RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #2 (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)

lessthanjake · Post #101 » by **lessthanjake** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 12:53 am

I think both sets of people are right to an extent with Duncan.

Duncan was absolutely drafted to an incredible situation. Almost every #1 pick is drafted to a terrible team. Duncan got drafted to a team that had averaged 55 wins a year in a seven-year span and then had their biggest star get injured for a season, resulting in them getting the #1 pick. So he was drafted to a team where winning a title almost immediately was a very strong possibility—and indeed probably fairly likely. Which is what happened in the 1998-1999 season.

At the same time, that incredible situation didn’t last all that long. David Robinson declined fairly quickly, and by the time 2002-2003 came around, Robinson was basically just a good role player. At that point, I’m not sure we can really say Tim Duncan was in a good situation at all. And he came through with a massive season/playoffs and won a title.

After that, I think the tide eventually turns to it being a a good situation but not an abnormally good situation, as Parker and Manu developed. The fact that the Spurs got those two guys while continuously doing well as a team was pretty remarkable. But at the same time, once you get 8-10 years into a great player’s career, it’s not very uncommon for them to have ended up with really good teammates, and I wouldn’t say Parker and Ginobili are abnormally good by those standards. And Duncan did manage to get two titles during this time period.

And then I think in Duncan’s later years, he was a bit lucky, since the team was able to form a great team around him even in his declined state—getting a player like Kawhi and just a very good set of role players, such that they could be incredibly good (and win a title) even when Duncan’s influence had waned a great deal.

So, I guess the way I think about it is that Duncan was lucky to be in a position to win a title in 1998-1999 and 2013-2014 (as well as to just be on a really good team in those very early and very late years). But I don’t think he was particularly lucky in the in-between years. He had a good team, a great organization, and a great coach, but I don’t think it was abnormally good. And he did manage to win three titles in those years—with 2002-2003 being the most impressive, on a team that really was not that strong. So I think we can see the context that Duncan was a beneficiary of a great organization but that he also achieved great success with that team at times where I don’t think we could say he was more advantaged than many other all-time greats were (and in certain cases was almost certainly *less* advantaged).

ShaqAttac · Post #102 » by **ShaqAttac** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 1:03 am

Anyway i guess imma vote now.

1. Bill Russell
I'll just copy n paste:

ShaqAttac wrote:Eni cookin, but ill try and do my best. I aint ever write this muuch but imma try to format proper like ppl tell me too.

I know we aint votin on em all, but imma list the 6 players who i think should get noms first

1 Russ, will say more down under
2 Mikan, will say more down under
3 Bron, Nukes every1 but russ n cap in "Impact", crazy longetvity, plays in way better league, apm goes craaazy
4 Cap, Crazzy longetvity, also better in "impact" for his peak than every1 but bron n russ from what im seein, was awesome before he even entereed nba
5. Timmy D, always on a good team, all-time carry job in 03, all-time leadeer who took paycuts to help antonio win, n honestly, was prob the best player of the 2000's, I thought shaq was 1 but i cant argue with da facts.
6. Dream, I know its crazy soundin, but I think he got a good arg here from what im seein. same rs impaact, n went nova in the pos. Eni n KD make really goood points so ill let em d up. basically tho his "impact' In rs is comp and he gets way better in the yoffs. He also carried meh help to b2b chips while MJ literallly only won with an uberduper superteam. Unless im missin sumthn MJ would be the only nom whose never won without a deathsquad.

VOTE BILL RUSSELL
this is p easy. He won 11 rings as the best player by faar and was so good ppl been strugglin hard to come up with any kinda arg against the season when he was bout to retire. Man literally crusshes superteams with bad help n was also the coach. He also was facin craazy comp
ut this doesn't mean anything of itself. For the KD parallel to work, the Celtics need to be great(relative to the comp) without Russell. Nothing suggests this is true beyond the Celtics first few titles(i listed the different stuff in my previous post). Crucially everything we have suggests the opposite was true in 1969, and here the competition is far better than "not weak".

Assuming you are not trying to break era-relativity, here are 3-ways we can look at opposition strength
1. Look at how the teams look relative to the league for the era(bullets and knicks are outliers by srs, Lakers are close)
2. Look at how the comp was relative to the league that season(Celtics beat the best, 2nd best and 4th best opponent they could have had by SRS)
3. Look at how the comp was in surrounding seasons(Knicks SRS doubles en-route to a championship the following year, Bullets and Lakers srs drops but they take the Knicks to 7 and LA win a championship and make 3 finals)

By any of these approaches the Celtics faced an all-time difficult gauntlet and there is absolutely nothing to suggest the Celtics were some stacked super-squad. "Competition" is not a serious argument here. Bill went through just about the hardest possible route, with weak support, in a year where the best teams were unusually good. Not sure how that doesn't get him to a tier 1(era-relative) peak unless you arbitrarily decide to curve 1969 down to what feels reasonable without scaling the other title-winning years up.

Idrg how u can arg against a guy who won way more than every1 and also won with less help. Team went bitw to bad without him when he was supposed to be waashed. If you got him low coz the league sucked i get you. But ppl sayin they era-relative and not havin russ 1 is cap. He only ever lost when hurt and he stay winnin even when his teammates sucked facin the death-star. Ez 1 for me.

Like i said. I waant to vote Mikan but since hes not gonna get in I'll vote
2. KAREEEM

Again. Ill just c and p since this arg was pretty goood:

OhayoKD wrote:I'll
penbeast0 wrote:
Additionally, while we can't really extrapolate cast estimates the same way we did with 77 and 88, from what is there, I'd say there's more to suggest Jordan was advantaged in terms of help. Now maybe that isn't convincing for you, but that's okay. Because Kareem Abdul Jabbar gets better.

See the thing about the triangle was it wasn't about getting Jordan to do more. If 90/91 MJ was a better player than 88 or 89 MJ, it wasn't because he was out there impacting the game in more ways. It's because he was more effective in a scaled-down, specialized role. The box-score only tracks the ends of possessions. It does not track Jordan facing way less doubles. It does not track Jordan making less plays at the perimeter than Scottie, nor does it track him being less involved in the full-court presses.

Usage rate measures assists(the pass before a shot) and shots, it does not track who is handling the ball and who is floating off-ball where it's very hard to double because of illegal-d. Jordan was, in a raw sense, doing less. There was a trade-off between effeciency and volume even if you don't put it down to help and competition.

From 71 to 72 Kareem also improved his efficiency. But more impressively, he improved his efficiency(scoring specifically maintained) while scaling up what he was actually doing. You know who was seeing their efficiency drop as well as their volume? Oscar Robertson. Injuries started him on the road to decline and yet...
72 Bucks
Overall SRS: +12.34, Standard Deviations: +1.83, Lost in Conference Finals (Preseason X)

PG: Oscar Robertson, 0.167 / 0.134
SG: Lucius Allen, 0.157 / 0.162
SF: Bob Dandridge, 0.148 / 0.185
PF: Curtis Perry, 0.047 / 0.152
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 0.340 / 0.147
6th: Jon McGlocklin, 0.126 / 0.054
7th: Wali Jones, 0.050 / 0.118

#60. The 1990 Detroit Pistons
[spoiler]Overall SRS: +8.61, Standard Deviations: +1.70, Won NBA Finals

Regular Season Record: 59-23, Regular Season SRS: +5.41 (80th), Earned the 1 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +1.8 (80th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -4.6 (31st)

#20. The 1972 Los Angeles Lakers
Spoiler:
Overall SRS: +11.77, Standard Deviations: +1.75, Won NBA Finals (Preseason X)

PG: Jerry West, 0.216 / 0.078
SG: Gail Goodrich, 0.194 / 0.166
SF: Jim McMillian, 0.123 / 0.111
PF: Happy Hairston, 0.161 / 0.148
C: Wilt Chamberlain, 0.219 / 0.2

San's srs does not account for health, but healthy the Bucks were better in 72 than they were in 71. In the games Oscar missed, they won at a 62-win pace. In the postseason, with Oscar hobbled(averaging 4 ppg less than he did in the regular season) they got better jumping to +14 while outscoring the 1972 Lakers who rank better than the 1990 Pistons(outscored the Bulls by 3ppg) with Kareem going the **** off.

If 1971 Kareem is not better than any Micheal, I humbly posit that 1972 Kareem is.

Or, put another way. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, at least by "winning", is a better floor-raiser and Ceiling-Raiser than Micheal Jeffrey Jordan.

Does that seem crazy? Well it does to me, and that's why I'm voting him #2(wins the same tie-breaker vs Bill, Lebron did). The "longetvity" is a bonus, but it's the symptom not the cause. The main reason Kareem lasted longer was because he was better. From the start, at the end, and at his apex, Kareem Abdul Jabbar earned the right to be considered the second greatest player of all-time.

One last note
Dooley wrote:Quick first thoughts on the current nominee pool (in my rough current mental order) and potential next nominees

Michael Jordan - I voted for him last thread; will probably vote for him again. Crazy offensive production and box-score numbers, more impact on how his team's offenses operated than the big man candidates by virtue of being a two-way player, great all-around game, arguably the single best peak of all time, etc. What would change my mind on Jordan would be evidence that his scoring is less valuable than I think.

I believe you've specifically focused on how scoring makes teams more reselient in the postseason. With that in mind, here's something to consider.

