GilmoreFan wrote:
The case for Tim Duncan.
With the problematic Russell now voted in, the 4th place comes down to 3 guys for me; Wilt, Magic and Duncan. Everyone knows the case for Wilt, and many people will be making the pro-Magic case, indeed some people will probably be making a pro-Shaq case. This means it falls to someone to give the case for Duncan, who I think deserves serious consideration at 4, and is a very strong choice for 5 or 6. So let’s look as concisely as we can at the arguments for Tim Duncan over Magic and Wilt (and Shaq).
Has a perfect record
(snip)
There are just no examples of blatant failures like we can see for Magic (81, 86, 90 all stand out as very disappointing outcomes), Wilt everyone knows about, and Shaq has too many to name.
Impact is absurd. Can succeed with a star who also plays inside, or trash, or all-stars who handle the ball alot
What’s impressive is how he was able to succeed with often garbage teams. Sure, in some years like 05 or 07 or 99 he has an excellent support cast. But try looking at years like 2002 or 2003, and you begin to see an impact that is rivalled by only a handful of players in history.
2002- worst 58 win support cast in history
In 2002 Duncan somehow carried a trash team to 58 wins and a 2nd round appearance, where they lost 4-1 to the Lakers with prime Shaq and Kobe. For all people (rightly) are impressed by Lebron in 09 or 10, what Duncan did in this year is possibly more impressive. His help was almost non-existent. D.Rob was a shell of himself in 2002, especially in the playoffs, where he played 4/10 games and played for only 20mpg, which resulted in 4.5ppg and 5.8rpg, and in the Spurs only win against the Lakers in that series D.Rob didn't even play. He didn't play for games 1 or 2 either, where the Spurs only lost by 6 and 3 points. The idea D.Rob was a factor of any significance is nonsense. The closing game he put up 0-3-4 (4 fouls).
(snip)
2003... greatest over-achievement season of all-time?
(snip)
Great all around player, no holes in his game like Magic
(snip)
Imagine Duncan had the same help Shaq had from 98-07. How many titles does he win? Probably no fewer than 8, and as many as 10. Heck, put Duncan on Shaq's teams from 98-11 and they'd probably win 10-12 easy. Duncan wouldn't be the best player on the team in 2010 or 2011 (probably), but otherwise he would be. Indeed, is there a plausible argument for him not winning every title from 99 through to 2011? Maybe you could make the argument for a few years, but I'm not seeing it.
This post is both interesting and problematic to me. I am definitely of the opinion that Duncan deserves to be mentioned among this company, and I loathe the "Immortal 6" concept that hopefully is on the verge of finally dying. I'll definitely be voting Duncan before Wilt, for example, and will seriously consider him vs Bird as well. So I'm happy to see Duncan has a champion that has already brought him into the conversation, and that his advocate is both passionate and detail-oriented. The only problem I have is that so much of the tact that's taken in this post is so narrative-driven. I don't need to see a story about Duncan...I want the nitty gritty. The nuts-and-bolts. Don't try to sell me that Duncan's got some kind of "perfect record" when compared to the others being mentioned now, he doesn't. Don't try to sell me that in 2002 or 2003 he was doing something that the other all-time greats COULDN'T do, especially by exaggerating the extent of his "alone-ness" when compared to his competition. Duncan was a monster on his own, and that truth comes out in the wash when you look at him in depth. In reality, Duncan doesn't NEED the stories that, upon sober reflection, can have accuracy holes punched in them, to be able to stand in this company. All that does, IMO, is distract from the truth of his greatness with whole side-arguments popping up about how what you were characterizing as "failures" in other players may in reality have been evidence for that other player's greatness.
