RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #5 — 2003 Tim Duncan

[f4p]

well it's definitely substantial. it's a 10% difference. and more pronounced from whatever a replacement level is, since just existing on the court means you will score a little. like kris dunn was 13 pp100 this past season. i don't know what other people are at, but let's call a guy who the defense purposely leaves open replacement level. so it's more like 22.6 pp100ARP for hakeem and 19.3 pp100ARP for duncan, so a 17% difference.

My question was more, is this a stylistic difference which is relevant to the conversation? His scoring peak is higher in volume, but that's not really an end in and of itself.

even when duncan theoretically had less help like 2002 and 2003, he was still right at 32.2 pp100 in the playoffs while 94 and 95 hakeem is up another level to 38.2 pp100. even upping the scoring when he had more offensive help in drexler.

Sure, but what about IA75?

94 and 95 Olajuwon were at 26.3 and 27.3 IAPTS75 w +3.7 and +2.0% rTS, at least the RS. 02-04 Duncan was fairly similar, at 26.5, 25.1 and 26.3 IAPTS75, at +5.6, +4.5, and +1.8% rTS.

What about it? I posted playoff stats. Hakeem is 19% ahead. 1995 has a 108.3 ORtg and 2003 has a 103.9. that's 4%. I'm assuming IA in the playoffs would therefore show Hakeem with like a 15% advantage?

And to be fair, he had a pretty rough Game 7 in the 94 Finals, which they won primarily because New York was so much more profoundly worse on offense.

I mean yeah I didn't say hakeem never had a bad game. Which is why I specifically showed full series for Duncan (or the last 4 games after having a 2-0 lead in 2004). Hakeem really only has the 1990 first round until his age 33 season where Seattle relentlessly double teams in a way no one ever even did to even prime Duncan. And then hakeem goes right back to 59% shooting at age 34 in the playoffs. We just don't see hakeem struggle.for whole series, especially with length like the wallaces, Shaq, pau, and Chandler.

He was pretty tepid against the Suns in the 95 WCS, and then obviously beat the piss out of the Spurs. But he actually had his worst series of those two postseasons against Shaq and the Magic in terms of efficiency (51.4% TS), bombing a lot of Js and failing at the line because he couldn't really bully Shaq the same way he did to D-Rob and Ewing. He had a good overall series with his D and his passing and rebounding, and he floated huge volume, but he was at -3.7% relative to league postseason average, which wasn't good at all. And of course Shaq was crushing it, but couldn't expand his volume enough to make up for how poorly his supporting cast played (especially Scott and Anderson). Meantime, Drexler was excellent and they got 18/10 out of Horry.

Yeah but Shaq was holding Duncan to like 25% shooting per 70sFan tracking. And i think the tracking numbers have Shaq guarding Hakeem for like double digit shots per game. If Hakeem has only managed 25% on those shots,the rockets would have lost.

But again, Olajuwon had some rough times which get glossed over because of the end result, as I noted above, as do most players. MJ, Shaq, Duncan, all of them.

Those guys arguably have the fewest hard times of any 3 players I can think of. Well, I haven't done a series by series deep dive on shaqs.shooting but he's basically like 11 straight years of dominant playoff stats so probably not too many struggles. And if there are, it would probably be limited.to a spurs teams with not one, but two all time defensive big men.

and while it's hard to fault his overall 2002 WCSF where he averaged 29/17, he still shot 42.5% for the series and couldn't really score on shaq at all, whereas hakeem still managed volume and better efficiency and forced doubles against 1995 shaq.

Did he, though? You're talking about 0.7% TS difference between Duncan and Olajuwon, and Duncan was facing an older Shaq who was also considerably larger. And Shaq posted 48.7% in the 02 WCS, versus the 60.6% he posted in the 95 Finals. And O'neal shot 63.9% from the foul line against the Spurs, and STILL struggled with that horrible efficiency, but shot 57.1% against Olajuwon. The difference was the raw FG%, where he was obliterating the Rockets.

So I don't know that it's a series you really want to entirely hold against Duncan and up for Olajuwon.

But Shaq guarded Duncan much less in 2002 than he did Hakeem in 1995 by the tracking we have. Hard to say why, given Shaqs immense success against Duncan, but seems safe to say Duncan would have struggled even more if guarded as much as Hakeem was.

