Tim Duncan or Larry Bird?

[SWC75]

I would agree with the first 4, and understand Shaq won 3 rings, but reading about Elgin Baylor made me realize how great and underrated he was. He would go in mythe mid/high teens of alltime rankings, and would put him above Shaq in Lakerland because Shaq only played 8 years in Los Angeles. However, I am knit-picking and Elgin never won a single NBA title and that is what hurts him historically.

My top 5 Lakers
1. Magic Johnson
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Jerry West
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(again he won 2 titles with the Bucks and not all of his success was in LA)
5. Elgin Baylor

My top 5 Celtics
1. Bill Russell
2. Larry Bird
3. John Havlicek
4. Bob Cousy
5. Paul Pierce

My top 5 Knicks
1. Clyde Frasier
2. Bill Bradley
3. Patrick Ewing
4. Dave DeBusschere
5.Willis Reed

hardest omissions Lakers-Shaq, Celtics-Kevin McHale Knicks-Bernard King

FWIW, Kareem only won one title with the Bucks.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/

And Mikan won 6 with the Lakers, including the 1948 NBL title.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_League_(United_States)

 

[Alsacs]

FWIW, Kareem only won one title with the Bucks.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/

And Mikan won 6 with the Lakers, including the 1948 NBL title.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_League_(United_States)

I gave Kareem an extra Milwaukee title so I messed that up, but Mikan wouldn't be in my top 5 Lakers all-time because reading Simmons book the paint was tiny when he played and he had a knack for not being a great defender and then on offense planting himself down low in a small paint and nobody physically could match Mikan even more than Shaq's physical advantages. Also, the slow paced game without a shot clock allowed the Lakers to wait for Mikan who wasn't that athletic to run down the floor and post himself up with the worry of a shot clock violation. I would say Mikan is probably a top 10 Laker all-time IMO with Shaq, Wilt Chamberlain, James Worthy, Jamaal Wilkes.

 

[SWC75]

I gave Kareem an extra Milwaukee title so I messed that up, but Mikan wouldn't be in my top 5 Lakers all-time because reading Simmons book the paint was tiny when he played and he had a knack for not being a great defender and then on offense planting himself down low in a small paint and nobody physically could match Mikan even more than Shaq's physical advantages. Also, the slow paced game without a shot clock allowed the Lakers to wait for Mikan who wasn't that athletic to run down the floor and post himself up with the worry of a shot clock violation. I would say Mikan is probably a top 10 Laker all-time IMO with Shaq, Wilt Chamberlain, James Worthy, Jamaal Wilkes.

I think you need to rank the accomplishments as well as the skills or style of play.

 

[moqui]

I think you need to rank the accomplishments as well as the skills or style of play.

Or maybe we can accept the judgement of the fans who live and breathe the franchise. Telling them they've got it wrong is kind of like an LSU fan telling us all that no, we're wrong, Sherman Douglas actually is not one of the top 5 all time Orangemen.

 

[Eric15]

Curious - if the Spurs win it all (wish appears to be a legitimate possibility at this point), would that change anyone's opinion on this Bird v. Duncan debate from last month?

 

[NineOneSeven]

I think it's safe to say Duncan is the "best" power forward of all time. When I say I best, I mean talent and accomplishments.

 

[Gabjon]

I think it's safe to say Duncan is the "best" power forward of all time. When I say I best, I mean talent and accomplishments.

He is probably the 9th or 10th best center of all time too! Very underrated!

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Knicks411]

He is probably the 9th or 10th best center of all time too! Very underrated!

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

I generally consider Duncan more of a C than PF anyway. I think you'd be hard pressed to name 9 or 10 better C than Tim Duncan in the history of the game. Hell, I think it'd be hard to name 9 or 10 better players in the history of the league.

As for C, I'll take Kareem and Russell over him, and then I'm not sure. I may have mentioned this in the thread before, but Duncan is averaging 21-12 on 50.2% shooting this year, per 36 minutes. For his career, per 36, he averages 21-12 on 50.7% shooting. Just amazing

 

[SWC75]

I generally consider Duncan more of a C than PF anyway. I think you'd be hard pressed to name 9 or 10 better C than Tim Duncan in the history of the game. Hell, I think it'd be hard to name 9 or 10 better players in the history of the league.

