Top 10 of all time NBA: I include Tim Duncan, do you?

[Mavs<Spurs]

I post this in honor of Tim Duncan passing David Robinson in rebounds and David's well deserved entry into the Hall of Fame !

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6. Bill Russell
7. Jerry West
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Wilt Chamberlain

My starting five: Magic Johnson at point guard, Michael Jordan at shooting guard, Larry Bird at small forward, Tim Duncan at power forward, Kareem Abdul Jabbar at center.

This would be a great defensive team as well as an unstoppable offensive force !

http://www.nba.com/history/players/50greatest.html

I expect perhaps some gripes about Hakeem, but his unusual athleticism and unusual skill set means more to me than simply comparing numbers.

Numbers reflect the time, the system one played in and with, one's coach, the teammates that one had,...

My apologies if some don't care for the placement of this thread.

However, the point of this top 10 is that it places Tim Duncan as one of the top ten basketball players of all time.

Would you place Tim Duncan as one of the top 10 basketball players of all time?

What's your top 10 of all time ?


:flag:

Go Spurs !

Go Spurstalk !

:toast to our win !

[timaios]

Where is Wilt Chamberlain ? :downspin:

[scanry]

Larry Bird is too high on that list. Cousy shouldn't be on that list.

Shaq should be on that list.

Kobe should be there as well (in place of the Big O).

[Mavs<Spurs]

Where is Wilt Chamberlain ? :downspin:

Okay, so I place him at number 10.

I had to remove Cousy for shooting only 38%.

And I put Wilt in, but at the bottom of the top 10 of all time.

Where would he be among today's big men? He was so much bigger than the other big man of that time that I think probably his numbers and dominance would have been fairly impacted by losing that advantage.

There were other big men that size and that is not all that Wilt brought to the table.

That's my take, but I could be completely wrong. Obviously, neither of us were around to witness that and I have only seen limited footage of him.

:downspin:

[VI_Massive]

MJ
Russell
Magic
Bird
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq
Elgin
Robertson
Finley

[Mavs<Spurs]

Okay, so this is only my take and yours may be equally valid:

Shaq seems to me to have a limited skill set in comparison to the other players.

He doesn't fare well in these comparisons in my book.

Shaq was and is a terrific passer and has fantastic footwork. He was a very good rebounder and did get a lot of blocked shots. And he was dominant in the paint in a way that no one has been in a long, long time.

However, that said, he did not have any game outside of 7 or 8 feet, could not shoot, and was not a great defender. He is one of the worst pick and roll defenders that this game has ever seen.

Kobe has been mvp one time. Kobe is an excellent defender. Kobe is a terrific scorer, but not a great 3 point shooter by percentage.
However, to compare him to the great Oscar Robertson is not fair to Kobe. Kobe fails this by this comparison for almost every basketball aficianado.
Oscar Robertson actually averaged a triple double for an entire season. Kobe has never been close to that. Oscar Robertson was a unique offensive threat because of all of the ways in which he could hurt the opposition, scoring, rebounding and assists.

It seems hard to me to imagine a majority of basketball fans/basketball historians moving Larry Legend very far down from number 3.

A good rebounder, a clutch shooter, an amazing passer and one of the smartest players to ever lace up sneakers, I think that he belongs at number 3.

Again, it's just my take and your take is no less valid than mine; I'm just giving mine and why I made the choices I did.

However, do you put Timmy in the top 10 of all time?

:flag:

[Mavs<Spurs]

MJ
Russell
Magic
Bird
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq
Elgin
Robertson
Finley

Pop, is that you ?

Finely, what are you doing here ?

:nope

:lmao
:lmao:lmao:lmao


:flag:

[HarlemHeat37]

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Erving


Bob Cousy doesn't belong anywhere near a top 10 of all-time list bro..Kobe doesn't belong there at all right now..

[Mavs<Spurs]

I had to remove Cousy since he only shot 38% from the field.

:bang

Robertson put up in 1961-62, just his second year in the league: 30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, and 11.4 assists per game-an average of a triple-double for an entire season. Not even Magic Johnson or Larry Bird could match those numbers.

[Josepatches_]

1 MJ
2 TD
3 Olajuwon
4 Shaq
5 Kareem/Magic

That's my list.These are the better players to me because they were the best in those 20 years since I watch basketball

But it's difficult
Like Magic said: "it's better to choose only one because you will choose Mike"

[Mavs<Spurs]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6. Bill Russell
7. Jerry West
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Wilt Chamberlain

[timaios]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

Wilt Chamberlain

1965-66 33,5 ppg 24.6 rpg
1964-65 34,7 ppg 22.9 rpg
1963-64 36,9 ppg 22.3 rpg
1962-63 44,8 ppg 24.3 rpg :wow
1961-62 50,4 ppg 25.7 rpg :wow
1960-61 38,4 ppg 27.2 rpg
1959-60 37,6 ppg 27.0 rpg

Come on, Wilt was a beast !!!

[Lars]

Duncan is about 17 on my list.

[HarlemHeat37]

there's absolutely no way that 16 guys have been better than Timmy..

I can listen to an argument about the guys I named with Robertson, West, Moses Malone..I don't think anybody else is really arguable..

[Mavs<Spurs]

Here is Shaq's defensive bio:

The three-time NBA All-Defensive Second Team honoree (2000, 2001, 2003) ranks 8th all-time in blocks (2,485).

There it is.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/shaquille_oneal/bio.html

As I said, a great shot blocker. However, he only made the NBA All Defensive squad three times and each time it was the second team.

Compare that to Kareem, Tim, Hakeem, or Bill Russell.

And they had extra aspects to their games as a result.

Bill Russell wasn't the offensive dominating force that Shaq was, but he was the centerpiece of the most winning championship dynasty that has ever existed because of his defensive prowess, easily the best big man defender of all time.

Hakeem's quickness and ability to steal the ball made him unique and a great defender. He was also a terrific shotblocker, but had other aspects to his defense that made him special.

Kareem was a stellar defender and six time MVP, won six championships, was on the all NBA first team defense six times and on the second team all NBA defense numerous other times.

And Tim's been first team all NBA defense almost every year in his career.

His team has been in the top 3 in defense primarily because of his own defensive ability. He can score on the block and off the glass from 16 feet out or even from 20 at the top of the key.

For all of these reasons, I think that Shaq is not, in my opinion, as good as the other big men that I picked.


:flag:

[Mavs<Spurs]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

Wilt Chamberlain

1965-66 33,5 ppg 24.6 rpg
1964-65 34,7 ppg 22.9 rpg
1963-64 36,9 ppg 22.3 rpg
1962-63 44,8 ppg 24.3 rpg :wow
1961-62 50,4 ppg 25.7 rpg :wow
1960-61 38,4 ppg 27.2 rpg
1959-60 37,6 ppg 27.0 rpg

Come on, Wilt was a beast !!!

61 and 62 are just insane. I don't which is beastlier, the points or the rebounding ?

God bless !

And I did move him into my list, putting him at number 10 and removing Cousy since he only shot 38 %.

I hate guards that shoot less than 44 % at a minimum. That's why I'm not a big Allen Iverson fan. Anyone can score a lot if you take enough shots.



:toast

[Lakers999]

LMAO the OP list is complete shit... its bad enough he doesnt include Kobe... I would expect that from a spurs fan but to Include Tim Duncan OVER olojuwan and Chamberlin is just idiotic. clearly he doesnt understand that great basketball happened before the mid 90's and to leave any of these guys off the list for tim duncan is just plain stupid....

Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Dave Bing
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Elvin Hayes
Sam Jones
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
Pete Maravich
Kevin McHale
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Shaquille O'Neal
Robert Parish
Bob Pettit
Scottie Pippen
Willis Reed
David Robinson
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Bill Walton
Lenny Wilkens
James Worthy

[Lakers999]

there's absolutely no way that 16 guys have been better than Timmy..
.


:rolleyes

see my list

[Lakers999]

You have to include shaq OVER timmy

[Lars]

there's absolutely no way that 16 guys have been better than Timmy..

I can listen to an argument about the guys I named with Robertson, West, Moses Malone..I don't think anybody else is really arguable..

Let me ask you this. Do you think if instead of drafting Duncan...if you had picked up Barkley, Malone or KG as rookies ,under identical circumstances, that the Spurs would have been more or less successful with rings in the next 10 years?

[Marcus Bryant]

I'd leave some of those guys off the list too. Cowens? Debussschehehehre? :jack

[ulosturedge]

I think the OP is putting it in regards of how many Championships these players brought to their teams. Rather then all time statistics and accomplishments. Or atleast heavily weighting it.

[SouthTexasRancher]

MJ
Russell
Magic
Bird
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq
Elgin
Robertson
Finley

ROTFLMAO....Thank you for your input, Michael Finley. Now go out and average 39 points per game in the playoffs!!!

[Mavs<Spurs]

LMAO the OP list is complete shit... its bad enough he doesnt include Kobe... I would expect that from a spurs fan but to Include Tim Duncan OVER olojuwan and Chamberlin is just idiotic. clearly he doesnt understand that great basketball happened before the mid 90's and to leave any of these guys off the list over tim duncan is just plain stupid....

Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Dave Bing
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Elvin Hayes
Sam Jones
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
Pete Maravich
Kevin McHale
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Shaquille O'Neal
Robert Parish
Bob Pettit
Scottie Pippen
Willis Reed
David Robinson
Bill Russell
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Bill Walton
Lenny Wilkens
James Worthy


With a few of these names, I could understand your position and it might be somewhat rational. However, you are not going to be in the mainstream of basketball thought with many of these names (when you say that you think that they are better than Tim Duncan).

Many of these picks just seem indefensible, positions that one would take only to be argumentative, not because the position is actually believed or held.

And Kobe as a top ten or even ahead of Tim Duncan is not something that most Laker fans would probably agree with and outside of the Laker fans you would fan very little agreement with that position at all.


Kobe Finals MVP never.
Kobe regular season MVP once.

Stockton never won a title. And he played with another HOFer, Karl Malone.
And he didn't impact the game in the way that Duncan did as one can see not only by his championships and Finals MVPs, but also by the defensive strength of the Spurs as measured by field goal percentage and points allowed.

Charles Barkley ? Don't be stupid.

And by the way, when even Jerry Sloan agrees (Karl Malone's coach) that Tim Duncan is the better of the two players, then you're in over your head clearly and not even being intellectually honest.

:nope

[Lakers999]

I'd leave some of those guys off the list too. Cowens? Debussschehehehre? :jack

why do you have a problem with the dave's?

correct me if im wrong but i believe cowens is only 1 of 3 players to lead their teams in all 5 categories stats i.e. points, steals, rebounds, assists, and blocks, the others i think is KG and someone else.... prolly barkley. also cowens lead his to team to the titles over the bucks when Kareem was there. he also averaged double doubles..

and debusschere lead the knicks to their 2 of they're 3 championships averaging double doubles.... I believe he went to play baseball to during those season as well i think he played for the white sox...


so yes.... better than timmy? I dunno... probabally

[Mavs<Spurs]

Let me ask you this. Do you think if instead of drafting Duncan...if you had picked up Barkley, Malone or KG as rookies ,under identical circumstances, that the Spurs would have been more or less successful with rings in the next 10 years?

Less successful.

Now with Olajuwon, they might have been almost as successful. Hakeem's pinnacle was not long (only a couple of years). However, at that time, he was amazing and virtually unbeatable.

With Garnett, Barkley and Malone, we would not have won championships.

Our defense won championships and that because of Tim Duncan (Robinson was not healthy for 2003 and not even present in 2005 or 2007). Barkley and Malone, clearly, would have had no chance at protecting the paint as well as Duncan.

Garnett doesn't have the consistent low post scoring threat which opens up the floor for others. His teams don't always make the playoffs. Tim's made the playoffs with minimal help (e.g. 2003) and won it all.

[TDMVPDPOY]

top10 all time?

he could make a case for himself for top5....i think magic/bird/dream/shaq are overrated

[Lakers999]

With a few of these names, I could understand your position and it might be somewhat rational. However, you are not going to be in the mainstream of basketball thought with many of these names (when you say that you think that they are better than Tim Duncan).

Many of these picks just seem indefensible, positions that one would take only to be argumentative, not because the position is actually believed or held.

And Kobe as a top ten or even ahead of Tim Duncan is not something that most Laker fans would probably agree with and outside of the Laker fans you would fan very little agreement with that position at all.


Kobe Finals MVP never.
Kobe regular season MVP once.

Stockton never won a title. And he played with another HOFer, Karl Malone.
And he didn't impact the game in the way that Duncan did as one can see not only by his championships and Finals MVPs, but also by the defensive strength of the Spurs as measured by field goal percentage and points allowed.

Charles Barkley ? Don't be stupid.

And by the way, when even Jerry Sloan agrees (Karl Malone's coach) that Tim Duncan is the better of the two players, then you're in over your head clearly and not even being intellectually honest.

:nope



oh stfu!!! obviously jerry sloan and I are two different people so our opinions are gonna be different which doesnt make any of us less intelligent. I do think that Karl Malone would have prolly found more success if he played his prime years in the post MJ era.... Karl played against the toughest teams to ever play this game and he averaged 25+ points per game and defensively he was a beast. just becuase he didnt win anything doesnt make him less of a player than tim duncan... you put timmy in that era and he would have bombed miserably i garuntee that....

also

Stockton never impacted the game? look I dunno what pipe Jerry SLoan was smoking when He said that but clearly a player that averaged more assists in his career than Magic Johnson desrves some recognition.

also
Barkley? Okay you may be right Duncan may be better than Barkely but in some retrospect its all about eras... he played against the greatest players of all time.... johnson, bird, KJ, MJ, ewing, lambeer, KAJ... etc... for you knock him caqs of his profile or because he didnt win anything is just absurd... if you had him in his prime, along with manu and tony the Spurs would have pounced on pretty much any team that crossed their way.


and finally Kobe...
Your just a hater so why even bother breaking this down for you...

enjoy the second round elimination

[baseline bum]

Let me ask you this. Do you think if instead of drafting Duncan...if you had picked up Barkley, Malone or KG as rookies ,under identical circumstances, that the Spurs would have been more or less successful with rings in the next 10 years?

Barkley - less
Malone - far less
KG - far less

[Lakers999]

Less successful.

Now with Olajuwon, they might have been almost as successful. Hakeem's pinnacle was not long (only a couple of years). However, at that time, he was amazing and virtually unbeatable.

With Garnett, Barkley and Malone, we would not have won championships.

Our defense won championships and that because of Tim Duncan (Robinson was not healthy for 2003 and not even present in 2005 or 2007). Barkley and Malone, clearly, would have had no chance at protecting the paint as well as Duncan.

Garnett doesn't have the consistent low post scoring threat which opens up the floor for others. His teams don't always make the playoffs. Tim's made the playoffs with minimal help (e.g. 2003) and won it all.



and your argument for this is that KG, barkley, and Malone are not as good of defenders than tim duncan? wasnt it KG that lead the finals in most blocks and boards per game?

[baseline bum]

and your argument for this is that KG, barkley, and Malone are not as good of defenders than tim duncan? wasnt it KG that lead the finals in most blocks and boards per game?

Obviously Malone and Barkley aren't the defenders Duncan is.

[Lakers999]

I think the OP is putting it in regards of how many Championships these players brought to their teams. Rather then all time statistics and accomplishments. Or atleast heavily weighting it.

absolutely correct :toast

[Lakers999]

Obviously Malone and Barkley aren't the defenders Duncan is.

basing this on what.... becuase they lost in all their finals appearance against the best players to ever play the game

[baseline bum]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Tim Duncan
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Charles Barkley

[anonoftheinternets]

... you put timmy in that era and he would have bombed miserably i garuntee that....


ok please explain ur "garuntee" .... :rolleyes

another douchebag laker fan with no clue about basketball.......

[Lars]

Sorry, I believe your Spur's pride is diluding you, which is understandable. Duncan is a terrific player but I think he was blessed with some great circumstances, which is causing you to vastly over rate him.

[medacen2004]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Tim Duncan
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Charles Barkley

[baseline bum]

basing this on what.... becuase they lost in all their finals appearance against the best players to ever play the game

Based on Malone being an extremely weak shot-blocker and significantly weaker rebounder than Duncan even though he played in an era with more possessions and rebound opportunities per game. Based on Barkley's own admission that only Larry Bird saved him from being the worst defender in the league.

[Mavs<Spurs]

oh stfu!!! obviously jerry sloan and I are two different people so our opinions are gonna be different which doesnt make any of us less intelligent. I do think that Karl Malone would have prolly found more success if he played his prime years in the post MJ era.... Karl played against the toughest teams to ever play this game and he averaged 25+ points per game and defensively he was a beast. just becuase he didnt win anything doesnt make him less of a player than tim duncan... you put timmy in that era and he would have bombed miserably i garuntee that....

also

Stockton never impacted the game? look I dunno what pipe Jerry SLoan was smoking when He said that but clearly a player that averaged more assists in his career than Magic Johnson desrves some recognition.

also
Barkley? Okay you may be right Duncan may be better than Barkely but in some retrospect its all about eras... he played against the greatest players of all time.... johnson, bird, KJ, MJ, ewing, lambeer, KAJ... etc... for you knock him caqs of his profile or because he didnt win anything is just absurd... if you had him in his prime, along with manu and tony the Spurs would have pounced on pretty much any team that crossed their way.


and finally Kobe...
Your just a hater so why even bother breaking this down for you...

enjoy the second round elimination

And yet Hakeem has his two titles.

And Malone was not the centerpiece of a Jazz defense. He could strip the ball, but that was it.

And it's not like Malone retired in 1999.

But Duncan won it.

And I'm not saying you aren't intelligent.

I'm just saying that I think that you are giving some of these takes not just because you believe them but because you are trying to say some things that are not even reasonable.

And Stockton was a great player. But what Tim Duncan did for our defense and it was at this level well after David was healthy or even present for the Spurs (e.g. 2005) is something that Stockton could not do for the Jazz. And yes Stockton was a pg and so he could not by nature of his position defend the paint like Tim Duncan, but that is the opportunity that a great big man has in order to dominate the game. And Tim Duncan did that. And John Stockton as a guard could not do it, even though he was a good defender.

If someone is a top 10 of all time and they play with another player who is arguably a top 10 or top 20, then they should win championships together.
If they didn't and they had a teammate that was a top 20 caliber, then I doubt that they were really one of the top 10 players to ever play the game.

That's how I look at it.

And again, stats reflect systems, who your teammates are, your opposition, your style of play, the era in which you played,...

So, I look at numbers, but not just numbers. I consider other factors too.

Kobe is a great player, but in my book, he has a ways to go to become a top 50 of all time.

On the other hand, I would have picked him over Steve Nash both times because Kobe is an excellent defender and Steve Nash isn't. I definitely think that the year before last Kobe deserved the MVP.

I believe that Kobe is a complete player. So, I'm not selling him short.

And he's still got some years left, more than Timmy.


And yeah, I don't expect to get out of the first round. So, if we lose in the second round, whatever.

We have had a great run, even if it is over.

:flag:

[baseline bum]

Sorry, I believe your Spur's pride is diluding you, which is understandable. Duncan is a terrific player but I think he was blessed with some great circumstances, which is causing you to vastly over rate him.

Great circumstances? So do you consider Magic, Bird, Abdul-Jabbar, and Erving overrated too, considering they had supporting casts that would murder anything Duncan ever played with?

[medacen2004]

i agree with ur list it's pretty accurate accept if u put shaq you gotta add kobe now i am not a kobe fan but truth is truth so good-bye barkley sorry. And where is Mr. Russel? jUST THOUGHT I WOULD ASK

[Killakobe81]

I post this in honor of Tim Duncan passing David Robinson in rebounds and David's well deserved entry into the Hall of Fame !

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6. Bill Russell
7. Jerry West
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Wilt Chamberlain

My starting five: Magic Johnson at point guard, Michael Jordan at shooting guard, Larry Bird at small forward, Tim Duncan at power forward, Kareem Abdul Jabbar at center.

This would be a great defensive team as well as an unstoppable offensive force !

http://www.nba.com/history/players/50greatest.html

I expect perhaps some gripes about Hakeem, but his unusual athleticism and unusual skill set means more to me than simply comparing numbers.

Numbers reflect the time, the system one played in and with, one's coach, the teammates that one had,...

My apologies if some don't care for the placement of this thread.

However, the point of this top 10 is that it places Tim Duncan as one of the top ten basketball players of all time.

Would you place Tim Duncan as one of the top 10 basketball players of all time?

What's your top 10 of all time ?


:flag:

Go Spurs !

Go Spurstalk !

:toast to our win !

Great list and our all-time 5's are identical but for top 10 of guys I actually saw play ...
1. Kareem
2. mj
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Hakeeem
6. Duncan
7. Kobe
8. Shaq
9. Isiah
10. barkley/nique/Worthy

But 10 will be taken by Lebron soon anyway so that will bump barkley nique and worthy from this list

[baseline bum]

How about the great circumstance Olajuwon had when they dropped the 3-point line 2 feet in, making all of his role players far more dangerous? He didn't have too much success before or after it was reigned in.

[Lakers999]

ok please explain ur "garuntee" .... :rolleyes

another douchebag laker fan with no clue about basketball.......

hmm lets see..... an timid power forward/center playing against the likes of

Bill Walton
Bill Lambieer
KAJ
James Worthy
Kevin Mchale
Robert Parrish
Dennis Rodman
Dominque Wilkins
Patrick Ewing
Hakeem Olojuwan
Buck Williams

etc.. etc...

WHO is timmy real competition other than Shaq and KG?

dirk? LOL Gasol? according to some spurs fans on here he is nothing more than a soft player who timmy will eat up for lunch....


looks like your the one who cant see basketball prior to the mid 90's

[Lars]

Great circumstances? So do you consider Magic, Bird, Abdul-Jabbar, and Erving overrated too, considering they had supporting casts that would murder anything Duncan ever played with?

I won't lie, I was born in 82, and didn't really start watching till about 88. I have gone back and watched alot of older games. It's just my personal belief that Duncan had a great team in a weak era of the NBA so I just don't think he is as good as you do.

[medacen2004]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Tim Duncan
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Charles Barkley

[Killakobe81]

top10 all time?

he could make a case for himself for top5....i think magic/bird/dream/shaq are overrated


then you my friend are an idiot ...Shaq is the only one you could argue is overrated ...

[medacen2004]

If you look at the "big fundamental's" career stats they match up against anyone in nba history think about it the man has never lost a finals series he's willing to play second option if someone on "his" team is playing better than he is. Is'nt that the true definition of a winner and definite champion? And last but certainly not least he has 50 win seasons for every year the league has played 82 games? Enough said!!!!!!!!!

[Lakers999]

Based on Malone being an extremely weak shot-blocker and significantly weaker rebounder than Duncan even though he played in an era with more possessions and rebound opportunities per game. Based on Barkley's own admission that only Larry Bird saved him from being the worst defender in the league.


malone a weak shot blocker is correct but a weak rebounder is not... he averaged 10 boards a game his entire carreer and wasnamed to the NBA all team defense 4 times.....

and what barley said was a subtle jab at larry bird... his defense was above average during playoff situations

[Lakers999]

then you my friend are an idiot ...Shaq is the only one you could argue is overrated ...

how the hell can you say shaq the most dominate ever is overrated????

[baseline bum]

I won't lie, I was born in 82, and didn't really start watching till about 88. I have gone back and watched alot of older games. It's just my personal belief that Duncan had a great team in a weak era of the NBA so I just don't think he is as good as you do.

It is just your personal belief, as you have nothing else to back you up on that idea. Let me ask you this: who would win between the 95 Spurs and the Shaq/Kobe Lakers? After thinking that through for a minute, tell me who went through better competition for his titles: Olajuwon or Duncan.

[Lakers999]

If you look at the "big fundamental's" career stats they match up against anyone in nba history think about it the man has never lost a finals series he's willing to play second option if someone on "his" team is playing better than he is. Is'nt that the true definition of a winner and definite champion? And last but certainly not least he has 50 win seasons for every year the league has played 82 games? Enough said!!!!!!!!!


what about the times where the spurs fail to repeat? his finals record goes unscathed but his playoff records will definately show that mark.... all the great centers have repeated championships or have been to the finals back to back to back etc.... look it up if you dont believe me

[Mavs<Spurs]

hmm lets see..... an timid power forward/center playing against the likes of

Bill Walton
Bill Lambieer
KAJ
James Worthy
Kevin Mchale
Robert Parrish
Dennis Rodman
Dominque Wilkins
Patrick Ewing
Hakeem Olojuwan
Buck Williams

etc.. etc...

