Did TD EVER have a worst supporting cast than this?

[Killakobe81]

From the article:

The case for Karl Malone as the best power forward of all time:

When you look at Karl Malone’s stats compared to Tim Duncan it is hard to make the case that Duncan is a better player that Malone. Why? Because it is hard to make the case that many players are better than Karl Malone by looking at the stats. He is 2nd all time in career points and 3rd all time in win shares (an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player) with more win shares than everyone but Kareem and Wilt. Tim Duncan would need 6 more years of his average production to equal Malone. As it currently stands he is still isn’t within shouting distance of the Mailman. However, any Duncan supporter might bring up the fact that of course Malone’s career numbers would be better because he played 19 seasons. If we take that away and just compare averages here are some points in favor of Malone:

•Scoring: Malone averaged 25 points per game. Duncan 21.1.
•Efficiency: Malone shot 51.6% from the floor and 74.2% from the line. Duncan’s respective numbers; 50.8% and 68.7%.
•Reliability: Malone’s work ethic and incredible conditioning was legendary and that shows in the numbers. He played in 99.3% of the Jazz possible games during his 18 year career in Utah . Duncan so far with San Antonio has only played in 94.5% of the possible games. Over an 82 game NBA season that means that Malone would play in about 4 more games than Duncan.
•Longevity: The same conditioning led him to be able to play for so long at such a high level. Not to say that Duncan can’t do that, but let’s see if he is still playing as effectively as Malone was when he was 39 and still contributed 11.1 wins (10th in the league) to the 2002-2003 Jazz team.
•Front line help – Sure this is a little subjective, but I think that playing with the Greg Ostertags and Felton Spencers of the world didn’t help Malone quite as much as playing along side David Robinson helped Duncan.

[nowhereman523]

From the article:

The case for Karl Malone as the best power forward of all time:

When you look at Karl Malone’s stats compared to Tim Duncan it is hard to make the case that Duncan is a better player that Malone. Why? Because it is hard to make the case that many players are better than Karl Malone by looking at the stats. He is 2nd all time in career points and 3rd all time in win shares (an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player) with more win shares than everyone but Kareem and Wilt. Tim Duncan would need 6 more years of his average production to equal Malone. As it currently stands he is still isn’t within shouting distance of the Mailman. However, any Duncan supporter might bring up the fact that of course Malone’s career numbers would be better because he played 19 seasons. If we take that away and just compare averages here are some points in favor of Malone:

•Scoring: Malone averaged 25 points per game. Duncan 21.1.
•Efficiency: Malone shot 51.6% from the floor and 74.2% from the line. Duncan’s respective numbers; 50.8% and 68.7%.
•Reliability: Malone’s work ethic and incredible conditioning was legendary and that shows in the numbers. He played in 99.3% of the Jazz possible games during his 18 year career in Utah . Duncan so far with San Antonio has only played in 94.5% of the possible games. Over an 82 game NBA season that means that Malone would play in about 4 more games than Duncan.
•Longevity: The same conditioning led him to be able to play for so long at such a high level. Not to say that Duncan can’t do that, but let’s see if he is still playing as effectively as Malone was when he was 39 and still contributed 11.1 wins (10th in the league) to the 2002-2003 Jazz team.
•Front line help – Sure this is a little subjective, but I think that playing with the Greg Ostertags and Felton Spencers of the world didn’t help Malone quite as much as playing along side David Robinson helped Duncan.

•Scoring: Nowitzki averaged 22.9 points per game. Duncan 21.1.
•Efficiency: Nowitzki has a 58.1 TS%, 51.1% EFG. Duncan: 55.1%, 50.8%
•Reliability: Nowitzki has played in 95.9% of the Mavericks' possible regular season games in his career. Duncan so far with San Antonio has only played in 94.5% of the possible games.
• Longevity: Remains to be seen, but advanced stats show that given his shooting ability and height, Nowitzki can be a highly effective player for a very long time.
• Front line help: Erick Dampier, Desagna Diop, Shawn Bradley, Brendan Haywood have all significantly handicapped Nowitzki. The one year Dirk was paired with a borderline all-star at center, he won the championship and was FMVP with a legendary season.

...

I don't believe Dirk > Duncan, but clearly you do?

[Killakobe81]

•Scoring: Nowitzki averaged 22.9 points per game. Duncan 21.1.
•Efficiency: Nowitzki has a 58.1 TS%, 51.1% EFG. Duncan: 55.1%, 50.8%
•Reliability: Nowitzki has played in 95.9% of the Mavericks' possible regular season games in his career. Duncan so far with San Antonio has only played in 94.5% of the possible games.
• Longevity: Remains to be seen, but advanced stats show that given his shooting ability and height, Nowitzki can be a highly effective player for a very long time.
• Front line help: Erick Dampier, Desagna Diop, Shawn Bradley, Brendan Haywood have all significantly handicapped Nowitzki. The one year Dirk was paired with a borderline all-star at center, he won the championship and was FMVP with a legendary season.

