Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing that puts Duncan over the top is CHAMPIONSHIPS. Yes he's one of the best power forwards of his era but he's combined that with CHAMPIONSHIPS.
Actually no. It's his MVP's and all-nba selections.
The HOF is full of people without championships that are considered some of the best to play the game. (Malone is one of the poster children.)
Heck, look at Dirk, Nash, Iverson....strong career stats, MVP and lots of all-nba selections.
Amare - He's got a pretty good shot. A championship would cement it.
Carmelo - Same as Amare
Billups - He deserves serious consideration for his time in Detroit. He was a team leader and key player on a championship team.
Ginobolli - A good player on a team of good players. I don't know if that makes him HOF material.
Arenas - He had three or four year stretch were he was on the the best shooting guards in the NBA. That does NOT constitute HOF consideration unless he turns things around and puts together some great seasons and a championship.
Vince Carter - A guy that scored a lot of points some of which were downright spectacular. But he's never proven himself the guy to put his team over the top in terms of contending for a championship. His time with the Nets where they made it to the championship twice deserves some merit.
McGrady - Great talent too many injuries.
Ginobli gets in the HOF based upon what he has done outside of the NBA. He was the MVP of the olympics gold medal team....another poster listed all his international achievements and they are quite frankly HOF worthy.
Actually I think Duncan's championships are what most people use when comparing him to other prominent power forwards. Without them, I think it becomes a bit more difficult to really separate the very best forwards. Charles Barkley for one, when you look at his short size at that position, is probably pound for pound more dominant than Duncan and Malone. Malone has longevity on his side, but there was a time in the late 80's/early 90's when Barkley was giving Jordan and Magic legit competition for the MVP and 'best player' honors....
Actually I think Duncan's championships are what most people use when comparing him to other prominent power forwards. Without them, I think it becomes a bit more difficult to really separate the very best forwards. Charles Barkley for one, when you look at his short size at that position, is probably pound for pound more dominant than Duncan and Malone. Malone has longevity on his side, but there was a time in the late 80's/early 90's when Barkley was giving Jordan and Magic legit competition for the MVP and 'best player' honors....
Barkley did not have the conditoning Malone and Duncan had and it shortened his effectiveness. 100% agree that at his prime he was very very dominant and frankly a lot of guys don't have rings from that era because they ran into Jordan-Pippen and friends.
(I still remember Barkley dropping 40-20 on Horace Grant in one finals game. )
Duncan and Malone get consideration over Barkley for two reasons.
1) Longevity at the top.
2) Defense.
Move the Jordan-Pippen Bulls forward 10 years in time and Barkley wins a ring with Pheonix and Duncan loses some (or all) of his rings.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...l_defense.html
Duncan has been 1st or 2nd all nba defense every year since 1998.
Malone has several appearances (and that was during the era of Rodman and some other notable defenders)
Barkley has none and was never considered above average on D.
Barkley did not have the conditoning Malone and Duncan had and it shortened his effectiveness. 100% agree that at his prime he was very very dominant and frankly a lot of guys don't have rings from that era because they ran into Jordan-Pippen and friends.
(I still remember Barkley dropping 40-20 on Horace Grant in one finals game. )
Duncan and Malone get consideration over Barkley for two reasons.
1) Longevity at the top.
2) Defense.
Move the Jordan-Pippen Bulls forward 10 years in time and Barkley wins a ring with Pheonix and Duncan loses some (or all) of his rings.
No, Barkley didn't have the conditioning of Malone or Duncan, but I was speaking moreso in terms of their respective peaks, and in terms of scoring/rebounding. I should have clarified that defense wasn't a strong aspect of his game. Depending on the makeup of the team, I would probably choose Barkley( peak) over Malone( peak), but not over Duncan, because of the impact Duncan has at both ends of the floor. Malone wasn't really a lockdown type defender either, but moreso he was very crafty in terms of stripping the ball, particularly if the offensive player brought it beneath his waist.
Barkley was, to this day, one of the more unique talents in NBA history.
No, Barkley didn't have the conditioning of Malone or Duncan, but I was speaking moreso in terms of their respective peaks, and in terms of scoring/rebounding. I should have clarified that defense wasn't a strong aspect of his game. Depending on the makeup of the team, I would probably choose Barkley( peak) over Malone( peak), but not over Duncan, because of the impact Duncan has at both ends of the floor. Malone wasn't really a lockdown type defender either, but moreso he was very crafty in terms of stripping the ball, particularly if the offensive player brought it beneath his waist.
Barkley was, to this day, one of the more unique talents in NBA history.
I agree with all of that.
The other thing about Duncan is that his numbers are DEFLATED by playing on a slow tempo team.
People that just patently state that Kobe was the best player of his era I think overlook Duncan. They also gloss over the "early kobe" which was not the efficient complete package that he became 4 years or so ago. His first year or two post-Shaq were IMO ugly ball by Kobe trying too hard.
People that just patently state that Kobe was the best player of his era I think overlook Duncan. They also gloss over the "early kobe" which was not the efficient complete package that he became 4 years or so ago. His first year or two post-Shaq were IMO ugly ball by Kobe trying too hard.