As for C, I'll take Kareem and Russell over him, and then I'm not sure. I may have mentioned this in the thread before, but Duncan is averaging 21-12 on 50.2% shooting this year, per 36 minutes. For his career, per 36, he averages 21-12 on 50.7% shooting. Just amazing

You're not sure how he ranks vs. Chamberlain?

 

[realorange]

Duncan was/is a great player but its Bird. If he had a good back he would have played 3 more seasons.

Marsh is back! Beware yee minions of UCon.

 

[realorange]

I always find it interesting that Russell is sold a bit short. 11 titles in 13 years. The greatest team player of all time. He always won. College, pros, didn't matter.

Kind of like Kareem.

 

[Gabjon]

I generally consider Duncan more of a C than PF anyway. I think you'd be hard pressed to name 9 or 10 better C than Tim Duncan in the history of the game. Hell, I think it'd be hard to name 9 or 10 better players in the history of the league.

As for C, I'll take Kareem and Russell over him, and then I'm not sure. I may have mentioned this in the thread before, but Duncan is averaging 21-12 on 50.2% shooting this year, per 36 minutes. For his career, per 36, he averages 21-12 on 50.7% shooting. Just amazing

Yeah top 3 is too high at C but the bigger point to me is how underrated Duncan is related to his contemporaries. Kobe is widely considered a better player than Duncan until you look at their numbers. Duncan's overall numbers blow Kobe's away and when you add the fact that Duncan played 4 years of college and was a 2 time all American it makes the choice a no brainer for me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Melancer46]

Yeah top 3 is too high at C but the bigger point to me is how underrated Duncan is related to his contemporaries. Kobe is widely considered a better player than Duncan until you look at their numbers. Duncan's overall numbers blow Kobe's away and when you add the fact that Duncan played 4 years of college and was a 2 time all American it makes the choice a no brainer for me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

I see them the same way as well. I've always thought Duncan was the better player personally, but the way that he plays gets so little attention that people think he isn't nearly as special as he is/was.

 

[Knicks411]

You're not sure how he ranks vs. Chamberlain?

No, I'm not convinced Wilt was better than Duncan, if that's what you're saying.

 

[SWC75]

No, I'm not convinced Wilt was better than Duncan, if that's what you're saying.

Let me know when Duncan averages 50 points and 25 rebounds a game.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

 

[Gabjon]

No, I'm not convinced Wilt was better than Duncan, if that's what you're saying.

Wilt put up numbers that would be hard to do in a video game! And there were more rule changes to "even the playing field" because of him than any player in NBA history

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[skurey]

Let me know when Duncan averages 50 points and 25 rebounds a game.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

you're much smarter than that

 

[SWC75]

you're much smarter than that

Yeah, I know that won't happen.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Bird. The truly greats are memorable. Within 10 years after Duncan retires the only time Duncan will get mentioned is when people are talking about great players that nobody ever seems to talk about.

You raise an interesting point.
That is, one reason Tim Duncan isn't more highly thought of is because of where he's played.
He's in a media backwater.
Had he been playing in NY, LA, Chicago, DC, Boston or a couple of other markets, he'd be considered even greater.
Kevin Durant faces a similar issue now.

 

[Melancer46]

Let me know when Duncan averages 50 points and 25 rebounds a game.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

To be fair, teams as a whole put up far better stats than today's league. Those are amazing stats regardless, but it isn't really fair to ask for identical numbers in today's league.

Having said that, Chamberlain was statistically better than Duncan for sure.

 

[Knicks411]

Wilt was obviously an incredible scorer, but it was a much different game. There were a ton more shots. In 1962, when Wilt went for 50-25, there was an average of 123 missed field goals per game and 10 missed FT per game, for a total of 135 rebound opportunities per game. Wilt played just about every minute of every game, so he was pulling down 25 out of 135 rebound opportunities, or about 18.5% of the available rebounds. (These are estimates because we don't have opponent data for the teams). Tim Duncan, for his career, has pulled down 18.5% of available rebounds when he is on the court. Like I said, the numbers for Wilt are a little crude because we don't have all of the data, but there isn't much reason to think Wilt and Duncan were much different as rebounders. There were just a ton more opportunities to grab rebounds in the 60's. (Also Wilt basically never came out of the game, which is a testament to him, though it also has to make you wonder a little about how much defensive effort he was exerting if a big guy never fouled out of a game)

Same idea, though different degree with the points. Wilt wouldn't average 50 a game if he played in today's era, but he would obviously score more points than Duncan. But Duncan has also anchored some of the greatest defenses of all time and has been the consummate team player, which you can't always say about Wilt.

