Does Tim Duncan move up in your all-time players list if he wins a title?

[1987_Lakers]

Probably the best big man in the NBA at age 37. Made the All-NBA First Team and All-Defensive 2nd Team this year. He outplayed who many thought was the best big man in the league in Marc Gasol in the WCF. He just keeps adding to his resume.

[9erempiree]

no.

Parker is the reason why they are so successful this year. He's been the best player in this year's playoffs.

This is a Parker led team.

[Legends66NBA7]

Depends on how he performs, as it always does matter first.

[daj0264]

probably.

I dont see them winning though as i tihnk the miami heat will get to the finals and are too deep.

[Jacks3]

Depends on how he plays.

[Noob Saibot]

If he gets the FMVP, you almost have to place him in Magic/Bird territory. Parker will likely move up a lot on the top 100 list if he gets it instead.

[Kurosawa0]

Right now, this is my top 10:

1. MJ
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Kobe
8. Wilt
9. Shaq
10. LeBron

If Duncan gets #5 it's going to be really hard not to slide him past Bird. Still can't put Timmy over Magic though.

[Doranku]

No.

I have him at 6 right now, and unless he averages something like 25+/10+ (he's not going to), then I can't justify putting him in my top 5.

[tikay0]

If he gets the FMVP, you almost have to place him in Magic/Bird territory. Parker will likely move up a lot on the top 100 list if he gets it instead.

THIS.

[Carbine]

It's clearly Parkers team on offense, but Duncan is still the second option on offense and the foundation on the other side of the ball. He might be their MVP with the way the team is constructed - without him they have minimal rim protection and minimal size and rebounding.

[9erempiree]

If you think about it, Duncan fell off the face of this earth. If it wasn't for Parker's resurrection this past couple of years, they wouldn't even be in the Finals.

They pretty much go as far as Parker leads them.

[Kblaze8855]

He already has more rings than some I rank him behind. So I doubt it. 5 doesnt say much 4 doesnt. Ive not moved him up since the second one really. He got to a high level and stayed. I dont need to see his final accolades to rank him. I know what I get with Duncan.

[onhcetum]

If you think about it, Duncan fell off the face of this earth. If it wasn't for Parker's resurrection this past couple of years, they wouldn't even be in the Finals.

They pretty much go as far as Parker leads them.

On offense... do you guys even play basketball or you just sit here on the forums all day?

TD is their defensive anchor and not to mention... 18ppg...

[TheFan]

yes, if the Spurs win the title with TD being a key piece for the team.

[Carbine]

He already has more rings than some I rank him behind. So I doubt it. 5 doesnt say much 4 doesnt. Ive not moved him up since the second one really. He got to a high level and stayed. I dont need to see his final accolades to rank him. I know what I get with Duncan.

I don't understand that way of thinking....."I haven't moved him up since the second one really."

So the last TEN years means, numerous accolades, two titles as clear best player mean next to nothing? Duncan could have retired after 2003 and be ranked the same as if he did what he did the last ten years to you?

I know people love to rank players by PRIME or how good they were at their best....but that's taking it to a whole other level.

[WWRWestbrookDo?]

he's already arguably the greatest pf of all time

[9erempiree]

On offense... do you guys even play basketball or you just sit here on the forums all day?

TD is their defensive anchor and not to mention... 18ppg...

Defensive anchor is a term that's been thrown around a lot. What does that actually mean? It's not like the Spurs suck on defense and need him. They are very good defensively without him.

His 18 ppg is deceiving. They don't make as much of an impact like Parker.

[tikay0]

he's already arguably the greatest pf of all time

Easily in my book.

[tikay0]

I don't understand that way of thinking....."I haven't moved him up since the second one really."

So the last TEN years means, numerous accolades, two titles as clear best player mean next to nothing? Duncan could have retired after 2003 and be ranked the same as if he did what he did the last ten years to you?

I know people love to rank players by PRIME or how good they were at their best....but that's taking it to a whole other level.

Yeah, was kinda confused at that post as well. :wtf:

[K]

No, I don't see him moving past any of Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain.

[Kblaze8855]

I had duncan roughly top 10 all time in 2003...yes. I remember Duncan/hakeem arguments coming up in which I took Hakeem....but duncan was right below.

I remember making a topic on why people wait till greatness smacks them in the face to admit its there. I think it was on Kobe vs Dr.J as a player..

Something like that.

By his second ring he had proven about as much as Hakeem, Moses Malone, or Oscar robertson types ever did. He was ranked as the GOAT 4 by many already. I know I had a Duncan/Malone argument at the time. 2MVPs and 2 rings one with little help?

No. He didnt need to do much more. Who is in his way from 20 to 10 that 2 more rings moves him past?

Hes next to the likes of...Isiah, Barkley, Malone, Baylor, and so on once you drop him from the top 10 or so.

Which of them did he need 3 rings to surpass?

Isiah maybe...but not many.

Not like people had him next to Dave Cowens after 03 and he jumped to top 10 in 05 or 07.

He was about where he is now already. There isnt any reason to rank 03 Duncan behind those lesser GOATs.

None in that 10-20 range did anything had had not surpassed by 03.

Who in that class has 2 rings, 2 MVPs, and 6 all NBA first teams and all D first teams?

Am I missing someone?

[Noob Saibot]

[QUOTE=K

[Odinn]

No. When you make a goat list, you put more weight to prime(peak) play compared to longevity. Much more. 37 year old Duncan is superior to 37 year old Shaq. So what? Is this going to change the fact that Shaq has a great case for MDE and Duncan doesn't have one? The difference between them at age 37 is gonna make up the difference between them in their peak? Do not think so.

What he did and is doing at this age is making his career even more respectable. But that's a different thing.

[Odinn]

Timmy has the same accolades as those two. It wouldn't be a big deal if he were ranked ahead on them.
You're not going to choose Timmy over Shaq coz of 5>4. Even now, if you bring up this ring argument, I'll say Duncan was the main contributor of his 4 title runs and Shaq was 3 out of 4 and ring argument favours Duncan.

But if you pick Duncan over Shaq, it's due to being more of a true franchise and coachable player. Not because of rings or accolades.

[9erempiree]

No. When you make a goat list, you put more weight to prime(peak) play compared to longevity. Much more. 37 year old Duncan is superior to 37 year old Shaq. So what? Is this going to change the fact that Shaq has a great case for MDE and Duncan doesn't have one? The difference between them at age 37 is gonna make up the difference between them in their peak? Do not think so.

What he did and is doing at this age is making his career even more respectable. But that's a different thing.

I agree.

We have to talk about level of play. That is why people still think Kobe can pass MJ because the guy has been playing at a high level regardless of age. If he won a ring this year at the level he's been playing at, it will elevate Kobe.

Duncan on the other hand, is done.

[pauk]

I am with Odinn on this one.

[K]

I agree.

We have to talk about level of play. That is why people still think K...

That is where I stopped reading your post.

[Noob Saibot]

You're not going to choose Timmy over Shaq coz of 5>4. Even now, if you bring up this ring argument, I'll say Duncan was the main contributor of his 4 title runs and Shaq was 3 out of 4 and ring argument favours Duncan.

But if you pick Duncan over Shaq, it's due to being more of a true franchise and coachable player. Not because of rings or accolades.

^good points. Peak value, Shaq was a more dominant force than Duncan. No lie there. To say Duncan>Shaq is more about consistency. Pick your poison. You want a slow kill with the Big Fundamental or a fast kill with the Diesel.

[Carbine]

I had duncan roughly top 10 all time in 2003...yes. I remember Duncan/hakeem arguments coming up in which I took Hakeem....but duncan was right below.

I remember making a topic on why people wait till greatness smacks them in the face to admit its there. I think it was on Kobe vs Dr.J as a player..

Something like that.

By his second ring he had proven about as much as Hakeem, Moses Malone, or Oscar robertson types ever did. He was ranked as the GOAT 4 by many already. I know I had a Duncan/Malone argument at the time. 2MVPs and 2 rings one with little help?

No. He didnt need to do much more. Who is in his way from 20 to 10 that 2 more rings moves him past?

Hes next to the likes of...Isiah, Barkley, Malone, Baylor, and so on once you drop him from the top 10 or so.

Which of them did he need 3 rings to surpass?

Isiah maybe...but not many.

Not like people had him next to Dave Cowens after 03 and he jumped to top 10 in 05 or 07.

He was about where he is now already. There isnt any reason to rank 03 Duncan behind those lesser GOATs.

None in that 10-20 range did anything had had not surpassed by 03.

Who in that class has 2 rings, 2 MVPs, and 6 all NBA first teams and all D first teams?

Am I missing someone?


Proving to being the driving force for a championship again....and again....and possibly again (though he's not as dominant as he was for the previous ones) doesn't matter when comparing him to those above him?

Those 8 All-NBA teams don't matter? Those 8 All-NBA defensive teams don't matter? Longevity and playing this well for this long means....nothing.

You and I....and everyone else knows damn well LeBron is one of the 5 or 6 best individual players we've ever seen. We won't rank him that high though because his career does not match up with the likes of others who he would be compared to. Winning titles....and playing great for an extended period of time....will lift him up into that category.

I just think it's silly to write off ten years of excellent basketball and potentially three more titles. That means a lot.... when comparing him (and ultimately deciding where he ranks) to those in the top 10.

[Carbine]

I agree.

We have to talk about level of play. That is why people still think Kobe can pass MJ because the guy has been playing at a high level regardless of age. If he won a ring this year at the level he's been playing at, it will elevate Kobe.

Duncan on the other hand, is done.

Is this guy a known troll or what? I don't keep up with who is what anymore.

Someone inform this dude that Duncan was a 1st team All-NBA player this year and has as good an argument as the best big man in the league as anyone.

[tpols]

Proving to being the driving force for a championship again....and again....and possibly again (though he's not as dominant as he was for the previous ones) doesn't matter when comparing him to those above him?

Those 8 All-NBA teams don't matter? Those 8 All-NBA defensive teams don't matter? Longevity and playing this well for this long means....nothing.

You and I....and everyone else knows damn well LeBron is one of the 5 or 6 best individual players we've ever seen. We won't rank him that high though because his career does not match up with the likes of others who he would be compared to. Winning titles....and playing great for an extended period of time....will lift him up into that category.

I just think it's silly to write off ten years of excellent basketball and potentially three more titles. That means a lot.... when comparing him (and ultimately deciding where he ranks) to those in the top 10.
GOAT lists are like an exponential curve.. the closer and closer you get to the end the harder x100 it is to move up anymore.

You needed 2 titles as the man and an MVP to make top ten GOAT ten years ago. You needed like 5+ titles and 4+ MVPs to crack into top five.. and you need even crazier play to secure a case for GOAT. It just keeps getting steeper and steeper.

[ThaRegul8r]

You're not going to choose Timmy over Shaq coz of 5>4. Even now, if you bring up this ring argument, I'll say Duncan was the main contributor of his 4 title runs and Shaq was 3 out of 4 and ring argument favours Duncan.

But if you pick Duncan over Shaq, it's due to being more of a true franchise and coachable player. Not because of rings or accolades.

Yeah, for people who have Shaq over Duncan, this isn't going to sway them the other way, and for people who have Duncan over Shaq, this isn't going to change anything.

[Round Mound]

^good points. Peak value, Shaq was a more dominant force than Duncan. No lie there. To say Duncan>Shaq is more about consistency. Pick your poison. You want a slow kill with the Big Fundamental or a fast kill with the Diesel.

Barkley was similar to Shaq. Fast Kill but In Their Primes None Could Stop Them.

[Bosnian Sajo]

no.

Parker is the reason why they are so successful this year. He's been the best player in this year's playoffs.

This is a Parker led team.

:eek:

Have you been watching these playoffs at all? Not to take anything away from the awesome job Parker has been doing, but Timmy is on top of his game atm...he scored every point in the game 2 ot for crying out loud :oldlol:

**** outta here

[tazb]

No. But the debate on who's better between Kobe & Duncan will officially be over.

[GrapeApe]

Did someone in this thread really call a 1st team all NBA player done?!?!? I think another ring for Duncan gives him a legit case for top 5.

[SpurrDurr]

If Duncan wins another title he is going to surpass Bird.
I can't see any argument being made for ranking Bird ahead of TD then.

He was on the C's, a team with already 13 NBA titles while Timmy joined a small franchise team and with the help of a great coach, great staff and a couple of really good players turned SA into a major force for the past 15 years.

Bird was the key to 3 titles, TD was the key for the Spurs to enter among the best basket teams.

In the other hand i know NBA will have to protect his only white player among the GOATS, but hopefully some ppl will see behind the white treatment.

[Shep]

well he is already fourth. he could possibly overtake wilt depending how he played.

[Straight_Ballin]

Did someone in this thread really call a 1st team all NBA player done?!?!? I think another ring for Duncan gives him a legit case for top 5.

It's not even a case if you ask me. It's 4th best of all time.

[no pun intended]

My current top ten all-time players list:

1) Jordan
2) Russell
3) Kareem
4) Magic
5) Wilt
6) Bird
7) Shaq
8) Duncan
9) Kobe
10) Hakeem

If he wins the ring, I believe that he should be above Shaq and perhaps arguably Bird.

[Leftimage]

Would people agree that Duncan has the weakest prime out of the all-time top 10?

I'm also wondering where others have him on a defensive top 10 list.

[1987_Lakers]

Would people agree that Duncan has the weakest prime out of the all-time top 10?

I don't know about that, what Duncan did in 2003 was pretty amazing.

[ThaRegul8r]

Would people agree that Duncan has the weakest prime out of the all-time top 10?

I don't know about that, what Duncan did in 2003 was pretty amazing.

Locked on Sports: Duncan's artistry in NBA Finals ranks with best of all time

By DAVID LOCKE, SPECIAL TO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 17, 2003

You may not have noticed, but the NBA season came to an end Sunday night. According to the TV ratings, most of the country missed it, and I am certain most of Seattle was watching Gil Meche dominate the Atlanta Braves.

Honestly, I can't blame you if you flipped off the NBA Finals in disgust. When Tiger Woods' golf score is higher than either the Nets' or Spurs' score, it is bad basketball.

