Why is Larry Bird Normally Ranked ahead of Duncan?

[G-Funk]

Just curious to know why ppl don't rank Duncan above Bird.

[Yung D-Will]

Larry Bird's peak owns anything Duncan has ever done in his career.



24/10/7,
29/11/7
26/10/7
28/9/8
30/9/6

All on near 50% shooting and at the top of the leauge in steals every one of those years

[jlauber]

I don't, but I can see the arguments.

[Papaya Petee]

Because he is the better player....

[G-Funk]

Larry Bird

3

[SinJackal]

I don't rank Bird above Duncan.

Bird's way up there since he put up good overall stats and was in contention for a long time with his overpowered 80's Celtics team.

He was also one of the biggest names in the league for a decade as well.

Duncan's better to me imo.

[G-Funk]

Because he is the better player....


Does that include defending? cause if so he's not. BTW dude had a stacked Front Court.

[Svendiggity]

Because he is the better player....

This.

[Papaya Petee]

Does that include defending? cause if so he's not. BTW dude had a stacked Front Court.
If you compare players, that includes everything. Kind of hard to compare a Jump-Shooting Forward to a Power Forward who plays like a center tho.

[EricGordon23]

you could argue it i suppose. In my mind though Duncan is the better player.

[B]

Larry Bird was a better basketball player and leader than Tim Duncan. His skillset was wider, his basketball IQ higher, defense tougher, and will to win far above anything Duncan has ever displayed

[JMT]

[QUOTE=B

[G-Funk]

[QUOTE=B

[B]

I dont understand how u can say that the man who's nickname is Mr Fundamental has less IQ. Duncan's is great, & you can't deny his IQ in the Post. And Duncan was a far better defender then Bird was. And how can you question Duncans leadership when he lead his team to 4 championships? U don't win 4 rings without being a great leader. those arguments you just can't prove, they are just opinions.It's easy, I watched Bird. I have watched Duncan and Bird is better. ALOT better.

You're correct it is all opinion and mine is Larry Bird is a better all around basketball player than Tim Duncan. Having watched them both during their collective careers I feel safe in this opinion.

And BTW It's the "Big Fundamental" if you're going to make an argument based on a players nickname you may want to get the nick name correct

[praneel]

Seniority

When TD is done, he will be considered very highly on the lists of all time greats.

[andgar923]

Bird was better, simple as that.

Don't see why this is even being considered.

[tommy3]

So Duncan is better than Bird but he ain't better than Magic? Racist thread lol...

[Rekindled]

bird is better than duncan by a lot . duncan didnt even play against any decent bigs. bird played in the toughest era of basketball and won 3 straight mvp.

[G-Funk]

Bird was better, simple as that.

Don't see why this is even being considered.

in what aspect of the game? other than passing?

[G-Funk]

[QUOTE=B

[G-Funk]

bird is better than duncan by a lot . duncan didnt even play against any decent bigs. bird played in the toughest era of basketball and won 3 straight mvp.

No decent bigs? What's Shaq,Garnett,Webber and Rasheed, Ben Wallace?

[B]

No decent bigs? What's Shaq,Garnett,Webber and Rasheed, Ben Wallace?Duncan is not even better than two of those players you listed and you want us to think he's better than Larry Bird?

[G-Funk]

[QUOTE=B

[gts]

Bird was better, simple as that.

Don't see why this is even being considered.This...

[jlauber]

They don't even play the same position. Peak...maybe Bird. Career...Duncan's career hasn't been completed yet, but I already think his career, based on accomplishments like rings, and accolades, has been slightly better.

[vert48]

Bird is the GOAT small forward.
Duncan is not in the top 3 GOAT centers.

[west]

Ask Lakers fans who they FEAR more, Duncan or Bird.

[Yung D-Will]

Bird is the GOAT small forward.
Duncan is not in the top 3 GOAT centers.
But he's the GOAT PF.

[BDiesel324]

Bird playing in the 80s a.k.a "The Golden Era" of Basketball favors him. Bird's competition was far more fierce than Duncan's. Don't get me wrong, Duncan is a legend, Top 10 player of all-time himself. He just wasn't greater than Bird was.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have Bird ranked above Duncan, but Magic and Duncan is pretty close for me and I go back and forth on those two.

[rmt]

[QUOTE=B

[Yung D-Will]

[QUOTE=B

[vert48]

But he's the GOAT PF.He would have to play power forward to be a power forward. Duncan was a center in college, and he is a center in the NBA. They just call him a power forward so that he will start in All Star games.

[jlip]

I would say that it's more than likely Bird's versatility that puts him over the top. He shot better than most sgs, rebounded better than most centers, and passed better than most pgs. Having said that, I could see why people would put Duncan over Bird, but I prefer it the other way around.

[SinJackal]

[QUOTE=B

[OldSchoolBBall]

in what aspect of the game? other than passing?

Uhh, Bird was also a FAR superior scorer.

[rmt]

Duncan is a PF who can play center. He's not a center who's just listed at PF. He's had to play center out of neccessity for the last couple seasons because Splitter did not come to the United States after he was drafted. Matt Bonner obviously can't defend the paint to save his life. Splitter is the Spurs C, not Duncan.
Yes, it's a pity that Splitter's sister was terminally ill and the euro was so strong/dollar was so weak. Sometimes things don't go as expected. Oberto's heart condition, Horry (old), Kurt Thomas (old), Dice (old), Bonner:banghead:

Duncan should be resting as he gets older - not covering for Matt Bonner. Finally some one who's not over 35 who's half-way decent.

[Dizzle-2k7]

both are unquestionably top 10..

it comes down to how important DEFENSE is for your team. if you need an anchor, and the most unstoppable allround powerforward of all time, you take Duncan.

but i love them both. so whateva.

[magnax1]

Bird is considerably better. By a lot. A whole lot. Not even close.

[Dizzle-2k7]

Bird is considerably better. By a lot. A whole lot. Not even close.

LOL comments like this are why I love ISH...

one leader has 4 rings and is the greatest defender at his position of all time.. the other has 3 rings and... yet hes better.. by a lot.. a whole lot.. not even close.

:facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

Did you just start watching the NBA the past couple years? :facepalm

Duncan was PF every year when DRob was playing, Duncan was PF when they had Muhammed and Nesterovic. He was only playing C duties full game recently due to no real center.

Duncan is a PF who can play center. He's not a center who's just listed at PF. He's had to play center out of neccessity for the last couple seasons because Splitter did not come to the United States after he was drafted. Matt Bonner obviously can't defend the paint to save his life. Splitter is the Spurs C, not Duncan.

I disagree, I think he's a natural center who was playing in essentially a two-center lineup with Robinson. When Duncan went against Shaq, it wasn't the mismatch of a power forward vs a center. Duncan's versatile and had some good ball handling skills, could run the floor and hit the 15-18 footer with good consistency ala Olajuwon and Robinson and of course he could guard either position(though I don't think he should be guarding power forwards anymore). The things that have made Duncan the most special, IMO are shot blocking and interior defense as well as his post game.

I've always compared Duncan's impact to that of the great centers, but he could play either position at an elite level just like Gasol does today, though he was obviously a lot better. However I think he impacted a team much more like say Olajuwon or Robinson than Malone or Barkley.

Obviously, the Rasho/Duncan lineup didn't provide the versatility of the Duncan/Robinson lineup because Rasho could only play center.

But don't forget that as Robinson got older, the Spurs had the Duncan/Rose combo out on the floor more and more and of course Duncan and Horry later.

[magnax1]

LOL comments like this are why I love ISH...

one leader has 4 rings and is the greatest defender at his position of all time.. the other has 3 rings and... yet hes better.. by a lot.. a whole lot.. not even close.

:facepalm
Yeah, rings matter. Basketball is a one on one sport. Thanks for reminding me.

[Dizzle-2k7]

Yeah, rings matter. Basketball is a one on one sport. Thanks for reminding me.

Ok.

Player A -- Best player on team
4 rings
3 finals MVPs
greatest defender at position of all time

Player B -- best player on a STACKED team.
3 rings
average defender

whos better?

[magnax1]

Ok.

Player A -- Best player on team
4 rings
3 finals MVPs
greatest defender at position of all time

Player B -- best player on a STACKED team.
3 rings
average defender

whos better?
Did I not already say Larry Bird is better? Larry Bird is the third best offensive player ever, maybe even the best offensive player ever.

[Dizzle-2k7]

Did I not already say Larry Bird is better? Larry Bird is the third best offensive player ever, maybe even the best offensive player ever.

Oh right. Basketball is only about offense. Everyone always has the ball... no defense is played at all.

:facepalm

[Round Mound]

Duncan was the Better Impact Player but Larry was the Better All Around Player

[Yung D-Will]

O God is this another thread where Magnax hates on Duncan =X

[Jacks3]

I understand people picking Bird, but to say it's not close?:facepalm Duncan's defensive impact blows Bird out of the water and he's a better re-bounder, too. God I hate the ridiculous hyperbole.

[magnax1]

O God is this another thread where Magnax hates on Duncan =X
I'm not hating Duncan! How is this seriously close though?

[KenneBell]

Never thought about this until now. It's a great question. Considering the accolades and the situations they were in, Duncan has a good case for being rated over Bird.

[Yung D-Will]

I'm not hating Duncan! How is this seriously close though?

You're comparing two top 10 players who are very close in accolades. Duncan has the title edge and also played on less superior championship teams like (03) . However Bird played in the strongest era of basketball. Duncan has the longevity edge. Both were consistent . Both had amazing peak seasons. Both have consistantly performed at a high level in the playoffs and the finals.

Very Close.

[magnax1]

You're comparing two top 10 players who are very close in accolades. Duncan has the title edge and also played on less superior championship teams like (03) . However Bird played in the strongest era of basketball. Duncan has the longevity edge. Both were consistent . Both had amazing peak seasons. Both have consistantly performed at a high level in the playoffs and the finals.

Very Close.
I can see a longevity argument, but other then that I just don't see it at all. Bird was the most skilled scorer ever, a 30-10-7 guy at his best, and possibly the most clutch player ever.

[jlauber]

You're comparing two top 10 players who are very close in accolades. Duncan has the title edge and also played on less superior championship teams like (03) . However Bird played in the strongest era of basketball. Duncan has the longevity edge. Both were consistent . Both had amazing peak seasons. Both have consistantly performed at a high level in the playoffs and the finals.

Very Close.

I think so too. In fact, the more I look at these "Top-10" lists, the more even I can see cases for nearly all of them.

I think the majority here agree on this list of players (in no particular order)...

Hakeem, Kobe, Duncan, Bird, Russell, Magic, Kareem, MJ, Shaq, and Wilt. Some might even add Oscar, Moses, D. Robinson, Havlicek, Dr. J, Barkley, Garnett, and K. Malone.

Anyway, IMHO, there are arguments for nearly all of them. One thing, though, I just don't think there are very many "clear-cut" GOATS in these lists. I'm sure MJ would top the vast majority of lists here, and I personally have him at #2 (Russell at #1), but all of those players were exceptional.

[Yung D-Will]

I can see a longevity argument, but other then that I just don't see it at all. Bird was the most skilled scorer ever, a 30-10-7 guy at his best, and possibly the most clutch player ever.
And Duncan's one of the best passing big men, one of the best defensive big men and a dominate force on offense.


Duncan just performs at a high level night in and night out. Playoff, finals and in the clutch.

[jlauber]

I can see a longevity argument, but other then that I just don't see it at all. Bird was the most skilled scorer ever, a 30-10-7 guy at his best, and possibly the most clutch player ever.

Bird's PEAK seasons were amazing. No argument from me there. He even made all-defensive teams.

[jlip]

Yeah... This is closer than some people are making it. Stats and accomplishments aside, I think it helps to look at the major strength of each that separates one player from the other. To me you have Duncan's ability to anchor a team's defense vs Bird's ability to facilitate a team's offense. Which one is more impactful?

[KenneBell]

Bird was the most skilled scorer ever, and possibly the most clutch player ever.
These two are pretty debatable.

[rmt]

I can see a longevity argument, but other then that I just don't see it at all. Bird was the most skilled scorer ever, a 30-10-7 guy at his best, and possibly the most clutch player ever.
I guess you put a lot of value on scoring. There is the other half of the game - defense. Is Bird so much better on offense than Duncan is on defense? It's not like Duncan was a slouch on offense or hasn't proven he's clutch or hasn't performed at a high level in the playoffs and Finals. He has anchored probably the best defense of the past decade or so.

Just saying it's worth mulling over - he's not better "By a lot. A whole lot. Not even close."

[ThaRegul8r]

He has anchored probably the best defense of the past decade or so.

He anchored the greatest defensive dynasty in NBA history outside of Russell's Celtics:

Opponents' field-goal percentage

1999-00: .425 (5th)
2000-01: .419 (2nd)
2001-02: .426 (4th)
2002-03: .427 (3rd)
2003-04: .409 (1st)
2004-05: .426 (3rd)
2005-06: .433 (3rd)
2006-07: .443 (4th)
2007-08: .444 (5th)
2008-09: .453 (9th)

Fewest points allowed

1999-00: 90.2 (1st)
2000-01: 88.4 (3rd)
2001-02: 90.5 (3rd)
2002-03: 90.4 (3rd)
2003-04: 84.3 (T1st with Detroit Pistons w/'Sheed & Wallace)
2004-05: 88.4 (1st)
2005-06: 88.8 (2nd)
2006-07: 90.1 (2nd)
2007-08: 90.6 (3rd)
2008-09: 93.3 (2nd)

Defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 possessions)

1999-00: 95.7 (2nd)
2000-01: 95.5 (1st)
2001-02: 97.3 (1st)
2002-03: 97.3 (3rd)
2003-04: 92.3 (1st)
2004-05: 95.7 (1st)
2005-06: 96.9 (1st)
2006-07: 97.4 (2nd)
2007-08: 100.1 (3rd)
2008-09: 102.0 (6th)

[Sarcastic]

They are both pretty close. You can make an argument either way. They are both somewhere in the 5-10 range all time.

Personally I would give Bird the slight edge due to intangibles, and attitude.

