Excerpt from Bill Simmons' book about Duncan..

[duncan228]

Nicely said BLACKJACK21. It's been a joy watching Duncan. Good, bad, and ugly, it's all been incredible. He's one of a kind, and we have been lucky to witness him.

[BillMc]

A very nice read and some very good posts on this thread. Just reading that as a Spurs fan made me kind of emotional. We've really had it good with Tim. Hopefully we'll get at least one more before he is done.

On a side note, no way Kobe should be ahead of Shaq. I don't like either of them (as people) but Shaq was a force of nature at the beginning of this decade. Shaq's le total: 3 as Alpha dog, 1 as side kick. Kobe 3 as side kick, 1 as alpha dog.

Tim: 4 as Alpha dog!!!

[senorglory]

If you want to play the "What unique trait will we remember about him?" card, go with this one: he could also play any style. During the deadly slow-it-down, grind-it-out, defense-beats-offense era (1999-2004), Duncan won 2 les. During the transition period as everyone adjusted to the new rules (2005-6, when the NBA called hand checking and allowed moving picks), he won a third le. In the drive-and-dish/offense-beats-defense/small-ball era, he won a fourth crown and excelled as one of the few big guys polished enough to punish players down low and talented enough to guard quicker players on the other end. For the purposes of this book, he made everyone else better and came through when it mattered. I don't know what's left.

This seems like a good point, but couldn't the same be said about Shaq?

[senorglory]

That Duncan is under-appreciated is absolutely why he needs to retire with more rings than Oneal.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

See, that excerpt is a great example of why Simmons is a fantastic sports (/Pop culture) writer - a fitting and accurate summary of Tim's brilliance.

The only thing I disagree with is his assertion that the 2007 Spurs were Duncan's strongest championship team, although I see that a case can be made for them.

Oh, and some really excellent commentary in this thread, particularly Blackjack. Give that man a black handle already!

[Sotongball21]

See, that excerpt is a great example of why Simmons is a fantastic sports (/Pop culture) writer - a fitting and accurate summary of Tim's brilliance.

The only thing I disagree with is his assertion that the 2007 Spurs were Duncan's strongest championship team, although I see that a case can be made for them.

Hmm? is it the 03 team? haha i was way young than and that was the first nba finals that i watched. I think 07 was the best but 05 was the most memorable because of the magnificent display of defense by both teams in the finals. how can people say it was boring? =0

[draft87]

Hmm? is it the 03 team? haha i was way young than and that was the first nba finals that i watched. I think 07 was the best but 05 was the most memorable because of the magnificent display of defense by both teams in the finals. how can people say it was boring? =0

it was kinda boring because the first four games were near blowouts in favor of the home team. games 1/2 were really fun to win but meant nothing after games 3/4, ...though i will say the fear I felt after game 4 was enough to make game 5 absolutely amazing.
so yeah, the argument can be made that it was boring because it was essentially a 3 game series.

[outmap]

Duncan going Keyser Soze probably sums it all up.

[admiralsnackbar]

The only thing I disagree with is his assertion that the 2007 Spurs were Duncan's strongest championship team, although I see that a case can be made for them.

Agreed. I suppose it's necessarily a matter of quibbling when comparing championship squads, but even taking into account Parker's growth as a player by 2007, I don't think we've had as flexible a team as we did in '03. That squad could play up- and down-tempo, score and defend at every position (deep into the bench, oftentimes), boasted some of the crispest, most unselfish ball-movement I've ever seen, and was fiercely, fiercely compe ive.

2007 may have been a show of dominance, but it seemed like all the other teams in the league were restructuring themselves or imploding at the time. To my mind, this diminishes the scale by which that year's line-up was measured, to the extent that I'd put all three prior championship rosters ahead of them.

But regardless, a good read from Simmons and, later, Blackjack.

[TDMVPDPOY]

05 team was better than 07 man....

the run that year how we just steam rolled the nuggets who were winning most games heading into the playoffs only to be exposed by the spurs in the first round, then against the thuggish sonics who won 52-30 games that season, then beating that ot suns team....and then slugging it out against the pistons in 7 games...

