Can you make the case that Duncan is top-7 all time?

[tsherkin]

Wilt in top 8 is very easy to defend.

One can do it...but saying he's a mortal lock? Nah...

There is no lock top 8, because the list keeps changing year after year. That being said, Wilt is very clearly in my top 9 and I struggle to put him any lower than that.

Wilt's main sink is that he has only 2 rings... while facing the dynastic Celtics over and over and over again.

He's still a 4-time MVP (one of only 5 players in league history to do so) and smashed out an enormous number of crazy records and feats. He was also a key part of what was, at the time, the most successful regular-season team in league history until 1996 (and now the Warriors thereafter). He was also the holder of the all-time points record prior to Kareem, though now he's I think 7th all-time. Still far and away the NBA's all-time leader in rebounds, and led the league in RPG 11 times. All-time leader in MPG. 9-time seasonal leader in FG%. 2nd in PPG by 0.05 ppg to Jordan.

That's a resume which is hard to overcome.

[dhsilv2]

Actually pretty easy to make a case for KG over Duncan. It's actually hard to argue Duncan over KG without just going back to the very weak "team success" argument. It's one I actually do make in their case, but it feels like a bad argument even when I'm doing it.

Most arguments for KG over Duncan appear to be heavily oriented towards RAPM, and little else, from what I've seen.

Well, an argument using by far our best hard data on impact seems kinda like a requirement for ranking anyone in the modern eras. Be like ignoring HP on a car when discussing the best sports car today.

That said I think the arguments go well beyond that and you can take the RAPM and combine it with what he did well on the court to really paint the picture of why he was better than Duncan.

[70sFan]

Actually pretty easy to make a case for KG over Duncan. It's actually hard to argue Duncan over KG without just going back to the very weak "team success" argument. It's one I actually do make in their case, but it feels like a bad argument even when I'm doing it.

Most arguments for KG over Duncan appear to be heavily oriented towards RAPM, and little else, from what I've seen.

Well, an argument using by far our best hard data on impact seems kinda like a requirement for ranking anyone in the modern eras. Be like ignoring HP on a car when discussing the best sports car today.

That said I think the arguments go well beyond that and you can take the RAPM and combine it with what he did well on the court to really paint the picture of why he was better than Duncan.

I have no idea how someone in 2025 can still be so fascinated by noisy RAPM data to conclude that one player is clearly better than the other when we talk about two players with top 5 RAPM signal in databall history. Like yeah, Garnett looks a little better overall in RS sample, but Duncan is usually literally third after him and James.

[tsherkin]

Well, an argument using by far our best hard data on impact seems kinda like a requirement for ranking anyone in the modern eras. Be like ignoring HP on a car when discussing the best sports car today.

Right, but when that's basically the entirety of the argument, I start to tune out pretty fast. RAPM produces a lot of weird results which don't necessarily make a lot of sense. Of course, in Garnett's case, he WAS a very good player, but the numbers are a little out of sorts with what was actually going on in a variety of ways.

I wonder, though, because this treads into a different territory. It's one which affects Wilt, and KG, and which is presently affecting Jokic. Moses Malone, too. What is the ranking ceiling for a guy who doesn't have the same number of rings as the other guys in the upper-most echelon? What if they never got the same kind of MVP love? What if both are true? At what point does that limit someone in these specific conversations?

[dhsilv2]

Most arguments for KG over Duncan appear to be heavily oriented towards RAPM, and little else, from what I've seen.

Well, an argument using by far our best hard data on impact seems kinda like a requirement for ranking anyone in the modern eras. Be like ignoring HP on a car when discussing the best sports car today.

That said I think the arguments go well beyond that and you can take the RAPM and combine it with what he did well on the court to really paint the picture of why he was better than Duncan.

I have no idea how someone in 2025 can still be so fascinated by noisy RAPM data to conclude that one player is clearly better than the other when we talk about two players with top 5 RAPM signal in databall history. Like yeah, Garnett looks a little better overall in RS sample, but Duncan is usually literally third after him and James.

If one were to use RAPM alone sure. But nobody is doing that.

[NYPiston]

Your top 5's not a "clear" top 5. Maybe from your perspective, but not to others, and the thread is proof of that.

You seem to not value defensive at all, because Jokic has never made an all defensive team, but he can be top 5 all-time?

