I'm not exactly sure what makes one signed up to vote for this project, but whether this gets counted or not:
1. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
Otis Thorpe made a single all-star game in 1992. Sam Cassell made a single all-star game 10 years later in 2004. As far as I can tell, that is the entire all-star history of the Rockets roster from 2-15. Without looking it up, I can't imagine any other champion matches this. Probably not even if you threw out 40 year old 12th men who made 10 all stars but shouldn't count. If I could get all the data off basketball-reference, I would love to do a calculation weighting playoff minutes, all-star appearances and distance from the all-star appearances to see if any team even comes close. And they did it facing the 8th best combined opponents SRS for a playoff run, with even 1st round Portland being an abnormally good +2.6 for a 7th seed.
Hakeem was an SRS underdog already in the 2nd round against the defending conference champs Phoenix and put up 37/17 in game 7. Was equal in SRS to prime Malone/Stockton with Hornacek and made easy work of them. Was almost a -3 SRS underdog in the Finals and won while massacring another Top 50 player.
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.
This. Every game in those Finals was decided by single digits, including a 2 point game 6 where Hakeem held Ewing to 6/20 shooting (and blocked Starks potential game-winner). Even the slightest lack of domination by Hakeem and his team doesn't win those Finals, even down to shooting 86% from the line. 26.9 ppg on 50% shooting against an all-time defense and frontline is impressive.
**If you want to feel worse for Ewing, in the 2 regular season matchups, he shot 9/35 from the field while averaging 12/8 to Hakeem's 33/17. One of the most complete dominations of an ATG by another ATG over the course of a year.
2. 2003 Tim Duncan
Very close with Hakeem. Knocking off Shaq/Kobe may not be as amazing as it seems considering they were 50-32, but it still ended a 3-peat for a team that always seemed to show up in the playoffs and Duncan was the sole star so hard to not consider this pretty amazing. Massive playoff numbers across the board, including the vaunted Win Shares record. Sure, injured Dirk Dallas wasn't as good as they could have been healthy and the Nets were never, ever going to score enough on Duncan and still elite inside presence Robinson and elite perimeter defender Bowen, but the Rockets dodged the 63-19 Sonics so can't say much here to separate the two. Obviously Robinson was mostly just providing elite defense and Ginobili and Parker were a year or two away, but if I'm comparing supporting players with similar production like the 2003 Spurs and 1994 Rockets, I'm always picking the future Hall of Famers, no matter the stage of their career. They just tend to have a certain feel for the game and dealing with the moment that "random roleplayer X" doesn't have (especially Robinson as a vet).
3. 1964 Bill Russell
I don't know as much about individual Russell seasons as I would like to, but it seems a Bill Russell season should show up at some point. They dominated 4-1/4-1 in the playoffs and this is the all-time rDRtg season I believe, so it might as well be this season for the most dominant defender ever.
DraymondGold wrote: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.
Duncan is like Curry, the metrics always favor him. You might think you saw Tim Duncan struggle to score on 40 year old (literally) Karl Malone while his team blows a 2-0 series lead, but the metrics will let you know you are wrong. If I took Hakeem/Duncan metrics at face value (at least the ones I commonly see) and looked at the teammates and coaching they both got, I would expect Duncan to have 7 or 8 titles and Hakeem to have none. But of course that didn't happen. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't take 2003 Duncan by a hair over 1994 Hakeem (I didn't) but this never looks good with the plus/minus type metrics.
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)?
Curry seems to be even more favored by metrics. Either you or someone else said that even in the 2016 playoffs, his impact numbers still looked really good. His team basically won the first round and went up 2-1 in the 2nd round without him, so the supporting cast must be pretty good, and then in one of the two full series he did play, he looked awful and the team blew a 3-1 lead. If the impact metrics still say he is great after that performance (I'm guessing even better than Hakeem), then I have to stop trusting them or start discounting them heavily. I don't always, or even usually, trust my lying eyes over stats, but the numbers can't just tell me up is down and black is white.
Hakeem and even metric god Duncan always seem to show up poorly on offense, but I have a hard time thinking they weren't somewhat impactful offensive players. Their teams went to them all the time because they were the only consistent shot creator and they got their teammates tons of open looks. I simply can't believe that their teams would have benefited from a different offensive system or that they weren't helping on offense and Rudy T and Pop just both missed it. It seems even less believable in Hakeem's case, considering Rudy made him probably the most heliocentric non-Jordan player in the league and the Rockets immediately produced much better results than in the past and, you know, won 2 titles. I mean, I suppose somehow the poor numbers are saying that, if you want their massive defensive impact, then the only way you can run your offensive is through both of them and that's not as good offensively as if they just weren't on the court (even though your defense would be awful), but it doesn't pass the smell test to me.
And at least in Hakeem's case, he simply has too many playoff runs of basically being unstoppable offensively (1986-88 and 1993-95 and 1997) and often turning them into huge team overperformance compared to seeding/SRS to make me think the two aren't heavily correlated.
Defensively, I don't buy Hakeem and Duncan only being worth 3.5 SRS, especially if they somehow don't have any offensive value. Then their team results make no sense as 94 Hakeem and 03 Duncan won against fairly good opponents with fairly weak supporting casts.
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?
In stuff like single PS BPM or PS Backpicks BPM, Larry Bird did peak higher than Steph. Also some might argue Bird's 5-year prime was better than Steph (and you could maybe even extend the stretch), therefore giving them more confidence in the idea that he peaked higher.
For example,
Larry Bird's 5-year Peak PS Bball Ref BPM-8.19 (10th All-time)
Larry Bird's 5-year Peak PS BACKPICKS BPM Rank-6th All-time
Some might also prefer Bird's playstyle because of just how good of a passer he was, as well as providing some of the floor-spacing that Curry does.
Also's Bird's defense was pretty underrated I think for some of his career by people today. For instance, Bird played on a Boston Celtics squad who in the PS from 80-82, had a -6.5 rDRTG, which is in the upper stratosphere historically. This is particularly noteworthy because Bird played in one of the most important defensive positions on the floor for much of the time at the PF position. In the 1980 and ’81 playoffs, Bird logged about 43 minutes per game next to Dave Cowens, Parish or Rick Robey had a really strong steal rate of 2.3 percent and block rate 1.5 percent. While yes, Kobe was clearly the more impactful on-ball defender, we know that off-ball defense and deterring shots at the rim in really any fashion is probably more valuable and Bird really had special instincts and off-ball awareness.
Now 86 Bird and beyond wasn't the same level of defender as earlier versions, but I suppose if you think they are in the same realm offensively, Bird's defensive edge could take him ahead.
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.
Thanks for the question! I remember the interviews and seeing stats at the time, but I hadn't gone back and checked in a while, so it was fun to do. In short: I see improvement out of slump starting at Game 47 and further improvement that continues into the playoffs starting around Game 72
Methodology: I started by looking at 2017 Curry's PPG throughout the season using the ppg average across 20 game samples. This should be small enough to capture slumps, but large enough to not be dominated by one game. (By the way, do you or does anyone else know how to upload an image of this graph? I can't figure it out ). Anyway, he starts off the season okay, but there's a clear slump in 20-game-average PPG starting around Game 27 (i.e. the average ppg from game 7 to game 27) until Game 46, where there's a clear uptick, at least to my eye. After some variation, he again starts improving around game ~72 and this improvement continues into the playoffs.
