RealGM

Credit to Ceiling Raiser for the idea, it's a good one. The All-Time Top-10 really needs a good gate-keeper. The gate-keeper will block entry of future Top-10 candidates whose stats are inflated by the way the game is played today (rule changes that impacted defense and increased three-point shooting, etc). All of the current guys at the very top were amazing, so close to each other, so these are my reasons below for why Tim Duncan would be the best choice as the “best of the rest”.

My All-Time Top 10:
1) MJ
2) Wilt or Lebron
3) Lebron or Wilt
4) Larry
5) Kobe
6) Magic
7) Hakeem or Kareem
8) Kareem or Hakeem
9) Shaq
10) Duncan or Russell
11) Russell or Duncan

I think Duncan was a better overall player than Bill Russell. In an ideal world, Russell would only have 3-5 rings and be my demarcation point, since he was the least skilled and least impactful on offense from these 11 guys (44% FG% for a center?! WTH??). But Russell has 11 rings, more than anyone in history, so that's out of the question. Which makes me turn to Duncan, since he was the most boring and the least excellent as an individual player from these 11 guys. "Least excellent" meaning there are more players from this list who stood out more at more aspects of the game:

Scoring: Jordan, Wilt, Kobe, Kareem, Lebron, Shaq, Hakeem, Larry, Magic all better
Shooting: Larry, Kobe, Jordan, Magic, Lebron, Hakeem all better
Skills: Jordan, Kobe, Magic, Hakeem, Larry, Lebron, Kareem all better
Play-making: Magic, Larry, Lebron, Kobe, Jordan, Kareem, Hakeem all better
Creativity: Magic, Larry, Kobe, Jordan, Hakeem, Kareem, Lebron all better
Athleticism: Everyone is better.
Physical Dominance: Wilt, Lebron, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Russell, Kareem all better
Perimeter defense: Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Russell all better
Post defense: Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, Russell all better
Rim-protection: Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, Russell, Shaq all better (so all the centers are better)
Rebounding: Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq all have higher TRB (so all the centers are better)

^ Tim Duncan is not at the top in any of these categories. So what did he excel at compared to these guys?

Now while Duncan has more rings than some of these players... there are legitimate asterisks placed next to a few:
- 2006-07: Daylight robbery of the Suns.
- 1998-99: Asterisked due to lock-out season.
- 2004-05: Would not have won this title if the Pistons were allowed to play as they did in 2003-04. The NBA noticed how the Pistons bent the rules to stop Kobe and then fully implemented the hand-check rule as a consequence. In the playoffs that followed, Parker and Ginobili (also Wade, Nash and Lebron later) were the biggest immediate beneficiaries of this change.

Of these 11 guys, Duncan is also the only captain of a US team that didn't win the Olympic gold medal.

So I think if one really wanted to, they could quite easily tell the story of the NBA mentioning Duncan's name less than the other 10 guys... since he didn't improve on anything his predecessors did or take the game to new heights in any way (like everyone else in this list did)... and his Spurs teams didn't repeat either. You can't leave Larry out because of the Bird-Magic connection and the Lakers-Celtics rivalry. You can't leave Hakeem out as the first true international star. You can't leave Kobe out even if you wanted to because he helped carry the NBA along with Shaq and Iverson after Jordan retired (when fans felt a super-star void), was part of a three-peat and a back-to-back, had to rescue Team USA after the blunder that happened under Duncan's "leadership" in 2004 (which the next generation still speaks about today), and he has the highest scoring game since Wilt.

Another benefit to consider. Duncan is the 5th-6th best Big Man of All-Time (together with Russell). We've already accepted that Russell cannot be gate-keeper with 11 rings. So there will be 5 Bigs in my Top-10 (Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Russell). Most of these Bigs could not win without guards and forwards. We must show love to the best Point Guards, Shooting Guards and Small Forwards too, and we're only giving them 5 spots to share between them.

Even Duncan's nickname, The Big Fundamental, lends itself very well to being the demarcation point since he didn't stand out for being exceptionally skilled or athletic. We could say to would-be contenders... "if your fundamentals aren't as good as Tim Duncan's, you can't get past him to see the Top 10 guys of All-Time".

