Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

[Bucket_Nakedz]

one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest white basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?

[DMAVS41]

one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest white basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?

Duncan

[ProfessorMurder]

I love Duncan but I'd take Bird in a heartbeat.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I love Duncan but I'd take Bird in a heartbeat.
This.

[Bucket_Nakedz]

id take bird as well. he had that redneck grit and swag. tim duncan is whiter than wayne brady and bryant gumble combined.

[Whoah10115]

Duncan


:roll:









:roll:




:kobe:




Tim Duncan is nowhere near Larry Bird. Message boards give too much credence to difference of opinion.

[Harison]

I love Duncan but I'd take Bird in a heartbeat.

+1. Duncan is more impactfull defensively, but Bird isnt slouch there either. Pretty much everywhere else Bird has a clear advantage. TD is great scorer, Bird is GOAT-like. TD is clutch, Bird is GOAT-like clutch, TD is a good passer, Bird is GOAT-passer in his position, etc.

[riseagainst]

Bird.... not close .... at all.

[necya]

:wtf:

[Legends66NBA7]

There needs to be more discussion and in-depth analysis than the cliche "it's not close".

This a question I actually wanted to see more talk about too.

[fpliii]

There needs to be more discussion and in-depth analysis than the cliche "it's not close".

This a question I actually wanted to see more talk about too.

It's a very interesting question. I actually have a lot to say on this topic, but I'm really busy for the next week and a half (not that my opinion is particularly important, but I think this is definitely a comparison worthy of discussion). If this thread is still active at that point I'll post my thoughts (perhaps I'll bump it anyway).

[Legends66NBA7]

It's a very interesting question. I actually have a lot to say on this topic, but I'm really busy for the next week and a half (not that my opinion is particularly important, but I think this is definitely a comparison worthy of discussion). If this thread is still active at that point I'll post my thoughts (perhaps I'll bump it anyway).

Sounds good, man.

[DMAVS41]

:roll:









:roll:




:kobe:




Tim Duncan is nowhere near Larry Bird. Message boards give too much credence to difference of opinion.

You either didn't watch Bird or haven't paid attention to Duncan to think it's absurd to say Duncan.

I could give you a ton of reasons, but winning 4 titles and winning 50 or more games 14 consecutive years (never been done before...previous high was 12)...all while playing with by far the least amount of help any superstar to win that amount has had...I'll take Duncan.

I can't even imagine what the results would have been like if Duncan had played on teams even close to as talented as Bird's Celtics.

[Rysio]

bird easily. bird is a legend he could do anything on the court. only thing duncan can do is play defense the rest of his game is average at best.

[Kovach]

I can't even imagine what the results would have been like if Duncan had played on teams even close to as talented as Bird's Celtics.
And I can't imagine what what the results would have been like if Bird had played in a 29-30-team joke of the league with more than 70% pure garbage teams.
This goes both ways.

[IGOTGAME]

give me Duncan. guy is a monster on d and on the block. some of those finals performances were insane.

[Pushxx]

Bird. Not close.

[Harison]

And I can't imagine what what the results would have been like if Bird had played in a 29-30-team joke of the league with more than 70% pure garbage teams.
This goes both ways.

Not only that, Duncan in Golden age wouldnt win any MVPs, DPOYs, and certainly would had won less rings compared to Bird.

Now imagine what Bird could do now, with current rules and weak competition. He would be perennial MVP, and eat current superstars for breakfast.

[DMAVS41]

Not only that, Duncan in Golden age wouldnt win any MVPs, DPOYs, and certainly would had won less rings compared to Bird.

Now imagine what Bird could do now, with current rules and weak competition. He would be perennial MVP, and eat current superstars for breakfast.

Certainly would have had less rings? What is the basis for this claim?

[DMAVS41]

And I can't imagine what what the results would have been like if Bird had played in a 29-30-team joke of the league with more than 70% pure garbage teams.
This goes both ways.

I think that overstates it a bit, but not sure what relevance that really has...it's not like Duncan's numbers are based on his competition or anything like that.

I have no problem with someone taking Bird...just not an easy choice if we are being objective.

The under-rating of Duncan and what he has done is crazy. If he had played the exact same career in a place like Boston or LA or NY...the answers would be extremely different than they have been in this thread. And that is silly.

Just imagine for a second that Duncan had led the Knicks to 4 titles and 14 straight years over 50 wins...LOL at the idea that people would be saying..."Bird and it isn't close"

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'll roll w/ Larry Joe Bird.

IMO, Bird at his ABSOLUTE best was simply on another level from Duncan. That's what makes me rank him higher (I have him in my top 6; Duncan somewhere around the 8-9 range).

[brain drain]

This is getting ridiculous.

I think everybody agrees that Duncan is clearly the better defender.

Bird played in a significantly higher-paced and higher scoring era, so comparing raw numbers doesn't make much sense.

Let's look at advanced stats for the playoffs (because I guess we all agree that should be the measuring stick for comparing all time greats, who cares about regular season games against teams with losing records?).

Bird:
http://imageshack.us/a/img854/4044/birdplayoffs.png

Duncan:
http://imageshack.us/a/img818/8479/duncanplayoffs.png


I don't see how anybody in their right mind could say that Bird was a better playoff performer than Duncan.

Actually, Duncan was better, and it's not even close.

And to those who claim that Duncan had it easy in a weak era: I'd take every bet that the Western Conference during Duncan's era was every bit as tough as the Eastern Conference of the Bird Era.

[kNicKz]

This is getting ridiculous.

I think everybody agrees that Duncan is clearly the better defender.

Bird played in a significantly higher-paced and higher scoring era, so comparing raw numbers doesn't make much sense.

Let's look at advanced stats for the playoffs (because I guess we all agree that should be the measuring stick for comparing all time greats, who cares about regular season games against teams with losing records?).

Bird:
http://imageshack.us/a/img854/4044/birdplayoffs.png

Duncan:
http://imageshack.us/a/img818/8479/duncanplayoffs.png


I don't see how anybody in their right mind could say that Bird was a better playoff performer than Duncan.

stats tell the entire story :rolleyes:

Look past the box score, and you will see why Bird is better

[brain drain]

stats tell the entire story :rolleyes:

Look past the box score, and you will see why Bird is better

Oh yeah, I clearly forgot that Bird won more championship with worse teammates. And that he never lost against lower-seeded teams in the playoffs. My mistake.

[kNicKz]

Oh yeah, I clearly forgot that Bird won more championship with worse teammates. And that he never lost against lower-seeded teams in the playoffs. My mistake.

I don't need to explain to you why Bird is better

[brain drain]

I don't need to explain to you why Bird is better
Yeah, I know, cause you just need to smoke some pot, listen to the legends of yore and look beyond the boxscore to see the light.

[IGOTGAME]

lol @ people not appreciating Tim Duncan. did you people even watch what he was doing in the playoffs.

[Kovach]

I think that overstates it a bit, but not sure what relevance that really has...it's not like Duncan's numbers are based on his competition or anything like that.

I have no problem with someone taking Bird...just not an easy choice if we are being objective.

The under-rating of Duncan and what he has done is crazy. If he had played the exact same career in a place like Boston or LA or NY...the answers would be extremely different than they have been in this thread. And that is silly.

Just imagine for a second that Duncan had led the Knicks to 4 titles and 14 straight years over 50 wins...LOL at the idea that people would be saying..."Bird and it isn't close"
I wasn't trying to underrate Duncan, he is one of the all-time greats in my book, I just get agitated by the idea that Bird's success was the reflection of talent he was surrounded by. It was overwhelming team basketball that made Boston a dominant superteam, not individual talents of his team-mates, at least not to an extent people try to present it nowdays.

[Kovach]

And to those who claim that Duncan had it easy in a weak era: I'd take every bet that the Western Conference during Duncan's era was every bit as tough as the Eastern Conference of the Bird Era.
Apart from early 00's Lakers no team stands a chance against those Sixers and Bucks teams.

[wakencdukest]

tim duncan is whiter than wayne brady and bryant gumble combined.


I see that as a strong quality.

[Jailblazers7]

I think its a toss up. Bird had maybe the best peak of all time in the mid-80s. The guy can carry an offense and still hold his own as a defender because of his IQ on the court. He is more limited than Duncan in terms of size and athleticism but makes up for it in skill.

Duncan is a great defender and the best offensive post player of the past two 10-15 years. Shaq was more dominant due to his physicality but Duncan's skills on the block trump his. Really good passer too. Championship center piece style big who can anchor both ends of the floor.

I'd prob lean Duncan just because of the value of post player and because I've seen a lot more of his play. Grew up watching Duncan compared to watching some reruns of Bird so I don't think I can rate Bird accurately.

When ISHers make all time greatest lists these two are usually seperated by like 3-5 spots so not sure how ppl are going to say its not even close.

[Jailblazers7]

No, I meant hold his own as in not being a liability on defense. That "more limited" comment was meant just as players in general, not as defenders. Guess I should have been more clear there.

[brain drain]

Apart from early 00's Lakers no team stands a chance against those Sixers and Bucks teams.
Lol, the mighty Don Nelson Bucks.
What did those teams do to separate themselves from teams like the 99-00 Trailblazers, the early 00s-Sacto Kings, the 05-06 Mavs, the Mid-00s Suns.

And the 76ers were, while great, clearly less dominating than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. And no, even fo fo fo won't change that.

[Kovach]

Lol, the mighty Don Nelson Bucks.
What did those teams do to separate themselves from teams like the 99-00 Trailblazers, the early 00s-Sacto Kings, the 05-06 Mavs, the Mid-00s Suns.

Had much more firepower. And also had the 6th guy that would start for any of those teams. They were the team with most wins of that decade for a good reason.

[Carbine]

If you break it down to careers, Tim Duncan wins easily.

If you break it down to who you would want to build your team around, Tmmy probably wins that one.

If you break it down to who had the most impact (the only thing that matters) in their peak, it could go either way.

[k0kakw0rld]

bird easily. bird is a legend he could do anything on the court. only thing duncan can do is play defense the rest of his game is average at best.
:facepalm I strongly disagree. He plays the fundamentals, which led him to have a more than impressive career. 20.1 ppg 11.2 rpg 3.1 apg .507 fg% as a big man this is terrific. 2 MVPs 4 Rings 3 FMVPs If I have to start a franchise I will pick Duncan in a heartbeat. (Love Bird tho, who doesn't) :confusedshrug:

Tim Duncan has a better career than Bird.\

Anyway 4 > 3 nuffa said

[Shih508]

Duncan. Best player in his era.

[kNicKz]

you all need to watch every magic vs. bird game then come back to this thread. Duncan has never been in a battle like that. Duncan is top 10 all time and an amazing player whose ATG stock never ceases to rise but if I'm in the playoffs I'm taking a prime Larry Bird. That man was a GUNNER, straight up. Duncan couldn't guard Larry Bird

[IGOTGAME]

you all need to watch every magic vs. bird game then come back to this thread. Duncan has never been in a battle like that. Duncan is top 10 all time and an amazing player whose ATG stock never ceases to rise but if I'm in the playoffs I'm taking a prime Larry Bird. That man was a GUNNER, straight up. Duncan couldn't guard Larry Bird
are you 12?

[kNicKz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p-9GI85xcs

holy **** :bowdown:

[Tking714]

bird easily. bird is a legend he could do anything on the court. only thing duncan can do is play defense the rest of his game is average at best.

:lol

[Whoah10115]

You either didn't watch Bird or haven't paid attention to Duncan to think it's absurd to say Duncan.

I could give you a ton of reasons, but winning 4 titles and winning 50 or more games 14 consecutive years (never been done before...previous high was 12)...all while playing with by far the least amount of help any superstar to win that amount has had...I'll take Duncan.

I can't even imagine what the results would have been like if Duncan had played on teams even close to as talented as Bird's Celtics.



They don't win in 81, much less in 84.


Duncan has been a much different player since 2005. You could take the injuries that he kept hushed when going back to 2005, but since then his role and option status has been the been one of the guys on the team, in an equal opportunity offense. Which is fine, Jordan had the same thing happen in 1991. But his court status was still the #1 guy. Duncan was the best player and a player within the system. From 2005/06 on he was nowhere near the same player. The offense did not go thru him the same way and he didn't have the level of responsibility that is associated with his peak. He always played the right way but he was much more conservative from then on. Honestly, a valid reason (as justification) could very well have been not having Robinson next to him and instead of having Nesterovic, then Oberto, and also backups who weren't that good. Of course, much of this would have been avoided if he moved to center, but I digress...


Duncan straight up is not close to Bird. And the thought is ridiculous. He has a list of accomplishments that make it sound valid but he's float out not as good and didn't have as much impact. He has more longevity, but not enough to discount that Bird was easily a better player. Bird had better teams and he also had more than twice the competition. If Duncan was on teams as good as the ones Bird was on then Duncan wouldn't have stood out as much.

[brain drain]

They don't win in 81, much less in 84.