[70sFan]

I mean yeah I didn't say hakeem never had a bad game. Which is why I specifically showed full series for Duncan (or the last 4 games after having a 2-0 lead in 2004). Hakeem really only has the 1990 first round until his age 33 season where Seattle relentlessly double teams in a way no one ever even did to even prime Duncan.

I mean, that's not true:

1985 vs Jazz: 21.2 on 49 TS%
1986 vs Celtics: 24.7 on 53 TS%

Hakeem also played 23 series in 1985-96 period you are talking about (a lot of which are 1st rounders against mediocre competition), while Duncan played 32 series in 1998-10 period with more long runs. It is easier to find holes in bigger samples against better opponents.

Hakeem was more resilient postseason scorer than Duncan, but you overstate the gap by a considerable margin.

And then hakeem goes right back to 59% shooting at age 34 in the playoffs. We just don't see hakeem struggle.for whole series, especially with length like the wallaces, Shaq, pau, and Chandler.

We literally saw Hakeem struggling against Shaq, he didn't face the rest.

Yeah but Shaq was holding Duncan to like 25% shooting per 70sFan tracking. And i think the tracking numbers have Shaq guarding Hakeem for like double digit shots per game. If Hakeem has only managed 25% on those shots,the rockets would have lost.

26% to be precise, it is true but it is also on 4 shots per game only. I don't think you geniuely believe that Shaq would accomplish that in extended time for double digit shots per game.

Hakeem shot 41% against Shaq in 1995 but on over 18 attempts per game. The sample size is so much different that I wouldn't put much value in this comparison. Note that Hakeem also faced smaller and weaker version of Shaq.

But Shaq guarded Duncan much less in 2002 than he did Hakeem in 1995 by the tracking we have. Hard to say why, given Shaqs immense success against Duncan, but seems safe to say Duncan would have struggled even more if guarded as much as Hakeem was.

I don't think it's that safe to say, considering that:

1. Shaq would have to avoid foul trouble, which is easier against Olajuwon who relied heavily on fadeaway jumpshot.
2. The Lakers could pick spots for Shaq against Duncan, facing him in 4th quarters when Duncan did the heavy lifting for over 30 minutes of play.
3. 1995 Shaq was less disciplined and smaller than 2000s Shaq.
4. Hakeem faced considerably more help from his teammates in 1995 finals.

[VanWest82]

00Shaq (there is no alternative year)
67Wilt (>66>64>62)
Gap
62Russell (60>59>64)

Notes:

-No, I'm not just copying Djoker

-I like early Russell when the pace was faster and he got to play with Cousy who both made life a little easier for him on the offensive end and helped illustrate why Russell was such a fantastic defender able to guard all areas of the court. But mainly, it was the combination of throwing great outlet passes and then still somehow outrunning guys down the court that made him a two way threat. As soon as he (and overall pace) slows down in the mid-60s, he's just not as effective offensively.

I've shared this before but Celtics rORTG byyear: -4.4 ('57), -0.8 ('58), -0.7 ('59), -0.1 ('60), -3.4 ('61), -1.5 ('62), -2.9 ('63), -4.5 ('64), -3.7 ('65), -2.6 ('66), +1.4 ('67), -0.9 ('68), -1.7 ('69). Some have quibbled with the bballref numbers in the past. I still find it interesting that in 61, 63, and 64 Bill's efficiency is down and so is Celtics' rORTG compared to the surrounding years. His rebounding on the offensive end was too good to claim he was ever really a net negative on that end, but I haven't seen the case as to why Russell was such a dramatically better defender in the mid-60s onward as to make up for his loss in efficiency. I agree it looks like he became a better passer. It's too bad we don't have turnover numbers to better discuss passing. In short, I find it difficult to talk about this era (and 70s) with any level of certainty due to lack of tape and data. That said, I'm pretty sure Wilt peaked higher than Bill even though Russell was the more accomplished winner, and I have some level of (dis)comfort picking Bill as a bigger outlier than the next guy (one of Hakeem, KG, Duncan, Jokic, Magic), mainly due to competition but part of that is because Wilt and Russell were just way, way better. In other words, Bill's z-score impact was probably higher than the next guys on my list even though we don't have the data to measure it well.

