1994 Hakeem Olajuwon, 2003 Tim Duncan, 2011 Dirk Nowitzki or 2023 Nikola Jokic. Which player had the least amount of hel

[Texas Chuck]

Why? He was an undersized scoring guard who offered little in terms of playmaking or defense. Nothing about that archetype says top 50 or fringe all-star. Its only his association with Dirk meaning he always played on good teams that has you thinking of him in those terms. Guys always tried this with Josh Howard as well. And he got an all-star nod that year Dallas won 67 games as an injury replacement because they felt well Dallas deserves two guys.

I love JET. Good dude, great PNR partner with Dirk, but totally dependent on Dirk for effectiveness and a lot of really disappointing playoff performances.

Again, Dirk has lots of help in 2011. An elite defensive center backed up by a very good defensive center and even a 3rd center who could play. Cardinal a dirty work backup or Peja still an elite shooter. Butler still a quality player, though he was hurt for the entire playoffs, but Marion a quality replacement. DeShawn a lower level, but still playable 3&D wing, Kidd, still a very high level defender, terrific playmaker, and good shooter. Barea, a classic bench sparkplug. And Roddy B was supposed to be a starter that year but got hurt and his body and confidence both broke.

But that doesn't make Terry some high level sidekick by any means. He was just a good solid offensive guard. But nothing special outside of he could make the wide open 18 footers Dirk got him by setting a screen.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think one thing we never really talk about re supporting casts is things like turnovers which cost a lot of teams playoff games. Guys who can play through pressure, execute offense, not turn it over or make stupid fouls are very valuable as teams get deeper into the playoffs. I'm not saying this to prop up or put down any of these guys' casts but just want to mention it. Sometimes a team is just mentally tough and you can sense it just by watching them during a title run. Like the Mavs having an old Kidd who definitely wasn't an all star at that point but you could also trust him with the ball as much as any pg in the league.

[eminence]

Jason Terry was easily top 50 in prime, though he may have slipped enough by 2011 to be out.

For the question - it’s between Hakeem/Duncan.

[One_and_Done]

Why? He was an undersized scoring guard who offered little in terms of playmaking or defense. Nothing about that archetype says top 50 or fringe all-star. Its only his association with Dirk meaning he always played on good teams that has you thinking of him in those terms. Guys always tried this with Josh Howard as well. And he got an all-star nod that year Dallas won 67 games as an injury replacement because they felt well Dallas deserves two guys.

I love JET. Good dude, great PNR partner with Dirk, but totally dependent on Dirk for effectiveness and a lot of really disappointing playoff performances.

Again, Dirk has lots of help in 2011. An elite defensive center backed up by a very good defensive center and even a 3rd center who could play. Cardinal a dirty work backup or Peja still an elite shooter. Butler still a quality player, though he was hurt for the entire playoffs, but Marion a quality replacement. DeShawn a lower level, but still playable 3&D wing, Kidd, still a very high level defender, terrific playmaker, and good shooter. Barea, a classic bench sparkplug. And Roddy B was supposed to be a starter that year but got hurt and his body and confidence both broke.

But that doesn't make Terry some high level sidekick by any means. He was just a good solid offensive guard. But nothing special outside of he could make the wide open 18 footers Dirk got him by setting a screen.

As eminence said, easil6 a top 50 guy. Terry was discussed as an all-star even back in his Atlanta days. At the time I personally thought he was overrated like SAR, but events proved Terry to be more impactful than I thought.

Terry wasn't a star. He was closer to Jameer Nelson or Korver than he was to your typical all-star. But I'd say he was clearly better than both those guys. A good comp might be Randle. Obviously they play nothing alike, but both are fringe all-star types in terms of their impact. Honestly, I like Terry more. He has fewer flaws. Josh Howard was even better, the guy deserved that all-star nod. It's just a shame injuries derailed his career. Tyson was an all-NBA player. Duncan had nobody like Tyson or Terry in 03 (or 02, which was actually the more impressive Duncan carry job).

[lessthanjake]

Not to take anything away from what Duncan did in 2003 - and he might still be the answer to this poll question tbh - but I do feel like the "Duncan had no help in 2003" thing is a bit overstated. They weren't nothing. You can point to numerous examples of his teammates stepping up in important games during that playoff run.

Game 3 @ Phoenix in the first round: The Marbury-led Suns had gotten the split in SA and the Spurs were looking to take HCA back. Tony Parker dropped 29 points on 21 shots in this 13 point win.

