How is Tim Duncan not a top 4 player of all time?

[DaHeezy]

The further Tim Duncan's career goes the more he makes this case true.

Just recently I heard that the Spurs tied the consecutive 50+ win seasons. Impressive considering it falls hugely on the shoulders of one player. During that stretch winning MVP's, finals MVP, 4 championships, and multiple other awards.

These accomplishments are also during an era in which the weathered a storm of 2 Laker's dynasty teams, one in which had the most dominant player to ever play, and he has beaten an MVP calibre Jason Kidd, a Piston team which dismantled one of the greatest teams ever assembled the year before, and Lebron James. Most of the time enroute through LA, and also what been regularily known as the toughest playoff schedules in the early 00' Western conference.

I'm not much of a Spurs/Duncan fan, but of the guys generally rated above him, I don't see how they are clearly ahead. He's not a 1 hit statistics guy in which he's up there in a multitude of categories all the while his best sidekick ever was either Manu or an older worn down Robinson.

Pros and cons to the Tim Duncan argument please

[PurpleChuck]

MJ
Magic
Larry
KAJ
Russell

All of them disagree and say he's only top 10.

[DaHeezy]

MJ
Magic
Larry
KAJ
Russell

All of them disagree and say he's only top 10.

Given statistics and accomplishements I'd say Duncan is right in that mix. Acheivement-wise he's very similar to Larry Bird, if not better.

[PowerGlove]

Duncan gets way too much credit, he's not top five dude.

[thejumpa]

People who actually watch basketball and understand the history have NO problem putting him up there. From the stats to the achievments to the rings to the consistency....he's one of the greats. Period.

[Walduś]

this actually shows why he shouldn't be top 5. he's the 3rd/4th best player on the spurs right now and they still got the best record.

[O BaByShaQ]

top 5 pf's of all time is arguable, not overall of all time

[Pointguard]

Given statistics and accomplishements I'd say Duncan is right in that mix. Acheivement-wise he's very similar to Larry Bird, if not better.
Acheivement wise he's got Bird. And I think he's won with the least in the whole top ten. But Wilt has a majority of the records. Kareem, great achievements, longevity and records. Russell 11 rings. MJ walks on Air. Magic with Bird helped save the league and got 5 rings out of it. I have TD at the top of the next tier right now which includes Shaq, Kobe and Akeem,

[ZGalifianakis]

He is the greatest of all time in my opinion

[DaHeezy]

this actually shows why he shouldn't be top 5. he's the 3rd/4th best player on the spurs right now and they still got the best record.

Same thing could have been said about Kareem in acouple of Lakers Championships

[Harison]

He is definitely Top10 All-time, but he wont make to Top6 All-time, guys there were more dominant than Duncan is.

[SayTownRy]

this actually shows why he shouldn't be top 5. he's the 3rd/4th best player on the spurs right now and they still got the best record.

he's definitely not the 4th best player. that's absurd. and he's quite often the 1st or 2nd best player on a balanced and talented team.

and we would be fighting for the 7th or 8th seed without him if we were in playoff contention at all. strongly affirm this.

he's had numerous dominating performances this season and is still an excellent defensive player while being one of the best in the league at converting on post up opportunities.

blair is a force down low (on many an occasion), but let's be clear - duncan IS our post presence on both ends of the floor, regardless of the almighty "PPG" ISH holy grail stat.

[DaHeezy]

People who actually watch basketball and understand the history have NO problem putting him up there. From the stats to the achievments to the rings to the consistency....he's one of the greats. Period.


Excactly. His accomplishments puts him well within ghtat mix. The only thing he doesn't have is the marketablity of the other players.

If you took out the names and just left the statistics so each player was faceless to their acheivments, I'd be hard pressed not to put Duncan within even the top 3.

[Kellogs4toniee]

The further Tim Duncan's career goes the more he makes this case true.

Just recently I heard that the Spurs tied the consecutive 50+ win seasons. Impressive considering it falls hugely on the shoulders of one player. During that stretch winning MVP's, finals MVP, 4 championships, and multiple other awards.

These accomplishments are also during an era in which the weathered a storm of 2 Laker's dynasty teams, one in which had the most dominant player to ever play, and he has beaten an MVP calibre Jason Kidd, a Piston team which dismantled one of the greatest teams ever assembled the year before, and Lebron James. Most of the time enroute through LA, and also what been regularily known as the toughest playoff schedules in the early 00' Western conference.

I'm not much of a Spurs/Duncan fan, but of the guys generally rated above him, I don't see how they are clearly ahead. He's not a 1 hit statistics guy in which he's up there in a multitude of categories all the while his best sidekick ever was either Manu or an older worn down Robinson.

Pros and cons to the Tim Duncan argument please


I think the problem here is how one views the top 10 rankings. Top 10 rankings pretty much already places you as "A Legend" in the history of the game in my opinion. So in that case, Duncan is clearly getting his due's because the vast majority of people who actually watch and understand the game clearly realize that he deserves to be in the top 10.

When you mention the top five though, that is literally the elite of the elite of the legends. To be perfectly honest and I know I will get alot of steam from this, I am OK with putting Duncan at the five spot, interchanging him with either Magic and Bird; the reason for this is exactly the same type of reasons you listed in your original post. He managed to be consistent and dominate / dethrone during an era that had such great players and multiple dynasties.
But like other's will no doubt spew, that will be over-rating him for most of the people on these boards.

A top four player tho he is absolutely not. MJ, Kareem, Russell, and Wilt are clearly above Duncan when considering careers / dominance / and primes. There's just no explanation, numerically or socially, that can put Duncan above those four.

[Hawker]

top 5 pf's of all time is arguable, not overall of all time

The former isn't really arguable at all. It's a fact.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

People who actually watch basketball and understand the history have NO problem putting him up there. From the stats to the achievments to the rings to the consistency....he's one of the greats. Period.

completely agree

some just underrate defense in general. also the little things it takes to win that new players like stoudamire cant figure out yet or are to lazy to implement

[tequila]

Not to take anything away from TD, but Shaq belongs ahead of him. Kareem, Wilt, and MJ will always be the top three.

[Kellogs4toniee]

Not to take anything away from TD, but Shaq belongs ahead of him. Kareem, Wilt, and MJ will always be the top three.

I don't believe Shaq is above Duncan. I can see the argument being there, especially for those who put primes and dominance as one of the key ingredients for grading. But the significant advantage Shaq had on the offensive side of the game is not enough IMO to offset the significant advantage Duncan had on the defensive end and the type of players both have had for there careers.

[ginobli2311]

how about this cool stat:

among active players, the top 3 players with the best win percentage for their careers:

1. manu
2. tony parker
3. duncan

wow. the more you look into the numbers and history of duncan the more impressive it is.

12 straight seasons of 50 or more wins. manu is the only player to play at least 500 regular season games and lose less than 200. manu has only lost 167.

so basically this means that nobody since duncan entered the league has won more. and once duncan got manu and parker....it hasn't even been close. its been historic.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/565001-ranking-the-top-10-nba-players-in-winning-percentage/page/11

[thomaspynchon]

He's usually not the guy winning games in the clutch and has many bad games in the playoffs

[NBASTATMAN]

MJ
Magic
Larry
KAJ
Russell

All of them disagree and say he's only top 10.


Duncan would have had his arse busted on a nightly basis if he played in Hakeems era.. Ask Kobe is you like..


THE TOP FOUR INCLUDE.. MJ, KAREEM, WILT, AND RUSSELL.. I don't see anyone breaking into that group in the next 5-10 years..

[MooseJuiceBowen]

He's usually not the guy winning games in the clutch and has many bad games in the playoffs

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[ginobli2311]

players that were definitely better than duncan imo:

1. jordan
2. russell
3. magic
4. wilt
5. kareem

after that its up for debate. i go back and forth on duncan or bird in the next spot. i just watched about 150 bird games on dvd. kind of forgot just how insanely good bird was.

it really depends on what you value. to you value longevity over peak? defense over scoring? post play or wing play? etc....

i usually settle on:

6. bird
7. duncan
8. shaq
9. hakeem

those are the best guys and are pretty locked in imo. i don't see anyone currently playing surpassing any of those guys for me except maybe lebron.

[SCY]

I know this is nitpicking on a very small point in the post, but calling that '03-'04 Lakers teams one of the greatest teams ever assembled is an insult, even if you're speaking strictly in terms of talent. Malone and Payton were only above-average starters at their positions at that point, and their SF and bench were incredibly weak. In terms of their accomplishments, they only won 56 games (3rd best in the conference), squeaked by the Spurs on a lucky shot, greatly benefited from Sam Cassell's injury in the conference finals, and of course were thoroughly trashed in the Finals.

[O BaByShaQ]

The former isn't really arguable at all. It's a fact.

keep tellin yourself I cant argue 5 other pfs ahead of him

[O BaByShaQ]

I don't believe Shaq is above Duncan. I can see the argument being there, especially for those who put primes and dominance as one of the key ingredients for grading. But the significant advantage Shaq had on the offensive side of the game is not enough IMO to offset the significant advantage Duncan had on the defensive end and the type of players both have had for there careers.

naw

[thomaspynchon]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

prove me wrong. game 6 of 02-03 wcf, game 7 vs the pistons he sure as hell wasn't the best player on his team.

[LEFT4DEAD]

Because he played for the Spurs his whole career. If he was on Lakers for ex. he would be top 5 already, no doubt about it.

[Rose]

he can be #6-7 and be happy with that.

[NBASTATMAN]

He is the greatest of all time in my opinion


Damn I got to find another place to write about basketball.. This place is full of :banana: S

[NBASTATMAN]

players that were definitely better than duncan imo:

1. jordan
2. russell
3. magic
4. wilt
5. kareem

after that its up for debate. i go back and forth on duncan or bird in the next spot. i just watched about 150 bird games on dvd. kind of forgot just how insanely good bird was.

it really depends on what you value. to you value longevity over peak? defense over scoring? post play or wing play? etc....

i usually settle on:

6. bird
7. duncan
8. shaq
9. hakeem
those are the best guys and are pretty locked in imo. i don't see anyone currently playing surpassing any of those guys for me except maybe lebron.


