The NBA Playoffs are pro wrestling

[jdw]

Something about Duncan being better than Bird doesn't sit right with me. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what Pops and Duncan have built since Timmy was drafted, and last year's Spurs were sublime in terms of ball movement and team basketball, but Game 7, who would you rather have, Duncan or Bird?

 

Game 7 2014?

 

Duncan turned 38 during the 2014 playoffs.

 

At 38, Bird was three years into his retirement.

 

Obviously you'd rather have Duncan. You'd rather have 38 year old Duncan over 32-35 year old Bird as well.

 

That's the problem with Bird vs the Guys Above him: he never was the same again after the injury at the age of 32. Peak Bird is why he's as high as he is, at least on my list. But the guys ahead of him (Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Tim Duncan, Magic Johnson) beat him up in longevity and it's not like they're shabby in terms of peak. They were all extremely great multiple-time MVP players.

 

 

Even in Duncan's prime where he was capable of putting up a quadruple double in a Finals game, it didn't seem like he could dominate a game like Shaq.

 

 

The Lakers and Spurs played 5 post season series between 1999 & 2004.

 

1999 vs Lakers

29-11-3-2 Tim

24-13-1-2 Shaq

 

2001 vs Lakers

27-13-3-1 Shaq

23-12-4-4 Tim

 

2002 vs Lakers

21-12-3-3 Shaq

29-17-5-3 Tim

 

2003 vs Lakers

25-14-4-3 Shaq

28-12-5-1 Tim

 

2004 vs Lakers

23-15-2-4 Shaq

21-12-3-2 Tim

 

Overall

24-14-2-3 Shaq

26-13-4-2 Tim

 

There were some dominating series, and quite a few dominating performances by Tim in just those series.

 

The difference between the teams?

 

Overall, the Lakers were better in terms of talent every season. But Shaq happened to specifically have a guy who put up 28-6-5: Kobe.

 

There were plenty of other series where he was dominant:

 

1999 vs Knicks: 27-14-2-2

2001 vs Mavs: 27-17-4-2

2003 vs Mavs: 28-17-6-3

2003 vs Nets: 24-17-5-5

2004 vs Suns: 28-14-3-2

2007 vs Suns: 27-14-1-4

 

And perhaps his best came when the Spurs happened to come up short:

 

2006 vs Mavs

32-12-4-3 Tim

27-13-2-0 Dirk

 

People might want to piint to him not averaging 30+ in a bunch of series. My thought would be to look up how many series Magic averaged 30+ in. Like Magic, Tim's "dominance" went beyond simply scoring. If one watched him regularly, it was there on display.

 

 

jdw mentioned that 2003 side, but Duncan only carried them in terms of being the lead scorer.

 

 

The irony in that statement is that Tim wasn't a monster scorer. He certainly wasn't Kobe or Jordan.

 

Tim carried teams with his total game. After all, he was they guy who put up this:

 

1997-98 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

1998-99 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2001-02 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2002-03 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2003-04 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2004-05 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2005-06 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2006-07 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2007-08 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2008-09 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2009-10 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2012-13 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2014-15 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

 

We're talking about in his prime being a Top 5 rebounder (10 times) and shot blocker (7 times), and I suspect if one asked Will (who watched his entire career game after game), he'd probably say that shot blocking and rebounding weren't even the best aspects of his great defensive game. Help defense, seal offs, footwork, communication... that he was still a great defensive paint player at the age of 39 this year in this playoffs should given people an understanding of just how sublime he was at 25-28.

 

 

He needed help winning that title. He's a great, great player, but I don't think you could put as much on his back as you could Bird.

 

 

Bird had Parrish & McHale with him every single title he won. McHale was a developing bench guy for the first title (10-4), but he was an outstanding player for the next two (18-7 & 21-8). Parrish was 19-10 & 19-11 for the first two, and "down" the last one to 16-10 when they had Walton chipping in 8-7 off the bench backing up Parrish & McHale. Poor Larry had 41-23-6-4 out of the PF & Center spots a night that season.

 

At PG, he had Tiny Archbald for the first title, and then Dennis Johnson the final two. That's a pair of Hall of Famers when they still had pep in their step.

 

In contrast, one can look at the 1999 & 2003 Spurs and pretty much cringe at the level of talent around Duncan. History treats the 2003 team kind, but the reality is what I mentioned: Manu and Tony weren't that great yet, and drove Pop nuts as often as they pleased him. The 1999 team had a falling apart Robinson.

 

Were they good "teams"? Yes. Pop got more out of the talent then other coaches would have. In turn, Duncan got more out of them by being the anchor to the defense on offense and defense.

 

 

Bird just seems so much more competitive to me even though Duncan is obvious competitive in his own stoic way, but Bird was at a Jordan level of competitiveness. The list of guys who were as competitive as Bird during Bird's prime NBA years (and even in his post-prime) would be a fairly short list.

 

 

Kobe is as competetive as any of those guys. Athletically as gifted as any of them. It only gets you so far in the rankings.

 

I like Bird. Great player. I think I'm treating him with a lot of respect at #6 (soon to be #7 when Bron passes him).

[jdw]

Longevity is the key thing though. I admitted peak Bird is better than peak Duncan.

 

 

Longevity is why I have Tim at #4, similar to Cap at #3.

 

Tim's peak is very high. He's a back-to-back MVP who probably should have been the MVP every year from 2001-2005. We're not talking about Kevin McHale peak (which was plenty high). It's someone who at his best was one of the very best. Then you throw in the longevity, and it's an amazing career.

 

Jabbar was the best player in the NBA for roughly 11 years: from his rookie season through 1980. There might be a season where Walton was the best, or Moses was the best, but Jabbar then simply was the second best. If you're 1-1-2-1 in a stretch, you still are the best player in the league. Akin to Lebron-Durrant in 2013: sure, give Durrant the MVP... but we all know that Bron was still the best.

 

There are guys like Karl Malone or John Stockton who have great longevity arguments for being ranked high. But those guys weren't, at their best, at the level Duncan or Magic were at their best. Malone got a pair of b.s. MVPs, but we all know he wasn't at the highest end at his peak. Duncan was.

[ohtani's jacket]

 

Something about Duncan being better than Bird doesn't sit right with me. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what Pops and Duncan have built since Timmy was drafted, and last year's Spurs were sublime in terms of ball movement and team basketball, but Game 7, who would you rather have, Duncan or Bird? Even in Duncan's prime where he was capable of putting up a quadruple double in a Finals game, it didn't seem like he could dominate a game like Shaq. jdw mentioned that 2003 side, but Duncan only carried them in terms of being the lead scorer. He needed help winning that title. He's a great, great player, but I don't think you could put as much on his back as you could Bird. Bird just seems so much more competitive to me even though Duncan is obvious competitive in his own stoic way, but Bird was at a Jordan level of competitiveness. The list of guys who were as competitive as Bird during Bird's prime NBA years (and even in his post-prime) would be a fairly short list. I get the longevity argument, though.

