thedangerouskitchen wrote:
I place much more value on the Playoffs / Finals (vs. the regular season) when considering all-time rankings, so if those numbers are legit then Wilt's historically bad FT shooting likely cost him at least 2-4 more Championships and undisputed GOAT status.
That's completely fair, but we were talking about choking in the playoffs. It's not really choking if he doesn't make fts as it was very far and few between that he actually made them. Like I said, I see and understand what you're saying, but the 40-50% ft shooting doesn't belong in the choking discussion, just my .02 cents
Indeed.
So you guys are saying that, "technically speaking" he didn't 'choke' in the Playoffs/Finals simply because he was also a horrible FT shooter in the regular season as well?
How about, he "choked" in the regular season too?
But regardless of the semantics, either way this monumental flaw in his game prevented Wilt from likely winning an additional 2-3-4 more Championship (and with that, probable "undisputed GOAT" status).
In either case, this is why Chamberlain doesn't deserve a spot in the Top 5 all-time, IMO anyway.
Last edited by thedangerouskitchen on Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
y2ktors wrote:
Wilt's teams were favored from 67-70 and '72. They won in 67 and 72.
Now let's get down to the real truth:
1968:
In game 7, Greer, Wali Jones, Chet Walker, Luke Jackson and Matt Guokas shot a combined 25/74. 34% isn't gonna get it done, all whilst Wilt Only getting 23 touches all game long. It was a shitty gamelan by Alex Hannum, but he'd already determined that he was done with Philly. Wilt didn't shoot 1 time in the second half, but if you're the star u have to demand the ball.
1969
Game 4:
With a 1 point lead and the ball, Elgin Baylor turned the ball over. He was 1-6 from the line and only scored FIVE points.
Game 7:
The Lakers were 28-47 from the line as a team. Take Wilt's 4-13 out and leaves 24-34 for the rest of the team.
Baylor scored a total of 24 points, going 4-14 from the line from games 3-5.
Each player that you banned had many playoff blunders and their teams lost as favorites on multiple occassions.
Somehow, everything that goes wrong is completely blamed on Wilt Chamberlain. I just don't understand it.
And he was also a favorite in 1961 when he got swept by a below .500 Nationals team. He was also the favorite in 1969 as the Celtics only had 48 wins all year while the Lakers had 55. In that pivotal game 4 in the 1969 finals, Baylor was bad but wilt was just as bad. 2-11 from the line and only 8 points and again got outplayed by his teammate Jerry West, who had 40. It's ironic because he's the guy that Wilt blames the most for his failures.
In game 7 of that same series in 1969 the rest of the team did shoot 24-34 which is 70%. West had 42 and Baylor had 18 and both shot very well from the line. wilt shot 30% that game at the line 4-13 and had only 18 points.
And you can make a list of everyone else's playoff failures but the list will not be nearly as long as wilt's. And you may call me a hater but i still have him 7th all time, so i'm not hating him that much.
The list of playoff failures for Wilt isn't as long as u think it is. Quite frankly, his failures are right in line with Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq. I'm no fan of Wilt and really admire Jerry West. But in fairness, I don't believe everything negative of Wilt was the sole reason for why they lost, especially when he was 7/8 from the field being being benched for the final 2 minutes even though he was ready to check back in from injury.
Well even "if" that's true those other guys you mentioned also own more Championships than Wilt... in fact, all but Bird own at least twice as many. So if we're using the "take the good with the bad" argument, you can say that those guys succeeded (ie; Rings) more than they failed... or at least they succeeded more than Wilt.
Also keep in mind that when you get down to discussing THE ABSOLUTE BEST 4-5-6-10 players in the entire history of the NBA it's to be expected that their game/resume/legacy is dissected in such an extreme manner... how else are we going to separate such an elite class, and determine why so-and-so should be #4, for example, and that guy #5?
Last edited by thedangerouskitchen on Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
wailuaFC wrote:
That's completely fair, but we were talking about choking in the playoffs. It's not really choking if he doesn't make fts as it was very far and few between that he actually made them. Like I said, I see and understand what you're saying, but the 40-50% ft shooting doesn't belong in the choking discussion, just my .02 cents
Indeed.
