True or False: Duncan’s offense eliminates him from GOAT conversations?

[OdomFan]

Tim Duncan was the better overall player than Russell btw.

I'd rather have Russell. He'd be better suited for today's game cause he was a more switchable/versatile defender. Timmy was hands down a better low-post scorer, but low-post offense is highly inefficient in the pace-and-space era. Not sure who would have been a better roll man. PnR wasn't a thing in Russell's time. I reckon he would have made an elite roll man thanks to his athleticism and length.

That's just me though. It's very difficult to compare players from different eras. At the end of the day, they are both all-time greats. You can't go wrong with any of them.

Well to each their own but I'm not sure how you think Russell is more suited for todays NBA. Duncan actually did play in todays way of play seeing as how 2014-2016 era is no different than what we're seeing now outside of a few more 3's being taken now days. Duncan at an older age still contributed well at that age and would have been that much more effective if he was younger during that time or in 2022 as well.

[OdomFan]

Who said he wasn't good enough? Duncans offensive numbers aren't as consistently high as others because he wasn't "good enough". They are because of how unselfish he was, and that's the main reason behind what made his Spurs what they were. Timmy was extremely unselfish and very cooperative with what Coach Pop's team play style.


Not good enough...the things people say on here sometimes. smh.

Understood but at some point we do have to acknowledge that offensively most GOAT candidates were more dominant , again besides Russell who is a unique case imo.

Well I would say what Duncan pulled off in 2003 is just as dominant if not more dominant than what most who you'd call a goat candidate ever accomplished individually for their team in a playoff run. Ending Shaq and Kobes chances at 3 peating without any real second Allstar along side him, and then going on to lead the Spurs to the championship victory. He had the dominance in him, but again he was extremely consistent with being unselfish so we didn't get to see that side of him much. John Stockton is another one similarly.

Guy had all the talent in the world, but chose to not look to go after stats.

[Doctor MJ]

Duncan has pretty much the perfect resume sans Maybe MJ, Russell (someone who is worse on offense but has 11 rings) and Kareem , it’s very tough to find a better resume than Duncan

But even then he’s rarely placed in the GOAT tier by most. Would you say the reason for that is that his offense simply isn’t good enough to be mentioned in those tier of players?

Well his defense is certainly stronger than his offense, but I wouldn't say the offense "eliminates" him necessarily. But I must say, I don't really think in terms of "eliminates", I just compare player to player, and force myself to make a decision.

Re: pretty much the perfect resume. I think the entirety of Duncan's career, with the knowledge we have of how Kawhi would kill the Spurs as the best franchise culture in the game-, is really helping his stature post-retirement. Understandably so, but I think we need to be careful not to attribute too much cultural credit to Duncan. He was vitally important, but there's basically no reason to think you would have gotten this if you drafted him on a random franchise. The same is true for all the guys with great team contexts, including the guys you mention (though Kareem certainly had a dry spell in the middle of his career).

[SK21209]

True.

To be clearer, I think Duncan was more of a ceiling-raiser than a floor-raiser for the first years of his career, i.e., from 1997-98 until 2003-04, really fantastic. From 2004-05 onward, he was more of a floor-raiser because his foot issue probably meant he couldn't play like he did before then.

Then I do not think he was better than Hakeem on either offense or defense, a direct competitor as a big.

Also, when the Lakers played the Spurs from 2002 onward, Kobe was more often than not the best player on the court. Even in the 2002-03 season, which was Duncan's best season, Kobe outplayed him in 5 of the 6 games of the WCSF.

Finally, the Spurs always had deep rosters from 2002-03 onward. Often times, the best roster in the league. Yet they never managed a repeat, seemingly winning titles only when others faltered (1998-99: lockout season, 2002-03: lazy ass Shaq + Lakers FO incompetence, 2004-05: hand-checking rule change neutered the Pistons, 2006-07: Spurs robbed the Suns, 2013-14: no complaints here but Duncan wasn't the driving force of that team as it was stacked). If Duncan was an actual GOAT candidate, he'd have led those rosters to more emphatically won titles and at least one back-to-back.

One of these days, I hope someone asks Duncan a direct question on video for him to answer... i.e., was he better than Kobe. I'm really curious to hear his answer.

