RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #5 (Tim Duncan)

[70sFan]

Question for those who rank Duncan notably higher than Hakeem.

What's the rationale? Is it mostly a tail-end longevity thing and/or winning?

Portability, shot-selection; to a lesser degree, coachability, and team success (and team success isn't a major factor in my thought process, but it plays).

My problem with Duncan is that he had the same coach, similar players, similar systems to work in his entire career.

Without variability around him it's hard to be sure how he would respond, could his game lift a team with bad players and an incompetent coach? Would his game be less effective in a different system? We won't ever know the answers to this and because I can't be sure I cant have him higher than guys who proved they were winners in a myriad of circumstances.

Spurs didn't play similar system in 1999 and 2005, or 2003 and 2014.He also played with variety of different rosters throughout his career.

This argument exist only against Duncan, but nobody ever mentions this against Magic, Bird, Hakeem or Kobe.

[zimpy27]

Portability, shot-selection; to a lesser degree, coachability, and team success (and team success isn't a major factor in my thought process, but it plays).

My problem with Duncan is that he had the same coach, similar players, similar systems to work in his entire career.

Without variability around him it's hard to be sure how he would respond, could his game lift a team with bad players and an incompetent coach? Would his game be less effective in a different system? We won't ever know the answers to this and because I can't be sure I cant have him higher than guys who proved they were winners in a myriad of circumstances.

Spurs didn't play similar system in 1999 and 2005, or 2003 and 2014.He also played with variety of different rosters throughout his career.

This argument exist only against Duncan, but nobody ever mentions this against Magic, Bird, Hakeem or Kobe.

I think it affects Magic, Bird, Russell more to be honest. Duncan is more similarly affected as Kobe, Jordan.

I do think Hakeem and Garnett had more diverse careers than Duncan. It makes it hard for me to put Duncan over both because of that. Even Shaq should be higher.

[Hornet Mania]

Shaq is next up. The GOAT peak imo. I am sympathetic to the argument that he did not maximize his talent, but at the same time that basically is just saying he had the potential to be a short-list GOAT candidate. As it is is run between 00-04 ranks among the greatest ever and he had plenty of dominant seasons outside of that run as well. He seems the clear choice after Duncan, Magic and everyone else already voted in.

How did Shaq not maximized his talent? His prime coincided with the slowest era in modern NBA history, which plays into the hands of a player like Shaq that did not like to run/move a lot. His prime also coincided with the offensively weakest era in modern NBA history, which also played into his hands, as someone that has major weaknesses defensively, such as defending the PnR, closing out on shooters, and bad transition defense. And finally, Shaq basically never played on weak teams in terms of talent

Shaq didn't maximize his talent in terms of conditioning and personal motivation. When he was locked in he could be an unstoppable force, but too often his interest came and went. The fact he succeeded as spectacularly as he did in spite of that just shows he rare his talent was.

[limbo]

Shaq didn't maximize his talent in terms of conditioning and personal motivation. When he was locked in he could be an unstoppable force, but too often his interest came and went. The fact he succeeded as spectacularly as he did in spite of that just shows he rare his talent was.

That's another thing that goes into Shaq's flaw basket... The fact that he didn't have the same drive as other ATG players. People slamming Kawhi for implementing load management on his degenerative knee issues, but Shaq was the original player who took 30-15 games off every season and still have his team win 50-60 games... How many have been afforded that type of luxury in their career?

When i say maximizing/optimizing one's impact, it's usually in reference to players that were being held down by circumstances beyond their control (bad teammates, bad coaching, unlucky injuries, unfavorable era)... Shaq didn't have any of those problems... Matter of fact, his career arc somehow went well above average in all those departments. The things Shaq didn't maximize in his career (FT shooting, range, conditioning, effort, defensive ability etc.) was all due to his own flaws, which garners zero sympathy from me.

[70sFan]

My problem with Duncan is that he had the same coach, similar players, similar systems to work in his entire career.

Without variability around him it's hard to be sure how he would respond, could his game lift a team with bad players and an incompetent coach? Would his game be less effective in a different system? We won't ever know the answers to this and because I can't be sure I cant have him higher than guys who proved they were winners in a myriad of circumstances.

Spurs didn't play similar system in 1999 and 2005, or 2003 and 2014.He also played with variety of different rosters throughout his career.

This argument exist only against Duncan, but nobody ever mentions this against Magic, Bird, Hakeem or Kobe.

I think it affects Magic, Bird, Russell more to be honest. Duncan is more similarly affected as Kobe, Jordan.

I do think Hakeem and Garnett had more diverse careers than Duncan. It makes it hard for me to put Duncan over both because of that. Even Shaq should be higher.

Well, Shaq never played with weak rosters and most of his teams were more talented than Spurs. Besides, changing teams all the time like Shaq did while being unable to create solid fundations for your franchise isn't something you should praise, at least in my opinion.

[zimpy27]

Spurs didn't play similar system in 1999 and 2005, or 2003 and 2014.He also played with variety of different rosters throughout his career.

This argument exist only against Duncan, but nobody ever mentions this against Magic, Bird, Hakeem or Kobe.

I think it affects Magic, Bird, Russell more to be honest. Duncan is more similarly affected as Kobe, Jordan.

I do think Hakeem and Garnett had more diverse careers than Duncan. It makes it hard for me to put Duncan over both because of that. Even Shaq should be higher.

Well, Shaq never played with weak rosters and most of his teams were more talented than Spurs. Besides, changing teams all the time like Shaq did while being unable to create solid fundations for your franchise isn't something you should praise, at least in my opinion.

Praise is not what we are doing though. That's a subjective fan thing.

We are trying to appraise the career and it's far more reliable to get a sense of value of a player when they can show how their value is consistent and inconsistent in different situations.

All these players are on a greatness tier.and I think the separation of them should be more to do with how certain you are of their ability to impact winning basketball games independent of situation.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Tim Duncan
Vote 2 - Magic Johnson
Vote 3 - Wilt Chamberlain

Duncan's longevity and ability to adapt to a different role later in his career, but still maintain a high impact was very impressive. The marked consistency over the years from a dominant force on both ends (his 03 title run was incredible) to a reliable offensive player and solid defensive player is hard to match.

The foundatoin the spurs developed over his time in san an was as much a benefit to him as he was a benefit to his teammates. Right out of the gate he fit in seamlessly next to robinson, who was still a star player even though he was nearing the end of his prime. I don't know how many other guys would be able to do that (see: magic, for example -- it's rare).

He then went on to form a bond with parker and ginobili, staying together long enough to become the winningest trio in league history. While parker developed into an impressive PG over the years and ginobili is clearly a special player, Duncan was the constant that kept everyone together, as they've both reflected on since he retired.

Later in his career as he started to take a back seat to kawhi's development, he was still a very effective player. I found it especially impressive that he was able to adapt to the faster pace and space style popovich emphasized in 2013 and 2014. The way the spurs bounced back specifically in 2014 to pull off that title run really beat the odds.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #127:

Tim Duncan - 15 (Ainosterhaspie, Ambrose, Baski, Clyde Frazier, Dutchball97, eminence, Hornet Mania, LA Bird, mailmp, Matzer, Odinn21, SHAQ32, trex_8063, TrueLAfan, Jordan Syndrome)
Wilt Chamberlain - 6/(7) (ardee, DQuinn1575, Dr Positivity, Joao Saraiva, penbeast0, ZeppelinPage, (lebron3-14-3))
Kevin Garnett - 3 (Doctor MJ, drza, limbo)
Hakeem Olauwon - 1 (90sAllDecade)
Larry Bird - 1 (Hal14)


One voter for Wilt did not provide reasons, so officially cannot be counted; though even if it did, Duncan still has this round well in hand with 15 of 27 votes (and >2x that of 2nd).
Calling this one, will have the next up in a moment.....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[SHAQ32]

Question for those who rank Duncan notably higher than Hakeem.

What's the rationale? Is it mostly a tail-end longevity thing and/or winning?

Portability, shot-selection; to a lesser degree, coachability, and team success (and team success isn't a major factor in my thought process, but it plays).

My problem with Duncan is that he had the same coach, similar players, similar systems to work in his entire career.

Without variability around him it's hard to be sure how he would respond, could his game lift a team with bad players and an incompetent coach? Would his game be less effective in a different system? We won't ever know the answers to this and because I can't be sure I cant have him higher than guys who proved they were winners in a myriad of circumstances.

Well, for starters, Gregg Popovich had no head coaching experience prior to 1996, so you have to question how much Duncan himself factored into that stability.

[Baski]

Portability, shot-selection; to a lesser degree, coachability, and team success (and team success isn't a major factor in my thought process, but it plays).

My problem with Duncan is that he had the same coach, similar players, similar systems to work in his entire career.

Without variability around him it's hard to be sure how he would respond, could his game lift a team with bad players and an incompetent coach? Would his game be less effective in a different system? We won't ever know the answers to this and because I can't be sure I cant have him higher than guys who proved they were winners in a myriad of circumstances.

Spurs didn't play similar system in 1999 and 2005, or 2003 and 2014.He also played with variety of different rosters throughout his career.

This argument exist only against Duncan, but nobody ever mentions this against Magic, Bird, Hakeem or Kobe.

It should also be mentioned that a lot of that stability is due to Duncan himself, unlike thise other guys, some of who actively tried to destroy their good situations and failed.

1.It was behind the leadership of him and DRob that the Spurs rallied in the 1999 season (only his 2nd season) to save Popovich's job. That doesn't happen and there's your variance starting in year 2.

