Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #13-#14 Spots

[homecourtloss]

14. Draymond Green - 2016 - Paired with Curry to form the best duo of the era, complement one another damn near perfectly. A pretty decent secondary offensive piece even when his shot isn't on, this season he was outright into fringe allstar level on offense with his shot going in. Best defender of his mini era. Extremely impressive PO performance, cooking Harden with Curry injured, and a bigtime Game 7 in the Finals. May have been a bit higher if he didn't rack up so many techs.

15. Jayson Tatum - 2024 - Led an all-time team as their best offensive player, arguably their most valuable defender as well. No top tier impact areas, but good at everything I can think of.

Vote
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015.

Good to see Draymond getting traction this early. I’m also glad to see Tatum get a nod as well—the career impact impact he has had in both the regular and post seasons and the best player on an all time great team has to mean something.

As for Manu, he’s really in a unique spot in NBA history, so difficult to determine. Views on how valuable his peak was have changed since 2022 when 21 players from the time period were looking at were voted in ahead of him even though we had access to all the current impact metrics back then for him. https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2238364

At this point, I wonder if some other all-around versatile players could have been used differently minutes wise like Manu was, but to do so, you’d have to have an ATG anchor like Duncan on the team. There are some interesting cases of players ramping up for the playoffs playing reduced minutes and producing some gaudy box and impact numbers on a per possession basis doing this,

[Doctor MJ]

In 2003 and 2004, Duncan is much better than Manu. There's no need to look at WOWY for those seasons IMO.

From 2005-2008 is where it's more debatable.

2005-2008 Spurs WOWY

Without Duncan (24 games): 13-11 W-L, -1.8 MOV
Without Ginobili (40 games): 27-13 W-L, +4.4 MOV

Not the end all be all by any means but food for thought...

So first let me say that just generally I'd expect Duncan to look better than Ginobili here because I think Duncan generally was the more valuable player, so I'm not really looking to push back.

But I do think it's worth noting that Duncan only missed one extended period of time in that entire run, the 12 game span from 67-78 in '04-05.

In that span the Spurs went 8-4, which at least superficially matches what we see with Ginobili.

But we should also consider Ginobili's minutes.
In the playoffs Ginobili would play 30+ minutes in 18 of 23 games.
In the 12 game span, he only played 30+ minutes 5 times - with the Spurs winning all 5 of those games.

Just another case of it being really hard to evaluate what Ginobili was capable of, because he didn't get used like stars normally get used.

Ginobili didn't get used the way stars usually do... so isn't that a reason to question whether he was a bonafide star? Surely there is a reason he wasn't used more. Maybe injuries, conditioning, Pop somehow being completely clueless (this reason I don't buy...) or a combination of the above?

I mean, you're asking that first question as if it isn't already a known thing at the start of the analysis. Every single one of us knows how Ginobili was viewed and assessed by the consensus of the day.

But I feel like what you're really dealing is caution us with questions about authority: You really think you know better than the consensus of the day? You really think you know better than the experts? You really think you know better than Pop?

To those questions generally my answer would be: It's not about me knowing better than them, it's about me trying to make sense of the information in front of me. I've been known to say from time to time, "I think X knows more than me and so where we disagree, he's more likely to be right, but that doesn't mean I can authentically claim X's thinking as my own."

But I'd also say specifically: This is not a case of me claiming I knew better than consensus at the time, nor is it the case of me coming in for the first time way after the fact and saying "WTF, this dumb!" to all that came before.

Rather, this is about a continued journey that I've been on from back then to right now. The seeming contradictions we're talking through right now were largely visible to us 20 years ago, and so what's changing there is the fact that we got to see a decade plus of further experiments to give us a better impression of what was really real.

In 2005 Ginobili's huge +/- data was interesting, but there were good reasons to be concerned about whether it really indicated something that would sustain, but sustain it did.

