Where do you rank Tim Duncan all-time? (poll)

[therealbig3]

No, I didn't miss your point. You're perceiving this weakness in Duncan that separates him from the other great defensive players, but it doesn't show in any of the results. The team defense should have suffered in that case more frequently if their anchor had such an obvious flaw. But the other ATG anchors' defenses were in fact more vulnerable than his was. With Hakeem, he fouled a lot, and with a guy that gets that many blocks and steals, unless he's perfect, he's probably also gambling a lot. I can easily say that Hakeem was a bit reckless as a defender at times. KG wasn't an elite rim protector, and he wasn't that strong of a post defender (physically speaking). That can be a vulnerability as well.

And since when was Tony Parker a good defender? He was just as bad defensively as Kenny Smith. There's a reason why I picked 87-91 and 93-94 for Hakeem...those were elite defensive teams, so complaining about weak defensive teammates doesn't make sense, since they should be the reason why his other teams were mediocre defensively...when a team is elite defensively, it usually means that the coaching and the teammates in addition to the defensive anchor are all doing their part. I don't see Bowen getting called out for constantly getting lit up by Kobe. What if it was his defense that fell off dramatically and not Duncan's?

And by the same token of Nash/Amare lighting it up against the Spurs in 2005...if that's on Duncan, why can't we blame Hakeem for being ineffective when Worthy and Magic lit them up in 1990? Was Duncan not blocking shots and getting defensive rebounds in 05 as well? And isn't it worse if Hakeem doesn't have the same physical weaknesses as Duncan but is still just as vulnerable defensively? That would indicate Duncan's a smarter defender.

[therealbig3]

I always find it odd that that people actually post that you cant have good defending teammates and still be an elite defender in your own right. OF course when KG goes to Boston and gets great defensive teammates of his own I dont hear guys saying its all about his teammates and coach.

Sure, but guys like you use TEAM result to show that Duncan was better defender than KG (for example) and ignore that Spurs were much better team in terms of defensive supporting cast than Minny.

I posted the EV for both the Spurs and the Wolves/Celtics though, and the Spurs were in general still better, despite playing better offenses. Ditto for the Spurs vs Rockets. We can do a comparison of the Duncan Spurs and the Robinson Spurs as well. If Duncan had a clear flaw compared to Robinson/Garnett/Hakeem, it should mean that his team's defenses wouldn't hold up as well in the playoffs as their team's defenses. But that's not the case (given Duncan was healthy...obviously the Spurs defense fell apart in 06). And again, none of them had to face a Nash-led offense, or a Kobe/Shaq offense at their absolute peak.

90 vs Denver: -1.0 (more or less a wash)
90 vs -0.4 (more or less a wash)

91 vs GS: +4.2

93 vs Portland: -0.8 (more or less a wash)
93 vs Phoenix: +0.6 (more or less a wash)

94 vs Utah: +4.3

95 vs Denver: -4.0
95 vs LAL: -9.5
95 vs Houston: +3.3

96 vs Phoenix: +2.4
96 vs Utah: +6.0

Again, has the same black marks as Duncan's defensive career...if not worse.

[sp6r=underrated]

It is pretty ridiculous to complain about somebody using a team metric when you spent a full page saying that full page metric was important.

[therealbig3]

Honestly, when you look at the EV, it actually seems to suggest that peak Duncan is BETTER than peak Hakeem/KG/Robinson defensively. The only times his teams failed defensively were when they played a GOAT-caliber offense, and/or when Duncan was slowed down by injuries (04 onwards). 98-03 Duncan might very well be the GOAT defensive anchor post-Russell.

Hakeem/Robinson/KG's teams failed defensively even when they were healthy and didn't have to face a GOAT-caliber offensive team.

But wait, let's give all the credit to Popovich instead of Duncan...not like Rudy T, Larry Brown, Bob Hill, and Doc Rivers were good coaches or anything, and it's not like Popovich ever made mistakes and was a stubborn ass even when his defensive strategies weren't working or anything.

