RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #1

[Texas Chuck]

I am thrilled to see Timmy getting discussion already and even a vote. I think he absolutely belongs and I would encourage those dismissing him on numbers to take a broader look.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

I am going to break my own rule and address something I see as flat insupportable:

Tim Duncan is not remotely a GOAT candidate.


And certainly not for the reasons occasionally thrown out. The "longetivity" argument in particular makes little sense.

When "longetivity" is used to trumpet Kareem's GOATiness, there is at least meat to that argument. Through Kareem's longetivity he piled up all time stat totals. And his longetivity was legitimate. He played the most minutes in NBA history, a full 10,000 minutes more than Tim Duncan played. The #2 guy at that all time was Karl Malone, who few on this board like as a Top 10 guy, and yet who's longetivity numbers again dwarf Duncan's (54,000min to 47,000min).

Duncan meanwhile did NOT have a tremendously long peak/prime. This was not Mailman scoring 20+ as his team's #1 option until he was 38. He declined into support player status fairly early, missed chunks of many seasons, was on minutes watch etc. And in fact Duncan's "longetivity" left him with roughly the same career minutes as Wilt Chamberlain, and barely 6000 more than Shaq or Jordan.

And because Duncan lingered as a support player rather than as a star, he didn't do nearly as much with those minutes. What exactly is the GOAT point of playing in games or piling up minutes if you aren't producing numbers? Compare:

Kareem 57446min 24.6pts 11.2reb 3.6ast --> 38387pts 17440reb 5660ast
Mailman 54852min 25.0pts 10.1reb 3.6ast --> 36928pts 14968reb 5248ast
Kobe 48637min 25.0pts 5.2reb 4.7ast --> 33643pts 7047reb 6306ast
Wilt 47859min 30.1pts 22.9reb 4.4ast --> 31419pts 23924reb 4643ast
Duncan 47368min 19.0pts 10.8reb 3.0ast --> 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
LeBron 41271min 27.1pts 7.3reb 7.0ast --> 28787pts 7707reb 7461ast
Jordan 41011min 30.1pts 6.2reb 5.3ast--> 32292pts 6672reb 5633ast


Tim Duncan did not have GOAT level longetivity or production in his longetivity. By the time you hit the GOAT level guys, guys had more productive careers while playing fewer minutes, or far more productive careers while playing more minutes.

Duncan's longetivty/production peers are the second tier guys in the borderline Top 10 discussion, but not the GOAT discussion:

Duncan 47368min 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
Hakeem 44222min 26946pts 13748reb 3058ast
Garnett 50418min 26071pts 14662reb 5445ast
Moses 45071min 27409pts 16212reb 1796ast

I'm sure we've gotten into this more than once before, but points/rebounds/assists don't even begin to adequately account for production on the basketball court in my book.

And1 to that. And I should think the things ThaRegul8ar posted on at length in post #166 itt are in no small part a component of Duncan's candidacy, too. I mean after all, someone in this thread mentioned that "old saw that the point of playing is to win titles".

[LA Bird]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Both Jordan and LeBron have multiple seasons better than Kareem's best but Kareem's ability to churn out star quality seasons into his late 30s puts him ahead of both on my all time list. He dominated the 70s more than any other player did for a decade and if we were to ignore level of competition, Kareem should be far and away the #1 GOAT in my opinion. The most complete offensive center in the history of the game and improved his scoring resiliency against tougher defenders after his first few seasons to such a degree that he still remained a potent half court offensive player even when much older. His defense as a Lakers was somewhat disappointing given his potential to be an all time great defensive anchor as displayed in Milwaukee but he still accumulated a near top 10 defensive career just being a solid defender for so many seasons. There is a larger gap in Kareem's favor on defense than in Jordan/LeBron's favor on offense and his advantage in longevity is enough to offset the weaker peak and prime.

2. LeBron James
I previously had Jordan ranked second on my list but after updating with 2017 playoffs data, LeBron has passed Jordan 1 year earlier than expected. Jordan has the better peak and comes out ahead by very small margins in a pairwise comparison of the two's top seasons but lack of longevity is starting to hurt him. Only 11 full seasons as a Bull is a short career compared to James who at this point has a 27/7/7 year as his 13th best season. Jordan's edge in better prime is not enough to overcome LeBron's longevity.

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

May I suggest that Jordan never really appeared to "melt down" because his inclination was to shoot a lot and thus going out guns blazing provides a sort of insulation to criticism in our culture. He also finished with a recency bias that erased his earlier struggles.

In the 3rd game of a 3-game sweep against the 87 Celtics, he was 9-30. He certainly struggled against the Pistons -- in 1989 he opened 10-29 from the field. In Game 4, with the Bulls up 2-1, he was 5-15 from the field (12-17 FT) with just 4 assists. In Game 5, Detroit "turned him into a decoy" and Jordan took all of 8 shots, racking up 9 assists in a Bulls loss. I wonder what the Skip Bayless' would have been saying after that game.

1990 saw similar clunkers against Detroit. He was 9-25 with 7 turnovers in G6 against the Knicks in 92. He didn't really have a great series against the Cavs in 92 -- high volume, low efficiency. His struggles against the 93 Knicks are well chronicled, including the famous 3-18 game. (He also gets a cold-blooded pass for taking 94 off and for the 95 playoffs). And, I think I've mentioned this before, but the 97 series vs Miami is perhaps his ultimate struggle, shooting 39% on high volume.

This is not to say LeBron's negative moments haven't been worse. He is unjustly crucified for the 11 Finals, but he did have a number of subpar games (for whatever reason) including a 3-11, 8 point game. As I've argued before, I'm not sure how much worse his series was than Nowitzki's though -- if we're results oriented, a few horrible shooting games on high volume will rarely render any kind of "positive" value; people just aren't as quick to demean it. Additionally, as I've demonstrated in the past, James will curtail his shooting when he's inefficient. Similarly, his teams have lost at a freakishly disproportionate rate when he doesn't have a good game. (A large part of his argument as the greatest floor-lifter in history.)

To use a very crude measure: LeBron has shot sub-40% in 12% of his prime playoff games (09-17). In those games, he took at least 25 shots 3 times...all in 2015 without Kyrie and Love. Jordan was sub-40% in 15% of his prime playoff games (88-98) and took at least 25 shots 11 times. This assured that his scoring numbers would always be respectable. LeBron impacts the game more with creation/passing and (when younger) defense and rebounding. Those things aren't always captured in the box, but Jordan maintained his ppg despite it eating up possessions.

In James' 9-year run, his main black marks are a single game against a superior Boston team in which Cleveland lost by 32 (MJ had such games) and James had a disappearing act in the aforementioned 2011 Finals (if this is the worst series between prime MJ and prime LBJ, it's not the worst by some cavernous divide). If we step back, are we really saying Jordan "had" something James didn't...other than better teammates?

Not trying to argue one side or the other, just throwing these things out there.

Excellent points (nice that it's fairly concise with concrete examples, too). Thanks for taking the time.

btw, since you're participating anyway, are you sure you wouldn't care to be added to the panel and cast some votes, too? Not to lay on the flattery too heavily, but I feel the credibility of the list/project as a whole only increases for having your name attached to it.

Thanks for the invite and appreciate the compliment. Unfortunately, I have inconsistent availability.

If you're refining your GOAT-list and don't feel comfortable enough with your rankings to contribute by way of voting, that's your call. But fwiw, inconsistent availability doesn't change my opinion at all wrt wanting your involvement (whenever you're able).

[Winsome Gerbil]

Spoiler:

I am going to break my own rule and address something I see as flat insupportable:

Tim Duncan is not remotely a GOAT candidate.


And certainly not for the reasons occasionally thrown out. The "longetivity" argument in particular makes little sense.

When "longetivity" is used to trumpet Kareem's GOATiness, there is at least meat to that argument. Through Kareem's longetivity he piled up all time stat totals. And his longetivity was legitimate. He played the most minutes in NBA history, a full 10,000 minutes more than Tim Duncan played. The #2 guy at that all time was Karl Malone, who few on this board like as a Top 10 guy, and yet who's longetivity numbers again dwarf Duncan's (54,000min to 47,000min).

Duncan meanwhile did NOT have a tremendously long peak/prime. This was not Mailman scoring 20+ as his team's #1 option until he was 38. He declined into support player status fairly early, missed chunks of many seasons, was on minutes watch etc. And in fact Duncan's "longetivity" left him with roughly the same career minutes as Wilt Chamberlain, and barely 6000 more than Shaq or Jordan.

And because Duncan lingered as a support player rather than as a star, he didn't do nearly as much with those minutes. What exactly is the GOAT point of playing in games or piling up minutes if you aren't producing numbers? Compare:

Kareem 57446min 24.6pts 11.2reb 3.6ast --> 38387pts 17440reb 5660ast
Mailman 54852min 25.0pts 10.1reb 3.6ast --> 36928pts 14968reb 5248ast
Kobe 48637min 25.0pts 5.2reb 4.7ast --> 33643pts 7047reb 6306ast
Wilt 47859min 30.1pts 22.9reb 4.4ast --> 31419pts 23924reb 4643ast
Duncan 47368min 19.0pts 10.8reb 3.0ast --> 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
LeBron 41271min 27.1pts 7.3reb 7.0ast --> 28787pts 7707reb 7461ast
Jordan 41011min 30.1pts 6.2reb 5.3ast--> 32292pts 6672reb 5633ast


Tim Duncan did not have GOAT level longetivity or production in his longetivity. By the time you hit the GOAT level guys, guys had more productive careers while playing fewer minutes, or far more productive careers while playing more minutes.

Duncan's longetivty/production peers are the second tier guys in the borderline Top 10 discussion, but not the GOAT discussion:

Duncan 47368min 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
Hakeem 44222min 26946pts 13748reb 3058ast
Garnett 50418min 26071pts 14662reb 5445ast
Moses 45071min 27409pts 16212reb 1796ast

I'm sure we've gotten into this more than once before, but points/rebounds/assists don't even begin to adequately account for production on the basketball court in my book.

And1 to that. And I should think the things ThaRegul8ar posted on at length in post #166 itt are in no small part a component of Duncan's candidacy, too. I mean after all, someone in this thread mentioned that "old saw that the point of playing is to win titles".

That would be more amusing if I had not posted it purely to pander to the sensibilities of at least some of the peeps in these threads.

You'll also find me occasionally posting tripe like win shares, VORP, and a variety of other nonsense which truth be told doesn't factor one iota in any analysis I ever conduct myself. All such mentions are purely for illustrative purposes to people who value such things.

So, winning is everything, its all about the ringgzz huh? Cool. Jordan's can't all fit on one fist, and he was the man for every one of them. No other player in the modern history of the NBA can make that claim. For everybody with a ring fetish and analytical integrity, it should be a winning argument.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Michael Jordan

Vote 2 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

I was hoping to have time to break down some footage of early, mid and late career Jordan, but doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

As more and more seasons pass and the game evolves, it makes sense that Jordan’s assumed status as GOAT would be tested. I still feel as though Kareem is the only one who has a clear case against him given his overall resume. As for Russell, i’m in the camp of judging his success in his era slightly lower than that of a Jordan or Kareem. He’ll certainly be in my top 5, and possibly 3rd as I continue to evaluate.

Jordan came into the league and had an immediate impact both statistically and team improvement: 28.2 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 SPG, .8 BPG, 59.2% TS, 118 ORTG, .213 WS/48, 27 wins to 38, 23rd in SRS to 14th. Few players produce at an all NBA level right out of the gate, so you knew you had something special in jordan.

The things that stuck out with jordan early in his career was the speed in the open floor, amazing body control in the lane, and of course his overall elite athleticism. However, even at a young age he seemed in control of that skill and continued to hone it with an inside out game, always keeping the defense on their toes.

Taking a look at jordan’s deep playoff runs pre-championship, it was really his teammates who didn’t provide enough support to get over the hump against the pistons.

ECF vs. DET in 89 (6 games): http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1989-nba-eastern-conference-finals-bulls-vs-pistons.html

ECF vs. DET in 90 (7 games): http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1990-nba-eastern-conference-finals-bulls-vs-pistons.html

Jordan was excellent in both series as the main focal point of the defense. As we look at Jordan’s first 3 title runs, he faced formidable opponents in all 3 series, where the lakers, blazers and suns ranked 3rd, 2nd and 3rd in SRS respectively. Jordan continued his elite production (taking it to another level). Be it a great look off penetration to a shooter, a key defensive stop, or a bucket when you needed it most, he had the entire package.

91 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1991-nba-finals-lakers-vs-bulls.html

92 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1992-nba-finals-trail-blazers-vs-bulls.html

93 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1993-nba-finals-bulls-vs-suns.html

Of course, this coincided with his teammates stepping up as well, which is what a superstar ultimately needs to win a championship in this league, even if they’re doing the bulk of the scoring.

As for his retirement / come back season, I look at it similarly to him missing the majority of his second year. It makes sense that he's going to be rusty and not as effective as he once was. I do think the fact that he returned to form and even changed his game to still be effective as he aged was super impressive. The second 3 peat had to take a toll on his body, playing in all 82 games each of those 3 seasons at 38.1 MPG, increasing to 41.5 MPG in the playoffs. While his efficiency dipped somewhat vs. his 1st 3 peat, his overall production was still stellar.

I’ll end with saying that during those 6 seasons, it really did seem as though Jordan and the bulls were unbeatable. Even if they faltered or showed signs of weakness, ultimately Jordan was going to come through in the clutch and take them home. I’m not sure you can say that for many other players other than russell, which is why I feel comfortable as Jordan still remaining GOAT.

