The Highest and lowest possible all-time ranking for Tim Duncan?

[Homer38]

What do you think is the highest and lowest you can put Duncan on the all-time list?

[eminence]

I personally debate between 1st and 6th (currently 2nd).

Lowest I could see is 8th I think.

Obviously there are folks who rank him lower than that, so it's possible.

[Narigo]

Highest i can see Duncan is Probably 4th behind The Three Js(Jordan, James and Jabbar)

For Lowest, i say 5th. His longevity and consistency is way too good for me to put guys like Shaq, Hakeem and Russell, Magic and Bird over him.

[ardee]

Highest i can see Duncan is Probably 4th behind The Three Js(Jordan, James and Jabbar)

For Lowest, i say 5th. His longvity is way too good for me to put guys like Shaq, Hakeem and Russell, Magic and Bird oveer him.

Is his longevity that much better than Shaq's? Duncan had a 10 year prime ('98-'07). Shaq had a 13 year prime ('93-'05). Then after that, obviously Duncan had the longer post prime from '08-'16 while Shaq was really only effective until '09, but do those extra 4 end of career Duncan seasons create more value than the extra prime Shaq years when he was giving you a legit chance at a title every year?

[Cavsfansince84]

Using reasonably well rounded criteria I think 4-10 is a respectable range. Outside the top 10 is too far and even then I'd lean more towards top 8.

[falcolombardi]

Highest i can see Duncan is Probably 4th behind The Three Js(Jordan, James and Jabbar)

For Lowest, i say 5th. His longvity is way too good for me to put guys like Shaq, Hakeem and Russell, Magic and Bird oveer him.

Is his longevity that much better than Shaq's? Duncan had a 10 year prime ('98-'07). Shaq had a 13 year prime ('93-'05). Then after that, obviously Duncan had the longer post prime from '08-'16 while Shaq was really only effective until '09, but do those extra 4 end of career Duncan seasons create more value than the extra prime Shaq years when he was giving you a legit chance at a title every year?

considering 93 or 94 shaq as part og his prime is fsirly unusual

you probably could include 2008 and 2009 in duncan prime then

[Cavsfansince84]

Highest i can see Duncan is Probably 4th behind The Three Js(Jordan, James and Jabbar)

For Lowest, i say 5th. His longvity is way too good for me to put guys like Shaq, Hakeem and Russell, Magic and Bird oveer him.

Is his longevity that much better than Shaq's? Duncan had a 10 year prime ('98-'07). Shaq had a 13 year prime ('93-'05). Then after that, obviously Duncan had the longer post prime from '08-'16 while Shaq was really only effective until '09, but do those extra 4 end of career Duncan seasons create more value than the extra prime Shaq years when he was giving you a legit chance at a title every year?

considering 93 or 94 shaq as part og his prime is fsirly unusual

you probably could include 2008 and 2009 in duncan prime then

Using bpm as a baseline for primes Duncan seems to have the edge(which also works in Shaq's adv I'd say since it doesn't really give full credit for defensive impact). If the baseline is 5.0 then its 12 years for Duncan to 10 for Shaq. If its 6.0 its 7 for Shaq to 6 for Duncan. If its 7.0 its 5 for Duncan to 4 for Shaq. So I think length of prime is very close between them with Duncan having better non prime years.

[Texas Chuck]

1-5 is the range. He has a GOAT case and only 4 players have any case whatsoever against him(Lebron, Russ, Mike, Kareem). I think 3 or 4 is most correct depending on how one feels about Mike. Lebron and Russ have the easiest GOAT arguments obviously.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm not considering Alien Space Bats but I'll outline the assumptions I think you need for both. Most of them mirror each over. I also think you have to give positive/negative assumptions for his contemporaries but I don't have the energy to spell those out. I'll give brief bullet points when possible.

There are contradictions in both lists but at first glance I think this is reasonable.

Here are the assumptions you need to reach the highest possible rating. There are non-homers who have the
1. Belief that Pop was improved significantly as time went on.
2. Seeing the aughts Spurs on the tier with clubs like Showtime with Duncan at the center of it.
3. Slight skepticism of Robinson/Manu, doesn't mean you think they're bad, but you hold their reasonable critics view of em.
4. Thinking highly of the years between 09-15 and seeing them around the 7-12 range on average.
5. Thinking very highly of his peak seasons.

#2. I just don't think it is a tenable to get him above a near contemporary who overshadowed him clearly for so much of his career: Lebron. The rest is easier because they either played in different eras or didn't clearly overshadow him. But this is an extremely positive view.

