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

[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?

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?

Let me get this straight - you completely ignored 2006 finals (14th season, 33 years old) and wanted to exclude 2004 finals (12th season, 31 years old) for being past prime but you don't mind talking about freaking 2011 loss when Duncan was in his 14th season at the age of 34? Is that your objective perspective?

[MacGill]

Without a doubt. As high as #5 for me.

[ReggieSlater]

He moves up a few spots for me because he accepted the MVP in sandals.

[Me Like Lakers]

Can you make the case that he isn't?

[HMFFL]

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.

Indeed. Kevin Garnett battled Tim Dunvan for MVP in 02-03 and eventually won MVP in 03-04. We'll deserved and a fun battle to watch


I felt the same about Kevin Love during his short time as a T Wolve.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM mobile app

[HMFFL]

He moves up a few spots for me because he accepted the MVP in sandals.

A swimmer, turned basketball player, and now trains MMA.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM mobile app

[NyKnicks1714]

There's no case he isn't. There is a clear best 5 and he's undoubtedly a part. He has a stronger case for than 8th

Sent from my SM-A156U using RealGM mobile app

This isn't true. Someone can make a reasonable top 7 that doesn't include Duncan. In no order:

LeBron
Jordan
Wilt
Magic
Kareem
Russell
Bird

I don't think there's anyone on there who you can say has no case over Duncan. Maybe you can make the general comment that it's too tough to compare Wilt/Russell to modern players, but even then I won't think someone is crazy for putting Hakeem or Curry or Shaq ahead of Duncan even if I don't agree with it.

[f4p]

Duncan won 5 titles without another top 10 teammate .

Top 10 of what? David Robinson finished #1 in WS48 in 4 of Duncan's first 4 seasons (and top 5 in PER / BPM a number of those seasons) and had playoff numbers that equaled/surpassed duncan in 1999. And ginobili finished top 5 in WS48 and BPM for basically 6 straight seasons from 2005 to 2010 and completely outclassed Duncan in the 2005 playoffs. And the 2014 spurs were as equal.as equal gets amongst the top 5 or 6 guys in 2014.

[bledredwine]

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.

You’re asking me if I’m serious when you compared Russell’s similar field goal percentage to Larry Bird’s, when Russell played near the rim and only got 16 ppg in an era with 33% more possessions at the Center position?

Clearly, I’m not the one to ask “Are you serious” in that attempted comparison.

Even you can admit that Bird was the better scorer, easily, regardless of Russell fandom. When did bird shoot in the .300’s in the finals for an entire series and his team carried the scoring? That never happened let alone 1/3 of the time like it did with Russell.

[Bornstellar]

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?

Might want to get your facts straight buddy. Spurs did not lose to 8th seeded Grizzlies in 2004. And Olympic medals are irrelevant when discussing all time NBA rankings

[dhsilv2]

There's no case he isn't. There is a clear best 5 and he's undoubtedly a part. He has a stronger case for than 8th

Sent from my SM-A156U using RealGM mobile app

This isn't true. Someone can make a reasonable top 7 that doesn't include Duncan. In no order:

LeBron
Jordan
Wilt
Magic
Kareem
Russell
Bird

I don't think there's anyone on there who you can say has no case over Duncan. Maybe you can make the general comment that it's too tough to compare Wilt/Russell to modern players, but even then I won't think someone is crazy for putting Hakeem or Curry or Shaq ahead of Duncan even if I don't agree with it.

The question I'd ask you for that top 7 is can you make a CONSISTENT case for all 7 over Duncan. We can all have a set of criteria we use to rank players where you could move a lot of players over others. But if you're consistent with your criteria and ranking, it gets harder and harder to remove certain players. Duncan is especially difficult because his 2003 peak is one of the best ever and it's combined with maybe the best carry job in NBA history (there are those you can debate over it). Meanwhile, unlike say Hakeem Duncan peaked on offense and defense at the same time. But if you're a longevity guy, well Duncan leaves a lot of players in the dust there.

[Castle Black]

Indubitably.

[cupcakesnake]

Timmy has the best career +/- for any player with over 500 games played.

Spoiler:

(You'll never guess who is #2...)

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/best-career-plus-minus-per-game-with-100-games-played-nba-with-over-500-gp

Raw plus/minus basically tells us: who played in the most successful lineups during their careers.

Credit is due for these players contributing to good lineups, but looking at the list it's pretty clear: these are the guys who were really blessed in terms of always being on competitive teams. Tatum is the modern poster child for this, but of course we're also seeing Stockton/Malone, Curry/Green, all those Spurs, etc. There's a couple guys that I find impressive to be on this list. Guys who were in a lot of situations and always seemed to drive success. Duncan and Tatum... guys who were drafted into 50-win teams and had competitive rosters their whole careers, of course they have sick plus/minus stats.

Also, this data only goes back to 1997.

[Texas Chuck]

There's no case he isn't. There is a clear best 5 and he's undoubtedly a part. He has a stronger case for than 8th

Sent from my SM-A156U using RealGM mobile app

This isn't true. Someone can make a reasonable top 7 that doesn't include Duncan. In no order:

LeBron
Jordan
Wilt
Magic
Kareem
Russell
Bird

I don't think there's anyone on there who you can say has no case over Duncan. Maybe you can make the general comment that it's too tough to compare Wilt/Russell to modern players, but even then I won't think someone is crazy for putting Hakeem or Curry or Shaq ahead of Duncan even if I don't agree with it.

