Dirk NBA's top 60 greatest players of all time!?

[dirk41nowitzki]

I came across a book, called NBA's Greatest, that talks about the NBA's greatest players, teams, coaches, and moments. Under players, there are 60 names. Other than the top 50 of all time that were named 10 years ago, there are 10 more new names, probably because NBA is in existance for almost 60 years. The new names were Dirk, Kobe, T-Mac, KG, Duncan, Kidd, Iverson, Reggie, Dominique, and Paul Ariza or Dolph Schayes (whichever one isn't already one of the top 50, or maybe someone else I forgot). I just think it is amazing because when they list the achievements that these players have gotten, under Dirk's name, the only things he ever achieved were 2 All-NBA second team and 1 All-NBA third team honors, along with 2 time all time (obvious these are a little outdated). But for everyone else, maybe besides Miller (but then he's the best 3-point shooter in the history), they've all been at least 1 time All-NBA first team or numerous All-star selection. So for Dirk to be named one of the top 60 I think it's just incredible.

[dirk41nowitzki]

I might have missed Payton. It just makes more sense that he's in but I am not too sure.
FYI, the article about Dirk just simply talks about him being one of the best international players and idolizing Pippen growing up. And then Pippen saying that he's like Larry Bird.

[birdsanctuary]

I'm sure you know, and this is probably redundant, but I don't believe you mentioned this in your post: Dirk was selected to the 1st team All NBA, this last season. How old is your book?

[Hitman]

He said in his post:

(obvious these are a little outdated)

[Thespiralgoeson]

I actually own a copy of this book as well, and I was also amazed to see Dirk in the list, because I got it when it was new. The book came out after the end of the '03 season. Here's the bit about Dirk in its entirety:

He grew up in Germany idolizing Scottie Pippen, impressed with the six-time NBA champion's all-around versatility. Now the teacher returns the favor.
"He's definitely shown me a different dimension in the power forward game," said Scottie Pippen. "He's probably the only power forward that I've seen that can do the things that he can do out on the court, being a 7-footer."
Some of those things Pippen is referring to are Nowitzki's ability to shoot from virtually anywhere on the court as well as being agile enough to take his defender inside. The two-time All-NBA second Team selection is an excellent three-point shooter who not only possesses great court awareness but reminds some of another great shooting forward.
"I compare him to Larry Bird," said Pippen, who was a teammate of Bird's on the 1992 Dream Team. "He's grown a lot, he's shown that he's going to have a great future in this game, and he's shown people that you can compare him to some of the great players."

[snoop]

I am sure dirk will be a top 50 before its all said and done

[alby]

if he wins multiple championships, he may be considered top 25 imo

[Five-ofan]

If he wins multiple championships he will probably end up top 10 or 15.

[alby]

doubtful.

[u2sarajevo]

Michael Jordan
Shaquille O'Neal
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Julius Erving
Oscar Robertson
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Jerry West
Bob Pettit
Elgin Baylor
Moses Malone

He has alot to prove before I would put him top 15. But that would be great if we get the chance to witness that career.

[Five-ofan]

The previous post said if he wins multiple championships. If he wins multiple championships he is right there with bird. Obviously he isnt there yet cus he doesnt have any rings yet let alone multiple rings.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
Michael Jordan
Shaquille O'Neal
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Julius Erving
Oscar Robertson
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Jerry West
Bob Pettit
Elgin Baylor
Moses Malone

He has alot to prove before I would put him top 15. But that would be great if we get the chance to witness that career.

If Dirk wins multiple titles, he's easily ahead of Pettit, just as Duncan is in most people's eyes.

[u2sarajevo]

Apparently my post came off as negative to some.

If you read my entire post, after the names that I threw out of *some* of the greats of the NBA (in no particular order either), I said that he has alot to prove before you can put him with those names. Meaning, championships... which you guys then tried to say the same thing I did to disprove me?

Or somesuch.

[Five-ofan]

I understood you just making sure yall know that im not saying that I think dirk is top 10 or 15 now.

[alby]

its hard to be top 10 or top 15 in the HISTORY OF THE NBA if hes not even the top player at his position during his era..

[EricaLubarsky]

the real hardship of determining all-time players is that the game has changed so much over the years. the only real indicator is whether someone can win a championship. Even guys like Barkley will be forgotten after a decade or two, and Barkley was largely famous for his place in the spotlight.

a couple of straight WCFs or a championship would get him the recognition that he needs.

[Bayliss]

its hard to be top 10 or top 15 in the HISTORY OF THE NBA if hes not even the top player at his position during his era..

I am by no means saying Dirk will ever be top 10-15 but your logic is flawed.

Position does not matter in ranking the top 10. So he could be the 15th best player in the NBA (career wise) and be overshadowed in the spotlight because of a guy that is top 10.

[Five-ofan]

If he wins multiple titles he passes duncan on the all time list. The rings are the only difference between the two. Dirk has better stats already. IF a player has better stats and they both win the same number of championships or are close the tie goes to the one with better stats. The thing you need to worry about is a player like lebron or even tmac. Neither is anywhere near there yet but based on their talent and age its not an extreme stretch to project either to that level.

[alby]

Originally posted by: Bayliss

I am by no means saying Dirk will ever be top 10-15 but your logic is flawed.

