Some Historical NBA Musings

How good is Tim Duncan?

The discussion on this topic seems to have centered on Timmy’s place among the historical greats. It is clear Duncan should rank high, but how high isn’t clear. As others have noted, using career totals for comparison isn’t fair to Duncan, since he hasn’t played long enough to compile the really big numbers. On the other hand, career averages tend to favor Duncan since he’s been consistently good since the start and hasn’t entered his decline phase yet. Additionally traditional stats tend to over value certain offensive skills, while hardly representing a player’s defensive value.

To address both these problems I decided to run a side by side comparison against the other great big men of recent NBA history. I used a variety of advanced stats and variety of comparison methods to try and get as complete a measure as I could of Tim’s rank among the all time best. For stats I did separate comparisons for Personal Win Percentage, PW%, (which I believe measures a players overall efficiency and balance of offensive and defensive skill), PER (a good measure for the impact and power a player has on offense, like measuring the payload of a bomb), Win Shares (a measure of how much a player carries his team), and Offensive Rating, ORtg, above and Defensive Rating, DRtg, below the league average(which helped me understand the source of the players value as well as their impact compared to the league in which they played). I then compared the players on these stats on a career average (fair in this case because many of these numbers don’t depend on a player contributing a lot, just doing it well) their top three years (to get some sense of their value at their peak), and the average of their five best consecutive seasons (to see how consistent they were at their prime). In all of these things I kept track of the year in which it occurred to get some sense of how each player developed over time as well as how contemporaries faired under the same conditions.

I could not compare Duncan to legends like Kareem, Wilt, and Russell, because too much of their careers happened before the advanced stats were available. Also, I don’t think Tim’s resume can seriously match some of their accomplishments, like 11 championships, 50 points per game in a season, or 6 MVP’s. For similar reasons I will not be comparing him against the very recent legends, MJ, Magic, Bird, because either you believe these guys were gods or you don’t and you can’t convince people one way or the other. Assessments of the great players like Baylor, Dr. J, and the Big O have the same problems mentioned above, plus their skills and styles were so different from the Big Fundamental’s. It’s an apples and oranges thing. Who’s better is very subjective and depends on what you value. Still even if you grant that all these players were better than Tim Duncan (not to say I do, but we’ll get to that later) there’s still an open spot in the All Time Top Ten, so the stakes are very high.

With all that said let’s do the run down of Tim Duncan, versus the great big men of the last twenty-five years. I envision this as an Enter the Dragon tournament, where we pit Duncan against tougher and tougher opponents until someone takes him down. So, in descending order of how well Tim faired against the opposition, they are…


Tim Duncan vs. Patrick Ewing

No, need to go into much detail here. Duncan’s level of play has been higher and done more for his team than Ewing ever had. Ewing had terrific defensive value at some points, but Duncan’s career average for DRtg below league has been better. There’s no question about who’s been a better offensive force. Duncan’s career average of 35.3 Win Shares is better than any season Ewing ever had. Also Duncan never had a PW% as low as Ewing’s career average. Test it anyway you want. This might as well have been a bye round for Duncan.


Tim Duncan vs. Moses Malone

Moses’ career represents the furthest back I was willing to go into pro-basketball history to start looking for comparable players to Duncan. His entire career can be measured by advanced statistics, and while he is remembered fondly, he hasn’t slipped into that category of unquestionable legends. Some people who remember his three MVP’s and a lot of long time Philly fans will think he was more valuable at his prime than Tim is now. The numbers tell a different story, though. Moses had a long career, playing many years after his peak, so his averages are obviously weighted down, by years of sub par performance. His peak seasons were great with a PER of 25.1, a PW% of .929, and his best defensive and second best offensive seasons. He was a little better in certain ways than TD, averaging 40.8 Win Shares in his top 5 seasons, rather than 39.0. I was even surprised to see that while that “Fo’ fo’ fo’” season of ’83 was terrific, his 1982 season was almost as good –noticeably better offense but significantly weaker defense. Still, he peak didn’t last as long as Duncan’s has, and his play and numbers fell off a steep cliff. He didn’t have one season of note after 1985. Duncan has played more consistent ball during his career so far than Moses did in his prime. While Moses had better pure offense at his peak, Duncan has had better overall value at his. The most important factor for me though, is that Tim’s value over the league at what he does best (defense) has always been higher than Moses’ value over the league at offense. So to all the Moses fans out there, your guy is still a legend, but next to Duncan it’s not even close.


