Timmy = not even Top 15 Player All-Time

[alchemist]

Shocking article to say the least.


Off the top of my head I'd take Wilt Chamberlain (always No. 1, the guy averaged 50.4 points a game during the 1961-62 season), Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Bob Cousy ahead of Duncan. There's a quick 10 without as much as a three-second violation.

Nothing against Duncan, but you could also give me Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Julius Erving, Elgin Baylor, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Kevin McHale. Oh, and let's not forget Bob Pettit, Moses Malone, John Stockton and Isiah Thomas.http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/03/29/duncan.spurs/

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

:lmao Bob Cousy

[Dex]

Charles Barkley > Tim Duncan?

Karl Malone > Tim Duncan?

fail.

[tp2021]

Dan Shaughnessy, Columnist for the Boston Globe...
Cool story, bro.

[alchemist]

Tongue in cheek print? I mean Isiah Thomas?

[Mel_13]

Shaughnessy is a born and bred Celtics homer, so take it with a grain of salt.

A reasonable person could make an argument that Tim Duncan is not among the 10 best players in NBA history as it's always subjective comparing players from different eras. A reasonable person can't seriously argue that Bob Cousy belongs in that group, that's a case only a Boston homer can make.

[ElNono]

How could you have Shaq #4 and not find a spot for Duncan, when they arguably had just as dominant careers?

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

http://citizenfall.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/dan_shaughnessy.jpg
I would expect a higher standard of work from the great Jackie Moon.

[FromWayDowntown]

Of course, had Tim Duncan "walked through that door," in 1997 and put up the same numbers in Boston that he's put up over the course of his career, Shaungnessy would undoubtedly be arguing that calling Tim Duncan the greatest player in the history of basketball would be grossly underrating his achievements.

[dbreiden83080]

Bob Cousy.. Oh yeah i am sure tons of teams if had the chance to draft a 21 year old Duncan or Cousy would be letting Tim go for Bobby.. Makes total sense.

Barkley himself would say he is not in Duncan's league..

Tim is top 10 all time fail of an article..

[cd98]

Funny because I rank Tim above Larry Bird.

Duncan won more championships and Finals MVPs than Bird. He won 2 MVPs to Bird's 3, but everyone knows that Duncan deserved the MVP in the year prior to his first, which was given to Karl Malone.

Duncan also won all those titles without a bunch of hall of fame teammates.

[Blackjack]

Of course, had Tim Duncan "walked through that door," in 1997 and put up the same numbers in Boston that he's put up over the course of his career, Shaungnessy would undoubtedly be arguing that calling Tim Duncan the greatest player in the history of basketball would be grossly underrating his achievements.

This; Shirley Temple just doing what Shirley Temple does.

He-Larry-Us . . .

[MoSpur]

My thoughts exactly FromWayDowntown. If the Celtics would've won the 1st pick in the 1997 Draft, then Duncan would be in his top five.

How can he seriously say that Sir Charles and Malone and even Moses Malone are better than Duncan? Complete stupidity.

[cd98]

Per Wikipedia:

In his basketball career, Duncan has collected a number of individual and team honors, including being a two-time MVP (2002, 2003), four-time NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) and three-time NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005). As a college player, he was honored by the House of Representatives (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives),[84] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-83) named the ACC Male Athlete of the Year, won the John R. Wooden Award (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/John_R._Wooden_Award), and was selected as the Naismith College Player of the Year (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Naismith_College_Player_of_the_Year) (all 1997).[10] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-usabio-9) In 2002, Duncan was named to the ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/ACC_50th_Anniversary_men%27s_basketball_team) honoring the 50 greatest players in ACC history.[85] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-84) In his debut year in the NBA (1998), he was voted Rookie of the Year and elected into the All-NBA Rookie Team, made the first of 12 NBA All-Star Teams (1997–98 and 1999–2000 to 2009–10; 11 First Team nominations), 12 All-NBA Teams (1997–98 to 2008–09; nine First Team nominations), and 12 All-Defensive Teams (1997–98 to 2008–09; eight First Team nominations).[3] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-stats-2) With these impressive performances, Duncan is one of only four players to receive All-NBA First Team honors in each of his first eight seasons (1998–2005), along with Hall of Famers Bob Pettit (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Bob_Pettit) (ten seasons), Larry Bird (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Larry_Bird) (nine seasons), and Oscar Robertson (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Oscar_Robertson) (nine seasons), and is the only player in NBA history to receive All-NBA and All-Defensive honors in his first twelve seasons (1997–98 to 2008–09).[86] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-85)
Duncan was also 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.[87] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-86) In the 2001–02 season, he won the IBM (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/IBM) Player Award[88] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-87) and The Sporting News (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/The_Sporting_News) (TSN) MVP Award,[89] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-88) becoming the third player to ever win the NBA MVP, IBM Player and TSN Player Awards in the same season. On February 18, 2006, he was named one of the Next 10 Greatest Players on the tenth anniversary of the release of the NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/NBA%27s_50th_Anniversary_All-Time_Team) by the TNT (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Turner_Network_Television) broadcasting crew.[90] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-next10-89) In 2009, Duncan was ranked 8th by Slam Magazine (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Slam_Magazine) in their list of the Top 50 NBA players of All Time.[91] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-90)

[ambchang]

I would also rank Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson above Tim Duncan.

[HarlemHeat37]

This guy is horrible..most consider Duncan to be in that range, not just for his game, but also for his attitude/approach as a player and teammate..

As for this, some of those players have no argument..Cousy(LOL), Stockton(LOL), Isiah, McHale, Barkley, Lebron(at this point), Baylor, Pettit..

I don't see a convincing argument for Dr.J since you can't really count his ABA years too much IMO..

Robertson's really overrated IMO, but he has an argument, I guess..not ahead of Tim though..

West, Malone(s) and Kobe have arguments, but I don't think they're strong enough unless it's a reach IMO..Kobe has a great argument if he wins a title with a top performance this year, we'll see..

MJ, Russell, Kareem and Wilt are ahead of him without a doubt IMO..Magic and Bird have great arguments and most people consider them to be ahead of him too..

I'd have Timmy right there with Shaq and Olajuwon, slightly ahead of both, but I could understand arguments for them..

I'd go..

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Shaq
9. Olajuwon
10. Kobe

BTW, Boston is butthurt..I'm surprised this guy used his Boston bias to argue for Cousy instead of Hondo..

[dbreiden83080]

I would also rank Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson above Tim Duncan.

I got Thunder Dan Majerle tied with Timmy..


http://www.thefanscorner.com/wp-content/gallery/raw-dan/dan-majerle-bio-website.jpg

[ffadicted]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[MaNu4Tres]

Shaughnessy is a born and bred Celtics homer, so take it with a grain of salt.

A reasonable person could make an argument that Tim Duncan is not among the 10 best players in NBA history as it's always subjective comparing players from different eras. A reasonable person can't seriously argue that Bob Cousy belongs in that group, that's a case only a Boston homer can make.

This

[Whisky Dog]

Hahaha new England fags are so predictable. Cousey, McHale? Really?

I didn't realize the level of butt hurt after 13 years and 4 titles would still be so strong. Hilarious.

[stretch]

dumbest article ive ever read

IMO, Timmy is a top 5 of all time.

[demosthenes247]

Possibly the stupidest article ever. I think it's pretty conservative to say that Duncan is top 10 of all time. He clearly at the very least is the best PF of all time.

[Shastafarian]

Someone should e-mail Shaughnessy and tell him Cousy's career 37.5% FG% really makes him one of the elite.

[lefty]

Dan Shaughnessy, Columnist for the Boston Globe...
Cool story, bro.
And the article came our right after we beat the Celts :rolleyes

[Galileo]

The only players clearly bettert than Duncan are Jordan and Kareem.

Russell and Magic are roughly equal.

That's it.

[Muser]

Lmao. That is all.

[duhoh]

lies!

[FromWayDowntown]

I would also rank Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson above Tim Duncan.

Where are Cornbread Maxwell and Gerald Henderson!!?!?!

Legends, I tell you!

[clubalien]

more proof that david top 50 player >tim duncan not even on list

[whottt]

Duncan also won all those titles without a bunch of hall of fame teammates.

By the time it's said and done Duncan will probably have had at least 1 HOF teamate on every one of his teams, and probably 2 others on several of them. So that's not really an accurate claim.

If Manu retired today he'd make the HOF due to his career body of work if not totally his NBA career.

Parker will probably make the HOF too.

I'd argue that Horry deserves to be in the HOF even though he probably won't be. Anyone that thinks he didn't make more contributions to more championship teams than anyone of his era is delusional.

[Silverheart80]

No less than Charles Barkley, NBA Hall of Famer, has said repeatedly on TNT over the years that Tim Duncan is the best power forward to ever play the game, ahead of himself and Karl Malone. So who's opinion carries more weight -- an NBA Hall of Famer who played the same position, and played against Tim, calling Tim "the best PF ever", or a Chowd fishhack who spouts overglazed opinions and never dribbled a ball professionally?

Is Tim NBA Top 10 all-time? Depends on perspective. If I want a power forward listed in my all-time top 10, I take Tim Duncan every time until someone better comes along, which hasn't happened yet. However, for Chowd to dismiss him as being unworthy of consideration is to be so moronic that the opinion is invalid.

[TimmehC]

McHale and both Malones > Duncan? Zero credibility.

[HarlemHeat37]

It should be more insulting that he didn't even mention 5-0 in his arguments, but I'm used to it by now..David is the most underrated player of all-time with today's NBA fans and coverage IMO..all they remember is the Hakeem series..

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I would expect a higher standard of work from the great Jackie Moon.

You think perhaps these two are related?

http://www.joshbuster.com/images/Actors/Timothy%20Spall.jpg http://citizenfall.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/dan_shaughnessy.jpg

[mudyez]

always was waiting for him to write: "I'm just kidding. Its April 1st folks....Uh damn, its summer time"...but it didnt happen...This guy should be fireded if SI want to save some credebility.

I will avoid SI.com for the next 6 month coz of this stupid article alone...

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Let's not forget that Tim Duncan has only won Finals MVP honors in a mediocre 75% of his finals appearances. Paul Pierce has an immaculate 100% success rate in that regard. I don't care what line of work you're in, if you only show up three quarters of the time I'm not going to say you're a top ten employee.

[ffadicted]

Also can we please all just acknowledge that yes, wilt chamberlain was BA, but fucking Dwight Howard could average 50 and 30 back then lol

[whottt]

It should be more insulting that he didn't even mention 5-0 in his arguments, but I'm used to it by now..David is the most underrated player of all-time with today's NBA fans and coverage IMO..all they remember is the Hakeem series..

:tu

FWIW, the statheads should eventually get David the recognition he deserves. Many efficiency formulas rate David as a top 5 player to ever play the game...

For instance this one here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career.html

although it's funny because often when they come up with a new win stat David will usually be #1 or 2 and they retool the formula in a way that drops him down to lower in the top 10.



I don't think David cares, it's actually better now than it used to be and I always figure the ignorance that leads to him being overlooked punishes those that overlook him worse than it does him.


The guy that wrote this article would probably rate Bill Walton, KG and Paul Pierce over Drob.

[cd98]

By the time it's said and done Duncan will probably have had at least 1 HOF teamate on every one of his teams, and probably 2 others on several of them. So that's not really an accurate claim.

If Manu retired today he'd make the HOF due to his career body of work if not totally his NBA career.

Parker will probably make the HOF too.

I'd argue that Horry deserves to be in the HOF even though he probably won't be. Anyone that thinks he didn't make more contributions to more championship teams than anyone of his era is delusional.

I completely disagree.

1. Bird played and won championships with Parish and McHale all within their primes.

2. Ginoboli is not a hall of fame player strictly on his NBA play, so I can't equate him to the cast Bird had. Parish and McHale played on several all star teams, and Ginoboli has only been on one. Plus, Ginoboli's prime only accounts for two titles. He was a rookie on the first and not nearly the player he was in his prime. Even if you claim he is a HOF player, in 2003 he was not and neither was any other player on that Spurs team. Bird can't claim a title like that.

3. Parker is not a hall of fame player. Not by NBA standards. He's a Kevin Johnson. Or even a Dennis Johnson. A great point guard, yes. But not amongst the upper echelon of Stockton or Magic Johnson. And the only title that fell within his prime was the 2007 title. He's in his prime now.

4. David Robinson had one title in mostly his prime, the 1999. The 2003 title was on the downside of David's career, especially considering he retired at the end of that season.

5. Horry was a good role player on several championship teams. But even Horry will admit he'd have no titles if he didn't have teammates like Hakeem, Tim, Kobe, and Shaq. He played on the best teams of the 90s.

