Duncan>Hakeem.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

They played in two completely different era's with completely different squads, so how do you compare les without considering the time that they were won (i.e. against which teams) and the surrounding help over their careers? Additionally, playing in different era's also comes to play in comparing All-NBA honors as the pantheon of centers (Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem) are generally considered > than the top PF's. Duncan is the only one to even get into that convo.

When talking about a players place in history, all one has to quantify their niche is accomplishments and benchmarks. Coulda, shoulda have no place in this conversation. I agree with your take that we have to consider the eras that a player played in, but it's not the definitive factor in the equation. Wilt dominated in an age where the skilled big man was a rarity. I'm not sure how you would compare an apple of 50 years ago to an apple of today. Are you taking into account that today's athletes are far superior to those 50 years ago? Or are you taking the George Orwell approach of putting Tim in a time machine and see how he dominates in 1962? Or vice versa, how does Wilt, Bill Russell do against todays Duncans, Shaq of 99-2006, Garnett or even an Elton Brand?

Steve Nash has two MVP's in this era. He has more MVP's than Shaq. Is he better?

Well unless Nash improves his inside game and learns to bang a little better in the post, or unless Shaq improves his assist to turnover ratio......come on, it's apples to oranges. Not a good example.

Dirk just won an MVP in this era. There is a big difference between players like Nash, Dirk and players like Magic, Bird, MJ, etc. Those three are generally considered top 5-7 players of all-time and they won the majority of the MVP's in the 80's and early 90's.

Not so comfortable using Herr Notwitzki here, but Nash certainly. I'm using your built in disclaimer about personal and team accomplishments to put Nash in the same conversation with Magic and other "point guards" of that era. Just because he doesn't have as many championships as the next guy doesn't mean he's automatically excluded from being mentioned in the conversation. Is he a all time 5-7 guy? No! Is he a all time 5-7 point guard? yeah!

How has he accomplished more than Magic, who went to the Finals 8 times in his first 10 years? Because he got to play the Knicks and Cavs, as opposed to the Celtics, Sixers and Pistons? Again, when mentioning accomplishments you have to mention the entire picture in your analysis.

Aside from the fact that they played in two different eras at two different positions Tim accomplished more then Magic because he was named all NBA first team more often, two times more as a matter of fact. Magic won one more NBA championship, and they both had the same amount of MVP's and finals MVP's. And even though Magic went to the finals more often his teams were beaten alot more then Tim's. Does Tim get any bonus points for not ever losing a finals series? Where as Magic was a three time loser.

And you're trying to imply that some how Tim's personal and team accomplishments should have an asterisk or that maybe it shouldn't count as much because they played the Knicks and Cavs? They played the Knicks and Cavs and did what they were supposed to and won. None of Magics or Bird's teams ever played Shaq's threepeat Laker team of 2000-2002 or any of Duncan's Spur teams, particulary 2005 and 2007. You see that argument works both ways.

Would they have won against the 99 Knicks, who had no center (Ewing injury)? I think two dominant pivots against a team with their center injured makes quite an advantage. In the Rockets case, that is a big difference from facing the 86 Celtics frontline (Parish, McHale, Bird, Walton).

Well we all agree that Duncan's Spurs, Hakeem's Rockets and the '86 Celtics would have all beaten the '99 Knicks. But then again all of Duncan's Spurs teams could have beaten both the Rockets and the Celts. That's just my personal belief. But I'm going to take the highroad, because this argument just can't be proven. We can speculate and postulate till we turn blue in the face and make all sorts of convoluted assertions, but neither position can be proven. Or who knows, maybe the '99 Knicks could have turned Golden State on us and they could have beaten the favored team. That's why they play the games.

Not unless you can start naming some opposing PF's today that are better than Kareem, Parish, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq (the centers Dream faced).

It's not Tim's fault that for whatever reason, this is not the Golden Age of Big Men. Of those he has faced, his teams have prevailed every single time they went to the big dance. We'll never know if Tim or a Duncan led team would have prevailed over ____________(insert big man)led team or if ___________(insert big man) led team would have beaten any of the Spurs teams. One gets into the area of futile and worse, pointless guessticulating.

[mavs>spurs2]

I agree with your take that we have to consider the eras that a player played in, but it's not the definitive factor in the equation. Wilt dominated in an age where the skilled big man was a rarity. I'm not sure how you would compare an apple of 50 years ago to an apple of today. Are you taking into account that today's athletes are far superior to those 50 years ago? Or are you taking the George Orwell approach of putting Tim in a time machine and see how he dominates in 1962? Or vice versa, how does Wilt, Bill Russell do against todays Duncans, Shaq of 99-2006, Garnett or even an Elton Brand?

I got my opinion ripped to shreds for stating those same things pages back....

