Peaks Project #7

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,202
And1: 26,065
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#21 » by Clyde Frazier » Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:29 pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:Looking forward to discussions on Walton as well. I think he can be argued as belonging with the elite bigs, especially as Kareem was voted in and it's not at all clear to me that KAJ was actually better than Walton. I have a lot of trouble contextualizing that era though.

I don't think Moses is a candidate yet, and I will detail why in a bit.


I’m fine with walton getting traction sooner than later. He deserves it as most of us didn’t feel he had an overall career worthy of a top 100 spot.

I’d just say this about kareem: there’s a good chance he peaked in the early 70s, and the gap between him and 77 walton was more substantial at that time. It gets… messy if one really doesn’t value the level of competition in the early 70s highly. Then you have them facing off in 77 with walton eliminating him in the playoffs, and I can see why you’d question who was better and by how much. I still think walton clearly had the better team overall in 77, though.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,419
And1: 16,287
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#22 » by Dr Positivity » Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:51 pm

I agree with a lot of the concerns about Moses. Both on the defensive end and his style of play, both not being a floor spacer, and not being an "initiator".

I would rather have 89-90 Ewing than 82 Moses and take the offensive downgrade in favor of D. First off although Moses has raw scoring edge at 31.1ppg vs 28.6 their per 36 rate is exactly the same at 26.7. Ewing is more efficient at .599 TS% vs .576 TS%. Ewing is the better defensive rebounder and Moses is the better offensive rebounder, it's just Moses advantage on the offensive boards is twice as big as Ewing's on Drb. But Orb value has been in dispute in this thread. With both players there is a concern they are not the types who initiates the offense and make plays for others. Ewing averages the most blocks of his career at 4 per game but the NYK defense is outside of the top 10 so I am not sure if the offensive energy spent hurt his defensive impact compared to other years. Even with that he's probably still a lot better than Moses on D.

Prime Ewing is legit. He may not be passing like Walton or KG but he's scoring nearly 29ppg on .60 TS%. He draws double teams and has an midrange jumper that helps space the floor. He's not Shaq offensively but when added to the value of a defensive anchor at C does he have to be? With the discussion centered around two way bigs I think he is in mix
Liberate The Zoomers
User avatar
RSCD3_
RealGM
Posts: 13,932
And1: 7,342
Joined: Oct 05, 2013
 

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#23 » by RSCD3_ » Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:55 pm

1. 2003 Duncan
2. 1995 Robinson
3.

Spoiler:
1. 03 Tim Duncan

Had a great regular season. Notched it up ridiculously in the playoffs. I'll show many examples here and for kicks compare him to the very similarly talked about season of Hakeem 94's playoffs.

RS

31.6 PP100 on 56.4 TS% (+4.5% above league average )

Playoffs

30.6 PP100 on 57.7 TS% (+5.7% above league average )

Playoff Hakeem

35.9 PP100 on 56.8 TS% (+4.0 TS% above league average. )

Slight edge to Hakeem for holding more volume at around the same efficiency.

Rebounding

Regular season 17.5 RP100 on
9.9/27.3/19.0 RB% Splits

Playoffs 19.5 RP100 on
10.3/28.7/19.8 RB% Splits

Playoff Hakeem 14.5 RP100 on
6.8/21.2/14.5 RB% splits

Moderate sized margin to Duncan as he has Hakeem beat on both ends when it comes to rebounding.

Passing

Regular season 5.3 AP100 on 1.51 AST % / TOV % ratio )

Playoffs 6.6 AP100 ( on 1.98 AST % /TOV % ratio )

Playoff Hakeem 5.3 AP100 ( on 1.65 AST % / TOV % ratio )

Hakeem was a great passer for a big but Duncan surpassed him in both the RS and PS. He's a hell of an underrated passer as what he did with that volume of passing is closer to a wing than a center. Decent edge to Tim.

Heck here's the list of 6'9 and up guys who have put together more than one series of over 25 AST% and less than 15 TOV% over 6.0 AP100 in the playoffs [spoiler][url]http://bkref.com/tiny/zIKNf[/url]

Defense

Regular Season 0.9 SP100, 4.0 BP100, 94 DRTG

Playoffs 0.8 SP100 4.1 BP100, 92 DRTG

Playoff Hakeem 2.2 SP100, 5.0 BP100, 95 DRTG



FWIW I think the gap in stats is larger than the actual gap as Duncan makes up in the steal block department with more consistent effort/motor and a slightly sharper defensive mind. He wasn't the best pick and roll player but neither was Hakeem for all his athleticism. Duncan managed to do a fine job with his length and above average athleticism. Let's call this Duncan by an inch.

With all the simplified categories added up I think tim gets the advantage with more than most would think.

Also his finals were glorious


2. 95 David Robinson

He had everything minus back to the basket scoring you'd look for in traditional bigs. Top tier passing. Goat level defense. Excellent off ball / offensive rebounding. Great at facing up and drawing fouls / finishing. A very good rebounder. His scoring dropped off in the playoffs but he was still very good in other areas.

It's just Duncan managed to outperform him in the playoffs by such an amount, that I think being a playoffs guy I have to put him over.

Stats

RS

36.9 PP100 on 60.5 TS% ( +6.2% above League Average ) 14.5 RP100 (9.1/22.6/16.2 RB%'s) 3.9 AP100 (1.23 AST%/TOV % ratio )

120/99 ORTG/DRTG rating
27.3 WS/48, (4.1/4.3) 8.4 BPM

PS

32.6 PP100 on 53.6 TS% ( -0.7% below league average) 15.4 RP100 (10.7/22.2/16.6 RB%'s) 4.0 AP100 (on 1.06 AST%/TOV% ratio )

108 / 98 ORTG/DRTG rating
17.6 WS/48, (2.5/4.2) 6.7 BPM

An beyond the stats when it comes to Hakeem Vs D-Rob, Ill say that Robinson had the better RS and a very nearly comparable Postseason to Hakeem, Hakeem was better on offense in 1994 which I call his Peak but his defense wasnt quite at the level of Robinson's due to the GOAT level vs merely very good Pick and Roll defense in the case of Hakeem, while hakeem's post offense might have a higher ceiling on one man teams I believe that Robinson's abilities off ball and such are more portable and can provide more lifts to higher levels of teammates as well. Their rebounding and passing is nearly a wash and I like Robinson's defense a little more than I like Hakeem's offense over robinson.


3. 1976 Doctor J

Great regardless of whether the league was split. The competition might have been weaker but so was his support was also weaker so it more or less even's out. He put together a great number of impressive stats during and Elite RS and Arguably top 5 PS which is underrated in how much its mentioned because box score wise its really close to lebrons crazy 09 run.

RS 29.0/11.0/5.0/2.5/1.9
PS 34.7/12.6/4.9/1.9/2.0

Per 100

34.4/12.9/5.9/2.9/2.2 on +5.2 TS% 116/97
37.4 13.6/5.3/2.1/2.2 on +9.3 TS% 128/103

The team did OK in the regular, they were 50-34 and had a 2.56 SRS when you factor in only 9 teams it's probably more like a mid 3 or low 4 in other words, not a contender but a quasi contender for the title, think the clippers of the last couple years or 2012-2014 Pacers. Monster playoff run, he beats a team with an SRS of 1.32 higher than him...and then he ups the anty by knocking off one with a 5.46 SRS, nearly 3.0 SRS points Higher and literally over twice the SRS. That's insane imagine if the 2014 Pacers use a nuclear george to beat the heat and then beat the Spurs in 2014 or if in 2011 Kevin Durant becomes invincible and beats the mavs and then the heat.

Dr. J has a legitimate argument at GOAT finals with MJ,Wade and Shaq...

I think his defense was at worst kobe level and at best it was higher than anything we've seen from SF's ever so if I were to call it a draw I'd say his defense was at thew level of Prime Pippen in that series and that's as high of an defense as any other perimeter. players while being number one option on offense

In fact I might take 76 DR over all LeBron's other than 2009+2013
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.

Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back

Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
User avatar
RSCD3_
RealGM
Posts: 13,932
And1: 7,342
Joined: Oct 05, 2013
 

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#24 » by RSCD3_ » Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:56 pm

Also just to bring in something here is a comparison of duncan vs garnett in their generally agreed upon peak years
http://bkref.com/tiny/UC6aq it looks like Garnett had the better RS but Duncan had the far superior playoffs. I feel this is because offensively Garnett's help offense couldnt translate as well because his tools while he had more of them, werent as effective vs postseason defenses and taking a hit in each category all added up to a noticeable decrease in impact especially scoring wise in ways that duncan couldnt be stopped/slowed as easily. The passing edge also disappears in the playoffs.
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.

Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back

Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,143
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#25 » by Quotatious » Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:57 pm

RSCD3_ wrote:1. 2003 Duncan
2. 1995 Robinson
3.

Spoiler:
1. 03 Tim Duncan

Had a great regular season. Notched it up ridiculously in the playoffs. I'll show many examples here and for kicks compare him to the very similarly talked about season of Hakeem 94's playoffs.