-I'm probably coming across as a Duncan hater at this point (cause he beat Nash a bunch so screw the Spurs and the horse they rode in on!), but I really don't like the narrative that Duncan was basically dragging that early 00s roster to 55-60 wins every year. That team was good (and occasionally great) because of its defense, and its defense was great because of the twin towers set up. Also, I find it interesting that Robinson had the better regular season on court NRTG in 99, 01, 02, and 03. Duncan was the better player at that point, especially at the end, but Robinson often took the harder assignments and still acted as a co-rim protector. He was a star player in his role hiding in plain sight. And just as a general comment, I findattempts to drag HOF teammates in order to prop up other HOFers to be really distasteful. We don't need to do that. Duncan's case is really good all on its own!

[70sFan]

And just as a general comment, I findattempts to drag HOF teammates in order to prop up other HOFers to be really distasteful. We don't need to do that. Duncan's case is really good all on its own!

First of all, I definitely agree with this point and it's very typical on this board recently. I saw a lot of discussion about who played with the worst supporting cast and how terrible this and that team truly was, as if that helps candidate's case at all.

In Duncan's case, I think it's caused by consistently repeated opinion that Timmy always played with top tier supporting casts and always had it easy, which is definitely not the case for his peak years. That is why some of his defenders sometimes go too much to the opposite direction.

I'd just add that Robinson definitely added significant contribution to these great defensive teams, but we haven't seen an downgrade after his retirement, so it at least suggests that the Twin Towers concept wasn't really the key for the Spurs defensive success.

[VanWest82]

And just as a general comment, I findattempts to drag HOF teammates in order to prop up other HOFers to be really distasteful. We don't need to do that. Duncan's case is really good all on its own!

First of all, I definitely agree with this point and it's very typical on this board recently. I saw a lot of discussion about who played with the worst supporting cast and how terrible this and that team truly was, as if that helps candidate's case at all.

In Duncan's case, I think it's caused by consistently repeated opinion that Timmy always played with top tier supporting casts and always had it easy, which is definitely not the case for his peak years. That is why some of his defenders sometimes go too much to the opposite direction.

I'd just add that Robinson definitely added significant contribution to these great defensive teams, but we haven't seen an downgrade after his retirement, so it at least suggests that the Twin Towers concept wasn't really the key for the Spurs defensive success.

I think it was the key for the most part, but then Spurs added Rasho, Horry, and Hedo (underrated defender in the beginning) in 04. Plus Manu, another underrated defender, makes a mini-leap that year. Combine with the fact that 03 was easily the weakest year of Robinson's career and it's easy to see why they were able to maintain a top defense beyond Duncan being just awesome.

Edit: it'd be a little like saying that because Spurs had a great defense in 96, it suggests adding Duncan wasn't really the key to Spurs defensive success in 98 once both those guys were playing together.

[Ol Roy]

1. David Robinson: 1994 (1995>1996)

He led his team in assists, led the league in points, and was arguably the best defender in the league. Rodman swallowed up some of his rebounds, otherwise he probably would have led that too.

2. Kevin Garnett: 2004 (2003>2005)

MVP. Similarly dominant in all facets of the game. Led the league in points and rebounds. Over 5 APG.

Further explanations on these two from the previous thread:

Spoiler:

In the last thread, I decided to introduce David Robinson to the discussion. I'm going to expand a little on my thinking at this point of the voting process.

First, while my occasional posts on this forum usually involve defending an older player from hyperbolic diminishment of their abilities, I actually do have a bit of a preference for post-merger players.

Second, I also have a preference for bigs who dominate both offensively and defensively. In my view, Jordan and James are the only wings who have been able to break out of that value ceiling dominated by the two-way big men, and that's largely due to their own outlier athletic traits.

In narrowing down the best two-way bigs of the post-merger NBA (minus Kareem, who was just selected), we're left with a high tier of greats (in sequential order of debut): Olajuwon, Robinson, Garnett, and Duncan. I believe the differences between them are marginal, so I take no umbrage with how they are ranked.

When I'm evaluating them, I look at how they performed, and I also look at their situation and whether they were optimized. It's subjective, but I attempt to balance their attributes with the context. To lay it on the table, I don't believe Robinson was ever properly utilized in his prime. I don't believe Olajuwon was properly utilized until after he was 30. Ditto Garnett. I believe Duncan, while not perfectly utilized, had by far the best situation of the quartet.

So, I tend to pair Robinson and Garnett together. I view them as the best combinations of athleticism and BBIQ. I don't view their playoff exits as personal failings, but the final exhaustion of the extent that they could make their poorly constructed teams overachieve. They did a tremendous amount of carrying. Both were good passers, though Garnett was better. Both were good shooters, though Garnett was better.