Game 5 vs LAL in the second round: the series is tied 2-2, and the Lakers are looking to steal HCA in SA. Tony Parker drops 21 on 16 shots; Bowen 12 points on 6 shots; Stephen Jackson 12 points on 10 shots plus 3 steals; Manu 7 points, 2 steals, 2 assists. All this in a 2 point win that could've changed the outcome of the series(this was the game where Horry missed a potential game winner).

Game 6 @ LAL: Spurs looking to close out the series on the road. Duncan obviously has an incredible game, but Parker drops 27 points and 5 assists; Manu 10 points, 4 assists, 5 boards. Without that the 28 point win may well be a loss.

Game 3 @ DAL in the WCF: Dallas got the split in SA, and Dirk hurts his knee in this game. Spurs must capitalize. Parker drops 29/8 on 23 shots in a 13 point win.

Game 4 @ DAL: Looking to take a commanding 3-1 lead with Dirk out, Parker drops 25 on 22 shots, while Manu drops 21 on 12 shots with 6 boards in a 7 point win.

Game 6 @ DAL: After dropping Game 5 in SA, Spurs looking to close the Mavs out in Dallas. Stephen Jackson drops 24 on 14 shots. Manu 11 points and 4 assists. Steve Kerr, in his final season, has his last great moment as a player, hitting 4 3s in the second half, including 3 in the 4th, finishing with 12 points on 4 shots. Even Malik Rose chipped in with 12 points and 11 boards. All of this in a 12 point win on the road with a pedestrian-by-his-standards Duncan performance.

Game 6 @ NJ: Spurs looking to clinch the title. Duncan has a historically great game, nearly recording a quadruple-double. Stephen Jackson drops 17 points on 13 shots. Manu 11 points and 2 steals. In his last game ever, DRob puts up 13 points, 17 boards, and 2 blocks on 8 shots. Speedy Claxton, who wasn't much of a factor throughout the playoffs, even drops 13 points on 8 shots.

Also worth noting that while DRob wasn't much of an offensive weapon anymore, he was still making a defensive impact, per his 4.76 RAPM(4.84 D-RAPM and small negative O-RAPM), though I know some take issue with his impact metrics in his later years. Ditto Bruce Bowen, per his 2.64 RAPM(2.18 D-RAPM).

Again, not taking anything away from Duncan, who was superlative, incredible in those playoffs. Just saying he wasn't playing with g-leaguers out there.

If you win even a single game of basketball, then guys other than your best player stepped up, never mind if you win a title. In almost every game the majority of points are not scored by your best player. Saying 'guys stepped up in some games' isn't saying much. What matters is how good these guys were as a whole (I.e. not very).

D.Rob's D is wholly overrated by people who focus on advanced stats. If D.Rob was so impactful, why were the Spurs 15-3 in games he missed that year? If his D was still so good, why did the Spurs defensive rating improve the next year after he left? D.Rob was washed in 03, and was at best an average player playing limited minutes.

I think there’s some real differences in how people are talking about this question. You correctly say that if teams win then obviously someone besides the best player must have stepped up. I think that’s right. And that leads to you saying “What matters is how good these guys were as a whole.” That’s definitely one totally valid way to look at it. But it’s not exactly how everyone is approaching this. For instance, anyone talking about how Murray played in the 2023 playoffs specifically is talking about a guy stepping up, not talking about how good the supporting cast was in general. Both are valid ways of looking at this. But I think we should be consistent with it. Either the question is how good these supporting casts were in general, or it is how much they stepped up in the title run specifically. The answers to those questions may not be the same. And the reality we probably should all acknowledge is that all of these guys did actually have their supporting casts step up, otherwise they could not have won.

Anyways, ultimately, people discuss this “how much help did someone have” thing as an indirect way to measure how well a star player played. But Player A winning a title with a worse supporting cast than Player B won it with doesn’t actually necessarily mean that Player A played better than Player B. It *could* mean that. But it could also be that Player A’s inferior supporting cast actually stepped up to a greater degree. Or it could mean that Player A faced opponents who were were not as good (or who simply weren’t playing as well in the playoffs specifically). It could also be that Player B's supporting cast played better and Player B's opponents weren't any harder, but that led to Player B's team winning the title more easily than Player A's team did. Or it could be some combination of these factors. Which makes this discussion not really logically get to the conclusion people want it to get to. One could easily think that one of these guys had the least good supporting cast while simultaneously thinking that a different guy actually played the best in their title run.

