Is Tim Duncan the greatest PF ever?

[benji]

Is Tim Duncan the greatest PF ever?

Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward in NBA History. Malone didn't have any interest in defense until the tail end of the 90s. Tim Duncan is one of the five greatest defensive players in NBA History. If Duncan were to raise his FT% like Malone did, and learn to use his left hand I would consider him the third greatest player in NBA History. He already has a shot that cannot be defended. His range is expanding. He is a demi-god. He travels at light speed taking on the greatest basketball players in the galaxy defeating them all. He can turn water into wine. One time I was at a restaurant and some guy dropped his spoon and Tim Duncan totally like killed the whole town.

The only thing keeping him from being annointed thus is whether he will move to Center in his later years.

[air gordon]

Wow...

It's hard to believe this all started after a quote made by Charles Barkley, the man who said that Lebron James wouldn't help his team for three seasons and that Gary Payton was the second most underrated player of all time.

Lets just all keep in mind that it was Charles Barkley, not the Pope, not Michael Jordan or Bill Russell who said this, but it was Charles Barkley.

i don't get your point. some argue that malone may possibly be the best power pf of all time and duncan has been...duncan-like

who cares if barkley said it- this discussion was bound to brought up by someone sooner or later

btw.. unless the great bill russell isn't talking about how great his celtic teams were, his comments are quite condescending about current nba players.

[GloveGuy]

Well it seems that EG got the idea of this thread off of a quote from Charles Barkley. I just thought it was funny how the foundation of this thread is something said by him, since most of the time, you can't really take anything that he says seriously. I rarely do, and I'm not taking this one seriously either. He's almost as bad as Shaq.

[Matthew]

Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward in NBA History. Malone didn't have any interest in defense until the tail end of the 90s. Tim Duncan is one of the five greatest defensive players in NBA History. If Duncan were to raise his FT% like Malone did, and learn to use his left hand I would consider him the third greatest player in NBA History. He already has a shot that cannot be defended. His range is expanding.

I never saw Karl play before the 94-95 season, so i cant comment on the "no defense" claim, although i do find it hard to believe. Duncan a top 5 defensive player of all time? lol! who is your top 5? Rememebr duncan has never won a defenisive player of the year award... Duncan has a shot that cant be defended? well.. why isnt he more intent on using that shot at the end of close games?
Duncan isnt that good, yet.

[scubilete]

I welcome myself back,

I know many hate to see this name (scubilete) around but I don't care.

I'm not going to argue about Duncan being great or better than Malone at the moment cause Malone had his time. In fact, at the time Malone was considered the best PF, he was better than what Duncan is right now.

I just want to see if people would examine my point of view:

Championships? they are accomplished by great teamwork so trying to mention or diminish Malone's accomplishments with the no championship remark it's not part of being great or better. True, Ewing never got a ring, but that didn't make Robert Parish better than him and Parish is one of the greatest as well.

Malone, without being the biggest PF in his era "in size" (something Duncan right now is), managed to become a scoring machine, unstoppable. Block shots? Malone had Mark Eaton in his team so he didn't have to care about being a shot blocker, while Duncan came in the league with a huge body for PF which helps his blocking abilities and a rehabilitated David Robinson, that forced Duncan to become a defensive force to help his team.

Malone's quick hands (steals) show he was in some point better than what we can say Duncan is right now taking the first 6-7 years cause just like blocking shots, steals are part of the defensive stats.

The advantage in scoring favors also Malone while he was facing more guys of his size or bigger, something Duncan "being the biggest PF" is not doing now.

The year Duncan averaged 25.5 (the most in his career) the next guy in his team was David Robinson averaging only (12 ppg), Malone was not shooting all the balls, in his team there were 2 other guys scoring more or near 15 points while he was scoring 29, however Magic & Bird had 2 other guys scoring 20 which explains better why Malone never got that called championship.

I don't consider Duncan is there yet without finishing his career, few years ago Grant Hill was the best SF, for some the best ever, now he's just a junk and will stay in that position cause his career was finished early.

[air gordon]

welcome back, scub. i missed having someone to disagree with that doesn't write in blue

Championships? they are accomplished by great teamwork so trying to mention or diminish Malone's accomplishments with the no championship remark it's not part of being great or better.

even if bball is a team sport, it's one of the few team sports where an individual can take over a game singlehandedly be the difference maker. it's a common belief that the greatest ones are able to do this in the big games.

i still think players are measured in this order: championships, mvp's, all star selections. i agree not having a championship shouldn't diminish malone's career and accomplishments, but he doesn't belong in the upper echelon of nba's all time greatest without it.

True, Ewing never got a ring, but that didn't make Robert Parish better than him and Parish is one of the greatest as well.

is parish really one of the greatest centers in the history of the nba?

