In SVG We Trust wrote:If Duncan were a laker or celtic, he would be an undeniable Top-5
There's an important distinction we have to make when it comes to players like Tim Duncan. Are we evaluating his talent, or his body of work?
(I consider him more of a C than a PF and I'm not easily convinced otherwise.) I don't know how we can say that Duncan was a bigger talent than Shaq or Wilt. He compares well to Kareem, but there's also Hakeem to consider (who is probably more of a traditional PF than C, but I digress). If there's an argument to be made about his status among four historically great Cs...then how can we say he's a top 5 player of all time, ignoring all other positions?
As far as PFs go, I had typed up a paragraph about hypotheticals with Karl Malone or Charles Barkley having a ring or two, and asking how that changes the calculus. What is the break even point when it comes to rings? What's the margin? How many more rings does a player have to have over another for clear, statistical superiority to lose its advantage? What if Larry Bird was a full-time PF? Did Duncan have a better career? Would we be saying yes, only because of longevity?
Before you tear that ^ down, try this one on for size: Kevin Garnett at his peak was a better player than Tim Duncan at his peak. Duncan has four more championships, and I'm sure he wouldn't trade his career for Garnett's...but I think Garnett was the better player, if push comes to shove.
I think Tim Duncan has had a top five ~*career*~ all time, but have him in the top 10 as a player. Agree? Disagree? Are they one and the same? Do you see the differentiation?