Why is Duncan not considered the BEST "Big Man" of all time?

[coachmac87]

Everybody pretty much labels him the best PF of all time and nobody can argue that..but why not the best big ever? It seems when you mention best big man people NEVER have him #1 or even make a case for him. The bigs people typically have over Duncan are

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem

Those aren't in any order but I feel like you can really make a case for Duncan being better than all of them. And I'll make that arguement.

Duncan v Wilt/Russell: Different era which leads to different #'s and rings. Those are the pioneers of bigs but the best? Skill? No. I feel Duncan could match the production or even out perform th if he played in that era.

Duncan v Kareem: this to me is the hardest argument to make. Both have rings both have longevity and Kareem is the all time leading scorer and by a wide margin. But the argument would be competition and playing with a top 5 player (Magic). Duncan did play with Robinson and Parker/Manu. But they don't compare to Magic...how many rings did he win without Magic? Kareem also didn't have to go against anybody on this list. Who was his rival?

Duncan v Hakeem: Some say Hakeem is the most talented big ever. Run, jump, moves etc. But Duncan has him beat in every category when it comes to awards/titles. Duncan longevity is also the deal breaker too.

Duncan v Shaq: this is interesting. These guys went up against each other for years. Both best up on each other pretty good at times. Shaq was more dominant in his prime. But Duncan has him best on MVP, Rings, and awards. And the longevity isn't a debate.


So was Duncan the most talented? Dominant? No. But he isn't far off from those categories. It's amazing how Duncan game has changed and still effective throughout the years. I feel his longevity sets him apart from Most The rings and awards. You can't find a better resume and if you disagree feel free to debate and give reasoning.

[SASdynasty!]

I've got him over Shaq and Hakeem pretty soundly. The Wilt/Russell/Kareem is where it gets tricky. All 3 of those guys had different strengths/blemishes to their resumes:

Russell - Championships that I doubt anyone else on the list would have matched if they had been in the same place. We can say "different era" all day long, but the theoretical situation there is so hard to say. He won so many Game 7s and won when it mattered so much, that he is the best when it comes to this. Duncan's argument over Russell can't be winning, it has to be statistics.

Wilt - But if Duncan's argument over Russell is stats, then you run into a problem and have to change your hermeneutic against Wilt, whose stats were off the charts. With Wilt, you have to attack his playoff performance and winning. Duncan has him there.

Kareem - So Duncan's argument to land over Russell and Wilt has to be either (a) the combination of winning and numbers or (b) longevity. And then you run into Kareem, who had both of those and more hardware than Duncan. So with Kareem, you have to change your hermeneutic again and go with the fact that Kareem played with two top-15 players (Magic & Oscar). Duncan never played with even one. So Duncan's argument over Kareem is that he did almost the same with much less.

In my opinion, Duncan's only argument to land over all 3 has to be the fact that he has no "blemishes" on his resume (besides never repeating...and all of these 3 guys do). Personally I have him at #4:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Duncan
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Kobe
10. Lebron
11. Hakeem
12. Oscar
13. West
14. Dr J
15. Dirk

[coachmac87]

I have Duncan over Wilt and Russell...but I also have Shaq over them too..Russell has 11 rings but he didn't play in a 30+ team league. I feel Duncan or Shaq could've put up dominant numbers like Wilt in that era...especially Shaq.

I think it's hard to say Duncan> Kareem due to Kareem scoring title and equal longevity. But with all that said...Kareem won his rings with Magic who is a Top 5 player of all time..what came first the chicken or the egg?? Lol.

[Richie]

He can never be ahead of Kareem

[BillMc]

I've got him over Shaq and Hakeem pretty soundly. The Wilt/Russell/Kareem is where it gets tricky. All 3 of those guys had different strengths/blemishes to their resumes:

Russell - Championships that I doubt anyone else on the list would have matched if they had been in the same place. We can say "different era" all day long, but the theoretical situation there is so hard to say. He won so many Game 7s and won when it mattered so much, that he is the best when it comes to this. Duncan's argument over Russell can't be winning, it has to be statistics.

Wilt - But if Duncan's argument over Russell is stats, then you run into a problem and have to change your hermeneutic against Wilt, whose stats were off the charts. With Wilt, you have to attack his playoff performance and winning. Duncan has him there.

