Tim Duncan all time among big men

[some_rand]

we all know he should be at 1A or 1B on everyones list of all time PFs but where does he rank among all big men, PF and C?

[ITK9]

top 5 for me

[sp6r=underrated]

Duncan is clearly inferior to Wilt, Kareem and Russell. He's still below Shaq and Hakeem and will probably never pass them. I think at this point he's surpassed Moses, though its still debatable. With regards to power forwards, he's ahead of them all.

[b-ball forever]

For now :

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Russell

4. Shaq
5/6. Dream/Duncan (TD can still wind up higher when all is said n done tho)

[ponder276]

I know TD has won more championships than Hakeem, but I think the Dream is still on another level. Hakeem was a better defender, a better scorer, and a slightly better rebounder. To me it goes:

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Shaq
5. Hakeem
6. Duncan/Drob, but probably the edge to Duncan, because Drob never won a championship without Duncan, and Duncan has already won 2 without Robinson.

[TheKingOfVa360]

1.Wilt
2.Kareem
3.Russell
4.Dream
5.Shaq
6.Moses Malone
7.Tim Duncan/Karl Malone
8.Charles Barkely
9.David Robinson
10.Patrick Ewing/Wes Unseld

[a-rod]

I'm not sure yet, ask tsherkin.......

[PDXKnight]

1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Russell
4. Shaq
5. Duncan

[kooldude]

#6 if he's considered as C, #1 as PF

[Luv those Knicks]

I'd put him up with DRob. But I'd have liked to see how Duncan would have done if he'd been in the D Rob, Hakeem, Ewing, Dougherty era, and if he'd played center full time. Cause I'm not sure he was as physical as those 3 (D-Rob, Hakeem, Ewing) - maybe he'd have been just as good or maybe a hair below as a center.


But given that I can't transport him in time, I'd say below Hakeem, but not by much, about even with D-Rob, maybe a hair below, and I'd put him above Ewing, but not by much.


D-Rob never had the supporting cast that Duncan had in all his titles.


Moses - y'know, that's a tough one.

I remember head to head, Moses used to outplay Ewing, but Ewing had better defense and that was when Ewing was young when they matched up. Ewing didn't really reach his prime till about 5 years into his NBA career.

So I'd rate Moses ahead of Ewing, but probably below Duncan.


1 - Wilt
2 - Kareem
3 - Shaq
4 - Russel (sorry, but Shaq was too dominant not to get #3)
5 - Hakeem
6 - D-Rob
7 - Duncan
8 - I'll go out on a limb and say Nate Thurmond - I respect the 20/20 season.
9 - Moses
10 - Ewing
11 - Reed (somebody put unseld up on a list, I think Reed was better than Unseld)
12 - Karl Malone


and I don't want to go any deeper without giving it a lot of thought.


Honorable Mention:

Walton - too short a career
Mikan - monster in his day - is there a stat that compares his numbers to the #2 center in the league, cause he'd be up there with Wilt in dominating those numbers.
Parish - longevity babe. Not sure that's enough, but Parish might make top 20-25.
Bosh (hehe, just kidding), but Toronto fans might put Bosh in the top 10 if you ask them.

[tha_rock220]

Well who was/is better than Duncan

The for sures(no way he's better)
Wilt
Kareem

The likely's(an argument can be made for Duncan's superiority, but he inst there yet)
Hakeem
Shaq
Russell

I'm pretty sure Moses and Duncan would have good arguments made for each other being better.

I don't think anybody else could possibly be considered better.

[shawngoat23]

In terms of career rankings, Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Hakeem, and Shaq for sure.

However, in terms of ability, I'd also add Moses. I'd consider Tim Duncan on the same tier as Karl and D-Rob and Barkley, although he's obviously been much more successful.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Career level, it's not impossible to put him as high as #1, depending on how you weight different factors, like leadership, dominance, clutch play, defence, peak, durability, team results.

There's no big man easily better than him.

