Once again, I vote Duncan for the reasons given below. His place v.s other candidates like Hakeem/Magic/Shaq is discussed below.
Vote: Tim DuncanI have Jordan and Kareem as my two clear best players. After them though I think Duncan, Shaq and (to a lesser extent) Magic are the players in the next tier (Bird doesn’t have enough longevity). A lot of people have been voting for Bill Russell as the GOAT. Tim Duncan is not the same type of player as Russell, he’s less athletic for one thing, but his career arc is similarly good to Russell and Jordan, where you look at it and think “yep, every year of this guy’s prime he either met or wildly exceeded expectations”. He’s also just a better player period. Russell has 11 rings and Duncan has 5, but that’s because of context; Russell played on stacked teams in a weak sauce league that pales to the modern NBA (something myself and others elaborated on in detail in the #1 and #2 vote thread), while Duncan played in a very tough NBA, with often less than ideal support casts. I could write a lot more on this, and I’m sure I will in response posts, but for my opening post I will explain why I think Duncan is the clear choice at #3, with particular reference to the guys he is competing with.
To summarise though: Duncan’s peak is better than Magic and comparable to Hakeem, his prime is longer than Bird’s and more consistent than Shaq or Hakeem, and his crazy longevity pushes him past them all. I have all those guys ahead of Russell, given the reservations I expressed about him in thread 1 + 2.
Year by year analysis of team outcomesDuncan’s prime goes for 10 years, from 98-07. Over those 10 years his team meets or exceeds expectations every year.
1998- The Spurs win 56 games and lose in the 2nd round. Exceeded expectations.
1999- Spurs have the best record and win the title. Duncan is basically the MVP this year, and the RPOY project agrees with me. Massively overachieved.
2000- Spurs awesome again, but Duncan gets hurt a few games before the playoffs begins. The injury would only have kept Duncan out for a few weeks, and they debated playing him, but decided to play it safe. Clearly Duncan can’t be blamed for losing a series he couldn’t play in because of a fluke injury. Met expectations.
2001- Spurs make it to the WCFs despite Duncan’s weak support cast, then lose to the Lakers. Overachieved.
2002- Spurs win 58 games despite the worst support cast Duncan had ever had. Lose in 5 close games to the Lakers, but that’s not Duncan’s fault. He was the best player that series (see more below). Overachieved by far.
2003- Spurs win 60 games and the title with a poor support cast. Massive overachievement.
2004- Spurs win 57 games (60+ win pace in games Duncan played), lose in the playoffs to the stacked Lakers in a close series, despite Duncan’s support cast abandoning him (see below)
2005- Spurs win the title.
2006- Spurs win 63 games. Lose to the Mavs in 7 games in the playoffs due to a boneheaded Manu foul. Duncan put up berserk numbers and almost carried an overmatched team over the line (he had literally no big men to help him this series, he started with 3 wings and Tony Parker).
2007- Spurs win the title.
Sidenote: I elaborate on 01-03 a little later, but just to focus on 04 for a second. The Lakers had Karl Malone and Shaq, both of whom were constantly doubling Duncan. It was easy to do this because Rasho was useless on O, and the Spurs shooters couldn’t hit the side of a barn this series. They were embarrassingly bad (taking a ridiculous 124 threes in 6 games, and making only 38 of them. They were even worse in the close out games). In 06 Duncan put up 32-12-4 on 615TS%; hard to blame him for the 7 game series loss (with two OT defeats). Manu made a bad foul that cost them the series. It happens.
Peak impact- Duncan carrying garbage teams 01-03The purest measure of your impact is how much better you singlehandedly can make a team. I’m not a fan of various APMs and the like, as I feel there are problems with them. Something I think is often a lot more accurate is how well a great player does with a bad support cast. When I want to find out who is a better weight lifter, I look to see how much they can lift consistently. Duncan lifted 1000 pounds 3/3 times, with no spotter. I don't know definitively if he could have lifted it more than 3 times, because he was only given 3 chances to do it over his 10 year prime. But when the chances came, he did it. To contrast this with someone like Hakeem; Hakeem had over half a dozen chances to do it prior to 93, and he basically lifted between 600 and 800 pounds each time, even though he had 2 spotters. He couldn't lift that much basically. Nobody is denying Duncan generally had better team mates than Hakeem, I agree that he did, and I don't blame Hakeem for not winning a title prior to 94. I blame him for leading his team to repeatedly crappy results multiple years, often with better help than Duncan had, and for being a locker room cancer while he was doing it.
