RealGM Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #6 - 2002-03 Tim Duncan

[DraymondGold]

...

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.

Thanks for the reply! And I tend to agree, we’ve gone about as deep as we can go on this one. I also appreciate your willingness to consider the other side — that’s a really valuable skill in a discussion.

I think your point that there still was some inconsistency (even if it was caused by fitting with KD) is valid. Your comment that Steph probably didn’t need to take as much of a step back as he did (even if it does show good leadership and chemistry) is also true.

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?

I think some of the most similar cases to Curry being joined by KD during his peak is peak Jordan being joined by Phil Jackson and peak LeBron switching teams to join Wade and the Heat.

Jordan was fairly effective at combining his peak offensive and defensive value at the same (that’s one of the reasons I have peak Jordan over LeBron), but he also didn't necessarily have his peak regular season at the same time as his peak postseason (1991), largely due to adapting to fit mostly with Phil Jackson's triangle. FiveThirtyEight actually did a study and found that it took the Bulls (and Jordan) a full ~1.5 years to fully embrace and maximize the value of Phil Jackson’s scheme (link to the data here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/complete-history-of-the-nba/#warriors). LeBron similarly took time a little over a season to maximize his value when fitting alongside Wade and the Heat.

For these cases, I think it takes an underrated amount of time to maximize value in a newer scheme, and I tend to be more lenient for the kinds of drops in value vs something like coasting, but you're right that it is still a drop in value, which people might want to dock him 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.

Like you suggest, this brings us to a meta discussion about what each voter values and what their criteria are for the greatest peaks. Some of the major questions might be:
1. How much do we prefer “goodness” (how good a player is in general, or regardless of context/role) vs “value” (how much they helped their team in their specific context/role)
2. How do we evaluate players who are inconsistent in value over a season, and how much do we care if their specific context influenced their value?

I’ve made arguments that 2017 regular season curry was just as “good” as 2016 regular season curry, but he was definitely less valuable.

I’ve argued that his changes in regular season value were caused by the context of fitting next to KD (which I’m willing to be more lenient about compared to if he was dramatically coasting), but others might be less lenient here. I think your criteria is definitely valid — we just happen to have different criteria

3. The last question is: if we’ve established that a player has inconsistent value while still being just as “good” (e.g. if Curry was just as good in 2016/2017, but wasn’t able to combine the consistent “value” of the 2016 regular season with the 2017 postseason in one season), how does this compare to other peaks?

Conversations like this (more often focused on evaluating regular season coasting) have been one of the themes for me in this Greatest Peaks debate. Players often maximize their regular season value and their postseason value (or their offensive and defensive value) in different seasons.

For example, LeBron never combined the value of his 2013 regular season with the value of his 2012 postseason into a single season. Similarly, 2016 LeBron showed peak value in the postseason, but didn’t quite reach that level in the regular season.
Shaq peaked in regular season value in 2000, but his postseason peak value was 2001. Kareem maximized his regular season value earlier on, and he maximized his postseason value in 1977. Hakeem and Bird also struggled to maximize their defensive value at the same time as their offensive value.

To me, I’m more willing to be lenient with players whose value is inconsistent due to fit vs due to coasting, but the competition at the top is pretty close - so if you choose to dock Curry for not maximizing regular season and postseason value in a single year, that would be perfectly valid. Anyway, thanks for a great discussion on the topic!

[Doctor MJ]

good stuff

- 2003 Spurs more defensively-oriented, thus not offensively-oriented. It's true, but Duncan was also playing on a team with Manu Ginobili. I won't go so far as to say that in Ginobili's first year in the league he was a more capable offensive player than Duncan, but once he got his sea legs in the NBA, he was. Hence, I'd frankly be inclined to say that one of the reasons why the Spurs were not more offensively-oriented in general was Pop's insistence on playing through a low-post scorer as his main option.

Now, you can throw that back at me in this conversation because we're talking about another post big here, but my point here is that in general, the idea that Duncan played with weak offensive talent when he wasn't even the top offensive talent on his team, doesn't really resonate with me.

- "Duncan's lack of horizontal game wasn't an issue at the time, so it doesn't bother me here". Fair enough. My stance where I struggle with the obsolescence of how these older players won is something I think everyone should ponder, but you're free to ignore it for the purpose of a project like this.

Just understand the difference between what we're saying here. I'm saying a flaw doesn't bother me because I saw it seem to become irrelevant when smarter coaching tactics were used. You're saying a flaw doesn't bother you because at the time, smarter coaching tactics were not being used.

Re: Lakers talent edge in 2001. Just to be clear: Nobody saw it that way until the teams played. That matchup was supposed to be the battle between the two best teams of the post-Jordan era. It shocked the world the way the Lakers made the Spurs look like amateurs.

Re: Russell. I'm not aware of anyone trying to argue for or against Russell based on the absolute DRtg from his time period. To me the salient point was always about the relative. Russell was so good defensively at the time that his team could be outright weak on offense and still be an ultra-dynasty. There's no reason to expect something like that could be done today.

Re: not convinced you couldn't have the best defense with Duncan today. Oh sure you could. I mean Marcus Smart just led the best defense today, so surely Duncan could. The question is how Duncan would stack up today compared to the very best on defense, and what role we'd expect him to play on offense.

The latter is the key part to me. Simply put, the best offenses Duncan was apart of came when he was an old man playing as an offensive role player. I'd expect to use him in a similar role today and consider his prime athleticism to be an excellent value-add.

P.S. You mentioned Wilt & Holzman, guessing you meant Hannum.

[trex_8063]

I don't know if I can give an answer that satisfies you. Duncan doesn't move like Hakeem. Doesn't mean he's necessarily a weaker defender overall, but do you agree there's a difference there?

I do.

Rudy Gobert doesn't move like Dwight Powell; do you you agree there's a difference there?

[jalengreen]

For example, LeBron never combined the value of his 2013 regular season with the value of his 2012 postseason into a single season. Similarly, 2016 LeBron showed peak value in the postseason, but didn’t quite reach that level in the regular season.
Shaq peaked in regular season value in 2000, but his postseason peak value was 2001. Kareem maximized his regular season value earlier on, and he maximized his postseason value in 1977. Hakeem and Bird also struggled to maximize their defensive value at the same time as their offensive value.

Great talk! One last thing I'd add is that I actually do think LeBron's 2009 season was a combination of peak-level regular season and postseason impact. The only thing he missed was a ring to show for it (and this is where the "goodness" discussion comes to play again as while the impact is hard to argue, it's also not difficult to argue that later versions of LeBron were better)

[f4p]

Hakeem had issues with his teammates and apparently openly adnitted he didnt trust teammates enough to pass to until 1993~ and was in a situation where he was asked/allowed to play 1 vs 5 often

i think a lot of that is just narrative bs. even when players talk about themselves, they tend to conveniently warp their comments towards the narrative. jordan couldn't possibly win as a ballhog, so when he got better teammates and started winning while still leading the league in scoring, it was because he "trusted his teammates", though not much actually changed. hakeem couldn't win as a ballhog, so when he got better teammates and started winning, it was because he learned to "trust his teammates", despite the fact his increase in scoring was probably even more remarkable than the increase in assists. if anything, he was doing more himself in terms of everything going through him. but people have ideas about how basketball should be played and love to shape narratives that those things led to winning when they probably didn't. jordan couldn't win leading the league in scoring, so when he did win while leading the league in scoring, we had to come up with reasons why he wasn't just winning because he was the best player in the league and finally had help.

and no one wants to get in interviews when things are going well and go "well, actually, i don't trust these guys much more than before, i'm actually scoring even more than last year". and who knows, they probably did feel like they trusted guys more, but only because they were finally good teammates. when you're getting your butt kicked and keep watching your teammates come up short, it's only natural to do more yourself. not because you don't trust, but because you can just put 2 and 2 together and realize trust isn't working for this particular team. not everyone lands on bird/magic/duncan teams early in their careers.

I would mention first that houston in 94 was more offensively slanted/talented than 2003 spurs who were mpre defensively oriented. Notice that i never argued duncan was a better defender thab hakeem based on team defense being much better, i wouldnt do the opposite for hakeem offense either

Also rockets while maybe only a bit more talented in offense, were -MUCH- more ahead of their time tactically as a spacing and 3 point shooting team than the 2003 spurs, specially relative to eras

are we sure? the rockets were actually 2nd in defense (-4.9) to the spurs 3rd (-3.9) and the spurs were 7th in offense to the rockets 14th. the rockets having a better defense with no david robinson or bruce bowen is actually kind of amazing.

and i'm not sure the rockets spacing was otherworldy compared to the spurs. the rockets were 1st in attempts but 15th in percentage compared to 11th and 11th for the spurs. if you average the ranks in attempts per possession and 3P%, the rockets would be 6th out of 27 teams and the spurs would be 10th out of 29 teams. that's better for the rockets, but hakeem was hardly playing with the 2020 mavs. though the rockets did up their attempts and % in the playoffs, they beat a suns team that also upped both quite a bit.

