Where do you rank Tim Duncan all-time? (poll)

[BenoUdrihFTL]

After this past season I came up with a pretty simple (and no doubt imperfect) formula for all-time rankings and calculated 12 players who I think most would agree are in contention for top 10 all-time:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
LeBron James
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O’Neal
Oscar Robertson
Bill Russell

I ranked these players 1-12 in 7 different categories:

Most Valuable Player awards
Finals Most Valuable Player awards
Defensive Player of the Year awards
Regular Season Player Efficiency Rating
Regular Season Win Shares per 48 minutes
Playoff Player Efficiency Rating
Playoff Win Shares per 48 minutes

(I adjusted for nonexistence of awards in early years by having Russell ranked 1st in FMVP & DPOY as well as adding 1 FMVP + 3 DPOY to Wilt)

I then took their average rank in the 7 cats to rank them 1-12 all-time. Duncan's avg rank was 5.29 placing him 6th all-time. He would've tied with Magic @ 5th but somehow Duncan has inexplicably never won a DPOY.

[Durins Baynes]

9-10. When was Duncan ever the clear cut best player in the league? Never.

Excuse me? He was at least the best player in 2003.

How was he clearly the best player if KG damn near won MVP over him and had comparable/better production in the regular season and the playoffs?

How was he clearly better than prime Shaq when Shaq had better production than him in both the regular season and the playoffs? Was he clearly better than Shaq in 2002 also?

Is it just because his team went farther? Am I supposed to be impressed with the Spurs beating a 44 win Suns team, a 50 win Laker team, a Mavs team without their best player and a 49 win Nets team (lol)?

He never separated himself from KG, Shaq, or Kobe in his prime in terms of dominance. If you drop someone like Bird in 2003 they would clearly be the best in the league.

You're supposed to be impressed by him taking a pile of trash to 60 wins to start with. And then turning around and beating the 3 time Champs in the playoffs. Calling them "a 50 win Laker team" is utterly disingenuous. They coasted in the regular season (as 3 time champs often do), and had injuries, but come playoffs they were the champs as usual, and expected to win as usual. The Spurs led the Mavs 2-1 before Dirk got hurt, and since they'd looked like a better team all season (and all of last season) it's unclear why we should assume they would have lost if Dirk kept playing. Dropping prime Shaq + Kobe is way more impressive the just dropping Bird by himself.

[TheChosen618]

That's not really true. What held him back from repeating was the total lack of a support cast compared to his opponents in most years. In 2000 if Duncan's team had been better, then they would gotten past the first round without him, then he'd have come back to play after.

The Spurs were the 4th seed and played the 5th seed Suns who finished with the same record as them that season. You are really blaming his teammates for not stepping up opposed to Duncan, their best/franchise player getting hurt for losing that series, really?

Duncan's worth that season drops because he was out for the post-season, whether you like it or not. The same way Yao Ming's 2008 season gets hurt because he was out for that post-season.

As it was, the Spurs were never beating the uber stacked Lakers that year. In 2004 Duncan's support cast wasn't good enough, and they got jobbed on a ref call.

The Spurs had HCA in that series and had a higher SRS rating than the Lakers that season.

Lakers looked nice on paper because of all those HOFers they had but they were not stacked or anything special, not to mention the turmoil in that locker room. Duncan didn't play well in that series unlike how he played the Lakers the previous season and that was why they lost. Duncan gets the blame here and most people consider this series to be a black mark in his career.

In 2006 Duncan went into god-mode in the playoffs, the team lost anyway not because Duncan was hurt, but because he was playing next to 3 swingmen and a poin guard- the team had insufficient talent and size (and was one bad Manu foul away from winning anyway). In 2008 Duncan wasn't in his prime anymore, the support cast wasn't good enough (especially with Manu badly hurt).

2006 is probably the only season that wasn't Duncan's fault for failing to repeat but nonetheless he was injured for most of the regular season and he wasn't himself. In 2008, he was out of his prime like you said and the Spurs were no longer mighty with him no longer being their best/franchise player.

Duncan has not been that consistent from a season to season basis because of injuries usually.

