Moderators: infinite11285, Domejandro, Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, zimpy27, bwgood77, cupcakesnake
Bornstellar wrote:Tim is a top 5 player ever and 2003 was arguably his peak. He would be the best player in the NBA if he was transported to today, especially with a lack of legit big men to really contend with. He'd probably average 25/13/4/2 and be the DPOY every year
ballzboyee wrote:What in the world are you talking about? Duncan was 33-34 when he scored 13ppg.
dhsilv2 wrote:Bornstellar wrote:Tim is a top 5 player ever and 2003 was arguably his peak. He would be the best player in the NBA if he was transported to today, especially with a lack of legit big men to really contend with. He'd probably average 25/13/4/2 and be the DPOY every year
That line doesn't put him ahead of Jokic...
dj20001 wrote:
How many rings does Duncan have from 2000-2010?
ChipotleWest wrote:dj20001 wrote:
How many rings does Duncan have from 2000-2010?
Ummm 3, how is that a knock exactly? And why does it matter if you win them in one decade or not?
Duncan never had someone as good as Shaq as his teammate. Some of the teams he was carrying in the early 2000s were pretty bad because neither Parker or Ginobili were in their primes yet and Robinson was washed by the time they won their second ring in 2003. He still ended up with as many rings as Kobe.
tien90802 wrote:Can't answer this question without knowing his resume at this point. Jokic is no. 1 not for what he's done this year, but cumulatively over the last few years. He's about to win 3 of the last 4 MVPs. He's the defending champ and the favorite to win a 2nd title this yr.
What would Duncan's resume be?
tsherkin wrote:ballzboyee wrote:What in the world are you talking about? Duncan was 33-34 when he scored 13ppg.
You do understand that he was playing 28.4 mpg that season, right? He posted about 17/11/3.5 PER36 that season as Pops began to understand the value of perimeter-oriented offense. That wasn't a decline in ability, that was a strategic shift in how the team was attacking the opposition, entering the ball to Tim more as a decoy or to start motion than anything else. NONE of the starters on that team played more than the 32.4 mpg Parker played, and Tony was 28.
You need to actually know what you're talking about for a player in their given season if you want to attack them for what went down in terms of their productivity.
Bornstellar wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Bornstellar wrote:Tim is a top 5 player ever and 2003 was arguably his peak. He would be the best player in the NBA if he was transported to today, especially with a lack of legit big men to really contend with. He'd probably average 25/13/4/2 and be the DPOY every year
That line doesn't put him ahead of Jokic...
The other side of the court does. As good and impactful Jokic is on offense is the level of impact Duncan has on defense. Jokic is not a bad defensive player but is nowhere near the same stratosphere as Duncan. And given box score averages don't really capture defensive impact I don't think comparing their theoretical averages makes sense in determining who's better anyway
dj20001 wrote:ChipotleWest wrote:dj20001 wrote:
How many rings does Duncan have from 2000-2010?
Ummm 3, how is that a knock exactly? And why does it matter if you win them in one decade or not?
Duncan never had someone as good as Shaq as his teammate. Some of the teams he was carrying in the early 2000s were pretty bad because neither Parker or Ginobili were in their primes yet and Robinson was washed by the time they won their second ring in 2003. He still ended up with as many rings as Kobe.
Who said it was a knock? Its just less than Kobe. And the only way to explain how Kobe won as much as he did is by making the Shaq comment that you made, Parker and Giniboli's age even though they are better than any teammate Kobe had outside of Shaq for his entire career. Duncan one a ring or two with Kawhi also right? But never back to back and has a losing record versus Kobe in the playoffs.
The lack of consistency is laughable.
ballzboyee wrote:tsherkin wrote:ballzboyee wrote:What in the world are you talking about? Duncan was 33-34 when he scored 13ppg.
You do understand that he was playing 28.4 mpg that season, right? He posted about 17/11/3.5 PER36 that season as Pops began to understand the value of perimeter-oriented offense. That wasn't a decline in ability, that was a strategic shift in how the team was attacking the opposition, entering the ball to Tim more as a decoy or to start motion than anything else. NONE of the starters on that team played more than the 32.4 mpg Parker played, and Tony was 28.