Duncan has been a much different player since 2005. You could take the injuries that he kept hushed when going back to 2005, but since then his role and option status has been the been one of the guys on the team, in an equal opportunity offense. Which is fine, Jordan had the same thing happen in 1991. But his court status was still the #1 guy. Duncan was the best player and a player within the system. From 2005/06 on he was nowhere near the same player. The offense did not go thru him the same way and he didn't have the level of responsibility that is associated with his peak. He always played the right way but he was much more conservative from then on. Honestly, a valid reason (as justification) could very well have been not having Robinson next to him and instead of having Nesterovic, then Oberto, and also backups who weren't that good. Of course, much of this would have been avoided if he moved to center, but I digress...


Duncan straight up is not close to Bird. And the thought is ridiculous. He has a list of accomplishments that make it sound valid but he's float out not as good and didn't have as much impact. He has more longevity, but not enough to discount that Bird was easily a better player. Bird had better teams and he also had more than twice the competition. If Duncan was on teams as good as the ones Bird was on then Duncan wouldn't have stood out as much.

If Bird had that much more impact, it would show in the stats. Maybe you're misguided by looking at raw stats, but when you're looking at pace-adjusted stats, that's simply not the case.

Duncan has been every bit as impactful as Bird, and then some.

And using the "if Duncan had been on teams as good as Bird's"-argument is a boomerang. If Bird's teams were much better than Duncan's and if Bird was a better player than Duncan, then how on earth did Duncan manage to win more titles than Bird? O yeah, because he played in a diluted league and only had to play against weak opponents like the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the Webber/Peja/Divac Kings, the Amare/Nash/Matrix Suns, Dirk's Mavs and some other slouch teams.

[Odinn]

At their best, Larry Bird is the better one. It's very very close. But I think it's clear. Although, I think Duncan is the better playoff performer. And it's clearer than Bird being the better player. Remember he never lost a first-round series in his prime? He won it all with one of the weakest casts for a championship team. Aside from 2003 title, his 2001 and 2002 casts wasn't good. Bunch of old perimeter guys, 35+ year old DRob and inexperienced Parker and he made those teams 58W team and 2nd round team. And he was eliminated by the team has one of the best duos in history. The only thing which can be called a choke-job was 2004 playoffs 2nd round series against the Lakers. He was always as good as he's supposed to be. Or even better.

Like I said, Larry Bird is the better when it comes to peaks and he should be ranked higher in goat lists.
But acting like Duncan is nowhere near Larry Bird? That's just wrong.

[CavaliersFTW]

one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest white basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?
Duncan is white? :wtf:

[Legends66NBA7]

At their best, Larry Bird is the better one. It's very very close. But I think it's clear. Although, I think Duncan is the better playoff performer. And it's clearer than Bird being the better player. Remember he never lost a first-round series in his prime? He won it all with one of the weakest casts for a championship team. Aside from 2003 title, his 2001 and 2002 casts wasn't good. Bunch of old perimeter guys, 35+ year old DRob and inexperienced Parker and he made those teams 58W team and 2nd round team. And he was eliminated by the team has one of the best duos in history. The only thing which can be called a choke-job was 2004 playoffs 2nd round series against the Lakers. He was always as good as he's supposed to be. Or even better.

Like I said, Larry Bird is the better when it comes to peaks and he should be ranked higher in goat lists.
But acting like Duncan is nowhere near Larry Bird? That's just wrong.

Was waiting on your take on this too.

I pretty much agree with everything posted.

[gengiskhan]

one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest white basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?

who has Back-2-back-2-back season MVPs. 3 straight Yrs. Thats almost 300 games in a row of SHEER DOMINANCE.

Who has 2 MVP SWEEPS?

Duncan Failed to DOMINATE his arch rival SHAQ or even non-dominant greats like Kobe, LBJ.

Bird DOMINATED his ARCH RIVAL Magic, when tragic magic was in his prime peak!

[Doranku]

Duncan is white? :wtf:
I can't believe it took someone that long to bring this up. :roll:

[DMAVS41]

I wasn't trying to underrate Duncan, he is one of the all-time greats in my book, I just get agitated by the idea that Bird's success was the reflection of talent he was surrounded by. It was overwhelming team basketball that made Boston a dominant superteam, not individual talents of his team-mates, at least not to an extent people try to present it nowdays.

But nobody is saying Bird only won because of his team...I just think it's a little crazy to sit here and not objectively look at what Duncan has done.

4 titles...all 4 without an all nba teammate (about as rare as it gets in NBA history)

14 straight 50 win season (never been done before...2nd highest is 12 by the 80s Lakers)

Can dominate the game on both ends...etc.

I'll say it again. If Duncan had one all of this for the Knicks....things would be different in how he's viewed.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'll say it again. If Duncan had one all of this for the Knicks....things would be different in how he's viewed.

No doubt, Duncan would be getting legit Top 3-5 all-time rankings and the Knick fans would be in full force and you would never read or hear the end of it.

Knick fans are crazy enough as it is. One of them even said the Knicks are the greatest NBA franchise last week.

:oldlol:

[Whoah10115]

No doubt, Duncan would be getting legit Top 3-5 all-time rankings and the Knick fans would be in full force and you would never read or hear the end of it.

Knick fans are crazy enough as it is. One of them even said the Knicks are the greatest NBA franchise last week.

:oldlol:



If Duncan played for the Knicks, without Popovich and without Robinson, and then won 4 titles...that would be different. The Knicks were not a well-run team.


But, just transplanting him to the Knicks...rational people would not start judging him as top 5 because he played for the Knicks.

[Rameek]

The only reason I would take Bird over Duncan is the ferocity he played with.
Other than that Duncan is better because he didnt have the HOF teammates like Bird.

[Bucket_Nakedz]

The only reason I would take Bird over Duncan is the ferocity he played with.
Other than that Duncan is better because he didnt have the HOF teammates like Bird.
robinson, ginobili, parker and pop?

[Bucket_Nakedz]

imma come out and say it: tim duncan is a system player. pop made him, and kg will always be better in my eyes.

[Rameek]

robinson, ginobili, parker and pop?
Yeah these guys were great players coming from Europe? Lets not wax poetic about how these guys developed. TD made that happen.

If you want to say he's a system guy then anyone that won a championship with Phil are system guys.

[Bucket_Nakedz]

Yeah these guys were great players coming from Europe? Lets not wax poetic about how these guys developed. TD made that happen.

If you want to say he's a system guy then anyone that won a championship with Phil are system guys.
oh yeah, duncan made them the players they are. i suppose he had a hand when manu won the gold with argentina :rolleyes:

[Dbrog]

oh yeah, duncan made them the players they are. i suppose he had a hand when manu won the gold with argentina :rolleyes:

I suppose that Greek squad that beat team USA shoulda come to play in the NBA. Seriously how can you possibly point to the Olympics? hahaha

[Bucket_Nakedz]

I suppose that Greek squad that beat team USA shoulda come to play in the NBA. Seriously how can you possibly point to the Olympics? hahaha
da fukk r u talking about?

[Rameek]

oh yeah, duncan made them the players they are. i suppose he had a hand when manu won the gold with argentina :rolleyes:

Didnt Gino go in the back end of the 2nd round????....hmmmmm
Wasnt Parker a real late 1st or early 2nd round????....hmmmmmm

but yeah they are system guys like anyone that played under Sloan, Pop, Rivers, Red, Phil, etc etc....

[Bucket_Nakedz]

Didnt Gino go in the back end of the 2nd round????....hmmmmm
Wasnt Parker a real late 1st or early 2nd round????....hmmmmmm

but yeah they are system guys like anyone that played under Sloan, Pop, Rivers, Red, Phil, etc etc....
oh u steamin, cuz. its my opinion, bruh. there is no need to prove a point. pop made timmy. that is all

[Whoah10115]

tim duncan is a system player. pop made him


http://americandigest.org/sidelines/4251-full-retard.jpg

[Carbine]

It's funny how people who argue Bird is greater because he was a better player in his prime than Duncan......then completely reverse it when we're talking about, for example....Bird vs Shaq.

Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.

Shaq was a superior rebounder.

Shaq was a superior defender.

BTW, Shaq also has Bird killed in longevity and accolades.

More championships
More FMVP
More AS appearances
Four more All-NBA teams
One more All-Defensive team


....yet basically nobody arguing for Bird because they think he was superior in his prime to Duncan (Woah10115) and disregarding career longevity and achievements completely......would turn around and say Shaq was greater than Bird, even though it's the same reason they chose Bird over Duncan.

Shaq has the edge in longevity and achievements over Bird too, which makes it even more illogical.

[Jailblazers7]

Honestly, there are prob only 3-4 player who can claim to have a better peak than Bird as an individual player. His bad back derailed his longevity but at his best Bird was pretty unbelievable.

[ProfessorMurder]

It's funny how people who argue Bird is greater because he was a better player in his prime than Duncan......then completely reverse it when we're talking about, for example....Bird vs Shaq.

Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.

Shaq was a superior rebounder.

Shaq was a superior defender.

BTW, Shaq also has Bird killed in longevity and accolades.

More championships
More FMVP
More AS appearances
Four more All-NBA teams
One more All-Defensive team


....yet basically nobody arguing for Bird because they think he was superior in his prime to Duncan (Woah10115) and disregarding career longevity and achievements completely......would turn around and say Shaq was greater than Bird, even though it's the same reason they chose Bird over Duncan.

Shaq has the edge in longevity and achievements over Bird too, which makes it even more illogical.

A 7'1" 340 pound center averaged more rebounds than a 6'9" muscleless small forward? Stop the presses!

Are you going to bring up fg% and blocked shots next?

Don't act like Shaq was an otherworldy defender either... C'mon son.

[Carbine]

I never said Shaq was a great defender, but his IMPACT was clearly more on that side of the ball than Bird.

Shaq was a legit rim protector and great post-defender. Add in the intimidation factor.....and you got more impact than Bird.

Rebounding matters. I don't care who played what position....bottom line is Shaq was clearly better at it.

Three basic areas a player should be graded on - impact as an offensive player, impact as a defensive player, and rebounding.

[Big#50]

Duncan didn't captivate fans like Pajaro. Pajaro was one of a kind though. No fault to Tim.
Pajaro was the greatest offensive player imo.
Duncan the greatest defensive player.
Had Duncan played on a faster tempo team his averages would be 28/13. He proved he could get high scoring numbers when it was required.
When both struggled offensively, they both did what was necessary. Duncan took over games defensively. Pajaro took over games with his effort and energy.
Pajaro has the nostalgia advantage.
Duncan almost had a quad double to clinch the championship. Wasn't he robbed of two blocks????
It's close. It's ****ing close.
Duncan is my choice. And I wouldn't say I'm a fan of the guy.

[LeBird]

Rebounding matters.


Bird went toe-to-toe with Moses Malone (a better rebounder than Shaq), which says enough about him rebounding. But Bird was a PF playing as an SF for a lot of his career so people don't exactly remember that.

I like Duncan, he is amongst the best of the 2nd tier of all-time greats but Bird is in the discussion for GOAT. Duncan isn't, and that's the difference.

[gengiskhan]

Bird went toe-to-toe with Moses Malone, which says enough about him rebounding. But Bird was a PF playing as an SF for a lot of his career so people don't exactly remember that.

I like Duncan, he is amongst the best of the 2nd tier of all-time greats but Bird is in the discussion for GOAT. Duncan isn't, and that's the difference.

/thread.

seriously! Thats the NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

In modern day NBA (1970 - Present) excluding the 50s & 60s & 40s...

Only 3 Players are considered UNQUESTIONABLE GOAT for their ability to either TRANSFORM or TRANSCEND the game forever.

1. Michael Jordan: TRANSENDED the game forever where the rules are completely changed post MJ era. (WHOLE GENERATION COPIES HIM)

2. Magic Johnson: TRANSFORMED the game where modern day PURE PLAYMAKING PGs copy him.

3. LARRY BIRD: TRANFORMED the game where mordern day PURE or POINT FORWARDS copy him (LBJ, Pippen, T-mac)

Where is dat Tim Duncan in this argument.

NOWHERE!

[Carbine]

Bird went toe-to-toe with Moses Malone (a better rebounder than Shaq), which says enough about him rebounding. But Bird was a PF playing as an SF for a lot of his career so people don't exactly remember that.

I like Duncan, he is amongst the best of the 2nd tier of all-time greats but Bird is in the discussion for GOAT. Duncan isn't, and that's the difference.

It says enough about him rebounding? If by that you mean still clearly inferior to Shaq in that regard, then yes, yes it does.

[Whoah10115]

It's funny how people who argue Bird is greater because he was a better player in his prime than Duncan......then completely reverse it when we're talking about, for example....Bird vs Shaq.

Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.

Shaq was a superior rebounder.

Shaq was a superior defender.

BTW, Shaq also has Bird killed in longevity and accolades.

More championships
More FMVP
More AS appearances
Four more All-NBA teams
One more All-Defensive team


....yet basically nobody arguing for Bird because they think he was superior in his prime to Duncan (Woah10115) and disregarding career longevity and achievements completely......would turn around and say Shaq was greater than Bird, even though it's the same reason they chose Bird over Duncan.

Shaq has the edge in longevity and achievements over Bird too, which makes it even more illogical.



