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

[Professor Emeritus]

Shaq always underperformed vs SA...Kobe was always the Lakers best player in those series

Kobe beat the Spurs in 5 without Shaq

Kobe killed the Spurs, not Shaq

lol, these are the clear words of someone who has no clue what's going on on the basketball court.

Popovich said himself that there was a talent imbalance with those early 2000s Spurs teams, and he knew he couldn't beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers straight up. So his strategy was to defend Shaq as well as possible with Robinson and Duncan both, leave Kobe tempted on single coverage, and hope Kobe shot them out of the series. Kobe had that shyt on easy mode and he STILL didn't outperform Shaq any of those years except 2001.


1999: Duncan 29-11-3 on 51% shooting, Shaq 24-13-1 on 49% shooting, Kobe 21-7-4 on 45% shooting. The closest they came to having even rosters, and Duncan destroyed Shaq-Kobe.

2001: Kobe 33-7-7 on 51% shooting, Shaq 27-13-3 on 54% shooting, Duncan 23-12-4 on 48% shooting. This is the only year that Kobe had the best performance, and it was against single coverage from Antonio Daniels in an easy-ass blowout sweep against a sorry Spurs team whose #2 and #3 players were hurt and everyone else aged out.

2002: Duncan 29-17-5 on 43% shooting, Kobe 26-5-5 on 45% shooting, Shaq 21-12-3 on 45% shooting. Duncan easily had the best performance, but Spurs had an awful roster. 19yo Tony Parker averaging 13ppg on 40% shooting was the only other Spur in double figures, and they still played the Lakers tight with 4/5 games being within 6 points.

2003: Duncan 28-12-5 on 53% shooting, Kobe 32-5-4 on 43% shooting, shaq 25-14-4 on 56% shooting. Spurs had a weak lineup still, but Pop's strategy of having Kobe shoot them out of the series worked like a charm.

2004: Shaq 23-15-2 on 64% shooting, Kobe 26-6-6 on 46% shooting, Duncan 21-12-3 on 47% shooting. Duncan was nursing an injury this series, but Shaq was still clearly the best performer on the court, not Kobe.



The claim that Kobe destroyed Duncan in every matchup is a complete myth made up by people who have no idea what they're watching. Kobe had the easiest task each year, was always given single coverage by Popovich, and STILL shot a bad percentage every year except 2001 despite having a monster like Shaq shooting a higher % against better defenders inside. Ya'all think volume shooting somehow equates to a better performance, as if missed shots and being a non-factor on defense mean nothing.

 

[Theflash]

Kobe gold medal
Duncan bronze

 

[Sccit]

A FORUM FULLA TRY HARD CASUALS WHO WHO WOULD GET LAUGHED OUTA DISCUSSIONS WIT REAL BASKETBALL HEADS

 

[KidJSoul]

Superteam argument doesn't hold weight when Duncan has rings where he was arguably not even his team's second (or maybe even third) best player.

He won a ring averaging 15/10 on 60 TS% in the finals while Bron has a finals loss averaging 33/12/10 on 63 TS%. You're telling me he was more integral to winning a championship that season than Bron was in most of his 6 finals losses?

Which would you rather have though:

A dude who might not play great in a finals, but who is easier to build a team to make the finals with?

Or a dude who is more dominant but who is tricky to build with and thus whose teams are forced to rely on him?

basically: I dont know if LeBron could have a have a team like the 2014 Spurs around him. Maybe he could, if he shoots really well for a season but I don't know.

 

[Sccit]

lol, these are the clear words of someone who has no clue what's going on on the basketball court.

Popovich said himself that there was a talent imbalance with those early 2000s Spurs teams, and he knew he couldn't beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers straight up. So his strategy was to defend Shaq as well as possible with Robinson and Duncan both, leave Kobe tempted on single coverage, and hope Kobe shot them out of the series. Kobe had that shyt on easy mode and he STILL didn't outperform Shaq any of those years except 2001.


