Bill Simmons "Duncan has had the second best career ever"

[Carbine]

Kareem was first, deservedly.

[crisoner]

Where was Bill Russel on this list?

[deja vu]

Longevity? Yes.

[AboutBuckets]

Simmons is a huge Celtics Homer, you'd think he'd have put Bill Russell at first

[tmacattack33]

Whack.

The Spurs have been good the past few years due to other players, not Duncan.

[Johnny Jones]

Typical Bill Simmons and his knee jerk reactions.

[Harison]

Simmons is entertaining, but such overreaction reminds of ISH :lol

[Droid101]

Uh, not what he said. He said it's arguable between Duncan and Kobe (and neither of their careers are over yet, so it's sort of stupid to waste time comparing).

[DMAVS41]

He defends his position on Duncan very well.


No matter how you slice it. Best players ever, best careers ever...Duncan is on that short list of best ever.

Combining it all...level of impact, years played, peak, prime, decline, intangibles, off court persona...etc.

I have Duncan as the guy I'd draft 3rd all time if starting a team.

That is how I do my rankings...I try to incorporate all the above and then think about who I would draft knowing how their career has played out, to date, as some players are still going strong.

I disagree with Simmons about Jordan. I still take him first. I think he undersells MJ in the playoffs a few years...he was a championship first option in 13 post seasons iirc.

I'd take Russell 2nd. Didn't see Russell play so this isn't a pick I'm going to argue much about.

Duncan 3rd.

Magic 4th

Kareem 5th.

3 through 5 could be ranked in any way, but I feel confident that Duncan/Magic/Kareem should be ranked at those 3 positions.

Duncan's prime is extremely under-rated here. He had a 12 year (from 98 through 10) run in the playoffs of 23/13/4 55% TS while playing some of the best defense of all time. And that is with him missing the 00 playoffs...and he was a two way monster in 00.

His peak....probably from 03 through 06...he was a 24/13/4 57% TS defensive beast.

He has some of the best longevity ever. Came into the league elite from the jump. And is one of the most selfless superstars ever both on and off the court.

He's on the short list of franchise guys you think about taking first in a draft of all nba players ever.

[Dbrog]

Simmons is a huge Celtics Homer, you'd think he'd have put Bill Russell at first

this

[Ne 1]

Prisoner of the moment.

[kaiteng]

I would love to hear the reason why Simmons doesn't put Russell as #1.

[~primetime~]

Where was Bill Russel on this list?
that is who I assumed was #1 when reading thread title


don't see an argument for Duncan over MJ's career

[SOD 21]

Bill Simmons has become a prisoner of the moment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I could listen to legitimate talk about Tim Duncan being in the top five, but saying the second best career ever is going overboard.

I don't see any scenario in which his career can be considered better than Michael Jordan, Bill Russell or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. It gets more interesting when you compare Tim Duncan to players like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal.

[Marchesk]

Second best career? It's really good, but no way.

[kshutts1]

Did any of you read the article? Jordan was "dismissed" due to, and I'm paraphrasing here.... 11 full Chicago seasons, 2 partial Chicago seasons, and two Wizards seasons. So, in effect, 12 Chicago seasons and two years of Wizards Jordan. Compare that to 17 or 18 Duncan years, and I see where he's coming from with Duncan being listed ahead of Jordan. He also pretty clearly stats that Jordan was better.. it's just a significantly shorter time frame.

I don't agree with his list. I'd say Kareem and Russell are one and two, and I don't care enough to keep going. But I see how/why Jordan was not top 2.

[SOD 21]

Tim Duncan certainly falls well short of Michael Jordan who has more titles, more regular-season MVP's and more final MVPs. Bill Simmons can try to diminish Michael Jordan all he wants, but there's no way that Tim Duncan career is greater than his.

The great Bill Russell has won six more championships than Tim Duncan has and has also won more regular-season MVP awards; unfortunately, the finals MVP didn't exist for most of his career and neither did the all defensive team.

And then there is Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who has appeared in more championships, won more titles, won more regular season MVP, had even greater longevity, not to mention being the all-time leading scorer in league history.

I would listen to arguments that Tim Duncan has had the fourth best career all time, but nothing more than that. But I do believe there is an argument could be made for a handful of players in the fourth spot.

[Purch]

It's not a stretch. When you talk about the few people have made the playoff every year of their career, whiles playing an extreme long career, it's a very elite group

[Carbine]

Russell played 13 years. Duncan is going on 18.

Really if your perameters are who would I draft first to start a team knowing how good they were and how long they played.

I think anyone and everyone would take Kareem for 20 years instead of Russell for 13.

[navy]

Bill Simmons doesnt know baketball....

[Akrazotile]

"Best career" is a shit argument IMO because it centers entirely on team circumstance and media favoritism.

Id rather discuss who the "best players" were in order of value, but unfortunately this is not a discussion the majority seem capable of having.

[DMAVS41]

"Best career" is a shit argument IMO because it centers entirely on tam circumstance and media favoritism.

Id rather discuss who the "best players" were in order of value, but unfortunately this is not a discussion the majority seem capable of having.

People have that conversation all the time.

[Akrazotile]

People have that conversation all the time.


Not on this board. Nobody ever discusses how players rank in terms of performance. It's always about rings and finals mvp and how many years they made all nba this-team or all nba that-team. "Was he batman or robin" "rings as the man" "ratio of finals wins to appearances" "stacked team" etc.

People here never articulate what it is about how a guy actually plays and the impact he has that determines their rankings. They basically sit there and argue which player had the most fortunate circumstances. This convo about Duncan is evidence. Nobodys talking about how Duncan plays, just his 'resume.' Thats what goes on here 100% of the time.

[~primetime~]

Oh so it's a list of who played the longest and not who achieved the most...got it

[kshutts1]

Russell played 13 years. Duncan is going on 18.

Really if your perameters are who would I draft first to start a team knowing how good they were and how long they played.

I think anyone and everyone would take Kareem for 20 years instead of Russell for 13.
Russell also won 11 titles in those 13 years. So... yeah.

[Akrazotile]

Russell also won 11 titles in those 13 years. So... yeah.


See what i mean

[DMAVS41]

Not on this board. Nobody ever discusses how players rank in terms of performance. It's always about rings and finals mvp and how many years they made all nba this-team or all nba that-team. "Was he batman or robin" "rings as the man" "ratio of finals wins to appearances" "stacked team" etc.

People here never articulate what it is about how a guy actually plays and the impact he has that determines their rankings.

Yes they do. People do that all the time. Part of ranking players is going to be dependent on wins/losses given circumstances and accolades as well though.

As it should be. Those things often reflect the ability of basketball player.

Take, Lebron this year...compare him to Jordan and it's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that MJ 3 peated and Lebron didn't. Lebron choked in 11 and failed to lead his team to a title....and couldn't dominate enough this year.

Perfeclty reasonable. If Lebron was on MJ's level...he simply wouldn't have lost both in 11 and 14. He would have won one of those years.

You could go into details about what actually makes MJ better like his scoring skillset, toughness, mental toughness, far better first step, even more overwhelming swarming defense...etc.

But the other way is fine as well. Results matter. Personally I don't care about all nba and all defense much. MVP's are nice, but aren't the end all be all of course...neither are titles.

But, looking at the results players produce given their circumstances matter.

[DMAVS41]

See what i mean

That matters though.

It matters that Duncan led teams have such a great win percentage. It reflects how good they are at playing the damn game.

[kshutts1]

See what i mean
I hate responding to you, but... what about Russell winning 11 titles in 13 years is not one of the top two impressive careers out there? Particularly once we consider that, based on the majority of the evidence out there, he was the most important player on his team for each one?

[Carbine]

You're not drafting the rest of the Celtics with him though. But all he did was win no matter where he played, high school college pros.... so I'm not going to sit here and say that would change.

