RealGM Top 100 List #5

[Baller2014]

I think it's pretty clear that the 97-99 lakers fell short due to a young kobe who hadn't nearly developed into the player he would become during the 3 peat, and phil jackson was only there for 1 season. As we all know, the main thing he brings to the table as a coach is managing personalities, and shaq / kobe were strong personalities to say the least. 04 lakers were a mess chemistry-wise, and honestly the fact that they even got to the finals was semi-surprising.

The 97-99 Lakers had multiple all-stars on the support cast each year basically, plus good role players tacked on to that. That's multiple all-stars more than Duncan had from 01-03.

[Baller2014]

You mean like NVE and the other 'All-Star's' you mentioned about late 90's Shaq's LA teams? Hmmm, funny how Duncan couldn't elevate his teams like you expected Shaq to do

Stay consistent here.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The 04 Spurs shot an unbelievable 38 out of 124 from the 3 point line that series over 6 games. When did Shaq's shooters let him down to that degree? In game 5, where Duncan should have been allowed to win the game off his insane fall away jumper, the Spurs were 6-23 from the 3pt line in a 1 point game. In the closeout game, game 6, they were 3-24. Between the horrible 3 point shooting and Rasho's uselessness on offense, Duncan was trying to fight off Shaq and Malone with chains around his legs.

[MacGill]

You mean like NVE and the other 'All-Star's' you mentioned about late 90's Shaq's LA teams? Hmmm, funny how Duncan couldn't elevate his teams like you expected Shaq to do

Stay consistent here.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The 04 Spurs shot an unbelievable 38 out of 124 from the 3 point line that series over 6 games. When did Shaq's shooters let him down to that degree?

Here is what you're doing:

Spurs on paper had poor cast and shot terrible.

LA had all-stars (which is all dependant on voting/competition) so even if they played poor they still had all-stars.

Bosh is an all-star talent but when he had a poor game, the Heat felt it. It doens't matter on the talent of the player....poor performance means poor and usually negative team impact.

[colts18]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The 04 Spurs shot an unbelievable 38 out of 124 from the 3 point line that series over 6 games. When did Shaq's shooters let him down to that degree?

How about 2003 vs the Spurs when Robert Horry shot 0-18 from 3 or in 1998 when his "all-stars" shot 41 FG%, 37 FG, and 24 FG%.

[Baller2014]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The 04 Spurs shot an unbelievable 38 out of 124 from the 3 point line that series over 6 games. When did Shaq's shooters let him down to that degree?

How about 2003 vs the Spurs when Robert Horry shot 0-18 from 3 or in 1998 when his "all-stars" shot 41 FG%, 37 FG, and 24 FG%.

I cover Horry's shooting performance in my OP too. Please go back and read it (page 2, post 40 I think).

[Baller2014]

Here is what you're doing:

Spurs on paper had poor cast and shot terrible.

LA had all-stars (which is all dependant on voting/competition) so even if they played poor they still had all-stars.

Bosh is an all-star talent but when he had a poor game, the Heat felt it. It doens't matter on the talent of the player....poor performance means poor and usually negative team impact.

I have no problem penalising guys for playing badly, Shaq's support cast in 98 certainly did that in the WCFs. On the other hand, Karl Malone was the better player than Shaq that series, and I don't think Shaq was being held back by start Greg Foster and back-up Ostertag in the paint. There are some key differences though, if we're comparing it to 04:
1) The Lakers got swept, they didn't have a close 4-2 series which they almost took to 7 games.
2) Duncan had to fend with Shaq and Malone inside, not Malone and Greg Foster.
3) Shaq's team was not taking as many 3's, and so when they didn't fall it wasn't as damaging to the offense. The Spurs plan revolved entirely around their ability to hit open 3's.
4) Shaq's big man help that series, whatever faults Horry and co had, were better than Rasho Nesterovic on offense.

[microfib4thewin]

What makes me not take such stats as gospel is the human factors that influence them.

Wait, you don't trust DRtg, but think that all-star selections are objective evidence of player quality?