In 2005 it was considered not just reasonable but obvious that if you had a guy like Duncan, you would run your offense through him, so what would we even be advocating for when it comes to Ginobili? In the time since, we've had the greatest offensive revolution in any of our lifetimes and it was specifically based on NOT playing through interior post scorers.

As a result I start asking questions along the lines of: If the Spurs weren't actually elite on offense playing this way, and we know that in the future no one is playing this way, on what basis would we say it wasn't a mistake to play this way? Is the counter simply "But they won chips, so it's all good."?

I have to stop here, but I'm going to respond later to the next post to talk more about the discomfort with people saying someone like Pop understood some things but not others twenty years ago.

[70sFan]

13. 2014/15 Chris Paul (HM: 2013/14, 2007/08)

Alright, I have many thoughts about this choice. I struggle with Paul because of his injuries and I am very hard on the availability (the most important skill). At this point though, I just don't believe we have anyone left with a more robust impact profile. By all accounts, Paul looks like an absolute all-timer and if you try to find holes in his skillset, you'll quickly realize that it's basically impossible to put him further on the list at this point. He's everything you want from your point guard - remarkable floor general, elite at controlling pace, top tier passer, very smart decision maker. He's also one of the best P&R player ever. The way he leveraged his top tier midrange game made this play basically impossible to defend.

Although some people suggest that his tendency to control everything on the court limits team's ceiling, I have never seen any indicator that would suggest so. He also fit really well with guys you'd not expect (like Griffin) and for all the talk about the lack of synergy with Harden (which tells more about Harden than him in my opinion), they still accomplished some remarkable feats.

I decided to go with a better shooting and better defensive version of Paul over the more athletic NOH version. Although sometimes overrated, I value Paul's defense a lot. His size limits the impact he can have on that end, but some of his strengths (reading the game, quick hands, pick dodging) are on an all-time level and you can't just ignore that.

I know that the season didn't end well for the Clippers in 2015. Paul also missed some games and it definitely hurts his case. The problem is that without all these issues, I'd probably put Paul inside top 10. I don't see any reason to punish him more at this point, he's too good.

14. 2005/06 Steve Nash (HM: 2004/05, 2006/07)

Steve Nash is by far the best offensive player left (or best, period?) and I just don't believe that the defensive edge the other players have over him is enough to put him below. Nash is basically a perfect offensive player with the only very minor drawback that his size provides... but that didn't stop him from being absurdly effective. Probably top 3 shooter, passer and ball-handler ever. Remarkable transition player. Maybe the best ever at penetrating defenses and finding holes in them.

Why not higher? I think his defense is very problematic. I know some may point out the good things he did (like charges) or that the Suns were still plenty successful with him on the court, but if I believe otherwise, he wouldn't compete for my top 15. Everything between his size, lateral quickness, strength, length screams a bad defender and he's very exploitable in the playoffs on that end.

15. 2019/20 Anthony Davis (HM: 2022/23, 2017/18)

It's one of the hardest, if not the hardest player to rank for me. Davis is theoretically a perfect player to thrive on my list, as I love two-way bigs (showed by very high ranking of Duncan, Garnett and Giannis in this project). He also has a very consistent pattern of improving his game in the postseason, which I also value heavily.

So the question is - why only #15?

I just can't find any justification to put him higher due to the RS data we have from his whole career. Davis is the kind of player whose RS boxscore numbers heavily overvalue his actual impact. He's not good enough defensively on consistent basis to be a one-man defense like Duncan or Garnett and his offense is heavily reliant on guards creating for him, not the other way around. It's very clear when you look at his impact metrics, WOWY numbers etc. Davis just wasn't MVP-level player in the RS.

This is when his postseason translation comes to play. He can't lead the team to top tier results by himself, but if you give him a good playmaker and smart coach, he becomes extremely valuable in postseason setting. His defensive versatility allows him to play basically any scheme you want, him playing off perimeter creators creates very natural fit and his off-ball rim pressure opens up the game a little bit more in rough moments.

I also don't think too much about shooting variance here. When I am not sure about it, I just look at the other top seasons of considered player and think if I push him that high (or close to it) without outlier sample. Davis is tough, because he doesn't have many great RS performances, but I'd definitely consider 2018 Davis at this point and if I look at his 2023 postseason run, it can compete with anyone left in my opinion. 2020 is even better than that, but I scale it a little bit and that gives me Davis at 15th spot in the end.

16. 2013/14 Kevin Durant (HM: 2015/16, 2012/13, 2016/17)

I know some people prefer GSW Durant with his absolutely insane postseason efficiency and interesting defensive fit, but I see no reason to believe that Durant became a better player.

This is where I land on him, though I can see him finishing a little bit higher.

[tone wone]

I'll just say the bold here has everything to do with why 2005 is a different animal in the Duncan vs Ginobili comparison than what things typically were.

I believe Duncan was generally the more valuable player, but when the coach insists on an approach that was already sub-optimal for offensive scheme even when the player he built it around is pretty clearly not himself, the player's offensive impact ends up effectively inversely proportional to his production volume.

Honestly, if the Spurs hadn't won the title, Duncan's sub-standard play while coming back from injury is what people would have taken away from that playoffs. They were already talking in those terms during the playoffs, but when the Spurs got that chip, gradually all of that discussion faded away and 2005 became "another Duncan championship" in the minds of people looking at it all.

I think even if someone agrees with Manu being better than Duncan in 05 it doesn't necessarily mean he must be on a ballot right now. We've kind of argued this to death in this thread and it's like that in itself doesn't even mean be should or must be rated above guys like CP3, AD, etc. So I'll leave it at that. I think most people have already voted anyhow so if there's more Manu discussion to be had in the next thread we can continue it there or perhaps not.

Very entertaining read. But whether or not Ginobili was better than Duncan in 2005 is kinda worthless in a discussion about the best peaks of the last 24yrs. Simply because given his late season injuries, 2005 Duncan might not even be a top 15 big man season of the last 24yrs.

Stop bringing up Duncan and explain how a guy who had NONE of the superstar burdens (usage, offense or defense responsibility, minutes) peaked higher than guys who did.

[70sFan]

Voting results

Votes:

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        "trelos6": ["Chris Paul", "Kevin Durant", "Steve Nash", "Anthony Davis"],
        "One_and_Done": ["Kevin Durant", "Luka Doncic", "Chris Paul" , "Steve Nash"],
        "lessthanjake": ["Steve Nash", "Manu Ginobili", "James Harden", "Chris Paul"],
        "DraymondGold": ["Chris Paul", "Kevin Durant", "Steve Nash", "James Harden"],
        "homecourtloss": ["Chris Paul", "Kevin Durant", "James Harden", "Steve Nash"],
        "TrueLAfan": ["Kevin Durant", "Manu Ginobili", "Chris Paul", "Steve Nash"],
        "Doctor MJ": ["Kevin Durant", "Steve Nash", "Manu Ginobili", "Draymond Green"],
        "LA Bird": ["Chris Paul", "Steve Nash", "James Harden", "Manu Ginobili"],
        "Djoker": ["Kevin Durant", "Anthony Davis", "Steve Nash", "Chris Paul"],
        "iggymcfrack": ["Chris Paul", "Manu Ginobili", "Draymond Green", "Anthony Davis"],
        "Joao Saraiva": ["Dwight Howard", "Kevin Durant", "Steve Nash", "Anthony Davis"],
        "Jaivl": ["Kevin Durant", "Anthony Davis", "Steve Nash", "Chris Paul"],
        "eminence": ["Chris Paul", "Draymond Green" , "Jayson Tatum", "Steve Nash"],
        "Cavsfansince84": ["Anthony Davis", "Luka Doncic", "James Harden", "Kevin Durant"],
        "70sFan": ["Chris Paul", "Steve Nash", "Anthony Davis" , "Kevin Durant" ]

Number of voters: 15

Best Kemeny score:

Spoiler:

1. Chris Paul
2. Kevin Durant
3. Steve Nash
4. Anthony Davis
5. James Harden
6. Manu Ginobili
7. Draymond Green
8. Luka Doncic
9. Dwight Howard
10. Jayson Tatum
Kemeny score: 356

Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #13-#14 Spots:

#13. 2014/15 Chris Paul



#14. 2013/14 Kevin Durant

[Doctor MJ]

Ginobili didn't get used the way stars usually do... so isn't that a reason to question whether he was a bonafide star? Surely there is a reason he wasn't used more. Maybe injuries, conditioning, Pop somehow being completely clueless (this reason I don't buy...) or a combination of the above?

He intuitively knew that Manu would not hold up playing over 30mpg and would excel as a 6th man and he was right. I think it's as simple as that. What stands out about that is how many guys who were as good as Manu was would accept a career role like that? Not too many. So I don't really hold that against him, I think he did it for the good of the team and trusted Pop. Plus he was already 25 by the time he got over so was probably eager to do w/e it took to get playing time and then he wins titles right away so that prob reinforced that it was a good thing for him in the long run.

So to me this raises questions of how any human being can intuitively know the sustained endurance capacity by watching them anecdotally. I'm skeptical they can.

Now, I would like to see a data analysis of Ginobili with splits that might give us an indicator of his play degrading, say, over the course of any given shift or any other larger duration. I'm not saying that can't exist by any means, and to the extent it does, it may indeed seem like Pop and his staff got this precisely right.

But I don't think this is actually how things were playing out.

I think that the Spurs' staff saw the way Ginobili went all out putting body on the line in situations where it wasn't worth risking his body in their assessment - such as practice - and deciding that this meant that they had to conserve his minutes over the course of a season not because he got tired, but because his playing style risked injury.

This might not seem like a meaningful distinction to others, but I think it's a big deal in part because it means that the actual MPG they played Ginobili was incidental to why they played him sparingly when they could. If they were just playing their estimation of the odds minimizing the amount of chances they took where Ginobili get injured in games they didn't really need to win.

To be clear, this doesn't mean Ginobili shouldn't be able to be knocked for playing less minutes, but it does mean that assessment of Ginobili's minutes isn't based on him having mysteriously poor cardio endurance compared to the rest of the NBA, which frankly just seems weird to me. People with naturally high motor tend to develop that kind of endurance naturally in my experience.

Also to be clear: This is not the same concern as whether the Spurs should have been using a more perimeter-based offense in Ginobili's early years, but it also isn't entirely unrelated. Even if you think a perimeter-based offense is generally the way to go, if you don't think you have any perimeter star ready and able to drive the offense for sufficient minutes, you might end up siding with an interior-based offense.

[Cavsfansince84]

So to me this raises questions of how any human being can intuitively know the sustained endurance capacity by watching them anecdotally. I'm skeptical they can.

Now, I would like to see a data analysis of Ginobili with splits that might give us an indicator of his play degrading, say, over the course of any given shift or any other larger duration. I'm not saying that can't exist by any means, and to the extent it does, it may indeed seem like Pop and his staff got this precisely right.

But I don't think this is actually how things were playing out.

I think that the Spurs' staff saw the way Ginobili went all out putting body on the line in situations where it wasn't worth risking his body in their assessment - such as practice - and deciding that this meant that they had to conserve his minutes over the course of a season not because he got tired, but because his playing style risked injury.

This might not seem like a meaningful distinction to others, but I think it's a big deal in part because it means that the actual MPG they played Ginobili was incidental to why they played him sparingly when they could. If they were just playing their estimation of the odds minimizing the amount of chances they took where Ginobili get injured in games they didn't really need to win.

To be clear, this doesn't mean Ginobili shouldn't be able to be knocked for playing less minutes, but it does mean that assessment of Ginobili's minutes isn't based on him having mysteriously poor cardio endurance compared to the rest of the NBA, which frankly just seems weird to me. People with naturally high motor tend to develop that kind of endurance naturally in my experience.