I disagree strongly with the bolded, they were the best team each of those seasons except maybe 2007 (the Mavs were extremely good in 07, the Warriors were the worst possible matchup and also caught fire). That said, I was listening to some podcast where they were talking about the 2000's Spurs (so not including the 2011 through 2014 run where their style of play changed drastically). Someone made the point that if you were rating teams out of 10, the Spurs were at the 8.0 - 8.5 range every single year (at least until 2008, the 09 and 2010 teams were weaker), but they never had that iconic, thoroughly dominant team like the 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 96 Bulls, 01 Lakers, etc. I think I agree with that take, and its part of the reason why Duncan is solidly in the #6 to #10 range all time but a tier below the GOAT candidates. The Spurs were a top 5 defense at minimum every year during that stretch, but were prone to droughts on offense. Peak Duncan was the best player in the league and a post player who had just about every move/countermove you could have, but he was never at the Jordan/LeBron/Kareem/Magic level of completely overwhelming, impervious to any defense kind of individual offense.

[Djoker]

False. Duncan's overall impact falls well below the GOATs of this sport outside of 2002 and 2003. That's probably why he's not seriously considered.

[flaco]

Tim Duncan was the better overall player than Russell btw.

I'd rather have Russell. He'd be better suited for today's game cause he was a more switchable/versatile defender. Timmy was hands down a better low-post scorer, but low-post offense is highly inefficient in the pace-and-space era. Not sure who would have been a better roll man. PnR wasn't a thing in Russell's time. I reckon he would have made an elite roll man thanks to his athleticism and length.

That's just me though. It's very difficult to compare players from different eras. At the end of the day, they are both all-time greats. You can't go wrong with any of them.

Well to each their own but I'm not sure how you think Russell is more suited for todays NBA. Duncan actually did play in todays way of play seeing as how 2014-2016 era is no different than what we're seeing now outside of a few more 3's being taken now days. Duncan at an older age still contributed well at that age and would have been that much more effective if he was younger during that time or in 2022 as well.

I never questioned whether Duncan would have been effective in today's game. He's an all-time great, he would have been effective in any era. My point is that Russell would have been better in today's game. I elaborated on this in my previous post. Duncan may have been better in the 90s and the 00s.

[LAL1947]

Well I would say what Duncan pulled off in 2003 is just as dominant if not more dominant than what most who you'd call a goat candidate ever accomplished individually for their team in a playoff run. Ending Shaq and Kobes chances at 3 peating without any real second Allstar along side him, and then going on to lead the Spurs to the championship victory. He had the dominance in him, but again he was extremely consistent with being unselfish so we didn't get to see that side of him much. John Stockton is another one similarly.

The Shaq-Kobe Lakers did a 3-peat... so you probably made a typo there and meant 4-peat?

Also, the Spurs had a superior team to the Lakers in 2002-03 and had the best roster in the league. In that WCSF, the best performers were Kobe, then Duncan, then Shaq, then every Spurs player, then the rest of ours. Their guys performed their roles perfectly. If one was having a bad moment, another would step up...

Parker/Speedy + Bowen/Ginobili + Jackson/Steve Smith + Duncan/Malik Rose + Robinson/Malik Rose

... that team was loaded by 2000s standards even if Parker and Ginobili were young and new to the league respectively. Their inclusion meant the opponent PG, SG, SF had no rest as the opponents usually did not have backups of this quality. I think only the Mavs might have had a better team then as the Kings had fallen off a little. Check the record and SRS of all teams from that year.

On the other hand, our guys were too old for their roles (Robert Horry, Brian Shaw) or bums that were being carried by Shaq-Kobe (Derek Fisher, Slava Medvedenko, Mark Madsen, Devean George, Jannnero Pargo, etc). We did not have some of the better creative ones who had helped the most in the 3-peat; guys like Rick Fox, Ron Harper, Horace Grant, Lindsey Hunter. So the loss was not a surprise to anyone who was following or betting on the NBA then, although Shaq-Kobe earned the right to be favorites by what they had accomplished in the previous 3 seasons.

Additionally, the Mavs lost Dirk after Game 3 of the WCF. The Nets were an easy opponent in the Finals, whoever came out of the West was winning that.