I absolutely can. Magic and Bird barely have a peak argument against Duncan, and can't touch his longevity and where they normally make hay is with team success, but he has that too. There is no argument for them above Timmy,

And then they are both better than Wilt whose case is largely video game counting numbers that people don't know what to do with so they default him higher than they should.

LEbron and Russell are the two strongest GOAT candidates. Mike, Kareem, and Duncan all have cases, but they are slightly weaker. But the gap between them and everyone else is sizable.

[NBA_is_cringe]

There's no case he isn't. There is a clear best 5 and he's undoubtedly a part. He has a stronger case for than 8th

Sent from my SM-A156U using RealGM mobile app

This isn't true. Someone can make a reasonable top 7 that doesn't include Duncan. In no order:

LeBron
Jordan
Wilt
Magic
Kareem
Russell
Bird

I don't think there's anyone on there who you can say has no case over Duncan. Maybe you can make the general comment that it's too tough to compare Wilt/Russell to modern players, but even then I won't think someone is crazy for putting Hakeem or Curry or Shaq ahead of Duncan even if I don't agree with it.

i don't know anything about magic but i suspect he's a bum

also russell has a strong "who gives a ****" factor

[70sFan]

You’re asking me if I’m serious when you compared Russell’s similar field goal percentage to Larry Bird’s, when Russell played near the rim and only got 16 ppg in an era with 33% more possessions at the Center position?

Clearly, I’m not the one to ask “Are you serious” in that attempted comparison.

You said you can't rank high Russell for his FG% in the finals, so I showed you that Russell has identical FG% to supposed GOAT peak Larry Bird.

Now you change the argument and decide to talk about his ppg. What are we even doing here?

Even you can admit that Bird was the better scorer, easily, regardless of Russell fandom.

1. Bird is definitely a better scorer than Russell, never said he's not and that wasn't my point.
2. It's strange that you think I am on a "fandom" of one player every time I think he's better than your beloved 1980s-1990s stars.

When did bird shoot in the .300’s in the finals for an entire series and his team carried the scoring? That never happened let alone 1/3 of the time like it did with Russell.

I mean, Bird literally won the title scoring 15 ppg on 42 FG%, playing 43 mpg and having literally a teammate scoring more than him on much better efficiency. Considering era differences (1960s had much lower offensive ratings due to the thougher rules for offensive players), it's comparable to high 30s from Russell era.

Bird literally won one of three titles in a manner that should exclude him from conversation by your criteria.

These numbers are worse than what Russell did in:

1960
1961
1962
1963
1965
1966
1968

So Russell won 7 titles with better scoring numbers than Bird in 1981. That's more than Micheal Jordan won in his whole career.

Again, during his 1960-68 prime Russell averaged:

19/25/5 on 49 FG% and 54 TS%

That's a sample of 7 series and 48 games. Of course he won 7 titles in that period, which is more than anyone else in GOAT conversation. You basically want to blame Russell for him playing on winning teams when he was out of his prime (rookie season or last NBA season). As I said, 2/3rds of Russell's finals series is more than 95% of the rest GOAT candidates, Jordan included. Would you rate Jordan lower if he came back in 1999 and won the finals with poor scoring series?

[michaelm]

Timmy has the best career +/- for any player with over 500 games played.

Spoiler:

(You'll never guess who is #2...)

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/best-career-plus-minus-per-game-with-100-games-played-nba-with-over-500-gp

Raw plus/minus basically tells us: who played in the most successful lineups during their careers.

Credit is due for these players contributing to good lineups, but looking at the list it's pretty clear: these are the guys who were really blessed in terms of always being on competitive teams. Tatum is the modern poster child for this, but of course we're also seeing Stockton/Malone, Curry/Green, all those Spurs, etc. There's a couple guys that I find impressive to be on this list. Guys who were in a lot of situations and always seemed to drive success. Duncan and Tatum... guys who were drafted into 50-win teams and had competitive rosters their whole careers, of course they have sick plus/minus stats.

Also, this data only goes back to 1997.

I make no GOAT case for Curry, but you will have to tell me about all the success GSW had without Curry, and explain GSW winning in 2022 with Wiggins as the second best player. I am a Wiggins fan, but he certainly seemed better next to Curry and Green than he was elsewhere.

Timmy was my favourite player before Curry, and for similar reasons ie he is a team player. At least 3 of his titles involved well constructed and well coached teams but no superstars, so like Russell was he lucky with the players who were on his teams or were they lucky to be on Timmy’s teams ?.

[sashaturiaf]

He wasn't even the best player of his generation. I've got him #12 just ahead of Dream.

Lakers / Kobe ran Duncan's prime era. Duncans last few rings were role player rings against weak era

[70sFan]

He wasn't even the best player of his generation. I've got him #12 just ahead of Dream.

Who was better in his generation?

Duncans last few rings were role player rings against weak era

By "few" you literally mean one?

[scrabbarista]

Duncan's nickname wasn't The Duncfuster. Don't get it twisted.