Duncan>Hakeem.

[polandprzem]

I take that back, they did shorten the 3 point line from the top of the key for a few years. The distance from the corners was still the same, though.

Take everything back.
Esp. those imature insults

thanks

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

It's pretty obvious with your incoherent choppy sentences.

Our friend from Poland with his incoherent choppy sentences is doing a fine job of destroying your weak arguments. By now you ought to have the word "Ho" stenciled on your sloping forehead right above your protruding orbital ridge. I'm no rhodes scholar, but your english "ain't" nothing to write home about. Seems to me like you have to resort to lame personal attacks when you are losing a debate and have run out of intelligent material with which to reply. So typical.

btw how's your Polish? Do you know any other foreign languages. I'm giving the Man mad props for writing better Engish then many of the posters on this forum. Yes this is a Spurs forum, but it's for all fans, foreign and domestic.

And since your position is based purely on speculation, what if Jordan hadn't taken his 2 year hiatus. Would your boy Hakeem even have 1 NBA championship?

[mavs>spurs2]

Our friend from Poland with his incoherent choppy sentences is doing a fine job of destroying your weak arguments. By now you ought to have the word "Ho" stenciled on your sloping forehead right above your protruding orbital ridge. I'm no rhodes scholar, but your english "ain't" nothing to write home about. Seems to me like you have to resort to lame personal attacks when you are losing a debate and have run out of intelligent material with which to reply. So typical.

btw how's your Polish? Do you know any other foreign languages. I'm giving the Man mad props for writing better Engish then many of the posters on this forum. Yes this is a Spurs forum, but it's for all fans, foreign and domestic.

And since your position is based purely on speculation, what if Jordan hadn't taken his 2 year hiatus. Would your boy Hakeem even have 1 NBA championship?

Lmao he hasn't owned anyone except the entire English language, homer. And I'm not on a polish message board lecturing people about handball or whatever the it is they play over there. I have made 2 points here and they stand untill proven otherwise.
1. Wilt and Bill wouldn't be such a dominant forces in today's league full of bigger and more athletic and talented players.
2. Put Hakeem on the Spurs in place of Duncan, and they still have at least 4 rings probably 5-7.

Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, Hakeem was the most dominant player besides Jordan in the new era.

[mavs>spurs2]

Take everything back.
Esp. those imature insults

thanks

Wow what a major victory, I was off on the top of the key by 1 foot 9 inches. The distance from the sides were still the same, so technically I am partially correct anyways. While i'll take back calling you a moron for this minor little detail, I still say you're wrong on many of your other takes.

[JamStone]

Check the NBA right now. There aren't exactly that many dominating 7-footers in the NBA right now outside of Shaq. Not even Yao punishes players in the paint as a 7-foot-6 center.

In fact, two of the most dominating players inside on defense in the past decade have been pretty short, Ben Wallace and Alonzo Mourning. Ben is listed at 6-9, really closer to 6-7. Alonzo listed at 6-10, closer to 6-9.

And, the bigger and stronger argument carries little weight because Wilt and Russell would have been bigger and stronger in today's game as well. They would have the same strength and conditioning training, the same nutrition and diet regimen, and would have been playing in an age where lifting weights and playing year round would have made them bigger and stronger. As for more athletic, that's pure conjecture. How can you definitively say Wilt and Russell in their prime weren't just as athletic as players today? You can't.

And, back in the 60s and 70s, there were plenty of big men that were plenty tough and plenty big and strong, even if they weren't legitimate 7-footers: Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Elmore Smith, Otto Moore, Sam Lacey, Leroy Ellis, Darrall Tucker. All those guys played in Wilt and Russell's era and were 6-10 to 7-feet tall. Kareem came in the tail end of Wilt's career. And, undersized guys that ended up being Hall of Fame type big men like Wes Unseld (dominated like Ben Wallace at 6-foot-7), Jerry Lucas, and Connie Hawkins.

You talk like Wilt and Russell played against a whole bunch of 6-4 centers, which proves you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, there were some teams that played 6-7 centers. But, there were plenty with big and athletic 6-10 to 6-11 centers.

If you put Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell in today's game, they'd be just fine, especially if you also give them today's strength and conditioning training and today's diet and nutrition. Wilt was 7-foot-1 and 275 pounds and extremely athletic. Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 and could shut down Wilt Chamberlain.

