Oscar Robertson vs Tim Duncan, who is considered better?

Post #21 » by **penbeast0** » Fri May 2, 2008 12:51 pm

McAdoo? Defense counts too, sorry . . . and do you still take David Robinson over Duncan if you are drafting a new franchise and you know (a) what their injury history will be and (b) their playoff history (and I'm a huge DRob fan, rate him higher than Hakeem . . . in their primes in the regular season)

Magz50 · Post #22 » by **Magz50** » Fri May 2, 2008 4:57 pm

Warspite wrote:
Im no fan of TD and believe hes maybe the most overrated player of this decade.

I stopped reading there. :nonono:

Post #23 » by **tsherkin** » Fri May 2, 2008 5:10 pm

Duncan's impact on an NBA basketball game goes beyond his statistics... you have to appreciate the nature of the defense he plays and what his presence in the low post (and versatility of offense, enough to score anywhere inside 20 feet) means to the construction of a team offensive scheme as well.

His passing, his scoring ability, his defense, his lack of any key vulnerability to exploit (Hack-a-Duncan doesn't work anymore, hasn't in a long time)...

Tim Duncan is, in my mind, undoubtedly one of the 10 greatest basketball players to lace up for the NBA.

Oscar Robertson is similarly so. I'd prefer to have Duncan on my roster because he's a big and it is easier, in any era, to build around a great big than a great small.

Having said that, Oscar Robertson was the guard version of Duncan in that he was the most fundamentally sound player in the league. Robertson was literally capable of doing just about anything you could ask of a player on the court. Obviously, he was a great rebounder, passer, scorer, all that jazz. Didn't suck as a defender either. The Big O was great and he actually often scored like a big man and otherwise made it his business to get as close to the rim as possible with a very much "given an inch, take a mile" approach.

That's a tough call as far as who's better overall...

I'm going to go with Duncan on the basis of ease of franchise construction but Big O deserves huge amounts of respect. He's the guy who busted up the Wilt/Russell dominance of the MVP award, remember. The only one to win an MVP besides those two from 59-60 (Wilt's rookie year) through 67-68 (his last MVP). That's a pretty amazing feat, all told.

Warspite · Post #24 » by **Warspite** » Fri May 2, 2008 6:31 pm

penbeast0 wrote:McAdoo? Defense counts too, sorry . . . and do you still take David Robinson over Duncan if you are drafting a new franchise and you know (a) what their injury history will be and (b) their playoff history (and I'm a huge DRob fan, rate him higher than Hakeem . . . in their primes in the regular season)

How good is Duncans defense when you take the superstar calls and the thuggery that is the Spurs into the equation?

Notice I said prime and McAdoos prime was better than any player playing today not named kobe. His MVP yr makes LBJ look avg. He also would thrive in todays rules/style. Hes Dirk + 10ppg+ 4rbpg+ better defense in todays league and that would make him the best player in the NBA.

DRob was the better player. He gets alot of heat for his playoff performances but his supporting cast was never on the same level as TDs and he played in a WC that had alot more talented teams than today. Im not so sure that the Spurs would win in the 90s if TD is there instead of DRob. I also believe DRob would dominate today with the absence of bigmen. Allow DRob to be drafted at 20 or even 22 instead of 24 and put him against the Kwame Browns instead of 80s bigmen and you will see some eye popping stats/plays. Draft a 22 yr old DRob in 98 and add Manu, Parker ect and hes going to lead his team to more Ws and more Championships IMHO. Thats not to mention the differance in coaches the Spurs had.

sp6r=underrated · Post #25 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Fri May 2, 2008 6:38 pm

Its a shame basketball hasn't produced any good players in the last 15 years.

ThaRegul8r · Post #26 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Fri May 2, 2008 7:27 pm

shawngoat23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I did put things into context. Which is why Tim Duncan is top 15 in my book and not outside the top 50. I do adjust for era, for pace, for minutes played, and so on.

I'm not comparing Tim Duncan to Zach Randolph, who has numbers that seem somewhat impressive superficially. I'm comparing him to Oscar freaking Robertson, one of the greatest players of all time. You treat it as though it were some kind of insult.

I didn't say anything about the comparison to Robertson, I was talking about the fact that you said Duncan never posted huge numbers--when as one poster said he has in the postseason when it's mattered most--when he's a player whose worth can't fully be quantified by statistics, which has to be taken into consideration. I'm talking generally about how players who are more concerned with making sure the team wins than about putting up big numbers are automatically shortchanged by fans who say the same thing you did about not putting up big numbers.

bluestang302 · Post #27 » by **bluestang302** » Fri May 2, 2008 8:12 pm

I agree that Duncan's statistics are modest, at least relative to other players in the all-time great discussions. But without doing any elaborate studies on the matter, his stats are certainly among the best relative to this era.

When Kareem was putting up his biggest numbers in the early 70s there were several guys who were close to him in terms of production. Bob McAdoo had a string of 30-10 seasons. Bob Lanier was a 25-11 guy for a handful of years. Guys like Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, and Elvin Hayes put up 20-15 seasons.

Duncan's numbers are somewhat understated compared to those guys, but not really. Only in the last few years with his minutes lessening. His 01/02 season would stand up to just about anything, I think. There also aren't any big guys of his era that put up massive numbers. Except for Shaq, who we all agree is an all-time great. KG and Webber's numbers may look slightly gaudier on the surface, but Duncan's are just as good.

