RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #5 — 2003 Tim Duncan

[Whopper_Sr]

25 SGA at 9.2 wow! Prime CP3 looks amazing too.

[tsherkin]

25 SGA at 9.2 wow! Prime CP3 looks amazing too.

Joker at 9.4 in 2025

[Whopper_Sr]

25 SGA at 9.2 wow! Prime CP3 looks amazing too.

Joker at 9.4 in 2025

Can't believe I missed that. Can this man break 10?

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote 1: Shaq 1999-2000
Just pure dominance. On offense it's hard to argue anyone against 00 Shaq or even 01 Shaq.

Teams literally had 2 or 3 spots in their roster filled with big guys just to foul Shaq.

You couldn't let him get the ball deep. And if you fronted him he could definitely complete the alley oop.

While on defense Shaq didn't cover a ton of ground (in the finals against Indy that was exploited pretty well), he definitely was a good rim protector and a good man to man defender for the entire season. That alone might make him less portable for today's game but... he played in 00. So he and the Lakers weren't obviously worried about that at all.

Even when facing guys like Duncan/Robinson, Karl Malone, Davis, Mutombo he looked on a completely different level strenght wise.

Vote 2: Wilt Chamberlain 1961-1962
It's the legendary season of the 50 PPG and 25 RPG (even a bit more). It's the legandary season of the 48 MPG. It shows Wilt was out of this world, and we might discuss impact and other things but I'm not gonna fault Wilt for coaches not using him properly.
Wilt is one of a kind and in that year he lead the league in a lot of things, and even in the playoffs he did well and took Boston to 7 games, in a series he scored 40+ with mroe than 30 rebounds twice against the GOAT offensive force.
Lost by 2 in game 7... oh well.

Over shooting? Maybe. Over played? Certainly. But still, getting it done game after game even with all that is still out of this world.

My reasoning for not voting him higher? Lack of film on that season, haven't seen much, only occasional games from Wilt on YT.

I'm still impressed tough.

Vote 3: Nikola Jokic 2022-2023

Here we are. Maybe Jokic should have been even higher, but I'm content with him sitting here too.

The best passing big man by a laaarge margin. It's not even close. Dude has absolutely amazing offensive awareness. You can actually run elite offense trough a big guy - just not the typical way. On top of his passing we have arround 25 PPG on stupid good efficiency. So efficient that with a 7% ts drop in the playoffs he's still at 63.1 - that is still elite, and in the playoffs with 30 PPG.

We're in the realm of GOAT offensive peak and even tough his defense matters and in his position it matters a lot, I can't call Jokic a negative on that end either.

His impact is so big that FO gave him post Lakers Westbrook and people still think he came up short for being beaten in 7 vs OKC.

Jokic is by far the best player in the world nowaday's and I'm choosing this year because it was his best in the playoffs, that's the only reason. Cause regular season wise? This dude has been out of this world for 5 years in a row now.

[Joao Saraiva]

Hakeem #4, wow!

For me it's too low. I have him #1

Reading on Duncan tough I'm maybe being unfair to the guy tough, maybe I'm not giving him enough value for his defense.

[tsherkin]

Hakeem #4, wow!

For me it's too low. I have him #1

Reading on Duncan tough I'm maybe being unfair to the guy tough, maybe I'm not giving him enough value for his defense.

There is no question that Duncan had an excellent peak. He was an amazing player. And then Pops got huge extension out of him by managing his minutes and starting to run the offense through the guards.

[falcolombardi]

Hakeem #4, wow!

For me it's too low. I have him #1

Reading on Duncan tough I'm maybe being unfair to the guy tough, maybe I'm not giving him enough value for his defense.

Is comparativelt strange to be so high on hakeem but low on duncan despite similar profiles of team succes, scoring resiliency, defensive dominance

[tsherkin]

Is comparativelt strange to be so high on hakeem but low on duncan despite similar profiles of team succes, scoring resiliency, defensive dominance

I think it's probably volume- and aesthetic-related. Duncan played in the slowest era of NBA basketball during his prime, and was not a high-volume guy. But his scoring output per 100 possessions is 29.7 to Olajuwon's 30.3 over their respective careers. At his peak, TD hit 33.5, and Hakeem had 35.6 and 35.8 at his apex. Similar levels of defensive dominance, albeit with different approach. Duncan was also a better passer.

One wonders what TD in his heyday would have looked like in a faster environment.

