is Tim Duncan a top 5 player of all time?

[Texas Chuck]

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.

You aren't wrong on Duncan, but the homer in me isn't ready to concede Duncan was the best player on the court in the WCSF. That guy Dirk had a pretty epic series too.

[sp6r=underrated]

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?

I don't agree with weighing it heavily. But it is quite common method of comparison. And since I'm not God I can't forbid that type of analysis.

[LAL1947]

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.

You aren't wrong on Duncan, but the homer in me isn't ready to concede Duncan was the best player on the court in the WCSF. That guy Dirk had a pretty epic series too.

Duncan did not play at GOAT level between 2005-2007.

If Kobe had two back-court partners like Jason Terry and Josh Howard from 2004-05 to 2006-07, he'd have rocked the socks off both Duncan and Dirk. He was just on another different level to everyone in the league during those years... and having two dynamic guys like Jet and Josh who could go get their own, hoo boy. The Lakers might have had another 3-peat even with Kwame at C, lol.

G: Jason Terry
G: Kobe
F: Josh Howard
F: Lamar Odom
C: Kwame Brown

Anyway, if Duncan is Top 5, then Kobe is Top 4... as the best player of the 2000s.

[Texas Chuck]

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.

You aren't wrong on Duncan, but the homer in me isn't ready to concede Duncan was the best player on the court in the WCSF. That guy Dirk had a pretty epic series too.

Duncan did not play at GOAT level between 2005-2007.

If Kobe had two back-court partners like Jason Terry and Josh Howard from 2004-05 to 2006-07, he'd have rocked the socks off both Duncan and Dirk. He was just on another different level to everyone in the league during those years... and having two dynamic guys like Jet and Josh who could go get their own, hoo boy. The Lakers might have had another 3-peat even with Kwame at C, lol.

G: Jason Terry
G: Kobe
F: Josh Howard
F: Lamar Odom
C: Kwame Brown

Anyway, if Duncan is Top 5, then Kobe is Top 4... as the best player of the 2000s.

not everything is about Kobe and fan fiction.

And Kobe was an all-time great, but he doesn't measure up favorably to Tim Duncan as an overall basketball player and that;s okay.

Let Tim have this thread and you can shoehorn Kobe in elsewhere.

[falcolombardi]

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.

You aren't wrong on Duncan, but the homer in me isn't ready to concede Duncan was the best player on the court in the WCSF. That guy Dirk had a pretty epic series too.

Duncan did not play at GOAT level between 2005-2007.

If Kobe had two back-court partners like Jason Terry and Josh Howard from 2004-05 to 2006-07, he'd have rocked the socks off both Duncan and Dirk. He was just on another different level to everyone in the league during those years... and having two dynamic guys like Jet and Josh who could go get their own, hoo boy. The Lakers might have had another 3-peat even with Kwame at C, lol.

G: Jason Terry
G: Kobe
F: Josh Howard
F: Lamar Odom
C: Kwame Brown

Anyway, if Duncan is Top 5, then Kobe is Top 4... as the best player of the 2000s.

We saw kobe play with a even better duo in gasol/odom just 1 year later and he got rocked by boston hard in the finals

[Texas Chuck]

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?

I don't agree with weighing it heavily. But it is quite common method of comparison. And since I'm not God I can't forbid that type of analysis.

Nobody is asking you to be God, I can assure you. Nor am I asking you to forbid anything. I simply wanted your opinion on how reasonable of an approach it is, regardless of how common it is.

For instance, I find it completely unreasonable. Particularly for a player like Tim Duncan whose goal was always team-centric. He played in the way that gave his actual teams the best chance to win. I'd assume if he was born 15-20 years later, he would play in some different ways that gave those teams the best chance to win. How successful he would or wouldn't be though is obviously pure projection and speculation and thus imo not worth all that much.

Sounds like you don't find much value in it either, though maybe a bit more than me.

[falcolombardi]

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?

I don't agree with weighing it heavily. But it is quite common method of comparison. And since I'm not God I can't forbid that type of analysis.