1999: Duncan 29-11-3 on 51% shooting, Shaq 24-13-1 on 49% shooting, Kobe 21-7-4 on 45% shooting. The closest they came to having even rosters, and Duncan destroyed Shaq-Kobe.

2001: Kobe 33-7-7 on 51% shooting, Shaq 27-13-3 on 54% shooting, Duncan 23-12-4 on 48% shooting. This is the only year that Kobe had the best performance, and it was against single coverage from Antonio Daniels in an easy-ass blowout sweep against a sorry Spurs team whose #2 and #3 players were hurt and everyone else aged out.

2002: Duncan 29-17-5 on 43% shooting, Kobe 26-5-5 on 45% shooting, Shaq 21-12-3 on 45% shooting. Duncan easily had the best performance, but Spurs had an awful roster. 19yo Tony Parker averaging 13ppg on 40% shooting was the only other Spur in double figures, and they still played the Lakers tight with 4/5 games being within 6 points.

2003: Duncan 28-12-5 on 53% shooting, Kobe 32-5-4 on 43% shooting, shaq 25-14-4 on 56% shooting. Spurs had a weak lineup still, but Pop's strategy of having Kobe shoot them out of the series worked like a charm.

2004: Shaq 23-15-2 on 64% shooting, Kobe 26-6-6 on 46% shooting, Duncan 21-12-3 on 47% shooting. Duncan was nursing an injury this series, but Shaq was still clearly the best performer on the court, not Kobe.



The claim that Kobe destroyed Duncan in every matchup is a complete myth made up by people who have no idea what they're watching. Kobe had the easiest task each year, was always given single coverage by Popovich, and STILL shot a bad percentage every year except 2001 despite having a monster like Shaq shooting a higher % against better defenders inside. Ya'all think volume shooting somehow equates to a better performance, as if missed shots and being a non-factor on defense mean nothing.

THIS IS EMBARRASSING

SINCE U LOVE NUMBERS

IN 2002:

KOBE = 26-5-5
SHAQ = 22-12-3

IN 2004:

KOBE = 26-6-6
SHAQ = 22-14-2



CLAIMING KOBE ONLY LED THE LAKERS IN 2001 IS JUST ANOTHER NOTCH ON YOUR “I HATE KOBE WIT A PASSION BECAUSE LEBRON IS MY FANTASY” BELT

 

[Sccit]

lol, these are the clear words of someone who has no clue what's going on on the basketball court.

Popovich said himself that there was a talent imbalance with those early 2000s Spurs teams, and he knew he couldn't beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers straight up. So his strategy was to defend Shaq as well as possible with Robinson and Duncan both, leave Kobe tempted on single coverage, and hope Kobe shot them out of the series. Kobe had that shyt on easy mode and he STILL didn't outperform Shaq any of those years except 2001.


1999: Duncan 29-11-3 on 51% shooting, Shaq 24-13-1 on 49% shooting, Kobe 21-7-4 on 45% shooting. The closest they came to having even rosters, and Duncan destroyed Shaq-Kobe.

2001: Kobe 33-7-7 on 51% shooting, Shaq 27-13-3 on 54% shooting, Duncan 23-12-4 on 48% shooting. This is the only year that Kobe had the best performance, and it was against single coverage from Antonio Daniels in an easy-ass blowout sweep against a sorry Spurs team whose #2 and #3 players were hurt and everyone else aged out.

2002: Duncan 29-17-5 on 43% shooting, Kobe 26-5-5 on 45% shooting, Shaq 21-12-3 on 45% shooting. Duncan easily had the best performance, but Spurs had an awful roster. 19yo Tony Parker averaging 13ppg on 40% shooting was the only other Spur in double figures, and they still played the Lakers tight with 4/5 games being within 6 points.

