Lowest Reasonable ranking for Tim Duncan?

[Matt15]

What would you say is the lowest reasonable all time ranking for Duncan?

[Dutchball97]

You're probably going to get some pretty different answers on this one. For me personally I'd go with #8 as my lowest but that's already a bit of a stretch. I've got MJ, LeBron, Kareem and Russell on a tier of their own so I definitely have them over Duncan. Then you've got Wilt who I see as extremely close with Duncan. Their peaks are comparable with a slight edge to Wilt, the longevity is a slight edge to Duncan, while both have a strong but for top 10 terms somewhat inconsistent primes. Shaq is another relatively close one imo. Again comparable peaks with a slight edge to Shaq, a bigger longevity advantage for Duncan but mostly for post-prime years and Shaq with an imo better overall prime. I wouldn't usually have Shaq ahead of Duncan but it's close enough that I'd definitely find it reasonable. The 8th one is a stretch to me as I don't think the case is all that convincing but I see Magic as having a very consistent level year to year, something which I'm not as high on for Duncan. While Duncan's peak is clearly better to me and the longevity difference is stark, you could argue Magic was better on average in his prime. Like I said it's a stretch but I don't think it's inarguable.

Bird has a similar peak to Duncan but his longevity is even worse than Magic and he also doesn't have the prime consistency so I don't see much of a case for him even though I generally have him ahead of Magic on my all-time list. KG and Hakeem have similar careers to Duncan but I don't see a real advantage for either, while Duncan had a lot more success in the play-offs. Kobe's prime and longevity match Duncan relatively well but I don't think he has the peak to really compete with him.

[Jaivl]

LeBron, Kareem, Jordan, Russell, Hakeem, Wilt and Shaq range from pretty much locks to solid cases I'd say.
I guess you can add Magic and Bird if you are weird like that.
Plus Garnett and maybe Oscar if going heavy on impact.

Mikan has somewhat of a case from #1 to #9999, but the Mikan champions are definitely not going to overlap with the arguments for all of Bird, Garnett and Oscar.

So #12?

I'd consider "reasonable ranking" one that doesn't just forget about defense and longevity, and is consistent in its application over every player.

[70sFan]

I don't think I can find reasonable criteria for ranking Duncan outside of top 10. There are different ways to put some players ahead of him, but if you want to be consistent then others gets lower.

Unless you go purely by who you like or who you find more impressive. Then I'm sure quite a few people would have Duncan outside of top 10, probably outside of top 20 as well.

[sp6r=underrated]

What would you say is the lowest reasonable all time ranking for Duncan?

We had a thread on this recently.

Applying the American standard for summary judgment: "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" with the review "'taking all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" is a good way to answer the highest/lowest possible ranking question.

When you say what is the lowest possible ranking for Duncan, ask yourself taking all facts in the most favorable manner to the other player could you argue that player above Duncan. If you could that player can be ranked above Duncan. Once you do that you'll find players can be ranked much lower or higher than you originally thought.

Here are the brief bullet points of assumptions you need to make about Duncan's career to get him as low as possible.

Lowest possible rating assumptions. There are non-haters who hold these assumptions.
1. Belief that Pop was at his peak for the duration of Duncan's career.
2. Seeing the aughts Spurs as closer to the Pistons/Rockets championship tier.
3. Holding the most positive reasonable view of Robinson/Manu.
4. Holding very positive view of the role players.
5. Skepticism of his career between 2009-15, seeing him as a guy in an environment that inflates his numbers. Maybe a guy who was mostly in the 20-30 range of players.
6. Seeing his peak years as mediocre MVP level seasons.

Under this scenario, Duncan played for a GOAT level coach from Day 1. Played on loaded teams throughout his career in the most favorable environment in history and despite that his teams struggled to escape the levels the Pistons/Rockets did. Then you see him as a guy who was just a secondary player on loaded teams.

If you hold this view I think you can get him as low as 25. But you have to be really negative. After that it get dicey

Jordan, Lebron, Kareem, Russell
Bird, Garnett, Hakeem, Magic, Shaq, Wilt
Kobe (think of what his supporters say), Oscar, West, Robinson (point 3 above is really important here), Dr. J. (requires pro ABA tilt), Miken (weighing 50s with less of a discount than most), Dirk (pro 02-07 tilt), Curry, Paul, Durant, Malone, Stockton, Harden, Barkley

[Owly]

Lowest possible rating assumptions. There are non-haters who hold these assumptions.