Kareem - So Duncan's argument to land over Russell and Wilt has to be either (a) the combination of winning and numbers or (b) longevity. And then you run into Kareem, who had both of those and more hardware than Duncan. So with Kareem, you have to change your hermeneutic again and go with the fact that Kareem played with two top-15 players (Magic & Oscar). Duncan never played with even one. So Duncan's argument over Kareem is that he did almost the same with much less.

In my opinion, Duncan's only argument to land over all 3 has to be the fact that he has no "blemishes" on his resume (besides never repeating...and all of these 3 guys do). Personally I have him at #4:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Duncan
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Kobe
9. Shaq
10. Lebron
11. Hakeem
12. Oscar
13. West
14. Dr J
15. Dirk

Pretty much agree with your argument and your list. Nice read. :toast All of these thoughts below are random and nitpicky I admit.

Not sure I'd have Kobe over Shaq but its close. Moses might deserve to be on that list somewhere. He's the great forgotten big man. And apparently Elgin Baylor was amazing though he never got a ring (and obviously I never saw him play).

And if one doesn't adjust for strength of competition (as many of the pro-Russell arguments choose to do) then Mikan has a good case for bumping Dirk or Dr. J. He was the best player in the league by far pre-Celtics dynasty.

[coachmac87]

He can never be ahead of Kareem

Why? Just curious to hear your take. Not disagreeing with you

[BillMc]

He can never be ahead of Kareem

I agree that Kareem should be ahead of TD. The only argument for Duncan is perhaps he was a better defender (certainly he was in their respective late period careers) and that Kareem played with more talent and may not have been the best player on his team for most his championships.

That said, the titles, the MVPS, the points, and the longevity, probably have to give the nod to the Captain.

[kobyz]

Because of pop who rob from him titles...

[Leetonidas]

I think midnightpulp made a good argument for Kareem being wildly overrated and it makes sense tbh. It's retardedly titled "Kareem Overrated-Jabbar" or some shit, he makes some good points imo

[Arcadian]

He arguably is the best.

Russell? :lol Just imagine Duncan and Russell playing one on one. Russell would get demolished.

Shaq? One dimensional player.

Hakeem? Less successful career.

Wilt? The "Kobe" of centers, basically.

Kareem? The hardest argument to make, but he only had one shot in his entire arsenal (:lol), and did most of his damage in the 70s (:lol). One could easily give Duncan the benefit of the doubt for playing against better competition, and for being a more versatile player.

[SASdynasty!]

Pretty much agree with your argument and your list. Nice read. :toast All of these thoughts below are random and nitpicky I admit.

Not sure I'd have Kobe over Shaq but its close. Moses might deserve to be on that list somewhere. He's the great forgotten big man. And apparently Elgin Baylor was amazing though he never got a ring (and obviously I never saw him play).

And if one doesn't adjust for strength of competition (as many of the pro-Russell arguments choose to do) then Mikan has a good case for bumping Dirk or Dr. J. He was the best player in the league by far pre-Celtics dynasty.
Completely agree with all of that. I could definitely see Mikan in the top 15 if I knew more about him. And I agree on the Shaq/Kobe...actually I accidentally listed them wrong. I'll have Shaq over Kobe unless Kobe makes another run (edited my original post).

I actually have kind of a weird perspective because I could see Duncan having arguments over Jordan before I see him having arguments over Kareem for the GOAT. It's hard to explain but mostly has to do with the fact that we have Jordan with 5 losing seasons (one he was injured for a lot of) and a 1-9 playoff record before Pippen and that amazing supporting cast.

[Clipper Nation]

His stats were artificially deflated by Porker's ballhogging and selfishness.

[SASdynasty!]

He arguably is the best.

Russell? :lol Just imagine Duncan and Russell playing one on one. Russell would get demolished.

Shaq? One dimensional player.

Hakeem? Less successful career.

Wilt? The "Kobe" of centers, basically.

Kareem? The hardest argument to make, but he only had one shot in his entire arsenal (:lol), and did most of his damage in the 70s (:lol). One could easily give Duncan the benefit of the doubt for playing against better competition, and for being a more versatile player.
I disagree with what you wrote about Russell. Those hypotheticals are hard to say. If we didn't have the history between Russell and Wilt, I would be tempted to say "there's no way Russell would ever beat Wilt head to head," and yet he did it over and over.

Agree with Shaq...you can't be top-5 and not be great on both ends of the floor. You really shouldn't be able to be top-10, but he was so dominant on offense, he gets a little bit of an exception. (Same goes for Magic)

Hakeem, yah too many first-round losses. Just too many losses and underperforming years that it doesn't completely get made up for by his amazing runs ('95 especially). Winning titles during Jordan's retirement doesn't help in appearance either, although I don't hold that against him.