[RidonKs]

"best career" is the same as evaluating a player's "greatness" which is the way its usually talked about. it's more accurate to talk about careers imo.

if you're building a team from scratch and get to choose the duration of a player's career, who do you choose? this takes into account impact on the floor, durability, and personality.

for that three year stretch from 00-02, i'd take shaq over any three seasons with kareem. but shaq's career was fraught with drama and injury whereas kareem was stable and consistently successful. clearly kareem had the better career and for that reason he's ahead of shaq on most lists.

this is the reason i think bird and magic get overrated on these lists. bird only played 11 complete seasons before he broke down. magic is pretty much the same.

you'd be crazy not to take 17 years of duncan over 11 years with either of those guys even if you believe they made more of a difference on the floor. because the gap isn't wide and duncan is a 7 foot defensive anchor.



the argument for duncan over mj has to do with personality. both guys are fierce competitors with extraordinary work ethics. but mike was volatile and eccentric. duncan is the best teammate in the world, willing to fill whatever role his team needs from him. he didn't abandon his sport on an ego trip for two seasons right in the middle of his prime. he didn't partake in the sort of extracurricular activities that tempt a lot of guys, mj included. he showed up to play every season and you knew exactly what you were going to get.

i don't necessarily buy the argument since what mj did on the floor speaks for itself. but he only played 12 full seasons at the peak of his prowess, plus 2 extras at a lower level.

again, starting a franchise and keeping both present and future in mind, 17 straight seasons on the same team with a tremendous peak and the ideal team first mentality measures up against anybody; kareem, jordan, russell, whoever.

[Marchesk]

Russell played 13 years. Duncan is going on 18.

Really if your perameters are who would I draft first to start a team knowing how good they were and how long they played.

I think anyone and everyone would take Kareem for 20 years instead of Russell for 13.

I would take Kareem over Russell only because I think Kareem is the better overall player. But if they were even, I'd take the player I thought had the most competitive fire. The goal is to win rings, and Russell did that better than anyone.

I'm also taking Shaq over Duncan while acknowledging that Duncan has the better career resume at this point. And that's because Duncan can't match Shaq's impact. So I'd rather build around Shaq than Duncan from the get go.

[Akrazotile]

Yes they do. People do that all the time. Part of ranking players is going to be dependent on wins/losses given circumstances and accolades as well though.

As it should be. Those things often reflect the ability of basketball player.

Take, Lebron this year...compare him to Jordan and it's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that MJ 3 peated and Lebron didn't. Lebron choked in 11 and failed to lead his team to a title....and couldn't dominate enough this year.

Perfeclty reasonable. If Lebron was on MJ's level...he simply wouldn't have lost both in 11 and 14. He would have won one of those years.





This is so incredibly stupid its hard to believe youre serious.

MJ retired the first time with 3 finals appearances at age 30. Bran hasnt even TURNED 30 yet and hes been to the finals 5 times as his teams most important guy.

Why would you arbitrarily use one playoff series out of four AND dissmiss the conference finals, semis, and entire regular season? Jordan won three titles by age 30, Bran won 2. Jordan only made it OUT of his own conference three times at that age and Bran did it five times. And Jordan had by far the best "sidekick" between them when you compare where pippen and wade were in their career.


3/3 in the finals is the most arbitrary, simplistic, moronic, meaningless statement you could make, no offense to you personally. Why couldnt he make it five times? Bran did. Bran won more playoff series by age 30 than Jordan did.


"Finals" and "titles" are just simply dumb arguments, and theyre used as a crutch by dumb people who cant analyze what the actual differences are between the individuals. A single player doesnt win a title. A team does and often times circjmstances vary widely. A crucial teammate gets injured, refs fukc things up, one conference is harder than the other etc.


Simply saying "rings" means literally nothing, and the morons who think its like 70% of the argument are simply the dumb masses who cannot think for themselves. Period.

[~primetime~]

arguing "who would you draft" is much different than "who had the best career" IMO

when debating careers you look at what they actually DID achieve, what actually happened...MVPs, total career numbers, etc

arguing who you would draft is going into "what if" scenarios

[Marchesk]

again, starting a franchise and keeping both present and future in mind, 17 straight seasons on the same team with a tremendous peak and the ideal team first mentality measures up against anybody; kareem, jordan, russell, whoever.

I don't agree. I'm taking the player with the greater impact over 11 seasons, because my goal is to win as many championships as soon as possible. Now if I think that Duncan equals Bird and Magic, then I go with longevity.

[KyleKong]

In terms of consistency, by all means, ability, skill, winning team, etc. I think Duncan is up there with best careers.

[Thorpesaurous]

He defends his position on Duncan very well.


No matter how you slice it. Best players ever, best careers ever...Duncan is on that short list of best ever.

Combining it all...level of impact, years played, peak, prime, decline, intangibles, off court persona...etc.

I have Duncan as the guy I'd draft 3rd all time if starting a team.

That is how I do my rankings...I try to incorporate all the above and then think about who I would draft knowing how their career has played out, to date, as some players are still going strong.

I disagree with Simmons about Jordan. I still take him first. I think he undersells MJ in the playoffs a few years...he was a championship first option in 13 post seasons iirc.

I'd take Russell 2nd. Didn't see Russell play so this isn't a pick I'm going to argue much about.

Duncan 3rd.

Magic 4th

Kareem 5th.

3 through 5 could be ranked in any way, but I feel confident that Duncan/Magic/Kareem should be ranked at those 3 positions.

Duncan's prime is extremely under-rated here. He had a 12 year (from 98 through 10) run in the playoffs of 23/13/4 55% TS while playing some of the best defense of all time. And that is with him missing the 00 playoffs...and he was a two way monster in 00.

His peak....probably from 03 through 06...he was a 24/13/4 57% TS defensive beast.

He has some of the best longevity ever. Came into the league elite from the jump. And is one of the most selfless superstars ever both on and off the court.

He's on the short list of franchise guys you think about taking first in a draft of all nba players ever.


This is very well said. I don't have a problem with "best career" as a barometer for all time lists, because while I do think it's sometimes unfair that players get put in better or worse situations, I also think it's equally unfair to ding a guy because he was in a good situation, and figuring out how much he contributed to that good situation is a huge part of it.

For the past many years I've found an entry point into the elite of the elite that I've been comfortable standing by. You need to have multiple season MVPs, and multiple titles. That to me indicates that you were generally considered the best player in the world for some kind of a stretch, as opposed to a monster season, and the titles show the ability to fit into a championship system over time, and mitigates some of the "perfect storm" type seasons you see. My qualifier would be that it would help if that person were the best player, or at least among the best two to three, on said title teams, and we don't have a situation were a guy won a title and a few MVPs, then cracked my code by getting a second as a bench guy on another team ... however coincedentally, that hasn't happened.

That yields a list of
The Centers: Kareem, Russell, Wilt
The Golden Agers: Bird, Magic, Jordan
And then the new guys: Duncan and Lebron.

Personally I'm fine with that as a top 8. And the order within that I'm ok with pretty much anything. It cuts off a few guys who others my like, but I think it's a fair cut, and putting Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses Malone (it actually breaks down into guys with multiple MVPs and a single title, or multiple titles and a single MVP(which to me is a better argument, because you could make the case for a second MVP for any of Shaq Kobe or Hakeem)) in the second tier to me is no short shrift.

[RidonKs]

I don't agree. I'm taking the player with the greater impact over 11 seasons, because my goal is to win as many championships as soon as possible. Now if I think that Duncan equals Bird and Magic, then I go with longevity.

everybody's goal is to win as many championships as possible. those extra six seasons with tim duncan or kobe bryant are six more chances to win.

obviously you need to balance longevity with a guy's actual level of play. i don't care how long kevin willis or robert parish stuck around in starting lineups, 20 years of either of them isn't as rewarding as 13 or 14 with shaq, even taking into account his egotripping and poor work ethic.

if duncan's work on the floor takes a backseat to bird's or magic's, it isn't by much.

[SexSymbol]

Duncan has no argument over Bill Russell, Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
I don't think over Larry Bird too. Kobe and Magic are in the same league if not better

[DMAVS41]

This is so incredibly stupid its hard to believe youre serious.

MJ retired the first time with 3 finals appearances at age 30. Bran hasnt even TURNED 30 yet and hes been to the finals 5 times as his teams most important guy.

Why would you arbitrarily use one playoff series out of four AND dissmiss the conference finals, semis, and entire regular season? Jordan won three titles by age 30, Bran won 2. Jordan only made it OUT of his own conference three times at that age and Bran did it five times. And Jordan had by far the best "sidekick" between them when you compare where pippen and wade were in their career.


3/3 in the finals is the most arbitrary, simplistic, moronic, meaningless statement you could make, no offense to you personally. Why couldnt he make it five times? Bran did. Bran won more playoff series by age 30 than Jordan did.


