RealGM

If you're willing, compare Kareem and Duncan year by year (sorted by peak, so 77 vs 03 for example).

1. Who had the greater peak?
2. Greater prime?
3. I've always heard Kareem championed for his longevity, but much of it was found in his scoring post prime. I feel that Duncan's defensive anchoring is more portable and more valuable post prime. Anyone feel that way? Anyone think I'm wrong?
4. How do superb intangible guys with high peaks and portable roles (ex. Duncan, KG) compare to Jordan for you? How much do you weigh intangibles?
5. Let's say for the sake of this question that Kareem's Offense = 10/10 and Tim's Defense = 10/10. How would Kareem's defense and Tim's offense rank by comparison (assume peak/prime).
6. It seems like everyone has Kareem over Duncan. Can someone give an explanation why?

I'd welcome any Kareem/KG/Duncan/Russell related discussion. That's where I'm thinking at the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I'm sure others will give detailed answers, but I don't find this particularly close. KAJ was a more dominating player. Often his defense is underrated because so many on real GM have only seen bald Kareem in highlights or games. That's no disrespect to TD.

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app

micahclay wrote:1. Who had the greater peak?

Kareem by a little bit. I would take '77 and '03 as their respective peaks. On my peaks list, it would be #6 to 7, so really close (I have LeBron, Jordan, Wilt, Shaq and Hakeem ahead of these two guys, but those gaps are mostly very small between all of them).

micahclay wrote:2. Greater prime?

Kareem, somewhat close but also clear, to me. I think we can look at 1970-80 as Kareem's prime, and 1998-08 as Tim's, so 11 seasons for both). KAJ was just a more dominant player.

Regular season:

26.8 to 25.1 in PER
.262 to .222 in WS/48
8.7 to 6.1 in BPM

Playoffs:

26.6 to 26.1 in PER
.245 to .211 in WS/48
10.1 to 7.1 in BPM

Some people would point to the fact that the NBA between 1970 and 1976 was weaker than the early/mid 2000s NBA, because of the talent split between the ABA and NBA, but Kareem was just as good post merger as he was pre merger. He was a top 5-10 all-time caliber player in years like 1977 and 1980, both in the regular season and playoffs, so I don't think the talent split between the two leagues had much impact on KAJ. He would be similarly dominant regardless of who he played against.

micahclay wrote:3. I've always heard Kareem championed for his longevity, but much of it was found in his scoring post prime. I feel that Duncan's defensive anchoring is more portable and more valuable post prime. Anyone feel that way? Anyone think I'm wrong?

I think the post prime years are still in favor of Kareem. If we look at 2009-16 as post prime Duncan and 1981-89 as post prime Kareem, Abdul-Jabbar has the edge. His 1981 season was clearly better than anything Duncan did after '08 (or more like after '07, because '81 KAJ > '08 TD, to me). It's decently close, but again, clear enough in Kareem's favor. I wouldn't really agree about the portability factor here, because Kareem excelled in half-court, but (perhaps surprisingly, considering his age and size) he could also be really good in transition offense. He was a very effective trailer on fast-breaks led by Magic. That always surprised me about Kareem. He's a very underrated physical specimen. He was a very good passer and a high IQ player in general, so it's not like he was a black hole with limited portability on offense. You could run a very effective offense through him, every version of Kareem prior to 1987 demanded

Duncan in 2010s was indeed better defensively than Kareem after 1981, but Kareem had a sizeable edge on offense, he was still a deadly offensive weapon, just on lower usage. I would also like to mention that 80s KAJ consistenyl improved his defense in the playoffs compared to regular season (he had only 0.8 BPM in RS for that 5-year stretch, but 2.0 in the playoffs. If we look at 2009-15 Duncan, his BPM in the playoffs dropped a bit compared to regular season.

micahclay wrote:4. How do superb intangible guys with high peaks and portable roles (ex. Duncan, KG) compare to Jordan for you? How much do you weigh intangibles?

I don't put a lot of emphasis on intangibles, one because the tangible factors such as production, matter much more, and two, because intangibles are extremely subjective and can basically be applied to whatever extent you want, it's easy to assign too much value to that, and pick a statistically inferior player over a superior one, because you may think the former brings that much more in the "intangibles" department.

I think Jordan had a better prime than both KAJ and TD, but both of them have a case over MJ because they have a lot more non-prime, but still all-star caliber, seasons (especially Kareem's case is very good, actually I have him over Michael career-wise, and the GOAT).

micahclay wrote:5. Let's say for the sake of this question that Kareem's Offense = 10/10 and Tim's Defense = 10/10. How would Kareem's defense and Tim's offense rank by comparison (assume peak/prime).