Position does not matter in ranking the top 10. So he could be the 15th best player in the NBA (career wise) and be overshadowed in the spotlight because of a guy that is top 10.

i know, im just arguing for the sake of arguing lol..

[alby]

on a serious note..

I think they are two things that distinguish the top 60 of all time and the top 25 of all time..

the MVP award
and the elusive NBA Championship

Because let's face it, the top top players in the history all have been named the MVP of the league multiple times..
If Dirk is going to be overshadowed by the bigger stars during his career, preventing him from winning a Most Valuable Player award then his chances of being considered as top 25 or top 15 will be very slim.

Talentwise?
His unique skillset?

I think being 7-foot and having the kind of range he has on his jumpshot is definitely top 15 caliber in terms of talent and God-given abilities. Nobody in the history of this league has seen a player in Dirk's class. There's always been guards dominating the perimeter and having the ability to attack the basket ie. Dr J, MJ, etc. There's always been big men dominating the inside and the glass ie Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, etc. But there has NEVER been a big man who excels at both the inside and outside.

[Sweet Daddy]

I am a huge Nowitzki fan, but let's don't make him top 50 or compare him to Bird just yet. His career averages are very very good, but he's a 21.5, 8.5, 2.5 guy for 7 yrs, compared to 24.3, 10.0, 6.3 (ppg, rpg, apg) for Bird for 13 years. Bird shot .496 from the field to Dirk's .463, .886 free throws vs. .856. 3 point shooting percentages are equal. They both play big in crunch time, but Bird was one of the all-time great crunch time players (I know, I know, Dirk didn't have a great playoff run this year, but he was sick for pete's sake. He averages 25 pts and 11 rebounds in 53 playoff games. That is clutch, folks.)

But, give him a little time and good health and he'll be mentioned with the all-time greats, I think. I'm guessing 20,000 points 10,000 rebounds, 3,000 assists, 1,000 blocks, 1,000 steals. I think he leads us into the finals a few times. A hall of famer.

[Five-ofan]

This was a projection based on where he will be ranked later. Right now I actually think top 60 is probably a bit of a stretch. Also though on career avgs its not really fair to dirk because of when he came into the league. Bird was 24 or 25 when he came into the league if im not mistaken. Dirk was 19

[Sweet Daddy]

I didn't know Bird was that old as a rookie. Maybe that's part of the reason he didn't play longer than he did.

Anway, my apologies if I sounded argumentative. I agree with your assessment ... I believe that Dirk will be regarded as one of the best ever as long as nothing prevents him from playing another 5 - 7 years.

Personally, I'm a little confused by some of the really negative comments I see here and on other NBA chat sites about Dirk's game. I don't know if it is jealousy or if people really don't see him for what he is. People talk about him not being tough, and I'm reminded of when he lost his front teeth in the playoffs a couple of years ago and played the second half of the game with a mouth full of blood. Or taking IV's before the Houston playoff games last year and playing anyway. You don't have to be built like the Mailman, or take cheap shots at other players to be tough. I think you'd have to cut his leg off to keep him out of a playoff game. That's what tough is if you ask me. Plain and simple, he's a great player, and I have a hard time understanding people who don't want to acknowledge it.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: alby
on a serious note..

I think they are two things that distinguish the top 60 of all time and the top 25 of all time..

the MVP award
and the elusive NBA Championship

Because let's face it, the top top players in the history all have been named the MVP of the league multiple times..
If Dirk is going to be overshadowed by the bigger stars during his career, preventing him from winning a Most Valuable Player award then his chances of being considered as top 25 or top 15 will be very slim.

That's very true, but I think in this case championships are probably more important than the MVP award. Karl Malone was MVP as many times as Duncan, and was statistically better in virtually every single category, except rebounding. Yet because of the titles, Duncan is now almost universally considered the greatest PF of all time. Same with Garnett, his numbers are way more impressive than Duncan's, and he's been MVP as well, but Duncan's got the rings. Really though, for Dirk to be considered one of the all-time greats, I think he needs at least one of each.

Talentwise?
His unique skillset?

I think being 7-foot and having the kind of range he has on his jumpshot is definitely top 15 caliber in terms of talent and God-given abilities. Nobody in the history of this league has seen a player in Dirk's class. There's always been guards dominating the perimeter and having the ability to attack the basket ie. Dr J, MJ, etc. There's always been big men dominating the inside and the glass ie Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, etc. But there has NEVER been a big man who excels at both the inside and outside.

Dirk is the greatest shooting bigman ever. Really, the only one I can think of that you can really compare him to is Bob McAdoo.

[Five-ofan]

About the Mvps, the thing is Shaq only has one so you cant really say that someone needs multiple MVPS to be considered great. That is a travesty by the way. Im not much of a shaq fan but the man should have 2 or 3 mvps. Duncan should have 1. Dirk should have 1. He was clearly the mvp last year whether he won it or not. Lets see what would you rather have,
26, 10,3
15, 3, 10?
I know this has been beaten to death one way or the other but Dirk was the Mvp last year whether he won the award or not. Plus that Phoenix team was LOADED. I love how Dirk has always had too much help to be the mvp with one other all-star and a near all star. However nash has 2 other all stars and another near all star but he doesnt have too much help? YEAH, that makes sense. Its cool though cus Phoenix has backed way off this offseason. I think Dirk gets an MVP this year. Its a cool discussion though.

