Has Tim Duncan become somewhat overrated?

[ardee]

I think the tendency to start ranking him in the top 4-5 all time is a little strange.

When I look at his career, I see great longevity and consistency, but other than 2002 and 2003 how many seasons do you really see on par with the primes of the usual suspects in that range of the ATLs? The rest of his 'prime' was rather injury prone other than 2007. 2004-2006 were just not that impressive in an all-time sense (great seasons obviously but absolutely don't stack up with a typical Wilt, Magic or Bird prime season).

Now I'm not saying he's not top 10, he clearly is, but the more I look at it I feel recency bias has led people to ignore the (lack of) truly elite seasons earlier in his career. He just wasn't transcendent for that long, while a bunch of other guys were.

Now if you want to use the longevity argument that's fine, this is just something I was thinking about.

[colts18]

2001, 2005, 2007 were elite seasons. In 2001, he was #1 in RAPM and had an awesome season.

[Quotatious]

Duncan is pretty hard to compare to Bird or Magic because he's a two-way player who impacted the game a bit more on defense than on offense, as opposed to them, but honestly, I don't think TD's impact was any lower, comparing their primes. He may look less impressive because his offensive numbers weren't really that special, but the way he could always blend in with his teammates so well, allowed him to be even more impactful than you would think, if you analyzed every single aspect of his game. To a certain degree, the same can be said about Bird and Johnson, but Duncan impacted the game a lot more on defense. I think that his offense/defense combination is better than Bird's or Magic's, and that's why I rank him higher (plus obviously his longevity is much better, too - based on primes, I wouldn't take him over Shaq, maybe not even over Hakeem, but his longevity, consistency and intangibles is the reason why I put him in the 4-6 range on my all-time list). Here's how I see it - individual offense is more valuable than individual defense, but Duncan had probably a more consistent, very high level defensive impact than anyone in NBA history, other than Bill Russell (Russell was more impactful, but Duncan's career is longer), so Timmy was not only a great individual defender, but also a great defensive anchor, a consistent game changer on D, and that's what is really valuable. Then, I'd easily take Duncan's offense over Magic's or even Bird's defense, and that's why I think his overall impact is higher.

So, Duncan may have impacted the game in a less traditional, more unorthodox way for a superstar, he lacks the flash or any iconic things about him, that basically all of the other all-time greats (let's say top 15 players) possessed, but it doesn't really make him any worse of a player. He just lacks that "WOW" factor.

Here's a quote that I love, from a different message board:

"Tim Duncan is for connoisseurs. He is like fine red wine or black licorice.
a lot of people don't like fine red wine or black licorice."

[Joao Saraiva]

He is overrated. Team success does that, and recent bias too.

The way I see it Michael Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Hakeem, Bird and Magic are for sure ahead of Duncan. Duncan doesn't have the same individual level of play that those guys had.

There was a period Magic and Bird dominated the league, then MJ, then Shaq, then LeBron. I don't see Tim Duncan having clearly a better season than anyone else other than 2003.

[Basketballefan]

I was wondering the same thing for a bit, but when i examined his career more thoroughly i realized he definitely does have an argument for 4-5. I have him at 5 myself. I'm really impressed with how he was able to bounce back from his 2011 season, he got outplayed by Zach Randolph in the first round and appeared like he was done. He was 35 years old at that time, since then he comes back and is a consistent 15 10 type player for 3 more seasons with good defense. Pretty remarkable to bounce back like that at such an old age. Yes his team has been really good but each and every time they've went on a deep run he was either the catalyst or a very important piece.

Now i do hear you that outside of 2002 & 2003 he didn't do anything that really stands out but i think his 2-way play and longevity make up for it. I think Duncan can reasonably be argued anywhere from 4-8.

His resume is too much for me to ignore:

5 time champion
3 FMVP
2 MVP
14 all star games
10 All nba first team selections
14 All defensive selections
etc etc

[Arsilva]

He is overrated. Team success does that, and recent bias too.

The way I see it Michael Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Hakeem, Bird and Magic are for sure ahead of Duncan. Duncan doesn't have the same individual level of play that those guys had.

There was a period Magic and Bird dominated the league, then MJ, then Shaq, then LeBron. I don't see Tim Duncan having clearly a better season than anyone else other than 2003.

Then Shaq? What about 2005 and 2007 ? The 2000's was Shaq x Ducan decade, as 1980's was Bird x Magic.

People forget that the Spurs wasn't the "well-oiled machine" it is now. SAS offensive system was basically giving the ball to Ducan at the low post and let him decide.

Duncan's acomplishments were at least as great as Hakeem's. Remember that his second options were a past his prime David Robinson, a young Tony Parker and the sixth man Ginobili. Hakeem had an still very solid Clyde Drexler and never had to face a team as dominant as Shaq and Kobe's Lakers.

[Arsilva]

I was wondering the same thing for a bit, but when i examined his career more thoroughly i realized he definitely does have an argument for 4-5. I have him at 5 myself. I'm really impressed with how he was able to bounce back from his 2011 season, he got outplayed by Zach Randolph in the first round and appeared like he was done. He was 35 years old at that time, since then he comes back and is a consistent 15 10 type player for 3 more seasons with good defense. Pretty remarkable to bounce back like that at such an old age. Yes his team has been really good but each and every time they've went on a deep run he was either the catalyst or a very important piece.

Now i do hear you that outside of 2002 & 2003 he didn't do anything that really stands out but i think his 2-way play and longevity make up for it. I think Duncan can reasonably be argued anywhere from 4-8.

His resume is too much for me to ignore:

5 time champion
3 FMVP
2 MVP
14 all star games
10 All nba first team selections
14 All defensive selections
etc etc

Yes, his mental strength add a lot to his legend. Even MJ, the ultimate competitor, gave up playing for championships at his late 30's. Only KAJ compares to him.

[Joao Saraiva]

He is overrated. Team success does that, and recent bias too.

The way I see it Michael Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Hakeem, Bird and Magic are for sure ahead of Duncan. Duncan doesn't have the same individual level of play that those guys had.

There was a period Magic and Bird dominated the league, then MJ, then Shaq, then LeBron. I don't see Tim Duncan having clearly a better season than anyone else other than 2003.

Then Shaq? What about 2005 and 2007 ? The 2000's was Shaq x Ducan decade, as 1980's was Bird x Magic.

People forget that the Spurs wasn't the "well-oiled machine" it is now. SAS offensive system was basically giving the ball to Ducan at the low post and let him decide.

Duncan's acomplishments were at least as great as Hakeem's. Remember that his second options were a past his prime David Robinson, a young Tony Parker and the sixth man Ginobili. Hakeem had an still very solid Clyde Drexler and never had to face a team as dominant as Shaq and Kobe's Lakers.

Hakeem had Drexler in one championship run... so that's not entirely true.

But Duncan didn't peak as high as Hakeem.

I don't remember Duncan being regarded as the best player in the NBA in an unanimous way (of course there are always some guys to go against an all time great) like at some point Shaq was, or MJ was, or LeBron is for example.

[Texas Chuck]

I always thought Duncan sucked until he went to b2b finals the last 2 years.

Green Font.

I have no idea why everyone wants to frame it as recency bias as opposed to Duncan just had an incredible season in 2013 and almost led his team to the title and followed it up with another really good year leading his team to a title both times going through a ridiculously tough conference and facing the best player in the world at the end.

That should add some value to Duncan, no? And considering he was already right at the level of Shaq and Magic on the tier below the big 3 of Russ, Mike, and Kareem, its logical to think he's going to be rated high.

[Quotatious]

People who talk about recency bias can often be plausibly accused of romanticizing the past (and vice versa - the older fans often overestimate players from their youth, and/or don't give players of recent generations enough credit), and honestly, as phenomenal as Magic and Bird were, I think many people tend to focus just on their positives and sweep their weaknesses under the rug. Also, both Johnson and Bird had more talented teams around them than perhaps any other superstar in NBA history. I know this post may seem a bit weird considering my avatar, but I'm just trying to look at that fairly, and to be honest, I struggle to see how Duncan was any worse than them, even comparing them in their primes.

[Shot Clock]

People who talk about recency bias can often be plausibly accused of romanticizing the past (and vice versa - the older fans often overestimate players from their youth, and/or don't give players of recent generations enough credit), and honestly, as phenomenal as Magic and Bird were, I think many people tend to focus just on their positives and sweep their weaknesses under the rug. Also, both Johnson and Bird had more talented teams around them than perhaps any other superstar in NBA history. I know this post may seem a bit weird considering my avatar, but I'm just trying to look at that fairly, and to be honest, I struggle to see how Duncan was any worse than them, even comparing them in their primes.

There is a recency bias around here. A few years ago Dirk suddenly made a huge jump top where people thought he should be ranked ahead of Bird. Just based on one run.

As for ignoring the weaknesses. Bird and Magic get hammered on their weaknesses. No one wants to do the same with Timmy.

[Arsilva]

People who talk about recency bias can often be plausibly accused of romanticizing the past (and vice versa - the older fans often overestimate players from their youth, and/or don't give players of recent generations enough credit), and honestly, as phenomenal as Magic and Bird were, I think many people tend to focus just on their positives and sweep their weaknesses under the rug. Also, both Johnson and Bird had more talented teams around them than perhaps any other superstar in NBA history. I know this post may seem a bit weird considering my avatar, but I'm just trying to look at that fairly, and to be honest, I struggle to see how Duncan was any worse than them, even comparing them in their primes.

Not only the b2b finals....SAS was 10-0 in 2012 playoffs untill OKC suddenly figured out how to win 4 games in a row.