WHO is timmy real competition other than Shaq and KG?

dirk? LOL Gasol? according to some spurs fans on here he is nothing more than a soft player who timmy will eat up for lunch....


looks like your the one who cant see basketball prior to the mid 90's

Other than Hakeem, Timmy was definitely the better player of any of the people that you listed.

Walton was injured so much. It's a wonder that he made the HOF.

Lambier, well that's just funny. He could shoot jump shots and he was tough. He is not even close to Timmy's class.

Jabbar is better than Timmy, imo.

Worthy, while very fast was not the player that Tim Duncan has been. He did win one finals mvp. But this one is not even close. Again, Tim Duncan was first team all defense every year, but one in the NBA.

McHale had an amazing variety of moves on the block, but he's no Tim Duncan. This just is no comparison.

Robert Parrish, the chief. Same thing. Good, solid player. Not in Tim Duncan's league, but rather below it.

Dennis Rodman. Again, not a realistic comparison. Dennis was a great defender and an awesome rebounder and a below average offensive player. Tim could do both. You couldn't really believe this.

Dominique Wilkens. Well he was more of a shooting guard/small forward than a power forward. He didn't dominate on defense. He was the human highlight film and very athletic. And a poor substitute for Tim Duncan. He could not carry Tim's jockstrap. His Hawks fare poorly against Tim's Spurs.

Ewing was a pretty good player. But not good enough to win championships even with solid pieces surrounding him. At one time, he was very quick. A decent defender. But not Tim Duncan.

And another joke, Buck Williams, who might be slightly above average.

And Spurs Defense doesn't come from being soft, like Pau Gasol who let Paul Pierce come in the lane at will because he was a European and wouldn't hedge ! The tough Spurs Defense comes from our big man Tim Duncan and that's why we have had one of the top 3 defenses in the NBA for so many years.


So, mostly your list is a joke and you put people up there that you don't even believe belong in comparison with Tim Duncan. So, clearly, you're not being serious.


:nope

:flag:

[baseline bum]

malone a weak shot blocker is correct but a weak rebounder is not... he averaged 10 boards a game his entire carreer and wasnamed to the NBA all team defense 4 times.....

and what barley said was a subtle jab at larry bird... his defense was above average during playoff situations

Malone averaged a board a game less than Duncan in a faster-paced league with more opportunities. If you seriously think Barkley was a better defensive player than Duncan, you either did not watch their careers or you are just being an argumentative troll. I've watched Barkley since he came in the league, have seen him play live at least 10 times, and he was a great rebounder, shooter, low-post scorer, and one of the toughest SOBs in the history of the league. He was never the elite defender Duncan has been since about his third or fourth year.

[Mavs<Spurs]

what about the times where the spurs fail to repeat? his finals record goes unscathed but his playoff records will definately show that mark.... all the great centers have repeated championships or have been to the finals back to back to back etc.... look it up if you dont believe me

Are you talking about Magic and Kareem ?

And Worthy ?

Ah...

Even Hakeem needed Clyde, one of the 50, to repeat with Jordan out of the picture.

And .4 is pretty close. 06 we had a bad foul that we committed or we win game 7.

[Lakers999]

If someone is a top 10 of all time and they play with another player who is arguably a top 10 or top 20, then they should win championships together.
If they didn't and they had a teammate that was a top 20 caliber, then I doubt that they were really one of the top 10 players to ever play the game.

That's how I look at it.

:flag:


okay... so going by this formula... If Kobe wins the championship with the current players he has now he should be at least considered among the top 10 if not then 15. Becuase Clearly Fisher, Odom, Walton and Bynum are no where near the top 100 right now

[Mavs<Spurs]

I don't think that even Barkley himself would claim to be better than Tim Duncan. And Barkley was not a good defender.

:lol

[Lakers999]

Are you talking about Magic and Kareem ?

And Worthy ?

Ah...

Even Hakeem needed Clyde, one of the 50, to repeat with Jordan out of the picture.

And .4 is pretty close. 06 we had a bad foul that we committed or we win game 7.


no.. not just magic and kareem.... how about walton, lambeer, ewing, russell, chamberlin, mikan, cowens.... etc... they have all repeated to the finals or at least won the championship once..... EXCEPT for Ewing i think he lost to olojuwan and then to the spurs LOL

[baseline bum]

malone a weak shot blocker is correct but a weak rebounder is not... he averaged 10 boards a game his entire carreer and wasnamed to the NBA all team defense 4 times.....


Tim Duncan:
2007-08 All NBA Defense First Team
2006-07 All NBA Defense First Team
2005-06 All NBA Defense Second Team
2004-05 All NBA Defense First Team
2003-04 All NBA Defense Second Team
2001-02 All NBA Defense First Team
2000-01 All NBA Defense First Team
1999-00 All NBA Defense First Team
1998-99 All NBA Defense First Team
1997-98 All NBA Defense Second Team

Karl Malone:
1998-99 All NBA Defense First Team
1997-98 All NBA Defense First Team
1996-97 All NBA Defense First Team
1987-88 All NBA Defense Second Team


Who's got the better defensive resume again? The guy with four All NBA Defensive team namings in 19 years, or the one whose has been named to the first team 7 times and was on the second team the other 3?

[Lakers999]

I don't think that even Barkley himself would claim to be better than Tim Duncan. And Barkley was not a good defender.

:lol

problem with barkley is that he was a beast when he wanted to be

[Lakers999]

Tim Duncan:
2007-08 All NBA Defense First Team
2006-07 All NBA Defense First Team
2005-06 All NBA Defense Second Team
2004-05 All NBA Defense First Team
2003-04 All NBA Defense Second Team
2001-02 All NBA Defense First Team
2000-01 All NBA Defense First Team
1999-00 All NBA Defense First Team
1998-99 All NBA Defense First Team
1997-98 All NBA Defense First Team

Karl Malone:
1998-99 All NBA Defense First Team
1997-98 All NBA Defense First Team
1996-97 All NBA Defense First Team
1987-88 All NBA Defense Second Team


Who's got the better defensive resume again?


what was Malone Competition vs Duncan Competition...


clearly Malone was going up against the greatest Bigs of all time thats why he was NBA all Defensive teams in the late 90's after those bigs retired. if it werent for those great players malone would be on the slot every single year just like Duncan

[Mavs<Spurs]

okay... so going by this formula... If Kobe wins the championship with the current players he has now he should be at least considered among the top 10 if not then 15. Becuase Clearly Fisher, Odom, Walton and Bynum are no where near the top 100 right now

Okay, so first Kobe may yet get to my top 10 because he is building up to it.

But, let's be clear, that my "formula" only established a way to disprove that somebody was a top 10 player, not a way to prove it. Those are logically two very different propositions. The converse is not the same as the contrapositive. p implies q is the same thing as not q implies not p but different from q implies p and different from the inverse not p implies not q.

Kobe, at this point, doesn't have a top 50 player with him.

However, he has a number of players who are really good and these include Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol. When you add in the total depth and talent of the Laker team, the most talented team and deepest team in the league in my opinion, then Kobe has a strong supporting cast.

Having said that, Kobe would go well on to my list if he wins this year.

He's not terribly far from making that list because again he is a terrific defender as well as scorer, facilitator, leader, etc.

So, he's not far from my list and that would go a long ways towards making my list and probably a lot of other people's lists too.

Just my opinion.


:flag:

[Lakers999]

Malone averaged a board a game less than Duncan in a faster-paced league with more opportunities. If you seriously think Barkley was a better defensive player than Duncan, you either did not watch their careers or you are just being an argumentative troll. I've watched Barkley since he came in the league, have seen him play live at least 10 times, and he was a great rebounder, shooter, low-post scorer, and one of the toughest SOBs in the history of the league. He was never the elite defender Duncan has been since about his third or fourth year.

im not saying that Barkley is a better Defender than Duncan Im saying the SPurs would have prolly won more with either Barkley or Malone... Barkely prolly not but Malone most defenitaley

[Mavs<Spurs]

no.. not just magic and kareem.... how about walton, lambeer, ewing, russell, chamberlin, mikan, cowens.... etc... they have all repeated to the finals or at least won the championship once..... EXCEPT for Ewing i think he lost to olojuwan and then to the spurs LOL

Ewing didn't win. Prior to the 80's, there was not much parity in the league.

And those dynasties had all the talent in the league on their team (almost).

So, with all of the talent in the league on your team, I would hope that you would repeat.

Or if you're the only 7 footer around in your era. (not quite, but there were not a lot of them and they were much less athletic than now).

Main point is that these teams that repeated had much more support than Tim has and we don't know that they would have repeated had they had as little support as Tim has had.

[baseline bum]

what was Malone Competition vs Duncan Competition...


clearly Malone was going up against the greatest Bigs of all time thats why he was NBA all Defensive teams in the late 90's after those bigs retired. if it werent for those great players malone would be on the slot every single year just like Duncan

Yes, Charles Oakley, Horace Grant, Derek McKey, Anthony Mason, Larry Nance, Buck Williams, Rick Mahorn, Kevin McHale, AC Green, Rodney McCray, Michael Cooper, Bill Hanzlik, Danny Vranes, and Bobby Jones were monster competition in front of poor Karl Malone and his all-world defense.

[Lakers999]

Okay, so first Kobe may yet get to my top 10 because he is building up to it.

But, let's be clear, that my "formula" only established a way to disprove that somebody was a top 10 player, not a way to prove it. Those are logically two very different propositions. The converse is not the same as the contrapositive. p implies q is the same thing as not q implies not p but different from q implies p and different from the inverse not p implies not q.

Kobe, at this point, doesn't have a top 50 player with him.

However, he has a number of players who are really good and these include Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol. When you add in the total depth and talent of the Laker team, the most talented team and deepest team in the league in my opinion, then Kobe has a strong supporting cast.

Having said that, Kobe would go well on to my list if he wins this year.

He's not terribly far from making that list because again he is a terrific defender as well as scorer, facilitator, leader, etc.

So, he's not far from my list and that would go a long ways towards making my list and probably a lot of other people's lists too.

Just my opinion.


:flag:


okay fine... i can agree to this about kobe

and the notion that Tim Duncan may well be a top ten player of all time....

[Mavs<Spurs]

what was Malone Competition vs Duncan Competition...


clearly Malone was going up against the greatest Bigs of all time thats why he was NBA all Defensive teams in the late 90's after those bigs retired. if it werent for those great players malone would be on the slot every single year just like Duncan

Duncan vs Malone

Those that could, did. Those that couldn't, make excuses.

End of story.

:lmao

:flag:

[baseline bum]

im not saying that Barkley is a better Defender than Duncan Im saying the SPurs would have prolly won more with either Barkley or Malone... Barkely prolly not but Malone most defenitaley

Malone most definitely? You mean the Malone who choked game 7 of the 96 WCF away? The Malone who had game 6 of the 98 Finals won thanks to Stockton's clutch shooting until he didn't notice Jordan come to steal the ball? The Malone who put up 8 points in his team's elimination games in back to back seasons?

[Mavs<Spurs]

okay fine... i can agree to this about kobe

and the notion that Tim Duncan may well be a top ten player of all time....

Well, then, we agree.

:toast

[Mavs<Spurs]

Malone most definitely? You mean the Malone who choked game 7 of the 96 WCF away? The Malone who had game 6 of the 98 Finals won thanks to Stockton's clutch shooting until he didn't notice Jordan come to steal the ball? The Malone who put up 8 points in his team's elimination games in back to back seasons?

I remember these games.

I also remember a certain 50 point beating in the Finals that was quite unusual.

Hmm. Who played in it ?

:toast

[ElNono]

im not saying that Barkley is a better Defender than Duncan Im saying the SPurs would have prolly won more with either Barkley or Malone... Barkely prolly not but Malone most defenitaley

No way. Not even close.

[Lakers999]

Ewing didn't win. Prior to the 80's, there was not much parity in the league.

Main point is that these teams that repeated had much more support than Tim has and we don't know that they would have repeated had they had as little support as Tim has had.

most defeinately not.... the only time i saw a player win it all without their number 2 star was magic johnson and thats when kareem went down with an injury Magic played all 5 positions during that finals series against the sixers

[Lakers999]

No way. Not even close.
thats your opinion its cool...

[barbacoataco]

It is very hard to pick from Shaq, Duncan and Olajuwon as they all have very similar credentials.

Duncan is at the point in his career where some fans are forgetting how good he was in his 2003 form. The Duncan of today is still an elite player, but no where near the same as then. Even though his stats are still good, he is not being double teamed as much as the past. That means that he is not the dominant offensive force he once was, when no one could defend him man to man.

As far as comparisons go, there are several factors. One is -- you HAVE to distinguish between "peak" and "career" value when comparing players. The first is the peak level, or the best 2-3 year period when a player was in his prime. The 2nd is the cumulative, or career consistent value. For example, at his best Shaq was a more dominant player than Duncan ever was (though not by much.) However, over the course of his career Duncan has been a more consistent performer, and helped his team more.

The 2nd factor is that it is impossible to compare players of different eras. It is better to create "teams of the decade" for the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. No one really knows if the players of the past were better, worse or different than today's. The game is always changing and in different eras it takes different skill sets to succeed.

Finally, Moses Malone is a player who is often overlooked but he did it all in his career.

[Lakers999]

Malone most definitely? You mean the Malone who choked game 7 of the 96 WCF away? The Malone who had game 6 of the 98 Finals won thanks to Stockton's clutch shooting until he didn't notice Jordan come to steal the ball? The Malone who put up 8 points in his team's elimination games in back to back seasons?


oh CMON that was against Jordan and Pippen....

to be all honest you guys real competition was us and Detroit

[Mavs<Spurs]

Yes, Charles Oakley, Horace Grant, Derek McKey, Anthony Mason, Larry Nance, Buck Williams, Rick Mahorn, Kevin McHale, AC Green, Rodney McCray, Michael Cooper, Bill Hanzlik, Danny Vranes, and Bobby Jones were monster competition in front of poor Karl Malone and his all-world defense.

Wow, now there's a lot of fun we could have with that list.

Rodney McCray ? (Louisville)

Larry Nance ?

Oakley was decent, but all world ?

No disrespect to Horace Grant, but ... ?

Anthony Mason ?

Buck Williams was a decent defender, but certainly could have been surpassed by a defensive maestro, especially the great Defensive Presence, Karl Malone !

Thanks for making me laugh, Baseline Bum ! Some good snark !


:lmao:lmao:lmao

:flag:

[Lakers999]

Well, then, we agree.

:toast

:toast



sorry for the hate its playoff time

[Mavs<Spurs]

It is very hard to pick from Shaq, Duncan and Olajuwon as they all have very similar credentials.

Duncan is at the point in his career where some fans are forgetting how good he was in his 2003 form. The Duncan of today is still an elite player, but no where near the same as then. Even though his stats are still good, he is not being double teamed as much as the past. That means that he is not the dominant offensive force he once was, when no one could defend him man to man.

As far as comparisons go, there are several factors. One is -- you HAVE to distinguish between "peak" and "career" value when comparing players. The first is the peak level, or the best 2-3 year period when a player was in his prime. The 2nd is the cumulative, or career consistent value. For example, at his best Shaq was a more dominant player than Duncan ever was (though not by much.) However, over the course of his career Duncan has been a more consistent performer, and helped his team more.

The 2nd factor is that it is impossible to compare players of different eras. It is better to create "teams of the decade" for the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. No one really knows if the players of the past were better, worse or different than today's. The game is always changing and in different eras it takes different skill sets to succeed.

Finally, Moses Malone is a player who is often overlooked but he did it all in his career.


Some excellent points !

:flag:

[Lakers999]

Wow, now there's a lot of fun we could have with that list.

Rodney McCray ? (Louisville)

Larry Nance ?

Oakley was decent, but all world ?

No disrespect to Horace Grant, but ... ?

Anthony Mason ?

Buck Williams was a decent defender, but certainly could have been surpassed by a defensive maestro, especially the great Defensive Presence, Karl Malone !

Thanks for making me laugh, Baseline Bum ! Some good snark !


:lmao:lmao:lmao

:flag:

why dont you mention the centers that malone had to switch off on....

[dbreiden83080]

IMO, your list is off, because i have Timmy ahead of Bird all time for sure..

[baseline bum]

oh CMON that was against Jordan and Pippen....

to be all honest you guys real competition was us and Detroit

No, the first example was against Shawn Kemp. The last was against Brian Grant.

[Mavs<Spurs]

:toast



sorry for the hate its playoff time

No worries. At least you have a playoff to look forward to !

I don't.

It was Kobe Bryant that willed us to victory in the Olympics.

I was so thankful that he was on our team and when it got stupidly close, I was like, "Okay, Kobe, please take over and don't let us lose !" And I knew Kobe would not let us lose !

He was awesome !

So, if Kobe wins this year, I'm not against putting him in my top ten.

I really wanted U.S. to win the Gold this past year and Kobe is the reason why we won the Gold Medal Game and why we won period !

Wish Kobe were on our team.

:flag:

:toast

[Lakers999]

Yes, Charles Oakley, Horace Grant, Derek McKey, Anthony Mason, Larry Nance, Buck Williams, Rick Mahorn, Kevin McHale, AC Green, Rodney McCray, Michael Cooper, Bill Hanzlik, Danny Vranes, and Bobby Jones were monster competition in front of poor Karl Malone and his all-world defense.


retarded!!! you know and i know that malone had to switch off on some of the HOF centers.... i.e kareem, parrish, olojuwon... etc... and besides some of those guys you mentioned were the second units of their teams.... what about james worthy, barkley, erving... etc..

[Mavs<Spurs]

IMO, your list is off, because i have Timmy ahead of Bird all time for sure..

I used to also.

But Tim was so dominant up until recently. I guess I just got spoiled / jaded a little.

:flag:

[dbreiden83080]

Duncan is at the point in his career where some fans are forgetting how good he was in his 2003 form. The Duncan of today is still an elite player, but no where near the same as then. Even though his stats are still good, he is not being double teamed as much as the past. That means that he is not the dominant offensive force he once was, when no one could defend him man to man.


I have to agree. I have the Spurs 03 finals on DVD like most Spurs fans do and that was truly Timmy at his best. He is still a great player but back in 03, this man was one of the best big man of all time on both sides of the ball, just amazing....

[Lakers999]

Wish Kobe were on our team.

:flag:

:toast

well if he opts out this year.... then you guys have to trade a boat load of players for cash just to sign him LOL

[Mavs<Spurs]

I have to agree. I have the Spurs 03 finals on DVD like most Spurs fans do and that was truly Timmy at his best. He is still a great player but back in 03, this man was one of the best big man of all time on both sides of the ball, just amazing....

I have it also. I will have to watch it again.

That game 6 was one of the best games that I have ever seen anybody play.

It was like 20 points, 20 rebounds, 10 blocks and 8 assists or something close.

Almost a quadruple double in the final game of the NBA Finals !

:flag:

[Mavs<Spurs]

well if he opts out this year.... then you guys have to trade a boat load of players for cash just to sign him LOL

I wonder if I would get flamed if I said

Kobe > TP + Manu .


:flag:

[baseline bum]

retarded!!! you know and i know that malone had to switch off on some of the HOF centers.... i.e kareem, parrish, olojuwon... etc... and besides some of those guys you mentioned were the second units of their teams.... what about james worthy, barkley, erving... etc..

And Duncan didn't have to guard O'Neal, Garnett, Webber, Nowitzki, Malone, and Wallace? Basically the deepest concentration of talent at his position in his conference in the history of the league. Wow, Karl Malone had to switch off onto Robert Parish a couple of times a games twice a season in the first couple of years of his career!

[ElNono]

I have to agree. I have the Spurs 03 finals on DVD like most Spurs fans do and that was truly Timmy at his best. He is still a great player but back in 03, this man was one of the best big man of all time on both sides of the ball, just amazing....

+1
The line of game 6 against the Nets in the Finals says it all really:

21pts/20rbd/10ast/8blk

[Lakers999]

And Duncan didn't have to guard O'Neal, Garnett, Webber, Nowitzki, Malone, and Wallace? Basically the deepest concentration of talent at his position in his conference in the history of the league. Wow, Karl Malone had to switch off onto Robert Parish a couple of times a games twice a season in the first couple of years of his career!

for two of those titles didnt he have to help Robinson with the Double teams... O'neal, Malone and Garnett I Understand.... but Webber, Dirk and Ben Wallace??? COME ON!!!!! your just reaching here

[HarlemHeat37]

Karl Malone was known to play worse in the playoffs, and that's the main reason people have him behind Duncan on all-time lists..same with why D-Rob's legacy isn't as good as it could have been..

Moses Malone is up there, but he was only an above average defensive player at best..

Barkley was a below average defensive player, and that alone puts Duncan ahead of him..

Kobe has choked in almost every NBA finals he's been in, and has never won a title as a #1 option..he needs to win 2 titles as a #1 to surpass Duncan IMO..

there really isn't an argument for any of these guys..

other than Hakeem, Duncan has had a worst supporting cast than any of the other consensus top 10 players..also like Hakeem, Duncan is one of the few superstars to ever win an NBA title without another all-star caliber player on his side, as he did in 2003..

his accolades speak for themselves..he's one of the best defensive players of all-time..our team has been a contender or borderline contender since he joined the team..we've had the best record in all of sports with him..4 titles, 3 finals MVPs, 2 MVPs..

it would be extremely difficult for a player to stack up with Tim's accolades..

looking at his rankings in the NBA..anybody can argue with these if they want, but you'll just fail..

2009: top 6 player..he's behind Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Paul, and Howard..
2008: top 6 player at worst..behind the same guys that I just listed, probably not Wade and Howard..maybe not KG..

2007: top 3 player..only Kobe and Lebron were better..
2006: top 4 player..Wade, Kobe, and Lebron were better..

2005: best player in the NBA..no arguments here, although it was a weak year..
2004: top 2 player in the NBA with KG..Shaq was in decline at this point..
2003: best player in the NBA..Shaq and KG in the conversation..
2002: 2nd best player in the NBA behind Shaq..
2001: 2nd best player in the NBA behind Shaq..
2000: 2nd best player in the NBA behind Shaq..
1999: best player in the NBA, 2nd best at worst..
1998: top 5 player..behind Jordan, Malone, Shaq, Robinson...

[Lakers999]

+1
The line of game 6 against the Nets in the Finals says it all really:

21pts/20rbd/10ast/8blk



i hated 03 more than I hated 04 it was truly the darkest times in this decade for laker fans

[Mavs<Spurs]

Karl Malone was known to play worse in the playoffs, and that's the main reason people have him behind Duncan on all-time lists..same with why D-Rob's legacy isn't as good as it could have been..

Moses Malone is up there, but he was only an above average defensive player at best..

Barkley was a below average defensive player, and that alone puts Duncan ahead of him..

Kobe has choked in almost every NBA finals he's been in, and has never won a title as a #1 option..he needs to win 2 titles as a #1 to surpass Duncan IMO..

there really isn't an argument for any of these guys..

other than Hakeem, Duncan has had a worst supporting cast than any of the other consensus top 10 players..also like Hakeem, Duncan is one of the few superstars to ever win an NBA title without another all-star caliber player on his side, as he did in 2003..

his accolades speak for themselves..he's one of the best defensive players of all-time..our team has been a contender or borderline contender since he joined the team..we've had the best record in all of sports with him..4 titles, 3 finals MVPs, 2 MVPs..

it would be extremely difficult for a player to stack up with Tim's accolades..

looking at his rankings in the NBA..anybody can argue with these if they want, but you'll just fail..

2009: top 6 player..he's behind Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Paul, and Howard..
2008: top 6 player at worst..behind the same guys that I just listed, probably not Wade and Howard..maybe not KG..

2007: top 3 player..only Kobe and Lebron were better..
2006: top 4 player..Wade, Kobe, and Lebron were better..

2005: best player in the NBA..no arguments here, although it was a weak year..
2004: top 2 player in the NBA with KG..Shaq was in decline at this point..
2003: best player in the NBA..Shaq and KG in the conversation..
2002: 2nd best player in the NBA behind Shaq..
2001: 2nd best player in the NBA behind Shaq..
2000: 2nd best player in the NBA behind Shaq..
1999: best player in the NBA, 2nd best at worst..
1998: top 5 player..behind Jordan, Malone, Shaq, Robinson...

Excellent analysis, some great points, thanks !

:flag:

[baseline bum]

for two of those titles didnt he have to help Robinson with the Double teams... O'neal, Malone and Garnett I Understand.... but Webber, Dirk and Ben Wallace??? COME ON!!!!! your just reaching here

Rasheed Wallace.

