duncan. you have to knock off 3 teams from your conferance before you beat LJ and the knicks, kidd and the fast breaking Nets, a strong defensive Pistons team which duncan dominates in game 7 and a young up and coming team that had a gun and was once a good team to watch callled cleveland.
i dislike everything about the spurs and dont follow them at all but pay respect where respect is due.

surmdog,

A Knicks team that won the equivalent of 44 games (based on percentage if there were 82 games played in 1998-99) and finished last in the East playoff standings?

A Nets team that was swept in the NBA Finals the year before and won less than 50 games but still finished 2nd in the East because the conference was so poor that only just one team cracked 50 wins?

The Cavaliers, whose team and leader have now become infamous for disappointing playoff performances?

The Pistons? I'll give you that, they were a tough team. Probably the best defensive team I’ve ever seen.

The Spurs deserve respect; they are clearly one of the best run and consistently good franchises in the NBA over the last 20 years. Duncan too is a classy guy. But the fact remains that the Spurs won most of their titles when the Lakers were vulnerable, like in 1999, 2003 and in the post-Shaq pre-Gasol era. When the Lakers were strong, the Spurs never got to the NBA Finals.

Duncan easily. The guy lead his team to 4 championships. I don't care who he had to beat in the finals. Malone is clearly the next best along with Barkley, Garnett, Mchale, Pettit who are all around the mark.

i must of imagined the spurs beating the lakers in 2003 with shaq and kobe in there prime how could they be vulnerable after winning 3 straight championships and making it to the finals the following year in 2004.
pointing out how weak the east was wasnt the point remember beating 3 western teams on the way to the finals.
maybe role players like parker and ginobli behind duncan should feel like they were given championships through the east being so weak.
i supose boston was a weak match for the lakers in this years finals series coz they were ranked 4th in the conferance and just cracked 50 wins.
regular season win loss record means bugger all if you dont make it to the finals.

surmdog,

The Lakers were venerable in 2003, no doubt about it. They limped to 50 wins, perhaps damaged by playing three straight years until June, Shaq was out of shape and injured seemingly the whole season. They had a tough time beating Minnesota (in the pre-Sprewell/Cassell year back when they were annual first round fodder) and not only managed to trail 1-2 in that series but flirted with being down 1-3.

When this group won their first title in 2000 the backbone of the bench was Derek Fisher, Rick Fox and Robert Horry. By 2003, all three were starting and had their spot on the bench replaced by hacks such as Samaki Walker, Mark Madsen and Stanislav Mevedenko. The Lakers organisation, after adding so much talent in the late 1990's, stood still for the first part of the 2000’s and eventually paid the price by 2003. The signs were there in 2002 but the rot had well and truly settled in by 2003. This is why they got desperate and turned to an ageing Gary Payton and Karl Malone in 2004.

This is also why many Laker fans were questioning Mitch Kupcheck's ability to fill Jerry West's shoes as Lakers GM. These questions remained about him for most of the decade until he pulled off the trade for Gasol.

I have a lot of respect for Duncan and the Spurs. Like I said, the Spurs are clearly one of the best run franchises over the last 20 years and Duncan is, without a doubt, a great player. And the Lakers won three titles in the era when the East was weak and, as your say, they still needed to beat the strong teams in the West to get there..so the same is true for the Spurs, for sure. I don't disagree. But the Spurs sure had trouble beating the Lakers in the playoffs when LA was strong. Hell, the 2004 Lakers were teetering on the edge for the whole season and still got it done against the Spurs.

Just sayin' :)

surmdog,

Forgot to talk about the whole 2010 Celtics thing. The Celtics were damaged in 2009 and 2010 compared to 2008, anyone could have seen that. But I certainly would have put my money on the 2010 Celtics against the 1999 Knicks, 2003 Nets or 2005 Cavaliers in a seven games series. No question. The Celtics were legit, proven by their 2008 title. Those Knicks, Nets and Cavaliers teams hadn't won anything and were a flash in the pan. The 2010 Celtics reminded me a lot of the 1987 Celtics...a bit old, a bit haggard, a lot banged up, but they just knew how to win.

But what was the difference between the 2010 Celtics and the 2003 Lakers? The answer is mostly a lot of heart and grit. The Lakers showed they had heart and grit in 2002 but what the Celtics produced in the 2010 Playoffs was amazing. Far superior to what the Lakers showed in 2003. Would the Lakers have had back to back championships in 2009 and 2010 if Garnett hadn’t slowed down? I don’t know the answer to that. Perhaps not.

But even the Lakers team that got smashed by the Celtics in 2008 beat the Spurs.

How did a Malone v Duncan thread turn into a Lakers thread?? This is nothing to do with them.

So basically what i am getting from the last few posts is that the Spurs only won a few championships because the Lakers were "Vunerable"?? What a load of garbage, I could make the same argument for my Rockets based on their injuries in the last 5 years. The lakers weren't good enough those years, just like 29 other teams weren't good enough those years.

Duncan is one of the greatest all time, it doesn't matter who he had on his team or who he played against to win championships, because at the end of the day, he got it done.

No Deal,

Duncan did get it done, it's true. But only when circumstances in Laker Town enabled him the opportunity to get it done.

Thats a ridiculous statement. I could turn around to you and say the Lakers only got it done this year because circumstances in celtics town enabled them to, and the year before because circumstances in rockets town enable them to.

No Deal,

What is it with you and the Rockets? You seem to have fooled yourself into thinking they were ever real title contenders. Why is this? Because they had acquired Mr. April, Tracy McGrady? The Rockets were only ever going to be second round fodder at best. They had a nice little roster, but come on.

Both players have high basketball IQ's, were good teammates, had polished and fundamental offensive games and both were strong defenders. Very even in an individual comparison in my opinion. The difference is in the numbers. 4-0 to Duncan in Championships. You have to give credit to winners, regardless of the circumstances or who they played with. Oh, and saying the Spurs supporting cast was better than Utah's? Stupid. Is Tony Parker or Manu Ginoboli going to make the Hall of Fame and be considered one of the top two or three players ever at their position? No. John Stockton was a better supporting teammate than the two of them combined.

Lakers??? Rockets??? what is wrong with you clowns? I've watched alot of ball in my time but i can't remember Malone vs Duncan.... Probably great matchups, strength, skill, determination...

I put this to you, if you had to pick Malone or Duncan to build a team around who would you pick?

for me Duncan,thats my pick, i see it as, Malone had another hall of famer playing and winning with him all his career, even when he went to the Lakers he had two. Duncan yeah he had David Robinson for a year or two, then he had a shadow of Robinson, but other then that...hes had good players, not great ones, i would say the best thing he had great coaching but i like jerry sloan as well..., but can you say Ginobili or Parker are or will he HOFers? i don't no about that.

Yea you could argue about the strengh of the teams Duncan played to win is ships.

But i think you put Duncan in Utah in place of Malone and you get the same or better results, Duncan and Stockton? now put Malone in San Antonino, yeah i think they could be the same, but i'm not as certain. Duncan to me has the better over under then Malone to succeed i think.

I hope you know what i mean, im not saying Duncan in Utah can beat Jordan and the bulls, but i think they get to the finals just like Malone, Duncan gets MVP just like Malone, I think Duncan could have a possibility to win a ship, just like Malone, where as Malone in SA, i think they get the ships in 1999 and 2007, but i'm iffy on 2003 and 2005 Tiltes, i don't think they get passed the lakers and i don't think they get passed the pistons, but thats me.

So does that make Duncan greater?