(05-31-2024, 11:56 AM)fifteenth Wrote: But if you really want to test our love for you, come at as with some kind of blasphemous KG>Dirk argument and see what happens.
Welp, I think Luka > KG > Duncan >= Dirk.
KG is a better baller than Duncan... but Duncan was on better teams for all of his career, which is why he has more accomplishments. He had Manu and Parker in their prime, yet could never repeat. I think people over-rate Duncan, because he has never won back-to-back rings despite being on the most stacked team of the 2000s. Every other Top 10 Greatest Of All Time has won back-to-back rings... MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Kobe, Magic, Larry, Hakeem, Shaq, Russell... even Steph has won back-to-back. The only two who are mentioned in this discussion but never won back-to-back are Wilt and Duncan... and I'll take Wilt over Duncan all day every day because of the physical differences.
Another thing that doesn't get mentioned enough IMO... the Spurs were gifted their 2006-07 ring (when the league suspended A'mare and Diaw, or the Suns would have knocked the Spurs out)... and if not for that gift, the Spurs with Duncan + Manu + Parker would not have won a ring between 2004-05 and 2013-14. That's a shamefully long time for an All-time Great to have gone without winning a ring, especially when his teams were more stacked than all of his competition in the 2000s.
So I have KG over Duncan, keeping in mind the differences in the teams they played on.
Dirk was too soft on defense and was not always a "carry-a-team on my back" player for every year of his career on offense... not like Kobe was... well, not enough to make up for how soft he was on defense, therefore, he can't be on the same level as the other two, i.e., KG and Duncan. Although, I think that if Dirk had the teams that Duncan had, then he might have had the same success that Duncan did. So that's why I have "Duncan >= Dirk".