Best blocking big man in nba?

[sucram]

lol i have been kind of inactive for a few years now (still lurk occasionally) but i know where you are coming from here Matt. Someone mentioned robots earlier in this thread, benji himself comes off as kind of a robot.. everything is stats + evidence.

*welcoming myself back into the fold

[benji]

Well, fine, since people apparently hate supporting any claims.

Ronny Turiaf is a better shot blocker than Emeka Okafor. Because I said so. And if you disagree, it's just because you don't have enough skill to play in the NBA. And you don't understand basketball. Watch the games. Are you seriously going to claim otherwise? I don't think you've ever actually seen a NBA game. :lol

Is that what we all prefer on here?

[Oskar]

I say peace and benji, I'm sure those stats mean SOMETHING, because otherways there wouldn't be so. I know that you know it yourself, but it's mainly for the others to know my opinion, if they even care about it.

Best shot blockers ? I'll go with Camby and Okafor.

[adv1s5]

which imply that Jordan Famar is a better defender then Garnett (because he gets more stops) and Ronny Turiaf is a better shot blocker then Emeka (because he has a higher % of opposing teams shots blocked.

How would you justify that Garnett is a better defender than Farmar, or why Emeka is a better shot blocker? More stats, or because you think one player looks more active on the court?

[Axtacy]

Darko Milicic

[shadowgrin]

^ Thread over.

No. I am always 100% serious. For the internets are serious business.

You're damn straight it is.

[Andrew]

Ugh, serious cat.

"Intimidation" may be too strong a word but I think it's fair to suggest that prolific shotblockers can have some impact mentally on their opponents, whether it's being more selective of the times to attack the basket or changing the trajectory of their attempts around the rim in anticipation of the block attempt. That's not to say it's always effective but based on what players have said about the top shotblockers throughout history it seems to be a factor.

[Laxation]

In my totally unbiased opinion, Amir Johnson.

[BiGrEd819]

anyone who claims intimidation has no effect in a player's mentality to drive in does not know or is even familiar with playing REAL(not a stupid computer game) basketball. every time you drive in dwight howard, camby , or shaq will jump at you with 250+ pounds. even if u dont get ur shot blocked there is a very good chance you will get pounded and beat on throwing your body into the lane. you telling me that's not a good enough reason to make players think twice? Its common sense; come on now..

And Ronny Turiaf IS NOT, i repeat with fucking passion, IS DEFINATELY NOT a better shot blocker than emeka okafor. Yes Turiaf is an energetic beast, and he does block a lot of shots for the minutes he play but he simply does not have the defensive discipline and basketball IQ nor the physical presence that Okafor is known for. If turiaf was to start or even get more playing time one must factor in fatigue as well as the opponent's adjustment to turiaf's play. he has shown nothing, nada, yet to prove he is a better shot blocker than emeka who is already a household name when in comes to blocks.

with that said, Howard in my opinion was the best shot blocker last year.

[Kbryant8]

Chris Andersen.

[benji]

anyone who claims intimidation has no effect in a player's mentality to drive in does not know or is even familiar with playing REAL(not a stupid computer game) basketball.

Well then it's a good thing nobody claimed that, huh.

And Ronny Turiaf IS NOT, i repeat with fucking passion, IS DEFINATELY NOT a better shot blocker than emeka okafor.

And I repeat definitively that he is infact superior because I said so.

he simply does not have the defensive discipline and basketball IQ nor the physical presence

I disagree. He has all of those things.

If turiaf was to start or even get more playing time one must factor in fatigue

Those poor NBA players, they're so out of shape they can't even play a half hour or so of basketball over a three hour span.

he has shown nothing, nada, yet to prove he is a better shot blocker than emeka

Except for, you know, blocking a higher percentage of shots. Last year, and over his entire career.

In my totally unbiased opinion, Amir Johnson.

Now here's someone who understands basketball.