[f4p]

Is comparativelt strange to be so high on hakeem but low on duncan despite similar profiles of team succes, scoring resiliency, defensive dominance

I think it's probably volume- and aesthetic-related. Duncan played in the slowest era of NBA basketball during his prime, and was not a high-volume guy. But his scoring output per 100 possessions is 29.7 to Olajuwon's 30.3 over their respective careers. At his peak, TD hit 33.5, and Hakeem had 35.6 and 35.8 at his apex. Similar levels of defensive dominance, albeit with different approach. Duncan was also a better passer.

One wonders what TD in his heyday would have looked like in a faster environment.

well as per usual with hakeem, it's really the playoffs.

from 2001-2009, duncan is at 32.3 pp100 and then never goes above 27.8 again.
from 1986-1995, hakeem is at 35.6 pp100 and even has a 31.8 in a conference finals run in 1997 (so not just 4 games or something)

[tsherkin]

Is comparativelt strange to be so high on hakeem but low on duncan despite similar profiles of team succes, scoring resiliency, defensive dominance

I think it's probably volume- and aesthetic-related. Duncan played in the slowest era of NBA basketball during his prime, and was not a high-volume guy. But his scoring output per 100 possessions is 29.7 to Olajuwon's 30.3 over their respective careers. At his peak, TD hit 33.5, and Hakeem had 35.6 and 35.8 at his apex. Similar levels of defensive dominance, albeit with different approach. Duncan was also a better passer.

One wonders what TD in his heyday would have looked like in a faster environment.

well as per usual with hakeem, it's really the playoffs.

from 2001-2009, duncan is at 32.3 pp100 and then never goes above 27.8 again.
from 1986-1995, hakeem is at 35.6 pp100 and even has a 31.8 in a conference finals run in 1997 (so not just 4 games or something)

But again, is this... substantial for player comparison, or contextual? Duncan had more help, so he scored less. That shouldn't surprise.

[homecourtloss]

25 SGA at 9.2 wow! Prime CP3 looks amazing too.

Joker at 9.4 in 2025

Two +9 player seasons in one year is pretty special. Not sure how applicable cross season comparisons are. +8 seasons are rare as well.

All +9 seasons:

2010 LeBron: +9.9
2011 LeBron: +9.6
2009 LeBron: +9.4
2025 Jokic, +9.4
2025 SGA, +9.2
2008 KG, +9.0
1997 Jordan, +9.0

All 8+ seasons:

2010 LeBron: +9.9
2011 LeBron: +9.6
2009 LeBron: +9.4
2025 Jokic, +9.4
2008 KG, +9.0
1997 Jordan, +9.0
2012 LeBron, +8.9
2013 LeBron, +8.7
2004 KG: +8.9
2024 Jokic, +8.6
2023 Jokic, +8.5
2016 LeBron, +8.3
2017 LeBron, +8.2
2017 Kawhi, +8.2
2016 Curry, +8.2
2015 CP3, +8.1
2003 Duncan, +8.0
2016 CP3, +8.0
2018 Curry, +8.0

https://xrapm.com/table_pages/xRAPM_hist.html

[f4p]

I think it's probably volume- and aesthetic-related. Duncan played in the slowest era of NBA basketball during his prime, and was not a high-volume guy. But his scoring output per 100 possessions is 29.7 to Olajuwon's 30.3 over their respective careers. At his peak, TD hit 33.5, and Hakeem had 35.6 and 35.8 at his apex. Similar levels of defensive dominance, albeit with different approach. Duncan was also a better passer.

One wonders what TD in his heyday would have looked like in a faster environment.

well as per usual with hakeem, it's really the playoffs.

from 2001-2009, duncan is at 32.3 pp100 and then never goes above 27.8 again.
from 1986-1995, hakeem is at 35.6 pp100 and even has a 31.8 in a conference finals run in 1997 (so not just 4 games or something)

But again, is this... substantial for player comparison, or contextual? Duncan had more help, so he scored less. That shouldn't surprise.

well it's definitely substantial. it's a 10% difference. and more pronounced from whatever a replacement level is, since just existing on the court means you will score a little. like kris dunn was 13 pp100 this past season. i don't know what other people are at, but let's call a guy who the defense purposely leaves open replacement level. so it's more like 22.6 pp100ARP for hakeem and 19.3 pp100ARP for duncan, so a 17% difference.

even when duncan theoretically had less help like 2002 and 2003, he was still right at 32.2 pp100 in the playoffs while 94 and 95 hakeem is up another level to 38.2 pp100. even upping the scoring when he had more offensive help in drexler.

and duncan just seems to have generally had more series or stretches of series where he struggled with efficiency (or efficiency and volume) than hakeem, which obviously has to be true with his lower numbers. especially without anything like a 1996 seattle type "double every time" defense being thrown at him.

