Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-18-2013, 07:28 AM   #121
DMAVS41
NBA Legend
 
DMAVS41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,605
DMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micku
To be fair, in the 80s you had to be stacked to win a championship back then. The 76ers, the Bucks, Pistons later on, Hawks, and Celts were all stacked with good players. And also when Bird came into the league, the Celts weren't stacked and he transformed that team to have the best record in the league. You can't deny Bird's impact on the team.

Same with Duncan tho.

Nobody is denying anything. It's just not fair to mention Bird's superior competition without mentioning how loaded his teams were. And again...Bird had more help than just about everyone...even the Lakers often. It's not like Bird routinely went up against teams with better talent. Equal at times...sure, but almost never better.

So while Duncan obviously faced easier competition...his teams were nowhere near as loaded as Bird's. Did Duncan ever once have the most help in the league? I certainly don't think so. Yet Bird did at least a handful of times. That distinction needs to be made.

Honestly, I don't care what the competition is. Give Duncan a couple of all nba teammates and it's probably lights out for the rest of the league regardless.
DMAVS41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 07:30 AM   #122
Anaximandro1
High School Varsity 6th Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 761
Anaximandro1 has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

pick randomly one coach and four players to complement Duncan/Bird

repeat the process 99 times.You have 100 matchups

the man who owns the highest winning percentage in nba history would win more than 50 games


Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Well, Bird did face tougher competition, but it's negated by the fact that Bird had the most help out of anyone outside the Lakers. So lets not pretend like Bird didn't have a loaded team...even for his era. It's a false argument...one that could be made against the likes of Kobe or Shaq or Lebron now...but not Duncan.

No superstar in NBA history has won more with less than Duncan.

I'd like to see Larry play alongside a bunch of senior citizens and rookies during the 2001-2004 period in a conference populated by the Shaq/Kobe Lakers,Mavs,Blazers,Kings and Wolves.
Anaximandro1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 08:49 AM   #123
Micku
NBA lottery pick
 
Micku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,973
Micku is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterMicku is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterMicku is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterMicku is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterMicku is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterMicku is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterMicku is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterMicku is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Nobody is denying anything. It's just not fair to mention Bird's superior competition without mentioning how loaded his teams were. And again...Bird had more help than just about everyone...even the Lakers often. It's not like Bird routinely went up against teams with better talent. Equal at times...sure, but almost never better.

So while Duncan obviously faced easier competition...his teams were nowhere near as loaded as Bird's. Did Duncan ever once have the most help in the league? I certainly don't think so. Yet Bird did at least a handful of times. That distinction needs to be made.

Honestly, I don't care what the competition is. Give Duncan a couple of all nba teammates and it's probably lights out for the rest of the league regardless.

It depends on the year. In the early 80s, there were more teams that were more stacked than the Celts like the Lakers and 76ers. And he did transform the team from a 29 win team to a 61 win team in his rookie year. In the mid 80s they were one of the most stacked teams the NBA ever seen. Like I said before tho, the 80s quite a few stacked teams similar to that. It's a bit of luck and good management to have stack teams or else you'll have to wait a while. I'm just saying that you HAD to be stacked to win. Even if you get pass a team like the Lakers, you had to go through Celts, 76ers or the Pistons later on to win. And they were stacked.

Stacked teams increase the odds of you winning more championship and you would have a less difficult time on the floor. But it's not just stacked teams, it's also the players as well. Magic Johnson, Bird, Kareem, Moses Malone, Dr. J, Charles Barkley prime, Hakeem, Karl Malone, and etc depending on which conference he'll play within.
Micku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 08:58 AM   #124
DMAVS41
NBA Legend
 
DMAVS41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,605
DMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micku
It depends on the year. In the early 80s, there were more teams that were more stacked than the Celts like the Lakers and 76ers. And he did transform the team from a 29 win team to a 61 win team in his rookie year. In the mid 80s they were one of the most stacked teams the NBA ever seen. Like I said before tho, the 80s quite a few stacked teams similar to that. It's a bit of luck and good management to have stack teams or else you'll have to wait a while. I'm just saying that you HAD to be stacked to win. Even if you get pass a team like the Lakers, you had to go through Celts, 76ers or the Pistons later on to win. And they were stacked.

Stacked teams increase the odds of you winning more championship and you would have a less difficult time on the floor. But it's not just stacked teams, it's also the players as well. Magic Johnson, Bird, Kareem, Moses Malone, Dr. J, Charles Barkley prime, Hakeem, Karl Malone, and etc depending on which conference he'll play within.

Again, I'm not disputing that. But all else equal, Duncan having to go through Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Nash Suns, Dirk Mavs...etc. It's all equal given his help.

