RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #4 (Bill Russell)

[lessthanjake]

At the same time, it sticks in my craw a bit when Duncan gets a major longevity boost over other guys who were literally MVP-type to a more advanced age, and I just think people need to consider for themselves what that means.

For easy reference, here's the last Top 5 MVP year by age for the players in question, along with others who have gotten nomination votes:

Wilt 36
Russell 34
Hakeem 33
Curry 32
Shaq 32
Garnett 31
Magic 31
Duncan 30
Mikan 29 (technically pre-MVP award's existence)

Again, if you personally have a different Top 5 list - as I know I do - you may seen things very differently and you should vote based on how you see things...but if you didn't realize that Duncan stopped being seen as an MVP-type player at a relatively young age, I think you should ponder that.

You might have the impression that this only happened because Duncan was being "conserved" by Pop and was selfless enough not to insist on his own primacy. I think it's important to remember that it took a few years in between '06-07 and the Beautiful Game resurgence, and the fall back in between those eras wasn't about anything other than the team's prior strategy not working as well any more. Pop did look to conserve Duncan and his other aging veterans...but this wasn't what cut short Duncan's run as an MVP candidate.

This point about ceasing to be an MVP candidate is a good one. I think there’s perhaps an argument that the Spurs continuous success was so consistent that it got taken for granted, which might’ve hurt Duncan’s MVP voting. But ultimately, I think the reality is that Duncan left his prime after 2007. But then again, he was legitimately elite the moment he stepped into the NBA, so it’s still a 10-year prime. And he was still really productive for many years after 2007—he had a 23.4 PER (and 21.6 in the playoffs) in the next eight seasons after that, alongside being a great defender.

Normally, I wouldn’t value non-MVP-level seasons like that all that much, since usually team success in the NBA requires an MVP-level player, so star players that aren’t quite there often just leave their team in a twilight zone where they’re not going to win a title but are too good to get a good draft pick. But I feel more comfortable valuing Duncan’s declined seasons, since his team was still consistently really good, and even won a title. Of course, a lot of that is on the organization. But at the very least, Duncan was not the type of player whose style sucked up all the oxygen such that if he’s a bit declined his team can’t be great anymore. Which, as I said, makes me more comfortable putting real value on those seasons.

To me, Duncan’s career arc resembles a slightly-lesser Kareem. Both were great the moment they stepped into the NBA, then both entered an extended declined-but-still-good phase, where they were not an MVP-contender-level player (though Kareem did actually get top 5 in MVP voting a few times—he definitely wasn’t going to win though) but their team was really good, followed by a short year-or-two period at the very end where they were more of role players for a team that was still really good. Kareem had a couple extra prime seasons and a couple fewer declined-but-still-good seasons, so Kareem’s arc was superior, but the general arc is pretty similar IMO. And I tend to see Kareem’s 1982-1987 period as being fairly similar to Duncan’s 2008-2015 period.

[rk2023]

Spoiler:

At the same time, it sticks in my craw a bit when Duncan gets a major longevity boost over other guys who were literally MVP-type to a more advanced age, and I just think people need to consider for themselves what that means.

For easy reference, here's the last Top 5 MVP year by age for the players in question, along with others who have gotten nomination votes:

Wilt 36
Russell 34
Hakeem 33
Curry 32
Shaq 32
Garnett 31
Magic 31
Duncan 30
Mikan 29 (technically pre-MVP award's existence)

Again, if you personally have a different Top 5 list - as I know I do - you may seen things very differently and you should vote based on how you see things...but if you didn't realize that Duncan stopped being seen as an MVP-type player at a relatively young age, I think you should ponder that.

You might have the impression that this only happened because Duncan was being "conserved" by Pop and was selfless enough not to insist on his own primacy. I think it's important to remember that it took a few years in between '06-07 and the Beautiful Game resurgence, and the fall back in between those eras wasn't about anything other than the team's prior strategy not working as well any more. Pop did look to conserve Duncan and his other aging veterans...but this wasn't what cut short Duncan's run as an MVP candidate.

