Mavs fan here. . . get a load of this. . .

Quote:

---

Huh? Kobe, Duncan and KG do not, and have never made their teammates better players (unless you consider that taking defensive pressure away from a shooter qualifies as making teammates better - but if that teammate doesn't see the ball, what good is it to have less defensive pressure?).

---

Got this from a Suns board where the arguement of making teamates better was brought up. It'd be easy for me to take it to the Dallas board b/c I know they agree. But I though I'd bring it here. What are your thoughts on this. Isn't making your teamates better all about drawing extra defensive attention on the offensive end or erasing defensive mistakes on the other end?

eh

Here's my reply

Quote:

---

Isn't that the gist of making your teamates better?

Raja Bell: Wow Steve, you penetrated the lane and drew my defender from the wing closer to you, then you passed it out to me and I have an opne 3 point shot as opposed to a contested one. I am much better at making open shots as I am contested ones. Thank you Steve!!

Brent Barry:Wow Tim, your post up drew Manu's defender from the wing closer to you, then you passed it out to Manu and my defender rotated to him, then he passed it to me, and now I have an opne 3 point shot as opposed to a contested one. I am much better at making open shots as I am contested ones. Thank you Tim!!

Same scenario, but in the first Nash gets the assist. How can you guys not get that?

---

I'd add to that the point that Tim's play on the defensive end, where he's among the dominant players of this era, "makes his teammates better" because they are able to play much more aggressively on that end then they otherwise might. Guys know that if they play aggressively and get beat, Tim will usually be back there to block or change a shot and cover for the mistake. By allowing his teammates to play aggressively, though, Duncan's presence makes them better because they can force the ball away from players and challenge shots much more effectively than if they were compelled to lay off for fear of being beaten to the rim.

It's not the prototypical way that a player makes his teammates better (myopically viewed as a high number of assists) but it undoubtedly has made the Spurs the best team in the league over the past 10 seasons, regardless of who comprises the supporting cast.

Drawing defense is only a fraction of the general scheme. The Spurs have 3 threats, which are capable of pulling a double team. Now, as to making your teamates better, that is a very dubious statement, IMHO. You cannot factor out other qualities such as on/off-court leadership, positive attitude, defensive abilities, court vision, I could go on. There are too many variables that contribute to the success of a team, even when analyzing the contributions of one specific player.

Tim doesn't make teammates better?

Ask Jaren Jackson.

And Nash makes everybody on the floor better, including the opponent's offensive players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greensborohill

Got this from a Suns board where the arguement of making teamates better was brought up. It'd be easy for me to take it to the Dallas board b/c I know they agree. But I though I'd bring it here. What are your thoughts on this. Isn't making your teamates better all about drawing extra defensive attention on the offensive end or erasing defensive mistakes on the other end?

---

My god... that is one of the most asinine statements I've heard in a long time.

All of those guys make their teams much better. Duncan has proven himself in that regard probably more than any active player in the league right now (with the possible exception of Shaq... but he with Kobe for his first 3 championships).

Other than Shaq, Duncan has more championships than any active cornerstone player (I'm not couting Kobe, who won his rings with Shaq).

wasn't the knock on guys like Charles Barkley that they couldn't win a championship because they didn't do enough to make teammates bettere.

Tim Duncan has won 3 championships, and the Spurs have the best winning percentage in all of professional sports since Duncan's arrival in San Antonio.

What more would he have to do to prove he makes his teammates better?

That pretty much ended the argument, greensboro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K-State Spur

And Nash makes everybody on the floor better, including the opponent's offensive players.

---

NICE!

Very true. I just don't think the Suns play enough defense to win a championship. If Wade isn't back and healthy for the Heat come playoff time... there are only 2 legit NBA title contenders: Dallas and San Antonio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I'd add to that the point that Tim's play on the defensive end, where he's among the dominant players of this era, "makes his teammates better" because they are able to play much more aggressively on that end then they otherwise might. Guys know that if they play aggressively and get beat, Tim will usually be back there to block or change a shot and cover for the mistake. By allowing his teammates to play aggressively, though, Duncan's presence makes them better because they can force the ball away from players and challenge shots much more effectively than if they were compelled to lay off for fear of being beaten to the rim.

