[QUOTE=Rysio]bird easily. bird is a legend he could do anything on the court. only thing duncan can do is play defense the rest of his game is average at best.[/QUOTE]
:lol
Printable View
[QUOTE=Rysio]bird easily. bird is a legend he could do anything on the court. only thing duncan can do is play defense the rest of his game is average at best.[/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You either didn't watch Bird or haven't paid attention to Duncan to think it's absurd to say Duncan.
I could give you a ton of reasons, but winning 4 titles and winning 50 or more games 14 consecutive years (never been done before...previous high was 12)...all while playing with by far the least amount of help any superstar to win that amount has had...I'll take Duncan.
I can't even imagine what the results would have been like if Duncan had played on teams even close to as talented as Bird's Celtics.[/QUOTE]
They don't win in 81, much less in 84.
Duncan has been a much different player since 2005. You could take the injuries that he kept hushed when going back to 2005, but since then his role and option status has been the been one of the guys on the team, in an equal opportunity offense. Which is fine, Jordan had the same thing happen in 1991. But his court status was still the #1 guy. Duncan was the best player and a player within the system. From 2005/06 on he was nowhere near the same player. The offense did not go thru him the same way and he didn't have the level of responsibility that is associated with his peak. He always played the right way but he was much more conservative from then on. Honestly, a valid reason (as justification) could very well have been not having Robinson next to him and instead of having Nesterovic, then Oberto, and also backups who weren't that good. Of course, much of this would have been avoided if he moved to center, but I digress...
Duncan straight up is not close to Bird. And the thought is ridiculous. He has a list of accomplishments that make it sound valid but he's float out not as good and didn't have as much impact. He has more longevity, but not enough to discount that Bird was easily a better player. Bird had better teams and he also had more than twice the competition. If Duncan was on teams as good as the ones Bird was on then Duncan wouldn't have stood out as much.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]They don't win in 81, much less in 84.
Duncan has been a much different player since 2005. You could take the injuries that he kept hushed when going back to 2005, but since then his role and option status has been the been one of the guys on the team, in an equal opportunity offense. Which is fine, Jordan had the same thing happen in 1991. But his court status was still the #1 guy. Duncan was the best player and a player within the system. From 2005/06 on he was nowhere near the same player. The offense did not go thru him the same way and he didn't have the level of responsibility that is associated with his peak. He always played the right way but he was much more conservative from then on. Honestly, a valid reason (as justification) could very well have been not having Robinson next to him and instead of having Nesterovic, then Oberto, and also backups who weren't that good. Of course, much of this would have been avoided if he moved to center, but I digress...
Duncan straight up is not close to Bird. And the thought is ridiculous. He has a list of accomplishments that make it sound valid but he's float out not as good and didn't have as much impact. He has more longevity, but not enough to discount that Bird was easily a better player. Bird had better teams and he also had more than twice the competition. If Duncan was on teams as good as the ones Bird was on then Duncan wouldn't have stood out as much.[/QUOTE]
If Bird had that much more impact, it would show in the stats. Maybe you're misguided by looking at raw stats, but when you're looking at pace-adjusted stats, that's simply not the case.
Duncan has been every bit as impactful as Bird, and then some.
And using the "if Duncan had been on teams as good as Bird's"-argument is a boomerang. If Bird's teams were much better than Duncan's and if Bird was a better player than Duncan, then how on earth did Duncan manage to win more titles than Bird? O yeah, because he played in a diluted league and only had to play against weak opponents like the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the Webber/Peja/Divac Kings, the Amare/Nash/Matrix Suns, Dirk's Mavs and some other slouch teams.
At their best, Larry Bird is the better one. It's very very close. But I think it's clear. Although, I think Duncan is the better playoff performer. And it's clearer than Bird being the better player. Remember he never lost a first-round series in his prime? He won it all with one of the weakest casts for a championship team. Aside from 2003 title, his 2001 and 2002 casts wasn't good. Bunch of old perimeter guys, 35+ year old DRob and inexperienced Parker and he made those teams 58W team and 2nd round team. And he was eliminated by the team has one of the best duos in history. The only thing which can be called a choke-job was 2004 playoffs 2nd round series against the Lakers. He was always as good as he's supposed to be. Or even better.
Like I said, Larry Bird is the better when it comes to peaks and he should be ranked higher in goat lists.