Also to be clear: This is not the same concern as whether the Spurs should have been using a more perimeter-based offense in Ginobili's early years, but it also isn't entirely unrelated. Even if you think a perimeter-based offense is generally the way to go, if you don't think you have any perimeter star ready and able to drive the offense for sufficient minutes, you might end up siding with an interior-based offense.

Ok but what is bolded is exactly what I was referring to. I just didn't feel like it all needed to be typed out. By intuitively, I was referring to Pop seeing that he was better suited for low mpg due to his playing style and honestly I thought most people on here were familiar with the story anyhow. I wasn't really trying to insinuate that he was incapable of playing higher mpg due to a Bobby Jones type situation which would be well known anyhow if it were true. This is the age of the internet afterall and a lot of us have been following the league for decades.

[Doctor MJ]

So to me this raises questions of how any human being can intuitively know the sustained endurance capacity by watching them anecdotally. I'm skeptical they can.

Now, I would like to see a data analysis of Ginobili with splits that might give us an indicator of his play degrading, say, over the course of any given shift or any other larger duration. I'm not saying that can't exist by any means, and to the extent it does, it may indeed seem like Pop and his staff got this precisely right.

But I don't think this is actually how things were playing out.

I think that the Spurs' staff saw the way Ginobili went all out putting body on the line in situations where it wasn't worth risking his body in their assessment - such as practice - and deciding that this meant that they had to conserve his minutes over the course of a season not because he got tired, but because his playing style risked injury.

This might not seem like a meaningful distinction to others, but I think it's a big deal in part because it means that the actual MPG they played Ginobili was incidental to why they played him sparingly when they could. If they were just playing their estimation of the odds minimizing the amount of chances they took where Ginobili get injured in games they didn't really need to win.

To be clear, this doesn't mean Ginobili shouldn't be able to be knocked for playing less minutes, but it does mean that assessment of Ginobili's minutes isn't based on him having mysteriously poor cardio endurance compared to the rest of the NBA, which frankly just seems weird to me. People with naturally high motor tend to develop that kind of endurance naturally in my experience.

Also to be clear: This is not the same concern as whether the Spurs should have been using a more perimeter-based offense in Ginobili's early years, but it also isn't entirely unrelated. Even if you think a perimeter-based offense is generally the way to go, if you don't think you have any perimeter star ready and able to drive the offense for sufficient minutes, you might end up siding with an interior-based offense.

If we agree, that's great!

But I will reiterate that this explanation means that Pop really had no idea what Ginobili's body could handle, he was just trying to minimize the chances of injury in unimportant situations. This raises the question of why we would want to decide who the better player is based on who played more when things didn't matter.
Ok but what is bolded is exactly what I was referring to. I just didn't feel like it all needed to be typed out. By intuitively, I was referring to Pop seeing that he was better suited for low mpg due to his playing style and honestly I thought most people on here were familiar with the story anyhow. I wasn't really trying to insinuate that he was incapable of playing higher mpg due to a Bobby Jones type situation which would be well known anyhow if it were true. This is the age of the internet afterall and a lot of us have been following the league for decades.

[Cavsfansince84]

But I will reiterate that this explanation means that Pop really had no idea what Ginobili's body could handle, he was just trying to minimize the chances of injury in unimportant situations. This raises the question of why we would want to decide who the better player is based on who played more when things didn't matter.

No one ever really knows exactly how much minutes any guy can handle. For the most part I just give a player credit for how many minutes they actually played in a given season. So yes it's been raised re Manu whether he could be a #1 guy in the way that other guys getting voted could but its obviously not a question that can be easily answered either way so I give him credit for playing 30mpg in the rs and around 35 in the playoffs. I think he could prob play like 33-34 but I don't think his per minute stats are going to hold up quite as well. Plus it's harder to do all of that while taking 15-17fgapg rather than the 10.5 he took in 05 which he might have to do not playing next to someone like Tim.