Other than that I think you can get there:
Jordan: dude only played 13 seasons. Give a boost to his teammates/coaching. Knock him for personality reasons.
Kareem: assume Magic started propping him up earlier.
Russell: no longevity

Lowest possible rating assumptions. There are non-haters who hold these assumptions.
1. Belief that Pop was at his peak for the duration of Duncan's career.
2. Seeing the aughts Spurs as closer to the Pistons/Rockets tier.
3. Holding the most positive reasonable view of Robinson/Manu.
4. Holding very positive view of the role players.
5. Skepticism of the years between 09-15, seeing him as a guy in an environment that inflates his numbers. Maybe a guy who at best hit top 20 and was mostly in the 20-30 range.
6. Seeing his peak years as mediocre MVP level seasons.


Under this scenario, Duncan played for a GOAT level coach from Day 1. Played on loaded teams throughout his career in the most favorable environment in history and despite that his teams struggled to escape the levels the Pistons/Rockets did. Then you see him as a guy who was just a secondary player on loaded teams.

If you hold this view I think you can get him as low as 25. But you have to be really negative. After that it get dicey

Jordan, Lebron, Kareem, Russell
Bird, Garnett, Hakeem, Magic, Shaq, Wilt
Kobe (think of what his supporters say), Oscar, West, Robinson (point 3 above is really important here), Dr. J. (requires pro ABA tilt), Miken (weighing 50s with less of a discount than most), Dirk (pro 02-07 tilt), Curry, Paul, Durant, Malone, Stockton, Harden, Barkley

[LukaTheGOAT]

Highest is 5 probably and lowest would be #9 in terms of dominance relative to era.

[migya]

1-5 is the range. He has a GOAT case and only 4 players have any case whatsoever against him(Lebron, Russ, Mike, Kareem). I think 3 or 4 is most correct depending on how one feels about Mike. Lebron and Russ have the easiest GOAT arguments obviously.

This is making championships a big factor. Chamberlain has a case above everyone.

[Texas Chuck]

1-5 is the range. He has a GOAT case and only 4 players have any case whatsoever against him(Lebron, Russ, Mike, Kareem). I think 3 or 4 is most correct depending on how one feels about Mike. Lebron and Russ have the easiest GOAT arguments obviously.

This is making championships a big factor. Chamberlain has a case above everyone.

I mean we should be measuring players based on the goal. The goal is team success not gaudy individual box score stats. If you are focused on box score stats, you are going to miss the mark. Russ used this very thing against Wilt during their careers. He would let Wilt "win" the individual statistical battle because Wilt was content with that, meanwhile Russell was doing all the things he did to ensure his team kept winning.

Tim Duncan is the modern Bill Russell. Only thing that mattered to him was his team winning the game, the series, the title. He let Shaq and Kobe and KG and Nash and Wade and Lebron worry about individual glory chasing. Never mattered to him.

Anytime you judge someone in any way but the goal they are moving towards, your are misjudging them. Period.

[migya]

1-5 is the range. He has a GOAT case and only 4 players have any case whatsoever against him(Lebron, Russ, Mike, Kareem). I think 3 or 4 is most correct depending on how one feels about Mike. Lebron and Russ have the easiest GOAT arguments obviously.

This is making championships a big factor. Chamberlain has a case above everyone.

I mean we should be measuring players based on the goal. The goal is team success not gaudy individual box score stats. If you are focused on box score stats, you are going to miss the mark. Russ used this very thing against Wilt during their careers. He would let Wilt "win" the individual statistical battle because Wilt was content with that, meanwhile Russell was doing all the things he did to ensure his team kept winning.

Tim Duncan is the modern Bill Russell. Only thing that mattered to him was his team winning the game, the series, the title. He let Shaq and Kobe and KG and Nash and Wade and Lebron worry about individual glory chasing. Never mattered to him.

Anytime you judge someone in any way but the goal they are moving towards, your are misjudging them. Period.

Switch Chamberlain and Russell on their teams and it could all be reversed. Team quality is the usually the number one factor in winning championships. Lebron has zero if he didn't have other stars with him, for example.

[Cavsfansince84]

I mean we should be measuring players based on the goal. The goal is team success not gaudy individual box score stats. If you are focused on box score stats, you are going to miss the mark. Russ used this very thing against Wilt during their careers. He would let Wilt "win" the individual statistical battle because Wilt was content with that, meanwhile Russell was doing all the things he did to ensure his team kept winning.

Tim Duncan is the modern Bill Russell. Only thing that mattered to him was his team winning the game, the series, the title. He let Shaq and Kobe and KG and Nash and Wade and Lebron worry about individual glory chasing. Never mattered to him.