This point about ceasing to be an MVP candidate is a good one. I think there’s perhaps an argument that the Spurs continuous success was so consistent that it got taken for granted, which might’ve hurt Duncan’s MVP voting. But ultimately, I think the reality is that Duncan left his prime after 2007. But then again, he was legitimately elite the moment he stepped into the NBA, so it’s still a 10-year prime. And he was still really productive for many years after 2007—he had a 23.4 PER (and 21.6 in the playoffs) in the next eight seasons after that, alongside being a great defender.

Normally, I wouldn’t value non-MVP-level seasons like that all that much, since usually team success in the NBA requires an MVP-level player, so star players that aren’t quite there often just leave their team in a twilight zone where they’re not going to win a title but are too good to get a good draft pick. But I feel more comfortable valuing Duncan’s declined seasons, since his team was still consistently really good, and even won a title. Of course, a lot of that is on the organization. But at the very least, Duncan was not the type of player whose style sucked up all the oxygen such that if he’s a bit declined his team can’t be great anymore. Which, as I said, makes me more comfortable putting real value on those seasons.

To me, Duncan’s career arc resembles a slightly-lesser Kareem. Both were great the moment they stepped into the NBA, then both entered an extended declined-but-still-good phase, where they were not an MVP-contender-level player (though Kareem did actually get top 5 in MVP voting a few times—he definitely wasn’t going to win though) but their team was really good, followed by a short year-or-two period at the very end where they were more of role players for a team that was still really good. Kareem had a couple extra prime seasons and a couple fewer declined-but-still-good seasons, so Kareem’s arc was superior, but the general arc is pretty similar IMO. And I tend to see Kareem’s 1982-1987 period as being fairly similar to Duncan’s 2008-2015 period.

Well said. The added longevity at an all-NBA level seen by Duncan and Kareem is why I feel confident considering Duncan at 5 and Kareem at 2. Playing at an MVP+ level is what I am looking for the most-so, but when each has showed the ability to scale down and still provide something that has a high impact on winning, I'm all for adding a little more value to that when assessing additive body of work.

[lessthanjake]

To me, peak Shaq was superior to peak Duncan. We basically know this, because they peaked around the same time, and Shaq was pretty clearly better IMO.

I would suggest to leave such a choice of words, because it's not clear at all if Shaq was better than Duncan.

I suppose there’s room for disagreement so maybe I worded it too strongly. I think there’s impact metrics that would go Duncan’s way, so there’s an argument there. I did have a “IMO” in my post though. Anyways, to me, it’s just one of those things where I watched basketball at the time and I know pretty clearly who I thought was better. As good as prime Duncan was, prime Shaq was just league-warping.

As I said, though, Duncan still goes ahead for me, though I do find it to be a very tough call.

[Samurai]

Vote for #4: Bill Russell

I'll be honest: a key reason for me is that he was my first "favorite player" that I watched. Yes, not a valid reason for this project but still special since there doesn't seem to be as many posters around who still saw him play live.

With the limited stats from his time, it is admittedly difficult to really measure his impact since his primary impact was on defense and rebounding. Some journalists back then would unofficially tally blocks and in about 100 such unofficial box scores from throughout his career, they tallied about 8 blocks/game. While closer to 6 blocks/game if adjusted for the higher pace then, that is still an insane number given that it is from throughout his career and not just his peak season. But as much or more than his famous blocks, just his presence alone dictated changes to opposing team's strategies. Russell is also on a very short list for best athleticism for an NBA player; people today tend to forget that he could have qualified for the US Olympic team as a high jumper in 1956 if he wasn't playing basketball in the Olympics. While we have some great athletes today, I don't recall any credible source verifying that a Giannis or LeBron could have legitimately qualified for the Olympic team in an event other than basketball.

