RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #5 (Tim Duncan)

[trex_8063]

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. ???

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

This thread will be open ~48 hours [or marginally longer if close and going well], unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as an ultra-close vote with low turnout initially). Anticipate this thread concluding around 2-3pm EST on Saturday.

Arenas of competition to be considered are the NBA/ABA/BAA, and the NBL (back as far as '47); highschool, college, and international play are excluded (except perhaps as a "tie-breaker" consideration).

[Texas Chuck]

Leaning really heavy to Duncan because he's the last of my 5 GOAT candidates still off the board, but Shaq is in the mix for me as well and I'm open to hearing support for Magic/Bird/Wilt even though I don't expect much Bird yet.

[penbeast0]

Hard one. I traditionally have had Wilt and Shaq in the next two spots because they were so dominant but Shaq's end of career tarnished his legacy a little and Duncan's end of career burnished his. I do think people grade both Wilt and Shaq below their actual impact because they look at these two, the two most incredible athletic monsters to ever play the game, and think, "They could have been better." But superior physical ability produces results as clearly as does superior bbIQ or superior skill sets and Wilt and Shaq were just so friggin incredible in that regard. No one else even comes close to that combination of size and athleticism, not Russell, not Kareem, not Hakeem, not LeBron.

I have Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Garnett a step below those three but this is the first time I am really open to changing my mind about this spot. And, also in the mix are Erving, West, Oscar, and Mikan. Beyond that I will take some serious convincing for top 10.

Tentative and I will drop a post if I change:

1. Wilt
2. Duncan
3. Shaq

[mailmp]

1. Tim Duncan
I did not need to be convinced, but all the arguments shared for him are well placed. Five titles, superb longevity, excellent playoff performer and defender, immaculate team results... Comes across as a lab-designed draft pick, even with the limits of his long-term leg injury. Garnett had more health problems, achieved less, aged worse, and was not as reliable as Duncan on a typical team in the postseason. I am not awarding bonus points for modern translation, I am not projecting circumstantial success onto him, and I expect anyone who is so utterly dependent on RAPM data to vote him this highly to be similarly propelling Dikembe Mutombo into the top thirty.

2. Wilt Chamberlain
Any of Wilt, Hakeem, Shaq, or Magic are fine for these next four spots. Magic lacks longevity; Hakeem lacks some regular season impact and may have some overstated postseason numbers against middling defensive oppositions; Shaq has seriousness concerns and perhaps exaggerated peak numbers in the context of a league at a general loss for elite centres; and Wilt has impact criticisms based on his lesser understanding of the game compared to Russell. But the comparison is not with Russell. Of these players Wilt likely maximised his career the least (and seeing as he is not literally Russell, yes, that is something coaches need to address), and even then he was still the best player on two all-time teams and pushed the seemingly unbeatable Bill Russell harder than anyone else.

3. Hakeem Olajuwon
Again, basically all the names I just mentioned are the same tier. Little bit harsher on Magic because of the longevity, but effectively forced HIV retirement before you have shown any real dropoff is a pretty unique countervailing circumstance, so not going to get up in arms over those who do not want to penalise him for that. But as for Hakeem: won a title with the weakest supporting cast of the past forty years, and won a second title against arguably the toughest gauntlet in league history with a bottom five supporting cast of the past forty years. Strong claim to best defender post-Russell, incredible postseason elevator in general (even if, again, some of the offensive numbers are a tad overstated by the competition), and stacked right up there with Jordan throughout his career (particularly on a season-to-season basis).

[Ambrose]

I know I'm voting Duncan here but I'll abstain from an official vote because 6-7 are wide open for me. Leaning Magic/Hakeem but I'm open to being convinced on Shaq/Wilt and to a lesser extent KG.

[Odinn21]

5. Tim Duncan
If that's OK with you trex_8063, I'm going to link your awesome post about Duncan from the previous thread.
viewtopic.php?p=85792371#p85792371

6. Wilt Chamberlain
#5 for me was a battle between Duncan and Chamberlain. Duncan's intangibles and postseason rise made me go with him, but Chamberlain also had it all. Peak, prime, longevity. His average prime level is just superior to Duncan's. Heck, maybe even superior to Russell and Abdul-Jabbar as well.