Several people(spur fans) tried to tell me that athletes aren't bigger or superior to those 50 years ago

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I got my opinion ripped to shreds for stating those same things pages back....

Several people(spur fans) tried to tell me that athletes aren't bigger or superior to those 50 years ago

My 10 year old son asked me why football players today are so much bigger then the players from the 1970's? Common sense, tells you that diet and training regimens due to advances in medicine and technology are going to improve size, strength, explosiveness and ultimately performance. What else could explain a little Vietnamese boy ever playing middle linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys? Remember Dat Nguyen?

[mavs>spurs2]

My 10 year old son asked me why football players today are so much bigger then the players from the 1970's? Common sense, tells you that diet and training regimens due to advances in medicine and technology are going to improve size, strength, explosiveness and ultimately performance. What else could explain a little Vietnamese boy ever playing middle linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys? Remember Dat Nguyen?

No I agree, but some jackass was trying to make a point that athletes aren't more athletic today than they were in Wilt and Russels time.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

No I agree, but some jackass was trying to make a point that athletes aren't more athletic today than they were in Wilt and Russels time.

Word!

[Reggie Miller]

No I agree, but some jackass was trying to make a point that athletes aren't more athletic today than they were in Wilt and Russels time.

I am not the jackass to whom you refer, but I can't let that go either.

Sorry, but you can't make that sort of argument (athletes today are bigger and stronger across the board) and ignore the elephant in the room: anabolic steroids. Sure, football players are bigger today. How many of them are bigger due to PEDs? Who knows? Claiming that body types have changed that much in a generation or two solely due to nutrition and training regimens is not defensible. However, I will admit to the following facts: 1) These legal elements (weight training, nutrition, etc.) have revolutionized sports and would have done so had PEDs never existed; 2) Whether due to legal or illegal measures, athletes in general are bigger and stronger today in general.

I mention all of this becuase we tend to discuss all this in a partial vacuum. If Bill Russell played today, he would have access to all of the same options, including PEDs. It's not like we could or would pit '60s era Chamberlain or Russell against '90s vintage Shaq or Duncan and then deny them access to the whirlpool and trainer. If these men were coming up through the ranks of professional basketball today, they would have access to the very same modern training methods, etc.

One problem may be the overemphasis on athleticism. That is, how "athletic" do you really have to be to play basketball at a high level? Conditioning is important, but playing major minutes will condition a player anyway. Jump or spot shooting is a skill that involves very little or even no athleticism (which may explain why I am a decent shooter and a poor basketball player). How "athletic" does someone with the skill set of a Pete Maravich need to be?

Basketball is probably more like baseball than football in this regard. Don't worry, I am not kidding myself. You'll never see someone who looks like David Wells or John Kruk on the basketball court (or not for very long). However, height and speed can only carry you so far. See: Brown, Kwame. Many of the all-time greats would still be great players today, becuase of their basketball skills.

Again, I would agree that in general professional basketball players are more athletic today than fifty years ago. However, that doesn't mean that Wilt Chamberlain was less athletic than say, Greg Oden or Andrew Bogut, becuase it's obvious that he wasn't. You are still talking about individuals. Wilt Chamberlain was an athletic freak for his time and dominated every single sport he played. When you are making this type of argument, you have to admit that some players from thirty-fifty years ago were obviously more athletic than some contemporary players. Example: Oscar Robertson was clearly more athletic in the '60s than Bruce Bowen is today. Bruce probably has better conditioning, though.

In other words, I think a lot of theis "athleticism" talk is just a wash. We are after all talking about dominant, perhaps even transcendent, players. That is, we are comparing men who represent a tiny percentage of the very small percentage of men who have ever played pro basketball. To me, the eras differ more in terms of rules than anything else.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I am not the jackass to whom you refer, but I can't let that go either.

Sorry, but you can't make that sort of argument (athletes today are bigger and stronger across the board) and ignore the elephant in the room: anabolic steroids. Sure, football players are bigger today. How many of them are bigger due to PEDs? Who knows? Claiming that body types have changed that much in a generation or two solely due to nutrition and training regimens is not defensible. However, I will admit to the following facts: 1) These legal elements (weight training, nutrition, etc.) have revolutionized sports and would have done so had PEDs never existed; 2) Whether due to legal or illegal measures, athletes in general are bigger and stronger today in general.

I mention all of this becuase we tend to discuss all this in a partial vacuum. If Bill Russell played today, he would have access to all of the same options, including PEDs. It's not like we could or would pit '60s era Chamberlain or Russell against '90s vintage Shaq or Duncan and then deny them access to the whirlpool and trainer. If these men were coming up through the ranks of professional basketball today, they would have access to the very same modern training methods, etc.