[BiGrEd819]

lol... wow someone is stubborn.

just some fun vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahGq-XBjZj4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACL5hHd2 ... re=related

[Matthew]

Now here's someone who understands basketball.

It's a pity you don't.

Hey why do players even play basketball? It should be sorted by Benji's gay little stats.

Hooray.

[benji]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wisiCw4bewA[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnOfY22vg-w[/youtube]

Isn't this fun! A lot more fun than using real evidence and making reasoned arguments!

Wait, wait, let me find another ad hominem...oh, forget it, RiffTrax Spider Man 3 is so much better.

[Matthew]

Your stats are real evidence? Haha yeah ok. And I'm the smartest man alive.

[benji]

It'd be great if you ever got around to letting us know how they aren't. And since you're the smartest man alive, you should be able to do it.

[Matthew]

Us? You're more then one person now.. that's great.

You're wonderful stats have Turiaf, Sean Williams, Blatche etc ahead of Duncan in shot blocking "rankings". That's all I need to say.

[adv1s5]

I still don't understand how you're proving otherwise. Say you're talking to someone who doesn't know anything about basketball, and they ask you who's a better shot blocker. How would you prove that Duncan is better than Turiaf? Because you said so?
Aren't stats the only reasonable, concrete forms of evidence we have in measuring playing ability and efficiency?

There could be more stats available that may be able to prove that Timmy is better than Turiaf, like showing how many blocks Tim keeps inbounds as opposed to Ronny, or how often his blocks lead to a turnover.

You're wonderful stats have Turiaf, Sean Williams, Blatche etc ahead of Duncan in shot blocking "rankings". That's all I need to say.

Please, say more for those who are not as enlightened.

[benji]

You're wonderful stats have Turiaf, Sean Williams, Blatche etc ahead of Duncan in shot blocking "rankings". That's all I need to say.

So you have evidence that says those players did not block a higher percentage of opposing team shot attempts than Duncan.

[Matthew]

Stats are good to point out results. Does Ronny Turiaf block a higher % of opposing teams shots then Tim Duncan?

Yes.

Does that mean he is a better shot blocker then Duncan, Garnett or even Emeka?

No.

Here's why stats aren't concrete, it's basic: They don't take into account the intangibles.

Take rebounding for example. Anyone can throw a bunch of rebounding numbers at you. But do they take into account who is guarding the shooter (if a defender is guarding whoever shoots, chances are the ball will rebound on the opposite side, for example), who is boxing out who etc etc

Now when it comes to shot blocking, alot of it is intimidation and to say otherwise is totally disregarding the mental aspect of basketball. Basketball can be as much about psychological warfare as it is about physical talent and execution.

Tim Duncan has a presence on the court that demands opposing teams really shouldn't attack him. Do you see Chris Paul trying to dunk on Duncan or does he shoot a floater before he gets to him? Do Steve Nash shoot a floater over Yao or take it all the way into his chest?

It's like Champ Bailey a few years ago when he first got to Denver. Teams stopped throwing his side of the football field because it just wasn't smart strategy. Now if some egghead took stats, John Lynch or another member of that Bronco's secondary would have had better % of balls deflected, but that doesn't mean they are better coverage players then Bailey.

And lets be serious here. You say "Say you're talking to someone who doesn't know anything about basketball", this is not a basketball education clinic. Its a NBA discussion thread. If I have to explain why Turiaf is not a better shot blocker then Garnett or Duncan, it's clear the person who puts up such ridiculous claims and hides behind the "prove me wrong" defense either doesn't know the first thing about basketball or is arguing for the sake of arguing.

[benji]

Does that mean he is a better shot blocker then Duncan, Garnett or even Emeka?

No.

And no one has ever made that argument. You really should stop assuming so much.

Here's why stats aren't concrete, it's basic: They don't take into account the intangibles.

What does the latter have to do with the former?

Stats are absolutely concrete. If I shoot five shots (of equivalent value) and make three, I shot 60%. That is concrete. No intangible can change that result.

