Tim Duncan's GOAT candidacy

[1993Playoffs]

Duncan has no case for GOAT at all imo.

[ThumbsUpBaby]

Tim Duncan only has a case as a possible top-5 player... except as a GOAT.

[Ambrose]

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.

My favorite realGM post ever.

[1993Playoffs]

I think hakeem was a better player than duncan. Just didnt have as good longevity but Id rather Hakeem

[drza]

Duncan's GOAT case is interesting, because it relies upon there being more than one way to evaluate goodness. And, I think, it's best illustrated in a comparison to the current player that's heavy in the GOAT discussion mix: LeBron James.

Duncan vs LeBron

Duncan, at his best, never had the raw impact that LeBron had, at his best. For simplicity and quickness I'm going to refer to their normalized RAPM scores (from DocMJ's spreadsheet), scored yearly. James' scores in 2009 and 2010, his best two seasons, were clearly higher than anything that Duncan ever produced in his career. But, outside of that mega peak when LeBron was leading a pedestrian cast to 60+ wins, LeBron's RAPM scores were very similar to Duncan's (e.g. Duncan's 3rd through 5th best seasons had almost the exact same scores as LeBron's 3rd through 5th best seasons...and the trend continued in the years afterwards).

So, if I were to try to make something of that, what would it be? I would argue that, in the optimal situation, LeBron is able to provide more raw lift to a specific type of team than Duncan is. I think that's a defendable statement.

However, I would argue that LeBron's advantage in this regard is tied to his ability to do so many of the positive things that a team requires for success at a high level, that he's able to lift the floor better than Duncan. However, I could also support the statement that Duncan's greatness was more portable, as well as more scaleable than LeBron's. That Duncan provided stable, historically elite defense as well as positive offensive impact through strong scoring, good passing that allowed him to warp defenses and make life easier on teammates...and that this set of strengths a) allow for Duncan's maximal impact on any reasonably designed supporting cast and b) allow any reasonably designed supporting cast to be maximized by Duncan.

Those are two different concepts, both IMO important to overall basketball greatness, and both areas where Duncan has an advantage over LeBron. Because while we've seen, in Miami and in stint 2 in Cleveland, that LeBron can play with talented teammates to produce a championship caliber team, he a) doesn't provide as much lift to those teams as he did on teams like the 09 - 10 Cavs and b) those teams don't maintain their maximized levels when he's around.

And the reason for that, to me, makes all the sense in the world and relates directly to why LeBron provides more lift than Duncan with weaker casts...that LeBron has his own maximum impact when his remarkable ability to do almost everything that a team needs at a high level is taken advantage of. However, on teams that are progressively better, those teams don't require that LeBron do everything. Whereas Mo Williams was maximized in 2010 by LeBron's ability to create for him, Dwyane Wade in 2011 and Kyrie Irving in 2016 are both able to create on their own. LeBron's historic ability to create is still a huge positive on any team, but it's not pulling from the gutter to the penthouse anymore.

Meanwhile, Duncan's elite defense and non-ball-dominant offense has the same impact on a poor team as it would on a great team...the magnitude doesn't change that much. Thus, on any team with a legitimate chance to contend, Duncan's magnitude of impact looks a LOT like LeBron's magnitude of impact...with very real chances for Duncan's to be larger across the totality of contending circumstances.

Similarly, a team built around (even a physically diminished) Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh...or one built around Kyrie and Kevin Love, would be better than the Heat or the Current Cavs when LeBron sits. It's kind of similar, IMO, to how the '17 Warriors struggled in the immediate aftermath of Kevin Durant's injury before they got used to life without him, then went on a 13-game winning streak. In both cases, the team had learned to exist when built around the star player providing certain things, which caused the other players capable of providing those things to somewhat atrophy. Again, this isn't a knock on LeBron...his talented teams, built around him, have been championship-caliber for almost the last decade with several wins. But, what it is, is an attempt to characterize why his teams scale up to champions but not to the type of historical dominance that we sometimes see in other champions.

And again, I'd argue that this is a place where Duncan has an advantage. That, because his skill set doesn't encroach on anyone else's in any way (e.g. defense is additive, and the threat of scoring with good passing is also additive as either an on- or off-ball threat) nor does it take anything off the table, any reasonably built team around Duncan could maintain their max impact playing with him.

So. I'd argue that LeBron can do more things on the court, and have a higher impact under the right circumstances than Duncan can. But, I'd also argue that Duncan can maintain his individual impact across a larger variety of teams than LeBron can, and that a wider variety of teams can be maximized around Duncan than around LeBron.