HarlemHeat37 · Post #28 » by **HarlemHeat37** » Fri May 2, 2008 8:22 pm

exactly..

if you compare Duncan's numbers IN HIS OWN ERA, they are among the best..look at his prime numbers, and then look at his prime playoff numbers..Shaq is probably the only player in the NBA to consistently perform as well or better than Duncan in his playoff prime(Kobe might be up there too, not gonna look it up)..

a lot of people don't seem to understand that the star player is supposed to defer when it's the right thing to do..example, Tony Parker vs. Cleveland and in the last round vs. Phoenix..even in Duncan's last few years where he has been "declining", he steps up when he needs to..he averaged around 27 and 12 vs. Phoenix last year and he averaged 33 and 11 vs. Dallas in the infamous "Manu foul" series..those 2 being the most important playoff series for the Spurs in the last few years..

his best years in the playoffs are definitely comparable to the all-time greats when they're adjusted..I don't see where this is coming from..

Warspite- "superstar" calls is a terrible argument..Duncan was all-NBA 1st defense and a DPOY contender even before the Spurs "started getting calls"..I guess Shaq's play wasn't important because the refs gave LA most of the calls during the 3-peat..I guess Lebron sucks on offense..

-Duncan won a championship as single-handedly as you possibly can in 2003..seems like this has to be mentioned in every Duncan thread..

-Robinson's play declined in the playoffs..it wasn't simply about what he won..his play went down..Duncan's supporting cast wasn't even close to being great earlier in this decade, but he still managed to put up big playoff numbers and improve from the regular season..

KNICKS1970 · Post #29 » by **KNICKS1970** » Fri May 2, 2008 8:45 pm

I can't express how much I hate the whole "If so-and-so played with these teammates, he would've never won" or "If so-and-so played in this era, he would have 10 championships". It's so arbitrary, because it almost always completely depends on whether you like the player or not. I mean, it's fine to do hypothetical questioning, but too many people use that as their entire argument for or against someone.

When I look at players, I look at this criteria (in no particular order)

I look at things you can actually look up or actually watch:

-What they could do on the court (could they play at both ends of the floor? Did they have any glaring weaknesses? Did they have any overwhelming strengths?)
-Resume (awards won, # of championships)
-Statistics
-How they measured up against other players from their own era (MVP voting)
-Postseason and crunch time performance
-Who would I take first if I was running an NBA franchise?
-Who would I rather have on my team in the fourth quarter in Game 7 of the NBA Finals?

The last two are hypotheticals and are arbitrary (some people would take Oscar first, some would take Duncan), but I feel like they are important questions to ask when judging these things:

I feel like you have to look at ALL these things, instead of just cherry-picking arguments depending on whoever you like better among two players you're comparing.

Warspite · Post #30 » by **Warspite** » Sat May 3, 2008 9:14 am

HarlemHeat37 wrote:exactly..

if you compare Duncan's numbers IN HIS OWN ERA, they are among the best..look at his prime numbers, and then look at his prime playoff numbers..Shaq is probably the only player in the NBA to consistently perform as well or better than Duncan in his playoff prime(Kobe might be up there too, not gonna look it up)..

a lot of people don't seem to understand that the star player is supposed to defer when it's the right thing to do..example, Tony Parker vs. Cleveland and in the last round vs. Phoenix..even in Duncan's last few years where he has been "declining", he steps up when he needs to..he averaged around 27 and 12 vs. Phoenix last year and he averaged 33 and 11 vs. Dallas in the infamous "Manu foul" series..those 2 being the most important playoff series for the Spurs in the last few years..

his best years in the playoffs are definitely comparable to the all-time greats when they're adjusted..I don't see where this is coming from..

Warspite- "superstar" calls is a terrible argument..Duncan was all-NBA 1st defense and a DPOY contender even before the Spurs "started getting calls"..I guess Shaq's play wasn't important because the refs gave LA most of the calls during the 3-peat..I guess Lebron sucks on offense..

-Duncan won a championship as single-handedly as you possibly can in 2003..seems like this has to be mentioned in every Duncan thread..

-Robinson's play declined in the playoffs..it wasn't simply about what he won..his play went down..Duncan's supporting cast wasn't even close to being great earlier in this decade, but he still managed to put up big playoff numbers and improve from the regular season..

I believe the greatest knock on Shaq is his 1 MVP. TD never having won DPOY just might be his. His shotblocking is awsome and his footwork is great. Last week I was listening to the playoffs on teh radio (I live in PHX) and the radio guy said "Duncan has no fouls in this game. Thats unbelieveable" then teh other guy said "No it not hes never committed a foul just ask him."

I was closet Spurs fan but TD soured me with his behavior and selfishness. I was a big Sean Elliot, Willie Anderson, DRob fan but I cant root for Pop and his thugs. Its Pat Riley all over again.

You realy hold it against Oscar that he didnt avg a triple double in the playoffs as well? If no player can do what Oscar did why hold it against him if he didnt either? The same is said for Wilt. "Wilt didnt avg 50ppg in the playoffs he isnt clutch or hes overrated." That argument holds very little weight IMHO.

If TD put up better stats in the playoffs maybe he was dogging it in the regular season? Maybe TD simply cant perform night in and night out and needs that extra rest to play well?? I dont know but its a double edge sword when you compare reg season stats to playoffs. The coaching and matchups arent explained.

I freely admit that TD puts up much better stats on a bad team. You however cant have it both ways. Ill also say that I dont want my PG avg 26ppg. LBJ is a poor mans Oscar Robertson and most people think LBJ is better than Duncan. Again I dont have a problem with either but I would slap TD if he pulled that sissy "i dont want to play C" crap with me and he would lead the NBA in techs if I was a NBA ref.

_BBIB_ · Post #31 » by **_BBIB_** » Sat May 3, 2008 11:40 pm

TrueLAfan wrote:Nice that I