Tim Duncan or Larry Bird?

[Knicks411]

I don't think there's any comparison between the gauntlet that the Celtics / Lakers had to play back then just to get to the championship, and then their reward was having to face a team that was equally as dominant if they got there.

I don't think you can compare the gauntlet that the Lakers and Celtics had to face. I think we touched upon this earlier in the thread, but the East was much stronger than the West during much of the 80's. The Sixers were great in the early 80's, and the Pistons were great by 87 or so, and you had solid teams like the Bucks and the Hawks in between. The west, on the other hand, at least IMO, was weaker.

Just as a for instance, in 82, when the Lakers beat the Sixers in the finals, the Sixers had to get by the 55 win bucks in the east semis, and the 63 win Celtics in the east finals. The Lakers were beating a 46 win Sun team and a 48 win Spur team. In 84, when the Celtics beat the Lakers, the best team the Lakers beat to get to the finals was a 43 win Dallas team. The next season, the Lakers made the finals beating a 42 win Portland team and a 52 win Denver team. Boston had to beat the 46 win Pistons and the 58 win Sixers. The next year, the Lakers beat a 44 win Dallas team before losing to a 51 win Rocket team (that should have been their main competition the next few years) while Boston had to beat a 54 win Hawks team and a 57 win Bucks team. In 87, the Lakers beat a 42 win warrior team and a 39 win Seattle team (so thats the second finals trip where they had to basically beat 500 teams) while Boston had to beat 2 50 win teams.

So basically, the East was stronger during that period, and there were some years the Lakers had a real cakewalk to the Finals. I have a feeling if Boston and LA switched conferences, they would probably switch titles won, or come pretty close.

The West during the Kobe/Shaq Laker run was kinda like the East in the 80's. The Spurs and Lakers were basically the Celtics and the Lakers in the same conference; from 99 to 2010 (12 years) those 2 teams combined to win 9 NBA titles and play in 11 NBA finals. And you had some other strong teams in the West during that time; early in the decade Portland and Sacto were really good, and then Phoenix and Dallas started to pick up the pace for them. But until KG went to Boston, there was really no dominant team in the East; maybe Miam in 06 with Wade and Shaq.

 

[Alsacs]

I don't think you can compare the gauntlet that the Lakers and Celtics had to face. I think we touched upon this earlier in the thread, but the East was much stronger than the West during much of the 80's. The Sixers were great in the early 80's, and the Pistons were great by 87 or so, and you had solid teams like the Bucks and the Hawks in between. The west, on the other hand, at least IMO, was weaker.

Just as a for instance, in 82, when the Lakers beat the Sixers in the finals, the Sixers had to get by the 55 win bucks in the east semis, and the 63 win Celtics in the east finals. The Lakers were beating a 46 win Sun team and a 48 win Spur team. In 84, when the Celtics beat the Lakers, the best team the Lakers beat to get to the finals was a 43 win Dallas team. The next season, the Lakers made the finals beating a 42 win Portland team and a 52 win Denver team. Boston had to beat the 46 win Pistons and the 58 win Sixers. The next year, the Lakers beat a 44 win Dallas team before losing to a 51 win Rocket team (that should have been their main competition the next few years) while Boston had to beat a 54 win Hawks team and a 57 win Bucks team. In 87, the Lakers beat a 42 win warrior team and a 39 win Seattle team (so thats the second finals trip where they had to basically beat 500 teams) while Boston had to beat 2 50 win teams.

So basically, the East was stronger during that period, and there were some years the Lakers had a real cakewalk to the Finals. I have a feeling if Boston and LA switched conferences, they would probably switch titles won, or come pretty close.

The West during the Kobe/Shaq Laker run was kinda like the East in the 80's. The Spurs and Lakers were basically the Celtics and the Lakers in the same conference; from 99 to 2010 (12 years) those 2 teams combined to win 9 NBA titles and play in 11 NBA finals. And you had some other strong teams in the West during that time; early in the decade Portland and Sacto were really good, and then Phoenix and Dallas started to pick up the pace for them. But until KG went to Boston, there was really no dominant team in the East; maybe Miam in 06 with Wade and Shaq.

