kcktiny wrote:You cite the Jazz winning 52 games a year for 17 years. Leaving aside whether that math is right (I haven't checked), Duncan's Spurs played at the win % of a 58 win team... every single year of his 19 yr career. Duncan is not the man to make win total arguments against. As much as I rip Stockton for being overrated, he was definitely better than most of Duncan's Robins over that 19 year span.
Over the 18 year periods mentioned above, the 4 players to play the most other than Malone/Duncan for each team were:
- for the Spurs Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen, and David Robinson
- for the Jazz John Stockton, Mark Eaton, Bryon Russell, and Thurl Bailey
But you want me to believe the 6 wins/season difference over 18 seasons was due to Duncan being better than Malone? Give me a break.
For the Spurs Parker, Ginobili, and DRob will all be HOFers. For the Jazz only Stockton will be in the HOF.
Nice try.
Guys who weren't in their prime yet/anymore are just names. There was nobody playing at an all-star level next to Duncan from 01 to 04 for example, whereas Stockton was a fringe all-nba guy. Manu hit his prime in 05, and I'd take him over Stockton, but late 00's the top guys drop off again or are injured. Even on the 12-14 teams, where Duncan had slimmed down and was the best Spur again, I don't think any of his 2nd best players were as good as Stockton over the whole year.
You also destroy your credibility by not including guys like Hornacek or J.Malone. The 03 Spurs might be the least talented support cast on a title team in the last 40+ years. It's about context. Every year of his prime, from 98 to 07, his teams eithet met or exceeded expectations. I can't say the same of Malone. He's more of a rich mans Kobe in terms of impact.