01 Duncan 02-03: 26.9 PER | .564 TS% | 109 TS+ | 16.5 WS | .248 WS/48 01 Duncan 02-03 Playoffs?!?: 28.4 PER | .577 TS% | 5.9 WS | .279 WS/48 [didn't quite dominate the regular season to the extent that Shaq/Kareem/Wilt above him on the list did, but Timmy kicked his game into a whole other gear for the playoffs posting the highest single postseason Win Share total of all time.]
02 Erving 75-76: 28.7 PER | .569 TS% | 110 TS+ | 17.7 WS | .262 WS/48 02 Erving 75-76 Playoffs?!?: 32.0 PER | .610 TS% | 3.7 WS | .321 WS/48 [a peak so high the NBA absorbed a whole other league to get this guy under their banner. Doctor turned in a top tier regular season, then followed it up with one of thee largest postseason efficiency increases of all time.]
03 Magic 86-87: 27.0 PER | .602 TS% | 112 TS+ | 15.9 WS | .263 WS/48 03 Magic 86-87 Playoffs?!?: 26.2 PER | .607 TS% | 3.7 WS | .265 WS/48 [topped the league in assists with career best scoring volume en route to 65-17 regular season, 8.32 SRS & a smooth 15-3 postseason cruise. Peak Magic Showtime.]
2003 Duncan — great regular and post season in which he shouldered a heavy load and didn’t falter. Impact metrics look great, especially in the playoffs. Defense is replicable in many different eras while his offense was continuously resilient throughout the playoffs.
1965 Russell — best combination of regular season and post season for a player whose team could not be defeated in a playoff series (though came very close to losing often) other than by a GOAT type player playing at GOAT levels, i.e., Wilt. (1964) (1962)
2004 KG — One of the greatest floor raising seasons in NBA history, one of the highest player impact seasons in history (perhaps the most by some some measures, leading a team bereft of defensive talent to a top 5-top 6 defense, leading a team with little offensive talent (Sam C. had a good offensive season) to a top 5 offense. He was +9.8 per 100 possessions estimate on court with that roster, played 3,200+ minutes, lifted essentially every lineup he was in offensively and defensively…just a remarkable cog. We saw how dominant he can be when talent was placed around him as it was in Boston.
Hakeem, Bird, Magic, and Curry after these three.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
If 2016-17 is peak Curry, why couldn't the greatest shooter of all time top his career TS+ mark?
What does TS+ tell you?
Efficiency + volume pretty much
It takes your volume and your efficiency over league average to see how many "points over league average scorer" you added with your scoring
TS+ is just TS% adjusted to league average where 100 is average. It does not take volume into account.
An example would be 2017-18 Curry at .675 TS% vs a league average of .556 TS% is a 121 TS+. In 83-84 Artis Gilmore also put up a .675 TS% but league average TS% was only .543 in 1983-84 so Artis comes out at 124 TS+.
Efficiency + volume is TS Add, which explains Curry's drop off following 2015-16 as both his shooting volume & minutes played fell off following Durant's arrival.
If 2016-17 is peak Curry, why couldn't the greatest shooter of all time top his career TS+ mark?
TS+ is regular season only, no? I think pretty much everyone would agree that Curry was better in the regular season in 2016 than in 2017. The reason people don't necessarily consider that his peak is because he wasn't as good in the postseason in 2016 compared to 2017 or 2015.
1. Reasoning for Curry: In short, I think by the data, Curry clearly outperforms Hakeem and slightly outperforms Duncan.
1a. Curry >> Hakeem:
Spoiler:
Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM: 2017 Curry > 1994 Hakeem Aii. Postseason AuPM: (no data for peak Hakeem. 2017 Curry 2nd all time) Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: (no data for peak 93-95 Hakeem. Partial data in 85/88/91/96 and full data in 97 are far below Curry, who’s 7th all time). Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2017 Curry (8th all time) > 1994 Hakeem Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: (no data available for Hakeem. Curry 1st all time) Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: 1993-1995 Hakeem > 2016-2017 Curry (not sure about full prime WOWY. I brought in 16 Curry because Ben hasn't finished publishing Curry's mid/post-2017 WOWY numbers yet). Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: (no data for Hakeem. 16 Curry 2nd all time) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 2017 Curry > 1994 Hakeem (healthy 2016 Steph Curry and 1993 Hakeem tied 4th all time)
2017 Curry beats 1994 Hakeem 4/4 of our most trusted stats, 4/4 playoff-only stats, and by 9/10 stats total. If we add 2016 Curry and either 1993 or 1994 Hakeem (whichever helps Hakeem more), Curry beats Hakeem in 8/10 stats with 1 tie. The only stats Hakeem ties or beats Curry in are WOWY (which is famously noisy and missing data for Curry) and CORP (which is Ben Taylor's personal evaluation). In the four of the stats that aren’t old enough for Hakeem, Curry is at least 2nd all time in three of them. In short: I don't think there's any statistical argument for Hakeem > Curry.
1b Curry > Duncan:
Spoiler:
Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM: 2017 Curry > 2003 Duncan Aii. Postseason AuPM: 2017 Curry > 2003 Duncan Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: 2003 Duncan > 2017 Curry Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2003 Duncan (1st all time) > 2017 Curry (8th all time) Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: 2017 Curry (1st all time) > 2003 Duncan Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: Duncan > Curry (but Curry's stats are incomplete). Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: 2017 Curry > 2003 Duncan (2016 Curry 2nd all time) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 2017 Curry > 2003 Duncan (and healthy 2016 Steph Curry is 4th all time)
Curry beats Duncan by 3-2 in our most trusted metrics. Duncan beats Curry 7-6 in total stats, including 3 to 2 postseason stats with 1 postseason tie. If we add 2016 Curry and either 2002 or 2004 Duncan (whichever helps Duncan more), Curry beats Duncan by 3-2 in most-trusted stats and 8-5 in total stats. Contextual factors: Curry gains more value over Duncan if you value scalability/portability/ceiling raising or if you value the Time Machine argument to the present. Resilience, team fit, and health will be discussed below.