[whottt]

You think perhaps these three are related?

http://www.joshbuster.com/images/Actors/Timothy%20Spall.jpg http://citizenfall.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/dan_shaughnessy.jpghttp://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z72/sirashlondon/38137f.jpg



Fixed :tu

[JamStone]

What a joke. He didn't even mention JJ Hickson.

[HarlemHeat37]

You have to compare teams to their own era, you can't compare them to teams in other eras IMO..

So while Duncan's supporting casts were never great when compared to other legends of different eras, his supporting cast in '99, 2005 and 2007 was always one of the best, if not the best in the NBA..

Obviously if you compare it to Magic and Bird's from the 80s it wouldn't stack up, but teams should only be compared within their own eras IMO..

The 2003 supporting cast was weak for a title team, no doubt about that, but it was a VERY well built team from a roles and defense perspective..it would be impossible to win a title without a good supporting cast, but that one is weak by title standards..

Duncan's other casts have all been very good compared to his own era..

You could possibly use the argument that Duncan would have benefited more had the Spurs' paid the luxury tax more often though..

[Ikstomi]

this is the worst fucking article i have ever seen.
+1

[toki9]

Charles Barkley > Tim Duncan?

Karl Malone > Tim Duncan?

fail.

Hm...even Barkley has put Duncan ahead of himself and Malone...

[alchemist]

I think Pop's words on the whole World Championship thing ruffled some feathers around Boston. :lmao

Boston's butthurt to the fullest.

[senorglory]

I'm still a fan of David Robinson. I don't see how DRob's athleticism wouldn't translate to success in any era.

[ohmwrecker]

I personally think the players of the 60s were more complete when compared to today's players. Still, in the past decade only 3 players have carried a team to the finals: Allen Iverson in 2001, Tim Duncan in 2003 and LeBron in 2007. Only Duncan won because Tim is in fact a top 10 player of all time.

That may be true in a basketball fundamental skills sense, but the game has changed so much that, athletically speaking, the players from that era would have a hard time keeping up with a lot of the players today. This is why Tim Duncan is such a special player. He embodies and exemplifies the span and scope of time in his skill level and play. He is truly representative of the history of basketball.
The idiot who wrote this article should ask Bill Russell what he thinks of Tim Duncan.

[senorglory]

Honestly, hard for me to say much about Russel, Robertson, West, or Cousy-- too long ago and before my time. Wilt's beastliness comes through in his stats, however, and it's pretty clear he dominated as he saw fit.

[Shastafarian]

Honestly, hard for me to say much about Russel, Robertson, West, or Cousy-- too long ago and before my time. Wilt's beastliness comes through in his stats, however, and it's pretty clear he dominated as he saw fit.

Cousy's career FG% is 37.5. Rondo is about to pass him for most assists in a season by a Celtic. Rajon Rondo. Do you need to know more?

[mathbzh]

Iverson > Duncan
Starbury > Iverson
Bonner >> Starbury
Centerpiece >>> Bonner

Rather easy to pile up names :bang

[senorglory]

I don't like it, but his top 10 list isn't bad at all.

[senorglory]

Cousy's career FG% is 37.5. Rondo is about to pass him for most assists in a season by a Celtic. Rajon Rondo. Do you need to know more?

Cousy may be a stretch then.

[TheChillFactor]

lol boston.....

[Galileo]

Shocking article to say the least.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/03/29/duncan.spurs/

NBA MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS = Rings + MVPs + Finals MVPs + 1st Team, All-NBAs

Wilt Chamberlain 14
Bill Russell 19
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 24
Shaquille O'Neal 16
Michael Jordan 27
Magic Johnson 20
Larry Bird 17
Oscar Robertson 11
Jerry West 12
Bob Cousy 16

Duncan 18

Kobe Bryant 13
LeBron James 4
Julius Erving 7
Elgin Baylor 10
Hakeem Olajuwon 11
Charles Barkley 6
Karl Malone 13
Kevin McHale 4
Bob Pettit 13
Moses Malone 9
John Stockton 2
Isiah Thomas 6

:lmao

[Mark in Austin]

Another cunt sportswriter from Boston? I'm just shocked, I tell you.

[Obstructed_View]

The Boston fans REALLY counted their chickens on getting Duncan in '97. Every great thing that's happened to San Antonio should have happend to the Celtics in their minds. Can you really blame them for trying to minimize what Duncan is just to save themselves from the pain?

[duncan228]

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/lead/leadboston.jpg

[TDMVPDPOY]

his afraid duncan could eclipse any celtic player

[cd98]

You have to compare teams to their own era, you can't compare them to teams in other eras IMO..

So while Duncan's supporting casts were never great when compared to other legends of different eras, his supporting cast in '99, 2005 and 2007 was always one of the best, if not the best in the NBA..

Obviously if you compare it to Magic and Bird's from the 80s it wouldn't stack up, but teams should only be compared within their own eras IMO..

The 2003 supporting cast was weak for a title team, no doubt about that, but it was a VERY well built team from a roles and defense perspective..it would be impossible to win a title without a good supporting cast, but that one is weak by title standards..

Duncan's other casts have all been very good compared to his own era..

You could possibly use the argument that Duncan would have benefited more had the Spurs' paid the luxury tax more often though..

Really? Manu and Parker weren't the top of anything in 2003. Not an all star credit to their names. Not anything. They were just good role players, but their skills didn't place them amongst the upper echelon of the league.

And the Spurs beat arguably more talented Mav and Laker teams in that title run.

That title, 2003, makes Duncan unique and gives him a claim to being one of the top 5 players in NBA history.

[VBM]

Really? Manu and Parker weren't the top of anything in 2003. Not an all star credit to their names. Not anything. They were just good role players, but their skills didn't place them amongst the upper echelon of the league.



Speedy Claxton was arguably our most effective PG at times, esp. in the closeout game that year.

[CubanSucks]

:lmao Bob Cousy

Please tell me you're a female. If not then you're the biggest flamer in the world based on that sig

[BillMc]

Shaq is/was not better than Duncan. Kobe is overrated - 1 title as alpha dog. Barkley never played d- I could go on, but what is the point?

[Pero]

Please tell me you're a female. If not then you're the biggest flamer in the world based on that sig

Guess you don't read the NBA forum much. :lol

[austN Spur]

raising the bar one thread @ a time CHECK
:flag:
this was a good read

[bigfan]

I think Shaunessey had better lay off the Sam Adams and pull his head out of his ass.

[TIMMYD!]

:lol:lol:lmao

This guy is a dumbass.

[Cane]

The author didn't even make real arguments other than list names and just saying that they're better simply because he listed them.

Horrible article that reeks of butthurt.

[Sec24Row7]

Does that guy play wormtail in the Harry Potter Movies?

[whottt]

I completely disagree.

Oh I know that. I am more aware of that than you are. :toast

The reason you disagree with me is that the foundation of your argument lies on false information, double standards, seeing only what you want and ignoring what you don't.

Exactly like the guy who wrote this article.

In fact this probably the 200th time I've engaged in this basic debate, I can dismantle every facet of it you are going to make, probably before you even begin to make it...in fact I am going to do that beginning with this post.

And I can guarantee you will not be making this argument 2 or 3 years down the road.

In fact I am pretty sure you will never again attempt to claim McHale was in his prime for the Celtics titles again after the very next statement I make.




1. Bird played and won championships with Parish and McHale all within their primes.

Based on what? The Celtics won a title in 1981, which would be McHale's rookie season when he was younger(23) than Manu Ginobili was when Manu joined the Spurs(25), and less accomplished against NBA players.


False information, and a double standard.


Say goodbye to McHale's prime...or say hello to Manu's, your choice. And McHale came off the bench for that first title.





2. Ginoboli is not a hall of fame player strictly on his NBA play, so I can't equate him to the cast Bird had. Parish and McHale played on several all star teams, and Ginoboli has only been on one. Plus, Ginoboli's prime only accounts for two titles.

According your logic, his prime counts as 3 titles since he was older than McHale and you consider McHale to be in his prime for all of the Celts titles.



He was a rookie on the first

So was Kevin McHale. Much more of one than Manu was. More of one than Parker was.



and not nearly the player he was in his prime.

More in his prime than Kevin Mchale. And more accomplished.



Even if you claim he is a HOF player, in 2003 he was not and neither was any other player on that Spurs team. Bird can't claim a title like that.

McHale and Parish weren't HOF'ers on the first Celts championship either.


But you know what...Manu looked to be more in his prime, than Duncan, Hakeem, or Shaq exactly 1 year later when he proceeded to kick the Dreams ass off the court in the 2004 Olympics.

I know Duncan's cast of LeBron, Melo, Amar'e, AI etc.(not to mention Pop as an assistant) weren't exactly in their primes...but then neither was Manu according to you.

And you know...

That's not Duncan carrying the team and kicking the shit out of the Celts and Cavs the past week...that is Manu, and he is well past his prime. He's also still only got 1 AS game to his credit.





3. Parker is not a hall of fame player. Not by NBA standards. He's a Kevin Johnson. Or even a Dennis Johnson. A great point guard, yes. But not amongst the upper echelon of Stockton or Magic Johnson. And the only title that fell within his prime was the 2007 title. He's in his prime now.

Well, Parish and McHale aren't great players compared to Wilt and Kareem, your point?

Another double standard.



4. David Robinson had one title in mostly his prime, the 1999. The 2003 title was on the downside of David's career, especially considering he retired at the end of that season.

Nontheless, David Robinson was the guy guarding the player widely considered to be the best in the league at that time, Shaquille O'Neal.

I know the guy guarding Shaq when the Spurs dethroened a 3 time defending champion(Shaq being the finals MVP on all 3) is rather an insignificant side note to you, but I promise you, there's a reason David was the main guy that did it and Duncan wasn't.





5. Horry was a good role player on several championship teams. But even Horry will admit he'd have no titles if he didn't have teammates like Hakeem, Tim, Kobe, and Shaq. He played on the best teams of the 90s.

Really?

Well, I look and see Horry has 5 championships without Hakeem, 5 without Duncan, 4 without Shaq, while they have 3 without him...combined.


Furthermore, on more than one occassion Robert Horry clearly was the reason his team won a game that decided a series...that decided a championship.

For instance in game 5 of the 2005 Finals, Duncan was missing FT's at the line and taking his team out of the game when he was basically grabbed by the scruff of his neck and carried to a win by Robert Horry.

No shame in it, because Robert Horry did the exact same things for Hakeem and Shaq(and Kobe) as well.

The shame lies in not giving Horry his due. How can you deny that game 5, easily one of the most clutch performances in NBA history, if not the most clutch.

You can surely say Robert Horry would not have won titles, without them, except for the fact that he did...more than they did without him. Nearly twice as more.

And you can also say when the Lakers were winning 3 in a row, going through the Spurs for 2 of them...Robert Horry, not Shaq, was the guy guarding Duncan...much like he was one of the main defenders on David Robinson when Hakeem, who btw at the age of 34-35 was well past his prime, based on your standard for Davd being passed his, won his titles with Horry.


Furthermore, Robert only won at most 3 titles in the 90 while he unuestionably won 4 in the 00's...

And Robert did not play on the best teams in the 90's...that would be Michael Jordan's Bulls.

Fasle information.

However it is important to note, Michael Jordan and his Bulls teams are widely considered the greatest player and teams of all time...


6 championships.

Robrt Horry has 7, and not a one of them earned playing with Michael Jordan inspite of playing in the same era. And not a one of Michael's rings came against a team that had Horry on it. Meanwhile Horry does have rings against Hakeem and Duncan. More against them than they got going against his teams or a push at best.


The next closest competitor to Michael Jordan's Bulls in the 90's however is not a team...such as the Rockets, it's a player, Robert Horry. He won the second most rings behind Jordan and the Bulls in the 90's.

Not Shaq, not Hakeem, no the Lakers, not the Rockets, but Robert Horry.


Saying it is a fluke may work the first 5 times it happens, but after the 7th to continue to make the claim is obviously denial.


Especially since Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan all missed the playoffs or got eliminated in the first round, while Horry never did, and he was playing with one of them every year of his career.

There is absolutely no argument anyone can make that Horry did not improve his teams and contribute to them winning titles. And those stars he played with owe him every bit as much as he owes them.


Oh and btw, Parker is a finals MVP, something McHale and Parish never were.



I realize you just want to see Duncan get his credit, as do I...but that's no reason to make false arguments, use double standards and throw players that won the Spurs titles under the bus. That's doing to those players the same thing this author is doing to Duncan.

[Shastafarian]

You don't wanna argue with whottt. He came up with supermassive blackholes before anyone else did. And his professor thought him a dullard! rofl

[urunobili]

fuck I love ST when whottt goes ape shit on trolls and put biased fucks on their place :wakeup

[whottt]

You don't wanna argue with whottt. He came up with supermassive blackholes before anyone else did. And his professor thought him a dullard! rofl

You guys need to excuse Shasta, being primarily a SR guy he's not used to debates based on facts and logic.

