[QUOTE=LAL;15020169]Suns were close! No finals but close.
Damn forgot Marbury had a pretty great career in both NBA and China, won a professional
basketball championship too.[/QUOTE]
I think a couple and maybe even a statue
Printable View
[QUOTE=LAL;15020169]Suns were close! No finals but close.
Damn forgot Marbury had a pretty great career in both NBA and China, won a professional
basketball championship too.[/QUOTE]
I think a couple and maybe even a statue
[QUOTE=Tavr;15020166]:lol
Agree on all counts. When I mentioned Grant "making a difference", I was thinking more along the lines of helping versus the tall timber. Actually stopping Shaq and/or Hakeem is another story. Don't think they win in 95 either way.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Plus Horry was the starting PF on the 95 Rockets as a stretch 4, so presumably while he was nimble enough to close out on the perimeter, that also takes him out of the paint leaving the Bulls even more vulnerable. The Rockets in general were a tough matchup for Chicago, though I don't subscribe to the idea that their regular season record (Houston dominated the H2H during those years) means they automatically beats Chicago in every instance. There were younger, fresher versions of the Bulls that I would take in a playoff matchup against the 95 Rockets, namely 92, 93, and 94. But we agree that by 95 the accumulation of all those deep prior runs and physical matchups against the likes of Detroit and NY would have likely taken its toll.
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15020171]I think a couple and maybe even a statue[/QUOTE]
I know and Nash doesn't have a professional men's basketball championship. Not even a finals
trip for such a great.
I was being sarcastic in previous post
Any version of Team USA / Dream Team is a lot worse than a good NBA team.
[QUOTE=iamgine;15020181]Any version of Team USA / Dream Team is a lot worse than a good NBA team.[/QUOTE]
So, for example, last years Team USA is worse than the current Knicks?
[QUOTE=Phoenix;15020188]So, for example, last years Team USA is worse than the current Knicks?[/QUOTE]
Yes
[QUOTE=Phoenix;15020159]It actually makes the point that Duncan typically paced the team in scoring while also anchoring the defense, and Manu/Parker's scoring were ancillary by-products of that. They simply didn't have the same across the board responsibility and overall impact, and as said earlier your criticism can be levied against any GOAT level player in some form except MJ. He's literally the only top 10 player who was always his teams leading scorer for the season and every playoff series. Take a look at Duncan's basketball reference page. Literally, his final season at 40 is the ONLY time he wasn't either on the MVP ballot, an all-star, all NBA or all-defense. Scaling back his scoring so that other teammates can shine( and result in more chips) is an unfair and extremely vacuous criticism.[/QUOTE]
Did Duncan "scale back" his scoring so that other could shine or did he actually need those players to lean on in those moments? Maybe it's both. Either way I agree it's not a valid criticism because the goal is to win and not score.
But that's not the question. The question is how come his name doesn't get tossed around with guys like MJ, Kobe, Bron, Bird, Magic, etc. despite being so consistent and winning so many championships. Personally I just think it comes down to the eye test. Duncan had the fundamentals but you could make the argument there wasn't anything "special" to his game. He beats you but he does so quietly and methodically.
What else can it be? It's not like there's some wild conspiracy to derail Duncan's legacy. He was never controversial or offensive and he always made himself easy to like. I just think the greatness of those other players is more obvious and pronounced. There was something more special about their game that was more visible to the naked eye.
[QUOTE=Baller234;15020190]Did Duncan "scale back" his scoring so that other could shine or did he actually need those players to lean on? Maybe it's both. Either way I agree it's not a valid criticism because the goal is to win and not score.
[B]But that's not the question. The question is how come his name doesn't get tossed around with guys like MJ, Kobe, Bron, Bird, Magic, etc[/B]. despite being so consistent and winning so many championships. Personally I just think it comes down to the eye test. Duncan had the fundamentals but you could make the argument there wasn't anything "special" to his game. He beats you but he does so quietly and methodically.
What else can it be? It's not like there's some wild conspiracy to derail Duncan's legacy. He was never controversial or offensive and he always made himself easy to like. I just think the greatness of those other players is more obvious and pronounced. There was something more special about their game that was more visible to the naked eye.[/QUOTE]
I know what the question was, since I asked it. And I've never heard the premise that he's not part of the greater GOAT conversation because he ceded scoring 10 years into his career until you brought it up. Maybe I'm not in the circles where that's a talking point. You ask if he needed to lean on those players but who was he leaning on in like, 2003? 2nd year Parker? Rookie Manu? Robinson who retired after they won? Who's to say it wasn't a greater strategic move to spread out scoring a bit because it increased the chances of the team being a consistent contender vs forcing the ball into Duncan to drop 25 a night? Who's to say its not the inverse of your point where it was his presence that opened up the game for them to score more, instead of it being a reliance? Duncan proved himself before those two came into the league. You're arguing the chicken or the egg.