2000 - Injured, misses post-season, team gets eliminated in 1st round
2001-2003 - was great, should have won 3 MVPs straight imo, but was outclassed by Shaq in 2001 and 2002.
2005 - Foot injury, still wins the title since his supporting cast was at their best
2006 - Plantar fasciitis, wasn't himself in the RS, was fine in the PS
2007 - healthy season, wins title.
2008-2012 - out of his prime, injured, no longer himself.
2013 - Back to being elite but still no longer the same.

He never separated himself from KG, Shaq, or Kobe in his prime in terms of dominance. If you drop someone like Bird in 2003 they would clearly be the best in the league.

I'd like to know how this is an issue...

As I've stated before, being the clear cut best player in the league speaks more about a player's competition, or lack of, rather than how dominant a player is.

Duncan was the consensus best player in the league for multiple seasons which is great.

[Durins Baynes]

The Spurs were the 4th seed and played the 5th seed Suns who finished with the same record as them that season. You are really blaming his teammates for not stepping up opposed to Duncan, their best/franchise player getting hurt for losing that series, really?

No, I'm saying if Tim Duncan had played with prime Shaq that year, like Kobe did, his injury wouldn't have mattered. He'd have come back in time in the playoffs to play, and they'd likely be a higher seed too (thus able to coast in the playoffs for longer). Duncan's injury was badly timed, but not a sign of injury prone-ness, or something we should be penalising him for (it's not like his team could have won that year even if he was healthy, not against the peak Shaq Lakers). The point was it wasn't Duncan's fault they failed to repeat, he couldn't have done anything to get the title this year with D.Rob regressing and the Lakers exploding.

Lakers looked nice on paper because of all those HOFers they had but they were not stacked or anything special, not to mention the turmoil in that locker room. Duncan didn't play well in that series unlike how he played the Lakers the previous season and that was why they lost. Duncan gets the blame here and most people consider this series to be a black mark in his career.

Duncan played fine. He was being contending with Shaq and Malone in the paint, often being double teamed (like on the game winner he hit). Sure, GP was done, but Karl Malone was still a nice player to have, and that alone made the Lakers in 04 better than 03. It's absurd to suggest it's a black mark on Duncan. He wasn't playing with another top 15 player of all time in his prime.

2006 is probably the only season that wasn't Duncan's fault for failing to repeat but nonetheless he was injured for most of the regular season and he wasn't himself. In 2008, he was out of his prime like you said and the Spurs were no longer mighty with him no longer being their best/franchise player.

Well if he was out of his prime, it wasn't "his fault" they failed to repeat, was it.

[TheChosen618]

No, I'm saying if Tim Duncan had played with prime Shaq that year, like Kobe did, his injury wouldn't have mattered. He'd have come back in time in the playoffs to play, and they'd likely be a higher seed too (thus able to coast in the playoffs for longer). Duncan's injury was badly timed, but not a sign of injury prone-ness, or something we should be penalising him for (it's not like his team could have won that year even if he was healthy, not against the peak Shaq Lakers). The point was it wasn't Duncan's fault they failed to repeat, he couldn't have done anything to get the title this year with D.Rob regressing and the Lakers exploding.

So if Duncan was playing next to the absolute best player in the league by far, his injury wouldn't have mattered? Sure, and he wouldn't have gotten much of the credit here. I have no idea what Kobe has to do with any of this.

My point was that Duncan was not that consistent from a season to season basis because of injury issues and the 2000 season is just one proof of that. The Spurs failed to repeat that season or do anything in the post-season because Duncan was injured. You could say they would have gotten killed anyways but we'll never know because he never played.

Duncan played fine. He was being contending with Shaq and Malone in the paint, often being double teamed (like on the game winner he hit). Sure, GP was done, but Karl Malone was still a nice player to have, and that alone made the Lakers in 04 better than 03. It's absurd to suggest it's a black mark on Duncan. He wasn't playing with another top 15 player of all time in his prime.

Take a look at Duncan's numbers after Game 2 in that series and then come back to me. He didn't play well at all. It's not like he was dominating out there and his effort wasn't enough, a la Lebron vs. 2009 Magic. He just wasn't playing well in that series.