[AussieFanKurt]

Sweet dad..

[Spurs Brazil]

I know MJ and some others were better but for me TD will always be number 1

[Agloco]

Good read.

For those who still occasionally read words printed on paper, Amazon has the book on sale for $15

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/034..._ya_oh_product

Only occasionally...... thanks Mel.

[Trimble87]

I just finsihed the book and I found it extreamly entertaining. As a 22 year old I obviously grew up in the Jordan era and therefore the history of the league is often lost upon me. As such I found it very informative and very entertaining, I love Simmons. He praises Pop and Duncan as well as the Spurs throughout the book including some entertaining footnotes from the section the OP quoted, including some great 'hes better then KG' references:

"Duncan had a knack for picking his spots and sensing exactly what his team needed him to do to take over. If they needed 34-22 from TD in a must win playoff game, he did it. If they needed an 18 point fourth quarter, he did it. If they only needed him to do the dirty work... and make everyone else better, he did it. he could adapt to any game and any situation. Thats what seperates him from KG."

Talking about the 02 team:
"he carried a truly underwhelming cast to a high 2002 playoff seed: bruce Bowen, Antonio Mcdaniels, rookie Tony Parker, malik Rose, Danny Ferry, Charles Smith, a past his prime David Robinson a pretty much past his prime Steve Smith and a past-his-being-past-his-prime Terry Porter. And everyone claimed KG had no help?!"

On the 2004 dissapointment and Duncan playing in the olympics:
"Duncan never received enough credit here: after playing 275 of a possible 289 games the previous three years, he sucked it up and represented his country while KG passed. Why? Because KG was tired from making it past the second round for the first time. But KG is the 'warrior'? Really?"


As a life long spurs fan I was actually a little dissapointed with Simmons' take on David Robinson (he has him listed at #28 which is still, of course, a great honor.) But he criticizes Robinson for never dominating as much as his talents and athleticism suggested he would. Even saying that the Bulls considered trading Jordan straight up for the rights to the Admiral.

Bill also has a great section on all of the mistakes the Suns made over the last 6 years. Which I will have to post sometime laster tonight.

[xtremesteven33]

. Even saying that the bulls considered trading jordan straight up for the rights to the admiral.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I think the boring thing is something Tim has cultivated to an extent with the national media. Like Simmons said, the dude's damn smart. Rasheed Wallace is another guy who doesn't really crave attention, but telling the media to themselves only makes you a hotter story. So he gives interviews like he was advised by Crash Davis and gets some piece and quiet.

[Thomas82]

He has Duncan ranked as the #7 player in NBA history..this is the write-up he had about him..some of it might be ed up, because I copied it from the ebook, and the Sony reader is kind of annoying..#6 is Wilt..he has Kobe ranked at #8, Hakeem at #10, and Shaq at #11..





I once asked my father, "Would you read a column about how underrated Tim Duncan is?"

Dad made a face. He played with his hair. He seemed confused. "A whole column on Tim Duncan?"

"You wouldn't read it?"

"I don't think so. I'd see the headline, skim the first two paragraphs, and flip to the next article."

"Seriously? He's the best player of the past ten years!"

"Naah," Dad maintained. "Nobody wants to read about Tim Duncan. He's not that interesting."