[alby]

Nash and Shaq were clearly the MVP picks from last year, not Dirk. They both were unquestionably the leading catalyst that helped drastically improved their respective teams and thus were the MVP's.

Phoenix
2003/2004 - 29-53
2004/2005 - 62-20
+ 33

Miami
2003/2004 - 42-40
2004/2005 - 59-23
+ 17

Dallas
2003/2004 - 52-30
2004/2005 - 58-24
+ 6

[grndmstr_c]

Last year's MVP race is over and done with, so I don't want to get into an argument about whether Dirk deserved the award over Shaq and/or Nash, but I would argue that there's no single stat that stands out above the others in making such a declaration. It was a damn close race, and there were plenty of reasons to vote for any of the top three.

[Five-ofan]

This is the last thing im gonna say about last years MVP race bcus I know its beating a dead horse and I wish I hadnt brought it up but the damn improvement stat is just foolish. The suns also got Q who helped space the floor. A new style that fit perfectly with the talent they had. Amare had the 3rd year jump which is usually when a player shows the most improvement and he was also actually healthy. Was nash a big part of their turnaround? Yeah he was huge but he wasnt the only factor.

The heat also had wades improvement which yes was probably largely due to shaq. However they only won 1 more game in an easier conference(though not by quite as much as people think) and he had a legit second star.

The mavs lost Nash who if he was the sole reason for the Suns turnaround should have made exactly the same difference in the mavs record but in reverse. The mavs however improved because Dirk became dominant, and the most valuable player in the nba. The mavs improving after losing a guy who was the 'mvp' is everybit as impressive as a team with 4 all star level players and a 15 point a game scorer who spaces the floor winning 4 more games than the mavs did. Look at the Suns roster vs the mavs last year and admitedly im gonna rig the swing players to make Johnson match up with Howard because he is the better of their two swing men and its actually basically the way they played.
Pg Terry - nash No question Nash was much better than terry last year
Sg Fin - Q Q wins but its close
Sf Howard - Johnson Johnson and it wasnt as close as we would like to believe.
Pf Dirk - Marion Dirk but Marion isnt a slouch so you cant say that this a weakness for the suns
C Damp - Amare Not close. Its amare though I was more pleased with damp than most mavs fans.
Bench- Mavs by a good bit.

basically we had a better bench and we needed Dirk to be better than Marion(an all star) to make up for the differential between all the other positions except for the bench.

Dirk did a good enough job to get us within 4 games of them. That to me made Dirk the MVP last year. Sorry I brought it up im done with the last year MVP stuff though.

[TVI]

Originally posted by: Thespiralgoeson
That's very true, but I think in this case championships are probably more important than the MVP award. Karl Malone was MVP as many times as Duncan, and was statistically better in virtually every single category, except rebounding. Yet because of the titles, Duncan is now almost universally considered the greatest PF of all time. Same with Garnett, his numbers are way more impressive than Duncan's, and he's been MVP as well, but Duncan's got the rings. Really though, for Dirk to be considered one of the all-time greats, I think he needs at least one of each.

Oh yes, and I think there is a quart of milk somewhere that has much better statistics than Duncan has.

First of all, I don't know if it's true that Duncan is universally considered the greatest power forward of all time, but he certainly needs to be considered amongst the best to ever play that position.

Secondly (and more to the point of your statement) I do not know how you can say that Karl Malone's and Kevin Garnett's statistics are way more impressive than Duncan's. By all accounts, they are virtually equal. And for the most part, I'd give the edge to Duncan. Duncan has consistently scored better then Kevin Garnett, and rebounded better than either one of them, as well as blocked more shots. He's considered a better defender than either Garnett or Malone, as proven by his consistent naming to the first-team NBA all defensive team. And although Karl Malone's regular-season shooting percentage is quite impressive, he routinely did much poorer in the playoffs. Duncan, conversely, performs at nearly the same level even though the defensive intensity and physical contact in the playoffs is much greater!

The fact that you make silly comments like this just proves to me that you either do not know what you are talking about, or you simply cannot see past your jealousy/envy of Duncan to really be fair about your assessment. For some reason, you keep trying to argue that the only reason that Duncan is considered great is because he's won championships.

I've got news for you my young friend. The championships are not what makes Duncan great. Duncan's greatness is why he wins championships.


G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
TD
Career 586 585 38.3 .507 .194 .692 3.3 8.9 12.2 3.1 .78 2.50 2.95 2.80 22.5
Playoff 105 105 41.0 .497 .143 .702 3.6 9.4 13.0 3.6 .66 2.79 3.28 3.00 23.8

KG
Career 775 738 38.2 .490 .299 .768 2.8 8.3 11.1 4.5 1.41 1.70 2.58 2.50 20.2
Playoff 47 47 42.6 .458 .333 .761 2.9 10.5 13.4 5.0 1.34 1.87 3.43 3.20 22.3

KM
Career 1476 1471 37.2 .516 .274 .742 2.4 7.7 10.1 3.6 1.41 .70 3.07 3.10 25.0
Playoff 193 193 41.0 .463 .162 .736 2.6 8.1 10.7 3.2 1.34 .70 2.85 3.40 24.7

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: TVI

Duncan has consistently scored better then Kevin Garnett, and rebounded better than either one of them.

Uh, what? Malone, yes, but Duncan has consistently rebounded better than Garnett?????


