people look at fg% WAAAAAAAAAAY too much. the year boston won, paul pierce and ray allen were GHOSTS for the first 2 rounds. yet they won. chauncey billups is a career 41% shooter both in the reg. season and playoffs, and i'm sure you have no problem with that. and i'm sure there are other stars who don't shoot for a great fg%, but still have a very large impact on the game. if you WATCHED iverson play in his prime, he was a DOMINANT player and a player that changes a game and a player that WINS games. simple as that. most stars have deficiencies in certain parts of their games, unless you're lebron james or michael jordan or one of the truly greats of all time.
duncan is renowed has the best PF of all time. there's no argument where he will go down as in the history of the NBA. he's NOT a center.
Actually, when you look at the great power forwards and centers the league has seen, Duncan's game is far more similar to a center's.
He's listed as a PF, but he plays as a C. There's a difference. IMO, the media has become enamored with the "greatest PF of all-time tag" when it fact, it doesn't apply.
It does apply because he plays the PF position. Who cares how he plays it? When Gilbert was healthy he was among the best pgs in the league. Should he not have been because he plays the position a little differently?
I think you're confusing the terms "listed" and "plays". As I've said before, while he may be listed as a PF, his overall game is much more similar to a C's than a PF's. Let's say he's listed as a PG. In your opinion, would this be a valid designation? After all, you believe that a player's listing is more important than the way he actually plays. Do you really believe this thought process to be logical? And IMO, Arenas was a SG who ran the offense. The same can be said about Iverson. During Arenas' peak, from 2005-2007, he continually led his team in field goal attempts at about 20 per game. That's not the MO for a point guard.
When you jump to start the game, when you guard the opposing center, went Matt Bonner is playing next to you in the front court, you are a Center. Imagine how much fun it would be to list Brooks as a C for this whole season. Classifying people by position is almost impossible. Hayes will be classified as a C for much of this year, but he is most certainly not a center.
Why not? I always think of him as really short center. He plays like a center imo, he's in the low post just as much if not more than Duncan. EDIT: There's an important distinction that needs to be made. There is what position you play like (as in your style, AI clearly has a SG style of play) and there is what position you actually play (as in your position relative to your teammates, Amare has absolutely no low post moves but he is often the closest to the basket so he plays C).
Wow, terrible list! There's no way in hell Shawn Marion is better than Elton Brand, Chris Webber or Chris Bosh. He's not even a power forward. When have we ever seen Marion banging in the low post to score a bucket? Duncan is a power forward, not a center. He's rarely played center because the Spurs always have another big man (Robinson, Nesterovic, Mohammed, Elson, Oberto) that do the dirty work. Also, where's Amare Stoudemire? He's better than Jamison, for sure. I think KD will probably list him as a center too despite playing power forward 80% of the time. One could also make a case for Jermaine O'Neal. He is all but washed up now, but in the early 2000s he was arguably a top-3 pf and is better than Rasheed Wallace. Injuries have really hurt the guy.
He is not a legend of the game. I think his career post Larry Brown has shown him not to be a winner.
Is it your opinion that if the Rockets had played both Deke and Yao simultaneously, Deke would've been considered a PF?
Duncan does far more in the low post than Scola, and he's also been his team's best rebounder and shot-blocker for most of this decade. If you want to argue that Duncan is a PF because of the way he plays, you'd probably have to say the same thing about Olajuwon. Of course, the five traditional positions (PG, SG, SF, PF, C) are totally inadequate to properly describe the way in which a player plays. There's just too many dimensions to the game to neatly fit players into one of 5 positions. But if we insist on doing so, the most reasonable way (to me) is to list out all desirable qualities you'd want from each position and see where the players fits in best. For example: PG: ball-handling, distributing, can penetrate, outside shooting, can run a fast break, can defend position SG: outside shooting, ball-handling, can slash, can distribute, adequate size (6'4+ desirable), can participate on fast break, will help out on boards some, can defend position SF: can slash, adequate size (6'6+ desirable), mid-range or outside shooting, can participate on fast break, will rebound, versatile, can defend position PF: adequate size (6'8+ desirable), mid-range shooting, post scoring, can finish at the basket, will rebound, can slash some, good screener, can defend position C: adequate size (6'10+ desirable), will rebound, good screener, can finish at the basket, will defend in the lane, post scoring, maybe some mid-range shooting, can defend position Not a whole lot, by traditional descriptions, separating PFs and Cs. I usually consider Duncan a 4/5 hybrid, tending more towards 5 in today's league. The way the league is evolving, PFs are becoming more and more like "wings", less like traditional bigs. Perhaps that was one of Kelly's considerations when he elected to label Duncan a C. But, again, I don't think the traditional PG-SG-SF-PF-C labels are very useful.
No, I think Yao would be considered the power forward because he can step out to around the free throw line and hit shots or pass, whereas Deke is strictly in the paint. It would work much better with Yao as a 4 than vice versa. Deke also would guard the better big man, the way Chuck often did. However, on offense Chuck is not a good option down low and worked better at pick and roll setups with Yao as the low post option.
If the Rockets had a lineup on the court that included both Yao and Deke, neither of them would be considered a PF. There would simply be two centers out on the floor for the Rockets....which is what the Spurs have been doing for many years now.
What about Robert Horry? he played the SF and PF during the championship era. does he go down as a PF or SF?
I am fine with someone considering him a center if they wanted to now with Bonner startng next to him (although I would still disagree), but throughout his career, he has had legitimate 7 foot centers starting with him: David Robinson, Rasho Nesterovic, Fabricio Oberto, Francisco Elson, etc.) All those guys I would consider centers and Duncan the PF.
This is a good point, but also consider that a good chunk of the time even in those years the Spurs would put a true forward next to him (e.g. Horry, Bonner). Especially in 4th quarters. So, we have a player (Duncan) who plays similar to a traditional C. But maybe 60-70% of the time he's played alongside other perhaps more C-like players, and about 30-40% of the time he's played alongside forwards. Personally, I like fitting Duncan with the other centers because that brings more balance to these lists. There have been more great PFs this decade than Cs. And what team, other than the Lakers when Shaq was in his prime, wouldn't prefer to have Duncan as their starting C instead of whatever they put out on the floor?