Anytime you judge someone in any way but the goal they are moving towards, your are misjudging them. Period.

While I agree with your general gist I think there is something to be said for being able to do things in a fundamentally great way which creates innate value towards success regardless of whether its measured in stats or not(as in I wouldn't somehow hold it against players whose games translated to bigger individual numbers as you are sort of doing above). I do think Duncan's offensive dominance was limited after 2005 in a way it wasn't prior. Had Duncan been relatively injury free I think he would be right there and instead of a big 4 that many have at the top(MJ/KAJ/LBJ/Russell) it would be a big 5 which includes Duncan. As things are I think if someone like LeBron had truly chased individual stats he could have averaged over 30ppg most every year. Especially in his Miami years where he scaled back his offense to anchor the defense.

[Texas Chuck]

While I agree with your general gist I think there is something to be said for being able to do things in a fundamentally great way which creates innate value towards success regardless of whether its measured in stats or not(as in I wouldn't somehow hold it against players whose games translated to bigger individual numbers as you are sort of doing above).

I'm not intending to do that though. Lebron is my GOAT, not Russell. And Lebron has all the stats anyone could ever want.

My point is the only argument Wilt has against Russ is volume numbers. And the poster I responded to is obsessed with volume numbers. All his favorites are volume players. I'm just trying to help him see the point of the endeavor isn't any statistical measure other than your team having more points at the end of 48 than their team.

Of course great players are also going to show up heavily in stats. And Wilt is quite clearly one of the all-time great players. But when we have lots of evidence in front of us that make it clear Russ was better at what mattered most. And that Wilt could be distracted by lessor goals and Russ used that against him.

And sorry but I have zero patience for those who want to argue that the Russ Celtics were nothing but HoF players. When the only reason the vast majority of those guys who are in the Hall are there is because they got to play with Russ. And when you look at how little some of them actually played with Russ and how irrelevant they were to the success of the team its just a lazy argument of no meaning.

Sure Russell did have some really nice teammates. But Wilt got to play with West. Russ never played with a guy like that. Wilt go to play with Baylor. One could argue Russ never played with a guy like that(I'm pretty high on Hondo, but most have Baylor a superior player).

[Colbinii]

1-20

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm not intending to do that though. Lebron is my GOAT, not Russell. And Lebron has all the stats anyone could ever want.

My point is the only argument Wilt has against Russ is volume numbers. And the poster I responded to is obsessed with volume numbers. All his favorites are volume players. I'm just trying to help him see the point of the endeavor isn't any statistical measure other than your team having more points at the end of 48 than their team.

Of course great players are also going to show up heavily in stats. And Wilt is quite clearly one of the all-time great players. But when we have lots of evidence in front of us that make it clear Russ was better at what mattered most. And that Wilt could be distracted by lessor goals and Russ used that against him.

And sorry but I have zero patience for those who want to argue that the Russ Celtics were nothing but HoF players. When the only reason the vast majority of those guys who are in the Hall are there is because they got to play with Russ. And when you look at how little some of them actually played with Russ and how irrelevant they were to the success of the team its just a lazy argument of no meaning.

Sure Russell did have some really nice teammates. But Wilt got to play with West. Russ never played with a guy like that. Wilt go to play with Baylor. One could argue Russ never played with a guy like that(I'm pretty high on Hondo, but most have Baylor a superior player).

Well overall I am in agreement. I tend to see it as a big 4 at the top then Duncan then the 6-10 guys in a tier below him. Though I do think that both Havlicek and Jones were better than the Baylor Wilt played with for a number of years.

[HeartBreakKid]

Under my criteria which is peak heavy, I think you can argue Duncan 7-9 (I have him at 9). If we include Walton, then argue 7-10 (I have Walton at 10).

Using criteria more common on here (emphasis on longevity and "career value"), I think you could go as high as #3 or 4, with #9 being the lowest for him still.

[ardee]

Highest is 4 for me (don't think he has a case over LeBron, Jordan or Kareem), lowest would be 10.

[sp6r=underrated]

1-20

I genuinely feel the ranges being offered here are way too narrow. And this is true for all of these threads.

A good way to think about this is the American standard for summary judgment: "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" with the review "'taking all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."

When you say what is the lowest possible ranking for Duncan, ask yourself taking all facts in the most favorable manner to the other player could you argue that player above Duncan. If you could you should slot them in. And the opposite when you're saying what is the possible highest ranking.

Once you do that you'll find the ranges for these questions is a lot larger than the typical ranges.