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

[bastillon]

Expected value would penalize them unfairly...for example, the Spurs were typically around a 99 DRating, the Nash Suns around a 114 ORating. Expected DRating would be like 106.5...meaning the Spurs should have been expected to have held the GOAT offense over 7 points under their usual scoring rate. -7.5 against a league-average offense is considered historically good defense...they should be expected to do that against the GOAT offense?

I'm much more interested in whether or not they limit the opposing team at all, and by how much, rather than what they should be "expected" to do, especially when you compare their defense to other great defensive teams.

what's the point of limiting the Suns in comparison to what they did against AVERAGE defenses? if they limit Suns by -2 that'd be impressive for above average defense, not for epically good defenses. the truth is Spurs defense struggled vs Suns because they couldn't defend pick and rolls. that was my point and I stand by what I said. it's visibly obvious when you watch the tape that Duncan didn't have quickness to defend those screens. even if they were switching, Nash was torching Duncan. if Duncan was able to switch effectively, Suns wouldn't be torching Spurs. Nash is not going off v KG/Dream/Robinson on a switch. Suns were a terrible team in terms of taking adv of mismatches big v small because no big had a back to the basket post game. their pick and rolls could've been easily stopped just by switching and defending Nash well.

[Texas Chuck]

And yet despite that Duncan's team beat teh Suns every time and who was the driving force behind every one of those Spurs teams? Thats right Mr. Tim Duncan. Its hilarious that we nitpick the guy in series he's winning while giving other players a pass in series they are losing.

That would be fine of course if Duncan wasnt playing at an elite level while his teammates carried the team to the win, but that isnt what happened. So what if he and the Spurs couldnt completely shut down Nash and the Suns? The idea is to outscore them by whatever means possible. And thats part of Duncan's greatness. Might KG do better defending the Nash/Amare PnR? Sure okay why not. But he could he anchor an offense that could score enough points to beat the Suns? Maybe, but maybe not. What we do know is that Duncan did it and did it again and did it again.

So he performs at an elite level. His team wins the series. What exactly is the criticism? That he didnt beat them sexily enough?

[bastillon]

And yet despite that Duncan's team beat teh Suns every time and who was the driving force behind every one of those Spurs teams? Thats right Mr. Tim Duncan. Its hilarious that we nitpick the guy in series he's winning while giving other players a pass in series they are losing.

That would be fine of course if Duncan wasnt playing at an elite level while his teammates carried the team to the win, but that isnt what happened. So what if he and the Spurs couldnt completely shut down Nash and the Suns? The idea is to outscore them by whatever means possible. And thats part of Duncan's greatness. Might KG do better defending the Nash/Amare PnR? Sure okay why not. But he could he anchor an offense that could score enough points to beat the Suns? Maybe, but maybe not. What we do know is that Duncan did it and did it again and did it again.

So he performs at an elite level. His team wins the series. What exactly is the criticism? That he didnt beat them sexily enough?

let's see the facts that have been established about the Suns-Spurs series:
-Suns were torching Spurs defense partly because of Duncan's inability to guard pick and rolls. as a result Suns offense performed a lot better than expected by statistical measures
-Suns had a huge weakness in terms of interior defense and defensive rebounding
-Duncan was performing well offensively

I'm saying that series exposed Duncan's defense. I'm saying Duncan's defense had a fundamental flaw in his lack of quickness/athleticism that could get exposed against a team that could play well on the perimeter. I'm criticising Duncan's defense in comparison to other all time greats defensively who didn't have that flaw. the point I made in the first place was that Ewing/Robinson/Hakeem/Garnett were better suited in that regard because they didn't have defensive flaws that could get so easily exposed.

you're responding that Duncan was performing well offensively and Spurs won. what does that have to do with anything? this is exactly why it's important to seperate defense and offense, so that you find a reason for team winning games and so that you know what is not that reason. defense was sub par against the Suns and just because Suns had a huge fundamental flaw in lack of big man presence doesn't mean that Duncan's weakness defensively was not exposed. if Suns have a 30 year old Kurt Thomas against Duncan, they could win those series and what would you say then? whether Suns play better defense that would let them win is irrelevant in terms of how we should evaluate Duncan's defense. otherwise you're ending up with the conclusion that Duncan's defense is dependant upon whether Suns are able to stop the Spurs offensively.