Malone was not shooting all the balls, in his team there were 2 other guys scoring more or near 15 points while he was scoring 29, however Magic & Bird had 2 other guys scoring 20 which explains better why Malone never got that called championship

duncan last year won a championship with a roster less talented then the ones malone played with in 94, 95, 97, 98

I don't consider Duncan is there yet without finishing his career, few years ago Grant Hill was the best SF, for some the best ever, now he's just a junk and will stay in that position cause his career was finished early.

agreed

[Matthew]

even if bball is a team sport, it's one of the few team sports where an individual can take over a game singlehandedly be the difference maker. it's a common belief that the greatest ones are able to do this in the big games.

But with the exception of MJ, I can't think of one guy who could truely control the game in the nba finals by taking over. Hakeem is close, but he never took over like mike did. Thats one of the reasons i view mj as the greatest of all time, but thats a different topic for later on.

i still think players are measured in this order: championships, mvp's, all star selections. i agree not having a championship shouldn't diminish malone's career and accomplishments, but he doesn't belong in the upper echelon of nba's all time greatest without it.

Championships do mean something, i agree. Especially when we compare players who are of equal value to their team. However, who they went up against is just as important. Malone and the Jazz ran into the best team in nba history, 2 years in a row. The spurs won when the league was in a massive transition in 99 (maybe the biggest in nba history, considering the lockout and the bulls breaking up) and last season, they ran into trouble against pheonix, and struggled against a laker team who was in terrible form (look at horry's shooting in that post season), a mavs team depleted by injuries and a nets team that almost took them to the brink, even though they were probably the worst team to make the finals since.. well a long time. If the 97 or 98 jazz was to be in either circumstance, i think they wouldve been nba champions.

is parish really one of the greatest centers in the history of the nba?

Thats scub's point i think. Robert Parish has won 4 rings, Ewing none. That doesnt make The chief better than patrick. Same with this scenario. Duncan has 2 rings, malone zero. That also doesnt make timmy automaticlly better.
I think this debate will be one for the ages if 2 things happen. Tim Duncan continues to produce at his rate for the next 5 to 6 years, and malone plays the till the end of next season, picks up the scoring record and one or two rings with the lakers. Then, who would be the best? I'd say a dead heat, with maybe a slight edge to malone still for having the scoring record, which means alot.

duncan last year won a championship with a roster less talented then the ones malone played with in 94, 95, 97, 98

I dont know how "less talented" duncans cast is. Stocktons greatness (like malones) has been measured through consistancy. An arguement can be made that he was never a top 10 player in the league. Hornicek was steve kerr upgraded, and got great looks becuase of the openings in the defense becuase of the attention malone drew, but he could also create his shot up until a point. ginnobili plays better defense tho. Stephen Jackson.. i would take him over Byron Russel. Tony parker wasnt on stocktons level, so i'll settle for that. And even the ghost of David Robinson would be more intimidating than greg foster or ostertag. There might be a slight advantage to the jazz becuase of stockton.. but once again, i think the league was a lot tougher in 97 and 98 than in 99 or 2003, mainly becuase of the bulls.

[air gordon]

you bring up some good points. although...

i think zeke, magic, and bird you can add to the list of players able to take over games

i don't agree with this idea of you have to take into account who they played. the jazz had their best chances in 94 & 95 (baseball jordan years) and 97 & 98. 98 especially when they had home court, they were well rested, and the bulls were weary after a killer 7 game series with unemotional bird & his pacers. the jazz had their opportunities and didn't come through. simple as that... the rockets and sixers were still able to muster a championship playing in the laker/celtic dynasty of the 80's

the jazz biggest strength was they were a cohesive unit, well disciplined. that gives them a sizeable advantage over a rebuilding spurs team that had a erratic pg in parker (who in the finals saw claxton taking his minutes away), an enigma in stephen jackson, a rookie in ginobili trying to find his place with the team, and the admiral with his foot and back out the door.

[Robby]

the rockets and sixers were still able to muster a championship playing in the laker/celtic dynasty of the 80's

Houston never won an NBA championship in the 1980's. Please try to chack your facts before you make baseless claims. It's kind of hard for me to take you seriously now.

[air gordon]

hehe i had this feeling you were waiting for a slipup on my part since i made my malone choking comments....

my mistake. i remember the play by play on the sampson shot against the lakers. it was pretty late at nite when i made the post hehe. but yeh- my mistake, thanks for pointing that out

[Robby]

hehe i had this feeling you were waiting for a slipup on my part since i made my malone choking comments....

A mistake is a mistake, no matter what the subject is.

[EGarrett]

The argument that Jordan hid Malone's greatness is pretty moot...because there were two years when Jordan and the Bulls were not a factor while Malone was still around his prime and the Jazz STILL didn't win.