"Finals" and "titles" are just simply dumb arguments, and theyre used as a crutch by dumb people who cant analyze what the actual differences are between the individuals. A single player doesnt win a title. A team does and often times circjmstances vary widely. A crucial teammate gets injured, refs fukc things up, one conference is harder than the other etc.


Simply saying "rings" means literally nothing, and the morons who think its like 70% of the argument are simply the dumb masses who cannot think for themselves. Period.

Nah man...you are the dumb one here. The fact of the matter is that Lebron doing what he did in 11, at this point, just removes him from any real comparison to MJ.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's the truth.

Not only did he play poorly, but he failed to lead and step up in the key moments.

Again...winning is a reflection of how good a player is at the game.

It gets difficult when there are hugely different circumstances. But MJ vs Lebron in this case...this circumstances were similar. In fact, I'd argue that Lebron had the better team.

MJ three peated...Lebron won 2. That is not a dumb argument. It matters.

You can't be this stupid...

Kobe gets a lot of hate here...and from me, but one thing you have to give him a lot of credit for his getting to the finals 7 times and doing enough to win 5 rings. Yea he had Shaq for a lot of that time, but he got shit done...and that is a reflection of how good at basketball he is.

Lebron has done a lot as well...he's been great. But he's clealry a worse player, to this point, than MJ. Lebron is going to need absurd longevity to ever surpass MJ. Peak MJ was clearly a better player than peak Lebron...and yes, the results show this. And they matter.

[RidonKs]

arguing "who would you draft" is much different than "who had the best career" IMO

when debating careers you look at what they actually DID achieve, what actually happened...MVPs, total career numbers, etc

arguing who you would draft is going into "what if" scenarios
imo they are the exact same thing. asking who you would take in a hypothetical all-time draft knowing with each player exactly what you're getting and how long you're getting it for is an imaginative way of determining who's the best, who's the greatest, who had the best career, etc etc etc

you can start narrowing the criteria by comparing short stretches between guys, their peaks, but then you aren't talking about players as a whole any more. you're being selective.

[Akrazotile]

Nah man...you are the dumb one here. The fact of the matter is that Lebron doing what he did in 11, at this point, just removes him from any real comparison to MJ.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's the truth.

Not only did he play poorly, but he failed to lead and step up in the key moments.

Again...winning is a reflection of how good a player is at the game.

It gets difficult when there are hugely different circumstances. But MJ vs Lebron in this case...this circumstances were similar. In fact, I'd argue that Lebron had the better team.

MJ three peated...Lebron won 2. That is not a dumb argument. It matters.

You can't be this stupid...

Kobe gets a lot of hate here...and from me, but one thing you have to give him a lot of credit for his getting to the finals 7 times and doing enough to win 5 rings. Yea he had Shaq for a lot of that time, but he got shit done...and that is a reflection of how good at basketball he is.

Lebron has done a lot as well...he's been great. But he's clealry a worse player, to this point, than MJ. Lebron is going to need absurd longevity to ever surpass MJ. Peak MJ was clearly a better player than peak Lebron...and yes, the results show this. And they matter.


Once again, throughout this entire thread you haven't once (nor has anyone) compared two guys as basketball players.

In this particular argument, you are simply saying "I am not qualified to discuss who was the more creative passer, I do not know whose scoring was more valuable, I am ill equipped to compare defensive impacts, I don't know who passed out of the post better, I couldn't tell you whose outside shot was more consistent, and I absolutely, positively cannot come up with my own idea about who is the better player based on a combination of these and other factors. My only recourse is to say 'de chicago bulls = michael jordan and teh Heat = bran. Bulls win teh more titles so jordan > bran, i did good!'


Again, you haven't articulated a single thing about BASKETBALL. You've only articulated a cheat sheet of NBA awards. Basketball and the NBA are two different things. Basketball is a sport, the NBA is an association where some teams spend a lot and some teams spend a little, some conferences are good and some are bad, sometimes your teammates get suspended (who knows if Nash wouldn't have a ring without Amare/Diaw suspension?) etc.


You are UNABLE to discuss who the better basketball player is, so you simply run down a list of commonly accepted NBA career credentials. That's fine if that's what you prefer to do. My initial point was that's all this board ever does, and you appeared to want to contend that point before absolutely confirming it 100 times over. So, I don't really understand what just happened is what I'm trying to say I guess.

[~primetime~]

imo they are the exact same thing. asking who you would take in a hypothetical all-time draft knowing with each player exactly what you're getting and how long you're getting it for is an imaginative way of determining who's the best, who's the greatest, who had the best career, etc etc etc

you can start narrowing the criteria by comparing short stretches between guys, their peaks, but then you aren't talking about players as a whole any more. you're being selective.
naw, when ranking careers you can only go by what actually DID happen...not by "player-x had a longer career so his odds of doing this and that are greater"

MJ DID win 6 Finals MVPs, and 5 regular season MVPs, a DMVP, scoring 32,292 points (30.1 ppg), with x amount of rebounds, steals, etc

Duncan DID win 3 Finals MVPs, and 2 regular season MVPs, scoring 24,904 points (19.9 ppg), etc

these are things that have actually happened in their real careers and define their careers

[DMAVS41]

Once again, throughout this entire thread you haven't once (nor has anyone) compared two guys as basketball players.

In this particular argument, you are simply saying "I am not qualified to discuss who was the more creative passer, I do not know whose scoring was more valuable, I am ill equipped to compare defensive impacts, I don't know who passed out of the post better, I couldn't tell you whose outside shot was more consistent, and I absolutely, positively cannot come up with my own idea about who is the better player based on a combination of these and other factors. My only recourse is to say 'de chicago bulls = michael jordan and teh Heat = bran. Bulls win teh more titles so jordan > bran, i did good!'


Again, you haven't articulated a single thing about BASKETBALL. You've only articulated a cheat sheet of NBA awards. Basketball and the NBA are two different things. Basketball is a sport, the NBA is an association where some teams spend a lot and some teams spend a little, some conferences are good and some are bad, sometimes your teammates get suspended (who knows if Nash wouldn't have a ring without Amare/Diaw suspension?) etc.


You are UNABLE to discuss who the better basketball player is, so you simply run down a list of commonly accepted NBA career credentials. That's fine if that's what you prefer to do. My initial point was that's all this board ever does, and you appeared to want to contend that point before absolutely confirming it 100 times over. So, I don't really understand what just happened is what I'm trying to say I guess.

Actually I already posted this;

You could go into details about what actually makes MJ better like his scoring skillset, toughness, mental toughness, far better first step, even more overwhelming swarming defense...etc.


But we all have our biases and a certain style of play we are drawn to. You might like Lebron's style more than MJ's....someone else might prefer Duncan's abilities to Bird's...

I am happy to explain to you why MJ was a better player than Lebron has ever been.

MJ could demoralize teams consistently with his scoring. He had a far better post up and mid range game. Jordan's foot work in the post makes Lebron look borderline retarded. Jordan could play with his back to the basket, and turn and face and blow by defenders with a better first step than Lebron can dream of.

The biggest difference on offense...and why MJ is a far more dominant force though, is his ability to make hard moves to the basket and pull up on a dime. That mid range jumper was the key to Jordan's ability to dominate late into his career when he lost a little bit.

MJ was also just as, if not a better, finisher at the rim.

On defense Lebron is great, but not MJ level. MJ had a level of quickness to him that Lebron doesn't. And while Lebron is stronger....MJ was more tenancious and tougher and plays just as strong or stronger actually. MJ was a better off ball shot blocker and could force more turnovers as well.

No doubt Lebron plays great team defense, but so did Jordan. And Jordan's on ball man to man defense trumps anything Lebron can provide in that area.

I won't even bring up off ball play. It's just laughable as Lebron can't do it. Jordan learned how to play team ball under Dean Smith at UNC and really fine tuned some of those skill necessary when playing on title winning teams. Lebron never learned how to do any of that...in fact, the one year in which he was asked to play more team ball...he fell apart in the finals worse than any superstar I've ever seen. Lebron can play 1 way...dominate the ball for 16 seconds and make a move or hit the open man. And it's historically effective because of how good he is, but it's narrow. Lebron doesn't make great cuts off the ball. He doesn't set sound screens. He's not creative at running off picks. He just doesn't have a good feel for all that stuff like MJ did.


Most importantly probably than all the above. Was MJ's mental toughness and competitive nature. He wanted the ball at the end of games. He wanted to play on the biggest stage with all the attention and pressure...he ****ing thrived on it. He embraced the challenge in a way lebron simply hasn't. I could go on for pages about the differences here, but even you won't dispute this part of the comparison I'd imagine.