But acting like Duncan is nowhere near Larry Bird? That's just wrong.
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest [B]white[/B] basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?[/QUOTE]
Duncan is white? :wtf:
[QUOTE=Odinn]At their best, Larry Bird is the better one. It's very very close. But I think it's clear. Although, I think Duncan is the better playoff performer. And it's clearer than Bird being the better player. Remember he never lost a first-round series in his prime? He won it all with one of the weakest casts for a championship team. Aside from 2003 title, his 2001 and 2002 casts wasn't good. Bunch of old perimeter guys, 35+ year old DRob and inexperienced Parker and he made those teams 58W team and 2nd round team. And he was eliminated by the team has one of the best duos in history. The only thing which can be called a choke-job was 2004 playoffs 2nd round series against the Lakers. He was always as good as he's supposed to be. Or even better.
Like I said, Larry Bird is the better when it comes to peaks and he should be ranked higher in goat lists.
But acting like Duncan is nowhere near Larry Bird? That's just wrong.[/QUOTE]
Was waiting on your take on this too.
I pretty much agree with everything posted.
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest white basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?[/QUOTE]
who has [B]Back-2-back-2-back season MVPs. 3 straight Yrs[/B]. Thats almost 300 games in a row of SHEER DOMINANCE.
Who has [B]2[/B] MVP SWEEPS?
Duncan Failed to DOMINATE his arch rival SHAQ or even non-dominant greats like Kobe, LBJ.
Bird DOMINATED his ARCH RIVAL Magic, when tragic magic was in his prime peak!
[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Duncan is white? :wtf:[/QUOTE]
I can't believe it took someone that long to bring this up. :roll:
[QUOTE=Kovach]I wasn't trying to underrate Duncan, he is one of the all-time greats in my book, I just get agitated by the idea that Bird's success was the reflection of talent he was surrounded by. It was overwhelming team basketball that made Boston a dominant superteam, not individual talents of his team-mates, at least not to an extent people try to present it nowdays.[/QUOTE]
But nobody is saying Bird only won because of his team...I just think it's a little crazy to sit here and not objectively look at what Duncan has done.
4 titles...all 4 without an all nba teammate (about as rare as it gets in NBA history)
14 straight 50 win season (never been done before...2nd highest is 12 by the 80s Lakers)
Can dominate the game on both ends...etc.
I'll say it again. If Duncan had one all of this for the Knicks....things would be different in how he's viewed.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'll say it again. If Duncan had one all of this for the Knicks....things would be different in how he's viewed.[/QUOTE]
No doubt, Duncan would be getting legit Top 3-5 all-time rankings and the Knick fans would be in full force and you would never read or hear the end of it.
Knick fans are crazy enough as it is. One of them even said the Knicks are the greatest NBA franchise last week.
:oldlol:
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]No doubt, Duncan would be getting legit Top 3-5 all-time rankings and the Knick fans would be in full force and you would never read or hear the end of it.
Knick fans are crazy enough as it is. One of them even said the Knicks are the greatest NBA franchise last week.
:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
If Duncan played for the Knicks, without Popovich and without Robinson, and then won 4 titles...that would be different. The Knicks were not a well-run team.
But, just transplanting him to the Knicks...rational people would not start judging him as top 5 because he played for the Knicks.
[B][COLOR="Navy"]The only reason I would take Bird over Duncan is the ferocity he played with.
Other than that Duncan is better because he didnt have the HOF teammates like Bird.[/COLOR][/B]
[QUOTE=Rameek][B][COLOR="Navy"]The only reason I would take Bird over Duncan is the ferocity he played with.
Other than that Duncan is better because he didnt have the HOF teammates like Bird.[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]
robinson, ginobili, parker and pop?
imma come out and say it: tim duncan is a system player. pop made him, and kg will always be better in my eyes.
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]robinson, ginobili, parker and pop?[/QUOTE]
[B][COLOR="Navy"]Yeah these guys were great players coming from Europe? Lets not wax poetic about how these guys developed. TD made that happen.
If you want to say he's a system guy then anyone that won a championship with Phil are system guys.[/COLOR][/B]
[QUOTE=Rameek][B][COLOR="Navy"]Yeah these guys were great players coming from Europe? Lets not wax poetic about how these guys developed. TD made that happen.