[Senior]

I’ll end with saying that during those 6 seasons, it really did seem as though Jordan and the bulls were unbeatable. Even if they faltered or showed signs of weakness, ultimately Jordan was going to come through in the clutch and take them home. I’m not sure you can say that for many other players other than russell, which is why I feel comfortable as Jordan still remaining GOAT.

This is a point that kind of bugs me. I've seen the unbeatable/winning aura point brought up a few times and while it's mostly true, how much of it is influenced by MJ's baseball break? Most people already kind of just write off the 95 Magic loss, but it's not inconceivable that they could've lost in 1994 either after coming off 4 deep playoff runs...and they most likely wouldn't have won 8 in a row since they were running on fumes in 1998. Would he have this aura had he stayed with Bulls in 94/95 but lost in like 97/98? I know this kind of thing is a hypothetical, but this "aura" argument was created by simply not playing for 1.75 years. He didn't lose, but he certainly didn't give his Bulls a chance to win a title either.

Is that fair? Obviously it worked out for his career, but it's not as if he was untouchable in the playoffs.

[trex_8063]

.

Wanted to touch base wrt to the per 100 possession comparisons of Kareem/Duncan/(Garnett), and add in the relative TS% (as I believe Joao Saraiva had suggested).
As you noted, per 100 possessions is not a perfect leveler across eras; increased pace will not have a linear relationship to scoring opportunities for the high usage/iso-heavy stars (and perhaps especially for iso-heavy BIGS).

Likewise, I'll acknowledge rTS% is not a perfect leveler. I don't believe, for instance, that Oscar Robertson would be scoring at ~63-65% TS year after year in the modern era (because that's what his rTS% would suggest). He was just a bit ahead of the curve in how well he could convert from the mid and close ranges. I think his rTS% probably goes down a bit in the modern era (but his pts/100 possessions probably go up a little).
Kareem was simply a bit ahead of the curve, too (and now some of the rest of the league has caught up). So perhaps his rTS% goes down marginally in a later era; however, his pts/100 possessions likely take a small step up in some contexts (especially in an era such as the 1990's). ****Although for the purposes of this comparison, league avg TS% barely matters, as in the early 2000's (around Duncan/Garnett's peak) it fell to lower than what it was in the late 1970's.****

Was re-watching some of the 1974 NBA finals, as well as a rs Laker game from '80, and I'm noting there are some aspects of his life (as a low-post scorer) which would get easier in later eras. In '74, he can hardly even bring the ball down to heart-level after catching an entry pass, because the guy guarding the entry passer sags down and is swiping. There's often so little room for him to work in the absence of outside shooters or a 3pt line. Anyway, just putting that out there before moving on to the comparisons. I'll use some of the same years you had, but add in a couple others (I have per 100 estimates for pre-1974 player seasons, btw). Mostly wanting to focus on the scoring aspect, as you were sort of singling that out, but will include some of the other stats, too....

Year 1
'70 Kareem per 100 poss: 27.7 pts, 14.0 reb, 4.0 ast @ +4.14% rTS in 43.1 mpg
'98 Duncan per 100 poss: 29.3 pts, 16.6 reb, 3.8 ast, *3.5 blk, *4.7 tov @ +5.38% rTS in 39.1 mpg
*Kareem avg >3.5 blk/100 every year from '74-'82, collectively averaging 3.9; Kareem never----in any of the years it was recorded----averaged as many as 4.7 turnovers (his highest was 4.4, avg 3.9 from '78-'86)......I mention these by way of possible proxy for here and in years below.

Year 18
'87 Kareem per 100 poss: 26.4 pts, 10.1 reb, 3.9 ast, 1.9 blk, 3.6 tov @ +5.92% rTS in 31.3 mpg (now into league avg TS% that are completely comparable to modern/recent era, too, btw)
'15 Duncan per 100 poss: 24.6 pts, 16.2 reb, 5.3 ast, 3.5 blk, 3.0 tov @ +2.55% rTS in 28.9 mpg
'13 Garnett per 100 poss: 26.0 pts, 13.7 reb, 4.1 ast, 2.0 stl, 1.6 blk, 2.8 tov @ +0.03% rTS in 29.7 mpg

Peak(ish) Scoring Years ('02 is Duncan's single-best season as scorer, by clear margin)
'02 Duncan per 100 poss: 33.5 pts, 16.7 reb, 4.9 ast, 3.3 blk, 4.2 tov @ +5.60% rTS in 40.6 mpg
'03 Duncan per 100 poss: 31.6 pts, 17.5 reb, 5.3 ast, 4.0 blk, 4.2 tov @ +4.43% rTS in 39.3 mpg
'04 Garnett per 100 poss: 33.2 pts, 19.0 reb, 6.8 ast, 3.0 blk, 3.5 tov @ +3.10% rTS in 39.4 mpg
'77 Kareem per 100 poss: 32.7 pts, 16.6 reb, 4.8 ast, 4.0 blk @ +9.76% rTS in in 36.8 mpg
'71 Kareem per 100 poss: 33.4 pts, 16.9 reb, 3.5 ast @ +10.57% rTS in in 40.1 mpg
'72 Kareem per 100 poss: 34.0 pts, 16.2 reb, 4.5 ast @ +9.83% rTS in in 44.2 mpg


Gonna cherry-pick some other years for greater spotlight on the middle years, so we're not just looking at peakish seasons and some book-ends......

Year 9
'06 Duncan per 100 poss: 28.9 pts, 17.2 reb, 4.9 ast, 1.4 stl, 3.2 blk, 3.9 tov @ -1.25% rTS in 34.8 mpg
'78 Kareem per 100 poss: 32.0 pts, 16.0 reb, 5.4 ast, 2.1 stl, 3.7 blk, 4.2 tov @ +7.40% rTS in 36.5 mpg

Year 14
'11 Duncan per 100 poss: 26.4 pts, 16.4 reb, 4.9 ast, 3.5 blk, 2.9 tov @ -0.41% rTS in 28.4 mpg
'83 Kareem per 100 poss: 31.2 pts, 10.7 reb, 3.6 ast, 3.1 blk, 3.6 tov @ +8.75% rTS in 32.3 mpg

Year 15
'12 Duncan per 100 poss: 28.3 pts, 16.4 reb, 4.9 ast, 3.5 blk, 2.9 tov @ +0.40% rTS in 28.4 mpg
'84 Kareem per 100 poss: 30.3 pts, 10.4 reb, 3.7 ast, 2.5 blk, 3.9 tov @ +6.54% rTS in 32.8 mpg
'10 Garnett per 100 poss: 25.2 pts, 12.9 reb, 4.7 ast, 1.7 stl, 1.4 blk, 2.6 tov @ +2.66% rTS in 29.9 mpg


Obviously I'm not going to try to argue Kareem's defense or rebounding in his later years vs. that of Duncan or Garnett (though you can see in his peak physical years, he wasn't THAT far behind in rebounding, and was a more than capable defender).
Passing/playmaking too I think he's probably 3rd of the three (though again not a huge gap imo, as it's a much under-appreciated aspect of his game, partially evidenced by the assist rates above; saw him make some fantastic interior passes to cutters in that '80 Lakers game I was watching today).
But when we include the rTS% Kareem clearly emerges as the significantly superior scorer (particularly over Garnett), even though I think Duncan's prowess as a scorer is at times criminally under-credited. Note Kareem was typically playing slightly more mpg in most of those analogous seasons, too.

I know I've singled out a couple seasons above in which Duncan was struggling a bit with nagging injuries (plantar fasciitis one year, iirc); but I did so on purpose to better illustrate Kareem's remarkable durability and consistency (as it all sort of falls under the broad umbrella of longevity to me).
Kareem only missed 80 rs games TOTAL in a 20-year career, and didn't really have seasons (to my knowledge) where he was being significantly hindered by nagging injuries; only missed 1 playoff game in 20 seasons.
Duncan missed 118 rs games in a 19-year career (despite two hold-out seasons: if those had been full length, I think it's fair to assume he'd have missed at least a few more), missed the entire playoffs in '00 (which is significant as it instantly turned SA from contender to 1st-round fodder), and had a couple other seasons where he was less than 100%. KG missed 214 rs games in a 21-year career (though most of them in his post-prime); missed all of the '09 playoffs.


Anyway, I think I'll stop there. The above was all just to illustrate that yes, I think Kareem was a significantly better scorer than Duncan or Garnett, and yes, his longevity (+ durability/consistency) was better as well.

[cpower]

...
1. His dominance on the defensive end. You and other peers have stated enough on how dominant he was in his era so I am not going to more details here.
2. His teammates. His teammates lead the WS in 5/11 championship runs and to say they had a super team is a understatement.
3. Fewer playoff series. 8/11 of the champions came in 2 series. I have developed a simple mathematical model to demonstrate this: To win a championship through 4 series , given the odds of winning each is (90%, 80%, 65%, 55% respectively), the overall odds is 26% for a single year. To win a championship through 2 series , given the odds of winning each is (80%, 65% respectively), the overall odds is 48% for a single year, the odds is basically doubled.
4. Luck, The Celtics won game 7 - five times and 4 of 5 had been less than 3 points. While winning close games is amazing, we have to acknowledge how rare is it to win multiple g7 games within such small margin.

in reverse order:

4. Is it luck or clutch performance? When MJ wins close games, it's always the narrative that he is the reason. When Russell wins close games, it's not? And yet, Russell consistently elevates scoring in the playoffs and is known for setting up opponents for failure with mental exercises that lead them into making the wrong play. Just something to think about.
I think its both. Especially when you win g7 5 times and no matter how great you played in closeout games,
there were so many factors (missed call, your teammate making shots and opponents missing shots.. etc)
3. That's why I didn't talk about titles won, I talked about series won. Russell won 93% of his playoff series; Jordan 79%, Kareem something below that. It's not about less series to win, it's about winning the series that you do play. Jordan DID win 90% plus once Phil Jackson came to Chicago and convinced him to play more team oriented ball rather than hero ball . . . but Russell had the focus on winning rather than individual performance from the very beginning.
But MJ didn't have Sharman or Cousy level of offensive player to start with, so it would have been unfair to compare their early days. On the contrary, Duncan's early days have been more impressive than both players
4. Instead of just saying "superteam" it would be much more helpful if you actually compared the teams that they played on and looked at their teammates.

Russell played on basically 2 teams (with some transition between them). The first was with Cousy, Sharman, Lotscutoff/Ramsey, Heinsohn, and him. This is a "superteam" only in terms of guys who scored a lot. Cousy and Heinsohn were below average efficiency scorers, Sharman and Ramsey only average, Lotscutoff not a scorer (Auerbach did do a good job of getting deep bench, especially compared to Wilt's Warriors teams). Other than Lotscutoff (a pretty average defensive specialist), there isn't any stud defender there to help Russell either.

Compare to Jordan's 1st 3-peat team: Pippen (better than any Celtic in terms of efficiency and certainly in terms of defense), Grant (again, better defensively than any of the Celtics and a good solid efficient scorer without volume . . . I'd certainly take him over Heinsohn on any team ever), Armstrong (one time questionable all-star, solid PG with MJ there to draw off attention but didn't do much beyond that) not up to Sharman level but considering Cousy's consistent record of miserable shooting in the playoffs in the Russell years, hardly a gaping hole, Cartwright/Perdue/King (certainly the equivalent of Lotscutoff, though Ramsey was a great step up from Perdue/King for the offensive half of the platoon).

Compare to Kareem's 71 to 73 Bucks: Oscar (again, Way better offensively than Cousy or anyone on the Celtics), Dandridge (better defensively than any early Celtic, better offensive efficiency relative to league than the likes of Heinsohn too), McGlocklin/Lucius Allen (solid but not spectacular guards) not in the Sharman/Ramsey category as scorers though again, efficient, Curtis Perry/Greg Smith (and Bob Boozer/Terry Driscoll for the scoring end) again, rough equivalent to Lotscutoff but not up to the Ramsey standard.

Compare to 80-82 Lakers: Magic Johnson at the 2 (already a great player though injured in 81), Jamaal Wilkes (very good scorer and defender, was the 2nd best player on the Warriors championship in 75, clearly better than any early Celtic relative to league), Norm Nixon (excellent distributing point with decent scoring skills) again, compared to Cousy's playoff woes, I'd take Nixon for this part of Cousy's career, Rambis/Kupchak/Michael Cooper (superior defensive play to Lotscutoff, not Ramsey level offensively though they did have McAdoo too). This is the real superteam . . . only 1 ring (Tragic Johnson!) but much more talent relative to the league (expansion watered league v. 8 teams, at least 6 of whom had 2 or more HOF players).

Early Russell is clearly NOT playing with the level of talent relative to his league as Kareem or even Jordan; just a lot of HOF players that were either 50s stars who weren't keeping up with the change in the NBA (Cousy, Sharman) or mediocre players who were overrated due to a limited skill set (Heinsohn, Lotscutoff).

LATE Boston is a stronger case, though you have the Greer/Walker/Jackson/Cunningham/Jones Sixers, plus a few teams with 2 greats (West and Baylor, Oscar and Lucas, etc.).

Russell played with John Havlicek (the consensus #2 player, a very good defender and below average shooter who did improve into the 67-69 seasons into an average or even above average one but whose real superstar offensive seasons were in the 70s), Sam Jones (very good scorer, particularly playoffs, average defender and playmaker), KC Jones (the Ben Wallace of PGs, hard to think of a PG who did less offensively but great defensive rep), and Bailey Howell/Satch Sanders (Sanders the defensive specialist, Howell the low post scorer that worked with Russell in the high post -- both undersized but with Russell there for rebounding and rim protection, they were very good fits).

