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

[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

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."

what the hell are you on about

[jalengreen]

sounds like kyrie lol

[Dutchball97]

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).

Based on the contents and tones of this reply I'm almost starting to believe LAL1947's claims of a Duncan cult.

All you're showing with these first years is that the best players ever were all elite right away with the possible exception of Hakeem who I'm a bit lower on than average anyway.

I often mention how Duncan's longevity is very good (really only surpassed by Kareem and LeBron in my eyes) and you still bring up how he was top 15 in MVP voting 6 times after 07? Sure that adds to his overall longevity but you're counting fringe All-NBA seasons as his prime? Doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.

And sorry but the last part sounds almost unhinged. I never said anything about Duncan just being a system player. Do I really have to start prefacing every little criticism of Duncan's career with how high I am on his peak, longevity, team success, leadership, defense etc and that the only reason I put him right below the actual GOAT candidates (MJ, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, arguably Wilt) is because Duncan doesn't have as many all-time level seasons as them? Very disappointing.

[70sFan]

As the biggest Duncan fan on this board, I mqy agree that he could have had slightly stronger prime to be a clear GOAT candidate. I don't really think that he needed anything past 2008, but 2004-08 period was full of injuries and missed time. If you give 2004-08 Duncan the consistency he had in 2007, he would have been a clear GOAT candidate.

I agree that his 2009-11 seasons are a bit underwhelming in all-time sense, but we have to remember that 2009 was already his 12th season. With his 2012-15 career, I think he did more than enough to overcome that.

[70sFan]

Based on the contents and tones of this reply I'm almost starting to believe LAL1947's claims of a Duncan cult.

I hope you don't mean it...

[Dutchball97]

Based on the contents and tones of this reply I'm almost starting to believe LAL1947's claims of a Duncan cult.

I hope you don't mean it...

I said "almost" for a reason. However, I found trex' reply completely unpromted and honestly unnecessarily hostile. Jaivl also jumped right on my initial comment to dismiss any possible negative comments about Duncan. Keep in mind I voted Duncan 5th in the top 100 project and was only illustrating with the MVP votes why I didn't have him even higher. If that somehow still warrants angry comments from Duncan fans, then yes I'm going to start to doubt their objectivity. Maybe they've seen so many anti-Duncan posts something about my post triggered them but I'm not some new poster whose views on Duncan are completely unknown either. I'm going to leave it at that because this entire exchange is just getting me agitated for no good reason.

[Jaivl]

Based on the contents and tones of this reply I'm almost starting to believe LAL1947's claims of a Duncan cult.

I hope you don't mean it...

I said "almost" for a reason. However, I found trex' reply completely unpromted and honestly unnecessarily hostile. Jaivl also jumped right on my initial comment to dismiss any possible negative comments about Duncan. Keep in mind I voted Duncan 5th in the top 100 project and was only illustrating with the MVP votes why I didn't have him even higher. If that somehow still warrants angry comments from Duncan fans, then yes I'm going to start to doubt their objectivity. Maybe they've seen so many anti-Duncan posts something about my post triggered them but I'm not some new poster whose views on Duncan are completely unknown either. I'm going to leave it at that because this entire exchange is just getting me agitated for no good reason.

I typed a grand total of ONE word in this thread, and that was before you even posted. What are you talking about?

[Dutchball97]

I hope you don't mean it...

I said "almost" for a reason. However, I found trex' reply completely unpromted and honestly unnecessarily hostile. Jaivl also jumped right on my initial comment to dismiss any possible negative comments about Duncan. Keep in mind I voted Duncan 5th in the top 100 project and was only illustrating with the MVP votes why I didn't have him even higher. If that somehow still warrants angry comments from Duncan fans, then yes I'm going to start to doubt their objectivity. Maybe they've seen so many anti-Duncan posts something about my post triggered them but I'm not some new poster whose views on Duncan are completely unknown either. I'm going to leave it at that because this entire exchange is just getting me agitated for no good reason.