Counter to Curry 1: Better Fit allowed Curry to put up better stats than Hakeem and Duncan. The team around Steph did have an optimal fit, and the team was dominant. But the data seems to suggest the team's dominance was primarily driven by Curry. The other all stars obviously helped the team win, but superstars' individual stats usually decline when they have better teammates, because the better teammates take on-ball time away from the superstar. Instead, Curry's numbers seem as dominant as ever. This indicates Curry's GOAT-level ceiling raising ability.
From 2017–2019 (larger sample to give more stable values), here's the net rating with each of the stars on or off: -All 4 stars on: +17. (that's 20% better than the 1996 Chicago Bulls across 3 seasons!) -Only Klay off: +15.64. -Only KD off: +13.54 (still better than the 96 Chicago Bulls even with KD off) -Only Draymond off: +12.77 -Only Steph on, all 3 other stars off: +10.81 -Only Steph off: +1.94 With all 3 other all stars off, and just Steph on, the 17-19 Warriors have a better net rating than the 16 Warriors, 13 Heat, 2000 Lakers, 91 Bulls, 87 Lakers, or 86 Celtics. With all 3 all stars on, and just Steph off, the 17-19 Warriors are worse than this season's 2022 Cavs. This pattern remains in the playoffs (more info below).
Counter to Curry 2: Hakeem and Duncan have better Resilience than Curry. I would agree that the other all time peaks might be more resilient than Curry. But is do they improve enough to be better than him? I'm not sure... Curry's playoff decline almost entirely correlates with postseason health. Per Per BPM and AUPM, Curry actually improves in the playoffs when he's healthy. Even if the others improve more in the playoffs, the difference isn't significant enough for them to catch up to Curry (e.g. Shaq's career +0.67% improvement vs Curry's career +0.57% improvement), particularly when 2017 Curry outperforms his opponents per the above statistics. More in depth discussion of Curry's Resilience here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=100017661#p100017661
Counter to Curry 3: his Playoff Opponents weren't good enough. Here are the average playoff opponents' Overall SRS (playoff + regular season SRS) for some relevant teams: 1995 Rockets' opponents: +6.3 (Hardest opponent: Jazz and Spurs at +7.8) 2004 Rockets' opponents: +5.09 (hardest opponent: Lakers at +7.6) [note: partial regular season SRS for this stat] 1994 Rockets' opponents: +4.73 (hardest opponent: Knicks at +6.48) [note: regular season SRS for this stat] 2017 Warriors' opponents: +4.59 (hardest opponent: Cavs at +9.5) 2003 Spurs' opponents: +4.45 (hardest opponent: Mavs at +7.5) 1991 Bulls' opponents: +4.1 (hardest opponent: Lakers at +8.1) [note: added for context] 1986 Celtics' opponents: +2.77 (hardest opponent: Rockets at +7.4) 1987 Lakers' opponents: +1.53 (hardest opponent: Celtics at +5.3) So without counting for opponent injury, 2017 Curry's average playoff opponents were better the opponents of 2003 Tim Duncan, 1991 Jordan, 1986 Larry Bird, or 1987 Magic Johnson. If we downgrade Curry for facing injured opponents (without downgrading injuries faced by anyone else), Curry still had harder playoff opponents than Bird or Magic (see Sansterre's Warriors article for details). The 2017 Cavs were statistically a better opponent than any opponent faced by 1994-95 Hakeem, 2004 Garnett, 2003 Duncan, 1991 Jordan, 1986 Bird, or 1987 Magic. Source for opponent SRS: Basketball Reference, Sansterre's Top 100 Teams (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2012241).
This overall opponent difficulty does not account for the disproportionate defensive attention that Curry faced. For example, in the 2018 Finals, Curry faced double teams more than 20x more (2000% more) than Durant. (Source: Nbalogix and Clutch Points. 2017 Finals is locked behind a paywall)
Counter to Curry 4: Health Curry was healthy throughout the entire 2017 season, which is one of the reasons I take 2017 over 2016. However, if you want to dock Curry for being a health risk (even though he stayed healthy this season), that's understandable.
