Has Tim Duncan become somewhat overrated?

[magicmerl]

I get that longevity is a great thing. KAJ is my GOAT partially because of it. But if someone was sitting here in 2011 saying "Ya know, Duncan is close to Bird, behind Shaq and Magic" he'd have to have been REALLY close for these three years to be enough to vault him over. Like...infinitesimally close. If he wasn't, we have one of two things in play: giving him props due to his resume and not actually his play, or you're seeing his entire career in a better light because he just won.

OR, we have a better understanding of analytics in that time and we have additional information which sheds more light on the careers of the players we're comparing.

In about 2007 I had Shaq, Duncan and Hakeem in my top10, all behind Magic/Bird. It's only as I've taken a more detailed and nuanced look at the careers of both Magic and Bird that I've decided that Shaq and Duncan were better players.

Our understanding and valuing of defensive impact is only going to improve over time, and that's going to diminish players whose reputation was already fairly accounted for, but had defensive shortcomings (relative to the players they are being compared to).

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Rankings are a combination of prime, peak and longevity. Very often the controversy comes on how everyone weights these three factors together.
To be honest, Timmeh's 4-6 years prime (that to me is the most important factor) would fit in a #5/#9 range, more or less where his competition in the Goat rankings stands but Shaq, and LeBron, who both probably peaked higher.
On Shaq Timmeh has consistency and intangibles, on LeBron longevity, so I really don't see how the fact he's ranked in the project ahead of them plus Hakeem, Bird and magic should be so crazy to understand without looking for biases, if not agree.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

This is exactly what I said. You went on to say "and that doesn't take into account defense", but it does. A prime Zach Randolph put up 24 points on 54% TS. This Tim Duncan...isn't close to that. At all*. The comparison all together is close, though. You're basically adding three years of prime Zach Randolph (or something similar) to where Duncan was in 2011. To you, that might be good enough to vault from 7 or 8 to 5. It's not to me. Maybe you thought they were close enough that a Z-Bo couple of years can make the differece. For me, it might to leapfrog Bird, but not Magic and Shaq.

Prime Zach never put up those numbers over a season, he was consistently around 20/10 with .5 ts%.
Taking everything together, someone might make the case that Zach and old Timmeh have similar offensive impact, and that's not worth much as Timmeh's, especially in this phase of his career, is more on the defensive end.
Hence no, I'm refusing your premise they're equivalent, I'm taking the Duncan's last two years vs any two of Randolph. All your discussing about the difference two Z-Bo years can make in a ranking is flawed, as who gives high importance to Duncan's recent production does not see it comparable to Zach's one.
Either you convince people of such equivalence, and I don't see you making it, or you find another player to use as an example (maybe prime Horace Grant?)

[Ryoga Hibiki]

It's really not but it holds true for Duncan. He's not the only example but he's a prime example. I mean there are ppl who will argue until they are blue that Duncan was robbed of the 2007 FMVP. That's man.

it is, as a FMVP in 4-0 sweep that was never in doubt is not really meaningful.
Duncan was clearly the best player over the post season, and that's the only thing that should count.

[Ballerhogger]

It's really not but it holds true for Duncan. He's not the only example but he's a prime example. I mean there are ppl who will argue until they are blue that Duncan was robbed of the 2007 FMVP. That's man.

it is, as a FMVP in 4-0 sweep that was never in doubt is not really meaningful.
Duncan was clearly the best player over the post season, and that's the only thing that should count.

yea he should of won it . TP was very good but yea.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I get that longevity is a great thing. KAJ is my GOAT partially because of it. But if someone was sitting here in 2011 saying "Ya know, Duncan is close to Bird, behind Shaq and Magic" he'd have to have been REALLY close for these three years to be enough to vault him over. Like...infinitesimally close. If he wasn't, we have one of two things in play: giving him props due to his resume and not actually his play, or you're seeing his entire career in a better light because he just won.

Recency/winners bias in the NBA is IMMENSE. Just look at how often the best player on the championship team is considered, after the fact, to have been the best player that year.

Well, they were close at the time, I don't know why you insist there was so much separation.
I haven't seen anyone telling you that they completely changed their mind because of the recent success, if anything they mention it was a tiebreaker because the rest of the career was very close.
It makes sense, if you saw Bird and Duncan at the same level, the last three years can make a significant difference.
This is not true when comparing him to jordon, for istance.

[nonjokegetter]

This is exactly what I said. You went on to say "and that doesn't take into account defense", but it does. A prime Zach Randolph put up 24 points on 54% TS. This Tim Duncan...isn't close to that. At all*. The comparison all together is close, though. You're basically adding three years of prime Zach Randolph (or something similar) to where Duncan was in 2011. To you, that might be good enough to vault from 7 or 8 to 5. It's not to me. Maybe you thought they were close enough that a Z-Bo couple of years can make the differece. For me, it might to leapfrog Bird, but not Magic and Shaq.

Prime Zach never put up those numbers over a season, he was consistently around 20/10 with .5 ts%

He absolutely did. 2006-2007. So if you're but even sure what he did, hard to accept your analysis of the comparison.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

That's Prime Zach for you? When he was considered a cancer in 32 win season? Not his Memphis self? That's what you're comparing Timmeh to, seriously?
He wasn't an all star, he was traded away to New York, he was a key member of the jailblazers, he was considered a nutcase putting up empty stats. What's next on this basis, comparing old Stockton to young Jason Williams?
This is just trolling!