Tim Duncan vs. Hakeem Olajuwan

This match-up has a lot of interesting aspects to it. Both were born outside North America. Both have played in “Twin Towers” style offenses, both won championships as the team leader. Both have tremendous defensive reps. On offense Duncan was the pure mechanic, playing like he was a diagram in a textbook, while Hakeem was all agility and grace. If this were a contest between nicknames The Dream would crush The Big Fundamental. Two interesting discoveries I made doing this comparison. First, Hakeem’s best years may not have been his back-to-back titles, but the years preceding it (if anything, this is a testament to how good the league of that day was). His best straight five-year run definitely includes his championships though. Second, The Dream played better defense than Duncan. Olajuwan had better peak years, a better five-year prime and would have had a better career average on D if I adjusted for the dwindling years he played at the end. Outside of that though, this contest is all Duncan. Not by a little either, but by a lot. In terms of PW%, PER, Win Shares, and offense, Duncan just had more to offer. Hakeem’s two titles and two-year domination of a very tough league put him high up in my book. Still in terms of an individual player’s value, Duncan takes the prize.


Tim Duncan vs. Karl Malone

At first, when I reviewed Karl’s stats, I thought that this would be a close competition. Then I took a closer look and realized that like most things dealing with the Mailman his value came from sustaining a very good level of play over a lengthy career. He certainly delivered (ugh) on offense. The PER and ORtg numbers from his prime that clearly prove he had more power and skill (and not just at the pick and role, either). His PW% and Drtg don’t match up to Duncan’s, but they are close and speak to his ability for consistently balanced and efficient play. Also, Malone shouldered a much heavier share of the load than Duncan has had to as reflected in the Win Shares. Karl’s lifetime average of 34.7 just misses Tim’s 35.3, and Malone’s average of 44 in his prime years easily outstrips Duncan’s contribution so far. However the accumulated accomplishments don’t tell the whole story. I want to know if Malone had, at any one point, more value than Duncan. I don’t think the numbers show that, but let’s go into it in more detail.

The big knock on Malone is he has no real prime. He played his best single seasons -as measured by most of the factors- in ’97 and ’98. So that’s a good two year speak, even if it comes unusually deep into his career. But for the next best season you have to go back to 1993, and next best after that was either ’89 or ’90. It seems odd that Malone’s career came in such odd spurts. I would not expect the skill curve of a player who has always had a rep for consistently high quality play, like Malone, to look like that. I thought I’d see evidence that his value rose during his early years, then hit a high level for a few years, and the drop a little, before hitting a plateau until the end of his career. Instead I see a number of instances where his value jumps then falls. Since the Mailman never had a “bad season” to drag his averages so far down from his peak, it seems clear that he wasn’t consistently great. He was very good most years, fantastic a few years, and kept it up long enough to have great career overall.

Looking for an explanation for this, I notice that his best years on defense and in Win Shares came in the late eighties, before the Jazz became a dominant force or the Stockton-Malone combo really gelled. It seems that Malone was happy to transfer some of that burden to his teammates over the years. Given the odd hops Malone made in his power and efficiency, I have to conjecture that he had to rely on his team to get those gaudy numbers. Duncan however has clearly been the team leader, and has spent his whole career doing the things Malone only did intermittently. I think the choice is clear. It looked close at first, but now I’m certain. Whether it’s for one year, five years, or nineteen, I’ll always take Duncan over Malone.


Tim Duncan vs. Charles Barkley

This is a tough contest, and some of my decision may be a little subjective. First of all, Barkley had more of his value come from offense than any other player I looked at. His record for offensive firepower isn’t that far ahead of Duncan’s. Barkley’s watered down career average PER, 24.6, is only a little behind Duncan’s, 25.3. Though Barkley’s best five-year average of 27.1 is as high as Duncan ever got in a peak year. Barkley’s peak years are all slightly better than Duncan’s in everything but defensive value. It’s interesting to note that some of Barkley’s best defensive seasons were also some of his best in terms of PW%, and both came in years, ’93 and ’97, when he came the closest to winning a title.