2003: Duncan 28-12-5 on 53% shooting, Kobe 32-5-4 on 43% shooting, shaq 25-14-4 on 56% shooting. Spurs had a weak lineup still, but Pop's strategy of having Kobe shoot them out of the series worked like a charm.

2004: Shaq 23-15-2 on 64% shooting, Kobe 26-6-6 on 46% shooting, Duncan 21-12-3 on 47% shooting. Duncan was nursing an injury this series, but Shaq was still clearly the best performer on the court, not Kobe.



The claim that Kobe destroyed Duncan in every matchup is a complete myth made up by people who have no idea what they're watching. Kobe had the easiest task each year, was always given single coverage by Popovich, and STILL shot a bad percentage every year except 2001 despite having a monster like Shaq shooting a higher % against better defenders inside. Ya'all think volume shooting somehow equates to a better performance, as if missed shots and being a non-factor on defense mean nothing.

EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO HOW THIS GUY SKEWS NUMBERS TO FIT HIS AGENDA ON SOME SOCIOPATHIC MANIPULATION SHIIT

IN 2002 SHAQS PERCENTAGE ROUNDS UP TO 45% AND KOBES ROUNDS UP TO 46%

IN ESSENCE, KOBE, A SHOOTING GUARD, SHOT THE BALL BETTER THAN SHAQ, A CENTER

BUT THAT DOESNT FIT IN WIT HIS NARRATIVE, SO HE LISTS THEM BOTH AT 45% FROM THE FIELD TO MAKE IT APPEAR EVEN LMAO

TYPICAL DANKSTER SHIIT

 

[Professor Emeritus]

EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO HOW THIS GUY SKEWS NUMBERS TO FIT HIS AGENDA ON SOME SOCIOPATHIC MANIPULATION SHIIT

IN 2002 SHAQS PERCENTAGE ROUNDS UP TO 45% AND KOBES ROUNDS UP TO 46%

IN ESSENCE, KOBE, A SHOOTING GUARD, SHOT THE BALL BETTER THAN SHAQ, A CENTER

BUT THAT DOESNT FIT IN WIT HIS NARRATIVE, SO HE LISTS THEM BOTH AT 45% FROM THE FIELD TO MAKE IT APPEAR EVEN LMAO

You abbreviate a .5 down all the time yourself, dumbass, you just did it right now in your follow-up comment right after that one.


And neither of their %'s in 2002 was relevant to my point that year because Duncan outplayed both of them.

Notice how the ACTUAL point was that Duncan was the best player on the court the majority of the time he faced the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, and Kobe only had the best series once (and that when he was single-covered by scrub-ass Antonio Daniels while Duncan-Robinson-Shaq battled inside), but you can't counter Duncan's dominance in their matchups at all.

IN 2004:

KOBE = 26-6-6
SHAQ = 22-14-2

Shaq averaged 22.5 ppg in 2004. Did you just abbreviate that down to 22, the EXACT thing you had thrown a huge fit at me when I did it?


So according to you, you just did some "SOCIOPATHIC MANIPULATION SHIIT".

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Which would you rather have though:

A dude who might not play great in a finals, but who is easier to build a team to make the finals with?

Or a dude who is more dominant but who is tricky to build with and thus whose teams are forced to rely on him?

basically: I dont know if LeBron could have a have a team like the 2014 Spurs around him.

That's nonsense. Put the 2014 Spurs around LeBron and they would dominate. TP shot 42% from 3pt, Patty shot 57% from 3pt, Green shot 45% from 3pt, Manu shot 42% from 3pt, Kawhi shot 58% from 3pt, even Diaw and Belinelli were hitting threes. Bron has NEVER had a lineup around him that could shoot the lights out like that.

That squad would decimate the league. Honestly, they wouldn't even need Kawhi - with shooters like that, you could exchange Duncan AND Kawhi for LeBron and they would still win the title with TP/Patty at the point, Green/Manu at the 2, Belinelli/Manu at the 3, Bron/Diaw at the 4, and Splittler/Diaw at the 5.

