Kareem vs Duncan, Peak impact and functional longevityThere's been some discussion thus far about Kareem vs Duncan in this thread, but to me it's been very shallow. Boxscore only, not much attempt to look at impact. ThaRegul8tr's Duncan leadership post and Blackmill's Kareem video mantage upped the game, though, to me. We can do better than just a broad boxscore-based comparison. So, let me give some thoughts.
The RPoY Project: ImpactThe Retro Player of the Year project in 2010 made a huge impact on me. I'd never gone that in depth, for that period of time, about so much of NBA history. Going into that project, if asked, I'd have probably said that Russell was overrated due to ringzz, that Wilt was underrated because he just didn't have enough help, and that not only was Kareem way better than Walton, but that Kareem may very well have been my GOAT.
One of the parts of that project that really stood out to me was the 1978 and 1977 seasons, and the discussions around Kareem and Walton. Again, going in, my default was that Kareem was clearly better. At the time, I tended to find it annoying that Walton was even mentioned with Kareem. But then, there was the discussion. And this guy named ElGee made a post that didn't change my vote at the time (I voted Kareem over Walton both years), but that stuck with me. Both Kareem (1978) and Walton (1977 and 78) had missed significant time in those years, and ElGee put together this post pointing out that when both were injured at that time, the Walton-less Blazers played at a similar level as the Kareem'-lessLakers. But, when both were healthy, the Blazers with Walton played WAY better than the Lakers with Kareem. He made a comp of the points scored and allowed, in both situations, and the difference was huge in Walton's favor.
When I voted in that project, I defaulted to the idea that Kareem was better than Walton in every way in the boxscores, and that he could do just about everything that Walton did at a high level (strong defender, great passer for a big) but on top of that he was a dominant scorer, so Kareem had to be the better player, right?
Only...why did Walton seem to measure out with the much higher impact, both right at their peaks?
RPoY Project II: scouting notes vs Blackmill's excellent videoBlackmill just delivered a mic drop of a post about Kareem's skillset, on both offense and defense, using video evidence as support. It was great stuff, illuminating stuff, showing how Kareem could his frankly unprecedented length/quickness combo on defense to show on perimeter players, play passing lanes, and recover to block shots at the rim. He truly was a marvelous player.
But. (You knew there was a but coming).
Blackmill pointed out that much of his footage of Kareem as an active defender in space came from an All Star game, and I note the language that he used:
3. With capable teammates, Kareem was able to be much more active on help defense.
The last point is particularly important. It can be observed in the 1977 playoffs that the Lakers routinely failed to help the helper when Kareem rotated. Samurai, a poster who you may know for his insights and having watched much of Kareem's career, made this observation several years ago:
[...]Washington gave LA the big power forward to battle someone like Lucas and give Kareem an enforcer in much the same way that Lucas helped Walton. KAJ could be more active in help defense, switch off, and chase bigs who could shoot outside because he knew that Kermit was there to grab the rebound.[...]
Blackmill's contention (and correct me if I misrepresent it), is that Kareem had the skillset to be that defender in space all of the time at his peak. BUT, that since he didn't have the support he needed (either in team talent, or in another big like Kermit) that
Kareem didn't often take advantage of those in-space defensive skills in the actual NBA games. That's huge, and goes hand-in-hand with Doc MJ's scouting notes from game film of the 1977 Finals, where he pointed out that thought yes, Kareem was dominating as a scorer and was doing amazing things overall, that Walton was the one defending all over the court (massive horizontal, team-help defense) while Kareem's defense was relegated primarily to action in the paint/near the rim. (Similarly, I'd argue, Walton was a full-time offensive hub with his passing ability. Kareem had excellent passing ability, but never used it to that same extent).
This becomes, to me, a HUGE point in the debate about just how much impact Kareem was having at his peak. I believe it was Doc MJ, in one of the projects through the years, that asked: if Kareem was as good as or better than Walton at every skill, how could he possibly not be the better player? But the answer, to me, comes down to how those skills are deployed.
Kareem, in his prime/peak years, was an all-history scorer (both volume and especially efficiency) around that unstoppable hook, who (in practice) was a great rim protector/rebounder and an excellent passer for a center. Walton, at his peak, was an all-history defensive big who was a primary offensive hub/creator for his team as a passer and a merely adequate scorer. Kareem may have had the skills to play the way that Walton did on defense and as a passer full-time (as indicated, perhaps, by Blackmill's videos)...BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT HE ACTUALLY PLAYED! Not full time. And that's worth noting, and circling in our minds.
Back to WOWY, at peakI mentioned the genesis of ElGee's WOWY work from the RPoY project, but of course he went on to develop it in much more detail across NBA history. As such, I can reference that work and find single-year WOWY runs, across multiple seasons during their peak years, for each of Kareem, Walton and Duncan. Let's take a look:
Kareem 1975 (16 games missed): SRS in 2.6, SRS out -4.5
Kareem 1978 (20 games missed): SRS in -3.4, SRS out -1.7
Duncan 2004 (10 games missed): SRS in, 8.5; SRS out, 5.3
Duncan 2005 (12 games missed): SRS in, 9.3; SRS out, -1
Walton 1977 (16 games missed): SRS in, 7.8; SRS out, -2.6
Walton 1978 (10 games missed): SRS in, 9.4; SRS out, +1
ElGee went through and calculated his WOWY score for each run, but I honestly don't have the greatest handle on that process so I'll abstain from quoting the scores themselves (though Walton's and Duncan's were both higher, here).
But, just looking at the raw data for these runs, two seasons each, right around each of their peaks...
both Walton and Duncan seemed to be having significantly larger impacts on their team's fortunes at their peaks than Kareem did. At least, by this one measure. But, in many ways it's the best impact data available from the pre databall era, especially since each missed significant time during peak years so that the measure could be made.
Put it together...what does this suggest about Kareem's peak + trends from databallSo, what am I left with, here:
1) Kareem, in his prime, had elite skillsets across the board (thanks, Blackmill vids)
2) Kareem, in his prime, put up scoring (volume and efficiency) numbers at an all-Mt. Rushmore level.
3) Kareem, in his prime, put up excellent rebounding, blocked shot and assist numbers as well
4) However, while Kareem had the ABILITY to be an elite horizontal defender and possibly offensive hub as a passer from the center position, in PRACTICE he tended to be more of a vertical defender around the rim and to pass as more of a secondary role, not as a big man team offense initiator
5) Kareem's (all-everything scorer, strong defender, strong big man passer) peak impact as estimated by 2 seasons in which he missed extended time was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the peak impact estimates of Tim Duncan (all-everything defender, strong scorer, strong big man passer) or Bill Walton (all-everything defender, all-everything big man offense hub with passing, adequate scorer)
6) From the databall era, identified trends indicate that big man defense and big man team-offense-running as passing hub both correlate strongly with huge impact. Both defense and passing, in fact, correlate more with big man positive impact than high efficiency scoring.
When I put that all together, it starts to get pretty convincing to me that in their primes, while Kareem was clearly the better scorer with excellent all around boxscore stats, that Duncan was frankly just the more impactful player. In their primes.
Late career Kareem vs Duncan (and Garnett): functional longevity
Kareem (years 13 - 18): 30.6 pts/100 (61% TS), 10.4 reb, 1.1 stl, 2.7 blk, 4.1 ast, 3.7 TO (33 mpg)
Duncan (years 13 - 18): 27.3 pts/100 (55% TS), 16.6 reb, 1.2 stl, 3.3 blk, 4.9 ast, 3.2 TO (29 mpg)
Garnett (years 13 - 18): 26.8 pts/100 (56% TS), 14.2 reb, 2.0 stl, 1.7 blk, 4.6 ast, 2.8 TO (31 mpg)
I put these boxscore per 100 numbers up to have something quantitative, but obviously it doesn't tell the whole story. It does give some support to my following statements, though:
1) Kareem was still clearly the best scorer of this group. Slightly more volume on much better efficiency
2) Duncan and Garnett were far better defenders. The rebounding helps show this. But, I don't really think it's a controversial statement. Duncan and Garnett were inner-circle, best in the NBA level defenders during this period. Kareem wasn't
3) If my premise from their primes holds merit...that despite Kareem's dominant scoring with strong defense and strong passing, Duncan's dominant defense with strong scoring and strong passing was of more impact (likely due to dominant defense tending to be higher impact than dominant scoring for bigs), then in their later years when these tendencies were even stronger...wouldn't that suggest that Duncan's impact difference was even larger than it was in their primes?
And this is year's 13 - 18...by years 19 and 20, Kareem had clearly dipped further. Duncan also dipped for year 19, his last. And Garnett did as well, when he went to Brooklyn. So, I'd argue that year 18 is a reasonable end point for each of their functional longevity. And really...to that point, I'd argue that BOTH Duncan and Garnett were at least as effective as Kareem out to that mark. And really, more so with their defensive dominance.
