is Tim Duncan a top 5 player of all time?

[The Master]

All the metrics (advanced stats, team success, individual accolades) suggest that there's no chance for him not to be in a serious conversation for #5 (since I have big 4 with MJ, LBJ, Bill and KAJ ahead). I have him and Magic at #5-6, and today I woke up with Magic at #5, but that's how close it is.

I think he was kind of unlucky to compete against more stacked Lakers team throughout his prime in terms of general public's perception, in this context I don't think he'll ever become top5 guy, cause I guess the mainstream consensus is he's on pair with Kobe etc. while in reality there's no chance to argue in favor of such point (but that's more about KB being overrated tho).

For NBA geeks he'll always be at least top5 candidate.

[capfan33]

4 through 7 for me.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Like always, it depends on the criteria

[Jaivl]

Like always, it depends on the criteria

I'd love to hear a criteria where Duncan does not have at least a shot at being top 5 (a reasonable one, i.e. doesn't completely ignore defense).

[Cavsfansince84]

I do have him there but I'd also say there isn't much separating him from Hakeem who I'd have at 9th. All of those top 10 players had incredible peaks, primes and careers.

[Johnny Tomala]

Nope. I have MJ, KAJ, Russell, LBJ, Wilt, Magic, Bird and Hakeem ahead of him comfortably.

[iggymcfrack]

I have Duncan, Kareem, and Shaq all very close for the 3-5 spots. He was an all-time defender, an extremely underrated scorer, and he maintained elite, legitimate all-NBA impact for at least his first SIXTEEN seasons. His longevity to maintain truly elite play was matched only by LeBron and Kareem.

[sp6r=underrated]

Like always, it depends on the criteria

I'd love to hear a criteria where Duncan does not have at least a shot at being top 5 (a reasonable one, i.e. doesn't completely ignore defense).

If you heavily weigh how would the player do in 2022, I think you could make a strong case for exclusion. It isn't the way I go about it but I can see the argument

[LAL1947]

Would tony and manu be as relevant without the Big Fundamental?

I guess the flip side to that question is... would the Big Slow be as relevant without Tony and Manu?

Manu ended up being a Top 10 SG in NBA history despite joining so late in age. Tony is a PG who ended up scoring almost 20k points... Steph has only just crossed his total despite having more green light to shoot and score. Their addition to the Spurs team and their performances in the playoffs/finals helped him win 4 titles that he otherwise would not have won. So he'd have ended up with just 1 title and below Dirk in the rankings.

[LAL1947]

is Tim Duncan a top 5 player of all time?

NO. Fringe Top 10 AFAIC, i.e., I have him at #10 but it's very close between guys like him, Russell, KG, Durant, Karl Malone, Steph... and newer guys like Giannis, Jokic and Luka could end up over-taking him. Timmy was a great and consistent player but did not push past the boundaries of excellence like the guys I consider better than him, namely: MJ, Wilt, Lebron, Larry, Kobe, Magic, Hakeem, Kareem and Shaq. These 9 guys were best of the best at what they did. Duncan was really well rounded and intelligent but he ended up being more of a floor-raiser than a ceiling-raiser compared to them.

If TD had played with a player as good as prime Kobe or Magic (like Kareem and Shaq did) I think the team ceiling would have looked more than fine

It's a good point. It's why I have them lumped together on my list between #8-10, i.e., Kareem is #8, Shaq is #9, and Duncan is #10. Reason for them being slightly ahead is Kareem score 38k points over his career (almost 12k more than Duncan) and Shaq was able to dominate the Duncan + DRob duo in the paint by himself.

99 Drob was great but he was the best player Duncan played with in his prime, not even in this century, and results were not bad ....).

While this is true, Duncan had Manu + Parker for a long time. Including 2002-03 and onward, how many times did Spurs have the best or Top 3 roster in the league?