I typed a grand total of ONE word in this thread, and that was before you even posted. What are you talking about?

Sorry, I confused you with AdagioPace.

[AdagioPace]

I said "almost" for a reason. However, I found trex' reply completely unpromted and honestly unnecessarily hostile. Jaivl also jumped right on my initial comment to dismiss any possible negative comments about Duncan. Keep in mind I voted Duncan 5th in the top 100 project and was only illustrating with the MVP votes why I didn't have him even higher. If that somehow still warrants angry comments from Duncan fans, then yes I'm going to start to doubt their objectivity. Maybe they've seen so many anti-Duncan posts something about my post triggered them but I'm not some new poster whose views on Duncan are completely unknown either. I'm going to leave it at that because this entire exchange is just getting me agitated for no good reason.

I typed a grand total of ONE word in this thread, and that was before you even posted. What are you talking about?

Sorry, I confused you with AdagioPace.

I only underlined how something was lacking in your post. Trex explained it even better though. Cheers it's not a criticism per se , think about it as a tennis exchange. Also, I don't get the value of putting so much emphasis on a 12th or 13th season when everything around it (before and after) is comparable to other goat candidates or even better (unless your name is Lebron/Jordan, maybe Kareem). You posted a loong list of players

[Dutchball97]

I typed a grand total of ONE word in this thread, and that was before you even posted. What are you talking about?

Sorry, I confused you with AdagioPace.

I only underlined how something was lacking in your post. Trex explained it even better though. Cheers it's not a criticism per se , think about it as a tennis exchange. Also, I don't get the value of putting so much emphasis on a 12th or 13th season when everything around it (before and after) is comparable to other goat candidates or even better (unless your name is Lebron/Jordan, maybe Kareem). You posted a loong list of players

I'm not sure why it is required to post every available statistic and every possible nuance you could think of when just making one point. I never implied the MVP voting is the end all be all for player evaluation, it's just a handy tool to show what I meant with Duncan not being elite as long as the 4-5 GOAT candidates I mentioned. I also disagree with Duncan having the 3rd best 10 year prime tbh. I'm not as high on 98-01 and I don't rate either 04 or 06 that highly either. To me his 10 year prime is much more comparable to a Bird or Hakeem than to Kareem or Russell.

The problem I have is that I make one comment that isn't directly praising Duncan because it is the one thing I find Duncan a bit lacking compared to the likes of MJ, LeBron, Kareem and Russell and immediately I'm accused of thinking Duncan is a system player with bad longevity. How many other players would this happen with? Outside a couple hardcore Kobe, MJ and LeBron fans who mostly operate on the general board you wouldn't see this normally.

[Dutchball97]

I even said in my initial comment how this could be a bit cherrypicked and definitely doesn't tell the whole story and people still feel the need to reply that my comment is cherrypicked and doesn't tell the whole story.

[OhayoKD]

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

It's not telling the whole story of course but it is something that needs to be taken into account imo. It has been my stance for a while Duncan's peak is among the greatest ever and so is his longevity, his team success is among the best as well but his prime is a bit lacking compared to the others.

it's a bit faulty to look it that way given Timmeh was arguably already a top 5 player at 21. Duncan was also arguably top 1 in 2007. MVP voting is an arbitrary way to look at a player's value anyway. One RAPM source (google), for example, has Duncan top 5 in 2008. There are also big oscillations within the first decade of a few players you mentioned having a 12th season (seemingly) better than Duncan's (Kobe for example). TD was always on the 1-5 range his entire first decade. Totally different cumulative value even if the downfall might look steeper in 2009 o 2010 for him. His 10 years prime is comparable to anybody not called Lebron/Jordan I think

lebron and jordan's primes aren't comparable to russell relative to era tbh

[LAL1947]

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.

The truth is that the Spurs were losing, then decided to take out the best player on the other team... and were helped further by the NBA suspending two of the best players on the Suns (i.e., the victim). Are you trying to argue that this did not happen?

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.