[ffadicted]

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/lead/leadboston.jpg

:rollin:rollin

[Shastafarian]

You guys need to excuse Shasta, being primarily a SR guy he's not used to debates based on facts and logic.

Facts like David Robinson guarding Shaq in 2003?

Series minute averages:

Shaq - 38.3

DRob - 21

Did Robinson guard Shaq when he was in? Yeah he did. But using the simple fact that he guarded him to say, "there's a reason David was the main guy that did it and Duncan wasn't" is ridiculous. Because Duncan did a great job on Shaq as well. What's interesting is that David had 30 minutes in game 1 and then 17-15-14 in the next three. If he was so crucial to stopping Shaq why didn't he play more in those games? He played 27 and 23 in games 5 and 6 so he couldn't have been in that much pain.

[whottt]

That title, 2003, makes Duncan unique and gives him a claim to being one of the top 5 players in NBA history.

That title, 2003, is also going to go down as a team that had 4 HOF'ers on it, comparable to any team champion in NBA history outside of a couple Celtics and Lakers team and the 80's 76'ers champion, including a non-American Olympic Gold Medalist who beat a dream team in the only it has happened to date, 2 of the NBA's 50 greatest, the all time greatest 3 point shooter...a borderline HOF bigman.

All that and I didn't even mention Stephen Jackson, a guy who the Spurs still haven't fully replaced.

On the contrary, that team was the best Spurs team ever, it was probably one of the best teams ever, and if you think Tim Duncan won that title all by himself you evidentally missed the Lakers kicking the Spurs asses off the court the previous 2 years, and beating them again the following year when many of those players were gone.

And BTW, it still took Robert Horry missing the only big playoff shot of his career to beat that Laker team.

One man teams don't beat 3 time defending champions. If Duncan was that good he would have won a title every year he was healthy.


Edit: I forgot to mention Bruce Bowen and his 8 all NBA d teams...I know he was relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things...I mean he was only guarding Kobe and when did Kobe ever give the Spurs trouble?

[whottt]

Facts like David Robinson guarding Shaq in 2003?

Series minute averages:

Shaq - 38.3

DRob - 21

Did Robinson guard Shaq when he was in? Yeah he did. But using the simple fact that he guarded him to say, "there's a reason David was the main guy that did it and Duncan wasn't" is ridiculous. Because Duncan did a great job on Shaq as well. What's interesting is that David had 30 minutes in game 1 and then 17-15-14 in the next three. If he was so crucial to stopping Shaq why didn't he play more in those games? He played 27 and 23 in games 5 and 6 so he couldn't have been in that much pain.



I don't supposed it's dawned on you that the games David played the fewest minutes were the two losses in the series has it?

And that 14 minute game David was fouled out in 14 minutes, by Bavetta or Crawford(I can't remember which one).

[Shastafarian]

I don't supposed it's dawned on you that the games David played the fewest minutes were the two losses in the series has it?

And that 14 minute game David was fouled out in 14 minutes, by Bavetta or Crawford(I can't remember which one).

Wrong assuming you're differentiating the 17/15 games and the 14 minutes game based on him fouling out. He played 17 minutes in game 2, a win, and did not foul out. He played 15 minutes in game 3. Game 3 in which Shaq was second fiddle (21 pts 16 reb) to Kobe (39/4/4). He did foul out in game 4, a loss, after totaling 0 pts and 3 reb. I'm as big a David Robinson fan as there is. But to say he was still the David Robinson of old in 2003 is ludicrous.

Xsp3_a-PMTw

[TD 21]

4 Hall of Famers? Maybe, there's no guarantee. The reality is the '03 team had 1 player playing at a Hall of Fame level at the time (actually he was playing beyond a Hall of Fame level at the time).

Duncan went to another level that year, O'Neal wasn't quite as dominant as he was the previous few years (this coincided with Bryant beginning to become the go-to guy), Parker was a year older, Ginobili had joined the team and Jackson was a steal. But make no mistake, the first one was primary reasons the Spurs got by the Lakers.

It's easy to go back and look at the names now and say "what a loaded team", but at the time it was a team without a bona fide second scorer and no go-to guy on the perimeter, which is why they were prone to offensive droughts. Obviously other guys stepped up and played a part, but that team won primarily with a historical level of performance from Duncan and historical level defense. If it was an all-time loaded team like you say, then they would have waltzed through the playoffs in easier fashion than they did.

The '03 team was not the best team, '05-'07 was really the peak of the Spurs dominance because Ginobili and then Parker had reached certified star level, with Ginobili at times playing superstar caliber.

[Spurminator]

Well I can't argue with the sound analysis and back-up in that column.

[whottt]

Wrong assuming you're differentiating the 17/15 games and the 14 minutes game based on him fouling out. He played 17 minutes in game 2, a win, and did not foul out. He played 15 minutes in game 3. Game 3 in which Shaq was second fiddle (21 pts 16 reb) to Kobe (39/4/4). He did foul out in game 4, a loss, after totaling 0 pts and 3 reb. I'm as big a David Robinson fan as there is. But to say he was still the David Robinson of old in 2003 is ludicrous.

Xsp3_a-PMTw

Um...I clearly said the games David played the fewest minutes were the 2 losses. Which they were.

You want the quote:


don't supposed it's dawned on you that the games David played the fewest minutes were the two losses in the series has it?

Do you not see how what you said has nothing to do with what I said?


2 losses. David played 15 minutes in 1 and 14 in the other. The 14 minute game he fouled out, and it was pretty obvious it was a deliberate attempt to foul him out to give the Lakers the advantage.

And furthermore, Kevin Willis and Malik Rose also guarded Shaq extensively in that series when David wasn't. Kevin Willis in particular was key.


And if Duncan is such a great Shaq defender, then what happened in 2004? We still had Kevin Willis and Malik Rose you know...

In addition to Rasho and Horry.

Pop tried to guard him with Horry.

Why don't you look and see what Shaq did to us in 2004 VS every other time we played him in the playoffs ever, with David.

Shaq was held to his playoff lows for that season every single time he was guarded by David Robinson...and he destroyed our frontline the year after David left.


And finally, I didn't say David was still the David of old in that series. And yes his medical problems were that bad...he often was left without any feelings in his legs.

Nontheless David on his last legs in the NBA against Shaq in his prime was a better Shaq defender than Duncan was on his best day in his prime.

And one other thing...Shaq didn't score a point from the field with David on him in game 1 of that series. I know because I was keeping track of it in a game log..either here or at SR.

[CubanSucks]

4 Hall of Famers? Maybe, there's no guarantee. The reality is the '03 team had 1 player playing at a Hall of Fame level at the time (actually he was playing beyond a Hall of Fame level at the time).

Duncan went to another level that year, O'Neal wasn't quite as dominant as he was the previous few years (this coincided with Bryant beginning to become the go-to guy), Parker was a year older, Ginobili had joined the team and Jackson was a steal. But make no mistake, the first one was primary reasons the Spurs got by the Lakers.

It's easy to go back and look at the names now and say "what a loaded team", but at the time it was a team without a bona fide second scorer and no go-to guy on the perimeter, which is why they were prone to offensive droughts. Obviously other guys stepped up and played a part, but that team won primarily with a historical level of performance from Duncan and historical level defense. If it was an all-time loaded team like you say, then they would have waltzed through the playoffs in easier fashion than they did.

The '03 team was not the best team, '05-'07 was really the peak of the Spurs dominance because Ginobili and then Parker had reached certified star level, with Ginobili at times playing superstar caliber.

Are you out of your mind? 03 Spurs would smash those teams for the simple reason of the Twin Towers on defense. Sure Robinson wasn't the crazy athletic scorer that he used to be but on D he was still insane. Not to mention Duncan being at his absolute prime. NO ONE could score within 10 feet of the basket when they were together

[whottt]

4 Hall of Famers? Maybe, there's no guarantee. The reality is the '03 team had 1 player playing at a Hall of Fame level at the time (actually he was playing beyond a Hall of Fame level at the time).

Duncan went to another level that year, O'Neal wasn't quite as dominant as he was the previous few years (this coincided with Bryant beginning to become the go-to guy), Parker was a year older, Ginobili had joined the team and Jackson was a steal. But make no mistake, the first one was primary reasons the Spurs got by the Lakers.

It's easy to go back and look at the names now and say "what a loaded team", but at the time it was a team without a bona fide second scorer and no go-to guy on the perimeter, which is why they were prone to offensive droughts. Obviously other guys stepped up and played a part, but that team won primarily with a historical level of performance from Duncan and historical level defense. If it was an all-time loaded team like you say, then they would have waltzed through the playoffs in easier fashion than they did.

The '03 team was not the best team, '05-'07 was really the peak of the Spurs dominance because Ginobili and then Parker had reached certified star level, with Ginobili at times playing superstar caliber.

Yeah...well, Duncan wasn't the guy kicking Kobe's ass. And he wasn't the guy holding Shaq to his playoff lows.


Were you guys even fans then?


We didn't even belong on the same court as the Lakers without Bowen to put on Kobe.


Don't give me this one man team shit.

All it proves is you either weren't actually watching those games or you can't breakdown a game worth a crap.

[cd98]

I don't supposed it's dawned on you that the games David played the fewest minutes were the two losses in the series has it?

And that 14 minute game David was fouled out in 14 minutes, by Bavetta or Crawford(I can't remember which one).

You're a bit overrated. I don't have time to refute all your statements, though I disagree with most of them. I will simply reserve my arguments for the premise that no other superstar can claim that they won a championship (I think Detroit Pistons of 2006 had no superstars- to their credit) without HOF quality players playing in their prime, except Duncan.

A few counter arguments:


Celtics had 4 future HOF players in 1981. Three of which were in their prime or nearly in their prime: Larry Bird, Nate Archibald, and Robert Parish. You go on about Kevin McHale, fine, let's exclude him until he is in his prime for the 1984 and 1986 championships. You also conviently forget to mention Robert Parish in your email rant. He was a HOF in his prime in 1981, ame with Nate Archibald. Tim Duncan had no Robert Parish or Tim Archibald in 2003.
McHale and Parish are in the hall of fame. Tony Parker has not had a HOF career. He's a good player, one of the best point guards of his era, but he is a Kevin Johnson or a Dennis Johnson. And he didn't really come into his own until around 2006, not 2003.
If S. Jax was so great in 2003, why no big F.A. contract?
So what to the fact that D. Rob guarded Shaq. So did every center in the NBA. Your point? D. Rob was not near the same player in 2003 and retired after the season exactly because of that. His minutes were down that year as were all of his stats. He was a nice role player and was able to keep Tim out of foul trouble by taking most of the minutes guarding Shaq, but he was not playing HOF basketball at that point in his career.
You overrate Horry. He wouldn't have had a chance to make any of those big shots if not for Kobe, Shaq, Tim, and Hakeem. End of discussion if you think they owe any of their titles to Horry. They did 98% of the work. Not to say that Horry wasn't clutch and a great role player, but he was a role player. And role players don't go to the HOF. Tell me how many titles Horry won with the Suns. Nada because he didn't have any HOF players to do the heavy lifting. And Tim Duncan won a title without him in 1999 and 2003 and really in 2007 as well (considering he had nothing in the tank).

[TD 21]

Are you out of your mind? 03 Spurs would smash those teams for the simple reason of the Twin Towers on defense. Sure Robinson wasn't the crazy athletic scorer that he used to be but on D he was still insane. Not to mention Duncan being at his absolute prime. NO ONE could score within 10 feet of the basket when they were together

The '04 team actually had the best defensive efficiency mark of any Spurs team. People have revisionist history with the '03 team, because the names makes it seem better than it actually was. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it wasn't a very good team, but the peak of the Spurs dominance was really 05-07.

[TD 21]

Yeah...well, Duncan wasn't the guy kicking Kobe's ass. And he wasn't the guy holding Shaq to his playoff lows.


Were you guys even fans then?


We didn't even belong on the same court as the Lakers without Bowen to put on Kobe.


Don't give me this one man team shit.

All it proves is you either weren't actually watching those games or you can't breakdown a game worth a crap.

Who said one man team? You're an idiot who's too caught up in being a Robinson fan to realize that that team won because they had the best player in the league playing at a historically great level and a historically great defense. Other than that, the rest of the team was made up of role players. Sure, they stepped up and contributed, but that happens on every championship team. The bottom line is, if Duncan wasn't playing at the level he was, that team wasn't a championship team, because there was no consistent second star to take the load off of him.

No, what it proves is that you're really more of a Robinson fan than a Spurs fan, which has been evident in every post I've seen of yours (admittedly, not an overwhelming amount, but enough to know what you're about).