[jlauber]

He anchored the greatest defensive dynasty in NBA history outside of Russell's Celtics:

Opponents' field-goal percentage

1999-00: .425 (5th)
2000-01: .419 (2nd)
2001-02: .426 (4th)
2002-03: .427 (3rd)
2003-04: .409 (1st)
2004-05: .426 (3rd)
2005-06: .433 (3rd)
2006-07: .443 (4th)
2007-08: .444 (5th)
2008-09: .453 (9th)

Fewest points allowed

1999-00: 90.2 (1st)
2000-01: 88.4 (3rd)
2001-02: 90.5 (3rd)
2002-03: 90.4 (3rd)
2003-04: 84.3 (T1st with Detroit Pistons w/'Sheed & Wallace)
2004-05: 88.4 (1st)
2005-06: 88.8 (2nd)
2006-07: 90.1 (2nd)
2007-08: 90.6 (3rd)
2008-09: 93.3 (2nd)

Defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 possessions)

1999-00: 95.7 (2nd)
2000-01: 95.5 (1st)
2001-02: 97.3 (1st)
2002-03: 97.3 (3rd)
2003-04: 92.3 (1st)
2004-05: 95.7 (1st)
2005-06: 96.9 (1st)
2006-07: 97.4 (2nd)
2007-08: 100.1 (3rd)
2008-09: 102.0 (6th)

I know the 98-99 season was a "strike" season, (Duncan's rookie year), and it was only a 50 game season, but care to post those numbers, as well?

[plowking]

Bird>Duncan>Magic.

They are all so accomplished that it comes down to the point as to who the better player was.

[ronnymac]

Bird could oplay the PG, SG, SF and PF position and do ot with ease. His court vision was extraordinary. He could shoot from all over the floor and had amazing hands on defense. He was brilliant at using the picks to get himself wide open looks as well. Complete packiage.

[mayo'sgrizz]

very close but i will still take bird over TD bc forget team shit as the individual player his stats alone crush whatever TD has ever done. and imo duncan had some pretty stacked teams as well...

[miller-time]

larry bird was a freak, tim duncan wasn't.

[ILLsmak]

Bird also played in, supposedly, the golden age of the NBA. Bird constantly had battles with other amazing players like Dr. J, Magic, even Dominique.

Larry Bird is an amazing player and so is Duncan. But Duncan is and always will be overrated because people compare him to power forwards and not centers. There is no part of his game that is similar to a power forwards, simply because he is skilled enough to play the PF does not mean that he is. As said, it's similar to Gasol.

Or, conversely, similar to Hakeem who, if things shook out a bit differently, could have been regarded as the GOAT PF but was stuck most of his career playing C.

But, to put it simply, it's because Larry Bird was from an era where the NBA mattered much more to fans and people saw what he did. When Duncan was winning rings, a large portion of the hardcore fan base (except, mostly, younger fans coming up) had given up on professional basketball.

-Smak

[magnax1]

Yeah, I still say this isn't close. Duncan's defense wasn't near as huge of a gap between Duncan and Bird's offense. Bird was the most skilled scorer ever (that really isn't that arguable) one of the three most clutch players ever, a good defender before his injuries, probably the best passer ever from the SF position, had some of the best finals performances ever (So did Duncan, but not as good as Bird). Yeah, Duncan was a great defender, but there were defenders from the same era that were just as good, where Bird's offense is among at least the four best ever.

[necya]

is there another Bird who played in the league cause if you are talking about the one who said to Xavier McDaniel : "i will make the game winner from there" (and did it) reomve the thread.
"bird is an average defender" was a good joke though.

like always, some posters have never seen the dude on a basketball court for sure.

[SGK_81]

and I don't understand why there are hundreds of "Duncan vs Bird" threads but not a single one "Duncan vs Magic"

[Sarcastic]

and I don't understand why there are hundreds of "Duncan vs Bird" threads but not a single one "Duncan vs Magic"

Because people overrate winning, and Duncan has more rings than Bird, so people come to the illogical conclusion that Duncan maybe is better than Bird.

Magic has 5 rings though, so it doesn't even register in their minds to make the comparison.

[Anaximandro1]

Seniority

This


Is Bird so much better on offense than Duncan

I think it is questionable:Larry Bird is a great passer,scorer and redefined the term "Killer Instinct";on the other hand,Duncan is one of the greatest offensive players in basketball history.As you can see,both Duncan and Bird are great scorers,

ALL PLAYOFF LEADERS : BY TOTAL POINTS


1 Michael Jordan 5987 pts, 179 Games

2 Kareem 5762 pts, 237 Games

3 Shaq 5248 pts, 214 Games

4 Kobe 5052 pts, 198 Games

5 Malone 4761 pts,193 Games

6 Jerry West 4457 pts,153 Games

7 Tim Duncan 3914 pts,170 Games

8 Larry Bird 3897 pts,164 Games


but Duncan puts the other bigs in foul trouble,takes up double teams and finds openteammates thereby making them better (do you remember 2005 NBA Finals,Game 7 ?)

ALL PLAYOFF LEADERS : BY TOTAL FREE THROWS ATTEMPTED


1 Shaq 2315 fta , 214 Games

2 Michael Jordan 1766 fta,179 Games

3 Malone 1725 fta, 193 Games

4 Wilt Chamberlain 1627 fta,160 Games

5 Jerry West 1506 fta, 153 Games

6 Kobe 1461 fta,198 Games

7 Tim Duncan 1439 fta,170 Games

8 Kareem 1419 fta, 237 Games



16 Larry Bird 1012 fta,164 Games




I'll take Duncan in his prime over Bird in his prime.Duncan's got the whole package:there is no weakness to his game.

2002 NBA Playoffs


WC First Round

Spurs beat the Sonics in five games.Tim averaged 25.8 pts,11 rbs,5.8 blk,5.5 as


WCSF

The Lakers eliminated the Spurs (4-1).Tim averaged 29 pts,17.2 rbs,3.2 blk,4.6 as

2003 NBA Playoffs



WCSF

The Spurs beat the Lakers in six games.Tim averaged 28 pts,11.8 rbs,1.3 blk,4.8 as

WCF

Spurs over Mavericks (4-2).Duncan averaged 28 pts,16.7 rbs,3blk,5.8 as

Finals

Spurs over Nets (4-2).Tim averaged 24.2 pts,17 rbs,5.3 blk,5.3 as

Stat lovers need to remember that Spurs play at a slow pace.

1986 Celtics--Pace Factor 101.2

2003 Spurs-- Pace Factor 90.0

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1986.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html

[magnax1]

I think it is questionable:Larry Bird is a great passer,scorer and redefined the term "Killer Instinct";on the other hand,Duncan is one of the greatest offensive players in basketball history.As you can see,both Duncan and Bird are great scorers
One of the best offensive players in history? On what level? Like top 50? God damn people love to over rate Duncan on here.

[KenneBell]

Bird was the most skilled scorer ever (that really isn't that arguable)
Compared to MJ and Kobe, I'd say they're all fairly close.

[magnax1]

Compared to MJ and Kobe, I'd say they're all fairly close.
They were both more athletic scorers, and Jordan was a better scorer, but a more skilled scorer? That easily goes to Bird. Had the skill set of a 20-10 post up PF, and a Reggie Miller/Ray Allen type rolled into one.

[2LeTTeRS]

I agree with magnax, this shouldn't even be close. When these players where at their peaks Bird was just better. Period.

[jlauber]

I agree with magnax, this shouldn't even be close. When these players where at their peaks Bird was just better. Period.

Peaks? I don't think that was stipulated in this thread. In any case, even that is debateable.

[Yung D-Will]

One of the best offensive players in history? On what level? Like top 50? God damn people love to over rate Duncan on here.

Is this coming from the guy who ranks Moses Malone and KG over him?

[Sarcastic]

If both players had the same stats they do now, only Bird had won 4 rings, and Duncan had won 2 rings, this would never even be a question.

[Droid101]

Did you just start watching the NBA the past couple years? :facepalm

Duncan was PF every year when DRob was playing, Duncan was PF when they had Muhammed and Nesterovic. He was only playing C duties full game recently due to no real center.

Duncan is a PF who can play center. He's not a center who's just listed at PF. He's had to play center out of neccessity for the last couple seasons because Splitter did not come to the United States after he was drafted. Matt Bonner obviously can't defend the paint to save his life. Splitter is the Spurs C, not Duncan.
He played PF only during the Robinson years. Every other year he always guards the opposing center, and the opposing center always guards him, regardless of what "position" is listed on the roster. This is a fact. Go back and re-watch the games after Robinson retired.

[Yung D-Will]

If both players had the same stats they do now, only Bird had won 4 rings, and Duncan had won 2 rings, this would never even be a question.


That was quite a point you made there.

Just like we can say. If both Kobe and Jordan had the same stats they did now and Kobe has 6 championships, jordans finals mvps and regular season mvps a large portion of this forum would consider him the greatest ever.

Or people can say if Shaq was in the 60's he'd have 12 championships.


You know what both these scenarios have in common? Neither of them happend.

[G-Funk]

Is this coming from the guy who ranks Moses Malone and KG over him?
:bowdown: :applause: :bowdown: :applause:

[liquidrage]

Bird is one of the greatest players ever and redefined the game.

Duncan is the greatest ever at being listed out of position so he can stake a claim to "greatest ever".

[Nero Tulip]

Give it some time, Duncan will probably get the recognition he deserves. I'd put Duncan ahead personnally, but when comparing players at different positions and eras who the hell knows.

[rmt]

He played PF only during the Robinson years. Every other year he always guards the opposing center, and the opposing center always guards him, regardless of what "position" is listed on the roster. This is a fact. Go back and re-watch the games after Robinson retired.
So I guess Rasho, Nazr, Oberto, Kurt Thomas are power forwards. Duncan had the skills (especially earlier in his career) to play both positions. It's not his fault that Splitter didn't come over in '07 and so he's had to play center beside Bonner, Dice and Blair.

Now that Splitter has come over, I would guess that Duncan goes back to power forward, playing further away from the basket to save him from getting so beat up in the post.

[2LeTTeRS]

Peaks? I don't think that was stipulated in this thread. In any case, even that is debateable.

It wasn't, but to me that is the most important factor to use in ranking players.

[rmt]

Stat lovers need to remember that Spurs play at a slow pace.

1986 Celtics--Pace Factor 101.2

2003 Spurs-- Pace Factor 90.0

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1986.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html
So the Celtics' fast pace allows for more scoring output vs the Spurs' slow pace which allows for less scoring output. This is why it's so difficult to compare teams/players from different eras. Back then there were fewer teams so each team was stacked with more talent resulting in the "better competition". Now, there are more teams and less talent to go around, but the best players still win championships even with less talent (compared to the past).

Of course, now even that is going out the window as a few teams such as MIA/LA/BOS are loading up on the talent leaving teams depleted even of one good/great player. Not good for the long-term health of the league.

[2LeTTeRS]

Did you just start watching the NBA the past couple years? :facepalm

Duncan was PF every year when DRob was playing, Duncan was PF when they had Muhammed and Nesterovic. He was only playing C duties full game recently due to no real center.

Duncan is a PF who can play center. He's not a center who's just listed at PF. He's had to play center out of neccessity for the last couple seasons because Splitter did not come to the United States after he was drafted. Matt Bonner obviously can't defend the paint to save his life. Splitter is the Spurs C, not Duncan.

Duncan was regarded as a center prior to being drafted, and even afterward the Spurs labeled him as their 2nd center in a "Twin Towers" line-up, and honestly I don't see how he's played any differently throughout his career to change that. To me Duncan is no more a power forward than Hakeem is, even though he played with a taller player in Houston for a few years beside Ralph Samson.

[magnax1]

Is this coming from the guy who ranks Moses Malone and KG over him?
And what does that have to do with this? Do you really think Duncan was that great of an offensive player? The level Duncan gets over rated on here is pathetic. Like people saying he was as good as Shaq and Bird? I'd like to see any evidence, statistical or otherwise that shows that. Someone is going to take an all NBA first defensive 23-12 prime over guys who are 29-12 all nba second defensive and 30-10-6 all nba second defensive. Duncan was great, but no where near the level people make him out to be.

[KenneBell]

I agree with magnax, this shouldn't even be close. When these players where at their peaks Bird was just better. Period.
Peak play doesn't equal All-Time ranking.


They were both more athletic scorers, and Jordan was a better scorer, but a more skilled scorer? That easily goes to Bird. Had the skill set of a 20-10 post up PF, and a Reggie Miller/Ray Allen type rolled into one.
I still don't see how that equals more skilled. All three of them can play in the post, play off the ball, run an offense. There's nowhere they can't hit a shot from either.

I can see maybe giving Bird an advantage because of his lack of athleticism compared to the other two but that's about it.

[2LeTTeRS]

And what does that have to do with this? Do you really think Duncan was that great of an offensive player? The level Duncan gets over rated on here is pathetic. Like people saying he was as good as Shaq and Bird? I'd like to see any evidence, statistical or otherwise that shows that. Someone is going to take an all NBA first defensive 23-12 prime over guys who are 29-12 all nba second defensive and 30-10-6 all nba second defensive. Duncan was great, but no where near the level people make him out to be.

I could have told you that on this board you can't say anything bad about Tim Duncan. Just look:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71999

[Pinkhearts]

If Duncan's a PF, then Hakeem's a PF.

This means Hakeem is the GOAT PF.

If Hakeem is a C then Duncan is a C. And Duncan is no GOAT C.

Duncan is not GOAT at anything.

[Flamboyant]

And what does that have to do with this? Do you really think Duncan was that great of an offensive player? The level Duncan gets over rated on here is pathetic. Like people saying he was as good as Shaq and Bird? I'd like to see any evidence, statistical or otherwise that shows that. Someone is going to take an all NBA first defensive 23-12 prime over guys who are 29-12 all nba second defensive and 30-10-6 all nba second defensive. Duncan was great, but no where near the level people make him out to be.