The Suns would have won that series IMHO. Game 5 was a home game for the Suns. The Spurs won Game 1 in Phoenix by 5 points. The Suns beat the Spurs by 20 points in Game 2, the other home game in Phoenix. Earlier in the season, the Spurs-Suns played 1 time in Phoenix, another game that the Suns won handily by 17 points. So after winning Game 4 in Texas and with the Spurs losing the home-court advantage they'd got in Game 1, logic says the Suns would have beat the Spurs quite easily in Game 5, if they didn't have those unjust suspensions to deal with. Even with the suspensions to Amar'e and Boris Diaw, they only lost it by 3 points.

So my belief is that the Spurs would have lost in 6, if not for that helping hand, as I do not recollect Duncan ever being great in pressure situations like this, i.e., needing to come back from 3-2 down and playing away. Even if the Spurs managed to win Game 6 @ Texas, there's no way they'd have beaten a full strength Suns in Game 7 @ Phoenix. Those Suns guys had your team's number before all this happened, and the Spurs players looked like they knew it when Game 4 ended as well.

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?

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.

Momentum is a very real thing. Especially when the team you are beating knows that you are beating them on talent and there's nothing they can do to stop it, i.e., without an outside helping hand. It can also be very disheartening to have the momentum you have earned taken away from you unjustly and gifted to an opponent... requiring extraordinary mental strength to overcome. If you want to fault that Suns team for not having extraordinary mental strength, that's fine... but they should not have needed it to win this series... and that's the position they were placed in.

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.

My statement there simply mean that games 5 & 6 were not won by Duncan playing better than he had in games 1 & 3. Duncan may have actually played worse in games 5 & 6, as you can see below.

Duncan against Suns:
Game 1: 33 pts, Spurs won
Game 2: 29 pts, Spurs lost
Game 3: 33 pts, Spurs won
Game 4: 21 pts, Sputs lost
Game 5: 21 pts, Spurs won
Game 6: 24 pts, Spurs won

It goes without saying that points scored is not everything... but you can see a clear descending trajectory there. Anyway, my belief is games 5 & 6 were won because the Suns had key players suspended for that pivotal Game 5 and were then deflated in Game 6 because of it.

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

The Spurs won 2 of 4 games without controversy, not 3 of 4. Both game 5 and game 6 were controversial AFAIC, as the Suns were placed in a situation for game 6 that they should not have been in, i.e., 2-3 down and playing away for game 6... instead of being 3-2 up and with a home game 7 in hand even if they lost game 6.

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.

That's not what I did, see above.

[OhayoKD]

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?

"at his position" is doing alot of work. Jordan's never anchored an elite playoff defense, the bulls went from average to best in the league with his defense declining, and then the bulls weren't really affected by his depature. Duncan on the other hand was massively valuable to arguably the GOAT post-russell defense.

If we use metrics like drapm, dpipm, ect, ect jordan's best years are either +1 or +2. Duncan is at like +4 or +5. Duncan's a way way better defender.

[OhayoKD]

It’s not so much his offense per say, I just think he lacks goat level seasons outside of 2002 and 2003. Lebron and MJ both have probably 5-6 seaons matching or surpassing that level. Kareem as well. Russell is harder to judge. Hakeem has sort of a similar problem imo, although his resume in general is short of goat status. Also although Duncan had sort of a resurgence from like 2012-2015, his 2009-2011 seasons were pretty underwhelming given his age at that time. I also think he was a bit less durable than some other guys.

I would agree with this.

???

what 5-6 seasons do jordan and lebron have that are as good or surpassing when duncan hard-carried a team to a title?

[No-more-rings]

It’s not so much his offense per say, I just think he lacks goat level seasons outside of 2002 and 2003. Lebron and MJ both have probably 5-6 seaons matching or surpassing that level. Kareem as well. Russell is harder to judge. Hakeem has sort of a similar problem imo, although his resume in general is short of goat status. Also although Duncan had sort of a resurgence from like 2012-2015, his 2009-2011 seasons were pretty underwhelming given his age at that time. I also think he was a bit less durable than some other guys.

