Brick by Brick: Tim Duncan
Résumé
- 5x NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)
- 3x Finals MVP
- 1st or 2nd best player on 6 Finals teams
- 2x MVP (2002, 2003)
- 15x All-Star
- 10x All-NBA First Team
- 3x All-NBA Second Team
- 2x All-NBA Third Team
- 8x All-Defensive First Team
- 7x All Defensive Second Team
- NBA Rookie of the Year (1998)
Although Tim Duncan is considered by almost all to be the greatest power forward ever, he is still not talked about enough in any substantive way. He’s memed for being boring, both in personality, playstyle, and fashion style (although I’d call that anything but boring). Casual fans will make mention of his bank shot, and his leadership alongside Greg Popovich, which has helped the Spurs maintain status as a marquee franchise in the league. But do people really know what made Duncan good? He didn’t have the personality or force of Shaq, the tragic figure of Garnett, nor the pretty perimeter game of Dirk. There are a few myths about Tim Duncan I would like to debunk.
First myth: “Sophomore Duncan carried the ’99 Spurs in the lockout year to the title”
For those who don’t know, Duncan ended up going to the Spurs in the first place, because David Robinson was injured during almost the entire 96–97 season, which allowed the team to tank for the #1 pick in Duncan. But the 32 year old Robinson — a historically underrated player in general — was not washed by 1999. He didn’t make the All-Star game that year, but made it in ’00 and ’01. He was not the David Robinson we saw in his twilight in 2003, who won behind the carry job of Duncan (which we’ll get to shortly).
If you don’t know much about David Robinson, I suggest watching this video. What it highlights is the massive impact metrics he had throughout his career. The video also compares him to players such as Garnett, Giannis, or Anthony Davis. Historically great defensive players, who would actually flourish more as a 1B on the offensive end, next to a pick and roll type player (as we’ve seen with Davis next to LeBron). Though Robinson was not the isolation scorer Duncan was, he served well off-ball, with his ability to take outside jumpers, offensive rebound, and rim run. And their “twin towers” defense, led to perhaps the greatest defensive team in NBA history.
Duncan was an animal on the defensive end in his own right, but it was the duo of both players on defense that helped the Spurs win. They ranked 1st in Defensive Rating (95 pts allowed per 100), but only 11th in Offensive Rating (104 per 100).
Second myth: “Duncan’s team, system, longevity, and consistency, has propelled him above other superstars who had higher ceilings.”
In the early aughts as the Spurs won title after title, it was all but natural to wonder about the diametrically opposed careers of Duncan and Garnett. Many opined that if Duncan and Garnett were to switch roles, it would be Garnett who would be considered the greatest power forward ever. I love Garnett, and agree he probably could have won a couple championships with the Spurs. At the end of the day, I don’t think his offensive package is as robust. Like I mentioned above, I think he works well next to another ball-dominant scorer. This isn’t necessarily a knock, as that profile can be very beneficial on high level teams; it just wouldn’t have been as useful to what the Spurs needed at various times. I also think Garnett’s legacy has aged well, with people rightfully recognizing him as the transcendent defensive player he was. Though that’s all good and true, I think the advancement of the modern game, and the value we place on versatility of big men like Giannis — over defensive anchors like Rudy Gobert — has swelled Garnett’s defensive legacy over Duncan’s slightly.
The other comparable, which I’m sure you thought of, is Kobe. Kobe has undoubtedly had a bigger impact on basketball the game, as a Lakers icon turned global icon. But I struggle to see the argument for what makes him greater for a list such as ours — in either greatness (accolades) or goodness (actual talent). Offensively, Kobe is a more well-rounded scorer, no doubt. But even his skills were not enough to make a bad team decent. I hesitate to even bother saying that points scored aren’t everything, but it’s true. Duncan never scored massive amounts of points because he didn’t need to, and it wasn’t conducive to winning. Kobe’s defense was very good, but his 9x All-Defensive First Teams and 3x Second Team overrate both his pure ability, as well as effort. Even if Kobe was that transcendent on defense, the reality is, for the rest of NBA history, almost all of the best defensive teams are anchored by someone with Duncan’s profile. Perimeter players just aren’t able to impact the game on the defensive end as much as interior ones.