Compare to 2nd 3peat Bulls where Jordan played with: Pippen (compare to 65-69 Havlicek, Pippen is more impressive on both sides of the ball though they are very comparable), Rodman (GOAT rebounder and capable of great defense) for most teams a player preferable to Sam Jones if his antics didn't destroy your team chemistry which they didn't on the Bulls, Harper/Kerr (Harper not KC Jones on the defensive end but more capable offensively, Kerr the 3 point specialist), Longley/Kukoc (Longley an underrated player, good passer and average offense/defense . . . I'd take him over Sanders but not close to Howell as a player, Kukoc more comparable to Howell though Howell's scoring more valuable than Kukoc's scoring/playmaking in their eras). Reasonably comparable talent levels; I'd put Chicago first but not by much.

Compare to post Nixon Showtime: Magic (takes over for Kareem as best player pretty clearly), Worthy (like Sam Jones, known for clutch play though weak rebounder; better defensive rep than Jones), Scott/Cooper (offense/defense pairing with stronger defense, less offense than Howell/Sanders), AC Green (defender with little offensive responsibility similar to KC Jones though less defensive rep and better offense).

So, of the 3 main GOAT candidates, who played with the superteams? Kareem in LA clearly had the most talent. Boston had a lot of big names early but I would argue for unimpressive play/impact . . . low efficiency gunners don't win many championships. Boston late had talent equal to that of Jordan's Bulls, better than Kareem's Bucks but hardly enough to say Russell played with superteams in comparison to the other GOAT contenders. Unless you just add up points and rep (ignoring pace and efficiency).
Yes some of the Celtics gunners were inefficient , but they also played in a up and down style and they had multiple gunners to throw at the opponents. The Celtics won on a high pace high scoring game and their scorers must have something to do with it. I think we should evaluate offensive players differently across the era and even they may not make to today's game , they could have made decent impact back then (WS supports it too).

[THKNKG]

I've spoilered part one of my post if you want to read it here

Spoiler:

OKAY SO APPARENTLY THIS IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST TWO PARTS - I WILL NOT BE THIS WORDY THE WHOLE TIME I PROMISE

Time to get into the nitty gritty. First, I’d like to discuss some of the underlying assumptions I make when analyzing players (my biases, you might say). Second, I’d like to discuss the areas of analysis I consider important when discussing player “greatness,” and why we should deem them important (a meta-analysis, if you will). Third, I will put these players in the context of these underlying assumptions and distinctions of greatness. Again, I’d like to note that if you disagree, make sure of what level at which you disagree with me, and address me there; that’s what I’ll do if I see a disagreement with you, is go to the root. I hope to set this all forth at the beginning, so that leaves me completely free to focus on the players (or other sets of criteria brought up by others).

Here’s a table of contents (I’m not writing a book, don’t worry – just something close to it).

I. Axioms

a. Defense

b. Offense

c. Offense vs Defense
i. RAPM study
ii. Scarcity theory

d. Playstyle

e. Longevity/Peak

f. Intangibles/No?

g. Era


II. How to assess greatness

a. Era
i. Era translation
ii. Era context

b. Team
i. Team contribution
ii. Team makeup

c. Player
i. Impact
1. Contribution to winning
2. Gravity/anti-gravity
3. Skill
a. Offensive/defensive factors
b. Portability/scalabiity

ii. Intangibles

d. Miscellaneous
i. Longevity/peak
ii. Walton-Parish Scale
iii. ALWAYS CONTEXT RULE


III. Greatness judgment applied

The reason I’m being so thorough with epistemology/meta-analysis is because I want to lay a firm foundation, so that everyone knows where I (and they) are coming from, and thus can discuss particular players freely.

With that being said, here goes:

Axioms

By this, I simply mean those things that we assume to be true, and are presuppositions we bring into any sort of dialogue – I hope to have identified mine, and either remove them or show why they are valid. (YAY EPISTEMOLOGY)





1. Defense - The value of a defensive big man (4/5) is higher than the value of a defensive perimeter player (1/2/3).

In fact, one could say that the higher one goes numerically in the positions, the more defensive impact they can have. Therefore a 1 (PG) has the least impact, and a 5 (C) has the most. This can be demonstrated in a couple ways.

First, common sense tells us this. A man who is significantly taller than the rest of the players in the game can alter more shots and produce a significant barrier to scoring. Additionally, they typically play around the goal, which is where most of shots are taken, and where the most reliable shots are taken. Therefore, being able to significantly impact the most efficient shot an offense can take increases a defender’s value.

Even in today’s game this holds true. It could be said that the two most valuable shots in today’s modern game are shots at the rim, and beyond the three point line. I’ve already established that big men are most effective at the rim. However, let’s say an elite perimeter defender is guarding an offensive player at the three point line, and he gets a good contest. He may reduce the player’s efficiency, but 1) he cannot reduce it as significantly as a big man can a shot at the rim and 2) he is guarding a much less efficient shot anyway, therefore reducing the defending value. Jump shot form is relatively consistent, with the shooter’s body under control, and at the rim this is not the case, with players often contorting their bodies in various ways to produce more effective shots. Therefore, by simple nature of a shot, a “rim protector” is more valuable than a “wing defender.”

Second, RAPM numbers tell us this. Looking at Doc’s SD spreadsheets again, over 3/4 of the top 50 players are big men. This is 2 positions occupying around 80% of the top spots. That’s significant.





2. Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways.

First is again common sense. Perimeter players (especially the 1) have the ball in their hands more often, and require less setup than big men. They can essentially always create their own offense, whereas big men necessarily must do their own creation by proxy (they must receive an interior pass). Positioning and entry passes naturally make the job of an offensive big man more difficult. One interesting thing of note is that this rule does not apply to ATG offensive big men (Shaq, KAJ, etc.). However, the inverse is not true for defense – even an ATG perimeter defender cannot impact the game as much as a really good interior defender.

Second, RAPM numbers tell us this. Again, Doc’s SD spreadsheets – you know the drill. Around 70% of top 50 is positions 1/2/3. About 30% of this is the PG position. Not as strict a rule as my defensive axiom – more of a guideline (though a firm one).

I’ve touched on the first two rules here prior to this (though some of the information is not as airtight as what is posted above): - (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1541917)

I’ll post the main post below.

Post#1 » by micahclay » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:06 pm
My theory is one that is typically held as "common knowledge," but I thought I would give it some tangible backing. This will not be comprehensive, although I may continue adding to it if the need/desire arises.

The theory consists of two arguments, and a premise concluded from those arguments. First, the greatest offensive impact that can be generated is that of a primary ball-handler (wing players). Second, the greatest defensive impact that can be generated is that of a big-man. Therefore, in an equal state, an offensive wing is more valuable than an offensive big, and a defensive big is worth more than a defensive wing.

As I said, this (as far as I can tell) seems to be common knowledge. However, my goal is to provide some evidence for it.

First, point one: the greatest offensive impact that can be generated is that of a primary ball-handler (wing players).

Here are the 20 best rated offensive teams in alphabetical order by ORtg+ (Offensive efficiency divided by league average efficiency - see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e5L6KTzBh0kxd1uiYdJdDsIbUT5lp-tVxnde2SC10sg/edit#gid=41).

Boston Celtics - 1988
Chicago Bulls - 1992, 1996, 1997
Dallas Mavericks - 2002, 2003, 2004
Denver Nuggets - 1982
Golden State Warriors - 2016
Indiana Pacers - 1999
Los Angeles Clippers - 2015
Los Angeles Lakers - 1987, 1996
Phoenix Suns - 2005, 2007, 2010
Portland Trailblazers - 2014
Sacramento Kings - 2004
Utah Jazz - 1997, 1998

Look at these teams; most of them have a common denominator. Their best players/offensive centerpieces are most often wings.

Celtics - Larry Bird
Bulls - Michael Jordan
Mavericks - Steve Nash/Dirk Nowitzki
Nuggets - multiple
Warriors - Stephen Curry
Pacers - Reggie Miller
Clippers - Chris Paul
Lakers - Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal
Suns - Steve Nash
Trailblazers - Damian Lillard
Kings - Chris Webber
Jazz - Karl Malone

This shows two things. First, Steve Nash was incredible at generating historic offensive teams. Second, at least 15 of these 20 teams had offenses in which a wing was the primary option.

Second, the greatest defensive impact that can be generated is that of a big-man. Let's look at the top 20 defensive teams according to DRtg+.

Boston Celtics - 2008, 2011, 2012
Chicago Bulls - 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013
Detroit Pistons - 2004
Indiana Pacers - 2014
New York Knicks - 1993, 1994
Orlando Magic - 2009
San Antonio Spurs - 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2016
Utah Jazz - 1989
Washington Bullets - 1975

Let's look again at the "centerpiece" of the defenses.

Celtics - Kevin Garnett
Bulls - Ben Wallace, Joakim Noah
Pistons - Ben Wallace
Pacers - Roy Hibbert
Knicks - Patrick Ewing
Magic - Dwight Howard
Spurs - Tim Duncan
Jazz - Mark Eaton
Bullets - Elvin Hayes/Wes Unseld
Again, this shows two things. First, Ben Wallace, Kevin Garnett, and Joakim Noah were outstanding team-elevating defenders, and Tim Duncan was otherworldly at it. Second, it's even more obvious here; 20/20 of these teams have a dominant defensive big man as their centerpiece. The further down the list you go, the more apparent it becomes (and the further up - no teams prior to 1973 are recorded, so Russell's dominance isn't even taken into account here).

Next, let's look at a set of individual stats - offensive box plus/minus and defensive box plus/minus. Here are the top 25 of each (not in numerical order).

OBPM:
Stephen Curry - 2x
Michael Jordan - 5x
Tracy McGrady - 1x
Lebron James - 6x
Chris Paul - 3x
Charles Barkley - 4x
Russell Westbrook - 1x
Kevin Durant - 1x
Magic Johnson - 1x
Dwyane Wade - 1x

21/25; another huge discrepancy again.

DBPM:

Ben Wallace - 6x
Marcus Camby - 5x
Mark Eaton - 4x
Manute Bol - 2x
David Robinson - 1x
Hakeem Olajuwon - 1x
George Johnson - 1x
Bo Outlaw - 1x
Andrew Bogut - 2x
Joakim Noah - 1x

25/25; another insane discrepancy.


CONCLUSION:

In an equal state, an offensive wing is more valuable than an offensive big, and a defensive big is worth more than a defensive wing.

I am aware these stats are not all-telling; for example, Manute Bol appears twice on the DBPM list, yet he's clearly not one of the 25 best individual defenders ever. However, what I would say are these statements (assuming equal levels of offense and defense):

Offensive wing > Offensive big
Defensive big > Defensive wing

Again, I know this may be a "well duh" analysis, but it is always good to have evidence for our conclusions. I plan to, in my further studies, attempt to flesh out whether offense or defense is more valuable for each position (for example, is an offensive wing more valuable than a defensive wing?). My hypothesis is that a defensive big is more valuable. Again, this may all be redundant, but hopefully you learn something (I did). I welcome any analysis/comments/criticism.





3. Offense vs defense – Offensive players have a higher capacity to affect the game (or at least do so more frequently), but the scarcity of defenders who can produce at that level makes those defenders equally valuable (aka scarcity theory).

The reason this is a necessary rule, is because many people put an inordinate amount of emphasis on offense, even as high as 80/20 or 75/25. I don’t think this is reasonable.

I’ll copy and paste a study I did that gave rise to this conclusion:

Okay, some quick numbers on RAPM (ORAPM vs. DRAPM), scarcity, etc. This is using Doc's SD numbers.

ORAPM:
Mean (-.06)
SD (.41)
Players 5 SD over the average (2.03+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 67
2.5+ RAPM: 24
3.0+ RAPM: 7

DRAPM:
Mean (-.02)
SD (.36)
Players 5 SD over the average (1.77+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 32
2.0+ RAPM: 6
3.0+ RAPM: 2

TAKEAWAY:

There were less than half the defensive players available that could match the (arbitrary) 2.0 benchmark. I picked 2.0 because it was 5 SD above for ORAPM, and basically the average SD of both times 5. Clearly offensive players can more consistently provide more upper value, but it can equally be argued that the scarcity of the defenders at that level make it more equal. According to my calculations, offensive players can provide ~25% more value as a whole, whereas the ratio for defenders at this level vs. offensive players at this level is only 34%. Personally, I feel it confirms what I was thinking - that it's reasonably close when you consider offensive impact/defensive impact along with rarity/value. It also seems that (according to this data at least) defenders can at least approach offensive impact levels, though not at the same frequency of occurrence. Does that support that offense is to some degree more effective than defense? Does it say that the scarcity of that level of defenders makes them comparable? I say yes to both.

Second, a study of 20 NBA finalists:
(https://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nba/offense-and-defensive-efficiency-of-nba-champions.aspx)

The conclusion of the article was that 12/20 finalists had offensive efficiency in the top ten, whereas 17/20 had defensive efficiency in the top ten. Should this not mean, minimally, that if a championship caliber team needs an elite defender, that defense should have at least equal value to offense?





4. Playstyle – Except for situations where a team is so weak it needs a player to “carry them,” a team-friendly playstyle is most preferred.

This is particularly in reference to ball-dominant volume scorers (and ball-dominant playmakers to some degree). The general premise (proven by a look at the most successful offenses) is that:

Non ball-dominant > Elite ball-dominant playmaker > Elite ball dominant scorer

This can be seen when you look at which teams pervade the top of the list of best offenses – and which players led them: Stephen Curry, Steve Nash, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan.

This ties into the idea of portability/scalability. If you were to start a team, this axiom wouldn’t be too necessary. However, NBA teams don’t get the liberty of building a team from scratch, and must build a cohesive unit. Therefore, a player who can perform a variety of roles at a variety of team strengths is more valuable (typically) than one who can perform a singular job really well.

