• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is Duncan top 5 player of all time?

RC107, just stop. It's not worth it.
 
RJKarl said:
Can you equate driving stats in golf from the 70s vs. those of today?
Click to expand...

Yes. You compare guys to their contemporaries. Just like you compare teams across generations v. their contemporaries. Just like you compare baseball players from 60s with guys from the steroid era - by adjusting for context. It's done all the team and it's not very novel or complex. That why people can say, with confidence, that the 90s Bulls were great.
 
Quick poll. Has anybody here ever heard anybody describe either of the Jordan Bulls teams as overrated? Ever?

Any discussion of great dynasties I've had start with 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 90s Bulls in no particular order.
 
bball dynasty discussions begin and end with Celtics, as much as that pains me to type
 
RChildress107 said:
Probably. You could test drivers in the 70's vs those today and then adjust driving stats to account for that.
Click to expand...

The real problem would be accounting for the difference in balls (where the real action is, IMO). You could compare driving distances between drivers with today's balls, but it would become problematic comparing the drivers with balls from the 70's.
 
WFU71 said:
The real problem would be accounting for the difference in balls (where the real action is, IMO). You could compare driving distances between drivers with today's balls, but it would become problematic comparing the drivers with balls from the 70's.
Click to expand...

good point. I'm sure we could make a pretty accurate replacement for a ball made in the 70's though.
 
deac29 said:
Yes. You compare guys to their contemporaries. Just like you compare teams across generations v. their contemporaries. Just like you compare baseball players from 60s with guys from the steroid era - by adjusting for context. It's done all the team and it's not very novel or complex. That why people can say, with confidence, that the 90s Bulls were great.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they weren't good. I said they are overrated. They aren't close to being the best team ever and would have had tons of trouble winning championships in other eras.
 
WFU71 said:
The real problem would be accounting for the difference in balls (where the real action is, IMO). You could compare driving distances between drivers with today's balls, but it would become problematic comparing the drivers with balls from the 70's.
Click to expand...

and how courses are designed......and other factors.
 
It's been days since this thread has been about Duncan.
 
RJKarl said:
I didn't say they weren't good. I said they are overrated. They aren't close to being the best team ever and would have had tons of trouble winning championships in other eras.
Click to expand...

Only if they weren't allowed to play by the rules of those other eras. Again if the early 90's bulls had been playing in the early 80's they would have added a third all star or had a much stronger supporting cast.

I'm not even convinced that the 91 or 92 bulls wouldn't have beaten the 86 Celtics straight up. You switch Pippen for Woolridge and Horace Grant for Oakley and replace 3rd year Jordan with GOAT Jordan in his prime and I'm not sure the 86 Celtics team makes it out of round 1.
 
RChildress107 said:
Only if they weren't allowed to play by the rules of those other eras. Again if the early 90's bulls had been playing in the early 80's they would have added a third all star or had a much stronger supporting cast.

I'm not even convinced that the 91 or 92 bulls wouldn't have beaten the 86 Celtics straight up. You switch Pippen for Woolridge and Horace Grant for Oakley and replace 3rd year Jordan with GOAT Jordan in his prime and I'm not sure the 86 Celtics team makes it out of round 1.
Click to expand...

I let you put in Rodman. that's clearly a third star.

It's laughable that you don't think the Celtics would get out of the first round of any playoffs.
 
Back to Duncan, my position remains if you pick by specific position - PG, SG, PF, SF, C - he's first team. I don't think he's top 5 overall, but he'd be close.

A couple of guys that are very often forgotten these days are Elvin Hayes and Nate Thurmond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top