Printable View
[QUOTE=Baller1986]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][/QUOTE]
I was thinking...I remember his Wife. She was at the draft with him.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]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.[/QUOTE]
He wasn't ball dominant like LeBron, but LeBron's game is the closest to Bird's. And it can be argued Bird was an equal or better point forward than LeBron though the term really didn't become popular until Scottie Pippen. Actually, here's an article about Bird and playing point forward:
[url]http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/2009/08/01/larry-legend-the-sudden-and-saddening-demise-of-a-basketball-legend/[/url]
They were 29-5 to start and Bird was averaging 19/9/8 in 31 games. This was Bird at 34 with a terrible back. Also remember he did have stretches in the 80's where he did play point forward and was even more dominant in those stretches.
[QUOTE]And Duncan is not the 3rd best passing big man ever. Sabonis, Walton, Kareem, Vlade are all easily better.[/QUOTE]
No they were not all better. Sabonis and Walton are on par for sure. Kareem and Vlade, no. And Daugherty was a better passer than both Kareem and Vlade. Passing ability isn't always in the assist averages, especilly for big men. Guys like Duncan, Daugherty, Sabonis, and Walton made not just nice passes, but the right passes.
[QUOTE]David Robinson was certainly a better passer and so was Garnett. [/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. Duncan was better than both by a good amount.
Hm, never considered Tim Dunkan as a white player - is he ?
Larry Bird is the greatest white player in NBA modern history (after 1979).
About Tim Dunkan - he is center playing PF position - at first due to the presence of David Robinson who at his peak years was better than Dunkan (in terms of talent, numbers). Anyway Dunkan is an unique player - do the simple things, could play at both center and PF position, great playoff performer (when it counts).
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]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.[/QUOTE]
IS THIS REAL LIFE? Anybody who thinks that Shaq wasn't as good a scorer as Bird needs to lay the pipe down right NOW.
Also, stop comparing raw stats. You need to adjust for pace to compare over eras. Bird had NOWHERE NEAR the offensive impact that Shaq had.
Put Shaq on those Celtics teams (and exchange Parish for a SF of similar quality) and its basically GAME OVER for the 80s, not just three meager titles for a team full of HOFers and numerous exits against lower seeded teams.
Stop comparing dominant post scorers to wings that had some post game. Both all time greats, that's not good enough?
[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]
I think you got the 2 players interchanged. Bird plays like robertson and we all knew who robertson was while duncan plays like russell. Thats why bird only won once in his prime while 2 of his rings came when hes not yet statistically dominant. This is duncan easily.
[QUOTE=gengiskhan]/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]
[B][COLOR="Navy"]The NBA was just getting a foothold in popularity. It wasnt even close back then when it came to popularity. NFL, MLB, Boxing... So Magic Bird got it going and Jordan blew it up. This is why they are revered so much. TV time.[/COLOR][/B]
[QUOTE=knicksman]I think you got the 2 players interchanged. Bird plays like robertson and we all knew who robertson was while duncan plays like russell. Thats why bird only won once in his prime while 2 of his rings came when hes not yet statistically dominant. This is duncan easily.[/QUOTE]
Uhh, what? Bird plays like who? No, I don't think you know what you're saying.
[QUOTE=brain drain]IS THIS REAL LIFE? Anybody who thinks that Shaq wasn't as good a scorer as Bird needs to lay the pipe down right NOW.
Also, stop comparing raw stats. You need to adjust for pace to compare over eras. Bird had NOWHERE NEAR the offensive impact that Shaq had.
Put Shaq on those Celtics teams (and exchange Parish for a SF of similar quality) and its basically GAME OVER for the 80s, not just three meager titles for a team full of HOFers and numerous exits against lower seeded teams.[/QUOTE]
:sleeping
[QUOTE=D.J.]He wasn't ball dominant like LeBron, but LeBron's game is the closest to Bird's. And it can be argued Bird was an equal or better point forward than LeBron though the term really didn't become popular until Scottie Pippen. Actually, here's an article about Bird and playing point forward:
[url]http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/2009/08/01/larry-legend-the-sudden-and-saddening-demise-of-a-basketball-legend/[/url]
They were 29-5 to start and Bird was averaging 19/9/8 in 31 games. This was Bird at 34 with a terrible back. Also remember he did have stretches in the 80's where he did play point forward and was even more dominant in those stretches.
