OT: Best player in the NBA?

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Everyone here thinks Duncan is one of the very elite players in the NBA, and I obviously think he's one of only five people who should realisticly get votes for #1.

Not only that, but I also think that at points in his career he has been #1. Duncan just isn't as good as he used to be. In my view he's slipped from #1 to somewhere lower in the top 5 (#4?). Sure he has more rings than the other guys, but so does Bill Russell. Bill Russell isn't the best player today, so from that we can deduce that it is possible to be the best player without having the most rings.

I think people are slow to accept greatness, and also slow to let go of the past. An example of this is in all-star team selections, where the voting lags a year or so behind reality (veterans still make the team after they are washed up, and young players rarely make it based on the current season's performance). I often hear "let's make him earn a ring before we say anything stupid" type of lines, but they don't make sense to me. Once the player wins a ring, are you going to retroactively award "best player" going back several years? If there's someone out there who would otherwise vote for Lebron/Paul if only they had some rings, will you come back and try to change your vote years from now when they get one?

What if I invented a time machine, made a billion dollars (easy with time travel), and bought the Bulls just before Jordan's rookie year. As an experiment, I traded away the rest of the roster and replaced them with fans. They win 20 games a year, and MJ retires with no titles. Was he at any point the best player in the league? Or was Karl Malone now the best player for that decade?

All the guys on this list except Lebron have great teammates, so I'm not trying to make that excuse for them. I'm just saying that it's near to compare players who are in wildly different situations. Paul doesn't have any players as good as Ginobili or Parker, but he has three good teammates instead of just two like Duncan has. Which situation is better?

[Licensed to Il]

Duncan is like a buick that drives for 350,000 miles without a tuneup or rust, but no one ever realizes what a rare thing just happened, because the vehicle doesn't have a ton of flashy features. Other than a fiesty dunk or two a game, Duncan just passes out of double teams, banks in jumpers, tosses in a hook or two, and alters more shots than he blocks. Nothing "sportscenter worthy"... but somehow, that buick just keeps on driving.

There are so many factors at play in this discussion, that it really is an endless debate. It is my personal opinion, that you have to give the nod to the guy who (at the end of the day) wins. Kobe is fantastic; Chris Paul, Lebron, and Dwight Howard will fight for "best player" distinction for the next decade (and beyond). But right now, and for the last decade, I got to give it to Duncan.

If someone was seriously going to advocate Paul over Duncan, I would have to remind them of this latest series. If someone was going to seriously advocate Lebron over Duncan, I would have to remind them of the finals last year. Bottom line, great players win. And the Spurs (throughout Duncan's time in the league) have the best record nads down.

'edited to add, I meant to type "hands down" but I type really fast, and when I went back to reread this, it read "nads down"... whoops.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

If someone was seriously going to advocate Paul over Duncan, I would have to remind them of this latest series.

If the series proves that Duncan is better than Paul, it has to also prove that every Spur is better than every Hornet. Otherwise, it's just one more piece of information to weigh alongside their regular season matchups, their overall production in the regular season and playoffs, the relative quality of their teammates, etc.

[jerrod]

Duncan is like a buick that drives for 350,000 miles without a tuneup or rust, but no one ever realizes what a rare thing just happened, because the vehicle doesn't have a ton of flashy features. Other than a fiesty dunk or two a game, Duncan just passes out of double teams, banks in jumpers, tosses in a hook or two, and alters more shots than he blocks. Nothing "sportscenter worthy"... but somehow, that buick just keeps on driving.

see, i don't think that's true. i think that's (and no offense meant by this) a lot of people having kind of an elitist attitude about how those other fools don't know basketball and just don't get it. i don't think you'll find many basketball fans who don't agree that duncan is at least top 3 at his position all time (pf) and for all this "people don't like him because he's not on sportscenter junk", he's on sportscenter a ton.

i honestly think people downplay the importance of parker and ginobili a lot

[InsideOut]

Duncan is still great but to say this game proves it is nuts. He was 5-17 from the field with 4 TO and was anti clutch in crunch time. He missed shot after shot and hand several rebounds bounce off his hands. He was hurting them big time in the 4th tonight.

[gobbler]

Duncan didn't have his best game. At the end, he couldn't capitolize on the times Chandler had him one on one. Now Chandler is a very good defender, but Duncan was missing. Still, the Spurs don't win the game without him. Not even close. More than either Parker or Ginobili, Duncan broke down the defense and created open shots. Duncan was very frequently doubled and passed out of it, then usually a defender would get to the guy who Duncan passed to, but then the next pass would be to a wide open shooter. You can look at the percentages, but the Spurs %'s are probably higher because they had a greater number of uncontested shots, many of which I would attribute to Duncan's inside presence on offense.

That said, I fully concede that he needed his teammates to step up at the end to win it.

[gobbler]

Okay, I voted for LeBron, but as I look at the NBA's final four, here are the similarities I see.

1. Top inside scoring big man (Duncan, Gasol, Wallace, Garnett) - 3 of whom are great defenders.

2. Experienced stars and players.

3. Defense.

Maybe it should be Duncan. Still, I think he's dropped off a bit and needs to rely on his supporting cast more.