[lorak]

I always find it odd that that people actually post that you cant have good defending teammates and still be an elite defender in your own right. OF course when KG goes to Boston and gets great defensive teammates of his own I dont hear guys saying its all about his teammates and coach.

Sure, but guys like you use TEAM result to show that Duncan was better defender than KG (for example) and ignore that Spurs were much better team in terms of defensive supporting cast than Minny.

I posted the EV for both the Spurs and the Wolves/Celtics though, and the Spurs were in general still better, despite playing better offenses. Ditto for the Spurs vs Rockets. We can do a comparison of the Duncan Spurs and the Robinson Spurs as well. If Duncan had a clear flaw compared to Robinson/Garnett/Hakeem, it should mean that his team's defenses wouldn't hold up as well in the playoffs as their team's defenses. But that's not the case (given Duncan was healthy...obviously the Spurs defense fell apart in 06). And again, none of them had to face a Nash-led offense, or a Kobe/Shaq offense at their absolute peak.

90 vs Denver: -1.0 (more or less a wash)
90 vs -0.4 (more or less a wash)

91 vs GS: +4.2

93 vs Portland: -0.8 (more or less a wash)
93 vs Phoenix: +0.6 (more or less a wash)

94 vs Utah: +4.3

95 vs Denver: -4.0
95 vs LAL: -9.5
95 vs Houston: +3.3

96 vs Phoenix: +2.4
96 vs Utah: +6.0

Again, has the same black marks as Duncan's defensive career...if not worse.

you are still making the same mistake. you think Dunan=Spurs. And the point Bast is making is that SPurs supporting cast was better defensively thn KG's or Hakeem's or DRob's. tHat's why Spurs team result would look better , but that doesn't mean DUncan was better defender than KG or Ewing or Hakeem.

You guys are basically doing the same what people, who look at titles and based on that says which player is better. WInning bias at his best.

[therealbig3]

^But I'm adjusting for the differences in team defense! The Spurs are a better defensive team, fine. But when you take EV, it should be adjusting for defensive strength and basically equalize the playing field to see how different defenses played. Seriously, you're the one that brought up the stat to prove that the Suns outplayed the Spurs defense badly, in support of bastillon's claim that Duncan had a vulnerability defending the PnR (which is why the Suns offense played so well).

So I'm using the same stat to show that it's really not uncommon for teams with great defensive anchors to be lit up, and by comparison, Duncan-led defenses actually held up better.

Now you're shifting the goalposts and saying I'm equating the Spurs defense to Duncan, when you were the one that said the best way to look at a defense is to look at EV in the first place...which bastillon was using to prove that Duncan wasn't as good defensively as other great defenders...now that I'm using it to say that Duncan actually looks better than they did AFTER you adjust for team defensive strength, you're saying I'm too focused on the team result. LOL.

Seriously:

It is pretty ridiculous to complain about somebody using a team metric when you spent a full page saying that team metric was important.

Basically, it's ok to use EV to say Duncan had a weakness defensively, but I can't use it to say that Duncan was great defensively.

[therealbig3]

Just to add on, EV basically lets you see how a defense does by their own standard, not by the average league standard. In that way, you can see how defenses held up in the playoffs. Most of the credit for a strong defense should go to the defensive anchor, although obviously he's not the only one involved. But EV was being used to knock Duncan when in one specific playoff series, the defense didn't hold up. If it can be used as a criticism for an individual player, it can also be used in support of an individual player, especially if we're comparing defensive anchors, who are what hold the team defense together. Can't have it both ways.

[Texas Chuck]

you are still making the same mistake. you think Dunan=Spurs. And the point Bast is making is that SPurs supporting cast was better defensively thn KG's or Hakeem's or DRob's. tHat's why Spurs team result would look better , but that doesn't mean DUncan was better defender than KG or Ewing or Hakeem.