What was missed in the midst of this drudgery of an NBA Finals, however, was one of the greatest individual playoff performances. The Spurs' Tim Duncan was as dominant as any player in league history.

Ironically, Duncan is everything the fans are begging for, while at the same time, the reason many fans have turned the NBA off.

Fans regularly complain that today's NBA game is too young, lacking fundamentals, played without precision, and filled with unsportsmanlike garbage.

They say they want more substance, less style.

Duncan exerts his dominance like few players ever have over the game. Amazingly, it is done subtly. He does it without a single moment of trash talk, without the flair or splash that ignite a "SportsCenter" catch phrase.

Pure supremacy from a man nicknamed the "Big Fundamental." It is old school. He moves his feet with precision. Body use is one of his greatest assets. Angles are at the core of every movement.

He is Sun Tzu's "Art of War" on the basketball floor.

His fundamentals allow him to cunningly expose each weakness of his opponent. The versatility of his game adapts to any defensive approach. His speed, deception and positioning make him the ideal warrior.

But remarkably, instead of being the fans' salvation, Duncan is referred to as boring.

Duncan's numbers -- 25 points and 15 rebounds per playoff game -- are impressive.

However, a closer look at his performances reveals a level of excellence that is hard to fathom.

In every playoff series, there will be two or three games that tip the balance of the series. These are the games when Magic Johnson would get his triple double, when Larry Bird would make the special steal or Michael Jordan would put 45 on the board.

Put Tim Duncan in that elite class. Any time a series was about to slip away, Duncan went into an unreal zone. Amazingly, he did this against four totally different opponents, playing four dissimilar defenses.

Duncan is able to adjust because at 7 feet 1 he is the most fundamentally sound player in the game.

In the first round, the Phoenix Suns sent three and four defenders at Duncan any time he touched the ball. Game 3 in Phoenix, the series was tied and the Spurs couldn't afford to fall behind, 2 to1. Duncan imposed his will with 23 rebounds and six assists to go with his unassuming 11 points.

With the series tied again at 2, the Spurs could ill afford to lose Game 5 at home. Duncan became more offensive and dropped 23 points, grabbed 17 rebounds while dishing out six assists and blocking five shots. If that weren't enough, he capped off the series in the next game with a 15-point, 20-rebound, 10-assist triple-double.

In the first round, Duncan already exemplified the NBA adage that superstars win. He began the long march of carrying a team filled with 11 average players to an NBA title.

By the end of the march, there was no doubt that Duncan is the best player in the NBA.

Against the Los Angeles Lakers, the series was tied at 2-2 and Duncan was forced into a power game. Again, the Spurs were in a virtual do-or-die game. Duncan stymied the Lakers with 27 points and 14 rebounds.

However, Game 6 against Shaq and the Lakers was his best. Duncan crushed Shaq. His domination left Shaq looking like Wile E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons. Over a 6-minute stretch to close the third quarter, the Spurs ran every play to Duncan and each time he answered, each time abusing Shaq. Duncan sent the Lakers packing with another insane statistical night of 37 points and 16 rebounds.

Duncan knew the youth and inexperience on his team and knew their odds weren't good if they had to play a Game 7 against the three-time world champs. Therefore, he dictated there would be no Game 7.

The story was the same against the Dallas Mavericks and their zone defense. A 34-point, 24-rebound, 6-assist and 8-block performance on the road gave the Spurs a 2-1 series edge. The next night, he virtually ended the series with 21 points and 20 rebounds.

Sunday night, he capped his breathtaking playoff recital with a near quadruple-double -- a statistical feat that is unheard of. The Nets will sleep with visions of Duncan notching 21 points, snaring 20 rebounds, administering 10 assists and swatting 8 shots.

He is on his way to being a champion the likes of Magic, Larry and Michael.

What is left is to see if the fans will ever embrace him the way they loved the past stars.

[Mass Debator]

Beating Lebron, Wade, and Bosh will definitely add to his resume. I feel like I should put him over Kobe, but I don't want to.

[BoutPractice]

I've always had him higher than most (that is, generally either ex aequo or higher than Shaq, depending on the mood, and higher than Kobe/Hakeem).

Duncan is easy to sum up: one of the greatest winners of all time; peak Duncan was as close as anyone to playing the game to perfection; prime Duncan wasn't much worse and he's kept doing it for an outrageous number of years.

I can't see myself moving him up even higher.

Tony Parker could do a lot for his legacy if he won the FMVP though.

[Kblaze8855]

Proving to being the driving force for a championship again....and again....and possibly again (though he's not as dominant as he was for the previous ones) doesn't matter when comparing him to those above him?

Those 8 All-NBA teams don't matter? Those 8 All-NBA defensive teams don't matter? Longevity and playing this well for this long means....nothing.

You and I....and everyone else knows damn well LeBron is one of the 5 or 6 best individual players we've ever seen. We won't rank him that high though because his career does not match up with the likes of others who he would be compared to. Winning titles....and playing great for an extended period of time....will lift him up into that category.

I just think it's silly to write off ten years of excellent basketball and potentially three more titles. That means a lot.... when comparing him (and ultimately deciding where he ranks) to those in the top 10.



Again I ask...who in the top 20(where he no doubt was after 03) did he need 2 more rings/more accolades to pass? This was ISh top 25 as of 08. Not saying its accurate...but its some guys to look at:


1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan
11. Jerry West
12. Julius Erving
13. Moses Malone
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Bob Pettit
16. John Havlicek
17. Karl Malone
18. George Mikan
19. David Robinson
20. Isiah Thomas
21. Charles Barkley
22. John Stockton
23. Bob Cousy
24. Kobe Bryant
25. Rick Barry

Say you dont know where to put Duncan. Factor in 2 MVPs, 2 rings one in dominant fashion, and 6 all nba first teams.


Arent there at least 14 people in that 25 you coudl ague he was over already? Just off the resume.

He had already done enough then. He just added to it. But there are at most 2-3 guys the last 10 years bumped him past and its guys like Baylor, West, Oscar, and so on who never did what he had by 2003 anyway.

[DMAVS41]

We can debate how much it matters, but the notion that a 37 year old Duncan making first team all nba, 2nd team all defense, and putting up 18/11/2 while providing great defense and absolutely shutting down Z-Bo and Gasol...just doesn't matter...is silly.

I agree that the 12 or so best years of a player's career should be the most important, but when you see longevity like this from a player...it has to matter...and probably matter quite a bit.

Duncan has now jumped up a tier for me in a sense. No longer will I entertain the idea that Shaq or Kobe or Hakeem should be ranked over him. He's just been too good for too long with essentially one dip in production in his entire career.

I think Duncan officially has moved up into the top 6. Only MJ, Russell, Magic, Wilt, and Kareem can be ranked ahead of him now.

[NumberSix]

No. At age 37, my mind is made up about Duncan. Win or lose, my opinion is not changing.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

We can debate how much it matters, but the notion that a 37 year old Duncan making first team all nba, 2nd team all defense, and putting up 18/11/2 while providing great defense and absolutely shutting down Z-Bo and Gasol...just doesn't matter...is silly.

I agree that the 12 or so best years of a player's career should be the most important, but when you see longevity like this from a player...it has to matter...and probably matter quite a bit.

Duncan has now jumped up a tier for me in a sense. No longer will I entertain the idea that Shaq or Kobe or Hakeem should be ranked over him. He's just been too good for too long with essentially one dip in production in his entire career.

I think Duncan officially has moved up into the top 6. Only MJ, Russell, Magic, Wilt, and Kareem can be ranked ahead of him now.

Why is Magic on another tier than Bird? Larry Legend was better for at least half of the 80's.

[DMAVS41]

Why is Magic on another tier than Bird? Larry Legend was better for at least half of the 80's.

That is just my opinion. No issue with someone disputing that.

[Magic 32]

You wonder how much credit Kobe would get if his second option scored 37 points in a elimination game.

[triangleoffense]

He already has more rings than some I rank him behind. So I doubt it. 5 doesnt say much 4 doesnt. Ive not moved him up since the second one really. He got to a high level and stayed. I dont need to see his final accolades to rank him. I know what I get with Duncan.
After his 2nd he won another MVP, FMVP and two championships all while gaining multiple more all-star ballots as well as all-nba first/2nd team selections. With his 5th ring he will be in the Bird, Magic, Bryant conversation. If he wins his 5th he is tied with or surpasses Bryant, depending on how he performs in the finals. You say you don't need to see his finals accolades but his finals performance is precisely what people judge great players on.

[NumberSix]

You wonder how much credit Kobe would get if his second option scored 37 points in a elimination game.
Parker isn't a 2nd option.

[Doranku]

We can debate how much it matters, but the notion that a 37 year old Duncan making first team all nba, 2nd team all defense, and putting up 18/11/2 while providing great defense and absolutely shutting down Z-Bo and Gasol...just doesn't matter...is silly.

I agree that the 12 or so best years of a player's career should be the most important, but when you see longevity like this from a player...it has to matter...and probably matter quite a bit.

Duncan has now jumped up a tier for me in a sense. No longer will I entertain the idea that Shaq or Kobe or Hakeem should be ranked over him. He's just been too good for too long with essentially one dip in production in his entire career.

I think Duncan officially has moved up into the top 6. Only MJ, Russell, Magic, Wilt, and Kareem can be ranked ahead of him now.

Yup, that is exactly where I have him.

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Duncan
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Kobe
10. Hakeem

[NumberSix]

We can debate how much it matters, but the notion that a 37 year old Duncan making first team all nba, 2nd team all defense, and putting up 18/11/2 while providing great defense and absolutely shutting down Z-Bo and Gasol...just doesn't matter...is silly.

I agree that the 12 or so best years of a player's career should be the most important, but when you see longevity like this from a player...it has to matter...and probably matter quite a bit.

Duncan has now jumped up a tier for me in a sense. No longer will I entertain the idea that Shaq or Kobe or Hakeem should be ranked over him. He's just been too good for too long with essentially one dip in production in his entire career.

I think Duncan officially has moved up into the top 6. Only MJ, Russell, Magic, Wilt, and Kareem can be ranked ahead of him now.
No offense, but this is exactly what's wrong with sports analysis.

5 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe. 10 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe. 15 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe.

But what? Now that at age 37 his team is in the finals, you're just now suddenly realizing that Duncan was always better than Kobe?

Duncan has always been better than Kobe and the 2012-2013 season has no impact on it either way. If you didn't know that Duncan was obviously better this entire time, why should your opinion suddenly hold weight now?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No offense, but this is exactly what's wrong with sports analysis.

5 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe. 10 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe. 15 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe.

But what? Now that at age 37 his team is in the finals, you're just now suddenly realizing that Duncan was always better than Kobe?

Duncan has always been better than Kobe and the 2012-2013 season has no impact on it either way. If you didn't know that Duncan was obviously better this entire time, why should your opinion suddenly hold weight now?

He said they were in the same TIER (tail end of the top 10), which is true.

[NumberSix]

He said they were in the same TIER (tail end of the top 10), which is true.
He said Duncan has now jumped up an entire tier, which is ridiculous. He's just playing the result. The same guy will probably drop him down below Kobe and Shaq if Duncan has an abysmal finals at age 37 against a powerhouse champion Heat team.

[DMAVS41]

No offense, but this is exactly what's wrong with sports analysis.

5 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe. 10 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe. 15 years ago, Duncan was better than Kobe.

But what? Now that at age 37 his team is in the finals, you're just now suddenly realizing that Duncan was always better than Kobe?

Duncan has always been better than Kobe and the 2012-2013 season has no impact on it either way. If you didn't know that Duncan was obviously better this entire time, why should your opinion suddenly hold weight now?

Well. I've been one of the few on here claiming Duncan over Kobe for years. So I hope you aren't talking to me.

I could come on here claiming many different things...and they'd all be opinions. It is hardly widely accepted that Duncan should be ranked higher than Kobe. It's just not.

What this type of season does is solidify Duncan over Kobe in a lot of discussions...especially if the Spurs win another title.

Once you reach a certain level as a player....you have to have the results to match up with your ranking. Otherwise too much of it is just subjective. You can't accurately rank Duncan in 2003 or whatever nonsense is being spouted above. That is absurd...he's played another decade.

Every year a player plays matters. Some just obviously matter more than others. I think it's pretty obvious that whatever guys like Kobe, KG, Dirk, and Duncan do from here on out is only gravy. But it still matters.

We all know Kobe goes up in the rankings if he is on a title winning team next year. And probably rightfully so if he's playing well. It may not be fair, but it matters that Duncan is doing this in year 16 while Bird had been retired for 3 years...and had been hurt his last couple. You can't just ignore that. And that is why you can't rank Duncan after 2003. Yes...you get an idea of what his peak is...but that is all...and more does and should go into ranking players.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He said Duncan has now jumped up an entire tier, which is ridiculous.

:confusedshrug:

Depending how he plays, I think it's fair to say Duncan is on another tier (compared to Bean at least).

[DMAVS41]

He said Duncan has now jumped up an entire tier, which is ridiculous.

Like officially...I already have him there.

I just won't see how anyone will be able to argue Shaq, Kobe, and Hakeem over Duncan if Duncan wins a title in year 16 playing the way he is. 18/9/2 with elite defense in year 16 while beating Lebron and the Heat for the title is just too good and absolutely solidifies his place above those guys.

[AlphaWolf24]

No. When you make a goat list, you put more weight to prime(peak) play compared to longevity. Much more. 37 year old Duncan is superior to 37 year old Shaq. So what? Is this going to change the fact that Shaq has a great case for MDE and Duncan doesn't have one? The difference between them at age 37 is gonna make up the difference between them in their peak? Do not think so.

What he did and is doing at this age is making his career even more respectable. But that's a different thing.


- No offense...but your logic is F'ing stupid...

- Longevity and winning late in his career ( as a main player) should hold greater value then having a smaller /better peak.

- In no other equation does sustaining greatness/winning for a longer period of time not MORE Valuable then a shorter period of time.

- and it's not Like Shaq was that much better then Duncan.....Duncan was just as Dominate in diffrent ways....vs Shaq's size and power.....plus Kobe and Shaq were arguably the 2 best players on the same team...Vs Duncan and his Squad.....and Spurs did beat the Lakers

- Duncan should absolutley move up the alltime list after this season win or lose....I already know what Duncan is.....The greatest leader in the game.....and of his generation.....to go along with bieng one of the greatest Champions ever.