I don't know who was better. Wilt's numbers are staggering; but you need to take some air out of them. Both are 2 of the greatest big guys of all time.

Just to finish off the thought I started above; in 1962 the average team took 108 field goals per game, and 37 free throws per game. In the season that just concluded, the average team took 82 field goals per game and 22 free throws. There were probably 30% more possessions per game that year; there should be no surprise the raw numbers back then were higher.

Per 36, and for their careers, Duncan is averaging 21-12 and Wilt is averaging 23-18, both on about 55% true shooting. You still need to take some air out of those numbers because of the pace, though Wilt gets a bonus for playing so many minutes. But I'd be willing to bet Duncan was a superior defensive player.

Having said that, Chamberlain was statistically better than Duncan for sure.

From a raw statistical standpoint, Wilt has got to be the best player ever, right?

 

[NineOneSeven]

Yeah, I know that won't happen.

Weren't teams scoring like 130 points a game?

Edit: perhaps there were just a ton more shots (not necessariy makes, as Knicks pointed out)

 

[Knicks411]

Weren't teams scoring like 130 points a game?

Edit: perhaps there were just a ton more shots (not necessariy makes, as Knicks pointed out)

Field goal percentages were lower, but there were so many more shots being taken teams were scoring 120 points per game.

 

[Alsacs]

I am late to the party, but if Duncan wins title 5 this year my new top 10 would look like this.
1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Magic Johnson
5. Tim Duncan
6. Larry Bird
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Lebron James(obviously Lebron will end up in the top 3 when his career is over)

 

[SWC75]

Wilt was obviously an incredible scorer, but it was a much different game. There were a ton more shots. In 1962, when Wilt went for 50-25, there was an average of 123 missed field goals per game and 10 missed FT per game, for a total of 135 rebound opportunities per game. Wilt played just about every minute of every game, so he was pulling down 25 out of 135 rebound opportunities, or about 18.5% of the available rebounds. (These are estimates because we don't have opponent data for the teams). Tim Duncan, for his career, has pulled down 18.5% of available rebounds when he is on the court. Like I said, the numbers for Wilt are a little crude because we don't have all of the data, but there isn't much reason to think Wilt and Duncan were much different as rebounders. There were just a ton more opportunities to grab rebounds in the 60's. (Also Wilt basically never came out of the game, which is a testament to him, though it also has to make you wonder a little about how much defensive effort he was exerting if a big guy never fouled out of a game)

Same idea, though different degree with the points. Wilt wouldn't average 50 a game if he played in today's era, but he would obviously score more points than Duncan. But Duncan has also anchored some of the greatest defenses of all time and has been the consummate team player, which you can't always say about Wilt.

I don't know who was better. Wilt's numbers are staggering; but you need to take some air out of them. Both are 2 of the greatest big guys of all time.

Just to finish off the thought I started above; in 1962 the average team took 108 field goals per game, and 37 free throws per game. In the season that just concluded, the average team took 82 field goals per game and 22 free throws. There were probably 30% more possessions per game that year; there should be no surprise the raw numbers back then were higher.

Per 36, and for their careers, Duncan is averaging 21-12 and Wilt is averaging 23-18, both on about 55% true shooting. You still need to take some air out of those numbers because of the pace, though Wilt gets a bonus for playing so many minutes. But I'd be willing to bet Duncan was a superior defensive player.



From a raw statistical standpoint, Wilt has got to be the best player ever, right?

Wilt's career numbers are actually down quite a bit from his prime because he spent the latter half of it trying to imitate Russell, (which was a good idea, because that's when he won his championships). His numbers before that are inflated, if that's the word, prior to that due to the pace and the number of rebounds to be gotten. But he dominated the game like no one ever has before or since. I think today he'd actually be a greater player, even though his stats were less. The guys guarding him would be bigger than they were then so Wilt would have to use all of his abilities to score- he couldn't just dunk over smaller guys. He was track star in high school and could dunk from the foul line. He could shoot jumpers like Olajuwon. You'd really see him put on a show today.

Ask yourself this: if you have both Chamberlain and Duncan, who is your center?