It's not the prototypical way that a player makes his teammates better (myopically viewed as a high number of assists) but it undoubtedly has made the Spurs the best team in the league over the past 10 seasons, regardless of who comprises the supporting cast.

---

Actually, you could argue that this is the single biggest reason why Tim has three rings and Nash has none.

On defense, Nash makes his teammates worse.

But it's not surprising a Suns board wouldn't understand that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greensborohill

Got this from a Suns board where the arguement of making teamates better was brought up. It'd be easy for me to take it to the Dallas board b/c I know they agree. But I though I'd bring it here. What are your thoughts on this. Isn't making your teamates better all about drawing extra defensive attention on the offensive end or erasing defensive mistakes on the other end?

---

Post this shit in the fucking NBA forum, and anyone that thinks Duncan doesnt make players better probably roots for a team that doesnt have any championships

yup everyone not named Nash does not make their teamates better. Sun fans are brilliant!

Ask them what happens if Nash is forced to shoot instead of pass, which is what happens everytime he plays vs. Spurs. They lose, that's what happens.

TD is the focus of an entire team's defense. When he gets the ball, everyone is waiting on how they can help. He dribbles, they rush him. That leaves someone open. If he kept the ball every time and forced shots, yeah, I could see that. But TD is the last guy to force it and probably the most anxious (among the great low post scorers) to feed his open teamates. And he does make great decisions to get the ball out to the right guy. And even if that teamate doesn't shoot, it usually leads to someone getting an open shot. That's just on offense. On D, he's one of the best helpside defenders for big guys that we've seen.

That quote comes from what a 12 yr old. all those players definately make their teammates better in their own way. Especially KG and Timmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K-State Spur

And Nash makes everybody on the floor better, including the opponent's offensive players.

---

We have a winner.

TD drawing double teams in the post alone probably makes the team better than Nash with his double-digit assists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mardigan

Post this shit in the fucking NBA forum, and anyone that thinks Duncan doesnt make players better probably roots for a team that doesnt have any championships

---

shut your fucking trap bitch. Either comment or don't, it's Spurs related.

Oh sorry tough guy, didnt mean to make fun of your crappy thread that no one wants to post in anyway, so fuck off little bitch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mardigan

Post this shit in the fucking NBA forum, and anyone that thinks Duncan doesnt make players better probably roots for a team that doesnt have any championships

---

Jeez -- why does every post coming from a Suns or Mavericks fan have to devolve into this "no championships" nonsense. Some of you make me want to go away from this forum and never come back. Arguments like "3 to 0" or "you don't know because you've never won" are more than just tiresome, they're evidence (to me) that the poster doesn't really have anything to add to the conversation.

There's a time and a place for everything -- and there's a time and a place for championship smack -- but each and every thread involving the views of Mavericks and Suns fans is neither the time nor the place, in most instances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Jeez -- why does every post coming from a Suns or Mavericks fan have to devolve into this "no championships" nonsense. Some of you make me want to go away from this forum and never come back. Arguments like "3 to 0" or "you don't know because you've never won" are more than just tiresome, they're evidence (to me) that the poster doesn't really have anything to add to the conversation.

There's a time and a place for everything -- and there's a time and a place for championship smack -- but each and every thread involving the views of Mavericks and Suns fans is neither the time nor the place, in most instances.

---

Time is now and place is here, you expect people to post shit like this and not react? I never even brought up 3 to 0 or mentioned the Mavs alright? I hardly ever even come in here, I stick in the NFL board, but its hard not to comment when you look at the Spurs board and a Mav fan has posted some shit about Duncan not being any good, especially when its some thought from another board, at least bring your own opinions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mardigan

Time is now and place is here, you expect people to post shit like this and not react? I never even brought up 3 to 0 or mentioned the Mavs alright? I hardly ever even come in here, I stick in the NFL board, but its hard not to comment when you look at the Spurs board and a Mav fan has posted some shit about Duncan not being any good, especially when its some thought from another board, at least bring your own opinions

---

Well I see your point, except that the thread starter disagreed with the guys take. He even posted his reply stating that the suns fan was in fact wrong about saying Tim did not help make his teammates better. did you read the whole thread or just the title?

