Which versions of Duncan would you take over '86 Larry Bird

[cecilthesheep]

... his offense was effectively shut down in the finals as they got pushed to 7 by a clearly inferior team.

2005 he wasn't even his teams best offensive player ... I like Duncan but I call it how it is and Manu carried him offensively during the playoffs

I'm not going to tell you Duncan had an awesome offensive series or something, but this kind of talk is exaggeration. The entire Detroit defense was focused on stopping Duncan first, and Manu benefited significantly from that.

You can argue about who the better offensive player was (I still take Duncan) but saying Manu "carried him" just completely misunderstands how the Spurs' offense worked. Duncan was the engine that made everything go, and Manu's big efficiency boost came at least in significant part from Duncan's load-bearing capabilities.

I also think calling Detroit inferior doesn't mean a whole lot without examining their play style. They won games by slowing things down, frustrating their opponent, and keeping it close until the end. That'll probably depress the SRS some, although it doesn't account for the entire gap, and more importantly, it extends series against better teams by increasing the randomness. I don't think it's a mark against the Spurs that Detroit took them to 7.

[No-more-rings]

... his offense was effectively shut down in the finals as they got pushed to 7 by a clearly inferior team.

2005 he wasn't even his teams best offensive player ... I like Duncan but I call it how it is and Manu carried him offensively during the playoffs

I'm not going to tell you Duncan had an awesome offensive series or something, but this kind of talk is exaggeration. The entire Detroit defense was focused on stopping Duncan first, and Manu benefited significantly from that.

You can argue about who the better offensive player was (I still take Duncan) but saying Manu "carried him" just completely misunderstands how the Spurs' offense worked. Duncan was the engine that made everything go, and Manu's big efficiency boost came at least in significant part from Duncan's load-bearing capabilities.

I also think calling Detroit inferior doesn't mean a whole lot without examining their play style. They won games by slowing things down, frustrating their opponent, and keeping it close until the end. That'll probably depress the SRS some, although it doesn't account for the entire gap, and more importantly, it extends series against better teams by increasing the randomness. I don't think it's a mark against the Spurs that Detroit took them to 7.

It’s not a mark, but people are calling it better than Bird’s peak. Bird was remarkably consistent in his playoff run and handled the competition. No 7 games series, and he didn’t have an series where he struggled to score like Duncan did. Btw, when you talk about Duncan receiving all this defensive attention, i recall him being mostly played one on one with Sheed and sometimes Ben, and him getting doubled isn’t shown in his assist numbers either since he averaged only 2.1 apg. Manu was clearly their best offensive player in that series, and probably for the whole playoffs too. Not a knock against Duncan, but i’m struggling with the case for it over peak Bird. And the couple mentions of 1999, i’m not even going to address it’s so ridiculous.

[cecilthesheep]

It’s not a mark, but people are calling it better than Bird’s peak. Bird was remarkably consistent in his playoff run and handled the competition. No 7 games series, and he didn’t have an series where he struggled to score like Duncan did. Btw, when you talk about Duncan receiving all this defensive attention, i recall him being mostly played one on one with Sheed and sometimes Ben, and him getting doubled isn’t shown in his assist numbers either since he averaged only 2.1 apg. Manu was clearly their best offensive player in that series, and probably for the whole playoffs too. Not a knock against Duncan, but i’m struggling with the case for it over peak Bird. And the couple mentions of 1999, i’m not even going to address it’s so ridiculous.

meh, I probably take Bird too, but I really think you're overstating the case against Duncan quite a bit here. For instance, nobody's mentioning Duncan's significantly greater defensive impact - he held Sheed to 10.9 points on 46.7% true shooting, not that Sheed was some offensive terror, but that's still a huge dropoff from his production during the rest of the playoffs (14.7 on 52.4%). Show me who Bird did that to, and I'll be a lot more worried about the offensive gap.

Also, assist numbers don't always correlate with defensive attention - it's less about straight double-teaming and more about the way help defense responds or doesn't to Manu/others while Duncan is on the floor. His presence changes everything.

[bledredwine]

None.

Bird was a better player, period and I don’t need analytics to say so in this case.