If you want to say he's a system guy then anyone that won a championship with Phil are system guys.[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]
oh yeah, duncan made them the players they are. i suppose he had a hand when manu won the gold with argentina :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]oh yeah, duncan made them the players they are. i suppose he had a hand when manu won the gold with argentina :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
I suppose that Greek squad that beat team USA shoulda come to play in the NBA. Seriously how can you possibly point to the Olympics? hahaha
[QUOTE=Dbrog]I suppose that Greek squad that beat team USA shoulda come to play in the NBA. Seriously how can you possibly point to the Olympics? hahaha[/QUOTE]
da fukk r u talking about?
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]oh yeah, duncan made them the players they are. i suppose he had a hand when manu won the gold with argentina :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Navy"][B]Didnt Gino go in the back end of the 2nd round????....hmmmmm
Wasnt Parker a real late 1st or early 2nd round????....hmmmmmm
but yeah they are system guys like anyone that played under Sloan, Pop, Rivers, Red, Phil, etc etc....[/B][/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Rameek][COLOR="Navy"][B]Didnt Gino go in the back end of the 2nd round????....hmmmmm
Wasnt Parker a real late 1st or early 2nd round????....hmmmmmm
but yeah they are system guys like anyone that played under Sloan, Pop, Rivers, Red, Phil, etc etc....[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
oh u steamin, cuz. its my opinion, bruh. there is no need to prove a point. pop made timmy. that is all
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]tim duncan is a system player. pop made him[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://americandigest.org/sidelines/4251-full-retard.jpg[/IMG]
It's funny how people who argue Bird is greater because he was a better player in his prime than Duncan......then completely reverse it when we're talking about, for example....Bird vs Shaq.
Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.
Shaq was a superior rebounder.
Shaq was a superior defender.
BTW, Shaq also has Bird killed in longevity and accolades.
More championships
More FMVP
More AS appearances
Four more All-NBA teams
One more All-Defensive team
....yet basically nobody arguing for Bird because they think he was superior in his prime to Duncan (Woah10115) and disregarding career longevity and achievements completely......would turn around and say Shaq was greater than Bird, even though it's the same reason they chose Bird over Duncan.
Shaq has the edge in longevity and achievements over Bird too, which makes it even more illogical.
Honestly, there are prob only 3-4 player who can claim to have a better peak than Bird as an individual player. His bad back derailed his longevity but at his best Bird was pretty unbelievable.
[QUOTE=Carbine]It's funny how people who argue Bird is greater because he was a better player in his prime than Duncan......then completely reverse it when we're talking about, for example....Bird vs Shaq.
Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.
Shaq was a superior rebounder.
Shaq was a superior defender.
BTW, Shaq also has Bird killed in longevity and accolades.
More championships
More FMVP
More AS appearances
Four more All-NBA teams
One more All-Defensive team
....yet basically nobody arguing for Bird because they think he was superior in his prime to Duncan (Woah10115) and disregarding career longevity and achievements completely......would turn around and say Shaq was greater than Bird, even though it's the same reason they chose Bird over Duncan.
Shaq has the edge in longevity and achievements over Bird too, which makes it even more illogical.[/QUOTE]
A 7'1" 340 pound center averaged more rebounds than a 6'9" muscleless small forward? Stop the presses!
Are you going to bring up fg% and blocked shots next?
Don't act like Shaq was an otherworldy defender either... C'mon son.
I never said Shaq was a great defender, but his IMPACT was clearly more on that side of the ball than Bird.
Shaq was a legit rim protector and great post-defender. Add in the intimidation factor.....and you got more impact than Bird.
Rebounding matters. I don't care who played what position....bottom line is Shaq was clearly better at it.
Three basic areas a player should be graded on - impact as an offensive player, impact as a defensive player, and rebounding.
Duncan didn't captivate fans like Pajaro. Pajaro was one of a kind though. No fault to Tim.
Pajaro was the greatest offensive player imo.
Duncan the greatest defensive player.
Had Duncan played on a faster tempo team his averages would be 28/13. He proved he could get high scoring numbers when it was required.
When both struggled offensively, they both did what was necessary. Duncan took over games defensively. Pajaro took over games with his effort and energy.
Pajaro has the nostalgia advantage.
Duncan almost had a quad double to clinch the championship. Wasn't he robbed of two blocks????
It's close. It's ****ing close.