I don't think Kobe has ever been particularly efficient, at least offensively, even in the past 4 years. He's never been able to put together a season where he shoots anything over 45%. Which isn't particularly a 'bad' percentage, but given how much praise he gets for his offensive abilities, you've got guys like Lebron, Wade, Durant who can put up 30 a game but also do it at a 48-49% clip.
Shaq was generally considered the best in the early 2000's, Duncan 2004-2005 time frame( and some were calling him the best even during Shaq's peak), and Kobe got his chance to shine around 2005-2007 on a weak Lakers team, which gave him an opportunity to amass eye-popping scoring numbers in a system where he had total carte blanche. In my opinion a healthy Mcgrady, Lebron, Wade, Durant are all capable of averaging 35 points given the same number of shots that Kobe got back then. Personally for my money, Tmac was the most natural scorer I've seen since Jordan, he just made it look completely effortless. Shame injuries derailed his career....
I don't think Kobe has ever been particularly efficient, at least offensively, even in the past 4 years. He's never been able to put together a season where he shoots anything over 45%. Which isn't particularly a 'bad' percentage, but given how much praise he gets for his offensive abilities, you've got guys like Lebron, Wade, Durant who can put up 30 a game but also do it at a 48-49% clip.
Shaq was generally considered the best in the early 2000's, Duncan 2004-2005 time frame( and some were calling him the best even during Shaq's peak), and Kobe got his chance to shine around 2005-2007 on a weak Lakers team, which gave him an opportunity to amass eye-popping scoring numbers in a system where he had total carte blanche. In my opinion a healthy Mcgrady, Lebron, Wade, Durant are all capable of averaging 35 points given the same number of shots that Kobe got back then. Personally for my money, Tmac was the most natural scorer I've seen since Jordan, he just made it look completely effortless. Shame injuries derailed his career....
Kobe's shooting % is pretty much the first stat I go to when having to debate with someone <25 that has no clue what Jordan did in his prime.
I give Kobe the nod over some of those other guys not so much offensively but because the guy is a fixture on the all-defense teams. His post-Shaq shooting around 42% showed up in both his being the leading scorer in the NBA that year....and the Lakers sucking. (90% of NBA games are won by the team with the higher shooting percentage.)
IMO if I can draft a 22yo Shaq, Duncan or Kobe....I take Duncan. However, at his peak I think Shaq might have been the most dominant. Duncan has just been incredibly steady at an incredible level.
Kobe's shooting % is pretty much the first stat I go to when having to debate with someone <25 that has no clue what Jordan did in his prime.
I give Kobe the nod over some of those other guys not so much offensively but because the guy is a fixture on the all-defense teams. His post-Shaq shooting around 42% showed up in both his being the leading scorer in the NBA that year....and the Lakers sucking. (90% of NBA games are won by the team with the higher shooting percentage.)
IMO if I can draft a 22yo Shaq, Duncan or Kobe....I take Duncan. However, at his peak I think Shaq might have been the most dominant. Duncan has just been incredibly steady at an incredible level.
I use that in my arguments for Jordan and Kobe as well. And then someone will counter that zone defenses account for Kobe shooting a lower percentage, while completely ignoring the fact that both Lebron and Wade, who are inferior jumpshooters to both Jordan and Kobe, are able to shoot 49% year in, year out primarily as slashers with somewhat inconsistent jumpers. Slashers are supposed to be somewhat neutralized by a good zone and well, Jordan by 28 had an outside game that would keep defenses honest enough to where you couldn't play him for the drive, and we all know about his slashing and finishing capabilities at the rim. Jordan was simply a more efficient and smarter scorer.
Yeah, I'd have to take the 2000-2002 version of Shaq over any version of Duncan. Too much physical dominance, if Shaq had been even a 65-70% foul shooter there would have been NO answer for him.
I use that in my arguments for Jordan and Kobe as well. And then someone will counter that zone defenses account for Kobe shooting a lower percentage, while completely ignoring the fact that both Lebron and Wade, who are inferior jumpshooters to both Jordan and Kobe, are able to shoot 49% year in, year out primarily as slashers with somewhat inconsistent jumpers. Slashers are supposed to be somewhat neutralized by a good zone and well, Jordan by 28 had an outside game that would keep defenses honest enough to where you couldn't play him for the drive, and we all know about his slashing and finishing capabilities at the rim. Jordan was simply a more efficient and smarter scorer.
Yeah, I'd have to take the 2000-2002 version of Shaq over any version of Duncan. Too much physical dominance, if Shaq had been even a 65-70% foul shooter there would have been NO answer for him.
The only thing that stopped Shaq in his prime was himself. I remember they were listing him at 315 his last year with the Lakers and I showed my buddy a pic of Shaq from years before and he was probably 375. When I saw him in pre-season with the Heat looking lean and mean.....I predicted a Heat championship that year.
The Finals series vs. the 76ers cemented my opinion of Shaq and Iverson.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
