Tim Duncan's GOAT candidacy

[rebirthoftheM]

Duncan's GOAT credentials have been increasingly touted on this forum, although gaining traction no where else. Folks have touched upon it here and there, but to those who posit Duncan was the GOAT, what are your detailed reasons? Why Duncan over other GOAT candidates (MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Russell)?

I've been confused with this sudden surge, due to Duncan's underwhelming offense (relative to most other GOAT candidates/top 10 players of all time) and the fact that Duncan was only the best player in 2 of his 5 championship runs (IMO Drob was better in 99, and taking into account impact metrics+ box score metrics in the reg. season and playoffs, Gino in 05, and 14- MVP by committee). I have a hard time then believing that Duncan is a legit GOAT candidate, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't have him as GOAT but:
- longevity wise he's in the Kareem area;
- He was able to adapt to other roles other than being the #1 on the team. That's not for all superstars to do;
- His defensive impact was tremendous. MJ is usually considered the GOAT, but Duncan's defensive presence was better than MJ's;
- His 2003 campaign was out of this world. Winning with that cast has to be a great boost on his legacy. His individual performance in the playoffs was a joy to watch.

I think these might be some reasons for someone to have Duncan as GOAT. High emphasis on defense, longevity, adaptation to other roles or ability to coexist with almost every type of player on the court. I don't think there is a player I can't see coexisting with Duncan at good level.

[Ambrose]

I'm firmly against saying Tim Duncan is the GOAT but he's a remarkably easy player to build around. Throw him on any team and you'll have success for a long time regardless of who you surround him with.

[TheSheriff]

He is not the GOAT, nor a GOAT candidate. When a GOAT in a sport is active, you know it. When Jordan was playing you knew that he was one of the greatest of all time, probably the greatest. Same with Gretzky in hockey, Pele in soccer, Ruth in baseball, and Brady in football.

[mischievous]

You think Duncan was only the best player on 2/5 of his championships ? It's easier to make a case he was the best on all 5 than 2. I don't think he has much of a case for GOAT, it's hard to make that case when your peak and prime isn't even top 5.

[NO-KG-AI]

He has no case for GOAT really. It's weird that so much has been added to his "GOAT" legacy during years where he's playing restricted minutes, as a non superstar level player. He's played during a time span where 2 players were noticeably better for a not insignificant amount of time, and has only a few years where he was even the best player in the league, and not even by some big margin. This is kinda crazy IMO.

[rebirthoftheM]

You think Duncan was only the best player on 2/5 of his championships ? It's easier to make a case he was the best on all 5 than 2. I don't think he has much of a case for GOAT, it's hard to make that case when your peak and prime isn't even top 5.

Yeah, I think a much stronger argument can be made that he was 2/5 rather than 5/5. Drob was still a great player in 99, and swept pretty much all the box score metrics in the reg season, although we don't have impact metrics for that season (Drob was considered a high impact player anyways, so wouldn't be surprised if he was better than Duncan in this respect). In the playoffs, Duncan had a higher VORP (+0.3), OBPM(+1.9) TS (+1%) and PER (+1.7) but Drob had the edge in DPBM (+2.5), BPM (+0.7), WS/48 and had a much lower usage rate. Again, I'm not much of a box score person, but given we know Drob was a high impact player, I'm going to assume his impact was still big in the playoffs. I think when you combine reg season and playoffs, Drob has the stronger argument.

With respect to 05, Manu legitimately had a superstar season. His basic box score stats did not look that impressive, but his RAPM was right there with Duncan, and in the playoffs he blitzed the league. Equivalent PER, much higher TS% and OBPM in the playoffs, doubled TD in BPM and higher VORP whilst using the ball less.

Also, I'm an impact guy, particularly offensive impact, and Manu had great offensive impact that season. I'd give Manu 05...

14 is a little confusing. I can't see a clear argument for TD, taking into account impact and box score metrics in reg season+ playoffs, but I'm not sure whether a definite MVP existed that season for the Spurs. Perhaps you can explain why. Is it that Duncan was still the 'cornerstone' of the spurs franchise?

I don't have him as GOAT but:
- longevity wise he's in the Kareem area;
- He was able to adapt to other roles other than being the #1 on the team. That's not for all superstars to do;
- His defensive impact was tremendous. MJ is usually considered the GOAT, but Duncan's defensive presence was better than MJ's;
- His 2003 campaign was out of this world. Winning with that cast has to be a great boost on his legacy. His individual performance in the playoffs was a joy to watch.