GINO how can you put Duncan over Hakeem.. Oh my :confusedshrug: .. The world has to be coming to an end. Polar shift must be messing with some peoples minds.. :hammerhead:

[ginobli2311]

GINO how can you put Duncan over Hakeem.. Oh my :confusedshrug: .. The world has to be coming to an end. Polar shift must be messing with some peoples minds.. :hammerhead:

i watched both of their entire careers. i simply think duncan was a slightly better overall player.

its personal preference. please don't act like hakeem was clearly superior to duncan. i'm down for debating it with you, but if you come into the discussion with some absurd notion that its not debatable, then its your mind that has been messed with.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Michael Jordan
Kareem Adul Jabbar
Bill Russell
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird

As great as he is, There is simply not enough room in the top 5 for Duncan. He is in the top 10 all time though.
If Kobe wins #6 this year, than he can pretty much be put above Shaq and Duncan on everyone's lists, and squeezing Duncan outta the top 10.

[AAckley1]

Half the league tanked to get him in 97'

4 rings. 3 finals MVPs. 2 League MVP. 98' ROY. Every Collegiate POY awards in 97'

13 all-stars. 9 1st Team All-NBA. 3 2nd Team All-NBA. 1 3rd Team All-NBA (and probably another this year)


The reason I think TD doesn't get a lot of credit is the simplicity of his game. He rarely puts himself in situations where he can't get out, and I think thats what impresses me the most with Duncan. Opponents know exactly what he's trying to do. Exactly what he wants to do, and yet, he still does it. He's the best PF ever and you can't even question it. He's the 2nd best Post-Jordan era player and is just an all around good guy.

Theres something to be said about a guy who knew he would of been a Top 5 pick after his sophomore year as well as knew about the new rookie pay scale being put into effect and still staying in school. He has played for one of the smallest market teams in the NBA his whole career and never once have you heard disgruntlement, request for trades, or even his contract getting into its final season.

I look at players in my figurative Top 10 of All Time and think of it like this, would I have wanted to sit down and have a beer with them? Tim Duncan passes that test with flying colors.

[SCdac]

Just the fact that he's easily "one of the best big men of all time" is good with me, certainly the best power-forward to play the game. I don't get caught up in rankings too much, they're more outlines than absolutes, clearly. So many different opinions, many valid. What's tricky for me is, some of Tim Duncan's best qualities are intangible. Humility, leadership, strong work ethic, unaffected in losses, etc, people conveniently leave these kinds of things out of rankings, probably because they're not on paper, and TD has been in a small sports market his whole career (less attention). Not only that, but for the majority of his career he's been a model of consistency (nicknamed "Groundhog Day" for a reason). His offensive repertoire is not limited to post ups either, he's routinely taken jumpers and bank shots, faced up and put the ball on the floor, etc (more so in in his physical prime). In his rookie season, he averaged 21.1 points, when the league average was 95 points per game, and he started all 82 games. In the '99 Finals, he averaged 27.4 PPG of the Spurs low-scoring 84 points per contest. That's impressive, let alone the fact he put up 22.2 PPG almost a decade later in the 2007 championship run (w/ 3.1 blocks a game).

[PHILA]

GINO how can you put Duncan over Hakeem.. Oh my :confusedshrug: .. The world has to be coming to an end. Polar shift must be messing with some peoples minds.. :hammerhead:Comparable peak with far greater team success. By the standard most fans have in ranking players this should be no contest

[Hawker]

keep tellin yourself I cant argue 5 other pfs ahead of him

I'm agreeing with you dumbass. It's a fact he's a top 5 pf.

[ILLsmak]

i watched both of their entire careers. i simply think duncan was a slightly better overall player.

its personal preference. please don't act like hakeem was clearly superior to duncan. i'm down for debating it with you, but if you come into the discussion with some absurd notion that its not debatable, then its your mind that has been messed with.

We all know both sides of the argument, but I'm still saying Shaq and Hakeem over Duncan.

-Smak

[MooseJuiceBowen]

We all know both sides of the argument, but I'm still saying Shaq and Hakeem over Duncan.

-Smak

duncan was a better teamate then shaq

better defender

better passer

better shooter

better LEADER

better REBOUNDER

better SHOT BLOCKER

what was shaq?? real ****ing dominant

the ending of the story has yet to be told for both players.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

prove me wrong. game 6 of 02-03 wcf, game 7 vs the pistons he sure as hell wasn't the best player on his team.

not even gonna waste my time with this pathetic statement that duncan isnt good in the playoffs

[ginobli2311]

We all know both sides of the argument, but I'm still saying Shaq and Hakeem over Duncan.

-Smak

cool. i disagree, but its personal preference for that tier of bird/duncan/shaq/hakeem in my opinion.

its very close between all of them and we could make arguments all day.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

when timmy gets his 5th ring you will have to put him in the top 5 or at 6

[SCdac]

We all know both sides of the argument, but I'm still saying Shaq and Hakeem over Duncan.

-Smak

It's all about how you see it...

Elliot Kalb, "Mr. Stats" (longtime NBA statistician for ABC, worked with Bill Walton, Bob Costas, so many more. His notes were often the backbone and foundation of the broadcasts) assuredly knows more about basketball than any of us... and even his rankings would probably find critics. He wrote a book called "Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball", and he ranks Shaquille O'Neal as the greatest of all time (Wilt 2nd, Jordan 3rd), Tim Duncan 9th, and Hakeem Olajuwon 16th. It's all a matter of perspective, and typically on ISH it's the "boxscore perspective". Greatness is subjective and rankings aren't as written in stone as some want to believe.

[NBASTATMAN]

i watched both of their entire careers. i simply think duncan was a slightly better overall player.

its personal preference. please don't act like hakeem was clearly superior to duncan. i'm down for debating it with you, but if you come into the discussion with some absurd notion that its not debatable, then its your mind that has been messed with.


If you say that Duncan had the better career than I would agree with you. If you say that Duncan is on par as a player than I would say your wrong and wouldn't argue cuz I don't think its even an argument.. Both MJ AND KOBE think Hakeem is the best Low post player they have ever see play.. Robert horry says Hakeem is the best he has played with over shaq and duncan..



Maybe its just me remembering what Hakeem did to the Knicks in 94.. I don't know but I do know Duncan would have never gotten close to doing what Hakeem did at his best..

[chazzy]

when timmy gets his 5th ring you will have to put him in the top 5 or at 6
How much of a ranking boost would a potential 5th ring do for him though? He's still good, but not a top 10 player in the league.

[NBASTATMAN]

Comparable peak with far greater team success. By the standard most fans have in ranking players this should be no contest


Duncan was putting up his numbers in a watered down league with few true centers.. Hakeem was killing, drob, ewing, shaq, daugherty, mutombo, mourninG, and others..


Maybe his shots killed me more cuz they seemed to always go in vs the knicks in 1994

[ginobli2311]

If you say that Duncan had the better career than I would agree with you. If you say that Duncan is on par as a player than I would say your wrong and wouldn't argue cuz I don't think its even an argument.. Both MJ AND KOBE think Hakeem is the best Low post player they have ever see play.. Robert horry says Hakeem is the best he has played with over shaq and duncan..

offensively, hakeem is a superior low post player to duncan. i don't debate that for a second.

but the first thing you should discuss with duncan is his defense and rebounding....especially in the playoffs. i could give you the numbers in the playoffs to show you that duncan was a superior rebounder on both ends over hakeem. i could talk about preferring duncan as a defensive anchor of a team because he was more sound and didn't break scheme to go for blocks as often.

i could mention again that duncan/parker/manu have the three highest win percentages of all current players right now. manu doing something that has never been done before. yes, duncan has played on more consistent and better teams, but we can't just discount winning that many games and winning over 50 for 12 straight years now. its historic.

but i'm not going to devalue hakeem. i love hakeem. i just prefer duncan the player over hakeem the player. doesn't have anything to do with career actually. both guys proved they could win a title without an elite 2nd option. they are the only 2 guys to do that since 1980.

both are great and both are comparable. saying its not a debate is an insult to duncan.

agree to disagree.

[AlexanderRight]

top 5 pf's of all time is arguable, not overall of all time

Arguable? He's the best power forward of all time son.

[gcvbcat]

How is Tim Duncan not a top 4 player of all time?

simply because he is not as marketable as kobe,mj,magic , shaq etc

he doen't even have a fancy nickname, he is mr fundamental, not exciting to watch at all. he gets no hype at all.
yet he is the best of this generation & one of the greatest winners of all time.
in my opinion he has been mvp of the league every year since he came in. he has made mediocre players(manu, parker,bowen) look like superstars & carried the spurs to consecutive 50 win seasons. no one else could have done it. put kobe, kg, shaq, dirk on the spurs team & they won't win as much.

the only real superstar he play with was d rob
i only wish they could have played with each other during their primes like pippen & mj

i grudgingly put mj over him (i hate mj but you can't argue with his achievements & his sheer will to win)

[NBASTATMAN]

offensively, hakeem is a superior low post player to duncan. i don't debate that for a second.

but the first thing you should discuss with duncan is his defense and rebounding....especially in the playoffs. i could give you the numbers in the playoffs to show you that duncan was a superior rebounder on both ends over hakeem. i could talk about preferring duncan as a defensive anchor of a team because he was more sound and didn't break scheme to go for blocks as often.

i could mention again that duncan/parker/manu have the three highest win percentages of all current players right now. manu doing something that has never been done before. yes, duncan has played on more consistent and better teams, but we can't just discount winning that many games and winning over 50 for 12 straight years now. its historic.

but i'm not going to devalue hakeem. i love hakeem. i just prefer duncan the player over hakeem the player. doesn't have anything to do with career actually. both guys proved they could win a title without an elite 2nd option. they are the only 2 guys to do that since 1980.

both are great and both are comparable. saying its not a debate is an insult to duncan.

agree to disagree.


It may be a debate..


I will say that Hakeem was better individually on offense and defense.. He just never got to play with a combo like PARKER AND GINO.. Plus the luxury of having Drob to guard Shaq... And Hakeem also never got to be coached by one of the greatest iN POP... The rebounding was very close but I will let Duncan have that.. But after that everything from free throws to shooting, to moves to blk shots went to hakeem.. Duncans best attribute was he never tried to do too much..


But I will never forget Horace grant and Karl Malone pretty much shutting down Duncan in his prime.. I think Duncan had one 40pt game vs Horace in 2002.. But I remember Karl Malone doing a great job on Duncan in 2004..

[BallPhunk]

Re: How is Tim Duncan not a top 4 player of all time?

You answered the question in your own post...