2001-
Worst backcourt on a contending ever?His 01 team was the strongest of the 3 I named (probably), in the regular season anyway, but it was definitely bad. Firstly, Derek Anderson was hurt in the playoffs, so you can scrub him from being considered as a factor. The few games he tried to force himself to play a few minutes in the Laker series he looked so hobbled it was clear it'd been a mistake to even let him play (he averaged 2ppg, 2rpg on 0FG% when he played for 20mpg in 2 games). As a Spurs fan, I understand the myth fans built up of "oh, if we'd just had Derek Anderson, it would have gone differently!" Nothing would have gone differently, not least of all because Derek Anderson is not even a particularly good player. The Spurs made 100% the right decision to let him leave in free agency, where he quickly faded into obscurity. Derek Anderson was a middle of the pack shooting guard who shot poor percentages and wasn't good on D. He was no loss. His FG% that year was 416. and his career % was 402. The guy was a gunner who took many ill-advised shots, and was worse in the playoffs than the regular season. He could hit the open 3’s Duncan gave him mostly, but wasn’t a good offensive player overall. Derek Anderson padded numbers for good or desperate teams. His three highest seasons he averaged 16.9 padding for a Clippers, 15.5 gunning for the talent deficient Spurs backcourt, and 13.9 for the Blazers. His career average was 12ppg. If it wasn't for his 1 year on the Spurs nobody would even remember who Derek Anderson was. He just seemed good because of how bad the rest of the Spurs wings were. Let's go over that now.
Why was Anderson able to shine in the Spurs backcourt? Here's why. It consisted of:
- Antonio Daniels, a career back-up on a good team who was forced into a starting role
- 36 year old Avery Johnson, who was so washed up he basically became a player coach after this year (where he'd play stints of the season for various teams on the understanding he was trying to become a coach there after)
- 38 year old Terry Porter, so old he squeaked when he moved. All he could still do was shoot and throw an entry pass.
- 35 year old Dan Ferry's corpse. All he could do was shoot at this point.
- 33 year Sean Elliot, now crippled by kidney disease, who was so bad this year he promptly retired after it was over. How bad was Elliot? Here are his #’s in the WCFs; 19mpg, 1.3ppg, 1.7rpg, 111. FG%. Yikes.
-35 year old Steve Kerr, who couldn't do anything except shoot
That's maybe the worst backcourt I've ever seen on a contender. They couldn't defend anything, and there is not one guy who is a real starter there (maybe not even Anderson, who was hurt). Worse, they didn't even shoot well in the playoffs (the only thing they were meant to be good at). Terry Porter was 3-18 at the 3 in the Lakers series. Antonio Daniels, who the Spurs were forced to play an unbelievable 42mpg, was 3-17 that series. DA was 0-4, Elliot was 0-3, and while Ferry hit 4-9 threes, that hardly tipped the scale back (plus, Ferry sucked overall).
Malik Rose was a fan favourite, but he was a bench scrub who had no business getting serious minutes on a contender. He was a 6-6, overweight power forward with negligible skill who couldn't shoot. I liked the guy, a lot of Spurs fans did, he had a good attitude (mostly), but he was not a guy I wanted to see on the court more than 10mpg, and certainly not to guard the 7-1 Shaq (low centre of gravity or not).
In fairness, D.Rob sharply declined in 02, not so much in 01, where D.Rob was still a very serviceable, above average big man (though stamina was a big issue still, limiting him to 29mpg). I'll stop short of saying he was an all-star (he might have been in 01), but he was still good (unlike in 02 and especially in 03). But that's literally all they had. The rest of the squad was hot garbage, which is why I referred to the wings and backcourt as being the problem.
2002-
Worst support cast for a contender ever?2002 was also a bad support cast by any definition. Robinson was a well below average player in 02. He couldn't play for long stretches because of stamina issues, he ran stiffly and he had sharply declined. In the playoffs he basically didn't play, and was banged up when he did. The next year of course D.Rob was notably worse (while he played in the 03 Lakers series, he was such a non-factor outside of the first game, you could be forgiven for not noticing the impersonation of a ghost he performed over 20mpg).