Also, obviously with Robinson out it isn't that fair of a comparison, but I think Duncan added something like 40 wins to the Spurs the year he joined.
DMAVS41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 11:43 AM   #125
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbine
You're the only one saying that. Was he Duncan? Garnett? No.

But you don't need to be the best of your generation to be considered an anchor. Due to his sheer size, height, strength and athletic ability he was an intimidating player down low. He was an anchor for those Laker teams, clearly.



The GOAT coach of his era built the defense around funneling guys to Shaq and won back to back to back titles. But nah.....he's no anchor. Right?


The term "anchor" gets thrown out way too loosely. It has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. It's a way of playing and Shaq was never ever an anchor.


And your Jackson quote does not suggest he was. If anything, it suggests that Shaq was strong at the rim and so the team wanted to force players there. It also suggests Jackson was very cognizant of Shaq's inability and unwillingness to come out of the paint. But defending well at the rim and staying in the paint is not anchoring a defense.

Last edited by Whoah10115 : 03-18-2013 at 11:57 AM.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 11:53 AM   #126
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

It's really not arrogance or the wrong attitude. There isn't a valid argument for everything.


The idea that Duncan was a better playoff performer is wrong. Watching the games will tell you all you need to know. If you watch a game then you see who the better player is. Duncan is one of the best players of all-time, arguably (and most people would say probably) top 10. Bird is absolutely in the top 6. Duncan is not a better playoff player. He was a big man and played as consistently as people want their big men to play. That people don't recognize that, don't recognize the impact of Bird's all-around play (and saying you recognize it isn't recognizing it), is sad. It's also ridiculous. Dirk was great in the 2011 Finals because he was not only clutch, in the conventional sense, but because he made the big plays and had the big stretches when they needed to make big plays and have big stretches. His shooting percentage was low and his points to attempts weren't even crazy, despite his FT's. Wade killed him, statistically. However, Dirk was not only the MVP because he won a title, he was the MVP because he was the best player on the floor, by a good margin. No stats will ever tell you that.


The regular season is more about numbers than the playoffs. The playoffs are situational. Yes, we can marvel at Michael's numbers actually going up in the playoffs. It's quite remarkable. But some of what made Michael truly great happened when his numbers were not at his best. And we do not do that here. Duncan is not a better player than Bird. It's not the Bird side talking. This is just ridiculous.

Last edited by Whoah10115 : 03-18-2013 at 12:10 PM.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 01:56 PM   #127
Carbine
Facts Are Misleading
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: A Court Near You
Posts: 7,934
Carbine has decent reputationCarbine has decent reputation
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
The term "anchor" gets thrown out way too loosely. It has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. It's a way of playing and Shaq was never ever an anchor.


And your Jackson quote does not suggest he was. If anything, it suggests that Shaq was strong at the rim and so the team wanted to force players there. It also suggests Jackson was very cognizant of Shaq's inability and unwillingness to come out of the paint. But defending well at the rim and staying in the paint is not anchoring a defense.

I think you're literally the only person not willing to say Shaq was an anchor to that defense. I challenge you to make a thread about Shaqs defense in his prime. You won't like what people have to say. There was a thread about prime Jordan vs Shaqs defense awhile ago, and here are some quotes from some knowledgeable posters:

Quote:
Shaq to me, when he was in his prime, was the better defender. Shaq was quicker, leaner, and hungry. He, when motivated, was a nightmare for players entering the lane. Shaq to me was the better defender in his prime than Jordan.

Quote:
At his peak, Shaq was one of the greatest defenders of all time. Do people not understand how much of a deterrent it is for the offensive player seeing a guy that big near the ring. No one is driving on that.

Quote:
Shaq's effort wasn't as consistent, but I think when he was motivated, he could make a bigger impact than Jordan. Jordan obviously stands out more at their positions, he's obviously the greatest defender at his position while Shaq isn't that high up that centers list defensively, but I don't think Jordan could anchor an elite defense the way a prime, motivated Shaq could and did.


Or simply go watch the games. Educate yourself. There are games all over youtube of the Lakers.

Seriously, just go watch the games. Refresh your memory of peak Shaq.
Carbine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 02:02 PM   #128
LeBird
Good High School Starter
 
LeBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 933
LeBird has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Well, Bird did face tougher competition, but it's negated by the fact that Bird had the most help out of anyone outside the Lakers. So lets not pretend like Bird didn't have a loaded team...even for his era. It's a false argument...one that could be made against the likes of Kobe or Shaq or Lebron now...but not Duncan.

No superstar in NBA history has won more with less than Duncan.

TBF, the Pistons and the Sixers had just as stacked teams. The Lakers moreso. So, no, I don't buy that. The reason the Celtics did better, and won, was because of Bird.