These accomplishments are also during an era in which the weathered a storm of 2 Laker's dynasty teams, one in which had the most dominant player to ever play


You admit Shaq was more dominant (and he was). He's above TD on my list too. :bowdown:

So now for TD to get into the top 5, he could only have 3 players better than him. Who's below TD: MJ? Magic? Wilt? Bird? KAJ? Russell?



and he has beaten an MVP calibre Jason Kidd, a Piston team which dismantled one of the greatest teams ever assembled the year before, and Lebron James.

You're not helping yourself here.

- that Net's team was no world beater
- "a Pistons team that dismantled..." is very misleading given the Lakers trouble that year. They imploded as much as the Pistons won.
- that Cleveland LBJ team was a joke


Pros and cons to the Tim Duncan argument please

Yep, the Western conference was tough. But

- he never beat the Lakers during their peak years except for the year they had David Robinson (old or not).

- they then only beat LA during the down years between Shaq and Pau. Haven't beat LA since Pau arrived.


Pros and cons to the Tim Duncan argument please

Not meaning to dump on TD. He's a phenomenal player, but few people would start a team with him over MJ, Shaq, KAJ, Magic, Bird...

[t-rex]

The further Tim Duncan's career goes the more he makes this case true.

Just recently I heard that the Spurs tied the consecutive 50+ win seasons. Impressive considering it falls hugely on the shoulders of one player. During that stretch winning MVP's, finals MVP, 4 championships, and multiple other awards.

These accomplishments are also during an era in which the weathered a storm of 2 Laker's dynasty teams, one in which had the most dominant player to ever play, and he has beaten an MVP calibre Jason Kidd, a Piston team which dismantled one of the greatest teams ever assembled the year before, and Lebron James. Most of the time enroute through LA, and also what been regularily known as the toughest playoff schedules in the early 00' Western conference.

I'm not much of a Spurs/Duncan fan, but of the guys generally rated above him, I don't see how they are clearly ahead. He's not a 1 hit statistics guy in which he's up there in a multitude of categories all the while his best sidekick ever was either Manu or an older worn down Robinson.

Pros and cons to the Tim Duncan argument please



Duncan is an all time great player. He is probably the best PF in NBA history. But he is just not dominate enough for a long enough period of time as an individual to be on such an exclusive list. Still he is an all time great.

Would you take Prime Duncan over the following players in their prime?

Jabbar (1970-80s)
Bird (1980s)
Magic (1980s)
Chamberlin (1960s)
Jordan (1980s-90s)
Bryant (2000s)
Olajuwan (1980s-90s)
O'neal (1990s-2000s)

If 5 of the above players can't be knocked off by Duncan… then he is not a top 4 player of all time.

For the record, I think all of the players on my list were better players in their prime than Duncan.

[ginobli2311]

[QUOTE=t-rex]Duncan is an all time great player. He is probably the best PF in NBA history. But he is just not dominate enough for a long enough period of time as an individual to be on such an exclusive list. Still he is an all time great.

Would you take Prime Duncan over the following players in their prime?

Jabbar (1970-80s)
Bird (1980s)
Magic (1980s)
Chamberlin (1960s)
Jordan (1980s-90s)
Bryant (2000s)
Olajuwan (1980s-90s)
O'neal (1990s-2000s)

If 5 of the above players can't be knocked off by Duncan

[ILLsmak]

It's all about how you see it...

Elliot Kalb, "Mr. Stats" (longtime NBA statistician for ABC, worked with Bill Walton, Bob Costas, so many more. His notes were often the backbone and foundation of the broadcasts) assuredly knows more about basketball than any of us... and even his rankings would probably find critics. He wrote a book called "Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball", and he ranks Shaquille O'Neal as the greatest of all time (Wilt 2nd, Jordan 3rd), Tim Duncan 9th, and Hakeem Olajuwon 16th. It's all a matter of perspective, and typically on ISH it's the "boxscore perspective". Greatness is subjective and rankings aren't as written in stone as some want to believe.

Nah that's not why for Shaq. I mean, for me he got his numbers but it's just his presence. Nobody could match up with him. Every player he ever guarded was held, on average, to below their normal stats. There were some good jump shooting games by players against Shaq, but overall, he beasted every player he ever played against. Since he came into the league he was posterizing and demoralizing every player that got in his way. On the other end, people talk about his D, but Shaq's D was exactly what you'd want from a C because people were afraid to go in the lane.

Duncan has intangibles... sure. But the thing is... people say stuff like Duncan was a better team mate and better leader... I dunno how you can say things like that. Duncan has not been in the same situations.

I think a great wing is better than a great C because no matter what you can't keep the ball from a good wing. But you can from a good C. If you have a halfway decent team of shooters and a player who can feed the post, then sure... but we saw with Kobe and Hardaway that sometimes they would not even pass him the ball. That's why I think a great wing is better than a great C.

In terms of big men, it's hard to rank another one over Shaq. Say what you want about skill, but as I said people were afraid to play against Shaq. And it's not like he is taking bad shots.



-Smak

[t-rex]

prime kareem/jordan/magic/wilt/russell were all better imo.

prime kobe? no way in hell am i taking prime kobe over prime duncan.
prime shaq? close....i'll take peak/prime shaq over duncan.
prime bird? close....i'll take bird
hakeem? close....i'll take duncan

but we don't just go off peak/primes. its a factor, but not the end all be all.

the way i like to look at a career is to take the 12 or so best years (usually great players have around 10 to 14 elite years) and compare them.

the best 12 years of duncan's career match up very well with shaq/hakeem/bird.....but fall short of jordan/kareem/magic/russell/wilt imo.

kobe doesn't belong on that list imo.

Funny, I think prime Duncan matches up very well against Prime Russell. However I would take Bryant and Hakeem over Duncan in a second. I think Hakeem is one of the most underrated great players in NBA history. In fact no all time great may have done more with less than Hakeem Olajuwan did.

Bird and Duncan is a good matchup. In fact under your guidelines, taking into account length of career, Duncan might have an edge. Bird was great. But he only had about 8 good years (1981-1988). And only 4 GOAT peak years (84,85,86,87). Duncan was better for far longer than Bird was.

But to go back to the thread OP

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan can alternate from top 6-9 on my list. Personally, I just thought(and still think) that Shaq and Hakeem were better players, but I don't have a problem with anyone who disagrees.

[t-rex]

Duncan can alternate from top 6-9 on my list. Personally, I just thought(and still think) that Shaq and Hakeem were better players, but I don't have a problem with anyone who disagrees.


If you look at just post players,

Wilt
Olajuwan
Shaq
Jabbar

all rank ahead of Duncan. Not only is Duncan not a top 4 player of all time, he isn't even a top 4 post player in NBA history.

[Kellogs4toniee]

Duncan was putting up his numbers in a watered down league with few true centers.. Hakeem was killing, drob, ewing, shaq, daugherty, mutombo, mourninG, and others..


Maybe his shots killed me more cuz they seemed to always go in vs the knicks in 1994


Yea, but Duncan was also able to match up, compete, and beat a prime Shaq who also at the time benefited from a lack of quality centers. So there is absolutely no reason not to believe that Duncan would be able to match up against the centers of the late 80's / 90's when he defeated a top center in his prime who did play and thrive in that period as well.

[Scholar]

Tim Duncan is definitely top 5 PFs, but I don't see him being top 5 of all-time. He's a talented player, one of the best Big Men to ever do it, but not the greatest player ever.

[ILLsmak]

Yea, but Duncan was also able to match up, compete, and beat a prime Shaq who also at the time benefited from a lack of quality centers. So there is absolutely no reason not to believe that Duncan would be able to match up against the centers of the late 80's / 90's when he defeated a top center in his prime who did play and thrive in that period as well.

But... he also had help. You think if you put Prime Shaq and TD head to head that Shaq wouldn't tea bag him? You say that basketball is a team game, sure, but Shaq can cover TD without a double team.

Remember that was back when TD was still playing "PF"

-Smak

[Ne 1]

You admit Shaq was more dominant (and he was). He's above TD on my list too.

Their resumes and team success are about even, Shaq was individually more dominating though and extremely good during his peak/prime. However Duncan was consistently good for a longer period of time.

Guess it depends what you value more. A superior peak or consistently playing at a high level longer?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Their resumes and team success are about even, Shaq was individually more dominating though and extremely good during his peak/prime. However Duncan was consistently good for a longer period of time.

Guess it depends what you value more. A superior peak or consistently playing at a high level longer?

Well, Shaq as of now has more years playing at a high level, though Duncan was probably closer to his own peak for longer.

But if you compare 13th year Shaq in 2005 when he was an MVP candidate to Duncan last season, Shaq easily wins the comparison same with 14th year Shaq who averaged 20/9/2/2, 60 FG% on a championship team to Duncan this year, Shaq again easily wins the comparison.

So I give Shaq the edge for both peak and longevity.

[SCdac]

Nah that's not why for Shaq. I mean, for me he got his numbers but it's just his presence. Nobody could match up with him. Every player he ever guarded was held, on average, to below their normal stats. There were some good jump shooting games by players against Shaq, but overall, he beasted every player he ever played against. Since he came into the league he was posterizing and demoralizing every player that got in his way. On the other end, people talk about his D, but Shaq's D was exactly what you'd want from a C because people were afraid to go in the lane.

Duncan has intangibles... sure. But the thing is... people say stuff like Duncan was a better team mate and better leader... I dunno how you can say things like that. Duncan has not been in the same situations.

I think a great wing is better than a great C because no matter what you can't keep the ball from a good wing. But you can from a good C. If you have a halfway decent team of shooters and a player who can feed the post, then sure... but we saw with Kobe and Hardaway that sometimes they would not even pass him the ball. That's why I think a great wing is better than a great C.

In terms of big men, it's hard to rank another one over Shaq. Say what you want about skill, but as I said people were afraid to play against Shaq. And it's not like he is taking bad shots.


I'm not saying Shaq was all-out better than Duncan, I'm saying, not everybody see's Hakeem as "absolutely better" than Duncan. It's very very debatable, if there is such a thing (it's either debatable or not).

Watch some prime Duncan when he was 24, and not 34, to get an idea....

we're talking about a player who won back to back MVP's during Shaq's dominance in the early 2000's.

You kind of make it sound as if Duncan was not dominant, in his own right, on both ends of the court. He put up 32 points in his first ever playoff game at 21 years old. The next season, he was the only player in the NBA to rank top-10 in points, rebounds, blocks, and FG%, while he lead his franchise to their first ever championship.

Duncan perennially was the leader of a team that had some of the best point-differential's in the decade (not that ESPN or the casual fan would care, but it's highly indicative of his impact), and he perennially lead the team in blocks and points.