Duncan is my choice. And I wouldn't say I'm a fan of the guy.
[QUOTE=Carbine]
Rebounding matters.
[/QUOTE]
Bird went toe-to-toe with Moses Malone (a better rebounder than Shaq), which says enough about him rebounding. But Bird was a PF playing as an SF for a lot of his career so people don't exactly remember that.
I like Duncan, he is amongst the best of the 2nd tier of all-time greats but Bird is in the discussion for GOAT. Duncan isn't, and that's the difference.
[QUOTE=LeBird]Bird went toe-to-toe with Moses Malone, which says enough about him rebounding. But Bird was a PF playing as an SF for a lot of his career so people don't exactly remember that.
I like Duncan, he is amongst the best of the 2nd tier of all-time greats but [B][SIZE="3"]Bird is in the discussion for GOAT. Duncan isn't, and that's the difference[/SIZE][/B].[/QUOTE]
/thread.
seriously! Thats the NAIL IN THE COFFIN.
In modern day NBA (1970 - Present) excluding the 50s & 60s & 40s...
Only 3 Players are considered UNQUESTIONABLE GOAT for their ability to either TRANSFORM or TRANSCEND the game forever.
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]1. Michael Jordan[/COLOR][/B]: [B]TRANSENDED[/B] the game forever where the rules are completely changed post MJ era. [U]([I]WHOLE GENERATION COPIES HIM)[/I][/U]
[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]2. Magic Johnson[/B][/COLOR]: [B]TRANSFORMED[/B] the game where modern day [U][I]PURE PLAYMAKING PGs[/I][/U] copy him.
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]3. LARRY BIRD:[/COLOR][/B] [B]TRANFORMED[/B] the game where mordern day [U][I]PURE or POINT FORWARDS[/I][/U] copy him (LBJ, Pippen, T-mac)
Where is dat Tim Duncan in this argument.
NOWHERE!
[QUOTE=LeBird]Bird went toe-to-toe with Moses Malone (a better rebounder than Shaq), which says enough about him rebounding. But Bird was a PF playing as an SF for a lot of his career so people don't exactly remember that.
I like Duncan, he is amongst the best of the 2nd tier of all-time greats but Bird is in the discussion for GOAT. Duncan isn't, and that's the difference.[/QUOTE]
It says enough about him rebounding? If by that you mean still clearly inferior to Shaq in that regard, then yes, yes it does.
[QUOTE=Carbine]It's funny how people who argue Bird is greater because he was a better player in his prime than Duncan......then completely reverse it when we're talking about, for example....Bird vs Shaq.
Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.
Shaq was a superior rebounder.
Shaq was a superior defender.
BTW, Shaq also has Bird killed in longevity and accolades.
More championships
More FMVP
More AS appearances
Four more All-NBA teams
One more All-Defensive team
....yet basically nobody arguing for Bird because they think he was superior in his prime to Duncan (Woah10115) and disregarding career longevity and achievements completely......would turn around and say Shaq was greater than Bird, even though it's the same reason they chose Bird over Duncan.
Shaq has the edge in longevity and achievements over Bird too, which makes it even more illogical.[/QUOTE]
This post is one big fail.
First of all, if you think Shaq had a better peak than Larry Bird, then go ahead and think it. That you're talking like it's the accepted opinion is, in fact, wrong. Choosing a random player where you think it's applicable doesn't prove your point.
I could argue your ridiculous notion that Shaq was a better defender and had more impact. But I won't.
Mostly, your post is really everything that is wrong with the way people rank players nowadays. Your "can't have it both ways" argument has nothing to do with having your own opinion and basing it on basketball play.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]This post is one big fail.
First of all, if you think Shaq had a better peak than Larry Bird, then go ahead and think it. That you're talking like it's the accepted opinion is, in fact, wrong. Choosing a random player where you think it's applicable doesn't prove your point.
Mostly, your post is really everything that is wrong with the way people rank players nowadays. Your "can't have it both ways" argument has nothing to do with having your own opinion and basing it on basketball play.[/QUOTE]
Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.
Shaq was a superior rebounder.
Shaq was a superior defender.
Pretty damn hard to argue otherwise.
Maybe you take the "Bird was a much better passer, dribbler, outside shooter than Shaq" angle but again, the only thing that matters is IMPACT. That's literally the only thing that matters. Not how many things you can do effectively. With that understanding, Shaq is Birds equal as an offensive player.
