Dr Mufasa wrote:ElGee wrote:Dr Mufasa wrote:Vote Duncan
Nominate Garnett
Same as last time for me.
Duncan over Shaq due to regular season health and leadership/intangibles.
I choose Duncan over Bird because of playoff consistency. Bird has years like 82, 83 that should be questioned. 85, while otherwise just about his best year, goes downhill in the last 2 rounds. Duncan is reliable in the playoffs constantly and his defense is always there.
Both deserve to be called top 5 regular season performers ever. Their run of 57 W seasons and guaranteeing statistical contention is remarkable. Both proved they didn't need Parish/McHale or Parker/Manu to guarantee that either. I believe both could have ended up with 5 or 6 titles with a 3peat included if everything went their way. The beauty of both these teams is giving themselves like 9 kicks at the can. So even when injuries, all time clutch shots against, jacked competition got in their way, they had enough years to withstand it and get the breaks back. But my personal feeling is Duncan's consistency gave him a bit more kicks at it and that's why he gets my vote
Aaron Rodgers has more playoff consistency than Tom Brady. Is he a better quarterback?
I like that you always have outlying views Julien, but you're losing me on some of these votes (unless I'm not following your criteria).
I think there's one legit year -- when he was playing Julius Erving, without Tiny Archibald, in which Bird didn't really come up big. That said, how much are you downgrading what Larry Bird gives you in 1982 anyway? He's still a top guy in the league that year.
In 1983 and 1985 injuries are in play. That's a mark in its own right -- Bird would be more valuable if not for durability -- but what does it mean to call them "failures?" I suppose then that Tim Duncan totally and completely failed in 2000? How good, exactly, do you think Tim Duncan was in 2008? I ask because he looked old and wearing down and shot 49% TS. What about his 2006 campaign with plantar? 98-07 is 10 years, but he missed 2000, so that's 9 years...or the number of times Larry Bird was top-3 in MVP voting from 1980 to 1988.
Duncan's defense "was always there..." except in 2006 when SAS gave up 111.6 pts/100, for instance. I don't like these blanket statements and I'm not seeing how Duncan gives you more kicks at the can, and I certainly have no idea how Duncan's kicks at the can are better than Bird's.
Rodgers vs Brady is an irrelevant example, Rodgers is just starting his playoff career so we don't know about his playoff reliability. It's like comparing Rose to Payton or something.
2000 and 2008 are for the most part, not any more in the discussion than 1989 and 1990. 2000/1989 are wiped off injured years (Duncan's 2000 is more valuable playing 70 Gs+ but I don't care much about a season if you're not there for the playoffs), 2008 and 1990 are post prime years which the still good stats don't pick up the decline. What's left is exactly 9 prime, there in the playoffs years for both. So we might as well just compare those because the rest is an obvious draw
And I see 82, 83 as all around questionable playoffs, 81 and 85 he shot poorly in the Finals. This doesn't make Bird anything less than a top 7 player ever, but I have to pick hairs here. My personal opinion is that at worst, any of Magic, Bird, Duncan deserve 95% as much credit as whomever deserves the most. I look at their winning %s, ability to help teammates, effect on team culture, playoff successes and I see a virtual tie nobody has been succesful swaying me off of. Magic and Bird are more dynamic offensive players, Duncan makes up for that with defense and rebounding. I look at a year like 2002 or 2003 and wonder how anyone can think this guy wasn't "dominant enough". He did whatever his team needed him to do.
The outlying views comment... don't know what to make of that. I went 1 Jordan 2 Russell 3 Kareem and have made my vote on the 1st or 2nd page in every thread and went West West West West Garnett in nominations, so I'm not throwing stuff out there to look different.
I'll say this. Bird's biggest weakness in this argument seems to be playoff consistency. Shaq's biggest weakness seems to be leadership/intangibles. Duncan has both and that is why he has my vote by my criteria, he has less weaknesses. And there can be a serious case made that the reason Duncan won 4 titles in his prime and Bird and Shaq got 3 each respectively, is just that. Shaq cost himself by the 03 and 04 teams spiralling chemistry wise. Bird was worse in the playoffs before McHale/Parish combo was in full swing (82, 83) than Duncan was before Parker, Manu were in full swing (02,03) - And Duncan was the one rewarded with a title in those years. I'm not saying that's exactly why Duncan has that extra title on them in his prime. But you can draw a dotted line connecting it.
The argument for Bird seems to be "he was just better". I'm just not sold on that.