You need to actually know what you're talking about for a player in their given season if you want to attack them for what went down in terms of their productivity.
He scored 13ppg and controlling for pace about 24 per 100, which is basically garbage tier when compared to any other top 10 player. 17ppg per 36 is also garbage tier for a supposed top 5 player. There have been so many players in the NBA that could score 13ppg. It's not special and it is not elite. Even if we take into account the idea that Popovich was somehow holding him back, Duncan career stats aren't that impressive for his position for an all-timer. He was not even Moses Malone level dominant for a big man. Nobody has Moses in the top 5. If he had been a better player, Popovich would not have schemed around him. He's just played for a great franchise with a lot of good payers throughout his career. Spurs were the Duke Blue Devils of the NBA and just reloaded year after year with elite role players and sub all stars that were under the radar. He probably wasn't even the best player his team for most of 2004 to 2014. On-off numbers just suggest he was part of a big three with Manu and Parker and with many years those two having better lineup impacts.
The issue is not whether he is an all-time great because he clearly is. But to say he is top 5 and top 3 in any era is insane to me. Based on what? There is nothing that supports that idea. Even if you look at his championships, he's a committee guy and the stats and awards reflect this. He wasn't the consensus "the man" on his team 2 out of 5 of his championships and his statistical fall off certain seasons is not consistent of an all-time ranking of a top 5 guy. If Jordan or Lebron for any reason had scored 13ppg when they 33 to 34 years old, nobody would make excuses for them. God forbid Kobe scores 13ppg for a season, he would have been excommunicated from the NBA as far as the all-time rankings.
Oh, well, people are free to believe what they want.
dhsilv2 wrote:Bornstellar wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
That line doesn't put him ahead of Jokic...
The other side of the court does. As good and impactful Jokic is on offense is the level of impact Duncan has on defense. Jokic is not a bad defensive player but is nowhere near the same stratosphere as Duncan. And given box score averages don't really capture defensive impact I don't think comparing their theoretical averages makes sense in determining who's better anyway
No player today comes even close to have the same defensive impact as the top guys do on offense.
EPM
Top 5 defense
+4.4
+4.2
+3.7
+3.4
+3.4
Top 5 offense
+7.4
+7.4
+7.2
+6.4
+6.2
LEBRON
Top 5 defense
+3.28
+2.57
+2.5
+2.43
+2.36
Top 5 offense
+6.17
+5.84
+5.38
+5.10
+4.77
The LEBRON database goes back to 2010 and the top defensive season is 2021 Gobert at 5.08, followed by 17 Gobert at 4.55 and then 2010 Howard at 4.4. So only one defensive season in the last 15 years would crack the top 5 and it wouldn't top Jokic's current year offensively.
Outside of your mega stars, offense and defense is pretty 50:50, but at the very top the best players are able to dominate offensively at a higher level. Even if you go back to RAPM data that goes back further, you'll see a few outliers with Ben Wallace and Deke, but otherwise even in the era's where a big man could have more impact it was rare for them to have the impact of the best offensive guys.
I'll just add in, we shouldn't ignore that Jokic is actually a good defender. Not Duncan level by any means, but the narratives of him being poor on that end just aren't supported.
ballzboyee wrote:He scored 13ppg and controlling for pace about 24 per 100, which is basically garbage tier when compared to any other top 10 player.
17ppg per 36 is also garbage tier for a supposed top 5 player. There have been so many players in the NBA that could score 13ppg. It's not special and it is not elite.
The issue is not whether he is an all-time great because he clearly is. But to say he is top 5 and top 3 in any era is insane to me.
If Jordan or Lebron for any reason had scored 13ppg when they 33 to 34 years old, nobody would make excuses for them. God forbid Kobe scores 13ppg for a season, he would have been excommunicated from the NBA as far as the all-time rankings.
