Tim Duncan all time among big men

[nate33]

The Spurs, more than any other club in the league, have won titles with consummate team play, not brilliant individual play. That's why I say the rings are irrelevant in comparing the two, and I'm sticking to that because its a fact. It's to Duncan's great credit he has accepted his role, but it's just not accurate to say he was the overwhelmingly predominant factor in those titles in the sense that Kobe would clearly be if the Lakers were to win the title this year.

I couldn't disagree more.

Just because Duncan isn't demonstrative, and his stats don't jump off the page due to minutes and pace, doesn't mean he isn't a superstar. Any guy with a PER of 25, DPOY-caliber defense, and incredible team success is a superstar. The guy is consistantly among the top 3 big men in PER even though his style of game isn't one that's condusive to racking up box score stats.

[el loco]

For now :

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Russell

4. Shaq
5/6. Dream/Duncan (TD can still wind up higher when all is said n done tho)

Pretty good list, I think you should throw Moses Malone in the mix somewhere though.

[RocketPower23]

-= original quote snipped =-



You're right--I am, because he wasn't. The Spurs won their championships because they were consummate teams, with everyone--including Duncan--knowing and accepting their roles. Was he the star? In a sense--but he was never a star in terms of being the absolutely irreplaceable piece in the team puzzle, as Kobe is with the Lakers, LeBron is with the Cavs, and Nash is with the Suns. And as I said, Lanier never had the advantage of the kind of supporting cast--including guys like Parker, Ginobilli, Horry, Finley, Barry, Bowen--not to mention David Robinson--that Duncan has always had. The Spurs, more than any other club in the league, have won titles with consummate team play, not brilliant individual play. That's why I say the rings are irrelevant in comparing the two, and I'm sticking to that because its a fact. It's to Duncan's great credit he has accepted his role, but it's just not accurate to say he was the overwhelmingly predominant factor in those titles in the sense that Kobe would clearly be if the Lakers were to win the title this year.

Duncan in a sense was the star of the Spurs title teams? He wasn't irreplaceable like Kobe and LeBron? lol.

Your post says it all, no need for further response...

[shawngoat23]

Theoretically, one should utilize a team's most efficient scorer until his efficiency drops to that of his teammates.

I understand that theory, but theories have flaws. In this case, for lack of a better term, the theory assumes perfect "liquidity". That is, by passing to the player with the best TS%, one can make best use of that player's efficiency until that person receives too much attention. This would in turn raise the efficiency of the other players, and the appropriate balance would be one in which the efficiencies of all players are the same.

However, by overpassing, you become prone to commit turnovers. You run out the shot clock, which places greater need on the star player (or the best one-on-one player) to take a low percentage shot. And obviously, the most efficient player depends radically on the matchups, and it isn't trivial to assess what the "best move" is.

It's a nice theory that is interesting to measure, but I wouldn't use dTS% to assess how much better a star is than his supporting cast anymore than I would use steals as a metric for how good a defender is. And I maintain this argument whether we're debating the merits of Hakeem and Duncan, or anyone else.

I also believe that Hakeem's 1995 supporting cast, his strongest, was still weaker than Duncan's 2003, his weakest, despite the fact that Hakeem played tougher opponents (Utah-Phoenix-San Antonio-New York) than Duncan (Phoenix-Los Angeles-Dallas-New Jersey), of which only the Lakers are as formidable as any of the four teams above. That's the reason why despite only marginally better pace-adjusted stats and less rings, I have Hakeem solidly above Duncan on the all-time list, although I will not disrespect Duncan by saying that it's not close.

[conleyorbust]

-= original quote snipped =-



You're right--I am, because he wasn't. The Spurs won their championships because they were consummate teams, with everyone--including Duncan--knowing and accepting their roles. Was he the star? In a sense--but he was never a star in terms of being the absolutely irreplaceable piece in the team puzzle, as Kobe is with the Lakers, LeBron is with the Cavs, and Nash is with the Suns. And as I said, Lanier never had the advantage of the kind of supporting cast--including guys like Parker, Ginobilli, Horry, Finley, Barry, Bowen--not to mention David Robinson--that Duncan has always had. The Spurs, more than any other club in the league, have won titles with consummate team play, not brilliant individual play. That's why I say the rings are irrelevant in comparing the two, and I'm sticking to that because its a fact. It's to Duncan's great credit he has accepted his role, but it's just not accurate to say he was the overwhelmingly predominant factor in those titles in the sense that Kobe would clearly be if the Lakers were to win the title this year.