If Kareem's offense is 10/10 and Tim's defense is 10/10, i would rate Kareem's defense as 8 and Tim's offense as 6. Well, if we were talking about peaks, then Duncan's offense is like 7.5, but this is about his 2002 and 2003 seasons - I don't think he had other seasons at that level, offensively.

micahclay wrote:6. It seems like everyone has Kareem over Duncan. Can someone give an explanation why?

Kareem was simply a more dominant player, had a bit better peak, at least a bit better prime and also a bit better longevity (well, more than a "bit" better if we look at minutes played, not just seasons at a certain level).

Duncan is one of my top 3 favorite players ever, so I have absolutely no agenda against him, totally the opposite, actually. I just think that Kareem was a better player. It's not a big gap, but quite comfortable. I mean, if Kareem's career is 99/100, Tim's is 96 or 97. That kind of a difference.

1. Kareem has better peak in my opinion. Not a knock on TD because I believe peak Kareem (1977) is better than any bigman not named Wilt (better than Shaq and Hakeem). The gap isn't huge, but it's still there.

2. Kareem prime (1970-81) is arguably the best in NBA history. I disagree with Quotatious, 1981 season is still his prime one. He was excellent without Magic for most of the season.

Duncan prime to me is 1998-2010. Rookie Duncan isn't better than 2008-10 Duncan. He was still very good in that span and one weak playoffs run (2008) doesn't change anything. He really declined in 2011 though. Still, Kareem has huge highs (1971-74, 1977, 1980) and very few lows (1975, 1978 because of injury). Duncan best seasons are slightly worse and he has weaker late-prime years. Still gap isn't huge, but clear to me.

3. In some way I agree with you. 2015 Duncan is more portable and better overall than 1987 Kareem, even though both were amazing. But 1984-86 Kareem is absolutely on 2012-14 Duncan level. Timmy is better defensively and could step up offensively (like against OKC in 2014). Kareem is quite opposite - he was always huge threat offensively but he could also step up his defensive performance. It's really a matter of preference, both could and did help their teams in though moments.

4. I don't think Duncan, Russell or KG peaked higher than Jordan but their intangibles make them safer to build around them. Duncan and Russell were amazing leaders and teammates. Players loved playing with them. MJ was different, he was very competetive but also he was a dick for his teammates.

To sum up: I don't believe intangibles are very important in evaluating peaks (because MJ was psychologicaly fine in 1991) but it's important in comparing careers and primes.

5. Kareem peak O (1977): 10/10
Duncan peak O (2003): 7,5
KG peak O (2004): 7
Russell peak O (1962): 5

Kareem prime O: 10/10
Duncan prime O: 6,5/10
KG prime O: 5,5/10
Russell prime O: 3/10

Duncan peak D (2003 or 2007): 10/10
Kareem peak D (1971-73): 8,5/10
KG peak D (2008): 9/10
Russell peak D (1964): 14/10

Duncan prime D: 10/10
Kareem prime D: 8/10
KG prime D: 8/10
Russell prime D: 13/10

6. Kareem is better offensive player. He has more peak-ish seasons and his peak and prime is stronger overall. Kareem is underrated defender and as a Buck he was really top 10 defensive bigman ever. For most of his prime he was very close to Duncan defensively, he just lost focus (and motor/abilities on D) when he got older. He has also slightly better longevity which sounds unbelievable.

Timmy is my favorite sportsman in history so understand, I'd rather believe he's better than Kareem. I've seen both in action though and I know that Kareem could approach a level higher than Duncan could.

In the end, I have both in my top 5 (along with Russell, MJ and James). Kareem is my GOAT and Duncan is probably in top 3/4.

70sFan wrote:Kareem prime (1970-81) is arguably the best in NBA history. I disagree with Quotatious, 1981 season is still his prime one. He was excellent without Magic for most of the season.

I agree that 1981 was still a prime season for Kareem, but whenever I compare primes, I compare the same number of years. Adding 1981 and 2009 to the mix, makes that gap bigger in Kareem's favor.

Quotatious wrote:

70sFan wrote:Kareem prime (1970-81) is arguably the best in NBA history. I disagree with Quotatious, 1981 season is still his prime one. He was excellent without Magic for most of the season.

I agree that 1981 was still a prime season for Kareem, but whenever I compare primes, I compare the same number of years. Adding 1981 and 2009 to the mix, makes that gap bigger in Kareem's favor.

Alright, sounds fair. 2009 and 2010 are still good enough to be called prime years for Timmy though. He wasn't any worse than in 2008 or 1998. As I said before, his first clearly weaker season was in 2011. He quickly recovered though.