Two areas that put the Admiral a bit ahead for me. One, his rim pressure. Robinson was fouled on 58% of his shot attempts. He was no flopper. That's the same frequency as Shaq (I'll use him for comparison here), and much, much higher than KG, Tim, and Hakeem. From the data we have, roughly 94% of Shaq's recorded shots came within 10 feet of the rim, while 62% of Robinson's recorded shots came within 10 feet.

Let's assume 90% of Robinson's shooting fouls came within 10 feet. I think that's fair. That means 85% of his shot attempts within 10 feet resulted in fouls. Using the same formula, we'd find that Shaq was fouled on 61% of his shot attempts within 10 feet. And while Shaq was a 53% FT shooter, Robinson knocked them down 74% of the time.

I think this tells us that Robinson was a generational finisher, and teams were helpless if he got free. Which is why teams had no choice but to double team him. Because the Spurs didn't have a great facilitator, Robinson's finishing ability was underutilized. Because the Spurs didn't have another scoring threat or particularly good outside shooting, that made those doubles unpunishable. Despite that, look at what he did. This is some of that context I mentioned.

OK, the other differentiator between Robinson and Garnett is their style of defense. Both were mobile, and both protected the rim. But while Garnett was a better perimeter defender, Robinson was a better rim protector and that is more valuable. He also had tremendous hands. Only Hakeem is the better stocks compiler; he and David stand above the rest.

Others are going to go into more detail with KG, his skills and team deficiencies, and I look forward to it!

2. David Robinson: 1994 (1995>1996)

He led his team in assists, led the league in points, and was arguably the best defender in the league. Rodman swallowed up some of his rebounds, otherwise he probably would have led that too.

3. Kevin Garnett: 2004 (2003>2005)

MVP. Similarly dominant in all facets of the game. Led the league in points and rebounds. Over 5 APG.

Coming up next: Olajuwon, then Duncan.

Why did I rank those two lower? No slams here. Again, I'm trying to distinguish on the margins. I have Hakeem a little bit lower on the BBIQ scale and Tim a little lower on the ability scale.

3. Tim Duncan: 2003 (2002>2004)

Great two-way impact culminating in a championship, just as Robinson was heading out and Parker and Manu were coming in. The prior year was about the same, but didn't feature this great playoff run. Not too much to add to what others have already said.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

And just as a general comment, I findattempts to drag HOF teammates in order to prop up other HOFers to be really distasteful. We don't need to do that. Duncan's case is really good all on its own!

First of all, I definitely agree with this point and it's very typical on this board recently. I saw a lot of discussion about who played with the worst supporting cast and how terrible this and that team truly was, as if that helps candidate's case at all.
.

I feel like you're being kind of fake here. Like if a player's teammates aren't that good then them winning anyway probably means they're better. Like no offense but this feels like just trying to be politically correct lol.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

Yeah it's the same vote guys. Sorry for being boring lol.

1 - 2002 Tim Duncan
2 - 1962 Bill Russell
3 - 1987 Magic Johnson

Weird thing about this vs the retro thing is that you keep putting the same players and years so it feels strange to just write a whole new thing for them. So I guess I'll just say I'm using 2002 Duncan because his stats are better than 2003 Duncan and I feel like the main reason people would say 03 is because he won but I really don't want to be the type of voter who is like well this guy won so he's better. I also feel like it's really strange to say Shaq was more dominant or whatever in 2002 when Duncan literally scores more on higher TS while also being a way better defender and it turns out Shaq is actually worse when Duncan is defending him instead of Robinson?

Some people really can't get over the scoring thing with Russell but 5 MVPs and won 11 titles and his team wasn't stacked for alot of that so I feel like if this is going to be all time peaks he has to be high even though I can't tell you with a straight face I think he'd be that good today or whatever.

Honest I'm having second thoughts on Magic and was thinking maybe Steph or KG or Shaq or Jokic because elpolo did a great job actually talking about Magic as a player but i feel like just dropping him because he doesn't do defense would kind of go against me voting Bill Russell who also is kind of um bad-looking if you just think of it in terms of like 2k attributes.

Also to be real I feel like these debates are making me lower on Shaq like really? Duncan has alot more points and higher TS than Shaq in the 2002 matchup but instead we're just talking how this makes him worse than Hakeem who already got voted? Also I feel like the whole Shaq was elite defender in 2000 thing is looking pretty bad right now tbh and seems like guys are just hiding behind the 2nd in DPOY vote lol

[70sFan]

And just as a general comment, I findattempts to drag HOF teammates in order to prop up other HOFers to be really distasteful. We don't need to do that. Duncan's case is really good all on its own!