Well for one, Kobe's team is finally having success because Bynum/Gasol have given the Lakers another elite player. They are around a .500 team w/out those guys but with Kobe. Thats not to say Kobe isn't a phenomenal player but you don't get 60 win teams without other quality players no matter how good you are.

Duncan is the focal point of his team's offense and defense. He has been the most effective defender of the past 10 years and is a true low post player whose passing allows for an efficient halfcourt offense. He is the reason that team is elite.

The other thing people miss with Duncan is that he ALWAYS raises his game in the playoffs. This weekend was just another example of that - season high in points was 36, first game of the playoffs: 40.

[Doctor MJ]

not necessarilly in any order;

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
DRob
Hakeem
Walton (before injuries, he was incredibly good)
Nate Thurmond
Shaq
Garnett
Artis Gilmore (maybe the most shamefully underrated big in the history of the game)
Ewing
Barkley
Dave Cowens
Dirk
Elgin Baylor (if you're gonna consider Barkley a big--and he played like one--you've gotta include Elgin who was Barkley before Barkley)
Unseld
the Mailman
McHale (people forget how good he was!)
Bob Pettit
Moses Malone
Willis Reed
Jerry Lucas
Bob Lanier

I like Duncan and his game, but it seems to me many if not all of the above can make a legitimate claim to being as good or better. Duncan suffers a bit because there just aren't that many primo big men in the game today, and gets an advantage because his team has been a winner, though not always soley because of him--he's had solid to very good support his entire career, something some others have not had.

You lost all credibility when rated Dirk as possibly better than Duncan.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



You're right--I am, because he wasn't. The Spurs won their championships because they were consummate teams, with everyone--including Duncan--knowing and accepting their roles. Was he the star? In a sense--but he was never a star in terms of being the absolutely irreplaceable piece in the team puzzle, as Kobe is with the Lakers, LeBron is with the Cavs, and Nash is with the Suns. And as I said, Lanier never had the advantage of the kind of supporting cast--including guys like Parker, Ginobilli, Horry, Finley, Barry, Bowen--not to mention David Robinson--that Duncan has always had. The Spurs, more than any other club in the league, have won titles with consummate team play, not brilliant individual play. That's why I say the rings are irrelevant in comparing the two, and I'm sticking to that because its a fact. It's to Duncan's great credit he has accepted his role, but it's just not accurate to say he was the overwhelmingly predominant factor in those titles in the sense that Kobe would clearly be if the Lakers were to win the title this year.

Were you even watching basketball during the 2003 playoffs? His supporting cast was horrible, and he put up numbers that no big man in history would turn down.

[Sedale Threatt]

-= original quote snipped =-

I couldn't disagree more.

Just because Duncan isn't demonstrative, and his stats don't jump off the page due to minutes and pace, doesn't mean he isn't a superstar. Any guy with a PER of 25, DPOY-caliber defense, and incredible team success is a superstar. The guy is consistantly among the top 3 big men in PER even though his style of game isn't one that's condusive to racking up box score stats.

+ 1 on that. The guy is simply a winner. Anyone who thinks he hasn't been the driving force behind the Spurs' decade of dominance simply hasn't been paying attention. He's a consistent 20-10 player, is one of the best defensive bigs in history, has outstanding fundamental skills and has all the intangible qualities you could ever ask for -- mentally tough, competitive, selfless, grounded, great leader.

Easily one of the Top 10 players of all time. Where you rank him in comparison to Shaq and Olajuwon (in my opinion Russell, Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar are the holy trinity of big men and hence off limits) depends solely on individual preference.

I put both ahead of him, but I wouldn't argue too strenuously if somebody wanted to put Duncan at fourth.

[writerman]

-= original quote snipped =-



You lost all credibility when rated Dirk as possibly better than Duncan.

go back to first grade--evidently you can't read worth shyte.

"not necessarilly in any order" and I also emphasized that these are guys who might have a legitimate argument. I agree with you that Duncan is better, but Dirk has also been a star in this league--no?

So get your head out of the place where the sun don't shine and read what I wrote!

[HarlemHeat37]

the order is irrelevant..you said Dirk has a legit argument for the better career vs. Duncan..what is this legit argument? Duncan has been more dominant when it matters AND Dirk hasn't played defense for most of his career, while Duncan is a yearly DPOY candidate..that isn't even considering the fact that Duncan has more All-NBA 1st teams, MVPs, championships..

I'm just wondering about your thoughts on Duncan's 2003 team? there's nothing you can really say..that team was a great defensive team(anchored by Duncan) and surrounded Tim with solid 3-point shooters..that criteria isn't anything out of the ordinary, Lebron's supporting cast, JUST last year was similar(in style, obviously not as good)..