[One_and_Done]

Not to take anything away from what Duncan did in 2003 - and he might still be the answer to this poll question tbh - but I do feel like the "Duncan had no help in 2003" thing is a bit overstated. They weren't nothing. You can point to numerous examples of his teammates stepping up in important games during that playoff run.

Game 3 @ Phoenix in the first round: The Marbury-led Suns had gotten the split in SA and the Spurs were looking to take HCA back. Tony Parker dropped 29 points on 21 shots in this 13 point win.

Game 5 vs LAL in the second round: the series is tied 2-2, and the Lakers are looking to steal HCA in SA. Tony Parker drops 21 on 16 shots; Bowen 12 points on 6 shots; Stephen Jackson 12 points on 10 shots plus 3 steals; Manu 7 points, 2 steals, 2 assists. All this in a 2 point win that could've changed the outcome of the series(this was the game where Horry missed a potential game winner).

Game 6 @ LAL: Spurs looking to close out the series on the road. Duncan obviously has an incredible game, but Parker drops 27 points and 5 assists; Manu 10 points, 4 assists, 5 boards. Without that the 28 point win may well be a loss.

Game 3 @ DAL in the WCF: Dallas got the split in SA, and Dirk hurts his knee in this game. Spurs must capitalize. Parker drops 29/8 on 23 shots in a 13 point win.

Game 4 @ DAL: Looking to take a commanding 3-1 lead with Dirk out, Parker drops 25 on 22 shots, while Manu drops 21 on 12 shots with 6 boards in a 7 point win.

Game 6 @ DAL: After dropping Game 5 in SA, Spurs looking to close the Mavs out in Dallas. Stephen Jackson drops 24 on 14 shots. Manu 11 points and 4 assists. Steve Kerr, in his final season, has his last great moment as a player, hitting 4 3s in the second half, including 3 in the 4th, finishing with 12 points on 4 shots. Even Malik Rose chipped in with 12 points and 11 boards. All of this in a 12 point win on the road with a pedestrian-by-his-standards Duncan performance.

Game 6 @ NJ: Spurs looking to clinch the title. Duncan has a historically great game, nearly recording a quadruple-double. Stephen Jackson drops 17 points on 13 shots. Manu 11 points and 2 steals. In his last game ever, DRob puts up 13 points, 17 boards, and 2 blocks on 8 shots. Speedy Claxton, who wasn't much of a factor throughout the playoffs, even drops 13 points on 8 shots.

Also worth noting that while DRob wasn't much of an offensive weapon anymore, he was still making a defensive impact, per his 4.76 RAPM(4.84 D-RAPM and small negative O-RAPM), though I know some take issue with his impact metrics in his later years. Ditto Bruce Bowen, per his 2.64 RAPM(2.18 D-RAPM).

Again, not taking anything away from Duncan, who was superlative, incredible in those playoffs. Just saying he wasn't playing with g-leaguers out there.

If you win even a single game of basketball, then guys other than your best player stepped up, never mind if you win a title. In almost every game the majority of points are not scored by your best player. Saying 'guys stepped up in some games' isn't saying much. What matters is how good these guys were as a whole (I.e. not very).

D.Rob's D is wholly overrated by people who focus on advanced stats. If D.Rob was so impactful, why were the Spurs 15-3 in games he missed that year? If his D was still so good, why did the Spurs defensive rating improve the next year after he left? D.Rob was washed in 03, and was at best an average player playing limited minutes.

I think there’s some real differences in how people are talking about this question. You correctly say that if teams win then obviously someone besides the best player must have stepped up. I think that’s right. And that leads to you saying “What matters is how good these guys were as a whole.” That’s definitely one totally valid way to look at it. But it’s not exactly how everyone is approaching this. For instance, anyone talking about how Murray played in the 2023 playoffs specifically is talking about a guy stepping up, not talking about how good the supporting cast was in general. Both are valid ways of looking at this. But I think we should be consistent with it. Either the question is how good these supporting casts were in general, or it is how much they stepped up in the title run specifically. The answers to those questions may not be the same. And the reality we probably should all acknowledge is that all of these guys did actually have their supporting casts step up, otherwise they could not have won.