Well if he was out of his prime, it wasn't "his fault" they failed to repeat, was it.

Actually, 2008 was still a very good season for him. He was probably a top 5-7 player in the league still. He wasn't the same player he was in 2003 or 2007 but he was still pretty good. He didn't play well in that post-season either especially if you take a look at his scoring efficiency. Tyson Chandler did an extremely good job defending him in the WCSF which went to 7 and then Pau Gasol did just as good of a job in the next.

[GetItDone]

Jordan
Magic
Kareem
Shaq
Russell
Duncan
LeBron
Bird
Hakeem
Wilt

[Lost92Bricks]

You're supposed to be impressed by him taking a pile of trash to 60 wins to start with. And then turning around and beating the 3 time Champs in the playoffs. Calling them "a 50 win Laker team" is utterly disingenuous. They coasted in the regular season (as 3 time champs often do), and had injuries, but come playoffs they were the champs as usual, and expected to win as usual. The Spurs led the Mavs 2-1 before Dirk got hurt, and since they'd looked like a better team all season (and all of last season) it's unclear why we should assume they would have lost if Dirk kept playing. Dropping prime Shaq + Kobe is way more impressive the just dropping Bird by himself.

How were the Spurs a pile of trash? How were the Lakers playing like champs when the whole team outside of Shaq and Kobe were playing terrible? Didn't Horry shoot 2-40 from 3 in the playoffs or something like that? That Lakers team was NOT as good as they were the years prior. That's not even mentioning the fact that the Spurs won 10 more games and had homecourt advantage. They basically beat 4 50 win teams in the playoffs lol.

I'd like to know how this is an issue...

As I've stated before, being the clear cut best player in the league speaks more about a player's competition, or lack of, rather than how dominant a player is.

Duncan was the consensus best player in the league for multiple seasons which is great.

It's an issue because I see guys ranking Duncan at the 4-5 spots when he didn't even separate himself from a guy like KG or Kobe in his prime. This is what I don't understand, how was he the consensus best when their were players unanimously winning MVP's over him, players more productive than him, and players just as dominant if not more than him in his best seasons?

Look at the gap between Bron and Durant last season, when has Duncan ever had that gap over KG in his best seasons in terms of individual dominance? And why rank him over players like Bird or Shaq?

[Durins Baynes]

I feel like you don't know a lot about the 2003 Spurs. Let's fix that.

People get easily impressed by "names" like D.Rob, Parker and Manu, who in their primes were all great players (especially D.Rob), but in 2003 (and 2002 in the case of the first two) these guys were nothing like those players.

D.Rob in 2003 was a crippled echo of what he'd been, he played only 64 regular season games, and averaged only 26mpg. He put up 8.5 and 7.9 while struggling to get up and down the court. In the playoffs it was far worse. Take the Lakers series for instance, D.Rob was decent in game 1 and terrible every other game.
Game 2- 17 minutes, 4 boards, 4 points, 4 fouls.
Game 3- 15 minutes, 4 boards, 4 points, 1-3 shooting.
Game 4- 14 minutes, 6 fouls, 0 points, 3 boards.
Game 5- 27 minutes, 6 points, 7 rebounds, 3-7 shooting.
Game 6- 23 minutes, 7 points, 5 rebounds.
The guy was basically a non-factor.

Tony Parker was an extremely TO prone, inexperienced player in 2003. In the finals he got pulled by coach Popovich for Speedy Claxton. Who? Yeh, that's right, some nobody bench scrub. That's how inconsistent Parker was at this point.

Ginobili averaged 20mpg that season, and was also nowhere near his prime form. The things that made him so great were the things that held him back as a rookie- unpredictable, playing almost out of control, etc. The guy wasn't in sync with the Spurs system yet, a lot of the time he'd throw some wild pass nobody was ready for and turn it over. His shooting form was still not consistent either.

