Malone's physique allowed him to be more efficient in the minutes before substitution or took him longer to get spent than others. But compared to the fresh minutes, it took a toll I bet. I'm not comparing him to Duncan here, just in general. Rates are great, but while these rates suffer as the legs lose their freshness, those who are in great physical shape are effected less in the last minutes than others - but still affected.
The fact is, the coaches didn't use the two players equally and acting like they did would be like me inflating Alex Smith's numbers by saying "if he threw as much as Tom Brady..." Some nuttier Smith fans have done that, ignoring the fact that defenses would defend differently if Smith were to throw that much. I recognize this doesn't make any sense because minutes played is different than style of play, but applying a rate, to me, is incomplete. Every year, I see someone very efficient in few minutes, where I could not extrapolate to get accurate what-ifs. Similarly, pro-rating minutes doesn't work for me because most likely the player with longer minutes had their rate suffer due to those extra minutes (but total increased).
I know coaches also limit minutes due to other factors like long term health, how strong your backup is, rotation factors, blowout wins or losses, etc. If Malone played more per game, that's a credit to him. Same to Duncan, if he had done so. Because say, had he stopped at however number of minutes Duncan averages, his total points would be lower, but his per minute wouldn't be the same. I don't know if he was better or worse than Duncan in the waning minutes after long stretches, but the point is, not knowing, applying a rate doesn't make sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ginobli made it easier on Duncan, just like Stockton made it easier on Malone. Not to the same extent obviously. Maybe without Ginobli, the whole winning aspect of Duncan's candidacy lessens because they lose more? Maybe his stats go down because teams wouldn't have to back off to defend the three? Again, don't want to exaggerate the extent, but we're only talking about 1-2 shots per game, so a little help from a good Ginobli can go relatively a long way. It's like how a great runningback can make a quarterback be able to pass more, despite appearing to be taking yards away from the passing game by rushing instead.
So, in regard to supporting cast's roles, there are too many moving parts for me - like how would Malone be if he had Robinson? Yes, his points would go down, but would the rings make up for it in consideration for being the best PF ever? Malone would be much less of a player without Stockton. Duncan won without Robinson, but I feel overall his supporting cast was better and more diverse. His stats and winning were affected positively and negatively in different aspects by having Ginobli and the like there. Jeff Hornacek was as great of outside shooter as Ginobli, but he didn't take usage rate points from Malone? Bryon Russell shot enough for local papers to be talking about him being a future cornerstone to when Stock and Malone retired, how did he affect usage rate? How did Robinson?
I know I feel I'm talking in circles - because I can't really discredit Duncan and I know there were some areas where Malone could have been better. I'm a traditional stat guy (since you wouldn't buy my passive lay man claim) and I value those stats more than some. I know that leaves me empty sometimes when there are other stats that disprove what's on the surface level. I just feel that Duncan has done less and achieved more - whether that's due to supporting cast, coaching, eras, etc., that's how I feel. I know I can be wrong, but this whole thing started from people shoving it down my throat how Duncan was all-time. He's the winningest qualified PF, to me - but that doesn't say as much to me as most. I'm not going to make the fake mention of Luke Longley to discredit championships as being the criteria for all-time, but I will say it's not everything to me.