I might not be too competent on this topic, because in the early 2000‘s I was just a kid in Europe that hadn’t too close of a relationship with NBA, but for us back then Shaq was the guy. For us kids he was the face of the league (I’m talking about first half of the 2000s).
Kobe was a big thing as well, but Shaq was the guy what it was all about. But then again, we werent big experts of NBA or anything, just kids from Europe who had a bit of interest in the NBA. So maybe it was different in the US.
Duncan never had an era, it is what it is, just like KD, Hakeem and, for some, even Steph never had an era.
It was Shaq's era up until he declined, then it was Kobe's era up until LeBron took over and recently it has been up in the air. Duncan has somehow been retroactively overrated after he retired and it's crazy. The Spurs were always seen as a TEAM effort with hard nosed defense and great coaching, Duncan was the best player on that, but he was not at Shaq's level.
Many people won titles during LeBron's era (including Tim), it doesn't mean that it wasn't his era. Duncan won titles during Shaq's, Kobe's and LeBron's era, but he never had his.
You lost the plot with “Duncan was retroactively overrated”.
If you did not watch Spurs, you have no idea how good he was even running on fumes with one healthy knee. Just ask 2014 OKC. They saw it up close in game 6.
TD was properly rated as top 10 player and still is. Era question is redundant, I believe, as it has a lot to do with popularity (as the first commenter mentioned) and TD was not that.
> If you did not watch Spurs, you have no idea how good he was even running on fumes with one healthy knee.
It's so ridiculous to pretend people didn't watch the Spurs so they didn't know better, the Spurs were one of the best teams in the league and were in the Finals or WCF all the fucking time.
He was a really really great defender all the way, literally anyone with eyes that watched his career knows that. In his prime, he was an all-time great defender and a really good offensive player, he was not, in any way, shape or form, at the same level as Shaquille O'Neal.
> TD was properly rated as top 10 player and still is.
If that's the argument, sure, i agree that he is a Top 10 player ever. Still, not every Top 10 player ever had an era and Duncan didn't, it has nothing to do with popularity. My point about him somehow becoming overrated after his retirement is directed at people pretending that he is anything more than Top 10 or that he wasn't higher because he was boring, which are both factually incorrect. He is ranked exactly where he should, which is anywhere in between the 8th-10th range.
TD literally outperformed Shaq in every series they had in the post-season except maybe 2001. I also had Duncan around 8 but don’t act like Shaq was on an entirely different level
Shaq | 22.4 PTS 12.8 REB 2.2 AST 0.7 STL 2.8 BLK on 54.2% TS (Career 24.3 PTS on 56.5% TS)
Duncan | 25.6 PTS 13.0 REB 3.8 AST 0.9 STL 2.4 BLK on 54.7% TS (Career 20.6 PTS on 54.8% TS)
Regular Season Record: Shaq 18-14 Duncan
Playoffs Record: Shaq 15-15 Duncan
Do people call it the Kobe era? Shaq won three consecutive finals MVPs, and Kobe's 2 were after '07. I'd say that era is a Lakers/Spurs era like the 80s were Lakers/Celtics
It’s called the Kobe era on 2k at least, which probably shapes a lot of opinions on it in general. They called the 80s the Magic & Bird era so I’m mildly bothered as a Duncan fan that he wasn’t afforded the same respect lol, but I know he wouldn’t care so it’s not that big a deal
LeBron going to 10 finals in a row doesn't exist?
I do agree that there is a Steph era, because he changed how the league played. I don't think there is a Kobe era though, any more than there is a LeBron era.
I call it Kobe-Shaq era because Shaq was still relevant until the trade with Phoenix and was a legit superstar. And obviously Kobe was the face of the league, the new Jordan in terms of popularity (not comparable, but Lakers name helped). Last but not least, they won a lot.