IMO he is right there with the other top 5 alltime players :confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

Well. I've been one of the few on here claiming Duncan over Kobe for years. So I hope you aren't talking to me.

I could come on here claiming many different things...and they'd all be opinions. It is hardly widely accepted that Duncan should be ranked higher than Kobe. It's just not.

What this type of season does is solidify Duncan over Kobe in a lot of discussions...especially if the Spurs win another title.

Once you reach a certain level as a player....you have to have the results to match up with your ranking. Otherwise too much of it is just subjective. You can't accurately rank Duncan in 2003 or whatever nonsense is being spouted above. That is absurd...he's played another decade.

Every year a player plays matters. Some just obviously matter more than others. I think it's pretty obvious that whatever guys like Kobe, KG, Dirk, and Duncan do from here on out is only gravy. But it still matters.

We all know Kobe goes up in the rankings if he is on a title winning team next year. And probably rightfully so if he's playing well. It may not be fair, but it matters that Duncan is doing this in year 16 while Bird had been retired for 3 years...and had been hurt his last couple. You can't just ignore that. And that is why you can't rank Duncan after 2003. Yes...you get an idea of what his peak is...but that is all...and more does and should go into ranking players.
So what if Duncan is just mediocre or OK in the finals, but the Spurs win? Why should that have any effect on your opinion of him as a player? It shouldn't.

Duncan's prime years are well behind him. I know what he was during those years and I'm not going to engage in revisionist history based on what his team does or doesn't achieve as the 2nd best player on the team at age 37.

If he has a poor finals at age 37, are you going to penalize him? That would be ridiculous.

[Ne 1]

No. Duncan has 4 rings, and hypothetically would have 5, but one of them came during a 50 game shortened season with skewed playoff rankings. A lot of bizarre things happened in the playoffs that year, the 8th seed (without Patrick Ewing too) for example made it to the NBA Finals, you think this is a freak accident? The rankings and home-court was messed up. The Lakers in fact were probably hurt the most by that lockout as Shaq usually plays best near the end of the season (when he is finally in shape) and Kobe was improving on a month by month basis (still young).

Also in 2007 the direct action of the league decided the Suns series, when it was clearly in poor judgment to do so. That was the championship deciding series too.

[Shepseskaf]

[QUOTE=K

[AlphaWolf24]

Duncan is already ranked ahead of Shaq and Hakeem.


He absolutley should be.

[DMAVS41]

So what if Duncan is just mediocre or OK in the finals, but the Spurs win? Why should that have any effect on your opinion of him as a player? It shouldn't.

Duncan's prime years are well behind him. I know what he was during those years and I'm not going to engage in revisionist history based on what his team does or doesn't achieve as the 2nd best player on the team at age 37.

If he has a poor finals at age 37, are you going to penalize him? That would be ridiculous.

Of course I'm not going to penalize him. That is why I said this is all gravy. If Duncan plays like shit and they still win...probably won't move him at all. But if he continues to play like he has...definitely will matter for his career.

The most important thing is always level of play and impact. You guys are acting like he's not great though. 18/9/2 and absolutely destroying people on defense.

He's awesome...and while Parker has been better in the playoffs. It's still close as to who makes the biggest impact on the Spurs.

So did Dirk's title mean nothing? He was towards the end of his career. Why does his matter more? The answer of course is that Dirk was playing better. So you have it matter based on how well said player is playing. So it should always mean something, but obviously depending on how a player plays...it impacts how much it matters.

This isn't hard. Every year of a career matters...as it should.

[NumberSix]

Duncan is already ranked ahead of Shaq and Hakeem.
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing you could say to me to convince me that Duncan was a better offensive or defensive player than Hakeem.

If you want to argue that he has a better "career legacy:rolleyes: " then fine. But I can't see any argument for him being better defensively or being better offensively.

[DMAVS41]

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing you could say to me to convince me that Duncan was a better offensive or defensive player than Hakeem.

If you want to argue that he has a better "career legacy:rolleyes: " then fine. But I can't see any argument for him being better defensively or being better offensively.

See. This is my exact point. That is just your opinion. I don't feel as strongly in favor of Duncan, but I think Duncan is the better player actually.

So at some point...you just get an endless cycle of opinion vs opinion.

[AlphaWolf24]

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing you could say to me to convince me that Duncan was a better offensive or defensive player than Hakeem.

If you want to argue that he has a better "career legacy:rolleyes: " then fine. But I can't see any argument for him being better defensively or being better offensively.


so you have Wilt Chamberlain as the GOAT??

[Kblaze8855]

Like officially...I already have him there.

I just won't see how anyone will be able to argue Shaq, Kobe, and Hakeem over Duncan if Duncan wins a title in year 16 playing the way he is. 18/9/2 with elite defense in year 16 while beating Lebron and the Heat for the title is just too good and absolutely solidifies his place above those guys.

I think it would be pretty easy to argue. Not like Duncan is getting better at basketball. Hes just playing at a somewhat reduced level for a longer time.

You think Kareem went up in many peoples minds in 87 and 88? Anyone not think he was the best center who decided he was with the extra 2 rings as a player who was NOT the Kareem to be remembered?

Duncan isnt as far from his prime level as numbers made it seem...but nothing he can do now will change who Tim Duncan is to me.

Duncan was a beast. But he wasnt Shaq. And he wasnt Hakeem. He wasnt just miles back. But id have to take them both over him. And not like they fell off young. Hakeem was a 19/10/2.5 block player at 36 and Shaq 18/8 on 61%. They didnt win as much as he did but its not like the Spurs have not had down years lately or didnt lose as a #1 seed as well.

The longevity is about the same for them all. Hes better at 37. Maybe not 36. He was doing 13/9 and losing in the first round at 34 though. While Hakeem was arguably better at 33 than Duncan ever was(27/11/4 3 blocks and 2 steals a game).

It isnt like these guys vs a guy who fell off by 30. All of them were stars deep into their 30s. 36 year old Hakeem is about the same as 37 year old duncan. Shaq at 36 not far behind either.

Not enough of a difference to me to really talk longevity.

We dont have a Bob Mcadoo or Bill Walton to rank here.

[NumberSix]

So did Dirk's title mean nothing? He was towards the end of his career. Why does his matter more?
Honestly, no it doesn't. Not to me. I know what calibre of player Dirk has been.

The worst part about Dirk, is most people will act like "Oh, well he only won 1 ring. He was just good, not great." That's stupid.

[Kblaze8855]

See. This is my exact point. That is just your opinion. I don't feel as strongly in favor of Duncan, but I think Duncan is the better player actually.

So at some point...you just get an endless cycle of opinion vs opinion.


Is that a problem?

Opinions are all we have when the issue is better and worse.

Unless 03 Duncan is gonna suit up vs 95 Hakeem what else is there to use?

Wins vs different opponents? Awards vs different players in another league?

Opinion is all there is. The facts mislead.

[DMAVS41]

I think it would be pretty easy to argue. Not like Duncan is getting better at basketball. Hes just playing at a somewhat reduced level for a longer time.

You think Kareem went up in many peoples minds in 87 and 88? Anyone not think he was the best center who decided he was with the extra 2 rings as a player who was NOT the Kareem to be remembered?

Duncan isnt as far from his prime level as numbers made it seem...but nothing he can do now will change who Tim Duncan is to me.

Duncan was a beast. But he wasnt Shaq. And he wasnt Hakeem. He wasnt just miles back. But id have to take them both over him. And not like they fell off young. Hakeem was a 19/10/2.5 block player at 36 and Shaq 18/8 on 61%. They didnt win as much as he did but its not like the Spurs have not had down years lately or didnt lose as a #1 seed as well.

The longevity is about the same for them all. Hes better at 37. Maybe not 36. He was doing 13/9 and losing in the first round at 34 though. While Hakeem was arguably better at 33 than Duncan ever was(27/11/4 3 blocks and 2 steals a game).

It isnt like these guys vs a guy who fell off by 30. All of them were stars deep into their 30s. 36 year old Hakeem is about the same as 37 year old duncan. Shaq at 36 not far behind either.

Not enough of a difference to me to really talk longevity.

We dont have a Bob Mcadoo or Bill Walton to rank here.

You are talking across points.

I'm talking about how we rank players. You are talking about your opinion of the players. Which of course won't change this late in said player's career.

I totally get that.

But I just disagree. I would actually take Duncan over both Shaq and Hakeem to start a franchise. You obviously wouldn't....totally get where you are coming from. I just disagree.

[DMAVS41]

Is that a problem?

Opinions are all we have when the issue is better and worse.

Unless 03 Duncan is gonna suit up vs 95 Hakeem what else is there to use?

Wins vs different opponents? Awards vs different players in another league?

Opinion is all there is. The facts mislead.

It depends on what we are talking about....and how strong the opinion is.

[Shepseskaf]

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing you could say to me to convince me that Duncan was a better offensive or defensive player than Hakeem.

If you want to argue that he has a better "career legacy:rolleyes: " then fine. But I can't see any argument for him being better defensively or being better offensively.
Overall rankings take much more into account than the factors you noted.

Duncan is a 2x MVP, Hakeem has one. Duncan has won 4 titles as The Man, Hakeem has 2. Duncan is the consensus best PF of all-time, Hakeem is not rated the best center ever.

I'm not bashing Hakeem. Based on raw ability on both sides of the ball, he probably would rank only behind MJ, Kareem and Wilt, but career accomplishments also matter.

[Kblaze8855]

Starting a franchise brings up issues other than who plays the best/is most dominant.

Duncan is reliable, unselfish, will do exactly what hes asked, can mesh with anyone, didnt suffer many injuries, could score 30 a game if you asked, lead the league in rebounds if you asked, pass his ass off, protect the paint like few others, and far as I know never slapped a teammate(Hakeem) or needed sit downs called with the Don to settle a beef with a teammate(Shaq).

Hes a great option to start a franchise.

He just isnt as good as Hakeem at basketball and doesnt have that "There is nothing we can do...." aspect Shaq forced teams to deal with for 10 years. But picking him to build around wouldnt be idiotic.

I have nothing negative to say about him.

[DMAVS41]

Honestly, no it doesn't. Not to me. I know what calibre of player Dirk has been.

The worst part about Dirk, is most people will act like "Oh, well he only won 1 ring. He was just good, not great." That's stupid.

But see. While Dirk as an overall player had been that good for quite some time...he never destroyed teams that badly in crunch time at any point in his career that consistently.

You didn't know...nor did anyone...know he could reach that level of play in the clutch. Hell, I'm the biggest Dirk stan in the world and I didn't even think he could lead that team of role players and cast offs to the title through that kind of competition.

So yea...I knew what kind of player Dirk was as well...but pretending that title was won under normal circumstances or that we didn't see some super impressive stuff from Dirk that should impact his legacy is just nonsense.

Which again is why you can't rank players accurately until really their career is over...or at least reach a point in which moving way up or way down is no longer possible.

[DMAVS41]

Starting a franchise brings up issues other than who plays the best/is most dominant.

Duncan is reliable, unselfish, will do exactly what hes asked, can mesh with anyone, didnt suffer many injuries, could score 30 a game if you asked, lead the league in rebounds if you asked, pass his ass off, protect the paint like few others, and far as I know never slapped a teammate(Hakeem) or needed sit downs called with the Don to settle a beef with a teammate(Shaq).

Hes a great option to start a franchise.

He just isnt as good as Hakeem at basketball and doesnt have that "There is nothing we can do...." aspect Shaq forced teams to deal with for 10 years. But picking him to build around wouldnt be idiotic.

I have nothing negative to say about him.

All those things you list matter to me in basketball terms. I can't separate it all the way you do.

[tpols]

Honestly, no it doesn't. Not to me. I know what calibre of player Dirk has been.

The worst part about Dirk, is most people will act like "Oh, well he only won 1 ring. He was just good, not great." That's stupid.
Seems like you cant comprehend the difference between who the better player was and who had a better career.. GOAT lists incorporate both.

[Ne 1]

Duncan is already ranked ahead of Shaq and Hakeem.

Shaq is closer to Russell or Wilt than he is to Hakeem or Duncan.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Seems like you cant comprehend the difference between who the better player was and who had a better career.. GOAT lists incorporate both.

Word.

[NumberSix]

You are talking across points.

I'm talking about how we rank players. You are talking about your opinion of the players. Which of course won't change this late in said player's career.

I totally get that.

But I just disagree. I would actually take Duncan over both Shaq and Hakeem to start a franchise. You obviously wouldn't....totally get where you are coming from. I just disagree.
No, you're talking about how YOU rank player.

You "career legacy" guys act like you're way of calculating "greatness" is the definitive way to rank players. Some of us don't subscribe to that line of thinking.

Shawn Kemp was without question a better player than Blake Griffin. If Blake somehow manages to get a ring or 2 but doesn't actually improve as a player, I'm not gonna say he was a greater player than Kemp.

[caliman]

I agree.

We have to talk about level of play. That is why people still think Kobe can pass MJ because the guy has been playing at a high level regardless of age. If he won a ring this year at the level he's been playing at, it will elevate Kobe.

Duncan on the other hand, is done.


:roll:

No one thinks Kobe can pass MJ except Kobe nut riders. And Duncan is far from done, as this season has shown.

[Kblaze8855]

Aside from 2-3 games vs the thunder Dirk didnt do anything he had not always been doing in 11. Hes played much better than he did vs the Heat or Lakers.

It was the "My god...." fadeaways in traffic and demanding the ball to score over and over and over vs the Thunder than was special for him.

Most of those playoffs were usual Dirk. We have seen him do most of that for years. I was watching a game of their vs the Kings from I think 2002 that was every bit as dominant as he was even vs the Thunder. And I never got the impression Dirk was just mentally weak.

People thought I hated him briefly but I was explaining that id take him over Karl Malone in 2008(right after the 67 win first round loss) and people were acting like I was out of my mind. My main reasoning was his clutch ability even if he didnt show vs the Warriors.

It was always in there. Hes been one of the best bad shot makers ever...since like 2003. Thats a huge part of taking over close games.

