Has Tim Duncan become somewhat overrated?

[Joseph17]

Overrated on realgm and underrated by the media. Pretty much rated how he should be rated overall.

[G35]

Not even the slightest bit overrated. What I think is overrated is how some people think peak is somehow greater than consistent greatness. A player is good for a 2-4 year stretch and the rest of his career is glossed over as if peak excuses a longer period of lesser play.

The Spurs are only a well oiled machine because of Duncan. Duncan is the Russell of his era, only caring about winning and doing all things it takes to help his team succeed. I think the recency bias works in reverse for Duncan because people do not appreciate what he has been able to accomplish. Kareem is the only other big to have a greater impact over a longer period of time....

[SlowPaced]

I rank him as the 7th greatest, currently.

[ceiling raiser]

I wrote and deleted a response to this a few times already. Still not sure how I feel, but I think it's a tough balance...

It's 2014, and we still don't have a very good idea of how to measure defense by players. dRAPM and other impact stats are helping us advance our knowledge a ton, but in order to take advantage of those measures, we need to solidify our understanding of player roles/responsibility on the defensive end.

J.E.'s 14 year RAPM dataset will unquestionably go a long way in helping us figure this stuff out (would've preferred if it began with 02 instead, so it comprises the entirety of the illegal defense era, but one year isn't going to hurt the sample much). shutupandjam did some great initial analysis. When I have some time I'd love to play around with the spreadsheet a bit.

What does this mean for Duncan? Well, most signs point at him having the majority of his impact on the defensive end. But until we have a better understanding of what's going on on that side of the ball, there's surely a large margin of error for his placement.

[Laimbeer]

It's recency bias. Players always get a big push in the realgm top 100 if they are coming off a title. Dirk took a ridiculous jump himself.

[Ballerhogger]

He reminds me a lot of KAJ . He's very very good and the greatest PF . So as of now i don't think he's overrated. He was big reason why the heat didn't win championship this year.. Sure his RS season wasn't as good but that has a lot do with being on a top team and POP resting his stars and Tim Duncan is still one of the better big men in the league. His rim protection was major difference maker in this years final. He still has a good mid range game too... Even at the tail end of his career he still having championship impact.

[nonjokegetter]

People who talk about recency bias can often be plausibly accused of romanticizing the past (and vice versa - the older fans often overestimate players from their youth, and/or don't give players of recent generations enough credit), and honestly, as phenomenal as Magic and Bird were, I think many people tend to focus just on their positives and sweep their weaknesses under the rug. Also, both Johnson and Bird had more talented teams around them than perhaps any other superstar in NBA history. I know this post may seem a bit weird considering my avatar, but I'm just trying to look at that fairly, and to be honest, I struggle to see how Duncan was any worse than them, even comparing them in their primes.

It's not about romanticizing the past so much as it is seeing what just happened as having more importance than it really does. That's recency bias in a nutshell. There's legit psychological reasons for this (I know that bad day four years ago was something I was able to overcome, so I don't care about it much; today's **** day though...who knows if I'll be able to overcome it as well), but it does exist.

[Swagalicious]

Yes

at the tail end of his career he still having championship impact.

This, to me, is overrating him. His "championship impact" last year wouldn't have interested anyone if he was playing for the Orlando Magic. He was a closer to being a fringe allstar level player than a legit all-nba level player.

He's one of those guys who gets all the credit and none of the blame.

[nonjokegetter]

Yes

at the tail end of his career he still having championship impact.

This, to me, is overrating him. His "championship impact" last year wouldn't have interested anyone if he was playing for the Orlando Magic. He was a closer to being a fringe allstar level player than a legit all-nba level player.

He's one of those guys who gets all the credit and none of the blame.

Agreed. If that's our bar for championship impact, how many people could've had a similar championship impact last year if they had as good of a team around them, with as good of a coach. 30? 40? Of course Duncan is an all-time great and an easy top 10, but 5 is a tad too much.