2. He readily took a step back offensively so that Parker and Manu could be more prominent. That completely erased any chance of them being lured to other teams with promises of more money or bigger roles. He acts like Shaq, Magic or early Wilt and there's your variance.

3. It was Timmy that took absurdly team-friendly contracts from like 2010 onward that allowed guys like Diaw, Green and Mills to get decent paydays and allowed for Aldridge to sign with us, to the extent that he earned over 100 mill dollars less than KG over their careers. He doesn't do that and there's your variance.

4. It was him that set the example of following Pop's instructions no matter what, such that there was no locker room drama for basically his entire career, keeping Pop's job safe. If he stands up to Pop's military style and shows other players it's OK to do so, or if he demands a trade or demands someone else traded or fired as would be common in those situations, there you have your variance.

5. It was him that would do things like call and call and call Manu from his hotel room after possibly the worst game of his (Manu's) entire life, never giving up even though Manu wasn't answering for obvious reasons, and goofily try to cheer him up until he was motivated for the next game. This stuff matters A LOT. Manu never forgot that night and it showed in the epic performances he put up for us and for Timmy over the years.

Tim Duncan made it such that all of his teammates and front office personnel loved playing with him and most wouldn't want to leave him. That's the reason for the lack of variance in his career. It's not some random stroke of luck that you can use as a whatif for players who achieved less. Great secondary players like Manu and Parker typically don't stay with one team their entire careers. Neither do elite coaches like Popovich. There's a reason the Spurs did it and it's called Tim Duncan.

There's no better proof than what's happened in the Spurs locker room since he retired.

I'm not gonna downplay the magnitude of what Timmy has done to make his own fortune by acting like what he achieved with the Spurs is somehow replicable by players who are not like him at all. KG couldn't do it, neither could Hakeem, nor Jordan nor Magic nor Bird nor Lebron nor Kobe because none of them is the least bit similar to Tim Duncan. This "good situation" stuff gets way too much traction for my liking. Duncan's entire career is a Master class on how an ATG player can help build dynasties in small markets that don't rely on location to attract stars. I wish we could use it to point out what these other ATGs are lacking rather than paint him as a winner of the teammate lottery.

[trex_8063]

My problem with Duncan is that he had the same coach, similar players, similar systems to work in his entire career.

Without variability around him it's hard to be sure how he would respond, could his game lift a team with bad players and an incompetent coach? Would his game be less effective in a different system? We won't ever know the answers to this and because I can't be sure I cant have him higher than guys who proved they were winners in a myriad of circumstances.

Spurs didn't play similar system in 1999 and 2005, or 2003 and 2014.He also played with variety of different rosters throughout his career.

This argument exist only against Duncan, but nobody ever mentions this against Magic, Bird, Hakeem or Kobe.

It should also be mentioned that a lot of that stability is due to Duncan himself, unlike thise other guys, some of who actively tried to destroy their good situations and failed.

1.It was behind the leadership of him and DRob that the Spurs rallied in the 1999 season (only his 2nd season) to save Popovich's job. That doesn't happen and there's your variance starting in year 2.

2. He readily took a step back offensively so that Parker and Manu could be more prominent. That completely erased any chance of them being lured to other teams with promises of more money or bigger roles. He acts like Shaq, Magic or early Wilt and there's your variance.

3. It was Timmy that took absurdly team-friendly contracts from like 2010 onward that allowed guys like Diaw, Green and Mills to get decent paydays and allowed for Aldridge to sign with us, to the extent that he earned over 100 mill dollars less than KG over their careers. He doesn't do that and there's your variance.

4. It was him that set the example of following Pop's instructions no matter what, such that there was no locker room drama for basically his entire career, keeping Pop's job safe. If he stands up to Pop's military style and shows other players it's OK to do so, or if he demands a trade or demands someone else traded or fired as would be common in those situations, there you have your variance.

5. It was him that would do things like call and call and call Manu from his hotel room after possibly the worst game of his (Manu's) entire life, never giving up even though Manu wasn't answering for obvious reasons, and goofily try to cheer him up until he was motivated for the next game. This stuff matters A LOT. Manu never forgot that night and it showed in the epic performances he put up for us and for Timmy over the years.

Tim Duncan made it such that all of his teammates and front office personnel loved playing with him and most wouldn't want to leave him. That's the reason for the lack of variance in his career. It's not some random stroke of luck that you can use as a whatif for players who achieved less. Great secondary players like Manu and Parker typically don't stay with one team their entire careers. Neither do elite coaches like Popovich. There's a reason the Spurs did it and it's called Tim Duncan.

There's no better proof than what's happened in the Spurs locker room since he retired.

I'm not gonna downplay the magnitude of what Timmy has done to make his own fortune by acting like what he achieved with the Spurs is somehow replicable by players who are not like him at all. KG couldn't do it, neither could Hakeem, nor Jordan nor Magic nor Bird nor Lebron nor Kobe because none of them is the least bit similar to Tim Duncan. This "good situation" stuff gets way too much traction for my liking. Duncan's entire career is a Master class on how an ATG player can help build dynasties in small markets that don't rely on location to attract stars. I wish we could use it to point out what these other ATGs are lacking rather than paint him as a winner of the teammate lottery.

I wish there was an And2 button. That's what I've been saying [less effectively than this^^^].

[zimpy27]

My problem with Duncan is that he had the same coach, similar players, similar systems to work in his entire career.

Without variability around him it's hard to be sure how he would respond, could his game lift a team with bad players and an incompetent coach? Would his game be less effective in a different system? We won't ever know the answers to this and because I can't be sure I cant have him higher than guys who proved they were winners in a myriad of circumstances.

Spurs didn't play similar system in 1999 and 2005, or 2003 and 2014.He also played with variety of different rosters throughout his career.

This argument exist only against Duncan, but nobody ever mentions this against Magic, Bird, Hakeem or Kobe.

It should also be mentioned that a lot of that stability is due to Duncan himself, unlike thise other guys, some of who actively tried to destroy their good situations and failed.

1.It was behind the leadership of him and DRob that the Spurs rallied in the 1999 season (only his 2nd season) to save Popovich's job. That doesn't happen and there's your variance starting in year 2.

2. He readily took a step back offensively so that Parker and Manu could be more prominent. That completely erased any chance of them being lured to other teams with promises of more money or bigger roles. He acts like Shaq, Magic or early Wilt and there's your variance.

3. It was Timmy that took absurdly team-friendly contracts from like 2010 onward that allowed guys like Diaw, Green and Mills to get decent paydays and allowed for Aldridge to sign with us, to the extent that he earned over 100 mill dollars less than KG over their careers. He doesn't do that and there's your variance.

4. It was him that set the example of following Pop's instructions no matter what, such that there was no locker room drama for basically his entire career, keeping Pop's job safe. If he stands up to Pop's military style and shows other players it's OK to do so, or if he demands a trade or demands someone else traded or fired as would be common in those situations, there you have your variance.

5. It was him that would do things like call and call and call Manu from his hotel room after possibly the worst game of his (Manu's) entire life, never giving up even though Manu wasn't answering for obvious reasons, and goofily try to cheer him up until he was motivated for the next game. This stuff matters A LOT. Manu never forgot that night and it showed in the epic performances he put up for us and for Timmy over the years.

Tim Duncan made it such that all of his teammates and front office personnel loved playing with him and most wouldn't want to leave him. That's the reason for the lack of variance in his career. It's not some random stroke of luck that you can use as a whatif for players who achieved less. Great secondary players like Manu and Parker typically don't stay with one team their entire careers. Neither do elite coaches like Popovich. There's a reason the Spurs did it and it's called Tim Duncan.

There's no better proof than what's happened in the Spurs locker room since he retired.

I'm not gonna downplay the magnitude of what Timmy has done to make his own fortune by acting like what he achieved with the Spurs is somehow replicable by players who are not like him at all. KG couldn't do it, neither could Hakeem, nor Jordan nor Magic nor Bird nor Lebron nor Kobe because none of them is the least bit similar to Tim Duncan. This "good situation" stuff gets way too much traction for my liking. Duncan's entire career is a Master class on how an ATG player can help build dynasties in small markets that don't rely on location to attract stars. I wish we could use it to point out what these other ATGs are lacking rather than paint him as a winner of the teammate lottery.

This is all very nice but also misses the point.

All these guys we speak of had great careers, and none of these guys could replicate each other in the careers they had, but the guys who had more variance in coaching, team systems and teammates have more evidence to suggest their individual game was great regardless of situation.

While Timmy did the things you said, there's no evidence to suggest that those things impacted winning more than Pop, the system, the teammates, etc.

None of what I have said is undermining Tim's career either, it's merely a comment on individual players with varied circumstances do have a leg up on guys with less varied circumstances. It should be acknowledged if we want to be honest with the individual ranking process.

[Baski]

This is all very nice but also misses the point.

All these guys we speak of had great careers, and none of these guys could replicate each other in the careers they had, but the guys who had more variance in coaching, team systems and teammates have more evidence to suggest their individual game was great regardless of situation.

While Timmy did the things you said, there's no evidence to suggest that those things impacted winning more than Pop, the system, the teammates, etc.

None of what I have said is undermining Tim's career either, it's merely a comment on individual players with varied circumstances do have a leg up on guys with less varied circumstances. It should be acknowledged if we want to be honest with the individual ranking process.

If that's your personal thought process then sure I can understand that. However I can't imagine any scenario where you can look at something so complicated without looking at the why as well.


I disagree with the bolded. It's not an either-or situation. If he didnt do the things he did there is no Pop, the system, teammates etc. so it doesn't make sense to compare their relative impact. I get that you're trying to separate the facts from the reasons but as we've been pointing out for years that's impossible to do with Duncan and the Spurs.