Let's divide the season into those 3 sections: Part 1: Games 1-46 (okay start but then a slump, likely from trying to fit with KD), Part 2: Games 47-82 (improvement out of slump), Part 3: the playoffs (continued improvement that started near end of regular season): Part 1: 24.63 ppg, 46.2% FG%, 39.91% 3P%, 91.0% FT%, 6.17 apg, 19.13 GmSc, 12.57 +/- Part 2: 26.24 ppg, 47.4% FG%, 40.44% 3P%, 88.2% FT%, 7.27 apg, 21.31 GmSc, 13.18 +/- Playoffs: 28.06 ppg, 48.7% FG%, 41.63% 3P%, 91.0% FT%, 6.70 apg, 23.47 GmSc, 14.35 +/- [Source: Basketball reference. Unfortunately their Game Log doesn't include TS% or any better advanced stat than GameScore or raw +/-, but you can still see the improvement. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01/gamelog/2017]
Improvement from Part 1 to Part 2: +1.61 ppg, +1.2% FG%, +0.53% 3P%, -1.8% FT%, +0.90 apg, +2.18 GmSc, +0.61 +/- Improvement from Part 2 to playoffs: +1.82 ppg, +1.3% FG%, +1.19% 3P%, +1.8% FT%, -0.57 apg, +2.16 GmSc, +1.17 +/-
And just to reiterate, there were also interviews where Curry said he slumped early on by taking too much of a step back trying to accommodate KD. As he figured out how to fit, he said he felt he played better and I think the data supports that, at least from the data above. Let me know what you think!
DraymondGold wrote: 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.
Thanks for the question! I remember the interviews and seeing stats at the time, but I hadn't gone back and checked in a while, so it was fun to do. In short: I see improvement out of slump starting at Game 47 and further improvement that continues into the playoffs starting around Game 72
Methodology: I started by looking at 2017 Curry's PPG throughout the season using the ppg average across 20 games. This should be small enough to capture slumps, but large enough to not be dominated by one game. (By the way, do you or does anyone else know how to upload an image of this graph? I can't figure it out ). Anyway, he starts off the season okay, but there's a clear slump in 20-game-average PPG starting around Game 27 (i.e. the average ppg from game 7 to game 27) until Game 46, where there's a clear uptick, at least to my eye. After some variation, he again starts improving around game ~72 and this improvement continues into the playoffs.
Let's divide the season into those 3 sections: Part 1: Games 1-46 (okay start but slump, likely from trying to fit with KD), Part 2: Games 47-82 (improvement out of slump), Part 3: and the playoffs (continued improvement that started near end of regular season): Part 1: 24.63 ppg, 46.2% FG%, 39.91% 3P%, 91.0% FT%, 6.17 apg, 19.13 GmSc, 12.57 +/- Part 2: 26.24 ppg, 47.4% FG%, 40.44% 3P%, 88.2% FT%, 7.27 apg, 21.31 GmSc, 13.18 +/- Playoffs: 28.06 ppg, 48.7% FG%, 41.63% 3P%, 91.0% FT%, 6.70 apg, 23.47 GmSc, 14.35 +/- [Source: Basketball reference. Unfortunately their Game Log doesn't include TS% or any better advanced stat than GameScore or raw +/-, but you can still see the improvement.]
Improvement from Part 1 to Part 2: +1.61 ppg, +1.2% FG%, +0.53% 3P%, -1.8% FT%, +0.90 apg, +2.18 GmSc, +0.61 +/- Improvement from Part 2 to playoffs: +1.82 ppg, +1.3% FG%, +1.19% 3P%, +1.8% FT%, -0.57 apg, +2.16 GmSc, +1.17 +/-
And just to reiterate, there were also interviews where Curry said he slumped early on by taking too much of a step back trying to accommodate KD. As he figured out how to fit, he said he felt he played better and I think the data supports that, at least from the data above. Let me know what you think!
I agree with your assessment of him having had a better start, slumping afterwards, and then having an uptick later on. However, I his strong start makes it difficult for me to believe that he just had trouble fitting in with Durant, because, well, he was playing with Durant at the start of the season. Here's one way to portray the year:
Steph's first 20 games of the regular season: 26.9 PPG on 66.5% TS% and 61.3% eFG% Steph's middle 44 games of the regular season: 24.0 PPG on 59.1% TS% and 54.8% eFG% Steph's last 15 games of the regular season: 27.1 PPG on 66.4% TS% and 63.2% eFG%
I have a hard time looking at that and thinking that he came out of the gate struggling to fit in with KD but finally got things going in the second half of the season. Rather, I look at that and think that he started the season hot, ended the season hot, and was otherwise unimpressive scoring-wise in the middle bulk of the season.
The other factor about the "trouble fitting in with KD" theory that we must consider is the fact that KD didn't play every game. In a month-long stretch with Durant injured towards the end of the regular season, Curry averaged 26.8 PPG on 61.5% TS% and 58.1% eFG% over 19 games. That last 15 game stretch I outlined above? 12 of those games were without Kevin Durant.
In a particularly efficient 12 game stretch at the end of the year, Curry led the Warriors to a 12-0 record averaging 27.4 PPG on 67.9% TS% and 65.2% eFG%. Which is likely boosting Curry's end of regular season stats and really adding to the theory of him figuring out how to fit with Durant... but KD didn't touch the floor at all during this run.
When you actually look into the regular season that Curry had, I am very skeptical of the notion that it follows some sort of clean narrative of "figuring out how to play with KD" for the following reasons:
- He started the regular season exceptionally ... with KD. - He had a slump afterwards ... without KD. - And he had a magnificient end to the regular season that included leading the Warriors on a 12-0 run on 2016 level efficiency ... without KD touching the floor at all.
And of course, this leads us to the playoffs where Curry was obviously superb. But while I think it's easy to look at a superb postseason & a less superb regular season and try to make the connection of "well, that's because he was learning to fit with KD over the course of the regular season," I find it difficult to actually see any strong statistical evidence of that in the regular season itself. Of course, that's just my opinion and I wouldn't blame anyone for trusting Steph Curry over me.
I have to say, it was interesting looking at all of this information (as the intricate ebbs and flows of Steph Curry's 2017 regular season were not something that I memorized haha), but it leads me to think that he just... didn't have the best scoring regular season by his standards and I can't help but dock him for that.
And one thing I should mention - some of this might seem like overanalysis. I agree. Looking into these short samples of a jumpshooter's efficiency is obviously going to have variance that isn't explainable. I think that's the case here. Steph just seemed to have an inconsistent regular season in terms of his scoring.
(By the way, do you or does anyone else know how to upload an image of this graph? I can't figure it out )
What I usually do is upload the image to imgur.com (if you have the image of the graph copied to your clipboard, you can just Ctrl+V at imgur.com and it'll automatically upload) and then right click on the uploaded image to get the address for it, and finally post it here like so:
I’d rather 2016 if not for the injury. Curry is the ultimate gravity guy. His presence alone makes life easier for the rest of his teammates.
#7. 1986 Larry Bird.
The legend was a dominant scorer and passer. Defended well and his shooting makes him a threat in any era.
#8. 2004 Kevin Garnett
It was a tossup between KG, and other defensive bigs like Hakeem 94 and Russell 64. Ultimately, KG’s offence gets him over the line. I think his spacing was a little better than Hakeem. Very close though.
Kareem was my 5 and wilt was my 7 so I’ll just remove them from the copy paste and add in my number 8 instead
4. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
Although this arguably isn’t his peak on O or D I think it’s his best combination of scoring playmaking defense and portability. Hakeem’s RS metrics don’t look the best but he’s one of the biggest PO risers ever and his multi year PO metrics (I prefer multi year over single year metrics in the PO) look significantly better and they make a top 4 placement look much more reasonable. In 1994 he was a much more willing passer and didn’t miss very many basic reads like he did in the previous years (and made the occasional advanced read as well) and he was a great scorer as always and while he regressed as a defender he was still very clearly and all time defender and I don’t know how many defensive seasons there are better than 94 Hakeem outside of his own and BR’s. He was also a better Off ball player and more willing off the ball in 1994. I would like to watch a little bit more film to confirm if I’m overrating him but I think that 4 is a very fair spot for his peak
6. 2003 Tim Duncan
Wilt and TD are essentially interchangeable to me but I chose TD since I am more confident in his abilities due to him having more data and film.
