RealGM

How would you rank these title runs from 1-4?

1. Duncan
2. Steph
3. Kobe
4. KG

I assume you mean based on what the player did as opposed to the team? In which case:

Duncan
Steph
KG

Kobe

Kobe
Curry/Garnett
Duncan (would be one, had he not been injured :/)

If people did their homework on the 09 Lakers (top 10 ELO team and top 10 in Sansterre’s research, 65 wins with amazing offense/defense and phenomenal playoff rORTG), they would see how nonsensical it is to have Kobe fourth on here. Pragmatic evidence and watching the games > PIPM and BPM.

rk2023 wrote:If people did their homework on the 09 Lakers (top 10 ELO team and top 10 in Sansterre’s research, 65 wins with amazing offense/defense and phenomenal playoff rORTG), they would see how nonsensical it is to have Kobe fourth on here. Pragmatic evidence and watching the games > PIPM and BPM.

That's a team result, not an individual one. The 2009 Lakers could have won 50+ games without Kobe. Pau led a worse support cast to 50 wins in Memphis.

I'm thinking in terms of per-possession impact/value I would go:

1. Kobe
2. KG
3. Duncan
4. Steph

09 Kobe

Adjusted 30.6 per 75 (rTS% of 3.6%).

Led rORTG of +6.4

PS ScoreVal: 1.6
PS PlayVal: 1.3

Backpicks BPM-7.5
AuPM/G-5.6
RAPTOR-9.08
PIPM-4.23
BPM-9.1



05 Duncan
Adjusted 26.9 pts per 75 (rTS% of 0.5%).

Led rDRTG of -4.2

PS ScoreVal-0.8
PS PlayVal: -.1

Backpicks BPM-4.8
AuPM/G-3.4
RAPTOR-6.15
PIPM-1.37
BPM-5.5




08 Garnett

Adjusted 23.3 pts per 75 (rTS% of 1.1%).

Led rDRTG of -5.8


PS ScoreVal-0.8
PS PlayVal: 0.4

Backpicks BPM-6.2
AuPM/G-5.4
RAPTOR-6.9
PIPM-3.97
BPM-6.6



22 Steph

29.1 pts per 75 (rTS% of 5.1%)

Led rORTG of +6.1

PS ScoreVal-1.5
PS PlayVal-1.4

Backpicks BPM-6.2
AuPM/G-4.3
RAPTOR-8.9
PIPM-N/A
BPM-7.7


Honestly pretty close all-around. In the all-in-metrics, Kobe comes out on top at #1, which is notable, because all-in-ones historically haven't always been the most kind to him when you compare to him some of his all-time great peers. I think the fact that Kobe "broke through," and his impact numbers were this good, probably means Kobe was perhaps at another level than we usually see him.

I think the Warriors offense being almost as good as the Lakers is noteworthy, as I don't believe GSW had a #2 nearly as good as GSW. I think a tiebreaker for me, was just the fact, that I don't Kobe in 09 had as poor of a series as Steph had against Memphis in 22 ( not that he was bad, but he was pretty meh for these standards). In the end, I think Kobe had the better scoring PS run, and his playmaking at least on ball was comparable to Steph. I think Kobe's defense was commendable, and his size puts assists here. All in all, I think Kobe is closer to his peak play here, than any of these other guys. Also, this is anecdotal, but I think the rotations and instructing of defensive personnel stands out a bit more than Steph.

KG vs Duncan is interesting, because I still kind of feel as if in most situations Duncan is better. I love how his isolation scoring is a nice hub on many teams, and it feels more difficult to take away, than a lot of what KG gives you. However, I think I choose KG as the guy with the better PS run here. I think I appreciate 08 KG's mobility a bit better. Also, Duncan played injured, so that that further widened the gap in KG's favor. Considering how important KG was to stopping Kobe in 08, when Kobe has had considerable more success against the Spurs in his PS career, makes me wonder...Anyways, the fact that KG was the best offensive and defensive player during the PS for Boston, is another piece to the argument 08 KG was more valuable (not necessarily better) than Duncan, and helps in its overall impressiveness. Boston’s offense with KG on the floor was 112.0. Without him it was 102.1.


I believe what sticks with me is just how invaluable KG was to that 08 Celtics team functioning:

In the 2008 playoffs, Celtics were +10.7 pts/poss with him on floor and -11.1 pts/poss with him off.

That 21.8 point swing was BY FAR biggest on team.