This post is one big fail.


First of all, if you think Shaq had a better peak than Larry Bird, then go ahead and think it. That you're talking like it's the accepted opinion is, in fact, wrong. Choosing a random player where you think it's applicable doesn't prove your point.

I could argue your ridiculous notion that Shaq was a better defender and had more impact. But I won't.

Mostly, your post is really everything that is wrong with the way people rank players nowadays. Your "can't have it both ways" argument has nothing to do with having your own opinion and basing it on basketball play.

[Carbine]

This post is one big fail.


First of all, if you think Shaq had a better peak than Larry Bird, then go ahead and think it. That you're talking like it's the accepted opinion is, in fact, wrong. Choosing a random player where you think it's applicable doesn't prove your point.


Mostly, your post is really everything that is wrong with the way people rank players nowadays. Your "can't have it both ways" argument has nothing to do with having your own opinion and basing it on basketball play.

Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.

Shaq was a superior rebounder.

Shaq was a superior defender.

Pretty damn hard to argue otherwise.

Maybe you take the "Bird was a much better passer, dribbler, outside shooter than Shaq" angle but again, the only thing that matters is IMPACT. That's literally the only thing that matters. Not how many things you can do effectively. With that understanding, Shaq is Birds equal as an offensive player.

Defense and rebounding are clear advantages for Shaq.

[LeBird]

It says enough about him rebounding? If by that you mean still clearly inferior to Shaq in that regard, then yes, yes it does.

It means he was on par with one of the greatest rebounders of all time - someone even better than Shaq on the boards - when asked to so the casual mention that Shaq is better is disingenuous. Shaq was a center, Bird was a PF playing SF and averages only 0.9 rebounds less. And Bird had to contend with Parish and McHale in getting those rebounds.

[Anaximandro1]

Duncan is better.He won 4 titles without All-NBA teammate.He controlled every aspect of the game.


7 straight games during the 03 WCSF and 03 WCF

G4 03 WCSF 36/9/5

G5 03 WCSF 27/14/5

G6 03 WCSF 37/16/4/2

G1 03 WCF 40/15/7/1

G2 03 WCF 32/15/5/3

G3 03 WCF 34/24/6/6

G4 03 WCF 21/20/7/4


G1 03 Finals 32/20/6/7

G3 03 Finals 21/16/7/3

G5 03 Finals 29/17/4/4

G6 03 Finals 21/20/10/8


Keep in mind that Duncan's production skyrockets against the NBA's elite.He outscores consistently his peers in the postseason.Duncan outscored Shaq in (1999,2002,2003,2008),Dirk in (2001,2003,2006,2009),Amare (2003,2007,2008) or Garnett (2001)


[QUOTE] Duncan Regular Season Career 20.2 pt,11.2 pt,3.1 as,2.2 blk


Playoffs Career H2H

Duncan 25.6 pt (49%),13.0 rb,3.8 as,2.4 blk (Spurs won series 1999,2003,2008)
Shaq 22.4 pt (53%),12.8 rb,2.2 as,2.8 blk (Lakers won series 2001,2002,2004)

Duncan 26.0 pt (54%),12.3 rb,3.6 as,1.9 blk (Spurs won series 2001,2003,2010)
Dirk 24.5 pt (50%), 10.1 rb,2.3 as,0.6 blk (Mavs won series 2006,2009)

Duncan 23.8 pt (53%),13.8 rb,3.0 as,2.9 blk (Spurs won series 2003,2005,2007,2008)
Amare 24.0 pt (51%),9.2 rb,0.9 as,1.8 blk (Suns won series 2010)

Duncan NBA Finals career

[Whoah10115]

Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.

Shaq was a superior rebounder.

Shaq was a superior defender.

Pretty damn hard to argue otherwise.

Maybe you take the "Bird was a much better passer, dribbler, outside shooter than Shaq" angle but again, the only thing that matters is IMPACT. That's literally the only thing that matters. Not how many things you can do effectively. With that understanding, Shaq is Birds equal as an offensive player.

Defense and rebounding are clear advantages for Shaq.



Larry Bird was a better offensive player than Shaq. Shaq was naturally more efficient. He wasn't even as good a scorer. Bird was better.


The defense thing is ridiculous and this is one of those things where "period" is inevitable. Shaq played subpar defense for most of his career. He wasn't a "great" post defender. he was very good, but if you put the ball on the floor he'd give up. He is the worst pick n' roll defender I've ever seen. He refused to come out on shooters. Rim-protection isn't shot-blocking. That's one element. Other elements are positioning, anchoring, covering, altering shots thru contests, fundamental play on the block, paint protection, intimidating. Intimidation is not looking at how big Shaq is. Intimidation is Ben Wallace. Intimidating is Dikembe Mutombo...that is personified. Shaq got you on the weak side, he blocked you if you tried to shoot over him. He didn't anchor your defense. He was a great player and a center, so we give him credit as a great defender. There is some revisionism about Bird being a liability, tho he was far too intelligent to get abused by people. Bird was as good a team defender as you'd find, a great post defender, a hustle player, and would make huge plays on D. Bird was better.


Shaq is a better rebounder. He was a center and Bird was a SF. But that's fine. After the last few years I finally understand a reason for people who think Shaq should have been a better rebounder than he was. I thought he was great, but I forgot that he didn't do shit on defense. How many boards would he get if he actually defended? He'd still be a double-double guy, but his rebounding would probably go down. Tho it was great the two years he should have been MVP.


But yes, like you said, Bird is the better passer. He's also the better off-ball player. That might not be important, as Shaq was a center, but just as with rebounds we'll take it into consideration. Bird made players better. He was smarter, more clutch, a better team player, not a stat whore.


Those are much clearer advantages, so you know.

[Bucket_Nakedz]

btw i was just juxtin bout timmy being a product of pops. hes in my top 10, but i still feel bird is better, therefore the goat white baller.

[Whoah10115]

btw i was just juxtin bout timmy being a product of pops. hes in my top 10, but i still feel bird is better, therefore the goat white baller.



Are you really under the impression that he's white?

[gengiskhan]

btw i was just juxtin bout timmy being a product of pops. hes in my top 10, but i still feel bird is better, therefore the goat white baller.

In today's kiddy NBA era. these people talk about individual accolades.

Duncan swept MVP only once 2003 (reg sea MVP + FMVP in same year)

Bird has done it TWICE (1984 mvp sweep & 1986 MVP sweep).

& Bird also has 1985 season MVP in the middle.

in other words: ABSOLUTE SHEER DOMINANCE OF AN ERA

1984: Season MVP + FMVP
1985: Season MVP + (NBA Finalist)
1986: Season MVP + FMVP

When was Duncan even REMOTELY CLOSE TO this kind of SHEER DOMINANCE.

Even Shaq did not DOMINATED in watered down 2000 era.

[D.J.]

Anyone saying it's one sided is absolutely wrong. They're very close, but also played completely different styles. On one hand, Larry Bird at his best was basically LeBron James with better rebounding, post play, and elite three point shooting. He also IMO had the highest ball IQ of anyone to ever play. Tim Duncan at his best was arguably the most fundamentally sound big man to ever play and the best passing big along with Chris Webber and Brad Daugherty.

Duncan was obviously the far superior defender. That's not debatable. His 2003 postseason was insane. Bird was the more complete player and at 6'9" 230, could play any position. Their peaks are very close and you could argue for either one. For the final play of a game, I'd rather have Bird. For a game 7, could go either way. For an entire series, I would actually go with Duncan because ultimately, defense is going to win in a best of 7.

In a GOAT list, Bird should be a couple of spots higher. No one has had his ability to know where every player was, his ball IQ, his ability to play all 5 positions(only Charles Barkley comes close), and his ability to put up high numbers across the scoreboard with amazing efficiency. He was a better version of LeBron. A lot of it is going to depend on what your team needs. Can't go wrong with either one though.

[Baller1986]

Are you really under the impression that he's white?


Duncan is only Half White. TD's daughter is 3/4 white and 1/4 black.

http://ballerwives.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tim-duncan-and-family1.jpg

http://www.blackhawkshootingrange.com/BlackhawkShootingRange/Welcome_files/Tim%26Mom.jpg

Duncan's Grandmother.

[Whoah10115]

Anyone saying it's one sided is absolutely wrong. They're very close, but also played completely different styles. On one hand, Larry Bird at his best was basically LeBron James with better rebounding, post play, and elite three point shooting. He also IMO had the highest ball IQ of anyone to ever play. Tim Duncan at his best was arguably the most fundamentally sound big man to ever play and the best passing big along with Chris Webber and Brad Daugherty.

Duncan was obviously the far superior defender. That's not debatable. His 2003 postseason was insane. Bird was the more complete player and at 6'9" 230, could play any position. Their peaks are very close and you could argue for either one. For the final play of a game, I'd rather have Bird. For a game 7, could go either way. For an entire series, I would actually go with Duncan because ultimately, defense is going to win in a best of 7.

In a GOAT list, Bird should be a couple of spots higher. No one has had his ability to know where every player was, his ball IQ, his ability to play all 5 positions(only Charles Barkley comes close), and his ability to put up high numbers across the scoreboard with amazing efficiency. He was a better version of LeBron. A lot of it is going to depend on what your team needs. Can't go wrong with either one though.



Some very good points but I don't agree with everything. He was like LeBron in how he was involved in all facets of the game. But he wasn't ball-dominant and he wasn't the point forward that LeBron is, either.


And Duncan is not the 3rd best passing big man ever. Sabonis, Walton, Kareem, Vlade are all easily better. David Robinson was certainly a better passer and so was Garnett. He was a great passer but not on any shortlist.

[Whoah10115]

Duncan is only Half White. TD's daughter is 3/4 white and 1/4 black.

http://ballerwives.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tim-duncan-and-family1.jpg



I was thinking...I remember his Wife. She was at the draft with him.

[D.J.]

Some very good points but I don't agree with everything. He was like LeBron in how he was involved in all facets of the game. But he wasn't ball-dominant and he wasn't the point forward that LeBron is, either.


He wasn't ball dominant like LeBron, but LeBron's game is the closest to Bird's. And it can be argued Bird was an equal or better point forward than LeBron though the term really didn't become popular until Scottie Pippen. Actually, here's an article about Bird and playing point forward:

http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/2009/08/01/larry-legend-the-sudden-and-saddening-demise-of-a-basketball-legend/

They were 29-5 to start and Bird was averaging 19/9/8 in 31 games. This was Bird at 34 with a terrible back. Also remember he did have stretches in the 80's where he did play point forward and was even more dominant in those stretches.



And Duncan is not the 3rd best passing big man ever. Sabonis, Walton, Kareem, Vlade are all easily better.


No they were not all better. Sabonis and Walton are on par for sure. Kareem and Vlade, no. And Daugherty was a better passer than both Kareem and Vlade. Passing ability isn't always in the assist averages, especilly for big men. Guys like Duncan, Daugherty, Sabonis, and Walton made not just nice passes, but the right passes.



David Robinson was certainly a better passer and so was Garnett.


Absolutely not. Duncan was better than both by a good amount.

[julizaver]

Hm, never considered Tim Dunkan as a white player - is he ?

Larry Bird is the greatest white player in NBA modern history (after 1979).

About Tim Dunkan - he is center playing PF position - at first due to the presence of David Robinson who at his peak years was better than Dunkan (in terms of talent, numbers). Anyway Dunkan is an unique player - do the simple things, could play at both center and PF position, great playoff performer (when it counts).

[brain drain]

Larry Bird was a better offensive player than Shaq. Shaq was naturally more efficient. He wasn't even as good a scorer. Bird was better.


The defense thing is ridiculous and this is one of those things where "period" is inevitable. Shaq played subpar defense for most of his career. He wasn't a "great" post defender. he was very good, but if you put the ball on the floor he'd give up. He is the worst pick n' roll defender I've ever seen. He refused to come out on shooters. Rim-protection isn't shot-blocking. That's one element. Other elements are positioning, anchoring, covering, altering shots thru contests, fundamental play on the block, paint protection, intimidating. Intimidation is not looking at how big Shaq is. Intimidation is Ben Wallace. Intimidating is Dikembe Mutombo...that is personified. Shaq got you on the weak side, he blocked you if you tried to shoot over him. He didn't anchor your defense. He was a great player and a center, so we give him credit as a great defender. There is some revisionism about Bird being a liability, tho he was far too intelligent to get abused by people. Bird was as good a team defender as you'd find, a great post defender, a hustle player, and would make huge plays on D. Bird was better.


Shaq is a better rebounder. He was a center and Bird was a SF. But that's fine. After the last few years I finally understand a reason for people who think Shaq should have been a better rebounder than he was. I thought he was great, but I forgot that he didn't do shit on defense. How many boards would he get if he actually defended? He'd still be a double-double guy, but his rebounding would probably go down. Tho it was great the two years he should have been MVP.


But yes, like you said, Bird is the better passer. He's also the better off-ball player. That might not be important, as Shaq was a center, but just as with rebounds we'll take it into consideration. Bird made players better. He was smarter, more clutch, a better team player, not a stat whore.