Malik Rose, like I said, was still not good. He was being forced into a starter type role by the total lack of support on the team. Anyone can fill a stat sheet (to the extent Malik's stats "improved"), but whether that player is someone who should see the court in the first place is another matter. There are plenty of scrubs who get great per 36 minute stats, but there's a reason they're not getting 36 minutes. Check out Baynes per 36 stats this year.
As for Bruce Bowen, he shot worse than usual in 02 (389 FG%), played only 59 regular season games that year, and was a guy who most teams wouldn't have been able to start. That he could start for the Spurs was wholly due to Duncan being able to draw constant double teams, which in turn allowed Bowen to get his one shot (the wide open corner 3). While in recent years the Spurs have had a tonne of ball movement, back in 02 (and 03) the Spurs mostly just threw the ball into Duncan and expected him to make something happen, either by drawing a double and kicking it out, or just scoring. It was actually pretty painful to watch at times. Without a Duncan/Shaq like player who can constantly command a double team Bowen would have been unusable. He was not a holistically good player, no team was out there trying to offer good money to Bowen, because they knew this. He was a great wing defender though, it's just Duncan who made him usable. Steve Smith shot the best he had ever (thanks to Duncan getting him so many open looks), but much like Ferry he was at the point in his career where all he could do was shoot. He pretty much ceased to be an NBA player after this year (assuming he was one this year). Charles Smith was obviously a scrub, Daniels a frustrating bench player getting way too many minutes, and Tony Parker a raw rookie getting 9ppg. He wasn't Tony Parker as we know him until 04 at the earliest (when he started to become the Parker we know today)
2003-
Weakest support cast on a title team in the modern era?As for 03, I see a lot of weird arguments like “oh, but the Spurs were good on D” or “the Spurs were good, just inconsistent”. Whether you're consistent is a big part of whether you're good in the NBA. Parker was still very raw, he was losing minutes to Speedy Claxton in the finals, and Manu was a 20mpg player who caused the coach a lot of headaches with his wild play. S.Jax was not a good player at this point. He showed a few signs, but he was not S.Jax as we came to know him. Other teams didn't think he was either. In the offseason after turning down a modest offer from the Spurs for 2-3 mill a year, he discovered nobody was interested in signing him. He ended up settled for a 1 year, $1 million contract from the Hawks. Sometimes he hit shots, but not usually when it mattered, and certainly not consistently. In the Lakers series he shot 0/10 from the 3pt line in games the Spurs won.
Malik Rose was still a scrub. D.Rob was worse than he'd ever been, hurt in the regular season, mostly MIA in the playoffs. Bowen still had all the problems I alluded to earlier. Duncan made Bowen. Without him he wouldn't have been able to get on the court. Duncan got guys open shots, and sometimes they had "on" nights where they'd score, but that'll happen. From a holistic point of view the team was just not good though. The NBA is a star league, and the mere presence of Kobe and Shaq on the same team should have made all these meh players irrelevant. It certainly had the previous 3 years. That they won is a testament to Duncan's awesomeness, no more no less.
