Has Tim Duncan become somewhat overrated?

[ThaRegul8r]

Hockey is the only one of the major professional sports that awards an MVP for the entire playoffs with the Conn Smythe Trophy.

Which is what I prefer.

In which case you could have said that you would prefer it if the NBA instituted hockey's playoff MVP. Then you would be referencing the one real life example of a major sport that does it, and indicating that you like that over the baseball/basketball/football format of a championship series/game MVP.

[ThaRegul8r]

Hockey is the only one of the major professional sports that awards an MVP for the entire playoffs with the Conn Smythe Trophy.

Which is what I prefer.

me too. Tho the Super Bowl one doesn't bother me quite as much since each round is just a one-off. And at least in baseball they have some kind of award for both the ALCS and the NLCS.

But in almost every case the FMVP and the PMVP would be the same guy and I think most people can figure out that Duncan was better than Parker overall in 07 or whatever.

I don't particularly care, as I look at how a player helps his team through his play, which I don't need an award to evaluate, but since I collect the information, this was discussion on the 2007 Finals MVP through the first three games:

Who's your Finals MVP (so far)?

Greg Anthony, ESPN: Tim Duncan. Yes, Tony Parker has scored more than anyone else. But Duncan is the guy that dominates both ends. He's the only one averaging a double-double and, let's face it, the reason we haven't seen any of LeBron's high-flying spectacular plays is because of a certain someone manning the paint.

Henry Abbott, TrueHoop: Tim Duncan. He defines the Spurs' defense and makes or facilitates a huge percentage of their points. I appreciate John Hollinger's case for Tony Parker as co-MVP of the Finals. Pending what happens in the rest of the series, I think that would undersell Duncan. Admit that if you were Coach Gregg Popovich and had to face the Cavs in a seven-game series without one of those two players, Parker would be on the bench, right?

Chris Broussard, ESPN Mag: Tony Parker's the MVP. That's no slight on Duncan at all, and I'll be the first to insist, "The Spurs are still Tim Duncan's team!'' But Parker's penetration and clutch shooting (the big Game 2 layups, the big 3-pointer in Game 3) have been the keys this series. For those who think a superstar must always win the Finals MVP award, do your homework: When Larry Bird won his first title in 1981, Cornbread Maxwell was the Finals MVP.

Ric Bucher, ESPN Mag: Tim Duncan. As terrific as it is to see Tony Parker prove himself in an NBA Finals, what the Spurs (Tony included) do begins and ends with Duncan. A vote in their locker room wouldn't be close.

John Hollinger, ESPN.com: I realize this is something of a cop-out, but we may need co-MVPs here. Tony Parker's ability to break down Cleveland off the dribble has been devastating, but Tim Duncan has been equally important with his defensive superiority, his passing out of double-teams, and his somewhat overlooked scoring. I'll go for whomever plays better in Game 4.

Chris Sheridan, ESPN: At this point I have to go with Tony Parker, although it's a tough call between Parker and Tim Duncan. But to me, it comes down to the matchup disparity at the point guard spot, and how huge of an advantage that has been to San Antonio.

Marc Stein, ESPN: Tim Duncan. Because I'm the last guy who can get away with voting for Bruce Bowen ... and because Duncan's mere presence helped Tony Parker get loose in the first two games ... and because defense is winning this championship. We all know the Spurs' D is built around TD.

link

The consensus was 4-2-1 for Duncan before Game 4. Stein actually voted for the Finals MVP, and officially voted the same way he did during the discussion. But here's a look at a discussion that went on at the time rather than years after the fact.

[magicmerl]

It's as relevant an accolade as All star game MVP.

Flawed as it is in my eyes, I definitely don't agree with that. The Finals is at least a real competition, with massive stakes. ASG is just a one-off exhibition game.

If we were to go back and look at the ASG MVP vs finals MVP from say, 2000 - 2010, which would you say was a list of better players?

(I'm not saying this because I know in advance, let's go on a journey of discovery together)

Tim Duncan
Allen Iverson
Kobe Bryant
Kevin Garnett
Shaquille O'Neal
Allen Iverson
LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
Shaquille O'Neal
Dwyane Wade

Kobe Bryant
Kobe Bryant
Paul Pierce
Tony Parker
Dwyane Wade
Tim Duncan
Chauncey Billups
Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'Neal
Shaquille O'Neal
Shaquille O'Neal

Which list seems more impressive to you?

[Sedale Threatt]

It's as relevant an accolade as All star game MVP.

Flawed as it is in my eyes, I definitely don't agree with that. The Finals is at least a real competition, with massive stakes. ASG is just a one-off exhibition game.

If we were to go back and look at the ASG MVP vs finals MVP from say, 2000 - 2010, which would you say was a list of better players?

