Will Kobe Bryant surpass Larry Bird's Legacy?

[kgisbigticket]

How many more titles and how many league and finals mvp's does he need in order to reach Bird's level and perhaps surpass him?

[20 Dimes A Game]

Kobe will have to do alot because White Amercia will always over rate Bird.
He was a great player, top 5 ever IMO but is always slightly over rated because he's white.

Not to the extent of Isiah Thomas' comments such as ' If Bird was black, he'd be an average player' or whatever trash he said.

[mhg88]

Will Kobe Bryant surpass Larry Bird's Legacy?

No.


How many more titles and how many league and finals mvp's does he need in order to reach Bird's level and perhaps surpass him?

A good starting point would be one championship as the first option. Or even one MVP for that matter. Why is Kobe being compared to Bird again?

[Kblaze8855]

Unless he starts leading teams to titles right now(and he wont) he doesnt have the time. Its pretty unlikely he even catches the likes of Duncan, Havlicek, and Moses Malone if accomplishments are the issue.

[Loki]

Bird won 3 straight MVP's and had many wondering aloud if he was the GOAT in the mid-80's. This is while Magic, Moses, KAJ, Barkley, Jordan, Dream, Isiah etc. were all playing. That's dominance. And his '87 and '88 seasons (the 2 years after his last MVP award) might have been even better than his 3 MVP seasons individually.

Kobe would have to win at least 3 MVP's, 2 Finals MVP's, and finish top 3 in MVP voting at least 6-8 times. He'd also have to win at least 2 rings as the best player on his team.

[vert48]

Unless he wins a couple Regular Season MVP's and a couple finals MVP's, it won't happen.

[Psileas]

Among the things that matter most, Bird has: 3 titles and 2 more Finals' appearances, all as the team's #1, 2 Finals' MVP's (should be 3, really. Bird didn't score as usual in 1981, but he did everything all-around. When C-Max couldn't score, he did little else), 3 league MVP's, averages of 24.3/10.0/6.3/1.7 and pretty simular playoff averages. Plus, in his prime, there were people (I mean, mature people, not 16-year olds) arguing whether he was the GOAT or not.

Kobe, up to now, climbs the All Time stairs pretty fast thanks to his historical scoring games and records, but he won't get to Bird's league by these things alone. Oscar Robertson was the king of all-around stats and most have him a little below Bird, as well, and this is the absolute best case for Kobe, unless he wins at least 2+ titles and 2+ MVP's in both R.S and Finals himself.

[Jerk Nowitzki]

...White Amercia will always over rate Bird.
He ... is always slightly over rated because he's white.
Come on man, do you really believe this??
What if a non-white person claims he's one of the greatest ever? Is he a race traitor? Are all non-white people expected to think the same thing...??

[White Chocolate]

1. Bird is not overrated. Forget about his individual stats. He made his teammates better. He knew where everyone was. It was like he had a sixth sense. Even when he had chronic back problems starting in 1988, he still went out there and played his heart out, regardless of how much pain he was in.

2. Kobe will never catch up to Larry Bird. He doesn't have the time to do it. He doesn't have the MVPs or even winning a title as the first option. The fact that Kobe is not liked by the media certainly won't help his cause.

[evinecz]

y is dis even a question?? the answer is no!!! :violin:

[VCMVP1551]

He will NOT catch Bird. I rank 2 players hands down above Bird(Magic and Jordan) and possibly 2 others(Shaq and Kareem). That is it nobody else is ahead of Bird IMO.

[20 Dimes A Game]

Come on man, do you really believe this??
What if a non-white person claims he's one of the greatest ever? Is he a race traitor? Are all non-white people expected to think the same thing...??

No, did i imply that?

I'm simply saying that genrally, that's the reality. The majority of fans are white american, so it's inevitable that some will over-hype or over-rate the only real white american superstar in the NBA.

[YAWN]

Kobe will have to do alot because White Amercia will always over rate Bird.
He was a great player, top 5 ever IMO but is always slightly over rated because he's white.

Not to the extent of Isiah Thomas' comments such as ' If Bird was black, he'd be an average player' or whatever trash he said.
did he actually say that??

[White Chocolate]

did he actually say that??


Yes he did.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0D6163FF936A35755C0A9619482 60

[20 Dimes A Game]

did he actually say that??

Yeah, there was all this noise about it from the media. Research it.

I think it was after Bird and the Celtics had just beat us Pistons in the playoffs.

[White Chocolate]

Yeah, there was all this noise about it from the media. Research it.

I think it was after Bird and the Celtics had just beat us Pistons in the playoffs.


I just posted the NY Times link from June 5, 1987. Rodman started it initially, but Thomas re-worded it. Rodman apologized, while Isiah never did.

[YAWN]

2. Kobe will never catch up to Larry Bird. He doesn't have the time to do it.
jordan won 5 titles, 3 regular season mvps, and 5 finals mvps after what kobes age is now.

not saying he will accomplish half of what Jordan did from this age on...but the argument of there not being enough time is farce.

[dhenk]

Kobe will have to do alot because White Amercia will always over rate Bird.
He was a great player, top 5 ever IMO but is always slightly over rated because he's white.

Not to the extent of Isiah Thomas' comments such as ' If Bird was black, he'd be an average player' or whatever trash he said.

I don`t think Thomas would be my first option to evaluate talent...

[20 Dimes A Game]

I just posted the NY Times link from June 5, 1987. Rodman started it initially, but Thomas re-worded it. Rodman apologized, while Isiah never did.

Thanks buddy.

[20 Dimes A Game]

I don`t think Thomas would be my first option to evaluate talent...

Yeah lol..

I was just saying my opinion was no where as extreme as his.

[Lebron23]

Not gonna happen but Kobe Bryant would always be remembered for scoring 81 points against the Toronto Raptors.

[White Chocolate]

Thanks buddy.


The part that bothered me was Isiah's concluding statement:



''I looked up the word 'racist'. Has anyone in here taken the time to look it up? 'Racist' is an ugly word. Let's try not to use it.''


No intention of an apology, or even admitting he was wrong. At least Dennis admitted he was wrong and apologized. Bird can say that he holds no ill will all he wants, but that is BS.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

I just don't see it happening and here's why. In order for Kobe to reach that level, he will need to win a couple championships and a couple MVPs.

1. In order to win championships, you have to have serious talent around you. Bird had hall of famers. I don't see Laker mgmt assembling the necessary talent.

2. In order to win MVPs, you have to be on a team winning 50+ games. I don't see this Laker squad winning 50+.

Right now there is only one all-star on that team. so, Kobe is SOL, imo

but you never know...perhaps the FO will somehow steal legit talent...and/or Bynum blossom into an all-star talent.

[Make It Rain]

jordan won 5 titles, 3 regular season mvps, and 5 finals mvps after what kobes age is now.

not saying he will accomplish half of what Jordan did from this age on...but the argument of there not being enough time is farce.
Kobe isn't Jordan. So, you're argument doesn't work. Not many swingmen stay as durable as Jordan at that age. Also, at that age, not many can maintain their level of play as if it was part of their prime. Jordan's prime pretty much looked like it lasted 10 years.

[Make It Rain]

I just don't see it happening and here's why. In order for Kobe to reach that level, he will need to win a couple championships and a couple MVPs.

1. In order to win championships, you have to have serious talent around you. Bird had hall of famers. I don't see Laker mgmt assembling the necessary talent.

2. In order to win MVPs, you have to be on a team winning 50+ games. I don't see this Laker squad winning 50+.

Right now there is only one all-star on that team. so, Kobe is SOL, imo

but you never know...perhaps the FO will somehow steal legit talent...and/or Bynum blossom into an all-star talent.
Kobe had 3 HOFers in 03-04 as the #1 option (by his choice, not the coach) . Still no title:confusedshrug:

[Tainted Sword]

2. Kobe will never catch up to Larry Bird. He doesn't have the time to do it. He doesn't have the MVPs or even winning a title as the first option. The fact that Kobe is not liked by the media certainly won't help his cause.

I agree with you on Bird not being overrated, as he

[Tainted Sword]

Kobe had 3 HOFers in 03-04 as the #1 option (by his choice, not the coach) . Still no title:confusedshrug:
Switch prime Kobe with 04 Kobe and the Laker

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Kobe had 3 HOFers in 03-04 as the #1 option (by his choice, not the coach) . Still no title:confusedshrug:

can you expand on that? or are you just saying that he didn't win the championship with Shaq, Malone & GP?

[YAWN]

Kobe isn't Jordan. So, you're argument doesn't work. Not many swingmen stay as durable as Jordan at that age. Also, at that age, not many can maintain their level of play as if it was part of their prime. Jordan's prime pretty much looked like it lasted 10 years.

i agree thats why I said i dont think he will get near there. However Kobe does play at a high level and hasnt shown many signs of declining yet; aside from being somewhat injury prone. i think he has 3-4 more years as the #1 guy then i think he will play 2-3 more as a #2 or 3 somewhere. I see kobe possibly getting 1 regular season MVP, and 2 more titles. 1 as the #1 and another as a #2, not sure if he will be a ring chaser ala payton and try and get 6.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

[QUOTE=Tainted Sword]Switch prime Kobe with 04 Kobe and the Laker

[YAWN]

[QUOTE=Tainted Sword]Switch prime Kobe with 04 Kobe and the Laker

[AI Nuggets3]

Kobe will have to actually improve his skills (not just wins) to match Bird's legacy.

Kobe has the talent obvously but Bird was a walking triple double, a lights out shooter, a proven winner, and just as clutch as Jordan. thats a little tough to surpass. on top of that part of his legacy is the "legendary trash talker" thing he has going on. it'll be tough. Kobe's the best in the world but he just doesnt have the resume to be up there with Bird.

until 1996 or so i still wasnt convinced MJ was better than Bird.

[BIGSHOT]

Why do you make so many Kobe Bryant threads?LOL

[mongePR(kb24)]

kobe with A LOT of luck will finish top 10 all-time.

bird is like top 5-6, so you have an answer.

[Poseidon]

Kobe's already surpassed Larry Bird. Only Magic, Wilt and Michael are ahead of Kobe at this point.

Nobody will EVER catch Wilt....but Michael and Magic can be had.

[Carbine]

Kobe's already surpassed Larry Bird. Only Magic, Wilt and Michael are ahead of Kobe at this point.

Nobody will EVER catch Wilt....but Michael and Magic can be had.

I'd enjoy to see your argument as to why Kobe is ahead of Larry Bird at this moment.

Be rational.

[tmacs1sleepyeye]

No, did i imply that?

I'm simply saying that genrally, that's the reality. The majority of fans are white american, so it's inevitable that some will over-hype or over-rate the only real white american superstar in the NBA.

Well whatever white over rating there is of Bird probably doesn't even out the black hate of him. **** go read J.A. Adande's article about the new big three it's hillarious... He's so funny he says that Jordan transcended race because white's liked him... well whites never hated the best players because of their skin... Bird could have "transcended" color too if blacks didn't hate him. I don't recall a white player saying Michael Jordan would have been just an average player if he was white :roll: :roll:

[Revelation]

How many more titles and how many league and finals mvp's does he need in order to reach Bird's level and perhaps surpass him?

Considering he currently has NONE i'd say he has some work to do...

[poeticism707]

Unless he starts leading teams to titles right now(and he wont) he doesnt have the time. Its pretty unlikely he even catches the likes of Duncan, Havlicek, and Moses Malone if accomplishments are the issue.

Duncan has already passed Bird, and is top-five all time.

I agree, Kobe would have to start winning his 5-6 titles as the leading man right now, and that seems very unlikely.

[Carbine]

Duncan has already passed Bird, and is top-five all time.


Big fan of Duncan' but he's not above Bird historically. You would have more of an argument if Duncan finishes his career with at least five titles as leading man along with dominance well into his late 30's

[poeticism707]

Big fan of Duncan' but he's not above Bird historically. You would have more of an argument if Duncan finishes his career with at least five titles as leading man along with dominance well into his late 30's

Historically? I thought we were talking about basketball (hence the basketball hall of fame, not the historical hall of fame)?

All I can say is this: simply compare Duncan's acomplishments side by side with Bird's.

Bird is a great player, top ten all time, but it's NOT CLOSE. Duncan has surpassed Bird, and IS TOP FIVE-ALL TIME.

[AI Nuggets3]

Historically? I thought we were talking about basketball (hence the basketball hall of fame, not the historical hall of fame)?

All I can say is this: simply compare Duncan's acomplishments side by side with Bird's.

Bird is a great player, top ten all time, but it's NOT CLOSE. Duncan has surpassed Bird, and IS TOP FIVE-ALL TIME.

TD has not passed Bird. the end.

[YAWN]

Bird is a great player, top ten all time, but it's NOT CLOSE. Duncan has surpassed Bird, and IS TOP FIVE-ALL TIME.


jordan, magic, bird, wilt, kareem, shaq, hakeem, oscar, russell> duncan

i feel like i missed a couple of other people too.