At this point in my analysis, Duncan’s defensive numbers and career consistency are apples, and Barkley’s narrow edge at the peak and offensive skills are oranges. I don’t want this to be decided on MVP’s and titles, so if Tim Duncan is going to win this there has to be a statistical justification. I found it in comparing the two power forwards’ prime runs. Barkley’s top years all seem to fall in his last stretch with the Sixers, when he took the team on his back and tried to push it through an Eastern conference crowded by Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Isaiah Thomas. Between, 1988-91, he clearly took on a huge amount of responsibility for his team as indicated, by his high number of Win Shares, and his offense exploded, shown by high PER’s and ORtg’s. However this is offset by the fact that he played better D and more efficiently later in his career. But of course Duncan had high value and all of these things for pretty much his whole career. Plus he had higher PW% throughout. Plus, his best years stretch from 2000 through now (essentially every season he played after his rookie year that wasn’t shortened by a lockout). And he’s had to carry a big load for his team since he started, 36 Win Shares in 1998. So it comes down to Barkley’s highly concentrated peak of four years, against Duncan’s marathon of greatness, measuring at least six years. I think the argument could be made that from ‘88-’91 Charles made the bigger contribution to his team, but in ’93 and ’97 he made the better contribution. With Duncan you don’t have that divide. He did what his team needed to win, he did it in heavy doses and he did it for a long time. Barkley may have had better individual value for a short time, but Duncan has propelled his team to more wins and been more responsible for them. To argue that the Round Mound of Rebound had a better peak is to ignore certain factors in the light of a better-rounded player. Duncan got more out of several great years than Barkley got out of a few fantastic years. This isn’t about peak versus career value. This is about one player with a longer and more productive peak than another.

If you really want to bicker about it, I’ll point you to Barkley’s own comments after the 2005 Finals. Duncan had just delivered another major season for his team, and once again did it being the exact opposite kind of player Sir Charles was. So in numerous interviews Barkley was asked wear he’d rank Duncan amongst the all time greats. He said that Duncan was the best power forward of all time, better than him and many others on this list. Say what you want about Sir Charles, but he has always displayed lots of ego and lots of honesty. If his ego bowed to his honesty, then that’s good enough for me. Duncan survives for another round.


Tim Duncan vs. Kevin Garnett

This is pretty much an argument of “will be better” versus “has been better”. I’ll go into it in more detail here, but I should be clear up front. I will always take the player who did deliver over the player who could have, or might still.

First though, I’m going to get on my soapbox for a moment. I trust we’ve all noticed that these two are clear rivals in terms of talent. Between them they won three straight MVP’s and have been in three straight Western Conference Finals. Presently the battle between them to rule the league couldn’t be closer, but the differences between the beginnings of their career couldn’t be broader. One fact I don’t think has been mentioned enough is that they are the same age. Much has been made of the fact that Kevin Garnett entered the NBA straight out of high school, which eventually made the way for a flood of prep level talent. Duncan conversely attended Wake Forest, had a terrific college career, and entered the league full of promise. KG didn’t exactly struggle in his first few years, but it was clear he had not yet become a great player. TD had an instant impact, and though he had much better teammates, he was still the best player on a championship team. While lately Garnett has come up to have just as much value as, if not more than, Duncan, Kevin still had to spend a lot of his basketball life to get to that level. I feel like this perfectly summarizes the argument for how high school players have weakened the NBA.

With that out of the way, we can talk about the numbers. It’s much what you would expect. Duncan has had better averages and better stretches, but KG’s peak has been better at everything except DRtg than Dunc. What’s more all of The Big Ticket’s top numbers have come in the last one or two seasons. It seems very likely that Garnett will have more value than Duncan in the next few coming seasons. But that hasn’t happened yet, and you never can be sure that a player won’t just hit some kind of mid-career collapse. So, like I said at the top, I’ll favor value already earned over value potential. But Tim should consider himself warned, that these ratings could change significantly over the next five years.


Tim Duncan vs. David Robinson

I was surprised when looking over all of the players we talk about here to discover that Duncan’s toughest opponent was one of his own teammates. In fact is you look over the numbers I did in the ranges I defined them it looks like The Admiral might have been the best player of all. His PW% and DRtg are way better than Duncan’s. Plus his Win Shares, PER, and ORtg are all excellent as well, indicating that he played incredibly balanced, efficient and powerful basketball. While that may be true, the apparent numerical evidence of Robinson’s dominance just doesn’t pass the laugh test. We know that Robinson was hardly the best player in the NBA at any point in his career. He won his championship at the end of his career, when everyone thought he wasn’t even the best player on his team.