I will talk about his defense first since I am relatively high on his D and want to talk about why. I believe TD Is the 3rd best defender of all time and have him closer to Hakeem on D than most. TD checks every box you can
Defenses lead? The 03 spurs were *only* a -3.9 rDRTG but the 01-05 Spurs are a -6.1 rDRTG (best rDRTG in a 5Yr stretch outside of the 61-65 Celtics depending on what pace estimates you use)
Impact metrics? 03 Duncan has a +3.5 DAPM/g despite only playing ≈ 70 possessions/g (his PI DRAPM for the same year is a +5.11/100 (+3.83 /75) and the spurs had a -5.6 rDRTG with Duncan on.
And he had one of the best defensive series ever in the 2003 Finals where he completely shut down the Brooklyn nets En Route to a 4-2 win for his 2nd ring.
While you can argue if 03 is his peak or not I think it can be argued as a +4 on D.
Offensively I believe TD is very good although maybe a step down from 95 Hakeem. He was a very good Iso scorer out of the post and could shoot deep 2s at a fair rate. He wasn’t a great cutter but he was really good out of the PnP and wasn’t a bad roller either. He’s also a really good playmaking big. He consistently would make the correct read and while you won’t get any Jokic level passes out of Duncan, he’s going to be great at the basics ( he’s called the Big Fundamental for a reason). He had a resilient game and that showed consistently in the PO. He had a pretty decent scoring arsenal headed with his signature move, the bank shot
Although I’m more worried and how one would hypothetically be in a Playoff environment rather than in the actual playoffs they played in itself TD’s 2003 PO are among the greatest ever averaging 25/5/15/.6/3.3 on only 3.2 tpg *per game* just about every impact metric has this in the Mount Rushmore if you don’t include duplicates
8. 2016 Steph Curry
Now you can use 17 as his peak if you’re gonna tax 16 for the PO injury but 16 clearly has better shot making and the years aren’t much different everywhere else. 16 Steph curry is a clear t4 offensive peak ever. What makes Steph such an amazing player is that he gives you the best off ball movement ever while being the greatest shooter ever and him being an elite on ball player makes not only his offense the most unique style ever but also how defenses have to guard him. He’s being doubled at half court and you have to keep 2 guys on him regardless of if he has the ball which makes shot creating for him very easy (**** he’s creating shots without ever touching the ball). Being the best off ball creator ever while still being elite on the ball makes him a t10 playmaker Imo and I don’t even need to go into how he’s a t10 scorer ever. The 30 PPG on +10 rTS (and being 1 of 2 players ever to lead the league in scoring rate and efficiency) speaks for itself. While he isn’t an elite defender he has a good motor (which is crazy for how active he is on the ball) and has good off ball awareness. He’s a very solid team defender but would get “hunted” on the ball due to how good the rest of the warriors defenders were. I feel like him being a slight + on D is very fair. I like the 8 spot for him but could see him in the tier up or down depending on how high you are on his scoring and defense (and how much you value on ball playmaking)
I missed the last couple votes despite participating. One of those things where I wanted to wait, read others thoughts, chew on it, and then make my decision...only to get busy and not get around to it. I expect this is a thing that will keep happening because Peaks projects are so hard.
People have expressed bewilderment at how I could have Curry a tier above Magic and Bird, but as I said, that's not really how I see things. I think you can make arguments for a whole host of players to be 5 or 10 spots higher or lower, and my vote just represents where I'm settling at that time.
In spot 4 Kareem got in, and he would have continued to be on my ballot so pretty clear where I stand there.
In spot 5 Wilt got in, and I'll tell you that I was debating him vs Magic & Bird. With him out, the 3rd spot on my ballot becomes more clearly between the two great rivals of the '80s.
Also, I'm going to go to a 1-2-3 style of voting at this point as I think that makes more sense than continuing to put Curry as "3" for the next however many threads.
As I've said, I think Curry is particularly challenging because different seasons stand out depending on how you look at them. I'm not particularly interested in defending to the death that '16-17 is his best year, but it does represent him being fundamentally solid throughout the year while also being the MVP of the greatest team in history.
And while I don't think I'm going to sway many people on that "greatest team" thing who are just focused on "did you win the chip?" and "how little help did you have?", I would emphasize that being the MVP of the best team ever is something that normal sports people would generally see as a really big deal.
I'll switch over to the first chip as it's my perception that that's more what people are focused on and there are good reasons why they are. Honestly, I don't have any reason to think that Olajuwon just learned how to do the things he did in '94-95 that year, despite the fact that that post-season is where we saw it all in its full glory, and I do think that at this stage of his career the Dream was losing a bit of his defensive dreaminess each year.
3. Magic Johnson '86-87
Just going to list the season that I think everyone would pick here and focus more on the comparison with Larry Bird ('85-86). I go back and forth on these two.
I think that if you take Bird's offensive and defensive peaks together, he probably gets the nod over Magic, but Bird's offensive assurance rose as his motor dropped. You could say some of the same stuff for Magic, but the impact of his defensive motor in those early years wasn't like Bird's.
I've said many times on these boards that Bird is a guy who seems like he might have the most impressive collection of basketball talents we've ever seen. His shooting ability combined with his seemingly supernatural anticipation, court awareness, and improvisational ability anywhere on the court with or without the ball, seems like an unmatched combo.
But in the end, I feel like Magic exceled more at solving the game. Taking control, and then making the efficient play with it. And moreover, this wasn't just team context. This was what Magic insisted upon, and in doing so effectively became the first helio among modern players.
Doctor MJ wrote:I missed the last couple votes despite participating. One of those things where I wanted to wait, read others thoughts, chew on it, and then make my decision...only to get busy and not get around to it. I expect this is a thing that will keep happening because Peaks projects are so hard.
People have expressed bewilderment at how I could have Curry a tier above Magic and Bird, but as I said, that's not really how I see things. I think you can make arguments for a whole host of players to be 5 or 10 spots higher or lower, and my vote just represents where I'm settling at that time.
In spot 4 Kareem got in, and he would have continued to be on my ballot so pretty clear where I stand there.
In spot 5 Wilt got in, and I'll tell you that I was debating him vs Magic & Bird. With him out, the 3rd spot on my ballot becomes more clearly between the two great rivals of the '80s.
Also, I'm going to go to a 1-2-3 style of voting at this point as I think that makes more sense than continuing to put Curry as "3" for the next however many threads.
As I've said, I think Curry is particularly challenging because different seasons stand out depending on how you look at them. I'm not particularly interested in defending to the death that '16-17 is his best year, but it does represent him being fundamentally solid throughout the year while also being the MVP of the greatest team in history.
And while I don't think I'm going to sway many people on that "greatest team" thing who are just focused on "did you win the chip?" and "how little help did you have?", I would emphasize that being the MVP of the best team ever is something that normal sports people would generally see as a really big deal.
I'll switch over to the first chip as it's my perception that that's more what people are focused on and there are good reasons why they are. Honestly, I don't have any reason to think that Olajuwon just learned how to do the things he did in '94-95 that year, despite the fact that that post-season is where we saw it all in its full glory, and I do think that at this stage of his career the Dream was losing a bit of his defensive dreaminess each year.
3. Magic Johnson '86-87
Just going to list the season that I think everyone would pick here and focus more on the comparison with Larry Bird ('85-86). I go back and forth on these two.
I think that if you take Bird's offensive and defensive peaks together, he probably gets the nod over Magic, but Bird's offensive assurance rose as his motor dropped. You could say some of the same stuff for Magic, but the impact of his defensive motor in those early years wasn't like Bird's.
I've said many times on these boards that Bird is a guy who seems like he might have the most impressive collection of basketball talents we've ever seen. His shooting ability combined with his seemingly supernatural anticipation, court awareness, and improvisational ability anywhere on the court with or without the ball, seems like an unmatched combo.
But in the end, I feel like Magic exceled more at solving the game. Taking control, and then making the efficient play with it. And moreover, this wasn't just team context. This was what Magic insisted upon, and in doing so effectively became the first helio among modern players.