70sFan wrote:

Quotatious wrote:

70sFan wrote:Kareem prime (1970-81) is arguably the best in NBA history. I disagree with Quotatious, 1981 season is still his prime one. He was excellent without Magic for most of the season.

I agree that 1981 was still a prime season for Kareem, but whenever I compare primes, I compare the same number of years. Adding 1981 and 2009 to the mix, makes that gap bigger in Kareem's favor.

Alright, sounds fair. 2009 and 2010 are still good enough to be called prime years for Timmy though. He wasn't any worse than in 2008 or 1998. As I said before, his first clearly weaker season was in 2011. He quickly recovered though.

Yeah, that's how I remember it, too. Anyway, every year of his career except for the last one, was all-star level (and in the last one, he was still a very impactful defender as a role player). Even in 2011, he was a huge part of a 61-win team (Z-Bo dominated him in the playoffs, though).

micahclay wrote:6. It seems like everyone has Kareem over Duncan. Can someone give an explanation why?

yeah I feel like I've been guilty of this sorta by default. But the more I examine Duncan the more he rises for me. I have them right next to each other and it wouldn't shock me at all if I ultimately conclude Duncan is the better player.

As you alluded to his post-time defense is definitely more valuable than the post-prime offense of Kareem especially as he was both a defensive and rebounding liability those last several years. Magic's greatness keeping those Lakers teams contending for championships did wonders for Kareem's legacy and we never really get into that, but we spend eons on Duncan and his supporting cast which is really a lot less impressive than most people seem convinced it is. Manu is a great player but he was a relatively low minute guy, then he got post-prime Admiral, just into the beginning of the prime Kawhi and no other remotely elite players.

My tiebreaker for KAJ doesn't feel particularly satisfying to me, but it's basically that he had the best pre-NBA career ever on top of his amazing NBA career.

It's an interesting means of breaking down their careers, I'll try to get around to doing it later.

For starters, I'll state that I rank Kareem's peak higher ('77 Kareem > '03 Duncan, is what I'm saying, though not a big margin). '77 Kareem might be the GOAT floor-raiser, as far as I'm concerned. Hard to say if '77 Kareem could also be among the tip-top ceiling raisers (that supporting cast largely kinda sucked; bloody remarkable achievement that he carried them to 53 wins and a conference finals.....it'd be like if Embiid got healthy and carried that squad to 53 wins and ECF).

70sFan wrote:I don't think Duncan, Russell or KG peaked higher than Jordan but their intangibles make them safer to build around them. Duncan and Russell were amazing leaders and teammates. Players loved playing with them.

I had been including the Spurs' first year Post Duncan as the epilogue to my file on Duncan so I can close the book on him, and working on a piece for the one year anniversary of Duncan's retirement next month. I reached out to some Spurs players and sportswriters last year as there were some things I would have liked to explore more deeply, but—not really a surprise—none of them responded, so I had to proceed normally. I've been applying some of the non-basketball things I know that applies and doing some non-basketball research, and I finally tracked down an original source I was looking for. It's fascinating—to me, anyway—to discover that there is empirical research that is directly relevant to Duncan's leadership and the success of the Spurs, and I might post my findings during the Top 100 project. But from the research that's been done, the Spurs success isn't a surprise when one looks at the type of leader Duncan is. People who don't care about "intangibles" might not care, but there are some who may find it interesting. Duncan's a case study of the results of this research applied to NBA basketball.

Re: Kareem vs Duncan (and a bit of Garnett)

There are some interesting things, here. I did some very basic looks at stats today, and I think there are some definite things that are accepted as givens that should be re-thought.

1) Longevity. Kareem had amazing longevity, but upon examination there's a reasonable argument that Duncan's is better. Consider (purely boxscore measurements, per 100 possessions where available):

Year 1
1970 Kareem (not per 100): 28.8 pts (55.2% TS), 14.5 reb, 4.1 ast --> 22.5 PER, .187 WS/48
1998 Duncan (per 100 pos): 29.3 pts (57.5% TS), 16.6 reb, 3.8 ast--> 22.6 PER, .192 WS/48

Kareem played 82 games, 43 min/game. Duncan played 82 games, 39 minutes.

Year 18
1987 Kareem (per 100): 26.4 pts (59.7% TS), 10.1 reb, 3.9 ast, 3.6 TO -> 1.2 OBPM, 0.4 DBPM
2015 Duncan (per 100): 24.6 pts (56.0% TS), 16.2 reb, 5.3 ast, 3.0 TO -> 0.8 OBPM, 4.7 DBPM

Kareem played 78 games, 31 minutes a game. Duncan played 77 games, 29 minutes a game.