How does that influence a GOAT ranking? I'm not sure. Because portability and scalability aren't easily quanitified. Plus, as someone up-thread suggested, it isn't intuitive to essentially reward Duncan for having a style of play that isn't as "dominant" and thus perhaps fits better with other talent. But...I'd actually disagree with that. I DO think that having a game that fits on any team, and that any team can be maximized around, should be rewarded. I DO think those are things that are elements of greatness that are often overlooked or ignored. And, as of May of 2017, those things alone may just be enough for me to convince myself that I'd rather have Duncan over what we've seen so far from LeBron. Or...at the very least, it's an active enough question that I'm still working it through, I'm not convinced that the seemingly consensus answer is definitive, here.

[JordansBulls]

No he lost like 7 series with HCA.

[mysticOscar]

Duncan's GOAT case is interesting, because it relies upon there being more than one way to evaluate goodness. And, I think, it's best illustrated in a comparison to the current player that's heavy in the GOAT discussion mix: LeBron James.

Duncan vs LeBron

Duncan, at his best, never had the raw impact that LeBron had, at his best. For simplicity and quickness I'm going to refer to their normalized RAPM scores (from DocMJ's spreadsheet), scored yearly. James' scores in 2009 and 2010, his best two seasons, were clearly higher than anything that Duncan ever produced in his career. But, outside of that mega peak when LeBron was leading a pedestrian cast to 60+ wins, LeBron's RAPM scores were very similar to Duncan's (e.g. Duncan's 3rd through 5th best seasons had almost the exact same scores as LeBron's 3rd through 5th best seasons...and the trend continued in the years afterwards).

So, if I were to try to make something of that, what would it be? I would argue that, in the optimal situation, LeBron is able to provide more raw lift to a specific type of team than Duncan is. I think that's a defendable statement.

However, I would argue that LeBron's advantage in this regard is tied to his ability to do so many of the positive things that a team requires for success at a high level, that he's able to lift the floor better than Duncan. However, I could also support the statement that Duncan's greatness was more portable, as well as more scaleable than LeBron's. That Duncan provided stable, historically elite defense as well as positive offensive impact through strong scoring, good passing that allowed him to warp defenses and make life easier on teammates...and that this set of strengths a) allow for Duncan's maximal impact on any reasonably designed supporting cast and b) allow any reasonably designed supporting cast to be maximized by Duncan.

Those are two different concepts, both IMO important to overall basketball greatness, and both areas where Duncan has an advantage over LeBron. Because while we've seen, in Miami and in stint 2 in Cleveland, that LeBron can play with talented teammates to produce a championship caliber team, he a) doesn't provide as much lift to those teams as he did on teams like the 09 - 10 Cavs and b) those teams don't maintain their maximized levels when he's around.

And the reason for that, to me, makes all the sense in the world and relates directly to why LeBron provides more lift than Duncan with weaker casts...that LeBron has his own maximum impact when his remarkable ability to do almost everything that a team needs at a high level is taken advantage of. However, on teams that are progressively better, those teams don't require that LeBron do everything. Whereas Mo Williams was maximized in 2010 by LeBron's ability to create for him, Dwyane Wade in 2011 and Kyrie Irving in 2016 are both able to create on their own. LeBron's historic ability to create is still a huge positive on any team, but it's not pulling from the gutter to the penthouse anymore.

Meanwhile, Duncan's elite defense and non-ball-dominant offense has the same impact on a poor team as it would on a great team...the magnitude doesn't change that much. Thus, on any team with a legitimate chance to contend, Duncan's magnitude of impact looks a LOT like LeBron's magnitude of impact...with very real chances for Duncan's to be larger across the totality of contending circumstances.

Similarly, a team built around (even a physically diminished) Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh...or one built around Kyrie and Kevin Love, would be better than the Heat or the Current Cavs when LeBron sits. It's kind of similar, IMO, to how the '17 Warriors struggled in the immediate aftermath of Kevin Durant's injury before they got used to life without him, then went on a 13-game winning streak. In both cases, the team had learned to exist when built around the star player providing certain things, which caused the other players capable of providing those things to somewhat atrophy. Again, this isn't a knock on LeBron...his talented teams, built around him, have been championship-caliber for almost the last decade with several wins. But, what it is, is an attempt to characterize why his teams scale up to champions but not to the type of historical dominance that we sometimes see in other champions.

And again, I'd argue that this is a place where Duncan has an advantage. That, because his skill set doesn't encroach on anyone else's in any way (e.g. defense is additive, and the threat of scoring with good passing is also additive as either an on- or off-ball threat) nor does it take anything off the table, any reasonably built team around Duncan could maintain their max impact playing with him.