[poeticism707]

jordan, magic, bird, wilt, kareem, shaq, hakeem, oscar, russell> duncan

i feel like i missed a couple of other people too.

Top Five All Time:

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Duncan
5. Magic

Bird: His resume doesn't BEGIN to compare to Duncan's OFFENSIVELY AND DEFENSIVELY, and he ONLY HAS 3 TITLES. Case closed.

Hakeem: Hakeem had a great career, but up until his 2 title seasons OUT OF THE BLUE, he was on the Patrick Ewing level. 2 titles is certainly NOT ENOUGH to justify ranking Hakeem over Duncan's 4 titles...and COUNTING.

Oscar: Averaged a triple double over a season, a great player and stat stuffer. But titles? Actual IMPACT? He would NEVER have won a title were it not for Kareem, hence his LONE, count it 1, title. Duncan has 4 titles (and counting).

Magic: Second Fiddle, for AT LEAST 2 TITLES, and even as high as 3. That means Magic has at best 3 titles he is responsible for: Tim Duncan's 4 (and counting) have already surpassed Magic.

Shaq: Close. Both have 4 titles and 3 Finals mvps. Duncan with one more mvp, many more defensive first team elections, because he was a MUCH GREATER DEFENSIVE PLAYER. By the way: Shaq is done winning titles as the MAIN MAN: Duncan is not.

[AI Nuggets3]

:oldlol: ^^^ this is the youth of today?

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

jordan, magic, bird, wilt, kareem, shaq, hakeem, oscar, russell> duncan

i feel like i missed a couple of other people too.

west
maybe baylor

[Carbine]

Duncan certainly does have the accomplishments and in my opinion he's not THAT far behind Bird, but he needs longevity and one more title to secure a valid argument against Bird.

If it all came down to accomplishments Russell would be the unquestioned greatest of all time.

Accomplishments are part of the evaluation process.

[poeticism707]

:oldlol: ^^^ this is the youth of today?

I just wrote a basketball thesis. Respond if you have any basketball knowledge to respond with, but lay off the 4-word-three-arrow-fragmented-sentance.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Duncan certainly does have the accomplishments and in my opinion he's not THAT far behind Bird, but he needs longevity and one more title to secure a valid argument against Bird.

If it all came down to accomplishments Russell would be the unquestioned greatest of all time.

Accomplishments are part of the evaluation process.

if it came down to accomplishments, then Kareem would easily rival Russell. The only thing Russell has on Kareem is a couple more championships. NOBODY has more league MVPs than Kareem, including MJ.

[poeticism707]

Duncan certainly does have the accomplishments and in my opinion he's not THAT far behind Bird, but he needs longevity and one more title to secure a valid argument against Bird.

If it all came down to accomplishments Russell would be the unquestioned greatest of all time.

Accomplishments are part of the evaluation process.

Basketball is game about winning. Essentially, whoever wins the most, is the most decorated (mvps, finals mvps, etc) is the best. This is simple.

In other words, accomplishments (LEADING a team to titles, finals mvps, mvps, defensive teams, all nba teams, dpoys, scoring titles, etc) ARE THE EVALUATION PROCESS.

[poeticism707]

if it came down to accomplishments, then Kareem would easily rival Russell.

Except for one thing: Russel has 11 titles, Kareem has only 5.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Except for one thing: Russel has 11 titles, Kareem has only 5.

actually, Kareem has 6....and has scored over twice as many points.

[Carbine]

if it came down to accomplishments, then Kareem would easily rival Russell.

Russell, if the DPOY was awarded back then, might have 10+ of them. He has five MVP awards, and of those 11 titles he would have been the Finals MVP of at least 7 of them if they kept that award back then. Would've had numerous #1 defensive team selections.

You see, the only thing Kareem rivals him in (and beats him) is regular season MVP awards & all-nba teams.

[db2431]

Kobe will have to actually improve his skills (not just wins) to match Bird's legacy.

Kobe has the talent obvously but Bird was a walking triple double, a lights out shooter, a proven winner, and just as clutch as Jordan.

He has hit some gamewinners but has bombed out in the finals and playoffs too much to even start approaching Jordans Clutchness for 48 minutes of conference and finals tense playoff play.

[poeticism707]

actually, Kareem has 6....and has scored over twice as many points.

My mistake! Kareem has 6!

[duncan on U]

gotta win another title or two and gotta win the hearts of america, Denver incident ain't gonna help in that.

[Lebron23]

My mistake! Kareem has 6!


35 yrs.old Kareem Abdul Jabbar >>>>>> Tim Duncan, you Duncan homer should never compare Duncan to a guy that has won 6 MVP Trophies, and 6th championship with the Los Angeles Lakers/Bucks.

[Lebron23]

Russell, if the DPOY was awarded back then, might have 10+ of them. He has five MVP awards, and of those 11 titles he would have been the Finals MVP of at least 7 of them if they kept that award back then. Would've had numerous #1 defensive team selections.

You see, the only thing Kareem rivals him in (and beats him) is regular season MVP awards & all-nba teams.


The guy puts up mediocre stats in a weaker era can you imagine him dominating the modern day Center in the 1970's and 1980's playing the role as the only legit all star on his team. I know the 1960's Boston Celtics have far better supporting casts than the rests of the 10 or 11 teams in that era.

Maybe you should stop talking to your own self because Kareem Abdul Jabbar is head and shoulders above Bill Russell, and he is the greatest scorer in the history of the NBA that even Jordan and Karl Malone failed to break his NBA record of becoming the all time leading scorer in the history of professional basketball.

Even a 37 yrs.old Kareem Abdul Jabbar is a much better player than the current Tim Duncan, and you Spurs fans think that Duncan is the best big men in the history of the sports maybe you should stop acting like a homer for a moment, and face the reality that Kareem is far a much superior player than Duncan and Bill Russell in any given era.

Kareem would kick Russell and Duncan's asses 24/7......

[poeticism707]

35 yrs.old Kareem Abdul Jabbar >>>>>> Tim Duncan, you Duncan homer should never compare Duncan to a guy that has won 6 MVP Trophies, and 6th championship with the Los Angeles Lakers/Bucks.

Duncan will probably have 6 titles in 2-4 seasons: then he would have equalled Kareem and Jordan's titles. Then what?

Personal note: you don't know the first thing about about basketball, so don't bother responding. Just keep up your usual tirade of "Duncan sucks" to elevate Lebron, who hasn't accomplished anything yet.

[JtotheIzzo]

back on point, Kobe is better than Larry Bird,

but

he will never be a better basketball player than Larry Bird.

What the falk does that mean Jizzo?

Larry Bird got it done, lead by example and won as the focal point of the team. He elevated people like Kevin McHale, Danny Ainge and Robert Parish to new heights (DJ would have been DJ anywhere).

Do you think McHale would have all that room to bust all those up and unders had Bird not been a constant triple threat on the wing?

Do you think the middle would have been wide open for Parish to finish had Bird not been a triple threat on the wing?

Do you think Ainge would have all that room to operate had Bird not been a triple threat on the other wing?

There in lies Bird's superiority (despite being less of a talent than Kobe) Bird is a true triple threat. Kobe is only a 2.5 threat. Yeah Kobe gets assists, but they are often passes out of trouble, not like Bird who was constantly looking to set up teammates. This made Bird more dangerous because his play went beyond his abilities, Kobe's is limited to the power of one.

IF

Kobe can develop trust in Bynum he may make him great, but Kobe held back Shaq to a degree, and has yet to put faith in his teammates. This is why Kobe, despite being better will never be the basketball player Larry Bird was.

[Lebron23]

Duncan will probably have 6 titles in 2-4 seasons: then he would have equalled Kareem and Jordan's titles. Then what?

Personal note: you don't know the first thing about about basketball, so don't bother responding. Just keep up your usual tirade of "Duncan sucks" to elevate Lebron, who hasn't accomplished anything yet.


I am not even hyping Lebron today so no need to brought his name in the discussion... To compare the dominance of Kareem Abdul Jabbar in the regular season... Let us officially compare their MVP stats in the regular season, and i am sure he definitely owned Russell and Duncan in these categories. You know being the best Center of all time Kareem Abdul Jabbar is the face of the NBA in the 1970's, and during the 1980's he is still an effective big men playing along side the Magic Johnson, who is undoubtedly the GOAT PG of all time.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar


1970-71- 31.7/16.0/3.3
1971-72- 34.8/16.6/4.6
1973-74- 27.0/14.5/4.8/3.5/1.4
1975-76- 27.7/16.9/5.0/4.1/1.5
1976-77- 26.2/13.3/3.9/3.2/1.2
1979-80- 24.8/10.8/4.5/3.4/1.0

Tim Duncan


2001-02- 25.5/12.7/3.7/2.5/0.7/2.5
2002-03- 23.3/12.9/3.9/0.7/2.9

Bill Russell ( played in a weaker era so stats might be padded at that time)

1957-58- 16.6/22.7/2.9
1960-61- 16.9/23.9/3.4
1961-62- 18.9/23.6/4.5
1962-63- 16.8/23.6/4.5
1964-65- 14.1/24.1/5.3

Kareem is not a one dimensional center he can played in both ends of the court, and even coach Pat Rile uttered this statement on the success of the 7'2" Bean Pole, who played against NBA players that are 10 years his junior couldn't keep up with Abdul-Jabbar, who is probably the best fundamentally sound Center in the history of the game.

"Why judge anymore? When a man has broken records, won championships, endured tremendous criticism and responsibility, why judge? Let's toast him as the greatest player ever." - Riley



Originally Posted by poeticism707
Top Five All Time:

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Duncan
5. Magic

Top 5 all time

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2. Michael Jordan
3. Magic Johnson
4. Larry Bird
5. Bill Russell

[poeticism707]

I am not even hyping Lebron today so no need to brought his name in the discussion... To compare the dominance of Kareem Abdul Jabbar in the regular season... Let us officially compare their MVP stats in the regular season, and i am sure he definitely owned Russell and Duncan in these categories. You know being the best Center of all time Kareem Abdul Jabbar is the face of the NBA in the 1970's, and during the 1980's he is still an effective big men playing along side the Magic Johnson, who is undoubtedly the GOAT PG of all time.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar


1970-71- 31.7/16.0/3.3
1971-72- 34.8/16.6/4.6
1973-74- 27.0/14.5/4.8/3.5/1.4
1975-76- 27.7/16.9/5.0/4.1/1.5
1976-77- 26.2/13.3/3.9/3.2/1.2
1979-80- 24.8/10.8/4.5/3.4/1.0

Tim Duncan


2001-02- 25.5/12.7/3.7/2.5/0.7/2.5
2002-03- 23.3/12.9/3.9/0.7/2.9

Regular season could not be more meaningless.

Tim Duncan should have 4-5 mvps and 3+ dpoys.

Currently, Kareem has the only edge on Duncan that matters: titles at 6 to 4.

(even though 2 of these belong to Magic as the leading man, but that is neither here nor there for the moment).

If Duncan wins 3 more titles, he will have passed Kareem, however.

Top Five All-Time:

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Duncan
5. Magic/Bird (only 2-3 titles as the leading man with Kareem, NOT 5)

Reasoning: Bird only 3 titles, NO WHERE NEAR the defensive player nor defenisve accolades as Duncan; Oscar great stats, one title that belongs to Kareem; Hakeem two titles is NO CLOSE TO ENOUGH; Shaq: close, but Duncan's DEFENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS give him a clear edge; Wilt- otherworldy stats but only two titles doesn't cut it

[Lebron23]

Regular season could not be more meaningless.

Tim Duncan should have 4-5 mvps and 3+ dpoys.

Currently, Kareem has the only edge on Duncan that matters: titles at 6 to 4.

(even though 2 of these belong to Magic as the leading man, but that is neither here nor there for the moment).

If Duncan wins 3 more titles, he will have passed Kareem, however.

Top Five All-Time:

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Duncan
5. Magic/Bird (only 2-3 titles as the leading man with Kareem, NOT 5)

Reasoning: Bird only 3 titles, NO WHERE NEAR the defensive player nor defenisve accolades as Duncan; Oscar great stats, one title that belongs to Kareem; Hakeem two titles is NO CLOSE TO ENOUGH; Shaq: close, but Duncan's DEFENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS give him a clear edge; Wilt- otherworldy stats but only two titles doesn't cut it

:oldlol: Kareem Abdul Jabbar have more playoffs success than Tim Duncan, and he put up better stats than Duncan in the post season.

Duncan's defense is so overrated i think his defense is not even in the same caliber of a Prime Mutombo, and Prime Alonzo Mourning.

[poeticism707]

:oldlol: Kareem Abdul Jabbar have more playoffs success than Tim Duncan, and he put up better stats than Duncan in the post season.

However much "more" Kareem has done, it only translates into 2 more titles.

Check out Bill Russell's numbers: "only" 15.1ppg and 22.5 rpg (!) for his career. But he also has about 11 titles, and 6 mvps.

That's why Russel is the GOAT, stats or no.

