Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #15 - 1965-66 Jerry West

[ceoofkobefans]

10. 2008 Kobe Bryant

I know this is probably going to be controversial on this forum since he’s usually fringe t15 on peak lists around here (due to what seems like RS impact metrics). Most Impact metrics generally do have him around the fringe t15 range (like 13-17ish) but Kobe is one of the biggest PO risers ever. Here’s 08-10 Kobe from the RS to PO (biggest peak PO sample we have without 2 first round exits skewing results).

(Box numbers are IA/75)
RS
28.3 PTS
5.3 AST
5.8 TRB
3 TOV
+1.8 rTS
+5.3 BBR BPM (+3.9/g)
+5 BP BPM/g (+6.7/100)
+4.1 AuPM/g (+5.5/100)
+5.96 RAPTOR (+4.4/g)

PO
30.5 PTS
5.6 AST
5.8 TRB
3 TOV/75
+3.9 rTS
+7.8 BPM (+6/g)
+6.3 BP BPM/g (+8.2/100)
+4.7 AuPM/g (+6.1/100)
+8.07 RAPTOR (+6.2/g)

Here’s just 2008 since that’s his best season

RS
28.1 PTS
5.3 AST
6.1 TRB
3 TOV
+3.6 rTS
+5.8 BBR BPM (+4.5/g)
+6.1 BP BPM/g (+7.9/100)
+4.2 AuPM/g (+5.4/100)
+7.09 RAPTOR (+5.5/g)

PO
30.5 PTS
5.6 AST
5.6 TRB
3.2 TOV
+4.9 rTS
+7.4 BBR BPM (+5.9/g)
+6.7 BP BPM/g (+8.4/100)
+2.1 3yr AuPM/g (+2.6/100 this is obviously skewed by the 2 previous years)
+7.63 RAPTOR (+6.06/g)

31 IA PTS/75 on +5 rTS is absolutely insane when you consider that he’s playing in 2 center lineups with his best spacer being him and facing more gravity than anyone in nba history that’s name doesn’t start with an S. Him being able to pretty much maintain that in the PO over a 3yr stretch of finals runs against GOAT tier PO comp (same points on +4 rTS) is pretty damn good evidence for him being not only an all time PO riser but this scoring production being real for him. Him being an all time PO riser makes since because he’s arguably the best tough shot maker of all time and is a clear all time self creator which is the number 1 way for your scoring to be resilient in the PO against tougher defenses and more defensive attention. His defense was also pretty solid in 2008. He did still have a bit of a motor issue in the RS but it consistently would shoot up in the PO and this was no different in 08. He was a very good on ball defender but was also a good off ball defender (really good trapper, was the lakers’ primary communicator, and I thought his off ball awareness was improved from his past few years, although his closeout D wasn’t great which hurt his overall off ball D)

Overall i think it’s pretty fair to put Kobe in that top 10 range although I could see him at like 14ish(?) depending how high you are on others/low on him

14. 1996 David Robinson

David Robinson is another O2 D1 player with really really good impact metrics in the RS (which are inflated by his lack of a backup center) that is a clear PO dropper. Robinson is lower than KG because KG is much better off the ball and a much better passer which makes him better offensively (although Drob is a > scorer and arguably better defender). I could see him a little bit lower and I don’t like to go higher than 14 for him

15. 2009 Dwyane Wade

Dwyane Wade is arguably a t15 offensive player ever and is an elite to arguably all time great defender at his peak. He’s a t15 scorer a t20 playmaker and one of the best rim protecting guards ever. he’s held back mainly by his lack of shooting and his major on ball dominance / lack of off ball activity. I may go deeper in detail on him in the future but this is as much as I’ll say for now. I can see him at 14 or at ≈ 16

[SickMother]

01 Erving 75-76: 28.7 PER | .569 TS% | 110 TS+ | 17.7 WS | .262 WS/48
01 Erving 75-76 Playoffs?!?: 32.0 PER | .610 TS% | 3.7 WS | .321 WS/48
[a peak so high the NBA absorbed a whole other league to get this guy under their banner. Doctor turned in a top tier do it all regular season, then followed it up with one of thee largest postseason efficiency increases of all time.]

02 Hawkins 67-68: 28.8 PER | .597 TS% | 124 TS+ | 17.5 WS | .273 WS/48
02 Hawkins 67-68 Playoffs?!?: 30.0 PER | .651 TS% | 4.0 WS | .310 WS/48
[for what amounts to spot #13 on my ballot I'll go with maybe thee unluckiest player in basketball history, robbed of his collegiate & early NBA career by completely spurious gambling allegations, then derailed by a knee injury which occurred amidst the ABA Championship in this very season.

but there was never any doubt Connie could ball from the outset as one of the original NYC greats at Rucker Park & being named the best high school player in the country in 1960. As for his 67-68 peak, the Hawk simply did everything. Topped the brand new ABA in PPG on monster efficiency, 2nd in the league in RPG, 3rd in the league in APG. Then took his game to a whole other level in the playoffs, hurting his knee during the Championship series & returning to lead his team to the top in heroic fashion even before Willis Reed (or Giannis) did it.

I get it, the 67-68 ABA is probably the 2nd weakest competition level to receive a vote so far besides 49-50 Mikan, but Hawkins had no alternative, it was the best league available to him due to his illegal blacklisting from the NBA & he thoroughly dominated it across the board. Also think that Connie's peak game works in any era with his mix of size, athleticism and all around skillset.]

***I have a tier break here which goes from #14 to #25 with the following seasons under consideration (in chrono order) 63-64 Oscar, 65-66 West, 82-83 Moses, 94-95 Admiral, 03-04 Garnett, 05-06 Wade, 05-06 Nowitzki, 08-09 Kobe, 16-17 Kawhi, 16-17 Durant, 20-21 Giannis and 21-22 Jokic.***

03 Kawhi 16-17: 27.6 PER | .610 TS% | 111 TS+ | 13.6 WS | .264 WS/48
03 Kawhi 16-17 Playoffs?!?: 31.5 PER | .672 TS% | 2.8 WS | .314 WS/48
[ultimately going with Kawhi for two main reasons, his elite defense as a wing defender is unique among the remaining contenders, and his postseason was shaping up as a best ever candidate with Leonard posting absolutely insane efficiency before Zaza stepped in.]

[NBA4Lyfe]

10. 2008 Kobe Bryant

I know this is probably going to be controversial on this forum since he’s usually fringe t15 on peak lists around here (due to what seems like RS impact metrics). Most Impact metrics generally do have him around the fringe t15 range (like 13-17ish) but Kobe is one of the biggest PO risers ever. Here’s 08-10 Kobe from the RS to PO (biggest peak PO sample we have without 2 first round exits skewing results).

(Box numbers are IA/75)
RS
28.3 PTS
5.3 AST
5.8 TRB
3 TOV
+1.8 rTS
+5.3 BBR BPM (+3.9/g)
+5 BP BPM/g (+6.7/100)
+4.1 AuPM/g (+5.5/100)
+5.96 RAPTOR (+4.4/g)

PO
30.5 PTS
5.6 AST
5.8 TRB
3 TOV/75
+3.9 rTS
+7.8 BPM (+6/g)
+6.3 BP BPM/g (+8.2/100)
+4.7 AuPM/g (+6.1/100)
+8.07 RAPTOR (+6.2/g)

Here’s just 2008 since that’s his best season

RS
28.1 PTS
5.3 AST
6.1 TRB
3 TOV
+3.6 rTS
+5.8 BBR BPM (+4.5/g)
+6.1 BP BPM/g (+7.9/100)
+4.2 AuPM/g (+5.4/100)
+7.09 RAPTOR (+5.5/g)

PO
30.5 PTS
5.6 AST
5.6 TRB
3.2 TOV
+4.9 rTS
+7.4 BBR BPM (+5.9/g)
+6.7 BP BPM/g (+8.4/100)
+2.1 3yr AuPM/g (+2.6/100 this is obviously skewed by the 2 previous years)
+7.63 RAPTOR (+6.06/g)