7. Shaquille O'Neal
Well, he definitely had the potential to be a proper goat candidate. Though his demeanor was a problem. It led to him being a lazy defender. Even with that, he was still among the goat offensive players.
I think his longevity is somewhat underrated. Though he definitely earned some of the criticism for it. I mean, when his scoring power wasn't there any more it was very obvious that how exploitable he was ('06 Finals).

---

If they had 2 or 3 more quality seasons in their respective careers, I'd probably vote for Magic and/or Bird over O'Neal though.

[70sFan]

My post about Duncan's defense against 2007 Suns:

Spoiler:

Since we've got some outstanding posts about KG, I wouldn't be myself if I didn't try to make Duncan case here

A lot of people think that Duncan was less than ideal defender for pace and space era. I want to counter that with his performance in 2007 against Phoenix Suns - a team that played modern style of basketball over 10 years ago.

One of the first possessions in the game - Stoudemire goes to the other side of the floor, but Oberto stays and collides with Duncan. Nash quickly realized that there is a breakdown on defense and tries to take advantage of it. Duncan reads this situation well though - he pushes Oberto to put him in front of Nash and he reads Nash pass to Stoudemire quick enough that he's already in position to contest Amar'e shot (he blocked it).

Notice Spurs P&R defense - Oberto stays on Nash, while Duncan helps on Amar'e. Nash finds Thomas, but Duncan is already there. Suns have to reset the action now.

Nash tries to take Duncan on P&R, but Duncan shows excellent way to defend in drop coverage - he's always in position to help on Nash and he quickly recovers on Thomas (which led to traveling violation). Notice how Duncan's length made Nash not even trying to shoot inside.

Another try from Nash, Duncan stays well on his feet against him but Bowen stays on powerful screen and Nash makes a nice pass that led to Oberto foul.

I won't show every P&R action Duncan defends well, but Nash trying to exploit Duncan didn't work in that game.

Nash tries to take advantage of unset Spurs defense, but Duncan blocks his shot with ease. Focus on how Duncan tried to keep blocked ball inbouds.

Look how during the drive Duncan forced Nash pass with his reaction - normally it'd be pass to Stoudemire, but Duncan made subtle move toward him, so Nash passed to "open" Thomas, but Duncan quickly came back and blocked his shot. These kind of plays are the kind of defensive manipulation Russell talked so much about.

This is the kind of inside pressence that very few players could touch. Amar'e got a great position on Duncan, but Duncan almost blocked his shot anyway while not leaving the floor (he was soooo long). Then he contests Marion putback very well.

Another examples when Duncan's pressence alone made him successful inside. Even magishian like Nash and monster like Amar'e felt uncomfortable inside.

This time he defends drives from both Nash and Amar'e in the same action.

It's all from the first half, but you can see that (past physical prime) Duncan had huge value on defensive side of the floor, even against someone like Nash.

My post about era differences and catalysis of basketball evolution:

Spoiler:

It's absolutely true that coaches have more knowledge than ever, basketball is more sophisticated and the talent pool is bigger than ever. All of these things are true, but they don't necessarily caused the playstyle change.

We need to go back to the late 1950s (let's forget about pre-shotclock era for a moment) to understand how and why the game was played. Back then, teams didn't use ball dominant playmakers for number of reasons:

1. Stricter ball-handling rules.

Back then all you could do with the ball was putting hand at the top of the ball during dribbling. Refs didn't allow dribbling in a way players use it today. You may think "that's not a big deal" but then go outside for a moment and try to make crossovers, spins and behind the backs with hands only on top of the ball. It limits your freedom of movement with the ball and it reduces your potential repertoire to significant degree.

This is one of the reasons why most 1960s perimeter scorers mastered pull-up jumpshots - quick pull-up was the only safe way to make a separation. I've seen occasional step backs and it's not true that players didn't use crossovers (I hope your comment about left hand is exaggaration) but the amount of dribbling moves you could make was extremely limited.