I think these might be some reasons for someone to have Duncan as GOAT. High emphasis on defense, longevity, adaptation to other roles or ability to coexist with almost every type of player on the court. I don't think there is a player I can't see coexisting with Duncan at good level.

Good post, and I know they might not be your positions but will still respond to them. The longevity argument is a big one, and helps his candidacy for sure.

But the ability to adapt to other roles other than being a #1? The issue with that, is that some of these players, by virtue of their individual dominance, could never be a #2 or a #3 on a team. Their offense was too good, as to be rendered less effective by being made a #2. Duncan meanwhile was not a GOAT offensive player, and therefore his ability to adapt came with less costs.I mean we could speculate, but that seems unfair to give Duncan an advantage that was not afforded to others. Let's take LBJ and Jordan... could we seriously envision a team that they would not be a #1 option on? Unless the suggestion is that Jordan or MJ would retire before they were faced with the circumstance of having to adapt due to their declining abilities?

The defensive argument is true (in that he was a great defender), but there are many people who would put Hakeem and KG right there with Duncan as a defender, and the evidence out there indicates that Duncan was not necessarily in a class of his own on D. Yet you rarely here GOAT arguments for Hakeem and KG, presumably because they didn't win as much. Also, was Duncan's defense> MJ or Lebron's offense?

The 2003 run was excellent, but I can't see how it was more special than 16 LBJ or Hakeem 95. In short, the 2003 run was not unique IMO. The spurs were an excellently coached team, and had the right pieces surrounding their superstar. In fact one might argue LBJ's 2016 run was more impressive as his team was neither well coached, nor were they the best fit for LBJ and he beat a 73 win team. I can't see 2003 giving Duncan separation in these GOAT debates.

[rebirthoftheM]

He has no case for GOAT really. It's weird that so much has been added to his "GOAT" legacy during years where he's playing restricted minutes, as a non superstar level player. He's played during a time span where 2 players were noticeably better for a not insignificant amount of time, and has only a few years where he was even the best player in the league, and not even by some big margin. This is kinda crazy IMO.

I assume you meant Shaq and KG.... why do you think KG> Duncan?

[NO-KG-AI]

He has no case for GOAT really. It's weird that so much has been added to his "GOAT" legacy during years where he's playing restricted minutes, as a non superstar level player. He's played during a time span where 2 players were noticeably better for a not insignificant amount of time, and has only a few years where he was even the best player in the league, and not even by some big margin. This is kinda crazy IMO.

I assume you meant Shaq and KG.... why do you think KG> Duncan?

I mean Shaq and LeBron.

[Joao Saraiva]

You think Duncan was only the best player on 2/5 of his championships ? It's easier to make a case he was the best on all 5 than 2. I don't think he has much of a case for GOAT, it's hard to make that case when your peak and prime isn't even top 5.

Yeah, I think a much stronger argument can be made that he was 2/5 rather than 5/5. Drob was still a great player in 99, and swept pretty much all the box score metrics in the reg season, although we don't have impact metrics for that season (Drob was considered a high impact player anyways, so wouldn't be surprised if he was better than Duncan in this respect). In the playoffs, Duncan had a higher VORP (+0.3), OBPM(+1.9) TS (+1%) and PER (+1.7) but Drob had the edge in DPBM (+2.5), BPM (+0.7), WS/48 and had a much lower usage rate. Again, I'm not much of a box score person, but given we know Drob was a high impact player, I'm going to assume his impact was still big in the playoffs. I think when you combine reg season and playoffs, Drob has the stronger argument.

With respect to 05, Manu legitimately had a superstar season. His basic box score stats did not look that impressive, but his RAPM was right there with Duncan, and in the playoffs he blitzed the league. Equivalent PER, much higher TS% and OBPM in the playoffs, doubled TD in BPM and higher VORP whilst using the ball less.

Also, I'm an impact guy, particularly offensive impact, and Manu had great offensive impact that season. I'd give Manu 05...

14 is a little confusing. I can't see a clear argument for TD, taking into account impact and box score metrics in reg season+ playoffs, but I'm not sure whether a definite MVP existed that season for the Spurs. Perhaps you can explain why. Is it that Duncan was still the 'cornerstone' of the spurs franchise?