[Licensed to Il]

At the end of the day, don't great players win?

Chris Paul is without a doubt, a top ten player in this league right now and probably even top four. But a team built around him (with home court advantage) failed to beat a team built around Duncan. Doesn't that have to count for something?

I don't think we can discount Duncan from best player status because of his teammates. Parker is elite at finishing at the rim, and still has elite quickness. But he is far from an all time great player. Ginobli is at times, unstoppable offensively. And his ability to make clutch defensive plays is underratted. But he is incredibly inconsistant. And in no way an all time great player. Everyone else on the Spurs? Role players.

I am not a Spurs fan, gosh I wanted the Hornets to beat them and infuse some new blood in the finals and in this discussion. And I'm not going to spend all day arguing my opinion when the opinions of others are just as valid. But it would be a shame to discount the best player from the winningest team from this discussion, just because he at time defers to talented teammates with the hot hand. Parker and Ginobli are all stars in their own right. But not greats. And West, and Gasol, are no slouches either... if we want to turn that teammate thing around.

The only guy that seriously plays with no supporting cast is LeBron. I have been saying for years that Cavs management sucks and LeBron has terrible teammates.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

At the end of the day, don't great players win?

What do you mean by that? 100% of the time, without fail, no matter who their supporting cast is?

Chris Paul is without a doubt, a top ten player in this league right now and probably even top four. But a team built around him (with home court advantage) failed to beat a team built around Duncan. Doesn't that have to count for something?

It could mean that Duncan is better than Paul, but it could also mean that Duncan's teammates are better than Paul's, or that the random number generator of the cosmos which determines whether shots falls happened to help the Spurs in this particular instance, or that Popovich is a better coach than Scott, or a million other things. Showing correlation (Duncan was on the team that won) is not the same as showing casualty (Duncan caused his team to win).

[Licensed to Il]

Adam,

Are you implying that it is impossible to pick the best player in the league?

Because I agree it is very difficult. But my final vote is Duncan.

If you want to strike down every supporting claim I make, so be it.

Paul is almost as good, Kobe is probably just as good, LeBron probably has more potential than all of them and could ultimately be remembered as the g.o.a.t

But over the course of the last few years, and as far as right now, I got to go with the best guy on the best team. Again, it's not like Parker or Ginobli are hall of famers. They are just very good players. Keep in mind, the Spurs won when a young Steven Jackson was their best perimiter player and they won when Avery Johnson was their point guard. So it's not like Duncan wins only because of the brilliance of TP and MG.

Jerrod struck down my "slow and steady wins the race" analogy. But I can't overlook Duncan's tendency to get overlooked.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Adam,

Are you implying that it is impossible to pick the best player in the league?

Sort of - I'm giving my best estimate just like everyone else though.

Because I agree it is very difficult. But my final vote is Duncan.

If you want to strike down every supporting claim I make, so be it.

You gave some good reasons and I didn't strike them all down. I just wanted to state my case that using team success to support one player over another (especially when the two teams are so closely matched) doesn't make a strong supporting argument - there are so many variables at play.

Paul is almost as good, Kobe is probably just as good, LeBron probably has more potential than all of them and could ultimately be remembered as the g.o.a.t

But over the course of the last few years, and as far as right now, I got to go with the best guy on the best team. Again, it's not like Parker or Ginobli are hall of famers.

But Ginobili is one of the best players in the NBA, and was debateably more responsible for San Antonio's regular season success this year than Duncan was. A semi-reasonable case could be made for that.

They are just very good players.

I think they are slightly better than any two of Paul's teammates.

Keep in mind, the Spurs won when a young Steven Jackson was their best perimiter player and they won when Avery Johnson was their point guard. So it's not like Duncan wins only because of the brilliance of TP and MG.

Good point, but my stance is that Duncan was the best player in the NBA then, but isn't as good today as he was several years ago. Still one of the extreme elite, but not the one player whom I would pick first if my life depended on the outcome of a game.

[smooth 'lil balla]

LBJ.

Kobe always seems to be the kneejerk reaction I hear, but what LeBron's been able to accomplish both statistically and in terms of winning with that supporting cast is amazing. I think if Kobe were in Cleveland he'd just be crying for a trade.

BINGO!

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Interesting analysis of my guy Paul here - apparently there's some controversy over the legitimacy of his assists.

Go to this link:
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/

and then have your browser find this text:
A Breakdown of Chris Paul's 14 Game Seven Assists

[jerrod]

Interesting analysis of my guy Paul here - apparently there's some controversy over the legitimacy of his assists.

Go to this link:
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/

and then have your browser find this text:
A Breakdown of Chris Paul's 14 Game Seven Assists

they must have caught a strain of john stockton syndrome

[ReasonablySober]

I caught the breakdown of Paul's assist numbers last week and it looks like they did a new breakdown of last night's game as well. Pretty interesting.

[emunney]

I think that happens pretty often in the NBA. I know our own Ramon got the benefit of some pretty friendly scorekeeping in the 24 assist game.