Looking at team-wide improvement, the best playoff-riser of the 80's/90's was arguably not Jordan, but Hakeem. He beat a team with a higher-scoring srseq than any of Jordan's triumphs(86 Lakers), he had the most wins as an underdog, and the highest underdog win% of any MVP before Lebron came around.

Hakeem was, like Jordan, someone who saw their scoring go up in the postseason. But he was also, unlike Jordan, a two-way anchor who led great defenses largely on his ability to protect the paint. Lebron James, whose seen the biggest team-wide jumps of anyone was also a two-way anchor who upped his scoring.

In 1977 Kareem upped his scoring by 8-points by seeing his effeciency spike by 4-points in what is maybe the best example of scoring elevation in playoff history. He also was a excellent defensive anchor.

Food for thought

Kareem's impaact higher, his peaks better, his longetvity better and he also won 6 chips. I didnt realize 71 mil was so good but i dont think mj's got a good arg. espec. if kareems got more PORT too. Since most people here seem to have mj peaakin higher it would be neat to see someone defend mjs "peak".

I will nominate Hakeem. I think pf and kd made a great arg for him as a po stud and the "impact" says he was as good as mike in the rs so maybe he should be getting more votes.

i'm also gonna try to cut down on the slang for this project since people been askin.

Post #103 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 1:10 am

The Kareem argument wasn't mine.

One_and_Done · Post #104 » by **One_and_Done** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 1:21 am

Kareem leading with 6 votes out of 15 so far. I assume if no candidate has a majority then we go to preferences? Or can you win with a plurality, and 2nd preferences only matter for a tie?

OhayoKD · Post #105 » by **OhayoKD** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 1:59 am

penbeast0 wrote:The Kareem argument wasn't mine.

I think that was an accident. The "I" is a bit of a giveaway :lol:

Dr Positivity · Post #106 » by **Dr Positivity** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 2:20 am

In regards to Russell

On one hand, I can't even comprehend how a team could be that dominant without the best player in the league hands down. Who wins 8 titles in a row? Nobody else has done 4 in the NBA, they always break down after three at most. In other sports not teams like the Yankees and Canadiens, they top out at 5x in a row dynasties. Their best stretches are 12 in 18 for the Yankees and 10 of 15 for the Canadiens, and those had legit throwaway seasons in those losing years, while the 58 Celtics/67 Celtics had great results also. The Celtics faced the exact existential crisis that prevents all dynasties from going too long, which is eventually teams have to retool with younger less banged up players leading to a transition period like 08-12 Spurs even if they re-emerge later, but they managed to keep winning after Cousy, Heinsohn and Ramsey. The Celtics had the deepest and best coached team in the league, but unless you have someone that dominant, NBA history says you literally CAN'T dominate that much. There is simply no UNIVERSE where the Bad Boy Pistons win 8 titles in a row, they proved why as despite their 2 valiant non superstar titles, they also took some Ls to Bird, Magic, Jordan before and after those years, likewise the 00s version of the Pistons after their title they immediately lost a bunch of times to Duncan/Lebron/Wade/KG. But best comp is probably the 70s Celtics who were also a contender with a great, MVP winner C, but not quite a top 10/20 type guy, and they continued to be a well coached, deep team with some of the same players as the 60s ones, including literally the same guy that was the 2nd most important player on mid-late 60s Celtics (no disrespect to Sam Jones). Like the 60s Celtics, they were smarter than the rest of the league strategy wise with ahead of its time defensive switching. However, the results ended up being a relatively normal, 2x title team, they lost several times to teams not even close to all time greats (72 Lucas instead of Reed Knicks, 75 Bullets who got swept in finals by a one star team), and unlike the Russell teams, they died off as soon as they got old. It seems logical to suggest Russell has to be > Cowens by a lot, despite the fact that Cowens has better offensive stats than Russell, and the way Cowens played D (original KG/Draymond style?) has traditionally been underrated compared to blocking a lot of shots, especially in the pre advanced stats era.

I respect the fact that the voters gave Russell more regular season MVPs than Wilt when that was supposed to be the latter's realm, and that in 1980 on the silver anniversary list they voted Russell GOAT, it was enough time that they could have jumped on Kareem as GOAT. All signs are that they viewed Russell vs Wilt at the time like Brady vs a Manning/Rodgers hybrid (Manning for the losses to Russell and seeming less clutch than him, Rodgers for the weird personality).

All of this sounds great. However, I have a confession to make, it's something that conflicts me in regards to him. I just don't like the eye test for Russell that much. Walton's D in 77 finals stands out more to me. Blackmill went on a limb a few years ago talking about it, and I always remembered it cause a part of me thought he wasn't crazy. Now the footage for Russell is limited and driven by the older version, and maybe he plays differently against Wilt. It's possible the league did improve a lot from late 60s to 77 finals. I did see how the other teams intentionally avoid him on D. Still, I never got the Holy Sht feeling that you would expect for the BY FAR best defender ever to the point where he could be number 1 all time with comparatively weak offensive stats (I will say the eye test is probably better for Russell doing things on offense than his numbers). The only clip where it really felt "right" was watching this Royals clip - but it's just a highlights. Still, you can see the special defensive athleticism.

Watch on YouTube

Now if you removed the EXTREMME level of success, like Russian skywalker clips level of extreme, you could make a plausible case that the media and league got wowed by the crazy blocked shots which is something they continue to do today for blk shot driven defenders like Ibaka over subtle ones like Marc Gasol, and likewise, players like Sanders and Havlicek could have been underrated on D compared to him,. Except for the reasons I laid out, I think it may actually be impossible this is the case, to have THE dominant pro sports dynasty and to repeatedly beat all those elite level offensive players, and to keep doing it with turnover and age, to still be good enough when he's not even in his prime to beat 68 Sixers, 69 Knicks and 69 Lakers? Overall, it doesn't add up, as I said before, he has to be way better than Cowens, the 70s Celtics situation is not that much worse than what Russell had around him, yes it's a little worse (White worse than Jones, depth dies after the top 6 guys or so, albeit the 4th-6th ones like Silas, Westphal, Nelson are pretty nice) but this is also a league thinned out by more teams and ABA, their competition is worse than the mid 60s teams too, eg. look who Celtics had to beat in 76.

eminence · Post #107 » by **eminence** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 3:12 am

Looks like I'll be a bit busy for a few days, so an unceremonious vote here:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bill Russell

Nominate: George Mikan

Kareem:
+I've always felt and still do that the primes for he/Duncan are pretty similar, but in the past I liked Duncans later years more than Kareems. Squareds data impressed me enough to flip that on its head.
+Great player from day 1 in the NBA and longevity that's very top tier as well.
+Led some great teams with the Bucks, and was a key part of some more alongside Magic with the Lakers.
+I'm still generally a bit less impressed with his offensive work than some, but I quite like his early career defense, and the data suggests to me maybe I should appreciate his late career D a bit more as well.

Russell, not committed to him over Duncan for vote #3 if it comes down to it, but I do clearly prefer him over MJ, so a strategic vote is on the cards I suppose:
+Win win win win

Mikan:
+He has a voter and that's more than I can say for most, he's certainly not a bad pick for representation here, though I probably won't be actually voting for him in until somewhere in the #10-15 range.

falcolombardi · Post #108 » by **falcolombardi** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 3:27 am

I nominate kareem #2 after lebron (or #1 here, same thingh)

Basically he combines a significant quantity of mvp seasons advantage over any (serious) goat candidate still on the board

had one of the most resilient and wide skillsets ever which was criminally underpraised for the longest time
Proved his ability to lift talented teams into all time domination from his sophomore season ans the ability to lift weaker ones into finals threats from his rookie year

His defense is better than other all time offensive bigs, his offensive resiliency is up there with the best offensive wings, is one of the few players who can say he bridged legitimate dpoy-lite defense with all time great offense

I wouls need to be convinced duncan or jordan or hakeem primes reaches significatively higher heughts of impact to make up the longevity gap, which i dont feel is the case subjectively

2- tempted between russel, duncan, jordan

Temptative pick goes russel #2 for potentially having the biggest impact om winning.....ever, in a significatively stronger league than mikan for a longer time

Comparing russel unparalleled dominance in a weaker lwague to jordan's or duncan's dominance is tricky, but i wouldnt feel comfortably with basketball greatest winner anywhere lower. If kareem and lebron didnt have both stronger league AND longer careers factor i think i would have to put russel first

LukaTheGOAT · Post #109 » by **LukaTheGOAT** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 4:25 am

therealbig3 wrote:
LukaTheGOAT wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:I mean, based on what actually happened, KG's impact profile is extremely comparable to Duncan's, if not slightly better. It's simply a more dramatic example of LeBron vs Jordan...actual statistics (including box score stats) once adjusted for the opponent and teammate quality, does not favor Duncan. Discussing stylistic points about Duncan's superior offense or defense doesn't actually bear out in the results.

I also think his 02 and 03 supporting casts are getting vastly underrated. These are teams that don't have specific teammates that stand out in an obvious way, but as a collective unit, they perfectly complemented Duncan and were superior to other supporting casts that may have more recognizable names. Especially with Popovich as the coach.

Duncan got old, and the Spurs did not have a single top 10 player in the league on the team, and yet they won the title in 2014...coaching and roster construction plays a huge part in being able to win, and Duncan was in pretty much the perfect situation his entire career. Obviously major props to him for delivering on that situation and winning multiple titles and being a clear MVP-level player for many years, but KG was also a clear MVP-level player for many years. The story of Duncan vs KG is a pretty clear example of how important the rest of the team is, because I don't see any obvious difference between the two in terms of how good they were as overall players. There are some things Duncan was better at, there are some things KG was better at, but overall, they made the same contributions towards winning from what I can see.

