I don't think there's an empirical formula to prove what I think -- no matter how much Galileo wants to pretend that there can be. And I don't think it's just about talent or flash or publicity or highlights -- results must matter. Hence, I think Russell is firmly entrenched in the pantheon of greats, no matter who his teammates were and no matter what the compe ion level was. Russell's teammates changed through the years, but his team's results did not, which strikes me as a testament to Russell's greatness. They beat all comers during Russell's reign and that's all they could have done.
As to Mr. Duncan: Timmy is surely the most accomplished pro of this generation (really post-Jordan). And other than Jordan or Magic, I consider him the most accomplished pro since the merger. He's been the unquestioned focal point and crucial player on 4- le winners, while bringing home 2 MVPs, 12 All-NBA's (9 First Teams), and 12 All-Defenses (8 First Teams; and having been royally screwed out of one or more DPOYs along the way).
Shaq has as many les, but less of the ancillary accolades. He was First Team All-NBA 8 times, but was Third Team All-NBA another 4 times; Duncan has never been anything other than First or Second Team. Shaq only made 3 All-Defense teams (and never First Team). He has only one MVP (though that's unfair). But, more than anything, I think he's eclipsed by Duncan because he was clearly not the alpha male on his last le team.
Bird has more of the ancillary accolades (more MVPs, an equal number of First Team All-League nods), but he likewise was rarely named to an All-Defense team and was never named to an All-Defense First Team. Moreover, Bird does not have as many rings as Timmy.
I'd also argue, though, that hardware aside, Timmy's greatness should get a bump because of what he won with. The latter days of David Robinson's career weren't what made him a Hall of Famer; David was a very good player when the Spurs started winning les and was much more of a role player when they won in 2003. Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker are All-Star caliber talents, but not all-time greats. Timmy won repeatedly with those guys by his side. I don't think anyone would agree that latter-Dave, Manu or Tony is the basketball equivalent of Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Robert Parish, or Kevin McHale. Shaq and Bird, in winning les, had historically better sidekicks than Duncan did in winning his. I thnk the world of Tony and Manu (and Dave, of course), but in le runs, those guys were (at best) marginal All-Stars. Kobe, Wade, Parish, McHale weren't merely All-Stars; those guys were making First and Second Team All-NBA during the heydays of Bird and Shaq.
In the years of the Spurs 4 le runs, Duncan didn't have a single teammate who made an All-NBA team. Bowen made 3 All-Defense teams during those runs; Ginobili made an All-Star team in 2005. Other than that, those Spurs teams only accolades were Duncan's All-NBA, All-Defense, and All-Star nods (and his MVPs).
By contrast, in Shaq's 4 le runs, Kobe was 2nd team twice and 1st team once, and Wade was 2nd team.
It's all subjective. And my point of view is decidedly skewed in favor of Spurs and particularly Tim Duncan. But I think there's plenty of reasonable argument to put Tim above Bird and Shaq, which necessarily puts Tim into the elite of the elite of the elite and among the 7 or so best players in the history of the game.
Reply With Quote