Defense and rebounding are clear advantages for Shaq.
[QUOTE=Carbine]It says enough about him rebounding? If by that you mean still clearly inferior to Shaq in that regard, then yes, yes it does.[/QUOTE]
It means he was on par with one of the greatest rebounders of all time - someone even better than Shaq on the boards - when asked to so the casual mention that Shaq is better is disingenuous. Shaq was a center, Bird was a PF playing SF and averages only 0.9 rebounds less. And Bird had to contend with Parish and McHale in getting those rebounds.
Duncan is better.He won 4 titles without All-NBA teammate.He controlled every aspect of the game.
7 straight games during the 03 WCSF and 03 WCF
G4 03 WCSF 36/9/5
G5 03 WCSF 27/14/5
G6 03 WCSF 37/16/4/2
G1 03 WCF 40/15/7/1
G2 03 WCF 32/15/5/3
G3 03 WCF 34/24/6/6
G4 03 WCF 21/20/7/4
G1 03 Finals 32/20/6/7
G3 03 Finals 21/16/7/3
G5 03 Finals 29/17/4/4
G6 03 Finals 21/20/10/8
Keep in mind that Duncan's production skyrockets against the NBA's elite.He outscores consistently his peers in the postseason.Duncan outscored Shaq in (1999,2002,2003,2008),Dirk in (2001,2003,2006,2009),Amare (2003,2007,2008) or Garnett (2001)
[QUOTE] [B]Duncan Regular Season Career 20.2 pt,11.2 pt,3.1 as,2.2 blk[/B]
[B]Playoffs Career H2H[/B]
Duncan 25.6 pt (49%),13.0 rb,3.8 as,2.4 blk (Spurs won series 1999,2003,2008)
Shaq 22.4 pt (53%),12.8 rb,2.2 as,2.8 blk (Lakers won series 2001,2002,2004)
Duncan 26.0 pt (54%),12.3 rb,3.6 as,1.9 blk (Spurs won series 2001,2003,2010)
Dirk 24.5 pt (50%), 10.1 rb,2.3 as,0.6 blk (Mavs won series 2006,2009)
Duncan 23.8 pt (53%),13.8 rb,3.0 as,2.9 blk (Spurs won series 2003,2005,2007,2008)
Amare 24.0 pt (51%),9.2 rb,0.9 as,1.8 blk (Suns won series 2010)
Duncan NBA Finals career
[QUOTE=Carbine]Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.
Shaq was a superior rebounder.
Shaq was a superior defender.
Pretty damn hard to argue otherwise.
Maybe you take the "Bird was a much better passer, dribbler, outside shooter than Shaq" angle but again, the only thing that matters is IMPACT. That's literally the only thing that matters. Not how many things you can do effectively. With that understanding, Shaq is Birds equal as an offensive player.
Defense and rebounding are clear advantages for Shaq.[/QUOTE]
Larry Bird was a better offensive player than Shaq. Shaq was naturally more efficient. He wasn't even as good a scorer. Bird was better.
The defense thing is ridiculous and this is one of those things where "period" is inevitable. Shaq played subpar defense for most of his career. He wasn't a "great" post defender. he was very good, but if you put the ball on the floor he'd give up. He is the worst pick n' roll defender I've ever seen. He refused to come out on shooters. Rim-protection isn't shot-blocking. That's one element. Other elements are positioning, anchoring, covering, altering shots thru contests, fundamental play on the block, paint protection, intimidating. Intimidation is not looking at how big Shaq is. Intimidation is Ben Wallace. Intimidating is Dikembe Mutombo...that is personified. Shaq got you on the weak side, he blocked you if you tried to shoot over him. He didn't anchor your defense. He was a great player and a center, so we give him credit as a great defender. There is some revisionism about Bird being a liability, tho he was far too intelligent to get abused by people. Bird was as good a team defender as you'd find, a great post defender, a hustle player, and would make huge plays on D. Bird was better.
Shaq is a better rebounder. He was a center and Bird was a SF. But that's fine. After the last few years I finally understand a reason for people who think Shaq should have been a better rebounder than he was. I thought he was great, but I forgot that he didn't do shit on defense. How many boards would he get if he actually defended? He'd still be a double-double guy, but his rebounding would probably go down. Tho it was great the two years he should have been MVP.