EDIT:
Also, as 70sfan pointed out, Duncan has been through a lot of variance in coaching, teammates and system. The only thing that's been constant is his jersey number and the fact that his coach's name is Greg Popovich. 99 Pop is very different from 2014 Pop and all the versions in between

[zimpy27]

This is all very nice but also misses the point.

All these guys we speak of had great careers, and none of these guys could replicate each other in the careers they had, but the guys who had more variance in coaching, team systems and teammates have more evidence to suggest their individual game was great regardless of situation.

While Timmy did the things you said, there's no evidence to suggest that those things impacted winning more than Pop, the system, the teammates, etc.

None of what I have said is undermining Tim's career either, it's merely a comment on individual players with varied circumstances do have a leg up on guys with less varied circumstances. It should be acknowledged if we want to be honest with the individual ranking process.

If that's your personal thought process then sure I can understand that. However I can't imagine any scenario where you can look at something so complicated without looking at the why as well.


I disagree with the bolded. It's not an either-or situation. If he didnt do the things he did there is no Pop, the system, teammates etc. so it doesn't make sense to compare their relative impact. I get that you're trying to separate the facts from the reasons but as we've been pointing out for years that's impossible to do with Duncan and the Spurs.

EDIT:
Also, as 70sfan pointed out, Duncan has been through a lot of variance in coaching, teammates and system. The only thing that's been constant is his jersey number and the fact that his coach's name is Greg Popovich. 99 Pop is very different from 2014 Pop and all the versions in between

Not saying either or.. it seems like you are diminishing the value of Pop, teammates and system in order to elevate Timmy. You think the little things Timmy did were more important. Even though there is no evidence. All I'm saying is that it's a wash because there isn't enough evidence. Timmy is in my top 10 but can't push him higher than 8th because of lack of career diversity.

1. Look at Duncan's individual numbers
2. Look at Duncan's team accomplishments
3. Think on why he's been more successful with his team other greats with similar or better individual numbers/visual play
4. Look at team factors external to Duncan individual numbers/visual play
5. Limited evidence to separate Duncan success from a team situation

That's a summary of the thought process, the why is essentially the reason we are even talking about this.

[penbeast0]

Is the situation Duncan was in actually better than the one that Magic fell into (drafted onto a team that was already a title contender if not the favorite with prime Kareem)? Magic did force some coaching changes but that was on him.

How about Bird? Drafted onto the Celtics who then got Kevin McHale and Robert Parish to play with him and those guys were there pretty much his whole career.

How about Russell? The whole team turned over but he had Red and strong depth throughout his career.

Almost half of the top 10 could argue favorable circumstances to some degree. You could also attribute much of their success to them making that team work. That's the analysis part of our discussion.

[Baski]

This is all very nice but also misses the point.

All these guys we speak of had great careers, and none of these guys could replicate each other in the careers they had, but the guys who had more variance in coaching, team systems and teammates have more evidence to suggest their individual game was great regardless of situation.

While Timmy did the things you said, there's no evidence to suggest that those things impacted winning more than Pop, the system, the teammates, etc.

None of what I have said is undermining Tim's career either, it's merely a comment on individual players with varied circumstances do have a leg up on guys with less varied circumstances. It should be acknowledged if we want to be honest with the individual ranking process.

If that's your personal thought process then sure I can understand that. However I can't imagine any scenario where you can look at something so complicated without looking at the why as well.


I disagree with the bolded. It's not an either-or situation. If he didnt do the things he did there is no Pop, the system, teammates etc. so it doesn't make sense to compare their relative impact. I get that you're trying to separate the facts from the reasons but as we've been pointing out for years that's impossible to do with Duncan and the Spurs.

EDIT:
Also, as 70sfan pointed out, Duncan has been through a lot of variance in coaching, teammates and system. The only thing that's been constant is his jersey number and the fact that his coach's name is Greg Popovich. 99 Pop is very different from 2014 Pop and all the versions in between

Not saying either or.. it seems like you are diminishing the value of Pop, teammates and system in order to elevate Timmy.

Diminishing their value would be criticizing something about what they did or didn't do towards helping the team win games. I don't think there was anything in my post that remotely suggested that they weren't incredibly important to the team, and if there was then that wasn't my intention. I'm just pointing out the series of non-coincidental Timmy-centric events that led to them being able to show their importance so well and for so long in the first place.

You think the little things Timmy did were more important. Even though there is no evidence. All I'm saying is that it's a wash because there isn't enough evidence. Timmy is in my top 10 but can't push him higher than 8th because of lack of career diversity.

As I said earlier, comparing their relative importance doesn't achieve anything. The main idea is that the little things he did facilitated the situation you're docking him for. Considering that he did not have to do them at all, and that pretty much no other ATG would do them, it's a very big deal that can't just be swept under the rug of "coach, teammates, system".

And no evidence? Come on. The evidence is in how he's excelled as a key cog in every version of the Spurs over his 19-year career. Again there is no value in his coach having the same name during this period. If you want to talk about variance, Duncan might as well have played with 4 different coaches over his entire career. Popovich isn't the rigid type of coach that is defined by one playstyle like a Jackson or D'Antoni. And he's been through a whole host of teammates as well.
If you think that's not evidence, I'd ask you how Pop giving the ball to Duncan and hoping for the best for the 1st 5 years is any different from some random unproven coach not named Popovich doing the same. Or how going from sharing a backcourt with DRob to sharing one with Rasho Neterovic to Tiago Splitter to Aldridge each under a different coaching style is different from moving to new teams and doing the same.

1. Look at Duncan's individual numbers
2. Look at Duncan's team accomplishments
3. Think on why he's been more successful with his team other greats with similar or better individual numbers/visual play
4. Look at team factors external to Duncan individual numbers/visual play
5. Limited evidence to separate Duncan success from a team situation

That's a summary of the thought process, the why is essentially the reason we are even talking about this.

Well you have the why. It's been said multiple times. If you want to ignore it that's fine, but it's there.

[Odinn21]

1. Look at Duncan's individual numbers
3. Think on why he's been more successful with his team other greats with similar or better individual numbers/visual play

Maybe you lack some perspective about these, if you think these two go against Duncan and not for him.

Tim Duncan in his prime (1998-99 to 2006-07) was
21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on .551 ts in regular seasons (+2.7 rts)
21.0 ppg 11.6 rpg 4.0 apg 0.5 spg 2.8 bpg on .556 ts in 38 playoffs 1st rounds games
25.3 ppg 13.3 rpg 3.5 apg 0.7 spg 2.7 bpg on .562 ts in 91 playoffs games past 1st rounds

In that time frame, Duncan played
5 playoff series against prime O'Neal and outscored Shaq in 3 of 'em, 3-2.
4 playoff series against prime Bryant and outscored Kobe in 1 of 'em, 1-3. (1999 is the difference between Kobe and Shaq)
3 playoff series against prime Nowitzki and outscored Dirk in 3 of 'em, 3-0.
These players are known for their scoring and scoring based offensive impacts. And Duncan elevated his offensive production to their level in those series while maintaining his defensive impact. Also his efficiency got better even though he played more minutes in tougher series.

Duncan's playoff run in 2003

He didn't particularly care in the 1st round. He just kept his defensive level and got everybody involved. This is his performance after the 1st round;

28.0 ppg 11.8 rpg 4.8 apg 1.3 bpg on .575 ts, +3.8 rts (31.8 eff, 22.8 gmsc, 21.8 pie) against the Lakers (2.71 SRS, 9th / 48 xW, 10th)
28.0 ppg 16.7 rpg 5.8 apg 3.0 bpg on .603 ts, +6.5 rts (39.3 eff, 27.2 gmsc, 21.8 pie) against the Mavs (7.90 SRS, 1st / 62 xW, 1st)
24.2 ppg 17.0 rpg 5.3 apg 5.3 bpg on .546 ts, +7.0 rts (37.0 eff, 24.1 gmsc, 26.7 pie) against the Nets (4.42 SRS, 4th / 56 xW, 4th)
26.7 ppg 15.2 rpg 5.3 apg 3.2 bpg on .575 ts, +5.8 rts (36.1 eff, 24.7 gmsc, 23.2 pie) on overall

His per 100 numbers in those series;
36.9 pts 15.9 reb 6.4 ast 1.7 blk against the Lakers
33.7 pts 20.3 reb 7.1 ast 3.7 blk against the Mavs
30.0 pts 21.1 reb 6.4 ast 6.6 blk against the Nets
33.5 pts 19.1 reb 6.6 ast 4.0 blk in those 18 games