One problem may be the overemphasis on athleticism. That is, how "athletic" do you really have to be to play basketball at a high level? Conditioning is important, but playing major minutes will condition a player anyway. Jump or spot shooting is a skill that involves very little or even no athleticism (which may explain why I am a decent shooter and a poor basketball player). How "athletic" does someone with the skill set of a Pete Maravich need to be?

Basketball is probably more like baseball than football in this regard. Don't worry, I am not kidding myself. You'll never see someone who looks like David Wells or John Kruk on the basketball court (or not for very long). However, height and speed can only carry you so far. See: Brown, Kwame. Many of the all-time greats would still be great players today, becuase of their basketball skills.

Again, I would agree that in general professional basketball players are more athletic today than fifty years ago. However, that doesn't mean that Wilt Chamberlain was less athletic than say, Greg Oden or Andrew Bogut, becuase it's obvious that he wasn't. You are still talking about individuals. Wilt Chamberlain was an athletic freak for his time and dominated every single sport he played. When you are making this type of argument, you have to admit that some players from thirty-fifty years ago were obviously more athletic than some contemporary players. Example: Oscar Robertson was clearly more athletic in the '60s than Bruce Bowen is today. Bruce probably has better conditioning, though.

In other words, I think a lot of theis "athleticism" talk is just a wash. We are after all talking about dominant, perhaps even transcendent, players. That is, we are comparing men who represent a tiny percentage of the very small percentage of men who have ever played pro basketball. To me, the eras differ more in terms of rules than anything else.

Nor was I responding back with you in mind. You do bring up some excellant points of view. My response was aimed at the "all things being equal" crowd. But I know that comparing apples and oranges of today to apples and oranges of 20,30,40 or more years ago is futile and pointless, but your assertion that if Wilt had had access to PED and today's diets, training and conditioning then the playing field would have been leveled and he would be as dominant today as he was back in the '60s, at least to me goes without saying. No brainer on that.

There is no way that anyone will know with any degree of certainty how dominant player "A" from 2007 would have done against dominant player "B" from the 1960's. A players performance will often improve or even digress when they change coaches, teams or even teammates, much less an era.

The biggest piece, but not the only piece of the player vs player puzzle should be about hardware and bling. Who's got it and who doesn't. Who's got some and who has more. That doesn't mean that Robert Horry can enter by default into the NBA's greatest Big Man arguement because of his 7 rings. Common sense and at least a basic understanding of the teams, their rosters and the league as a whole would help.

[kingmalaki]

Let us not pretend that the finals opponent is the only one who counts. I would expect the Spurs going to through the Lakers in 99 and 03 to count as a significantly better achievement than beating the Nets and the Knicks in the finals.
I wouldn't say that the 86 Celtics to be inferior to the 80 Lakers because they had to got through the Rockets vs. the 6ers, would you?

The Lakers in 99 pre Phil Jackson, during Kobe's first season as a starter (at age 20), also no Ron Harper? I guess Phil and the implementation of the triangle had nothing to do with making LA champs?

The 03 Lakers were good, but unless you are of the opinion that they were better than the 86 Celtics or Lakers then my point still remains. Congrats to the Spurs for winning the le in 99, but don't dismiss the fact that they played lesser teams. It does not discredit their le because you can only beat who is in front of you, but you do have to consider the teams played when comparing les players from two different era's won. No team post MJ's Bulls is even mentioned in the same breath as those 80's teams....

[kingmalaki]

When talking about a players place in history, all one has to quantify their niche is accomplishments and benchmarks. Coulda, shoulda have no place in this conversation. I agree with your take that we have to consider the eras that a player played in, but it's not the definitive factor in the equation. Wilt dominated in an age where the skilled big man was a rarity. I'm not sure how you would compare an apple of 50 years ago to an apple of today. Are you taking into account that today's athletes are far superior to those 50 years ago? Or are you taking the George Orwell approach of putting Tim in a time machine and see how he dominates in 1962? Or vice versa, how does Wilt, Bill Russell do against todays Duncans, Shaq of 99-2006, Garnett or even an Elton Brand?

The whole convo is coulda, woulda, shoulda. We are not comparing Duncan to someone who played 50 years ago. We are comparing him to a dude who played in the 80's and 90's, against big men that were clearly better than the ones in the league today.

Well unless Nash improves his inside game and learns to bang a little better in the post, or unless Shaq improves his assist to turnover ratio......come on, it's apples to oranges. Not a good example.

It is a good example. The poster said you have to look at the MVP’s won, while completely discounting that it’s easier to win an MVP now because you are not competing with dudes who are generally considered to be in the top 5-7 players in league history. Winning an MVP does not make one better. Nash has two. Stockton has zero (because he played in an era with Magic, Bird, MJ and Hakeem). Surely you don’t think Nash > Stockton, right? Dirk won one over Tim this year right? Is he better than Tim?