Now compare that to what Harden, Paul or Doncic do - not only they carry the ball all the time by 1960s rules, they also combine that with very advanced footwork, which leads us to the second point...

2. Traveling violations

This one is very easy and I don't think I need to make it long - traveling used to be called much different. Things like Giannis eurostep, Harden stepback, James crab dribble didn't exist back then because they were all forbidden. Again - this all about freedom offensive player has with the ball.

Refs back then were much less willing to give offensive player advantage to pull off spectacular footwork. I've seen normal (without "gather step") eurosteps called a travel as late as in mid-80s.

What is interesting is that oldschool refs gave more freedom in triple threat position - especially in the 1950s players could change pivot foot in these situation far more often than they should have. Overall, the difference is significant and it's another reason why quicker, smaller players have much bigger advantage in 2020 compared to 1960.

3. Illegal screens

This is by far the most overlooked difference between basketball in 2020 and 50 years ago. Today players can set moving screens all game long. A lot of teams build their offense around moving screens and this often makes P&R unguardable without switching. Off-ball screens are much worse though - you can basically move with your opponent for 2 meters now.

I've seen a lot of 1970s games when defensive players flopped on screen and got whistle. Yes, stop with this stupid narrative - players flopped at least from beginning of the NBA (likely from beginning of the sport, we're not here to talk which generation is "tougher"). Simply put - as long as you're completely stationary, your screen was legal. This is not the case now and to be honest, I don't know when it started but at least 6 years ago (probably earlier).

Again - this is huge advantage for perimeter players, advantage that bigs don't have due to the nature of game.

4. Three point shooting

This one is easy - today strategies wouldn't be effective without three point line. It's that simple and without three point line, teams would play significantly different basketball. We can criticize 1980s and 1990s coached for not utilizing it enough, but there is no reason to have this against 1951-79 players. You wasn't expected to play to find open three because it didn't exist.

It's not even about shooting - good long range shooting always had value due to spacing. It's much more about how teams and coaches approach offensive possessions - today wide open three is offense's win. Back then, wide open long midrange shot wasn't efficient.

I'm not saying that 1970s basketball was optimized to the same degree as 2020, I'm sure that coaches would likely want to play differently today even without three point line. I'm also sure they'd want to play differently than they do now.

5. Inbalance in defensive and offensive fouls

Shooters are protected more than ever. This is another fact and in contrast, driving player can attack defender very agressively. Most people who start watching 1970s basketball are shocked how "soft" charges were back then, but this is how offensive foul was percieved. When defender didn't move into offensive player, you couldn't run through his spot. Today, it's much harder to draw offensive foul.

I don't think handchecking changed nearly as much as some believe (especially not 1980d and 1990s handchecking which were already significantly reduced by the rule changes) but it's also true that perimeter players could be touched by defenders on perimeter.

6. Defensive three second

This was always NBA concern - how to disallow zones. The truth is that before illegal defense era, teams could play zones freely becaude there wasn't any concrete rule that disallowed it. This is another disadvantage for perimeter players, because without three seconds bigs could close driving lanes.

Of course it was never that easy and bigs didn't camp inside all the time, but we also have to consider that. In 2020 teams can't play real zones because of defensive three second - one of the worst rules in NBA basketball (thanks God we don't have that in Europe).



When you consider all of these things, you should realize that the playstyle change was influenced in part by natural development but also in big part of the path NBA decided to go. A lot of things would be different without these significant changes in rules and officiating.

So before saying that KG is better suited to evolved version of basketball, keep in mind that this verison of basketball was impossible in Kareem's prime. People also have to remember that evolution doesn't mean progression.

I hope that this post won't be seen as another biased nonsense from 70sFan, because this time I don't think I say subjective things. I also want people to keep everything I said in mind, this response isn't directed strictly to limbo.