But obviously, I'm in the minority with that opinion...my question is mainly for the rest of that minority that view Duncan and KG as comparable players...what is separating the two of them for you in this conversation, where Duncan is in the GOAT tier and KG is not? IMO, both are on the same tier of player, and for me, both are one level below the tier 1 GOATs. And that seems to have been where the two of them ranked pretty consistently amongst the "KG is as good as Duncan" crowd. But recently, even amongst that group, Duncan has climbed the ranks it looks like...what is the difference that popped up after the two of them retired?

Eminence gave the reason that he takes team success into account with these rankings...I don't agree with that, but it's his criteria. Is that the case for the others that also think KG and Duncan are otherwise comparable (Doctor MJ and 70sFan are the two that come to mind)?

Can't speak for everyone but I have Duncan ahead of Garnett because I just straight think he is a better PS performer. All-in-one metrics support his peak being better. My eye does as. He simply had much more ability as a scorer and that makes the difference here.

In their era, isolation ball was pretty big, and the fact that Duncan could do it at such a higher level makes a difference.

The thing is, Duncan almost always had better teammates, especially on the perimeter that were able to create and generate easier looks for himself. He also has plenty of series where he DID NOT come through as a scorer.

If we look at Garnett and Duncan against similar opponents when they had similar help, or when they went head to head:

99 Garnett vs Spurs: 22 ppg on 49% TS
99 Duncan vs Wolves: 19 ppg on 52% TS...and keep in mind that he had David Robinson next to him as well

01 Garnett vs Spurs: 21 ppg on 57% TS
01 Duncan vs Wolves: 23 ppg on 51% TS...again, he still had David Robinson next to him

03 Garnett vs Lakers: 27 ppg on 54% TS
03 Duncan vs Lakers: 28 ppg on 58% TS

04 Garnett vs Lakers: 24 ppg on 52% TS
04 Duncan vs Lakers: 21 ppg on 53% TS

08 Garnett vs Lakers: 18 ppg on 47% TS
08 Duncan vs Lakers: 22 ppg on 47% TS

I don't see where Duncan is "much" better as a scorer, especially when accounting for the fact that he had better help in all of these series outside of what, 08? And Garnett has always been a much better passer and playmaker than Duncan, and his defense and rebounding are on the same level.

And even if you prefer Duncan's slightly better scoring here, it's obvious to me that he's no Kareem or Hakeem or Shaq in that department, not really all that close. For me, it's not so much that Garnett should be argued here as well, it's that I don't think Duncan quite belongs at this level. He's got too many limitations as a player compared to the true GOATs, and his longevity, while excellent, isn't otherworldly. He hasn't quite separated himself from the likes of a Kevin Garnett, who I don't seriously consider as being better than Shaq or Hakeem, let alone Kareem.

If you look at their numbers over the whole time you laid out:

Duncan (99-08):

Adjusted 25.5 pts per 75 (rTS% of 3.3%)

Garnett (99-08)

Adjusted 23.5 pts per 75 (rTS% of 0.6%)

The difference is much bigger if we look at their peaks:

NBA PIPM 1996-97 to 1999-00 is now not only box-score estimate but a full luck-adjusted on-off version that is used for other play by play era seasons.

The reason why I bring this up, is because now we have an opportunity to look at how Tim Duncan and KG compared offensively in the PS a bit further back now.

Now according to Backpicks Top 40, KG became a MVP level play at the turn of the century.

So searching RS&PS PIPM from 2000-04 provides the following results:

Kevin Garnett is #1 of all players in PIPM at 6.73. (3.64 OPIPM). Duncan is #2 at 6.53 (2.55 OPIPM). Garnett outright has the more impressive on/off offensively and defensively.

HOWEVER, if we do just playoffs:

Duncan becomes #1 in this time frame with a 7.48 PIPM (3.16 OPIPM is 3rd in this time frame). KG falls to #6 with a 3.38 PIPM (1.77 OPIPM is #12). Duncan's offensive rating on/off and overall on/off is much better during this time as well.

Once again, this jives with the idea that Duncan simply was a much better floor-raiser and overall offensive guy come PS time.

Also, there is a notable gap in their scoring.

Duncan from(00-04):

Adjusted 25.6 pts per 75 (rTS% of 4.4%)

Backpicks BPM-7.2 (3.8 OBPM)

AuPM/G-6.1

Drawing about 12.5 FT per 100 possessions.

Garnett from (00-04)

Adjusted 23.4 pts per 75 (rTS% of 0.1%)

Backpicks BPM-5.2 (2.9 OBPM)

AuPM/G-4.8

Drawing about 8.3 FT per 100 possessions.

Duncan's ability to score in isolation and draw fouls is just another tier up from KG.

70sFan · Post #110 » by **70sFan** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 6:43 am

One_and_Done wrote:How many of those who disagree are adjusting for era in the way I am? Alot of people here have Russell as defensive GOAT, but admit they don't necessarily think he would be in the modern game.

I think the majority posters here would agree that Russell would be better defensively today than Duncan. You may disagree with that, but it's not hard to understand - Russell was significantly more athletic, while giving to ground in terms of things Duncan was the best at (positioning, contesting without fouling etc.).

70sFan · Post #111 » by **70sFan** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 7:08 am

therealbig3 wrote:I think Duncan was capable of being targeted defensively, particularly in the PnR when he's drawn to the perimeter and has to move his feet. I think the Lakers took advantage of this multiple times and why they tended to have success against the Spurs. Kobe in particular was able to dominate them multiple times, because I think he was capable of attacking Duncan, as well as the Spurs overall scheme of giving up the midrange, which is where Kobe thrived. The Mavs with Dirk also punished Duncan's defense throughout the series in 06.

I actually agree to a degree - the Spurs used hedge defense scheme in the early 2000s and after rewatching a lot of games from that period recently, I think it wasn't a good idea. Kobe exploited it very often and Duncan didn't have enough mobility to recover. I think even a typical drop coverage would be more effective in most cases.

With that being said, I wouldn't say that Kobe "dominated" them multiple times. The only series I'd say Kobe dominated happened in 2001 and 2008, but Kobe didn't "dominate" Spurs in 2002-04.

I think his abilities as an isolation scorer are also overrated and can be considered a weakness given his competition at this spot. I honestly think it was underwhelming for a player at his level, and that most of the time he faced a strong defense, he faltered rather than succeeded (as a scorer). He had some great series, don't get me wrong, like 99 Lakers, 03 Lakers, 06 Mavs (although I'm not impressed with what the Mavs had defensively). Offensively, he was ok vs the 02 Lakers and the 03 Nets, he was up and down. The 03 Nets also had an undersized front court especially with Mutombo being hurt and used sparingly. But he's also got series like 98 against the Jazz, 01/04 against the Lakers, 05 against the Pistons, 07 against the Cavs, 08 against the Lakers again. Should have been able to do more imo.

I'm not sure I agree with your description of all of these series.
For example, I don't see anything wrong with 1998 vs Jazz. He posted 21 ppg (around 22 pp75) on 55 TS% in an environment where teams averaged 101 ORtg and ~50 TS%. If you compare that to Malone and Robinson scoring production, I fail to see how you can criticize him for that series - especially since he was a rookie playing against top tier team. Out of 5 games, he scored very well in 3 of them and one of the other was a Spurs blowout win.

2007 vs Cavs is a very small sample of size (it was a sweep) and Duncan had two good scoring games at home and two bad scroing games on the road. I'm not sure I'd really use it as an example of Duncan's weakness as a ISO scorer.

Anyway, unfortunately I haven't finished trakcing peak Duncan games yet (I have tracked 21 games so far, but they are not representative enough), but I don't think he'll end up being less efficient ISO post player than Shaq (likely less efficient than Hakeem and Kareem, they were absurd).

Furthermore, as an overall offensive player, I think his shooting is a weakness. I think he had a relatively inconsistent midrange jumper and was similarly inconsistent from the FT line. As a result, he didn't provide much spacing and wasn't much of a threat the further he was from the basket.

Again, in comparison to Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem he's arguably the best shooter actually (though peak Hakeem was likely better). Duncan's range wasn't really a problem for a center from his era. He wasn't super consistent, but we're comparing him to players who basically didn't shoot beyond short midrange (no, Hakeem didn't shoot more from longer midrange than Duncan).

And I think his passing ability was good...not great. I think relative to the other great big men that I mentioned, he's comparable to Shaq and Kareem and better than Hakeem.

So in comparison to someone like Shaq, by your estimation he's:

- worse scorer,
- comparable passer,
- better defender I assume? (if you value P&R defense highly).

Is there any reason why you think he's not on Shaq's level, or do you think he is?

All in all, I think Duncan was much easier to slow down as an offensive force relative to Kareem or Shaq or Hakeem, and even his defense could be targeted in certain matchups.

Hakeem as a scorer, specifically in the playoffs, was pretty consistently scaling up and scoring on both volume and efficiency. And even when he faced strong defensive front lines, he still played quite well as an offensive player, which is the biggest difference between him and Duncan.

For example, 93-96 he obviously was pretty dominant offensively and was anchoring some great playoff offenses. In particular, he went through some great front lines and still came through as a scorer in a way Duncan didn't when he went up against similar defense.

I think in terms of playoff offensive resiliency, Hakeem stands up closer to Shaq and Kareem than Duncan does.

