How good was prime Tim Duncan? At his peak was he the best player of the 2000s?

[Remote]

Why does no one give much weight to the playoff matchups...they met 5x in the decade, Kobe was the Lakers best player all 5x in the series

Duncan was not consistently dominant for the entire decade nor was he consistently dominant the first half of the decade...he was streaky, specifically in 03 & 05...those 2 yrs don't make him the best player of the decade

I watched Kobe take Duncan's soul too many times in games that mattered for me to believe Duncan was better than him

You might be clinically retarded.
Do you even understand the concept of the individual vs the team?

Clearly a rhetorical question. You don't.

 

[Silkk]

Top tier great player



Fuccking hated that bytch

 

[Controversy]

You might be clinically retarded.
Do you even understand the concept of the individual vs the team?

Clearly a rhetorical question. You don't.

I'm clinically retarded but I'm an ivy league dean...make it make sense

The Spurs were better at every position except C & SG...and they neutralized Shaq in those matchups

I hear nonstop how Duncan was the ultimate winner, the consummate leader...he got off on everyone and every team EXCEPT for Kobe & the Lakeshow

Kobe would hit shots that took the fight out of Tim, I know bc I watched it live on tv every single time lol

Tim was a great player tho, top 3 player of the 2000s

 

[murksiderock]

imho opinion nobody peaked harder than 05-06 Kobe during the 2000's.

Dude scored 81 points.

Players today are haven't scored 81 points. Only one player has averaged over 35 PPG from that time and did so with help from the refs.

Say what you want, but dude's overall skill level was absolutely insane.

There's so much more that goes into being a great player than how many points you score. Come on bro...

The '08 and '09 versions were better versions of Kobe than '06, his basketball intelligence matched his gifts at a crescendo. Those versions of Kobe don't blow a 3-1 playoff lead, and any player that can blow a 3-1 series lead, there's something missing in his basketball intelligence and probably his game too. Word to '20 Kawhi, '16 Steph, '16 Durant. '06 Kobe isn't an exclusion here...

Skill is only part of the pie...

 

[Controversy]

Bruh Duncan was flat out better in the beginning of the decade, carrying inferior Spurs teams to series vs those Lakers and still holding his own. Kobe not getting no points for eating as a #2 when Duncan had no Kobe to match and his teams weren't as deep as the Lakers...

By the time Kobe won those later series he arguably was a better player than Duncan...

They are the co-players of the decade. Kobe didn't dominate enough to be above Duncan, same way you say Duncan didn't run the whole decade, neither did Kobe...

Kobe was a top 10 player the ENTIRE decade, Timmy was not

Kobe was no question the best player from 06-10

Shaq was the best player 00-02...Tim was the best player in 03 & 05...KG was the best player in 04

From 2001-2010...Kobe was no lower than a top 3 player in the league

Dominating is scoring 40+ in 9 straight games...dominating is scoring 50+ in 4 straight games...dominating is hitting 12 threes in a game where teams are struggling to crack 85...dominating is blocking AI's shot 4x in one half...dominating is scoring 81 in one game...dominating is redeeming USA basketball after Duncan won a bronze...dominating is following up a 48 & 16 playoff game (against Sac) with a 45 & 10 playoff game against you guessed it, the Spurs

 

[Remote]

I'm clinically retarded but I'm an ivy league dean...make it make sense

The Spurs were better at every position except C & SG...and they neutralized Shaq in those matchups

I hear nonstop how Duncan was the ultimate winner, the consummate leader...he got off on everyone and every team EXCEPT for Kobe & the Lakeshow

Kobe would hit shots that took the fight out of Tim, I know bc I watched it live on tv every single time lol

Tim was a great player tho, top 3 player of the 2000s

Congrats on being a dean.

I'll walk back my comment. Because I was wrong. You actually DO understand the difference between the individual and the team.
Because Kobe stans like you routinely lament that a player like Kobe could be great...but not win games and championships because the talent surrounding him was inferior. We see this all the time when you guys cry about Kobe having to carry subpar teammates until Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol came around.

Yet you somehow selectively don't understand the difference between individual and team when it applies elsewhere.

So it turns out you're not retarded -- just disingenuous and phony.

 

[Controversy]

Congrats on being a dean.

I'll walk back my comment. Because I was wrong. You actually DO understand the difference between the individual and the team.
Because Kobe stans like you routinely lament that a player like Kobe could be great...but not win games and championships because the talent surrounding him was inferior. We see this all the time when you guys cry about Kobe having to carry subpar teammates until Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol came around.

Yet you somehow selectively don't understand the difference between individual and team when it applies elsewhere.

So it turns out you're not retarded -- just disingenuous and phony.