 

Look at that 2003 team again. There's not a lot of help there.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html

 

We can presume that Bird could have carried a group of scrubs like that but there's no real evidence of it. With Duncan there is. Look at that team. I came across this great quote a couple of days ago actually about the 2003 team.

“Stephen Jackson’s our second-best player. And the Nets cut him.” (Chicago Tribune)

-Anonymous Spurs staffer on Duncan's 2003 MVP case.

 

So I would reject the idea that he couldn't carry teams.

 

Longevity is the key thing though. I admitted peak Bird is better than peak Duncan.

 

 

I watched every single Spurs game of that 2003 post-season and they struggled for what was a 60 win team. It took them six games to close out each series. Duncan was double teamed a lot and often went scoreless for long stretches. In the close out game against Phoenix, Ginobili and Jackson took over in the fourth quarter. In the Western Conference finals it was that famous shooting display from Steve Kerr. Game 3 of the Finals it was Parker and Ginobili. Kerr again in Game 5. Robert Horry in Game 5 against the Lakers

 

Duncan was huge against the Lakers and had some monster games at other times in the playoffs, but it's easy to look at a roster and say Steve Kerr 10 games, 2.2 ppg in the playoffs when in fact he was pivotal in two playoff victories, or to say that Parker and Ginobili weren't instrumental because they were better players later on. Or undervaluing their sixth man, Malik Rose, because he never won a Sixth Man of the Year award or anything of that nature. Even the Admiral had that huge double-double in the title clinching game. Duncan was the star, but it was a hodge-podge team that relied on a second scoring option from somewhere and everybody chipping in.

 

With Bird, I could envision him taking over down the stretch more often than Duncan did. Perhaps that's an unfair comparison because Bird was clearly more of a shooter than Duncan, but it's who I'd opt for if I could switch players. I have a hard time believing Bird wouldn't have torched the 2003 Nets.

[elliott]

 

Look at that 2003 team again. There's not a lot of help there.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html

 

We can presume that Bird could have carried a group of scrubs like that but there's no real evidence of it. With Duncan there is. Look at that team. I came across this great quote a couple of days ago actually about the 2003 team.

“Stephen Jackson’s our second-best player. And the Nets cut him.” (Chicago Tribune)

-Anonymous Spurs staffer on Duncan's 2003 MVP case.

 

So I would reject the idea that he couldn't carry teams.

 

Longevity is the key thing though. I admitted peak Bird is better than peak Duncan.

 

 

I watched every single Spurs game of that 2003 post-season and they struggled for what was a 60 win team. It took them six games to close out each series. Duncan was double teamed a lot and often went scoreless for long stretches. In the close out game against Phoenix, Ginobili and Jackson took over in the fourth quarter. In the Western Conference finals it was that famous shooting display from Steve Kerr. Game 3 of the Finals it was Parker and Ginobili. Kerr again in Game 5. Robert Horry in Game 5 against the Lakers

 

Duncan was huge against the Lakers and had some monster games at other times in the playoffs, but it's easy to look at a roster and say Steve Kerr 10 games, 2.2 ppg in the playoffs when in fact he was pivotal in two playoff victories, or to say that Parker and Ginobili weren't instrumental because they were better players later on. Or undervaluing their sixth man, Malik Rose, because he never won a Sixth Man of the Year award or anything of that nature. Even the Admiral had that huge double-double in the title clinching game. Duncan was the star, but it was a hodge-podge team that relied on a second scoring option from somewhere and everybody chipping in.

 

With Bird, I could envision him taking over down the stretch more often than Duncan did. Perhaps that's an unfair comparison because Bird was clearly more of a shooter than Duncan, but it's who I'd opt for if I could switch players. I have a hard time believing Bird wouldn't have torched the 2003 Nets.

 

 

 

If Duncan wasn't on that Spurs team, they wouldn't have won 60 games. Yes other guys stepped up along the way, but Duncan's night in and night out play is why they were a 60 win team. In the playoffs, the game changes. Youre playing the same team every night. It is easier to gameplan against a single star team. That he still managed to lead his team to the title is still incredible.

 

And as for your point about various guys stepping up during the playoffs, I mean, no kidding. Name one team in the history of the league that won a title without role players stepping up in big moments.

 

Who would you say was the 2nd best player on the 03 Spurs? Is there another team in the history of the league that won a title with a worse 2nd best player? There really isn't. History has shown that it takes at least 2 stars to win a title in the NBA with one exception. Tim Duncan's 03 Spurs.

[goodhelmet]

I would add Hakeem's 1994 Rockets as well.

[WingedEagle]

OJ, no one's suggesting it was a one man team. But it was absolutely a one star team. Jordan doesn't win a couple big games without Pax & Kerr & others nailing a couple shots. Do I think he would've won those series without those guys? Absolutely. Someone else always needs to make a play, but as Elliott said they're not in the playoffs, advancing and in a position to do anything without Duncan carrying them on his back every night.

[jdw]

I watched every single Spurs game of that 2003 post-season and they struggled for what was a 60 win team.

 

 

As I pointed out several times earlier, and Elliot has as well: that they were a 60 win team and won the World Title is something of a miracle with that pedestrian supporting cast.

 

 

It took them six games to close out each series.

 

 

2000 Los Angeles Lakers (67-15)

Won NBA Western Conference First Round (3-2) versus Sacramento Kings

Won NBA Western Conference Semifinals (4-1) versus Phoenix Suns

Won NBA Western Conference Finals (4-3) versus Portland Trail Blazers

Won NBA Finals (4-2) versus Indiana Pacers

 

The Lakers went the distance against the Kings and Blazers, and needed 6 games to beat the Pacers.

 

The 2000 Lakers were a vastly better team than the 2003 Spurs. Shit happens in the post season.

 

 

Duncan was double teamed a lot and often went scoreless for long stretches.