In addition, he also fully trusts HOF selection even though there is extreme bias that favors players and coaches that got put into a good situation. Take Parker and Manu, as good of a player as they are would anyone anoint them as a future HOFer based only on their NBA resume? Doubtful, and if you put them in bad teams they will most likely be utilized improperly due to their glaring weaknesses(too one dimensional for Parker and lack of durability for Manu). 90s said Duncan is fortunate to be in a good situation, but it's Duncan himself that is partially responsible for creating an ideal environment. Parker and Manu are the ones who lucked into a good situation, not Duncan.

[Texas Chuck]

Duncan is fortunate to be in a good situation, but it's Duncan himself that is partially responsible for creating an ideal environment. Parker and Manu are the ones who lucked into a good situation, not Duncan.

Thank you. Obviously Duncan benefited from coming into a team with David Robinson. And he benefits from the stability of the organization. But why do so many people fail to realize just how important Duncan is to that stability? Pop doesnt last all this time without Duncan completely buying in. I wish Pop wasnt leaving with Duncan so everyone could see that just like Belichek in the NFL, much of the "genius" is tied to having the best player in the world. And I mean no disrespect to Pop who is legit great, but even he would tell you Duncan makes him look really really good.

Way too much selective bias going on. Duncan gets slighted for Pop and TP and Manu, but Mike never gets slighted for Phil and Pip, and in fact gets credit for "making Pip". We never knock Magic for Kareem, Worthy, Riley, etc nor should we. And so on.

[colts18]

2000 Shaq did a carry job in 2000 on par with some of the most well-known carry jobs (2011 Dirk, 95 Hakeem). This is what his starting lineup did for him in the finals:

Kobe: 15.6 PPG, .411 TS%, 96 O rating
Rice: 11.5 PPG, .541 TS%, 100 O rating
Harper: 10.8 PPG, .538 TS%, 105 O rating
AC Green: 5 PPG, .633 TS%, 133 O rating (11 usage%)

This is what his starting lineups for that series averaged:
10.3 PPG, 41.4 FG%, .490 TS%, 3.5 Reb, 2.7 AST

Its amazing that he was able to carry that. He averaged 38/17, 61 FG% in that series.

[DQuinn1575]

Barry beat a Bullets team who would not even have qualified for the Western Conference playoffs this year. It hardly compares to some of the earlier examples given, like Duncan taking out Shaq and Kobe in their primes.

Get serious -

Elvin Hayes HOF
Wes Unseld HOF
Phil Chenier 2nd team all-nba
Kevin Porter led league in assists
Mike Riordan - 5 year starter in NBA

Rookie Truck Robinson on bench - future 1st team all-nba

How many teams in the NBA have 2 HOFers/Top 50 all-timers on them playing with a 2nd team all-nba player?

Probably puts them battling for 3rd in West.

[Mutnt]

Thank you. Obviously Duncan benefited from coming into a team with David Robinson. And he benefits from the stability of the organization. But why do so many people fail to realize just how important Duncan is to that stability? Pop doesn't last all this time without Duncan completely buying in. I wish Pop wasnt leaving with Duncan so everyone could see that just like Belichek in the NFL, much of the "genius" is tied to having the best player in the world. And I mean no disrespect to Pop who is legit great, but even he would tell you Duncan makes him look really really good.

Way too much selective bias going on. Duncan gets slighted for Pop and TP and Manu, but Mike never gets slighted for Phil and Pip, and in fact gets credit for "making Pip". We never knock Magic for Kareem, Worthy, Riley, etc nor should we. And so on.

I do agree a franchise would rather have Duncan as its 'poster boy' than Shaq, mainly due to Shaq's ego-centric character and off-court shenanigans. However, this stuff about Duncan making Pop is ridiculous. Pop has proven many a times in recent years that he can play at a high level and win even without Duncan stepping foot on the court. Why? Because Pop actually knows what he's doing. There's a reason why most role players who look below average or done thrive in the Spurs system, and no, it's not because of Duncan. No doubt P-Jax and Riles are solid coaches but I've never seen any coach do the things Pop has done. Unless you are Scoot Brooks, it shouldn't be that difficult to establish an offensive system which leeches of the abilities of all-time great talent (not only the Bulls/Lakers, but also 90's Knicks and Heat that Riley coached had a lot of great talent on it). Now, that doesn't mean that Pop had full blown scrubs, but the way his teams pretty much always played to the best of every player's strengths is amazing. It's also important to note that Pop has switched his style, system, roles of players etc. during his tenure and the Spurs didn't skip a beat, while guys like Phil Jackson seemed to always disappear alongside the departing talent of his team.