So you guys are saying that, "technically speaking" he didn't 'choke' in the Playoffs/Finals simply because he was also a horrible FT shooter in the regular season as well?
I about he "choked" in the regular season too?
But regardless of the semantics, either way this monumental flaw in his game prevented Wilt from likely winning an additional 2-3-4 more Championship (and with that, probable "undisputed GOAT" status).
In either case, this is why Chamberlain doesn't deserve a spot in the Top 5 all-time, IMO anyway.
But you're strictly talking about free throws keeping Wilt out of the top 5. That's what's so nonsensical.
You've turned to making assumptions and creating scenarios about Silt losing because he was a terrible FT shooter instead of just going on the fact that he was bad regardless. It was a major flaw in his game, not him choking.
You can place him where u like. I'm not arguing with that. But you're ignoring every other factor that is taken into account in a basketball game whilst focusing solely on Wilt Chamberlain Being a horrid FT shooter.
So you guys are saying that, "technically speaking" he didn't 'choke' in the Playoffs/Finals simply because he was also a horrible FT shooter in the regular season as well?
I about he "choked" in the regular season too?
But regardless of the semantics, either way this monumental flaw in his game prevented Wilt from likely winning an additional 2-3-4 more Championship (and with that, probable "undisputed GOAT" status).
In either case, this is why Chamberlain doesn't deserve a spot in the Top 5 all-time, IMO anyway.
But you're strictly talking about free throws keeping Wilt out of the top 5. That's what's so nonsensical.
You've turned to making assumptions and creating scenarios about Silt losing because he was a terrible FT shooter instead of just going on the fact that he was bad regardless. It was a major flaw in his game, not him choking.
You can place him where u like. I'm not arguing with that. But you're ignoring every other factor that is taken into account in a basketball game whilst focusing solely on Wilt Chamberlain Being a horrid FT shooter.
As noted, regardless of the "word" you wish to use the bottom line still stands: Wilt's major flaw likely cost him at least 2-4 more Championships.
And read above, what I said about dissecting the game/resumes of the best-OF-the-best... when you get to such a short list of players, how else are you gonna separate the 4th greatest player all-time from the 5th without getting totally anal?
Bottom line Wilt is being discussed as the #4 player all-time... not his teammates. Further, Wilt had 100% control over whether he made / missed those FT's... it's not like he went 2-15 from the field because Bill Russell was on him like a blanket. In that case you could give Wilt some lee-way.
But these were FT's...
Last edited by thedangerouskitchen on Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
876Stephen wrote:
And he was also a favorite in 1961 when he got swept by a below .500 Nationals team. He was also the favorite in 1969 as the Celtics only had 48 wins all year while the Lakers had 55. In that pivotal game 4 in the 1969 finals, Baylor was bad but wilt was just as bad. 2-11 from the line and only 8 points and again got outplayed by his teammate Jerry West, who had 40. It's ironic because he's the guy that Wilt blames the most for his failures.
In game 7 of that same series in 1969 the rest of the team did shoot 24-34 which is 70%. West had 42 and Baylor had 18 and both shot very well from the line. wilt shot 30% that game at the line 4-13 and had only 18 points.
And you can make a list of everyone else's playoff failures but the list will not be nearly as long as wilt's. And you may call me a hater but i still have him 7th all time, so i'm not hating him that much.
The list of playoff failures for Wilt isn't as long as u think it is. Quite frankly, his failures are right in line with Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq. I'm no fan of Wilt and really admire Jerry West. But in fairness, I don't believe everything negative of Wilt was the sole reason for why they lost, especially when he was 7/8 from the field being being benched for the final 2 minutes even though he was ready to check back in from injury.
Well even "if" that's true those other guys you mentioned also own more Championships that Wilt... all but Bird own at least twice as many. So if we're using the "take the good with the bad" argument, you can say that those guys succeeded (ie; Rings) more than they failed... or at least they succeeded more than Wilt.