The Spurs and their fans fully deserved to have such a good roster and the success that came with it because it was built by an intelligent FO through the draft as a small market team... but at the same time, we can't ignore the consistent quality of the roster when reviewing an individual player, right?

For example, to ask a similar question as the one you asked above with Kobe/Magic... what if Kareem had the equivalent of Manu + Parker and the rest of Spurs depth during the 1970s?

[LAL1947]

He won four titles as the clear-cut best player and has one of the sport’s best career win percentages, what “ceiling” are you talking about.

Not enough cool looking fadeaways made.

According to discussions i had here in real gm. Not being on teams as good as durant/curry warriors or 96 bulls apparently

I would argue that you would have to give him prime kawhi, ginobili, parker, bowen simultaneously at his prime for the former to be a fair comparision

And peak ginobili, parker, bowen and elite depth for the latter

Neither of which ever happened.

Spurs had a ton of great players but they never could get them all together at their primes like that. 2005-2007 is the closest and they won 2 rings there

Which explains why they were such a long term dinasty as they always had great players but "staggered" over a long term

If Duncan was an actual Top 5 all-time player, he'd have won a three-peat between 2004-05 to 2006-07. He had the best team in the league during those 3 years. And even that 2006-07 title was robbed from the Suns, at least AFAIC... so it should have only been 1 title in those 3 years and not 2 titles.

[SkyHookFTW]

Top 10 for me. I have behind (in no order) MJ, Bron, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq. He is in the mix with Russell and Dream.

[70sFan]

Not enough cool looking fadeaways made.

According to discussions i had here in real gm. Not being on teams as good as durant/curry warriors or 96 bulls apparently

I would argue that you would have to give him prime kawhi, ginobili, parker, bowen simultaneously at his prime for the former to be a fair comparision

And peak ginobili, parker, bowen and elite depth for the latter

Neither of which ever happened.

Spurs had a ton of great players but they never could get them all together at their primes like that. 2005-2007 is the closest and they won 2 rings there

Which explains why they were such a long term dinasty as they always had great players but "staggered" over a long term

If Duncan was actually a Top 5 all-time player, he'd have won a three-peat between 2004-05 to 2006-07. He had the best team in the league during those 3 years. And even that 2006-07 title was robbed from the Suns, at least AFAIC... so it should have only been 1 title in those 3 years and not 2 titles.

But instead he won only two of three available rings and lost 7 game series in between against the finalsts, while playing at the GOAT level and being the best player on the floor. Yeah, you settled thr debate, Duncan can't be top 5 all-time because of that.

[70sFan]

Would tony and manu be as relevant without the Big Fundamental?

I guess the flip side to that question is... would the Big Slow be as relevant without Tony and Manu?

Manu ended up being a Top 10 SG in NBA history despite joining so late in age. Tony is a PG who ended up scoring almost 20k points... Steph has only just crossed his total despite having more green light to shoot and score. Their addition to the Spurs team and their performances in the playoffs/finals helped him win 4 titles that he otherwise would not have won. So he'd have ended up with just 1 title and below Dirk in the rankings.

If you can't overcome the winning bias, then that's your problem. Duncan would be ranked ahead of Dirk even without the rings, because he was a better player.

[LAL1947]

According to discussions i had here in real gm. Not being on teams as good as durant/curry warriors or 96 bulls apparently

I would argue that you would have to give him prime kawhi, ginobili, parker, bowen simultaneously at his prime for the former to be a fair comparision

And peak ginobili, parker, bowen and elite depth for the latter

Neither of which ever happened.

Spurs had a ton of great players but they never could get them all together at their primes like that. 2005-2007 is the closest and they won 2 rings there

Which explains why they were such a long term dinasty as they always had great players but "staggered" over a long term

If Duncan was actually a Top 5 all-time player, he'd have won a three-peat between 2004-05 to 2006-07. He had the best team in the league during those 3 years. And even that 2006-07 title was robbed from the Suns, at least AFAIC... so it should have only been 1 title in those 3 years and not 2 titles.