Again..I could go on. And that part of the analysis is important.

But so are the results based on circumstances. They reflect how good at basketball a player is often. Simple as that.

MJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lebron

[Akrazotile]

Actually I already posted this;

You could go into details about what actually makes MJ better like his scoring skillset, toughness, mental toughness, far better first step, even more overwhelming swarming defense...etc.


But we all have our biases and a certain style of play we are drawn to. You might like Lebron's style more than MJ's....someone else might prefer Duncan's abilities to Bird's...

I am happy to explain to you why MJ was a better player than Lebron has ever been.

MJ could demoralize teams consistently with his scoring. He had a far better post up and mid range game. Jordan's foot work in the post makes Lebron look borderline retarded. Jordan could play with his back to the basket, and turn and face and blow by defenders with a better first step than Lebron can dream of.

The biggest difference on offense...and why MJ is a far more dominant force though, is his ability to make hard moves to the basket and pull up on a dime. That mid range jumper was the key to Jordan's ability to dominate late into his career when he lost a little bit.

MJ was also just as, if not a better, finisher at the rim.

On defense Lebron is great, but not MJ level. MJ had a level of quickness to him that Lebron doesn't. And while Lebron is stronger....MJ was more tenancious and tougher and plays just as strong or stronger actually. MJ was a better off ball shot blocker and could force more turnovers as well.

No doubt Lebron plays great team defense, but so did Jordan. And Jordan's on ball man to man defense trumps anything Lebron can provide in that area.

I won't even bring up off ball play. It's just laughable as Lebron can't do it. Jordan learned how to play team ball under Dean Smith at UNC and really fine tuned some of those skill necessary when playing on title winning teams. Lebron never learned how to do any of that...in fact, the one year in which he was asked to play more team ball...he fell apart in the finals worse than any superstar I've ever seen. Lebron can play 1 way...dominate the ball for 16 seconds and make a move or hit the open man. And it's historically effective because of how good he is, but it's narrow. Lebron doesn't make great cuts off the ball. He doesn't set sound screens. He's not creative at running off picks. He just doesn't have a good feel for all that stuff like MJ did.


Most importantly probably than all the above. Was MJ's mental toughness and competitive nature. He wanted the ball at the end of games. He wanted to play on the biggest stage with all the attention and pressure...he ****ing thrived on it. He embraced the challenge in a way lebron simply hasn't. I could go on for pages about the differences here, but even you won't dispute this part of the comparison I'd imagine.

Again..I could go on. And that part of the analysis is important.

But so are the results based on circumstances. They reflect how good at basketball a player is often. Simple as that.

MJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lebron


So there you go. This is a much more thorough description of why you believe MJ >Lebron without involving stupid components like team finals appearance ratio to finals mvp's won which rely overwhelmingly on circumstance, and a VOTE, rather than speaking to HOW they play the game.


So my question is, why do you post this way so little, and use "rings, batman/robin, first option finals mvp titles ratio second fiddle alpha dog championships" cliches so often?

[DMAVS41]

So there you go. This is a much more thorough description of why you believe MJ >Lebron without involving stupid components like team finals appearance ratio to finals mvp's won which rely overwhelmingly on circumstance, and a VOTE, rather than speaking to HOW they play the game.


So my question is, why do you post this way so little, and use "rings, batman/robin, first option finals mvp titles ratio second fiddle alpha dog championships" cliches so often?

First off...I don't post about rings a lot.

In fact, since my time here, I've been the main person arguing that ring counting is a stupid way to rank players.

However, you can't ignore it completely...especially when circumstances are similar.

It is retarded to compare Cavs Lebron to MJ on winning rings because clearly MJ had it far easier.

However, comparing Heat Lebron to MJ on winning rings is very valid and should happen. The circumstances to win actually might favor Lebron here given how weak his conference was and how great Wade was...at least in 11 and 12.

The point is that you can always compare like with like. Now, if you want to tell me that Lebron shouldn't be held to that standard of winning given his help the last 4 years...go ahead...I just disagree.

So if I look at what Lebron has down since 09. That is 6 years now since he entered his prime. He's had 6 straight teams with at least a chance of making the finals. he's made it 4 times and won 2 titles. That is really good...I give him almost a full pass for 2010, but not completely. It is my opinion that MJ would have won a title in 09 or 10 with one of those Cavs teams. And the **** if prime/peak MJ is only winning 2 titles the last 4 years on these Heat teams.

Both are valid in this case.

Where it's not valid is to say Kobe is better than Lebron over their first 8 years because Kobe had 3 rings. The difference in circumstances is so huge that comparing them on rings is retarded.

You see the difference?


We all have biases when we watch the games. I watch Dirk and think to myself...damn...if he had the kind of help some of these guys like Duncan, Kobe, now Lebron and Durant since 11 have had throughout his career...he would have been even better and the results would be amazing. Put Dirk on loaded teams with mainstays like Pop/Parker/Duncan, Shaq, Pau/Odom, Wade/Bosh, WB/Ibaka....and he'd rape the league.

I am naturally drawn to a big 7 footer that can impact the game so much without even having the ball on offense. He fits perfectly with just about every style of player at every other position other than a stretch 5.

But it matters that Dirk didn't win in 06 and 07...a better player overcomes that shit. Duncan wins a ring one or both those years....

Stuff like that has to matter.

[Stringer Bell]

Looks like another case of getting too caught up in the moment.


Kareem, Russell, MJ?

[RidonKs]

naw, when ranking careers you can only go by what actually DID happen...not by "player-x had a longer career so his odds of doing this and that are greater"
all i'm saying generally is that longevity and durability are underrated around here. i think tim duncan has a more impressive resume than shaquille o'neal. therefore i give him the edge whenever the comparison comes up. i'd take 40/20 championship shaq in a series. but i hold in higher regard the guy who plays at a high level for 17 years with the same team and without a single controversy. that player is "better" or "greater" or "the guy i would draft to start a team", which all mean the same thing.


it's worthwhile to consider what might have been if only to get a more objective account. maybe the spurs organization puts the wrong guy in charge who selects keith van horn first overall, duncan winds up dropping to a team in a poor situation like the grizzlies or the nuggets or some shit. suddenly he's not a 3x finals mvp and 5x champion. he only wins one.

looking back, nobody would call him better than hakeem or even moses malone. the numbers are still there. he's still the same dude. still the same force. circumstances are different. you can't just crosscheck stats and accolades and come up with a definitive answer. there's a lot at play.

[~primetime~]

all i'm saying generally is that longevity and durability are underrated around here. i think tim duncan has a more impressive resume than shaquille o'neal. therefore i give him the edge whenever the comparison comes up. i'd take 40/20 championship shaq in a series. but i hold in higher regard the guy who plays at a high level for 17 years with the same team and without a single controversy. that player is "better" or "greater" or "the guy i would draft to start a team", which all mean the same thing.


it's worthwhile to consider what might have been if only to get a more objective account. maybe the spurs organization puts the wrong guy in charge who selects keith van horn first overall, duncan winds up dropping to a team in a poor situation like the grizzlies or the nuggets or some shit. suddenly he's not a 3x finals mvp and 5x champion. he only wins one.

looking back, nobody would call him better than hakeem or even moses malone. the numbers are still there. he's still the same dude. still the same force. circumstances are different. you can't just crosscheck stats and accolades and come up with a definitive answer. there's a lot at play.
I agree that there is more to it than numbers and accolades, but I do think that numbers and accolades matter when rating career achievements, and they are also the only thing that we can measure objectively and not subjectively. Also "longevity" is a "stat", it's a career number that can be measured.

The eye-ball test does matter, we can see that player-x is better than player-y despite not winning a Finals MVP. But eye ball debates can only be an unmeasured subjective opinion with no real backing.

[poeticism707]

He defends his position on Duncan very well.


No matter how you slice it. Best players ever, best careers ever...Duncan is on that short list of best ever.

Combining it all...level of impact, years played, peak, prime, decline, intangibles, off court persona...etc.

I have Duncan as the guy I'd draft 3rd all time if starting a team.

That is how I do my rankings...I try to incorporate all the above and then think about who I would draft knowing how their career has played out, to date, as some players are still going strong.

I disagree with Simmons about Jordan. I still take him first. I think he undersells MJ in the playoffs a few years...he was a championship first option in 13 post seasons iirc.