And looking further than box numbers;
(Generally I'm not one to look for +/- data in playoffs series because most title winning teams aren't one-man army, lineups are too situational. But Duncan was one-army as it can get, the Spurs won when he was on the court and lost when he was off, because they had not much to offer other than Timmy, and 18 games is somewhat more reliable than looking a single series data.)
* When Duncan was on the court; the Spurs outscored their opponents by 1554-1414. (+7.8 per game)
When Duncan was off the court; the Spurs got outscored by their opponents with 178-218. (-2.2 per game)
* The Spurs had +5.8 net rating, it was +9.5 with Duncan and -22.7 without him.
* There are 2 significant games in this regard;
- Game 4 against the Lakers. The Spurs lost the game by 4 points despite Duncan was +15 when he was on the court.
Last 3:27 of the 2nd quarter, the Spurs leading by 16. Duncan sits down and the gap gets cut down to 7.
Last 2:54 of the 3rd quarter, the Spurs leading by 7. Duncan gets benched and the Lakers goes on a 14-3 series and the Lakers is up by 4 going into the 4th.
- Game 3 against the Mavericks. Even though it was a blowout game (Duncan had +31), the Spurs actually failed to score in 7 and a half minutes when he was off the court with 0-18 scoreboard. It shows how good was his cast on offense.
- The only time Duncan got bailed out was when Kerr came up big in game 6 of the WCF. It was like a reminder that no one can win all by himself.
* Some monster performances like 37/16/4/2 series clinching game against the Lakers. 40/15/7/1 - 32/15/5/3 - 34/24/6/6/2, these 3 are the first 3 games against the Mavs (when Dirk was healthy). 32/20/6/7/3 against the Nets in opening game of the Finals. And his famous near quadruple-double, title-winning game 21/20/10/8. Set the record for block in the Finals (after it started to get counted) with 32 blocks.
* Also Duncan scored 481 points and assisted 215 while he was on the court. 696 of 1554 points. Which makes it 44.8% for Duncan, getting directly involved.
* Duncan is one of the only 2 players along with Kareem to have 30+ points / 15+ rebounds performances in 4 consecutive games in the playoffs since the merger. Greater scorers like Shaq, Hakeem, Dirk couldn't do it. But he did. (I'm pointing out this as not something decisive, just something niche yet still impressive.)
* One last thing about his defense;
https://on.nba.com/2BQ2YjM
This is 'opponent shooting' percentages. According to the link, 40.2% of shots went in against Duncan in 2003 playoffs. Put it to some perspective; it was 38.5% for defense specialist Ben Wallace who didn't worry about carrying his team on offense in 2004 playoffs.
And the Spurs forced their opponents to have worse ORtg numbers by 8.4. He led a -8.5 playoffs defense.

Another note, in his hottest streak from LAL series game 4 to NJN series game 1, 10 games played;
30.0 ppg 15.9 rpg 5.5 apg 2.8 bpg 0.9 spg on .620 ts on a 101.0 ppg team
37.2 pts 19.6 reb 6.8 ast 3.4 blk 1.1 stl per 100

Another post about Garnett succeeding in the same situation Duncan was;
The underlined part (Garnett being equally good and succeeding as Duncan with 5 rings) is just flat out wrong. And I'll tell you why.
From 1999-00 to 2003-04, in those 5 seasons Duncan didn't have a team properly build around him and he made his team overachieve in those seasons. It's usually overlooked but in a sense, Duncan was like 2009 LeBron in Cleveland for 5 straight seasons. He made them have great win numbers, great SRS numbers, never less than 2nd round. And that was thanks to him. Not to his system. The Spurs were definitely not contenders. People thought they were but they weren't. Again, much like LeBron's first Cavs stint.
Duncan did not have as bad as Garnett had in Minnesota except for one season*. But that doesn't mean Duncan had a team around him that could actually contend.
* The helps Duncan got from his team in 2002-03 and Garnett got from his team in 2003-04 are pretty comparable. And I'm not saying this as Duncan is the better one since he got the ring. I know Cassell was injured and up until that point, the Wolves looked like they could actually win and Garnett was awesome.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1920366

Also, you are just focusing on 5 chips part and do not indulge how they were won.
Garnett and Duncan were born less than 1 month each apart. So, I'll just replacing Duncan with the same season Garnett. But I'll keep the same injuries besides Duncan's ones.
1998-99; Probably.
1999-00; No.
2000-01; No.
2001-02; No. (The Spurs weren't beating the the Lakers, especially with 2 important injuries in '01 and '02.)
2002-03; It was a decent defensive cast but they were so bad on offense without Duncan.
viewtopic.php?p=82832289#p82832289
The Spurs literally couldn't score without Duncan in 7 and a half minutes in game of the WCF. In the WCF.
2003-04; No.
2004-05; No. And here's why, what enabled Ginobili in 2005 Finals was how hard the Pistons defended Duncan. They doubled him with Wallaces (or a Wallace+McDyess when Dice was on) constantly and threw a third (either Billups or Prince usually) at him at times (especially in 4th q of game 7). Duncan wasn't efficient in the series but Garnett wasn't that kind of and that big of an offensive threat. Duncan's aggressiveness kept the Spurs offense going. Garnett wouldn't be able to handle the defensive pressure the Pistons would put on him. With Garnett, the Spurs would make the NBA Finals but probably would lose to the Pistons.
2005-06; Probably no, once again. Since the team relied on Duncan's offense in the playoffs once again, I don't see Garnett doing better than Duncan's 32/12/4/3 .615 ts against the Mavs.
2006-07; Yes.
2007-08; No. You seem to forget that Ginobili wasn't fully healthy against the Lakers, he had only 1 good game and the Spurs blew out the Lakers. But he was just awful in the 4 other games. He was literally 10 for 38 from the floor over 4 games, 8.3 ppg 3.5 rpg 3.5 apg with 2.8 tpg on .393 ts. Garnett wasn't winning that series. In fact, if we look at how well they did against the Lakers, Duncan did better than Garnett against the Lakers in 2008 playoffs.
Another transitioning period after 2008.
2011-12; Pop got outcoached by Brooks in the WCF. Having Garnett instead of Duncan wouldn't change that WCF result to a ring. Duncan went 21/12 at age 36 to bail his team and Pop out in the last 3 games of that series and the Spurs still lost each of 'em.
2012-13; I think there's a chance that's lesser than 1998-99 season but a higher than 50%.
2013-14; Garnett was done after 2012-13 season.

Easily 5 rings? Nope.

The Spurs system/culture didn't hand Timmy 5 rings. Saying KG could have won 5 rings with the Spurs is flat out wrong. He performed for them. It ignores Duncan's performances. It ignores how much Duncan helped that culture, especially by his silent leadership. Duncan won 5 rings because he was that great. Not because his team / org was that great.

You can think Garnett as Duncan's equal on the court, I'd disagree but that's an opinion. Saying Garnett would win 5 rings with the Spurs if he were in Duncan's position? That's an uneducated opinion.

---

Some additions;
Duncan being NBA-ready basically saved Popovich's job. No one either knows or doesn't want to remember but when Popovich fired Bob Hill to be the head coach, he was under immense pressure.
Popovich was not the goat level coach we know now in 1999 and 2003 successes.
As you can see, Duncan is literally proven to have more numbers/production in him but he chose to play a team-first ball. Even as an old man, that was not hard to see. When Popovich got outcoached by Brooks in 2012 WCF (another thing no one else remembers), he had to turn Duncan for offensive production and Duncan had 21/11/2 on .540 fg in the last 3 games despite the Spurs losing each of them. In 2013, this time it was against the Heat and Duncan had 24/14/1 on .571 fg in the last 3 games. Mind you, he was 37 in 2012 playoffs and 38 in 2013.
When the team was winning, Duncan didn't force his way to have numbers, when the team turned him to carry the offense, he did.

One more thing to look at is Duncan's defense. Defense is not captured by box score (driven) numbers and Duncan after his prime was still an all-time great defender.

His peak is there, his prime is there, his longevity is there, his career resume is there and the most important of all, his leadership is there.

If you think Duncan was not the utmost important piece that Spurs had while growing that culture, here;
viewtopic.php?p=60434624#p60434624

The story of Spurs rings has less to do with Duncan and more to do with the GOAT coach in Pop.

Hmmm.....I'm going to quote a few passages (thematically grouping as appropriate) from various articles/sportswriters or persons from the Spurs organization (including Pop himself), and some quotes from ThaRegul8r, who has likely followed Duncan's career more closely than anyone else here:

GROUP A:

Inside the league, Tim Duncan became the most influential player of his generation. Though he had little public appeal outside central Texas over his two decades in the league, Duncan ushered in cultural change in NBA practice facilities, locker rooms and executive suites.

The present-day NBA has become singularly consumed with the adoption and implementation of organizational culture. Forever looking for competitive advantages, franchises have turned to workplace culture as a bulwark. We might not be able to attract a top-line free agent, or hit the jackpot in the draft, but there are 44 games in an NBA season that can be won if we value the right things.

This is the league's guiding principle in 2016, from Atlanta and Salt Lake City to Oklahoma City and Brooklyn, where disciples of the Tim Duncan era learned the art and science of team-building in San Antonio. They've applied the findings and sculpted them to suit a particular roster or market. Some have enjoyed modest success while others are just getting started. But try as they might to replicate the Spurs' recipe, all of them are forced to concede at a certain juncture that they're missing one essential ingredient:

They don't have Tim Duncan.

''The real key is can you find that kind of person that will allow you to build your culture like that?'' Milwaukee Bucks GM John Hammond said. ''I think a lot of people are trying to copy that.''

If you were starting an organization from scratch in any sport you would look to the Spurs to model your franchise after and yet it wouldn’t work, because you wouldn’t have Tim Duncan.

GROUP B:

"The truth is we all work for Timmy."

"We all see it R.C.'s way. We're not dumb. We all know we wouldn't have any rings without Timmy. Everybody understands that. We all feel like we're working for Timmy."

GROUP C:
Says Sean Elliott about how hard Gregg Popovich can be on his players.....

"It sucks. If you play for him long enough, it doesn't matter who you are. You're gonna get torn down. You're gonna get it during film sessions, you're gonna get it on the court, you're gonna get in practice."

But here's the thing with the Spurs. It ranks as one of the more amazing aspects of Pop's long tenure in charge:

No one ever seems to quit on Pop no matter how loudly he screams. No one checks out. Pop's been a yeller since he took over for Bob Hill just 18 games into the 1996-97 season and hasn't mellowed yet. To this day, though, Pop has the rare privilege of knowing his best player is still willing to step face-first into the coach's full-throttle spittle if Pop thinks that's what the team needs to see.

