Timmy = not even Top 15 Player All-Time

[Thomas82]

Raw stats don't tell you anything, and Tim Duncan's defense is better than Larry Bird's. A case can be made that Duncan is the better player.

Larry Bird career PER: 23.5
Tim Duncan career PER: 25.0

Advantage: Tim Duncan

Larry Bird career playoff PER: 21.4
Tim Duncan career playoff PER: 26.1

Advantage: Tim Duncan

Larry Bird top PER: 27.8
Tim Duncan top PER: 27.1

Advantage: Larry Bird

Larry Bird top playoff PER: 26.3
Tim Duncan top playoff PER: 31.8

Advantage: Tim Duncan

We could go on and on. Advanced metrics show that Tim Duncan was a more dominant player in his era than Bird was in his.

In Larry Bird's peak, he produced 15.8 win shares in his top season. Tim Duncan produced 17.8 win shares in his top season, and 16.5 in his second top season. Bird never topped that.

Good post!!

[ambchang]

Damn view!!! You splattered all kind of egg on your face with this one. Bird never repeated, and his best season stats make Duncan's best look ty. You don't even want to compare numbers with those two, son. Maybe you need to rethink your argument and stop trying to make it look like Duncan never had HOF'ers playing along side him his whole ing career.

I will take Bird's 3 best statistical season compared to Duncan's best 3.

Bird:
84-85: 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 6.6 apg, 1.6 STL, 1.2 BLK, 52.2% FG, 88.2% FT, 3.1 TOV in 39.5 MPG

86-87: 28.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 apg, 1.8 STL, 0.9 BLK, 52.5% FG, 91% FT, 3.2 TOV in 40.6 MPG

87-88: 29.9 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.6 STL, 0.8 BLK, 52.7% 91.6%, 2.8 TOV in 39 MPG

Duncan:
99-00: 23.2 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.9 STL, 2.2 BLK, 49% FG, 76.1% FT, 3.3 TOV in 38.9 MPG

01-02: 25.5 PPG, 12.7 RPG, 3.7 APG, 0.7 STL, 2.5 BLK, 50.8 FG%, 79.9% FT, 3.2 TOV in 40.6 MPG

02-03: 23.3 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 3.1 APG, 0.9 STL, 2.7 BLK, 51.3 FG%, 71% FT, 3.1 TOV in 39.3 MPG

On the surface, it's obvious Bird is better offensively (more points, more assists, better shooting %s), while Duncan is better defensively, more rebounds, blks + stls). Minutes and TOVs are about a wash.

The biggest difference between the two are PPG (with Bird being consistently about 20 to 25% better), rebounding (with Duncan being consistently 25 to 30%), and assists (with Bird being about 100% better consistently). So I am not sure how you can say Bird would make Duncan's stats look " ty".

Of course, we haven't even talked about the drastic shift in playing styles in the 15 years in between because of the Pistons and Knicks.

When you normalize the numbers based on league average, the numbers look to favour Duncan slightly. The following numbers are % of each player's production as compared to an average team in that particular year. IE, if Bird scores 25 PPG, and an average team scores 100, Bird scores 25% of an average team's points. If Bird shoots 90% from the FT like, and the league average is 80%, Bird is 112.5% of league average.

Bird:
84-85: 0.259 PPG, 0.241 RPG, 0.251 APG, 0.187 STL, 0.226 BLK, 1.063 FG%, 1.154 FT%, 0.174 TOV

86-87: 0.256 PPG, 0.209 RPG, 0.293 APG, 0.209 STL, 0.163 BLK, 1.094 FG%, 1.193 FT%, 0.188 TOV

87-88: 0.276 PPG, 0.214 RPG, 0.237 APG, 0.188 STL, 0.148 BLK, 1.098 FG%, 1.196 FT%, 0.167 TOV

Duncan:
99-00: 0.238 PPG, 0.289 RPG, 0.143 APG, 0.113 STL, 0.425 BLK, 1.091 FG%, 1.015 FT%, 0.213 TOV

01-02: 0.267 PPG, 0.3 RPG, 0.169 APG, 0.09 STL, 0.479 BLK, 1.142 FG%, 1.063 FT%, 0.221 TOV

02-03: 0.245 PPG, 0.305 RPG, 0.144 APG, 0.113 STL, 0.539 BLK, 1.161 FG%, 0.937 FT%, 0.208 TOV

Adjusted for eras, Duncan appears to have a slight upper hand on bird, with the gap in the scoring difference significantly lower, having a better adjusted FG%, and a closer APG ratio.

Duncan compares favourably, or at least within reasonable range, of Bird's best season. Put in the fact that Duncan was more consistent for a longer period of time than Bird, and won more championships, there is a good point to be made that Duncan > Bird.

Finally, Duncan did have at least one HoFer by his side at all times, but so what? Robinson was way over his prime by around 01, Parker and Ginobili wasn't even half of what they are later on in their careers. Speedy Claxton and Kerr actually replaced Parker during crunch time to make significant comebacks for the Mavs game 6 and Nets Game 6. Ginobili was a bench player who would average around 10 ppg, these are not players at their prime, it's like saying Kobe Bryant can't win a ring with 3 other HOFers beside him, despite the fact that Shaq was on the downward side of his career, Malone was on his last legs (and injured in the Finals), and Payton was a s of his former self.

Besides, Ginobili will get in the HoF because of his international accomplishments, not his NBA accomplishments. Parker, at best, is a maybe HoF candidate. It's like saying Kobe can't win a ring without another HoF player because of Gasol.

[dbreiden83080]

I will take Bird's 3 best statistical season compared to Duncan's best 3.

Bird:
84-85: 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 6.6 apg, 1.6 STL, 1.2 BLK, 52.2% FG, 88.2% FT, 3.1 TOV in 39.5 MPG

86-87: 28.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 apg, 1.8 STL, 0.9 BLK, 52.5% FG, 91% FT, 3.2 TOV in 40.6 MPG

87-88: 29.9 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.6 STL, 0.8 BLK, 52.7% 91.6%, 2.8 TOV in 39 MPG

Duncan:
99-00: 23.2 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.9 STL, 2.2 BLK, 49% FG, 76.1% FT, 3.3 TOV in 38.9 MPG

01-02: 25.5 PPG, 12.7 RPG, 3.7 APG, 0.7 STL, 2.5 BLK, 50.8 FG%, 79.9% FT, 3.2 TOV in 40.6 MPG

02-03: 23.3 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 3.1 APG, 0.9 STL, 2.7 BLK, 51.3 FG%, 71% FT, 3.1 TOV in 39.3 MPG

On the surface, it's obvious Bird is better offensively (more points, more assists, better shooting %s), while Duncan is better defensively, more rebounds, blks + stls). Minutes and TOVs are about a wash.

The biggest difference between the two are PPG (with Bird being consistently about 20 to 25% better), rebounding (with Duncan being consistently 25 to 30%), and assists (with Bird being about 100% better consistently). So I am not sure how you can say Bird would make Duncan's stats look " ty".

Of course, we haven't even talked about the drastic shift in playing styles in the 15 years in between because of the Pistons and Knicks.

When you normalize the numbers based on league average, the numbers look to favour Duncan slightly. The following numbers are % of each player's production as compared to an average team in that particular year. IE, if Bird scores 25 PPG, and an average team scores 100, Bird scores 25% of an average team's points. If Bird shoots 90% from the FT like, and the league average is 80%, Bird is 112.5% of league average.

Bird:
84-85: 0.259 PPG, 0.241 RPG, 0.251 APG, 0.187 STL, 0.226 BLK, 1.063 FG%, 1.154 FT%, 0.174 TOV

86-87: 0.256 PPG, 0.209 RPG, 0.293 APG, 0.209 STL, 0.163 BLK, 1.094 FG%, 1.193 FT%, 0.188 TOV

87-88: 0.276 PPG, 0.214 RPG, 0.237 APG, 0.188 STL, 0.148 BLK, 1.098 FG%, 1.196 FT%, 0.167 TOV

Duncan:
99-00: 0.238 PPG, 0.289 RPG, 0.143 APG, 0.113 STL, 0.425 BLK, 1.091 FG%, 1.015 FT%, 0.213 TOV

01-02: 0.267 PPG, 0.3 RPG, 0.169 APG, 0.09 STL, 0.479 BLK, 1.142 FG%, 1.063 FT%, 0.221 TOV

02-03: 0.245 PPG, 0.305 RPG, 0.144 APG, 0.113 STL, 0.539 BLK, 1.161 FG%, 0.937 FT%, 0.208 TOV

Adjusted for eras, Duncan appears to have a slight upper hand on bird, with the gap in the scoring difference significantly lower, having a better adjusted FG%, and a closer APG ratio.

Duncan compares favourably, or at least within reasonable range, of Bird's best season. Put in the fact that Duncan was more consistent for a longer period of time than Bird, and won more championships, there is a good point to be made that Duncan > Bird.

Finally, Duncan did have at least one HoFer by his side at all times, but so what? Robinson was way over his prime by around 01, Parker and Ginobili wasn't even half of what they are later on in their careers. Speedy Claxton and Kerr actually replaced Parker during crunch time to make significant comebacks for the Mavs game 6 and Nets Game 6. Ginobili was a bench player who would average around 10 ppg, these are not players at their prime, it's like saying Kobe Bryant can't win a ring with 3 other HOFers beside him, despite the fact that Shaq was on the downward side of his career, Malone was on his last legs (and injured in the Finals), and Payton was a s of his former self.

Besides, Ginobili will get in the HoF because of his international accomplishments, not his NBA accomplishments. Parker, at best, is a maybe HoF candidate. It's like saying Kobe can't win a ring without another HoF player because of Gasol.

/Thread..

[Killakobe81]

This guy lost me with barkley Karl Malone Mchale and Stockton ...

I saw those guys GREAT players but better than tim? RUFRICKIN' serious? Especially since only McHale has a ring and he played with Bird, parish and DJ ....

[Killakobe81]

This is ridiculous. Tim Duncan is easily top 10 whether you are a Spurs fan or not. You cannot argue with the stats & championships. Any argument to the contrary is patently ridiculous. No player is good enough to win a championship on his own. Tim needed DRob, Tony and Manu. The Lakers needed BOTH Kobe and Shaq. All championship teams need role players to step up and play big. Everybody needs Robert Horry! Shaughnessy is still bitter about the '97 draft and is, obviously, a drunken ginger hack writer. Lakaluva is a button pusher and can't make a solid argument to save his life, despite being armed to the teeth. Duh_Suns_Fan is just so sad and jealously pathetic that I just feel sorry for his poor sun-baked raisin of a brain.
Also, Tim Duncan is better than Shaq. Sorry, it's not even close.

But you know what makes this madder than THIS article?
SPUR fans that argue SHAQ is BETTER than tim ...some of them still post here.
PLEASE add your two cents "SHAQ was so dominant" ...whatever. Dont get me wrong grateful for the 3peat but if kobe had duncan we win like 5 out of 7 or 6 out of 8 les ...all else being equal (cooaching role players)

The ONLY big man I SAW (with my own eyes not video footage) that I would argue that are BETTER (or at listen to the case) are: Kareem & hakeem

Duncan is better than:

Moses (but Moses was great)

Malone (choker)

Barkley (love chuck but he ringless)

Shaq (dominant but not clutch did not work enough on his game)
howard (though he is young enough to have a chance to pass him)

KG (i used to argue KG but only a Boston or minny homer would do so now)

Ewing (loved the guy but he was sometimesy in the clutch)

Alonzo (love his heart but his post game was checkers Duncan played chess)

Yao (brittle)

I could go on but you get the point ...

[TD 21]

Howard has no chance to pass Duncan. He's not in the same league, even if he does reach his potential (let's face it, you can only say I guy has upside for so long. Guys like James and Howard, great as one is and very good as the other is, they're not going to reach this mythical level people think they're capable of, similar to O'Neal because no matter what they do, they'll always leave people wanting more because they're physical freaks of nature).

If he wins two championships and an MVP, Howard might be able to crack the top twenty all-time, but a player with that mediocre an offensive game simply can't be ranked higher, unless he wins four championships and two MVP's.

With the exception of Russell, you look at every other consensus top ten-fifteen all-time player and they could all take over a game offensively. That matters in the grand scheme of things. As much as Howard can dominate defensively and on the boards, if by the end of his career I can't remember at least a handful of big time, carry his team offensively throughout and/or down the stretch of big games, performances (and I don't think I will when it's all said and done), then he can't be considered in the same class with Abdul-Jabbar, Russell, Chamberlain, Duncan, Olajuwon and O'Neal. He'll probably end up somewhere in the second tier of great big men.