Another sidenote, which has already been discussed in the thread, is that defense is more additive than offense.





5. Longevity/peak – Unless there is a clear advantage in peak, assuming levels similar to one another, the player with more effective longevity is more highly valued.

I’m not going to touch on this much, but Elgee has done a better job than I ever could with his championships added project:

Post#1 » by ElGee » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:11 am
4/15/13 Update: More data, incorporation of PS data

The goal:

Figure out how much a player impacts winning a championship on a random team based on his impact on their SRS.


The Method:

-Calculate the win probabilities in a given game based on SRS differentials of the two teams (using 2008-2012 RS data and 2001-2012 PS data)
-Given this, Calculate the win probabilities in a 7-game series based on SRS differentials
-Calculate the odds of of a given team's opponent quality in each round of the playoffs based on their SRS (using 1986-2012 data)
-Calculate the odds of a player being on a given team from -8 SRS to +8 SRS (using 1986-2012 data)

Defining SRS Impact:
SIO is the simple SRS impact on a true theoretical 0 SRS team. A +8 "SIO" player, by this working definition, improves a 0 SRS team to 8. A +3 SIO Player to 3. And so on.

Before we can compare the differences in performance with a player on vs. off a team, we have to use an "SIO curve," or some kind of simple adjustment for diminishing returns in basketball. A +8 player does not improve a +8 SRS team to 16 (diminishing returns). As a result of this, we will use the following formula with 3 variations:

(a) High Portability* Players -- (SIO * 1.5 ^ (1- e^(SRS/15)))
(b) Normal Portability* Players -- (SIO * 1.5 ^ (1- e^(SRS/10)))
(c) Low Portability* Players -- (SIO * 1.5 ^ (1- e^(SRS/7)))*

*Normal portability formula used for SRS below 0

---
Portability is how well a player's skill translate, or travel to, different team situations and still maintain impact.

The three different kinds of portability players will impact teams like this, for eg:

High Portability +5
--Makes 0 SRS --> 5 SRS
--Makes 3 SRS --> 7.6 SRS
--Makes 6 SRS --> 10.1 SRS

Normal Portability +5
--Makes 0 SRS --> 5 SRS
--Makes 3 SRS --> 7.3 SRS
--Makes 6 SRS --> 9.6 SRS

Low Portability +5
--Makes 0 SRS --> 5 SRS
--Makes 3 SRS --> 7.0 SRS
--Makes 6 SRS --> 8.9 SRS
----

-We can now calculate the impact on SRS based on the "SIO" -- their simple SRS impact on a true theoretical 0 SRS team -- based on 3 kinds of players: High, normal and low portability.
-We can also calculate the impact on team SRS based on health (Games played) of such a player

All told, we can now input the following information and be given the odds of winning a championship:
(1) A Player's SIO (His SRS impact on a neutral team)
(2) A Player's Portability (The degree to which his impact diminishes on good teams)
(3) A Player's Health (No. of games played in the RS)


The Results

For the purpose of space, the full results will not be attached here (see imaginary Fig 1). Instead, below are the results for player's who have perfect health (95% RS games or more, full PS health):

Odds of Winning Title based on SIO Impact
Normal Portability Player

10 63.2%
9.5 59.4%
9 54.1%
8.5 49.3%
8 44.8%
7.5 41.1%
7 35.7%
6.5 32.0%
6 27.2%
5.5 24.8%
5 21.4%
4.5 18.4%
4 15.3%
3.5 14.0%
3 11.1%
2.5 9.7%
2 8.4%
1.5 6.1%
1 6.1%
0.5 3.8%
0 3.7%
-0.5 3.7%
-1 2.2%
-1.5 2.2%
-2 1.6%
-2.5 1.2%
-3 1.1%



Discussion

So, what's this all mean?

(1) The majority of all player's only have a relevant impact on good teams.

Only the elite of the elite (8 SIO+ players) will be turning below average teams into title contenders. This means that the ability to turn a 15-win team into a 45-win playoff team is useless. What matters is how well the same player would impact a 45-win team, and even more importantly, how well he'd impact a 50-win team.

This is precisely why portability is so important. The way a player's game scales to better and better teams -- think of the opposite of redundancy -- matters most.

(2) As a result of No. 1, fantastic "second options" (or even "third options") are more important than players who can be first options on decent teams but will see strong diminishing returns on good teams.

(3) Regular Season Player Health matters less than you think.

In the RS, for a normal portability 5 SIO player, playing the whole year results in a 21.4% chance to win the title. Playing half the year? An 20.2% chance. Playing even 10% of the year still results in an 18.0% chance to win the title, assuming the player is playing at a +5 SIO level in the RS and in the PS.

Why? Because the SRS differential the player created in the playoffs is more important than the HCA advantage lost. The majority of below average teams will never see the PS with such a player missing most of the year, but almost every time a player is on an above average team (51% of teams since 1986) his teammates will have qualified for the playoffs. Think Wilt Chamberlain in 1970 or Michael Jordan in 1986 and 1995.

The better the player, the more missing time will hurt him (because of the likelihood of losing HCA in the later rounds against better teams). An 8 SRS player added to a random team gives them a 45% chance of winning title if he's healthy all year. If he plays 10% of the RS and then the playoffs, a 32% chance of winning a title.

(4) No One can guarantee a title

Perhaps most obviously, even we assume a god-like +10 SIO for the best peaks in NBA history, they still will be holding a trophy at the end of the year about 2 in 3 times. This is fantastic...but it's also far from a sure thing. It's easy to see how a player with a 5-year, MVP-level peak of +6 SIO -- the difference between a 41-win and 57-win team -- could play 100% of his games at such a level and not win a championship. In fact, it will happen to about one in every five such players. (Especially if there are many spread across the league at once - -there simply aren't many titles to go around.)

(5) A way to balance longevity and peak

Assume we have two healthy, normal portability players.

Johnny Peak plays 1 year at +8 SIO.
Jimmy Longevity plays 5 years at +5 SIO.

After 5 years, their Expected Value of Championships is:

Peak 0.54
Longevity: 1.12

OK. But +5 SIO is near MVP stuff in some cases. Let's make Jimmy slightly weaker and Johnny even better and stretch out the peak/longevity comparison:

Johnny Peak plays 2 years at +9 SIO.
Jimmy Longevity plays 10 years at +3.5 SIO.

After 10 years, their Expected Value of Championships is:

Peak: 1.25
Longevity: 1.48

Finally, we have some basis with which to balance different situations with high peaks versus steady longevity careers. Yes, peaks matter...but longevity matters a great deal, especially the better the player. And yes, longevity matters even for lower impact players.

Included below are the team championship odds based on SRS using this method:

14 95.2%
13 92.0%
12 87.4%
11 82.2%
10 72.1%
9 62.7%
8 52.4%
7 35.3%
6 22.3%
5 16.3%
4 9.9%
3 3.7%
2 0.8%
1 0.4%
< 0 0.0%


EDIT: Using -2 (1.8% odds) as replacement player level
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/





6. Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.

Tharegul8r has been an even bigger champion of this than I have, but these are grown men who make choices, and those choices affect people. I can’t quantify this as well as some others can, but I know

.

has some stuff on Duncan that further explains this that I’m looking forward to reading.





7. Era – The player must be considered in the context of the era in which they played, and any “era translation” must be done consistently in all directions in context as well.

Again, I don’t have to prove that eras can be drastically different. It takes some degree of carefulness, so I want to be careful and be consistent.




PART II and PART III coming soon… Where I discuss actual factors to use to measure greatness, and begin the process of applying them in the project. (what have I done…)

Alright part 2. Here goes:

HOW TO ASSESS GREATNESS

As with any sort of analysis, I feel when analyzing a player, it’s vital to go from macroscopic levels to microscopic levels. Therefore I feel this is important ordering:

ERA > TEAM > PLAYER > MISCELLANEOUS

So, I’ll start with era. There are 2 primary components of era that I think are important when assessing greatness – era context and era translation.

Era context – this is simply analyzing the strengths/weaknesses of the era in which a player played, as well as defining influences/rules involved. Examples of these are race issues in the 60s, hand checking in the 00’s, illegal defense in the 90’s. Another example is Kareem Abdul-Jabber – he played in what was one of the weakest eras of basketball due to expansion and two leagues, yet the opposing big men he faced were a gauntlet of hall of famers – both of those factors must be considered. I hope that all are familiar with this portion of context, so I will not go into detail on this, except to make note of significant things or to bring something up towards someone else.


Era translation – this is the act of “transporting” a player’s skillset into a variety of eras and seeing how well they translate – a form of “best player in a vacuum” type test. Believe me, I’m not typically a fan of assumptions, but I think analyzing their skillsets proves to be an effective way to do this. I know some people exclusively look in era, but if we *only* look in era, it becomes another form of “best career,” so I think both are important.




Next is team. There are two factors, team makeup and team contribution.

Team makeup is the act of determining how the team is made up, and how that affected the player’s role/impact. For example, playing on a garbage team and not winning should not be negatively viewed (unless they are the cause); however, playing on a good team and not winning (11 Lebron, 95 Jordan) cannot be excused. If they forced players out of their team, or enabled a solid team to be built around them, those are factors to consider as well.

Team contribution is simply how much they contributed to the team that surrounded them. Did they maximize 1) their impact and 2) the team’s potential?




Next is player level. As I’ve said before, the goal of analyzing players is to try to determine their level of impact in team/era context as much as possible, and determine how that impact contributed to winning. I’ve already touched on intangibles and portability/scalability so I won’t mention them too much here.

One distinction I make when analyzing offensive/defensive skills is by making distinct categories. I don’t do it for the purpose of arbitrarily drawing lines, but rather making sure no part of someone’s game is missed. Here are those categories:

Offensive:

Shooting
Creating (2 sub-categories – playmaking and scoring)
Off-ball (including shooters a la Reggie Miller, and things like screen setters a la KG)
Offensive rebounding
Gravity

Defensive:

Defensive rebounding
Vertical (rim protection/shot contesting/etc.)
Horizontal (perimeter D/lateral movement/etc.)
Help defense
Anti-gravity


The biggest unknown of that list is the gravity/anti-gravity combo. Hopefully, I can expound on it here a little bit, and continue discussing later in the project – especially around the 8-15 spots. I know many have mentioned gravity before me – according to my definition, it is the ability of a player to warp a defense around them, thus providing potential for more offensive efficacy (NOTE: I distinguish between the amount/efficacy of gravity, as well as distinguishing the fact of gravity from the efficacy of gravity – more on this later). Gravity can be combined with creation in a formula with creation:

Gravity + Creation = 1

That 1 is theoretically equal to the perfect offensive player – one who has the most gravity/most effective gravity, and who takes advantage of it most effectively.

Now, some semantics… First, I would like to distinguish between amount and efficacy of gravity. Case in point: a recent thread about Shaq vs. Curry in terms of gravity. Many argued for Shaq having “greater” gravity, whereas I argued he merely had “more,” because for me, the efficacy of the gravity is even more important. Shaq commanded double and triple teams even without the ball, so there’s no question who had the most gravity (he and Kareem probably had more than any in history). However, his gravity is not the most useful gravity for a team (which also falls into the perimeter O > big man O category I had in a prior post). His gravity is not more useful than Steph’s for a team’s offense. Shaq operated exclusively in the paint, so the defense was sucked into the lane. This certainly opened passing lanes to the outside, but it meant that any shots at rim (besides his) were likely to be more contested.

Compare that with Steph. He could not command as much gravity, but his was more useful, because it better spaces the floor, and allows for more effective creation, whether through cuts to the goal, shots on the perimeter, etc. However, the player I feel has/had the most effective gravity of all is Dirk Nowitzki. The reason is that he draws the defense out to the midrange, or even the three point line a la Steph (though to a lesser level) and the defense that he draws out is big men, thus meaning clear lanes to the goal, open 3’s, less rim protection, etc. Theoretically, a stretch big with low post ability and great playmaking could have the most gravity of all.

Next it’s important to distinguish between actually *having* gravity, and *doing* something with that gravity. That means any arguments about Shaq being a guaranteed 2 points fall into the latter category.

Here are my top few players by gravity:
1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Stephen Curry
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Shaquille O’Neal
5. Michael Jordan



Now to anti-gravity. Anti-gravity is the capacity of a defender to warp an offense, simply due to their presence. A perfect example of this is Bill Russell – there were players literally afraid to come into the paint, and he struck fear into them. Offenses clearly shifted as a result of him. Anti-gravity can be described in a formula as well:

Anti-gravity + Disruption = 1

1 = perfect defender. Again, there is a difference in the *warping* effect of a defender, and the *actual* disruptions (rim protection, blocked shots, tipped passes, etc.). There is not as much of a difference between the amount and efficacy of gravity on defense, except that warping in the paint is more valuable than elsewhere. Something I’d like to do at a later time is an RAPM study of value, so I can compare bigs/wings/etc. (the same way I did with just offense vs defense). The list would currently rank like this:

1. Vertical + Horizontal bigs
2. Vertical bigs
3. Horizontal bigs
4. Vertical + horizontal wings
5. Horizontal wings
6. PG
So, for example: Russell > Duncan > KG > Lebron > Jordan > CP3

I’ll touch more on both of these concepts later, but this is just a preliminary discussion. Here’s a ranking of some top players by anti-gravity:

1. Bill Russell
2. David Robinson
3. Hakeem Olajuwon
4. Bill Walton
5. Tim Duncan

Theoretically, you could refine the formulas to this level:

(1/3 MG + 2/3 EG) + C = 1

where MG = mass of gravity and EG = efficacy of gravity and C = creation

(1/2 MA + 1/2 EA) + D = 1

where MA = mass of anti-gravity and EA = efficacy of anti-gravity and D = disruption

Note that for either, a 0 would be average, and a -1 would be the worst possible defender/offensive player



The Walton-Parish scale is for the later rankings (~50 or so). The ALWAYS CONTEXT RULE is all that’s left – that’s simple. It’s just that every stat, every observation (including something like PPG) has to be analyzed in context. That’s it.

