Highest reasonable ranking for Tim Duncan?

[eminence]

I'm not sure he has an actual solid, consistent argument over both LeBron and Russell at the same time, so I'll say #2.

Ahh, but what is his win% with homecourt advantage?

But seriously, I don’t think it’s too difficult. Getting him to #1 big doesn’t seem all that tricky. Then you just have to love big men.

Side note - I think as LeBron continues to extend his longevity it’s getting tougher and tougher to have any non big man over him. He does everything other than control the paint/rim area* so damn well and has done it for so damn long that the cases for other smalls are just starting to look kind of silly.

*He’a also really good at this for a non big.

[Colbinii]

Know where you coming from... I mean, if I said #5, behind KG, MJ, LeBron, and KAJ, both of you would be much more friendlier, welcoming to hte club, and Colbinii can save that rant, lol

Nah, because I never think "My ranking is the highest reasonable ranking" because other people could have different criteria. Considering other peoples criteria is reasonable, then another person having a player ranked higher than me is indeed reasonable.

I understand your infatuation with Garnett, but let's leave him out of just 1 of your threads...just one please

To have a healthier conversation, following your logic, the question to any players highest reasonable ranking would be #1, otherwise you need to shut up.

No, it isn't #1.

I see no reasonable case for KG, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, Magic or Bird for being #1 all-time.

I see it for 5 players--LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell and Duncan. This doesn't mean those 5 need to be the Top 5 players, but they have somewhat clear and understandable thought processes behind them being #1 All-time.

[dygaction]

Nah, because I never think "My ranking is the highest reasonable ranking" because other people could have different criteria. Considering other peoples criteria is reasonable, then another person having a player ranked higher than me is indeed reasonable.

I understand your infatuation with Garnett, but let's leave him out of just 1 of your threads...just one please

To have a healthier conversation, following your logic, the question to any players highest reasonable ranking would be #1, otherwise you need to shut up.

No, it isn't #1.

I see no reasonable case for KG, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, Magic or Bird for being #1 all-time.

I see it for 5 players--LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell and Duncan. This doesn't mean those 5 need to be the Top 5 players, but they have somewhat clear and understandable thought processes behind them being #1 All-time.

See, we can agree. I also see not reason case for Pippen, Kobe, Dream for being #1 all-time.

Final question, am I allowed to think 3 players -- MJ, LeBron, KAJ, to be clearly better than Duncan in MY view and happen to have Duncan on my #4? If so, again, what's up with the rant?

[Colbinii]

To have a healthier conversation, following your logic, the question to any players highest reasonable ranking would be #1, otherwise you need to shut up.

No, it isn't #1.

I see no reasonable case for KG, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, Magic or Bird for being #1 all-time.

I see it for 5 players--LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell and Duncan. This doesn't mean those 5 need to be the Top 5 players, but they have somewhat clear and understandable thought processes behind them being #1 All-time.

See, we can agree. I also see not reason case for Pippen, Kobe, Dream for being #1 all-time.

Final question, am I allowed to think 3 players -- MJ, LeBron, KAJ, to be clearly better than Duncan in MY view and happen to have Duncan on my #4? If so, again, what's up with the rant?

Do you think it is unreasonable for someone else to think Duncan was slightly better than one of those 3 players?

[TripleDub]

I think the highest you can consistently rank him would be #5. I don't see a realistic argument to put him above Russell, Kareem, MJ, or Magic. I don't understand the arguments putting him #1. If you can argue Tim Duncan as the actual GOAT then I think you can argue anyone in the top 10 as #1. It's #5 for me.

[Dutchball97]

No, it isn't #1.

I see no reasonable case for KG, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, Magic or Bird for being #1 all-time.

I see it for 5 players--LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell and Duncan. This doesn't mean those 5 need to be the Top 5 players, but they have somewhat clear and understandable thought processes behind them being #1 All-time.

See, we can agree. I also see not reason case for Pippen, Kobe, Dream for being #1 all-time.

Final question, am I allowed to think 3 players -- MJ, LeBron, KAJ, to be clearly better than Duncan in MY view and happen to have Duncan on my #4? If so, again, what's up with the rant?

Do you think it is unreasonable for someone else to think Duncan was slightly better than one of those 3 players?

Aren't you being unfair here? I've seen plenty of people with Wilt as their GOAT but you are fine labeling them as being unreasonable, while taking offense at someone else doing the same thing for Duncan as you do for Wilt.

