AROUND the NBA:

[dirkfansince1998]

Well, the title Duncan won in 2013-14 came when he was the 4th option behind Kawhi, Parker and Ginobili... on yet another Spurs team that was stacked beyond comprehension. That Spurs team was way more stacked than even the Heatles, who got so much flak for stacking the deck. I bet on the Spurs that season, did you? Granted, the Spurs built their stacked team themselves... but credit for that goes to the Spurs FO, and not to Tim Duncan. I think Tim Duncan is the most over-rated (i.e., lately) of the Top 10 candidates, because except for a few years between 1998-99 and 2002-03, his teams were almost always the most stacked in the NBA. Once again, I say that as someone who has followed the NBA closely for decades and who judges talent/fit of rosters and lineups based on actual talent/fit at the time, and not on names/numbers alone. If you feel that his teams weren't the most stacked of the 2000s, then perhaps, you have something internal to correct in terms of how you evaluate talent/fit. Maybe that's also why I do quite well in draft season.

By 2010, Kobe had slammed the door shut on being greater than Duncan... but in recent years, a small community of Duncan Donuts seems to be trying to make a case for the opposite on pseudo-intellectual bball boards, like the RealGM PC forum. I guess his fans realize that Duncan's place in the Top 10 is under heavy attack by the next generation (like Steph, Jokic, Giannis, Luka)... so their way of dealing with this, is to try and falsely push Duncan into Top 5 territory, where they feel that his place in the Top 10 might be more safe. It won't be that way though.

By the way, I noticed that you have not answered the 2 questions I posed earlier.

1) If Duncan was so great of an anchor on defense, then why did the Spurs DRTGs dip so much when Bowen retired and only come back up again when Kawhi took wings?

2) How is it that Kobe is inefficient, but yet he scored at a higher percentage from "post-moves" than Duncan did? Post-moves were supposed to be Duncan's forte, as a big, right? Yet, you have a little 6'5" guard who was more efficient in the post than Duncan, a 7-footer?

Can you answer these 2 questions without deflecting to whatever else Kobe may or may not have been?

I will also throw in a bonus question...

3) Why did Duncan not win diddly-squat between 2006-07 and 2013-14 despite having Top 5 PG in Tony Parker, Top 5 SG in Ginobili, and if Duncan was supposedly as great himself? Something doesn't add up! I mean, you can't ask for more than a Top level PG and Top level SG (both of whom were well-sized for their position, quick, not negatives on defense, and could create for others and themselves, and shoot from distance)... as well as have a great offensive/defensive Center, right?? Some numpties even have the nerve to say that Ginobili was as good as Kobe (in an effort to make Duncan look better). So then, what is Duncan's excuse for not winning in those years, when he himself is supposed to be greater than Kobe, AND he had Ginobili who was as great as Kobe too, and then he had Tony Parker on top of that? Duncan Donuts talk themselves into literal circles, and don't even realize it.

And Duncan should not even have won in 2006-07, if not for the MAJOR helping hand that the NBA gifted him against the Suns (who should have been rightful winners of that 2006-07 ring). If not for this helping hand, my question would have been, "why did Duncan not win diddly between 2004-05 to 2013-14", and been a lot worse for him too. Anyway, I think that if Dirk had Duncan's Spurs teams, Dirk would have had 5 rings too. If KG had Duncan's teams, KG would have had 5 rings as well. And both Dirk and KG would have entertained us a heck of lot more with those teams than Duncan did. That's why I have Duncan, Dirk and KG in the same grouping in my all-time ranking.

I answered them. You just choose to dismiss it. I can ignore condescending BS and personal attacks but I am not wasting my time. Go ahead and copy/paste some more. Maybe someone else is willing to have this discussion with you.