[OhayoKD]

Hi OhayoKD, thanks for the question! I do tend to have Duncan > Hakeem. Just to summarize, I have two main reasons for having peak Duncan > peak Hakeem:
1) Quantitatively: The metrics pretty clearly favor Duncan. Some people question the metrics, saying they either underrate defensive value or are capturing how good a player is in a certain role/context, rather than how good they are in general. For the defensive end, I think since both players are similar defensively (Hakeem probably edges out at his peak defense, but peak overall Hakeem isn't peak defense Hakeem), that's not enough to make a difference. I also tend to trust them since they're playing in a quite similar role / context -- they both have a similar play style (e.g. best value comes from defense, best offensive skill is scoring, both are resilient postseason risers, etc.) and both have some teammate similarities at their peak (e.g. no strong offensive perimeter star with them, good spacing, etc.)
2) Qualitatively: I tend to be lower on Hakeem's offense than others'. His regular season scoring is definitely a step back from some of the other All-time Peak players, and I'm overall quite low on his playmaking and passing. His defensive peak also doesn't align with his offensive peak (like others have said before me).

Before I answer your question, let me be the first to say -- I'm by no means an expert on the 80s Rockets. I'm happy to learn more if people have any analysis / footage / statistics to share. But there's 3 things that make me hesitant to be swayed by 86 Hakeem's performance vs 86 Bird.

1) How much should a player's performance when they're much younger or much older influence how we evaluate their peak?

I definitely don't think there's zero value. Even in a one year sample, there still can be some statistical noise and luck involved. Nearby years can give a stabler, larger sample to evaluate how good a player is (that's why the Thinking Basketball's Greatest peaks series used ~3 year samples for players). For example, looking at 2012 LeBron's playoff success might make us more comfortable being lenient with 2013 LeBron's small playoff dip (relative to expectations). But we have to be careful if we go too far out -- the further in time we look, the more likely we are to be comparing two players who are different. For example, the fact that 2016 LeBron showed great playoff success doesn't make me more confident that 2011 LeBron has the experience, resilience, and versatility to perform well against certain defenses.

For Hakeem, 1986 is 8 years away from the year most people take as his peak (1994). That's a fairly large separation. It's not that we can't learn anything from 1986 Hakeem (we can), but we have to be careful about it. Could it be his defensive motor and athleticism that enabled his younger self to succeed in the playoffs? If so, how much did those things decline by 1994?

2) How do we incorporate team performance when evaluating an individual's peak? How do we know team success is caused by one individual vs another?

Like point 1, I don't think there's zero value to be gained by team performance, but the key is to isolate how much team success came from the individual vs their teammates/coach/opponents/etc. To use an extreme example: Satch Sanders had a lot of playoff success, winning 8 Championships -- this is a championship in 62% of his seasons. If we just look at team performance, we'd miss the (rather obvious) context that the championships were probably driven by Big Russell, not Satch Sanders

For Hakeem, if we just look at team performance before his peak in 1993-1995, we'd see that he did indeed make the finals in 1986. But otherwise, they made the semifinals just once (1987). They lost in the first round in 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. They didn't even make the playoffs in 1992. And remember, our first-guess expectation would be that Hakeem should be getting better in these later years (90, 91, 92), since that should be closer to his peak.

This makes me wonder how much the Rockets' playoff success in 1986 was caused by Hakeem having better teammates. If we look at his teammates, their pre-94 playoff success aligns fairly closely to Ralph Sampson's health. He was healthy in 1986 so they made the finals, he was injured but still occasionally played in 1987 so they made the second round, and then he got injured and became unplayable (and left), so they couldn't make it out of the 1st Round. To be clear, I still have 80s Hakeem as the better player over Ralph Sampson (and certainly still MVP level). But if we just look at team performance, it makes me wonder whether the 1986 playoff success was a case of better teammates, rather than a Herculean floor-raising effort that Hakeem succeeded at in 1986 but failed at from 1987-1992.

3) Assuming we do want to evaluate team performance, what's the best way to measure team success?

I also want to be careful about how we evaluate team success. Most analysts say team record is not the best way to measure team success. Most analysts prefer an adjusted Margin of Victory as a one-number metric. The first adjustment is to make a correction for strength of schedule (this adjusted MoV is called SRS). A popular secondary adjustment would be to lower the weighting of a blowout (is there really much difference between a 20 point blowout and a 30 point blowout, if the game went into garbage time with 6 minutes left?), though I'll admit there's no Consensus approach on how much to curve down blowouts.

Looking at adjusted Margin of Victory is even more important when looking at minuscule sample of games (like 1 series), since even one shot can drastically change the perceived record (the difference between winning 4/4 playoff games and 4/5 playoff games is a 20% difference in record! that's huge!). Now I do agree that there is value in still keeping the record. Some teams are better at closing games out in the clutch than others, and that can be captured in the record more easily than adjusted Margin of Victory. Personally, I like to use both adjusted MoV and team record, while also including the context, when trying to evaluate team success. [brief aside: more advanced stats like FiveThirtyEight's ELO may be even more effective than adjusted MoV or team record].

Anyway, it's true the Rockets took the 86 Celtics to 6 games. This seems like a fairly good team performance. But the Celtics' MoV was +6.2 points per game. In other words: it wasn't that close. Looking closer at the team record also shows this. The rockets happened to win Game 3 of the finals by just 2 points. It certainly could have been a 5 Game gentleman's sweep by the Celtics.

What if we add more context. Was this Game 3 steal driven by a Herculean effort of Hakeem? Not that I can tell (happy to be corrected if anyone wants to do any film analysis). To me, it looks like the Rockets kept the the possession game close. They committed fewer turnovers and almost as many rebounds, led by Ralph Sampson's 22 rebounds (including 7 offensive rebounds). The Rockets also shot better, which you'd think would be credit to Hakeem, but Hakeem actually shot poorly this game (though to his credit, he did get to the line). Indeed, Hakeem actually shot poorly throughout the finals, at -1.5% relative shooting, which seems a bit disappointing compared to the resilient scoring we expect of Hakeem at his peak.

Anyway, that's why 1988 Hakeem's team performance doesn't make me hesitant too much when choosing peak Bird > peak Hakeem (especially when the metrics favor 1986 Bird > 1994 Hakeem, even in the playoffs). But like I said, I'm not an expert on the 80s Rockets so feel free to jump in if you think I've missed anything!

Well, depending on how seriously you take wowy with hakeem you could credibly argue what he did after 86 was as or more impressive. Ala, 10 win pace rockets in 88 win at 45 win pace with him. 2-10 rockets(without hakeem) in 92 go 40-20 with him and then win 53 games the following season with hakeem playing the whole year. Taken at face value those are argubale _more_ impressive than the 86 regular season though we don't really get a fair playoff comparison.

What happens if you compare bird to hakeem's best scoring years rs and ps instead of specfically 94.

For me I'm not sure it would be "credible" to be that selective with the WoWY samples.

Overall his WoWY stuff is very good I believe but the 86, 88, 91 and 91-92 composite numbers from Ben's old spreadsheet are far more pedestrian. Latterly '95 looks very good, '96 good, '97 pedestrian, I would suggest.

Sidenote: The nature of the '92 absence too, may, depending on your reading, harm Olajuwon from an intangibles perspective.

there's a spreadsheet? I thought wowy was just you take the record with thep layer and the record without the player

[falcolombardi]

good stuff

- 2003 Spurs more defensively-oriented, thus not offensively-oriented. It's true, but Duncan was also playing on a team with Manu Ginobili. I won't go so far as to say that in Ginobili's first year in the league he was a more capable offensive player than Duncan, but once he got his sea legs in the NBA, he was. Hence, I'd frankly be inclined to say that one of the reasons why the Spurs were not more offensively-oriented in general was Pop's insistence on playing through a low-post scorer as his main option.

Now, you can throw that back at me in this conversation because we're talking about another post big here, but my point here is that in general, the idea that Duncan played with weak offensive talent when he wasn't even the top offensive talent on his team, doesn't really resonate with me.

- "Duncan's lack of horizontal game wasn't an issue at the time, so it doesn't bother me here". Fair enough. My stance where I struggle with the obsolescence of how these older players won is something I think everyone should ponder, but you're free to ignore it for the purpose of a project like this.

Just understand the difference between what we're saying here. I'm saying a flaw doesn't bother me because I saw it seem to become irrelevant when smarter coaching tactics were used. You're saying a flaw doesn't bother you because at the time, smarter coaching tactics were not being used.

Re: Lakers talent edge in 2001. Just to be clear: Nobody saw it that way until the teams played. That matchup was supposed to be the battle between the two best teams of the post-Jordan era. It shocked the world the way the Lakers made the Spurs look like amateurs.

Re: Russell. I'm not aware of anyone trying to argue for or against Russell based on the absolute DRtg from his time period. To me the salient point was always about the relative. Russell was so good defensively at the time that his team could be outright weak on offense and still be an ultra-dynasty. There's no reason to expect something like that could be done today.

Re: not convinced you couldn't have the best defense with Duncan today. Oh sure you could. I mean Marcus Smart just led the best defense today, so surely Duncan could. The question is how Duncan would stack up today compared to the very best on defense, and what role we'd expect him to play on offense.

The latter is the key part to me. Simply put, the best offenses Duncan was apart of came when he was an old man playing as an offensive role player. I'd expect to use him in a similar role today and consider his prime athleticism to be an excellent value-add.