I don't have him as GOAT but:
- longevity wise he's in the Kareem area;
- He was able to adapt to other roles other than being the #1 on the team. That's not for all superstars to do;
- His defensive impact was tremendous. MJ is usually considered the GOAT, but Duncan's defensive presence was better than MJ's;
- His 2003 campaign was out of this world. Winning with that cast has to be a great boost on his legacy. His individual performance in the playoffs was a joy to watch.

I think these might be some reasons for someone to have Duncan as GOAT. High emphasis on defense, longevity, adaptation to other roles or ability to coexist with almost every type of player on the court. I don't think there is a player I can't see coexisting with Duncan at good level.

Good post, and I know they might not be your positions but will still respond to them. The longevity argument is a big one, and helps his candidacy for sure.

But the ability to adapt to other roles other than being a #1? The issue with that, is that some of these players, by virtue of their individual dominance, could never be a #2 or a #3 on a team. Their offense was too good, as to be rendered less effective by being made a #2. Duncan meanwhile was not a GOAT offensive player, and therefore his ability to adapt came with less costs.I mean we could speculate, but that seems unfair to give Duncan an advantage that was not afforded to others. Let's take LBJ and Jordan... could we seriously envision a team that they would not be a #1 option on? Unless the suggestion is that Jordan or MJ would retire before they were faced with the circumstance of having to adapt due to their declining abilities?

The defensive argument is true (in that he was a great defender), but there are many people who would put Hakeem and KG right there with Duncan as a defender, and the evidence out there indicates that Duncan was not necessarily in a class of his own on D. Yet you rarely here GOAT arguments for Hakeem and KG, presumably because they didn't win as much. Also, was Duncan's defense> MJ or Lebron's offense?

The 2003 run was excellent, but I can't see how it was more special than 16 LBJ or Hakeem 95. In short, the 2003 run was not unique IMO. The spurs were an excellently coached team, and had the right pieces surrounding their superstar. In fact one might argue LBJ's 2016 run was more impressive as his team was neither well coached, nor were they the best fit for LBJ and he beat a 73 win team. I can't see 2003 giving Duncan separation in these GOAT debates.

I agree with your points. I'm playing Duncan's advocate here because OP asked for a criteria or thoughts on how Duncan can be in the hunt for the spot.

I think with Hakeem and KG the difference is longevity, playoff performance (vs KG) and rim protection (vs KG). Against Hakeem it's really the longevity case.

Adapting to other roles I mean when they're not capable of being #1 for example. I don't see Wizards MJ taking a back seat to anyone. Same happened with Kobe on the Lakers. I think LBJ will be able to do it, maybe cause he doesn't have the same scorer mentality MJ or Kobe had. And that's fine, they're diferent players.

However Duncan suited those roles and extended his career being very useful for a ton of years. That can be an argument for him. That's certainly one of mine to prop him up, given he was not just hanging arround the league but being a very good piece in a winning formula. Can't say I have him in contention for GOAT status, but that's just my opinion. Others can see it in a diferent way.

[rebirthoftheM]

You think Duncan was only the best player on 2/5 of his championships ? It's easier to make a case he was the best on all 5 than 2. I don't think he has much of a case for GOAT, it's hard to make that case when your peak and prime isn't even top 5.

Yeah, I think a much stronger argument can be made that he was 2/5 rather than 5/5. Drob was still a great player in 99, and swept pretty much all the box score metrics in the reg season, although we don't have impact metrics for that season (Drob was considered a high impact player anyways, so wouldn't be surprised if he was better than Duncan in this respect). In the playoffs, Duncan had a higher VORP (+0.3), OBPM(+1.9) TS (+1%) and PER (+1.7) but Drob had the edge in DPBM (+2.5), BPM (+0.7), WS/48 and had a much lower usage rate. Again, I'm not much of a box score person, but given we know Drob was a high impact player, I'm going to assume his impact was still big in the playoffs. I think when you combine reg season and playoffs, Drob has the stronger argument.

With respect to 05, Manu legitimately had a superstar season. His basic box score stats did not look that impressive, but his RAPM was right there with Duncan, and in the playoffs he blitzed the league. Equivalent PER, much higher TS% and OBPM in the playoffs, doubled TD in BPM and higher VORP whilst using the ball less.

Also, I'm an impact guy, particularly offensive impact, and Manu had great offensive impact that season. I'd give Manu 05...