Also keep in mind that when you get down to discussing THE ABSOLUTE BEST 4-5-6-10 players in the entire history of the NBA it's to be expected that their game/resume/legacy is dissected in such an extreme manner... how else are we going to separate such an elite class, and determine why so-and-so should be #4, for example, and that guy #5?
My issue was solely with the overblown of placing fault of failures of Wilt's teams in the postseason that he's gotten over the years.
But on the other hand, Wilt's '67 team was the only team to beat the Russell-led Celtics when Russell Was in the lineup. That holds a lot of weight.
While winning rings is the most important thing and he's only done it twice it's not like he was repeatedly getting stomp by weak ass teams. It was just the wrong era for him to win more, as the 90s were for other greats.
Baylor, West and Oscar just had too many obstacles to overcome just to beat Those Celtics. But in the end, u gotta win.
So you guys are saying that, "technically speaking" he didn't 'choke' in the Playoffs/Finals simply because he was also a horrible FT shooter in the regular season as well?
I about he "choked" in the regular season too?
But regardless of the semantics, either way this monumental flaw in his game prevented Wilt from likely winning an additional 2-3-4 more Championship (and with that, probable "undisputed GOAT" status).
In either case, this is why Chamberlain doesn't deserve a spot in the Top 5 all-time, IMO anyway.
But you're strictly talking about free throws keeping Wilt out of the top 5. That's what's so nonsensical.
You've turned to making assumptions and creating scenarios about Silt losing because he was a terrible FT shooter instead of just going on the fact that he was bad regardless. It was a major flaw in his game, not him choking.
You can place him where u like. I'm not arguing with that. But you're ignoring every other factor that is taken into account in a basketball game whilst focusing solely on Wilt Chamberlain Being a horrid FT shooter.
As noted, regardless of the "word" you wish to use the bottom line still stands: Wilt's major flaw likely cost him at least 2-4 more Championships.
And read above, what I said about dissecting the game/resumes of the best-OF-the-best... when you get to such a short list of players, how else are you gonna separate the 4th greatest player all-time from the 5th without getting totally anal?
Bottom line is Wilt is being discussed at the #4 player all-time... not his teammates. Further, Wilt had 100% control on whether he made / missed those FT's... it's not like he went 2-15 from the field because Bill Russell was on his like a blanket.
These were FT's...
This is just like you holding ppg against Russell. Instead of looking at individual weakness, you have to look at their overall contribution to their teams, and wilt is quite possibly the most dominant of all time. If he had 2-4 more championships like you say he should, he would probably be goat on a lot of peoples lists, however just having 2 championships slides him down to 4.
The list of playoff failures for Wilt isn't as long as u think it is. Quite frankly, his failures are right in line with Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq. I'm no fan of Wilt and really admire Jerry West. But in fairness, I don't believe everything negative of Wilt was the sole reason for why they lost, especially when he was 7/8 from the field being being benched for the final 2 minutes even though he was ready to check back in from injury.
Well even "if" that's true those other guys you mentioned also own more Championships that Wilt... all but Bird own at least twice as many. So if we're using the "take the good with the bad" argument, you can say that those guys succeeded (ie; Rings) more than they failed... or at least they succeeded more than Wilt.
Also keep in mind that when you get down to discussing THE ABSOLUTE BEST 4-5-6-10 players in the entire history of the NBA it's to be expected that their game/resume/legacy is dissected in such an extreme manner... how else are we going to separate such an elite class, and determine why so-and-so should be #4, for example, and that guy #5?
My issue was solely with the overblown of placing fault of failures of Wilt's teams in the postseason that he's gotten over the years.
But on the other hand, Wilt's '67 team was the only team to beat the Russell-led Celtics when Russell Was in the lineup. That holds a lot of weight.
While winning rings is the most important thing and he's only done it twice it's not like he was repeatedly getting stomp by weak ass teams. It was just the wrong era for him to win more, as the 90s were for other greats.
Baylor, West and Oscar just had too many obstacles to overcome just to beat Those Celtics. But in the end, u gotta win.