Kareem playing in the 70's doesn't really bother me, because he followed his one championship in that decade up with 5 more in the 80's (best era of basketball IMO). And having one shot is not bad if it is the most unguardable shot of all time. I mean, no one could stop his sky hook, so what's he supposed to do, work on perfecting his 15-foot bank shot? What's the point? Kareem and Duncan is about as close a wash in all-time great player comparison that you could ever have in my opinion.

[SASdynasty!]

His stats were artificially deflated by Porker's ballhogging and selfishness.
Solid post, great contribution.

[ffadicted]

Not a sexy choice

[Vic Petro]

I've got him over Shaq and Hakeem pretty soundly. The Wilt/Russell/Kareem is where it gets tricky. All 3 of those guys had different strengths/blemishes to their resumes:

Russell - Championships that I doubt anyone else on the list would have matched if they had been in the same place. We can say "different era" all day long, but the theoretical situation there is so hard to say. He won so many Game 7s and won when it mattered so much, that he is the best when it comes to this. Duncan's argument over Russell can't be winning, it has to be statistics.

Wilt - But if Duncan's argument over Russell is stats, then you run into a problem and have to change your hermeneutic against Wilt, whose stats were off the charts. With Wilt, you have to attack his playoff performance and winning. Duncan has him there.

Kareem - So Duncan's argument to land over Russell and Wilt has to be either (a) the combination of winning and numbers or (b) longevity. And then you run into Kareem, who had both of those and more hardware than Duncan. So with Kareem, you have to change your hermeneutic again and go with the fact that Kareem played with two top-15 players (Magic & Oscar). Duncan never played with even one. So Duncan's argument over Kareem is that he did almost the same with much less.

In my opinion, Duncan's only argument to land over all 3 has to be the fact that he has no "blemishes" on his resume (besides never repeating...and all of these 3 guys do). Personally I have him at #4:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Duncan
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Kobe
10. Lebron
11. Hakeem
12. Oscar
13. West
14. Dr J
15. Dirk

Kobe too high imo.

[Arcadian]

I disagree with what you wrote about Russell. Those hypotheticals are hard to say. If we didn't have the history between Russell and Wilt, I would be tempted to say "there's no way Russell would ever beat Wilt head to head," and yet he did it over and over.

That's why I said "one on one." The same goes for Wilt Chamberlain: he utterly dominated Russell one on one, but Russell had better teams. Granted, part of why he had better teams was due to his contributions as a teammate. However, that advantage falls off in a comparison with Duncan, who is an equally good teammate.



Kareem playing in the 70's doesn't really bother me, because he followed his one championship in that decade up with 5 more in the 80's (best era of basketball IMO). And having one shot is not bad if it is the most unguardable shot of all time. I mean, no one could stop his sky hook, so what's he supposed to do, work on perfecting his 15-foot bank shot? What's the point? Kareem and Duncan is about as close a wash in all-time great player comparison that you could ever have in my opinion.

I agree with the emboldened. I considered myself a big fan of Kareem as a player, so I don't necessarily rank Duncan above him - but I do think the argument can be made. I'm not merely penalizing Kareem for playing in the 70s - it's more the fact that he was at his peak in the 70s and didn't win enough, and then played a sidekick role in the 80s and won a lot. That makes his success very tricky to evaluate, especially in comparison to someone like Duncan who was the unquestioned best player on his team for 4/5 championships. You have a point about the sky hook, but I don't know...it just seems like he should have had more than one shot in the arsenal, lol. I love the sky hook, but I love Duncan's plethora of moves even more. Think of it this way: if, hypothetically, there was a player who could figure out how to defend the sky hook, he would presumably shut Kareem down. But with Duncan, it's not that easy. He has more moves you have to account for. So I take that to be an objective advantage, even if it's hypothetical.

[TD 21]

I've always maintained that it's primarily because of the PF designation. Even though many consider him to be a C, because he and by extension the Spurs always insisted that he be considered a PF, out of respect, I guess, many went along with it.

They couldn't figure out that both were true. That he was always a natural C, but that he primarily played PF until '06-'07 and from '12 on, has essentially played PF offensively when next to Splitter.

He obviously belongs firmly in the discussion for best big of all time though.

