quote:

---

And the Mavs were up that entire game so don't act like it was that close.

---

When a series goes to 7 games and goes to overtime in game 7, it is pretty ****ing close.

If Manu gets another two inches on his jump, Spurs three-peat.

quote:

---

Rings aren't the end all be all. Otherwise Emmitt Smith is a better running back than Barry Sanders.

---

That's because Emmitt Smith IS a better running back than Barry Sanders. Better blocker, better power, better vision, better pass catcher, better team leader... Barry had better moves (best of all time probably).

There is a reason the 93/94 Cowboys started 0-2 (no Emmitt) and then went on to win the Super Bowl (Regular Season and Super Bowl MVP - Emmitt Smith).

When we are talking about a sport that has exactly 10 guys on the court at all times, one guy can make all the difference and win it all if he is great. Duncan has proven he is that with Robinson, w/out Robinson, young or old. Dirk is another example... went out and STOLE that championship and got his ring. Greatness. Where you at Malone???

quote:

---

Hakeem's '94 title, Duncan's '03 title and Dirk's '11 title are three of the most impressive title runs in the history of the NBA when you consider their supporting casts. (Dirk's run being #1 of course when you considering everything else.)

---

quote:

---

Parker in 03 or 05 was no where near where he is now. Was a middle of the road PG at that point. Manu in 03 was a rookie and had a small role. Robinson was pretty much done and sticking a needle in his back before every game in 03 as well.

---

This. Everyone gives Tony Parker tons of credit now (which he absolutely deserves) but he wasn't close to that player in 03 or 05. The Spurs were actively trying to trade him at that point because they weren't sure if he'd be good enough to help Duncan later. And Robinson was only averaging around 8 and 8 by 03.

Duncan never got to play with a guy like Kobe or Shaq while in his prime, which is a big key when arguing that Duncan is better than either of those 2. Kobe is 2 for 3 as the team leader in the finals. Shaq was 3/4. Duncan was 4/4 (I know Parker won the last finals MVP, but Duncan led that team and would have been deserving if named MVP)

quote:

---

Hakeem's '94 title, Duncan's '03 title and Dirk's '11 title are three of the most impressive title runs in the history of the NBA when you consider their supporting casts. (Dirk's run being #1 of course when you considering everything else.)

---

Of course

Parker shot 40% for the playoffs in 03 and was repeatedly benched for Speedy Claxton in the 4th Quarter. Robinson averaged like 7 and 6 in the playoffs of 03. Manu was a rookie in 03 and averaged 7.3ppg for the season. In the playoffs in 03, he shot .386.

For the playoffs in 03, Tim Duncan and David Robinson were the only two players that played over 20mpg and shot over 42% from the field. Robinson had a PER of 17.7, Duncan had a PER of 28.4 and no one else on the Spurs that played at least 100 minutes in those 24 games had a PER over 15 (which is supposed to be average.)

That 03 Spurs team was pretty bad and they took out the three-peat Lakers despite Kobe averaging like 33/game.

On the 11 Mavs, all players that played over 20mpg averaged at least 46% shooting except Kidd, who hit over two threes per game throughout the playoffs. The six Mavs with the most minutes in the playoffs all had a PER over 15 including Dirk at 25.2 and Terry at 20.3.

Dirk had much better support in 2011 than Duncan did in 2003 and it really isn't even debatable.

quote:

---

Olajuwon was better at his peak

Duncan has the better overall career

It's close. You really can't be wrong either way.

---

The thread should have ended with this. The rest of the discussion is only emphasizing this point.

Until the tail end of this discussion, I'd forgotten how much Olajuwon carried that 1994 team. It was one of the more impressive championship runs.

Players Pts per game
Hakeem Olajuwon 27.3
Otis Thorpe 14
Vernon Maxwell 13.6
Kenny Smith 11.6
Chris Jent 10.3
Robert Horry 9.9
Mario Elie 9.3
Sam Cassell 6.7
Scott Brooks 5.2
Carl Herrera 4.7
Larry Robinson 4.2
Matt Bullard 3.5
Richard Petruska 2.4
Earl Cureton 2
Eric Riley 1.9

quote:

---

Until the tail end of this discussion, I'd forgotten how much Olajuwon carried that 1994 team. It was one of the more impressive championship runs

---

The 94 Rockets and the 11 Mavs are probably the only two teams in history to win a title with 1 star player

I mean i guess you might count Kidd for the Mavs but he was so far past his prime during this run

quote:

---

4, maybe 5 ships.

