Reply With Quote
Again, statistical and matchup analysis says otherwise.
Again, statistical and matchup analysis says otherwise.
i think the duncan spurs will be remembered in about 20 years time much like the bird celtics are now. lots of people hated them at the time but now its like a big nostalgic lovefest.
plus i think alot of people are skewed by the current, old, non-dominant duncan of the last couple years and tend to not fully remember the complete, unstoppable force (on both ends) he was earlier in his career.
You really think anyones going to remember the Spurs? Im sorry, but no one watches their games, no one remembers any of their finals appearances, no ones going to be arguing about them 20 years from now.
In twenty years, people will remember Duncan and Ginobili, but to compare them with the 80s Celitcs is ridiculous. The Celitcs were HUGE in the 80s. I mean HUGE. I remember half of Veterans Memorial Coliseum was green on the nights the Suns would play the Celtics (much like games against the Lakers are today).
I didn't see enough of Bird to make a comparison. I have no problem with anyone ranking Duncan below Bird because just being in that conversation means a of a lot.
I do wonder, though, if Duncan had put together the exact same resume as a member of the Celtics, who would Boston fans consider the greatest Celtic ever?
Dumb question, Bill Russell.
Rephrased: Who would Boston fans consider to be the better Celtic?
The only people who consider Duncan a PF are spurfans with small wangs who want to give him a meaningless le like greatest PF ever since historically the PF position is a lot weaker than the C position.
oh come on.
Bird is easil the 2nd or 3rd greatest player of all time, depending on whether you put magic above him or not.
Its not a knock on duncan, Hakeem, Barkley, Kobe or anyone else.
putting a best label on anything is subjective.
some people argue legitimately that magic was better than jordan.
y so srs?
so dirk. . . .
I assume that you are much younger than 40, because that alone would account for how wrong you are here. You just haven't seen enough players and teams come and go to be able to recognize those which will have historical staying power and those which will fade.
Larry Bird and his Celtics will be well remembered for as long as people write and talk about the NBA. They were part of a compelling narrative that has already been told and retold thousands of time. The story had everything a good tale needs.
You had two distinctly different, yet equally excellent, hero figures in Bird and Magic. You had a distinct beginning in the 1979 NCAA Championship Game. That was followed by a decade long struggle between their two teams which represented two cities separated in every possible way. Their teams accounted for 8 les in nine years. As the story neared a close you had an element of tragedy with Magic's HIV announcement. Finally, you have the triumphant finale with both players on the podium in Barcelona.
The stories of Bird and Magic, and the Celtics and Lakers of the 80s, will always be among the great stories in the history of the NBA. Those Celtics teams will always be remembered as will Bird.
There is no such compelling story surrounding Tim Duncan or the teams he led. As the years go by, they will be fondly remembered here in San Antonio, but not so much elsewhere. It doesn't matter if you could prove with mathematical certainty that Duncan and his Spurs were better than Bird and his Celtics in some objective, scientific way. There is no great story to serve as the basis for books, movies, and ESPN specials.
That all being said, if everything the Duncan-era Spurs accomplished had happened in Madison Square Garden their current fame and historical staying power would be multiplied several times over.
Bird
Russell
1. Bird
2. Russell
3. Hondo
As I was reading this, I could hear one of those movie narrators with the deep voices saying this with orchestral music in the background.
Fade scene.
Big explosion.
... and he's back for vengeance!
i dont give a flying about who would have the better made-for-TV-movie, what their 'story' is, who happened to land in the more huge market, ancient and blessed franchise, or if one of them got ing AIDS(oh how sad), or any of that other NOSTALGIC bull , all im comparing are the two men and what they achieved on the ing basketball court....
take away all that excess nostalgia, background 'stories', what you fondly remember as a kid (
Read your own post.i dont give a flying about who would have the better made-for-TV-movie, what their 'story' is, who happened to land in the more huge market, ancient and blessed franchise, or if one of them got ing AIDS(oh how sad
take away all that excess nostalgia, background 'stories', what you fondly remember as a kid (
You know, the one I quoted. You know, the one where you predicted that the Duncan Spurs would be remembered in 20 years in much the same way that Bird's Celtics are today.
Duncan's Spurs will certainly not be remembered in the same way as the Bird Celtics for precisely the reasons I cited. You've gone back to talking about their relative merits as basketball players, which I did not address. I addressed your post and detailed why Bird is still such a popular topic today and why Duncan will not be 20 years from now.
Last edited by Mel_13; 04-02-2010 at 05:43 PM.
obviously i meant duncans spurs will be respected and remembered in the future as a great team even though there are lots of haters currently, much like how tons of people hated boston back then but now the 'hate' is gone and everyone acknowledges and respects their greatness.
obviously the 'fame' aspect wont be there due to the spurs being a comparatively tiny market.
Serious observers will always value Duncan and the Spurs he led.
Subjective lists for popular consumption will underrate Duncan and the Spurs as the years pass. That's why I think these debates about players from different eras are a waste of time. Personal biases are shaped by the representations of the players/teams in popular culture. As time goes by, popular culture will not be kind to Duncan and the Spurs. It's just the way it is for a small market team with a superstar who is not concerned with self-promotion.