[Mavs<Spurs]

for two of those titles didnt he have to help Robinson with the Double teams... O'neal, Malone and Garnett I Understand.... but Webber, Dirk and Ben Wallace??? COME ON!!!!! your just reaching here

Rasheed Wallace, not Ben surely !

And it's true that Rasheed wasn't always a prolific scorer, but he could score, both from distance and down on the block with a nearly unblockable shot because of the high release.

It's pretty obvious that C Webb was an amazingly great player.

And Dirk is a nightmare to guard. Especially for a big.


I can see your point about Rasheed, although like I said Rasheed could be tough when he wanted to be.

The other two were good players and Dirk still is and they were tough covers.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Rasheed Wallace.

LOL at Ben Wallace being a tough player for Tim Duncan to guard !

:lmao

:flag:

[Mavs<Spurs]

i hated 03 more than I hated 04 it was truly the darkest times in this decade for laker fans

I don't know that this Laker team could beat the 2000-2003 version of the Lakers.

Shaq and Kobe, both playing at or near the top of their careers (Kobe's peak was a little later and he's still playing at that peak, obviously).

:flag:

[baseline bum]

I have to agree. I have the Spurs 03 finals on DVD like most Spurs fans do and that was truly Timmy at his best. He is still a great player but back in 03, this man was one of the best big man of all time on both sides of the ball, just amazing....

Let's play a game of which one doesn't belong: EDIT: Well, looking past the whole ring thing too :lol

Malone's 98 Playoffs:
GAMES: 20
PPG: 26.3
FG%: 47.1
3FG%: 0.0
FT%: 78.8
RPG: 10.9
APG: 3.4
SPG: 1.1
BPG: 1.0
TOPG: 3.0
EFF: 26.8


O'Neal's 00 Playoffs:
GAMES: 23
PPG: 30.7
FG%: 56.6
3FG%: nan
FT%: 45.6
RPG: 15.4
APG: 3.1
SPG: 0.6
BPG: 2.4
TOPG: 2.4
EFF: 33.3

Olajuwon's 95 Playoffs:
GAMES: 22
PPG: 33.0
FG%: 53.1
3FG%: 50.0
FT%: 68.1
RPG: 10.3
APG: 4.5
SPG: 1.2
BPG: 2.8
TOPG: 3.3
EFF: 33.8

Duncan's 03 Playoffs:
GAMES: 24
PPG: 24.7
FG%: 52.9
3FG%: 0.0
FT%: 67.7
RPG: 15.4
APG: 5.3
SPG: 0.6
BPG: 3.3
TOPG: 3.2
EFF: 34.9

Jordan's 91 Playoffs:
GAMES: 17
PPG: 31.1
FG%: 52.4
3FG%: 38.5
FT%: 84.5
RPG: 6.4
APG: 8.4
SPG: 2.4
BPG: 1.4
TOPG: 2.5
EFF: 35.1

[Lakers999]

I don't know that this Laker team could beat the 2000-2003 version of the Lakers.

Shaq and Kobe, both playing at or near the top of their careers (Kobe's peak was a little later and he's still playing at that peak, obviously).

:flag:


i dunno who would win... since the zone defense was allowed in 2003 the Kobe and Shaq tandem needed to be adjusted to more players who could hit the outside shot....that was our biggest problem in 04... kobe was double teamed Shaq was guarded well by ben and rasheed wallace and no one could hit the outside shot

[baseline bum]

i dunno who would win... since the zone defense was allowed in 2003 the Kobe and Shaq tandem needed to be adjusted to more players who could hit the outside shot....that was our biggest problem in 04... kobe was double teamed Shaq was guarded well by ben and rasheed wallace and no one could hit the outside shot

You guys couldn't handle KG and Kendrick Perkins. No way that team beats a prime Shaq.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Let's play a game of which one doesn't belong: EDIT: Well, looking past the whole ring thing too :lol

Malone's 98 Playoffs:
GAMES: 20
PPG: 26.3
FG%: 47.1
3FG%: 0.0
FT%: 78.8
RPG: 10.9
APG: 3.4
SPG: 1.1
BPG: 1.0
TOPG: 3.0
EFF: 26.8


O'Neal's 00 Playoffs:
GAMES: 23
PPG: 30.7
FG%: 56.6
3FG%: nan
FT%: 45.6
RPG: 15.4
APG: 3.1
SPG: 0.6
BPG: 2.4
TOPG: 2.4
EFF: 33.3

Olajuwon's 95 Playoffs:
GAMES: 22
PPG: 33.0
FG%: 53.1
3FG%: 50.0
FT%: 68.1
RPG: 10.3
APG: 4.5
SPG: 1.2
BPG: 2.8
TOPG: 3.3
EFF: 33.8

Duncan's 03 Playoffs:
GAMES: 24
PPG: 24.7
FG%: 52.9
3FG%: 0.0
FT%: 67.7
RPG: 15.4
APG: 5.3
SPG: 0.6
BPG: 3.3
TOPG: 3.2
EFF: 34.9

Jordan's 91 Playoffs:
GAMES: 17
PPG: 31.1
FG%: 52.4
3FG%: 38.5
FT%: 84.5
RPG: 6.4
APG: 8.4
SPG: 2.4
BPG: 1.4
TOPG: 2.5
EFF: 35.1

Well, I'm going to have to choose door number one because of the Eff rating and the below fifty percent field goal percentage.

Do I win a prize ?

:lol

:flag:

[Mavs<Spurs]

You guys couldn't handle KG and Kendrick Perkins. No way that team beats a prime Shaq.

Yeah, KG + Perkins < prime Shaq by a lot !

:flag:

[Ditty]

From that list:

1.MJ
2.Bird
3.Johnson
4.Hakeem
5.Jabbar
6.Russel
7.Duncan
8.Chamberlin
9.Robertson
10.West

[Mavs<Spurs]

i dunno who would win... since the zone defense was allowed in 2003 the Kobe and Shaq tandem needed to be adjusted to more players who could hit the outside shot....that was our biggest problem in 04... kobe was double teamed Shaq was guarded well by ben and rasheed wallace and no one could hit the outside shot

Big, serious question: Is Pau Gasol going to actually hedge and not just let whoever wants to waltz into the paint ?

That's why you guys lost last year, imo.

And you better not make that mistake with LeBron James or you will not win.

Bynum won't just let anybody into the paint (I don't think he will), but Gasol did last year and I don't know that he won't be soft this year too .
:flag:

[Warlord23]

Most of the the arguments used against Tim Duncan are complete fallacies.

Some of them may hold water, but if they are used against other great players, will leave you in a position where you will not be able to find 10 guys ahead of him.

For example, the claim that Duncan played in an era of weak forwards. Patently false. The PF position has never been stronger in the NBA than in the recent decade with the likes of Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Rasheed, Dirk, Amare, Gasol, McDyess, Jermaine (healthy), Bosh, Brand, Boozer, Marion and several others I'm probably omitting. What's common to people in the list above is every single one of them made at least one All-NBA team.

When Barkley and Malone played, the quality at PF was just the opposite. Aside from the two of them, few PFs were noteworthy. When these two started playing in the 80s, most of the forward spots in All-NBA teams would go to SFs rather than PFs. SFs and F/Gs ruled the roost then with Erving, Bird, English, King, Nique, Worthy, Dantley, and later Pippen and Grant Hill, who were virtual locks for All-NBA and All-star berths in their respective primes. Some of the All-NBA teams either had 2 SFs (Bird/Nique, Bird/King) or 2 centers (Sampson/Kareem) or even 3 guards in the 2nd/3rd teams (Mullin/KJ/Stockton or Mullin/Drexler/Dumars).

Compare this to the modern era, when we have 3 PFs making the goddamn first team in 06-07 (Timmy, Dirk, Amare), 3 PFs making the 2nd team in 01-02 (KG, Webber, Dirk) and 07-08 (Timmy, Dirk, Amare). Also since TD came into the league, 8 All-NBA first teams out of a total of 11 feature 2 PFs and 0 SFs. That tells you a lot about the strength at the PF position.

So who did Barkley and Malone go up against? An aging McHale, Chambers, Cummings, Coleman, Detlef Schrempf, Kemp, Rodman, Juwan Howard, Anthony Mason, Vin Baker etc. The PFs of the modern era would eat these guys alive. Drafted in 1985, Karl Malone got to the 1st team only in 88-89. Drafted in 1984, Barkley made it to his first 1st team only in 87-88. Compare these to Duncan, who made it to the first team as a rookie in 97-98.

Barkley and Malone played mediocre defense. Duncan as a PF is one of the premier shot blockers in the NBA, and has been for the last dozen years. The Spurs' system revolves around him protecting the rim. Also, Malone was a jump shooter and screen/roll finisher while Barkley was a jump shooter who also drove on occasion. Duncan is the only low post offensive player out of the three. In the post-Jordan era, the low-post big man who also blocks shots has been instrumental in winning 8 out of 10 titles. I don't know about you guys, but I'd take that over a jump shooter who can't intimidate at the rim any day.

The books don't lie. Duncan is the only player in NBA history to receive All-NBA and All-Defensive honors in his first eleven seasons.

With 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs, 2 MVPs, 11 All-NBA selections (9x First team), 11 All-Defense selections (8x First team), 11 All-Star game selections (10x starter), Duncan is the most complete player of the post-Jordan era and the best Forward ever.

And it isn't even fucking close! You'll have to add up Barkley and Malone's achievements to top what Duncan has accomplished, either one of them pales in comparison. Even if Malone hadn't choked and had won a title he'd be behind Duncan career-wise, but the bitch shriveled up in the clutch every single time! Even if Barkley had made it to a couple of All-Defensive First teams he wouldn't be in Duncan's class, but the dude never even made it to the second team once!

These guys aren't in the same sentence as Duncan. Bird or Dr.J would be a more interesting, but ultimately futile, argument. But these 2 underachievers don't hold a candle to Timmy.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Most of the the arguments used against Tim Duncan are complete fallacies.

Some of them may hold water, but if they are used against other great players, will leave you in a position where you will not be able to find 10 guys ahead of him.

For example, the claim that Duncan played in an era of weak forwards. Patently false. The PF position has never been stronger in the NBA than in the recent decade with the likes of Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Rasheed, Dirk, Amare, Gasol, McDyess, Jermaine (healthy), Bosh, Brand, Boozer, Marion and several others I'm probably omitting. What's common to people in the list above is every single one of them made at least one All-NBA team.

When Barkley and Malone played, the quality at PF was just the opposite. Aside from the two of them, few PFs were noteworthy. When these two started playing in the 80s, most of the forward spots in All-NBA teams would go to SFs rather than PFs. SFs and F/Gs ruled the roost then with Erving, Bird, English, King, Nique, Worthy, Dantley, and later Pippen and Grant Hill, who were virtual locks for All-NBA and All-star berths in their respective primes. Some of the All-NBA teams either had 2 SFs (Bird/Nique, Bird/King) or 2 centers (Sampson/Kareem) or even 3 guards in the 2nd/3rd teams (Mullin/KJ/Stockton or Mullin/Drexler/Dumars).

Compare this to the modern era, when we have 3 PFs making the goddamn first team in 06-07 (Timmy, Dirk, Amare), 3 PFs making the 2nd team in 01-02 (KG, Webber, Dirk) and 07-08 (Timmy, Dirk, Amare). Also since TD came into the league, 8 All-NBA first teams out of a total of 11 feature 2 PFs and 0 SFs. That tells you a lot about the strength at the PF position.

So who did Barkley and Malone go up against? An aging McHale, Chambers, Cummings, Coleman, Detlef Schrempf, Kemp, Rodman, Juwan Howard, Anthony Mason, Vin Baker etc. The PFs of the modern era would eat these guys alive. Drafted in 1985, Karl Malone got to the 1st team only in 88-89. Drafted in 1984, Barkley made it to his first 1st team only in 87-88. Compare these to Duncan, who made it to the first team as a rookie in 97-98.

Barkley and Malone played mediocre defense. Duncan as a PF is one of the premier shot blockers in the NBA, and has been for the last dozen years. The Spurs' system revolves around him protecting the rim. Also, Malone was a jump shooter and screen/roll finisher while Barkley was a jump shooter who also drove on occasion. Duncan is the only low post offensive player out of the three. In the post-Jordan era, the low-post big man who also blocks shots has been instrumental in winning 8 out of 10 titles. I don't know about you guys, but I'd take that over a jump shooter who can't intimidate at the rim any day.

The books don't lie. Duncan is the only player in NBA history to receive All-NBA and All-Defensive honors in his first eleven seasons.

With 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs, 2 MVPs, 11 All-NBA selections (9x First team), 11 All-Defense selections (8x First team), 11 All-Star game selections (10x starter), Duncan is the most complete player of the post-Jordan era and the best Forward ever.

And it isn't even fucking close! You'll have to add up Barkley and Malone's achievements to top what Duncan has accomplished, either one of them pales in comparison. Even if Malone hadn't choked and had won a title he'd be behind Duncan career-wise, but the bitch shriveled up in the clutch every single time! Even if Barkley had made it to a couple of All-Defensive First teams he wouldn't be in Duncan's class, but the dude never even made it to the second team once!

These guys aren't in the same sentence as Duncan. Bird or Dr.J would be a more interesting, but ultimately futile, argument. But these 2 underachievers don't hold a candle to Timmy.

Great post !

Lot of things to think about in there.

Bird obviously isn't in the same class, defensively, as Duncan.

Barkley and Dr. J are more clearly not as good as Timmy in my book.


:flag:

[TheSpursFNRule]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Dr. J
4. Bill Russel
5. Larry Bird
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabar
7. Wilt Chamberlin
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan
11. Shaq
12. Jerry West
13. Pistol Pete
14. Clyde Drexler
15. Kobe Bryant
16. Elgin Baylor
17. Karl Malone
18. Charles Barkley
19. Moses Malone
20. David Robinson

My Top 5 Starting Team....

C-Wilt Chamberlin
PF- Bill Russel
SF- Larry Bird
SG- Michael Jordan
PG-Magic Johnson

[Rummpd]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6. Bill Russell
7. Jerry West
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Wilt Chamberlain


Russel, Chamberlain, and Kareem are in reality 1-3 in no particular order over Jordan - size matters.

[Muser]

If we're talking about big men, Duncan has to be in the top 5.

All time? Top 15

[will_spurs]

I think Duncan is definitely top 10. Of course it's always hard to compare achievements across eras, but when I see Lars putting Rodman and Duncan in the same sentence, sorry but let me laugh. Duncan is a legend, he's the center/forward that EVERYBODY looks up to since he was drafted - and yes, even Shaq.

I like all this talk but let's say your start a new franchise and you can pick ANY player in the last 10 years. Who are you going to pick? Kobe? Shaq? No. You are going to pick either Duncan or LBJ. Enough said.

[TDomination]

It is very hard to pick from Shaq, Duncan and Olajuwon as they all have very similar credentials.

Duncan is at the point in his career where some fans are forgetting how good he was in his 2003 form. The Duncan of today is still an elite player, but no where near the same as then. Even though his stats are still good, he is not being double teamed as much as the past. That means that he is not the dominant offensive force he once was, when no one could defend him man to man.

As far as comparisons go, there are several factors. One is -- you HAVE to distinguish between "peak" and "career" value when comparing players. The first is the peak level, or the best 2-3 year period when a player was in his prime. The 2nd is the cumulative, or career consistent value. For example, at his best Shaq was a more dominant player than Duncan ever was (though not by much.) However, over the course of his career Duncan has been a more consistent performer, and helped his team more.

The 2nd factor is that it is impossible to compare players of different eras. It is better to create "teams of the decade" for the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. No one really knows if the players of the past were better, worse or different than today's. The game is always changing and in different eras it takes different skill sets to succeed.

Finally, Moses Malone is a player who is often overlooked but he did it all in his career.

What an intelligent post.

[Brazil]

I'm quite surprised to see Sir Charles so high in most of your lists guys, for me he is barely in the top 20.

[sonic21]

my list

1.MJ
2.Kareem
3.Magic
4.Russell
5.Bird
6.Hakeem
7.Duncan
8.Shaq
9.Wilt
10.Robertson/West

[Darrin]

I post this in honor of Tim Duncan passing David Robinson in rebounds and David's well deserved entry into the Hall of Fame !

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6. Bill Russell
7. Jerry West
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Wilt Chamberlain

My starting five: Magic Johnson at point guard, Michael Jordan at shooting guard, Larry Bird at small forward, Tim Duncan at power forward, Kareem Abdul Jabbar at center.

This would be a great defensive team as well as an unstoppable offensive force !

http://www.nba.com/history/players/50greatest.html

I expect perhaps some gripes about Hakeem, but his unusual athleticism and unusual skill set means more to me than simply comparing numbers.

Numbers reflect the time, the system one played in and with, one's coach, the teammates that one had,...

My apologies if some don't care for the placement of this thread.

However, the point of this top 10 is that it places Tim Duncan as one of the top ten basketball players of all time.

Would you place Tim Duncan as one of the top 10 basketball players of all time?

What's your top 10 of all time ?


:flag:

Go Spurs !

Go Spurstalk !

:toast to our win !

I don't like to rank with numbers.

Power Forwards: Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, and Kevin McHale in that order.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Lakers999, did you actually watch those guys from your list play?

Just wondering if the basis for your list was formed from observation or stat sheets.

[4down]

Most people have Bird a little high on that list IMO - he was not better than Duncan. Great, for sure - an all time great, but not better than Duncan.

[dirk4mvp]

Most people have Bird a little high on that list IMO - he was not better than Duncan. Great, for sure - an all time great, but not better than Duncan.

Way better than Duncan. The only ones who would take Duncan over Bird are extreme spurs homers.

[urunobili]

who doesn't is a better question...:wakeup

[Brutalis]

Top 5. Easily. Count what decade he did his damage in, and compare it to others of the past. Level of competition and population of talent puts Tim in the top 5 in my books, easily.

[stretch]

Duncan is in my top 5

Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Duncan
Bird

[bdictjames]

Maybe top 10, definitely top 15.

[johnnyappleseed]

Ofcourse you guys do, you're Spurs fans. aka the biggest fucking homers (and dumbasses) in the NBA.

Malone > Duncan.

/thread

[Galileo]

1. Jordan
2. Jabber
3. Duncan
4. Magic
5. Russell
6. Bird
7. Cousy
8. Shaq
9. Chamberlain
10. Mailman, Havlicek, and Pettit

[FaithInOne]

Too bad Duncan didn't have the opportunity to play against small nonathletic white guys who couldn't even cut it as Xerox Accountants in today's world.

[dbreiden83080]

I'm quite surprised to see Sir Charles so high in most of your lists guys, for me he is barely in the top 20.

True. Barkley was an amazing talent but by his own admission, never cared much about D and was out of shape and unfocused for too much of his career..

[dbreiden83080]

Way better than Duncan. The only ones who would take Duncan over Bird are extreme spurs homers.

Total nonsense. Let me ask you something? On a bad shooting night for Bird, when did you ever see him go out there and dominate the hell out of a ball game defensively? Bird could play D, but was he dominant on that end? Absolutely not.. I remember playing the Suns a few years back, reg season game, Duncan was getting doubled every time he touched the ball and missed some easy ones, so what did he do in the 2nd half. He went out there, blocked like 5 shots, altered about 20 others, and down the stretch completely shut Amare down. He got nothing in the low block at all. 2003 finals, he was a fuckin beast out there on D. Duncan is one of the best defensive big men ever, Bird isn't. And i don't buy into Bird being so much better than Tim on Offense. Tim's heyday was 25 PPG in his sleep. He was so unselfish, he could have rung up 30 a game for about 5 seasons in a row if he felt like it..

[dbreiden83080]

Ofcourse you guys do, you're Spurs fans. aka the biggest fucking homers (and dumbasses) in the NBA.

Malone > Duncan.

/thread

You must be a Laker Fan


Jordan > Kobe

[kingmalaki]

Simple question. Aside from the 2003 Lakers (and I question even putting them up here since their supporting cast had deteriotated by then), what team did the Spurs beat on the way to their 4 titles that the 93 Suns or 97/98 Jazz teams could not have beaten? I think Karl Malone is a nut up, but even I must admit MJ and the Bulls kept a lot of dudes from titles. And when it wasn't MJ, it was Hakeem.

I can see Timmy in the top 10, but I can't place him ahead of Hakeem or Shaq. You can't let Gasol or Horry hold either one of those dudes straight up and get away with it.

Edit: And whoever said Timmy > Bird....man please.

[Thomas82]

Here is my top 10:

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Michael Jordan
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Magic Johnson
6. Tim Duncan
7. Larry Bird
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Jerry West
10. Julius Erving

[z0sa]

Tim Duncan will always be #1 in my heart.

[baseline bum]

Simple question. Aside from the 2003 Lakers (and I question even putting them up here since their supporting cast had deteriotated by then), what team did the Spurs beat on the way to their 4 titles that the 93 Suns or 97/98 Jazz teams could not have beaten? I think Karl Malone is a nut up, but even I must admit MJ and the Bulls kept a lot of dudes from titles. And when it wasn't MJ, it was Hakeem.

I can see Timmy in the top 10, but I can't place him ahead of Hakeem or Shaq. You can't let Gasol or Horry hold either one of those dudes straight up and get away with it.

Edit: And whoever said Timmy > Bird....man please.

Malone was destroyed by Chris Webber and Brian Grant. Horry never held Duncan in check; the only way they stopped him aside from game 3 of the 01 WCF was by throwing everything they had at him in 01 and 02, knowing guys like Danny Ferry and Antonio Daniels weren't going to beat them. Same with they way they threw everything into keeping Duncan and Parker out of the lane when Bowen and Turkoglu couldn't buy a three in 04.

[Obstructed_View]

Timmy's in my starting five.

Stockton
Jordan
Magic
Duncan
Wilt

[Nathan Explosion]

Simple question. Aside from the 2003 Lakers (and I question even putting them up here since their supporting cast had deteriotated by then), what team did the Spurs beat on the way to their 4 titles that the 93 Suns or 97/98 Jazz teams could not have beaten? I think Karl Malone is a nut up, but even I must admit MJ and the Bulls kept a lot of dudes from titles. And when it wasn't MJ, it was Hakeem.

I can see Timmy in the top 10, but I can't place him ahead of Hakeem or Shaq. You can't let Gasol or Horry hold either one of those dudes straight up and get away with it.

Edit: And whoever said Timmy > Bird....man please.

Shaq knows his place in history, and right now it's behind Tim. He's even said he has to have more rings than Tim to be considered better. As for Hakeem, as great as he was, Tim has 4 rings. I'm not saying that makes him better, but down the line when we start getting fans who never saw either player play, they'll look at that as one of the indicators as to who was better.

[Nathan Explosion]

duncan is among the greats of all time but come on.. anyone who puts duncan ahead of shaq automatically loses all their NBA credibility.

I guess you can count Shaq among them. Shaq himself said that if Duncan finishes with more rings than himself, Duncan can be considered a greater player.

The reason people start to look at Duncan over Shaq is because of consistency. Shaq was the most dominant force in the league for anout 5-6 years. But he's fallen off in a big way since then. Duncan's numbers across the board are the model of consistency year to year.

In the end the debate is, do you want to be dominant for a few years or consistently great for your whole career.

[TwinTowers]

Shaq knows his place in history, and right now it's behind Tim. He's even said he has to have more rings than Tim to be considered better. As for Hakeem, as great as he was, Tim has 4 rings. I'm not saying that makes him better, but down the line when we start getting fans who never saw either player play, they'll look at that as one of the indicators as to who was better.

I agree with Duncan being better than Shaq, but I think he's no better than Hakeem was... The only reason Hakeem only has two rings is because he had his best years during Jordan's era. Duncan would not have 4 rings if he had faced the Bulls during MJ's prime.

[Nathan Explosion]

Duncan in his prime vs Hakeem in is prime would be a great matchup. Hakeem was such a physical specimen that could jump over Duncan but Duncan is such a smart player he'd figure out ways to get Hakeem away from the basket.

Too bad we can't make things like this happen just for the sake of watching the greats play.

[kingmalaki]

Malone was destroyed by Chris Webber and Brian Grant. Horry never held Duncan in check; the only way they stopped him aside from game 3 of the 01 WCF was by throwing everything they had at him in 01 and 02, knowing guys like Danny Ferry and Antonio Daniels weren't going to beat them. Same with they way they threw everything into keeping Duncan and Parker out of the lane when Bowen and Turkoglu couldn't buy a three in 04.

