<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Spurs did't have a great roster, nor a deep one. In 03 Parker and Ginobili were not that good, the Spurs won without a very deep roster as it is. </div> they did have pretty good depth....rather it was Jackson, Bowen, Parker, or Manu...or D-Rob, Rose, Willis..OR Kerr, Claxton, or Smith....... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If you were to take Robinson off, they might lose but not necessarily for the reasons you believe.</div> exactly...that's my point....Robinson made an impact on those teams.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">they did have pretty good depth....rather it was Jackson, Bowen, Parker, or Manu...or D-Rob, Rose, Willis..OR Kerr, Claxton, or Smith.......</div> I am laughing my ass off at you hyping up 2/5 PPG role players. What a joke. Manu and Parker kind of sucked in the playoffs/regular season, and Rose/Willis/Kerr/Claxton/Smith are complete scrubs (Kerr and Jackson had some big shots against the Mavs, but there weren't "good" players overall). http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html What All-Star did Duncan win the 03 title with? Stop hating Duncan carried that team and was the only offensive force. If the Spurs played at a faster pace he would impress you even more which is funny. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> exactly...that's my point....Robinson made an impact on those teams.</div> Your point is? That roster had one All-Star on it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What a joke. Manu and Parker kind of sucked in the playoffs/regular season, and Rose/Willis/Kerr/Claxton are complete scrubs (Kerr and Jackson had some big shots against the Mavs, but there weren't "good" players overall I'd say). .</div> Parker didn't "suck" in the playoffs he avg. 15 ppg and Manu didn't exactly "suck" either...Rose didn't "suck" either (also avg. 10 ppg)...and Kerr, Jackson, and Claxton all hit big shots throughout that post season run....I'd call that over all a "good" supporting cast.......including Robinson.......not one that deserves the title of "sucking" <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What All-Star did Duncan win the 03 title with? Stop hating</div> you're putting words in my mouth....I simply said Duncan had a good supporting cast...I didn't say he played with an allstar that particular season (but Manu and Parker would eventually go on to be all star players and play bigger roles in other post season runs) <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Your point is? That roster had one All-Star on it. </div> My point is despite what you think Robinson WAS important on both of those Spurs teams that won titles....that has nothing to do with him being an allstar....it has more to do with him being a 7'1 body to throw at Shaq and also keep the defense honest on Duncan on the other end of the floor.
anyways I'm tired of debating I have homework to do, because I want to watch Bron vs. The Spurs tonight.....
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Parker didn't "suck" in the playoffs he avg. 15 ppg and Manu didn't exactly "suck" either...Rose didn't "suck" either (also avg. 10 ppg)...and Kerr, Jackson, and Claxton all hit big shots throughout that post season run....I'd call that over all a "good" supporting cast.......including Robinson.......not one that deserves the title of "sucking"</div> Parker shot 40% from the field, 27% from the 3 point line, and 71% from the charity stripe, those are below average percentages. He also had 2.8 Rebounds and 3.5 Assists which isn't impressive either. It wasn't impressive that he averaged 15 points a game in that case. Manu was not this huge influence either. He averaged 9 PPG on 38/39/76 FG/3/FT %. You can get that kind of player easily. The same applied with Rose, they aren't special at all, just serviceable. Duncan doesn't need Manu or Parker. Duncan has won without the "real" D-Rob as well. I won't even get into Kerr/Claxton/Smith and some of the other ridiculous names you mentioned. Look at their overall impact, they were extremely inconsistent. There was only one monstrous player that carried this entire team together on offense and defense. Duncan gets these scrubs all these open looks. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> you're putting words in my mouth....I simply said Duncan had a good supporting cast...I didn't say he played with an allstar that particular season (but Manu and Parker would eventually go on to be all star players and play bigger roles in other post season runs)</div> How do you define "good" supporting cast? Once again, you were talking up Kevin Willis, Steve Smith, Speedy Claxton (etc.) before. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> My point is despite what you think Robinson WAS important on both of those Spurs teams that won titles....that has nothing to do with him being an allstar....it has more to do with him being a 7'1 body to throw at Shaq and also keep the defense honest on Duncan on the other end of the floor.</div> Robinson was important because the Spurs won with a very mediocre roster (aside from Duncan), so every player that got 20-25 minutes was important.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Parker shot 40% from the field, 27% from the 3 point line, and 71% from the charity stripe, those are below average percentages. He also had 2.8 Rebounds and 3.5 Assists which isn't impressive either. </div> Those aren't "suck" like numbers though....especially for a guy in his 2nd year who was only 19 oe 20 at the time....15 ppg is valuable. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Manu was not this huge influence either. He averaged 9 PPG on 38/39/76 FG/3/FT %. You can get that kind of player easily. The same applied with Rose, they aren't special at all, just serviceable. </div> yes they were "serviceable" but they didn't "suck" like you claim <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I won't even get into Kerr/Claxton/Smith and some of the other ridiculous names you mentioned. Look at their overall impact, they were extremely inconsistent. There was only one monstrous player that carried this entire team together on offense and defense. </div> Claxton played an important role in the Nets series and Kerr never made a "huge" impact anywhere he went but his timely clutch shooting was important <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Duncan gets these scrubs all these open looks. </div> guys like Kerr...yes.....but Parker, Manu, Elliot, Jackson were all guys that were capable of creating their own shots and making them guys like Elie, Smith, Horry....those guys couldn't create on their own....Vernon Maxwell (who also received a lot of his open looks because of Dream) was probably the only other player during that first title run that could "consistently" create his own shot. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How do you define "good" supporting cast? </div> one that helps with scoring, defense, and timely shooting....no one wins titles with a poor supporting cast....no one.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Those aren't "suck" like numbers though....especially for a guy in his 2nd year who was only 19 oe 20 at the time....15 ppg is valuable. yes they were "serviceable" but they didn't "suck" like you claim </div> Uh yeah... Even I said they were serviceable, so your point is? You're prose is more dubious. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Claxton played an important role in the Nets series and Kerr never made a "huge" impact anywhere he went but his timely clutch shooting was important </div> 5.2/2.2 PPG scorers. Keep the discussion in perspective. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> guys like Kerr...yes.....but Parker, Manu, Elliot, Jackson were all guys that were capable of creating their own shots and making them</div> Lol, Elliot, he wasn't even on the roster. Manu and Parker create their own shots and then missed a bunch of attempts because they were only serviceable guards. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> guys like Elie, Smith, Horry....those guys couldn't create on their own....Vernon Maxwell (who also received a lot of his open looks because of Dream) was probably the only other player during that first title run that could "consistently" create his own shot.</div> Creating your own shot is not the end all of the discussion. Allen Iverson for example, has a huge Usage Rate (Creating his own shot stat), but his percentages are disgusting. Manu and Parker were not efficient, get off them already. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> one that helps with scoring, defense, and timely shooting....no one wins titles with a poor supporting cast....no one.</div> But Duncan did win with an "average" cast.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Uh yeah... Even I said they were serviceable, so your point is? You're prose is more dubious.</div> no you said his supporting cast "sucked" and that is far from the truth when you take things like scoring, defense, leadership, clutch shooting, etc. all into account. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">5.2/2.2 PPG scorers. </div> Claxton had some good moments in that Nets series particulary when Parker was struggling...Pop even went with him down the stretch in certain games during that series......and like I said Kerr never was a huge impact player just a clutch shooter. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Lol, Elliot, he wasn't even on the roster. Manu and Parker create their own shots and then missed a bunch of attempts because they were only serviceable guards.</div> I know he wasn't I was speaking of the people throughout his career that Duncan has had around him....and guys like Elliot, Parker, Manu, etc. could all create and make their own shot...and Manu and Parker were a lot more than "servicable" in the 3rd run for a title.... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Creating your own shot is not the end all of the discussion. Allen Iverson for example, has a huge Usage Rate (Creating his own shot stat), but his percentages are disgusting. Manu and Parker were not efficient, get off them already.</div> 40% isn't bad....and players with the ability to create their own shots is indeed important for many reasons....Hakeem had the majority of the plays ran through him because no one else was that great at creating their own shots...and he also had to guard the opposing teams best big man.....those are two things Duncan has never really had to do on a consistent basis in those title runs. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But Duncan did win with an "average" cast.</div> well now we're getting into termanology...but imo no Duncan never won with a "avg." supporting cast...I thought he had a good supporting cast in all of his title runs.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">no you said his supporting cast "sucked" and that is far from the truth when you take things like scoring, defense, leadership, clutch shooting, etc. all into account.