RealGM Top 100 List #5

E-Balla · Post #581 » by **E-Balla** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:14 am

For the runoff I'm going with Tim Duncan. Shaq is better peak wise and he has a slightly better prime but Duncan has a way better late career and he was less destructive to teams.

RayBan-Sematra · Post #582 » by **RayBan-Sematra** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:14 am

Baller2014 wrote:All I'm asking is to compare like for like when you ask "how would Duncan have done in Shaq's place?" So I compare them at the same age.

Which is illogical.
Rookie Duncan was older then Rookie Shaq.
If Duncan had his Rookie year in 93 he would still be the same age he was during his actual Rookie season.

If we are comparing Rookie Shaq to Rookie Duncan we compare them by looking at their Rookie seasons not by comparing Rookie Shaq to college Duncan.
If we want to speculate on how good Rookie Duncan would have been on the 93 Magic then we would slot in actual Rookie Duncan not use College Duncan.

If we are comparing 5th year Duncan to 5th year Shaq then we use their 5th years!

Sorry but I just cant for the life of me see any sense in going by age rather then season.

I guess you should dismiss Shaq's rookie year too then, since he didn't actually get to play in the playoffs then either. Come on, this is silly.

Bad comparison imo.
Rookie Shaq could have taken part in the playoffs had they been eligible.
I am not going to dock all points from a player who misses the playoffs due to team circumstance.

However if a player physically cannot take part in the playoffs then what value does he have? You can put that player on any team and he has no value.
You could put Rookie Shaq on a decent team and he'd be a big contributor in the playoffs.

colts18 · Post #583 » by **colts18** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:17 am

acrossthecourt wrote:

So LeBron has a prime from like '08 to '14 where he's a high level MVP-candidate type of player, typically winning the award or coming in second, he lifted some Cleveland teams to 60+ win marks, they fell apart without him, some playoff missteps but many fantastic performances ... that's the core of a highly rated player. Debate on the specifics in you want (some don't agree on his overall value), but with '09, '10, '12, '13, and '14, I feel like no one else matches that level of play.

Let's go over their careers in depth.

First off, I'm looking at 7 year prime (Shaq 96-02 Lebron 08-14):

Peak year:
00 Shaq vs 09 LeBron:
Both had brilliant regular season campaigns. Both teams won 66 games with ~9 SRS. Shaq had the better 2nd star (Kobe) but he only played 66 games. LeBron's 3-12 depth was much better. Supporting cast wise they were pretty equal. I'd say both of their RS were equal. Likely top 5 RS of all-time. RAPM had both of them easily as the best in their seasons. I made a case for both of them having GOAT peak

Shaq 2000 case (warning: long):

Spoiler:

LeBron 2009's case (Warning: Long post):

Spoiler:

Overall they both had dominant playoff runs too. LeBron's being better statistically but Shaq played much tougher defenses. For example both 2000 Phoenix and Portland had better D ratings than the 2009 Magic (who were #1 in 2009). The Hawks and Pistons clearly were weak defenses (though LeBron crushed them. He had a 44 PER against them)

Through the first 3 rounds, I have them tied. The tiebreaker is that Shaq had arguably the greatest finals in history. Averaged 38-17, 61 FG%. I'm not going to punish LeBron for not making the finals, but you can't reward him either.

Verdict: Slight advantage Shaq. At best its tied. the last RealGM project had Shaq as the #2 peak while LeBron was much further back.

Next best year:
01 Shaq vs 13 LeBron:
LeBron has the clear RS advantage. Playing level wise it was kind of close. Both had #1 RAPM, but Shaq did coast a bit. The advantage gets bigger when you factor that Shaq missed 9 games. 2013 LeBron was a brilliant RS. In the playoffs Shaq was obviously better. LeBron had a relatively down 2nd round vs. Chicago while Shaq dominated Sacramento. In the conference final, they were both destroyed good competition. LeBron had one of his top series vs Indiana. I'd give the slight edge to Shaq because his defense was better. Paul George torched LeBron in games 1-6 before LeBron shut him down in game 7. In the finals, it was definitely Shaq who was better. LeBron was clutch from games 4-7, but Shaq put up 33/16 against the DPOY. No one does that (except Shaq). While LeBron's team was all-time good in the RS, they declined in the playoffs. Shaq's team put up the greatest playoff run in history.

