What would Duncan have had to do to be seen in the same category as Kareem?

[Stalwart]

Yeah, perhaps you do.

Are you suggesting that Tim Duncan was bigger than the sport?

Yes.

So, Larry Birds importance is overrated and Tim Duncan was bigger than the sport? Those are a couple of doosies.

[Texas Chuck]

What a silly thing to ignore is what Id say. Russell is the greatest winner in all of professional sports history. Id say he's transcended the game. He also defined his era. Kareem transcended the game as well. Duncan I would say did not.

Great. It's cool if you think player X or Y is "bigger than the game", whatever that means. Your perception of their presence has nothing to do with how impactful their careers were.

I mean I think Jose Juan Barea is a really big deal. But me thinking that doesn't mean he's the best PNR point guard of his generation. He still finishes a close 2nd to Chris Paul who is boring as hell.

So you finding Tim Duncan uninteresting doesn't make his career any worse. Because if your focus is winning, Tim Duncan stacks up against anyone in the history of the sport, save maybe Russell. All his teams did was win.

Transcendent =/= popular and exciting. And yes it speaks directly to how impactful their careers were.

I understand you didn't like the objectively true Ben Taylor comment but if you can drop snarkyness long enough to make a coherent point that would be nice. Ill even give you extra credit if you can do it without mentioning Kobe. Thanks.

edit: nm not sure why I've been engaging, but I know its time to stop.

[capfan33]

What a silly thing to ignore is what Id say. Russell is the greatest winner in all of professional sports history. Id say he's transcended the game. He also defined his era. Kareem transcended the game as well. Duncan I would say did not.

Great. It's cool if you think player X or Y is "bigger than the game", whatever that means. Your perception of their presence has nothing to do with how impactful their careers were.

I mean I think Jose Juan Barea is a really big deal. But me thinking that doesn't mean he's the best PNR point guard of his generation. He still finishes a close 2nd to Chris Paul who is boring as hell.

So you finding Tim Duncan uninteresting doesn't make his career any worse. Because if your focus is winning, Tim Duncan stacks up against anyone in the history of the sport, save maybe Russell. All his teams did was win.

Transcendent =/= popular and exciting. And yes it speaks directly to how impactful their careers were.

I understand you didn't like the objectively true Ben Taylor comment but if you can drop snarkyness long enough to make a coherent point that would be nice. Ill even give you extra credit if you can do it without mentioning Kobe. Thanks.

Forgive me if this is blatantly obvious to you, but we're not evaluating that here. Most of us are trying to figure out who was best on the court. Period. A discussion about which players had the most impact socially among fans could definitely be an interesting one, but is a fundamentally separate discussion from who the actual best players were. And yes, in terms of off-court popularity Duncan isn't particularly high.

[70sFan]

Are you suggesting that Tim Duncan was bigger than the sport?

Yes.

So, Larry Birds importance is overrated and Tim Duncan was bigger than the sport? Those are a couple of doosies.

You can't prove me wrong, how could you? There is no methodology that could falsify my take?

By the way, I clearly stated what I meant by "Bird importance is overrated". I said Bird didn't save the league and a lot of people think that way. That doesn't mean that Bird wasn't extremely important player for basketball history.

In what way Bird was bigger than sport by the way? I think most basketball fans don't realize how little players like Bird or Magic matter for non-basketball fans. Most people who are not basketball fans outside the US don't know who Bird is.

[HeartBreakKid]

Yes.

So, Larry Birds importance is overrated and Tim Duncan was bigger than the sport? Those are a couple of doosies.

You can't prove me wrong, how could you? There is no methodology that could falsify my take?

By the way, I clearly stated what I meant by "Bird importance is overrated". I said Bird didn't save the league and a lot of people think that way. That doesn't mean that Bird wasn't extremely important player for basketball history.

In what way Bird was bigger than sport by the way? I think most basketball fans don't realize how little players like Bird or Magic matter for non-basketball fans. Most people who are not basketball fans outside the US don't know who Bird is.

I'm almost positive he is American. He seems largely unaware that Larry Bird is not famous at all outside of the States.

[Stalwart]

Great. It's cool if you think player X or Y is "bigger than the game", whatever that means. Your perception of their presence has nothing to do with how impactful their careers were.

I mean I think Jose Juan Barea is a really big deal. But me thinking that doesn't mean he's the best PNR point guard of his generation. He still finishes a close 2nd to Chris Paul who is boring as hell.

So you finding Tim Duncan uninteresting doesn't make his career any worse. Because if your focus is winning, Tim Duncan stacks up against anyone in the history of the sport, save maybe Russell. All his teams did was win.