I see a lot of Laker fans blame it on Horry’s shooting. Horry's shooting is no excuse because Duncan was defending him mostly in 03. Saying "Duncan's man shot like crap" is a terrible excuse, because the chances are Duncan had a lot to do with that (just like KG did in the previous round when he guarded Horry). I've also broken up the Horry 3 pt misses, and they mostly don't matter when we look at the games the Spurs won; 0-3 in game 1 (Spurs won by 5, since Horry isn't a 66% 3 pt shooter I'm going to go ahead and say that wouldn't have changed the outcome), 0-2 in a 19 point loss in game 2 is clearly not a factor either, nor was his 0-3 three point shooting the deciding factor in game 6 when the Lakers lost by 28. It probably had an effect in game 5 when he was 0-6 in a close game, but then the Spurs won these 4 games with Stephen Jackson shooting 0-10 from the three point line, so it seems silly to whine about it. It's especially silly to use it as an excuse
because Tim Duncan was his primary defender in 03, and we should be crediting Duncan with shutting him down, not using it against him!If you want to talk about bad shooting costing a team, Duncan's been a far bigger victim in that regard. I already pointed out some of the horrendous shooting outings his "shooters" had in Laker series like 01. 02 was little different; in 02 S.Smith was 5-17 from the 3, Parker was 2-12, Ferry was 2-11, A.Daniels 2-8, Ferry 0-7. Bowen shot a good 50%, but that was it for the Spurs. And these were guys who, aside from Parker, were still on an NBA roster primarily for their shooting (except Daniels, who was a career back-up promoted due to desperation). It gets worse in 04. The Spurs took an absurd 124 threes in the 6 game series against the Lakers... and made only 38 of them. Their 3pt % was well under the Lakers (306 v 342), and doubly hurtful because they were relying on this shot so much more (the Lakers took 48 less 3's). That's why Duncan was able to get doubled so much by Shaq and Malone, because Rasho sucked and because his shooters couldn't hit the side of a barn. In the close out game the Spurs shooters were 3-24 from outside. Yikes. They were little better in game 5 at 6-23 from outside. It was Duncan's 21-21 games (plus an absurd, should have been game winning shot) that made that a 1 point game.
As for the “defensive all-star” nonsense that gets thrown about, that’s both untrue and a false dichotomy. Firstly, nobody on the Spurs support cast was a defensive all-star in 03 (or 02). A defensive all-star is someone who makes the all-star team on the back of their D (despite having no offensive game), like Mutumbo, Ben Wallace or Rodman. Secondly, it misunderstands player value. This isn’t about getting a scale and trying to balance D and O as 50% components of a player’s impact. Whether a player is good on D may have little bearing on their overall impact. All that matters is overall impact, not "balance" or "skill". Plenty of guys who specialise in just one area can be more impactful than a guy who is an all-arounder. Similarly, a guy with poor D, especially at point guard, can still be way more valuable than a guy who is good at both O and D. Michael Curry is a good defensive player, but a bad player overall.
To use a hypothetical, imagine a guy who can reliably hit 3's from anywhere on the court. He might be below average in every other facet of the game, but that one skill makes him the most valuable player in the NBA. These sorts of "but how did he play on D/O" arguments always seem to go hand in hand with arguments about "balance" and "skill", which are reluctant to address why a guys team underachieved with him. Bob Sura and Brent Barry were both way more "skilled" and "balanced" than Shaq, but that's meaningless... Shaq was the better basketball player. It's like Pokémon Generation 1. Gyarados, Flareon and Dragonite all look awesome with those huge base stats, but they're distributed badly. Dragonite is a jack of all trades, master of none. Meanwhile a pokemon with far lower base stats, Chansey, is about ten times more usable (and annoying to play against). It has pitiful defense and attack stats, but its huge stats in more useful areas, and unique abilities, make it more playable.
Duncan’s longevity- The Second ComingDuncan slowly declined from 08-11 as his quickness and athleticism tapered off, and his body struggled to carry his 260 pound frame as easily. Duncan made the decision to slim down, trading off some of his weight for greater speed and stamina (less weight to carry). He also continued to improve his shooting range. This began in 2012, but it was in 2013 we really began to see the results. Duncan had a revival year, the best he’d played since 2007, made the all-nba first team, and almost led the Spurs to a historic title. Then next season Duncan was basically as good, and they won the title pretty decisively. It’s almost unheard of for a guy his age to be contributing this much, certainly among the guys Duncan is in competition with. This is the amazing thing, Duncan was voted a top 5 player in his rookie year in 98, and in 2013 he’s voted in the all-nba 1st team again, and has barely lost a step from 2013 to 2014 (he’s mostly just being played a few less minutes to rest him).
On that note, the “Duncan could not have held up playing more minutes” argument doesn’t really work against anyone not named Kareem or Karl Malone, because when you add up his playoff minutes as well you see he was playing more minutes than the Hakeem’s and KG’s of the NBA. I also think it’s silly to penalise Duncan for his coach choosing to rest him, especially when one of the reasons he can do that is Duncan is helping the Spurs blow their opponents out. Over Duncan’s 17 year career the Spurs win % gives them an average win season of 58 wins. That’s unrivalled, and Duncan’s obviously the #1 reason for that astonishing run. His longevity is a huge addition to his already magnificent 10 year prime.