Duncan's rebounding averages over the past 4 years:

12.7
12.9
12.4
11.1

KG's rebounding averages over the past 4 years:

12.1
13.4
13.9
13.5

I'd like to hear your explanation of how Duncan has "consistently rebounded better" than Garnett... And BTW, the reason I said KG's numbers are so much more impressive is because of his passing. KG in his career has averaged 4.5 assists to Duncan's 3.1. Except for C-Webb, and maybe Walker, no PF in the NBA is close to KG as a passer.

He's considered a better defender than either Garnett or Malone, as proven by his consistent naming to the first-team NBA all defensive team.

Yeah, and I still don't buy it... You can trot out the defensive-team selections all you want, but those selections also suggest that Shawn Marion wasn't a top 4 defensive forward last year, and I don't buy that either. Duncan's a better defender than Garnett, sure, but Malone is IMO one of the top 2 or 3 defensive PF's ever. The only one I can immediately think of who I'd consider to be better is Rodman.

The fact that you make silly comments like this just proves to me that you either do not know what you are talking about, or you simply cannot see past your jealousy/envy of Duncan to really be fair about your assessment.

I'm all for fun debate and all, but when you keep making that comment, it really makes me want to tell you to go f*ck yourself. If you think I'm wrong, that's perfectly fine, I'm ok with that. Really, if you think what I'm saying is stupid, that's fine, you're certainly entitled to your opinion as well as I am. But please shut the f*ck up about my "jealousy/envy" of Duncan. I look at his numbers, the numbers his opponents put up, and I make my assessment based on that. If I were just soooo jealous, then I would just tell you that Duncan is simply not as good as Dirk, nor is KG, Kobe, T-Mac etc.... But I'm not.. My "jealously" probably wouldn't allow me to say that I think my least favorite player, Kobe Bryant, is in my opinion, the best all-around player in the NBA, particularly because Allen Iverson happens to be my second favorite player behind Dirk. My "jealousy" probably wouldn't allow me to say that I would trade Dirk for LeBron... but I would. My "jealousy" probably wouldn't allow me to say that if I were to rank the greatest PF's of all time, Duncan would rank way ahead of Dirk because of his career accomplishments... but I would. It has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy, bias, or any such things... I honestly believe that Karl Malone was a better player than Duncan, period.

I also believe that as players, Duncan, Garnett, and Nowitzki are all around equal talent level. Really, I'd say that Garnett is the best all-around player. However I believe Duncan's accomplished so much more than either of them for a wide variety of reasons. First of all, he went to college and came into the NBA much more experienced. (Dirk especially has taken much longer to reach his peak because he came into the NBA with very little experience) Second, he came to a Spurs team that was already loaded with a damn good supporting cast (D-Robb, AJ, Elliot etc...) as well as a great coach. And thirdly I think the Spurs have hands-down the best management in the NBA, and have always kept him surrounded with solid players that complement him supurbly.

For some reason, you keep trying to argue that the only reason that Duncan is considered great is because he's won championships. I've got news for you my young friend. The championships are not what makes Duncan great. Duncan's greatness is why he wins championships.

Sure, Duncan's greatness, as well as the greatness of his teammates, his team's management, and his coach, as well as the weakness of his team's competition... There are so many factors to a team winning a championship in any competition. Duncan's won his, and he deserves his credit for that... But I just don't buy the argument that players who've won rings are simply that much better than players who didn't win rings. Too much of winning a championship is luck of the draw.

[alby]

Honestly, I think all those players you all have mentioned are top caliber players in the grand scheme of the history of the NBA. Malone, Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki are all Hall of Famers in my book. With that being said, I don't think you could go wrong in choosing one of these guys if you were to start a team. However, Tim Duncan, more so than the others have GREATLY benefitted from the system. He is the epitome of what "product of the system" means to me as well as Karl Malone with his great two man game with probably the best pure point guard to ever play the game in Stockton. On the other hand, true Dirk has been the beneficiary of a free-wheeling offensive style employed by Nelson and company but since the departure of Nash two summers ago, Dirk's career has taken an obvious turn. Whether the change will play out to be good or bad? That is still in question. But, he will rely more on his individual brilliance as compared to Duncan or Malone and thus may be slighted when its all said and done. Kevin Garnett, for the majority of his unlucky career, has had to do everything on his own. He has literally carried that entire franchise on his shoulders for last 10 years or so and will probably never win a ring in Minnesota and thus, he will be slighted for that as well. Duncan to me is a great great player, maybe the best power forward ever, he is definitely the most successful out of the group, but there is no clear cut winner.

Malone = Dirk = Garnett = Duncan

Strength and physicality goes to Malone
Range on his shot and versatility goes to Dirk
Raw talent and athleticsm goes to KG
Fundamentals and championships goes to Duncan

I still think though, if I were a defensive coach, I would fear Dirk the most.

[TVI]

Originally posted by: Thespiralgoeson
Duncan's rebounding averages over the past 4 years:

Uhh... sorry bud, you lost this argument, the second you started backtracking and qualifying your statement by conditionally using partial careers. Why pick the last four seasons? After all, you were talking about the player and their career accomplishments including the championships, the MVP awards etc. You made no mention of the last four seasons in your original statement. You couldn't: Malone wasn't even involved in the last season. Now in a desperate attempt to save face, you trot out the last four seasons, because they're convenient to you. That's absolute bull sh*t and you know it. You made an invalid statement, and I called you on it. Don't get angry at me because you can't back it up. This isn't the first time you've tried to cherry-pick stats to try to prop up a weak argument.