Now, you guys all know that the boxscore alone isn't nearly enough for me to feel good about an evaluation. Also, per 100 numbers aren't perfect for analyzing different eras, but it does provide some type of pace normalization which I think is necessary. But with those said...

Are we sure that Kareem's longevity is better? Duncan's year 18 certainly looks more impressive in the regular season boxscores, to me. Slight advantage to Kareem as a scorer, but Duncan was a SIGNIFICANTLY better rebounder and also a much more efficient distributor at this point in their careers. And, stepping outside of the boxscores, we know that Duncan was still an elite defender at that point in his career and Kareem wasn't.

At the moment, I'm seeing longevity as, at worst, a wash and at best a slight advantage for DUNCAN when compared to Kareem.

2) Peak play.
Again, just a quick boxscore analysis from regular season, but with pace adjusted number. Also, per the OP, let's throw KG in there:

1977 Kareem: 32.7 points/100 (60.8% TS), 16.6 reb, 4.8 ast --> 7.7 OBPM, 3 DBPM
2003 Duncan: 31.6 points/100 (56.4% TS), 17.5 reb, 5.3 ast--> 3.3 OBPM, 4.2 DBPM
2004 Garnett: 33.2 points/100 (54.7% TS), 19.0 reb, 6.8 ast -->4.9 OBPM, 5 DBPM

Same disclaimers as before. Boxscore isn't enough, we're looking at regular season only, pace adjusting isn't perfect...all of that.

That said again...perfect or not, the pace adjusting really puts things in a different perspective. Because much of Kareem's claim to "more dominance" than Duncan or KG comes from his mega scoring. But he was also playing at the breakneck pace of the 1970s vs the grind-it-out early 2000s and...perfect or not, the per 100 stats indicate clearly that at their peaks Duncan and Garnett were scoring at volumes (relative to their teammates & pace) that were very similar to where Kareem was operating.

Way more would need to go into a real analysis of who was better at their peaks than just this. But with this as a reasonable first cut look...I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be reasonable to find after looking deeper that Duncan or Garnett (or both) may have actually peaked higher than Kareem.

Conclusion: I really hope that this type of conversation does help people to look into this/these comps in more depth and not just go with the default. Because there is some legitimate "there" there. Longevity, dominance and scoring are Kareem's calling cards...but they aren't givens, here.

Quotatious wrote:
Regular season:

26.8 to 25.1 in PER
.262 to .222 in WS/48
8.7 to 6.1 in BPM

Playoffs:

26.6 to 26.1 in PER
.245 to .211 in WS/48

I think we agree on most things. I would probably have Duncan's peak higher, though not by much. I would also have the better portions of their primes as similar, but the biggest advantage Kareem has is that his lower end prime years are really really good. It's certainly very close as you said. The top can be incredibly close depending on what you value.

One consideration I had is: aren't those types of advanced stats typically more biased against defense than offense? Not saying that's what all of the gap is, but it does make me wonder how big the gap truly was.

70sFan wrote:To sum up: I don't believe intangibles are very important in evaluating peaks (because MJ was psychologicaly fine in 1991) but it's important in comparing careers and primes.

5. Kareem peak O (1977): 10/10
Duncan peak O (2003): 7,5
KG peak O (2004): 7
Russell peak O (1962): 5

Kareem prime O: 10/10
Duncan prime O: 6,5/10
KG prime O: 5,5/10
Russell prime O: 3/10

Duncan peak D (2003 or 2007): 10/10
Kareem peak D (1971-73): 8,5/10
KG peak D (2008): 9/10
Russell peak D (1964): 14/10

Duncan prime D: 10/10
Kareem prime D: 8/10
KG prime D: 8/10
Russell prime D: 13/10

6. Kareem is better offensive player. He has more peak-ish seasons and his peak and prime is stronger overall. Kareem is underrated defender and as a Buck he was really top 10 defensive bigman ever. For most of his prime he was very close to Duncan defensively, he just lost focus (and motor/abilities on D) when he got older. He has also slightly better longevity which sounds unbelievable.
.

Was Kareem really that close to Duncan and KG defensively? I need to watch more tape of younger Kareem.

Since intangibles/leadership ability apply over the career, how much would you say that lessens the gap between the two, since Duncan was the consummate leader, and Duncan not so much?

Texas Chuck wrote:

micahclay wrote:6. It seems like everyone has Kareem over Duncan. Can someone give an explanation why?

yeah I feel like I've been guilty of this sorta by default. But the more I examine Duncan the more he rises for me. I have them right next to each other and it wouldn't shock me at all if I ultimately conclude Duncan is the better player.

