Where do you rank Tim Duncan all time as a center?

[ClipperRevival]

I don't know exactly when he switched primarily to C but where do you rank him as a C? He's obviously the greatest PF ever but I think Duncan is a legit 7 footer w/o shoes. Not to mention a 7'6" wingspan. The guy had legit C size/length. He was clearly taller and longer than a guy like Hakeem, who was probably 6'10" without shoes.

If I had to take Duncan and play him at C his whole career, I don't know how many guys I would take over him. Kareem and Hakeem for sure. But anyone else? Given what I know now and the career he's had? The instant impact, the longevity, the consistent greatness, the overalll skills, both way player and the rings? Shaq had a higher peak but given what I know, I might go with Duncan. He gives me many more great years. Russell was not nearly as complete. Wilt also had an amazing peak but he wasn't as complete as Duncan either and didn't perform in the playoffs.

For me, I take Kareem and Hakeem then Duncan. Am I crazy? Again, this is not based on peak but entire career. Give me almost 18+ years of dominant play over shorter careers/higher peaks and lesser rings (Shaq and Wilt) or more complete game (Russell).

[PhutureDynasty]

I'd take Shaq over him personally. Depends on if you want peak performance (edge to Shaq) or longevity (edge to Timmy). I know Shaq's longevity is underrated but I don't think it's as solid as Duncan's is.

[ClipperRevival]

When I think of Duncan's greatness, his height and length didn't factor much into my thought but I saw him standing right next to DJ and his shoulders are clearly above DJ's and DJ is probably 6'11"without shoes. So Duncan had impressive height and length. And as we all know, every centimeter of height/length matter in basketball. The guy was truly a big and you could say his more natural position was center.

[rmt]

Does it matter what position he plays? Obviously, he's been playing more center as he ages and the mobility lessens, but in his prime, he had the versatility to play both positions. To me, that's an advantage because of the flexibility it offered the Spurs roster. With Horry, Bonner, Diaw, McDyess, he played C. With Nazr, Elson, Nesterovic, Robinson, Oberto, Splitter, Blair, Baynes, he played PF.

[ClipperRevival]

Does it matter what position he plays? Obviously, he's been playing more center as he ages and the mobility lessens, but in his prime, he had the versatility to play both positions. To me, that's an advantage because of the flexibility it offered the Spurs roster. With Horry, Bonner, Diaw, McDyess, he played C. With Nazr, Elson, Nesterovic, Robinson, Oberto, Splitter, Blair, Baynes, he played PF.

The guy was like the perfect big. Best 4 ever and one of the best 5 ever. How many players in history can make that claim? No one.

[ClipperRevival]

I'd take Shaq over him personally. Depends on if you want peak performance (edge to Shaq) or longevity (edge to Timmy). I know Shaq's longevity is underrated but I don't think it's as solid as Duncan's is.

You're right. Shaq's longevity is also pretty impressive. I have no problem with anyone taking Shaq. As a matter of fact, I would guess that most would pick Shaq.

[Akrazotile]

For me personally, whether you consider him a PF or a C, I think you definitely have to put him well above Kobe in the all time rankings.

And its not even remotely close.

[ClipperRevival]

For me personally, whether you consider him a PF or a C, I think you definitely have to put him well above Kobe in the all time rankings.

And its not even remotely close.

I rank Duncan higher all time and I would take him over Kobe if I was starting a team. The guy is like the perfect teammate too. Completely unselfish and plays the game the right way. What a luxury to have. He gives you all time great level of play on both ends for 18+ years. And no one impacts the game more than a dominant, two way big. The only exception might be MJ.

[PhutureDynasty]

You're right. Shaq's longevity is also pretty impressive. I have no problem with anyone taking Shaq. As a matter of fact, I would guess that most would pick Shaq.
Yea very true. It's all about the person selecting.

Would you rather have a long stretch of solid basketball with ridiculous peak years? Defense throughout is good.

Or a longer stretch of solid basketball with no outright crazy years but more consistency throughout? Defense throughout is great.

For me I'd rather have the former (Shaq) but it's close. Timmy certainly isn't a bad consolation prize.

[buddha]

are you asking me to rank his career or his peak level of play?

[bizil]

GOAT wise, he's 4th or 5th. Peak wise, I would take Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, and Hakeem over Timmy. From there, I think Timmy could come in at 5th. But some people may argue Admiral, Walton, Moses, and Ewing ahead of Duncan peak wise. The interesting guy for centers to me is Bill Russell. GOAT wise, he's arguably at the top. But peak wise, I don't even have Russ in my top ten centers of all time.

[Harison]

Russell
Kareem
Wilt
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan, 6th

[UK2K]

I think he's the best PF.

So way up there.

[Dr Hawk]

I would take Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq over him.

I don't know about older guys like Russell and Wilt. So without taking into account these two, Duncan would be my #4 center

[Odinn]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=310197


He didn't play at center in his prime. He played at PF. He played as PF. But comparing Duncan with other all-time great bigs? OK.

KAJ vs. Duncan > No doubt KAJ.
Russell vs. Duncan > No doubt Russell.
Shaq vs. Duncan > Shaq but slightly.
Wilt vs. Duncan > Wilt but slightly.
Hakeem vs. Duncan > Duncan but slightly.

And those are the top 5 centers ever already.


Offensively;
Tier 1; KAJ - Wilt - Shaq - Hakeem
Tier 2; Duncan - Moses
Tier 3; Ewing - Nowitzki
Tier 4; Admiral - Garnett - Russell

Offense; I do not think there is not much to explain. What seperates Moses and Duncan from Tier 1, Tier 1 is all-time great scorers and all-time great big passers. Moses wasn't an all-time great big as for passing. And Duncan wasn't good enough to be called all-time great scorer. And what seperates Duncan and Dirk, Duncan drew much more attention and face much more double-teams. Scoring wise, Dirk is better. But not for overall offense.


Defensively;
Tier 1; Russell - Hakeem - Duncan - Wilt
Tier 2; KAJ - Shaq - Garnett - Ewing - DRob
Tier 3; Moses - Dirk

At their best KAJ and Shaq can match Tier 1's defensive level. But they weren't that consistent through their career. And I believe you'd highlight that I put Duncan into Tier 1 and Garnett into Tier 2. When you have 7 footer, you'd expect better rim protecting. Garnett was more versatile. But Duncan was a more impactful player. Ewing can be put into Tier 1 but I couldn't convince myself.


Rebounding;
Tier 1; Russell - Wilt - Moses
Tier 2; Duncan - Garnett - Shaq
Tier 3; Hakeem - DRob - Ewing - KAJ
Tier 4; Dirk

I expect a debate about Hakeem. But when we look at his career, we see that in his best days (93-95 span) he wasn't that great rebounder. He focused much more on offense and scoring. Kareem's number are inflated by 70s and 80s basketball but he was still on par with Tier 3 and I ranked him as Tier 3.


Overall impact on the court(much like a peak list);
Tier 1; KAJ - Wilt - Shaq - Hakeem
Tier 2; Duncan
Tier 3; Russell - Moses
Tier 4; Nowitzki - Garnett - Ewing
Tier 5; Admiral


But when it comes to making a goat list, that's my order;
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bill Russell
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Tim Duncan
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Moses Malone
8. Dirk Nowitzki
9. Patrick Ewing
10. Kevin Garnett or David Robinson
11. David Robinson or Kevin Garnett

[ClipperRevival]

GOAT wise, he's 4th or 5th. Peak wise, I would take Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, and Hakeem over Timmy. From there, I think Timmy could come in at 5th. But some people may argue Admiral, Walton, Moses, and Ewing ahead of Duncan peak wise. The interesting guy for centers to me is Bill Russell. GOAT wise, he's arguably at the top. But peak wise, I don't even have Russ in my top ten centers of all time.

And that's why I don't rate Russell as high as others. The guy won but in an era when the talent pool was weak and the popularity of the game wasn't that high. Ask yourself this. Can you envision any team today winning 11 rings in 13 seasons? Of course not. Why? Because a team can only stay on top for a few years before another team overtakes you. You peak, level out and then decline. It's called level of competition. No team has made it to finals for more than 4 straight seasons since Russell's Celtics, let alone win 11 out of 13 times. So to me, his rings don't carry the same weight as rings in the modern era.

And also, you have his game. When you break it down, what was he really? A great defender and rebounder. Not much of scoring threat or post game. If I am taking an all time great center, he has to be dominant both ways. And Russell simply had serious question marks on the offensive end.

[Dr Hawk]

And that's why I don't rate Russell as high as others. The guy won but in an era when the talent pool was weak and the popularity of the game wasn't that high. Ask yourself this. Can you envision any team today winning 11 rings in 13 seasons? Of course not. Why? Because a team can only stay on top for a few years before another team overtakes you. You peak, level out and then decline. It's called level of competition. No team has made it to finals for more than 4 straight seasons since Russell's Celtics, let alone win 11 out of 13 times. So to me, his rings don't carry the same weight as rings in the modern era.

And also, you have his game. When you break it down, what was he really? A great defender and rebounder. Not much of scoring threat or post game. If I am taking an all time great center, he has to be dominant both ways. And Russell simply had serious question marks on the offensive end.


Where do you rank Russell in your GOAT list, if you have one?

[ClipperRevival]

Where do you rank Russell in your GOAT list, if you have one?

It's tough. Like I said, I don't view Russell's rings with the same weight as rings won in the modern era. But you also can't just ignore his immense accomplishments. So I have to be fair and put him in my top 5. But I have MJ, Kareem, Magic and possibly Duncan ahead of him. So I have him around 4th or 5th.

But as the other guy mentioned, in terms of peak, there are a lot of guys I would take over Russell. I mean if we are talking the best center EVER, you have to give me domination on both ends and his offensive game had question marks. He never showed the ability to dominate on the offensive end. How can you be the greatest if you haven't even proven that you can carry a team offensively as a big? That is almost a prerequisite for a great big. Being able to run your offense through your big.

[Dr Hawk]

It's tough. Like I said, I don't view Russell's rings with the same weight as rings won in the modern era. But you also can't just ignore his immense accomplishments. So I have to be fair and put him in my top 5. But I have MJ, Kareem, Magic and possibly Duncan ahead of him. So I have him around 4th or 5th.

But as the other guy mentioned, in terms of peak, there are a lot of guys I would take over Russell. I mean if we are talking the best center EVER, you have to give me domination on both ends and his offensive game had question marks. He never showed the ability to dominate on the offensive end. How can you be the greatest if you haven't even proven that you can carry a team offensively as a big? That is almost a prerequisite for a great big. Being able to run your offense through your big.

I think I have a similar issue with Russell. I think Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan (speaking about centers and considering Duncan a center here) were better players than him, but I can't ignore the impact Russell had in his era, helping his team win 11 rings, and I value each player for what they did in their own era.

So in one hand I have the belief that there have been like 4 centers that were better than him, but in the other hand, Russell's impact was huge. So I come to a point where I refuse to rank him because my criteria becomes inconsistent. I highly value 2 way players like Hakeem and Duncan and we are talking about the best centers ever here, and giving up one side of the court (offense) is too much for me. How can a great 1-way player have more impact than a great 2-way player?

[JohnnySic]

Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan

[bizil]

And that's why I don't rate Russell as high as others. The guy won but in an era when the talent pool was weak and the popularity of the game wasn't that high. Ask yourself this. Can you envision any team today winning 11 rings in 13 seasons? Of course not. Why? Because a team can only stay on top for a few years before another team overtakes you. You peak, level out and then decline. It's called level of competition. No team has made it to finals for more than 4 straight seasons since Russell's Celtics, let alone win 11 out of 13 times. So to me, his rings don't carry the same weight as rings in the modern era.