I guess your right, just get tired of all these Mav titled threads in the Spurs board, and while I dont really see how he was disagreeing with the post, just throwing questions out, I guess I should lay off. My fault, back to the NFL forum I guess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mardigan

I guess your right, just get tired of all these Mav titled threads in the Spurs board, and while I dont really see how he was disagreeing with the post, just throwing questions out, I guess I should lay off. My fault, back to the NFL forum I guess

---

Well i can say that you are one of the better NFL posters on the board, that is where I spend a lot of my time.

The origanal poster .. Either here or someplace else, doesn't know what they are talking about.

The way defenses work in the NBA, its easy for almost any player to draw a double. The key is to know when to pass. The great ones know this, the less then great do not.

Duncan knows, and most coaches in the NBA try to teach.

A better arguement would be who makes their teammates "more better". In this, I will take Nash. Although Duncan helps on both ends of the floor, Nash has made All-Stars out of two players that when he is not on the floor are incapable of winning a game.

Without Duncan, Parker and Manu could win against some of the teams out there, but without Nash, Marion and Amare are absolutly NOTHING.

Bill Russell and Tim Duncan are the only two players to win a championship (Spurs 1999), completely reload the roster with 11 other players, and win another championship (Spurs 2005). Something tells me he's making the guys around him better. ;)

Quote:

---

Bill Russell and Tim Duncan are the only two players to win a championship (Spurs 1999), completely reload the roster with 11 other players, and win another championship (Spurs 2005). Something tells me he's making the guys around him better.

---

Not the best arguement. Shaq has won with two completely different rosters. John Salley has won with three different rosters. I think your arguement has more to do with management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalhoop

Not the best arguement. Shaq has won with two completely different rosters. John Salley has won with three different rosters. I think your arguement has more to do with management.

---

1) Shaq didn't. RIF. The ENTIRE Laker roster was never replaced between 2000 and 2002.
2) Salley is a role player. Kerr "Did it" too, if you're counting that. I'm talking franchise cornerstone, one team.

Shaq won with the Lakers and then with the Heat ... two different rosters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalhoop

Shaq won with the Lakers and then with the Heat ... two different rosters

---

One team (franchise), not going to another already playoff team with Dwayne Wade in place. I'd even argue that Shaq is the supporting player now.

In case this still isn't clear, TD and Russell, All Stars, champions win a title. The (same) franchise reloads around them with 11 completely different players, and they still win a title. Clear? They don't go anywhere else. Plenty of players have changed teams and won two places. That's not the scenario.

And thats not what the tread is about ... The thread is about how a player makes his teammates better. Clear?

Your arguement that the Spurs have a great managemt team when they reloaded is a good point, but has no value on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalhoop

And thats not what the tread is about ... The thread is about how a player makes his teammates better. Clear?

Your arguement that the Spurs have a great managemt team when they reloaded is a good point, but has no value on this thread.

---

Man, talk about unclear on the concept.

Tim Duncan took 23 different people to a championship on two different rosters for the same team.

ONE OTHER PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY HAS DONE THAT.

How many people has Nash even gotten to the Finals?

You don't even want to try to compare Duncan's vs. Nash's teammates.

And if you're saying that's management, then why isn't Phoenix's success due to management? Nash was far from their only addition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalhoop

And thats not what the tread is about ... The thread is about how a player makes his teammates better. Clear?

Your arguement that the Spurs have a great managemt team when they reloaded is a good point, but has no value on this thread.

---

Yea bro, Im pretty sure hes clear, but your point of Shaq and Salley were completely wrong, and he was just correcting you. And do you really think Tony or Manu would have ever made an all star team without playing with Tim? I sure dont

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greensborohill

Got this from a Suns board where the arguement of making teamates better was brought up. It'd be easy for me to take it to the Dallas board b/c I know they agree. But I though I'd bring it here. What are your thoughts on this. Isn't making your teamates better all about drawing extra defensive attention on the offensive end or erasing defensive mistakes on the other end?