[Dutchball97]

1. Tim Duncan - The first spot I really wasn't sure about prior to the start of this project. Tim Duncan doesn't quite have the same reputation as other All-Time greats but his accolades and performance stacks up really well. I don't think he was dominant enough to be put above the top 4 but Duncan's insane 2003 peak, winning 5 titles in 3 different decades and the unprecedented sustained success with Duncan as the leading man makes me look at him inbetween the GOAT tier and the next one with Wilt/Bird/Magic/Shaq.

2. Wilt Chamberlain - I had Wilt ahead of Duncan before the project. He has one of the highest peaks ever in 1967, had one of the best regular seasons in 1964 and won a second title in 1972 in his mid 30s. Wilt's career isn't far behind Duncan. He was consistently succesful in the play-offs, he is arguably the most dominant individual player ever and his longevity is significantly better than any of Magic/Bird/Shaq as well in my opinion. I do think Wilt would've been more succesful if he embraced a team oriented playstyle earlier, while that isn't a hypothetical scenario for Duncan since he did achieve that.

3. Larry Bird - I don't think there is a lot that seperates Bird, Magic and Shaq. However, I don't think Shaq was as consistent as Magic and Bird. I feel like this is one of those cases where Shaq would've probably ended up higher if he tried more but as it stands now I don't really prefer him over Magic and Bird.

Picking between Bird and Magic is always very hard. Magic has a longevity advantage although I don't think it's a massive one. They came into the league at the same time and retired around the same time as well (if we're not counting Magic's lone return season in 96, which doesn't sway me much). Magic didn't really fall off, while Bird clearly wasn't the same player after 1988. However, Magic also took a bit more time to really become a superstar and I firmly believe Bird's peak years in the mid 80s are better than Magic's best years. This could still go either way and Magic is likely going to get in before Bird but I'm going with my intiuition here and vote for Bird.

[limbo]

Question for those who rank Duncan notably higher than Hakeem.

What's the rationale? Is it mostly a tail-end longevity thing and/or winning?

Because as far as i can tell, both seem extremely similar in what they gave and could give to you offensively in most areas. Both their prime and career production as scorers/passers seem to match up, with Duncan maybe bein a slightly better passer at his peak, while Hakeem being a slightly better postseason scorer (especially in '94 and '95).

Hakeem is also widely regarded as one of the best defensive players of all-time, so i assume Duncan is not making any ground over him on that side of the court for most of you.

And even if we accept that Duncan is ahead due to better longevity and winning, shouldn't then Hakeem be somewhere in the vicinity after Duncan due to similar profiles, or is that longevity gap so big that you would rather squeak Wilt, Shaq, Magic, Bird and maybe someone else as well ahead of Hakeem?

Idk, the dynamic of Duncan/Hakeem being separated by tail-end longevity being enough to justify putting a guy like Magic in between who is notorious for having weak longevity just seems weird to me... If you're someone who values what Duncan brings to your team over what Magic brings, then the same should probably apply with Hakeem vs. Magic?

But maybe that's just me.

[Ainosterhaspie]

1. Duncan
2. Magic
3. Wilt

I had Duncan before Russell so he's my pick here. Elite defender, elite team player and leader, capable of being the focal point of an offense, yet willing to be a cog in the background if that would help and executing that role with great efficacy. His longevity is also very strong. Put all that together and I don't see anyone left on the board with who checks that many boxes.

--

Next I have Magic. My biggest hesitation with him is lack of longevity, and his defense isn't particularly noteworthy. That aside, he was immediately a force in the league and remained so until he retired. It's tempting to discount his team accomplishments because he had the luxury of playing with #3 on this list and generally had strong team support which made it easier to win titles.

But he was a virtuoso running an offense and he showed an ability to keep winning even as Kareem faded. He accepted a more active scoring role as he maintained his elite facilitation talent. Even when his best days were behind him, and he had a team battling injuries, he put up an impressive fight against peak Jordan in 91. Only Russell and LeBron have managed a decade of success to match Magic.