P.S. You mentioned Wilt & Holzman, guessing you meant Hannum.

RE: spurs offenses and ginobili

The spurs reached historical heights in defense even higher than they ever did in offense (2014 included) so i dont think spurs were doing "somethingh wrong" at the time by prioritizing their historical defensive big (sometimes two of them!) And building a defensive juggernaut that duncan made above average offensively

The 2004 spurs for example peaked at -9 for a full regular season, that is the best no russel rating ever done as far as i am aware and is not like the ginobili led 05-07 spurs were even close to that level of dominance in the defensive end.

Even as far as 2007 spurs still were winning with their duncan led defense, ginobili led offense was not all that much better

2001: +3.6
2002: +2.0
2003: +2.0

2004: -0.7 (year where they went -9 in D)

2005: + 1.4
2006: + 1.1
2007: + 2.7

Note that the great spurs offenses we came to associate spurs with (2012-2014~)were not led by either ginobili or duncan, the argument that spurs only dominated offenskvely after duncan took a smaller role also applies to ginobili as the spurs only truly becane a dominant offense in a egalitarian system not really led by either gino or tim in the traditional sense

RE: modern game

Is also fine if you want to punish older players for not being so fine tuned to modern game, the thingh is, is not nearly as clear or objective modern basketball is the ultimate form of the sport. (And i say this as a younger fan who prefers the modern game)

The same rule and reffing changes that led to modern game (loose reffing of illegal screens, loose reffying on traveling and carrying, even the 3 point line) are not "definitive" form of basketball anymore than slow grindball of the early aughts was at the time

I dont punish duncan for not developing his game towards 2020's pace and space any mpre than i punish curry for not developing his game towards pre 3-point line balm

Re:lakers

Those lakers quite literally had the greatest post season run until the 17 warriors happened, as much as that series was a total asswhooping, it was not proof of sgaq superiority over duncan any more than utah dominance of lakers in 98 was proof of karl malone superiority over shaq

Notice that the lakers never came close to their 2001 form ever again in a postseason so is not like that was the regular level of the shaq-kobe era lakers

You mention what coukd duncan do in the modern game offensively? Look no further than joel embiid to see what a power post player with great fundamentals can do

Duncan is imo the superior passer although a weaker jumpshoter to a degree, is possible he wouldnt draw as many fouls but teams would suffer to contain him without fouling

The idea that all time great post players could be nothingh more than pick and roll finishers in the mpdern game just doesnt pass the smell test against what we see even in 2022

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know if I can give an answer that satisfies you. Duncan doesn't move like Hakeem. Doesn't mean he's necessarily a weaker defender overall, but do you agree there's a difference there?

I do.

Rudy Gobert doesn't move like Dwight Powell; do you you agree there's a difference there?

I was being sincere with my question, to be clear.

So, to your question, sure, but where are you taking this?

[Doctor MJ]

- 2003 Spurs more defensively-oriented, thus not offensively-oriented. It's true, but Duncan was also playing on a team with Manu Ginobili. I won't go so far as to say that in Ginobili's first year in the league he was a more capable offensive player than Duncan, but once he got his sea legs in the NBA, he was. Hence, I'd frankly be inclined to say that one of the reasons why the Spurs were not more offensively-oriented in general was Pop's insistence on playing through a low-post scorer as his main option.

Now, you can throw that back at me in this conversation because we're talking about another post big here, but my point here is that in general, the idea that Duncan played with weak offensive talent when he wasn't even the top offensive talent on his team, doesn't really resonate with me.

- "Duncan's lack of horizontal game wasn't an issue at the time, so it doesn't bother me here". Fair enough. My stance where I struggle with the obsolescence of how these older players won is something I think everyone should ponder, but you're free to ignore it for the purpose of a project like this.

Just understand the difference between what we're saying here. I'm saying a flaw doesn't bother me because I saw it seem to become irrelevant when smarter coaching tactics were used. You're saying a flaw doesn't bother you because at the time, smarter coaching tactics were not being used.

Re: Lakers talent edge in 2001. Just to be clear: Nobody saw it that way until the teams played. That matchup was supposed to be the battle between the two best teams of the post-Jordan era. It shocked the world the way the Lakers made the Spurs look like amateurs.

Re: Russell. I'm not aware of anyone trying to argue for or against Russell based on the absolute DRtg from his time period. To me the salient point was always about the relative. Russell was so good defensively at the time that his team could be outright weak on offense and still be an ultra-dynasty. There's no reason to expect something like that could be done today.

Re: not convinced you couldn't have the best defense with Duncan today. Oh sure you could. I mean Marcus Smart just led the best defense today, so surely Duncan could. The question is how Duncan would stack up today compared to the very best on defense, and what role we'd expect him to play on offense.

The latter is the key part to me. Simply put, the best offenses Duncan was apart of came when he was an old man playing as an offensive role player. I'd expect to use him in a similar role today and consider his prime athleticism to be an excellent value-add.

P.S. You mentioned Wilt & Holzman, guessing you meant Hannum.

RE: spurs offenses and ginobili

The spurs reached historical heights in defense even higher than they ever did in offense (2014 included) so i dont think spurs were doing "somethingh wrong" at the time by prioritizing their historical defensive big (sometimes two of them!) And building a defensive juggernaut that duncan made above average offensively

The 2004 spurs for example peaked at -9 for a full regular season, that is the best no russel rating ever done as far as i am aware and is not like the ginobili led 05-07 spurs were even close to that level of dominance in the defensive end.

Even as far as 2007 spurs still were winning with their duncan led defense, ginobili led offense was not all that much better

2001: +3.6
2002: +2.0
2003: +2.0

2004: -0.7 (year where they went -9 in D)

2005: + 1.4
2006: + 1.1
2007: + 2.7

Note that the great spurs offenses we came to associate spurs with (2012-2014~)were not led by either ginobili or duncan, the argument that spurs only dominated offenskvely after duncan took a smaller role also applies to ginobili as the spurs only truly becane a dominant offense in a egalitarian system not really led by either gino or tim in the traditional sense

Hmm. When we say defense-oriented, we need to be careful in not treat it like a monolithic thing. The implication of defense-oriented is "less effort put into offense", but you can't say that about Duncan when you're defending their approach of using him as their volume scorer. When I'm saying Ginobili was the better offensive player and I'd have put more focus on him, this has the additional benefit of letting Duncan focus more on defense.

Additionally the way you're splitting up the years here makes me feel like you're taking me saying "Ginobili was the best offensive player" as the same thing as "Ginobili led the offense", and then using that to infer that starting in '04-05 the team took the ball away from Duncan and gave it to Ginobili. In reality, Duncan remained the team's offensive alpha beyond that time and when Pop did have him pass the torch, it was to Parker, not Ginobili.

Ginobili's staggered (and limited )minutes do really blow up a lot of our terminology though. When Ginobili was out there, he was always improvising based on his own basketball sense, so it's not like he was truly relegated the way a typical sidekick is, but I think it's clear that so long as Duncan was easily the team's highest scorer in the playoffs, he should be seen as the primary target of the Spur offense.

On the limited minutes: This is an elephant in the room whenever we talk about Ginobili so folks should feel free to bring it up, but I'd argue it's a bit moot for this particular conversation about Duncan.

RE: modern game

Is also fine if you want to punish older players for not being so fine tuned to modern game, the thingh is, is not nearly as clear or objective modern basketball is the ultimate form of the sport. (And i say this as a younger fan who prefers the modern game)

The same rule and reffing changes that led to modern game (loose reffing of illegal screens, loose reffying on traveling and carrying, even the 3 point line) are not "definitive" form of basketball anymore than slow grindball of the early aughts was at the time

I dont punish duncan for not developing his game towards 2020's pace and space any mpre than i punish curry for not developing his game towards pre 3-point line balm

This is important philosophical territory and I want to be clear that I'm not saying others have to follow the conclusions I've drawn here. They should understand the point though about the skill arms race that has gone on in the time between then and now.

Re: rule changes. I think it's totally appropriate to do a GOAT list based on the pre-3-point shot era, which I'd be fine extending a good while after the rule was introduced.

But to me it's pretty dang clear cut that defenses of the '80s wouldn't know what hit them if they had to play modern teams, so I don't think "rule changes" really works for more recent eras.

I understand your thought that if it can't be done across all eras, it shouldn't be done at all...but that seems fruitless to me. I'll learn more doing it this way.

And before I leave this, I must bring to the fore the Mikan Dilemma. If what you care about is pure era dominance, why is it Mikan never gets any traction for the #1 position on any of these lists that we do (Peaks or Careers)?

Re:lakers

Those lakers quite literally had the greatest post season run until the 17 warriors happened, as much as that series was a total asswhooping, it was not proof of sgaq superiority over duncan any more than utah dominance of lakers in 98 was proof of karl malone superiority over shaq

Notice that the lakers never came close to their 2001 form ever again in a postseason so is not like that was the regular level of the shaq-kobe era lakers

Oh no, no, no my friend. The Spurs do not get to be defended for that. The '01 playoff Lakers have an argument for GOAT team peaks specifically because of that they did to the Spurs. The Lakers had a point average of 25 PPG in the Spurs series, they only had a 20+ point win once in the entire rest of the series.