[THKNKG]

And part 3, my actual vote.

ALRIGHT, NOW IT’S FINALLY TIME FOR ME TO TALK ABOUT THE PLAYERS

I’ll just go straight down the list and compare the main 4 candidates I’ve previously mentioned (with cursory glances at Lebron/Wilt/KG/Shaq/Magic if applicable).





1. Era context

Russell – played in an era with much fewer teams, but much more parity; era had much racism/prejudice; due to the nature of dribbling + no 3 point line + his iq, he had the capacity to be the most effective defender ever

Kareem – played in the diluted era much of his career, however, he faced the biggest gauntlet of premier players at his position; dealt with some forms of prejudice

Jordan – hand checking; illegal defenses (though honestly these two cancel one another out); played in an incredibly tough league part of his career and a weak league part of his career

Duncan – one of the toughest eras; hand-checking + illegal defenses for a portion of his prime

If anyone were to *gain* anything from their era, it’d be one of the bigs.






2. Era translation

Russell – an incredibly smart rim-protector who deflected shots to his teammates, top 3 defensive rebounder ever, high post hub on offense, with extremely quick horizontal movement and ability, potentially the greatest BBIQ ever

Skillset translation
70s – at least similar impact (+0)
80s – at least similar impact (+0)
90s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
10s – probably slightly less impact (-1)

Kareem – the most unstoppable scorer ever, in his prime an excellent defender, range out to midrange, good passer, really freaking tall

Skillset translation
50s – significantly more impact (+2)
60s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
90s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s – at least similar impact (+0)
10s – at least similar impact (+0)

Jordan – superlative scorer, excellent playmaker, really solid defender, excellent from midrange, freak athlete

Skillset translation
50s - significantly more impact (+2)
60s - probably slightly less impact (-1)
70s - probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s - probably slightly less impact (-1)
10s - probably slightly less impact (-1)

Duncan – pretty good midrange, good passer, good low post scorer, excellent rim protector
50s - significantly more impact (+2)
60s - significantly more impact (+2)
70s - probably slightly more impact (+1)
80s - at least similar impact (+0)
90s – at least similar impact (+0)

Results:

Duncan – 5
KAJ – 4
Russell – 1 (though he is negatively affected in this due to how much impact he actually had)
MJ – 0

This sides with what I believe – that big men’s games would translate better.





3. Team makeup/contribution

Overall, their team strengths could be rated as follows (over their whole career):

Russell
MJ
KAJ
Duncan

MJ and KAJ played with poor supporting casts part of the time, and part of the time with juggernauts. Russell consistently led a juggernaut (and I would hold that he had the best supporting cast of the era, but he was what made them a juggernaut). Duncan had some really good teams, but his supporting cast never approached the level of these others. Since this is an argument for #1, there are few places where players did not maximize their team (though MJ and KAJ have the most instances of this).





4. Impact

In terms of pure, in era impact, there is a clear #1 (Russell). Jordan could also be firmly considered #2 at his peak, but it’s pretty close after him for both Duncan/KAJ. I would consider all non-Russell candidates pretty close in terms of overall, on court impact. KAJ and Duncan were able to pretty often lead top 10 O/D at the same time.





5. Offense/Defensive skill

Shooting:

MJ
KAJ
Duncan
Russell

Creating:

MJ
KAJ
Duncan
Russell

Offensive rebounding:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Off-ball:

MJ
Duncan
KAJ
Russell

Gravity:

KAJ
MJ
Duncan
Russell

Vertical:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Horizontal:

Russell
MJ
KAJ/Duncan

Defensive Rebounding:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Help D:

Russell
Duncan
Jordan
KAJ

Anti-gravity:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
Jordan


Russell – 17
Duncan - 15
MJ – 13
KAJ – 12

Of course, there’s a bias towards bigs on defense in this ranking, but I’ve already established why I value them so much relative to wings.





6. Portability/Scalability
The two players with the most portability/scalability IMO are Duncan and Russell. This is because defense is basically always additive, and because these two players were a case study in scalability. They dealt with rotating teams (particularly Russell) and rotating roles (particularly Duncan) and they always maximized their teams in all those varieties of ways.





7. Intangibles

Clearly Duncan and Russell are outliers in this regard – the two greatest teammates ever. I don’t dock MJ or KAJ for their personalities much, if at all.





Alright, with all that being said, it can be clear that I value the bigs more than I do the wings. Therefore, MJ is 4th out of all of those players. He had astronomical impact, but he can’t match their longevity (KAJ/Duncan) or their impact (Russell), so he’s a (very worthy) 4th place for me.

Russell takes 3rd for me, because at the top (besides Russell) many players have impacts that are similar. KG, Duncan, DRob for example are not *that* much lower than MJ, Shaq, Lebron at peak level, and the longevity Duncan and Kareem have takes them to the top 2 spots.

Now, it’s down to two: Kareem and Duncan. I know the underlying assumption of most basketball fans is Kareem > Duncan. Now I’m going to outline my case for Duncan as #1.


1. At his peak, Duncan had a (clear) top 10 peak.
One argument I’ve heard is that Duncan just wasn’t as great as some others at their peak. That’s true for a select few, but he’s still at the top. My peak list goes:

Wilt
Shaq
Lebron
Jordan
KG
Duncan
Kareem
Russell
Hakeem
DRob

Or somewhere in that general area. Point is, he’s clearly at the top level. He’s also one of the few players who peaked offensively and defensively at the same time.

2. Duncan is one of the 5 best defenders ever.
The only ones that have an argument over him are Russell, Hakeem, Walton, and DRob. However, he did it more consistently (Hakeem), and much longer (Walton/DRob). Thus, as a career defender, he could be considered #2.

3. Duncan was really good offensively.
He’s not on the level of Kareem or Jordan as a scorer, but they’re not on his level defensively, either. He was the primary scorer and focal point of championship winning teams, so he has proven his capability in both regards.

4. Duncan’s longevity was more valuable than Kareem’s, or anyone’s ever.
Prime for prime, they are comparable (probably with a slight edge to Kareem). However, Duncan was more valuable post prime. His defensive anchoring and rebounding is much more valuable to a contending team than big man scoring is. Plus, this past season, the Spurs played excellently without him. That’s not because they were in a system, but because Duncan established that system and every single time allowed for smooth transition from superstar to superstar. Thus, this past season could be considered an epilogue to Duncan’s career, because it absolutely happened because of him.

5. Duncan was the best teammate ever, and produced an absolute dynasty, the winningest 19 year span in NBA history.

I will probably add more throughout the thread, and welcome responses, but I’ll conclude this post with an old post of mine on Duncan.

Spoiler:

Post#29 » by micahclay » Fri May 12, 2017 9:35 pm
I’m someone who has Duncan top 2, and I’m this close to giving him #1 (or at least co-#1).

My criteria: contribution to winning in any form, impact, scalability, portability, skill, intangibles.

There’s a lot to this, and I hope to open some new conversations, so to start, I’ll list some of the points I would mention in the conversation about him. I will, when possible, seek to compare him to other GOAT contenders, as otherwise, it becomes an advertisement and not a persuasion.

First, I’ll mention some conversation points regarding team numbers.

1. Tim Duncan (along with Bill Russell) is one of the two winningest NBA players ever. Below I’ll include some numbers for the sake of comparison.

Player (RS Win%/PS Win%/Total Win%)

Tim Duncan (.710/.625/.705)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (.688/.65/.683)
Bill Russell (.717/.648/.707)
Michael Jordan (.659/.665/.66)

Ranked, these would be (from best to worst):

RS Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan
PS Win% - Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Duncan
Total Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan

Now, let’s see how many games they played (RS games/PS games/Total games)

Tim Duncan (1392/251/1643)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1560/237/1797)
Bill Russell (963/165/1128)
Michael Jordan (1072/179/1251)

Duncan and Kareem were able to clearly separate themselves from the others in terms of longevity. Kareem played the equivalent of 2 more full RS than Duncan, while Duncan played the equivalent of a full PS championship run more than Kareem. That’s not to mention that Duncan played 400+ more RS games than Russell and 300+ more RS games than Jordan, as well as 80+ more PS games than Russell, and 70+ more PS games than Jordan.

Duncan was able to consistently maintain equal (or better) footing in terms of win percentage compared to these other greats. He did all this while having arguably inferior supporting casts for the majority of his career.

2. Tim Duncan made the Spurs into one of the greatest franchises ever, and the greatest 19 year dynasty ever (plus, the best franchise by winning %).

Spurs total W/L in their history – 2067-1247 (.624)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan on roster – 1072-438 (.710)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan playing – 1001-391 (.720)
Spurs total W/L in their history without Tim Duncan – (.552)

The Spurs are the current leaders in win% for any team, and #10 in total wins. The 9 teams in front of them on that list are all at least 9 years older than them.

This difference in the Spurs before and after Tim means that, since the time he joined the Spurs, their W/L record has increased by a full 7.2%. That’s a substantial impact for a player to have (note: I know he didn’t do this singlehandedly, but he clearly had the foremost impact on the Spurs during the last 19 years; more on that later).

3. Tim Duncan’s intangible leadership ability and humility enabled the blending of two mega-superstars into the start of a dynasty. At the end of his career, his leadership and humility enabled an ease in “passing the torch” to the next superstar, Kawhi.

4. Tim Duncan’s sacrifice as a player for the good of the team enabled them to consistently build contending teams. He took on smaller contracts, and lesser roles in order to better serve the purpose of winning.

5. In the last 20 years, the Spurs have not won less than 50 games (excluding the 50 game lockout season), and have not missed the playoffs. The Spurs have won 12 division titles and 5 NBA championships during that time. Tim Duncan’s 19 year stretch is the best 19 year stretch of any NBA team in history.

6. Tim Duncan consistently led elite defenses and above average offenses.

Here are the Spurs team ORtg and DRtg differentials year by year since he arrived (relative to league average) –

ORtg diff./DRtg diff.

-1.2/-5.6
1.8/-7.2
0.9/-5.5
3.6/-5.0
2.0/-4.8
2.0/-3.9
-0.7/-8.8
1.4/-7.3
1.1/-6.6
2.7/-6.6
-0.3/-5.7
0.2/-4.0
2.4/-3.1
4.5/-1.7
6.3/-1.4
2.4/-4.3
3.8/-4.3
2.9/-3.6
3.9/-7.4

This is sustained dominance defensively for a loooong time, and not once was the team below average. Even old man Duncan was having massive defensive impact, and had incredibly good offensive impact as well.


Next, I’ll (briefly) touch on some of Tim’s qualities as a player.

1. Duncan ranked second in 97-14 total RAPM behind Lebron James.

2. Tim Duncan is a top 5 defensive player of all time.

3. Tim Duncan is underrated as an offensive player, but he is a solid passer, and a dependable low post scorer. To continue the comparisons of the 4 players from earlier, on offense, I would rank them: Jordan, Kareem, Duncan, Russell. On defense: Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan.


Finally, though I care little about awards and rings, I’ll mention some of his accolades.

15 All-NBA teams (tied for most all-time), 15 All-Defensive teams (record), 5 championships, 3 championship MVPs (second behind Jordan), 2 MVP awards


I could say much more (and probably will eventually), but Duncan one of the 2 best winners of all time, and he did it for 6 years more than the other best winner in a tougher league. He is one of the best defensive players ever, and he is a very good offensive player (plus, his 03 season is easily a top 10 peak ever). His leadership and humility enabled the Spurs to win like few have won before, and even continue to win after he’s gone.

Duncan’s argument goes far beyond box score, and he makes the argument for himself rather convincingly. He, as a player, built and sustained a dynasty on his greatness, and due to his greatness is sustaining it even after he left.

Vote: Tim Duncan

2nd: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[Joao Saraiva]

And part 3, my actual vote.

ALRIGHT, NOW IT’S FINALLY TIME FOR ME TO TALK ABOUT THE PLAYERS

I’ll just go straight down the list and compare the main 4 candidates I’ve previously mentioned (with cursory glances at Lebron/Wilt/KG/Shaq/Magic if applicable).





1. Era context

Russell – played in an era with much fewer teams, but much more parity; era had much racism/prejudice; due to the nature of dribbling + no 3 point line + his iq, he had the capacity to be the most effective defender ever

Kareem – played in the diluted era much of his career, however, he faced the biggest gauntlet of premier players at his position; dealt with some forms of prejudice

Jordan – hand checking; illegal defenses (though honestly these two cancel one another out); played in an incredibly tough league part of his career and a weak league part of his career

Duncan – one of the toughest eras; hand-checking + illegal defenses for a portion of his prime

If anyone were to *gain* anything from their era, it’d be one of the bigs.