(I'm not saying this because I know in advance, let's go on a journey of discovery together)

Tim Duncan
Allen Iverson
Kobe Bryant
Kevin Garnett
Shaquille O'Neal
Allen Iverson
LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
Shaquille O'Neal
Dwyane Wade

Kobe Bryant
Kobe Bryant
Paul Pierce
Tony Parker
Dwyane Wade
Tim Duncan
Chauncey Billups
Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'Neal
Shaquille O'Neal
Shaquille O'Neal

Which list seems more impressive to you?

Yeah, but that's not really the issue, is it? The ASG is going to have more impressive names by definition of what it is. With unusual exceptions, the participants are all HOFers and high-level players. So it doesn't really tell us anything. Once is a one-off exhibition game renowned for its lack of structure and effort from the players compared to a 7-game series with the end result of an entire season hanging in the balance. It's like comparing a music video to a Kubrick film.

[nonjokegetter]

lol yes, because I'm not conflating team success and overall ability...which conveniently brings us back Duncan recently winning and his overall ability being appreciated more.

But consider me shocked someone would say a player's best season was when the team he was on won. Simply shocked.

I suspect you just looked at Zach's totals to say that's his best season and not 2011. No way anyone following Portland at the time would say that.
Anyway, this explains why Timmeh's seasons are unimpressive and you're not sold on his ranking.

I suspect you just didn't look. I'm not sure why you're focused on just one season anyway. Does a prime consist of just one season? So what's your point?

Zach Randolph at his offensive prime dwarfed Duncan's offensive output the last three years, that's not debatable, so I'm super curious as to why you debated it.

[Darren_Errman]

A beast on defense.

A beast on offense. Well at least in his prime.

Don't let regular season numbers fool you. Duncan was never about getting his stats.

Check out his playoff numbers.

From 1997 to 2007, these were his playoffs scoring averages: 28ppg, 27ppg, 26ppg, 25ppg, 25ppg, 24ppg, 24ppg, 23ppg, 22ppg

[Laimbeer]

However they also ignore that the panel has changed

Had to extract this little morsel because I think it's a big factor. There are about 15 people participating. That's not only a small fraction of realgm (and a small fraction of the PC forum for that matter) but the players have changed. I only see three posters - penbeast, Doctor MJ, and JordansBulls - who happened to be participating in the last project around this point. It's like an 80% turnover. Run a parallel project with 15 different guys right now, you'll get rankings that are quite different.

[Texas Chuck]

However they also ignore that the panel has changed

Had to extract this little morsel because I think it's a big factor. There are about 15 people participating. That's not only a small fraction of realgm (and a small fraction of the PC forum for that matter) but the players have changed. I only see three posters - penbeast, Doctor MJ, and JordansBulls - who happened to be participating in the last project around this point. It's like an 80% turnover. Run a parallel project with 15 different guys right now, you'll get rankings that are quite different.

to be more accurate tho, there were more than 15 when Duncan was voted in.

But your comments again speak to my initial responses to these types of threads--joining the project would be beneficial. Criticizing those people actively participating isn't particularly beneficial.

[nonjokegetter]

I don't think there's really anything beneficial about a player ranking project on the internet, really. At least, saying there's an issue with it is just as beneficial as making it, no?

Not everyone has the time to be part of it. Would it be somehow better if someone joined but couldn't often contribute?

[Shot Clock]

When a list gets made by a small subset of people and get's called the "Realgm Top 100" you are bound to draw crticism. If someone wants to make a thread about one player who has jumped significantly in these rankings it's a perfectly valid topic. Call the list something that doesn't seem to imply you represent the global perspective of the board and you draw less fire.

I don't participate in these for many reasons. I find it really hard to rank players below about number 10 or so. I don't feel I'm qualified to really debate players before my time. I don't have the time to spend on it to make a real contribution. And last but not least I don't value team success as highly as most do unless the individual has a clearly defined case as the driving force behind that success. I don't buy into the intangibles arguments at all, it just becomes a weak way to apply support to whatever side your argument is on.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I suspect you just didn't look. I'm not sure why you're focused on just one season anyway. Does a prime consist of just one season? So what's your point?

Zach Randolph at his offensive prime dwarfed Duncan's offensive output the last three years, that's not debatable, so I'm super curious as to why you debated it.

I'm debating exactly that, Randolph offensive impact was actually limited, especially in 2007.
His ORAPM was +1.5, that is more or less were Duncan's has been over the last few years, while Timmeh's defense was just on another planet.
And I'm debating this because you're using premises that nobody accepted (old Duncan = prime Zach) to negate the reasoning behind Duncan's growth in the rankings thanks to these extra seasons.
If you say A implies B the best way to contest your B conclusion is saying that A is BS, as myself and others have been repeating.