RS

31.6 PP100 on 56.4 TS% (+4.5% above league average )

Playoffs

30.6 PP100 on 57.7 TS% (+5.7% above league average )

Playoff Hakeem

35.9 PP100 on 56.8 TS% (+4.0 TS% above league average. )

Slight edge to Hakeem for holding more volume at around the same efficiency.

Rebounding

Regular season 17.5 RP100 on
9.9/27.3/19.0 RB% Splits

Playoffs 19.5 RP100 on
10.3/28.7/19.8 RB% Splits

Playoff Hakeem 14.5 RP100 on
6.8/21.2/14.5 RB% splits

Moderate sized margin to Duncan as he has Hakeem beat on both ends when it comes to rebounding.

Passing

Regular season 5.3 AP100 on 1.51 AST % / TOV % ratio )

Playoffs 6.6 AP100 ( on 1.98 AST % /TOV % ratio )

Playoff Hakeem 5.3 AP100 ( on 1.65 AST % / TOV % ratio )

Hakeem was a great passer for a big but Duncan surpassed him in both the RS and PS. He's a hell of an underrated passer as what he did with that volume of passing is closer to a wing than a center. Decent edge to Tim.

Heck here's the list of 6'9 and up guys who have put together more than one series of over 25 AST% and less than 15 TOV% over 6.0 AP100 in the playoffs [spoiler][url]http://bkref.com/tiny/zIKNf[/url]

Defense

Regular Season 0.9 SP100, 4.0 BP100, 94 DRTG

Playoffs 0.8 SP100 4.1 BP100, 92 DRTG

Playoff Hakeem 2.2 SP100, 5.0 BP100, 95 DRTG



FWIW I think the gap in stats is larger than the actual gap as Duncan makes up in the steal block department with more consistent effort/motor and a slightly sharper defensive mind. He wasn't the best pick and roll player but neither was Hakeem for all his athleticism. Duncan managed to do a fine job with his length and above average athleticism. Let's call this Duncan by an inch.

With all the simplified categories added up I think tim gets the advantage with more than most would think.

Also his finals were glorious


2. 95 David Robinson

He had everything minus back to the basket scoring you'd look for in traditional bigs. Top tier passing. Goat level defense. Excellent off ball / offensive rebounding. Great at facing up and drawing fouls / finishing. A very good rebounder. His scoring dropped off in the playoffs but he was still very good in other areas.

It's just Duncan managed to outperform him in the playoffs by such an amount, that I think being a playoffs guy I have to put him over.

Stats

RS

36.9 PP100 on 60.5 TS% ( +6.2% above League Average ) 14.5 RP100 (9.1/22.6/16.2 RB%'s) 3.9 AP100 (1.23 AST%/TOV % ratio )

120/99 ORTG/DRTG rating
27.3 WS/48, (4.1/4.3) 8.4 BPM

PS

32.6 PP100 on 53.6 TS% ( -0.7% below league average) 15.4 RP100 (10.7/22.2/16.6 RB%'s) 4.0 AP100 (on 1.06 AST%/TOV% ratio )

108 / 98 ORTG/DRTG rating
17.6 WS/48, (2.5/4.2) 6.7 BPM

An beyond the stats when it comes to Hakeem Vs D-Rob, Ill say that Robinson had the better RS and a very nearly comparable Postseason to Hakeem, Hakeem was better on offense in 1994 which I call his Peak but his defense wasnt quite at the level of Robinson's due to the GOAT level vs merely very good Pick and Roll defense in the case of Hakeem, while hakeem's post offense might have a higher ceiling on one man teams I believe that Robinson's abilities off ball and such are more portable and can provide more lifts to higher levels of teammates as well. Their rebounding and passing is nearly a wash and I like Robinson's defense a little more than I like Hakeem's offense over robinson.


3. 1976 Doctor J

Great regardless of whether the league was split. The competition might have been weaker but so was his support was also weaker so it more or less even's out. He put together a great number of impressive stats during and Elite RS and Arguably top 5 PS which is underrated in how much its mentioned because box score wise its really close to lebrons crazy 09 run.

RS 29.0/11.0/5.0/2.5/1.9
PS 34.7/12.6/4.9/1.9/2.0

Per 100

34.4/12.9/5.9/2.9/2.2 on +5.2 TS% 116/97
37.4 13.6/5.3/2.1/2.2 on +9.3 TS% 128/103

The team did OK in the regular, they were 50-34 and had a 2.56 SRS when you factor in only 9 teams it's probably more like a mid 3 or low 4 in other words, not a contender but a quasi contender for the title, think the clippers of the last couple years or 2012-2014 Pacers. Monster playoff run, he beats a team with an SRS of 1.32 higher than him...and then he ups the anty by knocking off one with a 5.46 SRS, nearly 3.0 SRS points Higher and literally over twice the SRS. That's insane imagine if the 2014 Pacers use a nuclear george to beat the heat and then beat the Spurs in 2014 or if in 2011 Kevin Durant becomes invincible and beats the mavs and then the heat.

Dr. J has a legitimate argument at GOAT finals with MJ,Wade and Shaq...

I think his defense was at worst kobe level and at best it was higher than anything we've seen from SF's ever so if I were to call it a draw I'd say his defense was at thew level of Prime Pippen in that series and that's as high of an defense as any other perimeter. players while being number one option on offense

In fact I might take 76 DR over all LeBron's other than 2009+2013

Glad to see another person having '76 Doc in his ballot already.
User avatar
SideshowBob
General Manager
Posts: 9,061
And1: 6,263
Joined: Jul 16, 2010
Location: Washington DC
 

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#26 » by SideshowBob » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:01 pm

Maybe a little late but I'd recommend hitting up Elgee's breakdown of superstar performance vs. different levels of defense in the RS and PS from the last few decades. Some good stuff on Duncan/Hakeem/Garnett/Robinson.

ElGee wrote:Based on some discussion in the top 100 project, I took a deeper look at performances against "good" and "bad" defenses. While I sliced the data in more than just this way, here we will call "good" defenses as teams with a Defensive Rating of 103 or lower, and "bad" as teams at 107 or higher. (As of now) 12 players were examined, all in "prime" seasons.

Spoiler:
1. "Bottom-Feeders"

Well, not quite bottom-feeders per se, but the first thing I looked at was the correlation between Game Score (simple linear weighting of box score inputs) and Offensive Box Score Expected Value (OBEV) which uses the expected value of all box offensive box score values. In lay terms, these are two distillations of the classic box score, the first will reward more volume scoring, the second will reward more efficient offensive "results" (including turnovers).

A higher correlation coefficient between opposing defenses and these composite metrics suggests that a player performs better as the defense becomes easier. This doesn't make someone a bottom-feeder necessarily -- his performance could be quite strong against good defenses to begin with -- but it does represent a relationship between a player's box score stats and the quality of the opposing D. A low coefficient means the player is "flat" or defensively agnostic, and produces similarly against either good or bad defenses.

    Regular Season correlation; Game Score and Opposing Defenses
    Garnett 99-08 0.04
    Duncan 99-08 0.05
    Shaq 96-05 0.05
    Dirk 01-11 0.06
    Olajuwon 86-96 0.13
    K Malone 88-98 0.13
    Robinson 90-98 0.14
    LeBron 08-14 0.14
    Jordan 87-98 0.15
    Kobe 01-10 0.16
    Miller 90-00 0.19

Some of that could be the defensive component of the box score that Game Score includes that was not removed for this study. What happens looking at the same regular season data from the vantage point of OBEV?

    Regular Season correlation; OBEV and Opposing Defenses
    Dirk 01-11 0.03
    LeBron 08-14 0.10
    Shaq 96-05 0.10
    Miller 90-00 0.12
    Garnett 99-08 0.13
    K Malone 88-98 0.14
    Duncan 99-08 0.15
    Olajuwon 86-96 0.17
    Jordan 87-98 0.17
    Robinson 90-98 0.18
    Kobe 01-10 0.23

The players most likely to improve against bad defenses: Kobe Bryant. Robinson, Jordan and Karl Malone show movement on both lists. Dirk looks very flat -- it doesn't matter what the defense is against him. (We'll look at actual level of production in a moment.) What happens in the PS?

    Post Season correlation; Game Score and Opposing Defenses
    Duncan 99-08 -0.01
    Garnett 99-08 0.01
    Shaq 96-05 0.03
    Olajuwon 86-96 0.07
    Dirk 01-11 0.09
    Miller 90-00 0.14
    K Malone 88-98 0.16
    LeBron 08-14 0.19
    Robinson 90-98 0.24
    Jordan 87-98 0.25
    Kobe 01-10 0.27

    Post Season correlation; OBEV and Opposing Defenses
    Shaq 96-05 0.01
    Duncan 99-08 0.06
    Dirk 01-11 0.09
    Garnett 99-08 0.11
    Miller 90-00 0.16
    K Malone 88-98 0.17
    Olajuwon 86-96 0.17
    Jordan 87-98 0.20
    LeBron 08-14 0.23
    Robinson 90-98 0.24
    Kobe 01-10 0.30

The numbers are more pronounced in the PS, where Kobe (surprisingly) shows a more severe trend than even David Robinson (saddled with the reputation of falling off against good defenses). We'll see what exactly this looks like in a moment when we compare the actual numbers. Not far behind, LeBron and Jordan also show a moderate trend. Duncan and Garnett are relatively flat, and Shaq and Dirk essentially don't really seem to care who is on the other side of the court. CAUTION: Before running with a narrative based on this data, let's look at the actual results to gain a more refined perspective of what happens against good and bad defenses.