Maybe he could, if he shoots really well for a season but I don't know.

You mean if he shoots 38% from 3pt like he did that very season, or 41% from 3pt like he did the year before, or 52% from 3pt like he did in that Finals?

Saying "if" he shoots really well for a season when he was shooting fantastic those years was just silly. And on top of that, why would he even need to shoot 3s like that when he has shooters like TP, Patty, Green, Manu, Kawhi, Diaw, and Belinelli to pass to? Did that team need Duncan to shoot well in order to thrive? Hell, they were playing Duncan/Splitter together at times and still running teams off the court.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

A FORUM FULLA TRY HARD CASUALS WHO WHO WOULD GET LAUGHED OUTA DISCUSSIONS WIT REAL BASKETBALL HEADS

You aren't a "real basketball head". Remember, your entire argument for being a "real basketball head" was claiming that you played with Farmer on Taft's 2004 title team, and I caught you lying about that and proved you were never even on the varsity roster at all while he was there.

 

[Sccit]

You aren't a "real basketball head". Remember, your entire argument for being a "real basketball head" was claiming that you played with Farmer on Taft's 2004 title team, and I caught you lying about that and proved you were never even on the varsity roster at all while he was there.

MORE SOCIOPATH MANIPULATIONS

PROVE ME WRONG AND ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE

1-ON-1 FOR $1,000 - WINNER TAKES ALL

WE BOTH LA BASED.. OFFER STILL STANDS

 

[FlyBoy718]

He was top 5 from 2000 to 2007. Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan were damn near equals. KG was certainly more skilled but Duncan was the better post player.

At no point was Kevin Garnett ever Timmy's equal lol. I say that as a fan of KG too. It got to the point where KG was pulling sucka shyt like mushing him from behind because Timmy had him in his feelings. Best defender of the rim I've persoanlly wintessed. Only dude to really give Bean a run as best player of that particular era.

 

[GreatestLaker]

At no point was Kevin Garnett ever Timmy's equal lol.

Yea you're a casual.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

MORE SOCIOPATH MANIPULATIONS

The last time you called me a "sociopath", I gave reciepts of you doing the exact behavior you had called "sociopathic" in your very next comment.

PROVE ME WRONG AND ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE

1-ON-1 FOR $1,000 - WINNER TAKES ALL

WE BOTH LA BASED.. OFFER STILL STANDS

We've agreed on a ban bet before, you lost, and you still haven't honored it. Why should I believe you'd honor any other bet?

Not to mention that I'm never going to agree to anything that forces me to waste an afternoon in your presence.

And how exactly would this prove you had basketball expertise? We already caught you lying about playing on Taft's title team. You won't even admit to that despite me posting the receipts on here for everyone to see. You not going to admit to anything after anything else either.


Why do you continue to post as if anyone here is going to think you're a rational person?

 

[Sccit]

The last time you called me a "sociopath", I gave reciepts of you doing the exact behavior you had called "sociopathic" in your very next comment.








We've agreed on a ban bet before, you lost, and you still haven't honored it. Why should I believe you'd honor any other bet?

Not to mention that I'm never going to agree to anything that forces me to waste an afternoon in your presence.

And how exactly would this prove you had basketball expertise? We already caught you lying about playing on Taft's title team. You won't even admit to that despite me posting the receipts on here for everyone to see. You not going to admit to anything after anything else either.


Why do you continue to post as if anyone here is going to think you're a rational person?

SURE THING SOCIOPATH


BRING A MIDDLE MAN

WELL GIVE HIM THE MONEY UPFRONT TO DISTRIBUTE TO THE WINNER


IF U SCARED SAY U SCARED

 

[duckbutta]

People in here arguing head to head matchups over damn near 20 years between 2 players who didn't play the same positions is

When Timmy was anchoring a championship defense in 2014 Kobe was winning 20 something games freezing out Kent Bazemore and Jordan Farmar so he could shoot 6 for 25