[NumberSix]

Seems like you cant comprehend the difference between who the better player was and who had a better career.. GOAT lists incorporate both.
Charles Barkley without question had a better career than Scottie Pippen did.

Being on the winning team doesn't make your career better.

[fpliii]

Seems like you cant comprehend the difference between who the better player was and who had a better career.. GOAT lists incorporate both.

Not sure if I can speak for NumberSix, but to me better/greater are one in the same. Accolades mean absolutely nothing on they're own in my book, and are just consequences of a player's impact. I value players based on performance on the court (and ability to lead his team to championships), not based on contrived awards (though MVP when voted on by the players and since 80-81 the Sporing News Player of the Year, also by player poll, are the exceptions IMO).

[Shepseskaf]

Shaq is closer to Russell or Wilt than he is to Hakeem or Duncan.
In all-time rankings, Duncan, by consensus, is ranked ahead of Shaq.

Shaq was more unstoppable, yes, but Duncan has maintained a high level of excellence for far longer. If Shaq actually cared about taking care of his body, he'd be ranked higher.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Charles Barkley without question had a better career than Scottie Pippen did.

Being on the winning team doesn't make your career better.

Winning matters though. You don't think Charles and the Suns winning a title in '93, against Jordan's Bulls, would've boost his legacy? :confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

In all-time rankings, Duncan, by consensus, is ranked ahead of Shaq.

Shaq was more unstoppable, yes, but Duncan has maintained a high level of excellence for far longer. If Shaq actually cared about taking care of his body, he'd be ranked higher.
That's such a myth about Shaq. Maybe people just remember the extended end of his career. Don't get it twisted. He was without question 1 of the top players in the NBA from at least 93-06.

[tpols]

Not sure if I can speak for NumberSix, but to me better/greater are one in the same. Accolades mean absolutely nothing on they're own in my book, and are just consequences of a player's impact. I value players based on performance on the court (and ability to lead his team to championships), not based on contrived awards (though MVP when voted on by the players and since 80-81 the Sporing News Player of the Year, also by player poll, are the exceptions IMO).
Not entirely true.. Circumstances dictate a lot.

Many people here say peak prime Wade was as good as Kobe. Where are his accolades in comparison? There not even close. Circumstances and winning changes everyones mind. And consensus opinion drives many awards and accolades.

[fpliii]

In all-time rankings, Duncan, by consensus, is ranked ahead of Shaq.

Shaq was more unstoppable, yes, but Duncan has maintained a high level of excellence for far longer. If Shaq actually cared about taking care of his body, he'd be ranked higher.

Shaq actually has comparable longevity. Remember, he was in the league for 5 years before Duncan was drafted.

[NumberSix]

Winning matters though. You don't think Charles and the Suns winning a title in '93, against Jordan's Bulls, would boost his legacy? :confusedshrug:
Guys have won FMVPs doing less than Barkley did in the '93 finals, even under extreme circumstances.

[fpliii]

Not entirely true.. Circumstances dictate a lot.

Many people here say peak prime Wade was as good as Kobe. Where are his accolades in comparison? There not even close. Circumstances and winning changes everyones mind. And consensus opinion drives many awards and accolades.

I don't disagree, there definitely is a bias at times (I'd definitely put prime Wade on prime Kobe's level), but that just supports my stance to disregard them entirely.

[Shepseskaf]

That's such a myth about Shaq. Maybe people just remember the extended end of his career. Don't get it twisted. He was without 1 of the top players in the NBA from at least 93-06.
C'mon, dude. Shaq carried too much weight, didn't get surgeries done when he should have, and did other things that didn't allow him to prolong his career at a high level as long as he might have.

This is common knowledge. Those types of things have never been a factor in Duncan's career.

[NumberSix]

I don't disagree, there definitely is a bias at times (I'd definitely put prime Wade on prime Kobe's level), but that just supports my stance to disregard them entirely.
Of course there's a bias. Everybody is quick to point out that Kobe wasn't "the man" because he didn't win FMVP, but they casually say Duncan was "the man" for 4 titles.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Guys have won FMVPs doing less than Barkley did in the '93 finals, even under extreme circumstances.

And?

People are lying to themselves thinking that taking your team to the Finals and/or winning a FMVP as the man "doesn't matter". Spare me the BS. :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

C'mon, dude. Shaq carried too much weight, didn't get surgeries done when he should have, and did other things that didn't allow him to prolong his career at a high level as long as he might have.

This is common knowledge. Those types of things have never been a factor in Duncan's career.
Shaq's prime was at least 4 years longer than Duncan's. Shaq's problem is he hung around for too long. If he would have retired in 07 or 08, everybody would marvel at how his entire career was a prime.

[tpols]

Guys have won FMVPs doing less than Barkley did in the '93 finals, even under extreme circumstances.
Alright.. and there are guys at Barkley's level of talent, like Hakeem for example, that provided the impact Barkley did, but then went over the top and won rings for their squads. They deserve to be ranked higher for perservering.

What youre saying carries such a loser mentality.. well I was already as good as player x, who cares if they happened to win and I didnt. Guess what? You had 15+ years to get it done and you couldnt once.

[Shepseskaf]

Shaq actually has comparable longevity. Remember, he was in the league for 5 years before Duncan was drafted.
From his rookie year, Shaq was prime for 10 years then fell off.

Duncan wasn't the scorer that Shaq was, but he maintained a high level for 14 years, counting this one.

No doubt Shaq was far more naturally gifted, but Duncan has done more with less, and with more consistency.

[NumberSix]

Alright.. and there are guys at Barkley's level of talent, like Hakeem for example, that provided the impact Barkley did, but then went over the top and won rings for their squads. They deserve to be ranked higher for perservering.

What youre saying carries such a loser mentality.. well I was already as good as player x, who cares if they happened to win and I didnt. Guess what? You had 15+ years to get it done and you couldnt once.
Barkley's Suns lost to a better team than the ones Hakeem's Rockets won against. It's not an equal comparison across the board. '93 Suns would have beat the '94 Knicks and the '95 Magic.

[Shepseskaf]

Shaq's prime was at least 4 years longer than Duncan's.
Support this.

[DMAVS41]

Shaq's prime was at least 4 years longer than Duncan's. Shaq's problem is he hung around for too long. If he would have retired in 07 or 08, everybody would marvel at how his entire career was a prime.

How are you defining prime? And does this factor in the elite defense Duncan provided that Shaq didn't?

Because Shaq saw a big decrease in offensive production around the 04 season. Which I believe was his 12th season.

[tpols]

Barkley's Suns lost to a better team than the ones Hakeem's Rockets won against. It's not an equal comparison across the board. '93 Suns would have beat the '94 Knicks and the '95 Magic.
And the 93 suns were way more stacked than Hakeems rockets:oldlol:

It evens out.

[NumberSix]

How are you defining prime? And does this factor in the elite defense Duncan provided that Shaq didn't?

Because Shaq saw a big decrease in offensive production around the 04 season. Which I believe was his 12th season.
OK, I'll concede that point to you and Shepskef. This is a subjective matter of opinion.

[gengiskhan]

1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Russell
7. Hakeem
8. Shaq
9. Big O
10.Duncan

till LBJ takes over.

Currently, Duncan like Kobe are out of Top 10 GOATs. Duncan cant just win 5th ring. He MUT win FMVP too for legit argument of Top 10 GOATs.

differing FMVP to Parker again means Duncan is being carried just Like Kobe was being carried by Shaq btw 1999 - 2002.

[fpliii]

Of course there's a bias. Everybody is quick to point out that Kobe wasn't "the man" because he didn't win FMVP, but they casually say Duncan was "the man" for 4 titles.

Eh, to each his own. Parker had a great scoring series vs Cleveland in 07 so I don't have a problem if you want to say he was the MVP of the Finals. Offense, defense, and rebounding are all part of the game though, and the series was won IMO by Bowen giving LeBron a hard time outside and Duncan making it difficult for him to drive to the rim.

[DMAVS41]

Barkley's Suns lost to a better team than the ones Hakeem's Rockets won against. It's not an equal comparison across the board. '93 Suns would have beat the '94 Knicks and the '95 Magic.

Yes. Circumstances matter a lot. No doubt. But that is why you could never argue Barkley over Dirk, Duncan, or Hakeem in my opinion. Because all 3 guys proved they could win a title with very little help historically.

Yea...the Suns probably win in 94 and 95...but Barkley also had a much better team than Hakeem did those years.

It's not really a knock on Barkley as it is a compliment to guys like Hakeem, Duncan, and Dirk that they could do what they did.

That is the point. Barkley never did anything crazy like that in his career that I can think of.

[NumberSix]

And the 93 suns were way more stacked than Hakeems rockets:oldlol:

It evens out.
No it doesn't. Why would it? If you're going to assign team success to one player, why would different competition "even out"?

[DMAVS41]

No it doesn't. Why would it? If you're going to assign team success to one player, why would different competition "even out"?

I don't think you assign it all to one player, but his point is both simple and accurate. The Suns were stacked compared to the Rockets. Yes, the Suns had to play the Bulls, but the Rockets...especially in 94 just didn't have much at all.

I'm not sure I'd say it evens out, but what I do know is that Barkley never led an average team to the title like Hakeem did. So that matters to me. And it should.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Alright.. and there are guys at Barkley's level of talent, like Hakeem for example, that provided the impact Barkley did, but then went over the top and won rings for their squads. They deserve to be ranked higher for perservering.

What youre saying carries such a loser mentality.. well I was already as good as player x, who cares if they happened to win and I didnt. Guess what? You had 15+ years to get it done and you couldnt once.

People acting like a great player can't will his team to win a series OR that leadership plays a huge role. Shit is so annoying.

One thing I will agree w/ Kblaze and Numbersix is on is the perception of a player and how it changes INSTANTLY when he wins.

[tpols]

No it doesn't. Why would it? If you're going to assign team success to one player, why would different competition "even out"?
Yea it does.. Hakeem beat inferior teams.. but he had inferior help. If you give Hakeem Barkleys 93 suns, I think he gives you a better chance at beating MJ's bulls than Barkley did.

And if you give Barkley Hakeems rockets I dont think they come close to repeating.

[NumberSix]

Yes. Circumstances matter a lot. No doubt. But that is why you could never argue Barkley over Dirk, Duncan, or Hakeem in my opinion. Because all 3 guys proved they could win a title with very little help historically.
It's not like Dirk was seriously injured in the finals the way Barkley was. It's not a black and white comparison.

Simple fact is, there is a difference between "never winning" and never being on a team that should be able to win. If Duncan went to Minnesota instead of Garnett, you think Duncan would have ever won a title? Doubt it. As good as he is, it's a bad organization that would never have the wherewithal to put together a team capable of contending. Wouldn't change the calibre of player Duncan is. Just a matter of circumstances.

[Shepseskaf]

1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Russell
7. Hakeem
8. Shaq
9. Big O
10.Duncan

till LBJ takes over.

Currently, Duncan like Kobe are out of Top 10 GOATs. Duncan cant just win 5th ring. He MUT win FMVP too for legit argument of Top 10 GOATs.

differing FMVP to Parker again means Duncan is being carried just Like Kobe was being carried by Shaq btw 1999 - 2002.
:facepalm

Duncan is a 2x MVP and 4x champion. All-time lists can be subjective, as shown in this thread, but in most of them Dunan is ranked ahead of both Shaq and Hakeem.

He is the consensus greatest PF of all-time.

[Legends66NBA7]

People acting like a great player can't will his team to win a series OR that leadership plays a huge role. Shit is so annoying.

One thing I will agree w/ Kblaze and Numbersix is on is the perception of a player and how it changes INSTANTLY when he wins.

Hmmm... very true. Look at Dirk in 2011, now some consider over the likes of Garnett, Barkley, Pettit, and K.Malone. If he doesn't win, it probably isn't even considered and he's probably not even considered greater than Kevin McHale and Elvin Hayes.


Good discussion in this thread, btw.

[NumberSix]

It seems people haven't really learned from the LeBron situation. Last year he was a career choker who will never win a championship. 1 year later he's this era's Michael Jordan who will prevent all the other superstars from winning. It's ridiculous.

We constantly label guys as the guy who can't win....... until he does. Then we re-write history and finally admit he was great all along. It's frustrating and it never changes. We never get smarter, we never gain perspective. We just move on to the next guy who will never win..... until he does.

[gengiskhan]

:facepalm

Duncan is a 2x MVP and 4x champion. All-time lists can be subjective, as shown in this thread, but in most of them Dunan is ranked ahead of both Shaq and Hakeem.

He is the consensus greatest PF of all-time.

Hakeem & Shaq are clearly ahead of Duncan because of their DOMINANCE!

Duncan might have won more rings but Shaq DOMINATED! Hakeem DOMINATED!

Duncan is more in Kobe's league. no SHEER DOMINANCE but great player & an all time great career.

If you put Duncan ahead of Hakeem & deliberately overlook Hakeem's BACK-2-BACK DPOY titles & deliberately overlook 1994 season of UTTER BRUTAL DOMINANCE with MVP + FMVP + DPOY all in the same yr.

you have a lot to learn about NBA.

[Legends66NBA7]

We constantly label guys as the guy who can't win....... until he does. Then we re-write history and finally admit he was great all along. It's frustrating and it never changes. We never get smarter, we never gain perspective. We just move on to the next guy who will never win..... until he does.

Or they turn out to be like Karl Malone and John Stockton. Great players, but weren't good enough to win it all, for numerous seasons... and that reflects in their level of play. I guess it applies more to Malone, since he was better than Stockton and was elite longer.

Would your stance on Carmelo Anthony change if he won a ring ? I have him on same tier or below of guys like Vince Carter/Tracy McGrady/Allen Iverson/Grant Hill/Penny Hardaway, etc...

[Shepseskaf]

you have a lot to learn about NBA.
So says the idiot to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Why don't you go find some reputable top 10 all-time lists that have Shaq and Hakeem above Duncan?

[NumberSix]

Or they turn out to be like Karl Malone and John Stockton. Great players, but weren't good enough to win it all, for numerous seasons... and that reflects in their level of play. I guess it applies more to Malone, since he was better than Stockton and was elite longer.