By comparison, the on/off swings for rest of Big 3…

Allen: 9.8
Pierce: 6.8

rk2023 wrote:If people did their homework on the 09 Lakers (top 10 ELO team and top 10 in Sansterre’s research, 65 wins with amazing offense/defense and phenomenal playoff rORTG), they would see how nonsensical it is to have Kobe fourth on here. Pragmatic evidence and watching the games > PIPM and BPM.

"Pragmatic evidence" AKA "kobe's team won more"

There is nothing pragmatic about using missed rs games to put a way worse player over a way better one...

LukaTheGOAT wrote:
Honestly pretty close all-around. In the all-in-metrics, Kobe comes out on top at #1, which is notable, because all-in-ones historically haven't always been the most kind to him when you compare to him some of his all-time great peers. I think the fact that Kobe "broke through," and his impact numbers were this good, probably means Kobe was perhaps at another level than we usually see him.

Not kind? Relative to what, reputation? Because by actual impact, they're still much "kinder" to Kobe than they are to the bigs you're using them to prop him over:

OhayoKD wrote:

rk2023 wrote:If people did their homework on the 09 Lakers (top 10 ELO team and top 10 in Sansterre’s research, 65 wins with amazing offense/defense and phenomenal playoff rORTG), they would see how nonsensical it is to have Kobe fourth on here. Pragmatic evidence and watching the games > PIPM and BPM.

"Pragmatic evidence" AKA "kobe's team won more"

There is nothing pragmatic about using missed rs games to put a way worse player over a way better one...

LukaTheGOAT wrote:
Honestly pretty close all-around. In the all-in-metrics, Kobe comes out on top at #1, which is notable, because all-in-ones historically haven't always been the most kind to him when you compare to him some of his all-time great peers. I think the fact that Kobe "broke through," and his impact numbers were this good, probably means Kobe was perhaps at another level than we usually see him.

Not kind? Relative to what, reputation? Because by actual impact, they're still much "kinder" to Kobe than they are to the bigs you're using them to prop him over:

I'm saying that Duncan, KG, and Curry typically do better in all-in-one metrics such as PIPM, RAPTOR and what not, however in this situation Kobe comes out ahead in these respective PS which is notable.

1. Kobe
2. Steph
3. Duncan
4. KG

Matt15 wrote:How would you rank these title runs from 1-4?

So, uh, I feel like I have to respond to this focusing on what will surely be quite the minority opinion:

Duncan was not the MVP of that Spurs run, Ginobili was. This has everything to do with why I'd rank these 4:

I think the first thing to keep in mind is that Duncan got hurt toward the end of the regular season. Prior to that point its arguably that he was the true MVP of the league...but then he missed time and when he came back he wasn't at his best - in the eyes of observers at that time, which you'll be able to here just by listening to what the announcers say as they talk about his struggles.

Let me point something out with On-Off data.

In Duncan's regular season career, he averaged +8.0, which is fantastic.
In Duncan's post-season career, he averaged +7.5, which is even more impressive.
In the '04-05 regular season his On/Off was +17.8, which is just insane.
In the '04-05 post-season his On/Off was -5.3, which is, well, a negative.

I get all the concerns about small sample, but remember I led with how he looked to people at the time watching him, and I add this data to balance subjective assessment with something objective.

Up to each to decide what to do with it, but it's my assessment that Ginobili became the team's MVP over this span which won them the championship.

Now let's consider Ginobili. You can guess that there's a +/- component to my thinking. Consider the On/Off of the Spurs' core (top 7) guys by minutes in that playoff:

1. Duncan -5.3
2. Parker -2.7
3. Bowen -11.7
4. Ginobili +19.9
5. Horry +11.7
6. Barry -6.0
7. Mohammed -8.2

I understand Ginobili plays less than Duncan, but when numbers are this stark, I believe you have to really chew on the question:

What was it that gave the advantage, and what was the magnitude of the advantage, to the team that won their series?

What about the playoff box score stuff?

Duncan PER 24.9, WS 3.5, VORP 1.6
Ginobili PER 24.8, WS 4.2, VORP 2.2

This isn't normal for their relationship. These are normally datapoints that support Duncan pretty clearly, but they aren't in these playoffs.

It's also worth remembering the context that this was the NBA season after Ginobili led Argentina to a gold medal OVER Duncan-and-everyone-one-else. Not saying that should explicitly be counted for the topic here, but folks should realize that this wasn't some random year for Ginobili. He was 27, and this was his apex, and it happened to coincide with Duncan not being able to be his best due to injury.

To be clear, I'm not saying accepting this necessarily means that Duncan deserves to be at the bottom of one's list in the title, only that the anomaly that struck me here was something that looked like a thread between clear cut best-player-on-champions, and well, in this particular year, imho, Duncan doesn't quality.