14 is a little confusing. I can't see a clear argument for TD, taking into account impact and box score metrics in reg season+ playoffs, but I'm not sure whether a definite MVP existed that season for the Spurs. Perhaps you can explain why. Is it that Duncan was still the 'cornerstone' of the spurs franchise?

I don't have him as GOAT but:
- longevity wise he's in the Kareem area;
- He was able to adapt to other roles other than being the #1 on the team. That's not for all superstars to do;
- His defensive impact was tremendous. MJ is usually considered the GOAT, but Duncan's defensive presence was better than MJ's;
- His 2003 campaign was out of this world. Winning with that cast has to be a great boost on his legacy. His individual performance in the playoffs was a joy to watch.

I think these might be some reasons for someone to have Duncan as GOAT. High emphasis on defense, longevity, adaptation to other roles or ability to coexist with almost every type of player on the court. I don't think there is a player I can't see coexisting with Duncan at good level.

Good post, and I know they might not be your positions but will still respond to them. The longevity argument is a big one, and helps his candidacy for sure.

But the ability to adapt to other roles other than being a #1? The issue with that, is that some of these players, by virtue of their individual dominance, could never be a #2 or a #3 on a team. Their offense was too good, as to be rendered less effective by being made a #2. Duncan meanwhile was not a GOAT offensive player, and therefore his ability to adapt came with less costs.I mean we could speculate, but that seems unfair to give Duncan an advantage that was not afforded to others. Let's take LBJ and Jordan... could we seriously envision a team that they would not be a #1 option on? Unless the suggestion is that Jordan or MJ would retire before they were faced with the circumstance of having to adapt due to their declining abilities?

The defensive argument is true (in that he was a great defender), but there are many people who would put Hakeem and KG right there with Duncan as a defender, and the evidence out there indicates that Duncan was not necessarily in a class of his own on D. Yet you rarely here GOAT arguments for Hakeem and KG, presumably because they didn't win as much. Also, was Duncan's defense> MJ or Lebron's offense?

The 2003 run was excellent, but I can't see how it was more special than 16 LBJ or Hakeem 95. In short, the 2003 run was not unique IMO. The spurs were an excellently coached team, and had the right pieces surrounding their superstar. In fact one might argue LBJ's 2016 run was more impressive as his team was neither well coached, nor were they the best fit for LBJ and he beat a 73 win team. I can't see 2003 giving Duncan separation in these GOAT debates.

I agree with your points. I'm playing Duncan's advocate here because OP asked for a criteria or thoughts on how Duncan can be in the hunt for the spot.

I think with Hakeem and KG the difference is longevity, playoff performance (vs KG) and rim protection (vs KG). Against Hakeem it's really the longevity case.

Adapting to other roles I mean when they're not capable of being #1 for example. I don't see Wizards MJ taking a back seat to anyone. Same happened with Kobe on the Lakers. I think LBJ will be able to do it, maybe cause he doesn't have the same scorer mentality MJ or Kobe had. And that's fine, they're diferent players.

However Duncan suited those roles and extended his career being very useful for a ton of years. That can be an argument for him. That's certainly one of mine to prop him up, given he was not just hanging arround the league but being a very good piece in a winning formula. Can't say I have him in contention for GOAT status, but that's just my opinion. Others can see it in a diferent way.

Yeah, it seemingly comes down to what I would at least consider more peripheral matters- like 'longevity' in restricted minutes as was mentioned above. And I do agree with Jordan not taking a step back, which is why I would think he would retire before such a thing happened. But this is all speculation.

There are also other matters like being consummate leader/teammate that might factor into the Duncan GOAT contention, but again it isn't like the other legitimate GOAT contenders were team destroyers.

[Gus Fring]

I don't think he has a great case for the GOAT, but I think he has and argument over everyone but Jordan and LeBron, especially if LeBron continues as he does.

[Shot Clock]

He has no case for GOAT really. It's weird that so much has been added to his "GOAT" legacy during years where he's playing restricted minutes, as a non superstar level player. He's played during a time span where 2 players were noticeably better for a not insignificant amount of time, and has only a few years where he was even the best player in the league, and not even by some big margin. This is kinda crazy IMO.