Malik Rose was a terrible player with a few admirable qualities. He was undersized, had mediocre offensive skills, and was little more than an energy scrub at times, the sort of guy who would lead the league in number of shots blocked by the other team per 36. He was getting 24mpg the Spurs were so devoid of talent. Bowen was a good defender, but he had no offensive game at all, no handles, poor passer, etc. There's a reason teams were never trying to give Bowen big money, it's because the guy would help you a lot on one end of the court, and kill you on the other. It only worked for the Spurs because Duncan was so good, he could consistently create and overlap on offense when he was (inevitably) doubled, and Bowen had 1 shot he could hit (the wide open corner 3). Only Tim Duncan (or a handful of other top 5-10 peak players) makes that system work. Other big minute getters includes the corpse of Steve Smith, and an extremely raw Stephen Jackson, who was a long way from his prime.

On paper and in reality that support cast was historically weak. At the start of the season nobody gave them a hope in hell of a title, 1/15 ESPN analysts picked them.

All the talk of Horry shooting badly really misses the point. Firstly, it didn't matter in most games, the breakdown for Horry for the games the Lakers lost was:
-Horry goes 0-3 (but the Spurs win by 5, so anything less than 66% 3pt shooting doesn't close the gap, and Horry doesn't normally shoot that from the 3, so I don't see how pointing at this is meant to be an anomaly)
- Horry goes 0-2 (but the Spurs win by 19, so who cares)
- Horry goes 0-6 (the Spurs win by 2, so it mattered this game)
- Horry goes 0-2 (but the Spurs win by 28 so it's irrelevant)
So on the face of it Horry's bad shooting doesn't much matter. But why should it matter at all? Horry was being guarded by Duncan mostly, so why aren't we looking at Horry's terrible shooting and crediting Duncan with playing great D and causing Horry to shoot poorly? It's a bizarre approach to take to it I must say. You can also sing that song about any series- if such and such had shot better, such and such team wins. Stephen Jackson in this series was 0 from 10 from the 3pt line (except in game 4, which the Spurs lost), yet there is no crying from Spurs fans about this.

Duncan was just awesome. End of story.

[kane2021]

Duncan is a all time great but yall rank him too high. Top 5 all time? He is top 5 of his era. Probably in top 3. No one from his era is top 5.

In no order

Shaq
Kobe
Kidd
Duncan

Those are the names from his era that belong on all time lists. None of those names are top 5. And Duncan is not the best player on that list.

But he is the best player at his position all time on that list. And Malone is close enough to make a losing argument for.

The big o is not getting enough credit. Pistol pete. The logo. Thats 3 better players right there that aint getting mentioned.

Dream. Ewing. Kidd. Shaq. Kobe. All players i have full memory of that are not top 5 all time that Duncan is in the argument with.

Malone. McHale. Barkley. All players i have full memory of at the same position. Duncan is better than them. But its not a landslide.

I think stats and rings have too much influence in opinion of all time greats.

For example kidd is right there with magic as far as pgs. But his rookie years in dallas. Then the suns. Then nj. Who did he play with that was so great? He had nothing close to jabar. Or maybe even worthy.

Duncan has always had great coaching. Always had real good teammates when he won it all.

Its not to take nothing away from Duncan. But he has always had good coaching and teammates when he won. Just saying. Dont take nothing from someone else because the teams wasnt as good. Or because the impact is different.

Duncan might be in the top 10 of players i have seen play. Not top 10 all time. LeBron James is cracking that list now. Duncan was not better.

[Lost92Bricks]

I know all about the 2003 Spurs, I already know they weren't as strong as the other champs in NBA history (neither was their competition), I already know Manu, and Parker weren't even close to the players they were in later years. I already know that.

You're mainly looking at offensive talent when their offense wasn't winning them games. It was their DEFENSE. Yes Duncan was the main reason for that, but you can't just ignore the great coaching and defensive support he had - Robinson, Bowen, Jackson, Rose and an elite defensive coach in Pop = great defensive supporting cast. No he didn't have a great offensive supporting cast but they didn't need it when you consider the teams they faced. (basically 4 50 win teams lol).

You don't need a great team to beat the friggin' Nets. Look at what happened the next season, they finally faced a good team and they lost with homecourt advantage lol.

That's only team success, that doesn't show how Duncan was on another level of individual dominance from a player like KG. Nothing points towards that.