If you think teams weren't game-planning for Duncan, anticipating his role as the best offensive player for SA, and expert at passing out of the low-post, you are mistaken. Spurs for years ran a play called "4 Down", in which is was basically throw the ball in to Duncan in the post, let him attract double/triple teams, and let him create a shot.... and it was effective enough to bring 4 trophies.

[ILLsmak]

Their resumes and team success are about even, Shaq was individually more dominating though and extremely good during his peak/prime. However Duncan was consistently good for a longer period of time.

Guess it depends what you value more. A superior peak or consistently playing at a high level longer?

Shaq won a ring at age 34 averaging 20 and 9.

Edit: Yea, but to dude above me... it's not about what Duncan isn't. It's about what Shaq is. It's like talking about Kobe did this Kobe did that... but you still can't compare him to MJ. Can you imagine what Shaq's career would have looked like if he got drafted onto a 60 win team? He got put on a team that didn't even have a franchise a few years ago. Then he went to a rebuilding Laker team. Imagine if he got drafted to Phoenix because Charles barkley went down for a year and they tanked to get him. TD had a seamless transition to the NBA.

-Smak

[DaHeezy]

Just wanted to make a comment. I stand by my OP, but it's funny how if you replaced TD with Kobe and portrayed it the EXACT same way with no intention of bringing up you know who...how different this thread would be.

no:

- "OP is a *******"
- "U Mad?" followed by a you know who gif
-" This is the stupidest comment, and Kobe wasn't "Da Man" for 3 of the championships"

IMO Kobe has a similar resume to Duncan. Just putting it out there.

Goes to show how Jordan fans get their panties in a bunch and show their peacock feathers.

[SinJackal]

MJ
Magic
Larry
KAJ
Russell

All of them disagree and say he's only top 10.

MJ, Russel, and Kareem, yes.

I'd argue Magic belong anywhere close to that high. His defense was shitty, to say the least. Bird, while great, tends to be overrated just like Magic is because of the era. Let's not forget how ridiculously stacked each of those players' teams were. You can't say the same about Duncan's Spurs. Bird is below Duncan right now. Duncan could retire tomorrow and he'd be above Bird. Magic is barely above Duncan solely due to 5 rings, and arguably shouldn't be due to shit defensive ability. Great passer, exciting to watch, personified the league along with Bird, but in reality, popularity doesn't = better player.

If Duncan wins this year, he is top 5 easily (passing Magic for #5). If he gets the Finals MVP too and has a good playoffs, he's #4 edging out Wilt barely, since Duncan would basically be nearly the Jordan of modern bigs in terms of championship success. You can't argue with 5 rings in 5 tries, as well as near DPOY multiple times, multi time MVP, 3-4 Finals MVPs, very consistent stats, and all star/all nba team/all nba defensive team every season.

Nobody else has managed that. Ever. Of course, Tim Duncan will always be underrated due to the "modern fan" underrating bigs, and overrating perimeter players since those are more exciting for the casual modern fans to watch.

[SCdac]

Shaq won a ring at age 34 averaging 20 and 9.

Edit: Yea, but to dude above me... it's not about what Duncan isn't. It's about what Shaq is. It's like talking about Kobe did this Kobe did that... but you still can't compare him to MJ. Can you imagine what Shaq's career would have looked like if he got drafted onto a 60 win team? He got put on a team that didn't even have a franchise a few years ago. Then he went to a rebuilding Laker team. Imagine if he got drafted to Phoenix because Charles barkley went down for a year and they tanked to get him. TD had a seamless transition to the NBA.

-Smak

Personally, I think the gap between Shaq and Duncan is much smaller than the gap between Kobe and Jordan... Much smaller.

And to imply that Duncan didn't MAKE those teams what they were would be disingenuous, he MADE it seamless.... In 1999, outside of a 33 year old Robinson and 30 year old Elliott... not a single Spur averaged double figures in the regular season.

look at his 1999 Finals stats in just his second season:

game 1: 44 minutes, 33 points... of 89 Spurs points
game 2: 45 minutes, 25 points... of 80
game 3: 47 minutes, 20 points.... of 81 (spurs only loss)
game 4: 47 minutes, 28 points.... of 96
game 5: 46 minutes, 31 points.... of 78

he played virtually the whole series! and scored about a third of their points

I fully understand the gist of your post is more about "it's not about what Duncan isn't, it's about what Shaq is" .... but I think you're underrating what Duncan "is".

Whichever team Duncan landed on, he would have changed it drastically. He was that good. Good enough to win championships with entirely different rosters surrounding him (1999 to 2007).

[Fatal9]

Should easily be ranked over Wilt. Much better playoff performer, much better leader, consistently a great team player/winner and I can't imagine Duncan in his prime being on a 31 win team (with two other all-stars), or on the worst team in the league (and then getting traded for scrubs).

[Ne 1]

Should easily be ranked over Wilt. Much better playoff performer, much better leader, consistently a great team player/winner and I can't imagine Duncan in his prime being on a 31 win team (with two other all-stars), or on the worst team in the league (and then getting traded for scrubs).

inb4 several long essays about Wilt from jlauber.

[ginobli2311]

MJ, Russel, and Kareem, yes.

I'd argue Magic belong anywhere close to that high. His defense was shitty, to say the least. Bird, while great, tends to be overrated just like Magic is because of the era. Let's not forget how ridiculously stacked each of those players' teams were. You can't say the same about Duncan's Spurs. Bird is below Duncan right now. Duncan could retire tomorrow and he'd be above Bird. Magic is barely above Duncan solely due to 5 rings, and arguably shouldn't be due to shit defensive ability. Great passer, exciting to watch, personified the league along with Bird, but in reality, popularity doesn't = better player.

If Duncan wins this year, he is top 5 easily (passing Magic for #5). If he gets the Finals MVP too and has a good playoffs, he's #4 edging out Wilt barely, since Duncan would basically be nearly the Jordan of modern bigs in terms of championship success. You can't argue with 5 rings in 5 tries, as well as near DPOY multiple times, multi time MVP, 3-4 Finals MVPs, very consistent stats, and all star/all nba team/all nba defensive team every season.

Nobody else has managed that. Ever. Of course, Tim Duncan will always be underrated due to the "modern fan" underrating bigs, and overrating perimeter players since those are more exciting for the casual modern fans to watch.


did you see the stat how duncan/parker/manu have the three best winning percentages of any active player. by like 4 percent. manu is the only player in history to play 500 regular season games and have less than 200 losses. manu has only 167 losses. unreal. and this was done in january of this year. the winning percentages of have gone up since then. crazy stuff.

12 straight years of 50 or more wins. i go back and forth on duncan. i didn't seen russell or wilt...and i missed most of prime kareem. so its really hard to rank those guys accordingly.

i have jordan for sure higher than duncan. i also have magic and bird higher, but i go back and forth so much. i watched a ton of bird games recently and now i have bird higher. its just so hard to determine with all of these guys because they are so great.

but damn. duncan's body of work is insane...and his overall impact defensively is the best i've seen since i started closely following the game 30 plus years ago.

[SinJackal]

Just wanted to make a comment. I stand by my OP, but it's funny how if you replaced TD with Kobe and portrayed it the EXACT same way with no intention of bringing up you know who...how different this thread would be.

no:

- "OP is a *******"
- "U Mad?" followed by a you know who gif
-" This is the stupidest comment, and Kobe wasn't "Da Man" for 3 of the championships"

IMO Kobe has a similar resume to Duncan. Just putting it out there.

Goes to show how Jordan fans get their panties in a bunch and show their peacock feathers.

Some key differences:

Kobe failed bigtime in terms of team success when Shaq left. Duncan did not fail when DRob left.

Duncan was winning Finals MVPs and MVPs when DRob was on the team. Shaq was the clear best player on the Lakers when he was there, not Kobe.

Duncan has won a ring with no stars. Kobe has not won 50 games even once without a stacked team that was considered at least top 1-3 in the NBA talent-wise.

Kobe played his career under Phil Jackson, a proven championship coach who had already won six rings coaching a great SG. Duncan started his career under an unproven coach who's career record as a coach was 17-47.

With the exception of his first season (I guess first season is arguable, but imo DRob was still better at that point), Duncan was the best player on his team for his entire career up until right this season. Kobe wasn't the best player on his team until nearly a decade into his career.

They have some similarities, sure. But the intangible ones. . .the ones that propel players from top 10 to top 5, Duncan has, and Kobe doesn't. If Kobe wins more rings, then his stock rises. It just doesn't rise into top 4-5. He can pass Magic maybe, since they have had similar careers. But the difference is that Magic overtook the reigns as best Laker early. Kobe didn't until Shaq left.

[SinJackal]

did you see the stat how duncan/parker/manu have the three best winning percentages of any active player. by like 4 percent. manu is the only player in history to play 500 regular season games and have less than 200 losses. manu has only 167 losses. unreal. and this was done in january of this year. the winning percentages of have gone up since then. crazy stuff.

12 straight years of 50 or more wins. i go back and forth on duncan. i didn't seen russell or wilt...and i missed most of prime kareem. so its really hard to rank those guys accordingly.

i have jordan for sure higher than duncan. i also have magic and bird higher, but i go back and forth so much. i watched a ton of bird games recently and now i have bird higher. its just so hard to determine with all of these guys because they are so great.

but damn. duncan's body of work is insane...and his overall impact defensively is the best i've seen since i started closely following the game 30 plus years ago.

Yeah I did see that. I'm not surprised.

I'm a big Bird fan personally. I have him above Kobe still (sometimes I say Kobe > Bird to avoid Kobe stans crying and derailing threads if I post my GOAT list), but I have Duncan above Bird because of defensive ability. Bird's decent defense actually makes me prefer Bird over Magic were I to pick a player for my team, but Magic's better career success places him above Bird on GOAT lists (rightfully so).

With Duncan, I've seen almost all of his games, so I'm pretty confident in saying he's top 5 should he win another ring. I think if fans can get over "having" to have a player score 25+ PPG, or be a perimeter player that gets 10+ assists, and actually watches prime Duncan instead of 35 year old current Duncan, they would have more appreciation for the huge impact he's had throughout his career. Duncan's the type of player who can score 10 points, but have had the best game that night at the same time. He doesn't need to score to radically influence games, and yet he was a 22-25 PPG scorer in his prime anyway.



inb4 several long essays about Wilt from jlauber.

He was just trying to draw the Wilt fans in to attack Duncan and get into arguments with people trying to give Duncan his props. Fairly obvious. jlauber's not dumb enough to say more than 1-2 paragraphs in response to that obvious bait job.

