Tim Duncan was ranked behind Stephen Curry as the third-best player since the year 2000, according to a new CBS Sports list. LeBron James was ranked first, and I won't argue about that. Bron is the second-best NBA star of all time, in my opinion. That can't change because a Silver and Black legend was mentioned. I can, however, take issue with placing Curry above Timmy, and I'm not the only one.
Tim Duncan is better than Steph Curry
Argue with the wall. https://t.co/VlFrAZ5Nfd
— The Let It Ride Podcast (@TheLetitRidePod) August 22, 2025
It didn't take long for Spurs Nation to catch wind of this erroneous decision. To be fair to the group of writers who cobbled this thing together, they knew that their list would be heavily scrutinized. They acknowledged as much in the opening paragraphs, writing, "This ranking is sure to be debated," preparing for Kobe Bryant fans, in particular, to take issue with his placement.
If you've ever met a Kobe stan, you'd know the CBS collaborators picked the right fan base to worry about. That group operates like a cult, worshipping their leader in the most asinine ways. But they would be right in this scenario because Curry shouldn't be ahead of him either. Unfortunately, they also skewed the criteria to benefit Steph more, and that's what I'm going to take heavy issue with.
There's no world where Steph should be ahead of Tim Duncan
The piece starts by stating that this list excludes any basketball played before January 1, 2000. If that's the case, and it leads you to placing Curry number two above the likes of Timmy D, Shaq, and Kobe, you've already invalidated the ladder.
I would argue that if you played the majority of your career in the 2000s, it should all count. If it doesn't, O'Neal shouldn't even be as high as he is, considering half of his great years were in the 90s. When he fell off, he became the butt of several jokes because of how terribly out of shape he was. It was not a graceful deterioration at all.
Kevin Durant has a reasonable argument that his career was more impressive than Shaq's as individual players if we're starting from the aforementioned date. Sure, 2000 is the year that started the Lakers' 3-peat, and he won a title in 2006 with the Miami Heat, but we're still talking about a small portion of his career compared to KD's. The same can be said for Kobe.
So, that doesn't really add up to me because the question comes down to this: Would you rather have an 11-year career where you were only truly dominant for half of it, but you won four titles? Or would you prefer a 16 to 18-year career where you won multiple titles and were a force for most of it?
Tim Duncan's first three years were dominant. The man won Rookie of the Year and led the Spurs to the first championship in franchise history, kickstarting a one-of-a-kind dynasty—one where the team made the team won over 50 games every single year except the lockout year. They still won 70% of their games that season, though.
Timmy was the offensive hub; his leadership was palpable, and his defense was worlds ahead of the Warriors' franchise point guard. The Golden State darling's greatness was consistently questioned before he won an NBA Finals MVP. Nobody ever questioned the greatest power forward of all time like that. You don't get to discount all of that so you can elevate Steph Curry.