Where would you guys rank Duncan on an All Time list?

[Lakers_55]

This isn't some random blog. Its the official site of the NBA. They take those team photos at the beginning of every year. He tried to go that year and couldn't. He went 8 games and then hung it up.

Probasketball reference who you linked shows him not playing in the 71 or 72 playoffs. He got hurt his career was over i don't care what you think you remember.

You didn't read what I said earlier. Baylor retired. John Q. Trapp came along later. My old Laker programs had a section called "How they've come and gone" which shows exactly when Trapp joined the team, as well as every other Laker. They're stored away and I can't look for them now. But, Trapp only played 58 games that season. I don't recall him being injured. To counter the Laker acquisition of Trapp, Milwaukee quickly signed a guy named Curtis Perry. He only played 50 games for the Bucks. Look it up at site I give above, just change url from LAL to MIL. I can't find Trapp's join date on the internet, but trust me, he came later.

Now, if Baylor was gone, and Trapp came later, why is Baylor in the picture? Because he is still considered on the team. As I said, he could have come back anytime but chose not to be a role player. Being told he was being benched hurt his pride. He was unselfish in not returning, he could break up the team chemistry.

As far as the NBA site versus a blog, I agree, you are right. However, the internet didn't exist in those days and everything that's on it now from pre internet had to come from a paper trail. You won't find box scores on those old games at that site, have a look. I tried to find a score of a USC vs. USC football game from 1980. (Haha, figure that out, there were two Heisman trophy winners in that game, one from each team.) No luck, even at the Trojan website. I think it was 23-13 and I was at that game too.

Paper trail in this case says:
Baylor retired in 1971, 9 games in.
Baylor didn't come back.
Lakers won so Baylor didn't get a ring.

Evidence outside of the paper trail shows a photo, I gave this above. Also, radio accounts by Chick Hearn that Elgin got a ring. I will grant you this, he may not have deserved one for not playing it out, but he was given one just the same. He certainly was en led to a share of the playoff winnings. The players vote who gets how much of a percentage when a player isn't on the team the whole year, but everyone who was on the squad gets something.

[Tully365]

btw, the stats are skewed..Duncan has played on a team that has consistently ranked near the bottom of the NBA in pace, especially compared to many of the greatest players..so he hasn't always put up the best stats..also due to the fact that he isn't that type of player..even with that being said, he has put up monster stats..

as for the teammates argument..

I'll ignore the fact that IT'S RARE to win an NBA le without GREAT teammates, so that argument shouldn't even count..but Duncan is actually one of the few guys that led a team to a le WITHOUT a guy on his team that was even nearly an all-star..

Parker was a 15.5 and 5 APG guy in the 2003 regular season..that's definitely good, but nothing near all-star caliber..Manu and Robinson were 8 point scorers for the regular season..Duncan won MVP..pretty self-explanatory of what Timmy meant..

furthermore, Duncan's teammates got WORSE during the playoffs..Parker's numbers went down, and even worse, his FG% went down by 6% during the playoffs..Manu averaged more points, but shot 5% lower..Jackson played better, but shot 41% during those playoffs..

Duncan averaged 25(#1 on the team), 15.5 RPG(#1 on the team), 5 APG(#1 on the team), 3 BPG(#1 on the team) on 53% shooting(#2 on the team)..this is during a span of 24 games IN THE PLAYOFFS..where it matters most..

so Duncan's team was basically a star with role players..if you look at the numbers and look at the ratio of conference compe ion, Duncan's 2003 team is actually virtually the same as Lebron's supporting cast last year..what's the difference? the media..of course The King is gonna get the hype of playing with a poor supporting cast, but the media obviously ignores our guy CARRYING a team to a le with no other all-star caliber players, because he's "borring" and our team is "borring"..

if Duncan had the hype he deserves, he would be getting the credit he deserved..it's disgusting to listen to all these myths and false information that gets spread about him..the guy was undoutedly the best player in the NBA in 2003..had a GREAT argument in 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2005 to be the best, and many people would agree with me(maybe not in 2002, because Shaq was still in his prime)..disgusting..

Great Post.