Finally, I think it is quite apt for the gate-keeper to be a Center because of their size and the position they play. It is more defensive oriented than other positions... and Duncan could be the last line of defense before the Top 10, like Centers are the last line of defense before the bucket.

No, I don't think so, that's too low for him.

I have him 7th, perhaps flirting with 6th (that's Shaq for me). His peak was short but it was epic, and he was consistently good for so freaking long. Man was putting up 30/17 as a 37 year old in game 6 of a Finals.

I have Hakeem at 10th, who seems like the most common choice at that spot.

Duncan is definitely in the bottom part of the top 10. Duncan, Magic, Bird or Shaq are the 10th.

If you are clearly better than Duncan, then you have to be inside top 10 and you are GOAT candidate, so I guess so?

LAL1947 wrote:Scoring: Jordan, Wilt, Kobe, Kareem, Lebron, Larry, Magic all better
Skills: Jordan, Kobe, Magic, Hakeem, Larry, Lebron, Kareem all better
Play-making: Magic, Larry, Lebron, Kobe, Jordan all better
Creativity: Magic, Larry, Kobe, Jordan, Hakeem, Lebron, even Shaq
Athleticism: Everyone is better except Larry.
Physical Dominance: Wilt, Lebron, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Russell, Kareem all better
Rim-protection: Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, Russell, Shaq all better
Perimeter defense: Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Russell all better

What's the reason to use "skills", "athleticism" or "creativity"? To push Duncan as low as possible?

By the way, Shaq definitely wasn't a better rim protector than Duncan and I wouldn't put Kareem higher either (although this one is debatable). Shaq is in fact not even close in that regards. Duncan has the case for being the best rim protector ever, although I wouldn't go that far.

How about things like help defense, offensive rebounding, defensive rebounding, inside scoring, shooting, off-ball play, post defense, P&R coverage, screen setting? Aren't these things as least as important as "creativity" or "skills"?

Duncan's absolute floor is 5, not 10.

I knew who OP was before entering the thread. I'm in absolute AWE at the level of salt.

No, of course not. Maybe in 40 years, when Duncan drops a bit.

ardee wrote:Man was putting up 30/17 as a 37 year old in game 6 of a Finals.

i forgot that he had 25 in the first half of that game until i rewatched it recently. 25 points in one half of a closeout game in the finals. absurd. (granted it also speaks to him being quiet in the second half but still)

70sFan wrote:If you are clearly better than Duncan, then you have to be inside top 10 and you are GOAT candidate, so I guess so?

Great! So we are in agreement? Duncan would be a good gate-keeper for the Top-10?

70sFan wrote:What's the reason to use "skills", "athleticism" or "creativity"? To push Duncan as low as possible?

By the way, Shaq definitely wasn't a better rim protector than Duncan and I wouldn't put Kareem higher either (although this one is debatable). Shaq is in fact not even close in that regards. Duncan has the case for being the best rim protector ever, although I wouldn't go that far.

How about things like help defense, offensive rebounding, defensive rebounding, inside scoring, shooting, off-ball play, post defense, P&R coverage, screen setting? Aren't these things as least as important as "creativity" or "skills"?

Well, I feel Shaq was a better rim protector in his prime and so was Kareem. Duncan might have ended up looking better over the course of his full career, but I'm looking at primes, i.e., at their best. If you feel different, that's fine.

Btw, if anyone called Tim Duncan the best rim protector ever, I'd think they were barmy.

I've taken your suggestions on board and added shooting and rebounding. I've left out things like off-ball play, p&r coverage, screen setting to be fair to the older guys like Russell, Wilt and Kareem who played in a different time where the game seems less organized... and I don't really know much about the 1970s and earlier. Besides, I'm not an expert or trying to be nit-picky by listing out every aspect of the game... just wanted to use some aspects to get the point across that he stands out the least from this group of 11.

Why skills? ... basketball is a game of skill, and the skills of players wow the viewers and inspire the next generation.
Why creativity? ... to separate the maestros from the mundane.

Even among centers, Kareem and Hakeem wowed people with their skills, footwork and creativity compared to what existed at their times, but Duncan did not. If San Antonio had not won 5 titles, where would Duncan rank amongst players? (Actually, this might be another good thought exercise... what if all 11 players listed here never won a title, how would we rank them then?)

