Reply With Quote
I'm not reading all this thread
But who is the best forward ever?
I honestly could give a about who is more fun to watch...who wins...and who has all the rings mother er? All that matters. Step by now.
I'm not reading all this thread
But who is the best forward ever?
Hmm. I wonder how Duncan would have done with no fewer than three hall of famers on his team, not including himself, for the majority of his career.
And two of the three Celtics championships came against the Rockets.
Right, and those Rockets teams had Moses Malone and Hakeem Olajuwon/Sampson (86). 2 of the best bigs of all time and still vastly tougher compe ion than what Duncan has had to go through.
Bird's Celtics appeared in FIVE NBA Finals during the 1980's. Three times he faced Showtime. This was an era with Dr. J, Isiah, and some really great NBA teams, not the watered down crud of today's game.
And the argument about Duncan being a better rebounder than Bird is complete hogwash. Duncan is a PF/C and Bird was a pure SF. Bird's rebounding prowess was more rare of a SF than Duncan's prowess as a PF/C. I mean the dude averaged 10.00 rebounds per game in his career in a much tougher era (guys actually made shots back then and scores were 15 ppg higher so there were much lesser boards to go around than in today's NBA where getting 100 points is rare).
Bird was also probably the best FT shooter in NBA history.
Just NO comparison between the 2 players. It's like saying Kobe>MJ
No, you said he had to beat LA. He did once. The other times he beat Houston. You either made a mistake or you were intentionally being misleading.
Duncan's been to three NBA finals and has a chance to go to more in his career with vastly less talent than Bird had beside him. One reason the NBA might be "watered down crud" as you put it is because a few teams had all the talent back then, like the one Bird was on, whereas now it's much more evenly distributed. The compe ion in general is better from the other teams.
toss up between Duncan and Scott Hastings
TD is the best PF to date.
I agree with Obstructed View, you've got to remember who was on Bird's teams that won in 81, 83 and 85. And remember, Bird's only 2 finals mvp trophies were 83 and 85 vs Duncan's 3 already and possibly 4.
Kevin McHale was one of the best low post players of all time. His footwork and moves with his back to the basket were amazing. Then you throw in Robert Parrish another top 50 of all time player.
Add Ainge and DJ.
That is an incredible supporting cast.
If Tim wins his fourth le, then, in my view, I will consider this settled.
03 and 05 already could be pretty decisive. By that time, honestly, Tim was doing almost all of the heavy lifting by himself.
Think about game 7 in the latter part of the third quarter and the beginning of the fourth in 05. Remember this was against a championship Pistons Team with great defense. Tim owned them in the clutch. He came up big when you have to come up big.
He almost had a quadruple double in Game 6 of 03. That is unbelievable.
He had 8 blocked shots and set a new Finals record for blocks.
He had 9 blocked shots to help close out Phoenix.
His defense is just dominating. Add the rebounding in, and the verdict is justified: Duncan > Bird.
And we all know, while some work remains, Spurs are the prohibitive favorites to win it all. And if they do, does anybody doubt that it will be Duncan who will be mvp.
Who else has 3 Finals MVPs? Bird- no only 2. MJ has 6, Magic has 3 and Shaq has 3.
If Tim gets 4 and it certainly looks like this is going to be the outcome, Then MJ and Tim are the only players to win more than 3 finals mvps.
And it is hard to argue with the fact that Finals MVPs are the best single measure of skill and dominance of a player.
Last edited by Mavs<Spurs; 05-20-2007 at 06:40 AM.
In what areas does Duncan outclass Bird? Not many.
The only one is as a shotblocker and one on one defender.
Bird wasn't a great on ball defender, but he was an excellent team defender playing passing lanes and getting steals. A lot like Ginobili is today. Just very savvy and tremendous anticipation.
Scorer? Bird gets a huge edge
Passer? Bird by FAR
Rebounder? I've already stated that a SF who could average 10.00 RPG is much more rare than Duncan being an 11-12 RPG guy in an era of crappy FG% shooting
Clutch Go to guy? Not even a discussion
Intangibles? Bird. Bird was arguably the smartest bball player ever.