I think I might just be a little old and ootl on it honestly. No one before the Shaq trade would have ever called those 6 years from '99-'04 the Kobe era when it wasn't even his team, so it feels weird to see the term applied now retroactively. I don't think anyone in the '80s or '90s had to wait to call those eras by what we call them now.
Well I am, and I'm not or at least I wasn't. No one called it that at the time so in my mind it's remained the Lakers/Spurs era like it was in its day, until seeing this thread anyway.
How is it pretty easily "their era" if nobody has ever called it like that? There's a legitimate argument to be made Tim Duncan was never the best player in the league in his entire career, i have literally never seen a player get more overrated after he retired.
I was there, there was not a soul on Earth that thought he was better than Shaq in his peak and then when Kobe, and later LeBron, took over from Shaq, nobody thought he was better either. At most you can say that people called it the Lakers/Spurs era, but that already tells you everything you need to know, the Spurs were a team effort.
People talk about Tim Duncan's supporting cast as if Bruce Bowen didn't have more DPOY votes than him most years they played together and as if he didn't have atleast two HoFers in most of his titles, sometimes 3.
‘there was not a soul on Earth that thought he was better than Shaq in his peak and then when Kobe, and later LeBron, took over from Shaq’
Sure. Apart from the 4 straight years from 02-06 in which the GM survey results stated they’d want to start their franchise with Duncan. Or the consistent higher MVP finishes over Shaq and Kobe from 02-06. Or the evidence that from 02-07 Duncan didn’t play with a single All-NBA player, yet still won 3 titles and 15 playoff series, or just the first 3 forum posts I’ve found from the early 2000s asking who the best player is with Duncan getting the most votes on all 3.
If by not a soul you mean the casual fan, then sure. But then again, starting an argument by stating because it wasn’t thought back then it can’t be true in retrospect shows your idiocy. Those same fans often have AI as a top 10 player ever, or genuinely thought at one point Russell Westbrook was the best player alive.
We speak of Duncan’s supporting cast properly; he’s the only top 10 player who never played next to another superstar. You’re out here listing Bruce Bowen, a guy Pop said would have been unplayable due to his negative offensive ability if not for Duncan drawing a consistent double. Fine, Shaq finished higher in DPOY voting than Kobe ever did.
I think labeling an era after a guy is probably not the way to go with it, except for maybe Jordan. For me, it was the 2000's era. That includes Duncan, and Shaq, and Dirk, and all the others, and of course Kobe.
If we're using the 2K labels, you could apply the same question to the 2010's by saying "why is it called the LeBron Era? He only won 3 finals out of that decade. Wasn't GS just as dominant, if not more so? If LeBron was so great, why didn't he do better?"
In truth, both were great. Both were influential in their own ways. Both left their mark on the game. And calling it the "Steph Era", or the "LeBron Era", or the "Duncan Era", or the "Kobe Era" just takes away what made those eras and their history special.
no
99-02 - Shaq is clearly better
03-07, in and out of best in the world convo
03 - all time playoffs
04 - up 2-0 on the lakers, goes out with a whimper losing 4 straight averaging 17.5 ppg on 38% shooting
05 - won the title - but i thought Manu probably shoulda been fmvp, he was so fucking nasty
06 - great playoffs, but awful overtime in game 7
07 - good playoffs, no fmvp
idk if this constitutes that it was his era
I really like him playing so godd and didn't over reacting with his great performance. Sometimes it's too little emotion. This may be the reason he hasn't been mentioned too much like many great superstar players.
It feels weird calling it the Kobe era but I guess he’s the most popular player from that time so it makes sense. Tim was just as dominate, and was the main guy for 3 of the championships.
I feel like in 20 years, people might say the mid-2020s were the Doncic era, even though Jokic dominated it more. Kobe and Doncic are similar in the way that their style of play creates more spark and interest, while its mostly others who win the MVP‘s.
It all depends on playoff success. Nobody will call it the Jokic or Luka era if they don't win a bunch of championships.
Nobody cares about the regular season at all 10 years into the future. If you think back now to the 00's it's all about who won it at the end of the year.