Agreed and while his stock rose during a period where his impact waned I had many discussions with his supporters where they claimed he was the anchor of a perennially great defense. I countered that the SAS defense wasn't predicated on his defense but on other sound defensive principles that were ahead of their time and allowed bigs to be even more effective defenders (don't allow your man to penetrate to the middle force them baseline where bigs have an advantage.) I also pointed out that SAS defense stayed great even as Duncan's minutes declined. I did manage to get some to admit that if their anchor theory held true we would see a decline when he left...and SAS is still the best defense in the league and still putting up 60+ wins.

I'm not saying he had no impact, he was a very good defender. But he didn't have goat level defensive impact that suddenly elevates him to the same standing as players that had GOAT level offensive impact and were also among the best defenders at their position. I went back and compared playoff matchups where Duncan had to play a quality offensive opponent in a series. He rarely matched up with them as SAS put someone else on them. When he did it was for short periods. The ones I did find didn't show a defensive impact on their performance.

As for longevity, Duncan certainly wasn't winning Finals MVP's at age 37 like Kareem was. His longevity more closely resembles Parish. But his longevity was obscured by a league full of quality bigs. I never bumped Parish up the list for turning in these quality seasons but I suspect they would have gotten a lot more attention if he was on a quality team during that time.

Duncan's last season vs Parish at the same age, previous years were pretty equal in production at this late stage.

Reg Season

Duncan -12.2p/10.5r/3.8a/1.8b .488 FG%
Parish - 16.7p/12.4r/1a/1.8b .535 FG%

Playoffs
Duncan - 5.9p/4.8r/1.4a/1.3b .423 FG%
Parish - 17p/9.5r/1.3a/1.5b .544 FG%

[jaypo]

I look at these facts- he never repeated as champion, one of his titles came in a lockout season, and one player in his own conference got thru him 3 times during his own 3 peat.

I think Timmy D is the best PF of all time (actually 1a with Malone as 1B), but GOAT- not really. I think he had a tremendous career. But not GOAT worthy.

[jaypo]

I don't think he has a great case for the GOAT, but I think he has and argument over everyone but Jordan and LeBron, especially if LeBron continues as he does.

I don't think he has a case over KAJ (most points ever, titles, skills, better longevity). I don't think he has a case over Bird and Magic (best PG and 2nd best SF in history, titles, skills). I don't think he has a case over Shaq (most dominant in the same era, 3 FMVP's in a row- one of only 2 in history to do so, went thru Duncan's Spurs 3 times during that span). I don't think he has a case over Russell- (11 titles in 13 years, best defensive center ever.) I'd consider ranking him over Wilt if Wilt didn't average 50 and 20, score 100 points, and had more skills than 99% of players that ever played the game.

So add those guys to MJ and Lebron as players that are ahead in the GOAT consideration.

[G35]

Duncan's GOAT credentials have been increasingly touted on this forum, although gaining traction no where else. Folks have touched upon it here and there, but to those who posit Duncan was the GOAT, what are your detailed reasons? Why Duncan over other GOAT candidates (MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Russell)?

I've been confused with this sudden surge, due to Duncan's underwhelming offense (relative to most other GOAT candidates/top 10 players of all time) and the fact that Duncan was only the best player in 2 of his 5 championship runs (IMO Drob was better in 99, and taking into account impact metrics+ box score metrics in the reg. season and playoffs, Gino in 05, and 14- MVP by committee). I have a hard time then believing that Duncan is a legit GOAT candidate, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I fully support it 100%

1. He won. Led the greatest run in team success in pro sports...maybe all sports.
2. Legacy helped to build the Spurs dynasty, kept it going, and the hardest part is he left the Spurs in good position. I can only say that Bill Russell was able to do that.
3. He has the numbers, he performed adequately in the RS, and knew how to turn it up in the PS.
4. He adapted his role to the changing environment. Took the lead role from DRob and successfully won two titles, lead rookies/1st year players to a title, won a title as the aging mentor/veteran helping to groom Kawhi.
5. Made the small markets can't win argument invalid

This is the argument you can make for Duncan against the usual suspects:

Jordan - was able to win titles sooner and over a longer timeline; did not retire on the team, Duncan carried the Spurs when they transitioned to different teams (three times). Longevity is greater, was capable of winning in a variety of roles, greater portability when team success is the goal. Jordan took longer to "figure it out"

Russell - better offensively, both are similar in they did whatever it took to win so stats are not how you judge them, rings/winning they are very similar. However, the modern NBA salary cap, player movement is quite different. Harder to sustain excellence now than in the 60's imo.