[Fatal9]

He was just trying to draw the Wilt fans in to attack Duncan and get into arguments with people trying to give Duncan his props. Fairly obvious.
Uh, no. I just don't like seeing a player being listed as "unquestionably" higher when he's obviously not. I have Duncan over Magic on my list too (6th on most days), and wouldn't argue if anyone tried to take Bird over him (though I don't). So no, it's not some weird conspiracy to get people to "attack Duncan", quit being an insecure Spurs homer.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Uh, no. I just don't like seeing a player being listed as "unquestionably" higher when he's obviously not. I have Duncan over Magic on my list too (6th on most days), and wouldn't argue if anyone tried to take Bird over him (though I don't). So no, it's not some weird conspiracy to get people to "attack Duncan", quit being an insecure Spurs homer.

Me too, I go back and forth with Duncan and Magic, but I'd probably go with Duncan and both over Wilt.

[Gotterdammerung]

In a hypothetical draft of GOAT players, all available in their physical prime, dollars to donuts guys like Wilt, Shaquille, and Jordan would go in the top three. In whatever order. Duncan, Hakeem, Magic, Bird taking the next four spots. Abdul-Jabbar, Kobe, LeBron, Oscar, and Russell would be 8th thru 12th.

It doesn't really matter which slot they happen to be taken - you're getting a surefire all time great. I'm sure I'm leaving someone out like Dr. J or Barkley or Barry.

[alenleomessi]

So Duncan is better than Bird ? Ok...

[SinJackal]

Uh, no. I just don't like seeing a player being listed as "unquestionably" higher when he's obviously not. I have Duncan over Magic on my list too (6th on most days), and wouldn't argue if anyone tried to take Bird over him (though I don't). So no, it's not some weird conspiracy to get people to "attack Duncan", quit being an insecure Spurs homer.

I didn't say it was a conspiracy. It couldn't be, since you were the only one involved. I guess you don't know what conspiracy even means, so that's whatever.

And yes, you were clearly trying to bait jlauber and the other Wilt fans. Which is why you excluded that sentence when you quoted my post. Clearly you're the only one here who's insecure.



So Duncan is better than Bird ? Ok...

And better than Kobe.

[ginobli2311]

i've posted it before, but people seem to ignore it:

since 1980:

only 3 superstar players have won titles without an all-nba teammates. jordaan and hakeem did it once.

TIM DUNCAN HAS DONE IT 4 ****ING TIMES. THAT IS UNREAL. THAT IS THE STUFF THAT MAKES LEGENDS.

nobody has done that in the history of the game people. nobody.

[ShaqAttack3234]

i've posted it before, but people seem to ignore it:

since 1980:

only 3 superstar players have won titles without an all-nba teammates. jordaan and hakeem did it once.

TIM DUNCAN HAS DONE IT 4 ****ING TIMES. THAT IS UNREAL. THAT IS THE STUFF THAT MAKES LEGENDS.

nobody has done that in the history of the game people. nobody.

And again, the one year that Pippen wasn't an all-nba player(1991), he should've been. So really it's 2 players who have done, but with that being said, David Robinson was a top 3 center in 1999 and Manu was arguably top 15 player in 2005 and played like a borderline superstar in the playoffs that year.

[ginobli2311]

And again, the one year that Pippen wasn't an all-nba player(1991), he should've been. So really it's 2 players who have done, but with that being said, David Robinson was a top 3 center in 1999 and Manu was arguably top 15 player in 2005 and played like a borderline superstar in the playoffs that year.

yea.

i agree. i'm not saying duncan hasn't had good help, but its still remarkable to do it 4 times.

and like you said, pippen was without a doubt a top an elite player in 91.

so yea...really only 2 guys have done it.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

And again, the one year that Pippen wasn't an all-nba player(1991), he should've been. So really it's 2 players who have done, but with that being said, David Robinson was a top 3 center in 1999 and Manu was arguably top 15 player in 2005 and played like a borderline superstar in the playoffs that year.

according to ish ginobili isnt even a top 100 player in the league at any year

[t-rex]

In a hypothetical draft of GOAT players, all available in their physical prime, dollars to donuts guys like Wilt, Shaquille, and Jordan would go in the top three. In whatever order. Duncan, Hakeem, Magic, Bird taking the next four spots. Abdul-Jabbar, Kobe, LeBron, Oscar, and Russell would be 8th thru 12th.

It doesn't really matter which slot they happen to be taken - you're getting a surefire all time great. I'm sure I'm leaving someone out like Dr. J or Barkley or Barry.


IMO

[Gotterdammerung]

[QUOTE=t-rex]IMO

[SCdac]

according to ish ginobili isnt even a top 100 player in the league at any year

yeah, according to G.O.A.T , Manu doesn't even crack the top-100 all time, while Parker is something like 85th if I remember right. Can't say I agree, but it goes to show in the grand scheme that Duncan accomplished alot with a little.

[ShaqAttack3234]

yea.

i agree. i'm not saying duncan hasn't had good help, but its still remarkable to do it 4 times.

and like you said, pippen was without a doubt a top an elite player in 91.

so yea...really only 2 guys have done it.

Yeah, although it doesn't really mean they had less help because look at the 1980 Lakers, Kareem didn't have an all-nba teammate, but he did have a talented cast.

[ginobli2311]

Yeah, although it doesn't really mean they had less help because look at the 1980 Lakers, Kareem didn't have an all-nba teammate, but he did have a talented cast.

wouldn't magic have made all-nba though if they did three teams back then?

i mean....18 points 8 boards 7 assists on the year for magic in 1980

18 points 11 boards 9 assists in the playoffs. i think its fair to say magic was all-nba that year.

[ShaqAttack3234]

wouldn't magic have made all-nba though if they did three teams back then?

i mean....18 points 8 boards 7 assists on the year for magic in 1980

18 points 11 boards 9 assists in the playoffs. i think its fair to say magic was all-nba that year.

There's no way of knowing, I mean I'd take '91 Pippen over '80 Magic and for whatever reason Pippen wasn't selected.

[westsideozzie]

I am a Tim Duncan apologist. The best power forward of all time. But let me tell you why. Hakeem for a three or four year period was the best center of all time. He basically was an athletic Tim Duncan. Basketball came late to Hakeem, but his overall body of work is not as good as Tim Duncan. Hakeem's first ten years were not as good as Tim's.

Tim Duncan game is complimentary to winning basketball. His skill set allows you to play with balance. Consider this, have Bosh and Duncan switch teams and what do you think the Heat's record would be.. Even with Duncan at his advanced age, I can see the heat on 72 game pace with Timmy...

[Collie]

You may be right, but I personally was never a fan of a center that didn't play physical or rebound like a fool or have the stamina to bang for 40 plus minutes without wearin down.

No list of GOAT is truly objective. They are all already colored by biases and prejudices, not to mention presuppositions, examined and unexamined.

80's KAJ yeah sure, but PRIME KAJ rebounded like crazy, played tons of minutes and had dominant defense. His career rpg average is 11.2 - that's higher than KG, Shaq and right about Duncan's level - and that's with years of grabbing 8 rpg and below.

[ginobli2311]

There's no way of knowing, I mean I'd take '91 Pippen over '80 Magic and for whatever reason Pippen wasn't selected.

i would as well.

the simple fact remains that its next to impossible to win without an all-nba teammate or borderline top 15 player at your side.

this includes manu and parker. both of which were very close in 05 and 07.

if you get down to it. its really only hakeem in 94 and duncan in 03 that have won titles without this kind of help.

[ShaqAttack3234]

i would as well.

the simple fact remains that its next to impossible to win without an all-nba teammate or borderline top 15 player at your side.

this includes manu and parker. both of which were very close in 05 and 07.

if you get down to it. its really only hakeem in 94 and duncan in 03 that have won titles without this kind of help.

Yeah, and it's really not a formula I'd bet on either. You need everything to go right, you pretty much need the best player in the league, and you need that player to dominate the postseason and you need other guys stepping up at all of the right moments and having surprise games here and there.

When I ranked the top 25 players for 2003, no Spur other than Duncan came particularly close to cracking the list. But when you actually break down the contributions during the playoffs, a lot of guys stepped up at various times. But again, you can't bet on that happening. The one thing they did have was good depth and experience.

[jlauber]

Should easily be ranked over Wilt. Much better playoff performer, much better leader, consistently a great team player/winner and I can't imagine Duncan in his prime being on a 31 win team (with two other all-stars), or on the worst team in the league (and then getting traded for scrubs).

This coming from someone who probably has Carrot-Top ranked ahead of Wilt on his all-time list.


As for using common sense...I can see Duncan having having an argument over Wilt. He has had more TEAM success. However, I see NO argument for Bird or Hakeem over Chamberlain. I could see arguments for Shaq and Kareem, but IMHO, neither dominated their opposing centers, either in thr regular season, or the post-season, like Wilt. Chamberlain was either outplaying, or downright obliterating his opposing centers in virtually EVERY post-season series. And he never had a relatively poor series against a scrub center in the playoffs, either. Some will cite his "lower" scoring, but they NEVER acknowledge just how much he limited his opposing centers, even when his own numbers declined slightly. Or the fact that he just crushed them on the glass. Or that he had MANY games of double digit blocks. Or that he took mediocre rosters to within an eyelash of knocking off the greatest Dynasty in major professional team sport's history. Or that he DID lead two team's overwhelming titles. And, of course, along the way, he dominated his sport like no other athlete in a major professional team sport (at least in the US.) He STILL holds some 130 records, many of which will never be approached.

IMHO, Russell won...whether he was the best player on the floor, or not, he just plain won. You simply can't argue with 11 rings. Although, to Wilt's credit, he was able to lead his team to within nine total points of beating Russell's Celtics on four occassions. AND, he DID beat Russell and the Celtics, and after EIGHT titles in a row. MJ's six rings with spectacular post-season scoring also gives him an edge over Wilt. And then Magic, who elevated his teammates and led them to dominating the entire decade of the 80's. Those are the only players that I would rank ahead of Wilt.



After that, Kareem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem, and Bird.

[ShaqAttack3234]

This coming from someone who probably has Carrot-Top ranked ahead of Wilt on his all-time list.

Nah, he had an argument, but his accomplishments are tainted by his steroid use.

http://www.dumbbellsweights.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/carrot-top-steroids.jpg

[jlauber]

Nah, he had an argument, but his accomplishments are tainted by his steroid use.

http://www.dumbbellsweights.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/carrot-top-steroids.jpg

:roll: :cheers:

[twintowers]

Duncan gets way too much credit, he's not top five dude.