First of all, I definitely agree with this point and it's very typical on this board recently. I saw a lot of discussion about who played with the worst supporting cast and how terrible this and that team truly was, as if that helps candidate's case at all.
.

I feel like you're being kind of fake here. Like if a player's teammates aren't that good then them winning anyway probably means they're better. Like no offense but this feels like just trying to be politically correct lol.

It's not that, I just see in recent years a lot of contests of who has the weakest supporting cast. Everybody is trying to convince the rest that a given player had no help etc.

I personally don't see that much of a value in such discussions. These days, I just prefer discussing skills and actual performances.

[70sFan]

And just as a general comment, I findattempts to drag HOF teammates in order to prop up other HOFers to be really distasteful. We don't need to do that. Duncan's case is really good all on its own!

First of all, I definitely agree with this point and it's very typical on this board recently. I saw a lot of discussion about who played with the worst supporting cast and how terrible this and that team truly was, as if that helps candidate's case at all.

In Duncan's case, I think it's caused by consistently repeated opinion that Timmy always played with top tier supporting casts and always had it easy, which is definitely not the case for his peak years. That is why some of his defenders sometimes go too much to the opposite direction.

I'd just add that Robinson definitely added significant contribution to these great defensive teams, but we haven't seen an downgrade after his retirement, so it at least suggests that the Twin Towers concept wasn't really the key for the Spurs defensive success.

I think it was the key for the most part, but then Spurs added Rasho, Horry, and Hedo (underrated defender in the beginning) in 04. Plus Manu, another underrated defender, makes a mini-leap that year. Combine with the fact that 03 was easily the weakest year of Robinson's career and it's easy to see why they were able to maintain a top defense beyond Duncan being just awesome.

Edit: it'd be a little like saying that because Spurs had a great defense in 96, it suggests adding Duncan wasn't really the key to Spurs defensive success in 98 once both those guys were playing together.

Let's just start with the statement that no player, no matter how awesome, can make your team -9 on defense alone. That's very obvious that the Spurs were a talented defensive team in 2004 and nobody should deny that.

At the same time though, I don't see the 1996 Spurs analogy. First of all, the Spurs improved quite notably on defense with the addition of rookie Duncan (which is the inverse of the 2004, situation). Secondly, I'd agree that Duncan wasn't the best or most important defensive player in 1998 Spurs team.

[One_and_Done]

First of all, I definitely agree with this point and it's very typical on this board recently. I saw a lot of discussion about who played with the worst supporting cast and how terrible this and that team truly was, as if that helps candidate's case at all.

In Duncan's case, I think it's caused by consistently repeated opinion that Timmy always played with top tier supporting casts and always had it easy, which is definitely not the case for his peak years. That is why some of his defenders sometimes go too much to the opposite direction.

I'd just add that Robinson definitely added significant contribution to these great defensive teams, but we haven't seen an downgrade after his retirement, so it at least suggests that the Twin Towers concept wasn't really the key for the Spurs defensive success.

I think it was the key for the most part, but then Spurs added Rasho, Horry, and Hedo (underrated defender in the beginning) in 04. Plus Manu, another underrated defender, makes a mini-leap that year. Combine with the fact that 03 was easily the weakest year of Robinson's career and it's easy to see why they were able to maintain a top defense beyond Duncan being just awesome.

Edit: it'd be a little like saying that because Spurs had a great defense in 96, it suggests adding Duncan wasn't really the key to Spurs defensive success in 98 once both those guys were playing together.

Let's just start with the statement that no player, no matter how awesome, can make your team -9 on defense alone. That's very obvious that the Spurs were a talented defensive team in 2004 and nobody should deny that.

At the same time though, I don't see the 1996 Spurs analogy. First of all, the Spurs improved quite notably on defense with the addition of rookie Duncan (which is the inverse of the 2004, situation). Secondly, I'd agree that Duncan wasn't the best or most important defensive player in 1998 Spurs team.

The 2004 Spurs replaced D.Rob's minutes with Rasho, Horry, and Hedo. If D.Rob was still some kind of elite defensive player, that's a huge downgrade. Of course, I don't think he was. Among those guys Hedo is a horrendous defender, Horry is ok when he's locked in (i.e. not the regular season), and Rasho is meh (good help side defender, weak man defender). Tony Parker started at point guard, he certainly wasn't a strong defensive player. Manu and Bowen were great defensively, though Rose was extremely overrated on that end.

