Bill Russell and Tim Duncan are the only two players to win a championship (Spurs 1999), completely reload the roster with 11 other players, and win another championship (Spurs 2005). Something tells me he's making the guys around him better.
Not the best arguement. Shaq has won with two completely different rosters. John Salley has won with three different rosters. I think your arguement has more to do with management.Bill Russell and Tim Duncan are the only two players to win a championship (Spurs 1999), completely reload the roster with 11 other players, and win another championship (Spurs 2005). Something tells me he's making the guys around him better.
1) Shaq didn't. RIF. The ENTIRE Laker roster was never replaced between 2000 and 2002.
2) Salley is a role player. Kerr "Did it" too, if you're counting that. I'm talking franchise cornerstone, one team.
Shaq won with the Lakers and then with the Heat ... two different rosters
One team (franchise), not going to another already playoff team with Dwayne Wade in place. I'd even argue that Shaq is the supporting player now.
In case this still isn't clear, TD and Russell, All Stars, champions win a le. The (same) franchise reloads around them with 11 completely different players, and they still win a le. Clear? They don't go anywhere else. Plenty of players have changed teams and won two places. That's not the scenario.
And thats not what the tread is about ... The thread is about how a player makes his teammates better. Clear?
Your arguement that the Spurs have a great managemt team when they reloaded is a good point, but has no value on this thread.
Man, talk about unclear on the concept.
Tim Duncan took 23 different people to a championship on two different rosters for the same team.
ONE OTHER PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY HAS DONE THAT.
How many people has Nash even gotten to the Finals?
You don't even want to try to compare Duncan's vs. Nash's teammates.
And if you're saying that's management, then why isn't Phoenix's success due to management? Nash was far from their only addition.
Yea bro, Im pretty sure hes clear, but your point of Shaq and Salley were completely wrong, and he was just correcting you. And do you really think Tony or Manu would have ever made an all star team without playing with Tim? I sure dont
You simply need to ask this guy that if Duncan does not make his teammates better, then how the did San Antonio win three championships? He sure as didn't do it alone, and there ain't NO WAY San Antonio would've even made it past the second round in ANY year without Tim. And one man shows don't win championships.
Tim is the CONSUMMATE team player and thrives on making those around him better.
wow, if Tim Duncan doesnt make his teammates better, than nobody does.....
LMAO at Dallas and Phoenix fans thinking "making teammates better" = "stats".
For Spurs fans "making teammates better" = "rings".
Tell me about it.Man, talk about unclear on the concept.
So your saying that if you don't win a Championship that you are not making your teammates better?
I just want to be clear on what we are arguing here.
No, but we're saying that the BEST measure of making your teammates better.
I just want to be clear on what we are arguing here. Is the object of the game to win or to have nice stats?
No hes saying that if your a superstar player, and win a le, you are probably doing something to make your teamates better. Jordan didnt get a lot of assists, but you would never hear anyone say he didnt make his teamates better
I agree with remingtonbo 2001.
Intangibles; walk-in-the-door people skills team members have and a well-ingrained knowledge of when, what and how to contribute on the floor.
Brilliant!
This just in . . . the Suns trade Steve Nash for Tim Duncan even up.
The Suns, with Duncan, Amare, Marion, Barbosa, Bell, Diaw, Thomas, instantly become odds-on favorites for the next 3 NBA les if they hire somebody with two functioning neurons to coach.
The Spurs, with Nash, Ginobili, Parker, Bowen and . . . . are fighting for 7th/8th place in the West and force Pop into early retirement.
Who is to say that if not for Robinson, that the first wouldn't have been won? Or the leadership of AJ? Or the play of Manu and Parker that were the differance maker? Or maybe the Coach?No, but we're saying that the BEST measure of making your teammates better.
Using your arguement Hamilton (or whoever with the Pistons) is better at making his teammates better then Kidd or Nash. Does that make sense?
Nash has taken two teams to the WCF ... Why did both teams lose? Was it because of Nash not making the team better?
Who knows? Put Tony with Amare and Marion .. I think so. Put Manu with Kidd and Jeffereson ... Yea, I think so.And do you really think Tony or Manu would have ever made an all star team without playing with Tim?
It is because of Nash ... This was part of the rebuilding arguement .... With Nash they are a second round playoff team, without him they are lotto.And if you're saying that's management, then why isn't Phoenix's success due to management? Nash was far from their only addition.
With Duncan the Spurs are a Championship contending team, without they are a first round playoff team (Don't undersestimate the defensive scheme).
So which is better ... With one his team DOES NOT WIN without him. With the other they do win, but not as much.
That is my arguement for Nash making his teamates "More better"
Now from what I gather, you feel that Duncan is better because "he has rings" (Its not like I heard that before)
If thats all you have to back that up, then explain how Hamilton is better at making his teamates better then Nash ... because he has rings too
Last edited by Dalhoop; 03-05-2007 at 08:18 PM. Reason: I really should start proof reading :)
And find someone to pass the ball to the right players at the right time. They would have to make a trade for someone .... I don't think they would be favored at all, they wouldn't play defense for crap.The Suns, with Duncan, Amare, Marion, Barbosa, Bell, Diaw, Thomas, instantly become odds-on favorites for the next 3 NBA les if they hire somebody with two functioning neurons to coach.
They would have to find another player .... the Spurs are not a very good team without Duncan ... They have no "bigs"The Spurs, with Nash, Ginobili, Parker, Bowen and . . . . are fighting for 7th/8th place in the West and force Pop into early retirement.
Last edited by Dalhoop; 03-05-2007 at 08:23 PM. Reason: I suck at typing ... there just is no excuse :)
Duncan is more valuable because of the nature of the positions. I think every gm in the NBA if starting a franchise would rather have a versatile c/pf than a distributing pg, the same argument you here from the Durant/Oden debates, Durant might be more skilled, but a big man that can change both sides of the floor has to be regarded as more valuable and a gamechanger. Im not saying anything about rings, Stockton made everyone better kind of like Nash, but talented bigs are hard to come by
And while we are at it, it could be said that Dirk doesnt make anyone around him better either, even when they had Nash they couldnt get it done, he might actually make his teamates worse
I think most of the discussion here has focused on franchise players, TD, KG, Nash. Rip isn't in that category. You might as well have used Kerr or Salley for your example.
If it is based on rings, as some Spurs fans think, then anyone not named Duncan, Shaq or Hamilton makes their teammates better.
This doesn't sound like the most logical discussion at that point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