</div> Are you ignoring most of my posts then? They sucked at times because Parker and some others did have below-average percentages. But overall they were serviceable. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Claxton had some good moments in that Nets series particulary when Parker was struggling...Pop even went with him down the stretch in certain games during that series......and like I said Kerr never was a huge impact player just a clutch shooter. </div> And yet he is just another serviceable role player. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I know he wasn't I was speaking of the people throughout his career that Duncan has had around him....and guys like Elliot, Parker, Manu, etc. could all create and make their own shot...and Manu and Parker were a lot more than "servicable" in the 3rd run for a title.... </div> Yeah, you changed the subject because you have no idea what you're talking about as far as 2003 is concerned. Your lazy nature of generalizing has hurt you in this case. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> 40% isn't bad....and players with the ability to create their own shots is indeed important for many reasons....Hakeem had the majority of the plays ran through him because no one else was that great at creating their own shots...and he also had to guard the opposing teams best big man.....those are two things Duncan has never really had to do on a consistent basis in those title runs.</div> 40% isn't bad? 45% is the league average. 53 TS% is the league average. 40% is below average. Once again, why did you bring up Hakeem? That has no affect on the fact that Duncan played with mediocre players around him that year. And Duncan did have the majority of plays run through him in the 03 Playoffs (Look at his dominant stats). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> well now we're getting into termanology...but imo no Duncan never won with a "avg." supporting cast...I thought he had a good supporting cast in all of his title runs.</div> Why isn't the 03 cast average? You have no case to make and your conclusions aren't well thought out. All these highly touted players either have unimpressive volume-based production, or below average percentages. Duncan however, averaged 25 points, 15 rebounds, and 5.3 assists per game with 53 FG%. He was the best interior defender in the league that year and he was by far the best passer on San Antonio in the post-season. Duncan put his team on his back and led them to a title like no other post-season run of his.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">yes "close", meaning vesatility wise......Duncan along with Hakeem are probably the most versatile big men to play the game, BUT Hakeem was much better defensively, faced much better competition, outplayed and demolished his big man opponents, and his offensive repitoure was better....that's why I say that there isn't "one" single aspect of the game where you can say Duncan was "significantly" better than Hakeem, but you can say there are aspects in which Hakeem was better....even after his last 4-5 crappy years that dropped his stats A LOT his numbers are similar to Duncan and even better in certain areas. To be honest Duncan if anything is on the downside of his career, his 5th and 6th seasons were his best as an individual player, so you can even make an argument that hakeem was better over a longer period of time....there's just too many areas where Hakeem has Duncan beat in, besides PER what other argument can be made for Duncan being better than Hakeem? I'm a big Dream fan, but I'm also a basketball realist that can give an honest opinion, and honestly speaking I think Olajuwon is just flat out better than Duncan for multiple reasons. </div> Mr. Dream, stop with your homerism. Hakeem is better than Duncan, but not by that much like you seemed to claim. Takes a look over their entire career average comparison. To be fair, take the last 3 seasons away from Hakeem since he had a huge drop in his statistic. Then Hakeem averages about 23ppg, 11.7rpb, 2.64apg, 3.29bpg. Compare to Duncan, he averages 21.8ppg, 11.9rpb, 3.2apg, 2.43bpg. The margin isn't that far apart. Hakeem certainly is better defensively but TD is a better team player. The problem I had with Hakeem being the best is he should have won more than 2 titles. And don't forget the 2 titles he won, MJ isn't even in the league.
Well Hakeem didn't really have the cast to win more than 2 titles for most of the 90's, so it isn't really a fair argument. Duncan is good, but we can't say he'd win more than 2 titles either in the same situation.
Props to the thread starter for the sole reason that as a Spurs fan it's rare for us to see people finally taken into account the fact that Duncan ranks among the best all time with no question.
<div class="quote_poster">kobe4life Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Mr. Dream, stop with your homerism. Hakeem is better than Duncan, but not by that much like you seemed to claim. Takes a look over their entire career average comparison. To be fair, take the last 3 seasons away from Hakeem since he had a huge drop in his statistic. Then Hakeem averages about 23ppg, 11.7rpb, 2.64apg, 3.29bpg. Compare to Duncan, he averages 21.8ppg, 11.9rpb, 3.2apg, 2.43bpg. The margin isn't that far apart. Hakeem certainly is better defensively but TD is a better team player. The problem I had with Hakeem being the best is he should have won more than 2 titles. And don't forget the 2 titles he won, MJ isn't even in the league.</div> You shouldn't be allowed to even think of saying that to another person. Since, you're the most insane homer in these here forums.