for the sake of our analysis what matters is not whether Suns could stop Duncan, but whether Duncan's pick and roll defense was a weakness compared to other great players. as it seems, it was. not really that surprising for anybody who knows the importance of athleticism on the defensive end. Duncan was a great defender for his athletic gifts but he was not made for being the GOAT type defender with his athleticism. this is why several players who compared Duncan and Hakeem said Dream was a better player. can't really fool the nature. Duncan's limited athleticism is what seperates him from better defenders. same as Shaq or Wilt could never be GOAT level defenders no matter how hard they tried. they simply didn't have the lateral footspeed to cover ground horizontally (sideline to sideline).

[NO-KG-AI]

Not that I think Duncan didn't do what he needed to against the Suns, but in that particular matchup, KG would have been the better player. I think KG's probable best scoring and individual defensive performances were against the Suns during that period. I know he had a 48 point game, I think another 40 pointer, and I know he held Amare and Marion down to like 6 points or something ludicrous a few times.

He's basically made to be the anti run and gun defender, he was by far the biggest guy on the court, and had all the athleticism to shut down all those undersized guys playing the 4/5.

Not even touching the argument, just putting that out there, I'm at work and can't really browse B-R, but I know some of the games he had against Nash's suns were ridiculous, and he held Amare very well in check most of the time.

[Texas Chuck]

HEres another fact: Duncan has been a more impactful defender in his career than Ewing or KG and is at least in the conversation with Dream and Admiral.

But because he doesnt defend the PnR as well you think he's not as good a defender? Thats a complete joke. Ewing isnt more mobile than Duncan. He could barely move. And while KG is a terrific PnR defender he was never the rim protector or anchor that Duncan was.

Just say I dont like Duncan so Im going to write really long posts about one perceived weakness while ignoring all other data and call it "facts"

[trex_8063]

I've got him #7 presently.

[therealbig3]

BTW, although Duncan was a DPOY-caliber player for most of his career, he was clearly a step quicker and thus more effective defensively up until the 03 season and even through the 04 season until he got injured. I'd really advise people to go back and watch a younger Duncan...acting like there was a large difference in mobility between Duncan and KG back then is kind of a joke...Duncan was actually pretty darn close to as graceful and mobile as KG...very quick, very coordinated, very fast, while also playing the role of a traditional rim protector. His end to end speed for a guy his size and strength was actually pretty awesome. Injuries robbed him of some of his mobility, and that's why Duncan later in his career ended up looking pretty slow and plodding at times, especially in comparison to KG, who has aged very gracefully from a physical standpoint.

BTW, using expected DRating for the Spurs over the years:

98 vs Phoenix: -0.9 (more or less a wash)
98 vs Utah: -4.7

99 vs Minnesota: -3.3
99 vs LAL: -3.9
99 vs Portland: -4.6
99 vs NY: -3.7

01 vs Minnesota: -7.3
01 vs Dallas: -2.2
01 vs LAL: +11.7

02 vs Seattle: -1.9
02 vs LAL: -0.1 (more or less a wash)

03 vs Phoenix: -9.5
03 vs LAL: +0.2 (more or less a wash)
03 vs Dallas (first 3 games): -0.7 (more or less a wash)
03 vs NJ: -8.4

04 vs Memphis: -1.6
04 vs LAL: +1.3 (more or less a wash)

05 vs Denver: -4.7
05 vs Seattle: +1.2 (more or less a wash)
05 vs Phoenix: +7.2
05 vs Detroit: +3.3

06 vs Sacramento: +6.0
06 vs Dallas: +8.7

07 vs Denver: -2.1
07 vs Phoenix (not including suspension game): +3.2
07 vs Utah: +0.9 (more or less a wash)
07 vs Cleveland: -5.7