I doubt anyone said as good as Bird, and/or Shaq. But the offensive gap between them is much smaller than the defensive gap. Lol at you referring to Bird, and Shaq as all 2nd team defenders like they even belong in the same breath with Duncan.
And offensively Duncan has history of carrying his teams. Anaximandro1 pointed that their ppg in playoffs are about equal (Bird 23.8, Duncan 23.0) and Duncan has actually better pp/36min. Plus the comparison is really fair since they both currently have 13 seasons and played about equal playoff games (Tim 170, Larry 164). Throw in the fact that scoring today is much harder than in the eighties, and the picture becomes clear. Duncan is a GREAT offensive player. During 02&03 playoffs he averaged 25/15/5/3.5 which is better than anything Bird has provided, and that's not even bringing up the defensive gap (which is HUGE).

Plus let's not forget their competition, Bird get's really overrated here, even though he has defeated Magic only once. In contrast Duncan has defeated Shaq 3 times while outplaying him most of the time.

The question has an obvious answer, but it's not the one that people are giving. Duncan is clearly better, and honestly it's not even close.

To answer OP's question:
Why is Larry Bird Normally Ranked ahead of Duncan?
Because people can't appreciate present players before they retire.
Edit: *reads the post above* Lol, people think Hakeem is better than Timmy, and you're wondering why they rank Bird higher?

[Pinkhearts]

Now we have fools who think Duncan is better than Hakeem. LOL

Which sane GM will pick Duncan ahead of Hakeem? Only ISH fools, who are such great talent evaluators that they won't trade Pau Gasol to the Lakers and still be stuck with a mediocre team with no future. And Gasol would have left them by now after his contract had expired. LOL ISH fools.

[97 bulls]

This


I think it is questionable:Larry Bird is a great passer,scorer and redefined the term "Killer Instinct";on the other hand,Duncan is one of the greatest offensive players in basketball history.As you can see,both Duncan and Bird are great scorers,

ALL PLAYOFF LEADERS : BY TOTAL POINTS


but Duncan puts the other bigs in foul trouble,takes up double teams and finds openteammates thereby making them better (do you remember 2005 NBA Finals,Game 7 ?)

ALL PLAYOFF LEADERS : BY TOTAL FREE THROWS ATTEMPTED




I'll take Duncan in his prime over Bird in his prime.Duncan's got the whole package:there is no weakness to his game.

2002 NBA Playoffs


2003 NBA Playoffs



Stat lovers need to remember that Spurs play at a slow pace.

1986 Celtics--Pace Factor 101.2

2003 Spurs-- Pace Factor 90.0

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1986.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html
Great post. If duncan played in the "golden" era, he'd be avg 27 ppg 14 rebounds and 5 assists. Along with his defensive capabilities.

Duncan is better than bird.

[Yung D-Will]

Now we have fools who think Duncan is better than Hakeem. LOL

Which sane GM will pick Duncan ahead of Hakeem? Only ISH fools, who are such great talent evaluators that they won't trade Pau Gasol to the Lakers and still be stuck with a mediocre team with no future. And Gasol would have left them by now after his contract had expired. LOL ISH fools.

I'd take either one .

[magnax1]

This thread is depressing.

[Yung D-Will]

This thread is depressing.
Lol


You talk about Duncan like Lakas talks about Rubio.


/mass over exaggerating

[magnax1]

Lol


You talk about Duncan like Lakas talks about Rubio.


/mass over exaggerating
Like I said, I just can't see why someone could say Duncan's 23-12 prime is better then Hakeem, Shaq or Bird. Especially if you compare him to Hakeem who was a very similar player to Duncan, just a better scorer and passer.

[Yung D-Will]

Like I said, I just can't see why someone could say Duncan's 23-12 prime is better then Hakeem, Shaq or Bird. Especially if you compare him to Hakeem who was a very similar player to Duncan, just a better scorer and passer.

Lol @ Hakeem being a better passer then Duncan. O wait because apparently Duncan can't pass out of double teams.

:rolleyes:


And I don't think Duncan had a better peak then Hakeem, Shaq or Bird.

His peak was definitly one of the all time greats if you consider what he did in the playoffs that year and how he carried a rebuilding team to 60 wins on his back.

But I'm pretty sure Duncan's peak was never the reason people rank him higher then Hakeem and people debate between him and Shaq.

[magnax1]

Lol @ Hakeem being a better passer then Duncan. O wait because apparently Duncan can't pass out of double teams.

:rolleyes:


And I don't think Duncan had a better peak then Hakeem, Shaq or Bird.

His peak was definitly one of the all time greats if you consider what he did in the playoffs that year and how he carried a rebuilding team to 60 wins on his back.

But I'm pretty sure Duncan's peak was never the reason people rank him higher then Hakeem and people debate between him and Shaq.
But right now, their longevity is pretty close in the case of Hakeem and Shaq as of right now. Hakeem was a top 10 player from 85-97, and shaq was from 94-06 both 13 seasons, where Duncan hit his 13th season last year, and I'd rank him around 7th best in the league, though it seems most rank him lower.

[Big#50]

Bird also played in, supposedly, the golden age of the NBA. Bird constantly had battles with other amazing players like Dr. J, Magic, even Dominique.

Larry Bird is an amazing player and so is Duncan. But Duncan is and always will be overrated because people compare him to power forwards and not centers. There is no part of his game that is similar to a power forwards, simply because he is skilled enough to play the PF does not mean that he is. As said, it's similar to Gasol.

Or, conversely, similar to Hakeem who, if things shook out a bit differently, could have been regarded as the GOAT PF but was stuck most of his career playing C.

But, to put it simply, it's because Larry Bird was from an era where the NBA mattered much more to fans and people saw what he did. When Duncan was winning rings, a large portion of the hardcore fan base (except, mostly, younger fans coming up) had given up on professional basketball.

-Smak
Duncan is a big man. The best of this generation.

[Big#50]

One of the best offensive players in history? On what level? Like top 50? God damn people love to over rate Duncan on here.
Scoring 25 points in a slow ass pace is impressive. He is probably the greatest at setting screens. Believe it or not that is part of offense. He usually got doubled and and still scored at will. He is also one of the best at passing out of a double team. Just because he never averaged more than 30 points a season doesn't mean he sucks offensively. The guy scored when he needed to score. If you think he want capable of scoring 30 a game, you're just dumb. He can shoot from the top of the key, bank from the side, his low post moves were probably second to McHale, take his man off the dribble.

[Big#50]

And what does that have to do with this? Do you really think Duncan was that great of an offensive player? The level Duncan gets over rated on here is pathetic. Like people saying he was as good as Shaq and Bird? I'd like to see any evidence, statistical or otherwise that shows that. Someone is going to take an all NBA first defensive 23-12 prime over guys who are 29-12 all nba second defensive and 30-10-6 all nba second defensive. Duncan was great, but no where near the level people make him out to be.
I guess Bill Russell and KAJ are idiots. Shaq and Bird were very good on D, Duncan is one of the greatest at it. Duncan and Shaq are tied in my top ten, one spot ahead of Bird. I think you're underrating Duncan's offense.

[the_wise_one]

Duncan played with the 2nd GOAT SG of all time.
Bird did not play with the 2nd GOAT PF of all time.
Big difference.

[EarlTheGoat]

I dont have one ranked ahead of the other, I just have them in the same tier.

First tier: Jordan and Kareem

Second tier: Chamberlain, Russell and Shaq

Third tier: Bird, Hakeem, Kobe, Duncan and Magic

[evilmonkey]

Why? Because he had a better overall career? :hammerhead:

[Flamboyant]

Why? Because he had a better overall career? :hammerhead:

That, he clearly didn't. In fact I can say no-one but Bill Russel has had as great of a career as Timmy. All these 50 win seasons even when his team went through the transition. Wow.
Bird's career is similar, but while he has 1 more MVP he has 1 less Ring, which is more important when judging careers.

[evilmonkey]

That, he clearly didn't. In fact I can say no-one but Bill Russel has had as great of a career as Timmy. All these 50 win seasons even when his team went through the transition. Wow.
Bird's career is similar, but while he has 1 more MVP he has 1 less Ring, which is more important when judging careers.

Opinions Opinions Opinions....

Nothing is more or less important when judging careers, you must look into the whole picture.

The last bolded & underlined part is the part i disagree with the most and absolutely hate each time i hear it, mainly because i just cant seem to understand how people with that opinion think? Considering a Championship is a team accomplishment isnt it? There is NOTHING individualistic about a Championship, it is the biggest team accomplishment in the basketball world.... you can be the worst player ever and get lots of rings or be the most skilled player in NBA history and not win a ring..... why? Because a championship is once again a team accomplishment.

Under the NBA history since circa ~1948 to 2010, there has been handed out approximately 930 rings... circa 15 rings are handed out each year, to players, coaches, staff.... thats ~930 rings out there in the world right now...

Meanwhile... there is only 1 league MVP award each year... that makes it now 62 MVP awards handed out since NBA inaugural.

62 vs 930

You tell me? What is more difficult for a individual to achieve? A ring or a league MVP award?

To get a ring all you have to do is land on the best team... you dont even have to play to get a ring there...

To get an MVP all you have to do is be the best or be one of the best players in the world and by your prolific performances and productions you must impact your teams success more so than anybody thru out 82 games to obtain that award...

Consider also this.. only the best individual player of that season can obtain the MVP... but never in NBA history has an individual obtained a Championship by himself... has never happened and never will...

Hence the old saying... "Individuals win awards, Teams win championships". If you dont have the required team, coach, franchise, staff then you wont win a championship..... a superstar/all-star cant control his future of landing with the best team to obtain that team accomplishment.... hence why he can go ringless, is it his fault??? Is he "worse" than somebody who has rings just because he wasnt that lucky to have the team to also get some rings??


Hence why rings are vastly overrated even when talking about career, the only time you should look at rings when looking at career is simply to find out what kindof impact he had on that championship team... was he the leader and best player or was he a sidekick or was he a roleplayer or was he a benchwarmer??

[DKLaker]

Bird is better and it's not even close. I watched Bird's whole career back to college days. Duncan = Kevin McHale......go look up McHale's best season and Duncan's best season and the numbers are as identical as you will ever find. If Bird and Duncan had played together Bird would be the star.....no question. Bird would scare you.....Duncan never did.

[jbryan1984]

I would rank Bird over Duncan. idk why, you just know in your head if player A is better than player B. Both had pretty even careers but in my head, Bird is better.

[jlauber]

Opinions Opinions Opinions....

Nothing is more or less important when judging careers, you must look into the whole picture.

The last bolded & underlined part is the part i disagree with the most and absolutely hate each time i hear it, mainly because i just cant seem to understand how people with that opinion think? Considering a Championship is a team accomplishment isnt it? There is NOTHING individualistic about a Championship, it is the biggest team accomplishment in the basketball world.... you can be the worst player ever and get lots of rings or be the most skilled player in NBA history and not win a ring..... why? Because a championship is once again a team accomplishment.

Under the NBA history since circa ~1948 to 2010, there has been handed out approximately 930 rings... circa 15 rings are handed out each year, to players, coaches, staff.... thats ~930 rings out there in the world right now...

Meanwhile... there is only 1 league MVP award each year... that makes it now 62 MVP awards handed out since NBA inaugural.

62 vs 930

You tell me? What is more difficult for a individual to achieve? A ring or a league MVP award?

To get a ring all you have to do is land on the best team... you dont even have to play to get a ring there...

To get an MVP all you have to do is be the best or be one of the best players in the world and by your prolific performances and productions you must impact your teams success more so than anybody thru out 82 games to obtain that award...

Consider also this.. only the best individual player of that season can obtain the MVP... but never in NBA history has an individual obtained a Championship by himself... has never happened and never will...

Hence the old saying... "Individuals win awards, Teams win championships". If you dont have the required team, coach, franchise, staff then you wont win a championship..... a superstar/all-star cant control his future of landing with the best team to obtain that team accomplishment.... hence why he can go ringless, is it his fault??? Is he "worse" than somebody who has rings just because he wasnt that lucky to have the team to also get some rings??


Hence why rings are vastly overrated even when talking about career, the only time you should look at rings when looking at career is simply to find out what kindof impact he had on that championship team... was he the leader and best player or was he a sidekick or was he a roleplayer or was he a benchwarmer??

Great points.

However, MVP awards can be deceptive, as well. Shaq only has one, and he was arguably the best player in the league over the course of several seasons. Kobe only has one, as well. Secondly, hypothetically speaking, a player could have three great seasons, and then be no more than average the rest of his career, while another player could play well for a decade, but in that decade, there might be 2-3 great players, who split the MVPs each year. Finally, a player might barely win an MVP award, with good-but-not-great numbers, while another player might win an MVP award with unworldly numbers...yet, they each only have one.

As for rings, the 962 argument is somewhat silly. Here again, KC Jones has eight rings, Horry has seven, Kerr has four, and even Morrison has two. Yes, those players (aside from Morrison) were valuable contributors, but no intelligent observer would take KC Jones over Oscar or West in a debate on careers.

Bird and Duncan are very close. Bird's peak seasons were among the best ever. But, with players like Duncan, Russell, and Magic, you just can't look at individual statistics. IMHO, those three players made their teams greater than the sum of their parts.

I personally have Duncan slightly ahead of Bird...and the four rings, on team's with less surrounding talent, is the biggest difference. Rings ARE important. I have mentioned it before, but take a look at Walt Bellamy's career, and compare it with Russell's. Bellamy was an exceptional offensive player. In his 61-62 season, he averaged 32-19 and set a then NBA record of .519 FG% (in a league that shot .426.) His team came in last place. Even when he was paired up with Willis Reed, his team's were never more than ordinary.

The NBA is littered with great inidivdual players who never played on team's that won a title. I will agree that Russell, Magic, and MJ were major reasons why that occurred. Oscar and West were two brilliant players, neither of whom won a ring in the Russell era. Karl Malone and Barkley were two great players who never won a in ring in the MJ era. But, overall, the truly great players led their team's to titles. The Bellamy's, Dantley's, Gervin's, and other's seldom even competed on title contender's, much less champions.

The bottom line is that MVP awards AND Rings are equally important. I'll take Shaq's career over Bird's in a heartbeat. At his peak, he was more dominant in the regular season (more individual statistical titles), and FAR more dominant in the post-season. Yet, Bird has a 3-1 MVP award edge.

In fact, IMHO, being the main component of a title-winning team, is more important than winning an MVP award. That is why Russell is #1 on MY list. And that is why Duncan is ahead of Bird on MY list.

