wilt/thurmond vs. duncan/robinson

[ronnymac2]

Take the admiral, duncan, wilt, and nate, all in their primes. Which super bigman duo would u rather build around? Robinson and Duncan or Thurmond and Chamberlain?

[tmac4real]

Both Duncan and Robinson are top 5 at their positions in terms of both offense and defense.

Wilt was Wilt and Thurmond was mainly a defensive center with ok offense.

I know I'm going against Wilt here but Duncan/Robinson prime is the more balanced duo.

[writerman]

Both Duncan and Robinson are top 5 at their positions in terms of both offense and defense.

Wilt was Wilt and Thurmond was mainly a defensive center with ok offense.

I know I'm going against Wilt here but Duncan/Robinson prime is the more balanced duo.

people here look at Thurmond's relatively low career scoring average and get fooled into believing he was just "ok" offensively.

Thurmond's main role may have been his defense, but he was much better than just "ok" at the offensive end. He had great moves in the post and a very nice midrange game to compliment it.

Duncan and Robinson are two of my favorite players, but I would put Thurmond on either one of them in a game situation and IMO he would basically make them non-factors by matching them point for point, board for board, assist for assist, whatever.

And as I've often said (to the irritation of many here) there is simply no player before or since who can match Wilt. He was lightyears better than any big before or since.

So I take Wilt and Nate without batting an eye, and that because they are overall the more talented pair, not just because I'm some old guy who is nostalgic for the sweet days of his youth.

[Point forward]

Wow, a frontcourt with Wilt / Nate would be INSANE. You have PRIME WILT and the closest thing to Russell (Nate). Honestly, how can you not take them? Admiral / Big Fun is also GOOD, but one class below at least.

[penbeast0]

Writerman, they may have been more talented (better rebounders anyway, Thurmond shot a lot but he didn't make a high percentage especially for a center) . . . .

When they did play together, they stunk. As a rookie, they used Nate off the bench but he showed so much talent they tried him next to Wilt his second year.

Wilt averaged 39 pt/24 reb/.499 typical Wilt numbers
Nate averaged 17pt/18reb/.419 not a good year but in his range
they had solid guards in Guy Rodgers and Al Attles and a decent forward in Tom Meschery . . . . you would expect a contending team right?
The team went 17-63 and traded Wilt halfway through the disastrous year

Why? Both Nate and Wilt played the same game, set up in the same spots, had the same defensive tendencies . . . they were unable to work together efficiently because neither one had a game that translates to PF alongside a dominant center.

Robinson and Duncan were a great pair because on offense, both were capable of playing high post as well as low post, both were very mobile for their size particularly defensively, and both came into the league as very unselfish players (which you couldn't say about either Wilt or Nate at that early point in their careers though both moved in that direction).

Maybe Wilt and Nate would have worked out a way to coexist but when they tried it, they put up good individual but bad team numbers. Got to go with the pairup that proved they could win and dominate TOGETHER.

[Teddy KGB]

Wow, a frontcourt with Wilt / Nate would be INSANE. You have PRIME WILT and the closest thing to Russell (Nate). Honestly, how can you not take them? Admiral / Big Fun is also GOOD, but one class below at least.

Well, that front court existed and it didn't work. I'll go with the pair that did work, Duncan and Robinson although Wilt + Thurmond is undoubtedly more talented by far.

[Point forward]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well, that front court existed and it didn't work. I'll go with the pair that did work, Duncan and Robinson although Wilt + Thurmond is undoubtedly more talented by far.

"Did not work" is a bit too strong. Nate was a rookie when Wilt was at San Francisco, and they reached the Finals. Of course, they were easily eliminated 1-4 by the dynasty Celtics, but consider SF missed the playoffs (!!) before Nate came along.

Also, Wilt then forced a trade to Philly... not because of Nate, but because the SF guys lacked the $$$ to play Wilt further. In the 1967 NBA Finals, Wilt and Nate played against each other, and guess what, Nate held his own vs a prime Wilt: both grabbed 20+ rebounds in every game. Wilt of course scored more, but Nate did a good job clogging up the middle so that Rick Barry could score. It was like prime Shaq vs prime Duncan, Shaq eventually winning but not by THAT much.

What if Wilt had stayed at SF? Wow, that is one big "What might have been"...

[penbeast0]

17-63 was the record that year they tried them together and Wilt played the first half of the season . . . didn't work is pretty accurate.

[Point forward]

The SF Warriors had a terrible 1964-65 season, because Wilt (who scored more than the three next players Nate, Rodgers and Meschery COMBINED) had pancreatis and heart problems in the off season and during the first weeks of the season. He tried to play, but was miserable, and Nate was not yet ready to take over. You all know that Wilt later died of these problems...

[tmac4real]

Writerman, they may have been more talented (better rebounders anyway, Thurmond shot a lot but he didn't make a high percentage especially for a center) . . . .