[nate33]

Duncan's greatness is obscured by pace and minutes. San Antonio runs a slow offense with few possessions. And Duncan's minutes have been cut back to the 34-36 range in the past 5 years. He only averages about 20 and 11 but if you factor pace and minutes, he's really up in the 24 and 13 range.

Here's a comparison of the Hakeem's and Duncan's career numbers on a pace-adjusted per-40 basis. I'm looking at Hakeem's best 11 years (ignoring his last 3) versus all of Duncan's 11 seasons. dTS% is the deviation in TS% between the player and his teammates. (It's a good way to normalize shooting efficiency in different eras while also accounting for the disadvantage a player has when surrounded by lesser teammates.)

Code: Select all

olajuwon,  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO  TS%  dTS%  PER
1995-96   27.4 11.1  3.6  1.6  2.9  3.5 .558 +.003 25.5
1994-95   27.4 10.6  3.5  1.8  3.3  3.2 .563 -.007 26.1
1993-94   25.7 11.2  3.4  1.5  3.5  3.2 .565 +.027 25.1
1992-93   25.3 12.8  3.5  1.8  4.1  3.1 .573 +.022 27.0
1991-92   22.2 12.4  2.3  1.9  4.5  2.7 .553 +.019 23.4
1990-91   21.1 13.7  2.3  2.2  3.9  3.1 .549 +.022 24.1
1989-90   23.0 13.3  2.7  2.0  4.3  3.6 .541 +.013 24.0
1988-89   24.1 13.1  1.8  2.5  3.3  3.3 .552 +.021 25.1
1987-88   23.0 12.2  2.1  2.1  2.7  3.1 .555 +.032 23.5
1986-87   23.3 11.4  2.9  1.9  3.4  3.0 .554 +.032 23.9
1985-86   22.9 11.2  2.0  1.9  3.3  2.8 .560 +.029 24.2
Total     24.2 12.1  2.7  1.9  3.6  3.2 .557 +.021 24.7

duncan,ti  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO  TS%  dTS%  PER
2007-08   23.6 13.8  3.4  0.9  2.4  2.8 .546 +.004 24.2
2006-07   24.0 12.7  4.1  1.0  2.9  3.3 .579 +.022 25.9
2005-06   22.1 13.1  3.8  1.0  2.4  3.0 .523 -.029 22.9
2004-05   25.3 13.8  3.4  0.8  3.3  2.4 .540 +.007 27.0
2003-04   25.0 14.0  3.5  1.0  3.0  3.0 .534 +.029 26.8
2002-03   24.1 13.3  4.0  0.7  3.0  3.2 .564 +.030 26.6
2001-02   25.6 12.8  3.8  0.7  2.5  3.2 .576 +.049 26.9
2000-01   23.5 12.9  3.2  0.9  2.5  3.1 .536 -.006 23.6
1999-00   24.1 12.9  3.3  0.9  2.3  3.4 .555 +.025 24.6
1998-99   22.8 12.0  2.5  0.9  2.6  3.1 .541 +.023 22.9
1997-98   22.3 12.6  2.9  0.7  2.6  3.6 .577 +.058 22.3
Total     23.9 13.1  3.5  0.9  2.7  3.1 .553 +.020 24.9

It really is remarkable how similar their numbers are. Duncan is the slightly better passer and rebounder, Hakeem has the advantage in blocks and steals. Their PER's are essentially identical. Their dTS% is essentially identical as well.

I gotta side with Tim Duncan. Hakeem is the better help defender but that's already indicated in the numbers. I think Duncan is the better position defender which is not shown by the numbers. Duncan also had a better 4-year peak. If you ignore his injury-riddled season in 2005-06, his career PER jumps to 25.1 and his dTS% jumps to +.025.

