RealGM

Not to discuss which is more difficult or more single core but to see which run impacted the landscape of top 20 players more.
TD's 2003 put TD in secure place as the best PF ever; gave GDP core a chance to grow; add one more ring to DRob; Stopped Shaq's 4 peat; weakened the Shaq/Kobe duo for the long run.
Dirk along the way, proved he can win as the best player; quenched Kobe's chance for 3 peat; delayed Durant/Westbrook/Harden's growth; add a big stain on LeBron's legacy or potential 3 peat.

The rings did a lot for Duncan and Dirk's legacies respectively but I don't think they hurt the others that much.

2003: D-Rob got another ring but I don't think it did a whole lot for him. He's seen as top 20 by most now and that'd still be the case without an extra post-prime title. I doubt Kobe would really benefit a lot from a 4th ring as a running mate, especially since 03 wasn't like 01 for Kobe where he was arguably better than Shaq in the play-offs. 6 rings would be huge for casuals since he'd match MJ with that but on here I doubt he'd move much, if at all. Shaq would be the clearest winner here as he no longer would have to share the inter-MJ/LeBron period with Duncan. Shaq would be the clear best player of 99-04 and would almost definitely move up to 5th on my list, although I already have him 7th right now so even that's only 2 spots.

2011: This is more about LeBron than Dirk himself. LeBron's legacy was hurt by the finals but even then he's still one of the most common GOAT picks and when 2011 is referenced on here, at worst it's used to place him back to 2nd or 3rd. I also think it's more about LeBron's play than the result. If the Heat had won because of some balls falling their way instead of LeBron stepping up then I'm not even sure if he'd get FMVP over Wade. Similarly for Kobe and KD, it could have been a significant boost to either of them if they had won the chip that year by storming through a monstrously tough west and then spoling the Heat's coronation party. Neither of those things would be guaranteed though if the Mavs didn't win the title.

Dirk dunked potential three peats for an arguable top tenner and the arguable goat while also denying an argued top 15-er and an arguable top 40-er. Also denied wade a potentially big boost(wade winning a 2nd fmvp puts him in different conversations)

Pretty easily dirk here I think

OhayoKD wrote:Dirk dunked potential three peats for an arguable top tenner and the arguable goat while also denying an argued top 15-er and an arguable top 40-er. Also denied wade a potentially big boost(wade winning a 2nd fmvp puts him in different conversations)

Pretty easily dirk here I think

Is top 40er Harden? I already have him to 30ish.
Kobe with a 3-peat would no longer be arguable top tenner, but more like top 5ish; Wade with that 11 ring and FMVP will make top 20 in my list, and LeBron's GOAT case would not change much; Durant's young core was not ready yet

dygaction wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Dirk dunked potential three peats for an arguable top tenner and the arguable goat while also denying an argued top 15-er and an arguable top 40-er. Also denied wade a potentially big boost(wade winning a 2nd fmvp puts him in different conversations)

Pretty easily dirk here I think

Is top 40er Harden? I already have him to 30ish.
Kobe with a 3-peat would no longer be arguable top tenner, but more like top 5ish; Wade with that 11 ring and FMVP will make top 20 in my list, and LeBron's GOAT case would not change much; Durant's young core was not ready yet

Westbrook.

In case anyone here wasn’t watching in 2011, they probably don’t realize how truly shocking the Mavs win over the Heat was, especially since most going into the playoffs didn’t even have Mavs as the West favorites. The Heat just dispatched the other 2 top teams in the East in 5 games, with Lebron and Wade seemingly starting to click. Dirk came in and crushed them in the 4th quarters of most of those games, Lebron had a shockingly bad series and..it was just dumbfounding. The narrative really changed for Dirk who had a good number of disappointing playoff exits prior to that.

Duncan in 2003 had already shown he can win it all, the 2003 title seemed more like the icing on the cake for a guy who just won back to back mvps. It’s like it was almost expected.

dygaction wrote:Not to discuss which is more difficult or more single core but to see which run impacted the landscape of top 20 players more.
TD's 2003 put TD in secure place as the best PF ever; gave GDP core a chance to grow; add one more ring to DRob; Stopped Shaq's 4 peat; weakened the Shaq/Kobe duo for the long run.
Dirk along the way, proved he can win as the best player; quenched Kobe's chance for 3 peat; delayed Durant/Westbrook/Harden's growth; add a big stain on LeBron's legacy or potential 3 peat.