I'd take Russell 2nd. Didn't see Russell play so this isn't a pick I'm going to argue much about.

Duncan 3rd.

Magic 4th

Kareem 5th.

3 through 5 could be ranked in any way, but I feel confident that Duncan/Magic/Kareem should be ranked at those 3 positions.

Duncan's prime is extremely under-rated here. He had a 12 year (from 98 through 10) run in the playoffs of 23/13/4 55% TS while playing some of the best defense of all time. And that is with him missing the 00 playoffs...and he was a two way monster in 00.

His peak....probably from 03 through 06...he was a 24/13/4 57% TS defensive beast.

He has some of the best longevity ever. Came into the league elite from the jump. And is one of the most selfless superstars ever both on and off the court.

He's on the short list of franchise guys you think about taking first in a draft of all nba players ever.

Argreed.

TD's game, offensive and defensive,

and his accorlades,

shine much brighter than

the typical casual thinks.

Nevermind:

casuals don't think.

[ottooooooo]

Bill Simmons doesnt know baketball....

that's why he gets paid to talk about it

[navy]

that's why he gets paid to talk about it
Listen to him talk sometimes. He is a historian and pop cultural referencer.

Only one that knows basketball on that ESPN crew is Doug Collins, it is absolutely hilarious when he tries to mix in actual basketball related commentary (pick and rolls, trap, offense, etc) gets ignored and then reverts to talking about Michael Jordan. Jalen Rose knows players very well, as he was one. That other hot girl? Just a pretty face.

Bill Simmons? :oldlol:
Dude couldnt tell apart simple zone coverages.

[D-Rose]

Listen to him talk sometimes. He is a historian and pop cultural referencer.

Only one that knows basketball on that ESPN crew is Doug Collins, it is absolutely hilarious when he tries to mix in actual basketball related commentary (pick and rolls, trap, offense, etc) gets ignored and then reverts to talking about Michael Jordan. Jalen Rose knows players very well, as he was one. That other hot girl? Just a pretty face.

Bill Simmons? :oldlol:
Dude couldnt tell apart simple zone coverages.
Completely agree. Bill knows very little about Xs and Os. He knows history and cliches. That's it.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Completely agree. Bill knows very little about Xs and Os. He knows history and cliches. That's it.
This is true

[SexSymbol]

Listen to him talk sometimes. He is a historian and pop cultural referencer.

Only one that knows basketball on that ESPN crew is Doug Collins, it is absolutely hilarious when he tries to mix in actual basketball related commentary (pick and rolls, trap, offense, etc) gets ignored and then reverts to talking about Michael Jordan. Jalen Rose knows players very well, as he was one. That other hot girl? Just a pretty face.

Bill Simmons? :oldlol:
Dude couldnt tell apart simple zone coverages.
Bill Simmons is a complete idiot on basketball. He's a great historian of it, but he knows nothing elsewhere. Absolutely nothing, I watched his season preview with Jalen Rose on Grantland podcast and he advised to blow up like 20 teams out of 30. He has no knowledge on x and o's, no knowledge about phsychological situation of players, not surprising he can't do a simple hook shot.
Jalen Rose is pretty good, his predictions seem to come true more often than not and he really puts out all the inside stuff on Grantland podcasts, which makes him one of my favorite experts ever.

[NumberSix]

Kobe actually has the best career. He made the most money, played his entire career in on e of the best cities and received about 10x the praise he has earned.

Who wouldn't want that career? NEVER be the best but always be paid and treated as though like you are.

[rmt]

People need to read the article (near the end):

http://grantland.com/features/24-lingering-questions-from-the-nba-finals/

Q: Has anyone in NBA history had a better career than Tim Duncan?

The supposition is you are starting a team from scratch and you build around a player for 20 years. The answer is KAJ with Duncan second. That'd be my answer too.

[Legends66NBA7]

Russell played 13 years. Duncan is going on 18.

Really if your perameters are who would I draft first to start a team knowing how good they were and how long they played.

I think anyone and everyone would take Kareem for 20 years instead of Russell for 13.

Yet Russell has the better career compared to both in a shorter time relative to era. So does Jordan.

[navy]

I should have said, although I think Simmons doesnt know Basketball,

I dont have a problem with Duncan having the second best career ever.

[mehyaM24]

never had a better career than jordan/russell/magic/kareem

its not even debatable

bill simmons is a ****ing hack

[KingMillions]

Who cares what Bill Simmons says.

[T_L_P]

never had a better career than jordan/russell/magic/kareem

its not even debatable

bill simmons is a ****ing hack

Duncan is without doubt more accomplished than Magic.

More All-Stars, All-NBA Teams, All-Defensive Teams, same number of rings and Finals MVPs, less MVPs.

[SCdac]

Duncan is the man! GOAT PF. One of the best players to ever play. Amazing consistency.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/51920867.jpg

[LeBird]

This is so incredibly stupid its hard to believe youre serious.

MJ retired the first time with 3 finals appearances at age 30. Bran hasnt even TURNED 30 yet and hes been to the finals 5 times as his teams most important guy.

Why would you arbitrarily use one playoff series out of four AND dissmiss the conference finals, semis, and entire regular season? Jordan won three titles by age 30, Bran won 2. Jordan only made it OUT of his own conference three times at that age and Bran did it five times. And Jordan had by far the best "sidekick" between them when you compare where pippen and wade were in their career.


3/3 in the finals is the most arbitrary, simplistic, moronic, meaningless statement you could make, no offense to you personally. Why couldnt he make it five times? Bran did. Bran won more playoff series by age 30 than Jordan did.


"Finals" and "titles" are just simply dumb arguments, and theyre used as a crutch by dumb people who cant analyze what the actual differences are between the individuals. A single player doesnt win a title. A team does and often times circjmstances vary widely. A crucial teammate gets injured, refs fukc things up, one conference is harder than the other etc.


Simply saying "rings" means literally nothing, and the morons who think its like 70% of the argument are simply the dumb masses who cannot think for themselves. Period.

:applause: , this logic is too much for some.

[houston]

dude basically wins a ring being a role player everyone exited lol

[T_L_P]

dude basically wins a ring being a role player everyone exited lol

Second in scoring, leader in rebounding and blocked shots, as well as PER, Win Shares and WS/48.

Care to list the other role players who did that, and also which role he is filling? To be the second best scorer and defensive anchor, as well as the on-court leader?

You fail again.

[KG215]

dude basically wins a ring being a role player everyone exited lol
The entirety of the playoff run included, Duncan was San Antonio's best and most impactful player. No, it wasn't some sort of superstar-esque playoff run, but he was his team's best player during a championship run. That counts for something.

[Gifted Mind]

"Best career" is a shit argument IMO because it centers entirely on team circumstance and media favoritism.

Id rather discuss who the "best players" were in order of value, but unfortunately this is not a discussion the majority seem capable of having.

I actually agree with this. Not necessarily the part that best players matters more than best careers, but the part that there is a distinction between the 2. A distinction too often ignored and mixed together.

See my best 'season' year-by-year and best 'player' year-by-year threads. I'm actually in the progress of making another pair of these threads and in 1 thread I am completely arguing best season/accomplishments while the other it is pure basketball. I hope people will see the difference.

[Rodmantheman]

Bill Russel, Jordan and Kareem had better careers.

[navy]

This is so incredibly stupid its hard to believe youre serious.

MJ retired the first time with 3 finals appearances at age 30. Bran hasnt even TURNED 30 yet and hes been to the finals 5 times as his teams most important guy.

Why would you arbitrarily use one playoff series out of four AND dissmiss the conference finals, semis, and entire regular season? Jordan won three titles by age 30, Bran won 2. Jordan only made it OUT of his own conference three times at that age and Bran did it five times. And Jordan had by far the best "sidekick" between them when you compare where pippen and wade were in their career.


3/3 in the finals is the most arbitrary, simplistic, moronic, meaningless statement you could make, no offense to you personally. Why couldnt he make it five times? Bran did. Bran won more playoff series by age 30 than Jordan did.


"Finals" and "titles" are just simply dumb arguments, and theyre used as a crutch by dumb people who cant analyze what the actual differences are between the individuals. A single player doesnt win a title. A team does and often times circjmstances vary widely. A crucial teammate gets injured, refs fukc things up, one conference is harder than the other etc.


Simply saying "rings" means literally nothing, and the morons who think its like 70% of the argument are simply the dumb masses who cannot think for themselves. Period.

