True or False: Duncan’s offense eliminates him from GOAT conversations?

[LAL1947]

That is way too dogmatic, all time great defenders have superstar impact in the defensive end

I am not even saying that duncan defense is as valuable as jordan offense here. I am saying that duncan -offense- is somethingh i would ratjer have in a vacuum than jordan -defense-

I also would take duncan defense over quite a few superstar offensive players. Give duncan defende over barkley offense any day for example

If you had used another player than Jordan in your original example, I could have agreed with your point because it can be a good one. When he played, Jordan was the best defender at his position, right?

"at his position" is doing alot of work. Jordan's never anchored an elite playoff defense, the bulls went from average to best in the league with his defense declining, and then the bulls weren't really affected by his depature. Duncan on the other hand was massively valuable to arguably the GOAT post-russell defense.

If we use metrics like drapm, dpipm, ect, ect jordan's best years are either +1 or +2. Duncan is at like +4 or +5. Duncan's a way way better defender.

Why would MJ, a Shooting Guard, need to anchor a defense? Bigs played a larger role on defense but that doesn't make Duncan a "way, way better defender" than MJ.

If you want to use stats like DRAPM, DPIPIM as an argument:

2002-03 RS DRAPM says Dirk Nowitski (2.31) and Tony Kukoc (2.06) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.84).
2002-03 Playoff DRAPM says Manu Ginobili (2.93 in 2,880 possessions) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.83 in 4,286 possessions).

So then what does that do to your argument?

I used 2002-03 season for the example because that's his best season.

A further example to show you the futility of using these stats to determine the best:

2000-01 RS RAPM has Duncan at 4th (4.10) and D-Rob at 13th (3.45) in their list overall... while Kobe was 36th (2.20) and Shaq was 50th (1.97)... yet the Lakers blanked the Spurs 4-0 in those playoffs.

[70sFan]

If you had used another player than Jordan in your original example, I could have agreed with your point because it can be a good one. When he played, Jordan was the best defender at his position, right?

"at his position" is doing alot of work. Jordan's never anchored an elite playoff defense, the bulls went from average to best in the league with his defense declining, and then the bulls weren't really affected by his depature. Duncan on the other hand was massively valuable to arguably the GOAT post-russell defense.

If we use metrics like drapm, dpipm, ect, ect jordan's best years are either +1 or +2. Duncan is at like +4 or +5. Duncan's a way way better defender.

Why would MJ, a Shooting Guard, need to anchor a defense? Bigs played a larger role on defense but that doesn't make Duncan a way, way better defender than MJ.

If you want to use stats like DRAPM, DPIPIM as an argument:

2002-03 RS DRAPM says Dirk Nowitski (2.31) and Tony Kukoc (2.06) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.84).
2002-03 Playoff DRAPM says Manu Ginobili (2.93 in 2,880 possessions) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.83 in 4,286 possessions).

So then what does that do to your argument?

I used 2002-03 season for the example because that's his best season.

A further example to show you the futility of using these stats to determine the best:

2000-01 RS RAPM has Duncan at 4th (4.10) and D-Rob at 13th (3.45) in their list overall... while Kobe was 36th (2.20) and Shaq was 50th (1.97)... yet the Lakers blanked the Spurs 4-0 in those playoffs.

I have no idea what source you used, but Dirk didn't have higher DRAPM than Duncan in 2003.

[-Sammy-]

No-- what you think would have happened under different circumstances can never be the truth, no matter how strongly you believe it or how convincingly you think you can argue it. Truth is only a property of things that exist, and your speculative alternative events didn't happen and don't exist.

The truth is that the Spurs were losing, then decided to take out the best player on the other team... and were helped further by the NBA suspending two of the best players on the Suns (i.e., the victim). Are you trying to argue that this did not happen?

No, I'm observing the obvious fact that PHX losing two players for one game doesn't account for them losing four games.

Also, you're making accusations you can't prove re: '...decided to take out the best player on the other team...', unless you can link me to a confession from Horry, Pop, or anyone else. You're free to believe that, but nobody else is under any compulsion to treat it as a fact just because you believe it. It was a dirty, bad-sport play and I won't defend it, nor will I defend the league's actions in response, but neither can I (or anyone else) assume to know that it was premeditated by Horry or planned by anyone else.

I don't blame PHX supporters for being upset with the NBA's letter-of-the-law approach to the matter, but there were five other games in the series. It doesn't follow that the Suns would definitely have won the series when they dildn't even win one game after being back at full strength for G6.

The Suns would have won that series IMHO.

That's fine, but your opinion is neither a fact nor the truth.