[No-more-rings]

It’s not a mark, but people are calling it better than Bird’s peak. Bird was remarkably consistent in his playoff run and handled the competition. No 7 games series, and he didn’t have an series where he struggled to score like Duncan did. Btw, when you talk about Duncan receiving all this defensive attention, i recall him being mostly played one on one with Sheed and sometimes Ben, and him getting doubled isn’t shown in his assist numbers either since he averaged only 2.1 apg. Manu was clearly their best offensive player in that series, and probably for the whole playoffs too. Not a knock against Duncan, but i’m struggling with the case for it over peak Bird. And the couple mentions of 1999, i’m not even going to address it’s so ridiculous.

meh, I probably take Bird too, but I really think you're overstating the case against Duncan quite a bit here. For instance, nobody's mentioning Duncan's significantly greater defensive impact - he held Sheed to 10.9 points on 46.7% true shooting, not that Sheed was some offensive terror, but that's still a huge dropoff from his production during the rest of the playoffs (14.7 on 52.8%). Show me who Bird did that too, and I'll be a lot more worried about the offensive gap.

Well i was going to mention his defense was game changing..but his defense always was, pretty much his entire career. I don’t think Duncan being a 9 on defense and a 6 on offense is better than Bird being a 9 on offense and 6 on defense. Arbitrary numbers but you get the ide. But whatever i guess, no one addressed Duncan’s so-so regular season, it was good enough to be one of the best in the game but Bird’s whole season was all time level.

[No-more-rings]

Also, assist numbers don't always correlate with defensive attention - it's less about straight double-teaming and more about the way help defense responds or doesn't to Manu/others while Duncan is on the floor. His presence changes everything.

Can you shown on video that Duncan’s presence massively helped create for others? Certainly not in the same universe as Bird’s did. And I don’t think Duncan’s defensive attention had much to do with Manu, that helps more for spot up shooters than it does offensive initiators like Manu.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

... his offense was effectively shut down in the finals as they got pushed to 7 by a clearly inferior team.

2005 he wasn't even his teams best offensive player ... I like Duncan but I call it how it is and Manu carried him offensively during the playoffs

I'm not going to tell you Duncan had an awesome offensive series or something, but this kind of talk is exaggeration. The entire Detroit defense was focused on stopping Duncan first, and Manu benefited significantly from that.

You can argue about who the better offensive player was (I still take Duncan) but saying Manu "carried him" just completely misunderstands how the Spurs' offense worked. Duncan was the engine that made everything go, and Manu's big efficiency boost came at least in significant part from Duncan's load-bearing capabilities.

I also think calling Detroit inferior doesn't mean a whole lot without examining their play style. They won games by slowing things down, frustrating their opponent, and keeping it close until the end. That'll probably depress the SRS some, although it doesn't account for the entire gap, and more importantly, it extends series against better teams by increasing the randomness. I don't think it's a mark against the Spurs that Detroit took them to 7.

Duncan is the engine that made everything go but was still the 2nd most productive offensive player in every series besides vs Suns

Larry Bird is the engine that made everything go and 1st most productive offensive player.

Do you see the differences now? Ginobli carried Duncan offensively in the playoffs compared to McHale did for Bird.

[cecilthesheep]

Also, assist numbers don't always correlate with defensive attention - it's less about straight double-teaming and more about the way help defense responds or doesn't to Manu/others while Duncan is on the floor. His presence changes everything.

Can you shown on video that Duncan’s presence massively helped create for others? Certainly not in the same universe as Bird’s did. And I don’t think Duncan’s defensive attention had much to do with Manu, that helps more for spot up shooters than it does offensive initiators like Manu.

Nah, of course he's not the creator Bird was. But that doesn't mean Manu was carrying the offense. Manu has always been equal parts offensive initiator and spot-up shooter, and he was getting his fair share of catch-and-shoot threes in those Finals, as you'll see in the video I'll link below. But beyond that, I think there was a fair bit of stuff happening where Manu as the offensive initiator went to drive and the help didn't step up as fast because Duncan was at the elbow or in the dunker spot.

For a couple of video examples, check 0:20 and 1:40 of this:

Watch on YouTube

Ben is late stepping up in the first example because Duncan is occupying the low block. This is one of the greatest help defenders of all time, so concerned about Duncan that he pauses an extra half second before moving over even though Duncan has an extra defender on him. In the second example, it's more clear on the replay, but Sheed has an opportunity to step completely in front of Manu and decides to go for a steal instead because he knows Duncan is behind him on the base line and doesn't want to open that pass up.