[/QUOTE]
I do think Bird did a lot less off the ball after 1989. After he hurt his back he took a lot more ball-handling responsibility...I don't remember who the PG was. His assists even went up. I remember my friend talking about this last year, and I had thought about it a lot before that. You can argue that Bird was his equal there, but the reason I won't is because LeBron did it more.
[QUOTE=D.J.]No they were not all better. Sabonis and Walton are on par for sure. Kareem and Vlade, no. And Daugherty was a better passer than both Kareem and Vlade. Passing ability isn't always in the assist averages, especilly for big men. Guys like Duncan, Daugherty, Sabonis, and Walton made not just nice passes, but the right passes.
[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but I think you're incredibly off-base. In fact, I'm shocked. Sabonis and Walton are flat out much much much much better passers than Duncan is. Vlade was almost comparable with Webber. As far as pure passing you can add Brad Miller to the list. Duncan made the right passes, as you said. They played thru him. But it wasn't the pass, itself, the way it was with the other guys.
[QUOTE=D.J.]Absolutely not. Duncan was better than both by a good amount.[/QUOTE]
No, he was not.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]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.[/QUOTE]
I find it extremely hard to make a case for Bird having more impact as an offensive player. Clearly Bird was a more versatile offensive player, but all that matters is IMPACT.
Shaq destroyed teams defense. He would get the other team in foul trouble, get his team in an early bonus, the most unstoppable force down low, demanded double and triple teams regularly....and since he was a great passer in his prime, he made people around him better by creating wide open looks and wide open driving lanes.
There are two things to judging an offensive player. How well you can score and how effective you are at doing so, and how well you can make your teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.
Shaq did this as well as anyone ever in his prime.
Also, the thing about his defense....a lot of what you said is true regarding when he got older, but we're talking about Shaq at his best. Under those guidelines he was clear cut and dry a more impactful defensive player than Bird. Nobody should question that, not even Birds most obvious homers.
You're being shortsighted. Shaq was a force within himself, but he did not make those around him better players. Bird had that ability to take over a game by himself but his passing and general play, getting teammates involved, make him an incredible attacking threat. Shaq was a great defender on his man, Bird was an amazing team defender.
The thing is, Bird did what he did in a far tougher era, where he usually didn't have the best team in the league. Also, Bird was a far tougher match-up because of his height and skills with his contemporaries than Shaq was with his peers. There were other centers close to him, who could challenge him - and he isn't even the best during his career if we're being honest - whereas Bird was clearly the best SF and he played multiple positions.
Shaq IMO is simply on the 2nd tier of greats with the likes of Duncan, Kobe and Olajuwon. Bird dines with Jordan, Magic, KAJ, Russell and Wilt.
Duncan easily. By far. Truly an insulting comparison to Duncan. He is a DPOY caliber paint protector and a defensive anchor. Bird is nothing more than an average defender at best. Couldn't dream of having the defensive impact of Duncan.
[QUOTE=LeBird]You're being shortsighted. Shaq was a force within himself, but he did not make those around him better players. Bird had that ability to take over a game by himself but his passing and general play, getting teammates involved, make him an incredible attacking threat. Shaq was a great defender on his man, Bird was an amazing team defender.
The thing is, Bird did what he did in a far tougher era, where he usually didn't have the best team in the league. Also, Bird was a far tougher match-up because of his height and skills with his contemporaries than Shaq was with his peers. There were other centers close to him, who could challenge him - and he isn't even the best during his career if we're being honest - whereas Bird was clearly the best SF and he played multiple positions.
Shaq IMO is simply on the 2nd tier of greats with the likes of Duncan, Kobe and Olajuwon. Bird dines with Jordan, Magic, KAJ, Russell and Wilt.[/QUOTE]
A lot of what you say is true, but I still don't see how any of that puts Shaq on a different tier than Bird.
But regardless, this is about Bird and Duncan. Obviously if you factor in longevity then it becomes a bit unfair in favor of Duncan as he's still going strong in year 16 capable of back to back 28/19 and 30/12 games all while still providing some of the best defense in the league.
Bird, at his very best, might have been a little better than Duncan at his best. I'll even just concede that...although I must point out that Duncan at his best is being wildly under-rated here.
But lets talk about impact and results. Because we could go back and forth forever about Bird being a better passer, shooter/scorer and more versatile and you saying that gives him the edge...and I could talk about Duncan being able to dominate the game on both ends...etc.