[Lakers_55]

Oh, I want to add this. I mentioned I have an audio tape of that final game in 1972. The Laker team was getting rings for everyone, even broadcasters Chick Hearn and Lynn Shackelford got one. I remember Chick telling Lynn he was getting one too and all Lynn could say was "I'll take it". Lynn is known for playing at UCLA with Kareem. He also had a brief pro career, at least in the ABA. During the short time he was with the Lakers, he worked out with them at every practice to help the team out.

[Ghazi]

I don't think there should even be a debate that Duncan is the best power forward of all time

I would say top 10 all time as well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You didn't read what I said earlier. Baylor retired. John Q. Trapp came along later. My old Laker programs had a section called "How they've come and gone" which shows exactly when Trapp joined the team, as well as every other Laker. They're stored away and I can't look for them now. But, Trapp only played 58 games that season. I don't recall him being injured. To counter the Laker acquisition of Trapp, Milwaukee quickly signed a guy named Curtis Perry. He only played 50 games for the Bucks. Look it up at site I give above, just change url from LAL to MIL. I can't find Trapp's join date on the internet, but trust me, he came later.

Now, if Baylor was gone, and Trapp came later, why is Baylor in the picture? Because he is still considered on the team. As I said, he could have come back anytime but chose not to be a role player. Being told he was being benched hurt his pride. He was unselfish in not returning, he could break up the team chemistry.

As far as the NBA site versus a blog, I agree, you are right. However, the internet didn't exist in those days and everything that's on it now from pre internet had to come from a paper trail. You won't find box scores on those old games at that site, have a look. I tried to find a score of a USC vs. USC football game from 1980. (Haha, figure that out, there were two Heisman trophy winners in that game, one from each team.) No luck, even at the Trojan website. I think it was 23-13 and I was at that game too.

Paper trail in this case says:
Baylor retired in 1971, 9 games in.
Baylor didn't come back.
Lakers won so Baylor didn't get a ring.

Evidence outside of the paper trail shows a photo, I gave this above. Also, radio accounts by Chick Hearn that Elgin got a ring. I will grant you this, he may not have deserved one for not playing it out, but he was given one just the same. He certainly was en led to a share of the playoff winnings. The players vote who gets how much of a percentage when a player isn't on the team the whole year, but everyone who was on the squad gets something.

Thats nice and all but the NBA doesn't recognize Baylor as having won the championship. But go ahead and wax poetic about it all day long. Its very clear on the NBA's official website.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/baylor_bio.html

Baylor never played on a club that won an NBA Championship.

That was what was the big irony about the whole thing. HE RETIRED 9 GAMES INTO WHAT TURNED INTO A CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON.

[Eli Manning]

That was what was the big irony about the whole thing. HE RETIRED 9 GAMES INTO WHAT TURNED INTO A CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON.

Kinda reminds me of that little Tiki Barber retiring right before a championship season.

[MarHill]

I am one that goes against this reasoning. I have no problem if you want to rank MVP's in a new topic, then Russell and TD go way up. It isn't an individual player's fault his teammates don't perform. This topic is about individual players.

Oscar Robinson: 1 le
Jerry West: 1 le
Wilt Chamberlain: 2 les
Julius Erving: 1 le
The first 3 played during the Russell era, Dr. J.'s twilight years were during the Bird/Magic era. I have them all in my top 10, and quite a few people have at least the Big O and Wilt on theirs.

Lakers__55,

You are leaving out the bottom half of my post. I will agree with you about it isn't the individual player's fault if his teammates didn't perform.

But...when you are talking about a top 10 or top 15 players of all time....then you have to use multiple championships as a judging factor. Also, if you are a top ten or top fifteen player you make your teammates around you better.

Duncan has helped the growth of Tony Parker, Manu, Bruce Bowen, and even David Robinson (towards the latter end of his career)

Also, if you have changed a franchise's history. Duncan has certainly done with the Spurs. The Spurs have gone from being a good team to a championship contender in the last ten years.

Lastly, did you dominate the position during your era. Yes....the argument against Duncan isn't doesn't have the eye-popping statisics. But...it is his consistency that has made him great since he came into league in '97. And...he is standard-bearer for all power forwards since that time.

I agree with you that Oscar Robinson, Jerry West, & Dr. J were great players and they belong in the top 20 of all time. However, the top ten or fifteen of all time have to meet all those four criteria I mentioned earlier.