--

Wilt maybe gets penalized for losing too much to a guy ahead of him on the list. Guys who didn't have to face Russell get pushed ahead of him, which isn't really fair. If Russell was greater it should be expected Wilt would struggle to beat him.

He had the altheticism and skill to be an elite defender and offensive player, but was held back by not focusing on the right things at the right times to maximize his chances at winning and its fair to drop him some because of that. But at the end of the day, he had the talent to brute force his way to wins even if not playing in an ideal way.

[Owly]

Question for those who rank Duncan notably higher than Hakeem.

What's the rationale? Is it mostly a tail-end longevity thing and/or winning?

Because as far as i can tell, both seem extremely similar in what they gave and could give to you offensively in most areas. Both their prime and career production as scorers/passers seem to match up, with Duncan maybe bein a slightly better passer at his peak, while Hakeem being a slightly better postseason scorer (especially in '94 and '95).

Hakeem is also widely regarded as one of the best defensive players of all-time, so i assume Duncan is not making any ground over him on that side of the court for most of you.

And even if we accept that Duncan is ahead due to better longevity and winning, shouldn't then Hakeem be somewhere in the vicinity after Duncan due to similar profiles, or is that longevity gap so big that you would rather squeak Wilt, Shaq, Magic, Bird and maybe someone else as well ahead of Hakeem?

Idk, the dynamic of Duncan/Hakeem being separated by tail-end longevity being enough to justify putting a guy like Magic in between who is notorious for having weak longevity just seems weird to me... If you're someone who values what Duncan brings to your team over what Magic brings, then the same should probably apply with Hakeem vs. Magic?

But maybe that's just me.

Otoh, longevity of quality.

In terms of detail of advantage maybe ...
Passing over career. Maybe defensive fundamentals over career (young Olajuwon more productive, but risk taking and foul prone, Duncan more likely to make a smart hedge and stop the ball ever getting to the rim - then Duncan arguably held on to his defensive impact to the end). Leadership?

Of course Olajuwon has quite a range depending on weighting of playoffs and - related - whether you consider him more defense inelastic (thus playoff rise intrinsic, or "clutch" would do the same) or more lucky (extrinsic). Oh and ring narratives and the weight on those could move him too.

This is mostly speculative, rather than saying these are the reasons and they are absolutely correct, though fwiw, I lean on the cynical side versus norms on Olajuwon.

[Dr Positivity]

Question for those who rank Duncan notably higher than Hakeem.

What's the rationale? Is it mostly a tail-end longevity thing and/or winning?

Because as far as i can tell, both seem extremely similar in what they gave and could give to you offensively in most areas. Both their prime and career production as scorers/passers seem to match up, with Duncan maybe bein a slightly better passer at his peak, while Hakeem being a slightly better postseason scorer (especially in '94 and '95).

Hakeem is also widely regarded as one of the best defensive players of all-time, so i assume Duncan is not making any ground over him on that side of the court for most of you.

And even if we accept that Duncan is ahead due to better longevity and winning, shouldn't then Hakeem be somewhere in the vicinity after Duncan due to similar profiles, or is that longevity gap so big that you would rather squeak Wilt, Shaq, Magic, Bird and maybe someone else as well ahead of Hakeem?

Idk, the dynamic of Duncan/Hakeem being separated by tail-end longevity being enough to justify putting a guy like Magic in between who is notorious for having weak longevity just seems weird to me... If you're someone who values what Duncan brings to your team over what Magic brings, then the same should probably apply with Hakeem vs. Magic?

But maybe that's just me.

For me Hakeem peaks as high as Duncan but he has less years at that level. I feel Hakeem was headed for a non top 20 career up until 93. And even within his peak on offense, I believe his defense declined by 95 and 96. I only having playing at his peak offensive level with ATG defense for 93 and 94. The earlier years he is ATG on defense but worse on offense, then later he maintains his great offense but is worse on defense.

I also value Duncan's intangibles more than Hakeem, I don't mind Hakeem's but Duncan's impact on Spurs culture is otherworldly.