[70sFan]

He's seen as a bit of an ensemble type player as opposed to a dominant force on his title teams. And that's at least partly because he wasn't an offensive anchor on the level of LeBron, Mike, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, and Magic.

He was steeped in the Spurs dynasty. Pop, DRob, Kawhi, Manu, Parker. That suggests some of his greatness was situational.

Duncan was definitely a dominant force in 1999 and 2003. He was also the best player in the league in 2007, so definitely fits the "dominant force" criteria.

[falcolombardi]

Duncan offense is more valuable than jordan defense and nobody ever said jordan defense keeps him from being a goat contender

Blatant offensive bias does a lot of work here

[LAL1947]

He's seen as a bit of an ensemble type player as opposed to a dominant force on his title teams. And that's at least partly because he wasn't an offensive anchor on the level of LeBron, Mike, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, and Magic.

He was steeped in the Spurs dynasty. Pop, DRob, Kawhi, Manu, Parker. That suggests some of his greatness was situational.

Duncan was definitely a dominant force in 1999 and 2003. He was also the best player in the league in 2007, so definitely fits the "dominant force" criteria.

That's just not true. Kobe was the best player in the league in 2007. Duncan was probably fringe Top 5 by then behind Kobe, Lebron, KG, Dirk... and along with Nash/Wade.

[LAL1947]

Duncan offense is more valuable than jordan defense and nobody ever said jordan defense keeps him from being a goat contender

Blatant offensive bias does a lot of work here

It's not blatant offensive bias without a darn good reason though, right? Tim Duncan is like the base of a pie or a cheesecake, a top level floor-raiser with his defense... but everyone loves the filling or topping (i.e., offensive players) more than the base because that's what gives the pie or the cake its flavor and makes it more memorable.

[1993Playoffs]

Duncan offense is more valuable than jordan defense and nobody ever said jordan defense keeps him from being a goat contender

Blatant offensive bias does a lot of work here

I think this statement is pretty arguable, not sure if I’d agree. Especially post 07 Duncan

[70sFan]

He's seen as a bit of an ensemble type player as opposed to a dominant force on his title teams. And that's at least partly because he wasn't an offensive anchor on the level of LeBron, Mike, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, and Magic.

He was steeped in the Spurs dynasty. Pop, DRob, Kawhi, Manu, Parker. That suggests some of his greatness was situational.

Duncan was definitely a dominant force in 1999 and 2003. He was also the best player in the league in 2007, so definitely fits the "dominant force" criteria.

That's just not true. Kobe was the best player in the league in 2007. Duncan was probably fringe Top 5 by then behind Kobe, Lebron, KG, Dirk... and along with Nash/Wade.

We had these discussions before and you didn't provide any objective reasons to have Dunxan outside of top 5. You also ignored every single impact metric, cause all of them show that Duncan was POY candidate.

[Cavsfansince84]

The only thing that kept Duncan from being on the goat tier imo is injuries. Had he kept up at his 02-early 05 level for another 3-5 years he'd probably be there. Then his 2010-15 years are even better as well. During his 3-4 year peak he was probably a top 5 offensive player in the league on top of being top 3 defensive. So that's more than good enough. It's just that his mpg goes down quite a bit in 07 and all his box score numbers look worse because of it on top of the Spurs being one of the slowest paced teams in the slowest era of the post shot clock nba. So his impact isn't as easily seen.

[Texas Chuck]

He's absolutely a GOAT candidate, albeit a weaker one imo. But I don't think you can have a conversation about the greatest careers in NBA history and leave him out. He compares well with literally any player you want to stack him up against. I might decide Lebron or Russ or Mike or Kareem had a better career, but a debate could absolutely be had.

And other than those 4 guys, I don't believe anyone else stacks up to Timmy. Just too good for too long as an individual player, but far more importantly every moment of every game Duncan had but one goal in mind--team success and he enjoyed mind-boggling team success. His counting stat resume could be a lot more impressive but he'd likely have had a worse career as a result. He is the anti-Wilt in that regard.