[Gant]

I put empahasis on winning and domination.

Top 10 (no order within tiers):

First tier:

Russell and Jordan.
They are clearly above everyone else.

Second tier:

Kareem, Wilt, Bird, and Magic.

Third tier:

Duncan, Shaq, and Oscar. Four championships each for the big guys. Two great players.

Oscar played on horrible teams until the end when he paired up with Kareem in Milwaukee. (I would place Oscar behind Shaq and Duncan based on winning.)

Fourth tier:

Havlicek. The only guy I can think of who was not the main man, but who took up that mantle after the stud retired and led his team to further les. (Pippen didn't do it and neither has Kobe.)

If you didn't see him play you can't understand. Not only did he have stats but his main value was in purely wearing his opposite number down. He sprinted every minute of every game leaving his man worn out in the 4th quarter. He had an unusual heart (literally, not metaphorically) that allowed him to run endlessly.

He was at the top of his game for an incredibly long time.

[ShoogarBear]

Celtic Fan is just as myopic as Laker Fan.

[Gant]

You don't win one quarter of the les in league history without some of the best players.

Also, actually having seen these guys play is of some considerable help in making these types of rankings.

[Lakers_55]

The problem I have with your list is that I think several guys on there themselves would say Bill Russell was the best player they ever faced. I think your list shows a clear bias for offense over defense, which is understandable, but I disagree. Wilt was the best offensive player of his time, but had a few weaknesses: one was outside shooting, and the second was free throw shooting. Like Shaq, having Wilt on the floor in a close game could actually work against his team, since fouling him was such a good strategy. In the 67-68 season, Wilt shot an abysmal 38% from the free throw line. In the 64-65 season, he shot 41.6% from the FT line. For his career he was just over 50%.

I don't think the same can be said of Russell's defense. His post defense, shot blocking, rebounding, and box out abilities were all supreme, and his quickness meant he didn't become a defensive liability if his man tried to lure him away from the paint. He was a great man-defender, a great help- defender, a great weakside-defender... so what I'm arguing is that it was sometimes possible to neutralize Wilt's offense, if even for just certain crucial moments, but almost never possible to neutralize Russell's defense, which was even better in those same crucial moments. This is the crux of the whole "defense wins championships" philosophy, and, in my opinion, the reason why Russell was so great.

The rules were different in Wilt's day. "Hack-A-Wilt" never happened. You had to foul the guy with the ball, so his team avoided passing it to him if the game was on the line. Also, there was an intentional foul strategy. If you had less than 4 team fouls, you could grab the guy with the ball and send him to the line for 1 shot. After 4 fouls, the next foul involved a penalty. So, an intentional foul meant 2 chances to make 1 and fouled in the act of shooting meant 3 to make 2. Wilt often airballed all 3 chances much to many people's delight. Wilt also could play defense. The league didn't record blocked shots until after Wilt left the league. Wilt is on the all-time league lead for triple doubles, ranking 4th due to his assists. His rank would go higher if shot blocking were included, I saw him snuff the same player 3 times in a row on one play many times. It wasn't uncommon to see Wilt yank down 30 rebounds in a game either. Wilt used to employ a fall away bank shot, about the same range and location that Duncan takes his bank shots from. I would say Duncan is more pure and better with his, but Wilt could hit them.

I don't argue at all about Russell's defensive abilities. I pointed out earlier that if Boston hadn't won 11 les with Russell, he wouldn't be looked at as that great. Russell was more of a team player than an indivdual one. It all comes down in my opinion how we define a player's greatness.

That's the whole point of a great discussion like we are having, it's what thoughts we get to share with each other.

Thats nice and all but the NBA doesn't recognize Baylor as having won the championship. But go ahead and wax poetic about it all day long. Its very clear on the NBA's official website.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/baylor_bio.html



That was what was the big irony about the whole thing. HE RETIRED 9 GAMES INTO WHAT TURNED INTO A CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON.