I'd like to hear your explanation of how Duncan has "consistently rebounded better" than Garnett...

That's easy. Look at their respective career numbers. Sorry Sparky, thanks for playing, but next time, do your homework.

And BTW, the reason I said KG's numbers are so much more impressive is because of his passing. KG in his career has averaged 4.5 assists to Duncan's 3.1. Except for C-Webb, and maybe Walker, no PF in the NBA is close to KG as a passer.

Oh, well, there you have it. That proves it right there: Garnett get's ~1.5 more assists per game than Duncan. That certainly seals the deal. I feel the perfect fool. I guess Stockton's three times the player either of them are..

Of course, that extra assist per game couldn't have anything to do with the more uptempo style the Wolves play, and the fact that the Wolves average more possesions a game than do the Spurs. Nah, that can't be it.

I'm all for fun debate and all, but when you keep making that comment, it really makes me want to tell you to go f*ck yourself. If you think I'm wrong, that's perfectly fine, I'm ok with that. Really, if you think what I'm saying is stupid, that's fine, you're certainly entitled to your opinion as well as I am. But please shut the f*ck up about my "jealousy/envy" of Duncan. I look at his numbers, the numbers his opponents put up, and I make my assessment based on that.

Here's a novel idea: why don't you try watching him play instead? Number can tell you some things, but to judge a player on stats alone is foolhardy. I'll elaborate in a minute.

If I were just soooo jealous, then I would just tell you that Duncan is simply not as good as Dirk, nor is KG, Kobe, T-Mac etc.... But I'm not.. My "jealously" probably wouldn't allow me to say that I think my least favorite player, Kobe Bryant, is in my opinion, the best all-around player in the NBA, particularly because Allen Iverson happens to be my second favorite player behind Dirk. My "jealousy" probably wouldn't allow me to say that I would trade Dirk for LeBron... but I would. My "jealousy" probably wouldn't allow me to say that if I were to rank the greatest PF's of all time, Duncan would rank way ahead of Dirk because of his career accomplishments... but I would. It has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy, bias, or any such things... I honestly believe that Karl Malone was a better player than Duncan, period.

All of which are irrelevant. This discussion is about Duncan, and your comments about how Garnett's numbers are "way more impressive than his." The facts don't support your claim. My contention is that their numbers are so similar that it's almost impossible to use them to separate one from the other. Duncan is slightly better at some things, Garnett is slightly better at others. No reasonable person would make the claim that Garnett's numbers are way more impressive. It's simply a lie. One can only draw the conclusion that you have some sort of a personal bias. I've read post after post where you attempt to minimalize Duncan's stature as a player.

I also believe that as players, Duncan, Garnett, and Nowitzki are all around equal talent level. Really, I'd say that Garnett is the best all-around player. However I believe Duncan's accomplished so much more than either of them for a wide variety of reasons. First of all, he went to college and came into the NBA much more experienced. (Dirk especially has taken much longer to reach his peak because he came into the NBA with very little experience) Second, he came to a Spurs team that was already loaded with a damn good supporting cast (D-Robb, AJ, Elliot etc...) as well as a great coach. And thirdly I think the Spurs have hands-down the best management in the NBA, and have always kept him surrounded with solid players that complement him supurbly.

Sure, Duncan's greatness, as well as the greatness of his teammates, his team's management, and his coach, as well as the weakness of his team's competition... There are so many factors to a team winning a championship in any competition. Duncan's won his, and he deserves his credit for that... But I just don't buy the argument that players who've won rings are simply that much better than players who didn't win rings. Too much of winning a championship is luck of the draw.

And I've never made the argument that Duncan's rings proves that he's the better player. You are the one who continues to make unsubstantiated claims.

In fact, my personal opinion is that Garnett is clearly the more athletic of the two, and has the skills to be the better player. However, Duncan is clearly the smarter of the two. Duncan keeps his head in the game more frequently, and is less prone to emotional outbursts. Hence, when the game is on the line, I'll take Duncan every time. I've watched these guys duel it out for years, and Duncan almost always comes out on top. Maturity is an attribute that rarely show up in a stat sheet, but it's the single most important facet which separates Duncan from the rest of the pack. When Garnett was negotiating (what was at the time) the biggest contract in the history of the NBA, he wasn't thinking about how that would cripple his club for years to come. He wanted his, and he got it. Conversely, Duncan actually took less money than he could have received and resigned early before he became eligible for a higher paycheck. KG has often called out teammates and berated them in the press (Wally, et al.). Duncan has never, ever put the blame on any other teammate.

Say what you will about your numbers, but they simply don't tell the whole story. There is no stat which calculates character, but it has been the difference between champion, and bridesmaid.

Incidentally, it's also why I don't consider Dirk on the same level, and certainly nowhere near Bird in terms of greatness. As much as I love Dirk's game, last year's playoffs really showed me why he has a long way to go before he reaches that kind of status. He has great skills. If he can combine them with the desire to win and the maturity to put the team on his back and take them there, then he could be one of the best to ever play. That hasn't happened yet. Only time will tell if it ever will.