As you alluded to his post-time defense is definitely more valuable than the post-prime offense of Kareem especially as he was both a defensive and rebounding liability those last several years. Magic's greatness keeping those Lakers teams contending for championships did wonders for Kareem's legacy and we never really get into that, but we spend eons on Duncan and his supporting cast which is really a lot less impressive than most people seem convinced it is. Manu is a great player but he was a relatively low minute guy, then he got post-prime Admiral, just into the beginning of the prime Kawhi and no other remotely elite players.

This debate in particular within my mind is causing me to evaluate my philosophy of goat-ness anew - how much do non basketball related things affect things? More and more to evaluate haha.

eminence wrote:My tiebreaker for KAJ doesn't feel particularly satisfying to me, but it's basically that he had the best pre-NBA career ever on top of his amazing NBA career.

How much do you value things like being a good teammate, Duncan's allowing a smooth transition to Kawhi, etc.?

ThaRegul8r wrote:

70sFan wrote:I don't think Duncan, Russell or KG peaked higher than Jordan but their intangibles make them safer to build around them. Duncan and Russell were amazing leaders and teammates. Players loved playing with them.

I had been including the Spurs' first year Post Duncan as the epilogue to my file on Duncan so I can close the book on him, and working on a piece for the one year anniversary of Duncan's retirement next month. I reached out to some Spurs players and sportswriters last year as there were some things I would have liked to explore more deeply, but—not really a surprise—none of them responded, so I had to proceed normally. I've been applying some of the non-basketball things I know that applies and doing some non-basketball research, and I finally tracked down an original source I was looking for. It's fascinating—to me, anyway—to discover that there is empirical research that is directly relevant to Duncan's leadership and the success of the Spurs, and I might post my findings during the Top 100 project. But from the research that's been done, the Spurs success isn't a surprise when one looks at the type of leader Duncan is. People who don't care about "intangibles" might not care, but there are some who may find it interesting. Duncan's a case study of the results of this research applied to NBA basketball.

I'd be very interested in seeing your research. I'm big on how intangibles affect players and teams, and Duncan is the ideal example of that (along with Russell - yet Duncan seemingly did it without the neuroticism that Russell could have).

trex_8063 wrote:It's an interesting means of breaking down their careers, I'll try to get around to doing it later.

For starters, I'll state that I rank Kareem's peak higher ('77 Kareem > '03 Duncan, is what I'm saying, though not a big margin). '77 Kareem might be the GOAT floor-raiser, as far as I'm concerned. Hard to say if '77 Kareem could also be among the tip-top ceiling raisers (that supporting cast largely kinda sucked; bloody remarkable achievement that he carried them to 53 wins and a conference finals.....it'd be like if Embiid got healthy and carried that squad to 53 wins and ECF).

How much better was Duncan's supporting cast in 03 (or in his worst teammate years) than Kareem's in 77?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Kareem was winning MVP in his 11th season. Duncan wasn't even finishing higher top 7 in voting after his 9th season which basically means at 31 years of age he no longer was a top 3 player in the league.

drza wrote:That said again...perfect or not, the pace adjusting really puts things in a different perspective. Because much of Kareem's claim to "more dominance" than Duncan or KG comes from his mega scoring. But he was also playing at the breakneck pace of the 1970s vs the grind-it-out early 2000s and...perfect or not, the per 100 stats indicate clearly that at their peaks Duncan and Garnett were scoring at volumes (relative to their teammates & pace) that were very similar to where Kareem was operating.

drza, I typically agree with your thoughts, but here I cannot. I think using per-100 stats for many comparisons obscures more than it reveals. I don't know if any one else thinks this so I will try to explain my reasoning.

Let's consider why we might adjust for pace. The idea is the more possessions in a game the more opportunities players have to score or create. Implicit to this statement is that players are opportunistic. That they wait for the defense to make a (necessarily infrequent) mistake, be it an overt breakdown like not getting back in transition, or something more subtle like the defenders body not being perfectly squared.

The most obvious failure in making this assumption is that certain players can only be opportunistic in certain types of possessions. For instance, true centers typically won't be running the break, since guards can get up court so much faster. So, an increase in the number of fast breaks would mean more possessions, but not more opportunities for players like Kareem or Duncan.