So the straight comparison about championships won or playoff performances need context. In reality, the fact that the Celtics won 3 at all is amazing - a much bigger achievement than San Antonio winning 4 in Duncan's tenure.

And as aforesaid; Bird inherited the 2nd worst team and got them to the #1 rank without any of his illustrious help - which came later on.
LeBird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 02:13 PM   #129
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbine
I think you're literally the only person not willing to say Shaq was an anchor to that defense. I challenge you to make a thread about Shaqs defense in his prime. You won't like what people have to say. There was a thread about prime Jordan vs Shaqs defense awhile ago, and here are some quotes from some knowledgeable posters:








Or simply go watch the games. Educate yourself. There are games all over youtube of the Lakers.

Seriously, just go watch the games. Refresh your memory of peak Shaq.



All of those quotes are stupid and insulting. Shaq is not one of the greatest defenders of all-time. The only people who take his defense over MJ's are people who obsess over big man defense and make it into what it isn't.


Shaq was not an anchor. An anchor is a guy who the defense is built around. He's someone who moves the defense as he moves. He changes the shape and rotations. He communicates thru his movements. As he drops, the defense shifts, as he comes out, the defense shifts. As he closes in, the defense shifts.


He's not an anchor. I don't care how people try to classify it. He never did that. And it's simplistic and empty-headed to crown him one of the great defenders because of size. Any big guy who you plug down the lane will deter some people from driving. That's not credit I give to the defender, for the simple act of being there. That's like Arsenal not playing with a DM and having no presence in the middle. You can put a subpar player there and that would strengthen. That's just logic. And he deterred far fewer people than is suggested. He's not Mutombo. When he made the All-Defensive Team, he made it over David Robinson. There are people who think Robinson should have beat out Mourning in 2000 (I am not one of those). Robinson had a strong case vs Dikembe in 2001. Ratliff was better than Shaq was. Ben Wallace was better than Shaq was. And that's just in those two seasons. In other seasons he was much less.


I don't care how many times people suggest that he is an anchor or one of the all-time defenders. It's stupid and it's factually wrong. Marc Gasol is a much better defender than O'Neal ever was. Educate myself? I'd rather not follow some required line of thinking. To say he's a great defender is stupid. And whoever said he had more impact than Jordan or any all-time defender should not be allowed to give his opinions. That's just strategy than any decent coach should be able to work out. It's lazy thinking.

Last edited by Whoah10115 : 03-18-2013 at 02:19 PM.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 02:37 PM   #130
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Nobody is denying anything. It's just not fair to mention Bird's superior competition without mentioning how loaded his teams were. And again...Bird had more help than just about everyone...even the Lakers often. It's not like Bird routinely went up against teams with better talent. Equal at times...sure, but almost never better.

So while Duncan obviously faced easier competition...his teams were nowhere near as loaded as Bird's. Did Duncan ever once have the most help in the league? I certainly don't think so. Yet Bird did at least a handful of times. That distinction needs to be made.

Honestly, I don't care what the competition is. Give Duncan a couple of all nba teammates and it's probably lights out for the rest of the league regardless.


Ginobili is twice All-NBA and Parker is about to be thrice All-NBA. I'm sick of all this stupid slurping of Duncan. So he didn't have an all-star in 2003. Wah. He had a quality team built around him, and the best team they went up against was the Lakers, who had nothing outside of their two great players. And the great defensive player O'Neal was a non-factor on that side of the ball. People whine about Bryant shooting them out of the series...who exactly was on that team? They were the 5th seed for a reason. Shaq and Kobe vs Tim Duncan and a real team is hardly the adversity for Duncan that people suggest.


Who else did he beat? They went soft at your soft Mavericks, with Dirk out? The Mavericks, while a very good team, get obliterated if Webber doesn't go up for that dunk. Without Webber, they not only went to 7, but they fought to do it. Not the Celtics letting the Hawks hang around. The Spurs beat the Nets? Kidd didn't have half the team that Duncan did and they won in 6. Duncan's run is, to this day, incredible to think about. If he was undermanned, then what about the teams he wnet up against? The only team that weren't undermanned were the Mavericks...except they played a few games without their best player. I don't know what kind of rap you're talking about.


You wanna give Duncan crazy credit? Give him credit for getting it done with Rasho freakin Nesterovic starting next to him. I'll give him credit for that, tho it's his own fault for not moving over to C, but I'll give him credit for that. Mohammed was actually very good tho and played more minutes in the playoffs. How about when they beat the Pistons in 2005 they did it with Ginobili being an all-star? Ginobili didn't make the all-star team for any reason other than his play was stellar and went well beyond stats. Parker had already become a borderline all-star. He'd be an all-star the next two seasons. He was a beast in those playoffs. Ginobili averaged over 20 a game in the playoffs. He shot over 50% and, if I recall, Duncan was in Kobe territory. Ginobili has, at least, a legitimate argument for FMVP that year. Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry was GREAT in those playoffs. Behind THREE all-star players...guys who, at playoff time, were two of the best players in the league.