The Spurs were obviously great defensively in 04, but I don't know that you can attribute that to their support cast. It was overwhelmingly driven by Duncan (who was likely the Spurs best player defensive in 98 also).

[70sFan]

I think it was the key for the most part, but then Spurs added Rasho, Horry, and Hedo (underrated defender in the beginning) in 04. Plus Manu, another underrated defender, makes a mini-leap that year. Combine with the fact that 03 was easily the weakest year of Robinson's career and it's easy to see why they were able to maintain a top defense beyond Duncan being just awesome.

Edit: it'd be a little like saying that because Spurs had a great defense in 96, it suggests adding Duncan wasn't really the key to Spurs defensive success in 98 once both those guys were playing together.

Let's just start with the statement that no player, no matter how awesome, can make your team -9 on defense alone. That's very obvious that the Spurs were a talented defensive team in 2004 and nobody should deny that.

At the same time though, I don't see the 1996 Spurs analogy. First of all, the Spurs improved quite notably on defense with the addition of rookie Duncan (which is the inverse of the 2004, situation). Secondly, I'd agree that Duncan wasn't the best or most important defensive player in 1998 Spurs team.

The 2004 Spurs replaced D.Rob's minutes with Rasho, Horry, and Hedo. If D.Rob was still some kind of elite defensive player, that's a huge downgrade. Of course, I don't think he was. Among those guys Hedo is a horrendous defender, Horry is ok when he's locked in (i.e. not the regular season), and Rasho is meh (good help side defender, weak man defender). Tony Parker started at point guard, he certainly wasn't a strong defensive player. Manu and Bowen were great defensively, though Rose was extremely overrated on that end.

The Spurs were obviously great defensively in 04, but I don't know that you can attribute that to their support cast. It was overwhelmingly driven by Duncan (who was likely the Spurs best player defensive in 98 also).

As I said, you can't be -9 defense without elite defensive team. Duncan was the most important defender on that team without any doubts, but the Spurs still had 99.4 DRtg in 13 games Duncan missed, which would still put him in the top 5. I don't think they'd be able to keep that level for the whole season without Duncan, but it certainly isn't a worthless sample.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think there is a weird disconnect in the last couple threads where they are turning into pseudo goat career arguments which I don't really understand. Taking Russell for instance, I am very high on Russell and view him as a clear top 4 player of all time but that does not mean that I think he must have had a top 7 peak for instance because the highest bar that can be cleared in a single season is a title. So 11 titles in a career doesn't mean more than 2 in a given year. Also, if Duncan had continued at his 02-04 pace for another 4-6 years I think we'd have a goat tier that includes him in it. I'm also seeing very little argument for specific years that people are voting for which seems kind of strange. It just seems like very vague arguments being made that lack clarity. That's my .02 as someone who is checking on the threads every so often.

[AEnigma]

I think there is a weird disconnect in the last couple threads where they are turning into pseudo goat career arguments which I don't really understand. Taking Russell for instance, I am very high on Russell and view him as a clear top 4 player of all time but that does not mean that I think he must have had a top 7 peak for instance because the highest bar that can be cleared in a single season is a title. So 11 titles in a career doesn't mean more than 2 in a given year. Also, if Duncan had continued at his 02-04 pace for another 4-6 years I think we'd have a goat tier that includes him in it. I'm also seeing very little argument for specific years that people are voting for which seems kind of strange. It just seems like very vague arguments being made that lack clarity. That's my .02 as someone who is checking on the threads every so often.

Russell does not really have a true outlier peak year from what any of us can assess, so arguing that his average prime year merits contention is the most sensible approach.

I am more confused by the citation to Duncan though, because Duncan has a visible outlier peak stretch, and in the postseason I would say much more of one than Shaq’s 2000/01 (despite the reputation), yet the approach between those two tends to be that Shaq’s performance was more of an outlier for him and therefore we can ignore that Duncan was his equal or superior both head-to-head and by available data during that 1999-04 peak-ish stretch for both.