---

So Big Shot Rob is better than Jordan?

quote:

---

The 94 Rockets and the 11 Mavs are probably the only two teams in history to win a title with 1 star player

---

03 Spurs. 04 Pistons had either no star players or 5 star players depending on where you draw the line with star. 75 Warriors had Rick Barry then pretty much no one else.

Unless I am missing something, wasnt Robinson on the 03 Spurs team.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html
Looking at the stats it looks like he didnt play a big role so maybe put him in the '11 Mavs category

I will give you that Pistons team. Forgot about that team was really an incredible win over the Lakers in that final.

75 was more than 10 years before I was born, so how about we put the disclaimer of "the last 40 years"

quote:

---

Unless I am missing something, wasnt Robinson on the 03 Spurs team.

---

And averaged 7 points and 6 rebounds per game in the playoffs.

quote:

---

I mean i guess you might count Kidd for the Mavs but he was so far past his prime during this run

---

So you would discount Kidd being a star for being past his prime, but not a 7 points 6 rebound Robinson in his last season? GTFO.

quote:

---

75 was more than 10 years before I was born, so how about we put the disclaimer of "the last 40 years"

---

I generally like to cut off the NBA at the ABA merger or in 1980 when the Three-Point line began. Also happens to coincide with Bird and Magic's rookie season - so a decent way to differentiate the modern era.

quote:

---

So you would discount Kidd being a star for being past his prime, but not a 7 points 6 rebound Robinson in his last season? GTFO

---

Relax!!! Thats exactly what I said:

quote:

---

Looking at the stats it looks like he didnt play a big role so maybe put him in the '11 Mavs category

---

Put the Spurs '03 title in the '11 Mavs category ie. one legitimate star and 1 star past his prime

quote:

---

generally like to cut off the NBA at the ABA merger or in 1980 when the Three-Point line began. Also happens to coincide with Bird and Magic's rookie season - so a decent way to differentiate the modern era.

---

Modern era works for me

Guitarsoup - I think he was already agreeing with you.

quote:

---

Looking at the stats it looks like he didnt play a big role so maybe put him in the '11 Mavs category

---

My post earlier: Dirk had better support from his players in 11 than Duncan had from his in 03.

quote:

---

Parker shot 40% for the playoffs in 03 and was repeatedly benched for Speedy Claxton in the 4th Quarter. Robinson averaged like 7 and 6 in the playoffs of 03. Manu was a rookie in 03 and averaged 7.3ppg for the season. In the playoffs in 03, he shot .386.

For the playoffs in 03, Tim Duncan and David Robinson were the only two players that played over 20mpg and shot over 42% from the field. Robinson had a PER of 17.7, Duncan had a PER of 28.4 and no one else on the Spurs that played at least 100 minutes in those 24 games had a PER over 15 (which is supposed to be average.)

That 03 Spurs team was pretty bad and they took out the three-peat Lakers despite Kobe averaging like 33/game.

On the 11 Mavs, all players that played over 20mpg averaged at least 46% shooting except Kidd, who hit over two threes per game throughout the playoffs. The six Mavs with the most minutes in the playoffs all had a PER over 15 including Dirk at 25.2 and Terry at 20.3.

Dirk had much better support in 2011 than Duncan did in 2003 and it really isn't even debatable.

---

quote:

---

Dirk had better support from his players in 11 than Duncan had from his in 03

---

This is not the arguement I am trying to make. I am simply stating that there are few teams in modern NBA history that have won a title with 0 or 1 star player.

Justifying it as a great championship by saying they only had one star is a hollow argument. There seems to be some mystical aura around "a team must have 1 superstar and 2 stars, or 3 stars, or 2 superstars". No, a team needs to be better than the other teams. Whether you get there by having multiple all-stars, a deep and balanced roster, or Lebron James, you just have to be better. The Mavs championship isn't somehow better than all others because Dirk had 5 above average veterans playing really well instead of a couple all-NBA guys. The whole team contributed to that run.

I've seen Duncan do it almost alone and I've seen the Spurs bulldoze everyone in their path with a deep and talented roster. Every championship is special.

quote:

---

Dirk had much better support in 2011 than Duncan did in 2003 and it really isn't even debatable.