Look at today's NBA. What guys outside of Shaq would really be too big and athletic for Wilt and Russell. I don't even think Shaq is too strong for Wilt and Russell. Dwight Howard maybe? Amare Stoudemire? Heck, Amare is only 6-9 and 240. He's undersized too. Think Tyson Chandler just cuz he's 7-foot-1 and athletic would be too much for Wilt and Russell?

Your argument about Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell fighting to be role players in today's game is a complete joke.

[polandprzem]

Wow what a major victory, I was off on the top of the key by 1 foot 9 inches. The distance from the sides were still the same, so technically I am partially correct anyways. While i'll take back calling you a moron for this minor little detail, I still say you're wrong on many of your other takes.

haha

The close 3pt line changed the NBA a lot, that's why they got back to the longer distance.
They wanted more points in NBA but it did not helped much as you could crowd the paint more and defense was even more stellar.
Even Shaq hit 3 pointer one year.

So the change in the distance of this line was having an impact on a play.


You two points are an opinion

Wilt and Russ would be dominant centers in todays NBA. Just give them the same conditions as centers of today have.

How come at once people got more talent?
God decided that in the 70s he will produce more talented people cause the NBA is lacking talent?

Put Duncan in a place of hakeem champinship teams and he would be succesfull as well
What kind of argument. Point is that?
That is proving nothing. Cause it's the if's and coulda woulda. And you bringing it all the time.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Lmao he hasn't owned anyone except the entire English language, homer. And I'm not on a polish message board lecturing people about handball or whatever the it is they play over there. I have made 2 points here and they stand untill proven otherwise.
1. Wilt and Bill wouldn't be such a dominant forces in today's league full of bigger and more athletic and talented players.
2. Put Hakeem on the Spurs in place of Duncan, and they still have at least 4 rings probably 5-7.

Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, Hakeem was the most dominant player besides Jordan in the new era.

All I'm saying is that you had some nice dialogue going back and forth until for some reason your attacks turned personal. I can only summize that you felt he was besting you. Point is polandprzem had made some persuasive and compelling points. So what if he misplaced a dangling participle or misspelled a word. Are you trying to win a pendantic argument? We can tell from his handle that he is a foreign national. Give the man his dues. And I see you're a Mav's homer. yeah I'm a Spurs homer. What's your point. You have not made any points, but you have presented your opinions. When you can tell me how players who played in vastly different eras would fare against each other, well until then it's just speculation.

to your opinions:

1) Wilt and Bill playing in this era would still be great, probably all star. Any stance that they wouldn't is just ignorant. Would Wilt ever score 100 points in a game? Possibly, but probably not. You're talking about those rare once in a generation type players that would be great to a varying degree depending on what era they played. How do you think Tim would do playing in their era?

2) If we replaced Tim with Hakeem he would have 5-7 les? Is that what you're saying? It's possible. I don't know and you don't either.

Hakeem was not the most dominant player since Jordan. But you never address my previous point; if Jordan had not taken off 2 years, would Hakeem even have 1 NBA le. If Jordan had played and won 8 straight les, would Hakeem be little more then an afterthought?

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I take that back, they did shorten the 3 point line from the top of the key for a few years. The distance from the corners was still the same, though.

During the 1994–95, 1995–96, and 1996-97 seasons, the NBA attempted to address decreased scoring (due to tougher style defenses) by shortening the overall distance of the line to a uniform 22 feet (6.7 m) around the basket. Dennis Scott used this rule change to set a record for most three-pointers in a season: 267 in 1995–96. (This record was surpassed by Ray Allen with 269 in the 2005-06 season.) In the same season, the legendary Michael Jordan, who was never known for his three-point shooting, used the closer arc to his advantage as he established a career high with a three-point field goal percentage of almost 43%. From the 1997–98 season, the NBA reverted the line to its original distance of 23 feet, 9 inches (22 feet at the corners). With the legalization of zone defense in 2001, the three-point shot became more important, because of its ability to stretch out a zone.



