Where does Duncan rank all time if he gets #6 this year?

[JerrySeinfeld]

http://strawpoll.me/5744926

[WayOfWade]

I think he'd have a legit argument for top 5 all time. It'd be tough though, because he almost certainly wouldn't be "the man" this time around.

[DMAVS41]

I think he'd have a legit argument for top 5 all time. It'd be tough though, because he almost certainly wouldn't be "the man" this time around.

He already has a legit argument with just about anyone in history other than MJ in my opinion.

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

2-5 five spot is very tricky. So many factors and arguments can be made for anyone.

I think he still dosen't make the top 5 spot though. 6-8 Prob

[Sarcastic]

Doesn't change, just like it won't if he loses. His legacy is set.

[Pointguard]

He can't go up at this point, because his level of play is known and he is nolonger a top two player. The better argument is can he go down.. If SA finally wins a back to back with unranked Aldridge as the best player... Yes Duncan's value can go down. As things have a chance to be proven that those were Pop's rings if the dynasty can carry on to a new level with Duncan stepping down. Its a slippery slope now.

[DMAVS41]

He can't go up at this point, because his level of play is known and he is nolonger a top two player. The better argument is can he go down.. If SA finally wins a back to back with unranked Aldridge as the best player... Yes Duncan's value can go down. As things have a chance to be proven that those were Pop's rings if the dynasty can carry on to a new level with Duncan stepping down. Its a slippery slope now.

Shocking...I hugely disagree.

Part of being a great player is longevity....Duncan already has incredible longevity, but if he plays very well all year and in the playoffs again at his age...it absolutely can increase his ranking. Maybe not a lot, but he's already close enough to just about anyone in history that the margins are thin to begin with.

No, his career ranking can't really go down at this point. It's all gravy now.

Pop's rings? Really? Did you just say that? Damn...

[GrapeApe]

Doesn't change, just like it won't if he loses. His legacy is set.

Why? If he has another solid all-star type season and helps his team win a title, how does that not elevate his legacy? What if he wins another FMVP? I don't see how you can say his legacy is set when he's still a quality player. It's not as if he's just hanging on as a 12th man. If the Spurs win a title he will unquestionably be a key contributor.

[DMAVS41]

Why? If he has another solid all-star type season and helps his team win a title, how does that not elevate his legacy? What if he wins another FMVP? I don't see how you can say his legacy is set when he's still a quality player. It's not as if he's just hanging on as a 12th man. If the Spurs win a title he will unquestionably be a key contributor.

Of course he can improve his legacy. Anything he does at this point is gravy.'

His legacy can't get worse though really....what he's doing and already has done is pretty much unprecedented. What is someone gonna argue Bird had a better career if Duncan isn't good this year or something? Duncan already blows away Bird on longevity. The argument that he can't get better and only worse is completely backwards...the standard for PG on here.

You are absolutely right...

[kennethgriffin]

duncan has 2 alpha rings

1 co lead in 2005

1 gasol ring in 2007

1 odom ring in 2014



and if he won next year


1 horry ring in 2016





enough overrating this guy please

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Kareem was a complete non-factor in his 6th ring, so I don't see how anyone can make any arguments against Duncan without being hypocritical and biased.

[TheBigVeto]

Doesn't change, just like it won't if he loses. His legacy is set.

This. He's in the next level after Jordan/Jabbar/Russell. Nothing will change that.

[thefatmiral]

Too me his legacy peaked out in 2013. When he was just a few minutes away from being 5 of 5 with another fmvp at 37 yo until the Manu meltdown. Also carrying an injured team to the playoffs last year while being the best player is amazing too. anyway the chips look good on record people who actually watch the game know what matters.

[greatest-ever]

Ok a few things:

1: He won't get a 6th ring.

2: He's in my top 5 regardless.

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

Ok a few things:

1: He won't get a 6th ring.

2: He's in my top 5 regardless.
:applause: Spurs won't win dis year. go Dubs:applause:

[Bankaii]

duncan has 2 alpha rings

1 co lead in 2005

1 gasol ring in 2007

1 odom ring in 2014



and if he won next year


1 horry ring in 2016





enough overrating this guy please
Lol if 2005 is a "co-lead" ring then Kobe doesn't have a single "alpha" ring.
2000: Fisher ring
2001: Gasol ring
2002: Gasol ring
2009: Co-lead ring
2019: Co-lead ring

Thanks Kenny, I'll kick Kobe out my top 10. Duncan stays at 6, debatably 5.

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

Lol if 2005 is a "co-lead" ring then Kobe doesn't have a single "alpha" ring.
2000: Fisher ring
2001: Gasol ring
2002: Gasol ring
2009: Co-lead ring
2019: Co-lead ring

Thanks Kenny, I'll kick Kobe out my top 10. Duncan stays at 6, debatably 5.

Bankaaii

http://orig09.deviantart.net/3396/f/2010/349/8/4/senbonzakura__s_bankai___gif_by_doomstar6-d34xfb3.gif

[T_L_P]

Depends on how well he plays.

He'd go up higher for playing like he did last season and not winning it all than he would if he did win a ring playing like his 2011 self (not that I anticipate that happening).

[Smoke117]

I don't think I"ll ever get why Tim Duncan is so overrated. People seriously saying if the Spurs won he could be top 5? Jesus christ...

[T_L_P]

I don't think I"ll ever get why Tim Duncan is so overrated. People seriously saying if the Spurs won he could be top 5? Jesus christ...

Still waiting on that 30 better players list, brotha!

[Pointguard]

Of course he can improve his legacy. Anything he does at this point is gravy.'

His legacy can't get worse though really....what he's doing and already has done is pretty much unprecedented. What is someone gonna argue Bird had a better career if Duncan isn't good this year or something? Duncan already blows away Bird on longevity. The argument that he can't get better and only worse is completely backwards...the standard for PG on here.

You are absolutely right...
:lol Once the conversation leaves stats, you aren't qualified to right or wrong anything. And you don't even know when to apply stats at that as well.

I have Duncan ranked above Bird and Shaq already and unless he rocks five more years he isn't going to pass Wilt, Russell, Jordan Kareem or Magic in my book. Shaq and Bird are high in my rankings because their peak play was unquestionably better than Duncan's. Both would have played longer if Pop was their coach. Pop is a preservationist. KG was the most intense player probably ever. If he played for a preservationist he might still be playing at a high level. Unwittingly, of course that's the only way you could make good sense, you already brought in Popovich into the argument.

So your strongest point is really about Popovich. Ginobli, yeah your other screenname, so don't pretend to be brand new, would have been a five or four year starter for most coaches and then seemingly would have been overwhelmed by injuries. But he plays for a preservationist. Gin has had all star production for like one or two years tops. But people will be crying for the HOF. That's Pop. Most people have David Robinson in their top 25. Without Pop he loses about 10 spots.

Durant was annoyed when they said Kawhi should be ranked higher than George. And many people here on this board had Kawhi in their top ten player's list. That's Pop. Tony Parker is a top ten PG two years ago. With most coaches, he's not in the league. That's Pop. If the team now wins a two peat with Aldridge as the best player. He does something that Duncan never did. Is he better than Anthony Davis? No but that's Pop. I named every position where Pop has had significantly upped a player's value...

For now, I will hit one point at a time, as you get disoriented when I do more than that. I know you won't get it, because its a concept. But lets see if we can settle this point for now.

[Bankaii]

Bankaaii

http://orig09.deviantart.net/3396/f/2010/349/8/4/senbonzakura__s_bankai___gif_by_doomstar6-d34xfb3.gif
Beautiful:bowdown:

[DMAVS41]

I don't think I"ll ever get why Tim Duncan is so overrated. People seriously saying if the Spurs won he could be top 5? Jesus christ...

Oh yes....because a bunch of guys you probably were so much better...right?

Yea...leading probably the best 18 year stretch given circumstances in NBA history while being an elite two way player removes him from the conversation...right?

[DMAVS41]

:lol Once the conversation leaves stats, you aren't qualified to right or wrong anything. And you don't even know when to apply stats at that as well.

I have Duncan ranked above Bird and Shaq already and unless he rocks five more years he isn't going to pass Wilt, Russell, Jordan Kareem or Magic in my book. Shaq and Bird are high in my rankings because their peak play was unquestionably better than Duncan's. Both would have played longer if Pop was their coach. Pop is a preservationist. KG was the most intense player probably ever. If he played for a preservationist he might still be playing at a high level. Unwittingly, of course that's the only way you could make good sense, you already brought in Popovich into the argument.

So your strongest point is really about Popovich. Ginobli, yeah your other screenname, so don't pretend to be brand new, would have been a five or four year starter for most coaches and then seemingly would have been overwhelmed by injuries. But he plays for a preservationist. Gin has had all star production for like one or two years tops. But people will be crying for the HOF. That's Pop. Most people have David Robinson in their top 25. Without Pop he loses about 10 spots.

Durant was annoyed when they said Kawhi should be ranked higher than George. And many people here on this board had Kawhi in their top ten player's list. That's Pop. Tony Parker is a top ten PG two years ago. With most coaches, he's not in the league. That's Pop. If the team now wins a two peat with Aldridge as the best player. He does something that Duncan never did. Is he better than Anthony Davis? No but that's Pop. I named every position where Pop has had significantly upped a player's value...

For now, I will hit one point at a time, as you get disoriented when I do more than that. I know you won't get it, because its a concept. But lets see if we can settle this point for now.


Sorry...you don't get penalized for not being an elite player in year 19. Just doesn't work that way.

Also, Duncan isn't rated as highly as he is because of titles. He's largely rated as high as he is because of his amazing two way play that was elite from day 1...combined with his success. It's not all titles or something....I know it's lost on you, but it actually matters how good a player is. Crazy...I know...but true.

You also don't penalize players for a team having success after said player leaves. That is just silly.

Lastly, you claim he can't go up. But this is flawed on your own criteria. If the Spurs don't win anything after Duncan retires for a decade...under you logic...you'd have to vault Duncan up the rankings. Will you do this? Because you'd have to in order to stay remotely consistent. So do you admit your initial statement that he can't go up is flawed?

You don't get the game or logic man....you just don't get it. Go back to claiming the Cavs are better without Love and Kyrie...you should be afraid to even post on a basketball forum after saying something so god damn stupid.

[Bankaii]

I don't think I"ll ever get why Tim Duncan is so overrated. People seriously saying if the Spurs won he could be top 5? Jesus christ...
There is nothing wrong with Duncan being top 5.
Dude is the 2nd most impactful defender of the top 10 GOATs (can be argued number 1 I personally think Russell's defense is slightly overrated).

[kennethgriffin]

Lol if 2005 is a "co-lead" ring then Kobe doesn't have a single "alpha" ring.
2000: Fisher ring
2001: Gasol ring
2002: Gasol ring
2009: Co-lead ring
2019: Co-lead ring

Thanks Kenny, I'll kick Kobe out my top 10. Duncan stays at 6, debatably 5.


manu in 2005 averaged 20ppg on 60% fg's and lead the spurs in assists

duncan averaged 20ppg on 40% fg's. played like sh*t



duncan won MVP.. but it was a legit co-lead



same as when kobe was basically matching shaqs output in 2001 and 2002 while leading in assists


at best kobe has 1 gasol ring in 2000.. while saving the entire year a few times to make up for it




kobes 2009 and 2010 playoff and finals averages are 10+ ppg on gasol


please gtfo

[kennethgriffin]

kobe

2000 - 2nd banana
2001 - co lead
2002 - co lead
2009 - alpha
2010 - alpha


duncan

1999 - alpha
2003 - alpha
2005 - co lead
2007 - 2nd banana
2014 - 3rd banana

[T_L_P]

So your strongest point is really about Popovich. Ginobli, yeah your other screenname, so don't pretend to be brand new, would have been a five or four year starter for most coaches and then seemingly would have been overwhelmed by injuries. But he plays for a preservationist. Gin has had all star production for like one or two years tops. But people will be crying for the HOF. That's Pop. Most people have David Robinson in their top 25. Without Pop he loses about 10 spots.


Durant was annoyed when they said Kawhi should be ranked higher than George. And many people here on this board had Kawhi in their top ten player's list. That's Pop. Tony Parker is a top ten PG two years ago. With most coaches, he's not in the league. That's Pop. If the team now wins a two peat with Aldridge as the best player. He does something that Duncan never did. Is he better than Anthony Davis? No but that's Pop. I named every position where Pop has had significantly upped a player's value....

Except, you know, when Robinson won his first ring, it was during the same season that Pop was almost fired because he was doing such a shitty job - Avery had to become the vocal leader because Pop was sitting back, Duncan and Robinson were doing pretty much everything on defense and Pop was running one of, if not the most vanilla offenses in the league, with some of the worst off-ball movement I've ever seen from a contending team.

So no, Robinson being ranked in the top twenty-five is not 'Pop'.

[HighFlyer23]

kobe

2000 - 2nd banana
2001 - co lead
2002 - co lead
2009 - alpha
2010 - alpha


duncan

1999 - alpha
2003 - alpha
2005 - co lead
2007 - 2nd banana
2014 - 3rd banana

Lol check Shaqs stats in the 2001 and 2002 Finals and then tell me he was "co" with anybody

[T_L_P]

kobe

2000 - 2nd banana
2001 - co lead
2002 - co lead
2009 - alpha
2010 - alpha


duncan

1999 - alpha
2003 - alpha
2005 - co lead
2007 - 2nd banana
2014 - 3rd banana

Where do you get this from?

In 02 Kobe averaged 26/6/5 with no FMVP.
Shaq averaged 29/13/3 with FMVP.

'co lead'

In 07 Duncan averaged 22/12/3 with no FMVP
Parker averaged 20/3/5 with FMVP

'2nd banana'

It's common knowledge that Duncan was the best Spur on the 07 team. You can't argue against that (unless FMVP is your exclusive criteria, in which case it's Duncan>Kobe).

Shaq was clearly the best Laker in 02.

Shitposting at its finest.