So. I'd argue that LeBron can do more things on the court, and have a higher impact under the right circumstances than Duncan can. But, I'd also argue that Duncan can maintain his individual impact across a larger variety of teams than LeBron can, and that a wider variety of teams can be maximized around Duncan than around LeBron.

How does that influence a GOAT ranking? I'm not sure. Because portability and scalability aren't easily quanitified. Plus, as someone up-thread suggested, it isn't intuitive to essentially reward Duncan for having a style of play that isn't as "dominant" and thus perhaps fits better with other talent. But...I'd actually disagree with that. I DO think that having a game that fits on any team, and that any team can be maximized around, should be rewarded. I DO think those are things that are elements of greatness that are often overlooked or ignored. And, as of May of 2017, those things alone may just be enough for me to convince myself that I'd rather have Duncan over what we've seen so far from LeBron. Or...at the very least, it's an active enough question that I'm still working it through, I'm not convinced that the seemingly consensus answer is definitive, here.

I agree that there are so many subjective variables to rate players on. But if u look at the bottom line...Lebrons 3 finals mvps and 7 finals appearances in someway valdiate Lebrons statistical domincance regardless of the issues he may have with fitting his game with other players. Hence overall Lebrons body of work so far has surpassed Duncan in my rankings.

[2klegend]

Top 5 candidates. GOAT, I don't think so.

[THKNKG]

I’m someone who has Duncan top 2, and I’m this close to giving him #1 (or at least co-#1).

My criteria: contribution to winning in any form, impact, scalability, portability, skill, intangibles.

There’s a lot to this, and I hope to open some new conversations, so to start, I’ll list some of the points I would mention in the conversation about him. I will, when possible, seek to compare him to other GOAT contenders, as otherwise, it becomes an advertisement and not a persuasion.

First, I’ll mention some conversation points regarding team numbers.

1. Tim Duncan (along with Bill Russell) is one of the two winningest NBA players ever. Below I’ll include some numbers for the sake of comparison.

Player (RS Win%/PS Win%/Total Win%)

Tim Duncan (.710/.625/.705)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (.688/.65/.683)
Bill Russell (.717/.648/.707)
Michael Jordan (.659/.665/.66)

Ranked, these would be (from best to worst):

RS Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan
PS Win% - Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Duncan
Total Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan

Now, let’s see how many games they played (RS games/PS games/Total games)

Tim Duncan (1392/251/1643)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1560/237/1797)
Bill Russell (963/165/1128)
Michael Jordan (1072/179/1251)

Duncan and Kareem were able to clearly separate themselves from the others in terms of longevity. Kareem played the equivalent of 2 more full RS than Duncan, while Duncan played the equivalent of a full PS championship run more than Kareem. That’s not to mention that Duncan played 400+ more RS games than Russell and 300+ more RS games than Jordan, as well as 80+ more PS games than Russell, and 70+ more PS games than Jordan.

Duncan was able to consistently maintain equal (or better) footing in terms of win percentage compared to these other greats. He did all this while having arguably inferior supporting casts for the majority of his career.

2. Tim Duncan made the Spurs into one of the greatest franchises ever, and the greatest 19 year dynasty ever (plus, the best franchise by winning %).

Spurs total W/L in their history – 2067-1247 (.624)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan on roster – 1072-438 (.710)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan playing – 1001-391 (.720)
Spurs total W/L in their history without Tim Duncan – (.552)

The Spurs are the current leaders in win% for any team, and #10 in total wins. The 9 teams in front of them on that list are all at least 9 years older than them.

This difference in the Spurs before and after Tim means that, since the time he joined the Spurs, their W/L record has increased by a full 7.2%. That’s a substantial impact for a player to have (note: I know he didn’t do this singlehandedly, but he clearly had the foremost impact on the Spurs during the last 19 years; more on that later).

3. Tim Duncan’s intangible leadership ability and humility enabled the blending of two mega-superstars into the start of a dynasty. At the end of his career, his leadership and humility enabled an ease in “passing the torch” to the next superstar, Kawhi.

4. Tim Duncan’s sacrifice as a player for the good of the team enabled them to consistently build contending teams. He took on smaller contracts, and lesser roles in order to better serve the purpose of winning.

5. In the last 20 years, the Spurs have not won less than 50 games (excluding the 50 game lockout season), and have not missed the playoffs. The Spurs have won 12 division titles and 5 NBA championships during that time. Tim Duncan’s 19 year stretch is the best 19 year stretch of any NBA team in history.

