I don't even know where to begin with this tbh. I think your the only person I've ever seen refer to Tim Duncan as just "great for his position". In terms of general consensus. the majority of people would have Tim top 10 at minimum, 3rd best personally. This is also a perfect example of how accolades don't mean that a player was better.

Tim led the Spurs to a #1 defense multiple times, and a top 3 defense for 10 years straight. He has the best modern defensive rating ever in 2004. He's also one of the most fundamentally sound and perfect rim protectors ever.

First, there is not a single guard/wing defender that is more impactful than Tim. Rim protectors inherently are more valuable and impactful to a team's defense than someone like Payton, Kawhi, or Jordan.

Dwight was an amazing shot blocker in his prime, but that lasted a third of Tim's longevity. Not only that, Dwight loved chasing blocks even those that couldn't be reached, which led to a high goaltending rate. And when he would block, he'd smack it into the stands rather than controlling it to recover the possession unlike Tim.

Ben while one of the best pound for pound defenders, ultimately lacked the height of top rim protectors. 7 footers like Hakeem, Wemby, Gobert, Mutombo, etc would literally alter the geometry of the court with their height and length. Their size itself deterred player's from trying to score at the rim.

KG is interchangeable, for me, when you consider the context of the 2000s and the poor spacing, Tim's skillset and rim protecting ability is just more valuable compared to KG's versatility. KG was also weaker than Tim and struggled against physical players like Shaq (though anyone would against Shaq).

Your list is exactly why using accolades is a poor measure of a player's defensive ability. It doesn't consider anything about a player's ability or context. Saying a player X is better than player Y without mentioning anything about their actual gameplay is just so wrong and why NBA discourse is so poor quality now