Duncan v.s HakeemHakeem only had 3 years that really compare favourably to Duncan's prime, the rest doesn't. Even then, advanced per 40 pace adjusted stats show that Hakeem doesn't even really have an advantage over Duncan on stats. I was actually doing some reading on this the other day. Check out this table, which shows the negligible stat difference when you adjust for pace and make it per 40 minutes:
Code: Select all
olajuwon, PTS REB AST STL BLK TO TS% dTS% PER
1995-96 27.4 11.1 3.6 1.6 2.9 3.5 .558 +.003 25.5
1994-95 27.4 10.6 3.5 1.8 3.3 3.2 .563 -.007 26.1
1993-94 25.7 11.2 3.4 1.5 3.5 3.2 .565 +.027 25.1
1992-93 25.3 12.8 3.5 1.8 4.1 3.1 .573 +.022 27.0
1991-92 22.2 12.4 2.3 1.9 4.5 2.7 .553 +.019 23.4
1990-91 21.1 13.7 2.3 2.2 3.9 3.1 .549 +.022 24.1
1989-90 23.0 13.3 2.7 2.0 4.3 3.6 .541 +.013 24.0
1988-89 24.1 13.1 1.8 2.5 3.3 3.3 .552 +.021 25.1
1987-88 23.0 12.2 2.1 2.1 2.7 3.1 .555 +.032 23.5
1986-87 23.3 11.4 2.9 1.9 3.4 3.0 .554 +.032 23.9
1985-86 22.9 11.2 2.0 1.9 3.3 2.8 .560 +.029 24.2
Total 24.2 12.1 2.7 1.9 3.6 3.2 .557 +.021 24.7
duncan,ti PTS REB AST STL BLK TO TS% dTS% PER
2007-08 23.6 13.8 3.4 0.9 2.4 2.8 .546 +.004 24.2
2006-07 24.0 12.7 4.1 1.0 2.9 3.3 .579 +.022 25.9
2005-06 22.1 13.1 3.8 1.0 2.4 3.0 .523 -.029 22.9
2004-05 25.3 13.8 3.4 0.8 3.3 2.4 .540 +.007 27.0
2003-04 25.0 14.0 3.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 .534 +.029 26.8
2002-03 24.1 13.3 4.0 0.7 3.0 3.2 .564 +.030 26.6
2001-02 25.6 12.8 3.8 0.7 2.5 3.2 .576 +.049 26.9
2000-01 23.5 12.9 3.2 0.9 2.5 3.1 .536 -.006 23.6
1999-00 24.1 12.9 3.3 0.9 2.3 3.4 .555 +.025 24.6
1998-99 22.8 12.0 2.5 0.9 2.6 3.1 .541 +.023 22.9
1997-98 22.3 12.6 2.9 0.7 2.6 3.6 .577 +.058 22.3
Total 23.9 13.1 3.5 0.9 2.7 3.1 .553 +.020 24.9So there goes Hakeem's big advantage (raw stats). Then look at how Duncan was better at carrying teams overall (some of the teams knocking out Hakeem before his late peak were mediocre in the extreme, he didn't even make the playoffs in 1992 despite having an all-star big man next to him). Duncan’s support casts in 01-03 were grossly inferior to the late 80’s, early 90’s Hakeem support casts, yet Duncan led them to far superior results. Duncan has much more longevity too of course, and he's a better man defender for mine. It seems like a straight forward choice. It would be tough to say if Hakeem had played throughout his career like he did in 93-95, but he didn't, and I rate guys off the careers they actually had, not a bunch of hypotheticals.
This is discussed in great depth on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328701Duncan v.s ShaqShaq obviously peaked higher, for the 1-2 years it lasted anyway. Overall though I prefer Duncan. For one thing, Duncan’s D and effort is consistent, while Shaq started to take plays on D off a lot more as his career went on (and as his niggling injuries mounted), constantly failing to box out, jogging up the court, getting lazy on switches and such. I also think Duncan’s prime is probably better than Shaq’s, and his longevity significantly better, with no external negatives like Shaq. Shaq had years where he legitimately underachieved, and a lot of his career falls under the “what if” category. I can only imagine how good he could have been if he’d always been as focused and determined (and healthy) as he was in 00, but he wasn’t, and it goes a long way to explaining the Lakers constantly coming up short from 97-99, and Shaq’s teams sometimes underachieving.