If you do not perceive the '01 Spurs as a massive, massive disappointment in those playoffs - if you've been chalking it up to the Lakers being invincible - you gotta revisit that analysis. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if this recent wave of pro-Duncan posters has something to do with not being old enough to have watched that '01 Spurs-Laker series in real time. Perhaps I'll come to find that having watched it at the time, we basketball fans of the era were more discouraged than we should have been on Duncan and the Spurs, but it's important to know that this was no minor thing where the Spurs seemed "respectable compared to the non-Lakers in the league". It was a shocking thing.

You mention what coukd duncan do in the modern game offensively? Look no further than joel embiid to see what a power post player with great fundamentals can do

Duncan is imo the superior passer although a weaker jumpshoter to a degree, is possible he wouldnt draw as many fouls but teams would suffer to contain him without fouling

The idea that all time great post players could be nothingh more than pick and roll finishers in the mpdern game just doesnt pass the smell test against what we see even in 2022

It's good for you to bring up successful guys of the present who resemble Duncan.

Some points on the Duncan vs Embiid comparison:

Re: Weaker jump shooter to a degree. Duncan mostly shot in the 60s% from the foul line while Embiid shoots north of 80%, and the thing worth asking here is how Duncan would scale to the 3, because Embiid's threat from the 3 is essential to his success today.

Re: Possible he wouldn't draw as many fouls. I mean, he didn't shoot as many free throws as Embiid back in the day, and he also sucks at shooting free throws, so I don't think he'd be changing things up to better approximate Embiid.

Additionally, Embiid is doing more of his attacking from transition and from the perimeter (where he's a threat to score unlike Duncan), and gets a lot of his fouls doing this.

Also, I was always under the impression that Embiid was bigger, stronger, and more capable of bullying than Duncan. Perhaps I'm getting biased because I see Embiid in a smaller era? I know that both guys are listed as having the same wingspan, and length is more important than anything else as a shotblocker, but on offense it's less big of a deal.

[Proxy]

Yeah same post again because i've had absolutely no time this week to argue, but ig I haven't had to add anyone for a few rounds(and it's looking like I won't have to again I think) so there's that lol. I'll have a lot of catching up to do when I get the time but it might not be for a while

I completely forgot about the closing time for this round cuz I was busy, Kareem getting in was cool and I don't have anyone new to add until my other 3 closest guys get in so copy pasting until i'll hopefully have more time in a few weeks. My plan is to give more direct comparisons between players in some future posts instead of just replies rather than really just arguing why I feel a player has a case when i care because that is probably more helpful.

4.1962 Bill Russell (1964, 1963, 1965)


Now number 4 is arguably the most influential player ever with how he transformed the way defense is played in the league forever.  The greatest defender ever, and the engine behind one of the greatest dynasties in sports history.

There are alot of reasons to believe Russell played a significant part in the Celtics team dominance and many have argued how he has a case for being the most valuable player of his era so I won't focus TOO much on that unless asked to.

Here are a few pretty strong indicators he has:

-We can see it on film and we can read/hear about the era in news articles and from others that have experienced the era.

-WOWY data(also looking at the team pre and post Russell and how the league changed over time).

-Team minutes distribution(how remained constant but everyone around him changed and played nowhere near the same amount of minutes in most years and they were still dominant), etc.

-

But i'll talk about why I believe their team net ratings still undersell how dominant they truly were like I did in the last thread for 2 main reasons.

1. Using the commonly used net ratings is not a true era adjustment - in lower scoring environments a team being worth +5 per 100 has more value, this can be seen when comparing the TS+ framework vs using rTS%.

Real life situations will never be this extreme but here is an example as to why we should use the former

In a league where the average TS% is 10, being +5 would mean you are scoring at a rate 1.5x(150% better) more effectively than league average

In a league where the average TS% is 50, being +5 would mean you are scoring at a rate 1.1x(110% better) more effectively than league average

When calculating net ratings using percentages rather than absolutes, the Celtcs would likely look even more dominant because the era they played in was a lower scoring environment and significantly harder for other teams to make up ground with less PPP available.

2. The Celtics having their outlier dominance in a league with 8 ish teams drags down league averages, supressing their own numbers, and makes it harder to drag them down even further(which is probably why their playoff team numbers look so wonky).

I'm also starting to believe Russell is just a very clear positive offensive player. I think many people think of him the wrong way because he does seem to have a bunch of flaws in the halfcourt on film(like his post scoring arsenal does not seem very efficient, turnovers even tho that just seems like an era thing).

Some of his unique-ness was shown in this video by WCA
https://youtu.be/PEs4KC4xHE0

When I think of him being a truly all-time level transition threat for a center with and without the ball, with great court awarenes, very strong passing for a center that even allowed him to work as the ball handler in pick-and-roll actions, a modern-ish handle that could take other bigs off the dribble, all-time offensive rebounding ability, a little bit of a post game, and lob potential with his athleticism. I really think this is a unicorn that could be a clear positive on most teams but maybe i'm just higher on him than others. 

You can see some of it in this game even past his peak
https://youtu.be/HE6kIu34Qsc

I think it's possible his RS efficiency is also suppressed by taking alot of late shot clock bailout shots(his teammates are also overstated offensively), I feel like i've seen this a lot on film.

But in the season I chose for his peak and in a large chunk of his prime not only does his efficiency rise, but his volume rose in the playoffs as well which is very rare for an all-timer.

From backpicks.com (from '60 - '66)
Going from a negative OBPM -> +.073 OBPM(Peaking as +1.2 in '62)

Other years could deserve a shot for sure, but from what I gathered this was the most dominant RS Celtics team in the RS and was followed by Russell's arguably best playoff run ever so I decided to go with this one and give him the slight edge over my upcoming picks.

-2017 Stephen Curry

● Arguably the GOAT scoring regular season in 2016 - 42.5 points per 75/Lead leading scoring average of 30.1 PPG, on a game-breaking 124 TS+(!), leading the Dubs to a #1 ITW +8.1 rORTG(iirc this ranked t3 ever but they didnt go as much into offense as the 04 Mavs and 05 Suns and their -2.6 rDRTG got them to a >+10 net rating

●Warps defenses like no other with his shooting threat(spacing) and all-time off-ball movement(gravity). - All-time scalability contributed to unmatched team dominance with more talent wasadded. 15.4 box creation estimate in 2016 - arguably still understating his off-ball value(via backpicks.coms)

●Good passer for a PG, though not rly one of his stronger passing seasons - 7.6 passer rating via backpicks.com in 2017, decent turnover economy

●Solid POA defender, and is decent as a chaser which helps contribute to him being a good team defender, though his defense has improved in 2022 with added bulk, I'd still say he's a slight positive in the year chosen. Attacking Steph has also not really been that viable of a strategy generally and teams have mostly gotten bad offenses out of that so idk why people are so bent on that tbh. I think people struggle to understand that he gets attacked because he’s surrounded by a bunch of defenders better than him, not because he’s some bad or really exploitable defender or anything.

●For the stats, I'm sure you'll see Steph pop up at the top of any APM studies, with larger team samples showing that he deserves a significant amount of credit for team dominance(don't find his collinearity with Draymond a strong argument)

●Highest 5-year on/off and on court net rating of all-time: 15 - '19 Stephen Curry(+15.9 on-court net/+17.7 on/off)

●Many would however argue his effectiveness declines in the playoffs, however in the 2017 season into the playoffs when healthy, if there were any doubt about his resilience, I believe he was basically performing around the same level as a player as he was in 2016 - there were no significant change in his skillset, he rly just had a weird start at the start of the season when incorporating KD and when they took off they were arguably the best healthy team ever.

● There are still some indicators that suggest he still has extremely high, top 5 ish level impact in the playoffs - such as his on/off only taking a slight dip when taking only games he played in, and his change in scoring efficiency against stronger defenses in his prime isn't rly abnormal for an all-time standard, really only being dented by the Rockets switching defense and the Memphis Grizzlies in his prime and dismantling other all-time defenses like the 2019 Raptors and 2022 Celtics past his peak(though the physical changes arguably did help him a lot).

●Even without Klay and KD(arguably rly the only strong positive offensive players on some of those teams) - his scoring, and more importantly team dominance were extremely high in the playoffs - from 2016-2019 the Warriors had a 119 ORTG and +10 net rating without those two on the court via pbpstats.com (a very small sample of 287 minutes). Still, again I believe reinforces the idea that he was really the driving force behind the Warriors' dominance(+12 team net rating in the playoffs from 2015 to 2022 iirc).

●I'm not the biggest fan of using postseason one-number metrics at all(especially if they are hybrids because the box prior can underrate/overrate particular abilities, which I will go into on a future player), but even APM approximates like backpicks.com's AuPM/g paint 2017 playoffs Steph as having the 3rd highest peak on record of +7.5/g(!), right behind 2009 and 2017 LeBron and one spot ahead of Timmy in 2003. This makes sense seeing as how they had a staggering +17.2 net rating in those playoffs and still had a 123 ORTG in 127 minutes without Durant that year while they only had a 105 ORTG in an almost insignificant 60-minute sample with Durant and without Curry via pbpstats.com.