:applause:

[TheCorporation]

Did any of you read the article? Jordan was "dismissed" due to, and I'm paraphrasing here.... 11 full Chicago seasons, 2 partial Chicago seasons, and two Wizards seasons. So, in effect, 12 Chicago seasons and two years of Wizards Jordan. Compare that to 17 or 18 Duncan years, and I see where he's coming from with Duncan being listed ahead of Jordan. He also pretty clearly stats that Jordan was better.. it's just a significantly shorter time frame.

But I see how/why Jordan was not top 2.

So Jordan did more, in less time? lol

Jordan has more Finals MVPs than anyone
Jordan has more Scoring Titles than anyone
Jordan has more MVPs than anyone (except Kareem)

And...He did it in less time. So wait, what's the problem here? lol

"Excuse me sir, would you like 6 Finals MVPs, 10 Scoring Titles, and 5 MVPs in 4 years, or...would you like 3 Finals MVPs, 0 Scoring titles, and 2 MVPs in 18 years?"

Wat.

[houston]

Second in scoring, leader in rebounding and blocked shots, as well as PER, Win Shares and WS/48.

Care to list the other role players who did that, and also which role he is filling? To be the second best scorer and defensive anchor, as well as the on-court leader?

You fail again.


Dude was just the primary big on the team. Who else going to lead the team in rebounding?? Dude didn't make no all-star team,no all defense team and no all-nba team this year. It was just a balance squad with Tony Parker playing at a high level.

[T_L_P]

Dude was just the primary big on the team. Who else going to lead the team in rebounding?? Dude didn't make no all-star team,no all defense team and no all-nba team this year. It was just a balance squad with Tony Parker playing at a high level.

What does any of this mean in terms of Duncan being a role player?

Like the poster above said, it wasn't a superstar title, but he was the best and most consistent Spur this postseason. How many role players lead their team in all major advanced statistics, as well as anchor their defense?

Duncan is to this team what Marc Gasol is to the Grizzlies. And he's their franchise guy. :oldlol:

[GimmeThat]

Duncan is to this team what Marc Gasol is to the Grizzlies. And he's their franchise guy. :oldlol:

What do you think is the max dollar that other teams will overpay Marc for in which the Grizzlies will match.

Something tells me if another team offered him 17mil, the Grizzlies would most likely be afraid to match. While, lets say you put Marc with the Mavs or Heat. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd pay that offer on the table if this is the guy that puts them right over the top.


James Harden should stop shooting 3 pointers on the internet.

[GimmeThat]

If we view the NBA not as a business entity, that's a very legitimate argument.


By the way, thought of this the other night, how highly do people/players rank others who've won a gold medal?

Do people still consider the NBA as nessecarily the best/most competitive basketball environment as well as validation to ones success?

[BlazerRed]

The dude has been in the finals every year of his career.. 5 rings.. loves his teammates and coach.. I don't see how this couldn't be somewhat true?

[houston]

What does any of this mean in terms of Duncan being a role player?

Like the poster above said, it wasn't a superstar title, but he was the best and most consistent Spur this postseason. How many role players lead their team in all major advanced statistics, as well as anchor their defense?

Duncan is to this team what Marc Gasol is to the Grizzlies. And he's their franchise guy. :oldlol:


No he wasn't stop it. Dude was just a primary big on the squad who didn't lead the team in scoring. It wasn't a superstar title but they had all-star/all-nba 2nd team player name Tony Parker who lead the team in scoring and assist. The team was very well balance indeed but Duncan wasn't the team best player.

:oldlol: @ advanced metrics lol bro it was just the primary big he was Bill Laimbeer/Rodman role the team. Parker was Isiah and Manu was the Dumars/Microwave with Aguirre/Leonard with the defense.

[T_L_P]

No he wasn't stop it. Dude was just a primary big on the squad who didn't lead the team in scoring. It wasn't a superstar title but they had all-star/all-nba 2nd team player name Tony Parker who lead the team in scoring and assist. The team was very well balance indeed but Duncan wasn't the team best player.

:oldlol: @ advanced metrics lol bro it was just the primary big he was Bill Laimbeer/Rodman role the team. Parker was Isiah and Manu was the Dumars/Microwave with Aguirre/Leonard with the defense.

Parker had one of the worst superstar runs in NBA history, tbh. He had the lowest Offensive and Defensive Rating on the team, and they still managed to win the most important game of the season with him not even playing.

Duncan was just the big body bleh bleh bleh. You don't hinder a guy for his natural gifts: Duncan was the second leading scorer and defensive anchor. That is not a role player, you idiot.

Like I said, Duncan was the best and most consistent Spur. Name me a role player who did what Duncan did this postseason (not Bill Lambier, who wasn't even a role player anyway). The Spurs steamrolled the Blazers with Manu averaging 9 PPG on 25% shooting, and he leads the bench unit. That Dumars comparison is horrible.

[houston]

Parker had one of the worst superstar runs in NBA history, tbh. He had the lowest Offensive and Defensive Rating on the team, and they still managed to win the most important game of the season with him not even playing.

Duncan was just the big body bleh bleh bleh. You don't hinder a guy for his natural gifts: Duncan was the second leading scorer and defensive anchor. That is not a role player, you idiot.

Like I said, Duncan was the best and most consistent Spur. Name me a role player who did what Duncan did this postseason (not Bill Lambier, who wasn't even a role player anyway). The Spurs steamrolled the Blazers with Manu averaging 9 PPG on 25% shooting, and he leads the bench unit. That Dumars comparison is horrible.



got damn what is a role player to you?? Jason Terry was Mavs second leading scorer in 2011 was he not a role player?? Leonard who won FMVP is he not a role player???


Each round Duncan put up:

round 1: 17,8,1 58%
round 2:14,8,3 46%
round 3: 18,10,2 48%
finals: 15,10,2 57%

Man dog those are impressive numbers to you:oldlol: Like I said that was all his function was to be the primary big. Dude didn't average over 20 points in none of his series.

Parker was hurt during the West Finals and in game 6 Boris Diaw drop 26 so your point is what. Like I said earlier Parker was the only one who was all-nba/all-star on the team. Lead the team in scoring in the first 2 rounds and was tied in the Finals. Dude been the only Spur that been constant high level these pass 3 years.

:oldlol: @ advanced stats wat the hell

[T_L_P]

got damn what is a role player to you?? Jason Terry was Mavs second leading scorer in 2011 was he not a role player?? Leonard who won FMVP is he not a role player???


Each round Duncan put up:

round 1: 17,8,1 58%
round 2:14,8,3 46%
round 3: 18,10,2 48%
finals: 15,10,2 57%

Man dog those are impressive numbers to you:oldlol: Like I said that was all his function was to be the primary big. Dude didn't average over 20 points in none of his series.

Parker was hurt during the West Finals and in game 6 Boris Diaw drop 26 so your point is what. Like I said earlier Parker was the only one who was all-nba/all-star on the team. Lead the team in scoring in the first 2 rounds and was tied in the Finals. Dude been the only Spur that been constant high level these pass 3 years.

:oldlol: @ advanced stats wat the hell

Jason Terry wasn't a role player, but literally all he could do was score. Like I said, Duncan is being Marc Gasol out there. Is Gasol a role player? Shit, is McHale a role player, because his stats weren't far off Duncan's?

Also, Parker in the past three years has been a 19/2/6 player on mediocre shooting. Duncan has been 17/10/2 guy with better shooting numbers and anchoring the defense. What is this shit about Parker being the only constant elite player?

I guess the two of us have difference definitions of a role player, because I can't think of many people that are asked to be the on-court leader, close second best scorer, and defensive anchor and be titled one.

:facepalm

[Big#50]

MJ is numero uno.
Duncan is greater than everybody else. GOAT anchor. A beast on the block. One of the hest passers ever. LOL@ people saying Parker is the best player. Bwahahahaha Spurs didnt even need him against The Thunder. It was Duncan in OT saving them like ****ing always. Spurs sucked when he was hobbled. Duncan is the Spurs.




Shaq always had a super star wing player. He was lazy on defense. And did shit else but elbow and ram people.
KAJ had the most stacked team ever.
Magic has no case.
BIRD has no case.
Then you have Lebron and Kobe who fall way short.

[houston]

Jason Terry wasn't a role player, but literally all he could do was score. Like I said, Duncan is being Marc Gasol out there. Is Gasol a role player? Shit, is McHale a role player, because his stats weren't far off Duncan's?