But yes, like you said, Bird is the better passer. He's also the better off-ball player. That might not be important, as Shaq was a center, but just as with rebounds we'll take it into consideration. Bird made players better. He was smarter, more clutch, a better team player, not a stat whore.
Those are much clearer advantages, so you know.
btw i was just juxtin bout timmy being a product of pops. hes in my top 10, but i still feel bird is better, therefore the goat white baller.
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]btw i was just juxtin bout timmy being a product of pops. hes in my top 10, but i still feel bird is better, therefore the goat white baller.[/QUOTE]
Are you really under the impression that he's white?
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]btw i was just juxtin bout timmy being a product of pops. hes in my top 10, but i still feel bird is better, therefore the goat white baller.[/QUOTE]
In today's kiddy NBA era. these people talk about individual accolades.
Duncan swept MVP only once 2003 (reg sea MVP + FMVP in same year)
[B]Bird has done it TWICE (1984 mvp sweep & 1986 MVP sweep).[/B]
& Bird also has 1985 season MVP in the middle.
in other words: [B]ABSOLUTE SHEER DOMINANCE OF AN ERA
1984: Season MVP + FMVP
1985: Season MVP + (NBA Finalist)
1986: Season MVP + FMVP[/B]
When was Duncan even REMOTELY CLOSE TO this kind of SHEER DOMINANCE.
Even Shaq did not DOMINATED in watered down 2000 era.
Anyone saying it's one sided is absolutely wrong. They're very close, but also played completely different styles. On one hand, Larry Bird at his best was basically LeBron James with better rebounding, post play, and elite three point shooting. He also IMO had the highest ball IQ of anyone to ever play. Tim Duncan at his best was arguably the most fundamentally sound big man to ever play and the best passing big along with Chris Webber and Brad Daugherty.
Duncan was obviously the far superior defender. That's not debatable. His 2003 postseason was insane. Bird was the more complete player and at 6'9" 230, could play any position. Their peaks are very close and you could argue for either one. For the final play of a game, I'd rather have Bird. For a game 7, could go either way. For an entire series, I would actually go with Duncan because ultimately, defense is going to win in a best of 7.
In a GOAT list, Bird should be a couple of spots higher. No one has had his ability to know where every player was, his ball IQ, his ability to play all 5 positions(only Charles Barkley comes close), and his ability to put up high numbers across the scoreboard with amazing efficiency. He was a better version of LeBron. A lot of it is going to depend on what your team needs. Can't go wrong with either one though.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]Are you really under the impression that he's white?[/QUOTE]
Duncan is only Half White. TD's daughter is 3/4 white and 1/4 black.
[img]http://ballerwives.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tim-duncan-and-family1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.blackhawkshootingrange.com/BlackhawkShootingRange/Welcome_files/Tim%26Mom.jpg[/img]
Duncan's Grandmother.
[QUOTE=D.J.]Anyone saying it's one sided is absolutely wrong. They're very close, but also played completely different styles. On one hand, Larry Bird at his best was basically LeBron James with better rebounding, post play, and elite three point shooting. He also IMO had the highest ball IQ of anyone to ever play. Tim Duncan at his best was arguably the most fundamentally sound big man to ever play and the best passing big along with Chris Webber and Brad Daugherty.
Duncan was obviously the far superior defender. That's not debatable. His 2003 postseason was insane. Bird was the more complete player and at 6'9" 230, could play any position. Their peaks are very close and you could argue for either one. For the final play of a game, I'd rather have Bird. For a game 7, could go either way. For an entire series, I would actually go with Duncan because ultimately, defense is going to win in a best of 7.
In a GOAT list, Bird should be a couple of spots higher. No one has had his ability to know where every player was, his ball IQ, his ability to play all 5 positions(only Charles Barkley comes close), and his ability to put up high numbers across the scoreboard with amazing efficiency. He was a better version of LeBron. A lot of it is going to depend on what your team needs. Can't go wrong with either one though.[/QUOTE]
Some very good points but I don't agree with everything. He was like LeBron in how he was involved in all facets of the game. But he wasn't ball-dominant and he wasn't the point forward that LeBron is, either.
And Duncan is not the 3rd best passing big man ever. Sabonis, Walton, Kareem, Vlade are all easily better. David Robinson was certainly a better passer and so was Garnett. He was a great passer but not on any shortlist.