NBA Three Point

[bobbyjoe]

All I'm saying is that you had some nice dialogue going back and forth until for some reason your attacks turned personal. I can only summize that you felt he was besting you. Point is polandprzem had made some persuasive and compelling points. So what if he misplaced a dangling participle or misspelled a word. Are you trying to win a pendantic argument? We can tell from his handle that he is a foreign national. Give the man his dues. And I see you're a Mav's homer. yeah I'm a Spurs homer. What's your point. You have not made any points, but you have presented your opinions. When you can tell me how players who played in vastly different eras would fare against each other, well until then it's just speculation.

to your opinions:

1) Wilt and Bill playing in this era would still be great, probably all star. Any stance that they wouldn't is just ignorant. Would Wilt ever score 100 points in a game? Possibly, but probably not. You're talking about those rare once in a generation type players that would be great to a varying degree depending on what era they played. How do you think Tim would do playing in their era?

2) If we replaced Tim with Hakeem he would have 5-7 les? Is that what you're saying? It's possible. I don't know and you don't either.

Hakeem was not the most dominant player since Jordan. But you never address my previous point; if Jordan had not taken off 2 years, would Hakeem even have 1 NBA le. If Jordan had played and won 8 straight les, would Hakeem be little more then an afterthought?

Do you not see the irony in your last 2 paragraphs? You downplay "Hakeem would have won 5-7 les" because it's a hypothetical then present the hypothetical of Jordan's retirement situation...

Hakeem was the most dominant player in the 90's other than Jordan. If you want to use the argument that he won because of Jordan's absence, Tim Duncan is no higher footing in that regard because:

A) He never played Jordan in the playoffs or a team the caliber of the 90's Bulls either.

B) His first le came in a similar situation to Hakeem's in 94, the year after Jordan's retirement in 1998.

Would Tim Duncan have been an afterthought if he was drafted by the Celtics instead of the Spurs in 98 and thus never won a le because he never played with DRob, Elliott, Parker, Manu, etc? You tell me...

The argument here isn't about who's team won the most or did the best. It's about 2 individual players. If you are drafting 2 players out of college, you aren't going to draft the 7 foot guy from Duke over the 7 foot guy from Fresno State with the superior skillset simply because Duke won the National le and Fresno didn't.

That's always been the problem with the Duncan-Hakeem argument and the reason most neutral posters here like the Pistons and Mavs fans and in other forums along with teammates like Elie and Horry pick Hakeem in this argument over Duncan. Hakeem basically did everything Duncan did but better and against a tougher field. Besides passing the ball, there isn't one thing Duncan did better than Dream.

[bobbyjoe]

Can you name who was actually guarding Amare in that series?

But I do agree Hakeem was a better individual defender.

Duncan (50%) and Horry (50%).

Are you honestly going to tell me Duncan defended Stoudemire well that series when he was on him?

[bobbyjoe]

Not if the Sean Kemp Sonics allowed it.

Btw, Olajuwon against 01 shaq would have been double ed. Olajuwon wouldn't have beaten the LakerDynasty in this early part of the century. You're smokin somethin.

And btw, you can take the Shooting Guard trapped in a centers body, I'll take the 4 time champion and anchor of the one of the best statistical defensive squads in history in a Powerfowards body, in the age of the elite guards and small fowards nevertheless.

Oh really?

So Akeem in his 2nd year can lead his team past one of the best dynasties in NBA history in the Magic-Kareem-Worthy-BScott-Cooper Lakers, but in his prime he'd have been "Double ed" by an inferior Kobe-Shaq squad. Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. You are right though, he was swept by O'Neal the one time he faced him in the Finals. Oh wait, that was the other way around, ooops.

In the 01 series where SA was swept by the Lakers, Duncan was neutralized by Robert Horry. Call me crazy, but I dont see any guys in Hakeem's playoff career the caliber of Horry (solid, but not great) shutting him down.

Who is the shooting guard trapped in a centers body btw? Hakeem wasn't the one who didnt take on the challenge of guarding Shaq (like Duncan didnt want to when the Spurs always put Robinson-Rose-Nesterovic on Shaq)

You do realize that's it universally considered that Hakeem and McHale, not Duncan had the best post moves of any player in NBA history right?

Memo to Ignorant: Shooting guards dont make a living with back to the basket play on the box.

[Rummpd]

Anyone who brings up Duncan and Stoudemire need to remember that
Duncan was badly hurt that year but sucked it up and won. This year against Duncan and the Spurs Amare was proven to be what he is a pretty good offensive player when playing with Nash and a piss poor defender.

