Has Tim Duncan become somewhat overrated?

[PaulieWal]

I don't think the 15 folks here represent some kind of broad consensus.

Just one thing, as the project moves on participation has declined but the first 20ish rankings had anywhere from 25-40 votes. I wouldn't characterize the entire project as some 15 man operation. The rankings in which most are interested had a lot of participation from non-voters and usually 25+ votes from the voters.

[ardee]

I mean maybe we should discuss the elephant in the room and mention that the guy starting this thread has been all over the forum and even quit the top 100 project because his guy wasn't ranked high enough. That's really what this is all about.

Ok, let's discuss it.

If you want to make this personal, I 'quit' the project around 20 because I went back to college and have been overloaded with coursework from the start. Kobe was voted in at 13, 7 spots before I stopped posting on it regularly.

And I voted Duncan before Kobe, and never disagreed on which one was higher on the ATL.

Don't make comments like that, it's not befitting of a mod and borders on baiting.

[Texas Chuck]

Laimbeer,

What is hard about this? No one cares that you have a different opinion. Where I take issue is with you jumping to the conclusion that the group is wrong because we are falling prey to recency bias. Its needlessly insulting.

But let me make this really simple for you and for everyone:

In 2011 the RealGM list had Tim Duncan at #8. He was still an active player but none of those guys above him were including Shaq immediately in front of him at #7.

2 things are possible: Duncan could do something to increase his ranking or he could have relatively low impact seasons and thus remain where he is. Shaq on the other hand could do nothing to increase his rankings.

2012 Duncan has a solid, but hardly spectacular year. Has a really nice playoff run.
2013 Duncan has a great year. Is at worst a top-10 player, was 1st team all-NBA and leads his team with an injured Parker and a terrible Manu as close to winning a title as you can without winning one after cruising through a brutal conference.
2014 Duncan has another really good year, another really good playoff run and his team wins the title in dominating fashion with him being an important piece.


So explain why you have such an issue with Duncan who added 2 really strong years and one great year to an already impressive resume and thus moved up ahead of Magic and Bird(think longevity might have played a part something those 3 years added to?) but didn't mention Shaq. Shaq moved up too and you can't blame that on recency bias since he was retired. Nope, the panel changed some. We got some additional data, etc... So why is it so obviously recency bias on Duncan? Do you not see the logic fail?

The issue is your insistence on this "recency bias" when even a cursory glance would tell you that's not even close to the most likely explanation.

[Texas Chuck]

I mean maybe we should discuss the elephant in the room and mention that the guy starting this thread has been all over the forum and even quit the top 100 project because his guy wasn't ranked high enough. That's really what this is all about.

Ok, let's discuss it.

If you want to make this personal, I 'quit' the project around 20 because I went back to college and have been overloaded with coursework from the start. Kobe was voted in at 13, 7 spots before I stopped posting on it regularly.

And I voted Duncan before Kobe, and never disagreed on which one was higher on the ATL.

Don't make comments like that, it's not befitting of a mod and borders on baiting.

I shouldn't have made this about you and I apologize for that. However, you did make multiple posts telling us you were quitting because of where Kobe was being ranked.

Nevertheless, I should know better than to have called you out despite you having just done the same thing to me in the thread where I talked about voting KG ahead of Dirk. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[Clyde Frazier]

Yes

at the tail end of his career he still having championship impact.

This, to me, is overrating him. His "championship impact" last year wouldn't have interested anyone if he was playing for the Orlando Magic. He was a closer to being a fringe allstar level player than a legit all-nba level player.

He's one of those guys who gets all the credit and none of the blame.

Huh? Sure there's some romanticizing about the spurs team play, but he was a major factor in them winning the championship last season:

~16 PPG, 9 RPG, 2 APG, 1 BPG, 52% FG, 76% FT, 57% TS, 120/104 OFF/DEF RTG, .204 WS/48

Getting that kind of production in the playoffs from a guy in his 17th season is rare to say the least. And most would agree with you on "fringe level all star" considering he didn't make an all star team nor NBA team last season. There's a clear disconnect between that evaluation and your orlando magic comment.

[Clyde Frazier]

I have no problem with you having a difference of opinion over where Dirk or Duncan should be ranked. If you honestly believe Dirk should be closer to 41 than 17 that's certainly your right. Of course you then have to recognize that you are the one who is deviating from the consensus and thus perhaps any question of bias should more correctly be aimed at your outlying opinion, no?

I don't think the 15 folks here represent some kind of broad consensus. A lot of their opinions run counter to the wider view throughout the sport. This is a relatively small group, and all spend a lot of time here and tend to be exposed to certain measurements and opinions of players.

Just curious, do you think most fans who follow the game closely consider dirk a top 20 player of all time?

[nonjokegetter]

Yes

at the tail end of his career he still having championship impact.

This, to me, is overrating him. His "championship impact" last year wouldn't have interested anyone if he was playing for the Orlando Magic. He was a closer to being a fringe allstar level player than a legit all-nba level player.

He's one of those guys who gets all the credit and none of the blame.

Huh? Sure there's some romanticizing about the spurs team play, but he was a major factor in them winning the championship last season:

~16 PPG, 9 RPG, 2 APG, 1 BPG, 52% FG, 76% FT, 57% TS, 120/104 OFF/DEF RTG, .204 WS/48

Getting that kind of production in the playoffs from a guy in his 17th season is rare to say the least. And most would agree with you on "fringe level all star" considering he didn't make an all star team nor NBA team last season. There's a clear disconnect between that evaluation and your orlando magic comment.

He's saying that if he were on the Magic, and his team sucked, we wouldn't be romanticizing him as much. Because his team didn't suck, now we're calling it "championship impact", which any of dozens of players could do in the right situation. Didn't Kawhi Leonard have championship impact? Tony Parker? Manu Ginobili? Four dudes on one team. Let's say every other team only has 2.5 players, on average, that can supply "championship impact": that's still over 60 dudes.

[JordansBulls]

How is he overrated when he took an organization that never won to multiple titles?

[PaulieWal]

How is he overrated when he took an organization that never won to multiple titles?

Because that doesn't mean anything when talking about his all-time ranking and analyzing his basketball production/play on the court but you already know that, don't you?

[Laimbeer]

Laimbeer,

What is hard about this? No one cares that you have a different opinion. Where I take issue is with you jumping to the conclusion that the group is wrong because we are falling prey to recency bias. Its needlessly insulting.

But let me make this really simple for you and for everyone:

In 2011 the RealGM list had Tim Duncan at #8. He was still an active player but none of those guys above him were including Shaq immediately in front of him at #7.

2 things are possible: Duncan could do something to increase his ranking or he could have relatively low impact seasons and thus remain where he is. Shaq on the other hand could do nothing to increase his rankings.

2012 Duncan has a solid, but hardly spectacular year. Has a really nice playoff run.
2013 Duncan has a great year. Is at worst a top-10 player, was 1st team all-NBA and leads his team with an injured Parker and a terrible Manu as close to winning a title as you can without winning one after cruising through a brutal conference.
2014 Duncan has another really good year, another really good playoff run and his team wins the title in dominating fashion with him being an important piece.


So explain why you have such an issue with Duncan who added 2 really strong years and one great year to an already impressive resume and thus moved up ahead of Magic and Bird(think longevity might have played a part something those 3 years added to?) but didn't mention Shaq. Shaq moved up too and you can't blame that on recency bias since he was retired. Nope, the panel changed some. We got some additional data, etc... So why is it so obviously recency bias on Duncan? Do you not see the logic fail?

The issue is your insistence on this "recency bias" when even a cursory glance would tell you that's not even close to the most likely explanation.

You start off by telling me no one cares about my opinion then spend several paragraphs laying out an arguement against what I said and then asking me to refute it. Okay.

You're up in rare air with Duncan moving from 8 to 5. The guys up there generally have a number of titles as the guy. Duncan won one more in a situation where he wasn't. In the three seasons since, he wasn't an all star in two of the those and didn't make all-NBA at any level in two of them. In short, one really good season, in another a cog on a title team, and a couple years of basically tacking on decent years. It just doesn't add up to the type of value that gets you three spots at that level.

And no one should be insulted if they are seen as being biased. We all are.

[Clyde Frazier]

Huh? Sure there's some romanticizing about the spurs team play, but he was a major factor in them winning the championship last season:

~16 PPG, 9 RPG, 2 APG, 1 BPG, 52% FG, 76% FT, 57% TS, 120/104 OFF/DEF RTG, .204 WS/48

Getting that kind of production in the playoffs from a guy in his 17th season is rare to say the least. And most would agree with you on "fringe level all star" considering he didn't make an all star team nor NBA team last season. There's a clear disconnect between that evaluation and your orlando magic comment.

He's saying that if he were on the Magic, and his team sucked, we wouldn't be romanticizing him as much. Because his team didn't suck, now we're calling it "championship impact", which any of dozens of players could do in the right situation. Didn't Kawhi Leonard have championship impact? Tony Parker? Manu Ginobili? Four dudes on one team. Let's say every other team only has 2.5 players, on average, that can supply "championship impact": that's still over 60 dudes.

Bleh, of course if he was putting up empty #s on a bad team, he'd get less credit. The fact that you're claiming you could plug in any "dozens of players" and get the same result is kinda baffling. Does chemistry mean nothing to you? Not to mention the blueprint of spreading production across the board in their 05 and 07 championship runs? Rasheed on the 04 pistons was a perfect example. Just because he only gave you 13 PPG and 7.8 RPG in the playoffs, that doesn't mean you're plugging in a player with similar stats and getting the same results. Fit is huge.

There's clearly an argument for not ranking him as high as 5th all time. Attempting to diminish his role in winning the title last year isn't the way to go about it.

[Laimbeer]

How is he overrated when he took an organization that never won to multiple titles?

I like how you can always count on certain things around here.

[Texas Chuck]

You start off by telling me no one cares about my opinion then spend several paragraphs laying out an arguement against what I said and then asking me to refute it. Okay.

You're up in rare air with Duncan moving from 8 to 5. The guys up there generally have a number of titles as the guy. Duncan won one more in a situation where he wasn't. In the three seasons since, he wasn't an all star in two of the those and didn't make all-NBA at any level in two of them. In short, one really good season, in another a cog on a title team, and a couple years of basically tacking on decent years. It just doesn't add up to the type of value that gets you three spots at that level.

And no one should be insulted if they are seen as being biased. We all are.

Sigh. I didnt say no one cared about your opinion. I said no one cares that you have a different opinion. There is a big difference.

I know we are all biased. I have been as upfront with my own as I can throughout the process. But the whole idea of a group minimizes those individual biases something you seem unwilling to even consider. Did some vote him higher because of recency bias? Sure I can buy that. Was it so many people as to render the results unacceptable? I have a real hard time believing that and if you go back and read the discussion threads you can see for yourself how much weight was or was not placed on the last 3 years. I think you will be surprised at what you find.

And its fine that you don't view those seasons as adding value to Duncan. I personally saw him on the same level with Shaq and Magic in 2011. And I think 3 more top 20 seasons with one being a top 10 season were enough to move him up. Apparently so did enough others to get him moved up. But your opinion is certainly defensible. This was never about your specific views on players.

[nonjokegetter]

Huh? Sure there's some romanticizing about the spurs team play, but he was a major factor in them winning the championship last season:

~16 PPG, 9 RPG, 2 APG, 1 BPG, 52% FG, 76% FT, 57% TS, 120/104 OFF/DEF RTG, .204 WS/48

Getting that kind of production in the playoffs from a guy in his 17th season is rare to say the least. And most would agree with you on "fringe level all star" considering he didn't make an all star team nor NBA team last season. There's a clear disconnect between that evaluation and your orlando magic comment.

He's saying that if he were on the Magic, and his team sucked, we wouldn't be romanticizing him as much. Because his team didn't suck, now we're calling it "championship impact", which any of dozens of players could do in the right situation. Didn't Kawhi Leonard have championship impact? Tony Parker? Manu Ginobili? Four dudes on one team. Let's say every other team only has 2.5 players, on average, that can supply "championship impact": that's still over 60 dudes.

Bleh, of course if he was putting up empty #s on a bad team, he'd get less credit.

Well that's the point.

The fact that you're claiming you could plug in any "dozens of players" and get the same result is kinda baffling.

Well, since I didn't say that, it really doesn't matter, does it?

There's clearly an argument for not ranking him as high as 5th all time. Attempting to diminish his role in winning the title last year isn't the way to go about it.

We don't need to diminish it. It stands on its own.

[G35]

Agreed. If that's our bar for championship impact, how many people could've had a similar championship impact last year if they had as good of a team around them, with as good of a coach. 30? 40? Of course Duncan is an all-time great and an easy top 10, but 5 is a tad too much.

So what other big man in the NBA could have done what Duncan did with the Spurs?

First, why are you limiting it to big men? Other players don't have championship impact? Then you go on to talk about:

1- why other players wouldn't fit specifically with the Spurs, when that's not what's being discussed.
2- years other than last year, when that wasn't what you quoted (or what I quoted, or what the guy I quoted quoted) was talking about.
3- some rant about KG, when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying
4- something about Jordan, when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying

All that I was saying was that many other players, with comparable teams around them- not the Spurs exactly- could have had a comparable championship impact as Duncan did last year. That's all.

That is where you are wrong.

Other players would not fit the Spurs because other players could not build what Duncan has built in SA. People think you could put that system and players around any great player and you would get similar results. Wrong. So wrong.

I don't even know what that last sentence is saying. Very vague and obscure. You could say that about anything. The difference is Duncan did win a championship last year...not could have like you are saying.....

[nonjokegetter]

So what other big man in the NBA could have done what Duncan did with the Spurs?

First, why are you limiting it to big men? Other players don't have championship impact? Then you go on to talk about:

1- why other players wouldn't fit specifically with the Spurs, when that's not what's being discussed.
2- years other than last year, when that wasn't what you quoted (or what I quoted, or what the guy I quoted quoted) was talking about.
3- some rant about KG, when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying
4- something about Jordan, when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying

All that I was saying was that many other players, with comparable teams around them- not the Spurs exactly- could have had a comparable championship impact as Duncan did last year. That's all.

That is where you are wrong.

Other players would not fit the Spurs because other players could not build what Duncan has built in SA. People think you could put that system and players around any great player and you would get similar results. Wrong. So wrong.

I don't even know what that last sentence is saying. Very vague and obscure. You could say that about anything. The difference is Duncan did win a championship last year...not could have like you are saying.....

Again, I never said anything about other players fitting on the Spurs. I never said anything about what he's built. I said that there are many players that could provide the "championship impact" that he provided LAST YEAR on teams that are SIMILARLY TALENTED.

Not the Spurs in particular. Not any year other than last year. Why are you responding to me, talking about things I'm not talking about, acting as if it has anything to do with what I'm talking about?

[Swagalicious]

Chuck, what I mean I by saying that is not meant to be taken literally.

It means he gets more credit than he deserves and never catches heat for playing below his standards.

For example, his shooting in the 05 Finals was pretty awful. Going by the numbers, Manu clearly outplayed him, at least on offense. Timmy went 10-27 in Game 7. Most players of his caliber would be criticized pretty harshly for such a relatively poor offensive showing throughout the Finals.

An example of him getting more credit than he should would be the last two seasons. His name has held more weight than his play when I looked at recent discussions about him. His impact on the Spurs two Finals run has been overstated. Also, his play from 09-11 is being swept under the rug. Those are not Tim Duncan caliber seasons, on either end...

That being said, I have had him ranked at around 6/7 for about 3 years now, and to me, nothing of note has really changed about that.

[magicmerl]

As for ignoring the weaknesses. Bird and Magic get hammered on their weaknesses. No one wants to do the same with Timmy.

What would you say his weaknesses are?

Other than Joey Crawford, that is.

[magicmerl]

You're up in rare air with Duncan moving from 8 to 5. The guys up there generally have a number of titles as the guy. Duncan won one more in a situation where he wasn't. In the three seasons since, he wasn't an all star in two of the those and didn't make all-NBA at any level in two of them. In short, one really good season, in another a cog on a title team, and a couple years of basically tacking on decent years. It just doesn't add up to the type of value that gets you three spots at that level.

And no one should be insulted if they are seen as being biased. We all are.

The thing is though, for me, there is VERY little gap between 5 and 9. I think there's a logjam of players that are all very close together. It's not like whoever was 5th was an order of magnitude better than who was 9th in the 2011 rankings.

Duncan clearly HAS added to his resume since the 2001 rankings, in a way that nobody in the top10 other than LeBron could have done (since they are all gone done retired).

Why is it so hard to think that the last 3 years of his career takes him from slightly behind those guys to slightly in front of them?

[nonjokegetter]

Why is it so hard to think that the last 3 years of his career takes him from slightly behind those guys to slightly in front of them?

I think the answer to the question is partially found in how many players in the history of the game you think are better than just those three years of Duncan. How many current players do you think have been better in that time frame?