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

Except, you know, when Robinson won his first ring, it was during the same season that Pop was almost fired because he was doing such a shitty job - Avery had to become the vocal leader because Pop was sitting back, Duncan and Robinson were doing pretty much everything on defense and Pop was running one of, if not the most vanilla offenses in the league, with some of the worst off-ball movement I've ever seen from a contending team.

So no, Robinson being ranked in the top twenty-five is not 'Pop'.


:applause: :applause: Was going to say the same thing. POP wasn't POP from day 1

[DaOldLion]

I don't think I"ll ever get why Tim Duncan is so overrated. People seriously saying if the Spurs won he could be top 5? Jesus christ...

exactly this..

Duncan has never won b2b

Hasn't won a FMVP in over a decade

His teams have been at their best when he is reduced to the Serge Ibaka role

His last FMVP was possibly the most un-impressive FMVP this century.. he put up 20ppg on 47% TS (worse than Lebron in 2015 while scoring 15 less points)

Won during the worst NBA season of all time (99)

Has lost in the first round multiple times

Lost as the number 1 seed in the first round.. LOL..

The Spurs have been at their best when Duncan is a defensive role player.. TRUTH HURTS..

Choked on a potential game winning lay-up in 2013 finals, imagine if Kobe or Lebron did this..

Plays with an incredibly stacked roster every year and nobody cares..


He gets away with stuff that no other all time greats could get away with, nothing ever gets held against him and everything he does well is praised beyond belief

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

exactly this..

Duncan has never won b2b

Hasn't won a FMVP in over a decade

His teams have been at their best when he is reduced to the Serge Ibaka role

His last FMVP was possibly the most un-impressive FMVP this century.. he put up 20ppg on 47% TS (worse than Lebron in 2015 while scoring 15 less points)

Won during the worst NBA season of all time (99)

Has lost in the first round multiple times

Lost as the number 1 seed in the first round.. LOL..

The Spurs have been at their best when Duncan is a defensive role player.. TRUTH HURTS..

Choked on a potential game winning lay-up in 2013 finals, imagine if Kobe or Lebron did this..

Plays with an incredibly stacked roster every year and nobody cares..


He gets away with stuff that no other all time greats could get away with, nothing ever gets held against him and everything he does well is praised beyond belief


You miss the eye test. He makes the Spurs engine run with his leadership and still elite field presence as a rim protector and a rebounder with excellent postplaymaking and post offense with a nice mid range.

[ArbitraryWater]

unchanged, so 7-10


Except, you know, when Robinson won his first ring, it was during the same season that Pop was almost fired because he was doing such a shitty job - Avery had to become the vocal leader because Pop was sitting back, Duncan and Robinson were doing pretty much everything on defense and Pop was running one of, if not the most vanilla offenses in the league, with some of the worst off-ball movement I've ever seen from a contending team.

So no, Robinson being ranked in the top twenty-five is not 'Pop'.

:oldlol: mah nigha

[DaOldLion]

You miss the eye test. He makes the Spurs engine run with his leadership and still elite field presence as a rim protector and a rebounder with excellent postplaymaking and post offense with a nice mid range.

he's not even the best player at his own position on his own team..

[Bankaii]

manu in 2005 averaged 20ppg on 60% fg's and lead the spurs in assists

duncan averaged 20ppg on 40% fg's. played like sh*t



duncan won MVP.. but it was a legit co-lead



same as when kobe was basically matching shaqs output in 2001 and 2002 while leading in assists


at best kobe has 1 gasol ring in 2000.. while saving the entire year a few times to make up for it




kobes 2009 and 2010 playoff and finals averages are 10+ ppg on gasol


please gtfo
2000 Finals:
Shaq: 38/17/2/1/3 on 61%
Kobe: 16/5/4/1/1.4 on 37%
Kobe put up 2002 Fisher numbers. Either Fisher had sidekick numbers or Kobe was a role player.

2001 Finals:
Shaq: 33/16/5/3.4/0.4 on 57%
Kobe: 27/8/6/1.4/1.4 on 42%
Shaq was clearly the number 1 guy.

2002 Finals:
Shaq: 36/12/4/3/0.5 on 60%
Kobe: 27/6/5/1.5/0.5 on 51%
Shaq was even more clearly the number 1 guy. Kobe was a sidekick with almost 10 less ppg.

2000: Role player
2001: Sidekick
2002: Sidekick
2009: Alpha
2010: Co-lead

[Bankaii]

exactly this..

Duncan has never won b2b

Hasn't won a FMVP in over a decade

His teams have been at their best when he is reduced to the Serge Ibaka role

His last FMVP was possibly the most un-impressive FMVP this century.. he put up 20ppg on 47% TS (worse than Lebron in 2015 while scoring 15 less points)

Won during the worst NBA season of all time (99)

Has lost in the first round multiple times

Lost as the number 1 seed in the first round.. LOL..

The Spurs have been at their best when Duncan is a defensive role player.. TRUTH HURTS..

Choked on a potential game winning lay-up in 2013 finals, imagine if Kobe or Lebron did this..

Plays with an incredibly stacked roster every year and nobody cares..


He gets away with stuff that no other all time greats could get away with, nothing ever gets held against him and everything he does well is praised beyond belief
38 year old team Duncan was the Spurs best player last year in the playoffs and was their most consistent player both offensively and defensively.

So stacked doe:yaohappy:

[T_L_P]

he's not even the best player at his own position on his own team..

Duncan in 14+15 Playoffs: 18/10/2, .575 TS%, 22 PER, .210 WS/48, +5.3 +/-

Aldridge: 24/10/1, .483 TS% 19.5 PER, .076 WS/48, -2.0 +/-

Duncan obviously isn't going out there dominating in an 82 game RS at 40. In the Playoffs, there are very few more effective than him - he posted an 18/11/3/.600 TS% series against the Clippers last year with no help from Splitter, meaning he was being guarded by DJ (DPOY candidate) and Blake Griffin a lot, and still grilling them.

Even if he isn't the best at his position on his team, they guy is almost 40. Most all-timers are either out of the league or averaging 2 PPG at his age.

Anything he does at this point is a plus, especially since he's only the 132nd highest paid player in the entire league. :oldlol:

[kennethgriffin]

2000 Finals:
Shaq: 38/17/2/1/3 on 61%
Kobe: 16/5/4/1/1.4 on 37%
Kobe put up 2002 Fisher numbers. Either Fisher had sidekick numbers or Kobe was a role player.

2001 Finals:
Shaq: 33/16/5/3.4/0.4 on 57%
Kobe: 27/8/6/1.4/1.4 on 42%
Shaq was clearly the number 1 guy.

2002 Finals:
Shaq: 36/12/4/3/0.5 on 60%
Kobe: 27/6/5/1.5/0.5 on 51%
Shaq was even more clearly the number 1 guy. Kobe was a sidekick with almost 10 less ppg.

2000: Role player
2001: Sidekick
2002: Sidekick
2009: Alpha
2010: Co-lead



b*tch please...


dont give me averages vs the east

those werent the real finals


how are 2 guys supposed to average 30 a piece when its mostly blow outs

[T_L_P]

please dont give me averages vs the east

those werent the real finals


how are 2 guys supposed to average 30 a piece when its mostly blow outs

I gave you the entire Playoff averages above - post #30.

[kennethgriffin]

I gave you the entire Playoff averages above - post #30.


the fact is if you dont count those exibition finals stats.. kobe and shaq average the same stats throughout the first 3 rounds in 2001 and 2002... infact kobes were better in 2001



kobe or shaq could both have won the finals without each other against the pissers, philly or jersey


that shit was like the pro bowl after the fact

[kennethgriffin]

lets be honest...



mitch richmond coulda been gifted the 1st option role in the finals and the lakers still win


mitch wins fmvp averaging 25



so i dont care if shaq got it... kobe was the real mvp vs the best teams in 2001

2002 its close

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Already top 5 and debatably top 2/3, so with another ring he'll be unquestionably top 3 all time, dead or alive.

[DMAVS41]

lets be honest...



mitch richmond coulda been gifted the 1st option role in the finals and the lakers still win


mitch wins fmvp averaging 25



so i dont care if shaq got it... kobe was the real mvp vs the best teams in 2001

2002 its close


but then why do you call Duncan "2nd banana" in 07 when the Cavs weren't even a threat to win a single game?

seems like a double standard....because Duncan was demonstrably better than Parker and Manu in the western playoffs.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

but then why do you call Duncan "2nd banana" in 07 when the Cavs weren't even a threat to win a single game?

seems like a double standard....because Duncan was demonstrably better than Parker and Manu in the western playoffs.

:applause:

[Bankaii]

b*tch please...


dont give me averages vs the east

those werent the real finals


how are 2 guys supposed to average 30 a piece when its mostly blow outs
Lol what a bitchass cop out. You use Finals stats to diminish Duncan but for Kobe they're irrelevant. If the east is so weak why are Kobe's finals averages so shit?

How about I give you averages from the 2004 Finals where the Lakers got their asses kicked and Kobe has the WOAT Finals against the "weak east".

And if you use that "WCF is the real finals" bs excuse then in 2005 Duncan was clearly the Spurs best player.

Backpedal some more you little fgt.

[T_L_P]

but then why do you call Duncan "2nd banana" in 07 when the Cavs weren't even a threat to win a single game?

seems like a double standard....because Duncan was demonstrably better than Parker and Manu in the western playoffs.

Yeah, there's no way kenneth is going to respond to this one. :lol

[HighFlyer23]

Lol what a bitchass cop out. If the east is so weak why are Kobe's finals averages so shit?

How about I give you averages from the 2004 Finals where the Lakers got their asses kicked and Kobe has the WOAT Finals against the "weak east".

And if you use that "WCF is the real finals" bs excuse then in 2005 Duncan was clearly the Spurs best player.

Backpedal some more you little fgt.

Seriously Kobe's 2004 Finals performance was nothing short of sabotage

Most horrendous series I've ever seen in the Finals by a superstar on a superstar team

[BlakFrankWhite]

#4 all time

1.KD
2.Jordan
3.Kareem
4.Duncan

[Pointguard]

Also, Duncan isn't rated as highly as he is because of titles. He's largely rated as high as he is because of his amazing two way play that was elite from day 1...combined with his success. It's not all titles or something....I know it's lost on you, but it actually matters how good a player is. Crazy...I know...but true.
Just like you to not know the title or subject of a thread you are in. Did you read the OP??? The extra ring according the topic here on earth and on this thread is totally about that.


You also don't penalize players for a team having success after said player leaves. That is just silly.
Well then it should have resonated with you. It has historically happened before and gets talked about a lot here.


Lastly, you claim he can't go up. But this is flawed on your own criteria. If the Spurs don't win anything after Duncan retires for a decade...under you logic...you'd have to vault Duncan up the rankings. Will you do this? Because you'd have to in order to stay remotely consistent. So do you admit your initial statement that he can't go up is flawed? Its not an inverse relationship. Tim is at max now. He gets full credit now. Pop doesn't get credit. But if they win without Tim, Pop will get more credit. Its like you not acknowledging that Duncan's longevity was due to Pop. Gin's longevity is due to Pop. A lot of players gain value in Pop's system.


You don't get the game or logic man....you just don't get it. Go back to claiming the Cavs are better without Love and Kyrie...you should be afraid to even post on a basketball forum after saying something so god damn stupid.
:lol Love it when you get frazzled and irrelevant. I know when I shake you up. Yeah, I said that to you because I know you aren't smart enough to get concepts - just like here. Go on home silly.

[DMAVS41]

Just like you to not know the title or subject of a thread you are in. Did you read the OP??? The extra ring according the topic here on earth and on this thread is totally about that.

Well then it should have resonated with you. It has historically happened before and gets talked about a lot here.
Its not an inverse relationship. Tim is at max now. He gets full credit now. Pop doesn't get credit. But if they win without Tim, Pop will get more credit. Its like you not acknowledging that Duncan's longevity was due to Pop. Gin's longevity is due to Pop. A lot of players gain value in Pop's system.

:lol Love it when you get frazzled and irrelevant. I know when I shake you up. Yeah, I said that to you because I know you aren't smart enough to get concepts - just like here. Go on home silly.

Learn to read. We have all said it depends on how he plays. If the Spurs win and he plays like ass...it doesn't matter as much as if he plays great. You really can't understand this point?

Actually false. Pop gets a ton of credit currently. Do you actually think "Pop doesn't get credit"...like really? Ask anyone and he's on the short list of greatest coaches in all of sports history. Could you provide some evidence that supports your assertion here?

Actually false. Duncan's longevity is not solely due to Pop. Yea he helps of course, but it's not all one thing or the other. This is obvious to most with brains.

You don't shake anything up. Your logic doesn't hold. Again...you said Duncan can't go up....this is patently false according to your own criteria.

Please answer. If Duncan retires and the Spurs don't win a ring for a decade...do you admit he will go up according to your criteria and logic?

[Pointguard]

Except, you know, when Robinson won his first ring, it was during the same season that Pop was almost fired because he was doing such a shitty job - Avery had to become the vocal leader because Pop was sitting back, Duncan and Robinson were doing pretty much everything on defense and Pop was running one of, if not the most vanilla offenses in the league, with some of the worst off-ball movement I've ever seen from a contending team.

So no, Robinson being ranked in the top twenty-five is not 'Pop'. Now if you had said Robinson became the vocal leader I would put him in my top 25. He wasn't the one who stepped up to change things. Pop takes a 3 and 15 team to 56 wins and the 2nd best defense in one year. Interesting that they were elite defensively before Duncan got there. And GM's rarely fire coaches that have their teams playing elite defense because that means they are responsive toward him.

So after the team started 6 and 8 Avery, who says Pop told him to get more vocal, should get credit for turning the team around. My guess is this is when they were 6-8, and had a 8 games on the road with a road trip and games close together yet they were going to fire Pop.

Any time a team lacks in offense or defense it is usually the coach that compensates.

[DMAVS41]

Now if you had said Robinson became the vocal leader I would put him in my top 25. He wasn't the one who stepped up to change things. Pop takes a 3 and 15 team to 56 wins and the 2nd best defense in one year. Interesting that they were elite defensively before Duncan got there. And GM's rarely fire coaches that have their teams playing elite defense because that means they are responsive toward him.