And also, you have his game. When you break it down, what was he really? A great defender and rebounder. Not much of scoring threat or post game. If I am taking an all time great center, he has to be dominant both ways. And Russell simply had serious question marks on the offensive end.


Well said! Looking at Russ's career FG% he ONLY shot 44%!! That simply is SUBPAR in comparison to the other dominant centers. His career scoring average was ONLY 15.1! That further proves that Russ wasn't an elite two way center. At that center spot, u gotta be a dominant two way player OR a flat out dominant scorer. If Russ ONLY won two rings like Wilt, he would be WAY DOWN on the GOAT list. He wouldn't be ANYWHERE close to the top 10 GOAT.

Peak wise or better player wise, I would take all of these centers over Russ:

Kareem
Wilt
Hakeem
Shaq
Moses
Walton
Ewing
McAdoo

To be frank, it's not too hard to take these guys over Russ peak wise. But I would ALSO take the following centers as well peak or better player wise over Russ:


Gilmore
Zo
Brad Daugherty
Willis Reed
Dwight Howard
Marc Gasol
Boogie Cousins

U also have guys like Cowens, Thurmond, Bellamy, Issel, and Sikma who aren't as far off from Russ peak wise as people think. Hell some people could probably argue a couple of them over Russ peak wise.

[lilandywiggins]

I think he's the best PF.

So way up there.

Yep.

[ClipperRevival]

Well said! Looking at Russ's career FG% he ONLY shot 44%!! That simply is SUBPAR in comparison to the other dominant centers. His career scoring average was ONLY 15.1! That further proves that Russ wasn't an elite two way center. At that center spot, u gotta be a dominant two way player OR a flat out dominant scorer. If Russ ONLY won two rings like Wilt, he would be WAY DOWN on the GOAT list. He wouldn't be ANYWHERE close to the top 10 GOAT.

Peak wise or better player wise, I would take all of these centers over Russ:

Kareem
Wilt
Hakeem
Shaq
Moses
Walton
Ewing
McAdoo

To be frank, it's not too hard to take these guys over Russ peak wise. But I would ALSO take the following centers as well peak or better player wise over Russ:


Gilmore
Zo
Brad Daugherty
Willis Reed
Dwight Howard
Marc Gasol
Boogie Cousins

U also have guys like Cowens, Thurmond, Bellamy, Issel, and Sikma who aren't as far off from Russ peak wise as people think. Hell some people could probably argue a couple of them over Russ peak wise.

I could see where your line of thought is in that because Russell lacked a polished offensive game, you would rather take more well rounded, two way centers. But I think you are selling the guy short. I never saw the guy play but I believe the old timers when they say he was an amazing rim protector and rebounder. And if you can do both at an ATG level, that is serious value, regardless of how your offensive game is. And he also won unlike anyone else, was clutch and most say he was an amazing leader. All of that carries serious weight. And FG% in that era were all lower because they shot more at a lower pct.

I think I would take my chances with Russell (peak wise) over guys like Daugherty, Gasol, Boogie and Howard. Those guys were very good/great C but never reached the type of level Russell reached in terms of team success and possibly individual talent. I mean it's one thing to take all time greats like Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, etc over Russell. That's easy to see given how high their peaks were. But lower tier guys Daugherty, Gasol, Boogie and Howard? Can't do that. That's disrespect to Russell.

[LeBird]

KAJ
Russell
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Moses

[LeBird]

And that's why I don't rate Russell as high as others. The guy won but in an era when the talent pool was weak and the popularity of the game wasn't that high. Ask yourself this. Can you envision any team today winning 11 rings in 13 seasons? Of course not. Why? Because a team can only stay on top for a few years before another team overtakes you. You peak, level out and then decline. It's called level of competition. No team has made it to finals for more than 4 straight seasons since Russell's Celtics, let alone win 11 out of 13 times. So to me, his rings don't carry the same weight as rings in the modern era.

And also, you have his game. When you break it down, what was he really? A great defender and rebounder. Not much of scoring threat or post game. If I am taking an all time great center, he has to be dominant both ways. And Russell simply had serious question marks on the offensive end.

Some of the reasonings I do n't have a problem with here, but the 11 in 13 one is bullshit. You're essentially punishing the Celtics/Russell for being so good. There is no team pre or post Russell's Celtics that got anywhere near 11 in 13. They are a clear outlier. You can't use that as a reasoning why the era sucked; it could in fact be that they were just that much better. That you simply don't believe it, isn't good enough.

There are a lot of ridiculous outliers in sports that have to be seen to be believed. If Gretzky, Messi or Bradman didn't exist and some sports fan simply talked about a random player doing what they did you'd probably think they're crazy. A player having more assists in Hockey than any other player having goals AND assists in total? Get outta here. A player breaking almost every scoring record known in football at 27 years of age? **** off. A batsman averaging almost twice as much as the next greatest batsman in the history of Cricket? You're taking the piss now.

Guess what, they all exist and they were all amazing. So just because someone is that far ahead of everyone else, it doesn't mean everyone else was weak.

[bizil]

I could see where your line of thought is in that because Russell lacked a polished offensive game, you would rather take more well rounded, two way centers. But I think you are selling the guy short. I never saw the guy play but I believe the old timers when they say he was an amazing rim protector and rebounder. And if you can do both at an ATG level, that is serious value, regardless of how your offensive game is. And he also won unlike anyone else, was clutch and most say he was an amazing leader. All of that carries serious weight. And FG% in that era were all lower because they shot more at a lower pct.

I think I would take my chances with Russell (peak wise) over guys like Daugherty, Gasol, Boogie and Howard. Those guys were very good/great C but never reached the type of level Russell reached in terms of team success and possibly individual talent. I mean it's one thing to take all time greats like Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, etc over Russell. That's easy to see given how high their peaks were. But lower tier guys Daugherty, Gasol, Boogie and Howard? Can't do that. That's disrespect to Russell.

In terms of Russ's field goal percentage, Wilt shot 54% from the field. Bellamy shot 52% from the field. So those two shot WAY BETTER from the field than Russ in the 60's. When u consider how athletic Russ was and that he played close to the basket, 44% from the field wasn't impressive at all. Even back then.

Individual wise, Marc Gasol was Defensive Player of the year. And he's arguably the best passing center in the league too. And clearly is a better scorer.

Howard is a freakish athlete who is a great defender and rebounder in one. Who has won multiple defensive player of the year awards. And at his best was geting 24 points a night. AND he shoots a staggering 58% from the field for his career.


Boogie Cousins is a 24 point 13 rebound per game big man who handles the ball better than any center EVER!! Howard is already a lock for the HOF. Gasol and Cousins if they keep doing what they are doing are on track to be there too! All three are among the top 20-25 players in the world. Individual wise, THEY EASILY STACK UP TO RUSS!! U are seduced by Russ's team accolades.

When it comes to Brad D, he was 20-10 big man who was arguably the best passing center of his era. He DID THAT in an era with guys like D Rob, Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, Mutumbo, and Zo. So once again INDIVIDUAL WISE a guy like Brad D stacks up to Russ. Brad D was on track for the HOF until injuries derailed him.

We all know GOAT wise that Russ is arguably the greatest center ever. But peak wise or better player wise, I would draft Cousins, Howard, or Gasol over Russ for my center. Russ's scoring output and being undersized are the key reasons why. Guys like Russ, Dikembe, Wes Unseld, and Thurmond were great defenders and rebounders at their peaks. No doubt about it. But a guy like Peak Howard could do that AND give me 24 points a night on damn near 60% shooting from the field.

[scm5]

I don't think he's a better Center than Hakeem or Shaq, but he's had a better career than both of them.

The only modern Center that you can definitely say had a greater career than TD is KAJ.

I really don't like to include Russell and Wilt in these discussions.

[ClipperRevival]

Some of the reasonings I do n't have a problem with here, but the 11 in 13 one is bullshit. You're essentially punishing the Celtics/Russell for being so good. There is no team pre or post Russell's Celtics that got anywhere near 11 in 13. They are a clear outlier. You can't use that as a reasoning why the era sucked; it could in fact be that they were just that much better. That you simply don't believe it, isn't good enough.

There are a lot of ridiculous outliers in sports that have to be seen to be believed. If Gretzky, Messi or Bradman didn't exist and some sports fan simply talked about a random player doing what they did you'd probably think they're crazy. A player having more assists in Hockey than any other player having goals AND assists in total? Get outta here. A player breaking almost every scoring record known in football at 27 years of age? **** off. A batsman averaging almost twice as much as the next greatest batsman in the history of Cricket? You're taking the piss now.

Guess what, they all exist and they were all amazing. So just because someone is that far ahead of everyone else, it doesn't mean everyone else was weak.

Sure, you can always go with that line of thinking. But to me, individual brilliance is different from team dominance because team dominance is measured against the rest of the league and is a good measure of the level of competition of an era.

There is a reason why since Russell's Celtics, no team has made it to more than 4 straight finals appearances (and only done twice, 80's Celts and 10's Heat) and at most, winning only 3 in a row. Why is that? It's so easy to see. Level of comp and talent pool. As a team, a team ascends, peaks, levels out and declines. And at some point, another ascending team beats you as you are no longer peak and declining. So the threshold in the modern era has been established. No more than 4 straight finals appearances and win no more than 3 in a row. The competition is just too good for a team to stay on top for 11 out of 13 seasons in this era.

[ClipperRevival]

In terms of Russ's field goal percentage, Wilt shot 54% from the field. Bellamy shot 52% from the field. So those two shot WAY BETTER from the field than Russ in the 60's. When u consider how athletic Russ was and that he played close to the basket, 44% from the field wasn't impressive at all. Even back then.

Individual wise, Marc Gasol was Defensive Player of the year. And he's arguably the best passing center in the league too. And clearly is a better scorer.

Howard is a freakish athlete who is a great defender and rebounder in one. Who has won multiple defensive player of the year awards. And at his best was geting 24 points a night. AND he shoots a staggering 58% from the field for his career.


Boogie Cousins is a 24 point 13 rebound per game big man who handles the ball better than any center EVER!! Howard is already a lock for the HOF. Gasol and Cousins if they keep doing what they are doing are on track to be there too! All three are among the top 20-25 players in the world. Individual wise, THEY EASILY STACK UP TO RUSS!! U are seduced by Russ's team accolades.

When it comes to Brad D, he was 20-10 big man who was arguably the best passing center of his era. He DID THAT in an era with guys like D Rob, Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, Mutumbo, and Zo. So once again INDIVIDUAL WISE a guy like Brad D stacks up to Russ. Brad D was on track for the HOF until injuries derailed him.

Sounds good. But I think you are ignoring intangibles. Like leadership and clutch play, something Russell did better than anyone else. Being a great player isn't just about talent. You also need to be able to lead and perform when it matters. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[RoseCity07]

As a center he's better than Shaq. I consider him a PF though and so I think he's the GOAT PF. I can't think of any player that was this affective for this long.

[ClipperRevival]

I know i'll catch flack for saying this but I am more impressed with MJ's 6 rings than Russell's 11 rings. If there was anyone as close to being a Russell type figure in the modern era, it was MJ. The guy won 6 titles in his last 6 full seasons with the Bulls. That is simply amazing when you consider when it was accomplished. And what makes it even more impressive is the fact that he won his last title when he was about to turn 35. At 35, he was still clearly the most dominant player in the game. Who could make that claim in history?