The teams that surpassed the Spurs' EV on defense:

01 Lakers: +11.7 (+5.4 offense during regular season)
03 Lakers: +0.2 (+3.6 offense during regular season)
04 Lakers: +1.3 (+2.6 offense during regular season)
05 Sonics: +1.2 (+6.1 offense during regular season)
05 Suns: +7.2 (+8.4 offense during regular season)
05 Pistons: +3.3 (-0.5 offense during regular season)
06 Kings: +6.0 (+0.5 offense during regular season)
06 Mavericks: +8.7 (+5.6 offense during regular season)
07 Suns: +3.2 (+7.4 offense during regular season)
07 Jazz: +0.9 (+3.6 offense during regular season)

This actually supports what I said about Duncan never being the same physically from 04-07. It didn't even manifest itself in 04, it was really from 05-07 when the Spurs started slipping defensively in the playoffs. Anyway, if we accept that Duncan just wasn't that great defensively in 06 because of his foot injury, then the teams that really destroyed the Spurs during Duncan's defensive prime were the 01 Lakers, the 05 Suns, and both the 05 Pistons and 07 Suns to a certain extent. 3/4 of those teams were historically great offensively, and the Lakers destroying the Spurs in 01 was never a secret. Teams like the 03 Lakers, 04 Lakers, 05 Sonics, and 07 Jazz that slightly outperformed the EV doesn't seem to be a big deal, since random variance could have also played a role there, and especially since the Lakers always coasted during the regular season after 00.

Let's look at how some of Hakeem's best Rockets defenses did (so I guess 87-91, as well as 93 and 94):

87 vs Portland: +2.0
87 vs Seattle: +0.1 (more or less a wash)

88 vs Dallas: +3.7

89 vs Seattle: +1.4 (more or less a wash)

90 vs LAL: +6.7

91 vs LAL: +2.9

93 vs LAC: -7.8
93 vs Seattle: +2.0

94 vs Portland: +6.1
94 vs Phoenix: -2.0
94 vs Utah: +0.3 (more or less a wash)
94 vs NY: -2.4

The Rockets only held 3 teams below EV over 12 playoff series. The other 9 teams outperformed EV, 3 of them just barely, but the other 6 by a clear margin. The Rockets also got lit up by the 90 Lakers and 94 Blazers pretty much just as badly as the Spurs got lit up by the 05 Suns; the Rockets got lit up by the 88 Mavericks and the 91 Lakers pretty much just as badly as the Spurs got lit up by the 05 Pistons and 07 Suns.

They never got beat down like the Spurs did by the 01 Lakers...but the Rockets also never played a team as good as the 01 Lakers. And they never played offenses that were even close to as good as the 05 or 07 Suns either.

So if we compare the 01-05 and 07 Spurs to the 87-91 and 93-94 Rockets, the Spurs defense got owned by the 01 Lakers, the 05 Suns, the 05 Pistons, and the 07 Suns. The Rockets defense got owned by the 88 Mavericks, the 90 Lakers, the 91 Lakers, and the 94 Blazers. The Spurs however played in 7 more playoff series, as well as tougher offensive opponents.

So does this expose a weakness in Hakeem's defense as well? Or could it be possible that sometimes offensive teams have their way with you? Or that sometimes it's possible to play their game and outscore them rather than shut them down (which is how the Spurs beat teams like the Lakers, Sonics, Suns, and Pistons, and is how the Rockets beat several of the teams that may have outplayed their defense).

[lorak]

HEres another fact: Duncan has been a more impactful defender in his career than Ewing or KG

If it's fact, show evidence, please.