But again... keep in mind we're not arguing Wilt's status in a general sense, we're trying to determine whether he deserves to be listed as the #4 player all-time, ahead of Magic, Bird and others.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
So you guys are saying that, "technically speaking" he didn't 'choke' in the Playoffs/Finals simply because he was also a horrible FT shooter in the regular season as well?
I about he "choked" in the regular season too?
But regardless of the semantics, either way this monumental flaw in his game prevented Wilt from likely winning an additional 2-3-4 more Championship (and with that, probable "undisputed GOAT" status).
In either case, this is why Chamberlain doesn't deserve a spot in the Top 5 all-time, IMO anyway.
But you're strictly talking about free throws keeping Wilt out of the top 5. That's what's so nonsensical.
You've turned to making assumptions and creating scenarios about Silt losing because he was a terrible FT shooter instead of just going on the fact that he was bad regardless. It was a major flaw in his game, not him choking.
You can place him where u like. I'm not arguing with that. But you're ignoring every other factor that is taken into account in a basketball game whilst focusing solely on Wilt Chamberlain Being a horrid FT shooter.
As noted, regardless of the "word" you wish to use the bottom line still stands: Wilt's major flaw likely cost him at least 2-4 more Championships.
And read above, what I said about dissecting the game/resumes of the best-OF-the-best... when you get to such a short list of players, how else are you gonna separate the 4th greatest player all-time from the 5th without getting totally anal?
Bottom line Wilt is being discussed as the #4 player all-time... not his teammates. Further, Wilt had 100% control over whether he made / missed those FT's... it's not like he went 2-15 from the field because Bill Russell was on him like a blanket. In that case you could give Wilt some lee-way.
But these were FT's...
Teams win championships, not just the star player.
If you want to say that FTs being such a major flaw of his whilst other players in your top 5 didn't have that deep of a flaw then that's totally reasonable. But you're going further that that and recreating history without taking anything else but more made FTS into account.
y2ktors wrote:
But you're strictly talking about free throws keeping Wilt out of the top 5. That's what's so nonsensical.
You've turned to making assumptions and creating scenarios about Silt losing because he was a terrible FT shooter instead of just going on the fact that he was bad regardless. It was a major flaw in his game, not him choking.
You can place him where u like. I'm not arguing with that. But you're ignoring every other factor that is taken into account in a basketball game whilst focusing solely on Wilt Chamberlain Being a horrid FT shooter.
As noted, regardless of the "word" you wish to use the bottom line still stands: Wilt's major flaw likely cost him at least 2-4 more Championships.
And read above, what I said about dissecting the game/resumes of the best-OF-the-best... when you get to such a short list of players, how else are you gonna separate the 4th greatest player all-time from the 5th without getting totally anal?
Bottom line is Wilt is being discussed at the #4 player all-time... not his teammates. Further, Wilt had 100% control on whether he made / missed those FT's... it's not like he went 2-15 from the field because Bill Russell was on his like a blanket.
These were FT's...
This is just like you holding ppg against wilt. Instead of looking at individual weakness, you have to look at their overall contribution to their teams, and wilt is quite possibly the most dominant of all time. If he had 2-4 more championships like you say he should, he would probably be goat on a lot of peoples lists, however just having 2 championships slides him down to 4.
In the regular season sure, but not during the Playoffs / Finals was he most dominant all-time... not even close.
Another reason why Wilt is not higher up on my list; his postseason production often declined significantly from the regular season.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
y2ktors wrote:
But you're strictly talking about free throws keeping Wilt out of the top 5. That's what's so nonsensical.
You've turned to making assumptions and creating scenarios about Silt losing because he was a terrible FT shooter instead of just going on the fact that he was bad regardless. It was a major flaw in his game, not him choking.
You can place him where u like. I'm not arguing with that. But you're ignoring every other factor that is taken into account in a basketball game whilst focusing solely on Wilt Chamberlain Being a horrid FT shooter.
As noted, regardless of the "word" you wish to use the bottom line still stands: Wilt's major flaw likely cost him at least 2-4 more Championships.
And read above, what I said about dissecting the game/resumes of the best-OF-the-best... when you get to such a short list of players, how else are you gonna separate the 4th greatest player all-time from the 5th without getting totally anal?