Cavs: 4th defensively, 18th in pace..Hughes 33% 3FG, Pavlovic 40.5% 3FG, Marshall 35% 3FG, Jones 38.5% 3FG, Gibson 42% 3FG..

Spurs: 3rd defensively, 20th in pace..Parker 33% 3FG, Jackson 32% 3FG, Manu 34.5% 3FG, Bowen 44% 3FG, Smith 33% 3FG, Kerr 39.5% 3FG..

of course Lebron's supporting cast wasn't as good, but the style was similar..it's the star player, with a good defensive SYSTEM, slower than average pace and good 3-point shooters..if Tim Duncan was just a "team player", how the **** could this system have possibly worked? especially when you consider his teammates play actually got worse in the playoffs..there's no way the Spurs could have won the championship without a superstar player that year..

so I'm curious how it's possible that Tim Duncan averaged 25 PPG, 15 RPG, 5 APG, 3 BPG..all leading his team, even assists..on 53% shooting from the field..if those aren't superstar numbers, then WHAT THE **** could be considered as superstar numbers? did Duncan have to average 30 and 20 with 5 blocks per game to be considered a top player? did his team have to go "fo' fo' fo'"?..

this wasn't just 1 run too..he put up 25+ in the regular season..he was 5th and 7th in the NBA in scoring in consecutive years, WHILE playing all-NBA 1st defense AND finishing 2nd and 3rd in rebounds AND 3rd and 4th in BPG..Duncan hasn't been this guy that "defers to his teammates" his entire career..he had a stretch where he didn't have a lot of help and had to put up big numbers for his team to be as good as they were..did everybody forget the times where Duncan put up big numbers vs. LA, but had no help?..I hate when people "punish" Duncan because his teammates improved..do you really doubt that Duncan could put up bigger numbers in the regular season? of course he can..but he doesn't have to and he doesn't care about the spotlight..that's part of what makes him so great..

everyone saw what he did vs. Phoenix last year in the playoffs..he averaged 33 and 11 on nearly 60% shooting vs. Dallas in the playoffs, and might have won the series if Manu had just stayed back instead of fouling Dirk..he does it when it matters and when his team needs him to..and when they have a mismatch like vs. Cleveland? he defers to TP, because he realizes that's the smart play..he doesn't care about the spotlight..

he isn't just some "team player" that fits in a system..he's shown MANY times he can be a dominant player..

people like "writerman" are the reason Duncan is so underrated..they don't look at his entire career, they just think he's had a great supporting cast his entire career and he wouldn't be able to put up the big numbers..they ignore HIS individual play in the playoffs, and just attribute it to a strong supporting cast..they forget that Robinson was declining and even insignificant in some games, Parker was a very young rookie that made A LOT of mistakes and played terrible D..Manu wasn't always even close to being as utilized as he has been since 2005..

[UDRIH14]

Ppl forget that duncans 03 team was a joke of a team which overachieved.

tp is a turn over machine and disappears in series, ask the lakers during the 3peat and 03/04 playoff series.

ginoboli and steph jackson both had arguments who was worth starting over each other, and they both been on the team for 1-2 years only.

the veterans on that team were a joke seriously who was clearly on there last pine.

Then again all i can say is, duncan recovered from his knee injury in 99/00 season against the suns in the playoffs first round. He hasnt looked back on from that day, nothing stopped him from winning b2b mvps, 3 rings since then.

and ppl say duncan has the benefit of good teammates, im certain alot of players wouldve ask for either tp, gino to be traded early in their careers expecially against the lakers repeat, no franchise player wouldve sticked around to see young players being developed.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



go back to first grade--evidently you can't read worth shyte.

"not necessarilly in any order" and I also emphasized that these are guys who might have a legitimate argument. I agree with you that Duncan is better, but Dirk has also been a star in this league--no?

So get your head out of the place where the sun don't shine and read what I wrote!

writerman you obviously didn't read what I wrote correctly. Try reading my one sentence tome again, but this time think about that the adjective "possibly" before a statement means not that the statement is presumed to be true, but that the statement is not precluded or in your own words "a legitimate argument".

Dirk is indeed a star in the league Duncan's played in. And Walt Bellamy was a star in the league Wilt played in. In neither case do I consider there to be room for debate as to who the better player was.

To give you some specifics here: I consider Dirk vs Duncan on offense very debatable. Duncan vs Dirk on defense, is a bit like Duncan vs Ben Wallace on offense. Duncan has the higher peak easily (2003), and far better longevity.