Verdict: Tied. Maybe really small advantage Shaq. LeBron's RS might be enough to overcome the playoff advantage of Shaq.

02 Shaq vs 12 LeBron:

Both had relative down RS. But Shaq was better when he actually played. Shaq did miss 15 games though. RAPM definitely has Shaq with the advantage. Shaq finished #1 in RAPM in 2002 (and xRAPM). LeBron did finish #1 in xRAPM but he did it with a smaller margin. In the playoffs, they both had great runs. I'd give LeBron the edge in the conference rounds. Both of them were awesome in the CF series, LeBron gets the edge because Shaq had a down series vs the Spurs while LeBron torched the Pacers. In the finals, Shaq gets the edge. LeBron played brilliantly in the finals. But Shaq had the most underrated finals. He put up 36/12/4, 64 TS% against the #1 defense in the league. The Lakers offense was like +17 in that series.

Verdict: Tied. Possible slight advantage for LeBron because of Shaq's missed games.

98 Shaq vs 14 LeBron:
Play wise, Shaq was better on a per game basis. Your RAPM sats had him at #1 this year. LeBron had a down year in RAPM and an awful defensive RAPM. But Shaq missed 22 games this year. That's enough to give LeBron the advantage. In the playoffs they were both brilliant once again. Shaq had a 31 PER while LeBron had 29 PER. Shaq dominated the 61 win Sonics. Against the Jazz, he was decent. 31/9, 56 FG%. LeBron had a solid series vs Brooklyn. Good series vs Indiana again. His finals was pretty good. I'd say the playoffs were tied this year

Verdict: Tied. This might have been Shaq's best non-2000 season but he did miss 22 games.

10 LeBron vs 96 Shaq:
10 LeBron was on the same level as 09 LeBron in the RS. 96 Shaq had a great impact in the RS, but he missed a lot of games. In the playoffs, Shaq was awesome against the 96 Bulls. He put up 27-11-4, 64 FG% against the greatest team in history. Penny played decent in the series but the rest of Shaq's cast was incompetent. LeBron had a great series vs the Bulls. Then had a great game 1-3 stretch against Boston. But he was bad from games 4-6. Shaq had the better playoff this year.

Verdict: Slight edge LeBron. LeBron's RS was so brilliant that I had to put him ahead even with Shaq having a better elimination series.

99 Shaq vs 11 LeBron:
This was a down RS for Shaq. His defense was inconsistent to say the least. RAPM had them roughly equal in the RS. 11 LeBron was down too. In the playoffs 11 LeBron was solid vs Boston and Chicago. Shaq destroyed Hakeem in the 1st round. Then had a decent series vs SA 24-13, 49 FG% but clearly a down series (2 assists vs 9 TOV). But Shaq's performance came against the greatest frontline in history (opposing centers averaged around 41 FG% vs them). LeBron had one of his worst series vs Dallas. Shaq's elimination series came against a 95 D rating team so adjusted for that it wasn't bad series while LeBron's series was awful.

Verdict: Tied. They are comparable down years. Shaq had the better playoff run once again but LeBron was more consistent in the RS.

Verdict: Tied. LeBron had the better RS while Shaq was better in the elimination series.

97 Shaq vs 08 LeBron:
97 Shaq was clearly one of Shaq's worst prime years though he was better in the playoffs. But against Utah he had his worst 96-02 series. 08 LeBron was decent in the RS but not on the levels of 09-14. In the playoffs his games 1 and 2 performance against Boston was awful. But games 3-7 was he amazing.

Verdict: 08 LeBron. Shaq played just 31 games and had his worst prime elimination series.