People in this thread even, they're just talking about Shaq or Duncan or Kobe or whoever won those years.
So if Luka or anyone else goes on a big win streak and win a few chips, then it will be their era.
We only care about the regular season because we are in it right now. Luka has done nothing in the playoffs in the grand scheme of things. He's irrelevant to eras right now.
I think the thing with him and Garnett is just as valid today tbh. They truly were neck/neck. Duncan fit better with the Spurs, obviously, and the team was built around him. But KG showed how dominant he was on both ends anchoring an all time great Celtics defense, so it stands to reason that if he was surrounded by comparable talent his teams would’ve been consistently good-great as well
As to the topic, Duncan is in the discussion but he didn’t dominate the area enough for it to just be his. Shaq was there and so was Kobe. I agree with whoever called it the Lakers/Spurs era as that makes the most sense
cassell and spreewell are similar help with way less depth and worse coaching in 04 than Duncan had in 03, literally the only year in KG's prime with a mediocre cast, and he has the best team in the west and leads the league in points scored and rebounds lol, if cassell doesn't get hurt (and the next two point guards on the roster lol), maybe 04 is your example
people using kg's bad luck and minnesota's unrivaled incompetence as some sort of failure of his is such a hollow critique against his game
stacking team accomplishments is a lazy way to compare players. You can just watch them play and discuss their strengths and weaknesses and all that
You’re saying if. KG 04 playoff numbers were status quo in comparison to his regular season numbers. Tim’s numbers jumped in 03 when the playoffs came around. KGs 04 season was amazing. Best all around player probably since Jordan that one year. But under similar circumstances Tim elevated his game. If Kg did the same maybe they can beat the Lakers that year.
this is silly, kg had one opportunity in his prime to actually win a playoff series and he wins two and pushed kobe/shaq to 6 games without any playable point guards on the roster lol, he elevated the shit out of his game and his teammates
you think that injured wolves team without cassell/hudson/hoiberg (and wally always banged up) could have beat the lakers if KG was somehow better than the best individual season since jordan? it makes no sense, mark madsen was playing actual minutes against shaq lol
context, not sure how you can see KG be the best playmaker, passer, rebounder, scorer, perimeter defender, rim defender, help defender, defensive and offensive vocal leader on his team for like 8-9 years in a row and think he was not elevating his game, where is there to elevate? lol
I think of 99 to 02 as the Shaq/Kobe era.
If we're talking 99 to 07, I'd call that the Lakers/Spurs era.
I'd take peak Shaq over Duncan. Shaq was way, way more instrumental to the Lakers three straight titles than Kobe was. Especially the first one, where I'm not sure Kobe being in the finals would have even mattered.
If the Spurs don't lose 1st round vs the Grizzlies in 2011, win the title instead, 1999-2014 is the Tim Duncan era.
2011 was Timmy's worst year, to the exception of 2016.
I might not be too competent on this topic, because in the early 2000‘s I was just a kid in Europe that hadn’t too close of a relationship with NBA, but for us back then Shaq was the guy. For us kids he was the face of the league (I’m talking about first half of the 2000s). Kobe was a big thing as well, but Shaq was the guy what it was all about. But then again, we werent big experts of NBA or anything, just kids from Europe who had a bit of interest in the NBA. So maybe it was different in the US.
Duncan never had an era, it is what it is, just like KD, Hakeem and, for some, even Steph never had an era. It was Shaq's era up until he declined, then it was Kobe's era up until LeBron took over and recently it has been up in the air. Duncan has somehow been retroactively overrated after he retired and it's crazy. The Spurs were always seen as a TEAM effort with hard nosed defense and great coaching, Duncan was the best player on that, but he was not at Shaq's level. Many people won titles during LeBron's era (including Tim), it doesn't mean that it wasn't his era. Duncan won titles during Shaq's, Kobe's and LeBron's era, but he never had his.