I would agree with this.

???

what 5-6 seasons do jordan and lebron have that are as good or surpassing when duncan hard-carried a team to a title?

Jordan: 88-93
Lebron: 09, 10, 12-13, 16-17

I wouldn’t put all them above peak Duncan, and some maybe even a tad below but it doesn’t sound crazy to put those seasons on that level.

[trex_8063]

.....I found trex' reply completely unpromted and honestly unnecessarily hostile. Jaivl also jumped right on my initial comment to dismiss any possible negative comments about Duncan. Keep in mind I voted Duncan 5th in the top 100 project and was only illustrating with the MVP votes why I didn't have him even higher. If that somehow still warrants angry comments from Duncan fans, then yes I'm going to start to doubt their objectivity....

Wow. I'm sorry I came across that way.

Though tbh I'm still having trouble seeing how it could be perceived quite this nasty. I don't know the full context of this thread (I only read a few of the first posts, and responded to that one when I came across it). So if people have been coming at you since, and somehow my post felt like the last straw......

....idk, but below is the full quoted text of what I wrote:

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).

I'm just not seeing where I am "unnecessarily hostile" or "angry".

The use of the word "maybe" in my first paragraph I suppose could be seen as a bit hostile IF one imagines a tone that is dripping with sarcastic condescension. Wasn't really my intention for it to be interpreted that way though. I could have instead said "we should also" instead of "maybe we should"......boy, that's a subtle difference, though. I mean, in vacuum "maybe" is a pretty innocuous word.

I could see where other parts come across as a little defensive.....the final paragraph in particular. But angry or hostile? That still feels like a stretch, even upon re-reading it (and truly: I wasn't angry while writing it).


As to "completely unprompted":
I don't get this at all. Am I NOT allowed to respond to arguments you present?
Isn't that what we do here?: People present arguments, others present counterpoint views and/or plug in the gaps where information previously presented seemed lacking or one-sided (what I was doing).

This is the stuff of ~90+% of the exchanges on this forum; I didn't think ours was any different. I've seriously been sort of blind-sided by your reaction to it.

Based on the contents and tones of this reply I'm almost starting to believe LAL1947's claims of a Duncan cult.

All you're showing with these first years is that the best players ever were all elite right away with the possible exception of Hakeem who I'm a bit lower on than average anyway.

I didn't think what I showed was much less relevant than what you did (other than to note that the player-to-player variation in your "last years" samples was bigger than in my "first years" samples).

Your implication seemed to be that the length of time he was "elite" in the league doesn't stack up well against most of the other top 12 all-timers. I don't think I misinterpreted that (correct me if I'm wrong).
The methodology you chose to illustrate this (which, to your credit, you did acknowledge up front it was sort of cherry-picked, and I see you further acknowledged how this didn't tell the whole story) seem to have been, well......cherry-picked [as you said] to paint Duncan in the most unflattering light (he's dead-last in each group).

I proposed noting the age of FIRST time being in each of the two groups you suggested [top 5, top 3] as a counterpoint, because Duncan is tied for 1st in each of those groups (though yes, there is less variation between 1st and the middle/end of the list [with the exception of Hakeem in the top 3] when looking at "first years").

The point or implication of doing so can be illustrated by showing what is essentially the combination our two data sets (look at the number of years between a player's FIRST time in the top 3 or 5, and his LAST year)....

Top 5
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 16
2. LeBron James - 14
3. Wilt Chamberlain - 13
4. Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal - 11
7. Hakeem Olajuwon - 10
8. Tim Duncan - 9
9. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson - 8

Top 3
1. LeBron James - 13
2. Wilt Chamberlain - 12
3. Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 11
5. Shaquille O'Neal - 10
6. Bill Russell - 9
7. Kevin Garnett, Magic Johnson - 8
9. Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird - 7
11. Tim Duncan - 5
12. Hakeem Olajuwon - 1

Duncan still toward the lower end of the group, fwiw, but no longer distinctly last. That was my point in showing it.