First paragraph of what you posted, you didn't answer me about what I said about the paper trail theory of old news on the internet. It doesn't matter what's on the NBA site, probably not even to Elgin. The latter part, I stated why he didn't come back, even though he would have been welcomed. He knew if the Lakers won, he would still get his ring. Why would I make up this story if it didn't happen? The point is, people think he didn't get a ring and he did. It just doesn't seem like he did. Now, anyone paying attention to this thread has learned something. I'll take the way things went. If the Lakers win in 69 or 70 with Baylor, or even before that, 33 in a row doesn't happen in 71-72. Maybe Wilt doesn't even join the Lakers. Also, Jerry West was very pissed off about his failures in the 60's. After he retired, he served briefly as Laker coach, then became a general manager with a mission. He is responsible for 8 more Laker championships.

Lakers__55,

You are leaving out the bottom half of my post. I will agree with you about it isn't the individual player's fault if his teammates didn't perform.

But...when you are talking about a top 10 or top 15 players of all time....then you have to use multiple championships as a judging factor. Also, if you are a top ten or top fifteen player you make your teammates around you better.

Duncan has helped the growth of Tony Parker, Manu, Bruce Bowen, and even David Robinson (towards the latter end of his career)

Also, if you have changed a franchise's history. Duncan has certainly done with the Spurs. The Spurs have gone from being a good team to a championship contender in the last ten years.

Lastly, did you dominate the position during your era. Yes....the argument against Duncan isn't doesn't have the eye-popping statisics. But...it is his consistency that has made him great since he came into league in '97. And...he is standard-bearer for all power forwards since that time.

I agree with you that Oscar Robinson, Jerry West, & Dr. J were great players and they belong in the top 20 of all time. However, the top ten or fifteen of all time have to meet all those four criteria I mentioned earlier.

I'll quote your whole post this time. I don't get why you have to include multiple championships if you are judging the top individual players. The criterea for judging players is open ended. Some agree with my way, some agree with your way. Neither of us is right. As I said, there are two ways to discuss this. Make a thread judging them your way, and I have no problem with anyone's list. I have said this all several times. Early in the thread I said it isn't fair yet to place Duncan anywhere on the list, however, he definitely belongs on it somewhere.

[ShoogarBear]

You don't win one quarter of the les in league history without some of the best players.

Also, actually having seen these guys play is of some considerable help in making these types of rankings.

Maybe you're right, 'cause I only lived in Boston for 17 years.

Havlicek the tenth best player of all time when he was never once the dominant player in the league? Over Bob Pet , Moses Malone, Olajuwon, Barkley, Baylor, Garnett?

Shoot, I could argue that Rick Barry was better than Havlicek.

[Gant]

The only 17 years that count in this case are the early 60s to the late 70s.

Havlicek:
13 consecutive all star games.

Best player (with Cowens) on the two 70s le teams.

Eight championships.

Wikipedia: "John Havlicek is the Celtics all-time leader in points and games played, scoring 26,395 points (20.8 points per game, 10th all-time in points scored in the NBA), and playing in 1,270 games (4th all-time). He became the first player to score 1,000 points in 16 consecutive seasons, with his best season coming during the 1970-71 NBA season when he averaged 28.9 points per game."

Intangibles are off the charts (see my first post).

Havlicek at 10th is no stretch at all.

[ShoogarBear]

Robert Parish must be 11th, then.

[Gant]

Robert Parish must be 11th, then.

More like 72nd.

[ambchang]

A lot of overrating of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird going on here. They belong in the top 10, but how were either of these guys better than Wilt Chamberlain or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or even Oscar Robertson or Julius Erving?

Magic and Bird so captured the imagination of the public in the 80s that people just assume they were as good as the publicity would have you believe. If you go back and examine accomplishments and skills, I don't see any way they are shoe-ins ahead of the guys that I listed.

Larry Bird won 3 straight MVPs, revolutionized the concept of a small forward by being able to pass, dribble, shoot from outside, score from inside and rebound, and won 3 les.

Magic won 3 MVPs, won 5 les and led the Lakers to 9 trips to the finals, winning finals MVP 3 times. Broke Big O’s long standing assist record (size eclipsed by John Stockton and Mark Jackson), and along with Bird hauled the NBA out of financial difficulty and made it a major sport in North America.

You can make an argument with ranking Wilt, Kareem, Big O, Dr. J Magic and Bird in any order, but it would be difficult to make a hard case that one is definitely better than the others.