Not so comfortable using Herr Notwitzki here, but Nash certainly. I'm using your built in disclaimer about personal and team accomplishments to put Nash in the same conversation with Magic and other "point guards" of that era. Just because he doesn't have as many championships as the next guy doesn't mean he's automatically excluded from being mentioned in the conversation. Is he a all time 5-7 guy? No! Is he a all time 5-7 point guard? yeah!

I am not saying Nash or anyone else doesn’t belong in the convo. Feel free to debate…this is what these boards are for (one of the reasons). This thread is 19 pages long and I have already stated why I think Dream was better. I just had to comment on that dudes take..to simply say if you are going to mention those things ( les, all nba teams) then you have to mention the whole story.

Aside from the fact that they played in two different eras at two different positions Tim accomplished more then Magic because he was named all NBA first team more often, two times more as a matter of fact. Magic won one more NBA championship, and they both had the same amount of MVP's and finals MVP's. And even though Magic went to the finals more often his teams were beaten alot more then Tim's. Does Tim get any bonus points for not ever losing a finals series? Where as Magic was a three time loser.

Again, not telling the whole story. Of the teams that Magic lost to, which team do you honestly think ANY Spurs team would have beaten? Or which team do you think most pundits think they would beat? You are basically blaming Magic for playing in what most consider to be the best era in NBA history. Do the Spurs really beat the 82 Sixers? Do they really beat the Celtics squad that took out LA? Do they beat the Bad Boys or the Bulls? I don’t think so….

And you're trying to imply that some how Tim's personal and team accomplishments should have an asterisk or that maybe it shouldn't count as much because they played the Knicks and Cavs? They played the Knicks and Cavs and did what they were supposed to and won. None of Magics or Bird's teams ever played Shaq's threepeat Laker team of 2000-2002 or any of Duncan's Spur teams, particulary 2005 and 2007. You see that argument works both ways.

No le deserves an asterick, but I have no problem saying every championship team from 1980 to 1993 would be a clear favorite to win a le in any season Tim Duncan has played in. Those teams had superstars who were better (only one that didn’t was Detroit with Isiah) and A LOT more surrounding talent. I think it’s silly to discount how many les a CHAMPION won in a tougher era when the player you are comparing him to likely doesn’t get les in that era either….on any of his le teams.

It's not Tim's fault that for whatever reason, this is not the Golden Age of Big Men. Of those he has faced, his teams have prevailed every single time they went to the big dance. We'll never know if Tim or a Duncan led team would have prevailed over ____________(insert big man)led team or if ___________(insert big man) led team would have beaten any of the Spurs teams. One gets into the area of futile and worse, pointless guessticulating.

Just like it’s not Hakeem’s fault that he didn’t play with more help, or in an easier era against worse compe ion at his spot. I am not saying “blame Tim” for these things. I am saying you have to consider all of these things (surrounding talent, help) when bringing up how many les one player has compared to another. I can see breaking away from this is two folks clearly have a team good enough to win and go head-to-head for the ring (i.e. MJ and Malone, Hakeem and Robinson, etc), but not when two dudes didn’t even play at the same time….

[kingmalaki]

The biggest piece, but not the only piece of the player vs player puzzle should be about hardware and bling. Who's got it and who doesn't. Who's got some and who has more. That doesn't mean that Robert Horry can enter by default into the NBA's greatest Big Man arguement because of his 7 rings. Common sense and at least a basic understanding of the teams, their rosters and the league as a whole would help.

I am lost on how you can type this yet not seem to grasp the difference/difficulty between a le in the 80's, 90's or 00's? Maybe I am misunderstanding your posts....

[Galileo]

The Lakers in 99 pre Phil Jackson, during Kobe's first season as a starter (at age 20), also no Ron Harper? I guess Phil and the implementation of the triangle had nothing to do with making LA champs?

The 03 Lakers were good, but unless you are of the opinion that they were better than the 86 Celtics or Lakers then my point still remains. Congrats to the Spurs for winning the le in 99, but don't dismiss the fact that they played lesser teams. It does not discredit their le because you can only beat who is in front of you, but you do have to consider the teams played when comparing les players from two different era's won. No team post MJ's Bulls is even mentioned in the same breath as those 80's teams....

The overall talent during the Tim Duncan era is bolstered by another fact hithero not uncovered on this thread until Galileo Galilei dug it out:

early entry of star players.

In the Bird/Magic era, star players generally came out after their Junior year, if at all.

examples

Bird - 4 years in college
Olajuwon - 3 years
Jordan - 3 years
D. Robinson - 6 years
Manning - 4 years
Worthy - 3 years
Sampson - 4 years
Moncreif - 4 years

But in the Duncan era, more talent gets to the NBA faster:

examples

Lebron - 0 years
Carmello - 0 years
Iverson - 2 years

Also, to the Spurs, the rest of the NBA may not seem as tough as it was in the Bird/Magic/Jordan era.