There's further support for this when you look at the direction Manu's output trended in as that series progressed. Detroit started out with a mentality of "shut Duncan down, make anyone but him beat us". After Manu's stellar first two games, they figured out they needed to be a lot more afraid of him than they had been. From game 3 through game 6, Manu puts up 13.8 points on a .375/.200/.778 slash line. That's more than half the Finals. Manu had three good games in that series - his overall stats are great, but he was not consistent. And again, when you compare the two players on off scoring nights, Duncan's contributing a lot more with his screens and pulling the help than Manu is. That's value provided every single game.

I've been a little tough on Manu here. I don't mean to discredit him. He took great advantage of the opportunities he was given and had an awesome, clutch game 7 performance. I just think it's important to realize what a significant offensive role Duncan was playing despite his decreased efficiency before we say Manu was carrying him. They worked together.

[cecilthesheep]

... his offense was effectively shut down in the finals as they got pushed to 7 by a clearly inferior team.

2005 he wasn't even his teams best offensive player ... I like Duncan but I call it how it is and Manu carried him offensively during the playoffs

I'm not going to tell you Duncan had an awesome offensive series or something, but this kind of talk is exaggeration. The entire Detroit defense was focused on stopping Duncan first, and Manu benefited significantly from that.

You can argue about who the better offensive player was (I still take Duncan) but saying Manu "carried him" just completely misunderstands how the Spurs' offense worked. Duncan was the engine that made everything go, and Manu's big efficiency boost came at least in significant part from Duncan's load-bearing capabilities.

I also think calling Detroit inferior doesn't mean a whole lot without examining their play style. They won games by slowing things down, frustrating their opponent, and keeping it close until the end. That'll probably depress the SRS some, although it doesn't account for the entire gap, and more importantly, it extends series against better teams by increasing the randomness. I don't think it's a mark against the Spurs that Detroit took them to 7.

Duncan is the engine that made everything go but was still the 2nd most productive offensive player in every series besides vs Suns

Larry Bird is the engine that made everything go and 1st most productive offensive player.

Do you see the differences now? Ginobli carried Duncan offensively in the playoffs compared to McHale did for Bird.

I could go back and forth about what "most productive" means with Duncan's consistently superior volume production, screen-setting, sealing his man on drives, etc., but I think it's enough if we agree that it's at least close. Because what Parish and McHale did on defense can be much more aptly described as "carrying" than anything Manu did on offense.

I really think focusing on Duncan's obviously-not-as-good-as-'86-Bird regular season would be a much more reasonable argument than saying he was so much worse in the playoffs.

[cecilthesheep]

It’s not a mark, but people are calling it better than Bird’s peak. Bird was remarkably consistent in his playoff run and handled the competition. No 7 games series, and he didn’t have an series where he struggled to score like Duncan did. Btw, when you talk about Duncan receiving all this defensive attention, i recall him being mostly played one on one with Sheed and sometimes Ben, and him getting doubled isn’t shown in his assist numbers either since he averaged only 2.1 apg. Manu was clearly their best offensive player in that series, and probably for the whole playoffs too. Not a knock against Duncan, but i’m struggling with the case for it over peak Bird. And the couple mentions of 1999, i’m not even going to address it’s so ridiculous.

meh, I probably take Bird too, but I really think you're overstating the case against Duncan quite a bit here. For instance, nobody's mentioning Duncan's significantly greater defensive impact - he held Sheed to 10.9 points on 46.7% true shooting, not that Sheed was some offensive terror, but that's still a huge dropoff from his production during the rest of the playoffs (14.7 on 52.8%). Show me who Bird did that too, and I'll be a lot more worried about the offensive gap.

Well i was going to mention his defense was game changing..but his defense always was, pretty much his entire career. I don’t think Duncan being a 9 on defense and a 6 on offense is better than Bird being a 9 on offense and 6 on defense. Arbitrary numbers but you get the ide. But whatever i guess, no one addressed Duncan’s so-so regular season, it was good enough to be one of the best in the game but Bird’s whole season was all time level.

I can completely agree with this. Bird was better. I just don't think Duncan's supposed dropoff in the postseason is why.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

I'm not going to tell you Duncan had an awesome offensive series or something, but this kind of talk is exaggeration. The entire Detroit defense was focused on stopping Duncan first, and Manu benefited significantly from that.