But I'll repeat it. 14 straight seasons over 50 wins...never been done before. 2nd highest is 12 by the 80's Lakers. Spurs did this with a lockout year last year...insane consistency. Mainstay of that streak is Duncan.
4 titles. Not once did he have an all nba teammate. Not once. I'll repeat that...not once. He did it 4 times and I think it's only been done by a handful of superstars in NBA history. The only guys to recently do it are Hakeem, Duncan, and Dirk...
Playoff performer. This is where I think Duncan surpasses Bird. Duncan just simply is the better playoff performer...and honestly, that is what matters the most. How these guys perform in the playoffs.
[QUOTE=LeBird]You're being shortsighted. Shaq was a force within himself, but he did not make those around him better players. Bird had that ability to take over a game by himself but his passing and general play, getting teammates involved, make him an incredible attacking threat. Shaq was a great defender on his man, Bird was an amazing team defender.
The thing is, Bird did what he did in a far tougher era, where he usually didn't have the best team in the league. Also, Bird was a far tougher match-up because of his height and skills with his contemporaries than Shaq was with his peers. There were other centers close to him, who could challenge him - and he isn't even the best during his career if we're being honest - whereas Bird was clearly the best SF and he played multiple positions.
Shaq IMO is simply on the 2nd tier of greats with the likes of Duncan, Kobe and Olajuwon. Bird dines with Jordan, Magic, KAJ, Russell and Wilt.[/QUOTE]
I think you need to go back and watch some '99, '00, '01 Shaq if you think he didn't make his teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.
LOL at Shaq not making his teammates better.
Take Shaq off the Orlando Magic, the Lakers or the Heat and take a wild guess how far these teams would've made it. See the difference? That's how much Shaq made his teams better. None of those guys would've won these championships with only a "good" center instead of Shaq.
[QUOTE=LeBird]You're being shortsighted. Shaq was a force within himself, but he did not make those around him better players. Bird had that ability to take over a game by himself but his passing and general play, getting teammates involved, make him an incredible attacking threat. Shaq was a great defender on his man, Bird was an amazing team defender.
The thing is, Bird did what he did in a far tougher era, where he usually didn't have the best team in the league. Also, Bird was a far tougher match-up because of his height and skills with his contemporaries than Shaq was with his peers. There were other centers close to him, who could challenge him - and he isn't even the best during his career if we're being honest - whereas Bird was clearly the best SF and he played multiple positions.
Shaq IMO is simply on the 2nd tier of greats with the likes of Duncan, Kobe and Olajuwon. Bird dines with Jordan, Magic, KAJ, Russell and Wilt.[/QUOTE]
LOL at Bird being a tougher matchup than Bird. I don't remember the league changing the rules to make it harder for Bird.
And LOL about the "tougher era" crap. Bird's era was higher paced, so every single player got higher ppg, apg, rpg numbers than they would've gotten during the much slower paced second half of the 90s and first part of the 00s.
If anything, Bird hat it easier to produce great looking stats than Shaq.
Also, LOL at Bird "not having the best team in the league" nonsense. Take Shaq off his teams and compare those teams to the Celtics minus Bird. There's only one team where Shaq's team might've come out ahead talent-wise (the 4 HOFer Lakers team with geriatric Payton and old Malone), in all other comparisons, Bird's supporting cast was clearly superior. The only reason Shaq's teams were considered the best was Shaq himself.
[QUOTE=Carbine]I find it extremely hard to make a case for Bird having more impact as an offensive player. Clearly Bird was a more versatile offensive player, but all that matters is IMPACT.
Shaq destroyed teams defense. He would get the other team in foul trouble, get his team in an early bonus, the most unstoppable force down low, demanded double and triple teams regularly....and since he was a great passer in his prime, he made people around him better by creating wide open looks and wide open driving lanes.
There are two things to judging an offensive player. How well you can score and how effective you are at doing so, and how well you can make your teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.
Shaq did this as well as anyone ever in his prime.
Also, the thing about his defense....a lot of what you said is true regarding when he got older, but we're talking about Shaq at his best. Under those guidelines he was clear cut and dry a more impactful defensive player than Bird. Nobody should question that, not even Birds most obvious homers.[/QUOTE]
Shaq was a solid defensive rookie and in his 2nd year. Outside of that, the only years he was very good were 99/00 and 00/01. Every other season was no more than average, really.
And on the offensive end, we're just going to disagree then.
[QUOTE=brain drain]LOL at Shaq not making his teammates better.