But beyond that, we shouldn't expect all players to be equally opportunistic, and thus shouldn't expect all players to "benefit" equally from higher pace. In general, I think all-time great players are minimally opportunistic. On Kareem specifically, during his best years, him getting a shot off or drawing a double was nearly guaranteed once he got the ball in the post. The only way to describe him as remotely opportunistic is because the post entry pass isn't always available. However, with good ball handlers and passers, these possession aren't many.

micahclay wrote:I'd be very interested in seeing your research. I'm big on how intangibles affect players and teams, and Duncan is the ideal example of that (along with Russell - yet Duncan seemingly did it without the neuroticism that Russell could have).

I've been reading the findings of the study and incorporating it into my Duncan file, and able to go directly to examples from Duncan's career that exemplify exactly what's being talked about in the results of his study. And there's a quote from Duncan in 2010 that's actually corroborated by this study. I find it really interesting as I'm trying to synthesize this together.

Russell and Duncan have often been compared, and both led their teams to success that no other franchise in professional sports had during their respective eras. They had similarities and the same goal, though different personalities, and they had different things going for them. As far as Russell's neuroticism though, one has to remember that Russell is a black man who was born in the 1930s in Louisiana, while Duncan is a black man both in the mid-1970s in the U.S. Virgin Islands. That has to be kept in mind.

Blackmill wrote:

drza wrote:That said again...perfect or not, the pace adjusting really puts things in a different perspective. Because much of Kareem's claim to "more dominance" than Duncan or KG comes from his mega scoring. But he was also playing at the breakneck pace of the 1970s vs the grind-it-out early 2000s and...perfect or not, the per 100 stats indicate clearly that at their peaks Duncan and Garnett were scoring at volumes (relative to their teammates & pace) that were very similar to where Kareem was operating.

drza, I typically agree with your thoughts, but here I cannot. I think using per-100 stats for many comparisons obscures more than it reveals. I don't know if any one else thinks this so I will try to explain my reasoning.

Let's consider why we might adjust for pace. The idea is the more possessions in a game the more opportunities players have to score or create. Implicit to this statement is that players are opportunistic. That they wait for the defense to make a (necessarily infrequent) mistake, be it an overt breakdown like not getting back in transition, or something more subtle like the defenders body not being perfectly squared.

The most obvious failure in making this assumption is that certain players can only be opportunistic in certain types of possessions. For instance, true centers typically won't be running the break, since guards can get up court so much faster. So, an increase in the number of fast breaks would mean more possessions, but not more opportunities for players like Kareem or Duncan.

But beyond that, we shouldn't expect all players to be equally opportunistic, and thus shouldn't expect all players to "benefit" equally from higher pace. In general, I think all-time great players are minimally opportunistic. On Kareem specifically, during his best years, him getting a shot off or drawing a double was nearly guaranteed once he got the ball in the post. The only way to describe him as remotely opportunistic is because the post entry pass isn't always available. However, with good ball handlers and passers, these possession aren't many.

I understand your reasoning, as I've seen variations of it before. But I think, in this case, you're first sentence is correct...I'm not going to agree with you on this. Frankly, the stance that you espouse makes no logical sense to me. I'm willing to, as I mentioned in the post you quoted, agree that pace normalizing isn't an exact science. But, as I also mentioned, I believe that we have to at least TRY to normalize, because otherwise we get results that (to me) make absolutely no sense. Consider.

1977 Lakers had 104.7 possessions per game. The 2003 Spurs had 90 possessions per game.

1977 Lakers sored 106.9 points per game, of which Kareem scored 26.2. So, Kareem scored 24.5% of his team's points.

2003 Spurs scored 95.8 points per game, of which Duncan scored 23.3. So, Duncan scored 24.3% of his team's points.

Even in raw numbers, their scoring averages are similar. But for the premise to be true that star players aren't opportunistic, to use your terms, and thus that the pace adjustment isn't closer to even ground than raw stats, that would suggest that if the 2003 Spurs suddenly played at 105 pace, Duncan would for some reason average the same (or very similar) numbers of shots as he does at 90 pace. Well, then...who is getting the shots in those extra 15 possessions? Duncan scored the same percentage of his team's points as Kareem did...why would playing faster suddenly cause that to change? Why would Duncan not get the expected 3 or so shots out of the extra 15 possessions? Why would we assume that Parker, or Bowen, or Jackson, or Robinson would all of a sudden monopolize all of the extra shots to thus change the proportion of the offense that Duncan utilizes to any significant degree?

I understand the notion that we can't know for sure what would happen. But to me, we can only use the best logic that we have. And in my opinion, I can't use raw numbers if one player is getting 15 - 20 (sometimes more) more possessions than another. It seems that you're settled in your feelings on this, and I respect that. But to me, pace normalizing is much more useful than raw numbers (or, at the very least, required in addition to purely looking at raw numbers for a different perspective), if one is going to put any kind of premium on boxscore volume in the evaluation process.

drza wrote:

Spoiler:

Blackmill wrote:
drza, I typically agree with your thoughts, but here I cannot. I think using per-100 stats for many comparisons obscures more than it reveals. I don't know if any one else thinks this so I will try to explain my reasoning.