31 IA PTS/75 on +5 rTS is absolutely insane when you consider that he’s playing in 2 center lineups with his best spacer being him and facing more gravity than anyone in nba history that’s name doesn’t start with an S. Him being able to pretty much maintain that in the PO over a 3yr stretch of finals runs against GOAT tier PO comp (same points on +4 rTS) is pretty damn good evidence for him being not only an all time PO riser but this scoring production being real for him. Him being an all time PO riser makes since because he’s arguably the best tough shot maker of all time and is a clear all time self creator which is the number 1 way for your scoring to be resilient in the PO against tougher defenses and more defensive attention. His defense was also pretty solid in 2008. He did still have a bit of a motor issue in the RS but it consistently would shoot up in the PO and this was no different in 08. He was a very good on ball defender but was also a good off ball defender (really good trapper, was the lakers’ primary communicator, and I thought his off ball awareness was improved from his past few years, although his closeout D wasn’t great which hurt his overall off ball D)

Overall i think it’s pretty fair to put Kobe in that top 10 range although I could see him at like 14ish(?) depending how high you are on others/low on him

14. 1996 David Robinson

David Robinson is another O2 D1 player with really really good impact metrics in the RS (which are inflated by his lack of a backup center) that is a clear PO dropper. Robinson is lower than KG because KG is much better off the ball and a much better passer which makes him better offensively (although Drob is a > scorer and arguably better defender). I could see him a little bit lower and I don’t like to go higher than 14 for him

15. 2009 Dwyane Wade

Dwyane Wade is arguably a t15 offensive player ever and is an elite to arguably all time great defender at his peak. He’s a t15 scorer a t20 playmaker and one of the best rim protecting guards ever. he’s held back mainly by his lack of shooting and his major on ball dominance / lack of off ball activity. I may go deeper in detail on him in the future but this is as much as I’ll say for now. I can see him at 14 or at ≈ 16

2020 harden peaked higher than 09 wade/08 Kobe

[70sFan]

I finally found enough time to come back with a vote, although Russell's death makes me less focused on making long, in-depth posts. Instead, I will make it short, but I hope it will be enough to count my vote:

1. 1949/50 George Mikan
(1950/51 George Mikan)
2. 1965/66 Jerry West
(1969/70 Jerry West)
(1967/68 Jerry West)
3. 2021/22 Nikola Jokic

HM: 1975/76 Julius Erving

Mikan is my 1st choice, because I don't see any other player reaching his level of dominance. We have to adjust that for significantly weaker competition, but still - I don't care about time machine argument. He did everything he could against the best competition he faced. Although some might view him as some kind of slow, lumbering oaf who relied heavily on his size, I don't view him that way from what I've seen. He was a very smart passer with soft shooting touch and he seemed to have a very strong defensive impact (although this one likely wouldn't translate to the same degree as his offense).

To look at prime Mikan footage, here is a small sample (by the way, you can the ball being far from round in this game, something to consider when we talk about shooting performance of these players):

Watch on YouTube

Here is another nice Mikan play that shows his high level vision as a post playmaker (one of my favorite ones):

Watch on YouTube

Why Mikan over Jokic? For two main reasons:

1. Mikan was excellent defender for his era, while Jokic struggles a lot in the postseason defensively. It may be unfair for Jokic, because I'm afraid Mikan would have similar problems on defense in 2020s, but as it was - Mikan was a very impactful defender who was quite innovative with his approach (not to the excent Russell was, but still).
2. Mikan was more dominant against his competition vs Jokic and he was unquestionably the best player in the world during his peak. His postseason dominance is a key factor to put him ahead of Jokic (and Robinson).


West is my 2nd choice, because I view him as top 4 postseason scorer ever (along with Kareem/Jordan/LeBron) and he added ATG defensive impact at guard position, which is a rarity among GOAT-level offensive players. West was just relentless on the court, but he was also extremely portable across schemes and eras. He's excellent shooter of course, but people overstate how big part of his game it was. He was excellent athlete, who attacked defenses inside more than any other guard of his era. He could also play next to ball-dominant players (Baylor, Wilt) without diminishing results. He was excellent off-ball and on-ball creator. You can't find a more versatile point guard than him in NBA history.

Watch on YouTube

Jokic is the third choice, I thought a lot about him vs Walton and Robinson and in short, it came down to these things:

Jokic vs Walton - mostly durability issues, even in his 1976/77 season
Jokic vs Robinson - I think Robinson's offensive issues are slightly more problematic than Jokic defense, I can change my mind after a bigger sample from Jokic, but that's how I see it now

Julius is the HM to me, because he's the next perimeter player I will vote in.

[AEnigma]

2020 harden peaked higher than 09 wade/08 Kobe

True, and Jokic peaked higher than Shaq!

I also wonder if his D gets underrated at times too (at least when people label him a "weak" or "bad" defender).

When I watch Jokic, I see a guy with a reasonably decent defensive IQ, and passable effort. He lacks good lateral quickness or recovery speed, he lacks explosive leaping ability, he doesn't have Gobert's length, his rim protecting positioning [mostly with where he has his arms, imo] could be a little better. But his awareness and footwork......those are pretty good, imo.

So overall, idk......I just think his defensive short-comings are overstated sometimes.

**Noticeable gap to anyone else for me, considering nearly everyone else I maybe considered sort of close have already been voted in. I feel we're already edging toward late for both of these guys, and in particular don't know how one could justify a sizable gap between Giannis and Jokic, given Jokic has---by all appearances---been shredding a league that contains peak/near-peak Giannis for the last couple years.

Might help if he were not getting shredded in kind every postseason. 118 defensive rating for his playoff career, tough to do much of anything like that.

[No-more-rings]

2020 harden peaked higher than 09 wade/08 Kobe

Based on?

[ceoofkobefans]

2020 harden peaked higher than 09 wade/08 Kobe

How? Harden > wade offensively sure but wade is significantly better defensively and I don’t see how the O gap overcomes that unless you think harden is like a fringe t5 offensive player and harden vs Kobe is just silly to me personally Kobe is better on O and D pretty clearly

[NBA4Lyfe]

2020 harden peaked higher than 09 wade/08 Kobe

How? Harden > wade offensively sure but wade is significantly better defensively and I don’t see how the O gap overcomes that unless you think harden is like a fringe t5 offensive player and harden vs Kobe is just silly to me personally Kobe is better on O and D pretty clearly

based on what stats

[NBA4Lyfe]

2020 harden peaked higher than 09 wade/08 Kobe

Based on?

being 1st overall in raptor in both the regular season and playoffs that same year. being on course to shatter the single season vorp record before covid shutdown. Being top 2 in obpm and top 20 in dbpm... and just the raw efficency is better than both. Wade lost in the first round, harden lost in to the eventual champs with a net negative player in westbrook as his 2nd best player

[tone wone]

2020 harden peaked higher than 09 wade/08 Kobe

Based on?

being 1st overall in raptor in both the regular season and playoffs that same year. being on course to shatter the single season vorp record before covid shutdown. Being top 2 in obpm and top 20 in dbpm... and just the raw efficency is better than both. Wade lost in the first round, harden lost in to the eventual champs with a net negative player in westbrook as his 2nd best player

Why 2020 and not 2019?

[DraymondGold]

Since it seems like we're getting back to a peak discussion rather than discussing who'd do better than Robinson, I figured I'd move the discussion from the other thread [https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2217640] here. Hope that's okay!

Hi Enigma -- if this is directed at me, I definitely never used Robinson's on/off numbers with Tim Duncan to say this is exactly what he'd do during his peak, with no further contextual analysis. But I'm also not saying this data shouldn't make us any more confident in playoff Robinson either.

It was directed at the typical Robinson supporter, based on a comment made in the thread. So you can read it as incidentally but not specifically or deliberately directed to you via your identity as a typical Robinson supporter.

Sounds good

There's a clear trend with a better fit / more talented team, basically every stat we have for Robinson shoots up in the playoffs (vs his younger self or vs what we might expect for an older player).