So after the team started 6 and 8 Avery, who says Pop told him to get more vocal, should get credit for turning the team around. My guess is this is when they were 6-8, and had a 8 games on the road with a road trip and games close together yet they were going to fire Pop.

Any time a team lacks in offense or defense it is usually the coach that compensates.

What are you talking about?

The Spurs won 59 games the year before Pop took over. Then Robinson got hurt and the team was terrible without him. Bob Hill was fired after like 20 games iirc and Pop took over and they were terrible under Pop that year.

Then they drafted Duncan got Robinson back. And they won 56 games.

You literally don't know what you are talking about...as usual.

[kennethgriffin]

Yeah, there's no way kenneth is going to respond to this one. :lol


ok duncan was co-lead in 2007

happy?


flunkans still behind in terms of ring prestige


kobe 2000 - 2nd banana 0.5
kobe 2001 - co lead 0.9
kobe 2002 - co lead 0.9
kobe 2009 - alpha 1.0
kobe 2010 - alpha 1.0

total = 4.3


duncan 1999 - alpha ( but it was a lockout 50 game season ) 0.5
duncan 2003 - alpha 1.0
duncan 2005 - co lead 0.9
duncan 2007 - co lead 0.9
duncan 2014 - 3rd banana 0.25

total = 3.55

[Pointguard]

Learn to read. We have all said it depends on how he plays. If the Spurs win and he plays like ass...it doesn't matter as much as if he plays great. You really can't understand this point?
No, That's not in the OP at all. Are you imagining things again Mr. Dmavs?


Actually false. Pop gets a ton of credit currently. Do you actually think "Pop doesn't get credit"...like really? Ask anyone and he's on the short list of greatest coaches in all of sports history. Could you provide some evidence that supports your assertion here?
:lol my first response is contingent on them winning again which at this point won't be with Duncan being the best and most likely the second best player. If they repeat now, its obvious that its more of Pop and less of Duncan. As that was something Duncan couldn't do.


Actually false. Duncan's longevity is not solely due to Pop. Yea he helps of course, but it's not all one thing or the other. This is obvious to most with brains.
:lol There you go again imagining something that isn't there. Not once did I say solely.


You don't shake anything up. Your logic doesn't hold. Again...you said Duncan can't go up....this is patently false according to your own criteria.

Please answer. If Duncan retires and the Spurs don't win a ring for a decade...do you admit he will go up according to your criteria and logic?

No that's not related to my logic at all. Duncan gets recognized for 5 rings. He moves up most people's rankings because of that. I think Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, Oscar, West and Lebron are in front of him if he has 3 rings on most people's list. As a player - almost all of them are all ahead of him for me. But his accomplishments, wins and longevity get him leverage.

[Pointguard]

What are you talking about?

The Spurs won 59 games the year before Pop took over. Then Robinson got hurt and the team was terrible without him. Bob Hill was fired after like 20 games iirc and Pop took over and they were terrible under Pop that year.

Then they drafted Duncan got Robinson back. And they won 56 games.

You literally don't know what you are talking about...as usual.
Haha, my point is that you don't fire your coach after a bad start in that scenario. That's the point. Keeep UUUP.

[DMAVS41]

No, That's not in the OP at all. Are you imagining things again Mr. Dmavs?

:lol my first response is contingent on them winning again which at this point won't be with Duncan being the best and most likely the second best player. If they repeat now, its obvious that its more of Pop and less of Duncan. As that was something Duncan couldn't do.

:lol There you go again imagining something that isn't there. Not once did I say solely.


No that's not related to my logic at all. Duncan gets recognized for 5 rings. He moves up most people's rankings because of that. I think Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, Oscar, West and Lebron are in front of him if he has 3 rings on most people's list. As a player - almost all of them are all ahead of him for me. But his accomplishments, wins and longevity get him leverage.


The OP asks about winning his 6th. It's then logical to say...it depends on how he plays.

Irrelevant. Pop is already known as one of the greatest coaches of all time in any sport. Of course if he wins more in the future he'll move up. Just like if Duncan plays great and wins he can move up. Not hard.

If it's not solely due to Pop then you have no point as nobody thinks Duncan's longevity would be the exact same in other circumstances. So this point matters to nobody but you.

That is how you view Duncan. I view him differently. He was a better player than Shaq, Bird, Hakeem, Oscar, West, and Kobe on his play alone. Lebron is the only one that has a chance surpass him on level of play alone for me. So while you rate Duncan a certain way based on titles...others don't. So this point really isn't relevant.

[DMAVS41]

Haha, my point is that you don't fire your coach after a bad start in that scenario. That's the point. Keeep UUUP.

What? You literally didn't know the history. You thought Pop transformed something. He didn't. That team was a 60 win team when healthy.

He literally got Robinson back and got a first team all nba player in Duncan in year 1 (his first full year...after they were terrible under him in 97)

You don't have a point...as usual.

LOL...do you ever get sick of talking nonsense and having to try to pretend you were saying something else?

Give it up dude...basketball just isn't your game. You don't get it.

[Pointguard]

No that's not related to my logic at all. Duncan gets recognized for 5 rings. He moves up most people's rankings because of that. I think Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, Oscar, West and Lebron are in front of him if he has 3 rings on most people's list. As a player - almost all of them are all ahead of him for me. But his accomplishments, wins and longevity get him leverage.

Say Duncan retires and Kobe goes there and they repeat with Kobe as the third best player. If Duncan can move up at this stage, then he would have no argument of being higher on the GOAT list than Kobe. Dominant coaches win more than dominant players do. That's a fact.

[DMAVS41]

Now if you had said Robinson became the vocal leader I would put him in my top 25. He wasn't the one who stepped up to change things. Pop takes a 3 and 15 team to 56 wins and the 2nd best defense in one year. Interesting that they were elite defensively before Duncan got there. And GM's rarely fire coaches that have their teams playing elite defense because that means they are responsive toward him.

So after the team started 6 and 8 Avery, who says Pop told him to get more vocal, should get credit for turning the team around. My guess is this is when they were 6-8, and had a 8 games on the road with a road trip and games close together yet they were going to fire Pop.

Any time a team lacks in offense or defense it is usually the coach that compensates.

I'm going to post this again and take a look at the bold.

You literally don't know the history. That team that went 3-15 and then won 20 games total...didn't have Robinson or Duncan.

The next year they did.

You just don't ****ing have a clue.

[DMAVS41]

Say Duncan retires and Kobe goes there and they repeat with Kobe as the third best player. If Duncan can move up at this stage, then he would have no argument of being higher on the GOAT list than Kobe. Dominant coaches win more than dominant players do. That's a fact.

It depends on how players play man. It's not just about winning titles. It matters how well a player ****ing plays.

Stop it.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

He'd stay put at 5th for me.

[Pointguard]

What? You literally didn't know the history. You thought Pop transformed something. He didn't. That team was a 60 win team when healthy.
I never said he transformed anything. I don't understand the logic of him being a sucky coach in '99. Robinson had a reputation in the playoffs and wouldn't be top 25 had that not changed. In fact, players stopped testing him under Pop. And rarely tested Duncan.



He literally got Robinson back and got a first team all nba player in Duncan in year 1 (his first full year...after they were terrible under him in 97)

You don't have a point...as usual. Sir you are a pencil without its point or eraser. You always have trouble with concepts.



LOL...do you ever get sick of talking nonsense and having to try to pretend you were saying something else?

I made it clear and you still don't get it.

[DMAVS41]

I never said he transformed anything. I don't understand the logic of him being a sucky coach in '99. Robinson had a reputation in the playoffs and wouldn't be top 25 had that not changed. In fact, players stopped testing him under Pop. And rarely tested Duncan.
Sir you are a pencil without its point or eraser. You always have trouble with concepts.

I made it clear and you still don't get it.

Yes you did. You tried to make it look like he got stuck with a 3-15 roster and transformed the team. You clearly didn't know about the Robinson injury...so obvious.

Pop, like every coach, was just starting out and learning. He had no ability whatsoever to coach offense and almost solely relied on Duncan for everything on both ends....and to a lesser extent Robinson until Pop learned more and Manu/Parker developed into the studs they would become.

What you aren't grasping...because you clearly didn't watch those Spurs teams...is how much credit Duncan should get for anchoring those elite defenses while also doing enough to get the offense to be not horrible his first few years in the league. The offense was painfully bad from 98 through 00...and then it started to get better.

I don't think Pop was ever a "sucky" coach, but he had a much steeper learning curve than Duncan.

Duncan was elite from day 1...he was a top 5 player from the minute he was in the league and all time great from the jump. Pop wasn't like that....it really took at least 5 years or so for Pop to become a truly all time great coach.

Again, anyone that knows the Spurs would agree with this.

[Pointguard]

I'm going to post this again and take a look at the bold.

You literally don't know the history. That team that went 3-15 and then won 20 games total...didn't have Robinson or Duncan.

The next year they did.

You just don't ****ing have a clue.
So this is grounds to fire him! My point in that whole response is that he shouldn't have been discussed for being fired.

Note here is the body of the Post... The rest of the post easily makes this Clear:

Interesting that they were elite defensively before Duncan got there.
And GM's rarely fire coaches that have their teams playing elite defense because that means they are responsive toward him.

So after the team started 6 and 8 Avery, who says Pop told him to get more vocal, should get credit for turning the team around. My guess is this is when they were 6-8, and had a 8 games on the road with a road trip and games close together yet they were going to fire Pop.

Any time a team lacks in offense or defense it is usually the coach that compensates.

[DMAVS41]

So this is grounds to fire him! My point in that whole response is that he shouldn't have been discussed for being fired.

Note here is the body of the Post... The rest of the post easily makes this Clear:

Interesting that they were elite defensively before Duncan got there.
And GM's rarely fire coaches that have their teams playing elite defense because that means they are responsive toward him.

So after the team started 6 and 8 Avery, who says Pop told him to get more vocal, should get credit for turning the team around. My guess is this is when they were 6-8, and had a 8 games on the road with a road trip and games close together yet they were going to fire Pop.

Any time a team lacks in offense or defense it is usually the coach that compensates.


????????????????????????????

He was under heat because the offense was painful to watch and he wasn't getting the benefit of the doubt because he had not done anything yet.

I don't think he should have been on the "hot seat", but the point others are making is that he wasn't an elite coach from the jump. He had a huge learning curve and it took some time for him to figure it all out.

Again...you talking about taking over a 3-15 team is absolutely clear you were trying to make a point....just admit you didn't realize what actually was going on.

It's beyond obvious to everyone reading your insane posts.

Anyone. I repeat. Anyone....would have an elite defense with Duncan and Robinson in the era we are discussing. Holding onto that is absurd even for you.

[Pointguard]

Yes you did. You tried to make it look like he got stuck with a 3-15 roster and transformed the team. You clearly didn't know about the Robinson injury...so obvious.

This has nothing to do with my point that he shouldn't be fired. See Above.


Pop, like every coach, was just starting out and learning. He had no ability whatsoever to coach offense and almost solely relied on Duncan for everything on both ends....and to a lesser extent Robinson until Pop learned more and Manu/Parker developed into the studs they would become.
They had the second best defense without Duncan. So he wasn't relied on for everything. And they won like four more games percentage wise with Duncan. Which is far from great.


What you aren't grasping...because you clearly didn't watch those Spurs teams...is how much credit Duncan should get for anchoring those elite defenses while also doing enough to get the offense to be not horrible his first few years in the league. The offense was painfully bad from 98 through 00...and then it started to get better.
That's irrelevant as he got the max out of the personnel and won without much talent. And played the right way for his teams to win.


Duncan was elite from day 1...he was a top 5 player from the minute he was in the league and all time great from the jump. Pop wasn't like that....it really took at least 5 years or so for Pop to become a truly all time great coach.

Obviously Duncan wasn't an all time great player in 6 years.

[DMAVS41]

This has nothing to do with my point that he shouldn't be fired. See Above.

They had the second best defense without Duncan. So he wasn't relied on for everything. And they won like four more games percentage wise with Duncan. Which is far from great.

That's irrelevant as he got the max out of the personnel and won without much talent. And played the right way for his teams to win.

Obviously Duncan wasn't an all time great player in 6 years.

Robinson from 96 simply was never the same player. Again, you'd know that if you knew what you are talking about.

Duncan was absolutely an all time great player within his first 6 years. What the hell are you on? Here was Duncan's first 6 years.

He made 6 first team all nba teams.
He made 5 first team all defensive teams...1 2nd team.
He won 2 titles.
He won 2 MVPs.
He won 2 finals mvps.


Again...you simply have no clue what you are talking about.

[Pointguard]

Again...you talking about taking over a 3-15 team is absolutely clear you were trying to make a point....just admit you didn't realize what actually was going on.

If you knew how to read and see the purpose of the post its not a conversation. I highlight it I put in bold, increase the size of the font and its uselss because you, as always, want to go off into your own world. It happens all the time.


Anyone. I repeat. Anyone....would have an elite defense with Duncan and Robinson in the era we are discussing. Holding onto that is absurd even for you. Mr. Dmavs you imagining things again. I never said anything contrary. The defense was elite before Duncan got there. I have Duncan as a top player all time because he had great Pop defense. On that Olympic team.. he wasn't that good. But he had great Pop defense.

[Gus Fring]

It'd be Duncan, Kareem, and Jordan as the top three players ever.

[Pointguard]

Robinson from 96 simply was never the same player. Again, you'd know that if you knew what you are talking about.

Duncan was absolutely an all time great player within his first 6 years. What the hell are you on? Here was Duncan's first 6 years.

He made 6 first team all nba teams.
He made 5 first team all defensive teams...1 2nd team.
He won 2 titles.
He won 2 MVPs.
He won 2 finals mvps.

Again...you simply have no clue what you are talking about.
That's not GOAT and you know it. That's not top ten or twelve and you know it.

[DMAVS41]

That's not GOAT and you know it. That's not top ten or twelve and you know it.

What? It absolutely is all time great. Very few careers in NBA history have a line like that.

LOL

And again you miss the point. It's not about the totality of the 6 years...it's the Duncan was an elite player each year.

Pop was not an elite coach as early as Duncan was.