Would your stance on Carmelo Anthony change if he won a ring ? I have him on same tier or below of guys like Vince Carter/Tracy McGrady/Allen Iverson/Grant Hill/Penny Hardaway, etc...
No. I've never made the claim that he will never win a ring.

And of course John Stockton was good enough to win a ring. Mario Chalmers was good enough to win a ring. Chauncey Billups was good enough to win a ring and a FMVP. Stockton was clearly better than both.

[gengiskhan]

So says the idiot to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Why don't you go find some reputable top 10 all-time lists that have Shaq and Hakeem above Duncan?

where is Tim Duncan's single DPOY title. Hakeem has 2 x DPOY titles.

Where is Tim Duncan's Block shots leader. Hakeem has multiple.

When will you recognize Hakeem's Back-s-Back MVPs are against All-time great centers or Top 10 GOATs like Shaq & Ewing?

btw, Hakeem never differed FMVP to anyone on the rockets. Duncan has!

Hakeem is Top 8 GOATs ever to play. LOCKED!

Duncan will get to 10th Spot only after 5th win with FMVP.

Duncan is an all-time great but in the same league as Charles, Malone, Kobe etc.

The Dream is untouchable!

[Flash31]

well lets see

Made the ALL-D and ALL Team at 37,

got to the NBA FInals for the 5th time

and if he does win

hell have likely

5 rings,3 maybe 4 Finals MVPS

Along with holding the record of most blocks in the playoffs



If anything Duncan continuing to play at a good level should move him up,and if he gets his 5th ring there wouldnt be many on the list above him

he'll definitely be considered anywhere from top 5 to-8

the top 5 righ now are basically almost untouchable

Jordan,Kareem,Russell,Wilt,Magic

then you have Bird interchanging anywhere from 3-5 switching with magic

and then theres shaq,hakeem,kobe

so if anything if he continues he could move up past Kobe,Hakeem most likely,shaq,and be up there with Bird and Magic switching form 4-6

[2LeTTeRS]

So says the idiot to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Why don't you go find some reputable top 10 all-time lists that have Shaq and Hakeem above Duncan?

Are you serious? The only place I've ever seen anybody rate Duncan over Shaq or Hakeem is on Internet messageboards, where people feel that ranking is a mathematical equation based on accolades and not their actual game.

[Bandito]

where is Tim Duncan's single DPOY title. Hakeem has 2 x DPOY titles.

Where is Tim Duncan's Block shots leader. Hakeem has multiple.

When will you recognize Hakeem's Back-s-Back MVPs are against All-time great centers or Top 10 GOATs like Shaq & Ewing?

btw, Hakeem never differed FMVP to anyone on the rockets. Duncan has!

Hakeem is Top 8 GOATs ever to play. LOCKED!

Duncan will get to 10th Spot only after 5th win with FMVP.

Duncan is an all-time great but in the same league as Charles, Malone, Kobe etc.

The Dream is untouchable!
You don't even watch the game...also not on league with Kobe? Are you kidding me:facepalm

[Legends66NBA7]

No. I've never made the claim that he will never win a ring.

Oh okay, I thought you had done so on here. Seems like your always negative about him, which some I do agree with (his level of play in the playoffs).

[NumberSix]

where is Tim Duncan's single DPOY title. Hakeem has 2 x DPOY titles.

Where is Tim Duncan's Block shots leader. Hakeem has multiple.

When will you recognize Hakeem's Back-s-Back MVPs are against All-time great centers or Top 10 GOATs like Shaq & Ewing?

btw, Hakeem never differed FMVP to anyone on the rockets. Duncan has!

Hakeem is Top 8 GOATs ever to play. LOCKED!

Duncan will get to 10th Spot only after 5th win with FMVP.

Duncan is an all-time great but in the same league as Charles, Malone, Kobe etc.

The Dream is untouchable!
That's a dumb argument. You could have easily said that about Duncan if the Spurs would have just never won a 4th title. What, another title is a negative against him?

[gengiskhan]

You don't even watch the game...also not on league with Kobe? Are you kidding me:facepalm

I dont watch today's NBA.

Because

I've watched enough when it was the best sport besides NFL in '90s & part of '00 decade.

Duncan is still not ahead of Hakeem or Shaq.

[NumberSix]

Oh okay, I thought you had done so on here. Seems like your always negative about him, which some I do agree with (his level of play in the playoffs).
Like I said. Chauncey Billups won a FMVP. Carmelo is obviously better than Billups. Given the right circumstances, any decent player can win a championship.

[Flash31]

of course he moves up

the only people above him

KOBE
Hakeem Olujawon
Shaq
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson

the two most likely on the list he can pass are Kobe and Hakeem

hell have Hakeem beat in rings,playoff blocks,final mvps
he'll have Kobe beat in Finals MVPs

and maybe can even move past Shaq and peoples lists
He'll have 1 more ring than Shaq

so those 3 he can pass,And Although Bird has 3 rings,he will be seen as one of the greatest,and bc of the magic rivalry,those two switch rankings between sides and in order to diplace Bird,he'll have to displace Magic


I have him anywhere from 8-10
kobe,duncan,hakeem interchangeable

he wins clear over those two

[Shepseskaf]

where is Tim Duncan's single DPOY title. Hakeem has 2 x DPOY titles.

Where is Tim Duncan's Block shots leader. Hakeem has multiple.
Duncan All-Defensive Team:
1st team: 9x
2nd team: 6x

Hakeem All-Defensive Team:
1st team: 5x
2nd team: 4x

[gengiskhan]

That's a dumb argument. You could have easily said that about Duncan if the Spurs would have just never won a 4th title. What, another title is a negative against him?

No

this shows Duncan's inability to lead FROM THE FRONT to win the finals.

this shows SAS franchise & team can win a ring without Duncan being the sole leader.

Hakeem never settled for that. He got to the finals, he beat the heavily favorites Ewing led Knicks by leading from the front.

Hakeem got to the finals again. He beat heavily favorites Shaq led Magic by leading from the front.

Lack of leadership is there in Duncan's rings.

There is NO Lack of leadership in Hakeem's rings.

[The Choken One]

Right now, this is my top 10:

1. MJ
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Kobe
8. Wilt
9. Shaq
10. LeBron

If Duncan gets #5 it's going to be really hard not to slide him past Bird. Still can't put Timmy over Magic though.
besides KAJ over Russell imo, that's an incredibly accurate list. Hats off to someone who actually knows basketball.

ps, for anyone who cares, no one in hell is Kobe > Duncan. I'm as big of a Kobe stan as there is, but Duncan is truly an amazing player.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No. I've never made the claim that he will never win a ring.

And of course John Stockton was good enough to win a ring. Mario Chalmers was good enough to win a ring. Chauncey Billups was good enough to win a ring and a FMVP. Stockton was clearly better than both.

Right..but Karl Malone won MVP in '97 and his team had the 2nd best record in the league. So again, lets not act like Stockton and Malone weren't in a great situation. They had their chance(s)...and came up short.

[gengiskhan]

say hello to

The Dream is NBA's All-time Blockshots leader!.

The Dream.....Led the NBA in Blocks 3 times


Duncan All-Defensive Team:
1st team: 9x
2nd team: 6x

Hakeem All-Defensive Team:
1st team: 5x
2nd team: 4x

Like I said

crap POPULARITY CONTESTS dime a dozen. besides your above mention, you can add all-NBA first & 2nd teams & all-star game MVP to that list too

BUT

show me da.................................Bling!

http://i39.tinypic.com/pq1j4.jpg

Hakeem got 2 of these babies. Duncan got NONE!!

You have to show more respect to Top 10 GOAT catagory.

cant get away with all-d 1st 2nd teams or all-NBA 1st 2nd teams. there are strictly a POPULARITY CONTEST. means nothing.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It seems people haven't really learned from the LeBron situation. Last year he was a career choker who will never win a championship. 1 year later he's this era's Michael Jordan who will prevent all the other superstars from winning. It's ridiculous.

We constantly label guys as the guy who can't win....... until he does. Then we re-write history and finally admit he was great all along. It's frustrating and it never changes. We never get smarter, we never gain perspective. We just move on to the next guy who will never win..... until he does.

How can you blame people for reacting that way, though? Lebron had one of the worst finals EVER for a player of his caliber.

[rmt]

I dont watch today's NBA.

Because

I've watched enough when it was the best sport besides NFL in '90s & part of '00 decade.

Duncan is still not ahead of Hakeem or Shaq.

If you don't watch today's NBA then you can't see the change that Duncan has done to his game to relieve the pressure on his knee and to adjust to the rules of today's game. The big men that the Spurs have played (Randolph, 2 Gasols, DH) have been swarmed with double teams and harassed to frustration - the traditional back to the basket game is minimalized now and cannot operate properly without excellent 3 pt shooting or the resulting collapse into the paint occurs.

Duncan has changed his game so that he can co-exist with the personnel they have - Splitter and Blair who stay close to the basket or he plays the post with Bonner and Diaw.

Sports keeps evolving and it seems narrow-minded to not watch because you think you've seen enough of what you call the best. If you don't watch, how can you make an educated opinion/comparision between past and present players and defend that position?

[Myth]

That's a dumb argument. You could have easily said that about Duncan if the Spurs would have just never won a 4th title. What, another title is a negative against him?

Seriously. Deferring a FMVP to a member of the other team is definitely worse than deferring one to your teammate.

[Shepseskaf]

Like I said

crap POPULARITY CONTESTS dime a dozen. besides your above mention, you can add all-NBA first & 2nd teams & all-star game MVP to that list too

Hakeem got 2 of these babies. Duncan got NONE!!
Its a waste of time to debate with an idiot, but I'll just point out that this year's DPOY was Marc Gasol. Last year it was Tyson Chandler.

Do you want to talk about a "popularity contest" now?

Mutombo won the DPOY 4x. Are you ranking him ahead of Hakeem?

[Myth]

say hello to

The Dream is NBA's All-time Blockshots leader!.

The Dream.....Led the NBA in Blocks 3 times


Wait, is anybody even arguing that Duncan is a better defensive player than Hakeem?

[guy]

It seems people haven't really learned from the LeBron situation. Last year he was a career choker who will never win a championship. 1 year later he's this era's Michael Jordan who will prevent all the other superstars from winning. It's ridiculous.

We constantly label guys as the guy who can't win....... until he does. Then we re-write history and finally admit he was great all along. It's frustrating and it never changes. We never get smarter, we never gain perspective. We just move on to the next guy who will never win..... until he does.

Ummm, who has rewritten history about Lebron? I don't think anyone thinks he was the same player in 2012 as he was in 2011. Before 2012, to alot of us he was an amazing talent but was a choker with a weak mentality (IMO it was overstated but still somewhat deserved). After 2012, he was an amazing talent that added even more to his game and wasn't a choker with a weak mentality (at least thats what it seems so far.) However, that doesn't change what people think of him as a player before 2012. Really, his career before 2012 is probably the biggest reason why many of us think its highly doubtful if not impossible for him to be considered GOAT by the time he retires.

[DMAVS41]

It's not like Dirk was seriously injured in the finals the way Barkley was. It's not a black and white comparison.

Simple fact is, there is a difference between "never winning" and never being on a team that should be able to win. If Duncan went to Minnesota instead of Garnett, you think Duncan would have ever won a title? Doubt it. As good as he is, it's a bad organization that would never have the wherewithal to put together a team capable of contending. Wouldn't change the calibre of player Duncan is. Just a matter of circumstances.

But the point is that all of these players have had teams as good as the 94 Rockets, 03 Spurs, and 11 Mavs....yet none of them ever won the title.

That matters.

[AlphaWolf24]

Charles Barkley without question had a better career than Scottie Pippen did.

Being on the winning team doesn't make your career better.


What?...

A) It absolutley makes your career better....don't believe the 1% of basketball fans online who post about " winning doesn't matter that much.....winning is overrated"...

No player in the NBA or anywhere for that matter believes this...

winning absolutley makes your career better and more complete.

B) Barkley may have had a better career to some becuase he was looked at as a superstar.....a player who could take over a game and dominate as the star of the team,....he is veiwed highly because of this...If he won championship or championships he would be viewed in a much greater light

Pippen had to play in the shadow of MJ most of his career....he wasn't viewed as a bonafide superstar until over 1/2 of his career was over..

and it was because he won Titles and played on a Dynasty that he is probably a top 25 - 30 alltime player...

if he lost every year I know he wouldn't be ranked as high.

[guy]

I'd probably move him up. First of all, if the Spurs are going to beat the Heat, I really doubt they could do it with Duncan just having an average series. I doubt he could put something like 15 ppg/9 rpg/2 bpg and they win. He's more then likely at a minimum going to need something like 20 ppg/11 rpg/3 bpg for them to win this series. Doing that as a 1st or 2nd best player on his team would very likely move him ahead of at least Hakeem for me, remove any questions I had of him over Kobe, and possibly move him ahead of Shaq, Bird, and Wilt due to other reasons such as longevity, and his character and leadership that brings up the question of him being a better player to build around.

[TonyMontana]

That's such a myth about Shaq. Maybe people just remember the extended end of his career. Don't get it twisted. He was without question 1 of the top players in the NBA from at least 93-06.

This

Shaq has the most consecutive 20-10 seasons of ANY player in NBA History. You can tell who is a kid when they talk about how his prime was short.

[Ne 1]

In all-time rankings, Duncan, by consensus, is ranked ahead of Shaq.

Shaq was more unstoppable, yes, but Duncan has maintained a high level of excellence for far longer. If Shaq actually cared about taking care of his body, he'd be ranked higher.


Winning: Shaq=Duncan
Peak play: Shaq>Duncan
Longevity: Shaq=Duncan
Impact on teams: Shaq=Duncan


Some people may disagree on longevity because there is a myth that Shaq lacked longevity. Shaq nearly won a MVP in his 13th season, won a ring as an All-NBA first teamer in his 14th and was an All-Star in his 16th. Not to mention Duncan did not have the peak Shaq did. As far as winning; Duncan: 4 rings (possibly 5), 5 NBA Finals, Shaq: 4 rings, 6 NBA Finals and Shaq won 3 straight rings, while Duncan never even won back-to-back titles, and 2 of his titles (1999, 2007) definitely have asterisks.