[AK47DR91]

Bird played in a tougher era, and along w/ Magic help popularized the league.

[Big#50]

Bird is better and it's not even close. I watched Bird's whole career back to college days. Duncan = Kevin McHale......go look up McHale's best season and Duncan's best season and the numbers are as identical as you will ever find. If Bird and Duncan had played together Bird would be the star.....no question. Bird would scare you.....Duncan never did.
Don't be dumb. McHale is inferior to Duncan in so many ways. McHale had better post moves and not by a lot. McHale is top 40 player ever but Tim is top 10. I'm sure McHale would have beaten the three time defending champ and also average 24/17/5/5 in the finals. Don't be an idiot.

[SayTownRy]

Bird is better and it's not even close. I watched Bird's whole career back to college days. Duncan = Kevin McHale......go look up McHale's best season and Duncan's best season and the numbers are as identical as you will ever find. If Bird and Duncan had played together Bird would be the star.....no question. Bird would scare you.....Duncan never did.

to be more objective you might mention that duncan was the focal point of every other team's defense throughout his career, while mchale had a 3 time mvp to take pressure off of him. not to mention a prime, hall of fame, 18/10 (through the 80's) center next to him.

comparing one season's numbers without looking at each player's complete situation doesn't present a well rounded perspective.

[Yung D-Will]

Bird is better and it's not even close. I watched Bird's whole career back to college days. Duncan = Kevin McHale......go look up McHale's best season and Duncan's best season and the numbers are as identical as you will ever find. If Bird and Duncan had played together Bird would be the star.....no question. Bird would scare you.....Duncan never did.
lMAO 03 Duncan didn't scare anyone :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Younggrease]

It Duncan's peak I always thought there were just players throughout history at his position(pivot man) who just better than him. I actually think Duncan peaked rather early in his career skil wise and regressed little by little in his post game and touch around 10-15 feet.

[Yung D-Will]

It Duncan's peak I always thought there were just players throughout history at his position(pivot man) who just better than him. I actually think Duncan peaked rather early in his career skil wise and regressed little by little in his post game and touch around 10-15 feet.


I don't really think his post game was what regressed. It was more of his athleticism then anything.

[G.O.A.T]

Does that include defending? cause if so he's not. BTW dude had a stacked Front Court.

How was Duncan's front court when he entered the league?

wasn't it a former all-star and a former MVP?

As for Defense, Bird was a great help defender and a very good defensive rebounder. Duncan is clearly better on that end, but Bird on the offensive end could play any of the five positions in effect.

[Younggrease]

I don't really think his post game was what regressed. It was more of his athleticism then anything.

his left hand has regressed around the rim and with his jumphook...

[Flamboyant]

Opinions Opinions Opinions....

Nothing is more or less important when judging careers, you must look into the whole picture.

The last bolded & underlined part is the part i disagree with the most and absolutely hate each time i hear it, mainly because i just cant seem to understand how people with that opinion think? Considering a Championship is a team accomplishment isnt it? There is NOTHING individualistic about a Championship, it is the biggest team accomplishment in the basketball world.... you can be the worst player ever and get lots of rings or be the most skilled player in NBA history and not win a ring..... why? Because a championship is once again a team accomplishment.

Under the NBA history since circa ~1948 to 2010, there has been handed out approximately 930 rings... circa 15 rings are handed out each year, to players, coaches, staff.... thats ~930 rings out there in the world right now...

Meanwhile... there is only 1 league MVP award each year... that makes it now 62 MVP awards handed out since NBA inaugural.

62 vs 930

You tell me? What is more difficult for a individual to achieve? A ring or a league MVP award?

To get a ring all you have to do is land on the best team... you dont even have to play to get a ring there...

To get an MVP all you have to do is be the best or be one of the best players in the world and by your prolific performances and productions you must impact your teams success more so than anybody thru out 82 games to obtain that award...

Consider also this.. only the best individual player of that season can obtain the MVP... but never in NBA history has an individual obtained a Championship by himself... has never happened and never will...

Hence the old saying... "Individuals win awards, Teams win championships". If you dont have the required team, coach, franchise, staff then you wont win a championship..... a superstar/all-star cant control his future of landing with the best team to obtain that team accomplishment.... hence why he can go ringless, is it his fault??? Is he "worse" than somebody who has rings just because he wasnt that lucky to have the team to also get some rings??


Hence why rings are vastly overrated even when talking about career, the only time you should look at rings when looking at career is simply to find out what kindof impact he had on that championship team... was he the leader and best player or was he a sidekick or was he a roleplayer or was he a benchwarmer??

:facepalm Did you imply Duncan was a role player.

Rings are overrated when judging players, but not when judging careers. I always defend the thought that titles are overrated, but when you say "career" you should mean how much success he had, not how great of a player he is.

And while the titles are overrated, MVP awards are not exactly underrated neither. Nash won 2 MVP's yet he was regarded the best PG (not the player, just the PG) in the game only 3 seasons (05~07). Till 04 Kidd was the best, and in 08 Paul took over. Maybe last year he was the best as well, but CP3 was injured. Compare that to Shaq. You can make a case for Shaq being the best big in the game for more than 10 consecutive years. He has only 1 MVP. Shaq has clearly had a better career, even if you keep it regular season only.

While the rings are overrated at least they are earned. MVPs are handed to people who many times happen not to be the best players in the game. And your 15 rings argument is laughable. If you can't separate the ring Duncan won in 03, form the ring Richmond won in 02, than I don't know what to say.

To sum it up I'll give an example. There is absolutely nothing you can say to me that will make me believe that Paul Pierce is a better player than Tracy McGrady. But Mac being the better player in his peak doesn't change the fact Pierce had a better career.
You can replace the names Pierce/McGrady with:
Drexler/Wilkins
Billups/Kidd
Gasol/Ming
,. . . and so on.
Saying Bird had a better career than Duncan is just wrong, because the only argument you'll have is more MVPs. Duncan had more success which even though is a team accomplishment takes a lot of effort by certain individuals and Duncan was always that guy that put his team on his back.

[Flamboyant]

Oh, and McHale has became one of the most overrated players in history. I can overlook arguments for Gasol, and even Nowitzki, but now he is equal to Duncan. Wow, just wow.

[creepingdeath]

Bird easily wins against Duncan, imo. At his peak, people said that he might have a shot at GOAT. I give Timmy longevity, though, but this isn't Bird's fault (back injury).

Anyway, saying McHale is on par or even better than Duncan is just f*cking ridiculous. :roll: Better than Gasol? Hell yeah! Better than Barkley, Pettit, KG, Malone, Dirk? No friggin' way!

[Bigsmoke]

Bird had a higher peak while Duncan will be ranked higher in my all time list because of longevity when its all said and done.

[ILLsmak]

Because as you all should remember TD was put on a winning team and has never been on a bad team. He is a great player in that system, but we've never seen Duncan have to lead a bad team. Where as Bird was put onto a pretty mediocre team and made them into an instant contender.

-Smak

[Big#50]

Because as you all should remember TD was put on a winning team and has never been on a bad team. He is a great player in that system, but we've never seen Duncan have to lead a bad team. Where as Bird was put onto a pretty mediocre team and made them into an instant contender.

-Smak
You need to see the Spurs roster from 2000 to 2003. Had old past prime players and a bunch of nobodies. The only good players he had in those years were a past prime DROB, a solid player in Rose, and young unproven players in Parker, Manu, Jackson. There really is no reason why he won a ring in 03 other than Tim having one of the greatest seasons ever. Bird had great players on his team from day one, stop lying.

[clipps]

The people saying TD is better: How old are y'all?

I'm one of the younger ones too at the age of 23 but I would never say anything so asinine like "TD is better than Bird"

[rmt]

The people saying TD is better: How old are y'all?

I'm one of the younger ones too at the age of 23 but I would never say anything so asinine like "TD is better than Bird"
Well, I'm 48 and saw the entirety of Bird's career. Bird had the higher peak and better team mates around him. Bird also had a more stable, constant cast.

Duncan has had the slightly better career and team mates with less talent (especially 03) than Bird. Duncan has had many different team mates and won with entirely different casts.

Bird was better offensively; Duncan was better defensively. Both Bird and Duncan never repeated. I think that they are close - it's debate-able - certainly not "not even close."

[the_wise_one]

Oh, and McHale has became one of the most overrated players in history. I can overlook arguments for Gasol, and even Nowitzki, but now he is equal to Duncan. Wow, just wow.

McHale is not overrated. There is no overrated Celtics.
McHale was great, top 5, but Duncan is GOAT PF.

[rmt]

Bird is better and it's not even close. I watched Bird's whole career back to college days. Duncan = Kevin McHale......go look up McHale's best season and Duncan's best season and the numbers are as identical as you will ever find. If Bird and Duncan had played together Bird would be the star.....no question. Bird would scare you.....Duncan never did.
There are those who look at stats and claim that Duncan = McHale

Because as you all should remember TD was put on a winning team and has never been on a bad team. He is a great player in that system, but we've never seen Duncan have to lead a bad team. Where as Bird was put onto a pretty mediocre team and made them into an instant contender.

-Smak
and then those who claim that Bird was on a mediocre team but Duncan has never been on a bad team. One wonders if they think that 3 HOFs (Parish, McHale, DJ) and Finals MVP Maxwell all in the prime of their careers < 38 year old Robinson with a bad back in his last year, rookie Manu, streaky Jackson and just turned 21 year old 2nd year Parker.

[Solid Snake]

in what aspect of the game? other than passing?


Try scoring. As fundamentally talented as Duncan was, I wouldn't call him a pure scoring machine as I would Bird. Look at Duncan's career scoring averages, regular season and playoffs. They're "very good," not "exceptional," like Birds. Duncan never even sniffed averaging 30ppg.

[rmt]

Try scoring. As fundamentally talented as Duncan was, I wouldn't call him a pure scoring machine as I would Bird. Look at Duncan's career scoring averages, regular season and playoffs. They're "very good," not "exceptional," like Birds. Duncan never even sniffed averaging 30ppg.
Yes, Bird was better offensively but is his offensive edge so much greater than Duncan's defensive edge? And are you accounting for the difference in pace?

1986 Celtics--Pace Factor 101.2

2003 Spurs-- Pace Factor 90.0

Bill Russell also "never even sniffed averaging 30ppg" and was less of an offensive threat than Duncan but most people have him in their top 6.

[Younggrease]

Yes, Bird was better offensively but is his offensive edge so much greater than Duncan's defensive edge? And are you accounting for the difference in pace?

1986 Celtics--Pace Factor 101.2

2003 Spurs-- Pace Factor 90.0

Bill Russell also "never even sniffed averaging 30ppg" and was less of an offensive threat than Duncan but most people have him in their top 6.

your thinking too hard....Birds edge offensively was a lot more than could be measured in mere ppg...Also with Bird you had one of the deadly closers the game has ever seen.

[BlueandGold]

[QUOTE=B

[Younggrease]

Try scoring. As fundamentally talented as Duncan was, I wouldn't call him a pure scoring machine as I would Bird. Look at Duncan's career scoring averages, regular season and playoffs. They're "very good," not "exceptional," like Birds. Duncan never even sniffed averaging 30ppg.

just because he was named the big fundamental doesnt mean he was on some other level then other greats in that regard. Bird was more fundamentally sound than Duncan. As Duncan progressed in his career, he became a worse shooter and become much less of a finisher with his left hands. There are two things that are huge for post players and insteand of progessing he regressed...I have always watched Duncan from the last 5-6 years and wondered what happened to the left hand and outside touch that he had in the first 5-6 years in the league...

[SinJackal]

You need to see the Spurs roster from 2000 to 2003. Had old past prime players and a bunch of nobodies. The only good players he had in those years were a past prime DROB, a solid player in Rose, and young unproven players in Parker, Manu, Jackson. There really is no reason why he won a ring in 03 other than Tim having one of the greatest seasons ever. Bird had great players on his team from day one, stop lying.

This. Repped.



Try scoring. As fundamentally talented as Duncan was, I wouldn't call him a pure scoring machine as I would Bird. Look at Duncan's career scoring averages, regular season and playoffs. They're "very good," not "exceptional," like Birds. Duncan never even sniffed averaging 30ppg.

Bird was only a slightly better scorer than Duncan.

Bird TS%: 56%. Duncan: 55%. Wasn't much more efficiant either. Bird being a "pure scoring machine" by comparison is an illusion, based on their TS% stats.. 30 PPG is also being overrated, when Duncan's had seasons with ridicullous numbers such as: 26/13/4 that are being overlooked merely because he didn't average 30 points.. 30/9 is great, but I'd rather have the 26/13 defensive powerhouse who wins w/o an insanely stacked team.

[Jacks3]

Career

WS/48
Bird--0.203
Duncan--0.219

WS
Bird--145.8
Duncan--162.3

DWS
Bird--59.0
Duncan--81.7


DRTG
Bird--101
Duncan--95


ORTG
Bird--115
Duncan--110


TOV%
Bird--12.7%
Duncan--12.4%


PER
Bird--23.5
Duncan--25.0


TRB%
Bird--14.5%
Duncan--18.5%

And people still say it's not close? :facepalm

[the_wise_one]

They are very close.
Both are better than Magic.

[Fatal9]

Oh, and McHale has became one of the most overrated players in history. I can overlook arguments for Gasol, and even Nowitzki, but now he is equal to Duncan. Wow, just wow.
Actually McHale is better than both Gasol and Dirk. Comparing Gasol's best to McHale's best is quite laughable, though Dirk is a lot closer. Duncan is clearly better than all of them, but McHale isn't overrated. His stats are already ridiculous (averaging 26 ppg on 60% in a season) but they probably underrate his impact as he had to share the ball with rest of the team (something he did not like to do) and split rebounds on a frontline that had Bird/Parish. There has never been a half court scorer at the PF position better than McHale. I'm a Bird fan, but the Celtics to beating Lakers in '85 or '87 bugs me more because McHale would have got a well deserved finals MVP if they won either of those series (Celtics were dealing with injuries both times including McHale playing on a broken foot in '87).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Actually McHale is better than both Gasol and Dirk. Comparing Gasol's best to McHale's best is quite laughable, though Dirk is a lot closer. Duncan is clearly better than all of them, but McHale isn't overrated. His stats are already ridiculous (averaging 26 ppg on 60% in a season) but they probably underrate his impact as he had to share the ball with rest of the team (something he did not like to do) and split rebounds on a frontline that had Bird/Parish. There has never been a half court scorer at the PF position better than McHale. I'm a Bird fan, but the Celtics to beating Lakers in '85 or '87 bugs me more because McHale would have got a well deserved finals MVP if they won either of those series (Celtics were dealing with injuries both times including McHale playing on a broken foot in '87).

