Bill Simmons "Duncan has had the second best career ever"

[kshutts1]

Did any of you read the article? Jordan was "dismissed" due to, and I'm paraphrasing here.... 11 full Chicago seasons, 2 partial Chicago seasons, and two Wizards seasons. So, in effect, 12 Chicago seasons and two years of Wizards Jordan. Compare that to 17 or 18 Duncan years, and I see where he's coming from with Duncan being listed ahead of Jordan. He also pretty clearly stats that Jordan was better.. it's just a significantly shorter time frame.

I don't agree with his list. I'd say Kareem and Russell are one and two, and I don't care enough to keep going. But I see how/why Jordan was not top 2.

[SOD 21]

Tim Duncan certainly falls well short of Michael Jordan who has more titles, more regular-season MVP's and more final MVPs. Bill Simmons can try to diminish Michael Jordan all he wants, but there's no way that Tim Duncan career is greater than his.

The great Bill Russell has won six more championships than Tim Duncan has and has also won more regular-season MVP awards; unfortunately, the finals MVP didn't exist for most of his career and neither did the all defensive team.

And then there is Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who has appeared in more championships, won more titles, won more regular season MVP, had even greater longevity, not to mention being the all-time leading scorer in league history.

I would listen to arguments that Tim Duncan has had the fourth best career all time, but nothing more than that. But I do believe there is an argument could be made for a handful of players in the fourth spot.

[Purch]

It's not a stretch. When you talk about the few people have made the playoff every year of their career, whiles playing an extreme long career, it's a very elite group

[Carbine]

Russell played 13 years. Duncan is going on 18.

Really if your perameters are who would I draft first to start a team knowing how good they were and how long they played.

I think anyone and everyone would take Kareem for 20 years instead of Russell for 13.

[navy]

Bill Simmons doesnt know baketball....

[Akrazotile]

"Best career" is a shit argument IMO because it centers entirely on team circumstance and media favoritism.

Id rather discuss who the "best players" were in order of value, but unfortunately this is not a discussion the majority seem capable of having.

[DMAVS41]

"Best career" is a shit argument IMO because it centers entirely on tam circumstance and media favoritism.

Id rather discuss who the "best players" were in order of value, but unfortunately this is not a discussion the majority seem capable of having.

People have that conversation all the time.

[Akrazotile]

People have that conversation all the time.

Not on this board. Nobody ever discusses how players rank in terms of performance. It's always about rings and finals mvp and how many years they made all nba this-team or all nba that-team. "Was he batman or robin" "rings as the man" "ratio of finals wins to appearances" "stacked team" etc.

People here never articulate what it is about how a guy actually plays and the impact he has that determines their rankings. They basically sit there and argue which player had the most fortunate circumstances. This convo about Duncan is evidence. Nobodys talking about how Duncan plays, just his 'resume.' Thats what goes on here 100% of the time.

[~primetime~]

Oh so it's a list of who played the longest and not who achieved the most...got it

[kshutts1]

Russell played 13 years. Duncan is going on 18.

Really if your perameters are who would I draft first to start a team knowing how good they were and how long they played.

I think anyone and everyone would take Kareem for 20 years instead of Russell for 13.

Russell also won 11 titles in those 13 years. So... yeah.

[Akrazotile]

Russell also won 11 titles in those 13 years. So... yeah.

See what i mean

[DMAVS41]

Not on this board. Nobody ever discusses how players rank in terms of performance. It's always about rings and finals mvp and how many years they made all nba this-team or all nba that-team. "Was he batman or robin" "rings as the man" "ratio of finals wins to appearances" "stacked team" etc.

People here never articulate what it is about how a guy actually plays and the impact he has that determines their rankings.

Yes they do. People do that all the time. Part of ranking players is going to be dependent on wins/losses given circumstances and accolades as well though.

As it should be. Those things often reflect the ability of basketball player.

Take, Lebron this year...compare him to Jordan and it's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that MJ 3 peated and Lebron didn't. Lebron choked in 11 and failed to lead his team to a title....and couldn't dominate enough this year.

Perfeclty reasonable. If Lebron was on MJ's level...he simply wouldn't have lost both in 11 and 14. He would have won one of those years.

You could go into details about what actually makes MJ better like his scoring skillset, toughness, mental toughness, far better first step, even more overwhelming swarming defense...etc.

But the other way is fine as well. Results matter. Personally I don't care about all nba and all defense much. MVP's are nice, but aren't the end all be all of course...neither are titles.

But, looking at the results players produce given their circumstances matter.

[DMAVS41]

See what i mean

That matters though.

It matters that Duncan led teams have such a great win percentage. It reflects how good they are at playing the damn game.

[kshutts1]

See what i mean

I hate responding to you, but... what about Russell winning 11 titles in 13 years is not one of the top two impressive careers out there? Particularly once we consider that, based on the majority of the evidence out there, he was the most important player on his team for each one?

[Carbine]

You're not drafting the rest of the Celtics with him though. But all he did was win no matter where he played, high school college pros.... so I'm not going to sit here and say that would change.