2. Era translation

Russell – an incredibly smart rim-protector who deflected shots to his teammates, top 3 defensive rebounder ever, high post hub on offense, with extremely quick horizontal movement and ability, potentially the greatest BBIQ ever

Skillset translation
70s – at least similar impact (+0)
80s – at least similar impact (+0)
90s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
10s – probably slightly less impact (-1)

Kareem – the most unstoppable scorer ever, in his prime an excellent defender, range out to midrange, good passer, really freaking tall

Skillset translation
50s – significantly more impact (+2)
60s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
90s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s – at least similar impact (+0)
10s – at least similar impact (+0)

Jordan – superlative scorer, excellent playmaker, really solid defender, excellent from midrange, freak athlete

Skillset translation
50s - significantly more impact (+2)
60s - probably slightly less impact (-1)
70s - probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s - probably slightly less impact (-1)
10s - probably slightly less impact (-1)

Duncan – pretty good midrange, good passer, good low post scorer, excellent rim protector
50s - significantly more impact (+2)
60s - significantly more impact (+2)
70s - probably slightly more impact (+1)
80s - at least similar impact (+0)
90s – at least similar impact (+0)

Results:

Duncan – 5
KAJ – 4
Russell – 1 (though he is negatively affected in this due to how much impact he actually had)
MJ – 0

This sides with what I believe – that big men’s games would translate better.





3. Team makeup/contribution

Overall, their team strengths could be rated as follows (over their whole career):

Russell
MJ
KAJ
Duncan

MJ and KAJ played with poor supporting casts part of the time, and part of the time with juggernauts. Russell consistently led a juggernaut (and I would hold that he had the best supporting cast of the era, but he was what made them a juggernaut). Duncan had some really good teams, but his supporting cast never approached the level of these others. Since this is an argument for #1, there are few places where players did not maximize their team (though MJ and KAJ have the most instances of this).





4. Impact

In terms of pure, in era impact, there is a clear #1 (Russell). Jordan could also be firmly considered #2 at his peak, but it’s pretty close after him for both Duncan/KAJ. I would consider all non-Russell candidates pretty close in terms of overall, on court impact. KAJ and Duncan were able to pretty often lead top 10 O/D at the same time.





5. Offense/Defensive skill

Shooting:

MJ
KAJ
Duncan
Russell

Creating:

MJ
KAJ
Duncan
Russell

Offensive rebounding:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Off-ball:

MJ
Duncan
KAJ
Russell

Gravity:

KAJ
MJ
Duncan
Russell

Vertical:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Horizontal:

Russell
MJ
KAJ/Duncan

Defensive Rebounding:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Help D:

Russell
Duncan
Jordan
KAJ

Anti-gravity:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
Jordan


Russell – 17
Duncan - 15
MJ – 13
KAJ – 12

Of course, there’s a bias towards bigs on defense in this ranking, but I’ve already established why I value them so much relative to wings.





6. Portability/Scalability
The two players with the most portability/scalability IMO are Duncan and Russell. This is because defense is basically always additive, and because these two players were a case study in scalability. They dealt with rotating teams (particularly Russell) and rotating roles (particularly Duncan) and they always maximized their teams in all those varieties of ways.





7. Intangibles

Clearly Duncan and Russell are outliers in this regard – the two greatest teammates ever. I don’t dock MJ or KAJ for their personalities much, if at all.





Alright, with all that being said, it can be clear that I value the bigs more than I do the wings. Therefore, MJ is 4th out of all of those players. He had astronomical impact, but he can’t match their longevity (KAJ/Duncan) or their impact (Russell), so he’s a (very worthy) 4th place for me.

Russell takes 3rd for me, because at the top (besides Russell) many players have impacts that are similar. KG, Duncan, DRob for example are not *that* much lower than MJ, Shaq, Lebron at peak level, and the longevity Duncan and Kareem have takes them to the top 2 spots.

Now, it’s down to two: Kareem and Duncan. I know the underlying assumption of most basketball fans is Kareem > Duncan. Now I’m going to outline my case for Duncan as #1.


1. At his peak, Duncan had a (clear) top 10 peak.
One argument I’ve heard is that Duncan just wasn’t as great as some others at their peak. That’s true for a select few, but he’s still at the top. My peak list goes:

Wilt
Shaq
Lebron
Jordan
KG
Duncan
Kareem
Russell
Hakeem
DRob

Or somewhere in that general area. Point is, he’s clearly at the top level. He’s also one of the few players who peaked offensively and defensively at the same time.

2. Duncan is one of the 5 best defenders ever.
The only ones that have an argument over him are Russell, Hakeem, Walton, and DRob. However, he did it more consistently (Hakeem), and much longer (Walton/DRob). Thus, as a career defender, he could be considered #2.

3. Duncan was really good offensively.
He’s not on the level of Kareem or Jordan as a scorer, but they’re not on his level defensively, either. He was the primary scorer and focal point of championship winning teams, so he has proven his capability in both regards.

4. Duncan’s longevity was more valuable than Kareem’s, or anyone’s ever.
Prime for prime, they are comparable (probably with a slight edge to Kareem). However, Duncan was more valuable post prime. His defensive anchoring and rebounding is much more valuable to a contending team than big man scoring is. Plus, this past season, the Spurs played excellently without him. That’s not because they were in a system, but because Duncan established that system and every single time allowed for smooth transition from superstar to superstar. Thus, this past season could be considered an epilogue to Duncan’s career, because it absolutely happened because of him.

5. Duncan was the best teammate ever, and produced an absolute dynasty, the winningest 19 year span in NBA history.

I will probably add more throughout the thread, and welcome responses, but I’ll conclude this post with an old post of mine on Duncan.

Spoiler:

Post#29 » by micahclay » Fri May 12, 2017 9:35 pm
I’m someone who has Duncan top 2, and I’m this close to giving him #1 (or at least co-#1).

My criteria: contribution to winning in any form, impact, scalability, portability, skill, intangibles.

There’s a lot to this, and I hope to open some new conversations, so to start, I’ll list some of the points I would mention in the conversation about him. I will, when possible, seek to compare him to other GOAT contenders, as otherwise, it becomes an advertisement and not a persuasion.

First, I’ll mention some conversation points regarding team numbers.

1. Tim Duncan (along with Bill Russell) is one of the two winningest NBA players ever. Below I’ll include some numbers for the sake of comparison.

Player (RS Win%/PS Win%/Total Win%)

Tim Duncan (.710/.625/.705)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (.688/.65/.683)
Bill Russell (.717/.648/.707)
Michael Jordan (.659/.665/.66)

Ranked, these would be (from best to worst):

RS Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan
PS Win% - Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Duncan
Total Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan

Now, let’s see how many games they played (RS games/PS games/Total games)

Tim Duncan (1392/251/1643)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1560/237/1797)
Bill Russell (963/165/1128)
Michael Jordan (1072/179/1251)

Duncan and Kareem were able to clearly separate themselves from the others in terms of longevity. Kareem played the equivalent of 2 more full RS than Duncan, while Duncan played the equivalent of a full PS championship run more than Kareem. That’s not to mention that Duncan played 400+ more RS games than Russell and 300+ more RS games than Jordan, as well as 80+ more PS games than Russell, and 70+ more PS games than Jordan.

Duncan was able to consistently maintain equal (or better) footing in terms of win percentage compared to these other greats. He did all this while having arguably inferior supporting casts for the majority of his career.

2. Tim Duncan made the Spurs into one of the greatest franchises ever, and the greatest 19 year dynasty ever (plus, the best franchise by winning %).

Spurs total W/L in their history – 2067-1247 (.624)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan on roster – 1072-438 (.710)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan playing – 1001-391 (.720)
Spurs total W/L in their history without Tim Duncan – (.552)

The Spurs are the current leaders in win% for any team, and #10 in total wins. The 9 teams in front of them on that list are all at least 9 years older than them.

This difference in the Spurs before and after Tim means that, since the time he joined the Spurs, their W/L record has increased by a full 7.2%. That’s a substantial impact for a player to have (note: I know he didn’t do this singlehandedly, but he clearly had the foremost impact on the Spurs during the last 19 years; more on that later).

3. Tim Duncan’s intangible leadership ability and humility enabled the blending of two mega-superstars into the start of a dynasty. At the end of his career, his leadership and humility enabled an ease in “passing the torch” to the next superstar, Kawhi.

4. Tim Duncan’s sacrifice as a player for the good of the team enabled them to consistently build contending teams. He took on smaller contracts, and lesser roles in order to better serve the purpose of winning.

5. In the last 20 years, the Spurs have not won less than 50 games (excluding the 50 game lockout season), and have not missed the playoffs. The Spurs have won 12 division titles and 5 NBA championships during that time. Tim Duncan’s 19 year stretch is the best 19 year stretch of any NBA team in history.

6. Tim Duncan consistently led elite defenses and above average offenses.

Here are the Spurs team ORtg and DRtg differentials year by year since he arrived (relative to league average) –

ORtg diff./DRtg diff.

-1.2/-5.6
1.8/-7.2
0.9/-5.5
3.6/-5.0
2.0/-4.8
2.0/-3.9
-0.7/-8.8
1.4/-7.3
1.1/-6.6
2.7/-6.6
-0.3/-5.7
0.2/-4.0
2.4/-3.1
4.5/-1.7
6.3/-1.4
2.4/-4.3
3.8/-4.3
2.9/-3.6
3.9/-7.4

This is sustained dominance defensively for a loooong time, and not once was the team below average. Even old man Duncan was having massive defensive impact, and had incredibly good offensive impact as well.


Next, I’ll (briefly) touch on some of Tim’s qualities as a player.

1. Duncan ranked second in 97-14 total RAPM behind Lebron James.

2. Tim Duncan is a top 5 defensive player of all time.

3. Tim Duncan is underrated as an offensive player, but he is a solid passer, and a dependable low post scorer. To continue the comparisons of the 4 players from earlier, on offense, I would rank them: Jordan, Kareem, Duncan, Russell. On defense: Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan.


Finally, though I care little about awards and rings, I’ll mention some of his accolades.

15 All-NBA teams (tied for most all-time), 15 All-Defensive teams (record), 5 championships, 3 championship MVPs (second behind Jordan), 2 MVP awards


I could say much more (and probably will eventually), but Duncan one of the 2 best winners of all time, and he did it for 6 years more than the other best winner in a tougher league. He is one of the best defensive players ever, and he is a very good offensive player (plus, his 03 season is easily a top 10 peak ever). His leadership and humility enabled the Spurs to win like few have won before, and even continue to win after he’s gone.

Duncan’s argument goes far beyond box score, and he makes the argument for himself rather convincingly. He, as a player, built and sustained a dynasty on his greatness, and due to his greatness is sustaining it even after he left.

Vote: Tim Duncan

2nd: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

I really dislike the era argument. I mean, that's as much subjective as it gets, and it's really an easy way out since you can't prove it's right and I can't prove it's wrong.

I can also say Hakeem in the 60s would be a +5 since he had tremendous rim protection but was a far better player than Russell on offense.

Also a player has to develop to his own era. Why should a guy develop skills for eras that never existed or past eras where the game was different?

[Wavy Q]

Will Edit this post when i get home from work, sorry for the late timing

[janmagn]

And part 3, my actual vote.

ALRIGHT, NOW IT’S FINALLY TIME FOR ME TO TALK ABOUT THE PLAYERS

I’ll just go straight down the list and compare the main 4 candidates I’ve previously mentioned (with cursory glances at Lebron/Wilt/KG/Shaq/Magic if applicable).





1. Era context

Russell – played in an era with much fewer teams, but much more parity; era had much racism/prejudice; due to the nature of dribbling + no 3 point line + his iq, he had the capacity to be the most effective defender ever

Kareem – played in the diluted era much of his career, however, he faced the biggest gauntlet of premier players at his position; dealt with some forms of prejudice

Jordan – hand checking; illegal defenses (though honestly these two cancel one another out); played in an incredibly tough league part of his career and a weak league part of his career

Duncan – one of the toughest eras; hand-checking + illegal defenses for a portion of his prime

If anyone were to *gain* anything from their era, it’d be one of the bigs.






2. Era translation

Russell – an incredibly smart rim-protector who deflected shots to his teammates, top 3 defensive rebounder ever, high post hub on offense, with extremely quick horizontal movement and ability, potentially the greatest BBIQ ever

Skillset translation
70s – at least similar impact (+0)
80s – at least similar impact (+0)
90s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
10s – probably slightly less impact (-1)

Kareem – the most unstoppable scorer ever, in his prime an excellent defender, range out to midrange, good passer, really freaking tall

Skillset translation
50s – significantly more impact (+2)
60s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
90s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s – at least similar impact (+0)
10s – at least similar impact (+0)

Jordan – superlative scorer, excellent playmaker, really solid defender, excellent from midrange, freak athlete

Skillset translation
50s - significantly more impact (+2)
60s - probably slightly less impact (-1)
70s - probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s - probably slightly less impact (-1)
10s - probably slightly less impact (-1)

Duncan – pretty good midrange, good passer, good low post scorer, excellent rim protector
50s - significantly more impact (+2)
60s - significantly more impact (+2)
70s - probably slightly more impact (+1)
80s - at least similar impact (+0)
90s – at least similar impact (+0)

Results:

Duncan – 5
KAJ – 4
Russell – 1 (though he is negatively affected in this due to how much impact he actually had)
MJ – 0

This sides with what I believe – that big men’s games would translate better.





3. Team makeup/contribution

Overall, their team strengths could be rated as follows (over their whole career):

Russell
MJ
KAJ
Duncan

MJ and KAJ played with poor supporting casts part of the time, and part of the time with juggernauts. Russell consistently led a juggernaut (and I would hold that he had the best supporting cast of the era, but he was what made them a juggernaut). Duncan had some really good teams, but his supporting cast never approached the level of these others. Since this is an argument for #1, there are few places where players did not maximize their team (though MJ and KAJ have the most instances of this).





4. Impact

In terms of pure, in era impact, there is a clear #1 (Russell). Jordan could also be firmly considered #2 at his peak, but it’s pretty close after him for both Duncan/KAJ. I would consider all non-Russell candidates pretty close in terms of overall, on court impact. KAJ and Duncan were able to pretty often lead top 10 O/D at the same time.





