Can you make the case that Duncan is top-7 all time?

[70sFan]

I consider Shaq better because
his dominance in the finals is unmatched by anyone not named Michael Jordan.

Did you forget about Bill Russell again?

Shaq was great in the finals, but he was also outplayed by his positional matchup and won one ring while playing badly in the finals. I think you can definitely find quite a few all-timers that could compete against Shaq in the finals.

That said, there is a group of players that I consider in a clear league above TD overall; Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic,
Lebron.

I see nothing suggesting that Bird is a clear league above Duncan. He has less rings, was more inconsistent in the playoffs, has less ATG postseason moments, less overall success, worse longevity...

I've not seen other players as dominant as those mentioned, and even as dominant as leaders (Not sure about Wilt/LBJ as leaders though, tbh)

Kareem comparable to Duncan as a leader?

The Spurs' success is with Duncan as leader and in due part because of his superb versatility, but certainly has something to do with Manu, Parker being a perfect fit as well.

Of course, just like the Bulls success has something to do with Pippen and Rodman, or Celtics success has something to do with McHale and Parish, or Lakers success has something to do with Kobe... Duncan actually won one title without Parker and Manu, the rest won all their titles next to their complimentary stars.

[dhsilv2]

But KG did seemingly have a higher peak as a defender.

That's far, far from a given. It's perfectly fine to argue that Duncan was a better defender at his peak.

His shooting range gave him more gravity.

Not really, his shooting allowed him to create spacing effect, but as far as scoring gravity goes - Duncan actually impacted defenses significantly more than Garnett.

He was a MUCH better passer and that created all kinds of advantages.He of course was a better ball handler and was able to run an offense. Something Duncan liked to do here and there but clearly couldn't sustain.

These are true KG advantages, I agree.
Of course you completely ignore all the advantages Duncan has over Garnett.

But my word were "better". And I don't think you can make an easy case for Duncan there.

I don't think you can make an easy case for Garnett either.

You can make a case for Duncan as the better peak defender, building around priority of rim protection. But I'm not sure it will hold to the film studies. Though I'm open.

I should have said KG's shooting gives him more gravity where it's more valuable.

I don't think you can make a clear cut case for either, though I think Elgee did a pretty perfect one in his top 40 and then picked Duncan over KG as I'd do myself.

[70sFan]

But KG did seemingly have a higher peak as a defender.

That's far, far from a given. It's perfectly fine to argue that Duncan was a better defender at his peak.

His shooting range gave him more gravity.

Not really, his shooting allowed him to create spacing effect, but as far as scoring gravity goes - Duncan actually impacted defenses significantly more than Garnett.

He was a MUCH better passer and that created all kinds of advantages.He of course was a better ball handler and was able to run an offense. Something Duncan liked to do here and there but clearly couldn't sustain.

These are true KG advantages, I agree.
Of course you completely ignore all the advantages Duncan has over Garnett.

But my word were "better". And I don't think you can make an easy case for Duncan there.

I don't think you can make an easy case for Garnett either.

You can make a case for Duncan as the better peak defender, building around priority of rim protection. But I'm not sure it will hold to the film studies. Though I'm open.

I should have said KG's shooting gives him more gravity where it's more valuable.

I don't think you can make a clear cut case for either, though I think Elgee did a pretty perfect one in his top 40 and then picked Duncan over KG as I'd do myself.

Yeah, it's mostly rim protection but it's the most valuable skill on defense. Duncan had a clear advantage in the post and generally as a paint protector, not only in terms of shotblocking.

[dhsilv2]

That's far, far from a given. It's perfectly fine to argue that Duncan was a better defender at his peak.


Not really, his shooting allowed him to create spacing effect, but as far as scoring gravity goes - Duncan actually impacted defenses significantly more than Garnett.


These are true KG advantages, I agree.
Of course you completely ignore all the advantages Duncan has over Garnett.


I don't think you can make an easy case for Garnett either.

You can make a case for Duncan as the better peak defender, building around priority of rim protection. But I'm not sure it will hold to the film studies. Though I'm open.

I should have said KG's shooting gives him more gravity where it's more valuable.

I don't think you can make a clear cut case for either, though I think Elgee did a pretty perfect one in his top 40 and then picked Duncan over KG as I'd do myself.