2004 WCSF last 4 games: 17.5 ppg on 38.3 FG%
2005 finals: 20.6 ppg on 41.9 FG% against basically his version of the 1994 knicks (26.9 ppg on 50% for hakeem)
2007 finals: 18.3 ppg on 44.6 FG%
2008 WCSF: 15.3 ppg on 42.1 FG%
2008 WCF: 22.4 ppg on 42.6 FG%

and while it's hard to fault his overall 2002 WCSF where he averaged 29/17, he still shot 42.5% for the series and couldn't really score on shaq at all, whereas hakeem still managed volume and better efficiency and forced doubles against 1995 shaq.

[tsherkin]

well it's definitely substantial. it's a 10% difference. and more pronounced from whatever a replacement level is, since just existing on the court means you will score a little. like kris dunn was 13 pp100 this past season. i don't know what other people are at, but let's call a guy who the defense purposely leaves open replacement level. so it's more like 22.6 pp100ARP for hakeem and 19.3 pp100ARP for duncan, so a 17% difference.

My question was more, is this a stylistic difference which is relevant to the conversation? His scoring peak is higher in volume, but that's not really an end in and of itself.

even when duncan theoretically had less help like 2002 and 2003, he was still right at 32.2 pp100 in the playoffs while 94 and 95 hakeem is up another level to 38.2 pp100. even upping the scoring when he had more offensive help in drexler.

Sure, but what about IA75?

94 and 95 Olajuwon were at 26.3 and 27.3 IAPTS75 w +3.7 and +2.0% rTS, at least the RS. 02-04 Duncan was fairly similar, at 26.5, 25.1 and 26.3 IAPTS75, at +5.6, +4.5, and +1.8% rTS.

And to be fair, he had a pretty rough Game 7 in the 94 Finals, which they won primarily because New York was so much more profoundly worse on offense. He was pretty tepid against the Suns in the 95 WCS, and then obviously beat the piss out of the Spurs. But he actually had his worst series of those two postseasons against Shaq and the Magic in terms of efficiency (51.4% TS), bombing a lot of Js and failing at the line because he couldn't really bully Shaq the same way he did to D-Rob and Ewing. He had a good overall series with his D and his passing and rebounding, and he floated huge volume, but he was at -3.7% relative to league postseason average, which wasn't good at all. And of course Shaq was crushing it, but couldn't expand his volume enough to make up for how poorly his supporting cast played (especially Scott and Anderson). Meantime, Drexler was excellent and they got 18/10 out of Horry.

and duncan just seems to have generally had more series or stretches of series where he struggled with efficiency (or efficiency and volume) than hakeem, which obviously has to be true with his lower numbers. especially without anything like a 1996 seattle type "double every time" defense being thrown at him.

But again, Olajuwon had some rough times which get glossed over because of the end result, as I noted above, as do most players. MJ, Shaq, Duncan, all of them.

and while it's hard to fault his overall 2002 WCSF where he averaged 29/17, he still shot 42.5% for the series and couldn't really score on shaq at all, whereas hakeem still managed volume and better efficiency and forced doubles against 1995 shaq.

Did he, though? You're talking about 0.7% TS difference between Duncan and Olajuwon, and Duncan was facing an older Shaq who was also considerably larger. And Shaq posted 48.7% in the 02 WCS, versus the 60.6% he posted in the 95 Finals. And O'neal shot 63.9% from the foul line against the Spurs, and STILL struggled with that horrible efficiency, but shot 57.1% against Olajuwon. The difference was the raw FG%, where he was obliterating the Rockets.

So I don't know that it's a series you really want to entirely hold against Duncan and up for Olajuwon.

[Samurai]

Repeating my vote from previous round:

1. Bill Russell 1964. I could also see 1962 here, especially considering his still standing record of 189 rebounds in a 7-game series but I'll stick with 64. Particularly when taking era into account and the immense value a defensive big had on the overall impact on a game with no 3-point shot and the game played closer to the rim, I think this was the single greatest defensive season by any player in history. Also led the league in rebounds/game and rebounds/36 minutes despite vying with Wilt for those rebounding honors.