[cd98]

The 2003 Team had some very good players that went on to have good careers. Steven Jackson is a good player, but never an all-star. Bruce Bowen was a fine defensive player, but he was no HOF player. Tony had good raw talent, but he took his step to greatness in 2006, but not HOF greatness. Manu became a star, but not for the first two seasons. David gave us good minutes at center, but he slowed down Shaq, he didn't stop him. And David was not in HOF mode in 2003. Steve Kerr was as important, and he also retired the next year.

Fact is that Whott has not named an NBA HOF player that has won a title with a less talented cast of players than 2003 Tim Duncan given their relative abilities at the time. Tim was a manchild in 2003 as the MVP of the league. He owned the league that year much like Lebron has owned the league this year (with equally lesser talent). In fact, I'd say if Lebron won the title this year, I'd probably say it was on par with Tim. But certainly as great as Larry Bird was, he never did a 2003 title a la Tim Duncan.

[FeZZy]

wow is someone jealous because they didn't get the lottery balls to go there way and had to pick paul pierce instead of timmy d even though the celtics had the most losses that year...or is it the fact that we just creamed your team by 21 yesterday

[CubanSucks]

You're a bit overrated. I don't have time to refute all your statements, though I disagree with most of them. I will simply reserve my arguments for the premise that no other superstar can claim that they won a championship (I think Detroit Pistons of 2006 had no superstars- to their credit) without HOF quality players playing in their prime, except Duncan.

A few counter arguments:


Celtics had 4 future HOF players in 1981. Three of which were in their prime or nearly in their prime: Larry Bird, Nate Archibald, and Robert Parish. You go on about Kevin McHale, fine, let's exclude him until he is in his prime for the 1984 and 1986 championships. You also conviently forget to mention Robert Parish in your email rant. He was a HOF in his prime in 1981, ame with Nate Archibald. Tim Duncan had no Robert Parish or Tim Archibald in 2003.
McHale and Parish are in the hall of fame. Tony Parker has not had a HOF career. He's a good player, one of the best point guards of his era, but he is a Kevin Johnson or a Dennis Johnson. And he didn't really come into his own until around 2006, not 2003.
If S. Jax was so great in 2003, why no big F.A. contract?
So what to the fact that D. Rob guarded Shaq. So did every center in the NBA. Your point? D. Rob was not near the same player in 2003 and retired after the season exactly because of that. His minutes were down that year as were all of his stats. He was a nice role player and was able to keep Tim out of foul trouble by taking most of the minutes guarding Shaq, but he was not playing HOF basketball at that point in his career.
You overrate Horry. He wouldn't have had a chance to make any of those big shots if not for Kobe, Shaq, Tim, and Hakeem. End of discussion if you think they owe any of their titles to Horry. They did 98% of the work. Not to say that Horry wasn't clutch and a great role player, but he was a role player. And role players don't go to the HOF. Tell me how many titles Horry won with the Suns. Nada because he didn't have any HOF players to do the heavy lifting. And Tim Duncan won a title without him in 1999 and 2003 and really in 2007 as well (considering he had nothing in the tank).


Hate to nitpick but he had said before that season even started that it was going to be his last no matter what. Which made it even sweeter that he went out on top

[Muser]

Wilt was way before my time, but wasn't he an atrocious FT shooter?

[cd98]

Hate to nitpick but he had said before that season even started that it was going to be his last no matter what. Which made it even sweeter that he went out on top

Agreed. He had had several back issues and missed games over the last few years and knew it was time to call it quits. Same with Kerr. Neither of them waivered, even after winning a title.

[cd98]

I would also add that Whott's Horry argument is meritless unless he advocates Steve Kerr for the HOF as well. Steve Kerr won four titles and hit big shots for Jordan and Duncan, including his memorable streak of threes against Dallas in 2003. But no one with a straight face could argue he was a HOF player. And before you spout off Horry having more titles, remember that in 2007 Horry did next to nothing and did not hit big shots in 1994 or 2000. Again, he might have been a good role player in 1994 or 2000, but he didn't do anything to elicit the nonsensical argument that he should be in the HOF based purely on the number of titles he has won as part of a championship team.

[whottt]

You're a bit overrated. I don't have time to refute all your statements, though I disagree with most of them. I will simply reserve my arguments for the premise that no other superstar can claim that they won a championship (I think Detroit Pistons of 2006 had no superstars- to their credit) without HOF quality players playing in their prime, except Duncan.

A few counter arguments:

[LIST=1]
Celtics had 4 future HOF players in 1981.

And a very strong case can be made that so did the 2003 Spurs. Since it's not possible for all of them to be in the HOF yet, there is no way you can refute that point. There is most certainly a reasonable argument that 2003 team had four future HOF'ers on it.





Three of which were in their prime or nearly in their prime: Larry Bird, Nate Archibald, and Robert Parish.

#1. Nate Archibald was in his prime? He was 3 years away from retirement...age 32. If you want to say near to prime then I can say Parker and Manu were near to their primes too. Hell David wasn't that far removed from his. Near to prime.

#2. You were the one that mentioned McHale and Parish(and no one else) as being in their primes...and then you tried to claim Manu wasn't in his and it contradicted your claim McHale was.

Why did you do that?

I am not the one that said a younger rookie was in his prime and an older one with far more experience wasn't, to cast the player I am jocking as a 1 man team.

It's you that did that, it's you that is also backpedaling away from the statement, and I strongly susptect it will be either the last time you claim McHale was in his prime for the Bird championships(as in all of them) or it will be the last time you claim Manu wasn't in his prime for 3 with the Spurs.




You go on about Kevin McHale, fine, let's exclude him until he is in his prime for the 1984 and 1986 championships. You also conviently forget to mention Robert Parish in your email rant. He was a HOF in his prime in 1981, ame with Nate Archibald. Tim Duncan had no Robert Parish or Tim Archibald in 2003.
McHale and Parish are in the hall of fame.


Parish? Well Parish most certainly was not a HOF'er in the Celtics first championship. In fact he had never made an AS game prior to that season. In fact none of them were HOF'ers yet in their first championship, and if their careers had ended after that year, none of them would have made the HOF.

And since Parish was 29, if he was in his prime for that championship, then he certainly wasn't for the last one when he was 33 years old or roughly the same age Duncan is now.

So no....at best one of Bird's championships came with McHale and Parish both in their primes. And technically...McHale was not truly in his prime for the second Celts championship being 26. According to your criteria for Parker, he was sort of just coming into his own. Parker had a finals MVP by age 25. McHale wasn't even off the bench yet at age 26.

And if 26 is prime...then Manu qualifies as being near to prime in 2003, since he was 25.

And finally...how many Finals MVP's do Parish and McHale have?

How about how many championships do they have?

Exactly what is your claim they are HOF'ers and Parker isn't it?




Tony Parker has not had a HOF career. He's a good player, one of the best point guards of his era, but he is a Kevin Johnson or a Dennis Johnson. And he didn't really come into his own until around 2006, not 2003.

Well he started for an NBA champion at the age of 20 and had a finals MVP at the age of 25...and was already a multiple All Star by the time he entered his, prime.

So obviously, as evidenced by the fact he had a finals MVP by age 25, he probably wasn't just some scrub placeholder at 20.

Place holders don't start for NBA champions at age 20. Future finals MVP's do.

How does that compare to Kevin Johnson? And how many finals MVP's does he have? How many do he McHale and Parish combined have?

Were any of these guys even starting at age 20, much less starting for an NBA champion?

And yet they are the HOF'ers and he isn't?

Parker is going to be in the HOF. Guaranteed.




If S. Jax was so great in 2003, why no big F.A. contract?

Ok SJax sucked in 2003. Total dead weight.

We could have just plugged Steve Smith in his spot...another placeholder.




So what to the fact that D. Rob guarded Shaq. So did every center in the NBA. Your point?


Did every center in the NBA hold him to his playoff lows every time they met in the playoffs? Did every center in the NBA defend him in a series they won when he was a 3 time defending champ and considered the best player in the NBA?





D. Rob was not near the same player in 2003 and retired after the season exactly because of that. His minutes were down that year as were all of his stats. He was a nice role player and was able to keep Tim out of foul trouble by taking most of the minutes guarding Shaq, but he was not playing HOF basketball at that point in his career.

As far as defending Shaq goes he still was. Since he did it better than anyone else in the league. Even then.

And David could have continued playing had he truly wanted.

Since David retired we have not had a better c than he was in his final season.

Ask Pop and Duncan if you don't believe me.




You overrate Horry. He wouldn't have had a chance to make any of those big shots if not for Kobe, Shaq, Tim, and Hakeem.

And they in turn would not have won any of those championships had he not done so.

He's the one that could replace superstars fairly easily and still win championships, they had a hell of a lot tougher time replacing him. That's why he's got more rings without them than they do with him. That's why he's got more rings than they do.

I mean based on the logic you are using...he is harder to replace than they are. He's the one that replaced Hakeem with Shaq and Shaq with Duncan.

Who did they replace him with, and did it produce a title?





End of discussion if you think they owe any of their titles to Horry. They did 98% of the work. Not to say that Horry wasn't clutch and a great role player, but he was a role player. And role players don't go to the HOF. Tell me how many titles Horry won with the Suns. Nada because he didn't have any HOF players to do the heavy lifting. And Tim Duncan won a title without him in 1999 and 2003 and really in 2007 as well (considering he had nothing in the tank).


Well, the Rockets replaced him with Charles Bakrley and...failed to win a title.
The Lakers replaced him Karl Malone and...failed to win a title.
And the Spurs replaced him with Matt Bonner and got a first round exit for the first time in Duncan's career.


According to you Duncan is a one man team capable of beating anyone and he is in his prime just like Parish was at age 33 when he won his last Celtics title...so how come Duncan got bounced in the first round last year?


Duncan is a one man team capable of beating a 3 time champion by himself...why hasn't he won a title every year of his career?

Since no one else matters but Duncan?

BTW, I am putting you on my role player watch cd98...first time I see you compalining about the supporting cast I am going to mention that they don't matter if you have Tim Duncan.

:toast

[cd98]

And a very strong case can be made that so did the 2003 Spurs. Since it's not possible for all of them to be in the HOF yet, there is no way you can refute that point. There is most certainly a reasonable argument that 2003 team had four future HOF'ers on it.





#1. Nate Archibald was in his prime? He was 3 years away from retirement...age 32. If you want to say near to prime then I can say Parker and Manu were near to their primes too. Hell David wasn't that far removed from his. Near to prime.

#2. You were the one that mentioned McHale and Parish(and no one else) as being in their primes...and then you tried to claim Manu wasn't in his and it contradicted your claim McHale was.

Why did you do that?

I am not the one that said a younger rookie was in his prime and an older one with far more experience wasn't, to cast the player I am jocking as a 1 man team.

It's you that did that, it's you that is also backpedaling away from the statement, and I strongly susptect it will be either the last time you claim McHale was in his prime for the Bird championships(as in all of them) or it will be the last time you claim Manu wasn't in his prime for 3 with the Spurs.





Parish? Well Parish most certainly was not a HOF'er in the Celtics first championship. In fact he had never made an AS game prior to that season. In fact none of them were HOF'ers yet in their first championship, and if their careers had ended after that year, none of them would have made the HOF.

And since Parish was 29, if he was in his prime for that championship, then he certainly wasn't for the last one when he was 33 years old or roughly the same age Duncan is now.

So no....at best one of Bird's championships came with McHale and Parish both in their primes. And technically...McHale was not truly in his prime for the second Celts championship being 26. According to your criteria for Parker, he was sort of just coming into his own. Parker had a finals MVP by age 25. McHale wasn't even off the bench yet at age 26.

And if 26 is prime...then Manu qualifies as being near to prime in 2003, since he was 25.

And finally...how many Finals MVP's do Parish and McHale have?

How about how many championships do they have?

Exactly what is your claim they are HOF'ers and Parker isn't it?




Well he started for an NBA champion at the age of 20 and had a finals MVP at the age of 25...and was already a multiple All Star by the time he entered his, prime.

So obviously, as evidenced by the fact he had a finals MVP by age 25, he probably wasn't just some scrub placeholder at 20.

Place holders don't start for NBA champions at age 20. Future finals MVP's do.

How does that compare to Kevin Johnson? And how many finals MVP's does he have? How many do he McHale and Parish combined have?

Were any of these guys even starting at age 20, much less starting for an NBA champion?

And yet they are the HOF'ers and he isn't?

Parker is going to be in the HOF. Guaranteed.




Ok SJax sucked in 2003. Total dead weight.

We could have just plugged Steve Smith in his spot...another placeholder.





Did every center in the NBA hold him to his playoff lows every time they met in the playoffs? Did every center in the NBA defend him in a series they won when he was a 3 time defending champ and considered the best player in the NBA?





As far as defending Shaq goes he still was. Since he did it better than anyone else in the league. Even then.

And David could have continued playing had he truly wanted.