I don't think Duncan is better than Shaq, but I rank him higher than Moses and Hakeem. Duncan is the 5th best big of all time in my book. He may be better than Russell too, but having never seen Russell play, I don't want to get into that debate.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Kareem
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. Duncan

[writerman]

not necessarilly in any order;

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
DRob
Hakeem
Walton (before injuries, he was incredibly good)
Nate Thurmond
Shaq
Garnett
Artis Gilmore (maybe the most shamefully underrated big in the history of the game)
Ewing
Barkley
Dave Cowens
Dirk
Elgin Baylor (if you're gonna consider Barkley a big--and he played like one--you've gotta include Elgin who was Barkley before Barkley)
Unseld
the Mailman
McHale (people forget how good he was!)
Bob Pettit
Moses Malone
Willis Reed
Jerry Lucas
Bob Lanier

I like Duncan and his game, but it seems to me many if not all of the above can make a legitimate claim to being as good or better. Duncan suffers a bit because there just aren't that many primo big men in the game today, and gets an advantage because his team has been a winner, though not always soley because of him--he's had solid to very good support his entire career, something some others have not had.

[MysteriousMystery]

If we're talking based on career and legacy Duncan is towards the top.

I have Wilt, Kareem and Russell ahead of him. After that many reasonable arguments can be made that Duncan belongs ahead of any others.

I have Duncan for his career ahead of Shaq and Hakeem though both of those players were better in their primes.

[nate33]

not necessarilly in any order;

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
DRob
Hakeem
Walton (before injuries, he was incredibly good)
Nate Thurmond
Shaq
Garnett
Artis Gilmore (maybe the most shamefully underrated big in the history of the game)
Ewing
Barkley
Dave Cowens
Dirk
Elgin Baylor (if you're gonna consider Barkley a big--and he played like one--you've gotta include Elgin who was Barkley before Barkley)
Unseld
the Mailman
McHale (people forget how good he was!)
Bob Pettit
Moses Malone
Willis Reed
Jerry Lucas
Bob Lanier

I like Duncan and his game, but it seems to me many if not all of the above can make a legitimate claim to being as good or better. Duncan suffers a bit because there just aren't that many primo big men in the game today, and gets an advantage because his team has been a winner, though not always soley because of him--he's had solid to very good support his entire career, something some others have not had.

C'mon, writerman!

I know you are the b-ball historian of the board and you always like to stick up for the oldtimers versus the modern player, but this list is ridiculous. I'd let it go if you wanted to slip Thurmond, Mailman and Moses ahead of Duncan. I can even accept that Walton's one injury-free year was better than Duncan. But there is no way the rest of the guys on your list are better. Nowitzki? Unseld? McHale? Reed? You gotta be kidding. That's just unabashed Duncan hatred.

Reed barely could manage 20 points per game in a high possession era and he did so with a lousy FG%. Nowitzki can't hold a candle to Duncan on D. Unseld couldn't score. McHale was a black hole on offense and a mediocre rebounder. In his one best season, his PER was still lower than 7 of Duncan's best years. And McHale was not the help defender that Duncan is.

[Magz50]

Top 4 easy.

[HarlemHeat37]

not necessarilly in any order;

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
DRob
Hakeem
Walton (before injuries, he was incredibly good)
Nate Thurmond
Shaq
Garnett
Artis Gilmore (maybe the most shamefully underrated big in the history of the game)
Ewing
Barkley
Dave Cowens
Dirk
Elgin Baylor (if you're gonna consider Barkley a big--and he played like one--you've gotta include Elgin who was Barkley before Barkley)
Unseld
the Mailman
McHale (people forget how good he was!)
Bob Pettit
Moses Malone
Willis Reed
Jerry Lucas
Bob Lanier

I like Duncan and his game, but it seems to me many if not all of the above can make a legitimate claim to being as good or better. Duncan suffers a bit because there just aren't that many primo big men in the game today, and gets an advantage because his team has been a winner, though not always soley because of him--he's had solid to very good support his entire career, something some others have not had.

so Duncan suffers because of the lack of big men, but Garnett and Dirk don't?..

I would LOVE to hear your legitimate claims for most of those guys..