Confusing premise. If we’re going to make this thread we’d might as well ask if Jordan is a good demarcation.

Jaivl wrote:I knew who OP was before entering the thread. I'm in absolute AWE at the level of salt.

I think I've made a strong and mostly inarguable case.

the idea of a gatekeeper is that you are not as good as the guys above but are the best our of everyone else

duncan as a player who is pretty much always argued in top 10's and usually around thr middle at that doesnt belong here

kobe who is seen as just outside the top 10 by most here is a much more clear gatekeeper

this may be closer to accurate if you went with the more casual fan consensus but duncan probably still would be in most top 10's

LAL1947 wrote:Great! So we are in agreement? Duncan would be a good gate-keeper for the Top-10?

No, Duncan would be a good gate-keeper for GOAT candidates. If you are clearly better than Duncan, then you are pretty much a GOAT candidate.

Well, I feel Shaq was a better rim protector in his prime and so was Kareem. Duncan might have ended up looking better over the course of his full career, but I'm looking at primes, i.e., at their best. If you feel different, that's fine.

You may feel that way, but it's wrong. Shaq in his absolute best defensive seasons was worse rim protector than past prime Duncan from the early 2010s. Shaq was big and intimidating, but he also had horrible fundamentals, fouled a lot and his timing was terrible. Not to mention his lumbering footwork on defensive end.

Shaq was good rim protector with some strong years at that, but he wasn't historically good at that.

Btw, if anyone called Tim Duncan the best rim protector ever, I'd think they were barmy.

I know it's a joke, but do you have any strong evidences to prove it wrong?

I've taken your suggestions on board and added shooting and rebounding. I've left out things like off-ball play, p&r coverage, screen setting to be fair to the older guys like Russell, Wilt and Kareem who played in a different time where the game seems less organized... and I don't really know much about the 1970s and earlier.

Off-ball play and screen setting existed before the NBA was introduced. P&R became a significant part of the game in the late 1950s. These three all played during the time when these aspects existed and were important.

Besides, I'm not an expert or trying to be nit-picky by listing out every aspect of the game... just wanted to use some aspects to get the point across that he stands out the least from this group of 11.

But things like "physical domination" or "creativity" aren't more important than off-ball play. Unless you admit that you simply wanted to show why Duncan is worse than all of these players, then it makes sense.

Why skills? ... basketball is a game of skill, and the skills of players wow the viewers and inspire the next generation.
Why creativity? ... to separate the maestros from the mundane.

These things are very important for fans, but they carry little value for actual basketball players. Besides, "skills" are usually only a different word for scoring repertoire. Otherwise you would never say that Duncan lacks in that aspect, given that he might be the most technically sound defender ever - are these not "skills"?

Even among centers, Kareem and Hakeem wowed people with their skills, footwork and creativity compared to what existed at their times, but Duncan did not.

I don't think Jabbar wowed people in his prime, in fact he was seen quite similar to Duncan as a "boring, but unstoppable" superstar.

I still don't see why it should matter though. Hakeem was more flashy scorer than Kareem or Shaq, but he was clearly worse offensive player than either of them.

If San Antonio had not won 5 titles, where would Duncan rank amongst players? (Actually, this might be another good thought exercise... what if all 11 players listed here never won a title, how would we rank them then?)

If he played his career identical way, he should be ranked the same as he is now. Isn't that logical?

falcolombardi wrote:the idea of a gatekeeper is that you are not as good as the guys above but are the best our of everyone else

That's the perfect description for Duncan IMO. Duncan is not as good as the guys above and so he stood out less than them... but he's the best of everyone else because of his consistency over his full career.

Another benefit to consider... Duncan is the 5th-6th best Big Man of All-Time. I've got 5 Bigs in the Top-10... and we must show love must to the best Point Guards, Shooting Guards and Small Forwards too. I'm giving them 5 spots to share between them.

An additional benefit of having Duncan at #11... now we also reduce the exaggerated separation between Duncan and KG who were almost equal as players.