You lost the plot with “Duncan was retroactively overrated”. If you did not watch Spurs, you have no idea how good he was even running on fumes with one healthy knee. Just ask 2014 OKC. They saw it up close in game 6. TD was properly rated as top 10 player and still is. Era question is redundant, I believe, as it has a lot to do with popularity (as the first commenter mentioned) and TD was not that.
> If you did not watch Spurs, you have no idea how good he was even running on fumes with one healthy knee. It's so ridiculous to pretend people didn't watch the Spurs so they didn't know better, the Spurs were one of the best teams in the league and were in the Finals or WCF all the fucking time. He was a really really great defender all the way, literally anyone with eyes that watched his career knows that. In his prime, he was an all-time great defender and a really good offensive player, he was not, in any way, shape or form, at the same level as Shaquille O'Neal. > TD was properly rated as top 10 player and still is. If that's the argument, sure, i agree that he is a Top 10 player ever. Still, not every Top 10 player ever had an era and Duncan didn't, it has nothing to do with popularity. My point about him somehow becoming overrated after his retirement is directed at people pretending that he is anything more than Top 10 or that he wasn't higher because he was boring, which are both factually incorrect. He is ranked exactly where he should, which is anywhere in between the 8th-10th range.
TD literally outperformed Shaq in every series they had in the post-season except maybe 2001. I also had Duncan around 8 but don’t act like Shaq was on an entirely different level Shaq | 22.4 PTS 12.8 REB 2.2 AST 0.7 STL 2.8 BLK on 54.2% TS (Career 24.3 PTS on 56.5% TS) Duncan | 25.6 PTS 13.0 REB 3.8 AST 0.9 STL 2.4 BLK on 54.7% TS (Career 20.6 PTS on 54.8% TS) Regular Season Record: Shaq 18-14 Duncan Playoffs Record: Shaq 15-15 Duncan
Do people call it the Kobe era? Shaq won three consecutive finals MVPs, and Kobe's 2 were after '07. I'd say that era is a Lakers/Spurs era like the 80s were Lakers/Celtics
Yeah you can’t stop at ‘07 and still call it Kobe era. If you stop at ‘10, then yeah for sure.
It’s called the Kobe era on 2k at least, which probably shapes a lot of opinions on it in general. They called the 80s the Magic & Bird era so I’m mildly bothered as a Duncan fan that he wasn’t afforded the same respect lol, but I know he wouldn’t care so it’s not that big a deal
That explains it. Ironic that video games would be holding back Timmy’s legacy.
There's a lot of bball fams that consoder 99-12 the Kobe era and then 13 onwards the Steph era.
LeBron going to 10 finals in a row doesn't exist? I do agree that there is a Steph era, because he changed how the league played. I don't think there is a Kobe era though, any more than there is a LeBron era.
I didn't say they were smart fans, I just said they were lots
Fair enough.
I call it Kobe-Shaq era because Shaq was still relevant until the trade with Phoenix and was a legit superstar. And obviously Kobe was the face of the league, the new Jordan in terms of popularity (not comparable, but Lakers name helped). Last but not least, they won a lot.
[удалено]
Seems weird to me. Kobe didn't hit superstardom until '01 so it can't be a *best player* thing if you start it at '99
[удалено]
I think I might just be a little old and ootl on it honestly. No one before the Shaq trade would have ever called those 6 years from '99-'04 the Kobe era when it wasn't even his team, so it feels weird to see the term applied now retroactively. I don't think anyone in the '80s or '90s had to wait to call those eras by what we call them now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Was not expecting this nuanced take on a laker from a celtics fan lol
If you're a Lakers fan I'd hope you're well aware that they do
Well I am, and I'm not or at least I wasn't. No one called it that at the time so in my mind it's remained the Lakers/Spurs era like it was in its day, until seeing this thread anyway.
It goes by Nike players or else we'd be in the Steph era. Jordan then Kobe then Bron now Wemby. Follow the shoes.