So how does he put up such great numbers? Do those numbers prove greatness? As far as the latter question goes I think they certainly indicate greatness. I rank Robinson higher among the all time greats than others seem to. However, I hardly think he’s in that upper echelon. My reasons for making that distinction also answer the first question.

There was a reason I looked at primes and peaks as well as career values, as well as the years they occurred. It was so that I could keep track of when and how a player lifted his average. I don’t believe that a player who has great at many things each at a different time should be put on the same level as someone who was great all at once, even though their careers may look similar in a broad view. I applied this thought to Robinson’s careers. It’s clear that his best PER and ORtg’s occurred in years that also were his best in terms of Win Shares. This does show that he had the ability to take over a team and still have a major impact. However his best years of PW%, indicative of team success, came at the years he shared with Duncan. Those years also contain his DRtg prime. So it becomes apparent that although Robinson could carry a heavy offensive load and be efficient, but not effective.

In my consideration, Duncan made Robinson better, because he took over the offense and allowed The Admiral to focus on his defense and become a more balanced and overall more effective player. Robinson’s individual value deserves recognition, but his contribution has to be judged in light of what his contribution accomplished. Duncan’s contribution went to more team success and lifted the play of his teammates, including Robinson. I think the situation with Duncan and Robinson is analogous to Magic and Kareem’s relationship. Both Robinson and Kareem had more individual value, but Duncan and Magic elevated their game and took over the burden of leading the team, which allowed their legendary teammates to have a more effective contribution. I say the Duncans and Magics are the better players. While the Kareems and Robinsons had gaudy numbers, that came overtime and accomplished little, their peers did something they never could and accomplished much.


Tim Duncan vs. Shaquille O’Neil

Now we reach an opponent Duncan cannot best. While Duncan has bested Shaq on the floor and is currently the better and more dominant player, he still hasn’t earned as much value as the Big Aristotle in the “all-time” arguments. Duncan’s on pace to supplant Shaq in overall value, but he’ll never touch Shaq’s offensive feats. True, Shaq hasn’t been as efficient or as balanced as Duncan, he’s shouldered a much bigger burden for his teams. What’s especially impressive about Shaq is how long he’s been able to sustain a high value. Looking across the different measurements, there hasn’t been a year he hasn’t either had a peak year or been in one of his prime stretches. To me this speaks of a career with as much value as Duncan has had so far, over a longer period of time. So I’ll give the edge Shaq for now, though he better watch out because even if Duncan’s doesn’t over take him Kevin Garnett might.


To Summarize:

Rating the top big men of the last twenty-five years, I put them in this order-
1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. Hakeem
4. Robinson
5. Moses
6. Karl
7. Barkley
8. Garnett
9. Ewing

If you want to know, why this order is different than the order I listed them above, it’s because the order above was purely for show. I listed them in order of how they compared to Duncan based on my method. Here they are ordered compared to each other and incorporating things like their contribution to championship teams (which seriously helps Hakeem and Moses, but hurts Karl Malone). These ratings more accurately mirror where I would place them on an all-time list of all players. Speaking of which …

Rating the All-Time Greatest Players (noting that these are a work in progress for me)-
1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. Magic
5. Kareem
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Oscar
9. Duncan
10. Cousy
11. Mikan
12. Baylor
13. Dr. J
14-20. Hakeem, Robinson, Moses
21-25. Karl, Barkley
40-50. Garnett, Ewing

I can’t fully demonstrate these ratings mostly for the reasons I mentioned above (insufficient info, subjective judgments about the value of different positions, and playing styles), and partly because I’m not certain about these ratings yet. I will say that I favor substance over style, which is the main reason Duncan and Mikan are rated above Elgin and Erving. Both those forwards had amazing accomplishments and an historical impact on the game they played, so I rank them both very high. Still that doesn’t overcome the equally great accomplishments and proven success of Duncan.

When I tried to think of a good way to summarize the career of Tim Duncan, I became captivated with a particular analogy. I believe Tim Duncan is the Derek Jeter of basketball. His individual value doesn’t look great in comparison to historic greats, and he played after expansion in a less talented era. His team success could largely be attributed to the incredible organization he had backing him, and the richness of support he had beside teammates. With all that said he still stood out among the rest and won at the highest levels. Most of his value comes through things that are hard to measure, like leadership, consistency, and various intangibles. His legacy won’t be made up of great images or a media friendly personality, but it will be of championships and greatness.