You should just shut your mouth so that the shit like that wont come out again....:wtf:

[ginobli2311]

Yeah, and it's really not a formula I'd bet on either. You need everything to go right, you pretty much need the best player in the league, and you need that player to dominate the postseason and you need other guys stepping up at all of the right moments and having surprise games here and there.

When I ranked the top 25 players for 2003, no Spur other than Duncan came particularly close to cracking the list. But when you actually break down the contributions during the playoffs, a lot of guys stepped up at various times. But again, you can't bet on that happening. The one thing they did have was good depth and experience.

right. you basically need an all time great dominating at a great level surrounded by enough tough role players willing to make big plays and step up.

its not anything that can be reproduced at all. and it probably can't even be done by a perimeter player. you need an all time great big as your best player to probably accomplish it.

which is why i don't hold the last few years against lebron. other than the 5 greatest bigs of all time, i don't think anyone even sniffs a title on those teams. including magic/michael/larry....i just don't see it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

right. you basically need an all time great dominating at a great level surrounded by enough tough role players willing to make big plays and step up.

its not anything that can be reproduced at all. and it probably can't even be done by a perimeter player. you need an all time great big as your best player to probably accomplish it.

which is why i don't hold the last few years against lebron. other than the 5 greatest bigs of all time, i don't think anyone even sniffs a title on those teams. including magic/michael/larry....i just don't see it.

I hold last year against Lebron, not because he didn't win a title, but because he played so poorly those last 3 games and I really don't think he tried that hard in those last 3 games.

Though I've said several times that they probably would have had a much better chance of winning if they didn't trade for Jamison which IMO, made them a worse defensive team.

As far as 2009? Lebron actually could've won a title that year playing no differently than he did. Nobody expected Howard to dominate like that and even so, Lewis had one game-winner and another shot to send game 4 into OT. And that was with Mo shooting 37%. Cleveland actually had a great chance to win a title in 2009 and were a legit contender. Lebron played all-time great basketball all year, it just came down to bad match ups. But even so, if Mo played like he did in the regular season or Rashard's 2 shots don't go in(one of the problems Lewis caused Cleveland because their power forwards couldn't guard him on the perimeter) then the 2009 Cavs may very well have won a title. They would've had to get by the Lakers, but I think that would have been a good series either way.

[sh0wtime]

How? Because there is no official top 10 list nor any official "GOAT", its all opinions based on a combination of the criterias you go after, what you value the most, your knowledge of the players and a little add of bias.

[Big#50]

KAJ
Duncan
SHAQ
MJ
Bird
This is my top five.

[ginobli2311]

I hold last year against Lebron, not because he didn't win a title, but because he played so poorly those last 3 games and I really don't think he tried that hard in those last 3 games.

Though I've said several times that they probably would have had a much better chance of winning if they didn't trade for Jamison which IMO, made them a worse defensive team.

As far as 2009? Lebron actually could've won a title that year playing no differently than he did. Nobody expected Howard to dominate like that and even so, Lewis had one game-winner and another shot to send game 4 into OT. And that was with Mo shooting 37%. Cleveland actually had a great chance to win a title in 2009 and were a legit contender. Lebron played all-time great basketball all year, it just came down to bad match ups. But even so, if Mo played like he did in the regular season or Rashard's 2 shots don't go in(one of the problems Lewis caused Cleveland because their power forwards couldn't guard him on the perimeter) then the 2009 Cavs may very well have won a title. They would've had to get by the Lakers, but I think that would have been a good series either way.

exactly. that is what i'm getting at.

i hold lebron responsible for his level of play and impact last year...not losing.

same thing with 09 but the reverse. i hold what lebron did in the playoffs in 09 in very high regard because of his level of play and impact....even though they lost.

yea, lebron in 09 was good enough to do something historic. he was on par with the impact of duncan and hakeem, but like you said, certain events that were out of his control really went against him. he didn't have those tough role players step up. his guys played worse than normal, not better. and then the magic played lights out.

but this goes back to the formula for winning as a superstar. and its simple:

1. an all-nba teammate or at the very least a borderline top 10 to 15 player in the league
2. good to great interior defense and rebounding


those are the main criteria. often title teams have a good to great bench player and a great coach as well.

but you pretty much have to have the 2 things above. its extremely rare to win without it. like once every 15 years rare.

[NBASTATMAN]

KAJ
Duncan
SHAQ
MJ
Bird
This is my top five.



:cheers:

oh no

[Psileas]

Should easily be ranked over Wilt. Much better playoff performer, much better leader, consistently a great team player/winner and I can't imagine Duncan in his prime being on a 31 win team (with two other all-stars), or on the worst team in the league (and then getting traded for scrubs).

I can't imagine Wilt at Duncan's current age average 13/9 or play only 29 mpg, even in a league littered with great centers like the 1971 one. Similarly for just about any respective age. Neither do I imagine Wilt having a 4 p/2 r (2/9 FG) playoff game and certainly can't imagine anyone writing newspaper/magazine articles wondering if "Duncan is too good for the sake of the game" or "how well teams -one by one- have fared against Duncan up to now", as was the case with a SI (I think) article from Wilt's rookie season. Wilt could be the biggest chicken in the world (which of course he wasn't) and still rank ahead of Duncan in terms of all factors taken into account.

[Johnni Gade]

MJ
Magic
Larry
KAJ
Russell

All of them disagree and say he's only top 10.
^^

[KB2clutch]

KAJ
Duncan
SHAQ
MJ
Bird
This is my top five.

thats a horrible top 5... how are you gonna put duncan and bird over kobe??? plus duncan has the least entertaining game i have ever seen and for that reason he shouldnt be a top 4 player of all time

[ILLsmak]

yea.

i agree. i'm not saying duncan hasn't had good help, but its still remarkable to do it 4 times.

and like you said, pippen was without a doubt a top an elite player in 91.

so yea...really only 2 guys have done it.


Yea, but... it's also misleading. It's also wrong that you need a 2nd option to win a ring. Usually, a 2nd option wing player helps with getting calls... like if the main big man is struggling the 2nd option can drive and get calls.

Assuming player A stays healthy and doesn't foul out (which of course, is a huge assumption...) all you need is shooters. It basically comes down to shooters. If your shooters make shots, you win. You take Shaq, TD, Hakeem... etc. Shit, even someone like Ewing. Give them a PF who can help on the boards/D and also hit a midrange shot and finish a layup. Then the other 3 can be players who are not horrible defenders and are shooters.

Of course, there aren't that many shooters in the NBA... and rarely do you get them on the same team. But you look at like Kenny Smith or Bruce Bowen... those guys were doing work.

If there was an all-role player team TD would have someone on it every year he won. Bowen was an all-nba role player. And I'd go as far as to say since they haven't replaced him (even though they have a more "talented" RJ) that they aren't going to win another ring.

I don't care, man, you guys can try to look at intangibles and pretend there is something that makes TD better, but in terms of looking at the two... I just can't believe it. You guys must have forgotten how good Shaq was... that's all I can say.

-Smak

[The Iron Fist]

Given statistics and accomplishements I'd say Duncan is right in that mix. Acheivement-wise he's very similar to Larry Bird, if not better.


Doesn't Kobe play in the same era as Duncan,

and get slammed for playing in that era?

Why does one guy get credit for playing in this era, and one doesn't?

[jlauber]

Psileas,

Wilt, in his LAST two seasons was clearly no worse than the second best center in the league, and a top-5 player (at ages 35 and 36.) Furthermore, and as I have posted many times, he was NEVER outplayed in the post-season. In fact, those that would argue Kareem in '71 and '72 need only read the media's take on their confrontations. In '72, Kareem couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat in the last four games, and looked like a dear in the headlights when Wilt was blocking some 5 sky-hooks per game. And remember, in the 70-71 season, Kareem's Bucks were a 66-16 championship TEAM, and were HEAVILY FAVORED to repeat in '72. Meanwhile, Wilt's '71 Lakers went 48-34, and BOTH West and Baylor missed the post-season. When Baylor retired early in '72, the Lakers were generally written off by the "experts." However, Sharman stunned the NBA when he unleashed a fast-break offense (with FOUR players of 30+ years old), ignited by WILT's defense, rebounding, and outlet passing. LA went on that amazing 33 game winning streak, and romped to a 69-13 record. Wilt averaged 15 ppg, 19 rpg, and shot .649 from the field. Still, most experts predicted the much younger Bucks, who went 63-19, would beat the Lakers. And after they pounded LA in game one, 93-72, in LA, the general consensus was, not IF Milwaukee would win the series, but WHEN. But, Chamberlain's defense turned the tide, and the Lakers won four of the next five games, including a 115-90 blowout in game five, and a remarkable 4th quarter comeback win in Milwaukee in game six. In that last game, Chamberlain THOROUGHLY outplayed Kareem down the stretch, and finsihed with 20 points on 8-12 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and 9 blocked shots (five on Kareem.) In the last four games, Kareem shot .414...a player who had shot .574 over the course of the season. Some here will argue that Oscar was not at 100%, and he probably wasn't, but even his own coach denied it.

Now, for those that argue that Russell outplayed Wilt in '62...I have yet to read an sensible post explaining how. Chamberlain outscored Russell by a significant margin. He outrebounded Russell. And, he probably outshot Russell, as well. BUT, even beyond all of that, Wilt's TEAM was outgunned in HOFers by a 6-3 margin. Furthermore, they ALL shot poorly in the playoffs that year. While Russell had THREE teammates shoot above the league average (.426) in the post-season, Wilt didn't have ANY that even shot .398 or better. And yet, somehow, Wilt took that 49-31 team, and led them to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics.

In the rest of Chamberlain's post-season career, he either outplayed, or BURIED his opposing centers. And, he faced a HOF center in two-thirds of his 160 post-season games. On the rare occasions when he either faced "just" an All-Star center, or an "average" center, he MURDERED them.

And think about this...

In Wilt's LAST season, at age 36, he LED the league in rebounding, at 18.6 rpg (and then averaged 22.5 rpg in his 17 post-season games...including a 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg edge over HOFer Thurmond.) He was also voted first-team all-defense (ahead of players like Thurmond, Reed, and Kareem.) AND, he shot an eye-popping .727 from the floor (while averaging 13.2 ppg), which is a record that will probably never be broken. I mentioned his 22.5 rpg average in his 17 play-off games...and it came on 47.1 mpg, which is almost as remarkable as his CAREER 47.2 mpg post-season average.