[Five-ofan]

You know using career per game stats isnt fair to a player who came into the league straight out high school vs the most nba ready player coming out of college in at least 15 years. So I guess you think that Finley is better than Ginobili right? I mean his stats dominate Manus career wise. Plus to say consistently outrebounded wouldnt mean that he outrebounded him by a lot early in his career and now gets out rebounded by a little. I would say being outrebounded each of the last 3 years is not consistently outrebounding someone. Hell if your gonna go by career rebounds since they are only a month apart age wise go by total rebounds. Oh wait Garnett is ahead by around 1500 boards. You still had a decent argument till you brought up passing and said they were close. Garnett CONSISTENTLY out assists(I dont know what to call it) Duncan. In fact Duncan has never avgd more assists in a season than Garnett. That is consistently out assisting someone.

Duncan is great and right now he is considered ahead of the other two but if you think its not b/c of the rings you are delusional.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: TVI
Uhh... sorry bud, you lost this argument, the second you started backtracking and qualifying your statement by conditionally using partial careers. Why pick the last four seasons? After all, you were talking about the player and their career accomplishments including the championships, the MVP awards etc. You made no mention of the last four seasons in your original statement. You couldn't: Malone wasn't even involved in the last season. Now in a desperate attempt to save face, you trot out the last four seasons, because they're convenient to you. That's absolute bull sh*t and you know it. You made an invalid statement, and I called you on it. Don't get angry at me because you can't back it up. This isn't the first time you've tried to cherry-pick stats to try to prop up a weak argument.

No, I didn't mention Malone because I already conceded that Duncan is a better rebounder than Malone ever was. My argument was responding to your statement that Duncan has "consistently rebounded better than either of them..." Ok, so I'm "cherry picking" stats... Kevin Garnett has outrebounded Duncan 4 years in a row now... Call it cherry picking, but it's fact. So Duncan has averaged 1.1 more rpg than KG has in his career. Yeah, Duncan has "consistently" outrebounded Garnett.

That's easy. Look at their respective career numbers. Sorry Sparky, thanks for playing, but next time, do your homework.

Do my homework? Uh, gee... Garnett has about 1500 more total rebounds in his career.... Maybe you should do some homework too, Sparky [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

Oh, well, there you have it. That proves it right there: Garnett get's ~1.5 more assists per game than Duncan. That certainly seals the deal.
Of course, that extra assist per game couldn't have anything to do with the more uptempo style the Wolves play, and the fact that the Wolves average more possesions a game than do the Spurs. Nah, that can't be it.

Well, seeing has how KG has averaged more assists in Minnesota than C-Webb did in Sacramento, no I'm guessing that's not it. And BTW, if you're telling me that Duncan's 1.1 more career rpg qualifies as "consistently outrebounding" Garnett, then yeah, I think Garnett's 1.5 more apg is no small thing.

I feel the perfect fool. I guess Stockton's three times the player either of them are..

Well, three times the player no, but three times the passer... yeah...

Here's a novel idea: why don't you try watching him play instead? Number can tell you some things, but to judge a player on stats alone is foolhardy. I'll elaborate in a minute.

Well you see, I actually DO watch them play. If I didn't watch Tim Duncan, I'd probably believe that he's the greatest PF of all time. If I judged a player just on stats and awards, then yes, I'd probably say that Karl Malone really wasn't even close to Duncan, and I'd probably also believe that Duncan is the best defensive player in the NBA. But you see... I actually do watch Tim Duncan play, and I actually DID watch Karl Malone play... and I make my judgements based on that as well as the numbers.

All of which are irrelevant. This discussion is about Duncan, and your comments about how Garnett's numbers are "way more impressive than his." The facts don't support your claim.

Not irrelevant at all. It's relevant because you keep accusing me of being biased and "jealous." You're suggesting that the only reason I believe Duncan isn't the greatest PF of all time is because of this, and I'm telling you that that's bullsh*t. I have a personal bias against Kobe Bryant, but I still believe that he's the best player in the NBA... I have a personal bias for Dirk Nowitzki, but I'd still trade him for LeBron etc... It's relevant because it means that I'm not making judgements based on "jealousy/envy" or bias.

My contention is that their numbers are so similar that it's almost impossible to use them to separate one from the other. Duncan is slightly better at some things, Garnett is slightly better at others. No reasonable person would make the claim that Garnett's numbers are way more impressive. It's simply a lie.

It's a lie? Gee, some might call it an opinion... Again, look at the two players' numbers over the past 7 years or so. Of course we get back into the whole "cherry picking" bullshit, but career stats are virtually worthless IMO, especially when you consider how much younger and more inexperienced Garnett was when he came into the NBA.

Forgive me for "cherry picking" stats again, if you look at the two players' stats for the past several years, I think Garnett's numbers are quite a bit more impressive than either Duncan's or Nowitzki's. You're ridiculing me for looking at stats of recent years as opposed to career stats? Well I think Keith Van Horn has better career stats than Rasheed Wallace, but which one do you think is a better player?

One can only draw the conclusion that you have some sort of a personal bias.

And you're f*cking wrong. You wanna know why? BECAUSE I DON'T F*CKING LIKE KEVIN GARNETT! I think Garnett is an arrogant asshole, and I greatly respect Duncan's humility and modestness. I actually like Duncan A LOT better than Garnett. But I think Garnett is at least as good as Duncan as a player.