And I'll actually go one step bolder. I believe that In 2005, if the Spurs have no one playing better than Duncan in his hampered state, then the Spurs do not win that chip.

Yeh, hard disagree.

Duncan was somewhat hampered by injuries in the 05 playoffs, but he was still the most valuable player. 05 is one of the weakest yesrs of prime Duncan to select though.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Matt15 wrote:How would you rank these title runs from 1-4?

So, uh, I feel like I have to respond to this focusing on what will surely be quite the minority opinion:

Duncan was not the MVP of that Spurs run, Ginobili was. This has everything to do with why I'd rank these 4:

I think the first thing to keep in mind is that Duncan got hurt toward the end of the regular season. Prior to that point its arguably that he was the true MVP of the league...but then he missed time and when he came back he wasn't at his best - in the eyes of observers at that time, which you'll be able to here just by listening to what the announcers say as they talk about his struggles.



Let me point something out with On-Off data.

In Duncan's regular season career, he averaged +8.0, which is fantastic.
In Duncan's post-season career, he averaged +7.5, which is even more impressive.
In the '04-05 regular season his On/Off was +17.8, which is just insane.
In the '04-05 post-season his On/Off was -5.3, which is, well, a negative.

I get all the concerns about small sample, but remember I led with how he looked to people at the time watching him, and I add this data to balance subjective assessment with something objective.

[quote]
Well, here's is "something objective" over a much larger sample which is alot less prone to rotation wonkyness:

There is no playoff version of this but Duncan looking the same on box-composites which don't capture his defense well doesn't seem too damning.

As for on/off, you allude to the small sample, but i don't think one can overstate just --how small-- this is:

LukaTheGOAT wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

rk2023 wrote:If people did their homework on the 09 Lakers (top 10 ELO team and top 10 in Sansterre’s research, 65 wins with amazing offense/defense and phenomenal playoff rORTG), they would see how nonsensical it is to have Kobe fourth on here. Pragmatic evidence and watching the games > PIPM and BPM.

"Pragmatic evidence" AKA "kobe's team won more"

There is nothing pragmatic about using missed rs games to put a way worse player over a way better one...

LukaTheGOAT wrote:
Honestly pretty close all-around. In the all-in-metrics, Kobe comes out on top at #1, which is notable, because all-in-ones historically haven't always been the most kind to him when you compare to him some of his all-time great peers. I think the fact that Kobe "broke through," and his impact numbers were this good, probably means Kobe was perhaps at another level than we usually see him.

Not kind? Relative to what, reputation? Because by actual impact, they're still much "kinder" to Kobe than they are to the bigs you're using them to prop him over:

I'm saying that Duncan, KG, and Curry typically do better in all-in-one metrics such as PIPM, RAPTOR and what not, however in this situation Kobe comes out ahead in these respective PS which is notable.

notable for an argument that whatever typical gap was present was lower, not that the gap had been closed

OhayoKD wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Matt15 wrote:How would you rank these title runs from 1-4?

So, uh, I feel like I have to respond to this focusing on what will surely be quite the minority opinion:

Duncan was not the MVP of that Spurs run, Ginobili was. This has everything to do with why I'd rank these 4:

I think the first thing to keep in mind is that Duncan got hurt toward the end of the regular season. Prior to that point its arguably that he was the true MVP of the league...but then he missed time and when he came back he wasn't at his best - in the eyes of observers at that time, which you'll be able to here just by listening to what the announcers say as they talk about his struggles.



Let me point something out with On-Off data.

In Duncan's regular season career, he averaged +8.0, which is fantastic.
In Duncan's post-season career, he averaged +7.5, which is even more impressive.
In the '04-05 regular season his On/Off was +17.8, which is just insane.
In the '04-05 post-season his On/Off was -5.3, which is, well, a negative.

I get all the concerns about small sample, but remember I led with how he looked to people at the time watching him, and I add this data to balance subjective assessment with something objective.

Well, here's is "something objective" over a much larger sample which is alot less prone to rotation wonkyness:

There is no playoff version of this but Duncan looking the same on box-composites which don't capture his defense well doesn't seem too damning.

As for on/off, you allude to the small sample, but i don't think one can overstate just --how small-- this is:

If you personally would like to focus primarily on regular season work to determine the MVP of a title run, you're free to do that.

Re: sample size. As I said, I'm pointing to the +/- to show something objective that backs up the subjective impression I and others started with. It's fine to bring up that that +/- data has a small sample size, but this is not a data-first situation. The observation came first, then the data. Throw the data out, and you still have nothing of that kind to discredit the observation.