MJ also won 10 straight scoring titles in his last 10 full seasons with the Bulls. There was no one quiet like MJ in terms of individual and team dominance in the modern era.

[colts19]

this is for the OP.So your saying MJ's Bulls who won the title 6 years in a row with him and 6 of 8 years total, were only good because they had weak competition and MJ is overrated.

[bizil]

Sounds good. But I think you are ignoring intangibles. Like leadership and clutch play, something Russell did better than anyone else. Being a great player isn't just about talent. You also need to be able to lead and perform when it matters. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I never said Russ wasn't a great player peak wise. And I'm certainly not ignoring intangibles. But guys like Marc Gasol and Howard are better two way players. And both are former DPOY. And they are much bigger than Russ on top of it. When u factor Russ's scoring shortcomings, it's VERY LOGICAL to take Gasol or Howard over Russ peak wise or better player wise. The problem Russ will run into in comparison to some of the other great centers is that:

- They were better in the two way sense

- If anything, they were dominant scorers who are also beasts on the glass.

For all the leadership and intangibles that Russ brought to the table, I'm gonna take guys that fit either of those bills over Russ peak wise. But THE KEY with Russ is that he's a top 5-6 GOAT player of all time. And GOAT is THE MOST IMPORTANT LIST! And the one that gets u in the HOF. But peak wise, I just happen to think he falls down the charts some.

[ClipperRevival]

this is for the OP.So your saying MJ's Bulls who won the title 6 years in a row with him and 6 of 8 years total, were only good because they had weak competition and MJ is overrated.

That's not what I'm saying. I am simply pointing out the fact that MJ won 3 a row, retired for a year and came back shortly in 1995 and came back and won 3 more in a row. Had MJ not retired and kept on playing after his first 3 peat, there is no telling how many more in a row he would've won. Maybe he loses the very next season. Or maybe he wins 6-8 in a row. Who knows. But those are just "what if" scenarios.

But in the modern era, no one has come close to matching the level of dominance of MJ. Winning 6 rings in his last 6 full seasons with the Bulls. That is a fact and indisputable and to me, that's amazing.

[ClipperRevival]

I never said Russ wasn't a great player peak wise. And I'm certainly not ignoring intangibles. But guys like Marc Gasol and Howard are better two way players. And both are former DPOY. And they are much bigger than Russ on top of it. When u factor Russ's scoring shortcomings, it's VERY LOGICAL to take Gasol or Howard over Russ peak wise or better player wise. The problem Russ will run into in comparison to other great centers is that:

- They were better in the two way sense

- If anything, they were dominant scorers who are also beasts on the glass.

For all the leadership and intangibles that Russ brought to the table, I'm gonna take guys that fit either of those bills over Russ peak wise. But THE KEY with Russ is that he's a top 5-6 GOAT player of all time. And GOAT is THE MOST IMPORTANT LIST! And the one that gets u in the HOF. But peak wise, I just happen to think he falls down the charts some.

"Some"? :oldlol: Seems like more than that given some of the names you mentioned. But I see your points.

[bizil]

"Some"? :oldlol: Seems like more than that given some of the names you mentioned. But I see your points.

LOL!! U got me there!! But I agreed with your initial posts on the topic. :cheers:

[oarabbus]

I don't know exactly when he switched primarily to C but where do you rank him as a C? He's obviously the greatest PF ever but I think Duncan is a legit 7 footer w/o shoes. Not to mention a 7'6" wingspan. The guy had legit C size/length. He was clearly taller and longer than a guy like Hakeem, who was probably 6'10" without shoes.

If I had to take Duncan and play him at C his whole career, I don't know how many guys I would take over him. Kareem and Hakeem for sure. But anyone else? Given what I know now and the career he's had? The instant impact, the longevity, the consistent greatness, the overalll skills, both way player and the rings? Shaq had a higher peak but given what I know, I might go with Duncan. He gives me many more great years. Russell was not nearly as complete. Wilt also had an amazing peak but he wasn't as complete as Duncan either and didn't perform in the playoffs.

For me, I take Kareem and Hakeem then Duncan. Am I crazy? Again, this is not based on peak but entire career. Give me almost 18+ years of dominant play over shorter careers/higher peaks and lesser rings (Shaq and Wilt) or more complete game (Russell).

I don't even know about that. We're talking about full careers here? Duncan has the edge over Hakeem.

[LeBird]

Sure, you can always go with that line of thinking. But to me, individual brilliance is different from team dominance because team dominance is measured against the rest of the league and is a good measure of the level of competition of an era.

There is a reason why since Russell's Celtics, no team has made it to more than 4 straight finals appearances (and only done twice, 80's Celts and 10's Heat) and at most, winning only 3 in a row. Why is that? It's so easy to see. Level of comp and talent pool. As a team, a team ascends, peaks, levels out and declines. And at some point, another ascending team beats you as you are no longer peak and declining. So the threshold in the modern era has been established. No more than 4 straight finals appearances and win no more than 3 in a row. The competition is just too good for a team to stay on top for 11 out of 13 seasons in this era.

There is no 'easy to see' here. You're again using Russell's Celtics incredible record against them. So it seems the better you are compared to your opposition the worse you're affecting your own legacy. It can be that simple: that they were that good.

Who says it wasn't individual brilliance either? It could very well be that Russell was such a net positive on the defensive end that even players like Jordan or Wilt simply couldn't match his impact.


I know i'll catch flack for saying this but I am more impressed with MJ's 6 rings than Russell's 11 rings. If there was anyone as close to being a Russell type figure in the modern era, it was MJ. The guy won 6 titles in his last 6 full seasons with the Bulls. That is simply amazing when you consider when it was accomplished. And what makes it even more impressive is the fact that he won his last title when he was about to turn 35. At 35, he was still clearly the most dominant player in the game. Who could make that claim in history?

MJ also won 10 straight scoring titles in his last 10 full seasons with the Bulls. There was no one quiet like MJ in terms of individual and team dominance in the modern era.

Ironically, most knowledgable fans acknowledge that Jordan's title winning years were in an era where the NBA was at one of its weakest points. Teams like the Jazz that were better a decade prior (and who couldn't sniff a ring) were repeat finalists during that time.

But even going along with that logic; what stops someone in 40 years time shitting on the Jordan/Bulls legacy like you're doing with Russell/Celtic and instead referring to the 'modern' winners of their time?

Surely you can recognise the double-standard here?

[aau]

no team has made it to 4 straight finals appearances
(only done twice, 80's Celts and 10's Heat)


:biggums:


84-87 never happened

[ClipperRevival]

I don't even know about that. We're talking about full careers here? Duncan has the edge over Hakeem.

True. But i love Hakeem. His peak was about as good as anyone when you consider his overall game. There was no C more complete than him. His offensive game was unparalleled in terms of completeness. Others might've been more dominant but no one was more complete. And let's not forget the season he won mvp, dpoy and fmvp. Also, the guy was getting about 2 steals per game for a 5-7 year stretch. That's unheard for a C. And i think his career spg of 1.7 is like 26th all time. And his longevity isn't that bad.

If i am starting a team, i would take him over Duncan. But i have no issues with anyone taking Duncan over him, even as a C.

[Smoke117]

I don't even know about that. We're talking about full careers here? Duncan has the edge over Hakeem.

Hakeem was better at every facet of basketball except passing. His peak is waaaaaaaaaay better. While Duncans numbers were regressing at 28, Hakeem was still a stud at 34 his last healthy season. Longevity only goes so far...especially when Hakeems production shits on Duncans for their first 13 seasons. That is without taking into account that Dream is the greatest defensive player of the last 35 years. I probably wouldn't even have Duncan top 5. (well maybe 5th after hakeem, Robinson, B.wallace, and garnett because of longevity. He certainly doesn't have a top 5 peak though.)

[aau]

82 to 85 neither

[ClipperRevival]

:biggums:


84-87 never happened

The Celts made 4 straight finals appearances from 84-87.

[bizil]

I think the two most valuable commodities in basketball history are:

- A dominant two way center in the paint. A guy who is a great scorer and great defender.

- A versatile perimeter player in that 6'5 to 6'10 who can play a minimum of three positions great. Guys who are great scorers, great passers, and great rebounders in one. And if they have great defense, even better!

So Duncan certainly fits the first category EASILY!! The thing is he wasn't as DOMINANT as Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, or Hakeem. Even Robinson and Ewing have a case as being more dominant than Duncan.

But when u move Duncan and his skillset to PF, he's one of a kind. He's brought a dominant two way center's skillset to the PF. But at the center position, he's not as unique or dominant.

[ClipperRevival]

There is no 'easy to see' here. You're again using Russell's Celtics incredible record against them. So it seems the better you are compared to your opposition the worse you're affecting your own legacy. It can be that simple: that they were that good.

Who says it wasn't individual brilliance either? It could very well be that Russell was such a net positive on the defensive end that even players like Jordan or Wilt simply couldn't match his impact.



Ironically, most knowledgable fans acknowledge that Jordan's title winning years were in an era where the NBA was at one of its weakest points. Teams like the Jazz that were better a decade prior (and who couldn't sniff a ring) were repeat finalists during that time.

But even going along with that logic; what stops someone in 40 years time shitting on the Jordan/Bulls legacy like you're doing with Russell/Celtic and instead referring to the 'modern' winners of their time?

Surely you can recognise the double-standard here?

Because what MJ did is still within the threshold I mentioned. Meaning not winning more than 3 in a row or making more than 4 straight finals appearances. Only the fact that he took a couple of years off and won 3 more in a row makes what he did that much more remarkable.

But what Russell's Celtics did is so beyond the threshold of what has been happening in the modern era that I have to question the validity of his accomplishments. I just can't take his rings at face value and say they are equal to rings won in the modern era.

[LeBird]

Because what MJ did is still within the threshold I mentioned. Meaning not winning more than 3 in a row or making more than 4 straight finals appearances. Only the fact that he took a couple of years off and won 3 more in a row makes what he did that much more remarkable.

But what Russell's Celtics did is so beyond the threshold of what has been happening in the modern era that I have to question the validity of his accomplishments. I just can't take his rings at face value and say they are equal to rings won in the modern era.

Hello? Anyone home?

Your threshold is totally arbitrary and basically stipulates that you can be only a certain amount better than anyone else. Anything above that means the competition was weak.

This basically means that if there is a one in a million player, a player several times better than Jordan; he's going to be discounted because he is too good. With all due respect; you're either not bright enough to understand what you're saying; or you're doing it purposefully so you don't have to dethrone your favourite, by creating some parameters that don't make consistent, rational, sense.


Hakeem was better at every facet of basketball except passing. His peak is waaaaaaaaaay better. While Duncans numbers were regressing at 28, Hakeem was still a stud at 34 his last healthy season. Longevity only goes so far...especially when Hakeems production shits on Duncans for their first 13 seasons. That is without taking into account that Dream is the greatest defensive player of the last 35 years. I probably wouldn't even have Duncan top 5. (well maybe 5th after hakeem, Robinson, B.wallace, and garnett because of longevity. He certainly doesn't have a top 5 peak though.)

You're right.

KAJ
Russell
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Moses

[LAZERUSS]

Russell's offense, particularly early to mid-career, is very under-rated here. Unfortunately, there is not much footage available, but here is at least one example from a college Russell...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnjC0nm2q5U

And here is perhaps the most famous footage that exists (which displays his athleticism, speed, and ball-handling skills)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWelUNrJUMM


Russell had seasons of 18 ppg; post-seasons of 20+, and Final series of 24 ppg, too. Think about this....find me a Finals in which Ewing or Robinson averaged 24 ppg, on .538 shooting (in a post-season that shot .440), with 24 rpg, and 4 apg. Or find me a Finals in which Shaq, Wilt, or Kareem shot .702 from the field (this in a series in which Russell averaged 18 ppg and 25 rpg.) And Russell had some huge games in his Finals, as well, including an incredible game seven in the '62 Finals of 30 points and 40 rebounds.