But to the rest of the NBA, the NBA is as tough as ever, as all the other teams have to play against Tim Duncan.

[E20]

My two favorite basketball players of all time are Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan, so it is amazing to see this discussion here. Both are very underrated. Both were the best in their times. I have watched almost all of their games which have been on TV since I first saw Hakeem when he was a freshman in college in the winter of 1981-82.

That being said, please let me weigh in....

The four most important accomplishments in the NBA are; 1st Team All-NBA, ring, MVP, and Final's MVP, so first I will look at this data:

[note that this provides a perfect balance between team accomplishments and individual accomplishments, as well as a perfect balance between regular season and playoffs. It also scales back accomplishmnets before the MVP awards were given, which balances out the fact the NBA has become more compe ive since it's early years and the 1960s.]

FIRST TEN YEARS OF NBA CAREER - BEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME

Tim Duncan; 9 1st Team All-NBA, 4 rings, 2 MVPs, 3 Final's MVPs

9 + 4 + 2 + 3 = 18

Michael Jordan; 7 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 16 (career total = 27)

Kareem Abdul-Jabber; 6 + 1 + 5 + 1 = 13 (career total = 23)

Magic Johnson; 7 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 17 (career total = 20)

Bill Russell; 3 + 9 + 5 + 0 = 17 (career total = 19)

Larry Bird; 9 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 17

Hakeem Olajuwon; 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8 (career total = 11)

Tim Duncan has accomplished more during his first 10 years in the NBA than any other player in NBA history. He dwarfs Hakeem, and should easily pass Russell and Magic for his career. He is better than even money to catch Kareem and could catch Jordan if the Spurs can keep winning les. I think he will.

Here is why Tim is the best:

Tim makes his teammates better like no one else in history. I first saw it during the 1995 ACC tournament where Randolph Childress went wild. Tim was there and made it happen. Tim was only 18 years old at the time. Only Bill Russell approaches Tim in this respect, with Bird and Magic next.

Tim is one of the greatest defenders of all time, seven first team selections and 3 second team. When Tim is old, he will still be a great defensive specialist. Young stars will want to come to the Spurs to play with Tim and win a championship. Tim could win championships on the backside of his career like Kareem.

Tim is awesome at position defense.

Tim can guard anyone, including Shaq in his prime.

Tim is unique in that he doesn't go for ball fakes.

Tim boxes out for rebounds better than anyone in the NBA today.

On offense, Tim moves without the ball like Russell and Danny Manning.

Tim sets picks like Wes Unseld.

Tim passes out of the low post way better than Hakeem. Dominating big men NEVER win NBA les if they do not know how to pass out of the low post. Hakeem did not learn how to do this until Rudy T. came on board in 1992.

Tim shoots bank shots like Sam Jones and Phillip 'Doom' Haynes.

Tim posts up on offense like Hakeem. When I watched Tim in the '99 Finals, it totally reminded me of Hakeem. When you can run your offense through a dominant big man, you have a great advantage over your opponent.

Tim can shoot the midrange jumper. I too, saw this in detail in the '99 Finals. Shaq you can stop if you just keep him away from the basket. Not Tim. Hakeem did not develop this shot until the middle of his career, Tim had it at the beginning.

Tim is unique in history in that he does not care if he gets his shot blocked once in a while. Tim knows the odds. He makes a lot of shots because he is not afraid to have one blocked once in a while.

Tim has one of the best basketball IQs of all time, along with Russell, Bird, and Magic.

Tim is a psychology major and psyches out his opponent. His best move last season was psyching out Joey Crawford and getting him kicked out of the playoffs. In a battle of wits almost always won by refs, Tim stood tall.

Tim steps up in crunch time and the playoffs, just like Hakeem, Jordan, Russell and Jerry West. He has a drive to win. His stats are always better in the playoffs. He won an NBA le on two bad ankles in '05. In '04, he hit one of the greatest shots in history in the pivotal game 5 vs the Lakers. In '06, his performance on his bad foot was amazing against Dallas. By comparison, Larry Hughes had the same injury last year in the Finals and was not effective.

Tim shoots 70% on free throws in the playoffs for his career, not bad for a big man.

That said, some have argued that the NBA was tougher in the days of Bird/Magic/Jordan.

Well, first of all, the NBA did not have hardly any international back in those days.

The fact is, Tim does not have great players on his team, he has a couple very good players who are sometimes marginal all-stars. If it were not for Tim, you would not hear much about Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. David Robinson would have faded away, had Tim not come on board.