Think of it this way: Lebron will NEVER surpass Russell.

Neither will anyone else.

[Lebron23]

However much "more" Kareem has done, it only translates into 2 more titles.

Check out Bill Russell's numbers: "only" 15.1ppg and 22.5 rpg (!) for his career. But he also has about 11 titles, and 6 mvps.

That's why Russel is the GOAT, stats or no.


If Lebron James wins 6th Championship in todays weaker era can you consider him a better player than Magic and Bird. I guess not because NBA Analysts/Coaches rank them based on the strength of their respective era, and the quality of opponents they face in the NBA Finals.

I know you are one of the best Duncan fanatics on this message board, but he needs to put up greater stats if he wants to be considered as one of the candidate in the GOAT Discussion.

[tmacs1sleepyeye]

He already has surpassed Larry's legacy. Larry Bird hasn't even raped a woman before... Sure he could maybe still try it but it doesn't count if you aren't still in the league (as a player)... I mean maybe if he raped 6 or 7 women as a GM it'd even out but that's a tall order even for a legend.

[Lebron23]

He already has surpassed Larry's legacy. Larry Bird hasn't even raped a woman before... Sure he could maybe still try it doesn't count if you aren't still in the league (as a player)... I mean maybe if he raped 6 or 7 women as a GM it'd even out but that's a tall order.


:eek:

[poeticism707]

He already has surpassed Larry's legacy. Larry Bird hasn't even raped a woman before... Sure he could maybe still try it but it doesn't count if you aren't still in the league (as a player)... I mean maybe if he raped 6 or 7 women as a GM it'd even out but that's a tall order even for a legend.

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

Simply classic use of humor!

[Showtime]

He already has surpassed Larry's legacy. Larry Bird hasn't even raped a woman before... Sure he could maybe still try it but it doesn't count if you aren't still in the league (as a player)... I mean maybe if he raped 6 or 7 women as a GM it'd even out but that's a tall order even for a legend.
lmao

[amfirst]

U can't compare Kobe and Bird because basketball has evolve both defensively, offensively, and individually.

Bird won't be as effective in today's basketball because the team game has drastically improved with switching defense and double teaming. Even the NBA coaches will tell u this. Robert Horry even said it's harder to play todays game then in the past, and the guy is like a dinosaur in the NBA.

[Make It Rain]

U can't compare Kobe and Bird because basketball has evolve both defensively, offensively, and individually.

Bird won't be as effective in today's basketball because the team game has drastically improved with switching defense and double teaming. Even the NBA coaches will tell u this. Robert Horry even said it's harder to play todays game then in the past, and the guy is like a dinosaur in the NBA.
Obviously, Horry would say that because he's old and slow now. It was easier back then for him when he was young and slow.

[poeticism707]

Obviously, Horry would say that because he's old and slow now. It was easier back then for him when he was young and slow.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Humor seems to be going around like the flu lately! I've read some very witty comments on ISH of late.

[Make It Rain]

If Lebron James wins 6th Championship in today's weaker era can you consider him a better player than Magic and Bird. I guess not because NBA Analysts/Coaches rank them based on the strength of their respective era, and the quality of opponents they face in the NBA Finals.

I know you are one of the best Duncan fanatics on this message board, but he needs to put up greater stats if he wants to be considered as one of the candidates in the GOAT Discussion.
I'm gonna help you with your English because it's giving me a headache. You seem to ignore tenses and plural forms of words. Fixed some of your mistakes.

[poeticism707]

If Lebron James win 6th Championship in todays weaker era can you consider him a better player than Magic and Bird. I guess not because NBA Analysts/Coaches rank them based on the strength of their respective era, and the quality of opponents they face in the NBA Finals.

I know you are one of the best Duncan fanatics on this message board, but he needs to put up greater stats if he wants to be consider as one of the candidate in the GOAT Discussion.

I'm glad we're FINALLY BEING CIVIL. I hate this immature, stupid sniping back and forth. I commend you, in all seriousness.

Anyway, he is why Duncan's lack of stats don't matter, nor his era:

ERA

For 2 of his 4 titles, Duncan beat the Shaq and Kobe Lakers in their PRIME. Those Laker teams have been considered among the all-time great teams, and I have seen many pick those Shaq-Kobe Laker teams the beat the '96 Bulls. My point: beating those Laker teams twice enroute to 2 of his current 4 titles is VALIDATION for Duncan- that he hasn't been beating up on lesser teams (not to mention the 3rd title over the Pistons that EMBARRASED THE LAKERS ONE YEAR PRIOR)

Stats:

Neither Magic nor Bird's stats are ridiculously eye popping, yet you hear of them possibly being the GOAT (especially Magic, and no one thinks it strange). My point: if Tim Duncan wins 2 more titles, he will have INARGUABLY passed Bird and Magic, and be on the verge of passing Jordan and Jabbar.

Titles as the leading man divide great players: NOT STATS.

[Psileas]

Neither Magic nor Bird's stats are ridiculously eye popping, yet you hear of them possibly being the GOAT (especially Magic, and no one thinks it strange).

A few random questions:

Averaging 24.3 ppg, 10.0 rpg, 6.3 apg, 1.7 steals on 88.6/49.6/37.6 up to the age of 36 is not eye popping?
Did prime Bird have many nights when he would cruise for what's the equivalent of a 30 year old Duncan playing 30 minutes, getting 15/10, with the Spurs still winning without a problem?

This is Bird's log at the age of 30-31:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/gl.cgi?player=birdla01&year=1987

Season game #25 was pretty easily Bird's worst game that whole season-not counting a game when he only played 9 minutes. Compare this consistency and stats with what Duncan produced in 2007, at the same age.

Are Duncan's numbers really equally impressive to Magic's 19.5 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 11.2 apg and 1.9 steals?
Has Duncan brought anything never seen before to basketball, like a 6-9 PG did?
Simularly, here is 30-31 y.o Magic's log:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/gl.cgi?player=johnsma02&year=1991

Season games #12 or #60 were probably his worst throughout the whole season. He had 13 triple-doubles, as well as 35 consecutive games with 9+ assists. He was averaging 13.5 apg for his first 50 games, and this without Kareem and his easy baskets. Again, I don't see how Duncan's stats compare to this-and, to move on a bit, I don't see how Duncan would lead those Lakers to anything better than Magic did. Note that the 1991 Lakers were not the favorites to even make the Finals, the Blazers were. But the Lakers knocked them out in the WCF.

[Loki]

Neither Magic nor Bird's stats are ridiculously eye popping

28/10/7/52% FG is definitely eye-popping, especially when you consider he was only getting 6 FTA per game. Ditto Magic's 23/7/12/52%.

[Brunch@Five]

What Duncan is lacking to be in the highest echelon of NBA players all time is statistical dominance, even one huge prime season. So far his best is 26/13/4 3 blocks. Just look what others have done:

MJ: 33/8/8/ 3 steals 1 block (and many more great seasons)
Magic: 19/10/10/3 steals (rounded up), 23/8/13/ 2 steals
Bird: 29/11/7
Wilt: 50/26, 24/24/9
Kareem: 35/17/5
Shaq: 30/14/4/3 blocks
Hakeem: 24/14/4/ 5 blocks, 27/12/4/4 blocks
Oscar: TD over first 5 seasons
Moses: 31/15

Duncan simply never was good enough for one season to compare to the best of the best.

[Loki]

What Duncan is lacking to be in the highest echelon of NBA players all time is statistical dominance, even one huge prime season. So far his best is 26/13/4 3 blocks. Just look what others have done:

MJ: 33/8/8/ 3 steals 1 block (and many more great seasons)
Magic: 19/10/10/3 steals (rounded up), 23/8/13/ 2 steals
Bird: 29/11/7
Wilt: 50/26, 24/24/9
Kareem: 35/17/5
Shaq: 30/14/4/3 blocks
Hakeem: 24/14/4/ 5 blocks, 27/12/4/4 blocks
Oscar: TD over first 5 seasons
Moses: 31/15

Duncan simply never was good enough for one season to compare to the best of the best.

I tend to agree, though there's a point where his accomplishments outweigh a lot of that. He does, however, need a lot more accomplishments than other greats simply because he has never been truly dominant like the others were, his defensive impact notwithstanding.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I would disagree with that to an extent. Big Ben did an amazing job on Shaq. Outplayed him, imo. They didn't have to double Shaq which allowed the rest of the Pistons to stick to Kobe like glue. Pistons superior D won the series.
Shaquille O'Neal was getting something around 26 ppg shooting around 50%. When he's balling like that keep going to him. What really did LA in was Bryant and the other Lakers not going to O'Neal enough and instead taking bad shots of their own trying to be heroes. Bryant especially stands out for firing brick after brick and refusing to realize the fact that he had nothing for Tayshaun Prince. That's why Detroit only put one guy on O'Neal, because the rest of the team was being stupid and/or selfish.

[dejordan]

wait, i skipped from page 1 to page 6, but wasn't this a(nother) kobe v. bird thread? where did duncan come into this? anyway, i don't think there's any problem with mentioning tim in the same breath as larry and magic because his results are so strong and he has such a huge impact on the defensive end, a segment on the game that neither of them were especially strong at.

i do agree that he hasn't shown the explosive stat producing ability that you expect from a super-star who carries a team regularly (not even to the level of a barkley or david robinson really), but his decision-making and leadership are top-notch. having seen them all in their primes, i don't personally believe duncan is better or more impactful than larry or magic, but i think the argument could be built (though counting up titles and jumping up and down screaming, "see! see!" doesn't really work as an argument for me).

as for kobe's "legacy" v. bird's, i think that's a tough one. legacy inherently includes accomplishments and awards, and bird is way out in front on that one. i think he'd actually have a better chance of passing him in terms of being "better", though even there it would be tough to cement that status without winning anything as a #1.

[Loki]

Shaquille O'Neal was getting something around 26 ppg shooting around 50%.

It was actually over 60% shooting for Shaq that series, believe it or not. I think around 62% iirc.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It was actually over 60% shooting for Shaq that series, believe it or not. I think around 62% iirc.
Yeah, I was guessing because I couldn't find the exact numbers after a few minutes of searching, but I know that O'Neal was playing well.

as for kobe's "legacy" v. bird's, i think that's a tough one.
I almost deleted this thread when I first saw it, but people were replying so I figured that would be excessive modding. This isn't tough at all. Bryant has no MVPs and never lead a team to a title. Bird's career is superior, no question.

[dejordan]

Yeah, I was guessing because I couldn't find the exact numbers after a few minutes of searching, but I know that O'Neal was playing well.

I almost deleted this thread when I first saw it, but people were replying so I figured that would be excessive modding. This isn't tough at all. Bryant has no MVPs and never lead a team to a title. Bird's career is superior, no question.
by "a tough one" - i meant a tough tact for kobe fans to take to try to compare the two, because bird has an enormous legacy, and kobe's basically only got scoring titles and 2nd best player rings - kind of a george gervin + scottie pippen resume. really great, but not bird great.

[Uchiha_Hai]

No.


But he is better then Bird.

[EricForman]

Kobe will have to do alot because White Amercia will always over rate Bird.
He was a great player, top 5 ever IMO but is always slightly over rated because he's white.

Not to the extent of Isiah Thomas' comments such as ' If Bird was black, he'd be an average player' or whatever trash he said.

overrated by White America. Yeah. Isn't Jordan unanimously GOAT in the same White America? Aren't Magic usually ranked above Bird in this same White America even though he had a superior cast, played in a weaker conference AND when he lost, he lost far worse than Bird ever did (like getting swept, getting completely outplayed, etc. Seriously. This is a point no one ever mentions--both MAgic and Bird had moments of greatness. But when you look at moments where they got embarassed... Magic has FAR more than Bird)??

You said yourself bird is top 5. So how is he overrated? What, is there some secret group of people that claims Bird to be GOAT? I mean are there even people that claims Bird as #2 of all time? Everyone ranks him in the 3-5 range... I mean EVERYONE. So how is he overrated if you said he's top five?

And get race outta here. Racism against Blacks exist in the world but not when it comes to NBA. Nobody watches the NBA at home and thinks "man I wish there weren't so many Blacks in the league" or "I wish Kobe was White, I'd like him more". No one says "Damn Dwight Howard is monster. Too bad he's a n**** so I can't really buy his jersey"

The race thing is always brought up by ignorant and immature Black men cause they need excuses. Someone like Sheed or Stephen Jackson would cry about racism.They don't understand that people don't like them or refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt not because of their skin color, but because of their lowered IQ, loud mouth, and general juvenile behavior.

[Loki]

No.


But he is better then Bird.

:oldlol:

Kobe is nowhere near better than Bird. I don't get where people get this idea. Bird's impact on games was far greater than Kobe's.

[Real Men Wear Green]

by "a tough one" - i meant a tough tact for kobe fans to take to try to compare the two, because bird has an enormous legacy, and kobe's basically only got scoring titles and 2nd best player rings - kind of a george gervin + scottie pippen resume. really great, but not bird great.
Ok.