And, of course, what is most often overlooked about Russell's offense was the fact that for the much of his career the Boston offense ran thru him. He routinely led the team in apg and in fact, had seasons of 5.3 and even 5.8 apg in his regular season career...and many post-season runs of 5+, including one of 6.3 apg. Again,...find me post-seasons in which, aside from Wilt, a GOAT center was averaging 6 apg.

Furthermore, Russell's FG% shooting is deceptive, as well. He played 13 seasons in an NBA that shot about .425 on average. And I have covered the reasons for that several times here, but in any case, he generally shot above the league average. In his best shooting season, he averaged 19 ppg on a .467 FG%, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .410. That translates to about a .565 FG% in today's NBA (which shot an eFG% of .496.)


When you combine his scoring and passing skills, with his staggering rebounding ability (probably at worst, the third greatest rebounder in NBA history) and the greatest defensive impact in NBA history, and you can see why many of his generation, at least, have ranked his as the GOAT. And beyond that, his leadership, his intelligence, his chemistry with his teams, and his will to win are probably unsurpassed in the history of the game.

[LAZERUSS]

There is no question that Russell was surrounded by great supporting casts, but think about this...Tim Duncan has played alongside Ginobili and Parker for 13 seasons...or the length of Russell's entire career.

So why do some here minimize Russell's 11 rings in his 13 seasons, and praise Duncan's five?

Furthermore, it was not as if Russell's teams just waltzed to titles every season, either. In his 13 playoff seasons, his teams went to a game seven, TEN times. And, SEVEN of those ten were decided by four points, or less (including two OT's which were decided by three and two points.)

[DMAVS41]

Position doesn't really matter to me for this stuff. Count him as a center or pf.

He's the best PF ever easily and he'd be my 2nd ranked center behind Russell.

Even then, because I didn't see Russell, it's hard to compare. I do think what Duncan has done puts him in that ultra elite category all time where you could make an argument for him all the way to the 2nd best player of all time.

He's 4th on my list now and coming into this season. And what has he done in year 18?

He'll make first or 2nd team all nba and deserve it. He'll make all defense, or at least he should, and deserve it.

And he's putting up 16/11/4 while playing against Griffin/Jordan in a playoff series.

Hard to be better than that overall.

Only player I've ever seen I'd for sure take over Duncan is MJ. The rest...he's just as good or better that I've seen.

[Odinn]

Duncan has no case over Kareem. There's no logical explanation for that.

[bizil]

Russell's offense, particularly early to mid-career, is very under-rated here. Unfortunately, there is not much footage available, but here is at least one example from a college Russell...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnjC0nm2q5U

And here is perhaps the most famous footage that exists (which displays his athleticism, speed, and ball-handling skills)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWelUNrJUMM


Russell had seasons of 18 ppg; post-seasons of 20+, and Final series of 24 ppg, too. Think about this....find me a Finals in which Ewing or Robinson averaged 24 ppg, on .538 shooting (in a post-season that shot .440), with 24 rpg, and 4 apg. Or find me a Finals in which Shaq, Wilt, or Kareem shot .702 from the field (this in a series in which Russell averaged 18 ppg and 25 rpg.) And Russell had some huge games in his Finals, as well, including an incredible game seven in the '62 Finals of 30 points and 40 rebounds.

And, of course, what is most often overlooked about Russell's offense was the fact that for the much of his career the Boston offense ran thru him. He routinely led the team in apg and in fact, had seasons of 5.3 and even 5.8 apg in his regular season career...and many post-season runs of 5+, including one of 6.3 apg. Again,...find me post-seasons in which, aside from Wilt, a GOAT center was averaging 6 apg.

Furthermore, Russell's FG% shooting is deceptive, as well. He played 13 seasons in an NBA that shot about .425 on average. And I have covered the reasons for that several times here, but in any case, he generally shot above the league average. In his best shooting season, he averaged 19 ppg on a .467 FG%, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .410. That translates to about a .565 FG% in today's NBA (which shot an eFG% of .496.)


When you combine his scoring and passing skills, with his staggering rebounding ability (probably at worst, the third greatest rebounder in NBA history) and the greatest defensive impact in NBA history, and you can see why many of his generation, at least, have ranked his as the GOAT. And beyond that, his leadership, his intelligence, his chemistry with his teams, and his will to win are probably unsurpassed in the history of the game.

Good post! GOAT criteria is THE KEY criteria to get in the HOF. In that realm, Russ is in the top five of all time. But peak wise, I think Russ comes back to the pack in comparison to other centers. He was a great rebounder, great defender, and even a great passing big man.

But given his athletic gifts, I still think he should have been a more dominant scorer in that era. I realize he had his moments of great scoring. But over the long haul, he simply wasn't a great scorer. If Wilt was on Boston, he would have been averaging 30 points a night. Even with that loaded roster. He was so efficient with his touches that Wilt still would have rang up 30.

Once again, this is in comparison to guys like Wilt, Kareem, Admiral, Hakeem, Ewing, Moses, etc. Those guys were flat out dominant scorers. So peak wise, I would take all of them over Russ. But GOAT wise, he doesn't take a backseat to ANY of them.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan has no case over Kareem. There's no logical explanation for that.

Why?

I watched them both and would rather have Duncan...

I'm not gonna argue with someone taking Kareem of course, but I think this notion that Duncan has no place next to Kareem is a little silly.

[Odinn]

Why?

I watched them both and would rather have Duncan...

I'm not gonna argue with someone taking Kareem of course, but I think this notion that Duncan has no place next to Kareem is a little silly.
Kareem has the edge on every important criteria. Peak, prime, accolades/achievements, longevity. Longevity is more like a toss-up but other criterias work in Kareem's favour without a doubt.

[DMAVS41]

Kareem has the edge on every important criteria. Peak, prime, accolades/achievements, longevity. Longevity is more like a toss-up but other criterias work in Kareem's favour without a doubt.

Hmmm. I'm not sure about that actually given the context.

I think the two are very similar all the way from college to near age 40.

The NBA in the 70's was just not the ultra competitive league we've seen since Duncan entered. Really hard to compare accolades across eras like that. I mean...Kareem winning all those MVP's in the 70's doesn't seem to me to be a great argument as to why Kareem is on a different tier with no argument at all for Duncan.

I'd also argue some of the stuff Duncan has accomplished doesn't get enough credit. Like winning over 50 games every single year of his career. Just unreal impact...The Spurs are averaging like 58 wins per year on full years over the 16 full years Duncan has played.

I'm not gonna argue against the greatness of Kareem, but I just think Duncan is on equal footing in terms of greatness.

[LAZERUSS]

As a center...

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Shaq
Moses
Hakeem
Duncan

As a player...

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Shaq
Duncan
Moses
Hakeem

[bizil]

Why?

I watched them both and would rather have Duncan...

I'm not gonna argue with someone taking Kareem of course, but I think this notion that Duncan has no place next to Kareem is a little silly.

NO WAY was Timmy better peak wise than Kareem!! NO WAY IN HELL!! Kareem was 7'2 with the most unstoppable weapon of all time. THAT RIGHT THERE ALONE shuts down your argument. That weapon allowed him to dominate in his late 30's. I'm not saying Timmy isn't close to Kareem at all. But Kareem was simply better than Duncan peak wise. Young Kareem was SO AGILE and skilled at that size it was unfair. The only bigs (PF or C) you can argue against peak Kareem are Wilt, Shaq, and The Dream.

[Round Mound]

1-Wilt
2-Kareem
3-Shaq
4-Hakeem
5-Moses
6-Duncan.

[GoSpursGo1984]

Duncan has had a better career then Shaq. Duncan never played with a top15 all time player like Kobe. Duncan did not have to team hop to try to win championships. Duncan was a better defender then Shaq and was not lazy at times and take plays off.

[Smoke117]

Duncan has had a better career then Shaq. Duncan never played with a top15 all time player like Kobe. Duncan did not have to team hop to try to win championships. Duncan was a better defender then Shaq and was not lazy at times and take plays off.


Duncan was never close to as dominant as Shaq either. I like Duncan...he had a great career and he's a great guy...but the way people overrate him these days is a funny joke. The guys peak is laughable compared to the all time great centers and now you got stupid clowns here putting him over Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq...

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/14kwrhk.gif

[ThePhantomCreep]

Position doesn't really matter to me for this stuff. Count him as a center or pf.

He's the best PF ever easily and he'd be my 2nd ranked center behind Russell.

Even then, because I didn't see Russell, it's hard to compare. I do think what Duncan has done puts him in that ultra elite category all time where you could make an argument for him all the way to the 2nd best player of all time.

He's 4th on my list now and coming into this season. And what has he done in year 18?

He'll make first or 2nd team all nba and deserve it. He'll make all defense, or at least he should, and deserve it.

And he's putting up 16/11/4 while playing against Griffin/Jordan in a playoff series.

Hard to be better than that overall.

Only player I've ever seen I'd for sure take over Duncan is MJ. The rest...he's just as good or better that I've seen.

Are we seriously supposed to be impressed with that? :lol

While 38-year Duncan was watching Kwahi Leonard win Finals MVP, Kareem at the age was winning it while spanking a HOF center named Robert Parish.

The following year Kareem at 39 put up 27/7/2 blocks vs Hakeem and Sampson, a tad better than Griffin/Jordan.

In 1987 Kareem spent large portions of the '87 Finals spanking Parish again, averaging 23ppg for the series. HE WAS 40.

Kareem had a much better peak AND better longevity. Duncan has no case over him. It's laughable how much ISH overvalues that 2014 ring.

[DMAVS41]

Are we seriously supposed to be impressed with that? :lol

While 38-year Duncan was watching Kwahi Leonard win Finals MVP, Kareem at the age was winning it while spanking a HOF center named Robert Parish.

The following year Kareem at 39 put up 27/7/2 blocks vs Hakeem and Sampson, a tad better than Griffin/Jordan.

In 1987 Kareem spent large portions of the '87 Finals spanking Parish again, averaging 23ppg for the series. HE WAS 40.

Kareem had a much better peak AND better longevity. Duncan has no case over him. It's laughable how much ISH overvalues that 2014 ring.


I think you seriously under value the way Duncan plays both sides of the court. Kareem was not doing the things Duncan is doing defensively when he was this age.

Yes. Why wouldn't you be impressed by Duncan? He just had a 27/11 road game 7....Duncan would have won finals MVP (or he should have) in 13 if Leonard didn't choke.

So now it's not impressive unless it's far better than Kareem? What? Duncan's peak as a player is also grossly under-rated here imo.

I'm not going to hate on Kareem, but it's not comparable to compare the 70's NBA to the era Duncan has played in.
Every time I look up...I see Duncan doing something that "he's the first players since Kareem to do X"

In the playoffs, Duncan is now 2nd all time in defensive win shares, he's got the 2nd most win shares overall, he's got a top 6 PER, he won titles 15 years apart. He's strung together a career in which he's won under 50 games one time...and he went 37-13 that year. If you grant him 50 wins that season...that is 18 straight years over 50. That is insane.

Kareem and Duncan are very similar players when looking at overall impact objectively. The only way you get one way better than the other...is people that tend to look back at the past in a more admiring way and less objectively.

Duncan ended this series with 18/11/3 60% TS while anchoring a defense all by himself at the rim as Splitter/Baynes sucked or were hurt. Doing so against the best PF/C combo in the league. If that isn't impressive to you at age 39...you are too biased to even have a conversation.

[LAZERUSS]

I think you seriously under value the way Duncan plays both sides of the court. Kareem was not doing the things Duncan is doing defensively when he was this age.

Yes. Why wouldn't you be impressed by Duncan? He just had a 27/11 road game 7....Duncan would have won finals MVP (or he should have) in 13 if Leonard didn't choke.

So now it's not impressive unless it's far better than Kareem? What? Duncan's peak as a player is also grossly under-rated here imo.

I'm not going to hate on Kareem, but it's not comparable to compare the 70's NBA to the era Duncan has played in.
Every time I look up...I see Duncan doing something that "he's the first players since Kareem to do X"

In the playoffs, Duncan is now 2nd all time in defensive win shares, he's got the 2nd most win shares overall, he's got a top 6 PER, he won titles 15 years apart. He's strung together a career in which he's won under 50 games one time...and he went 37-13 that year. If you grant him 50 wins that season...that is 18 straight years over 50. That is insane.

Kareem and Duncan are very similar players when looking at overall impact objectively. The only way you get one way better than the other...is people that tend to look back at the past in a more admiring way and less objectively.

Duncan ended this series with 18/11/3 60% TS while anchoring a defense all by himself at the rim as Splitter/Baynes sucked or were hurt. Doing so against the best PF/C combo in the league. If that isn't impressive to you at age 39...you are too biased to even have a conversation.

70's KAJ faced HOF centers like Wilt, Thurmond, Lanier, Reed, Bellamy, Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, Gilmore, Parish, and Moses.

Sorry to tell you, but aside from Shaq, who was clearly better H2H in his prime (especially when Phil would finally have Shaq defend Duncan in 4th quarters)...the 00's thru the current NBA have had virtually ZERO talent at the center position, and FAR less than what a 70's Kareem faced.

And yes, a 70's Kareem was FAR more dominant. The only area in which Duncan was CLOSE, was in DEFENSE. Kareem's defense was very under-rated in the 70's, but here is all you need to know...the Bucks from '70-71 thru '73-74 were light years better than the rest of the league in DEFENSE...and arguably as great as any team that has ever played.

Kareem could hang 50 on Wilt, 50 on Walton, and then at age 39 he ROUTINELY hung 40+ on Hakeem (including one game of 46 in 37 minutes.)

I have Duncan at #7 all-time, and just behind Shaq. IMHO, Shaq's PEAK was considerably higher than Duncan's. And while Shaq had a great and long career (and was dominant throughout much of it), I would concede that Duncan's overall career has a case over Shaq's. Not much...they are very close, but perhaps a slight edge. But, again, a PEAK Shaq was just much more dominant.

[LAZERUSS]

I don't know exactly when he switched primarily to C but where do you rank him as a C? He's obviously the greatest PF ever but I think Duncan is a legit 7 footer w/o shoes. Not to mention a 7'6" wingspan. The guy had legit C size/length. He was clearly taller and longer than a guy like Hakeem, who was probably 6'10" without shoes.

If I had to take Duncan and play him at C his whole career, I don't know how many guys I would take over him. Kareem and Hakeem for sure. But anyone else? Given what I know now and the career he's had? The instant impact, the longevity, the consistent greatness, the overalll skills, both way player and the rings? Shaq had a higher peak but given what I know, I might go with Duncan. He gives me many more great years. Russell was not nearly as complete. Wilt also had an amazing peak but he wasn't as complete as Duncan either and didn't perform in the playoffs.

For me, I take Kareem and Hakeem then Duncan. Am I crazy? Again, this is not based on peak but entire career. Give me almost 18+ years of dominant play over shorter careers/higher peaks and lesser rings (Shaq and Wilt) or more complete game (Russell).


When I think of Duncan's greatness, his height and length didn't factor much into my thought but I saw him standing right next to DJ and his shoulders are clearly above DJ's and DJ is probably 6'11"without shoes. So Duncan had impressive height and length. And as we all know, every centimeter of height/length matter in basketball. The guy was truly a big and you could say his more natural position was center.

Everything I have read indicates that Duncan is 6-11 (w/o shoes.) Even bb-reference finally reduced him from 7-0 to 6-11.

Jordan measured 6-9.5 at draft express (w/o shoes).

And I haven't found any solid documentation on Duncan's wingspan. Some unconfirmed opinions have it at 7-3.

David Robinson was a tad over 7-0...

http://www.nba.com/media/allstar2008/tduncandrob_400.jpg

[DMAVS41]

70's KAJ faced HOF centers like Wilt, Thurmond, Lanier, Reed, Bellamy, Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, Gilmore, Parish, and Moses.

Sorry to tell you, but aside from Shaq, who was clearly better H2H in his prime (especially when Phil would finally have Shaq defend Duncan in 4th quarters)...the 00's thru the current NBA have had virtually ZERO talent at the center position, and FAR less than what a 70's Kareem faced.

And yes, a 70's Kareem was FAR more dominant. The only area in which Duncan was CLOSE, was in DEFENSE. Kareem's defense was very under-rated in the 70's, but here is all you need to know...the Bucks from '70-71 thru '73-74 were light years better than the rest of the league in DEFENSE...and arguably as great as any team that has ever played.

Kareem could hang 50 on Wilt, 50 on Walton, and then at age 39 he ROUTINELY hung 40+ on Hakeem (including one game of 46 in 37 minutes.)

I have Duncan at #7 all-time, and just behind Shaq. IMHO, Shaq's PEAK was considerably higher than Duncan's. And while Shaq had a great and long career (and was dominant throughout much of it), I would concede that Duncan's overall career has a case over Shaq's. Not much...they are very close, but perhaps a slight edge. But, again, a PEAK Shaq was just much more dominant.

Only area they are close is defense? Are you suggesting that Kareem was a better defender? Because...just no...he was not.

And they are also close on longevity at this point.

I'm not going to hate on Kareem because he's one of my favorite players, although I think he kind of stopped caring for a while and needed Magic in a lot of ways to invigorate him...

Not questioning his greatness. I just think Duncan's impact is being ignored here.

There is a reason why a lot of the objective measures have Kareem and Duncan very close all time.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Kareem TORCHED Bill Walton in the 1977 playoffs. Straight ownage. That's pretty much what he'd would do to Duncan. You are vastly underrating Kareem's dominance in the 70s. He's a legit GOAT candidate. Duncan is not.

[DMAVS41]

Kareem TORCHED Bill Walton in the 1977 playoffs. Straight ownage. That's pretty much what he'd would do to Duncan. You are vastly underrating Kareem's dominance in the 70s. He's a legit GOAT candidate. Duncan is not.

Well, I watched that series and Kareem was great.

But why do you think that version of Kareem would dominate prime Duncan for example?

Duncan played prime Shaq in 03 and put up 28/12/5 and won.

I mean...I'm not gonna say I know what would or wouldn't happen on this stuff because that is impossible, but I don't see a ton of evidence for Kareem just dominating Duncan given how we saw Duncan fare against prime/peak Shaq.

Duncan averaged 26/13/4 against Shaq in the playoffs for his career.

[LAZERUSS]

Only area they are close is defense? Are you suggesting that Kareem was a better defender? Because...just no...he was not.

And they are also close on longevity at this point.

I'm not going to hate on Kareem because he's one of my favorite players, although I think he kind of stopped caring for a while and needed Magic in a lot of ways to invigorate him...

Not questioning his greatness. I just think Duncan's impact is being ignored here.

There is a reason why a lot of the objective measures have Kareem and Duncan very close all time.

Duncan has been the better defensive force over the course of his entire career, but then KAJ was massively better offensively his entire career, as well.

I am not one to use advanced stats (mini stats in my opinion), but in some cases it is all we have. A peak Duncan had seasons of DRtg's of 89, 91, and 93. Unfortunately for Kareem, we don't have that stat at his absolute peak (70-71 thru 72-73), but even after that he had seasons of 89, 90, 92 and 92. And judging by just how suffocating the Bucks defense was in '71, '72, and '73...I suspect that a PEAK KAJ was perhaps in the mid 80's.

How about shot-blocking? Using the (infamous) PER/100 possessions, Duncan and KAJ are tied in career averages. BUT, we don't have a PEAK Kareem's numbers, and even without them, a prime Kareem was considerably greater. It wasn't until the second half of Kareem's career where he nose-dived in that stat.

Overall, Duncan has been the better rebounder, and clearly was better in the last halves of their careers, but a peak Kareem led the league in rpg once, and total rebounds, twice. Duncan did manage to lead the league in total rebounds once.

Passing? You can forget ast% which I have blown away as a completely fallacious stat. But in terms of ast/PER 100 possessions, very close in terms of careers, but in terms of prime, Kareem holds a solid margin.

Then, when you get to pure scoring and efficiency stats, Kareem just blows Duncan away...and at every point in their careers. Kareem was not only a much better scorer, he was a much more efficient scorer, and that includes both eFG% and TS%. And a PEAK Kareem was light-years better than a peak Duncan.


I will agree with you that Kareem lost motivation and focus in the second half of the 70's. And even though he was still the best player in the league for most of those years, IMHO, he under-achieved. And he obviously picked up the vast majority of his team success with Magic running the show. But he was more of an offensive force in the 80's, than Duncan has been his entire career. And of course, a PEAK Kareem, from his rookie season thru '77 was a monster on offense, with only Wilt and MJ having higher peaks.


Don't get me wrong. Duncan has had a brilliant career, but he also has played with arguably the best coach and organization of his era...while Kareem didn't have that luxury until he was past his prime.

I have three levels in my "top-13" list, and Shaq and Duncan are alone in the second tier (#6 and #7 respectively.) But neither were in the truly immortal Top5 tier (Wilt, MJ, Magic, Kareem, and Russell.) And before someone questions Magic, he has the highest career W-L% in NBA history, and then went to nine Finals in his 12 prime seasons, winning five times. All anyone needs to do is to look at his impact with him, and without him, in the careers of Worthy, Nixon, Wilkes, Scott, and Kareem, and other's.

[LAZERUSS]

Well, I watched that series and Kareem was great.

But why do you think that version of Kareem would dominate prime Duncan for example?

Duncan played prime Shaq in 03 and put up 28/12/5 and won.

I mean...I'm not gonna say I know what would or wouldn't happen on this stuff because that is impossible, but I don't see a ton of evidence for Kareem just dominating Duncan given how we saw Duncan fare against prime/peak Shaq.

Duncan averaged 26/13/4 against Shaq in the playoffs for his career.



Duncan seldom went H2H against Shaq in their career H2H's. BUT, Phil would finally put Shaq on Duncan in the 4th quarters of almost every one of their playoff series from '01 thru '04. Guess what? Duncan shot HORRIFICALLY from the field, and in many of those games, he was a turnover machine.

Here is Duncan's 4th quarter FG/FGAs in each season from their '01, '02, '03, and '04 playoff H2H's...




00-01 5-13

01-02 11-30

02-03 7-23

03-04 12-21



A career .402 shooter. And take away their 03-04 H2H, and it was an AWFUL .348.

Shaq OWNED Duncan in those 4th quarters.

I always questioned Jackson not using that defensive match-up more often. He would allow Duncan to abuse whatever flunky he had at PF in those years (including Horry), but then he would spring Shaq on Duncan, and boom...Duncan was a nervous wreck who couldn't hit a shot for his life.