[MacGill]

2000 Shaq did a carry job in 2000 on par with some of the most well-known carry jobs (2011 Dirk, 95 Hakeem). This is what his starting lineup did for him in the finals:

Kobe: 15.6 PPG, .411 TS%, 96 O rating
Rice: 11.5 PPG, .541 TS%, 100 O rating
Harper: 10.8 PPG, .538 TS%, 105 O rating
AC Green: 5 PPG, .633 TS%, 133 O rating (11 usage%)

This is what his starting lineups for that series averaged:
10.3 PPG, 41.4 FG%, .490 TS%, 3.5 Reb, 2.7 AST

Its amazing that he was able to carry that. He averaged 38/17, 61 FG% in that series.

Yep, I mean, how do you put a stat on the leadership that D-Rob alone was providing to his team in comparison here. PJ was really the first mentor Shaq really had. But I am sure he picked up a ton of wisdom from NVE, Eddie Jones and a teen Kobe Bryant.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

Thank you. Obviously Duncan benefited from coming into a team with David Robinson. And he benefits from the stability of the organization. But why do so many people fail to realize just how important Duncan is to that stability? Pop doesn't last all this time without Duncan completely buying in. I wish Pop wasnt leaving with Duncan so everyone could see that just like Belichek in the NFL, much of the "genius" is tied to having the best player in the world. And I mean no disrespect to Pop who is legit great, but even he would tell you Duncan makes him look really really good.

Way too much selective bias going on. Duncan gets slighted for Pop and TP and Manu, but Mike never gets slighted for Phil and Pip, and in fact gets credit for "making Pip". We never knock Magic for Kareem, Worthy, Riley, etc nor should we. And so on.

I do agree a franchise would rather have Duncan as its 'poster boy' than Shaq, mainly due to Shaq's ego-centric character and off-court shenanigans. However, this stuff about Duncan making Pop is ridiculous. Pop has proven many a times in recent years that he can play at a high level and win even without Duncan stepping foot on the court. Why? Because Pop actually knows what he's doing. There's a reason why most role players who look below average or done thrive in the Spurs system, and no, it's not because of Duncan. No doubt P-Jax and Riles are solid coaches but I've never seen any coach do the things Pop has done. Unless you are Scoot Brooks, it shouldn't be that difficult to establish an offensive system which leeches of the abilities of all-time great talent (not only the Bulls/Lakers, but also 90's Knicks and Heat that Riley coached had a lot of great talent on it). Now, that doesn't mean that Pop had full blown scrubs, but the way his teams pretty much always played to the best of every player's strengths is amazing. It's also important to note that Pop has switched his style, system, roles of players etc. during his tenure and the Spurs didn't skip a beat, while guys like Phil Jackson seemed to always disappear alongside the departing talent of his team.

Agree Pop is great. But what really separates him from a guy like say Rick Carlisle is Tim Duncan. We saw just this year how Rick matched him move for move and frankly outcoached him, but Dirk played poorly and the Spurs just had more talent than Dallas.

Tons of props for how he coaches to the team he has and doesnt force a system on players when it clearly doesnt work, but you still got to have the players and with his particular personality it really helps when the best player in the world is receptive to being coached hard in a way many star players wouldnt.

[drza]

I'm seeing a trend that is somewhat dominating the conversation in this thread, that I don't think is really that productive to determining how good the players involved are. The trend is the race to minimize support on championship teams to the point that it no longer is realistic nor really helps paint a clear picture. Hakeem in '94 or Duncan in '03 (or Barry in '75 or Dirk in 2011 or now Shaq in 2000, apparently) were all ridiculously awesome. And yes, evaluating the level of support on these teams is a step towards helping gauge how much heavy lifting the star had to do. But that is true only in the extent that it reflects what the star was doing, and only to the extent that the evaluations are somewhat realistic to what actually happened on the court.

Instead, in a lot of the conversation in this thread, the focus seems to be on establishing what criteria (especially reputation-based or minimization of on-court strengths in favor of embellishing weaknesses) can make it seem that the main player was more heroic. So we start ending up with pages of arguments that look like:

"My guy didn't have any All Stars on his team!"

"My guy didn't have any All Stars OR future Hall of Famers!"