Young fans twenty years from now, fans that will be too young to have even seen LeBron play, will know much more about Larry and Magic than they will about Tim Duncan. Larry and Magic have secure places on the all-time lists, Tim's position on those lists is likely to gradually fall over the years as the next GOATs come along.
I think there's a misconception by you that people hate the Spurs. Most don't. Perhaps some Mavs fans but I don't even think most of them do. Most people, even fans of other teams, have a requisite respect for Duncan and the Spurs. You are mischaracterizing a lack of enthusiastic admiration for hate. People respect Duncan. People know he's great. It's really a matter of preference when you talk about a comparison between Duncan and Bird. And there is plenty of evidence to support Bird as the better player. It's not like people are placing championship-less players like Karl Malone or Charles Barkley over Duncan. Bird was a multiple champion, multiple league MVP, multiple Finals MVP.
I also think you mischaracterize the compe ion of the 80s. It wasn't just the Celtics and Lakers. Philly and Houston were great championship caliber teams in the early 80s. The Pistons, Bucks, Cavs, Suns, Dominique's hawks, the up-and-coming Bulls, and Jazz were all really good to great teams later in the decade as well. The Celtics beat some great teams in there three championship runs. they beat the Lakers, Pistons, and Sixers, all former championship teams, as well as the Rockets, Hawks, and Bucks. The Spurs also beat some grea teams along the way like the Lakers and Pistons and Mavs and Suns. But I still think you discredit the 80s compe ion too much. There was great compe ion in the 80s.
Moreover, I think you have mischaracterized the talent on those Celtics teams when you suggest it was stacked full of HOFers. McHale was obviously one. However, Robert Parish is a borderline HOFer who got into the HOF in great part because of Bird. He never even averaged 20 PPG as a Celtic. If not for the Bird and those Celtics le teams, I think there's a good chance he's not a HOFer. Other than that, you had a way over-the-hill and injured Bill Walton. The only other HOF caliber player was Dennis Johnson, who is NOT in the HOF. That team was very talented. Don't get me wrong. But it isn't the type of talented team you imply it was when you suggest it was stocked full of HOFers. Go back and look at those Celtics teams the several previous seasons before Bird got there. They were reeling in hopes of getting back to the glory years of Russell. Bird was the difference.
Last edited by JamStone; 04-02-2010 at 06:01 PM.
Well said.
The East as a whole was stacked in the '80s. Milwaukee, a distant third in the East behind Boston and Philadelphia, would have been the clear second best team in the West behind Los Angeles. Boston, in its own division, had to go through a 76er team that was absolutely stacked and arguably had better talent than the Celtics themselves. In 1980-81 and 1981-82 the Celtics and 76ers were 1-2 in the NBA in overall record and played in the ECF, in series that went the full seven.I also think you mischaracterize the compe ion of the 80s. It wasn't just the Celtics and Lakers. Philly and Houston were great championship caliber teams in the early 80s. The Pistons, Bucks, Cavs, Suns, Dominique's hawks, the up-and-coming Bulls, and Jazz were all really good to great teams later in the decade as well. The Celtics beat some great teams in there three championship runs. they beat the Lakers, Pistons, and Sixers, all former championship teams, as well as the Rockets, Hawks, and Bucks. The Spurs also beat some grea teams along the way like the Lakers and Pistons and Mavs and Suns. But I still think you discredit the 80s compe ion too much. There was great compe ion in the 80s.
I would say that there were only two years (1980-81, 1985-86) where the Celtics weren't an inferior team to the Lakers, FWIW. And they may have been inferior to the Philadelphia teams of the early '80s. There might have been one season (1985-86) where Boston was flat-out the best team in the NBA. And those Celtics ALWAYS had depth issues. They were a great team but not flawless by any stretch.Moreover, I think you have mischaracterized the talent on those Celtics teams when you suggest it was stacked full of HOFers. McHale was obviously one. However, Robert Parish is a borderline HOFer who got into the HOF in great part because of Bird. He never even averaged 20 PPG as a Celtic. If not for the Bird and those Celtics le teams, I think there's a good chance he's not a HOFer. Other than that, you had a way over-the-hill and injured Bill Walton. The only other HOF caliber player was Dennis Johnson, who is NOT in the HOF. That team was very talented. Don't get me wrong. But it isn't the type of talented team you imply it was when you suggest it was stocked full of HOFers. Go back and look at those Celtics teams the several previous seasons before Bird got there. They were reeling in hopes of getting back to the glory years of Russell. Bird was the difference.
Best post in the thread!!
lmao poop mad because expected this thread to go a different direction
then let me retrieve it back to the topic of Duncan and Bird comparison. Bird played the game in wider areas than Duncan has been doing, with accurate shooting from as far as the arc, but I'd say Duncan is a greater player overall genuinely not only because Duncan has more rings mantled but also the impacts Duncan brings are far bigger than Bird's.
With so many superb supporting cards like McHale, Bird only managed 2 rings through his whole career IIRC while Tim Duncan earned 4 with the same class of assistants, if not under those of Bird's. Bird played soft games and lacked the strength or mettle needed to salvage his team as what's always done by real leaders like Tim Duncan. In the highest respects, Bird is no more than a 7-ft shooting guard and isn't supposed to win any ring, it's just because of his superb teammates and some good luck he retired with rings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