But instead he won only two of three available rings and lost 7 game series in between against the finalsts, while playing at the GOAT level and being the best player on the floor. Yeah, you settled thr debate, Duncan can't be top 5 all-time because of that.

Well, my point still stands, it was quite a dubious "two of three" titles between 2004-05 and 2006-07. Some could even ask if the Spurs would have beaten the Pistons in 2004-05 if the hand-check rules were not implemented.

No three-peat, not even a back-to-back... it's not something crazy to ask of a player if they are Top 5 All-time and also have the best team in the league during those years.

[LAL1947]

Would tony and manu be as relevant without the Big Fundamental?

I guess the flip side to that question is... would the Big Slow be as relevant without Tony and Manu?

Manu ended up being a Top 10 SG in NBA history despite joining so late in age. Tony is a PG who ended up scoring almost 20k points... Steph has only just crossed his total despite having more green light to shoot and score. Their addition to the Spurs team and their performances in the playoffs/finals helped him win 4 titles that he otherwise would not have won. So he'd have ended up with just 1 title and below Dirk in the rankings.

If you can't overcome the winning bias, then that's your problem. Duncan would be ranked ahead of Dirk even without the rings, because he was a better player.

You are right and I'd have still considered him better than Dirk. I was just trying to show what the flip side could have been there... so I was trying to say this is how overall public perception could have ended up being, as Dirk gets an extra amount of love from everyone for the Maverick's 2010-11 title.

[Asianiac_24]

1. LeBron
2. MJ
3. KAJ
4. Wilt
5. Duncan

So yes

[70sFan]

Some could even ask if the Spurs would have beaten the Pistons in 2004-05 if the hand-check rules were not implemented.

1. Spurs were also defensive oriented team, the rule changes didn't help them either.
2. If you can't adjust to changing environment, that's your problem.

No three-peat, not even a back-to-back... it's not something crazy to ask of a player if they are Top 5 All-time and if they have the best team in the league during those years.

LeBron didn't three peat and he has less rings than Duncan. Yet you have him much higher.
Hakeem didn't three peat either and he has less rings, yet you have him higher.


Larry Bird never repeated and you have him clearly higher than Duncan on your all-time list. Bird didn't have worse rosters either.
Wilt never repeated and you have him much higher than Duncan, he also played with elite supporting cast in 1967-70 period.

Your criteria are all over the place, as always.

[70sFan]

I guess the flip side to that question is... would the Big Slow be as relevant without Tony and Manu?

Manu ended up being a Top 10 SG in NBA history despite joining so late in age. Tony is a PG who ended up scoring almost 20k points... Steph has only just crossed his total despite having more green light to shoot and score. Their addition to the Spurs team and their performances in the playoffs/finals helped him win 4 titles that he otherwise would not have won. So he'd have ended up with just 1 title and below Dirk in the rankings.

If you can't overcome the winning bias, then that's your problem. Duncan would be ranked ahead of Dirk even without the rings, because he was a better player.

You are right and I'd have still considered him better than Dirk. I was just trying to show what the flip side could have been there... so I was trying to say this is how overall public perception could have ended up being, as Dirk gets an extra amount of love for the Maverick's 2010-11 title.

Dirk flip is him having one ring vs none, in your scenario you just assume that Duncan would never win another ring without Manu and Parker... even though these two were just a roleplayers in 2003.

[Texas Chuck]

Like always, it depends on the criteria

I'd love to hear a criteria where Duncan does not have at least a shot at being top 5 (a reasonable one, i.e. doesn't completely ignore defense).

If you heavily weigh how would the player do in 2022, I think you could make a strong case for exclusion. It isn't the way I go about it but I can see the argument

Do you think evaluating players based on how they perform in a year they couldn't have realistically played in to be a reasonable approach to judge their career?