Bottom line Wilt is being discussed as the #4 player all-time... not his teammates. Further, Wilt had 100% control over whether he made / missed those FT's... it's not like he went 2-15 from the field because Bill Russell was on him like a blanket. In that case you could give Wilt some lee-way.
But these were FT's...
Teams win championships, not just the star player.
If you want to say that FTs being such a major flaw of his whilst other players in your top 5 didn't have that deep of a flaw then that's totally reasonable. But you're going further that that and recreating history without taking anything else but more made FTS into account.
What history am I re-creating? The numbers listed above are facts. Wilt and only Wilt missed those FT's. He was 100% in control of the outcome in that respect, and he failed to deliver WHEN in doing so would have earned him an extra 2-4 Championships (likely) REGARDLESS of what his teammates did / didn't do.
That's not re-inventing anything.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
thedangerouskitchen wrote:
Well even "if" that's true those other guys you mentioned also own more Championships that Wilt... all but Bird own at least twice as many. So if we're using the "take the good with the bad" argument, you can say that those guys succeeded (ie; Rings) more than they failed... or at least they succeeded more than Wilt.
Also keep in mind that when you get down to discussing THE ABSOLUTE BEST 4-5-6-10 players in the entire history of the NBA it's to be expected that their game/resume/legacy is dissected in such an extreme manner... how else are we going to separate such an elite class, and determine why so-and-so should be #4, for example, and that guy #5?
My issue was solely with the overblown of placing fault of failures of Wilt's teams in the postseason that he's gotten over the years.
But on the other hand, Wilt's '67 team was the only team to beat the Russell-led Celtics when Russell Was in the lineup. That holds a lot of weight.
While winning rings is the most important thing and he's only done it twice it's not like he was repeatedly getting stomp by weak ass teams. It was just the wrong era for him to win more, as the 90s were for other greats.
Baylor, West and Oscar just had too many obstacles to overcome just to beat Those Celtics. But in the end, u gotta win.
But again... keep in mind we're not arguing Wilt's status in a general sense, we're trying to determine whether he deserves to be listed as the #4 player all-time, ahead of Magic, Bird and others.
He does deserve to be listed above both of them.
It's just like ppl slamming Magic and Bird over their average defense compared to Duncan, whilst Duncan, outside of 2 MVP seasons, never reached the level of dominance offensively that those two did.
Wilt does have a lot of playoff failures but aren't most of them just due to lack of effort? I mean like I said many times before the 2 times he did focus on winning his teams won 68 and 69 wins and are in the best team(s) of all time argument.
thedangerouskitchen wrote:
As noted, regardless of the "word" you wish to use the bottom line still stands: Wilt's major flaw likely cost him at least 2-4 more Championships.
And read above, what I said about dissecting the game/resumes of the best-OF-the-best... when you get to such a short list of players, how else are you gonna separate the 4th greatest player all-time from the 5th without getting totally anal?
Bottom line Wilt is being discussed as the #4 player all-time... not his teammates. Further, Wilt had 100% control over whether he made / missed those FT's... it's not like he went 2-15 from the field because Bill Russell was on him like a blanket. In that case you could give Wilt some lee-way.
But these were FT's...
Teams win championships, not just the star player.
If you want to say that FTs being such a major flaw of his whilst other players in your top 5 didn't have that deep of a flaw then that's totally reasonable. But you're going further that that and recreating history without taking anything else but more made FTS into account.
What history am I re-creating? The numbers listed above are facts. Wilt and only Wilt missed those FT's. He was 100% in control of the outcome in that respect, and he failed to deliver WHEN in doing so would have earned him an extra 2-4 Championships (likely) REGARDLESS of what his teammates did / didn't do.
That's not re-inventing anything.
So if he were a 70% ft shooter, would the opponents foul him intentionally? Would he get as many opportunities? Would they defend him differently? Would his offensive game change? What would change about how opponents defended his teammates?
y2ktors wrote:
My issue was solely with the overblown of placing fault of failures of Wilt's teams in the postseason that he's gotten over the years.