"Well, my guy also didn't have a Hall of Fame Coach!"

"Well, this guy didn't have those things either..."

"Yeah, but on his team there was a rookie that would one day be an All Star so he's disqualified..."

I don't know. Maybe it's just me (and if so, I apologize to the room) but I don't think further amplification of that trend is especially helpful here. It gets too myopic on one particular aspect of a set of circumstances, focuses on the circumstances well beyond what accurately paints the picture for the player under consideration, and stifles what could be a rich comparison space for these players.

1994 and 1995 Hakeem were otherworldly in the playoffs. But he wasn't dragging "nothing" to the title. The players on his team fit certain roles (shooting, rebounding, moxie) that fit in perfectly around his transcendence...roles that several would reprise on other successful teams throughout their careers. He was obviously the driving force behind them, the point isn't in any way to minimize that. And there are few in history that could have done something similar. But let's take the accomplishment for what it is, and focus more on how his particular combination of scoring brilliance, defensive everywhere-ness and versatility helped lift the team than on whether or not Rudy T deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. And if we're going to discuss his cast, let's angle it more on what they did and didn't bring to the court for that team than on whether or not they ever received All Star votes.

Similar story with 2003 Duncan. It's funny now, but at the time it was accepted that the Spurs had a good team but a decade later it'd sound like he was out there with nobody. Plus, another context point is that the other contenders for the West throne had major injuries (Webber, Nowitzki and to a lesser extent Kobe) and the East wasn't strong enough to field a credible threat. As some have pointed out, those Spurs were a) driven by Duncan's brilliance but b) (like Hakeem) full of players that fulfilled their roles in such a way that he was able to thrive. David Robinson was old and breaking down...but for half of each game, he was still one of the top defenders in the NBA. Which meant that, for the half of the game that Duncan and Robinson played together each game, they had the foundation of 2 of the best defensive big men in the NBA which formed the backbone for a ridiculous defense. To supplement this, Bruce Bowen in 2003 was a well established plus defender by both acclaim (he was in the 3rd year of 8 straight All Defense nods) and RAPM, and made a fine third on-court presence to lock in the championship level defense. This unit was run by an excellent defensive coach in Popovic, and featured other plus defensive perimeter players in the rotation like Stephen Jackson and (even rookie) Manu Ginobili. This was outstanding and consistent defensive support. Of course, their offense was characterized by spotty inconsistency, but Duncan's sustained brilliance and a cast deep enough that usually one or two other players were contributing solid offensive support on a given game (even if those players differed each time) provided just enough offense to let the defensive backbone and Duncan's transcendance lead to the promised land.

Again, this post isn't to diminish either Olajuwon's or Duncan's accomplishments on those championship teams. Just the opposite, in fact. I would like to see more emphasis on what they accomplished and how, or (as needed) even emphasis on how their cast played as a means to illustrate what the superstar accomplished and how...but I'd love to see less on the resume's of their cast that don't really add that much to the table.

And just for the record:

1994 Olajuwon playoffs: 35.9 pts (57% TS), 13.7 reb, 5.3 asts (4.5 TOs), 5.0 blks, 2.2 stls / 100 poss

2003 Duncan playoffs: 30.6 pts (58% TS), 19.1 reb, 6.6 asts (3.9 TOs), 4.1 blks, 0.8 stls / 100 poss
Also have for Duncan: #2 in PI RAPM in 2003 ( both overall and defense)
One of highest playoffs on/off +/- on a champion on record (+23.1/100 poss) (available since 2001)

[sp6r=underrated]

might KG have been ale to do something to stem the tide of Minny incompetence? Anything a possible but Minny is not Los Angeles. Much if the misses they have have everything to do with them realizing how hard it is to actually get talent to willingly go that far into the cold.

Besides being inaccurate this is a case of trying to have it both ways. Minnesota's management cannot have been historically bad at providing support and been operating in an almost impossible situation. I lived in Minny for many years so I am hopelessly biased but if perpetual contenders can be built in SLC (no black people, Mormon, non-existent nightlife), SA (middle of nowhere, few black people) and other small cities, I don't see why it is impossible in Minnesota.

KG supporters make the case that Minnesota management was historically bad at providing a decent group of players around KG. I mostly agree save my support for Flip. However if Minnesota's management was historically bad just getting up to average level of management would have made a big difference.