Psileas mentioned Duncan's 2-9 4-2 game in the post-season. I have never found a playoff game, in 160 of them, in which Wilt failed to get double-digit rebounds. In fact, you probably could not find very many in which he didn't get at least 20! His CAREER post-season average was 24.5 rpg, which is second only to Russell's 24.9 career mark. HOWEVER, Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY H2H post-season series (EIGHT of them.) And in some of them, he just KILLED Russell. In the '66-67 ECF's, Wilt outrebounded Russell, per game, by a 32-23 margin. Included in those five games, were margins of 32-15, 36-21, and a playoff record, 41-29 (and in that game, Chamberlain grabbed those 41 out of a TOTAL of 134 available rebounds.)

Wilt also had THREE playoff series against Russell in which he scored 30 + ppg, and another two at 28 ppg and 29 ppg. And for those that say that Russell held Wilt to 16 ppg under his 50 ppg average in the '62 ECF's, that was very deceptive. In their 10 regular season H2H meetings, Chamberlain averaged 38 ppg against Russell (on .470 shooting...in a league that shot .426.) So, the reality was, Chamberlain, while being swarmed by Celtics, STILL averaged 34 ppg against Russell in the ECF's, and on a FG% (.450+) that was STILL well above the league average. In one playoff game in that series, Wilt outscored Russell 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and Wilt's team won the game by seven points.

All of which brings me back to my main point on Wilt's all-time ranking. He not only OWNS the NBA Record Book, some 130 of them (and not only MANY which will never be approached, but in many of those, he, himself, has the next best mark(s)...)...he also either outplayed, or DOMINATED his opposing centers in his 29 post-season series.

BUT, his critics always try to disparage those facts. They find isolated games, or even HALVES of games, as evidence of him "choking." They will cite series in which his scoring dropped from the regular season, even though he was still scoring 35+ ppg. And they will NEVER bring up the fact that he was outrebounding and outshooting those opposing centers, either. Nor that in many cases, he was CARRYING mediocre rosters to near upsets of great teams. His pundits will find games, like game six of the '68 ECF's, in which he shot 8-23...but, they won't mention the fact that he was PLAYING with SEVERAL injuries, including foot and leg injuries (or that he STILL grabbed 27 rebounds in that same game.)

My god, Willis Reed, while hobbled with a thigh injury, was labeled a "hero" for "holding" Wilt to a 21-24, on 10-16 shooting, game seven (BTW, in the first half of that game, Chamberlain scored 11 points, on 5-10 shooting, with 12 rebounnds) while putting up a meager 4-3 game himself. Of course, his critcs NEVER bring up the fact that Wilt, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and was nowhere near 100%. In fact, virtually EVERY medical opinion had ranged from a best-case scenerio of Wilt missing the entire year...to perhaps never playing again.

All of which points to the famous DOUBLE STANDARD. Wilt was considered a failure when he just merely outplayed his opposing centers. He was ripped while PLAYING with injuries, but his opposing centers were praised when they heroically played (and were badly outplayed) with their's. Chamberlain was criticized for taking himself out of a game seven, with a knee injury, for a couple of MINUTES. But, where was the criticism of Kareem for missing an ENTIRE Finals game six (in which Magic carried LA to the title), with an ankle sprain?

And, how come very few observers ever credit Wilt when he was playing, and winning, with his injuries. Kareem missed chunks of TWO seasons with a broken hand. Wilt not only played with TWO badly injured wrists (one FRACTURED) in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals, he DOMINATED the game with 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, 29 rebounds (the Knicks TEAM had 39), and 10 blocks.

And, ultimately, the FACTS show that Chamberlain was among the greatest players, if not THE greatest, BIG game players of all-time. In his 15 "elimination" games against Russell in his post-season career, he averaged 27.3 ppg, and 28.7 rpg, compared to Russell's 14.5 ppg and 24.5 rpg. Which is nearly identical to their CAREER H2H averages of Wilt at 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, to Russell's 14.5 ppg and 23.7 rpg.

Chamberlain had MANY sensational "must win" games in his post-season career, and very few, if any, poor games. In fact, a poor game for him was along the lines of his game seven in the '68 ECF's, in which he outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded Russell, 34-14...and in a game in which his teammates did not get him the ball. Of course, Wilt's critics will never bring up Chamberlain's 50 point, 35 rebound game against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's. Or his 46-34 game in a "must-win" game five of the '66 ECF's.

And that 46-34 game illustrates a great example of the DOUBLE STANDARD between Russell and Wilt. When Wilt was faced with elimination, he responded with a 46-34 game against Russell. But, how about the reverse? In the very next season, Russell was faced with elimination in a game five against Wilt's Sixers. How did Russell respond? He scored FOUR points (on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists.) Meanwhile, in that same game, Chamberlain scored 29 points (on 10-16 shooting), with 36 rebounds, and 13 assists.

All of which makes these "all-time" lists almost laughable, when they do not have Wilt near the very top. Chamberlain simply DOMINATED the NBA, and his peers, like no other player ever did. He was so dominant, in fact, that he was ridiculed when he "only" slightly outplayed his opposing centers. No matter what Wilt did, it was never enough. He was EXPECTED to be super-human. And, if he did overwhelm his opponent...well, he SHOULD have. And when he could only just outplay them, ...well, it was considered a "win" for his opposing center. His critics shrug off his staggering statistical records, and point to his very few flawed efforts (by even resorting to HALVES of games.)

[jlauber]

Should easily be ranked over Wilt. Much better playoff performer, much better leader, consistently a great team player/winner and I can't imagine Duncan in his prime being on a 31 win team (with two other all-stars), or on the worst team in the league (and then getting traded for scrubs).


MUCH BETTER?

Let' see...

Duncan has averaged 23.0 ppg, 12.4 rpg, and shot .502 in his post-seasons. He NEVER led the NBA in ANY category in the post-season, either.

Wilt averaged 22.5 ppg in his post-seasons, 24.5 rpg, and shot .522. He had FOUR years at 37.0 ppg, 35.0 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting BTW), and 33.2 ppg. Duncan's HIGH playoff season was 27.6 ppg. Chamberlain also had FOUR 50+ point playoff games, including a 56-35 game five in a best-of-five series; and even a 50-35 game five in an elmination game, against Russell.

Wilt had post-seasons of .579, .563, .552, .549, .545, .543, and .534. Aside from a .573 season, none of Duncan's other post-seasons were better than any of those that Wilt had that I listed above. And, Wilt played in an era of generally worse FG% league averages, too.

Of course, in rebounding in the post-season, it is not even close. Wilt DOUBLED Duncan on the glass. Chamberlain's WORST post-season, at 20.2 rpg, was better, and by a mile, than Duncan's BEST post-season of 15.4 rpg. Chamberlain had EIGHT post-seasons of 24.7 rpg, or higher, with a high of 30.2. Wilt had a 38 rebound game against Thurmond, and a 41 rebound game (a playoff record) against Russell (and out of a TOTAL of 134 available rebounds BTW.) In his LAST post-season, at age 36, Wilt averaged 22.5 rpg (including outrebounding Thurmond by a 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg margin.)

Chamberlain also outassisted Duncan in the post-season, by a 4.2 to 3.5 apg margin. AND, at his best, he BLEW away Duncan's best, with a 9.0 apg to 5.3 apg margin.

Once again, Duncan NEVER led the NBA in ppg, rpg, apg, or FG% stat in ANY season. How about Wilt? He led the league in scoring once, FG% twice, and rebounding EIGHT times.

Of course, only a complete idiot would dare compare Duncan's regular season numbers against Wilt's. Needless to say, Wilt was considerably better in nearly every category, in his WORST seasons, and LIGHT YEARS ahead of Duncan's in his best.

Once again, NO other player dominated his peers like Chamberlain did his.

[DaHeezy]

Doesn't Kobe play in the same era as Duncan,

and get slammed for playing in that era?

Why does one guy get credit for playing in this era, and one doesn't?

I completely agree with you, filter thorugh and read one of my posts.(post #65)

[GOBB]

I dont think I can give him top 4 status but top 10 of all time is just fine.

Also to the poster who says arguably a top 5 PF. Did you make an error? Nothing to argue about when it comes to Duncan. He is the best PF of all time.

[jlauber]

I dont think I can give him top 4 status but top 10 of all time is just fine.

Also to the poster who says arguably a top 5 PF. Did you make an error? Nothing to argue about when it comes to Duncan. He is the best PF of all time.

I would only argue that Duncan was actually a center for most of his career. And certainly after Robinson retired.

[BallPhunk]

I can't imagine Wilt at Duncan's current age average 13/9 or play only 29 mpg, even in a league littered with great centers like the 1971 one. Similarly for just about any respective age. Neither do I imagine Wilt having a 4 p/2 r (2/9 FG) playoff game and certainly can't imagine anyone writing newspaper/magazine articles wondering if "Duncan is too good for the sake of the game" or "how well teams -one by one- have fared against Duncan up to now", as was the case with a SI (I think) article from Wilt's rookie season. Wilt could be the biggest chicken in the world (which of course he wasn't) and still rank ahead of Duncan in terms of all factors taken into account.

YOU SHOULD POST MORE OFTEN.

[EricForman]

The further Tim Duncan's career goes the more he makes this case true.

Just recently I heard that the Spurs tied the consecutive 50+ win seasons. Impressive considering it falls hugely on the shoulders of one player. During that stretch winning MVP's, finals MVP, 4 championships, and multiple other awards.

These accomplishments are also during an era in which the weathered a storm of 2 Laker's dynasty teams, one in which had the most dominant player to ever play, and he has beaten an MVP calibre Jason Kidd, a Piston team which dismantled one of the greatest teams ever assembled the year before, and Lebron James. Most of the time enroute through LA, and also what been regularily known as the toughest playoff schedules in the early 00' Western conference.

I'm not much of a Spurs/Duncan fan, but of the guys generally rated above him, I don't see how they are clearly ahead. He's not a 1 hit statistics guy in which he's up there in a multitude of categories all the while his best sidekick ever was either Manu or an older worn down Robinson.

Pros and cons to the Tim Duncan argument please


Duncan is great and is mostly underrated on ISH (I think he's DEFINITELY top ten all time and ABOVE Kobe, but I'm sure many on ISH disagrees)

but you're a bit off wondering why he isn't top four all time.

Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kareem.

END OF DISCUSSION.