Yeah, it's mostly rim protection but it's the most valuable skill on defense. Duncan had a clear advantage in the post and generally as a paint protector, not only in terms of shotblocking.

Agree on all counts.

One thing that's tough to do with KG, is he was an elite rim runner but he didn't really have teams where he could exploit it. A huge what iff with what happens if Marbury stays and they really developed that. Oh well.

[tsherkin]

One thing that's tough to do with KG, is he was an elite rim runner but he didn't really have teams where he could exploit it. A huge what iff with what happens if Marbury stays and they really developed that. Oh well.

I think it would have been interesting to see him in a lower-usage role earlier on in his career, too. Obviously with talent in place, kinda like Boston.

[Packbuckman]

No not top 7
MJ
Wilt
Kareem
LeBron
Russell
Bird
Magic
Dream
Then I have Duncan Oscar Shaq Kobe in next group.

[tsherkin]

Dream

What's the pro-Dream argument here?

[TheProfessor]

You can easily make argument for Timmy to be top 4, let alone top 7. His arguments are longevity, GOAT level peak and portability. Timmy can basically gel into any team. Can play 4 or 5, has the ability to be a serviceable lead scorer or secondary scorer. No ego. 2003 season was probably one of the greatest seasons all time.

[bledredwine]

Hakeem
Shaq
Russell

What's the argument for Hakeem and Shaq over Duncan, out of curiosity?

Shaq - much more dominant offensive force, matchup nightmare, much better finals performances.

Hakeem - Like Duncan, could do it all, better footwork, offense, more dominant defensively- players were reluctant to come into
the paint and get a shot off if Hakeem was there.

I understand considering Duncan one of the better defenders in NBA history, but not a Hakeem or D Rob level defender.
Heck, Duncan usually finished top 6'ish in DPOY voting, rarely top 2 and never 1. And that was accurate- Ben Wallace was a better defender.

My question would be why would you rank Duncan ahead of Shaq or Hakeem? and I'm asking aside from whatever team-based or longevity based advanced metrics, but just from what you see in their game?

[tsherkin]

Shaq - much more dominant offensive force, matchup nightmare, much better finals performances.

How does that match off with fewer titles and MVPs, and being considerably worse on defense, while Duncan was an ATG defensive force?

Hakeem - ...

more dominant defensively-

Based on what?

I understand considering Duncan one of the better defenders in NBA history, but not a Hakeem or D Rob level defender.

There is a lot which disagrees with this.

[Snakebites]

Yes you can definitely make the case.

There are not 7 players who have a clear cut case above him.

[bledredwine]

I consider Shaq better because
his dominance in the finals is unmatched by anyone not named Michael Jordan.

Did you forget about Bill Russell again?

Shaq was great in the finals, but he was also outplayed by his positional matchup and won one ring while playing badly in the finals. I think you can definitely find quite a few all-timers that could compete against Shaq in the finals.

That said, there is a group of players that I consider in a clear league above TD overall; Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic,
Lebron.

I see nothing suggesting that Bird is a clear league above Duncan. He has less rings, was more inconsistent in the playoffs, has less ATG postseason moments, less overall success, worse longevity...

I've not seen other players as dominant as those mentioned, and even as dominant as leaders (Not sure about Wilt/LBJ as leaders though, tbh)

Kareem comparable to Duncan as a leader?

The Spurs' success is with Duncan as leader and in due part because of his superb versatility, but certainly has something to do with Manu, Parker being a perfect fit as well.

Of course, just like the Bulls success has something to do with Pippen and Rodman, or Celtics success has something to do with McHale and Parish, or Lakers success has something to do with Kobe... Duncan actually won one title without Parker and Manu, the rest won all their titles next to their complimentary stars.

Duncan in no way was on some other level from Bird, who had a high impact on the game and faced stupidly good
defenses.
Yes, I compare Kareem to Duncan as a leader. Leadership isn't just speaking with players- it's controlling the game itself.
I never saw that in Duncan. I saw that in Bird as well.

Can we measure that? Probably not, unfortunately, but you can't specify leadership in ways that aren't anecdotal.
It's in what you see and the impact on the team.

Now I will admit that Bird is a weird case where you have a player with a very high ceiling who dealt with several injuries.
But his peak is as high as nearly anyone's, and yes, I would draft him (as a player) ahead of Duncan. I would draft at least four centers before Duncan, and Bird as a debatable top two of his position (I have his peak as one, if prioritizing longevity, Lebron).