And his '86 series has to rank as one of the best by a player who didn't win finals MVP. The only thing Gasol is better than McHale at is passing. All one has to do is go back and watch some mid 80's Celtics games to seem McHale's superiority. I can understand the argument for Dirk because he was the first option on his team and produced at an excellent rate and has had a lot more clutch moments than revisionist historians would like people to believe. However, McHale shouldn't be penalized for playing with Bird, who in my opinion, is a top 5 player of all time. I mean in 1987, he averaged 26/10/3/2 on 60% shooting(62.8 TS%) on a 59 win team and was 4th in MVP voting behind only Magic, Jordan and Bird.

I'd probably still pick McHale at his best though because of his low post scoring(and overall scoring) and defense. He was actually a pretty good passer as well even though he wasn't exactly what you'd call a pass first player. He also had a good jumper and was an excellent free throw shooter and he was a tough player with a lot of heart which he proved in the '87 playoffs.

[Soundwave]

Larry is a "Legend" though ... that's probably part of the reason why.

Game winners, the trash talk, nifty passes, big time clutch player, intense persona, general alpha-male on the court.

Duncan because he's so soft spoken and less "spectacular" (just gets the job done) probably hurts him in the top 10 discussion.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I keep hearing that Boston's teams were always "stacked". Have you guys even considered the possibility that some of those players wouldn't have been able to perform at such a high level without Bird there. Bird made his teamates better. If you took Bird off of those teams is Robert Parish a hall of famer?, is DJ? It's not like Danny Ainge was burning up the net after he left Boston. Gerald Henderson doesn't exactly have a HOF stat line. Boston was a great team because they played together and the role players knew their job and fit in to the system. I don't think you can put a value on what Bird did for that team.

[alfonsito123]

I don't actually see Larry Bird play. I only see his games in NBA's greatest games. imo, Larry Bird is better because of his variety of offensive skills. TD is more of a defensive guy. He can score for 20+ ppg under the paint. Larry Bird can score anywhere in the court. As far as I know, Larry Bird is a good 3pt shooter.

[alfonsito123]

Because as you all should remember TD was put on a winning team and has never been on a bad team. He is a great player in that system, but we've never seen Duncan have to lead a bad team. Where as Bird was put onto a pretty mediocre team and made them into an instant contender.

-Smak
I agree. Remember the 2004 Olympic team? Where Duncan is the starting C? He sucked out there, always in foul trouble. Some said that he was out of position that's why he was sloppy (BTW, is Duncan a PF or a C). And some others said that Duncan is not used to playing with FIBA rules. IMO, Larry Bird is better than Duncan.

[alfonsito123]

I think Duncan's defense is better than Bird because Duncan is a defensive player. But Bird is a better offensive player, his numbers will do the talking. But in terms of greatness in the sense of making other players better. I go for Bird. Overall, Bird is better than Duncan. And anyway, Bird is more entertaining to watch than Duncan. :)

[jlauber]

I would take either and be quite happy.

In any case...there is no such thing as "and it isn't close"...between these two. There are good arguments for either. Bird was a great offensive player, a decent rebounder, and exceptional passer from the SF position, and a decent defender in the early 80's. Duncan was a very good offensive player, an exceptional rebounder (particularly in the post-season), a great passer for a big man, and perhaps the best defensive center/PF of his era (Motumbo might have been a little better in the early 00's.) And Duncan anchored some of the greatest defensive teams of ALL-TIME.

Both would fit in with any team or system. Once again, I would give Bird's PEAK a slight edge, and Duncan's overall CAREER a slight edge.

[alfonsito123]

Career

WS/48
Bird--0.203
Duncan--0.219

WS
Bird--145.8
Duncan--162.3

DWS
Bird--59.0
Duncan--81.7


DRTG
Bird--101
Duncan--95


ORTG
Bird--115
Duncan--110


TOV%
Bird--12.7%
Duncan--12.4%


PER
Bird--23.5
Duncan--25.0


TRB%
Bird--14.5%
Duncan--18.5%

And people still say it's not close? :facepalm
Are you saying that Duncan is better than Bird? If so, I totally disagree.

[Jacks3]

Are you saying that Duncan is better than Bird? If so, I totally disagree.
I'm saying that's it's very close and that the people acting like Duncan ain't on Bird's level are just wrong.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

How many Championships does Bird win without Magic and the Lakers in his way? What if Bird didn't have all those injuries? That would have been interesting.

[jlauber]

How many Championships does Bird win without Magic and the Lakers in his way? What if Bird didn't have all those injuries? That would have been interesting.

Of course, Duncan can argue the Lakers of the 00's, as well.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Of course, Duncan can argue the Lakers of the 00's, as well.

Word. Duncan is a beast and had a great career. Would likely have been even greater without Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson.

I will ad that Bird was a vastly superior free throw shooter at .89% to Duncans .69%.

[Soundwave]

How many Championships does Bird win without Magic and the Lakers in his way? What if Bird didn't have all those injuries? That would have been interesting.

I think probably 5 titles.

[macpierce]

Word. Duncan is a beast and had a great career. Would likely have been even greater without Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson.

I will ad that Bird was a vastly superior free throw shooter at .89% to Duncans .69%.
so is kobe ...................:hammerhead:

[the_wise_one]

Larry is a "Legend" though ... that's probably part of the reason why.

Game winners, the trash talk, nifty passes, big time clutch player, intense persona, general alpha-male on the court.

Duncan because he's so soft spoken and less "spectacular" (just gets the job done) probably hurts him in the top 10 discussion.

Duncan is definitely in top 10, no Duncan in top 10 is just crazy talk.

[the_wise_one]

I keep hearing that Boston's teams were always "stacked". Have you guys even considered the possibility that some of those players wouldn't have been able to perform at such a high level without Bird there. Bird made his teamates better. If you took Bird off of those teams is Robert Parish a hall of famer?, is DJ? It's not like Danny Ainge was burning up the net after he left Boston. Gerald Henderson doesn't exactly have a HOF stat line. Boston was a great team because they played together and the role players knew their job and fit in to the system. I don't think you can put a value on what Bird did for that team.

This is actually a good point. I think Parish has mentioned before that if he didn't play with Bird, he would've retired much earlier and definitely won't be a hall of famer. He's a good player on his own, but Bird made him a HOFer.

DJ might still be a HOF-er without Bird (he did win a championship and became Finals MVP prior to joining the Celtics).

[the_wise_one]

I agree. Remember the 2004 Olympic team? Where Duncan is the starting C? He sucked out there, always in foul trouble. Some said that he was out of position that's why he was sloppy (BTW, is Duncan a PF or a C). And some others said that Duncan is not used to playing with FIBA rules. IMO, Larry Bird is better than Duncan.

Do not blame Duncan for the FIBA failure. The refs were biased against him. Plus he played with Marbury. No team will win any championship with Marbury as part of the team.

Give Duncan a credit for having the balls to go to the Olympics with crap teammates. It's like going to a nuclear war with a broken pen knife.

[Round Mound]

Oh, and McHale has became one of the most overrated players in history. I can overlook arguments for Gasol, and even Nowitzki, but now he is equal to Duncan. Wow, just wow.

:facepalm

McHale was 20.4 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 2.0 APG and 2.0 BPG player per 36 minutes. And shot 55.4% Career FG% and 56.1% FG Play-Off Career.

Barkley called him the Best Player he ever faced, hardest to guard and McHale was capable of guarding 3 Positions BTW.

*Bird said if McHale wanted to he would average 30 PPG but the Celtics shared the ball.

McHale is easly a Top 10 PF of All Time

Bird was the Better All Around Player than Duncan and Barkley

But both Barkley and Duncan are Impact wise Top 10 All Time.

[ILLsmak]

There are those who look at stats and claim that Duncan = McHale

and then those who claim that Bird was on a mediocre team but Duncan has never been on a bad team. One wonders if they think that 3 HOFs (Parish, McHale, DJ) and Finals MVP Maxwell all in the prime of their careers < 38 year old Robinson with a bad back in his last year, rookie Manu, streaky Jackson and just turned 21 year old 2nd year Parker.

What are you comparing? Those guys weren't on the team with Bird on his first year... and he won it his 2nd year with McHale as a rookie.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1980.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1998.html

Now look at the Spurs team the first year with Duncan.

If you take into account that Robinson was playing alongside Duncan, I think one can reasonably assume he was still capable of being a 25+ ppg scorer. And by the time Robinson was ready to retire, they had filled in even more great role players. If the Spurs were so bad, how did they win 60 games the year before Robinson got injured? You might say yeah Robinson was older, and sure that makes an impact, but let's say that they went from a 60 win team to a 55 win team, then.

Oh and one more thing, to everyone who says "Everyone BUT Hakeem had a solid cast of supporting players when they won" is insane. Hakeem had a stacked team both years.

-Smak

[Go Getter]

:facepalm

McHale was 20.4 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 2.0 APG and 2.0 BPG player per 36 minutes. And shot 55.4% Career FG% and 56.1% FG Play-Off Career.

Barkley called him the Best Player he ever faced, hardest to guard and McHale was capable of guarding 3 Positions BTW.

*Bird said if McHale wanted to he would average 30 PPG but the Celtics shared the ball.

McHale is easly a Top 10 PF of All Time

Bird was the Better All Around Player than Duncan and Barkley

But both Barkley and Duncan are Impact wise Top 10 All Time.

I laugh at anyone that says McHale was overrated.

His post moves were that of legend.


Every NBA big should be required to study at the school of McHale.

[97 bulls]

I don't see how anyone feels 2003 wasn't the spurs best team. Their worse was 99.

Avery johnson career cba player
Mario elie another career cba player
Sean elliot was recovering from kidney failure
Duncan
David robinson coming of back surgery
Antonio daniels was a bust
Jarren jackson was a career long cba player
Jerome kersey was over the hill

[Big#50]

I don't see how anyone feels 2003 wasn't the spurs best team. Their worse was 99.

Avery johnson career cba player
Mario elie another career cba player
Sean elliot was recovering from kidney failure
Duncan
David robinson coming of back surgery
Antonio daniels was a bust
Jarren jackson was a career long cba player
Jerome kersey was over the hill
This team's defense was sick. It was impossible to score on them.

[rmt]

I don't see how anyone feels 2003 wasn't the spurs best team. Their worse was 99.

Avery johnson career cba player
Mario elie another career cba player
Sean elliot was recovering from kidney failure
Duncan
David robinson coming of back surgery
Antonio daniels was a bust
Jarren jackson was a career long cba player
Jerome kersey was over the hill
Duncan was young and mobile, Robinson was still good and they were surrounded by savvy, mentally-tough veterans. It was extremely difficult to score on the Twin Towers. I think that the 99 team was tied or maybe 2nd to the 05 team (my favorite).

The 03 was the worst team. Old, old Robinson. Young, young Parker. Rookie Manu. Streaky Jackson. Mentally fragile - continually gave up big leads. But Duncan was a beast.

[mentallooser]

I laugh at anyone that says McHale was overrated.

His post moves were that of legend.


Every NBA big should be required to study at the school of McHale.

Yea people who didn't watch him seem to think he was just some ugly white dude with a fade away. That man had some of the nicest post moves I've ever seen. He faked out absolutely anyone he wanted to down low.

[Flamboyant]

Actually McHale is better than both Gasol and Dirk. Comparing Gasol's best to McHale's best is quite laughable, though Dirk is a lot closer. Duncan is clearly better than all of them, but McHale isn't overrated. His stats are already ridiculous (averaging 26 ppg on 60% in a season) but they probably underrate his impact as he had to share the ball with rest of the team (something he did not like to do) and split rebounds on a frontline that had Bird/Parish. There has never been a half court scorer at the PF position better than McHale. I'm a Bird fan, but the Celtics to beating Lakers in '85 or '87 bugs me more because McHale would have got a well deserved finals MVP if they won either of those series (Celtics were dealing with injuries both times including McHale playing on a broken foot in '87).

Make it 26ppg on 60%FG AND 80%FT. Yes those stats are crazy good. Still though they are Amare Stoudemire type of numbers (who is one of my favorite players, and one of the greatest scorers at PF). I've seen Amare go bananas even against Duncan himself, but I never would have dared to say Amare=Duncan (which is why I called him overrated in the first place).

Just to clarify, I didn't say McHale was just some random role player, or he is not top 10 PF. His game is comparable to Gasol to me. Both have tremendous post up games, and McHale has the edge as an overall scorer. But while he has advantage on scoring the passing gap is so huge. Gasol is one of the best passing bigs this game has ever seen, while McHale (among elite players at least) is one of the worst (I'm not trying to take a cheap shot, he was literally horrible). As a first option maybe I'd take McHale over Gasol as well, but as a 2nd option I won't even think twice. All in all, as I said already someone picking him over Pau doesn't bother me at all, though thinking that comparing them is laughable is what's laughable itself.

Now, I really don't want to be labeled as a hater, but yet and still even in this post he is overrated. I seriously can't understand McHale being better than Dirk. Dirk is a better scorer, rebounder, passer, and more clutch. What makes him worse than Kevin. Might as well say McHale is better than Bird himself (since Bird and Dirk are really similar, though I'm aware that Bird is a much better passer, and better overall). Skill/talent wise every argument you'll have for McHale over Dirk I can switch names Dirk and Larry, and hand it right back. If you're going to call Dirk a choker/loser, well McHale has done nothing as a leader, so that point becomes moot.

And McHale could have had easily won a FMVP as you said. But even that wouldn't have mattered to me. Only one all-NBA team selection is not enough to be better than Dirk now, is it?

