What!? So you don't think purposely turning the ball over doesnt lead to possible fast break points for the opponents?
Yep game 5. Totally changed the complexion of that series. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BZdik09RGJI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I think the Spurs have a fantastic organization and are one of the best franchises in the sports, but I almost cannot disagree with most of what you said, except that last sentence, because New York on paper would've been pretty formidable with fairly healthy Patrick Ewing (and may have beaten SA). In reality, they've only beaten two teams that I would consider scary or very good, like 2004-05 Suns or 2004-05 Pistons. The only years that they managed to beat the Lakers were in LA's down years. In 00-03, they were smashed by the Lakers ... 8-1, and lost four consecutive games against them in 03-04. While, the Lakers bested them again in 07-08. In their four title wins, they defeated the Knicks, Nets, Pistons, and Cavs. The only team in that class worth anything to talk about where the Pistons who took the Spurs to the wire, literally. I know some Spurs fan are going to scoff at me, when I say this, but Tim Duncan was not nearly as dominant as Shaq, Kobe, MJ, Dream, and even LeBron, which is why the Spurs often lose to superior teams or teams that are equally as good. Over in the Olajuwon vs. Duncan thread, several posters touched on this, we have seen several different NBA series over the course of Duncan's career where he was thoroughly outplayed by or neutralized by lesser players. We've seen times where he has more or less met his match against Karl Malone (x2), Zach Randolph, Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum, Rasheed/Ben Wallace, Amare Stoudemire, Dirk Nowitzki, ... I say this because he is typically identified as the greatest power forward ever, sometimes without question. He did put up some fantastic numbers against the Lakers, but remember he was being guarded by Horace Grant and Robert Horry, only Shaq occasionally. The five players I've just mentioned are dominant performers in the playoffs to the point they are rarely outplayed or overwhelmed by the opposing starter at their position. How many times can I point an instance where Kobe, Shaq, MJ, Dream, and even the king fraudster people like to call LeBron was outplayed by the opposing starters of their given position for an ENTIRE series. Duncan for the most part, was much easier neutralize offensively and sometimes defensively than these other all-time greats. Posters are going to call me ignorant, but I never saw Duncan as the greatest player of this generation over Kobe or Shaq. Another thing that Duncan had the benefit of that some of the other players did not was that he never really played for teams that were in turmoil or in the gutter. MJ, Olajuwon, Shaq, and LeBron were drafted to teams that were perennial losers at the times, while Kobe has been the only one that has really fielded a contender for a great deal of his career. It still seems like the people who choose Duncan over Shaq or Olajuwon, simply did not watch enough of those two play, because both players were monsters in their NBA youth. I thought Duncan was really good, but not that good. I do not think he could go toe-to-toe with centers, like Jabbar, Malone, Robinson, Ewing, or even Wilt and win most matchups. It's funny how people often mock Lebron for not having killer instinct or getting to the big game more often, which may be true at certain points in his career. It's kind of ironic that Duncan gets a past with that, because of the four titles, yet he was draft to an all-world team. Essentially playing with an advantage. Olajuwon, I believe would have six or seven, if he started his career on a team, like the Spurs, same for Shaq and LeBron.
Wasnt that series fixed? <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fvkKdXLwt0U?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Parker was at the bottom rung of the 1st round and Ginoboli wasn't even taken in the 1st. Not a fair charge that Tim was blessed with good front office management. If Morey could find all-world players that can play in the top 6 rotation, we'd hail him as a genius...And it wouldn't diminish Harden's accomplishments one bit. Tim definitely played the averages. He didn't have many series that stood out as him sucking. I think he only played injured in a couple of them, so he's been fairly reliable. His durability as a big hasn't been seen since Kareem and his production has been constant to the point where you could plan around it. I think he's a smart player who knew how to win and played in a great team with a coach who could enforce his will. But it's unfair to knock Duncan's own accomplishments for that considering teams like the Lakers and Celtics have built their legacy on stacked teams and among those stacked teams there was a Magic or Bird to shine above the rest of them.
The 03 Lakers were scary good. The 03 Lakers were better than every team the 00-02 Lakers beat on the way to titles. Couldn't we make the same argument for LA? They beat SA in 01 and 02 when they were going through a transition period (shift from the 99 team to having Parker/Manu), and SA didn't have Derek Anderson in one of those years. They beat them in 08 when Manu was hurt. The only year you could argue LA didn't beat them in a down year was with the superteam in 04, and even then it took a Fisher shot that shouldn't have counted.
fixed!!! People will forget that the Spurs didn't even attempt to capture the Western Conference regular season title by resting their starters and let OKC grab the title. Duncan, Parker and Ginobli, each haven't played a full season in 10 years, or longer. Pop should be the 2nd best coach ever in the modern era.