A couple of more points...

In the ONE series that San Antonio won in that period, '02-03, Duncan was a mess in the 4th quarters. He was VISIBLY shaken when he had the ball in his hands. Think about this...in game five the Spurs had built a 25 point lead late in the 3rd period. By the end of the 4th quarter, the game came down to an Horry (barely) missed 3pt shot. Duncan had completely folded his tent in that quarter and didn't even want the ball.

Then, how about the "Fisher .4 game?" Yep...Duncan hit the shot that put SA up....BUT, it was a complete FLUKE. Shaq forced Duncan to dribble away nearly the entire clock, and then forced him to take an off-balance shot (he fell down taking it) that just barely eluded Shaq's finger-tips, and MIRACULOUSLY went in. It was poetic justice that Fisher hit that winning shot. BTW, the Lakers beat the Spurs the last four straight games of that series, and I suspect that even if they had lost that game, they would still have won that series.

Nope...Duncan was completely over-matched against a prime Shaq in the early to mid-2000's.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan seldom went H2H against Shaq in their career H2H's. BUT, Phil would finally put Shaq on Duncan in the 4th quarters of almost every one of their playoff series from '01 thru '04. Guess what? Duncan shot HORRIFICALLY from the field, and in many of those games, he was a turnover machine.

Here is Duncan's 4th quarter FG/FGAs in each season from their '01, '02, '03, and '04 playoff H2H's...



A career .402 shooter. And take away their 03-04 H2H, and it was an AWFUL .348.

Shaq OWNED Duncan in those 4th quarters.

I always questioned Jackson not using that defensive match-up more often. He would allow Duncan to abuse whatever flunky he had at PF in those years (including Horry), but then he would spring Shaq on Duncan, and boom...Duncan was a nervous wreck who couldn't hit a shot for his life.

A couple of more points...

In the ONE series that San Antonio won in that period, '02-03, Duncan was a mess in the 4th quarters. He was VISIBLY shaken when he had the ball in his hands. Think about this...in game five the Spurs had built a 25 point lead late in the 3rd period. By the end of the 4th quarter, the game came down to an Horry (barely) missed 3pt shot. Duncan had completely folded his tent in that quarter and didn't even want the ball.

Then, how about the "Fisher .4 game?" Yep...Duncan hit the shot that put SA up....BUT, it was a complete FLUKE. Shaq forced Duncan to dribble away nearly the entire clock, and then forced him to take an off-balance shot (he fell down taking it) that just barely eluded Shaq's finger-tips, and MIRACULOUSLY went in. It was poetic justice that Fisher hit that winning shot. BTW, the Lakers beat the Spurs the last four straight games of that series, and I suspect that even if they had lost that game, they would still have won that series.

Nope...Duncan was completely over-matched against a prime Shaq in the early to mid-2000's.


We have different definitions of owning...26/13/4 while anchoring elite defenses is not getting owned.

The 4th qtr is not the only qtr that matters...so that is a bit of a red herring.

I don't really care much about the "winning" against Shaq because of how absurdly talented those Lakers teams were compared to the Spurs. But you forgot the 99 series. Don't think it's fair to ignore that one.

Duncan: 29/11/3 60% TS 111 ortg 95 drtg
Shaq: 24/13/1 51% TS 106 ortg 105 drtg

I'm not gonna argue peak Shaq vs peak Duncan...I gladly concede Shaq was more of a force, but I think it's a bit unfair to label this as "owning"...Duncan won two series against this monster version of Shaq and I don't think it's right to ignore the 99 sweep.

And if winning matters that much...then lets talk about Kareem getting swept in 77. You didn't bring that up, but just in response to the guy saying Kareem would destroy Duncan...really not fair to hold Duncan losing against him...and not hold losing against Kareem.

I would prefer to do neither and just talk about their play. Kareem was dominant against the 77 Blazers and deserves credit for that whether his team was good enough or not.

It's just a hard case to make that Kareem would just destroy Duncan if they played against each other in a series. I don't see much reason to think that given the evidence.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan has been the better defensive force over the course of his entire career, but then KAJ was massively better offensively his entire career, as well.

I am not one to use advanced stats (mini stats in my opinion), but in some cases it is all we have. A peak Duncan had seasons of DRtg's of 89, 91, and 93. Unfortunately for Kareem, we don't have that stat at his absolute peak (70-71 thru 72-73), but even after that he had seasons of 89, 90, 92 and 92. And judging by just how suffocating the Bucks defense was in '71, '72, and '73...I suspect that a PEAK KAJ was perhaps in the mid 80's.

How about shot-blocking? Using the (infamous) PER/100 possessions, Duncan and KAJ are tied in career averages. BUT, we don't have a PEAK Kareem's numbers, and even without them, a prime Kareem was considerably greater. It wasn't until the second half of Kareem's career where he nose-dived in that stat.

Overall, Duncan has been the better rebounder, and clearly was better in the last halves of their careers, but a peak Kareem led the league in rpg once, and total rebounds, twice. Duncan did manage to lead the league in total rebounds once.

Passing? You can forget ast% which I have blown away as a completely fallacious stat. But in terms of ast/PER 100 possessions, very close in terms of careers, but in terms of prime, Kareem holds a solid margin.

Then, when you get to pure scoring and efficiency stats, Kareem just blows Duncan away...and at every point in their careers. Kareem was not only a much better scorer, he was a much more efficient scorer, and that includes both eFG% and TS%. And a PEAK Kareem was light-years better than a peak Duncan.


I will agree with you that Kareem lost motivation and focus in the second half of the 70's. And even though he was still the best player in the league for most of those years, IMHO, he under-achieved. And he obviously picked up the vast majority of his team success with Magic running the show. But he was more of an offensive force in the 80's, than Duncan has been his entire career. And of course, a PEAK Kareem, from his rookie season thru '77 was a monster on offense, with only Wilt and MJ having higher peaks.


Don't get me wrong. Duncan has had a brilliant career, but he also has played with arguably the best coach and organization of his era...while Kareem didn't have that luxury until he was past his prime.

I have three levels in my "top-13" list, and Shaq and Duncan are alone in the second tier (#6 and #7 respectively.) But neither were in the truly immortal Top5 tier (Wilt, MJ, Magic, Kareem, and Russell.) And before someone questions Magic, he has the highest career W-L% in NBA history, and then went to nine Finals in his 12 prime seasons, winning five times. All anyone needs to do is to look at his impact with him, and without him, in the careers of Worthy, Nixon, Wilkes, Scott, and Kareem, and other's.


Not much I disagree with here. Kareem is one of my favorite players ever.

Only area of disagreement is the tier you have Duncan on. I'd now put Duncan on that top 5 tier.

[gts]

Tim Duncan is top 5 all-time

Top ten not top 5

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Kareem gets overrated a bit for playing with another top 3/5/10 player of all time. The only other players in the top 10 to play together at/close to their peak/prime is Shaq/Kobe.... and they 3peated. Not only that, but those 80 Lakers teams were the most stacked teams in that whole era with yet ANOTHER FMVP and ATG player in Worthy who made Jordan his sidekick in college plus a plethora of other great players on the roster. And NOT ONLY THAT, but they also played in one of the weakest conferences of all time, so it was a cakewalk to the finals every year. Then you add to that Kareem's peak/prime being in one of the weakest eras of all time, the 70's, where more teams won a chip than any other era and THAT'S where he was the most dominant and racked up his MVP's.... BUT STILL ONLY MANAGED TO WIN 1 RING THAT WHOLE TIME? C'mon, man.

:kobe:

Did we NOT see Duncan carry the 2003 Spurs to a chip taking out peak/prime Shaq/Kobe (2 top 10 GOAT's) with his second option being a rookie Tony Parker with 14 ppg?! When did Kareem do anything like that? CONTEXT. People also always bring up how much Kareem was scoring late in his career, but IGNORE the fact that he didn't try at all on the other side of the floor, HALF the game, DEFENSE. His rebounding dropped off a cliff, too. What if Duncan decided to just not play defense or rebound and devoted all his energy to scoring? Who would cover for him? Oh, that's right. He DOESN'T have an ALL TIME stacked team and has to anchor the defense and be his team's rim protector/shot blocker.

:no:

I mean, we're literally comparing one of the greatest teams of all time talent wise to what everyone considers is a bunch of roleplayers in a system. You really do have to look at everything here and put it all into context. Kareem, arguably the GOAT center and consensus 2-4 GOAT player of all time, had the GOAT PG and usually consensus 3-5 player to run the offense and take away a TON of the opposing team's defensive focus for all but ONE of his rings. He won ONE ring in the WORST era of ALL TIME and NEVER faced another team with 2 top 3, top 5 or even top 10 players on it like his or the early '00 Lakers. Then playing on the MOST STACKED team in the 80's with another top 3/5/10 player and myriad other ATG/HOF players, he won ONE FMVP in FIVE NBA championships! 1/5!

:biggums:

One finals he was even chilling at home while his top 3/5/10 GOAT teammate and Wilkes put up a combined 78 points to carry his squad to one of his chips. ****ing absurd. When has Tim Duncan EVER had that kind of help?! That he could just not even play while multiple teammates put up 40 and his team wins a title? Talk about STACKED.

:lol

People really going to act like playing next to another GOAT doesn't make the game easier? Doesn't make the other team focus less on stopping you, thus making it MUCH easier to feast as a result? Not only that, but the fact that it's the GOAT PG, too?! Who runs your offense, gets everyone else involved at a GOAT level? Who's also a complete mismatch and one of the most unique players EVER playing PG at 6'9"? Who is ACTUALLY capable of playing all FIVE positions, including yours, the CENTER position at an ALL TIME GREAT level in stretches enough to defeat other ALL TIME GREAT centers who are ranked ahead of some of your closest competition all time like Moses ****ing Malone? What in the ****? How can't anyone see this and look at the context here?

:confusedshrug:

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Kareem isn't deserving of being a top 2/3/5 GOAT player of all time or that he isn't. All I'm saying is you MUST look at everything in the proper CONTEXT! NO other top 10 GOAT had his level of help and had such perfect circumstances to flourish and be a dominant player. I mean, this dude went from playing in the WORST era of ALL TIME where he racked up MVP's like nothing into his team drafting the GOAT PG and having the MOST STACKED team of the era in one of the WEAKEST conferences of all time. Those are absolutely PERFECT conditions here, people!

:durantunimpressed:

If anything, IMO, Kareem underachieved given all that went right in his career. I mean, look at it this way... if you transported to that time period let's say Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Russell, etc and everything happened the same for them.... got to play in the 70 with no one really dominant team bogarting all the chips, team gets drafted the GOAT PG right at the tail end of their prime, their team plays in a historically weak conference, their team is the most stacked of that era, etc... really, how many chips does each of those boys win? At least 6, right? Maybe more? I mean, we are talking about teams that they can even go out with an injury during the finals and still come away with a chip while their teammates throw up 40 point games. That's historically stacked.

:facepalm

Like I said, I'm not saying Kareem isn't a top 2/3/4/5 GOAT, he's clearly one of the greatest to ever do it and deserving of that, I'm just saying you have to look at everything in context here and that a LOT of other GOAT's would do well if given the same circumstances throughout their careers as he had the GOAT circumstances of ANY other top 10 player by FAR!

:coleman:

[Cold soul]

As a center. I have five above Duncan as center only.

Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Russell
Hakeem

6th Duncan

[Cold soul]

I feel peak Hakeem and Shaq were better players than Duncan but he had much better career than both.

[LAZERUSS]

Not much I disagree with here. Kareem is one of my favorite players ever.

