ItsTheBlog™

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about NBA history or current talent in the league to formulate my own top 10, but it seems to me that success (and by success I mean rings) in the NBA is weighed more heavily when determining a players greatness then in any other league.

I think the reason for this is because basketball, more than any other sport, can be dominated by one or two players. Unlike baseball where a pitcher can only contribute once every 5 days or a hitter gets 4-5 at bat's/game, the NBA player can play nearly every minute of the game, and in many cases, be instrumental in every play (a la Kobe "only passes to those who pass it back" Bryant)

If this is in fact your logic, then I don't see how you can keep Duncan out of your top 10. The Horry argument doesnt hold water: Horry was never the centerpiece of a great team, he was simply on the right team at the right time. Duncan has been the reason for the Spurs 4 championships. Without Duncan, San Antonio would be known for nothing more then the Riverwalk. Whether he is "boring" to watch or not is irrelevant. He's called "The Big Fundamental" for a reason. He plays the game the way it's supposed to be played, and although flash and lack of sportsmanship have become the face of the NBA, I applaud Duncan for playing the game right. The numbers don't lie, and neither do the rings.


Here's my question, if Duncan had won 4 rings for a team in a major basketball market (Los Angeles, Chicago, New York), would he be automatically thrown into your top 10?

Labels: Duncan, rings, san antonio