What stats. It certainly was not his scoring, and you do not have playoff on/off before Duncan. Defensive rebounding, I suppose, but hard to really hang your hat on that.

Apologies for not specifying -- I mentioned my view that the stats improved for older Robinson with the better fit in a previous thread, and you mentioned that you disagree, so I suppose it would have been more productive to outright specify which stats I was talking about.

To clarify: From Peak Robinson (94-96) --> older Robinson with better fit (98-01ish), there was a
-Decline in many skill-specific box stats (e.g. scoring ppg, apg, etc.)
-Decline in many Regular Season all-in-one impact metrics
-Improvement in many Playoff all-in-one impact metrics.
So when I say he showed improvement in the stats as he got older on a better team, I’m talking about playoff-only impact metrics.

Which stats did he get better in? Improvement from ~94-96 Peak Robinson -> ~98-01 Older Better-fit Robinson:
3-year Playoff PIPM estimates: ~30th all time -> Top 15 all time
3-year Playoff BP’s BPM: ~45th all time -> Top 30
Multi-year Playoff on/off: Not GOAT level -> 1st all time
Multi-year Playoff BR’s BPM and WS/48 all improve. He also improves in PER (if we just compare 94/95 vs 98/99/00/01, though 96 is his best year there).

You probably saw in the other discussion, Robinson's 4-year on/off sample from 98-01 is literally the GOAT in the playoffs. His 3-year PIPM sample would be Top ~15 all time among 3-year peaks (and remember, this is playoffs only!).

How highly do you rate Draymond, Manu, Baron Davis, and Ray Allen for their playoff peaks. Or Westbrook, if you find those options too factitious.

Is the minute sample smaller than ideal, and is the fit favorable? Absolutely, which I've said myself. But considering he shows this level of impact in the regular season (so it's not like he's never capable of this impact), and considering he showed it after his peak in the playoffs when granted a better team (despite being older and a supposed playoff "choker"), I have a hard time thinking the older playoff bump is entirely fake. He improved in the playoffs when he had a better fit when he was older, so why shouldn't we expect him to show playoff improvements if he happened to have better fit when he was during his peak?

The question then becomes how much would improved fit / improved team change his impact. Let's say he gets a better team during his peak, but not as good as 99-01. To me, he'd improve with better fit, but perhaps not as much as he would if if his team were as good as 99-01. But I also see his playoff impact increasing if we're looking at his peak years vs his older years. To me, these factors (better player, not quite as good situation as 99-01 though better than the terrible fit he actually in 94-96) balance out, which puts him around the same playoff level in impact as he actually showed in 99-01 with a moderately better team in 94-96. That's a ~top 10 regular season peak (per you) and a ~top 15 playoff peak (per 99-01 PIPM) (or maybe top 20ish if you want to downgrade him more for fit concerns and upgrade him less for his peak years vs older years)

Question for you: If he was given a better fit from 94-95 (say a better offensive costar / depth, who could help score and playmake for him), do you not think his impact would improve? If it did improve, how much by (e.g. if his playoffs is ~30-40th GOAT with the atrocious fit he had per PIPM, what would it be with better fit?) ?

So again I am sceptical you are tracking what “impact” is here, but because you were not explicitly talking about postseason versus regular season “impact”, there is at least room to walk this line for now.

If you were talking about regular season net impact, then we automatically have a problem, because that “bad fit” was precisely why his regular season “impact” was so immense, and corrections in that “bad fit” demonstrably lessened his “impact”. Negative changes in fit are also what necessitated his “impact” to become what it did from 1994-96. Lebron’s teams have never relied upon him as much as they did in 2009 and 2010, and it shows.

However, this is a playoff discussion, so it is probably fairer to guess that you meant playoffs. That is a trickier question. 2017 Westbrook is probably the poster child for how a worse team can even further gas your postseason impact, but you can see similar-ish results with Baron Davis, Ray Allen, and indeed Tim Duncan (which teams are better “fits”: the 2001-03 Spurs, or the 2005-07 Spurs?). And on the subject of Tim Duncan, giving a second star could lead to results like 2005 Duncan or 2001 Shaq where their “impact” looks significantly lessened when the second star leads bench units to success. Or, you know, 2016 Curry. Curry is a fun example of this idea, actually: his highest “impact” is at the beginning of his postseason career, where the Warriors had no real way to replace him, but then his next highest is in 2017.

In any case, the idea is not that adding some better pieces to the 1994-96 Spurs would inherently increase his “impact”. Honestly, that framing is profoundly strange. Remember when I said the goal of the game was not to maximise your team’s reliance on you? Apparently worth reiterating both that and the recommendation you really divorce yourself from this blind faith in impact numbers. They are not a player ranking, they are not a measure of real player quality. Hell, most of the reason metrics like LEBRON and PIPM incorporate a box score consideration is to avoid getting too deeply lost in the weeds of team reliance. I know you have said you take other considerations, but lines like this really do suggest a struggle to not let those form the majority of how you see players. The point of adding better pieces would be to make the team less reliant on Robinson (or any star) when he is off the court and (well, sometimes “or”) outright better when he is on the court.

To start out, yep I did mean playoffs, per the above stats.

The pattern we see is this:
94-96: One 3 year group, where regular season impact metrics (like the ones above) are higher than anywhere else in his career. The regular season stats decline slightly each season, while the postseason stats increase each season (with small sample bias to add uncertainty)
98-01: One 4 year group, where the regular season impact metrics are far lower than his perceived peak, but the playoff stats are far higher than this.

The two changes over time that we're trying to tease apart are Robinson's "goodness" and the team/opponent context (e.g. determining how much poor vs good fit changes value, determining how much small playoff sample vs poor matchup vs lack of resilience changes playoff value, etc.).

You note that Robinson declines in the regular season, and characterize that entirely as team fit improving and leading the metrics to go down. This is one interpretation. And you might apply it to the all-time "floor raising" cases, like 09-10 LeBron which you mentioned. But if improving team means metrics always go down, why are his highest playoff impact metrics ever in the 98-01 playoffs when his team was so much better?

You may attribute some of that to "schemability." Cases of all time floor-raising of bad teams can sometimes be more easily schemed against in the playoffs (e.g. double the superstar, superstar passes out, bad teammate bricks open shot). And I would attribute much of the regular season -> playoff decline to team schemeability (not necessarily star schemeability, more on that later). But you could also apply scalability: some skills are more scalable with better teammates and better teams than others. We can examine which skills are more scalable, both philosophically/theoretically, through film study, and by examining the data to see which player archetypes get worse and which get better on better teams. And Robinson's archetype is absolutely one of the most scalable there are.

So even if you propose that some of the 94 regular season metrics are inflated because all-time-floor-raising seasons have inflated stats (maybe), I'd counter that Robinson's scalability should mean his impact loses less value on better teams than many other all-time peaks... and the data actually supports this in the 98-01 playoffs! (again, see above stats)

Your point about Tim Duncan and Shaq losing value as their teams get better in the playoffs is a good one. I'd add a brief qualifier that their goodness is also changing over time (e.g. Shaq just one year older was clearly worse on defense, and Duncan clearly lost athleticism), but the point still stands. That's partly why I have them as less scalable! Their skillsets lose amore relative value on good teams than Robinson's relative value (though even with a relative decline in value on good teams, I'd still have them better than Robinson even on good teams... e.g. if they're a 10 on a bad team and a 9.75 on a good team, Robinson might be a 9.5 either way)

Going to pause on that “atrocious” fit for a moment. First, they did not succeed because they suddenly had an elite fitting team, they succeeded because Tim Duncan was a top five-ish player from the beginning and David Robinson for at least a couple of years was still a top ten to fifteen player. Tim Duncan is not really a good fit with Robinson outside of the raw talent addition. I mean, he is not a bad fit, the way you might say with Wade and Lebron, or with Howard and some of his later career star guard pairings. Defence tends to stack pretty well, so you always have that right away (this also helped Wade and Lebron to an extent too). But offensively at least, a second big would not be my first choice, and to the extent that defence does stack, that is not especially unique to Robinson over most other centres (but yes, most other centres would have even larger issues on offence, so that is where you give him your scalability point).
Second, in 1998, the lead players for the Spurs were Tim Duncan, Avery Johnson, David Robinson, Jaren Jackson, Vinny Del Negro, Will Purdue (backup big), and Chuck Person. Sean Elliott was on the roster but injured and deeply missed -- I think the Spurs might have legitimately been able to win at full health that year, or at least make the Finals, but hey that is how it goes. Anyway, looking back, in 1996 the lead players were the Spurs were Avery Johnson, David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Vinny Del Negro, Chuck Person, and Will Purdue. Hm, lot of familiar names. Is the idea that the team needed Tim Duncan (and Jaren Jackson) to fit together? They still lost to the Jazz, just like they did in 1994 and 1996 (Sean Elliott missed 1994 too), but this time they not only could blame health, they were legitimately competitive and legitimately able to slow the Utah offence for the first time. Is that a matter of suddenly improved “atrocious” fit? Or is it maybe that just throwing Tim Duncan onto a pretty fair team makes them more resilient and a more serious contender than they were previously?