Only area of disagreement is the tier you have Duncan on. I'd now put Duncan on that top 5 tier.

We can agree to disagree.

I wouldn't cry if I "had" to take Duncan instead of Kareem or Shaq in a draft. Duncan, like Russell, made his teammates better, and his teams were greater than the sum of their parts.

:cheers:

[Spurs5Rings2014]

I feel peak Hakeem and Shaq were better players than Duncan but he had much better career than both.

I see this posted a lot and I think what it comes down to is they had great stats and were very dominant in their peak/prime, but when it's all said and done Duncan had them beat in things that are equally as important when it comes to greatness like intangibles, leadership, team play, clutchness, etc.

Duncan was just a greater winner than them. His determination and will to win transcended the offensive advantage those two provided. It's somewhat similar to Russell and Wilt, although Duncan is clearly a lot more offensively talented and complete than Russell was, which makes it even more interesting since plenty have Russell ahead of Wilt and the chasm between their offensive skill sets couldn't be wider.

[Ncrazyballa]

Atleast number 5 for sure.

[ClipperRevival]

Everything I have read indicates that Duncan is 6-11 (w/o shoes.) Even bb-reference finally reduced him from 7-0 to 6-11.

Jordan measured 6-9.5 at draft express (w/o shoes).

And I haven't found any solid documentation on Duncan's wingspan. Some unconfirmed opinions have it at 7-3.

David Robinson was a tad over 7-0...

http://www.nba.com/media/allstar2008/tduncandrob_400.jpg

No way in hell is DJ 6.9.5 without shoes. Those draft numbers can be misleading because guys can grow and get longer. DJ is listed as 6'11" and Blake Griffin is listed at 6'10". But when you see them stand right next to each other, DJ has 2-3 inches at the shoulders over Blake. And when you see Tim and DJ stand next to each other, Tim's shoulders are a bit higher.

I think right now and for most of his career, Tim was a legit 7 footer without shoes and had very long arms. His height/length never gets mentioned for his success but that played a big part too. Of course, he had rare coordination for a big, footwork and skills but as you know, size/length matters. And being a legit 7 footer with long arms made his game more effective than if he were a couple inches shorter.

[ClipperRevival]

Duncan has a strong case to be even as high as #3 GOAT but he has a very weak case OVER Jabbar on the ATG list. To me, Jabbar is the only one along with MJ who can make a legit claim as the greatest ever. When you look at the whole body of work, you can only come away with those two names imo.

Jabbar has Duncan in rings (6 to 5) and regular season MVP (6 to 2). Jabbar had the greatest college career ever, had the greater peak, greater offensive game and is the all time leading scorer.

[ClipperRevival]

Hello? Anyone home?

Your threshold is totally arbitrary and basically stipulates that you can be only a certain amount better than anyone else. Anything above that means the competition was weak.

This basically means that if there is a one in a million player, a player several times better than Jordan; he's going to be discounted because he is too good. With all due respect; you're either not bright enough to understand what you're saying; or you're doing it purposefully so you don't have to dethrone your favourite, by creating some parameters that don't make consistent, rational, sense.



You're right.

KAJ
Russell
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Moses

It seems like you're basically accepting Russell's rings at face value. Sorry, but I can't do that. Not when I look at the evidence of what has taken place since his days. Again, the fact that no team has made it to more than 4 straight NBA finals appearances and won more than 3 in a row is telling. There is a reason for that. And I hope I don't have to explain this again.

Is it possible that some great player on a great team might win more than 3 in a row? Of course. And when we see it, we will witness it. But do I ever envision any team winning 11 of 13 rings in this modern era? No way. Not unless if there is a perfect scenario where one team is so clearly stacked, they just keep winning. And maybe that was the case for Russell's Celtics. But I have to see it first. See a team win more than 3 in a row. Then we can judge from there.

[T_L_P]

No way in hell is DJ 6.9.5 without shoes. Those draft numbers can be misleading because guys can grow and get longer. DJ is listed as 6'11" and Blake Griffin is listed at 6'10". But when you see them stand right next to each other, DJ has 2-3 inches at the shoulders over Blake. And when you see Tim and DJ stand next to each other, Tim's shoulders are a bit higher.

I think right now and for most of his career, Tim was a legit 7 footer without shoes and had very long arms. His height/length never gets mentioned for his success but that played a big part too. Of course, he had rare coordination for a big, footwork and skills but as you know, size/length matters. And being a legit 7 footer with long arms made his game more effective than if he were a couple inches shorter.

His length has been his biggest asset for more than a decade now.

[LAZERUSS]

No way in hell is DJ 6.9.5 without shoes. Those draft numbers can be misleading because guys can grow and get longer. DJ is listed as 6'11" and Blake Griffin is listed at 6'10". But when you see them stand right next to each other, DJ has 2-3 inches at the shoulders over Blake. And when you see Tim and DJ stand next to each other, Tim's shoulders are a bit higher.

I think right now and for most of his career, Tim was a legit 7 footer without shoes and had very long arms. His height/length never gets mentioned for his success but that played a big part too. Of course, he had rare coordination for a big, footwork and skills but as you know, size/length matters. And being a legit 7 footer with long arms made his game more effective than if he were a couple inches shorter.

Those Draft Express numbers are clearly dead on.

Blake Griffin 6-10? :roll: :roll: :roll: Try 6-8 1/2.

DeAndre Jordan 6-11? Try 6-9 1/2

Spencer Hawes 7-1? This is really hilarious. Try 6-10 1/2.


As for Duncan...

David Robinson was measured at barely 7-0. I provided just one of MANY photos in which he TOWERS over the "7-0" Tim Duncan.

Again, even basketball-reference caved in on these felonious heights, and listed Duncan at 6-11. And there are college references at 6-10 1/2.

Very few NBA players were measured without shoes from the 80's on.

The list is long of totally exaggerated heights.

Ralph Sampson at 7-4? Mark Eaton who claims that he, himself, is "only" 7-3 1/2, just TOWERED over Sampson. The reality was, Sampson was even shorter than an old Kareem, and came in at 7-1 1/2.

Hakeem at 7-0? Barely 6-10, if that.

Ben Wallace at 6-9? Try a self-admitted 6-7.


Now, pre-80's heights were often exaggerated the other way. Bill Walton was listed at 6-11, and I can quote articles in which his true height was listed at 7-1+.

For years, until just this past year, Bill Russell was listed at 6-9. Now basketball-reference lists him at 6-10 (which is what he was actually listed at in college BTW.)

Wilt is listed at 7-1, but he was over that. BTW, he, himself, only claimed 7-1 1/16, but there are numerous articles, including quotes from his personal physician, which go as high as 7-3. In any case, he was taller than 7-1.


Again, you can go right down the list...almost every player going into college, or coming into the NBA is listed taller than their actual height. Some by over 2".

Duncan was no exception.

[colts19]

Those Draft Express numbers are clearly dead on.

Blake Griffin 6-10? :roll: :roll: :roll: Try 6-8 1/2.

DeAndre Jordan 6-11? Try 6-9 1/2

Spencer Hawes 7-1? This is really hilarious. Try 6-10 1/2.


As for Duncan...

David Robinson was measured at barely 7-0. I provided just one of MANY photos in which he TOWERS over the "7-0" Tim Duncan.

Again, even basketball-reference caved in on these felonious heights, and listed Duncan at 6-11. And there are college references at 6-10 1/2.

Very few NBA players were measured without shoes from the 80's on.

The list is long of totally exaggerated heights.

Ralph Sampson at 7-4? Mark Eaton who claims that he, himself, is "only" 7-3 1/2, just TOWERED over Sampson. The reality was, Sampson was even shorter than an old Kareem, and came in at 7-1 1/2.

Hakeem at 7-0? Barely 6-10, if that.

Ben Wallace at 6-9? Try a self-admitted 6-7.


Now, pre-80's heights were often exaggerated the other way. Bill Walton was listed at 6-11, and I can quote articles in which his true height was listed at 7-1+.

For years, until just this past year, Bill Russell was listed at 6-9. Now basketball-reference lists him at 6-10 (which is what he was actually listed at in college BTW.)

Wilt is listed at 7-1, but he was over that. BTW, he, himself, only claimed 7-1 1/16, but there are numerous articles, including quotes from his personal physician, which go as high as 7-3. In any case, he was taller than 7-1.


Again, you can go right down the list...almost every player going into college, or coming into the NBA is listed taller than their actual height. Some by over 2".

Duncan was no exception.

Laz, I have been following your post in this thread. and I must say even thought I don't agree with everything you say. When your not defending Wilt in a unreasonable manner. Then your contribution to these subjects are just OUTSTANDING. It been a pleasure to read this stuff. Thank You

[ClipperRevival]

Those Draft Express numbers are clearly dead on.

Blake Griffin 6-10? :roll: :roll: :roll: Try 6-8 1/2.

DeAndre Jordan 6-11? Try 6-9 1/2

Spencer Hawes 7-1? This is really hilarious. Try 6-10 1/2.


As for Duncan...

David Robinson was measured at barely 7-0. I provided just one of MANY photos in which he TOWERS over the "7-0" Tim Duncan.

Again, even basketball-reference caved in on these felonious heights, and listed Duncan at 6-11. And there are college references at 6-10 1/2.

Very few NBA players were measured without shoes from the 80's on.

The list is long of totally exaggerated heights.

Ralph Sampson at 7-4? Mark Eaton who claims that he, himself, is "only" 7-3 1/2, just TOWERED over Sampson. The reality was, Sampson was even shorter than an old Kareem, and came in at 7-1 1/2.

Hakeem at 7-0? Barely 6-10, if that.

Ben Wallace at 6-9? Try a self-admitted 6-7.


Now, pre-80's heights were often exaggerated the other way. Bill Walton was listed at 6-11, and I can quote articles in which his true height was listed at 7-1+.

For years, until just this past year, Bill Russell was listed at 6-9. Now basketball-reference lists him at 6-10 (which is what he was actually listed at in college BTW.)

Wilt is listed at 7-1, but he was over that. BTW, he, himself, only claimed 7-1 1/16, but there are numerous articles, including quotes from his personal physician, which go as high as 7-3. In any case, he was taller than 7-1.


Again, you can go right down the list...almost every player going into college, or coming into the NBA is listed taller than their actual height. Some by over 2".

Duncan was no exception.

Well, I said draftexpress numbers can be misleading. Don't know where you're getting the notion that I am saying they are accurate. Most player's heights are exagerrated to some extent because you don't know if they are listing height with or without shoes. How tall is Barkley? Lol. I

But I do think Duncan is very close to being a legit I footer without shoes. Of course if you want to show photo evidence, I will be glad to see them. I am not saying Duncan is 7 feet for sure without shoes. Just saying he is or very close too it. I can't imagine him being anything lower than 6'11" without shoes.

[LAZERUSS]

Well, I said draftexpress numbers can be misleading. Don't know where you're getting the notion that I am saying they are accurate. Most player's heights are exagerrated to some extent because you don't know if they are listing height with or without shoes. How tall is Barkley? Lol. I

But I do think Duncan is very close to being a legit I footer without shoes. Of course if you want to show photo evidence, I will be glad to see them. I am not saying Duncan is 7 feet for sure without shoes. Just saying he is or very close too it. I can't imagine him being anything lower than 6'11" without shoes.

I agree that Duncan is 6-11. And I honestly don't know his wingspan...but I suspect around 7-3. But we also know that he has very little leaping ability. None of which matters. He is one of the most intelligent, and hardest working players in NBA history. "The Big Fundamental."