Quick look at stats doesn't prove this theory:

2001-07 Duncan: 26.3 adjusted pp75 on +3.6 rTS%
1989-95 Hakeem: 27.5 adjusted pp75 on +3.1 rTS%

1974-80 Kareem: 28.0 adjusted pp75 on +10.3 rTS%
1998-03 Shaq: 30.7 adjusted pp75 on +6.1 rTS%

I think it's fair to say that Hakeem is closer to Duncan than Shaq or Kareem.

If you go closer to their peaks, then Hakeem gets more comfortable advantage in terms of volume but Duncan beats him in efficiency department:

2002-04 Duncan: 25.6 adjusted pp75 on +4.2 rTS%
1993-95 Hakeem: 28.8 adjusted pp75 on +3.3 rTS%

Overall, I think I agree that Hakeem was slightly more resilient scorer due to more consistent isolation scoring game, but he's also notably worse passer and couldn't create easy shots nearly as well. On top of that, Hakeem himself had quite a few weaker postseason performances like 1985 vs Jazz, 1986 vs Celtics, 1990 vs Lakers or 1996 vs Sonics. Such series happen across many years. Duncan has probably more of them, but that's because he played much more playoff games in general.

70sFan · Post #112 » by **70sFan** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 7:16 am

therealbig3 wrote:
70sFan wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:And even if you prefer Duncan's slightly better scoring here, it's obvious to me that he's no Kareem or Hakeem or Shaq in that department, not really all that close.

Saying that Duncan isn't "really all that close" and "obviously" is worse than Hakeem as a scorer, while putting Hakeem in the same tier with Kareem and Shaq doesn't look that good. I don't think there are strong evidences suggesting Hakeem was closer to Kareem or Shaq as a scorer than to Duncan.

He's got too many limitations as a player compared to the true GOATs,

What these limitations are precisely?

BTW, I know you're a Duncan fan, and you prefer him over Garnett, but I also know that you consider them quite close and don't mind if someone would rather have Garnett.

So how are you separating them yourself? Do you have Duncan on another tier relative to Garnett, and if so, why?

I have them both in my second tier but at the opposite ends of it (Duncan/Hakeem/Wilt/Shaq/Garnett). It means that I can be convinced to put Garnett ahead of Duncan, but I am comfortable with Timmy being ahead. My reasons:

1. Duncan was substantially better at the beginning and the end of their careers. I think 1998-2000 and 2013-16 periods are in significant favor of Duncan and such edges can create meaningful differences when the gap isn't large.
2. I am probably in the minority, but I consider Duncan to be better, more consistent defensive player than Garnett. I don't think Garnett's versatility was more impactful during their primes than Duncan's immense rim protection.
3. This is a tougher one, but Duncan is more proven at the highest stage. I am aware of Duncan's strengths and weaknesses in the playoffs because he has one of the largest samples in the league history. I have seen him dominating, struggling and dealing with injuries. I haven't seen that from Garnett and it's not his fault, but I value evidences higher than lack of evidences.
4. I don't think there is a substantial difference between them offensively, but I think in less perfect situations Duncan's post game was more robust and allowed his team to focus on other aspects of the game, while Garnett struggled to be a clear centerpiece of offense because of his unique scoring skillset (big midrange scorer who wasn't efficient enough to be Dirk and great post player that wasn't willing to play in the post). This is the weakest argument, because Garnett wasn't really much worse scorer than Duncan, but his scoring style was less reliable in my opinion.

70sFan · Post #113 » by **70sFan** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 8:09 am

f4p wrote:so the key point in making my statement is:

But no one enjoyed a better organizational infrastructure, for more years than Tim Duncan.

duncan had a good situation, and it was good for 19 years. now some of that is being able to be around for 19 years, but its seemingly even more remarkable for the franchise to have basically no off-years for 19 seasons. as mentioned, he retired with his most talented cast ever, winning 67 games as a role player.

I don't think the situation was this good for all 19 years. I think 2002-04 period was far from amazing and it's a testimony of Duncan's greatness that people view this team as talented to be honest. These rosters were nothing special and I'd argue they weren't among the most talented in the league at all.

i would say 1995 was a contender. even with hakeem stomping robinson, they were a late jumper by horry from going to game 7 against the eventual champs.

So one down season with the significant parity and no clear contender. Outside of that, the Spurs never threatened the title.

but magic was drafted onto a lakers team that had done even less with kareem and i would still say it was an amazing situation for magic.

Why less? The Lakers went to the WCF 3 years before Magic came in. That's the same gap as between 1995 and 1998.

Red put a bunch of talent around bird, but bird showed up to a team that hadn't done much for several years.

Several years is an overstatement, they won the title in 1976 - 4 seasons before Bird's draft.

the spurs were a core of high end talent that needed a true superstar for the playoffs and they not only got that, they got a GOAT candidate coach at the exact same time.

I wouldn't describe 1990s Spurs that way. They weren't that talented and Robinson was noticeably weaker after the injury as well. Of course it was a great start for the 1st pick of the draft, but don't go too far with that.

now if duncan had showed up to that situation and then it eventually aged out and he had to spend 3 years rebuilding that would be one thing.

Well, some may argue that Duncan's excellence hidden the rebuilding part in 2001-04 period, because they changed the roster from the 1990s to the 2000s but Duncan still made them contenders.

ok, but then sophomore phil jackson wouldn't seem to be a GOAT coach either. but they're certainly already showing promise and are better than getting stuck with whatever KG or Hakeem or Lebron or Wilt or others were getting at points early in their careers.

I think the analogy with Phil is misleading, because Jackson showed immediatly that he was an amazing coach from the start. Pop was a defensive minded coach at first (which isn't that hard when you have two of the best rim protectors ever) but his offensive schemes were very rudimentary at the beginning of his career. Some may argue that it wasn't until the mid-00s when he started to expand his bag.

i can't speak for all rankings, but i'm certain duncan winning the 2014 title has been factored into his ranking quite frequently in things i have read on here. and his impact numbers and the spurs being really good in 2015 i feel like certainly comes up. it's those years looking good that seems to get him quite a longevity boost. otherwise by 2013 he's just at 16 years like some other people, which wouldn't be that crazy for longevity.

I think these two years can be seen as the differentiator between players from the same tier, but if someone thinks Duncan isn't on the level of other players, these two years shouldn't influence that opinion at all.

it could be, but i'm not sure what the alternative is? how else do we come up with a baseline for a team's talent level if not the 82 game regular season? there's travel, back-to-backs, you can't gameplan for every team. it would seem to give us a good look at a team's intrinsic talent level. otherwise, every time there's a playoff upset, we just say that actually the winning team was secretly better so it wasn't an upset and that seems even more off-base. we certainly talk about playoff risers/decliners on an individual level so i don't see why it wouldn't apply to teams. is it fair to david robinson and james harden to call them playoff decliners by penalizing them for being so good in the regular season? i don't know, but we certainly do.

I don't know, in such project I think we can go a bit deeper than just looking at HCA. Such criteria would suggest that players like 2009 James underperformed, because they had HCA against Orlando.

as for pointing out how duncan played. that's what i tried to do. he didn't just lose as an SRS favorite in 2004, but as an SRS favorite with a 2-0 series lead. while he scored 17.5 ppg on 38% shooting over the final 4 games. that's a significant stretch of significantly underperforming play for the offensive anchor of a team as they lose 4 straight playoff games. if the 2004 lakers just whooped them 4 straight, or went on to beat the 2004 pistons, maybe i could just chalk it up to the lakers being that good. but the spurs were obviously good enough to get a 2-0 lead. to have a better regular season SRS. it took the lakers just as many games to beat the wolves without cassell. and this is one year removed from duncan's best playoff run ever. so it's not like i'm taking a shot at old duncan or anything.

This series is actually a good example of how nuanced the situation can be:

1. Duncan underperformed in the last 4 games - that's true. I never denied that.
2. The Spurs were a better team than the Lakers - I don't agree, at all. The Spurs had significantly less talented roster, they underperformed as a team in that series (shooting 30% from the 3P line and 45 TS% without counting Duncan production). The team was heavily reliant on Duncan on both ends of the floor, while the Lakers had a very strong starting lineup with two MVP-level players.
3. The Spurs got 2-0 lead mostly because of Duncan's play in these two games. Duncan got help in game 2, but game 1 is a very glowing example of that.

I have no problems with criticizing Duncan's underperformance in 2004 series vs Lakers, but it doesn't prove that the Spurs were an amazing team that year.

we see him struggle big time when guarded by shaq in 2002.

That's actually a myth, Shaq didn't really guard Duncan outside of few selective minutes.

we see him narrowly avoid defeat while struggling offensively against the pistons.

The same Pistons that dominated the Lakers the year prior. Winning a close series was never seen as a failure.

hakeem against a similar legendary frontline in the 1994 knicks was scoring 27 ppg on 50% shooting and it took every one of those points to eke it out.

Hakeem didn't play injured in 1994 playoffs.

how does the 2008 WCF go if duncan is scoring like hakeem almost certainly would have against pau.

I don't think the difference would be enough to win the series. Contrary to popular belief, Duncan didn't play bad in that series and he had negative +/- only in two games out of 5. People don't appreciate defense, as always, and Duncan was tremendous on defensive end in that series.

if duncan turns it up against memphis in 2011, do the spurs with the league's 2nd best record survive against memphis like they did against dallas in 2014 and go on a title run?