I also don't understand the people saying that Malone should be considered better because Duncan is 7' and Malone is 6'9". It's not the pound for pound greatest...height is another advantage that Duncan has.

[scubilete]

I also don't understand the people saying that Malone should be considered better because Duncan is 7' and Malone is 6'9".

It's not the size that makes me consider Malone better, it's the fact that Malone being smaller managed to be just as dominant or better than Duncan is. When you have a shorter guy doing just as good as the big guy, both are good but the shorter one gets more merits cause he doesn't have the size advantage and he does just as much as the big one is doing. In the case of Malone, past tense.

[Amphatoast]

simple as that... the rockets and sixers were still able to muster a championship playing in the laker/celtic dynasty of the 80's

don't mean to be picky, but only the sixers were able to get a title in the 80s with the pistons taking over in '89
the rockets won in the years jordan went to play baseball

[scubilete]

I think a point was made already on who had and had not won during the Bird-Magic era.

[Matthew]

The argument that Jordan hid Malone's greatness is pretty moot...because there were two years when Jordan and the Bulls were not a factor while Malone was still around his prime and the Jazz STILL didn't win

No.. you missed my point. I was saying that becuase the jazz had to play a much tougher opponent in the finals that he shouldnt be critisised for not producing. Other people had brought up that Malone choked in the finals, and Duncan didn't. Thats why I was comparing and showing the difference in levels of the teams played.
Malone was virtually in his prime for around 15 seasons, thats how consistant he was. Both times in 94 and 95 the jazz were eliminated by the evntual champions. So, if this takes anything away from malone, it should also be taken away from duncan that he lost in 2001 and 2002 (in a sweep and 4-1) to the eventuall champions..
There wasnt much more Malone couldve done, yet for some reason, alot more was expected

[magius]

its true duncan lost in 2001 and 2002, BUT he won in 2000 and 2003. the same can not be said for malone -- malone lost in 97 and 98, but nothing. in my honest opinion this is no contest, duncan has two rings, malone has none -- it doesnt matter how they got it, they got it, we can argue all night long and say malone had to go against the bulls, but it wont solve anything because basically we just dont know what would happen if something else had happened-- maybe the twin towers or lakers couldve upended the bulls if they had been around, who really knows? maybe the current day sacramento kings wouldve won some championships if the lakers hadnt been around. maybe some kid michael jordan used to play with in grade school wouldve become greater than mj if mj hadnt teased him when he was 6 thus discouraging him from pursuing basketball. the fact is you get what you're given, and everything else is basically an excuse.

last year, the phoenix suns lost to the eventual champions -- does that mean they wouldve won the championship if they hadnt?

what it comes down to is what we do know -- what we do know is that utah, malone, and stockton had their chances and didnt capitalize. i personally will always remember utah as the team that excels in the regular season and stumbles in the playoffs. in 89, malone had the dpoy in eaton and one of the best point guards in nba history and the jazz were supposed to challenge the lakers, but lost to golden state! mullin and ritchmond were good, but malone and stockton are supposedly supposed to be better. in 90 they lost to kj and chambers. in 91 and 92 to portland, 93 to seatle, 94 nad 95 to houston, 96 to seattle, and then in 97 and 98 finally made their finals apperances and lost anyway, in 99 malone was mvp and lost to sac town.

the jazz were only directly diverted from championships by the bulls twice -- in 97 and 98.... the rest of the time they didnt even make it past the conference finals.

as for harder competition -- well, in my opinion the grass always looks greener from the other side of the field. the same argument couldve been used to detract from any number of championship teams -- what if jordan had had to go up agains the laker-celtic dynasty in their prime? what if wilt and bill russell had current day nba-sized big men to compete with? what if magic hadnt retired?

i respect malone, but when comparing him to duncan all i have to base it on is what i do know and what i dont know. i cant raise a championless malone over duncan on the basis of what ifs.

[GloveGuy]

but when comparing him to duncan all i have to base it on is what i do know and what i dont know. i cant raise a championless malone over duncan on the basis of what ifs.

That's why it all comes down to opinion. If you're not basing it on the what if's, then you're not really putting any thinking through.

We never saw Malone in his prime face Duncan in his prime, but we can say what we think would have happend had they done so. That's why this is all opinions, because it can't be proved.

[magius]

i understand what you're saying, but you have to base arguments on facts. malone maybe winning if malone had maybe not played the bulls or if maybe spencer wanst injured then maybe the jazz would have maybe beat the rockets is what i mean by what ifs. if you're basing it on what ifs then basically you're just dreaming up alternate realities.

maybe its just a difference of our opinions, but when determining whether something is better than another i base it on what has happened, not what might have happened.

again, like i said, i understand where you're coming from, duncan didnt play malone in his prime. i personally am not going to try and imagine what wouldve happened if they had played each other in their prime because thats just basically a waste of time. the point im trying to make is what they did in their prime is more important and is what determines to me how great or greater they are, not who they played or what they mightve done if they had or hadnt.