I’m comfortable stating Duncan’s two MVP seasons are better than Kobe’s one MVP season, or whatever you consider his best. Now that doesn’t necessarily paint the picture of who had the higher peak, but I would wager Duncan’s 2003 title run is greater than anything Kobe accomplished. By 2003, David Robinson was well past his prime, Parker and Ginobili were still young, and oftentimes Stephen Jackson was the second best player on the floor. They were very much like the 2011 Mavericks, where they had one All-Star, and had different guys pick up the load as secondary All-Star / scorer night to night. Here’s how good Duncan was offensively:
Tim Duncan averaged more points over the course of the playoffs, than the other best scorer on the team did each game. As you can see, there is great variance on who that scorer was. If you’re curious how complete his games were outside of point totals, let me show you.
Just let it wash over you how much better Duncan is in nearly every statistical category throughout this playoff run. Most points, rebounds, free throws, and blocks are to be expected. But he averaged 24.7 pts/15.3 reb/5.3 ast/3.3 blk/9.6 FTA per game. His True Shooting % is 0.57, and his10.2 BPM is historic. No one else could string together two good games in a row, and Duncan played 24 of the best basketball games of anyone ever. Nothing changed between playing teams in the first round, or the fourth, he was the same throughout. Anytime someone points to him being a system player, or a lower ceiling superstar, point them to this series.
Third Myth: “Tony Parker was the 2007 Finals most valuable player”
It’s pretty hard to argue that Tony Parker wasn’t the 2007 Finals Most Valuable Player in caps, based on the award being given to him. But was he really the most valuable? I would argue no, Duncan was the best player for the Spurs all playoffs, and after looking less Duncan-y in the closing game of the Finals versus the Cavs, Parker was able to nab the award. I realize that it is an award for just the Finals, but surely the previous three series have to be mildly accounted for, right?
Let’s zoom out to the whole playoff run. You really only need Duncan and Parker’s stats, but here’s the full table of players anyway.
Outside of basic-counting stats, where Duncan has Parker beat in every category besides assists, he has Tony beat in all the advanced metrics as well. Impact numbers, Offense and Defense, BPM, VORP, you name it. These are small samples, but the gaps are significant. Nobody would look at this and argue Parker was the better player for the run as a whole, but running the offense, making more highlight reel plays, being praised as a guy who’s “arrived” — as opposed to praising Tim Duncan, the most bland superstar ever — no less, all contribute to a formula tailor made for getting a pick wrong.
Check out this table from a game by game basis of the Finals.
Though the point-spread per game is relatively small, the games are tight and low scoring. So Parker’s marginally better difference is still significant in my eyes. But the impact metrics tell a very different story. By these numbers, Duncan was better both offensively and defensively. The Box Plus/Minus numbers are not particularly close on a per game basis. If you were to average out BPM, Duncan averaged a 6.3 BPM, and Parker 5.9. I would agree with you in saying that over such a small sample, that isn’t exactly a significant difference. Same with their Offensive and Defensive splits; Duncan’s were 104/90 (net +14) versus Parkers 110/99 (net+11). Those are small differences with a lot of noise around them.
But we must examine these numbers on a game by game basis. That’s how the wins, and incidentally the who gets to hold the Larry O’Brien trophy, are calculated. Duncan was massively better in 3/4 games for the Spurs. He had a terrible Game 4, no doubt, but if the Spurs had lost and he’d been his normal self in a Game 5 win, would Parker have been selected? Probably not. If we take out Game 4, Tim’s average through 3 games was 117/91 (net+16) with a BPM of 9.6. Tony logged a 107/100 (net+7) with a 5.2 BPM. Still noisy, but much more separation.
Parker was superb in the series and closing game no doubt, but it’s not as if he put the team on his back in that game. In fact Manu was probably the best player in Game 4. With 27 points going 3/9 on 3s, and 8/11 from the free throw line.
The FMVP can be a fickle award. A voter could lean different directions on a per possession basis, and could be swayed by a single shot missing or falling. Duncan was excellent all series, and played legitimately bad in the closing game. He shot 4/15 from the field. Parker had matched him offensively for the entire series, but obviously couldn’t hold a candle to Duncan’s defensive metrics.
If you want to nitpick ‘value’ based on roles in a given team as well, the Spurs would have fared far better losing Parker, and replacing him with Ginobili, as opposed to losing Duncan. It’s similar to the Iguodala/Curry argument for the 2016 FMVP. If Iggy gets injured, the Warriors have a slew of other decent options + scheming to recover. If Curry goes down, they’re toast.