Those are much clearer advantages, so you know.

IS THIS REAL LIFE? Anybody who thinks that Shaq wasn't as good a scorer as Bird needs to lay the pipe down right NOW.

Also, stop comparing raw stats. You need to adjust for pace to compare over eras. Bird had NOWHERE NEAR the offensive impact that Shaq had.

Put Shaq on those Celtics teams (and exchange Parish for a SF of similar quality) and its basically GAME OVER for the 80s, not just three meager titles for a team full of HOFers and numerous exits against lower seeded teams.

[InspiredLebowski]

Stop comparing dominant post scorers to wings that had some post game. Both all time greats, that's not good enough?

[knicksman]

They don't win in 81, much less in 84.


Duncan has been a much different player since 2005. You could take the injuries that he kept hushed when going back to 2005, but since then his role and option status has been the been one of the guys on the team, in an equal opportunity offense. Which is fine, Jordan had the same thing happen in 1991. But his court status was still the #1 guy. Duncan was the best player and a player within the system. From 2005/06 on he was nowhere near the same player. The offense did not go thru him the same way and he didn't have the level of responsibility that is associated with his peak. He always played the right way but he was much more conservative from then on. Honestly, a valid reason (as justification) could very well have been not having Robinson next to him and instead of having Nesterovic, then Oberto, and also backups who weren't that good. Of course, much of this would have been avoided if he moved to center, but I digress...


Duncan straight up is not close to Bird. And the thought is ridiculous. He has a list of accomplishments that make it sound valid but he's float out not as good and didn't have as much impact. He has more longevity, but not enough to discount that Bird was easily a better player. Bird had better teams and he also had more than twice the competition. If Duncan was on teams as good as the ones Bird was on then Duncan wouldn't have stood out as much.

I think you got the 2 players interchanged. Bird plays like robertson and we all knew who robertson was while duncan plays like russell. Thats why bird only won once in his prime while 2 of his rings came when hes not yet statistically dominant. This is duncan easily.

[Rameek]

/thread.

seriously! Thats the NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

In modern day NBA (1970 - Present) excluding the 50s & 60s & 40s...

Only 3 Players are considered UNQUESTIONABLE GOAT for their ability to either TRANSFORM or TRANSCEND the game forever.

1. Michael Jordan: TRANSENDED the game forever where the rules are completely changed post MJ era. (WHOLE GENERATION COPIES HIM)

2. Magic Johnson: TRANSFORMED the game where modern day PURE PLAYMAKING PGs copy him.

3. LARRY BIRD: TRANFORMED the game where mordern day PURE or POINT FORWARDS copy him (LBJ, Pippen, T-mac)

Where is dat Tim Duncan in this argument.

NOWHERE!
The NBA was just getting a foothold in popularity. It wasnt even close back then when it came to popularity. NFL, MLB, Boxing... So Magic Bird got it going and Jordan blew it up. This is why they are revered so much. TV time.

[Whoah10115]

I think you got the 2 players interchanged. Bird plays like robertson and we all knew who robertson was while duncan plays like russell. Thats why bird only won once in his prime while 2 of his rings came when hes not yet statistically dominant. This is duncan easily.


Uhh, what? Bird plays like who? No, I don't think you know what you're saying.


IS THIS REAL LIFE? Anybody who thinks that Shaq wasn't as good a scorer as Bird needs to lay the pipe down right NOW.

Also, stop comparing raw stats. You need to adjust for pace to compare over eras. Bird had NOWHERE NEAR the offensive impact that Shaq had.

Put Shaq on those Celtics teams (and exchange Parish for a SF of similar quality) and its basically GAME OVER for the 80s, not just three meager titles for a team full of HOFers and numerous exits against lower seeded teams.


:sleeping

[Whoah10115]

He wasn't ball dominant like LeBron, but LeBron's game is the closest to Bird's. And it can be argued Bird was an equal or better point forward than LeBron though the term really didn't become popular until Scottie Pippen. Actually, here's an article about Bird and playing point forward:

http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/2009/08/01/larry-legend-the-sudden-and-saddening-demise-of-a-basketball-legend/

They were 29-5 to start and Bird was averaging 19/9/8 in 31 games. This was Bird at 34 with a terrible back. Also remember he did have stretches in the 80's where he did play point forward and was even more dominant in those stretches.



I do think Bird did a lot less off the ball after 1989. After he hurt his back he took a lot more ball-handling responsibility...I don't remember who the PG was. His assists even went up. I remember my friend talking about this last year, and I had thought about it a lot before that. You can argue that Bird was his equal there, but the reason I won't is because LeBron did it more.



No they were not all better. Sabonis and Walton are on par for sure. Kareem and Vlade, no. And Daugherty was a better passer than both Kareem and Vlade. Passing ability isn't always in the assist averages, especilly for big men. Guys like Duncan, Daugherty, Sabonis, and Walton made not just nice passes, but the right passes.



I'm sorry, but I think you're incredibly off-base. In fact, I'm shocked. Sabonis and Walton are flat out much much much much better passers than Duncan is. Vlade was almost comparable with Webber. As far as pure passing you can add Brad Miller to the list. Duncan made the right passes, as you said. They played thru him. But it wasn't the pass, itself, the way it was with the other guys.




Absolutely not. Duncan was better than both by a good amount.



No, he was not.

[Carbine]

Larry Bird was a better offensive player than Shaq. Shaq was naturally more efficient. He wasn't even as good a scorer. Bird was better.


The defense thing is ridiculous and this is one of those things where "period" is inevitable. Shaq played subpar defense for most of his career. He wasn't a "great" post defender. he was very good, but if you put the ball on the floor he'd give up. He is the worst pick n' roll defender I've ever seen. He refused to come out on shooters. Rim-protection isn't shot-blocking. That's one element. Other elements are positioning, anchoring, covering, altering shots thru contests, fundamental play on the block, paint protection, intimidating. Intimidation is not looking at how big Shaq is. Intimidation is Ben Wallace. Intimidating is Dikembe Mutombo...that is personified. Shaq got you on the weak side, he blocked you if you tried to shoot over him. He didn't anchor your defense. He was a great player and a center, so we give him credit as a great defender. There is some revisionism about Bird being a liability, tho he was far too intelligent to get abused by people. Bird was as good a team defender as you'd find, a great post defender, a hustle player, and would make huge plays on D. Bird was better.


Shaq is a better rebounder. He was a center and Bird was a SF. But that's fine. After the last few years I finally understand a reason for people who think Shaq should have been a better rebounder than he was. I thought he was great, but I forgot that he didn't do shit on defense. How many boards would he get if he actually defended? He'd still be a double-double guy, but his rebounding would probably go down. Tho it was great the two years he should have been MVP.


But yes, like you said, Bird is the better passer. He's also the better off-ball player. That might not be important, as Shaq was a center, but just as with rebounds we'll take it into consideration. Bird made players better. He was smarter, more clutch, a better team player, not a stat whore.


Those are much clearer advantages, so you know.

I find it extremely hard to make a case for Bird having more impact as an offensive player. Clearly Bird was a more versatile offensive player, but all that matters is IMPACT.

Shaq destroyed teams defense. He would get the other team in foul trouble, get his team in an early bonus, the most unstoppable force down low, demanded double and triple teams regularly....and since he was a great passer in his prime, he made people around him better by creating wide open looks and wide open driving lanes.

There are two things to judging an offensive player. How well you can score and how effective you are at doing so, and how well you can make your teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.

Shaq did this as well as anyone ever in his prime.

Also, the thing about his defense....a lot of what you said is true regarding when he got older, but we're talking about Shaq at his best. Under those guidelines he was clear cut and dry a more impactful defensive player than Bird. Nobody should question that, not even Birds most obvious homers.

[LeBird]

You're being shortsighted. Shaq was a force within himself, but he did not make those around him better players. Bird had that ability to take over a game by himself but his passing and general play, getting teammates involved, make him an incredible attacking threat. Shaq was a great defender on his man, Bird was an amazing team defender.

The thing is, Bird did what he did in a far tougher era, where he usually didn't have the best team in the league. Also, Bird was a far tougher match-up because of his height and skills with his contemporaries than Shaq was with his peers. There were other centers close to him, who could challenge him - and he isn't even the best during his career if we're being honest - whereas Bird was clearly the best SF and he played multiple positions.

Shaq IMO is simply on the 2nd tier of greats with the likes of Duncan, Kobe and Olajuwon. Bird dines with Jordan, Magic, KAJ, Russell and Wilt.

[2010splash]

Duncan easily. By far. Truly an insulting comparison to Duncan. He is a DPOY caliber paint protector and a defensive anchor. Bird is nothing more than an average defender at best. Couldn't dream of having the defensive impact of Duncan.

[DMAVS41]

You're being shortsighted. Shaq was a force within himself, but he did not make those around him better players. Bird had that ability to take over a game by himself but his passing and general play, getting teammates involved, make him an incredible attacking threat. Shaq was a great defender on his man, Bird was an amazing team defender.

The thing is, Bird did what he did in a far tougher era, where he usually didn't have the best team in the league. Also, Bird was a far tougher match-up because of his height and skills with his contemporaries than Shaq was with his peers. There were other centers close to him, who could challenge him - and he isn't even the best during his career if we're being honest - whereas Bird was clearly the best SF and he played multiple positions.

Shaq IMO is simply on the 2nd tier of greats with the likes of Duncan, Kobe and Olajuwon. Bird dines with Jordan, Magic, KAJ, Russell and Wilt.

A lot of what you say is true, but I still don't see how any of that puts Shaq on a different tier than Bird.

But regardless, this is about Bird and Duncan. Obviously if you factor in longevity then it becomes a bit unfair in favor of Duncan as he's still going strong in year 16 capable of back to back 28/19 and 30/12 games all while still providing some of the best defense in the league.

Bird, at his very best, might have been a little better than Duncan at his best. I'll even just concede that...although I must point out that Duncan at his best is being wildly under-rated here.

But lets talk about impact and results. Because we could go back and forth forever about Bird being a better passer, shooter/scorer and more versatile and you saying that gives him the edge...and I could talk about Duncan being able to dominate the game on both ends...etc.

But I'll repeat it. 14 straight seasons over 50 wins...never been done before. 2nd highest is 12 by the 80's Lakers. Spurs did this with a lockout year last year...insane consistency. Mainstay of that streak is Duncan.

4 titles. Not once did he have an all nba teammate. Not once. I'll repeat that...not once. He did it 4 times and I think it's only been done by a handful of superstars in NBA history. The only guys to recently do it are Hakeem, Duncan, and Dirk...

Playoff performer. This is where I think Duncan surpasses Bird. Duncan just simply is the better playoff performer...and honestly, that is what matters the most. How these guys perform in the playoffs.

[Carbine]

You're being shortsighted. Shaq was a force within himself, but he did not make those around him better players. Bird had that ability to take over a game by himself but his passing and general play, getting teammates involved, make him an incredible attacking threat. Shaq was a great defender on his man, Bird was an amazing team defender.

The thing is, Bird did what he did in a far tougher era, where he usually didn't have the best team in the league. Also, Bird was a far tougher match-up because of his height and skills with his contemporaries than Shaq was with his peers. There were other centers close to him, who could challenge him - and he isn't even the best during his career if we're being honest - whereas Bird was clearly the best SF and he played multiple positions.

Shaq IMO is simply on the 2nd tier of greats with the likes of Duncan, Kobe and Olajuwon. Bird dines with Jordan, Magic, KAJ, Russell and Wilt.

I think you need to go back and watch some '99, '00, '01 Shaq if you think he didn't make his teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.

[brain drain]

LOL at Shaq not making his teammates better.

Take Shaq off the Orlando Magic, the Lakers or the Heat and take a wild guess how far these teams would've made it. See the difference? That's how much Shaq made his teams better. None of those guys would've won these championships with only a "good" center instead of Shaq.

[brain drain]

You're being shortsighted. Shaq was a force within himself, but he did not make those around him better players. Bird had that ability to take over a game by himself but his passing and general play, getting teammates involved, make him an incredible attacking threat. Shaq was a great defender on his man, Bird was an amazing team defender.

The thing is, Bird did what he did in a far tougher era, where he usually didn't have the best team in the league. Also, Bird was a far tougher match-up because of his height and skills with his contemporaries than Shaq was with his peers. There were other centers close to him, who could challenge him - and he isn't even the best during his career if we're being honest - whereas Bird was clearly the best SF and he played multiple positions.

Shaq IMO is simply on the 2nd tier of greats with the likes of Duncan, Kobe and Olajuwon. Bird dines with Jordan, Magic, KAJ, Russell and Wilt.

LOL at Bird being a tougher matchup than Bird. I don't remember the league changing the rules to make it harder for Bird.

And LOL about the "tougher era" crap. Bird's era was higher paced, so every single player got higher ppg, apg, rpg numbers than they would've gotten during the much slower paced second half of the 90s and first part of the 00s.
If anything, Bird hat it easier to produce great looking stats than Shaq.