[LAL1947]

The only thing that kept Duncan from being on the goat tier imo is injuries. Had he kept up at his 02-early 05 level for another 3-5 years he'd probably be there. Then his 2010-15 years are even better as well. During his 3-4 year peak he was probably a top 5 offensive player in the league on top of being top 3 defensive. So that's more than good enough. It's just that his mpg goes down quite a bit in 07 and all his box score numbers look worse because of it on top of the Spurs being one of the slowest paced teams in the slowest era of the post shot clock nba. So his impact isn't as easily seen.

In the regular season, his MPG, PPG, mobility and quickness all went down in 2004-05, not 2007. I can't remember exactly now as it's been so long but I think his foot issues might even have first started somewhere in 2003-04. Then he started having small but steady year-by-year declines until magically recovering in the early 2010s. No doubt some under the radar trips to Miami or a similar destination helped.

[falcolombardi]

Duncan offense is more valuable than jordan defense and nobody ever said jordan defense keeps him from being a goat contender

Blatant offensive bias does a lot of work here

It's not blatant offensive bias without a darn good reason though, right? Tim Duncan is like the base of a pie or a cheesecake, a top level floor-raiser with his defense... but everyone loves the filling or topping (i.e., offensive players) more than the base because that's what gives the pie or the cake its flavor, makes it more memorable, and can take it over the top.

An all time defense anchor can elevate any offensively tslented team to greater heights as much as a offensive engine can elevate a defensively talented roster

Defense is more portable than even the most portable of offenses

[falcolombardi]

Duncan offense is more valuable than jordan defense and nobody ever said jordan defense keeps him from being a goat contender

Blatant offensive bias does a lot of work here

I think this statement is pretty arguable, not sure if I’d agree. Especially post 07 Duncan

Is very obvious to me tbh, what is the case for jordan defense over duncan offense?

[Laimbeer]

Duncan offense is more valuable than jordan defense and nobody ever said jordan defense keeps him from being a goat contender

Blatant offensive bias does a lot of work here

Great individual offense is much more valuable than great individual defense. It's not a 50/50 thing.

[LAL1947]

I disagree strongly with the bolded, they were the best team each of those seasons except maybe 2007 (the Mavs were extremely good in 07, the Warriors were the worst possible matchup and also caught fire). That said, I was listening to some podcast where they were talking about the 2000's Spurs (so not including the 2011 through 2014 run where their style of play changed drastically). Someone made the point that if you were rating teams out of 10, the Spurs were at the 8.0 - 8.5 range every single year (at least until 2008, the 09 and 2010 teams were weaker), but they never had that iconic, thoroughly dominant team like the 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 96 Bulls, 01 Lakers, etc. I think I agree with that take, and its part of the reason why Duncan is solidly in the #6 to #10 range all time but a tier below the GOAT candidates. The Spurs were a top 5 defense at minimum every year during that stretch, but were prone to droughts on offense. Peak Duncan was the best player in the league and a post player who had just about every move/countermove you could have, but he was never at the Jordan/LeBron/Kareem/Magic level of completely overwhelming, impervious to any defense kind of individual offense.

I think Duncan is solidly in the #6-10 range too, although towards the lower end of that range.

That podcast seems interesting, do you have a link to it?

I'd agree with what they said about the Spurs being in the 8.0-8.5 range every year until 08, with 09 and 2010 teams being weaker... but have to point out something. They say the Spurs never had that iconic, dominant team like the 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 96 Bulls, 01 Lakers, etc... and then you point out that Duncan was never at the Jordan/LeBron/Kareem/Magic level of completely overwhelming, impervious to any kind of individual offense... which is exactly why I feel his teams did not reach that iconic status, i.e., he wasn't as good as those guys you named. I'd also include Kobe and Bird in that group who were impervious to any defense too.

By the way, I have Kareem at #8, just two spots ahead of Duncan. I ding them both for going on 9 year title-less stretches. Kareem won with Milwaukee in 1970-71 and his next title with the Lakers came in 1979-80, 9 seasons later. Duncan's Spurs robbed the Suns in 2006-07 or their last title would (or should) have been 2004-05 with their next one coming in 2013-14, or 9 seasons later too. Kareem did score 38.4k RS points compared to Duncan's 26.5K, so I've put him higher on my list even though Duncan was a better defender.