[John Starks]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is the era. Not the wekness or strength of either era, but the popularity of the players and the sport.

Magic and Larry started the golden age of NBA basketball the ended with MJ's 2nd retirement. Magic and Larry were great because they were great + basketball was consistently rising in popularity as they played. People do not only remember their accomplishments but mesh in there the accomplishments of the NBA along with it.

Similiarly, MJ is partially the GOAT because of his greatness but also because the NBA was at the height of its popularity while he was the Greatest in the Game.

Wilt was a better ball player than all three of those guys, but since no one saw it, its had to fully appreciate him.

Now, we are in a very weak era for basketball popularity. Its for any number of reasons, but it simply is a fact -- the finals are not well watched, the regualr season games are not well watched, and the NBA is not terribly popular. So, barring a sudden turn of popularity, even if Kobe wins 6 MVPs and and 6 titles and 6 finals MVP's -- it will not surpass the legacy of Bird, Magic, or MJ because no one will be watching.

[dejordan]

:oldlol:

Kobe is nowhere near better than Bird. I don't get where people get this idea. Bird's impact on games was far greater than Kobe's.
kobe goes all the way under the basket and dunks on the other side. bird would have to lay that up, so it's not as good. and kobe can get up enough shots to pass the 80 pt mark. everyone else blows. duh.

[dejordan]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is the era. Not the wekness or strength of either era, but the popularity of the players and the sport.

Magic and Larry started the golden age of NBA basketball the ended with MJ's 2nd retirement. Magic and Larry were great because they were great + basketball was consistently rising in popularity as they played. People do not only remember their accomplishments but mesh in there the accomplishments of the NBA along with it.

Similiarly, MJ is partially the GOAT because of his greatness but also because the NBA was at the height of its popularity while he was the Greatest in the Game.

Wilt was a better ball player than all three of those guys, but since no one saw it, its had to fully appreciate him.

Now, we are in a very weak era for basketball popularity. Its for any number of reasons, but it simply is a fact -- the finals are not well watched, the regualr season games are not well watched, and the NBA is not terribly popular. So, barring a sudden turn of popularity, even if Kobe wins 6 MVPs and and 6 titles and 6 finals MVP's -- it will not surpass the legacy of Bird, Magic, or MJ because no one will be watching.
but what's the chicken and what's the egg? if lebron and kobe were meeting in a competitive finals, would the ratings soar? seems to me that great basketball in major markets with marquee players leads to great ratings. if duncan played with some flair or was pushed to actually exert himself on the offensive end when he got to the finals, casual fans might care more. but he gets to the finals and is not challenged.

the only time he was challenged was a brutal series against the pistons where any of magic, larry, or michael would have been forced to put on a show (because detroit didn't double under larry brown and stars had to perform if you wanted to beat them) - which manu did nicely with a little help from the zebras, and horry hit that game winner, but casual fans don't tune in to watch guys they've never heard of.

i think the bird - magic era had competitiveness and rivalries as it's chief draw and then you throw in the exploits of those two, both putting up historically great seasons, where their stats seemed necessary. not gaudy. not accruing numbers for the sake of it, but really pushing themselves to the limit to beat each other and the sixers and pistons.

i think the jordan era was all about fans witnessing transcendant talent, both individual and as a team. it was more about admiring greatness than looking forward to huge duels with other teams or stars.

currently we don't really have either to offer to casual fans. even if the spurs are a great team, they don't come across that way on paper. they aren't winning 67 games and crushing opponents with their dominance. they don't seem to win every year. they are very professionally, almost scientifically doing what they need to in order to secure consistant victories. which is great for their fans and leads to very good team ball for true fans of the sport, but not so much for casual viewers.

on the other hand if kobe were to start winning rings (especially consecutive rings where it seemed that his team was historically great), the casual fans would probably flock back. his talents are eye-catching and explosive, and he's from one of the biggest most historically significant markets in the league. people would feel like they were watching greatness again.

anyway i'm not so sure what mass public perception has to do with die hard fans' perspective. bryant is largely touted as the best player in the league by more casual fans, but here duncan usually wins our polls, and lebron, nash, and kg all get a lot of respect as well. we hoops-heads don't seem to be as caught up in the standard responses to those kinds of questions. and the bryant fans are real fanatics, not just people giving pat answers that they heard on sc.

none of which really means that your assertion is wrong, just that there is a genuine reason why lb, magic, and mj became icons and galvanized audiences, and their ability, showmanship, personalities, and accomplishments were the base of it all.

[kgisbigticket]

When you think of someone as GOAT, you have to think about if they played in their prime nowadays would they be the best in the league and Bill Russell wouldn't fit that description.

Tim Duncan is catching up to Bird, but he has never had a PER of over 28 and no matter if he wins 6 or 7 titles, he wouldn't catch MJ nor Kareem because they dominated much more.

[John Starks]

but what's the chicken and what's the egg? if lebron and kobe were meeting in a competitive finals, would the ratings soar? seems to me that great basketball in major markets with marquee players leads to great ratings. if duncan played with some flair or was pushed to actually exert himself on the offensive end when he got to the finals, casual fans might care more. but he gets to the finals and is not challenged.

the only time he was challenged was a brutal series against the pistons where any of magic, larry, or michael would have been forced to put on a show (because detroit didn't double under larry brown and stars had to perform if you wanted to beat them) - which manu did nicely with a little help from the zebras, and horry hit that game winner, but casual fans don't tune in to watch guys they've never heard of.

i think the bird - magic era had competitiveness and rivalries as it's chief draw and then you throw in the exploits of those two, both putting up historically great seasons, where their stats seemed necessary. not gaudy. not accruing numbers for the sake of it, but really pushing themselves to the limit to beat each other and the sixers and pistons.

i think the jordan era was all about fans witnessing transcendant talent, both individual and as a team. it was more about admiring greatness than looking forward to huge duels with other teams or stars.

currently we don't really have either to offer to casual fans. even if the spurs are a great team, they don't come across that way on paper. they aren't winning 67 games and crushing opponents with their dominance. they don't seem to win every year. they are very professionally, almost scientifically doing what they need to in order to secure consistant victories. which is great for their fans and leads to very good team ball for true fans of the sport, but not so much for casual viewers.

on the other hand if kobe were to start winning rings (especially consecutive rings where it seemed that his team was historically great), the casual fans would probably flock back. his talents are eye-catching and explosive, and he's from one of the biggest most historically significant markets in the league. people would feel like they were watching greatness again.

anyway i'm not so sure what mass public perception has to do with die hard fans' perspective. bryant is largely touted as the best player in the league by more casual fans, but here duncan usually wins our polls, and lebron, nash, and kg all get a lot of respect as well. we hoops-heads don't seem to be as caught up in the standard responses to those kinds of questions. and the bryant fans are real fanatics, not just people giving pat answers that they heard on sc.

none of which really means that your assertion is wrong, just that there is a genuine reason why lb, magic, and mj became icons and galvanized audiences, and their ability, showmanship, personalities, and accomplishments were the base of it all.

LBJ made it to thefinals last year and no one watched. The NBA changed pace in the 80's. It was growing - new way to market itself, new way to show games, new television contract promoting it differently. It was growing and the growth excited people.

I'm not sure putting LBJ and Kobei n a finals together has the same impact. We'll see - there seems ot be some galvanization behind the celts. We'll see if their playoffs get a nice sized rating -- I think it will, but not the way it used to.

[dejordan]

When you think of someone as GOAT, you have to think about if they played in their prime nowadays would they be the best in the league and Bill Russell wouldn't fit that description.

Tim Duncan is catching up to Bird, but he has never had a PER of over 28 and no matter if he wins 6 or 7 titles, he wouldn't catch MJ nor Kareem because they dominated much more.
okay, you haven't been here that long, so i guess you get the canned "if player x from era 1 came to the future in a magical time machine and played today he would suck" lecture.

there's no such thing as a player who grows up learning the game and getting his physical training in the 40s and 50s playing in the 21st century. that doesn't happen because it's impossible. without oscar robertson playing basketball, kobe doesn't have kobe's game because somebody had to invent the foundation for him to build on. all those guard skills he uses to score 30 / night aren't formed without the great guards that came before him.

if bill russell grows up in the 80s and 90s he's watching kareem and hakeem. he's hitting the weights and eating right. he measures taller because back then they measured players without shoes and now they measure them in shoes. he goes from what we see in videos to the potential that we see in videos. even the huge heart and will to win that he is famed for are called into question somewhat because he wouldn't grow up is such trying times.

i don't think it's impossible to compare players across eras, but you really need to have a great sense of historical perspective. you have to consider what modern training and measuring techniques would mean for a player physically. and what kind of skillset is available now that wasn't then. add that to the on court strengths, will to win, work-habits, and leadership / ability to work with a team that the player demonstrated in his era, and you start to get a picture of what a legend might be like today. it takes a lot of imagination and turns a subjective comparison into a process of deduction, but it's the only fair way to try to rate them.

[dejordan]

LBJ made it to thefinals last year and no one watched. The NBA changed pace in the 80's. It was growing - new way to market itself, new way to show games, new television contract promoting it differently. It was growing and the growth excited people.

I'm not sure putting LBJ and Kobei n a finals together has the same impact. We'll see - there seems ot be some galvanization behind the celts. We'll see if their playoffs get a nice sized rating -- I think it will, but not the way it used to.
lbj plays in cleveland, played against the spurs who nobody outside of diehards cares about, and sucked. if he's dropped 50 in game one and been all over the highlight reels, that might have been different. AND he's not established enough yet. when bird and magic walked into the league it was on the heels of the best-watched ncaa final game in history, both joined the most storied teams in the league, and both had immediate impact. when mj walked into the league it was in the midst of the bird - lakers rivalry that was already strong, with incredible rookie numbers, and very early he threw up 63 in the playoffs, setting a new record, and getting larry bird to call him "god in basketball shorts" or something on national television. that's quite a launching pad.

lbj came in to a lot of hype and then missed the playoffs two consecutive down years for the league. i think when the lakers lost to the pistons in 2004 it really had a bad impact on the league. i don't think nba fans like parity. it's not a gambling sport. it's a sport of junkies, purists, and people caught up in competition and greatness. so when the team that's supposed to be great turns out to not even be competitive, and the team with literally NO marquee names on it wins in a landslide, i think casual fans are turned off.

[l0ssr3c0rd]

Yes, eventually. Bird became popular when the NBA was at it's peak imho. However, as time passes, those who never got to see Bird will rate Kobe higher than him.

[kidachi]

those who never got to see Bird will rate Kobe higher than him.

correct. but skills wise, Kobe's better and more explosive. BUT then again, it's how you use the talent you have.

(don't get me wrong, Kobe's using it great too)

[Psileas]

Aren't Magic usually ranked above Bird in this same White America even though he had a superior cast, played in a weaker conference AND when he lost, he lost far worse than Bird ever did (like getting swept, getting completely outplayed, etc. Seriously. This is a point no one ever mentions--both MAgic and Bird had moments of greatness. But when you look at moments where they got embarassed... Magic has FAR more than Bird)??

When Magic was swept, he actually did so while having injured teammates (1983 to Sixers, 1989 to Pistons) or while being injured himself (1989, again), therefore, he didn't have better teammates and lose more easily at the same time. And I don't recall any series when Magic was "completely outplayed" by anyone. Single games, maybe, but not whole series.
Actually, having seen their performances, I believe Magic played better in plenty of crucial, series ending, games.


You said yourself bird is top 5. So how is he overrated? What, is there some secret group of people that claims Bird to be GOAT?

A few days ago I gave a couple of links with some such claims. Not that I agree with them, but a few such fans do exist.

[Loki]

correct. but skills wise, Kobe's better and more explosive. BUT then again, it's how you use the talent you have.

(don't get me wrong, Kobe's using it great too)

Kobe is not more skilled than Bird. Again, not sure where people are coming from with remarks like that. I think it's fashionable to say that Kobe is "more skilled" than player X, but it isn't really true when talking about Bird of all people. Is Kobe more skilled than anyone playing today? Arguably yes (though KG and Duncan are right there). But more skilled than Bird? Nope. Realize that Bird's skills had to be that much better to make up for his lack of athleticism to enable him to do what he did. Think about that.

[dejordan]

Kobe is not more skilled than Bird. Again, not sure where people are coming from with remarks like that. I think it's fashionable to say that Kobe is "more skilled" than player X, but it isn't really true when talking about Bird of all people. Is Kobe more skilled than anyone playing today? Arguably yes (though KG and Duncan are right there). But more skilled than Bird? Nope.
i assumed the poster meant that kobe had more natural ability / athleticism when he said that because of the "explosiveness" he added. kobe is certainly more athletic than larry. i don't think anybody has ever had the all-around basketball skills that larry did - at least nobody i've seen. the timing, coordination, vision, shot-making ability, grit, leadership, clutchness, and just straight up shooting, passing, and rebounding combination he brought were unreal (and had to be for him to succeed without the explosiveness). i do think lebron has the chance to knock him off the top sf ever pedestal though with the insane physicality he brings to the position. i really don't think we've seen his upper-limits yet.