[One_and_Done]

I think there is a weird disconnect in the last couple threads where they are turning into pseudo goat career arguments which I don't really understand. Taking Russell for instance, I am very high on Russell and view him as a clear top 4 player of all time but that does not mean that I think he must have had a top 7 peak for instance because the highest bar that can be cleared in a single season is a title. So 11 titles in a career doesn't mean more than 2 in a given year. Also, if Duncan had continued at his 02-04 pace for another 4-6 years I think we'd have a goat tier that includes him in it. I'm also seeing very little argument for specific years that people are voting for which seems kind of strange. It just seems like very vague arguments being made that lack clarity. That's my .02 as someone who is checking on the threads every so often.

Agreed. I wouldn't have Russell in my top 25 peaks, but even in-era only I would struggle to see how Russell has the lift of 02 Duncan. Russell played with a bunch of HoFers, and while everyone rightly rubbished some of them as being HoFers due to the Celtics success, alot of them were legitimately good for that era.

Russell missed the start of his rookie year, and by the time he joined the team they had the best record in the league (16-8). Russell clearly had a great support cast for the time, and the lift he provided is alot harder to identify than examples like 77 Walton, or 02 Duncan, or 09 Lebron. That's exactly why so much time is spent looking at support casts (hint; we just heard about how good the Spurs supposedly were without Duncan in 04. What was their record without him though? A mediocre 6-7).

[Cavsfansince84]

Russell does not really have a true outlier peak year from what any of us can assess, so arguing that his average prime year merits contention is the most sensible approach.

I am more confused by the citation to Duncan though, because Duncan has a visible outlier peak stretch, and in the postseason I would say much more of one than Shaq’s 2000/01 (despite the reputation), yet the approach between those two tends to be that Shaq’s performance was more of an outlier for him and therefore we can ignore that Duncan was his equal or superior both head-to-head and by available data during that 1999-04 peak-ish stretch for both.

I'm not fully following your reply to what I wrote but I will still respond in the best way I can. I'm not really arguing against Russell's inclusion on a ballot but in a project dedicated to one year peaks some of the argument for him seem pretty vague. It's like if we can't even narrow something down to a year I don't see much discussion coming from it. It just feels more like a prime/career project in a lot of the stuff I am reading. I'm also not really into the whole outlier way of looking at seasons. Most any player is going to have one season that stands out so whether we just call it the stars aligning(sort of how it did for Hakeem in 94) or an outlier doesn't really matter to me. My point with Duncan was more just that the career based argument for Russell could just as easily apply to Duncan had he maintained that 02-injury in 05 level up for 4-5 more years.

[AEnigma]

Russell does not really have a true outlier peak year from what any of us can assess, so arguing that his average prime year merits contention is the most sensible approach.

I am more confused by the citation to Duncan though, because Duncan has a visible outlier peak stretch, and in the postseason I would say much more of one than Shaq’s 2000/01 (despite the reputation), yet the approach between those two tends to be that Shaq’s performance was more of an outlier for him and therefore we can ignore that Duncan was his equal or superior both head-to-head and by available data during that 1999-04 peak-ish stretch for both.

I'm not fully following your reply to what I wrote but I will still respond in the best way I can.

Maybe you meant something different, but how it reads to me was as a mild objection to the broadening of focus. I think Russell’s situation merits a broadened focus, and I think Duncan’s is moderately isolated to a reasonable prime to better compare disparate years.

I'm not really arguing against Russell's inclusion on a ballot but in a project dedicated to one year peaks some of the argument for him seem pretty vague. It's like if we can't even narrow something down to a year I don't see much discussion coming from it.

I do not see a way around that with the comparative paucity of film. You are going to see even less passionate stances on Mikan’s peak when we eventually get around to him — but at least he had more recognisable stretches of “peak” production.

It just feels more like a prime/career project in a lot of the stuff I am reading. I'm also not really into the whole outlier way of looking at seasons.

I do not understand putting these comments side by side. If anything, I would expect you to be pleased by how people are attempting to look at more than just one season.

Most any player is going to have one season that stands out so whether we just call it the stars aligning(sort of how it did for Hakeem in 94) or an outlier doesn't really matter to me. My point with Duncan was more just that the career based argument for Russell could just as easily apply to Duncan had he maintained that 02-injury in 05 level up for 4-5 more years.

This one feels a little more directed at either a specific or inferred (when people copy/paste their ballots, I stop rereading them, so I do not recall which is applicable here) argument that prime Russell > prime Duncan means peak Russell > peak Duncan. To that extent, I agree, because I do think Duncan has a demonstrable outlier peak in 2002/03, so it is not sufficient as a comparison to say that we are confident in Russell over a longer span. Of course, in turn, it is also not sufficient to say that Duncan (or whomever) has an outlier peak and therefore should be assessed ahead of someone like Russell without an equally discernible outlier peak — and I think that is why 1964 is such a common choice here, because it is the year easiest to argue could represent an outlier but not equally discernible peak.