I'm not saying Duncan is behind Malone. I'm saying he is behind Hakeem and Shaq. Those two (Hakeem and Shaq) had the ability to morph into superhuman drive when it came to their scoring, similar to MJ. Duncan doesn't have that ability. He is great but he isn't the profilic scorer that either of them were. There is no way in hell you could let the likes of Horry, Horace Grant or Gasol check Hakeem or Shaq pretty much straight up (which is what the Lakers did in the years they beat y'all) and get away with it.

[kingmalaki]

I guess you can count Shaq among them. Shaq himself said that if Duncan finishes with more rings than himself, Duncan can be considered a greater player.

The reason people start to look at Duncan over Shaq is because of consistency. Shaq was the most dominant force in the league for anout 5-6 years. But he's fallen off in a big way since then. Duncan's numbers across the board are the model of consistency year to year.

In the end the debate is, do you want to be dominant for a few years or consistently great for your whole career.

Please provide a link or some support for Shaq saying this. I have never heard him say Duncan was a better player. I have routinely heard him place himself 4th among big men, behind Russell, Wilt and Kareem.

And Duncan has been in the league 12 seasons, and you can see the decline in his game now. Shaq was just as consistent in his first 12 years, although he did get hurt more. but when he played, he was just as consistent. You say Shaq has fallen way off....let's see what Duncan's game looks like in years 16 and 17.

[kingmalaki]

Duncan in his prime vs Hakeem in is prime would be a great matchup. Hakeem was such a physical specimen that could jump over Duncan but Duncan is such a smart player he'd figure out ways to get Hakeem away from the basket.

Too bad we can't make things like this happen just for the sake of watching the greats play.

You do realize that Hakeem and Robinson were arguably the two best centers outside of the paint as well, right. :-) I'm not trying to be an ass....just saying pulling either of those dudes outside of the paint really wouldn't make a difference on either side of the ball, because they were both athletic freaks. Picture taller versions of Amare, with better jumpers.

[sook]

I would generously put him at #15.

[baseline bum]

I'm not saying Duncan is behind Malone. I'm saying he is behind Hakeem and Shaq. Those two (Hakeem and Shaq) had the ability to morph into superhuman drive when it came to their scoring, similar to MJ. Duncan doesn't have that ability. He is great but he isn't the profilic scorer that either of them were. There is no way in hell you could let the likes of Horry, Horace Grant or Gasol check Hakeem or Shaq pretty much straight up (which is what the Lakers did in the years they beat y'all) and get away with it.

You gotta be fucking kidding me. The Lakers always threw everything they had at Duncan in the fourth quarters of games in 01 and 02, knowing Danny Ferry, Antonio Daniels, Samaki Walker, etc. weren't going to beat them. In '04 Duncan never saw single coverage. I don't know what kind of revisionist history you're trying to preach.

[baseline bum]

I would generously put him at #15.

I would generously call you retarded.

[dbreiden83080]

anyone who puts duncan ahead of shaq automatically loses all their NBA credibility.

Based on what, Duncan is considerably younger than Shaq and is even more accomplished a basketball player. Rings/Finals MVP's/All NBA teams/All D teams, tell me where Shaq beats Timmy, i don't get it??

[Lakers999]

baseline >>>> lakers999

your mom>>>>>>>your girlfriend




douche!!!

[peskypesky]

Here is my top 10:

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Michael Jordan
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Magic Johnson
6. Tim Duncan
7. Larry Bird
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Jerry West
10. Julius Erving

that's a pretty good list. can't argue with it.

but I find it hard not to put Shaquille O'Neal on the list. I would probably drop Julius, although it pains me to say that.

[Lakers999]

Lakers999, did you actually watch those guys from your list play?

Just wondering if the basis for your list was formed from observation or stat sheets.


i saw most of them from old tapes from back in the day i was born in 81 and the majority of basketbal i know are from the mid 80's up until today.

[Thomas82]

Most of the the arguments used against Tim Duncan are complete fallacies.

Some of them may hold water, but if they are used against other great players, will leave you in a position where you will not be able to find 10 guys ahead of him.

For example, the claim that Duncan played in an era of weak forwards. Patently false. The PF position has never been stronger in the NBA than in the recent decade with the likes of Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Rasheed, Dirk, Amare, Gasol, McDyess, Jermaine (healthy), Bosh, Brand, Boozer, Marion and several others I'm probably omitting. What's common to people in the list above is every single one of them made at least one All-NBA team.

When Barkley and Malone played, the quality at PF was just the opposite. Aside from the two of them, few PFs were noteworthy. When these two started playing in the 80s, most of the forward spots in All-NBA teams would go to SFs rather than PFs. SFs and F/Gs ruled the roost then with Erving, Bird, English, King, Nique, Worthy, Dantley, and later Pippen and Grant Hill, who were virtual locks for All-NBA and All-star berths in their respective primes. Some of the All-NBA teams either had 2 SFs (Bird/Nique, Bird/King) or 2 centers (Sampson/Kareem) or even 3 guards in the 2nd/3rd teams (Mullin/KJ/Stockton or Mullin/Drexler/Dumars).

Compare this to the modern era, when we have 3 PFs making the goddamn first team in 06-07 (Timmy, Dirk, Amare), 3 PFs making the 2nd team in 01-02 (KG, Webber, Dirk) and 07-08 (Timmy, Dirk, Amare). Also since TD came into the league, 8 All-NBA first teams out of a total of 11 feature 2 PFs and 0 SFs. That tells you a lot about the strength at the PF position.

So who did Barkley and Malone go up against? An aging McHale, Chambers, Cummings, Coleman, Detlef Schrempf, Kemp, Rodman, Juwan Howard, Anthony Mason, Vin Baker etc. The PFs of the modern era would eat these guys alive. Drafted in 1985, Karl Malone got to the 1st team only in 88-89. Drafted in 1984, Barkley made it to his first 1st team only in 87-88. Compare these to Duncan, who made it to the first team as a rookie in 97-98.

Barkley and Malone played mediocre defense. Duncan as a PF is one of the premier shot blockers in the NBA, and has been for the last dozen years. The Spurs' system revolves around him protecting the rim. Also, Malone was a jump shooter and screen/roll finisher while Barkley was a jump shooter who also drove on occasion. Duncan is the only low post offensive player out of the three. In the post-Jordan era, the low-post big man who also blocks shots has been instrumental in winning 8 out of 10 titles. I don't know about you guys, but I'd take that over a jump shooter who can't intimidate at the rim any day.

The books don't lie. Duncan is the only player in NBA history to receive All-NBA and All-Defensive honors in his first eleven seasons.

With 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs, 2 MVPs, 11 All-NBA selections (9x First team), 11 All-Defense selections (8x First team), 11 All-Star game selections (10x starter), Duncan is the most complete player of the post-Jordan era and the best Forward ever.

And it isn't even fucking close! You'll have to add up Barkley and Malone's achievements to top what Duncan has accomplished, either one of them pales in comparison. Even if Malone hadn't choked and had won a title he'd be behind Duncan career-wise, but the bitch shriveled up in the clutch every single time! Even if Barkley had made it to a couple of All-Defensive First teams he wouldn't be in Duncan's class, but the dude never even made it to the second team once!

These guys aren't in the same sentence as Duncan. Bird or Dr.J would be a more interesting, but ultimately futile, argument. But these 2 underachievers don't hold a candle to Timmy.


Excellent post!!!

[Thomas82]

Top 5. Easily. Count what decade he did his damage in, and compare it to others of the past. Level of competition and population of talent puts Tim in the top 5 in my books, easily.

That's a good way to look at it.

[Thomas82]

Total nonsense. Let me ask you something? On a bad shooting night for Bird, when did you ever see him go out there and dominate the hell out of a ball game defensively? Bird could play D, but was he dominant on that end? Absolutely not.. I remember playing the Suns a few years back, reg season game, Duncan was getting doubled every time he touched the ball and missed some easy ones, so what did he do in the 2nd half. He went out there, blocked like 5 shots, altered about 20 others, and down the stretch completely shut Amare down. He got nothing in the low block at all. 2003 finals, he was a fuckin beast out there on D. Duncan is one of the best defensive big men ever, Bird isn't. And i don't buy into Bird being so much better than Tim on Offense. Tim's heyday was 25 PPG in his sleep. He was so unselfish, he could have rung up 30 a game for about 5 seasons in a row if he felt like it..


I think he learned from what David Robinson had to go through. Big Dave carried the Spurs on his back for years and couldn't win a ring until Tim got there. Then when Tim got there, Dave sacrificed some of his game so Tim could get him 2 rings. Tim made the same sacrifice for Tony and Manu so he wouldn't have to carry the Spurs on his back like Dave did. Without Tim making the sacrifices that he made, there is no way that Tony and Manu become the players they are today.

[LakeShow]

Wilt
Magic
Bird
Olajuwon
Jordan

Kareem
Malone
Robertson
Kobe
Archibald

[Thomas82]

Timmy's in my starting five.

Stockton
Jordan
Magic
Duncan
Wilt

Mine would be:

C-Wilt Chamberlain
F-Tim Duncan
F-Larry Bird
G-Michael Jordan
G-Magic Johnson

[Thomas82]

you clearly have no sense for 1960s basketball history. Wilt deserves to be number one or two on any top players of all time list. It is a stupid, but common misconseption that wilt was a 7 footer who played against 6'5" players. Wilt is still the greatest athlete to play the game of basketball. Not only was he strong and tall, wilt could play the whole game, jump higher than almost anyone that plays today or in the past, run faster than almost anyone(he was always the fastest player by far on his 60s teams) and wilt had impressive ball handling skills for a big man. Playing point guard for the harlem globetrotters does that to you.

I have said this before, but in the 1960s there are several misconceptions. For one people assume that there were few great athletes, this is extremly false. Back in the 60s the game was pure fundamentals, tim duncan is a great example of a 1960s ball player, he has athletic ability, but the fundamentals come first and foremost. If elgin baylor oscar robertson or wilt played today they would be very similar to lebron, chris paul and dwight howard, however people now a days do not see those players as the amzing athletes they were because the game was not as wide spread or as popular back in the 60s as it is now. It's hard to believe that just before the jordan era the bulls only drew around 5,000 people a game at home. Another thing is that the show is in the way of the game today. Aside from tim duncan and most of the spurs, everyone wants to see something amazing happen at the basketball game. If the cavs lose a game, all is well and fine so long as he had those highlight reel dunks. Back in the 60s dunking from the free throw line, doing a 360, etc. Was looked apon as showing off. Your team mates would not be happy with you because you wasted your energy and the fans would be upset because you were just showing off instead of getting two easy points.

It is late and i am tired so i am ending my rant on 1960s basketball right now, but i will end with saying this: If a time machine were to be found, and a 25 year old wilt chamberlain were to be put in the present day nba, so long as wilt got around 20 or 25 shots a game, he would be more dominate tan he was in the 60s. In the 60s wilt would get beat up all the time; if those fouls on wilt were to happen in today's game the player would be fined and ejected with a suspension, but in wilt's day it was just physical defense. Today's game and rules revolve around the offensive game so much that wilt would easily dominate just as much today.


+1

[kingmalaki]

You gotta be fucking kidding me. The Lakers always threw everything they had at Duncan in the fourth quarters of games in 01 and 02, knowing Danny Ferry, Antonio Daniels, Samaki Walker, etc. weren't going to beat them. In '04 Duncan never saw single coverage. I don't know what kind of revisionist history you're trying to preach.

Right...Duncan never saw single coverage. What revisionist history do you have my friend. The coach that hates to double more than anyone else is Phil Jackson.

So he was doubled all game long in 01 when he shot 33% and avg 12 ppg to close out that sweep?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200105210SAS.html

He was doubled all game long in 02 when he shot 42% for the series, when they lost 4-1? Horry is my fav player, and I vividly remember PJ letting him go straight up most of the time.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200205050LAL.html

I vividly remember the Lakers letting Malone pretty much check him straight up in 04, when he shot 47% for the series.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200405020SAS.html

The Pistons pretty much let Sheed and Wallace take turns on him in 05, and he only shot 42% that series. Aside for his game 6, his offensive efficiency to close that series was pretty bad (5-15, 5-17, 11-24, 10-27 in the Final game). Thank God for Manu and Horry. This point also goes into the ring argument, as this Finals series was a clear example of how the Spurs could still win a chip even with Duncan not playing as well. I can't recall when these other centers that you compare him to were ever on teams where they could win if they didn't play great (i.e. Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200506090SAS.html

And I know you aren't gonna sit here and lie and say the Lakers didn't basically let Gasol play him straight up in the WCF last year. There is no need for me to even pull those numbers.

Tim Duncan is a great, great player. However, he is not the dude that you can tell "man, we need you to like avg 35 a game this series or we are gonna lose). In the times where the Spurs have needed him to do that, he usually couldn't (i.e. last years WCFs).

And the funny thing is you are saying getting double and triple teamed is a valid reason to shoot like garbage, when we are making a comparison between Duncan and other great centers like Shaq and Hakeem. Even assuming teams threw the kitchen sink at Duncan, are you really going to argue that Shaq wasn't doubled and tripled in every run, or that Hakeem wasn't? He didn't get doubled by Shaq and Grant in 95, or by the Ewing/Oakley/Mason trio? And I don't ever recall him shooting mid 30's to low 40% against those dudes. Shaq and Hakeem could be efficient high volume scorers when they needed to be, ala MJ. Duncan, not so much. And I can understand how that difference may not be important to you....but I think it's significant, because every team won't be able to surround Duncan with great help like the Spurs have done. Again, there is no way you could put a frontline of Gasol/Odom or Grant/Horry on either one of those dudes and get away with it.

[baseline bum]

Olajuwon shot 44% in the 90 playoffs, 39% in the 98, and 43% in 99. Get off your boy's nuts. That '01 series Duncan carried the Spurs the first two games, with 28 and 14 and 40 and 15, and they still lost because he got absolutely nothing from his teammates. He had a bad game 3, and after that the series was over. That 02 series LA trapped him every time he touched the ball in the fourth. You're on crack if you think they put Duncan in single coverage after the Spurs went up 2-0 in 04. Absolutely no one guarded the perimeter against the Spurs shooters, and the plan paid off bigtime. What do you think, the other three Lakers were standing under the basket in a circle jerk while Malone and Payton played Duncan and Parker in single coverage? In 05 Duncan was playing on two sprained ankles, and still carried the team the first three quarters of game 5 before Horry took over, and in the third and fourth of game 7.

[Thomas]

In no Specific Order;

Jordan, Duncan, Magic Johnson, Abdul Jabbar, Chamberlain, Russell, Kobe Bryant, Bird, David Robinson, Olajuwon

[dbreiden83080]

Olajuwon shot 44% in the 90 playoffs, 39% in the 98, and 43% in 99. Get off your boy's nuts. That '01 series Duncan carried the Spurs the first two games, with 28 and 14 and 40 and 15, and they still lost because he got absolutely nothing from his teammates. He had a bad game 3, and after that the series was over. That 02 series LA trapped him every time he touched the ball in the fourth. You're on crack if you think they put Duncan in single coverage after the Spurs went up 2-0 in 04. Absolutely no one guarded the perimeter against the Spurs shooters, and the plan paid off bigtime. What do you think, the other three Lakers were standing under the basket in a circle jerk while Malone and Payton played Duncan and Parker in single coverage? In 05 Duncan was playing on two sprained ankles, and still carried the team the first three quarters of game 5 before Horry took over, and in the third and fourth of game 7.

For me the 05 title is the best one of all because Tim was a complete Warrior in that whole post-season. Bad ankles that bothered him on and off the whole year. He was hurt and played bad in game 1 with Denver, bounced back had a good series. Went down in Seattle, re-tweaked one of his ankles, got up in the clinching game and hit the game winner.. Was brilliant against the Susn for 5 games. Then against the defending champs, a true great team in the Pistons, with an amazing physical D, he had his good games and his bad ones but he got it done when it mattered. Game 5 you mentioned, game 7 after a horrid first half, came out determined to go down swinging, played very well and the Spurs reclaimed the crown. Duncan solidified himself as a legend forever, with that 05 title..

[romain.star]

all time NBA 1st team:
PG: Magic
SG: Jordan
SF: Bird (then James in a few years)
PF: Duncan
C: Chamberlain

All time NBA 2nd team
PG: Big O
SG: Bryant
SF: J. Erving
PF: Malone
C: O'neil

[Thomas82]

all time NBA 1st team:
PG: Magic
SG: Jordan
SF: Bird (then James in a few years)
PF: Duncan
C: Chamberlain

All time NBA 2nd team
PG: Big O
SG: Bryant
SF: J. Erving
PF: Malone
C: O'neil


My 2nd team would be:

C-Bill Russell
F-Karl Malone
F-Julius Erving
G-Jerry West
G-Oscar Robertson

[romain.star]

My 2nd team would be:

C-Bill Russell
F-Karl Malone
F-Julius Erving
G-Jerry West
G-Oscar Robertson

My bad, Bill Russell deserves a spot in the 2nd team

[kingmalaki]

Olajuwon shot 44% in the 90 playoffs, 39% in the 98, and 43% in 99. Get off your boy's nuts. That '01 series Duncan carried the Spurs the first two games, with 28 and 14 and 40 and 15, and they still lost because he got absolutely nothing from his teammates. He had a bad game 3, and after that the series was over. That 02 series LA trapped him every time he touched the ball in the fourth. You're on crack if you think they put Duncan in single coverage after the Spurs went up 2-0 in 04. Absolutely no one guarded the perimeter against the Spurs shooters, and the plan paid off bigtime. What do you think, the other three Lakers were standing under the basket in a circle jerk while Malone and Payton played Duncan and Parker in single coverage? In 05 Duncan was playing on two sprained ankles, and still carried the team the first three quarters of game 5 before Horry took over, and in the third and fourth of game 7.

Hakeem did shoot 44% in the 90 playoffs. That was his only poor series until he was a 35 yr old man!! I just highlighted for you 3 subpar series from Duncan (really 4), two of which he was in his prime years.

I'm not on Hakeem's nuts, or Shaq's. I'm highlighting a clear difference between those players. For example, do you think Duncan could have posted 35+ on a inprime Robinson and Rodman, in any year...in an efficient manner? Do you think Duncan would have put up Shaq numbers while battling a frontline of Robinson and Oneal for example? Shaq and Hakeem could do that, even when being doubled the entire game. Can you find multiple bad playoff performances (scoring wise) from either one of those guys, like I can find multiple ones for Duncan.

Do you think he could have done this while checking Shaq on the other end, or Robinson, or Ewing? Please note he got lit by Amare in one playoff run, by Dirk in another, and lost to Shaq 3 times.

Luckily for Tim, he has always had a quality supporting cast around him so he didn't have to really dominate offensively. Again, most centers weren't on squads that could win a title while they were shooting in the low 40's for a series. If you were a Spurs fan in the Robinson era then this should not be news to you....

[Brazil]

My bad, Bill Russell deserves a spot in the 2nd team

A list of all time without Russel is not a good list

[ambchang]

Revisionist history.

Duncan, in the four championship years, shot 51.1, 52.9, 46.4, and 52.1% from the field. The only "down" year was 05, when he was playing on an ankle problem. Compared to Olajuwon, who shot 51.9 and 53.1%, Duncan wasn't too far off.

Very few players could have won 4 titles in place of Duncan during those years. Hakeem was obviously one of them, but Shaq is unlikely to accomplish this, as his lack of defense would hurt the team. Shaq was unquestionably the better scorer on the team, but his defense was worse than Duncan by a mile, there really isn't any comparison.

The 99 team was severely flawed on the offensive end. It was Duncan would carried the team offensively. And it's just unreal how you can honestly say that Duncan cannot score in volume if asked to. He scored 27.6 ppg and handed out 5 apg on a team that averaged 91.1 ppg in the 02 playoffs, which means that he scored 30.3% of his team's points, and directly accounted for 41.3% of the offense. Compared to Olajuwon's highest scoring playoffs, in which he averaged 37.5ppg and 1.8 apg while his team averaged 107.3ppg; which translates to 34.9% scoring, and 38.3% offense (both assuming an assist translates to two points, and we know for a fact that 3 pters were used much more during 02 than compared to 88, so this gives a slight bias in favour of Olajuwon).

As you can see, the difference in offensive output was miniscule.
Now compared to Olajuwon's 95 numbers, when he avearged 33 ppg and 4.5 apg while his team averaged 107ppg, Hakeem accounted for his team's 30.8% of scoring, and 39.3% offense.

The pattern pretty much repeats itself with Shaq. In 98, Shaq scored 30.5ppg and handed out 2.9 apg on a team that averaged about 100 points a game in the playoffs, that's 30.5% of scoring and 36.3 of offense.

In 00, 30.7ppg and 3.1 apg while the Lakers scored 99.15. That's 31% scoring and 37.2% offense.

In 01, 30.4 ppg and 3.2 apg while the Lakers scored 103.375 ppg. That's 29.4% scoring and 35.6% offense.

These are the kinds of numbers we are talking about, where Duncan directly accounted for more of his team's offense, and scored about the same as Shaq did during their best years.

But of course, an unbiased person who actually saw how Duncan carried the team in 99, and 03 on the offensive end wouldn't have needed those numbers. Robinson was a shell of his former self offensively in 99, and the team was relying on an Elliott with one kidney and Jaren Jackson for outside shooting, while having Avery Johnson shoot more than David Robinson in the playoffs.

In 03, Tony Parker wasn't anything close to the Parker you see today, he was one who was shooting 40.3% from the field for less than 15 ppg. Only 1 of the Spurs top five scorers in the playoffs shot better than 42%, and that was Tim Duncan who shot 52.9%. Stephen Jackson and Steve Kerr, along with an ancient Kevin Willis were major contributors on that team. It wasn't anything more stellar than Shaq or Hakeem had during most of their careers. It certainly was not as great as having 1st team all-nba guard Anfernee Hardway and shooters Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson, plus a rugged rebounder in Horace Grant, it definitely isn't as good as having Clyde Drexler and Kenny Smith on your side, with Sam Cassell coming off the bench, and it doesn't even compare to having Kobe Bryant, Horry, Derek Fisher and Rick Fox.

And Hakeem had more than 1 bad shooting playoffs before his prime was over. He shot 47.4% during his first PO in 85, and as mentioned before, 44.3% in the 90 playoffs.

[baseline bum]

Hakeem did shoot 44% in the 90 playoffs. That was his only poor series until he was a 35 yr old man!! I just highlighted for you 3 subpar series from Duncan (really 4), two of which he was in his prime years.

I'm not on Hakeem's nuts, or Shaq's. I'm highlighting a clear difference between those players. For example, do you think Duncan could have posted 35+ on a inprime Robinson and Rodman, in any year...in an efficient manner? Do you think Duncan would have put up Shaq numbers while battling a frontline of Robinson and Oneal for example? Shaq and Hakeem could do that, even when being doubled the entire game. Can you find multiple bad playoff performances (scoring wise) from either one of those guys, like I can find multiple ones for Duncan.


First off, throw Rodman out of the equation. I know you Rocket fans have fond memories of him for his act in games 2 and 5 and for leaving Horry all alone for the game-winner in game 1, but acting like he was a contributing member of the Spurs in 95 was lunacy. If he helped the team, why would they just dump him for Will Perdue in the summer when he had another year on his contract?

Aside from that, Olajuwon faced tons of single coverage in that series because Houston had a million three point shooters shooting from a close three-point line. You can kill that whole idea that Olajuwon could score against the pressure Shaq faced, because no big man in NBA history faced the defenses Shaq did.



Do you think he could have done this while checking Shaq on the other end, or Robinson, or Ewing? Please note he got lit by Amare in one playoff run, by Dirk in another, and lost to Shaq 3 times.


What part of playing on two sprained ankles in '05 did you not see?



Luckily for Tim, he has always had a quality supporting cast around him so he didn't have to really dominate offensively. Again, most centers weren't on squads that could win a title while they were shooting in the low 40's for a series. If you were a Spurs fan in the Robinson era then this should not be news to you....

Duncan had a quality supporting cast in '01? Danny Ferry and Terry Porter were quality starters? Antonio Daniels was a quality starting 2 guard? The 2001 team had like 3 quality players: Duncan, Robinson, and Rose.

How about Steve Smith in '02?

Duncan's supporting cast in 2000 was quality with Chucky Brown/Jerome Kersey, and Avery Johnson on their last legs starting?

[kingmalaki]

Revisionist history.