2. Regular Season: Good vs. Bad Defenses

For this and the remaining sections I used a 107/103 split for good/bad defenses. This is to try and normalize the data as much as possible across different environment, but it also leaves players with smallish samples at times because they either played really good or really easy defenses. That will be noted when applicable.

How did these same 12 guys fare against 107/103s?

Image

You can see how the core elements of the data reflect the correlations from section 1. Kobe, Robinson, Jordan and Karl Malone have fairly large discrepancies between their "good"defense and "bad" defense metrics. While Olajuwon looks completely flat here, note he only played 32 games (!) against sub-103 defenses in these 11 years. Compare this to Garnett, who played more games against good defenses in this period (like Shaq) and a total of 231 games against sub-103 defenses.

As usual, metrics aren't kind to Kobe. He has the lowest TS% in the RS among this group against sub-103's, the second-lowest GmSc and the lowest OBEV. David Robinson -- the inspiration of this study -- does drop off, but he does not look like an outlier in this regard. Finally, it's poetic to see Duncan and Garnett with almost identical pts/36 and TS% numbers against the sub-103's, although Garnett is above Duncan in GmSc and OBEV. The largest drop off in assists from good to bad defense belongs to...Michael Jordan.

3. Post Season: Good vs. Bad Defenses

What happens in the playoffs?

Image

Right off the bat, note that most of these players no longer play bad defenses in the PS. This is perhaps one of the oldest adages in basketball, and this case, it's very, very true. It is rare to encounter bad defenses in the PS, and even rarer to encounter them in the critical 3rd and 4th rounds of the PS where teams are better. Thus, emphasis in this section will be on the sub-103 performance alone.

Dirk looks fantastic: 21/36 and 57% TS, with 16 GmSc and 4.3 OBEV. The best and worst of the group against sub-103s:

    Best vs sub-103 defenses, PS
    OBEV: LeBron +4.7
    GmSc: Jordan 19.5
    Pts/36: Jordan 27.0
    TS%: Miller 58.9%

    Worst vs sub-103 defenses, PS
    OBEV: Garnett +1.6
    GmSc: Jordan 13.9
    Pts/36: Robinson 18.2
    TS%: Malone 50.7%

All sorts of common beliefs being supported there. First, we see evidence for Miller upholding his impressive postseason reputation as well as his performance against quality defenses. LeBron looks amazing. Garnett has an offensive dip in the PS, Robinson no longer looks very good in the box score, and Karl Malone's impressive scoring efficiency disappears. It should be noted though that a good chunk of this is from FT shooting. In these 36 games, Malone's FT% goes from ~ 74% in the RS to 66.5%. At 7.4 FTA per 36 (down from 9.1 in the RS). 74% FT shooting would put his TS% at 52% and pts/36 at 22.3.

However, look what happens when you compare these numbers to the other players in the group:

Duncan and Garnett have nearly identical volume against good defenses, Duncan trumps him with a 2.4% TS% advantage that, along with a better foul-draw, gains him 1.3 points of value in OBEV. Kobe and Jordan are both around 53% against elite defenses -- but note Kobe played in such a hard defensive environment that his average sub-103 defense is 2 full points better than Jordan's. Nonetheless, Jordan maintains a huge volume advantage. Robinson and Olajuwon...the thing to note there is that neither played many games against hard defenses!

4. Regular Season: Good vs. Bad Defenses

What changed in the PS? The table below reflects the differences between the RS and PS performances against plus-107's and sub-103's. Note that for plus-107's, Shaq, Miller, Kobe, Garnett and Duncan all play under 20 PS games, and for sub-103's Hakeem and Robinson play under 20 PS games.

Image

Karl Malone! Malone, consistent with his well-established overall performance drop in the PS, has a large and comparable drop off against both quality of defenses in the PS. (Whether that's because of flaws in Malone, Utah, or both cannot be determined just from this data.) Compare that to Garnett, who actually sees a relatively small PS drop off against good defenses.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, again...Reggie Miller. The scoring takes a large bump and the efficiency. Olajuwon's improvement is against plus-107's mainly. Shaq has a small drop off, although notice he plays harder sub-103's. David Robinson completely falls off against the easy defenses. Kobe, in 76 games sees his scoring go down with a comparable hold in efficiency, but like Shaq, he played harder sub-103's in the PS.

5. Conclusion

This data reinforces other slices of the box score that show players performance declining in the PS. Among these 11 stars, there's an average playoff drop of about 0.6 pts/36 and 1% in TS. GmSc goes down by 0.8 pts (interestingly, OBEV is almost the same). Of course, defenses are slightly harder in the PS as well.

As far as "good"/"bad" defensive split go, it's also clear that it is, in general, harder to perform well against better defenses. In the RS sample, the group had the following averages:

    vs. 107+: 25 pts/36 | 59.% TS | 20.7 GmSC | +5.0 OBEV
    vs. 103-: 23.2 pts/36 | 55.5% TS | 17.9 GmSc | +3.4 OBEV

The average defense faced was over 8.5 points better in DRtg in the sub-103 group. All told, this information is simply a report of the box score, and the key box score metrics. It must be noted that this does not entirely map to offensive goodness for a number of reasons -- team context, role and creation are completely ignored.
But in his home dwelling...the hi-top faded warrior is revered. *Smack!* The sound of his palm blocking the basketball... the sound of thousands rising, roaring... the sound of "get that sugar honey iced tea outta here!"
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,511
And1: 8,152
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#27 » by trex_8063 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:17 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:I agree with a lot of the concerns about Moses. Both on the defensive end and his style of play, both not being a floor spacer, and not being an "initiator".

I would rather have 89-90 Ewing than 82 Moses and take the offensive downgrade in favor of D. First off although Moses has raw scoring edge at 31.1ppg vs 28.6 their per 36 rate is exactly the same at 26.7. Ewing is more efficient at .599 TS% vs .576 TS%. Ewing is the better defensive rebounder and Moses is the better offensive rebounder, it's just Moses advantage on the offensive boards is twice as big as Ewing's on Drb. But Orb value has been in dispute in this thread. With both players there is a concern they are not the types who initiates the offense and make plays for others. Ewing averages the most blocks of his career at 4 per game but the NYK defense is outside of the top 10 so I am not sure if the offensive energy spent hurt his defensive impact compared to other years. Even with that he's probably still a lot better than Moses on D.

Prime Ewing is legit. He may not be passing like Walton or KG but he's scoring nearly 29ppg on .60 TS%. He draws double teams and has an midrange jumper that helps space the floor. He's not Shaq offensively but when added to the value of a defensive anchor at C does he have to be? With the discussion centered around two way bigs I think he is in mix


SideshowBob wrote:
Spoiler:
bast on Moses

bastillon wrote:
JordansBulls wrote:Why do people say Moses was overrated?


1) his defense was poor, was a big mins guy on the worst defensive team of his era (late 70s/early 80s Rockets) so he deserves a lot of blame for that, particularly playing the center position which has the most impact on defense both in positive and negative way. if you're a bad defensive PG, it won't matter all that much, but if you're Bargnani your team is surely not gonna be able to hide you defensively.

2) his offense was dependant on playing with other star players, you couldn't run the offense through Moses like you could with many of the all time bigs, it gets worse, you couldn't even dump the ball down low and expect Moses to dominate 1 on 1 because he didn't really have much of a post-game. his scoring was all about offensive rebounding and finishing off of others. sure he had some scoring moves, that famous pump fake and drive, he fouled out your entire frontline, he was amazing FT scorer, he was surely very unconventional, but the most valuable bigs gave you a guy who is able to be a playmaker, either from the high post (Walton, KG) or from the low post (Hakeem, Shaq). Moses was neither.

3) his style of play made his offense hurt his team's defense because as he was crashing the boards, he was unable to get back on defense and that was a huge loss in an era when every team played at 100+ pace. if you look at Moses stats what stands out the most is offensive rebounding, the least valuable stat in the boxscore. then you have high volume scoring @ high efficiency but those pts come as a finisher, not from his shot creation. think Pau Gasol vs McHale. then most importantly you have his defense being well sub-par. didn't boxout very well (Rockets had bad defensive rebounding %), blocked some shots but that came from chasing blocks not from playing good defense, played well as a man defender but that's not nearly as important as help D etc. the study of Moses Malone's game teaches you which boxscore stats are important in terms of high impact, and which aren't. it teaches you what's the right way of playing basketball. Moses' style

as a result of which his boxscore stats were great but they didn't translate very well to impact. Moses was excellent at what he was doing, as boxscore stats clearly indicate, but what he was doing wasn't necessarily that valuable to his teams. it wasn't the right way.


mystic on Moses (vs. Nowitzki)

mysticbb wrote:
kasino wrote:the better scorer/rebounder/defender isn't picked here?