Your argument about Duncan playing with less talent than Bird is silly. Yes, that is true, but Bird had to beat guys like Magic/Kareem, Isiah, Dr J, Hakeem to win his rings. I mean that's 5 of the top 15 players in NBA history he had to battle with on a consistent basis. Yes, he had more talent, but he also faced compe ion infinitely better.
Do you honestly think that anyone besides a Spurs homer would rank Tim Duncan over Larry Legend? Do you think TD is the best NBA player EVER or something?
LOL, that solid Piston teams was the defending champ who destroyed the 4 HOF'ers Lakers the year before.
Duncan was 1 of 7 against the Pistons from the FT line in 4th Q Game 5 of the NBA Finals. He then missed a tipin at the buzzer to win it, a point blank shot that could have won it in regulation.
He shot 41% from the field that series. Calling Duncan "clutch" in this series is just asinine. If not for Horry's clutch 4th Q in that game, we're looking back at Duncan's play there as a historic choke job. Duncan played pporly that series and Manu or Horry should have been MVP or maybe even Bruce Bowen.
Larry Bird AVERAGED a triple double in the 1986 Finals.
You continue to say he's a better rebounder than Duncan when that's ridiculous. I can name 10-15 PF's/C's in NBA history who've rebounded more than TD, but name me 1-2 SF's who've rebounded more than Bird?
Since Duncan has more rings than Wilt, is he >Wilt?!? You are citing team successes in the context of a debate about individuals.
I never said Duncan was better than Bird. In fact, I don't recall saying one negative thing about Bird. I'll tell you that he was a better one-on-one defender than people give him credit for, including you. I'm not the one making fellacious arguments laced with hypotheticals about who would have done what or how one era's players are better than another's to say why he's not a great player. All I suggested is that many of your arguments are either misleading or complete made-up bull simply because you are possibly just a Lakers fan who doesn't like Tim Duncan and wants to be a pseudo-intellectual troll.
Is Duncan better than Bird? Not yet. Is he in the discussion to a far greater extent than you intimate? Absolutely.
IMHO, in the end, it's all about the bling. If TD can get his 4th ring and final MVP, it's settled, he's better than Larry, end of discussion.
Larry might have it harder in getting his rings back then, when the talent pool wasn't too diluted as of today's NBA, but he got helps from HOF'ers in his team, so it's a wash fact that Duncan isn't that lucky to begin with.
First, in basketball, there's defense, offense and rebounding, mainly (I suppose there are intangibles, but these are the aspects to consider).
On offense, the two are about equal. Obviously, you can play inside out with Tim Duncan, force double teams and spread the floor better. Mostly, you would be better off starting a basketball team from scratch with Tim Ducan instead of Larry Bird, even when we are just talking about offense.
In terms of rebounding, Duncan has the advantage and I think we all know that. Obviously, physical defense was allowed back then and so there were more rebounds for Larry to grab. Now, we have different rules which give offensive players advantages (hence, the high shooting percentages). Nevertheless, Duncan has the advantage.
In terms of defense, it is not even close. Tim Duncan is one of the best defensive players to ever play basketball.
So, it is really 3-0, for Duncan (or 2-0 and consider offense tied if you like).
The Duncan Spurs of 2003 beat the 3 time defending champs with Shaq and Kobe.
The Duncan Spurs of 2005 beat the defending champs.
Dr. J was really good, but not in this class.
Beating Magic, Kareen, Worthy and Scott would have been difficult, but with Bird's supporting cast, he had the team to do it.
Remember Isaiah beat Magic and Jordan both and Isaiah was the best player on that team. So, while it was difficult, it was achievable without being a top 5 player of all time.
Defense and the ability to make those around you better by demanding double teams as a low post player makes Tim more valuable to a team than Larry Bird.
Finals mvps, while not the whole story, are the best single measure of the talent level of a great player.
Tim has 3, Bird has 2 and that's now. Tim still has 4 great years left.
And this year he is likely to add another finals mvp trophy.