Duncan, in the four championship years, shot 51.1, 52.9, 46.4, and 52.1% from the field. The only "down" year was 05, when he was playing on an ankle problem. Compared to Olajuwon, who shot 51.9 and 53.1%, Duncan wasn't too far off.

Very few players could have won 4 titles in place of Duncan during those years. Hakeem was obviously one of them, but Shaq is unlikely to accomplish this, as his lack of defense would hurt the team. Shaq was unquestionably the better scorer on the team, but his defense was worse than Duncan by a mile, there really isn't any comparison.

The 99 team was severely flawed on the offensive end. It was Duncan would carried the team offensively. And it's just unreal how you can honestly say that Duncan cannot score in volume if asked to. He scored 27.6 ppg and handed out 5 apg on a team that averaged 91.1 ppg in the 02 playoffs, which means that he scored 30.3% of his team's points, and directly accounted for 41.3% of the offense. Compared to Olajuwon's highest scoring playoffs, in which he averaged 37.5ppg and 1.8 apg while his team averaged 107.3ppg; which translates to 34.9% scoring, and 38.3% offense (both assuming an assist translates to two points, and we know for a fact that 3 pters were used much more during 02 than compared to 88, so this gives a slight bias in favour of Olajuwon).

As you can see, the difference in offensive output was miniscule.
Now compared to Olajuwon's 95 numbers, when he avearged 33 ppg and 4.5 apg while his team averaged 107ppg, Hakeem accounted for his team's 30.8% of scoring, and 39.3% offense.

The pattern pretty much repeats itself with Shaq. In 98, Shaq scored 30.5ppg and handed out 2.9 apg on a team that averaged about 100 points a game in the playoffs, that's 30.5% of scoring and 36.3 of offense.

In 00, 30.7ppg and 3.1 apg while the Lakers scored 99.15. That's 31% scoring and 37.2% offense.

In 01, 30.4 ppg and 3.2 apg while the Lakers scored 103.375 ppg. That's 29.4% scoring and 35.6% offense.

These are the kinds of numbers we are talking about, where Duncan directly accounted for more of his team's offense, and scored about the same as Shaq did during their best years.

But of course, an unbiased person who actually saw how Duncan carried the team in 99, and 03 on the offensive end wouldn't have needed those numbers. Robinson was a shell of his former self offensively in 99, and the team was relying on an Elliott with one kidney and Jaren Jackson for outside shooting, while having Avery Johnson shoot more than David Robinson in the playoffs.

In 03, Tony Parker wasn't anything close to the Parker you see today, he was one who was shooting 40.3% from the field for less than 15 ppg. Only 1 of the Spurs top five scorers in the playoffs shot better than 42%, and that was Tim Duncan who shot 52.9%. Stephen Jackson and Steve Kerr, along with an ancient Kevin Willis were major contributors on that team. It wasn't anything more stellar than Shaq or Hakeem had during most of their careers. It certainly was not as great as having 1st team all-nba guard Anfernee Hardway and shooters Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson, plus a rugged rebounder in Horace Grant, it definitely isn't as good as having Clyde Drexler and Kenny Smith on your side, with Sam Cassell coming off the bench, and it doesn't even compare to having Kobe Bryant, Horry, Derek Fisher and Rick Fox.

And Hakeem had more than 1 bad shooting playoffs before his prime was over. He shot 47.4% during his first PO in 85, and as mentioned before, 44.3% in the 90 playoffs.

Nice post.

Again, my question is simple. Do you honestly think Duncan could drop like 35 a night on a great frontline, in an efficient manner to lead a team to a title. There is no shame in admitting that he did not have an extra "umph" offensively like Hakeem or Shaq.

I don't think it's unreal to say Duncan couldn't drop 30 a game in an efficient manner when he has never done it. And there have been times where the Spurs have needed him to go uber with his scoring (i.e. last years WCF) and he couldn't carry the load.

Tim Duncan is a great player. What he is not in the explosive scorer that Hakeem or Shaq were. nothing you have said is refuting this. Again, if that aspect isn't as important to you then that's one thing. but I think having a dude who can score on pace with MJ is vital. Not too many dudes can drop 30 a night efficiently.....

[dallaskd]

Duncan is not over Hakeem people...

[kingmalaki]

First off, throw Rodman out of the equation. I know you Rocket fans have fond memories of him for his act in games 2 and 5 and for leaving Horry all alone for the game-winner in game 1, but acting like he was a contributing member of the Spurs in 95 was lunacy. If he helped the team, why would they just dump him for Will Perdue in the summer when he had another year on his contract?

He didn't help the team have the best record in basketball that season? Are you now saying Rodman was a bad defender for the Spurs?



Aside from that, Olajuwon faced tons of single coverage in that series because Houston had a million three point shooters shooting from a close three-point line. You can kill that whole idea that Olajuwon could score against the pressure Shaq faced, because no big man in NBA history faced the defenses Shaq did.

A lot of single coverage...that's funny. Do you think Duncan could drop 35 a night on a prime Robinson, while checking him on the other end?



What part of playing on two sprained ankles in '05 did you not see?

Both of his ankles were sprained in 01, 02, 04 and last year against Gasol? Are you also going to now say the Lakers didn't let Gasol go straight up with him for the most part?



Duncan had a quality supporting cast in '01? Danny Ferry and Terry Porter were quality starters? Antonio Daniels was a quality starting 2 guard? The 2001 team had like 3 quality players: Duncan, Robinson, and Rose.

How about Steve Smith in '02?

Duncan's supporting cast in 2000 was quality with Chucky Brown/Jerome Kersey, and Avery Johnson on their last legs starting?

Duncan had a quality supporting cast when he won titles. Do you deny this? Again, he won a title in 05 while shooting like garbage. No other center played on a team where that was possible (the ones that I am comparing him to here). The argument of him carrying a team without a second star in 03 is valid, but it's not like Hakeem didn't do the exact same thing in 95.

[dbreiden83080]

Duncan is not over Hakeem people...

In most peoples minds, i believe he is..

[sananspursfan21]

bill russell's too low, chamberlain's too low, and tim duncan is 1 spot too low

[kingmalaki]

In most peoples minds, i believe he is..

You mean most Spurs fans, or those that reside in San Antonio. :lol

[HarlemHeat37]

I have Hakeem ahead of Duncan on my list that I posted earlier, I don't think it's really debatable..Tim was a better passer, but I think that's where it ends..

Duncan and Hakeem are very similar players..2 of the greatest defensive players of all-time, good passers, both had good Js, solid post moves, class acts with great leadership ability, led teams to titles with weak help compared to other title teams('93, 2003)..

Hakeem just did most things SLIGHTLY better than Tim..

[Thomas82]

Duncan is not over Hakeem people...

Says who?

[Thomas82]

revisionist history.

Duncan, in the four championship years, shot 51.1, 52.9, 46.4, and 52.1% from the field. The only "down" year was 05, when he was playing on an ankle problem. Compared to olajuwon, who shot 51.9 and 53.1%, duncan wasn't too far off.

Very few players could have won 4 titles in place of duncan during those years. Hakeem was obviously one of them, but shaq is unlikely to accomplish this, as his lack of defense would hurt the team. Shaq was unquestionably the better scorer on the team, but his defense was worse than duncan by a mile, there really isn't any comparison.

The 99 team was severely flawed on the offensive end. It was duncan would carried the team offensively. And it's just unreal how you can honestly say that duncan cannot score in volume if asked to. He scored 27.6 ppg and handed out 5 apg on a team that averaged 91.1 ppg in the 02 playoffs, which means that he scored 30.3% of his team's points, and directly accounted for 41.3% of the offense. Compared to olajuwon's highest scoring playoffs, in which he averaged 37.5ppg and 1.8 apg while his team averaged 107.3ppg; which translates to 34.9% scoring, and 38.3% offense (both assuming an assist translates to two points, and we know for a fact that 3 pters were used much more during 02 than compared to 88, so this gives a slight bias in favour of olajuwon).

As you can see, the difference in offensive output was miniscule.
Now compared to olajuwon's 95 numbers, when he avearged 33 ppg and 4.5 apg while his team averaged 107ppg, hakeem accounted for his team's 30.8% of scoring, and 39.3% offense.

The pattern pretty much repeats itself with shaq. In 98, shaq scored 30.5ppg and handed out 2.9 apg on a team that averaged about 100 points a game in the playoffs, that's 30.5% of scoring and 36.3 of offense.

In 00, 30.7ppg and 3.1 apg while the lakers scored 99.15. That's 31% scoring and 37.2% offense.

In 01, 30.4 ppg and 3.2 apg while the lakers scored 103.375 ppg. That's 29.4% scoring and 35.6% offense.

These are the kinds of numbers we are talking about, where duncan directly accounted for more of his team's offense, and scored about the same as shaq did during their best years.

But of course, an unbiased person who actually saw how duncan carried the team in 99, and 03 on the offensive end wouldn't have needed those numbers. Robinson was a shell of his former self offensively in 99, and the team was relying on an elliott with one kidney and jaren jackson for outside shooting, while having avery johnson shoot more than david robinson in the playoffs.

In 03, tony parker wasn't anything close to the parker you see today, he was one who was shooting 40.3% from the field for less than 15 ppg. Only 1 of the spurs top five scorers in the playoffs shot better than 42%, and that was tim duncan who shot 52.9%. Stephen jackson and steve kerr, along with an ancient kevin willis were major contributors on that team. It wasn't anything more stellar than shaq or hakeem had during most of their careers. It certainly was not as great as having 1st team all-nba guard anfernee hardway and shooters dennis scott and nick anderson, plus a rugged rebounder in horace grant, it definitely isn't as good as having clyde drexler and kenny smith on your side, with sam cassell coming off the bench, and it doesn't even compare to having kobe bryant, horry, derek fisher and rick fox.

And hakeem had more than 1 bad shooting playoffs before his prime was over. He shot 47.4% during his first po in 85, and as mentioned before, 44.3% in the 90 playoffs.

+1

[baseline bum]

I don't think it's unreal to say Duncan couldn't drop 30 a game in an efficient manner when he has never done it. And there have been times where the Spurs have needed him to go uber with his scoring (i.e. last years WCF) and he couldn't carry the load.

You're a fucking retard. In '03 Duncan put up 28 in game 1, 28 in game 3, 36 in game 4, 27 in game 5, and 37 in the clinching game 6 against Shaq and Horry. Game 2 he only had 12, but that shit was over halfway into the second quarter. Fuck you for your bullshit lies about Duncan. Fucking Rocket fans who only want to talk about 1995 are sickening. He also completely annihilated them in the 99 playoffs, dropping 37 on them when Shaq ran his mouth and told the world he was gonna personally check Duncan in game 3. That 06 series vs Dallas you bitch about Duncan had 32 a night and 41 in game 7. Take your ass back to Montrose and eat a fat dick.

[TDfan2007]

Nice post.

Again, my question is simple. Do you honestly think Duncan could drop like 35 a night on a great frontline, in an efficient manner to lead a team to a title. There is no shame in admitting that he did not have an extra "umph" offensively like Hakeem or Shaq.

I don't think it's unreal to say Duncan couldn't drop 30 a game in an efficient manner when he has never done it. And there have been times where the Spurs have needed him to go uber with his scoring (i.e. last years WCF) and he couldn't carry the load.

Tim Duncan is a great player. What he is not in the explosive scorer that Hakeem or Shaq were. nothing you have said is refuting this. Again, if that aspect isn't as important to you then that's one thing. but I think having a dude who can score on pace with MJ is vital. Not too many dudes can drop 30 a night efficiently.....

Oh boy here we go...

In the 06 WCSF against Dallas Tim averaged over 32ppg on 57%shooting and dropped 41 in game 7.

In the 03 WCSF against Shaq's Lakers Tim averaged 28 and 12 on about 53% shooting. That same postseason against the Mavs Tim averaged 28ppg and 16.7rpg while shooting about 57%.

In the 2001 WCSF against the Mavs he averaged 27ppg and 17.4 rpg while shooting 51%. So...

In the 2005 WCF against the Suns Tim averaged 27.4ppg and 13.8rpg while shooting about 53%

In the 2007 WCF against the Suns Tim averaged 26.8ppg and 13.7rpg while shooting 57%

Keep in mind that Tim's teams averaged less ppg than Hakeem and Shaq's which makes Tim's production even more impressive.

Oh and btw, Tim did not shoot like garbage for the entirety of the 2005 playoffs, only against the Pistons. And I wonder how the Spurs managed to win that series with Tim shooting that poorly...oh! Maybe it had something to do with Tim's defense.

[Amaso]

It's too hard to compare players from different generations, but I'll give it a go in no particular order:

Michael Jordan
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Wilt Chamberlain
Kobe Bryant
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Oscar Robertson
Bill Russell
Tim Duncan

It's hard to leave out a player like Jabbar though.

[HarlemHeat37]

leaving out Kareem is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen..

where's the logic in some of these lists?..

[MaNu4Tres]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

Wilt Chamberlain

1965-66 33,5 ppg 24.6 rpg
1964-65 34,7 ppg 22.9 rpg
1963-64 36,9 ppg 22.3 rpg
1962-63 44,8 ppg 24.3 rpg :wow
1961-62 50,4 ppg 25.7 rpg :wow
1960-61 38,4 ppg 27.2 rpg
1959-60 37,6 ppg 27.0 rpg

Come on, Wilt was a beast !!!

You can't compare stats for a player from the 60's to today. The game was totally different. In that era there were more possessions per game and in those days hardly any team had a player over 6'7". Not to mention in this era the athletes are far more athletic in which they rebound from all positions and have the ability to defend better.

[polandprzem]

I haven't read all the thread but was here someone who put Mikan on his list?

Mikan IMO is top 10

[superfedja]

You have to include shaq OVER timmy

lol sorry .... other way around... as it stands, timmy is over shaq .... unless shaq wins more mvp's and rings before he retires ... very doubtful... and if he gets a ring, it won't be because of him ....

as for the original poster's list, bill russel is either number one or number two, no argument there, the guy won 9 or 11 championships (i don't remember exactly) anchoring the best defense in nba history ... not just cause his opponents wouldn't score in the paint but because his team would use his blocks, steals and rebounds to create their transition offense, when he wasn't on the floor, their style changed and their offense sucked donkey ass

and I don't know who said Kobe belonged there but Kobe does not belong near that list ... the guy won 1 mvp (based on media hype cause chris paul clearly deserved it last year) and didn't win a single championship without Shaq

one more thing .... Duncan is easily on the top 10 list, the question is : does he deserver to be top 5 ?

[FromWayDowntown]

You're a fucking retard. In '03 Duncan put up 28 in game 1, 28 in game 3, 36 in game 4, 27 in game 5, and 37 in the clinching game 6 against Shaq and Horry. Game 2 he only had 12, but that shit was over halfway into the second quarter. Fuck you for your bullshit lies about Duncan. Fucking Rocket fans who only want to talk about 1995 are sickening. He also completely annihilated them in the 99 playoffs, dropping 37 on them when Shaq ran his mouth and told the world he was gonna personally check Duncan in game 3. That 06 series vs Dallas you bitch about Duncan had 32 a night and 41 in game 7. Take your ass back to Montrose and eat a fat dick.

Don't bother with facts -- facts aren't relevant to a good old irrational argument that's borne of little other than disliking a guy.

[Agloco]

Nice post.

Again, my question is simple. Do you honestly think Duncan could drop like 35 a night on a great frontline, in an efficient manner to lead a team to a title. There is no shame in admitting that he did not have an extra "umph" offensively like Hakeem or Shaq.

I don't think it's unreal to say Duncan couldn't drop 30 a game in an efficient manner when he has never done it. And there have been times where the Spurs have needed him to go uber with his scoring (i.e. last years WCF) and he couldn't carry the load.

Tim Duncan is a great player. What he is not in the explosive scorer that Hakeem or Shaq were. nothing you have said is refuting this. Again, if that aspect isn't as important to you then that's one thing. but I think having a dude who can score on pace with MJ is vital. Not too many dudes can drop 30 a night efficiently.....

You were obviously dropped on your head as a child.

Check his PO stats more closely.

[kingmalaki]

Oh boy here we go...

In the 06 WCSF against Dallas Tim averaged over 32ppg on 57%shooting and dropped 41 in game 7.

In the 03 WCSF against Shaq's Lakers Tim averaged 28 and 12 on about 53% shooting. That same postseason against the Mavs Tim averaged 28ppg and 16.7rpg while shooting about 57%.

In the 2001 WCSF against the Mavs he averaged 27ppg and 17.4 rpg while shooting 51%. So...

In the 2005 WCF against the Suns Tim averaged 27.4ppg and 13.8rpg while shooting about 53%

In the 2007 WCF against the Suns Tim averaged 26.8ppg and 13.7rpg while shooting 57%

Keep in mind that Tim's teams averaged less ppg than Hakeem and Shaq's which makes Tim's production even more impressive.

Oh and btw, Tim did not shoot like garbage for the entirety of the 2005 playoffs, only against the Pistons. And I wonder how the Spurs managed to win that series with Tim shooting that poorly...oh! Maybe it had something to do with Tim's defense.

Did you not read the entire post? here it is for you again, in bold:



Again, my question is simple. Do you honestly think Duncan could drop like 35 a night on a great frontline, in an efficient manner to lead a team to a title. There is no shame in admitting that he did not have an extra "umph" offensively like Hakeem or Shaq.

My bad, I meant to say great defensive frontline. The point I am trying to make is that Duncan is not as goof of a scorer as Shaq or Hakeem. When I see you struggle to score efficiently against frontlines of Horry/Grant/Shaq, Gasol/Odom or the Wallace boys, then I'm not convinced that you could score efficiently against frontlines of Robinson/Rodman, Ewing/Mason/Oakley, Robinson/Duncan, etc. The argument is not that complex and everyone is dodging this point.

Thanks for your analysis. You have shown me one series where Duncan beasted Shaq/Horry. Does that offset the other 4 examples that I provided where he struggled against a Lakers defensive frontline that you will admit had no great defenders on it (01, 02, 04, 08)? I believe I already gave Duncan props for what he did in 03...but again, it's not like Hakeem didn't do the same in 05...against better centers.

The rest of the teams you mentioned were the Mavericks and the Suns....i.e. two teams known for not playing defense!! Please tell me who the great defenders were on those teams, on the frontline? Dirk....Dampier....Amare...Diaw??? I don't see how those examples address my point. My question is simple....do you think Duncan could beast a dude like Robinson in a series...and score in bunches on him in a efficient manner? I'm not trying to rely on a simple series like the idiot who likes to type profanities on a message board (whoo....big man he is, lol). I'm highlighting a difference in his game and other great centers. His playoff struggles against worse defenders don't tell me that he could do what they did. He is just not the scorer that Shaq or Hakeem were.

Edit: So ya say he was hurt in 05. Does anyone fell like explaining the struggles in 01, 02 and most importantly last year....against a defensive frontline that was exposed as very weak in Boston? Gasol is known for his defense now? Lamar Odom?? And please don't give me the "he was doubled all game long" excuse...because when were Hakeem and Shaq not doubled all game long? Also, we differ on that obviously...as PJ likes to play straight up more than most.

[ambchang]

Nice post.

Again, my question is simple. Do you honestly think Duncan could drop like 35 a night on a great frontline, in an efficient manner to lead a team to a title. There is no shame in admitting that he did not have an extra "umph" offensively like Hakeem or Shaq.

I don't think it's unreal to say Duncan couldn't drop 30 a game in an efficient manner when he has never done it. And there have been times where the Spurs have needed him to go uber with his scoring (i.e. last years WCF) and he couldn't carry the load.

Tim Duncan is a great player. What he is not in the explosive scorer that Hakeem or Shaq were. nothing you have said is refuting this. Again, if that aspect isn't as important to you then that's one thing. but I think having a dude who can score on pace with MJ is vital. Not too many dudes can drop 30 a night efficiently.....

And my answer wasn't as simple, Duncan played in an environment where the scoring is much lower. It is much easier to score 35 on a team that averaged 110ppg than on a team that averaged 90ppg.

If he was on the mid-90s Rockets that has an inside-out offense and his shooters were shooting 3 pters? Yes, he could average 35 ppg against any frontline.

If he had Kobe Bryant on his side, Fisher, Horry and Fox by his side shooting 3s? Yes, he could average 35 ppg in an efficient manner.

Duncan avearged 29 ppg vs. the Lakers in 02 vs. a prime Shaq when his team averaged 85.8. That accounts of 33.8% of the Spurs scoring by ONE person.

In 2003 vs. the Lakers, Duncan averaged 28ppg, and that was including Game 2's blowout win vs. the Lakers where he played only 33 minutes and also handed out 7 assists when the Lakers sent the whole defense at him, allowing Bruce Bowen to get 27 points. The Lakers went away from that game plan, and Duncan scored 28, 36, 27, and 37 the rest of the way.

Yeah, Duncan doesn't have that extra umph.

[kingmalaki]

And my answer wasn't as simple, Duncan played in an environment where the scoring is much lower. It is much easier to score 35 on a team that averaged 110ppg than on a team that averaged 90ppg.

If he was on the mid-90s Rockets that has an inside-out offense and his shooters were shooting 3 pters? Yes, he could average 35 ppg against any frontline.

If he had Kobe Bryant on his side, Fisher, Horry and Fox by his side shooting 3s? Yes, he could average 35 ppg in an efficient manner.

Duncan avearged 29 ppg vs. the Lakers in 02 vs. a prime Shaq when his team averaged 85.8. That accounts of 33.8% of the Spurs scoring by ONE person.

In 2003 vs. the Lakers, Duncan averaged 28ppg, and that was including Game 2's blowout win vs. the Lakers where he played only 33 minutes and also handed out 7 assists when the Lakers sent the whole defense at him, allowing Bruce Bowen to get 27 points. The Lakers went away from that game plan, and Duncan scored 28, 36, 27, and 37 the rest of the way.

Yeah, Duncan doesn't have that extra umph.

Nice reply. I see your point, but I disagree. Not trying to be an ass, but I don't see how you can't say the environments in 01, 02, 04 and 08 didn't require Duncan to score more points...or in particular, be a more efficient scorer. Do you care to address any of these series?

My point is there is no way you could throw the likes of Grant/Horry/Gasol/Malone/Wallace boys on either Shaq or Hakeem and have them play that poorly that many times. Considering how many times Duncan has faced these kinda defenders in the postseason, would you say it's not fair to use those series as examples of how he would fare against gread defensive comp? It's not like we have tons of examples to go by.

So I take it you are saying you think he could torch Robinson/Rodman, Ewing/Mason/Oakley, or Robinson/Duncan in a series...in an efficient manner?

[baseline bum]

The rest of the teams you mentioned were the Mavericks and the Suns. Please tell me who the great defenders were on those teams, on the frontline? Dirk....Dampier....Amare...Diaw??? I don't see how those examples address my point. My question is simple....do you think Duncan could beast a dude like Robinson in a series...and score in bunches on him in a efficient manner? His playoff struggles against worse defenders don't tell me that he could. He is just not the scorer that Shaq or Hakeem were.

Hey shithead, if you're gonna trash Duncan's performance against Dallas while canonizing Olajuwon's against the 95 Spurs, answer me this: which team allowed 100.6 ppg, and which one allowed 93.1 ppg?

[baseline bum]

Nice reply. I see your point, but I disagree. Not trying to be an ass, but I don't see how you can't say the environments in 01, 02, 04 and 08 didn't require Duncan to score more points...or in particular, be a more efficient scorer. Do you care to address any of these series?

My point is there is no way you could throw the likes of Grant/Horry/Gasol/Malone/Wallace boys on either Shaq or Hakeem and have them play that poorly that many times. Considering how many times Duncan has faced these kinda defenders in the postseason, would you say it's not fair to use those series as examples of how he would fare against gread defensive comp? It's not like we have tons of examples to go by.

So I take it you are saying you think he could torch Robinson/Rodman, Ewing/Mason/Oakley, or Robinson/Duncan in a series...in an efficient manner?

Why the fuck do you keep trotting Rodman out as an example of some great defender? I would think someone who only ever talks about the 95 WCF here would remember how awful that piece of shit was for the Spurs in that series. How he'd never run back in transition, how him not guarding his man at the end cost the Spurs game 1, how he took off his shoes and threw fits on the bench, how he battled his own teammates for rebounds, how he started jacking up threes for no good reason in game 2, how he showed up 35 minutes late to practice in game 5 and trashed all the Spurs momentum after evening the series, etc. Fuck Rodman. He wasn't shit for the Spurs in 95.

[ambchang]

Nice reply. I see your point, but I disagree. Not trying to be an ass, but I don't see how you can't say the environments in 01, 02, 04 and 08 didn't require Duncan to score more points...or in particular, be a more efficient scorer. Do you care to address any of these series?