Since David retired we have not had a better c than he was in his final season.

Ask Pop and Duncan if you don't believe me.




And they in turn would not have won any of those championships had he not done so.

He's the one that could replace superstars fairly easily and still win championships, they had a hell of a lot tougher time replacing him. That's why he's got more rings without them than they do with him. That's why he's got more rings than they do.

I mean based on the logic you are using...he is harder to replace than they are. He's the one that replaced Hakeem with Shaq and Shaq with Duncan.

Who did they replace him with, and did it produce a title?





Well, the Rockets replaced him with Charles Bakrley and...failed to win a title.
The Lakers replaced him Karl Malone and...failed to win a title.
And the Spurs replaced him with Matt Bonner and got a first round exit for the first time in Duncan's career.


According to you Duncan is a one man team capable of beating anyone and he is in his prime just like Parish was at age 33 when he won his last Celtics title...so how come Duncan got bounced in the first round last year?


Duncan is a one man team capable of beating a 3 time champion by himself...why hasn't he won a title every year of his career?

Since no one else matters but Duncan?

BTW, I am putting you on my role player watch cd98...first time I see you compalining about the supporting cast I am going to mention that they don't matter if you have Tim Duncan.

:toast

Ginoboli at 32 is pretty special the last few weeks.

[whottt]

Tell me how many titles Horry won with the Suns

0

He was only with the Suns for a half a season and he was traded to the Lakers before the seasons end. He could have been the greatest player of all time and it still would have been impossible for him to win a title with the Suns. ;)

And shame on your for minimizing his title winning clutch performance in game 5 of the 2005 NBA finals.

Just aint right.

[whottt]

Who said one man team? You're an idiot who's too caught up in being a Robinson fan to realize that that team won because they had the best player in the league playing at a historically great level and a historically great defense. Other than that, the rest of the team was made up of role players. Sure, they stepped up and contributed, but that happens on every championship team. The bottom line is, if Duncan wasn't playing at the level he was, that team wasn't a championship team, because there was no consistent second star to take the load off of him.

No, what it proves is that you're really more of a Robinson fan than a Spurs fan, which has been evident in every post I've seen of yours (admittedly, not an overwhelming amount, but enough to know what you're about).

8 time all NBA D is a role player?


And if you were paying attention, I'm not just defending David Robinson, I'm defending Tony Parker and Manu and Stephen Jackson...I am defending the team over the individual.

You OTOH...I see significant evidence to indicate you are in a fact a Tim Duncan fan and not a SpursFan, in fact, Duncan is obviously the only player that matters to you TD 21.

And Duncan got his ass kicked into the dirt in 2001 and 2002. So obviously...it takes more than him playing great to win a title. Something I am sure he would be the first to admit.

[Thomas82]

I like this article much better than the one that's being talked about:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1165279/index.htm?eref=sisf

[raspsa]

I'd judge how great a player is/was bythe numer of championships and most importantly, the amount of talent he had surrounding him. Duncan truly is deserving.
I think the whippng the Spurs gave the Celtics must sting pretty bad. :lol

[cd98]

Most of your responses are just to mischaracterize my arguments and make counter arguments. I could respond to them, but you would just mischaracterize my responses and we would go around in circles.

My point is that Tim Duncan is the only superstar to win a title without another teammate that is a hall of famer playing in his prime. If you think that is Larry Bird, well it doesn't hold up on the facts, but you can believe what you want. My point is that Tim Duncan, in his prime, was so good he could win titles with role players and no superstars. You have failed to cite any other NBA superstar to do that, so my take is that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I respect some of your arguments, though I disagree with them. In my book Parker, though a great point guard, is not a HOF. And to play the championship card is pretty silly given that Parker was benched in the 2003 finals because of his poor production. But he certainly showed us something in 2007 and if you think 2006 forward is worthy of HOF status, then you are entitled to your opinion.

But your Robert Horry argument is pure nonsense. To say Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, and Hakeem would not have won titles without Horry destroys your credibility. They are only the best players in the league for the last 10 years. Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan have won titles without him. Are you trying to tell me the Spurs would have won a title in 2008 if they kept Horry? If you are trying to sell me these bags of good, no thanks.

[whottt]

Ginoboli at 32 is pretty special the last few weeks.

You should have seen what Robert Horry and Bruce Bowen were doing at age 35...and David Robinson at age 37.

[cd98]

0

He was only with the Suns for a half a season and he was traded to the Lakers before the seasons end. He could have been the greatest player of all time and it still would have been impossible for him to win a title with the Suns. ;)

And shame on your for minimizing his title winning clutch performance in game 5 of the 2005 NBA finals.

Just aint right.

Why did he get traded from the Suns eh? And how dare you minimize face of the franchise, Tim Duncan's masterful 2003 performance that puts him potentially in the top 5 of NBA greats and makes this franchise what it is today.

[cd98]

You should have seen what Robert Horry and Bruce Bowen were doing at age 35...and David Robinson at age 37.

I did. I also saw what they did at 26. It was much better than what I saw at 35 and 37.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Bill Russell is maybe the most overrated player of all time. He doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Duncan or all the other big men talked about in the top 10 player discussion. I know his rebounding numbers are off the charts but given his physical advantages over other players in that era they should be. His offensive numbers were abysmal especially when you consider what they could have been, he was never the main option on any of his championship teams.

[Shastafarian]

Explain game 2 then Physicist extraordinaire.

[cd98]

8 time all NBA D is a role player?


And if you were paying attention, I'm not just defending David Robinson, I'm defending Tony Parker and Manu and Stephen Jackson...I am defending the team over the individual.

You OTOH...I see significant evidence to indicate you are in a fact a Tim Duncan fan and not a SpursFan, in fact, Duncan is obviously the only player that matters to you TD 21.

And Duncan got his ass kicked into the dirt in 2001 and 2002. So obviously...it takes more than him playing great to win a title. Something I am sure he would be the first to admit.

Where was Robinson the great Shaq defender in 2001 and 2002? Actually, 1999 is Exhibit A at how one player can so thoroughly dominate every series...Duncan was man above boys in that run.

No one said that a player can win a title by himself. All were saying is he won a title without a superstar/hof wingman. Why can't you give TD the credit he deserves?

[whottt]

My point is that Tim Duncan is the only superstar to win a title without another teammate that is a hall of famer playing in his prime.

And that is most assuredly false...

Hakeem Olajuwon did it.
Shaquille O'Neal did it.

To be fair...those two did have Robert Horry. He didn't contribute much...

Magic Johnson did it.(Kareem was 33 the first year he played with Magic).




If you think that is Larry Bird, well it doesn't hold up on the facts, but you can believe what you want. My point is that Tim Duncan, in his prime, was so good he could win titles with role players and no superstars. You have failed to cite any other NBA superstar to do that, so my take is that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Shaquille O'Neal
Hakeem




I respect some of your arguments, though I disagree with them. In my book Parker, though a great point guard, is not a HOF.

And your book will prove to make libelous claims.





But your Robert Horry argument is pure nonsense. To say Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, and Hakeem would not have won titles with Horry destroys your credibility.


Well in fact they all did win titles without him, except for Hakeem. I am saying the titles they won with him would not have been won without him.



They are only the best players in the league for the last 10 years.

And it means nothing when they were on bad teams. Because none of them won titles like that.

[cd98]

So Kobe wasn't that good. Okay.

[cd98]

And neither was James Worthy.

[Thomas82]

funny because i rank tim above larry bird.

Duncan won more championships and finals mvps than bird. He won 2 mvps to bird's 3, but everyone knows that duncan deserved the mvp in the year prior to his first, which was given to karl malone.

Duncan also won all those titles without a bunch of hall of fame teammates.

+1

[cd98]

You can't say that if not for Horry, the teams he was on would not have won titles in the years he played with them. How do you know Spurs don't win game 6 and 7 in 2005? They killed Detroit in games 1 and 2.

Again, you are entitled to your opinions, but Horry is no HOF, good role player, but role players aren't in the HOF.

[cd98]

OR Clyde the Glide. Not that good.

[Shastafarian]

OR Clyde the Glide. Not that good.

You missed your opportunity to call our resident Astrophysicist out when he said Hakeem and Shaq won without hall of famers in their prime. Hasn't he been claiming Horry should be in the hall of fame? Then he comes with that weak sauce to preempt you calling him out "Horry didn't contribute much". :lol I'm just gonna call him Will Hunting from now on.

[cd98]

You missed your opportunity to call our resident Astrophysicist out when he said Hakeem and Shaq won without hall of famers in their prime. Hasn't he been claiming Horry should be in the hall of fame? Then he comes with that weak sauce to preempt you calling him out "Horry didn't contribute much". :lol I'm just gonna call him Will Hunting from now on.


Very right you are. I surrender.

[ShoogarBear]

Now you know why I hate the Celtics above all, even the Lakers.

Seventeen years I had to put up with this kind of ignorant shit by the arrongant, pompous douchebags of the Boston sports media: Johnny Most, Ray Fitzgerald, Will McDonough, Dan Shaughnessy, Tommy Heinsohn, and the Grand Master Asshole of them all, Bob Ryan.

If Boston had won the lottery in 97, Shaunghessy would have spent the last 13 years with his tongue in Duncan's butt pleading for a book deal.

Cousy :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao 39%-shooting no-D probably wouldn't make the NBDL today.

[whottt]

Why did he get traded from the Suns eh?

For throwing a towel in his coach's face during the middle of a game.


And how dare you minimize face of the franchise, Tim Duncan's masterful 2003 performance that puts him potentially in the top 5 of NBA greats and makes this franchise what it is today.

How dare you minimize

A: The entire 2003 Spurs Team.
B. Tim Duncan's team first attitude.
C. Duncan himself by claiming his status top 5 player is because of one playoff.

[whottt]

So Kobe wasn't that good. Okay.


And neither was James Worthy.

You said HOF in their prime:

Kobe Bryant was 21 when the 99 Lakers won their title.
James Worthy wasn't even on Magic's first title team and he was 21 on his first.


Neither contsitute in their prime based on the standard you used against Parker and Manu.


And Clyde Drexler was 35 when he won that title with Hakeem.

[LOL@MavsFan]

Wilt averaging 50 against talent equivalent to today's NBDL

[LOL@MavsFan]

You said HOF in their prime:

Kobe Bryant was 21 when the 2000 Lakers won their title.
James Worthy wasn't even on Magic's first title team and he was 21 on his first.


Neither contsitute in their prime based on the standard you used against Parker and Manu.


And Clyde Drexler was 35 when he won that title with Hakeem.

Corrected

[Shastafarian]

And Clyde Drexler was 35 when he won that title with Hakeem.

He was 32. He turned 33 a little over a week after the finals ended.

[whottt]

You missed your opportunity to call our resident Astrophysicist out when he said Hakeem and Shaq won without hall of famers in their prime. Hasn't he been claiming Horry should be in the hall of fame? Then he comes with that weak sauce to preempt you calling him out "Horry didn't contribute much". :lol I'm just gonna call him Will Hunting from now on.

No...in fact, I will give you guys props for that.

Props Shasta that is a fantastic point. And I concede it. Robert Horry(HOFer) was in his prime for the Shaq's titles.


And BTW, thank you for figuring out a way to get Shaq off that list. I actually hated having to put him on it but he belonged on it based on that criteria. :tu

So that just leaves Magic and Hakeem....and possibly anyone else I didn't think of off the type of my head.


I am not against giving Duncan credit he dserves in fact I quite like it, but you can just arbitrarily change the standard for players and expect to be taken seriously.


PS:

And that is most assuredly false...

Hakeem Olajuwon did it.
Shaquille O'Neal did it.

To be fair...those two did have Robert Horry. He didn't contribute much...

The part about contributing was sarcasm fool.

[Thomas82]

wow is someone jealous because they didn't get the lottery balls to go there way and had to pick paul pierce instead of timmy d even though the celtics had the most losses that year...or is it the fact that we just creamed your team by 21 yesterday

Actually, Paul Pierce was drafted the year after Tim Duncan. In the '97 Draft, the Celtics actually had 2 1st round picks. They took Chauncey Billups at #3, and Ron Mercer at #6.

[LOL@MavsFan]

Maybe, maybe not. Can you name who Kobe dropped 81 on just a few years ago? Wilt dropped 100 points against the Knick's center Phil Jordan, who was 6'10.

And how tall was he? Over 7ft w/ long arms. He isnt shit if he plays now...he was just benefiting from a weak, white NBA. Nice accomplishment, but he would be another decent center in today's NBA....

[whottt]

He was 32. He turned 33 a little over a week after the finals ended.


PS: And how old was Clyde in 94...you know, when he was in Portland?

[Agloco]

Off the top of my head I'd take Wilt Chamberlain (always No. 1, the guy averaged 50.4 points a game during the 1961-62 season), Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Bob Cousy ahead of Duncan. There's a quick 10 without as much as a three-second violation.

