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

[Cavsfansince84]

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.

His mpg goes down in 05 because Pop barely played him after he came back from the injury. It's actually not really low though until 2010. 06-08 he's still over 34 mpg which is good. The bigger thing though is the pace and Duncan is no longer the true focal point on offense.

[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

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

That is way too dogmatic, all time great defenders have superstar impact in the defensive end

I am not even saying that duncan defense is as valuable as jordan offense here. I am saying that duncan -offense- is somethingh i would ratjer have in a vacuum than jordan -defense-

I also would take duncan defense over quite a few superstar offensive players. Give duncan defende over barkley offense any day for example

[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

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

That is way too dogmatic, all time great defenders have superstar impact in the defensive end

I am not even saying that duncan defense is as valuable as jordan offense here. I am saying that duncan -offense- is somethingh i would ratjer have in a vacuum than jordan -defense-

I also would take duncan defense over quite a few superstar offensive players. Give duncan defende over barkley offense any day for example

If you had used another player than Jordan in your original example, I could have agreed with your point because it can be a good one. When he played, Jordan was the best defender at his position, right?

[SK21209]

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... 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 defense 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 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.

We're in agreement, I didn't make the connection well but Duncan not reaching that level of offensive dominance is why I don't put him up with the GOAT candidates. I'll try to remember where exactly I heard that discussion, I've listened to a lot of reminiscent NBA talk over the last year to try and forget about our current team

[LAL1947]

I've listened to a lot of reminiscent NBA talk over the last year to try and forget about our current team

I know what you mean, haha. The Lebron-Westbrick effect. I've spent the last year doing the same, also posting here, and even ended up watching more Mavs games than Lakers games. First time in my life I've watched another team more.

[Dr Positivity]

Yes, if he was better on offense he would have a better GOAT case, as it stands I just never felt like he was as dominant as a player like Lebron.

[f4p]

True for me. Too many series like 2004 Lakers, 2005 Finals, 2007 Finals, 2008 2nd round, 2008 WCF, 2011 1st round. Series where bigger iso scoring dominance could have shifted things and not series where Duncan was just being nice and not trying to get his own stats. Only the 2007 Finals didn't really require him to do anything, but the 2005 Finals could have easily gone the wrong way if Horry doesn't save game 5 and the 2008 2nd round went 7 as well.

[No-more-rings]

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.

Do you see Duncan’s one or two year peak to be on par with anyone in history?

[70sFan]

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.

Do you see Duncan’s one or two year peak to be on par with anyone in history?

You don't?

[Cavsfansince84]

Do you see Duncan’s one or two year peak to be on par with anyone in history?

I think so which is to say on same tier. Obviously other 2 year peaks could be argued above it but it won't be a big margin.

[No-more-rings]

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.

Do you see Duncan’s one or two year peak to be on par with anyone in history?

You don't?

I think it’s on that level, I think it may be hard to argue it 1st though.

[-Sammy-]

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.

That's a pretty creative way to penalize Duncan, but it isn't surprising.

I'll try this angle: if Duncan hadn't been injured in 2000, the Spurs would've won the title, and they would've won in 2004, too, if the clock operator hadn't started the clock late on the .4 shot, so I'm giving Tim two extra rings and taking away one of Kobe's.

[LAL1947]

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.

That's a pretty creative way to penalize Duncan, but it isn't surprising.

I'll try this angle: if Duncan hadn't been injured in 2000, the Spurs would've won the title, and they would've won in 2004, too, if the clock operator hadn't started the clock late on the .4 shot, so I'm giving Tim two extra rings and taking away one of Kobe's.

It's not creative... it's the truth.

I'm not talking about injuries... but about a daylight robbery. We had one team losing on the court... then deciding to take out the best player on the opponent team with a cheap shot... and being helped out by the NBA who suspended the 2nd and 4th best players on the opponent's team for a pivotal home game 5... even though the opponents were the victims. How crazy is that, right? It's the kind of stuff you only expect to see in movies, not in real life, lol.