Based on that, it was really close. At best you give LeBron a slight advantage. I have it at Shaq 2, leBron 2, 3 tied. I don't see where LeBron had a clear advantage in that span. Even if he did, it doesn't make up for the rest.

Let's compare the rest of their careers

04: Shaq destroys LeBron here. Shaq was the best player this season on a per possession basis even though this was KG and Duncan at their greatest. LeBron was a rookie but his impact wasn't as great as it would become later.

Verdict: Shaq with a huge margin

05: Shaq finishes 2nd in MVP this year. I think he had the better regular season He turned the Heat around from marginal team to elite contender. Shaq's defense was better than LeBron's. Young LeBron wasn't the defensive player he would become later. Shaq had a pretty good playoff this year too. He played really good against a great Pistons defense.

Verdict: Shaq

06: You could certainly argue that Shaq had an equal impact to LeBron on a per game basis but Shaq misses 23 games. He did have a huge impact. The Heat were a 6 SRS team in the games he played and a negative SRS in the games he missed. Shaq was good against the 64 win Pistons defense. LeBron had an amazing series vs my Wizards. He tore us apart. LeBron was good vs Detroit but Shaq had a better series vs them. In the finals, Shaq had a down series. He averaged just 13/10. His FT shooting killed them in this series.

Verdict: Advantage LeBron. Can't ignore those missed games.

05+06: If you combine these two seasons, I have LeBron and Shaq tied. Each won 1 year.

07: Obviously LeBron. Shaq was out of shape this season and clearly declined. LeBron was brilliant vs the Pistons.

Verdict: LeBron by a giant margin.

I have them tied in 05+06 so lets compare 04 and 07. I'll compare their worst year (Shaq 07 LeBron 04) and best years (LeBron 07 Shaq 04)

07 Shaq vs 04 LeBron:
04 LeBron had average impact while Shaq was above average but Shaq played 40 games this year. 07 Shaq averaged 19/9 against Ben Wallace in the playoffs.

Verdict: advantage LeBron. Shaq was lazy this year and missed too many games

04 Shaq vs 07 LeBron
Shaq was clearly better. He missed 15 games but was better when he played. LeBron 07's regular season was down for his standards. In the playoffs he was awesome against the Pistons. But Shaq was awesome too in the western rounds. Shaq played the 04 Spurs D which had the best defense relative to league since the merger. He also played KG's best minnesota defense. Shaq outplayed Peak Duncan and Peak KG in the playoffs (No one else has done that). In the finals Shaq was pretty good against arguably the GOAT defense (04 Pistons). Shaq had a 60+ FG% against 4 time DPOY Ben Wallace. LeBron played a great D but he was awful. 35 FG% in that series and like 6+ TOV/game

Verdict: Shaq. Shaq was #2 this season behind KG.

In that span I have Shaq with a slight advantage overall.

Of course that doesn't include the rest of Shaq's career. here is a recap of that:
93- 23-14 (8th in xRAPM)
94- 29-13, 60 FG% (2nd in xRAPM)
95- 29-11, 58 FG% (2nd in xRAPM) (Plays peak Hakeem to a draw in the finals)

03- 28-11, 30 PER (Behind Duncan this year. He was tied with 03 KG to me. He slightly outplayed KG but it could be argued as a draw. Had a 32 PER vs the Duncan/Robinson frontline).

08-11: Last 4 years of Shaq's career. He made an all-NBA 3rd team in this span.

There is no way those 11 LeBron years can make up for Shaq having the 95 and 03 seasons where he was a top 3 player and 93 and 94 where he was top 5-10.

An Unbiased Fan · Post #584 » by **An Unbiased Fan** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:23 am

For all the talk about supporting casts, I decided to breakdown the efficiency differentials for Shaq & Duncan's team circa 98-07. Efficiency differential is how much better the team produced at the position for the year.

