What would Duncan have had to do to be seen in the same category as Kareem?

[mdonnelly1989]

Longevity is almost an exact wash.

Tim Duncan is better defensively than Kareem. Although Kareem is a better rebounder by a clear margin, and clearly more a dominant scorer. So it's probably why Kareem is considered a lock top 3. Where as Duncan on here is considered borderline top 5.

[Cavsfansince84]

Longevity is almost an exact wash.

Tim Duncan is better defensively than Kareem. Although Kareem is a better rebounder by a clear margin, and clearly more a dominant scorer. So it's probably why Kareem is considered a lock top 3. Where as Duncan on here is considered borderline top 5.

Duncan is clearly the better rebounder I would say. His trb%'s dwarf those of Kareem, especially in the latter years. To answer the question he just needed to avoid injuries and keep going at his 00-early 05 pace for another 4-5 years. Then he probably wins more mvps and its at least a good debate who had the better prime.

[No-more-rings]

He would’ve had to been a better scorer basically. The more I think on it i’m not so sure Kareem was really better than him.

[wojoaderge]

Not disappear from our reality for a little while longer, it seems

[sp6r=underrated]

I think if he had maintained his level of play from 2002-2003 through 2007 he had have a lot more supporters. But it would always be hard. People value PPG/scoring ability a lot and Kareem was better there.

[Matt15]

Yeah I agree if he stayed at his 2002-’03 level of play for longer he’d have a better chance. Kareem I’d argue has at least 5 seasons that are on the level of Peak Duncan.

[70sFan]

Be healthy during 2004-08 period, that would be enough.

[iggymcfrack]

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kareem all in the same tier. All three were dominant big men that won a lot of championships and had the longevity to play at an extremely high level for a very long time. The only players I'd put ahead of them are Jordan and LeBron. The box score comparison's a lot more favorable to Duncan than you'd think. We have PP100 and RP100 from age 26 on for Kareem.

From age 26-38, Kareem averaged 30.8 points per 100 on .599 TS% and 13.6 rebounds per 100.
From age 26-38, Duncan averaged 29.6 points per 100 on .548 TS% and 17.1 rebounds per 100.

Now this comparison misses more great years for Kareem and I'm not saying Timmy's his equal as a pure scorer, but I do think it's a lot closer than people would think off-hand and I think Timmy's superior defense, passing, rebounding and leadership are enough to make up for Kareem's scoring and longevity.

[Jaivl]

Be better or healthier, I guess? Healthy 2000, 2004, 2006 could do it maybe.

[tmorgan]

I think he needed to be in a different team situation and thus more assertive offensively. He played for a model franchise with a lot of great teammates and didn’t need to score 25 a game to win… and he knew it. Tough to end up somewhere where his offense was needed more AND still be as successful, though. I’m sure Timmy is happy with what actually happened.

[Stalwart]

And now Timmy fans are coming after Kareem. Or is it crypto Lebron fanscoming after Kareem?

Kareem was the better scorer, rebounder, arguably defender. He is the GOAT college player. He has a more extrnsive resume in general. And he was the the greater individual force on the basketball court.

[Jaivl]

Kareem was the better scorer, rebounder, arguably defender

And what would that argument be? Sheer inability to assess defense like in Stat vs Pau, or something real this time?

Mind you, I would not find it terribly ridiculous re/ young Kareem, who may have been a better rim protector (although I would heavily disagree as well). But career-wise it's a no contest.

He is the GOAT college player.

Extremely irrelevant.

And he was the the greater individual force on the basketball court.

He was a much better offensive player, yes, you already said that. It doesn't count double.

[NO-KG-AI]

I dunno man, Duncan wasn't considered a GOAT level player when he was actually in his prime, and I don't think we were wrong or viewing him through the wrong lense at the time either. I just don't think he was individually as dominant as Kareem was, he would have needed a lot more years like 2002-2003 to make it a real discussion. Duncan is a well rounded player without a ton of like true weaknesses, but I do think some of the weaker parts of his game do get glossed over a lot more than other guys get the benefit of the doubt in similar tier of players.