●I think of Steph similarly to how I think of Russell, both the driving forces behind two of the arguably top three dynasties to play the game with outlier-ish level value on one end and having a possibly misunderstood, underrated, positive value on the other end.

-2004 Kevin Garnett

●Kevin Garnett IMO contributes more positive value in different aspects than any other player that has ever played the game. I’m running out of time so I’ll link some great breakdowns of his offense and defense and why he was one of the most valuable players on both ends by drza and I will just explain why I regard him so highly.

Offense: https://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/150868850871/mechanisms-of-greatness-scouting-kevin-garnetts

Defense: https://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/150844038866/mechanisms-of-greatness-scouting-kevin-garnetts

●Strengthening the argument that Kevin Garnett was one of the most valuable players of his era, arguably being THE most valuable at his peak in the regular season. KG in the 2003-04 season provided the highest single-season APM/g of +9.4 leading a pretty mediocre twolves cast to a +5.9 net rating, 58 wins, and the top of the western conference in the the deadball era, with a shot to make the finals if not for injury(via backpicks.com) and four other seasons in the top forty all-time. KG alongside LeBron stand alone at the top upon the top of any of these type of value measurements and they have an argument for being the top two most valuable players in the league in the 2000s(with Shaq and Timmy being right there too ofc for their peaks but Tim looking slightly behind).
Year by year in his prime:
1997 - +4.5
1998 - +4.8
1999 - +5
2000 - +6 (26th all–time)
2001 - +2.1
2002 - +3.6
2003 - +7.2(11th all-time)
2004 - +9.4(1st all-time)
2005 - +4.5
2006 - +4.6
2007(inj)  - +6.2 (23rd all-time)
2008 - +6.3 (21st all-time)
2009(inj) - +5.3
2010 - +3.5
2011 - +4.8
2012 - +3.2

●I would normally be skeptical of the 2003/2004 Wolves results as it is easier to be more valuable on a weaker team more dependent on his strengths, but the recurring signal in which he posted massive value signals again with an even stronger, less dependent team in Boston(a -8.6 rDRTG in his first season there - a +11.3 net rating in the RS and +8.8 and +8.6 PS team net rating in the '08 and '10 playoff runs respectively) matches the film suggesting that he was possibly the most versatile player of all-time, with his ability as both a floor raiser and ceiling raiser and that his results in Minnesota were not just some outlier that should be ignored.
The reason I am so high on KG is that I believe his game is actually extremely resilient to the playoffs and that people over-fixate on his scoring weaknesses, which leads to his value being understated in box metrics because of his scoring efficiency does drop(normal for an all-timer), the box score is also genuinely pretty bad at gauging defensive value that does have the possibility of increasing in value in the playoffs.  This scouting report  by SideshowBob from a few years ago describes some ways in which many aspects of his game can not be measured traditionally by box metrics, and in a larger sample of raw +/- data we see that his game may have translated well to the playoffs despite the drop in scoring efficiency:

Garnett's offense can be broken down like this:

-Spacing
-PnR (Roll/Pop)
-High-Post
-Low-Post
-Mid-Post
-Screens

Remember, there is overlap between these offensive skills/features; I'm trying to give a broad-strokes perspective here.

Let's talk about his shooting really quick, and then dive in.  What I want to consider is how and which of these traits show up in the box-score, as well as which would be resilient in the face of smarter defenses.


-Has range out to the 3 pt line but practically/effectively speaking, he's going out to ~22 feet.
-From 10-23 feet, shot 47.7% in 03 (9.6 FGA/G), 45.2% in 04 (11.0 FGA/G), 44.6% in 05 (8.3 FGA/G), 48.4% in 06 (8.4 FGA/G)
-16-23 ft range, he's assisted on ~77% over those 4 years
-Shooting at the big-man positions is a conundrum - shooting 4/5s are often associated with weak (breakeven) or bad (negative) defense.  Garnett is one of the few exceptions in that not only is he an elite shooter, there's virtually no defensive opportunity cost to playing him over anyone in history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When he's on the ball, he can utilize his exceptional ball-handling skills to create separation and knock it down.  When he's off the ball, he's always a threat to convert - the fact that he's assisted so frequently on 16-23 ft shots means they're mostly coming on a Pick and Pop or a drive and kick, which means a lot of them are open.  He's usually shooting around 45% overall from there, so we're looking at high 40s on open shots and low-mid 40s on created ones.  BOTH of those numbers are strong, and that's where the first offensive trait comes; Spacing.  His shooting spaces the floor.  A LOT - despite the fact that he doesn't shoot 3s, he forces bigs out of the paint and opens up the lane.  Because he's not a 3-point shooter though, this effect doesn't really show up in the box-score.  And yet, this effect will always be present; doesn't matter how much a defense slows down his raw production in the playoffs, the spacing effect will always be present - he's going to try and create shots from out there and he's going to pop/spot-up; give him space/leave him open and he'll convert at .95-1.00 PPP (which is very strong in the halfcourt).  Cover him/recover on him with a little guy and he'll just shoot right over.  His man has to come out and try and cover him, and this means that there will always be a marginal improvement for the rest of the team with regards to the lane being open.  The only real way to reduce this?  Have someone at the 1-3 that can cover him (has the size/strength to cope with his shot/inside game for stretches at a time), but even then, you might yield a disadvantage with one of your bigs covering a small ball-handler. 

So next, his PnR game.  Crucially, he's a dual threat, he's deadly popping out (as demonstrated above) but even crazier rolling to the basket (high 60s-70ish finishing, that includes post/isolation, thus baskets on the roll would likely be higher.  The rolls are similar (though not equal) to drives to the basket and aside from finishing offer an opportunity to kick it out.  THIS aspect is captured fairly well by the box-score (rolls into finishes - FG%, finishes - PTS, kick outs - direct assists).  This is also one that good PnR defense teams can slow down.  Close off the PnR by stopping the ball handler (aggressive blitz/trap to force the ball out their hands before the PnR is initiated, or drop center, ice sideline to deny the ball-handler middle), or rely on strong rotations into the lane to close off easy baskets off a roll.  When we talk about his postseason dips (mainly PPG and TS%), this is mostly where they're coming from (and face up game which I'll get to later).

So now, the post options.  The high post probably yields the largest fraction of his offensive impact.  His scoring skills (again, ball-handling to set up midrange game, quickness/explosion to attack the basket straight on, catch&shoot/spotup, etc.) means that he draws a great amount of attention here, again, pulling a big away from the restricted area and up to the free throw line.  This is significant because he can spot and capitalize on any off ball movement, use his passing to force rotations until an opportunity is created, play the give and go with a small.  Essentially, there are a ton of options available here due to his gravity and diversity, yet almost none of this will show up in the box-score.  Unless he hits a cutter with a wide open lane or a shooter with a wide open corner, he's not going to be credited with the assist. 

Imagine - he sucks/turns the attention of the defense to himself, a cutter sees an opening and zips in from the wing, which forces a defender from the corner to come over and protect the basket, leaving a shooter open. Garnett hits the cutter who dishes it out, or he kicks the ball out to the perimeter and it is swung around to the open shooter.  Garnett's pressure created the opening, and his passing/vision got the ball where it needed to go, but he's given no credit in the box-score. 

Give and go is another example - at the top of the key, he gets the ball, his man (a big) is now worried about his shot and starts to close in, the lane has one less protector, the PG who just threw it in to him now curls around him with a quick handoff, his defender now runs into Garnett or his man and the PG gets an open lane to the basket.  If someone has rotated over, a shooter will be open, if not, free layup for the PG, or a kick out for a reset for Garnett in the high/mid-block area.  IF it works out that the PG gets an opening up top on the handoff, then he may get a pullup and Garnett is credited with an assist, but in most scenarios, it will play out that again, Garnett gets no box-score credit.

The effect of this play on the offense is resilient, its going to remain present against strong defenses.  It doesn't matter how strong your rotations are or what kind of personnel you have, the key is that adjustments have to be made to combat a talented high-post hub, and when adjustments are made, there is always a cost (which means the defense must yield somewhere) and therein lies the impact.  This is one of the most defense-resistant AND portable offensive skillsets that one can have (you're almost never going to have issue with fit) and its what made Garnett, Walton, 67 Chamberlain, so valuable.

Mid-Post and face-up game are a little more visible in the box-score (similar to PnR).  Mostly comprised of either blowing by the defender and making quick moves to the basket (and draw a foul) or setting up the close-mid-range shot.  This is his isolation offense, something that will tend to suffer against stronger, well equipped defenses that can close off the lane, which sort of strips away the "attack the basket, draw free throws" part and reduces it to just set up mid-range jumpshots.  Garnett's obviously great at these, but taking away the higher-percentage inside shots will hurt his shooting numbers, volume, and FTA bit.  The key then is, how disciplined is the defense.  Yes they can close the paint off, but can they do so without yielding too much somewhere else - was there a missed rotation/help when someone left his man to help cover the paint.  If yes, then there is impact, as there is anytime opportunities are created, if no then its unlikely any opportunity was created and the best option becomes to just shoot a jumper.  This is the other feature of his game that isn't as resilient in the face of smart defenses.