His game wasn't flashy nor was his personality, and I think that is mostly why he tends to be overlooked. But this notion that this is the case because Manu and Parker took on greater scoring roles as he aged? Sorry, not buying that for a dollar. Maybe to appreciate Duncan, you have to be more clued into the nuances of the game and not as gullible to a more casual eye of who looks great on sport-center highlight reels, but that's not a failing on his part.
[QUOTE=iamgine;15020189]Yes[/QUOTE]
I see. Someone else will have the strength on this fine Friday afternoon to give that one energy.
[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15020165]It's just the facts bro, Curry being robbed of FMVP in 2015 is complete revisionist history. Look at what was being said at the time, and this isn't even factoring in Curry not receiving a single vote for FMVP.
[URL="https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1392234"]https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1392234[/URL]
[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?379344-Who-s-GSW-s-Finals-MVP-thus-far"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?379344-Who-s-GSW-s-Finals-MVP-thus-far[/URL]
[URL="https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1392999&view=viewpoll"]https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1392999&view=viewpoll[/URL]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHrSQ7FUEAAYyEJ.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
No one cares about low iq lebron stan opinions.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;15020194]I know what the question was, since I asked it. And I've never heard the premise that he's not part of the greater GOAT conversation because he ceded scoring 10 years into his career until you brought it up. Maybe I'm not in the circles where that's a talking point. You ask if he needed to lean on those players but who was he leaning on in like, 2003? 2nd year Parker? Rookie Manu? Robinson who retired after they won? Who's to say it wasn't a greater strategic move to spread out scoring a bit because it increased the chances of the team being a consistent contender vs forcing the ball into Duncan to drop 25 a night? Who's to say its not the inverse of your point where it was his presence that opened up the game for them to score more, instead of it being a reliance? Duncan proved himself before those two came into the league. You're arguing the chicken or the egg.
His game wasn't flashy nor was his personality, and I think that is mostly why he tends to be overlooked. But this notion that this is the case because Manu and Parker took on greater scoring roles as he aged? Sorry, not buying that for a dollar. Maybe to appreciate Duncan, you have to be more clued into the nuances of the game and not as gullible to a more casual eye of who looks great on sport-center highlight reels, but that's not a failing on his part.[/QUOTE]
I hate bron stans and how hard you guys fight for Duncan, Shaq and Pippen.
No you don't have a more "nuanced view and better eye" than the guy who said Duncan wasn't as special offensively than the top 5 and some others.
What's wrong with you bron stans, even Spurs fans don't defend him like this. You do it for lebum's legacy, we know.
[QUOTE=warriorfan;15020196]No one cares about low iq lebron stan opinions.[/QUOTE]
Not sure they're LeBron stans who took to those polls, but even at that time, I remember there being a lot of debate on Curry being robbed. Saying thats "revisionist history" is completely incorrect. And ironically revisionism. I personally think Steph shouldlve won it just based on the criteria they've used since Jerry West.
Gotta wonder why they went astray?
[QUOTE=LAL;15020197]I hate bron stans and how hard you guys fight for Duncan, Shaq and Pippen.
No you don't have a more "nuanced view and better eye" than the guy who said Duncan wasn't as special offensively than the top 5 and some others.
What's wrong with you bron stans, even Spurs fans don't defend him like this. You do it for lebum's legacy, we know.[/QUOTE]
Bitch shut the fukk up. You trying to spin every conversation and person here into a 'Bron stan' is corny as hell. You act like he and Rich Paul ran bukkake on someone in your family. Is that what this is about? I don't and never have given a shit about Lebron James and as I said to you in another topic, you constantly bringing him up in discussions where there's not even a hint of him being discussed is about you, nobody else.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;15020199]Bitch shut the fukk up. You trying to spin every conversation and person here into a 'Bron stan' is corny as hell. You act like he and Rich Paul ran bukkake on someone in your family. Is that what this is about? I don't and never have given a shit about Lebron James and as I said to you in another topic, you constantly bringing him up in discussions where there's not even a hint of him being discussed is about you, nobody else.[/QUOTE]
Sure bro tim duncan didn't need help from
Parker Manu or Kawhi and he could've averaged
35 past his prime but didn't want to. Great
eye compared to us sportscenter hightlight watchers.
[QUOTE=LAL;15020202]Sure bro tim duncan didn't need help from
Parker Manu or Kawhi and he could've averaged
35 but didn't want to. Great eye compared to us
Sportscenter hightlight watchers.[/QUOTE]
Who said he didn't need help? Which all-timer hasn't? Again, whatever prompts you to drag Lebron into spaces where there's zero reason to is your problem.