"That's who Tim Duncan is."

Gregg Popovich, when questioned about Duncan's ability to accept coaching:

"That's a great point. His willingness to allow me and my staff to coach him, and coach him critically, 'You did well. You did poorly. Here's the deal.' That allowed for a lot of success because that set the tone for every other player that's ever come through that door. Because when somebody like him accepts and wants direction and coaching, and responds to it so well, it makes it very difficult for anybody else to go in a different direction. So that was huge for our success."

GROUP D:
Gregg Popovich when asked "What did he teach you about leadership?"

"That there are all kinds of leadership. His was a quiet [one]. He doesn't wave a towel. He doesn't give speeches. When he speaks it's for a purpose. Less is more in a sense with him. So when he did speak, it meant something to people.

"And he led by example. He had a vision. Everybody bought into his vision. He was accepting. He was not judgmental of people. He didn't even really need to demand because they knew inherently that what he expected was what they saw in him and what he did every day in practice and in games; how he handled a loss, how he handled that loss in Miami in the [2013 NBA] Finals, how he handled that win against Miami in the [2014] Finals. That's who he was and that's how he led."

Gregg Popovich when asked "What one thing will the organization miss most with Duncan gone?":

"I just think the aura that he creates, the iconic figure that he established for us all those years, the security, the safety net, the home plate, the hub of the wheel, all that sort of thing is who he was as a player. Even when he didn't score as many points the last couple of years, people still don't realize how efficient he was defensively. Just look to see where he ranked this last year as an individual player defensively, then you'll figure that out very quickly.

"Offensively, people know how to react because of where he's at. He'll move on the court and react when other players wouldn't have a clue, and they'd just be in the way. But he knows where to go. So even though his production stat-wise wasn't the same, we won 67 games because he still was the center of everything we did on both ends of the court; even whether people scored more. So we'll miss that and have to figure it out. Other people will have to step up leadership-wise. That'll be a huge thing for us: Who's gonna step up and be that quiet leader that everybody responds to and respects and feeds off of? Not a lot of people can handle that. So we'll see how that goes."

I can't seem to locate the quote, but there was one quote of Pop's----talking about the Spurs success over the last two decades---that went something like this [paraphrased]: "It all starts and ends with Timmy."

GROUP E:

Despite being arguably the team's best overall player last season, Duncan is taking a $5 million pay cut this season so the team had the resources necessary to re-sign Leonard and Danny Green and bring in Aldridge, a prized free agent.

That's why when I see people talking about the Spurs winning 61 games in their first year post-Duncan, I know they haven't actually been following the Spurs on anything other than a superficial basis.

Duncan’s last gift to the Spurs is the ability to walk away and not leave the organization in complete ruins.

Steve Kerr on Duncan's retirement and where the Spurs go from here:

"It's going to be really strange for sure. When you think of a Spurs game, you think of the opening tip and Timmy cradling the ball and looking down at Pop and Manu and Tony. The four of them really kind of define who they are. But Tim is the main guy obviously. They'll still be the Spurs based on what they've built. And maybe that's Timmy's lasting legacy. He helped build something so strong that's still going after he leaves."

Plenty of great athletes in plenty of cities have delivered championships during their careers. But Duncan, more than anyone, first enabled Popovich's sharing culture to take root with his acceptance of it, and now is nurturing the next generation of Spurs championship potential. Remember the Celtics in the years after Larry Bird, Lakers after Magic Johnson, Pistons after Isiah Thomas, Rockets after Hakeem Olajuwon, Bulls after Michael Jordan. Now think about the Spurs with Aldridge and Leonard.

Duncan is no longer just teaching the next generation of Spurs how to keep driving. He's handing over the keys.

I'll just link the full article with the Popovich interview transcript from Duncan's retirement:
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17024510/nba-popovich-duncan-retirement-transcript[/quote]

For another awesome post about Duncan from trex_8063;
viewtopic.php?p=85792371#p85792371

[70sFan]

I don't get it how people can say that Duncan didn't have good enough numbers. In 1999-07 period Duncan averaged 25/13/4/3 on 56 TS% without counting first rounds. For some strange reason people think that Duncan wasn't dominant player in similar way to Shaq, Hakeem or Kareem but he was. Watch some early 2000s Spurs games - he was a monster. He wasn't good player in great system - he was dominant pressence that created a system.

It's shocking to me that some people love talking about how dominant peak Hakeem was, but Duncan wasn't below this level at all.

[zimpy27]

1. Look at Duncan's individual numbers
3. Think on why he's been more successful with his team other greats with similar or better individual numbers/visual play

Maybe you lack some perspective about these, if you think these two go against Duncan and not for him.

Tim Duncan in his prime (1998-99 to 2006-07) was
21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on .551 ts in regular seasons (+2.7 rts)
21.0 ppg 11.6 rpg 4.0 apg 0.5 spg 2.8 bpg on .556 ts in 38 playoffs 1st rounds games
25.3 ppg 13.3 rpg 3.5 apg 0.7 spg 2.7 bpg on .562 ts in 91 playoffs games past 1st rounds

In that time frame, Duncan played
5 playoff series against prime O'Neal and outscored Shaq in 3 of 'em, 3-2.
4 playoff series against prime Bryant and outscored Kobe in 1 of 'em, 1-3. (1999 is the difference between Kobe and Shaq)
3 playoff series against prime Nowitzki and outscored Dirk in 3 of 'em, 3-0.
These players are known for their scoring and scoring based offensive impacts. And Duncan elevated his offensive production to their level in those series while maintaining his defensive impact. Also his efficiency got better even though he played more minutes in tougher series.

Duncan's playoff run in 2003

He didn't particularly care in the 1st round. He just kept his defensive level and got everybody involved. This is his performance after the 1st round;

28.0 ppg 11.8 rpg 4.8 apg 1.3 bpg on .575 ts, +3.8 rts (31.8 eff, 22.8 gmsc, 21.8 pie) against the Lakers (2.71 SRS, 9th / 48 xW, 10th)
28.0 ppg 16.7 rpg 5.8 apg 3.0 bpg on .603 ts, +6.5 rts (39.3 eff, 27.2 gmsc, 21.8 pie) against the Mavs (7.90 SRS, 1st / 62 xW, 1st)
24.2 ppg 17.0 rpg 5.3 apg 5.3 bpg on .546 ts, +7.0 rts (37.0 eff, 24.1 gmsc, 26.7 pie) against the Nets (4.42 SRS, 4th / 56 xW, 4th)
26.7 ppg 15.2 rpg 5.3 apg 3.2 bpg on .575 ts, +5.8 rts (36.1 eff, 24.7 gmsc, 23.2 pie) on overall

His per 100 numbers in those series;
36.9 pts 15.9 reb 6.4 ast 1.7 blk against the Lakers
33.7 pts 20.3 reb 7.1 ast 3.7 blk against the Mavs
30.0 pts 21.1 reb 6.4 ast 6.6 blk against the Nets
33.5 pts 19.1 reb 6.6 ast 4.0 blk in those 18 games

And looking further than box numbers;
(Generally I'm not one to look for +/- data in playoffs series because most title winning teams aren't one-man army, lineups are too situational. But Duncan was one-army as it can get, the Spurs won when he was on the court and lost when he was off, because they had not much to offer other than Timmy, and 18 games is somewhat more reliable than looking a single series data.)
* When Duncan was on the court; the Spurs outscored their opponents by 1554-1414. (+7.8 per game)
When Duncan was off the court; the Spurs got outscored by their opponents with 178-218. (-2.2 per game)
* The Spurs had +5.8 net rating, it was +9.5 with Duncan and -22.7 without him.
* There are 2 significant games in this regard;
- Game 4 against the Lakers. The Spurs lost the game by 4 points despite Duncan was +15 when he was on the court.
Last 3:27 of the 2nd quarter, the Spurs leading by 16. Duncan sits down and the gap gets cut down to 7.
Last 2:54 of the 3rd quarter, the Spurs leading by 7. Duncan gets benched and the Lakers goes on a 14-3 series and the Lakers is up by 4 going into the 4th.
- Game 3 against the Mavericks. Even though it was a blowout game (Duncan had +31), the Spurs actually failed to score in 7 and a half minutes when he was off the court with 0-18 scoreboard. It shows how good was his cast on offense.
- The only time Duncan got bailed out was when Kerr came up big in game 6 of the WCF. It was like a reminder that no one can win all by himself.
* Some monster performances like 37/16/4/2 series clinching game against the Lakers. 40/15/7/1 - 32/15/5/3 - 34/24/6/6/2, these 3 are the first 3 games against the Mavs (when Dirk was healthy). 32/20/6/7/3 against the Nets in opening game of the Finals. And his famous near quadruple-double, title-winning game 21/20/10/8. Set the record for block in the Finals (after it started to get counted) with 32 blocks.
* Also Duncan scored 481 points and assisted 215 while he was on the court. 696 of 1554 points. Which makes it 44.8% for Duncan, getting directly involved.
* Duncan is one of the only 2 players along with Kareem to have 30+ points / 15+ rebounds performances in 4 consecutive games in the playoffs since the merger. Greater scorers like Shaq, Hakeem, Dirk couldn't do it. But he did. (I'm pointing out this as not something decisive, just something niche yet still impressive.)
* One last thing about his defense;
https://on.nba.com/2BQ2YjM
This is 'opponent shooting' percentages. According to the link, 40.2% of shots went in against Duncan in 2003 playoffs. Put it to some perspective; it was 38.5% for defense specialist Ben Wallace who didn't worry about carrying his team on offense in 2004 playoffs.
And the Spurs forced their opponents to have worse ORtg numbers by 8.4. He led a -8.5 playoffs defense.