Playoff numbers. All 12 years for Nowitzki and for Malone from 1979 to 1989.

Code: Select all

              Gm   PPG   TS%   ORB%  DRB%  AST%  TOV%  STL%  BLK%  PER  WS/48
Malone        77   23.8  54.8  14.1  23.4  6.5   11.3  1.1   2.4   22.1 0.177
Nowitzki     128   25.9  58.4  4.2   24.6  11.8  9.4   1.4   1.8   24.7 0.205


So, overall Malone had a couple of more blocked shots and the higher ORB%. The higher BLK% came from Malone rather trying to block a shot than really defend the position and the higher ORB% was a result of Malone playing strictly underneath the opponents basket. Overall Malone's playing style did not lead to a huge impact. His defense was mediocre at best, him being late back on defense was making the defense rather worse. Nowitzki has to be seen as the better defender.
Malone's positional advantage underneath the own basket did not lead to a higher percentage of rebounds. That is a big indicator that Nowitzki is indeed the better rebounder. The raw boxscore numbers are giving a misleading impression here.
Nowitzki has a huge advantage in terms of passing and ball handling, something which can't be ignored. Overall Nowitzki was the higher impact player and a look at the advanced boxscore metrics reveals him also having the better combination of production and efficiency. Thus, the logical choice has to be Nowitzki in both cases. Especially for the team building aspect we have to see that Malone missed more games.


mysticbb wrote:
kasino wrote:Moses
22/14/1.6 on .48%

Dirk
25/10/.9 on .46%


Since when is 25.9 ppg rounded down to 25? And using FG% in that case is misleading, because of the 3pt%. Nowitzki has 49.3 eFG% while Malone during his best years has 48.1 eFG%. The TS% is also a better tool to get a grasp on the scoring efficiency.

kasino wrote:Dirk well undoubtably stay as the better PS scorer of the two while Moses is of course the better regular season scorer is at 25ppg for his first 13 NBA seasons


Malone scored 23.3 ppg during his first 13 NBA seasons, not 25. Malone also played at a higher pace during those years, which increased his touches. Obviously he went down in the playoffs despite playing more minutes, while Nowitzki went up. Nowitzki's scoring efficiency stays the same in the playoffs, Malone gets worse.

kasino wrote:Moses is unquestionably a better rebounder then Dirk PS and RS


No, he isn't. Malone is just put into a different situation on the offensive end, which led to more opportunities to get offensive rebounds. The DRB% in the RS shows Malone as better, but that changes in the postseason. Now, what do you think is a better indicator of rebounding strength? Beating up weaker opponents in terms of rebounding or being better against better opponents?
Offensive rebounding is based much more on the offensive position than on skills, unless you believe that someone can rebound under the own basket while being incapable of doing it under the opponents basket. Makes no sense to assume such thing. A PF having a more perimeter oriented game will not have as many chances to grab an offensive rebounds than a C who only stays under the opponents basket. That one should be easy to understand. Well, and due to that the offensive rebounding numbers aren't telling you much about the ability of a player to rebound. Let alone that offensive rebounding does not show any kind of positive impact on the overall team success in average.

kasino wrote:I don't understand your use of percentages, those that are in favor of Malone come with negativity from you


Because the numbers have to put into context. Nowitzki as center has a higher BLK% than Moses Malone, just that Nowitzki didn't play that much center. Also, Nowitzki in the post is rather defending the position, while Moses Malone rather tried to challenge the shot. The former is the better way to defend. And given the latter Malone's BLK% is rather low.

kasino wrote:Dirk has never been called a good defender while Moses has, its not unthinkable that he would block more shots


If someone called Moses Malone a good defender, he rather didn't see him play or didn't understand the implications on defense Malone's playing style had.

kasino wrote:he took a very Lebron Cavs Rockets team to the Finals against Bird Celtics


The Rockets run to finals was rather lucky. They played really weak teams and had the luck that their opponents missed more free throws than usually in important games. The Lakers went 22 of 35 from the line in game 3, while the Rockets went 21-22. If both are shooting their free throws normally, the Lakers go 25-35 and the Rockets 17-22, that makes a 7 point swing in a 3pt game. The Rockets should have been out in the first round without the luck at the free throw line. Then they play the Spurs, a team similar to the 2011 Rockets in terms of strength in the next round, then they go on playing the Kings in the WCF, a team as weak as the 2011 Suns. That was really just luck, because the better 1981 Suns lost game 7 at home to those Kings. And then in the finals, despite their two wins, the have in average a -9.8 scoring margin. They basically went lucky twice, which is within the normal variance, in order to not get swept.
The Rockets made the finals 1981, because of circumstances, not because they were such an incredible strong team due to Moses Malone's playing level.

kasino wrote:then had one of the best PS runs with Philly, imo having a better performance then Dirk


No, Malone did not have a better performance level than Nowitzki. Heck, Nowitzki's performance level in 2006 was higher than anything Moses Malone ever did in the playoffs. Malone just happened to play in a faster era, making his raw boxscore numbers looking more impressive. For example, the 1983 76ers had 97.2 pace, the 2006 Mavericks 88.9, the 2011 Mavericks 86.9.

And it is pretty telling that you completely ignore the fact that Nowitzki is clearly superior in terms of ball handling and passing. Keep in mind, Moses Malone went to a team which went to the finals the season before. That team was more depended on Julius Erving than on Malone, when we look at the performance level of the team in games without those respective players.


mysticbb wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:I'd probably roll with Dirk, but Moses gets underrated. His offensive value gets misunderstood.


In this thread 7 people picked Moses Malone (Nowitzki has 6), 6 of them seem to think that this is an easy choice and some making statements like Malone would have had the far superior peak and had some sort of crazy longevity. Malone is constantly considered the better defender despite the fact that there is NOTHING (including watching them play!) which can back that up. Malone is considered the far superior rebounder, because people don't understand that a guy underneath the basket is more likely to grab an offensive rebound than someone playing on the perimeter while going back on defense. The defensive rebounding numbers are not showing any kind of advantage for Moses Malone. The only thing we see in the regular season is that Moses Malone as center on defense gets more defensive rebounds than Nowitzki as PF. Well, if someone actually know where the ball goes most of the time, that is hardly surprising. When Nowitzki played C he had a clearly higher DRB% than when he played PF too.

As it seems Malone is still overrated. The reason seems to be that most people are judging players solely on raw boxscore numbers like PPG and RPG. How they come up with the idea that Moses Malone was the better defender is really interesting, because the only explanation I have is that they still think Nowitzki would be some sort of bad defender.

Moses Malone is like Kevin Love without the jumper. Someone who produces impressive boxscore numbers while not having such a high overall impact.

Btw, for that guy posting Erving's boxscore stats: Erving was busy covering up defensive lapses also by Malone during that championship run. He was the defensive anchor of that team, while Moses Malone was allowed to crash the offensive board. Erving was blocking more shots in less minutes than the supposed to be great defender Moses Malone. But well, I doubt that people are aware of that ...


mysticbb wrote:Moses Malone didn't even make a huge difference to the team performance at his peak, why should I want him in other seasons when he constantly was out in the first round and not the cornerstone of a franchise being able to win.
I count 8 seasons in which Malone was healthy enough and good enough to be the best player on a championship team, that is exactly 1 season more than James has. But Malone had a lot less impact, if we don't dismiss all the evidence we have. He made a small improvement to the Rockets when he joined. He didn't improve a below average team much (granted, he had that playoff run to the finals), he didn't make a big difference to the 76ers at his absolute peak. The 76ers without him were already a 5.7 SRS team, with him that improved to 8.15 SRS with a healthy Erving playing in 1983. When Erving missed 10 games (2 games in January and 8 games in March with a wrist injury) the 76ers went down to a 3.06 SRS team. The 76ers without a absolute peak Malone were better than the 76ers with absolute peak Malone and without past peak Erving. What should I believe when peak Malone doesn't even come close a difference LeBron James made?

I think people are putting way too much stock into the boxscore numbers and way too easily they are impressed with big offensive rebounding numbers. Since the offensive rebounding numbers are available the correlation coefficient between scoring margin and ORB% is 0.06, in the last 10 years it is even -0.1. There is no clear indication that offensive rebounding helps a team to win more games. In comparison the coefficient for DRB% is 0.3. Offensive rebounding might be the single most overrated boxscore stat, even BLK% and STL show a much higher correlation to scoring margin (0.2 and 0.17 respectively). That is based on the data of 983 single team seasons from 1973/74 to 2010/11.