Why are you significatively higher on hakeem> duncan? They seem essentially indistinguible to me
Floor raising a team to a ring as the only star? Check
Good but not great efficiency isolation scorer who is resilient in tge postseason? Check
All time great defender? Check
I would even argue duncan defense and offense peaks may have overlapped more neatly than hakeem's (2003 duncan was at his physical prime for defense, 94 hakeem was starting to slpw down in D per 70'sfan opinion)
Doctor MJ wrote:I missed the last couple votes despite participating. One of those things where I wanted to wait, read others thoughts, chew on it, and then make my decision...only to get busy and not get around to it. I expect this is a thing that will keep happening because Peaks projects are so hard.
People have expressed bewilderment at how I could have Curry a tier above Magic and Bird, but as I said, that's not really how I see things. I think you can make arguments for a whole host of players to be 5 or 10 spots higher or lower, and my vote just represents where I'm settling at that time.
In spot 4 Kareem got in, and he would have continued to be on my ballot so pretty clear where I stand there.
In spot 5 Wilt got in, and I'll tell you that I was debating him vs Magic & Bird. With him out, the 3rd spot on my ballot becomes more clearly between the two great rivals of the '80s.
Also, I'm going to go to a 1-2-3 style of voting at this point as I think that makes more sense than continuing to put Curry as "3" for the next however many threads.
As I've said, I think Curry is particularly challenging because different seasons stand out depending on how you look at them. I'm not particularly interested in defending to the death that '16-17 is his best year, but it does represent him being fundamentally solid throughout the year while also being the MVP of the greatest team in history.
And while I don't think I'm going to sway many people on that "greatest team" thing who are just focused on "did you win the chip?" and "how little help did you have?", I would emphasize that being the MVP of the best team ever is something that normal sports people would generally see as a really big deal.
I'll switch over to the first chip as it's my perception that that's more what people are focused on and there are good reasons why they are. Honestly, I don't have any reason to think that Olajuwon just learned how to do the things he did in '94-95 that year, despite the fact that that post-season is where we saw it all in its full glory, and I do think that at this stage of his career the Dream was losing a bit of his defensive dreaminess each year.
3. Magic Johnson '86-87
Just going to list the season that I think everyone would pick here and focus more on the comparison with Larry Bird ('85-86). I go back and forth on these two.
I think that if you take Bird's offensive and defensive peaks together, he probably gets the nod over Magic, but Bird's offensive assurance rose as his motor dropped. You could say some of the same stuff for Magic, but the impact of his defensive motor in those early years wasn't like Bird's.
I've said many times on these boards that Bird is a guy who seems like he might have the most impressive collection of basketball talents we've ever seen. His shooting ability combined with his seemingly supernatural anticipation, court awareness, and improvisational ability anywhere on the court with or without the ball, seems like an unmatched combo.
But in the end, I feel like Magic exceled more at solving the game. Taking control, and then making the efficient play with it. And moreover, this wasn't just team context. This was what Magic insisted upon, and in doing so effectively became the first helio among modern players.
Why are you significatively higher on hakeem> duncan? They seem essentially indistinguible to me
Floor raising a team to a ring as the only star? Check
Good but not great efficiency isolation scorer who is resilient in tge postseason? Check
All time great defender? Check
I would even argue duncan defense and offense peaks may have overlapped more neatly than hakeem's (2003 duncan was at his physical prime for defense, 94 hakeem was starting to slpw down in D per 70'sfan opinion)
70sFan may be mirroring Elgee's opinion, but they both seem to believe that the best overlap for Hakeem was 93 and not 94, as his defense had already started to slip noticably by then.
Doctor MJ wrote:I missed the last couple votes despite participating. One of those things where I wanted to wait, read others thoughts, chew on it, and then make my decision...only to get busy and not get around to it. I expect this is a thing that will keep happening because Peaks projects are so hard.
People have expressed bewilderment at how I could have Curry a tier above Magic and Bird, but as I said, that's not really how I see things. I think you can make arguments for a whole host of players to be 5 or 10 spots higher or lower, and my vote just represents where I'm settling at that time.
In spot 4 Kareem got in, and he would have continued to be on my ballot so pretty clear where I stand there.
In spot 5 Wilt got in, and I'll tell you that I was debating him vs Magic & Bird. With him out, the 3rd spot on my ballot becomes more clearly between the two great rivals of the '80s.
Also, I'm going to go to a 1-2-3 style of voting at this point as I think that makes more sense than continuing to put Curry as "3" for the next however many threads.
As I've said, I think Curry is particularly challenging because different seasons stand out depending on how you look at them. I'm not particularly interested in defending to the death that '16-17 is his best year, but it does represent him being fundamentally solid throughout the year while also being the MVP of the greatest team in history.
And while I don't think I'm going to sway many people on that "greatest team" thing who are just focused on "did you win the chip?" and "how little help did you have?", I would emphasize that being the MVP of the best team ever is something that normal sports people would generally see as a really big deal.
I'll switch over to the first chip as it's my perception that that's more what people are focused on and there are good reasons why they are. Honestly, I don't have any reason to think that Olajuwon just learned how to do the things he did in '94-95 that year, despite the fact that that post-season is where we saw it all in its full glory, and I do think that at this stage of his career the Dream was losing a bit of his defensive dreaminess each year.
3. Magic Johnson '86-87
Just going to list the season that I think everyone would pick here and focus more on the comparison with Larry Bird ('85-86). I go back and forth on these two.
I think that if you take Bird's offensive and defensive peaks together, he probably gets the nod over Magic, but Bird's offensive assurance rose as his motor dropped. You could say some of the same stuff for Magic, but the impact of his defensive motor in those early years wasn't like Bird's.
I've said many times on these boards that Bird is a guy who seems like he might have the most impressive collection of basketball talents we've ever seen. His shooting ability combined with his seemingly supernatural anticipation, court awareness, and improvisational ability anywhere on the court with or without the ball, seems like an unmatched combo.
But in the end, I feel like Magic exceled more at solving the game. Taking control, and then making the efficient play with it. And moreover, this wasn't just team context. This was what Magic insisted upon, and in doing so effectively became the first helio among modern players.
Why are you significatively higher on hakeem> duncan? They seem essentially indistinguible to me
Floor raising a team to a ring as the only star? Check
Good but not great efficiency isolation scorer who is resilient in tge postseason? Check
All time great defender? Check
I would even argue duncan defense and offense peaks may have overlapped more neatly than hakeem's (2003 duncan was at his physical prime for defense, 94 hakeem was starting to slpw down in D per 70'sfan opinion)
70sFan may be mirroring Elgee's opinion, but they both seem to believe that the best overlap for Hakeem was 93 and not 94, as his defense had already started to slip noticably by then.
I dont have extensive tracking of hakeem like ben taylor or 70'sfan probably have so i would defer to other more knowledgeable ppsters here
But is not 93 seen as a year where hakeem vision and willingness to pass was still a level below? (Or was that just seattle defense being better at exploiting his passing?)
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.]
per and ws/48, besides not being rooted in winning and thereofre being a result of arbitrailiy weighed factors, use steals/blocks to estmimate defense which means they're going to have inflated scores for guards since guards often get steals/blocks off bigger players.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Dr Positivity wrote: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.
does having a box-stat edge realy matter in a comparison with other two-way bigs whose main advantage over other postisions is based on defense?
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Doctor MJ wrote:I missed the last couple votes despite participating. One of those things where I wanted to wait, read others thoughts, chew on it, and then make my decision...only to get busy and not get around to it. I expect this is a thing that will keep happening because Peaks projects are so hard.
People have expressed bewilderment at how I could have Curry a tier above Magic and Bird, but as I said, that's not really how I see things. I think you can make arguments for a whole host of players to be 5 or 10 spots higher or lower, and my vote just represents where I'm settling at that time.
In spot 4 Kareem got in, and he would have continued to be on my ballot so pretty clear where I stand there.
In spot 5 Wilt got in, and I'll tell you that I was debating him vs Magic & Bird. With him out, the 3rd spot on my ballot becomes more clearly between the two great rivals of the '80s.
Also, I'm going to go to a 1-2-3 style of voting at this point as I think that makes more sense than continuing to put Curry as "3" for the next however many threads.