Game 5 was a home game for the Suns. The Spurs won Game 1 in Phoenix by 5 points. The Suns beat the Spurs by 20 points in Game 2, the other home game in Phoenix. Earlier in the season, the Spurs-Suns played 1 time in Phoenix, another game that the Suns won handily by 17 points. So after winning Game 4 in Texas and with the Spurs losing the home-court advantage they'd got in Game 1, logic says the Suns would have beat the Spurs quite easily in Game 5, if they didn't have those unjust suspensions to deal with. Even with the suspensions to Amar'e and Boris Diaw, they only lost it by 3 points.

So my belief is that the Spurs would have lost in 6, if not for that helping hand, as I do not recollect Duncan ever being great in pressure situations like this, i.e., needing to come back from 3-2 down and playing away. Even if the Spurs managed to win Game 6 @ Texas, there's no way they'd have beaten a full strength Suns in Game 7 @ Phoenix. Those Suns guys had your team's number before all this happened, and the Spurs players looked like they knew it when Game 4 ended as well.

It's hilarious to me that you dance all around the fact that the Spurs did beat full-strength PHX in Phoenix to attempt to argue that the Spurs couldn't possibly beat full-strength PHX in Phoenix.

'...logic says the Suns would have beat the Spurs quite easily in Game 5...' What does logic have to say about the fact that the Spurs won three of the four games in the series that weren't marred by controversy or limited rosters? 'Those Suns guys had your team's number before all this happened.' Then why couldn't they win one game to extend the series? And why were they in that position anyhow, even discounting the two controversial games, which the teams split?

Maybe you're going to blame 'momentum' again. As long as we're dabbling in jargon and non-quantifiable 'intangibles', you might as well speak on PHX not having 'the killer instinct' or 'that extra gear' or 'enough gas in the tank' or some other such notion.

As for Duncan in pressure situations, you probably should Google 'Tim Duncan clutch' or 'Tim Duncan pressure' or something, because he's one of the best performers of his generation under pressure, but I don't see how that's relevant in this discussion: you're critiquing his contingent future performance under circumstances that never came close to happening here (the Spurs never trailed in the series, but you're talking about how you don't think he would have done well down 3-2). I think you should stop treating your biased predictions of alternate histories as though they're facts.

Were they also not allowed to win G6? Why didn't they win it? You aren't going to blame some nebulous abstract concept such as 'momentum', are you?

This is a weak notion. championship-caliber teams overcome thing like 'momentum.' 'Momentum' doesn't change the rules of the game or the abilities of the players on the court unless those players let it get into their heads. If Phoenix was the better team and the clear-cut championship-caliber favorite that season, they'd have found a way to overcome the 'momentum' of being down two players for one game of a seven-game series and created their own 'momentum' to win instead.

Momentum is a very real thing. Especially when the team you are beating knows that you are beating them on talent and there's nothing they can do to stop it, i.e., without an outside helping hand. It can also be very disheartening to have the momentum you have earned taken away from you unjustly and gifted to an opponent... requiring extraordinary mental strength to overcome. If you want to fault that Suns team for not having extraordinary mental strength, that's fine... but they should not have needed it to win this series... and that's the position they were placed in.

Champs become champs by overcoming every obstacle in front of them; PHX couldn't do that and that's why they weren't champs. It's frankly silly (in my opinion, respectfully) to assert that the Suns would definitely have done what they did not do under identical material conditions in reality--they didn't win G6 in S.A. at full strength, which is the thing they would have to have done for your prediction to have come true. You can talk 'momentum' or any of the other buzzwords that get overused in these discussions, but champs persevere and get through it-- all of it, whatever it is. Ask Kobe (if you could-- RIP) or LeBron or Duncan or MJ or Shaq or Hakeem about 'momentum' and the difference between champs and runners-up and see if you don't get a laugh. Nobody denies that it exists, but if your talent and skill and perseverance can't overcome momentum, you aren't winning anything, even if you do win a G6.

If the Spurs weren't better, why did they win three of the four games that weren't under controversy?

The Spurs won 2 of 4 games without controversy, not 3 of 4. Both game 5 and game 6 were controversial AFAIC, as the Suns were placed in a situation for game 6 that they should not have been in, i.e., 2-3 down and playing away for game 6... instead of being 3-2 up and with a home game 7 in hand even if they lost game 6.

Well, I don't accept your interpretation of the circumstances in G6, and I've explained why, so we're probably at an impasse on this point. I'm fine with observing that this is one way things could've gone, but treating it as a foregone conclusion is just a speculative form of confirmation bias, I think.

It's funny that the one of us who has seriously claimed that events which didn't take place are 'the truth' is accusing the other of creating fantasies. But you also asserted that 27/14/4 does nothing to help a team win, so I suppose that isn't surprising.

That's not what I did, see above.

I still think you did.

[capfan33]

If you had used another player than Jordan in your original example, I could have agreed with your point because it can be a good one. When he played, Jordan was the best defender at his position, right?

"at his position" is doing alot of work. Jordan's never anchored an elite playoff defense, the bulls went from average to best in the league with his defense declining, and then the bulls weren't really affected by his depature. Duncan on the other hand was massively valuable to arguably the GOAT post-russell defense.