I don't tend to give a lot of credence to rings since they often are more a reflection of a great team than a great individual. But Russell's case is so unique - 11 titles as the most dominant player on the team - it has to be reflected in the rationale. If an award for Finals MVP had existed, no doubt Russell would have more than anyone else in history. To me, I just don't see anyone else with as good a case for #4 as my first favorite player from my childhood.

Nominate: Magic Johnson

[70sFan]

I think people underestimate 2008 Duncan. He wasn't at his peak anymore of course, but it doesn't mean he wasn't MVP-level player anymore.

[70sFan]

To me, peak Shaq was superior to peak Duncan. We basically know this, because they peaked around the same time, and Shaq was pretty clearly better IMO.

I would suggest to leave such a choice of words, because it's not clear at all if Shaq was better than Duncan.

I suppose there’s room for disagreement so maybe I worded it too strongly. I think there’s impact metrics that would go Duncan’s way, so there’s an argument there. I did have a “IMO” in my post though. Anyways, to me, it’s just one of those things where I watched basketball at the time and I know pretty clearly who I thought was better. As good as prime Duncan was, prime Shaq was just league-warping.

As I said, though, Duncan still goes ahead for me, though I do find it to be a very tough call.

I think Shaq is one of the most extreme examples of perception overstating the actual impact. It doesn't mean that Shaq wasn't an all-time great at his peak (his peak was just absurd), but there is basically no data suggesting that Shaq peaked higher than top tier bigs and when you start analyzing the tape more in-depth, you start realizing that Shaq wasn't nearly as unstoppable one on one as you may think, or that his defense had way more holes than you may think (even as a rim protector), or that he didn't dunk on defenders that often and relied on relatively inefficient moves in the post...

I don't want to sound overly harsh on Shaq's peak, because I still view it in the top tier but I have heard so much about Shaq being unstoppable, incomparable etc. and once I did a deep dive on his peak games, I found it in big part an exaggeration created by a few memorable plays per game.

[rk2023]

Related towards Duncan's longevity, some impact assessments from his twilight years regard him quite highly for those ages and within the pool of his peers.

- Each of his seasons in BBI's LEBRON Data-Base (from 2009-10 onwards) rates him over a 3, and every year from 2011-16 - he grades out with a D-LEBRON from the 3.1-4.0 range.

- In Shot-Charts' Luck Adjusted RAPM Model, he grades out 12th overall from the 2011-16 5-year iteration with a value of 5.71. This value is flanked by the 3rd best LA-DRAPM value of 5.46.

- In Spax's RAPM Model, Duncan is 11th out of all players from the 2012-16 time frame with a value of 3.50

[One_and_Done]

Curry is also getting closer for me too. I'll just add that I think players in Hakeem's prime would be surprised to learn they were playing against a top 5 player of all-time, given he was rarely even top 5 in MVP voting. I have Hakeem soon enough (after Duncan, Shaq and Magic), so I can't really complain, but as we discussed extensively in the previous thread Hakeem was just not seen that way during his career at all.

Yet again, because MVP voting is primarily skewed toward 1) team record and 2) offensive production, neither of which favour Hakeem’s circumstances. Dominique Wilkins was a deeply flawed player who never made it out of the second round, but you see him repeatedly finish ahead of Hakeem because he was one of the league’s top scorers playing on a good Hawks team.

The MVP runner-up has played for an 8-seed three times. Take a guess whether it was because of their scoring or because of their defence.

I did a whole analysis of his MVP voting last thread, and i does not align with this narrative at all. Players on worse teams, or conparable offensive ability, were ranked ahead of Hakeem contantly.

[homecourtloss]

What I've noted though over the years in this project is that Duncan didn't gain separation from Hakeem & Shaq until the 2014 project. Maybe if we'd done a 2013 project he'd have gotten the separation there, but he wasn't in 2011 and I'm pretty confident '11-12 wouldn't have changed this.