He's so overwhelmingly good offensively that his lack of defense isn't much of an issue. Magic was never much of a a defender yet he's universally considered a top 5 all time player or close to.
With Jokic, we're talking arguably the best 5 year run any player has ever had. 3 out of 4 MVPs and everybody knows he should have won the year he didn't, on track for another one potentially this year, so if he continues on this pace for another 3-4 years and adds another championship he should absolutely be in the conversation for top 5 all time, top 10 without a doubt.

[dhsilv2]

Well, an argument using by far our best hard data on impact seems kinda like a requirement for ranking anyone in the modern eras. Be like ignoring HP on a car when discussing the best sports car today.

Right, but when that's basically the entirety of the argument, I start to tune out pretty fast. RAPM produces a lot of weird results which don't necessarily make a lot of sense. Of course, in Garnett's case, he WAS a very good player, but the numbers are a little out of sorts with what was actually going on in a variety of ways.

I wonder, though, because this treads into a different territory. It's one which affects Wilt, and KG, and which is presently affecting Jokic. Moses Malone, too. What is the ranking ceiling for a guy who doesn't have the same number of rings as the other guys in the upper-most echelon? What if they never got the same kind of MVP love? What if both are true? At what point does that limit someone in these specific conversations?

I think the highest you can rank a guy with 0 rings is GOAT.

I simply reject that rings are a valid argument in the same way just quoting RAPM doesn't mean anything (without context). Yeah I get it, Odom wasn't a top 10 guy despite a top 10 RAPM season. We, I think, all agree that was a bit of noise. Just like Duncan, Bird, and Magic's rings are massively the result of coming into the right place at the right time. But that outlier RAPM does paint a good argument that Odom sometimes was overlooked as a high impact player who did a lot more than the box score checkers sometimes realized. Just like Magic, Bird, and Duncan were more than just all nba guys who happened to have great teams around them.

Point being is you need to build a case and RAPM and/or rings are perfectly fine places to start. They aren't the whole story and you can build cases without them telling the story you want...but you better have a DAMN good argument if you want to argue that.

[tsherkin]

I think the highest you can rank a guy with 0 rings is GOAT.

I simply reject that rings are a valid argument in the same way just quoting RAPM doesn't mean anything.

Alone, I would agree with you. In context, though, I find it challenging to imagine someone so good that they were the best ever and could never get over that hump.

But that outlier RAPM does paint a good argument that Odom sometimes was overlooked as a high impact player who did a lot more than the box score checkers sometimes realized.

As a tool to make you look twice and wonder if someone is more than empty stats, for sure it makes sense.

[70sFan]

Well, an argument using by far our best hard data on impact seems kinda like a requirement for ranking anyone in the modern eras. Be like ignoring HP on a car when discussing the best sports car today.

That said I think the arguments go well beyond that and you can take the RAPM and combine it with what he did well on the court to really paint the picture of why he was better than Duncan.

I have no idea how someone in 2025 can still be so fascinated by noisy RAPM data to conclude that one player is clearly better than the other when we talk about two players with top 5 RAPM signal in databall history. Like yeah, Garnett looks a little better overall in RS sample, but Duncan is usually literally third after him and James.

If one were to use RAPM alone sure. But nobody is doing that.

I think quite a lot of KG supporters are doing mostly that.

Now, I have Garnett in my top 10 personally, but saying that it's tough to call Duncan a better basketball player than him is silly.

[dhsilv2]

I think the highest you can rank a guy with 0 rings is GOAT.

I simply reject that rings are a valid argument in the same way just quoting RAPM doesn't mean anything.

Alone, I would agree with you. In context, though, I find it challenging to imagine someone so good that they were the best ever and could never get over that hump.

But that outlier RAPM does paint a good argument that Odom sometimes was overlooked as a high impact player who did a lot more than the box score checkers sometimes realized.

As a tool to make you look twice and wonder if someone is more than empty stats, for sure it makes sense.

I mean I don't care who you put on the wolves in place of KG or say the Clippers instead of Elton Brand. You're winning 0 rings if you stay loyal to those teams. Same reason Kareem who many see as a GOAT guy missed the playoffs in his prime on the bucks. You can only do so much.

[tsherkin]

I mean I don't care who you put on the wolves in place of KG or say the Clippers instead of Elton Brand. You're winning 0 rings if you stay loyal to those teams. Same reason Kareem who many see as a GOAT guy missed the playoffs in his prime on the bucks. You can only do so much.

That's true, though of course there were other things happening for Kareem which helped change the story for him. He did have 5 MVPs before his 2nd title, couple scoring titles, bunch of block titles, a rebounding title. Like, he was a machine in a variety of ways. And he did win one early with Old Oscar and Bobby Dandridge. So it's a shade different, contextually speaking, to someone like Garnett.