Another note, in his hottest streak from LAL series game 4 to NJN series game 1, 10 games played;
30.0 ppg 15.9 rpg 5.5 apg 2.8 bpg 0.9 spg on .620 ts on a 101.0 ppg team
37.2 pts 19.6 reb 6.8 ast 3.4 blk 1.1 stl per 100

Another post about Garnett succeeding in the same situation Duncan was;
The underlined part (Garnett being equally good and succeeding as Duncan with 5 rings) is just flat out wrong. And I'll tell you why.
From 1999-00 to 2003-04, in those 5 seasons Duncan didn't have a team properly build around him and he made his team overachieve in those seasons. It's usually overlooked but in a sense, Duncan was like 2009 LeBron in Cleveland for 5 straight seasons. He made them have great win numbers, great SRS numbers, never less than 2nd round. And that was thanks to him. Not to his system. The Spurs were definitely not contenders. People thought they were but they weren't. Again, much like LeBron's first Cavs stint.
Duncan did not have as bad as Garnett had in Minnesota except for one season*. But that doesn't mean Duncan had a team around him that could actually contend.
* The helps Duncan got from his team in 2002-03 and Garnett got from his team in 2003-04 are pretty comparable. And I'm not saying this as Duncan is the better one since he got the ring. I know Cassell was injured and up until that point, the Wolves looked like they could actually win and Garnett was awesome.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1920366

Also, you are just focusing on 5 chips part and do not indulge how they were won.
Garnett and Duncan were born less than 1 month each apart. So, I'll just replacing Duncan with the same season Garnett. But I'll keep the same injuries besides Duncan's ones.
1998-99; Probably.
1999-00; No.
2000-01; No.
2001-02; No. (The Spurs weren't beating the the Lakers, especially with 2 important injuries in '01 and '02.)
2002-03; It was a decent defensive cast but they were so bad on offense without Duncan.
viewtopic.php?p=82832289#p82832289
The Spurs literally couldn't score without Duncan in 7 and a half minutes in game of the WCF. In the WCF.
2003-04; No.
2004-05; No. And here's why, what enabled Ginobili in 2005 Finals was how hard the Pistons defended Duncan. They doubled him with Wallaces (or a Wallace+McDyess when Dice was on) constantly and threw a third (either Billups or Prince usually) at him at times (especially in 4th q of game 7). Duncan wasn't efficient in the series but Garnett wasn't that kind of and that big of an offensive threat. Duncan's aggressiveness kept the Spurs offense going. Garnett wouldn't be able to handle the defensive pressure the Pistons would put on him. With Garnett, the Spurs would make the NBA Finals but probably would lose to the Pistons.
2005-06; Probably no, once again. Since the team relied on Duncan's offense in the playoffs once again, I don't see Garnett doing better than Duncan's 32/12/4/3 .615 ts against the Mavs.
2006-07; Yes.
2007-08; No. You seem to forget that Ginobili wasn't fully healthy against the Lakers, he had only 1 good game and the Spurs blew out the Lakers. But he was just awful in the 4 other games. He was literally 10 for 38 from the floor over 4 games, 8.3 ppg 3.5 rpg 3.5 apg with 2.8 tpg on .393 ts. Garnett wasn't winning that series. In fact, if we look at how well they did against the Lakers, Duncan did better than Garnett against the Lakers in 2008 playoffs.
Another transitioning period after 2008.
2011-12; Pop got outcoached by Brooks in the WCF. Having Garnett instead of Duncan wouldn't change that WCF result to a ring. Duncan went 21/12 at age 36 to bail his team and Pop out in the last 3 games of that series and the Spurs still lost each of 'em.
2012-13; I think there's a chance that's lesser than 1998-99 season but a higher than 50%.
2013-14; Garnett was done after 2012-13 season.

Easily 5 rings? Nope.

The Spurs system/culture didn't hand Timmy 5 rings. Saying KG could have won 5 rings with the Spurs is flat out wrong. He performed for them. It ignores Duncan's performances. It ignores how much Duncan helped that culture, especially by his silent leadership. Duncan won 5 rings because he was that great. Not because his team / org was that great.

You can think Garnett as Duncan's equal on the court, I'd disagree but that's an opinion. Saying Garnett would win 5 rings with the Spurs if he were in Duncan's position? That's an uneducated opinion.

---

Some additions;
Duncan being NBA-ready basically saved Popovich's job. No one either knows or doesn't want to remember but when Popovich fired Bob Hill to be the head coach, he was under immense pressure.
Popovich was not the goat level coach we know now in 1999 and 2003 successes.
As you can see, Duncan is literally proven to have more numbers/production in him but he chose to play a team-first ball. Even as an old man, that was not hard to see. When Popovich got outcoached by Brooks in 2012 WCF (another thing no one else remembers), he had to turn Duncan for offensive production and Duncan had 21/11/2 on .540 fg in the last 3 games despite the Spurs losing each of them. In 2013, this time it was against the Heat and Duncan had 24/14/1 on .571 fg in the last 3 games. Mind you, he was 37 in 2012 playoffs and 38 in 2013.
When the team was winning, Duncan didn't force his way to have numbers, when the team turned him to carry the offense, he did.

One more thing to look at is Duncan's defense. Defense is not captured by box score (driven) numbers and Duncan after his prime was still an all-time great defender.

His peak is there, his prime is there, his longevity is there, his career resume is there and the most important of all, his leadership is there.

If you think Duncan was not the utmost important piece that Spurs had while growing that culture, here;
viewtopic.php?p=60434624#p60434624

The story of Spurs rings has less to do with Duncan and more to do with the GOAT coach in Pop.

Hmmm.....I'm going to quote a few passages (thematically grouping as appropriate) from various articles/sportswriters or persons from the Spurs organization (including Pop himself), and some quotes from ThaRegul8r, who has likely followed Duncan's career more closely than anyone else here:

GROUP A:

Inside the league, Tim Duncan became the most influential player of his generation. Though he had little public appeal outside central Texas over his two decades in the league, Duncan ushered in cultural change in NBA practice facilities, locker rooms and executive suites.

The present-day NBA has become singularly consumed with the adoption and implementation of organizational culture. Forever looking for competitive advantages, franchises have turned to workplace culture as a bulwark. We might not be able to attract a top-line free agent, or hit the jackpot in the draft, but there are 44 games in an NBA season that can be won if we value the right things.

This is the league's guiding principle in 2016, from Atlanta and Salt Lake City to Oklahoma City and Brooklyn, where disciples of the Tim Duncan era learned the art and science of team-building in San Antonio. They've applied the findings and sculpted them to suit a particular roster or market. Some have enjoyed modest success while others are just getting started. But try as they might to replicate the Spurs' recipe, all of them are forced to concede at a certain juncture that they're missing one essential ingredient:

They don't have Tim Duncan.

''The real key is can you find that kind of person that will allow you to build your culture like that?'' Milwaukee Bucks GM John Hammond said. ''I think a lot of people are trying to copy that.''

If you were starting an organization from scratch in any sport you would look to the Spurs to model your franchise after and yet it wouldn’t work, because you wouldn’t have Tim Duncan.

GROUP B:

"The truth is we all work for Timmy."

"We all see it R.C.'s way. We're not dumb. We all know we wouldn't have any rings without Timmy. Everybody understands that. We all feel like we're working for Timmy."

GROUP C:
Says Sean Elliott about how hard Gregg Popovich can be on his players.....

"It sucks. If you play for him long enough, it doesn't matter who you are. You're gonna get torn down. You're gonna get it during film sessions, you're gonna get it on the court, you're gonna get in practice."

But here's the thing with the Spurs. It ranks as one of the more amazing aspects of Pop's long tenure in charge:

No one ever seems to quit on Pop no matter how loudly he screams. No one checks out. Pop's been a yeller since he took over for Bob Hill just 18 games into the 1996-97 season and hasn't mellowed yet. To this day, though, Pop has the rare privilege of knowing his best player is still willing to step face-first into the coach's full-throttle spittle if Pop thinks that's what the team needs to see.

Gregg Popovich, when questioned about Duncan's ability to accept coaching:

"That's a great point. His willingness to allow me and my staff to coach him, and coach him critically, 'You did well. You did poorly. Here's the deal.' That allowed for a lot of success because that set the tone for every other player that's ever come through that door. Because when somebody like him accepts and wants direction and coaching, and responds to it so well, it makes it very difficult for anybody else to go in a different direction. So that was huge for our success."

GROUP D:
Gregg Popovich when asked "What did he teach you about leadership?"

"That there are all kinds of leadership. His was a quiet [one]. He doesn't wave a towel. He doesn't give speeches. When he speaks it's for a purpose. Less is more in a sense with him. So when he did speak, it meant something to people.

"And he led by example. He had a vision. Everybody bought into his vision. He was accepting. He was not judgmental of people. He didn't even really need to demand because they knew inherently that what he expected was what they saw in him and what he did every day in practice and in games; how he handled a loss, how he handled that loss in Miami in the [2013 NBA] Finals, how he handled that win against Miami in the [2014] Finals. That's who he was and that's how he led."

Gregg Popovich when asked "What one thing will the organization miss most with Duncan gone?":

"I just think the aura that he creates, the iconic figure that he established for us all those years, the security, the safety net, the home plate, the hub of the wheel, all that sort of thing is who he was as a player. Even when he didn't score as many points the last couple of years, people still don't realize how efficient he was defensively. Just look to see where he ranked this last year as an individual player defensively, then you'll figure that out very quickly.