Anyways, ultimately, people discuss this “how much help did someone have” thing as an indirect way to measure how well a star player played. But Player A winning a title with a worse supporting cast than Player B won it with doesn’t actually necessarily mean that Player A played better than Player B. It *could* mean that. But it could also be that Player A’s inferior supporting cast actually stepped up to a greater degree. Or it could mean that Player A faced opponents who were were not as good (or who simply weren’t playing as well in the playoffs specifically). It could also be that Player B's supporting cast played better and Player B's opponents weren't any harder, but that led to Player B's team winning the title more easily than Player A's team did. Or it could be some combination of these factors. Which makes this discussion not really logically get to the conclusion people want it to get to. One could easily think that one of these guys had the least good supporting cast while simultaneously thinking that a different guy actually played the best in their title run.

The key distinction here is to what degree did guys “step up” because they were better than people realised, and to what extent was it a product of their best player enabling them to succeed. In the case of the 2003 Spurs, most of the players who “stepped up” did so because of Duncan. Go back and watch the 02 or 03 Spurs, and almost every play down the floor is a post-up to Tim Duncan. Those that aren’t usually should have been. Duncan gets the ball, and either draws a double and kicks it out, or isolates his man. Mostly, the other team would double Duncan. Duncan’s shooters hit their open shots just enough to win the title, but that seems like a product of Duncan putting them in a position to succeed. Without him, they’re basically nothing.

I can say the same in relation to the Spurs “good defensive players”. Much of that stems from Duncan anchoring the defence so well that other guys could get away with mistakes, and give the impression of being better than they were on D. David Robinson is a great example of this. His advanced stats give the illusion of him being impactful on D, but in reality I don’t see him as more than an average player. That’s a view formed both from my watching him play like a stiff that year, and also based on evidence. The Spurs were 15-3 in the games D.Rob missed, and the next year they lost D.Rob to retirement and their defensive rating got better. Logically, that shouldn’t have happened, because they were swapping 2 supposedly good defensive players (old D.Rob and young S.Jax) for 3 pretty weak defensive players (Rasho, Hedo and Horry). That strongly supports what my eyes saw; that really it was Duncan powering that defence, and the guys around him didn’t matter that much. When Speedy Claxton and Malik Rose left the Spurs, they were not good defensive players for their future teams either. Malik Rose was just outright painful to watch on both ends in New York.

To take the example of Murray, it’s definitely true that he played better than people expected in 2023, but it’s also true that he played like that afterwards when he was healthy. He just had injury issues that have meant he isn’t always healthy. Obviously being on the same team as Jokic always helps, but Murray was playing like an all-star regardless of Jokic. He wasn’t just sitting there and waiting to hit open shots Jokic created for him; he was creating for himself a tonne too, and initiating the offense from the point guard/lead creator spot. Aaron Gordon and Porter Jnr are objectively good players when healthy. They would be good on other teams, and their market value reflects that. Bruce Bowen would have been borderline unplayable on a team where the star isn’t creating open threes in the corner for him like Duncan was.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

If you win even a single game of basketball, then guys other than your best player stepped up, never mind if you win a title. In almost every game the majority of points are not scored by your best player. Saying 'guys stepped up in some games' isn't saying much. What matters is how good these guys were as a whole (I.e. not very).

D.Rob's D is wholly overrated by people who focus on advanced stats. If D.Rob was so impactful, why were the Spurs 15-3 in games he missed that year? If his D was still so good, why did the Spurs defensive rating improve the next year after he left? D.Rob was washed in 03, and was at best an average player playing limited minutes.

I think there’s some real differences in how people are talking about this question. You correctly say that if teams win then obviously someone besides the best player must have stepped up. I think that’s right. And that leads to you saying “What matters is how good these guys were as a whole.” That’s definitely one totally valid way to look at it. But it’s not exactly how everyone is approaching this. For instance, anyone talking about how Murray played in the 2023 playoffs specifically is talking about a guy stepping up, not talking about how good the supporting cast was in general. Both are valid ways of looking at this. But I think we should be consistent with it. Either the question is how good these supporting casts were in general, or it is how much they stepped up in the title run specifically. The answers to those questions may not be the same. And the reality we probably should all acknowledge is that all of these guys did actually have their supporting casts step up, otherwise they could not have won.