Also, LOL at Bird "not having the best team in the league" nonsense. Take Shaq off his teams and compare those teams to the Celtics minus Bird. There's only one team where Shaq's team might've come out ahead talent-wise (the 4 HOFer Lakers team with geriatric Payton and old Malone), in all other comparisons, Bird's supporting cast was clearly superior. The only reason Shaq's teams were considered the best was Shaq himself.

[Whoah10115]

I find it extremely hard to make a case for Bird having more impact as an offensive player. Clearly Bird was a more versatile offensive player, but all that matters is IMPACT.

Shaq destroyed teams defense. He would get the other team in foul trouble, get his team in an early bonus, the most unstoppable force down low, demanded double and triple teams regularly....and since he was a great passer in his prime, he made people around him better by creating wide open looks and wide open driving lanes.

There are two things to judging an offensive player. How well you can score and how effective you are at doing so, and how well you can make your teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.

Shaq did this as well as anyone ever in his prime.

Also, the thing about his defense....a lot of what you said is true regarding when he got older, but we're talking about Shaq at his best. Under those guidelines he was clear cut and dry a more impactful defensive player than Bird. Nobody should question that, not even Birds most obvious homers.


Shaq was a solid defensive rookie and in his 2nd year. Outside of that, the only years he was very good were 99/00 and 00/01. Every other season was no more than average, really.



And on the offensive end, we're just going to disagree then.



LOL at Shaq not making his teammates better.

Take Shaq off the Orlando Magic, the Lakers or the Heat and take a wild guess how far these teams would've made it. See the difference? That's how much Shaq made his teams better. None of those guys would've won these championships with only a "good" center instead of Shaq.



Someone doesn't understand what making teammates better means.

[Carbine]

Shaq was a solid defensive rookie and in his 2nd year. Outside of that, the only years he was very good were 99/00 and 00/01. Every other season was no more than average, really.



And on the offensive end, we're just going to disagree then.






Someone doesn't understand what making teammates better means.

Who cares what Shaq was his rookie year? Or every year outside of '99 and '00? We're comparing Bird at his best vs. Shaq at his best, since that's how you evaluate greatness as evidence of your stance with Bird/Duncan.

The argument was at his best, which was '99/'00 and '00/'01. He was an anchor to the defense. Phil Jackson and every other person associated with that Lakers team would tell you the same thing.


I'm interested why you think Bird was a more impactful offensive player. You really didn't go into it any further than saying "well I think Bird is a better offensive player."

[rmt]

Regular Season
Bird 24.3 pts / 10 reb / 6.3 asst / 1.7 steals 12 seasons & only 6 games in 1989
Duncan 20.1 pts / 11.2 reb / 3.1 asst / 2.2 blks 16 seasons

Playoffs
Bird 23.8 its / 10.3 reb / 6.5 asst / 1.8 stls
Duncan 22.3 pts / 12.1 reb / 3.4 asst / 2.5 blks

Which would you rather have 12 seasons of Bird or probably 18 seasons of Duncan (2 more years on his contract)? TD does whatever is necessary to win - (28/19 and 30/12/5 the past 2 games with TP out). I'd pick the defensive anchor (which is rare in today's game) who is still able to step up offensively when needed.

Neither won back to back so that argument is nil. The better competition argument is offset by the better team mates argument. The better peak argument (not that TD was by any means a slouch in 02-03) is offset by the longevity argument. Those who say it isn't close haven't a clue.

I feel that some are either seduced by memories of what was the heyday of basketball or by youtube videos (which are mostly highlights and who doesn't look great in highlights). I remember what it felt like back then waiting for the weekend and the big match ups BOS vs LAL and the anticipation involved.

There is something to be said about Duncan's consistency over 16 years even if he is boring and of course, it's harder to maintain high stats as the years go on. With satellite/cable/internet etc. it's easy to get saturated with the almost (every other) daily exposure (non-important games against the scrub teams) than the memories of BIG, IMPORTANT weekend games vs LAL. Even with his knee issues, Duncan is still one of the best big men in the league. Could Bird with his back issues still be considered one of the best perimeter players in the league (especially today with the plethora of great perimeter players with young, athletic legs)? How rare is it to have a skilled big man who plays both sides of the floor than an elite perimeter player?

[ProfessorMurder]

TD does whatever is necessary to win - (28/19 and 30/12/5 the past 2 games with TP out).

Yeah it's not like Bird dove for EVERY ball and smashed his face off of the floor, got a concussion and came back in to win the game or anything...

[Whoah10115]

Who cares what Shaq was his rookie year? Or every year outside of '99 and '00? We're comparing Bird at his best vs. Shaq at his best, since that's how you evaluate greatness as evidence of your stance with Bird/Duncan.

The argument was at his best, which was '99/'00 and '00/'01. He was an anchor to the defense. Phil Jackson and every other person associated with that Lakers team would tell you the same thing.


I'm interested why you think Bird was a more impactful offensive player. You really didn't go into it any further than saying "well I think Bird is a better offensive player."



I mentioned his rookie season in his defense, as he never played defense. And in his two best defensive seasons he made All-Defensive Teams that he had no business making. There is no argument for him being a better defender than David Robinson in either of those seasons.


And being a big guy who plays good defense does not equate to anchoring. He never anchored anything. He worked harder, gave some effort on the pick n' roll, stuck to his man in the post, contested shots and attempted to put some pressure on guys going to the rim. He wasn't an anchor tho.

[IGOTGAME]

I mentioned his rookie season in his defense, as he never played defense. And in his two best defensive seasons he made All-Defensive Teams that he had no business making. There is no argument for him being a better defender than David Robinson in either of those seasons.


And being a big guy who plays good defense does not equate to anchoring. He never anchored anything. He worked harder, gave some effort on the pick n' roll, stuck to his man in the post, contested shots and attempted to put some pressure on guys going to the rim. He wasn't an anchor tho.

Wow...Prime Duncan was the definition of a defensive anchor. So much disrespect for that man.

[Whoah10115]

Wow...Prime Duncan was the definition of a defensive anchor. So much disrespect for that man.


??

I'm talking about Shaq.

[Legends66NBA7]

??

I'm talking about Shaq.

Shaq at his peak was a very good defensive anchor.

[ThaRegul8r]

Duncan easily. By far. Truly an insulting comparison to Duncan.

Yeah, because he's being compared to some scrub here, right?

:rolleyes:

[ThaRegul8r]

I like Duncan, he is amongst the best of the 2nd tier of all-time greats but Bird is in the discussion for GOAT. Duncan isn't, and that's the difference.

Not saying he should be, but since Duncan was perceived as "boring," he'd never be talked about in that vein. Bird with his trash-talking and doing stuff like telling defenders what the play was going to be before nailing the shot on them while they were expecting the play, asking everyone who was going to finish second in the Three-Point Shootout and then winning it, etc., had more "swag" than Duncan, which automatically puts Duncan at a disadvantage in such a comparison.

[Legends66NBA7]

Yeah, because he's being compared to some scrub here, right?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, I really hate both the Bird and Duncan camps that have said this.

It's "not even close" or "easily ____" from the start of page 1 till now... when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Fortunately, I just wanted to see a good honest debate for the selections from both sides and I actually have for the most part.

[TheBigVeto]

Bird. But not by much. Duncan is greatest player since Michael Jordan.

[Whoah10115]

Shaq at his peak was a very good defensive anchor.


:coleman:

Very good defender those two seasons, OK...but anchor? He wasn't an anchor of any kind.

[Carbine]

You're the only one saying that. Was he Duncan? Garnett? No.

But you don't need to be the best of your generation to be considered an anchor. Due to his sheer size, height, strength and athletic ability he was an intimidating player down low. He was an anchor for those Laker teams, clearly.


Originally Posted by Phil Jackson
We were funneling guys baseline and sideline, and overplaying everybody so they'd be forced to deal with Shaq in the lane.

The GOAT coach of his era built the defense around funneling guys to Shaq and won back to back to back titles. But nah.....he's no anchor. Right?

[LeBird]

Playoff performer. This is where I think Duncan surpasses Bird. Duncan just simply is the better playoff performer...and honestly, that is what matters the most. How these guys perform in the playoffs.

Er, let's be clear: Bird had a far tougher era - and that includes the post-season - to contend with than Duncan. It's not really debatable. And Bird was still awesome. That the Celtics won 3 titles in an era where they were contending with the best team of all-time - that had 2 of the top 5 players of all time (let alone the likes of Cooper, Worthy, Scott, etc) - is incredible. He also had to contend with the Sixers, Pistons, Bucks and Rockets - the latter two would have been regular title contenders, at the least, in Duncan's era.

It also meant that his 'not once having an all-nba player' (which is a stupid qualification, since he has had great teammates and fantastically 'built' teams in general) doesn't really count against him. Transport him to the 80s and he wins 0 titles.


I think you need to go back and watch some '99, '00, '01 Shaq if you think he didn't make his teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.

Shaq didn't make his teammates better. He made himself better - he played at a higher/better version of himself and that made his team better. Don't confuse the two.

[rmt]

Er, let's be clear: Bird had a far tougher era - and that includes the post-season - to contend with than Duncan. It's not really debatable. And Bird was still awesome. That the Celtics won 3 titles in an era where they were contending with the best team of all-time - that had 2 of the top 5 players of all time (let alone the likes of Cooper, Worthy, Scott, etc) - is incredible. He also had to contend with the Sixers, Pistons, Bucks and Rockets - the latter two would have been regular title contenders, at the least, in Duncan's era.

It also meant that his 'not once having an all-nba player' (which is a stupid qualification, since he has had great teammates and fantastically 'built' teams in general) doesn't really count against him. Transport him to the 80s and he wins 0 titles.

Anyone can play the what if game. Give Bird Duncan's 03 team mates and Bird wins 0 titles in that tougher era. That "tougher era" had less movement of players and less dilution of stars per team (the Heat notwithstanding). It's not like Duncan didn't have to go up against 2 top ten players (Shaq/Kobe) or the tough Western Conference - he just did it without the quality of team mates that Bird had.

[Fedor - Laker]

there are only 3 players you should ever know

1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bird

[ThaRegul8r]

there are only 3 players you should ever know

1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bird

Ah...so the rest of NBA history, both before and after, doesn't matter then.

:facepalm

I didn't know that intentionally limiting one's knowledge was ever a good thing.

[Round Mound]

there are only 3 players you should ever know

1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bird

Thats a Stupid Thing To Say Since This is the Notion Most Kids Got Since the NBA Began to Get Global At Around Those 3 Players Time. So thats What Most People Remember. Very Few Remember that Barkley was the 2nd Best Player in the Game 1988 to 1993 and Hakeem the 2nd or 1st as a Whole afte Jordan from 1985 to 1995.

Bird is my 2nd Favorite Player Ever but Its Not as Clear as You Think in Terms of Being Better than Duncan. Prime Bird was Probably Better but Duncan was the Better Impact Player Individually Wise (as was Barkley over Bird in those Terms). Duncan Was The Better Post Player, Rebounder, Shot Blocker and Rim Protector. Bird was the Better Far Range Shooter, Passer, Creator, Clutch Player and Had More Savy.

[nosfan773]

/thread.

seriously! Thats the NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

In modern day NBA (1970 - Present) excluding the 50s & 60s & 40s...

Only 3 Players are considered UNQUESTIONABLE GOAT for their ability to either TRANSFORM or TRANSCEND the game forever.

1. Michael Jordan: TRANSENDED the game forever where the rules are completely changed post MJ era. (WHOLE GENERATION COPIES HIM)

2. Magic Johnson: TRANSFORMED the game where modern day PURE PLAYMAKING PGs copy him.

3. LARRY BIRD: TRANFORMED the game where mordern day PURE or POINT FORWARDS copy him (LBJ, Pippen, T-mac)

Where is dat Tim Duncan in this argument.

NOWHERE!

Thats a stupid argument. The league was still growing during Birds era. So you're basically saying if a player nowadays was clearly better than MJ (blasphemous I know) you wouldn't rank him ahead of MJ simply because of the influence MJ had on the game?

http://www.boredwrestlingfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/b218965611.jpg

[rmt]

there are only 3 players you should ever know

1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bird

That's so close-minded. I think that one can learn from/appreciate different players/styles. To believe that basketball begins and ends with just 3 players is so limiting and disrespectful to all the players. Even MJ, Magic and Bird needed others to rebound, defend and space the floor for them.

[LeBird]

Anyone can play the what if game. Give Bird Duncan's 03 team mates and Bird wins 0 titles in that tougher era. That "tougher era" had less movement of players and less dilution of stars per team (the Heat notwithstanding). It's not like Duncan didn't have to go up against 2 top ten players (Shaq/Kobe) or the tough Western Conference - he just did it without the quality of team mates that Bird had.

That 'what if' is one of the least debatable what ifs there are. So, excuse me, but your argument doesn't wash for anyone intelligible enough to discern the difference between the eras. Bird took the 2nd worst side in the NBA and made them the #1 team - in the 80s (!). I think he'd do more than fine with any of Duncan's teams.

And fending off one great team is different to fending off several. Rubbish retort.