Nobody is asking you to be God, I can assure you. Nor am I asking you to forbid anything. I simply wanted your opinion on how reasonable of an approach it is, regardless of how common it is.

For instance, I find it completely unreasonable. Particularly for a player like Tim Duncan whose goal was always team-centric. He played in the way that gave his actual teams the best chance to win. I'd assume if he was born 15-20 years later, he would play in some different ways that gave those teams the best chance to win. How successful he would or wouldn't be though is obviously pure projection and speculation and thus imo not worth all that much.

Sounds like you don't find much value in it either, though maybe a bit more than me.

There is also somethingh rarely acknowledged in that nobody wonders the reverse "how would this player do in literally any other era but the modern one"?

Modern basketball is not the cutting edge of a game that has been the same for a century, but the cutting edge of a gane whose rules and reffing change multiple times within a single career span

If refs rewarded physical post ups mpre witj free throws, allowed offensive interference after the ball touches the rim like in fiba (aka everywhere else but the nba) had 60's level ref strictness on ball handling and carryng or kept illegal defense rules (which i hate) ....

I would have a good feeling that styles like duncan would be much more common amd effective even today with 3 point shooting and the current "modern" styles would be less wffective than they currently are

In that sense, even though i -prefer- modern basketball....i dont consider it a straight up improvement line across the league history. Instead i see it as the current optimization around current rules and reffing.

And if tomorrow the nba decides to eliminate the 3 point line cause fans dont like 3's anymore? I wouldnt call it a retrocess either but just a different (and valid) version of basketball

Is actually like the actual definition of the word evolution, which doesnt mean improvement or superiority wins. But rather adaptation to the current environment

Were the squirels and other mammals that survived more "optimal" than the dinosaurs who perished? Or was it just the planet environment that changed in a way that benefitted the former?

Just like the yucatan meteor, league reffing and rule changes are like asteroids impacts that change the whole league environments in ways that are not clear until the smoke settles. Those that benefit or suffer under these changes are not really better or worse as much as they have skillsers more or less useful for the new normal

[sp6r=underrated]

I don't agree with weighing it heavily. But it is quite common method of comparison. And since I'm not God I can't forbid that type of analysis.

Nobody is asking you to be God, I can assure you. Nor am I asking you to forbid anything. I simply wanted your opinion on how reasonable of an approach it is, regardless of how common it is.

For instance, I find it completely unreasonable. Particularly for a player like Tim Duncan whose goal was always team-centric. He played in the way that gave his actual teams the best chance to win. I'd assume if he was born 15-20 years later, he would play in some different ways that gave those teams the best chance to win. How successful he would or wouldn't be though is obviously pure projection and speculation and thus imo not worth all that much.

Sounds like you don't find much value in it either, though maybe a bit more than me.

There is also somethingh rarely acknowledged in that nobody wonders the reverse "how would this player do in literally any other era but the modern one"?

Modern basketball is not the cutting edge of a game that has been the same for a century, but the cutting edge of a gane whose rules and reffing change multiple times within a single career span

If refs rewarded physical post ups mpre witj free throws, allowed offensive interference after the ball touches the rim like in fiba (aka everywhere else but the nba) had 60's level ref strictness on ball handling and carryng or kept illegal defense rules (which i hate) ....

I would have a good feeling that styles like duncan would be much more common amd effective even today with 3 point shooting and the current "modern" styles would be less wffective than they currently are

In that sense, even though i -prefer- modern basketball....i dont consider it a straight up improvement line across the league history. Instead i see it as the current optimization around current rules and reffing.

And if tomorrow the nba decides to eliminate the 3 point line cause fans dont like 3's anymore? I wouldnt call it a retrocess either but just a different (and valid) version of basketball

Is actually like the actual definition of the word evolution, which doesnt mean improvement or superiority wins. But rather adaptation to the current environment

Were the squirels and other mammals that survived more "optimal" than the dinosaurs who perished? Or was it just the planet environment that changed in a way that benefitted the former?

