RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #5 (Tim Duncan)

[ty 4191]

I mean yeah sure but bro was really just bent over for a whole decade.

Run the career MP for HOFers and even All Stars for Russell and Wilt. Then run MP with HOFers and All Stars in their primes.

It's not even close. Russell had much better teammates, the GOAT coach (arguably), and much, much more support than Wilt did overall.

[70sFan]

I mean yeah sure but bro was really just bent over for a whole decade.

Run the career MP for HOFers and even All Stars for Russell and Wilt. Then run MP with HOFers and All Stars in their primes. It's not close.

Now run MVP shares for their teammates and see how many MVP candidates each played with.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I mean yeah sure but bro was really just bent over for a whole decade.

Run the career MP for HOFers and even All Stars for Russell and Wilt. Then run MP with HOFers and All Stars in their primes.

It's not even close. Russell had much better teammates, the GOAT coach (arguably), and much, much more support than Wilt did.

MP? Are you talking about 2K

Some of those guys were that regarded because they had Russell, it wasn’t a playoff team without him probably

I mean sure maybe wilt wins more maybe he wins less but at the end of the day bro went 1/10 in the Russell era and probably had 3 pretty realistic shots, what happens in reality matters and bro kind of got bent over

I don’t mind thinking wilt was more talented those years or had a higher 2k rating or whatever, but the level of spankage is too much to overcome lol

[ty 4191]

MP? Are you talking about 2K

Minutes played.

As for the rest of your blithe trolling/baiting, I'll run the numbers myself.

[ty 4191]

Now run MVP shares for their teammates and see how many MVP candidates each played with.

I can run that, also. Wait, are you actually asking, or, do you have the results?

[OhayoKD]

I mean yeah sure but bro was really just bent over for a whole decade.

Run the career MP for HOFers and even All Stars for Russell and Wilt. Then run MP with HOFers and All Stars in their primes.

It's not even close. Russell had much better teammates, the GOAT coach (arguably), and much, much more support than Wilt did overall.

Russell did not have much better teammates in 1969 and was his own coach for 2 of those title-wins. Like let's be serious now. Wilt only ever beat Russell with a loaded deck when Russell was injured and new to the whole head-coaching biz. Counting hofers doesn't prove anything

[MyUniBroDavis]

MP? Are you talking about 2K

Minutes played.

As for the rest of your blithe trolling/baiting, I'll run the numbers myself.

There is no planet where saying wilt lost to Russell a bunch in reality and at the end of the day had a staggering lack of success in comparison (as anyone would) in that same era is trolling lol, if ur annoyed at how I phrased it then lighten up lmao

I said wilt was probably better, but you can’t say he’s greater when Russell owned that era to the extent that he did. Even if you take the 3 years wilts cast was as good or better Russell went 2/3

I don’t think you understand how little eye test or coaching opinions in the 60s matter when there are absolutely coaches who know less about basketball than some fans today do lol

[ty 4191]

Counting hofers doesn't prove anything

Yes, is most certainly does, especially alongside minutes played with All Stars and MVP Shares for teammates.

[OhayoKD]

Counting hofers doesn't prove anything

Yes, is most certainly does, especially alongside minutes played with All Stars and MVP Shares for teammates.

Not really, no. Second hand sources<<<primary ones

We can look at the basketball and we can look at the winning. The Celtics kept chugging when russell's teammates left or missed games, and the celtics fell apart when russell retired despite a 2-point offensive spike with their second best player improving. I'm not saying its definitive but i think it's alot more valuable as evidence than what voters thought.

Wilt only beat russell on a team that was very good without him and then he went and joined jerry west and still lost. Russell was better in their time. No real reason to assume otherwise besides assumptions about what should lead to winning.

[70sFan]

Now run MVP shares for their teammates and see how many MVP candidates each played with.

I can run that, also. Wait, are you actually asking, or, do you have the results?

No, I don't have it and I would appreciate if you can calculate it because I don't have the time to do such things till the end of the week.

[ty 4191]

Now run MVP shares for their teammates and see how many MVP candidates each played with.