 

 

2003 Playoffs

Points Per Game

1. 32.1 Kobe Bryant ▪ LAL

2. 31.7 Tracy McGrady ▪ ORL

3. 31.7 Allen Iverson ▪ PHI

4. 27.1 Paul Pierce ▪ BOS

5. 27.0 Shaquille O'Neal ▪ LAL

5. 27.0 Kevin Garnett ▪ MIN

7. 25.3 Dirk Nowitzki ▪ DAL

8. 24.7 Tim Duncan ▪ SAS

9. 23.7 Chris Webber ▪ SAC

10. 23.5 Troy Hudson ▪ MIN

 

Rebounds Per Game

1. 17.5 Jermaine O'Neal ▪ IND

2. 16.3 Ben Wallace ▪ DET

3. 15.7 Kevin Garnett ▪ MIN

4. 15.4 Tim Duncan ▪ SAS

5. 14.8 Shaquille O'Neal ▪ LAL

6. 12.7 Drew Gooden ▪ ORL

7. 11.7 Shawn Marion ▪ PHO

8. 11.5 Dirk Nowitzki ▪ DAL

9. 9.3 Kenyon Martin ▪ NJN

10. 9.3 Kenny Thomas ▪ PHI

 

Blocks Per Game

1. 3.3 Tim Duncan ▪ SAS

2. 3.1 Ben Wallace ▪ DET

3. 3.0 Jermaine O'Neal ▪ IND

4. 2.8 Shaquille O'Neal ▪ LAL

5. 2.1 Raef LaFrentz ▪ DAL

6. 2.0 Andrei Kirilenko ▪ UTA

7. 1.8 Shawn Marion ▪ PHO

8. 1.7 Kevin Garnett ▪ MIN

9. 1.6 Kenyon Martin ▪ NJN

10. 1.4 Tony Battie ▪ BOS

 

Yep... disappeared often enough in the 2003 post season to do that.

 

In the close out game against Phoenix, Ginobili and Jackson took over in the fourth quarter.

 

 

Manu: 2/6 (2/4 3P + 0/2 on blown layups) + 1 Steal

 

Manu didn't take over. He hit two threes in a 30 second span, and did very little in the other 11:30 he played in the 4th.

 

 

Jackson: 3/4 FG (2/3 3P) + 3/6 FT + 2 Rebound + 2 Assist +1 Turnover

 

Jackson had an impactful 4th quarter. Of course it ignores that for the entire game, the Spurs were -10 when he was on the floor.

 

Duncan: 0-1 FG + 0-2 FT + 4 Rebound + 3 Assist + 1 Block

 

The three assists were on 8 of the 14 points that Manu and Jackson scored in the 4th.

 

Duncan didn't shoot well. That is the beauty of Tim: he got that he wasn't having a shooting night, so he did the other stuff, including 10 assists and 20 rebounds.

 

 

In the Western Conference finals it was that famous shooting display from Steve Kerr.

 

 

Kerr averaged 5-1-1 in the series against the Mavs.

 

Tim averaged 28-17-6-3.

 

You're not being serious, right?

 

Here's what Tim did in the wins:

 

Game 2: 32-15-5-3

Game 3: 34-24-6-6

Game 4: 21-20-7-4

Game 6: 18-11-4-3

 

The losses:

 

Game 1: 40-15-7-1

Game 5: 23-15-6-1

 

He was showing up every game.

 

This really is getting ridiculous.

 

Game 3 of the Finals it was Parker and Ginobili. Kerr again in Game 5.

 

 

Kerr averaged 2-0-1

Paker 14-3-4

Manu 9-5-2

Tim 24-17-5-5

 

Yeah... that's right, Tim averaged more assists than the point guard.

 

In game 3, Tim was 21-16-7-3, while Tony as 26-3-6 (yes... Tim had more assists than the PG) and Manu was 8-2-4. The team was actually underwater while Tony was on the court.

 

In Game 5, Kerr has 6 points. Tim went 29-17-4-4.

 

Really?

 

Robert Horry in Game 5 against the Lakers []

 

 

Robert played for the Lakers in 2003. Tim was 27-14-5-1 in Game 5, then 37-16-4-2 in Game 6 when he laid the smack down on my Lakers.

 

 

Duncan was huge against the Lakers and had some monster games at other times in the playoffs, but it's easy to look at a roster and say Steve Kerr 10 games, 2.2 ppg in the playoffs when in fact he was pivotal in two playoff victories,

 

 

Kerr was a role player. The Spurs had to win 16 playoff games to win the Title. Kerr showed up for two of them. Look up how many of them Tim showed up for.

 

Really? You're trying prop up the cast of the 2003 Spurs with that?

 

 

or to say that Parker and Ginobili weren't instrumental because they were better players later on.

 

 

Tony averaged 15-3-4 on .403 shooting.

Manu averaged 9-4-3 on .386 shooting.

 

Tim averaged 25-15-5-3 on .529 shooting.

 

I'll repeat:

 

Really?

 

I'll take your word that you actually watched every game of the Spurs 2003 post season. I'll just have to say that you didn't understand what you were watching.

 

Or undervaluing their sixth man, Malik Rose, because he never won a Sixth Man of the Year award or anything of that nature.

 

 

Rose averaged 9-8-1 on .419 shooting.

 

Even the Admiral had that huge double-double in the title clinching game.

 

 

In the series:

 

24-17-5-5 Tim

11-8-1-2 David

 

In the Final game:

 

21-20-10-8 Tim

13-17-1-2 David

 

David has a nice game. Tim was a beast.

 

 

Duncan was the star, but it was a hodge-podge team that relied on a second scoring option from somewhere and everybody chipping in.

 

 

In contrast to the team that destroyed the Nets the year before that had this second option behind Shaq:

 

27-6-5 Kobe

 

You point to Kerr. Go look up Devon George in the close out of the 2002 Final... and he was the 6th option in that game.

 

The 2003 Spurs were a lottery team if they didn't have Duncan. With him, they won an NBA Title that they really had no business winning. But he was glue for them.

 

With Bird, I could envision him taking over down the stretch more often than Duncan did. Perhaps that's an unfair comparison because Bird was clearly more of a shooter than Duncan, but it's who I'd opt for if I could switch players. I have a hard time believing Bird wouldn't have torched the 2003 Nets.

 

 

You mentioned the Spurs going to 6 games against the next. You seem to have ignored that the 1981 Celtics went to 6 games against a Rockets team that was under .500 that season. He averaged 15-15-7 in the series on .419 shooting, with the writers giving the Finals MVP to his teammate Cedric Mawell (18-10-4). Bird's shooting disappeard in that series, other than in the close out. Instead, he found other ways to contribute: his passing and helping on the board to prevent Moses from going total beast mode.

 

Bird and Duncan were different players. Bird was a mediocre defensive player, other than being a smart rebounder who had the massive advantage over time of being matched up against non-rebounding small forwards. Bird's game was offense. In turn, Tim was an exceptional defensive player who didn't force his game into being a dominant scorer. The one time he averaged 25+ in a season was when the rest of the offense around him was horrible, and he still carried the team to a 58-24 record.

[jdw]

I would add Hakeem's 1994 Rockets as well.

 

Star + Role Players - MJ = Title

 

[Childs]

I hadn't been following this thread, but Kobe was the one who ranked higher on a lot of your ballots than I'd put him. I've never seen the argument for Kobe over LeBron unless you just want to say his career has more bulk to it. You could argue Kobe was never the best player in the league. And if he was, it was a brief reign. I hate it when people casually credit Kobe with the five titles as if he was the alpha on the 2000-2002 Lakers (not saying any of you guys were doing that).