I often mention how Duncan's longevity is very good (really only surpassed by Kareem and LeBron in my eyes) and you still bring up how he was top 15 in MVP voting 6 times after 07?

I'm sorry, I didn't recall your position on longevity, and in particular: Duncan's longevity. And I admit to skimming your final paragraph, so I don't think I fully absorbed you acknowledging the relative short-sightedness of the data you presented.
So I apologize for suggesting that you feel seasons beyond "top 5" are "worthless" (that was not a word you used).

I wanted more of the "whole story" (as you referred to) cited. Because certainly what Duncan did AFTER falling out of top-5 status is not at all comparable to, say.....Larry Bird. After Bird's final top-5 [3] season, he basically only ever played ~2.5 more seasons (basically at low-level All-NBA capacity).
Duncan played 9 more years after, with at least six of them being fringe All-NBA level.

So I made sure that was clearly illustrated for others reading.

Sure that adds to his overall longevity but you're counting fringe All-NBA seasons as his prime? Doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.

I never said I considered those seasons part of his prime (although I think one could argue '08 or '09 as still part of an "extended prime"). I only suggested they still carried a lot of value, even if not top 5.

And sorry but the last part sounds almost unhinged. I never said anything about Duncan just being a system player. Do I really have to start prefacing every little criticism of Duncan's career with how high I am on his peak, longevity, team success, leadership, defense etc and that the only reason I put him right below the actual GOAT candidates (MJ, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, arguably Wilt) is because Duncan doesn't have as many all-time level seasons as them? Very disappointing.

I see now I probably should have posted that final paragraph in a separate post, quoting no one. I see it's bad form to cross-contaminate posts with responses to a specific indvidual AND general musings meant for readers at large.

It wasn't directed at anything you had said [note I said "people", broadly referring to his detractors]; it's just a common criticism I read.
But whereas many use his circumstance against him, I almost view it as another credit to him, because he had such a large role in constructing his fortunate system/circumstances to begin with. And I can provide supportive evidence of that claim, upon request.

So, noting that it wasn't aimed at you, I don't think this was an unhinged point to bring up in a thread about Duncan's GOAT candidacy. Seems very on-point, in fact (again: noting it wasn't aimed at you, and probably should have been stated in a separate post).

[penbeast0]

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.

With all due respect, PnR was a thing in the 60s, just not spammed to the extent of Stockton/Malone but it was definitely one of the basic go to plays they taught you, most likely even in the 50s though I can speak to what was taught in the 60s.

In terms of Russell v. Duncan, Russell was a better rim protector (vertical defender), better at affecting other players out on the floor (horizontal defender), more of a coach on the floor type, and a significantly better rebounder as well. Duncan was a clearly superior post threat. Russell's results imply a much higher degree of influence on winning in his day. Duncan played in a more competitive and tougher era. How you balance those factors against each other may differ, but I come out with Russell as the stronger GOAT case.

[Cavsfansince84]

With all due respect, PnR was a thing in the 60s, just not spammed to the extent of Stockton/Malone but it was definitely one of the basic go to plays they taught you, most likely even in the 50s though I can speak to what was taught in the 60s.

In terms of Russell v. Duncan, Russell was a better rim protector (vertical defender), better at affecting other players out on the floor (horizontal defender), more of a coach on the floor type, and a significantly better rebounder as well. Duncan was a clearly superior post threat. Russell's results imply a much higher degree of influence on winning in his day. Duncan played in a more competitive and tougher era. How you balance those factors against each other may differ, but I come out with Russell as the stronger GOAT case.

I agree with most of what you say here but I'm not so sure about the rebounding part. 60's numbers being inflated and all. Wilt in 71-73(when he was mostly focusing on rebounding and probably equal to Russell) topped out at 20.1 total reb%. Which makes me think Russell probably topped out in the 20-21% range as well. Duncan otoh had 9 seasons between 18.8 and 19.6%. So imo they were probably closer to equal as rebounders. Russell probably being better on the off end with his quick leaping and lateral movement.