[Carbine]

Just because Duncan never put up a truly dominant regular season as far as stats go is not something that should hold a lot of weight. He realized from a young age that in order to be a champion, you need to let the players around you develop in the regular season so that when their number is called when it matters, in the playoffs, they will have the confidence to get the job done.

Jordan was too busy jacking up numerous shots and dominating the basketball in his early days which attribute to his godly stats. The individual numbers for Jordan were downright eye-poping, but as he grew as a player and started trusting his teammates more and more his stats started to go down - not because his talent and individual game declined, but because he started to grasp the idea of letting your teammates do some of the lifting.

It's like we're deminishing Duncan' ability to let his teammates take on a certain role, even though Duncan himself was capable of more then his stats would lead you to believe.

I'm pretty sure the most FGA per game Duncan has ever shot in one season was around 17. If he were to have a different personality/mindset of going out there to get his are you really questioning that he could not put up a dominant per game average season?

If we want to bring up actual stats, let's look at some of Duncan' playoff series stats. You know, when it really matters.

VS Dallas in '01

27 PPG
2 BPG
17.5 RPG
3.6 APG

Vs. SEA in '02

25.75PPG
5.5 APG
11. RPG
5.75 BPG

Vs. LAL in '02

29.4 PPG
3.2 BPG
4.6 APG
17.2 RPG

Vs DAL in '03

28 PPG
3 BPG
5.8 APG
16.7 RPG

Vs. NJN in '03 Finals

24.2 PPG
5.3 BPG
5.3 APG
17 RPG

Vs DAL in '06

32.3 PPG
2.6 BPG
3.7 APG
11.7 RPG

Vs PHX in '07 (last year)

26.8 PPG
4.2 BPG
1.2 APG
15.7 RPG


Will you please STFU about regular season "number" dominance and stop acting like that's some sort of knock of Duncan' game. He's proven that he can put up HUGE numbers in the playoffs

[John Starks]

Vs. NJN in '03 Finals

24.2 PPG
5.3 BPG
5.3 APG
17 RPG



After this series K-Mart caleld out his teammates for not showing up. What showing up did K-Mart do to resist this? Maybe he could've stopped a few of those 17rebounds.

5.3 blocks -- and this was not a short series. Its not like duncan had a 10block game that distorted a 4 gasme series. This was 6 games....and TD was basically alone this series.

[Psileas]

Just because Duncan never put up a truly dominant regular season as far as stats go is not something that should hold a lot of weight. He realized from a young age that in order to be a champion, you need to let the players around you develop in the regular season so that when their number is called when it matters, in the playoffs, they will have the confidence to get the job done.

Jordan was too busy jacking up numerous shots and dominating the basketball in his early days which attribute to his godly stats. The individual numbers for Jordan were downright eye-poping, but as he grew as a player and started trusting his teammates more and more his stats started to go down - not because his talent and individual game declined, but because he started to grasp the idea of letting your teammates do some of the lifting.

It's like we're deminishing Duncan' ability to let his teammates take on a certain role, even though Duncan himself was capable of more then his stats would lead you to believe.

I'm pretty sure the most FGA per game Duncan has ever shot in one season was around 17. If he were to have a different personality/mindset of going out there to get his are you really questioning that he could not put up a dominant per game average season?

If we want to bring up actual stats, let's look at some of Duncan' playoff series stats. You know, when it really matters.

.
.
.

Will you please STFU about regular season "number" dominance and stop acting like that's some sort of knock of Duncan' game. He's proven that he can put up HUGE numbers in the playoffs

The thing is, most of Duncan's All-Time top-10 opponents produced at least simularly dominant playoff numbers and dominated more in the regular season. Larry Bird had plenty of 25/7/7 (or more) series. Magic plenty of 18/7/12 ones. Shaq plenty of 30/10 ones. And all of them were (at least arguably) more dominant in the regular season. So, again, why pick Duncan above each of them?

[Brunch@Five]

Will you please STFU about regular season "number" dominance and stop acting like that's some sort of knock of Duncan' game. He's proven that he can put up HUGE numbers in the playoffs

I will not STFU, because Duncan is compared to the best that ever played the game. That dominated their competition, were head and shoulders above the rest of the league. PLUS they stepped their game up in the playoffs. In terms of accomplishments, Duncan has everything the consensus top 7 (MJ, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Russel, Shaq) has. What he does not have is absolute dominance, over an extended period of time. 26/13 is almost a joke when you compare it to the best seasons of other great centers like Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, DRob etc.

You can use your "but its for the TEAM!" argument when you compare him to his contemporary competition, but on an all-time scale with the players I mentioned.

[Carbine]

I'm sure Magic & Bird had dominant playoff series, along with Shaq. I would not expect anything less from three of the top 10 players in my book.

I was just pointing out that while Duncan does not have a historically great statistical regular season, it's not because he couldn't achieve it, moreso he chose not to.

If he treated the regular season like the playoffs there is no doubt in my mind he could put up a season (stat-wise) that would compare to some of the very best a big man put up.

(Wilts 50/20 season not withstanding)

[Brunch@Five]

I'm sure Magic & Bird had dominant playoff series, along with Shaq. I would not expect anything less from three of the top 10 players in my book.

I was just pointing out that while Duncan does not have a historically great statistical regular season, it's not because he couldn't achieve it, moreso he chose not to.

If he treated the regular season like the playoffs there is no doubt in my mind he could put up a season (stat-wise) that would compare to some of the very best a big man put up.

(Wilts 50/20 season not withstanding)


The simply fact is that he did NOT put up even one historically great season. coulda shoulda woulda is something Kobe fanatics use as excuses

[dejordan]

I'm sure Magic & Bird had dominant playoff series, along with Shaq. I would not expect anything less from three of the top 10 players in my book.

I was just pointing out that while Duncan does not have a historically great statistical regular season, it's not because he couldn't achieve it, moreso he chose not to.

If he treated the regular season like the playoffs there is no doubt in my mind he could put up a season (stat-wise) that would compare to some of the very best a big man put up.
i actually like your point, carbine. i do think if you narrow it down to only big series your sort of skewing things. you'd want to look at playoff averages too, but overall we're probably making too big a deal out of stats. my point wasn't so much that duncan couldn't put up better numbers so much as could he give you the sort of numbers that some of the elite did under pressure. his are great. he's in my top ten all time. i'm not sure outside of dominating kenyon martin and dirk that he's shown the ability to just explode out of the gate and carry his team. but it's not his fault that the composition of his team favors a more russell-like approach than a wilt-like approach. great argument.

[Loki]

The simply fact is that he did NOT put up even one historically great season. coulda shoulda woulda is something Kobe fanatics use as excuses

Basically. You need to have at least a couple of truly dominant seasons to show what you're capable of before others can use the "he could have if he wanted to" excuse.

Duncan has had a couple of great seasons, but not legendary ones like the other top 5-7 have.

[John Starks]

Legendary Seasons...Duncan won backtoback MVP's - first guy since MJ.

In 2003 named regular season MVP and the 2003 Finals MVP - only the ninth player to win both MVP awards in the same season. Only the eighth player to win back-to-back NBA MVP honors.

He averaging 23.3 points, 12.9 rebounds, 3.9 assists and 2.93 blocks in 39.3 minutes and shot .513 (714-1392) from the field.

In 2001-02 he averaged 25.5 points, 12.7 rebounds, 3.7 assists and 2.48 blocks in 40.6 minutes while starting all 82 games shooting .508 (764-1504) from the field. He was the fifth player in NBA history to rank among the top five in scoring, rebounding and blocks (joining Abdul-Jabbar, Ewing, Olajuwon and O’Neal). He was the 14th player in league history to finish with 2,000 points and 1,000 rebounds in a season (2,089 and 1,042) and he was the first forward to do so since Bob McAdoo in 1977-78 (so that includes Bird - right?).

Those are some pretty impressive seasons -- some would even say legendary...

compare to Bird and Magic.

Magic's best season was
1986-87 23.9pts on .522 with 6.3rpg, 12.2apg 1.5stls and .4 blks
Bird was
1985-86 29.8pts on .500+ with 10rpg and 6.6apf 1.5 stls and .5 blks
Lets call Duncan's
2002-03 23.3 points (same as Magic) on .513shooting (ballpark), 12.9 rebounds (most), 3.9 assists and 2.93 blocks(most)

So really, the difference between legendary and non-legendary is the assist difference between him and Magic -- what about the huge rebound difference? What about the huge blocked shots difference? Does Duncan get any legend points for that?

[dejordan]

[QUOTE=John Starks]Legendary Seasons...Duncan won backtoback MVP's - first guy since MJ.

In 2003 named regular season MVP and the 2003 Finals MVP - only the ninth player to win both MVP awards in the same season. Only the eighth player to win back-to-back NBA MVP honors.

He averaging 23.3 points, 12.9 rebounds, 3.9 assists and 2.93 blocks in 39.3 minutes and shot .513 (714-1392) from the field.

In 2001-02 he averaged 25.5 points, 12.7 rebounds, 3.7 assists and 2.48 blocks in 40.6 minutes while starting all 82 games shooting .508 (764-1504) from the field. He was the fifth player in NBA history to rank among the top five in scoring, rebounding and blocks (joining Abdul-Jabbar, Ewing, Olajuwon and O

[John Starks]

now i'm not arguing with your point, which is good, but that highlighted piece... you do know that larry probably missed it every year by a very narrow margin while playing a 3 / 4 role (ie defending away from the basket) rather than a 4 / 5 role (always being inside) and sharing board work with mchale, parish, and walton and still having a better overall line with 6+ assists? cause i think that bears mentioning. otherwise i'm with you.

I won't argue that Duncan > Bird. Its a non-sensical argument that cannot be supported in either direction. I think that Bird has a nice edge in court sense (Duncan is elite/Bird was other-worldly) but Duncan has a huge defneisve edge. Bird was a much bettrer scorer. duncan a better rebounder.

But you cannot tell me with a straight face that duncan did not have "legendary" seasons. Just cannot.

[Carbine]

my point wasn't so much that duncan couldn't put up better numbers so much as could he give you the sort of numbers that some of the elite did under pressure.

I've read this numerous times and still fail to see what you mean by "could he give you the sort of numbers that some of the elite did under pressure"

Are you implying that he's not clutch?

[dejordan]

I've read this numerous times and still fail to see what you mean by "could he give you the sort of numbers that some of the elite did under pressure"

Are you implying that he's not clutch?
not at all. for a big man, he's very clutch barring the occassional free throw issue. it's sort of hard to describe what i mean. i guess what i meant to imply by under pressure, is in a series where the opposition decides to load up on the surrounding guys and force you to supply the major bulk of the offense if you want to win.

i actually can't site any examples off the top of my head except for mj. you knew with him that one game a series, when the pressure got big, he'd just win for the team. if it's 38 with the flu or 45 and the game winner with scottie hurt or scoring 55 to win a crucial game 5 (after giving the knicks 54 to keep from dropping 1-3 in the ecfs in 93) and then scoring 9 of the teams 12 in the 4th quarter that won it against the suns while nobody else could do a thing. i guess i never felt that tim showed that ability to keep notching it up to another level when the pressure dictated that he personally had to take over. that might sound like clutch play, but that's not how i see it. i see it as the ability to raise your game when the going really gets tough whether it's a 9 minnute stretch at the end of a game or a whole series.

i just don't know that i've ever seen timmy pushed that way and respond big time. the teams that dared him to go 1 on 1 were sorely outmatched (though he should get credit for stepping up). the ones who doubled him up he had the help to be able to go into distributor tim mode. i'm not saying he couldn't do it, but he honestly is one of the few genuine top ten talents i've seen who could be bothered by one on one d from guys like dikembe, varejo, or rasheed. not that he didn't do what was necessary to win. he always did. just he seems more defendable and a little more reliant on his teammates stepping up and having big games. maybe pressure isn't the right word for that. and as i'm re-reading this it's all very nebulous and lacking in facts. it's just the impression i've developed over the years.

[Brunch@Five]

I won't argue that Duncan > Bird. Its a non-sensical argument that cannot be supported in either direction. I think that Bird has a nice edge in court sense (Duncan is elite/Bird was other-worldly) but Duncan has a huge defneisve edge. Bird was a much bettrer scorer. duncan a better rebounder.

But you cannot tell me with a straight face that duncan did not have "legendary" seasons. Just cannot.

His best seasons sure are great, he's won awards and titles. No one's denying that. But from an individual standpoint... you cannot argue that Duncan has had one season that stacks up to the best ever.

On a sidenote, the only thing Duncan has Bird and Magic beat is defense IMO. Considering their position and teammates, both are relatively speaking better or equal rebounders. I mean, 10 rebounds as the SF with McHale and Parish grabbing 10 each as well? Magic averaging almost 10 rebounds as a PG? Unreal.