---

It will always be debatable because they are 2 of the rare teams that won titles with only 1 all-nba caliber player. It's a great debate:

Duncan=Nowitzki - hall of farmers at their peak
Robinson=Kidd - hall of farmers on their last legs but still solid contributors
Rose=Terry - 6th man candidates
Bowen=Chandler - all-defense caliber great role players but 1 dimensional
Parker=Barea - young, flashy pg
SJax=Marion - BAMF solid role player
Stojakovic=Kerr - old sharpshooters who have a crazy game to save the playoff run

The 2011 Mavericks clearly had the toughest playoff run. Unfortunately for the Spurs the best players on the top 2 teams were injured (Webber, Nowitzki) and the Lakers were in a weird season. The 03 Lakers were at the height of the kobe-shaq drama with aging useless role players and were out of the playoff hunt as late as February (needed a Kobe miracle shot on the last day to avoid the 6 seed). The 11 Mavs had to go through the western conference favored dynasty Lakers, 2 of the top 10 nba players in OKC and 2 of the top 5 nba players on the dynasty Heat.

quote:

---

Justifying it as a great championship by saying they only had one star is a hollow argument. There seems to be some mystical aura around "a team must have 1 superstar and 2 stars, or 3 stars, or 2 superstars". No, a team needs to be better than the other teams. Whether you get there by having multiple all-stars, a deep and balanced roster, or Lebron James, you just have to be better. The Mavs championship isn't somehow better than all others because Dirk had 5 above average veterans playing really well instead of a couple all-NBA guys. The whole team contributed to that run.

---

Difficult to quantify.... Fun to discuss

quote:

---

Justifying it as a great championship by saying they only had one star is a hollow argument. There seems to be some mystical aura around "a team must have 1 superstar and 2 stars, or 3 stars, or 2 superstars". No, a team needs to be better than the other teams. Whether you get there by having multiple all-stars, a deep and balanced roster, or Lebron James, you just have to be better. The Mavs championship isn't somehow better than all others because Dirk had 5 above average veterans playing really well instead of a couple all-NBA guys. The whole team contributed to that run.

I've seen Duncan do it almost alone and I've seen the Spurs bulldoze everyone in their path with a deep and talented roster. Every championship is special.

---

its unique and special because it has only happened 3 times. If it was a common occurrence then it wouldnt be a big deal. And the whole thing about how America loves the underdog - the idea of one superstar carrying a team of role players to the title over other superstar loaded teams. Every year you all make excuses for guys like Lebron in Cleveland, durant this year, dwight in orlando, etc about how 1 star can't carry a team on his own in the playoffs. Well when it does happen it's a big deal.

The point I was making is that Nowitzki didn't have to carry the team. He had to be the best player, but they weren't a bunch of deadweight like the '07 Cavs. The rest of the team was good because they had a solid pass first PG who could knock down shots, a great defensive presence in the paint, and several guys who could score and/or defend. It was a good team, not one guy carrying a bunch of scrubs.

The reason those kind of teams don't win titles often isn't because it's harder for them to win, it's because they are more difficult to build in the first place; it's easier to build a good team by cherrypicking 3 stars. If anyone had a transcendent season, it was the Mavs' front office.

quote:

---

Rose=Terry - 6th man candidates

---

Get the **** out. Terry had a PER of 20 in the playoffs and had 17.5points on 48/44/85 shooting. Rose shot .419 in the playoffs despite taking all his shots in the paint and averaged 9 points and 5.8 rebounds. Rose was ****ing terrible and we had to trade away two first rounders just to get someone to get his sorry ass off the team.

quote:

---

Robinson=Kidd - hall of farmers on their last legs but still solid contributors

---

Robinson was useful in guarding Shaq, but outside of that was not very effective. 7 points, 6 rebounds and 1.3 blocks isn't quite as effective as Kidd making over 2 threes per game and averaging 9 points, 7 assists and 2 steals per game.

quote:

---

SJax=Marion - BAMF solid role player

---

SJax wasn't solid at all. He either hit 5 of 7 from three or dribbled off his foot 4 times in a row playing hero ball. He was so incredibly erratic that after that season the Spurs only offered him 3y10mm. No one else wanted him and he ended up signing a 1y/1mm with Atlanta.

quote:

---

Stojakovic=Kerr - old sharpshooters who have a crazy game to save the playoff run

---

Kerr hit 5 threes in the entire playoff run - four of them in that one Mavs game. Kerr only played 46 minutes in the entire 24 game run and took only 11 total shots. Peja played 350 minutes and took 120 shots. Peja had a little more effect on the Mavs run than Kerr did.

quote:

---

The 2011 Mavericks clearly had the toughest playoff run.