Counter to Curry 5: 2016 Curry > 2017 Curry I certainly see the arguments for 2016 Curry. If he had a healthy playoffs (or if you only care about players' chances of getting injured in a season, rather than whether they actually got injured or not), I could see 2016 Curry > 2017 Curry. Still, Doctor Mj and I have argued before that Curry actually was a better player in 2017. Specifically, I see him improving in his health, resilience (e.g. better strength, decision making, and handle), and scalability. I'm not concerned by that his decline in metrics from 2016 to 2017 show a decline in skill -- Curry openly admitted in interviews that mentally, he took too much of a step back and and got into a small slump when trying to accommodate KD. This shows good leadership and chemistry. Once he figured out how to play alongside KD, metrics / the eye test / player interviews all say 2017 Curry returned to 2016 form by the end of the 2017 regular seasons. More discussion on 2017 Curry > 2016 be found here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=100017661#p100017661
2. Reasoning for Duncan:
Spoiler:
Hakeem vs Duncan vs KG vs Bird: Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM: 2004 KG (3rd all time) > 2003 Duncan (7th all time) > 1994 Hakeem (9th all time) Aii. Postseason AuPM: 2003 Duncan (3rd all time) > 2004 Garnett (12th all time) [No older players] Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: 2004 Garnett (1st all time) > 2003 Duncan (3rd all time) > Bird (~20th all time, but small sample) > Hakeem (~20th all time, small sample) Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2003 Duncan (1st all time) > 1986 Bird (9th all time) > 1994 Hakeem (16th all time) > 2004 Garnett (20th all time) Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: 2003 Duncan > 2004 Garnett [no older players] Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: Garnett > Duncan = Hakeem > Bird Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: (2005 Duncan) > 2004 Garnett (7th all time) > 2003 Duncan (8th all time) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: (1993 Hakeem) > 2004 Garnett (5th all time) > (2002 Duncan) > 2003 Duncan (9th all time) > 1986 Larry Bird > 1994 Hakeem (would be 14 all time)
Box score-based data Gi. Backpicks BPM: 1986 Bird (10th all time) > 2004 Garnett (15th all time) > (1993 Hakeem 17th all time) > (2002 Duncan 20th all time) > 2003 Duncan > 1994 Hakeem Gii. Postseason Backpicks BPM: 1986 Bird (4th all time) > 2003 Duncan (tie 6th all time) > 1967 Wilt (12th all time) > 1994 Hakeem (13th all time) > (1993 Hakeem) > 2003/04 Garnett Additional box score stats: Hi. BR’s BPM: 2004 Garnett (13th all time) > 1986 Bird > (2004 Duncan) > 2003 Duncan > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem Additional box score stats: Hii. BR’s Postseason BPM: (2002 Duncan would be 8th all time) > 2003 Duncan > 1986 Larry Bird > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem > 2004 Garnett [No Russell, Will] Additional box score stats: Ii. WS/48: 2004 Garnett > (2002/04 Duncan) > 2003 Duncan > 1986 Larry Bird > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem Total WS: 2004 Garnett > (2002 Duncan) > 2003 Duncan > (1993 Hakeem 93) > 1986 Larry Bird > 1994 Hakeem Additional box score stats: Iii. Postseason WS/48: 2003 Duncan > 1986 Larry Bird > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem > 2004 Garnett
Duncan > Hakeem: Duncan beats Hakeem by 9 stats to 2, with 1 tie (Prime WOWY). Duncan wins 5/6 of the more trusted stats, and wins 5/5 of the postseason-only stats. Do the contextual factors (Scalability, Resilience, Health, Defensive value being missed by the metrics, Fit, Time Machine) change anything? Not enough to make a difference. I think Duncan wins this.
Duncan > KG: They’re tied 3-3 in the most trusted metrics. KG wins 8-6 in the total metrics, while Duncan wins 5/5 in the playoff-only metrics. This is very close, but statistically I think Duncan is slightly favored. Do the Contextual Factors (Scalability, Resilience, Health, Defensive value being missed by the metrics, Fit, Time Machine) change anything? Duncan is clearly more Resilient, but KG is clearly mores scalable, with worse fit (which would undermine his metrics), and KG would improve more in a time machine. Health is a wash, and it’s hard to know who’s more underrated defensively in the Box one-number metrics. Ultimately, I think Duncan's famous leadership skills and willingness to adapt his game to be more portable later on helps me feel the Portability/Fit/Time machine gap is smaller than Duncan's clearly large resilience advantage. I go Duncan here, with some hesitancy.
Duncan > Bird: 2003 Duncan beats 1986 Bird in 7 stats to 3. They’re tied 2-2 in most trusted stats (though Bird’s RAPM sample is small), and Duncan leads 3-1 in playoff-only stats. Any contextual factors (1. Scalability, 2. Resilience, 3. Health, 4. Defense not captured in impact metrics, 5. Team Fit exaggerating/limiting impact, 6. Time machine.)? Bird clearly wins scalability and probably time machine to today, but Duncan probably wins the other 4.
3. Reasoning for Bird: Bird > KG: 2004 KG and 1986 Bird are tied 4 stats to 4, but Bird’s up 3-1 in our most trusted stats, and Bird leads in 4/4 playoff-only stats.
Bird > Hakeem: 86 Bird beats 94 Hakeem in 4/4 of the most trusted stats, 4/4 of the playoff-only stats, and 9/10 of the total stats. If we add 93 Hakeem to the mix, 86 Bird still wins in 8/10 total stats (or 7/8 if you prefer total WS over WS/48).
Any contextual factors (1. Scalability, 2. Resilience, 3. Health, 4. Defense not captured in impact metrics, 5. Team Fit exaggerating/limiting impact, 6. Time machine.)? Bird is definitely more scalable and performs better in a time machine to today the Hakeem (though it's close for KG). KG doesn't have a resilience advantage, and Hakeem's Resilience advantage isn't enough to make up the difference according to playoff-only stats. Overall, the contextual factors aren't enough in KG or Hakeem's favor to make up for Bird's clear impact advantage.