As I've said, I think Curry is particularly challenging because different seasons stand out depending on how you look at them. I'm not particularly interested in defending to the death that '16-17 is his best year, but it does represent him being fundamentally solid throughout the year while also being the MVP of the greatest team in history.
And while I don't think I'm going to sway many people on that "greatest team" thing who are just focused on "did you win the chip?" and "how little help did you have?", I would emphasize that being the MVP of the best team ever is something that normal sports people would generally see as a really big deal.
I'll switch over to the first chip as it's my perception that that's more what people are focused on and there are good reasons why they are. Honestly, I don't have any reason to think that Olajuwon just learned how to do the things he did in '94-95 that year, despite the fact that that post-season is where we saw it all in its full glory, and I do think that at this stage of his career the Dream was losing a bit of his defensive dreaminess each year.
3. Magic Johnson '86-87
Just going to list the season that I think everyone would pick here and focus more on the comparison with Larry Bird ('85-86). I go back and forth on these two.
I think that if you take Bird's offensive and defensive peaks together, he probably gets the nod over Magic, but Bird's offensive assurance rose as his motor dropped. You could say some of the same stuff for Magic, but the impact of his defensive motor in those early years wasn't like Bird's.
I've said many times on these boards that Bird is a guy who seems like he might have the most impressive collection of basketball talents we've ever seen. His shooting ability combined with his seemingly supernatural anticipation, court awareness, and improvisational ability anywhere on the court with or without the ball, seems like an unmatched combo.
But in the end, I feel like Magic exceled more at solving the game. Taking control, and then making the efficient play with it. And moreover, this wasn't just team context. This was what Magic insisted upon, and in doing so effectively became the first helio among modern players.
Why are you significatively higher on hakeem> duncan? They seem essentially indistinguible to me
Floor raising a team to a ring as the only star? Check
Good but not great efficiency isolation scorer who is resilient in tge postseason? Check
All time great defender? Check
I would even argue duncan defense and offense peaks may have overlapped more neatly than hakeem's (2003 duncan was at his physical prime for defense, 94 hakeem was starting to slpw down in D per 70'sfan opinion)
70sFan may be mirroring Elgee's opinion, but they both seem to believe that the best overlap for Hakeem was 93 and not 94, as his defense had already started to slip noticably by then.
Ben sees Hakeem's 93 and 94 defense a bit above Duncan's defense from 01-03 per his CORP evals.
In his Peaks Vid on Hakeem, he mentions from 1986-94 in the PS, Hakeem had at least 5 blocks in 35% of his PS games. And in the 93 and 94 PS, he said Hakeem had at least 5 blocks in almost half of his games. Perhaps he feels as if Hakeem could raise his PS defense intensity from the RS to the PS, and therefore the drop-off is not as great as some may think. Also, Ben per his count, sees Hakeem as giving more high-leverage contests than any big he has tracked of the modern era.
Hakeem is also known as a GOAT level man defender, for instance. In 94 he had one of the GOAT man lock-down performances on Patrick Ewing.
Patrick Ewing vs Hakeem Olajuwon in the 1994 Finals (IA per 75):
Ewing’s scoring in the 1994 playoffs before facing Hakeem:
▪️Averaged 23.1 PPG on 54% TS
How Ewing scored in the ‘94 Finals vs Hakeem:
▪️Averaged 18.9 PPG on 39 TS%
He thinks of Duncan as a slightly better offensive player other than 95 Hakeem in part due to his portability. However, he likely thinks Hakeem showed a bit more resilience. And while Hakeem's shot-selection is worse and efficiency a bit worse, he does give you more volume.
Im gonna make a case for Hakeem as the #3 here by arguing he was clearly the best floor raiser of the 80's/90's.
Let's start with 86 where the rockets were 7-7 without him and were 40-20 without him in the rs before they smashed a 62 win team and then took the gsw of the 80's to 6 with hakeem upping all his box-stuff. That's jordan-level regular szn impact+elite playoff elevation as a 3rd year player.
In 88, Rockets were a 45 win team with him and a 10 win team without him and hakeem broke nba statistics in a first round exit before lebron rebroke them in 09.
In 92 the rockets went 2-10 without him and 40-30 with him, missed the playoffs because he missed team.
(That's a similar drop off to the cleveland cavs without lebron from 08-11 albeit on a worse team.)
Finally in 93 with basically the same team and some improvement from a rookie, The rockets won 55 GAMES with Hakeem playing every game. For comparison jordan's bulls won 27 games before they drafted him and won at a 25 win pace withtout him when he hurt his foot. But jordan could never get that team to more than 50 wins until pippen/phil jackson/rodman arrived.
For most of his prime hakeem was roughly a +14 plus/minus player and he elevated massively in the playoffs. In 94 and 95 he led teams that played like a 60 win team agaisnt playoff opponents. Hakeem's skillset may not have lent itself to 72 win teams or the like, but he was probably the best floor raiser of his era and he was still able to lead dominant teams when provided with spacing. Given that Hakeem seems to have been this crazily impactful player for most of his prime i'm going to vote multiple hakeem seasons here. Even 2nd year hakeem was probably on the same tier as peak shaq or jordan imo, I think from 92-95 his passing improved and he was capable of also leading dominant title teams so those three will be my picks here.
1. 93 Hakeem 7-7 team to 55 wins and elevated in the playoffs 2. 94 Hakeem 3. 95 Hakeem I think u could probably also push for 86, 88, or 95 hakeem.
63 bill russell took average teams to dynasties, won a ring with a bad team in 69. along with wilt better than any modern peak relative to era.
2017 Steph Curry I'm putting him here largely because of draymond's arguments and curry seeems to have a good case for this spot based on various impact stuff like Backpicks bpm/whatever. Curry also would probably destroy previous eras if you transported him with his unprecedented range and his defense is fine. But i could be persuaded to put magic or duncan ahead. I'm skeptical on bird, but it's not impossible
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
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?
In stuff like single PS BPM or PS Backpicks BPM, Larry Bird did peak higher than Steph. Also some might argue Bird's 5-year prime was better than Steph (and you could maybe even extend the stretch), therefore giving them more confidence in the idea that he peaked higher.
For example,
Larry Bird's 5-year Peak PS Bball Ref BPM-8.19 (10th All-time)
Larry Bird's 5-year Peak PS BACKPICKS BPM Rank-6th All-time
Some might also prefer Bird's playstyle because of just how good of a passer he was, as well as providing some of the floor-spacing that Curry does.
Also's Bird's defense was pretty underrated I think for some of his career by people today. For instance, Bird played on a Boston Celtics squad who in the PS from 80-82, had a -6.5 rDRTG, which is in the upper stratosphere historically. This is particularly noteworthy because Bird played in one of the most important defensive positions on the floor for much of the time at the PF position. In the 1980 and ’81 playoffs, Bird logged about 43 minutes per game next to Dave Cowens, Parish or Rick Robey had a really strong steal rate of 2.3 percent and block rate 1.5 percent. While yes, Kobe was clearly the more impactful on-ball defender, we know that off-ball defense and deterring shots at the rim in really any fashion is probably more valuable and Bird really had special instincts and off-ball awareness.
Now 86 Bird and beyond wasn't the same level of defender as earlier versions, but I suppose if you think they are in the same realm offensively, Bird's defensive edge could take him ahead.
how does bird compare to hakeem using those stats? And could you list curry's best 5 years vs bird's best 5 years as opposed to 5 years in a row? i don't have access to these stats., but ik curry's playoff average would be lowered by his best years not coming in a row(largely due to injury in 16 and 18)
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
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.