 

Good to see Kareem getting the respect he deserves.

 

I dearly wish I could watch a lot of Russell in his prime, because his game was so different from those of the other all-timers. We sort of accept that he was the greatest defensive player ever as a matter of consensus, but it's hard to grasp exactly what that meant. It would also be interesting to see his impact broken down by all the metrics we have today.

 

Oh, and I'd take Timmy over Bird. Broader impact on games and a much longer run as a top player.

[jdw]

I hadn't been following this thread, but Kobe was the one who ranked higher on a lot of your ballots than I'd put him. I've never seen the argument for Kobe over LeBron unless you just want to say his career has more bulk to it.

 

Here's where I had them coming into this season:

 

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Tim Duncan

5. Magic Johnson

6. Larry Bird

7. Kobe Bryant

8. Wilt Chamberlain

9. Jerry West

10. LeBron James

11. Oscar Robertson

12. Hakeem Olajuwon

13. Shaquille O'Neal

14. Moses Malone

15. Elgin Baylor

 

After this season, I would move Lebron up to #8.

 

Career is the reason. Lebron is 12 years into his career. I don't really care to put him #4 or #5, then he blows his achilles in the pre season, never is the same and I have to consider moving him down. I tend to rate people on the If The Dropped Dead Today method: where they are now, not where they could be.

 

12 years into his career, Kobe got to the NBA Final for the 5th time. The in the next two year they went 65-17, 57-25 & 57-25 and won back-to-back titles. Things change in a few years. If I had ranked Kobe at the end of 2008, he would have been closer to #20 than #7.

 

 

You could argue Kobe was never the best player in the league. And if he was, it was a brief reign.

 

 

I think one could, but I think people would be wrong to argue that. I'm pretty often smacked as a Kobe Hater among Lakers Fans/Fanboys, but even I wouldn't fail to give him his due that he the best player in the game between the end of Duncan's prime (2005ish) and the rise of Lebron to the top (2009 or 2010).

 

That it was brief... that happens when there's overlap. Jerry West probably never was the best player in the NBA. Oscar never was. We can debate the Bird --> Magic --> MJ progression, but it would make Bird and Magic's rather brief since Moses was the best from roughly 1981-83 and MJ is... when? It doesn't leave a ton of time for Bird and Magic since they rub up against each other.

 

Kobe is like that.

 

I hate it when people casually credit Kobe with the five titles as if he was the alpha on the 2000-2002 Lakers (not saying any of you guys were doing that).

 

 

Kobe has five titles like Magic has five titles. Magic wasn't the alpha in the first two. Kobe wasn't the alpha in the first... then things get messy as the team basically had two alphas over the next four seasons, and they weren't always on the same page. I think Kobe warrants credit for his five titles as much Magic does, even if I prefer Magic's mentality much more than Kobe's.

 

I dearly wish I could watch a lot of Russell in his prime, because his game was so different from those of the other all-timers. We sort of accept that he was the greatest defensive player ever as a matter of consensus, but it's hard to grasp exactly what that meant. It would also be interesting to see his impact broken down by all the metrics we have today.

 

 

I'll put in a separate post something that I threw up on a baseball board earlier this year when the discussion of Russell's defense came up. I hope that Will doesn't mind too much since we're getting a bit off of the NBA:Wrestling theme, but when I looked at the Celtics pre-Russ and during Russ, it was interesting to day the least. Also linked to someone else who crunched the defensive numbers differently but came up with something similar.

[elliott]

I would add Hakeem's 1994 Rockets as well.

 

Yep. It was late and I totally forgot about them.

[elliott]

Loving FA so far. 4 yrs 45 million for Danny Green is a hell of a deal compared to the contracts similar players are getting.

 

And the Love/Thompson deals...holy crap lol.

[jdw]

This is something I tossed up on the BJOL boards a few months ago when Russell's defense came up. There's a little snark in it and some graphics, but I was trying to get the points across.

 

* * * * *

 

 

 

He scored 15 points a game with a body that should have been able to score at will, in an era when teams averaged a lot more points - and shots - than they do today.

 

His job wasn't to score it will. It was to anchor the defense.

 

What do we mean by that?

 

Here are the Celtics in the Cousy-Sharman era before Russell game along.

 

Points
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 4th of 11 teams (-0.9)
1952 1st of 10 (+4.6)
1953 1st of 10 (+1.8)
1954 1st of 9 (+4.2)
----------shot clock----------
1955 1st of 8 (+5.9)
1956 1st of 8 (+2.9)

So it's a high powered offense, the "best" in the NBA for five straight years.

 

Well... some of that might be Pace, given Cousy's run & gun fast break style.

 

Pace
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 8th of 11 (-8.0)
1952 1st of 10 (+2.7)
1953 3rd of 10 (-0.5)
1954 3rd of 9 (-0.5)
----------shot clock----------
1955 1st of 8 (+3.1)
1956 1st of 8 (+2.8)

 

Yes, the Celtics were a pacey team, and Red starting kicking it up with the shot clock.

 

But even factoring that in, they were a very good offense:

 

Offensive Rating (Points Per 100 Possessions)
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 3rd of 11 (-2.0)
1952 2nd of 10 (-1.2)
1953 1st of 10 (+1.1)
1954 1st of 9 (+3.2)
----------shot clock----------
1955 1st of 8 (+1.8)
1956 3rd of 8 (-2.2)

 

So this team that had the "greatest backcourt in NBA history" for six season prior to Russell and were an offensive force, they... uh... won nothing. Why?

 

Points Allowed
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 7th of 11 (-8.1)
1952 8th of 10 (-7.7)
1953 8th of 10 (-8.4)
1954 9th of 9 (-10.1)
----------shot clock----------
1955 8th of 8 (-11.8)
1956 8th of 8 (-11.6)

 

 

Okay, they were a very pacey team. Perhaps they weren't really that bad of a defensive team.

 

Defensive Rating (Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions)
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 9th of 11 (-6.9)
1952 8th of 10 (-6.1)
1953 8th of 10 (-5.7)
1954 8th of 9 (-7.0)
----------shot clock----------
1955 8th of 8 (-6.8)
1956 6th of 8 (-3.8)

 

No, actually... they were an awful defensive team. They improved a little bit in 1956, but still were bad.

 

So we've found out why the best backcourt in NBA history won nothing while lighting up the scoreboard.

 

Alright, so this team started winning a bit the following year when Russell came in. What happened?