[dhsilv2]

I have no idea how someone in 2025 can still be so fascinated by noisy RAPM data to conclude that one player is clearly better than the other when we talk about two players with top 5 RAPM signal in databall history. Like yeah, Garnett looks a little better overall in RS sample, but Duncan is usually literally third after him and James.

If one were to use RAPM alone sure. But nobody is doing that.

I think quite a lot of KG supporters are doing mostly that.

Now, I have Garnett in my top 10 personally, but saying that it's tough to call Duncan a better basketball player than him is silly.

I strongly disagree that anyone pushing KG is doing it on mostly RAPM. For starters, I don't think enough people even understand RAPM well enough to even discuss it without having watched a LOT of basketball.

And no, as a huge Duncan fan, I have no problem admitting that my arguments for Duncan over KG sound stupid. I'd drill into that a big man blocking shots is something I feel adds value despite maybe not showing up in RAPM. I'd point out Duncan was a more reliable buck...while knowing fully that scoring is massively over valued in general. And yeah, I do think there's a leadership factor, but is that even basketball?

But KG did seemingly have a higher peak as a defender. His shooting range gave him more gravity. He was a MUCH better passer and that created all kinds of advantages. He of course was a better ball handler and was able to run an offense. Something Duncan liked to do here and there but clearly couldn't sustain.

Now ultimately, if you really really get into all the metrics and numbers. I think most people come to more or less...they're about equal. But my word were "better". And I don't think you can make an easy case for Duncan there.

[fansse]

Personally, I feel he’s one of the most overrated atg. No way top 7 imo

[Handlez]

Yep.

And I have Duncan over LeBron all time.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

Whenever people make these types of lists, I always realize I’m one of the few that has Hakeem rated as highly as I do haha.

[reddyplayerone]

The other thing about Duncan is he might be the GOAT leader because he always raised up his teammates never said he needed more help never was trying to play GM.

Tim Duncan would have teamed up with Tracy McGrady and Grant Hill in Orlando if Doc Rivers wasn't such a boob

[bledredwine]

I've got at least nine above TD but sure you can make the case for top seven. I consider Shaq better because
his dominance in the finals is unmatched by anyone not named Michael Jordan.

That said, there is a group of players that I consider in a clear league above TD overall; Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic,
Lebron. Hakeem is in that category as well when factoring in defense but just lacks the championships/support.

I've not seen other players as dominant as those mentioned, and even as dominant as leaders (Not sure about Wilt/LBJ as leaders though, tbh)

I also just don't see how Duncan can be considered better than Hakeem after witnessing both when Hakeem was more dominant at most skills and on both ends (Horry echoes this sentiment and played with both players).

The Spurs' success is with Duncan as leader and in due part because of his superb versatility, but certainly has something to do with Manu, Parker being a perfect fit as well.

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Bird
Magic
Lebron
Hakeem
Shaq
Russell
(TD/Kobe/Oscar zone)

Regardless of his position and matchups against other centers, if you come out of an all time draft with Duncan at center, you're in great shape for a well rounded roster.

[Capn'O]

I have Duncan at #4 all-time and I think you can reasonably argue him higher than that.

Very iron-clad resume of accomplishment with tons of statistical evidence of massive impact that stacks up against anyone.

He's not the greatest offensive player ever, but he was pretty incredible with his resilient post-scoring game + all the intangibles he brought as a screener, cutter, and passer. Then on defense, he's in the GOAT discussion there. He's sort of the inverse of Kareem in this way.

@Roger Murdock

[70sFan]

But KG did seemingly have a higher peak as a defender.

That's far, far from a given. It's perfectly fine to argue that Duncan was a better defender at his peak.

His shooting range gave him more gravity.

Not really, his shooting allowed him to create spacing effect, but as far as scoring gravity goes - Duncan actually impacted defenses significantly more than Garnett.

He was a MUCH better passer and that created all kinds of advantages.He of course was a better ball handler and was able to run an offense. Something Duncan liked to do here and there but clearly couldn't sustain.

These are true KG advantages, I agree.
Of course you completely ignore all the advantages Duncan has over Garnett.

But my word were "better". And I don't think you can make an easy case for Duncan there.

I don't think you can make an easy case for Garnett either.

[tsherkin]

Hakeem
Shaq
Russell

What's the argument for Hakeem and Shaq over Duncan, out of curiosity?