I notice you have bird over hakeem. Does it give you any pause that hakeem in his 2nd year was able to take bird's superteam to 6 after taking out magic's superteam in 5? Rockets were .500 that season going by wowy and were much without him in surrounding seasons though i don't know how the rpam compares between the twp
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
nets are actuallt a damn tough defense with great man defenders on duncan like collins and kenyon martin and duncan still dominated offensively against them while playing all world defense
Nets were ahead almost the whole game, if duncan doesnt play an all time great game the often overly maligned nets force a game 7 to win a ring here
9:10 closely contests kenyon martin hook with his lenght, great defense to help force a miss
11:10 closely contests another post move with timing and another miss helped by his lenght. Kenyon is not the second coming of kareem post moves but duncan defense is picture perfect
11:40 duncan quick read, perfect timing and monster lenght stops a potential layup (also rovinson helped by corraling the driver, twin towers were bad ass)
12:00 duncan underated versatility in offense, nothingh is open to pass in the high post so duncan uses his underated for a big handle and drives into the rim with a giannis esque big man drive for 2 points
12:26 only 4 minutes and duncan has 2 blocks already, this one is more impressive as duncan does it one on one against poor kenyone by swalowwing his face up drive, impecabble defense without fouling
Kenyon still scores in the inbounds second chance points but he needs to throw a hail mary mid range running floater off a screen (yes, is exactlt what i wrote) and still barely escapes duncan chasing arms
13:15 first small mistake, he doesnt expect kenyon to shoot the midrange so when kenyon starts to shoot duncsn is too far for his closeout to be effective
13:35 first kickout od the night for duncan albeit a simple one, we are gonna take tract of how many hook ups inside or kicks out to open shooters (usually botg created of duncan draeing defensive attention) duncan has, hint, is a lot
15:25 duncan does a unexpected deep seal for a easy quick layup and easy points, off ball points
17:28 notice the little thinghs, parker doesnt pass duncan the ball but duncan still bust his ass to keep kenyon sealed deep so he cannot come to contest parker floater
19:44 off ball movement into a deep seal and forces free throws after the catch to stop him, shaquilesque play but with a 70% free throw shooter
Notice at this point how despite not having shaq body mass or garnett/hakeem quick feet he is still able to be ultra efficient to use his lenght and smart positioning to have a higg area of defense effect or use power to force easy shots with off ball figvting for position across the paint
22:00 off ball movement to gain preferwntial position inside for offensive rebounding but the rebound goes to the perimeter instead, should have been a forced foul witg the pushing to get him off the key
24:25 duncan gets soft triple teamed and quickly recognizes the blitz coming and passes, creates a 3 point shot by hockey assist
24:50 another picture perfecr block in just the third quarter (3) doesnt need to cover a huge anount of ground as he is so well positioned amd long he can react and block while making it look se easy people may underate him because is not a mindblowing chasedown block of garnett or hakeem
26:44 forced to baxkpedal against a slashing rival he still times the block perfectly and protects the rim while stepping backwards AND keeps the ball in play to start a fastbreak, negative point for overshooting the outlet pass and forcing ginobili to pick up his dribble
30:00 duncan is being doubled and he quickly reads the opening and throws a interior hook up to the now open player running straight the middle towards the hoop
All around in a single quarter duncan has 4 blocks, 1 open 3 created, a lay up assist, a screen created open shot, scored a couple buckets and forced some free throws
This defense and offensive creation were the only thingg stopping the spurs from going down like 12-30 in the fiest quarter
In the next quarters that would be too long to describe duncan just keeps finding kickouts and interior hook ups that someone with a "bad passer" rep that elgee and others atteibute to him shouldnt be able to do.
These are not jokic or bird passes but i think they are still high quakity, quick, inmesiatelt recognizes the openings and doubles/triples coming and throws a reasonable precise bullet to create layups and open shots
He has some weakness with long passes (messes up two fastbreak chances this way) but is otherwise a strong passer who creatws a ton of his scoring threat almost like a point forward a la lebron or luka (obviously to a smaller degree as he is not the ballhandler those guys are)
Notice for example
32:05 quickly recognizes the passing window and throws a higg value interior dish from the high post
33:30 another quality interior hook up should have been another assist for tim if not for the unforced bad catch
34:00 first time in the game until the second quarter that tim is punished by a double team before he passes out of it, will be also one of the last times and not for nets lack of trying
34:55 duncan createa a easy opem shot just by standinf in the block and catching the ball (and getting doubled)
4 layups or open shots created in less than 2 minutes of gane play, as a big
41:10 another double coming another inmediate punishment with the instant quickout as the double closes , 5 open shots or shots inside created in around 3 minutes
41:35 runs the fastbreak with a clean handle and throws a smooth high floated pass to robinson , shows creativity/vision for less obvious passes
44:00 nothingg open from the high post to pass to, so he again drives with a surprisingly tiggt handle for a center,shots, misses, recovers his own miss and forxes free throws against 3 nets players
44:50 right after that key play gets another block, this time coming from behind, to prevent a dunk
This all happens in 1 quarter and half btw but i think it includes most of what i wan mention (and it barelt touches on his post scoring or offensive rebounding, two virtues he didnt show much in this time frane and still dominated)
His passing looks stronger than usually acknowledged, maybe because a lpt of his passes were "easy" kickouts created by hia scoring threat forcing double and triple teams.
But still has stromg feel for interior hook ups and hitting the "open" man in the crowded paint. Brilliant at punishing doubles, underates quickness to read the defense altgough weak at outlet passing
His defense doesnt look as impressive as he doesnt mpve as much as garnett or hakem so a lpt of his blocks and contests just -look- like him standing in place, except he is always at the riggt place, always in the riggt angle to hit the block (backpedaling, from behind, to the baseline)
His 1vs1 defense is great with his lenght
His handle is a underused weapon, his off ball movement + power game to seal easy post ups and force free throws is shaq-lite at times
jalengreen wrote: 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.
Thanks for the question! I remember the interviews and seeing stats at the time, but I hadn't gone back and checked in a while, so it was fun to do. In short: I see improvement out of slump starting at Game 47 and further improvement that continues into the playoffs starting around Game 72
Methodology: I started by looking at 2017 Curry's PPG throughout the season using the ppg average across 20 games. This should be small enough to capture slumps, but large enough to not be dominated by one game. (By the way, do you or does anyone else know how to upload an image of this graph? I can't figure it out ). Anyway, he starts off the season okay, but there's a clear slump in 20-game-average PPG starting around Game 27 (i.e. the average ppg from game 7 to game 27) until Game 46, where there's a clear uptick, at least to my eye. After some variation, he again starts improving around game ~72 and this improvement continues into the playoffs.
Let's divide the season into those 3 sections: Part 1: Games 1-46 (okay start but slump, likely from trying to fit with KD), Part 2: Games 47-82 (improvement out of slump), Part 3: and the playoffs (continued improvement that started near end of regular season): Part 1: 24.63 ppg, 46.2% FG%, 39.91% 3P%, 91.0% FT%, 6.17 apg, 19.13 GmSc, 12.57 +/- Part 2: 26.24 ppg, 47.4% FG%, 40.44% 3P%, 88.2% FT%, 7.27 apg, 21.31 GmSc, 13.18 +/- Playoffs: 28.06 ppg, 48.7% FG%, 41.63% 3P%, 91.0% FT%, 6.70 apg, 23.47 GmSc, 14.35 +/- [Source: Basketball reference. Unfortunately their Game Log doesn't include TS% or any better advanced stat than GameScore or raw +/-, but you can still see the improvement.]
Improvement from Part 1 to Part 2: +1.61 ppg, +1.2% FG%, +0.53% 3P%, -1.8% FT%, +0.90 apg, +2.18 GmSc, +0.61 +/- Improvement from Part 2 to playoffs: +1.82 ppg, +1.3% FG%, +1.19% 3P%, +1.8% FT%, -0.57 apg, +2.16 GmSc, +1.17 +/-
And just to reiterate, there were also interviews where Curry said he slumped early on by taking too much of a step back trying to accommodate KD. As he figured out how to fit, he said he felt he played better and I think the data supports that, at least from the data above. Let me know what you think!