 

Points
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 4th of 11 teams (-0.9)
1952 1st of 10 (+4.6)
1953 1st of 10 (+1.8)
1954 1st of 9 (+4.2)
----------shot clock----------
1955 1st of 8 (+5.9)
1956 1st of 8 (+2.9)
------------Russell------------
1957 1st of 8 (+3.2)
1958 2nd of 8 (-2.2)
1959 1st of 8 (+3.3)
1960 1st of 8 (+5.6)
1961 3rd of 8 (-1.6)
1962 3rd of 9 (-4.3)
1963 3rd of 9 (-2.8)
1964 2nd of 9 (-1.7)
1965 3rd of 9 (-1.6)
1966 7th of 9 (-6.8)
1967 4th of 10 (-5.9)
1968 9th of 12 (-6.5)
1969 10th of 14 (-7.9)

 

They continued for a while to score quite a bit in the Cousy era, and a little after. But...

 

Pace
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 8th of 11 (-8.0)
1952 1st of 10 (+2.7)
1953 3rd of 10 (-0.5)
1954 3rd of 9 (-0.5)
----------shot clock----------
1955 1st of 8 (+3.1)
1956 1st of 8 (+2.8)
------------Russell------------
1957 1st of 8 (+3.2)
1958 1st of 8 (+3.3)
1959 1st of 8 (+7.7)
1960 1st of 8 (+3.0)
1961 1st of 8 (+2.4)
1962 2nd of 9 (-0.3)
1963 1st of 9 (+4.0)
1964 1st of 9 (+5.6)
1965 1st of 9 (+3.9)
1966 5th of 9 (-2.6)
1967 7th of 10 (-6.2)
1968 7th of 12 (-3.2)
1969 5th of 14 (-6.3)

 

They continued to play at a high pace before dialing back in 1966 to a considerable degree. And here's where the breakneck pace hides the fact that a top of the list offense really wasn't as wicked of an offense anymore:

 

Offensive Rating (Points Per 100 Possessions)
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 3rd of 11 (-2.0)
1952 2nd of 10 (-1.2)
1953 1st of 10 (+1.1)
1954 1st of 9 (+3.2)
----------shot clock----------
1955 1st of 8 (+1.8)
1956 3rd of 8 (-2.2)
------------Russell------------
1957 5th of 8 (-3.9)
1958 6th of 8 (-3.7)
1959 5th of 8 (-3.9)
1960 5th of 8 (-3.0)
1961 8th of 8 (-6.9)
1962 7th of 9 (-6.2)
1963 9th of 9 (-6.4)
1964 9th of 9 (-8.8)
1965 7th of 9 (-7.1)
1966 8th of 9 (-6.0)
1967 4th of 10 (-3.0)
1968 8th of 12 (-6.0)
1969 11th of 14 (-6.4)

 

There were times when they were a poor offensive in PP100P, really poor. Before one blames Russell for that, look at the rest of the team as well: they others didn't hit at a really high % either.

 

So wait... this team with a poor PP100P started winning titles every years... well... with the exception of two years.

 

What happened?

 

Points Allowed
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 7th of 11 (-8.1)
1952 8th of 10 (-7.7)
1953 8th of 10 (-8.4)
1954 9th of 9 (-10.1)
----------shot clock----------
1955 8th of 8 (-11.8)
1956 8th of 8 (-11.6)
------------Russell------------
1957 5th of 8 (-4.6)
1958 2nd of 8 (-1.3)
1959 5th of 8 (-4.8)
1960 5th of 8 (-5.5)
1961 2nd of 8 (-0.0)
1962 1st of 9 (+4.4)
1963 2nd of 9 (-3.8)
1964 2nd of 9 (-2.5)
1965 1st of 9 (+1.4)
1966 1st of 9 (+4.2)
1967 1st of 10 (+3.9)
1968 2nd of 12 (-1.7)
1969 2nd of 14 (-0.3)

 

The defense instantly improved from Awful to Very Good.

 

Wait, don't forget that we're talking about the paciest team in the NBA for part of that stretch. If that "drags" down the offense in PP100P, what does that do to the Defense?

 

Defensive Rating (Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions)
-------Cousy+Sharman-------
1951 9th of 11 (-6.9)
1952 8th of 10 (-6.1)
1953 8th of 10 (-5.7)
1954 8th of 9 (-7.0)
----------shot clock----------
1955 8th of 8 (-6.8)
1956 6th of 8 (-3.8)
------------Russell------------
1957 1st of 8 (+2.9)
1958 1st of 8 (+4.0)
1959 1st of 8 (+4.7)
1960 1st of 8 (+1.9)
1961 1st of 8 (+4.2)
1962 1st of 9 (+6.5)
1963 1st of 9 (+5.9)
1964 1st of 9 (+4.8)
1965 1st of 9 (+7.6)
1966 1st of 9 (+3.2)
1967 1st of 10 (+2.1)
1968 2nd of 12 (-1.2)
1969 1st of 14 (+2.6)

 

 

Presto: you have the Greatest Defense of All-Time. One that went overnight from Awful & Not Winning Titles Ever to being Great & Winning Titles Every Year.

 

This article took Defensive Rating (PAP100P) and put it in the context of League Average (i.e. 100 = Average) to come up with Defensive Rating+:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2185159-ranking-the-nbas-20-best-defenses-of-all-time

 

1. 1963-64 Boston Celtics: 112.89
2. 1964-65 Boston Celtics: 111.16
3. 1961-62 Boston Celtics: 109.99
4. 1962-63 Boston Celtics: 109.73
5. 1951-52 Minneapolis Lakers: 109.58
6. 2003-04 San Antonio Spurs: 109.35
7. 1960-61 Boston Celtics: 108.99
8. 2007-08 Boston Celtics: 108.7
9. 1992-93 New York Knicks: 108.32
10. 1993-94 New York Knicks: 108.25
11. 2003-04 Detroit Pistons: 107.86
12. 1998-99 San Antonio Spurs: 107.58
13. 1965-66 Boston Celtics 107.47
14. 2013-14 Indiana Pacers: 107.45
15. 2004-05 San Antonio Spurs: 107.39
16. 1959-60 Boston Celtics: 107.30
17. 1968-69 Boston Celtics: 107.18
18. 1969-70 New York Knicks: 107.14
19. 1974-75 Washington Bullets: 107.01
20. 2010-11 Chicago Bulls: 106.98

 

It's not a list that has some Russell teams. It's a list that's dominated by Russell teams.

 

Why do people pimp Russell's defense? Because it was revolutionary and formed the backbone to a team that won more than any team ever. Does analysis bear out that the defense was the backbone? Yes. To the nth degree.

 

* * * * *

 

So... back from that post to PWO...

 

I think we all have a habit when old timers wax about stuff like "X was the Best Ever at Y" to think the old timer is putting over what was great in his era. I do it plenty myself.