5. Offense/Defensive skill

Shooting:

MJ
KAJ
Duncan
Russell

Creating:

MJ
KAJ
Duncan
Russell

Offensive rebounding:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Off-ball:

MJ
Duncan
KAJ
Russell

Gravity:

KAJ
MJ
Duncan
Russell

Vertical:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Horizontal:

Russell
MJ
KAJ/Duncan

Defensive Rebounding:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Help D:

Russell
Duncan
Jordan
KAJ

Anti-gravity:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
Jordan


Russell – 17
Duncan - 15
MJ – 13
KAJ – 12

Of course, there’s a bias towards bigs on defense in this ranking, but I’ve already established why I value them so much relative to wings.





6. Portability/Scalability
The two players with the most portability/scalability IMO are Duncan and Russell. This is because defense is basically always additive, and because these two players were a case study in scalability. They dealt with rotating teams (particularly Russell) and rotating roles (particularly Duncan) and they always maximized their teams in all those varieties of ways.





7. Intangibles

Clearly Duncan and Russell are outliers in this regard – the two greatest teammates ever. I don’t dock MJ or KAJ for their personalities much, if at all.





Alright, with all that being said, it can be clear that I value the bigs more than I do the wings. Therefore, MJ is 4th out of all of those players. He had astronomical impact, but he can’t match their longevity (KAJ/Duncan) or their impact (Russell), so he’s a (very worthy) 4th place for me.

Russell takes 3rd for me, because at the top (besides Russell) many players have impacts that are similar. KG, Duncan, DRob for example are not *that* much lower than MJ, Shaq, Lebron at peak level, and the longevity Duncan and Kareem have takes them to the top 2 spots.

Now, it’s down to two: Kareem and Duncan. I know the underlying assumption of most basketball fans is Kareem > Duncan. Now I’m going to outline my case for Duncan as #1.


1. At his peak, Duncan had a (clear) top 10 peak.
One argument I’ve heard is that Duncan just wasn’t as great as some others at their peak. That’s true for a select few, but he’s still at the top. My peak list goes:

Wilt
Shaq
Lebron
Jordan
KG
Duncan
Kareem
Russell
Hakeem
DRob

Or somewhere in that general area. Point is, he’s clearly at the top level. He’s also one of the few players who peaked offensively and defensively at the same time.

2. Duncan is one of the 5 best defenders ever.
The only ones that have an argument over him are Russell, Hakeem, Walton, and DRob. However, he did it more consistently (Hakeem), and much longer (Walton/DRob). Thus, as a career defender, he could be considered #2.

3. Duncan was really good offensively.
He’s not on the level of Kareem or Jordan as a scorer, but they’re not on his level defensively, either. He was the primary scorer and focal point of championship winning teams, so he has proven his capability in both regards.

4. Duncan’s longevity was more valuable than Kareem’s, or anyone’s ever.
Prime for prime, they are comparable (probably with a slight edge to Kareem). However, Duncan was more valuable post prime. His defensive anchoring and rebounding is much more valuable to a contending team than big man scoring is. Plus, this past season, the Spurs played excellently without him. That’s not because they were in a system, but because Duncan established that system and every single time allowed for smooth transition from superstar to superstar. Thus, this past season could be considered an epilogue to Duncan’s career, because it absolutely happened because of him.

5. Duncan was the best teammate ever, and produced an absolute dynasty, the winningest 19 year span in NBA history.

I will probably add more throughout the thread, and welcome responses, but I’ll conclude this post with an old post of mine on Duncan.

Spoiler:

Post#29 » by micahclay » Fri May 12, 2017 9:35 pm
I’m someone who has Duncan top 2, and I’m this close to giving him #1 (or at least co-#1).

My criteria: contribution to winning in any form, impact, scalability, portability, skill, intangibles.

There’s a lot to this, and I hope to open some new conversations, so to start, I’ll list some of the points I would mention in the conversation about him. I will, when possible, seek to compare him to other GOAT contenders, as otherwise, it becomes an advertisement and not a persuasion.

First, I’ll mention some conversation points regarding team numbers.

1. Tim Duncan (along with Bill Russell) is one of the two winningest NBA players ever. Below I’ll include some numbers for the sake of comparison.

Player (RS Win%/PS Win%/Total Win%)

Tim Duncan (.710/.625/.705)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (.688/.65/.683)
Bill Russell (.717/.648/.707)
Michael Jordan (.659/.665/.66)

Ranked, these would be (from best to worst):

RS Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan
PS Win% - Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Duncan
Total Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan

Now, let’s see how many games they played (RS games/PS games/Total games)

Tim Duncan (1392/251/1643)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1560/237/1797)
Bill Russell (963/165/1128)
Michael Jordan (1072/179/1251)

Duncan and Kareem were able to clearly separate themselves from the others in terms of longevity. Kareem played the equivalent of 2 more full RS than Duncan, while Duncan played the equivalent of a full PS championship run more than Kareem. That’s not to mention that Duncan played 400+ more RS games than Russell and 300+ more RS games than Jordan, as well as 80+ more PS games than Russell, and 70+ more PS games than Jordan.

Duncan was able to consistently maintain equal (or better) footing in terms of win percentage compared to these other greats. He did all this while having arguably inferior supporting casts for the majority of his career.

2. Tim Duncan made the Spurs into one of the greatest franchises ever, and the greatest 19 year dynasty ever (plus, the best franchise by winning %).

Spurs total W/L in their history – 2067-1247 (.624)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan on roster – 1072-438 (.710)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan playing – 1001-391 (.720)
Spurs total W/L in their history without Tim Duncan – (.552)

The Spurs are the current leaders in win% for any team, and #10 in total wins. The 9 teams in front of them on that list are all at least 9 years older than them.

This difference in the Spurs before and after Tim means that, since the time he joined the Spurs, their W/L record has increased by a full 7.2%. That’s a substantial impact for a player to have (note: I know he didn’t do this singlehandedly, but he clearly had the foremost impact on the Spurs during the last 19 years; more on that later).

3. Tim Duncan’s intangible leadership ability and humility enabled the blending of two mega-superstars into the start of a dynasty. At the end of his career, his leadership and humility enabled an ease in “passing the torch” to the next superstar, Kawhi.

4. Tim Duncan’s sacrifice as a player for the good of the team enabled them to consistently build contending teams. He took on smaller contracts, and lesser roles in order to better serve the purpose of winning.

5. In the last 20 years, the Spurs have not won less than 50 games (excluding the 50 game lockout season), and have not missed the playoffs. The Spurs have won 12 division titles and 5 NBA championships during that time. Tim Duncan’s 19 year stretch is the best 19 year stretch of any NBA team in history.

6. Tim Duncan consistently led elite defenses and above average offenses.

Here are the Spurs team ORtg and DRtg differentials year by year since he arrived (relative to league average) –

ORtg diff./DRtg diff.

-1.2/-5.6
1.8/-7.2
0.9/-5.5
3.6/-5.0
2.0/-4.8
2.0/-3.9
-0.7/-8.8
1.4/-7.3
1.1/-6.6
2.7/-6.6
-0.3/-5.7
0.2/-4.0
2.4/-3.1
4.5/-1.7
6.3/-1.4
2.4/-4.3
3.8/-4.3
2.9/-3.6
3.9/-7.4

This is sustained dominance defensively for a loooong time, and not once was the team below average. Even old man Duncan was having massive defensive impact, and had incredibly good offensive impact as well.


Next, I’ll (briefly) touch on some of Tim’s qualities as a player.

1. Duncan ranked second in 97-14 total RAPM behind Lebron James.

2. Tim Duncan is a top 5 defensive player of all time.

3. Tim Duncan is underrated as an offensive player, but he is a solid passer, and a dependable low post scorer. To continue the comparisons of the 4 players from earlier, on offense, I would rank them: Jordan, Kareem, Duncan, Russell. On defense: Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan.


Finally, though I care little about awards and rings, I’ll mention some of his accolades.

15 All-NBA teams (tied for most all-time), 15 All-Defensive teams (record), 5 championships, 3 championship MVPs (second behind Jordan), 2 MVP awards


I could say much more (and probably will eventually), but Duncan one of the 2 best winners of all time, and he did it for 6 years more than the other best winner in a tougher league. He is one of the best defensive players ever, and he is a very good offensive player (plus, his 03 season is easily a top 10 peak ever). His leadership and humility enabled the Spurs to win like few have won before, and even continue to win after he’s gone.

Duncan’s argument goes far beyond box score, and he makes the argument for himself rather convincingly. He, as a player, built and sustained a dynasty on his greatness, and due to his greatness is sustaining it even after he left.

Vote: Tim Duncan

2nd: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

What makes you think MJ would've been worse in the 60's?

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[penbeast0]

cpower said:
But MJ didn't have Sharman or Cousy level of offensive player to start with, so it would have been unfair to compare their early days. On the contrary, Duncan's early days have been more impressive than both players

Didn't he? In his rookie year he had Orlando Woolridge who was Sharman in 57 level and Quinton Dailey, another scorer, plus Corzine/Steve Johnson two interior scorers at center. His PGs sucked (Wes Mathews and Enis Whatley) but he had scorers; just no one who was interested in defense and (with the exception of Corzine who set good picks) no one interested in team play. It wasn't the talent level of the Celtics by any stretch, but it wasn't about the lack of scoring, just the selfish individual play. One reason why MJ may have been selfish in his early years was that's all he saw around him.

2nd year he was injured

3rd year he had Gene "Tinkerbell" Banks, another somewhat selfish scorer, John Paxson, Charles Oakley, plus Sedale Threatt off the bench, again good scorers (more efficient, less able to create for themselves), and again with Corzine platooning at center, this time with Earl Cureton (great physical specimen who never really figured out how to play the game).

I'd say Banks is rough equivalent to Heinsohn, Paxson to Sharman, Oakley clearly superior to Lotscutoff, Ramsey clearly superior to Threatt, no equivalent playmaker to Cousy again but then Cousy is a negative shooting in the playoffs again (he shot .326, up from .324 in 1957 , , , you can see why I am not impressed with Cousy's 20ppg scoring when it comes to winning titles!). Chicago's problem in Jordan's early years wasn't scoring, it was team play.

[penbeast0]

...
What makes you think MJ would've been worse in the 60's?

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

The argument that MJ would be worse in the 60s comes from several things. (1) He would have to dribble on top of the ball rather than carry it like modern players do. That's why most of the great dunkers of the 60s (Baylor, Hawkins, Gus Johnson) dunked out of the high/mid post with only a couple of steps rather than driving in from the perimeter. (2) The interior lanes were more crowded with people and there were more good shotblockers/post protectors playing center (because of the rule differences mainly; starting centers even averaged a hair taller if you add 1.5 inches for measuring in socks rather than shoes). (3)To add to that, it was considered normal (if not legal) to undercut dunkers showing up your team, unlike in the post merger era. Thus Baylor/Hawkins/Johnson also shared another trait in common, knee injuries very early in their NBA careers. Add the unpadded floors and canvas shoes and it was much harder physically to be a high flyer.

Would Jordan have been great . . . of course . . . if. He had incredible athletic ability, great basketball IQ, and a great midrange game. The only other if is his gambling. The 60s were completely paranoid about gambling (with good reason after the point shaving scandals of the 50s). Great players like Connie Hawkins, Roger Brown, and Doug Moe were banned from the league for "associating with gamblers" with very little evidence of actual misconduct. Could Jordan have controlled his gambling habit? Maybe, but it's another danger area.

[THKNKG]

And part 3, my actual vote.

ALRIGHT, NOW IT’S FINALLY TIME FOR ME TO TALK ABOUT THE PLAYERS

I’ll just go straight down the list and compare the main 4 candidates I’ve previously mentioned (with cursory glances at Lebron/Wilt/KG/Shaq/Magic if applicable).





1. Era context

Russell – played in an era with much fewer teams, but much more parity; era had much racism/prejudice; due to the nature of dribbling + no 3 point line + his iq, he had the capacity to be the most effective defender ever

Kareem – played in the diluted era much of his career, however, he faced the biggest gauntlet of premier players at his position; dealt with some forms of prejudice

Jordan – hand checking; illegal defenses (though honestly these two cancel one another out); played in an incredibly tough league part of his career and a weak league part of his career

Duncan – one of the toughest eras; hand-checking + illegal defenses for a portion of his prime

If anyone were to *gain* anything from their era, it’d be one of the bigs.






2. Era translation

Russell – an incredibly smart rim-protector who deflected shots to his teammates, top 3 defensive rebounder ever, high post hub on offense, with extremely quick horizontal movement and ability, potentially the greatest BBIQ ever

Skillset translation
70s – at least similar impact (+0)
80s – at least similar impact (+0)
90s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
10s – probably slightly less impact (-1)

Kareem – the most unstoppable scorer ever, in his prime an excellent defender, range out to midrange, good passer, really freaking tall

Skillset translation
50s – significantly more impact (+2)
60s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
90s – probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s – at least similar impact (+0)
10s – at least similar impact (+0)

Jordan – superlative scorer, excellent playmaker, really solid defender, excellent from midrange, freak athlete

Skillset translation
50s - significantly more impact (+2)
60s - probably slightly less impact (-1)
70s - probably slightly more impact (+1)
00s - probably slightly less impact (-1)
10s - probably slightly less impact (-1)

Duncan – pretty good midrange, good passer, good low post scorer, excellent rim protector
50s - significantly more impact (+2)
60s - significantly more impact (+2)
70s - probably slightly more impact (+1)
80s - at least similar impact (+0)
90s – at least similar impact (+0)

Results:

Duncan – 5
KAJ – 4
Russell – 1 (though he is negatively affected in this due to how much impact he actually had)
MJ – 0

This sides with what I believe – that big men’s games would translate better.