Just like the yucatan meteor, league reffing and rule changes are like asteroids impacts that change the whole league environments in ways that are not clear until the smoke settles. Those that benefit or suffer under these changes are not really better or worse as much as they have skillsers more or less useful for the new normal

Yup, imagine the NBA if it repealed the 3 second defensive rule and we could see real zone defenses unlike the garbage zones we see today. The value of interior bigs shoots up big time. The value of off ball shooters goes down if the NBA ever decided to enforce moving screen rules. NBA screens at this point are entirerly moving which makes getting open much easier.

[70sFan]

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.

You aren't wrong on Duncan, but the homer in me isn't ready to concede Duncan was the best player on the court in the WCSF. That guy Dirk had a pretty epic series too.

Yeah, Dirk also played phenomenal in that series. This duel was as close to perfection as possible.

[LAL1947]

You aren't wrong on Duncan, but the homer in me isn't ready to concede Duncan was the best player on the court in the WCSF. That guy Dirk had a pretty epic series too.

Duncan did not play at GOAT level between 2005-2007.

If Kobe had two back-court partners like Jason Terry and Josh Howard from 2004-05 to 2006-07, he'd have rocked the socks off both Duncan and Dirk. He was just on another different level to everyone in the league during those years... and having two dynamic guys like Jet and Josh who could go get their own, hoo boy. The Lakers might have had another 3-peat even with Kwame at C, lol.

G: Jason Terry
G: Kobe
F: Josh Howard
F: Lamar Odom
C: Kwame Brown

Anyway, if Duncan is Top 5, then Kobe is Top 4... as the best player of the 2000s.

not everything is about Kobe and fan fiction.

And Kobe was an all-time great, but he doesn't measure up favorably to Tim Duncan as an overall basketball player and that;s okay.

Let Tim have this thread and you can shoehorn Kobe in elsewhere.

Kobe was a superior basketball player to Duncan in every way. Right hand, left hand, shooting, post-game, dribbling, driving, footwork, creating for himself, creating for others... you can name any aspect of basketball and Kobe was better at it. He was also as good a defender at SG that Duncan was at PF/C.

The point of my posts is not to shoehorn Kobe into this discussion but to try putting a stop to this Duncan fan-fiction that is trying to make him into a Top 5 all-time player when he just simply was not.

Fringe Top 10 is what Duncan is, and below Kobe in the All-Time list.

You also have this habit of deifying Duncan while making it seem like KG was a much lesser player than Duncan because of offense. So how do you explain away this chart which shows their stats in head-to-head games? It shows that KG actually outscored Duncan in more games that they played against each other. When you take into consideration that KG was a better defender and passer than Duncan... what conclusion should we be left with on seeing that he also outscored Duncan?



And let's not forget portability into this era too, where Duncan might be getting his ankles broken on the perimeter in every game because he lacked lateral mobility (compared to KG).

AFAIC, the gap between Duncan and KG is almost non-existent, which is yet another good reason why it makes sense to have Duncan as a fringe Top 10... so he can be closer to KG in the overall ranking.

So I've really got to ask... what is the reason for this deification of Timmy? Are you that desperate to have a player who represented a Texas team in the Top 5? Well, I'm not buying it. I've seen Hakeem, Duncan and KG all play live and Hakeem was on a different level to both of them, so why not pick Hakeem instead? Then you'd have no complaints from me. Or do you not like Houston?

[70sFan]

Kobe was a superior basketball player to Duncan in every way. Right hand, left hand, shooting, post-game, dribbling, driving, footwork, creating for himself, creating for others... you can name any aspect of basketball and Kobe was better at it.

Yeah, that's why you forgot to mention rim protection, offensive rebounding, inside finishing, drawing fouls, setting screens, help defense... I love your objective analysis based on completely arbitrary criteria backed up by your opinions.

I had a lot of laugh when I read that you think Kobe was a better post player than Duncan, that was a good one!

He was also as good a defender at SG that Duncan was at PF/C.

That's false and you have no evidences to back it up. Duncan was significantly better defender compared to other bigs than Kobe was vs other wings.

When you take into consideration that KG was a better defender and passer than Duncan... what conclusion should we be left with on seeing that he also outscored Duncan?