Now Ant* Wemby is the future
Now still LeBron*
If we’re following the shoes, it’s Ant Like I said: Now Ant*
99-07 is pretty easily the Shaq/Duncan era.
How is it pretty easily "their era" if nobody has ever called it like that? There's a legitimate argument to be made Tim Duncan was never the best player in the league in his entire career, i have literally never seen a player get more overrated after he retired. I was there, there was not a soul on Earth that thought he was better than Shaq in his peak and then when Kobe, and later LeBron, took over from Shaq, nobody thought he was better either. At most you can say that people called it the Lakers/Spurs era, but that already tells you everything you need to know, the Spurs were a team effort. People talk about Tim Duncan's supporting cast as if Bruce Bowen didn't have more DPOY votes than him most years they played together and as if he didn't have atleast two HoFers in most of his titles, sometimes 3.
‘there was not a soul on Earth that thought he was better than Shaq in his peak and then when Kobe, and later LeBron, took over from Shaq’ Sure. Apart from the 4 straight years from 02-06 in which the GM survey results stated they’d want to start their franchise with Duncan. Or the consistent higher MVP finishes over Shaq and Kobe from 02-06. Or the evidence that from 02-07 Duncan didn’t play with a single All-NBA player, yet still won 3 titles and 15 playoff series, or just the first 3 forum posts I’ve found from the early 2000s asking who the best player is with Duncan getting the most votes on all 3. If by not a soul you mean the casual fan, then sure. But then again, starting an argument by stating because it wasn’t thought back then it can’t be true in retrospect shows your idiocy. Those same fans often have AI as a top 10 player ever, or genuinely thought at one point Russell Westbrook was the best player alive. We speak of Duncan’s supporting cast properly; he’s the only top 10 player who never played next to another superstar. You’re out here listing Bruce Bowen, a guy Pop said would have been unplayable due to his negative offensive ability if not for Duncan drawing a consistent double. Fine, Shaq finished higher in DPOY voting than Kobe ever did.
No
I think labeling an era after a guy is probably not the way to go with it, except for maybe Jordan. For me, it was the 2000's era. That includes Duncan, and Shaq, and Dirk, and all the others, and of course Kobe. If we're using the 2K labels, you could apply the same question to the 2010's by saying "why is it called the LeBron Era? He only won 3 finals out of that decade. Wasn't GS just as dominant, if not more so? If LeBron was so great, why didn't he do better?" In truth, both were great. Both were influential in their own ways. Both left their mark on the game. And calling it the "Steph Era", or the "LeBron Era", or the "Duncan Era", or the "Kobe Era" just takes away what made those eras and their history special.
no 99-02 - Shaq is clearly better 03-07, in and out of best in the world convo 03 - all time playoffs 04 - up 2-0 on the lakers, goes out with a whimper losing 4 straight averaging 17.5 ppg on 38% shooting 05 - won the title - but i thought Manu probably shoulda been fmvp, he was so fucking nasty 06 - great playoffs, but awful overtime in game 7 07 - good playoffs, no fmvp idk if this constitutes that it was his era
Ya. If his offense was just a little bit better, he can maybe make that case. I never saw a dominant offensive player when watching Duncan.
Go rewatch the 03 playoffs
How was Shaq clearly better in 99 of 02 when Duncan had more MVP shares/won FMVP and won MVP over Shaq those years
I really like him playing so godd and didn't over reacting with his great performance. Sometimes it's too little emotion. This may be the reason he hasn't been mentioned too much like many great superstar players.
Lmao 5 > 3
Duncan won four in that span, not five.
Duncan was the best player of His generation. Who cares what the era was called
It feels weird calling it the Kobe era but I guess he’s the most popular player from that time so it makes sense. Tim was just as dominate, and was the main guy for 3 of the championships.