I've read posts before of yours in which you defended Magic getting Westhead canned. IIRC, you said it was the right thing to do and history proved him correct. KG defended McHale even when it was clear to outsiders the guy had no clue what he was doing. If Magic should get credit for taking action on Westhead shouldn't KG get knocked to the same degree for letting McHale waste his prime?

It isn't just Shaq who would have barked at McHale. I think almost every other player in the T20 would have either publicly ripped management (Kobe, Hakeem, MJ, etc.) or privately told them they were leaving (Duncan, KAJ, etc.).

__________________________________________

Edit: to be clear, I think there is a great case for KG in this range. I just wanted to throw out that I don't think KG handled the Minny situation well. BTW, everyone still loves him up there FWIW.

[E-Balla]

I'm voting for Magic Johnson.

Basically peak wise I'd take Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan over him but overall those guys were less consistent than Magic.

Magic's prime was 84-91 and he averaged 20/7/12, 62 TS. His playoff averages were 20/7/13, 60 TS.

Duncan's prime was 99-07. In those seasons he averaged 22/12/3, 55 TS. His playoff averages were way more impressive across the board (24/13/4, 56 TS).

Hakeem's prime was 86-97. In those seasons he averaged 25/12/3, 56 TS. He is clearly the worst regular season performer of the group but his postseason play (28/12/4, 58 TS).

Shaq's prime was 94-05. In those seasons he averaged 27/12/3, 58 TS. His playoff averages were 27/13/3, 57 TS.

Shaq has injury concerns and he clashed with a ton of teammates. Hakeem has underwhelming regular season performances. Duncan was in an amazing situation and he had the least impressive accomplishments of the 4. Magic has longevity concerns.

Duncan has the best late career and Magic has the best early career. Hakeem and Shaq are being considered but IMO they drag behind Magic and Duncan because their negatives are more serious.

Personally I'm thinking of Magic and Duncan and I can't choose one over the other. My tiebreaker was picking who had the most impressive career and Magic (who made 9 Finals and won 5) is the most impressive of the two IMO.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm seeing a trend that is somewhat dominating the conversation in this thread, that I don't think is really that productive to determining how good the players involved are. The trend is the race to minimize support on championship teams to the point that it no longer is realistic nor really helps paint a clear picture.

Instead, in a lot of the conversation in this thread, the focus seems to be on establishing what criteria (especially reputation-based or minimization of on-court strengths in favor of embellishing weaknesses) can make it seem that the main player was more heroic.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me (and if so, I apologize to the room) but I don't think further amplification of that trend is especially helpful here. It gets too myopic on one particular aspect of a set of circumstances, focuses on the circumstances well beyond what accurately paints the picture for the player under consideration, and stifles what could be a rich comparison space for these players.

I endorse this idea 100%.

[Gregoire]

My vote goes to Tim Duncan. Best resume IMO of players, which didnt voted. Slightly worse peak than Hakeem and Shaq, but more consistent prime, better longevity and less of-court stuff and shortcomings. 5 сhampionships, intangibles, leadership, two-way impact. All inclusive at elite level.

[PaulieWal]

My vote goes to Tim Duncan. Best resume IMO of players, which didnt voted. Slightly worse peak than Hakeem and Shaq, but more consistent prime, better longevity and less of-court stuff and shortcomings. 4 Championship, intangibles, leadership, two-way impact. All inclusive at elite level.

5

[MacGill]

I'm seeing a trend that is somewhat dominating the conversation in this thread, that I don't think is really that productive to determining how good the players involved are. The trend is the race to minimize support on championship teams to the point that it no longer is realistic nor really helps paint a clear picture.

Instead, in a lot of the conversation in this thread, the focus seems to be on establishing what criteria (especially reputation-based or minimization of on-court strengths in favor of embellishing weaknesses) can make it seem that the main player was more heroic.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me (and if so, I apologize to the room) but I don't think further amplification of that trend is especially helpful here. It gets too myopic on one particular aspect of a set of circumstances, focuses on the circumstances well beyond what accurately paints the picture for the player under consideration, and stifles what could be a rich comparison space for these players.

I endorse this idea 100%.

If I had 1% of drza's wisdom....I would be able to articulate my original point like he does. Well said!