The purpose of this is to not to besmirch Tony Parker. The purpose in part is to wonder if we’d view Duncan differently if he had a fourth Finals MVP. The award only began in 1969 — after Mikan, Cousy, Russell, Wilt, would have collected multiples. Jordan has 6, LeBron now has 4, and Shaq, Magic, and Duncan have 3 (Bird should have 3 as well, but Cedric Maxwell won in 1981). That already puts The Big Fundamental in rarified air. But to have four, as differentiator from that pack — giving him sole spot of second most until LeBron won his fourth this past season — would be huge for his legacy in my opinion.
The full Game 4 is on Youtube, see for yourself what you think. But for my money, the clout built up over Duncan’s career, and that playoffs, was enough to convince me he was still the most impactful and/or best player for the Spurs in the series.
In classic Tim Duncan fashion, I would bet that his movement in the Pantheon, went largely unnoticed. He stayed at #7, being passed by LeBron James, but passing Wilt Chamberlain. The Book of Basketball was re-released in 2010 with revisions, and most would have probably assumed Duncan was finished as a seriously significant player in the NBA.
Here’s Duncan’s career split into two halves — delineated by the 07 Finals — in terms of accolades and statistics.
1st Half (1998–2007, 10 seasons)
- 4x NBA champion
- 3x NBA Finals MVP
- 9x NBA All-Star
- 9x All-NBA First Team
- 1x All-NBA Second Team
- 7x All-Defensive First Team
- 3x All-Defensive Second Team
2nd Half (2008–2016, 9 seasons)
- 1x NBA Champion
- 1x Finals Runner-up
- 6x All-Star
- 1x All-NBA First Team
- 2x All-NBA Second Team
- 2x All NBA Third Team
- 1x All-Defensive First Team
- 4x All Defensive Second Team
By the end of the 2007 title run, Duncan was proclaimed “the greatest power forward ever,” and could have retired as exactly that. Much like Kareem you can separate his career into two halves, and both are Hall of Fame worthy.
The Spurs legacy today largely revolves around the beauty of their longevity and adaptation into the modern era, after defining the boring style of the early 2000s. It’s fascinating to think how differently we would remember the team as a whole if Duncan had retired as the greatest power forward ever in say, 2009.
Looking at his accolades here, his first half is obviously unassailable, and fully worthy of the top status he was already allotted. But his second half on its own is likely worthy of top 10 status as well. There’s not a lot of players with a championship, 5 All-NBAs, and 5 Defensive Teams.
The statistics shown above don’t give the full picture, as he averaged 4 less points per game, which isn’t terribly significant. But that, along with his slight uptick in assists per game, are indicative of the evolution of the Spurs play-style correlating with Duncan’s age. But that uptick from 4.5 assists to 5 probably doesn’t do Timmy justice either, with lots of extra passes being dished out that (compares to?)result in hockey assists not being counted on the scoresheet. It’s his Offensive Box Plus Minus (OBPM), that shows he wasn’t an elite scorer like his early years. Offensive rebounding fleshes out that reality as well. His WS, BPM, and blocks go down; a symptom of dropping from historic defender to simply All-Defense level. But his defensive rebounds actually increase.
These numbers paint enough of a picture to move Duncan comfortably ahead of Kobe, past Wilt, and force us to consider his standing next to Bird and Magic, due to his longevity. Remember, Simmons already had him at #8, basically before the entire second half renaissance took place.
The Spurs obviously got better in certain ways, becoming less reliant on Duncan (and Robinson earlier on), as Parker, Ginobili, and later Kawhi grew into their own. But check out the Spurs’ records in the two halves of Duncan’s career. The win totals are essentially identical. After winning in 2014, they were legit contenders in 2015, losing out to the Clippers in the best first round series I’ve ever seen. They were legit contenders in 2016 as well, and lost against a juggernaut Thunder team that was a championship caliber team in their own right.
Even though they only won a single ring in the 2010s, the league, and the Western Conference, got better. I hope in future years they are not maligned for squeaking out a title as the Heat were descending, and the Warriors were ascending. That concept is similar to the ’89 and ’90 Pistons, who have been unfairly written-off at times for being the benefactors of good timing between real dynasties. I think history will be smarter now in remembering them as an historic defensive team, and beautiful offensive team. Though it doesn’t tell the whole story, if the Ray Allen shot is obvious enough proof of how good the Spurs were in 2013, then that’s good enough for me.