If we use metrics like drapm, dpipm, ect, ect jordan's best years are either +1 or +2. Duncan is at like +4 or +5. Duncan's a way way better defender.

Why would MJ, a Shooting Guard, need to anchor a defense? Bigs played a larger role on defense but that doesn't make Duncan a way, way better defender than MJ.

If you want to use stats like DRAPM, DPIPIM as an argument:

2002-03 RS DRAPM says Dirk Nowitski (2.31) and Tony Kukoc (2.06) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.84).
2002-03 Playoff DRAPM says Manu Ginobili (2.93 in 2,880 possessions) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.83 in 4,286 possessions).

So then what does that do to your argument?

I used 2002-03 season for the example because that's his best season.

A further example to show you the futility of using these stats to determine the best:

2000-01 RS RAPM has Duncan at 4th (4.10) and D-Rob at 13th (3.45) in their list overall... while Kobe was 36th (2.20) and Shaq was 50th (1.97)... yet the Lakers blanked the Spurs 4-0 in those playoffs.

I mean all other things being equal a big is going to be a better defender than a perimeter player in terms of impact. And in this case Duncan is a much better defender than MJ, how you explain that difference is kind of semantics.

[mdonnelly1989]

Since I have Russell as GOAT, Duncan's very good offense certainly doesn't eliminate him even if he's not close to the offensive GOAT. There are two sides of the ball and here he's normally considered in the 5-7 range.

How do you explain Bill Russell 15 PPG and 44% FG overall which are extremely low quality numbers for a Big men. It feels like to me Russell was simply an average offensive player, unless you take into account his outlet passing but still.

[penbeast0]

I would say below average offensive center even for his era, at least from 62 onward. But his defensive impact was so high it didn't matter. He kept his team as the best defense in the league for 13 years, sometimes by really large margins, and despite a complete turnover of the rotation other than himself. There has never been a player with that degree of impact on one side of the ball, not Jordan, not LeBron, not Magic, so it doesn't really matter that his offense was weak.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'd say yes. He's not a mainstream GOAT candidate but is listed right in the heart of the next group of players. Seems likely if Duncan's offense was slightly better he'd be a common GOAT candidate.

[LAL1947]

Spoiler:

No-- what you think would have happened under different circumstances can never be the truth, no matter how strongly you believe it or how convincingly you think you can argue it. Truth is only a property of things that exist, and your speculative alternative events didn't happen and don't exist.

The truth is that the Spurs were losing, then decided to take out the best player on the other team... and were helped further by the NBA suspending two of the best players on the Suns (i.e., the victim). Are you trying to argue that this did not happen?

No, I'm observing the obvious fact that PHX losing two players for one game doesn't account for them losing four games.

Also, you're making accusations you can't prove re: '...decided to take out the best player on the other team...', unless you can link me to a confession from Horry, Pop, or anyone else. You're free to believe that, but nobody else is under any compulsion to treat it as a fact just because you believe it. It was a dirty, bad-sport play and I won't defend it, nor will I defend the league's actions in response, but neither can I (or anyone else) assume to know that it was premeditated by Horry or planned by anyone else.

I don't blame PHX supporters for being upset with the NBA's letter-of-the-law approach to the matter, but there were five other games in the series. It doesn't follow that the Suns would definitely have won the series when they dildn't even win one game after being back at full strength for G6.

The Suns would have won that series IMHO.

That's fine, but your opinion is neither a fact nor the truth.

Game 5 was a home game for the Suns. The Spurs won Game 1 in Phoenix by 5 points. The Suns beat the Spurs by 20 points in Game 2, the other home game in Phoenix. Earlier in the season, the Spurs-Suns played 1 time in Phoenix, another game that the Suns won handily by 17 points. So after winning Game 4 in Texas and with the Spurs losing the home-court advantage they'd got in Game 1, logic says the Suns would have beat the Spurs quite easily in Game 5, if they didn't have those unjust suspensions to deal with. Even with the suspensions to Amar'e and Boris Diaw, they only lost it by 3 points.

So my belief is that the Spurs would have lost in 6, if not for that helping hand, as I do not recollect Duncan ever being great in pressure situations like this, i.e., needing to come back from 3-2 down and playing away. Even if the Spurs managed to win Game 6 @ Texas, there's no way they'd have beaten a full strength Suns in Game 7 @ Phoenix. Those Suns guys had your team's number before all this happened, and the Spurs players looked like they knew it when Game 4 ended as well.

It's hilarious to me that you dance all around the fact that the Spurs did beat full-strength PHX in Phoenix to attempt to argue that the Spurs couldn't possibly beat full-strength PHX in Phoenix.