ChipotleWest wrote:dj20001 wrote:ChipotleWest wrote:
Ummm 3, how is that a knock exactly? And why does it matter if you win them in one decade or not?
Duncan never had someone as good as Shaq as his teammate. Some of the teams he was carrying in the early 2000s were pretty bad because neither Parker or Ginobili were in their primes yet and Robinson was washed by the time they won their second ring in 2003. He still ended up with as many rings as Kobe.
Who said it was a knock? Its just less than Kobe. And the only way to explain how Kobe won as much as he did is by making the Shaq comment that you made, Parker and Giniboli's age even though they are better than any teammate Kobe had outside of Shaq for his entire career. Duncan one a ring or two with Kawhi also right? But never back to back and has a losing record versus Kobe in the playoffs.
The lack of consistency is laughable.
I'm asking why you made it about a specific decade, and it's unarguable that Duncan was the best player on every championship team except the last one while Kobe wasn't except for two. The last championship was close because he was the defensive anchor averaging 15ppg but the highest ppg was Parker at 16.7, Kawhi was the third highest scorer at 14, there were no 20-25 ppg scorers on that team. Just like Parker and Ginobili in the early 2000s he was getting before prime Kawhi. Kawhi in his prime would be the highest scoring player on the team with 20 ppg easily. They gave Kawhi FInals MVP so call it a three headed team effort of Duncan, Kawhi and Parker with no clear best player but even the biggest Kobe fans don't argue he was the best player over Shaq on those teams.
So just trying to make it Kobe vs. Duncan and and saying Kobe had more rings that decade is completely biased and makes no sense.
You seem to not realize players are different at different stages of their careers. Yes Ginobili and Parker were very good, but in the early 2000s go look at their stats they weren't great yet. It's like just saying well he had David Robinson, it was a David Robinson past his prime after the first championship, very different than Robinson from the 90's.
tsherkin wrote:ballzboyee wrote:He scored 13ppg and controlling for pace about 24 per 100, which is basically garbage tier when compared to any other top 10 player.
17ppg per 36 is also garbage tier for a supposed top 5 player. There have been so many players in the NBA that could score 13ppg. It's not special and it is not elite.
Okay, but paying attention to stuff, you understand he wasn't being ASKED to score a lot because of team-level strategic decisions, yes? It wasn't that he couldn't at that stage, it's that it wasn't the gameplan. His defense and other utility were the point.
Scoring volume for the sake of scoring volume isn't really anything to write home about if you're facilitating wins and titles.The issue is not whether he is an all-time great because he clearly is. But to say he is top 5 and top 3 in any era is insane to me.
"Insane" is about as aggressive hyperbole as "top 3 in any era," to be honest.If Jordan or Lebron for any reason had scored 13ppg when they 33 to 34 years old, nobody would make excuses for them. God forbid Kobe scores 13ppg for a season, he would have been excommunicated from the NBA as far as the all-time rankings.
What an odd comparison. Those guys were score-first perimeter guys. Of course it would be more noteworthy with them, because scoring was the foundation of their impact...
dj20001 wrote:ChipotleWest wrote:dj20001 wrote:
Who said it was a knock? Its just less than Kobe. And the only way to explain how Kobe won as much as he did is by making the Shaq comment that you made, Parker and Giniboli's age even though they are better than any teammate Kobe had outside of Shaq for his entire career. Duncan one a ring or two with Kawhi also right? But never back to back and has a losing record versus Kobe in the playoffs.
The lack of consistency is laughable.
I'm asking why you made it about a specific decade, and it's unarguable that Duncan was the best player on every championship team except the last one while Kobe wasn't except for two. The last championship was close because he was the defensive anchor averaging 15ppg but the highest ppg was Parker at 16.7, Kawhi was the third highest scorer at 14, there were no 20-25 ppg scorers on that team. Just like Parker and Ginobili in the early 2000s he was getting before prime Kawhi. Kawhi in his prime would be the highest scoring player on the team with 20 ppg easily. They gave Kawhi FInals MVP so call it a three headed team effort of Duncan, Kawhi and Parker with no clear best player but even the biggest Kobe fans don't argue he was the best player over Shaq on those teams.