[Texas Chuck]

It's recency bias. Players always get a big push in the realgm top 100 if they are coming off a title. Dirk took a ridiculous jump himself.

seems like a poor example to use to justify your insistence on recency bias. Because his last 3 years have been relatively unimpressive with being out of shape to start 2012, hurt in 2013 and missing the playoffs for the first time in a decade, and coming off the worst playoff series of his career.

But where then is the correction? By your logic Dirk should have fallen way down the list even if his play really hadn't because we are far enough removed from the title and thus he should be ranked "correctly". Oh wait there isn't one because the people participating in the project are smart enough to look at the entire body of work and not overreact to recent play good or bad. I think Duncan is a top 5 all-time guy or near enough that we don't need a thread about it and Dirk is a top 20 player or near enough that no bias is needed.

[Texas Chuck]

He's one of those guys who gets all the credit and none of the blame.

I keep seeing this written, but as Q says--what do you want us to blame him for? I think when he was clearly having down years, everyone acknowledged it. No one was claiming he was still an elite player in 2011 or 2012. But in 2013 he was a top 5 or at worst top 10 player in the league. Manu was awful and Parker was hurt and he played great and the Spurs got through a very tough conference and nearly won the title. Should we ignore this because it didn't happen in some arbitrarily defined "prime"? That would be stupid bias.
'

I mean maybe we should discuss the elephant in the room and mention that the guy starting this thread has been all over the forum and even quit the top 100 project because his guy wasn't ranked high enough. That's really what this is all about.

[Laimbeer]

It's recency bias. Players always get a big push in the realgm top 100 if they are coming off a title. Dirk took a ridiculous jump himself.

seems like a poor example to use to justify your insistence on recency bias. Because his last 3 years have been relatively unimpressive with being out of shape to start 2012, hurt in 2013 and missing the playoffs for the first time in a decade, and coming off the worst playoff series of his career.

But where then is the correction? By your logic Dirk should have fallen way down the list even if his play really hadn't because we are far enough removed from the title and thus he should be ranked "correctly". Oh wait there isn't one because the people participating in the project are smart enough to look at the entire body of work and not overreact to recent play good or bad. I think Duncan is a top 5 all-time guy or near enough that we don't need a thread about it and Dirk is a top 20 player or near enough that no bias is needed.

How else do you explain the huge jump from #41 to #17?

[Texas Chuck]

It's recency bias. Players always get a big push in the realgm top 100 if they are coming off a title. Dirk took a ridiculous jump himself.

seems like a poor example to use to justify your insistence on recency bias. Because his last 3 years have been relatively unimpressive with being out of shape to start 2012, hurt in 2013 and missing the playoffs for the first time in a decade, and coming off the worst playoff series of his career.

But where then is the correction? By your logic Dirk should have fallen way down the list even if his play really hadn't because we are far enough removed from the title and thus he should be ranked "correctly". Oh wait there isn't one because the people participating in the project are smart enough to look at the entire body of work and not overreact to recent play good or bad. I think Duncan is a top 5 all-time guy or near enough that we don't need a thread about it and Dirk is a top 20 player or near enough that no bias is needed.

How else do you explain the huge jump from #41 to #17?

Well instead of calling it recency bias you could take note that Dirk had 3 brilliant seasons in between the projects. 3 seasons averaging 25/8 on 58%TS, low turnovers and playoff numbers or 27/10 on 63%TS kinda adds a lot of value, don't you think? Plus it less that his playoff run just happened but that it happened at all. What do you make of a guy who runs through that gauntlet where in the final 3 rounds 3 of the 4 best players on the floor are on the other team including guys thought to be better than Dirk in Kobe, Durant, and Lebron. Heck throw Wade in there too probably. And he and his team did it in dominant fashion.

Do you honestly think that those seasons shouldn't make an enormous difference in his ranking?

[G35]

Yes

at the tail end of his career he still having championship impact.

This, to me, is overrating him. His "championship impact" last year wouldn't have interested anyone if he was playing for the Orlando Magic. He was a closer to being a fringe allstar level player than a legit all-nba level player.

He's one of those guys who gets all the credit and none of the blame.