[therealbig3]

KG's team defensive results by EV (imo, his prime was 99-08):

99 vs SA: -0.2 (more or less a wash)

00 vs Portland: +1.8

01 vs SA: -3.3

02 vs Dallas: +9.2

03 vs LAL: +6.6

04 vs Denver: -2.1
04 vs Sacramento: -4.3
04 vs LAL: +4.8

08 vs Atlanta: -0.1 (more or less a wash)
08 vs Cleveland: +0.2 (more or less a wash)
08 vs Detroit: +4.2
08 vs LAL: -2.1

Kind of similar story...his teams have been lit up too, despite not playing anyone close to the offensive caliber of the 01 Lakers, the 05 Suns, or the 07 Suns.

[bastillon]

BTW, although Duncan was a DPOY-caliber player for most of his career, he was clearly a step quicker and thus more effective defensively up until the 03 season and even through the 04 season until he got injured. I'd really advise people to go back and watch a younger Duncan...acting like there was a large difference in mobility between Duncan and KG back then is kind of a joke...Duncan was actually pretty darn close to as graceful and mobile as KG...very quick, very coordinated, very fast, while also playing the role of a traditional rim protector. His end to end speed for a guy his size and strength was actually pretty awesome. Injuries robbed him of some of his mobility, and that's why Duncan later in his career ended up looking pretty slow and plodding at times, especially in comparison to KG, who has aged very gracefully from a physical standpoint.

I'll answer later to your data. you do understand that Garnett was actually playing part time SF until 2004? or that he was regularly shutting down league's best perimeter players when needed? peak Duncan was really quick for a 7 footer, just substantially less mobile than true athletic freaks like Garnett or Robinson. "pretty darn close" my ass.

[mihail_petkov]

Duncan is one of the most overrated players of all time. He is the least criticized all time. Nobody is talking about his fails... Imagine if he was criticize like Kobe or LeBron. He is also one of the luckiest player of all time. He spent his career to maybe the best organization in NBA with one of the greatest coaches of all time. He had an amazing support for most of his career unlike LeBron, Kobe or KG. He had David Robinson, Manu, Parker, Bowen and etc. I don't even talk about the amazing role players which Pop creates.

[Texas Chuck]

HEres another fact: Duncan has been a more impactful defender in his career than Ewing or KG

If it's fact, show evidence, please.

Ive been down this road with you before. What "evidence" will you accept? The evidence that his team defenses were among the best in the league essentially his entire career? The evidence that advanced stats show him to be an elite individual defender individually? All-D teams?, D win Shares?, Drtg for him and his team? DRAPM? His team winnning a billion games and 4 titles built around his defense?

I guess I could go to a stat site and quote the numbers for you, but I feel pretty confident you already know how to look them up for yourself.

[Durins Baynes]

Duncan's teams invariably overachieved or met expectations, unlike the other stars he's often compared to, in that sense he's virtually impossible to criticise.
-In 98 he was a rookie, the team was awesome and they lost to an amazing team in the veteran Jazz.
-In 99 he carries the Spurs to the title as their best player.
-In 2000 he is injured 2 games from the end of the season, and can't come back in time (though it was debated whether to let him play hurt). Also not his fault, plus the super-stacked peak Lakers were too good anyway.
-In 2001 his team lost to the Lakers- also not his fault, he had insufficient help and lost to one of the most dominant playoff teams ever.
-In 2002 he had an awful support cast which massively overachieved thanks to him.
-In 2003 they won the title even though they shouldn't have.
-In 2004 they lost to an even better Lakers team (thanks to Karl Malone, and poor shooting from his role players), and a bulls@#$ 0.4 second call because refs thought it was exciting (you can't catch and release a ball in 0.4 seconds, and under today's replay rules it likely wouldn't count).
-In 2005 the Spurs win the title again.
-In 2006 Duncan goes into god mode in the playoffs, and the team is one Manu bungle (his boneheaded foul on Dirk) from winning the series (which went to 7 games with multiple OT's). Duncan does all this with literally no big man support, the only guys getting minutes next to him in the playoffs were small guys, and his starting line up was 3 swing men and Tony Parker. There was nothing more Duncan could have done.
-In 2007 they win the title
- In 2008 Duncan isn't in his prime anymore, and the league suddenly starts getting an influx of super teams (the 08-11 Lakers, the 08-10 Celtics, the 11-13 Heat, the 11-13 Thunder, and even the 11 Mavs were a ridiculously deep and talented team). That Duncan, at age 37, was the best player on a team who was as close as you can get to winning a title is amazing.