[Dutchball97]

.....I found trex' reply completely unpromted and honestly unnecessarily hostile. Jaivl also jumped right on my initial comment to dismiss any possible negative comments about Duncan. Keep in mind I voted Duncan 5th in the top 100 project and was only illustrating with the MVP votes why I didn't have him even higher. If that somehow still warrants angry comments from Duncan fans, then yes I'm going to start to doubt their objectivity....

Wow. I'm sorry I came across that way.

Though tbh I'm still having trouble seeing how it could be perceived quite this nasty. I don't know the full context of this thread (I only read a few of the first posts, and responded to that one when I came across it). So if people have been coming at you since, and somehow my post felt like the last straw......

....idk, but below is the full quoted text of what I wrote:

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).

I'm just not seeing where I am "unnecessarily hostile" or "angry".

The use of the word "maybe" in my first paragraph I suppose could be seen as a bit hostile IF one imagines a tone that is dripping with sarcastic condescension. Wasn't really my intention for it to be interpreted that way though. I could have instead said "we should also" instead of "maybe we should"......boy, that's a subtle difference, though. I mean, in vacuum "maybe" is a pretty innocuous word.

I could see where other parts come across as a little defensive.....the final paragraph in particular. But angry or hostile? That still feels like a stretch, even upon re-reading it (and truly: I wasn't angry while writing it).


As to "completely unprompted":
I don't get this at all. Am I NOT allowed to respond to arguments you present?
Isn't that what we do here?: People present arguments, others present counterpoint views and/or plug in the gaps where information previously presented seemed lacking or one-sided (what I was doing).

This is the stuff of ~90+% of the exchanges on this forum; I didn't think ours was any different. I've seriously been sort of blind-sided by your reaction to it.

Based on the contents and tones of this reply I'm almost starting to believe LAL1947's claims of a Duncan cult.

All you're showing with these first years is that the best players ever were all elite right away with the possible exception of Hakeem who I'm a bit lower on than average anyway.

I didn't think what I showed was much less relevant than what you did (other than to note that the player-to-player variation in your "last years" samples was bigger than in my "first years" samples).

Your implication seemed to be that the length of time he was "elite" in the league doesn't stack up well against most of the other top 12 all-timers. I don't think I misinterpreted that (correct me if I'm wrong).
The methodology you chose to illustrate this (which, to your credit, you did acknowledge up front it was sort of cherry-picked, and I see you further acknowledged how this didn't tell the whole story) seem to have been, well......cherry-picked [as you said] to paint Duncan in the most unflattering light (he's dead-last in each group).

I proposed noting the age of FIRST time being in each of the two groups you suggested [top 5, top 3] as a counterpoint, because Duncan is tied for 1st in each of those groups (though yes, there is less variation between 1st and the middle/end of the list [with the exception of Hakeem in the top 3] when looking at "first years").

The point or implication of doing so can be illustrated by showing what is essentially the combination our two data sets (look at the number of years between a player's FIRST time in the top 3 or 5, and his LAST year)....

Top 5
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 16
2. LeBron James - 14
3. Wilt Chamberlain - 13
4. Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal - 11
7. Hakeem Olajuwon - 10
8. Tim Duncan - 9
9. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson - 8

Top 3
1. LeBron James - 13
2. Wilt Chamberlain - 12
3. Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 11
5. Shaquille O'Neal - 10
6. Bill Russell - 9
7. Kevin Garnett, Magic Johnson - 8
9. Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird - 7
11. Tim Duncan - 5
12. Hakeem Olajuwon - 1

Duncan still toward the lower end of the group, fwiw, but no longer distinctly last. That was my point in showing it.

I often mention how Duncan's longevity is very good (really only surpassed by Kareem and LeBron in my eyes) and you still bring up how he was top 15 in MVP voting 6 times after 07?