Code: Select all

-----------------------
1998 Lakers:
PG = +1.7
SG = +2.8
SF = +2.0
PF = -1.0
C = 9.6


1998 Spurs:
PG = -2.7
SG = -3.6
SF = -1.4
PF = +6.4
C = +15.4

-----------------------

1999 Lakers:
PG = -3.7
SG = +0.8
SF = +5.0
PF = -7.1
C = 13.2

1999 Spurs:
PG = -0.6
SG = +2.1
SF = -1.8
PF = +11.3
C = +6.0

-----------------------

2000 Lakers:
PG = -3.0
SG = +7.0
SF = +1.1
PF = -1.6
C = +16.6

2000 Spurs:
PG = -0.1
SG = +0.2
SF = -3.0
PF = +9.8
C = +7.8

-----------------------

2001 Lakers:
PG = -5.4
SG = +8.2
SF = -2.2
PF = -3.4
C = +12.7

2001 Spurs:
PG = -2.1
SG = +2.1
SF = -1.6
PF = +10.1
C = +8.7

-----------------------

2002 Lakers:
PG = -4.2
SG = +9.1
SF = -1.5
PF = +1.3
C = +10.5

2002 Spurs:
PG = -0.3
SG = +0.9
SF = -6.8
PF = +14.0
C = +3.9

------------------------

2003 Lakers:
PG = -6.5
SG = +11.4
SF = -2.3
PF = -2.9
C = +7.5

2003 Spurs:
PG = -0.4
SG = +1.6
SF = -6.6
PF = +10.9
C = +5.4

-------------------------

2004 Lakers:
PG = +2.8
SG = +3.2
SF = -3.7
PF = -1.2
C = +7.3

2004 Spurs:
PG = -0.2
SG = +8.3
SF = -3.5
PF = +11.0
C = +1.2

-------------------------

2005 Heat:
PG = -0.4
SG = +7.4
SF = -0.2
PF = -0.6
C = =8.9

2005 Spurs:
PG = +5.7
SG = +8.4
SF = -0.8
PF = +4.3
C = +0.1

-------------------------

2006 Heat:
PG = -1.5
SG = +9.7
SF = -6.6
PF = +1.1
C = +8.9

2006 Spurs:
PG = +3.9
SG = +6.5
SF = -0.3
PF = +4.9
C = +1.3

-------------------------

2007 Heat:
PG = -1.1
SG = +5.6
SF = -0.9
PF = -2.3
C = +0.7

2007 Spurs:
PG = +6.1
SG = +8.1
SF = -3.3
PF = +9.6
C = -1.1

RayBan-Sematra · Post #585 » by **RayBan-Sematra** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:24 am

GC Pantalones wrote:Duncan has a way better late career.

That reallyyy isn't true though.

Duncan by 2010 had 12 quality years.
Shaq by 2004 had 12 quality years.

Let us compare their last 3 quality years from those spans.

02-04 Shaq : 25 / 13 / 3apg / 3bpg on 57%TS --- (27.3 PER)
08-10 Tim : 20 / 12 / 3apg / 2bpg on 51%TS --- (22.0 PER)

Then Duncan had 2 more decent/good years from 12-13 but he wasn't better then Shaq from 05-06.
Then Duncan has his 2014 season which isn't that much better then Shaq was in 07/09.

Either way the above facts show that Shaq was clearly a better performer down the stretch of his career.
His 10th, 11th and 12th quality years were far better then Duncans and his 13th and 14th were better also.
Duncan has a minor edge in 15th but that is nothing compared to the massive advantage Shaq has over the prior 5 years.

Hope you will consider my post.

magicmerl · Post #586 » by **magicmerl** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:25 am

RayBan-Sematra wrote:
Baller2014 wrote:All I'm asking is to compare like for like when you ask "how would Duncan have done in Shaq's place?" So I compare them at the same age.

Which is illogical.
Rookie Duncan was older then Rookie Shaq.
If Duncan had his Rookie year in 93 he would still be the same age he was during his actual Rookie season.

Do you think it makes Shaq look better being compared to Duncan as a rookie. Because I don't think that's a comparison that people supporting Shaq would want to make.

Shaq showed enormous promise as a rookie and you could see glimpses of the player he would become. But Duncan already WAS that player as soon as he stepped into the league.

RayBan-Sematra wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:Duncan has a way better late career.

That reallyyy isn't true though.

Duncan by 2010 had 12 quality years.
Shaq by 2004 had 12 quality years.

I replied to this on the previous page, but if you didn't see it, here it is:

Spoiler:

ceiling raiser · Post #587 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:29 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:For all the talk about supporting casts, I decided to breakdown the efficiency differentials for Shaq & Duncan's team circa 98-07. Efficiency differential is how much better the team produced at the position for the year.
Code: Select all
----------------------- 1998 Lakers: PG = +1.7 SG = +2.8 SF = +2.0 PF = -1.0 C = 9.6 1998 Spurs: PG = -2.7 SG = -3.6 SF = -1.4 PF = +6.4 C = +15.4 ----------------------- 1999 Lakers: PG = -3.7 SG = +0.8 SF = +5.0 PF = -7.1 C = 13.2 1999 Spurs: PG = -0.6 SG = +2.1 SF = -1.8 PF = +11.3 C = +6.0 ----------------------- 2000 Lakers: PG = -3.0 SG = +7.0 SF = +1.1 PF = -1.6 C = +16.6 2000 Spurs: PG = -0.1 SG = +0.2 SF = -3.0 PF = +9.8 C = +7.8 ----------------------- 2001 Lakers: PG = -5.4 SG = +8.2 SF = -2.2 PF = -3.4 C = +12.7 2001 Spurs: PG = -2.1 SG = +2.1 SF = -1.6 PF = +10.1 C = +8.7 ----------------------- 2002 Lakers: PG = -4.2 SG = +9.1 SF = -1.5 PF = +1.3 C = +10.5 2002 Spurs: PG = -0.3 SG = +0.9 SF = -6.8 PF = +14.0 C = +3.9 ------------------------ 2003 Lakers: PG = -6.5 SG = +11.4 SF = -2.3 PF = -2.9 C = +7.5 2003 Spurs: PG = -0.4 SG = +1.6 SF = -6.6 PF = +10.9 C = +5.4 ------------------------- 2004 Lakers: PG = +2.8 SG = +3.2 SF = -3.7 PF = -1.2 C = +7.3 2004 Spurs: PG = -0.2 SG = +8.3 SF = -3.5 PF = +11.0 C = +1.2 ------------------------- 2005 Heat: PG = -0.4 SG = +7.4 SF = -0.2 PF = -0.6 C = =8.9 2005 Spurs: PG = +5.7 SG = +8.4 SF = -0.8 PF = +4.3 C = +0.1 ------------------------- 2006 Heat: PG = -1.5 SG = +9.7 SF = -6.6 PF = +1.1 C = +8.9 2006 Spurs: PG = +3.9 SG = +6.5 SF = -0.3 PF = +4.9 C = +1.3 ------------------------- 2007 Heat: PG = -1.1 SG = +5.6 SF = -0.9 PF = -2.3 C = +0.7 2007 Spurs: PG = +6.1 SG = +8.1 SF = -3.3 PF = +9.6 C = -1.1

Just wondering, what is the efficiency stat used here?

MisterWestside · Post #588 » by **MisterWestside** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:38 am

fpliii wrote:In a runoff, my pick is Tim Duncan. Not the same offensive force as Shaq, but superior consistency rebounding/defending, which is what I need to see from bigs. Shaq's longevity is underrated, but Duncan gets the edge in terms of post-prime production IMO. Even without complete 01/02 RAPM, from the rest of the dataset and from watching both guys their entire careers, I feel confident taking Timmy at this point in time.

Both are very good picks here, and I have absolutely no issue with Shaq being voted in at #5. There's not much separating guys here.

Intesting choice, flpiii. Do you prefer the higher-ceiling of Duncan and O'Neal over what someone like the more versatile Garnett brings to the table? Or were there other aspects that you considered?

RayBan-Sematra · Post #589 » by **RayBan-Sematra** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:41 am

magicmerl wrote:I replied to this on the previous page, but if you didn't see it, here it is:

I didn't see it but now that I have examined your method I can't say that I agree with it.
I mean 98 Shaq was a monster. Probably the best player in the league that year.
Not considering that a quality year because of regular-season games missed... well I can't agree with that.

When I look at quality years I want a certain level of impact which should carry over into the playoffs.
Usually around All-Star level. The player has to have a certain level of significance to his team.

Kobe in 00 wasn't a Super-Star nor was he in a leading role but he was putting up solid All-Star level numbers with the impact to match it. I consider that a quality year for him.

Duncan in 2011 was injured.
His defense wasn't up to its usual standards and he only put up 12 / 10 in the playoffs on horrid efficiency.
That doesn't cut it. Not a quality year.

Considering that I give Duncan almost every season of his career minus 00 for injury and 11 for injury/poor play I certainly don't feel I am being unkind to him in my comparison.

Baller2014 · Post #590 » by **Baller2014** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:42 am

Maybe if Duncan had better team mates like Shaq, he could have just taken the first round off and helped the Spurs in the 2nd round of 2000. Seriously, it's weird that you want to discount that entire year from Duncan's resume, just because he had a 2-3 week injury at the end of the season.

An Unbiased Fan · Post #591 » by **An Unbiased Fan** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:43 am

fpliii wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:For all the talk about supporting casts, I decided to breakdown the efficiency differentials for Shaq & Duncan's team circa 98-07. Efficiency differential is how much better the team produced at the position for the year.
Code: Select all
----------------------- 1998 Lakers: PG = +1.7 SG = +2.8 SF = +2.0 PF = -1.0 C = 9.6 1998 Spurs: PG = -2.7 SG = -3.6 SF = -1.4 PF = +6.4 C = +15.4 ----------------------- 1999 Lakers: PG = -3.7 SG = +0.8 SF = +5.0 PF = -7.1 C = 13.2 1999 Spurs: PG = -0.6 SG = +2.1 SF = -1.8 PF = +11.3 C = +6.0 ----------------------- 2000 Lakers: PG = -3.0 SG = +7.0 SF = +1.1 PF = -1.6 C = +16.6 2000 Spurs: PG = -0.1 SG = +0.2 SF = -3.0 PF = +9.8 C = +7.8 ----------------------- 2001 Lakers: PG = -5.4 SG = +8.2 SF = -2.2 PF = -3.4 C = +12.7 2001 Spurs: PG = -2.1 SG = +2.1 SF = -1.6 PF = +10.1 C = +8.7 ----------------------- 2002 Lakers: PG = -4.2 SG = +9.1 SF = -1.5 PF = +1.3 C = +10.5 2002 Spurs: PG = -0.3 SG = +0.9 SF = -6.8 PF = +14.0 C = +3.9 ------------------------ 2003 Lakers: PG = -6.5 SG = +11.4 SF = -2.3 PF = -2.9 C = +7.5 2003 Spurs: PG = -0.4 SG = +1.6 SF = -6.6 PF = +10.9 C = +5.4 ------------------------- 2004 Lakers: PG = +2.8 SG = +3.2 SF = -3.7 PF = -1.2 C = +7.3 2004 Spurs: PG = -0.2 SG = +8.3 SF = -3.5 PF = +11.0 C = +1.2 ------------------------- 2005 Heat: PG = -0.4 SG = +7.4 SF = -0.2 PF = -0.6 C = =8.9 2005 Spurs: PG = +5.7 SG = +8.4 SF = -0.8 PF = +4.3 C = +0.1 ------------------------- 2006 Heat: PG = -1.5 SG = +9.7 SF = -6.6 PF = +1.1 C = +8.9 2006 Spurs: PG = +3.9 SG = +6.5 SF = -0.3 PF = +4.9 C = +1.3 ------------------------- 2007 Heat: PG = -1.1 SG = +5.6 SF = -0.9 PF = -2.3 C = +0.7 2007 Spurs: PG = +6.1 SG = +8.1 SF = -3.3 PF = +9.6 C = -1.1

Just wondering, what is the efficiency stat used here?