The insults are unnecessary...but if you want to continue down that path, it's wtvr

Timmy was a great player but he wasn't better than Kobe

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That cast was not weak for 2003. All the contenders out west was dealing with injuries to their superstars. Both Dirk and Webber went out in the playoffs that year.

Spurs were already up 2-1 on the Mavs before Dirk went out. Dirk had 28yo Nash, 29yo Finley, 31yo Van Exel, 26yo LaFrentz, 26yo Bell, 26yo Najera, and 32yo Walt Williams. That is a better supporting cast than 20yo TP shooting 40%, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and rookie Manu shooting 40%.

Shaq had 24yo Kobe as his #2 instead of 20yo Tony Parker. The rest of that cast (prime Fisher, prime Horry, Devean George, Medvedenko, and Shaw) was good enough that the Lakers preseason odds were +140 compared to +400 for the Spurs, despite Duncan having won MVP the previous year.


For the playoffs, Duncan averaged 25-15-5 and 3 blocks a game on 53% shooting. He led the team in all four of those categories (points, rebounds, assists, and blocks) with no one else even close. 10 more ppg than anyone else, 9 more rpg than anyone else, 2 more apg and 2 more bpg than anyone else.

Against the Mavs, 28-16-6 and 3 blocks/game on 57% shooting.
Against the Lakers, 28-12-5 and a block a game on 53% shooting.
Against the Nets, 24-17-5 and 5 blocks/game on 50% shooting.


He had to be the dominant scorer in every series. He had to be the main distributor in every series. He had to be the dominant rebounder in every series. He had to be the dominant defender in every series.

And it's not like he was stat-padding in easy series and blowouts. He HAD to play that well for the Spurs to win in every series.


Sorry, but that's a carry job. Duncan's supporting cast wasn't trash, they were good enough to win a title. I'd say they were comparable to the Nets supporting cast (but less experienced), and Kidd could never win a title with that cast. Duncan could because he straight carried that team on both ends.

 

[murksiderock]

Spurs were already up 2-1 on the Mavs before Dirk went out. Dirk had 28yo Nash, 29yo Finley, 31yo Van Exel, 26yo LaFrentz, 26yo Bell, 26yo Najera, and 32yo Walt Williams. That is a better supporting cast than 20yo TP shooting 40%, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and rookie Manu shooting 40%.

Shaq had 24yo Kobe as his #2 instead of 20yo Tony Parker. The rest of that cast (prime Fisher, prime Horry, Devean George, Medvedenko, and Shaw) was good enough that the Lakers preseason odds were +140 compared to +400 for the Spurs, despite Duncan having won MVP the previous year.


For the playoffs, Duncan averaged 25-15-5 and 3 blocks a game on 53% shooting. He led the team in all four of those categories (points, rebounds, assists, and blocks) with no one else even close. 10 more ppg than anyone else, 9 more rpg than anyone else, 2 more apg and 2 more bpg than anyone else.

Against the Mavs, 28-16-6 and 3 blocks/game on 57% shooting.
Against the Lakers, 28-12-5 and a block a game on 53% shooting.
Against the Nets, 24-17-5 and 5 blocks/game on 50% shooting.


He had to be the dominant scorer in every series. He had to be the main distributor in every series. He had to be the dominant rebounder in every series. He had to be the dominant defender in every series.

And it's not like he was stat-padding in easy series and blowouts. He HAD to play that well for the Spurs to win in every series.


Sorry, but that's a carry job. Duncan's supporting cast wasn't trash, they were good enough to win a title. I'd say they were comparable to the Nets supporting cast (but less experienced), and Kidd could never win a title with that cast. Duncan could because he straight carried that team on both ends.

The Lakers won 10 fewer games than San Antonio and were 0-4 vs SA in the regular season. Combined with the playoff series, they started 0-6 vs SA and finished in total 2-8 vs the '03 Spurs. You know how much I respect your basketball intellect...

The '03 Lakers were simply not a better team than the '03 Spurs, regardless of how a side-by-side roster comp looks. You're not a better team than the other team who beats you 8 outta 10 games and had a +10 regular season win advantage on you. Duncan was at his apex in '03 so he could easily dominate series, and yes his '03 squad wasn't as strong as most of his other teams, but he didn't have to "carry" those Spurs, certainly not vs the Lakers. They completely owned the Lakers all season...

In 2003 we were not saying this was a carry job, we were saying they were probably the best team in basketball. LA was clearly falling apart after 3 straight titles all year...

 

[threattonature]

The Lakers won 10 fewer games than San Antonio and were 0-4 vs SA in the regular season. Combined with the playoff series, they started 0-6 vs SA and finished in total 2-8 vs the '03 Spurs. You know how much I respect your basketball intellect...