Duncan came in elite. Pop was not elite until at least 5 years imo.

That is the difference you keep missing with others.

[Pointguard]

What? It absolutely is all time great. Very few careers in NBA history have a line like that.

LOL

And again you miss the point. It's not about the totality of the 6 years...it's the Duncan was an elite player each year.

Pop was not an elite coach as early as Duncan was.

Duncan came in elite. Pop was not elite until at least 5 years imo.

That is the difference you keep missing with others.
I have only been in exchange with you but maybe you thought one of your alternates was on. I knew you would go all over the place once I started shooting you down. It started with Pop has elevated the status of several of his players. Gin, Parker, Robinson and Kawhi, all have had highly elevated rankings because of the Pop play. He's good enough to do it from every spot on the floor and do it with defense or offense.

I said you go astray and you did it within the third post.

[DMAVS41]

I have only been in exchange with you but maybe you thought one of your alternates was on. I knew you would go all over the place once I started shooting you down. It started with Pop has elevated the status of several of his players. Gin, Parker, Robinson and Kawhi, all have had highly elevated rankings because of the Pop play. He's good enough to do it from every spot on the floor and do it with defense or offense.

I said you go astray and you did it within the third post.

I responded to your point about Duncan not being all time great after 6 years. He clearly was.

And it was born out of the Pop discussion you had with others that you failed to grasp.

Pop was not an elite coach in 98. Duncan was an elite player.

This trend continues for a handful of years and it was obvious to anyone paying attention to the Spurs. Not that Pop was a bad coach or anything and he clearly was good, but he wasn't all time great coach he would later become.

That is the point others were trying to make. And you missed it completely...as usual.

[Smoke117]

Still waiting on that 30 better players list, brotha!

So you have sang before. It's becoming a bit redundant. I said what i said then because I was duink and just tired of how people were overrating him. I've actually tried to find 30 players with a BETTER PEAK (it was not a 30 better players list, so don't try and play those games with me), and no I didn't really. That is beside the point that he isn't close to a top 5 player and even top 10 as far as i'm concerned. Tim Duncan was a very good, maybe even great player, but he has always been blessed with talent around him...hell he was drafted to a team with David Robinson at the end of his prime. He learned from one of the best...but he was never an equal as far as I'm concerned. Tim Duncan is a guy who was a very good to great player who landed immediately in the best position and organization that anyone could ever ask for. He has never been as dominant or as great as people try to make him in his best days, though.

[blacknapalm]

So you have sang before. It's becoming a bit redundant. I said what i said then because I was duink and just tired of how people were overrating him. I've actually tried to find 30 players with a BETTER PEAK (it was not a 30 better players list, so don't try and play those games with me), and no I didn't really. That is beside the point that he isn't close to a top 5 player and even top 10 as far as i'm concerned. Tim Duncan was a very good, maybe even great player, but he has always been blessed with talent around him...hell he was drafted to a team with David Robinson at the end of his prime. He learned from one of the best...but he was never an equal as far as I'm concerned. Tim Duncan is a guy who was a very good to great player who landed immediately in the best position and organization that anyone could ever ask for. He has never been as dominant or as great as people try to make him in his best days, though.


idk dude, his 2003 playoff run was pretty dominant. spurs relied on their defense that year and he was the anchor. parker wasn't really that good at finishing around the basket at that time and also an inconsistent shooter. pop didn't even trust parker much considering kerr played as much as he did. gino and bowen were good.

their road wasn't easy either. took on an underrated suns team that was super athletic. took on the 3-peat lakers. he abused shaq at times. in the closeout game of that series, he had 37/16/4/2. if his shot wasn't falling, he'd dominate the boards and the defensive end.

[Goro]

Some people have him at #5 right now. Him winning number 6 would just mean more people would accept that ranking and solidify it even more, but he isn't getting above that.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

This depends on where you rank wilt imo.

duncan is pretty much locked at 4-5 imo.

Russell, while his peak is probably 8th ish, he has the accolades and his supporting cast is ridiculously overrated at times.

Kareem is better peak wise, and his longevity holds him above duncan.

jordan, well.

wilt is better peak wise, but really, he had 6 truly good years in his prime.

he had arguably the best rookie year ever. he brought a 32-48 team to 49-25, but it should be noted that the team actually finished 20-20 for the season, and despite wilts great scoring numbers, the improvement on offense was marginal at best, despite the continued continuity. (the main improvement was on defense, and in this era, a slight boost goes a long way, if that makes sense)

his 50ppg season, his 24-24-8 seasons (he did this twice!), and 63-64 with SFW are all better than duncans peak comfortably imo.

so it comes down to what do you value more?

personally, I would probably just put tied and begone with it lol. its a preference thing. with duncan, you have more consistency, while with wilt, you have more "explosions"

personally, I have duncans peak at 6th, and wilts at 3rd or 4th.

longevity and intangibles (and no, im not talking about killer instinct, thats bs, cuz wilt kinda seemed clutch asf) I have duncan higher, and thats not to hate on wilt, but I have duncan around first in terms of leadership.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

idk dude, his 2003 playoff run was pretty dominant. spurs relied on their defense that year and he was the anchor. parker wasn't really that good at finishing around the basket at that time and also an inconsistent shooter. pop didn't even trust parker much considering kerr played as much as he did. gino and bowen were good.

their road wasn't easy either. took on an underrated suns team that was super athletic. took on the 3-peat lakers. he abused shaq at times. in the closeout game of that series, he had 37/16/4/2. if his shot wasn't falling, he'd dominate the boards and the defensive end.

shaq had been averaging something like 30-15 on 58% in the 40 games prior to meeting duncan


ill never understand why people dont look at context. at the time, parker wasnt a household name.

he was averaging 15-5 throughout the season
14.5-3.5 on 41% in the playoffs. (27% from 3)

[ralph_i_el]

He can't go up at this point, because his level of play is known and he is nolonger a top two player. The better argument is can he go down.. If SA finally wins a back to back with unranked Aldridge as the best player... Yes Duncan's value can go down. As things have a chance to be proven that those were Pop's rings if the dynasty can carry on to a new level with Duncan stepping down. Its a slippery slope now.
:facepalm If they win.....his ranking goes DOWN?

If we're just saying crazy bullshit, then if Duncan wins, he'll be the uncontested GOAT :lol

[ArbitraryWater]

Pointguard got kinda exposed here with his historical knowledge.. not a good look

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

I responded to your point about Duncan not being all time great after 6 years. He clearly was.

And it was born out of the Pop discussion you had with others that you failed to grasp.

Pop was not an elite coach in 98. Duncan was an elite player.

This trend continues for a handful of years and it was obvious to anyone paying attention to the Spurs. Not that Pop was a bad coach or anything and he clearly was good, but he wasn't all time great coach he would later become.

That is the point others were trying to make. And you missed it completely...as usual.

king piccolo laying the smackdown

what is this arguement about? I really hope no one says "but but he had parker" in 03.

13.5-3 on 40% isnt a second star. especially since he is probably the only person to overall outplay a pissed off shaq (they didnt guard each other, i know, but still, things like h defense are how people stopped shaq)


this was a shaq that was averaging 30-12 over the last 30 games of the season, and coming off of a 29-15 series against the timberwolves,

[r0drig0lac]

already top 5, without discussions about it

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

:facepalm If they win.....his ranking goes DOWN?

If we're just saying crazy bullshit, then if Duncan wins, he'll be the uncontested GOAT :lol

I actually understand his arguement, but it really doesent work at all. the team makeup of the spurs is much different than before.

also, did he say something about pop being a good coach since he began?

Pop became a revered coach when he started making the spurs play an absolutely perfect swing offense.

at first, the offensive game plan was, give it to duncan, dear god I hope he does something.

David robinson is so underrated defensively its ridiculous. he had teh speed of wilt according to a video by Cavs, and really probably was teh closest thign to a modern russell on that end.

[houston]

it won't change a thing

[Odinn]

it won't change a thing
Yeah. For instance, 1987 and 1988 rings didn't have a big effect on Kareem's legacy, where he stand on the goat talks.

[Pointguard]

I responded to your point about Duncan not being all time great after 6 years. He clearly was.

And it was born out of the Pop discussion you had with others that you failed to grasp.

Pop was not an elite coach in 98. Duncan was an elite player.

This trend continues for a handful of years and it was obvious to anyone paying attention to the Spurs. Not that Pop was a bad coach or anything and he clearly was good, but he wasn't all time great coach he would later become.

That is the point others were trying to make. And you missed it completely...as usual.
This is too hard to prove so I will drop it. Both were great early on. Pop could win titles without much going on offensively or having too much talent. He had a top 2 defensive team and the best offensive team in the new millenia. Duncan wasn't at that level with players. But he was great and one of the best two way players. It just depends on how we call our greatness. Too subjective to go into. I have Pop as the best coach ever. Duncan pretty much stuck behind a handful of players.

[HOoopCityJones]

Only Duncan Stans pretend him potentially winning another title this year has any barring on where he is all time.

He's legit the only player in history who can get all the credit for doing the least possible.

[rmt]

This is too hard to prove so I will drop it. Both were great early on. Pop could win titles without much going on offensively or having too much talent. He had a top 2 defensive team and the best offensive team in the new millenia. Duncan wasn't at that level with players. But he was great and one of the best two way players. It just depends on how we call our greatness. Too subjective to go into. I have Pop as the best coach ever. Duncan pretty much stuck behind a handful of players.

Duncan was an elite player from his first year:
all-nba 1st team
all-star
all-defensive 2nd team
5th in MVP voting
ROY

Pop could win titles because Spurs drafted Robinson, followed by Duncan. He was not considered great early on - more like being close to being fired. 2003 - Pop got his 1st COY award. He was nowhere near considered an all-time GOAT coach. Spurs have always been a defensive juggernaut - offense was at times secondary to them. This beautiful game that you see today is a recent occurrence. Before it was alway a grind-it out, keep it close till the end game - that's where the Spurs got their reputation for being boring. If Spurs had this emphasis on free-flowing, pass-first offense, they'd have been hyped up like PHX and be considered exciting.

[Pointguard]

Pointguard got kinda exposed here with his historical knowledge.. not a good look
Little boys follow others. Where is my historical knowledge wrong? You are following a guy who I predicted would go off on crazy tangents, not get the main topic and has conceptual issues. Not a good look for an adult, but you might not be one?

king piccolo laying the smackdown

what is this arguement about?
:lol If reading is above your head, and you have to ask the content, how can you say he's laying the smackdown. King Piccolo really. A piccolo is usually a reference to a small phallus. But its all adding up now.



I actually understand his arguement, but it really doesent work at all. the team makeup of the spurs is much different than before.
Actually that proves my point. The teams makeup is irrelevant to the greatest coach of all time. He can win with whatever personnel is the original argument. Best offense or best defense if need be. There has been no other coach like Pop. If SA keeps winning with different personnel, outside of Duncan, that's indicative of Pop's strength as a coach.

Players like Wilt did not have a coach that could match his vastly superior offense. Kareem as well was unstoppable but couldn't win because coaching couldn't max his potential. Same with Shaq without great coaches. Hakeem and Jordan were definitively better than Duncan but all of these guys hardly ever win without a great coach. Now when they repeat, they all say its heavily on the players to pull that off because they targeted the next year. Duncan wasn't even on these guys tier at their peaks. Even Durant and Westbrook, have a block to getting the max out of each other.

[Pointguard]

Duncan was an elite player from his first year:
all-nba 1st team
all-star
all-defensive 2nd team
5th in MVP voting
ROY

Pop could win titles because Spurs drafted Robinson, followed by Duncan. He was not considered great early on - more like being close to being fired. 2003 - Pop got his 1st COY award. He was nowhere near considered an all-time GOAT coach. Spurs have always been a defensive juggernaut - offense was at times secondary to them. This beautiful game that you see today is a recent occurrence. Before it was alway a grind-it out, keep it close till the end game - that's where the Spurs got their reputation for being boring. If Spurs had this emphasis on free-flowing, pass-first offense, they'd have been hyped up like PHX and be considered exciting.
See the post above. Pop was always a master mind. It doesn't matter because Shaq was the best player in the league at that time and was more dominant. But he wasn't winning until he got great coaching. And Jordan wasn't winning until he got great coaching. And they were better than Duncan ever was.

[Indian guy]

Pop was always a master mind.

Based on what though? He didn't get that rep until about 2011/2012, when he totally revamped their Duncan-centric offense to a passing/3pt shooting juggernaut and managed to make 'em elite again after a mediocre 2-3 years. Prior to that, he was basically looked upon as a good coach(think Thibodeau) riding the greatness of Duncan/D-Rob and later the Big 3. Certainly no "mastermind". The Spurs had one top 5 finish on offense from 97-2010. They were getting by on the 2-way greatness of Duncan till about '04 and the Big 3 from 05-08.

[LeBird]

I don't think I"ll ever get why Tim Duncan is so overrated. People seriously saying if the Spurs won he could be top 5? Jesus christ...

It's ridiculous at this stage. A disease of the ring counters.

Duncan is at best 7th. He isn't moving anywhere now; he doesn't figure enough and his team is built to not rely on any one player to the extent where it should give him enough to go higher in all-time rankings.

Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan... then you have the group after that with Lebron, Shaq, Kobe and Duncan.

[DMAVS41]

This is too hard to prove so I will drop it. Both were great early on. Pop could win titles without much going on offensively or having too much talent. He had a top 2 defensive team and the best offensive team in the new millenia. Duncan wasn't at that level with players. But he was great and one of the best two way players. It just depends on how we call our greatness. Too subjective to go into. I have Pop as the best coach ever. Duncan pretty much stuck behind a handful of players.


No...it's not debatable. Pop vs Duncan from around 98 through 03 is so ****ing clear that Duncan was a better player than Pop was a coach.

This is your problem. You say I go off on tangents, but it's because you can't even accept simple basketball facts.

Nobody that followed the Spurs back then ever thought Pop was more valuable to that franchise than Duncan was. It's an absurd point and one you can't support at all.

The standard for you.