Transcendent =/= popular and exciting. And yes it speaks directly to how impactful their careers were.

I understand you didn't like the objectively true Ben Taylor comment but if you can drop snarkyness long enough to make a coherent point that would be nice. Ill even give you extra credit if you can do it without mentioning Kobe. Thanks.

Forgive me if this is blatantly obvious to you, but we're not evaluating that here. Most of us are trying to figure out who was best on the court. Period. A discussion about which players had the most impact socially among fans could definitely be an interesting one, but is a fundamentally separate discussion from who the actual best players were. And yes, in terms of off-court popularity Duncan isn't particularly high.

The OP asks what it would take for Tim Duncan to be seen in the sane category as Kareem. It would take for Tim Duncan to be transcendent. It would take for him to become an icon.

And Ill say it again, although its stated right there in the post you quoted. Transcendent =/= popularity. They tend to go hand in hand but they are two different things. There have been many popular players who were not transcendent.

[Stalwart]

Yes.

So, Larry Birds importance is overrated and Tim Duncan was bigger than the sport? Those are a couple of doosies.

You can't prove me wrong, how could you? There is no methodology that could falsify my take?

I suppose you can't. Either you percieve it or you don't. And this, like most of life, is not something you can subject to the scientific method.

By the way, I clearly stated what I meant by "Bird importance is overrated". I said Bird didn't save the league and a lot of people think that way. That doesn't mean that Bird wasn't extremely important player for basketball history.

This is an example of you being disagreeable for the sake of it. You're trying to say he's extremely important but...his importance is also overrated. Like, what? Why not just concede my original point of Bird being transcendent? Why try to split hairs like this?

When people say Bird and Magic saved the league its typically not meant literally. Its not as if there would be literally no NBA without Bird and Magic. It means they came in durng vulnerable period and turned everything around. They took the league and the game to a new level.

[Frosty]

Yeah whining about people calling you a hater when you express the following seems odd:

Bowen a more important defender than Duncan
Duncan never guards the best opposing big
Duncan never won a DPOY so how good was he really?

It's this intellectual dishonesty that makes these threads feel like Kobe threads from back in the day.

Bowen

with Robinson and then Bowen being significant contributors on defense

I never said he was more important, I said Duncan wasn't the sole reason for their defensive success and it fell off without Bowen who was a 'significant contributor'. People pin all of SAS success to Duncan as an anchor yet you can't ignore the fact that the ship didn't drift away when he left.

Duncan "never" guards the best big-

routinely was assigned the lesser big on defense and was freed up to cover defensively as a help defender

Once again I didn't say "never" that would be a stupid argument. I said routinely

Show me how this wasn't true? The Spurs added players just to take Duncan's responsibility off guarding Shaq. In his rookie year he got abused so bad guarding Malone (his PF counterpart) they had to take him off the assignment. This isn't some conspiracy theory.

Duncan DPOY

he wasn't a stand out defender winning DPOY every year or in fact any year. (which is probably a crime in and of itself)

I'm saying that Duncan was never viewed as a transcendent defender the way Kareem was viewed as an unstoppable force on offense. I noted it was a crime that he never got a DPOY, but he was never above and beyond other good defendersin the league like Kareem's offense was above most others at the time.

It's fine to be lower on Duncan than most. Nobody has any issues with that. Place would suck if we all hold the same opinions. But poor arguments will always be pushed back on. And when the same tired disproved arguments are used time and again, people are going to start to wonder the motivation for it.

And your made up arguments are just dishonest. It's the same emotional reaction Kobe fans gave to any critique of him. Trying to paint everyone else as making extreme statements.

[70sFan]

In his rookie year he got abused so bad guarding Malone (his PF counterpart) they had to take him off the assignment. This isn't some conspiracy theory.

I don't think that's the case. Malone didn't have particulary good series against the Spurs in 1998.

[70sFan]

I suppose you can't. Either you percieve it or you don't. And this, like most of life, is not something you can subject to the scientific method.

I'm not even asking for scienfitic method, I'm asking for any method.

This is an example of you being disagreeable for the sake of it. You're trying to say he's extremely important but...his importance is also overrated. Like, what? Why not just concede my original point of Bird being transcendent? Why try to split hairs like this?

Yeah, you can be great and be overrated. I don't see any problems here, the world isn't black and white...

When people say Bird and Magic saved the league its typically not meant literally. Its not as if there would be literally no NBA without Bird and Magic. It means they came in durng vulnerable period and turned everything around. They took the league and the game to a new level.

But they didn't... that's the point. They were popular during the time when the league became more popular. It was important from the point of NBA fan view, but don't act like these two made the NBA significantly better, because that's silly.