You guys are basically doing the same what people, who look at titles and based on that says which player is better. WInning bias at his best.

No what Bast is doing is using ONE example of Duncan's team struggling and using it to say Duncan sucks at defense compared to X,Y, and Z. We have pointed out individual and team numbers showing that Duncan was a great defender who led a great defensive team.

We may be guilty of some winning bias, tho I think we have enough other ammunition in support of him, but you and Bast are guilty of using an extremely small sample size against an outlier team like the Nash Suns and reaching the conclusion that he's somehow worse.

Show me more that shows Duncan isnt the great defender. What should we believe? Bast's narrative about the Suns series or all the other statistical evidence over 15 years that show how great he's been. I havent bothered running down a complete listing of his dtrg, DRAPM numbers, team defensive ranking, all-D teams, etc because those are easy to find and it clutters the thread. But just because I havent posted them doesnt mean they dont exist.

So again, do you have any other evidence to counteract all of the readily available stuff that I know you know how to access or just he didnt completely shut down a Steve Nash offense something he has a little company at.

[lorak]

^But I'm adjusting for the differences in team defense! The Spurs are a better defensive team, fine. But when you take EV, it should be adjusting for defensive strength and basically equalize the playing field to see how different defenses played.

yes, but thtat doesn't adjust in any way quality of supporting cast! and that's whole point

Seriously, you're the one that brought up the stat to prove that the Suns outplayed the Spurs defense badly,

]
I brought that only because you used wrong method so I wanted to show you better one to compare TEAMS. I'm not saying it's good way to compare indyvidual players defensive impact!

[therealbig3]

^Thank you for showing it to me. But then that brings up Texas Chuck's point:

Bastillion wants us all to focus on this one tiny bit of data involving Duncan not completely shutting down the Nash/Amare PNR one of the most devestating offensive combos of all time and is thus concluding Duncan isnt as good a defender as KG or Ewing. I dont see you quoting his nonsense and questioning it.

Bastillon is equally, if not moreso, guilty of "losing bias" in this case, by using EV from ONE series to support his point that Duncan wasn't as good of a defender as other players. But you are only focusing on countering the arguments of the pro-Duncan crowd...that's a double standard.

[therealbig3]

Put another way, EV measures the "reliability" of a defense. bastillon was saying that Duncan had a clear flaw defensively that other greats didn't, which THE MOST IMPORTANT OFFENSIVE PLAY in basketball could expose. Logically, it stands to reason that a defense whose most important player has such a clear flaw wouldn't be as reliable as a defense whose anchor apparently didn't have this flaw. But that's not the case. EV actually supports the Spurs defense being more reliable than the Wolves/Celtics defense, the Rockets defense, and the early Spurs defense.

Ok, if you want to give credit to the supporting cast being the reason why Duncan's defenses are more reliable, fine, but if giving credit to Duncan for a strong EV is "bias", then attempting to take away credit from him for a weak EV is also "bias".

I could easily replicate bastillon's anti-Duncan argument:

-Hakeem was an undisciplined, unintelligent defender who gambled too much...check the EV, his team defenses regressed in the playoffs numerous times.

-KG was a physically weak defender who couldn't protect the rim all that well...check the EV, his team defenses regressed in the playoffs numerous times.

-Robinson was a soft, undisciplined defensive player...check the EV, his team defenses regressed in the playoffs numerous times.

I actually have more convincing evidence of all of that then bastillon does of Duncan being a tier lower than them as defensive anchors. I don't have to base it all off one series against a GOAT-caliber offense.

[lorak]

Ok, if you want to give credit to the supporting cast being the reason why Duncan's defenses are more reliable, fine, but if giving credit to Duncan for a strong EV is "bias", then attempting to take away credit from him for a weak EV is also "bias".