The gaining of separation based on the Beautiful Game years of the Spurs doesn't necessarily strike me as problematic...but when I start seeing some of the things I've seen written, well, I have concerns.

I think what separates someone like Duncan from someone like Shaq is exactly because he became a productive all-star to sub all-star later in his career. Duncan transformed his dominant MVP seasons into perennial all defensive seasons while providing the connectivity that those later Spurs teams needed. Around the 2010-12 mark, Duncan did decline in his impact on the team, but his willingness to let that happen and just be hyper focused on his role still made him a solid all-star level big man.

Whereas with someone like Shaq, even prior to his Heat championship he was faltering quickly. Now, he was still near an all-star talent in his Heat days, but soon his offense was not worth his defense and his offense was also not nearly as productive. I give Duncan a lot of credit for being a near all-star to an MVP for the entirety of his career.

This is really an excellent point, and I think it’s one of the nuances that’s lost with people who dismiss longevity and equate it with simply “playing along time.“ Long after Tim Duncan was a “best in the world“ type of player, he helped increase the Spurs’s championship odds by continuing to provide top three — top five defensive impact while remaining a generally plus offensive player. Someone like Shaq could not do so, because he didn’t possess the defensive communication skills that the defense after his athleticism declined, the ability to read defenses, nor the general desire to defend the way Duncan did, and therefore could not extend his longevity once his offense fell off. A players ability to increase championship odds for his team in a variety of contexts speaks to his greatness.

With that said, voting for Russell for reasons stated previously and elucidated by Doc and others.

[AEnigma]

Curry is also getting closer for me too. I'll just add that I think players in Hakeem's prime would be surprised to learn they were playing against a top 5 player of all-time, given he was rarely even top 5 in MVP voting. I have Hakeem soon enough (after Duncan, Shaq and Magic), so I can't really complain, but as we discussed extensively in the previous thread Hakeem was just not seen that way during his career at all.

Yet again, because MVP voting is primarily skewed toward 1) team record and 2) offensive production, neither of which favour Hakeem’s circumstances. Dominique Wilkins was a deeply flawed player who never made it out of the second round, but you see him repeatedly finish ahead of Hakeem because he was one of the league’s top scorers playing on a good Hawks team.

The MVP runner-up has played for an 8-seed three times. Take a guess whether it was because of their scoring or because of their defence.

I did a whole analysis of his MVP voting last thread, and i does not align with this narrative at all. Players on worse teams, or conparable offensive ability, were ranked ahead of Hakeem contantly.

Okay, how about we take a look at that.

1985: 12th (behind players including Terry Cummings, Bernard King, Moncrief, Isiah Thomas, Calvin Natt, Alex English, and his own team mate Ralph Sampson)

Every player here averaged more points per game than Hakeem. All but Isiah and King (and Sampson…) played on a team with more wins.

I mean really, the fact this list includes Sampson and Bernard King playing 55 games for a 24-win Knicks team says it all.

1986: 4th (behind Bird, Dominique Wilkins whose Hawks only won 1 more game than Houston and Magic)

And Wilkins also scored seven more points per game while playing ten more games than Hakeem.

1987: 7th (behind Magic, Jordan, Bird, McHale (Bird’s sidekick), Wilkins and Barkley; Barkley’s team only won 3 more games than Houston)

Alright, here we go. Barkley did average 0.4 points per game fewer… but he was clearly on another level offensively, and even without true shooting, voters can see that yes, 23 on 59.4 field goal percentage with 4 assists is better than 23.4 on 50.8 field goal percentage with 2 assists.

And yes, all these players won more too.

1988: 7th (behind Jordan, Bird, Magic, Barkley, Clyde and Wilkins; Barkley’s Sixers won only 36 games, 10 less than Houston, and Wilkins Hawks only won 4 more games).

Every player here except Magic scored at least four more points per game while all being on better teams.

1989: 5th (behind Magic, Jordan, Karl Malone and Ewing; Karl and Ewing’s teams only won slightly more than Hakeem’s Rockets)

Okay, here we go, Ewing scored 1.9 fewer points per game (although was notably more efficient).