As for Russell? We've already been over this. I can't rank a center high on my top ten list when he shot terribly in 1/3 of his finals. You can dislike that as much as you want, but you must also consider that logic quite fair for someone's taste and list, if you're being objective. You're not going to force me to rank him number 4 or higher with a rings/defensive impact argument dude

[bledredwine]

Shaq - much more dominant offensive force, matchup nightmare, much better finals performances.

How does that match off with fewer titles and MVPs, and being considerably worse on defense, while Duncan was an ATG defensive force?

Hakeem - ...

more dominant defensively-

Based on what?

I understand considering Duncan one of the better defenders in NBA history, but not a Hakeem or D Rob level defender.

There is a lot which disagrees with this.

You do realize that the DPOY trophy is named the "Hakeem Olajuwon" trophy right? We can analyze the voting to recall where these guys were considered league wide, but I can tell you Hakeem was more consistently the sole best defender in the league than Duncan, and that was in a defensively stacked era, especially at his position in particular. Wallace was more dominant than Timmy and more Hakeem'esque in that regard.

As for the MVP side of things with Shaq, I prioritize playoff and especially finals dominance over everything else. Duncan played in the same era and never was the consistent 30 PER production player that Shaq was every season, let alone touch the finals three-peat that Shaq had, FMVP every single time with Kobe on the squad.

[70sFan]

Duncan in no way was on some other level from Bird, who had a high impact on the game and faced stupidly good
defenses.

It's not me who said that one player is on another level to the other - it's you who said that about Bird over Duncan and I don't see anything that suggests that.

As for Russell? We've already been over this. I can't rank a center high on my top ten list when he shot terribly in 1/3 of his finals. You can dislike that as much as you want, but you must also consider that logic quite fair for someone's taste and list, if you're being objective.

Larry Bird (5 finals): 45.8 FG%
Bill Russell (12 finals): 45.6 FG%

I mean, are we serious here?

Are you aware that 2/3 of his finals is more than Shaq or Bird even played? Even if he shot poorly in 1/3 of his finals, it means that he didn't in like 7-8 of them.

You're not going to force me to rank him number 4 or higher with a rings/defensive impact argument dude

I don't force you on anything, I just don't like when people cherry pick arguments to suit their agenda, while calling everyone else biased.

[bledredwine]

Shaq - much more dominant offensive force, matchup nightmare, much better finals performances.

How does that match off with fewer titles and MVPs, and being considerably worse on defense, while Duncan was an ATG defensive force?

Hakeem - ...

more dominant defensively-

Based on what?

I understand considering Duncan one of the better defenders in NBA history, but not a Hakeem or D Rob level defender.

There is a lot which disagrees with this.

As for finals? It's not even close between Shaq and Duncan... not sure
why people are choosing not to remember Shaq's dominance (maybe excluding 99, unfair to Timmy? dunno).
He was clear number 1 with Kobe on the squad.

Shaq Finals (prime)
2000 - 38 ppg, 16.7 reb, 2.3 ast, 2.7 blocks 30.6 gamescore
2001 - 33 ppg, 15.8 reb, 4.8 ast, 3.4 blocks 27.4 gamescore
2002 - 36.3 ppg, 12.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.8 blocks 30.1 gamescore
2004 - 26.6 ppg, 10.8 reb, 1.6 ast, .6 blocks, 18.7 gamescore <--- arthritis, significant decline year, Wallace was defending him, lost Chauncey was FMVP but still better offense than most of TD's finals appearances

Duncan Finals (prime)
1999 - 27.4 ppg, 14 reb, 2.4 ast, 22.6 gamescore
2003 - 24.2 ppg, 17 reb, 5.3 ast, 5.3 blocks 24.1 gamescore
2005 - 20.6 ppg, 14.1 reb, 2.1 ast, 2.1 blocks 15.9 gamescore
2007 - 18.3 ppg, 11.5 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 blocks 15.3 gamescore (finals MVP, Parker)

[70sFan]

Shaq - much more dominant offensive force, matchup nightmare, much better finals performances.

How does that match off with fewer titles and MVPs, and being considerably worse on defense, while Duncan was an ATG defensive force?

Hakeem - ...

more dominant defensively-

Based on what?

