[USA Today] One mind-blowing stat to sum up Tim Duncan's dominance

So, based on the chart in the OP, if you remove Tim Duncan from ever having played with the Spurs, their entire organization is basically the Trailblazers, which is not terrible at all, but it's a huge difference.

Fascinating.

 

I really don't get how people think Kobe has had a better career than Duncan.

 

Kobe can barely make the playoffs without a top 3 big man. 3 of his titles were gifted to him from shaq and the other 2 were gifted by the grizzlies.

 

No, he is PF.

 

I'm not a Kobe or Duncan extreme fan. So I don't really care one way or another. But that's just an illogical argument and line of thinking.

If that's the case someone else could say that Duncan had Robinson for his first.

And then he had Ginobli and Parker for his other 3.

 

The question is who was the best player on those teams?

 

Agreed about Hakeem overall help. I said in another thread Dream had the worse teammates overall of any top 10 player... prob top 20 more I think about it. Not saying he had bad teammates, just bad relative to other top 10ers.

btw- people compare Rick Barry's exploits to Hakeem's regarding the "champ with least help issue". Barry was before my time though.

True. I respect SA to the fullest, but tired of their lucky asses. LOL

Easy....

Kobe was a Laker
TD plays in SA

 

Okay, Mr Almunac.

Knowledgeable fans know.

Hakeem came into the league and immediately surplanted a ROY center (Sampson) to claim his rightful position. Meanwhile, SA signed shorter weaker players to perpetuate Duncan's "PF" myth.

Greatest PF does sound better than 6th best center.
Props Pop!!

 

This is really more marketing and commercial appeal than anything else. Kobe's a guard and his flashy play made it seem like he was better than an understated player like duncan

 

2011 Dallas Mavericks are a great comparison.

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/te.../2011/Averages/All/points/All/desc/1/Playoffs

 

99- Duncan
03- Duncan
05- debatable but Duncan
07- debatable but Parker


00- Shaq
01- Shaq
02- debatable..Shaq only played in 66 games during the regular season. Kobe played in 80 something. I'd say this one is a combination of Shaq/Kobe more than any of the others.

09- Kobe
10- Kobe
<br>
Like I said, I don't really have a stake in this discussion. The Kobe example just wasn't a good one in the post I originally responded to.

Btw I'm not sure how anyone is getting the Kobe is more appreciated than Duncan thing. They're both very appreciated players. To compare them is odd because there's so many variables to consider and they play much different positions in completely different organizations.

 

He'll still be regarded as one of the best ever, because the guy is smart and would've been LBJ before LBJ and left his crap franchise to go to a better one (he almost left in FA before Pops pulled out his master plan years before). Dude is the model franchise player, maybe he isn't the most talented guy to ever play but he is healthy, provides leadership and has no drama or ego issues.

Contrast his model behavior with the crap Kobe has done over the years and add the fact that TD took a paycut to be competitive while Kobe demands a max contract when he's old and broken down and you know who is the real MVP all these years pre-LBJ.

 

I'm too lazy to look it up but in one of those seasons Kobe average a FG% in the 40's for the playoffs. He was clearly not the best player then, and IMHO he wasn't the best player in any of his rings. Just because you happened to be the closer doesn't mean you're automatically the best player, Gasol was the dude going head-to-head with KG and the Celt's D.

 

Gasol wasn't the best player, but the Lakers frontline (featuring three 7-footers) was the main reason for those 'ships.

Kobe's '10 FMVP is highly questionable though.

 

Duncan + Pop given that Pop coincided. I wonder what the list looks like for coaches with 50 win seasons

 

Thanks captain obvious but been watching Duncan since he was drafted play the pf spot while Robinson, Nesterovic, fabricio Oberto and now Splitter play the center spot. Pop played him at pf because hes good at it not to perpetuate Duncan that's just dumb to say that.

 

See, all this stuff is so subjective. In Jordan's last 3 championships he shot around the same fg% as Kobe did for his last 2 championships.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html
<br>
It doesn't matter either way. Duncan is an amazing player. As is Kobe, et all. The Spurs would not have won as many championships as they have without Duncan. He is the GOAT PF/C.

But I still think organizational success such as the Spurs cannot be solely given to one player. A big chunk of it belongs to Duncan. But an equally big chunk belongs to Peter Holt, Pop, RC Buford, and the spurs international scouts.

 

There's actual merit to the Duncan is a center claim. But, to just say Popovich wanted to "perpetuate a myth" is a dumb sentiment. I agree with you.

 

No case for Parker over Duncan in 2007. Duncan was all nba first team and finished 4th in mvp voting, while Parker wasn't even third team.

Both Parker and Manu had their best season after 2007,IMO. Parker really didn't emerge as a top flight PG until 2009, and Manu played his best ball from 08-10.

 

Sure, he played at Center occasionally.