[Quotatious]

There is a recency bias around here. A few years ago Dirk suddenly made a huge jump top where people thought he should be ranked ahead of Bird. Just based on one run.

Winning a championship can really do wonders to a player's legacy. It seems to have a really significant subconscious impact on people's perceptions, even those who would like to think they don't care about championships in their evaluation process. Dirk's championship kinda validated his career - for example, he was a great playoff performer long before his championship season - 2001-03, 2006, 2008-10, were all very good/great playoff showings by Dirk, yet he had that nonsensical "he's soft and a loser" thing going about him, based on his poor postseason play in 2005 and especially 2007 against GSW, and there were still doubters even during the 2011 playoffs (at least before he led the Mavs to a sweep over the Lakers).

Statistically though (I mean advanced stats) Nowitzki seems to be very comparable to Bird.

As for ignoring the weaknesses. Bird and Magic get hammered on their weaknesses. No one wants to do the same with Timmy

Well, but what are Duncan's real weaknesses (I mean things that he's below average at)? Inconsistent free throw shooting, maybe (but 69-70% is certainly acceptable for a bigman), maybe not a really great scoring efficiency for a bigman (but 55% TS is pretty solid, and his efficiency was almost the same in the early 2000s, when the league average was much lower, as well as in the mid/late 2000s, and early 2010s, no matter if he averaged 25 or 15 PPG). I don't see anything else, to be honest, and even the things that I mentioned, can hardly be called weaknesses. You would really have to nitpick hard to find anything.

Magic's and Bird's weaknesses are much more obvious (defense, particularly man defense).

[Winsome Gerbil]

I think the tendency to start ranking him in the top 4-5 all time is a little strange.

When I look at his career, I see great longevity and consistency, but other than 2002 and 2003 how many seasons do you really see on par with the primes of the usual suspects in that range of the ATLs? The rest of his 'prime' was rather injury prone other than 2007. 2004-2006 were just not that impressive in an all-time sense (great seasons obviously but absolutely don't stack up with a typical Wilt, Magic or Bird prime season).

Now I'm not saying he's not top 10, he clearly is, but the more I look at it I feel recency bias has led people to ignore the (lack of) truly elite seasons earlier in his career. He just wasn't transcendent for that long, while a bunch of other guys were.

Now if you want to use the longevity argument that's fine, this is just something I was thinking about.

Given I have been expressing this discomfort for several months now in my annual rite of realgm apostasy, you know where I come down on this issue. Every year we do this, and we never seem to learn. If the Clippers win it next year it will be is CP3 Top 10 all time? Who was greater, Blake Griffin or Karl Malone?

[Sedale Threatt]

Nearly two decades of quality, often elite two-way play, with impeccable intangibles -- work ethic, leadership, competitiveness, lack of ego -- that served as the glue for arguably the most extended run of success in NBA history. I don't think it's possible to overrate that.

[Samurai]

He is overrated. Team success does that, and recent bias too.

The way I see it Michael Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Hakeem, Bird and Magic are for sure ahead of Duncan. Duncan doesn't have the same individual level of play that those guys had.

Does that imply that you are not sure whether Russell, Wilt and Kareem are ahead of Duncan or not?

[GreenHat]

He is overrated. Team success does that, and recent bias too.

The way I see it Michael Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Hakeem, Bird and Magic are for sure ahead of Duncan. Duncan doesn't have the same individual level of play that those guys had.

There was a period Magic and Bird dominated the league, then MJ, then Shaq, then LeBron. I don't see Tim Duncan having clearly a better season than anyone else other than 2003.

I agree. Recently winning a title always bumps every player. Duncan, Lebron, Dirk, Kobe all got big bumps right after winning the last few titles.

To me when you are comparing players (rather than careers) the prime ability is what should be compared and winning a title on the downside of your career shouldn't change your level of play from years before that.

Obviously if you are comparing careers rather than players then longevity and late success are much more important.

[Joao Saraiva]

He is overrated. Team success does that, and recent bias too.

The way I see it Michael Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Hakeem, Bird and Magic are for sure ahead of Duncan. Duncan doesn't have the same individual level of play that those guys had.

Does that imply that you are not sure whether Russell, Wilt and Kareem are ahead of Duncan or not?

Wilt or Russell I have no idea. I did not participate in the top 100 players project because I didn't watch basketball before the late 80s (starting watching more in the 90s).

Even Kareem I didn't watch that much of his prime... only a few games on tape. That's why I didn't include him in my post.

[Gus Fring]

I think he's properly rated, he's just been getting a lot of attention lately. People haven't been talkin about Duncan this much lately, so the amount of talk he's getting may seem unwarranted. But he deserves to be talked about though, he has done enough in his career and there's basically no holes in his game. He's solid everywhere all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Purch]

To me it's always hard to draw that line between Duncan actually dropping off his production, and Duncan sacrificing his stats for the emergence of Manu and Parker as elite guards.