Thank you for replying btw. In replying to your post, the case just got stronger in my mind.

falcolombardi wrote:duncan as a player who is pretty much always argued in top 10's and usually around thr middle at that doesnt belong here

kobe who is seen as just outside the top 10 by most here is a much more clear gatekeeper

I've only seen this phenomenon here on RealGM. Usually it's Kobe between 6-10 and Duncan between 9-11.

70sFan wrote:I don't think Jabbar wowed people in his prime, in fact he was seen quite similar to Duncan as a "boring, but unstoppable" superstar.

Yeah, lacking exciting dunks and dribble moves and whatever would not dispose him well toward the average fan. Toss ball into post, get skyhook. Sometimes, dunk, sometimes turnaround over the other shoulder. He faced up a bit more as a Buck and that was fun. I love watching him personally, but I can certainly see how he might not appeal to many. Shame, really, but we see people who give Shaq and Lebron grief for playing the way they did; someone will always be unhappy because style preference is subjective rather than objective.

Many people fall into the trap of trying to create concensus opinions in ultimately subjective rankings. Looking at your top 10, the only placing we've got exactly the same is MJ at #1 (or LeBron at #2 as well but your wording makes it seem like you're leaning more towards Wilt there). The guys I tend to gravitate towards as "gatekeepers" for the top 10 are Bird (not the best longevity), Hakeem (slightly lacking team/play-off success compared to other top 10 candidates) and Kobe (complete career but not a real stand out peak).

Ranking Duncan 10/11 is fine imo but the reason being that he was a bit boring to casual audiences is still odd to me. That doesn't really have anything to do with his performance, does it? Kind of makes it seem like you're downgrading Duncan because you don't like him, not because you legitimately think there are 9-10 players actually better.

tsherkin wrote:

70sFan wrote:I don't think Jabbar wowed people in his prime, in fact he was seen quite similar to Duncan as a "boring, but unstoppable" superstar.

Yeah, lacking exciting dunks and dribble moves and whatever would not dispose him well toward the average fan. Toss ball into post, get skyhook. Sometimes, dunk, sometimes turnaround over the other shoulder. He faced up a bit more as a Buck and that was fun. I love watching him personally, but I can certainly see how he might not appeal to many. Shame, really, but we see people who give Shaq and Lebron grief for playing the way they did; someone will always be unhappy because style preference is subjective rather than objective.

Just to be clear - I absolutely love watching both Kareem and Duncan at work. They just weren't super popular among casual fans.

Somewhat unrelated but looking at the Kobe thread that inspired this you see Stalwart complaining about anyone not having Kobe #1 between 2006 and 2010 being revisionists. Interesting to see the exact same talking point is still being used 6 months later without it ever convincing a single person.

I have Tim Duncan has a Demarcation of the top 4 with a GOAT case.

Kobe Bryant is the demarcation for top 10.

70sFan wrote:Just to be clear - I absolutely love watching both Kareem and Duncan at work. They just weren't super popular among casual fans.

I figured as much I'm with you on this one.

Statlanta wrote:I have Tim Duncan has a Demarcation of the top 4 with a GOAT case.

Kobe Bryant is the demarcation for top 10.

How you gonna put Duncan as the demarcation for Top 4 when:

1) 7 of the 11 listed in the OP (Kareem, Lebron, Kobe, MJ, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem) have more points than him?
- 1 of the 3 was a pass-first PG who retired early, but had 6,000 more assists.
- 1 of the 3 hurt his back and also retired early, but averaged 4.0 PPG more while he was playing.
- Leaving only Bill Russell.
- 6 of the 7 outscored him by many, many thousands... only Hakeem is close to Duncan.

AND

2) 4 of these 11 were better defenders than him in own position?
- Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, Russell.

AND

3) 2 others were better defenders at their position than he was in his position?
- Jordan, Lebron

so 4 + 2 = 6.

AND

4) 7 of the 11 were better play-makers?
- Magic, Larry, Lebron, Kobe, Jordan (were better at creating plays for themselves and for others)
- Hakeem, Kareem (were better at creating plays for themselves)

Last I checked... 7 > 6 > 5.

The math sure doesn't add up.... or as they say, something smells fishy in Denmark.