On the same level as Jordan.
Or 15 years apart. Jordan only managed to get his 7 years apart. Kobe (first three thanks to Shaq, last one thanks to Artest bailing him out) went 9 years from first to last. So combining those two periods is just one year more than Duncan's stretch. Amazing.
Who better? I think this will place him right behind Jordan not factoring position and best at his position.
But all they think about is rings
BSPN's opinion doesn't mean a in thing. They've lost credibility a LONG time ago. They have in Kobe as a top 3-5 ffs. . .I remember they had like 5 Lakers and MJ as their top 6. It's a joke.
As for Duncan "holding him off". . .he already has 2 head to head wins over LeBron, and it was less than 30 seconds away from being 3-0. Duncan is WAY above LeBron. LeBron is getting his gobbled by ESPN because he posts huge stats while barely anyone else is now. . .but let's be real. Duncan did too in his prime. Back in the 80's and 90's there were SEVERAL players who put up similar and better stats than LeBron (DRob, Hakeem, MJ, Ewing, Shaq, Magic, Kareem, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, Barkley, etc etc). He's not actually -that- unique and special, it's just we barely have any other big stat guys at the moment where the past half decade or so of pure mediocrity has allowed LeBron to stand out far more than he would have pretty much any time between 1970-2008.
Look, I agree with you 100% but Im just saying BSPN indoctrinates the masses and they have a lot of influence on how players will be remembered long term by fans who never saw them play. So it is Duncan's best interest to get more rings.
That was when shaq> Duncan. Which was true before Duncan went on a tear the next three seasons.
Again, Kobe was compared to the Carter's and mcgradys back in the day.
Longevity has not been an issue for Duncan for a long time. It matters some what for players whose careers got cut short by injuries like grant hill, but for guys like Duncan, once you've had 14/15 years of high level play doesn't matter any more.
Jabbar didn't build on the legacy with that 88 le, he had been great for 2 decades and a le as the third wheel doesn't do anything for him.
He led the team in the playoffs in minutes played, advanced metrics, and putting up 17 and 10 a night prior to the finals.
even with reduced minutes and less FGA, IMO duncan is still the main cog of the spurs. Not many players around today that can carry the frontcourt on both ends of the court, and his advanced stats reflect that. Its true that he's not the same player he once was, and its true that this spurs team doesnt have a traditional superstar + supporting cast format, but for his age and for the level of big men in the league, who would you replace duncan with for last years playoff run? dirk? love? davis? hibbert? Davis is the only one who comes close to being a two way player but he is still a raw kid compared to duncan. Even in his diminished state duncan is a top 3 big man in the league, a huge part of what the spurs do and the most difficult to replace on the roster.
By major accomplishments, Duncan is tied for third all-time already.
Bird was awesome TBH
Really? He was still a crucial part of that le team. I think adding that 6th ring does make Kareem look better - perhaps somewhat superficially, as you say, but it helps nonetheless.
*Edit: Just to clarify, I say "superficially" only in the context of shallow debates, such as "Kobe 5 > Duncan 4." Just counting rings in such a thoughtless fashion is never relevant. However, winning a championship is an accomplishment that should never be completely reduced as superficial. Being a starting player on a championship team is always meaningful, whether you're a 22-year-old Finals MVP or a 38-year-old role player.
Jabbar's legacy was cemented long before that. He was the third or even fourth option at that point, you don't add to a legacy by putting up 15/6, playing a clear supporting role, even on a championship team.
It was cemented yes, but that doesn't mean it was completely unsusceptible to improvement. Being a 15/6 role-player on a championship team definitely says something positive about him. At the very least, it says he was able to be a major contributor on a championship team even at the tail end of his career. Maybe it wasn't the difference between him being the 2nd vs. 3rd (or whatever) greatest player of all time, but it still made some tangible difference IMO.
Last edited by Arcadian; 08-19-2014 at 05:17 PM.
It didn't hurt, of course. Basically, if he was considered GOAT of all time at that point, he wasn't getting any GOATer, if he was #2 all time, he wasn't leapfrogging whoever was in front of him and became GOAT, and so on and so forth.
He was what he was, with or without that 88 ring.
Same with Duncan, if you had Duncan as #7 or #8 of all time before the 14 championship, then you should have him as the #7 or #8 of all time. He's not leapfrogging Magic or Jordan or Jabbar, and he's still in that Hakeem/Bird/Moses tier.
I guess my position is this: an older player can only improve his legacy, but he can't hurt it. I wouldn't have held it against Duncan if he had never won a 5th ring, but I do think it helps him that he did.
But I agree that Duncan's 5th ring (and Kareem's 6th) doesn't really affect his ranking much. I had him top 5 all time 10 years ago, and that hasn't changed.
I am pretty much the exact opposite. Look at Kobe Bryant, his actions the last few years really hurt his legacy, these are things we knew for a long time, but it's becoming more and more apparent that even die hard Laker fans have to acknowledge that Kobe destroys teams as much as he helps them succeed
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