Take Shaq off the Orlando Magic, the Lakers or the Heat and take a wild guess how far these teams would've made it. See the difference? That's how much Shaq made his teams better. None of those guys would've won these championships with only a "good" center instead of Shaq.[/QUOTE]
Someone doesn't understand what making teammates better means.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]Shaq was a solid defensive rookie and in his 2nd year. Outside of that, the only years he was very good were 99/00 and 00/01. Every other season was no more than average, really.
And on the offensive end, we're just going to disagree then.
Someone doesn't understand what making teammates better means.[/QUOTE]
Who cares what Shaq was his rookie year? Or every year outside of '99 and '00? We're comparing Bird at his best vs. Shaq at his best, since that's how you evaluate greatness as evidence of your stance with Bird/Duncan.
The argument was at his best, which was '99/'00 and '00/'01. He was an anchor to the defense. Phil Jackson and every other person associated with that Lakers team would tell you the same thing.
I'm interested why you think Bird was a more impactful offensive player. You really didn't go into it any further than saying "well I think Bird is a better offensive player."
Regular Season
Bird 24.3 pts / 10 reb / 6.3 asst / 1.7 steals 12 seasons & only 6 games in 1989
Duncan 20.1 pts / 11.2 reb / 3.1 asst / 2.2 blks 16 seasons
Playoffs
Bird 23.8 its / 10.3 reb / 6.5 asst / 1.8 stls
Duncan 22.3 pts / 12.1 reb / 3.4 asst / 2.5 blks
Which would you rather have 12 seasons of Bird or probably 18 seasons of Duncan (2 more years on his contract)? TD does whatever is necessary to win - (28/19 and 30/12/5 the past 2 games with TP out). I'd pick the defensive anchor (which is rare in today's game) who is still able to step up offensively when needed.
Neither won back to back so that argument is nil. The better competition argument is offset by the better team mates argument. The better peak argument (not that TD was by any means a slouch in 02-03) is offset by the longevity argument. Those who say it isn't close haven't a clue.
I feel that some are either seduced by memories of what was the heyday of basketball or by youtube videos (which are mostly highlights and who doesn't look great in highlights). I remember what it felt like back then waiting for the weekend and the big match ups BOS vs LAL and the anticipation involved.
There is something to be said about Duncan's consistency over 16 years even if he is boring and of course, it's harder to maintain high stats as the years go on. With satellite/cable/internet etc. it's easy to get saturated with the almost (every other) daily exposure (non-important games against the scrub teams) than the memories of BIG, IMPORTANT weekend games vs LAL. Even with his knee issues, Duncan is still one of the best big men in the league. Could Bird with his back issues still be considered one of the best perimeter players in the league (especially today with the plethora of great perimeter players with young, athletic legs)? How rare is it to have a skilled big man who plays both sides of the floor than an elite perimeter player?
[QUOTE=rmt]TD does whatever is necessary to win - (28/19 and 30/12/5 the past 2 games with TP out).[/QUOTE]
Yeah it's not like Bird dove for EVERY ball and smashed his face off of the floor, got a concussion and came back in to win the game or anything...
[QUOTE=Carbine]Who cares what Shaq was his rookie year? Or every year outside of '99 and '00? We're comparing Bird at his best vs. Shaq at his best, since that's how you evaluate greatness as evidence of your stance with Bird/Duncan.
The argument was at his best, which was '99/'00 and '00/'01. He was an anchor to the defense. Phil Jackson and every other person associated with that Lakers team would tell you the same thing.
I'm interested why you think Bird was a more impactful offensive player. You really didn't go into it any further than saying "well I think Bird is a better offensive player."[/QUOTE]
I mentioned his rookie season in his defense, as he never played defense. And in his two best defensive seasons he made All-Defensive Teams that he had no business making. There is no argument for him being a better defender than David Robinson in either of those seasons.
And being a big guy who plays good defense does not equate to anchoring. He never anchored anything. He worked harder, gave some effort on the pick n' roll, stuck to his man in the post, contested shots and attempted to put some pressure on guys going to the rim. He wasn't an anchor tho.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]I mentioned his rookie season in his defense, as he never played defense. And in his two best defensive seasons he made All-Defensive Teams that he had no business making. There is no argument for him being a better defender than David Robinson in either of those seasons.