Also, Parker in the past three years has been a 19/2/6 player on mediocre shooting. Duncan has been 17/10/2 guy with better shooting numbers and anchoring the defense. What is this shit about Parker being the only constant elite player?

I guess the two of us have difference definitions of a role player, because I can't think of many people that are asked to be the on-court leader, close second best scorer, and defensive anchor and be titled one.

:facepalm


I'm talking playing at all-star level and all-nba. Parker was a top ten player this season. Garnett had a similar role what Duncan doing right now. My thing is regular season does still count and Parker been playing at a high level all this season.

[toxicxr6]

got damn what is a role player to you?? Jason Terry was Mavs second leading scorer in 2011 was he not a role player?? Leonard who won FMVP is he not a role player???


Each round Duncan put up:

round 1: 17,8,1 58%
round 2:14,8,3 46%
round 3: 18,10,2 48%
finals: 15,10,2 57%

Man dog those are impressive numbers to you:oldlol: Like I said that was all his function was to be the primary big. Dude didn't average over 20 points in none of his series.

Parker was hurt during the West Finals and in game 6 Boris Diaw drop 26 so your point is what. Like I said earlier Parker was the only one who was all-nba/all-star on the team. Lead the team in scoring in the first 2 rounds and was tied in the Finals. Dude been the only Spur that been constant high level these pass 3 years.

:oldlol: @ advanced stats wat the hell



Duncan was 12th in MVP voting this year... 12th... I don't know what you call a role player..but Duncan is not that.. Not even close... And Duncan put up comparable stats in the playoffs.

Anyone who says Duncan is a role player this year is a fool..

[pastis]

i never see this "anchor" thing by eye test. where is his good defense? rly?
as i said often, that TLP even compare parkers FG% or TS% to Duncans is a sign of being stupid. parkesr shots are way more difficult than duncans. duncan is waiting for the assist and is making the easy layup at least 90% (do you understand 90? not 100, just 90 %) of is baskets. and this since 05. so you ar eblaming parker, a player who gives duncan all these easy baskets? nice dude, very nice

and btw: this mavs-spurs series. as duncan guarded dirk a few times = dikr easy points. splitter was harder to pass through:lol :lol

[dc_chilling]

I you are talking strictly career, regardless of era, I would put him third.

Again, not ranking players, just careers.

1)Russell
2)KAJ
3)Duncan

I know the MJ stans will come out swinging, but Duncan has had a better career than MJ. Jordan is the better player though.

MJ had 8 seasons where he won 50+ games and went 6/6 in the finals.

Duncan has had 17 season so far with 50+ wins with a 5/6 record in the finals.

Duncan gets the nod for sustained excellence. MJ could play his career over again and still not have as many 50 win seasons as Duncan.

[rmt]

I'm talking playing at all-star level and all-nba. Parker was a top ten player this season. Garnett had a similar role what Duncan doing right now. My thing is regular season does still count and Parker been playing at a high level all this season.

Parker did not have a good year 13-14 (like he did in 12-13). He only played 68 games averaging 16.7 pts 5.7 asst on 49.9%FG in less than 30 mins. He was 12th in MVP voting mostly IMO because the Spurs were the #1 team in the league.

Duncan led the team in minutes played, rebounds and blocks for both regular season and playoffs. He was only 15 pts less than TP in RS and 26 pts less than TP in the playoffs. People relegating Duncan to role player status during this season and playoffs are wrong - especially with disregarding the HUGE role he plays on the defensive end.

[Pointguard]

How a player and how anybody views a career can be very different in many different cases.

1)Family Life/quality of Life
2)Love the job
3)Prosperity or Money
4)Make a difference (proud of legacy)
5)Reaching goals
6)Setting a standard (records, wins, perfection/excellence)
7)Something to stand the test of time
8)Does it mean something
9)Did my work have influence

Thats off the top of my head. Other people have a different order.

Wilt could have loved his career despite crazy haters on here thinking the worst of him. Ali, Ruth, Gretsky, Pele and Wilt might have said to themselves they wanted to reach mythological proportions in their sport. They weren't the best winners but they are assured of being talked about centuries later. Outside of Basketball most here don't know who the greatest winners are in those sports, or who made the most money, or who won what, or who had the best resume.

Duncan might grade his career a ten and Jordan might grade his own an eight because he didn't win one year. How people grade a career (accolades, wins, money, fame) is going to change from one person to the next.

[Pointguard]

I you are talking strictly career, regardless of era, I would put him third.

Again, not ranking players, just careers.

1)Russell
2)KAJ
3)Duncan

I know the MJ stans will come out swinging, but Duncan has had a better career than MJ. Jordan is the better player though.

MJ had 8 seasons where he won 50+ games and went 6/6 in the finals.

Duncan has had 17 season so far with 50+ wins with a 5/6 record in the finals.

Duncan gets the nod for sustained excellence. MJ could play his career over again and still not have as many 50 win seasons as Duncan.
I'm not saying its wrong but there could be another standard:

It gets hard if you go by wins. Say Magic never had a year when he wasn't contending for a title in his full 12 years -minus the little comeback and always won more than 53 games like Duncan.

[T_L_P]

I'm talking playing at all-star level and all-nba. Parker was a top ten player this season. Garnett had a similar role what Duncan doing right now. My thing is regular season does still count and Parker been playing at a high level all this season.

I'm done. You just compared Duncan to current Garnett. :facepalm


And what Parker did in the reg. has nothing to do with his postseason performance.

[Dizzle-2k7]

at age 38 duncan dominated OKC and Miami the 2 best teams in the L.. he was the defensive ANCHOR and offensive key to victories..

duncan is the legitimate GOAT.. didnt need scottie pippen aka the most versatile forward of all time to win rings.. also played in the WEST his entire career unlike Jordan who had bbq chicken every year in the playoffs

[Dizzle-2k7]

Garnett had a similar role what Duncan doing right now.

CLOWN! :roll:

You just proved you watched ZERO SPURS GAMES and I highly doubt you watched any brooklyn games because garnett was very weak this year. LMAO.

go back to ESPN boards, CLOWN. :coleman:

[Legends66NBA7]

I'm done. You just compared Duncan to current Garnett. :facepalm


And what Parker did in the reg. has nothing to do with his postseason performance.

True, even longevity wise, Duncan is better than Garnett.

[Anaximandro1]

I watch Dirk and think to myself...damn...if he had the kind of help some of these guys like Duncan ...

Put Dirk on loaded teams with mainstays like Pop/Parker/Duncan,

From 2001 - 2007

1) Dirk has less help but Duncan needs to shoulder more responsibilities on both ends of the floor. How come this is possible?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fOAwGZCyxno/U6SRP7v-0yI/AAAAAAAADCA/wQyqWRqkINI/s1600/1.jpg



2) Both teams have the same record in the regular season, but one of them collapses in the playoffs ... I wonder why ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3E_t7BorFbs/U6SRQUtyX2I/AAAAAAAADCI/LA1hxSUUQyw/s1600/9.jpg



Here's the answer ...


3) Breakdown in terms of offense

Per 100 Team Possessions -> Duncan scores more points, draws more fouls, grabs more offensive rebounds, generate more assists and has a higher PER.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yY-qiMnirCs/U6SRQLxlB1I/AAAAAAAADB8/ugK-SKhPiIQ/s1600/7.jpg


and defense

Per 100 Team Possessions -> Duncan grabs more rebounds, blocks more shot, has a better defensive rating, etc.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f8nlLrRmZrc/U6SRQMzVarI/AAAAAAAADCU/My7i7ATQbYQ/s1600/8.jpg



Bill Simmons (May 11, 2007): Duncan is wildly underrated
(http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070509)

Assuming the Spurs win the 2007 title and Duncan captures his fourth Finals MVP award (both decent bets), his first professional decade will have concluded with four rings, two regular-season MVP awards and nine first-team All-NBA nods.

His best teammates have been David Robinson (who turned 33 in Duncan's rookie year), Manu Ginobili (never a top-15 player) and Tony Parker (ditto).

In fact, Duncan has never played for a dominant team; the Spurs have never had quite enough talent to roll through the league.

Trapped at the top of the standings, they've been forced to rely on others' failed lottery picks, foreign rookies, journeymen and head cases with baggage.

Zoom through San Antonio's past 10 rosters on basketball-reference.com some time.