I agree with all of this you think if Minnesota was in the Eastern conference during that 2001-2007 era they would have made the NBA Finals? I think Detroit-Minnesota would have been a coinflip a couple of times and I think Minnesota would have been a better team than the 2002, 2003 New Jersey Nets Eastern Conference Champ teams.

2001-Sixers
2002-Nets
2003-Nets
2004-Pistons NBA Champions
2005-Pistons
2006-Pistons
2007-Cavs

 

[Knicks411]

Anything is possible; in 03 the Wolves won 51 games in the West, which was more than anyone in the East won. Which is pretty amazing, because they didn't have much past KG.

 

[RF2044]

I think that's fair--the East was much tougher back then, whereas things were a bit easier for the Lakers during the same timeframe. I remember Boston having first round matchups against teams like Milwaukee when [don't laugh] that was no cakewalk. Moncrief, Sikma, etc.

But I still maintain that the league was more competitive then before it was watered down by expansion, and before UFA made it more difficult to stockpile talent.

 

[br801]

But I'd be willing to bet Duncan was a superior defensive player.

Your posts are generally insightful and among the most interesting on the board, but there is no way Duncan was better than Chamberlain defensively. Wilt was a freakish athlete and regularly terrorized the league on the defensive end. The clips of an aging Wilt as Laker at the end of his career don't begin to do him justice.

 

[Knicks411]

Your posts are generally insightful and among the most interesting on the board, but there is no way Duncan was better than Chamberlain defensively. Wilt was a freakish athlete and regularly terrorized the league on the defensive end. The clips of an aging Wilt as Laker at the end of his career don't begin to do him justice.

Interesting. I admit Wilt is before my time. Here is my basis for the statement

1) The Spurs under Duncan have some of the best adjusted defensive metrics of all time. (I'm referring more to the early to mid 2000 Spurs here). Duncan was the best defensive player on those teams. Best defensive player on some of the best defensive teams of all time carries a lot of weight with me.
2) I think the Chamberlain never fouling out thing works against him here. No question the guy was a freak athlete and could do things Duncan couldn't, but I can't help but wonder if there were times when Wilt wasn't going all out on defense to make sure he didn't get in additional foul trouble. To me, if a big guy never fouls out, then he's probably doing something wrong defensively.

Unfortunately we don't have TO numbers for the 60's, so we can't really see how Wilt's teams did defensively, which would fill in some of the puzzle.

I'm willing to be wrong on this one. A lot of the info is missing, so maybe I'm projecting too much here.

 

[alphaorange]

Interesting. I admit Wilt is before my time. Here is my basis for the statement

1) The Spurs under Duncan have some of the best adjusted defensive metrics of all time. (I'm referring more to the early to mid 2000 Spurs here). Duncan was the best defensive player on those teams. Best defensive player on some of the best defensive teams of all time carries a lot of weight with me.
2) I think the Chamberlain never fouling out thing works against him here. No question the guy was a freak athlete and could do things Duncan couldn't, but I can't help but wonder if there were times when Wilt wasn't going all out on defense to make sure he didn't get in additional foul trouble. To me, if a big guy never fouls out, then he's probably doing something wrong defensively.

Unfortunately we don't have TO numbers for the 60's, so we can't really see how Wilt's teams did defensively, which would fill in some of the puzzle.

I'm willing to be wrong on this one. A lot of the info is missing, so maybe I'm projecting too much here.

The above poster is correct, 411. Chamberlain was an absolute defensive beast. Duncan is not even in the same universe defensively and yet, he is damn good.

 

[Knicks411]

The above poster is correct, 411. Chamberlain was an absolute defensive beast. Duncan is not even in the same universe defensively and yet, he is damn good.

I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe someone could be much better defensively than Duncan, because I think he is one of the best defenders the game has ever seen.