Highly unlikely, the Spurs didn't have enough firepower that year. It was a down year for Duncan certainly.

was he great in 2006? yeah. and can i expect him to win every single series as a #1 SRS team when he played so many. probably not. and if i'm comparing him to karl malone, then these are blips on the radar of a dominant case over the mailman. but he's going against hakeem. who fought and scrounged and crawled through the desert for one peek at a chance at contending. and when he got it, it was just a sliver. but he was electric and capitalized. then came back the next year and was maybe more electric. after swatting away Showtime as a 2nd year player. while putting up record breaking 1st rounds on bad teams. while even putting up a huge age 34 playoffs on his one other tiny chance at contending, while his 2 best teammates were hampered by injuries. with all of his career playoff losses basically only being in mid-offs or as a huge underdog. just to be above hakeem, i need more than "it's tough to always win when you're team is really good", but i certainly need more for a #2 vote.

The problem with that is that it's easier to find Duncan's relative underperformances vs Hakeem simply because Duncan played 100 playoff games more than Hakeem in his career. So yeah, we can excuse Hakeem for losing to a horrible Sonics team in 1987 because he put up great numbers, but we can't do that with 2002 Duncan because he put up amazing numbers against much better team. We can't criticize Hakeem for 1989 because the Sonics had 2 more wins than Rockets, but the series was certainly winnable.

Hakeem put up huge numbers in the 1980s, but he also faced considerably weaker competition. That's what happens when you have lower seed, but not low enough to play against the best teams in the conference. I fail to see the reason to go this way, I prefer to look at how players actually played and I don't think Duncan fares badly in comparison to other contenders.

look at the standards this board puts on jordan. the unquestioned best player on the best 6 year run in league history.

Why do you think it's the best 6 year run? They "only" won 4 titles in 6 years with 4 finals appeariances. Russell won 8 rings in 8 years for example. Magic won "only" 4 titles in 6 years, but he made the finals 5 times.

and we've got people trying to knock him down to 5th and 6th. there's longevity problems. or "lift" concerns. or attitude concerns. and that's a guy who arguably only played on 6 contenders or, if we're being, generous, he played on 8. and won 6. with no bad series as a favorite. the 1993 bulls, seemingly tired from trying to 3-peat, themselves only a 6.2 SRS team that year, had to beat a 6.3, 5.9, and 6.3 team in the 2nd round, ECF, and finals, including a historic defense in the knicks. and they went 12-4. even coming back from 0-2 against the knicks. that could have easily been a "what, are we supposed to win every single time?" moment. or in 1998, when a bulls team running on fumes, playing 6.3 and 5.7 SRS teams in the ECF and Finals. the bulls only 1 and 1.5 SRS favorites, with a hobbled pippen and rapidly aging rodman. this was the time to get them. even vegas was barely sure in the finals. but jordan got to 25-0 as a favorite. the drive and ability to deal with the pressure of being the favorite and to always come through is just incredible.

I don't try to knock him down to 5th or 6th, I also have him higher than Duncan all-time. I don't think he's the gold standard of success though, considering we have two players left with the same or more rings in their resumes, while having overall better careers (in my honest opinion).

perhaps no one could have. i think the image of those years is always that shaq got put on duncan in the 4th quarter/2nd half and then that was that. and it happened in that game 5 i watched. duncan put up an incredible 34/25. but in the 2nd half, i recall counting every possession where shaq was duncan's primary defender and duncan was i believe 2/9. and 1 of those 2 was a shot that shaq blocked but it bounced right back to duncan and he got an uncontested layup. among a total of 3 times shaq blocked duncan straight up. that's part of why 2003 felt different right away. because duncan stopped getting stymied so much by shaq.

I will post the video of all Duncan vs Shaq possessions from that series later.

i would love to watch more of these games. but youtube is limited in available games and time is limited when youtube isn't limited. for now, i will mostly have to rely on having seen them live and occasionally watching more and more. also, is this counting any time duncan came over on shaq or only primary defender? i didn't get duncan defending anywhere near 8 shots against shaq in game 5. maybe a bunch happened in the 2nd quarter that the video skipped, but all i had was 3 possessions and 3 fouls as of the mid 4th. then duncan did make shaq miss a shot and maybe there was one more. but certainly duncan was around on help against a decent number of shaq shots.

I will post the video of all Shaq vs Duncan possessions from that series later.

f4p · Post #114 » by **f4p** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 8:33 am

70sFan wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:All in all, I think Duncan was much easier to slow down as an offensive force relative to Kareem or Shaq or Hakeem, and even his defense could be targeted in certain matchups.

Hakeem as a scorer, specifically in the playoffs, was pretty consistently scaling up and scoring on both volume and efficiency. And even when he faced strong defensive front lines, he still played quite well as an offensive player, which is the biggest difference between him and Duncan.

For example, 93-96 he obviously was pretty dominant offensively and was anchoring some great playoff offenses. In particular, he went through some great front lines and still came through as a scorer in a way Duncan didn't when he went up against similar defense.

I think in terms of playoff offensive resiliency, Hakeem stands up closer to Shaq and Kareem than Duncan does.

Quick look at stats doesn't prove this theory:

2001-07 Duncan: 26.3 adjusted pp75 on +3.6 rTS%
1989-95 Hakeem: 27.5 adjusted pp75 on +3.1 rTS%

1974-80 Kareem: 28.0 adjusted pp75 on +10.3 rTS%
1998-03 Shaq: 30.7 adjusted pp75 on +6.1 rTS%

I think it's fair to say that Hakeem is closer to Duncan than Shaq or Kareem.

i realize you're trying to pick consecutive year stretches, but hakeem's 6 playoff year range (missed in '92) misses his best 3 year run in the playoffs in scoring+efficiency, from 1986-88 when he was at 36.5 per 100 on 60.2 TS%, and also includes his worst 3 year stretch, from 1989-1991. the others, especially shaq and duncan, all have very smooth increase/plateau/decrease trajectories that making picking consecutive years easier because they are basically all of their best seasons. i don't know exactly how adjusted pp75 is calculated, other than it seems to add about 1-1.5 points per 75 compared to using bbref's numbers from their per 100 section, but focusing on hakeem's actual best seasons would make it more like 28.5 adjusted pp75 on 57.5 TS%, which based on the 56.2 TS% from 89-95, would seem to make hakeem +4.4 rTS%.

and if we just want basically the whole shebang from 22-34 for hakeem (rookie to 1997) and i even be nice and do 22-33 for duncan to skip his rookie season and miss the 2011 series, it's 34.4 per 100 on 57.5 TS% for hakeem to 31.8 per 100 on 55.1 TS% for duncan. even with duncan playing more in a lower efficiency era i would think hakeem would still slightly win rTS% (average league ORtg of 107.8 vs 105.3 would seem to mean TS% adjustment of about 1.3%).

On top of that, Hakeem himself had quite a few weaker postseason performances like 1985 vs Jazz, 1986 vs Celtics, 1990 vs Lakers or 1996 vs Sonics. Such series happen across many years. Duncan has probably more of them, but that's because he played much more playoff games in general.

i can't really buy "quite a few". that list is only 4 series before he turned 35 years old and includes his very first series ever (i.e. not exactly 1993 hakeem) and i can't really see 24.7 ppg on 52.6 TS% against boston, maybe the greatest frontline ever, as any sort of significant disappointment that should even be on the list (or we would have to expand the list for duncan). after his very first playoff series until the sonics series 11 years later where he was relentlessly double-teamed in a way duncan assuredly never was, it's basically an unbroken line of 21 series of playoff scoring success except for that one 4 game series in 1990. and after the sonics, he tacked on another 3 very good series in 1997, including against the sonics.

OhayoKD · Post #115 » by **OhayoKD** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 9:03 am

Duncan won too many regular season games? Again? Really? You know what...

A Case for Duncan over Jordan: Peak, Prime and Career

Imma let you finish but--

f4p wrote:Well since I've already seen a Tim Duncan vote at #2, I suppose it's time I don my finest Playa Haters' Ball regalia and dive in. Was Tim Duncan a wonderful player? Sure. Did he win a lot? Most definitely. Is he beloved by APM, AuPM, RAPM, GPM, AM/PM, ESPM? Of course. But to whom much is given, much is expected.

Now certainly, the returns were great. But no one enjoyed a better organizational infrastructure, for more years than Tim Duncan. Most generational #1 picks are greeted by a smoldering crater of a franchise and asked to build it from the ground up. The Spurs had spent the better part of a decade winning 50 and 60 games,

Sorry. Have you worked out some concrete basis for the random assumption of yours regarding how many wins all-time-greats can swing in the regular season? No? Well, then I'm sorry to say that most of the writing after this line falls into "doesn't mean anything".

If you cannot establish whatever arbitrary cap you've assumed for the gaps between greats in the regular season, you cannot use someone's regular season success as if it is solely or pre-dominantly an indication of cast quality. I realize that's very inconvenient for the person you are voting at #2(we actually have the samples to estimate that rs-level support), but fair is fair.

it could be, but i'm not sure what the alternative is? how else do we come up with a baseline for a team's talent level if not the 82 game regular season? there's travel, back-to-backs, you can't gameplan for every team. it would seem to give us a good look at a team's intrinsic talent level

If looking at cast+player estimates the team's talent level, then team - player can estimate the "help" and to that end...

as David Robinson quite peak David Robinson any more? No.

Indeed...