---

Clearly? They had a injured Kobe that immediately flew overseas to Germany to try experimental treatments for his numerous injuries. The Spurs went through the three-peat Champion Lakers with Kobe at his peak. Spurs then had Dirk on the ropes at 3-1 when he went down and beat Kidd in his prime. The Thunder were still too young - of all their players that scored over 5ppg, only Nick Collison was over 22.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 5/31/2013 10:27a).]

quote:

---

The reason those kind of teams don't win titles often isn't because it's harder for them to win, it's because they are more difficult to build in the first place; it's easier to build a good team by cherrypicking 3 stars. If anyone had a transcendent season, it was the Mavs' front office.

---

ridiculous. You think the Mavs intentionally built a team around 1 str? They have been desperately searching for a 2nd star to pair with dirk for a decade now. They thought they had 1 several times but it failed. Teams don't intentionally build a championship team around 1 player. In the rare occurrence that it all comes together and works its a big deal. The 03 spurs were actually a transition team - they were built with the goal of clearing cap space for a 2nd superstar in 03 free agency.

If that Mavs team wasn't something special, why are you all so irritated that Cubes broke up the team? Why do you even talk in terms of breaking up the team? You've still got Nowitzki, right, isn't he the guy that won the title?

quote:

---

They have been desperately searching for a 2nd star to pair with dirk for a decade now.

---

Maybe they should have kept two-time NBA MVP Steve Nash, then. The early 00s problem was Nellie.

quote:

---

quote:

---

They have been desperately searching for a 2nd star to pair with dirk for a decade now.

---

Maybe they should have kept two-time NBA MVP Steve Nash, then. The early 00s problem was Nellie.

---

yes Nellie was the problem but Nash won his MVPs in an even more crazy offense focused system. Cuban later wanted 2way players Howard and harris to be his Parker and Ginobili - because as ulrich said its SO EASY to just cherry pick 3 star players.

quote:

---

Get the **** out. Terry had a PER of 20 in the playoffs and had 17.5points on 48/44/85 shooting. Rose shot .419 in the playoffs despite taking all his shots in the paint and averaged 9 points and 5.8 rebounds. Rose was ****ing terrible and we had to trade away two first rounders just to get someone to get his sorry ass off the team.

---

rose was a 6th man candidate. He underachieved in the playoffs. Haywood underachieved for the Mavs.

I didn't mention Ginobili who is a better comp for barea

You are destroying the spurs role players on this thread, but if we had a thread about great GMs/coaches you would be praising popovich/Buford for assembling this roster. It's convenient in this thread to pretend Duncan was completely unsupported on all levels.

quote:

---

If that Mavs team wasn't something special, why are you all so irritated that Cubes broke up the team? Why do you even talk in terms of breaking up the team? You've still got Nowitzki, right, isn't he the guy that won the title?

---

i feel like I'm more building up the spurs roster than I am trashing the Mavs. Because I've read on here for years on the greatness of the spurs org assembling teams.

BTW, have we missed any popular topics on this thread? I feel like we've rehashed just about all of them.

Easier to cherry pick three stars - especially if you are in a prime destination like Boston, NYC, Miami or LA. Unless you are retarded and pick your three stars to be Melo, 38 year old Tyson Chandler and broken down Amare.

I think if Cuban had fired Nellie and hired DAntoni, the Mavs would have been more successful with it than the Suns were. The Suns great undoing is that they wouldn't pay to keep the talent there.

Traded Stephon Marbury for a half-season rental of Antonio McDyess, who they let walk in Free Agency
Sent Joe Johnson to ATL rather than resign him
Let Antonio McDyess sign with Detroit as a FA
Amare - OK, can't blame that one. Good choice
Barbosa -traded for Turkeyglue who they then traded for Vince Carter, then waived
Suns sold the pick that Boston used on Rajon Rondo
Suns sold the pick that Chicago used on Luol Deng
Suns sold the pick that the Knicks used on Nate Robinson
Suns sold the pick that Portland used on Rudy Fernandez
Suns sold the pick that Orlando used on Marcin Gortat

quote:

---

rose was a 6th man candidate. He underachieved in the playoffs. Haywood underachieved for the Mavs.