For example: the 2002 Spurs were NOT a case of Duncan carrying a team of nobodies to 58 wins. Gilmore, we've had this discussion before (you reference it obliquely several times in your post), and you continue to underrate 2002 David Robinson. There was a time when you used one of my statements about 2002 Robinson as a sig, to apparently spread my "ignorance" to the masses, but I'll one-up you and go ahead and put it in this thread to be read for posterity: David Robinson in 2002 WAS better than "All Star" Wally Z, or Minnesota Terrell Brandon, or whoever else we argued about at the time. Once again, David Robinson in 2002 was Tim Duncan in 2011. Same pop quiz as before, tell me which is which:
Player A: 13.4 ppg, 54% TS%, 8.9 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.6 stl/blks, 1.6 TOs, 21.9 PER, .17 WS/48, 28.4 mpg
Player B: 12.2 ppg, 56% TS%, 8.3 rpg, 1.2 apg, 2.9 stl/blks, 1.3 TOs, 20.3 PER, .21 WS/48, 29.5 mpg
One of them is '02 Robinson. One of them is '11 Duncan. They're the same player. Neither was anywhere near what they used to be, but both were excellent defensive centers that could be counted upon for their efficient all-around game in 30 mpg as one of the better bigs in the league. The only reason that one started the All Star Game while the other wasn't chosen is circumstantial. On the court, they're contributions were the same. So repeatedly trying to make it seem like Duncan was on a solo mission in '02 is, to me, both inaccurate and counter-productive. Now, once Robinson got hurt in the playoffs, sure. At that point Duncan's cast was lacking. But during the regular season, when they compiled the 58 wins that were the subject of your bullet point, Duncan was still playing next to one of the best and more impactful bigs in the league. The exagerration wasn't needed, especially because Duncan himself was ridiculous in 2002 anyway (he got my vote for #1 in 2002 in the RPoY project).
And in 2003, Duncan was masterful again. But, just like Dirk this year, I could wish that the story was more about what Duncan did quantitatively, as opposed to tying his greatness to a narrative. Because, like Dirk this year, Duncan had a team without huge name recognition that absolutely did their part as a supporting unit to a transcendent star. But what Duncan HIMSELF did was amazing, and can be shown quantitatively. We actually have +/- numbers that SHOW that Duncan was vitally the key to everything the Spurs did. We don't even have to bring what Robinson or Bowen or whoever were or were not able to do into the equation, which just muddies the water. We can actually say, quantitatively, that the 2003 Spurs were more than 14 points better in the regular season with Duncan on the court than with him off, one of the better marks for an individual starter that played heavy minutes over the past near-decade. And in that postseason it was even more pronounced, with the Spurs more than 23 points better in the playoffs with Duncan on the court than with him off, one of the super-elite marks for an individual starter that played at least 15 postseason games this decade. And looking at both regular and post-season, there are a very, very short list of players with such huge impact marks across both sessions (again, for reference, Dirk this year was at +16.2 in the regular season and +17.5 in the postseason, according to basketballvalue). Duncan in 2003 was a beast. And we don't have to try to qualitatively discuss his cast vs others through history to "prove" it...we can just look at available information on Duncan himself to hammer it home.
Conclusion: So no, Duncan doesn't have a "perfect" record, nor do we have to rely on questionable story-telling to see his greatness. He DID have a ridiculous on-court impact and is one of the greatest players with no holes and excellent versatility and all types of intangibles. Overall, I agree with the gist of the post that Duncan deserves to be mentioned at this time. I'm voting Magic for the 4 slot, but I doubt it will be long before Duncan will go. And if I am seeming to niggle about the details, I guess it's because (like the RPoY project) I think the discussion and analysis in this project are of more enduring worth than the vote itself. Let's go ahead and get Duncan up near the top where he belongs. But let's do it for the right reasons with supportable conclusions that don't require that someone believe your story, so when folks are reading these threads years in the future they'll get a well put-together discussion where they can really learn about these players and not just narrative arguments that they have probably already picked up on ESPN or in casual conversation.
Even in 1972, that's no where near like 12 or 13 Malone seasons IMO (same with 73). 
