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

[1993Playoffs]

Duncan has pretty much the perfect resume sans Maybe MJ, Russell (someone who is worse on offense but has 11 rings) and Kareem , it’s very tough to find a better resume than Duncan

But even then he’s rarely placed in the GOAT tier by most. Would you say the reason for that is that his offense simply isn’t good enough to be mentioned in those tier of players?

[penbeast0]

Since I have Russell as GOAT, Duncan's very good offense certainly doesn't eliminate him even if he's not close to the offensive GOAT. There are two sides of the ball and here he's normally considered in the 5-7 range.

[Jaivl]

False

[LAL1947]

True.

To be clearer, I think Duncan was more of a ceiling-raiser than a floor-raiser for the first years of his career, i.e., from 1997-98 until 2003-04, really fantastic. From 2004-05 onward, he was more of a floor-raiser because his foot issue probably meant he couldn't play like he did before then.

Then I do not think he was better than Hakeem on either offense or defense, a direct competitor as a big.

Also, when the Lakers played the Spurs from 2002 onward, Kobe was more often than not the best player on the court. Even in the 2002-03 season, which was Duncan's best season, Kobe outplayed him in 5 of the 6 games of the WCSF.

Finally, the Spurs always had deep rosters from 2002-03 onward. Often times, the best roster in the league. Yet they never managed a repeat, seemingly winning titles only when others faltered (1998-99: lockout season, 2002-03: lazy ass Shaq + Lakers FO incompetence, 2004-05: hand-checking rule change neutered the Pistons, 2006-07: Spurs robbed the Suns, 2013-14: no complaints here but Duncan wasn't the driving force of that team as it was stacked). If Duncan was an actual GOAT candidate, he'd have led those rosters to more emphatically won titles and at least one back-to-back.

One of these days, I hope someone asks Duncan a direct question on video for him to answer... i.e., was he better than Kobe. I'm really curious to hear his answer.

[NO-KG-AI]

No, his offense and his defense does... As in, his combination of both ends doesn't make him as good as a select handful or so of guys. It's not one or the other, even though his defense is better than his offense. He could be worse on offense and still be GOAT by virtue of being even more dominant on defense.

[70sFan]

No, Russell is a worse offensive player and he's GOAT candidate.

[SNPA]

No, Russell is a worse offensive player and he's GOAT candidate.

This is the answer.

[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

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.

[AdagioPace]

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

[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

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

I already said this doesn't tell the whole story and I hope you don't think I only look at MVP voting to determine a player's value. However, I do find it relevant that Duncan was never a serious MVP candidate again after age 30. The likes of Russell, Wilt, Kareem, MJ and now LeBron were all among the top players in the league untill they retired or were close to retirement. Not acknowleding this as a disadvantage for Duncan's case at all seems like a biased take to me. That someone like Kobe might've gotten a bit too many legacy votes in his latest years or that Duncan arguably should get credit for 2008 doesn't change the overall point much.

[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.

[TheGOATRises007]

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.

[Ginoboleee]

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.

I really appreciate your post, and agree with both the method and interpretation.

Duncan should be in the GOAT conversation on the basis of
1. rings/wins
2. longevity/consistency
3. intangibles (leadership/culture/morale)
4. defense/accolades

It's not like his offense was weak, or even average, it just wasn't scintillating.

He still had a basically unstoppable go-to move (Banking Hours 24/7), though it might have been perceived as a bit dull.

The reason Duncan isn't in the GOAT conversation more readily is simply because he wasn't cool, instead was a Kareem-like-introspective type, who did not strut on stage, pursue a high media profile, nor thrill fans in general outside of the immediate fan base.

Basically, he had bad P.R. And by mindful design. So his GOAT resume quietly drafted behind all the simultaneously occurring Kobe Hype, which with Kobe's passing has only accelerated. Fundamental vs. Mamba, that is a P.R. defeat that isn't going to be shifting Q-Scores anytime soon. Perhaps some of you agree?

Questioning the offense as an underlying cause is a perfectly reasonable idea, objectively speaking, though I don't think it carries the day here, especially in light of him being an evolutionary peer to Russell. I really think it is just all about the cool factor. It's why MJ shot past Kareem. Practically everybody really wanted a cool GOAT all along.

[Laimbeer]

He's seen as a bit of an ensemble type player as opposed to a dominant force on his title teams. And that's at least partly because he wasn't an offensive anchor on the level of LeBron, Mike, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, and Magic.

He was steeped in the Spurs dynasty. Pop, DRob, Kawhi, Manu, Parker. That suggests some of his greatness was situational.

[flaco]

False.

The way I see it, Duncan is the modern-day Bill Russell: the ultimate team player, the ultimate winner. I consider both Russ and Timmy GOAT candidates.

[OdomFan]

Who said he wasn't good enough? Duncans offensive numbers aren't as consistently high as others because he wasn't "good enough". They are because of how unselfish he was, and that's the main reason behind what made his Spurs what they were. Timmy was extremely unselfish and very cooperative with what Coach Pop's team play style.


Not good enough...the things people say on here sometimes. smh.

[OdomFan]

Tim Duncan was the better overall player than Russell btw.

[flaco]

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.

[1993Playoffs]

Who said he wasn't good enough? Duncans offensive numbers aren't as consistently high as others because he wasn't "good enough". They are because of how unselfish he was, and that's the main reason behind what made his Spurs what they were. Timmy was extremely unselfish and very cooperative with what Coach Pop's team play style.


Not good enough...the things people say on here sometimes. smh.

Understood but at some point we do have to acknowledge that offensively most GOAT candidates were more dominant , again besides Russell who is a unique case imo.

[LAL1947]

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.

I'd agree with both of you TBH.... 1) Duncan was better overall player, which is why I have Duncan at #10 and Russell at #11 on my personal all-time list... 2) Russell just might be better suited for today's game as the better athlete with more lateral mobility.