Who said you that Garnett was a better defender than Duncan?

And let's not forget portability into this era too, where Duncan might be getting his ankles broken on the perimeter in every game because he lacked lateral mobility (compared to KG).

Duncan didn't get his ankles broken when he was 40 and was among the best defenders in the league on per possession basis. I'm pretty sure young Duncan would be fine.

AFAIC, the gap between Duncan and KG is almost non-existent, which is yet another good reason why it makes sense to have Duncan as a fringe Top 10... so he can be closer to KG in the overall ranking.

Or you can have both higher than Kobe, I solved your problem

[LAL1947]

AFAIC, the gap between Duncan and KG is almost non-existent, which is yet another good reason why it makes sense to have Duncan as a fringe Top 10... so he can be closer to KG in the overall ranking.

Or you can have both higher than Kobe, I solved your problem

Now you're just being a silly salmon.

Watch on YouTube

[Dutchball97]

The point of my posts is not to shoehorn Kobe into this discussion but to try putting a stop to this Duncan fan-fiction that is trying to make him into a Top 5 all-time player when he just simply was not.

Fringe Top 10 is what Duncan is, and below Kobe in the All-Time list.

The mistake you're making here is treating all-time rankings like an objective truth, when they're an inherently subjective excercise influenced by what each person perceives as the most important factors for basketball success. There are multiple valid ways to look at these rankings. Do you mainly look at how good someone was in absolute terms or do you look at it relative to era? Do you put more emphasis on how well someone played at their best or do you look at how much value they brought over their career? Do you value players making bad teams into good teams more than players making good teams into great teams or the other way around? Do you support your player evaluations with stats, accolades or just the eye test? You're focused on expansive scoring arsenals, ballhandling skills and switchability which mainly benefits wings, while someone like 70sfan is enamored with 2-way bigs who could lead both the offense and defense. There are more than one way to look at all-time rankings and come to valid conclusions, as long as you stay consistent and can back up your claims with arguments.

Nobody IS a top 5 player, people just have players in their subjective top 5. Discussions and arguments for why we think certain players should be viewed higher or lower than the concensus opinion is the bread and butter of this board but going into these discussions with the idea that you're way of ranking things is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong and should be corrected isn't the most productive way to go around it.

[70sFan]

Or you can have both higher than Kobe, I solved your problem

Now you're just being a silly salmon.

Watch on YouTube

I don't think such posts are allowed on this board.

[LAL1947]

Now you're just being a silly salmon.

Watch on YouTube

I don't think such posts are allowed on this board.

Oh c'mon, have a sense of humor. I'm not trying to be rude to you, just sharing a funny video is all.

[70sFan]

The point of my posts is not to shoehorn Kobe into this discussion but to try putting a stop to this Duncan fan-fiction that is trying to make him into a Top 5 all-time player when he just simply was not.

Fringe Top 10 is what Duncan is, and below Kobe in the All-Time list.

The mistake you're making here is treating all-time rankings like an objective truth, when they're an inherently subjective excercise influenced by what each person perceives as the most important factors for basketball success. There are multiple valid ways to look at these rankings. Do you mainly look at how good someone was in absolute terms or do you look at it relative to era? Do you put more emphasis on how well someone played at their best or do you look at how much value they brought over their career? Do you value players making bad teams into good teams more than players making good teams into great teams or the other way around? Do you support your player evaluations with stats, accolades or just the eye test? You're focused on expansive scoring arsenals, ballhandling skills and switchability which mainly benefits wings, while someone like 70sfan is enamored with 2-way bigs who could lead both the offense and defense. There are more than one way to look at all-time rankings and come to valid conclusions, as long as you stay consistent and can back up your claims with arguments.

Nobody IS a top 5 player, people just have players in their subjective top 5. Discussions and arguments for why we think certain players should be viewed higher or lower than the concensus opinion is the bread and butter of this board but going into these discussions with the idea that you're way of ranking things is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong and should be corrected isn't the most productive way to go around it.