I can run that, also. Wait, are you actually asking, or, do you have the results?

No, I don't have it and I would appreciate if you can calculate it because I don't have the time to do such things till the end of the week.

I will do my best. We've worked on fairly vast projects together, before. This should be no different.

[ty 4191]

Russell was better in their time.

As I said, i'll run the numbers. We'll see who had better teammates overall, during their careers. I could be 100% wrong in my initial assumption. I often am, and I'm quite pleased to overhaul my core beliefs in light of new evidence.

Can you say the same for yourself?

PS: That's why I research things. Sports related, and non sports related.

[OhayoKD]

Russell was better in their time.

As I said, i'll run the numbers. We'll see who had better teammates overall, during their careers. I could be 100% wrong in my initial assumption. I often am, and I'm quite pleased to overhaul my core beliefs in light of new evidence.

Can you say the same for yourself?

PS: That's why I research things. Sports related, and non sports related.

I am in the light of compelling evidence which "mvp shares" is not imo. Why should a secondary source be weighed more than a primary one

[ty 4191]

I am in the light of compelling evidence which "mvp shares" is not imo. Why should a secondary source be weighed more than a primary one

Now run MVP shares for their teammates and see how many MVP candidates each played with.

As I said, I do extensive research projects which frequently contravene my previously held beliefs.

Can you say the same about yourself? Or, are you just in this for the Confirmation Bias satisfaction?

[OhayoKD]

I am in the light of compelling evidence which "mvp shares" is not imo. Why should a secondary source be weighed more than a primary one

Now run MVP shares for their teammates and see how many MVP candidates each played with.

As I said, I do extensive research projects which frequently contravene my previously held beliefs.

Can you say the same about yourself? Or, are you just in this for the Confirmation Bias satisfaction?

"these people said x was better than y" thus "x was better than y" is an excellent example of confirmation bias. I was open to Wilt being better than Russell, and I was open to Russell not being the best era-relative prime, and then the evidence naturally led to both being off.

Me not accepting your framework is not an indication of bias. Explain to me why mvp-shares matter more than actual results.

[ty 4191]

Me not accepting your framework is not an indication of bias. Explain to me why mvp-shares matter more than actual results.

I asked a simple question. Is your mind still open to being wrong, in general?

Could Russell have had much better teammates than WIlt? Would you care?

Do you conduct research hoping that it'll confirm your pre-held or currently held beliefs?

As for MVP shares, ask 70s Fan. He knows more about basketball than anyone here, and he suggested it.

[OhayoKD]

Me not accepting your framework is not an indication of bias. Explain to me why mvp-shares matter more than actual results.

I asked a simple question. Is your mind still open to being wrong, in general?

Could Russell have had much better teammates than WIlt? Would you care?

Do you conduct research hoping that it'll confirm your pre-held or currently held beliefs?

As for MVP shares, ask 70s Fan. He knows more about basketball than anyone here, and he suggested it.

In general, sure!

But I don't just accept what other people consider proof blindly

[ty 4191]

"these people said x was better than y" thus "x was better than y" is an excellent example of confirmation bias.

1. You said you were open to Wilt over Russell. Is your mind still open to that possibility? I'm open to Russell being better than Wilt. My top 5, top 10 is always in flux, actually. Is yours?

2. If it would be more objective, I could run best players, of both their respective careers (as teammates), using another metric (Win Shares, for example).

Let me know. Thanks!

[ty 4191]

Me not accepting your framework is not an indication of bias. Explain to me why mvp-shares matter more than actual results.

I asked a simple question. Is your mind still open to being wrong, in general?

Could Russell have had much better teammates than WIlt? Would you care?

Do you conduct research hoping that it'll confirm your pre-held or currently held beliefs?

As for MVP shares, ask 70s Fan. He knows more about basketball than anyone here, and he suggested it.

In general, sure!

But I don't just accept what other people consider proof blindly

Great, then we're on the same page!!!

[70sFan]

For what it’s worth, I rate Hakeem’s peak very highly. But I don’t think we need to use that to act like Hakeem was something he wasn’t in his earlier years.