Any other candidates? Russell's the other player in the mix. Though he's obviously a lot harder to compare statistically (given our lack of data), I see him around the same level as Hakeem (who's clearly below Curry, Duncan, and Bird):
Spoiler:
DraymondGold wrote:Some discussion on Wilt > Hakeem ~ Russell. First, the stats: Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM: 1994 Hakeem (9th all time) [No older players] Aii. Postseason AuPM: [No older players] Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: > Hakeem (~20th all time, small sample) [No Russell, Will] Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 1994 Hakeem (16th all time) [No Russell, Will] Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: [no older players] Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: Russell > Wilt > Hakeem Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: [No older players] Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: (1993 Hakeem) > 1967 Wilt (7th all time)> 1962-1964 Russell (10th all time) > 1994 Hakeem (would be 14 all time) > (1964 Wilt) >= (1965 Russell)
Box score-based data Gi. Backpicks BPM: 1967 Wilt (8th all time) > (1993 Hakeem 17th all time) > (1964 Wilt) > (65 Russell) > 1994 Hakeem > (62-64 Bill Russell) Gii. Postseason Backpicks BPM: 1967 Wilt (12th all time) > 1994 Hakeem (13th all time) > (1993 Hakeem) > (1965 Bill Russell) > (1964 Wilt) > 1962/64 Russell (not top 20) Additional box score stats: Hi. BR’s BPM: (1993 Hakeem not top 20) > 1994 Hakeem [No Russell, Will] Additional box score stats: Hii. BR’s Postseason BPM: (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem [No Russell, Will] Additional box score stats: Ii. WS/48: (1964 Wilt would be 1st all time) > 1967 Wilt (10th all time) > 1964 Russell > (1993 Hakeem) > (1965 Russell) > (1962 Russell) > 1994 Hakeem. WS/Game: (1964 Wilt) > 1967 Wilt > 1964 Russell > (1993 Hakeem) > (1965 Russell) > 1994 Hakeem > (1962 Russell) Additional box score stats: Iii. Postseason WS/48: (1964 Wilt) > (1965 Russell) > (1962 Russell) > 1967 Wilt > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem > 1964 Russell
Russell ~ Hakeem: As for 1994 Hakeem vs peak Russell (what year?), it’s much closer. 62 and 65 Russell barely edge out 94 Hakeem in these stats, while 64 Russell equals 94 Hakeem in these stats. If we look at a larger sample (62/64/65 Russell vs 93-95 Hakeem), they’re tied 3-3 in these stats. Do the contextual factors help us decide? 1. Scalability. Russell's clearly the more scalable player. His passing and willingness to be the "glue guy" and do "whatever it takes" on offense scales better than Hakeem's preference for ball-dominant iso scoring 2. Resilience: ? Not sure who wins here. Traditional narratives favor Hakeem as improving more in the playoffs. That said, I personally just don't know enough about how Russell changed in the playoffs. The playoff-only stats aren't conclusive. I would be inclined to say Hakeem improved more, but Russell's team had a 10-0 record in Game 7s and a 22-0 record in elimination games (https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/l81hr6/its_pretty_well_known_that_bill_russell_was_210/). That's just crazy! 3. Health. N/A 4. Defense: Are any of the metrics underrating their defense? Possibly, but I tend to say this favors Russell > Hakeem. The fact that Russell is so high above the rest in WOWY (our only plus/minus-like stat for him), while being clearly a step below in the Box Plus Minus stats makes me wonder whether BPM underrates Russell. Russell’s value comes from the defensive end more than any other all-time peak, and BPM stats tend to underrate defense, especially when we’re lacking Russell’s defensive box stats. Our more advanced stats for Hakeem that should capture defensive value better (RAPM, PIPM) don't make him seem tremendously underrated here. 5. Fit. Hard to know, given the era differences. 6. Time machine. Hakeem > Russell. I think Russell would clearly be the better defender in any era by a bit, but Hakeem's offensive advantage in future eras is pretty strong. Russell would have to change his game a fair bit, modeling it after some combination of Giannis (in transition and as a roll-man) or Draymond (with half-court passing at the elbow), and overall greatly improving his scoring efficiency. Could he do it? Well, he is Bill Russell... he was a GOAT (or near-GOAT) level athlete and basketball mind. But it's far from a given that this transition would work, or that it would work well enough to close the gap with Hakeem offensively. Let me know if people have arguments for Hakeem vs Bill Russell! I'd love to hear people's thoughts.
6. 1993 Hakeem Ultimately going Hakeem because I like his defense a little bit more than Duncan. Not entirely convinced by his offense, while I think his scoring was very resilient and consistent, he wasn't a great passer and I think may have benefitted from the advanced spacing the Rockets incorporated more than other players on this list. Also with Wilt, his FT shooting is a legitimate concern here, and I also think his offensive impact is somewhat tenuous based on his shot attempts/playstyle.
7. 2003 Duncan Voting Duncan because I think he had about as little help as any major player has had in a title-run and basically did everything on both sides of the ball. I don't think the competition he faced was especially impressive so I could be swayed otherwise but tentatively I think what Duncan did in 2003 was remarkable and he offers a combination of defense and post-scoring that's hard to beat.
8. 2017 Curry This is where everything starts to get very hazy, as I think 4-5 guys are essentially a coinflip here. Ultimately, I went with Curry in 2017 albeit I'm not convinced at all by it. It came down to Curry, Bird and Magic to me. Magic is a little worse defensively and has less off-ball value which makes me lean towards the other 2, and I think Curry is similar to Bird but better at what Bird does in terms of off-ball portable offensive impact.
It's really close, but ultimately I have to go with the guy that is the GOAT shooter and a significantly better ball-handler than Bird while still being a very good passer. Yes Curry's team was ridiculously stacked, but so was Bird's and I don't think the difference is significant enough to dissuade me from Curry. I also think that Curry's impact in the playoffs is very consistent, even in 2016 he still had incredible impact metrics when injured which makes me think that his 2017 playoffs would have been insane regardless of whether he had KD or not, and DraymondGold's impact metrics back me up on this. I also will readily acknowledge that the recent playoffs may have reminded me of what Curry is capable of but regardless, I think Curry makes the most sense here.