4-2. That's 200 % or twice as many. And that means Duncan must be considered the better player.
Rebounds in Bird's era are inflated by 2-3 a game because of the pace of every game...
The fact that the spurs play the pace that they do makes rebounds harder to get because there are fewer potentially out there...
Bird was much better than Duncan OFFENSIVELY.
Bird scored more and was a more efficient scorer. Bird was a 90% career FT shooter. Despite shooting 3 pointers which are lower % shots, his career FG% is virtually identical to Duncan's.
But mainly, Bird was just a much better offensive creator for teammates. His court vision and passing were even batter than Steve Nash's.
Also, late in games, SA frequently draws up plays for Manu or Parker to break down people and create shots. Part of this is because Duncan is very shaky as a FT shooter.
With Boston, imagine Robert Horry who could create a shot and you have Larry Bird in the clutch. His ability to take over games late in crunch time was a quality very few have shared (and I'm guessing you didnt watch him play from your comments or are just ridiculously biased). This is a quality you see in guys like Magic, MJ, Bird, but Duncan for all his assets, just does not have.
Defensively, yes, Duncan>Bird.
However, as a rebounder you couldnt be more wrong. Bird played in an era where NBA scoring was literally about 15ppg higher than today's NBA. FG%'s were much higher then so there were less rebounds to go around. Yet, Bird's career averages are 10.0 RPG which is just exceptional for a Small forward.
Can you even name me one Small forward in the history of the NBA who averaged more than 10.0 RPG for his career? I can name you several who exceeded Duncan's 11.9 RPG at his position.
Finals MVP's by the way are absolutely not the best single measure of a talent level of a great player. By that logic, Chauncey Billups > Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, David Robinson.
i dont get why spurs fans care when ppl say tim duncan or our team is boring. i used to get defensive...but ive come to realize...WHO CARES? just because someone thinks we are boring doens't make us any worse. i could give two shyts if no one but spur fans watch us.
bird is better than tim duncan...lets not go overboard here. duncan is better defensively...but bird blows him out the water in every other category...including intangibles.
Uh, yeah.
In the final analysis, you're trying to be stupid.
If you put Bird on the Spurs in palce of Duncan would the Spurs have the last two rings and be going for a third. Me, I don't think so. They may not lose offense, maybe a little better but their defense would NOWHERE what it is today. Why is it 95% of NBA "fans" never value the importnce of the defensive side of the court when looking at players and their impact. In fact that's why when you look at MVP putting Nash or Dirk over Duncan is a joke. Where do those two stand when it comes to naming NBA all defensive teams? 20th team? Maybe Nash 27th?
Like I said, the list of PF's/C's with similar or higher average RPG than Duncan is without question higher than the # of SF's with a similar or higher average RPG than Larry Bird.
Bird was a better rebounder relative to his Small Forward position than Duncan was relative to his PF position. In the end, that's the only fair way to compare them.
That's not the right way to look at it.
If Bird was on the Spurs, they'd have built the team around him differently than they have around Duncan to complement his skill set.
If Bird was in today's NBA and there was a draft of all players, Bird would be the #1 pick because he'd be the best player in the NBA.
Duncan's great but some of this homerism is out of hand. There's no shame in "only" being the best PF of all time and not the best overall Forward of all time.
Bird's defense gets ripped a lot by people who didn't watch him and think he was some "slow white guy". His defensive style was just like Ginobili's. Whatever he lacked in quicks, he more than made up for with instinct, anticipation, and serious hustle and intensity.
I hope you weren't implying he was at the level of Nash or Dirk defensively, because that's just crazy. Ginobili is the best comparison amongst active NBA players and I doubt you consider him a poor defender.
I'm priveleged to be old enough to have seen Bird's career in its entirety and without question Larry Legend was a great forward. But as far as a complete, fundametally sound, totally dominant all around threat on the floor for his entire career save for times he was injured, there is no question that Tim is the greatest PF of all time. This isn't even including the Championship accomplishments. If Tim wins another couple of les before he is done, which is very possible, he may go down as the greatest player of all time. MJ included.
Thats taking it way too far...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions