Retro Player of the Year 2004-05 UPDATE — Tim Duncan

[LA Bird]

With the Duncan Ginobili discussion, I feel like people don't talk about how much the Spurs defense dropped off in the playoffs. When we look at the team's overall performance and offense/defense splits:

Regular season
Duncan and Manu: +20.38 (114.51, 94.13)
Duncan, no Manu: +10.53 (106.54, 96.01)
Manu, no Duncan: +9.88 (109.49, 99.61)

Playoffs
Duncan and Manu: +9.24 (114.25, 105.01)
Duncan, no Manu: -10.56 (102.59, 113.15)
Manu, no Duncan: +10.27 (113.95, 103.68)

RS-PO difference
Duncan and Manu: -11.14 (-0.26, +10.88)
Duncan, no Manu: -21.09 (-3.95, +17.14)
Manu, no Duncan: +0.39 (+4.46, +4.07)

The argument is always that despite Ginobili getting better offensively in the playoffs and Duncan getting worse, Duncan was still the defensive anchor on a defense first team and thus better overall. But if the Spurs defense fell off so drastically in the playoffs in Duncan's minutes and they were better on offense than defense, why is he still their playoffs MVP?

Like with Wade and Shaq though, it doesn't matter whether Ginobili was better than an injured Duncan in the playoffs if the regular season gap was too large to overcome. I would still have Duncan #1 POY but the question is how high Ginobili should go too because when they were healthy, the Spurs were more than dominant enough to have two top 5 guys.

[Djoker]

Just re-watched Game 7 of the 2005 Finals today. Boy of boy we all thought at the time that this was a plain boring series but looking back, it was a historic one. Two defensive juggernauts going at each other. A grand total of six fast break points between the two teams for the entire game. Just rugged halfcourt basketball. You look at Duncan's stats namely his shooting and you'll think he sucked but the defense was just next level. He had either Ben, Sheed, McDyess, or Prince on him all game with a help defender always coming in as soon as he made his move. The timing of both teams when it came to defensive rotations was impeccable. And Timmy had a huge 3rd quarter to stop Detroit's momentum as they were up 9 at one point. Let me remind y'all that in this NBA, you did not want to be down 9 points in the 3rd quarter to the Pistons. It felt like a 20 point deficit today. You can definitely see the abolition of hand checking starting this season with a lot of ticky-tac fouls called and it hurt Detroit. Sheed and McDyess were both in some serious foul trouble. If it was 2004 rules, the Pistons probably win but hey the Spurs adjusted to the calls better and with different refs in every game, adjusting to how fouls are called often determines the outcome. Pistons outscored the Spurs by 13 points over 7 games but ultimately lost. It was a 50:50 series and someone had to lose. I miss this era!

[lessthanjake]

Duncan over Nash this year seems reasonable to me given the Spurs winning the title. That said, I definitely don’t agree that Amare was better than Manu, or that Duncan had a lesser supporting cast than Nash.

Manu was one of the best few players in the NBA at this point IMO. And, just speaking anecdotally as someone who rooted hard against the Spurs in this era, Manu was extremely scary to me. There’s no doubt in my mind that Ginobili was better than Amare. Box stats don’t exactly indicate this, but impact stats definitely do—which is especially important when one of the guys we’re talking about is a big man that has a huge weakness in defense. Honestly, I actually think Amare was so far off of Ginobili that the better comparison for Amare would be Parker (who I do think Amare was a little better than at this point), and I also think Marion was probably the Suns’s second-best player (albeit also far off from Manu).

Meanwhile, Parker wasn’t quite at his peak yet, but he was already an all-star-level or borderline-all-star-level player IMO. And those role players were really great. Horry and Barry shot the lights out (particularly in the playoffs), while also bringing size—just top-tier role players. Bruce Bowen was an amazing defender and was very good at hitting open threes (though obviously he didn’t bring much else offensively—definitely a pure 3&D guy). I don’t think Nazr Mohammed was anything special but in that playoff run it really didn’t feel like their defense missed a beat with him on and Duncan off (which is confirmed by them having a 100.62 DRTG in those 172 playoff minutes)—he was genuinely a good player in the playoffs that year. Udrih was a rookie but was solid.

I think on paper the Suns may have had more talent at the top of the roster—with Nash, Amare, Marion, and Joe Johnson. But there’s a few issues here: First, I thought Quentin Richardson (the 5th starter) was a real negative to this team. He basically brought nothing to the table but shooting and didn’t even do that very well. Second, the bench was thin. Jim Jackson was definitely a solid player, but they hardly trusted anyone else, so it was largely a 6-man rotation, with maybe a little bit by necessity from Steven Hunter, who was definitely not a very good player. Third, Joe Johnson got injured in the playoffs. I think maybe the Suns could’ve won that series (and the title) with a healthy Joe Johnson, but with his injury I think the Spurs were clearly the better team. The Spurs were just a much deeper team and Manu was the best non-Duncan/Nash player on either team.

[lessthanjake]

Related to the above, I think Ginobili should get very real consideration for a top 5 and probably even top 3 spot this year.

A few things I’ll note about this:

1. This is right in an era where Ginobili is at or near the top of the league in impact data. By TheBasketballDatabase’s one-year RAPM, Ginobili was 2nd this year (albeit behind Duncan). One-year RAPM is of course noisy, but if we expand it out the next few years to get a broader sense of things, we have Ginobili being 1st in TheBasketballDatabase’s RAPM from 2005-2007 (and 3rd if we instead looked at 2004-2006), and 5th in multiple relevant five-year periods if we go to 5-year RAPM. If we instead look at the NBArapm website, we have Ginobili being 1st and 2nd in the relevant two-year RAPMs that include this year. He’s 1st in the 2005-2007 three-year RAPM, and 2nd in the 2004-2006 three-year RAPM. He’s 2nd in the 2004-2007 four-year RAPM, and 3rd in the 2005-2008 four-year RAPM. And he’s 3rd in the 2004-2008 five-year RAPM, and close to that in other relevant timeframes. Similarly, Cheema’s five-year RAPM has Ginobili 2nd or 3rd in every relevant time period. He’s 3rd this season in JE’s single-season PI RAPM, and I think relevantly is also 1st each of the next two seasons. If we instead look at hybrid models with complex box components, Ginobili was 1st in EPM this year (and that’s true whether we look at new EPM or old EPM). And he was 3rd in RPM. When we got to the playoffs, Ginobili was arguably even more impactful, with a +19.9 on-off. This resulted in the highest playoff RAPM in the league in 2005, according to TheBasketballDatabase (as well as the GitLab playoff RAPM). And while playoff RAPM is extremely noisy, Ginobili was also 1st, 7th, and 2nd in surrounding years in playoff RAPM. He was also 1st in EPM in the 2005 playoffs (and, notably, was still 1st by Expected Wins, despite his minutes played). Basically, by impact, Ginobili is a clear standout at this point, even having an argument for being the NBA’s most impactful player. Of course, we do have to look at this in the context of his relatively low minutes played, but it is still extremely impressive.

2. I think there’s a good argument that Ginobili was the Spurs’ best player in the playoffs. As mentioned, he was 1st in the playoffs in EPM and its minutes-played-adjusted Expected Wins stat, and 1st in playoff RAPM for what it’s worth. Ginobili probably should’ve been Finals MVP. If you look at the box score, you might conclude that Duncan was maybe a little better in the WCF. However, as a big Suns fan in that timeframe I can say that I honestly had more fear of Ginobili. And this is borne out in what happened in that series, where the Suns dominated the minutes where Duncan was on and Ginobili was off (Spurs had a -10.56 net rating in those minutes), while the Spurs dominated the minutes where Duncan was off and Ginobili was on (Spurs had a +10.27 net rating in those minutes). While that sort of data is subject to a lot of noise, I really think it was more of a 1a and 1b situation in that series, at worst. Ginobili was also incredible against the Sonics, putting up 21/5/4 on 72.4% TS% in the series. And in the crucial game of that series—game 5 with the series tied 2-2—Ginobili put up 39 points on 86.7% TS% while Duncan struggled offensively. Ginobili was also great in the 1st round. Overall, I really think there’s a solid argument that Ginobili was the best player in the playoffs for the championship-winning team. Which is something that should weigh highly in a POY vote (and should weigh highly even if you happen to think Duncan was still a little better—there’s definitely no doubt Ginobili was a massive contributor to the title run).

3. I see posts pointing out the fact that the Spurs were 6-2 this season with Ginobili out. But I think it’s important to look at who the Spurs beat in those games. The SRS of the teams they beat in those games were -3.45, -0.71, -6.30, 1.73, -6.15, and -1.74. None of those wins came against playoff teams. The Spurs did play two games against playoff teams without Ginobili in 2005, and they lost both of them—both to playoff opponents that they later dispatched in 5 games with Ginobili (the Suns and Nuggets). That said, they were without Duncan in those two games too, so it doesn’t really mean much. Basically, the Spurs did win some regular season games without Ginobili, but those games were against bad teams.

[AEnigma]

Wavering a bit on my #1 here, but want to be careful to be consistent with how I vote in 2007, where I also have Duncan and Nash as the top two players.

So open question — and this is automatically irrelevant for those who think 2007 Duncan > 2005 Duncan and 2005 Nash > 2007 Nash — is Nash’s RPoY case stronger this year, where he (rightly) won MVP, earned the 1-seed, and went to the conference finals but lost in a relatively uncompetitive five games (albeit with some teammate injury context) to the champion Spurs led by Finals MVP Duncan (although many argue Manu should have won), or in 2007, where he comes second in MVP voting and is a second round exit to the champion Spurs (Parker wins Finals MVP, and many argue Duncan should have won), but the series is much more competitive (reasonably could call it the “true” Finals) and arguably decided by some reactionary one-way suspensions which would only ever occur in this limited period immediately following Malice.

On Duncan’s side, I am comfortable saying Duncan’s regular season was better in 2007 and that in 2007 he did not have a teammate perform as well as Manu did in 2005; mixed on any other definite statements pertaining to that comparison.

[One_and_Done]

The Spurs were up 2-1 in games Johnson played. They were never losing that series, not if Johnson played all the games. The Spurs were 2-1:vs the Suns that RS too, and Duncan and Manu were out for the game they lost. I don't like to overemphasise RS games, but I remember the first game and the tension coming into it. Everyone was wondering how the league leading Suns would fare against the Spurs, with both teams treating their first clash very seriously. It was a 115 to 94 whitewashing, and that undersells it. The Spurs were up 93-69 heading into the 4th and then turned the gas off. That 05 Suns team looked like they had no chance against the Spurs when they got serious.

I disagree that Q.Rich was a bad player, he was an excellent 5th starter. Him bombing 8+ threes a game at 36% is a stat line we expect to see in today's game, not 2005. The Suns had 3 all-star calibre guys next to Nash. Duncan had 1 all-star type guy, with Tony being close but maybe not quite an all-star yet. Certainly nobody at the time rated Manu over Amare. I agree that Manu was underrated, and maybe he should have been compared more favourably to Amare, but that's where it ends. Neither at the time nor in hindsight are Marion, JJ and Q.Rich worse than Parker, Bowen, and Nazr. They're clearly much more valuable players.

NB - the suspensions in 07 were not reactionary, the rule was being enforced in the same way it had been for many years, but that's neither here nor there.

[lessthanjake]

Wavering a bit on my #1 here, but want to be careful to be consistent with how I vote in 2007, where I also have Duncan and Nash as the top two players.

So open question — and this is automatically irrelevant for those who think 2007 Duncan > 2005 Duncan and 2005 Nash > 2007 Nash — is Nash’s RPoY case stronger this year, where he (rightly) won MVP, earned the 1-seed, and went to the conference finals but lost in a relatively uncompetitive five games (albeit with some teammate injury context) to the champion Spurs led by Finals MVP Duncan (although many argue Manu should have won), or in 2007, where he comes second in MVP voting and is a second round exit to the champion Spurs (Parker wins Finals MVP, and many argue Duncan should have won), but the series is much more competitive (reasonably could call it the “true” Finals) and arguably decided by some reactionary one-way suspensions which would only ever occur in this limited period immediately following Malice.

On Duncan’s side, I am comfortable saying Duncan’s regular season was better in 2007 and that in 2007 he did not have a teammate perform as well as Manu did in 2005; mixed on any other definite statements pertaining to that comparison.

Personally, I think Nash was better in 2005 than in 2007. For one thing, the team’s rORTG in both RS and playoffs was even better. To dig into this a bit, the 2005 Suns had a rORTG of +14.26 with Nash on the floor in the regular season. And then in the playoffs, it was +22.40 in the first round against the Grizzlies, +14.71 in the second round against the Mavericks, and +17.16 against the Spurs in the conference finals. I did some analysis a while back of teams’ rORTG with certain players on the court in RS + playoffs combined, with a 3x weight to playoff possessions, and Nash’s 2005 graded out the highest of any season I looked at (+15.54)—and I looked at Nash, LeBron, Curry, Jokic, Luka, and Chris Paul, so I doubt there’s a better play-by-play era season that I didn’t find. It was even higher than the number for the 2017 Warriors with Curry on (+14.78). The number for the 2007 Suns with Nash on was still amongst the best I looked at (+10.64), but it was at a different level in 2005. Of course, one might argue that the supporting cast was just better offensively in 2005 (with Joe Johnson being a major reason for that, as well as perhaps a bit more explosive version of Amare), and I do think there’s something to that, but I just find 2005 Nash very compelling given that I think there’s probably never been a better league-relative offense than the 2005 Suns with Nash on the floor.

I also think individually Nash probably had his best playoff series in 2005 against the Mavericks. The 2005 Mavericks were a really good team and actually had a good defense, and Nash just was completely unplayable. It was one of the best series I’ve ever seen a player play, culminating in a Game 6 in which Nash just completely took over the last minute of regulation to send the game to OT (where he was also dominant). To me, that series is the best I’ve ever seen Nash play.

[lessthanjake]

The Spurs were up 2-1 in games Johnson played. They were never losing that series, not if Johnson played all the games. The Spurs were 2-1:vs the Suns that RS too, and Duncan and Manu were out for the game they lost. I don't like to overemphasise RS games, but I remember the first game and the tension coming into it. Everyone was wondering how the league leading Suns would fare against the Spurs, with both teams treating their first clash very seriously. It was a 115 to 94 whitewashing, and that undersells it. The Spurs were up 93-69 heading into the 4th and then turned the gas off. That 05 Suns team looked like they had no chance against the Spurs when they got serious.

Joe Johnson came back but I don’t think he was really quite where he would’ve been in those games if he’d not been injured. He also missed two home games to begin the series, both of which the Suns lost—which really took the air out of the series. I’m definitely not certain the Suns would’ve won if Joe Johnson had been healthy, but I do think it was possible, and I think his injury was a major factor that made the Spurs supporting cast clearly superior.

I disagree that Q.Rich was a bad player, he was an excellent 5th starter. Him bombing 8+ threes a game at 36% is a stat line we expect to see in today's game, not 2005. The Suns had 3 all-star calibre guys next to Nash. Duncan had 1 all-star type guy, with Tony being close but maybe not quite an all-star yet. Certainly nobody at the time rated Manu over Amare. I agree that Manu was underrated, and maybe he should have been compared more favourably to Amare, but that's where it ends. Neither at the time nor in hindsight are Marion, JJ and Q.Rich worse than Parker, Bowen, and Nazr. They're clearly much more valuable players.

Quentin Richardson was not an excellent 5th starter. He was bad. You are not going to convince me he wasn’t bad. I watched virtually every game that team played. He was not a good defender, and had no offensive game besides shooting spot-up threes created for him by Nash, and even then he didn’t make a high percentage of them and had a negative TS add. Bombing lots of open threes is bad if you’re not actually good at it and don’t really have any other offensive skills. Honestly, if you swapped out Quentin Richardson and Brent Barry, I think there’s a decent chance the Suns beat the Spurs, and Barry was a Spurs bench player! There’s a reason the Suns got rid of Quentin Richardson as soon as they could.

And yes, you are right that people did not rate Manu over Amare at the time, but we have the benefit of hindsight and additional data. Manu was absolutely better than Amare. I don’t think this should be debatable at all, to be honest. Go look at their impact stats and try to tell me it’s even close. And, to be clear, I’m coming at this as someone who paid a lot of attention to both these teams in that era (the Suns were my favorite team, and the Spurs were my most hated team). The impact data not being at all close just backs up what my eye test and general intuition told me at the time. In the annals of players on teams I’ve rooted against in basketball, there’s virtually none that struck fear in me more than that era’s Manu. I just knew that when he got on the court, things would go well for the Spurs. It felt inevitable. I also think that, regardless of what people thought at the time, people now widely think Ginobili was better, so I’m not actually espousing a view that’s outside of mainstream views.

Anyways, I agree with you that Marion is better than Parker, Bowen, and Nazr. But I also think Marion was better than Amare, so the proper comparison would be to Manu—who still blows Marion out of the water. Meanwhile, you’re completely ignoring Horry and Barry—both of whom were better than Quentin Richardson (as was Bruce Bowen). Overall, there’s really no comparison between the depth of the 2005 Spurs and 2005 Suns. Nor is there much of any comparison between Manu and anyone on the Suns’s supporting cast. Despite all this, the Suns had a chance if they’d stayed healthy because they had a very good top 4 guys, but Joe Johnson getting injured sealed things for them.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, I disagree. D'Antoni also loved playing a short rotation of 6-7 guys. In that sense I think complaining about the Spurs having a better 8th or 9th man is kind of moot. D'Antoni wouldn't have played his 8th or 9th men regardless of how good they were. Barbosa was better than Barry, and Horry was better than Hunter. I don't see a huge bench advantage. Like, I'd take SA's bench obviously, but Phoenix has a better starting line-up around Nash which is much more important.

[Djoker]

With regards to Nash, I think we have to take the offensive dominance with a bit of a reservation because the Suns were playing a very offensive style (both tactically and lineup-wise) and sacrificing defense for offense. Not saying what Nash was doing with the Suns wasn't impressive because it really was but compared to GOAT-level offensive anchors who produced similar or even slightly worse offensive ceilings on much better defensive teams, he has to be penalized just a bit IMO. In other words, there is a real argument that his teams were flawed and couldn't win in that era as constructed and/or schematically drawn.

As for Ginobili, I know that RAPM loves him but his minutes load is low enough that I don't seriously consider him to be among the 5 best players in the league and probably not even the top 10 best if I'm being honest. I think Manu vs. Chauncey is a good comparison for 2005 as well as the next few seasons. Savvy all-around players who knew what it took to win but not quite superstars. As for the Finals MVP in 2005, it's Duncan all the way for me. I re-watched Game 7 and Manu finished with an efficient 23 points but 6 of those points came in the final minute to ice the game. Duncan was the one who was constantly doubled and tripled and gave the others open looks from three. Manu just exploited the gaps that Duncan's presence created. And that's just the offensive end.

[trelos6]

Manu played 2977 mins

Nash played 3180 mins

Duncan 3070 mins.

Tayshaun and Rip both 4000+ mins.

[Djoker]

Manu played 2977 mins

Nash played 3180 mins

Duncan 3070 mins.

Tayshaun and Rip both 4000+ mins.

Manu played way less in the playoffs. For instance, he was 8th in minutes played in the 2005 Finals.

[lessthanjake]

Yeh, I disagree. D'Antoni also loved playing a short rotation of 6-7 guys. In that sense I think complaining about the Spurs having a better 8th or 9th man is kind of moot. D'Antoni wouldn't have played his 8th or 9th men regardless of how good they were.

When the Suns had a notably deeper team in 2007, D’Antoni had no problem playing an 8-man rotation in the playoffs. The 2005 Suns played such a short rotation because their depth was poor. The next guy up in the rotation would’ve been Barbosa, and the team collapsed when he played (including a -15.3 net rating in the playoffs with him on; as well as a -12.1 on-off in the regular season), so obviously they wanted to avoid having a rotation that really featured him.

With regards to Nash, I think we have to take the offensive dominance with a bit of a reservation because the Suns were playing a very offensive style (both tactically and lineup-wise) and sacrificing defense for offense. Not saying what Nash was doing with the Suns wasn't impressive because it really was but compared to GOAT-level offensive anchors who produced similar or even slightly worse offensive ceilings on much better defensive teams, he has to be penalized just a bit IMO. In other words, there is a real argument that his teams were flawed and couldn't win in that era as constructed and/or schematically drawn.

As for Ginobili, I know that RAPM loves him but his minutes load is low enough that I don't seriously consider him to be among the 5 best players in the league and probably not even the top 10 best if I'm being honest. I think Manu vs. Chauncey is a good comparison for 2005 as well as the next few seasons. Savvy all-around players who knew what it took to win but not quite superstars. As for the Finals MVP in 2005, it's Duncan all the way for me. I re-watched Game 7 and Manu finished with an efficient 23 points but 6 of those points came in the final minute to ice the game. Duncan was the one who was constantly doubled and tripled and gave the others open looks from three. Manu just exploited the gaps that Duncan's presence created. And that's just the offensive end.

I definitely think it makes sense to say Nash’s offensive accomplishments need to be seen in the context of having an offensive-slanted team. That’s definitely true. But if we didn’t look at that context, then 2005 Nash would look like the best offensive season in NBA history, so even with the added context I think it looks really great.

As for Ginobili, I think the minutes-load thing is always the concern with him. And it’s a valid one. Obviously you’re not contributing when you’re not on the court. But he was so impactful when he was on the court that the result is still extremely impressive. For instance, if we combined RS+Playoffs, his EPM Wins (i.e. the minutes-adjusted version of EPM) in 2005 were 19.3. That’s still 2nd in the NBA, behind only Dirk. Overall, I think if we just ignored the minutes-load issue, then I think Ginobili would have a good case for #1. I think the minutes-load issue is enough to squelch that, but I think he is still very high up.

I also think that the minutes issue is less of one this year than other years, given the relevant candidates. The two candidates I’ve seen mentioned most at the top spots this year were Duncan and Nash. Duncan only played 10 more minutes in the regular season than Ginobili did, and 97 more minutes in the playoffs! Nash did play 380 more minutes than Ginobili in the regular season, but then of course Ginobili ended up playing 162 more minutes than Nash in the playoffs, for obvious reasons. Shaq is another one I’ve seen mentioned, and he played 299 more minutes than Ginobili in the regular season, and 341 fewer minutes in the playoffs. Basically, the major POY candidates this year all had some combination of missing a bunch of games and/or not having a particularly high minutes-load themselves, so the difference between them and Ginobili is not as big as one might think.

Where the minutes stuff comes in the most for me personally is the fact that Duncan was played more in the playoffs than Ginobili. I do think Popovich was just using Ginobili wrong, rather than this being an indication of Ginobili not being great, but 97 extra playoff minutes does of course matter. Even so, I think there’s a pretty good argument that Ginobili was the Spurs’ most valuable player in the playoffs, though.

[One_and_Done]

In 07 D'Antoni continued to largely play a 7 man rotation. His token 8th men in the Spurs series, in games 1-6, played a total of 8, 7, 6, 4, 3 and 13 minutes. In addition the 7th guy in minutes in games 1 and 6 got 12 and 16 minutes. He was playing a 6-7 man rotation almost exclusively, like he did for most of his career. Marion and Raja Bell averaged over 42mpg that series. Nash played 39mpg.

[70sFan]

I re-watched Game 7 and Manu finished with an efficient 23 points but 6 of those points came in the final minute to ice the game. Duncan was the one who was constantly doubled and tripled and gave the others open looks from three. Manu just exploited the gaps that Duncan's presence created. And that's just the offensive end.

Do you think Duncan's FMVP was a good choice taking everything into account?

[ceoofkobefans]

We are still continuing the trend of the 2000s being an OD era and now we have LeBron and Wade being thrown into the mix. The league makes some rule changes (most notably banning hand checking) to favor offense more and we saw the league average ortg jump up from 102.9 to 106.1 (thats a +3.2 jump, which is the largest jump in LA ORTG in a single season since ORTG began being tracked in 1974). 2005 also has one of the most contested mvp races in NBA history between Steve Nash and Shaquille O'Neal but Tim Duncan and Dirk also had legitimate cases. (i will add my reasonings later tonight when I'm less busy)

POY

1. Tim Duncan

Duncan still has some RS health issues missing 16 Games this year, but he's still arguably the best RS player, and the spurs are arguably the best RS team. Tony and Manu have now hit their prime and the spurs have revamped their depth adding Brent Barry, Robert Horry Nazr Mohammed, and rookie Beno Udrih. Duncan has a very strong playoffs defensively where they win the finals and he gets his 3rd (and final) FMVP. Manu performs very well in the PO but duncan was doing more to help out Manu than the other way around and Duncan was the driving force of the defense. As previously mentioned, Duncan missed 16 games in 2005 and the spurs went from a 50-16 record (62-20 win pace) and a +11.2 NRTG (69 Win Pace) and a 97.8 DRTG (-8.3 rDRTG) with Duncan to 9-7 (46-36 record) with a -.8 NRTG (39-43 record) and a 104.5 DRTG (-1.6 rDRTG). Manu played in 13 of these games and his averages go from 16 ppg/ 3.9 apg/ 4.3 rpg with 2.4 tpg on 63 TS% (55.5 EFG%) and a +9.9 on court +/- per game in 29.7 mpg to 16.1 ppg/3.8 apg/ 5.2 rpg with 2.1 tpg on 52.7 TS% (44.6 EFG%) and a +5.7 on court +/- in 29.1 mpg and the spurs had a 8-5 record (51-31 pace) with a -.3 NRTG (40-42) and a 103 DRTG (-3.1 rDRTG) in those games. while yes the spurs are improved outside of duncan he is still the clear driving force

2. Dirk Nowitzki

yea dirk isn't super efficient in the PO but his team's offenses were and he's still the biggest driver of that by far and the teams leading scorer in the RS and PO and the Mavs are still a top 5 team and offense in the league despite the loss of Nash which i find impressive enough to give dirk the edge over shaq and nash in such a contested year.

3. Steve Nash

was gonna give the 3rd spot to shaq for the two way ability he has compared to nash but i forgot that shaq did miss 2 PO games and had a overall under whelming PO run due to injury. Nash finally breaks out in 2005 at the ripe ol age of 30 years old. Nash finally hits that superstardom tier in Phoenix leading a young talented team that struggled to succeed with Stephon Marbury (who always seemed to be on the wrong side of a team turning things around and finding success) to 62 wins (best in the league) and the second highest SRS and NRTG behind the Spurs, while being the best player on the suns in the PO where they made the WCF, Although Amar'e Stoudemire had a monster series in the WCF where they lost in 5 but Nash did have an all time series against Dallas, and was great in his own right against San Antonio.

4. Kevin Garnett

Giving KG the edge over shaq for missing 0 Games since Shaq had injuries derail him in the PO with how small the gaps are here

5. Shaquille O'Neal

HMs: Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James

OPOY

1. Steve Nash
2. Dirk Nowitzki
3. Kobe Bryant
HMs: Allen Iverson, Shaquille O'Neal

DPOY
1. Tim Duncan
2. Ben Wallace
3. Yao Ming?
HMs: Kevin Garnett, Shane Battier

[Djoker]

I re-watched Game 7 and Manu finished with an efficient 23 points but 6 of those points came in the final minute to ice the game. Duncan was the one who was constantly doubled and tripled and gave the others open looks from three. Manu just exploited the gaps that Duncan's presence created. And that's just the offensive end.