But on the other hand, Wilt's '67 team was the only team to beat the Russell-led Celtics when Russell Was in the lineup. That holds a lot of weight.
While winning rings is the most important thing and he's only done it twice it's not like he was repeatedly getting stomp by weak ass teams. It was just the wrong era for him to win more, as the 90s were for other greats.
Baylor, West and Oscar just had too many obstacles to overcome just to beat Those Celtics. But in the end, u gotta win.
But again... keep in mind we're not arguing Wilt's status in a general sense, we're trying to determine whether he deserves to be listed as the #4 player all-time, ahead of Magic, Bird and others.
He does deserve to be listed above both of them.
It's just like ppl slamming Magic and Bird over their average defense compared to Duncan, whilst Duncan, outside of 2 MVP seasons, never reached the level of dominance offensively that those two did.
Impact is greater than flaw.
Not if you Value the Playoffs/Finals over the regular season he doesn't...
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
y2ktors wrote:
Teams win championships, not just the star player.
If you want to say that FTs being such a major flaw of his whilst other players in your top 5 didn't have that deep of a flaw then that's totally reasonable. But you're going further that that and recreating history without taking anything else but more made FTS into account.
What history am I re-creating? The numbers listed above are facts. Wilt and only Wilt missed those FT's. He was 100% in control of the outcome in that respect, and he failed to deliver WHEN in doing so would have earned him an extra 2-4 Championships (likely) REGARDLESS of what his teammates did / didn't do.
That's not re-inventing anything.
So if he were a 70% ft shooter, would the opponents foul him intentionally? Would he get as many opportunities? Would they defend him differently? Would his offensive game change? What would change about how opponents defended his teammates?
Why do u not take all of this into account?
Because this is an unknown... it didn't happen because Wilt wasn't a 70% FT shooter. On the contrary he was a historically bad (all-time worse, arguably) FT shooter whose flaw was one of THE main reasons why his teams didn't win at least another 2-4 Championships.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
thedangerouskitchen wrote:
But again... keep in mind we're not arguing Wilt's status in a general sense, we're trying to determine whether he deserves to be listed as the #4 player all-time, ahead of Magic, Bird and others.
He does deserve to be listed above both of them.
It's just like ppl slamming Magic and Bird over their average defense compared to Duncan, whilst Duncan, outside of 2 MVP seasons, never reached the level of dominance offensively that those two did.
Impact is greater than flaw.
Not if you Value the Playoffs/Finals over the regular season he doesn't...
I don't ignore the regular season, nor the 170 records that he holds. That's unreasonable.
thedangerouskitchen wrote:
What history am I re-creating? The numbers listed above are facts. Wilt and only Wilt missed those FT's. He was 100% in control of the outcome in that respect, and he failed to deliver WHEN in doing so would have earned him an extra 2-4 Championships (likely) REGARDLESS of what his teammates did / didn't do.
That's not re-inventing anything.
So if he were a 70% ft shooter, would the opponents foul him intentionally? Would he get as many opportunities? Would they defend him differently? Would his offensive game change? What would change about how opponents defended his teammates?
Why do u not take all of this into account?
Because this is an unknown... it didn't happen because Wilt wasn't a 70% FT shooter. On the contrary he was a historically bad (all-time worse, arguably) FT shooter whose flaw was one of THE main reasons why his teams didn't win at least another 2-4 Championships.
That's my point. You proclaiming that he'd win more rings if he made more FTs in the playoffs is an unknown. What ifs aren't facts. They are recreated scenarios.
y2ktors wrote:
He does deserve to be listed above both of them.
It's just like ppl slamming Magic and Bird over their average defense compared to Duncan, whilst Duncan, outside of 2 MVP seasons, never reached the level of dominance offensively that those two did.
Impact is greater than flaw.
Not if you Value the Playoffs/Finals over the regular season he doesn't...
I don't ignore the regular season, nor the 170 records that he holds.
Neither do I... I just place a lot more value on the Playoffs/Finals when we're debating the Top 5 players of all-time.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