And being a big guy who plays good defense does not equate to anchoring. He never anchored anything. He worked harder, gave some effort on the pick n' roll, stuck to his man in the post, contested shots and attempted to put some pressure on guys going to the rim. He wasn't an anchor tho.[/QUOTE]
Wow...Prime Duncan was the definition of a defensive anchor. So much disrespect for that man.
[QUOTE=IGOTGAME]Wow...Prime Duncan was the definition of a defensive anchor. So much disrespect for that man.[/QUOTE]
??
I'm talking about Shaq.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]??
I'm talking about Shaq.[/QUOTE]
Shaq at his peak was a very good defensive anchor.
[QUOTE=2010splash]Duncan easily. By far. Truly an insulting comparison to Duncan.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because he's being compared to some scrub here, right?
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=LeBird]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]
Not saying he should be, but since Duncan was perceived as "boring," he'd never be talked about in that vein. Bird with his trash-talking and doing stuff like telling defenders what the play was going to be before nailing the shot on them while they were expecting the play, asking everyone who was going to finish second in the Three-Point Shootout and then winning it, etc., had more "swag" than Duncan, which automatically puts Duncan at a disadvantage in such a comparison.
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Yeah, because he's being compared to some scrub here, right?
:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I really hate both the Bird and Duncan camps that have said this.
It's "not even close" or "easily ____" from the start of page 1 till now... when it couldn't be further from the truth.
Fortunately, I just wanted to see a good honest debate for the selections from both sides and I actually have for the most part.
Bird. But not by much. Duncan is greatest player since Michael Jordan.
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Shaq at his peak was a very good defensive anchor.[/QUOTE]
:coleman:
Very good defender those two seasons, OK...but anchor? He wasn't an anchor of any kind.
You're the only one saying that. Was he Duncan? Garnett? No.
But you don't need to be the best of your generation to be considered an anchor. Due to his sheer size, height, strength and athletic ability he was an intimidating player down low. He was an anchor for those Laker teams, clearly.
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Phil Jackson
We were funneling guys baseline and sideline, and overplaying everybody so they'd be forced to deal with Shaq in the lane.[/QUOTE]
The GOAT coach of his era built the defense around funneling guys to Shaq and won back to back to back titles. But nah.....he's no anchor. Right?
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Playoff performer. This is where I think Duncan surpasses Bird. Duncan just simply is the better playoff performer...and honestly, that is what matters the most. How these guys perform in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
Er, let's be clear: Bird had a far tougher era - and that includes the post-season - to contend with than Duncan. It's not really debatable. And Bird was still awesome. That the Celtics won 3 titles in an era where they were contending with the best team of all-time - that had 2 of the top 5 players of all time (let alone the likes of Cooper, Worthy, Scott, etc) - is incredible. He also had to contend with the Sixers, Pistons, Bucks and Rockets - the latter two would have been regular title contenders, [I]at the least[/I], in Duncan's era.
It also meant that his 'not once having an all-nba player' (which is a stupid qualification, since he has had great teammates and fantastically 'built' teams in general) doesn't really count against him. Transport him to the 80s and he wins 0 titles.
[QUOTE=Carbine]I think you need to go back and watch some '99, '00, '01 Shaq if you think he didn't make his teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.[/QUOTE]
Shaq didn't make his teammates better. He made himself better - he played at a higher/better version of himself and that made his team better. Don't confuse the two.
[QUOTE=LeBird]Er, let's be clear: Bird had a far tougher era - and that includes the post-season - to contend with than Duncan. It's not really debatable. And Bird was still awesome. That the Celtics won 3 titles in an era where they were contending with the best team of all-time - that had 2 of the top 5 players of all time (let alone the likes of Cooper, Worthy, Scott, etc) - is incredible. He also had to contend with the Sixers, Pistons, Bucks and Rockets - the latter two would have been regular title contenders, [I]at the least[/I], in Duncan's era.
It also meant that his 'not once having an all-nba player' (which is a stupid qualification, since he has had great teammates and fantastically 'built' teams in general) doesn't really count against him. Transport him to the 80s and he wins 0 titles.[/QUOTE]
Anyone can play the what if game. Give Bird Duncan's 03 team mates and Bird wins 0 titles in that tougher era. That "tougher era" had less movement of players and less dilution of stars per team (the Heat notwithstanding). It's not like Duncan didn't have to go up against 2 top ten players (Shaq/Kobe) or the tough Western Conference - he just did it without the quality of team mates that Bird had.
there are only 3 players you should ever know
1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bird
[QUOTE=Fedor - Laker]there are only 3 players you should ever know
1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bird[/QUOTE]
Ah...so the rest of NBA history, both before and after, doesn't matter then.