At least that's what Dad keeps telling himself. Duncan's prowess had been a sore subject with him (and me) since the 1997 lottery, when the Celtics had a 36% chance of landing the first pick and San Antonio plucked it away. Our lost savior carried the Spurs to four les over the next decade, a number that could have stretched to six if not for Fisher's miracle shot in 2004 and Nowitzki's heroic three-point play in 2006. What did we miss besides the slew of 58-win seasons and a few les? For starters, the chance to follow the most consistent superstar in NBA history: just year after year of 23-12's, 25-13's and 21-11's with 50% shooting. He kicked things off by submitting one of the best post-merger debut seasons: 21-12, 271 stocks, 56 wins, first-team All-NBA and Rookie of the Year. He captured a le in his second season, succeeding McHale and Hakeem as the Dude with the Most Low-Post Moves Who Should Be Double-Teamed at All Times. And it went from there. His placid demeanor never wavered, nor did his trademark shot(an old-school banker off the glass). Still chugging along as a top-five player after 1000-plus regular season and Playoffs games, he made up for the natural erosion in physical skills with an ever-expanding hoops IQ; he's been the league's smartest player for nearly his entire career. If there's a major difference between Young Duncan and Old Duncan, it's how he kept improving as a help defender and overall communicator. Whenever I watch the Spurs in person, that's the first thing I always notice: how well they talk on defense. It's a friendly, compe ive chatter, like five buddies maintaining a running dialogue at a blackjack table as they figure out ways to bust the dealer. Duncan remains the hub of it all, the oversize big brother looking out for everyone else, the one who always seems to be throwing an arm around a teammates shoulder. He's their defensive anchor, smartest player, emotional leader, crunch-time scorer and most compe ive gamer, one of those rare superstars who can't be measured by statistics alone. Fifty years from now, some stat geek will crunch numbers from Duncan's era and come to the conclusion that Duncan wasn't better than Karl Malone. And he'll be wrong.

Now, I'm not a fan of the whole overrated/underrated thing. With so many TV and radio shows, columnists, bloggers and educated sports fans around, it's nearly impossible for anything to be rated improperly anymore. But I say Tim Duncan is underrated. You know what else? I say he's wildly underrated. Four rings, two MVPs, three Finals MVPs and nine first-team All-NBA nods...and he's still going strong. Do you realize his best teammates were Robinson(turned 33 in Duncan's rookie year), Ginobili(never a top 15 player) and Parker(ditto)? Or that he never played for a dominant team because the Spurs were always trapped atop the standings, relying on failed late-round picks, foreign rookies, journeymen, aging vets and head cases with baggage for "new" blood? Maybe that's one reason we failed to appreciated him: he never starred for a potential 70-win juggernaut that generated a slew of the regular season hype. Another reason: even at his peak, he always had a little too much Pete Sampras in him. He Lacked Shaq's sense of humor, Kobe's singular intensity, KG's menacing demeanor, Iverson's swagger, Lebron's jaw-dropping athleticism, Wade's knack of self-promotion, Nash's fan-friendly skills or even Dirk's villainous fist pump. The defining Duncan quality? The way he buldged his eyes in disbelief after every dubious call, a grating habit that become old within a few years. His other "problem" was steadfast consistency. If you keep banging out first-class seasons with none standing out more than any other, who's going to notice after a while?

There's a precedent: once upon a time, Harrison Ford pumped out monster hits for fifteen solid years before everyone suddenly noticed, "Wait a second--Harrison Ford is unquestionably the biggest movie star of his generation!" From 1977 to 1992, Ford starred in three Star Wars movies, three Indiana Jones movies, Blade Runner, Working Girl, Witness, Presumed Innocent and Patriot Games, but it wasn't until he carried The Fugitive that everyone realized he was consistently more bankable than Stallone, Reynolds, Eastwood, Cruise, Costner, Schwarzenegger and every other peer. As with Duncan, we knew little about Ford outside of his work. As with Duncan, there wasn't anything inherently compelling about him. Ford only worried about delivering the goods, and we eventually appreciated him for it.