1998 D-Rob scored alot less(on the same efficiency), saw his turnover% spike(on the same ast%) while playing significantly less minutes than his 1996 iteration. 1999 D-rob had more turnovers than assists, saw his efficiency and volume drop a second time while playing even less. And off course lucky Duncan couldn't overcome his co-star slipping steadily from superstardom. Except...

The Spurs...got better, winning 60 games and then going 15-2. IOW, 2nd year Duncan got to play with something resembling a co-star and responded by pulling a 1991. Truly fraudulent.

..but you know the funny thing? There's a guy whose cast with one "chance", lead a comparable team to any of peak D-rob's without him(with their three best players beefing)...

Bulls without MJ - On and Off-court

Spoiler:

And you voted him #1.

The "chance" Duncan was given in season 2 was probably smaller than what Jordan was given for most or all of his championships. And with that "chance", the Spurs went 16-4 and obliterated the competition(by san's std they were actually a bigger outlier than all but 2 Chicago sides). Weak competition? Perhaps, but by PSRS, Duncan beat a better team than any of Mj's triumphs in the 2005 Suns and a team that rated nearly as highly as Jordan's best(97 Jazz) in the 2007 Suns. Mind you that the finalist in 2005 was one-year from posting a +11psrs championship run and of the 10 highest full-strength ratings in nba history(way better than anyone Mj has beat).

The 2007 Spurs also grade out as a bigger outlier than all but the 91 and 96 Bulls and the 2005 Spurs aren't far behind. Both ran through more difficult gauntlets than anything Jordan overcame and when we look at how those teams without Duncan(decent sample for 04/05 has them at 48)....

It's not nearly as good as the 58-win pace the 94 Bulls played at through the rs and postseason with pippen and grant and the guy who pippen hated because management had been trying to trade one for the other.

All considered then, we can reasonably guess that Duncan won, not 1, not 2, but 3(possibly 4?) championships with less of a "chance" than Jordan had for his. And frankly...

The Triangle, 1990 cast-improvement, Jordan and Pippen

Spoiler:

Never said anything about "confident", but I don't really have an issue making probabilistic judgments(uncertainity is fine). Main thing about 1971 vs 1991 is
-> there is no triangle equivalent(Bulls offense goes from +2.3 to +6.5 between the first and 2nd half of 1990),
-> there's no equivalent to the defensive jump(Bulls go from below average at the start of the season to a -3 defense by the 90 playoffs(-5 in the last 2 rounds)).

The Bucks are closer by 1970 with rookie Dandridge than the Bulls get pre-triangle despite Kareem joining a similar team. The Bucks are also still great In 72 in the games Oscar completely misses and unlike 91 where there's no real discernible improvement(Mj's on/off, rapm, defensive tape all looks worse actually)despite facing significantly weaker competition(pistons are way worse defensively and overall in the first two rounds of 1991 compared to 1990).

Kareem's production jumps between 70, 71, and 72 despite worse help(oscar hobbled) and much tougher comp(west+wilt) in 72 vs 71(west hurt). Their full-strength srs also improves iirc. It's also obvious the Bulls were historically loaded when we look at the full-lineup performances in 94 and 95(58-win without Jordan, 52-win without Jordan and Grant), and there's nothing that indicates the same for the Bucks

Are you under the impression that the triangle wasn't "jordan-style"? This is actually probably a good oppurtunity to cover why the Bulls were an "exceptional", rather than "good" fit. Here are Jordan's relative weaknesses as a player

-> passing/creative efficiency. Even if his raw creative volume is on-par with all-time playmakers, the quality of those chances and the amount of looks he missed lag behind(as is reflecred in a much lower passer-rating) putting him at a general disadvantage.
-> running the offense. Jordan was simply a worse decision-maker pairing worse shot-selection with with weaker passing and an inability to set-tempo the way a magic or Lebron can
-> orchestration/on-court coaching. Jordan did not really tell teammates where to go on either end or force team-wide adjustments after reading opposing schemes
-> Paint-protection. Jordan as a guard could not really function as a primary paint-protector. Consequently while a Lebron was capable of anchoring great playoff and regular season defenses in the absence of their best defensive teammates, Jordan has only led one -2 rs defense with oakley(Lebron led a -5.5 defense with his best defensive teammate missing half the season and a -3.5 defense with said teammate entirely missing, along with multiple great playoff defenses alongside defensive negatives in his 30's)
-> Positioning. This is more a critique of early/1st 3-peat Jordan but he ranked in the 23rd percentile of defensive breakdowns per Ben's film-tracking and would get in trouble for overextending a fair bit. This was especially notable in 91 vs Magic and 92 vs Drexler
-> Decision-making facing extra defensive attention. This is basically covered above, but this is worth specifying as the triangle basically ensured it was very, very difficult to double Jordan

Here are Pippen's relative weaknesses as a player
-> scoring
-> Off-ball cutting
(these are strengths for Jordan)
Pippen's relative strengths
-> literally everything i listed above for offense
-> help d, covering for Jordan's mis-timed swings while simultaneously making more plays at the perimeter
-> rim-protection, Pippen, like Lebron was a legitimate defensive anchor that could protect the paint. Also like Lebron while he was an exceptional paint-protector for a big, he was not actually a big giving Jordan plenty of opportunity to provide value on the weak-side.
-> one of the best primary-ball handlers in the league which in the era of illegal d translates to Jordan getting to shoot a bunch in single-coverage

blockedbybam wrote:sure, but all the major components are in place by the 90 playoffs
pipen is
splitting creation with jordan, main ball-handler
telling ppl where to go on Offense
telling ppl where to go on defense
splitting rim-protecc with grant and most active perimiter defender
anchoring elite playoff d(-3ish overall im guessin and scalin up vs pistons and sixers)
scoring more than he does in the 95 or 96 playoffs _on better effiency_(second best ts of his playoff career)
...

even just using box-whatever pippen goes from 1.8 bpm in the regular season to 5.4 in the playoffs, and that doesn't cover pippen becoming the primary ball-handler or pippen drawing defensive attention so jordan dont see doubles
...

numbers look similar for mj but id guess it looks better if you adjust for defensive comp(which is why i think his postseason stuff looks better than his regulat season stuff)
defense gets 3 points better tho, and pippen's numbers see a bigger proprotional jump in terms of points or bpm or whatever. horace grant also sees a jump via something like bpm(1.1 vs 2,2) but idk what specifically is producing that in the box-score

they're literally >.500 if i just take the gap between their post-asb and pre-playpff rolling srs and add it to _the 84_ bulls

... I don't think Jordan had less of a chance in 1990 than Duncan did in 03 or 05 when he lost to Detroit.

All in all, I think then, it can be reasonably argued prime Duncan
-> Won at least one(probably two) titles with less
-> Led two dominant teams(statistically better with most of the Bulls if you go by standard deviation(more relevant to winning championships than "srs")), one was probably with less
-> Led a third team not too far behind in 2005(not sure what "help" is there but there's still no Pippen equivalent) with less
-> Beat two teams better or on par with anyone Jordan beat(05 and 07 suns, great in the rs too, great in the rs missing key pieces, greatest offense ever, led by an offensive goat candidate who also led a goat offense in Dallas pre-prime)
-> Beat two tougher gauntlets better than any Jordan beat(05, 07)
-> Beat, with less, a reigning champion that had posted a top 10 all-time full-strength srs after sweeping the Shaq-Kobe-Payton-Malone Lakers
-> Won at least 50 games every season(Jordan managed that once pre-triangle)
-> Won in multiple systems(Jordan managed that never)
-> Won with completely different 2nd bananas(Jordan managed that never)

The Bulls were not great pre-90, but there's little evidence they were horrible. No, they not did do much offensively, but they were an average defense before Jordan and probably decent defensively in 88. Perhaps if Jordan was a two-way anchor instead of a one-way one, there would have been more "chances". He certainly wasn't Russell where we have to grade an incomplete as an L, equate a career with a favorable 7-year stretch, ignore his roster for nearly half his chips, ignore his competition for one of them, and make it out as a negative he lead league-best(or near) regular season teams without exceptional help("deep roster+good fit" and "deep roster+elite 3rd option+2nd superstar+perfect fit" isn't quite the same).

But you're not a big fan of raw "impact" so why don't we use AUPM? A combination of on/off and...BPM

Let me say that again: ON/OFF and...

This box score information is also weighted according to what position or role the player has on the team. For instance, a block by a center is good, but a block by a guard is great.

...BPM

And you know whose 3-year playoff peak scores higher? In the metric which literally thinks Micheal Jordan's weakside-help is more valuable than Duncan's paint-deterrence?

Duncan.

I point this out because, even if you just lift Duncan's best two years to be a match for Mike's(and keep the internal scaling), then by Ben Taylor(the guy who put not one, not two, not three, not four, but five MJ years above the season you have at #1), his srs-study-based "career over replacement player" formula outputs Duncan's career as more valuable.

Here is another snippet from the BPM-2 page:

In other-words we can use the metric which thinks much of the offensive help(noted above) the triangle enabled MJ to receive is irrelevant:

So "most" of the ways the triangle made MJ's job easier? Irrelevant!

But even there, if we ignore basically everything noted above, Duncan scores higher if we just input a teensy bit of winning.

Regardless, with or without AUPM, I think Duncan has a fine case for being better at his best. And, at least per the whatever studies designed to construct the "career-over-replacement" formular(not so relevant to you, but I know it's relevant to some here), Duncan, purely on the basis of what he did on-the-court has a good argument for being "greater".