I said Dirk.

Dirk leading the Mavs to a title completely changed not only his narrative but the idea about the only way to win a title as a big.

When Duncan an the Spurs beat the Lakers in '02-03, they did so led by a traditional big, and they beat an underachieving, self-destructing 5-seed, that at best was going to eek out one more title.

Definitely Dirk, even though he shouldn't have needed it to cement his place as an ATG.

capfan33 wrote:Definitely Dirk, even though he shouldn't have needed it to cement his place as an ATG.

He does not need it to cement his place as an atg, but to get in top 20 in most ATG ranking, he needed it, particularly after that MVP but losing to Warrriors' 07 season ..

Doctor MJ wrote:When Duncan an the Spurs beat the Lakers in '02-03, they did so led by a traditional big, and they beat an underachieving, self-destructing 5-seed, that at best was going to eek out one more title.

Careful, Doc, your Duncan bitterness is showing.

AEnigma wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:When Duncan an the Spurs beat the Lakers in '02-03, they did so led by a traditional big, and they beat an underachieving, self-destructing 5-seed, that at best was going to eek out one more title.

Careful, Doc, your Duncan bitterness is showing.

What is it you think I’m bitter about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I were to speculate as to a reason, perhaps stealing Manu’s rightful credit.

AEnigma wrote:If I were to speculate as to a reason, perhaps stealing Manu’s rightful credit.

Okay, thank you for putting forth a theory. Things to note:

1. I said Duncan led the team, not Manu. That would seem to be a positive thing for Duncan and an implicit negative toward Manu.
2. The closest thing I did to say something that would be construed about Duncan is that he was "traditional", but that doesn't make him any worse of a basketball player, and I don't think I've ever said anything that would have given cause to others to believe I rank Dirk as a better player than him.
3. The people I said negative things about were associated with the Lakers, of which I also list as my team.

This to say, I think that almost anyone reading that statement of mine who thought I was bitter toward particular basketball players would have guessed it had something to do with what was going on with the Lakers of the time, and they'd be right to an extent, but you - who uses the assumption of fanatic bias as the lens through which you try to understand other posters - missed the mark.

It's of course clear why a potential bias pertaining to Duncan was salient in your mind, but your fixation on this approach a) led you astray compared to others who knew less would guess, b) appears to have blocked you from having a meaningful interaction about the basketball topic at hand, and c) injected negativity into the room you entered.

I might suggest another approach would be more useful.

I was actually looking at the backhanded nature of “they beat an underachieving, self-destructing 5-seed, that at best was going to eek out one more title,” but your theory that Lakers fans would be deeply offended by the notion that for a third consecutive year the team did not take the regular season seriously, that clear fractures were starting to develop between Kobe and Shaq, and that a team which in fact did not win another title together would merely win one more “at best,” is certainly an interesting and unique one!

I know you like to operate with a presumption that people may act as though posts occur in a vacuum, but some of us have longer memories of those uh prior-informed “fixations”.

Doctor MJ wrote:

dygaction wrote:Not to discuss which is more difficult or more single core but to see which run impacted the landscape of top 20 players more.
TD's 2003 put TD in secure place as the best PF ever; gave GDP core a chance to grow; add one more ring to DRob; Stopped Shaq's 4 peat; weakened the Shaq/Kobe duo for the long run.
Dirk along the way, proved he can win as the best player; quenched Kobe's chance for 3 peat; delayed Durant/Westbrook/Harden's growth; add a big stain on LeBron's legacy or potential 3 peat.

I said Dirk.

Dirk leading the Mavs to a title completely changed not only his narrative but the idea about the only way to win a title as a big.

When Duncan an the Spurs beat the Lakers in '02-03, they did so led by a traditional big, and they beat an underachieving, self-destructing 5-seed, that at best was going to eek out one more title.