I'm not seeing the fail- Duncan's teams overachieved, and didn't underperform once during his prime. Plus in the 16 years Duncan has played the Spurs have a win % that comes to 57.75 wins per season. Hard to criticise that. If Duncan had played on the sorts of talented teams guys like Russell or Kobe (or Shaq) played with, he'd have a ridiculous number of titles (not just 4). This isn't intended as a comparison of the two players, but just for a thought experiment, in order to show how things could have gone differently if Duncan had the luck some other players had- from 1998-2011 swap Shaq and Duncan. It probably takes Duncan 2 more years to win his first title, but I'd expect Duncan to win every title from 2001 through to 2011 (01-04 Lakers, 05-07 Heat, 08-09 Suns, 2010 Cavs, 2011 Celtics). Duncan's been a lot less lucky than most. Some years the teams he had were good, and other years like in 2002 or 2003 he was carrying garbage. He didn't get to play with the same calibre of team mate most guys in the top 10 did.

[lorak]

HEres another fact: Duncan has been a more impactful defender in his career than Ewing or KG

If it's fact, show evidence, please.

Ive been down this road with you before. What "evidence" will you accept?

Rational evidence.
You said Duncan was more impactful defender than Ewing or KG, so:
1. show exactly how impactful was Duncan
2. show how impactful were KG and Ewing

[Durins Baynes]

I don't much care about advanced stats, though they mostly favour Duncan these days anyway as I understand it, but the "impact" overall from Duncan was observably superior to KG (and especially Ewing). You can see that by looking at how the teams did with those guys, and judging whether the results match the talent on the teams. Duncan for instance proved he could lead trash to fantastic results in 2002 and 2003, while KG (despite many chances) never led a comparably poor support cast to a comparable result (and Ewing wasn't even close to either). That backs up other evidence people have, and confirms for many people what they thought they were seeing all those years. For instance, in 2002 KG had a support cast which was probably more talented than what Duncan had in either 2002 or 2003, and yet the results are much worse. You can't brush that aside by just repeating your favourite advance stats.

[bastillon]

SMH @ myth that 2003 Spurs were some bunch of scrubs. offensively, yeah, they weren't very impressive supporting cast because everyone was inconsistent but they were good enough so that Manu would step up one day, S-Jax the other, Robinson the other etc. but they didn't win because of their offense. they were below average offensive team in the playoffs. they won based on their defense alone and it was arguably the strongest defensive supporting cast of all-time. D-Rob, S-Jax, Manu, Bruce Bowen that's as much defensive talent as possible for a PF to have on the roster.

compare that to Wolves 2003: Hudson, Peeler, Szczerbiak, Gill... who probably constituted the worst perimeter defense ever on a 50W team, which was the reason why Wolves were like dead last in forcing turnovers consistently despite KG's presence. those casts were comparable offensively (though Spurs were better clearly), but defensively it was a blowout.

so what happened is this: Garnett had worse offensive cast and led them to better offensive results. Duncan's Spurs were better overall due to the gigantic gap in defensive talent. Spurs struggled mightily on offense in the playoffs but made up for it with historic defense that almost never skipped a beat when Duncan was sitting because Robinson was so amazing even at that age. details in colts thread about Robinson's defense: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1162485 Duncan was a great player but those Spurs were very good supporting cast after accounting for defense. secondary scoring is not the end of the help you may receive from your teammates. KG would kill for supporting cast like 02-03 Spurs. not to mention coaching...