[DMAVS41]

Er, let's be clear: Bird had a far tougher era - and that includes the post-season - to contend with than Duncan. It's not really debatable. And Bird was still awesome. That the Celtics won 3 titles in an era where they were contending with the best team of all-time - that had 2 of the top 5 players of all time (let alone the likes of Cooper, Worthy, Scott, etc) - is incredible. He also had to contend with the Sixers, Pistons, Bucks and Rockets - the latter two would have been regular title contenders, at the least, in Duncan's era.

It also meant that his 'not once having an all-nba player' (which is a stupid qualification, since he has had great teammates and fantastically 'built' teams in general) doesn't really count against him. Transport him to the 80s and he wins 0 titles.



Shaq didn't make his teammates better. He made himself better - he played at a higher/better version of himself and that made his team better. Don't confuse the two.

Well, Bird did face tougher competition, but it's negated by the fact that Bird had the most help out of anyone outside the Lakers. So lets not pretend like Bird didn't have a loaded team...even for his era. It's a false argument...one that could be made against the likes of Kobe or Shaq or Lebron now...but not Duncan.

No superstar in NBA history has won more with less than Duncan.

[Micku]

Well, Bird did face tougher competition, but it's negated by the fact that Bird had the most help out of anyone outside the Lakers. So lets not pretend like Bird didn't have a loaded team...even for his era. It's a false argument...one that could be made against the likes of Kobe or Shaq or Lebron now...but not Duncan.

No superstar in NBA history has won more with less than Duncan.

To be fair, in the 80s you had to be stacked to win a championship back then. The 76ers, the Bucks, Pistons later on, Hawks, and Celts were all stacked with good players. And also when Bird came into the league, the Celts weren't stacked and he transformed that team to have the best record in the league. You can't deny Bird's impact on the team.

Same with Duncan tho.

[DMAVS41]

To be fair, in the 80s you had to be stacked to win a championship back then. The 76ers, the Bucks, Pistons later on, Hawks, and Celts were all stacked with good players. And also when Bird came into the league, the Celts weren't stacked and he transformed that team to have the best record in the league. You can't deny Bird's impact on the team.

Same with Duncan tho.

Nobody is denying anything. It's just not fair to mention Bird's superior competition without mentioning how loaded his teams were. And again...Bird had more help than just about everyone...even the Lakers often. It's not like Bird routinely went up against teams with better talent. Equal at times...sure, but almost never better.

So while Duncan obviously faced easier competition...his teams were nowhere near as loaded as Bird's. Did Duncan ever once have the most help in the league? I certainly don't think so. Yet Bird did at least a handful of times. That distinction needs to be made.

Honestly, I don't care what the competition is. Give Duncan a couple of all nba teammates and it's probably lights out for the rest of the league regardless.

[Anaximandro1]

pick randomly one coach and four players to complement Duncan/Bird

repeat the process 99 times.You have 100 matchups

the man who owns the highest winning percentage in nba history would win more than 50 games



Well, Bird did face tougher competition, but it's negated by the fact that Bird had the most help out of anyone outside the Lakers. So lets not pretend like Bird didn't have a loaded team...even for his era. It's a false argument...one that could be made against the likes of Kobe or Shaq or Lebron now...but not Duncan.

No superstar in NBA history has won more with less than Duncan.

I'd like to see Larry play alongside a bunch of senior citizens and rookies during the 2001-2004 period in a conference populated by the Shaq/Kobe Lakers,Mavs,Blazers,Kings and Wolves.

[Micku]

Nobody is denying anything. It's just not fair to mention Bird's superior competition without mentioning how loaded his teams were. And again...Bird had more help than just about everyone...even the Lakers often. It's not like Bird routinely went up against teams with better talent. Equal at times...sure, but almost never better.

So while Duncan obviously faced easier competition...his teams were nowhere near as loaded as Bird's. Did Duncan ever once have the most help in the league? I certainly don't think so. Yet Bird did at least a handful of times. That distinction needs to be made.

Honestly, I don't care what the competition is. Give Duncan a couple of all nba teammates and it's probably lights out for the rest of the league regardless.

It depends on the year. In the early 80s, there were more teams that were more stacked than the Celts like the Lakers and 76ers. And he did transform the team from a 29 win team to a 61 win team in his rookie year. In the mid 80s they were one of the most stacked teams the NBA ever seen. Like I said before tho, the 80s quite a few stacked teams similar to that. It's a bit of luck and good management to have stack teams or else you'll have to wait a while. I'm just saying that you HAD to be stacked to win. Even if you get pass a team like the Lakers, you had to go through Celts, 76ers or the Pistons later on to win. And they were stacked.

Stacked teams increase the odds of you winning more championship and you would have a less difficult time on the floor. But it's not just stacked teams, it's also the players as well. Magic Johnson, Bird, Kareem, Moses Malone, Dr. J, Charles Barkley prime, Hakeem, Karl Malone, and etc depending on which conference he'll play within.

[DMAVS41]

It depends on the year. In the early 80s, there were more teams that were more stacked than the Celts like the Lakers and 76ers. And he did transform the team from a 29 win team to a 61 win team in his rookie year. In the mid 80s they were one of the most stacked teams the NBA ever seen. Like I said before tho, the 80s quite a few stacked teams similar to that. It's a bit of luck and good management to have stack teams or else you'll have to wait a while. I'm just saying that you HAD to be stacked to win. Even if you get pass a team like the Lakers, you had to go through Celts, 76ers or the Pistons later on to win. And they were stacked.

Stacked teams increase the odds of you winning more championship and you would have a less difficult time on the floor. But it's not just stacked teams, it's also the players as well. Magic Johnson, Bird, Kareem, Moses Malone, Dr. J, Charles Barkley prime, Hakeem, Karl Malone, and etc depending on which conference he'll play within.

Again, I'm not disputing that. But all else equal, Duncan having to go through Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Nash Suns, Dirk Mavs...etc. It's all equal given his help.

Also, obviously with Robinson out it isn't that fair of a comparison, but I think Duncan added something like 40 wins to the Spurs the year he joined.

[Whoah10115]

You're the only one saying that. Was he Duncan? Garnett? No.

But you don't need to be the best of your generation to be considered an anchor. Due to his sheer size, height, strength and athletic ability he was an intimidating player down low. He was an anchor for those Laker teams, clearly.



The GOAT coach of his era built the defense around funneling guys to Shaq and won back to back to back titles. But nah.....he's no anchor. Right?


The term "anchor" gets thrown out way too loosely. It has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. It's a way of playing and Shaq was never ever an anchor.


And your Jackson quote does not suggest he was. If anything, it suggests that Shaq was strong at the rim and so the team wanted to force players there. It also suggests Jackson was very cognizant of Shaq's inability and unwillingness to come out of the paint. But defending well at the rim and staying in the paint is not anchoring a defense.

[Whoah10115]

It's really not arrogance or the wrong attitude. There isn't a valid argument for everything.


The idea that Duncan was a better playoff performer is wrong. Watching the games will tell you all you need to know. If you watch a game then you see who the better player is. Duncan is one of the best players of all-time, arguably (and most people would say probably) top 10. Bird is absolutely in the top 6. Duncan is not a better playoff player. He was a big man and played as consistently as people want their big men to play. That people don't recognize that, don't recognize the impact of Bird's all-around play (and saying you recognize it isn't recognizing it), is sad. It's also ridiculous. Dirk was great in the 2011 Finals because he was not only clutch, in the conventional sense, but because he made the big plays and had the big stretches when they needed to make big plays and have big stretches. His shooting percentage was low and his points to attempts weren't even crazy, despite his FT's. Wade killed him, statistically. However, Dirk was not only the MVP because he won a title, he was the MVP because he was the best player on the floor, by a good margin. No stats will ever tell you that.


The regular season is more about numbers than the playoffs. The playoffs are situational. Yes, we can marvel at Michael's numbers actually going up in the playoffs. It's quite remarkable. But some of what made Michael truly great happened when his numbers were not at his best. And we do not do that here. Duncan is not a better player than Bird. It's not the Bird side talking. This is just ridiculous.

[Carbine]

The term "anchor" gets thrown out way too loosely. It has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. It's a way of playing and Shaq was never ever an anchor.


And your Jackson quote does not suggest he was. If anything, it suggests that Shaq was strong at the rim and so the team wanted to force players there. It also suggests Jackson was very cognizant of Shaq's inability and unwillingness to come out of the paint. But defending well at the rim and staying in the paint is not anchoring a defense.

I think you're literally the only person not willing to say Shaq was an anchor to that defense. I challenge you to make a thread about Shaqs defense in his prime. You won't like what people have to say. There was a thread about prime Jordan vs Shaqs defense awhile ago, and here are some quotes from some knowledgeable posters:


Shaq to me, when he was in his prime, was the better defender. Shaq was quicker, leaner, and hungry. He, when motivated, was a nightmare for players entering the lane. Shaq to me was the better defender in his prime than Jordan.


At his peak, Shaq was one of the greatest defenders of all time. Do people not understand how much of a deterrent it is for the offensive player seeing a guy that big near the ring. No one is driving on that.


Shaq's effort wasn't as consistent, but I think when he was motivated, he could make a bigger impact than Jordan. Jordan obviously stands out more at their positions, he's obviously the greatest defender at his position while Shaq isn't that high up that centers list defensively, but I don't think Jordan could anchor an elite defense the way a prime, motivated Shaq could and did.


Or simply go watch the games. Educate yourself. There are games all over youtube of the Lakers.

Seriously, just go watch the games. Refresh your memory of peak Shaq.

[LeBird]

Well, Bird did face tougher competition, but it's negated by the fact that Bird had the most help out of anyone outside the Lakers. So lets not pretend like Bird didn't have a loaded team...even for his era. It's a false argument...one that could be made against the likes of Kobe or Shaq or Lebron now...but not Duncan.

No superstar in NBA history has won more with less than Duncan.

TBF, the Pistons and the Sixers had just as stacked teams. The Lakers moreso. So, no, I don't buy that. The reason the Celtics did better, and won, was because of Bird.

So the straight comparison about championships won or playoff performances need context. In reality, the fact that the Celtics won 3 at all is amazing - a much bigger achievement than San Antonio winning 4 in Duncan's tenure.

And as aforesaid; Bird inherited the 2nd worst team and got them to the #1 rank without any of his illustrious help - which came later on.

[Whoah10115]

I think you're literally the only person not willing to say Shaq was an anchor to that defense. I challenge you to make a thread about Shaqs defense in his prime. You won't like what people have to say. There was a thread about prime Jordan vs Shaqs defense awhile ago, and here are some quotes from some knowledgeable posters:








Or simply go watch the games. Educate yourself. There are games all over youtube of the Lakers.

Seriously, just go watch the games. Refresh your memory of peak Shaq.



All of those quotes are stupid and insulting. Shaq is not one of the greatest defenders of all-time. The only people who take his defense over MJ's are people who obsess over big man defense and make it into what it isn't.


Shaq was not an anchor. An anchor is a guy who the defense is built around. He's someone who moves the defense as he moves. He changes the shape and rotations. He communicates thru his movements. As he drops, the defense shifts, as he comes out, the defense shifts. As he closes in, the defense shifts.


He's not an anchor. I don't care how people try to classify it. He never did that. And it's simplistic and empty-headed to crown him one of the great defenders because of size. Any big guy who you plug down the lane will deter some people from driving. That's not credit I give to the defender, for the simple act of being there. That's like Arsenal not playing with a DM and having no presence in the middle. You can put a subpar player there and that would strengthen. That's just logic. And he deterred far fewer people than is suggested. He's not Mutombo. When he made the All-Defensive Team, he made it over David Robinson. There are people who think Robinson should have beat out Mourning in 2000 (I am not one of those). Robinson had a strong case vs Dikembe in 2001. Ratliff was better than Shaq was. Ben Wallace was better than Shaq was. And that's just in those two seasons. In other seasons he was much less.


I don't care how many times people suggest that he is an anchor or one of the all-time defenders. It's stupid and it's factually wrong. Marc Gasol is a much better defender than O'Neal ever was. Educate myself? I'd rather not follow some required line of thinking. To say he's a great defender is stupid. And whoever said he had more impact than Jordan or any all-time defender should not be allowed to give his opinions. That's just strategy than any decent coach should be able to work out. It's lazy thinking.

[Whoah10115]

Nobody is denying anything. It's just not fair to mention Bird's superior competition without mentioning how loaded his teams were. And again...Bird had more help than just about everyone...even the Lakers often. It's not like Bird routinely went up against teams with better talent. Equal at times...sure, but almost never better.

So while Duncan obviously faced easier competition...his teams were nowhere near as loaded as Bird's. Did Duncan ever once have the most help in the league? I certainly don't think so. Yet Bird did at least a handful of times. That distinction needs to be made.

Honestly, I don't care what the competition is. Give Duncan a couple of all nba teammates and it's probably lights out for the rest of the league regardless.