"Offensively, people know how to react because of where he's at. He'll move on the court and react when other players wouldn't have a clue, and they'd just be in the way. But he knows where to go. So even though his production stat-wise wasn't the same, we won 67 games because he still was the center of everything we did on both ends of the court; even whether people scored more. So we'll miss that and have to figure it out. Other people will have to step up leadership-wise. That'll be a huge thing for us: Who's gonna step up and be that quiet leader that everybody responds to and respects and feeds off of? Not a lot of people can handle that. So we'll see how that goes."

I can't seem to locate the quote, but there was one quote of Pop's----talking about the Spurs success over the last two decades---that went something like this [paraphrased]: "It all starts and ends with Timmy."

GROUP E:

That's why when I see people talking about the Spurs winning 61 games in their first year post-Duncan, I know they haven't actually been following the Spurs on anything other than a superficial basis.

Steve Kerr on Duncan's retirement and where the Spurs go from here:

"It's going to be really strange for sure. When you think of a Spurs game, you think of the opening tip and Timmy cradling the ball and looking down at Pop and Manu and Tony. The four of them really kind of define who they are. But Tim is the main guy obviously. They'll still be the Spurs based on what they've built. And maybe that's Timmy's lasting legacy. He helped build something so strong that's still going after he leaves."

Plenty of great athletes in plenty of cities have delivered championships during their careers. But Duncan, more than anyone, first enabled Popovich's sharing culture to take root with his acceptance of it, and now is nurturing the next generation of Spurs championship potential. Remember the Celtics in the years after Larry Bird, Lakers after Magic Johnson, Pistons after Isiah Thomas, Rockets after Hakeem Olajuwon, Bulls after Michael Jordan. Now think about the Spurs with Aldridge and Leonard.

Duncan is no longer just teaching the next generation of Spurs how to keep driving. He's handing over the keys.

I'll just link the full article with the Popovich interview transcript from Duncan's retirement:
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17024510/nba-popovich-duncan-retirement-transcript

For another awesome post about Duncan from trex_8063;
viewtopic.php?p=85792371#p85792371[/quote]

1. Look at Duncan's individual numbers
3. Think on why he's been more successful with his team other greats with similar or better individual numbers/visual play

Maybe you lack some perspective about these, if you think these two go against Duncan and not for him.

Tim Duncan in his prime (1998-99 to 2006-07) was
21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on .551 ts in regular seasons (+2.7 rts)
21.0 ppg 11.6 rpg 4.0 apg 0.5 spg 2.8 bpg on .556 ts in 38 playoffs 1st rounds games
25.3 ppg 13.3 rpg 3.5 apg 0.7 spg 2.7 bpg on .562 ts in 91 playoffs games past 1st rounds

In that time frame, Duncan played
5 playoff series against prime O'Neal and outscored Shaq in 3 of 'em, 3-2.
4 playoff series against prime Bryant and outscored Kobe in 1 of 'em, 1-3. (1999 is the difference between Kobe and Shaq)
3 playoff series against prime Nowitzki and outscored Dirk in 3 of 'em, 3-0.
These players are known for their scoring and scoring based offensive impacts. And Duncan elevated his offensive production to their level in those series while maintaining his defensive impact. Also his efficiency got better even though he played more minutes in tougher series.

Duncan's playoff run in 2003

He didn't particularly care in the 1st round. He just kept his defensive level and got everybody involved. This is his performance after the 1st round;

28.0 ppg 11.8 rpg 4.8 apg 1.3 bpg on .575 ts, +3.8 rts (31.8 eff, 22.8 gmsc, 21.8 pie) against the Lakers (2.71 SRS, 9th / 48 xW, 10th)
28.0 ppg 16.7 rpg 5.8 apg 3.0 bpg on .603 ts, +6.5 rts (39.3 eff, 27.2 gmsc, 21.8 pie) against the Mavs (7.90 SRS, 1st / 62 xW, 1st)
24.2 ppg 17.0 rpg 5.3 apg 5.3 bpg on .546 ts, +7.0 rts (37.0 eff, 24.1 gmsc, 26.7 pie) against the Nets (4.42 SRS, 4th / 56 xW, 4th)
26.7 ppg 15.2 rpg 5.3 apg 3.2 bpg on .575 ts, +5.8 rts (36.1 eff, 24.7 gmsc, 23.2 pie) on overall

His per 100 numbers in those series;
36.9 pts 15.9 reb 6.4 ast 1.7 blk against the Lakers
33.7 pts 20.3 reb 7.1 ast 3.7 blk against the Mavs
30.0 pts 21.1 reb 6.4 ast 6.6 blk against the Nets
33.5 pts 19.1 reb 6.6 ast 4.0 blk in those 18 games

And looking further than box numbers;
(Generally I'm not one to look for +/- data in playoffs series because most title winning teams aren't one-man army, lineups are too situational. But Duncan was one-army as it can get, the Spurs won when he was on the court and lost when he was off, because they had not much to offer other than Timmy, and 18 games is somewhat more reliable than looking a single series data.)
* When Duncan was on the court; the Spurs outscored their opponents by 1554-1414. (+7.8 per game)
When Duncan was off the court; the Spurs got outscored by their opponents with 178-218. (-2.2 per game)
* The Spurs had +5.8 net rating, it was +9.5 with Duncan and -22.7 without him.
* There are 2 significant games in this regard;
- Game 4 against the Lakers. The Spurs lost the game by 4 points despite Duncan was +15 when he was on the court.
Last 3:27 of the 2nd quarter, the Spurs leading by 16. Duncan sits down and the gap gets cut down to 7.
Last 2:54 of the 3rd quarter, the Spurs leading by 7. Duncan gets benched and the Lakers goes on a 14-3 series and the Lakers is up by 4 going into the 4th.
- Game 3 against the Mavericks. Even though it was a blowout game (Duncan had +31), the Spurs actually failed to score in 7 and a half minutes when he was off the court with 0-18 scoreboard. It shows how good was his cast on offense.
- The only time Duncan got bailed out was when Kerr came up big in game 6 of the WCF. It was like a reminder that no one can win all by himself.
* Some monster performances like 37/16/4/2 series clinching game against the Lakers. 40/15/7/1 - 32/15/5/3 - 34/24/6/6/2, these 3 are the first 3 games against the Mavs (when Dirk was healthy). 32/20/6/7/3 against the Nets in opening game of the Finals. And his famous near quadruple-double, title-winning game 21/20/10/8. Set the record for block in the Finals (after it started to get counted) with 32 blocks.
* Also Duncan scored 481 points and assisted 215 while he was on the court. 696 of 1554 points. Which makes it 44.8% for Duncan, getting directly involved.
* Duncan is one of the only 2 players along with Kareem to have 30+ points / 15+ rebounds performances in 4 consecutive games in the playoffs since the merger. Greater scorers like Shaq, Hakeem, Dirk couldn't do it. But he did. (I'm pointing out this as not something decisive, just something niche yet still impressive.)
* One last thing about his defense;
https://on.nba.com/2BQ2YjM
This is 'opponent shooting' percentages. According to the link, 40.2% of shots went in against Duncan in 2003 playoffs. Put it to some perspective; it was 38.5% for defense specialist Ben Wallace who didn't worry about carrying his team on offense in 2004 playoffs.
And the Spurs forced their opponents to have worse ORtg numbers by 8.4. He led a -8.5 playoffs defense.

Another note, in his hottest streak from LAL series game 4 to NJN series game 1, 10 games played;
30.0 ppg 15.9 rpg 5.5 apg 2.8 bpg 0.9 spg on .620 ts on a 101.0 ppg team
37.2 pts 19.6 reb 6.8 ast 3.4 blk 1.1 stl per 100

Another post about Garnett succeeding in the same situation Duncan was;
The underlined part (Garnett being equally good and succeeding as Duncan with 5 rings) is just flat out wrong. And I'll tell you why.
From 1999-00 to 2003-04, in those 5 seasons Duncan didn't have a team properly build around him and he made his team overachieve in those seasons. It's usually overlooked but in a sense, Duncan was like 2009 LeBron in Cleveland for 5 straight seasons. He made them have great win numbers, great SRS numbers, never less than 2nd round. And that was thanks to him. Not to his system. The Spurs were definitely not contenders. People thought they were but they weren't. Again, much like LeBron's first Cavs stint.
Duncan did not have as bad as Garnett had in Minnesota except for one season*. But that doesn't mean Duncan had a team around him that could actually contend.
* The helps Duncan got from his team in 2002-03 and Garnett got from his team in 2003-04 are pretty comparable. And I'm not saying this as Duncan is the better one since he got the ring. I know Cassell was injured and up until that point, the Wolves looked like they could actually win and Garnett was awesome.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1920366

