ItsTheBlog™

I concur with ChinMusic on this issue.

It appears as if success is being defined in terms of two factors--championships and excitement. Why aren't the Spurs exciting to watch? Because we live in CA. The Spurs are the most exciting thing that San Antonio has (after the Alamo* of course). But we have no interest in them so it isn't exciting to us. Also, what is exciting? A huge number of points scored? Slam dunks? Fast places Steve Nash Suns style of play? All of these things are subjective. Granted one of the best things about sports is that anyone can have an opinion. I may think that opinion is wrong, but so long as a person backs up that opinion with some reasons and statistics, I'll respect them.

But it seems as if we are trying to come up with an objective top ten based on some criteria that we could all point to and agree on. So why is excitement on there? Shouldn't it be just statistics? Because, I bet that there are plenty of San Antonio fans out there who think Duncan is the most exciting thing since sliced bread. I don't even think excitement should come into play as a factor here.

Is an exciting dunk worth more points than a layup? Granted, a play does have more impact if it can change the momentum of a game, but all things being equal, statistics are the most accurate way players can be compared.

Furthermore, ratings have been down for all sports this year. Look at the Stanley Cup Finals? And playoff hockey in general? Worst ratings in years. So, I find fault in the argument that low ratings equals less excitement.

I think the low ratings for both leagues had to do with the fact that San Antonio and Anaheim are both small markets. Small market means fewer fans watching the games on television.

Again, this is just my opinion. Out of the four contributing authors to this blog, I know the least about basketball (although my fantasy league performance would suggest otherwise).

*Note: Did you see it in today's Press Enterprise? Paul Reubens might be bringing back the belowed Pee-Wee character to the big screen.

Labels: Duncan, hockey, San Antonio Spurs, Stanley Cup

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

Tim Duncan just won his 4th NBA Championship in what has been a relatively boring career. The Big Fundamental just doesn't excite--but he gets the job done. With titles in 1999, 2003, 2005, and just 2 weeks ago in 2007, Duncan has to be included among the greats in NBA history--right?

Named MVP of the Finals during those first 3 championships, Duncan took a secondary role this time around to 2007 Finals' MVP Tony Parker. Keep in mind that he still averaged over 18 points, 11.5 boards and more than 3 blocks per game during the series. Parker may have been MVP, but there's no question who the Spurs' leader is.

So here's my question: where does Duncan rank in terms of the best players in NBA history? To be more specific, is Tim Duncan one of the top 10 players in the history of the league?

We know that the number of championships is certainly a factor in determining this ranking, which is why we can't include players like Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, and more in this list. But it definitely isn't the only factor, thus eliminating one of my personal favorites: Robert Horry and his 7 NBA championships.

So does Duncan make my top 10? Not quite. Could he? Sure, in time. Perhaps when we look back in NBA history, we may see Duncan and his 4 (+?) championships and call him one of the top 10 best players ever. But not yet. Part of the reason for this, unfortunately, is that he (and the teams he has played for) have been so boring to watch. Wonder why no one tuned into the Finals this season? The Spurs were playing...again! Even with Lebron there in the series, it just isn't all that exciting to watch Duncan and the Spurs pound away slowly. Fans typically prefer the run and gun style of the Phoenix Suns, Dallas Mavericks, etc., and the Spurs just don't cut it there.

It's a shame that this hurts my idea of Duncan and his successes, because he's had several. But I can name about a dozen players that I'd put ahead of Duncan on a list of the NBA's All-Time greats. West, Bird, Russell, Johnson, Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, O'neal, Robertson, Cousy, Mikan, and Bryant (yes--that Bryant), to name a few, would all be on my list (in no particular order) ahead of Timmy.

You've had many successes, Mr. Duncan. 2 MVP's, 3 Final's MVP's, 4 Championships, and you're one of the best players in NBA history. But you don't quite crack my top 10.

Labels: Bryant, Duncan, Kevdog, MVP, NBA, O'neal, Tim