Let's consider why we might adjust for pace. The idea is the more possessions in a game the more opportunities players have to score or create. Implicit to this statement is that players are opportunistic. That they wait for the defense to make a (necessarily infrequent) mistake, be it an overt breakdown like not getting back in transition, or something more subtle like the defenders body not being perfectly squared.

The most obvious failure in making this assumption is that certain players can only be opportunistic in certain types of possessions. For instance, true centers typically won't be running the break, since guards can get up court so much faster. So, an increase in the number of fast breaks would mean more possessions, but not more opportunities for players like Kareem or Duncan.

But beyond that, we shouldn't expect all players to be equally opportunistic, and thus shouldn't expect all players to "benefit" equally from higher pace. In general, I think all-time great players are minimally opportunistic. On Kareem specifically, during his best years, him getting a shot off or drawing a double was nearly guaranteed once he got the ball in the post. The only way to describe him as remotely opportunistic is because the post entry pass isn't always available. However, with good ball handlers and passers, these possession aren't many.

I understand your reasoning, as I've seen variations of it before. But I think, in this case, you're first sentence is correct...I'm not going to agree with you on this. Frankly, the stance that you espouse makes no logical sense to me. I'm willing to, as I mentioned in the post you quoted, agree that pace normalizing isn't an exact science. But, as I also mentioned, I believe that we have to at least TRY to normalize, because otherwise we get results that (to me) make absolutely no sense. Consider.

1977 Lakers had 104.7 possessions per game. The 2003 Spurs had 90 possessions per game.

1977 Lakers sored 106.9 points per game, of which Kareem scored 26.2. So, Kareem scored 24.5% of his team's points.

2003 Spurs scored 95.8 points per game, of which Duncan scored 23.3. So, Duncan scored 24.3% of his team's points.

Even in raw numbers, their scoring averages are similar. But for the premise to be true that star players aren't opportunistic, to use your terms, and thus that the pace adjustment isn't closer to even ground than raw stats, that would suggest that if the 2003 Spurs suddenly played at 105 pace, Duncan would for some reason average the same (or very similar) numbers of shots as he does at 90 pace. Well, then...who is getting the shots in those extra 15 possessions? Duncan scored the same percentage of his team's points as Kareem did...why would playing faster suddenly cause that to change? Why would Duncan not get the expected 3 or so shots out of the extra 15 possessions? Why would we assume that Parker, or Bowen, or Jackson, or Robinson would all of a sudden monopolize all of the extra shots to thus change the proportion of the offense that Duncan utilizes to any significant degree?

I understand the notion that we can't know for sure what would happen. But to me, we can only use the best logic that we have. And in my opinion, I can't use raw numbers if one player is getting 15 - 20 (sometimes more) more possessions than another. It seems that you're settled in your feelings on this, and I respect that. But to me, pace normalizing is much more useful than raw numbers (or, at the very least, required in addition to purely looking at raw numbers for a different perspective), if one is going to put any kind of premium on boxscore volume in the evaluation process.

I happen to agree. My original post was not to prove pace doesn't matter, but rather, to establish the interaction between pace and production is contextual. In fact, your opinion and mine are not so orthogonal as they may seem, and I think could be made consistent with one another.

Just like there's team statistics and individual statistics, I think there's team pace and individual pace. Team pace depends greatly on team composition and offensive philosophy. I would argue that Kareem played at a relatively slow pace and his teammates at an absurdly fast pace.

For instance, right now I'm watching G4 of the '77 series between the Lakers and the Blazers, and I've noticed that the Lakers play much slower when they attempt to post Kareem. This is most obvious when Kareem goes to the bench. Without him, the Lakers looked to be shooting before the post entry pass would typically be made, were Kareem on the court.

I wouldn't be surprised if the pace, when Kareem touched the ball, was fairly similar to the pace Duncan played at. Granted, that's just a guess, but any one who's watched Kareem's post play knows it's far from fast paced. Given this, and that Kareem can get a shot whenever he receives the ball, I think his per-game stats would be largely unchanged had he played in the 2000s.