Duncan and The Dream are both fabulous players, but when all is said and done, Duncan has 6 les no one in the their right mind would put the Dream over Duncan in a historical NBA sense. Duncan is the cornerstone of a dynasty and the Dream never achieved that status.

[duncan228]

Anyone who brings up Duncan and Stoudemire need to remember that Duncan was badly hurt that year but sucked it up and won.

I seem to remember something about letting Amare get his and staying tight on everyone else in that series.

I remember Pop joking about it in the press conference after we won the series, something like "What did he average-45 against us?"

But before the jokes, as the series went on, I remember it being said that they weren't going to try to shut Amare down.

[JamStone]

Duncan has 6 les?

[spursfan09]

that saying that Amare went for 38 points against Duncan and the Spurs. He still has never beaten Duncan ever in a playoff series. Too bad Amare couldn't go for 50 then maybe they would of won.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]

Do you not see the irony in your last 2 paragraphs? You downplay "Hakeem would have won 5-7 les" because it's a hypothetical then present the hypothetical of Jordan's retirement situation...

Believe it or not I'm not trying to downplay it at all, what I'm saying is that one one really knows if Hakeem would have won 5-7 les. I't would be best-guess or at best a semi-educated guess/opinion. Based on the premise that Jordan led teams won the 3 before and the 3 after, well it's a reasonable assumption that he may have deprived the Rockets of their back to back les.

Hakeem was the most dominant player in the 90's other than Jordan. If you want to use the argument that he won because of Jordan's absence, Tim Duncan is no higher footing in that regard because:

A) He never played Jordan in the playoffs or a team the caliber of the 90's Bulls either.

B) His first le came in a similar situation to Hakeem's in 94, the year after Jordan's retirement in 1998.

I won't dispute that Jordan and Hakeem were two of the most dominant players of the 90's bar none. Again one can only go by reasonable assumptions. His Airness was at his peak during the first 3peat and then again during his 2nd 3peat, evidenced by him leading the league in scoring in 95-96 and winning the MVP during the regular season, all star game and finally the NBA finals. Oh, and he led his team to a regular season record of 72-10. And if Jordan had elected to return for the '99 season, he would have been without Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen and no Dennis Rodman. The Spurs could have argueably beaten a declining 37 yr old Michael Jordan.

Would Tim Duncan have been an afterthought if he was drafted by the Celtics instead of the Spurs in 98 and thus never won a le because he never played with DRob, Elliott, Parker, Manu, etc? You tell me...

That's a good question. How would Tim have done without playing along an aging, often injured DRob, kidney-impaired Elliott, a very young Parker and Manu who wasn't a force until 2005? This goes back to the argument that Tim accomplished more with less. With the Celts crummy luck after the Bird era, in one scenario you play it out with Tim and in another scenario you play it out with Hakeem, IMO the Celts come out looking better playing under Tim then under the Dream.

The argument here isn't about who's team won the most or did the best. It's about 2 individual players. If you are drafting 2 players out of college, you aren't going to draft the 7 foot guy from Duke over the 7 foot guy from Fresno State with the superior skillset simply because Duke won the National le and Fresno didn't.

Agreed. But how do you quantify their place in history, or how one would do against the other, especially when they didn't play against each other, one on one. One way to do it is speculation. Yet another way to do it is who has the bling.

That's always been the problem with the Duncan-Hakeem argument and the reason most neutral posters here like the Pistons and Mavs fans and in other forums along with teammates like Elie and Horry pick Hakeem in this argument over Duncan. Hakeem basically did everything Duncan did but better and against a tougher field. Besides passing the ball, there isn't one thing Duncan did better than Dream.

Ok I'll give you that some fans and Elie and Horry picked Hakeem over Duncan. But I'm sure you've seen the polls and questionaires that have gone out to GM's and coaches and NBA pundits asking them if you were going to build a team around one player, Duncan was often one of the first 1, 2, or 3 players mentioned. And if you think when Hakeem played that the teams were tougher, let me just say this; part of the Spurs problem with them being considered boring is that they destroyed their opponents in the NBA finals, 4-3, 4-2, 4-1 and 4-0. Not to mention that the West for a good while has been a regular murderers row. And as far as Dream doing everything better then Duncan, you know this their stats were similar. Agreed Dream had better numbers. But along with passing, don't make the mistake of diminishing the intagibles that Duncan possesses like getting his teammates involved, leadership and a high basketball IQ. All these traits and characteristics which don't show up on a stat sheet are what make his team mates better then they really are and which have resulted in 4 NBA les and counting.

