Why doesn't this affect Tim Duncan's legacy??

[Sarcastic]

Duncan has probably the most coddled legacy of all time. He gets a +10 every time he does something good, but only gets a -1 when he does something not so good.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan has probably the most coddled legacy of all time. He gets a +10 every time he does something good, but only gets a -1 when he does something not so good.

In what way?

I mean....

He's on the short list of best two way players of all time.
He's on the short list of best teammate of all time.
He's on the short list of best guys that can dominate a game without the ball.
His 18 years in the league have arguably been the most successful 18 years any player/franchise has ever had.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...e-been-better/

The above is based on objective data. You can't come up with stuff like that if his run hasn't been historic.

[dhsilv]

Lets all remember during the early 00's Laker run the lakers found themselves in two game seven OT games. Stuff happens in basketball and sometimes you get lucky. You can argue all day that great teams and players always find a way, but the reality is sometimes the ball just bounces the wrong way or a lesser player just makes the play.

We all remember the Fisher shot with what was it .4 seconds? That shot goes the other way and Duncan's the hero with a crazy game winner. The absurd foul on Dirk my Manu a few years later (I still strongly believe the spurs win the title that year if they get past the mavs). The Bosh rebound to give ray allen that shot. That isn't to say the Spurs haven't had luck. The 3 pointer by Duncan against the suns, the hip check by Horry.

We can all play what ifs about if Manu and Parker were actually healthy during some of the playoff runs as well.

The point here not to make excuses for Duncan's failings but more to put into context how small the margins for error are and how truly close Duncan and those spurs teams came to not just repeating but really being on another tier.

As for Duncan's all time ranking the top 10 is a mess. Most people are pretty unsure where he should rank next to wilt and russel since very few of us saw them play. MJ is MJ. I'm standing buy Kareem's legacy is just too much to pass. From there I'm not sure why Magic gets the bump over Duncan though I feel like it's fair. Bird's peak with 3 MVP's in a row is a bit better than Duncan but career wise I have to give it to Duncan. I don't see the argument for Shaq especially give the games missed during his peak. Lebron is in the discussion for Duncan's spot, but I'm not ready to give him that one yet. I need a few more ALL NBA seasons or another ring. After those players I'm not sure who's really left to argue that they've had a career better than Duncan.

[houston]

it did affect his legacy they lost the series

[rmt]

it did affect his legacy they lost the series

Cost him another FMVP too - that would have been a nice honor - MJ (6), Duncan (4) and Magic and Shaq (3). And Lebron with only 1 ring. But they probably wouldn't have won in 2014 (especially not in that fashion) and 2014 was SO satisfying.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Cost him another FMVP too - that would have been a nice honor - MJ (6), Duncan (4) and Magic and Shaq (3). And Lebron with only 1 ring. But they probably wouldn't have won in 2014 (especially not in that fashion) and 2014 was SO satisfying.

[sportjames23]

Completely disagree. You are not guaranteed to win 4 or 5 titles replacing Duncan with any top 10 players.

I would actually take Duncan over Kareem. I didn't see Wilt or Russell play...so I can't really weigh in on those two much.

I have Russell over Duncan and Magic over Duncan right now though.

I definitely wouldn't take Bird over Duncan. Duncan's longevity trumps Bird here.

I won't argue much with someone taking Shaq, but I think Duncan's ability to play any role and his leadership on and off the court make him a more valuable player than Shaq all time.

But you say he might be 6 all time...yet you have an issue with someone putting him 4? LOL...after certain tiers....there is a lot of subjectivity in the top 10.

[HOoopCityJones]

Bruh talking out his ass as always.

[DMAVS41]

Bruh talking out his ass as always.

Let me guess....you've been watching Kareem since 1970

[Naero]

It's simple, and it applies to any franchise where its culture doesn't lend itself into the perceptual over-hyping of players.

Fair or not, the genesis of most flak for players stems from the fans

[IllegalD]

I never agree with DMAVs, but I have to agree with him on this one.

At the very least Duncan over Kareem is an argument that can be had. Kareem has the edge offensively, obviously, but Duncan has the edge defensively.

Kareem never won a ring without another Top 10 player by his side (first ring with Big O, next 4 with Magic).

Duncan had good teams but he's never had another Top 10 player as a teammate like Kareem and Shaq had.

Not to mention that Duncan has the edge in Finals MVP. Funny how no one ever brings up Kareem's 2 Finals MVP to 6 rings ratio...

[Spurs5Rings2014]

I never agree with DMAVs, but I have to agree with him on this one.

At the very least Duncan over Kareem is an argument that can be had. Kareem has the edge offensively, obviously, but Duncan has the edge defensively.

Kareem never won a ring without another Top 10 player by his side (first ring with Big O, next 4 with Magic).

Duncan had good teams but he's never had another Top 10 player as a teammate like Kareem and Shaq had.

Not to mention that Duncan has the edge in Finals MVP. Funny how no one ever brings up Kareem's 2 Finals MVP to 6 rings ratio...

They don't bring up a lot of things. Like Kareem winning almost all of his MVP's in the worst era of NBA history. Or the fact that he only won a single ring during that era despite being pretty much the only top 10 player who played during that time. Or the fact that he was a glorified roleplayer (much worse than Duncan was in '14) for his last 1-2 rings. Or the fact that he played in a historically weak conference for most of his rings. Or the fact that his team in said conference was the most stacked of the era by far having multiple top 10 players of all time while other teams were lucky to have even 1 with most having 0.

The list goes on and on.

Do people really think Duncan wins LESS rings playing with Magic? On a stacked team in a weak conference? Do people think Duncan doesn't win a bunch of MVP's in the 70's with no Shaq, Kobe, etc?

C'mon. Context people. Use it.