[Buddy Mignon]

Kareem won titles in the era of Wilt, Lanier, Walton, Moses, Dawkins, Gilmore, Parish, Hakeem, Sampson... and I know I'm missing some. He shits on Jim in every category. Has 6 rings and 6 MVP's. He dominated in the toughest era. Case closed. Shaq got his against Jim head to head. Shaq went to the finals with three different teams, which means he was dominate in different systems. Hakeem is the most talented big man we've ever see. His resume doesnt measure up against the others, but he did go back2back and his stats are better than Jims.

[Mikeanaro]

Kareem won titles in the era of Wilt, Lanier, Walton, Moses, Dawkins, Gilmore, Parish, Hakeem, Sampson... and I know I'm missing some. He shits on Jim in every category. Has 6 rings and 6 MVP's. He dominated in the toughest era. Case closed. Shaq got his against Jim head to head. Shaq went to the finals with three different teams, which means he was dominate in different systems. Hakeem is the most talented big man we've ever see. His resume doesnt measure up against the others, but he did go back2back and his stats are better than Jims.
Agreed on Kareem, not so much with Shaq since he won zero in Orlando and Miami was a refjob, Hakeem was really gifted but he wasnt dominant for a long time, I take 5 over 2 in a row.

[Infinite_limit]

Why? Just curious to hear your take. Not disagreeing with you
He's the All Time leading scorer. Along with Wilt, a total legend of the game: Pre-College, in College and then the Pros. And he uses his influence politically.

I dunno if Kareem & Wilt will ever be out done. Shaq with Duncan's brain and work ethic would have been interesting


But Duncan replaced Bill in the Top 6 last season, IMO. If Duncan won a 6th, I'd have to seriously re-consider Bird and even Magic.

[dbreiden83080]

Well He's not..

That said I would only clearly put 2 men ahead of him.

1) Wilt
2) Kareem

[dbreiden83080]

His stats were artificially deflated by Porker's ballhogging and selfishness.

Not really going there, but think about this..

He scored over 25,000 points with Pop babying his minutes pretty much as soon as he turned 30 and always being a very unselfish player..

[spurraider21]

1) kareem
2) Duncan3) hakeem

[Galileo]

Just two quick points:

* Jabbar stopped rebounding when he turned 30, Duncan did not

* Jabbar's dominant years were all when the NBA was diluted by the ABA.

[Skull-1]

I've got him over Shaq and Hakeem pretty soundly. The Wilt/Russell/Kareem is where it gets tricky. All 3 of those guys had different strengths/blemishes to their resumes:

Russell - Championships that I doubt anyone else on the list would have matched if they had been in the same place. We can say "different era" all day long, but the theoretical situation there is so hard to say. He won so many Game 7s and won when it mattered so much, that he is the best when it comes to this. Duncan's argument over Russell can't be winning, it has to be statistics.

Wilt - But if Duncan's argument over Russell is stats, then you run into a problem and have to change your hermeneutic against Wilt, whose stats were off the charts. With Wilt, you have to attack his playoff performance and winning. Duncan has him there.

Kareem - So Duncan's argument to land over Russell and Wilt has to be either (a) the combination of winning and numbers or (b) longevity. And then you run into Kareem, who had both of those and more hardware than Duncan. So with Kareem, you have to change your hermeneutic again and go with the fact that Kareem played with two top-15 players (Magic & Oscar). Duncan never played with even one. So Duncan's argument over Kareem is that he did almost the same with much less.

In my opinion, Duncan's only argument to land over all 3 has to be the fact that he has no "blemishes" on his resume (besides never repeating...and all of these 3 guys do). Personally I have him at #4:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Duncan
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Kobe
10. Lebron
11. Hakeem
12. Oscar
13. West
14. Dr J
15. Dirk


:lol No DRob. :lol

[Dre_7]

Duncan IS the best big man of all time!

[SASdynasty!]

:lol No DRob. :lol
I don't think many people put DRob in the Top-15. Top 25, for sure. Top 20, probably. Never winning a title as the best player on your team is what hurts DRob the most. One of the most skilled big men of all time though.

[Skull-1]

What? Guy was selected to several all-time great lists. Was on the Dream Team. Made San Antonio relevant all by himself for a decade with absolutely no support, unlike Jordan and Hakeem.

[lefty]

Hakeem ftw

[GoodOdor]

What? Guy was selected to several all-time great lists. Was on the Dream Team. Made San Antonio relevant all by himself for a decade with absolutely no support, unlike Jordan and Hakeem.