Nothing against Duncan, but you could also give me Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Julius Erving, Elgin Baylor, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Kevin McHale. Oh, and let's not forget Bob Pettit, Moses Malone, John Stockton and Isiah Thomas.

This is trash.

[duncan228]

SI: Duncan’s Boredom Limits Greatness? (http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2010/03/duncans-boredom/)
Not this argument again.
by Chris Deaton
SLAM

Substitution: a bit of bluntness for propriety.

It’s poor etiquette to throw near-faceless cyberjabs at a fellow sportswriter, so that isn’t gonna happen. But the opinion of Dan Shaughnessy, that Tim Duncan’s legend is hampered by, well, not enough fame or something: dude, it’s goofy (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/03/29/duncan.spurs/index.html?eref=sihp). So are these “rankings” of the best players, in a way; and those of the best bars, the best beers, the best bodies, though they’re fun fodder for fellas around the coffee pot. Our opinions are arbitrary—they’re judgment calls.

I care for Tim Duncan. Always have. If he really is “the Pete Sampras of basketball,” at 20K/10K and counting, at four rings, three Finals MVPs, two League MVPs and one fundamental moniker that expresses why he’s the game’s how-to guide, then he could be, oh, somewhere around eighth in the historian’s list of greats (http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-magazine/features/2009/06/the-new-top-50/).

Could be. It may not be his definitive slot on the hoops hierarchy, but not only is he in the chat, he’s one among a mere few who belongs. So don’t dismiss him so easily, please. The moment that Tim Duncan and Bob Pettit occupy the same plane of balling goodness, Star Wars and Avatar are equal FX marvels.

But they are!

If adjusted for technological evolution, sure. But we’ve driven around this block. There’ve been many thousands of days since Pettit’s days, and Tim Duncan plays against harder, better, faster, stronger. His team’s win percentage has never dipped below .600—and he’s never been anything but the best player on his team.

All of these and more are the reasons many think Duncan is the best power forward to have played professional ball, so elaboration is redundant. And it’s hard—nay, preposterous—to say whether his greatness exceeds that of Cousy’s or West’s or any of the others’ floating in the NBA’s exosphere.

But the idea that Tim Duncan is an unremarkable superstar—someone whose brilliance has been dimmed by “a small media market” or “a lack of flair” or a nickname befitting “a guy you’d fit for a pocket protector”—is plumb silly. His commitment to executing all facets of the game, those that appear in the box score and otherwise, amplifies his plentiful talent and sets him further apart from his contemporaries and predecessors.

The defense slumbers.


(Joe Posnanski, whose top-ten appraisal of Duncan beckoned Shaughnessy’s response, gives his 88 cents here (http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/03/29/duncans-place/).)

*********************

The Posnanski piece that got the Shaughnessy response.

Let's Hear Some Noise For An Icon (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1165279/index.htm?eref=sisf)
Joe Posnanski

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145496

*****

Edit: The Posnanski rebuttal is now on SI.com.

Rebuttal to a rebuttal: Duncan's stats put him in elite class (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/03/30/duncan.counterpoint/index.html)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/03/30/duncan.counterpoint/index.html

[DAF86]

Magic-Jordan-Bird-Duncan-Russell

That's it.

[TD 21]

8 time all NBA D is a role player?


And if you were paying attention, I'm not just defending David Robinson, I'm defending Tony Parker and Manu and Stephen Jackson...I am defending the team over the individual.

You OTOH...I see significant evidence to indicate you are in a fact a Tim Duncan fan and not a SpursFan, in fact, Duncan is obviously the only player that matters to you TD 21.

And Duncan got his ass kicked into the dirt in 2001 and 2002. So obviously...it takes more than him playing great to win a title. Something I am sure he would be the first to admit.

That first comment proves that you're a Robinson fan more than a Spurs fan. He wasn't that player in '03, he was a role player, get over it.

No, what you're doing is attempting to minimize the impact and the greatness of Duncan during the '03 run, something I've seen you do on more than one occasion. This is all part of you being a Robinson fan, attempting to pass him off as a better player than Duncan all-time.

There is no evidence of this because it doesn't exist, unless you consider my user name. The genesis of that was I wanted to create an account, couldn't think of something original (granted I didn't exactly think long and hard about this), tried a few things (can't remember them now), they weren't available, then I typed in TD 21, it was available, so I took it.

What did I say? Duncan went up a level in '03, O'Neal went slightly down a level and the Spurs obviously had a better team surrounding Duncan than in '01 and '02, but if he didn't play at a historically great level, the Spurs don't win that series.

"Got his ass kicked into the dirt"? Yet another example of your immense hatred for Duncan. He's better than Robinson all-time, only a Robinson fan boy would think otherwise.

[Man In Black]

If Dan could've of, he'd tell us all that Len Bias is better than Tim Duncan and that Reggie Lewis was almost as good.

[Horse]

What a freaking moron! Not top ten I don't agree, but could see how someone could. However why does he suck off shaq a one way player who go away with murder to score those points. And was a liability late in games cause he could'nt make free throws. Fuck this idiot!

[elbamba]

I would have Duncan top 5 with only Jordan's position set as the number 1 all time. Duncan did not have the all-star cast of players that surrounded Magic, Bird and Kareem.

Of course it can be debated who was better between Russel, Wilt and Duncan but they played in different eras. I will say that Duncan has been able to dominate powerful centers like Shaq and PF/Centers like Sheed and KG. Duncan was the best PF in the age of PFs that was the 2000s (Duncan, KG, Sheed, Dirk, Webber, Amare, Brandt, Gasol, J. Oneil, Martin, Dice (younger).

He showed he can play against any kind of center/PF. To me, I have no doubt his style of play could put him in any generation of NBA players and he would still be one of the best players.

[ffadicted]

Magic-Jordan-Bird-Duncan-Kareem

That's it.

fify

[Shastafarian]

PS: And how old was Clyde in 94...you know, when he was in Portland?

Dunno. Subtraction was never my thing. But you know who was 33 in 1999 when the Spurs won their first title? That's right. David Robinson. So what hall of famer was in his prime when Duncan won his first Larry O'Brien?

[dbreiden83080]

Shut the fuck up. Manu is future HOF

Not based on his NBA career. If he gets in, it's all about his international play. Manu has had a fine NBA career but HOF level. Not even close..



and Parker will be boder line future HOF.

A very good all star level player, not a great HOF either..



Robinson is already in in the HOF.

Major factor in the 99 title, but all he did in 2003 was be a great leader and still play some D and rebound. D-Rob was a shell of his former self by that year. That's not me ragging on Robinson, that's just honesty..



Not to mention all of the great role players Duncan has had throughout his career.

He's had some good role players, sure but do they match up to the role players the Celts and Lakers had in the Bird and Magic days? I don't think so. Duncan in 2003 had a D-Rob on his last legs in his last year. Young Tony Parker, up and down and at times a total mess. Manu, same thing, all over the map not dependable. Duncan was far and away the best player in the NBA then and he basically carried a young Spurs team that was not ready mentally to win it all, to a title. That 2003 title team basically over-achieved and won it all because of Tim Duncan..



In fact, don't even mention Duncan along with Kareem, Magic and Bird.

I have him ahead of Both Magic and Bird but below Kareem. Did Magic play D like Duncan? Did he rebound like Duncan? Don't tell me he was a far better scorer than Duncan (well maybe with the Ho's he was tapping in the steam room) but not on the court. Magic, great leader, great passer, very good scorer, had a million intangibles as a player, a little like Derek Jeter. He won one more title than Tim, playing on some all time great teams with legendary players.. Skill for skill, is he really a better basketball player than Duncan? I don't see how the argument can be made that he was..

[dbreiden83080]

Listen man, I understand the reason for homerism, truly, I do, but if you did a poll of people who actually lived and watched that era of basketball, you'd only get Spur fans to vote for Duncan over Magic or Bird.

So it's a popularity contest. I see. ESPN.com I think had a poll fans voted Lebron 2nd already as player of the decade not long ago. So i guess when he wins that 1st ring, they can leap-frog him ahead of Jordan right away..



You can try to minimize the help that Duncan had all you want, but when you guys are playing poorly, or failed to repeat, the first players you blame is Manu and Parker.

By 2006 all those guys were playing at all star levels so sure we blamed them. Just like the Lakers blamed one of their big guys not named Magic or sometimes Magic, like in the 84 finals where Bird outplayed him. I don't see the point here..



To sum it up of how ridiculous Spurs fans are, name me one team that has had a core as good as Parker/Manu/Duncan in this era? No one is even close!!! The fact that they underachieved and failed to defend their title, and are currently underachieving right now is why you should never mention Duncan with Magic.

Spurs did not unerachieve. Tim Spurs with different cores, won 4 titles in 9 years. With that base core you are talking about they won 3 in 5 years. That is a hell of a run. OF course you need good supprting players around you, and Spurs had good teams, for some of those years they were great teams. But Tim never had a Kobe riding shot-gun in his prime, a Kareem still playing great, a James Worthy, a Robert Parish a Kevin Mchale and yet he won 4 titles and 3 finals MVP's.

[daslicer]

Spurs did not unerachieve. Tim Spurs with different cores, won 4 titles in 9 years. With that base core you are talking about they won 3 in 5 years. That is a hell of a run. OF course you need good supprting players around you, and Spurs had good teams, for some of those years they were great teams. But Tim never had a Kobe riding shot-gun in his prime, a Kareem still playing great, a James Worthy, a Robert Parish a Kevin Mchale and yet he won 4 titles and 3 finals MVP's.

Agreed and just like you said earlier the '03 title by far was the most impressive because Duncan won with a team that had no all-stars that year. Drob was way past his prime, Ginobilli was still raw, Parker was too inconsistent, Jax was either hot or cold. I can't recall a superstar player being able to win a title without having another all-star on his team except for Olaujuwon in '94. Also like you said Tim never played with an hall of fame player for 3 out of 4 of his titles. Drob after '99 was no longer playing on an HOF level he was just very solid at that point of time. If you look at the guys Shaq and MJ won with in their prime and you could see they had superior talent. Shaq had Kobe, MJ had Pippen and its easy to see Pippen-Kobe>Parker,Ginobilli.

I think the only other player who is on the verge of accomplishing what Tim did in '03 in winning without an all-star supporting caste is Lebron James. If James wins the title this year with the Cavs it will be up there with Tim's '03 title.

[dbreiden83080]

When you have the best team and fail to defend you title, then you underachieved.

Both Magic and Bird can claim to have those years and did not win

Best team does not always punch it in..

[DDS4]

If Tim was drafted by the Celts and had the same career success, I'd bet Dan would have him above Bird, Cousy, and the rest of the Celtics.

[dbreiden83080]

If Tim was drafted by the Celts and had the same career success, I'd bet Dan would have him above Bird, Cousy, and the rest of the Celtics.

He would have for sure..

[TDMVPDPOY]

When you have the best team and fail to defend you title, then you underachieved.

03/04 lakers team hahahahhahaa fail

[dbreiden83080]

Borrowed this from the other thread on this topic

TD For The Win...


"This is a point that's easy to overlook. It's a short list of players who were clearly the best player on four championships teams. That list would include:

1. Bill Russell, 10
2. Michael Jordan, 6
3. George Mikan, 5
4. Tim Duncan, 4
5. Magic Johnson, 4"

[dbreiden83080]

:nope

:deadhorse

[dbreiden83080]

So Mikan should be top 3 in the top 10 list.:rolleyes

Missed the point

Try again

[dbreiden83080]

I have an even better list. Only three players have carried their dominance into two decades?

Bill
Kareem
Kobe

Kareem is better than TD we agree there

[dbreiden83080]

Of course you missed the point.

I've made mine already very clear..

[howbouthemspurs]

I think I lost 5 IQ points reading this crap!

[dbreiden83080]

Duncan had a reign of 7 short years, now he's on the bottom not able to lead a loaded team beyond the 8th seed. Even during his 7 short year reign, Kobe's Lakers three-peated during those years.

Who's Lakers???????


And Bird won 3 titles in a similiar span and then his back went to shit. Timmy's knees are starting to fail him. But you have Bird ahead of Tim..

[Chieflion]

You didn't have 5 to lose, son.

How ironic.

[Chieflion]

It is really sad, really. lakaluva comes into the Spurs forum, and calls me his little nutsack. Goes around to call other people stupid, when he himself has less than 5 IQ points. It is really pathetic.

[Sean Cagney]

Bird was a better player than Tim, period.

If you say so... Also 7 short years? He won in 99 and then in 07 his last (So far), so wouldn't that be 8 years? Get your math right there.


You seem to be hating on Timmay pretty much in your posts, he is a top 10 player of all times, the best PF ever, why the hate for him?