 

With Russell's defense... the more I look at it and think about it and read about it, I think people were/are correct in saying he was the best defensive player ever and/or the most impactful defensive player ever. That team suddenly Got Great defensive when he showed up, then became Historically Great defensively as Cousy+Sharman were phased down/retired.

 

It was a smaller league at the time, and it took a while for the number of Black Players to reach a strong level releative to the White 50s. But Russell's Celtics remained a great defensive team right until he retired when the were a helluva lotta blacks in the game and the quality of play had gone up a ton.

 

I think people are right on his defensive greatness. No one in the 80s to the 10s had they type of defensive impact for 13 straight years. It's amazing to ponder.

[jdw]

And to tie things into the Duncan discussion, you'll see three of his teams on the list. If one were to do just a Post-Merger Top 20, you'd likely have a lot of Duncan Spurs teams high on the list.

[Childs]

Good post about Russell. As I said, he's near the top of my "wish I could've watched him" athletes, because he was so unique among the greatest players. When you read the stuff said by his contemporaries, it's clear they regarded his impact as enormous and immediate. And the team numbers back it up. I just want to know what that looked like.

 

Setting LeBron aside, I'm not sure I'd rank Kobe above Shaq. I know I wouldn't take peak Kobe over peak Shaq. But you're right, this isn't the place to keep going on that riff.

[WingedEagle]

Definitely interesting numbers about Russell. Its good to get a reality check on his & others from that era's greatness from time to time. Some get dismissed a little too easily but with Russ there's clearly reason to keep his name in the discussion.

 

On the FA front today, SAS keeping Green at 11 per when Carroll went for 15 and Brandon Knight got 12 is a hell of a deal. If LMA doesn't sign there he is dead to me. Just stay in PDX and enjoy the rain and long summers. I cannot wait to see them reload.

 

Chandler to PHX is interesting albeit likely a bit of an overpay at his age, but absent another piece (perhaps a Bledsoe trade when LMA doesn't follow) I'm not sure where it gets them. Also love to see Dallas flaming out.

 

My Nets clearly had the best day. Nothing like spending big to try and avoid handing off a lottery pick with no hope for another 4 years. Thank god for wrestling and playoff basketball.

[ohtani's jacket]

If Duncan wasn't on that Spurs team, they wouldn't have won 60 games. Yes other guys stepped up along the way, but Duncan's night in and night out play is why they were a 60 win team. In the playoffs, the game changes. Youre playing the same team every night. It is easier to gameplan against a single star team. That he still managed to lead his team to the title is still incredible.

 

And as for your point about various guys stepping up during the playoffs, I mean, no kidding. Name one team in the history of the league that won a title without role players stepping up in big moments.

 

Who would you say was the 2nd best player on the 03 Spurs? Is there another team in the history of the league that won a title with a worse 2nd best player? There really isn't. History has shown that it takes at least 2 stars to win a title in the NBA with one exception. Tim Duncan's 03 Spurs.

 

 

No, they wouldn't have won 60 games without Duncan, but they also may not have won 60 games without Pops shifting Parker to the starting point guard position the previous season, bringing in Kevin Willis, Steve Kerr, Speedy Claxton and Ginobili to strengthen the bench, and moving Stephen Jackson off the injured reserve list to cover for Steve Smith's dodgy knees. They also increased Malik Rose's role to account for Robinson's health. Of course, Duncan carried the load on both ends of the court, but he was helped by Parker, who was able to push the ball up the floor, get out in transition, make open jumpers and create more space for his big men. Even in his early seasons, where both his shooting and playmaking were erratic and Pops was forever on his case, he energised the team, and I would argue he was the second best player on the team during the 2003 regular season. I wouldn't call him the second most talented. Stephen Jackson was regarded by some within the organisation as the most talented player on the roster, and although Parker had some brilliant games in the playoffs, he also had moments where Pops pulled him for Speedy Claxton. There were also the Kidd rumours hanging over him in the Finals series and it was pretty clear he was upset with how hard Pops was riding him. Nevertheless, Parker had an impact on that team as did Ginobili becoming a major part of the rotation. It was the 2003 playoffs where he really came to prominence after his early injury set-back.

 

I don't think it was incredible that the 2003 San Antonio Spurs won the NBA title. I think Duncan was incredible against the Lakers (with some help from Robert Horry) and after they got over that hump there was every chance they would win the title. They had some luck in the form of Dirk's injury, and also Webber tearing his ACL when the Kings were considered one of the favourites, but incredible? My point about the Spurs needing fourth quarter heroics from the likes of Jackson and Kerr is that as good a player as Duncan was/is, he wasn't the type like a Jordan or a Bird that could take over in those clutch situations. I can imagine Bird taking a large number of shots in those fourth quarters. Duncan was a different type of player with a different type of skill set. I don't think he was good offensively as Bird. I don't think he was the passer that Bird was.

 

Were they the team with the least amount of help to win a star player an NBA championship? Nobody viewed them that way at the time. They were meant to be in a transition phase from the Duncan/Robinson era to the Duncan era, which later became the Big Three era, and they overachieved in that respect, but if they were as weak as claimed they would have faded back into the pack. How do they compare to the '75 Warriors?

[jdw]

No, they wouldn't have won 60 games without Duncan, but they also may not have won 60 games without Pops shifting Parker to the starting point guard position the previous season,

 

 

 

Shifted?

 

Parker was drafted in the 2002 Draft as a point guard. The plan all along was for him to be the starting point guard. Antonio Daniels was the bench player, and he just passed time extremely briefly in the starting line up before Pop made Tony the starter in the 5th game of the season. It wasn't rocket science: everyone knew it was coming.

 

 

bringing in Kevin Willis,

 

 

Willis was 40 years old and played 12 minutes a game. He played as much as Justin Holiday did for this year's Warriors.

 

"Justin Holiday?"

 

Yeah.

 

Willis was so important to the team that he played 5 minutes a game in the post season.

 

 

Steve Kerr,

 

 

Kerr had minimal impact on the regular season. 12 minutes a game. It's really insignificant.

 

 

Speedy Claxton

 

 

Claxton was a journeyman back up. He played just 30 games for them. They let him wander off after the season rather than pay him a small salary bump, and the kept on winning. Guys like Claxton are dime a dozen.

 

and Ginobili to strengthen the bench,

 

 

Eghads... Manu was someone they drafted in the prior decade. He was one of the original Euro Stashes, with it just taking the Spurs the right time to sign him and bring him in. He just happened to be a rookie that year. As both Elliott and I have mentioned, he was GI-NO-BLI~! yet. That the team won 60 games before Tony was an all-star and Manu reach even being a "quality" NBA team is amazing.