Second best defensive center (and frankly player) of all time IMO behind Russell. He came the closest of anyone ever after Bill to combine elite vertical defense (which you have guys like Ewing and Howard specialize at) with elite horizontal defense (KG, Draymond). The other one is David Robinson, but Hakeem's much more resilient offensive game in the Playoffs creates the separation here.
The '95 Playoff run and his demolition of David Robinson is what gets talked about a lot, and rightly so, but I think what Hakeem did to Ewing on both ends in the '94 Finals is one of the most underrated big stage performances ever. He averaged 27/9/4 with 4 bpg on 56% TS while holding Ewing to 19/12/2 on 39% TS. That's -16 from his RS TS%. That may even be more impressive than the '95 matchup with Robinson who at least managed to score against 'Keem at a decent rate.
To be a guy who can go off for 30/15 on any night against elite opposition while simultaneously being a 5x5 threat is just insane, a monster on both ends who would dominate in any era.
2. 2003 Tim Duncan
This was very tough for me, but my gut feeling has me go with Duncan here over Wilt.
I think I might have overrated Duncan a little bit earlier as his scoring is definitely a weaker point compared to some of the other guys here (the gap with Kareem in particular is enormous. 31.2 pts/75 on +13.7% TS vs 24.8 pts/75 on +6.2% TS was enough for me to move Kareem over him, considering it's not like his all-around game was exactly lacking either).
I still think I'd take him over Wilt though by a hair. Wilt was obviously hyper efficient scoring on a lower volume so I think that is about a wash between them. Duncan was a monstrous passer in the 2003 Playoffs and I think if there's an edge for Wilt there then it's another small one. Duncan was the better defender though.
On the whole, I think the difference for me is that Wilt filled a fairly specific role and while it led to phenomenal results in terms of team building I'd rather have someone like Duncan whom you can just plop down with any teammates and you're sure he'll make massive impact.
3. 1986 Larry Bird
Well ahead of his time, probably the first stretch 4 ever who just happened to play on a team with Parish and McHale so he played the 3. He anchored one of the top 3 teams of all time (along with the '96 Bulls and '17 Warriors) with probably a top 5 offensive peak and was still a positive defender overall (watch the 1986 Finals, Bird's help on Hakeem was a pretty big difference maker imo).
Still think this is waaaay too high for Steph to be getting votes. ESPECIALLY 2017, I just don't see how that can be the chosen year.
I think is telling how much more praise hakeem offense and post game gets over tim when statistically they are eerily close
Duncan is not as aesthetically beatiful in tge post as hakeem (who is?) But the statistical profile and playoffs resiliency stands out just as much
Duncan ks traditionally not seen as a strong passer, but the quality of interior dishes and kick outs to shooters he consistently generated as a sort of point small forward is impressive
I recently watched game 6 vs nets in the finals and while duncan is not jokic, the quickness and solid precision with which he makes the read to dish to the open shooter after a blitzing double team starts or throws a precise dime inside is impressive, i actually think duncan is a underated passer because the lack of flashyness of his passes as he creates easy ones with his scoring threat and then executes them flawlessly (not unlike your average point forward who creates a ton of easy assists being seen as a mere "kick out passer" and diminished over that)
Is hakeem not a better defender? Maybe normally at their peaks. but duncan was arguably peaking ar both ends in 2002-2003 while per many posters here (70's fan mainly) hakeem D was stsrting to slow down. In other words there is a good argument that duncan peak defense and peak offense overlapped more closely than hakeem did
Were hakeem rockets more offensively impressive in the playoffs? Sure, were they more offensively talented? Also sure
When both duncan and hakeem had such similar/comparable profiles in their statistical profiles and approach is hard to me to attribute the difference in theur playoffs offenses to hakeem being much more impactful offensively
In defense duncan had more impressive results but also probablt more defensive talent around so it balances out i guess.
So who do i pick second and who third? Duncan
Because as weak of tiebreaker as it is wheb we dont have hakeem data, we have more plus-minus and impact metrics data for tim where he is up thwre with anyone not named lebron in the last 25 years, and i need -somethingh- as a tiebreaker here
2- 1994 hakeem for mainly the same reasons exposed above
I actually think hakeem may have the best "potential" in basketball history, his physical talents are just unreal, but we dont award on potential. If he had been in a better situstion to develop and more quickly learn the game (for an example in duncan place in the spurs) and improved his basketball mind more he may really have been the goat
I also loke duncan passing a bit more, a lot quicker amd more decisive, hakeem feels more likely to "ballhog" a bit before Pssing and his reads felt slpwer when i watched him vs knicks in the 94 finals
3- 1964 bill russel
I have bill russel defense as more impressive and impactful than magic, curry or bird offense, i may honestly still be underating him at 8th best peak
In a maybe unfair way is hard for me to imagine the defensive gap between him and duncan/hakeem at their peaks (or wilt for that matter) being SO big that it overcomes the clear scoring/offense gap
This concern is similar to a time machine argument except that it goes both ways, i imagine duncan and hakeem would remain effective offensive players in the 60's and have their defensive impact increased
I am less sure russel could go to the 90's and 00's and improve his offense or not have his defensive effect a bit reduced
Since i am unsure which russel season between 62-64~ deserves the spot i will list them too
I'm starting to see Bird here a bit. Three questions I have for his proponents:
(1) Bird is a player who was outstanding on account of his incredible offense, but he didn't lead any all-time offenses. 88 is the only time in his career his team's ORtg was first in the league. Some of that is due to Magic being in the league at the same time, but is it possible the 80s Celtics were amazing foremost because of their team defenses? (2) On the surface level, Bird wasn't an incredibly resilient player in the postseason. Do we attribute this to noise? Is it possible Bird had floor-warping gravity akin to Curry, and his actual shooting percentages are secondary in importance to team ORtg with him on the floor? Or is it a major issue with his game against tougher defenses? (3) Defense. In his peak season(s), was Bird a plus defender? Net positive? Negative, but not negative enough that it took away from his offense? For those of you who are big on translating players into the present league, what kind of players would Love be able to guard and would he or would he not be a liability on that end?