And shriveled every time it mattered in the playoffs.

Also got fucked for everyone to see by Hakeem. He tore that ass up good.

[Sean Cagney]

Completely agree with all of that. I could definitely see Mikan in the top 15 if I knew more about him. And I agree on the Shaq/Kobe...actually I accidentally listed them wrong. I'll have Shaq over Kobe unless Kobe makes another run (edited my original post).

I actually have kind of a weird perspective because I could see Duncan having arguments over Jordan before I see him having arguments over Kareem for the GOAT. It's hard to explain but mostly has to do with the fact that we have Jordan with 5 losing seasons (one he was injured for a lot of) and a 1-9 playoff record before Pippen and that amazing supporting cast.
See I see the MJ argument on playoff record before Pippen but it was not until Pippen became a man that they got over Detroit, before that he was there but did not help out much in the playoffs. Mj needed some help and could not do it all on his own, most cant though. MJ always showed up and put up big numbers in the playoffs vs Detroit etc. but his team did not, that is not a slight on him. Pippen deserves more credit overall indeed but honestly Mike was always there and that extra help put him over the hump, period.

Bird after MJs 63 called him God in basketball shoes for a reason, he was that good.

[313]

Because of pop who rob from him titles...

[Skull-1]

And shriveled every time it mattered in the playoffs.

Also got fucked for everyone to see by Hakeem. He tore that ass up good.

Revisionist history.

[pgardn]

Just two quick points:

* Jabbar stopped rebounding when he turned 30, Duncan did not

* Jabbar's dominant years were all when the NBA was diluted by the ABA.

His D in later years was embarrassing as well.
All he could do was hip check.

[barbacoataco]

Trying to compare the very greatest players is pointless. You can make specific points, like Kareem was more consistent throughout his career than Olajuwon. Or you could say that Shaq was unstoppable as a scorer, but his FT problems were a liability late and close.
Anyway here's my list for big men
Peak
1. Olajuwon
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. Duncan
5. Russell

Career
1. Kareem
2. Duncan (very close 1 & 2)
3. Russell
4. Olajuwon
5. Shaq

Also in the mix Chamberlain and Moses Malone

[z0sa]

Cause Wilt.

[pgardn]

Trying to compare the very greatest players is pointless. You can make specific points, like Kareem was more consistent throughout his career than Olajuwon. Or you could say that Shaq was unstoppable as a scorer, but his FT problems were a liability late and close.
Anyway here's my list for big men
Peak
1. Olajuwon
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. Duncan
5. Russell

Career
1. Kareem
2. Duncan (very close 1 & 2)
3. Russell
4. Olajuwon
5. Shaq

Also in the mix Chamberlain and Moses Malone

i likes this list


I would add Moses would not play good D. For that reason he does not belong IMO. Russell is given too much credit for his work on Wilt. 8 teams in the league leading (in the beginning) to multiple championships and on his first Celtics team Bill was the only black man... crazy. Terribly difficult to rate Russell.

And heck yes it's difficult but entertaining.

[barbacoataco]

I think when comparing greats of different eras you have to evaluate them based on their career in relation to the time they played. You can speculate all day about how Russell would fare in today's league, bug nobody knows or ever could know. The fact is Wilt Chamberlain was huge and athletic even by today's standards, and Russell was able to handle him. So I don't buy that he couldn't play today.

[Skull-1]

None of them could hang with Prime David. I guess nobody here actually saw the guy play.

[phxspurfan]

TD over Wilt? lol the homerism

[SASdynasty!]

What? Guy was selected to several all-time great lists. Was on the Dream Team. Made San Antonio relevant all by himself for a decade with absolutely no support, unlike Jordan and Hakeem.
What's your top-15 list?

[barbacoataco]

TD over Wilt? lol the homerism

TD > Russell > Wilt. That's a pretty straight argument. It's not like Duncan doesn't have 5 rings and was an unstoppable force in his prime, while remaining productive at an advanced age. Being behind Duncan isn't homerism. If we were talking about Karl Malone it would be different. But Duncan's resume compares with any player.

[daslicer]

Jabbar is the only big I rank ahead of Duncan but Duncan is ahead of the rest.

[Skull-1]

What's your top-15 list?


Definitely includes Robinson. Not even up for debate.

[Sean Cagney]

None of them could hang with Prime David. I guess nobody here actually saw the guy play.

Hakeem could though. I think TD at his best would edge him too.. I saw him play in his prime too, very quick and athletic.

