Reply With Quote
He's a ing center people. Be done with it.
I was trying to step out of a Duncan fan spot and think more objectively. I started listing names in my head, there are a lot of all-time greats out there. I'd say the argument can be made to put him top 10/15 by any basketball fan.
I prefer Duncan's game over any of them, there's no one I'd rather watch, past or present. So yeah, you got me. He'd fall somewhere in my top 5. Let's say somewhere around 1.
He's a ing center people. Be done with it.
So was Oscar Robertson. Alvan Adams was a shooting guard.He's a ing center people. Be done with it.
This is not a real question anymore. TD is the best PF who has ever played the game.
Queue the people who say he's really a center.
Those New York/Pacer teams the Bulls beat in the East playoffs could have given the Jazz a run for their money...
And for all the talk about Malone not winning les because of Jordan.... Malone only got the Jazz to the Finals twice in 20 years with a Hall of Fame Point Guard and solid role players.
Prime Malone was a higher volume scorer than Duncan... but Duncan pretty much has him covered in every other are of the game... and defense isnt even close.
I think Barkley is closer to Malone than Malone is to Duncan
He's a forward. The term "power forward" isn't listed on the stat sheets, which is where Duncan is considered a forward rather than a center.
So he's the second-best forward of all time, behind Bird.
If Duncan is 6'10 than Horry is about 6'8 and Lebron is about 6'6 instead of 6'9 as he is considerably taller than both of them. Fab is listed at 6'10 and Duncan is a lot taller than him also.
Fab is listed generously at 6'10"...
And Horry was actually listed at 6'8.5" without shoes back in his pre draft.
Theres good links to this sorts of stuff... on insidehoops.com forums.
Tim is 6'10 without shoes so i dont think that qualifies him as a 7 footer...there are maybe only 10 guys in the league who are actually 7'0" without shoes.
Duncan's height has been questioned in the past.
The story goes that he was billed as 7' when he was drafted so the Spurs could play up the "twin towers" angle. After Robinson retired Duncan asked the Spurs to list him at his true height, that became 6'11". I've read that he's actually just under that.
Somewhere I have all the articles that tell the story...
Tim Duncan is a very good basketball player.
Gotta go with Chump on this one.
He's better than me, and that's saying something
It is hard to know how tall anyone is in the NBA they lie so much about it. They say that Lebron is now 6'9 up from 6'8 a year ago. When he and Duncan hugged and Duncan gave him a few kind words after the finals, Tim was way taller than Lebron. More than 2 inches for sure. So i guess Lebron is only like 6'6 then, who knows???
If Chris Paul is 6'0", I'm a LEGO block.
Tim Duncan has a degree in psychology, is a 4 time NBA Champion First Ballot Hall of Famer who married his colllege sweetheart, is completely fearless in a leadership role and in the clutch, and basically moves mountains with his mind.
He's the best ever.
Perhaps one reason why TD is so good is because he blends both the traditional PF and C positions, though nowadays, there isn't much difference position-wise between whatever two bigmen are on the floor for a team.
ofcourse we think he is. He is a Spur and brought 4 championships so far. His teams are always in contention. He's played against some of the greatest-Shaq and Kobe for example, and won.
He is 5'10 on a tall day.
'Eh, in 10 years people are going to talk about Nash, Garnett, and Nowitzki being victims of the Duncan era.Actually, I'd like your reasons why he's not the best PF of all time.
By the way, "victims of the Jordan era" is a complete and total copout.Babe Ruth is considered one of the greatest ballplayers of all time but he and his teams were beaten in the World Series more than once. If Barkley and the Suns or Malone and the Jazz really had the goods, either one could have beaten the Bulls in the 90's.
I hate these people that give players a pass just because the were "victims of the Jordan era". Knock that off, please.
it's not a question anymore since last year.
I think there are a couple of things that mark Duncan out from Malone here. When you think of Malone, you think of Stockton. You think of that pick and roll. I think Stockton got Malone a lot of open shots, which Malone was very proficient at knocking down. He was a great player. Meanwhile, Duncan is termed the "quarterback" of the team by Pop, which I always take to mean that he gets the open shots for guys, and guides the ball around. No doubt Parker is getting better, but he's not the dish guy that Stockton was, and I don't think Duncan gets as many pick and roll points as Malone did. No doubt he could, but that's not the system. Utah Jazz were all about Stockton and Malone, the San Antonio Spurs are all about Tim Duncan opening up Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. They're great players too, but Tim anchors that. Also, don't you think it's a little silly to say that Malone would've gotten 2 les without Jordan in the league, like Hakeem did, when he played against those Hakeem teams that won two. If you don't win the two years that were open, sorry, I'm not giving you any other years where Jordan hypothetically wasn't there, as unfair as that may be.
True. He measured 6'1" in shoes in 2005. 5'11.75" without.
Seriously?? He looks shorter than that. I wouldn't have been surprised by 5'10" in bare feet.True. He measured 6'1" in shoes in 2005. 5'11.75" without.
I was a huge Malone/Stockton fan in their heyday; always rooting for them over the Bulls, Suns, etc. But really, there's no comparison between Malone and Duncan. Duncan does more things, more consistently than Malone ever did. In the tough games, Duncan does what has to be done, whereas Malone would often disappear or be taken out of his game (which relied too much on 17 foot jumpers, in my opinion) when the going got tough.
Why are we even arguing this: Timmy has four rings, and Malone ended with none. Sure, you could argue that they were up against the Bulls, but the Bulls were very beatable in those years. Although I also think that today's Spurs are more complete teams than the Bulls were, this is just speculation. Like comparing the Bulls to the Showtime Lakers, and the Showtime Lakers with the classic Russell/Cousy Celtics. You simply can't, so it's a moot point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