Duncan had a measily 14pts in the last game against Cleveland, and the Spurs still find a way to win. Is that what you call a "great" performance from somebody who's the socalled "best player since MJ" Yea, sure Hakeem couldn't afford to have a 14pt night in the finals.........
<div class="quote_poster">Rock4life Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Duncan had a measily 14pts in the last game against Cleveland, and the Spurs still find a way to win. Is that what you call a "great" performance from somebody who's the socalled "best player since MJ" Yea, sure Hakeem couldn't afford to have a 14pt night in the finals.........</div> There is no doubting that Olajuwan was a consistent and great hall of fame caliber player. However, Duncan is also in that range. You seem to believe that the entire Spurs squad was playing well that night on the offensive end. No, the offense in the game last night was very low caliber and had little rythem. Also, do you really believe that the Spurs needed Duncan this game? None of the Spurs big three played well, yet San Antonio still grinded out a victory. It clearly wasn't important that Duncan show up and have a huge game. When Duncan is needed, he has a history of showing up and he always follows up a bad game with a good game. So expect him to come out with passion on Thursday. By the way, in Game 1 of the Houston - Orlando NBA finals, Olajuwan only grabbed 6 rebounds yet they won this game and went on to sweep the series.
<div class="quote_poster">GArenas Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">There is no doubting that Olajuwan was a consistent and great hall of fame caliber player. However, Duncan is also in that range. You seem to believe that the entire Spurs squad was playing well that night on the offensive end. No, the offense in the game last night was very low caliber and had little rythem. </div> I'm not sayin Duncan isn't a great player. But the title of this thread suggest that he's the best since MJ retired. That's FALSE! He's a great team player, a winner, and as fundamentally sound as anybody. But he's NOT better than Shaq or Hakeem. Sometimes the hype of a team being in the finals makes ppl say the craziest things <div class="quote_poster">GArenas Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Also, do you really believe that the Spurs needed Duncan this game? None of the Spurs big three played well, yet San Antonio still grinded out a victory. It clearly wasn't important that Duncan show up and have a huge game. When Duncan is needed, he has a history of showing up and he always follows up a bad game with a good game. So expect him to come out with passion on Thursday.</div> Exactly. Like I've been sayin this whole thread, Duncan's importance to his team isn't as significant as Shaq's or Hakeem's. Duncan has been outplayed by his opponent in other playoff series's, and the Spurs still find a way to win. Hakeem had to outplay his opponent every game, he couldn't afford any 14pt games. Ppl forget how needed ppl like Shaq and Hakeem were to there teams. <div class="quote_poster">GArenas Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">By the way, in Game 1 of the Houston - Orlando NBA finals, Olajuwan only grabbed 6 rebounds yet they won this game and went on to sweep the series.</div> Ur point? How many points did he score
<div class="quote_poster">Rock4life Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Ur point? How many points did he score</div> In all fairness Rock, the pace of game 3 was incredibly slow. The Spurs and Cavs are also Second/Fourth in defensive efficiency. Look at how many points the other players on the Spurs scored.
<div class="quote_poster">og15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well Hakeem didn't really have the cast to win more than 2 titles for most of the 90's, so it isn't really a fair argument. Duncan is good, but we can't say he'd win more than 2 titles either in the same situation.</div> You're right, Hakeem never had the casts or we should put it, the Bulls was too dominant in the 90s. Thought when Hakeem did had a superb casts the next season they attemptted for a 3-Peat but failed short. Tim Duncan didn't really have a superb casts either. He just had good role players around him that know how to win. So I don't think it has anything to do with Hakeem's casts, as it has more to do with the competition in the West with Suns(Barkley & Johnson), Sonics (Kemp & Payton) and Jazz (Stockson & Malone), and most importantly, the Bulls. Anyway, Shaq was the greatest after MJ. And Shaq could potentially win 6 titles in his career. If he has the work ethic like Kobe, he can goes down as the most dominant player to ever play the game, and thus more impressive than Wilt's career.