[nonjokegetter]

lol yes, because I'm not conflating team success and overall ability...which conveniently brings us back Duncan recently winning and his overall ability being appreciated more.

But consider me shocked someone would say a player's best season was when the team he was on won. Simply shocked.

[Hornet Mania]

I think he's finally getting the respect he deserves from the casual fans, folks who get most of their info from either ESPN or TNT broadcasts. Rabid followers of the NBA have had him in the all-time top 10 for years now, maybe they rank him a bit higher due to the last two Finals than they will in three or four years. It's always splitting hairs in that discussion anyway.

[Sedale Threatt]

It's really not but it holds true for Duncan. He's not the only example but he's a prime example. I mean there are ppl who will argue until they are blue that Duncan was robbed of the 2007 FMVP. That's man.

it is, as a FMVP in 4-0 sweep that was never in doubt is not really meaningful.
Duncan was clearly the best player over the post season, and that's the only thing that should count.

That's the flaw of the Finals MVP. It should be PLAYOFF MVP. The way it is now, the first three rounds essentially don't count. And really, you can almost make a case that a playoff MVP is the only MVP that really matters. (Not that I agree, but I've seen arguments made and there are some good points.)

[Louie_Ruckuz]

Yes he has, he reminds me of another Hakeem. He's top 8 for sure, but top 5? IDK man

[Sedale Threatt]

I think he's finally getting the respect he deserves from the casual fans, folks who get most of their info from either ESPN or TNT broadcasts. Rabid followers of the NBA have had him in the all-time top 10 for years now, maybe they rank him a bit higher due to the last two Finals than they will in three or four years. It's always splitting hairs in that discussion anyway.

He's a real litmus test for me, when I'm talking hoops with somebody out and about, whether they're worth talking to or not. He's a good litmus test in general. You can see it with this silly Zach Randolph comparison. Even today, in 2014, with huge improvements in statistics and analysis, defense can still be grossly underrated.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

lol yes, because I'm not conflating team success and overall ability...which conveniently brings us back Duncan recently winning and his overall ability being appreciated more.

But consider me shocked someone would say a player's best season was when the team he was on won. Simply shocked.

I suspect you just looked at Zach's totals to say that's his best season and not 2011. No way anyone following Portland at the time would say that.
Anyway, this explains why Timmeh's seasons are unimpressive and you're not sold on his ranking.

[ThaRegul8r]

It's really not but it holds true for Duncan. He's not the only example but he's a prime example. I mean there are ppl who will argue until they are blue that Duncan was robbed of the 2007 FMVP. That's man.

it is, as a FMVP in 4-0 sweep that was never in doubt is not really meaningful.
Duncan was clearly the best player over the post season, and that's the only thing that should count.

That's the flaw of the Finals MVP. It should be PLAYOFF MVP. The way it is now, the first three rounds essentially don't count. And really, you can almost make a case that a playoff MVP is the only MVP that really matters. (Not that I agree, but I've seen arguments made and there are some good points.)

The NBA Finals MVP is just that. It's for the NBA Finals. It's not that "the first three rounds essentially don't count," it's that that isn't what the award is for. Just like the All-Star Game MVP isn't for the first half of the season. I've never understood the problem when baseball has the World Series MVP and football has the Super Bowl MVP. This isn't something that's exclusive to basketball. Hockey is the only one of the major professional sports that awards an MVP for the entire playoffs with the Conn Smythe Trophy.

[magicmerl]

It's as relevant an accolade as All star game MVP.

[Sedale Threatt]

Hockey is the only one of the major professional sports that awards an MVP for the entire playoffs with the Conn Smythe Trophy.

Which is what I prefer.

[Sedale Threatt]

It's as relevant an accolade as All star game MVP.

Flawed as it is in my eyes, I definitely don't agree with that. The Finals is at least a real competition, with massive stakes. ASG is just a one-off exhibition game.

[Texas Chuck]

Hockey is the only one of the major professional sports that awards an MVP for the entire playoffs with the Conn Smythe Trophy.

Which is what I prefer.

me too. Tho the Super Bowl one doesn't bother me quite as much since each round is just a one-off. And at least in baseball they have some kind of award for both the ALCS and the NLCS.

But in almost every case the FMVP and the PMVP would be the same guy and I think most people can figure out that Duncan was better than Parker overall in 07 or whatever.

[Sedale Threatt]

Hockey is the only one of the major professional sports that awards an MVP for the entire playoffs with the Conn Smythe Trophy.

Which is what I prefer.

me too. Tho the Super Bowl one doesn't bother me quite as much since each round is just a one-off. And at least in baseball they have some kind of award for both the ALCS and the NLCS.

But in almost every case the FMVP and the PMVP would be the same guy and I think most people can figure out that Duncan was better than Parker overall in 07 or whatever.

Yeah, on my grand scheme of complaints and dislikes, it's somewhere around #1,901. It just seems more suitable to recognize the entire postseason instead of just one round, as important as that round might be. And I agree with the Super Bowl -- different competition than a batch of best-of-seven series.