And you still refuse to admit your logic is flawed that Duncan can't go up. If LMA and Leonard and a stacked Spurs team with Pop (a guy you claim is more important than Duncan) can't win titles....then you have to retroactively go back and give Duncan more credit. Duncan is not at full credit at all. Many people consider Pop to be one of the best coaches in any sports history. So if your argument is that we are overrating Duncan a bit and that if the Spurs go on and win a lot without him it hurts....you have to then hold to if the Spurs go on and don't win without him...it must change your view.

You need to take a course in logic man. It gets tiresome cleaning up your garbage so often.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan was an elite player from his first year:
all-nba 1st team
all-star
all-defensive 2nd team
5th in MVP voting
ROY

Pop could win titles because Spurs drafted Robinson, followed by Duncan. He was not considered great early on - more like being close to being fired. 2003 - Pop got his 1st COY award. He was nowhere near considered an all-time GOAT coach. Spurs have always been a defensive juggernaut - offense was at times secondary to them. This beautiful game that you see today is a recent occurrence. Before it was alway a grind-it out, keep it close till the end game - that's where the Spurs got their reputation for being boring. If Spurs had this emphasis on free-flowing, pass-first offense, they'd have been hyped up like PHX and be considered exciting.


This this this.

Good luck though....you are arguing with someone that claims Duncan wasn't all time great in his first 6 years. You know...just;

2 mvps
2 titles
2 finals mvps
6 first team all nba's
5 first team all defense (1 2nd team all defense)
ROY

Yea...nothing all time great about that.

[HOoopCityJones]

This this this.

Good luck though....you are arguing with someone that claims Duncan wasn't all time great in his first 6 years. You know...just;

2 mvps
2 titles
2 finals mvps
6 first team all nba's
5 first team all defense (1 2nd team all defense)
ROY

Yea...nothing all time great about that.

Now you know how it feels when you try to pretend Kobe's accomplishments mean little to nothing, taste your own medicine. :applause:

[Pointguard]

Based on what though? He didn't get that rep until about 2011/2012, when he totally revamped their Duncan-centric offense to a passing/3pt shooting juggernaut and managed to make 'em elite again after a mediocre 2-3 years. Prior to that, he was basically looked upon as a good coach(think Thibodeau) riding the greatness of Duncan/D-Rob and later the Big 3. Certainly no "mastermind". The Spurs had one top 5 finish on offense from 97-2010. They were getting by on the 2-way greatness of Duncan till about '04 and the Big 3 from 05-08.
There was never a big three. Parker is at best, kind of big, on most teams he's wouldn't get much play because of weak defense and low assist totals. Gin is almost big - one year of allstar production. Kawhi is medium to tall. Robinson was big but bent over the second time around. Pop has elevated all of these guys into "they're HOF material" talks. Kawhi jumped about 10 SF's in one year. And on most teams he's a good player but not much else. But Pop has always got a ton out of players like them.

In '03 Tony Parker is young a 15 and 5 player but very effective. Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Malik Rose, an 8/2assit Gin and Speedy Claxton, coach Pop got the max out of those guys. Robinson played, but not full time. The team played the right way for those guys to contribute. Duncan was great that year but Shaq played him near equal in their series - enough to have cancelled him out. So the rest of that team pairs up with champions and wins convincingly against a great coach. Most coaches can't do that with low production guys. Pop always had the right answers from the beginning.

When more talented teams lose it's usually on the coach. When marginal players excel its usually the coach. When great players get their max potential its usually the coach and their system. Look at Riley, Pop, Jackson, Brown and how they did it.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Damn, Pointguard said some retarded shit here. Duncan not an all-time great?

:lol

[DMAVS41]

Now you know how it feels when you try to pretend Kobe's accomplishments mean little to nothing, taste your own medicine. :applause:

You will never see me say Kobe wasn't an all time great player from 06 through 10. Which is the equivalent of what he's saying.

Also, Duncan's all defense selections actually mean something because they are backed up by an objective defensive monster. Kobe? Not so much....sorry.

[DMAVS41]

There was never a big three. Parker is at best, kind of big, on most teams he's wouldn't get much play because of weak defense and low assist totals. Gin is almost big - one year of allstar production. Kawhi is medium to tall. Robinson was big but bent over the second time around. Pop has elevated all of these guys into "they're HOF material" talks. Kawhi jumped about 10 SF's in one year. And on most teams he's a good player but not much else. But Pop has always got a ton out of players like them.

In '03 Tony Parker is young a 15 and 5 player but very effective. Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Malik Rose, an 8/2assit Gin and Speedy Claxton, coach Pop got the max out of those guys. Robinson played, but not full time. The team played the right way for those guys to contribute. Duncan was great that year but Shaq played him near equal in their series - enough to have cancelled him out. So the rest of that team pairs up with champions and wins convincingly against a great coach. Most coaches can't do that with low production guys. Pop always had the right answers from the beginning.

When more talented teams lose it's usually on the coach. When marginal players excel its usually the coach. When great players get their max potential its usually the coach and their system. Look at Riley, Pop, Jackson, Brown and how they did it.

Holy ****ing shit. I'm lower on Parker than most, but holy shit...every day on here you say something beyond absurd.

On most teams Parker wouldn't play...what?

Are you serious? Parker, even if you don't like him, is easily a 30 to 35 minute per game guy on just about 90% of teams in the league even with elite guards on said team.

You have lost your mind again.

[Pointguard]

No...it's not debatable. Pop vs Duncan from around 98 through 03 is so ****ing clear that Duncan was a better player than Pop was a coach.

This is your problem. You say I go off on tangents, but it's because you can't even accept simple basketball facts.

Nobody that followed the Spurs back then ever thought Pop was more valuable to that franchise than Duncan was. It's an absurd point and one you can't support at all.

Already answered: Shaq and Jordan were much better players than the BEST Duncan. Its not debatable. They needed a great coach to win. Just as most of the GOATs needed the same. I never said Pop was the franchise. Stay on point.



And you still refuse to admit your logic is flawed that Duncan can't go up. If LMA and Leonard and a stacked Spurs team with Pop (a guy you claim is more important than Duncan) can't win titles....

I never said he was more important. This is the fifth time your imagination has taken you there. I said if they win again and again at this point its more about Pop. Who can win, excel in different ways and adapt like no other coach. And coaches are more related to winning than players are. Facts.


Duncan is not at full credit at all. Many people consider Pop to be one of the best coaches in any sports history. So if your argument is that we are overrating Duncan a bit and that if the Spurs go on and win a lot without him it hurts....you have to then hold to if the Spurs go on and don't win without him...it must change your view.
My argument is this: If they win again and again at this point its more about Pop. Who can win, excel in different ways and adapt like no other coach. And coaches are more related to winning than players are. Because great coaches employ systems, and make great decisions with their personnel. Basketball is first dynastic with organizations/FO and then coaches and then great players. This too is not debatable.


You need to take a course in logic man. It gets tiresome cleaning up your garbage so often. You are a deranged hater with conceptual challenges on your best day.

[DMAVS41]

Already answered: Shaq and Jordan were much better players than the BEST Duncan. Its not debatable. They needed a great coach to win. Just as most of the GOATs needed the same. I never said Pop was the franchise. Stay on point.

I never said he was more important. This is the fifth time your imagination has taken you there. I said if they win again and again at this point its more about Pop. Who can win, excel in different ways and adapt like no other coach. And coaches are more related to winning than players are. Facts.

My argument is this: If they win again and again at this point its more about Pop. Who can win, excel in different ways and adapt like no other coach. And coaches are more related to winning than players are. Because great coaches employ systems, and make great decisions with their personnel. Basketball is first dynastic with organizations/FO and then coaches and then great players. This too is not debatable.
You are a deranged hater with conceptual challenges on your best day.


1. Needing a great coach does not mean the coach is better than the player. Duncan was better at playing basketball from 98 through at least 03 than Pop was at coaching basketball. Again...nobody would dispute that this knows what they are talking about.

2. Again, if they fail to win...it means that Duncan was retroactively more important than you are saying. Therefore in order to stay consistent you then must give Duncan more credit. So your assertion that Duncan can't move up is false even on your own criteria/logic.

3. Of course if they win without Duncan...Duncan has nothing to do with it. That is obvious. Of course if they win without Duncan it's another feather in the cap of Pop. But, at the same time, if they fail to win without Duncan with a stacked team like they will have...it must then by logic force someone like you to look at Duncan more favorably than you do now.

[Pointguard]

Holy ****ing shit. I'm lower on Parker than most, but holy shit...every day on here you say something beyond absurd.

On most teams Parker wouldn't play...what?

Are you serious? Parker, even if you don't like him, is easily a 30 to 35 minute per game guy on just about 90% of teams in the league even with elite guards on said team.

You have lost your mind again.
Name me a weak defensive PG, below average eye, doesn't get steals that is rocking 6 assist per game. The 17 ppg isn't bad but name the team that has that player. Isiah Thomas isn't getting a lot of attention, but he's very similar in production and Isiah doesn't need the team to set as many picks. Most teams will not use their team resources to set picks for their PG. You take that away from Tony Parker and he's consistently getting 12 ppg (the shot chart suggest about 10ppg) and less assist. But I know you don't have a TV set and the boxscores don't show you all of this.

[DMAVS41]

Name me a weak defensive PG, below average eye, doesn't get steals that is rocking 6 assist per game. The 17 ppg isn't bad but name the team that has that player. Isiah Thomas isn't getting a lot of attention, but he's very similar in production and Isiah doesn't need the team to set as many picks. Most teams will not use their team resources to set picks for their PG. You take that away from Tony Parker and he's consistently getting 12 ppg (the shot chart suggest about 10ppg) and less assist. But I know you don't have a TV set and the boxscores don't show you all of this.

Man...I'm truly sorry. I really am. Someone that spends this much time talking about players and a game he doesn't understand. It's one of the saddest things I've ever come across.

I won't even debate this stuff with you because it's like debating with a creationist...even entertaining the argument gives your side more attention than it deserves.

All I will say is that the notion that Tony Parker would not play much on other teams throughout his career should immediately go on the "dumbest things people say on ISH page"...

Carry on...hopefully someone else will have that argument with you...because I sure as hell won't.

[Pointguard]

2. Again, if they fail to win...it means that Duncan was retroactively more important than you are saying. Therefore in order to stay consistent you then must give Duncan more credit. So your assertion that Duncan can't move up is false even on your own criteria/logic.
Sorry you never ever hear me say Duncan has 4 rings. I have given him credit as one of the few super winners in the sport. You can't reverse logic and expect it work without exception. I have Duncan ranked higher than most. But if Aldridge comes in and becomes a super winner then I might have over estimated my highly ranked Duncan as well. Its simple but you think reverse logic is proven in the 3D world. Its crazy.


3. Of course if they win without Duncan...Duncan has nothing to do with it. That is obvious. Of course if they win without Duncan it's another feather in the cap of Pop. But, at the same time, if they fail to win without Duncan with a stacked team like they will have...it must then by logic force someone like you to look at Duncan more favorably than you do now.
Read above.

[DMAVS41]

Sorry you never ever hear me say Duncan has 4 rings. I have given him credit as one of the few super winners in the sport. You can't reverse logic and expect it work without exception. I have Duncan ranked higher than most. But if Aldridge comes in and becomes a super winner then I might have over estimated my highly ranked Duncan as well. Its simple but you think reverse logic is proven in the 3D world. Its crazy.

Read above.

You simply can't say that if LMA and a loaded Spurs team with a coach you clearly think was the driving force for the Spurs...win...it hurts Duncan.

Then turn around and say if they fail to win...it does nothing.

Logic doesn't work like that.

And we know you don't give Duncan full credit because you are going on and on about how important Pop was.

If Pop fails to win with LMA, Leonard...and a loaded team after Duncan...you'd then, by logic and your own criteria, have to lower your view on Pop...which in turn means that all that time you thought Pop was such a driving force...he wasn't...which then means Duncan would have to get more credit.

Especially because you don't think Parker would be a relevant NBA player without the Spurs. LOL

Like I said...take the logic course please.

[Pointguard]

Man...I'm truly sorry. I really am. Someone that spends this much time talking about players and a game he doesn't understand. It's one of the saddest things I've ever come across.

I won't even debate this stuff with you because it's like debating with a creationist...even entertaining the argument gives your side more attention than it deserves.

All I will say is that the notion that Tony Parker would not play much on other teams throughout his career should immediately go on the "dumbest things people say on ISH page"...

Carry on...hopefully someone else will have that argument with you...because I sure as hell won't.
Well, I should have done this earlier! You look for me in every thread like a crazed maniac. You will rarely find a thread where I start with you. Humiliating you is fun but I don't go out of my way to do it. I don't like to feel like I'm bullying a Hobbit.

I love it when you freak out after I ask you for empirical proof and you can't answer.

[DMAVS41]

Well, I should have done this earlier! You look for me in every thread like a crazed maniac. You will rarely find a thread where I start with you. Humiliating you is fun but I don't go out of my way to do it. I don't like to feel like I'm bullying a Hobbit.

I love it when you freak out after I ask you for empirical proof and you can't answer.

Empirical proof that Parker wouldn't play on other NBA teams....I have none.

You win.

[Indian guy]

There was never a big three.

Dude, TD/TP/Manu were all averaging between 16-20 ppg from 05-08 and making AS teams. It most certainly was a Big 3. Then TD's game started falling off around '09 or so and Spurs went through a sub-par 2-3 year stretch until Pop re-tooled their offense and went away from TD. That's when the superlatives around Pop started, but prior to that, I don't recall him getting much, if any, pub on the list of all-time level coaches. His teams, stylistically too, weren't anything out of the norm. They played hard and went as far as their talent took 'em.

The rest of your post is just bizarre, where somehow Pop's THE REASON for any and all success a Spur has had. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. Not that a coach doesn't play a role in the development of any player, but Parker and Manu were obvious talents - blessed with a ton of athleticism and skill - they would've blossomed anywhere.

[HOoopCityJones]

You will never see me say Kobe wasn't an all time great player from 06 through 10. Which is the equivalent of what he's saying.

Also, Duncan's all defense selections actually mean something because they are backed up by an objective defensive monster. Kobe? Not so much....sorry.