The only thing that you and I can say with 100% certainty is: Dream arguably the best center ever! TDunc best power forward ever. Head to head, it's a crap shoot.

[mavs>spurs2]

In fact, two of the most dominating players inside on defense in the past decade have been pretty short, Ben Wallace and Alonzo Mourning. Ben is listed at 6-9, really closer to 6-7. Alonzo listed at 6-10, closer to 6-9.

Since when are you a height regulator? I've never heard of either of these players being this short. The only player in recent years that I know of lying about height is Iverson(they say he isn't even quite 6ft) and Barkely(supposedly 6ft 4)

And, the bigger and stronger argument carries little weight because Wilt and Russell would have been bigger and stronger in today's game as well. They would have the same strength and conditioning training, the same nutrition and diet regimen, and would have been playing in an age where lifting weights and playing year round would have made them bigger and stronger. As for more athletic, that's pure conjecture. How can you definitively say Wilt and Russell in their prime weren't just as athletic as players today? You can't.

Not all players today lift weights. Some of it is just genetics. Tony Parker is on record saying he hates lifting and doesn't do it often. As far as athleticism goes, youtube Bill and Wilt and see how many spectacular dunks and athletic moves you see.

And, back in the 60s and 70s, there were plenty of big men that were plenty tough and plenty big and strong, even if they weren't legitimate 7-footers: Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Elmore Smith, Otto Moore, Sam Lacey, Leroy Ellis, Darrall Tucker. All those guys played in Wilt and Russell's era and were 6-10 to 7-feet tall. Kareem came in the tail end of Wilt's career. And, undersized guys that ended up being Hall of Fame type big men like Wes Unseld (dominated like Ben Wallace at 6-foot-7), Jerry Lucas, and Connie Hawkins.

You talk like Wilt and Russell played against a whole bunch of 6-4 centers, which proves you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, there were some teams that played 6-7 centers. But, there were plenty with big and athletic 6-10 to 6-11 centers.

Since we're playing the height regulator game, Willis Reed was listed 6ft10 but is rumored to have only been 6ft 8-9. Elvin Hayes was only listed 6ft 9 but was really about 6ft 8. Wes Unseld was listed as 6ft 7. Half of your list is just full of . And these are just a few players spanning a whole decade. The average for centers of that time was about 6ft7, maybe 6ft 8, the size of a big swingman in todays league, not a center. I don't know where you got anything about 6ft 4.


If you put Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell in today's game, they'd be just fine, especially if you also give them today's strength and conditioning training and today's diet and nutrition. Wilt was 7-foot-1 and 275 pounds and extremely athletic. Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 and could shut down Wilt Chamberlain.

Bill Russell would have a hard time defending Duncan or Garnett, giving up 2-3 inches and 40 something pounds. Not to mention he couldn't leap with the guys like Amare, and shot blocking was a big part of his game.

Look at today's NBA. What guys outside of Shaq would really be too big and athletic for Wilt and Russell. I don't even think Shaq is too strong for Wilt and Russell. Dwight Howard maybe? Amare Stoudemire? Heck, Amare is only 6-9 and 240. He's undersized too. Think Tyson Chandler just cuz he's 7-foot-1 and athletic would be too much for Wilt and Russell?

Wrong

Your argument about Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell fighting to be role players in today's game is a complete joke.

That's something that you will never know for sure, but I think I did at least exagerrate a little when I said they would struggle to be role players. IMO they would probably be borderline all-stars, not superstars and definately not scoring 100 points in a game.

[mavs>spurs2]

that saying that Amare went for 38 points against Duncan and the Spurs. He still has never beaten Duncan ever in a playoff series. Too bad Amare couldn't go for 50 then maybe they would of won.

Dude, you are so busy riding Duncan's nuts that you fail to give credit to Manu, Tony, and all the other great role players. Duncan doesn't have to score 38 a game in order for the Spurs to win, otherwise you guys might not have very many wins. The point he was trying to prove is that Duncan has great help side defense, but not great one on one defense which was really shown when Amare lit you guys up.

[spursfan09]

First of all i'm not a dude, and secondly, if the point is defense did you not know that the Spurs plan was to let Amare get his and shut down the other suns. It worked.