I've been wrestling with these questions during my pre-top 100 evaluation. Post-1981, Kareem seems incredibly consistent up through 1986. I've rated him as a championship team's second best player. It's hard to see much evident drop-off over that time span. He is still a very good player in 1987. In 1988 he is a role player. His decline seems linear. He is a mega-star through 1980, still excellent in 1981, damn good from 1982-1986, good in 1987, still decent in 1988, and bad in 1990. Unfortunately, we don't have RAPM for KAJ so I don't know if his box score was consistent while he fell off of a cliff on the other end. I know his defense fell off, and PPG! is a bad argument, yet it's tough to say he had truly declined when in the 1986 playoffs he averages 26 a game and battles Hakeem in the Western Conference Finals. He would likely have averaged significantly more than 26 PPG had the Lakers not dismantled the Spurs so hard in the first round of the playoffs, causing KAJ to play fewer minutes than usual.

Duncan is more difficult to evaluate for me because a.) his 2011 throws a wrench into things and b.) we have RAPM available. 2011 is a wrench in the equation and he had a miserable playoff series. His resurgence in 2012 and 2013 looks marvelous by both box score and impact numbers. As far as RAPM, it makes me wonder how significant Duncan's drop-off was from 2008 to 2009.

In the end, I believe it goes something like:

2008 < 1981
09, 10, 12, 13 = 82-86
11, 14, 15 = 87
16 = 88

Giving KAJ 81-88 the slight edge over Duncan 08-16.

This is a great question. I take Kareem—but it’s not an easy decision … and it shouldn’t be. When you are talking about 2 of the 5-7 greatest players of all time (and I think most people agree that both KAJ and TD are top 5-7), you simply aren’t going to have a huge difference.

TD is one of the few players that I think can almost match Kareem for prime. I’m always a little amused to see people saying “Kareem played forever, but his prime isn’t quite as good.” If you’re saying that Kareem’s best single year—let’s just say 1976, because it’s a year Kareem himself chose and few other people do--isn’t as good as, say Shaq in 2000 or Dr. J in 1976 or LeBron 2013, I wouldn’t really disagree. But it’s close, and Kareem has 8-11 other years right about the same level. TD is one of the very few that can put 12 seasons up like Kareem’s 1970-81. And his best year(s), like Kareem's often get a little underrated in terms of peak. I think 2002 and 2003 Timmy are about as good as any year Kareem put up … but I’d still choose Kareem for the whole 12 year peak. I don’t it’s as pronounced was WS and WS/48 note; PER is closer, but I think could be closer still. I respect TDs overall game and D so much. But, yeah, Kareem scored more, shot better, shot better from the line, passed better, blocked more shots, and rebounded almost as well (their reb% in peak 12 seasons are less than 1% apart—18.4 to 17.6). People will point to the wins and titles that TD got—with good reason. And some people knock Kareem for playing on “bad” teams in the mid-70s--which was out of his control and much less pronounced than you might think. Duncan played for one coach, in a great system, and started out on a great team. They won 70% of their games and four titles. But Kareem’s teams, all around, aren’t exactly a whole lot behind—they won over 65% of their games and took two titles (and should have won a third). If you figure team win percentages when the players are on the court, it gets closer; the Spurs were a .500 team when Duncan was out. The Bucks/Lakers weren’t close to that.

Add into that that Kareem played more. Duncan was an iron man; few players average 36+ minutes per game and play nearly 95% of their teams games over 12 seasons. That’s a lot of time, a lot of minutes. But Kareem played more; a higher percentage of games, more minutes per game. All in all, I just have to give the 12 season peak to Kareem. It’s not by a lot, but it’s by enough.

So that leaves us with the remainder of their careers (actually, 7 of Kareem’s 8 final years against 7 of Duncan’s). Right off the bat, I have to ask not just if Duncan is equal—but if he’s superior enough to make up the (small) difference in those first 12 years. And, for me, the answer is “no.” Duncan was/remained a superior defensive player. And he’s a slightly more valuable player per minute, I think—WS/48 and PER bear this our, although they remain close. But the difference in time and games starts to be a measurable factor here—Kareem played a lot more. I know, I know … Pop was resting Duncan during the RS and limiting his minutes so he would be better in the playoffs. Well, the Lakers did that with Kareem too. The fact is that Kareem played a lot more—a full season more; 78 games, 2350 minutes more. Do you want a player that’s 3% better that you have for 15% less each year? It’s always a good question; it’s a good question here.

The other questions are equally interesting. Duncan’s rebounding edge becomes much more pronounced, but so does Kareem’s efficiency. The titles/wins are flipped; Kareem wins four titles in his last seven years and more games per year. It’s tough.

Ultimately, for me, I actually think Duncan 2010-2016 and Kareem 1982-88 are pretty close to equal in overall value. So I go back to Kareem’s slim lead in seasons 1-12. So close. I have them both in my top 6. Great, great players.