"When curry an the warriors beat the cavaliers in '14-15, they did so with a big led defense, and they beat a terribly injured 2-seed, that at best was going to be able to make the finals"

You can make anythingh look unimpressive if you present their rivals in the worst way possible and not in how good they still were or how much less "help" duncan had compared to shaq (or kobe)

falcolombardi wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

dygaction wrote:Not to discuss which is more difficult or more single core but to see which run impacted the landscape of top 20 players more.
TD's 2003 put TD in secure place as the best PF ever; gave GDP core a chance to grow; add one more ring to DRob; Stopped Shaq's 4 peat; weakened the Shaq/Kobe duo for the long run.
Dirk along the way, proved he can win as the best player; quenched Kobe's chance for 3 peat; delayed Durant/Westbrook/Harden's growth; add a big stain on LeBron's legacy or potential 3 peat.

I said Dirk.

Dirk leading the Mavs to a title completely changed not only his narrative but the idea about the only way to win a title as a big.

When Duncan an the Spurs beat the Lakers in '02-03, they did so led by a traditional big, and they beat an underachieving, self-destructing 5-seed, that at best was going to eek out one more title.

"When curry an the warriors beat the cavaliers in '14-15, they did so with a big led defense, and they beat a terribly injured 2-seed, that at best was going to be able to make the finals"

You can make anythingh look unimpressive if you present their rivals in the worst way possible and not in how good they still were or how much less "help" duncan had compared to shaq (or kobe)

I mean, they did sweep a 60 win team to get there lol. I don't think memphis or houston were beyond them

Doctor MJ wrote:

dygaction wrote:Not to discuss which is more difficult or more single core but to see which run impacted the landscape of top 20 players more.
TD's 2003 put TD in secure place as the best PF ever; gave GDP core a chance to grow; add one more ring to DRob; Stopped Shaq's 4 peat; weakened the Shaq/Kobe duo for the long run.
Dirk along the way, proved he can win as the best player; quenched Kobe's chance for 3 peat; delayed Durant/Westbrook/Harden's growth; add a big stain on LeBron's legacy or potential 3 peat.

I said Dirk.

Dirk leading the Mavs to a title completely changed not only his narrative but the idea about the only way to win a title as a big.

When Duncan an the Spurs beat the Lakers in '02-03, they did so led by a traditional big, and they beat an underachieving, self-destructing 5-seed, that at best was going to eek out one more title.

I'd like to pushback on this, as I voted and am confident with Duncan here; Though I respect the Dirk nod and think that his and Dallas' 2011 campaign was special - both in real-time and nowadays. Much respect to a class-act like him and his NBA journey.

With his narrative, I fully agree - in that up until 2011 there were a fair share of concerns about Dirk despite a very impressive statistical foot-print and many ATG series (particularly as a scorer) he obtained through that point. Some examples are the 2008-10 series, anything in 2006 until the finals, and even back to to 2004 and before. I think 2005 and 2007 being small samples shade some Dirk perception in a very negative manner, and frankly shouldn't take away from his body of work.. even before the 2010-11 campaign played out in itself.

When it comes to winning a series in an unorthodox way as a big, I find this true at face value. There's no doubt he was the most impactful player on the Mavs team - his RAPM score of 8.6 is quite amazing on an all-time scale, and his on/off was ~17.1. With that said and back to the point of roster construction, there are some effects of co-linearity (3.0 D-RAPM & 5.6 Defensive Rating Swing) even with a clear MVP+ foot-print. Part of enabling such a different definition of being a title-catalyzing big was enabled by Kidd, Chandler, and Marions' work on the defensive end. To play a little devil's advocate, the fact that Dirk playing the 4 and having the amazing spacing, shot-making, and low turnover economy he brought to the table enabled this construction as well. If you have read ElGee's work(s) in Thinking Basketball, there is great rhetoric presented of such a "lone star illusion", where the 2003 Spurs funnily enough are cited as well.

Onto Duncan:

[

b]
Duncan's 2003 PS run:[/b]

All stats per 75

24.8 aPts on +6.2%rTS
12 FTA / 100 Poss and 1.5 ScoreVal
14.3 Rebounds (3.75 on Offense)
5.0 Assists
3.1 Blocks
7.3 Passer Rating
37.8 O-Load
8.7 BackPicks BPM (4.5 OBPM) , 10.2 BBR BPM (6.2 O)
.279 WS/48
7.4 Augmented +/- Per Game (4th all time behind 2017 Curry, and 17/09 James)
7.91 Full-Season PIPM
27 On/Off Net Rating Swing, 105.6-96.6 (+9) on floor vs. 87.6-105.6 off floor.

