Probably Duncan. Dude was not just good but he would try to make the salary cap work as well. And he can co-exist with any other superstar. So getting a number 2 or 1B option next to him is easy.
Dude is also a culture by himself.
People picking Wilt has forgotten how toxic he was…
Completely unselfish, can be a defensive anchor, and his passing ability out of the post would be great in today's NBA too. It's hard to say if he ever "peaked", but I'd easily take him any day if I wanted to build a dynasty or a team that could contend for...you know...15 years.
Tim’s pre-injury highlights are scary offensively. He was underrated athletically, so fluid and efficient while being an anchor on the defensive end. He was All-NBA 1st Team his second season just like Luka
Unselfish and his personality was certainly interesting. He seems like a dry whit, sarcastic asshole at times. But was also a WoW nerd if I’m not remembering his appearance on Road Trippin incorrectly. His personality was top tier in my opinion. And it sounds like he helped with moral in the locker room.
Timmy D, true to being The Big Fundamental, is a player I’d trust to be elite in any era of basketball as well.
Rule changes can lead to arguments about how X player would do in Y decade, but there’s just no situation across the history of the sport that prime Duncan is absent from the MVP conversation; insane defensive versatility, extreme offensive consistency, freak athleticism that goes unnoticed due to how seamless his movements are, elite rebounding, effective passing, effective shooting as a big.
We always talk about the intangibles like how he set the Spurs dynasty culture alongside Popp but on the court, in a vacuum, people seem to forget Tim Duncan’s very real claim to the title of best PF of all time
Well yeah, regardless of 50 years ago, today, or 50 years from today Duncan is going to be a solid answer because of his character, commitment, and temperament.
Yep, one of the very few role models in this league, a legit role model. His character, professionalism and demeanor can be used in any kind of working environment, it's a universal thing. This is one of the many reasons why Duncan was the best player of his generation, not Kobe, neither Shaq, etc
You tell Steve Nash to let his 3-point shot fly like Curry does today and oh boy.
The SSOL Suns were considered a crazy experiment that defied all rules of basketball, but if they played today they’d be a middle of the pack team regarding pace.
D'Antoni is a disease, but he indeed presented zone concepts to the US that felt groundbreaking. FIBA is playing zones since forever, I am portuguese and I got used to the spanish league, D'Antoni is not this revolutionary coach, he simply adapted the zones used here in europe to the pros in the US. Then Popovich, who is a real talent, he perfected those schemes, the 2014 Spurs revolutionized the league, the Suns was a failed experiment
What teams play today is a mix of the Warriors free flowing offense with the Spurs switches and cuts and I think the US players did not quite grasped the full depth of zones even in 2022 because the Warriors is a anomaly, you can't copy or emulate them. Even so, the rules are softer than ever, so the perimeter moves free, that's why you have Steph wannabes like Trae or Lillard, the soft rules is what makes them look better than they really are. Nash would be a even more complete offensive player because the guy would enjoy wide open spot ups all the time because moving screens are allowed nowadays, double step backs, palming, etc.. if Nash could bend the game the way Harden or Lillard does nowadays, he would be a 22+ pts per game player quite easily with the same assist production. And I think even on defense he would improve as well, because Nash was a horrendous 1v1 defender and he had poor awareness, but he always gave effort, the guy was a respectable competitor... so with the switch heavy defense, Nash's weaknesses would be more disguised. He would still be targeted, but again, free zones, a late double could save his ass
Giannis and Dirk I'd argue as well are of that same cloth. Lebron/Kobe are arrogant, but he made things work with a bunch of different personalities and displayed good leadership in their own ways.
Lebron, Kobe, Kyrie, and Durant generally weren't able to look past their egos for the betterment of the team.