Just like Kobe's rings mean more because he's actually defended multiple championships.

:oldlol: Also, lol at ISH determining who's defensive selections are legit or not. I know one thing Kobe's had to defend and be defended by the best wings in the league for the better half of his career , while the bigs have been declining in recent years. Duncan has to get up for Marc and Zbo, Griffin, maybe Dwight. Ibaka is a non factor on offense , so is DJ unless someone is feeding him on PnR.

The heat never had a goto big outside of Bosh and he wasn't the same guy playing next to Lebron, so who exactly is this elite defense being played against? Dirk and KG have declined considerably since 2011. Spurs became truly relevant again in 2013.

[Dbrog]

exactly this..

Duncan has never won b2b

Hasn't won a FMVP in over a decade

His teams have been at their best when he is reduced to the Serge Ibaka role

His last FMVP was possibly the most un-impressive FMVP this century.. he put up 20ppg on 47% TS (worse than Lebron in 2015 while scoring 15 less points)

Won during the worst NBA season of all time (99)

Has lost in the first round multiple times

Lost as the number 1 seed in the first round.. LOL..

The Spurs have been at their best when Duncan is a defensive role player.. TRUTH HURTS..

Choked on a potential game winning lay-up in 2013 finals, imagine if Kobe or Lebron did this..

Plays with an incredibly stacked roster every year and nobody cares..


He gets away with stuff that no other all time greats could get away with, nothing ever gets held against him and everything he does well is praised beyond belief

Literally every single one of these lies :facepalm Not even worth responding..use google plz

[Smoke117]

There is nothing wrong with Duncan being top 5.
Dude is the 2nd most impactful defender of the top 10 GOATs (can be argued number 1 I personally think Russell's defense is slightly overrated).

I have Hakeem Olajuwon in my top 10 and Duncan isn't even on the same tier defensively as he was. People bring up that 2003 run too...yeah it was a great run, but for the majority of his career, Tim Duncan was an average first option. His efficiency was always average and he was never dominant. That's the aspect of his game that is the most overrated...the offense...especially in regards to beast PF's that were actual studs offensively like Malone, Mchale, Barkley.

Like I said...I just don't get it. I never will. I guess we are all free to our opinions though so I'll have to put up with it, eh? It's probably because David Robinson is so underrated and people actually believe Duncan was better than he was. Timmy was never capable of carrying a team on his back to 55-60 wins like Big Dave did and that's a damn fact.

[Dbrog]

I have Hakeem Olajuwon in my top 10 and Duncan isn't even on the same tier defensively as he was. People bring up that 2003 run too...yeah it was a great run, but for the majority of his career, Tim Duncan was an average first option. His efficiency was always average and he was never dominant. That's the aspect of his game that is the most overrated...the offense...especially in regards to beast PF's that were actual studs offensively like Malone, Mchale, Barkley.

Like I said...I just don't get it. I never will. I guess we are all free to our opinions though so I'll have to put up with it, eh? It's probably because David Robinson is so underrated and people actually believe Duncan was better than he was. Timmy was never capable of carrying a team on his back to 55-60 wins like Big Dave did and that's a damn fact.

Smoke please remember Barkley and Mchale almost never averaged as many points as timmy in the playoffs..so i'm not exactly sure how you would bring them up (they also averaged slightly less FGA though so they were about equal to timmy). When Karl was in his prime, he was putting up almost and sometimes over 20 shots per game and only scored about 5 more pts than timmy (who was doing about 18 shots per game). You really trying to say these are huge disparities in offensive ability? Context is king man...and clearly you aren't considering it or maybe just haven't taken the time to learn it

Edit: I just read your last edited sentence..and have confirmed your IQ is 55

[Smoke117]

Smoke please remember Barkley and Mchale almost never averaged as many points as timmy..so i'm not exactly sure how you would bring them up (they also averaged slightly less FGA though so they were about equal to timmy). When Karl was in his prime, he was putting up almost and sometimes over 20 shots per game and only scored about 5 more pts than timmy (who was doing about 18 shots per game). You really trying to say these are huge disparities in offensive ability? Context is king man...and clearly you aren't considering it or maybe just haven't taken the time to learn it

Edit: I just read your last edited sentence..and have confirmed your IQ is 55

https://media.giphy.com/media/Qqq8b2K5qsg8M/giphy.gif

And you're also probably too young to even have watched David Robinson if it wasn't on youtube.

[DMAVS41]

I have Hakeem Olajuwon in my top 10 and Duncan isn't even on the same tier defensively as he was. People bring up that 2003 run too...yeah it was a great run, but for the majority of his career, Tim Duncan was an average first option. His efficiency was always average and he was never dominant. That's the aspect of his game that is the most overrated...the offense...especially in regards to beast PF's that were actual studs offensively like Malone, Mchale, Barkley.

Like I said...I just don't get it. I never will. I guess we are all free to our opinions though so I'll have to put up with it, eh? It's probably because David Robinson is so underrated and people actually believe Duncan was better than he was. Timmy was never capable of carrying a team on his back to 55-60 wins like Big Dave did and that's a damn fact.

It's a fact....interesting.

Could you tell us who carried the 03 Spurs to 60 wins?

If 03 isn't carrying a team to 60 wins....then pretty much nobody has ever done it. Parker and Manu were average. Robinson was still good, but old and missed around 20 games.

In 03....the Spurs were a dominant +9.1 points per 100 with Duncan and a very poor -5.6 points per 100 without him.

So who carried the Spurs...

[Smoke117]

It's a fact....interesting.

Could you tell us who carried the 03 Spurs to 60 wins?

If 03 isn't carrying a team to 60 wins....then pretty much nobody has ever done it. Parker and Manu were average. Robinson was still good, but old and missed around 20 games.

In 03....the Spurs were a dominant +9.1 points per 100 with Duncan and a very poor -5.6 points per 100 without him.

So who carried the Spurs...

Gregg Popovich. Go overrate Dirk somewhere and get off my nuts. (though you did that enough for a lifetime after Mavs won the ship in 2011) I just don't like Tim Duncan and I think he's overrated. Is that a bit irrational? Of course! Just like you are irrational in thinking Dirk could possibly ever be better than Kevin Garnett.

[rmt]

There was never a big three. Parker is at best, kind of big, on most teams he's wouldn't get much play because of weak defense and low assist totals. Gin is almost big - one year of allstar production. Kawhi is medium to tall. Robinson was big but bent over the second time around. Pop has elevated all of these guys into "they're HOF material" talks. Kawhi jumped about 10 SF's in one year. And on most teams he's a good player but not much else. But Pop has always got a ton out of players like them.

In '03 Tony Parker is young a 15 and 5 player but very effective. Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Malik Rose, an 8/2assit Gin and Speedy Claxton, coach Pop got the max out of those guys. Robinson played, but not full time. The team played the right way for those guys to contribute. Duncan was great that year but Shaq played him near equal in their series - enough to have cancelled him out. So the rest of that team pairs up with champions and wins convincingly against a great coach. Most coaches can't do that with low production guys. Pop always had the right answers from the beginning.

When more talented teams lose it's usually on the coach. When marginal players excel its usually the coach. When great players get their max potential its usually the coach and their system. Look at Riley, Pop, Jackson, Brown and how they did it.

Your propensity to give all this credit to Pop is unreal. Look I'm no Parker lover, but give credit where credit is due. He's not any defensive stud, but in his heyday, his penetration (and kick outs) was a major defensive problem for most teams. True, Pop maximizes each player's potential but Parker and Manu would have been stars on any NBA team.

Please read the following article. Maybe it'll give you a little perspective on how the Spurs operate:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10955188/gregg-popovich-tim-duncan-stories

Here's a snippet:

It's true, kids: Pop wasn't anywhere near his current Godfather of Coaching status in Duncan's early years. It took two championships to start making the locals forget the controversial timing of the dismissal of the popular Bob Hill, who was fired just as Robinson was getting healthy. It realistically took three titles before anyone was really ready to put Pop on a one-name level with Phil and Riles.

To answer the OP, if he gets a 6th and contributes significantly (meaning like he has to the team the past 3 years), I'd say he's has a strong case for #4.

6 rings
2 MVPs
3 FMVPs
15 all-stars
15 all-nba
15 all-defensive (possibly another 2nd team this year - so maybe 16)
ROY

There aren't more than 3 resumes better than that.

[DaOldLion]

Literally every single one of these lies :facepalm Not even worth responding..use google plz

oh really?? :oldlol:


Duncan has never won b2b

FACT that he hasn't, so you're already wrong...


Hasn't won a FMVP in over a decade

last FMVP came in 05


His teams have been at their best when he is reduced to the Serge Ibaka role

made the finals b2b for the first time ever while in the Serge Ibaka role


His last FMVP was possibly the most un-impressive FMVP this century.. he put up 20ppg on 47% TS (worse than Lebron in 2015 while scoring 15 less points)

FACT Duncan did average 20ppg on 47% TS in the 05 finals which is absolutly horrible



Has lost in the first round multiple times

FACT


Lost as the number 1 seed in the first round.. LOL..

FACT



Choked on a potential game winning lay-up in 2013 finals, imagine if Kobe or Lebron did this..

FACT




try again..

[T_L_P]

Smoke bringing up scoring efficiency and mentioning Malone?

A prime Duncan (98-07) had a Playoff TS% of .560.

A prime Malone (88-98) had a TS% of .533, and this was with John Stockton feeding him the ball.

[DMAVS41]

Gregg Popovich. Go overrate Dirk somewhere and get off my nuts. (though you did that enough for a lifetime after Mavs won the ship in 2011) I just don't like Tim Duncan and I think he's overrated. Is that a bit irrational? Of course! Just like you are irrational in thinking Dirk could possibly ever be better than Kevin Garnett.

So you can't back up your assertion. Thanks.

[Dbrog]

Gregg Popovich. Go overrate Dirk somewhere and get off my nuts. (though you did that enough for a lifetime after Mavs won the ship in 2011) I just don't like Tim Duncan and I think he's overrated. Is that a bit irrational? Of course! Just like you are irrational in thinking Dirk could possibly ever be better than Kevin Garnett.

It's a fact that Dirk led a team to a chip in a way that Garnett was never able to. There are arguments to be made who the greater player was tbh...

[rmt]

Gregg Popovich. Go overrate Dirk somewhere and get off my nuts. (though you did that enough for a lifetime after Mavs won the ship in 2011) I just don't like Tim Duncan and I think he's overrated. Is that a bit irrational? Of course! Just like you are irrational in thinking Dirk could possibly ever be better than Kevin Garnett.

Are you people for real? You think Pop carried the team in 03. Earth to you, coaches don't play the games. The player who averaged 24.7 pts, 15.4 rebs, 5.3 asst, 3.3 blks, 116 ORtg, 92 DRtg, 28.4 PER, 5.9 WS, 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP in the playoffs carried the Spurs - not the coach who didn't play a single minute.

[Smoke117]

Are you people for real? You think Pop carried the team in 03. Earth to you, coaches don't play the games. The player who averaged 24.7 pts, 15.4 rebs, 5.3 asst, 3.3 blks, 116 ORtg, 92 DRtg, 28.4 PER, 5.9 WS, 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP in the playoffs carried the Spurs - not the coach who didn't play a single minute.

You can't possibly believe I was serious with that response? It was tongue-in-cheek.

[Pointguard]

You simply can't say that if LMA and a loaded Spurs team with a coach you clearly think was the driving force for the Spurs...win...it hurts Duncan.

Then turn around and say if they fail to win...it does nothing.

Logic doesn't work like that.


And we know you don't give Duncan full credit because you are going on and on about how important Pop was.

I'm sure I have him ranked higher than most here. And have been consistent with that high ranking for a couple of years now and can show you post of this. I gave Duncan the full credit in assessing the Spurs past. That's why if they continue winning now, I can take some of that away and give it to Pop. I have always had Duncan lower on my player rankings than I have in my GOAT rankings. His accomplishments have been amazing. As far back as my first days here I have TD and KG as the most similar players you can imagine in their primes, in their H2H, in their playoff matches against each other. But the organizations and coaching were far apart. As players they are very similar with TD being more clutch but a coach can have a lot to do with that too.


If Pop fails to win with LMA, Leonard...and a loaded team after Duncan...you'd then, by logic and your own criteria, have to lower your view on Pop...which in turn means that all that time you thought Pop was such a driving force...he wasn't...which then means Duncan would have to get more credit.
I keep telling you I gave Duncan all the credit already. I had it, say 85/15. And this is consistent with my posting career. I have never given Pop a lot of credit. But for the hypothetical in the OP its now moreso Pop's ways if they keep winning in the future. Maybe 70/30 Duncan's but its not going to be more than 85/15. Being that I realize how precise Pop is.

How people assess the past is relative to how much value they had on topic before reassessing it. My premise was 85/15 a more generous assessment to Duncan. And I have proof that I always gave Duncan a lot of credit. But if Lebron gets with a good coach and just wins two more times I will put him a head of Duncan because Lebron has had a bigger burden by not having great coaches. Perhaps a 95/5 over the first 10 years. So yeah if Pop keeps winning it can affect how I would assess Lebron vs Duncan on my list, if Lebron gets a couple of more accomplishments. On my player GOAT list Lebron is already pass Duncan.


Especially because you don't think Parker would be a relevant NBA player without the Spurs. LOL

Like I said...take the logic course please.
Name me a player more like Parker than Isiah Thomas in player production, strengths/weakness and style. And Isiah wasn't somebody teams were scrambling after. After that name me a team that goes out of its way and uses all of its resources to set up their weak assist getting PG that max out at 21ppg in his best year. OKC did, sobeit, Westbrook is a much better passer and is Parker on steroids, last year in emergency mode and it didn't work for them when he was rocking 28ppg which Parker could never reach.

[Smoke117]

So you can't back up your assertion. Thanks.

No. I just choose not to because Tim Duncan nor you are worth the effort.

[HurricaneKid]

I have Hakeem Olajuwon in my top 10 and Duncan isn't even on the same tier defensively as he was. People bring up that 2003 run too...yeah it was a great run, but for the majority of his career, Tim Duncan was an average first option. His efficiency was always average and he was never dominant. That's the aspect of his game that is the most overrated...the offense...especially in regards to beast PF's that were actual studs offensively like Malone, Mchale, Barkley.