And that is before we get to:

Not when the front office adds Danny Green and Tiago Splitter and Boris Diaw and Patty Mills and, umm, who am I forgetting? Oh, it's future hall of fame, future multiple time Finals MVP, #42 on the previous Top 100 and only that low because he can't stay healthy, it's playoff performer extraordinaire Kawhi Leonard. That looks like a good team in and of itself, much less added to a hall of fame trio. Especially when the coach can seamlessly shift from defensive guru to "beautiful game" coach like it's nothing. Now Tim Duncan is free to gracefully end his career, never asked to do too much on his super deep, super well-coached team. It helps him maintain value and play on winning teams all the way to the end. By the time he is ready to exit the stage in year 19, they have even added another likely hall of famer in LaMarcus Aldridge. Giving the Spurs an all-HOF closing lineup. Duncan can play 25 mpg and only 60 games for the season and still see his team win 67 games and actually finish with a better net rating than the 73-win Warriors.

True. But what made that possible?

trex_8063 wrote:Well, backtrack to 2012, it is documented that Duncan voluntarily took a pay-cut to enable the Spurs to sign Diaw, Green, and Mills to the contracts they were asking for.

But it seems Tim had a hand in that too: he voluntarily took a pay cut in ‘15 (and I think ‘14 as well) to allow the Spurs the cap space to acquire his replacement LaMarcus Aldridge, as well as re-signing Kawhi Leonard.
In essence, he was sacrificing for a team he would not even be part of; just looking out for the future after he was gone.

He supposedly took “team friendly” contracts at other points along the way. And indeed we can see that in his 19 playing years he earned more than $53M less than Shaquille O’Neal did [in 19 years], nearly $90M less than Kobe Bryant did [in 20 years], and $105M less than Kevin Garnett did [in 21 years, also mostly for a small market team].

Being "asked to do less" helped, but of course, you have to be willing to do less. You know who wasn't?

Jordan, the Wizard

Spoiler:

And for those curious about the legitimacy of "Jordan Bullied his teammates to 72-wins...

Jordan the wannabe Alpha

Spoiler:

The biggest gap in this sort of framing is that Jordan in Chicago was not given anywhere near the power and influence he was given in Washington. Jordan's opportunity to impose his "style of leadership" was not nearly as high, and crucially, much of what we're talking about in Washington wasn't actually about "getting his teammates to work hard"(that's' actually entirely absent from the excerpt in question). You might note that Jordan's coach in Washington was the same guy who let him take skip practices, and argue with stat-counters about his slashlines. He was the same guy who let Jordan monopolize offense as much as he wanted as a dramatically less effective Lebron James.

The primary thing Phil Jackson did in a sense was take-away Jordan's ability to do everything he wanted. Crucially, it also involved giving Pippen a bunch of Jordan's primacy. This wasn't just a matter of physical on-court tasks, but also a matter of leadership. It was Pippen, not Jordan who told teammates where to go on both ends of the floor. It was Pippen, not Jordan who brought the ball-up against set defenses, and it was Pippen not Jordan telling teammates what to do.

On a team-level, Jordan was a tertiary decision maker when he found success(which, as has occured with every other title-winning great led to a bunch of praise about his ability to "galvanize" his teams). Fourth if you count the front-office. Jordan did not have the ability to stop a coach from getting fired. Nor did he have the leeway to get a teammate traded or force his teammates to give him a bunch of shots.

Washington was the first time the alpha in the headlines got to be an alpha in reality, and the results were horrific. The Wizards lockeroom didn't just get blown to bits because Jordan was worse. They got blown to bits because Jordan wanted to run the team and didn't actually have the know-how, or the temperament, to do it. Jordan succeeded as a temperamental Steph to a temperamental Draymond.

Kareem knew his limits and never bothered, letting Magic take control even after Johnson tried to start a lockeroom coup against him because he wanted more control of the offense.

Lebron had the control, but has often been willing to defer to systems/coaches anyway, specifically calling out his teammates for not playing within Blatt's system, and repeatedly playing in unconventional roles on his coaches suggestions even when those requests were quite unfair individually(Lebron has now let two coaches use him as a 5 in the playoffs near his 40's). And of-course, when Lebron actually decides to take over as a coach, having one of the highest IQ's in history, it usually pays off. Whether it's game-winning rotations or play-calling(2015 vs Bulls, 2006 vs Wizards), directing his teammates on both ends, anticipating what opposing teams are running and instructing his teammates to adapt accordingly(we just saw this in game 4 vs the Warriors), or physically having everything run through him, it's difficult to argue that Lebron "running everything" isn't a boon for his teams.

So I wouldn’t necessarily say that the leadership of Wizards Jordan is reflective of the leadership of Bulls Jordan. Jordan being way less good as a player had a materially large impact on the effectiveness of his particular style of leading a team.

The problem is you're overplaying the extent of who this "style" actually applied to. Sure he punched Steve Kerr, but at no point was he making threats to co-stars. And even with role-players...

"Michael is just killing Cartwright all the time," Sam Smith of the Chicago Tribune revealed. "In the locker room, in front of everybody. Cartwright gets Michael aside, and he says, 'Look, if you do anything like that again, you will never play basketball. Because I’m gonna break both your legs.'"

"I told him, 'I'm not as enamored with you as these other guys. I've got some rings too.' At that point he told me, 'I'm going to kick your ass.' I took one step closer and said, 'No, you really aren't.' After that he didn't bother me," recalled Parish.

...that only really got anywhere with the small/unathletic ones.

The other issue with "Jordan bullied his teammates to greatness" is they did exceptionally well with him entirely absent(55-win full-strength srs, 58-win when when you add the playoffs in 94, 53-win srs without Jordan and Grant in 95) despite a metric-ton of ongoing off-court drama. Why were the Bulls able to fully contend without Jordan with Pippen beefing with management, and Grant and Scottie at each other's throats? Why were they able to fully contend without Jordan with Pippen actively beefing with the guy who management repeatedly tried to replace him with? Why were they still good when Grant left and their best player went and filed a trade-request?

Doc has argued that "leadership is not always linear", but that only leaves "Jordan the great galvanizer" as plausible, not probable. As it happens, the Pre-Jackson Bulls never had a team comparable to Jordan-less Chicago.

And even if you want to put their great success(which was mysteriously absent before jackson entered the fray and limited Jordan's influence)as a byproduct of Jordan, that doesn't really change that Jordan was given far less leeway to "lead" in Chicago than he was in Washington. If "power reveals", does it really make sense to pretend Jordan at his most powerful isn't indicative, but the results when Jordan was at his least powerful were?

I think there is a clear off-court "winning" advantage in Duncan's favor as well as an arguable "on-court" one both for peak and career. For those who care about what happens outside the basketball-court, something to consider.

therealbig3 wrote:I mean, based on what actually happened, KG's impact profile is extremely comparable to Duncan's, if not slightly better. It's simply a more dramatic example of LeBron vs Jordan...actual statistics (including box score stats) once adjusted for the opponent and teammate quality, does not favor Duncan. Discussing stylistic points about Duncan's superior offense or defense doesn't actually bear out in the results.

If we pretend the playoff didn't happen, perhaps. But off course they did, so:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2301003
Duncan vs KG is close in the rs, maybe even favoring KG depending on how you weigh volume vs rate(a thing many people seem to forget to do when they assert KG was the best player in the league in 2008). Playoffs swing to Duncan on many fronts(as luka has partially noted) as it does here where Duncan is virtually tied per-possession on much higher volume(averages go down the longer you play).

Regardless, do you know which players have a comparable(honestly, probably worse?) impact portfolio? Shaq and Jordan who both have comparatively gigantic limitations as defenders. Highlighting Shaq is particularly egregious because not only does he not benefit from uncertainty like Jordan, but the one and only year where there is any strong "impact" argument to be had(in the regular season) vs KG or Duncan, his team gets worse in the playoffs, specifically doing way worse defending shots in the paint as Shaq is exposed h2h by multiple opposing centers.

70sfan wrote:I wonder, isn't it basically holding RS success against Duncan, because basically no other player anchored his team to the same amount of #1 SRS in the RS? I think it would be also important to point out how Duncan played in these loses, because I have no idea how anyone could hold 2006 against Duncan for example.

It's a testament to Duncan's goodness that f4p's idea of "emptying out the chamber" was "he won too much!"

look at the standards this board puts on jordan

Evidently a lower one than Duncan...

70sFan · Post #116 » by **70sFan** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 11:13 am

f4p wrote:i realize you're trying to pick consecutive year stretches, but hakeem's 6 playoff year range (missed in '92) misses his best 3 year run in the playoffs in scoring+efficiency, from 1986-88 when he was at 36.5 per 100 on 60.2 TS%, and also includes his worst 3 year stretch, from 1989-1991.

True, that's why I also showed 1993-95 vs 2002-04 for them as well.

About 1986-88 period - while it's true that Hakeem's scoring production looks the best (or 2nd best after 1993-95) in his career, his RS scoring production looked the same and he faced weaker teams than in 1989-91 period (outside of the Lakers and the Celtics of course).

I will include these years later in this post.

the others, especially shaq and duncan, all have very smooth increase/plateau/decrease trajectories that making picking consecutive years easier because they are basically all of their best seasons.