6. Tim Duncan consistently led elite defenses and above average offenses.

Here are the Spurs team ORtg and DRtg differentials year by year since he arrived (relative to league average) –

ORtg diff./DRtg diff.

-1.2/-5.6
1.8/-7.2
0.9/-5.5
3.6/-5.0
2.0/-4.8
2.0/-3.9
-0.7/-8.8
1.4/-7.3
1.1/-6.6
2.7/-6.6
-0.3/-5.7
0.2/-4.0
2.4/-3.1
4.5/-1.7
6.3/-1.4
2.4/-4.3
3.8/-4.3
2.9/-3.6
3.9/-7.4

This is sustained dominance defensively for a loooong time, and not once was the team below average. Even old man Duncan was having massive defensive impact, and had incredibly good offensive impact as well.


Next, I’ll (briefly) touch on some of Tim’s qualities as a player.

1. Duncan ranked second in 97-14 total RAPM behind Lebron James.

2. Tim Duncan is a top 5 defensive player of all time.

3. Tim Duncan is underrated as an offensive player, but he is a solid passer, and a dependable low post scorer. To continue the comparisons of the 4 players from earlier, on offense, I would rank them: Jordan, Kareem, Duncan, Russell. On defense: Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan.


Finally, though I care little about awards and rings, I’ll mention some of his accolades.

15 All-NBA teams (tied for most all-time), 15 All-Defensive teams (record), 5 championships, 3 championship MVPs (second behind Jordan), 2 MVP awards


I could say much more (and probably will eventually), but Duncan one of the 2 best winners of all time, and he did it for 6 years more than the other best winner in a tougher league. He is one of the best defensive players ever, and he is a very good offensive player (plus, his 03 season is easily a top 10 peak ever). His leadership and humility enabled the Spurs to win like few have won before, and even continue to win after he’s gone.

I can’t put him at #1 (yet), but if I ever do, this is part of why I would.

[UDRIH14]

lol losing with HCA rule u guys love to throw out....so even if he loses in rd1 2 3, u will still hold that against him he loss with hca even in round 3?

[Winsome Gerbil]

I was mercifully unaware this was even a thing, even around here.

The inability to accurately deconflate individual talent and team/franchise success does come up so regularly I think it could almost be classified as the single biggest cause of individual miscalculations. On the GB Al Horford is a HOF. Here, Tim Duncan is the GOAT(!).

[THKNKG]

I was mercifully unaware this was even a thing, even around here.

The inability to accurately deconflate individual talent and team/franchise success does come up so regularly I think it could almost be classified as the single biggest cause of individual miscalculations. On the GB Al Horford is a HOF. Here, Tim Duncan is the GOAT(!).

For the record, no one here has yet claimed he's the GOAT. The highest I've seen him is #2.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[JordansBulls]

lol losing with HCA rule u guys love to throw out....so even if he loses in rd1 2 3, u will still hold that against him he loss with hca even in round 3?

He lost in round 1 with HCA as well and as the #1 seed.

[THKNKG]

lol losing with HCA rule u guys love to throw out....so even if he loses in rd1 2 3, u will still hold that against him he loss with hca even in round 3?

He lost in round 1 with HCA as well and as the #1 seed.

I don't see how that singlehandedly throws him out of contention though


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[trex_8063]

lol losing with HCA rule u guys love to throw out....so even if he loses in rd1 2 3, u will still hold that against him he loss with hca even in round 3?

"U guys"......not quite .
If you're seeing this one frequently it's because it has become somewhat of an inside joke here: there is precisely ONE poster who counts this as a valid factor to be included in one's criteria. Anyone/everyone else who has EVER stated it in a thread does so sarcastically to tease this one poster.

[ardee]

Nah. He doesn't have won. Peak and prime are simply not good enough. Outside of 2002 and 2003 he doesn't have any season where he was GOAT level. Years like 2005 and 2007 were great seasons but not historical. For example 2007 did not even receive one MVP vote. How am I supposed to accord it the same value as your typical prime LeBron season for example?

At best, he can be 6th IMO. Jordan, LeBron and the 3 GOAT centers were clearly better. I also have Magic over him.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[rebirthoftheM]

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.

Solid points, and this is a ++ for Duncan's legacy of greatness. No player in history has had such a positive impact on one franchise as Duncan has had on the spurs, all in the pursuit of greatness. I know you don't have him as a GOAT, but per your criteria for you GOAT, how important is the above (relative to other criteria)? For instance, MJ was not a team destroyer, but he certainly was not the best of teammates and caused a lot of ruckus within his own franchise (think Krause). How does this impact MJ's greatness in your eyes?