I'm not sure I have rookie Duncan (or even 2nd year Duncan) so clearly over Robinson, but let's put that aside. I agree there's some roster continuity. But I do think Duncan was a big add in value (if not the absolute perfect fit), as was a little coach named Greg Popovitch, who joined in 96 and to my eye improved in his coaching quite a bit in these early years.

You mention that Tim Duncan wouldn't be the ideal fit with Robinson. I actually agree! So the fact that Robinson's playoff impact metrics shot up so much is once again very encouraging to Robinson's scalability. The thought process goes: "If his 98-01 On/off and PIPM are Top 15 at absolute worst when Robinson's old and when his costar isn't exactly a perfect fit, imagine how good he'd be when he's at his peak and if his costar was a better fit!"

To your point, I agree Duncan's defense stacks fairly well without much diminishing returns, and their defense was what was winning them games. On offense, I see the best way Duncan fit was with resilient scoring. When I look at the 94/95 playoffs, I see teams doubling Robinson, teammates missing shots, and Robinson (to his discredit) not scoring at a high enough clip when doubled or defended by a great man defender to beat the other team (film evidence later). But if he just had teammates who could hit open shots when he was doubled.

I have no idea whether giving David Robinson a player like oh Glen Rice would suddenly turn them into a legitimate title contender capable of beating the Jazz/Knicks/Rockets in 1994 or the Rockets/Magic in 1995 or the Jazz/Sonics/Bulls in 1996, but what I do know is that he would almost certainly not be posting huge scoring numbers and +20 on/off splits. Alonzo Mourning was a great defender. Had really strong plus/minus values from 1997-2000, and a pretty good team around him. Never sniffed a title. Does peak David Robinson do better in his place? Yeah, probably, but is there anything there that makes me confident in a title? Not really, no, because simply lessening his scoring and creation burden does not in itself create postseason resilience (Tim Duncan is what does that).

As for your discussion of needing to perform "when asked to be a true lead", I'm personally not tied to needing to be a true lead on offense. He's clearly 1st option on defense, and was fine as a 1st option on offense but IMO would have been better as an offensive costar/1b. That's leader enough for me. Why? Well, Thinking Basketball estimates ~ 50% of NBA champions have a clear defensive first option and offensive costar. That seems like pretty common rate, absolutely beneficial to a championship team.

He had offensive co-stars until 1994, when you fell in love with him for generating massive impact numbers partially by not having any other reliable sources of offence. I do not think it is a coincidence that he had his worst series when he had the least help, but you are trying to have it both ways by praising him for doing everything in the regular season and then dismissing his failures to maintain at all in the postseason. Even with co-stars, his scoring still dipped (except against the no defence Run-TMC Warriors), so if we use that pre-1994 period, are you as enamoured of a player who loses effectiveness in the playoffs (albeit not as much as when he is asked to do everything) and does not have those giant impact numbers?

If you want me to not have it both ways, I'd shift to one of the points I made above... he absolutely has the regular season impact at his peak to be in this tier. Even if you think he'd lose some regular season value with a better team, his fantastic scalability (which is clear in film analysis and in his older playoff-metrics) would mean he'd lose less RS value than many other all-time floor-raising seasons.

still Bill Russell's probably the quintessential example.
Question for you: do you downgrade players who are this archetype vs an offensive 1st option who's a worse defender? In theory, this should make you lower on players like peak Russell, 67/72 Wilt, Walton, Garnett, young Hakeem without good passing, etc.

1. David Robinson is not Bill Russell. I mean, he is not any of these guys, but Bill Russell is a massive outlier. Robinson is nowhere near as valuable defensively, nowhere near as smart, nowhere near as good of a leader, nowhere near as reliable in the postseason… Sure, Bill Russell had a top ten peak despite not offering quantifiably all that much on offence (although he did have value). That does not mean any good defender with offence can lay claim to the same, because none of them ever came close to providing the proof of concept he did basically every year of his career.

2. Hakeem was always a fair first option. His issue was just creation. Like, if pre-1993 Hakeem is on the 1990 Spurs in place of Robinson, they probably beat the Blazers (it was close as is).

3. Although Wilt lessened his scoring load in 1967, he still had full ability to be a top three scorer in the league (and, you know, had been literally the season prior). For what it is worth, I am not totally sold on 1967 Wilt being clearly above 1964 Wilt… but it worked the best for him, so whatever. Regardless, Wilt is a good example of a top tier defender who can also hold up as a top scorer; as we know, David Robinson cannot be that in the postseason. If all we knew of Wilt started in 1967, then maybe I would have questions about his ability to handle a scoring load without Hal Greer and Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham and Jerry West, but that was not how it went.

4. If you want to ask whether I think peak Robinson is better than 1972 Wilt, yeah, I am more open to that, but I do not really see Robinson handling Kareem the way Wilt did, and I am not quite sure that in that era Robinson would be able to match Wilt’s efficiency even when scaling back. But sure, compared to a near retirement Wilt scoring like Mitchell Robinson, it can be a discussion.

5. Garnett is what Robinson fans think Robinson is.

6. Walton has elements of Russell to him in that I think he is a lot smarter than David Robinson and I can trust him more in the postseason. You talk about “atrocious fit” with David Robinson. Okay, what about Walton’s “fit”. How did most of the guys on that team fare in the following years without him? Robinson is a better scorer, absolutely. Does he elevate teammates the way Walton did? I would say no, while acknowledging that it is a small sample for Walton, it is impossible to prove for Robinson, and it is conceivable that the Blazers were a Bob Gross hot-streak and a Philadelphia structural edit (e.g. replacing George McGinnis with Bobby Jones or really anyone who could actually give them some legitimate off-ball value) away from being relatively forgotten.

7. Rather than trying to aim for the tier above, maybe you should be looking more at that Ewing/Mourning/Howard tier. There is no trap for me in you wanting him to be better than he actually is.

8. May as well flip this back on you: why so low on Draymond when he is an impact giant who elevates in the postseason (pretty consistently grading out above Curry) and lacks that oh so annoying scoring primacy.

LOL at the KG comment

I won't argue Robinson against all of those peaks (because I have many of them higher than Robinson too), but I'd just suggest that if Robinson fits into this archetype which clearly can fit so well on a playoff team, perhaps we should see some value in that. Sure, Robinson's the worse floor raiser in the playoffs (though worse than literal Top 10 Peaks ever does not mean bad enough to not take around 15), but in a ceiling-raising role I just can't see Robinson not having the crazy value that he actually showed when he was older.