[limbo]

For me Hakeem peaks as high as Duncan but he has less years at that level. I feel Hakeem was headed for a non top 20 career up until 93. And even within his peak on offense, I believe his defense declined by 95 and 96. I only having playing at his peak offensive level with ATG defense for 93 and 94. The earlier years he is ATG on defense but worse on offense, then later he maintains his great offense but is worse on defense.

How much of that is specifically due to Hakeem having more 'chaos' in his career from '87 to '92, where his teams were going through a lot of player and coaching changes. Throw in some injuries and drug suspensions to the mix there.

Otherwise, i agree. I'm not overly impressed with Hakeem post 1995, and even his '95 year, i believe it to be notably weaker than either '93 or '94... Though he did show up on as good as ever in the 1997 Playoffs.

I also value Duncan's intangibles more than Hakeem, I don't mind Hakeem's but Duncan's impact on Spurs culture is otherworldly.

How much credit goes to Robinson and Popovich military-influenced leadership? They were on the team a year before Duncan, though not with great success, but when Robinson was injured for most of the year, you can't really blame them.

Duncan was definitely a nice guy who had the team in mind before himself, so he should be credited for that. But part of me is imagining an alternate universe where Duncan gets drafted by some bum franchise where they continually post sub .500 records and Duncan is getting chewed apart for being ''too nice'' or lacking 'killer-instinct'.

Anyway, i rank Duncan higher than Hakeem too, i'm just scouring information here, like wondering how much Hakeem is to be blamed for the lack of success pre 1993.

[Dr Positivity]

I think Duncan's career is more consistent than Wilt's especially if you take into account off court impact, however Wilt is a higher ceiling player. Duncan has never approached seasons like 67 and 68 Wilt or the 50ppg one depending on how you feel about it. Seasons like 64 and 66 are also exceptional as his defense and passing were at high levels.

I consider Duncan having more titles than Wilt to be meaningless because Wilt's competition was the hardest in history along with West. He played the Russell Celtics his entire prime and then after another all time great team in the Knicks. 03-07 is an easier period to win than any stretch in Wilt's career. Wilt also came incredibly close on several occasions such as 2 point loss to Celtics in 62 G7, 1 point loss to Celtics in G7 in 65, 4 point loss to Celtics in G7 in 68, 2 point loss to Celtics in G7 in 69. All of these could have been turned if his role players were 5% more clutch, realistically Russell vs Wilt being 11 titles-2 instead of say 9-4 may just be luck as much as anything else. Wilt is more successful player overall than Olajuwon for example as his 2 title teams reached a higher ceiling, he did better in non title years, he didn't have the benefit of clutch role players, and he did it against harder competition.

I understand the argument in favor of Duncan based on consistent impact, intangibles and being around a little longer, however I also think he was never as individually dominant as Wilt to the point of putting as much pressure on the opponent to stop him (he was never like peak Shaq in terms of the fear factor for example) and this cost his team from going over the top on several occasions. However it's very close to me and I'm willing to hear other arguments. For now

1. Wilt
2. Duncan
3. Shaq

[eminence]

I would say it's mainly longevity for me that holds Hakeem back vs KG, Duncan of course has all the same success advantages he holds vs KG as well. Think his defense slipped quicker as he aged than the other two did, which makes sense to me as his game was always more dependent on athleticism than the other two.

[limbo]

I would say it's mainly longevity for me that holds Hakeem back vs KG, Duncan of course has all the same success advantages he holds vs KG as well. Think his defense slipped quicker as he aged than the other two did, which makes sense to me as his game was always more dependent on athleticism than the other two.

Seemed like Hakeem could still turn it on defensively as late as 1998, judging by the Playoff series he had against the #1 ranked offense Jazz that year.

Maybe he lacked the overall consistency to do it more regularly at that stage, but Hakeem also wasn't 'load-managed' the way Duncan was in the 2nd half of his career, playing 34 mpg from 28 to 33 yrs of age and 29 mpg after 34 yrs of age...