02-03 Los Angeles Lakers did not win an NBA title, after their 3-peat, they struggled with T-Wolves in the first round, as a team that roughly reached 50 wins versus teams that won easily 60 games. You know in your right mind that a team with trigger happy Kobe and out of shape Shaq was not as good as the 1999-00 Lakers with Glen Rice or the Lakers team that almost swept its way through the playoffs. The 03 team was the most beatable version of the Lakers team from 99-04. San Antonio could not even beat 04 version of the Lakers with an older Payton and Malone, while Shaq and Kobe were squabbling. So you actually think Derek Anderson was good enough to turn a four game sweep into 6 or 7 game series. I don't think so, it's not like he was Tracy McGrady or even Bruce Bowen for that matter. How is a #1 seed team (#2 seed in 02), 58 win team in transition. That's silly. The Spurs simply couldn't beat the Lakers, because they had no answers for Shaq or Kobe. Because I do not think Duncan is quite as good as MJ, Kobe, Olajuwon, or Shaq. Well, call me a crazy wingnut ... I would also point to what other players and coaches say...how many players and coaches have said that MJ, Kobe, Olajuwon, LeBron, or Shaq is the best player that they've ever seen, played with, or coached. Find where a great number of players have said that Duncan is the best player to set foot on NBA court, or the best big man ever. Every time I hear an ex player or coach talk about the greatest player ever (or most dominant) ... I hear MJ...I hear Kobe or LeBron...I hear Wilt or Shaq...I hear Russell or Kareem...or I hear Magic and Bird, maybe Oscar Robertson. Never hear Tim Duncan. There's a reason he doesn't standout, because he is not nearly as dominant as some of those players. He's only averaged over 25 ppg once in his career, and twice in the playoffs. He's never averaged over 13 rpg in the regular season, and four times in the playoffs. Shaq averaged at least 27 ppg for 10 season, while having one season averaging over 13 rebounds. If you watched Duncan from 97-07 versus Shaq from 93-05, there's no way you would think Duncan is better. I've never seen a player as physically dominant as the Orlando Shaq to LA Shaq. Tim Duncan couldn't take over games like that consistently. Versus Hakeem Olajuwon, Olajuwon had 4 season where he averaged over 25 ppg and 7 playoff years where he managed those numbers added with 4 seasons of 13 or more rebounds and 5 playoff years with 13 or more rebounds. You can make arguments for Kobe, LeBron, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Wilt, or Olajuwon being as great as or possibly greater than Michael Jordan. Those are legitimate arguments. If you tried to compare Duncan to MJ, you would be laughed out of the room. You put Duncan on a team, like the Cavs or Bobcats for extent, they will not win a title. I have hard time believing Duncan would've did better against a 60s version of the Celtics on a much weaker team or on mid 80s Bulls or Rockets squad and having to go up against the Celtics, Pistons, and Lakers annual.
Who the heck did the Kobe Lakers beat in the Finals that was that impressive? Boston's really the only good team, and they took the Lakers to the wire, just as the Pistons did. Yes, they beat some very good teams in the Western Conference. So did the Spurs. No. Lebron and Magic are the only ones with arguments. Maaayybbbee Shaq. Everyone else is utterly stupid.
Would say Tim Duncan is as good or dominant of player as Magic or Bird? It's not a matter of him sucking or being mediocre, it's simply that he's not as dominant as some of these other players. I would never compared him to either of those players.
Below is an excerpt from the following article: http://www.ibtimes.com/kobe-bryant-vs-tim-duncan-lakers-or-spurs-star-best-player-michael-jordan-1281127 "No NBA player has been a more consistent winner in the past 20 years than Duncan. The Spurs have reached the playoffs in all of his 16 seasons, and they have never had a regular season winning percentage less than .610. Gregg Popovich has been with San Antonio for just as long as Duncan has, and players like Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have won several titles with the club, but Duncan has been the centerpiece of the team throughout that time. Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers haven’t had quite the same consistent success as the Spurs. They missed the postseason in 2005 and three other times had a winning percentage of less than .600. However, L.A. has had fewer disappointments in the playoffs, winning five titles to the San Antonio’s four. This trip to the Finals is Duncan’s fifth, while Bryant has made it to the last round seven times." If Duncan is not the greatest winner since Jordan, then I dont know who is...because really in my book that is all that matters...winning and thats all the Spurs and Duncan have done since coming into this league...Oh and btw...he is 4-0 in the finals for a reason...his team was good enough to win in the stacked West. To rip on Duncan and his achievements and not think of him as one of the all time great PF is just boneheaded and deeply ignorant of the game...