 

 

and moving Stephen Jackson off the injured reserve list to cover for Steve Smith's dodgy knees.

 

 

Moving him off the injured reserve? You do know that Captain Jack played 80 of the Spurs games that year, including the first game of the season and his playing time going up in the second game of the year when Smith went out with the injury.

 

 

They also increased Malik Rose's role to account for Robinson's health.

 

 

He played 3.5 minutes more a game, going from 9-6 to 10-6. It was marginal.

 

 

Of course, Duncan carried the load on both ends of the court, but he was helped by Parker, who was able to push the ball up the floor, get out in transition, make open jumpers and create more space for his big men. Even in his early seasons, where both his shooting and playmaking were erratic and Pops was forever on his case, he energised the team, and I would argue he was the second best player on the team during the 2003 regular season.

 

 

The #2's on the other Western Conference playoff teams:

 

30-7-6 Kobe (LAL)

21-10-2 Marion (PHX)

19-6-3 Finley (DAL)

19-6-2 Stojakovic (SAC)

18-7-2 Harpring (UTA)

18-4-5 Szczerbiak (MIN)

16-3-5 Parker (SAN)

15-5-3 Wells (POR)

 

Of course some of the #2's weren't all that great. Wells was a sign of why the Blazers were falling off from the 2000 team that pushed the Lakers. Harpring wasn't special. Szczerbiak was just a gunner. But most of those players were a good deal better than Parker in 2003, and...

 

The Kings also had Bibby (16-3-5) as their #3 doing what Parker did as a #2.

 

The Mavs also had Nash (18-3-7) as their #3 who was better than Parker.

 

The Suns had rookie Stoudemire (14-9-1) as an up and coming #3, and of course the falling apart Hardaway

 

So Paker as a #2 really wasn't much in 2003.

 

 

I wouldn't call him the second most talented. Stephen Jackson was regarded by some within the organisation as the most talented player on the roster, and although Parker had some brilliant games in the playoffs, he also had moments where Pops pulled him for Speedy Claxton. There were also the Kidd rumours hanging over him in the Finals series and it was pretty clear he was upset with how hard Pops was riding him. Nevertheless, Parker had an impact on that team as did Ginobili becoming a major part of the rotation. It was the 2003 playoffs where he really came to prominence after his early injury set-back.

 

 

Parker really wasn't Paker yet. He really wouldn't get their until the 2006 & 2007 seasons.

 

I don't think it was incredible that the 2003 San Antonio Spurs won the NBA title.

 

 

Most people did think it was incredible.

 

The Lakers were coming off a three-peat where they went 11-1 in the post season against team not called the Kings, including going through the Spurs 4-1.

 

The other favorite were the Kings.

 

 

I think Duncan was incredible against the Lakers (with some help from Robert Horry) and after they got over that hump there was every chance they would win the title.

 

 

Duncan was great.

 

They had some luck in the form of Dirk's injury, and also Webber tearing his ACL when the Kings were considered one of the favourites, but incredible?

 

 

Webber got hurt in the playoffs. They'd won the first game at Dallas, then he got hurt in the second game. Perhaps they Kings beat the Mavs (it went to seven even without Webber), and perhaps they beat the Spurs. Who knows.

 

 

My point about the Spurs needing fourth quarter heroics from the likes of Jackson and Kerr is that as good a player as Duncan was/is, he wasn't the type like a Jordan or a Bird that could take over in those clutch situations.

 

 

Again, he did take over in 4ths. Every team had other guys have big games (or big moments) in addition to the stars. You just pretend it didn't happen on Jordan or Bird's teams.

 

 

I can imagine Bird taking a large number of shots in those fourth quarters. Duncan was a different type of player with a different type of skill set. I don't think he was good offensively as Bird. I don't think he was the passer that Bird was.

 

 

Kind of hard to know how many times people need to repeat this:

 

Bird was a better offensive player, though Duncan was a very good offensive player. No one claims otherwise.

 

Duncan was a great defensive player, and Bird was a mediocre one.

 

 

Were they the team with the least amount of help to win a star player an NBA championship? Nobody viewed them that way at the time. They were meant to be in a transition phase from the Duncan/Robinson era to the Duncan era, which later became the Big Three era, and they overachieved in that respect, but if they were as weak as claimed they would have faded back into the pack. How do they compare to the '75 Warriors?

 

 

The reason they didn't fade back into the pack after 2003 is because:

 

1. Parker and Manu became TONY! & GI-NO-BLI~!

2. Shaqkobe broke up

3. Webber blew up along with the Kings

4. The Blazers blew up

5. The Mavs farted away the Dirk-Nash team

6. The Suns largely butchered the Nash teams through dumb moves

 

It's largely #1 why they stayed at a 50-60 win team. But as they got stronger, the West altered rapidly. Pop did a good job navigating it until the next great team in the West (the 2008-2010 Lakers) rose up. By that point he was dealing with a past his prime Duncan, which made him have to rethink the team

 

As far as the Warriors, they had a weak supporting cast. There also was the slight problem that it was pre-merger and some rather good guys (along with a good deal of "depth") was playing over in the ABA. No one is putting Rick Barry in the Top 10 despite dragging a subpar cast to a title: it was a watered down league by that point.

[elliott]

I'm about to run but one quick point before I go...

 

Duncan was a different type of player with a different type of skill set. I don't think he was good offensively as Bird. I don't think he was the passer that Bird was.

 

Literally no one has said Duncan was as good or better offensively than Bird or that he was a better passer (what?). What has been pointed to a bunch is this...

1997-98 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1998-99 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2001-02 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2002-03 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2003-04 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2004-05 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2006-07 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2008-09 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2009-10 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2012-13 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2014-15 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

 

You're ignoring that other half of the game.

[ohtani's jacket]

I'm about to run but one quick point before I go...

 

Duncan was a different type of player with a different type of skill set. I don't think he was good offensively as Bird. I don't think he was the passer that Bird was.

 

Literally no one has said Duncan was as good or better offensively than Bird or that he was a better passer (what?). What has been pointed to a bunch is this...

1997-98 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

1998-99 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2001-02 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2002-03 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2003-04 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2004-05 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2005-06 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2006-07 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2007-08 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

2008-09 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2009-10 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2012-13 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

2014-15 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)

 

You're ignoring that other half of the game.

 

I get the argument for Duncan. My gut feeling is that if it boils down to who I'd rather have on a team the answer would be Bird. If you're talking about longevity, the arguments make sense for Duncan. I wouldn't necessarily agree that longevity means Duncan had the better career, but many would argue that he has. Certainly a case can be put forward that Duncan was the more all-round skilled player. I get all that. What I don't get, or rather never got, was the feeling that Duncan (even in his prime) was one of the five greatest players ever. Maybe over the course of his career, but it wasn't something it seemed as though we were witnessing in the early 00s.