When they did play together, they stunk. As a rookie, they used Nate off the bench but he showed so much talent they tried him next to Wilt his second year.

Wilt averaged 39 pt/24 reb/.499 typical Wilt numbers
Nate averaged 17pt/18reb/.419 not a good year but in his range
they had solid guards in Guy Rodgers and Al Attles and a decent forward in Tom Meschery . . . . you would expect a contending team right?
The team went 17-63 and traded Wilt halfway through the disastrous year

Why? Both Nate and Wilt played the same game, set up in the same spots, had the same defensive tendencies . . . they were unable to work together efficiently because neither one had a game that translates to PF alongside a dominant center.

Robinson and Duncan were a great pair because on offense, both were capable of playing high post as well as low post, both were very mobile for their size particularly defensively, and both came into the league as very unselfish players (which you couldn't say about either Wilt or Nate at that early point in their careers though both moved in that direction).

Maybe Wilt and Nate would have worked out a way to coexist but when they tried it, they put up good individual but bad team numbers. Got to go with the pairup that proved they could win and dominate TOGETHER.

/thread?

For the record writerman I wasn't saying Thurmond was a bad offensive player, compared to Robinson/Duncan who though, who were both top 5 offensively at their positions, he simply didn't stack up offensively.

Like the stats penbeast pu up, he averaged less than Duncan on much worse FG%. Put a 10 time all defensive forward on him, I'm not sure what Thurmond looks like?

[Magz50]

I'd take prime D Rob and Dunca, that would of been some front court in both of their respective primes. Wilt and nate as has been explained didn't bode to owell.

[Blackfyre]

Wilt is clearly best of 4 but it's too hard to pass on Duncan and Robinson. Young Duncan and old Robinson won together and i can't imagine what they would do together both in their primes. Writerman you can say anything you want but 42% FG isn't really good for a C/PF.

[writerman]

-= original quote snipped =-



/thread?

For the record writerman I wasn't saying Thurmond was a bad offensive player, compared to Robinson/Duncan who though, who were both top 5 offensively at their positions, he simply didn't stack up offensively.

Like the stats penbeast pu up, he averaged less than Duncan on much worse FG%. Put a 10 time all defensive forward on him, I'm not sure what Thurmond looks like?

and DRob is one of my all-time favorites not only as a player but because of what he was as a quality person--but if Nate gave problems to big strong mobile guys like Wilt and Kareem, I think he would acquit himself more than acceptably against any C or PF you care to name, including the two in question here.

IMO, Thurmand at his best was better than any Center playiig today despite his supposed offensive deficiencies. There's no five in the game today that could dominate a game defensively at the same level prime Nate did, and that against a muich better overall crop of opposing bigs. A prime Mutombo might have been withhin shouting distance of Thurmond, but no cigar. IMO, Thurmond was the best defensive center who ever played not named Russell or Chamberlain.

[tmac4real]

-= original quote snipped =-



and DRob is one of my all-time favorites not only as a player but because of what he was as a quality person--but if Nate gave problems to big strong mobile guys like Wilt and Kareem, I think he would acquit himself more than acceptably against any C or PF you care to name, including the two in question here.

IMO, Thurmand at his best was better than any Center playiig today despite his supposed offensive deficiencies. There's no five in the game today that could dominate a game defensively at the same level prime Nate did, and that against a muich better overall crop of opposing bigs. A prime Mutombo might have been withhin shouting distance of Thurmond, but no cigar. IMO, Thurmond was the best defensive center who ever played not named Russell or Chamberlain.

Nobody is doubting his defensive abilities, however I think the impact of his defense on Duncan's offense is really enough to offset what Duncan would do to THurmonds' offense.

Thurmond never made a ALL NBA team, just ALL D etams, which clearly shows his forte was defense.

Not to mention he has career averages of 15 on 42%...and the percentage is even lower if you isolate his prime.

Thurmonds defense was great but his lack of offens cominbed with the fact that Duncan would be on him would be too much IMO.

[Warspite]

[quote="tmac4real"][/quote]


What a horrible stat when you mention no ALL NBA teams for Nate. Duncan refused to play C for this very reason. Since there was NO 3rd team all NBA and he did play the same yrs as Russell and Wilt I dont see how thats relevant. Add in Bells, Reed, Kareem, Walton and Lanier and you see it means nothing to not have a ALL NBA team when over half of the players at your position are in the HoF.

Its like saying a guard today that has more 1st team all NBAs is better than in the late 80s when MJ and Magic were playing.

[ronnymac2]

-= original quote snipped =-




What a horrible stat when you mention no ALL NBA teams for Nate. Duncan refused to play C for this very reason. Since there was NO 3rd team all NBA and he did play the same yrs as Russell and Wilt I dont see how thats relevant. Add in Bells, Reed, Kareem, Walton and Lanier and you see it means nothing to not have a ALL NBA team when over half of the players at your position are in the HoF.

Its like saying a guard today that has more 1st team all NBAs is better than in the late 80s when MJ and Magic were playing.