How about in 2007, when Parker was an all-star and Manu had a shout for the All-NBA Team that year? How about the fact that, by the year before, Duncan was nowhere near the same player? Does anyone want to consider that the offense ran as much thru that backcourt as it did solely thru Duncan? Why would we do that? They were all 20PPG per 36 that year and all within a point of each other. In the playoffs they were all 20PPG per 36. Duncan was actually better thru the first 3 rounds, but Parker was by far the best player in the Finals. Imagine if he had help, right?


Such a made-up argument.

Last edited by Whoah10115 : 03-18-2013 at 02:45 PM.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 08:07 PM   #131
Carbine
Facts Are Misleading
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: A Court Near You
Posts: 7,934
Carbine has decent reputationCarbine has decent reputation
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

"but Parker was by far the best player in the Finals."

It's clear you twist history to suit your argument as this is not the case.

Parker literally scored a few more points per game on better percentages vs. Duncan who had virtually the same amount of assists, waaaaay more rebounds, way more blocks and way more of an impact on the other side of the floor.
Carbine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:20 PM   #132
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbine
"but Parker was by far the best player in the Finals."

It's clear you twist history to suit your argument as this is not the case.

Parker literally scored a few more points per game on better percentages vs. Duncan who had virtually the same amount of assists, waaaaay more rebounds, way more blocks and way more of an impact on the other side of the floor.


Twist what? He played better. Everyone watching that series saw him playing better. At the time everyone recognized it. If it wasn't for the insatiable appetite to suck on Duncan then revisionism wouldn't be so prominent.


And a few more? Talk about twisting. 6 more PPG is not a few more. That's a lot more. And he shot like 12% better from the field, from the guard spot.


Defense is not the only thing you don't get from reading a box score.

Last edited by Whoah10115 : 03-18-2013 at 09:22 PM.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:48 PM   #133
Carbine
Facts Are Misleading
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: A Court Near You
Posts: 7,934
Carbine has decent reputationCarbine has decent reputation
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Twist what? He played better. Everyone watching that series saw him playing better. At the time everyone recognized it. If it wasn't for the insatiable appetite to suck on Duncan then revisionism wouldn't be so prominent.


And a few more? Talk about twisting. 6 more PPG is not a few more. That's a lot more. And he shot like 12% better from the field, from the guard spot.


Defense is not the only thing you don't get from reading a box score.

Let me get this straight, you value six more points per game at a 10 percent better clip over vastly superior defense, more than twice as many rebounds?

Not only do you value those six points and 10 percent FG percentage more, you value it so much more than the vastly superior defense and rebounding that Parker was "by far the best player?"
Carbine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:57 PM   #134
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbine
Let me get this straight, you value six more points per game at a 10 percent better clip over vastly superior defense, more than twice as many rebounds?

Not only do you value those six points and 10 percent FG percentage more, you value it so much more than the vastly superior defense and rebounding that Parker was "by far the best player?"


Let me get this straight, you don't ****in get "Watch the games"?

Because that is what I said. So try and harp on where you think I'm making my point, if it suits you. I never said he was better because he scored more. He was better because he played better. Every post I've made in this thread is saying that, when comparing Duncan and Bird, Bird and Shaq, Nowitzki's Finals, whatever.


You don't have to get anything straight. I watched the series and Parker's play was better. He was the main component of that offense, in that series. His driving to the lane, breaking down of defenses, set the whole team up.


Just because you can't see defense from a boxscore, just because Duncan is an elite defender, doesn't mean that his defense was at the same level in that series. And it wasn't.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 10:06 PM   #135
Round Mound
NBA lottery pick
 
Round Mound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,214
Round Mound has an incredible reputation hereRound Mound has an incredible reputation hereRound Mound has an incredible reputation hereRound Mound has an incredible reputation hereRound Mound has an incredible reputation hereRound Mound has an incredible reputation hereRound Mound has an incredible reputation hereRound Mound has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Bird was the Better Shooter, Passer, Creator, Team Defender, Clutcher, More Savy and More Intanglibles

Duncan was the Better Post Player, Rebounder, Rim Protector and 1 on 1 Defender.

Id Take 1979-86 Bird over Duncan

Duncan in the 80s and Early 90s Would Have Played Center and Had Zero Rings
Round Mound is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 AM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy