Has Tim Duncan become somewhat overrated?

[Laimbeer]

Look at it this way. Duncan was moved up three spots in three years. That's moving up one spot in the top ten for each year. And two of those years were meh.

The title was a reminder of how great a player he is and caused people to reflect more heavily on his career. No way does he get that lift if the Spurs lose the finals.

[G35]

It's really not but it holds true for Duncan. He's not the only example but he's a prime example. I mean there are ppl who will argue until they are blue that Duncan was robbed of the 2007 FMVP. That's man.


He's a great player, top to player for sure. Great two way player. I just don't see him as any higher than #7 in my book. But these lists are all subjective so.....

I would have given Duncan the FMVP as well. This is an example of looking at the top scorer and thinking that was the biggest difference maker. The reason why the Spurs swept the Cavs was not because of their offense but because they held Lebron to 22 pts on 36% shooting/TS% .429. Parker was not the reason Lebron got held down.

I know people think that Bruce Bowen was the reason why Lebron got held down but Duncan was by far the Spurs best defensive player that series. He was the one meeting Lebron at the rim and altering his shots. This is another reason how some players are not perceived in that favorable light. If it was KG, then he would be the one holding the whole defense together, but because it's Duncan it's all about his teammates and how much they are carrying Duncan, perception is everything.....

The Spurs played Lebron well because they played great TEAM defense. No one man can be credited with that. In a series that lacks scoring, performances like Parker's will definitely stand out more. In 2 close wins in Cleveland:

Duncan: 10-32 FGs with a total of 26 pts

vs

Tony Parker 17-31 FGs with a total of 41 points

Yep, the Spurs was good and it's all because of Duncan. Have you noticed when the Spurs stopped being a top 3 defense annually? When Duncan slipped on the defensive end. Parker has done nothing to help the Spurs defense. He also took advantage of an overmatched Boobie Gibson, those close wins were there because Lebron couldn't get to the rim.

G1
Duncan 24 pts, 13 reb, 5 blk, 2 stl, ORtg 128/DRtg 83

Parker 27 pts, 7 ast, 2 stl, ORtg 108/DRtg 97

G2
Duncan 23 pts, 9 reb, 8 ast, ORtg 140/DRtg 109

Parker 30 pts, 2 ast, 1 stl, ORtg 129/DRtg 109

G3
Duncan 14 pts, 9 reb, 2 blk, ORtg 84/DRtg 83

Parker 17 pts, 5 reb, 3 ast, ORtg 86/DRtg 95

G4
Duncan 12 pts, 15 reb, 2 blk, 2 stl, ORtg 65/DRtg 86

Parker 24 pts, 1 ast, 7 reb, ORtg 120/DRtg 98


I say Duncan outplayed Parker on the both offensive and defensive ends in games 1 and 2. In game 3 it's about a wash, and game 4 Parker played ok offensively but Ginobli was even better.

What I like to point out is how poor Parker is as a point guard. Remember this isn't the SA offense of 2014 and Parker is horrible at distributing the ball. How do you have only 13 assists in four games? That's a three assist per game average. The Spurs offense was never dynamic with Parker in control, the Spurs did not win because of Parker's offense, as I said Ginobli had 27 pts in that final game. They won because of their defense and Parker was not even one of their five best defenders. Their best defender was Duncan and he should have gotten the FMVP but as his nature he didn't try for it and was willing to defer to his teammates.....

[Shot Clock]

Have you noticed when the Spurs stopped being a top 3 defense annually?

I know..I know...

Bowen's last year when he went to the bench. Then he retired and they slipped further.

[ChiTown6rings]

Have you noticed when the Spurs stopped being a top 3 defense annually?

I know..I know...

Bowen's last year when he went to the bench. Then he retired and they slipped further.

It's posts like G35's that feed into the little criticism that ppl do have of Duncan and his legacy. it's all one-sided with little logic as support.

[Jimmy Recard]

It is very important to go to a franchise that never won because it makes the story line that much better and it also proves that you can win with an organization not known for winning. It shows how pure you are in doing this. That isn't the case if you go to the Lakers.

That's your problem right there, this is not ESPN. The latter doesn't prove anything. MJ didn't win until Bulls got him the right pieces and PJ. They were a great organization during MJ's reign. at the purity point. It also depends if you think MJ is the GOAT anyway, some have KAJ or BR as the GOAT and they have a point as well.

Yeah but we are talking about Tim Duncan here and what he did for the Spurs franchise means he is underrated not overrated. But no matter how much you get proven wrong you keep coming back for more.

This post killed me. I don't think i've ever seen you prove someone wrong since i started posting here

[PaulieWal]

That's your problem right there, this is not ESPN. The latter doesn't prove anything. MJ didn't win until Bulls got him the right pieces and PJ. They were a great organization during MJ's reign. at the purity point. It also depends if you think MJ is the GOAT anyway, some have KAJ or BR as the GOAT and they have a point as well.

Yeah but we are talking about Tim Duncan here and what he did for the Spurs franchise means he is underrated not overrated. But no matter how much you get proven wrong you keep coming back for more.

This post killed me. I don't think i've ever seen you prove someone wrong since i started posting here

That was also a sneaky edit, that line wasn't there when I replied to him initially.

[nonjokegetter]

Look at it this way. Duncan was moved up three spots in three years. That's moving up one spot in the top ten for each year. And two of those years were meh.

The title was a reminder of how great a player he is and caused people to reflect more heavily on his career. No way does he get that lift if the Spurs lose the finals.

One rank, in the top ten, for 2012, 2013, and 2014. That's quite impressive!

[CountTheirRings]

Recency bias, and I find also partially a product of the fact that he belongs to the most efficient organization in the NBA. Gregg Popovich is the most impactful coach in the NBA hands down. Yeah, Duncan's top 10 because his accolades and prime stats justify it. But personally, I rank Kobe over him, which is a preposterous proposition to most analysts on these forums.

[Texas Chuck]

So much logic fail itt.

Their premise: Duncan only moved up because of recency bias.

Yet he was still playing and able to increase his case to move up. Now they disagree with the mountains of evidence showing just how good he's been since the last project, but that's their right and really I have no problem with it. However they also ignore that the panel has changed, that the people participating in both years might have valid reasons for changing their opinion, some new data that is available now that wasn't then, and the really big one imo: two of the guys he passed have longevity issues. At some point even if one thinks Magic and Bird to be superior players to Duncan the fact that he has more than 10k more minutes gets harder and harder to ignore. Now might there be a tiny bit of recency bias? Sure, but to continue to insist that's the only factor or the key factor is mindboggling.

But they didn't bother to respond when I pointed out that Shaq also moved up, yet didn't play another minute, nor did the other guys ahead of him. So what's the deal there? So that alone is proof that not all of the changes to the list could possibly be recency bias. But not only did Shaq move up, but so did KAJ. Must be recency bias! Oh wait, do you mean to tell me Wilt moved up also? Damn this recency bias is out of control.

We get it. You think Duncan is too high. Great. But at least stop with the recency bias nonsense already.

[nonjokegetter]

"There's no way a subconscious process could've effected me subconsciously!"

[JeepCSC]

He is a top 10 player, and for me in the top 2 for players post-Jordan. As for the exact all-time rating, I guess that is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't quibble if someone had him top 5 even if I couldn't pull that trigger.

[Sedale Threatt]

So much logic fail itt.

Their premise: Duncan only moved up because of recency bias.

Yet he was still playing and able to increase his case to move up. Now they disagree with the mountains of evidence showing just how good he's been since the last project, but that's their right and really I have no problem with it. However they also ignore that the panel has changed, that the people participating in both years might have valid reasons for changing their opinion, some new data that is available now that wasn't then, and the really big one imo: two of the guys he passed have longevity issues. At some point even if one thinks Magic and Bird to be superior players to Duncan the fact that he has more than 10k more minutes gets harder and harder to ignore. Now might there be a tiny bit of recency bias? Sure, but to continue to insist that's the only factor or the key factor is mindboggling.

But they didn't bother to respond when I pointed out that Shaq also moved up, yet didn't play another minute, nor did the other guys ahead of him. So what's the deal there? So that alone is proof that not all of the changes to the list could possibly be recency bias. But not only did Shaq move up, but so did KAJ. Must be recency bias! Oh wait, do you mean to tell me Wilt moved up also? Damn this recency bias is out of control.

We get it. You think Duncan is too high. Great. But at least stop with the recency bias nonsense already.

Yup, well said. There's actual evidence to back up why one would elevate Duncan, especially if you had him as basically a coin flip with one or more of the players he passed (Shaq), with historic longevity compared to some others (Bird, Magic), and a couple of us have actually taken the time to spell it out. Instead of, say, standing in the corner, sticking fingers in ears and not contributing much of anything outside of "la-la-la-la, recency bias, la-la-la-la..." I mean, is that a factor? You'd be dumb to say no. But to say that's ALL it is -- even dumber.

[nonjokegetter]

Anyone who said that's all it is, raise their hand please.

[Texas Chuck]

Anyone who said that's all it is, raise their hand please.

considering that you and Laimbeer have said it multiple times(you like a half-dozen or more) I think you can understand our annoyance. Especially when you refuse to acknowledge all the other possible reasons given. But I'll give you full credit, I normally don't let guys who just want to troll pull me this far off-sides and you managed to do so. So mission accomplished for you.

[nonjokegetter]

Anyone who said that's all it is, raise their hand please.

considering that you and Laimbeer have said it multiple times(you like a half-dozen or more) I think you can understand our annoyance. Especially when you refuse to acknowledge all the other possible reasons given. But I'll give you full credit, I normally don't let guys who just want to troll pull me this far off-sides and you managed to do so. So mission accomplished for you.

Multiple times we've said recency bias is probably in action. Multiple times you've whined "no it isn't!". Just stop. Go sit in the corner.

[JordansBulls]

That's your problem right there, this is not ESPN. The latter doesn't prove anything. MJ didn't win until Bulls got him the right pieces and PJ. They were a great organization during MJ's reign. at the purity point. It also depends if you think MJ is the GOAT anyway, some have KAJ or BR as the GOAT and they have a point as well.

Yeah but we are talking about Tim Duncan here and what he did for the Spurs franchise means he is underrated not overrated. But no matter how much you get proven wrong you keep coming back for more.

This post killed me. I don't think i've ever seen you prove someone wrong since i started posting here

How so? I always prove people wrong.

[bondom34]

Anyone who said that's all it is, raise their hand please.

considering that you and Laimbeer have said it multiple times(you like a half-dozen or more) I think you can understand our annoyance. Especially when you refuse to acknowledge all the other possible reasons given. But I'll give you full credit, I normally don't let guys who just want to troll pull me this far off-sides and you managed to do so. So mission accomplished for you.

Multiple times we've said recency bias is probably in action. Multiple times you've whined "no it isn't!". Just stop. Go sit in the corner.

I've been reading this thread, and agree with him frankly. If two players are close in ranking, and one is still playing, his moving ahead of the other player isn't recency bias, its an increase in his legacy due to longevity.

[nonjokegetter]

I get that longevity is a great thing. KAJ is my GOAT partially because of it. But if someone was sitting here in 2011 saying "Ya know, Duncan is close to Bird, behind Shaq and Magic" he'd have to have been REALLY close for these three years to be enough to vault him over. Like...infinitesimally close. If he wasn't, we have one of two things in play: giving him props due to his resume and not actually his play, or you're seeing his entire career in a better light because he just won.

Recency/winners bias in the NBA is IMMENSE. Just look at how often the best player on the championship team is considered, after the fact, to have been the best player that year.

[bondom34]

I disagree, TD just put up 15/10 with 7 WS for a full season followed by 16/9 for a playoff run to win a title. If he was reasonably close to whoever you had a spot or two ahead of him, I'd say it makes perfect sense he jumps ahead. There aren't a ton of guys who've done that at age 37. It adds to legacy, hence the move.

[Sedale Threatt]

I disagree, TD just put up 15/10 with 7 WS for a full season followed by 16/9 for a playoff run to win a title. If he was reasonably close to whoever you had a spot or two ahead of him, I'd say it makes perfect sense he jumps ahead. There aren't a ton of guys who've done that at age 37. It adds to legacy, hence the move.

If you take both ends of the court into account -- Kareem really fell off on D and rebounding into his mid and late 30s, and Malone was not an anchor -- you can make a good case that nobody's done it.