Would you rather have 10 years of Bird or 16 years of Duncan?

[SHAQisGOAT]

I'd be shocked if the Spurs with Bird instead of Duncan even won one ring. You think Parker/Ginobili/Bird is winning SEVEN rings?!

7 is just too much, yea no doubt, but 5 is pretty plausible... Zero is one of the most absurd shit ever said

D-Rob was there at the start, Nesterovic was like 7' and could block shots, and of course let's not act like they couldn't or even wouldn't try to get a center to provide some inside presence, if they were really in need.

Let's also not forget or underrate the impact that Bird had on defense, before he really started to have those "issues".. Celtics went from one of the very worst defenses to one of the very best when he arrived (along with coach Fitch), with basically the same roster, no McHale or Parish even, while he led the league in DWS and was 6th in DRtg.
His crazy impact wasn't all about offense. Dude wasn't leading the league in DWS, several times, or at the top in DRtg for nothing, that's no fluke, you'll look at other forwards that have done that and you'll find the best defensive forwards ever.
Dude gets underrated in that regard. His IQ and awareness were off the charts, just a great team defender, really good defensive impact, averaged like 2 steals and 1 block per game, reacted very quickly, had great footwork and two of the quickest hands ever, never got lost on rotations, knew what to do, could draw charges and protect the paint even, good post-defender, more than held his own on the perimeter, before injuries, even being more of a PF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEAZMT5t_U

[Anaximandro1]

16 years of Duncan?

10 years of Duncan offer more value than 10 years of Bird.


Regular Season -> it's close


Playoffs -> the real season starts

Tim Duncan -> His efficiency improves in the playoffs despite an increase in both the usage rate and the level of competition. (Higher PER, ORtg, TS%, AST%, ORB% and USG%)

Larry Bird -> His efficiency declines significantly in the playoffs. And what's even worse, his usage rate also declines significantly.

Duncan dominates the vast majority of statistical categories by a considerable margin. And Tim has more rings and FMVPs.

Duncan did more with less.




Jazz (1999), Lakers (2003) and Mavs (2007) were the favorites to win the NBA championship. The Spurs stole those championships. Always flying under the radar.

The Spurs also won in 2005.

Everything started on April 20, 1999 -> Spurs 83 - Jazz 69

The Jazz (32-8) had beaten the Spurs (28-12) in eight of the last nine meetings. The Jazz had eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

The day the Spurs shook the monkey off its back, Duncan dropped 36 pt/10 rb/7blk on Malone's Jazz at Delta Center.

[DMAVS41]

I can't tell if Bird is being over-rated here or Duncan severely under-rated.

This hypothetical is not close.

Duncan vs Bird in their best years is debatable. I'd put peak Bird ever so slightly over peak Duncan, but honestly...it's really close to a wash.

And then you are giving me 6 extra years with a player that is a toss up on who's actually better to begin with? LOL...give me Duncan easily.


Also, Bird is not winning 5 titles. What?

What years? He's not winning 98 or 00 or 01 or 02. 03, maybe, but hardly a lock. 05 hardly a lock. 06 hardly a lock. 07 for sure. 08...nope. Well shit...that's 11 years right there.

Bird would win around 3 from 98 through 08...that is 11 years. He is not winning 5 ****ing titles during that time.

[ThePhantomCreep]

16 years of Duncan?

10 years of Duncan offer more value than 10 years of Bird.


Regular Season -> it's close


Playoffs -> the real season starts

Tim Duncan -> His efficiency improves in the playoffs despite an increase in both the usage rate and the level of competition. (Higher PER, ORtg, TS%, AST%, ORB% and USG%)

Larry Bird -> His efficiency declines significantly in the playoffs. And what's even worse, his usage rate also declines significantly.

Duncan dominates the vast majority of statistical categories by a considerable margin. And Tim has more rings and FMVPs.

Duncan did more with less.




Jazz (1999), Lakers (2003) and Mavs (2007) were the favorites to win the NBA championship. The Spurs stole those championships. Always flying under the radar.

The Spurs also won in 2005.

Everything started on April 20, 1999 -> Spurs 83 - Jazz 69

The Jazz (32-8) had beaten the Spurs (28-12) in eight of the last nine meetings. The Jazz had eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

The day the Spurs shook the monkey off its back, Duncan dropped 36 pt/10 rb/7blk on Malone's Jazz at Delta Center.

Yes, the Spurs quietly won in 1999 and 2003 when they had the best record in the NBA both times. When were the Lakers favored? November?

Duncan had less help because it wasn't needed. He wasn't facing Showtime--he was going through the Knicks, Nets and Cavs in the Finals. Three of the worst Finals opponents of all-time. Duncan wasn't facing the Sixers, Pistons and Bucks in the CFs--more like the Sheed Blazers, Dirk-less Mavericks, and Williams/Boozer Jazz.

2005 was the only year when Duncan's teams ran into a non-cream puff Finals opponent. To his credit, the Spurs barely won, but Duncan's team was clearly stacked by that point.

[rmt]

Yes, the Spurs quietly won in 1999 and 2003 when they had the best record in the NBA both times. When were the Lakers favored? November?

Duncan had less help because it wasn't needed. He wasn't facing Showtime--he was going through the Knicks, Nets and Cavs in the Finals. Three of the worst Finals opponents of all-time. Duncan wasn't facing the Sixers, Pistons and Bucks in the CFs--more like the Sheed Blazers, Dirk-less Mavericks, and Williams/Boozer Jazz.

2005 was the only year when Duncan's teams ran into a non-cream puff Finals opponent. To his credit, the Spurs barely won, but Duncan's team was clearly stacked by that point.

Really think about your statement, "Duncan had less help because it wasn't needed." Do you think he knew going in what competition would be in the playoffs? Did he have any control over his help or his competition? Or did he just go with: 2nd year players 20 year old Parker, SJax and rookie Manu. That's who he had and that's who he won with.

And don't pretend that the Lakers didn't win the previous year against a much less experienced Nets squad with rookie Richard Jefferson and 2nd year Kenyon Martin than what the Spurs faced the next year. I don't hear Laker fans putting down the Lakers' Finals against the Nets and they were much better after another year and Finals together vs the Spurs.