Frankly, I just don't think Duncan has a claim to GOAT in his prime, and Kareem does.

[70sFan]

And now Timmy fans are coming after Kareem. Or is it crypto Lebron fanscoming after Kareem?

Or is it a simple question from a curious poster? Nobody said in this thread that Duncan is better than Kareem, why all this cry avout "Timmy fans"?

Kareem was the better scorer, rebounder, arguably defender. He is the GOAT college player. He has a more extrnsive resume in general. And he was the the greater individual force on the basketball court.

1. That's why the question is what Duncan would have done to beat Kareem, not why Duncan is better.

2. Some of your points are absolutely false. Duncan was a better rebounder than Kareem. Duncan was also a better defender, especially if you take into account how much better Duncan was later in his career than 1980s Kareem on defense.

Kareem is my GOAT if I have to choose and I don't see Duncan being higher as it is, but stop calling everyone "Timmy fans" or using false arguments.

[Dutchball97]

He needed more years as the clear best player in the league. Kareem was the premier player of the NBA for over a decade, Duncan did not come particularly close to that. Other than that they have pretty similar careers but this is the main thing seperating them in my eyes.

[70sFan]

He needed more years as the clear best player in the league. Kareem was the premier player of the NBA for over a decade, Duncan did not come particularly close to that. Other than that they have pretty similar careers but this is the main thing seperating them in my eyes.

I think Duncan has an argument for the best player in 1999 and 2007. As I said, if he was more healthy in 2004-08 period, it would be a close comparison.

To me, healthy Duncan was the best player in the league during 2001-07 period.

[Jaivl]

He needed more years as the clear best player in the league. Kareem was the premier player of the NBA for over a decade, Duncan did not come particularly close to that. Other than that they have pretty similar careers but this is the main thing seperating them in my eyes.

I mean, Jordan was the clear best player in the league for... 4 years tops (90-92, 96)? Not being the top dog for N years does not DQ Duncan per se.

[Dutchball97]

He needed more years as the clear best player in the league. Kareem was the premier player of the NBA for over a decade, Duncan did not come particularly close to that. Other than that they have pretty similar careers but this is the main thing seperating them in my eyes.

I think Duncan has an argument for the best player in 1999 and 2007. As I said, if he was more healthy in 2004-08 period, it would be a close comparison.

To me, healthy Duncan was the best player in the league during 2001-07 period.

If he was healthy in 04 and 06 it'd be closer but still a big advantage to Kareem imo. I'm not as high on 99-01 as you are and I find his drop-off after 07 to be pretty early for an all-time great.

He needed more years as the clear best player in the league. Kareem was the premier player of the NBA for over a decade, Duncan did not come particularly close to that. Other than that they have pretty similar careers but this is the main thing seperating them in my eyes.

I mean, Jordan was the clear best player in the league for... 4 years tops (90-92, 96)? Not being the top dog for N years does not DQ Duncan per se.

Seems I'm way higher on MJ than you are. I've got him as being the clear best for 9 years in 88-93 and 96-98. For Duncan I can get to like 5 years if I'm super generous to him but every year outside 02 and 03 he's only the best by process of elimination and not because he was playing at an all-time level those years. It's not like the likes of Kareem and MJ never had years where they were just barely the best but they've still got way more seasons at the absolute highest level. Duncan not being the top dog for x amount of years absolutely disqualifies him from the GOAT conversation because it is my personal rankings/evaluations and relative dominance over peers is a very important criteria for me. It's also literally the only negative I have against Duncan and every time it comes up people make a big deal out of it.

[No-more-rings]

To me, healthy Duncan was the best player in the league during 2001-07 period.

Duncan was fully healthy in 01 and still wasn’t better than Shaq.

[70sFan]

To me, healthy Duncan was the best player in the league during 2001-07 period.

Duncan was fully healthy in 01 and still wasn’t better than Shaq.

I think that's arguable, especially if you include regular season performance.