If you want to know how much someone helps a team win with his rebounding look at the DRB% of that player. Moses Malone's defensive rebounding is basically on par with Nowitzki's, his BLK% and STL% too. The defensive impact of Moses Malone was not big, for sure not bigger than Nowitzki's, especially when we take into account the negative effect of turnovers for the team defense. It is very likely that Moses Malone's impact on the game was lowered due to the high TO-R (turnover rate has a -0.3 correlation coefficient to scoring margin, a much bigger impact factor than offensive rebounding).

And that all is reflected in the team results with and without Moses Malone. He didn't make such a big difference, for sure not a big difference as people seem to think.


mystic on Moses (vs. Garnett)

mysticbb wrote:
MisterWestside wrote:mysticbb's data on the correlation between OReb% and wins is useful, but other studies show that it's bit of a layered issue that depends on team strategy and personnel: http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=954" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Pelton was right saying that correlation doesn't mean causation. But I established the causation before. And overall the conclusion of Pelton and myself is the same.

Interesting thing regarding rebounding and defense: The Spurs last season explicitly decided to focus their defense more on positional defense and shot defense instead of being prepared for the defensive rebound. The result: a better defense in comparison to the year before. Overall I argued before that the most important part of the defense is actual positional defense, then rebounding then shot defense. We can't really deceiver whether the better positional or better shot defense of the Spurs led to a better defensive efficiency, but I might need to change my opinion on the importance of defensive rebounding in comparison to the shot defense. Unfortunately I haven't really come up with an idea to really test that, but the SportsVU data might give a pretty good database for that.

Overall I wrote up my opinion on Moses Malone multiple times (even cited here in this thread); he is overrated due to more impressive total numbers, adjusted for pace, minutes and league average he isn't as impressive anymore. Someone pointed out the 16/9 season in 1992 and implied that it would have made him the best C in the league right now, but that couldn't be more wrong. Malone was an even worse defender that season than usual, his offensive numbers weren't really that impressive. The Bucks were about 3 points worse than the previous season without Moses Malone, most of that came on the defensive end. I easily take the current Garnett at C over the 1992 Moses Malone.

Malone was a good player, hard worker, but not particular great skilled or blessed with a high basketball IQ, his passing was bad, his ball handling below average for a C, he was great at positioning himself underneath the opponents basket, never gave up on an offensive rebound opportunity, tried to make it fit underneath the own basket and had even sometimes the ability to limit better offensive players just by his pure will and hustle. But he was slow in transition defense, didn't cover much ground on the defensive end, slow at recover on the defensive end, and overall not a good team defender due to his lack of really understanding the defensive concepts. For a part of his career his was clearly a positive influence on the court, for the later part of his career he was not. He collected boxscore numbers, but he was far away from the impact elite players made. Even at his peak his impact was limited due to his limited skillset. In 1983 he gets the awards, but Erving turned out to be the more important player for the 1983 76ers.

Garnett is easily the choice here; much better at peak, better longevity (the guy had still elite impact last season, and since having a better role established for him on the Nets, his impact is again up there with the best in the league (the defensive numbers for January were already presented here in this thread). Yeah, Garnett was never the elite scorer, but his overall offensive skillset and versatility are more helpful for a team to establish a better offense than Moses Malone's. On the defensive end there is no question at all (at least there shouldn't be), that Garnett is the much better defensive player.

If someone really wants to disagree with that, I suggest looking at Garnett and his play, try to understand why the teams played so much better with Garnett on the court, it really helps to understand the overall basketball game better (talking strictly about 5on5 basketball here).


Just wanted to make one comment about Moses, wrt criticisms that his style of play doesn't carry much offensive impact. Dipper (I believe it was, and I'll try to locate the page/discussion) had put together some on/off numbers for the '83 Sixers.......and Moses' offensive on/off was like +18.8, iirc (which would be the 2nd-highest mark known of, behind only '15 Chris Paul).
I believe he was also a slight positive on defense, too, such that his combined on/off was around +20.

I realize this is raw on/off, so doesn't factor out line-up noise, but it was [by far] the highest offensive on/off of the entire primary roster. Anyway, fwiw.....
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,921
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#28 » by 70sFan » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:21 pm

70sFan wrote:[b]1st ballot - Tim Duncan 2003
2nd ballot - Bill Russell 1962
3rd ballot - David Robinson 1995
[/b]

I will say something more about my choices.
HM: Dr J, Bill Walton, Bird, Magic, Oscar, Moses


About Duncan - I think Timmy is the best offensive player from this 3. He is much better scorer than Russell and overall better scorer than David (mainly in playoffs). Their passing abilities are similar, so I think Duncan gap offensively is clear here. He is also better rebounder than Admiral.
Defense - all of them are all time great defenders. I think Timmy is slightly worse than David and Russell, but just slightly. Gap isn't big enough when you factor his edges over both (vs Russell is scoring, vs David is rebounding and overall offense). Duncan in 2003 was one one of the best two way players ever - he anchored Spurs offense AND defense. His skillset just impress me the most.
I've said in last thread why I have Russell over Robinson (better rebounder, arguably better playoff scorer, even better defender and played better vs his greatest rival). I want to focus more about next ballots. After this 3 players I have Bird and Dr J. I'm not sure which one should be above the other. I need to know how much better Julius was in defense in 1976 than Bird in 1986. I think gap isn't as big as some posters think, but it would be nice to hear some opinions.
Also, I see many posters praises and choose Garnett. Maybe I'm underrating him? I would have him around 14-16 position. So below Duncan, Russell, David, Bird, Dr J, Magic and Oscar. Also close with Walton and Moses (and probably Dirk too). I know that Kevin was amazing defender, but I think he wasn't at his peak defensively in 2004 while he clearly was worse player in other better defensive years. Also, I'm not as impressed about his offensive game as some posters here. I think Moses is clearly more impactful offensive player (but defense is huge factor for KG, this is why right now I have him over Moses).
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,511
And1: 8,152
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#29 » by trex_8063 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:41 pm

General question: at what point do we begin considering Kevin Durant? Seems like he's not out of the discussion for too much longer, no?
'14 was one of the best pure scoring seasons in NBA history, imo. Also a more than decent rebounding and passing SF that year; and his defense was at least "OK" (long and quick enough to at least make some nice gambles and help D plays). I feel he belongs in the conversation around the same time as guys like Moses, Dirk, Barkley, etc.
Am I wrong?
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
PaulieWal
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 13,907
And1: 16,216
Joined: Aug 28, 2013

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#30 » by PaulieWal » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:42 pm

Ballot 1 - Tim Duncan 03

Ballot 2 - Kevin Garnett 04

Ballot 3 - David Robinson 95


I am higher than most on Duncan's offense around here and I think his 03 season is one of the better carry jobs in the recent years. Manu wasn't Manu yet, Robinson was on his last legs, and Parker wasn't the Parker we came to know in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

You can make an argument for Stephen Jackson being the 2nd best player on that team along with a on his last legs Robinson.

Garnett's 04 season is also pretty good in my eyes. THey lost to the Lakers that year and his supporting cast was not completely terrible that year. (Note: I am not saying it was a good or great supporting cast, just not completely terrible like we saw in some of the other years). In the playoffs I thought KG played reasonable well that year though there was a dip in his TS% and OBPM from the RS.

Robinson 95 gets the nod here mainly due to this insane RS. That was quite a dominant RS and along with Q I give RS more weightage than most people do. While obviously the playoffs matter more the grind of the RS should be rewarded if players are showing up every night and giving it their all. We can't bemoan the lack of good RS games while saying the RS doesn't matter when players don't take it seriously (not that a lot of greats do but the grind of an 82 game NBA season is taxing and carrying your team night in, night out is not an easy task).

95 Robinson often gets penalized for his performance in the playoffs and that's a fair point but he was also okay in the first two rounds. It's not like he completely sucked in the first 2 rounds and didn't even play that badly against Hakeem but after all we did just vote in Hakeem with the 6th best peak.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
User avatar
PaulieWal
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 13,907
And1: 16,216
Joined: Aug 28, 2013

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#31 » by PaulieWal » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:44 pm

trex_8063 wrote:General question: at what point do we begin considering Kevin Durant? Seems like he's not out of the discussion for too much longer, no?
'14 was one of the best pure scoring seasons in NBA history, imo. Also a more than decent rebounding and passing SF that year; and his defense was at least "OK" (long and quick enough to at least make some nice gambles and help D plays). I feel he belongs in the conversation around the same time as guys like Moses, Dirk, Barkley, etc.
Am I wrong?


For me 14 KD is slightly, very slightly behind 09 Wade.

Where do you think Wade comes in for you vis-a-vis Barkley, Dirk, Moses?
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,770
And1: 11,600
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#32 » by eminence » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:46 pm

trex_8063 wrote:General question: at what point do we begin considering Kevin Durant? Seems like he's not out of the discussion for too much longer, no?
'14 was one of the best pure scoring seasons in NBA history, imo. Also a more than decent rebounding and passing SF that year; and his defense was at least "OK" (long and quick enough to at least make some nice gambles and help D plays). I feel he belongs in the conversation around the same time as guys like Moses, Dirk, Barkley, etc.
Am I wrong?