[TheChosen618]

It's an issue because I see guys ranking Duncan at the 4-5 spots when he didn't even separate himself from a guy like KG or Kobe in his prime. This is what I don't understand, how was he the consensus best when their were players unanimously winning MVP's over him, players more productive than him, and players just as dominant if not more than him in his best seasons?

Duncan won 2 MVPs which is more than KG, Kobe, and Shaq did and he should have won 3 in my opinion. People like to say Shaq should have won it in 2001 but it actually should have been Duncan imo.

Look at the gap between Bron and Durant last season, when has Duncan ever had that gap over KG in his best seasons in terms of individual dominance? And why rank him over players like Bird or Shaq?

The problem is that 2013 Durant is probably not better than prime Shaq, KG, Kobe, or even Dirk, which was the competition that Duncan had as the best player in the league in his prime.

Any player that was ever clearly the best player in the league did it in a season where there wasn't much competition. 2013 and 2012 Lebron didn't have much competition other than Durant and 2000 Shaq didn't have any competition due to Duncan's injury.

I'd like to know a player that was clearly the best player in the league and also had to go up against a player with at least a top 20 peak of all-time which is what Duncan had to go up against.

[Durins Baynes]

The opponents the Spurs played in 2003 were not great all-time foes by and large, no. However to say they beat "four 50 win teams" is clearly disingenuous. The Lakers were the 3 time defending champs, and only won 50 in the regular season due to coasting and injuries (Shaq taking 14 regular season games off to make sure he was in shape for the playoffs). When the playoffs rolled around everyone had them pegged to beat the Spurs. To dismiss the Mavs as a 50 win team is also silly, they won 60 games that year, and beat the Kings (sure, the Kings didn't have Webber, but they were a great team even without Webber as they proved the following season, when they were on a 60+ win pace without Webber, who then came back on one leg and ruined their momentum by refusing to defer to the team). Dirk got hurt, yes, but the Spurs were up 2-1 before Dirk got hurt, and every indication was they'd have won anyway. Their finals opponents were no weaker than what the Lakers faced the previous 3 years.

[Lost92Bricks]

@TheChosen618
I mainly brought up the "clear cut best player" argument because it doesn't make sense to rank Duncan that high when he never IMO clearly separated himself from players that get ranked noticeably below him. Why rank him over Shaq when Duncan didn't clearly outplay a declining Shaq in his best season (not the series, the overall season) while not being as dominant and having less seasons playing at an elite level?

@Durins Baynes
50 wins or not the Lakers were not playing as well as the Spurs were, the Mavs minus Dirk for half the series were basically a 50 win team, then they faced a 44 win Suns team and a 49 win Nets team. My point is you don't need a great supporting cast to beat those teams, so using the "he won with a weak cast" argument to prop up Duncan isn't a good argument IMO.

[ThaRegul8r]

The big o is not getting enough credit. Pistol pete. The logo. Thats 3 better players right there that aint getting mentioned.

There's zero argument for Maravich over Duncan

[Durins Baynes]

Yes, the Lakers were playing worse during the regular season when Shaq was resting... and then the playoffs came, and Shaq wasn't resting anymore. This isn't complicated. Why would we ignore this when looking at how good they were? The only reason is if you are ignoring the facts on purpose. For example, take a look at how the Lakers played that regular season with Shaq- they were winning at a % equivalent to 55 wins. Then factor in coasting, and a few other stray injuries, and suddenly calling the team who won 3 titles in a row "a 50 win team" seems as ridiculous as it is.

As for the Mavs, the Spurs were beating them before Dirk got hurt, and would have likely beaten them anyway. Why are we assuming the Mavs would have won if Dirk was healthy? The same Mavs got scrubbed by the Kings in 02, barely beat the Kings the following year without Webber, and then got scrubbed again by the Kings playing with Webber on one leg the next year. The Spurs were always beating the Mavs, Dirk getting hurt after they had secured a 2-1 lead doesn't change that.

Sure, the Nets were weak- but they were just as weak the previous year when the Lakers played them, and were no weaker than the 2001 76ers. Eastern Finals teams were weak those years, that's the way it was, and most #1 seeds get an easier match up in the 1st round, so I'm not sure why we should be sneering at them for playing the Suns (who were probably as tough as the Nets that year).

