Tim Duncan possibly winning titles in 3 different Decades

[GimmeThat]

I don't even know what this post means. Every single one of his titles has been won as the best player, and he has a legitimate case for being the best Spur this season too.

it means you can have 5 players, but depending on the match up of a series, your best player may not be the most valuable player.

to coin the term best and most valuable is essentially worthless in a team sports.

I don't know if the judging criteria ever changes.
Especially through the years MJ winning most of them (again, weren't around to watch it)

but I know that the best player doesn't just stop being the best player in a short time span for no reason.

If you looked at Tim Duncans production in 98-99 to 00-01, you can tell that his play elavated, and yet they didn't win a championship. So unless their team regressed that much, or the opposing team became that much better, I find it hard to justify he was his teams best player despite having David Robinson on the team.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Spurs team is built around Tim Duncan, by that definition you can say he is the best player, because his needs and wants for efficiency are filled as first priority to give their team the best chance to win. But I believe that from the time watching Spurs winning those rings, especially the one where Parker won the MVP. It was because of Parker's ability to produce more than what the team needed him even under their team environment, which resulted in a championship.

Either Parker was sandbagging the whole time while Tim Duncan was playing at 100%, or Parker somehow went more than 100%.




Awards are just the best of a bad scenario.

Championship matters, championship isn't an award.

It is to be undefeated.

[T_L_P]

it means you can have 5 players, but depending on the match up of a series, your best player may not be the most valuable player.

to coin the term best and most valuable is essentially worthless in a team sports.

I don't know if the judging criteria ever changes.
Especially through the years MJ winning most of them (again, weren't around to watch it)

but I know that the best player doesn't just stop being the best player in a short time span for no reason.

If you looked at Tim Duncans production in 98-99 to 00-01, you can tell that his play elavated, and yet they didn't win a championship. So unless their team regressed that much, or the opposing team became that much better, I find it hard to justify he was his teams best player despite having David Robinson on the team.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Spurs team is built around Tim Duncan, by that definition you can say he is the best player, because his needs and wants for efficiency are filled as first priority to give their team the best chance to win. But I believe that from the time watching Spurs winning those rings, especially the one where Parker won the MVP. It was because of Parker's ability to produce more than what the team needed him even under their team environment, which resulted in a championship.

Either Parker was sandbagging the whole time while Tim Duncan was playing at 100%, or Parker somehow went more than 100%.




Awards are just the best of a bad scenario.

Championship matters, championship isn't an award.

It is to be undefeated.

The Spurs did win the title in 99, and the Spurs did regress from 00-03. Robinson was broken down, all the vets from their first championship were retiring, and Duncan didn't have a legit #2. Not to mention Kobe became a superstar and the Lakers became far and away the best team in the league.

And yet, Parker stepping up was a huge reason for the success in '07, and from that point onward. But isn't that always the case? Shaq didn't win until Kobe got better, Kobe didn't win without Shaq until Pau got better, Jordan didn't win until Pippen got better. The stars need others to step it up in order to win. But that, again, doesn't mean the stars weren't the best players. Duncan is by no means the clear best player on this team now, but to say he wasn't from '98-'07 (all of the championships is absurd). He was arguably the best player in the league over that period of time.

Parker produced exactly how the team expected him to. The whole offense has ran through him for almost a decade.

[GimmeThat]

The Spurs did win the title in 99, and the Spurs did regress from 00-03. Robinson was broken down, all the vets from their first championship were retiring, and Duncan didn't have a legit #2. Not to mention Kobe became a superstar and the Lakers became far and away the best team in the league.

And yet, Parker stepping up was a huge reason for the success in '07, and from that point onward. But isn't that always the case? Shaq didn't win until Kobe got better, Kobe didn't win without Shaq until Pau got better, Jordan didn't win until Pippen got better. The stars need others to step it up in order to win. But that, again, doesn't mean the stars weren't the best players. Duncan is by no means the clear best player on this team now, but to say he wasn't from '98-'07 (all of the championships is absurd). He was arguably the best player in the league over that period of time.

Parker produced exactly how the team expected him to. The whole offense has ran through him for almost a decade.

so lets say Tim Ducan was the best player in the league over that period of time. And lets say that since he was still young, players only get better.
So by your logic, every other year the Spurs didn't win a championship its because older players regressed faster than younger players who got better. Then younger players got better faster than the older players who regressed.

It's like a switch that you can just turn on and off every other year. Or a switch that you turn on yet somehow doesn't work the next year.


If he was the best player in the league, then the Spurs would have been a dynasty because of the limited roster change.