Like I said...I just don't get it. I never will. I guess we are all free to our opinions though so I'll have to put up with it, eh? It's probably because David Robinson is so underrated and people actually believe Duncan was better than he was. Timmy was never capable of carrying a team on his back to 55-60 wins like Big Dave did and that's a damn fact.

I firmly believe that Robinson is horrifically underrated as well.

Bu the rest of this post... Just Yuck.

[DMAVS41]

I'm sure I have him ranked higher than most here. And have been consistent with that high ranking for a couple of years now and can show you post of this. I gave Duncan the full credit in assessing the Spurs past. That's why if they continue winning now, I can take some of that away and give it to Pop. I have always had Duncan lower on my player rankings than I have in my GOAT rankings. His accomplishments have been amazing. As far back as my first days here I have TD and KG as the most similar players you can imagine in their primes, in their H2H, in their playoff matches against each other. But the organizations and coaching were far apart. As players they are very similar with TD being more clutch but a coach can have a lot to do with that too.

I keep telling you I gave Duncan all the credit already. I had it, say 85/15. And this is consistent with my posting career. I have never given Pop a lot of credit. But for the hypothetical in the OP its now moreso Pop's ways if they keep winning in the future. Maybe 70/30 Duncan's but its not going to be more than 85/15. Being that I realize how precise Pop is.

How people assess the past is relative to how much value they had on topic before reassessing it. My premise was 85/15 a more generous assessment to Duncan. And I have proof that I always gave Duncan a lot of credit. But if Lebron gets with a good coach and just wins two more times I will put him a head of Duncan because Lebron has had a bigger burden by not having great coaches. Perhaps a 95/5 over the first 10 years. So yeah if Pop keeps winning it can affect how I would assess Lebron vs Duncan on my list, if Lebron gets a couple of more accomplishments. On my player GOAT list Lebron is already pass Duncan.

Name me a player more like Parker than Isiah Thomas in player production, strengths/weakness and style. And Isiah wasn't somebody teams were scrambling after. After that name me a team that goes out of its way and uses all of its resources to set up their weak assist getting PG that max out at 21ppg in his best year. OKC did, sobeit, Westbrook is a much better passer and is Parker on steroids, last year in emergency mode and it didn't work for them when he was rocking 28ppg which Parker could never reach.


You have been going on and on about Pop. Now you are saying he's been borderline irrelevant in your opinion. What?

Parker is a different tier of a player, considerably, than IT. This doesn't work...at all. I normally don't like to appeal to others, but could you find more than 1 person in the basketball world that thinks Parker would barely get playing time throughout his career if he didn't play for the Spurs? It's just such an absurd thing to say that you are going to at least find a few people that agree with it.

[DaOldLion]

**says literally everything I said was false**

yet I presented multiple facts

and he ducks the response

what a loser :oldlol: :oldlol:

[DaOldLion]

Duncan has never won b2b

FACT


Hasn't won a FMVP in over a decade

Last FMVP was 2005 and he won't win one before 2016 hits.. so FACT


His teams have been at their best when he is reduced to the Serge Ibaka role

made b2b finals for the first time when he was in the Serge Ibaka role



His last FMVP was possibly the most un-impressive FMVP this century.. he put up 20ppg on 47% TS (worse than Lebron in 2015 while scoring 15 less points)

FACT


Has lost in the first round multiple times

FACT



Lost as the number 1 seed in the first round.. LOL..

FACT


Choked on a potential game winning lay-up in 2013 finals

FACT

[Odinn]

Wonder why this thread got so long.

Pointguard believes the game dynamics can be explained as offense + defense, so with that he believes Garnett is a superior player to Moses. Garnett could have easily won 5 titles with the SAS, too.
Smoke117 doesn't get the fact that Duncan is smarter player than Robinson, better leadership - better intangibles - better playoff performances. He's just obsessed with DRob's capabilities rather than overall picture, he just doesn't want to give Duncan his credit.

There is no point of discussing Duncan with these 2 guys. They have explained their mindset before this thread. Why bother.

[Smoke117]

Wonder why this thread got so long.

Pointguard believes the game dynamics can be explained as offense + defense, so with that he believes Garnett is a superior player to Moses. Garnett could have easily won 5 titles with the SAS, too.
Smoke117 doesn't get the fact that Duncan is smarter player than Robinson, better leadership - better intangibles - better playoff performances. He's just obsessed with DRob's capabilities rather than overall picture, he just doesn't want to give Duncan his credit.

There is no point of discussing Duncan with these 2 guys. They have explained their mindset before this thread. Why bother.

You speak as if you are new to insidehoops...we have countless moronic Jordan, Kobe, Lebron threads...and this is what you bring up? Bro, you're adorable. The innocence and naivety of this post fills my heart with joy.

[ArbitraryWater]

Gregg Popovich. Go overrate Dirk somewhere and get off my nuts. (though you did that enough for a lifetime after Mavs won the ship in 2011) I just don't like Tim Duncan and I think he's overrated. Is that a bit irrational? Of course! Just like you are irrational in thinking Dirk could possibly ever be better than Kevin Garnett.

There are tons of websites/forums that hold Dirk in higher regard than KG... KG would be fit to be like an uber sidekick. Not cut out to be the Man, though. Has all the tools, just lacks the fortitude in the clutch.

[Smoke117]

There are tons of websites/forums that hold Dirk in higher regard than KG... KG would be fit to be like an uber sidekick. Not cut out to be the Man, though. Has all the tools, just lacks the fortitude in the clutch.

You see the game like most people...so and so scores the most points he's the best player on the team. No. No no no no no. Kevin Garnett is the most complete and the GREATEST COMPLETE PLAYER to ever play the game. You could draft Kevin Garnett and know that he will give you EVERYTHING and at an elite level. This nonsense about being "the man" is just that...nonsense. It's an absurd way to see players just like "clutchness" is...because yes, lets evaluate players by what they do in the last couple minutes of a game and disregard the 35 mins or so they played before.

You have to literally have to have no idea about the sport if you think the guy that scores the most points is the best player on any given team. Only a retard deals in such absolutes.

[KG215]

but then why do you call Duncan "2nd banana" in 07 when the Cavs weren't even a threat to win a single game?

seems like a double standard....because Duncan was demonstrably better than Parker and Manu in the western playoffs.
It's Griff. Virtually every single post he posts in a Kobe vs Duncan or Kobe vs LeBron or Kobe vs Shaq thread is contradictory and ignores all logic and context. It's hilarious to see him say something contradictory one post, get called out for it, then embarrassingly backpedal his way out of it by posting more bullshit.

[Pointguard]

Wonder why this thread got so long.

Pointguard believes the game dynamics can be explained as offense + defense, so with that he believes Garnett is a superior player to Moses. Garnett could have easily won 5 titles with the SAS, too.

Smoke117 doesn't get the fact that Duncan is smarter player than Robinson, better leadership - better intangibles - better playoff performances. He's just obsessed with DRob's capabilities rather than overall picture, he just doesn't want to give Duncan his credit.

There is no point of discussing Duncan with these 2 guys. They have explained their mindset before this thread. Why bother. Trying to figure out your mindset.

I do find it funny that you would totally undo what you wrote about me in the next paragraph to Smoke117. KG had better leadership, better intangibles, better intensity, better all around skills, better fundamentals, better on court communication, was the enforcer on his team along with being the smarter player on the court. You can't say it for one and not say it for the other but you did it with no shame here - like you caught amnesia. And this is after I said KG and TD were uncannily similar.

[G0ATbe]

He's not even a top 3 player on his own team and is gonna be warming the bench for Aldridge this season. Why would a 6th move him up at all? :biggums:

[Pointguard]

There are tons of websites/forums that hold Dirk in higher regard than KG... KG would be fit to be like an uber sidekick. Not cut out to be the Man, though. Has all the tools, just lacks the fortitude in the clutch.
http://www.libertyballers.com/2012/2/29/2832299/lebron-james-kobe-bryant-dwyane-wade-clutch-nba-playoffs-4th-quarter

So much for your definition of fortitude.

If you are top 5 in a decade, with over 800 attempts, you are clutch. And if you add defense he's run-away top two for the decade. All of the others ahead of KG on the list played in a much better offensive system that had much better spacing.

[rmt]

http://www.libertyballers.com/2012/2/29/2832299/lebron-james-kobe-bryant-dwyane-wade-clutch-nba-playoffs-4th-quarter

So much for your definition of fortitude.

If you are top 5 in a decade, with over 800 attempts, you are clutch. And if you add defense he's run-away top two for the decade. All of the others ahead of KG on the list played in a much better offensive system that had much better spacing.

I didn't read the previous (recent) posts so I don't know which players you are comparing to, but if your intention was to compare with Duncan, I'd like to point out that this list does not include 1997 up to 2000 and the past 3 years (2012-15) which have been very good for Duncan (and bad for KG). Also, KG had the benefit of being assisted on 57.6% of his shots while Duncan only 41.5%. Duncan is tied with Lebron at 46% (1st place) for FG% while KG is 5th at 43.4%.

[DMAVS41]

http://www.libertyballers.com/2012/2/29/2832299/lebron-james-kobe-bryant-dwyane-wade-clutch-nba-playoffs-4th-quarter

So much for your definition of fortitude.

If you are top 5 in a decade, with over 800 attempts, you are clutch. And if you add defense he's run-away top two for the decade. All of the others ahead of KG on the list played in a much better offensive system that had much better spacing.


The notion that KG wasn't clutch is false. He was a fine late game player.

I do, however, think it's fair to question if he could consistently have a quality late game offense run through him. Not because he isn't clutch, but because he didn't have a great half court 1 on 1 offensive game that could consistently relied upon like other better offensive forces could.

Not really a criticism as if KG was a dominant half court offensive player that go isolate on the wing and score consistently and be the defensive monster he was...he'd be a top 5 player of all time.

But again...KG was fine in the clutch. In his role, he played very well and that isn't even counting his all time elite offense. However, I don't think he was capable of carrying offenses consistently late in games the way a Kobe, Dirk, or Lebron...and to a lesser extent Duncan could.

[Stu Jackson]

op at least has a lot of self awareness. a rare sight on this board

there are a bunch of phonies on here. a bunch of autists. and a bunch of clowns.

he goes about his business. something to respect in the world today

[dhsilv]

ok duncan was co-lead in 2007

happy?


flunkans still behind in terms of ring prestige


kobe 2000 - 2nd banana 0.5
kobe 2001 - co lead 0.9
kobe 2002 - co lead 0.9
kobe 2009 - alpha 1.0
kobe 2010 - alpha 1.0

total = 4.3


duncan 1999 - alpha ( but it was a lockout 50 game season ) 0.5
duncan 2003 - alpha 1.0
duncan 2005 - co lead 0.9
duncan 2007 - co lead 0.9
duncan 2014 - 3rd banana 0.25

total = 3.55


If 07 Duncan was not the best player (saying alpha makes you sound like an idiot) then Kobe has never been the best player, ever. Seriously get the hell out of here with this crap. There's no debate Duncan was the best Spur in 2007, zero.

[ShawkFactory]

If 07 Duncan was not the best player (saying alpha makes you sound like an idiot) then Kobe has never been the best player, ever. Seriously get the hell out of here with this crap. There's no debate Duncan was the best Spur in 2007, zero.
He's just mad that people call Kobe a second banana during the three peat because shaq was better in the finals.

Thus, Parker being better in that 4 game series means he was better.

[Pointguard]

I didn't read the previous (recent) posts so I don't know which players you are comparing to, but if your intention was to compare with Duncan, I'd like to point out that this list does not include 1997 up to 2000 and the past 3 years (2012-15) which have been very good for Duncan (and bad for KG). Also, KG had the benefit of being assisted on 57.6% of his shots while Duncan only 41.5%. Duncan is tied with Lebron at 46% (1st place) for FG% while KG is 5th at 43.4%.

You didn't have to read other post. Its clear what I was doing in that post. I very clearly say if he is top five over a decade that he can't be called bad in the clutch. I wasn't comparing him to anybody. I never said anything about Duncan or the years you are talking about in that post.

[Thesmallmamba]

He'll be somewhere around Cousy (same amount of championships)

[dhsilv]

This thread is a train wreck and full of just idiotic comments and not nearly enough fun numbers or actual basketball discussion so I thought I'd have some fun.

I'll open with my hypothisis that the spurs do not win a 6th title if Duncan is not all star level and at least near all nba level. In other words this should be a season that would add to a normal player's hall of fame resume. He'll need to be close to what he was last year which was a top 15 player and easily a top 10 if not 5 defensive anchor.

Keep in mind that if the spurs win without the above nothing I'm saying here will necessarily hold.

Tim Duncan is often seen as the "non stats" superstar. Meaning that his impact on the court was much higher than his stats would naturally indicate. Even advanced stats like WS and VORP are somewhat hurt by both him missing games at his apex (04 and 05), foot issues (06) and minute conservation (07-current). That said he's about to move up the "stats" lists in a few really interesting ways which are worth pointing out.

Total Points Scored:
Current Rank 14th all time (NBA only)
Based on his last year 1,000 points scored is a in play which moves him to 10th all time in scoring!

Total Rebounds:
Current Rank 8th (NBA only)
Based on honestly half of last year he'll move past Parish and Karl into 6th all time.

Winshare:
Current Rank 6th
This again is an easy move up he needs just under 7 to pass stockton (the alien) into 5th place.

Blocked Shots:
Current rank 6th
He'll pass Robinson without any effort but more interestingly he's got a legit shot at moving past Mark Eton into 4th all time.

Now the question of rankings and Duncan with a 6th ring and what is likely another star level season. It's hard to say where that moves him based on a few factors.

1. Some players are hard to rank. The big two iffy guys are Wilt and Russel. They played in an earlier era where stats were less well tracked, talent was lesser, and both have odd resumes. Wilt is a stats freak but didn't have the team success and titles we tend to like (3 titles seems to be the magic, you're amazing level). Russel has the awards but his stats are pretty underwhelming. Similarly he's got a comical number of rings to leave out of any list. That said I could make a case for Duncan behind or over both of these guys too easily.