My point is there is no way you could throw the likes of Grant/Horry/Gasol/Malone/Wallace boys on either Shaq or Hakeem and have them play that poorly that many times. Considering how many times Duncan has faced these kinda defenders in the postseason, would you say it's not fair to use those series as examples of how he would fare against gread defensive comp? It's not like we have tons of examples to go by.

So I take it you are saying you think he could torch Robinson/Rodman, Ewing/Mason/Oakley, or Robinson/Duncan in a series...in an efficient manner?

Nor can you you argue that the Rockets didn't require Hakeem to score more in 86, 89, 90, 91 and 96. Do you care to address any of these series yourself? You act like Hakeem lit the court on fire every time he played in the playoffs. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Every single player could be neutralized with the right defense, and Duncan was neutralized in some, Hakeem in others. Shaq scored 22.5 ppg vs. the Spurs in 02 in the playoffs with an aging Robinson on him, how do you address that?

The difference is that when when you surround Hakeem, Drexler, Smith, Cassell, Horry and Maxwell will nail a three pointer. You surround Shaq, there is Dennis Scott, Bryant, Wade, Penny Hardaway, Fox, Fisher, and Shaw nailing that three.

You surround Duncan, you have Jackson (Stephen and Jaren), Kerr, an aging Elliott, Ginobili. You see the difference? Outside of Ginobili and maybe Stephen Jackson, the others simply were not as great a bunch of shooters as Shaq's supporting cast, and certainly not as good as Hakeem's.

You continue to focus on the strong series of Hakeem, ignoring his weaker ones, and then focus on the weak series of Duncan, and ignore his strong ones. Outside of Jordan, I can't recall one single player would was not neutralized with the right defense.

[ambchang]

Oh, and saying Rodman was some kind of strong defender on the spurs has got to be a joke. Rodman plays when he wanted to, partly because the Spurs didn't have strong personalities on their team (read: jackass) like a Jordan or an Isiah Thomas. Instead of having Phil Jackson or Chuck Daly as a coach, Rodman had Lucas, too.

The spurs played better when Rodman got hurt for a stretch (I thought it was a motorcycle accident).

[FromWayDowntown]

If people are inclined to dislike Tim Duncan -- to diminish what very few dispute has been a career in which he's established himself as the greatest power forward to ever play the game -- they're going to ignore facts in that effort. Even if you point to facts, these ostriched detractors will argue that the facts don't matter. It's a pointless argument, frankly.

To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 29.0/17.2/4.6/3.2 line over 5 games against LA in 2002 -- when his running mates up front for most of the series were Malik Rose and Danny Ferry, and when his teammates combined to shoot under 40% for the series -- is proof of nothing.

To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 28.0/11.8/4.8 the next year against the Lakers is an exception.

To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 24.2/17.0/5.3/5.3 in the 2003 Finals (on a team that averaged 87 ppg for the series) is irrelevant, while Shaq's numbers (36.3/12.3/3.8/2.8) in '02 against New Jersey (on a team that averaged 106 ppg for the series) are absolute proof of his dominance.

You can argue and argue and argue with Duncan haters -- those who call him timid or soft or slow or any number of other manifestly untrue things -- and no quantum of factual proof will change their myopic need to diminish a guy who has clearly been one of the transcendant players of his era and of all time. Somehow, Tim never succeeded against great bigs (despite going through Shaq 3 different times), but when Shaq went through Tim (3 times), Shaq clearly overcame great bigs.

In the end, this sort of diminution of Tim Duncan by those who can't understand why he's great has gone on for much of his career -- and the great thing is that for the duration, he's continued to do things that leave people wondering how he can actually be THAT good.

[baseline bum]

If people are inclined to dislike Tim Duncan -- to diminish what very few dispute has been a career in which he's established himself as the greatest power forward to ever play the game -- they're going to ignore facts in that effort. Even if you point to facts, these ostriched detractors will argue that the facts don't matter. It's a pointless argument, frankly.

To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 29.0/17.2/4.6/3.2 line over 5 games against LA in 2002 -- when his running mates up front for most of the series were Malik Rose and Danny Ferry, and when his teammates combined to shoot under 40% for the series -- is proof of nothing.

To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 28.0/11.8/4.8 the next year against the Lakers is an exception.

To someone who's inclined to diminish Duncan, his 24.2/17.0/5.3/5.3 in the 2003 Finals (on a team that averaged 87 ppg for the series) is irrelevant, while Shaq's numbers (36.3/12.3/3.8/2.8) in '02 against New Jersey (on a team that averaged 106 ppg for the series) are absolute proof of his dominance.

You can argue and argue and argue with Duncan haters -- those who call him timid or soft or slow or any number of other manifestly untrue things -- and no quantum of factual proof will change their myopic need to diminish a guy who has clearly been one of the transcendant players of his era and of all time. Somehow, Tim never succeeded against great bigs (despite going through Shaq 3 different times), but when Shaq went through Tim (3 times), Shaq clearly overcame great bigs.

In the end, this sort of diminution of Tim Duncan by those who can't understand why he's great has gone on for much of his career -- and the great thing is that for the duration, he's continued to do things that leave people wondering how he can actually be THAT good.

kingmalaki pulled these same kind of lies contrasting Jordan and Olajuwon in the NBA forum. His whole argument was "who did Jordan ever guard in 91?" when I pointed out Michael's performance in that playoffs was better than Hakeem's in '95. I told him Magic Johnson, and he made up lies about how Pippen was the primary defender on Magic in that series (When in fact Pippen was the main defender on Magic only in game 2 and only after Jordan got two quick fouls in the first quarter and was in foul trouble the rest of the game. Once game 3 rolled around, Jordan was right back on Magic).

If it was 10 years into the future I would have just posted my 25 GB of video from the '91 Finals to shoot him down, but current network speeds kill that idea for now. However, I promise to come back and shoot him down then, when he's still here talking about 1995.

[RoyerReptiles]

I am a lurker, but I can't help but post here. These lists are obviously just opinions, but some of the logic behind the choices makes me wonder......

Too much emphasis is put on rings and MVPs. These are important categories, but it is obvious that the team has an awful lot to do with winning rings. Look at Bill Russell. All those rings weren't won by himself. MVPs are chosen based on being the best player on one of the top teams, record wise, during the regular season. Again, that takes a good team. Too little emphasis is placed on a players defensive ability. That's half the time the player spends on the court!!! I'll never understand people.

Defense, or lack thereof, would drop Shaq out of the top ten easily. He has no business there. Being average on defense, and being a late game liability due to "Hack a Shaq" drops him out. He's never been a complete center, such as Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, or hell, even David Robinson. But he'll always be ahead of Dave on other people's list because of his offense. Oh well. That's the beauty of opinions. He won't be on my list.

An easy way to do the list is do it as first and second teams. Just go by positon. The complete players belong. Period. Jordan is the usual top pick because he did everything well. Top scorer, MVP, defensive player of the year. Clutch. Makes his choice easy. He's my 2 guard.

Magic is my point. He's the most versatile player of all time. Played every position well.

Small forward is Larry Legend. The guy was an assassin. He also did everything well. Hustled on D, amazing passer, shooter, clutch.

Power forward is Duncan. The epitome of complete player. He has deserved defensive player of the year on more than one occasion, and his offensive game is one of the most complete ever.

Center isn't as simple, but I'd have to go with Kareem. Russell's offensive game was lacking, so I'd have to put him behind Kareem, and Wilt as well. Wilt was great on both ends, and I again don't buy the "era" crap. Sure, he was a man among boys back then, but who can really say how he'd do today. That's all conjecture. We can only go off of what he DID actually do, and that was dominate for 7 years. The latter part of his career wasn't as dominant, and that's why Kareem is my pick ahead of him. Kareem was putting up 20-10 into his 40's!

Second five:

the Big O at point. C'mon, triple double average one year! You can argue between him and Magic as the most complete player ever, but Oscar didn't have the size to play center.

Gotta take Kobe as the second team 2 guard. He's the closest to MJ we've seen. Versatile, high output scorer. Passes the ball well, and a first team defensive player. He's as clutch as they come. Again, a complete player. Tough pick over West, but I gotta go with Kobe.

Havlicek at small forward. The guy was on the all Defensive squad 8 times, and all NBA 11 times. Another complete player. Once Lebron is done, though, he'll probably eclipse Havlicek and Larry Legend, knocking Bird into this spot. He hasn't played long enough yet, though.

Karl Malone as the 2nd team power forward. One of the best scorers of all time, and a three time all defensive team player. Complete.

And as I mentioned above, Wilt at the 2nd center spot.

[Thomas82]

In the 06 WCSF against Dallas Tim averaged over 32ppg on 57%shooting and dropped 41 in game 7.

In the 03 WCSF against Shaq's Lakers Tim averaged 28 and 12 on about 53% shooting. That same postseason against the Mavs Tim averaged 28ppg and 16.7rpg while shooting about 57%.

In the 2001 WCSF against the Mavs he averaged 27ppg and 17.4 rpg while shooting 51%. So...

In the 2005 WCF against the Suns Tim averaged 27.4ppg and 13.8rpg while shooting about 53%

In the 2007 WCF against the Suns Tim averaged 26.8ppg and 13.7rpg while shooting 57%

Keep in mind that Tim's teams averaged less ppg than Hakeem and Shaq's which makes Tim's production even more impressive.

Oh and btw, Tim did not shoot like garbage for the entirety of the 2005 playoffs, only against the Pistons. And I wonder how the Spurs managed to win that series with Tim shooting that poorly...oh! Maybe it had something to do with Tim's defense.

[kingmalaki]

Nor can you you argue that the Rockets didn't require Hakeem to score more in 86, 89, 90, 91 and 96. Do you care to address any of these series yourself?

Did he shoot sub 40% in any of those series? How many series can you point to where he was an inefficient scorer, before he turned into an old fogie? I count two...the one from his rookie year and one other. I highlighted four series where Duncan was an inefficient scorer. You can highlight two for Hakeem...one in his rookie season and one more?



You act like Hakeem lit the court on fire every time he played in the playoffs. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Every single player could be neutralized with the right defense, and Duncan was neutralized in some, Hakeem in others.

Actually, he did for the most part. I need to find the support again, but there are only a few players that had a bigger bump in their playoff numbers (compared to reg season) than Hakeem.



Shaq scored 22.5 ppg vs. the Spurs in 02 in the playoffs with an aging Robinson on him, how do you address that?

With an aging Robinson and Duncan. What did he shoot that series? Do you think Duncan would have scored more in a more efficient manner? If so, what do you base this on.



You surround Duncan, you have Jackson (Stephen and Jaren), Kerr, an aging Elliott, Ginobili. You see the difference? Outside of Ginobili and maybe Stephen Jackson, the others simply were not as great a bunch of shooters as Shaq's supporting cast, and certainly not as good as Hakeem's.

When Hakeem had horrible supporting casts (i.e. 86-91), he still wasn't struggling to get to 40%.



You continue to focus on the strong series of Hakeem, ignoring his weaker ones, and then focus on the weak series of Duncan, and ignore his strong ones. Outside of Jordan, I can't recall one single player would was not neutralized with the right defense.

I'm focusing on my opinion that one player was a better, and more efficient scorer than the other. Do you disagree? Hakeem never shot under 50% until he was 35. Duncan is only 32 and has done it 6 times already. I have given you postseason series where his offensive production wasn't so hot. You can't find too many for Hakeem, or Shaq for that matter. I don't see how I'm reaching by saying Duncan was not the scorer that either of those two were. The support looks pretty solid to me. Now the counter to this is "the Spurs didn't need him to score like that". While this is true at time, it's also not true at times (i.e. last years WCF). I have seen Shaq beast a great frontline in the postseason. I have seen Hakeem do it. Duncan???? Combine that with struggles against some not so great frontlines (that you really don't see for the other two guys), and my conclusion isn't far fetched.

You still have yet to answer my question...can you see Duncan dropping 35+ a night on a prime Robinson? Can you see him going through a Robinson/Duncan combo? Yes or no?? If yes, based on what?? My assertion is quite simple...if I have watched you struggle to score against the likes of Robert Horry and Pau Gasol, then I'm not so convinced that you could torch a great defender like David Robinson or Patrick Ewing.

Also, are you honestly saying you would rather have Gasol or Odom defensively, as opposed to Dennis Rodman....as a support defender for David Robinson??

baseline bum
If you would like to discuss/debate this then we can, but go elsewhere with your profanity ridden posts. I'm not a child and I don't do the "I'm hard on the internet" thing, so save your childish rants for someone else. :nope

[Rogue]

Where is Wilt Chamberlain ? :downspin:
he has already deprived shaq of his place for wilt. :lol

[baseline bum]

baseline bum
If you would like to discuss/debate this then we can, but go elsewhere with your profanity ridden posts. I'm not a child and I don't do the "I'm hard on the internet" thing, so save your childish rants for someone else. :nope

Blow me, dumbass.

[Lars]

Hey Tim is a great guy, makes a strong case for top 15, but 5, lets be real.

[Thomas82]

Hey Tim is a great guy, makes a strong case for top 15, but 5, lets be real.

We are being real.

[kingmalaki]

Blow me, dumbass.

Oh my...you are so, so tough!!! :lol Internet tough guy. :downspin:

[baseline bum]

Oh my...you are so, so tough!!! :lol Internet tough guy. :downspin:

Better than being internet douchebag stuck in 1995.

[Nathan Explosion]

At this stage in his career, how many more playoff series has Duncan played in compared to Hakeem? Were there more?

Duncan's been to the Finals 4 times, Hakeem 3. Duncan never lost, Hakeem was 2-1. More numbers for people to comb over and argue.

[ambchang]

Did he shoot sub 40% in any of those series? How many series can you point to where he was an inefficient scorer, before he turned into an old fogie? I count two...the one from his rookie year and one other. I highlighted four series where Duncan was an inefficient scorer. You can highlight two for Hakeem...one in his rookie season and one more?

Since when did Duncan shoot sub 40%? I am geniunely interested? And in 4 series?

Hakeem shot 44.3% and 18.5 ppg vs. the Lakers when the Rockets lost 3-1 in 90 playoffs. Who was so dominant in that Lakers team? Divacs?


Actually, he did for the most part. I need to find the support again, but there are only a few players that had a bigger bump in their playoff numbers (compared to reg season) than Hakeem.

Check career numbers for Hakeem's playoffs and regular season, then check Duncan's. Duncan increased his scoring, rebounding and blocks more than Hakeem did, AND Hakeem played the most playoff games in his prime.



With an aging Robinson and Duncan. What did he shoot that series? Do you think Duncan would have scored more in a more efficient manner? If so, what do you base this on.

Why is shooting % such an important criteria all of a sudden? You pulled up 35ppg as some kind of important criteria earlier on, and now that it's been shot down, you somehow turn to another random indicator of dominance. You just seem to find random numbers to say that Hakeem or Shaq was better than Duncan, without actually finding the numbers. THis is not the first time it has happened, and I repeat this to you, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

To answer your question, Shaq shot 44.7%


When Hakeem had horrible supporting casts (i.e. 86-91), he still wasn't struggling to get to 40%.

Untrue, Hakeem shot 44.3% at 18.5ppg vs. the Lakers in the 90s playoffs.


I'm focusing on my opinion that one player was a better, and more efficient scorer than the other. Do you disagree? Hakeem never shot under 50% until he was 35. Duncan is only 32 and has done it 6 times already. I have given you postseason series where his offensive production wasn't so hot. You can't find too many for Hakeem, or Shaq for that matter. I don't see how I'm reaching by saying Duncan was not the scorer that either of those two were. The support looks pretty solid to me. Now the counter to this is "the Spurs didn't need him to score like that". While this is true at time, it's also not true at times (i.e. last years WCF). I have seen Shaq beast a great frontline in the postseason. I have seen Hakeem do it. Duncan???? Combine that with struggles against some not so great frontlines (that you really don't see for the other two guys), and my conclusion isn't far fetched.

For someone as obsessed with FG% as you, I would imagine that you actually looked up the FG% of the league. During Hakeem's rookie season, the league was shooting 49.1%, and the number steadily decreased to 46.6% in 95, Hakeem's 2nd championship. The number kept dropping to 45% in Duncan's rookie season, and kept falling. The number started to increase in 2006 to 45.5%, and ended 45.7% in 2008. For most of Duncan's prime, the league was shooting at 43.9 to 44.9%, while for Hakeem's prime, the league was shooting at 46.6 to 48.7%.

The league was simply defending better, and could easily account for the lower shooting %.


You still have yet to answer my question...can you see Duncan dropping 35+ a night on a prime Robinson? Can you see him going through a Robinson/Duncan combo? Yes or no?? If yes, based on what?? My assertion is quite simple...if I have watched you struggle to score against the likes of Robert Horry and Pau Gasol, then I'm not so convinced that you could torch a great defender like David Robinson or Patrick Ewing.

Why not? If Duncan was surrounded by shooters, the opposing PF refused to defend, and the coach was as stupid as Bob Hill? I can sure see that.

If you had Kobe Bryant by his side, I can see Duncan shooting 45% and score 22.5%. Duncan scored 24.2 ppg on 49.5% shooting with Stephen Jackson on Dikembe Mutombo and Kenyon Martin afterall. Not as strong as Duncan/Robinson, but you can't really blame Duncan for that kind of production on the best rated defense in 2003 and allowed their opponents to score on 90.1 ppg, can you?


Also, are you honestly saying you would rather have Gasol or Odom defensively, as opposed to Dennis Rodman....as a support defender for David Robinson??

The 95 Rodman? Yes, no doubt. I would rather have a paper plane than Rodman in that Rockets series.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I have always thought that Duncan and Hakeem is about similar in their status in league history, and if somebody pointed a gun in my head and forced me to choose, I would have gone with Hakeem.

But after arguing with you and going through all the numbers, I am honestly thinking that Duncan may be better than Hakeem.

[peskypesky]

My top 5:

Magic Johnson
MJ
Kareem
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell

Bench:
Wilt
Oscar Robertson
Larry Bird
Shaq
Moses Malone

[Thomas82]

Since when did Duncan shoot sub 40%? I am geniunely interested? And in 4 series?

Hakeem shot 44.3% and 18.5 ppg vs. the Lakers when the Rockets lost 3-1 in 90 playoffs. Who was so dominant in that Lakers team? Divacs?



Check career numbers for Hakeem's playoffs and regular season, then check Duncan's. Duncan increased his scoring, rebounding and blocks more than Hakeem did, AND Hakeem played the most playoff games in his prime.




Why is shooting % such an important criteria all of a sudden? You pulled up 35ppg as some kind of important criteria earlier on, and now that it's been shot down, you somehow turn to another random indicator of dominance. You just seem to find random numbers to say that Hakeem or Shaq was better than Duncan, without actually finding the numbers. THis is not the first time it has happened, and I repeat this to you, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

To answer your question, Shaq shot 44.7%



Untrue, Hakeem shot 44.3% at 18.5ppg vs. the Lakers in the 90s playoffs.



For someone as obsessed with FG% as you, I would imagine that you actually looked up the FG% of the league. During Hakeem's rookie season, the league was shooting 49.1%, and the number steadily decreased to 46.6% in 95, Hakeem's 2nd championship. The number kept dropping to 45% in Duncan's rookie season, and kept falling. The number started to increase in 2006 to 45.5%, and ended 45.7% in 2008. For most of Duncan's prime, the league was shooting at 43.9 to 44.9%, while for Hakeem's prime, the league was shooting at 46.6 to 48.7%.

The league was simply defending better, and could easily account for the lower shooting %.



Why not? If Duncan was surrounded by shooters, the opposing PF refused to defend, and the coach was as stupid as Bob Hill? I can sure see that.

If you had Kobe Bryant by his side, I can see Duncan shooting 45% and score 22.5%. Duncan scored 24.2 ppg on 49.5% shooting with Stephen Jackson on Dikembe Mutombo and Kenyon Martin afterall. Not as strong as Duncan/Robinson, but you can't really blame Duncan for that kind of production on the best rated defense in 2003 and allowed their opponents to score on 90.1 ppg, can you?



The 95 Rodman? Yes, no doubt. I would rather have a paper plane than Rodman in that Rockets series.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I have always thought that Duncan and Hakeem is about similar in their status in league history, and if somebody pointed a gun in my head and forced me to choose, I would have gone with Hakeem.

But after arguing with you and going through all the numbers, I am honestly thinking that Duncan may be better than Hakeem.

I would give Tim the slight edge over Hakeem.

[kingmalaki]

Since when did Duncan shoot sub 40%? I am geniunely interested? And in 4 series?

I stand corrected. This did not occur (sub 40%). I read my stats wrong (from earlier in this thread).



Hakeem shot 44.3% and 18.5 ppg vs. the Lakers when the Rockets lost 3-1 in 90 playoffs. Who was so dominant in that Lakers team? Divacs?

No one. I believe I have noted he had two bad series. I can count more for Duncan.



Check career numbers for Hakeem's playoffs and regular season, then check Duncan's. Duncan increased his scoring, rebounding and blocks more than Hakeem did, AND Hakeem played the most playoff games in his prime.

I assume you mean check full career numbers, i.e. including Hakeems last few seasons when he was 39 and putting up 5 points a game. If you look at his numbers year by year the increase in his postseason production, compared to Duncan, is clear as day:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html

If you are including full career numbers, it would be best to wait until Duncan makes it to 17 seasons and sees his numbers/averages decline like every other center.



Why is shooting % such an important criteria all of a sudden?

FG% is always important. I bring it up because it clearly highlights that Duncan was not as efficient a scorer as Olajuwon or Shaq. How can you argue that he was? Those players had higher PPG averages, and higher FG %'s. They were doubled and tripled just as much as he was. That's my whole point....Duncan is not the scorer that either of those players were.



You pulled up 35ppg as some kind of important criteria earlier on, and now that it's been shot down, you somehow turn to another random indicator of dominance.

Exactly how have you shot this down? We have never seen Duncan go beast like that on a great frontline. I brought it up when asking "do you think Duncan could beast a great defensive center like Robinson for 35 a game". Again, if I see you struggle to score on Gasol/Horry/Grant/Wallave boys on multiple occassions, then it isn't far fetched for me to assume you can't beast one of the greatest defensive centers ever. Again, we have no examples of Duncan beasting a great defensive frontline. To be fair, we do have examples of him beasting weak frontlines in the postseason (i.e. Suns, Mavericks).



You just seem to find random numbers to say that Hakeem or Shaq was better than Duncan, without actually finding the numbers. THis is not the first time it has happened, and I repeat this to you, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

I provided clear numbers to highlight that Duncan was not the scorer that Hakeem or Shaq were. What better numbers do you need than PPG and FG%, or examples of poor postseason play (scoring wise)? Again, my whole point in this debate is that Duncan was not the scorer that either of those players were.



For someone as obsessed with FG% as you, I would imagine that you actually looked up the FG% of the league. During Hakeem's rookie season, the league was shooting 49.1%, and the number steadily decreased to 46.6% in 95, Hakeem's 2nd championship. The number kept dropping to 45% in Duncan's rookie season, and kept falling. The number started to increase in 2006 to 45.5%, and ended 45.7% in 2008. For most of Duncan's prime, the league was shooting at 43.9 to 44.9%, while for Hakeem's prime, the league was shooting at 46.6 to 48.7%.

Great point. However, during this entire span Shaq still had a great FG%. Yao still has a great FG%. Howard still has a great FG%. In other words, you are pulling numbers to show FG% for the league dropped as a whole....but that doesn't mean good pivots couldn't score efficiently. IMO, the reason the league %'s are decreasing is because dudes (mainly perimiter players) can't shoot anymore. Everything is dunks and tons of 3's...hence all the rule changes to free perimiter dudes up. Now it seems like you think better defense is the reason for this, and I disagree....but that's an entirely different debate. Honestly, I don't even think the defense of today is as good as it was in the slugball era (i.e. the early 90's).

IMO, if you put Robinson, Hakeem or Shaq in the league today they would still have a higher FG% than Duncan IMO.



Why not? If Duncan was surrounded by shooters, the opposing PF refused to defend, and the coach was as stupid as Bob Hill? I can sure see that.

Hakeem's FG% is higher than Duncan's for basically every year of his career, and he wasn't always surrounded by shooters. The same goes for Shaq....and although he was always surrounded by talent I think it's fair to say Shaq could score a lot on a high clip no matter who was on his squad. I see your comment above about the decrease in FG%, but I don't agree...for the reasons stated above.