[Flamboyant]

I don't see how anyone feels 2003 wasn't the spurs best team. Their worse was 99.

Avery johnson career cba player
Mario elie another career cba player
Sean elliot was recovering from kidney failure
Duncan
David robinson coming of back surgery
Antonio daniels was a bust
Jarren jackson was a career long cba player
Jerome kersey was over the hill

Also this. Even though none were at their primes 03 Spurs team had D-Rob, Manu (even though a rookie, he was NBA ready), and Parker. Also Bowen and Jackson were really good. And Duncan was at his absolute peak. That team was the best Spurs team.

[aceman]

I don't see how anyone feels 2003 wasn't the spurs best team. Their worse was 99.

Avery johnson career cba player
Mario elie another career cba player
Sean elliot was recovering from kidney failure
Duncan
David robinson coming of back surgery
Antonio daniels was a bust
Jarren jackson was a career long cba player
Jerome kersey was over the hill

career cba player avery johnson never played in the cba.

career cba player mario elie had 2 cba seasons. elsewhere he won 3 nba championships rings and become one the better 6th men in the league.

[Harison]

Bird is ranked higher because:

1) He is better volume scorer and much more clutch as well. Duncan is also clutch, but bigs have natural disadvantage in this area, while Bird is arguably GOAT clutch. Offensively Bird is on Jordans level.

2) Much better passer. Duncan isnt slouch in this area too, but Bird is again GOAT passing SF, and have a good argument in passing over any big, ever.

3) Higher BBIQ. But how can we evaluate it, because Duncan is smart as well? Much better court vision and superior passing is an indication of higher BBIQ, as well as Bird's ability to think 5 steps ahead of anyone on the court (other players testimony).

5) Bird won when rewards mattered more than it does now. Before you go offensive "winning always matter", and its true, but in the Golden age competition and Top talent were insanely stacked, and winning any reward was much harder.

3 back-to-back MVPs over prime Magic, young but already fantastic Jordan, Hakeem, Moses and Karl Malones, Barkley, Isiah, Dr. J, old but still great Kareem, etc. You know how many MVPs would win Duncan in those days? Correct answer - probably zero. How many MVPs would win Bird today? Almost every year, till voters would get tired giving one guy MVPs.

"But Duncan has 4 rings over Bird's 3!", true, and yet Duncan's Spurs would have won zero championships in those days.

"But Bird's team was stacked", it wasnt when he came, and he almost singlehandedly from 29 wins team made 61 wins team. Parish and a rookie McHale joined the next season, and got to 62 wins, massive improvement, isnt? :pimp: Duncan's team also went from 20 to 56 wins, but the difference is, Robinson returned from the injury that season, and he was still team leader and better player than Duncan was as a rookie. So while we can huge team turn around to pinpoint almost exclusively to Bird's impact, we cant say that about Duncan, who was fantastic, but not THE man at the start.

While we speaking about stacked teams, Bird's Celtics definitely were stacked later on, but so was the competition. Again - Duncan's Spurs wouldnt have won any rings in the Golden age. Showtime Lakers, Birds Celtics, Bad Boys, you name it.

Duncan has one advantage over Bird - defense, just its not enough to offset other things Bird brought to the table.

[eazyduzzit10]

I don't understand how a lot of people believe he isn't even the best PF this era (Duncan vs Garnett) and now he is supposedly better than bird? WTF?! IMO he is the best PF of this era but when comparing him to Bird, Larry Bird comes out on top easily...as for the bball IQ argument, the reason why Bird was able to be so dominant with poor athleticism was because he was so much smarter than anyone else, he had to be..just because you have a nickname the big fundamental, it does not automatically make you the smartest player ever although TD is one of the smartest, I don't think his IQ matches Bird's

[DMAVS41]

Anyone saying that Bird comes out on top easily didn't watch them both play. They are very very close in terms of impact. Duncan won with much less help, but also faced easier competition at times.

Duncan is arguably a top 5 defensive player ever. That goes a long long way.

I go back and forth all the time. Right now I have Duncan ranked one spot higher than Bird.

[Harison]

Anyone saying that Bird comes out on top easily didn't watch them both play.
I actually started watching NBA because of Bird vs Magic, and Bird was better than Magic till injuries slowed him down. Back in the days (before Jordan's peak) fans were debating if Bird was THE GOAT player of All-time, Duncan never was in the conversation of it. Duncan won just two MVPs in watered down NBA, and would have won zero MVPs in those days. Think about it for a minute.



Duncan is arguably a top 5 defensive player ever. That goes a long long way.
No, he isnt. Top10 as defensive player, sure.



I go back and forth all the time. Right now I have Duncan ranked one spot higher than Bird.
Yeah, and some have Kobe ranked higher than both, fans ranking are funny this way.

[DMAVS41]

I actually started watching NBA because of Bird vs Magic, and Bird was better than Magic till injuries slowed him down. Back in the days (before Jordan's peak) fans were debating if Bird was THE GOAT player of All-time, Duncan never was in the conversation of it. Duncan won just two MVPs in watered down NBA, and would have won zero MVPs in those days. Think about it for a minute.


No, he isnt. Top10 as defensive player, sure.


Yeah, and some have Kobe ranked higher than both, fans ranking are funny this way.

You don't know that Duncan would have 0 MVPS.....sorry.

Ok, Duncan is a top 10 defensive player ever. That goes a long way. LOL. Duncan is hard to classify because his best qualities were his interior defense and rebounding.

I don't have any problem with Bird over Duncan. My point is that its very close. Bill Simmons, the biggest Bird fan ever, ranked Bird at 5 and Duncan at 7 all time. I have no problem with that. Its just very close. Thats my point.

[Harison]

You don't know that Duncan would have 0 MVPS.....sorry.

Just curious, over whom Duncan would have won MVP in the Golden age? :confusedshrug:

[rodman91]

GOAT lists are stupid. It's even hard to tell a player better than other in same Era yet ranking many great ones?

I have seen prime Barkley,prime Malone,prime Duncan.They were all close.
I have seen prime Kobe, prime Iverson, prime T-Mac. They were all close.
I have seen prime Hakeem,prime D-Rob,Prime Pat Ewing. They were all close.

Championships made all difference..

[DMAVS41]

Just curious, over whom Duncan would have won MVP in the Golden age? :confusedshrug:

It depends on what years he played. I could definitely see prime/peak Duncan beating out Moses.

Duncan had a peak season of 26/13/4. For starters, I think Duncan was a better player than Moses.....and most agree. Because the MVP is so largely based on team success, I could easily see Duncan winning 65 a few times on good teams and winning 2 MVP awards.

I want to say Moses won 3 MVPs. I know he won at least 2.....

Sorry, Duncan was a better player. So if Moses can win 3....I think Duncan wins at least 1.

Do you think Moses was better than Duncan?

[DMAVS41]

Harison?

Please answer. Do you yield? :confusedshrug:

[Harison]

It depends on what years he played. I could definitely see prime/peak Duncan beating out Moses.

Duncan had a peak season of 26/13/4. For starters, I think Duncan was a better player than Moses.....and most agree. Because the MVP is so largely based on team success, I could easily see Duncan winning 65 a few times on good teams and winning 2 MVP awards.

I want to say Moses won 3 MVPs. I know he won at least 2.....

Sorry, Duncan was a better player. So if Moses can win 3....I think Duncan wins at least 1.

Do you think Moses was better than Duncan?
Actually Moses won just before/at the start of the Golden age, but even if we take him, he was superior offensive player than Duncan. Granted he wasnt as good defensively, but for that there is DPOY (also zero of those in that era for Duncan). Another aspect of MVP voting, its also popularity contest, and Moses was much more marketable than Duncan.

Other than that, Jordan? Bird? Magic and the rest? Duncan stands no chance. Hence probably zero MVPs, zero DPOYs, zero rings (unless very stacked team, and he probably wouldnt even be the best player in it).

[rodman91]

Better question is why most of people agree Hakeem was better than Duncan and they put Duncan higher rank in GOAT lists...

GOAT lists are so flawed.

[DMAVS41]

Actually Moses won just before/at the start of the Golden age, but even if we take him, he was superior offensive player than Duncan. Granted he wasnt as good defensively, but for that there is DPOY (also zero of those in that era for Duncan). Another aspect of MVP voting, its also popularity contest, and Moses was much more marketable than Duncan.

Other than that, Jordan? Bird? Magic and the rest? Duncan stands no chance. Hence probably zero MVPs, zero DPOYs, zero rings (unless very stacked team, and he probably wouldnt even be the best player in it).

What?

LOL

And Duncan could have absolutely beat out Bird/Magic/Jordan for an MVP. Are you serious with this crap?

Steve Nash and Dirk won 3 MVP's over the likes of Duncan/Shaq/Kobe/Lebron/KG/Wade...........

And you are limiting the scope.

Everyone would agree that peak Bird was probably better than peak Duncan. But we don't rank players just off peaks. Thats not how it works.

Duncan is a winner. His defense/rebounding led to wins. He has the highest win percentage out of any superstar player in NBA history. Winning is the biggest aspect of MVP voting....and Duncan would have definitely been the best player on his team. And if he wasn't? Good luck....because any team with Duncan as the 2nd best player is winning a title for sure. Its not even a question.

[DMAVS41]

Better question is why most of people agree Hakeem was better than Duncan and they put Duncan higher rank in GOAT lists...

GOAT lists are so flawed.

I don't. I think Duncan was better than Hakeem.

[Harison]

And Duncan could have absolutely beat out Bird/Magic/Jordan for an MVP. Are you serious with this crap?


I don't. I think Duncan was better than Hakeem.

I rest my case. Ginobili why dont you post from your main account? :facepalm

[DMAVS41]

I rest my case. Ginobili why dont you post from your main account? :facepalm

You rest your case?

So its impossible for Duncan to beat out Bird or Magic or MJ for an MVP but its perfectly reasonable to see Dirk and Nash beat out Shaq and Duncan and KG and Kobe and Lebron...etc...for MVPs?

What?

Please stay consistent.

And again. Thinking Duncan was better than Hakeem is perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

I rest my case. LOL

[Harison]

So its impossible for Duncan to beat out Bird or Magic or MJ for an MVP but its perfectly reasonable to see Dirk and Nash beat out Shaq and Duncan and KG and Kobe and Lebron...etc...for MVPs?
Few reasons - those are offensive players who overachieved, its not Duncan's forte. Its also popularity votes, Duncan wont outshine Golden age superstars. And another thing - votes were less joke rewards than now. Nash/Dirk/AI/Rose wouldnt win *** in those days.



And again. Thinking Duncan was better than Hakeem is perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Not really, no. Hakeem was flat out more dominant player on both sides of the floor, hence he is ranked higher.

[DMAVS41]

Few reasons - those are offensive players who overachieved, its not Duncan's forte. Its also popularity votes, Duncan wont outshine Golden age superstars. And another thing - votes were less joke rewards than now. Nash/Dirk/Duncan wouldnt win *** in those days.


Not really, no. Hakeem was flat out more dominant player on both sides of the floor, hence he is ranked higher.

I disagree on both. Duncan would have been even more appreciated back then because of his style and mentality. The general public would have loved Duncan. And his ability to win would have led to MVPs.

About Hakeem. I disagree. Hakeem was better offensively. I think Duncan was better defensively. Duncan was also better on the glass. Beating out Hakeem in career offensive, defensive, and total rebounding percentages in the playoffs.

Hakeem gambled a lot defensively at times. He went for way too many blocks and it left him out of position. Duncan was more fundamentally sound on defense and the better anchor.

But once again its very close.

Only an idiot would say Bird and Hakeem were easily better than Duncan. Sorry. You clearly didn't watch them all play or you have a huge bias.

[Harison]

You need to educated yourself more, Ginobili. Comparing career averages of player who was still playing at 39 vs 35 years old, is not reasonable from any point of view.

Adding your another account to ignore, be kind enough and stop creating new accounts, thank you. :rolleyes:

[pauk]

because he had somewhat of a better career? :confusedshrug:

[tontoz]

Duncan is generally seen as one of the two best power forwards in history along with Karl Malone. I dont see the problem here.

[the_future02]

I don't understand how a lot of people believe he isn't even the best PF this era (Duncan vs Garnett) and now he is supposedly better than bird? WTF?! IMO he is the best PF of this era but when comparing him to Bird, Larry Bird comes out on top easily...as for the bball IQ argument, the reason why Bird was able to be so dominant with poor athleticism was because he was so much smarter than anyone else, he had to be..just because you have a nickname the big fundamental, it does not automatically make you the smartest player ever although TD is one of the smartest, I don't think his IQ matches Bird's

Could u give a specific example of his BB IQ? Nevermind I know u cant cause its an abstract argument people use because its disputable. Also Bird had a questionable shot selection at times to be so smart

[necya]

What?

LOL

And Duncan could have absolutely beat out Bird/Magic/Jordan for an MVP. Are you serious with this crap?

Steve Nash and Dirk won 3 MVP's over the likes of Duncan/Shaq/Kobe/Lebron/KG/Wade...........

no.
Nash and Dirk got their MVPs in 05-06-07.
in those years, Shaq "declined" as well as Duncan. O'neal and Duncan had good 05 season but not on the level they reached earlier (plus, for Duncan, Gino and Parker took more responsabilities). Lebron and Wade were 20-22yo and had only 3 years of experience.
so they (dirk and steve) have really competed with Kobe, and we could add LBJ for 06 and 07 and Wade for 06.
in fact, when you look at 05-06-07 sesaons, the level was weak. some good players, but no historical season.

it makes me think about the 87-88 season.
MJ, Bird and Magic had all MVP type season, i've never seen 3 guys playing at such level in the same season.


also, i saw some very good post on McHale :applause:

and for the OP, those who have seen Bird playing bball, don't even think about this comparison.

[DMAVS41]

You need to educated yourself more, Ginobili. Comparing career averages of player who was still playing at 39 vs 35 years old, is not reasonable from any point of view.

Adding your another account to ignore, be kind enough and stop creating new accounts, thank you. :rolleyes:

Which is why I said at this point.

Sorry mate. You are on an island if you think its clear cut either way. You are a joke.

Hakeem's entire career is looked at differently because of two titles. Sorry.