I've read post after post where you attempt to minimalize Duncan's stature as a player.

I'm not trying to "minimalize" Duncan in any way shape or form. I'm telling you what I honestly believe. It's the general consensus that Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward not only in the NBA, but of all time, and I disagree.

And I've never made the argument that Duncan's rings proves that he's the better player. You are the one who continues to make unsubstantiated claims.

[img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

In fact, my personal opinion is that Garnett is clearly the more athletic of the two, and has the skills to be the better player. However, Duncan is clearly the smarter of the two. Duncan keeps his head in the game more frequently, and is less prone to emotional outbursts. Hence, when the game is on the line, I'll take Duncan every time. I've watched these guys duel it out for years, and Duncan almost always comes out on top. Maturity is an attribute that rarely show up in a stat sheet, but it's the single most important facet which separates Duncan from the rest of the pack. When Garnett was negotiating (what was at the time) the biggest contract in the history of the NBA, he wasn't thinking about how that would cripple his club for years to come. He wanted his, and he got it. Conversely, Duncan actually took less money than he could have received and resigned early before he became eligible for a higher paycheck. KG has often called out teammates and berated them in the press (Wally, et al.). Duncan has never, ever put the blame on any other teammate.

Say what you will about your numbers, but they simply don't tell the whole story. There is no stat which calculates character, but it has been the difference between champion, and bridesmaid.

I thoroughly and completely agree that Duncan is probably the smartest player in the NBA, and is much much more mature than KG. Again, if you look at my past posts, that's why I believe that KG, TD, and Dirk are on the same level. Dirk has the most raw firepower, Garnett is the most versitile and athletic, and Duncan is the smartest and most efficient. However, I think this also leads to another debate which is just how important maturity and character really are, i.e. how much they contribute to success as opposed to other things. It's a whole other debate that frankly I don't feel like getting into. But maturity or no, I believe Duncan has always been much better coached than Garnett, and has always had a better supporting cast then either KG or Dirk.

Incidentally, it's also why I don't consider Dirk on the same level, and certainly nowhere near Bird in terms of greatness. As much as I love Dirk's game, last year's playoffs really showed me why he has a long way to go before he reaches that kind of status. He has great skills. If he can combine them with the desire to win and the maturity to put the team on his back and take them there, then he could be one of the best to ever play. That hasn't happened yet. Only time will tell if it ever will.

Fair enough... I disagree, but what you're saying isn't unreasonable. I personally didn't think Dirk's maturity or attitude have ever had anything to do with the Mavericks winning or losing in the regular season or the playoffs. Unless of course you're talking about the maturity of his game... then that's another story. But the whole team was an absolute mess this playoffs, devoid of chemistry, and with an untested coach. I really don't think Dirk yelling at Terry or calling out Damp was what caused us to lose, nor will it cause us to lose in the future. Besides, I don't even think Dirk was in the wrong anyway... especially since he blamed himself and took responsibility for the loss afterwards and promised to come back stronger, just like Bird and all the greats did. And if it were Bird instead of Dirk, I don't know how surprised I would've been if Larry had called out Damp for being outscored 40-0, or if he'd yelled at Jet for a bone-headed series-costing mistake. Oh well, it's impossible to prove either way; we'll never know. But I will say that there have been plenty of immature players that have accomplished great things in the NBA. Dennis Rodman wasn't exactly what you'd call mature, but he was a phenominal player and was a key member of 5 championship teams.

[TVI]

Originally posted by: Thespiralgoeson
...So Duncan has averaged 1.1 more rpg than KG has in his career. Yeah, Duncan has "consistently" outrebounded Garnett.

Ahh but you see, I'm not the one that's trying use statistics to prove that Duncan is better than Garnett. I'm simply using your criteria to disprove your statement that Garnett's numbers are "way better than Duncan's."

Do my homework? Uh, gee... Garnett has about 1500 more total rebounds in his career.... Maybe you should do some homework too, Sparky [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

Again, a blatant attempt at misdirection. Garnett's total rebounds are irrelevant since he's played in almost a hundred more games than Duncan has. The fact is, Duncan has a higher per game rebound average and Garnett. Period. Oscar Robertson's got more total rebounds than Duncan as well. Does that mean he's a better rebounder? Please don't insult my intelligence was such a ridiculous statement.

Well, seeing has how KG has averaged more assists in Minnesota than C-Webb did in Sacramento, no I'm guessing that's not it. And BTW, if you're telling me that Duncan's 1.1 more career rpg qualifies as "consistently outrebounding" Garnett, then yeah, I think Garnett's 1.5 more apg is no small thing.

Nah, that's apples and oranges. When Chris Webber was with Sacramento, the offense was not run through him with nearly the same frequency as Garnett or Duncan. Weber was so often injured, that the Kings had to learn how to play without him. It's no wonder that he wasn't able to ever get completely in the groove with that team. And again, I'm not the one trying to use stats as an means to determine which player is better. I'm simply disproving your assertion that Garnett's numbers are "way better than Duncan's."

Not irrelevant at all. It's relevant because you keep accusing me of being biased and "jealous." You're suggesting that the only reason I believe Duncan isn't the greatest PF of all time is because of this, and I'm telling you that that's bullsh*t.