Great post and I want to add one thing. I don't mind anyone having Kobe ahead of Duncan, as long as his criteria are consistent and he doesn't use cherry picked arguments to prove his statement. I am well aware that my list isn't a representative one here (or anywhere else) and I have some opinions that are questioned by others. It's fine, just be consistent and intelectually honest with your criteria.

LAL isn't consistent, his reasoning is all over the place and it's clear that he creates arguments to back up his (previously created) list, not the other way around.

When I hear that Kobe is better at every single aspect of basketball, that's factually incorrect and I won't just look at it and call it a different opinion.

[LAL1947]

The point of my posts is not to shoehorn Kobe into this discussion but to try putting a stop to this Duncan fan-fiction that is trying to make him into a Top 5 all-time player when he just simply was not.

Fringe Top 10 is what Duncan is, and below Kobe in the All-Time list.

The mistake you're making here is treating all-time rankings like an objective truth, when they're an inherently subjective excercise influenced by what each person perceives as the most important factors for basketball success. There are multiple valid ways to look at these rankings. Do you mainly look at how good someone was in absolute terms or do you look at it relative to era? Do you put more emphasis on how well someone played at their best or do you look at how much value they brought over their career? Do you value players making bad teams into good teams more than players making good teams into great teams or the other way around? Do you support your player evaluations with stats, accolades or just the eye test? You're focused on expansive scoring arsenals, ballhandling skills and switchability which mainly benefits wings, while someone like 70sfan is enamored with 2-way bigs who could lead both the offense and defense. There are more than one way to look at all-time rankings and come to valid conclusions, as long as you stay consistent and can back up your claims with arguments.

Nobody IS a top 5 player, people just have players in their subjective top 5. Discussions and arguments for why we think certain players should be viewed higher or lower than the concensus opinion is the bread and butter of this board but going into these discussions with the idea that you're way of ranking things is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong and should be corrected isn't the most productive way to go around it.

Fair enough, you make a good point.

[70sFan]

Now you're just being a silly salmon.

Watch on YouTube

I don't think such posts are allowed on this board.

Oh c'mon, have a sense of humor. I'm not trying to be rude to you, just sharing a funny video is all.

I don't mind your post (other than you don't really respond to my arguments), I just say that for future talk. You can get a warning for such posts here.

[LAL1947]

Kobe was a superior basketball player to Duncan in every way. Right hand, left hand, shooting, post-game, dribbling, driving, footwork, creating for himself, creating for others... you can name any aspect of basketball and Kobe was better at it.

Yeah, that's why you forgot to mention rim protection, offensive rebounding, inside finishing, drawing fouls, setting screens, help defense... I love your objective analysis based on completely arbitrary criteria backed up by your opinions.

I had a lot of laugh when I read that you think Kobe was a better post player than Duncan, that was a good one!

LAL isn't consistent, his reasoning is all over the place and it's clear that he creates arguments to back up his (previously created) list, not the other way around.

When I hear that Kobe is better at every single aspect of basketball, that's factually incorrect and I won't just look at it and call it a different opinion.

Bro, how you gonna diss me when you have "setting screens" as a reason for why Duncan is better than Kobe... that's like scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The things you listed (rebounding, rim protection) are because of height, not talent. And no, Duncan was not a better inside finisher... and yes, Kobe did have a better post-game than Duncan. Or well, he was a more effective scorer in the post (backed up the eye test and by stats too), even though that is supposed to be Duncan's area of excellence... because Kobe was that good.

[70sFan]

Bro, how you gonna diss me when you have "setting screens" as a reason for why Duncan is better than Kobe... that's like scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Yes, because that was the point of my post. I should start ignoring your points as well and trying to make you look as bad as possible.

And yes, Kobe did have a better post-game than Duncan... or well, he was a more effective scorer in the post (backed up the eye test and by stats too), even though that is supposed to be Duncan's area of excellence... because Kobe was that good.

By what stats? You probably mean the synergy stats showing that Kobe was more efficient post player than past scoring peak Duncan on significantly lesser volume, right? It doesn't mean that Kobe was a better post player. A more extreme analogy would be saying that Steve Kerr was a better three point shooter than Reggie Miller, because he was more efficient.