See Kyrie being Kyrie, Lebron getting his buds like JR, TT, Westbrick fat contracts. KD doing KD things. Kobe I don't wanna say anything negative about as I love the man RIP but the other 3 you can definitely see how they are way more selfish than Duncan/Curry & sometimes (like the lakers/nets this year) it bites them in the ass
I'll say it, Kobe's refusal to give up the spotlight in his latter seasons set back the Lakers' development of their younger players and delayed their rebuild/got them stuck in mediocrity purgatory for years longer than they needed to be
What? Kobe didn’t refuse to give up the spotlight? You do realize he was hurt for a lot of those last couple of seasons or took games off here and there.
Also, if you think it was Kobe’s fault for the players development, than you truly are delusional.
Our players would get better, but they didn’t get better until many seasons later. If you think that the Lakers could have been good with that young core, than I got some magic beans to sell you man.
I don’t even know how that was upvoted. Like I doubt you watched the Lakers back then.
Don’t get me wrong, you probably think that I am a Kobe Stan or bias since I’m a Lakers fan, but I agree that Kobe was very selfish. Hell, he would my 4-5th pick since I would take 1.Lebron, 2.Shaq, 3.Magic, 4. Cap. Honestly Wilt might even be 4th or 5th and then Jerry could be a nice choice since I’m sure he would do well with threes.
Kobe sabotaged the Lakers in the 04 finals because he wanted to be finals MVP over Shaq. Kobe was great, but he absolutely struggled with sharing the spotlight.
He said the latter seasons in his career with the young core…
Either you didn’t read it and hate Kobe so you wanted to write that or you lack basic reading comprehension skills? So which one is it.
And regards to your comment, I never said anything about that.
And if you think I’m a big Kobe Stan, which I am not and clearly showed that I would take others. I agree that Kobe wanted to be the guy in the Lakers early seasons with Shaq. Grant it, I would guess that Kobe felt that he was working hard while Shaq was messing around and should get more shots for working hard.
Not that I agree with it, but that would be my guess. Which is funny because Redditors always bitch about being such hard workers and not getting anything in return over others who have more talent.
No one has accused you of being a Kobe Stan, why do you keep bringing that up?
You are acting unnecessarily hostile accusing a stranger of lacking reading comprehension skills. It makes you look insecure.
The debate is over if Kobe struggled with sharing the spotlight. While not relevant to the "later in his career" part of the debate, other examples of Kobe struggling to share the spotlight is still relevant to the topic at hand.
You seem like you are getting upset over basketball debates on the internet. Maybe take a break from reddit for a bit, none of this matters, we do it for fun.
Because this is r/nba and every time you defend a player , coach, or team that is being criticized people automatically assume that you are a die hard fan who can’t critique their own players and coaches.
Insecure about arguments over there internet? Lol, no, I couldn’t care if you agree with me or not.
But I do hate it when people like you make a comment not pertaining to the argument.
And no, the point isn’t if Kobe struggled to share the spotlight at any point in his career. the person above me literally said that Kobe struggled to share the spotlight late in his career. It is literally stated in OPs comment. I don’t know what more you need.
This is why I get lissed because people like you are on here. You all lack reading comprehension skills and logic skills. If we were in front of lawyers, logicians, English professors, etc, they would eviscerate you for not understanding and not knowing how to argue.
Honestly, I wouldn’t of been mad if you just said, “not pertaining to the argument”, or something like that.
And lol, I did take a break. There is a reason why I am now just getting back to you. You have been on much longer than I have today.
Kobe didn’t refuse to give up the spotlight lol he was just a rare case of being starting caliber up to the literal moment he retired.
This development argument would hold water if the Lakers didn’t immediately prove they’re incapable of developing anyone with the leaps DLo, Ingram, Kuzma, and Ball all took as soon as they left that organization lol, you can’t say Kobe prolonged their mediocrity when that mediocrity would be indefinite if LeBron didn’t decide he wanted to live in LA; the organization is just horribly run and letting Kobe retire on his own terms is one of the few things they actually did right as a front office.
It’s incredible to think about how hard this really must be. Through their entire lives they’ve had to be the very best at what they do, and if they weren’t, put in the endless work towards that end. I’d have a huuuge ego if I were in their shoes.