KG's team defensive results by EV (imo, his prime was 99-08):

99 vs SA: -0.2 (more or less a wash)

00 vs Portland: +1.8

01 vs SA: -3.3

02 vs Dallas: +9.2

03 vs LAL: +6.6

04 vs Denver: -2.1
04 vs Sacramento: -4.3
04 vs LAL: +4.8

08 vs Atlanta: -0.1 (more or less a wash)
08 vs Cleveland: +0.2 (more or less a wash)
08 vs Detroit: +4.2
08 vs LAL: -2.1

Kind of similar story...his teams have been lit up too, despite not playing anyone close to the offensive caliber of the 01 Lakers, the 05 Suns, or the 07 Suns.

you didn't get my point. I'm not simply nitpicking a bad defensive series to show that Spurs weren't dominating playoff opponents every series. I'm pointing out to a flaw in Duncan's defense. Garnett or Olajuwon didn't have a weakness like that and when their teams were getting lit up it was often because their teams were vulnerable at certain spots. for example Houston 95-96 didn't have a PF on the roster. or they were always struggling v PGs because Kenny couldn't play D. Wolves had gigantic holes in terms of wing defense (I'd bet money that Peeler/Gill/Szczerbiak is the worst defensive wing combo ever on a 50W roster) so that'd get exposed come playoff time.

the train of thought that I followed with my point is that Duncan had a fundamental weakness in his game and that was perimeter defense/pick and roll defense. it wasn't a weakness like Shaq's or Wilt's but a weakness nonetheless, particularly compared to Hakeem/Robinson/Russell/KG/Ewing (Ewing less so) company. I proved that Spurs struggled against teams that exposed that weakness.

show me a weakness in Hakeem's defense or Garnett's and then we'll talk. for example in the 1990 playoff series you brought up as a slight against Hakeem, he was averaging 2.5 steals, 6 blocks and 8 defensive rebounds. but Worthy still put up 28.5 ppg @ 65% FG and Magic did his thang with 19/13. are you gonna blame Hakeem for the series or show a fundamental weakness in his game that LA was exposing ?

[Durins Baynes]

The awfulness of the 2003 cast (less bad than 2002, but still bad) has already been covered in this thread Bastillion. I've quoted the post below. Your reply is also intentionally misleading, I referred to the strength of KG's 2002 support cast, and you have ignored it to mention his 2003 support cast (which nobody disputes was bad). Pretty obvious dodge of the question.

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.

[Texas Chuck]

I always find it odd that that people actually post that you cant have good defending teammates and still be an elite defender in your own right. OF course when KG goes to Boston and gets great defensive teammates of his own I dont hear guys saying its all about his teammates and coach.

ITs stupid. You can be a great defender like KG with subpar defenders like he had at times in Minny or be a great defender with great defensive teammates like he had in Boston.

But for some reason with Mr. Duncan even tho every statistical measure we have availabe show him to be an all-time great defender we have to hear all about its his elite teammates or its Pop. Duncan is a great defender. In. His. Own. Right.

[lorak]

I always find it odd that that people actually post that you cant have good defending teammates and still be an elite defender in your own right. OF course when KG goes to Boston and gets great defensive teammates of his own I dont hear guys saying its all about his teammates and coach.

Sure, but guys like you use TEAM result to show that Duncan was better defender than KG (for example) and ignore that Spurs were much better team in terms of defensive supporting cast than Minny.

[Texas Chuck]

Team results are part of it--especially when talked about a big man who is anchoring the defense. Simply comparing Duncan as a man defender to KG as a man defender doesnt tell the whole story. But you know that already.

Bastillion wants us all to focus on this one tiny bit of data involving Duncan not completely shutting down the Nash/Amare PNR one of the most devestating offensive combos of all time and is thus concluding Duncan isnt as good a defender as KG or Ewing. I dont see you quoting his nonsense and questioning it.

Again some stats have been posted and I could post more if I have to, but we can all go look them up. Team stats. Individual stats. Doesnt matter. Duncan has been among the best defenders in the league essentially every year with a small drop-off in 2011 and 2012, but every other single year you could make a case that he's at least a top 5 defender, usually top 3 and never not a top 10 defender.

Im honestly surprised people are actually questioning Duncan's impact as a defender, but judging him solely against the Nash Suns and concluding he's not very good is well just mystifiying to me.