10 is where I'll personally start really considering him (personal list at least), the last 3 of the top tier two way big guys have priority for me right now (Duncan/KG/Robinson). Then to me we get into the more one way players or guys who were just clearly a step off truly elite (Ewing comes to mind).
I bought a boat.
mischievous
General Manager
Posts: 7,675
And1: 3,485
Joined: Apr 18, 2015

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#33 » by mischievous » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:04 pm

trex_8063 wrote:General question: at what point do we begin considering Kevin Durant? Seems like he's not out of the discussion for too much longer, no?
'14 was one of the best pure scoring seasons in NBA history, imo. Also a more than decent rebounding and passing SF that year; and his defense was at least "OK" (long and quick enough to at least make some nice gambles and help D plays). I feel he belongs in the conversation around the same time as guys like Moses, Dirk, Barkley, etc.
Am I wrong?

Yeah he definitely belongs in the mix with the Barkleys, Dirks and Kobes. I have Cp3 and Curry a mini tier below them, not a knock or anything. For me i have Wade above those names though, i think his peak is top 15 possibly even as high as 13th, i'll have to look more at how he stacks against Oscar and Dr J. Tmac will be in the top 20 mix for sure, with a gun to my head i'd probably take him over KD, Kobe and Dirk.
User avatar
thizznation
Starter
Posts: 2,066
And1: 778
Joined: Aug 10, 2012

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#34 » by thizznation » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:08 pm

1. Tim Duncan 2003 - Duncan virtually has no weaknesses. I have him ranked over Russell due to better two way play. I think out of leadership and intangibles he comes close to even Bill Russell. As I said before the only thing that you could say he is lacking is elite athleticism but this pretty much a bunk criticism because he did quite fine without it.

2. Julius Erving 1976 - As I mentioned in previous post I consider 76 Erving to be a Player that had close to LeBron like impact. Erving also burned brightly and took his peak to another level in the playoffs and finals. The sample size is large enough for me to determine that it wasn't a fluke, that it was a legit peak. And as RSDC posted earlier his raw stats are quite amazing. The fact that he had a non elite team and put up that type of production on the number one defense in the league, who also had the most best wing defender in basketball at the time, Bobby Jones, adds heavily into how great his peak was. Erving also was a fantastic defender that impacted the game on the boards and through his disruptive defense on the perimeter and also had some rim protection capabilities. I'm posting from my phone right now so I don't have access to it but if you look at Erving's offensive rebounding numbers they are excellent.

3. Bill Russell 1964 - I have been posting my thoughts about Russell lately and I finally feel like this is the place where he belongs. GOAT defense, GOAT leadership and intangibles, I'm not sure how Russell's rebounding numbers look next to Rodmans but you can safely say top 3 rebounder of all time, elite athlete, smart enough player to be a good passer and operate some of the offense from the high post. It's a surprise he hasn't gone earlier in some ways but we just have to remember some of the truly awesome offensive displays seen in the previous peaks and when compared to Russell it's a huge loss for him. Perhaps this is where Steph Curry starts making his headway in the door with voters due to his special offense even though he doesn't have incredible two way impact. (Noted that he has had already with a few voters)


2003 Duncan
1976 Erving
1964 Russell
mischievous
General Manager
Posts: 7,675
And1: 3,485
Joined: Apr 18, 2015

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#35 » by mischievous » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:08 pm

PaulieWal wrote:Ballot 1 - Tim Duncan 03

Ballot 2 - Kevin Garnett 04

Ballot 3 - David Robinson 95


I am higher than most on Duncan's offense around here and I think his 03 season is one of the better carry jobs in the recent years. Manu wasn't Manu yet, Robinson was on his last legs, and Parker wasn't the Parker we came to know in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

You can make an argument for Stephen Jackson being the 2nd best player on that team along with a on his last legs Robinson.

Garnett's 04 season is also pretty good in my eyes. THey lost to the Lakers that year and his supporting cast was not completely terrible that year. (Note: I am not saying it was a good or great supporting cast, just not completely terrible like we saw in some of the other years). In the playoffs I thought KG played reasonable well that year though there was a dip in his TS% and OBPM from the RS.

Robinson 95 gets the nod here mainly due to this insane RS. That was quite a dominant RS and along with Q I give RS more weightage than most people do. While obviously the playoffs matter more the grind of the RS should be rewarded if players are showing up every night and giving it their all. We can't bemoan the lack of good RS games while saying the RS doesn't matter when players don't take it seriously (not that a lot of greats do but the grind of an 82 game NBA season is taxing and carrying your team night in, night out is not an easy task).

95 Robinson often gets penalized for his performance in the playoffs and that's a fair point but he was also okay in the first two rounds. It's not like he completely sucked in the first 2 rounds and didn't even play that badly against Hakeem but after all we did just vote in Hakeem with the 6th best peak.

Why do you take KG over Drob? I mean i agree i'm just curious as to why. Is because of superior rebounding and playmaking? Versatility?
User avatar
PaulieWal
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 13,907
And1: 16,216
Joined: Aug 28, 2013

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#36 » by PaulieWal » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:14 pm

mischievous wrote:Why do you take KG over Drob? I mean i agree i'm just curious as to why. Is because of superior rebounding and playmaking? Versatility?


Pretty much, I think they are both close but I value KG's playmaking and versatility a lot. Garnett was assisting on nearly 25% of his teammates' field goals while on the floor. That's pretty amazing from a big IMO and he was a slightly better rebounder to boot. Playoff numbers are also quite similar for the two but Garnett still maintains his edge in rebounding and playmaking. I know it's a pretty simplistic way of looking at head to head numbers but both guys were the #1 guys on not so good overall teams and lost to the eventual winner and finalist that year.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,921
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#37 » by 70sFan » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:26 pm

trex_8063 wrote:General question: at what point do we begin considering Kevin Durant? Seems like he's not out of the discussion for too much longer, no?
'14 was one of the best pure scoring seasons in NBA history, imo. Also a more than decent rebounding and passing SF that year; and his defense was at least "OK" (long and quick enough to at least make some nice gambles and help D plays). I feel he belongs in the conversation around the same time as guys like Moses, Dirk, Barkley, etc.
Am I wrong?


He's in the same tier with those guys. Personalny, I think KD peak is worse than Moses and Dirk, also slightly than Barkley. I think these 3 guys had such a unique skillset, they were mismatches, they create many problems on offense.
With Dirk, he's one of the GOAT shooters in 7ft body. He can post up, catch and shoot, shoot of the dribble, play P&R and P&P. When he is on the floor, it opens many ways to kill defense. He's also underrated rebounder and defender.
Barkley is undguardable. He's one of the GOATs finisher, amazing offensive rebounder, very good playmaker. Too quick for PFs, too strong for SFs. Super-efficient scorer and good passer, ubstoppable on fastbreak. When you double team him, he just find open man.
Moses is also very unique. First, he does opponents tired. They can't hild his physicaly. Many times they need 2-3 players to box him out. That creates opportiunities for his teammates to rebound on offense. Also, he draws many fouls. He frustrates opponents, they become less patient. It's something amazing.
Durant just doesn't create this kind of problems I think. Still, he's probably in the same tier as those guys. I think he is on similar level to peak Kobe.
User avatar
RSCD3_
RealGM
Posts: 13,932
And1: 7,342
Joined: Oct 05, 2013
 

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#38 » by RSCD3_ » Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:05 pm

I would credit Duncan's offensive superiority in the playoffs in 03 vs 04 Garnett to the skill set difference in how they attack defenses. Duncan had a much higher draw rate and had more inside volume. From this point, he gravitated the defenses in around and used his passing / post up game / face up game to attack defenses depending on whether they doubled or not. Garnett posted up much less and while of a medium height between players like Dirk and Durant he couldn't drive like either of them and pressure the basket that way. He had a very good face up game and that is generally how he got to the basket but I think he underused in favor of jumpers.
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.

Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back

Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
bastillon
Head Coach
Posts: 6,927
And1: 665
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
Location: Poland
   

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#39 » by bastillon » Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:12 pm

thizznation wrote:1. Tim Duncan 2003 - Duncan virtually has no weaknesses. I have him ranked over Russell due to better two way play. I think out of leadership and intangibles he comes close to even Bill Russell. As I said before the only thing that you could say he is lacking is elite athleticism but this pretty much a bunk criticism because he did quite fine without it.
[/b]


1) Duncan did have weaknesses, particularly offensively. Duncan's main weakness was his inability to score vs. quality defensive big men.
2) Duncan's second weakness offensively was his consistency. His performance highly varied series to series and game to game, unless he was facing poor defenses.

Both points are discussed in my post from previous thread (there is valuable data to which nobody responded):
Spoiler:
bastillon wrote:
PaulieWal wrote:Apologies for taking a break from the project. I should be able to contribute a bit more moving forward. There's been some good discussion here and the 3 candidates that I would choose here are Hakeem, Duncan, and KG.