There's a stat called efficiency which estimates general production. Gives a decent ballpark figure. http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fa ... iffeff/7-1

acrossthecourt · Post #592 » by **acrossthecourt** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:48 am

Okay, after some thought, I'm going with what my gut instincts told me at first and picking Tim Duncan right now.

I remember how Shaq and Duncan were perceived back then, and it seemed strange to consider Duncan was better. But I think because Duncan is less flashy and is more of a defensive player, he gets massively underrated sometimes. Looking at their peaks, like their best five or three seasons, best playoffs in a five year chunk, and MVP shares, Duncan and Shaq are a lot closer than I thought. PER overrates Shaq because it ignore defense besides shotblocking and rebounding, and Duncan's better in the more fundamental aspects of the game on that end of the court. RealGM's POTY award shares are very useful here too, as Duncan has a bit of a lead: remember this is only including top five players and it heavily focuses on the playoffs. Win Shares ... they're close too. Ditto for RAPM in terms of peaks.

There are a handful of truly special defensive teams besides Russell's Celtics. Duncan's on one of them in 2004 ... and that was after David Robinson retired. That's a remarkable fact few discuss. Duncan's definitely a key and highly important factor in one of the most consistent and potent defenses ever.

After the 2014 season, I'm pretty confident in saying Duncan edges him in longevity. (You can cite PER all you want, but Duncan does better in Win Shares because it distributes defensive credit. The problem with that is it distributes the credit evenly ... Duncan should actually get more credit.) Shaq's character problems are overstated, but we're comparing him to Duncan, who's a delightful teammate. I give very little weight to that type of stuff, but it's another small edge going to Duncan, along with Shaq missing more games per season, which hurts his team's seeding.

It's really close though. These next few votes are tough.

RayBan-Sematra · Post #593 » by **RayBan-Sematra** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:48 am

Baller2014 wrote:Maybe if Duncan had better team mates like Shaq, he could have just taken the first round off and helped the Spurs in the 2nd round of 2000.

Kind of a silly statement since it is pretty obvious the 00 Lakers could not have advanced to the 2nd round without Shaq on the squad.
That team was painfully thin outside of Shaq & Kobe and Kobe was still not ready for a leading role.
His numbers that year in games Shaq missed were terrible (he did better in future years).

Seriously, it's weird that you want to discount that entire year from Duncan's resume, just because he had a 2-3 week injury at the end of the season.

It isn't silly.
If a player gets injured before the playoffs then what value does he have?

Can you name me a single team good enough to lose a player of Prime Duncans caliber which could still contend or even advance without him.
Even if such teams do exist they are probably pretty rare.

The point is if your best player cannot suit up for the playoff then he doesn't hold much value.
Infact he may be a negative because said team will have played their whole year in a system involving that player so removing him like that would probably throw the team into disarray without time to adjust.

Baller2014 · Post #594 » by **Baller2014** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:57 am

Plenty of Shaq's teams could have advanced to the 2nd round without him. Not all, but some. Heck, in 2005 it was abundantly clear the Heat could have won the 2nd round series without him (he missed 2 games and they were fine, and he was limited to 31mpg in the next two). Flip it around too, in some of the years Shaq was hurt imagine he was on Duncan's teams? Those teams probably outright miss the playoffs in years Shaq is missing 20 games.

Nobody is giving Duncan points for the 2000 playoffs, because of course he had an untimely injury that resulted in him missing the 1st round (and thus the whole playoffs), but to claim we should give him 0 points for his entire 2000 regular season just seems totally unobjective. You're not suggesting we give Shaq zero points for his rookie year where, technically, he did not play in the playoffs.

ceiling raiser · Post #595 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:59 am

MisterWestside wrote:
fpliii wrote:In a runoff, my pick is Tim Duncan. Not the same offensive force as Shaq, but superior consistency rebounding/defending, which is what I need to see from bigs. Shaq's longevity is underrated, but Duncan gets the edge in terms of post-prime production IMO. Even without complete 01/02 RAPM, from the rest of the dataset and from watching both guys their entire careers, I feel confident taking Timmy at this point in time.