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't really see a case for Duncan over Kareem, so I'll say #2.

I also don't consider 1999-03 as really being that competitive outside of the Lakers and Spurs.

I agree with this. If you are high on big man defense, longevity and his intangibles then I think you have to be nearly equally as high on Kareem's(with a nod toward Duncan for how his def/reb aged past 33) yet Kareem's offense is just too good here. Duncan's injuries likely cost him any chance of beating out Kareem imo.

[dygaction]

No, it isn't #1.

I see no reasonable case for KG, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, Magic or Bird for being #1 all-time.

I see it for 5 players--LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell and Duncan. This doesn't mean those 5 need to be the Top 5 players, but they have somewhat clear and understandable thought processes behind them being #1 All-time.

See, we can agree. I also see not reason case for Pippen, Kobe, Dream for being #1 all-time.

Final question, am I allowed to think 3 players -- MJ, LeBron, KAJ, to be clearly better than Duncan in MY view and happen to have Duncan on my #4? If so, again, what's up with the rant?

Do you think it is unreasonable for someone else to think Duncan was slightly better than one of those 3 players?

Did I comment on others? I also think it is reasonable for someone else to think there are other players better than Duncan. I would not have any problem if he is ranked #9 either.
The question was asking all posters that are interested for different opinions and I replied with mine #4, with the three I ranked ahead provided... If you read the following posts, it is really not that controversial.

[Jaivl]

I'm not sure he has an actual solid, consistent argument over both LeBron and Russell at the same time, so I'll say #2.

Ahh, but what is his win% with homecourt advantage?

But seriously, I don’t think it’s too difficult. Getting him to #1 big doesn’t seem all that tricky. Then you just have to love big men.

Reasonable ranking.

"Have to love big man" sounds akin to closing our eyes and ignoring that LeBron has been straight up better and for longer. Duncan doesn't have the benefit of uncertainty Kareem has, we have plentiful film and data, and he's not winning that comp. (of course Lord Player Coach William Russell sweeps any culture/winning/off-court argument, as always)

You can easily make an "our data is imperfect, THIS GUY could be the best player ever" for, like, a dozen guys, but I don't think that's the point.

[AEnigma]

I'm not sure he has an actual solid, consistent argument over both LeBron and Russell at the same time, so I'll say #2.

Ahh, but what is his win% with homecourt advantage?

But seriously, I don’t think it’s too difficult. Getting him to #1 big doesn’t seem all that tricky. Then you just have to love big men.

Reasonable ranking.

"Have to love big man" sounds akin to closing our eyes and ignoring that LeBron has been straight up better and for longer. Duncan doesn't have the benefit of uncertainty Kareem has, we have plentiful film and data, and he's not winning that comp. (of course Lord Player Coach William Russell sweeps any culture/winning/off-court argument, as always)

You can easily make an "our data is imperfect, THIS GUY could be the best player ever" for, like, a dozen guys, but I don't think that's the point.

I think disputing how we assess the “quality” of wings versus bigs will almost always be a valid question, and there are some databall frameworks which can favour Duncan over Lebron.

We are mostly in agreement on Lebron, but I do not think it is out of the question that for as spectacular as he looks relative to every other non-big, the innate value of even defensively questionable bigs like Shaq could conceivably start every perimetre player at a functional disadvantage. If someone ranks Lebron at #6 below Duncan, Kareem, Hakeem, Russell, and Wilt, I will be interested but not stunned. It is when perimetre players get pushed above him that I start to question the process in play.

[eminence]

I'm not sure he has an actual solid, consistent argument over both LeBron and Russell at the same time, so I'll say #2.

Ahh, but what is his win% with homecourt advantage?

But seriously, I don’t think it’s too difficult. Getting him to #1 big doesn’t seem all that tricky. Then you just have to love big men.

Reasonable ranking.

"Have to love big man" sounds akin to closing our eyes and ignoring that LeBron has been straight up better and for longer. Duncan doesn't have the benefit of uncertainty Kareem has, we have plentiful film and data, and he's not winning that comp. (of course Lord Player Coach William Russell sweeps any culture/winning/off-court argument, as always)

You can easily make an "our data is imperfect, THIS GUY could be the best player ever" for, like, a dozen guys, but I don't think that's the point.