Ginobili is twice All-NBA and Parker is about to be thrice All-NBA. I'm sick of all this stupid slurping of Duncan. So he didn't have an all-star in 2003. Wah. He had a quality team built around him, and the best team they went up against was the Lakers, who had nothing outside of their two great players. And the great defensive player O'Neal was a non-factor on that side of the ball. People whine about Bryant shooting them out of the series...who exactly was on that team? They were the 5th seed for a reason. Shaq and Kobe vs Tim Duncan and a real team is hardly the adversity for Duncan that people suggest.


Who else did he beat? They went soft at your soft Mavericks, with Dirk out? The Mavericks, while a very good team, get obliterated if Webber doesn't go up for that dunk. Without Webber, they not only went to 7, but they fought to do it. Not the Celtics letting the Hawks hang around. The Spurs beat the Nets? Kidd didn't have half the team that Duncan did and they won in 6. Duncan's run is, to this day, incredible to think about. If he was undermanned, then what about the teams he wnet up against? The only team that weren't undermanned were the Mavericks...except they played a few games without their best player. I don't know what kind of rap you're talking about.


You wanna give Duncan crazy credit? Give him credit for getting it done with Rasho freakin Nesterovic starting next to him. I'll give him credit for that, tho it's his own fault for not moving over to C, but I'll give him credit for that. Mohammed was actually very good tho and played more minutes in the playoffs. How about when they beat the Pistons in 2005 they did it with Ginobili being an all-star? Ginobili didn't make the all-star team for any reason other than his play was stellar and went well beyond stats. Parker had already become a borderline all-star. He'd be an all-star the next two seasons. He was a beast in those playoffs. Ginobili averaged over 20 a game in the playoffs. He shot over 50% and, if I recall, Duncan was in Kobe territory. Ginobili has, at least, a legitimate argument for FMVP that year. Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry was GREAT in those playoffs. Behind THREE all-star players...guys who, at playoff time, were two of the best players in the league.


How about in 2007, when Parker was an all-star and Manu had a shout for the All-NBA Team that year? How about the fact that, by the year before, Duncan was nowhere near the same player? Does anyone want to consider that the offense ran as much thru that backcourt as it did solely thru Duncan? Why would we do that? They were all 20PPG per 36 that year and all within a point of each other. In the playoffs they were all 20PPG per 36. Duncan was actually better thru the first 3 rounds, but Parker was by far the best player in the Finals. Imagine if he had help, right?


Such a made-up argument.

[Carbine]

"but Parker was by far the best player in the Finals."

It's clear you twist history to suit your argument as this is not the case.

Parker literally scored a few more points per game on better percentages vs. Duncan who had virtually the same amount of assists, waaaaay more rebounds, way more blocks and way more of an impact on the other side of the floor.

[Whoah10115]

"but Parker was by far the best player in the Finals."

It's clear you twist history to suit your argument as this is not the case.

Parker literally scored a few more points per game on better percentages vs. Duncan who had virtually the same amount of assists, waaaaay more rebounds, way more blocks and way more of an impact on the other side of the floor.


Twist what? He played better. Everyone watching that series saw him playing better. At the time everyone recognized it. If it wasn't for the insatiable appetite to suck on Duncan then revisionism wouldn't be so prominent.


And a few more? Talk about twisting. 6 more PPG is not a few more. That's a lot more. And he shot like 12% better from the field, from the guard spot.


Defense is not the only thing you don't get from reading a box score.

[Carbine]

Twist what? He played better. Everyone watching that series saw him playing better. At the time everyone recognized it. If it wasn't for the insatiable appetite to suck on Duncan then revisionism wouldn't be so prominent.


And a few more? Talk about twisting. 6 more PPG is not a few more. That's a lot more. And he shot like 12% better from the field, from the guard spot.


Defense is not the only thing you don't get from reading a box score.

Let me get this straight, you value six more points per game at a 10 percent better clip over vastly superior defense, more than twice as many rebounds?

Not only do you value those six points and 10 percent FG percentage more, you value it so much more than the vastly superior defense and rebounding that Parker was "by far the best player?"

[Whoah10115]

Let me get this straight, you value six more points per game at a 10 percent better clip over vastly superior defense, more than twice as many rebounds?

Not only do you value those six points and 10 percent FG percentage more, you value it so much more than the vastly superior defense and rebounding that Parker was "by far the best player?"


Let me get this straight, you don't ****in get "Watch the games"?

Because that is what I said. So try and harp on where you think I'm making my point, if it suits you. I never said he was better because he scored more. He was better because he played better. Every post I've made in this thread is saying that, when comparing Duncan and Bird, Bird and Shaq, Nowitzki's Finals, whatever.


You don't have to get anything straight. I watched the series and Parker's play was better. He was the main component of that offense, in that series. His driving to the lane, breaking down of defenses, set the whole team up.


Just because you can't see defense from a boxscore, just because Duncan is an elite defender, doesn't mean that his defense was at the same level in that series. And it wasn't.

[Round Mound]

[B]Bird was the Better Shooter, Passer, Creator, Team Defender, Clutcher, More Savy and More Intanglibles

Duncan was the Better Post Player, Rebounder, Rim Protector and 1 on 1 Defender.

I

[Whoah10115]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Bird was the Better Shooter, Passer, Creator, Team Defender, Clutcher, More Savy and More Intanglibles

Duncan was the Better Post Player, Rebounder, Rim Protector and 1 on 1 Defender.

I

[Round Mound]

Duncan is a better team defender than Bird.

Nope Duncan is a Better Rim Protector, Shot Blocker and 1 on 1 Defender than Bird in the Post. Bird Was the Better Floor Defender, Stealer and Hustle Defender. Overall Bird Could Defend Well in the Post and Be The Best Team Defender of the 80s. Duncan Was and Is a Lousy Floor Defender.

Many People Forget Bird Had One of the Lowest DRTs in the 80s and in DWS also among the Best as a Team Defender.

[Carbine]

Let me get this straight, you don't ****in get "Watch the games"?

Because that is what I said. So try and harp on where you think I'm making my point, if it suits you. I never said he was better because he scored more. He was better because he played better. Every post I've made in this thread is saying that, when comparing Duncan and Bird, Bird and Shaq, Nowitzki's Finals, whatever.


You don't have to get anything straight. I watched the series and Parker's play was better. He was the main component of that offense, in that series. His driving to the lane, breaking down of defenses, set the whole team up.


Just because you can't see defense from a boxscore, just because Duncan is an elite defender, doesn't mean that his defense was at the same level in that series. And it wasn't.

Parker played better relative to his usual play, while Duncan just played decent overall for him. That's why he won MVP, not because he had more impact on the game.

I have the whole series on DVD. This whole "Parker driving the lane, breaking down defenses and set the whole team up" is completely false. At least to the extent you're talking about. He averaged 3.25 assists per game.

As for the bolded, Duncans defense was typical Duncan as per usual in that series. He patrolled the paint, played elite help defense, blocked shots, altered many others. It's one thing to watch a series, it's another to watch it with a discerning eye. They held the Cavs to 80 points per game. Maybe I should burn the four games off and upload them so you can refresh your memory.

[Whoah10115]

Nope Duncan is a Better Rim Protector, Shot Blocker and 1 on 1 Defender than Bird in the Post. Bird Was the Better Floor Defender, Stealer and Hustle Defender. Overall Bird Could Defend Well in the Post and Be The Best Team Defender of the 80s. Duncan Was and Is a Lousy Floor Defender.

Many People Forget Bird Had One of the Lowest DRTs in the 80s and in DWS also among the Best as a Team Defender.


I understand what you mean by floor defender. And yes, obviously correct on hustle defender, and stealer of the ball.


But Tim Duncan's greatest gift as a defender is his team defense. He's not, as some say, the prototypical anchor. He's an anchor, but he defends mostly out of the post and not under the rim (he's played PF most of his career).

But Duncan's greatest ability is to anchor within a team concept, covers basic rotations, is supremely fundamental and his basketball acumen is quite incredible. He just has a great feel for the game. Combine that with him being a better defender overall (and that is clear) and he is the better team defender. I get what you mean by Bird being a better team defender, as in his overall basketball IQ and ability to play within the structure. But that is Duncan's defensive game, but with the added dominant ability and ability to anchor.

And he isn't a lousy floor defender. He's a C playing PF and he plays a pretty basic game on defense. He doesn't venture out much, even for a center, much less for a PF.

[Whoah10115]

Parker played better relative to his usual play, while Duncan just played decent overall for him. That's why he won MVP, not because he had more impact on the game.

I have the whole series on DVD. This whole "Parker driving the lane, breaking down defenses and set the whole team up" is completely false. At least to the extent you're talking about. He averaged 3.25 assists per game.

As for the bolded, Duncans defense was typical Duncan as per usual in that series. He patrolled the paint, played elite help defense, blocked shots, altered many others. It's one thing to watch a series, it's another to watch it with a discerning eye. They held the Cavs to 80 points per game. Maybe I should burn the four games off and upload them so you can refresh your memory.


The Cavaliers also sucked. And their best player was young and carrying a load and was completely ineffective. Very few people were under the impression that Duncan was better than Parker in that series. Parker's APG were low but his offensive game is where the defense broke down and that is where the Spurs offense was its most potent. Duncan had greater impact, as far as importance to the team. He's Tim Duncan and he was close enough to his prime. He was the main piece. But Parker's play was the most effective in that series. Even Ginobili was a more important offensive player. Duncan had more impact on defense than either of them, but his defense wasn't as great as it was prior to 2004. Elite defense but Bowen and his dirty play was in the same tier and often better.

[Round Mound]

I understand what you mean by floor defender. And yes, obviously correct on hustle defender, and stealer of the ball.


But Tim Duncan's greatest gift as a defender is his team defense. He's not, as some say, the prototypical anchor. He's an anchor, but he defends mostly out of the post and not under the rim (he's played PF most of his career).

But Duncan's greatest ability is to anchor within a team concept, covers basic rotations, is supremely fundamental and his basketball acumen is quite incredible. He just has a great feel for the game. Combine that with him being a better defender overall (and that is clear) and he is the better team defender. I get what you mean by Bird being a better team defender, as in his overall basketball IQ and ability to play within the structure. But that is Duncan's defensive game, but with the added dominant ability and ability to anchor.

And he isn't a lousy floor defender. He's a C playing PF and he plays a pretty basic game on defense. He doesn't venture out much, even for a center, much less for a PF.

Agreed. Good Description of Details :applause:

[IGOTGAME]

You either didn't watch Bird or haven't paid attention to Duncan to think it's absurd to say Duncan.

I could give you a ton of reasons, but winning 4 titles and winning 50 or more games 14 consecutive years (never been done before...previous high was 12)...all while playing with by far the least amount of help any superstar to win that amount has had...I'll take Duncan.

I can't even imagine what the results would have been like if Duncan had played on teams even close to as talented as Bird's Celtics.

this...Tim Duncan is the most underrated dude. I'll take him over Magic or Bird.

[Jlamb47]

My father favcorite player is Bird mine is Duncan and both of us chooses Duncan over Bird. Duncan is an amazing 2 way player. He impacts the game in so many ways. Bird is top 10 player of all time but i got Duncan above him

[Milbuck]

I find it absolutely absurd and disrespectful how many people are saying "...and it's not even close" when picking Bird.

I forgot, are we talking about the greatest power forward ever, or Chuck Hayes?

[nightprowler10]

I take Bird, but yeah the people who say it's not even close are taking the piss. Duncan is the only player I can think of who makes me want to expand my legit top 6 to top 7.

[Im Still Ballin]

Larry Duncan. And it ain't even close.

[Leroy Jetson]

Larry Duncan. And it ain't even close.
Yes Larry Duncan would easily be GOAT.

[jongib369]

I think its a toss up. Bird had maybe the best peak of all time in the mid-80s. The guy can carry an offense and still hold his own as a defender because of his IQ on the court. He is more limited than Duncan in terms of size and athleticism but makes up for it in skill.

Duncan is a great defender and the best offensive post player of the past two 10-15 years. Shaq was more dominant due to his physicality but Duncan's skills on the block trump his. Really good passer too. Championship center piece style big who can anchor both ends of the floor.

I'd prob lean Duncan just because of the value of post player and because I've seen a lot more of his play. Grew up watching Duncan compared to watching some reruns of Bird so I don't think I can rate Bird accurately.

When ISHers make all time greatest lists these two are usually seperated by like 3-5 spots so not sure how ppl are going to say its not even close.


Pretty much the only thing that'd make me pick Duncan over Bird. Including the longevity of Duncan if you want to go that route, but in terms of what they could do in their peak including their bball IQ it's tough.

[oarabbus]

Bird is better

[ninephive]

+1. Duncan is more impactfull defensively, but Bird isnt slouch there either. Pretty much everywhere else Bird has a clear advantage. TD is great scorer, Bird is GOAT-like. TD is clutch, Bird is GOAT-like clutch, TD is a good passer, Bird is GOAT-passer in his position, etc.
Bird is a great rebounder, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is a great defender, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is a great post player, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is great at drawing double-teams, Duncan is GOAT-like. 2 can play at this game.

[T_L_P]

Bird is a great rebounder, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is a great defender, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is a great post player, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is great at drawing double-teams, Duncan is GOAT-like. 2 can play at this game.