[Golabki]

I think he's pretty clearly the greatest player between the Jordan and LeBron eras. Where he stacks v. guys from other era's is annoying to talk about since it's impossible to compare.

[TheChosen618]

@TheChosen618
I mainly brought up the "clear cut best player" argument because it doesn't make sense to rank Duncan that high when he never IMO clearly separated himself from players that get ranked noticeably below him. Why rank him over Shaq when Duncan didn't clearly outplay a declining Shaq in his best season (not the series, the overall season) while not being as dominant and having less seasons playing at an elite level?

It's because most people factor in longevity and the length of prime. It is much better to have a player that was dominant and had a case as the best player for like 8 seasons opposed to a guy that was just flat out better than everyone else for 1 season but then was never in the argument again. It's almost like comparing Tim Duncan to Bill Walton. There are plenty that believe Walton had a superior peak but nobody would dare say he had a better career than Duncan because he didn't play enough.

As for the Duncan vs. Shaq comparison, it's close when you look at their overall career. Shaq clearly had the superior peak but the only reason why this was the case was because in his peak he would actually be a consistent force defensively. For most of his career, Shaq was extremely inconsistent on that end although he was extremely consistent on offense. Duncan was always consistent with every part of his game throughout his career especially rebounding and defense which is incredibly valuable for a big man.

If you value Bill Russell to be an overrated player that is only up with the greats because of his rings, I can see why you might not think highly of Duncan, but if you view Russell as a dominant player due to his consistent dominance on the boards and on defense then you should consider looking Duncan in the same light.

[nikomCH]

You're mainly looking at offensive talent when their offense wasn't winning them games. It was their DEFENSE. Yes Duncan was the main reason for that, but you can't just ignore the great coaching and defensive support he had - Robinson, Bowen, Jackson, Rose and an elite defensive coach in Pop = great defensive supporting cast. No he didn't have a great offensive supporting cast but they didn't need it when you consider the teams they faced. (basically 4 50 win teams lol). - See more at: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1271372&start=45#sthash.Pm5FdRSR.dpuf

I've read enough of his posts now to see he places zero value on defense and only looks at one side of the court. The 03 Spurs had great defensive pieces+system which allowed them to be as good as they were. Duncan didn't have such a high peak that he was carrying complete bums every single game to a championship. Not even peak Shaq would have been able to do that.

People love ignoring the defensive side of things because they can't just look at the box score and make that conclusion so easily.

[Durins Baynes]

I've read enough posts of other people to realise they overvalue D. Yes, D is half the game... and so is O. Someone doesn't get extra points for being "really solid on D", we should rather look at their holistic impact on winning games. Ricky Davis was good on O, terrible on D, but that didn't mean on balance he was an average player- he was a terrible player. Everything is situational and dependent on how your game increases your teams chances. It is entirely possible for us to imagine a hypothetical player who is below average at 90% of the game, but who would be an elite player by specialising on one skill to an insane degree. For instance, a guy who was below average at everything, but who could shoot 70% from anywhere on the court would be maybe the most valuable player in the NBA- he could open up the whole court and destroy teams by constantly threatening to hit 70 ft shots. Similarly, look at Shaq. He was far less "skilled" than Earl Boykins, but Shaq was far and away the more impactful player.

Some of the Spurs guys were good on D, but holistically they were not good players- that's all that matters. Though even saying they were good on D is a stretch- Malik Rose was bad on D and O mostly, Tony and Speedy were poor defensive players, Steve Smith's corpse couldn't play D, and as I already highlighted D.Rob was basically washed up by then. So where was all this defensive power coming from? S.Jax and Manu were pretty solid on D despite their inexperience, sure... Bowen (at the cost of being trash on O), and who else? This wasn't the 2001 76ers here, or the 2011 Bulls.

[TheRobin]

Bird
Jordan
Magic
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Kareem

Have a possible case over him..

Anything below 8 is unreasonable. I personally have him 6. I see some crazy posts in this thread.