You can argue about who the better offensive player was (I still take Duncan) but saying Manu "carried him" just completely misunderstands how the Spurs' offense worked. Duncan was the engine that made everything go, and Manu's big efficiency boost came at least in significant part from Duncan's load-bearing capabilities.

I also think calling Detroit inferior doesn't mean a whole lot without examining their play style. They won games by slowing things down, frustrating their opponent, and keeping it close until the end. That'll probably depress the SRS some, although it doesn't account for the entire gap, and more importantly, it extends series against better teams by increasing the randomness. I don't think it's a mark against the Spurs that Detroit took them to 7.

Duncan is the engine that made everything go but was still the 2nd most productive offensive player in every series besides vs Suns

Larry Bird is the engine that made everything go and 1st most productive offensive player.

Do you see the differences now? Ginobli carried Duncan offensively in the playoffs compared to McHale did for Bird.

I could go back and forth about what "most productive" means with Duncan's consistently superior volume production, screen-setting, sealing his man on drives, etc., but I think it's enough if we agree that it's at least close. Because what Parish and McHale did on defense can be much more aptly described as "carrying" than anything Manu did on offense.

I really think focusing on Duncan's obviously-not-as-good-as-'86-Bird regular season would be a much more reasonable argument than saying he was so much worse in the playoffs.

They had equal scoring volume in nuggets series, Sonics series was a 16% TS gap, pistons series 2 point difference and another 16% TS gap.

Ginobli also had the better playmaking, OBPM, BPM, win shares, ws/48, free throw rate. Ginobli even had the higher VORP despite playing less minutes. Plenty of signs that points to Ginobli being the best offensive player during the playoffs that year.

[kendogg]

Here is personally how I tier players:

1. GOAT Tier (Top 1 player in the league several years and most of their prime)
2. MVP Tier (Top MVP candidate in the league several years and most of their prime)
3. Superstar Tier (Max level guys, All-NBA team type guys)
4. Star Tier (Guys who are a star on their team and either All-Star, All-NBA or All-Defense in the league several years and most of their prime)
5. Journeyman Tier (Starter or Key Reserve level player)

In terms of peaks, I personally have Bird in the GOAT Tier, alongside Wilt/Kareem/Jordan/Shaq/LeBron. And I have Duncan in the MVP Tier, just below him. Career-wise, you could argue Duncan is as high or higher, but it seems like you are more interested in peaks here.

So I would not take any years of Duncan over peak Bird, though it is rather close despite me having them in different tiers. Bird is at the bottom of tier 1 and Duncan the top of tier 2. It's only Duncan's offense that keeps him from Tier 1. It's great, don't get me wrong. But it's not GOAT level.

[Timmyyy]

None.

Bird was a better player, period and I don’t need analytics to say so in this case.

You never use analytics, so don't act as If this would be some exception where you skip them because it is too obvious.

To the Duncan 05 discussion. I think this is another case where the guys that value boxscores more, will see a bigger drop off compared to his peak then the guys that do not use it so much like me.

I remember that Duncan was considered runaway favorite for MVP that year until his injury, because he was the best player in the league rather clearly. His boxscores dipped because of the continued emergency of Parker and Ginobili more than anything else. 05 is also one of his best defensive years.
Looking at all the RAPM data sets I have Duncan was the clear cut best player in the league considering Ginobilis smaller role in the RS. He leads in PI with PO and trails only Ginobili in the NPI and PI RS only and NPI with PO. The lead over the 3rd guys is also rather comfortable.
Ginobili in RS had the higher offensive impact, but we should not forget here that he did that while not really being the first scoring option in offense. With that I mean he was the better offensive player that year but not quite sure he was more important, because of less minutes and role.

In the PO with Duncans dip and Ginobilis increase of role I will say that importance wise Ginobili definitely closed the gap. But that doesn't take away from Duncan since Ginobili was a phenomenal offensive player and Duncan was 'only' a big. A guy with slightly worse offense than Ginobili while being Duncan on defense is on a pretty insane overall level.

Overall Duncan had a huge RS that is pushed down a little by missed games.
His PO are roughly on the same level (in my eyes he upped his defense and lost on offense), which is reflected by the fact that his RAPM with PO is equally as dominant as his RS only RAPM.
Looking at the RAPM data he has a pretty comfortable gap between him and the rest of the league except for his teammate with the way narrower role.