Historically, Duncan's defensive impact also seem to been 'slipping' once the Spurs entered the turn of the decade in 2010, but as soon as the Spurs got rid of Gary Neal and mediocre Richard Jefferson and substituted them with Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green and more minutes for Thiago Spiltter instead of DeJaun Blair and Matt Bonner, Duncan seemed to quickly rediscovered his defensive ability over the offseason

[trex_8063]

(quoted from #4 thread)

Even as I go for Duncan in this spot [who yes, definitely IS very portable], I'm willing to concede Garnett may be even more portable, due to his athletic versatility and his greater "guard skills".

Garnett is more portable to what came after and Duncan is more portable to what came before.
Duncan's more portable time frame is bigger than Garnett's. So, how Garnett is more portable on overall?
That's one way to look at.

But your assertion that Duncan is more portable to earlier eras works only if we assume Duncan is superior at all of the "traditional big" areas of impact (e.g. rim protection, low-post defense, low-post scoring).
That's where I'm saying some of his supporters might be disagreeing; they do not assume that is the case, or at least not by a relevant margin.

J.E.'s RAPM does include the post-season. His best 10 years RAPM combined is still 2nd only to Lebron in the data-ball era.

I know that. I was suggesting that postseason RAPM alone.
Also; from 2000 to 2009, Garnett's postseason minutes to total minutes ratio is barely 8%.
Duncan's ratio in the same time frame is double of that and James' ratio almost thrice ('09-'18).

A totally fair point.
However, you'd mentioned it's unfair to make assumptions regarding some older-era players simply because we don't have the data/tools to support or disprove them. By the same token, the lack of playoff [relative to guys like Duncan or Lebron] doesn't mean we should make negative assumptions about Garnett, right? (particularly given his playoff on/off is frequently higher than his rs, including both '04 and '08 (two deepest runs when solidly in his prime).

Unrelated, man, I loved Red Holzman's Knicks. They were so ahead of their time. I definitely believe that you could extract their playbook and insert it on a 2000s team and that would work just fine. They head so many PnR and PnP plays while no one else was utilizing that play style.

Yeah, in logging those old games I'm really coming to love that squad too. Very fun to watch, and at times just seem light-years ahead of the competition.
Side-note: my wife once met Bill Bradley (during his political career), which I thought was kinda cool. I ask her what she remembers......she says he was tall, and he seemed nice.

[ZeppelinPage]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
Most dominant player, at the most important position, with the highest overall impact. Lead two of the greatest teams of all time for their era, with the '67 Sixers having the highest Off Rtg and SRS yet for their time; and the '72 Lakers having the 3rd highest SRS of all time, as well as the highest OPP SRS in the playoffs and winning a ring. Played in (easily) the hardest era in regards to defense because of the rules and playstyle, especially for a big man. The spacing was abysmal, which also made the illegal defense rule non-existent, allowing easy doubles and triples on Wilt. On top of that, the competition of the league in comparison to the talent available on his team had the greatest gap of any player--Wilt had the worst teammates of any superstar in history for most of his career. He was playing against a team that was head and shoulders above the rest of the league, with the greatest coach of all time. In my opinion, for players like Wilt, Oscar and West, there was no other time in NBA history where it was harder to win a ring, simply because Red Auerbach had collected an overwhelming amount of talent in comparison to other teams.

In terms of playoff numbers, Wilt suffered little drop-off, which is incredible considering he was playing against the greatest defensive team and center of all time. Consistently lead a team significantly less talented to game 7s vs the 7-8+ SRS Celtics. Proved he could play defense at a high level later on in his career, but even earlier he would go to another level in the playoffs, where his teams consistently performed better on the defensive side of the ball. He had multiple all-time playoff runs (and that's without stat padding in the 1st round,) especially in '64, where he posted a .323 WS/48--only LeBron, Jordan, and Kareem have posted a higher mark (again, less stat padding, no steals/blocks accounted for, and facing the greatest defensive dynasty ever.)