Lebron - has a winning record vs Lebron in the finals...(could have been three times but I digress), was able to win a title with minimal talent (2003). People say that Lebron was lucky to get that team in 2007 to the finals, I counter that with the 2003 Spurs and a ring. No excuses. Stayed with a small market team, that was not his hometown, and made them the top franchise over the last 20 years.

Kareem - this is my hardest argument to make since I think both are very similar in that they could adjust their game to whatever was necessary to win. Kareem in the playoffs in 1985 is legendary. Duncan in 2014 was not as good statistically, but when you watch Pau Gasol/LMA and you see how much Duncan brought to those teams. I think they are right next to each other, Kareem is better offensively and Duncan is better defensively. The other edge is I think Duncan aged a little better than Kareem but I have not seen Kareem in a long time so it is hard to say.

Wilt - the biggest argument you can make against Wilt is Duncan made his teams better organically, thus raising the Spurs ceiling to a champion level. Wilt did that intermittently. Honestly, I think Wilt should be ranked higher, but his lack of team success knocks him down......

[Valid]

Duncan's GOAT credentials have been increasingly touted on this forum, although gaining traction no where else. Folks have touched upon it here and there, but to those who posit Duncan was the GOAT, what are your detailed reasons? Why Duncan over other GOAT candidates (MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Russell)?

I've been confused with this sudden surge, due to Duncan's underwhelming offense (relative to most other GOAT candidates/top 10 players of all time) and the fact that Duncan was only the best player in 2 of his 5 championship runs (IMO Drob was better in 99, and taking into account impact metrics+ box score metrics in the reg. season and playoffs, Gino in 05, and 14- MVP by committee). I have a hard time then believing that Duncan is a legit GOAT candidate, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

You lost all credibility with this statement. And Ginobili better than Duncan in '05? Seriously?

[Gus Fring]

I don't think he has a great case for the GOAT, but I think he has and argument over everyone but Jordan and LeBron, especially if LeBron continues as he does.

I don't think he has a case over KAJ (most points ever, titles, skills, better longevity). I don't think he has a case over Bird and Magic (best PG and 2nd best SF in history, titles, skills). I don't think he has a case over Shaq (most dominant in the same era, 3 FMVP's in a row- one of only 2 in history to do so, went thru Duncan's Spurs 3 times during that span). I don't think he has a case over Russell- (11 titles in 13 years, best defensive center ever.) I'd consider ranking him over Wilt if Wilt didn't average 50 and 20, score 100 points, and had more skills than 99% of players that ever played the game.

So add those guys to MJ and Lebron as players that are ahead in the GOAT consideration.

I'll give you Kareem.

Everyone else though I do not agree that Duncan has no argument over them. Duncan accomplished just as much as Magic and Larry while playing on less talented teams and while also having a significant advantage on them in the longevity department. I am also of the belief that Duncan is one of if not the greatest defensive player of all time, which to me also gives him a boost over those two.

Similar things can be said about Shaq, Duncan just had such an edge in longevity and defense over him that it is tough to overlook him. Shaq had the higher peak sure but Duncan won titles while Shaq was in his prime, so I wouldn't say Shaq dominated Duncan during his prime even though he had the 3 peat. It wasn't as if Duncan was just coming up small, Shaq legitimately had a better team usually. Shaq also had a lack luster second half/final third of his career while Duncan never really dropped off, especially defensively. The only argument Shaq has is peak and I just don't think that's enough given Duncan's peak was also great, he won more titles and MVP's, he was better for longer, and he was the much greater defensive player.

It's different ranking Wilt and Russell, I don't know there careers as well. But I always tend to favor the players who dominated in the modern era. Wilt didn't accomplish as much as Duncan and I just don't think Bill Russell was as good a player. Like I said, idk as much about them but I definitely wouldn't say Duncan has no argument over them.

I also think Duncan deserves credit for being the anchor of one of the greatest franchise runs in sports history. I think that's a legitimate accomplishment he has that deserves more mention.

[trex_8063]

Preface by saying that I don't have Duncan as the GOAT (or even in my top 3 presently); but he is one of the [~6-8] players I can see making a reasonable case for.