If the Suns had been allowed to win that game 5, they've have gone on to win the series in 6 or 7 games and the finals too. This is the biggest robbery in NBA playoff history IMO... as the momentum completely shifted from the Suns to the Spurs through these events... and not because Spurs were better (well, they were not better in the series until these suspensions) or because of anything Duncan did.

If you can't accept these simple truths and want to create some fantasies that give Duncan an additional two rings that he doesn't deserve on top of this one... what can I say except for... that's exactly the sort of thing that has lead to Duncan becoming a mythical All-Time Top 5 when Kobe was better than him.

[ThaRegul8r]

Yes.

[MyUniBroDavis]

As of the current point in history as it stands right now, yes. (I'm going to presume that this question isn't limited to this board.)

There are other reasons which are ultimately rooted in the evolution of our species (a topic beyond the scope of this board), but offense is a big (the most important?) part of players' potential GOAT consideration.

Bro what

[falcolombardi]

As of the current point in history as it stands right now, yes. (I'm going to presume that this question isn't limited to this board.)

There are other reasons which are ultimately rooted in the evolution of our species (a topic beyond the scope of this board), but offense is a big (the most important?) part of players' potential GOAT consideration.

Humans dont evolve over 75 years lol

[trex_8063]

What hurts Duncan's GOAT case for me is that 2007 was pretty much his last real elite season. Maybe it's a bit cherrypicked but looking at the last time players were top 5 in MVP voting among our top 12, Duncan does not look great.

1. Kareem - 38
2. Wilt - 36
3. LeBron - 35
4. Russell, MJ, Kobe - 34
7. Hakeem - 33
8. Shaq - 32
9. Magic, Bird, KG - 31
12. Duncan - 30

Looking at just top 3 you'd get:
1. Wilt, LeBron - 35
3. MJ - 34
4. Kareem - 33
5. Shaq, Russell - 32
7. Hakeem, KG, Kobe, Bird, Magic - 31
12. Duncan - 27

Well, if we're going to look at the last year, maybe we should look at the first year, too......

First year in the top 5 MVP vote:
1. Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Shaquille O'Neal - 21
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 22
5. Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird - 23

First year in the top 3:
1. Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal - 22
4. Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Kevin Garnett - 23
10. Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird - 24
12. Hakeem Olajuwon - 30


It might also be worth noting that not in the top 5 [MVP shares a poor measure of same, btw] does not mean worthless.
He was, for instance, top 7 in the MVP vote TWO more times after '07, top 10 THREE more times, top 15 SIX more times, as well as getting All-NBA honours FIVE more times AFTER '07.

Additionally, people fail to recognize that the "fortunate circumstance" he found himself in [which is ONLY ever used to disparage his accomplishments] existed, in no small part, because of Tim himself. He's as much the architect of the Spurs model and success as anyone (Pop and RC Buford are BOTH on record saying so).

[-Sammy-]

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.

That's a pretty creative way to penalize Duncan, but it isn't surprising.

I'll try this angle: if Duncan hadn't been injured in 2000, the Spurs would've won the title, and they would've won in 2004, too, if the clock operator hadn't started the clock late on the .4 shot, so I'm giving Tim two extra rings and taking away one of Kobe's.

It's not creative... it's the truth.

No-- what you think would have happened under different circumstances can never be the truth, no matter how strongly you believe it or how convincingly you think you can argue it. Truth is only a property of things that exist, and your speculative alternative events didn't happen and don't exist.

I'm not talking about injuries... but about a daylight robbery. We had one team losing on the court... then deciding to take out the best player on the opponent team with a cheap shot... and being helped out by the NBA who suspended the 2nd and 4th best players on the opponent's team for a pivotal home game 5... even though the opponents were the victims. How crazy is that, right? It's the kind of stuff you only expect to see in movies, not in real life, lol.

I don't blame PHX supporters for being upset with the NBA's letter-of-the-law approach to the matter, but there were five other games in the series. It doesn't follow that the Suns would definitely have won the series when they dildn't even win one game after being back at full strength for G6.

If the Suns had been allowed to win that game 5, they've have gone on to win the series in 6 or 7 games and the finals too.