So just trying to make it Kobe vs. Duncan and and saying Kobe had more rings that decade is completely biased and makes no sense.
You seem to not realize players are different at different stages of their careers. Yes Ginobili and Parker were very good, but in the early 2000s go look at their stats they weren't great yet. It's like just saying well he had David Robinson, it was a David Robinson past his prime after the first championship, very different than Robinson from the 90's.
How many years were the Lakers swept out of the playoffs with Shaq as the clear cut best player before their breakthrough? It didn't happen until Kobe made All NBA, not just an "all star" which is what happened with Gasol joined Kobe later down the line.
I don't care about who won FMVP honestly. But winning a championship while averaging under 15 ppg isn't the flex you think - either means LBJ isn't as good as everyone says or the SA supporting cast is better than you're giving credit.
TD ended up matching Kobe bc he played for the more consistent franchise during that period, not bc he was the better individual player. If you switch situations, Duncan would have been finished winning rings after the first three peat with Shaq. Kobe would for sure have matched Duncan's rings from 1998-2010 and then putting him with Parker, Ginobili and Kawhi (regardless) of age is MURDER.
Kobe = 6 or 7 rings easy in SA. Duncan never missed the playoffs and still only has 5 rings.
dj20001 wrote:You realize TD averaged 23 ppg or more in both of his MVP seasons right? Seems like scoring, was, at least to some, tied to their view of him as a player.
ChipotleWest wrote:dj20001 wrote:ChipotleWest wrote:
I'm asking why you made it about a specific decade, and it's unarguable that Duncan was the best player on every championship team except the last one while Kobe wasn't except for two. The last championship was close because he was the defensive anchor averaging 15ppg but the highest ppg was Parker at 16.7, Kawhi was the third highest scorer at 14, there were no 20-25 ppg scorers on that team. Just like Parker and Ginobili in the early 2000s he was getting before prime Kawhi. Kawhi in his prime would be the highest scoring player on the team with 20 ppg easily. They gave Kawhi FInals MVP so call it a three headed team effort of Duncan, Kawhi and Parker with no clear best player but even the biggest Kobe fans don't argue he was the best player over Shaq on those teams.
So just trying to make it Kobe vs. Duncan and and saying Kobe had more rings that decade is completely biased and makes no sense.
You seem to not realize players are different at different stages of their careers. Yes Ginobili and Parker were very good, but in the early 2000s go look at their stats they weren't great yet. It's like just saying well he had David Robinson, it was a David Robinson past his prime after the first championship, very different than Robinson from the 90's.
How many years were the Lakers swept out of the playoffs with Shaq as the clear cut best player before their breakthrough? It didn't happen until Kobe made All NBA, not just an "all star" which is what happened with Gasol joined Kobe later down the line.
I don't care about who won FMVP honestly. But winning a championship while averaging under 15 ppg isn't the flex you think - either means LBJ isn't as good as everyone says or the SA supporting cast is better than you're giving credit.
TD ended up matching Kobe bc he played for the more consistent franchise during that period, not bc he was the better individual player. If you switch situations, Duncan would have been finished winning rings after the first three peat with Shaq. Kobe would for sure have matched Duncan's rings from 1998-2010 and then putting him with Parker, Ginobili and Kawhi (regardless) of age is MURDER.
Kobe = 6 or 7 rings easy in SA. Duncan never missed the playoffs and still only has 5 rings.
Ok I can see you're not a serious poster with that last sentence and are just a Kobe fanboy which I should have already figured out. Kobe was not a big and replacing him with Duncan would have been terrible for them. Or don't tell me you're talking about teaming up Kobe with the Spurs that were already winning championships? LOL! Well duh no one said Kobe wasn't a good player he would just add to the fire.
How'd Kobe do those years after Shaq left until he got Gasol?