If you had Kobe Bryant by his side, I can see Duncan shooting 45% and score 22.5%. Duncan scored 24.2 ppg on 49.5% shooting with Stephen Jackson on Dikembe Mutombo and Kenyon Martin afterall. Not as strong as Duncan/Robinson, but you can't really blame Duncan for that kind of production on the best rated defense in 2003 and allowed their opponents to score on 90.1 ppg, can you?

Duncan didn't have shooters by his side in 04, 05 or 08? No offense, but the 02 and 03 Finals show just how overrated the Nets were defensively...especially when it came to checking bigs. You mention Mutombo, even though he was 36 that year, a reserve, and averaged 14 mpg in that series?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200306040SAS.html

But I'm glad you mentioned the Nets, because that also further proves my point. Shaq put up 36 on 59% against the Nets in 02.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200206050LAL.html

Duncan put up 24 on 49% against basically the same team in 03. Again, he was not the scorer that Shaq was.

[kingmalaki]

Better than being internet douchebag stuck in 1995.

I take your douchebag stuck in 1995, and raise you a childish douchebag in 2009 (i.e. look in the mirror). What now tough guy....internet thug....lol........

Please enlighten us with another profanity laden post that makes you look like a 7 year old. :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Tim Duncan OVER olojuwan and Chamberlin is just idiotic.

You're argument is so compelling seeing that you can't even spell Chamberlain and Olajuwon's name right

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Sorry, I believe your Spur's pride is diluding you, which is understandable. Duncan is a terrific player but I think he was blessed with some great circumstances, which is causing you to vastly over rate him.

Yeah, that 2003 team was great circumstances :nope

Tony Parker in his 2nd season and Captain Jackson back when he couldn't handle the ball for shit were the 2nd and 3rd leading scorers on that team.

There's not a single other PF in NBA history that could have taken that team all the way in 2003.

[baseline bum]

I take your douchebag stuck in 1995, and raise you a childish douchebag in 2009 (i.e. look in the mirror). What now tough guy....internet thug....lol........

Please enlighten us with another profanity laden post that makes you look like a 7 year old. :lol

You're the most annoying Rocket fan here. You only ever post to defend Olajuwon's honor, and then tell blatant lies about other players you trash to lift up Olajuwon. Then you cry "internet thug" when you get called out for it. If you don't want to be called a dumbass, quit saying stupid shit.

[kingmalaki]

You're the most annoying Rocket fan here. You only ever post to defend Olajuwon's honor, and then tell blatant lies about other players you trash to lift up Olajuwon. Then you cry "internet thug" when you get called out for it. If you don't want to be called a dumbass, quit saying stupid shit.

Do you know how to post without using profanity? I'm just curious. Or do you walk around talking like this throughout the day? :lmao

Yes, blatant lies by saying Hakeem and Shaq were better scorers than Tim Duncan. I'm really trashing him by saying he wasn't the scorer that either of those men were.

[kingmalaki]

Yeah, that 2003 team was great circumstances :nope

Tony Parker in his 2nd season and Captain Jackson back when he couldn't handle the ball for shit were the 2nd and 3rd leading scorers on that team.

There's not a single other PF in NBA history that could have taken that team all the way in 2003.

I agree. I can't think of any other PF who could have done what Duncan did in 03. Now centers....that's completely different.

[baseline bum]

Do you know how to post without using profanity? I'm just curious. Or do you walk around talking like this throughout the day? :lmao


You earn it when you come on a Spurs board and trash Duncan. BTW, Duncan murdered Shaq/Horry in 99 too.



Yes, blatant lies by saying Hakeem and Shaq were better scorers than Tim Duncan. I'm really trashing him by saying he wasn't the scorer that either of those men were.

Here you go:


I don't think it's unreal to say Duncan couldn't drop 30 a game in an efficient manner when he has never done it.



Luckily for Tim, he has always had a quality supporting cast around him so he didn't have to really dominate offensively.

What a joke. '99-'00 through '01-'02 Duncan carried terrible supporting casts.

You pulled the same act against Jordan, saying he got a free pass on D when in reality he was guarding Magic Johnson for most of the series aside from the game 2 in which he got in early foul trouble guarding Magic. I love Olajuwon and if you look at my list I rate him higher than Duncan, but your act of trashing players in comparison to him is garbage. Also, I still don't get the way you keep lumping him and Shaq together as if they faced the same defensive pressure. No one in NBA history has been doubled off the ball, tripled, and hacked the way Shaq was.

[Thomas82]

To Include Tim Duncan OVER Olajuwon and Chamberlain is just idiotic.



I would put Tim ahead of Hakeem, but not over Wilt.

[peskypesky]

I would put Tim ahead of Hakeem, but not over Wilt.

Tim's 4 Championships, 2 MVP's, and 3 Finals MVP's put him ahead of Olajuwon for me pretty easily. And I can almost put him ahead of Chamberlain for the same reason. Wilt was clearly a beast, but basketball is a team game, and I think one could argue that Tim made his team-mates better in a way that Wilt didn't. I think Wilt had more physical gifts, but Tim has a higher b-ball IQ.

[peskypesky]

My top 5:

Magic Johnson
MJ
Kareem
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell

Bench:
Wilt
Hakeem
Larry Bird
Shaq
Moses Malone

I'm taking Oscar out and putting The Dream in.

Clearly, I give the nod to big men.

PG Magic
SG Michael Jordan
SF Larry Bird
PF Tim Duncan
C Kareem

[Thomas82]

I'm taking Oscar out and putting The Dream in.

Clearly, I give the nod to big men.

PG Magic
SG Michael Jordan
SF Larry Bird
PF Tim Duncan
C Kareem


If I had to build a team, I would look for a big man first, because good ones just don't grow on trees.

[ambchang]

No one. I believe I have noted he had two bad series. I can count more for Duncan.

But of course Duncan played in way more playoff series than Hakeem ever did.


I assume you mean check full career numbers, i.e. including Hakeems last few seasons when he was 39 and putting up 5 points a game. If you look at his numbers year by year the increase in his postseason production, compared to Duncan, is clear as day:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html

If you are including full career numbers, it would be best to wait until Duncan makes it to 17 seasons and sees his numbers/averages decline like every other center.

Hakeem's regular season stats declined the same way in the playoffs as did in his regular season. In fact, taking overall career number benefits Hakeem, because only 9.6% of Hakeem's playoff games was after 1997, when he was no longer as productive as during his prime, compared to 21% of regular season games.


FG% is always important. I bring it up because it clearly highlights that Duncan was not as efficient a scorer as Olajuwon or Shaq. How can you argue that he was? Those players had higher PPG averages, and higher FG %'s. They were doubled and tripled just as much as he was. That's my whole point....Duncan is not the scorer that either of those players were.

And I have already showed you that the other two players played in entirely different offense with a different pace. In Hakeem's case, it was against very different defenses in an entirely different era. When those factors were taken in, Duncan does not shy away from the other two. Duncan was responsible for as much of his team's offense as the other two, and scored as large a % of his team's points than the other two.



Exactly how have you shot this down? We have never seen Duncan go beast like that on a great frontline. I brought it up when asking "do you think Duncan could beast a great defensive center like Robinson for 35 a game". Again, if I see you struggle to score on Gasol/Horry/Grant/Wallave boys on multiple occassions, then it isn't far fetched for me to assume you can't beast one of the greatest defensive centers ever. Again, we have no examples of Duncan beasting a great defensive frontline. To be fair, we do have examples of him beasting weak frontlines in the postseason (i.e. Suns, Mavericks).

I have shown that Duncan was able to carry his team's offense in the manner the other two did. The Wallace boys were one of the best defensive frontlines in the last twenty years, I am not sure how you can come up with that not being a great line. Horry and Grant were capable defenders in their own right. Gasol was Hakeem's Divac, you score well against some, and you don't against others. It's not Duncan's fault that he can't go up against his own team in the playoffs. And Shaq saw his production DROP against Duncan and Robinson, not sure how that is go beast. Shaq also struggled against the Wallaces.



I provided clear numbers to highlight that Duncan was not the scorer that Hakeem or Shaq were. What better numbers do you need than PPG and FG%, or examples of poor postseason play (scoring wise)? Again, my whole point in this debate is that Duncan was not the scorer that either of those players were.

And I provided clear numbers to refute your claims. Hakeem's teams were scoring 107 ppg in an era when the league was averaging around 47 to 49% FG%. Duncan's team was averaging 88 ppg in an era when the league was shooting 44%. Looking purely at numbers in a different era is highly misleading, it's like comparing players in two different leagues.


Great point. However, during this entire span Shaq still had a great FG%. Yao still has a great FG%. Howard still has a great FG%. In other words, you are pulling numbers to show FG% for the league dropped as a whole....but that doesn't mean good pivots couldn't score efficiently. IMO, the reason the league %'s are decreasing is because dudes (mainly perimiter players) can't shoot anymore. Everything is dunks and tons of 3's...hence all the rule changes to free perimiter dudes up. Now it seems like you think better defense is the reason for this, and I disagree....but that's an entirely different debate. Honestly, I don't even think the defense of today is as good as it was in the slugball era (i.e. the early 90's).

You brought up Yao? the same Yao who shot 45.6% in one playoffs, and 44% in another? And Howard, who saw his PPG drop almost two points in each of his last two playoffs when compared to the regular season?

Shaq I have always maintained was a fantastic low post scorer, but you are now arguing that Shaq is a better player because he happened to have better physical attributes that allows him to play closer to the basket. So in your mind, Duncan was not an efficient scorer because he can shoot jumpers from 18 feet?


IMO, if you put Robinson, Hakeem or Shaq in the league today they would still have a higher FG% than Duncan IMO.

How do you back that up? Shaq I am sure would, because many of his points were shot from close range. I am not so sure about Robinson or Hakeem.



Hakeem's FG% is higher than Duncan's for basically every year of his career, and he wasn't always surrounded by shooters. The same goes for Shaq....and although he was always surrounded by talent I think it's fair to say Shaq could score a lot on a high clip no matter who was on his squad. I see your comment above about the decrease in FG%, but I don't agree...for the reasons stated above.

Shaq I agree, Shaq shoots a higher % than almost anyone in the league history, and much of that is attributed to his low post offensive game. Hakeem also played in a league that saw teams shooting at much much higher %s.


Duncan didn't have shooters by his side in 04, 05 or 08? No offense, but the 02 and 03 Finals show just how overrated the Nets were defensively...especially when it came to checking bigs. You mention Mutombo, even though he was 36 that year, a reserve, and averaged 14 mpg in that series?

In 04, when the Lakers decided to collapse the paint and leave the shooters open to win 4 straight? Yeah, I would say that those weren't good shooters. 05, teams collapsed on Duncan, and it was Ginobili's coming out party, and won the championship, what's wrong with that? The opposition chose to shut down Duncan and make the supporting cast beat them,it didn't work.

In 08, Duncan had Barry who shoots about 1 3pa a game, making 46.3%. Bowen who shoots 1.5 3PA, making about 40%, and Udoka who shoots 1.33 3PA, and shoots 40%. Nobody else was over 40%. i wouldn't necessarily say that Duncan was surrounded by great shooters.


Hakeem's FG% is higher than Duncan's for basically every year of his career, and he wasn't always surrounded by shooters. The same goes for Shaq....and although he was always surrounded by talent I think it's fair to say Shaq could score a lot on a high clip no matter who was on his squad. I see your comment above about the decrease in FG%, but I don't agree...for the reasons stated above.

Shaq I agree, Shaq shoots a higher % than almost anyone in the league history, and much of that is attributed to his low post offensive game. Hakeem also played in a league that saw teams shooting at much much higher %s.

Basically, Manu Ginobili, and maybe Michael Finley and Brent Barry were the only offensive threat who you would call a shooter. Unlike the 95 Rockets team who was making 39.1% and making 8.6 3P a game, the 08 Spurs were making 37% and 7.4 3PM, and most of those 3PM were coming from Ginobili, while teh Rockets team had true shooters spreading out the wealth, making it harder for the defense to zoom in on one or two players.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200306040SAS.html

But I'm glad you mentioned the Nets, because that also further proves my point. Shaq put up 36 on 59% against the Nets in 02.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200206050LAL.html

Duncan put up 24 on 49% against basically the same team in 03. Again, he was not the scorer that Shaq was.

Todd MacCoulloch, and Keith Van Horn are very different from Jason Collins and Dikembe Mutombo. Kenyon Martin and Aaron Williams stayed, but the frontline was revamped exactly because Shaq torn that frontline apart the previous year, and the Nets thought they would get the Lakers again the following playoffs.

The 03 Nets team allowed less points and a lower % to the opposition than the 02 Nets team.

[sook]

I gave it some thought and including Duncan top 10 is difficult but worth a try. But Duncan is/was not better than Olajuwon.

[Thomas82]

I gave it some thought and including Duncan top 10 is difficult but worth a try. But Duncan is/was not better than Olajuwon.

Olajuwon doesn't have the resume that Duncan has either.

[baseline bum]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Just to clear things up the height average from 1960 and 1990 is only one inch difference, and that is partly because players like Bol(over 7'2") took up roster spaces. I can pick apart almost every part of your arguement, but I will actually choose to agree with one part to show how dominate Wilt was: The game was totally different

The rules of basketball were very different in the 1960s, the game was very fundamental. Dunking and showing off athletic ability was consitered hotdoging(except when going up for a rebound). Fans wouldn't like 360 dunks and your team mates would be mad at you for wasting energy.

Today's rules make the game very offensive oriented. Back in the '60s you could do almost anything to stop the offensive player from scoring, hard fouls, hand check, triple team, grab arms etc. Pretty much everything you cannot do today was legal back in the 60s. There were no flegrant fouls, so there would be several hard fouls that players today would be ejected for, but back then it was common, nothing easy. If you get tapped on the elbow durring the shooting motion today you will be going to the free throw line, back in the 60s a tap was defensive, a hack was a foul. That is one of the reasons shooting percentages are higher today then they were back then. Another reason shooting percentages today are higher is because back in the 60s you could not drive the lane. It wasn't a rule, it was a fear factor. The illegal defense was a rule in the 60s, but it was not inforced that much until the late 70s, back in the 60s defenders would sag off their man all the time and if someone drove the lane they were going to be fouled, and fouled hard. As I said before there was nothing easy in the 1960s. And as you said the game was very different. Wilt Chamberlain once said "I would LOVE to play in today's game" I know why too, it's because he would be all but unstoppable and he would probably average 75 points per game.

There's no doubt Wilt is a top-10 player all-time no matter what era he played in, but I'm not buying that the 60s were less conducive to him putting up those ridiculous numbers. Every time I watch a 60s game I see it as a much less structured, less disciplined game played at a much faster pace than we see today. One thing I didn't like about Chamberlain's game was that he almost seemed embarrassed by his size, and shot that weak finger-roll too much instead of just throwing it down like Shaq. Wilt went up with weak layups at times Shaq would flushed it right in his defender's face. That would never fly today; at the same time, I doubt he'd be all that worried about showing up other players of somewhat similar athleticism that are in the game now. Wilt saying he'd love to play in today's game 10 years ago as if it would be easier is just cockiness.

[Thomas82]

There's no doubt Wilt is a top-10 player all-time no matter what era he played in, but I'm not buying that the 60s were less conducive to him putting up those ridiculous numbers. Every time I watch a 60s game I see it as a much less structured, less disciplined game played at a much faster pace than we see today. One thing I didn't like about Chamberlain's game was that he almost seemed embarrassed by his size, and shot that weak finger-roll too much instead of just throwing it down like Shaq. Wilt went up with weak layups at times Shaq would flushed it right in his defender's face. That would never fly today; at the same time, I doubt he'd be all that worried about showing up other players of somewhat similar athleticism that are in the game now. Wilt saying he'd love to play in today's game 10 years ago as if it would be easier is just cockiness.

I do remember reading about how Wilt would hold back sometimes and not dominate like he could have. Imagine if he did, people wouldn't even think about MJ as the best ever.

[Marco]

Those who think Bird is not top three don't know what they're talking about.

Honors: Elected to Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (1998); NBA champion (1981, '84, '86); NBA Finals MVP (1984, '86); NBA MVP (1984, '85, '86); Nine-time All-NBA First Team (1980-88); All-NBA Second Team (1990); All-Defensive Second Team (1982, '83, '84); NBA Rookie of the Year (1980); One of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996); Olympic gold medalist (1992).

[Thomas82]

I think Bird a a top 5, but my order is:

Wilt
Jabbar
Jordan

Then I think Bird is probably fourth.

I would say for my top 5:

Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Magic Johnson

[Thomas82]

Those who think Bird is not top three don't know what they're talking about.

Honors: Elected to Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (1998); NBA champion (1981, '84, '86); NBA Finals MVP (1984, '86); NBA MVP (1984, '85, '86); Nine-time All-NBA First Team (1980-88); All-NBA Second Team (1990); All-Defensive Second Team (1982, '83, '84); NBA Rookie of the Year (1980); One of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996); Olympic gold medalist (1992).

Nice resume for Larry Bird, now compare it to Tim Duncan's:

* 2-time NBA Most Valuable Player: 2002, 2003
* 4-time NBA Champion: 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007
* 3-time NBA Finals MVP: 1999, 2003, 2005
* IBM Player Award: 2002
* The Sporting News MVP Award: 2002, 2003
* In 2003, became only the 3rd player to win NBA MVP, IBM, and TSN Awards in the same season
* 11-time NBA All-Star: 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
* 10-time starter (2000–2009)
* NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2000
* 11-time All-NBA:
* First Team: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007
* Second Team: 2006, 2008
* 11-time All-Defensive:
* First Team: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008
* Second Team: 1998, 2004, 2006
* NBA All-Rookie First Team: 1998
* NBA Rookie of the Year: 1998
* NBA regular-season leader, field goals made: 2002 (764)
* NBA regular-season leader, total rebounds: 2002 (1,042)
* One of only four players to receive All-NBA First Team honors in each of his first 8 seasons (1998-2005), along with Hall of Famers Bob Pettit (10 seasons), Larry Bird (9 seasons), and Oscar Robertson (9 seasons).
* Only player in NBA history to receive All-NBA and All-Defensive honors in his first 11 seasons (1998-2008).
* NBA playoff records:
* Most consecutive field goals made, none missed: 12 (May 17, 2006 vs. the Dallas Mavericks; tied with Larry McNeill)
* NBA Finals records:
* Most blocks averaged per game, series: 5.3 (2003 NBA Finals)
* Most blocks, one game: 8 (decisive Game 6 of the 2003 NBA Finals; also had 21 points, 20 rebounds, and 10 assists in the same game)
* ACC Male Athlete of the Year: 1997
* John R. Wooden Award: 1997
* Naismith College Player of the Year: 1997
* USBWA College Player of the Year (1997)
* Naismith College Player of the Year (1997)
* ACC Player of the Year (1996, 1997)
* Named to the ACC 50th Anniversary Men's Basketball Team: 2002
* On February 18 2006, Named one of the Next 10 Greatest Players by TNT broadcasting crew
* On August 16 2007, named starting PF on Sports Illustrated's All-Time NBA team
* On May 4 2007, named by the Association for Professional Basketball Research as one of "100 Greatest Professional Basketball Players of The 20th Century", the youngest player on that list


With a resume like that, how could he NOT at least be top 10 all-time?

[sook]

Olajuwon doesn't have the resume that Duncan has either.

Duncan came into the league with a team that was a legit champ. contender...

Besides, Resume's aren't completely indicative of the better player, I'm sure sure Pippen has a great resume as well, but Olajuwon was one of the best 2-way players to ever set foot in the NBA. He would literally be the first one to score and first one to contest the shot on the other end.

[sook]

One thing is for sure though It would have been one heck of a matchup if we ever got to see both players play.

[lefty]

Yinka Dare > Duncan > Jordan+Magic+Bird

[Thomas82]

Duncan came into the league with a team that was a legit champ. contender...

Besides, Resume's aren't completely indicative of the better player, I'm sure sure Pippen has a great resume as well, but Olajuwon was one of the best 2-way players to ever set foot in the NBA. He would literally be the first one to score and first one to contest the shot on the other end.

Hakeem didn't have a bad team to start out with either. It's too bad things didn't work out, for whatever reason, with him and Ralph Sampson together.

[sook]

Hakeem didn't have a bad team to start out with either. It's too bad things didn't work out, for whatever reason, with him and Ralph Sampson together.

Sampson was done in the NBA after his sophmore yr i believe and that whole team got fucked by doing drugs. What a shame. That team was WAY WAY WAY better than our Championship teams

[Thomas82]

Sampson was done in the NBA after his sophmore yr i believe and that whole team got fucked by doing drugs. What a shame. That team was WAY WAY WAY better than our Championship teams

Yeah, I remember hearing about that. Those two should have atleast won 2 rings together.

[baseline bum]

Sampson was done in the NBA after his sophmore yr i believe and that whole team got fucked by doing drugs. What a shame. That team was WAY WAY WAY better than our Championship teams

No way. Ralph Sampson or Clyde Drexler? Jim Peterson or Robert Horry? Rodney McCray or Mario Elie? Lewis Lloyd or Sam Cassell? The '86 Rockets were basically the Jazz of the day; great at home, so-so away from the Summit. The Rockets had tons of great shooters in their title years though; no way was that team better than the 95 Rockets, and I don't think they were nearly as good as the 94 crew either (though that one's closer with Thorpe in place of Drexler).

[slayermin]

Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'Neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Larry Bird
Oscar Robertson
David Robinson

[Strike]

what was Malone Competition vs Duncan Competition...


clearly Malone was going up against the greatest Bigs of all time thats why he was NBA all Defensive teams in the late 90's after those bigs retired. if it werent for those great players malone would be on the slot every single year just like Duncan

If Malone was such a great defender, he would be on the list every year, just like Duncan.

[Thomas82]

if malone was such a great defender, he would be on the list every year, just like duncan.

+1

[kingmalaki]

But of course Duncan played in way more playoff series than Hakeem ever did.

This is true...very good point. But based on Hakeem and Shaq scoring more than Duncan for their careers, on higher %'s makes me conclude that they were better scorers than Duncan was. I just don't see them struggling to score on those players like that (Gasol/Horry/Grant/Wallace boys).

I saw your comments about the differences in FG%'s between eras but I don't agree with your conclusion for the reasons that I stated earlier. Good point but we won't agree....



Hakeem's regular season stats declined the same way in the playoffs as did in his regular season.

Again, this is the furthest thing from the truth. What are you looking at, his career reg season totals compared to his career playoff totals (i.e. after his seasons as an old fart)? If you look at his totals season by season, you will see an increase in scoring for basically every year up until 98/99, when he was 36. One of those seasons he had a drop (89/90). He had like a 3 point drop in 96. His numbers were basically the same in 92/93 and 96/97. But every other season (the other 9) his numbers increased. I am referring to his scoring.



In Hakeem's case, it was against very different defenses in an entirely different era. When those factors were taken in, Duncan does not shy away from the other two. Duncan was responsible for as much of his team's offense as the other two, and scored as large a % of his team's points than the other two.

You think the defenses in Duncan's era were tougher than in Hakeem and Shaq's eras, especially when it comes to defensive bigmen? Again, Duncan was not scoring as efficiently as either one of those players. You seem to think defense is better today, hence a lower FG%. We don't agree on this point.



I have shown that Duncan was able to carry his team's offense in the manner the other two did.

Against what great defensive frontline? You yourself say Shaq isn't a good defender. All of the high volume series were against teams with poor defensive frontlines. What series did he go beastlike on a great defensive frontline?

Now to be fair, Duncan hasn't had as many chances since bigs in his era suck. But if I see you struggle to get off on the Wallace boys, then it puts doubt in my mind about you dominating a frontline like Ewing/Oakley/Mason. I mean honestly, do you think Horace Grant would stand a chance against Hakeem, Robinson or Shaq? Just be honest....



The Wallace boys were one of the best defensive frontlines in the last twenty years, I am not sure how you can come up with that not being a great line.

He struggled to score on the Wallace boys.



Horry and Grant were capable defenders in their own right.

Horry is a good defender, but you couldn't rely on him to hold either Hakeem or Oneal. Both are too strong for him. We couldn't put him on Shaq in 95, and you guys couldn't put him on him when he was a Spur. Grant is too small for Shaq. Hakeem regularly got off against the 1st 3 peats Bulls and torched the Magic...and Grant was on both teams. Neither of those guys could check Hakeem or Shaq.



And Shaq saw his production DROP against Duncan and Robinson, not sure how that is go beast. Shaq also struggled against the Wallaces.