...

I don't believe Dirk > Duncan, but clearly you do?

You missed the whole point. No I dont think Dirk is better than Duncan, who does? No I dont think Malone is better than Duncan, not many do but there are some who can make a credible case using the same flawed statistics used in the Kobe vs. Duncan debate. My point is and has ALWAYS been (not just when it is convienent) is that when you are looking at the best of the best. (Malone, Duncan, MJ, Shaq Hakeem Kobe etc.). The EYE test and and RINGS are what matter most TO ME. Sure, it's a "team sport" ... but team sports are compe ions and compe ion is about winning so it matters. How could it not? All of those guys are amazing players. All of them have great stats and accolades. So how can you seperate them? Winning the ultimate prize. That is why Duncan is greater than Malone, Kobe is greater than duncan and Mj greater than both.

I can find stats that favor Kobe. I can find some that favor Tim or Malone or Shaq. But my EYES tell me that MJ is greater than all of them. My Eyes also tell me Kobe is a distant second. the rings reflect that as well. I never saw Kareem in his prime so I can not accurately place him. There are plenty of smart basketball people that favor Duncan over Kobe. There are plenty more that favor Kobe.

I just scoff at those that use stats as their end all be all because that is not gonna end any debate just like ring counts alone wont win that debate. You have to factor:

1. Rings (not as a role player)
2. Traditional Stats
3. Advanced stats
4. The "eye" test (very subjective but important)
5. Individual accolades

Using only one or two of these is dreadfully incomplete ...

[Leetonidas]

I prefer Finals MVPs. 2<3

[ambchang]

Please READ IT AGAIN and WHERE did I say that Kareem's failure is equal to Kobe's? Please enlighten me. You seem to take a great leap here, to try and attack an opposing view. I was just finding a "glory hole" in your argument. Kobe missed the playoffs so has Kareem twice. Kobe missiing it is more glaring, sure ...but they BOTH missed the playoffs ...and both are considered by most better than Duncan .. But Duncan has never missed the playoffs so you still have THAT.

You seem to somehow come to conclusion that Kobe is considered > Duncan by most. How did you come up with that? I don’t agree with it.

Kareem OTOH, I am sure is rated higher than Duncan.

As for throwing KAJ under the bus. Highlighting his failure to say that he is the same as Kobe in that department is throwing him under the bus.

Kobe maybe a ty leader, Malone too. I could not care less. He led two le teams and was co-leader of another and was the clear #2 on two others. Maybe he helped lead maybe it was pretty much all PJ. Im rating Kobe's career (so far) and his success on the court and his failures as well. Im not interested if he studied Ken Blanchard, Steven Covey or even McArthur, or Ulysses S Grant. (look them up) We all know he studied MJ and what we have is a lessor version of MJ ... but that is STILL greater than Timmy. No shame in Tim being the third greatest player of this era (post MJ) or Shaq being fourth...besides Lebron may end up passing all of them. happens.

How did you come up with Kobe > Duncan as a fact?

Duncan has two regular season MVPs, 3 finals MVPs. Kobe as 1 regular season MVP and 2 finals MVP. Both played in the same era, with Kobe having a longer prime.

Duncan led a rebuilding team to a championship in 2003 and two WCSF loses (spectacular ones at that) in his prime. Kobe led a rebuilding team to miss the playoffs and two 1st round exit in his absolute prime.

[ambchang]

You missed the whole point. No I dont think Dirk is better than Duncan, who does? No I dont think Malone is better than Duncan, not many do but there are some who can make a credible case using the same flawed statistics used in the Kobe vs. Duncan debate. My point is and has ALWAYS been (not just when it is convienent) is that when you are looking at the best of the best. (Malone, Duncan, MJ, Shaq Hakeem Kobe etc.). The EYE test and and RINGS are what matter most TO ME. Sure, it's a "team sport" ... but team sports are compe ions and compe ion is about winning so it matters. How could it not? All of those guys are amazing players. All of them have great stats and accolades. So how can you seperate them? Winning the ultimate prize. That is why Duncan is greater than Malone, Kobe is greater than duncan and Mj greater than both.

I can find stats that favor Kobe. I can find some that favor Tim or Malone or Shaq. But my EYES tell me that MJ is greater than all of them. My Eyes also tell me Kobe is a distant second. the rings reflect that as well. I never saw Kareem in his prime so I can not accurately place him. There are plenty of smart basketball people that favor Duncan over Kobe. There are plenty more that favor Kobe.