I'm sorry, I didn't recall your position on longevity, and in particular: Duncan's longevity. And I admit to skimming your final paragraph, so I don't think I fully absorbed you acknowledging the relative short-sightedness of the data you presented.
So I apologize for suggesting that you feel seasons beyond "top 5" are "worthless" (that was not a word you used).

I wanted more of the "whole story" (as you referred to) cited. Because certainly what Duncan did AFTER falling out of top-5 status is not at all comparable to, say.....Larry Bird. After Bird's final top-5 [3] season, he basically only ever played ~2.5 more seasons (basically at low-level All-NBA capacity).
Duncan played 9 more years after, with at least six of them being fringe All-NBA level.

So I made sure that was clearly illustrated for others reading.

Sure that adds to his overall longevity but you're counting fringe All-NBA seasons as his prime? Doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.

I never said I considered those seasons part of his prime (although I think one could argue '08 or '09 as still part of an "extended prime"). I only suggested they still carried a lot of value, even if not top 5.

And sorry but the last part sounds almost unhinged. I never said anything about Duncan just being a system player. Do I really have to start prefacing every little criticism of Duncan's career with how high I am on his peak, longevity, team success, leadership, defense etc and that the only reason I put him right below the actual GOAT candidates (MJ, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, arguably Wilt) is because Duncan doesn't have as many all-time level seasons as them? Very disappointing.

I see now I probably should have posted that final paragraph in a separate post, quoting no one. I see it's bad form to cross-contaminate posts with responses to a specific indvidual AND general musings meant for readers at large.

It wasn't directed at anything you had said [note I said "people", broadly referring to his detractors]; it's just a common criticism I read.
But whereas many use his circumstance against him, I almost view it as another credit to him, because he had such a large role in constructing his fortunate system/circumstances to begin with. And I can provide supportive evidence of that claim, upon request.

So, noting that it wasn't aimed at you, I don't think this was an unhinged point to bring up in a thread about Duncan's GOAT candidacy. Seems very on-point, in fact (again: noting it wasn't aimed at you, and probably should have been stated in a separate post).

It can be hard to read intentions in written form but the emphasis on "first" and the dots at the end seemed like a dismissive and sarcastic tone to me. The unprompted part was about your last two paragraphs, which suddenly were about Duncan's post-prime longevity and the question whether Duncan benefitted from a system or that he was the primary driving factor for the success of that system.

I guess you could say it was a bit of a last straw but not because of the interactions with people in this thread per se. I've been getting a bit annoyed at a general trend on the board but mostly in the peaks project at the moment where some people are questioning the legitimacy of other people's ranking criteria because they don't line up with their own. Now don't get me wrong, the vast majority of discussion is still very interesting and well argumentated. It's also completely fine with me to read each other's arguments critically but respect to different viewpoints is important to me as well. I felt like your comment unjustly painted me as someone who was actively trying to disparage Duncan but if you didn't intend to do that I'll admit I interpreted it more harshly than you meant it.

You did interpret right that I did want to show how Duncan was relatively young compared to the other top 12 guys when he started a noticeable decline. Two things that I do think got lost in translation is first that I didn't base my opinion of Duncan's prime on the MVP voting. I already formed this opinion through more thorough examination but I found the MVP voting was a handy illustration to show how I view Duncan's "early" decline from elite to All-Star/fringe All-NBA as a slight negative when compared to the 4-5 GOAT candidates I have ahead of him in my all-time rankings. Secondly Duncan getting his last top 3/5 in MVP voting at a younger age than the other 11, doesn't mean I think Duncan should therefor be ranked below all of them. In contrary I still have him above half of them due to other factors. You mentioned Duncan's longevity edge over Bird but that's exactly why I have Duncan over Bird. I do think their peaks and primes are comparable but Duncan's post-prime longevity is clearly superior to Bird's.

I shouldn't have lashed out like that either and I'll refrain from making too many assumptions about someone's tone and/or intentions before engaging in further conversation in the future. So let's put this to a misunderstanding and move on a positive note.