This doesn't even get into the eye test, where there is a ton to like about Duncan as a defensive anchor (in the context of 2003 San Antonio, took a very solid defensive slanted team to GOAT-lite levels) and a floor-raiser with his post scoring, ability to garner fouls, and underrated passing and playmaking acumen (pretty great rim assist-rates, iirc / 1-in 4-out playmaking based off of teams' reacting to Duncan's scoring threat). Basically any impact metric available regards this season not too far from some of the highest seasons charted. He could have at the least some argument over these three

I mentioned this in an earlier thread on the impact / classification of the best "two-way" player, arguing that Duncan at his apex has a case for this prestigious title (not that I believe this, I personally think Kareem brought the most aggregate value out of big-men at his very best). While I agree that them getting over the hump of our defending 3-peat team and the Kobe-Shaq pairing was due to less depth and sort of a Shaq coasting/missing time effect (this shows in the RS SRS of ~2.7 points and only being a 50 win team). For some context though, defense was more the problem than Offense - as LA's ORTG was 107.2, good for fourth in the league. The twin tower pairing of Duncan and Robinson held them to a ORTG of 103.6 - 3.6 points below their average. This trend continued through all four series, as the Spurs had a defensive rating (relative to opponent efficiency) of -8.7 and at 96.6 with Duncan on / 94.4 with Duncan on & D-Rob off. What I find more impressive are the series against Dallas (https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2003-nba-western-conference-finals-mavericks-vs-spurs.html) and New Jersey (https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2003-nba-finals-nets-vs-spurs.html) where Duncan played good enough as a scorer/creator to keep the Spurs afloat on offense, while anchoring the defense and thwarting both teams well under their average marks. These were both top 4 SRS teams, including Dallas' #1 SRS team that season and a Nets team with a ~98 DRTG - good for first in the league.

When I think of crashing the ATG scene/landscape, a run like this is what I personally think of - and impact signals unanimously love this season. Furthermore from a resume viewpoint, this campaign gave Duncan his second MVP and Finals MVP on a team that seemed to be a secondary-shout due to LA's 3-peat. Some people may look at all-time/vintage playoff runs where one goes the extra miles to get their club over the finish line and this certainly stamps Duncan in that regard.

Apologies if this comes off in a very argumentative lens , just my (very longly worded) 2 cents!

DoctorMJ is a far better poster than anyone else here. All his points in this thread are not only valid but carry a level of weight that would sink a rubberized yellow plastic duck.

Anyways, Dirks run is the correct answer in terms of the question being asked. He was an absolute mofo, upset a team that was favored to win, and changed his legacy and put Lebrons legacy on trial for a good portion of his career.

Blame Rasho wrote:DoctorMJ is a far better poster than anyone else here. All his points in this thread are not only valid but carry a level of weight that would sink a rubberized yellow plastic duck.

Anyways, Dirks run is the correct answer in terms of the question being asked. He was an absolute mofo, upset a team that was favored to win, and changed his legacy and put Lebrons legacy on trial for a good portion of his career.

PC board was fiesty enough with us stanning players. Stanning posters might be the final straw.

I don't think either disrupted it meaningfully. I mean I guess the answer is Timmy simply because he is a GOAT candidate himself whereas Dirk is not. And I have Lebron as my GOAT so I don't have him losing a series where his team lost to a superior team as derailing his GOAT candidacy and have never understood why so many still think it does after everything Lebron has done after that series.

Now if one has Shaq as a GOAT candidate that only shifts this further in Timmy's direction I suppose, but I don't have Shaq(nor Kobe) in that conversation.

I felt like Doc was answering a different question than the OP is asking? He may be correct that Dirk changed his own legacy more than Tim did his(and I would agree). He may be correct that Dirk showed us a new paradigm for building a championship team(and I would agree). But I didn't think those were the question? Maybe I'm confused.