In no way is Hakeem or Bird clearly better than Duncan. You just don't know anything about the game if that is the stance you take.

Educate yourself please. Thanks.

[DMAVS41]

no.
Nash and Dirk got their MVPs in 05-06-07.
in those years, Shaq "declined" as well as Duncan. O'neal and Duncan had good 05 season but not on the level they reached earlier (plus, for Duncan, Gino and Parker took more responsabilities). Lebron and Wade were 20-22yo and had only 3 years of experience.
so they (dirk and steve) have really competed with Kobe, and we could add LBJ for 06 and 07 and Wade for 06.
in fact, when you look at 05-06-07 sesaons, the level was weak. some good players, but no historical season.

it makes me think about the 87-88 season.
MJ, Bird and Magic had all MVP type season, i've never seen 3 guys playing at such level in the same season.


also, i saw some very good post on McHale :applause:

and for the OP, those who have seen Bird playing bball, don't even think about this comparison.


Sorry, posts like this are why this forum lacks any real quality basketball discussions.
:facepalm

[necya]

[/B]

Sorry, posts like this are why this forum lacks any real quality basketball discussions.
:facepalm

hm, well, i have seen you battled with kobe stans and lacking of arguments...:rolleyes: i have also seen you are able to post 50 times in the same day.
so i think i should let you with your thoughts and save my free time.
but, if you are able to do this, i will read your answer to my post and your thoughts on the weird Duncan-Bird comparison with pleasure.

[DMAVS41]

hm, well, i have seen you battled with kobe stans and lacking of arguments...:rolleyes: i have also seen you are able to post 50 times in the same day.
so i think i should let you with your thoughts and save my free time.
but, if you are able to do this, i will read your answer to my post and your thoughts on the weird Duncan-Bird comparison with pleasure.

So your stance is that Bird is clearly better than Duncan and that any person saying its close doesn't know basketball.

Correct?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Three reasons:

1. Larry Bird is white
2. Defensive dominance is not as highly regarded as offensive dominance
3. Most "fans" fail to recognize the 80s to mid 90s as the inflated stats era which it clearly is

[Anaximandro1]

Come playoff time, prime Duncan put up huge numbers consistently during the playoffs against

prime Shaq's Lakers


1999

Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-0 over Lakers

Duncan averaged 29 pts,10.8 rbs,3.3 as.,2 blk

2002

Western Conference Semifinals / Lakers 4-1 over Spurs

LA was the better team but Duncan averaged 29 pts,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk

2003

Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Lakers

Duncan averaged 28 pts,11.8 rb,4.8 as,1.3 blk


Mavs


2001

Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-1 Over Mavs

Duncan averaged 26.8 pts,17.4 rb,3.6 as,2 blk


2003

Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-2 over Mavs

Duncan averaged 28 pts,16.7 rb,5.8 as,3 blk


2006

Western Conference Semifinals / Mavs 4-3 over Spurs

Duncan averaged 32.2 pts,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk


Suns


2005

Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-1 over Suns

Duncan averaged 27.4 pts,13.8 rb,3.2 as,1.8 blk

2007

Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Suns

Duncan averaged 26.8 pts,13.7 rb,1.1 as,4.1 blk


Finals


1999 Finals/ Spurs 4-1 over Knicks

Duncan averaged 27.4 pts,14.1 rbs,2.4 as.,2.2 blk

2003 Finals / Spurs 4-2 over Nets

Duncan averaged 24.2 pts,17.0 rb,5.3 as,5.3 blk
Bird is better than Tim in some respects,but prime Duncan's game does not have any weaknesses except free throws.It

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=Anaximandro1]Come playoff time, prime Duncan put up huge numbers consistently during the playoffs against

prime Shaq's Lakers




Mavs




Suns




Finals


Bird is better than Tim in some respects,but prime Duncan's game does not have any weaknesses except free throws.It

[necya]

Bird is ranked higher because:

1) He is better volume scorer and much more clutch as well. Duncan is also clutch, but bigs have natural disadvantage in this area, while Bird is arguably GOAT clutch. Offensively Bird is on Jordans level.

2) Much better passer. Duncan isnt slouch in this area too, but Bird is again GOAT passing SF, and have a good argument in passing over any big, ever.

3) Higher BBIQ. But how can we evaluate it, because Duncan is smart as well? Much better court vision and superior passing is an indication of higher BBIQ, as well as Bird's ability to think 5 steps ahead of anyone on the court (other players testimony).

5) Bird won when rewards mattered more than it does now. Before you go offensive "winning always matter", and its true, but in the Golden age competition and Top talent were insanely stacked, and winning any reward was much harder.

3 back-to-back MVPs over prime Magic, young but already fantastic Jordan, Hakeem, Moses and Karl Malones, Barkley, Isiah, Dr. J, old but still great Kareem, etc. You know how many MVPs would win Duncan in those days? Correct answer - probably zero. How many MVPs would win Bird today? Almost every year, till voters would get tired giving one guy MVPs.

"But Duncan has 4 rings over Bird's 3!", true, and yet Duncan's Spurs would have won zero championships in those days.

"But Bird's team was stacked", it wasnt when he came, and he almost singlehandedly from 29 wins team made 61 wins team. Parish and a rookie McHale joined the next season, and got to 62 wins, massive improvement, isnt? :pimp: Duncan's team also went from 20 to 56 wins, but the difference is, Robinson returned from the injury that season, and he was still team leader and better player than Duncan was as a rookie. So while we can huge team turn around to pinpoint almost exclusively to Bird's impact, we cant say that about Duncan, who was fantastic, but not THE man at the start.

While we speaking about stacked teams, Bird's Celtics definitely were stacked later on, but so was the competition. Again - Duncan's Spurs wouldnt have won any rings in the Golden age. Showtime Lakers, Birds Celtics, Bad Boys, you name it.

Duncan has one advantage over Bird - defense, just its not enough to offset other things Bird brought to the table.

very good post, good memory.

the competition they have faced is an interesting point.
the bucks of the 80's would kill those nets/knicks/mavericks that the Spurs faced without a doubt.

[DMAVS41]

very good post, good memory.

the competition they have faced is an interesting point.
the bucks of the 80's would kill those nets/knicks/mavericks that the Spurs faced without a doubt.

How about the Kobe/Shaq Lakers? Or the Pistons that beat the Lakers in the finals? Or the Nash/Amare suns?

Would Duncan not beat them as well? Oh wait....been there, done that.

[BarberSchool]

THIS:

Larry Bird's peak owns anything Duncan has ever done in his career.



24/10/7,
29/11/7
26/10/7
28/9/8
30/9/6

All on near 50% shooting and at the top of the leauge in steals every one of those years
Or more simply:

Because he is the better player....

He really was better overall than Duncan. That said, Duncan is overall better than almost everyone else in the convo.

[necya]

Three reasons:

1. Larry Bird is white
2. Defensive dominance is not as highly regarded as offensive dominance
3. Most "fans" fail to recognize the 80s to mid 90s as the inflated stats era which it clearly is

first i was laughing at your post, now you are boring.

so if in 2020 the league shot 40% and score 80pts per game, i guess the 2000 will be inflated stats? do you see how your statement looks stupid?

just think about that : the 3 times DPOY Howard would not even been selected in any all nba / defensive team in the 90's.

the Orlando Magic have made the Finals in 95 and 09.
now, look at the starting 5. the one form 95 had best players at each post...

you are a pathetic kobe stan.

[Dbrog]

Now we have fools who think Duncan is better than Hakeem. LOL

Which sane GM will pick Duncan ahead of Hakeem? Only ISH fools, who are such great talent evaluators that they won't trade Pau Gasol to the Lakers and still be stuck with a mediocre team with no future. And Gasol would have left them by now after his contract had expired. LOL ISH fools.

:facepalm

2003 Champ Spurs - Rounding up
Duncan - 25/15/5/3, 53%
Tony - 15/3/4, 40%
Stephen - 13/4/3, 41%
Manu - 9/4/3, 39%
Robinson - 8/7, 54%
Malik Rose - 9/6, 42%

1994 Champ Rockets - Rounding up
Hakeem - 29/11/4/4, 52%
Maxwell - 14/4/4, 38%
Horry - 12/6/4, 43%
Thorpe - 11/9, 57%
JET - 11/4, 46%
Cassell - 9/4, 39%

Pretty even if you ask me. Duncan's team would probably be considered significantly worse if it wasn

[rodman91]

One's nick was Legend.Other's The Big Fundamental.

[KenneBell]

One's nick was Legend.Other's The Big Fundamental.
And? Your point is?

[rodman91]

And? Your point is?
Legend is quite good nick to earn.

Comparision is weak though. Duncan is %70 C %30 PF.Bird was more like %60 SF %40 PF.

[rmt]

but for that there is DPOY (also zero of those in that era for Duncan). Another aspect of MVP voting, its also popularity contest, and Moses was much more marketable than Duncan.

Other than that, Jordan? Bird? Magic and the rest? Duncan stands no chance. Hence probably zero MVPs, zero DPOYs, zero rings (unless very stacked team, and he probably wouldnt even be the best player in it).

MVP is for most valuable player - not best player. May I remind you that both Shaq and Kobe have only 1 MVP while Nash has 2?

It's a disgrace that Duncan never won a DPOY after anchoring the best defense in the league for over a decade. Unless, of course, posters think that Camby and Artest were better than Duncan defensively. Defense is half of the game:

Career Facts (as of 4/24/11):

-Defensive Player Of The Year: 0 (he still waits for it)

-All NBA Defensive Selections: 13 (including 8x All-First)

-NBA All time leader in most defensive selections

-Career Rebounds: 11,529 (11.6)

[tontoz]

Legend is quite good nick to earn.

Comparision is weak though. Duncan is %70 C %30 PF.Bird was more like %60 SF %40 PF.


Exactly. I haven't seen them compared directly very often and i was watching live when Bird played Magic in the NCAA Finals.





*Geezer alarm sounds loudly*

[Stat & Melo]

[QUOTE=G-Funk]Larry Bird

3

[D.J.]

Bird was more skilled and better all-around. Shooting, ball-handling, ball IQ, defense, clutch. He could do it all. He wasn't the defender Duncan was, but was still a very respectable defender.

[rmt]

why did you write that bird is a 3 time nba champion while writing duncan is a 3 time playoff mvp?:wtf:

Yep, no credit for Duncan for his 4 nba championships (with completely different casts too).

[chips93]

-Ranks at No.7 in career defensive win shares (82.9)

-Ranks at No.5 in playoffs defensive win shares (13.0)

-Ranks at No.2 in career defensive rating

-Ranks at No.14 in playoff defensive rating

-Ranks at No.7 in career defensive win share

-Ranks at No.5 in playoff defensive win share



what do these stats even mean.

fwiw bird's team played a pace of 97.9 possessions per game in 88 for his career high in scoring, and bird's teams in boston averaged about 100 possessions per game.

duncan's teams averaged around 89 possessions per game in his career. even this year where they sped it up they only had 92 possessions per game, bird never had a year that slow.

so to summarise bird's stats are inflated about 10 % compared to duncan's due to pace. not points per game by the league, or field goals per game by the league, or shooting percentage by the league, but because of pace.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

first i was laughing at your post, now you are boring.

so if in 2020 the league shot 40% and score 80pts per game, i guess the 2000 will be inflated stats?


Yes, absolutely. Why is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Its like comparing a power hitter from the steroid era to now or the dead ball era.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Larry Bird never won a title with less than 3 HOF teammates. :facepalm

[D.J.]

Larry Bird never won a title with less than 3 HOF teammates. :facepalm


Jordan never won without the GOAT perimeter defender. Magic never won without arguably the GOAT center. You can also argue that Olajuwon won with less talent that Duncan.

[Javat_90]

I dont know, its very close. Like always with these type of comparisons, you cant go wrong picking one or the other.

The thing about Bird is that hes a more fierce/charismatic leader, probably more clutch than Tim Duncan ever was, a great all-around player, one of the best in NBA History.

But being 100 % honest, Tim Duncan gives you more on both sides of the floor, specially on defense. Bird was the better offensive player, but the difference between their offense is not as big as their difference between the defense. Id probably take Timmy if I had to pick one player to start and build my franchise around.

Another important thing to mention is, while Duncan had great rosters in Robinson, Bowen, Parker or Ginobili (although he only won with prime Robinson in 1999, in 2003 he was already a very washed up role-player DRob). As good as those teams have been, they cant compare to the likes of Parish, DJ, Mchale, Ainge or even Cedric Maxwell at the start of Bird`s career. Most of these players mentioned are probably hall-of-famers, except perhaps Danny Ainge. On the Spurs part you can make a case for Parker and Ginobili, but they probably wont make it. Anyway, 00s Spurs rosters are not even close to being as good as 80s Celtics roster.

I mean people seriously, 1986 Celtics has a case for being the best team of all-time. That should say a lot. Larry Bird is one of the luckiest stars to ever play this game, not taking credit for him, but thats the way it is. Even Jordan with those great Bulls teams he had was not as lucky as Magic or Bird. The only player Jordan played with that can compare is Pippen. But look at the rest: Mchale, Parish, DJ, Kareem and Worthy. All of them hall-of-famers, MVP finals winners, all-nba team selections...etc.

Ranking, id probably rank Bird one or two spots ahead of Duncan. Alright he won 1 ring less, but has more individual recognition and helped change this game and save the NBA. I think the contributions Larry has done to this game have been slightly bigger than those of Duncan.

Its a very close one.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Jordan never won without the GOAT perimeter defender. Magic never won without arguably the GOAT center. You can also argue that Olajuwon won with less talent that Duncan.

True, but surely you are not trying to equate 3-5 HOFers to 1 right?

[Harison]

Larry Bird never won a title with less than 3 HOF teammates. :facepalm
Because he made them HoF. Same can be said about Russells team, half of those HoF players wouldnt be there if not Rus.

[Big#50]

Because he made them HoF. Same can be said about Russells team, half of those HoF players wouldnt be there if not Rus.
Just came in here to say "suck a ****".

[DMAVS41]

Because he made them HoF. Same can be said about Russells team, half of those HoF players wouldnt be there if not Rus.