What do you think separates so much older Hakeem from the younger one then? Do you see any substantial improvements in his game?

Well, I think the typical answer to this that you’d get from both me and others is that Hakeem became a better and more willing passer—that he was previously a bit of a black hole that shot way too much into double- and triple-teams and that in his peak years he’d rapidly developed into a much more willing passer. And we do see that in his stats, with Hakeem having an immediate jump to previously-unseen assist totals starting in the 1992-1993 season (and I’ll note that this jumped by even greater amounts in the playoffs in those peak years—roughly doubling his prior playoff assist rate, evidencing a definite change in approach IMO), which was also accompanied by an increase in his scoring efficiency. Of course, I’m sure there’s also plenty of subtle things that would be hard to specifically identify—such as mental stuff, preparation for opponents, or really subtle things he’s doing on the court that opponents would’ve recognized but that we can’t easily identify on TV or without a really fine-tooth-combed film analysis of a ton of games (i.e. the type of little things that veterans get better at over time).

I allowed myself to move the discussion to the next thread where it will bring up more value for the project. Thanks for the answer, a few things I want to touch before moving on:

1. Passing

This one isn't surprising for anyone who has the basic knowledge about Hakeem's career - in 1993, Olajuwon improved his assist rate by significant amount. That indicates a big jump in creation rate and also clear improvement in passing skills. I have a tough time accepting that for one major reason: the tendencies you criticized didn't disappear after 1992. Hakeem still took a lot of shots that were, let's call it diplomatic, questionable. Hakeem taking contested fadeaway shots against double teams didn't disappear. I have tracked over 30 Hakeem games from 1993 and 1994 seasons (apologies that I can't bring up anything more specific, I am still away from my country with no access to my database) and I have a lot of notes like "missed open teammate, bad shot selection". Hakeem took a larger role on offense and that led him to more opportunities to pass the ball, but it didn't make him less prone to such mistakes. That's the thing - Hakeem wasn't a youngster in 1993, he was a veteran playing for almost full decade in this league. Expecting him to make a quantum leap in passing ability within few months is tough to translate.

Of course, you can't explain such a substantial increase of playmaking volume only by bigger role on offense. The jump is way too big for that. So what happened? Houston changed a coach. Rudy T created a completely new system in his first season as a coach - a system that maximized spacing around Hakeem and made reads for him the easiest possible. That is why Hakeem's passing creation made such a leap - he had more space and more time to make decisions with the ball and he knew where to pass to make effective reads. The Rockets offense was fairly simple, but that helped Hakeem who never was a sophisticated playmaker. Hakeem waited for double and he knew where to find his teammates.

That's why despite a big improvement in assist averages, Hakeem still missed a lot of high quality reads and struggled with cross court passes. He still didn't convert chaotic possessions in assists on consistent rate. He relied on basic reads and with Rudy T system, it worked enough to compete against the best team in the league.

Does it mean that I don't believe Hakeem improved as a passer? No, I think repetition did wonders and Olajuwon was definitely a superior playmaker by the end of 1995 season compared to the early 1990s. It wasn't a quantum leap in his passing ability though, but optimization to the new role. I don't think there are reasons to believe that younger Hakeem would be unable to adjust for Tomjanovic scheme.

2. Defense

The problem I have with the idea, that passing made him a different caliber of player, isn't only related to my interpretation of this situation. The problem is that Hakeem's majority of total impact came from defensive end, not from offense. Olajuwon peaked as a defender in the early 1990s. By 1994, you can see the first signs of slowing down and by 1995, Hakeem wasn't even close to his peak defensive level. That leads us to the question - does passing advantage negate the decrease in motor and athleticism?

3. Rebounding and other little things

It's not only about defense, but Hakeem became significantly less effective rebounder, on offensive end in particular. I think other little things like turnovers creation, inside finishing, foul rate all decreased by the mid-90s as well.

Are these declines insignificant to the degree that the jump in passing volume creates a difference between top 10 peak ever and regular all-nba player? Especially if we have reasons to believe that a lot of from that phenomenon can be explained by circumstances outside of his capabilities.

I will appreciate your response, please let me know what you think.