NBA.Com Ranks players 33 and older - Tony, Manu in the Top Ten. No Timmy!!!

[Mel_13]

For the record, I had nothing to do with these!

[FromWayDowntown]

Of course, you'd have to actually click on the article to see Duncan wasn't included so I'm guessing probably not.

Except that someone clicked on the article, noticed Duncan's omission, made a deal about it, and fans are now aware of the omission (and many have probably clicked through to see if there's some explanation). And it may draw some additional traffic on its next publication from those who are up in arms (or even amusedly surprised) at who wasn't on the list.

So, I'd be pretty confident that a list that most nobody had heard of a week ago has seen/will see a e in traffic owing to the reaction from stories like the one that began this thread.

[T_L_P]

Tim's still a piece we can't win without (has been for many years). Still doesn't make him better than Tony at this point, no shame in it.

2015-16 RPM: Duncan is 9th in the league with a 5.69, Parker is 64th with a 1.55

On/Off: Duncan leads Spurs starters with a +7.4, Parker is at a -1.4

Duncan/Parker split most box-score derived metrics this season (Parker is better in PER and WS, Duncan is better in Box +/- and WS/48).

And those box score stats don't take into account Duncan's defense or the fact that he is our leader.

Tony's comeback has been awesome. But you're lying to yourself if you think Parker is gonna be more valuable than Tim in a Playoff series, tbh.

[GSH]

Of course, you'd have to actually click on the article to see Duncan wasn't included so I'm guessing probably not.

LOL! Oops.

[Kawhitstorm]

It's pretty clear the NBA now caters to Chinese fans more so than those in the States

[Russ]

Scola's on the list . . .

[DMC]

Agreed. I don't care what the reason is, and I don't care whether or not Tim cares...it is just wrong and confirms the bias in over-reliance on stats.

Well how else do you expect writers to form those opinions? If rankings weren't based on stats, it would all be conjecture and would be pointless.

[DMC]

Of course, you'd have to actually click on the article to see Duncan wasn't included so I'm guessing probably not.

Faulty reasoning easily debunked by videos that get millions of views. People aren't just browsing. Besides, these change weekly.

[aal04]

This is probably the only week where Kobe has played decent.

Every other week Kobe would get WC player of the week if he sat on the bench.

[SASdynasty!]

2015-16 RPM: Duncan is 9th in the league with a 5.69, Parker is 64th with a 1.55

On/Off: Duncan leads Spurs starters with a +7.4, Parker is at a -1.4

Duncan/Parker split most box-score derived metrics this season (Parker is better in PER and WS, Duncan is better in Box +/- and WS/48).

And those box score stats don't take into account Duncan's defense or the fact that he is our leader.

Tony's comeback has been awesome. But you're lying to yourself if you think Parker is gonna be more valuable than Tim in a Playoff series, tbh.

First of all, Duncan's not better in WS/48:

Parker: .228
Duncan: .197

Parker also has a better TS%:

Parker: .607
Duncan: .566

This is why I don't love getting into too many advanced metrics. There's too much overlap and people use like 3 or 4 selective ones to prove their points, while excluding 3 or 4 others that don't support their argument. The more advanced metrics you start throwing around, the easier it is to argue anything.

[Russo21]

ers!! Oh well in a few months they can rank players 40 years and over and we'll see who comes out on top then! Geez just reading that I can't believe how en good Duncan is approaching 40! Wow!

[EVAY]

Well how else do you expect writers to form those opinions? If rankings weren't based on stats, it would all be conjecture and would be pointless.

I don't honestly 'expect' sports writers to do much of anything. But given the importance of Tim's contribution to this team, not always reflected in stats, I would think it possible that a thoughtful, unbiased observer of NBA team members over the age of 33 would recognize that Duncan is clearly one of the top ten.

It would not be conjecture. It would not be pointless.

It would be accurate.

[DMC]

I don't honestly 'expect' sports writers to do much of anything. But given the importance of Tim's contribution to this team, not always reflected in stats, I would think it possible that a thoughtful, unbiased observer of NBA team members over the age of 33 would recognize that Duncan is clearly one of the top ten.

It would not be conjecture. It would not be pointless.

It would be accurate.

The only way that could happen would be for them to write an article about it, and unless their readers also love Tim Duncan and followed his every career move, he'll have to use stats to support his position.

[gospursgojas]

They are holding out Tim for the 43 and older list.

[emanueldavidginobili]

It's understandable it's based off every weeks and this week Tim sat out a game and averaged 8-5-2