For Draymond (and for the other high-impact "outlier" players like Manu, Baron Davis, and Ray Allen, Westbrook that you mentioned earlier), it comes down to how much each stat is measuring "value" (in a certain context) vs goodness (regardless of context). How replicable is Draymond's value in other situations? If we do think Draymond's value is highly replicable on lots of teams and in lots of contexts (particularly in contexts that are relevant for helping your team win championships)... then yes I do think we should consider having those players higher. But I don't see those players replicating as much value as they did in many other situations, for the same reasons most other people are skeptical. I do see Robinson's value being more replicable though... you mentioned that Duncan's not the ideal fit, and yet he still maintained Top 15 All-time impact in the playoffs. That to me suggests a certain replicability of value in the playoffs, provided he's playing a ceiling raising role on a sufficiently not-terrible team (so that his teammates can e.g. hit open shots when he's doubled).

As for your Karl Malone comment, he would definitely do better with Tim Duncan. To me, many of the people who the media crown as inherent "playoff chokers" can often be partially explained by situation. That's not to say nobody get's worse in the playoffs, just that supposed "playoff chokers" are often overblown. Karl Malone's biggest problem was that his offensive load was slightly higher than he was comfortable with, which became exploitable in the playoffs. And his team’s defense wasn’t a huge help. With a better scoring co-star and defensive anchor like Duncan, many of his key playoff issues would be solved. That said, Karl Malone's defense is clearly below Robinson's, and Malone never showed Robinson's regular season impact, or Robinson's playoff impact when Robinson had that favorable situation. So I don't see Karl Malone being as good as Robinson playing with Duncan.

“He did not play with Tim Duncan so I do not see him being as good with Tim Duncan.”
Malone’s offence was also clearly above Robinson’s, and while he may not have quite matched Robinson’s 1994-96 impact, his 1997 season was not too far off -- and then without a teammate anywhere near Tim Duncan, he still had significant postseason “impact” numbers and brought his team to the Finals twice (one of which nearly ended in a win). I never got the feeling David Robinson was just a Stockton away from a Finals run, but hey, Stockton had massive “impact” of his own, so maybe you disagree.

"He's not as good of a ceiling raiser as Robinson so I do not see him as being as good with Tim Duncan"

Rather than just say add Stockton to the spurs, which misses the massive offensive coaching advantage of the Jazz over the 94/95 Spurs and misses the clear shooting advantage of the Jazz (which is important to team resilience, since Robinson being double-teamed creates open shots), let me suggest a different hypothetical. Replace Karl Malone with Robinson on the Jazz. Do they still perform as well? To me, absolutely. Everything they'd lose on offense they'd gain on defense and then some. Robinson would fit with a shooter and great pick and role player like a glove. He never had any playmaker in the same galaxy as Stockton in his peak. Add teammates who can hit open shots, and yep, I see them at least getting to the finals twice

I'd love to hear a more in-depth argument for Malone's defense > Robinson's, at least in this small sample.

I am mostly being flippant past the assertion that Malone defended Robinson better than Robinson defended Malone and that Malone fulfilled his defensive responsibilities better than Robinson did.

Specifically -- do you have any film evidence (e.g. plays from highlights or film analysis from full games) to suggest that his man defense declined more than just a bad matchup, or that his general rim protection / team defense / help defense declined at all?

Yeah funny how many bad matchups there seem to be.
Do I have film evidence on hand demonstrably proving that Robinson was less effective in help situations than he was in an average regular season game? Shockingly, no. And these series are getting harder to find on Youtube (you can find some portions of Game 4 1994 at least). But I would be interested if you were to watch those series and apply a similar lens that you did to Giannis which would excuse weak contests and delayed recoveries. I am not trying to damn Robinson here, but when you make it a point to build an entire case around “impact” and that impact suddenly vanishes in a postseason scenario -- and much like we have seen with Rudy Gobert, it certainly did -- then that player deserves to take a hit. Of course, if we remove ourselves from this obsession with “impact”, it is easier to take the approach that David Robinson should not really be expected to be one of those defenders who can almost single-handedly shut down an offence. Just like he should not be expected to carry an offence. But if he is not doing either of those things, or coming all that close, what do all those giant “impact” numbers really have to offer.

Was it Robinson's best man-defense performance? Of course not. But 1) Man defense was never Robinson's greatest strength. Stats put him clearly below tier 1 (Robinson, Russell, Thurmond) in Tier 2 (Walton, Robinson, Wilt, ~Ewing) above Mutombo/Mourning (source: Hakeem's Greatest Peaks video, minute 19:37). Which is good, but not his greatest strength for being a Tier 1/2 All Tome defender.

I wonder how that would look if we focused on the playoffs.

Plus: 2) people are usually more accommodating with bad man matchups. To me, Robinson's greater strength is rim protection and team defense, which I personally saw less film evidence of declining in this small sample. And if we're worried about this being too small a sample, I haven't seen that much evidence that his defense declines in-era in larger samples. Now you might cite his man defense against Hakeem, but 1) that's also a bad man matchup.

That argument would work a lot better if Malone burned him but the rest of the team were slowed. It would be so nice if we could see something akin to the 1994 Nuggets out of David Robinson. Sadly, we never do (or at least, not during his prime).

and 2) there's pretty clearly extenuating circumstances, with the Spurs' second best defender actively rebelling against the defensive game plan and not aiding the Hakeem matchup either with man defense or help defense

Was Rodman also the reason the Jazz improved on their regular season offensive rating against them twice.

I'll post film analysis later, so won't reply to these for now

[falcolombardi]

I sometimes wonder how much higher we all would be on harden right now if chris paul doesnt pull his hamstring vs warriors or they dont go neptune cold in game 7

[tone wone]

I sometimes wonder how much higher we all would be on harden right now if chris paul doesnt pull his hamstring vs warriors or they dont go neptune cold in game 7

2017-2019 Harden is an absolute insane 3yr stretch that would be lionized if a title was won. An absolute workhorse. An absurd workload and kept getting better.

Horrible luck. He peaks individually and Houston as team during KD-GS years; which makes getting to the Finals an impossible task without a little luck. Their best team is utterly dominant when healthy but his co-star is Chris Paul so a playoff injury at the absolute worst time is always on the menu. Enter the 2018 WCFs.

Chris then suffers a major decline (at both ends) the following season so Houston cant even take advantage of Durants injury. In a series that should've been the WCFs but happened in the 2nd because Houston gagged a 15pt 4th qt lead in OKC on the last night of the reg. season which knocked them down to the 4 seed. So they get Durant for 4 1/2 games instead of Zero.

Its completely lost in void how great Harden was against GS in that 2019 series. 35/7/5 59ts%

[f4p]

I sometimes wonder how much higher we all would be on harden right now if chris paul doesnt pull his hamstring vs warriors or they dont go neptune cold in game 7

2017-2019 Harden is an absolute insane 3yr stretch that would be lionized if a title was won. An absolute workhorse. An absurd workload and kept getting better.

and plenty of people have 2020 harden as his best year (i have 2019 but it's close) and 2021 looked like a title if not for injuries. harden in the 2020 playoffs (against #7/#3 defenses):

27.5 PER, 63.6 TS%, 0.253 WS48, 9.4 BPM

here's a guy who has been getting peak votes since round 3 in the playoffs (against #24/#3/INC/#21):

27.1 PER, 65.9 TS%. 0.272 WS48, 9.7 BPM

Horrible luck. He peaks individually and Houston as team during KD-GS years; which makes getting to the Finals an impossible task without a little luck. Their best team is utterly dominant when healthy but his co-star is Chris Paul so a playoff injury at the absolute worst time is always on the menu. Enter the 2018 WCFs.

every time someone does the "i don't know if you can win with harden's style" routine, it's like what are you talking about? i'm not here to say he was the greatest player ever, but he was on a team that won 65 games and went 44-5 with a +11.0 SRS when he and CP3 actually played. and then that team went up 3-2 on maybe the most talented team ever. so yeah, i guess he can't win if he has arguably the toughest competition ever and his best teammate is in street clothes. everybody thinks lebron is pretty good and he got smoked 4-1, 4-0 against the same team.

Chris then suffers a major decline (at both ends) the following season so Houston cant even take advantage of Durants injury.

i loved CP3 on our team, but him not keeping himself in shape enough to help us win in a winnable year will always put a little dent in my enthusiasm for him. then he goes vegan and has a career revitalization right after. also, somehow feuding with harden enough for harden to want a divorce (and westbrook!!!) when harden spent the whole year carrying paul.