I definitely get that Wilt may have been more of a force because of the jaw dropping athleticism. I'm sure he made more wow plays that stood out and made you take notice. I just wish we had some more stats for him to make for more of a comparison. Basketball reference doesn't even have opponent stats for the 60's, so we don't even know what % teams shot against Wilt's teams.

If people watched him play; am I off with the foul thing? Did he not back off a lot with fouls to avoid the DQ?

 

[br801]

Interesting. I admit Wilt is before my time. Here is my basis for the statement

1) The Spurs under Duncan have some of the best adjusted defensive metrics of all time. (I'm referring more to the early to mid 2000 Spurs here). Duncan was the best defensive player on those teams. Best defensive player on some of the best defensive teams of all time carries a lot of weight with me.
2) I think the Chamberlain never fouling out thing works against him here. No question the guy was a freak athlete and could do things Duncan couldn't, but I can't help but wonder if there were times when Wilt wasn't going all out on defense to make sure he didn't get in additional foul trouble. To me, if a big guy never fouls out, then he's probably doing something wrong defensively.

Unfortunately we don't have TO numbers for the 60's, so we can't really see how Wilt's teams did defensively, which would fill in some of the puzzle.

I'm willing to be wrong on this one. A lot of the info is missing, so maybe I'm projecting too much here.

I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe someone could be much better defensively than Duncan, because I think he is one of the best defenders the game has ever seen.

I definitely get that Wilt may have been more of a force because of the jaw dropping athleticism. I'm sure he made more wow plays that stood out and made you take notice. I just wish we had some more stats for him to make for more of a comparison. Basketball reference doesn't even have opponent stats for the 60's, so we don't even know what % teams shot against Wilt's teams.

If people watched him play; am I off with the foul thing? Did he not back off a lot with fouls to avoid the DQ?

I think you are off with the foul thing. My clearest memories of Wilt are as a Laker (when he was a lesser offensive threat), but even at that point in his career, he was still a feared defensive presence, and opponents were reluctant to challenge him. He was also a pretty smart player, and knew how to play with foul trouble when he encountered that situation.

I believe the "never fouling out" thing was more a product of the respect he commanded and his savvy as a player, and not a matter of him not playing hard or "hiding" when in foul trouble. A good analogy might be a football team choosing to avoid throwing in the direction of a lock-down cornerback. That player's presence on the field changes the entire game strategy, even though he doesn't rack up impressive interception or passes defended totals.

I do get where you're coming from with Duncan as a defensive force and also wish there was some way to make an apples to apples comparison across eras, but even if that were possible, certain intangibles will always defy quantification. For Wilt, that would be his intimidating physical presence, and in that category, I would place him ahead of anyone who has played the game.

 

[br801]

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.

You're damn right he gets a bonus for playing so many minutes. For his career, he averaged about 46 mpg in the regular season and 47 mpg in the playoffs. That's astounding.

Image the modern day NBA player (bigger, faster, stronger and more well-conditioned than those in previous generations) attempting that. There would almost certainly be a drop in their per 36 offensive output, not to mention a greater likelihood of injury and an almost certainly shorter career in terms of years and/or games played.

I recently watched that resurrected telecast of Knicks-Lakers Game 5 from the 1973 NBA Finals. Wilt was lumbering up and down the court and forcing his offense in an attempt to pick up the scoring slack left by a hobbled Jerry West. I thought to myself, "Gee, maybe Wilt wasn't as great as I remembered when I watched him as a kid." Then it occurred to me that this was the last NBA game Wilt ever played, after logging over 55,000 minutes against a less watered down league, and I felt much better.

 

[alphaorange]

I read a story that told of Wilt being at a party with lots and lots of people. Ben Davis showed up and got in an argument of some kind with Wilt. It ended with Wilt holding Davis out of a window. For those that don't know, Davis was one of the most feared defensive lineman of his day. Is it an urban legend? I don't know but I do know this: Nobody messed with the "Big Dipper". Little known factoid: Wilt played with the Globetrotters for a brief time. I've seen clips and the guy was one helluva an athlete.