Agreed. If that's our bar for championship impact, how many people could've had a similar championship impact last year if they had as good of a team around them, with as good of a coach. 30? 40? Of course Duncan is an all-time great and an easy top 10, but 5 is a tad too much.

This is why I quoted you.

Keep banging your head against the wall because many players DO provide championship impact but that DOES NOT win championships. Results matter.

You agreed that Duncan gets all the credit and none of the blame which is where you are completely wrong. Whenever the Spurs have not won a title Duncan gets all the blame. Who else do they blame? Parker? Ginobli? No, it all goes directly to the star and that is Duncan.

This is where I say that people are upset at Duncan is because they want to place some blame on him for some insane reason. Except when he retires watch what happens......

[Samurai]

He reminds me a lot of KAJ . He's very very good and the greatest PF . So as of now i don't think he's overrated. He was big reason why the heat didn't win championship this year.. Sure his RS season wasn't as good but that has a lot do with being on a top team and POP resting his stars and Tim Duncan is still one of the better big men in the league. His rim protection was major difference maker in this years final. He still has a good mid range game too... Even at the tail end of his career he still having championship impact.

The KAJ comparison goes beyond the consistent level of play over a long period of time. Duncan and Kareem both had very solid fundamentals but weren't known for a lot of flash. Their facial expressions can give some the feeling that they are "coasting", or don't have an internal fire/drive because they are not yelling, screaming or overly demonstrative. Because of such solid fundamentals, it appears that the game almost comes too easy to them. I have seen posts in which both Duncan and Kareem are accused of not having that "inner fire" commonly associated with more demonstrative players (Jordan, Magic, Cowens, etc). Players with flash and can jump like Superman get a lot of attention, but at the end of the game, a basket still counts the same two points whether it came on a cartwheel, 720 degree slam or a boring turnaround bank shot or hook shot. If you look beyond the flash and focus on results, you can't argue that Duncan and Kareem consistently delivered results over a very long period of time.

[nonjokegetter]

Yes

This, to me, is overrating him. His "championship impact" last year wouldn't have interested anyone if he was playing for the Orlando Magic. He was a closer to being a fringe allstar level player than a legit all-nba level player.

He's one of those guys who gets all the credit and none of the blame.

Agreed. If that's our bar for championship impact, how many people could've had a similar championship impact last year if they had as good of a team around them, with as good of a coach. 30? 40? Of course Duncan is an all-time great and an easy top 10, but 5 is a tad too much.

So what other big man in the NBA could have done what Duncan did with the Spurs?

First, why are you limiting it to big men? Other players don't have championship impact? Then you go on to talk about:

1- why other players wouldn't fit specifically with the Spurs, when that's not what's being discussed.
2- years other than last year, when that wasn't what you quoted (or what I quoted, or what the guy I quoted quoted) was talking about.
3- some rant about KG, when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying
4- something about Jordan, when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying

All that I was saying was that many other players, with comparable teams around them- not the Spurs exactly- could have had a comparable championship impact as Duncan did last year. That's all.

[Laimbeer]

seems like a poor example to use to justify your insistence on recency bias. Because his last 3 years have been relatively unimpressive with being out of shape to start 2012, hurt in 2013 and missing the playoffs for the first time in a decade, and coming off the worst playoff series of his career.

But where then is the correction? By your logic Dirk should have fallen way down the list even if his play really hadn't because we are far enough removed from the title and thus he should be ranked "correctly". Oh wait there isn't one because the people participating in the project are smart enough to look at the entire body of work and not overreact to recent play good or bad. I think Duncan is a top 5 all-time guy or near enough that we don't need a thread about it and Dirk is a top 20 player or near enough that no bias is needed.

How else do you explain the huge jump from #41 to #17?

Well instead of calling it recency bias you could take note that Dirk had 3 brilliant seasons in between the projects. 3 seasons averaging 25/8 on 58%TS, low turnovers and playoff numbers or 27/10 on 63%TS kinda adds a lot of value, don't you think? Plus it less that his playoff run just happened but that it happened at all. What do you make of a guy who runs through that gauntlet where in the final 3 rounds 3 of the 4 best players on the floor are on the other team including guys thought to be better than Dirk in Kobe, Durant, and Lebron. Heck throw Wade in there too probably. And he and his team did it in dominant fashion.