But these height exaggerations need some perspective. Jordan, Drummond, Howard, and Cousins are all around 6-9 1/2. Which is about what Russell was in the 60's. The best centers of this era are no taller than the best centers of any other era.


Oh, and Barkley, who won a rebounding title in the late 80's... 6-5 3/4.

[LAZERUSS]

Laz, I have been following your post in this thread. and I must say even thought I don't agree with everything you say. When your not defending Wilt in a unreasonable manner. Then your contribution to these subjects are just OUTSTANDING. It been a pleasure to read this stuff. Thank You

I appreciate this.

BTW, I have always respected your opinions, ...even if I don't always agree with them. You are among a very small group here that I truly respect.

:cheers:

[rmt]

It's isn't just his height but his wingspan, positioning, basketball IQ and the fact that he doesn't bring his arms back down when he has the ball - they always stay up. In the 05 Finals, he averaged over 14 rebounds per game going up against Rasheed, Ben Wallace and McDyess (sometimes out rebounding both Wallaces). Some knock TD for his poor shooting percentage (42%) in that series - not acknowledging that it was against a 4 time DPOY, Rasheed and Dice (not exactly chopped liver on defense) - still averaged 21 pts/game.

[BigBoss]

He's not a center. He has the #1 spot as PF though.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Duncan has a strong case to be even as high as #3 GOAT but he has a very weak case OVER Jabbar on the ATG list. To me, Jabbar is the only one along with MJ who can make a legit claim as the greatest ever. When you look at the whole body of work, you can only come away with those two names imo.

Jabbar has Duncan in rings (6 to 5) and regular season MVP (6 to 2). Jabbar had the greatest college career ever, had the greater peak, greater offensive game and is the all time leading scorer.

Context. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Jabbar won 1 ring in the weakest era of all time, which also happened to coincide with most of his prime/peak years. Even still, he only won one ring during that time and that was with the second GOAT PG in Oscar Robertson.

Then he won his other 5 with the GOAT PG of all time, another top 3/5/10 player. Duncan never had another top 3/5/10 player on any of his teams, nevermind a GOAT at their position in Magic. What would happen if Duncan got paired with a rookie Jordan, Bird, Shaq, etc for the last decade of his career? C'mon, man. Context. I'm not saying you take away Kareem's rings, but his rings were far and away easier to win for him in HIS situation than Duncan's were.

You add to that the fact that the west was one of the weakest conferences of all time during the 80, the Lakers were the most stacked team of the 80's, Pat Riley as coach, Worthy (another FMVP) on the team, Cooper, Wilkes, etc. It just becomes comical. Then you look at the fact that Kareem was 1/5 in FMVP during that time and you can't really give him ALL the credit for their success. I mean, look at Kobe. People constantly don't give him credit for his 3 sidekick rings, but Kareem has 4. It's ridiculous. Duncan only has 2, but Kareem is given more credit for being a sidekick twice as much.

He played with top 2 PG's of all time. The season before Oscar retired, the Bucks had the best record in the league at 59-23 and barely lost in 7 games in the finals. The season after when Oscar retired with Kareem still on the team? Worst record in their division below .500 at 38-44. In the 1980 finals, Kareem went down and Magic played center scoring 42 points against a GOAT center in Moses who some people put above Duncan in this very thread. Kareem literally had a player as good or better than Duncan on his team and yet receives full credit for all 6 of his rings like he won FMVP all 6 times or even played in all finals games where they won the title.

Not only that, but in 1989 when Magic went down? The Lakers got swept by the Pistons with ease. Then after he retired the Lakers didn't miss a step and were back in he finals in 1991. It's no coincidence his best seasons were with the two GOAT PG's. What would happen if Duncan played the majority of his career with the top 2 GOAT's at any position? Jordan and Kobe? Bird and LeBron? Wilt and Shaq? Are you kidding? He won almost all of his rings playing with no other all-NBA player on the team, there's no way he doesn't win more with not only another all-NBA player, but a top 2 GOAT at their position.

Like I said, Kareem has never carried a team of roleplayers to a chip like Duncan has. When has Kareem ever carried a team to a chip with no other all-NBA players on the roster? With his second option putting up only 14 ppg? With no top 2 GOAT at their position? And all that against a team every season that had 2 top 10 GOAT's during his prime? And still managed to beat that team of 2 top 10 GOAT's multiple times and win multiple chips? It NEVER happened. In fact, he routinely lost to teams without ANY top 10 GOAT's, never mind 1 or 2. When he faced a team with even 1, he lost very often. How many times has Duncan lost to LeBron in the finals? C'mon now.

He racked up almost all of his regular season MVP's in that era as well where there was only one other top 10 all time great player to take some away... an old Wilt. Then Wilt retired and he literally had no other top 10 GOAT to compete against the rest of the way until the 80's.

Kareem may have had the greater offensive game, but Duncan had the greater defensive game. Kareem stopped playing defense and rebounding when he got older, and devoted all of his energy into offense. We don't know how much better Duncan would of been on the offensive end for how much longer if he had just stopped playing defense and rebounding after his prime faded. Duncan does whatever is needed for his TEAM to win. One of the most unselfish players ever.

What it all comes down to though and what I have to keep reiterating here is that everything should be taken in context. Kareem had the GOAT circumstances/situation of any all time great with being able to play with the 1 and 2 GOAT at their position (winning all his rings with them, in fact), getting to play in the weakest era of all time with pretty much no other top 10 GOAT playing at that time to rack up MVP's, getting to play with an NBA ready GOAT right from his rookie season in one of the weakest conferences of all time in that era where all the great teams were in the other conference taking each other out year after year. It's really no surprise he had arguably the GOAT career after all that. Like I said, put any other top 10 GOAT in Kareem's place playing with Oscar in the weak 70's with no other top 10's (other than an old Wilt in the beginning), in the western conference in the 80's with Magic for 10 seasons and I doubt they could do much worse, some even would walk away with more.

[ClipperRevival]

Context. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Jabbar won 1 ring in the weakest era of all time, which also happened to coincide with most of his prime/peak years. Even still, he only won one ring during that time and that was with the second GOAT PG in Oscar Robertson.

Then he won his other 5 with the GOAT PG of all time, another top 3/5/10 player. Duncan never had another top 3/5/10 player on any of his teams, nevermind a GOAT at their position in Magic. What would happen if Duncan got paired with a rookie Jordan, Bird, Shaq, etc for the last decade of his career? C'mon, man. Context. I'm not saying you take away Kareem's rings, but his rings were far and away easier to win for him in HIS situation than Duncan's were.

You add to that the fact that the west was one of the weakest conferences of all time during the 80, the Lakers were the most stacked team of the 80's, Pat Riley as coach, Worthy (another FMVP) on the team, Cooper, Wilkes, etc. It just becomes comical. Then you look at the fact that Kareem was 1/5 in FMVP during that time and you can't really give him ALL the credit for their success. I mean, look at Kobe. People constantly don't give him credit for his 3 sidekick rings, but Kareem has 4. It's ridiculous. Duncan only has 2, but Kareem is given more credit for being a sidekick twice as much.

He played with top 2 PG's of all time. The season before Oscar retired, the Bucks had the best record in the league at 59-23 and barely lost in 7 games in the finals. The season after when Oscar retired with Kareem still on the team? Worst record in their division below .500 at 38-44. In the 1980 finals, Kareem went down and Magic played center scoring 42 points against a GOAT center in Moses who some people put above Duncan in this very thread. Kareem literally had a player as good or better than Duncan on his team and yet receives full credit for all 6 of his rings like he won FMVP all 6 times or even played in all finals games where they won the title.

Not only that, but in 1989 when Magic went down? The Lakers got swept by the Pistons with ease. Then after he retired the Lakers didn't miss a step and were back in he finals in 1991. It's no coincidence his best seasons were with the two GOAT PG's. What would happen if Duncan played the majority of his career with the top 2 GOAT's at any position? Jordan and Kobe? Bird and LeBron? Wilt and Shaq? Are you kidding? He won almost all of his rings playing with no other all-NBA player on the team, there's no way he doesn't win more with not only another all-NBA player, but a top 2 GOAT at their position.

Like I said, Kareem has never carried a team of roleplayers to a chip like Duncan has. When has Kareem ever carried a team to a chip with no other all-NBA players on the roster? With his second option putting up only 14 ppg? With no top 2 GOAT at their position? And all that against a team every season that had 2 top 10 GOAT's during his prime? And still managed to beat that team of 2 top 10 GOAT's multiple times and win multiple chips? It NEVER happened. In fact, he routinely lost to teams without ANY top 10 GOAT's, never mind 1 or 2. When he faced a team with even 1, he lost very often. How many times has Duncan lost to LeBron in the finals? C'mon now.

He racked up almost all of his regular season MVP's in that era as well where there was only one other top 10 all time great player to take some away... an old Wilt. Then Wilt retired and he literally had no other top 10 GOAT to compete against the rest of the way until the 80's.

Kareem may have had the greater offensive game, but Duncan had the greater defensive game. Kareem stopped playing defense and rebounding when he got older, and devoted all of his energy into offense. We don't know how much better Duncan would of been on the offensive end for how much longer if he had just stopped playing defense and rebounding after his prime faded. Duncan does whatever is needed for his TEAM to win. One of the most unselfish players ever.

What it all comes down to though and what I have to keep reiterating here is that everything should be taken in context. Kareem had the GOAT circumstances/situation of any all time great with being able to play with the 1 and 2 GOAT at their position (winning all his rings with them, in fact), getting to play in the weakest era of all time with pretty much no other top 10 GOAT playing at that time to rack up MVP's, getting to play with an NBA ready GOAT right from his rookie season in one of the weakest conferences of all time in that era where all the great teams were in the other conference taking each other out year after year. It's really no surprise he had arguably the GOAT career after all that. Like I said, put any other top 10 GOAT in Kareem's place playing with Oscar in the weak 70's with no other top 10's (other than an old Wilt in the beginning), in the western conference in the 80's with Magic for 10 seasons and I doubt they could do much worse, some even would walk away with more.

In other words, Jabbar sucks right? Man, if you were a bit more objective in your argument, I would be more open to responding but your viewpoint is so skewed, why even bother. I agree, he sucks. Everything he did was circumstances of playing in a weak era, having great talent around him.

[jlip]

Bump

[ArbitraryWater]

Sadly, he doesnt make the top 5..

but hes right behind Kareem/Shaq/Wilt/Hakeem/Russell

[feyki]

Peak ..

67 Wilt
72 or 74 Kareem

Only those two were significantly better . Duncan's peak ( 02 or 03 ) was on the same level as 94 Hakeem,50 Mikan,01 Shaq,62 Russell .

Career ..

Russell,Kareem and Wilt . These guys were goat candidates . Maybe Duncan too . But not as much as those three .

So .. Peak wise , arguably third . Career wise , fourth .

[Smoke117]

He'd be somewhere in the 6-10 range as an all time center.

[stevieming]

hmm, I always see TD as PF really.....I know he plays center but to me he is GOAT PF....

[Lebron23]

hmm, I always see TD as PF really.....I know he plays center but to me he is GOAT PF....


PF is historically a weak position unlike the Small Forward and Center positions which have plenty of talented and more accolades players.

[Sarcastic]

https://youtu.be/L5B12zy8zbo

[sportjames23]

As a center, I'm taking Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Dream, Ewing and Robinson over Tim.

[bizil]

GOAT wise, I think Timmy is in the 3 to 5 range for centers. Peak wise, I would take Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and the Dream over him for sure. So at best, I would take him 5th peak wise among centers.