Tim lead the only "Twin Towers" duo to win a championship, and they won two.

Other Twin Towers did not win; Olajuwon/Sampson, Bowie/Turpin, Rashard Griffith/Thomas Hamilton (Chicago High School), etc.

Hakeem played when the best compe ion for All-NBA was at center, Tim played when the best compe ion for All-NBA was a forward, this balances out.

Go Tim! Tim is best.

If you are playing basketball, and you want to win, the best player is always Tim Duncan.

The fact that Duncan has accomplished so much more in his first years was already addressed earlier in this thread (All NBA teams etc.) Reason being is that there was so much more harder, tougher, and better compe ion at the PF/C spots when Hakeem was playing compared to Duncan's era. Duncan plays the Center, but he just wants to be called PF. Same reason why he is actually 7 feet, but he wants to be listed as 6'11 it's just his preference, but you can deny the truth or facts.

It's no question that on D Hakeem >>>>>>>>>>>>>Duncan

Duncan hasn't managed to win a DPOY in an era where his main compe ion is Marcus Camby.

Olajuwon was winning DPOY in a field of highly compe ive player.

[E20]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0

another favorite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMonq...elated&search=

[duncan228]

Duncan plays the Center, but he just wants to be called PF. Same reason why he is actually 7 feet, but he wants to be listed as 6'11 it's just his preference, but you can deny the truth or facts.

Just an aside...
Yes, Duncan wants to be called a power forward whether he plays power forward or center.

But...He is actually 6'11", not 7'. (It's been wondered if he's closer to 6'10" rather than 6'11".)

When he joined the Spurs they wanted to promote the "Twin Towers" with Robinson and Duncan listed as 7'.

When Robinson retired Duncan asked that he be listed at his true height.

Means nothing to the conversation at hand, but I wanted to mention it.

[E20]

Just an aside...
Yes, Duncan wants to be called a power forward whether he plays power forward or center.

But...He is actually 6'11", not 7'. (It's been wondered if he's closer to 6'10" rather than 6'11".)

When he joined the Spurs they wanted to promote the "Twin Towers" with Robinson and Duncan listed as 7'.

When Robinson retired Duncan asked that he be listed at his true height.

Means nothing to the conversation at hand, but I wanted to mention it.

I'll pull a ChumpDumper:

Link?

[mavs>spurs2]

Duncan just wants to be 6ft 11 because it goes along with him wanting to be the best PF of all time

[duncan228]

I'll pull a ChumpDumper:

Link?

I knew someone would ask. I'm looking for it, I've got it somewhere.
I'll post it as soon as I find it.

Meanwhile, run a game tape. Check Duncan out standing next to Horry, who's 6'10".
Or Rasheed Wallace.

Then look at him next to Garnett. Garnett towers over him.

I'll look for the article...

[duncan228]

I'll pull a ChumpDumper:

Link?

Here's one. I've got the same story in other articles/from other sources, I'm still looking for those.

(It's a long article, I just pulled this piece.)

http://ask.metafilter.com/54144/Is-he-really-that-tall

Is he really that tall?

How accurate are player's listed heights in college football and pro basketball? And are they measured with shoes on?

The most accurate height estimates you can find will be the heights of prospective draftees at the NBA draft camp. There they are measured with just socks on, and you'll often notice a 2"-3" difference.

Heights are played with because they can often make or break a pro career. In the NFL, 6'4" is considered ideal, and qb's that are 6'2" are considered too short, so they often fudge to be 6'3". I think this happens more often in basketball. Shooting guards that are 6'2"-6'3" get stuck with the dreaded 'tweener' label when they jump to the pros, so they often fudge their heights to be 6'4", 6'5". While they'll obviously be found out at the draft camp, they avoid getting stuck with a label throughout their four years of college.

As far as guys going down in height, this is also done for similiar reasons. I know that Dirk is a legit 7'2", but when he initially came to the nba, he wanted to play SF, so he didn't want to seem too tall and too slow for the position. Another example is Tim Duncan. When Robinson was there, they wanted to market the whole twin towers aspect, so they listed both heights as 7'0". Last year Duncan requested that the San Antonio media guide list his true height at 6'11"

[ambchang]

The Lakers in 99 pre Phil Jackson, during Kobe's first season as a starter (at age 20), also no Ron Harper? I guess Phil and the implementation of the triangle had nothing to do with making LA champs?

The 03 Lakers were good, but unless you are of the opinion that they were better than the 86 Celtics or Lakers then my point still remains. Congrats to the Spurs for winning the le in 99, but don't dismiss the fact that they played lesser teams. It does not discredit their le because you can only beat who is in front of you, but you do have to consider the teams played when comparing les players from two different era's won. No team post MJ's Bulls is even mentioned in the same breath as those 80's teams....

