If/when Duncan gets his 5th.. go ahead and pencil him somewhere on that list behind MJ.
I don't understand the thinking behind this. To me, if you want to be regarded as one of the greatest ever in the NBA, you're going to need to have at least 1 or 2 championships. Otherwise, you'll neve be regarded in the very top tier, and I think that's right.
But beyond that, what difference does it make? I mean, assuming you are an NBA fan, you've been watching Tim Duncan for several years now. You know what he's all about. Will it make that much of a difference in your opinion of him if/when San Antonio wins it this year or if they don't? I don't get that.
We may go overboard using titles to define players, but I think it makes sense.Sure, we know who these players are from watching on a daily/yearly basis, but it's what they do in the Playoffs that shapes and defines their career. Titles are the ultimate goal, so seeing Duncan win another certainly adds to his resume for greatness, especially being able to do it at this age on a team that plays so differently than how he's won his others.
As you allude, we're splitting hairs comparing super-elite players, so another title would be another important piece of information.
We've always used a player's ability to help a team win (as opposed to stuffing a stat sheet) as a way to compare players.
If Wilt had beaten Russell more, he'd probably be considered the best player ever. Instead, he's not in the Top 5 for many.
I think it's fine to move Duncan up the all-time list if he wins this year.