Seriously? How can you not like Duncan? Whatever, I'll just chalk it up to being a Yankee fan.
Yup. We've had this discussion but I put him and Kobe basically equal and probably give the slight edge to Duncan. Kobe had more peak seasons but I think Duncan's peak was about as good as it gets for a big man.
Easily top 10. Best pure PF ever. Class player, class act and proven champion. Was a joy to watch, particularly in the age in which he played.
I've been watching TD since Marcus Camby got the best of him in a UMass-Wake Forest matchup way back in 1996. Duncan (who was described as quiet even back then) went on to play an extra college season and has since racked up more than 56,000 minutes: #6 all time in win shares, #3 all time for playoff win shares. One of the best and certainly one of the most consistent to ever play the game.
All true, but Kobe's Lakers were 4-2 over Duncan's Spurs in playoff series.
Pop is 67 so he'll probably hang it up pretty soon regardless but the window for titles is still open with Aldridge and Kawhi.
The Spurs and Lakers won five titles each, but Kobe had more help than Duncan; he was only the best player on two of those five title teams, and the criminally underrated Pau Gasol was a better player in his prime than Parker or Ginobili (or maybe even the Admiral in the twilight of his career).
To Kliq first, Jordan was the best ever at that, better than LBJ or Bird or Duncan or whoever, it might have been his best attribute.
1999-2004 maybe, 2005 had the Amare/Marion/Quentin Richardson/Joe Johnson/Nash version of "Seven Seconds or Less", one of the most enjoyable teams I've ever seen. Of course they lost 4-1 in the Western Conference Finals to Duncan and the Spurs, at least in part because Joe Johnson missed the first two games (two home losses for PHX) and they had no real depth and couldn't compensate.
Mostly the on-court stuff, the personality didn't help but I wouldn't have cared about that if I enjoyed watching him play.
Duncan, and I kind of don't think it's close. He was dominant on both ends, Malone was never an exceptional defender and McHale was more of an insanely good #2 guy a la James Worthy.
2005 was the turning point, but the Suns were the only team really playing that way at the time, it took a few more years to filter out around the league. The 2005 Finals was a dreadful slugfest between San Antonio and Detroit in which there were only two games out of seven where both teams scored at least 80 points.
Yeah, "boa constrictor ball" I called it at the time. But again, that's on Duncan for knocking out an insanely fun team to watch.
Even in an individual sport* head to head matchups can be misleading, but the 4-2 record is absolute BS, since Shaq was in his prime and dominant on 3 of those Lakers teams. Without Shaq, Kobe-led teams often lost too early (or missed the playoffs completely) so they never could get smoked by San Antonio (which happened in 2013).
I thought about adding "late-career Jordan" to that list. He didn't really understand that until later in his career, whereas the other guys pretty much understood it from the get-go.
They both have 5 rings.
No you shouldn't. As great a coach as Pop is, there's no way he's nearly as valuable as prime-Shaq was.
The argument strikes me as similar to when people claim they are more sophisticated music listeners because of the genre or artists they like. People are different, and it's a BS move in any subject area. The opinion that Duncan's brand of basketball is boring to watch isn't even an uncommon one.
Yes, exactly. Duncan never looked super athletic, but in the post he would reliably draw his defender off balance and bank the ball in. His defense was fun to watch too.
Duncan tore up his knee toward the end of 2000 and missed the playoffs. Gave the Lakers an easier road to the finals.
Duncan by a mile. Now if the question is who would I most want to have to take a shot out of the post from a triple team for the fate of the universe, I probably go McHale.
Back when Duncan joined the league, the ability to make midrange shots reliably but still rebound (without necessarily being a rim-protector) made you a PF, not C. Rim protection and strength down low typically made you a C. That's why the 6'9" Russell was a C. C was a position where offense was often optional.