I agree with your assessment of him having had a better start, slumping afterwards, and then having an uptick later on. However, I his strong start makes it difficult for me to believe that he just had trouble fitting in with Durant, because, well, he was playing with Durant at the start of the season. Here's one way to portray the year:
Steph's first 20 games of the regular season: 26.9 PPG on 66.5% TS% and 61.3% eFG% Steph's middle 44 games of the regular season: 24.0 PPG on 59.1% TS% and 54.8% eFG% Steph's last 15 games of the regular season: 27.1 PPG on 66.4% TS% and 63.2% eFG%
I have a hard time looking at that and thinking that he came out of the gate struggling to fit in with KD but finally got things going in the second half of the season. Rather, I look at that and think that he started the season hot, ended the season hot, and was otherwise unimpressive scoring-wise in the middle bulk of the season.
The other factor about the "trouble fitting in with KD" theory that we must consider is the fact that KD didn't play every game. In a month-long stretch with Durant injured towards the end of the regular season, Curry averaged 26.8 PPG on 61.5% TS% and 58.1% eFG% over 19 games. That last 15 game stretch I outlined above? 12 of those games were without Kevin Durant.
In a particularly efficient 12 game stretch at the end of the year, Curry led the Warriors to a 12-0 record averaging 27.4 PPG on 67.9% TS% and 65.2% eFG%. Which is likely boosting Curry's end of regular season stats and really adding to the theory of him figuring out how to fit with Durant... but KD didn't touch the floor at all during this run.
When you actually look into the regular season that Curry had, I am very skeptical of the notion that it follows some sort of clean narrative of "figuring out how to play with KD" for the following reasons:
- He started the regular season exceptionally ... with KD. - He had a slump afterwards ... without KD. - And he had a magnificient end to the regular season that included leading the Warriors on a 12-0 run on 2016 level efficiency ... without KD touching the floor at all.
And of course, this leads us to the playoffs where Curry was obviously superb. But while I think it's easy to look at a superb postseason & a less superb regular season and try to make the connection of "well, that's because he was learning to fit with KD over the course of the regular season," I find it difficult to actually see any strong statistical evidence of that in the regular season itself. Of course, that's just my opinion and I wouldn't blame anyone for trusting Steph Curry over me.
I have to say, it was interesting looking at all of this information (as the intricate ebbs and flows of Steph Curry's 2017 regular season were not something that I memorized haha), but it leads me to think that he just... didn't have the best scoring regular season by his standards and I can't help but dock him for that.
And one thing I should mention - some of this might seem like overanalysis. I agree. Looking into these short samples of a jumpshooter's efficiency is obviously going to have variance that isn't explainable. I think that's the case here. Steph just seemed to have an inconsistent regular season in terms of his scoring.
(By the way, do you or does anyone else know how to upload an image of this graph? I can't figure it out )
What I usually do is upload the image to imgur.com (if you have the image of the graph copied to your clipboard, you can just Ctrl+V at imgur.com and it'll automatically upload) and then right click on the uploaded image to get the address for it, and finally post it here like so:
Thanks for your detailed response jalengreen! It's fun to get in the weeds and discuss this
On the whole, I agree with a lot of the things you said. Curry did have a somewhat inconsistent regular season, and the improvement wasn't entirely linear. I don't quite agree with your middle bullet, that Curry had his slump without KD -- his biggest shooting slump of the season was (ballpark) around game 20-40, where KD was definitely playing (KD missed games 61-79). Let me break it down using the sections you used.
Part 1 (Game 1 to Game 15ish): Good start with KD Part 2 (Game 15ish to game 40ish): Slump, with KD Part 3 (Game 40ish to game 55ish): Improvement out of slump, with KD Part 4 (Game 55ish to game 60ish): smaller slump, starting with KD (ending just when KD was out) Part 5 (Game 60ish to game 82ish): further improvement, without KD Part 6 (playoffs): further improvement with KD
Part 1-3: As you point out, Curry's slump doesn't start immediately. So the key question is: If Curry's slump is caused by learning to fit with KD, is it possible that it would start around game 15ish, instead of game 1?
You suggested not. Let me push back on that a bit. You're right that the slump is not immediately at game 1, and that the improvement is not immediately after. To me, this actually makes sense. The Warriors talked about improving the fit with KD over the entire course of the season (source below). This improvement was not perfectly linear (as you suggest) -- it was rocky. There were times when things worked better, and times when they had to go back to the drawing board. To me, Curry could have taken a smaller step back and still performed well in Part 1, taken a bigger step back in Part 2, then realized he needed to readjust and improved in Part 3. Is this a bit complex and non-linear? Sure, but that's how life is sometimes!
Evidence that Curry's slump is caused by fitting with KD: I went back and found interview quotes from Warriors members. David West, Shaun Livingston, Bob Meyers, Steve Kerr, Draymond Green, Kevin Durant, and even Steph himself all have quotes suggesting that Steph's early season slump was from taking a backseat to help fit with KD. Here's a few of the notable quotes from articles: -David west: “Steph kind of voluntarily took a step back. And we didn’t ask him to do that. He was just kind of doing that to try to let KD get comfortable.’’ -Shaun Livingston: Curry’s actions solidified the team’s chemistry and encouraged other team members to embrace Durant, guard Shaun Livingston said. “It started with Steph but it trickled down to all of us,’’ Livingston said. “It just happened throughout the year and it happened organically. -Bob Meyers: Myers believed Curry was trying to defer to Kevin Durant too much and get him comfortable in the offense. The Warriors had to tell Curry he was being too deferential. "It might have been the Cleveland game where we lost where Steph just didn't have the same level of aggressiveness, and I think we talked after”… Myers said Curry was being conservative at the start of the season because he had the unique ability to just "turn it on." And "turn it on" Curry has. -Steve Kerr: Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr acknowledged part of the issue was Curry trying too hard to incorporate Kevin Durant into the offensive fold. -Draymond [on KD and Curry's fit]: Warriors forward Draymond Green said. “They mesh great. I think early on in the year he was kind of trying to figure out a balance of what he should do and what he shouldn’t do, and then he realized all he had to do is be him. And that’s what he’s been doing.” -Kevin Durant [on what he said to Steph shortly before the slump ended]: "I just said to him, 'Don't worry about me,'" Durant told ESPN of his ongoing dialogue with Curry. "I said, 'Just play your game. I'll figure it out. I'll figure it out around you. You're the engine of this team, and I know that. I'm not trying to come over and feel like everything just revolves around me. Just do you, man. I'm going to play around you. I've played this game long enough. I know how to score. I know how to find the ball. Just go out there and play your game.' And that's what he's been doing." -Steph [on his improvement out of the slump]: "Overall, just looking [to be] more aggressive," Curry said after beating the Hornets on Wednesday of his recent play. "Trying to score and put pressure on defenses in that respect, and it opens up a lot more for us as a team." Sources: 1) https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/02/finals-kevin-durant-stephen-curry-warriors-cavaliers/102417298/, 2)https://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-curry-back-to-dominating-2017-2?amp, 3) https://www.espn.com/blog/golden-state-warriors/post/_/id/3540/with-kevin-durants-encouragement-stephen-curry-back-to-starry-form, 4) https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/stephen-currys-simple-solution-to-slumps-surviving-durants-injury-staying-himself/amp/
Now I know the slump didn't start at game 1, but it's hard to imagine getting this many quotes from Warriors members without there being some truth to the matter. To me, Curry took a step back to help KD get comfortable (which shows good leadership, unselfishness, and team chemistry). But at some point, around Game 15ish, he took too much of a step back, started slumping, and needed to be more aggressive to get out of the slump. Around this improvement time (Part 3: ~game 40ish to game 55ish), it's worth noting that Curry's PPG, Efficiency, APG, GmSC, +/-, usage, and shot attempts all increased.
Part 4-6: As you point out, there's a second smaller slump around 5-10 games long starting just before KD was out (and possibly going a few games into KD being out). To me, this could be a sign that improvement is not always linear: you take a few steps forward, face another problem and step back, then keep going forward again. But if you want to call this a slump from random variation (and dock Curry accordingly), that's perfectly reasonable!