What you really mean was he wasnt as flashy...Magic, Bird were part of storied franchises that thrived on flashy play...But there is a reason why Phil Jackson stated that he would draft Bill Russell over MJ(his own player)...Bill represents the most winning NBA player...and if that is the end goal...Russell is #1...It was always about consistency...Ask any NBA GM/coach if they would trade for Duncan now, and every one would say yes... The same principle applies to Duncan...He represents an uncracked foundation...Something that was built with stone. Excellence is replicated every year...while the end goal wasnt reached every year, they were in a position to go for it...Best playoff winning percentages(at the end of last finals): 1. Lakers, 2. Celtics, 3. Spurs, 4. Bulls Since Duncan has been at the ship(including this years run): Playoff wins- 130, losses-79
Russell won more rings than any other center in history. We argued too many times that less rings means a less skilled player. As great as Russell was, he was often bested by Wilt Chamberlain in individual matchups. In your heart, do believe skill wise Russell was greater than say Hakeem Olajuwon or Kareem Abdul Jabbar on individual skills. For the most part, he gets credited for stopping Wilt Chamberlain, when in reality he rarely did. The last point is kind of irrelevant, it's like posters are not reading my posts. It's not about Tim Duncan being great or sucking, it's just a matter of better players in NBA history. He's a fantastic player, but you won't convince me that he was better than Olajuwon or Kareem. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/180402-why-wilt-chamberlain-is-better-than-bill-russell I'm still trying to figure out how you can be better than a player that averaged 28.8 ppg and 28.7 rebound (over 50% shooting versus your 14.5 ppg and 23.7 rpg on 43%) ... IN 142 games, though Russell, no the Celtics won 85 times. It's not to say Russell did not slow him down, but did he actually outplay Chamberlain...I would say no more times than not. http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=Russell_vs._Wilt Whether his means were selfish, genuine, or to prove everyone wrong, what center in any era of basketball leads the league in ASSISTS. Ripping Duncan, I'm not doing that I wish people would stop insinuating or ignorantly stating that, when I just said in my original post that he is arguably and most likely the best PF ever. In reality, he is not a greater winner than Kobe or Shaq, as both players on the same team bested Duncan, several times. Moreover, Kobe has five titles, as you said. Shaq stands at 4. If regular season wins matter as heavily as championship victories, then I would say yes, but that's not the case. 1. Team effort beats individual effort, people keep dismissing that with the 60s Celtics and 2000s Spurs. This argument simply points to the best player on the best team, not necessarily the best player out of all the league. I'd even point to the 70s Steelers, like alot of fans do, if you go by the rings merit, then Terry Bradshaw is the 1st or 2nd best Quarterback in NFL history, because he had good numbers and won 4 superbowls. So we should conclude that he was a better QB than Staubach, Stabler, or younger players, like Marino, Manning, and Brees. Bradshaw has more rings, right? 2. The Spurs...weren't exactly a bottom feeder, before Duncan arrived. From 73-96, the San Antonio missed playoffs exactly 3 times. If you throw out David Robinson's 96 campaign, it falls to two. Moreover, people like to say that Duncan was more of winner than David Robinson, which I will agree with to a point. Though, let's be realistic, if the sides were reversed, do you actually think Duncan would've won 4 titles for the Spurs, during the late 80s - early 2000s versus powerhouse teams, like the Bulls, Pistons, Jazz, Lakers, Rockets, and Supersonics. It's hard to say, but I would venture to say no. The Spurs may not have lost in the same fashion, but they would've lost to the superior or better teams, anyway. 3. It's not about style points, being flashy, or who is the coolest player, it's about championships. Tim Duncan's Spurs team have won 4 and are about to appear in their fifth one, while he's at the twilight of his career. Magic Johnson appeared in the NBA Finals...9 times by the end of his career. Bird's teams appeared in the NBA Finals...5 times by the end of his career. Just look at most of the teams that Celtics and Lakers lost to...fairly legendary teams ... either against each other or the 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Trailblazers, or those really deep Milwaukee teams. Some of the Pro-Duncan crowd tends to like to buck numbers in individual accomplishments, but champion the team accomplishments. I have to say this again how come people don't compare Duncan to MJ, like they would Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Bird, or Magic. Is it bias? Possibly. But, is it reasonable? Yes. Duncan's teams won as much as or nearly as much as MJ's teams, but that's not the question. Is Duncan an equal player to MJ and the other players? I would say somewhat or not quite. How come in their peak years, will give or take five to ten season, how come the centers fair better than Duncan, number wise, during the regular season and playoffs...I'm mostly pointing to Olajuwon, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, and Malone.
This is a weird standard. No NBA championship team in history has ever beaten an team that won the NBA championship that year, so I don't see why the above statement is particularly relevant. If that's the standard for a good team, then no champion has ever beaten a good team. Bottom line is that each year the Spurs (or anyone else) won it, they beat 4 of the best/hottest teams in the league in 5 or 7 game series. That's a lot of down years if there were no other good teams in the NBA for 4 out of 9 seasons.