[SpursChampsIII]

Behind Karl Malone.

:

Only a Jazz fan or a dumb would really believe that.

However, they could be one and the same.

[SpursChampsIII]

I put Kareem and MJ on top of the list, and could make a case for Duncan, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell for the next 5 spots.

[polandprzem]

All those rankings are

You can make any list and make a case for each player on each position. You can slice it whatever you want.
Playing against, playing with - that all you can add ijn the discussion. But everybody got their own theory and got their points

Add the taste, liking one pleyer more then the other and all this stuff.

So argubly IMO all list are bull s.
However saying that hayes in top 10 is ridiculus no matter how you slice it. No matter.



Btw. in the discussion - why the before Russell Celtics could not won the le?
They had cousy, Sharman and MaCauley (hof player). And Red ofcourse.
Bill changed the face of the frenchise.
He was the core. And Bob said he was better on O then people think.

thx

[polandprzem]

BTW - what Kareem accoplished without Magic ot Oscar?

[SpursChampsIII]

BTW - what Kareem accoplished without Magic ot Oscar?

What did Magic or Oscar accomplish without KAREEM? I think you'll find out that Kareem won more les than both, 5 with Magic, 1 with the Big O. I'm not trying to belittle Magic or O, but there is no substance to your statement.

[polandprzem]

Kareem had not much success after winning the first le.
He did not advanced to the playoffs 75 Mil, 76 LA

He was not emotional leader - LA needed a guy like magic who always was in the playoffs and even when Jabbar left the team they were one step of winning the le in 1991 and they were le contenders.

So there is a point I guess.

[Robinzine]

I'd put him in the Top-10. Dude has had an awesome career, he's a winner, and he has done so without for the most part the shadow of David Robinson.

[Fiestadog]

Kinda in a debate with some people on his place in history, but its hard to speak about guys like Wilt, Russel, Dr. J, and West since I never really got to see them play. Even then all I've ever seen of f Bird vs Magic is on ESPN Classic and NBA TV, but I at least can that I have actually seen them.

Just curious to see where the older people would rank Duncan

Consider this years playoffs, which many have said he's already slipping. Against Phoenix he had 40 points and the clutch trey in overtime. Against NO one game he had 22/22...slipping indeed! The final game against LA he had a triple-double.

These are the types of numbers (along with the championships) which put Timmmy 3rd behind Russel and Chamberlain. He's more vauable than Jabar, Johnson or Bird and still has five good years left.

[vednam]

Larry Bird won 3 straight MVPs, revolutionized the concept of a small forward by being able to pass, dribble, shoot from outside, score from inside and rebound, and won 3 les.

Magic won 3 MVPs, won 5 les and led the Lakers to 9 trips to the finals, winning finals MVP 3 times. Broke Big O’s long standing assist record (size eclipsed by John Stockton and Mark Jackson), and along with Bird hauled the NBA out of financial difficulty and made it a major sport in North America.

You can make an argument with ranking Wilt, Kareem, Big O, Dr. J Magic and Bird in any order, but it would be difficult to make a hard case that one is definitely better than the others.

Rick Barry did a lot of the stuff that you credit Bird with bringing to the game (in "revolutionizing" the small forward position) a decade earlier. So did Julius Erving. If we are going to talk impact on the game, Erving had a much greater impact than Bird as far as influencing how future generations would play.


I don't really have a problem with your last statement, and I mostly agree. It just puzzles me when people act like it's obvious that Bird and Magic were better than Wilt or Kareem or Dr. J or Robertson, because there are really no facts to back it up.

Kareem was on 6 championship teams, got to the finals 10 times, and won 6 MVPs. Kareem could do everything on the court at the highest of levels.

Wilt won 2 championships on two of the most dominant teams of all time, won 4 MVPs, and I think everyone knows about all his records. Wilt could do everything at elite levels except make free throws.

Dr. J won 3 championships, got to the finals 6 times and won 4 MVPs (these numbers include his ABA years).

Oscar Robertson could do everything on the basketball court at the higest level, but spent most of his career on mediocre teams.

No one seems to ever consider the defensive shortcomings of both Bird and Johnson.