No, I'm not suggesting anything about whether Duncan is or is not the greatest power forward, of all time. I'm simply debating you on two points: 1) Duncan is not, as you say, "overrated." 2) Garnett's numbers are not "way better than Duncan's." I've already made it clear that I have no criteria to establish whether Duncan is or isn't the greatest power forward of all time. And, I don't care whether you think he is or is not, I simply take exception to you continuously saying that he's overrated.

Well I think Keith Van Horn has better career stats than Rasheed Wallace, but which one do you think is a better player?

Slightly better scoring and rebounding stats? Sure. But since Van Horn is a defensive sieve, it's really no contest. Generally speaking, Wallace has a much greater impact on the games he plays in than does Van Horn. Of course you realize, you're proving my point that stats can't tell you everything.

I'm not trying to "minimalize" Duncan in any way shape or form. I'm telling you what I honestly believe. It's the general consensus that Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward not only in the NBA, but of all time, and I disagree.

If your comments were really that simple, then I would have no problem with that statement. But you are constantly whining about Duncan receiving accolades, and you continuously call him "overrated." Like it or not, if you call a player overrated, people are going to get the idea that you don't think very highly of that player. Calling him overrated is an insult to him, and to what he's accomplished. If anything Duncan is underrated and underappreciated. Sure, there are some analysts like Charles Barkley who give him his due, but for the most part, the guy has to put up with a barrage of insults: he's boring, he's emotionless, he soft, he has no heart. I'm just really tired of it. the NBA would be much better off if there were more Tim Duncans playing in it. The guy epitomizes what a humble, classy player should be.

But maturity or no, I believe Duncan has always been much better coached than Garnett, and has always had a better supporting cast then either KG or Dirk.

That's a very subjective point of view, so it's hard to make the case one way or the other. My personal belief is that Duncan matches up well with his coach. His coach would tell you that Duncan is a very "coachable" player. So is it player or coach? Probably both. Again, this speaks volumes about his maturity level. This also speaks to why players like Rasheed Wallace have had somewhat difficult careers, even though they possess loads of talent.

Fair enough... I disagree, but what you're saying isn't unreasonable. I personally didn't think Dirk's maturity or attitude have ever had anything to do with the Mavericks winning or losing in the regular season or the playoffs. Unless of course you're talking about the maturity of his game... then that's another story. But the whole team was an absolute mess this playoffs, devoid of chemistry, and with an untested coach. I really don't think Dirk yelling at Terry or calling out Damp was what caused us to lose, nor will it cause us to lose in the future. Besides, I don't even think Dirk was in the wrong anyway... especially since he blamed himself and took responsibility for the loss afterwards and promised to come back stronger, just like Bird and all the greats did. And if it were Bird instead of Dirk, I don't know how surprised I would've been if Larry had called out Damp for being outscored 40-0, or if he'd yelled at Jet for a bone-headed series-costing mistake. Oh well, it's impossible to prove either way; we'll never know. But I will say that there have been plenty of immature players that have accomplished great things in the NBA. Dennis Rodman wasn't exactly what you'd call mature, but he was a phenominal player and was a key member of 5 championship teams.

I'm specifically referring to Dirk yelling at Terry in front of the entire world, and calling out Damp in the press. I think that was very immature of Dirk, and I don't think he showed a lot of leadership by doing that. It seemed to me as if he was making excuses for the team and for his own somewhat lackluster play. Sure, Terry may have made a bonehead play, and Damp may have been absolutely outplayed, but a leader, encourages his teammates and gets them to play better. He doesn't insult or embarrass them.

Like it or not, that season was going to finish with those 12 guys on the roster. If you're going to be the undisputed leader of the team, you'd better find a way to get those guys to play at their top-level or put them on your back and carry them home. I guarantee you, insulting them, isn't going to work. Worse yet, it could permanently damaged his relationship with them, and affect his ability to lead them in the future. So if you ask me, I think Dirk was absolutely wrong for what he did. Even if you feel that it's absolutely necessary to address your teammates' play, you just don't do it in public. Can you imagine Duncan doing something like that? My memory may be faulty, but I can't ever remember Magic Johnson publicly humiliating a teammate. At worst, I can recall them saying things like "we didn't step up to the challenge" or "we didn't play as a team." There may be an implicit "dig" in those statements, but it's not public humiliation.

[dirno2000]

...you guys are in mid-season form...

[alby]

im just waiting for spiral's reply

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: alby
im just waiting for spiral's reply

I'm too tired. We're not gonna convince eachother either way.

[alby]

Originally posted by: Thespiralgoeson

I'm too tired. We're not gonna convince eachother either way.

boo

[mavsman]

Originally posted by: TVII'm specifically referring to Dirk yelling at Terry in front of the entire world, and calling out Damp in the press. I think that was very immature of Dirk, and I don't think he showed a lot of leadership by doing that.

Nope, there's a tradition in Germany of calling teammates out when you as a leader think that they could do better. Beckenbauer did it before we won the WC in 1974, and he's been voted one of the top 3 football (soccer) players of all time worldwide. Matthaeus did it and we won the WC 1990 and he's been voted world football player of the year in 1990 and 1991. Oliver Kahn (world goalkeeper of the year in 1999, 2001 and 2002, first ever goalkeeper to be MVP of a WC in 2002) is infamous for choking a teammate on the field during a game because he didn't like what he was seeing. There's no such proof at all that not calling out your teammmates in public leads to better results and/or makes you a worse leader.