Is Tim Duncan a good demarcation point for the Top 10 All-Time?

[benson13]

No. Too much consistent success for too long. The man didn't fail to get out of the first round of the playoffs for the first eleven years of his career. I'm biased, but Timmy generally rounds out my top 5 with Jordan, Wilt, LeBron, and Kareem.

In the post Jordan years it seems like Shaq, Duncan, and LeBron are guys who could have carried a team full of garden tools into contention during their primes. Compare that to Steph Curry, Kobe, Durant, Dwyane Wade, and Dirk Nowitzki were all-time greats who had fantastic careers, but they also all missed the playoffs or got bounced in the first round. It often times wasn't an indictment of those guys. Their teams were usually awful, but it puts them a tier below in my opinion.

[Bornstellar]

Nice to see the OP getting corrected over here as well. Noticed a lot of Tim Duncan bashing from him lately

[tsherkin]

Mmm,tough one. I think Kobe is a better demarcation line than Duncan, whom I tend to have a couple spots higher.

[FlyingArrow]

To me, "gatekeeper" means you can't get in unless you get past X. It doesn't mean you're in if you do get past X, but it's a bar you have to pass.

I agree that Duncan is probably the best GOAT gatekeeper, since he's the worst* player I can see a GOAT case for (and it's a weak one at that). Or, alternatively, the best player who doesn't have a GOAT case. You can't be in the GOAT conversation if you aren't better than Duncan. Duncan is someone who most people don't have in the GOAT conversation, but is the best player not in the conversation.

Similarly, the top 10 gatekeeper should be someone that is generally accepted as not being in the top 10. You can't be in the top 10 if you aren't better than X. There are a handful of people who hang around 7-12, but they aren't good gatekeepers since there's disagreement about whether they're in the top 10 or not. So maybe someone ranks New Guy Z at #9 but behind the supposed gatekeeper, because they have the gatekeeper at #8. The Gatekeeper should be the best player who pretty much never gets top 10 consideration. That's probably Kevin Garnett. Looking at the top 100 here:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2004777

Just outside the top 10 on that list you have Garnett and Kobe. A decent number of people have Kobe inside the top 10. The next few (13-16): Oscar, Jerry West, Dirk, Malone. Some people could have those guys as low as 20 or 25, so not good gatekeepers. But Garnett will be pretty consistently in the 10-15 range. I'd say he's probably the best gatekeeper for the top 10. If you aren't better than Garnett, you're definitely not top 10.

[LessEyeTest]

This guy has to be trolling with the Kobe @ 5th spot. I saw earlier today he was arguing that Pau Gasol was a worse 2nd option than Wiggins presumably in an attempt to prop up Kobe? Meanwhile, most people would argue that Pau was more deserving of the Finals MVP and every advanced metric showed him to be more impactful IIRC.

Duncan is a (very) borderline case for 5th and at worst probably about 8th.

Kobe. More skilled? Yes, without a doubt. Better teams for title runs? Easily. But more effective as an individual in a team game? Definitely not.

This guy has to be trolling.

Kobe is my demarcation point for the top 15 usually and I think that's a lot more level-headed to hardcore fans than placing Duncan as a top 10 demarcation point.

[1993Playoffs]

Kobe or Bird

[LAL1947]

This guy has to be trolling with the Kobe @ 5th spot.

Nope. I'm fully serious and I have a defensible position for why I have every player in each spot. Btw, in the opening post, I neglected to mention that I consider positions #4-8 quite switchable, if that helps make it more palatable.

Personally, I think it's a little strange that you went straight to where I rank Kobe... yet had no comment about my ranking Bird over Magic and Kareem, or Hakeem over Kareem and Shaq.

I saw earlier today he was arguing that Pau Gasol was a worse 2nd option than Wiggins presumably in an attempt to prop up Kobe? Meanwhile, most people would argue that Pau was more deserving of the Finals MVP and every advanced metric showed him to be more impactful IIRC.

I did not say worse. Here is my exact quote. The GSW fan I was conversing with considered my point, and decided that there might be a case for it too, after doing some stat-checking. So is the point really that outrageous? If you still feel it is, say so, and we can open a thread to get some discussion going on that topic?

"I think Pau Gasol is also very similar to some of the cases you have noted. 2019 Siakam and 1999 Robinson are stronger #2 options IMO... and 2022 Wiggins might be on par with him. Yet I feel Wiggins may have provided more overall impact than Pau through the quality of his defense on the opposing team's best player."

Duncan is a (very) borderline case for 5th and at worst probably about 8th.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. With the exception of Wilt and Shaq (who are in there for being so physically dominant)... I feel Duncan is the least talented player in my Top 10, which is why I have him at #10. That's not an insult because Duncan himself was a very talented player with an excellent offensive game. Yet he lacked the pizazz that most others in my list had. I value this greatly as a differentiator among the top players, who have each had such winning resumes over lengthy careers. I'm not averse to putting Duncan at #9 over Shaq though but that's as far as I'd go myself.

I also feel that Duncan's statistical peaks are bloated by how defensive ratings and defensive Win Shares are calculated... since he played on teams that were filled with good defensive players and Pop took a more defensive approach to playing the game too.

Kobe. Better teams for title runs? Easily.

First of all, that's not true for every title run. Secondly, a more pertinent question to ask is... who had a larger number of better teams while failing to win titles. The answer to that is Duncan, no?

Kobe is my demarcation point for the top 15 usually and I think that's a lot more level-headed to hardcore fans than placing Duncan as a top 10 demarcation point.

Now I think you're trolling by saying Kobe is a demarcation point for Top 15... when every informed, fair and logical basketball analyst has him firmly in the Top 10.

Btw, here's Max Kellerman's Top 10 from a coupla days ago. He also thinks Duncan is #10. If you'd like to discuss his take, I've made a thread for it here.

Read on Twitter

[AdagioPace]

well I never imagined to see a Max Kellerman top 10 in the player comparison section but.....here we are . OP is certianly doing his best to single out himself in the realm of the not reliable

[2klegend]

Oh boy, people really don't understand the true beauty of Duncan "The Big Fundamental" game. Don't get mistaken thinking that Duncan slow and non-athletic style of plays meant he wasn't dominant. Duncan game IQ is "extremely" high. He has much higher game IQ than Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Wilt, Kareem in the contender Top 10 GOAT list. He is always in the right position and is capable of playing as decoy or as the main force. He showed that in early 2000s. Shaq and Kobe couldn't stop him despite having 2vs1 advantage.

The real gate keeper in Top 10 is Hakeem.

[LAL1947]

well I never imagined to see a Max Kellerman top 10 in the player comparison section but.....here we are . OP is certianly doing his best to single out himself in the realm of the not reliable

As opposed to the well reasoned, well articulated and world renowned opinions of AdagioPace?