Bird wasn't even a great defender though.

Some people put him at Magic's level which is absurd, but he was a good defender at his best.

[oarabbus]

Bird is a great rebounder, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is a great defender, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is a great post player, Duncan is GOAT-like. Bird is great at drawing double-teams, Duncan is GOAT-like. 2 can play at this game.


Cool, Bird is better though

[pauk]

Tim Duncan has the accolades to go against Bird, but Larry Bird was a far more prominent player... for the same reason i have Shaq, Lebron & Kobe above Duncan in my list aswell...

[navy]

Tim Duncan has the accolades to go against Bird, but Larry Bird was a far more prominent player... for the same reason i have Shaq, Lebron & Kobe above Duncan in my list aswell...
What does prominent mean to you?

[T_L_P]

Tim Duncan has the accolades to go against Bird, but Larry Bird was a far more prominent player... for the same reason i have Shaq, Lebron & Kobe above Duncan in my list aswell...

Didn't you call LeBron the DPOY and MVP until he retires? :facepalm

[pauk]

Didn't you call LeBron the DPOY and MVP until he retires? :facepalm

WTF? No?

[kamil]

I got Bird behind MJ. If Bird's health wasnt on the decline, he would have been remembered for much longer. It's weird though;

Bird had back problems
Magic has HIV
MJ retired

Those three guys never really played as long as some guys today; LeBron*, Duncan... Just imagine how different things would be had they lasted much longer.

[Lebron23]

I like Larry Bird, but Duncan is the superior individual and team player. And also one of the best defenders in NBA History.

[SHAQisGOAT]

I like Larry Bird

:coleman:

:oldlol:

[LeBird]

Bird, and it isn't that close.

[LAZERUSS]

A peak Bird probably had a slight edge over a peak Duncan. In terms of careers...Duncan, and really, by a mile.

[Jlamb47]

Bird, and it isn't that close.
You crazy
Duncan is an elite player both ways
5/6 in the finals
3 FVP and 2 MVP
Still going strong

[Jlamb47]

A peak Bird probably had a slight edge over a peak Duncan. In terms of careers...Duncan, and really, by a mile.

duncan peak is underrated, he was dominate on both ends of the floor, passing, defense, whatever

[LAZERUSS]

duncan peak is underrated, he was dominate on both ends of the floor, passing, defense, whatever

No question. But a peak Bird, from '84 to '86, won three straight MVPs, and two rings, and two FMVPs.

[Jlamb47]

No question. But a peak Bird, from '84 to '86, won three straight MVPs, and two rings, and two FMVPs.

Definetly one of the greatest runs ever, i just choose Duncan dude to elite impact on both ends.
Duncan did also win back to back MVP in 02 and 03 and also won a chip, but not back to back.

Duncan stats in 02 and 03

25.2ppg 12.7rpg 3.7apg 2.5bpg
23.3ppg 12.9rpg 3.9apg 2.9bpg

thats basically 25 13 4 3

This is while being the anchor on defense, Larry had Robert Parish and Kevin to do the dirty work on D.

[greatest-ever]

Um Duncan is half black idk why you're calling him white.

Anyways id go with Duncan, Bird had the better peak but only by a small bit and Duncan has a large edge in longevity and has the better resume.

[Anaximandro1]

Duncan, easily. He doesn't have to hide behind rings or longevity.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WZD-tYnYxbY/VOJhw4Vo4VI/AAAAAAAADz4/tTOPJIl1o2E/s1600/25.jpg


However, fans don't like Duncan: doesn't play for the Lakers or Celtics; he never tried to feast on bad teams or inflate his stats in blowouts during the regular season; he is boring, humble, doesn't seem larger than life ...


Steve Kerr
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/sports/basketball/selfless-tim-duncan-of-the-spurs.html?_r=2)[QUOTE][B]

[necya]

Duncan played in the Western Conference, competed against all time greats in their primes ... relative to his contemporaries, Duncan was a ruthless, efficient machine in the playoffs ... he was undefeated in the NBA finals (4-0)

Because Duncan would have beaten the 87 Lakers and Bird would have been humiliated by the 99 Knicks ? do you even think before posting ? :banghead: :facepalm

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Duncan, easily. He doesn't have to hide behind rings or longevity.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WZD-tYnYxbY/VOJhw4Vo4VI/AAAAAAAADz4/tTOPJIl1o2E/s1600/25.jpg


However, fans don't like Duncan: doesn't play for the Lakers or Celtics; he never tried to feast on bad teams or inflate his stats in blowouts during the regular season; he is boring, humble, doesn't seem larger than life ...


Steve Kerr
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/sports/basketball/selfless-tim-duncan-of-the-spurs.html?_r=2)


Duncan played in the Western Conference, competed against all time greats in their primes ... relative to his contemporaries, Duncan was a ruthless, efficient machine in the playoffs ... he was undefeated in the NBA finals (4-0)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dqCSLxOe2Wk/VOJiOfuQL3I/AAAAAAAAD0U/pCwTWXJg6G4/s1600/26.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h6mQeKNkxbo/VNJ_sqknSqI/AAAAAAAADuc/8Yv_Fc9l7kY/s1600/4.jpg

Debate over.

:applause:

[SillyRabbit]

And to think that without that Ray Allen miracle shot, Duncan would be 6/6 with 4 FMVP's.

No slight to Bird, but I'd take Duncan.

[LeBird]

You crazy
Duncan is an elite player both ways
5/6 in the finals
3 FVP and 2 MVP
Still going strong

I have Duncan in my top 10, outside the GOAT candidates. He'll simply never breach that group. Was never that dominant. Great player but his era was weaker in comparison to Bird and he has achieved much less relative to that.

MVP placing for Bird between 79-88

79-80 (Rookie year): 4th
80-81: 2nd
81-82: 2nd
82-83: 2nd
83-84: 1st
84-85: 1st
85-86: 1st
86-87: 3rd
87-88: 2nd

In an era of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Dr J, Moses Malone, Magic, Jordan; and then you had the lesser likes of Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, Sidney Moncrief, Bernard King, Dominique Wilkins, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, etc. From start until his back gave way; he was basically in the top 2 players in the strongest, most talented, era in NBA history.

Won 3 rings in the toughest conference of the toughest era in NBA history - Sixers, Pistons, Lakers and even teams like the Bucks and the Sampson/Olajuwon Rockets.

Duncan doesn't touch that. For almost half his career he hasn't been considered a top 5 player (MVP voting) and the last time he made an All-NBA team of any kind (1st, 2nd or 3rd) was in 09-10 (3rd All-Nba team). When people praise Duncan they forget about Pop and the system, with a deep squad, he's generally inherited.

[houston]

A peak Bird probably had a slight edge over a peak Duncan. In terms of careers...Duncan, and really, by a mile.


yup indeed

[T_L_P]

I have Duncan in my top 10, outside the GOAT candidates. He'll simply never breach that group. Was never that dominant. Great player but his era was weaker in comparison to Bird and he has achieved much less relative to that.

MVP placing for Bird between 79-88

79-80 (Rookie year): 4th
80-81: 2nd
81-82: 2nd
82-83: 2nd
83-84: 1st
84-85: 1st
85-86: 1st
86-87: 3rd
87-88: 2nd

In an era of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Dr J, Moses Malone, Magic, Jordan; and then you had the lesser likes of Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, Sidney Moncrief, Bernard King, Dominique Wilkins, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, etc. From start until his back gave way; he was basically in the top 2 players in the strongest, most talented, era in NBA history.

Won 3 rings in the toughest conference of the toughest era in NBA history - Sixers, Pistons, Lakers and even teams like the Bucks and the Sampson/Olajuwon Rockets.

Duncan doesn't touch that. For almost half his career he hasn't been considered a top 5 player (MVP voting) and the last time he made an All-NBA team of any kind (1st, 2nd or 3rd) was in 09-10 (3rd All-Nba team). When people praise Duncan they forget about Pop and the system, with a deep squad, he's generally inherited.

First off, Duncan was All-NBA 1st Team in 2013, just two seasons ago. It wasn't 09-10.

Second, he was top five in MVP voting from 98-07, which is the same period of time as the 'elite' years you posted for Bird.

Third, Bird made 10 All-NBA Teams (nine 1st, one 2nd), and 3 All-Defensive Teams (three 2nd)

Duncan made 14 All-NBA Teams (ten 1st, three 2nd, one 3rd, though the 3rd Team didn't come around until 89 so we can forget that one), and 14 All-Defensive Teams (eight 1st, six 2nd, and he's gonna make another one this year).

So stop acting like Bird clearly has more individual accolades/success.

You can't go wrong either way. It's not very controversial to say you'd take Duncan over Bird since he played vastly superior defense and had better longevity, as well as arguably a better peak (though I'm sure you think peak Bird shits all over peak Duncan). Remember, Duncan played in an era where teams were actually expected to play defense. And he sure as hell wasn't facing 30 win teams in the postseason.

[LeBird]

I stand corrected. I meant besides the gift-wrap selection of 2013 which was more like a parting gift than deserved.

As for the top 5...please. He was all over the place and never as dominant as Bird. Just look at those placings. And then compare their contemporaries. It's not even close.

Bird is, especially considering he was injury-plagued and retired early, a leap ahead of Duncan in terms of individual accolades. Duncan was never, ever, as dominant as Bird who by the mid 80s was getting GOAT talks. Duncan gets hindsight favour by the ring-counters.

I don't mean to say Duncan isn't great by the above, but there is a clear distinction there and it's unavoidable. It's the same between Magic and Kobe. Kobe is a great player, but he's not and never will be mentioned as a GOAT candidate in the way Magic was. If all you did was watch them it's obvious who is playing on a different level altogether.

[toxicxr6]

I stand corrected. I meant besides the gift-wrap selection of 2013 which was more like a parting gift than deserved.

As for the top 5...please. He was all over the place and never as dominant as Bird. Just look at those placings. And then compare their contemporaries. It's not even close.

Bird is, especially considering he was injury-plagued and retired early, a leap ahead of Duncan in terms of individual accolades. Duncan was never, ever, as dominant as Bird who by the mid 80s was getting GOAT talks. Duncan gets hindsight favour by the ring-counters.

I don't mean to say Duncan isn't great by the above, but there is a clear distinction there and it's unavoidable. It's the same between Magic and Kobe. Kobe is a great player, but he's not and never will be mentioned as a GOAT candidate in the way Magic was. If all you did was watch them it's obvious who is playing on a different level altogether.


At least TLP backs up his opinion with evidence.. You just dribble your opinion which at best is questionable... The case for duncan and bird is a close arguement.. stating that bird was clearly better.. There is no evidence to suggest this at all.. Nothing..

[sejoon101]

Duncan was insane in his prime... He literally carried his squad in the Spurs first championship run. (dont let the name value fool you, in the early 2000's, Parker was nowhere near the player he was today, Manu was just not starting to find his rhythm, D-Rob was heavily past his prime) and had a huge impact defensively, and Duncan's greatest strength, along with his defense, is his longetivity.

However, PRIME BIRD prior to his back injury, was in talks for GOAT conversations. Peak Bird had a skillset that was simply unreal... If Bird had a better longetivity, he'd seriously be in top 5 convos off of ANYONE's list, and this isn't because he's white. His court vision was 10x better than CP3's, his passing was 10x more creative and magical than Magic and Bran, his shooting touch was fcking smooth as butter.

Peak, BIRD IN A HEARTBEAT. ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE IMO.

But career/longetivity wise, give me Duncan all day.

[SuperPippen]

I stand corrected. I meant besides the gift-wrap selection of 2013 which was more like a parting gift than deserved.

As for the top 5...please. He was all over the place and never as dominant as Bird. Just look at those placings. And then compare their contemporaries. It's not even close.

Bird is, especially considering he was injury-plagued and retired early, a leap ahead of Duncan in terms of individual accolades. Duncan was never, ever, as dominant as Bird who by the mid 80s was getting GOAT talks. Duncan gets hindsight favour by the ring-counters.

I don't mean to say Duncan isn't great by the above, but there is a clear distinction there and it's unavoidable. It's the same between Magic and Kobe. Kobe is a great player, but he's not and never will be mentioned as a GOAT candidate in the way Magic was. If all you did was watch them it's obvious who is playing on a different level altogether.

You're really trying to argue that Duncan never had Bird's impact when Duncan was one thousand times the defender that Bird was?

Duncan has been anchoring championship contending teams for the better part of two decades. In terms of longevity, defense, and accomplishments he blows Bird out of the water.


And while he may not have have been quite the offensive force that Bird was, he was still absolutely no slouch. He was the go-to scorer on most of the teams he ever played on. Especially early in his career, the Spurs would never have won those championships without Duncan's ability to close out the game on the offensive - and defensive - end.


Anyway, I would take Duncan over Bird, but at least I concede that there is a definite argument to be had here. Acting like one can't even compare to the other is incredibly foolish.

[KevinNYC]

Anyway, I would take Duncan over Bird, but at least I concede that there is a definite argument to be had here. Acting like one can't even compare to the other is incredibly foolish.

Except that one is a thousand times better than the other.