In a series that should've been the WCFs but happened in the 2nd because Houston gagged a 15pt 4th qt lead in OKC on the last night of the reg. season which knocked them down to the 4 seed. So they get Durant for 4 1/2 games instead of Zero.

with basically a buzzer beating 3 by paul george of all people. on a well contested, rushed shot. that went in with 1 second left, so if it misses that's game.

Its completely lost in void how great Harden was against GS in that 2019 series. 35/7/5 59ts%

yeah but he only had 35/8/5 in game 6 so obviously a complete choke job series. also gets lost how bad steph was in that series (draymond had a higher game score) while durant was scoring 35 ppg.

[AEnigma]

If scalability is about your team going -15 or -20 with you on the bench, I guess Lebron is more scalable than Jordan after all.

I will wait for your film analysis, but again this feels more like working backwards from what a number says. And talking about “athleticism declines” and “scalability issues” in the middle of primes is not helping matters. What matters is what is happening on the court — like I said, I will wait for your film review rather than going all in against a partial argument, but seeing a jump in “metrics” on a better team says absolutely nothing about what that player is actually doing better to see such a jump — or what he is doing that should comfortably distinguish him from what other players might do in a similar situation. And there sure as hell is nothing he is doing better while sitting on the bench!

If you want to say the Spurs being +12 when he is on the court in the postseason is a good scalability signal, sure. He was on a great team but certainly not one perfectly built around him, so the fact he can be +12 on-court with two partially overlapping bigs is pretty impressive (as I said, defence scales well, but his offensive game is still more accommodating than most centres), even with stipulations about bench staggering. But if the Spurs bench bigs were not totally incompetent when he sat, and they managed to just go -5 or something rather than -15 or -20, suddenly Robinson goes from “playoff impact god” to “pretty good but clustered around a bunch of other scalable secondary stars like Manu and Ray Allen”, without doing anything differently himself. Or maybe instead of the bench being better, he just gets harder matchups when his costar sits. None of this itself is real production, yet you keep acting as if it matters — to the point that you are legitimately suggesting 2001 Shaq had issues with scalability because he had a negative on/off that postseason. That is not what scalability means! And if you think that is what it means, then yeah, I guess it makes sense for you to treat Robinson as some scalability god, where he is so much of a “ceiling raiser” that the ceiling just immediately collapses when he is not there… but I also really do not believe you could possibly think that.

I mean, we can actually see this happen with Duncan! Negative postseason on/off in 1998 and 1999 (I imagine that is a big part of why you see Robinson as his equal or better). He improves as a player… and suddenly his on/off is hovering around +40, damn, what a leap! Did he figure out scalability? Or maybe did the rotations just change? I never said there was a rule that the team relies on you less as it gets better (should I call that a strawman?), and I never would say that because I know that reliance is substantially situational. Look at the 2013 Pacers. Weird how their starters all look like impact superstars, right? Can you figure out what approach they took with their rotations?

I do not really care about Robinson votes in themselves, despite how it may seem. As you said, the top top guys are off the board. So now we are comparing him with injury-prone small sample Walton, playoff defensive liability (en route to consistent negative postseason on/offs…) Jokic, and a bunch of varyingly ball dominant guards and wings. Moses too, I guess — honestly surprised that his regular season on/off plus individual postseason elevation plus teammate elevation in the regular season plus a +20 on/off in 1985 has not caught your attention more, with how “scalable” that should look. But is there any way to do that with total confidence? No, not really, so even if I have issues trusting him in what I would see as a reasonably typical postseason scenario, that lack of trust is ultimately an impossible hypothetical in much the same way it is impossible to say whether Karl Malone and his superior scoring and passing profile would have benefitted Tim Duncan more than David Robinson did, or whether David Robinson’s defence would be enough to make up for the decline in offensive production if he were occupying Karl Malone’s relative place on the Jazz.

What I do take issue with is the approach that because Robinson’s teams were bad when he was off the court, that inherently means he is all-time amazing almost regardless of any production for which he is individually responsible. That is nonsensical, yet you keep starting off with that approach.

[ceoofkobefans]

2020 harden peaked higher than 09 wade/08 Kobe

How? Harden > wade offensively sure but wade is significantly better defensively and I don’t see how the O gap overcomes that unless you think harden is like a fringe t5 offensive player and harden vs Kobe is just silly to me personally Kobe is better on O and D pretty clearly

based on what stats

Based on what stats what + Film tells you this.

[trex_8063]

I also wonder if his D gets underrated at times too (at least when people label him a "weak" or "bad" defender).

When I watch Jokic, I see a guy with a reasonably decent defensive IQ, and passable effort. He lacks good lateral quickness or recovery speed, he lacks explosive leaping ability, he doesn't have Gobert's length, his rim protecting positioning [mostly with where he has his arms, imo] could be a little better. But his awareness and footwork......those are pretty good, imo.

So overall, idk......I just think his defensive short-comings are overstated sometimes.

**Noticeable gap to anyone else for me, considering nearly everyone else I maybe considered sort of close have already been voted in. I feel we're already edging toward late for both of these guys, and in particular don't know how one could justify a sizable gap between Giannis and Jokic, given Jokic has---by all appearances---been shredding a league that contains peak/near-peak Giannis for the last couple years.

Might help if he were not getting shredded in kind every postseason. 118 defensive rating for his playoff career, tough to do much of anything like that.

I'd be cautious on saying "he" is getting "shredded" (defensively), and instead note that "they" are getting shredded. I'd also want to be at least a little cautious about placing too much emphasis on non-peak [separated by more than a year in particular] seasons within the context of a peaks project.

And lastly (although I took to the time to respond to criticism of his defense [a little] in my original post), we should likely not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of his value comes on offense. So criticisms of his defense need be both valid and substantial [or even extreme?] to rule him out at this stage.

e.g. Should Magic not have been voted in the top 10 because he was mediocre on defense?
Not saying Jokic = Magic on offense. But we're five places farther on, and I don't think they're so far separated that Jokic is squinting at Magic in the far distance.
Jokic's scoring----rate, volume, and efficiency all considered----is above and beyond what Magic ever did. And it's not as though anyone is setting the table for him on a regular basis; that's largely him creating for himself. And then he's also the primary creator for others (even functioning as a "point-center" at times, bringing the ball up), the literal hub of everything for their +2.5 rORTG 6th-rated offense (which became marginally BETTER in their one playoff series, despite facing the #1 [tied] defense in the league). His most relevant offensive help were Aaron Gordon, Will Barton, and Monte Morris.

How many offensive hubs in history do better with that help?
Not many; and no one does much better with it.


That said, I wanted to take a look at the statement [year-by-year] for my own education; below is sort thinking out loud as I look at it.....

'19
Spurs managed a 113.0 ORtg against Denver, which is also exactly even with their rs [112.9] standard. In the second round, the held to Blazers to a -1.5 ORtg relative to the Blazer's rs standard. Each was a 7-game series.
So the Nuggets performed as a -0.7 rDRTG [relative to opponent faced] overall. Not bad. They'd been a slightly better -1.5 rDRTG [10th-rated, again being very good [8th] in DREB%, and middle of the pack in everything else] during the rs.

Opponent had very good TOV% in both series's, and somewhat better than usual OREB%, too. But on the flip-side, they both suffered significant drops in eFG% [both 2pt% and 3pt% to blame; probably slighlty more blame on low 2pt%], as well as slight downward shifts in their FTAr.
In neither series did the primary C have a great showing (Aldridge a slightly down series, actually).
Make of all this what you will (neither the Nuggets, nor specifically Jokic, got shredded here, imo).