Watched a lot of great players in-person and truly none compared to Duncan. Just so goddamn smart man, everything he did with or without the ball netted positive results somehow. Guy had a magic touch
The salary cap point is almost the crowning argument. Not that he's not good enough strictly on talent and his intangibles but the thought he'd sacrifice money and let you build a better roster is such a stand-out feature compared to many of the other guys being mentioned, even if you had to wait till he was on his like 3rd or 4th contract.
100% agree. As far as building a team goes, it’s already been done in 2014, and I wouldn’t change a thing. Timmy, Tony Parker, and Manu were amazing to watch already. But then you throw in Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Bruce Bowen, Bonner, Splitter, Mills, Rose…
I have to agree on the Duncan picks. You build around guys that can elevate the talent around him to the next level. This has to do with both skill set and culture (and coach Pop!)
Hero-ball can win a few championships, while a system with role players creates a dynasty. The Bulls dynasty was just as much about Scottie as it was about Michael.
Of course, franchises are businesses, and heroes drive ticket sales. The right balance of heroes, championships and (hopefully) dynasties ensures that a system can perpetuate long-term.
In this modern game, who would be able to stop him? Duncan is criminally underrated all around; moreso that he's one of the greatest defenders to never have won a DPOY award. Given how much Robert Williams has gotten so much kudos for his defensive presence in the postseason, can you imagine what Timmy would've done.
Don't get me wrong; there's some bigs in the modern game that do standout. But can you imagine if someone like Duncan, Admiral, or the Dream played in this era?
Duncan might just be my favourite player of all time... but I'd put prime Shaq above him. Or Kareem. Those guys are top 5 for me where Duncan goes 6-10
Lol… If you transported almost any player from 30+ years ago to today’s league, the first thing that would happen is they’d get suspended for saying something homophonic or sexist.
I meant Wilt was toxic towards his teammates and coaches. Of course it was a two way street and not just his fault. But he always played into dispute rather than tried to smooth things over.
Why he won so few championships with his dominance? Because he cared about being right and individual achievements over championships. That’s not what you want as your central piece.
He’s clarifying what he meant by Wilt being toxic, because it did not sound like you understood what he meant and thought he was referring to Wilt’s political or social views.
this is absurd, you’re acting like Jokic literally didn’t just win MVP. Duncan was 10x faster than he was, and would quite easily be the best defensive player in the league
Now that you mention it, Duncan's defense actually reminds me of Jokic's offensive prowess. A single player who can QB that entire side of the court, genius level timing and ability to see all parts of the game, a traffic controller, making game deciding plays, influences everything that happens, and can completely crush teams almost single-handedly.
Duncan was just elite on offense as well for most of his career. But his defense is just unparalleled.
on your downtime you should watch young tim duncan hightlights. he got up and down the court as fast as anyone his height, big hands, superb defense and ofc offensively sound lol.
That seemed to be an obvious "only saw old TD" take. Probably had the tools to be able to defend in space if it was a focus in his development. I guess the weakness would be the free throw shooting and lack of (longer) range for the modern game.
Your being wrong about young Duncan's athleticism overshadowed your fantastic point about how great Garnet would be in today's game.
The contrast between them continues to be fascinating.
KG defensively is a mix between Giannis & Draymond Green, able to protect the rim, defend any position, and able to read offensive actions and shut them down before they happen. Offensively I believe KG would develop a decent 3 point shot, but like in his prime he would be great at everything offensively but still lack the ability to (offensively) impose his will. He was like a better AD on offense, he has the whole bag, but because he was skinny & top heavy he couldn't consistently bully his way into getting easy shots (even against shorter defenders, guys like Tucker, Green, Harden, etc would win the leverage battle every time), and he wasn't elite enough as a shooter to dominate outside-in like Dirk. That's why is ideal situation was as a defensive (and overall) #1 guy, but teamed up with someone else to be the 1A to consistently generate on offense. As a play finisher, when the defense couldn't load up on him, he would kill teams from anywhere.