Anyways, ultimately, people discuss this “how much help did someone have” thing as an indirect way to measure how well a star player played. But Player A winning a title with a worse supporting cast than Player B won it with doesn’t actually necessarily mean that Player A played better than Player B. It *could* mean that. But it could also be that Player A’s inferior supporting cast actually stepped up to a greater degree. Or it could mean that Player A faced opponents who were were not as good (or who simply weren’t playing as well in the playoffs specifically). It could also be that Player B's supporting cast played better and Player B's opponents weren't any harder, but that led to Player B's team winning the title more easily than Player A's team did. Or it could be some combination of these factors. Which makes this discussion not really logically get to the conclusion people want it to get to. One could easily think that one of these guys had the least good supporting cast while simultaneously thinking that a different guy actually played the best in their title run.

The key distinction here is to what degree did guys “step up” because they were better than people realised, and to what extent was it a product of their best player enabling them to succeed. In the case of the 2003 Spurs, most of the players who “stepped up” did so because of Duncan. Go back and watch the 02 or 03 Spurs, and almost every play down the floor is a post-up to Tim Duncan. Those that aren’t usually should have been. Duncan gets the ball, and either draws a double and kicks it out, or isolates his man. Mostly, the other team would double Duncan. Duncan’s shooters hit their open shots just enough to win the title, but that seems like a product of Duncan putting them in a position to succeed. Without him, they’re basically nothing.

I can say the same in relation to the Spurs “good defensive players”. Much of that stems from Duncan anchoring the defence so well that other guys could get away with mistakes, and give the impression of being better than they were on D. David Robinson is a great example of this. His advanced stats give the illusion of him being impactful on D, but in reality I don’t see him as more than an average player. That’s a view formed both from my watching him play like a stiff that year, and also based on evidence. The Spurs were 15-3 in the games D.Rob missed, and the next year they lost D.Rob to retirement and their defensive rating got better. Logically, that shouldn’t have happened, because they were swapping 2 supposedly good defensive players (old D.Rob and young S.Jax) for 3 pretty weak defensive players (Rasho, Hedo and Horry). That strongly supports what my eyes saw; that really it was Duncan powering that defence, and the guys around him didn’t matter that much. When Speedy Claxton and Malik Rose left the Spurs, they were not good defensive players for their future teams either. Malik Rose was just outright painful to watch on both ends in New York.

To take the example of Murray, it’s definitely true that he played better than people expected in 2023, but it’s also true that he played like that afterwards when he was healthy. He just had injury issues that have meant he isn’t always healthy. Obviously being on the same team as Jokic always helps, but Murray was playing like an all-star regardless of Jokic. He wasn’t just sitting there and waiting to hit open shots Jokic created for him; he was creating for himself a tonne too, and initiating the offense from the point guard/lead creator spot. Aaron Gordon and Porter Jnr are objectively good players when healthy. They would be good on other teams, and their market value reflects that. Bruce Bowen would have been borderline unplayable on a team where the star isn’t creating open threes in the corner for him like Duncan was.

In any successful offense the star player is usually creating offensive opportunities for his teammates, but it's entirely possible for a star player to have teammates who are unable to capitalize on the opportunities he creates. We've all seen examples of that, where a star player creates a wide open look or hits his teammate with a good pass, which his teammate then fails to score on.

His teammates capitalized on the opportunities he was creating enough to win a championship, and I choose to give them credit for that.

[DorianRo]

This Nuggets team even assembled as is, would be a dynasty with Hakeem at his best.

[homecourtloss]

Not sure what Jokic and the 2023 Nuggets are doing in this specific conversation.

Murray averaged 26 ppg on 59% TS primarily on shotmaking and a low FTr and only 37% of his FGs made were assisted. He has an ATG series vs. the Lakers.

He had the second best on-off and the nuggets with him on court with Jokic off was better than the other way around for the entire playoffs.

We saw again what Murray can do in any playoff game vs any team. None of the other players mentioned have had this type of player. Yes, he doesn’t do it every game but playing at a high level in every game is the task for the very best player on your team. Once again, it was shot making of the highest caliber, many of them thightly contested midrangers. He only shot 1 ft.

Read on Twitter

[/quote]

Read on Twitter

[Ryoga Hibiki]

They all had help, in the form of temmates giving everything on defense, making smart plays, and hitting their shots.
Out of these it might be Timmeh. Jokic definitely the one with the most help.

[SportsGuru08]

It's basically a toss up between '94 Hakeem and '03 Duncan. Jamal Murray and Jason Terry may not have been superstars but they were still better than any perimeter options Hakeem and Duncan had those seasons.