'...logic says the Suns would have beat the Spurs quite easily in Game 5...' What does logic have to say about the fact that the Spurs won three of the four games in the series that weren't marred by controversy or limited rosters? 'Those Suns guys had your team's number before all this happened.' Then why couldn't they win one game to extend the series? And why were they in that position anyhow, even discounting the two controversial games, which the teams split?

Maybe you're going to blame 'momentum' again. As long as we're dabbling in jargon and non-quantifiable 'intangibles', you might as well speak on PHX not having 'the killer instinct' or 'that extra gear' or 'enough gas in the tank' or some other such notion.

As for Duncan in pressure situations, you probably should Google 'Tim Duncan clutch' or 'Tim Duncan pressure' or something, because he's one of the best performers of his generation under pressure, but I don't see how that's relevant in this discussion: you're critiquing his contingent future performance under circumstances that never came close to happening here (the Spurs never trailed in the series, but you're talking about how you don't think he would have done well down 3-2). I think you should stop treating your biased predictions of alternate histories as though they're facts.

Were they also not allowed to win G6? Why didn't they win it? You aren't going to blame some nebulous abstract concept such as 'momentum', are you?

This is a weak notion. championship-caliber teams overcome thing like 'momentum.' 'Momentum' doesn't change the rules of the game or the abilities of the players on the court unless those players let it get into their heads. If Phoenix was the better team and the clear-cut championship-caliber favorite that season, they'd have found a way to overcome the 'momentum' of being down two players for one game of a seven-game series and created their own 'momentum' to win instead.

Momentum is a very real thing. Especially when the team you are beating knows that you are beating them on talent and there's nothing they can do to stop it, i.e., without an outside helping hand. It can also be very disheartening to have the momentum you have earned taken away from you unjustly and gifted to an opponent... requiring extraordinary mental strength to overcome. If you want to fault that Suns team for not having extraordinary mental strength, that's fine... but they should not have needed it to win this series... and that's the position they were placed in.

Champs become champs by overcoming every obstacle in front of them; PHX couldn't do that and that's why they weren't champs. It's frankly silly (in my opinion, respectfully) to assert that the Suns would definitely have done what they did not do under identical material conditions in reality--they didn't win G6 in S.A. at full strength, which is the thing they would have to have done for your prediction to have come true. You can talk 'momentum' or any of the other buzzwords that get overused in these discussions, but champs persevere and get through it-- all of it, whatever it is. Ask Kobe (if you could-- RIP) or LeBron or Duncan or MJ or Shaq or Hakeem about 'momentum' and the difference between champs and runners-up and see if you don't get a laugh. Nobody denies that it exists, but if your talent and skill and perseverance can't overcome momentum, you aren't winning anything, even if you do win a G6.

If the Spurs weren't better, why did they win three of the four games that weren't under controversy?

The Spurs won 2 of 4 games without controversy, not 3 of 4. Both game 5 and game 6 were controversial AFAIC, as the Suns were placed in a situation for game 6 that they should not have been in, i.e., 2-3 down and playing away for game 6... instead of being 3-2 up and with a home game 7 in hand even if they lost game 6.

Well, I don't accept your interpretation of the circumstances in G6, and I've explained why, so we're probably at an impasse on this point. I'm fine with observing that this is one way things could've gone, but treating it as a foregone conclusion is just a speculative form of confirmation bias, I think.

It's funny that the one of us who has seriously claimed that events which didn't take place are 'the truth' is accusing the other of creating fantasies. But you also asserted that 27/14/4 does nothing to help a team win, so I suppose that isn't surprising.

That's not what I did, see above.

I still think you did.

Man, you're like one of those lawyers who hope to win a case against a layman by presenting walls of text/legalese. I'm going to use a spoiler thingy because the replies are becoming too large.

Btw, I think it's quite lame to say in this instance, "champs become champs by overcoming every obstacle in front of them"... when no other team apart from the Suns have been presented with this sort of obstacle at that stage of the finals before. The Spurs became champs by having obstacles unjustly placed in front of their opponents, not by overcoming obstacles themselves. They shouldn't and wouldn't have been winners in 2006-07. Nothing you say is going to change my mind about that.

Also, this doesn't make sense...

It was a dirty, bad-sport play and I won't defend it, nor will I defend the league's actions in response, but neither can I (or anyone else) assume to know that it was premeditated by Horry or planned by anyone else.

You're admitting it was a dirty, bad-sport play... and then in the same sentence telling me that it wasn't premeditated. Which part wasn't premeditated? Taking out Nash like that? Punching Raja Bell on the way out? All of it was premeditated by Horry! I'll only stop short of saying it was planned by the Spurs because that would be a step too far without proof. On the other hand, the Spurs also had Bowen make lots of dirty plays trying to injure Kobe in other series... and weren't they also the originators of the Hack-a-Shaq too? So who really knows?

As for the league's response, they should be ashamed of themselves IMO. If they were interested in fairplay at the time, they would never have handed out those suspensions. I'm holding out hope that one day we'll find out this was related to gambling and a fix being put in, or something like that.