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
ceiling raiser wrote:I'm starting to see Bird here a bit. Three questions I have for his proponents:
(1) Bird is a player who was outstanding on account of his incredible offense, but he didn't lead any all-time offenses. 88 is the only time in his career his team's ORtg was first in the league. Some of that is due to Magic being in the league at the same time, but is it possible the 80s Celtics were amazing foremost because of their team defenses? (2) On the surface level, Bird wasn't an incredibly resilient player in the postseason. Do we attribute this to noise? Is it possible Bird had floor-warping gravity akin to Curry, and his actual shooting percentages are secondary in importance to team ORtg with him on the floor? Or is it a major issue with his game against tougher defenses? (3) Defense. In his peak season(s), was Bird a plus defender? Net positive? Negative, but not negative enough that it took away from his offense? For those of you who are big on translating players into the present league, what kind of players would Love be able to guard and would he or would he not be a liability on that end?
Wouldn't consider myself a proponent of Bird even though I like him but I'll have a go.
(1) You could probably make a similar argument for Lebron even though Lebron's post-season offenses I think are a clear level above Bird's. Moreover, per Elgee Bird's playoff offense from 84-87 were in the 91st percentile which is pretty good. Also, the 84-88 Cletics had a +5 offense which is among the 10 best stretches ever.
Another piece is that Bird's WOWY ORTG difference from 88-89 was 6 points, which is quite significant. And you could also make the argument that while in a vacuum McHale and Parish are good offensively, without Bird I don't that offense runs nearly as smoothly or efficiently, he was definitely the table-setter for everything they did as neither of them were good playmakers.
(2) I don't think it's due to noise, but if you look at 84-86 his postseason scoring+efficiency were elite outside of the bar-fight games. So there is some indicator that at his peak his combo of limited athleticism and skill/intelligence were enough to make him a more resilient post-season player. Moreover, from 84-88 to reference the previous sample the Celtics were +5.8 in the playoffs despite McHale missing over 30 games, which would be 11th all-time. So like Curry his impact on offense was evident even with the dip in scoring.
(3) From 84-86 I would say marginally above average, nothing special but a net positive is enough to push him over the top compared to someone like Magic. I don't think he would be a liability in today's NBA even though it would definitely be more challneging.
SickMother wrote:01 Duncan 02-03: 26.9 PER | .564 TS% | 109 TS+ | 16.5 WS | .248 WS/48 01 Duncan 02-03 Playoffs?!?: 28.4 PER | .577 TS% | 5.9 WS | .279 WS/48 [didn't quite dominate the regular season to the extent that Shaq/Kareem/Wilt above him on the list did, but Timmy kicked his game into a whole other gear for the playoffs posting the highest single postseason Win Share total of all time.]
02 Erving 75-76: 28.7 PER | .569 TS% | 110 TS+ | 17.7 WS | .262 WS/48 02 Erving 75-76 Playoffs?!?: 32.0 PER | .610 TS% | 3.7 WS | .321 WS/48 [a peak so high the NBA absorbed a whole other league to get this guy under their banner. Doctor turned in a top tier regular season, then followed it up with one of thee largest postseason efficiency increases of all time.]
03 Magic 86-87: 27.0 PER | .602 TS% | 112 TS+ | 15.9 WS | .263 WS/48 03 Magic 86-87 Playoffs?!?: 26.2 PER | .607 TS% | 3.7 WS | .265 WS/48 [topped the league in assists with career best scoring volume en route to 65-17 regular season, 8.32 SRS & a smooth 15-3 postseason cruise. Peak Magic Showtime.]
Hi SickMother! Duncan's definitely pretty good haha. I also appreciate the reference to Magic's team performance (those Lakers were pretty good!).
I wanted to discuss the stats you're using. PER and WS are pretty good -- they go back a long way, so they're pretty useful for judging older players (i.e. pre-plus minus players). But as the years have gone on, I actually think we've gotten better one-number metrics to estimate players impact by. For example, in this study that measures how well various advanced stats can predict future success (https://fansided.com/2019/01/08/nylon-calculus-best-advanced-stat/), a number of plus minus stats (APM, AuPM, RPM, RAPM/PIPM, Basketball Reference's BPM, and Backpicks' BPM) all perform better. In a survey of current media members and NBA organization members (https://hoopshype.com/lists/advanced-stats-nba-real-plus-minus-rapm-win-shares-analytics/), PER and WS were rated below some of the plus minus stats I mentioned above.
In both of those articles, WS/48 does better than PER, so it might be okay to keep using WS/48 for the oldest players. But I'd definitely recommend going with BPM over both, especially PER, and if the players are recent enough, some plus minus based stats are probably best. Let me know what your thoughts are!
If 2016-17 is peak Curry, why couldn't the greatest shooter of all time top his career TS+ mark?
Thanks for your question! I believe 2017 Curry's TS+ is dragged down by a slight slump in the first half of the regular season. Curry actually mentioned this in various interviews in 2017 -- he said he took too much of a step back (you might call it a "steph back" ) when trying to accommodate KD. As a result, he fell into a bit of a shooting slump. But once he figured out how to play alongside KD, his shooting went back up to 2016 regular season levels in the 2nd half of the regular season and the playoffs. The numbers / eye test support Curry's firsthand explanation, as does his 2018 TS+ which surpasses 2015 and gets close to 2016.