I understand considering Duncan one of the better defenders in NBA history, but not a Hakeem or D Rob level defender.

There is a lot which disagrees with this.

As for finals? It's not even close between Shaq and Duncan... not sure
why people are choosing not to remember Shaq's dominance (excluding 99, unfair to Timmy).
He was clear number 1 with Kobe on the squad.

Shaq Finals (prime)
2000 - 38 ppg, 16.7 reb, 2.3 ast, 2.7 blocks 30.6 gamescore
2001 - 33 ppg, 15.8 reb, 4.8 ast, 3.4 blocks 27.4 gamescore
2002 - 36.3 ppg, 12.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.8 blocks 30.1 gamescore
2004 - 26.6 ppg, 10.8 reb, 1.6 ast, .6 blocks, 18.7 gamescore <--- arthritis, significant decline year, Wallace was defending him, lost Chauncey was FMVP but still better offense than all but 1 of TD's

Duncan Finals (prime)
2003 - 24.2 ppg, 17 reb, 5.3 ast, 5.3 blocks 24.1 gamescore
2005 - 20.6 ppg, 14.1 reb, 2.1 ast, 2.1 blocks 15.9 gamescore
2007 - 18.3 ppg, 11.5 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 blocks 15.3 gamescore (finals MVP, Parker)

Why did you exclude 1999 Finals?

Now, would you like to do that with h2h series?

Spoiler: Duncan beats Shaq h2h comfortably using your criteria.

[bledredwine]

How does that match off with fewer titles and MVPs, and being considerably worse on defense, while Duncan was an ATG defensive force?



Based on what?



There is a lot which disagrees with this.

As for finals? It's not even close between Shaq and Duncan... not sure
why people are choosing not to remember Shaq's dominance (excluding 99, unfair to Timmy).
He was clear number 1 with Kobe on the squad.

Shaq Finals (prime)
2000 - 38 ppg, 16.7 reb, 2.3 ast, 2.7 blocks 30.6 gamescore
2001 - 33 ppg, 15.8 reb, 4.8 ast, 3.4 blocks 27.4 gamescore
2002 - 36.3 ppg, 12.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.8 blocks 30.1 gamescore
2004 - 26.6 ppg, 10.8 reb, 1.6 ast, .6 blocks, 18.7 gamescore <--- arthritis, significant decline year, Wallace was defending him, lost Chauncey was FMVP but still better offense than all but 1 of TD's

Duncan Finals (prime)
2003 - 24.2 ppg, 17 reb, 5.3 ast, 5.3 blocks 24.1 gamescore
2005 - 20.6 ppg, 14.1 reb, 2.1 ast, 2.1 blocks 15.9 gamescore
2007 - 18.3 ppg, 11.5 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 blocks 15.3 gamescore (finals MVP, Parker)

Why did you exclude 1999 Finals?

I literally edited and added it in right before you posted, realizing it was decent enough. At first, I thought he was too young (like me including early Lebron in finals comparisons, would be unfair) but numbers were decent so I included his 99' to make it more fair. That said, I could remove Shaq's 2004 since he was injured and a shell that whole season. Still, left it in.

[70sFan]

As for finals? It's not even close between Shaq and Duncan... not sure
why people are choosing not to remember Shaq's dominance (excluding 99, unfair to Timmy).
He was clear number 1 with Kobe on the squad.

Shaq Finals (prime)
2000 - 38 ppg, 16.7 reb, 2.3 ast, 2.7 blocks 30.6 gamescore
2001 - 33 ppg, 15.8 reb, 4.8 ast, 3.4 blocks 27.4 gamescore
2002 - 36.3 ppg, 12.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.8 blocks 30.1 gamescore
2004 - 26.6 ppg, 10.8 reb, 1.6 ast, .6 blocks, 18.7 gamescore <--- arthritis, significant decline year, Wallace was defending him, lost Chauncey was FMVP but still better offense than all but 1 of TD's

Duncan Finals (prime)
2003 - 24.2 ppg, 17 reb, 5.3 ast, 5.3 blocks 24.1 gamescore
2005 - 20.6 ppg, 14.1 reb, 2.1 ast, 2.1 blocks 15.9 gamescore
2007 - 18.3 ppg, 11.5 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 blocks 15.3 gamescore (finals MVP, Parker)

Why did you exclude 1999 Finals?