The low-post game is crucial because it provides both a spacing effect and the additional value of his scoring.  While he lacks the upper body strength to consistently finish inside against larger bigs, he can always just shoot over them at a reliable % instead, and against most matchups he's skilled enough back-to-basket and face-up that he can typically get to the rim and score.  Being able to do this means that he draws attention/doubles, and he's one of the best at his position ever at capitalizing by passing out to an open shooter or kicking it out to swing the ball around the perimeter to the open guy (in case the double comes from the opposite corner/baseline) and all of this action tends force rotations enough that you can get some seams for cuts as well.  Outside of scoring or making a direct pass to the open guy, the hockey assists won't show up in the box-score.  But, more importantly, there is a crucial utility in having a guy diverse enough that he can play inside and out equally effectively - lineup diversity.  He fills so many staples of an offense himself that it allows the team to run more specialized lineups/personnel that might not conventionally work, and this forces defenses to adjust (! that's a key word here).  He doesn't have to do anything here that shows up in the box-score, all he needs to do is be on the floor.  You can argue the low-post ability as a 50/50 box-score/non-box-score, but I'd lean towards giving the latter more weight.

Finally screens.  The effect of Garnett's screens is elite, because of his strong lower body base and because of the diversity of his offensive threat (and he just doesn't get called for moving screens).  Its tough for most players to go through/over a Garnett screen, which makes him ideal for setting up jumpers and cutters off the ball.  When he's screening on the ball, everyone involved has to worry about his dual scoring threat, and when that happens, that gives the ball-handler that much more space to work with.  Marginal on a single possession, significant when added up over the course of ~75 possessions, and extremely resilient - how do you stop good screens?  You don't really, you just stay as disciplined as possible.  And this effect is completely absent in the box-score.

So what's important now is to consider the fact that most of Garnett's offense does not show up in the box-score!  And I wouldn't call what he does on the floor the "little things" (this is just something people have been conditioned to say, most things that aren't covered in the box-score have become atypical/unconventional or associated with grit/hustle, despite the fact that these are pretty fundamental basketball actions/skills).  Something like 75-80% of his offensive value just simply isn't tracked by "conventional" recordkeeping, yet the focus with Garnett is almost always on the dip in scoring and efficiency.  So what if the 20% that is tracked has fallen off.  Even if that aspect of his game fell off by 50% (it hasn't), the rest of his game is so fundamentally resilient that I'm not even sure what degree of defense it would take to neutralize it (at least to an effective degree, I'm welcome to explanations), and that still puts him at 80-90% of his max offensive impact (given the increased loads he was typically carrying in the playoffs, I doubt it even went that low).  The generalized argument against him of course tends to be "where are the results", and quite frankly it needs to be hammered home that his Minnesota casts were actually that bad.  Not mid 2000s Kobe/Lebron bad, like REALLY bad, like worst of any top 10 player bad.

^https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1587761&p=57014420&hilit=KG#p57014420

●So like I said before, I believe the big ticket has an argument that he added positive value in more different ways than any other player ever, this skillset allowed him to both be one of the best floor-raisers, and one of the best ceiling-raisers of all time as well too, and to me his game has shown to be resilient to the playoffs over a larger postseason sample size(one data point is how is on/ off in the RS from '00 to '12 is +12.4, while it is +17.8 in that same stretch).

●Some of my quick reasons/concerns for not yet listing a few of the closest people I think have arguments yet(again I will go into more detail when I have more time/they are more popular picks). I would still love to hear other thoughts if people disagree with what I have to say ofc

Walton: Mainly durability/sample size related

Magic: I believe Steph is a slightly better defender than Magic was in his actual peak years, with a slight preference in his offense, but those two like everyone else in this tier are basically just picking from preference and in Magic’s prime he has a strong argument for being the most resilient offensive player the game has ever seen.

Bird: Without granular +/- or team info for the playoffs, I’m not entirely sure just how resilient his game was even though it looks like a case of someone being underrated by traditional box score measurements, I also think there's quite a bit of variance on how his defense could be perceived.

Hakeem: I’m really just not very high on Hakeem as an offensive player, his value indicators in the regular season lag behind those players even when in a more optimal situation(from a role standpoint, not a supporting talent one) like the ‘93 to ‘95 Rockets(we don’t have +/- data for 1993 which I think is his peak but his ‘94 and ‘95 indicators don’t seem game-breaking or anything to me like the other players I named even if they are still all-time great. He also he never really played on a great team or gave me much reason to believe his offense would scale too well looking at the situations where he did have a bit more talent in his career, his versatility pops out to me as being severely overrated. He does definitely seem like a playoff riser offensively, but I also think his defense is a step down from his defensive peak - I believe similar-ish in value to peak KG, Duncan, and Wilt in those years, and the Rockets feel like a really high variance team with their advanced outside shooting which I believe helped them overrperform. I can’t see a strong argument at all for him being the best offensive player ITW in any of his seasons with his passing and optimal decision-making issues, and it's hard for me to see him really toning down his detrimental tendencies to play a role more within the flow of a cohesive offesive attack because to me the willingness(which did improve throughout his career), still just wasn't really there consistently.

Tim: I don’t really like him as much as I do KG on either end but it’s basically splitting hairs again. His RS signals aren’t quite as strong as the other names I gave from the pbp era and I think it’s a little strange how much of a stark contrast his playoffs +/- data looks from that special peak from ‘01 - ‘03 have to the rest of his career, his value may be inflated by the situation?? I think his scalability is a bit underrated because people overlook 2005 for whatever reason but it’s just a bit shakier for me compared to the other people I’m voting for this round.

1. 1962 Bill Russell
(1964, 1963, 1965)
-I think of his defense is being probably just as valuable as Steph's offense(and maybe even more portable), but his offense being better than Steph's defense and compared to everyone else I think he has maybe the best proof of his impact across different circumstances/seasons/rosters alongside Steph/KG but his impact indicators look even more impressive to me when looking at era point differentials as that level of team separation(more specifically the Celtics defense he anchored) was even more impacful back then. Honestly I may have been convinced after looking at the Shaq discussion to just put Russell over him(Shaq was my #3 and Russell my #4)
2. 2017 Stephen Curry
(2016)
-When push comes to shove I feel Steph has a slightly more impressive statistical footprint and argument for the playoffs than KG, without the 2021 regular season where I was quite impressed with what Steph did in that circumstance as a floor raiser when they moved off Wiseman I might've went KG over him here
3. 2004 Kevin Garnett
(2003)

[f4p]

Notice that the lakers never came close to their 2001 form ever again in a postseason so is not like that was the regular level of the shaq-kobe era lakers

Oh no, no, no my friend. The Spurs do not get to be defended for that. The '01 playoff Lakers have an argument for GOAT team peaks specifically because of that they did to the Spurs. The Lakers had a point average of 25 PPG in the Spurs series, they only had a 20+ point win once in the entire rest of the series.

If you do not perceive the '01 Spurs as a massive, massive disappointment in those playoffs - if you've been chalking it up to the Lakers being invincible - you gotta revisit that analysis. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if this recent wave of pro-Duncan posters has something to do with not being old enough to have watched that '01 Spurs-Laker series in real time.

i didn't like the spurs but i liked the lakers even less. watching the nuclear annihilation that was that series was almost demoralizing. i mean just absolutely blasted them in games 3 and 4 by i believe 29 and 39. maybe it unfairly painted how i saw duncan from back then (and really, to this day), because his box scores from the various lakers series are better than i remembered whenever i go look them up, but it just seemed like he couldn't hang. sure he'd load up on his uncontested defensive rebounds and he'd dominate horry or grant or somebody, then they'd put shaq on him in the 4th and that was that. 2003 felt different because it seemed like they tried that and then duncan started scoring on him. suddenly the lakers felt like they were the ones who didn't know what to do. but yeah, 2001 being so lopsided was hard to see coming. like you said, it's basically THE reason the lakers run is viewed as so epic.

[trex_8063]

I was being sincere with my question, to be clear.

So, to your question, sure, but where are you taking this?

I was being at least semi-sincere with my question, too, believe it or not.

I can see where you'd think I'm engaging in insincere trolling: Hakeem vs Duncan [defense only] appears more or less an apples to apples comparison. Gobert vs D.Powell [defense only] appears apples to bananas.

But I'd asked what makes Hakeem better defensively in your view....

Although you acknowledged doubt in your own ability to provide an argument that would satisfy me, the only thing you did offer me was an observation that Hakeem moves better.

While you subsequently stated it "doesn't mean he's necessarily a weaker defender overall", that actually DOES appear to be EXACTLY what you're trying to insinuate: that once we establish an agreed-upon fact [that Hakeem moves better], it must almost necessarily provide adequate reasoning for why Hakeem is actually better defensively [apparently "considerably" so], given they otherwise look similar-tiered on the face of things.

So I provided a counter-point of another comparison in which one guy "moves" notably better than another, yet isn't even in the same stratosphere defensively. While it seemed apples to bananas, I did it very very deliberately to illustrate that moving better does NOT necessarily make one the better defender (even if they do look similar-tiered by other measures). Clearly there are other factors at play which can [more than] compensate for lesser mobility.