---

You simply need to ask this guy that if Duncan does not make his teammates better, then how the hell did San Antonio win three championships? He sure as hell didn't do it alone, and there ain't NO WAY San Antonio would've even made it past the second round in ANY year without Tim. And one man shows don't win championships.

Tim is the CONSUMMATE team player and thrives on making those around him better.

wow, if Tim Duncan doesnt make his teammates better, than nobody does.....

LMAO at Dallas and Phoenix fans thinking "making teammates better" = "stats".

For Spurs fans "making teammates better" = "rings".

Quote:

---

Man, talk about unclear on the concept.

---

Tell me about it.

So your saying that if you don't win a Championship that you are not making your teammates better?

I just want to be clear on what we are arguing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalhoop

Tell me about it.

So your saying that if you don't win a Championship that you are not making your teammates better?

I just want to be clear on what we are arguing here.

---

No, but we're saying that the BEST measure of making your teammates better.

I just want to be clear on what we are arguing here. Is the object of the game to win or to have nice stats?

No hes saying that if your a superstar player, and win a title, you are probably doing something to make your teamates better. Jordan didnt get a lot of assists, but you would never hear anyone say he didnt make his teamates better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by remingtonbo2001

Drawing defense is only a fraction of the general scheme. The Spurs have 3 threats, which are capable of pulling a double team. Now, as to making your teamates better, that is a very dubious statement, IMHO. You cannot factor out other qualities such as on/off-court leadership, positive attitude, defensive abilities, court vision, I could go on. There are too many variables that contribute to the success of a team, even when analyzing the contributions of one specific player.

---

I agree with remingtonbo 2001.
Intangibles; walk-in-the-door people skills team members have and a well-ingrained knowledge of when, what and how to contribute on the floor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nkdlunch

yup everyone not named Nash does not make their teamates better. Sun fans are brilliant!

Ask them what happens if Nash is forced to shoot instead of pass, which is what happens everytime he plays vs. Spurs. They lose, that's what happens.

---

Brilliant! :lol

This just in . . . the Suns trade Steve Nash for Tim Duncan even up.


The Suns, with Duncan, Amare, Marion, Barbosa, Bell, Diaw, Thomas, instantly become odds-on favorites for the next 3 NBA titles if they hire somebody with two functioning neurons to coach.

The Spurs, with Nash, Ginobili, Parker, Bowen and . . . . are fighting for 7th/8th place in the West and force Pop into early retirement.

Quote:

---

No, but we're saying that the BEST measure of making your teammates better.

---

Who is to say that if not for Robinson, that the first wouldn't have been won? Or the leadership of AJ? Or the play of Manu and Parker that were the differance maker? Or maybe the Coach?

Using your arguement Hamilton (or whoever with the Pistons) is better at making his teammates better then Kidd or Nash. Does that make sense?

Nash has taken two teams to the WCF ... Why did both teams lose? Was it because of Nash not making the team better?

Quote:

---

And do you really think Tony or Manu would have ever made an all star team without playing with Tim?

---

Who knows? Put Tony with Amare and Marion .. I think so. Put Manu with Kidd and Jeffereson ... Yea, I think so.

Quote:

---

And if you're saying that's management, then why isn't Phoenix's success due to management? Nash was far from their only addition.

---

It is because of Nash ... This was part of the rebuilding arguement .... With Nash they are a second round playoff team, without him they are lotto.

With Duncan the Spurs are a Championship contending team, without they are a first round playoff team (Don't undersestimate the defensive scheme).

So which is better ... With one his team DOES NOT WIN without him. With the other they do win, but not as much.

That is my arguement for Nash making his teamates "More better"

Now from what I gather, you feel that Duncan is better because "he has rings" (Its not like I heard that before)

If thats all you have to back that up, then explain how Hamilton is better at making his teamates better then Nash ... because he has rings too

Quote:

---

The Suns, with Duncan, Amare, Marion, Barbosa, Bell, Diaw, Thomas, instantly become odds-on favorites for the next 3 NBA titles if they hire somebody with two functioning neurons to coach.