[Myth]

This

Shaq has the most consecutive 20-10 seasons of ANY player in NBA History. You can tell who is a kid when they talk about how his prime was short.

I think most people when they are saying that are referring to the roughly 3 year stretch where he was unquestionably THE best player in the league rather than ONE OF THE best best in the league. It was almost like he had 2 levels to his prime. From 93-99 and 03-06 he was a flat out beast that played at a level that very few in NBA history could approach, but the 3 years in between he was playing on God level. That is what people mean when they say his prime was short, but that should in no way discredit how much of a monster he was for a majority of his career.

[Odinn]

No. Duncan has 4 rings, and hypothetically would have 5, but one of them came during a 50 game shortened season with skewed playoff rankings. A lot of bizarre things happened in the playoffs that year, the 8th seed (without Patrick Ewing too) for example made it to the NBA Finals, you think this is a freak accident? The rankings and home-court was messed up. The Lakers in fact were probably hurt the most by that lockout as Shaq usually plays best near the end of the season (when he is finally in shape) and Kobe was improving on a month by month basis (still young).

Also in 2007 the direct action of the league decided the Suns series, when it was clearly in poor judgment to do so. That was the championship deciding series too.

Yet you haven't responded this one posted a while ago;



Dynasty? They never even won back-to back titles.

His Spurs teams always won scavenger titles. Always picking up the pieces when a true dynasty had already fallen apart or a championship team got old and stopped. Always picking up the pieces when a true dynasty had already fallen apart or a team got old and stopped winning.

2003: Won on the heels of a true dynasty falling apart.

2005: Probably the most legit ring they won.

2007: Won on the heels of the champion Heat getting too old too fast. Not to mention really weak competition (Jazz in WCF? Cavs in Finals?) + had to get help from Stern (suspensions) to beat the only legit team standing in their way. (Disgusting what happens to the Suns) Also very lucky that the Warriors upset the Mavs in the 1st round, had a cakewalk to the championship that year.
How many title runs can you name that can not be criticized?

2010 - the Lakers didn't face a team that could beat them until the finals
2009 - like 2010, much more worse a runner-up, KG was injured and it hurt the contender other than the Lakers.
2008 - the Lakers had health issues.
2007 - Spurs-Suns series and probably the worst runner up in the history.
2006 - the refs
2002 - Lakers-Kings series
2001 - one of the weakest competition from start to end (and do you try to discredit 15-1 due to this?)

It's just recent history. There was a phantom call that got Kareem to the charity stripe and coz of that call Magic won b2b titles. Would you try to discredit Magic due to this? The Bad Boys won their first title against a injred Magic. 1985-86 season was the best season of Bird's career and that Celtics has a great argument for being the best team ever, yet they didn't face the Lakers in the finals. Kareem never repeated in his prime.

Why you just point out only one side of the coin?
Almost all of the top 10 players ever can get criticized like you did. So there is no point of doing it.

Lastly; maybe Duncan's 2003 title 'Won on the heels of a true dynasty falling apart'. Yet Kobe didn't have a title run like Duncan did in 2003.

PS: Interesting... Exact same poster keeps saying 1999 and 2007 rings were asterisks to make a good look for Shaq or Kobe without mentioning the Kings series in 2002. Also didn't teams have to win 15 games in 1999 playoffs? I guess playoffs played on a shortened schedule, too.

[Flash31]

Right now, this is my top 10:

1. MJ
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Kobe
8. Wilt
9. Shaq
10. LeBron

If Duncan gets #5 it's going to be really hard not to slide him past Bird. Still can't put Timmy over Magic though.


how the f do you have Wilt at 8,and Kobe,Duncan,Bird,Magic over him

Wilt faced the Russell Celtics 11/13 ring a bell
and was almost always the best player in those series.

He has the most rebounds in playoff history.
He avg 50,25,4,
His avg career rb is 22.5 per Game along with 30.1 pts per game
at 55%shooting for His CAREER.

Literally in every single goat list from legends,retired players,media,everybody
Wilt is at WORST 5th.Anywhere from 1-5,but 8th WOW,and Kobe over him,What?


Everything else,I can understand EXCEPT
for LeBron in the top 10,he is not in the top ten yet.Even if he wins this year,Hakeem would still be over him.Its still
too early to put LeBron in the Top ten.

[Dro]

Is this guy a known troll or what? I don't keep up with who is what anymore.

Someone inform this dude that Duncan was a 1st team All-NBA player this year and has as good an argument as the best big man in the league as anyone.
Yes he is...

[HurricaneKid]

I would have a hard time putting him into the top 6. You are saying he was better than Bird or Magic and thats just a tough sell right now. There is a pretty enormous chasm between 6 and 7 IMO.

The Kings series in 02 is questioned by everyone. But the Portland game 7 in 00 was almost as bad. Portland should have been up 30 going into the 4th qtr but was only up 15 and then the officials got busy.

They were a GREAT team in 01 but it could EASILY have been 1 Championship for that team and thats amazing.

[Ne 1]

Yet you haven't responded this one posted a while ago;



PS: Interesting... Exact same poster keeps saying 1999 and 2007 rings were asterisks to make a good look for Shaq or Kobe without mentioning the Kings series in 2002. Also didn't teams have to win 15 games in 1999 playoffs? I guess playoffs played on a shortened schedule, too.


Where is your proof for the 2006 and 2002 conspiracy theories? What happened to the Suns in 2007 isn't a conspiracy theory.

And I'm not saying the Spurs couldn't have won it had the season been played without the asterisk. What I'm is saying is that the 1999 title that the Spurs won is a different accomplishment than winning a full season. That's NOT EQUIVALENT to saying the Spurs couldn't have won the accomplishment of winning a full 82 game season that year. But like the 1982 and 1987 Washington Redskins, the 1999 Spurs can't be ranked up there with title-holders from full seasons.


Teams build their rosters for 82 games seasons, then all of the sudden in 1 year you have a 50 game season and it changes which teams stand to benefit.

If all teams played lesser games every year in but in a more cramped schedule it would change how teams built their rosters. But obviously it would still be fair because it would be what all teams prepared for.

Fact is that 1999 was a rushed 50-game season in which too many players changed teams and nearly everyone was out of shape, leading to nagging injuries, shoddy basketball and an absolutely hateful season on every level. The rushed playoffs were such a joke that the 8th seeded Knicks ended up making the Finals before getting trounced by the Spurs...



Also didn't teams have to win 15 games in 1999 playoffs?

Yeah, so what's your point? They should just get rid of the entire regular season? Every single team should make the playoffs?

[GoSpursGo1984]

Winning: Shaq=Duncan
Peak play: Shaq>Duncan
Longevity: Shaq=Duncan
Impact on teams: Shaq=Duncan


Some people may disagree on longevity because there is a myth that Shaq lacked longevity. Shaq nearly won a MVP in his 13th season, won a ring as an All-NBA first teamer in his 14th and was an All-Star in his 16th. Not to mention Duncan did not have the peak Shaq did. As far as winning; Duncan: 4 rings (possibly 5), 5 NBA Finals, Shaq: 4 rings, 6 NBA Finals and Shaq won 3 straight rings, while Duncan never even won back-to-back titles, and 2 of his titles (1999, 2007) definitely have asterisks.

I would put Ducan over Shaq in winning even though he has less rings because Duncan never played with players like Kobe Bryant or Dwanye Wade. I would give Duncan the edge in longevity since he is 36 averaging 17 and 9 while Shaq at 36 averaged 17 and 8 and Duncan has his team in the NBA Finals. Duncan also I would say had more impact on team since he was not only a good offensive player he was a good defensive player which can not be said about Shaq and was a better free throw shooter. Back to back titles are great but do not really mean much they are still just titles.

[97 bulls]

I would have a hard time putting him into the top 6. You are saying he was better than Bird or Magic and thats just a tough sell right now. There is a pretty enormous chasm between 6 and 7 IMO.

The Kings series in 02 is questioned by everyone. But the Portland game 7 in 00 was almost as bad. Portland should have been up 30 going into the 4th qtr but was only up 15 and then the officials got busy.

They were a GREAT team in 01 but it could EASILY have been 1 Championship for that team and thats amazing.
What would he have to accomplish in order for you to rank him above Bird?

[NumberSix]

I personally wouldn't have a problem with someone saying Duncan was better than Bird and Magic.

[Ne 1]

The Kings series in 02 is questioned by everyone. But the Portland game 7 in 00 was almost as bad.


You don't know what the meaning of an asterisk is if you lump the 2000 or 2002 WCF into the discussion with the rushed 50 game season in 1999 and the 2007 WCSF. Portland had their destiny in their own hands and they should have won but had a epic meltdown. There were no bs suspensions or shortened seasons here. Any team that won the title in '99 would have had an asterisk attached. Don't take it personal Spurs/Duncan fans.

Anyway yes, the officiating in Game 6 of the 2002 WCF was very poor. However, does anyone realize that, through game 5, Sacramento (a jump-shooting finesse team) had shot 37 more freebies than the Lakers (a power team)? Does no one remember the terrible call that gave Sacramento the ball prior to the Bibby game winner in Game 5? Who on Sacramento played anywhere near as physical as Shaq or got to the line nearly as much? Who attacked the basket as much as Kobe on the Kings? Nobody. Webber settled for a lot jump shots for a power forward and Bibby and Peja both did a lot of their damage on jumpers while Divac was a finesse player.

Game 6 would be a case of the poor officiating throughout the series evening out. The Kings still had a chance to win game 7 AT HOME and shot 50% from the line. They had every chance and didn't come through. They also shot 19 more FT's than the Lakers during the series.

Lastly, I hated the Suns back then and rooted against them, but they got jobbed. Why wasn't Duncan suspended for leaving the floor earlier in the game, if "it's a matter of correctness, not fairness?"

The Suns lost two of their better players for a home game they possibly would have won otherwise, then got to play an elimination game ON THE ROAD, courtesy of the league office. That one of the games in the series might have been fixed only completes the parlay.

The Suns may have still had their own destiny in hand, but they were fighting with one of those hands tied behind their backs.

The series was 2-2. The Suns narrowly lost game 5 by a mere three points without Amare and despite having only 7 players available, one who played a scant 3 minutes. Common sense says that with Amare they would win that game. If the series is 3-2 the momentum changes and who knows if the Spurs would win game 6. Even if they did it is likely that Phoenix would win game 7 at home.

[guy]

:oldlol: at 2007 deserving an asterisk cause of the Suns. The Suns were the Spurs' bitch for years. Spurs would've won that series regardless, even if it took a game 7 in Phoenix. They have never been a team that was dependent on HCA. And it was the Suns that violated the rules. Are we going to put an asterisk every time there's an injury? Should the 2009 Lakers get an asterisk cause the Rockets were missing Yao for the last 4 games of the WCSF? Thats much worse then missing Amare for 1 game.

[Ne 1]

I would put Ducan over Shaq in winning even though he has less rings because Duncan never played with players like Kobe Bryant or Dwanye Wade. I would give Duncan the edge in longevity since he is 36 averaging 17 and 9 while Shaq at 36 averaged 17 and 8 and Duncan has his team in the NBA Finals. Duncan also I would say had more impact on team since he was not only a good offensive player he was a good defensive player which can not be said about Shaq and was a better free throw shooter. Back to back titles are great but do not really mean much they are still just titles.

I do take into account that Duncan's prime years were longer than Shaq's, but still I think Shaq was way more dominant during his peak/prime. In terms of prime and dominance, I think only Wilt and maybe Kareem have a case against Shaq.

Also although Shaq may have had superior running mates with Kobe and Wade, but Duncan had deeper and more well rounded teams IMO.

[Ne 1]

:oldlol: at 2007 deserving an asterisk cause of the Suns. The Suns were the Spurs' bitch for years. Spurs would've won that series regardless, even if it took a game 7 in Phoenix. They have never been a team that was dependent on HCA. And it was the Suns that violated the rules. Are we going to put an asterisk every time there's an injury? Should the 2009 Lakers get an asterisk cause the Rockets were missing Yao for the last 4 games of the WCSF? Thats much worse then missing Amare for 1 game.

The thing is that was the championship deciding series. It was the direct action of the league that helped decide the series in the Spurs favor, when it was clearly in poor judgment to do so. It has nothing to do with injuries.

The Suns were up 100-97 (after a ferocious and impressive comeback on the road no less) with 32.5 seconds remaining in the game. Cheap Shot Horry could have just tapped Nash in an obvious foul situation to stop the clock. Instead, well, see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs147_VdQXs



PHOENIX -- There was heartbreak in the desert for the severely short-handed Phoenix Suns, and the San Antonio Spurs are one win away from the Western Conference finals.

Bruce Bowen, labeled a dirty player by the Suns' Amare Stoudemire and the subject of taunts all night from the Phoenix crowd, sank a tiebreaking 3-pointer with 36 seconds to play. That gave the Spurs their first lead since the game's opening six minutes, and they pulled out an 88-85 victory on Wednesday night.

"It felt great," Bowen said. "After all the things I was hearing from the sidelines it was great. The people were calling me choice names I had never heard before."

San Antonio took a 3-2 lead in the best-of-seven series and can close it out by winning at home in Game 6 Friday night.

The Suns, without their all-NBA center Stoudemire and replacement Boris Diaw, and using essentially a six-man rotation, nearly won a grind-it-out kind of game the Suns aren't supposed to be able to play.


Bruce Bowen kicked Nash in the family jewels (no suspension), but Stat and Diaw both got suspended "for leaving the bench" when he was sticking up for Nash after Horry's cowardly heinous act. No doubt in my mind they would have been up 3-2 going back to SA with all the momentum.

[guy]

The thing is that was the championship deciding series. It was the direct action of the league that helped decide the series in the Spurs favor, when it was clearly in poor judgment to do so. It has nothing to do with injuries.

The Suns were up 100-97 (after a ferocious and impressive comeback on the road no less) with 32.5 seconds remaining in the game. Cheap Shot Horry could have just tapped Nash in an obvious foul situation to stop the clock. Instead, well, see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs147_VdQXs




Bruce Bowen kicked Nash in the family jewels (no suspension), but Stat and Diaw both got suspended "for leaving the bench" when he was sticking up for Nash after Horry's cowardly heinous act. No doubt in my mind they would have been up 3-2 going back to SA with all the momentum.