3. Team makeup/contribution

Overall, their team strengths could be rated as follows (over their whole career):

Russell
MJ
KAJ
Duncan

MJ and KAJ played with poor supporting casts part of the time, and part of the time with juggernauts. Russell consistently led a juggernaut (and I would hold that he had the best supporting cast of the era, but he was what made them a juggernaut). Duncan had some really good teams, but his supporting cast never approached the level of these others. Since this is an argument for #1, there are few places where players did not maximize their team (though MJ and KAJ have the most instances of this).





4. Impact

In terms of pure, in era impact, there is a clear #1 (Russell). Jordan could also be firmly considered #2 at his peak, but it’s pretty close after him for both Duncan/KAJ. I would consider all non-Russell candidates pretty close in terms of overall, on court impact. KAJ and Duncan were able to pretty often lead top 10 O/D at the same time.





5. Offense/Defensive skill

Shooting:

MJ
KAJ
Duncan
Russell

Creating:

MJ
KAJ
Duncan
Russell

Offensive rebounding:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Off-ball:

MJ
Duncan
KAJ
Russell

Gravity:

KAJ
MJ
Duncan
Russell

Vertical:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Horizontal:

Russell
MJ
KAJ/Duncan

Defensive Rebounding:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
MJ

Help D:

Russell
Duncan
Jordan
KAJ

Anti-gravity:

Russell
Duncan
KAJ
Jordan


Russell – 17
Duncan - 15
MJ – 13
KAJ – 12

Of course, there’s a bias towards bigs on defense in this ranking, but I’ve already established why I value them so much relative to wings.





6. Portability/Scalability
The two players with the most portability/scalability IMO are Duncan and Russell. This is because defense is basically always additive, and because these two players were a case study in scalability. They dealt with rotating teams (particularly Russell) and rotating roles (particularly Duncan) and they always maximized their teams in all those varieties of ways.





7. Intangibles

Clearly Duncan and Russell are outliers in this regard – the two greatest teammates ever. I don’t dock MJ or KAJ for their personalities much, if at all.





Alright, with all that being said, it can be clear that I value the bigs more than I do the wings. Therefore, MJ is 4th out of all of those players. He had astronomical impact, but he can’t match their longevity (KAJ/Duncan) or their impact (Russell), so he’s a (very worthy) 4th place for me.

Russell takes 3rd for me, because at the top (besides Russell) many players have impacts that are similar. KG, Duncan, DRob for example are not *that* much lower than MJ, Shaq, Lebron at peak level, and the longevity Duncan and Kareem have takes them to the top 2 spots.

Now, it’s down to two: Kareem and Duncan. I know the underlying assumption of most basketball fans is Kareem > Duncan. Now I’m going to outline my case for Duncan as #1.


1. At his peak, Duncan had a (clear) top 10 peak.
One argument I’ve heard is that Duncan just wasn’t as great as some others at their peak. That’s true for a select few, but he’s still at the top. My peak list goes:

Wilt
Shaq
Lebron
Jordan
KG
Duncan
Kareem
Russell
Hakeem
DRob

Or somewhere in that general area. Point is, he’s clearly at the top level. He’s also one of the few players who peaked offensively and defensively at the same time.

2. Duncan is one of the 5 best defenders ever.
The only ones that have an argument over him are Russell, Hakeem, Walton, and DRob. However, he did it more consistently (Hakeem), and much longer (Walton/DRob). Thus, as a career defender, he could be considered #2.

3. Duncan was really good offensively.
He’s not on the level of Kareem or Jordan as a scorer, but they’re not on his level defensively, either. He was the primary scorer and focal point of championship winning teams, so he has proven his capability in both regards.

4. Duncan’s longevity was more valuable than Kareem’s, or anyone’s ever.
Prime for prime, they are comparable (probably with a slight edge to Kareem). However, Duncan was more valuable post prime. His defensive anchoring and rebounding is much more valuable to a contending team than big man scoring is. Plus, this past season, the Spurs played excellently without him. That’s not because they were in a system, but because Duncan established that system and every single time allowed for smooth transition from superstar to superstar. Thus, this past season could be considered an epilogue to Duncan’s career, because it absolutely happened because of him.

5. Duncan was the best teammate ever, and produced an absolute dynasty, the winningest 19 year span in NBA history.

I will probably add more throughout the thread, and welcome responses, but I’ll conclude this post with an old post of mine on Duncan.

Spoiler:

Post#29 » by micahclay » Fri May 12, 2017 9:35 pm
I’m someone who has Duncan top 2, and I’m this close to giving him #1 (or at least co-#1).

My criteria: contribution to winning in any form, impact, scalability, portability, skill, intangibles.

There’s a lot to this, and I hope to open some new conversations, so to start, I’ll list some of the points I would mention in the conversation about him. I will, when possible, seek to compare him to other GOAT contenders, as otherwise, it becomes an advertisement and not a persuasion.

First, I’ll mention some conversation points regarding team numbers.

1. Tim Duncan (along with Bill Russell) is one of the two winningest NBA players ever. Below I’ll include some numbers for the sake of comparison.

Player (RS Win%/PS Win%/Total Win%)

Tim Duncan (.710/.625/.705)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (.688/.65/.683)
Bill Russell (.717/.648/.707)
Michael Jordan (.659/.665/.66)

Ranked, these would be (from best to worst):

RS Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan
PS Win% - Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Duncan
Total Win% - Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan

Now, let’s see how many games they played (RS games/PS games/Total games)

Tim Duncan (1392/251/1643)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1560/237/1797)
Bill Russell (963/165/1128)
Michael Jordan (1072/179/1251)

Duncan and Kareem were able to clearly separate themselves from the others in terms of longevity. Kareem played the equivalent of 2 more full RS than Duncan, while Duncan played the equivalent of a full PS championship run more than Kareem. That’s not to mention that Duncan played 400+ more RS games than Russell and 300+ more RS games than Jordan, as well as 80+ more PS games than Russell, and 70+ more PS games than Jordan.

Duncan was able to consistently maintain equal (or better) footing in terms of win percentage compared to these other greats. He did all this while having arguably inferior supporting casts for the majority of his career.

2. Tim Duncan made the Spurs into one of the greatest franchises ever, and the greatest 19 year dynasty ever (plus, the best franchise by winning %).

Spurs total W/L in their history – 2067-1247 (.624)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan on roster – 1072-438 (.710)
Spurs W/L with Tim Duncan playing – 1001-391 (.720)
Spurs total W/L in their history without Tim Duncan – (.552)

The Spurs are the current leaders in win% for any team, and #10 in total wins. The 9 teams in front of them on that list are all at least 9 years older than them.

This difference in the Spurs before and after Tim means that, since the time he joined the Spurs, their W/L record has increased by a full 7.2%. That’s a substantial impact for a player to have (note: I know he didn’t do this singlehandedly, but he clearly had the foremost impact on the Spurs during the last 19 years; more on that later).

3. Tim Duncan’s intangible leadership ability and humility enabled the blending of two mega-superstars into the start of a dynasty. At the end of his career, his leadership and humility enabled an ease in “passing the torch” to the next superstar, Kawhi.

4. Tim Duncan’s sacrifice as a player for the good of the team enabled them to consistently build contending teams. He took on smaller contracts, and lesser roles in order to better serve the purpose of winning.

5. In the last 20 years, the Spurs have not won less than 50 games (excluding the 50 game lockout season), and have not missed the playoffs. The Spurs have won 12 division titles and 5 NBA championships during that time. Tim Duncan’s 19 year stretch is the best 19 year stretch of any NBA team in history.

6. Tim Duncan consistently led elite defenses and above average offenses.

Here are the Spurs team ORtg and DRtg differentials year by year since he arrived (relative to league average) –

ORtg diff./DRtg diff.

-1.2/-5.6
1.8/-7.2
0.9/-5.5
3.6/-5.0
2.0/-4.8
2.0/-3.9
-0.7/-8.8
1.4/-7.3
1.1/-6.6
2.7/-6.6
-0.3/-5.7
0.2/-4.0
2.4/-3.1
4.5/-1.7
6.3/-1.4
2.4/-4.3
3.8/-4.3
2.9/-3.6
3.9/-7.4

This is sustained dominance defensively for a loooong time, and not once was the team below average. Even old man Duncan was having massive defensive impact, and had incredibly good offensive impact as well.


Next, I’ll (briefly) touch on some of Tim’s qualities as a player.

1. Duncan ranked second in 97-14 total RAPM behind Lebron James.

2. Tim Duncan is a top 5 defensive player of all time.

3. Tim Duncan is underrated as an offensive player, but he is a solid passer, and a dependable low post scorer. To continue the comparisons of the 4 players from earlier, on offense, I would rank them: Jordan, Kareem, Duncan, Russell. On defense: Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Jordan.


Finally, though I care little about awards and rings, I’ll mention some of his accolades.

15 All-NBA teams (tied for most all-time), 15 All-Defensive teams (record), 5 championships, 3 championship MVPs (second behind Jordan), 2 MVP awards


I could say much more (and probably will eventually), but Duncan one of the 2 best winners of all time, and he did it for 6 years more than the other best winner in a tougher league. He is one of the best defensive players ever, and he is a very good offensive player (plus, his 03 season is easily a top 10 peak ever). His leadership and humility enabled the Spurs to win like few have won before, and even continue to win after he’s gone.

Duncan’s argument goes far beyond box score, and he makes the argument for himself rather convincingly. He, as a player, built and sustained a dynasty on his greatness, and due to his greatness is sustaining it even after he left.

Vote: Tim Duncan

2nd: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

I really dislike the era argument. I mean, that's as much subjective as it gets, and it's really an easy way out since you can't prove it's right and I can't prove it's wrong.

I can also say Hakeem in the 60s would be a +5 since he had tremendous rim protection but was a far better player than Russell on offense.

Also a player has to develop to his own era. Why should a guy develop skills for eras that never existed or past eras where the game was different?

I don't disagree with anything you said. It doesn't have any consequential value - just a good thought project that allows me to refine my thinking.

[penbeast0]

Anti-gravity + Disruption = 1

1 = perfect defender. Again, there is a difference in the *warping* effect of a defender, and the *actual* disruptions (rim protection, blocked shots, tipped passes, etc.). There is not as much of a difference between the amount and efficacy of gravity on defense, except that warping in the paint is more valuable than elsewhere. Something I’d like to do at a later time is an RAPM study of value, so I can compare bigs/wings/etc. (the same way I did with just offense vs defense). The list would currently rank like this:

1. Vertical + Horizontal bigs
2. Vertical bigs
3. Horizontal bigs
4. Vertical + horizontal wings
5. Horizontal wings
6. PG

At the beginning it is labeled Anti-gravity + Disruption . . . from observation, I would say that the great point defenders have traditionally had clearly more disruption effect than wing defenders. Now, a wing like Scottie Pippen may be defending the opposing PG, but guys like Frazier or Payton had effect beyond shutting down their man plus steals. They also forced the ball out of the preferred offensive set. Magic said that Payton was the only defender he had ever faced that made him turn around and back the ball in; that's a major difference to Magic's ability to impact a defense. Frazier scared opposing coaches enough that they would sometimes have their off guards bring the ball up rather than their lead guard to avoid potential steals. That's disruption.

I agree that great big man have a disparate impact on opposing offenses, but I question whether it is a general rule that wings have more impact than PGs. (and I further question whether when you add scoring to playmaking, wings (especially before 2000) actually had more impact offensively). I'd be very interested to hear your support.

[andrewww]

I'm sure we've gotten into this more than once before, but points/rebounds/assists don't even begin to adequately account for production on the basketball court in my book. When you reference someone like 38 year old Malone as an example of productive longevity and then go on to say that Duncan was only a support player later in his career I can't help but laugh at how ridiculously far off our two perceptions are. That gap isn't being bridged anytime soon.

Haven't had much time this week so far to contribute, but my question is..if someone as polarizing as KG is on this forum...whom I view as a player that isn't a "Batman" level player but more of a supercharged 6-11 version of Pippen..and some here say Duncan is really a better (but not all time great) scorer in the low post..but similar level players except one has had the good fortune of playing for Pop...can Duncan really be discussed as a GOAT level player where its clear his minutes were managed at a very early stage when he turned 30/31? Certainly a very portable player no doubt and the consumate professional, but I don't seriously consider him a GOAT candidate as I look as him as a poor man's Hakeem Olajuwon... but with better intangibles.

[eminence]

I'm sure we've gotten into this more than once before, but points/rebounds/assists don't even begin to adequately account for production on the basketball court in my book. When you reference someone like 38 year old Malone as an example of productive longevity and then go on to say that Duncan was only a support player later in his career I can't help but laugh at how ridiculously far off our two perceptions are. That gap isn't being bridged anytime soon.

Haven't had much time this week so far to contribute, but my question is..if someone as polarizing as KG is on this forum...whom I view as a player that isn't a "Batman" level player but more of a supercharged 6-11 version of Pippen..and some here say Duncan is really a better (but not all time great) scorer in the low post..but similar level players except one has had the good fortune of playing for Pop...can Duncan really be discussed as a GOAT level player where its clear his minutes were managed at a very early stage when he turned 30/31? Certainly a very portable player no doubt and the consumate professional, but I don't seriously consider him a GOAT candidate as I look as him as a poor man's Hakeem Olajuwon... but with better intangibles.

Umm, I missed the question I think?

But that's up to you on KG I guess, he's without a doubt in my top 10 (possibly top 5). So a slightly better (I don't think Duncan was actually better, but more fortunate) KG would have a pretty dang strong case for GOAT imo (obviously, I voted for him).