You'll be shocked. Tim Duncan has never played on a great basketball team.

Not once.


Fortunately, things have changed over the past three years. Current Spurs are really a great team. Kawhi is the main reason... HUGE upgrade over Bowen, Jefferson, Udoka, etc.

[pastis]

From 2001 - 2007

1) Dirk has less help but Duncan needs to shoulder more responsibilities on both ends of the floor. How come this is possible?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fOAwGZCyxno/U6SRP7v-0yI/AAAAAAAADCA/wQyqWRqkINI/s1600/1.jpg



2) Both teams have the same record in the regular season, but one of them collapses in the playoffs ... I wonder why ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3E_t7BorFbs/U6SRQUtyX2I/AAAAAAAADCI/LA1hxSUUQyw/s1600/9.jpg



Here's the answer ...


3) Breakdown in terms of offense

Per 100 Team Possessions -> Duncan scores more points, draws more fouls, grabs more offensive rebounds, generate more assists and has a higher PER.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yY-qiMnirCs/U6SRQLxlB1I/AAAAAAAADB8/ugK-SKhPiIQ/s1600/7.jpg


and defense

Per 100 Team Possessions -> Duncan grabs more rebounds, blocks more shot, has a better defensive rating, etc.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f8nlLrRmZrc/U6SRQMzVarI/AAAAAAAADCU/My7i7ATQbYQ/s1600/8.jpg



Bill Simmons (May 11, 2007): Duncan is wildly underrated
(http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070509)


Fortunately, things have changed over the past three years. Current Spurs are really a great team. Kawhi is the main reason... HUGE upgrade over Bowen, Jefferson, Udoka, etc.

noone takes you seroius. you are only there for posting your copy and paste irrelevant stats. you are a fakeacc of TLP. your nonixestent, only copy and paste.:no: :no: :biggums: :biggums: :facepalm :facepalm

[T_L_P]

noone takes you seroius. you are only there for posting your copy and paste irrelevant stats. you are a fakeacc of TLP. your nonixestent, only copy and paste.:no: :no: :biggums: :biggums: :facepalm :facepalm

Honestly, do you think anyone takes you seriously? You can barely string a sentence together, and your only method of comparison is "how exhausting" the player's gamestyle is.

Not to mention you attack any player not named Dirk. You're the epitome of worthless posters on the board, which is to say you are half retarded (in the worst way possible).

[pastis]

Honestly, do you think anyone takes you seriously? You can barely string a sentence together, and your only method of comparison is "how exhausting" the player's gamestyle is.

Not to mention you attack any player not named Dirk. You're the epitome of worthless posters on the board, which is to say you are half retarded (in the worst way possible).

duncan third best player since 05:applause: :applause:

btw: do you think anyone is taking you serious? common get over it. your duncan cocksucking attitude is so boring. you must take it deeper dude. you know he loves men, so go for it.
and all your posts are related to duncan. i have never seen you posting on smth else. its like you have a radar, so you know exactly when anyone is posting something about duncan, so that you can respond immediatly.

and for my english skills: well, i didnt speak or write english since my A-level back in 2010. so sorry about that. very weak that you reproach me that.

[Bird]

duncan third best player since 05:applause: :applause:

btw: do you think anyone is taking you serious? common get over it. your duncan cocksucking attitude is so boring. you must take it deeper dude. you know he loves men, so go for it.
and all your posts are related to duncan. i have never seen you posting on smth else. its like you have a radar, so you know exactly when anyone is posting something about duncan, so that you can respond immediatly.

and for my english skills: well, i didnt speak or write english since my A-level back in 2010. so sorry about that. very weak that you reproach me that.

Many, many more people take T_L_P serious.

No one takes you serious.

You're a terrible poster and a borderline troll (and probably someone's alt account anyways).

Learn to debate properly or shut the fcuk up.

[DMAVS41]

From 2001 - 2007

1) Dirk has less help but Duncan needs to shoulder more responsibilities on both ends of the floor. How come this is possible?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fOAwGZCyxno/U6SRP7v-0yI/AAAAAAAADCA/wQyqWRqkINI/s1600/1.jpg



2) Both teams have the same record in the regular season, but one of them collapses in the playoffs ... I wonder why ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3E_t7BorFbs/U6SRQUtyX2I/AAAAAAAADCI/LA1hxSUUQyw/s1600/9.jpg



Here's the answer ...


3) Breakdown in terms of offense

Per 100 Team Possessions -> Duncan scores more points, draws more fouls, grabs more offensive rebounds, generate more assists and has a higher PER.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yY-qiMnirCs/U6SRQLxlB1I/AAAAAAAADB8/ugK-SKhPiIQ/s1600/7.jpg


and defense

Per 100 Team Possessions -> Duncan grabs more rebounds, blocks more shot, has a better defensive rating, etc.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f8nlLrRmZrc/U6SRQMzVarI/AAAAAAAADCU/My7i7ATQbYQ/s1600/8.jpg



Bill Simmons (May 11, 2007): Duncan is wildly underrated
(http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070509)


Fortunately, things have changed over the past three years. Current Spurs are really a great team. Kawhi is the main reason... HUGE upgrade over Bowen, Jefferson, Udoka, etc.

You kind of picked an arbitrary time didn't you?

01 through 07?

I mean;

Duncan had more help in 01
Dirk had more help in 02 and 03
Duncan had more help in 04 and 05
Close to a tie in 06, but I think Duncan had the slightly better team
Dirk had more help in 07

So...I wouldn't really refute anything during that time. The problem is that the Spurs caught lucky breaks in 03 especially...and in 07 with absurdly easy competition. If the 06 Mavs had to face the 07 Cavs in the finals...they win. If Duncan got hurt in 03 rather than Dirk...the Mavs win the title. So it's a bit misleading.

08 to present though? That is where the big edge is...

Also, including 01 is silly for Dirk...he wasn't in his prime.

Also, Duncan is better than Dirk...but that doesn't mean his help isn't better. Dirk was a beast in the playoffs and blaming him for the record in the playoffs is laughable. The real reason is the coaching and lack of mainstay players like Parker/Manu...just obvious.

But anyway...your playoff stats are horribly biased in terms of creating an arbitrary length to look at. Why not just look at the primes/production of each player;

Dirk from 02 through 11;

26/11/3 59% TS 25 PER 119 ortg 107 drtg .207 ws/48

Duncan from 99 through 08;

24/13/4 55% TS 26/4 PER 110 ortg 97 drtg .215 ws/48

That is a better indication of their play rather than picking an arbitrary time including a pre prime Dirk and cutting off his peak. Again, Duncan is better than Dirk...that isn't in dispute. His help and coaching was better though...that also ins't in dispute.

[bizil]

In terms of longevity and success as a package than YES! But GOAT wise, Duncan could be rated as high as number six in my book. Cap on the other hand has a case to be the GOAT. But Timmy is on the Mt. Rushmore of big men (PF and C) with Kareem, Wilt, and Russell. I actually think Tim may have bumped Shaq out of the Mt. Rushmore with this fifth ring.

[Cleverness]

I interpreted it as Tim Duncan having a lot of things line up for him correctly... great coach, great teammates, great franchise, no crazy freak injuries, win early and win late in his career...

[Lebron23]

Magic Johnson
Bill Russell

[dankok8]

Kareem at 38 years old

4th in MVP voting
unanimous FMVP (26/9/5 on 60% against GOAT frontcourt)

Duncan isn't touching that. I'd also take 38 year old Karl Malone and Wizards MJ in his first year over Duncan. Quite comfortably too...

[houston]

Parker did not have a good year 13-14 (like he did in 12-13). He only played 68 games averaging 16.7 pts 5.7 asst on 49.9%FG in less than 30 mins. He was 12th in MVP voting mostly IMO because the Spurs were the #1 team in the league.

Duncan led the team in minutes played, rebounds and blocks for both regular season and playoffs. He was only 15 pts less than TP in RS and 26 pts less than TP in the playoffs. People relegating Duncan to role player status during this season and playoffs are wrong - especially with disregarding the HUGE role he plays on the defensive end.


Stop it man Parker was the team only all-star and all-nba player this year. 17,6,2 on 50% shooting with leading his team in points and assist that ain't a good year:wtf:


Duncan put up 15,10,3. Man Horace Grant on the 92,93 Bulls team put up 14,10,3 and 13,10,3 come on man those role playing numbers.