[barbacoataco]

If DRob would have had a better supporting cast, he might have won a championship in 1994-6 period which would help his argument. I love Robinson and had season tickets while he was playing. But there was something missing with him. Of maybe not. I always say if you give 1995 team Parker and Ginobili, and take away Del Negro and Avery, that team wins a championship.

When comparing the all time greats I think we are all unrealistic about how much team support comes in to play. I'm not sure if players like Ewing, DRob, Barkley and Stockton were just unlucky or truly of a lesser quality. What if a guy like Barkley would have had a little more talent around him? What if the Malone/Stockton teams could have added one more piece? Or what if Jordan never found Pippen? And players like Magic, Kareem and Bird were always surrounded by A LOT of talent.

I say all this in comparison to baseball hitting statistics, which are pretty much a Mano a Mano contest. A batter faces a pitcher. In basketball the team is working together and the outcome can hinge and fall by the actions of a seldom used bench player who gets hot and hits some 3's. And we use these outcomes to justify saying "Hakeem is better than Robinson because he schooled him in 95."

[Blackjack]

Hakeem got to play against David or Rodman. David got to play against the Houston Rockets.

David had his faults, but he destroyed one-on-one coverage. Unfortunately, his teams provided no real threat outside him.

[Galileo]

1962 NBA Finals, game 7:

Bill Russell;

30 points
40 rebounds
Celtics win

No one has ever peaked this high.

UPDATE:

Some sources credit Russell with 53 minutes, 30 points, 40 rebounds, 8+ blocks, 4 assists, 8/18 FG, 14/17 FT's.

[Galileo]

Bill Russell in game 7s:

10 games
10 wins
5 were NBA Finals
5 were East Finals

18.6 points per game
29.3 rebounds per game

[Diego20]

His stats were artificially deflated by Porker's ballhogging and selfishness.

[Skull-1]

Hakeem could though. I think TD at his best would edge him too.. I saw him play in his prime too, very quick and athletic.


Hakeem had the benefit of a deeper roster. David was being doubled constantly with no help and defending Hakeem solo on the other end.

David was a better athlete than Hakeem. How many seven-footers could run like a PG? Other than David, none.

Yes, even Duncan admits that David beat him one on one.

[Skull-1]

Hakeem got to play against David or Rodman. David got to play against the Houston Rockets.

David had his faults, but he destroyed one-on-one coverage. Unfortunately, his teams provided no real threat outside him.
This.

[Sean Cagney]

Hakeem had the benefit of a deeper roster. David was being doubled constantly with no help and defending Hakeem solo on the other end.

David was a better athlete than Hakeem. How many seven-footers could run like a PG? Other than David, none.

Yes, even Duncan admits that David beat him one on one.Hakeem did have a good roster of shooters, still he burned whoever they put on him. I agree with David being doubled constantly in that series but Hakeem was on another level those whole playoffs and you know it. I still can't believe this footwork in some of those games.

I know David was the best athlete at Center, does that equate to the best player? Athleticism alone was enough for David, he never had the killer instinct or worked on his game like Tim did though (Never had that extra push to become the best). I love David but he lacked in some areas as far as the mental game went, got by on his pure talent most of the time.

David turned the reigns over to Tim early on, why do you think? He saw how good he was. He said in practice Tim Beat him his rookie year and he was hard to stop one on one, fact.

[Skull-1]

Hakeem did have a good roster of shooters, still he burned whoever they put on him. I agree with David being doubled constantly in that series but Hakeem was on another level those whole playoffs and you know it. I still can't believe this footwork in some of those games.

I know David was the best athlete at Center, does that equate to the best player? Athleticism alone was enough for David, he never had the killer instinct or worked on his game like Tim did though (Never had that extra push to become the best). I love David but he lacked in some areas as far as the mental game went, got by on his pure talent most of the time.

David turned the reigns over to Tim early on, why do you think? He saw how good he was. He said in practice Tim Beat him his rookie year and he was hard to stop one on one, fact.

Hakeem had the benefit of the other gear because David didn't. Supporting cast.

I recall both Timmy and Dave acknowledging Dave was the better player, even in practice. Robinson kicked his butt. I have this in DVR somewhere...

[SASdynasty!]

Definitely includes Robinson. Not even up for debate.
I obviously knew that it included Robinson because of your last post. I just want to see the guys you leave off for Robinson. Do you have a list? If you have never made one, you might be leaving people off you didn't think about.