[dbreiden83080]

Bird was a better player than Tim, period.

The man that did the heavy lifting during's Kobe's Lakers 3 peat.. :lol




















http://www.pingceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/kobe-bryant-and-shaquille-oneal.jpg

[Sean Cagney]

Ok, I'll give him another year... 8 years. I'm not hating on Tim, just putting shit in perspective for you blind Spur fans. Timmy was great for a short while, but he's done. And I'm sure Malone thinks he was the greatest power forward, his stats sure prove it.

8 years of dominance is a short while? In what world? Malone can think what he wants, but he never got a title nor a finals MVP for that matter. His stats? Yes Wilkins stats prove he is an all time great too, what else does?

[dbreiden83080]

In all the battles the Lakers had during those years, you show me one highlight when the game was on the line when Shaq did the heavy lifting. I can show you plenty of game winning shots done by Tim's players. From Kerr, to Elliott, Manu, Parker, Jackson, Barry, Horry, the list goes on. Shaq has never been clutch, yet he played with the most clutch player in history, hands down.

Are you seriously saying those were Kobe's lakers? Shaq was the MVP of the whole league in 2000, won finals MVP all 3 times. Have a little perspective on this will ya?? Kobe is a great all time player, but those were Shaq's teams..

[Sean Cagney]

That title, 2003, is also going to go down as a team that had 4 HOF'ers on it, comparable to any team champion in NBA history outside of a couple Celtics and Lakers team and the 80's 76'ers champion, including a non-American Olympic Gold Medalist who beat a dream team in the only it has happened to date, 2 of the NBA's 50 greatest, the all time greatest 3 point shooter...a borderline HOF bigman.

All that and I didn't even mention Stephen Jackson, a guy who the Spurs still haven't fully replaced.

On the contrary, that team was the best Spurs team ever, it was probably one of the best teams ever, and if you think Tim Duncan won that title all by himself you evidentally missed the Lakers kicking the Spurs asses off the court the previous 2 years, and beating them again the following year when many of those players were gone.

And BTW, it still took Robert Horry missing the only big playoff shot of his career to beat that Laker team.

One man teams don't beat 3 time defending champions. If Duncan was that good he would have won a title every year he was healthy.


Edit: I forgot to mention Bruce Bowen and his 8 all NBA d teams...I know he was relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things...I mean he was only guarding Kobe and when did Kobe ever give the Spurs trouble?

That 03 team had a ton of talent on it, it was a mix of Vets and youth, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I still don't get how anyone can say that team was bad around tim or not great, they were a perfect mix! I loved that team.


Duncan had a much better supporting cast than Malone, but it's obvious Malone was a better player.

Not it's not, stop that. He was not a better defender nor post player, period.

[Chieflion]

I am just going to look at this thread to laugh at lakaluva's stupidity. It is just too funny.

[Sean Cagney]

These idiots only say that to try and boost Duncan's legacy. It's like saying Kareem had no help on his 1980 title team because Magic was a rookie.

Finally I agree on a post in here, that 03 had clutch players, great PG play and a mix of Vets and youth like I said, it was the perfect mix. I am a huge Duncan fan, but he had some help that year, it's not like he was all alone in that title run without clutch shooters and defenders.

[TDMVPDPOY]

These idiots only say that to try and boost Duncan's legacy. It's like saying Kareem had no help on his 1980 title team because Magic was a rookie.

that 03 team most of the young fellas only had one 1-2yr nba experience, i dont count the veterans...

[dbreiden83080]

It was Shaq's team, but he was far from the best player. If you don't realize that then you're hopeless.

If you don't realize Shaq meant more to those teams than Kobe you are hopeless...

[dbreiden83080]

Man most responsible for 2003 Spurs title..











http://perspectivegadget.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/steve-kerr1.jpg

[dbreiden83080]

Look man, when they redo the top 50, TD will make it with ease. I'm not here to bash him at all. It's easy for a Spur fan to rate him so high, but as you see, outside of San Antonio people don't think the same.

So where is Tim all time on your list???

[whottt]

Dunno. Subtraction was never my thing. But you know who was 33 in 1999 when the Spurs won their first title?

That's right. David Robinson. So what hall of famer was in his prime when Duncan won his first Larry O'Brien?

Dunno, how old would he have been if he was in Portland?

And was he 33 the night Duncan scored 5 points against Portland, in a win?

[TDMVPDPOY]

wtf do ppl make it look like ginoboli, jax and parker were top notch players in 03...

they had there good and bad games in the playoffs, lucky we never had 2 or 3 of them all have bad games in the same game...streaky players

parker that year was still the same player from the previous year when he gets exposed by the lakers...

[Sean Cagney]

I honestly think Wilt and Bill are overrated as players, but Wilt had the stats and Bill had the titles, so you have to pay respect to that. I'm not even sure if Shaq is top 15, and if Kobe adds another title, he jumps Bill because Bill had no offensive game and he was a horrible shooter for a big man in the post. If Duncan adds another title, he goes top 5 easy.

You are reasonable, why are heads hating on that there? I got no problems at all with you man, and I am a huge Spurs and Duncan fan!
wtf do ppl make it look like ginoboli, jax and parker were top notch players in 03...

they had there good and bad games in the playoffs, lucky we never had 2 or 3 of them all have bad games in the same game...streaky players

parker that year was still the same player from the previous year when he gets exposed by the lakers...

Duncan went off in that game 6 against LA, but Parker played lights out too! Heads forget that! Some always forget that there.

[Sean Cagney]

Duncan gets his due with me. I just think it's crazy to pretend like Manu and Parker didn't go to battle with him. Duncan did not carry Manu and Parker!

A team needs to win titles, not just one man! You need alot of help, Tim got his share in 05 too with Manu and Horry who saved him in that game 5! Without Horry there we lose that title! Tim did his thing and was the best on the team in those years yes! He was lights out in 99 and 03, 05 he did well too and so on! But he had help too, hell Kobe had Shaq in their threepeat going off! Shaq was that dude from 00-02, and Horry saved them with that shot to tie up Sac, without that shot you guys don't win that title!

You need your role players to go lights out on a run, it's that simple.

[ezau]

Listen man, I understand the reason for homerism, truly, I do, but if you did a poll of people who actually lived and watched that era of basketball, you'd only get Spur fans to vote for Duncan over Magic or Bird. You can try to minimize the help that Duncan had all you want, but when you guys are playing poorly, or failed to repeat, the first players you blame is Manu and Parker.

To sum it up of how ridiculous Spurs fans are, name me one team that has had a core as good as Parker/Manu/Duncan in this era? No one is even close!!! The fact that they underachieved and failed to defend their title, and are currently underachieving right now is why you should never mention Duncan with Magic.

You win championships and still underachieve? Get the fuck out of here. So what about the 2004 Lakers? That team underachieved bigime.

[Man In Black]

In all the battles the Lakers had during those years, you show me one highlight when the game was on the line when Shaq did the heavy lifting. I can show you plenty of game winning shots done by Tim's players. From Kerr, to Elliott, Manu, Parker, Jackson, Barry, Horry, the list goes on. Shaq has never been clutch, yet he played with the most clutch player in history, hands down.

Apparently, you don't have an understanding of FOUNDATION. When your boy the Repentant Adulterer was scoring all those game winning shots, on whose foundations was he building off of?

Think of it this way, your boy was getting all the shots he wanted on team that didn't have #34, and welcomed Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, Brian Grant, at their press conference as LALs, then they proceeded to finish 11th in the conference, so where were the clutch shots then?

Answer-When your foundation is scrubs like Brian Grant, Vlade Divacs, & Chris Mihm...YOU DON'T HAVE ONE. So all those game winning shots that used to be shots for the win when the foundation was solid, turned into shots that are made just to make the score respectable, if possible.

If you don't agree, then tell us why the Pau Gasol collusion was needed?
Do you not agree that he provides the LAL foundation again?

[ezau]

Are you going to sit here and tell me that you thought the Spurs should not have gone back to back? This years team came in as a top 3 team. They rolled over against the Lakers two years ago. Sure Manu was gimpy, but the Lakers were missing Ariza and Byum. The greatest PF in basketball history should have had his way with a soft ass Pau, right?

The 04 Lakers were a huge let down for the entire season. Shaq pretty much took that year off.

lol the 04 team was expected to dominate the entire league. So what the hell happened? And Kobe ahead of Duncan on your list? Duncan's consistency and individual accolades will make Kobe hide in shame you piece of shit. So what did Kobe do? Score 81 points and then what, rape a white chick?

[ezau]

Apparently, you don't have an understanding of FOUNDATION. When your boy the Repentant Adulterer was scoring all those game winning shots, on whose foundations was he building off of?

Think of it this way, your boy was getting all the shots he wanted on team that didn't have #34, and welcomed Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, Brian Grant, at their press conference as LALs, then they proceeded to finish 11th in the conference, so where were the clutch shots then?

Answer-When your foundation is scrubs like Brian Grant, Vlade Divacs, & Chris Mihm...YOU DON'T HAVE ONE. So all those game winning shots that used to be shots for the win when the foundation was solid, turned into shots that are made just to make the score respectable, if possible.

If you don't agree, then tell us why the Pau Gasol collusion was needed?
Do you not agree that he provides the LAL foundation again?

That Laker poster is still missing the point until now. Without the Lakers FOUNDATION aka Pau Gasol, Kobe can't do shit. That glorified adulterer even blamed his teammates when things got tough for the Lakers. When everything is said and done, Kobe's nothing more than a glorified Paul Pierce. And don't get me started with his world-class defense, Kobe has had his ankles broken as much as the next guy.

[Thomas82]

Magic-Jordan-Bird-Duncan-Wilt

That's it.

fify

[da_suns_fan]

When Duncan is gone, no one will care.

He just wasnt a natural basketball player and competitor like Barkley and Malone.

[phyzik]

When Duncan is gone, no one will care.

He just wasnt a natural basketball player and competitor like Barkley and Malone.

Rjwjz9wDhPA

jpicUOJ9xL0

[ohmwrecker]

This is ridiculous. Tim Duncan is easily top 10 whether you are a Spurs fan or not. You cannot argue with the stats & championships. Any argument to the contrary is patently ridiculous. No player is good enough to win a championship on his own. Tim needed DRob, Tony and Manu. The Lakers needed BOTH Kobe and Shaq. All championship teams need role players to step up and play big. Everybody needs Robert Horry! Shaughnessy is still bitter about the '97 draft and is, obviously, a drunken ginger hack writer. Lakaluva is a button pusher and can't make a solid argument to save his life, despite being armed to the teeth. Duh_Suns_Fan is just so sad and jealously pathetic that I just feel sorry for his poor sun-baked raisin of a brain.
Also, Tim Duncan is better than Shaq. Sorry, it's not even close.

[Obstructed_View]

if you did a poll of people who actually lived and watched that era of basketball, you'd only get Spur fans to vote for Duncan over Magic or Bird.

Can't imagine why guys who play for two of the biggest television markets wouldn't get more votes than a guy from the smallest, but it must mean more than what the players actually did on the floor.

Really, when you have to pull out the "repeat" card in order to try to knock a guy's greatness while simultaneously ignoring the longest streak of team excellence under one dominant player in perhaps the history of the league, it's a sign you need to abandon or rethink your argument.

[Chieflion]

Damn, the stupidity of lakaluva is too dangerous for humankind. Raw stats don't tell you anything, and Tim Duncan's defense is better than Larry Bird's. A case can be made that Duncan is the better player.

Larry Bird career PER: 23.5
Tim Duncan career PER: 25.0

Advantage: Tim Duncan

Larry Bird career playoff PER: 21.4
Tim Duncan career playoff PER: 26.1

Advantage: Tim Duncan

Larry Bird top PER: 27.8
Tim Duncan top PER: 27.1

Advantage: Larry Bird

Larry Bird top playoff PER: 26.3
Tim Duncan top playoff PER: 31.8

Advantage: Tim Duncan

We could go on and on. Advanced metrics show that Tim Duncan was a more dominant player in his era than Bird was in his.

In Larry Bird's peak, he produced 15.8 win shares in his top season. Tim Duncan produced 17.8 win shares in his top season, and 16.5 in his second top season. Bird never topped that.

In conclusion, lakaluva is a dumbass.

[Cane]

Why can lakaluva still post here and KBP can't?

[Sean Cagney]

Damn view!!! You splattered all kind of egg on your face with this one. Bird never repeated, and his best season stats make Duncan's best look shitty. You don't even want to compare numbers with those two, son. Maybe you need to rethink your argument and stop trying to make it look like Duncan never had HOF'ers playing along side him his whole fucking career.

Dominques stats are better than most career wise, is he top ten? You are looking at PPG to tell a story now?

[ClingingMars]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

You should die with these bullshit stats.