And you could say the same thing about Parker and Manu. Not sure if Parker will make the hall, but Manu probably will.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

And you could say the same thing about Parker and Manu. Not sure if Parker will make the hall, but Manu probably will.

:applause:

I also let out a generous laugh equating Bird's measly 3 championships to Russell's 11.

[DMAVS41]

:applause:

I also let out a generous laugh equating Bird's measly 3 championships to Russell's 11.

Bird was blessed with great teams. Nothing wrong with that. Its not a knock on Bird. He played great and led them to 3 titles. He's one of the greatest to ever play.

Everyone needs a ton of help.

But to act like Duncan wouldn't have a chance to win titles or MVP's if he played in the 80s is just a joke. Moses Malone won a title and back to back MVP's. Now, its just my opinion, but I think Duncan is considerably better of a player.

And its not like Duncan has had great help. He won all 4 of his titles without an all-nba player. Only Hakeem and Jordan have done that once each. And Jordan had an elite Pippen that was easily a top 15 player and should have been all nba the year he didn't make it.

Duncan also played against tough competition. He faced off against all time greats like Shaq/Kobe/Nash/Dirk.....all on stacked teams (except for Dirk's teams). Hell, he beat Kobe/Shaq on the same damn team.

He wasn't play against scrubs or something. He won 4 titles. That goes a long way for him. His 4 are a lot more impressive than Shaq's 4 in my opinion.

But the end result is that its very close between guys like bird and duncan and shaq and hakeem and kobe. I personally think Kobe is a notch below those guys, but is just my opinion.

Anyone saying that Bird is clearly better than Duncan or that Hakeem is clearly better than Duncan is just full of it.

[KevinNYC]

Larry Bird was MVP 3 times and runner up 4 times.
Tim Duncan was MVP twice and runner up twice.



MVP Award Shares
1979-80 NBA 0.068 (4)
1980-81 NBA 0.613 (2)
1981-82 NBA 0.661 (2)
1982-83 NBA 0.485 (2)
1983-84 NBA 0.858 (1)
1984-85 NBA 0.978 (1)
1985-86 NBA 0.981 (1)
1986-87 NBA 0.357 (3)
1987-88 NBA 0.659 (2)
Career 5.693 (3)

Tim Duncan
1997-98 NBA 0.128 (5)
1998-99 NBA 0.627 (3)
1999-00 NBA 0.205 (5)
2000-01 NBA 0.569 (2)
2001-02 NBA 0.757 (1)
2002-03 NBA 0.808 (1)
2003-04 NBA 0.582 (2)
2004-05 NBA 0.258 (4)
2005-06 NBA 0.026 (8)
2006-07 NBA 0.222 (4)

Career 4.205


NBA/ABA
Rank Player MVP Shares
1. Michael Jordan* 8.138
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 6.203
3. Larry Bird* 5.693
4. Magic Johnson* 5.129
5. Bill Russell* 4.827
6. Shaquille O'Neal 4.380
7. Karl Malone* 4.296
8. Wilt Chamberlain* 4.269
9. Tim Duncan 4.205

[KevinNYC]

But to act like Duncan wouldn't have a chance to win titles or MVP's if he played in the 80s is just a joke. Moses Malone won a title and back to back MVP's. Now, its just my opinion, but I think Duncan is considerably better of a player.

Moses Malone is underated on this board, but the guy was a beast. Hardest working guy in the league, fearsome on the boards especially the offensive glass. A smaller version of Shaq who worked harder. Might be the best second and third rebouner of all time, because he was able to get back up quickly.

Malone is a top 15 player of all time and 3 time MVP. Duncan is somewhere between 15 and 10, so considerably better might be a stretch. Duncan was probably more efficient and definitely better running a complete offense, but I don't think there a stat that measures effort and that was huge reason Moses was so effective and why he dominated the paint.

Ask Walton, Kareem or Parish about trying to handle Moses.

[DMAVS41]

Moses Malone is underated on this board, but the guy was a beast. Hardest working guy in the league, fearsome on the boards especially the offensive glass. A smaller version of Shaq who worked harder. Might be the best second and third rebouner of all time, because he was able to get back up quickly.

Malone is a top 15 player of all time and 3 time MVP. Duncan is somewhere between 15 and 10, so considerably better might be a stretch. Duncan was probably more efficient and definitely better running a complete offense, but I don't think there a stat that measures effort and that was huge reason Moses was so effective and why he dominated the paint.

Ask Walton, Kareem or Parish about trying to handle Moses.

I love Moses. Watched his entire career. I have Moses in the top 15. I have Duncan at 7 right now.

My point wasn't to knock Moses, but to point out that Duncan could easily have accomplished what Moses did. And that was in response to the guy claiming that Duncan would have 0 mvps and 0 titles playing in the 80s.

[crisoner]

Three words...

Great White Hope.

[KevinNYC]

I guess that boils down to you having Duncan at 7 which seems high to me.
I can't say, I've put a lot of effort into coming up with a top 20 or so though.

[magnax1]

This thread again?
:facepalm
People have to be seriously biased, or clueless to say Duncan is close to Bird in terms of level of play.

[KevinNYC]

. Bird had great players on his team from day one, stop lying.This is not true.
The year before Larry Bird came into the league, the Celtics won 29 games. The next year Bird took them to 61 games with this roster

Tiny Archibald former star, considered over the hill
M.L. Carr good not great
Don Chaney who?
Dave Cowens Former MVP, burnt out. retired during season
Eric Fernsten who?
Chris Ford average
Gerald Henderson good not great
Jeff Judkins who?
Pete Maravich I think he retired during this season. He was done
Cedric Maxwell good to great. 19 and 10 man
Rick Robey nice backup


In was the next season when they got Parish and McHale. But Bird proved he was legitimate in his first season. Also remember McHale didn't even start for the Celtics until Feb of 85. I also think that neither would have made the HOF if they didn't play with Bird. They were the recipient of so many easy buckets from his passes. I also think Bird pushed McHale to develop his talent more and become a better player.

[Go Getter]

This thread again?
:facepalm
People have to be seriously biased, or clueless to say Duncan is close to Bird in terms of level of play.


I wouldn't go that far but I too think Bird is better.


He could post (some), dribble, and score from deep....not to mention he is one of the only players with fundamentals as solid as Timmy's.

[aau]

I love Moses. Watched his entire career. I have Moses in the top 15. I have Duncan at 7 right now.

My point wasn't to knock Moses, but to point out that Duncan could easily have accomplished what Moses did. And that was in response to the guy claiming that Duncan would have 0 mvps and 0 titles playing in the 80s.

just curious

who do you rank him above on this list

jordan
kareem
magic
russell
wilt
shaq
bird

[DMAVS41]

just curious

who do you rank him above on this list

jordan
kareem
magic
russell
wilt
shaq
bird

My current top ten....it changes from time to time

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Wilt
6. Shaq
7. Duncan
8. Bird
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe

[aau]

My current top ten....it changes from time to time

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Wilt
6. Shaq
7. Duncan
8. Bird
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe

you really think duncan > bird

may i ask why

[DMAVS41]

you really think duncan > bird

may i ask why

Its very very close for me.

I think Duncan's impact on defense and the boards was Russell like. Duncan is difficult to rank for most people because his best and most important quality was his ability to anchor a defense.

To boil it down to as simple notion as possible, I think Duncan had a bigger impact overall. I think Duncan had the ability to carry weaker teams to more success.

Its very very close and its really all personal opinion. Either way is fine for me. I just prefer Duncan. Its the people that claim its not close that most likely didn't watch Bird play and missed prime Duncan.

[DKLaker]

Larry Bird's peak owns anything Duncan has ever done in his career.



24/10/7,
29/11/7
26/10/7
28/9/8
30/9/6

All on near 50% shooting and at the top of the leauge in steals every one of those years

:applause: :cheers: :applause:

Duncan's best season 25/12/3 End Thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I gotta think that anyone picking TD never saw Bird play.

Bird>>>>>>>>>>Duncan


Bird's teammate McHale put up a better season than Duncan's best.

[DMAVS41]

:applause: :cheers: :applause:

Duncan's best season 25/12/3 End Thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You need to learn how to round.

Its actually 26/13/4 in 02....while providing all time great defense.
:rolleyes:

[DKLaker]

You need to learn how to round.

Its actually 26/13/4 in 02....while providing all time great defense.
:rolleyes:

LMAO....25.5/12.7/3.7 i'm not giving him 26ppg for a .5 SORRY!!!!

And 23.3 is his 2nd highest.....rather pedestrian compared to the greats.

Gotta love Duncan's career high steals 0.9 ????? He couldn't get a steal unless you handed the ball to him :roll: :roll: :roll:


LARRY FREAKIN BIRD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Duncan

And I HATE the Celtics :oldlol:


As I said....only a kid would argue against this.

[aau]

Its very very close for me.

I think Duncan's impact on defense and the boards was Russell like. Duncan is difficult to rank for most people because his best and most important quality was his ability to anchor a defense.

To boil it down to as simple notion as possible, I think Duncan had a bigger impact overall. I think Duncan had the ability to carry weaker teams to more success.

Its very very close and its really all personal opinion. Either way is fine for me. I just prefer Duncan. Its the people that claim its not close that most likely didn't watch Bird play and missed prime Duncan.

i guess that includes me because i saw them both play
(in college nonetheless) and don't believe them to
be close in comparison . . . bird brings a helluva
lot more to the table than duncan imo . . . he
was damn near a triple double just waiting

i agree duncan's the better defender but that doesn't make
up the huge difference in bird's all around ability , not imo

duncan only avgd a couple more rebounds than the SF bird
where tim had blocks n alters bird had steals n deflections
could lead the break , fill the lane and finish at the rim
exceptional passer , shooter and clutch playmaker

i'd never put duncan on bird's level impact or ability-wise

speaking of which
you've always thrown me when speaking of "impact" or "level of play"

i don't wanna hijack this thread

can i come anew and chop it up with you

[rmt]

:applause: :cheers: :applause:

Duncan's best season 25/12/3 End Thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I gotta think that anyone picking TD never saw Bird play.

Bird>>>>>>>>>>Duncan


Bird's teammate McHale put up a better season than Duncan's best.

Then your thinking is incorrect since I saw the entirety of Bird's career and would pick TD because of his defense.

It's very close. All of these "it's not even close" statements are on par with your thinking that McHale put up a better season than Duncan's best (putting a mediocre cast on his back and carrying them to a championship).

[Javat_90]

LMAO....25.5/12.7/3.7 i'm not giving him 26ppg for a .5 SORRY!!!!

And 23.3 is his 2nd highest.....rather pedestrian compared to the greats.

Gotta love Duncan's career high steals 0.9 ????? He couldn't get a steal unless you handed the ball to him :roll: :roll: :roll:


LARRY FREAKIN BIRD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Duncan

And I HATE the Celtics :oldlol:


As I said....only a kid would argue against this.

It is a very close comparison.

No matter how much you cry, just deal with it.

You`re just insecure about the Duncan>Kobe debate.

[DMAVS41]

i guess that includes me because i saw them both play
(in college nonetheless) and don't believe them to
be close in comparison . . . bird brings a helluva
lot more to the table than duncan imo . . . he
was damn near a triple double just waiting

i agree duncan's the better defender but that doesn't make
up the huge difference in bird's all around ability , not imo

duncan only avgd a couple more rebounds than the SF bird
where tim had blocks n alters bird had steals n deflections
could lead the break , fill the lane and finish at the rim
exceptional passer , shooter and clutch playmaker

i'd never put duncan on bird's level impact or ability-wise

speaking of which
you've always thrown me when speaking of "impact" or "level of play"

i don't wanna hijack this thread

can i come anew and chop it up with you

you won't find Duncan's defensive impact in blocks or steals or even rebounds. his ability ton anchor a defense...especially in the paint is paramount to winning.

"impact" and "level of play" is exactly what it sounds like. what impact does a player have on the game? how consistent is he? can he play impact the game positively while not "having a good game".....

basically just the individual play of a player and not team accomplishments. i hate when people rank players based on rings. you see this very commonly with kobe fans. its always 5 rings this or 5 rings that. to me, its not that simple.

the reason i mention Duncan's rings is because he won his titles with less help than pretty much any superstar has of the last 30 years. anyone but Hakeem......and Duncan won 4. That goes a long way in my book...not because he won....but how he played and how he won.

its all personal preference, but i just disagree. i don't know how anyone can claim Bird was on another level than Duncan.

[Scoooter]

These two would be perfect teammates.

[DKLaker]

It is a very close comparison.

No matter how much you cry, just deal with it.

You`re just insecure about the Duncan>Kobe debate.


LMFAO.....why idiots always have to bring Kobe into everything??????
I've been watching NBA basketball since 1960.......long before Kobe's daddy even played.......so what does Kobe have to do with this argument?

Bird was just a flat out better player with a much bigger impact......if not for playing in the toughest era in the NBA he would've won 4-5 more rings.
And, I hated that team.....but I'm always honest and have to tell it like it is.

IMO I've seen way too many players better than the steady, solid TD.

You kids are only arguing about the only era you know......I say there is absolutely no comparison.

[aau]

you won't find Duncan's defensive impact in blocks or steals or even rebounds. his ability ton anchor a defense...especially in the paint is paramount to winning.

"impact" and "level of play" is exactly what it sounds like. what impact does a player have on the game? how consistent is he? can he play impact the game positively while not "having a good game".....

basically just the individual play of a player and not team accomplishments. i hate when people rank players based on rings. you see this very commonly with kobe fans. its always 5 rings this or 5 rings that. to me, its not that simple.

the reason i mention Duncan's rings is because he won his titles with less help than pretty much any superstar has of the last 30 years. anyone but Hakeem......and Duncan won 4. That goes a long way in my book...not because he won....but how he played and how he won.

its all personal preference, but i just disagree. i don't know how anyone can claim Bird was on another level than Duncan.

i'm confused but i gotta roll

work day is done

i'ma hit you up tomorrow on a diff thread aight

[KevinNYC]

Bird's PEAK seasons were amazing. No argument from me there. He even made all-defensive teams.

To call a three-time 2nd team all defensive foward an average defender as someone did in this thread is to not really remember his career.