 

The rest of the argument was to do with this notion that Duncan led an otherwise lottery-bound Spurs team to a 60 win season and an NBA title, which I think is silly because after the re-signed him they build the team around him to be a title contender. That team doesn't really exist without Duncan. Also, I don't think Duncan dominated those playoffs to the degree that you can say he carried a team of nobodies to an NBA title. As I said, they relied on outside shooting, and while it was streaky, they got it from a number of different players. And I'm not talking Paxson or Kerr shooting the game winner either. We're talking about entire runs (in some cases rallying for a deficit) and in several cases an entire quarter. If his team had been so shit, that doesn't happen and Duncan doesn't win the title. That, to me, is as true as the Spurs not winning the title if Duncan had gone to Orlando. It's possible that the 2003 Spurs could have been part of a three peat. The more I think about it, the more crazy it is that they're being presented as a team of scrubs.

[elliott]

OJ's quotes in bold...

 

I get the argument for Duncan. My gut feeling is that if it boils down to who I'd rather have on a team the answer would be Bird. If you're talking about longevity, the arguments make sense for Duncan. I wouldn't necessarily agree that longevity means Duncan had the better career, but many would argue that he has. Certainly a case can be put forward that Duncan was the more all-round skilled player. I get all that. What I don't get, or rather never got, was the feeling that Duncan (even in his prime) was one of the five greatest players ever. Maybe over the course of his career, but it wasn't something it seemed as though we were witnessing in the early 00s.

 

I felt in his prime Duncan was the best player in the league. Duncan's case is slightly different from some of the other GOAT candidates because even in his prime the stories about Duncan weren't "Another 50 point game from Tim Duncan!" they were always about his workmanlike consistency night in and night out. During his peak years, he was consistently looked at as one of the 3 best players in the league along with Shaq and Kobe. I know some people at the time favored one or both of the Lakers ahead of Duncan. At the time I didn't buy that argument and saw Duncan as the best player in the league. Shaq took too many nights off and Kobe was a selfish prick. Duncan combined world class play every night and without being a team destroying diva.

 

However, Duncan did win back to back MVPs and finished 2nd in the voting the year before and the year after his back to backs. So it's not like his peak isn't extremely impressive historically.

 

You can say you'd rather have Bird on your team and that's fine. If I was a team owner/GM I would rather have Duncan because I know I'm a contender for essentially 18 years and I can count on having the most low-key drama free superstar in sports.

 

The rest of the argument was to do with this notion that Duncan led an otherwise lottery-bound Spurs team to a 60 win season and an NBA title, which I think is silly because after the re-signed him they build the team around him to be a title contender.

 

That 03 team isn't a title contender or playoff team without the night in and night out brilliance on both ends of the court of Tim Duncan.

 

That team doesn't really exist without Duncan.

 

Um, exactly?

 

Also, I don't think Duncan dominated those playoffs to the degree that you can say he carried a team of nobodies to an NBA title.

 

We disagree on the notion that a guy who averaged 25/15/5/3 in the playoffs while leading his team to the title isn't a dominating performance. He didn't just lead a team without a fellow all star he did it with no one else averaging 15ppg, no one else averaging 7rpg, and no one else averaging 4apg and no one averaging 1.5bpg.

 

As I said, they relied on outside shooting, and while it was streaky, they got it from a number of different players.

 

They relied on the fact that they had an all time great player at PF who was a guaranteed double double who played all world defense every single night. They never knew where they would get scoring on any given night but they knew they would get 20-30 points and 10-15 rebounds a night from Duncan.

 

And I'm not talking Paxson or Kerr shooting the game winner either. We're talking about entire runs (in some cases rallying for a deficit) and in several cases an entire quarter. If his team had been so shit, that doesn't happen and Duncan doesn't win the title.

 

Right. And if Duncan isn't the Rock controlling both sides of the court for those role players every night those guys don't make the playoffs.

 

That, to me, is as true as the Spurs not winning the title if Duncan had gone to Orlando. It's possible that the 2003 Spurs could have been part of a three peat. The more I think about it, the more crazy it is that they're being presented as a team of scrubs.

 

We literally could not be further from the same page.

 

The names look great on paper. Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Steve Smith, Steve Kerr, David Robinson, Bruce Bowen, Stephen Jackson, Kevin Willis. But to say that's some sort of amazing collection of talent in 2003 is completely ignoring the reality of where those guys were in their careers in 2003.

 

I'll post that quote again along with more from his teammates in 2003.

 

Anonymous Spurs staffer stating Duncan’s case in the 2003 MVP race: “Stephen Jackson’s our second-best player. And the Nets cut him.” (Chicago Tribune)

 

Sean Elliott: “You can look at his stats, but I don’t think that really tells the story what Tim Duncan means to this team, this franchise, this city. He’s more than that. This guy encompasses everything that you want in an MVP. I’ve never been more impressed watching a guy every day and playing with a guy more so than I have been with Tim Duncan. He plays with class, with dignity every game.”

 

Speedy Claxton, Spurs teammate after Duncan’s triple-double in March 2003: “He’s the best player in the league. Once you start watching him a lot, you learn to appreciate his game even more.”

 

Malik Rose in 2003: “He’s carried us. Just like he always does.”

 

Danny Ferry, Spurs teammate on Duncan’s 2003 playoffs: “He was just unbelievable. This has to confirm him as one of the greatest players of all time.”

 

Steve Kerr, Spurs teammate after Game 6: “I told him he was incredible. Nothing else needed to be said.”

 

David Robinson after Game 6: “We just always expect a great, great game from him and he just delivered time and time again. He carried us through almost every time. We just had to provide the help for him.”

[Childs]

A lot of this comes back to skills that are easily appreciated (the ability to hang 40 or make sensational passes) vs. more subtle stuff (anchoring a great team defense). It's the old Bill James argument: a guy who hits 40 home runs will often get more attention than a guy who does everything well but leads the league in nothing. Duncan was the ultimate guy who did everything well, and the amazing thing is he's still 80 percent of that for 28 minutes a game.

[WingedEagle]

Pop & Dunc do it again. Had Aldridge passed on SAS he would've been permanently been branded as Zach Randolph's crown in my book, but he's now got a chance to establish a legit legacy. I am so stoked to see what they can do this year. If I weren't a firm believer that you only get one team in every sport I'd have switched over to them by now. As it is I think its high time I picked up a Duncan jersey.

[WingedEagle]

David West takes an $11M paycut to go to war with Duncan & Pop. 96 minutes to split amongst Dunc/LMA/West/Diaw/Kahwi & others when playing small ball. Then they channel dubya and get all nucular come playoff time. This is going to be beyond fun to watch.

[jdw]

Will is losing his shit over the past week.