2. The can't do it list. MJ and Kareem. You cannot make an argument for Duncan over either of these guys.

3. We all hate Lebron so it's hard to move Lebron over Duncan, but stats say we should.

4. Bird/Magic issue. These two guys were neck and neck their whole careers. IMO Bird's stats at peak were a hair better but Magic's teams were a bit better. Both sadly had short careers and Duncan's resume is just so much larger than theirs. Yet was he better?

After the list above I'm not sure there are a lot of counter arguments especially given a 6th ring and the above movements in stats. KG will still be a stats freak but without the playoff success. Dream will be the youtube generation's hero as they never saw a full game of him. Oscar has the comical stats that nobody respects outside of the per game obsessed guys. Shaq had a better peak all be it inflated by some.

So anyway Duncan can't move below 8. It's not possible. The question is of those guys ahead of him who do you move him over? For me personally, I'd be ok with russel, lebron, wilt, magic, AND bird taking a back seat if he can win another ring. I'm not sure I'd do that, but it's a legit case and one we'll have to think about as Duncan attempts to have another season that doesn't seem possible at his age!

[Pointguard]

I do, however, think it's fair to question if he could consistently have a quality late game offense run through him. Not because he isn't clutch, but because he didn't have a great half court 1 on 1 offensive game that could consistently relied upon like other better offensive forces could.

Not really a criticism as if KG was a dominant half court offensive player that go isolate on the wing and score consistently and be the defensive monster he was...he'd be a top 5 player of all time.


Some of that is true indeed. But this brings forth the importance of coaching. Who has Flip Saunders (hope he gets well) ever develop like that? Sprewell and Casell were very clutch before going to Minny. Structure helps a whole lot in late game situations. As does mentoring or great coaching does in developing a player. His teams were bad, had bad spacing, and opposing teams knew only one guy could beat them and some of the bad teammates were chaotic in those situations. Yet KG was still top five with more attempts than Duncan. KG did a lot with very little.

[Paul George 24]

:applause: Spurs won't win dis year. go Dubs:applause:


they will sweep the cavs again :cheers:

[dhsilv]

Some of that is true indeed. But this brings forth the importance of coaching. Who has Flip Saunders (hope he gets well) ever develop like that? Sprewell and Casell were very clutch before going to Minny. Structure helps a whole lot in late game situations. As does mentoring or great coaching does in developing a player. His teams were bad, had bad spacing, and opposing teams knew only one guy could beat them and some of the bad teammates were chaotic in those situations. Yet KG was still top five with more attempts than Duncan. KG did a lot with very little.

KG's career sadly has been lost thanks to bad teams and coaching. KG was never supposed to be a go to scorer. He should have been a defensive anchor who scored off assisted plays and others. An offense NEVER should have run through him. Had he be used correctly he'd have god knows how many rings, he might be considered the GOAT. His strengths were never used correctly and his weaknesses were always showcased by the offense. I honestly am not sure if a player could be THAT good and still used that poorly.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

KG's career sadly has been lost thanks to bad teams and coaching. KG was never supposed to be a go to scorer. He should have been a defensive anchor who scored off assisted plays and others. An offense NEVER should have run through him. Had he be used correctly he'd have god knows how many rings, he might be considered the GOAT. His strengths were never used correctly and his weaknesses were always showcased by the offense. I honestly am not sure if a player could be THAT good and still used that poorly.

Goat might be a stretch, but I agree he is underrated.
Tbh, I have his peak at 7th ish, right after Duncan's. His rapm is comparable to lebron I think

[Pointguard]

KG's career sadly has been lost thanks to bad teams and coaching. KG was never supposed to be a go to scorer. He should have been a defensive anchor who scored off assisted plays and others. An offense NEVER should have run through him.
On the teams he was on, its a no brainer that it had to be him. The 08 championship team really went thru him as well.


Had he be used correctly he'd have god knows how many rings, he might be considered the GOAT. His strengths were never used correctly and his weaknesses were always showcased by the offense. I honestly am not sure if a player could be THAT good and still used that poorly.
When KG came into the league, the big man development program had just stopped maybe two or three years before. KG came in a tweener, slim and fast feet that he could guard SG but was 7'0 feet. He was most likely the youngest guy in the league. They decided to make him a small forward and he did the first two years there. Since he didn't go to college he took it upon himself to learn all the positions to compensate on learning the game. His blocking shots and rebounding tenacity was very high and he went to the PF position.

I think it was the right position for him as his production in his prime was close to identical to TD's, the best PF ever. He lead the league in rebounding for 4 straight years. KG never had a team really built around him. It was usually a throw together group because Minny rarely had a strategy of development. Never had a dependable shooter or a very good big next to him. Scerbiack was a pretty good shooter but got hurt alot and wasn't as good under pressure. Cassell was the shooter that was needed but KG ended up being the set up man in WCFs.

Had those teams more structure, a consistent shooter, a dependable second best player, a big man program... KG would have shined as a player to go thru. He was the best player in the league when 3 Top ten GOATS were in their prime and in much better situations.

[dhsilv]

On the teams he was on, its a no brainer that it had to be him. The 08 championship team really went thru him as well.

When KG came into the league, the big man development program had just stopped maybe two or three years before. KG came in a tweener, slim and fast feet that he could guard SG but was 7'0 feet. He was most likely the youngest guy in the league. They decided to make him a small forward and he did the first two years there. Since he didn't go to college he took it upon himself to learn all the positions to compensate on learning the game. His blocking shots and rebounding tenacity was very high and he went to the PF position.

I think it was the right position for him as his production in his prime was close to identical to TD's, the best PF ever. He lead the league in rebounding for 4 straight years. KG never had a team really built around him. It was usually a throw together group because Minny rarely had a strategy of development. Never had a dependable shooter or a very good big next to him. Scerbiack was a pretty good shooter but got hurt alot and wasn't as good under pressure. Cassell was the shooter that was needed but KG ended up being the set up man in WCFs.

Had those teams more structure, a consistent shooter, a dependable second best player, a big man program... KG would have shined as a player to go thru. He was the best player in the league when 3 Top ten GOATS were in their prime and in much better situations.

The thing is, some guys are people you run an offense through. Others make everyone better and can play off those other players. There are guys who can make others better on offense without ever touching the ball (this is a true skill with an off ball player). KG has that skillset. If they'd had playmakers around him, those guys would have been better. How much better? Well that's the part we never saw.

BTW when did McCale join the wolves? I mean who ever could have been a better big man coach?

[Pointguard]

The thing is, some guys are people you run an offense through. Others make everyone better and can play off those other players. There are guys who can make others better on offense without ever touching the ball (this is a true skill with an off ball player). KG has that skillset. If they'd had playmakers around him, those guys would have been better. How much better? Well that's the part we never saw.

BTW when did McCale join the wolves? I mean who ever could have been a better big man coach?
Good posting throughout the thread dhsily.

On McHale, I don't think he's a good teacher. Has he ever developed anybody in Minny? The Kandi man? Have you ever saw McHale on these roundball shows? He's comes off as odd first and then you wonder if he's good at communicating. But he doesn't come off as a teacher of the game, tho I'm sure he is smart. And he did play the game smart. But Boston would have kept him if he was great with certain teaching qualities. They are good for that.

[dhsilv]

Good posting throughout the thread dhsily.

On McHale, I don't think he's a good teacher. Has he ever developed anybody in Minny? The Kandi man? Have you ever saw McHale on these roundball shows? He's comes off as odd first and then you wonder if he's good at communicating. But he doesn't come off as a teacher of the game, tho I'm sure he is smart. And he did play the game smart. But Boston would have kept him if he was great with certain teaching qualities. They are good for that.

KG and a lot of people speak highly of him, but I have no idea if he can coach fundamentals. I'd imagine just doing low post drills you'd pick stuff up from the guy. His post game was freaking amazing.

We'll see what happens with Towns I suppose. There is a guy who can become an elite post player if he's developed.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

2. The can't do it list. MJ and Kareem. You cannot make an argument for Duncan over either of these guys.

It's actually quite easy as I've done so countless times. It all comes down to proper context when evaluating between all-time greats. You have to take everything into account, so without further ado.

1.) Era - Kareem played in the 70's. If Duncan won a 6th ring, the only real, big "immovable" edge Kareem would have would have to be MVP's, right? Well, Kareem racked up all but one of his MVP's in the weakest era of all time -- the 70's. There were literally no other top 10 all time greats that played in this era besides Kareem other than Wilt.

But guess what? Wilt was on his last legs and left early on while Dr. J (who isn't top 10, but still arguably top 15 at least) was in the ABA, racking up MVP's over there. So who exactly was Kareem competing with here to win all his MVP's? Rick Barry? Bill Walton? Those guys are good and all, but not top 10'ers. They're not guys like Shaq, Kobe and the like. Guys that Duncan had to beat out for his MVP's.

The 70's were just a weak era, the weakest of all time in fact. More teams won championships during that decade than any other in NBA history. This also exasperates the issue with Kareem winning one sole title in that whole era. And he did that with the #2 PG of all time. Who did he win his other titles with? The #1 PG of all time, which brings me to my next point.

2.) Personnel - Kareem won all 6 of his rings with the top 2 PG's of all time. Straight up. Two top 15 players, one even being a top 5 player in most people's top 10. You cannot compare Parker or Manu to either of those guys. You just can't do it.

Not only that, but in the 80's with the Lakers where he won 5 out of 6 of his chips, he played on star-studded rosters, literally the most stacked team of the decade that went to the finals almost every year.

These aren't scrubs we're talking about there. After all, they snatched all but one FMVP out of Kareem's grasp. His teams were so good, they clenched a 'ship with him chilling at home watching the game on his T.V. set. Magic, a fellow top 5 player of all time in most people's eyes, put up an astonishing 42 points, 15 rebounds and 7 assists playing center in Kareem's place.

When did Duncan ever have THAT kind of talent around him? Jamaal freaking Wilkes put up 37 and 10 in that game. Are you kidding me? Duncan never had squads that could do that in his absence during the finals. In fact, Pop has a putrid 2-7 record without Duncan and yet Pointguard would have you believe this guy is the driving force behind all of the Spurs' success.

Don't even get me started on the rest of the cast for some of those teams. James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Bob McAdoo. Those teams were absolutely loaded to the brim and dominated the era like no other.

Does anyone really think Duncan wouldn't win more than 5 playing with Oscar and Magic for 10+ years? I mean, the guy only won more chips with no other All-NBA teammate than anyone else ever. Not only does he get to play with those guys, but you compound things even further by them playing in a historically weak conference, which leads me to...

3.) Strength of Competition - Kareem played in one of the weakest conferences the NBA has ever seen. This is insane considering just how STACKED the East was during this whole stint with the Celtics, the 6'ers, The Pistons, The Bulls, etc. Lakers were feasting on sub .500 teams routinely in the first couple rounds of the play offs. Very LeBron-esque.

Then you have Duncan in the much stronger conference of his era, having to go through not one, but TWO top 10 players of all time year in and year out during his prime. The West also having Malone's Jazz in the late 90's, Webber's Kings in the early 2000's, Dirk's Mavs, Nash's Suns, etc. It was a bloodbath.

There's not even really much to say about this anymore. It's obvious one played in a really weak conference where he had the most stacked team by far, possibly even the most stacked team of all time, and the other played in one of the toughest ones where he was the one having to go through two top 10's instead of being the one with two top 10's while also having to contend with a plethora of other top 15-20 players all in the same conference.

4.) 2-way play - Kareem, while not a horrible defender or anything, was clearly not the defender Duncan is. He was above average, even good, but you can't really compare him to one of, if not the greatest 2-way player of all time.

Duncan literally has the most All-NBA and All-Defensives of all time. 15 and 15, straight up monster on both ends of the floor and most of his impact doesn't even show up in the stat sheet.

Not only that, but as Kareem aged and got older, he actually STOPPED playing defense and rebounding to a workable degree whereas Duncan has stayed consistent as one of the best defensive anchors in the league.

5.) Final Thoughts - Don't really feel like putting these points into a bunch of different sub-categories for the above facts, but I will reiterate. Kareem played in the weakest era in NBA history. In this era, he won a SINGLE ring with the #2 PG of all time.

He had plenty of play offs where he came up short in this era, getting bounced with the higher seed and better team against non-top 10'ers. In this era is where he racked up almost all of his MVP's.

In the 80's, he racked up a single MVP in 1980, the first year, and then commenced to lose the FMVP in an MVP season for him while the GOAT PG on his stacked team proceeded to play his position in one of the greatest NBA finals performances of all time to a tune of 42-15-7 while a roleplayer on that same team put up 37 and 10 in a close out game for the 'ship.

His help isn't even comparable to Duncan's, and in years where he was still capable of MVP (whereas you see Duncan carrying a 14 ppg on 38% FG Parker as his second best option to a chip against a team that 3peated with 2 top 10's).

He played in a historically weak conference against myriad sub .500 teams en route to facing whoever emerged from the bloodbath that was the East of that era, going to almost every single finals.

In those finals, he won a single FMVP while his ATG teammates snatched away the rest. In his last two 'ships even, he was hardly even a contributor so when you look at his rings and say, "he has 6, Duncan has to match him," then turn around and add that, "but Duncan has to be all-star/all-NBA level," and pretty much The Man when Kareem was literally a corpse in '88, you can see why I have to shake my head at this.

Context, people. Everything in context please. I've said it before and I'll say it again, throw another top 10 all time great or hell even top 15-20 player back in the 70's when Kareem entered the league and have them play with the 2 GOAT PG's for 10+ seasons and I highly doubt they do much worse than Kareem. I would even wager plenty would do better.

His career is pretty much the perfect circumstances for an ATG player. Weakest era of all time to put up your ATG stats/rack up MVP with old washed up/not in same league other ATG's, 2 of the greatest second options of all time to feed and dish you the ball better than anyone ever, the most stacked team in the by far weaker of the two conferences during your decline, but still a few MVP level seasons for you to gather some FMVP's and show you're The Man.

I really don't see how many could do much worse.