He also played for the Knicks.

1990: 7th (behind Magic, Barkley, Jordan, Malone, Ewing and rookie David Robinson; Ewing’s Knicks won 4 more games)

And Ewing this time around scored four more points per game.

1991: 18th (behind a cast of characters that included Barkley, Malone, Clyde, KJ, Wilkins, Terry Porter, Ewing, Stockton, Thomas, Parish, Dumars,

I mean yeah he played 56 games and his name was not Isiah Thomas (48 games ).

That said…

and even Kenny Smith, Hakeem’s own team mate!)

Again, are these the types of people you take seriously?

1992: N/A (didn’t place; even Barkley placed this year, on 35 win team while demanding a trade and trying to eat his way out of town)

He missed the postseason and averaged fewer points per game (while missing more games) than Barkley.

So again: at no point did anyone finish higher while scoring less and winning less. You may as well talk about jersey sales. Hakeem the Nigerian Muslim was not popular or properly respected by national media; we already knew this, and it is not any sort of insight into his value as a player. If you want to advocate for Duncan at this spot by pointing out his two MVPs and high award shares, you can say that without pretending it is anything especially meaningful that the same was not true for Hakeem. It is really unbecoming. Hakeem will not take Duncan’s spot at #5. You can relax, it is alright, he is safe.

[One_and_Done]

I'm pretty sure the voters didn't look at Hakeem and say 'well, he averaged 0.2 ppg less, so we better rank him below Bob Bloggs'. Hakeem posted relatuvely big scoring numbers, and everyone knew the value of a big. It was why Hakeem and Bowie went over Jordan in the draft.

[AEnigma]

And yet results constantly suggest otherwise. Stop treating voters as smarter or more insightful than they are.

Even today we get results like 2021 “1300 minutes played” Derrick Rose seeing a higher MVP finish than 2021 Rudy Gobert. This is not a serious way to assess the sport.

[lessthanjake]

I get that there’s certainly a lot more nuance than this, but scoring less than someone else isn’t just some irrelevant factor, nor is having a less successful team. If you look at box-score measures, like PER, Win Shares, BPM, VORP, etc., Hakeem was typically a bottom-half-of-the-top-10 kind of guy in the time period being talked about here. Those measures are of course not the full picture and don’t measure a lot of things that impact the game and we don’t have impact metrics from that era, but it’s hard to imagine huge impact metrics coming from a guy whose team was averaging an SRS of about 0.5-1.0 in the era and whose team still won like 44% of their games without him (21-27) during that six-year span (1986-87 to 1991-92). Bottom line is that I’m not really sure the MVP voters were all that wrong to not have been *that* high on Hakeem in that time period (though I’m sure we could quibble with certain players put above him in specific years—there’s always going to be some dumb/weird things).

[f4p]

"The Pop Factor"
“But Tim always had Popovich [the real architect of Spurs success].”

in typical internet fashion, i will ignore all the stuff i agree with you about and only focus on the disagreement. i am definitely a "but tim always had pop" kind of guy. i find the whole "but tim was coachable" so that allowed pop to coach argument as wrong as the "jordan made pippen" arguments. there are tons of coaches in the hall of fame right now. only one of them coached tim duncan. across the ages, coaches have implemented strategies, gotten players to buy in, yelled at players or been players coaches, whatever the case may be. all without tim duncan on their roster. i don't find tim duncan to be a necessary condition for good coaching. is it nice when your superstar is selfless and goes along with the program? sure. better than having demarcus cousins or something. but great players and great coaches tend to have long, successful eras together. duncan just got luckier than most that he got that coach from day 1.