Who makes up these rules? Who says the Rockets/Lakers wasn't the "championship deciding series" in 2009? No doubt in your mind that the Suns would've been up 3-2? Why is that? You act like the Spurs have had troubles winning on the road in the playoffs. Like I said, the Suns missed Amare and Diaw for 1 game. The Rockets missed Yao for 4 games and still took the Lakers to 7, more then anyone did that year. If not missing Amare and Diaw for 1 game would've turned a 4-2 Spurs win into at least a 4-3 Suns, its not unreasonable at all to say not missing Yao would've turned 4-3 Lakers win into at least a 4-3 Rockets win.

You're obviously making up arbitrary rules/guidelines/bullshit just to fit some agenda.

[RRR3]

The way people rank players on the GOAT list has never struck me as logical.

[Haks]

Duncan is already greater than Shaq in every sense except for Peak and dominance (not to say Tim Duncan wasnt dominant).

[gengiskhan]

Duncan is already greater than Shaq in every sense except for Peak and dominance (not to say Tim Duncan wasnt dominant).

seriously!

compare to Shaq's SHEER DOMINANCE!

Where does duncan really stand.

some here need to really open their eyes & stop putting duncan & kobe in the same league as Shaq, Hakeem.

[GoSpursGo1984]

I do take into account that Duncan's prime years were longer than Shaq's, but still I think Shaq was way more dominant during his peak/prime. In terms of prime and dominance, I think only Wilt and maybe Kareem have a case against Shaq.

Also although Shaq may have had superior running mates with Kobe and Wade, but Duncan had deeper and more well rounded teams IMO.

More dominant offensively yes but not defensively. Just because a player has a bigger peak dominance does not mean they were better there are other things to consider

[SamuraiSWISH]

No.

He's always been a center, labeled as "greatest PF ever" ... so I can't rank him higher. And I've seen two dramatically better centers than him, which is his true position: Shaq and Hakeem. I'd also argue David Robinson at his peak / prime was as good or better, with significantly less roster / coaching help.

And if Duncan is labeled as a PF, seen 4 comparable talents at the position: Chuck, Mailman, Dirk and KG.

He's the defensive anchor now, but probably the 2nd or 3rd best player on offense. Overall, I guess he's their best player, given Parker is non existent on defense. But the Spurs success is more coaching and team philosophy now, than it is Duncan dominating.

This isn't 1999 - 2007, Duncan is past his prime by a few years now. He is playing well though given his age. Just a piece of the entire Spurs puzzle to be brutally honest. He doesn't move up or down with a ring. I still have an asterisk next to the '99 ring, and I find it telling he's never been to back to back Finals, nor won back to backs.

[I.R.Beast]

I don't understand that way of thinking....."I haven't moved him up since the second one really."

So the last TEN years means, numerous accolades, two titles as clear best player mean next to nothing? Duncan could have retired after 2003 and be ranked the same as if he did what he did the last ten years to you?

I know people love to rank players by PRIME or how good they were at their best....but that's taking it to a whole other level.
I havent moved him up since then either.. I mean It's no longer his team. What has he done since then to move him up higher?...If they win when Tony Parker is clearly the teams best player it really does nothing extra for him, he'll just get another ring.

[Shepseskaf]

I havent moved him up since then either.. I mean It's no longer his team. What has he done since then to move him up higher?...If they win when Tony Parker is clearly the teams best player it really does nothing extra for him, he'll just get another ring.
Duncan has obviously made significant contributions to the team's current position, if you've been watching the games.

Just because of all the talk about it being 'Parker's team' doesn't negate TD's importance. In addition, his ability to step back and let someone else take the credit, just as Kareem did near the end of his career, will only add to Duncan's legacy.

Its not as though he's some benchwarmer getting 3 minutes a game. If the Spurs win another 'chip, he'll have been a key contributor.

[CAstill]

No.

He's always been a center, labeled as "greatest PF ever" ... so I can't rank him higher. And I've seen two dramatically better centers than him, which is his true position: Shaq and Hakeem. I'd also argue David Robinson at his peak / prime was as good or better, with significantly less roster / coaching help.

And if Duncan is labeled as a PF, seen 4 comparable talents at the position: Chuck, Mailman, Dirk and KG.

He's the defensive anchor now, but probably the 2nd or 3rd best player on offense. Overall, I guess he's their best player, given Parker is non existent on defense. But the Spurs success is more coaching and team philosophy now, than it is Duncan dominating.

This isn't 1999 - 2007, Duncan is past his prime by a few years now. He is playing well though given his age. Just a piece of the entire Spurs puzzle to be brutally honest. He doesn't move up or down with a ring. I still have an asterisk next to the '99 ring, and I find it telling he's never been to back to back Finals, nor won back to backs.

No way. David Robinson was very good but he's no way better than Duncan. Duncan has what it takes to battle in the playoffs, Robinson didn't.

[CAstill]

Duncan has obviously made significant contributions to the team's current position, if you've been watching the games.

Just because of all the talk about it being 'Parker's team' doesn't negate TD's importance. In addition, his ability to step back and let someone else take the credit, just as Kareem did near the end of his career, will only add to Duncan's legacy.

Its not as though he's some benchwarmer getting 3 minutes a game. If the Spurs win another 'chip, he'll have been a key contributor.


Without Duncan they would be sitting at home lol.

[Big#50]

Without Duncan they would be sitting at home lol.
Yup. He took over in both overtime games against the Grizzlies. He basically made Randolph look like a scrub. He outplayed the DPOY. This is still Duncan's team.

[Ne 1]

Who makes up these rules? Who says the Rockets/Lakers wasn't the "championship deciding series" in 2009? No doubt in your mind that the Suns would've been up 3-2? Why is that? You act like the Spurs have had troubles winning on the road in the playoffs. Like I said, the Suns missed Amare and Diaw for 1 game. The Rockets missed Yao for 4 games and still took the Lakers to 7, more then anyone did that year. If not missing Amare and Diaw for 1 game would've turned a 4-2 Spurs win into at least a 4-3 Suns, its not unreasonable at all to say not missing Yao would've turned 4-3 Lakers win into at least a 4-3 Rockets win.

You're obviously making up arbitrary rules/guidelines/bullshit just to fit some agenda.

I have no agenda. I hated the Suns and was pulling for the Spurs back then, and I have no problem if somebody thinks Duncan is better than Shaq. It was the championship deciding series because Phoenix was the only legitimate team standing in their way. The competition they faced in the WCF (Utah) and the Finals (Cavs) was really weak. The winner of that series would go on to win the championship, the next 2 rounds were a mere formality. Injuries happen, they are apart of the game, I can just as easily speculate that the outcome of the '08 Finals is different if the Lakers had Bynum and Ariza. Injury speculation is NOT comparable at all to the direct action of the league helping decided the series, when it was clearly in poor judgment to do so. You're just using red herring tactics here.

The series was 2-2. The Suns narrowly lost game 5 by a mere 3 points without Amare and despite having only 7 players available, one who played a scant 3 minutes. Common sense says that with Amare they would win that game. If the series is 3-2 the momentum changes and who knows if the Spurs would win game 6. Even if they did it is likely that Phoenix would win game 7 at home.


The Suns were up 100-97 (after a ferocious and impressive comeback on the road no less) with 32.5 seconds remaining in the game. Cheap Shot Horry could have just tapped Nash in an obvious foul situation to stop the clock. Instead, well, see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs147_VdQXs

Nash and the Suns were poised to win their 1st championship until that cheap shot happened.



PHOENIX -- There was heartbreak in the desert for the severely short-handed Phoenix Suns, and the San Antonio Spurs are one win away from the Western Conference finals.

Bruce Bowen, labeled a dirty player by the Suns' Amare Stoudemire and the subject of taunts all night from the Phoenix crowd, sank a tiebreaking 3-pointer with 36 seconds to play. That gave the Spurs their first lead since the game's opening six minutes, and they pulled out an 88-85 victory on Wednesday night.

"It felt great," Bowen said. "After all the things I was hearing from the sidelines it was great. The people were calling me choice names I had never heard before."

San Antonio took a 3-2 lead in the best-of-seven series and can close it out by winning at home in Game 6 Friday night.

The Suns, without their All-NBA center Stoudemire and replacement Boris Diaw, and using essentially a six-man rotation, nearly won a grind-it-out kind of game the Suns aren't supposed to be able to play.

Bruce Bowen kicked Nash in the family jewels (no suspension), but Stat and Diaw both got suspended "for leaving the bench" when he was sticking up for Nash after Cheap Shot Horry's cowardly heinous act.



So with that said IMO Shaq's 4 rings > Duncan's *2 (possibly 3*)

[dh144498]

he doesnt necessarily have to get the FMVP, imo. if he just performs at a high level in the finals, then yes he'll move up to the top 5 or so.

[Odinn]

Keeping that argument up... Shaq's 2002 and 2006 rings are counted in but Duncan's 1999 and 2007 rings are not. There is no point of arguing with you.

[Ne 1]

Keeping that argument up... Shaq's 2002 and 2006 rings are counted in but Duncan's 1999 and 2007 rings are not. There is no point of arguing with you.

His '99 and '07 rings do count, I don't completely omit them, but they have asterisks next to them, they just aren't as meaningful as all of Shaq's rings or as meaningful as his '03 and '05 rings if you get what I'm saying.

They only claim for Shaq's '02 and '06 rings having an asterisk are unfounded conspiracy theories of biased officiating. The reason for '99 and '07 having an asterisk aren't based on unfounded conspiracy theories.

[guy]

I have no agenda. I hated the Suns and was pulling for the Spurs back then, and I have no problem if somebody thinks Duncan is better than Shaq. It was the championship deciding series because Phoenix was the only legitimate team standing in their way. The competition they faced in the WCF (Utah) and the Finals (Cavs) was really weak. The winner of that series would go on to win the championship, the next 2 rounds were a mere formality. Injuries happen, they are apart of the game, I can just as easily speculate that the outcome of the '08 Finals is different if the Lakers had Bynum and Ariza. Injury speculation is NOT comparable at all to the direct action of the league helping decided the series, when it was clearly in poor judgment to do so. You're just using red herring tactics here.

The series was 2-2. The Suns narrowly lost game 5 by a mere 3 points without Amare and despite having only 7 players available, one who played a scant 3 minutes. Common sense says that with Amare they would win that game. If the series is 3-2 the momentum changes and who knows if the Spurs would win game 6. Even if they did it is likely that Phoenix would win game 7 at home.


The Suns were up 100-97 (after a ferocious and impressive comeback on the road no less) with 32.5 seconds remaining in the game. Cheap Shot Horry could have just tapped Nash in an obvious foul situation to stop the clock. Instead, well, see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs147_VdQXs

Nash and the Suns were poised to win their 1st championship until that cheap shot happened.




Bruce Bowen kicked Nash in the family jewels (no suspension), but Stat and Diaw both got suspended "for leaving the bench" when he was sticking up for Nash after Cheap Shot Horry's cowardly heinous act.



So with that said IMO Shaq's 4 rings > Duncan's *2 (possibly 3*)

Yes, injuries happen. And rules are rules and teams break them and get punished for it. That shit happens as well. You say the NBA acted in poor judgment. Well it is the NBA, and it is the NBA title, Duncan is an NBA player, and these were the NBA rules. The NBA's the governing body and the ones that actually run the whole damn thing. They technically didn't act unfairly, they acted according to their own rules that the Suns should've been well aware of. There's points on both sides of the argument that you can argue for, but its all opinion. Not much different then the controversial officiating of the 2002 WCFs or 2006 Finals being based on judgement calls where there's points on both sides of the argument that you can argue for.

Umm, just cause Suns only lost by 3 that doesn't mean they would've won that game with Amare. Just like just because the Rockets only lost 4-3 to the Lakers that doesn't mean they would've won the series with Yao for 4 more games. Its not common sense. Its common sense that it doesn't work that way. Its not like there's some specific formula that says Suns+Amare would mean 20 more points for the Suns and they would've won by 17. Assuming you have watched enough basketball, you can't be this dumb to think that that's a fair assumption to make, are you?

:oldlol: You make it seem like the Suns were some all-time great team that were blowing out the Spurs in every other game. The Spurs beat the Suns mainly for the same reason they always did back then (beating them relatively easy in both 05 and 08), and that's because the Suns were flawed as a playoff team because of their lack of defense, which isn't just something that can said about Suns but all teams that don't focus on defense. The Spurs clearly weren't that type of team, and were clearly the most complete team in the league.

If you want to argue that Duncan's competition was weak, that's a legit point. But all this bullshit about asterisks which makes his 4 NBA titles anything different then 4 NBA titles is just flat out stupid and is obviously agenda-driven. To my knowledge, every team was on the same playing field playing in the same lockout season and/or operating under the same rules.

Your agenda is obvious. You're stuck on Kobe's nuts so you are already getting defensive in case Duncan ties him in rings, when he already is arguably better then him.

By the way, again, who makes up these rules??

[Ne 1]

..............



It was poor judgement to suspend him. Amare had one foot over the line and he probably didn't know it... it was really petty enforcing that rule there in a crucial playoff game. Why wasn't Duncan suspended for leaving the floor earlier in the game, if "it's a matter of correctness, not fairness?"

The reason why that title has an asterisk is because Phoenix was the only legitimate team standing in their way (Jazz in the WCF, Cavs in the Finals? :oldlol:) and they had to get help from the league to beat them. There's no basis for these unsubstantiated rumors/conspiracy theories regarding the outcome of the '02 WCF or '06 Finals being fixed, and it's actually sad that adults actually believe such non-sense. Yes, Duncan has 4 titles, but the '99 and '07 titles have an asterisk next to them, they don't hold the same weight and aren't as meaningful as his '03 and '05 titles.

As far as 1999, any team that won that year would have an asterisk next to the title and I'm not saying the Spurs couldn't have won it had the season been played without the asterisk. What I'm is saying is that the 1999 title that the Spurs won is a DIFFRENT accomplishment than winning a full season. That's NOT EQUIVALENT to saying the Spurs couldn't have won the accomplishment of winning a full 82 game season that year. But like the 1982 and 1987 Washington Redskins, the 1999 Spurs can't be ranked up there with title-holders from full seasons.