2. Shaq 2000. Not quite as high on Shaq overall as some others (I'd take Duncan and Hakeem over Shaq if this were a greatest player project), but since this is just for greatest peak, can't ignore what a monster year he had in the 99/00 season. Not only led the league in scoring and was MVP and Finals MVP, but he also finished second in DPOY voting.

3. Wilt 1964. Growing up I had heard so many times that 67 was his best season that I just accepted it as fact. But recent posts have convinced me to look at 64 more closely. His WS of 25.0 is his career best (and second highest ever behind only Kareem). And despite not being as focused on racking up assists as he was in 67, still managed to finish 6th in the league with 5 assists/game while averaging 28.7 FGA/game and nearly 37 ppg.

[Joao Saraiva]

Hakeem #4, wow!

For me it's too low. I have him #1

Reading on Duncan tough I'm maybe being unfair to the guy tough, maybe I'm not giving him enough value for his defense.

Is comparativelt strange to be so high on hakeem but low on duncan despite similar profiles of team succes, scoring resiliency, defensive dominance

Well it's kind of a perception thing. I value a lot being able to be the #1 on offense and I know Duncan was that guy, but I usually have some reservations about him being a go to guy comparing with Hakeem or Shaq, it just seemed to me the other two were a clear step ahead. And despite Duncan being a superb defender I still think Hakeem was even better (peak wise).

I still have Duncan going after Hakeem, Shaq, Jokic and I wanna throw

[penbeast0]

For me it's too low. I have him #1

Reading on Duncan tough I'm maybe being unfair to the guy tough, maybe I'm not giving him enough value for his defense.

Is comparativelt strange to be so high on hakeem but low on duncan despite similar profiles of team succes, scoring resiliency, defensive dominance

Well it's kind of a perception thing. I value a lot being able to be the #1 on offense and I know Duncan was that guy, but I usually have some reservations about him being a go to guy comparing with Hakeem or Shaq, it just seemed to me the other two were a clear step ahead. And despite Duncan being a superb defender I still think Hakeem was even better (peak wise).

I still have Duncan going after Hakeem, Shaq, Jokic and I wanna throw

And yet somehow Duncan has a higher career TS Added (combining relative ts% and volume) and peak TS Added, by significant margins. Better playmaker over his career too with a better assist % and a lower turnover % (Hakeem was negative for the course of his career). Hakeem gives you more playoff resiliency (in part because he starts from a lower baseline) but for the most part, Duncan was just the better offensive player over the course of their careers. (In a later era where presumably the opposing talent was stronger, though both played in systems that had more spacing around them than most league offenses.)

[emn_010]

69 Russell— OR 64 > 62
Look. Idk if he would be good today. There’s someone I know who keeps calling him Bagless Bam but I’m just tryna rate who was making it work and I been convinced Russ was like that over the last couple weeks. And I think if someone averaging 25 a night did what he did before he stopped, everyone here is putting him somewhere 1, 2, or 3.
You’re the coach. You’re on a team that isn’t that good. You got Jerry West and Wilt. And you got the Knicks who end up winning 2 chips right after you leave. Let’s be real now. If Lebron beats that. If MJ beats that. If Hakeem beats that. If Duncan beats that. We’re calling them the GOAT.
If they can be the GOAT for winning that. Then when Russell does that shi let’s give him proper respect.
—17 Steph— OR 2016
t3 offensive player imo in his peak while looking great on impact metrics, i think he provides some of the highest ceilings on teams and being one of the most scalable offensive players ever, some postseason struggles but i cannot deny him as a player
—03 Duncan— OR 02
I don’t mind KG in this spot either but Duncan has the chip. Looks great on impact metrics and provides a great floor with that two-way impact. Also have to give a bonus for knocking Shaq and Kobe.