Duncan and Shaq played each other in 5 playoff series, and surprisingly enough Duncan mostly was the better player. In 01 Shaq was obviously the best player on the court. In 02, 03 and 99 it was Duncan (and Duncan actually matched up with Shaq most of the time in 02, since D.Rob was hurt, the video is on youtube). In 04 it’s arguable either way. Shaq’s raw numbers are a little better, but his D wasn’t as consistent or impactful that series, and there are other factors I alluded to already (Malone and Shaq doubling him, no help inside, shooters couldn’t hit anything). Here are the 3 other series:
1999:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 10.8rpg, 3.3apg on 600TS%
Shaq put up 23.8ppg, 13rpg, 0.5apg on 506TS%
And this was a series where Shaq had all-NBA Kobe putting up 21-6.5-3.5 and Glen Rice averaging 18ppg. Sure, Glen Rice didn't score efficiently, but look at Duncan's 2nd best player this series. D.Rob was putting up 13ppg and 6.5rpg and playing only 28mpg.
2002:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 17.2rpg, 4.6apg on 517TS%
Shaq put up 21.4ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.2apg on 487TS%
Like I said, they were mostly matching up with each other, as seen here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEThyAvSi3k[/youtube]
2003:
Duncan put up 28ppg, 11.8rpg, 4.8apg on 575TS%
Shaq put up 25.3ppg, 14.3rpg, 3.7apg on 592TS%
Closer stats, but Duncan was clearly outplaying Shaq overall, on D especially, and was just flat out abusing Shaq when he was sent to guard him. Here's a video of him dominating the close out game:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_iN6qwvoS8[/youtube]
There are a lot of injury excuses by Shaq fans about these series, but that’s a bit silly because a) you judge guys on the careers they had, not “the ones they might have had if they’d been healthier”, and b) Shaq always had some niggling injuries in his later career, it was a product of his adding weight in order to become more dominant, but to argue it should be used as an excuse in these series is silly. Shaq had no problem dominating the 1st round in 02 as usual, and the very next round he put up 30-14 on the Kings on dominant efficiency. In the 02 finals he was even more dominant, putting up 36-12 on amazing efficiency. In 99 he put up 29-10-4-4 on great efficiency in the 1st round. So again, it's a case of injuries that are only ever invoked as having affected him in the Spurs series, and when it comes to all-time rankings I never hear Shaq fans say "well, we better take some points off Shaq for always being injured in the playoffs". Quite the opposite in fact. It's just a tired excuse to my mind. Shaq wasn't at his peak in 02, but he was still prime Shaq, and he still had no trouble destroying the non-Duncan opponents in his wake. There is no evidence whatever Shaq’s injuries unduly affected him in the Spurs series those years v.s the other series, indeed the commentary at the time indicates the opposite.
A lot of people say Duncan was blessed with a good organisation and team, and to some extent that’s very true (not always though). However, Duncan hasn’t played with support casts close to as good as what Duncan was blessed with over his career. He had legit superstars like Penny, Kobe and Wade on his team, big men to take the load off like Ho Grant or K.Malone, multiple all-stars in his early Laker years, good role players, top notch coaches mostly, and then got to spent his later years ring chasing on stacked teams (if it had been Duncan playing for those Celtics/Cavs/Suns teams, at Shaq’s age, those 3 teams would all have won titles).
Duncan v.s MagicMagic was the offensive GOAT, but I feel like Duncan’s two way impact was better at his peak, and his longevity makes it a clear choice for Duncan. Then there’s the longevity. I see Lakers fans claim Magic’s prime started in 84. A big problem given he retired after 91. He has 12 years in the NBA in total, even if they were all prime years it’s pretty hard to see how it compares to Duncan’s 17 years of impact. Magic had a tonne more help than Duncan, and while other greats of that period like Bird did too, Magic’s teams underachieved some years in ways Duncan’s teams didn’t. Losses to the Rockets in 81 and 86 and a 4-1 a$$ kicking by the KJ Suns in 1990 all stand out as pretty hugely disappointing outcomes. I don’t think prime Duncan had any comparable fails like this.