I just scoff at those that use stats as their end all be all because that is not gonna end any debate just like ring counts alone wont win that debate. You have to factor:

1. Rings (not as a role player)
2. Traditional Stats
3. Advanced stats
4. The "eye" test (very subjective but important)
5. Individual accolades

Using only one or two of these is dreadfully incomplete ...

And I am here to argue that rings is about as reliable as win shares and other teammates reliant stats. I have no idea why you would be so fixated on something that you yourself indicated is flawed.

As for eye test, sounds crazy, but it probably is the best indicator. Basketball is a team sport, and people are trying to rank individual players with many other variables removed. How a player performed under a specific cir stance is important, but people look at things like rings, stats, and such to draw conclusions without considering all the other variables.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Phoenix would have waxed a 2006-2007 TD lead team just like he did Kobe.

Phoenix lost to a 2006-2007 TD lead team...

[LkrFan]

Phoenix lost to a 2006-2007 TD lead team...

With a stronger supporting cast. Look at the OP then tell me I'm wrong.

[BigTex342006]

From the article:

The case for Karl Malone as the best power forward of all time:

When you look at Karl Malone’s stats compared to Tim Duncan it is hard to make the case that Duncan is a better player that Malone. Why? Because it is hard to make the case that many players are better than Karl Malone by looking at the stats. He is 2nd all time in career points and 3rd all time in win shares (an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player) with more win shares than everyone but Kareem and Wilt. Tim Duncan would need 6 more years of his average production to equal Malone. As it currently stands he is still isn’t within shouting distance of the Mailman. However, any Duncan supporter might bring up the fact that of course Malone’s career numbers would be better because he played 19 seasons. If we take that away and just compare averages here are some points in favor of Malone:

•Scoring: Malone averaged 25 points per game. Duncan 21.1.
•Efficiency: Malone shot 51.6% from the floor and 74.2% from the line. Duncan’s respective numbers; 50.8% and 68.7%.
•Reliability: Malone’s work ethic and incredible conditioning was legendary and that shows in the numbers. He played in 99.3% of the Jazz possible games during his 18 year career in Utah . Duncan so far with San Antonio has only played in 94.5% of the possible games. Over an 82 game NBA season that means that Malone would play in about 4 more games than Duncan.
•Longevity: The same conditioning led him to be able to play for so long at such a high level. Not to say that Duncan can’t do that, but let’s see if he is still playing as effectively as Malone was when he was 39 and still contributed 11.1 wins (10th in the league) to the 2002-2003 Jazz team.
•Front line help – Sure this is a little subjective, but I think that playing with the Greg Ostertags and Felton Spencers of the world didn’t help Malone quite as much as playing along side David Robinson helped Duncan.

Nothing in that article refutes my claims. Nowhere does it say that Malone had a higher win-share percentage. "If we take that away..." then he goes on and lists his amazing regular season numbers. That is exactly my point. Malone was one of the greatest regular season player of all-time. However, he consistently came up short in the post season. Some use the Jordan excuse... He faced Jordan in the playoffs 2 times out of 19. Couldn't will his team out of the first round NINE times. Why do you play the regular season? For the playoffs.

His point that Malone played in a greater percentage of his team's games is a non-point or helps the "regular season" argument. Pop plays his whole team like none other....and has been overly careful with Duncan's treads.

I'll give you the first Robinson as a legitimate contributor to the 99 championship (although he was nothing like the Robinson before the back injury). But by 2003, Robinson was playing like 20 minutes a game, merely a s . Look at the rosters of the Spurs compared to other champions since he joined the league... nary a superstar or top ten player. only this last year did anybody put Parker in the top 5 for point guards...and Manu? A dynamic, underrated, and yet inconsistent (mostly because of injuries) player who has averaged 16 pts a game in the playoffs on mediocre shooting. Duncan's teams have been far from star studded and resemble more of a motley crue if anything.

The author printed stats. Here are more telling stats (playoffs):

Duncan - 190 gms 22.3 pts 12.1 rbs 3.4 asts 2.5 blks .502 fg% 25.3 PER

Malone - 193 gms 24.7 pts 10.7 rbs 3.2 asts .7 blks .463 fg% 21.1 PER

I will give Malone longevity and in no way do I believe that thinking Duncan better than Malone makes Karl substandard. But when you are talking about the best of the best, playoff performance and rings are fair game.

(personally I am not one of those stuck on PF vs C debate. The beauty of Duncan is that he is a "big" and can play both positions. In fact, more and more the positions are being morphed as more centers shoot with range, and many PF's post game is center-like).

JMO

[LkrFan]

Nope, although Tim would've made them look a lot better by actually getting them involved. However, while Timmy never had a supporting cast as bad as the 2007 Lakers, there are at least 3 Laker teams Kobe has been apart of that have had superior talent to anything around Tim at any point in his career

Like I said, props son. timvp should give you a medal for posting some real . Minus your li'l Laker dig of course.