[One_and_Done]

69 Russell— OR 64 > 62
Look. Idk if he would be good today. There’s someone I know who keeps calling him Bagless Bam but I’m just tryna rate who was making it work and I been convinced Russ was like that over the last couple weeks. And I think if someone averaging 25 a night did what he did before he stopped, everyone here is putting him somewhere 1, 2, or 3.
You’re the coach. You’re on a team that isn’t that good. You got Jerry West and Wilt. And you got the Knicks who end up winning 2 chips right after you leave. Let’s be real now. If Lebron beats that. If MJ beats that. If Hakeem beats that. If Duncan beats that. We’re calling them the GOAT.
If they can be the GOAT for winning that. Then when Russell does that shi let’s give him proper respect.
—17 Steph— OR 2016
t3 offensive player imo in his peak while looking great on impact metrics, i think he provides some of the highest ceilings on teams and being one of the most scalable offensive players ever, some postseason struggles but i cannot deny him as a player
—03 Duncan— OR 02
I don’t mind KG in this spot either but Duncan has the chip. Looks great on impact metrics and provides a great floor with that two-way impact. Also have to give a bonus for knocking Shaq and Kobe.

Bagless Bam is a good nickname. I'm gonna use that

[trelos6]

KG vs Duncan

Stats are O, D, Total.

2003

xRAPM
TD: +3.8, -4.2, +8.0
KG: +4.4, -3.2, +7.6

PIPM
KG: +4.91, +3.03, +7.94
TD: +3.83, +3.28, +7.11

AuPM 2.0
KG: +8.4
TD: +6.9

PS PIPM
KG: +0.3
TD: +6.62

PIRAPM
TD: +4.01, +5.11, +9.11
KG: +4.5, +3.5, +8.0


2004

xRAPM
KG: +4.9, -4.0, +8.9
TD: +2.9, -4.4, +7.3

PIPM
KG: +4.72, +3.35, +8.06
TD: +1.49, +4.54, +6.03

AuPM 2.0
TD: +6.2
KG: +8.5

PS PIPM
KG: +2.42
TD: +1.11

PIRAPM
KG: +5.5, +4.51, +10.01
TD: +2.67, +4.97, +7.64

[One_and_Done]

KG vs Duncan

Stats are O, D, Total.

2003

xRAPM
TD: +3.8, -4.2, +8.0
KG: +4.4, -3.2, +7.6

PIPM
KG: +4.91, +3.03, +7.94
TD: +3.83, +3.28, +7.11

AuPM 2.0
KG: +8.4
TD: +6.9

PS PIPM
KG: +0.3
TD: +6.62

PIRAPM
TD: +4.01, +5.11, +9.11
KG: +4.5, +3.5, +8.0


2004

xRAPM
KG: +4.9, -4.0, +8.9
TD: +2.9, -4.4, +7.3

PIPM
KG: +4.72, +3.35, +8.06
TD: +1.49, +4.54, +6.03

AuPM 2.0
TD: +6.2
KG: +8.5

PS PIPM
KG: +2.42
TD: +1.11

PIRAPM
KG: +5.5, +4.51, +10.01
TD: +2.67, +4.97, +7.64

Advanced stats are an interesting data point, but we all know they can be wrong or misleading for a host of reasons. I'm never going to look at 2 guys and say 'well, X had a slightly higher WoWser score, so he was better'.

Don't take this the wrong way, because I have KG in my top 10, but I feel like a more persuasive argument for KG would be looking at his actual skillset and a contextual analysis of his career impact, rather than some graphs and numbers. I'm sure those will appeal to some, but the argument really has to be more than spreadsheets.

I also feel like when the take is Duncan vs KG, you're just starting from a weak position. These 2 had mostly overlapping primes (98-07 for TD, 00 to 09 for KG), and during their careers there was broad agreement about who was better. I'm not saying that consensus can't be overthrown, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These numbers, that can often be wrong, aren't sufficient.

The most obvious way to measure impact is the hardest to observe, because what you want is a controlled experiment where you have the team for a year without the player, the team with the player for a few seasons, then the player leaves, and during this period nobody gets better or worse. That exact situation never happens, but there are many times something close to it does (e.g. the Cavs in 09 and 10 with Lebron, then without him in 2011 before they stopped trying to win).

In the case of Duncan, I've seen peak Duncan with absolute rubbish support (01 to 03). Yet those teams won 58-60 games, and a title. The worst team Duncan had to carry was probably in 02. That squad was rubbish, and let's us conduct a useful experiment because in 02 KG was also at his peak or close to it and had a better support cast than Duncan did. Yet the results weren't the same. The Spurs were simply better than the Wolves.

KG had a big floor raise, but it wasn't a Duncan like raise. I find the idea of prime Duncan missing the playoffs 3 years in a row kind of ludicrous as well, even with a rubbish support cast. There are just better names than KG at this point.