Are you making an argument that because a single data point does not explain all data points it is useless? Why do you want to discount argument and reasoning to focus on a single data point?

Take rebounding for example. Anyone can throw a bunch of rebounding numbers at you. But do they take into account who is guarding the shooter (if a defender is guarding whoever shoots, chances are the ball will rebound on the opposite side, for example), who is boxing out who etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size

If I have to explain why Turiaf is not a better shot blocker then Garnett or Duncan, it's clear the person who puts up such ridiculous claims

Except it's not ridiculous. It's as much, if not more of a valid claim than the reverse, because there is evidence to support it. No one has presented any evidence what-so-ever to the contrary. You are effectively arguing that it is a ridiculous claim that should not be taken seriously because you disagree with it.

This is what you're doing:

Basketball can be as much about psychological warfare as it is about physical talent and execution.

No, basketball has nothing to do with psychological warfare, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. (Unspoken: Because [I THINK] it is absolutely execution foremost, and the rest is negligible.)

Its a NBA discussion thread.

Right. And we're making claims and subsequent arguments. It comes off thusly: Some people want to support their arguments. Others just want their claims accepted as fact.

[Matthew]

Stats are absolutely concrete. If I shoot five shots (of equivalent value) and make three, I shot 60%. That is concrete. No intangible can change that result.

Ok stats are concrete but the conclusions are not. The 3 shots you make might be wide open jumpshots as compared to someone who makes 2 out of 5 with a defender all over him.

60% > 40%

But is the guy who made 3 open jumpers a better shooter then a guy who had to hit his shots with a defender on him?

And no one has ever made that argument. You really should stop assuming so much.

I assumed nothing. I asked you what your stats were meant to mean and you did your usual childish, Lamrock/ BigKaboom homosexual lovefeast assumption joke which had absolutely nothing to do with my question for you.

If someone makes a Wilt vs Jordan thread, and someone posts "Jordan 6 titles > Wilt 2 titles" is someone not allowed to respond to that and bring up Wilts rebounding numbers because they would be assuming that that person was saying Jordan is superior because of his championship rings?

I fully expect you divert around the matter once again.

Except it's not ridiculous. It's as much, if not more of a valid claim than the reverse, because there is evidence to support it. No one has presented any evidence what-so-ever to the contrary. You are effectively arguing that it is a ridiculous claim that should not be taken seriously because you disagree with it.

It's not because I disagree with it. It's just a vague argument. Is Mark Jackson vs Magic Johnson a valid argument? Mark Jackson has more assist but would anybody take a anyone serious if they said Jackson was better?

The Turiaf > Duncan in shotblocking is nearly as absurd as a Jackson > Magic argument.

No, basketball has nothing to do with psychological warfare, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. (Unspoken: Because [I THINK] it is absolutely execution foremost, and the rest is negligible.)

That's such bullshit.

[benji]

Well, I'm starting to accept this forum isn't the place for metacommentary. But we'll see what we can do.

That's such bullshit.

That's fine, but you won't catch me seriously saying the same about your opinion...

Ok stats are concrete but the conclusions are not.

Well, the conclusions are the arguments the humans are making through reasoning. So obviously not.

But is the guy who made 3 open jumpers a better shooter then a guy who had to hit his shots with a defender on him?

Well, you've introduced another set of variables. There was no comparative-based argument being made. And again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size

I assumed nothing. I asked you what your stats were meant to mean and you did your usual childish, Lamrock/ BigKaboom homosexual lovefeast assumption joke which had absolutely nothing to do with my question for you.

So answering your question that it was a information dump, is a "homosexual lovefeast joke" and childish? I wasn't aware that providing information related to the topic at hand as people argued was frowned upon. (I also didn't know that insulting people instead of answering valid questions (see: Kaboom2, Big) wasn't the actual more childish thing.)