Some might downgrade 2017 for this shooting slump, but I don't see him as a "worse" shooter -- just one that happened to have a slump that's explained by context. It's also worth noting: his willingness to fit alongside KD shows quite a lot of leadership and off-court locker room chemistry that's matched by very few all-time players. People debate this sort of cultural leadership, but however valuable it is, Curry's leadership is certainly more valuable than some of the Greatest Peak competitors (Hakeem) and in line with the other all-time leaders (Duncan, Russell, etc.).
It's also worth mentioning that some people see other improvements besides shooting -- I've mentioned health, decision making, handle, resilience (strength to perform against more physical defenses), defense, etc in my personal ballot. They're small changes, but they may add up to help 2017 Curry vs 2015 or 2016.
ceiling raiser wrote:I'm starting to see Bird here a bit. Three questions I have for his proponents:
... (3) Defense. In his peak season(s), was Bird a plus defender? Net positive? Negative, but not negative enough that it took away from his offense? For those of you who are big on translating players into the present league, what kind of players would Love be able to guard and would he or would he not be a liability on that end?
Hi all! I haven't had much back and forth with any of you, so I thought I might start one since I I think we disagree on Duncan vs Hakeem vs Curry. (if anyone else wants to join in, feel free!)
Duncan vs Hakeem: I see a lot of parallels. Both are all-time defenders (with Hakeem probably a touch better). Both are offensive floor raisers, with very resilient scoring and some flaws in their passing/playmaking/scalability/portability. Neither had fantastic offensive teammates, but both were aided by good spacing (for their era) at their peak. Since they're so similar, it seems likely that the impact metrics would view them in a similar role -- in other words, the impact metrics should be very helpful when comparing the two, since it's an "apples to apples" comparison:
Spoiler:
Hakeem vs Duncan vs KG vs Bird: [spoiler]Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM: 2003 Duncan (7th all time) > 1994 Hakeem (9th all time) Aii. Postseason AuPM: 2003 Duncan (3rd all time) [No older players] Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: 2003 Duncan (3rd all time) > 1994 Hakeem (~20th all time, small sample) Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2003 Duncan (1st all time) > 1994 Hakeem (16th all time) Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: 2003 Duncan [no Hakeem data] Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: Duncan = Hakeem Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: (2005 Duncan) > 2003 Duncan (8th all time) [no Hakeem data] Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: (1993 Hakeem) > (2002 Duncan) > 2003 Duncan (9th all time) > 1994 Hakeem (would be 14 all time)
Box score-based data Gi. Backpicks BPM: (1993 Hakeem 17th all time) > (2002 Duncan 20th all time) > 2003 Duncan > 1994 Hakeem Gii. Postseason Backpicks BPM: 2003 Duncan (tie 6th all time) > 1994 Hakeem (13th all time) > (1993 Hakeem) Additional box score stats: Hi. BR’s BPM: (2004 Duncan) > 2003 Duncan > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem [93 Hakeem pulls ahead in BPM per game instead of BPM per 100] Additional box score stats: Hii. BR’s Postseason BPM: (2002 Duncan would be 8th all time) > 2003 Duncan > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem Additional box score stats: Ii. WS/48: (2002/04 Duncan) > 2003 Duncan > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem [total WS doesn't change anything] Additional box score stats: Iii. Postseason WS/48: 2003 Duncan > (1993 Hakeem) > 1994 Hakeem
As I see it, the metrics clearly favor Duncan. 2003 Duncan beats 1994 Hakeem in 6/6 of the more trusted stats, and he wins 5/5 of the postseason-only stats. If we take a 2 year sample and change the the per100 stats to perGame, Duncan goes from winning 9/11 total stats (with 1 tie) to winning 7/11 stats (with 1 tie). So my question to start is: since it should be an "apples to apples" comparison between Hakeem and Duncan, is there any reason we should distrust the metrics? Is there any context I'm missing that's significant enough to justify Hakeem over Duncan? (especially since 2003 Duncan is also all-time resilient, an all-time defender, and both have a similar fitting team)
Curry vs Hakeem: I've used the metrics to show Curry also has a fairly convincing statistical case over Hakeem (and I'm happy to discuss more if people want!), but since there's been some discussion of that already, let me introduce a new question.
Most people who have Hakeem over Curry cite his two-way impact. It's definitely true that Hakeem is an all-time two way player, and he's obviously the better defender.
My question for Curry vs Hakeem is: could we be overrating the defensive gap, while underrating the offensive gap (particularly the playmaking gap)?
1. Possible evidence we're overrating the defensive gap: In the modern era, there's reason to think the greatest offensive impact overshadows the greatest defensive impact. In his plus-minus studies, Thinking Basketball estimates that the best defender's defensive value (post 2000) change a team's SRS by about +3.5, while the best offensive players' offense changes a team's SRS by about +6.5. This inequality is smaller but still present in the 80s and 90s, though by the 60s defense has become more valuable.
Why is defense less valuable? From an efficiency perspective, I'd be open to the idea that the greatest defenders might have similar impact per defensive play to the greatest offensive players. The problem is volume: it's easy to increase an offensive player's volume by just putting the ball in their hands, but it's hard to increase a defensive player's volume past a certain point (since the other team can just decide to put the ball on another part of the court).
Per Thinking Basketball's study of the 2011 season, centers have the highest average defensive usage at 22.4% in the regular season. This remains in the playoffs, where the highest defensive usage is just over 20% (source 1: https://elgee35.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/defensive-usage-ii/, source 2: https://elgee35.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/defensive-usage/). Compare that to offensive usage which easily gets over 30% for the top offensive players. If we're more inclusive in defining usage to include off-ball action (especially important for Curry), estimates of offensive usage can get over 40%.