[mavs>spurs2]

All you Duncan homers continue to ignore a few simple key questions.

1. Why doesn't Duncan guard the other teams best big man, like Hakeem did throughout his career? Hakeem dominated the likes of Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, etc on both sides of the ball.

2. Why are Hakeems stats so much superior to Duncans? You can't just look at career stats, because Olajuwon really should have retired a few years before he did and it really hurt his averages, especially his short time in Toronto. Look at each players peak 10-12 years and compare. Hakeem has more ppg, rpg, spg, bpg, ft%, fg%, he beats Duncan in every stat that they record.

3. Why did Horry and Elie, two teammates of both men, come out and say on record that they would rather play with Hakeem? I think former teammates of the 2 and nba players know more than some polish guy on a spurs message board and all the other little spur homers. I'm not trying to be mean or cut down Duncan, he's a great player, but Hakeem was clearly better.

[mavs>spurs2]

First of all i'm not a dude, and secondly, if the point is defense did you not know that the Spurs plan was to let Amare get his and shut down the other suns. It worked.

You started off your post with " ." That's not very ladylike, can you blame me for assuming you're a guy? Not to mention most of the posters here are guys.

[spursfan09]

All you Duncan homers continue to ignore a few simple key questions.

1. Why doesn't Duncan guard the other teams best big man, like Hakeem did throughout his career? Hakeem dominated the likes of Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, etc on both sides of the ball.

2. Why are Hakeems stats so much superior to Duncans? You can't just look at career stats, because Olajuwon really should have retired a few years before he did and it really hurt his averages, especially his short time in Toronto. Look at each players peak 10-12 years and compare. Hakeem has more ppg, rpg, spg, bpg, ft%, fg%, he beats Duncan in every stat that they record.

3. Why did Elliott and Elie, two teammates of both men, come out and say on record that they would rather play with Hakeem? I think former teammates of the 2 and nba players know more than some polish guy on a spurs message board and all the other little spur homers. I'm not trying to be mean or cut down Duncan, he's a great player, but Hakeem was clearly better.

Thats exactly what you don't see. Its not "clear" that Hakeem was the better player. Tim has been more of a winner and he has dominated a period of time way longer than Hakeem. Also I don't think you meant Elliot said Hakeem was the better teammate, that was Horry.

[spursfan09]

You started off your post with " ." That's not very ladylike, can you blame me for assuming you're a guy? Not to mention most of the posters here are guys.

Its okay I was just letting you know.

[bobbyjoe]

First of all i'm not a dude, and secondly, if the point is defense did you not know that the Spurs plan was to let Amare get his and shut down the other suns. It worked.

This is just absurd. There's not one coach in the history of basketball who will say "sure, let's the other team's best big man get 38 ppg, no biggie".

The Spurs won in spite of Amare dominating, because the Spurs offense dominated the series. Manu was really the difference that series, especially in the closing minutes of deciding games.

Amare won the individual matchup between the 2 stars but Duncan's supporting cast dominated. Nash was played to a standstill by Parker that series and Manu was unstoppable. Bowen also completely shut down Marion.

Giving Duncan all the credit for the Spurs team success is just getting out of control. He was clearly outplayed that series.

[duncan228]

This is just absurd. There's not one coach in the history of basketball who will say "sure, let's the other team's best big man get 38 ppg, no biggie".

The Spurs won in spite of Amare dominating, because the Spurs offense dominated the series. Manu was really the difference that series, especially in the closing minutes of deciding games.

Amare won the individual matchup between the 2 stars but Duncan's supporting cast dominated. Nash was played to a standstill by Parker that series and Manu was unstoppable. Bowen also completely shut down Marion.

Giving Duncan all the credit for the Spurs team success is just getting out of control. He was clearly outplayed that series.

It was the stratigic plan.

The Spurs knew Amare was a beast that year, there was no way our 2 headed center could do anything about it.

And risking Duncan's already very compromised ankles would have been suicide.

Pop picked his poison, and as you said, Nash was taken out. And so was Marion.

And no, Pop didn't plan on what Amare accomplished, though he did joke about it after the series ended.

I'm not giving Duncan all the credit, Duncan is all about team play.
But make no mistake, Duncan mattered in that series, on both ends of the floor. He always does.