The length of career was part of the point. Consistency only goes far -- Brady's had more good years, he's also had more postseason "failures." It's just such a strange way to view comparisons, especially when "failure" means something different for every player. What good is consistency if in the end it doesn't give you a better chance to win?
I don't see what McHale and Parish have to do with Bird. Bird was clearly a better play in 1984 when he improved his shot. He was clearly very injured/sick in 1983. Tiny was injured in 1982, and that was the one year I thought (team turmoil as well) that Bird didn't bring it in the PS.
But now you're suggesting the only argument for Bird is "just because." Well, I've broken it down in great detail, both in the past and in some of these threads. He's one of the best offensive players in NBA history, as evidenced by his ridonculous assist rates (2nd-best passer ever IMO), shooting percentages w/volume and team offensive ratings (and drops without him) in his tenure. Bird was the backbone of the offense basically from the get-go, making passes in games both in the halfcourt and in transition for layups (spiking offensive efficiency) that other players simply didn't make. He was one of the best off the ball players ever, both constantly applying pressure on the defense and getting rebounding position (he was a phenomenal rebounder). IF he was also an elite defender, we're basically talking about the GOAT. He wasn't -- merely an good team defender for many years, lacking in certain areas and often adding a little value with his rebounding there.
Now you look at 2002 and 2003, clearly Duncan's peak. Well, first of all, do you think it was as good as Bird's peak? I sure as heck don't. Duncan is one of the GOAT defenders, but his offensive impact doesn't vault him over everyone else (unless I'm missing the evidence for that). This is a very good offensive player, no doubt, but a great offensive players will have a larger impact on the game than a great individual player, so the impact's on either side of the ball aren't comparable. (We see this borne out in team rating shifts, on/off or +/- data and even in EV.)
Let's stick with 03 Duncan vs. 86 Bird. Offensively, I find it hard to believe Duncan's in the same upper sphere as Bird here. Bird is volume scoring at a comparable efficiency and a slightly better rate, but his passing/creation are both much better. Even the 117 to 112 ORtg reflection of overall offensive box stats doesn't properly capture that difference. (For perspective, the *best* offense Tim Duncan was a part of was in 2001 (+3.0) or by raw ORtg, in 2007 at 109.2 (+2.7). Bird's was on 2 teams with a sub 109.2 ORtg, and on 7 teams in 10 years (80-90) that were better than +3.0, with his best being the 3rd-best offensive ORtg of all-time in 1988.)
To quantify it individually, at some level say "is Bird improving my offense by 8 pts on the court? 6?" Whatever it is, it's not far from Magic Johnson territory (who we've already discussed without qualms, apparently) and it's hard to see how Duncan can crash that territory (Duncan was +5.3 there in on/off that year, and that's on a fairly underwhelming team.) Heck, many of the offensive greats don't crack that impact, and Duncan certainly isn't an offensive GOAT.
Defensively, this is Duncan's domain. But as always, it's a matter of the gap. And if you're going to say that's enough to put him ahead of Bird, then why wouldn't that be enough to put him ahead of Michael Jordan? Really, Jordan's a SG, it's unlikely that his absolute value on defense was more than a point or two better than Bird's. I've never seen evidence of that impact.
Furthermore, I'd argue that Duncan's supporting cast has been greatly undervalued as the years have gone by, just like Dirk's will from this year. This is where the TrueLAFan "Being There Mattered" corollary comes into play. The Spurs were *always* good. They had a good team in the 90s, and parlayed that team into the next decade (picking up good picks and FA's along the way).
Check this out:
http://www.backpicks.com/2011/05/18/hig ... on-part-i/It's telling to me that when he shot well in his PS games, the Spurs record barely changed. When he shot poorly, it also barely changed. (During his poor shooting games, he actually shoots a lot more.) That's a pattern seen on good teams, not weak ones.
Now, you're saying "well Duncan's game is beyond shooting." Sure, but in his big game score performances (still lacking comprehensive defensive data) his team's record barely changed! And in his low game score performances, Duncan's team didn't really suffer much either (in that comparison, only Shaq's team had a smaller decline). Again, that seems to happen with a good team around you. And most people thought the Spurs were well built, well coached teams at the time.
Look, Duncan was great in 2003. But was he better than Bill Walton in 77? Was Walton better than Bird in 86? How much better is Duncan than KG in 04? I see them as almost inseparable. But I also see Magic and Bird that way...this is not a crazy stance to take, I'm just (a) not seeing evidence for it or (b) understanding why that wouldn't be a larger, warspite-like statement about Bird and others in relation to all dominant bigs.