Well, that's not true in Duncan's case:

- it excludes 1999 which is his 2nd best prime season in terms of rTS% and overall one of his best and longest PS runs scoring-wise,
- it includes 2005 when Duncan played injured,
- 2001 is one of Duncan's weakest scoring seasons out of his prime.

i don't know exactly how adjusted pp75 is calculated, other than it seems to add about 1-1.5 points per 75 compared to using bbref's numbers from their per 100 section,

It's raw per75 adjusted for league efficiency at the number of 110 ORtg. I took them from Ben Taylor's database.

but focusing on hakeem's actual best seasons would make it more like 28.5 adjusted pp75 on 57.5 TS%, which based on the 56.2 TS% from 89-95, would seem to make hakeem +4.4 rTS%.

1986-88 Hakeem: 28.1 adjusted pp75 on +6.9 rTS%

and if we just want basically the whole shebang from 22-34 for hakeem (rookie to 1997) and i even be nice and do 22-33 for duncan to skip his rookie season and miss the 2011 series, it's 34.4 per 100 on 57.5 TS% for hakeem to 31.8 per 100 on 55.1 TS% for duncan. even with duncan playing more in a lower efficiency era i would think hakeem would still slightly win rTS% (average league ORtg of 107.8 vs 105.3 would seem to mean TS% adjustment of about 1.3%).

1986-97 Hakeem: 27.0 adjusted pp75 on +4.7 rTS%
1998-09 Duncan: 25.4 adjusted pp75 on +3.1 rTS%

On a larger scale, Hakeem indeed has the edge as a postseason scorer. It still isn't close to Shaq or Kareem though.

i can't really buy "quite a few". that list is only 4 series before he turned 35 years old and includes his very first series ever (i.e. not exactly 1993 hakeem)

Well, let's count all the series when they scored below 53 TS% (both averaged 55 TS% in RS under 35 years old):

Hakeem:

- 1985 vs Jazz (21.2 ppg on 49.0 TS%),
- 1986 vs Celtics (24.7 ppg on 52.6 TS%),
- 1990 vs Lakers (18.5 ppg on 47.8 TS%),
- 1995 vs Suns (29.6 ppg on 52.7 TS%),
- 1995 vs Magic (32.8 ppg on 51.4 TS%),
- 1996 vs Sonics (18.3 ppg on 52.3 TS%).

Total: 6 out of 26 series (23%).

Duncan:

- 1999 vs Wolves (18.8 ppg on 51.6 TS%),
- 2001 vs Wolves (22.5 ppg on 51.2 TS%),
- 2002 vs Lakers (29.0 ppg on 51.7 TS%),
- 2005 vs Nuggets (22.0 ppg on 51.3 TS%),
- 2005 vs Pistons (20.6 ppg on 47.1 TS%),
- 2007 vs Nuggets (20.2 ppg on 49.2 TS%),
- 2007 vs Cavs (18.3 ppg on 48.3 TS%),
- 2008 vs Suns (24.8 ppg on 52.3 TS%),
- 2008 vs Hornets (15.3 ppg on 47.5 TS%),
- 2008 vs Lakers (22.4 ppg on 46.5 TS%),
- 2010 vs Mavs (18.5 ppg on 50.7 TS%),
- 2011 vs Grizzlies (12.7 ppg on 50.0 TS%).

Total: 12 out of 34 series (35%).

Of course not all of these series are bad - we can definitely exclude performances like 1995 for Hakeem or 2002 vs Lakers. It shows that Hakeem had less such series on average than Duncan, but we have to take into account the fact that out of 12 Duncan "bad efficiency" series, 5 of them are from 2005 and 2008 - in both seasons Duncan played through injury in the postseason.

I think we can come with conclusion that Hakeem was overall more consistent postseason scorer, but I don't see him being on Kareem's or Shaq's level. I think we can safely say that he's closer to Duncan than them for peaks.

and i can't really see 24.7 ppg on 52.6 TS% against boston, maybe the greatest frontline ever, as any sort of significant disappointment that should even be on the list

Well, you included Duncan series against the Pistons (better defensive frontline) or Shaq Lakers. You also included 1998 for Duncan, while saying that 1985 is Hakeem's first playoffs.

Context is important.

after his very first playoff series until the sonics series 11 years later where he was relentlessly double-teamed in a way duncan assuredly never was,

Why do you think so? Duncan was doubled as much as any post player from that era. It's a myth that Duncan saw single coverages mostly. I just watched a random 2003 RS game against the Mavs and Dallas doubled him without the ball many times during the game (which was illegal in the 1990s)...

One_and_Done · Post #117 » by **One_and_Done** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 11:42 am

Hakeem would have been worse in the modern era. His troubles with the Sonics show the illegal defence rules greatly helped him. Duncan never played with that advantage.

eminence · Post #118 » by **eminence** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 12:36 pm

A quick position - Manu was great from the jump. Pop didn't fully realize what he had that first RS, but by the '03 playoffs we're into early-prime Manu no question in my mind.

iggymcfrack · Post #119 » by **iggymcfrack** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 12:39 pm

therealbig3 wrote:I mean, based on what actually happened, KG's impact profile is extremely comparable to Duncan's, if not slightly better. It's simply a more dramatic example of LeBron vs Jordan...actual statistics (including box score stats) once adjusted for the opponent and teammate quality, does not favor Duncan. Discussing stylistic points about Duncan's superior offense or defense doesn't actually bear out in the results.

I also think his 02 and 03 supporting casts are getting vastly underrated. These are teams that don't have specific teammates that stand out in an obvious way, but as a collective unit, they perfectly complemented Duncan and were superior to other supporting casts that may have more recognizable names. Especially with Popovich as the coach.

Duncan got old, and the Spurs did not have a single top 10 player in the league on the team, and yet they won the title in 2014...coaching and roster construction plays a huge part in being able to win, and Duncan was in pretty much the perfect situation his entire career. Obviously major props to him for delivering on that situation and winning multiple titles and being a clear MVP-level player for many years, but KG was also a clear MVP-level player for many years. The story of Duncan vs KG is a pretty clear example of how important the rest of the team is, because I don't see any obvious difference between the two in terms of how good they were as overall players. There are some things Duncan was better at, there are some things KG was better at, but overall, they made the same contributions towards winning from what I can see.

But obviously, I'm in the minority with that opinion...my question is mainly for the rest of that minority that view Duncan and KG as comparable players...what is separating the two of them for you in this conversation, where Duncan is in the GOAT tier and KG is not? IMO, both are on the same tier of player, and for me, both are one level below the tier 1 GOATs. And that seems to have been where the two of them ranked pretty consistently amongst the "KG is as good as Duncan" crowd. But recently, even amongst that group, Duncan has climbed the ranks it looks like...what is the difference that popped up after the two of them retired?

Eminence gave the reason that he takes team success into account with these rankings...I don't agree with that, but it's his criteria. Is that the case for the others that also think KG and Duncan are otherwise comparable (Doctor MJ and 70sFan are the two that come to mind)?

I’m someone that’s very high on Duncan and can also see a strong argument for KG over him. I think the difference is that Duncan actually delivered many times in high leverage moments in the playoffs and while we might think KG could have performed similarly with the same opportunities, a hypothetical doesn’t rate the same as actually getting it done.

The 2003 run is an all-timer and honestly based on either box or impact data, I don’t see how you can come up with that being anything other than a lottery team without Duncan. He carried a nothing supporting cast past Shaq and Kobe. I’d also say that there are 4 years you’d objectively say Duncan was the best player in the league (2002, 2003, 2005, 2007 for me, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007 as consensus) compared to only 2 for KG (2004, 2008). Duncan was also incredibly durable whereas KG struggled with some injuries late in his career in some of his better championship opportunities. Ultimately I’d have them in the same tier though. I’d say that ordered within tiers, it’s:

Tier I: LeBron, Jordan
Tier II: Duncan, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, KG

iggymcfrack · Post #120 » by **iggymcfrack** » Thu Jul 6, 2023 1:13 pm

Have to say, it’s pretty shocking that it looks like Kareem might actually win #2. I feel like the consensus was very strong in favor of MJ > Kareem a few short years ago. What’s changed so much? Is it a new focus on longevity (some related to LeBron, some not)? Is it new analytics coming out from the ‘90s picking apart some of Jordan’s minor shortcomings showing that his peak and his defense didn’t match up to LeBron? I can see factors, but I’m not seeing the whole sea change.

And honestly, even as I see somewhat persuasive arguments that might make me a tiny bit higher on Kareem than in the past, I still am not convinced he provides the same level of championship equity as Jordan. For much of his prime, Kareem literally didn’t even have to face half the players in the league, and yet when you’d expect him to dominate, he underperformed. How does a greater player than Jordan only get one ring that entire decade? I usually am sympathetic to the player with the weaker supporting cast, but Kareem wasn’t facing the KD/Durant Warriors and we’re not arguing over whether he should be top 5 or something. He’s literally being compared to Michael frigging Jordan.

Look at 1979. Kareem has Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes, and Adrian Dantley, but his Lakers still lose 4-1 to the Sonics who are remembered as one of the weakest champions in the history of the NBA because he got outscored by Gus Williams. Would Jordan ever fumble the ball in that spot? A lot of his championship equity came as a literal second banana, and yet, despite playing with Oscar and Magic for most of his career, despite playing in one of the weakest eras for talent, despite playing with much fewer teams in the league on average, he still only matched Jordan with 6 rings. I don’t know, I’m just not quite seeing it and I think if Kareem’s actually going to win this spot, we should get back to the topic at hand instead of being distracted with Duncan who will be a much more legitimate candidate in the next vote.