While I personally lean more heavily into the on/off or APM/RAPM area of stats as the the strongest indicator of basketball skill I don't think it'd be completely unreasonable for someone to lean more into just the On portion (it is the goal after all), and Duncan is still the king of the modern era there. Basically, if someone heavily weighted team success I think there's absolutely a case for Duncan.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/highest-player-career-plus-minus

Getting him to #1 big over Russell/Wilt/KAJ is simple if you're not into older eras.

[henshao]

You could reasonably make a case for Duncan as the GOAT depending on what you value. Longevity is a big one for him. I'm not nearly that high on him but I do consider him one of the greatest centers of all time and in the same general tier as Shaq, Kareem, and Hakeem, and over some guys I'm more familiar with like Ewing or Robinson and guys I'm less familiar with like Gilmore or Moses. I become increasingly less comfortable with Wilt, Russell, Mikan in general comparisons to guys who play in a dramatically different era and there are some playing now who will very likely be in this conversation.

[OhayoKD]

I'm not sure he has an actual solid, consistent argument over both LeBron and Russell at the same time, so I'll say #2.

Ahh, but what is his win% with homecourt advantage?

But seriously, I don’t think it’s too difficult. Getting him to #1 big doesn’t seem all that tricky. Then you just have to love big men.

Reasonable ranking.

"Have to love big man" sounds akin to closing our eyes and ignoring that LeBron has been straight up better and for longer. Duncan doesn't have the benefit of uncertainty Kareem has, we have plentiful film and data, and he's not winning that comp. (of course Lord Player Coach William Russell sweeps any culture/winning/off-court argument, as always)

You can easily make an "our data is imperfect, THIS GUY could be the best player ever" for, like, a dozen guys, but I don't think that's the point.

Eh. "love big-men" is actually reasonable enough if you go by absolute value as opposed to value over replacement(consistent application basically leads to big>wing>guard). Lebron builds his unrivalled(post-russell) empirical profile largely on a track record of significantly improving team defenses throughout his prime. But that "improvement" only happens in the first place because there is an abundance of bigs keeping Lebron's bigs in check and we are measuring improvement with how teams do relative to other teams.

the issue would be Kareem and Russell though you could always go the era-strength/absolute goodness route(but that opens up the door for giannis and maybe even KG). Certainly a "narrower" argument but that hasn't stopped people from pushing the likes of Jordan and Wilt. When you say "flat-out" better, I assume you're going off data, but it's not like the "data" is favorable for the other two here.

[ceoofkobefans]

4th for me (which is generally where I put him at)

Top 3 is just too much to overcome Imo but fringe t5 peak + fringe t5 longevity with great consistency and solid durability for the most part with makes me confident in placing him at 4-5 (if you wanted to argue him below guys like Kobe Hakeem or maybe even wilt/bill I’d hear you out)

[rk2023]

From an analytical (eg. impact, production, film) lens, I say third. I think without having some sort of extra weight for prime consistency and not curving longevity too much across eras, he could get over Jordan/Russell - but placing that high an emphasis on longevity makes it hard for me to see how he gets over James and Jabbar then.

[Vox Populi]

I think the highest you can consistently rank him would be #5. I don't see a realistic argument to put him above Russell, Kareem, MJ, or Magic. I don't understand the arguments putting him #1. If you can argue Tim Duncan as the actual GOAT then I think you can argue anyone in the top 10 as #1. It's #5 for me.

Good points but I think you forgot to include Lebron James in the group he does not have a realistic argument over. Lebron is worthy of being in that group. So the highest I can rank Duncan without expecting any objection to placing him there is #6. Or 5th if you are low on Magic Johnson. If Tim Duncan has an argument for #1, then arguments for #1 could be made for Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille Oneale, Kevin Garnett or whoever else the Board deems worthy of being in the Top 10-12. I feel the difference between these #6 to #12 is so close that you can toss up the salad bowl and come up with an acceptable order.

[TripleDub]

I think the highest you can consistently rank him would be #5. I don't see a realistic argument to put him above Russell, Kareem, MJ, or Magic. I don't understand the arguments putting him #1. If you can argue Tim Duncan as the actual GOAT then I think you can argue anyone in the top 10 as #1. It's #5 for me.