2. Seeing the aughts Spurs as closer to the Pistons/Rockets championship tier.

I guess closer to that than what would be the question. And it might depend on which specific teams (post Sheed acquisition Pistons in '04?) on the alternate side and Spurs side.

But if the argument was that they are in the same tier ... I'd be inclined to think if not haters/biased you might have to be wrong to see a team with an SRS of 7.177142857 over 01-07, 7.28 in title years (dragged down by '03) to be bunched with a group of teams that trend sub 6 SRS ('89 Pistons were 6.24).

[sp6r=underrated]

Lowest possible rating assumptions. There are non-haters who hold these assumptions.

2. Seeing the aughts Spurs as closer to the Pistons/Rockets championship tier.

I guess closer to that than what would be the question. And it might depend on which specific teams (post Sheed acquisition Pistons in '04?) on the alternate side and Spurs side.

But if the argument was that they are in the same tier ... I'd be inclined to think if not haters/biased you might have to be wrong to see a team with an SRS of 7.177142857 over 01-07, 7.28 in title years (dragged down by '03) to be bunched with a group of teams that trend sub 6 SRS ('89 Pistons were 6.24).

I don't share this assessment but the people who do point to their relatively pedestrian post-season point differential for holding them so low.

Like you I think the RS SRS tells a much better picture.

[Owly]

Lowest possible rating assumptions. There are non-haters who hold these assumptions.

2. Seeing the aughts Spurs as closer to the Pistons/Rockets championship tier.

I guess closer to that than what would be the question. And it might depend on which specific teams (post Sheed acquisition Pistons in '04?) on the alternate side and Spurs side.

But if the argument was that they are in the same tier ... I'd be inclined to think if not haters/biased you might have to be wrong to see a team with an SRS of 7.177142857 over 01-07, 7.28 in title years (dragged down by '03) to be bunched with a group of teams that trend sub 6 SRS ('89 Pistons were 6.24).

I don't share this assessment but the people who do point to their relatively pedestrian post-season point differential for holding them so low.

Like you I think the RS SRS tells a much better picture.

Okay thanks for the heads up.

Any sources for a coherent voicing of this opinion?

I think I'd struggle to see a case that the Spurs with their two best title teams in the vicinity of 8 SRS aren't a different league to sub 4.5 Rockets (and heck the 94 Rockets were outscored in the finals and twice taken 7 games) and there are instances where ... should the Spurs have dropped G4 to the Cavs in '07 so they could blast them at home? But I'll try to give it a fair hearing.

[Jaivl]

What would you say is the lowest reasonable all time ranking for Duncan?

We had a thread on this recently.

Applying the American standard for summary judgment: "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" with the review "'taking all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" is a good way to answer the highest/lowest possible ranking question.

When you say what is the lowest possible ranking for Duncan, ask yourself taking all facts in the most favorable manner to the other player could you argue that player above Duncan. If you could that player can be ranked above Duncan. Once you do that you'll find players can be ranked much lower or higher than you originally thought.

We should be able to narrow the "reasonable" range quite a bit more when dealing with inconsequential basketball discussions than with a court of law, that, in some cases, even has the ultimate power to literally end lives. Don't you think?

[sp6r=underrated]

What would you say is the lowest reasonable all time ranking for Duncan?

We had a thread on this recently.

Applying the American standard for summary judgment: "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" with the review "'taking all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" is a good way to answer the highest/lowest possible ranking question.

When you say what is the lowest possible ranking for Duncan, ask yourself taking all facts in the most favorable manner to the other player could you argue that player above Duncan. If you could that player can be ranked above Duncan. Once you do that you'll find players can be ranked much lower or higher than you originally thought.

We should be able to narrow the "reasonable" range quite a bit more when dealing with inconsequential basketball discussions than with a court of law, that, in some cases, even has the ultimate power to literally end lives. Don't you think?

I actually think this standard is very helpful for matters like this, which comes from civil law. If you can truly say even accepting all the disputes in favor of Player B, Player A is still better, you've identified the parameters of reasonable dispute

[Statlanta]

I think you have to stop before you hit the injury riddled HOFs like Paul, Curry, Durant or Wade so like 15-20

[No-more-rings]

These are always tough to answer because I don’t know how we measure “reasonable” here. What’s reasonable to me might not be to someone else. I don’t think Duncan being out of the top 10 is reasonable at all, and if he’s not in your top 8 I’m going to probably question your criteria or consistency.