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

Some thoughts on that...

What do you mean by greatest run? Do you mean the amount of seasons the spurs 50+ games (his entire career)? If so, how important is that, given the spurs won 5 chips in his era, while most GOAT candidates either matched him in this department or exceeded him? How is his run greater than Magic's run for example? Or Bill Russell? And what about the contention that perhaps he wasn't the best player on his team for 3/5 of his championship runs, and therefore did not touch the dominance of the others? And what about the contention that focusing on team success too heavily is missing the point?

The second point is real interesting... Duncan was definitely the consummate leader and professional. I mean we've seen videos of him working out with Pau Gasol this season... really the heart of the franchise. But isn't this point going too deep into peripheral matters like team building that go beyond the court. If we open up that line of thought, shouldn't Jerry West's GOAT credentials get a major boost because of all he did for the lakers?

The ability to adapt is a strong point, but why do you think this is very important as opposed to being peripheral? Diversity does not necessarily mean greatness...

As for the small market argument, perhaps this adds to Duncan's GOAT credentials in a cultural sense, but I don't see how this relates to his game.

[rebirthoftheM]

How does that influence a GOAT ranking? I'm not sure. Because portability and scalability aren't easily quanitified. Plus, as someone up-thread suggested, it isn't intuitive to essentially reward Duncan for having a style of play that isn't as "dominant" and thus perhaps fits better with other talent. But...I'd actually disagree with that. I DO think that having a game that fits on any team, and that any team can be maximized around, should be rewarded. I DO think those are things that are elements of greatness that are often overlooked or ignored. And, as of May of 2017, those things alone may just be enough for me to convince myself that I'd rather have Duncan over what we've seen so far from LeBron. Or...at the very least, it's an active enough question that I'm still working it through, I'm not convinced that the seemingly consensus answer is definitive, here.

Great great post. Really gets to the crux of the issue here, that the GOAT argument really comes down to more subjective arguments, as opposed to vomiting numbers out.

I generally agree with your assessment (not Duncan>Lebron, but Duncan't ability to adapt), but not because I've done great research on this matter. I think this can be gleaned by watching the two over their respective careers.

I would ask though... do you have some 'objective' data out there supports (not proves, as I know there's no data out there that can prove these things) this thesis?

Also, this line of contention involves a lot of hypotheticals and what ifs. Duncan might have been able to maintain his individual impact across a larger of variety of teams (I say might) than Lebron, but we do not know this for certain. I mean for all this talk, Duncan never played for another coach, and therefore you could say he was apart of a consistent system his entire career.

I would ask- how important is this anyways? Shouldn't your greatness be about what you achieved over your career, as opposed to what you could hypothetically achieve over many different contexts?

[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.

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

Please do explain. I think a stronger argument exists that he was 2/5.

And yep, I have Manu over Duncan in 05. Manu was no draymond green, in the sense that he had the skill and talent level to create for himself and others at an elite level. His problem for most of his career was durability, but in 05 his durability was pretty damn good. Why do you find it hard to believe that Manu> Duncan in 05?

[70sFan]

I was mercifully unaware this was even a thing, even around here.

The inability to accurately deconflate individual talent and team/franchise success does come up so regularly I think it could almost be classified as the single biggest cause of individual miscalculations. On the GB Al Horford is a HOF. Here, Tim Duncan is the GOAT(!).

Firstly, the thread is about whether Duncan has a case or not, not about how Duncan is the GOAT. That's significant difference.

Secondly, Duncan is one of the best players in NBA history. I mean best, not "winningest" or "has the best career". Duncan 2001-02 and 2003-03 seasons are comparable to any individual seasons. Then he has plenty of other all-tims great seasons (1999-09, basically the whole period). His prime is top 10 worthy and then he added seasons with great contribution (2012-15) as an old man. Among top 10 players of all time, only Kareem and to a lesser degree Wilt contributed as much at the end of their careers.

Personally, I can see Duncan as a GOAT more likely than Shaq. O'Neal has spectacular prime (1994-03) and he has probably better peak but he's not durable (he missed many games) and after 2006 championschip campain he became basically useless as a player. Also, his defensive inconsistency hurts him a lot.

Just because you don't agree with that you shouldn't discredit this opinion. After all, GOAT is no more than opinion and Duncan in this place is more than resonable. He's on that level as a player, not only as a winner. Same with Bill Russell - they are quite similar in that aspect.