to me, it's not just that pop is a brilliant strategist, though he's up there, but when people start talking about all the +3 and +5 and 58 win regular seasons, that to me is where pop shines. the guy who gets on everyone for 82 games a year, all 100 possessions of the game, who is on the guys in training camp and the preseason. who will call a timeout 30 seconds into a game and ream everyone out. along with the spurs almost always fielding a talented and veteran-laden squad, that's how you churn out the 50 win season every year, with no lulls. because even when the spurs would rest a star, or even all 3, the spurs just kept playing like the spurs. every year, the borg assimilated a few new guys and they just kept trucking. again, nice to have duncan around to build that culture? sure. but this is a franchise where david robinson, before anyone knew anything about duncan, basically turned the team over to duncan in a move arguably more selfless than anything duncan did. where manu ginobili, a guy who might finish in the top 50 of this project, willingly went to the bench when it was asked of him. the spurs were lucky all around (or good at identifying these guys i guess) in terms of culture building moments and players. i can't just take the brilliance and consistency of pop, and somehow give all that credit to duncan because he was coachable. no different than belichick for brady, having one of the greatest be there right from day 1 all the way to day the last, is a huge bonus.

and if we're giving duncan credit for being quiet and taking all of pop's coaching, we must also acknowledge that pop was the ass-kicker in the locker room. i think every team needs one, and it's not always the best player. it can be, like in the case of jordan. it can be a guy like draymond. but you need the guy who gets on everyone when they aren't doing what they should. the guy who puts a little fear behind all the camaraderie and team chemistry. the guy who yells "i need some nasty" in the huddle. duncan not only got a great coach, but the guy who would fill a role that the quieter, lead-by-example duncan was almost certainly never going to fulfill.

Well, Pop’s still there; but look how quickly the dynasty crumbled once Tim was gone. They had another fantastic year immediately after his retirement, although Tim had a hand in that [more on that to follow].

okay, but it's obviously much more complicated. for one thing, when you lose tim duncan's culture, you also lose tim duncan's talent. a guy who might finish #5 in this project, going from your team's best player for almost 20 years to retiring with no assets in return is a big loss compared to peak spurs. on top of that of course, tony parker and manu ginobili, other guys in the top 75, basically went away with no replacement at almost the same time. and then of course, by far the biggest factor is kawhi. the spurs played well after duncan retired. 61 wins and the #1 defense in the league? that's better than any seasons the rockets had WITH hakeem. and that was duncan's supporting cast!

and then kawhi just straight up quit. a top 20 all-time talent just basically disappearing is a massive hit to take when you've already just lost or watch fall into decline 3 other hall of famers. if you want to say "see, kawhi isn't as good at culture as duncan", okay. but that's not really the argument here. even with kawhi just sitting out the whole season (so before he was even replaced by (bleh) demar derozan), they still got 47 wins and a #3 defense. that's a quadruple punch of retired/sitting out/40 years old (manu) or practically useless replacement level (parker) hall of famers. and still an above average team with an elite defense.

besides, i don't think anyone ever suggest pop was anywhere equivalent to a great player like duncan. but could he have been adding 5 wins a year? maybe. and that's where i might side with some others on a point i will make in a different post. namely, that people get mad when i say tim duncan underperformed his regular season greatness in the playoffs, on a team level. but if you are the regular season GOAT and do it over 19 years, and yet there are 4 guys above you in titles, then you can't really have lived up to your regular season reputation, right?

i get told, well tim duncan made them so good that you can't be mad when they don't live up to it. to which my response would be "then stop telling me he made them so good, if you're also telling me he didn't really make them that good so you can't blame him for playoff losses as a favorite". but i do think this is where the pop factor might at least go back a little in tim's favor. i do think the spurs were probably better in the regular season than they should have been. because of pop. at least relative to other coaches. the things that drag teams down in the regular season are inconsistent effort and poor discipline. well, pop was bringing that in spades. the spurs almost couldn't lose to a mediocre team because they would, in what i think are the words of bill simmons, "outspurs the other team to death." basically, they would just methodically out-execute and out-discipline bad teams, in a way even other really good teams wouldn't. and balloon up their wins and SRS. but i think especially the late spurs would also not necessarily have the greatest record against the best teams. so when a crazy athletic, fully motivated OKC team would show up, their natural talent would exceed the spurs in the playoffs and beat them even if the spurs could out-execute them to a better regular season record.

so if you want, i can take 30% off the playoff disappointments (as disappointments go for top 10 players) for pop making the spurs exceed their talent level. but then you can't tell me it was all duncan and not pop.