Anyway, 2011 Zach was a better offensive player than 2007 Zach.

[nonjokegetter]

Ahhh, the temple of RAPM, trumping all other metrics and measures. I threw out Randolph as an example: Duncan has not been playing at a superstar level for the last three years, more at an all star level. Again, is this debatable?

[G35]

Ahhh, the temple of RAPM, trumping all other metrics and measures. I threw out Randolph as an example: Duncan has not been playing at a superstar level for the last three years, more at an all star level. Again, is this debatable?

What does that have to do with his ranking? I don't think Duncan has been at a superstar level since Popovich started managing his minutes in preparation for the playoffs. That does not mean he can't produce superstar performances. I thought Duncan had slipped for good about three years ago but he has transformed himself and his game where his impact is still on a superstar level. And I still do not think there is a big in the NBA currently that could duplicate what Duncan did last year. I know people think impact numbers are a one for one thing but that is unrealistic or practical thinking.....

[nonjokegetter]

Ahhh, the temple of RAPM, trumping all other metrics and measures. I threw out Randolph as an example: Duncan has not been playing at a superstar level for the last three years, more at an all star level. Again, is this debatable?

What does that have to do with his ranking?

Because, as I've said many times now, I don't think he was close enough to Shaq and Magic for three normal All-Star level seasons to bridge that gap.

I think we all know you're a RINNNNGGGGZZZZ guy so him being on a great team will do well for you. Not so for others.

[Clyde Frazier]

I don't think there's really anything beneficial about a player ranking project on the internet, really. At least, saying there's an issue with it is just as beneficial as making it, no?

Not everyone has the time to be part of it. Would it be somehow better if someone joined but couldn't often contribute?

The project is quite beneficial in that it creates new discussion. I think most of us contributing throughout the project have learned a lot about different players. Also, there are a handful of posters who are contributing without voting, so it's not a requirement participate.

Sure, this duncan thread creates "discussion", too, but I think it's been more negative than positive. As others have said, the voting pool was different this year compared to 2011. That plays a major role in the results…

[G35]

Ahhh, the temple of RAPM, trumping all other metrics and measures. I threw out Randolph as an example: Duncan has not been playing at a superstar level for the last three years, more at an all star level. Again, is this debatable?

What does that have to do with his ranking?

Because, as I've said many times now, I don't think he was close enough to Shaq and Magic for three normal All-Star level seasons to bridge that gap.

I think we all know you're a RINNNNGGGGZZZZ guy so him being on a great team will do well for you. Not so for others.

First off, what is the gap since these last three seasons when Duncan has been above All Star level.


PER
2012 22.5
2013 24.4
2014 21.3

ORtg/DRtg
2012 108/99
2013 107/95
2014 106/98

USG
2012 26.2
2013 27.8
2014 25.2

Duncan's 2013 season is comparable to Magics 1991 reg/playoff season and any season Shaq had past 2005. In fact Shaq was subpar in the playoffs after he left the Lakers. He had an ORtg of 99 in the 2005 playoffs and never exceeded 102 for the rest of his career and on defense there is no comparison. Magic was far more effective on offense than Duncan but that is countered by Duncan's dominance on defense compared to Magic.

This is without making RINNGGGZZZZ any part of the argument. The ring is just a stamp in your face that Duncan excelled while still being part of a championship team, which is an argument that can't be used by everyone.......

[nonjokegetter]

lol a stamp in my face?

[Laimbeer]

I don't think there's really anything beneficial about a player ranking project on the internet, really.

There's nothing really beneficial about anything we do here.

[Laimbeer]

When a list gets made by a small subset of people and get's called the "Realgm Top 100" you are bound to draw crticism. If someone wants to make a thread about one player who has jumped significantly in these rankings it's a perfectly valid topic. Call the list something that doesn't seem to imply you represent the global perspective of the board and you draw less fire.

I don't participate in these for many reasons. I find it really hard to rank players below about number 10 or so. I don't feel I'm qualified to really debate players before my time. I don't have the time to spend on it to make a real contribution. And last but not least I don't value team success as highly as most do unless the individual has a clearly defined case as the driving force behind that success. I don't buy into the intangibles arguments at all, it just becomes a weak way to apply support to whatever side your argument is on.

This is fair and a great post, perhaps thread worthy. It's an awfully small slice to claim "realgm top 100".

[bondom34]

I don't think there's really anything beneficial about a player ranking project on the internet, really.

There's nothing really beneficial about anything we do here.

In the end, its just a game, and really, everything we (at least I) do here isn't beneficial to anyone but my own sanity. Its just talking about hoops.