Do you think Duncan's FMVP was a good choice taking everything into account?

Yes I do. Duncan for me was the clear Finals MVP. Stats ignore that Duncan getting the defensive attention opened things up for everyone else. The Pistons' game plan was to stop Duncan; Manu and others just ate off of exploiting gaps. And then there's the other side of the floor where Duncan anchored one of the better defenses in history.

[AEnigma]

With regards to Nash, I think we have to take the offensive dominance with a bit of a reservation because the Suns were playing a very offensive style (both tactically and lineup-wise) and sacrificing defense for offense. Not saying what Nash was doing with the Suns wasn't impressive because it really was but compared to GOAT-level offensive anchors who produced similar or even slightly worse offensive ceilings on much better defensive teams, he has to be penalized just a bit IMO. In other words, there is a real argument that his teams were flawed and couldn't win in that era as constructed and/or schematically drawn.

Now look at what he did with Kurt Thomas the next year (or with the Dallas rotation in 2003). Just because he was often paired with one-way bigs does not mean they were particularly necessary or even inherently desirable roster construction.

And yeah, agree that if we took offensive rating at total face value then there were not even be a question. But plenty of rosters have been offensively skewed before, without achieving those same heights or typically even all too close.

[trelos6]

Wavering a bit on my #1 here, but want to be careful to be consistent with how I vote in 2007, where I also have Duncan and Nash as the top two players.

So open question — and this is automatically irrelevant for those who think 2007 Duncan > 2005 Duncan and 2005 Nash > 2007 Nash — is Nash’s RPoY case stronger this year, where he (rightly) won MVP, earned the 1-seed, and went to the conference finals but lost in a relatively uncompetitive five games (albeit with some teammate injury context) to the champion Spurs led by Finals MVP Duncan (although many argue Manu should have won), or in 2007, where he comes second in MVP voting and is a second round exit to the champion Spurs (Parker wins Finals MVP, and many argue Duncan should have won), but the series is much more competitive (reasonably could call it the “true” Finals) and arguably decided by some reactionary one-way suspensions which would only ever occur in this limited period immediately following Malice.

On Duncan’s side, I am comfortable saying Duncan’s regular season was better in 2007 and that in 2007 he did not have a teammate perform as well as Manu did in 2005; mixed on any other definite statements pertaining to that comparison.

I have Nash as my #2 behind Duncan in 2007, and he's my #4 behind Duncan, KG, Manu in 2005.

2005, Nash was 17 pp75, +7.7 rTS%. Team rOrtg of +8.4
2007, Nash was 19.8 pp75, +11.3 rTS%. Team rOrtg of +7.5

His defense was always net negative.

As a playmaker, I have him higher in 2007, and as a passer, it's basically the same.

In the playoffs, he was more of a scorer in 2005, and had better efficiency. But we're talking 11 to 15 games sample size vs 75 to 76 games in regular season. In 2007, he was more of a distributor in the playoffs.

In either year, they lost to the Spurs. 2005 was 4-1, 2007 was 4-2.

Duncan 05 to 07 was basically the same. Less volume, but more efficient in 07.

I think you can make the argument whichever way you want and still be consistent.

[One_and_Done]

Duncan's consistency is rather remarkable.

98-04 (before the touch rules change): 31.4pp100/17rp100/4.4ap100, 556 TS%, 109 Ortg/94 Drtg.

05-07 (after the touch rules change): 30.9pp100/17.2rp100/4.9ap100, 547 TS%, 110 Ortg/94 Drtg

I'm pretty sure I'll be continuing to vote Duncan #1 until 08, when he drops out of his prime. 08 is going to come down to KG/CP3/Lebron.