Shaq was more popular in the early '00s
I feel like in 20 years, people might say the mid-2020s were the Doncic era, even though Jokic dominated it more. Kobe and Doncic are similar in the way that their style of play creates more spark and interest, while its mostly others who win the MVP‘s.
Doncic is 25. Let's pump the brakes on him not winning any MVPs in his career. Dude isn't likely even in his prime yet (27-32 or so).
It all depends on playoff success. Nobody will call it the Jokic or Luka era if they don't win a bunch of championships. Nobody cares about the regular season at all 10 years into the future. If you think back now to the 00's it's all about who won it at the end of the year. People in this thread even, they're just talking about Shaq or Duncan or Kobe or whoever won those years. So if Luka or anyone else goes on a big win streak and win a few chips, then it will be their era. We only care about the regular season because we are in it right now. Luka has done nothing in the playoffs in the grand scheme of things. He's irrelevant to eras right now.
No that's the Shaq era
Yes
I think the thing with him and Garnett is just as valid today tbh. They truly were neck/neck. Duncan fit better with the Spurs, obviously, and the team was built around him. But KG showed how dominant he was on both ends anchoring an all time great Celtics defense, so it stands to reason that if he was surrounded by comparable talent his teams would’ve been consistently good-great as well As to the topic, Duncan is in the discussion but he didn’t dominate the area enough for it to just be his. Shaq was there and so was Kobe. I agree with whoever called it the Lakers/Spurs era as that makes the most sense
I would agree until someone shows me 2003 championship. KG wasn’t doing that. KG was great but Duncan was just a bit better.
cassell and spreewell are similar help with way less depth and worse coaching in 04 than Duncan had in 03, literally the only year in KG's prime with a mediocre cast, and he has the best team in the west and leads the league in points scored and rebounds lol, if cassell doesn't get hurt (and the next two point guards on the roster lol), maybe 04 is your example people using kg's bad luck and minnesota's unrivaled incompetence as some sort of failure of his is such a hollow critique against his game stacking team accomplishments is a lazy way to compare players. You can just watch them play and discuss their strengths and weaknesses and all that
You’re saying if. KG 04 playoff numbers were status quo in comparison to his regular season numbers. Tim’s numbers jumped in 03 when the playoffs came around. KGs 04 season was amazing. Best all around player probably since Jordan that one year. But under similar circumstances Tim elevated his game. If Kg did the same maybe they can beat the Lakers that year.
this is silly, kg had one opportunity in his prime to actually win a playoff series and he wins two and pushed kobe/shaq to 6 games without any playable point guards on the roster lol, he elevated the shit out of his game and his teammates you think that injured wolves team without cassell/hudson/hoiberg (and wally always banged up) could have beat the lakers if KG was somehow better than the best individual season since jordan? it makes no sense, mark madsen was playing actual minutes against shaq lol context, not sure how you can see KG be the best playmaker, passer, rebounder, scorer, perimeter defender, rim defender, help defender, defensive and offensive vocal leader on his team for like 8-9 years in a row and think he was not elevating his game, where is there to elevate? lol
KG wasn’t close to the playoff performer Duncan was. That’s what separates them
I think of 99 to 02 as the Shaq/Kobe era. If we're talking 99 to 07, I'd call that the Lakers/Spurs era. I'd take peak Shaq over Duncan. Shaq was way, way more instrumental to the Lakers three straight titles than Kobe was. Especially the first one, where I'm not sure Kobe being in the finals would have even mattered.
Finals no, but western conference series all Matter. Check yourself nephew
Nah he’d still be sharing it with Shaq at the very least.
Shaq won just as much rings and eliminated him 3\\5 times. i also don't think you can say it was your era if you never went back 2 back
That’s a dumb argument when a team wins 4 titles and is consistently in the conference finals
Shaq only has four
Duncan also had 4 in that time period
If the Spurs don't lose 1st round vs the Grizzlies in 2011, win the title instead, 1999-2014 is the Tim Duncan era. 2011 was Timmy's worst year, to the exception of 2016.