[John Starks]

His best seasons sure are great, he's won awards and titles. No one's denying that. But from an individual standpoint... you cannot argue that Duncan has had one season that stacks up to the best ever.

On a sidenote, the only thing Duncan has Bird and Magic beat is defense IMO. Considering their position and teammates, both are relatively speaking better or equal rebounders. I mean, 10 rebounds as the SF with McHale and Parish grabbing 10 each as well? Magic averaging almost 10 rebounds as a PG? Unreal.

Why is Duncan not a better rebounder than thsoe two. He rebounded more by a nice margin (2 per as compared to Larry and double Magic)

He has had seasons that stack up quite nicely to those of Magic and Larry. The counter -argument is that despite grabbing more rebounds, the fact that Magic was a pg and Bird played with McHale actually made them better rebounders. Can we at least say that Duncan doubling magic's rebounds means that he is a better rebounder?

What is the # of rebounds Duncan would need to grab to be a better rebounder than Magic 20 --25? would any number actually survive a "Well Magic played point" argument?

...and what's the counter -argument to the defense? The block difference is straight out rediculous, and for those who watched, we know that TD is a vastly superior defensive player to Magic and Bird even without the stats. Do we just disregard defense?

So how does it not stack up -- he won back-to-back MVP's just like the best who ever played the game did, he was a top 5 in multiple categories, just like the best who ever played the game, he did something that hadn't been done in over 20yrs, and he played immesurable well on defense.

How is it not legendary?

[Brunch@Five]

Duncans's rebounding is average at best, compared to other great big men in history. Bird's 10 rpg as a forward tweener are well above average. Magic's rebounding as a PG is only matched by two others, Kidd and Fat Lever, unless you consider Big O a PG.
13 rpg is nothing special when guys like Shaq and Hakeem got 14/game, Moses got 17 one season IIRC, Kareem 18 etc.
The only things Duncan is really great at is team play and (team) defense. He doesn't score a lot of points, he doesn't rebound at an incredible rate, he doesn't even give as many assists as you would expect from a great team player like him.

[20 Dimes A Game]

This is a great discussion.
Props to OP.

[AI Nuggets3]

ive always said that Bird's rebounding is seriously underrated, even tho he's a double digit rebounder.

guy played with 2 of the greatest bigmen ever and still managed 10rpg. thats the most impressive stat that Larry has.

[Carbine]

Duncan is only an average rebounder "at best" when compared to the great big men? That seems a little curious & I plan to look more into that later tonight when I have spare time.

[John Starks]

Its a funny thing that Bird was this awesome rebounder, who (from what I see) never cracked the top 5, and Duncan is an average rebounder, who only recently fell out of the top 5.

BUT TD IS A PF -- yeah, Bird was a SF. That distinction makes Bird so vastly better -- BUT WHAT ABOUT PARISH!!!! Right, Bird played with other guys who rebounded...somehow Barkely finished top 5 with Malone there.

[John Starks]

Double Post

[Carbine]

Ok, after some research I found the statement of Tim being "average at best" in terms of rebounding when compared to the great big men to be utterly false. It's just another case of someone talking like they know something.

Kareem' rebounding numbers broken down

In two random years (did not pick any year before 1980, to keep it fair) he rebounded 30.3% & 28.6% of the teams rebounds per game.

Shaq's numbers

I picked two seasons that were from his LAL & ORL days to make it fair. He rebounded 28.9% and 25.9% of the teams rebounds per game.

Hakeem' numbers

Used years from his athletic prime (pre '90) and his actual prime to make it fair. He rebounded at a 29.8% and 25.14% clip.

Russell' numbers

Taken from his 23.9 RPG season. He rebounded at a 32% rate.

Tim Duncan' numbers

Taken from two of his better years and this past year. He scored a 28.3%, 29.99% & as of last year was still at 26.05% even though his MPG has dropped below 35.


Tim Duncan stacks up very nicely to all those great big men rebounding the ball. His rebounding per game numbers may not jump out, but his efficiency is RIGHT THERE with the likes of Shaq, Hakeem & Jabbar and somewhat Russell.

I made sure to use years in which all players played a huge amount of minutes (thus using thier prime years as examples) to make it fair. Obviously if I were to pick Jabbar' last seasons in LA it would make for a un-fair comparison.

There you have it folks.

Formula for breaking it down was teams total rebounds for that specific year, divided by 82 to get a per game average. I then used a calculator and punched in 100 divide the team rebounds per game and then I multiplied that answer by the Player A' rebounds per game that year.

Simple huh?

[Psileas]

Russell' numbers

Taken from his 23.9 RPG season. He rebounded at a 32% rate.

You took the 1961 season. I remind you that up to 1968, "team" rebounds were included to the total rebounds for each team, which somewhat inflated the number. The Celtics' players grabbed an actual total of 5,582 boards (opposed to the "official" 6,131 figure), which, after adjusting for minutes, means that Russell actually grabbed 36.2% of his team's rebounds, which is significantly higher than the rest of them (if you don't adjust for minutes, you get 33.5%, ignoring missed games).

[Carbine]

I've always admired Russell' rebounding ability from the footage I saw of him.

Wilt is another guy who rebounded in the 30% or above for most if not all his career.

My post was merely to point out that Duncan' rebounding is just fine when compared to everyone else. Obviously it falls short when compared to Wilt & Russell, but whos didn't? It was a different game back then.

[KWALI]

Man people give TD a lot of credit for the SPURS mentality and team......

[John Starks]

Man people give TD a lot of credit for the SPURS mentality and team......

Considering the Spurs "mentality and team" has been a constant for the last 8 years and the only constant player has been Duncan. Despite 3 ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUPPORTING CASTS the Spurs haven't missed a beat and maintain a style of defense and excellence. Who should we credit?

People discredit some great seasons from TD because he doesn't score 28ppg.

[KWALI]

Considering the Spurs "mentality and team" has been a constant for the last 8 years and the only constant player has been Duncan. Despite 3 ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUPPORTING CASTS the Spurs haven't missed a beat and maintain a style of defense and excellence. Who should we credit?

People discredit some great seasons from TD because he doesn't score 28ppg.


TD came into that team as a PUP and was taught that mentality by four of five current coaches that were players on that 1997 team buddy...that mentality comes from the top... POP and RC BUFORD even further back to guys who POP was an assistant for like Jerry Sloan. Yes TD buyin in and being extremely coachable is a huge factor and allows POP to flex his muscels and a people manager interms of making decisions...

But the mentality existed B4 TD and it will after him....Damn I wish I could put 1988 D-Rob in the League right now to show y'all TD's never been better than him. NEVER

TD is alot like DIrk interms of being a Leader...

[Lebron23]

TD came into that team as a PUP and was taught that mentality by four of five current coaches that were players on that 1997 team buddy...that mentality comes from the top... POP and RC BUFORD even further back to guys who POP was an assistant for like Jerry Sloan. Yes TD buyin in and being extremely coachable is a huge factor and allows POP to flex his muscels and a people manager interms of making decisions...

But the mentality existed B4 TD and it will after him....Damn I wish I could put 1988 D-Rob in the League right now to show y'all TD's never been better than him. NEVER

TD is alot like DIrk interms of being a Leader...

Explain because Duncan is clearly superior than Dirk Nowitzki. I am not even a fan of Duncan but if he is the main player in the Mavericks 2003-04 Roster. The Dallas Mavericks could basically have won a championship ring back then because TD is on the peak of his basketball career.

The difference is Duncan does not choke in crucial situations, and he is not mentally weak to carry his team into a championship series.

Dirk is the better regular season player but you cannot change the fact that Timothy Duncan is a different player in the post season.

He actually outscored rival power forward Dirk Nowitzki 32.2 to 27.1 points in the 2006 NBA playoffs.

[KWALI]

Considering the Spurs "mentality and team" has been a constant for the last 8 years and the only constant player has been Duncan. Despite 3 ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUPPORTING CASTS the Spurs haven't missed a beat and maintain a style of defense and excellence. Who should we credit?

People discredit some great seasons from TD because he doesn't score 28ppg.
They do that for everyone else why should he be the exception? Becuz he's on a good team.....I like when people say he could score more if he wanted to...a lot of players could score more if they wanted to...so what....It's what you do to be effective and with the shots you get and TD...while being the best in teh L right now...doesn't overmatch the greats...he deserves to be mentioned with them but like most in bridge between SHAQ and whoever the next dominating player is he's just a bit under guys like HAKEEM, SHAQ, MJ, RUSSELL, MAGIC, BIRD...He's on teh D-Rob level.....but he won more....half comp, half team.

[KWALI]

Explain because Duncan is clearly superior than Dirk Nowitzki

Despite being the best player on the team from the moment he got there he wasn't always the leader......he's grown into the leadership role but is not a natural vocal leader and the team still looks to POP more as a Leader then him( Avery more of the Mavs leader than DIRK).

[dejordan]

Despite being the best player on the team from the moment he got there he wasn't always the leader......he's grown into the leadership role but is not a natural vocal leader and the team still looks to POP more as a Leader then him( Avery more of the Mavs leader than DIRK).
actually avery was the leader of tim's first title team too. undisputed leader. that was a genuine knock on david i think. just too nice to be the type of leader you needed on a champ team. didn't have that fire.

[KWALI]

actually avery was the leader of tim's first title team too. undisputed leader. that was a genuine knock on david i think. just too nice to be the type of leader you needed on a champ team. didn't have that fire.

Um what do mean actually your not correcting me everyone knows that David Rob aint a leader either...(That doesn't mean TD's a better leader or ever a better talent) he learned over the course of his career but on a team with Avery Johnson only a guy like MJ, Bird, MJ would still be team leader. Nad it's not being NICE GRant HIll is as nice as they come he's still a leader...it's stepping up under pressure and showing some grit and letting people know you expect them to match your intensity...Even TD doesn't do that much but he doesn't have to.......

That's the main reason I wonder how he gets so much credit for that...

[KWALI]

Explain because Duncan is clearly superior than Dirk Nowitzki. I am not even a fan of Duncan but if he is the main player in the Mavericks 2003-04 Roster. The Dallas Mavericks could basically have won a championship ring back then because TD is on the peak of his basketball career.

The difference is Duncan does not choke in crucial situations, and he is not mentally weak to carry his team into a championship series.

Dirk is the better regular season player but you cannot change the fact that Timothy Duncan is a different player in the post season.

He actually outscored rival power forward Dirk Nowitzki 32.2 to 27.1 points in the 2006 NBA playoffs.

So Larry Bird was outscored by Dominique Wilkins in the play-off series what does that mean.....When Kg put up better stats than TD in a series and lost no one says KG outplayed him they say KG just got stats.......Not saying you said that but it's been said......Totally unrelated but I remember when SHAQ and Mourning came into the League the compared them to WILT and RUSSELL and speculated that SHAQ would score more but Alonzo would get the titles...LOL

TD is a better player than DIRK that's not in question I am talking about leadership skills...also interms of stepping up no he doesn't always step up...If Dirk had a Robert Horry on his team he'd have a ring to..(then he'd be clutch in people eyes even though he did nothing different)...A guy who steps up when the entire team is sleeping. But he didn't he had young guys who have never been anywhere he hadn't and he failed...he'll be back if he gets better he could win....

[dejordan]

Um what do mean actually your not correcting me everyone knows that David Rob aint a leader either...(That doesn't mean TD's a better leader or ever a better talent) he learned over the course of his career but on a team with Avery Johnson only a guy like MJ, Bird, MJ would still be team leader. Nad it's not being NICE GRant HIll is as nice as they come he's still a leader...it's stepping up under pressure and showing some grit and letting people know you expect them to match your intensity...Even TD doesn't do that much but he doesn't have to.......

That's the main reason I wonder how he gets so much credit for that...
i'm not correcting you at all. i'm agreeing with you and bringing up that being too nice is not good for a championship caliber leader. you need to be able to call players out and make demands on them. i don't know how effective a guy like hill is as the primary leader on a winning squad. he's a great teammate, and on talent and work ethic alone is going to be high in the pecking order of any team (in his prime), but in my experience watching ball, nba champs need to have guys with an edge leading them.

[KWALI]

i'm not correcting you at all. i'm agreeing with you and bringing up that being too nice is not good for a championship caliber leader. you need to be able to call players out and make demands on them. i don't know how effective a guy like hill is as the primary leader on a winning squad. he's a great teammate, and on talent and work ethic alone is going to be high in the pecking order of any team (in his prime), but in my experience watching ball, nba champs need to have guys with an edge leading them.

Well you don't think Magic was the Showtime Lakers Leader? Or you think he just have significantly more edge than GH?

Id Agree with either but I don't kow how important that is. Unfortunatley becuz GH never had a squad we will never know about him......But I think he could have may have needed a BEN WALLACE to be an enforcer etc....

And I guess the biggest winners being Russell and MJ (guys with severe edge almost abrasive) Makes your point but you also get guys who are called Bad leaders for being abrasive...