Of course he saw his production drop...he was squaring up against two 7 footers...both of whom were great defenders!!! And how did he struggle against the Wallaces? He avg 27 ppg on 63% against them in the 04 Finals.



You brought up Yao? the same Yao who shot 45.6% in one playoffs, and 44% in another?

Yao shot 45% in his rookie seasons, when he was going up against Shaq. He shot 44% against the Jazz, when he just came back off a foot injury. But did he not still shoot high %'s in all of those regular seasons? Isn't your point that defense is better...as to explain why Duncan has so many seasons of shooting under 50% for that season? So why are these other bigs shooting above 50%?

Again, you are claiming that %'s are down because defense is better. I personally think defense is worse today than it was in the 90's, but better than it was in the 80's. However, the %'s are down because dudes can't shoot...mainly wings. Bigs are still converting at a high %. If Hakeem or Shaq were in the league today they would still shoot a high % IMO.



And Howard, who saw his PPG drop almost two points in each of his last two playoffs when compared to the regular season?

His FG% is still high for the postseason. Again, isn't your point that the defense today is better so dudes shoot worse?



Shaq I have always maintained was a fantastic low post scorer, but you are now arguing that Shaq is a better player because he happened to have better physical attributes that allows him to play closer to the basket. So in your mind, Duncan was not an efficient scorer because he can shoot jumpers from 18 feet?

Where did I say Duncan wasn't an efficient scorer? I said he was as efficient as Hakeem or Shaq. Hell, Hakeem wasn't as efficient as Shaq.

I rank them like this:

1 - Hakeem
He could score like Shaq (numbers wise, but not as efficient) in his prime and he was a better closer than the other two, and better at the line. He had more moves than the other two. He was clearly a better defender than the other two.

2 - Shaq
He was a more dominant scorer than the other two. His defense was worse than the others though. He couldn't close games but he was just so hard to stop. Yes, in this case I am clearly picking better offense over worse offense plus better defense.

3 - Duncan
The worst scorer of the three but a better defender than Shaq. A better passer than both. Again, in this case I am picking better offense over defense.



How do you back that up? Shaq I am sure would, because many of his points were shot from close range. I am not so sure about Robinson or Hakeem.

You can't really....you can only assume. I look at their skillsets and make comparisons with dudes today. For example, Yao is able to shoot a high % based on his low post moves. Does he have better moves than Hakeem did (no)? Amare is quick and athletic, with a jumper...and he shoots a high %. Was he quicker or more athletic than Robinson or Hakeem (no)? Do you think Gasol and Bynum are better scorers than Hakeem or Robinson (they both shoot at a high clip)? Brand? That's how I am coming to my conclusions.



In 04, when the Lakers decided to collapse the paint and leave the shooters open to win 4 straight? Yeah, I would say that those weren't good shooters. 05, teams collapsed on Duncan, and it was Ginobili's coming out party, and won the championship, what's wrong with that? The opposition chose to shut down Duncan and make the supporting cast beat them,it didn't work.

You are describing things that Hakeem and Robinson dealt with for their entire careers. It's not as if they had more help than Duncan did. Do you not agree? That's why it's silly to base who is better off of titles IMO, because neither Robinson or Hakeem were on teams where their teams could win if they didn't post big numbers.



Todd MacCoulloch, and Keith Van Horn are very different from Jason Collins and Dikembe Mutombo. Kenyon Martin and Aaron Williams stayed, but the frontline was revamped exactly because Shaq torn that frontline apart the previous year, and the Nets thought they would get the Lakers again the following playoffs.

Mutombo barely played in that series. Collins is a stout defender now? My point still remains...those Nets teams did not have strong defensive frontlines. Shaq and Duncan showed how weak they were in two consecutive Finals.

[ambchang]

This is true...very good point. But based on Hakeem and Shaq scoring more than Duncan for their careers, on higher %'s makes me conclude that they were better scorers than Duncan was. I just don't see them struggling to score on those players like that (Gasol/Horry/Grant/Wallace boys).
Why not? Based on your definition, Hakeem struggled to score against Vlade Divacs in 1990. This is not, and has never been, a one-on-one game. You have to look into their productivity based on the confines of the team offense, as well as the defense they face.

I saw your comments about the differences in FG%'s between eras but I don't agree with your conclusion for the reasons that I stated earlier. Good point but we won't agree....
Again, this is the furthest thing from the truth. What are you looking at, his career reg season totals compared to his career playoff totals (i.e. after his seasons as an old fart)? If you look at his totals season by season, you will see an increase in scoring for basically every year up until 98/99, when he was 36. One of those seasons he had a drop (89/90). He had like a 3 point drop in 96. His numbers were basically the same in 92/93 and 96/97. But every other season (the other 9) his numbers increased. I am referring to his scoring.
I probably wasn’t making this clear enough the last few times. Let me try again.
I am not saying that Hakeem saw his production drop in the playoffs as that is clearly not the case. What I am saying is that Hakeem’s increase in the playoffs when compared to his own regular season stats was not as profound as Duncan’s.
I am only going to count Hakeem’s numbers up until 1997, when his productivity started to clearly decline. I define significant as more than 10. When you compare the numbers, out of 12 playoffs, Hakeem saw his ppg drop in 4 (2 significant) and rise in 8 (4 significant, with one going up by 64%). His REB drops in 6 (2 significant), and rise in 6 (2 significant). His FG% drop in 5(2 significant), and rise in 7 (4 significant).
If you apply the same lines of logic to Tim Duncan’s 10 playoff seasons, you can see that his ppg declined in 2, and rises in 8 (2 significant), his REB declined in 3 (1 significant) and rises in 7 (5 significant), and his FG% declined in 6(1 significant) and rises in 4 (1 significant). In other words, Duncan steps up more in the playoffs than Hakeem did.

You think the defenses in Duncan's era were tougher than in Hakeem and Shaq's eras, especially when it comes to defensive bigmen? Again, Duncan was not scoring as efficiently as either one of those players. You seem to think defense is better today, hence a lower FG%. We don't agree on this point.



Against what great defensive frontline? You yourself say Shaq isn't a good defender. All of the high volume series were against teams with poor defensive frontlines. What series did he go beastlike on a great defensive frontline?
Now to be fair, Duncan hasn't had as many chances since bigs in his era suck. But if I see you struggle to get off on the Wallace boys, then it puts doubt in my mind about you dominating a frontline like Ewing/Oakley/Mason. I mean honestly, do you think Horace Grant would stand a chance against Hakeem, Robinson or Shaq? Just be honest....
Yes I do, because I recalled Shaq was adequately defended by the likes or Malik Rose and Anthony Mason, Hakeem was held relatively in check by Mason. Why would Horace Grant not stand a chance? Certain players guard others better, and it’s not a simple defensive rating game. Pau Gasol provided a great example that a poor or average defender can sometimes do a good job on a great defensive player.

He struggled to score on the Wallace boys.
Duncan scored 20.6 ppg on 42% on the Wallaces and won finals MVP. The % wasn’t that great, but I wouldn’t call that struggling.

Horry is a good defender, but you couldn't rely on him to hold either Hakeem or Oneal. Both are too strong for him. We couldn't put him on Shaq in 95, and you guys couldn't put him on him when he was a Spur. Grant is too small for Shaq. Hakeem regularly got off against the 1st 3 peats Bulls and torched the Magic...and Grant was on both teams. Neither of those guys could check Hakeem or Shaq.
So you are strictly basing how good Duncan is vs. a select few defenders. I can say that Duncan regularly tore up Divac when they played each other.

Of course he saw his production drop...he was squaring up against two 7 footers...both of whom were great defenders!!! And how did he struggle against the Wallaces? He avg 27 ppg on 63% against them in the 04 Finals.
Maybe struggling was too strong a word, but Shaq saw his production steadily drop in the 5 games they played. Once the Pistons defense figured out the Lakers offense, Shaq put up average numbers.


Yao shot 45% in his rookie seasons, when he was going up against Shaq. He shot 44% against the Jazz, when he just came back off a foot injury. But did he not still shoot high %'s in all of those regular seasons? Isn't your point that defense is better...as to explain why Duncan has so many seasons of shooting under 50% for that season? So why are these other bigs shooting above 50%?
I thought we were discussing strictly playoff numbers. Duncan shot well during his regular season as well, and held his own during the playoffs. The point is, defenses were markedly better against bigmen, and specifically in the playoffs. Just so you wonder, Dwight Howard’s FG% dropped off quite a bit in the playoffs, when teams were able to crowd him and have a defense focused specifically on him.

Again, you are claiming that %'s are down because defense is better. I personally think defense is worse today than it was in the 90's, but better than it was in the 80's. However, the %'s are down because dudes can't shoot...mainly wings. Bigs are still converting at a high %. If Hakeem or Shaq were in the league today they would still shoot a high % IMO.
The wings can’t shoot argument has been proven wrong. FT%, which is a great indicator of people’s ability to shoot, has remained consistent for pretty much the last 30 years. People can shoot as well as they could 10 years ago from 15ft with no one guarding them.

His FG% is still high for the postseason. Again, isn't your point that the defense today is better so dudes shoot worse?
Certainly dropped. And certain players do shoot better % than others, doesn’t mean that they are better offensive players. Duncan plays a different game than Howard, with Howard playing his game much closer to the basket. Duncan has a more varied offensive skill set, and sometimes shoot jumpers to keep the defense honest and opens up the lanes for slashers. Robinson shoots a higher % than Hakeem and scores about the same amount of points, I am not going to say Robinson was a more efficient than Hakeem.


Where did I say Duncan wasn't an efficient scorer? I said he was as efficient as Hakeem or Shaq. Hell, Hakeem wasn't as efficient as Shaq.

I rank them like this:

1 - Hakeem
He could score like Shaq (numbers wise, but not as efficient) in his prime and he was a better closer than the other two, and better at the line. He had more moves than the other two. He was clearly a better defender than the other two.

2 - Shaq
He was a more dominant scorer than the other two. His defense was worse than the others though. He couldn't close games but he was just so hard to stop. Yes, in this case I am clearly picking better offense over worse offense plus better defense.

3 - Duncan
The worst scorer of the three but a better defender than Shaq. A better passer than both. Again, in this case I am picking better offense over defense.
And I have been arguing that Duncan was not the worst scorer. He was in a system where points were less. If you want to compare apples and oranges, it’s your own standard, but it’s a simply and erroneous way of looking at the stats. Duncan scored and was responsible for his own team’s offense as much as, or sometimes more than the other two, while being a clearly better defender than Hakeem.

Even by your own standards, you picked Hakeem over Shaq because he had better defense and slightly worse offense, and yet you picked Shaq over Duncan because Shaq had better offense and worse defense. Besides, Hakeem did not score as much as Shaq did. Hakeem scored over 25ppg 3 times in his career, Shaq did it 10 times, Duncan did it once, and you continued to ignore the fact that teams were scoring much less nowadays because of better defense and slower pace.


You can't really....you can only assume. I look at their skillsets and make comparisons with dudes today. For example, Yao is able to shoot a high % based on his low post moves. Does he have better moves than Hakeem did (no)? Amare is quick and athletic, with a jumper...and he shoots a high %. Was he quicker or more athletic than Robinson or Hakeem (no)? Do you think Gasol and Bynum are better scorers than Hakeem or Robinson (they both shoot at a high clip)? Brand? That's how I am coming to my conclusions.
Amare Stoudemire played in an offense that was one of the fastest in the last 20 years, and that’s why he scores a lot, he is a product of the system. Yao’s scoring has never approached that of Robinson, Hakeem and Shaq, or even Duncan. Gasol and Bynum are not even close to Hakeem or Robinson numbers wise, and their role in their respective teams’ offense are totally different.

You are describing things that Hakeem and Robinson dealt with for their entire careers. It's not as if they had more help than Duncan did. Do you not agree? That's why it's silly to base who is better off of titles IMO, because neither Robinson or Hakeem were on teams where their teams could win if they didn't post big numbers.
I agree that it is silly to base a player’s ability based strictly on titles, or even awards. But Duncan has shown the ability to win championships with totally different teams. 99, 03 and 05 teams were all very different from each other. Hakeem, on the other hand, has only won titles in similar teams. Don’t even compare Robinson’s cast to Hakeem’s, Hakeem’s 3rd string point guard who got waived was the best point Robinson had in his career.



Mutombo barely played in that series. Collins is a stout defender now? My point still remains...those Nets teams did not have strong defensive frontlines. Shaq and Duncan showed how weak they were in two consecutive Finals.
Mutombo and Collins were head and shoulders above Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCoulloch. Collins was a very good defender, he just had no offense. Mutombo was one of the best help defenders in the league, even when he was almost 40 years old. Fact that he still had a roster spot with the Rockets almost half a decade after the 2003 Finals despite never really having much of an offensive game speaks to that.

[kingmalaki]

I won't rehash the things we are going in circles about and clearly won't agree on.

However:

Hakeem struggled against Divac in one postseason run. He did not struggle against him in his career.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=divacvl01



I am not saying that Hakeem saw his production drop in the playoffs as that is clearly not the case. What I am saying is that Hakeem’s increase in the playoffs when compared to his own regular season stats was not as profound as Duncan’s.

How are you coming to this conclusion (the bolded part)? Only taking points, from 84/85 to 96/97, these are Hakeem's increase/decrease in playoff scoring (3%, 14%, 25%, 64%, 2%, -24%, 4%, -2%, 6%, 19%, -17%, 0%). Here are Duncan's for his career (-2%, 7%, 10%, 8%, 6%, -1%, 16%, 39%, 11%, 5%). So how are you concluding that Hakeem's increases were not as profound as Duncan's? Are we using different numbers?



Yes I do, because I recalled Shaq was adequately defended by the likes or Malik Rose and Anthony Mason, Hakeem was held relatively in check by Mason. Why would Horace Grant not stand a chance? Certain players guard others better, and it’s not a simple defensive rating game. Pau Gasol provided a great example that a poor or average defender can sometimes do a good job on a great defensive player.

Hakeem was held in check by Mason? He put up 27 a game on 50% against Ewing/Oakley/Mason in the 94 Finals. Why would Horace Grant not stand a chance? Because I watched him attempt to check Hakeem whenever we played Chicago in the first 3 peat (we won the majority of those games) and during the Orlando sweep. He didn't stand a chance in any of those instances. I watched Hakeem torch Karl Malone throughout the 90's. You are correct about the Gasol example, but these dudes I have noted had chances to check Hakeem and they got torched. So when I say they had no chance against him I'm not just talking out of my rear. Horry is on record as saying Hakeem was the best, and he played with all 3. Elie has said the same and he also played with Hakeem and Duncan. Lastly, none of these players are as good defensively as a in-prime David Robinson, and if he can't stop Hakeem then am I wrong to conclude that the other defenders (worse defenders by the way) couldn't either?



So you are strictly basing how good Duncan is vs. a select few defenders. I can say that Duncan regularly tore up Divac when they played each other.

No, I'm not. I'm basing my complete analysis of their offensive games on what they scored, their %'s and how they looked against certain dudes. We are comparing across era's...what else do I have to go by? I am also comparing their skillsets. It isn't that far fetched for one to conclude that if a dude has never banged with a defender like Robinson and can't torch worse defenders...then maybe he couldn't torch Robinson, or vice versa. The playoff examples are just examples of Duncan struggling to be a dominant scorer in the postseason. Again, we aren't gonna agree on the differences between which era was harder to score against. You bring up good points though.



while being a clearly better defender than Hakeem.

Duncan a better defender than Hakeem? Please explain your rationale for this.....



But Duncan has shown the ability to win championships with totally different teams. 99, 03 and 05 teams were all very different from each other. Hakeem, on the other hand, has only won titles in similar teams.

Similar teams? The 94 Rockets were a grind it out defensive team, with no one else but Hakeem to create shots. The 95 Rockets were a completely different team that outscored people, and they didn't have a true PF. The two teams were nothing alike. Hakeem got to the Finals in 86 with a completely different team as well. He didn't win but the 86 Celtics were better than say, arguably any team Duncan has ever played against. Both guys have shown that they can win if they have enough help...but I don't see how you can say Hakeem won with similar squads.



Don’t even compare Robinson’s cast to Hakeem’s, Hakeem’s 3rd string point guard who got waived was the best point Robinson had in his career.

Avery Johnson was better than Rod Strickland? Sean Elliott wasn't better than most of Hakeem's teammates from like 87-91? Both centers have never had the type of help season to season that Duncan has had, or Shaq.



Mutombo and Collins were head and shoulders above Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCoulloch.
Collins was a very good defender, he just had no offense.

Dude, Mutombo barely played that series. Why are you still touting him? Collins is not a good defensive center. They are all scrubs.



Mutombo was one of the best help defenders in the league, even when he was almost 40 years old. Fact that he still had a roster spot with the Rockets almost half a decade after the 2003 Finals despite never really having much of an offensive game speaks to that.

No, that just shows you how weak the center position has become in the modern era.

[ambchang]

I won't rehash the things we are going in circles about and clearly won't agree on.
However:
Hakeem struggled against Divac in one postseason run. He did not struggle against him in his career
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=divacvl01 .
And neither did Duncan struggle against Pau Gasol in his career.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=gasolpa01

How are you coming to this conclusion (the bolded part)? Only taking points, from 84/85 to 96/97, these are Hakeem's increase/decrease in playoff scoring (3%, 14%, 25%, 64%, 2%, -24%, 4%, -2%, 6%, 19%, -17%, 0%). Here are Duncan's for his career (-2%, 7%, 10%, 8%, 6%, -1%, 16%, 39%, 11%, 5%). So how are you concluding that Hakeem's increases were not as profound as Duncan's? Are we using different numbers?
We are in fact talking about the same numbers. Duncan, over this course, had a higher % increase in his scoring output and rebounding

Hakeem was held in check by Mason? He put up 27 a game on 50% against Ewing/Oakley/Mason in the 94 Finals. Why would Horace Grant not stand a chance? Because I watched him attempt to check Hakeem whenever we played Chicago in the first 3 peat (we won the majority of those games) and during the Orlando sweep. He didn't stand a chance in any of those instances. I watched Hakeem torch Karl Malone throughout the 90's. You are correct about the Gasol example, but these dudes I have noted had chances to check Hakeem and they got torched. So when I say they had no chance against him I'm not just talking out of my rear. Horry is on record as saying Hakeem was the best, and he played with all 3. Elie has said the same and he also played with Hakeem and Duncan. Lastly, none of these players are as good defensively as a in-prime David Robinson, and if he can't stop Hakeem then am I wrong to conclude that the other defenders (worse defenders by the way) couldn't either?
Hakeem was scoring about 27ppg during the regular season, how was maintaining his scoring average going beast? The same people who checked Hakeem kept him to about his average. If you are looking strictly at scoring differences between Duncan and Hakeem, Hakeem definitely scored more, but like I mentioned earlier, it was due to more complex defensive schemes of the later era.
No question Robinson was the best in the bunch, and he got torched in one series. However, throughout their career, Hakeem didn’t torch Robinson overall. In fact, Robinson kept Hakeem in check throughout.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01
Hakeem shot 44.1% vs. Robinson throughout their careers. He got hot in one series.

No, I'm not. I'm basing my complete analysis of their offensive games on what they scored, their %'s and how they looked against certain dudes. We are comparing across era's...what else do I have to go by? I am also comparing their skillsets. It isn't that far fetched for one to conclude that if a dude has never banged with a defender like Robinson and can't torch worse defenders...then maybe he couldn't torch Robinson, or vice versa. The playoff examples are just examples of Duncan struggling to be a dominant scorer in the postseason. Again, we aren't gonna agree on the differences between which era was harder to score against. You bring up good points though.
I cannot agree with this. You cherrypicked statistics when it sees fit. You noted Duncan struggling Gasol in one series and Hakeem going off on Robinson in one series, and yet you freely went with Hakeem’s career stats against Divac.
Hakeem scored 24.7 ppg on 47% vs. Mason up until 1997, and yet you went with 27ppg and 50% in one series instead.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=masonan01&p2=olajuha01

Duncan a better defender than Hakeem? Please explain your rationale for this.....
Sorry, I meant Shaq.

Similar teams? The 94 Rockets were a grind it out defensive team, with no one else but Hakeem to create shots. The 95 Rockets were a completely different team that outscored people, and they didn't have a true PF. The two teams were nothing alike. Hakeem got to the Finals in 86 with a completely different team as well. He didn't win but the 86 Celtics were better than say, arguably any team Duncan has ever played against. Both guys have shown that they can win if they have enough help...but I don't see how you can say Hakeem won with similar squads.
95 team was better on offense in that they added a slasher in Drexler, but the basics is pretty much the same as 94. The defense was worse with Thorpe gone, but major pieces of the puzzles were still there. The two teams were very similar in their offensive and defensive philosophies.

Avery Johnson was better than Rod Strickland? Sean Elliott wasn't better than most of Hakeem's teammates from like 87-91? Both centers have never had the type of help season to season that Duncan has had, or Shaq.
Yes, Strickland was better than Avery, but he played only one season with the Spurs. I am glad you brought up Strickland, because back then, he was still a turnover prone, young player. He made key mistakes down the stretch of big games that essentially cost the Spurs the season. And I am glad you brought up Strickland, because with him, Robinson had his best playoffs, just to show the importance of a great teammate.
Elliott was as good as any of Hakeem’s teammates, the difference is that Hakeem didn’t make the playoffs once, and his team did worse, and Robinson did better. I am not prepared to go into another Robinson vs. Hakeem debate though.


Dude, Mutombo barely played that series. Why are you still touting him? Collins is not a good defensive center. They are all scrubs.
Mutombo played a significant role on that team, and his job was to shut down Duncan. Collins was a scrub in the sense that he can’t score, but he could defend.

No, that just shows you how weak the center position has become in the modern era.
No question the center position has gotten worse in the modern era, as the game has shifted to a guard friendly game with all the new rules.

[4down]

Way better than Duncan. The only ones who would take Duncan over Bird are extreme spurs homers.

IF Bird was better, he wasn't WAY better. It's a subjective argument and you're just revealing your own bias and 80's nostalgia.

[Drewlius]

PG - Magic
SG - Jordan
SF - Bird
PF - Duncan
C - Dream

[spursncowboys]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6. Bill Russell
7. Jerry West
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Wilt Chamberlain
Robinson should be over the 'Dream". He had to play against the Lakers. The Dream's toughest test, besides Robinson, was a rookie Shaq with one scorer- Penny. I think Kobe should be on there one day, but not yet. Too many Lakers on there. Kareem or West need to exit and go to the 11-20 list.

[spursncowboys]

I rank them like this:

1 - Hakeem
He could score like Shaq (numbers wise, but not as efficient) in his prime and he was a better closer than the other two, and better at the line. He had more moves than the other two. He was clearly a better defender than the other two.

2 - Shaq
He was a more dominant scorer than the other two. His defense was worse than the others though. He couldn't close games but he was just so hard to stop. Yes, in this case I am clearly picking better offense over worse offense plus better defense.

3 - Duncan
The worst scorer of the three but a better defender than Shaq. A better passer than both. Again, in this case I am picking better offense over defense.

.
Shaq wasn't good at defense? He couldn't close games? They went to Shaq in the fourth to finish games when the Lakers won the three Championships. Shaq was fat and could back players up without getting a foul call. He was also pretty damn good at defense. I hate Shaq but taking away his D takes your credibility away.
Duncan had the best shot!!! He could shoot from anywhere on the court and he would make it. Hakeem had a shot but not as dependable as Duncans. Plus he was alot lower than Duncan.

[scottspurs]

1.Bill Russell
2. MJ
3. Duncan when its all said and done!

[spursncowboys]

PG - Magic
SG - Jordan
SF - Bird
PF - Duncan
C - Dream

Perfect, except Chamberlain as C. and Robinson to back him up.

[scottspurs]

Pg-Magic
Sg-MJ
Sf-Bird
Pf-Duncan
C-Russell

[TIMMYD!]

LMAO the OP list is complete shit... its bad enough he doesnt include Kobe... I would expect that from a spurs fan but to Include Tim Duncan OVER olojuwan and Chamberlin is just idiotic. clearly he doesnt understand that great basketball happened before the mid 90's and to leave any of these guys off the list for tim duncan is just plain stupid....

Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Dave Bing
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Elvin Hayes
Sam Jones
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
Pete Maravich
Kevin McHale
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Tim Duncan goes here not Shaquille O'Fag
Robert Parish
Bob Pettit
Scottie Pippen
Willis Reed
David Robinson
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Bill Walton
Lenny Wilkens
James Worthy