Do you honestly think that those seasons shouldn't make an enormous difference in his ranking?

Not to that extent, IMO. Another 3 seasons and one title merits a higher ranking, but doesn't merit that kind of a leap. I believe the project coming right on the heels of his run had to amplify it.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Duncan isn't really that overrated.
He doesn't belong over Shaq and I am not sure I would have put him over Magic either but other then that his ranking is absolutely fine.

He obviously wasn't the offensive anchor a guy like Shaq was but he made up for it partially by being a better defensive anchor.
He is also a superb team player who knows how to get his while not playing outside of the team concept.

Wilt is the guy I think was most overrated in the Top 10.
As a playoff performer I don't see how I can call him Shaq's equal or even Hakeem's equal and yet he was voted in before both of them. Even individually I don't see what he has over players like that outside of rebounding.
For now I feel he should not be any higher then the 8-10 range though obviously my views regarding Chamberlain are hardly solidified so I won't mock anyone who does consider him that great.

[Texas Chuck]

Not to that extent, IMO. Another 3 seasons and one title merits a higher ranking, but doesn't merit that kind of a leap. I believe the project coming right on the heels of his run had to amplify it.

I have no problem with you having a difference of opinion over where Dirk or Duncan should be ranked. If you honestly believe Dirk should be closer to 41 than 17 that's certainly your right. Of course you then have to recognize that you are the one who is deviating from the consensus and thus perhaps any question of bias should more correctly be aimed at your outlying opinion, no?

The problem is that we have way too many guys who when the group disagrees with their personal view they immediately look for some bias or agenda, because after all they as an individual can't be wrong, can they?

Instead we should realize that we have some guys who view modern players as superior, others who view older players as superior. Some guys value all-around play, some value only offense, some have very position-specific requirements. Some value peak only, others prime only, others include longevity. Then we all have guys we are fans of and guys we aren't. That's the whole idea of trying to have a panel, so that each of these biases is countered by the group. Is it perfect? No. Some voices are louder, not all views are equally represented.

But again the group result should have more merit than any one individual's opinion. But sadly our ego's often don't allow for that.

[Laimbeer]

I have no problem with you having a difference of opinion over where Dirk or Duncan should be ranked. If you honestly believe Dirk should be closer to 41 than 17 that's certainly your right. Of course you then have to recognize that you are the one who is deviating from the consensus and thus perhaps any question of bias should more correctly be aimed at your outlying opinion, no?

I don't think the 15 folks here represent some kind of broad consensus. A lot of their opinions run counter to the wider view throughout the sport. This is a relatively small group, and all spend a lot of time here and tend to be exposed to certain measurements and opinions of players.

The problem is that we have way too many guys who when the group disagrees with their personal view they immediately look for some bias or agenda, because after all they as an individual can't be wrong, can they?

I'm sure there's some agendas, particularly earlier in the project, though my sense is the group now doesn't really have much. As for biases, if you're breathing, you're biased.

Instead we should realize that we have some guys who view modern players as superior, others who view older players as superior. Some guys value all-around play, some value only offense, some have very position-specific requirements. Some value peak only, others prime only, others include longevity. Then we all have guys we are fans of and guys we aren't. That's the whole idea of trying to have a panel, so that each of these biases is countered by the group. Is it perfect? No. Some voices are louder, not all views are equally represented.

Yeah, there are lots of ways to measure players, which makes the project subject to the particular schools of thought that are more heavily represented among the group. For example, I think it's pretty clear modern players are generally preferred by most of the group. Garnett checked in at 11, and nearly twenty spots later, no Baylor.

But again the group result should have more merit than any one individual's opinion. But sadly our ego's often don't allow for that.

Fundamentally disagree. An opinion coming from a group doesn't make it better.

I don't think disagreeing with the list should be seen as objectionable by anyone who participated. My guess is most would welcome the discourse, that's why we're here.