Yes!! exactly!!! and even if a player makes an all-nba team, the panel who make the team could still be way off. bill russell won mvp's yet was put on the all-nba second team. i know, i know, wilt was playing and russell was voted mvp by the players...but still, if russell was good enough to be mvp, he deserved a spot on the allnba first team. Thats why i don't like using allnba teams and and mvp's to determine what players can do.

That being said, if were talking about just the individual matchup of duncan vs. nate, i think duncan wins that. Nate wouldn't be able to score on duncan very easily, though thurmond would probably shut parts of duncan's game down. However, the game isnt duncan vs. nate the whole game. You need to take into account how chamberlain's presence will affect duncan, too. And robinson will have help when gaurding wilt. Who takes who off the boards? Who can you double off of or sag off of? They are all great help defenders, while also being excellent passing big men. Who gets to the free throw line more? Which duo affects the game to the extent that it helps out their teammates? It's really close cuz these guys r good, thats y i made this thread lol.

[tmac4real]

-= original quote snipped =-




What a horrible stat when you mention no ALL NBA teams for Nate. Duncan refused to play C for this very reason. Since there was NO 3rd team all NBA and he did play the same yrs as Russell and Wilt I dont see how thats relevant. Add in Bells, Reed, Kareem, Walton and Lanier and you see it means nothing to not have a ALL NBA team when over half of the players at your position are in the HoF.

Its like saying a guard today that has more 1st team all NBAs is better than in the late 80s when MJ and Magic were playing.

relax spite, I didnt mean to disrespect what is now "your boy"
Doesn't change thath e was pretty poor offensively.

[Warspite]

-= original quote snipped =-



relax spite, I didnt mean to disrespect what is now "your boy"
Doesn't change thath e was pretty poor offensively.

Well you have to put things into context much like I did in my last post.

Thurmonds FG% looks bad compared to todays players but in that pace and playing up against that competition it doesnt look so bad. Thurmonds coaches didnt call plays and didnt have sets. The NBA of the 60s was pretty much playground basketball. having seen 9th grade girls beat grown men on the playground I can tell you that talent and results are not the same when you add coaching.
Thurmond played at a pace that would give Duncan a heartattack. he couldnt play more than 15-20mins in that pace for a yr or 2 untill he dropped the lbs and added cardio. With such a pace its easy to see why Fg% are lower. add in that teams arent useing set plays they do today and the margin decreases.
Now have Duncun (who rarely guards the other teams best player) have to play vs a HoF Center for 60 of his 82 games. How about a 4 games in 5 nights east coast trip in Philly (Wilt) NY (Reed) and Boston (Russell) and then Detroit (Lanier) all the while your not rideing in private jet/Tour Bus but taking the train and taxi. Being a 7fter on a cummuter train and then fiiting in a yellow cab is not how you want to get ready for a game.

Wilt talked about his 100 game and how he had to ride a 3hour train from NY to Philly and then hire a cab from Philly to Hershey and ride in that cab for 2 hours. He hadnt sleept in 2 days and arrived for the game less than an hour before hand and only had time to play a game of pinball or 2 before the game started. I highly doubt Duncan or any other modern player can perform under those circumstances as they do today.

In the end it realy doesnt matter who plays with Wilt. Wilt and JJReddick would beat MJ and Hakeem 99 out of 100 times. The differance between Wilt and DRob (Im the biggest DROb fan around) is so huge that it makes little differance who the other pair are. Let Wilt read this thread and send him on the court with Candice Parker and they would win.

[Doctor MJ]

Thurmonds FG% looks bad compared to todays players but in that pace and playing up against that competition it doesnt look so bad. Thurmonds coaches didnt call plays and didnt have sets. The NBA of the 60s was pretty much playground basketball. having seen 9th grade girls beat grown men on the playground I can tell you that talent and results are not the same when you add coaching.
Thurmond played at a pace that would give Duncan a heartattack.

Thurmond's FG% specifically looks bad because of how it stacks up against his peers so I really don't think it's appropriate to try to make this an era thing.

Also think the attack on Duncan's fitness is just weird. We're talking about a guy whose best sport was swimming growing up, and who has specifically suffered in this era because he didn't have the weight he needed to fight a prime Shaq.

[tmac4real]

-= original quote snipped =-



Thurmond's FG% specifically looks bad because of how it stacks up against his peers so I really don't think it's appropriate to try to make this an era thing.

Also think the attack on Duncan's fitness is just weird. We're talking about a guy whose best sport was swimming growing up, and who has specifically suffered in this era because he didn't have the weight he needed to fight a prime Shaq.

People assume that just becaues Spurs don't play ilke Phoenix Suns they can't/lack the fitness to do so.

Duncan in EVERY SINGLE YEAR OF HIS CAREER has finished top 8 in MVP voting, something MJ/Kareem or anyone can't ever take away from him (maybe later, but right now that is just amazing).