[LAL1947]

Spoiler:

"at his position" is doing alot of work. Jordan's never anchored an elite playoff defense, the bulls went from average to best in the league with his defense declining, and then the bulls weren't really affected by his depature. Duncan on the other hand was massively valuable to arguably the GOAT post-russell defense.

If we use metrics like drapm, dpipm, ect, ect jordan's best years are either +1 or +2. Duncan is at like +4 or +5. Duncan's a way way better defender.

Why would MJ, a Shooting Guard, need to anchor a defense? Bigs played a larger role on defense but that doesn't make Duncan a way, way better defender than MJ.

If you want to use stats like DRAPM, DPIPIM as an argument:

2002-03 RS DRAPM says Dirk Nowitski (2.31) and Tony Kukoc (2.06) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.84).
2002-03 Playoff DRAPM says Manu Ginobili (2.93 in 2,880 possessions) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.83 in 4,286 possessions).

So then what does that do to your argument?

I used 2002-03 season for the example because that's his best season.

A further example to show you the futility of using these stats to determine the best:

2000-01 RS RAPM has Duncan at 4th (4.10) and D-Rob at 13th (3.45) in their list overall... while Kobe was 36th (2.20) and Shaq was 50th (1.97)... yet the Lakers blanked the Spurs 4-0 in those playoffs.

I have no idea what source you used, but Dirk didn't have higher DRAPM than Duncan in 2003.

My bad, I should have included the link. I got it from this source, which was used awhile ago by another poster in a different discussion here.

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2002-03/regular-season/
https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2002-03/playoffs/

I'm not sure if it's a good source, so let me know if it's fine or if there's something wrong with it.

If it's a good source... you may not be pleased to know it also says that Duncan only had the highest DRAPM on the Spurs in 5 of 19 seasons he played there.

[70sFan]

Spoiler:

Why would MJ, a Shooting Guard, need to anchor a defense? Bigs played a larger role on defense but that doesn't make Duncan a way, way better defender than MJ.

If you want to use stats like DRAPM, DPIPIM as an argument:

2002-03 RS DRAPM says Dirk Nowitski (2.31) and Tony Kukoc (2.06) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.84).
2002-03 Playoff DRAPM says Manu Ginobili (2.93 in 2,880 possessions) had a higher DRAPM than Duncan (1.83 in 4,286 possessions).

So then what does that do to your argument?

I used 2002-03 season for the example because that's his best season.

A further example to show you the futility of using these stats to determine the best:

2000-01 RS RAPM has Duncan at 4th (4.10) and D-Rob at 13th (3.45) in their list overall... while Kobe was 36th (2.20) and Shaq was 50th (1.97)... yet the Lakers blanked the Spurs 4-0 in those playoffs.

I have no idea what source you used, but Dirk didn't have higher DRAPM than Duncan in 2003.

My bad, I should have included the link. I got it from this source, which was used awhile ago by another poster in a different discussion here.

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2002-03/regular-season/
https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2002-03/playoffs/

I'm not sure if it's a good source, so let me know if it's fine or if there's something wrong with it.

If it's a good source... you may not be pleased to know it also says that Duncan only had the highest DRAPM on the Spurs in 5 of 19 seasons he played there.

I don't know anything about this database, someone else should probably give us a word about it. The most commonly used one here is this one:

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2003-rapm

It doesn't have playoff data unfortunately, but as far as I know, it's the most reliable one.

[70sFan]

About 2007 WCF - even if you assume that Suns would have won the series under normal circumstances (which was never proven by them), what does it change in Duncan evaluation? Duncan was the best player in this series and I'm quite comfortable to say that it's not arguable. The best players can lose close series, it shouldn't matter.

Again, it's your strange idea that people rank Duncan high in 2007 only because he won the title. That's your way of thinking, not mine. I rank Duncan high because he was the most impactful player in the league, both in RS and in the playoffs - that's it.

[70sFan]

Since I have Russell as GOAT, Duncan's very good offense certainly doesn't eliminate him even if he's not close to the offensive GOAT. There are two sides of the ball and here he's normally considered in the 5-7 range.

How do you explain Bill Russell 15 PPG and 44% FG overall which are extremely low quality numbers for a Big men. It feels like to me Russell was simply an average offensive player, unless you take into account his outlet passing but still.

Russell didn't focus on offense, just like a lot of stars don't focus on defense. When you look at his absolute prime in 1960-66, his postseason production got significantly better.

1960-66 Russell in RS: 16.1/23.8/4.4 on 47.0 TS%
1960-66 Russell in PS: 18.7/26.2/4.8 on 49.8 TS%

These numbers are in big part deflated because he often faced Chamberlain in the playoffs, who was ATG man defender himself.

Poor offensive players can't have series like 1962 or 1963 finals.