I think if he stays healthy and struggles less offensively in the PO's (don't forget that this drop off is caused to a degree by playing the Pistons defense for 7 games) he is at his peak levels that year. His impact seems really close to it, which is showing me that these things while relevant, weren't as big as boxscore would suggest (Duncan never was a guy that excelled in the boxscore category and made most of his impact outside of it).

I take a Timmy that is rather close to his peak with a good but not insane lift in the PO's over Bird still. But since it is hard to quantify I can see the oppositions pov. Note that I said I have them as roughly equal in my first post.

[euroleague]

There's no version of Duncan I'd rank equal to peak Bird.

You guys talk so much about Duncan's offensive impact outside of the box-score. Bird's was far greater. Bird's greatest impact was in his playmaking, screen setting, help defense, and control of the offense. He didn't need to score to win games.

I wouldn't take any version of Duncan over '84-'88 Bird, although 03 Duncan I'd have around equal to '88 Bird.

The most ridiculous thing to me in this thread is all the people crediting Duncan for Manu's offense - when manu's best play was off the bench when Duncan sat, and himself has detailed how difficult it was to adapt to playing with Duncan - while not talking about Bird's impact that doesn't show up in the box score.

Bird was the better passer, shooter, post scorer, and not far off in rebounding. His help defense was elite, and he made several key defensive plays to help his team advance in the post-season (the steal from Isiah being the most notable).

Duncan is the better rim protector, but there are many great rim protectors in the league - there's only ever been one player with Bird's skillset, and that's Bird. Having a rare skillset doesn't make him better, but it should speak volumes about the impact he had and the difficulty of players to emulate him.

There have been a few "Magic" type players - Lebron, Ben Simmons, even Grant Hill - who played as a big PG capable of scoring. Bird, though? The closest we've seen is Dirk/KD, but neither had close to the playmaking or rebounding (although KD was arguably better defensively).

[liamliam1234]

^ I hate arguments like the above because it is just all narrative. I think it is generally recognised that most of the analytics we have on hand probably undervalue defence a bit, yet Duncan’s 2003 playoffs still blows away anything Bird ever did in the postseason in terms of advanced metrics. It is not impact outside of the box score; we can see it. And I think the numbers bear out that while Bird never carried over his regular season as well into the postseason, we have plenty of evidence of Duncan maintaining or exceeding his regular season numbers once the playoffs started. It is no accident that Duncan’s 2003 run is basically the gold standard in terms of title-winning impact, and people should not be scared of admitting that in those terms Bird was a half-step below.

[euroleague]

I hate arguments like the one above, that criticize others for narrative and then use an argument entirely based on narrative to do so. Even worse. They argue with generally recognized’ assumptions and unnamed ‘advanced stats’. Such blatant hypocrisy is hard to reason with...

[liamliam1234]

What, did you want me to link to a Basketball Reference page for you? I think you are all aware that 2003 Duncan’s was better by the numbers, but you just choose to ignore them because Bird could shoot and pass.

[euroleague]

What, did you want me to quote WOWY stats and bbref for you? I think you can see that box scores don’t make a great argument for the totality of a player’s game, and empty criticism is a weak move

[liamliam1234]

How well does WOWY even work when comparing at single-season playoff performances? It is not empty criticism; box score metrics at least offer something quantifiable, rather than speculating that one player performed better because he did it with assists and a more varied shot profile.

[DatAsh]

^ I hate arguments like the above because it is just all narrative. I think it is generally recognised that most of the analytics we have on hand probably undervalue defence a bit, yet Duncan’s 2003 playoffs still blows away anything Bird ever did in the postseason in terms of advanced metrics. It is not impact outside of the box score; we can see it. And I think the numbers bear out that while Bird never carried over his regular season as well into the postseason, we have plenty of evidence of Duncan maintaining or exceeding his regular season numbers once the playoffs started. It is no accident that Duncan’s 2003 run is basically the gold standard in terms of title-winning impact, and people should not be scared of admitting that in those terms Bird was a half-step below.

Bird is one of the players who’s impact drops off the most from regular season to postseason.

I also agree that Duncan is the player here with far more value outside of that represented by the box score.