I literally edited and added it in right before you posted, realizing it was decent enough. At first, I thought he was too young (like me including early Lebron in finals comparisons, would be unfair) but numbers were decent so I included his 99' to make it more fair. That said, I could remove Shaq's 2004 since he was injured and a shell that whole season. Still, left it in.

Now, would you like to do that with h2h series?

Spoiler: Duncan beats Shaq h2h comfortably using your criteria.

It's funny, you pick finals series against unimpressive competition to push Shaq ahead of Duncan even though Duncan outplayed him h2h more times than not.

[bledredwine]

How does that match off with fewer titles and MVPs, and being considerably worse on defense, while Duncan was an ATG defensive force?



Based on what?



There is a lot which disagrees with this.

As for finals? It's not even close between Shaq and Duncan... not sure
why people are choosing not to remember Shaq's dominance (excluding 99, unfair to Timmy).
He was clear number 1 with Kobe on the squad.

Shaq Finals (prime)
2000 - 38 ppg, 16.7 reb, 2.3 ast, 2.7 blocks 30.6 gamescore
2001 - 33 ppg, 15.8 reb, 4.8 ast, 3.4 blocks 27.4 gamescore
2002 - 36.3 ppg, 12.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.8 blocks 30.1 gamescore
2004 - 26.6 ppg, 10.8 reb, 1.6 ast, .6 blocks, 18.7 gamescore <--- arthritis, significant decline year, Wallace was defending him, lost Chauncey was FMVP but still better offense than all but 1 of TD's

Duncan Finals (prime)
2003 - 24.2 ppg, 17 reb, 5.3 ast, 5.3 blocks 24.1 gamescore
2005 - 20.6 ppg, 14.1 reb, 2.1 ast, 2.1 blocks 15.9 gamescore
2007 - 18.3 ppg, 11.5 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 blocks 15.3 gamescore (finals MVP, Parker)

Why did you exclude 1999 Finals?

Now, would you like to do that with h2h series?

Spoiler: Duncan beats Shaq h2h comfortably using your criteria.

We can cherry pick all sorts of things if we'd like.

Should I use TD losing to the embarrassing 8th seed Grizzlies in 2004 or a bronze at the summer olympics as well?

[dhsilv2]

Shaq - much more dominant offensive force, matchup nightmare, much better finals performances.

How does that match off with fewer titles and MVPs, and being considerably worse on defense, while Duncan was an ATG defensive force?

Hakeem - ...

more dominant defensively-

Based on what?

I understand considering Duncan one of the better defenders in NBA history, but not a Hakeem or D Rob level defender.

There is a lot which disagrees with this.

As for finals? It's not even close between Shaq and Duncan... not sure
why people are choosing not to remember Shaq's dominance (maybe excluding 99, unfair to Timmy? dunno).
He was clear number 1 with Kobe on the squad.

Shaq Finals (prime)
2000 - 38 ppg, 16.7 reb, 2.3 ast, 2.7 blocks 30.6 gamescore
2001 - 33 ppg, 15.8 reb, 4.8 ast, 3.4 blocks 27.4 gamescore
2002 - 36.3 ppg, 12.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.8 blocks 30.1 gamescore
2004 - 26.6 ppg, 10.8 reb, 1.6 ast, .6 blocks, 18.7 gamescore <--- arthritis, significant decline year, Wallace was defending him, lost Chauncey was FMVP but still better offense than most of TD's finals appearances

Duncan Finals (prime)
1999 - 27.4 ppg, 14 reb, 2.4 ast, 22.6 gamescore
2003 - 24.2 ppg, 17 reb, 5.3 ast, 5.3 blocks 24.1 gamescore
2005 - 20.6 ppg, 14.1 reb, 2.1 ast, 2.1 blocks 15.9 gamescore
2007 - 18.3 ppg, 11.5 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 blocks 15.3 gamescore (finals MVP, Parker)

Cause I'm lazy and you seem to like game score. These are their conference finals

2000 - 20.6
2001 - 19.4
2002 - 21.8
2004 - 15.1

1999 - 14.5
2003 - 27.2
2005 - 23.1
2007 - 17.4

Does this mean much? Not really, but picking the finals where Shaq famously was dominating bad teams comes from a clear place of dishonesty or bias. Likely both. When you actually look at the series where most of us considered the two best teams playing over this era, you see a much more balanced and nuanced result.