[LAL1947]

About 2007 WCF - even if you assume that Suns would have won the series under normal circumstances (which was never proven by them), what does it change in Duncan evaluation? The best players can lose close series, it shouldn't matter.

Well, I agree that the best players can lose series.

The original point that Sammy replied to was... if Spurs had not won this title in 2006-07, their last title with Duncan as best player would have been 2004-05... and their next one only comes 9 years later in 2013-14, when he was one among many (Parker, Ginobili, Kawhi, Diaw). I ding Kareem for the same reason, and only have him at #8 in my list.

Also, if you're gonna put someone in the GOAT debate... and they are on a loaded roster with the highest SRS in the league during the regular season... and that team is fully healthy for the playoffs... and that player is supposedly in the convo for best player in the league (which you always say, when I say he was fringe Top 5 that year)... and they lose... well, can they really be in the GOAT convo?

It also ties in to the point that was made about the Spurs never winning a back-to-back because Duncan was not as good as some of the others who did lead their teams to back-to-back titles (like MJ, Lebron, Kobe, Magic, Hakeem, Shaq).

Btw, the "..." I use above is mainly to separate points that are connected.

Duncan was the best player in this series and I'm quite comfortable to say that it's not arguable. The best players can lose close series, it shouldn't matter.

I'm going to do what the PC Board usually does to me, and quote stats that suit my desired point.

Since we were just talking about DRAPM, here's the 2006-07 Playoff RAPM from the same source. Looks like Duncan had the 41st best RAPM in those playoffs and the 8th highest on the Spurs. Some of these Spurs guys played many less possessions though, so after removing them, we're still left with Ginobili, Finley and Parker ahead of Duncan.

Code: Select all

Rank / Name....... Team / Possessions / ORAPM / DRAPM / RAPM
03 / Fabricio Oberto... SAS   1691   1.1798   1.2542   2.434
11 / Manu Ginobili..... SAS   2521   1.3383   0.4267   1.765
14 / Michael Finley.... SAS   2183   1.273   -0.158   1.1149
20 / Robert Horry...... SAS   1481   -0.1036   1.0659   0.9623
23 / Brent Barry....... SAS   0924   0.2484   0.5086   0.757
25 / Jacque Vaughn..... SAS   0850   -0.197   0.9416   0.7446
35 / Tony Parker....... SAS   3071   0.8391   -0.3961   0.443
41 / Tim Duncan........ SAS   3002   0.3986   -0.0137   0.3848

^ I'm just kidding with this part btw, Duncan was the best player on the Spurs.

Again, it's your strange idea that people rank Duncan high in 2007 only because he won the title. That's your way of thinking, not mine. I rank Duncan high because he was the most impactful player in the league, both in RS and in the playoffs - that's it.

You are probably 1/100 who don't think like that.

As an example... how about 2002-03? Do people not say Duncan was the best player that year because the Spurs won the playoffs, despite KG having better stats in the regular season?

This is from the RAPM link that you just provided me.

Rank / Name / Offense per 100 / Defense per 100 / Off+Def per 200
01 / Garnett / 3 / 2.3 / 5.4
04 / Duncan / 1 / 3.4 / 4.4

Anyway, in 2002-03, Duncan fully deserved to be called the best player in the league.

[70sFan]

The original point that Sammy replied to was... if Spurs had not won this title in 2006-07, their last title with Duncan as best player would have been 2004-05... and their next one only comes 9 years later in 2013-14, when he was one among many (Parker, Ginobili, Kawhi, Diaw). I ding Kareem for the same reason, and only have him at #8 in my list.

It doesn't make any sense. Why don't you "ding" Kobe for the same reason? His 4th ring came 7 years after 2002? LeBron waited 9 years to win his first title. Why are you so inconsistent?

Also, if you're gonna put someone in the GOAT debate... and they are on a loaded roster with the highest SRS in the league during the regular season... and that team is fully healthy for the playoffs... and that player is supposedly in the convo for best player in the league (which you always say, when I say he was fringe Top 5 that year)... well, can they really be in the GOAT convo?

Yeah, stranger things happened. Duncan won in 2007, so you don't need to draw any hypotheticals.

It also ties in to the point that was made about the Spurs never winning a back-to-back because Duncan was not as good as some of the others who did lead their teams to back-to-back titles (like MJ, Lebron, Kobe, Magic, Hakeem, Shaq).

Yeah, because back-to-backs have magically more value than winning 3 titles in 5 years...

I'm going to do what the PC Board usually does to me, and quote stats.

Since we were just talking about DRAPM, here's the 2002-03 Playoff RAPM from the same source. Looks like Duncan had the 41st best RAPM in those playoffs and the 8th highest on the Spurs. Some of these Spurs guys played many less possessions though, so after removing them, we're still left with Ginobili, Finley and Parker ahead of Duncan.

