NBA players are measured for greatness differently than those in other sports. In baseball or football stats not only paint a picture of greatness, they define it. Who was Lou Gehrig? We all know the answer. Twenty-one hundred thirty consecutive games 493-1995-.340. Why is the baseball world spinning on it's head over Barry Bonds and Aaron's record? Because he brushed his thumb on the scale of greatness and created a false weight, no matter how close to true it was.

Basketball is a team sport. We don't just talk about Larry Bird. We discuss the "Larry Bird era", the period of time Bird picked up the Celtics and carried them to three championships. His averages? Who knows? Flip the coin. How many times did Gehrig play on a World Series winner? Six. But you have to look it up. It's not even listed at the official Lou Gehrig website as one of his accomplishments.

Which brings us to Tim Duncan, the most unassuming super star in pro sports. If ever a seven foot player averaging 21 points and 11 rebounds for a career could be overlooked, Duncan is the one. But you can't ignore this. If the Spurs take the shiny hardware back to Texas for the summer, it will be the 4th time in Duncan's 10 year career. By the standards of NBA greatness we'll have to have a serious conversation. Duncan or Jordan?

The question itself is heresy. Jordan is the Babe Ruth of basketball. The defining image. "Air Jordan". Slashing to the basket, hanging above the rim with his tongue stuck out, the visible fire in the eyes. Duncan? No nickname that has stuck, no defining play beyond a soft hook from the lane, only mild excitement on his face. The clock is punched titles are won, the man disappears.

But what if Duncan, still only 31, catches Jordan in titles by the time he is 35? And tags on one or two more before retiring? Are we in the Tim Duncan era now and either don't know it or choose not to recognize it? Is Duncan the essential component. The player who powers the great basketball machine on an era. Is he as important to the Spurs titles as Jordan? By the measure of a team sport, where does he take his place among the greats?

Consider this. Duncan's Spurs have won 72% of his regular season games. Magic Johnson is the only other NBA player to achieve that, on the way to 5 titles. Bird got 71% and 3. In a far different era, Bill Russell walked away with the NBA Championship 11 times, a winner in 70% of his regular season games. Like Jordan, Kareem Abdul Jabbar was on six title teams but won 68% of his regular season games to 64% for Jordan. Wilt Chamberlain, to the eternal scorn of purists, won only 2 NBA titles and 64% of his regular season games, consigned by history to be Russell's foil.

The obvious answers come to you. Regular season wins don't matter, just who is left standing at the end. Jordan rebuilt the Bulls from scratch and suffered their growing pains. He interupted his career at the height of the Bulls achievements. He pulled his winning percentage lower by coming back with the Wizards. All true, but the question remains. Jordan or Duncan?

Turn the question around. If you had both Jordan and Duncan available and could plug one or the other into the Spurs or Bulls lineup today, who would it be? Would the Spurs with Jordan but without Duncan have a better chance of winning than say the present day Bulls with Duncan? My money would be on Chicago with Duncan.

If somehow the Jordan-Pippen Bulls could take the court against the Duncan-Parker-Ginobilli Spurs, who would win and what would it say about the relative greatness of Duncan and Jordan? Again, my money would be on Duncan.

Does Duncan have a stronger supporting cast? Although the Bulls didn't win the title during Jordan's two year abscense, they did win regular season games at close to the same percentage. What would the Spurs chances of maintaining their win percentage be without Duncan?

All of this is lazy day pondering. In the end it doesn't matter. Jordan will remain first among equals with basketball fans. He is, indeed, the Ruth of basketball and will likely remain so to fans one hundred years from now. Michael Jordan is Michael Jordan and worthy of every accolade he has won. But if Jordan is Ruth, surely Tim Duncan is basketball's version of the consistently great Gehrig.

I ask the Duncan-Jordan question only to raise a point.  Not to say Duncan will ever eclipse Jordan, which is a ridiculous notion.  Just to say there is a looming shadow falling across the NBA record books. That shadow is being cast by the Spur from Saint Croix.

In the excitement of the NBA finals many are proclaiming LeBron James as the next Michael Jordan. Before we make that leap maybe we should pause and write the name Tim Duncan in the same book as that of Jordan, Russell, Johnson, Bird, Jabbar, and Chamberlain.

A little lower than that of Michael Jordan, but not that far down the page.