Also, you are just focusing on 5 chips part and do not indulge how they were won.
Garnett and Duncan were born less than 1 month each apart. So, I'll just replacing Duncan with the same season Garnett. But I'll keep the same injuries besides Duncan's ones.
1998-99; Probably.
1999-00; No.
2000-01; No.
2001-02; No. (The Spurs weren't beating the the Lakers, especially with 2 important injuries in '01 and '02.)
2002-03; It was a decent defensive cast but they were so bad on offense without Duncan.
viewtopic.php?p=82832289#p82832289
The Spurs literally couldn't score without Duncan in 7 and a half minutes in game of the WCF. In the WCF.
2003-04; No.
2004-05; No. And here's why, what enabled Ginobili in 2005 Finals was how hard the Pistons defended Duncan. They doubled him with Wallaces (or a Wallace+McDyess when Dice was on) constantly and threw a third (either Billups or Prince usually) at him at times (especially in 4th q of game 7). Duncan wasn't efficient in the series but Garnett wasn't that kind of and that big of an offensive threat. Duncan's aggressiveness kept the Spurs offense going. Garnett wouldn't be able to handle the defensive pressure the Pistons would put on him. With Garnett, the Spurs would make the NBA Finals but probably would lose to the Pistons.
2005-06; Probably no, once again. Since the team relied on Duncan's offense in the playoffs once again, I don't see Garnett doing better than Duncan's 32/12/4/3 .615 ts against the Mavs.
2006-07; Yes.
2007-08; No. You seem to forget that Ginobili wasn't fully healthy against the Lakers, he had only 1 good game and the Spurs blew out the Lakers. But he was just awful in the 4 other games. He was literally 10 for 38 from the floor over 4 games, 8.3 ppg 3.5 rpg 3.5 apg with 2.8 tpg on .393 ts. Garnett wasn't winning that series. In fact, if we look at how well they did against the Lakers, Duncan did better than Garnett against the Lakers in 2008 playoffs.
Another transitioning period after 2008.
2011-12; Pop got outcoached by Brooks in the WCF. Having Garnett instead of Duncan wouldn't change that WCF result to a ring. Duncan went 21/12 at age 36 to bail his team and Pop out in the last 3 games of that series and the Spurs still lost each of 'em.
2012-13; I think there's a chance that's lesser than 1998-99 season but a higher than 50%.
2013-14; Garnett was done after 2012-13 season.

Easily 5 rings? Nope.

The Spurs system/culture didn't hand Timmy 5 rings. Saying KG could have won 5 rings with the Spurs is flat out wrong. He performed for them. It ignores Duncan's performances. It ignores how much Duncan helped that culture, especially by his silent leadership. Duncan won 5 rings because he was that great. Not because his team / org was that great.

You can think Garnett as Duncan's equal on the court, I'd disagree but that's an opinion. Saying Garnett would win 5 rings with the Spurs if he were in Duncan's position? That's an uneducated opinion.

---

Some additions;
Duncan being NBA-ready basically saved Popovich's job. No one either knows or doesn't want to remember but when Popovich fired Bob Hill to be the head coach, he was under immense pressure.
Popovich was not the goat level coach we know now in 1999 and 2003 successes.
As you can see, Duncan is literally proven to have more numbers/production in him but he chose to play a team-first ball. Even as an old man, that was not hard to see. When Popovich got outcoached by Brooks in 2012 WCF (another thing no one else remembers), he had to turn Duncan for offensive production and Duncan had 21/11/2 on .540 fg in the last 3 games despite the Spurs losing each of them. In 2013, this time it was against the Heat and Duncan had 24/14/1 on .571 fg in the last 3 games. Mind you, he was 37 in 2012 playoffs and 38 in 2013.
When the team was winning, Duncan didn't force his way to have numbers, when the team turned him to carry the offense, he did.

One more thing to look at is Duncan's defense. Defense is not captured by box score (driven) numbers and Duncan after his prime was still an all-time great defender.

His peak is there, his prime is there, his longevity is there, his career resume is there and the most important of all, his leadership is there.

If you think Duncan was not the utmost important piece that Spurs had while growing that culture, here;
viewtopic.php?p=60434624#p60434624

The story of Spurs rings has less to do with Duncan and more to do with the GOAT coach in Pop.

Hmmm.....I'm going to quote a few passages (thematically grouping as appropriate) from various articles/sportswriters or persons from the Spurs organization (including Pop himself), and some quotes from ThaRegul8r, who has likely followed Duncan's career more closely than anyone else here:

GROUP A:

Inside the league, Tim Duncan became the most influential player of his generation. Though he had little public appeal outside central Texas over his two decades in the league, Duncan ushered in cultural change in NBA practice facilities, locker rooms and executive suites.

The present-day NBA has become singularly consumed with the adoption and implementation of organizational culture. Forever looking for competitive advantages, franchises have turned to workplace culture as a bulwark. We might not be able to attract a top-line free agent, or hit the jackpot in the draft, but there are 44 games in an NBA season that can be won if we value the right things.

This is the league's guiding principle in 2016, from Atlanta and Salt Lake City to Oklahoma City and Brooklyn, where disciples of the Tim Duncan era learned the art and science of team-building in San Antonio. They've applied the findings and sculpted them to suit a particular roster or market. Some have enjoyed modest success while others are just getting started. But try as they might to replicate the Spurs' recipe, all of them are forced to concede at a certain juncture that they're missing one essential ingredient:

They don't have Tim Duncan.

''The real key is can you find that kind of person that will allow you to build your culture like that?'' Milwaukee Bucks GM John Hammond said. ''I think a lot of people are trying to copy that.''

If you were starting an organization from scratch in any sport you would look to the Spurs to model your franchise after and yet it wouldn’t work, because you wouldn’t have Tim Duncan.

GROUP B:

"The truth is we all work for Timmy."

"We all see it R.C.'s way. We're not dumb. We all know we wouldn't have any rings without Timmy. Everybody understands that. We all feel like we're working for Timmy."

GROUP C:
Says Sean Elliott about how hard Gregg Popovich can be on his players.....

"It sucks. If you play for him long enough, it doesn't matter who you are. You're gonna get torn down. You're gonna get it during film sessions, you're gonna get it on the court, you're gonna get in practice."

But here's the thing with the Spurs. It ranks as one of the more amazing aspects of Pop's long tenure in charge:

No one ever seems to quit on Pop no matter how loudly he screams. No one checks out. Pop's been a yeller since he took over for Bob Hill just 18 games into the 1996-97 season and hasn't mellowed yet. To this day, though, Pop has the rare privilege of knowing his best player is still willing to step face-first into the coach's full-throttle spittle if Pop thinks that's what the team needs to see.

Gregg Popovich, when questioned about Duncan's ability to accept coaching:

"That's a great point. His willingness to allow me and my staff to coach him, and coach him critically, 'You did well. You did poorly. Here's the deal.' That allowed for a lot of success because that set the tone for every other player that's ever come through that door. Because when somebody like him accepts and wants direction and coaching, and responds to it so well, it makes it very difficult for anybody else to go in a different direction. So that was huge for our success."

GROUP D:
Gregg Popovich when asked "What did he teach you about leadership?"

"That there are all kinds of leadership. His was a quiet [one]. He doesn't wave a towel. He doesn't give speeches. When he speaks it's for a purpose. Less is more in a sense with him. So when he did speak, it meant something to people.

"And he led by example. He had a vision. Everybody bought into his vision. He was accepting. He was not judgmental of people. He didn't even really need to demand because they knew inherently that what he expected was what they saw in him and what he did every day in practice and in games; how he handled a loss, how he handled that loss in Miami in the [2013 NBA] Finals, how he handled that win against Miami in the [2014] Finals. That's who he was and that's how he led."

Gregg Popovich when asked "What one thing will the organization miss most with Duncan gone?":

"I just think the aura that he creates, the iconic figure that he established for us all those years, the security, the safety net, the home plate, the hub of the wheel, all that sort of thing is who he was as a player. Even when he didn't score as many points the last couple of years, people still don't realize how efficient he was defensively. Just look to see where he ranked this last year as an individual player defensively, then you'll figure that out very quickly.

"Offensively, people know how to react because of where he's at. He'll move on the court and react when other players wouldn't have a clue, and they'd just be in the way. But he knows where to go. So even though his production stat-wise wasn't the same, we won 67 games because he still was the center of everything we did on both ends of the court; even whether people scored more. So we'll miss that and have to figure it out. Other people will have to step up leadership-wise. That'll be a huge thing for us: Who's gonna step up and be that quiet leader that everybody responds to and respects and feeds off of? Not a lot of people can handle that. So we'll see how that goes."

I can't seem to locate the quote, but there was one quote of Pop's----talking about the Spurs success over the last two decades---that went something like this [paraphrased]: "It all starts and ends with Timmy."

GROUP E:

That's why when I see people talking about the Spurs winning 61 games in their first year post-Duncan, I know they haven't actually been following the Spurs on anything other than a superficial basis.

Steve Kerr on Duncan's retirement and where the Spurs go from here:

"It's going to be really strange for sure. When you think of a Spurs game, you think of the opening tip and Timmy cradling the ball and looking down at Pop and Manu and Tony. The four of them really kind of define who they are. But Tim is the main guy obviously. They'll still be the Spurs based on what they've built. And maybe that's Timmy's lasting legacy. He helped build something so strong that's still going after he leaves."

Plenty of great athletes in plenty of cities have delivered championships during their careers. But Duncan, more than anyone, first enabled Popovich's sharing culture to take root with his acceptance of it, and now is nurturing the next generation of Spurs championship potential. Remember the Celtics in the years after Larry Bird, Lakers after Magic Johnson, Pistons after Isiah Thomas, Rockets after Hakeem Olajuwon, Bulls after Michael Jordan. Now think about the Spurs with Aldridge and Leonard.

Duncan is no longer just teaching the next generation of Spurs how to keep driving. He's handing over the keys.

I'll just link the full article with the Popovich interview transcript from Duncan's retirement:
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17024510/nba-popovich-duncan-retirement-transcript

For another awesome post about Duncan from trex_8063;
viewtopic.php?p=85792371#p85792371[/quote]

I think you really misunderstood what I wrote. None of this info was helpful because you didn't read what I wrote but I appreciate the effort.

[Odinn21]

I think you really misunderstood what I wrote. None of this info was helpful because you didn't read what I wrote but I appreciate the effort.

Your premise is inaccurate.