Code: Select all

Rank / Name....... Team / Possessions / ORAPM / DRAPM / RAPM
03 / Fabricio Oberto... SAS   1691   1.1798   1.2542   2.434
11 / Manu Ginobili..... SAS   2521   1.3383   0.4267   1.765
14 / Michael Finley.... SAS   2183   1.273   -0.158   1.1149
20 / Robert Horry...... SAS   1481   -0.1036   1.0659   0.9623
23 / Brent Barry....... SAS   0924   0.2484   0.5086   0.757
25 / Jacque Vaughn..... SAS   0850   -0.197   0.9416   0.7446
35 / Tony Parker....... SAS   3071   0.8391   -0.3961   0.443
41 / Tim Duncan........ SAS   3002   0.3986   -0.0137   0.3848

Where did you find this data? In the site you posted before, Duncan ranks 2nd highest in postseason RAPM in the league, behind Manu:

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2002-03/playoffs/

Are you talking about 2007 playoffs? Then again, I'd like to hear the opinion of someone familiar with this database, because it looks strange given Duncan's raw +/- and on/off data we have (he finished higher than anyone but Oberto in on/off.

You are probably 1/100 who don't think like that.

How can you know that? Don't project your assumption on others.

As an example... how about 2002-03? Do people not say Duncan was the best player that year because the Spurs won the playoffs, despite KG having better stats in the regular season?

This is from the RAPM link that you just provided me.

Rank / Name / Offense per 100 / Defense per 100 / Off+Def per 200
01 / Garnett / 3 / 2.3 / 5.4
04 / Duncan / 1 / 3.4 / 4.4

Anyway, in 2002-03, Duncan fully deserved to be called the best player in the league.

Garnett finished slightly higher than Duncan in 2003 RS and I have no problem with that. Garnett was always very close to Duncan in their peak years. In 2003, Duncan separated himself with ATG postseason run, but they were comparable in RS.

[LAL1947]

It doesn't make any sense. Why don't you "ding" Kobe for the same reason? His 4th ring came 7 years after 2002? LeBron waited 9 years to win his first title. Why are you so inconsistent?

Because they were not on teams that could be considered contenders for most of those years... whereas Duncan played on loaded + well constructed rosters from 2002-03 until the end of his career. People say a Big-Little duo is great to build around... and he had a perfect PG in Parker, a great SG in Ginobili, and himself at Center.

Yeah, stranger things happened. Duncan won in 2007, so you don't need to draw any hypotheticals.

Yeah, because back-to-backs have magically more value than winning 3 titles in 5 years...

As I've tried to explain already, it should be 2 titles in those 5 years... with the next one coming 9 years later.

And yeah, back-to-backs are an accomplishment. So is a three-peat. Kobe did both.

Where did you find this data? In the site you posted before, Duncan ranks 2nd highest in postseason RAPM in the league, behind Manu:

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2002-03/playoffs/

Are you talking about 2007 playoffs? Then again, I'd like to hear the opinion of someone familiar with this database, because it looks strange given Duncan's raw +/- and on/off data we have (he finished higher than anyone but Oberto in on/off.

Oops, thanks for pointing it out. That data is for 2006-07, the year we were discussing... but I mistakenly said it was for 2002-03. I've edited my post to fix that.

How can you know that? Don't project your assumption on others.

Well, I'm not projecting my assumptions, just repeating what I've been told in other discussions.

Garnett finished slightly higher than Duncan in 2003 RS and I have no problem with that. Garnett was always very close to Duncan in their peak years. In 2003, Duncan separated himself with ATG postseason run, but they were comparable in RS.

I was using it as an example. We could also use Wade vs Kobe in 2005-06... Kobe was the better player, but some still try to say that Wade was better because Heat won and Wade had a really good playoffs.

[70sFan]

Because they were not on teams that could be considered contenders for most of those years... whereas Duncan played on loaded + well constructed rosters from 2002-03 until the end of his career.

Kareem didn't play on loaded teams in 1972-79 period, yet you use it against him. Admit that you pick your criteria to justify your list, not the other way around.

As I've tried to explain already, it should be 2 titles in those 5 years... with the next one coming 9 years later.

Yeah, but your explaination is poor.

And yeah, back-to-backs are an accomplishment. So is a three-peat. Kobe did both.

Cool and he still finished with the same number of rings in more years.

Well, I'm not projecting my assumptions, just repeating what I've been told in other discussions.

Winning bias is weaker here than in any other part of basketball community.

I was using it as an example. We could also use Wade vs Kobe in 2005-06... Kobe was the better player, but some still try to say that Wade was better because Heat won and Wade had a really good playoffs.

Well, except that Wade looks slightly better in RS for impact metrics and he has postseason advantage. Wade in this case is a combination of KG and Duncan situation, so he has very strong argument for being better than Kobe.