Both are very good picks here, and I have absolutely no issue with Shaq being voted in at #5. There's not much separating guys here.

Intesting choice, flpiii. Do you prefer the higher-ceiling of Duncan and O'Neal over what someone like the more versatile Garnett brings to the table? Or were there other aspects that you considered?

My original pick was actually Hakeem:

viewtopic.php?p=40508180#p40508180

but Duncan is my pick in a runoff (not by a huge margin, Shaq is a good pick here I think too). I'm not sure how I feel about Garnett vs Duncan, it's a very tough pick for me. GOAT (or close) horizontal game defensively, vs a guy who can create for himself in the low post, and is a better paint protector (and no slouch in terms of mobility).

ceiling raiser · Post #596 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:01 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:There's a stat called efficiency which estimates general production. Gives a decent ballpark figure. http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fa ... iffeff/7-1

Oh, I see. From the glossary:

NBA Efficiency recap = ((Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks) - ((Field goals attempts - Field goals made) + (Free throws attempts - Free throws made) + Turnovers))

Looks like it's a box score metric, but without weights.

An Unbiased Fan · Post #597 » by **An Unbiased Fan** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:06 am

fpliii wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:There's a stat called efficiency which estimates general production. Gives a decent ballpark figure. http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fa ... iffeff/7-1

Oh, I see. From the glossary:

NBA Efficiency recap = ((Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks) - ((Field goals attempts - Field goals made) + (Free throws attempts - Free throws made) + Turnovers))

Looks like it's a box score metric, but without weights.

Yeh its a pure production metric. Just a good way to gauge how the production on a team brokedown.

Post #598 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:12 am

Just got in. If everyone is okay with Baller2014's numbers, then we have a runoff:

Shaq v. Duncan

I will post the winner tomorrow night, after 6PM (and hopefully before midnight).

magicmerl · Post #599 » by **magicmerl** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:22 am

So for me this comes down to Peak vs Career. I think if you value peak more then Shaq is your man. If you value whole career or longevity then Duncan wins out.

Here's Winshares and WS/48 for peaks
Shaq00 18.6 .283 (led the league)
Shaq01 14.9 .245
Shaq02 13.2 .262
Shaq03 13.2 .250
vs
Dunc02 17.8 .257 (led the league)
Dunc03 16.5 .248 (led the league)
Dunc04 13.1 .249
Dunc05 11.2 .245
Note Shaq's generally higher WS/48 numbers, so even though he missed more time than Duncan, he was generally more effective when he was out there.

And of course, Winshares plus WS/48 for their whole careers
Shaq 181.7 .208
Dunc 191.6 .211

drza · Post #600 » by **drza** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:31 am

(ETA: Pen started the run off while I was typing this. I'll still leave the post as is for posterity)

I don't know for sure if we're in the runoff yet or not, but I realized that I never made my first vote. So:

Vote Kevin Garnett

KG is very arguably the best defensive player left on the board. His length/quickness ratio, combined with his outstanding pick-and roll defense, combined with his defensive IQ and middle linebacker ability, combined with the fact that he makes this contribution as a pure 4 (meaning he could play next to any kind of center, and centers usually bring defensive presence as well) make him the prototype for the ideal defensive player for the modern NBA.

KG is a legitimate Hall of Fame caliber offensive player. He does it unique ways, but his offensive impact is huge. His court awareness, passing ability and desire to involve teammates puts him on the short list with peak Bill Walton as among the best high post offensive engine bigs in league history. Similarly, his metronome accuracy on the 15 to 20 foot jumper lends his offenses the best big man spacing effect short of Dirk Nowitzki. And that doesn't factor in his ISO scoring ability...he'll never compare to most of the super elite as an ISO scorer, but he was still very good on that front.

I could go further, but this will do for now. Vote: Kevin Garnett