[ManuGinobili!!!]

As far as the championships go, Duncan didn't have to go through Magic's Lakers, Clyde's Blazers, Hakeem's Rockets, and MJ's Bulls.

No, they had to go through Shaq and Kobe's Lakers, and in 99 a very tough Portland team. When did Karl Malone ever go through Magic's Lakers? I don't remember Malone ever putting them past LA.

Last year, the Spurs got lucky against the Suns because of Marbury's injury, beating the Lakers was easier because of Shaq's complacency, the Mavs were without their best player and pushed San Antonio to 6 games, and Kings never even got a chance to go against San Antonio. As for 99, they never would have won had Patrick Ewing been able to play in the Finals.

Marbury WAS NOT INJURED during the playoff series last year. in fact, the series never even would've went 6 games if he hadn't hit a desperation shot from behind halfcourt in game 1. to his credit he made it, but everyone knows that was a lucky shot.

before the spurs beat the lakers last year, all i heard about was how no team would ever beat shaq and kobe bean in a playoff series. not only did the spurs beat them, but tim duncan had 37 POINTS AND 16 REBOUNDS IN THE FINAL GAME, with most of them coming as duncan schooled shaq in the post. if you don't believe me, i have a the entire broadcast of the game at home on DVD, and would be happy to send you a copy.

the mavs pushed the spurs to 6 games, but the spurs dominated the first 3 games they played when DIRK was playing. they only lost game 1 b/c of crappy free throw shooting down the stretch. it wasn't like the spurs wouldn't have won if dirk had been in there.

in 99, don't forget that the Knicks were only a #8 seed WITH patrick ewing. the knicks had a nice run in the playoffs, but you can't say they would've beaten the spurs. the spurs won that series 4-1, if ewing was there, it might have been 4-2.

i respect karl malone's game and i would put him behind duncan as the #2 PF of all time, but i don't agree with belittling the spurs' accomplishments to make your case. any way you slice it duncan is up on malone in titles 2-0. and if the lakers win this year, malone will get his ring riding shaq and kobe's jock, not taking his own team to the title.

[DipSetVC]

Great points Manu, your going to have alot of those Laker fans crying.

[Ben-le-ouf]

It's really hard to say who's the best PF between K. Malone and Duncan.
I think we should give more credit to Duncan, because he has won 2 rings, was named Season MVP and Finals MVP each twice.

I was just taking a look in nba.com at the power forwards who made history. I saw among others the name of Elvin Hayes. He won one NBA championship title, scored 21.5 points and 12.5 rebounds during his career, was named All-Star MVP 12 times.
Is there someone 'old' enough to have seen this guy playing and to say if he deserves as much consideration as duncan and Malone ??

http://www.nba.com/history/players/hayes_bio.html

[Robby]

I don't want to write too much about this but here's a little something for the folks who keep bringing up the championships:

After Dean Smith won his first national championship, Roy Williams his assistant at the time, said, "Now you can get 'em off your back about not winning a championship." Coach Smith replied, "I'm no better coach now than I was five minutes ago."

Get it?

[magius]

the point is malone cant say that because he hasnt won, meaning if malone has been the same player he's always been (which i do admit is great, but not the greatest) then he's never been good enough to win a championship-- while duncan has. it works both ways. ask any player in any sport and all it comes down to and should come down to is winning, the rest is filler.

even if the lakers win a championship this season, which i personally am not betting on, i put duncan over malone, because while malone will (if they win) have been a very important part of the championship he wont have been the most important part and i doubt will ever be (as he is nearing the end of his career), while duncan has already been that twice (as seen through playoff mvps)

[Steve04]

I'd just like to step in and agree with Manu..

You're saying we shouldn't count Duncans championship ring because he beat the Lakers with a complacant Shaq? That's silly..Especially since Shaq was out of shape, not complacant..The Spurs beat the Lakers..They beat them because they played better defense, team ball, and executed better. That's it right there. In fact, as a Laker fan, nothing dissapointed me more or made me realise how legit the Spurs were than the Lakers quitting in Game 6..They quit..and they quit because they realised they probably weren't going to win. Even though if they had won the Spurs probably would've choked in Game 7. The Spurs didn't choke in game 6 however, and they out hustled, outplayed and out executed the Lakers to win in game 6. So dissapointing how the Lakers gave up in that game...

And that game is a perfect example of killer instinct. That was the first time I'd seen the Spurs actually step on their opponents neck while they had them pinned instead of letting them up again. The Spurs 2003 Championship was legit and anyone who say's otherwise is fooling themselves. I can come up with an excuse for every team who's one a championship as to why they won it. But I won't, because it's not about what somebody who could've beat them didn't do. It's about what they did to beat whoever was in their way.