Wilt also unfortunately played in an era where nutrition, technology and game knowledge were lesser than any player after him. He would usually have to play 3 to 4 straight games in a row, sometimes even in the playoffs, playing 48 minutes. I even found examples where he was playing 5 straight games in a row. He would often not get home till early in the morning and have to play that day, for multiple days in a row, over the course of an 82 game season. This amount of workload is unfathomable for other players and no doubt contributed to injuries over the years, which affected his overall condition. This is something that LeBron and Jordan did not have to go through. The reason I mention this is that Wilt could have been even better in later eras.

The fact that Wilt managed to come out of the 60s with a ring is impressive in and of itself, the talent the Boston Celtics possessed was comparable on a modern scale to a team like the 17 Warriors or 14 Spurs, but for a decade. Unfortunately, he did not have the talent around him that was necessary to compete for a ring until '67.

2. Shaquille O'Neal
Most efficient scorer of his era, greatest offensive center ever, and solid defender that always performed well in the playoffs, even vs tough competition. Also has the strongest finals performances of all time.

3. Magic Johnson
Hugely impactful on offense, lead multiple title teams throughout the 80s and performed very well for most of his career in the playoffs.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm going to write a little post even though I didn't sign on to vote and all of that. With regard to Duncan, one of the reasons I side with him above both Shaq and Wilt(Hakeem also deserves to be mentioned here as well imo) are that his numbers are hurt a bit by Pop lowering his minutes after 2004 and him playing in the slowest pace era in league history as well as on teams which usually ranked near the bottom league wise on top of that. His per 100 numbers are extremely good even when compared to other all time bigs and his overall consistency in the playoffs is also extremely good. I think his intangibles and defensive consistency are what put him ahead of Shaq as well as being a very good defensive anchor all the way into his late 30's. I have Wilt at #10 now mainly because I think there's just too many excuses which have to be made for him in order to put him ahead of the other 3 bigs I've mentioned. Sure circumstances and whatnot played into his career but at the end of the day I don't think Wilt was a good intangibles guy until close to the end. So that's just the way that it is. His poor ft shooting(along with Shaq) are also an obvious chink in their armor.

[DQuinn1575]

Question for those who rank Duncan notably higher than Hakeem.

What's the rationale? Is it mostly a tail-end longevity thing and/or winning?

Because as far as i can tell, both seem extremely similar in what they gave and could give to you offensively in most areas. Both their prime and career production as scorers/passers seem to match up, with Duncan maybe bein a slightly better passer at his peak, while Hakeem being a slightly better postseason scorer (especially in '94 and '95).

Hakeem is also widely regarded as one of the best defensive players of all-time, so i assume Duncan is not making any ground over him on that side of the court for most of you.

And even if we accept that Duncan is ahead due to better longevity and winning, shouldn't then Hakeem be somewhere in the vicinity after Duncan due to similar profiles, or is that longevity gap so big that you would rather squeak Wilt, Shaq, Magic, Bird and maybe someone else as well ahead of Hakeem?

Idk, the dynamic of Duncan/Hakeem being separated by tail-end longevity being enough to justify putting a guy like Magic in between who is notorious for having weak longevity just seems weird to me... If you're someone who values what Duncan brings to your team over what Magic brings, then the same should probably apply with Hakeem vs. Magic?

But maybe that's just me.

For me Hakeem peaks as high as Duncan but he has less years at that level. I feel Hakeem was headed for a non top 20 career up until 93. And even within his peak on offense, I believe his defense declined by 95 and 96. I only having playing at his peak offensive level with ATG defense for 93 and 94. The earlier years he is ATG on defense but worse on offense, then later he maintains his great offense but is worse on defense.

I also value Duncan's intangibles more than Hakeem, I don't mind Hakeem's but Duncan's impact on Spurs culture is otherworldly.

Question on Hakeem - how much did he benefit from the 2 best players in the league having career shortened in the 2 years he won titles? - Magic, MJ. It wasnt the passing of time like Bird, it was guys at an all-time level calling it quits - two of them. Somebody had to win the titles, and Hakeem beat out Barkley, Malone, Robinson. He's the one who got it done, but pretty sure if one of those three won they are the guy being brought up.