'20
1st round: yeah, the Jazz went off, with an ORtg +11.0 to their rs standard (the Nuggets were a +0.4 rORTG during the rs; so they were more than +10 worse than rs standard).
Worth noting, however, that the Jazz [Mitchell and Conley, in particular] were shooting a blistering 42.1% from 3pt range on 37.3 att/game. With the C rotation of Gobert/Bradley, it was never Jokic's man shooting outside [or even drawing Jokic out]; so I don't think much of that circumstance can be laid at his feet. The hot shooting from 3pt [above their already league-leading rs standard] alone accounts for about +4.5 or so jump to their ORtg. Marginally hot 2pt shooting and a lower than usual TOV% appear to account for the rest of the jump. fwiw, Gobert did not have a good offensive series.

2nd round: The Clippers were the 2nd-rated 113.9 ORtg in the rs, but were held to 110.1 against the Nuggets. So relative to opponent faced, the Nuggets obviously performed very well defensively and were -4.2 relative to their rs standard. Definitely not shredded that time, though.
(Side-note: the '20 Clippers was one of the more notable collapses/disappointments in terms of outcome vs talent in recent memory, for me at least. Teams like the '13 Lakers came to mind at the time. Kawhi + PG13, the 6MOY, and arguably the deepest bench in the league, too.......I expected the Finals [if not a title] for them.

WCF: yeah, here they got shredded a bit, by the eventual champions. Lakers were +6.1 to their rs standard. This came almost entirely by way of being ridiculously hot insde the arc (58.7% from 2pt range in the series). I think you yourself commented previously how Davis's mid-range shooting in the series was likely unsustainable.
So overall the Nuggets were about +4 to their rs standard in these playoffs.


'21
1st round: the Blazers were smoking, +4.3 relative to their already-impressive rs standard. The Nuggets were a -0.2 rDRTG in the rs, so they were +4.5 dip from expectation in this series.
Blazers were pretty hot from 3pt, though: 41.3% on 39.2 att (they were near top of the league at 38.5% on 40.8 att in the rs). They were a little hot from 2pt range, too. Hard to say if Nurkic had a good series; he kinda did relative to his full rs standard that year. But you'll recall he was back from injury and had been sort of getting warm/in-rhythm later in the year. For example, in the last 7 games of the rs he'd averaged 14.6 ppg @ 57% TS, 10.7 rpg, and 4.1 apg (and only 1.7 topg). Compared to that, he did NOT have a good series.
2nd round: The Suns were +6.1 to their rs standard. Again, hot 3pt shooting appears to be the primary factor here [Suns were a blistering 42.5% [nearly 5% better than in rs, though on slightly reduced attempts]. None of those attempts were taken by Jokic's primary charge: Ayton. Ayton did not have a good offensive series by his standard.
Overall, yeah, the Nuggets defense kinda got slapped in the playoffs that year; just not sure how much can be laid on Jokic specifically. Sure, a legit GOOD defensive anchor at C would likely have achieved better results. But as noted above, it's the OFFENSE that Jokic anchors (well......in '22 he arguably more or less did anchor the defense, too, though you'll not be better than mediocre defensively if he's your anchor).


'22
Warriors were +10.6 to their rs standard on offense in this series; Nuggets were a +0.1 rDRTG during rs, so this is +10.5 to their rs standard. Definitely not good (you could even say "shredded").
**Some mitigating factors worth noting: Klay Thompson was only around for about 40% of that rs standard we're measuring against. Draymond [primary facilitator] also missed about 45% of the year. Hell, even Steph Curry missed 18 games of that sample.

So it's a little difficult to say exactly what expectation of their full-strength roster should be (but probably decidedly better than the 112.5 ORtg they had overall for the rs).
Hot shooting from both 2pt and 3pt range appears to account for GS's hot performance: 42.2% from trey, though on slightly reduced attempts. And then a wicked [probably unsustainable] 58.8% from 2pt range.
The C's for GS were not contributing much to this, however (lot of small-ball where Draymond or OPJ was the biggest Warrior on the court). Warriors were held to an extremely low OREB%, fwiw.

idk.....obv the Denver defense performed not well here; but it's a difficult one to assess with the line-up noise [related to rs], the hot-shooting [unsustainable?], etc.

Anyway.....this was just a rambling assessment 'cause I got curious. Do with it what you will.

[falcolombardi]

I also wonder if his D gets underrated at times too (at least when people label him a "weak" or "bad" defender).

When I watch Jokic, I see a guy with a reasonably decent defensive IQ, and passable effort. He lacks good lateral quickness or recovery speed, he lacks explosive leaping ability, he doesn't have Gobert's length, his rim protecting positioning [mostly with where he has his arms, imo] could be a little better. But his awareness and footwork......those are pretty good, imo.

So overall, idk......I just think his defensive short-comings are overstated sometimes.

**Noticeable gap to anyone else for me, considering nearly everyone else I maybe considered sort of close have already been voted in. I feel we're already edging toward late for both of these guys, and in particular don't know how one could justify a sizable gap between Giannis and Jokic, given Jokic has---by all appearances---been shredding a league that contains peak/near-peak Giannis for the last couple years.

Might help if he were not getting shredded in kind every postseason. 118 defensive rating for his playoff career, tough to do much of anything like that.

I'd be cautious on saying "he" is getting "shredded" (defensively), and instead note that "they" are getting shredded. I'd also want to be at least a little cautious about placing too much emphasis on non-peak [separated by more than a year in particular] seasons within the context of a peaks project.

And lastly (although I took to the time to respond to criticism of his defense [a little] in my original post), we should likely not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of his value comes on offense. So criticisms of his defense need be both valid and substantial [or even extreme?] to rule him out at this stage.

e.g. Should Magic not have been voted in the top 10 because he was mediocre on defense?
Not saying Jokic = Magic on offense. But we're five places farther on, and I don't think they're so far separated that Jokic is squinting at Magic in the far distance.
Jokic's scoring----rate, volume, and efficiency all considered----is above and beyond what Magic ever did. And it's not as though anyone is setting the table for him on a regular basis; that's largely him creating for himself. And then he's also the primary creator for others (even functioning as a "point-center" at times, bringing the ball up), the literal hub of everything for their +2.5 rORTG 6th-rated offense (which became marginally BETTER in their one playoff series, despite facing the #1 [tied] defense in the league). His most relevant offensive help were Aaron Gordon, Will Barton, and Monte Morris.

How many offensive hubs in history do better with that help?
Not many; and no one does much better with it.


That said, I wanted to take a look at the statement [year-by-year] for my own education; below is sort thinking out loud as I look at it.....

'19
Spurs managed a 113.0 ORtg against Denver, which is also exactly even with their rs [112.9] standard. In the second round, the held to Blazers to a -1.5 ORtg relative to the Blazer's rs standard. Each was a 7-game series.
So the Nuggets performed as a -0.7 rDRTG [relative to opponent faced] overall. Not bad. They'd been a slightly better -1.5 rDRTG [10th-rated, again being very good [8th] in DREB%, and middle of the pack in everything else] during the rs.

Opponent had very good TOV% in both series's, and somewhat better than usual OREB%, too. But on the flip-side, they both suffered significant drops in eFG% [both 2pt% and 3pt% to blame; probably slighlty more blame on low 2pt%], as well as slight downward shifts in their FTAr.
In neither series did the primary C have a great showing (Aldridge a slightly down series, actually).
Make of all this what you will (neither the Nuggets, nor specifically Jokic, got shredded here, imo).


'20
1st round: yeah, the Jazz went off, with an ORtg +11.0 to their rs standard (the Nuggets were a +0.4 rORTG during the rs; so they were more than +10 worse than rs standard).
Worth noting, however, that the Jazz [Mitchell and Conley, in particular] were shooting a blistering 42.1% from 3pt range on 37.3 att/game. With the C rotation of Gobert/Bradley, it was never Jokic's man shooting outside [or even drawing Jokic out]; so I don't think much of that circumstance can be laid at his feet. The hot shooting from 3pt [above their already league-leading rs standard] alone accounts for about +4.5 or so jump to their ORtg. Marginally hot 2pt shooting and a lower than usual TOV% appear to account for the rest of the jump. fwiw, Gobert did not have a good offensive series.