---

And find someone to pass the ball to the right players at the right time. They would have to make a trade for someone .... I don't think they would be favored at all, they wouldn't play defense for crap.

Quote:

---

The Spurs, with Nash, Ginobili, Parker, Bowen and . . . . are fighting for 7th/8th place in the West and force Pop into early retirement.

---

They would have to find another player .... the Spurs are not a very good team without Duncan ... They have no "bigs"

Duncan is more valuable because of the nature of the positions. I think every gm in the NBA if starting a franchise would rather have a versatile c/pf than a distributing pg, the same argument you here from the Durant/Oden debates, Durant might be more skilled, but a big man that can change both sides of the floor has to be regarded as more valuable and a gamechanger. Im not saying anything about rings, Stockton made everyone better kind of like Nash, but talented bigs are hard to come by

And while we are at it, it could be said that Dirk doesnt make anyone around him better either, shit even when they had Nash they couldnt get it done, he might actually make his teamates worse

I think most of the discussion here has focused on franchise players, TD, KG, Nash. Rip isn't in that category. You might as well have used Kerr or Salley for your example.

If it is based on rings, as some Spurs fans think, then anyone not named Duncan, Shaq or Hamilton makes their teammates better.

This doesn't sound like the most logical discussion at that point.

Ok, who was the "main cog" with the Pistons? before you say it was a team effert ... Make sure you understand that the Spurs are the definition of "Team"

KG doesnt do much to make his teammates better. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalhoop

Ok, who was the "main cog" with the Pistons? before you say it was a team effert ... Make sure you understand that the Spurs are the definition of "Team"

---

It was a Larry Brown team. If you don't understand that, it cannot be explained to you. Seven guys averaged 9.5 points or better. Spurs have never had anything remotely like that.

I think that anyone who's watched the NBA consistently over the past decade knows that Duncan (along with Shaq, for that matter) makes his teammates better. And while I don't want to get into an argument about who makes their teammates "more better" (I can't believe I wrote that), I think it's noteworthy that Duncan led the Spurs to the 2003 championship without one other All-Star on the team. (And yes, Ginobili and Robinson were on that team, but Robinson was in his twilight and Ginobili had yet to hit his stride---see their stats and mpg.) I take this as evidence that he's raising the overall level of his teammates' play.

Quote:

---

And the Spurs are not Pops team?

---

Don't most coaches make the players around them better? So when Billups passed to Hamilton for the open jumper, it was Brown that made it happen?

Explain how Pop is not responcible for the Spurs success. He seems to be a good coach ... Are the Spurs not "His team"

Quote:

---

I think it's noteworthy that Duncan led the Spurs to the 2003 championship without one other All-Star on the team.

---

Now there is a good arguement (Much better then the management one)

This is a good point ... As long at it wasn't "Pop's team" ... cause that would mean that Pop made them better and not Duncan.

If it turns out that Exstatic can wiggle his way out of the web .. I will concede that Duncan makes his players "More better" ... in '03 :)

Quote:

---

Don't most coaches make the players around them better? So when Billups passed to Hamilton for the open jumper, it was Brown that made it happen?

Explain how Pop is not responcible for the Spurs success. He seems to be a good coach ... Are the Spurs not "His team"

---

See, I warned him about pulling the "Team card", but he did anyway and now look. He has completely undermined evenything he had been arguing about.

This should be a lesson to you Spurs fans that think every arguement can be won by the "We have rings, that makes us better at everything" statement.

Ockham, a new poster by the looks of it, posted actual facts pertaining to the subject and changed my mind (Sort of), while the "We have rings" Statement took Duncan completely out of the running.

Try thinking about your team, not just the jewelery.

I always thought the lines were gray in the case of these arguments on Franchise Players making their teammates better. Sometimes the ripple effects of the presence/absence of the gamechanger/anchor of the team aren't always evident in championships. NBA is a big man's game, and it's not surprising Shaq and Duncan have been the only two considered to improve their teammates around them, making adequate players good. And good players, all-stars.

edit: I meant, more gooder players.