:facepalm
I didn't know that intentionally limiting one's knowledge was ever a good thing.
[QUOTE=Fedor - Laker]there are only 3 players you should ever know
1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bird[/QUOTE]
[B]Thats a Stupid Thing To Say Since This is the Notion Most Kids Got Since the NBA Began to Get Global At Around Those 3 Players Time. So thats What Most People Remember. Very Few Remember that Barkley was the 2nd Best Player in the Game 1988 to 1993 and Hakeem the 2nd or 1st as a Whole afte Jordan from 1985 to 1995.
Bird is my 2nd Favorite Player Ever but Its Not as Clear as You Think in Terms of Being Better than Duncan. Prime Bird was Probably Better but Duncan was the Better Impact Player Individually Wise (as was Barkley over Bird in those Terms). Duncan Was The Better Post Player, Rebounder, Shot Blocker and Rim Protector. Bird was the Better Far Range Shooter, Passer, Creator, Clutch Player and Had More Savy.[/B]
[QUOTE=gengiskhan]/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]
Thats a stupid argument. The league was still growing during Birds era. So you're basically saying if a player nowadays was clearly better than MJ (blasphemous I know) you wouldn't rank him ahead of MJ simply because of the influence MJ had on the game?
[IMG]http://www.boredwrestlingfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/b218965611.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Fedor - Laker]there are only 3 players you should ever know
1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Bird[/QUOTE]
That's so close-minded. I think that one can learn from/appreciate different players/styles. To believe that basketball begins and ends with just 3 players is so limiting and disrespectful to all the players. Even MJ, Magic and Bird needed others to rebound, defend and space the floor for them.
[QUOTE=rmt]Anyone can play the what if game. Give Bird Duncan's 03 team mates and Bird wins 0 titles in that tougher era. That "tougher era" had less movement of players and less dilution of stars per team (the Heat notwithstanding). It's not like Duncan didn't have to go up against 2 top ten players (Shaq/Kobe) or the tough Western Conference - he just did it without the quality of team mates that Bird had.[/QUOTE]
That 'what if' is one of the least debatable what ifs there are. So, excuse me, but your argument doesn't wash for anyone intelligible enough to discern the difference between the eras. Bird took the 2nd worst side in the NBA and made them the #1 team - in the 80s (!). I think he'd do more than fine with any of Duncan's teams.
And fending off one great team is different to fending off several. Rubbish retort.
[QUOTE=LeBird]Er, let's be clear: Bird had a far tougher era - and that includes the post-season - to contend with than Duncan. It's not really debatable. And Bird was still awesome. That the Celtics won 3 titles in an era where they were contending with the best team of all-time - that had 2 of the top 5 players of all time (let alone the likes of Cooper, Worthy, Scott, etc) - is incredible. He also had to contend with the Sixers, Pistons, Bucks and Rockets - the latter two would have been regular title contenders, [I]at the least[/I], in Duncan's era.
It also meant that his 'not once having an all-nba player' (which is a stupid qualification, since he has had great teammates and fantastically 'built' teams in general) doesn't really count against him. Transport him to the 80s and he wins 0 titles.
Shaq didn't make his teammates better. He made himself better - he played at a higher/better version of himself and that made his team better. Don't confuse the two.[/QUOTE]
Well, Bird did face tougher competition, but it's negated by the fact that Bird had the most help out of anyone outside the Lakers. So lets not pretend like Bird didn't have a loaded team...even for his era. It's a false argument...one that could be made against the likes of Kobe or Shaq or Lebron now...but not Duncan.
No superstar in NBA history has won more with less than Duncan.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Well, Bird did face tougher competition, but it's negated by the fact that Bird had the most help out of anyone outside the Lakers. So lets not pretend like Bird didn't have a loaded team...even for his era. It's a false argument...one that could be made against the likes of Kobe or Shaq or Lebron now...but not Duncan.
No superstar in NBA history has won more with less than Duncan.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, in the 80s you had to be stacked to win a championship back then. The 76ers, the Bucks, Pistons later on, Hawks, and Celts were all stacked with good players. And also when Bird came into the league, the Celts weren't stacked and he transformed that team to have the best record in the league. You can't deny Bird's impact on the team.
Same with Duncan tho.