[Artillery]

Probably not top four but he(and Shaq) are defintely ahead of Kobe.

[rmt]

I would only argue that Duncan was actually a center for most of his career. And certainly after Robinson retired.

I would counter that he had the versatility to play both and spent the majority of (certainly his prime years) at PF. He played center with Malik, Horry, Bonner, Dice and PF with Robinson, Rasho, Nazr, Elson, Oberto and Blair.

This 4/2 2 of 9 post season game is I'm assuming the 5/3 1 of 9 showing against NO in '08 when he was sick and had high fever.


For those who think that TD is the 3rd/4th most important player for the Spurs, please note the drop in defense when he sits (especially last night). As currently constructed, IMO the Spurs could survive either Manu or TP going down better than TD - mostly because the backcourt is so deep and the front line is thin. Dice is average to a little above average in defense but Bonner/Blair are poor. TD's rebounding (9.1) and blks (2) are still respectable #s in 28.7 mins.

The poster who suggested switching out Bosh for TD is spot on. Better interior/rim protection would allow MIA to stay at home on the 3pt shooters and result in more wins.

The Spurs have (if you extrapolate) 14 consecutive 50 win seasons. The lockout season (98-99) was a 37-13 record or .74 (way above 50/82 which is .609). Their average winning percent for Duncan's 14 years is .706 or about an average of 58 wins per year. Amazing consistency.

[stephanieg]

Duncan in his prime was a slightly taller, less athletic Hakeem. Which is pretty damned good.

[Doranku]

Some of the double standards on this forum are ridiculous.

So Magic and Bird are punished for their stacked teams/lack of defense, but Russell isn't punished for his even more stacked teams/offensive ineptness?

What gives? :confusedshrug:

[EricForman]

Some of the double standards on this forum are ridiculous.

So Magic and Bird are punished for their stacked teams/lack of defense, but Russell isn't punished for his even more stacked teams/offensive ineptness?

What gives? :confusedshrug:


Russell at least still dropped 17 a game. Any explosive short PG was a guarantee to light Magic up.

[PHILA]

Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Jan 8, 1960 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bLocAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JGUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4547,1599737&dq)

"Paid To Score"

Retorts Wilt:

"People just don't understand the problems of players like Jack Twyman Cincinnati's league leading scorer and myself. We have to let down on some phases of the game in order to score. We are paid to score. If we don't get out 30-35 points a game there is a good chance our team will lose."

"Take Russell for example. He's a great defensive player because he doesn't have to worry about scoring. His assignment is to get the rebound and block as many shots as he can. Boston has plenty of scorers. If Russell had to score he could average 25 points or more a game easy."'

[jlauber]

Duncan is great and is mostly underrated on ISH (I think he's DEFINITELY top ten all time and ABOVE Kobe, but I'm sure many on ISH disagrees)

but you're a bit off wondering why he isn't top four all time.

Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kareem.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Bird wasn't the post-season player Duncan was, and he certainly isn't even in the conversation with Chamberlain in either the post-season, or the regular season. Same with anyone that suggests that Hakeem was a better player than Wilt.

[jlauber]

Russell at least still dropped 17 a game. Any explosive short PG was a guarantee to light Magic up.

Of course, Magic could not only light up ANY PG on the other end, he was putting up a 42 point, 15 rebound game (which was FIVE more than ANY other player on the floor), 7 assist game, 14-23 shooting game, and 14-14 from the line...playing ALL positions on the floor,...in a clinching championship game WIN, and withOUT Kareem.

Magic not only had HUGE assist seasons, he had TWO straight seasons of shooting .561 and .565, as well. CLEARLY, he is a top-5 player all-time, and arguably the second greatest "winner" in NBA history.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He played center with Malik, Horry, Bonner, Dice and PF with Robinson, Rasho, Nazr, Elson, Oberto and Blair.

I disagree with the bolded names.


CLEARLY, he is a top-5 player all-time

I disagree, I'm fine with someone putting Magic in their top 5, but I don't have him in mine and I definitely don't think it's clear.

[jlauber]

I disagree with the bolded names.



I disagree, I'm fine with someone putting Magic in their top 5, but I don't have him in mine and I definitely don't think it's clear.

I do respect your opinions, whether I agree with them, or not. But, based on career accomplishments, I just can't see too many players that were better, or who played better in BIG games, than Magic.

[SCdac]

Oberto definitely played center in 2006 and 2007. Duncan being a "pure center" is an argument that mostly lives on message boards and internet blogs, go back and watch Duncan next to Rasho, Nazr, Robinson, etc, and he definitely played the part of a power forward. It's just people nowadays don't think PF's have a post game, they see guys like Shawn Marion at the four and think it's the norm or something. People who know the game, Kobe, Jerry Sloan, Kevin McHale, etc, have all called him the GOAT PF. Hell, put McHale in the league now and people would probably think he's a center too. In the same way I don't view Pau Gasol as a true center, I don't view Duncan as one either.

[rmt]

I disagree with the bolded names.

Blair scores mostly from the low post while TD has been going for more and more jump shots this season. Very occasionally (this season only) has Blair been putting up high arching shots from the baseline.

Oberto scored mostly from layups when TD was doubled or put backs from misses by other players.

That doesn't qualify as playing PF or do you mean on defense? TD doesn't usually guard the better scoring big (so as not to get into foul trouble).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Blair scores mostly from the low post while TD has been going for more and more jump shots this season. Very occasionally (this season only) has Blair been putting up high arching shots from the baseline.

Oberto scored mostly from layups when TD was doubled or put backs from misses by other players.

That doesn't qualify as playing PF or do you mean on defense? TD doesn't usually guard the better scoring big (so as not to get into foul trouble).

Whenever I see Duncan now, he's usually matched up with the opposing center, even the best ones. In the Spurs games vs Orlando, he matched up with Howard. If you're talking stylistically, well, then you could make the case that Duncan was more of a center than Robinson because Duncan played in the low post more, though Robinson usually matched up with the opposing team's center.

[SCdac]

Whenever I see Duncan now, he's usually matched up with the opposing center, even the best ones. In the Spurs games vs Orlando, he matched up with Howard. If you're talking stylistically, well, then you could make the case that Duncan was more of a center than Robinson because Duncan played in the low post more, though Robinson usually matched up with the opposing team's center.

He was matched up with Chris Bosh for about half of his minutes last night... he certainly still get's matched up with PF's.

Usually, whichever the easier match up is, is the one the SPURS want him on.

When they played the Mavs, he was guarding Dampier/Diop/etc, and not Dirk. Not because he couldn't do it, but because they want him to stay out of foul trouble.

also: he's lost alot of his mobility, alot of his nimbleness, guarding the average center is just easier for him to do at his age.

[emaugust]

I wasn't into the NBA during the Tim Duncan Era, but I have always wondered why if he is so GOAT, is he not hyped like many other players? He played in the same era as Shaq, Kobe, even guys like AI, KG or Nash yet all of them seem to have a muuuch higher profile than Tim Duncan.

Not saying Tim doesn't deserve it because, I just don't know.

[L.Kizzle]

this actually shows why he shouldn't be top 5. he's the 3rd/4th best player on the spurs right now and they still got the best record.
It's called impact. People would say the same thing about Bill Russell Waldo.

[rmt]

Whenever I see Duncan now, he's usually matched up with the opposing center, even the best ones. In the Spurs games vs Orlando, he matched up with Howard. If you're talking stylistically, well, then you could make the case that Duncan was more of a center than Robinson because Duncan played in the low post more, though Robinson usually matched up with the opposing team's center.

On defense, he guards the lower scoring big. In the case of Bynum/Gasol, he guards Bynum or Gasol/Randolph, he guards Gasol or Darko/Love, he guards Darko. Orlando is a little different as a lot of times it's Howard surrounded by shooters in which case, of course, it's TD on him as he can't guard a shooter.

In DRob's case, he guarded the center on defense and on offense, both played a lot of high/low. In the 99 Finals, DRob played in the post a lot trying to get Larry Johnson in foul trouble. So half of the game (on defense), DRob played the center and on offense, they both played in the post. I think that qualifies DRob as the center and TD as the PF.

[Anaximandro1]

I wasn't into the NBA during the Tim Duncan Era, but I have always wondered why if he is so GOAT, is he not hyped like many other players? He played in the same era as Shaq, Kobe, even guys like AI, KG or Nash yet all of them seem to have a muuuch higher profile than Tim Duncan.
:confusedshrug:

NBA Playoff Leaders for Points

1. Michael Jordan 5987

2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 5762

3. Shaquille O'Neal 5248

4. Kobe Bryant 5052

5. Karl Malone 4761

6. Jerry West 4457

7. Tim Duncan 3914


NBA Playoff Leaders for Total Rebounds

1. Bill Russell 4104

2. Wilt Chamberlain 3913

3. Shaquille O'Neal 2508

4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 2481

5. Tim Duncan 2114


NBA Career Playoff Leaders for Blocks

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 476

2. Hakeem Olajuwon 472

3. Shaquille O'Neal 459

4. Tim Duncan 438

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_career_p.html

[jlauber]

IMHO, the top-5 are nearly "untouchable" at this point. Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, and Kareem.

But it does get interesting with my next three. I have Shaq at #6, based more on peak, and Duncan at #7, based more on his string of 50+ win seasons. And then comes Kobe at #8, followed by Hakeem and Bird.

However, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe, are all in the running for a possible title this season. A ring for Shaq, albeit no longer a prime-time Shaq, would probably secure him at no worse than #6, and for at least a couple of more seasons (depending on what Kobe does.) A ring for Duncan would definitely vault him over Shaq, at least IMO...and even knocking at Kareem's door. Five rings, four as the main player, and another as a key contributor, would be within Kareem's sights. And finally, a ring for Kobe this year, and he probably vaults BOTH Duncan and Shaq. And, beyond that, and perhaps another ring before he retires, and he probably could go as high as #3 all-time.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

I wasn't into the NBA during the Tim Duncan Era, but I have always wondered why if he is so GOAT, is he not hyped like many other players? He played in the same era as Shaq, Kobe, even guys like AI, KG or Nash yet all of them seem to have a muuuch higher profile than Tim Duncan.

Not saying Tim doesn't deserve it because, I just don't know.

its just pathetic we live in a day and age where people respect shit like being flashy more then fundamentals and actually getting the job done. and DEFENSE HELLO DEFENSE?E?!!?!


ask the casual fan who is better between iverson and duncan and they will say iverson everytime. no wonder 90% of casual fans hang out on ISH