Will the same happen for Duncan someday? It's not like he lacks numbers or credentials. He closed out a '99 Lakers sweep against Shaq with a 37 points, 14 rebounds, 4 assists and a 33 points, 14 rebounds, 4 assists in Games 3 and 4, averaged a 27-14 in the '99 Finals, and became the second-youngest player to win Finals MVP. He carried a truly underwhelming supporting cast to a high 2002 playoff seed by topping 3200 minutes, 2000 points, 1000 boards, 300 assists, and 200 blocks by season's end. In the '02 playoffs, battling the two-time defending champs with a crappy team and Robinson missing the first two games, Duncan averaged a 29-17-5 in a five-game loss to eventual champ LA (superior to Shaq's 21-12-3). During one seven-game stretch against the Lakers and Mavericks in the '03 Playoffs, he averaged 31 Points, 17 Rebounds, and 6 Assists (and closed out Shaq's team with a 37-16-4). He cruised to a 2003 Finals MVP by throttling Jersey with a 24-17-5, closing the Nets out with a near quadruple double (a should-have-been-legendary 21-20-10-8) and getting little help from an aging Robinson (playoffs: 7.8 PPG, 6.6 RPG) or anyone else (Parker, Ginobili and Stephen Jackson combined for less than 37 PPG and shot 40% combined). After a discouraging summer in 2004 (Fisher's shocker and a crushing Olympics defeat), a visibly worn Duncan adopted Pedro Serrano's bald/goatee look, fought through nagging injuries and led the Spurs over Detroit in a choppy Finals, winning Finals MVP by default despite Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace tag-teaming him for seven games. (Phoenix's Mike D'Antoni summed it up best: "Duncan is the ultimate winner, and that's why they're so good...I hate saying it, but he's the best player in the NBA." Translation: Duncan is so good, I just threw my 2005 MVP under the bus.) When he captured a fourth le with his best Spurs team (2007), he officially grabbed the "greatest power forward ever" belt. For his first twelve years of his career, Duncan was never not one of the league's top three most untradeable players.

And yet...you're not totally sold. You remember Shaq bulldozing through everyone for three straight Finals. You remember Hakeem grabbing the center torch in '94 and '95. You remember Moses carrying Philly in the "Fo Fo Fo" season, beating up Kareem and putting up that crazy 51-32 game in 1981. You don't really remember Duncan going Keyser Soze on anyone. That's what bothers you. To be ranked this high, you had to kick a little ass, right? (Here's my counter: Look at his 2003 season again. He left a trail of asses. It's true.) But really, that's what made him more special than anything-- like Bird, Russell and Magic, he always saved his A-game for when his team desperately needed it. The perfect Duncan game? 22 points, 13 rebounds, 3 blocks, get everyone else involved, anchor the defense, win by 10, everyone goes home. He didn't give a crap about stats. He really didn't. Remember when the media stupidly voted Parker the 2007 Finals MVP? Nobody was happier for him than Duncan. That's what makes Duncan great. If you want to play the "What unique trait will we remember about him?" card, go with this one: he could also play any style. During the deadly slow-it-down, grind-it-out, defense-beats-offense era (1999-2004), Duncan won 2 les. During the transition period as everyone adjusted to the new rules (2005-6, when the NBA called hand checking and allowed moving picks), he won a third le. In the drive-and-dish/offense-beats-defense/small-ball era, he won a fourth crown and excelled as one of the few big guys polished enough to punish players down low and talented enough to guard quicker players on the other end. For the purposes of this book, he made everyone else better and came through when it mattered. I don't know what's left.

You would have wanted to play with Tim Duncan. The man had no holes. Except for the fact that my dad probably skipped this section of the book and went right to Wilt.

This was on point!!!

[Trimble87]

He also has Duncan as one of the 4 must-have guys on his "Martian Team." basically he lays otu the scenario that basketball playing martians start destroying earth then challenge us to a basketball game to decide the fate of humanity(ala Space Jam). Luckily we have just invented the first ever time machine and can go back in time to create the best team ever. Not just a collection of the best players, he put serious thought it to how they would compliment each other, what style they would play and how well they would get along. Kobe was NOT included .

His 4 must have's for this team: '85 Magic Johnson, '86 Larry Bird, '92 Michael Jordan and '03 Tim Duncan. Saying of Duncan:

"Greatest power forward ever, commander of the double team at all times, the ultimate teammate, and someone capable of playing center when we go small. Fits everything we want to do. A superior version of '86 McHale."

He goes on to list all of the roster spots, the roations and minutes he would use and the styles he would incorporate. Was a fun section that he clearly took entirely too much time thinking about lol.