Were they also not allowed to win G6? Why didn't they win it? You aren't going to blame some nebulous abstract concept such as 'momentum', are you?

...the momentum completely shifted from the Suns to the Spurs through these events...

This is a weak notion. championship-caliber teams overcome thing like 'momentum.' 'Momentum' doesn't change the rules of the game or the abilities of the players on the court unless those players let it get into their heads. If Phoenix was the better team and the clear-cut championship-caliber favorite that season, they'd have found a way to overcome the 'momentum' of being down two players for one game of a seven-game series and created their own 'momentum' to win instead.

...not because Spurs were better (well, they were not better in the series until these suspensions) or because of anything Duncan did.

Well, he was the leading scorer (27 per on 60% TS), rebounder (14 per), and shot-blocker (4 per) for either team in the series; you aren't going to convince anyone here that leading both teams in scoring, rebounding, and interior defense doesn't help a team win a series.

If the Spurs weren't better, why did they win three of the four games that weren't under controversy?

If you can't accept these simple truths and want to create some fantasies that give Duncan an additional two rings that he doesn't deserve on top of this one... what can I say except for... that's exactly the sort of thing that has lead to Duncan becoming a mythical All-Time Top 5 when Kobe was better than him.

It's funny that the one of us who has seriously claimed that events which didn't take place are 'the truth' is accusing the other of creating fantasies. But you also asserted that 27/14/4 does nothing to help a team win, so I suppose that isn't surprising.

[ThaRegul8r]

As of the current point in history as it stands right now, yes. (I'm going to presume that this question isn't limited to this board.)

There are other reasons which are ultimately rooted in the evolution of our species (a topic beyond the scope of this board), but offense is a big (the most important?) part of players' potential GOAT consideration.

Bro what

As of the current point in history as it stands right now, yes. (I'm going to presume that this question isn't limited to this board.)

There are other reasons which are ultimately rooted in the evolution of our species (a topic beyond the scope of this board), but offense is a big (the most important?) part of players' potential GOAT consideration.

Humans dont evolve over 75 years lol

It's always the ignorant people who are always laughing online, completely oblivious to when they've revealed their ignorance.

The humans having the GOAT discussions are the product of evolution, as are the minds of said humans.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak (or type, as it were) and remove all doubt."

[trex_8063]

As of the current point in history as it stands right now, yes. (I'm going to presume that this question isn't limited to this board.)

There are other reasons which are ultimately rooted in the evolution of our species (a topic beyond the scope of this board), but offense is a big (the most important?) part of players' potential GOAT consideration.

Humans dont evolve over 75 years lol

It's always the ignorant people who are always laughing online, completely oblivious to when they've revealed their ignorance.

The humans having the GOAT discussions are the product of evolution, as are the minds of said humans.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak (or type, as it were) and remove all doubt."

I mean, he's not wrong: humans didn't evolve, at least to any appreciable/relevant degree, within the span of barely three generations.
But I don't think that is what you were saying in the first place; hence, the tart reply.

I think you *could have clarified what you were saying WITHOUT calling other posters ignorant, though.
That would have been nice, and pose much less risk of having the thread derail into a mess [which we mods have to clean up] of snarky back and forths.


*fwiw, I'm unclear myself as to exactly what your intention was with the "evolution of the species" comment.
Are you saying that our ability to have GOAT conversations in the first place and the means by which we [usually] tend to think about or approach such questions is rooted in our species' evolution?

If so, OK. You're likely correct.
It's sort of deliberately esoteric and perhaps not terribly helpful to the discussion though [imo], because you could basically offer that reply to ANY discussion relating to consensus of opinion and it would be just as [vaguely, distantly] relevant.

e.g. If someone asked why consensus of popular opinion is that Stairway to Heaven (Led Zeppelin) is a better song than The Right Stuff (New Kids on the Block), and I reply "it's rooted in the evolution of our species".....

It's just as correct there, I should think; though fairly near impossible to definitively establish in either case. So aside from giving us something of a philosophical question to ponder, idk......the point is just alluding me.

Or maybe I've completely missed the mark on what your point was, too.

I guess I am also "ignorant".