The '03 Lakers were simply not a better team than the '03 Spurs, regardless of how a side-by-side roster comp looks. You're not a better team than the other team who beats you 8 outta 10 games and had a +10 regular season win advantage on you. Duncan was at his apex in '03 so he could easily dominate series, and yes his '03 squad wasn't as strong as most of his other teams, but he didn't have to "carry" those Spurs, certainly not vs the Lakers. They completely owned the Lakers all season...

In 2003 we were not saying this was a carry job, we were saying they were probably the best team in basketball. LA was clearly falling apart after 3 straight titles all year...

Shaq missed the first two games of that year against the Spurs. They also went 5-10 without Shaq playing that year and really out of shape to start the year once he did start playing. That was the year of the toe surgery before the season start which meant he could do little to no cardio before returning. Those Laker teams were notorious for coasting through the regular season, especially Shaq who always said he was playing himself into shape during the season. That Laker team was much better than you're giving it credit for.

 

[Don Homer]

Duncan is arguably better than Lebron

Lebron been swept by duncan, and lost to duncan by the largest margin in NBA finals history. These were 2 different series btw

 

[Roger king]

Tim duncan within one year in the league was first team all nba he was a dominant force on both ends of the floor and most importantly was the best player on all the championship winning teams for the spurs, its not even remotely close, he was by far the best player of the 2000s. You dont get 8 first team all nba selections from 1998-2005 with first team all defense , while winning rings and leading your team to a championship , the idea that he had any real rivalries or its a debate is ridiculous

 

[Damnshow]

Tim was elite on offense and defense. Unlike majority of today's stars.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The Lakers won 10 fewer games than San Antonio and were 0-4 vs SA in the regular season. Combined with the playoff series, they started 0-6 vs SA and finished in total 2-8 vs the '03 Spurs. You know how much I respect your basketball intellect...

The '03 Lakers were simply not a better team than the '03 Spurs, regardless of how a side-by-side roster comp looks. You're not a better team than the other team who beats you 8 outta 10 games and had a +10 regular season win advantage on you. Duncan was at his apex in '03 so he could easily dominate series, and yes his '03 squad wasn't as strong as most of his other teams, but he didn't have to "carry" those Spurs, certainly not vs the Lakers. They completely owned the Lakers all season...

In 2003 we were not saying this was a carry job, we were saying they were probably the best team in basketball. LA was clearly falling apart after 3 straight titles all year...

But everything you wrote is based on how great Duncan was playing that year. You're talking entirely about team results that they did WITH Duncan. That alone can't tell you how much Duncan was carrying that team.

That roster without Duncan is winning 15-20 games at most. Lakers without Shaq still would have won 25-30 games.

 

[GreatestLaker]

Spurs were already up 2-1 on the Mavs before Dirk went out. Dirk had 28yo Nash, 29yo Finley, 31yo Van Exel, 26yo LaFrentz, 26yo Bell, 26yo Najera, and 32yo Walt Williams. That is a better supporting cast than 20yo TP shooting 40%, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and rookie Manu shooting 40%.

Shaq had 24yo Kobe as his #2 instead of 20yo Tony Parker. The rest of that cast (prime Fisher, prime Horry, Devean George, Medvedenko, and Shaw) was good enough that the Lakers preseason odds were +140 compared to +400 for the Spurs, despite Duncan having won MVP the previous year.


For the playoffs, Duncan averaged 25-15-5 and 3 blocks a game on 53% shooting. He led the team in all four of those categories (points, rebounds, assists, and blocks) with no one else even close. 10 more ppg than anyone else, 9 more rpg than anyone else, 2 more apg and 2 more bpg than anyone else.

Against the Mavs, 28-16-6 and 3 blocks/game on 57% shooting.
Against the Lakers, 28-12-5 and a block a game on 53% shooting.
Against the Nets, 24-17-5 and 5 blocks/game on 50% shooting.


He had to be the dominant scorer in every series. He had to be the main distributor in every series. He had to be the dominant rebounder in every series. He had to be the dominant defender in every series.

And it's not like he was stat-padding in easy series and blowouts. He HAD to play that well for the Spurs to win in every series.


Sorry, but that's a carry job. Duncan's supporting cast wasn't trash, they were good enough to win a title. I'd say they were comparable to the Nets supporting cast (but less experienced), and Kidd could never win a title with that cast. Duncan could because he straight carried that team on both ends.

This is a troll post right? Aint no way in hell you brought up the supporting cast of that 2003 Lakers squad. Horry literally had the worst year of his career in 03 and Fisher was always a deeply flawed player. Then you brought up well known scrubs in Medvedenko and George.

Lakers were the favorites going into the season because they just came off a 3 peat. But anyone who was paying attention knew that team wasnt going anywhere.

You're acting like we've never seen teams come back from down 1-2 before.