I have flip-flopped on Duncan and Hakeem. I think Hakeem 94 and Duncan 03 are both amazing seasons. I give Duncan the slight edge over Hakeem and KG. KG too had an incredible season but I'd take Duncan over both. I also think Duncan's offense gets maligned sometimes but he's really not that far behind Hakeem/KG (if at all). I will take Duncan's consistent two way play over both of those guys and this isn't to say that they weren't consistent either. This has been a huge shift for me. I always used to value Hakeem's peak over Duncan's but after going back and doing some more analysis I am not convinced that peak Hakeem was > peak Duncan.



That is one of the most common mistakes people make when it comes to evaluating Tim Duncan. "Consistency". What does that mean to be consistent? To me it means that there is less variance in your performance. That you are going to perform regardless of your opposition. That you are not a streaky player and deliver at a certain level no matter what day is it.

Now let's take this definition of consistency and apply this for Tim Duncan:
Series to series variance. Duncan has showed a massive variance in his performance, and this is a continuing trend throughout his best years. He torches poor post defenses, and then gets shut down several games in a row by guys like Karl Malone and Horace Grant.

Let's take 2001 Duncan as an example.
01 - vs. KG: 22/13/3.5/104 ORtg
01 - vs. Juwan Howard: 27/17/3.6/107 ORtg
01 - vs. Horace Grant: 22/13/4.3ast/4.5tov, 54% TS, 99 ORtg

That is a MASSIVE variance in performance series-to-series. You can see that Duncan explodes vs. weak defense of Mavs, but is otherwise unimpressive. You can see that Duncan's performance is HIGHLY dependent on his opposition. He has showed profficiency in feasting on bad defenses, but also tends to play a lot worse vs quality defenders.

Day-to-day variance. Duncan has also showed a similar trends in-series. Let's take two series where Duncan completely crumbled down the stretch: 2001 vs. Lakers, 2004 vs. Lakers. In both series Spurs and Lakers were similar caliber teams in the RS and people expected them to go the distance.

01 vs. Grant
G1: 28/14/6/7tov, 101 ORtg
G2: 40/15/3/6tov, 118 ORtg
G3: 9(sic! that's NINE points)/13/7/3, 68 ORtg
G4: 15/7/1/2

Duncan was ok in game 1, massive in game 2, all-time no show in game 3 and then once again dropped the ball in game 4. Once Horace Grant figured him out. Duncan was SHUT-DOWN. Massive variance in his performance. Instead of supposedly consistent performance when it matters the most, it really seemed like a day-to-day discussion about what comes next. Hit or miss.

04 vs. Karl Malone
G1: 30/11/3/7
G2: 24/7/3/4
Then Karl Malone figured him out and Parker didn't penetrate the Lakers all night long, and this happened (from earlier today)
G3: 10 pts, 4-14, 6 turnovers, 2 assists
G4: 19 pts, 5-13, 2 turnovers, 8 assists
G5: 21 pts, 7-15, 7 turnovers, 2 assists
G6: 20 pts, 7-18, 2 turnovers, 2 assists


Once again, MASSIVE variance day to day. First 2 games averages 27 ppg, only to end up barely squeeking in 20 pts the rest of the series, or once dropping the ball completely with 10 points.

You wanna talk about consistency? Let me show you consistency:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=game&year_min=1993&year_max=1995&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=HOU&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_c=Y&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts&order_by_asc=Y

Consistency is what the true monster was delivering. Out of 56 games with at least 30 mins played, Hakeem scored 25 or more pts in 46/56 games. He scored less than 20 pts TWICE. That is a ridiculous consistency, considering what monsters he was facing every series. I mean to face 13 games against David Robinson and Patrick Ewing and still score 25+ in 11/13 games?

Now let's do the same for Duncan:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=game&year_min=2001&year_max=2007&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=SAS&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=Y&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_g=&pos_is_gf=&pos_is_f=&pos_is_fg=&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&is_dbl_dbl=&is_trp_dbl=&order_by=pts&order_by_asc=Y&offset=100

Out of 106 games, he had 57 games where he had less than 25 pts. 41 with less than 22 pts. 25 with less than 20 pts. 15 games with 15 pts or less. Basically 1/4th of Duncan's games he scored less than 20 pts in the postseason. Is that consistency?

Let's take it further and let's look at some games vs quality opponents (30 minutes played):
-vs. Sheed Blazers/Pistons
-2/10 games 25+ pts
-4/10 games less than 20 pts

-vs. KG Wolves
-2/7 games 25+ pts
-4/7 less than 20 pts

-vs. Grant/Malone Lakers
-3/10 games 25+ pts
-4/10 games 15 or less pts

-vs. Varejao
-0/4 games 25+ pts
-2/4 games less than 15 pts

-vs. Tyson Chandler
-0/7 games 25+ pts
-5/7 less than 20 pts
-2/7 10 pts or less

The only thing consistent about Duncan's performances is that he is underwhelming vs quality opponents. Between KG/Sheed/Grant/Malone/Varejao/Chandler, Duncan has had 7/38 games 25+ pt games. He has been consistently underperforming.

And it's not even about Duncan, it's about fans. You people should watch some videos. If you watch the tape, you can easily see that Duncan is highly limited as a post player. He has a poor jumpshot, he can't score for sh*t against double teams (he has to pass), lack of post moves, limited amount of counters. You should be able to do those things against double teams if you wanna consistently perform vs. high level opposition. That ugly ass bank shot can work against Amares and Vin Bakers of the world, but you ain't fooling Sheed or Karl Malone. I sincerely think that Duncan would get eaten alive by Ewing and Robinson with his limited post game.

So when it comes to consistency, Hakeem has a HUGE argument over Duncan. Consistency is Hakeem's best quality as an offensive player. You cannot stop this guy from scoring, basically. 46/56 25+ games in 93/95. 11/13 vs. Ewing/D-Rob. You can't argue with those facts. Hakeem faced the very best of all-time and he delivered CONSISTENTLY. Duncan on the other hand, consistently underperformed. In games I just analysed vs good defenders, he managed to score 25+ in 7/38 games. If you have trouble scoring vs. Tyson Chandler and Sheed, you would get destroyed by truly great post defenders - Ewing, D-Rob, Mutombo or Hakeem.

It turns out that Duncan had pretty glaring weaknesses on offense. He was a major disappointment against quality defenders. Duncan has shown profficiency in owning poor defensive frontlines, but what good is it if you wanna win the title? You would have to luck out like Spurs did in 03 when top3 contenders dealt with significant injuries. If those teams were fully healthy, it would be highly unlikely Spurs would've won the title.

3) Where does this leadership transpire? When? Can you point me to a game where you can see Duncan's leadership making impact on the game? I am tired of talking about leadership as if it was a unicorn. This is not about being quiet. Quite to the contrary, leadership means that you have to be vocal and active. You have to communicate.
My post from previous thread:
Spoiler:
bastillon wrote:Tim Duncan-esque leadership on defense? How is that a thing? I could definitely see "Waltonesque" "KG-esque" or "Ewing-like", considering that those guys are great examples of defensive leadership. Tim Duncan was never vocal, didn't exactly tell people what to do. The leader of San Antonio Spurs on defense was clearly Popovich. There's no need to give Duncan credit for this, specifically because Duncan is already such a great player that he doesn't need to get superficially hyped up. Duncan was never at this level in that respect. I can point you to numerous KG games where he's hyping up everyone on defense, telling them where to be at all times etc. We also have a lot of accounts saying how much it means to have KG on defense, how he makes other play better (Doc, Pierce, people from Brooklyn). I can point to 77 finals as primary example of Walton's leadership on defense. Show me any game where Duncan exerts his leadership.

Some "experts" on this site often mention how Duncan is a 'quiet leader'. WTF is that even supposed to mean? As in 'ain't no leader, just artificially gets hyped up as one'? Leadership isn't some magical unicorn that you don't see in-game. It's about actions. Communication. Energy. The sh*t you saw from Ray Lewis on the Ravens. That's leadership. This guy was getting everyone hyped up for the game which had real impact. Let's be clear about this, Duncan was never a leader on defense. Avery Johnson was much more of a leader than Duncan. Tony Allen is a leader on defense. Gary Payton was a leader. Not Tim Duncan. He has many great qualities, but not leadership on defense.

If anything, Russell should be getting mentioned with Bill Walton, KG and Ewing as guys who really set the done defensively and were pretty much defensive quarterbacks for their respective teams (moreso Walton and KG).
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
User avatar
thizznation
Starter
Posts: 2,066
And1: 778
Joined: Aug 10, 2012

Re: Peaks Project #7 

Post#40 » by thizznation » Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:19 pm

bastillon wrote:
thizznation wrote:1. Tim Duncan 2003 - Duncan virtually has no weaknesses. I have him ranked over Russell due to better two way play. I think out of leadership and intangibles he comes close to even Bill Russell. As I said before the only thing that you could say he is lacking is elite athleticism but this pretty much a bunk criticism because he did quite fine without it.
[/b]


1) Duncan did have weaknesses, particularly offensively. Duncan's main weakness was his inability to score vs. quality defensive big men.
2) Duncan's second weakness offensively was his consistency. His performance highly varied series to series and game to game, unless he was facing poor defenses.