So you are arguing that
86 Celtics > 03 Lakers (opinion)
03 Spurs > 03 Lakers (fact)
86 Celtics> 86 Rockets (fact)
and then somehow 86 Rockets > 03 Spurs?
How does that work?

Just admit you are pulling out opinions as you see fit, and argue that just because Hakeem last to one of the all-time great teams, it somehow translate to him being better than Duncan, who led his team to 4 championships over lesser compe ion.

All the while, we learned how Hakeem leading the Rockets over the Knicks and the Magic was that much more impressive.

[kingmalaki]

So you are arguing that
86 Celtics > 03 Lakers (opinion)
03 Spurs > 03 Lakers (fact)
86 Celtics> 86 Rockets (fact)
and then somehow 86 Rockets > 03 Spurs?
How does that work?

Just admit you are pulling out opinions as you see fit, and argue that just because Hakeem last to one of the all-time great teams, it somehow translate to him being better than Duncan, who led his team to 4 championships over lesser compe ion.

All the while, we learned how Hakeem leading the Rockets over the Knicks and the Magic was that much more impressive.

I have stated this already, but i will restate it again for you. I believe every le team from 1985 through 1998, excluding the Rockets le teams, would be a clear favorite to win a championship in ANY season that Duncan won a le. Therefore, I don't see the point of saying Duncan has more rings than Hakeem, because if Duncan played in that era than he would not have 4 les (IMO). The league is weaker now than it was then, as far as big men are concerned, and just overall (top notch teams). It is pointless to throw rings into the argument when comparing two champions who played in completely different era's unless you are going to analyze all of the dynamics involved (i.e. team support, compe ion faced, etc). All of those things factor into championships, do they not? Were the teams better in his era...yes or no (including the Spurs le teams)? Simple question....

You keep bringing up the 03 Lakers. Do you realize the general consensus is that the recent Lakers dynasty is not as good as the teams that won les from 1985 - 98, excluding Hakeem's Rockets? Do you realize you beat that championship squad ONE SERIES, AND LOST THREE (yes, I am not counting the 99 season unless you are going to tell me you think Jackson and the triangle had little to do with the recent Lakers dynasty)? This is what you want to hang your hat on....beating a team once....that is generally considered inferior to the le teams from Hakeems era?

I did not state that 86 Rockets > the Spurs. I stated it makes no sense to tout Duncan's rings over a champion from another era, when it is clear that THAT era had better champions...unless you want to list which le teams any Spurs champion (or their compe ion) would beat (another debate). In case you forgot the champions from that time were:

1997-98 Bulls (62-20) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1996-97 Bulls (69-13) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1995-96 Bulls (72-10) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1992-93 Bulls (57-25) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1991-92 Bulls (67-15) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1990-91 Bulls (61-21) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1989-90 Pistons (59-23) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1988-89 Pistons (63-19) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1987-88 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1986-87 Lakers (65-17) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1985-86 Celtics (67-15) (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, Walton)
1984-85 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)

The Spurs only had a better record than 2 of these teams, by the way. The great LA dynasty that you beat once finished 52-30. I'm baffled that you are hanging your hat on beating a team that you went 1-3 against....

[lrrr]

Robert Horry seems to think this Spurs team could have beaten the Boston teams of the 80's...

[Galileo]

I have stated this already, but i will restate it again for you. I believe every le team from 1985 through 1998, excluding the Rockets le teams, would be a clear favorite to win a championship in ANY season that Duncan won a le. Therefore, I don't see the point of saying Duncan has more rings than Hakeem, because if Duncan played in that era than he would not have 4 les (IMO). The league is weaker now than it was then, as far as big men are concerned, and just overall (top notch teams). It is pointless to throw rings into the argument when comparing two champions who played in completely different era's unless you are going to analyze all of the dynamics involved (i.e. team support, compe ion faced, etc). All of those things factor into championships, do they not? Were the teams better in his era...yes or no (including the Spurs le teams)? Simple question....

You keep bringing up the 03 Lakers. Do you realize the general consensus is that the recent Lakers dynasty is not as good as the teams that won les from 1985 - 98, excluding Hakeem's Rockets? Do you realize you beat that championship squad ONE SERIES, AND LOST THREE (yes, I am not counting the 99 season unless you are going to tell me you think Jackson and the triangle had little to do with the recent Lakers dynasty)? This is what you want to hang your hat on....beating a team once....that is generally considered inferior to the le teams from Hakeems era?