2nd round: The Clippers were the 2nd-rated 113.9 ORtg in the rs, but were held to 110.1 against the Nuggets. So relative to opponent faced, the Nuggets obviously performed very well defensively and were -4.2 relative to their rs standard. Definitely not shredded that time, though.
(Side-note: the '20 Clippers was one of the more notable collapses/disappointments in terms of outcome vs talent in recent memory, for me at least. Teams like the '13 Lakers came to mind at the time. Kawhi + PG13, the 6MOY, and arguably the deepest bench in the league, too.......I expected the Finals [if not a title] for them.

WCF: yeah, here they got shredded a bit, by the eventual champions. Lakers were +6.1 to their rs standard. This came almost entirely by way of being ridiculously hot insde the arc (58.7% from 2pt range in the series). I think you yourself commented previously how Davis's mid-range shooting in the series was likely unsustainable.
So overall the Nuggets were about +4 to their rs standard in these playoffs.


'21
1st round: the Blazers were smoking, +4.3 relative to their already-impressive rs standard. The Nuggets were a -0.2 rDRTG in the rs, so they were +4.5 dip from expectation in this series.
Blazers were pretty hot from 3pt, though: 41.3% on 39.2 att (they were near top of the league at 38.5% on 40.8 att in the rs). They were a little hot from 2pt range, too. Hard to say if Nurkic had a good series; he kinda did relative to his full rs standard that year. But you'll recall he was back from injury and had been sort of getting warm/in-rhythm later in the year. For example, in the last 7 games of the rs he'd averaged 14.6 ppg @ 57% TS, 10.7 rpg, and 4.1 apg (and only 1.7 topg). Compared to that, he did NOT have a good series.
2nd round: The Suns were +6.1 to their rs standard. Again, hot 3pt shooting appears to be the primary factor here [Suns were a blistering 42.5% [nearly 5% better than in rs, though on slightly reduced attempts]. None of those attempts were taken by Jokic's primary charge: Ayton. Ayton did not have a good offensive series by his standard.
Overall, yeah, the Nuggets defense kinda got slapped in the playoffs that year; just not sure how much can be laid on Jokic specifically. Sure, a legit GOOD defensive anchor at C would likely have achieved better results. But as noted above, it's the OFFENSE that Jokic anchors (well......in '22 he arguably more or less did anchor the defense, too, though you'll not be better than mediocre defensively if he's your anchor).


'22
Warriors were +10.6 to their rs standard on offense in this series; Nuggets were a +0.1 rDRTG during rs, so this is +10.5 to their rs standard. Definitely not good (you could even say "shredded").
**Some mitigating factors worth noting: Klay Thompson was only around for about 40% of that rs standard we're measuring against. Draymond [primary facilitator] also missed about 45% of the year. Hell, even Steph Curry missed 18 games of that sample.

So it's a little difficult to say exactly what expectation of their full-strength roster should be (but probably decidedly better than the 112.5 ORtg they had overall for the rs).
Hot shooting from both 2pt and 3pt range appears to account for GS's hot performance: 42.2% from trey, though on slightly reduced attempts. And then a wicked [probably unsustainable] 58.8% from 2pt range.
The C's for GS were not contributing much to this, however (lot of small-ball where Draymond or OPJ was the biggest Warrior on the court). Warriors were held to an extremely low OREB%, fwiw.

idk.....obv the Denver defense performed not well here; but it's a difficult one to assess with the line-up noise [related to rs], the hot-shooting [unsustainable?], etc.

Anyway.....this was just a rambling assessment 'cause I got curious. Do with it what you will.

I have a bit of an issue here

You suggest here that denver defense struggling cause the other team was great from 3 means jokic cannot be blamed but also suggest that other teams shooting hot from 2 and the paint cannot be blamed on jokic either

This doesnt really compute for me. Sure, there is nothingh wrong (even in this era) with a center whose primary concer is closing the paint at the expense of the perimeter. Brook lopez does exactlt that and bucks are in a historic (and undertalked) playoffs defensive run

Even the much maligned playoffs gobert can say he shuts down the paint and opposite team inside scoring volume and efficiency in the paint. So even if he cannot do much to stop the jazz perimeter from getting shredded you can say he is doing his role more than well enough

That doesnt apply to jokic

Because if jokic is not disrupting the other teams pick and roll or 3 point shooting but ALSO not stopping the paint scoring then. Jokic is a great defensive rebounder but even in regular season his fg% allowed at the rim is pretty bad

That is not necesarrily jokic fault if he was out there disrupting everythingh at the 3-point line adebayo style. But if he is not doing that and still has bad field goal percentage and volume allowed at the paint his prinary responsability defensively? Well THAT is more worrisome and worth looking into

Also a rival 3 point shooting percentage is not necessarrily unrelated to a center defense.

A strong deterrent inside lets his perimeter teammatez take more risks defending the 3 pointer as they know they have a great backline defender as second line of protection

A great big defender in space like draymond or adebayo can stop pick and roll or mismatch advantages in the perimeter from happening

If jokic is not doing either theb that would be an issue.

It would be one thingh if denver was getting shredded from 3 but lockind down the paint as a trade-off (what bucks do with lopez) but that doesnt seem to be hapening

Now jokic -doesnt- have a giannis or a jrue or even a middleton to help. So is possible that if you but jokic on the bucks in brook place then milwaukee Would have jokic looking like a great defender. (Alongside with going like 80-2 to a title)

So once we see (hopefully) jokic in a more capable defender roster we will see him look like someoke who can play a big defensive role for a strong defensive team

But until that happens those concerns with jokic remain

[trex_8063]

I have a bit of an issue here

You suggest here that denver defense struggling cause the other team was great from 3 means jokic cannot be blamed but also suggest that other teams shooting hot from 2 and the paint cannot be blamed on jokic either

Did I?

I just went back and looked; I don't see where I said that, nor even where I implied it (except where I noted his primary covers did not have great series's).
I guess also implied that in a couple of series's ('20 vs Lakers, '22 vs GSW) the 2pt shooting probably isn't sustainable over long samples. I mean, I still think that's a true statement: even if those teams played Jokic and the Nuggets for 82 games, 59% long-term is not realistic.

I otherwise just noted any hot 2pt shooting, and just let the statement lay. And I sort of assumed he'd get some blame for that.
fwiw, hot 2pt shooting was less frequent than hot 3pt shooting by Nugget opponents.

I agree the C can play more of a role in 3pt defense (have argued this where Gobert is concerned, as Jazz perimeter defenders have often been deployed to chase shooters off the line, because Rudy's got their backs). I'm saying that this is a scheme that Denver, specifically, has never employed with Jokic [for good reason--->he's not enough of a rim protector].

I suppose you could say that if Jokic was a more relevant rim-protector, they COULD have switched to this and their 3pt defense would be better......except they know their interior defense would worsen by an even larger amount.

But his lack of involvement in 3pt defense [unless it's specifically his man who's shooting] is not a new or sudden thing in these series's where the hot 3pt shooting occurred. It's not something they were doing in the rs and then suddenly stopped because Jokic was getting torched by penetrators. They NEVER employed this type of scheming to my knowledge.

And the sudden upsurge in 3pt accuracy I noted in those series's were improvements FAR beyond what Denver typically allows, or what those teams typically shoot (likely flukey hot small samples, is what I'm basically saying; +/- some degree of failure by the perimeter D [which Jokic is---as we've just established---not a frequent component of]).

That's all I'm suggesting wrt outside shooting.
Fair enough with regards to the inside shooting; I didn't mean to overly imply otherwise (except to things previously noted).

[Ron Swanson]

Will elaborate more in my vote once I have more time, but thought it prudent to address Jokic's defensive issues. I'm pretty high on Jokic's peak and plan to cast my vote for him soon, but we now have a pretty damning sample size of 3 consecutive postseasons that show Denver's defense is not only bad with Jokic on the court (119.0, 124.7, 125.4 Def-RTG ON), but substantially worse (-5.1, -3.3, -11.1). It's not all on him of course, but it's to the point where I'd question if you can ever build a good playoff defense around him considering how important the Center position is defensively.