 

[Knicks411]

I also have to say, I feel like the minutes thing works against Wilt defensively as well. is there any way you can play 48 minutes a game, shoot as much as he did, and always be giving full effort defensively? Maybe he was just that great of an athlete though.

I feel like I'm coming off really anti Wilt. I don't mean to. Guy is one of the 5-7 greatest players of all time. I think I'd take him over Duncan, but more because of what he did on the offensive side of the floor.

I really wish we had more stats though. If wilt was anchoring one of the best defensive teams int he league year after year that would definitely change my opinion

 

[CusefanATL]

I think every year that goes by that Duncan still is playing at a high level moves it closer to him. Right now I think probably an edge to Bird, but it's probably not much. Duncan's per 36 numbers this year were 21/12. That's basically identical to any of his peak seasons. Obviously he isn't playing as many minutes as he used to, but that is still pretty amazing.

Not taking away from Duncan, but Birds last season's per 36 was 20, 9, and 7.

The man was basically crippled. That is amazing.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I read a story that told of Wilt being at a party with lots and lots of people. Ben Davis showed up and got in an argument of some kind with Wilt. It ended with Wilt holding Davis out of a window. For those that don't know, Davis was one of the most feared defensive lineman of his day. Is it an urban legend? I don't know but I do know this: Nobody messed with the "Big Dipper". Little known factoid: Wilt played with the Globetrotters for a brief time. I've seen clips and the guy was one helluva an athlete.

Wilt was a world class volleyball player and I believe still holds some of the track and field records at Kansas State.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[OttoinGrotto]

He was also a pretty smart player, and knew how to play with foul trouble when he encountered that situation.

I believe the "never fouling out" thing was more a product of the respect he commanded and his savvy as a player, and not a matter of him not playing hard or "hiding" when in foul trouble.

Not that he's the greatest authority, but Bill Simmons strongly disagrees with that in his book.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Wilt was a world class volleyball player and I believe still holds some of the track and field records at Kansas State. With the modern weight lifting, exercise, diet etc. Wilt would have been unstoppable in today's game

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Knicks411]

Not that he's the greatest authority, but Bill Simmons strongly disagrees with that in his book.

Yeah I feel like maybe that is influencing me too strongly against Wilt.

 

[Alsacs]

I have seen some Wilt footage from his Philadelphia Warriors days and he was close to what Bill Simmons described. The NBA wasn't as athletic back then, and Chamberlain just towered over people. Obviously, Chamberlain was an all-time great, but the guy played with a different mentality when he was 1 foul away from disqualification. It is apparent in the footage where he wouldn't be as aggressive defending the rim. Duncan vs. Chamberlain obviously goes to Wilt because of the numbers, but Duncan is the best PF of all-time, and I believe Duncan can surpass everyone except Jordan, Russell, Kareem, and Magic Johnson if he wins another title for his 5th all time.

 

[realorange]

Wilt was a world class volleyball player and I believe still holds some of the track and field records at Kansas State.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

Wilt truly was one of the greatest athletes ever. I think he may still hold some of the track and field records but at Kansas Univ. not Kansas State.

 

[SWC75]

Wilt truly was one of the greatest athletes ever. I think he may still hold some of the track and field records but at Kansas Univ. not Kansas State.

They're probably better than the records at Kansas State anyway.

 

[alphaorange]

I have seen some Wilt footage from his Philadelphia Warriors days and he was close to what Bill Simmons described. The NBA wasn't as athletic back then, and Chamberlain just towered over people. Obviously, Chamberlain was an all-time great, but the guy played with a different mentality when he was 1 foul away from disqualification. It is apparent in the footage where he wouldn't be as aggressive defending the rim. Duncan vs. Chamberlain obviously goes to Wilt because of the numbers, but Duncan is the best PF of all-time, and I believe Duncan can surpass everyone except Jordan, Russell, Kareem, and Magic Johnson if he wins another title for his 5th all time.