I don't deny that Hakeem had better physical tools than Duncan (though I DO think people tend to better remember the more recent [mostly post-prime] versions of Duncan, and thus sort of sleep on what an understated athlete he was). But I also don't think he had the same defensive IQ/footwork/intangibles as Duncan.

Let's go to the tape.....

Watch on YouTube

I admit I trusted to my high opinion of Duncan, and didn't even do a quick scan of a '03 game for Duncan [for comparison]; so I open myself to embarrassment.
otoh, I didn't cherry-pick the above Hakeem game AT ALL. I just wanted a game from '94 [the generally agreed-upon peak season for him], a game from the playoffs [because Hakeem's case is all about the playoffs, right?], and I zeroed in on the Utah series [which if anything should FAVOUR Hakeem, given the Utah offense was pretty well stifled by Houston's D (and presumably Hakeem performing huge must be a huge factor in that)]. If anything, I seem to have cherry-picked in Hakeem's favour.

I scouted the start of game 1 [literally the first game I looked at.....which Houston won, btw].
I didn't even fully scout the first quarter before finding a number of mediocre [one or two even hedging toward poor???] defensive possessions for Hakeem. I'll go defensive possession by defensive possession (that Hakeem is on the court for) and give him a subjective grade [with explanation]....

*4:07 - *worth noting right off the bat that they have Hakeem defending Felton Spencer, and Otis Thorpe is guarding Malone. This might be best, as it perhaps leaves Hakeem more freedom to play free safety in a team defense sense, but just pointing it out. Make of it what you will [Otis Thorpe is only a little smaller than Hakeem, though, fwiw].
Initially is an illegal defense called [on Horry]; play resets around 4:37. Pass attempt made for a back-cutting Stockton is tipped out [not by Hakeem], but Hakeem reacted reasonably well to the play (certainly was in position to erase any shot attempt for Stockton). On the next inbound play, he recovers the open Malone pretty quickly, gets his hand in the passing lane and comes up with the steal.
Overall grade: Excellent

5:17 - Is in a position to cut off a driving Stockton, but instead just makes a swipe at the ball and lets him by. Why he doesn't step in more effectively to cut Stockton off is beyond me (are we really worried about about Felton Spencer standing 22' from the rim?).
Overall grade: Mediocre-to-poor.

5:46 - At around 5:55 Stockton makes another back-cut, Hakeem is a little slow to respond. Stockton is never really open, though [and Hakeem likely recognized that], so this may not be worth noting. However, he then fails to get a box-out on Spencer when the shot goes up. Doesn't matter as the shot goes in, but just noting that had it missed: Spencer [and Stockton] had the weak-side all sealed off.
Overall grade: Mediocre [to poor??].

6:10 - Hustle back in transition [Hakeem turnover] is so-so.
Grade: Average.

6:47 - Allows Felton Spencer to establish deep post position [just a little slow reacting to Felton's move to post-up; ball-watching a a bit]. Unable to stop Spencer inside.
Grade: Mediocre-to-poor.

7:01 - Turnover. Hakeem had never crossed half-court from the last defensive possession. His mere presence dissuades Stockton from making a play at the rim, and once Stockton dribbles out a little, he correctly picks up Malone, and then gets a partial box-out when Stockton shoots.
Grade: Fair-to-good.

7:45 - He's maybe marginally slow recognizing when Spencer tried to post him up again; ALMOST gave away deep post position again. Bodies hard, then gets a very nice box-out on Spencer when the shot goes up [and gets the rebound].
Grade: Fair-to-good.

8:32 - He's not much involved here. He appears ready to help [while also being conscious of where he needs to set at least one foot to avoid an illegal defense call]. Gets over to the weak side when the shot goes up and is ready to box out. Nothing special here, but reasonably good for not being much involved.
Grade: Fair-to-good.

9:24 - Excellent hustle back in transtion, outstanding block [keeping the ball in play, too, where it was mostly white jerseys to recover]. Bad luck that Spencer is the guy who recovers, but a fantastic play.
Grade: Outstanding.

10:21 - Good reaction to play when Stockton curls into the lane with the dribble. Kenny Smith stayed with him pretty well anyway, but Hakeem reacts well, and then immediately recovers contact with his man. However, at 10:33 Malone slips from his screen and Hakeem is notably slow to recover him: if that had been Stockton with the ball, that's probably 2 pts right there. But because it's Hornacek, he isn't able to make the immediate pass, giving Hakeem time to react.
Horry then tips the subsequent pass and Hakeem is right place right time to recover.
Overall grade: Average.

10:48 - The show on the pnr is maybe slightly lackadaisical; when he gets back to Spencer, Spencer has him boxed out [so Hakeem is NOT in good position for a defensive rebound]. It's a well-run play by Stockton; not poor on Hakeem's part, but definitely could have been better. At around 11:30 you can get a slow-mo replay analysis.
Grade: Mediocre.

13:45 - Sort of lets Spencer get in deep on him again (mildly dirty screen/hold by Stockton helps); Hakeem is called for a bit of a weak foul [though on replay you can definitely see him holding Spencer with his left arm, which helps him keep in position].
On the reboot he does pretty well of anticipating Spencer's post-up, bodies him hard, keeping him off his spot. Then gambles on the entry pass and is successful, coming up with the steal. This is one of those tricky plays to grade: for one, the foul; for two, if his gamble had failed we'd be grading it bad. But as is, he generates the turnover all by himself (and had kept Spencer out of deep position, too).
Grade: Good.

15:55 - Due to the camera position for most of this possession, we can't see Hakeem until the shot goes up. But when it does, he's got a really nice box-out on Spencer, so....
Grade: Fair-to-Good.

16:59 - He's not really involved at all, and the possession is brief. Nothing done wrong, though.
Grade: Average.

17:25 - Mostly a lot of standing around while Jay Humphries dribbles about [decent D by the Jet]; ultimately decent/good help D on the drive. It somewhat leaves Felton Spencer as a threat rolling toward hoop, but Robert Horry is Johnny-on-the-spot on the rotation and pokes the ball loose again.
Grade: Fair-to-good.

18:57 - Poor pnr D by Hakeem. Kenny basically runs into two screens here: one by Felton Spencer, then a second partial screen by Hakeem. He doesn't hedge or pick-up the ball-handler, nor does he stay with Spencer [he's fortunate that Otis Thorpe is attentive and quickly picks up the rolling Spencer]. He does eventually get back to Spencer and box-out. But mostly he's just plain lucky Thorpe was quick on the rotation and that Humphries simply bricks an open look.
Grade: Poor.

19:42 - Largely uninvolved in the play other than vaguely being in position for help. Boxes out well when shot goes up.
Grade: Average [or average-to-good].

20:10 - Not really involved. Decent enough hustle back in semi-transition. Was in reasonable rebounding position.
Grade: Average.

21:40 - Shades the guy fading to the corner nicely [sort of blocking the passing lane]. Recovers Spencer well enough and gets a bit of a box-out.
Grade: Fair-to-good.


I'll stop there.
That's less than one quarter of one game that was---if anything---selected from a sample that should be Hakeem's favour. Yes, he had multiple "fair-to-good" or better plays (including a couple of outstanding individual defensive possessions); but I also graded four possessions as "mediocre-to-poor" or worse in only about 9 minutes of play.
I'll be honest, I pretty much counted on being able to find at least a handful of such plays in any Olajuwon game scouted. I knew they'd be there.

As much as the physical ability separates Hakeem from Duncan, I think these things create just as much [maybe more??] separation (in Duncan's favour).
Again, I post this putting myself at risk, because I did not also select a quarter of peak Duncan to scout; I'm more or less counting on there being fewer such plays to find (at least 1-3 [and maybe substantially more] per game fewer).

[JordansBulls]

1. Hakeem 1994 (won league, finals mvp, DPOY) for a franchise that drafted him

2. Duncan 2003 (same as above but joined team with a guy who won league mvp)

3. Magic 1987 (Won league and finals mvp and his greatest season ever along with dominant record)

[falcolombardi]

Notice that the lakers never came close to their 2001 form ever again in a postseason so is not like that was the regular level of the shaq-kobe era lakers

Oh no, no, no my friend. The Spurs do not get to be defended for that. The '01 playoff Lakers have an argument for GOAT team peaks specifically because of that they did to the Spurs. The Lakers had a point average of 25 PPG in the Spurs series, they only had a 20+ point win once in the entire rest of the series.

If you do not perceive the '01 Spurs as a massive, massive disappointment in those playoffs - if you've been chalking it up to the Lakers being invincible - you gotta revisit that analysis. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if this recent wave of pro-Duncan posters has something to do with not being old enough to have watched that '01 Spurs-Laker series in real time.

i didn't like the spurs but i liked the lakers even less. watching the nuclear annihilation that was that series was almost demoralizing. i mean just absolutely blasted them in games 3 and 4 by i believe 29 and 39. maybe it unfairly painted how i saw duncan from back then (and really, to this day), because his box scores from the various lakers series are better than i remembered whenever i go look them up, but it just seemed like he couldn't hang. sure he'd load up on his uncontested defensive rebounds and he'd dominate horry or grant or somebody, then they'd put shaq on him in the 4th and that was that. 2003 felt different because it seemed like they tried that and then duncan started scoring on him. suddenly the lakers felt like they were the ones who didn't know what to do. but yeah, 2001 being so lopsided was hard to see coming. like you said, it's basically THE reason the lakers run is viewed as so epic.