If someone makes a Wilt vs Jordan thread, and someone posts "Jordan 6 titles > Wilt 2 titles" is someone not allowed to respond to that and bring up Wilts rebounding numbers because they would be assuming that that person was saying Jordan is superior because of his championship rings?

I'm not sure how that is similar. (And you're the one who always complains about people assuming what your argument is.) The first is a claim: "Jordan's six titles are greater than Wilt's two titles." I made only one claim, that until someone measures blocks recovered by the defense we'd just be guessing. (And an underlying meta-claim, as I do in most threads and everyone knows by now, that posting just names or lists is stupid and the antithesis of discussion.)

I think it's perfectly valid to assume that the first person is arguing that the Bulls six titles make Jordan the better player. However if that person said "we can't know because the best data isn't available" and then listed four data sets including multiple players, I would think it would be wrong to assume the poster is making an argument as to any single pair of players.

Not that the posters couldn't make these posts. Unless it was against the rules to include information that could support one or multiple arguments, while making a "third-way" argument.

And for the record, both arguments are stupid.

It's not because I disagree with it. It's just a vague argument. Is Mark Jackson vs Magic Johnson a valid argument? Mark Jackson has more assist but would anybody take a anyone serious if they said Jackson was better?

Well, I would think the first argument is a sound argument. I would question if the persons argument was strong if they based it on how Jackson was better because he racked up more total assists. But that's because Jackson played almost to, or past 40. There is a longevity argument made by a lot of ESPN type commentators in regards to some players so I wouldn't instantly dismiss it as absurd and refuse to consider it.

The Turiaf > Duncan in shotblocking is nearly as absurd as a Jackson > Magic argument.

I don't see how it is. With the Jackson argument, we can provide a counterargument to the longevity one. We can argue that Magic was superior on a yearly basis, or that Magic was superior per game, per minute, per possession, over the course of his career as compared to Jackson's career or even their primes. And there is plenty of evidence to support this argument.

Now in the Turiaf vs. Duncan one, we have Turiaf blocking more shots, and Duncan...well, not. We can make counteraguments as to the validity of the evidence supporting a Turiaf claim, but we cannot make an argument in favor of Duncan with any valid evidence. We can only support the Duncan claim, with more claims.

Let me re-explain this. For clarity's sake.

Let us suppose we are taking two sides of a Turiaf vs. Duncan shot blocking arugment. Now I won't say I do subscribe to any views that follow, (we must not forget my Duncan homosexual lovefeasting), but will for the example and to make the larger argument.

You say Duncan is the better shotblocker, let us assume I say Turiaf is. Let us also assume that I consider the player who blocks a higher percentage of opposing team shots to be the better shotblocker. What do we have?

I can show you Turiaf blocks more shots than Duncan. You cannot show me the counter. The only evidence you have is that you think Duncan is the better shot blocker. So your evidence is the original claim.

You can argue that the evidence I have doesn't show Duncan's complete impact, but you have nothingthat does show Duncan's complete impact. Indeed, by bringing up intimidation or other factors, you've moved away from shot blocking itself and moved onto what might be better termed defensive impact.

You can argue over and over the truth of your claim, and insult/dismiss me and my claim, but you can never show anything to support your claim. Except the claim itself. I can continue to point to Turiaf blocking a higher percentage of shots.

In essence, and why I have been saying it, the most popular form of argument (and one you practice) on here is: [Claim], because I said so. (Or alternatively [Claim], because you're a homosexual and your counterclaim is just as homosexual.)

[Laxation]

Tim Duncan has a presence on the court that demands opposing teams really shouldn't attack him. Do you see Chris Paul trying to dunk on Duncan or does he shoot a floater before he gets to him?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-jtCBuoU[/youtube]

[benji]

Lulz, Duncan playing him for the pass. Parker blew it by thinking he wasn't going to layup in an open lane. (And what the fuck was he doing way over there getting hit by Chandler's pick that was in a different area code.)