While I am a huge Tim Duncan fan and I think he is a big part of the Spurs success, I also believe he has benefited from a great coach and organization, not to mention some excellent teammates. Winning a title was easier than getting to the title. He beat a Ewingless Knicks team, the Nets, Pistons, and Cavs. I do believe he is the greatest PF ever, but I won't put him top 5 no matter what. I also think Karl Malone is being glossed over. Eighteen season averages of 25/10+/3.6 makes an argument for best PF ever, too. Plus, he had a harder path to a ring (which he never got). Duncan a much better rebounder, but Malone a much better enforcer. I am a firm believer in rings not defining greatness.

 

[CorduroyG]

ever see footage of wilt shooting a free throw? or dribbling? it's comical, he looks like a girl who doesn't know how to play. freak size and athlete, but actual offensive skills other than dunking?

 

[Alsacs]

While I am a huge Tim Duncan fan and I think he is a big part of the Spurs success, I also believe he has benefited from a great coach and organization, not to mention some excellent teammates. Winning a title was easier than getting to the title. He beat a Ewingless Knicks team, the Nets, Pistons, and Cavs. I do believe he is the greatest PF ever, but I won't put him top 5 no matter what. I also think Karl Malone is being glossed over. Eighteen season averages of 25/10+/3.6 makes an argument for best PF ever, too. Plus, he had a harder path to a ring (which he never got). Duncan a much better rebounder, but Malone a much better enforcer. I am a firm believer in rings not defining greatness.

Malone is no where near my top 10. He was consistent and had a long productive career, but he is no where near Duncan. Duncan's coach has helped him, but his run in the West in the salary cap era is more impressive than you are giving him credit for. Also, the Finals were easy because the West was so hard to get out of the Lakers, Suns, Blazers, Mavs were all formidable opponents and the Spurs conquered them all. Rings do define greatness IMO because in a sport like basketball superstars should be able to win a championship. The Jazz got better from 96-98 because the West got older and the pace of the game slowed down. Malone and the Jazz choked in the playoffs numerous times, when the made the Finals in 1998 they had home-court advantage and Michael Jordan single handily beat them. I think Malone is a top 20 all-time player, but Duncan's resume is superior.

 

[realorange]

Out of curiosity, I checked the KU records and Wilt doesn't hold records anymore. Those were great days for Kansas in track and field with Al Oerter and a few years later, Jim Ryun, on their team. I saw Ryun run the first sub 4 minute mile for a high school runner. Even then he was as smooth as silk.

 

[alphaorange]

ever see footage of wilt shooting a free throw? or dribbling? it's comical, he looks like a girl who doesn't know how to play. freak size and athlete, but actual offensive skills other than dunking?

Watch him with the Globetrotters

Malone is no where near my top 10. He was consistent and had a long productive career, but he is no where near Duncan. Duncan's coach has helped him, but his run in the West in the salary cap era is more impressive than you are giving him credit for. Also, the Finals were easy because the West was so hard to get out of the Lakers, Suns, Blazers, Mavs were all formidable opponents and the Spurs conquered them all. Rings do define greatness IMO because in a sport like basketball superstars should be able to win a championship. The Jazz got better from 96-98 because the West got older and the pace of the game slowed down. Malone and the Jazz choked in the playoffs numerous times, when the made the Finals in 1998 they had home-court advantage and Michael Jordan single handily beat them. I think Malone is a top 20 all-time player, but Duncan's resume is superior.

Malone choked in the playoffs? He had one of the top 5 games in playoff history against one of the best teams ion history in a decided game (lost to Jordan). You better go back and check your facts. Points went down by .3ppg and rebounding went up. Hate to tell you, but the period you say the Jazz got better was when Malone was in his 30s, far from his prime. You have to be young because the Mailman was awesome. Lastly, rings do not define a player's greatness. No "great" player ever won a ring without a excellent supporting cast. That argument is BS at face value. Feel free to name teams that won with a mediocre cast and a superstar. LeBron(one of the best ever) couldn't do it so who can? Teams win rings. Great players help. Good Lord...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Malone