Both points are discussed in my post from previous thread (there is valuable data to which nobody responded):
Spoiler:
bastillon wrote:
PaulieWal wrote:Apologies for taking a break from the project. I should be able to contribute a bit more moving forward. There's been some good discussion here and the 3 candidates that I would choose here are Hakeem, Duncan, and KG.

I have flip-flopped on Duncan and Hakeem. I think Hakeem 94 and Duncan 03 are both amazing seasons. I give Duncan the slight edge over Hakeem and KG. KG too had an incredible season but I'd take Duncan over both. I also think Duncan's offense gets maligned sometimes but he's really not that far behind Hakeem/KG (if at all). I will take Duncan's consistent two way play over both of those guys and this isn't to say that they weren't consistent either. This has been a huge shift for me. I always used to value Hakeem's peak over Duncan's but after going back and doing some more analysis I am not convinced that peak Hakeem was > peak Duncan.



That is one of the most common mistakes people make when it comes to evaluating Tim Duncan. "Consistency". What does that mean to be consistent? To me it means that there is less variance in your performance. That you are going to perform regardless of your opposition. That you are not a streaky player and deliver at a certain level no matter what day is it.

Now let's take this definition of consistency and apply this for Tim Duncan:
Series to series variance. Duncan has showed a massive variance in his performance, and this is a continuing trend throughout his best years. He torches poor post defenses, and then gets shut down several games in a row by guys like Karl Malone and Horace Grant.

Let's take 2001 Duncan as an example.
01 - vs. KG: 22/13/3.5/104 ORtg
01 - vs. Juwan Howard: 27/17/3.6/107 ORtg
01 - vs. Horace Grant: 22/13/4.3ast/4.5tov, 54% TS, 99 ORtg

That is a MASSIVE variance in performance series-to-series. You can see that Duncan explodes vs. weak defense of Mavs, but is otherwise unimpressive. You can see that Duncan's performance is HIGHLY dependent on his opposition. He has showed profficiency in feasting on bad defenses, but also tends to play a lot worse vs quality defenders.

Day-to-day variance. Duncan has also showed a similar trends in-series. Let's take two series where Duncan completely crumbled down the stretch: 2001 vs. Lakers, 2004 vs. Lakers. In both series Spurs and Lakers were similar caliber teams in the RS and people expected them to go the distance.

01 vs. Grant
G1: 28/14/6/7tov, 101 ORtg
G2: 40/15/3/6tov, 118 ORtg
G3: 9(sic! that's NINE points)/13/7/3, 68 ORtg
G4: 15/7/1/2

Duncan was ok in game 1, massive in game 2, all-time no show in game 3 and then once again dropped the ball in game 4. Once Horace Grant figured him out. Duncan was SHUT-DOWN. Massive variance in his performance. Instead of supposedly consistent performance when it matters the most, it really seemed like a day-to-day discussion about what comes next. Hit or miss.

04 vs. Karl Malone
G1: 30/11/3/7
G2: 24/7/3/4
Then Karl Malone figured him out and Parker didn't penetrate the Lakers all night long, and this happened (from earlier today)
G3: 10 pts, 4-14, 6 turnovers, 2 assists
G4: 19 pts, 5-13, 2 turnovers, 8 assists
G5: 21 pts, 7-15, 7 turnovers, 2 assists
G6: 20 pts, 7-18, 2 turnovers, 2 assists


Once again, MASSIVE variance day to day. First 2 games averages 27 ppg, only to end up barely squeeking in 20 pts the rest of the series, or once dropping the ball completely with 10 points.

You wanna talk about consistency? Let me show you consistency:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=game&year_min=1993&year_max=1995&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=HOU&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_c=Y&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts&order_by_asc=Y

Consistency is what the true monster was delivering. Out of 56 games with at least 30 mins played, Hakeem scored 25 or more pts in 46/56 games. He scored less than 20 pts TWICE. That is a ridiculous consistency, considering what monsters he was facing every series. I mean to face 13 games against David Robinson and Patrick Ewing and still score 25+ in 11/13 games?

Now let's do the same for Duncan:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=game&year_min=2001&year_max=2007&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=SAS&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=Y&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_g=&pos_is_gf=&pos_is_f=&pos_is_fg=&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&is_dbl_dbl=&is_trp_dbl=&order_by=pts&order_by_asc=Y&offset=100

Out of 106 games, he had 57 games where he had less than 25 pts. 41 with less than 22 pts. 25 with less than 20 pts. 15 games with 15 pts or less. Basically 1/4th of Duncan's games he scored less than 20 pts in the postseason. Is that consistency?

Let's take it further and let's look at some games vs quality opponents (30 minutes played):
-vs. Sheed Blazers/Pistons
-2/10 games 25+ pts
-4/10 games less than 20 pts

-vs. KG Wolves
-2/7 games 25+ pts
-4/7 less than 20 pts

-vs. Grant/Malone Lakers
-3/10 games 25+ pts
-4/10 games 15 or less pts

-vs. Varejao
-0/4 games 25+ pts
-2/4 games less than 15 pts

-vs. Tyson Chandler
-0/7 games 25+ pts
-5/7 less than 20 pts
-2/7 10 pts or less

The only thing consistent about Duncan's performances is that he is underwhelming vs quality opponents. Between KG/Sheed/Grant/Malone/Varejao/Chandler, Duncan has had 7/38 games 25+ pt games. He has been consistently underperforming.

And it's not even about Duncan, it's about fans. You people should watch some videos. If you watch the tape, you can easily see that Duncan is highly limited as a post player. He has a poor jumpshot, he can't score for sh*t against double teams (he has to pass), lack of post moves, limited amount of counters. You should be able to do those things against double teams if you wanna consistently perform vs. high level opposition. That ugly ass bank shot can work against Amares and Vin Bakers of the world, but you ain't fooling Sheed or Karl Malone. I sincerely think that Duncan would get eaten alive by Ewing and Robinson with his limited post game.

So when it comes to consistency, Hakeem has a HUGE argument over Duncan. Consistency is Hakeem's best quality as an offensive player. You cannot stop this guy from scoring, basically. 46/56 25+ games in 93/95. 11/13 vs. Ewing/D-Rob. You can't argue with those facts. Hakeem faced the very best of all-time and he delivered CONSISTENTLY. Duncan on the other hand, consistently underperformed. In games I just analysed vs good defenders, he managed to score 25+ in 7/38 games. If you have trouble scoring vs. Tyson Chandler and Sheed, you would get destroyed by truly great post defenders - Ewing, D-Rob, Mutombo or Hakeem.

It turns out that Duncan had pretty glaring weaknesses on offense. He was a major disappointment against quality defenders. Duncan has shown profficiency in owning poor defensive frontlines, but what good is it if you wanna win the title? You would have to luck out like Spurs did in 03 when top3 contenders dealt with significant injuries. If those teams were fully healthy, it would be highly unlikely Spurs would've won the title.

3) Where does this leadership transpire? When? Can you point me to a game where you can see Duncan's leadership making impact on the game? I am tired of talking about leadership as if it was a unicorn. This is not about being quiet. Quite to the contrary, leadership means that you have to be vocal and active. You have to communicate.
My post from previous thread:
Spoiler:
bastillon wrote:Tim Duncan-esque leadership on defense? How is that a thing? I could definitely see "Waltonesque" "KG-esque" or "Ewing-like", considering that those guys are great examples of defensive leadership. Tim Duncan was never vocal, didn't exactly tell people what to do. The leader of San Antonio Spurs on defense was clearly Popovich. There's no need to give Duncan credit for this, specifically because Duncan is already such a great player that he doesn't need to get superficially hyped up. Duncan was never at this level in that respect. I can point you to numerous KG games where he's hyping up everyone on defense, telling them where to be at all times etc. We also have a lot of accounts saying how much it means to have KG on defense, how he makes other play better (Doc, Pierce, people from Brooklyn). I can point to 77 finals as primary example of Walton's leadership on defense. Show me any game where Duncan exerts his leadership.

Some "experts" on this site often mention how Duncan is a 'quiet leader'. WTF is that even supposed to mean? As in 'ain't no leader, just artificially gets hyped up as one'? Leadership isn't some magical unicorn that you don't see in-game. It's about actions. Communication. Energy. The sh*t you saw from Ray Lewis on the Ravens. That's leadership. This guy was getting everyone hyped up for the game which had real impact. Let's be clear about this, Duncan was never a leader on defense. Avery Johnson was much more of a leader than Duncan. Tony Allen is a leader on defense. Gary Payton was a leader. Not Tim Duncan. He has many great qualities, but not leadership on defense.

If anything, Russell should be getting mentioned with Bill Walton, KG and Ewing as guys who really set the done defensively and were pretty much defensive quarterbacks for their respective teams (moreso Walton and KG).


I appreciate your work and data that you provide but I would ask of you to try to keep the data more focused to the year in question. We are voting for 2003 Duncan so I don't really see the relevance in bringing up splits from 2001.

Return to Player Comparisons