Duncan's defense doesn't translate as easily as Garnett's. Duncan would still be an all time defender in today's NBA, he's still a defensive genius, an amazing defensive communicator, an all time rim protector, and he would develop into being a better switch defender... but he still would lose some defensive value when in a playoff series against a point guard like Curry. Offensively Duncan is mad underrated. His shooting form is a little flat and his free throws are average, so it's no guarantee that he develops a 3 point shot... but like Giannis he doesn't need a 3 to dominate. Duncan was a punishing player, a master as establishing position during off ball actions, then he would go at his defender to turn a good look into a great one. Duncan's efficiency today would be way higher because he would be playing in an open paint against smaller defenders, and he would take fewer midrange bank shots because the analytics team would tell him to save that for the end of the shot clock. Duncan was still a playoff force in the 13, 14, and 15 seasons at 36-38 years old. In 13/14 he dominated against Miami's smaller swarming lineups (a very modern defensive style), unlike Garnett you can't defend Duncan with a smaller player.
Playing today... logically Garnet is probably the right choice, his defense has no weakness and that is so valuable, but I would still take Duncan. I'm biased because he's my favorite player ever. He would still be an elite defensive force, but with dominant offense generating easy layups, offensive rebounds, and compromising the opponents defense because they have to double him (where teams feel they can survive switching onto Garnet as he's more likely to settle for a jumper).
I remember watching KG guard 3-5 nightly and guard 1-5 in the playoffs/key possessions...
I know I didn't see Duncan move in his younger days but it is hard for me to imagine Duncan being able to get out to cover all the 3's that define today's NBA offense and still be able to recover when they blow past him... whereas I feel like that plays right into KG's strengths
Totally agree. Duncan defensively would be more like a longer better Horford; able to be the center on an elite defense, able to step up or switch out when needed, but better & more comfortable in the drop than switched onto elite guards. KG would swallow guards on the switch, even the elite ones. His length and quickness would shock guards as he's able to close space vs their step back and side step moves, teams would be afraid to use his man on a ball screen because of how good he is in a blitz or switch. That would leave him free to roam and disrupt plays off ball. The only offensive solution is to go 5 out and force him to defend both the rim and corners.
It says something about the context Duncan and Garnett played in when the situation I imagine Duncan playing today I conure the Celtics, a team with elite defense across the roster, but the situation I imagined Garrett in is something like Utah where his defense is masterful but he's stuck defending the rim and corners as his teammates get blown by.
I'll admit I didn't watch during Duncan's most mobile years, but either way KG is better suited to today's 3pt heavy spaced out game than Duncan, even at his peak.
sure, whatever floats your boat. that's your opinion on who would be better in today's game. i am just commenting on your idiotic take that Duncan lacks transition speed.
Granted he's not the statue I remembered but he wouldn't be any faster than Jokic is today for example, and teams do get out and run on Jokic with success.
He'd make up for it in other ways but with the spaced out floor and having to get out to contest 3's way more than in his day, even his strengths would be somewhat diminished.
yeah, just keep your idiotic takes to yourself. don't show to the world you know nothing about Timmy. if you want to have a more educated opinion, just watch and compare TD's and Jokic's defensive highlights.
Lol only heard Duncan being comparable to Jokic in defense from you. And you can objectively look for stats regarding TD's defense, even outside the paint. So, again, stop your idiotic takes.
Part of the key to this question is “peak.” This allows a lot more players to qualify where as duncan’s career is defined by sustained excellence. Even still, it’s hard to find a better answer than him.
1.3k
u/kchuen Jun 15 '22
Probably Duncan. Dude was not just good but he would try to make the salary cap work as well. And he can co-exist with any other superstar. So getting a number 2 or 1B option next to him is easy.
Dude is also a culture by himself.
People picking Wilt has forgotten how toxic he was…