I did not state that 86 Rockets > the Spurs. I stated it makes no sense to tout Duncan's rings over a champion from another era, when it is clear that THAT era had better champions...unless you want to list which le teams any Spurs champion (or their compe ion) would beat (another debate). In case you forgot the champions from that time were:

1997-98 Bulls (62-20) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1996-97 Bulls (69-13) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1995-96 Bulls (72-10) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1992-93 Bulls (57-25) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1991-92 Bulls (67-15) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1990-91 Bulls (61-21) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1989-90 Pistons (59-23) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1988-89 Pistons (63-19) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1987-88 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1986-87 Lakers (65-17) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1985-86 Celtics (67-15) (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, Walton)
1984-85 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)

The Spurs only had a better record than 2 of these teams, by the way. The great LA dynasty that you beat once finished 52-30. I'm baffled that you are hanging your hat on beating a team that you went 1-3 against....

In the old days, NBA players did not keep in shape during the off season or lift weights.

They did not get as good of coaching as teenagers.

Hence Duncan faces tougher compe ion.

Hence Duncan > Olajuwon.

[Reggie Miller]

In the old days, NBA players did not keep in shape during the off season or lift weights.

They did not get as good of coaching as teenagers.

Hence Duncan faces tougher compe ion.

Hence Duncan > Olajuwon.

1. True. Most players "played into condition" during the first half of the season. This tended to leave them in a little better shape for the playoffs, as the players weren't worn down. In that period, back-to-backs weren't common, due to travel limitations.

2. Probably false, but at least arguable. In Indiana, that is definitely false. Basketball was the be-all/end-all here from the 1920s-1980s. When the Colts moved to Indianapolis, football made some major inroads. Otherwise, it was like the other sports only existed to kill time until basketball started up again. Check how many HOF coaches began their careers by coaching high school in Indiana. (John Wooden is the biggest "name" obviously.) My guess is that the level of coaching has been pretty consistent in the traditional basketball strongholds.

3. In previous eras, you have several factors that limited the pool of available players. If we go back far enough, regionalism and segregation were major factors. More specifically, the NBA had zero or one team west of the Mississippi for several years. If you didn't play for a major program like UCLA or set conference records, you weren't going to be playing in the NBA. The race issue is pretty obvious, but basketball integrated fairly early on.

Individual players may be tougher, bigger, faster, etc. Expansion has diluted the talent pool, however. While the pool has grown larger over time (esp. with the internationalization of the game), overexpansion has more or less cancelled out this benefit.

The '80s are generally considered the golden age of the NBA for interrelated reasons. First, the players had all attended integrated schools for approximately one generation. Thus, the opportunities for black players had become more or less equal (or as good as they would get). Second, the talent pool had expanded; international players even begin to appear in significant numbers in the '80s. Third, the number of teams remained relatively small. (The ABA merger actually helped in my opinion because many of the "additional" players came from colleges out west.)

I think Duncan may face better athletes today than in past eras, but I'm not sure that he's facing tougher teams, 1-12.

[Galileo]

Some more info to chew on:

Let's see how Olajuwon did in the All-NBA voting...

1984-85) beaten out by Moses and Jabber

[Ewing enters league]

86) beaten by Jabber, Hakeem 2nd

[in my opinion, this was a very poor choice. I remember when it happened I felt Hakeem had been cheated.]

87) Hakeem 1st

88) Hakeem 1st

89) Hakeem 1st

[Robinson eneters league]

90) beaten by Ewing, Hakeem 2nd

91) beaten by Robinson and Ewing

92) beaten by Robinson, Ewing, and Daugherty, Hakeem injured

[O'Neil enters league]

93) Hakeem 1st

94) Hakeem 1st

95) beaten by Robinson and O'Neil, Hakeem vindicates himself in playoffs

96) beaten by Robinson, Hakeem 2nd

97) Hakeem 1st, Robinson injured

98) beaten by O'Neil, Robinson, and Mutombo, Hakeem injured

99) beaten by Mourning and O'Neil

00) Hakeem old and injured

So if you add 2nd teams to 1st teams, Hakeem has 9, the same as Duncan.

So the argument about only one center, compared to two forwards, if you grant this, makes it a wash. Duncan may very well add a couple more 1st Team All-NBA awards.

By far, the toughest compe ion for All-NBA these days is forward.

Example - Carlos Boozer didn't even make the 3rd team last year.

Also - the western conference is, and has been, the toughest conference in NBA history during this decade.

To win the NBA le, you have Final's level matchups in the 2nd and third round. In the first round in the west, is almost final's level as well.

Back in the 1980s you would have all these sub 500 teams in the playoffs, so the first round was basically a bye.

Also, in the 1980s, the western conference, where Hakeem played, was weak, weak, weak.

In 1981 Magic got injured, so the pathetic Houston Rockets actually made the finals.

Now, all the rounds are best of 7, so to win from the west you must win 16 grueling games.

[Galileo]

oops, Hakeem was injured in '91, not '92.