[Carbine]

TD is alot like DIrk interms of being a Leader

Do you really believe that?

Have you ever seen Duncan yell/throw a hissy fit at one of his players like Dirk did with Terry after Nash hit that three-pointer in the playoffs a few years ago?

[KWALI]

Do you really believe that?

Have you ever seen Duncan yell/throw a hissy fit at one of his players like Dirk did with Terry after Nash hit that three-pointer in the playoffs a few years ago?

Being a lot like someone is not being exactly the same and doesn't mean you will have the exact same reaction to everything. I explained exactly how their path to becoming team leaders is the same and how they are both reliant on really strong leadership at the top (GM, COACH) interms of leading by example (they fall into line as the SUPERSTAR player so other guys no that they gotta be on even a shorter leash)...But they themselves are not that vocal or even concerned with leading naturally...they just play. Do I believe DIrk is more of a B.I.T.C.H than Duncan...Yes. But when I see Duncan at times i see the lady of that ni66a.

You compare BOSh and Dirk even though they are nothing alike just becuz both lack a power game....They are stylistical different and have different advanatages that make them good yet you said they are very simliar....

So you are not the one to make this comment...

again Dirks will shoot more threes this season than BOSH hasl in his career yet you say they have simliar playing styles.

[John Starks]

They do that for everyone else why should he be the exception?

He's not an exception - but he should be given credit for the rest of his game, no? The rest of his game is so fine and so legendary, that now we're having as debate over whether he has had any "legendary seasons' but the only knock on any of his stats is that he only scored 23ppg.

I'm not sure he could score more, he is not an all-time great scorer, he needs to be given the ball, and the all timegreat scoring avg players (besides Wilt who no one can compare to) always have the ball.

But, why is it that Bird's extra few ppg is >>>> Duncan's defense. why are Birds fewer rebouinds actually better? Whyare magic's 6 rpg >> than TD 3.5 apg and his blocks and his well above "other legends" defense - asdie from Russell?


Becuz he's on a good team.....I like when people say he could score more if he wanted to...a lot of players could score more if they wanted to...so what....It's what you do to be effective and with the shots you get and TD...while being the best in teh L right now...doesn't overmatch the greats...he deserves to be mentioned with them but like most in bridge between SHAQ and whoever the next dominating player is he's just a bit under guys like HAKEEM, SHAQ, MJ, RUSSELL, MAGIC, BIRD...He's on teh D-Rob level.....but he won more....half comp, half team.

Why do we have to pretend that Duncan is not the heart and soul of the best team of this decade and the reason why they work?

Well, his teammates have always been good! Really? He's never won less than 50 games, he's only been knocked out the 1st round once, but he's just the lucky SOB who with 20 different starters always has these good players? The front office should win some kind of life-time acheivement award.

Its also pretty remarkable how the front office manages to find these gems in the lone good spot of their careers - guys lke Malik Rose (so good in SA but not NY - lucky Duncan), Rasho (so good in SA but so bad everywhere else), Nazr (he was so good on the Spurs, yet no time on the Pistons), Claxton, Oberto,

I don't know another player who was so lucky to have a front office that brought in so many different players and have them all be so good.

Why isn't it duncan the heart and soul of the best team of the decade? Why isn't that just accepted as truth?

[dejordan]

Well you don't think Magic was the Showtime Lakers Leader? Or you think he just have significantly more edge than GH?

Id Agree with either but I don't kow how important that is. Unfortunatley becuz GH never had a squad we will never know about him......But I think he could have may have needed a BEN WALLACE to be an enforcer etc....

And I guess the biggest winners being Russell and MJ (guys with severe edge almost abrasive) Makes your point but you also get guys who are called Bad leaders for being abrasive...
magic was a bubbly, smily dude, but he could get in a guy's face and scream too. i've heard some stories about him really balling guys out in the lockerrooms.

it's true hill never really had the squad. though even at duke i think laettner's fire (and in a way his horrible arrogance) was a real strength of that team. but hill was a rook or a soph then so it's not really telling to his character that the player of the year was more of a leader than him.

[Brunch@Five]

Ok, after some research I found the statement of Tim being "average at best" in terms of rebounding when compared to the great big men to be utterly false. It's just another case of someone talking like they know something.

Kareem' rebounding numbers broken down

In two random years (did not pick any year before 1980, to keep it fair) he rebounded 30.3% & 28.6% of the teams rebounds per game.

Shaq's numbers

I picked two seasons that were from his LAL & ORL days to make it fair. He rebounded 28.9% and 25.9% of the teams rebounds per game.

Hakeem' numbers

Used years from his athletic prime (pre '90) and his actual prime to make it fair. He rebounded at a 29.8% and 25.14% clip.

Russell' numbers

Taken from his 23.9 RPG season. He rebounded at a 32% rate.

Tim Duncan' numbers

Taken from two of his better years and this past year. He scored a 28.3%, 29.99% & as of last year was still at 26.05% even though his MPG has dropped below 35.


Tim Duncan stacks up very nicely to all those great big men rebounding the ball. His rebounding per game numbers may not jump out, but his efficiency is RIGHT THERE with the likes of Shaq, Hakeem & Jabbar and somewhat Russell.

I made sure to use years in which all players played a huge amount of minutes (thus using thier prime years as examples) to make it fair. Obviously if I were to pick Jabbar' last seasons in LA it would make for a un-fair comparison.

There you have it folks.

Formula for breaking it down was teams total rebounds for that specific year, divided by 82 to get a per game average. I then used a calculator and punched in 100 divide the team rebounds per game and then I multiplied that answer by the Player A' rebounds per game that year.

Simple huh?

too simple actually, and faulty logic. If Duncan was a better rebounder, wouldn't his team get more total rebounds? Share of his teams total rebounds cannot be used. I used the share of the league average, and Shaq got 32% in his best season, Duncan only 30%. Hakeem had 32.5%, Moses 34% in his best overall season, 39% in his best rebounding season. Kareem got 35.5%.

[Carbine]

If Duncan was a better rebounder, wouldn't his team get more total rebounds?

Do you understand the word evolution? The game in the 80's was a fast game that led to more rebound oppurtunities for each team - thus why the total rebounds back then were around 3800-4000 per season.

The 90's became a bit slower with teams only averaging around 3600-3800

Now the league is much slower and it's not rare to have teams rebound at 3300 to 3500 per year.

Remember, I never said Duncan was a "better" rebounder than Hakeem, Shaq, etc... but the statement that you made was false. Average at best? He's RIGHT THERE with them.

[mjbulls23]

kobe goes all the way under the basket and dunks on the other side. bird would have to lay that up, so it's not as good. and kobe can get up enough shots to pass the 80 pt mark. everyone else blows. duh.


how old are you?

[dejordan]

how old are you?
sarcasm, pal. it was sarcasm. and i turn 30 in february.

[mjbulls23]

sarcasm, pal. it was sarcasm. and i turn 30 in february.


oh...... man you fooled me.......................... :roll:

[Brunch@Five]

Do you understand the word evolution? The game in the 80's was a fast game that led to more rebound oppurtunities for each team - thus why the total rebounds back then were around 3800-4000 per season.

The 90's became a bit slower with teams only averaging around 3600-3800

Now the league is much slower and it's not rare to have teams rebound at 3300 to 3500 per year.

Remember, I never said Duncan was a "better" rebounder than Hakeem, Shaq, etc... but the statement that you made was false. Average at best? He's RIGHT THERE with them.

no, he's not "right there with them". As I've shown, he's considerably worse as a rebounder. I've proven that. Also, my formula takes the league average of that season into account, so you cannot pull the "era-card". Ben Wallace in his best season had a 36% share. Garnett had a 33% share. Wilt's share in '62 was 39%.

Era has nothing to do with it

you obviously don't understand what I was talking about. Surely DUncan is a great rebounder compared to his contemporaries. But he just doesn't rebound as well as other great big men did. His rebounding is about equal to that of Ewing, DRob. But he is not on the same tier as guys like Shaq, Barkley, Hakeem, let alone Moses, Kareem, Wilt.

tier 1

Wilt, Kareem, Russel, Moses

tier 2

Barkley, Shaq, Hakeem

tier 3

Duncan, Ewing, Robinson

[John Starks]

no, he's not "right there with them". As I've shown, he's considerably worse as a rebounder. I've proven that. Also, my formula takes the league average of that season into account, so you cannot pull the "era-card". Ben Wallace in his best season had a 36% share. Garnett had a 33% share. Wilt's share in '62 was 39%.

Era has nothing to do with it

...but I beleive, the argument is that Bird was a great rebounder and Duncan was about average...the difference being the difference between a pf and a sf.

Now, we're comparing Duncan to C's - where he should be compared to pf.

Now I don't understand the fancy math -- I see that TD had more rpg than Bird, so he's a better rebounder - you want to argue that Bird was a better rebounder for his position. So, you gotta do the math for Bird v. SF in his era and TD v. pf's in his era...and even that is inaccurate because to TD's detriment because sf's usually swing with sg's and pf's usually swing with c's.

But - the Duncan doubters like to deflate his achievements, so in order to do that with less inaccuracy, that's the comparison you gotta do.

[Carbine]

League average? Talk about flawed logic.

The Spurs are known to play a slow-paced game, have been for all of Duncan' years there.

Slower pace = less shots, which means less rebounding oppurtunities. Yet we should use the league average? Why not take the TEAM average, you know, the team that the player actually played on, and use that?

Honestly. I can't be the only one with a logical brain, right?

Who's with me?

[dejordan]

...but I beleive, the argument is that Bird was a great rebounder and Duncan was about average...the difference being the difference between a pf and a sf.

Now, we're comparing Duncan to C's - where he should be compared to pf.

Now I don't understand the fancy math -- I see that TD had more rpg than Bird, so he's a better rebounder - you want to argue that Bird was a better rebounder for his position. So, you gotta do the math for Bird v. SF in his era and TD v. pf's in his era...and even that is inaccurate because to TD's detriment because sf's usually swing with sg's and pf's usually swing with c's.

But - the Duncan doubters like to deflate his achievements, so in order to do that with less inaccuracy, that's the comparison you gotta do.
did anybody actual say that duncan was anything less than an exceptional rebounder? i think i started all this non-sense by saying that the reason larry never had a 2000 pt 1000 brd season was that he spent a lot of time on the perimeter and sharing boards with gumby and the chief, not to say that he was actually better than duncan at it, just that he would probably also have achieved that arbitrary feat in his prime if he wasn't on such a gigantic team. timmy's a great rebounder all time and obviously had a bigger impact on the boards than either magic or larry despite what they "could" potentially have done.

[Brunch@Five]

League average? Talk about flawed logic.

The Spurs are known to play a slow-paced game, have been for all of Duncan' years there.

Slower pace = less shots, which means less rebounding oppurtunities. Yet we should use the league average? Why not take the TEAM average, you know, the team that the player actually played on, and use that?

Honestly. I can't be the only one with a logical brain, right?

Who's with me?

Isn't it obvious that when you have a better rebounder on your team, your team will get more total rebounds?

Also, on 05-06, Phoenix, the team playing at the fastes pace, got a whopping 29 more rebounds over the whole season. P

[John Starks]

did anybody actual say that duncan was anything less than an exceptional rebounder? i think i started all this non-sense by saying that the reason larry never had a 2000 pt 1000 brd season was that he spent a lot of time on the perimeter and sharing boards with gumby and the chief, not to say that he was actually better than duncan at it, just that he would probably also have achieved that arbitrary feat in his prime if he wasn't on such a gigantic team. timmy's a great rebounder all time and obviously had a bigger impact on the boards than either magic or larry despite what they "could" potentially have done.

your answer


Duncans's rebounding is average at best, compared to other great big men in history. Bird's 10 rpg as a forward tweener are well above average. ...

The only things Duncan is really great at is team play and (team) defense. He doesn't score a lot of points, he doesn't rebound at an incredible rate, he doesn't even give as many assists as you would expect from a great team player like him.

[dejordan]

your answer
touche.

[Brunch@Five]

your answer

please tell me how Duncan's rebounding is better than average on an all-time scale? He ain't no Moses, Chuckster, KG on the boards. The comparisons I draw are in elite company. But you you guys are making a case for him being on Bird, Hakeem, Shaq level.

I repeat, I'm not saying he's an average rebounder. He is an exceptional rebounder compared to the whole league. But compared to the best big men ever, he's an average rebounder. An average scorer. An average shot blocker. An above average passer. Only thing he's exceptional at is team play and team defense.
Shaq is an exceptional scorer, above average rebounder, an above average shot blocker, above average in team play and team defense.
Hakeem is an above average scorer, rebounder, passer, an exceptional shot blocker and defender.
Kareem is an exceptional scorer, rebounder, passer and shot blocker, and average defender.

Get what I'm saying?

