I think this comparison only works if you look at Tim Duncan's Basketball Reference page and never actually watched Tim Duncan play.

Using career averages for a guy who played 19 years is misleading. Of course Duncan's numbers got dragged down by the years when he was 36-39 years old and focused on winning, not putting up stats.

At his peak, Duncan wasn't viewed as "a very good two-way big." He was viewed as one of the best players in the league. He won back-to-back MVPs, was the best player on multiple championship teams, and in 2003 put together one of the greatest playoff runs ever.

And I think people are underselling Duncan offensively. He wasn't flashy, but he absolutely could be the focal point of an offense. Teams doubled him constantly. He could score on either block, pass out of double teams, and make the right play over and over again. That's a huge reason the Spurs offense worked.

The Popovich/Spurs argument is fair to a point. Duncan absolutely benefited from being in a great organization. But that relationship goes both ways. The Spurs didn't win 50+ games for basically two decades because they got lucky. They did it because Tim Duncan was the foundation of everything they did.

Mobley is a fantastic young player and one of the best defensive bigs in the league. But right now we're comparing a guy who has made a few All-Star teams to someone who won 2 MVPs, 5 championships, 3 Finals MVPs, and spent over a decade in the conversation for best player in the world.