Yes
But evaluate defense relatively to others (EV) is sarting point. tHe next step is to identify how much credit or blame particular players should get for team performance. To do so we have to look why team performed bad or good. nO doubt in most cases DUncan was main or one of the main reasons why SAS performed so good on D (but it's on you to show why - how his particular skills affected each series and we all should look iF mabe others SPurs or Pop did more sometimes). But in this paricular case (vs Suns) Bastillon identifies why SPurs defense struggled and DUncan's not so good p&r D is the reason. How impartant is that DUncan's flaw overall in comparison with others great anchors flaws (for example Hakeems gambling for STl or BLK - if it's tru of course, because i'm not sure) - that's the thing we should discuss now to objectively decide who was better defensively.

[Texas Chuck]

So you really think in your own opinion that the default is that Duncan is definitely a tier below Ewing, Dream, and KG defensively? That is your honest opinion that we must overcome?

I want to be clear on this. Because all the info itt shows Duncan to be great except for this narrative Bastillion is telling about one series against an all-time offense. I didnt realize you really thought he was definitely a tier beneath them.

[therealbig3]

And I proved that not only is not conclusive at all that Duncan struggles with the PnR (again, we're going off only one series compared to many where the Spurs defense was great), whatever flaws you want to point to ended up not being important at all when compared to the other great anchors, because the Spurs defense held up the best in comparison to other defenses, and Duncan was still having GOAT-level defensive impact, as proven by RAPM, on/off, with/without, etc.

[G35]

Duncan is one of the most overrated players of all time. He is the least criticized all time. Nobody is talking about his fails... Imagine if he was criticize like Kobe or LeBron. He is also one of the luckiest player of all time. He spent his career to maybe the best organization in NBA with one of the greatest coaches of all time. He had an amazing support for most of his career unlike LeBron, Kobe or KG. He had David Robinson, Manu, Parker, Bowen and etc. I don't even talk about the amazing role players which Pop creates.

This always baffles me about how Duncan was lucky to play for the best organization in the NBA. Exactly when did they become the best organization because they didn't do David Robinson any favors......

[Durins Baynes]

Except none of his teams "failed" during his prime (which is when it matters). He's also not lucky. What makes the Spurs awesome as a front office is their ability to succeed despite the constraints of a small market. The advantage the Lakers have had through Kobe's tenure for instance is that they've been able to load the team with far more talent than Duncan played with. It's all relative. The Spurs front office is great for being able to find value out of nothing (for eg, drafting Tony, Manu, Kawhi, Splitter, etc, with bad picks, and to find good role players like D.Green or Neal out of nowhere). What they can't do is acquire guys like freaking Shaq or Pau Gasol or Dwight Howard, and talent like that can't be compensated for. At the end of the day, players play, not front office staff or coaches, and when you've got players like Shaq and Kobe on your team there's very little an opposing front office can do.

[Texas Chuck]

Duncan is one of the most overrated players of all time. He is the least criticized all time. Nobody is talking about his fails... Imagine if he was criticize like Kobe or LeBron. He is also one of the luckiest player of all time. He spent his career to maybe the best organization in NBA with one of the greatest coaches of all time. He had an amazing support for most of his career unlike LeBron, Kobe or KG. He had David Robinson, Manu, Parker, Bowen and etc. I don't even talk about the amazing role players which Pop creates.

This always baffles me about how Duncan was lucky to play for the best organization in the NBA. Exactly when did they become the best organization because they didn't do David Robinson any favors......

yeah they became the best organization the day they won the lottery that gave them Duncan and they will stop being it the day he retires. Just like Belicheck wasnt a genius until Brady and wont be after him.

Duncan is the Spurs and in a few years when he's done all these guys if they are willing to be honest with themselves will have to admit it. Until then they can keep holding him to standards they hold no one else to.

I dont even like the guy, but again he deserves all the respect in the world for his career.

[Regulio]

I'd put him in Bird/Magic category, so 4-6.