Regardless, as you point out, Curry has a secondary phase of improvement (Part 5-6) which starts when KD is out! Like you point out, he seemed to match his 2016 Regular Season Level here, which to me gives credence to the idea that 2017 Curry was just as "good" as 2016 Curry. And Curry maintained this level of performance when KD returned in the playoffs.
Could you interpret this improvement as Curry getting out of a random slump (not KD-related) and returning to form once KD was out? Sure. But I actually think the fact that Curry had this improvement when KD was out and maintained it when KD returned gives credence to the idea that the slump was KD-related.
If Curry didn't want to be too aggressive, didn't want to be too selfish, and didn't want to be too much of a ballhog when playing with KD, it makes sense that getting some time without KD (and actually having the team's performance improve!) would help Curry feel more confident upping his aggression a little bit. Then, once KD returned for the playoffs, Curry realized he could maintain his 2016 level of aggression, that KD would figure it out, and that the team would be all the better for it.
Near the end of the season, Curry actually referenced how he was figuring out how to balance aggression: "With the roster that we have and adding a guy like KD, there's obviously going to be more of a balanced attack," Curry said. "It's pretty clear how that's kind of evolved over the course of the season. My job as the point guard of this team is to balance all the talent that we have, plus at the same time staying aggressive with my own game." [Source: https://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2017/4/5/15191910/nba-2017-warriors-at-suns-preview-draymond-green-andre-iguodala-out]. Journalists and analysts at the time interpreted it similarly to how I did: Curry improved his aggression to 2016 form when KD was out, then realized he could maintain this aggression with KD on the court in the playoffs. [Source: https://goldengatesports.com/2017/05/26/golden-state-warriors-curry-impact-durant/]. I also remember KD also having a quote near the start of the playoffs, where he said getting some time off to see the success of a more aggressive Curry also helped him learn how to better fit with Curry and not take away from Curry, but I haven't been able to track that down yet.
---
In summary: the fact that Curry's matched his 2016 performance statistically and by the eye test when KD was off the court gives credence to the idea that he was just as good a player in the 2017 regular season, he just happened to have a slump or two. As to what caused the slump, you definitely provided some good points that they could be just a random downswing regardless of Durant.
But to me, there's enough quotes from the team saying that the slump was because Curry was trying to fit with Durant (which shows good leadership, unselfishness, and team chemistry). Though the improvement was not linear, Curry learned how to be more aggressive when KD was on the court (and benefited from some time without KD to return to his full aggression), then everything came together in the playoffs.
As a brief aside: even if Curry did have a non-KD related slump in 2017 (which we're more likely to dock him for), the doesn't necessarily mean he had a worse regular season than Duncan/Russell/Hakeem. In the metrics, his 2017 regular season is certainly still on that level even with the slump, and could even be argued as better.
Definitely agree that my middle point was mislabeled, although it doesn't really affect my argument (the more meaningful part was the first point - him starting the season off hot with KD). I think your synopsis looks fair to me:
Part 1 (Game 1 to Game 15ish): Good start with KD Part 2 (Game 15ish to game 40ish): Slump, with KD Part 3 (Game 40ish to game 55ish): Improvement out of slump, with KD Part 4 (Game 55ish to game 60ish): smaller slump, with KD Part 5 (Game 60ish to game 82ish): further improvement, without KD Part 6 (playoffs): further improvement with KD
So, what do I see here? Complete inconsistency until the postseason. I look at this and just see rockiness with no clear trend or pattern. Once again, I just don't really see the statistical evidence for this theory.
But I don't think there's much more discussion left to be had on that front. I think we've refined our summary of the statistics to a satisfactory degree, and now it's up to interpretation. I guess I've made my interpretation clear, but it's only right that I flip it:
I need to consider the possibility that all of the Warriors players and staff are right and that I'm wrong. Because while I don't think their word is gospel (no one does, of course), they do certainly have value to add in many cases. I did quote Draymond Green saying that the Warriors had begun to be figured out in 2016 and probably don't win another championship without KD in post #76 of the last thread (voting for #5) when I replied to you. And I did believe that someone like Draymond saying that had value and needed to be considered, so it's only reasonable that I do the same here.
So while I'm not actually convinced that was the case, I'm going to start looking at this from the other perspective of Curry's slumps being caused by him struggling to fit with KD.
To me, Curry took a step back to help KD get comfortable (which shows good leadership, unselfishness, and team chemistry). But at some point, around Game 15ish, he took too much of a step back, started slumping, and needed to be more aggressive to get out of the slump.
Through the first 20 games of the season, Curry averaged 26.9 PPG on 66.5% TS% and the Warriors were 17-3, a bonkers 70-win pace. In this same stretch stretch, Durant averaged 27.3 PPG on 68.0% TS%.
After this is when Curry took a bigger step back (the initial step back was the standard one that you'd expect when two MVP level scorers team up - both KD and Steph seemed to have a drop in FGA relative to 2016) and became more passive to help KD get comfortable, demonstrating his strong leadership and selflessness.
But... was KD really not comfortable? He was averaging 27 on nearly 70% TS% and the Warriors were on a 70 win pace, and Curry thought "Well gee, hold on a minute, I need to change this up!" So now, under the presumption that Curry did truly take a step back after 15-20 games into the season, it only leaves me wondering ... why? He was trying to fix a problem that wasn't there? I get why someone might look at that and want to reward him for his great leadership, but I'd do the opposite and be critical because unless I'm missing a key detail here, it was wholly unnecessary for him to suddenly turn passive.
If Curry didn't want to be too aggressive, didn't want to be too selfish, and didn't want to be too much of a ballhog when playing with KD, it makes sense that getting some time without KD (and actually having the team's performance improve!) would help Curry feel more confident upping his aggression a little bit. Then, once KD returned for the playoffs, Curry realized he could maintain his 2016 level of aggression, that KD would figure it out, and that the team would be all the better for it.
If it's so difficult for him to fit in with KD and it takes the bulk of the regular season along with discussions with guys like Bob Myers for him to finally **consistently** figure it out... is that not something that he should be docked for?
Near the end of the season, Curry actually referenced how he was figuring out how to balance aggression: "With the roster that we have and adding a guy like KD, there's obviously going to be more of a balanced attack," Curry said. "It's pretty clear how that's kind of evolved over the course of the season. My job as the point guard of this team is to balance all the talent that we have, plus at the same time staying aggressive with my own game." [Source: https://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2017/4/5/15191910/nba-2017-warriors-at-suns-preview-draymond-green-andre-iguodala-out]. Journalists and analysts at the time interpreted it similarly to how I did: Curry improved his aggression to 2016 form when KD was out, then realized he could maintain this aggression with KD on the court in the playoffs. [Source: https://goldengatesports.com/2017/05/26/golden-state-warriors-curry-impact-durant/]. I also remember KD also having a quote near the start of the playoffs, where he said getting some time off to see the success of a more aggressive Curry also helped him learn how to better fit with Curry and not take away from Curry, but I haven't been able to track that down yet.
I certainly agree with his assessment of the role of a point guard. Which sorta vocalizes why I feel inclined to dock Curry for the sudden passiveness if it really was because he wanted to take a step back when a step back wasn't necessary at all. Yeah, it was his job to remain aggressive with his own game and ... he apparently didn't fully grasp that balance until KD came back for the playoffs.
There's certainly a school of thought that might argue "well he figured it out in the playoffs where it all came together for the Warriors and they had a nigh perfect postseason, so the regular season struggles shouldn't matter." Or one may argue "regular season struggles? the warriors won 67 games with an 11 SRS. who cares about steph's individual numbers?" Both certainly valid perspectives, so I'm not sure there's a right way to look at this. All of this just leaves me further wishing that Curry had a clear peak season where everything came together nicely.
) 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. 
). Anyway, he starts off the season okay, but there's a clear slump in 20-game-average PPG starting around Game 27 (i.e. the average ppg from game 7 to game 27) until Game 46, where there's a clear uptick, at least to my eye. After some variation, he again starts improving around game ~72 and this improvement continues into the playoffs.