2. Possible evidence we're underrating the offensive gap: Personally, I think people are too quick to just compare Scoring and Defense. To me, Playmaking is clearly the most important third component, and the gap here is massive. To show this, let's use PlayVal (which attempts to estimate how much plus/minus impact comes from playmaking alone). In the Regular Season: 16 Curry has +1.9 and 17 Curry has +1.7 PlayVal, while 93 Hakeem has -0.1 and 94 Hakeem has -0.2 PlayVal. In the playoffs: 17 Curry has +1.7, while 93 Hakeem has +0.1 and 94 Hakeem has +0.2.
And remember, if anything this is underrating Curry's playmaking value, since Curry has more playmaking value from off-ball movement and gravity than almost any other player in history. For example: Curry was double-teamed 20x more than KD in the finals (~3 doubles for KD vs ~62 doubles for Curry). SynergySports created a metric using tracking data (incorporating shot distance, defender's distance, efficiency of play type, etc.) to estimate how superstars improve their teammates' shot quality, and Curry came out on top over LeBron, Harden, Jokic, and Luka (https://synergysports.com/explaining-synergy-shot-quality/). FiveThirtyEight did a study that manually looked at how teammates' efficiency changed with various superstars on and off the court, and Curry again came out on top. 2017 Curry improved his teammates' shooting percentage by 7.3%, almost doubling LeBron in second place at +3.9% (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-case-for-stephen-curry-mvp/).
It's also worth noting that Curry's scoring is still better than Hakeem's. His 2016 regular season is arguably the greatest regular season scoring run of all time if you value both volume and efficiency (https://www.backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Curry-all-time-scoring-seasons.001-1024x576.jpeg), and Curry's still the more valuable scorer in the playoffs. If we look at ScoreVal (which estimates plus/minus value created exclusively from scoring), 2017 Curry had +2.7 playoff ScoreVal, while 1994 Hakeem had +1.7 playoff ScoreVal.
Anyway, I'm happy to discuss more -- let me know what you think!
All else equal I'm going to vote for the most recent era, so I need players who are clearcut better than players like Curry and Giannis have been vs the rest of their league. I felt that way for seasons like 00 Shaq or 67 Wilt but I'm not positive I see that with Duncan or Hakeem, both are great, but similar impact for their seasons to a player like Curry. I think Russell is probably the best candidate to be better for the 60s than Curry was for the 10s, with peak Bird as a maybe considering by the end of 86 I think he was being seen more like a Jordan/Lebron and actually getting GOAT talk, whether that was valid or not.
Vote
1. 1962 Russell (b. 1965 c. 1963) - Russell is pretty solid on offense in this playoff run (22ppg) and holds down 50ppg Wilt enough for them to get by him. As always, a somewhat confounding/unique player in impact.
2. 2015 Curry (b. 2019 c. 2017) - I've come around and decided to just vote for his healthiest MVP season, he was fine in the payoffs and his regular season is stronger than 17 or 19. He had more tricks in his bag later in his career but I'd guess if rewatching it that his youth makes up for a bit in speed.
3. 1986 Bird (b. 1984 c. 1985) - I think Bird had separated himself from everyone else at this point, he has clear advanced stats lead in boxscore over everyone despite a relative slow start in Nov Dec that year which shows how much he was cooking them after that, and is a player that probably could've put up more counting stats if he wanted to.
If 2016-17 is peak Curry, why couldn't the greatest shooter of all time top his career TS+ mark?
Thanks for your question! I believe 2017 Curry's TS+ is dragged down by a slight slump in the first half of the regular season. Curry actually mentioned this in various interviews in 2017 -- he said he took too much of a step back (you might call it a "steph back" ) when trying to accommodate KD. As a result, he fell into a bit of a shooting slump. But once he figured out how to play alongside KD, his shooting went back up to 2016 regular season levels in the 2nd half of the regular season and the playoffs. The numbers / eye test support Curry's firsthand explanation, as does his 2018 TS+ which surpasses 2015 and gets close to 2016.
Some might downgrade 2017 for this shooting slump, but I don't see him as a "worse" shooter -- just one that happened to have a slump that's explained by context. It's also worth noting: his willingness to fit alongside KD shows quite a lot of leadership and off-court locker room chemistry that's matched by very few all-time players. People debate this sort of cultural leadership, but however valuable it is, Curry's leadership is certainly more valuable than some of the Greatest Peak competitors (Hakeem) and in line with the other all-time leaders (Duncan, Russell, etc.).
It's also worth mentioning that some people see other improvements besides shooting -- I've mentioned health, decision making, handle, resilience (strength to perform against more physical defenses), defense, etc in my personal ballot. They're small changes, but they may add up to help 2017 Curry vs 2015 or 2016.
What portions of the regular season are you referring to exactly when you say first half and second half? By my count, he averaged 24.7 PPG on 62.9% TS% through this first 39 games and 25.9 PPG on 61.9% TS% in the remaining 40 games. Slight increase in volume and slight decrease in efficiency if we're comparing half-to-half, but nothing that substantial from what I saw.
) when trying to accommodate KD. As a result, he fell into a bit of a shooting slump. But once he figured out how to play alongside KD, his shooting went back up to 2016 regular season levels in the 2nd half of the regular season and the playoffs. The numbers / eye test support Curry's firsthand explanation, as does his 2018 TS+ which surpasses 2015 and gets close to 2016. 