[-Sammy-]

Man, you're like one of those lawyers who hope to win a case against a layman by presenting walls of text/legalese. I'm going to use a spoiler thingy because the replies are becoming too large.

Fair enough. We truth-defenders have to work very hard at our craft. Ha ha

Btw, I think it's quite lame to say in this instance, "champs become champs by overcoming every obstacle in front of them"... when no other team apart from the Suns have been presented with this sort of obstacle at that stage of the finals before. The Spurs became champs by having obstacles unjustly placed in front of their opponents, not by overcoming obstacles themselves. They shouldn't and wouldn't have been winners in 2006-07. Nothing you say is going to change my mind about that.

This speaks to my point. Lots of teams have had to overcome what the Suns saw in 2007-- losing key players for stretches or games during a series. Injuries are very common, as we all know, and even suspensions aren't unprecedented.

Obviously, the circumstances leading to why they lost two players for one game are unusual/unprecedented, but the actual fact of having to adjust to a temporary manning shortage is a pretty common occurrence in the playoffs. Thus, my point: if that team isn't getting over the minor mental hurdle of why they had to make that adjustment, they aren't winning anything, because the situation itself is a pretty typical obstacle for playoff teams to have to work around.

Also, this doesn't make sense...

It was a dirty, bad-sport play and I won't defend it, nor will I defend the league's actions in response, but neither can I (or anyone else) assume to know that it was premeditated by Horry or planned by anyone else.

You're admitting it was a dirty, bad-sport play... and then in the same sentence telling me that it wasn't premeditated. Which part wasn't premeditated? Taking out Nash like that? Punching Raja Bell on the way out? All of it was premeditated by Horry!

I'm saying that it looks like something he did in the heat of the moment because he was mad and had a bad temper, not like something he conspired to do at some point beforehand. It happens all the time in sports-- it's how most altercations begin--: tempers/emotions run hot and in an instant, a guy gives in to his impulse-- that's probably what happened here. Horry has an unfortunate history of similar outbursts. I can't say for certain that that's what happened, of course, but Occam's razor applies, and so does the eye test.

That doesn't take away from the severity or atrocity of it; it's just to say he likely didn't decide during a timeout to attack Nash the next time he was in proximity.

I'll only stop short of saying it was planned by the Spurs because that would be a step too far without proof.

Good, because it would take a high degree of prescience for any coach to be able to say 'I bet if we push one of their guys, a few bench players will stand up and step a few feet onto the court, and there's that new rule...'

... and weren't they also the originators of the Hack-a-Shaq too?

No, Don Nelson came up with it in the 90s (though Pop was a student of Nellie), but your point is fair; I can't fault anyone who got frustrated with the way Bowen played.

As for the league's response, they should be ashamed of themselves IMO. If they were interested in fairplay at the time, they would never have handed out those suspensions. I'm holding out hope that one day we'll find out this was related to gambling and a fix being put in, or something like that.

Yeah, I agree that it wasn't in the spirit of punishing the aggressor. But you may not recall that the reason the league was so insistent on enforcing the rule is because it was a nascent rule change that had been established specifically in response to a spate of similar incidents over the previous few seasons; they wanted to make an example out of the Suns.

As for your dreams of a fix, you'll have to keep dreaming; it would be pretty tricky for some villain to pin his hopes of fixing the outcome of a series on bench players stepping a few feet onto the court in reaction to an altercation that developed in the heat of the moment.

Such a fix would also have to extend all the way from Horry up through to the commissioner. Not only would that be a conspiracy the intricacy of which has never been seen anywhere in sports, but you'd have to explain why the league conspired for an unpopular small-market team to benefit from a ruling that nobody was happy with. Who's getting rich off that fix?

And if such a fix had been at-cause, it would surely mean that the league had been fixing other playoffs (such as the notorious 2002 Lakers-Kings series) to the benefit of big-market darlings such as the Lakers, Heat, etc.

[Texas Chuck]

If you are using a stat to suggest Dirk was a better defender than Duncan in 2003 you are intentionally misusing a metric to justify a position you can't possibly justify. Let's not do that.

Duncan obviously a far more impactful defender than Jordan. This argument would be like saying Duncan had higher FG% than Mike so he was a better offensive player. That's not how any of this works.

If you just love offensive guys, cool. Love them. But if you don't understand defense matters too, well you are going to continually reach terrible conclusions on how good players are.

[DraymondGold]

A bit of a side discussion to what's going on, but I'm wondering...

If we added just 2/4 of the following to Duncan:
-KG's passing
-KG's off-ball ability on offense
-KG's shooting range
-No injuries around 05 which seemed to limit his older athleticism

... how much would Duncan improve in peak/career rankings? Would this push him into GOAT tier? Into clear GOAT status?

[Blame Rasho]

It is actually pretty funny how obsessed one poster is with Duncan and the Spurs and how his entire stick is marginalize them. It is pretty pathetic to tell you the truth.