Tim Duncan

[Conrad]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Would he be considered the best NBA player of all-time if he played in a city with a big media center instead of San Antonio and wasn't a boring person with a boring defensive oriented game?

The Spurs have been like a top 5 caliber NBA team ever since he got there in 1997 and isn't he basically the only common denominator with the players on that team?

The Bulls went 55-27 during the season without Jordan.

I don't really watch basketball ever -- just wondering if Duncan doesn't get his due because he plays in a small market, with a defensive style, and a drama-less personality.

Although the chances look grim at this point, a fifth title would have cemented Duncan's place alongside Kobe as the greatest players post-Jordan.
Shaq too.
IMO he is the greatest #4 ever...The Big Fundamental

[Cannon Shell]

I dont understand how winning or losing a title has any bearing on a players historical standing especially toward the end when a guy is clearly diminished like Duncan is. It just makes no sense.

So basically if Parker had continued to play unreal and SA had won the title somehow Duncan is looked at as a better player?

And Duncan is a 5 and has been for at least the last 10 years. Perhaps we can use some revisionist history and make Hakeem a PF as well since he played with Sampson as part of the Twin towers?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont understand how winning or losing a title has any bearing on a players historical standing especially toward the end when a guy is clearly diminished like Duncan is. It just makes no sense.

So basically if Parker had continued to play unreal and SA had won the title somehow Duncan is looked at as a better player?

And Duncan is a 5 and has been for at least the last 10 years. Perhaps we can use some revisionist history and make Hakeem a PF as well since he played with Sampson as part of the Twin towers?

All the positions are clouded now anyway, so what difference does it make?