Is not letting that paint how we view duncan, spexially in comparision to shaq, the equivalent of letting 2011 define lebron as a player and then ranking dirk ahead of him?

Duncan and shaq played another 4 series between 99-04 why are we looking at only one of them?

1999
Duncan: 29/11/3/2, 2.5 offensive boards, 4.5 turnovers per game, 60% ts

Shaq 24/13/0.5/2, 6.25(!) Offensive boards, 2.25 turnovers per game, 51%ts

Close cause turnovers and offensive boards but duncan scored more in way better efficiency and created mpre shots directly by assist. Notice that duncan still has rhe better ast/tov ratio

and this is without accounting for defense

2002
Duncan: 29/17/5/3, 4.4 offensive boards, 4.6 turnovers per game, 52% ts

Shaq: 21/12/3/3 3.0 offensive boards, 3.0 turnovers per game, 49% ts

Duncan still is slightly ahead on assists/TO ratio, scores more, mpr3 efficently (smaller margin this time) and rebounds more offensive boards

2003
Duncan: 28/12/5/1.3, 2.8 offensive boards, 2.2 turnovers per game, 57% ts
2003

Shaq : 25/14/4/3, 5.7 offensive boards, 3.5 turnovers per game, 59% ts

Scoring is close overall, duncan has a clear assists + turnovers edge, shaq dominated the offensive boards. Close overall before factoring the defensive gap (more pronounced by this point in shaq career)


2004
Duncan: 21/12/3/2, 3.8 offensive boards, 4.7 turnovers per game, 60% ts

Shaq: 22.5/14.5/2/4 , 4.3 offensive boards, 2.8 turnovers per game, 53% ts

This one shaq clearly wins by boxscore stats although this is before including defense in the equation which again probably favors duncan

Duncan looks better in at least 3 of their 5 series

Overall in these 4 series

Duncan 27/13/4/2 3.4 off boards, 4 TOV, 57.5%ts

Shaq 23.5/13.5/2.5/4 5.0 off boards, 3 TOV, 53.5%ts

Add duncan defensive edge and is hard to see the argument shaq was in a completely different category

[Blazers-1977]

1. 2002-03 Tim Duncan: Led a team with an Robinson on the verge of retiring and a Young Parker and Manu to the championship and beating out the Shaq/Kobe Lakers attempt at a 4 peat too . He clearly carried the team on offense and defense here and elevated his game in the post season too

2. 1964-65 Russell: Was the best version of an 11 time champion , was a monster on defense(14.4 WS on defense) and while it was close between his 1964 and 1965 season his advanced stats were slightly better in 65 for the playoffs(per 48 min).

3. 1985-86 Bird: Led the Celtics to the best home record in history, was a great all around player average 25/9/7 and was arguably the best version of him defensively as well.

[Dutchball97]

1. 2003 Tim Duncan - Duncan didn't win MVP in a landslide but he's still my pick for best regular season player and in terms of the play-offs there is really no doubt. He had arguably the best post-season run ever with him carrying his team on both sides of the ball through some serious competition.

2. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon - Very similar to 2003 Duncan overall but I do slightly prefer Duncan due to a couple of small advantages. While Hakeem faced probably the toughest gauntlet of teams in 95, the opposition he faced in 94 is comparable but slightly less impressive than Duncan came across in 03. Defensively it's a wash but I do think Duncan was overall the better and more consistent offensive force. While their post-season runs are nearly identical in terms of performance, I do think Duncan has a bit of an edge in the regular season.

3. 1964 Bill Russell - Tough call for which Russell season I was going for but 1964 is the best defensive season ever. I was initially leaning towards 1965 because he had comparable defensive impact but had more success on the offensive end but his overall impact was pretty much the same in these two years. What was the deciding factor was the dominance in the play-offs. In other early-mid 60s seasons the Celtics sometimes faced teams that were hampered by injuries and if they were healthy it wasn't uncommon for it to be a very close series. In 1964 Russell's Celtics beat both guys who ended ahead of him in MVP voting (Oscar and Wilt) at full strength in 5 games.

3b. 1965 Russell

3c. 1962 Russell

[f4p]

Is not letting that paint how we view duncan, spexially in comparision to shaq, the equivalent of letting 2011 define lebron as a player and then ranking dirk ahead of him?

yeah, like i said, it was probably unfair. the numbers you've posted are what i've looked at over the years and noticed duncan did better than i thought. or maybe, more accurately, shaq did worse than what i thought. i'm not a big kobe fan, but kobe fans are right that he really did well against the spurs and that's definitely a feather in his cap.

and i was coming at the duncan stuff from the perspective of wanting him to beat the lakers. i didn't have strong feelings for the spurs or lakers in 1999 because neither had started winning, but by 2000 i was against the lakers. after that, they played the spurs 4 times and won 3, so even as i wanted the spurs to win, it always felt like i knew they were going to come up short, that duncan wouldn't get the big 4th quarter points, that shaq and kobe would win. and 2001 was just a massacre. having a bigger attachment to the 4 series where the lakers won 3 of them probably colors my opinion, since 1999 was one of the better ones for duncan and i don't remember it as well.

[LA Bird]

This is the closest round yet so I will cast a vote as well.

1. 03 Duncan
(02 Duncan)
2. 64 Russell
3. 86 Bird
(65 Russell)
(62 Russell)

Personally, I have 03 Duncan closer to the GOAT peak than to the other seasons here. Arguably the best two way performance in history and he had one of the greatest playoff runs ever. Peak Duncan beats Hakeem in pretty much all metrics and if his offensive game was as beautiful, his 03 season would probably be viewed as one of the most perfect seasons behind 91 Jordan.

Not the biggest fan of Russell's offense but he is the defensive GOAT and he set the all time record in every defensive stat both team and individual in 1964.

Bird's playoff resiliency would be a valid criticism if this was a career list but this is a single season peak list and he was incredible in both the regular season and playoffs in 1986. My bigger concern would be how much of the Celtics' outlier success that season was due to Bird peaking that year vs Walton's arrival because if +/- stats prove it was the latter, there is probably a good argument peak Walton would be above Bird.

[LA Bird]

Here are the results for round 6

Winner: 03 Duncan

There were 19 voters in this round: SickMother, homecourtloss, DraymondGold, capfan33, ardee, falcolombardi, Dr Positivity, f4p, trelos, ceoofkobefans, Doctor MJ, OhayoKD, 70sFan, Colbinii, Proxy, JordansBulls, Blazers-1977, Dutchball97, LA Bird

A total of 23 seasons received at least 1 vote: 02 Duncan, 03 Duncan, 03 Garnett, 04 Garnett, 15 Curry, 16 Curry, 17 Curry, 19 Curry, 21 Curry, 22 Curry, 62 Russell, 63 Russell, 64 Russell, 65 Russell, 76 Erving, 84 Bird, 85 Bird, 86 Bird, 86 Olajuwon, 87 Johnson, 93 Olajuwon, 94 Olajuwon, 95 Olajuwon

Top 5 seasons
03 Duncan: 1.000 (22-0)
94 Olajuwon: 0.955 (21-1), loses to 03 Duncan
64 Russell: 0.905 (19-2), loses to 03 Duncan, 94 Olajuwon
93 Olajuwon: 0.900 (18-2), loses to 03 Duncan, 94 Olajuwon
62 Russell: 0.818 (18-4), loses to 03 Duncan, 64 Russell, 93 Olajuwon, 94 Olajuwon

H2H record
03 Duncan vs 94 Olajuwon: 9-7
03 Duncan vs 64 Russell: 14-1
03 Duncan vs 93 Olajuwon: 11-5
03 Duncan vs 62 Russell: 14-2
94 Olajuwon vs 64 Russell: 10-3
94 Olajuwon vs 93 Olajuwon: 7-4
94 Olajuwon vs 62 Russell: 10-3
64 Russell vs 93 Olajuwon: 6-6
64 Russell vs 62 Russell: 5-3
93 Olajuwon vs 62 Russell: 6-5

[homecourtloss]

This is the closest round yet so I will cast a vote as well.

1. 03 Duncan
(02 Duncan)
2. 64 Russell
3. 86 Bird
(65 Russell)
(62 Russell)

Personally, I have 03 Duncan closer to the GOAT peak than to the other seasons here. Arguably the best two way performance in history and he had one of the greatest playoff runs ever. Peak Duncan beats Hakeem in pretty much all metrics and if his offensive game was as beautiful, his 03 season would probably be viewed as one of the most perfect seasons behind 91 Jordan.

Not the biggest fan of Russell's offense but he is the defensive GOAT and he set the all time record in every defensive stat both team and individual in 1964.

Bird's playoff resiliency would be a valid criticism if this was a career list but this is a single season peak list and he was incredible in both the regular season and playoffs in 1986. My bigger concern would be how much of the Celtics' outlier success that season was due to Bird peaking that year vs Walton's arrival because if +/- stats prove it was the latter, there is probably a good argument peak Walton would be above Bird.

Sansterre had a great write up about Walton’s impact on his Top 100 teams writeup.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2068382