---

GTFO. He was never remotely close to a 6th Man Award.

quote:

---

I didn't mention Ginobili who is a better comp for barea

---

Probably so. That is a pretty fair comparison.

quote:

---

You are destroying the spurs role players on this thread,

---

They were pretty bad. The fact that none of them had a PER over 15 is quite telling, don't you think? The fact that none of them hit over 42% of their shots is pretty telling, don't you think? Duncan carried that squad.

quote:

---

but if we had a thread about great GMs/coaches you would be praising popovich/Buford for assembling this roster.

---

That particular roster? Prob not. They got lucky with Ginobili and Stephen Jackson. Bowen was Bowen. Completely useless for most teams, but worked well in the Spurs system. Pop and RC made some good under the radar FA signings but the biggest [highest profile] FAs they ever signed were Brent Barry and Antonio McDyess. They had two good trades in the last 15 years - Retiring Danny Ferry for TurkeyGlue and Mercer and Retiring Bowen for Jefferson. Spurs did well in the draft several times, but also did really poorly in the draft several times. [Ian Mahinmi over David Less, Brandon Bass and Monta Ellis; Beno over Varajao and Ariza; Selling Barbosa to the Suns; James Anderson over Jordan Crawford]

The Spurs have generally done a good guy fitting people into their scheme - especially under the radar guys like Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, etc. But like you said, that was a transition team where the Spurs were making a play for Jason Kidd to replace David Robinson. Instead we got Rasho the Weak, Robert Horry, Hedo and Charlie Ward. Pretty much the same thing.

quote:

---

It's convenient in this thread to pretend Duncan was completely unsupported on all levels.

---

The 2003 team was weak. You cannot be intelligent and argue otherwise. Outside of Robinson and Duncan, all rotation players shot under 42%. All rotation players had a PER under 15. And Robinson was a 7 and 6 player for the playoffs. The Spurs were streaky and had several guys that could get really hot (SJax, Parker, Ginobili) but that was the exception, not the rule as noted by their shooting %s.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/31/us/spurs-tim-duncan-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

CNN article on Duncan that came out today. In that article Steve Kerr says...

quote:

---

To truly appreciate Duncan, you have to take the long view. So where does he rank among players all time?
We'll start with Kerr because of his credentials. Sure, Fratello coached greatness in Dominique Wilkins and others, but Kerr played on Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls teams, so he's actually passed greatness the ball.
Kerr said Bill Russell, Jordan and Magic Johnson fill out his top three, "and at that point, you can throw Tim Duncan up against anybody, in my mind." A fifth title -- should the Spurs dispatch the winner of the Heat-Pacers series -- would elevate Duncan to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar status because of the time between trophies. Abdul-Jabbar won six championships between 1971 and 1988.
"Star players normally don't win until they reach their prime. ... Titles come in a cozy span of six to eight years, not 13," Kerr said. "It speaks to his brilliance over his entire career."

---

quote:

---

Even on Duncan's website, there is an FAQ largely about his personal life that, tellingly, hasn't been updated since Duncan was 27, about a decade ago. His milquetoast answers average 4.6 words and include this bombshell: Asked what wish he'd want granted if given the choice, he replied, "Good health." As opposed to his own island or a solid-gold Lamborghini Aventador.

---

I went to Tim Duncan's website.

News:
Nothing but a list of all the game recaps from nba.com. There is literally not a single thing about Tim Duncan on that page.

Tim's Diary latest entry:

quote:

---

Hello to everyone. It's a very exciting time to be checking in. The NBA playoffs are here and everyone has been asking me about the three-pointer in game one against the Suns.

---

From the FAQs:

quote:

---

21. What is your favorite all-time Movie?
The Crow.

22. What is your favorite all-time TV Show?
I liked Martin & Seinfeld.

23. Who is your favorite actor?
I like watching Kevin Spacey.

24. If you could have any pet what would it be?
Dog.

25. What is your favorite Board Game?
I like playing Monopoly.

26. What do you like to do on your days off?
I like to relax and play video games.

---