[falcolombardi]

I think there is a weird disconnect in the last couple threads where they are turning into pseudo goat career arguments which I don't really understand. Taking Russell for instance, I am very high on Russell and view him as a clear top 4 player of all time but that does not mean that I think he must have had a top 7 peak for instance because the highest bar that can be cleared in a single season is a title. So 11 titles in a career doesn't mean more than 2 in a given year. Also, if Duncan had continued at his 02-04 pace for another 4-6 years I think we'd have a goat tier that includes him in it. I'm also seeing very little argument for specific years that people are voting for which seems kind of strange. It just seems like very vague arguments being made that lack clarity. That's my .02 as someone who is checking on the threads every so often.

Is a bit of a controversial component of these discussions but "how did the player do in the surrounding years to his peak" has been used widely in peaks projects for a while, even though honestly it startrd at first as a very targeted anti 2009 lebron argument

If we look at the whole surrounding prime russeal years near whatever year you choose as his peak the persistent success, and particularly the persistently outlirr defense result are a nice feather in russel peak argument

How much this should be weighted is fairly subjevtive however

[Cavsfansince84]

This one feels a little more directed at either a specific or inferred (when people copy/paste their ballots, I stop rereading them, so I do not recall which is applicable here) argument that prime Russell > prime Duncan means peak Russell > peak Duncan. To that extent, I agree, because I do think Duncan has a demonstrable outlier peak in 2002/03, so it is not sufficient as a comparison to say that we are confident in Russell over a longer span. Of course, in turn, it is also not sufficient to say that Duncan (or whomever) has an outlier peak and therefore should be assessed ahead of someone like Russell without an equally discernible outlier peak — and I think that is why 1964 is such a common choice here, because it is the year easiest to argue could represent an outlier but not equally discernible peak.

This is part of why I'm personally not that into the idea of peak discussions/projects. It just seems so hard to get people to agree on what is actually being discussed that it becomes hard to make clear arguments for or against something. I've said before that what I am in favor of is the idea of a peak that can include any rs with any ps because those two things don't actually align that often but do show what a player is capable of. Granted that's not a perfect method either but again, I'm not that high on how peak discussions work anyhow. I was just giving my .02 so I respect the replies. Maybe just to push people into putting a little thinking into what they are doing.

[VanWest82]

First of all, I definitely agree with this point and it's very typical on this board recently. I saw a lot of discussion about who played with the worst supporting cast and how terrible this and that team truly was, as if that helps candidate's case at all.

In Duncan's case, I think it's caused by consistently repeated opinion that Timmy always played with top tier supporting casts and always had it easy, which is definitely not the case for his peak years. That is why some of his defenders sometimes go too much to the opposite direction.

I'd just add that Robinson definitely added significant contribution to these great defensive teams, but we haven't seen an downgrade after his retirement, so it at least suggests that the Twin Towers concept wasn't really the key for the Spurs defensive success.

I think it was the key for the most part, but then Spurs added Rasho, Horry, and Hedo (underrated defender in the beginning) in 04. Plus Manu, another underrated defender, makes a mini-leap that year. Combine with the fact that 03 was easily the weakest year of Robinson's career and it's easy to see why they were able to maintain a top defense beyond Duncan being just awesome.

Edit: it'd be a little like saying that because Spurs had a great defense in 96, it suggests adding Duncan wasn't really the key to Spurs defensive success in 98 once both those guys were playing together.

Let's just start with the statement that no player, no matter how awesome, can make your team -9 on defense alone. That's very obvious that the Spurs were a talented defensive team in 2004 and nobody should deny that.

At the same time though, I don't see the 1996 Spurs analogy. First of all, the Spurs improved quite notably on defense with the addition of rookie Duncan (which is the inverse of the 2004, situation). Secondly, I'd agree that Duncan wasn't the best or most important defensive player in 1998 Spurs team.

Yeah, it wasn't a great analogy. The point was that we need to look at more than just surrounding years to make the case. I don't like that argument as a stand alone given how much context often changes year to year.

The better argument is DRob's RS on court NRTG generally being higher than Duncan's during those years. If he wasn't really important to those teams, I don't think we'd see that.