Hollinger may be an idiot at times but his sabremetrics for basketball are gold, and you are a first class dumbass for calling them "bullshit stats".

also, how the hell does this guy have a job writing for SI? I feel dumber reading that article.

[Thomas82]

Raw stats don't tell you anything, and Tim Duncan's defense is better than Larry Bird's. A case can be made that Duncan is the better player.

Larry Bird career PER: 23.5
Tim Duncan career PER: 25.0

Advantage: Tim Duncan

Larry Bird career playoff PER: 21.4
Tim Duncan career playoff PER: 26.1

Advantage: Tim Duncan

Larry Bird top PER: 27.8
Tim Duncan top PER: 27.1

Advantage: Larry Bird

Larry Bird top playoff PER: 26.3
Tim Duncan top playoff PER: 31.8

Advantage: Tim Duncan

We could go on and on. Advanced metrics show that Tim Duncan was a more dominant player in his era than Bird was in his.

In Larry Bird's peak, he produced 15.8 win shares in his top season. Tim Duncan produced 17.8 win shares in his top season, and 16.5 in his second top season. Bird never topped that.




Good post!!

[ambchang]

Damn view!!! You splattered all kind of egg on your face with this one. Bird never repeated, and his best season stats make Duncan's best look shitty. You don't even want to compare numbers with those two, son. Maybe you need to rethink your argument and stop trying to make it look like Duncan never had HOF'ers playing along side him his whole fucking career.

I will take Bird's 3 best statistical season compared to Duncan's best 3.

Bird:
84-85: 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 6.6 apg, 1.6 STL, 1.2 BLK, 52.2% FG, 88.2% FT, 3.1 TOV in 39.5 MPG

86-87: 28.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 apg, 1.8 STL, 0.9 BLK, 52.5% FG, 91% FT, 3.2 TOV in 40.6 MPG

87-88: 29.9 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.6 STL, 0.8 BLK, 52.7% 91.6%, 2.8 TOV in 39 MPG

Duncan:
99-00: 23.2 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.9 STL, 2.2 BLK, 49% FG, 76.1% FT, 3.3 TOV in 38.9 MPG

01-02: 25.5 PPG, 12.7 RPG, 3.7 APG, 0.7 STL, 2.5 BLK, 50.8 FG%, 79.9% FT, 3.2 TOV in 40.6 MPG

02-03: 23.3 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 3.1 APG, 0.9 STL, 2.7 BLK, 51.3 FG%, 71% FT, 3.1 TOV in 39.3 MPG

On the surface, it's obvious Bird is better offensively (more points, more assists, better shooting %s), while Duncan is better defensively, more rebounds, blks + stls). Minutes and TOVs are about a wash.

The biggest difference between the two are PPG (with Bird being consistently about 20 to 25% better), rebounding (with Duncan being consistently 25 to 30%), and assists (with Bird being about 100% better consistently). So I am not sure how you can say Bird would make Duncan's stats look "shitty".

Of course, we haven't even talked about the drastic shift in playing styles in the 15 years in between because of the Pistons and Knicks.

When you normalize the numbers based on league average, the numbers look to favour Duncan slightly. The following numbers are % of each player's production as compared to an average team in that particular year. IE, if Bird scores 25 PPG, and an average team scores 100, Bird scores 25% of an average team's points. If Bird shoots 90% from the FT like, and the league average is 80%, Bird is 112.5% of league average.

Bird:
84-85: 0.259 PPG, 0.241 RPG, 0.251 APG, 0.187 STL, 0.226 BLK, 1.063 FG%, 1.154 FT%, 0.174 TOV

86-87: 0.256 PPG, 0.209 RPG, 0.293 APG, 0.209 STL, 0.163 BLK, 1.094 FG%, 1.193 FT%, 0.188 TOV

87-88: 0.276 PPG, 0.214 RPG, 0.237 APG, 0.188 STL, 0.148 BLK, 1.098 FG%, 1.196 FT%, 0.167 TOV

Duncan:
99-00: 0.238 PPG, 0.289 RPG, 0.143 APG, 0.113 STL, 0.425 BLK, 1.091 FG%, 1.015 FT%, 0.213 TOV

01-02: 0.267 PPG, 0.3 RPG, 0.169 APG, 0.09 STL, 0.479 BLK, 1.142 FG%, 1.063 FT%, 0.221 TOV

02-03: 0.245 PPG, 0.305 RPG, 0.144 APG, 0.113 STL, 0.539 BLK, 1.161 FG%, 0.937 FT%, 0.208 TOV

Adjusted for eras, Duncan appears to have a slight upper hand on bird, with the gap in the scoring difference significantly lower, having a better adjusted FG%, and a closer APG ratio.

Duncan compares favourably, or at least within reasonable range, of Bird's best season. Put in the fact that Duncan was more consistent for a longer period of time than Bird, and won more championships, there is a good point to be made that Duncan > Bird.

Finally, Duncan did have at least one HoFer by his side at all times, but so what? Robinson was way over his prime by around 01, Parker and Ginobili wasn't even half of what they are later on in their careers. Speedy Claxton and Kerr actually replaced Parker during crunch time to make significant comebacks for the Mavs game 6 and Nets Game 6. Ginobili was a bench player who would average around 10 ppg, these are not players at their prime, it's like saying Kobe Bryant can't win a ring with 3 other HOFers beside him, despite the fact that Shaq was on the downward side of his career, Malone was on his last legs (and injured in the Finals), and Payton was a shell of his former self.

Besides, Ginobili will get in the HoF because of his international accomplishments, not his NBA accomplishments. Parker, at best, is a maybe HoF candidate. It's like saying Kobe can't win a ring without another HoF player because of Gasol.

[dbreiden83080]

I will take Bird's 3 best statistical season compared to Duncan's best 3.

Bird:
84-85: 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 6.6 apg, 1.6 STL, 1.2 BLK, 52.2% FG, 88.2% FT, 3.1 TOV in 39.5 MPG

86-87: 28.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 apg, 1.8 STL, 0.9 BLK, 52.5% FG, 91% FT, 3.2 TOV in 40.6 MPG

87-88: 29.9 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.6 STL, 0.8 BLK, 52.7% 91.6%, 2.8 TOV in 39 MPG

Duncan:
99-00: 23.2 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.9 STL, 2.2 BLK, 49% FG, 76.1% FT, 3.3 TOV in 38.9 MPG

01-02: 25.5 PPG, 12.7 RPG, 3.7 APG, 0.7 STL, 2.5 BLK, 50.8 FG%, 79.9% FT, 3.2 TOV in 40.6 MPG

02-03: 23.3 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 3.1 APG, 0.9 STL, 2.7 BLK, 51.3 FG%, 71% FT, 3.1 TOV in 39.3 MPG

On the surface, it's obvious Bird is better offensively (more points, more assists, better shooting %s), while Duncan is better defensively, more rebounds, blks + stls). Minutes and TOVs are about a wash.

The biggest difference between the two are PPG (with Bird being consistently about 20 to 25% better), rebounding (with Duncan being consistently 25 to 30%), and assists (with Bird being about 100% better consistently). So I am not sure how you can say Bird would make Duncan's stats look "shitty".

Of course, we haven't even talked about the drastic shift in playing styles in the 15 years in between because of the Pistons and Knicks.

When you normalize the numbers based on league average, the numbers look to favour Duncan slightly. The following numbers are % of each player's production as compared to an average team in that particular year. IE, if Bird scores 25 PPG, and an average team scores 100, Bird scores 25% of an average team's points. If Bird shoots 90% from the FT like, and the league average is 80%, Bird is 112.5% of league average.

Bird:
84-85: 0.259 PPG, 0.241 RPG, 0.251 APG, 0.187 STL, 0.226 BLK, 1.063 FG%, 1.154 FT%, 0.174 TOV

86-87: 0.256 PPG, 0.209 RPG, 0.293 APG, 0.209 STL, 0.163 BLK, 1.094 FG%, 1.193 FT%, 0.188 TOV

87-88: 0.276 PPG, 0.214 RPG, 0.237 APG, 0.188 STL, 0.148 BLK, 1.098 FG%, 1.196 FT%, 0.167 TOV

Duncan:
99-00: 0.238 PPG, 0.289 RPG, 0.143 APG, 0.113 STL, 0.425 BLK, 1.091 FG%, 1.015 FT%, 0.213 TOV

01-02: 0.267 PPG, 0.3 RPG, 0.169 APG, 0.09 STL, 0.479 BLK, 1.142 FG%, 1.063 FT%, 0.221 TOV

02-03: 0.245 PPG, 0.305 RPG, 0.144 APG, 0.113 STL, 0.539 BLK, 1.161 FG%, 0.937 FT%, 0.208 TOV

Adjusted for eras, Duncan appears to have a slight upper hand on bird, with the gap in the scoring difference significantly lower, having a better adjusted FG%, and a closer APG ratio.

Duncan compares favourably, or at least within reasonable range, of Bird's best season. Put in the fact that Duncan was more consistent for a longer period of time than Bird, and won more championships, there is a good point to be made that Duncan > Bird.

Finally, Duncan did have at least one HoFer by his side at all times, but so what? Robinson was way over his prime by around 01, Parker and Ginobili wasn't even half of what they are later on in their careers. Speedy Claxton and Kerr actually replaced Parker during crunch time to make significant comebacks for the Mavs game 6 and Nets Game 6. Ginobili was a bench player who would average around 10 ppg, these are not players at their prime, it's like saying Kobe Bryant can't win a ring with 3 other HOFers beside him, despite the fact that Shaq was on the downward side of his career, Malone was on his last legs (and injured in the Finals), and Payton was a shell of his former self.

Besides, Ginobili will get in the HoF because of his international accomplishments, not his NBA accomplishments. Parker, at best, is a maybe HoF candidate. It's like saying Kobe can't win a ring without another HoF player because of Gasol.


:toast:toast:toast:toast

/Thread..

[Killakobe81]

This guy lost me with barkley Karl Malone Mchale and Stockton ...

I saw those guys GREAT players but better than tim? RUFRICKIN' serious? Especially since only McHale has a ring and he played with Bird, parish and DJ ....

[Killakobe81]

This is ridiculous. Tim Duncan is easily top 10 whether you are a Spurs fan or not. You cannot argue with the stats & championships. Any argument to the contrary is patently ridiculous. No player is good enough to win a championship on his own. Tim needed DRob, Tony and Manu. The Lakers needed BOTH Kobe and Shaq. All championship teams need role players to step up and play big. Everybody needs Robert Horry! Shaughnessy is still bitter about the '97 draft and is, obviously, a drunken ginger hack writer. Lakaluva is a button pusher and can't make a solid argument to save his life, despite being armed to the teeth. Duh_Suns_Fan is just so sad and jealously pathetic that I just feel sorry for his poor sun-baked raisin of a brain.
Also, Tim Duncan is better than Shaq. Sorry, it's not even close.

But you know what makes this madder than THIS article?
SPUR fans that argue SHAQ is BETTER than tim ...some of them still post here.
PLEASE add your two cents "SHAQ was so dominant" ...whatever. Dont get me wrong grateful for the 3peat but if kobe had duncan we win like 5 out of 7 or 6 out of 8 titles ...all else being equal (cooaching role players)

The ONLY big man I SAW (with my own eyes not video footage) that I would argue that are BETTER (or at listen to the case) are: Kareem & hakeem

Duncan is better than:

Moses (but Moses was great)

Malone (choker)

Barkley (love chuck but he ringless)

Shaq (dominant but not clutch did not work enough on his game)
howard (though he is young enough to have a chance to pass him)

KG (i used to argue KG but only a Boston or minny homer would do so now)

Ewing (loved the guy but he was sometimesy in the clutch)

Alonzo (love his heart but his post game was checkers Duncan played chess)

Yao (brittle)

I could go on but you get the point ...

[TD 21]

Howard has no chance to pass Duncan. He's not in the same league, even if he does reach his potential (let's face it, you can only say I guy has upside for so long. Guys like James and Howard, great as one is and very good as the other is, they're not going to reach this mythical level people think they're capable of, similar to O'Neal because no matter what they do, they'll always leave people wanting more because they're physical freaks of nature).

If he wins two championships and an MVP, Howard might be able to crack the top twenty all-time, but a player with that mediocre an offensive game simply can't be ranked higher, unless he wins four championships and two MVP's.

With the exception of Russell, you look at every other consensus top ten-fifteen all-time player and they could all take over a game offensively. That matters in the grand scheme of things. As much as Howard can dominate defensively and on the boards, if by the end of his career I can't remember at least a handful of big time, carry his team offensively throughout and/or down the stretch of big games, performances (and I don't think I will when it's all said and done), then he can't be considered in the same class with Abdul-Jabbar, Russell, Chamberlain, Duncan, Olajuwon and O'Neal. He'll probably end up somewhere in the second tier of great big men.