Let's first note that he's in the neighborhood of many of the other top candidates in objective cumulative career measures (and not far behind MJ in most, as MJ tends to be the sticking point for many).
For example(s), he's:
6th all-time in career rs WS at 206.38 (Stockton #5 at 207.70, MJ #4 at 214.02, Lebron #7 at 205.40)
3rd all-time in career playoff WS at 37.84 (MJ #2 at 39.76, Kareem #4 at 35.56)
*6th all-time in career rs VORP at +89.31 (Barkley *#5 at 93.53 and Kareem *#7 at 86.03, DRob #8 at 80.88) *BPM (and thus VORP) not available for first four seasons of Kareem's career; safe to assume his career total would be ~30 pts higher if we had the numbers for that year, placing him either 1st or 2nd all-time
*3rd all-time in career playoff VORP at +18.59 (MJ is #2 at +22.85, Magic #4 at +17.83) *again, possible or probable that Kareem would slip in ahead (likely at 3rd) if this stat were available for his first four seasons

I've a formula that measures CUMULATIVE value over a roughly replacement-level player (as measured by PER and WS/48) in both rs and playoffs (playoffs weighted at 3.25x the value per minute)........version1 uses raw PER and WS/48, v2 uses my scaled PER and WS/48 values (based on my year-to-year standard deviation studies), v3 is basically v1 except with a subjective assessment of era strength applied; v4 is v2 with era strength assessment applied.
In all versions, Duncan's total career value by this measurement places him somewhere between 3rd and 5th all-time (although, he is behind MJ and Kareem in all versions--->they consistently occupy #'s 1 and 2).

Impact-wise, most available metrics (such as RAPM) suggest his impact was more or less in line with guys whose box-based numbers typically exceeded his (guys like Shaq, Lebron, and to a lesser extent Garnett: guys who are at the tip of the iceberg for their generation as far as box-based metrics).

If we assigned a fair point-system to awards/honors, he'd likely rank around #3-4 all-time, and he's 9th all-time in MVP award shares.

Anyway, all this is just to point out that he's generally "in the mix" among the other top tier greats in all easily-measured things (though yes, typically behind Jordan and Kareem (and frequently Lebron as well)).


So perhaps none of this really gives him super-firm footing as a GOAT candidate.........it more puts him in the neighborhood as a "worthwhile HM".


The '03 narrative (kinda "middle the road" supporting cast which he led to a title with an amazing individual playoff run) helps some, but the additional factor that can more firmly put him in the conversation, imo, is his leadership intangibles--->which in no small part contributed to the closest thing we've seen to a "dynasty" in basketball since Jordan's Bulls.

Popp himself was the most effusive of all in praising and thanking him for his stoic and humble professionalism, his mentoring of other players, his deferential attitude toward Popp, and setting the example of always putting the team first.....and noted how important that was to creating the winning culture the Spurs have enjoyed for literally 2 decades now.
I also remember an interview (from 2014??) of Tony Parker talking about how he was trying to take care of himself and continue to be a continue to be an effective player so that he could help the team win one more title.......not for himself, but rather (his words, not mine) to get one more for Tim.

I mean, how many players garner that kind of loyalty, affection, and dedication from their teammates? Not many, imo.

And then there are the stories of how the Spurs wanted to keep this player and that player and also sign so-and-so, but didn't have the cap-space to do so. So Tim simply says "I'll take less", so that they can make it happen. How many players are that team-oriented? He's the ONLY one I've ever heard of something like that from. And that's an example of him DIRECTLY contributing to the strength of supporting cast and thus their winning/contending potential.


Those are the types of exceedingly singular factors which can (imo) put him in the conversation.
That's my 2c.

[jaypo]

I just don't see how you can rank him ahead of those typically above him in the usual list. MJ-6 for 6, 6 FMVP's, all the numbers, etc. KAJ- leading scorer, same hardware, won with 2 different teams. Magic- best PG ever, part of one of the best teams ever, Bird- same thing.

What puts Shaq over TD in my opinion is the 3 in a row and getting thru Tim's teams directly 3 times while Timmy only went thru Shaq's team twice (once in a lockout year). I also believe that despite his reduced ppg total in the 06 Finals, Shaq did have more of an impact on the Heat's title run in 06 than TD did for his last 2 titles (2nd to last was closer, but last one- TD was at best #3 on that team). For the majority of the years Shaq was on the Lakers while TD was a Spur, Timmy wasn't even the best player in his own conference. Shaq's career stats are better, he has done things that Timmy never did (back to back/3 peat, best playoff record ever (15-1)). I don't put too much stock in the players' twilight years. MJ wasn't exactly an MVP while on the Wizards, but it doesn't hurt his standing on the list.