[KWALI]

He's not an exception - but he should be given credit for the rest of his game, no? The rest of his game is so fine and so legendary, that now we're having as debate over whether he has had any "legendary seasons' but the only knock on any of his stats is that he only scored 23ppg.
Again, so what? It's a legit observation. Just like if someone says KG's never scored 28 a season....it's not only becuz he didn't want to it's also becuz he/the Spurs wouldn't be effective doing it.




But, why is it that Bird's extra few ppg is >>>> Duncan's defense. why are Birds fewer rebouinds actually better? Whyare magic's 6 rpg >> than TD 3.5 apg and his blocks and his well above "other legends" defense - asdie from Russell?


I am not defending those flawed points I never alluded to any of them simply pointed out that as great as TD is he is a PRODUCT of the SPURS organization D-ROB went to him as a ROokie to workout with him...that's teh kind of team and organization he joined...Stick TD as a rook on teh KNICKS totally different situation...you disagree...you're wrong...You believe he is the constant...that made Malik Rose good...not at all Malik Rose lost his quickness ....being undersized means if you lose quickness you have trouble adapting and being effective.see (Larry Johnson, LaPHonso Ellis etc )....Guys like TD who are bigger than the guy covering them can lose quickness and not have it mean as much.



Why do we have to pretend that Duncan is not the heart and soul of the best team of this decade and the reason why they work?


That he is....but that doesn't mean that the uniquely talented players picked up in the second round should be credited to him, nor that the organization that taught him this philosophy should garner no credit....TD is the SPURS but he didn't make the SPURS....



Well, his teammates have always been good! Really? He's never won less than 50 games, he's only been knocked out the 1st round once, but he's just the lucky SOB who with 20 different starters always has these good players? The front office should win some kind of life-time acheivement award.

Um how many 50 win teams did that SPURS have b4 he got there...Oh yeah they won 50 every year...so I not sure how it is TD made them 50 game winning team it's something old hat for the SPURS


Its also pretty remarkable how the front office manages to find these gems in the lone good spot of their careers - guys lke Malik Rose (so good in SA but not NY - lucky Duncan), Rasho (so good in SA but so bad everywhere else), Nazr (he was so good on the Spurs, yet no time on the Pistons), Claxton, Oberto,

Oberto isn't that good...Rasho has just slowed down was never that good only there sparringly..Nazr is already playing well somewhere else....and Stepen Jackson is a quasi All-Star.




I don't know another player who was so lucky to have a front office that brought in so many different players and have them all be so good.

Why isn't it duncan the heart and soul of the best team of the decade? Why isn't that just accepted as truth?

He is but not by much and the time spans to different Decades where two other teams were more dominant...so it doesn't spell out TD Rules...but it's close. If the Lakers Threepeat didn't start this decade it would have worked out better.

[John Starks]

Um how many 50 win teams did that SPURS have b4 he got there...Oh yeah they won 50 every year...so I not sure how it is TD made them 50 game winning team it's something old hat for the SPURS



In the entire history of the Spurs, Pre-Duncan, they had two seasons of a record of .700+, 0 titles and I think 1 trip to the WCF.

In the decade that Duncan has been there they have had 7 seasons of .700+ and a .683 for good measure...plus 4 titles.

Boy, TD is lucky that the spurs have carried him all this way.

and to the "But compared to the best big men ever, [Duncan]'s an average rebounder....Shaq is an above average rebounder."

Lets pretend that era matters for a second and look at Shaq v. TD in the yearsthey had in common:

99-00 Shaq 13.6; Duncan 12.4
00-01 Shaq 12.7; Duncan 12.2
01-02 Shaq 10.7; Duncan 12.7
02-03 Shaq 11.1; Duncan 12.9
03-04 Shaq 11.5; Duncan 12.4
04-05 shaq 10.5; Duncan 11.1

They are at least equal - if TD isn't better.

Good thing the Spurs get him all those rebounds.

[John Starks]

Stick TD as a rook on teh KNICKS totally different situation...you disagree...you're wrong...

You put TD on the kNicks in 1998, with Ewing and that team in place, they'd have won a title THAT YEAR and the next year and probably a few years after that.

[KWALI]

You put TD on the kNicks in 1998, with Ewing and that team in place, they'd have won a title THAT YEAR and the next year and probably a few years after that.
Maybe that season..but that's about it...Ewing was near the end...although him and Camby would have been nice.

But would he have stopped the debacle that has happened since? NO and that's where you are giving him to much credit he would have been coming into a vet team on those KNICKS but it would have deteriorated becuz the head office sucks.....U are saying no TD is so good anyone scrub from anywhere becomes good playing with him so the decisions they make wouldn't matter...........

But if you want a scenario where TD has zero rings becuz of front office ineptitude put him on the Hornets or Grizzlies...

[Thorpesaurous]

I would have loved to have gotten in here before the 11 page mark. It's almost like everything has been said now, and at the same time there's too much to respond to.

Anyway, I just thought that it should be pointed out that for the first time in board history, rather than a thread about something else turn into a Kobe thread, a Kobe thread turned into a thread about something else.

Congratulations guys.

[KWALI]

In the entire history of the Spurs, Pre-Duncan, they had two seasons of a record of .700+, 0 titles and I think 1 trip to the WCF.

In the decade that Duncan has been there they have had 7 seasons of .700+ and a .683 for good measure...plus 4 titles.

Boy, TD is lucky that the spurs have carried him all this way.

and to the "But compared to the best big men ever, [Duncan]'s an average rebounder....Shaq is an above average rebounder."

Lets pretend that era matters for a second and look at Shaq v. TD in the yearsthey had in common:

99-00 Shaq 13.6; Duncan 12.4
00-01 Shaq 12.7; Duncan 12.2
01-02 Shaq 10.7; Duncan 12.7
02-03 Shaq 11.1; Duncan 12.9
03-04 Shaq 11.5; Duncan 12.4
04-05 shaq 10.5; Duncan 11.1

They are at least equal - if TD isn't better.

Good thing the Spurs get him all those rebounds.

David Robinson built the SPURS...TD finished them but D-Rob built them and they were just as good in the D-Rob years you wanna change the criteria to 700% becuz I pulled your card on 50 win seasons but that doesn't really matter..I bet those were also during D-Robs tenure which just shows TD has raugmented a wave of excellence he didn't start...and stop quoting me talking about rebounding I never said anything so stupid.

KG has had as much infact more effect on the T-Wolves than TD had on the SPURS....he lifted them from a totally laughable franchise to a respectable one in his career...TD took what was already a really good franchise over the top..

You think acknowledging that the important pieces the threads of the SPURS fabric existed b4 TD is dishonouring him really it just reflects he's smart enough to know a good thing and stick with it.

[John Starks]

Maybe that season..but that's about it...Ewing was near the end...although him and Camby would have been nice.

But would he have stopped the debacle that has happened since? NO and that's where you are giving him to much credit he would have been coming into a vet team on those KNICKS but it would have deteriorated becuz the head office sucks.....U are saying no TD is so good anyone scrub from anywhere becomes good playing with him so the decisions they make wouldn't matter...........

But if you want a scenario where TD has zero rings becuz of front office ineptitude put him on the Hornets or Grizzlies...

You put TD on the Knicks RIGHT NOW (ok at the start of the season) and they'd get to 50 wins.

Think this:
Marb
Crawf
Q
TD
Curry.

Lee of the bench. That team look pretty good.

There isn't a single team in the league that you could add Duncan to and not picture them with 50 wins in the 2nd round. Even take off his corresponding pf and they are still there.

[John Starks]

David Robinson built the SPURS...TD finished them but D-Rob built them and they were just as good in the D-Rob years you wanna change the criteria to 700% becuz I pulled your card on 50 win seasons but that doesn't really matter..I bet those were also during D-Robs tenure which just shows TD has raugmented a wave of excellence he didn't start...and stop quoting me talking about rebounding I never said anything so stupid.


I quoted the rebounding to the guy above you.

They were not just as good. They hit the WCF one - and got mauled - pre-Duncan, since Duncan they've won the WCF 4 times. Theyhad 0 titles pre-Duncan. So how were they just as good?

I changed it to .700 to highlight Duncan's excellence. Pre-Td they hit .50 4 times, post (not including the shortened season) they've hit it 9 times. TD is MUCH MUCH better and he may not have been the first Spur to see the playoffs, but he won them those titles

TD made the Spurs - the greatest org in the league, not viceversa.

[KWALI]

You put TD on the Knicks RIGHT NOW (ok at the start of the season) and they'd get to 50 wins.

Think this:
Marb
Crawf
Q
TD
Curry.

Lee of the bench. That team look pretty good.

There isn't a single team in the league that you could not add Duncan to and not picture them with 50 wins in the 2nd round. Even take off his corresponding pf and they are still there.

But not win titles....and you'd have to give up a good player to add TD buddy..lol you funny contractually if for no other reason...Again TD is the best right now and he's the SPURS...But he didn't turn around a crappy franchise your talking about a franchise that had been consistentlya WCF threat every year.....gets lucky tanks and gets the best player since SHAQ...they should ahve been expected to win titles.....He's carried it over but he isn't the biggest factor in that carry over the organization deserves credit as well becuz where others have failed to be frugal and wise the Spurs have been just that.....

As a Knick fan you failing to see this is hilarious

[John Starks]

But not win titles....and you'd have to give up a good player to add TD buddy..lol you funny contractually if for no other reason...Again TD is the best right now and he's the SPURS...But he didn't turn around a crappy franchise your talking about a franchise that had been consistentlya WCF threat every year.....gets lucky tanks and gets the best player since SHAQ...they should ahve been expected to win titles.....He's carried it over but he isn't the biggest factor in that carry over the organization deserves credit as well becuz where others have failed to be frugal and wise the Spurs have been just that.....

As a Knick fan you failing to see this is hilarious

Listen, you think its a britlliant organization - I think the organization's job is easy a **** and since they have the best player onthe planet wh was built ot win.

As a Knick fan, i am jealous. Even Layden could not screw up a Duncan era.

[KWALI]

I quoted the rebounding to the guy above you.

They were not just as good. They hit the WCF one - and got mauled - pre-Duncan, since Duncan they've won the WCF 4 times. Theyhad 0 titles pre-Duncan. So how were they just as good?

I changed it to .700 to highlight Duncan's excellence. Pre-Td they hit .50 4 times, post (not including the shortened season) they've hit it 9 times. TD is MUCH MUCH better and he may not have been the first Spur to see the playoffs, but he won them those titles

TD made the Spurs - the greatest org in the league, not viceversa.
TD is the crowning achievement in an ascending franchise..he didn't turn them into perenial favorites they(the SPURS) were the favourites when they didn't make the Finals...TD made them CHampions that is fair but they weren't trash b4 him..that is just incorrect.

Unfortunately if you don't play at a simliar time or against similar comp you cannot use results as a justifier after all their first two Championships were basically the same teams that lost in the WCF just aged and adding TD.....But HIS team the team that beat the Cavs and the Pistons are not better than the Prime D-Rob..Cummings... Elliot..Avery...Spurs....

If they had to beat Dream Rockets to get to the Finals I don't think they make it...of course you would disagree I also don't think they beat Orlando but they could beat Ewing's Knicks..

[KWALI]

Listen, you think its a britlliant organization - I think the organization's job is easy a **** and since they have the best player onthe planet wh was built ot win.

As a Knick fan, i am jealous. Even Layden could not screw up a Duncan era.

He(Layden) wouldn't make them crappy but they wounldn't win rings...TD doesn't guarantee rings...its just not true..Their job easy interms of being good...but not the best...they aren't simply the best becuz they have the best player....becuz he's not head and shoulders above everyone else...He's not MJ.....What makes them really good (I think short of Brilliant...is how they have stayed away from being stupid and making decisions that avoid detracting from that great asset they have in TD.....If you don't see how not getting Ricky Davis or how picking up Michael FInley etc is smart on teh org not TD...then I will just call you a lost cause and foret it.

If you really think the SPURs were that bad b4 TD then the Knicks were never good becuz they were basically as good as the KNICKS or better during the same time...

lates

[dwade3ai3]

Kobe won't even be a top 12 player ever, how is he getting into the top 7?

[Make It Rain]

[QUOTE=BULLS]Kobe is easily, easily top 15 right now. That

[IGOTGAME]

Bird won 3 straight MVP's and had many wondering aloud if he was the GOAT in the mid-80's. This is while Magic, Moses, KAJ, Barkley, Jordan, Dream, Isiah etc. were all playing. That's dominance. And his '87 and '88 seasons (the 2 years after his last MVP award) might have been even better than his 3 MVP seasons individually.

Kobe would have to win at least 3 MVP's, 2 Finals MVP's, and finish top 3 in MVP voting at least 6-8 times. He'd also have to win at least 2 rings as the best player on his team.

this is interesting. Kobe may not win 3 MVPs but 2 is possible. he already has the rest though. wonder if Oldschool still believes this?

[Disaprine]

no he won't.

[ZaaaaaH]

GG

Kobe Proved all ya fools wrong in 3 years.

Look how many haters just on this tread.

Kobe cant win again :no: :roll:

Kobe OWNED ya