Good points but I think you forgot to include Lebron James in the group he does not have a realistic argument over. Lebron is worthy of being in that group. So the highest I can rank Duncan at without expecting any objection to placing him there is #6. Or 5th if you are low on Magic Johnson. If Tim Duncan has an argument for #1, then arguments for #1 could be made for Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille Oneale, Kevin Garnett or whoever else the Board deems worthy of being in the Top 10-12. I feel the difference between these #6 to #12 is so close that you can toss up the salad bowl and come up with an acceptable order.

I think Lebron has a clear advantage over Tim Duncan as an individually dominant player. But one could argue that Tim Duncan helped facilitate winning better than Lebron and place him higher based on that alone. I don't subscribe to that but perhaps one could make that argument.

The reason you cant put Tim Duncan over MJ, Russell, Kareem, or Magic is because they not only matched or exceeded Tim Duncan in terms of facilitating winning but they also were more individually dominant and successful as individuals. I personally have Lebron firmly ahead of Tim Duncan but was trying to consider arguments for his highest posdible ranking. And I agree that if were putting Tim Duncan number 1 then you could also put almost anyone in the top 10-12 as #1.

[OhayoKD]

From an analytical (eg. impact, production, film) lens, I say third. I think without having some sort of extra weight for prime consistency and not curving longevity too much across eras, he could get over Jordan/Russell - but placing that high an emphasis on longevity makes it hard for me to see how he gets over James and Jabbar then.

You get him over Jabbar by applying era-boosts/penalties based on talent pool. Then you get him over Lebron by saying you care about "absolute value" not "value over replacement" and consequently dropping all the smalls.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think the highest you can consistently rank him would be #5. I don't see a realistic argument to put him above Russell, Kareem, MJ, or Magic. I don't understand the arguments putting him #1. If you can argue Tim Duncan as the actual GOAT then I think you can argue anyone in the top 10 as #1. It's #5 for me.

Good points but I think you forgot to include Lebron James in the group he does not have a realistic argument over. Lebron is worthy of being in that group. So the highest I can rank Duncan at without expecting any objection to placing him there is #6. Or 5th if you are low on Magic Johnson. If Tim Duncan has an argument for #1, then arguments for #1 could be made for Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille Oneale, Kevin Garnett or whoever else the Board deems worthy of being in the Top 10-12. I feel the difference between these #6 to #12 is so close that you can toss up the salad bowl and come up with an acceptable order.

I think Lebron has a clear advantage over Tim Duncan as an individually dominant player. But one could argue that Tim Duncan helped facilitate winning better than Lebron and place him higher based on that alone. I don't subscribe to that but perhaps one could make that argument.

The reason you cant put Tim Duncan over MJ, Russell, Kareem, or Magic is because they not only matched or exceeded Tim Duncan in terms of facilitating winning but they also were more individually dominant and successful as individuals. I personally have Lebron firmly ahead of Tim Duncan but was trying to consider arguments for his highest posdible ranking. And I agree that if were putting Tim Duncan number 1 then you could also put almost anyone in the top 10-12 as #1.

Tim Duncan has a better regular season record than Magic Johnson and a comparable playoff record (a better one if we only include prime years).

Tim Duncan won just as many times as Magic Johnson did. Tim Duncan was the best player on more championship teams than Magic was for his.

So Magic did not win more.


Magic has won one more MVP than Tim Duncan but they have the same number of Finals MVPS.

Tim Duncan has more All-star and way more All-NBA selections (Duncan has as many 1st selections than Magic has all-nba in general and did it during a golden era of forwards).

Despite Duncan being snubbed for defensive player of the year he has 15 all-defense selections. Magic Johnson has zero.

So Magic was not more successful as an individual. Unless we are saying all-defense is not an accolade it's not even close.



Again it's obvious you're affected by media perception. Magic Johnson was the face of the league while Tim Duncan was not. Magic Johnson objectively has less accolades and objectively won less (or the same if you just want to go by ring count).

[rk2023]

From an analytical (eg. impact, production, film) lens, I say third. I think without having some sort of extra weight for prime consistency and not curving longevity too much across eras, he could get over Jordan/Russell - but placing that high an emphasis on longevity makes it hard for me to see how he gets over James and Jabbar then.

You get him over Jabbar by applying era-boosts/penalties based on talent pool. Then you get him over Lebron by saying you care about "absolute value" not "value over replacement" and consequently dropping all the smalls.

Could you elaborate on the absolute value in case of Duncan and James?