Teams build their rosters for 82 games seasons, then all of the sudden in 1 year you have a 50 game season and it changes which teams stand to benefit.

If all teams played lesser games every year in but in a more cramped schedule it would change how teams built their rosters. But obviously it would still be fair because it would be what all teams prepared for.

Fact is that 1999 was a rushed 50-game season in which too many players changed teams and nearly everyone was out of shape, leading to nagging injuries, shoddy basketball and an absolutely hateful season on every level. The rushed playoffs were such a joke that the 8th seeded Knicks ended up making the Finals before getting trounced by the Spurs...

The shortened season produced skewed playoff rankings. A lot of bizarre things happened in the playoffs that year, the 8th seed (without Patrick Ewing too) for example made it to the NBA Finals, you think this is a freak accident? The rankings and home-court was messed up. The Lakers in fact were probably hurt the most by that lockout as Shaq usually plays best near the end of the season (when he is finally in shape) and Kobe was improving on a month by month basis (still young).


As for the rest of your posts, I'm not going to respond to red herrings and ad hominem attacks.

[guy]

The basis behind the theories of the '02 WCFs was the fact that it was fishy as hell at the time and then a referee that worked for the NBA came out and confirmed it. Can we believe him? Maybe not, which is why we don't put an asterisk next to it.

Where's the basis that the actions of the league in '07 changed the outcome of the Suns/Spurs series? There is none, which is why we don't put an asterisk next to it.

Where's the substantiated basis that that series was the "championship deciding series?" There is none, which is why we don't put an asterisk next to the Finals.


Yes, Duncan has 4 titles, but the '99 and '07 titles have an asterisk next to them, they don't hold the same weight and aren't as meaningful as his '03 and '05 titles.


Again, who makes up these rules? Cause whenever I read a list of NBA champions or anything reported of these seasons, I don't see asterisks next to them.

Bizarre things happen every season.

[rmt]

So, I guess MIA's championship from last year has an asterisk too since it was in a shortened season. I'd take bets that if it were your precious Lakers who won in 99 or 2012, there'd be no talk from you about asterisks.

Your agenda is clear - you'd like to dis-credit Duncan because he's getting too close to #5 and should the Spurs win, the Kobe stans will no longer be able to use the feeble 5 > 4 excuse. You poor Kobe stans are in a dilemma, Duncan with 5 or Lebron catching up to your precious idol. Better pray hard for Indiana.

[Ne 1]

The basis behind the theories of the '02 WCFs was the fact that it was fishy as hell at the time

What was fishy about it? Even Lakers fans will admit that Game 6 was poorly officiated, but playoff series aren't rigged and the officiating was actually poor throughout the series, not just Game 6. The Kings lost because they choked at the free throw line in Game 7 and Peja airballed a wide open 3.


a referee that worked for the NBA came out and confirmed it.

:oldlol: at using Tim Donaghy to support the fixed conspiracy theory. He has numerous reasons to lie (to make himself not look as bad, sell a book etc.) and given what we know about him, he certainly doesn't seem like a guy who would be above lying. And he certainly picked an easy target in that 2002 WCF which fans have been bitching about for years, not like he picked one that was never suspected.

In other words, his claims don't prove anything.






Where's the basis that the actions of the league in '07 changed the outcome of the Suns/Spurs series? There is none, which is why we don't put an asterisk next to it.

If you don't think the league stepping in and suspending Amare and Boris, but not suspending Duncan and Bowen in a crucial playoff game was fairly justified and didn't have any affect on the outcome of that series then I don't known what to tell you.





Where's the substantiated basis that that series was the "championship deciding series?"

Because the '07 Cavs were a joke for a Finals team, they had no chance in hell of beating the Spurs or Suns. The championship was decided in the West.


whenever I read a list of NBA champions or anything reported of these seasons, I don't see asterisks next to them.


Uh, actually the 1999 NBA season does in fact have an asterisk next to it. So does the 2011 NBA season, 1982 NFL season and 1987 NFL season.


Bizarre things happen every season.

8th seeded teams make the Finals every season?

[Ne 1]

So, I guess MIA's championship from last year has an asterisk too since it was in a shortened season. I'd take bets that if it were your precious Lakers who won in 99 or 2012, there'd be no talk from you about asterisks.

Your agenda is clear - you'd like to dis-credit Duncan because he's getting too close to #5 and should the Spurs win, the Kobe stans will no longer be able to use the feeble 5 > 4 excuse. You poor Kobe stans are in a dilemma, Duncan with 5 or Lebron catching up to your precious idol. Better pray hard for Indiana.

I don't really care who wins, I'm not insecure and anyway the Lakers are the most prestigious team in all of sports when it comes to success in the modern era. Also, I never said that shortened season championships/Super Bowls don't count, if you read my other post I only said they aren't the same accomplishment as one won during a full season.

[guy]

What was fishy about it? Even Lakers fans will admit that Game 6 was poorly officiated, but playoff series aren't rigged and the officiating was actually poor throughout the series, not just Game 6. The Kings lost because they choked at the free throw line in Game 7 and Peja airballed a wide open 3.


Ummm the fact that they shot 27 FTs in a quarter on plenty of fishy calls that even the commentators were commenting on including a Mike Bibby elbow to his face foul?



:oldlol: at using Tim Donaghy to support the fixed conspiracy theory. He has numerous reasons to lie (to make himself not look as bad, sell a book etc.) and given what we know about him, he certainly doesn't seem like a guy who would be above lying. And he certainly picked an easy target in that 2002 WCF which fans have been bitching about for years, not like he picked one that was never suspected.

In other words, his claims don't prove anything.


Right, his claims can't prove anything. Didn't say they could. Just like it can't be proven that those Suns' suspensions changed the outcome of that series.




If you don't think the league stepping in and suspending Amare and Boris, but not suspending Duncan and Bowen in a crucial playoff game was fairly justified and didn't have any affect on the outcome of that series then I don't known what to tell you.

There's no proof that it affected the outcome of the series though. Thats what matters right?



Because the '07 Cavs were a joke for a Finals team, they had no chance in hell of beating the Spurs or Suns. The championship was decided in the West.


So basically, proof only matters to you when its convenient? :oldlol: They were saying the same thing about the Pistons who the Cavs beat. If the Cavs could beat them, I could easily see them beat the allergic to defense Suns.



Uh, actually the 1999 NBA season does in fact have an asterisk next to it. So does the 2011 NBA season, 1982 NFL season and 1987 NFL season.


Where? I don't see an asterisk next to it on NBA.com, basketball-reference.com, espn.com, or many other reputable resources.



Bizarre things happen every season.[/QUOTE]

8th seeded teams make the Finals every season?[/QUOTE]

27 FTs in a quarter? :oldlol:

Your agenda is obvious. You pick and choose what's relevant and what's not based on what serves your agenda best.

[Anaximandro1]

Does Tim Duncan move up in your all-time players list if he wins a title?

No.

37-year old Duncan is the best PF/C in the league,and made the All-NBA First Team.

Tim is still the Spurs' defensive anchor,and is still capable of outscoring Marc Gasol 13-0 pt in overtime,but he is too old to put the Spurs on his back for an extended period of time.

Tony has been spectacular and it's just as valuable as Tim,if not more.Furthermore,guys like Leonard,Tiago Splitter,and Diaw have been terrific for the team whenever the old man Duncan needed a rest.

In other words,everything stays the same.

You have Jordan,Russell,Jabbar and Chamberlain

Below them,you find Magic and Duncan,the greatest winners of their respective generations.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/970683_10151551857738463_1261227947_n.jpg

Duncan holds several records


-First player in NBA history with 500 playoff blocks

-NBA's all-time playoff leader in defensive rebounds

-NBA Finals records for most blocked shots in a single game (8) and series (32)

-Duncan's 14 All-Defensive Team selections for his career are the most in NBA history

-First player in NBA history to make All NBA First Team in 3 different decades

-The Spurs have the best record in pro sports since 1998

-Spurs also reached 50 wins for the 14th straight season, the longest streak in NBA history


[B]Duncan' first 10 years in the league (Duncan

[get these NETS]

funny thread title

duncan could have injured his leg in the preseason following the spurs beating nets and still been in the top 10 players ever...and unquestioned as best power forward ever

[Ne 1]

Ummm the fact that they shot 27 FTs in a quarter

Look at the total number of fouls called over the course of the series. The Kings shot far more ft's than the Lakers in a couple of games. The biggest FT disparity in this series wasn't even in Game 6, it was Game 5 or 3 forgot which...where the Kings had the edge.


does anyone realize that, through game 5, Sacramento (a jump-shooting finesse team) had shot 37 more freebies than the Lakers (a power team)? Does no one remember the terrible call that gave Sacramento the ball prior to the Bibby game winner in Game 5? Who on Sacramento played anywhere near as physical as Shaq or got to the line nearly as much? Who attacked the basket as much as Kobe on the Kings? Nobody. Webber settled for a lot jump shots for a power forward and Bibby and Peja both did a lot of their damage on jumpers while Divac was a finesse player.

Game 6 would be a case of the poor officiating throughout the series evening out. The Kings still had a chance to win game 7 AT HOME and shot 50% from the line. They had every chance and didn't come through. They also shot 19 more FT's than the Lakers during the series.



including a Mike Bibby elbow to his face foul?

On that Kobe elbow, Bibby grabs him around the waist first, that should have been a foul on Bibby.



Right, his claims can't prove anything. Didn't say they could. Just like it can't be proven that those Suns' suspensions changed the outcome of that series.


Yes, but you're saying there was a conspiracy to fix the series in the Lakers favor. I'm saying the fact is that the Spurs had to get help from the league to defeat the only legitimate team standing in their way.




There's no proof that it affected the outcome of the series though. Thats what matters right?


What matters is that in a crucial playoff game, 2 of the Suns best players got suspended, while the Spurs players didn't when Phoenix would had all the momentum. Then Cheap Shot Rob happened, that was the turning point of that series.

The Suns lost two of their better players for a home game they possibly would have won otherwise, then got to play an elimination game ON THE ROAD, courtesy of the league office.

The Suns may have still had their own destiny in hand, but they were fighting with one of those hands tied behind their backs.




So basically, proof only matters to you when its convenient? :oldlol: They were saying the same thing about the Pistons who the Cavs beat. If the Cavs could beat them, I could easily see them beat the allergic to defense Suns.


No. The championship was decided in the West. The Eastern Conference was a sick joke in 2007. The Finals were a mere formality, and whoever came out of the JV league eastern conference had no chance against the superior West.



Where? I don't see an asterisk next to it on NBA.com, basketball-reference.com, espn.com, or many other reputable resources.


San Antonio Spurs
37-13 *
* strike shortened season

http://www.nbauniverse.com/yearbyyear/1998_1999_standings.htm


"The first three months of the 1998-99 season was lost due to a lockout, resulting in play beginning in February of 1999. The normal 82-game NBA season was cut down to 50"

http://www.nba.com/history/

So yes, it is noted that 1999 season was a shortened season.





27 FTs in a quarter? :oldlol:

8th seeded teams make the Finals every season? :oldlol:



Your agenda is obvious. You pick and choose what's relevant and what's not based on what serves your agenda best.

Pot says to kettle. :lol

[Carbine]

Why wasn't Duncan suspended for leaving the floor earlier in the game, if "it's a matter of correctness, not fairness?"

To answer this, it was because there wasn't a huge altercation on the court as when Amare left the bench.

[guy]

Look at the total number of fouls called over the course of the series. The Kings shot far more ft's than the Lakers in a couple of games. The biggest FT disparity in this series wasn't even in Game 6, it was Game 5 or 3 forgot which...where the Kings had the edge.


does anyone realize that, through game 5, Sacramento (a jump-shooting finesse team) had shot 37 more freebies than the Lakers (a power team)? Does no one remember the terrible call that gave Sacramento the ball prior to the Bibby game winner in Game 5? Who on Sacramento played anywhere near as physical as Shaq or got to the line nearly as much? Who attacked the basket as much as Kobe on the Kings? Nobody. Webber settled for a lot jump shots for a power forward and Bibby and Peja both did a lot of their damage on jumpers while Divac was a finesse player.

Game 6 would be a case of the poor officiating throughout the series evening out. The Kings still had a chance to win game 7 AT HOME and shot 50% from the line. They had every chance and didn't come through. They also shot 19 more FT's than the Lakers during the series.


7 more FTs per game through 5 games and one bad call at the end of a game isn't fishy. There's nothing abnormal about that. 27 FTs in one quarter in elimination game on a bunch of fishy calls is.



Yes, but you're saying there was a conspiracy to fix the series in the Lakers favor. I'm saying the fact is that the Spurs had to get help from the league to defeat the only legitimate team standing in their way

I'm not saying there was or there wasn't. I don't know, which is why I don't put an asterisk next to it.

That's my point. There's no PROOF, which is what you are so attached to, that the Spurs NEEDED the league to do them any favors. In fact, going by the history of those two teams facing each other in the playoffs, the Spurs would've probably won anyway.

I don't really understand how this is a debate. Suns broke the rules, and they got punished for it. Spurs broke some rules as well and they got punished for it. Its totally understandable that the league acted the way they did. You can disagree with it, but the NBA didn't go against their own rules.



No. The championship was decided in the West. The Eastern Conference was a sick joke in 2007. The Finals were a mere formality, and whoever came out of the JV league eastern conference had no chance against the superior West.

Well this says a bunch of nothing and doesn't address my point at all.



San Antonio Spurs
37-13 *
* strike shortened season

http://www.nbauniverse.com/yearbyyea..._standings.htm


"The first three months of the 1998-99 season was lost due to a lockout, resulting in play beginning in February of 1999. The normal 82-game NBA season was cut down to 50"

http://www.nba.com/history/

So yes, it is noted that 1999 season was a shortened season.


Wow, these are your links? You are this agenda-driven that you couldn't look at it some more? Where is the asterisks to their championships?

http://www.nbauniverse.com/championships/year_by_year.htm

http://www.nba.com/history/seasonreviews/season-recaps/index.html




Pot says to kettle


What's my agenda?

[Euroleague]

Duncan is ridiculously overrated.

[Uncle Drew]

Duncan is ridiculously overrated.
Shut up.