[AEnigma]

And in the three years before that they won 37.5% of their games without him and 61.3% of their games with him, so unless you think he got worse after his sophomore year, that too undersells him.

I do not think the MVP voters were wrong to vote for players who won more and have in fact repeatedly defended that approach. But that is separate from who was the best.

Here, I will hammer Barkley for a bit.
1987: +2.3 on, +7.9 on/off
1988: -0.9 on, +2.7 on/off
1992: +0.3 on, +6 on/off

He is not getting those same kinds of votes today without playing for the Knicks, and unless you think Hakeem’s impact was not significantly higher on his teams (and just looking at 1992 alone you can already tell it was), then yes, those were dumb box score myopia votes.

[f4p]

Now, as I say there's a good chance I'll side with Duncan, there's something that's been rising in recent years pertaining to the body of his career that I feel I need to put out there:

While Duncan deserves all sorts of praise for his longevity, and his sustained impact for the Spurs, this is not the same as him having a particularly long prime as an MVP-level player.

I emphasize this because people talk about Duncan specifically making his teams be elite for the better part of two decades, but beyond a certain point, this is just Duncan being part of an ensemble. It's a good thing, but it's not the same sort of thing, as leading a team as a superstar.

It's thus important, I think to make clear when one era ended and the other began.

If we go by MVP voting, Duncan's last year as a Top 5 guy was in '06-07 (and that's I personally see it as well).
If we go by POY voting, Duncan also grabs the 5th spot in '07-08 & '12-13.

I think clearly if you see Duncan as an MVP candidate guy through '12-13, it makes sense to see Duncan as the clear cut choice.

If you see '06-07 as the end of that run though, then we're talking about a guy who played 4 years of college ball and then only kept his superstar-level until age 30. Amazing by all normal standards...but it also means that so much of the longevity comes after that run ended.

you said a lot of things i always want to/try to say in the duncan arguments. i think people underrate the different between a 2003 or 2006 duncan who could still bring epic defensive impact and then score 25-30 ppg and 2012/13/14 duncan who took a major offensive backseat and almost certainly had taken at least a little hit defensively as he got older. 2003 duncan was a championship starter kit by himself, just add water. 2008/09/10/11 duncan shows us he clearly wasn't at that level any more. parker and ginobili are still basically in their primes and this team is doing relatively little in the postseason, and not in a "duncan heroically puts up 30/15 and they still lose" kind of way. in a "duncan averages 20/8 as they lose to a 7th seed" or "duncan averages 13/10 as they lose to an 8th seed" kind of way. in terms of hakeem, these are the same age as hakeem's 1994-1997 run, when hakeem was knocking off favorites, winning crazy titles, and basically being unstoppable offensively all the way out to age 34 when he capped a great playoffs with a 27 ppg, 59 FG% western conference finals.

now maybe duncan just got better after that, but it seems much more likely that adding a solid playoff's team worth of talent in kawhi/mills/splitter/diaw/green is what did the trick. duncan gets to downshift into the most comfortable role possible. picking and choosing when to ramp up his offense while defending at a high level. while playing less than 30 mpg. his longevity is impressive, but certainly tempered by getting to play a perfect role, on lower minutes, with gobs of surrounding talent. you can even see in a year like 2013 where he got through the western conference 12-2 while averaging 17.8 ppg on 50.8 TS% with only 9.2 rpg. someone like hakeem was cranking out 36 mpg seasons as a 36 year old during the lockout shortened season with teams playing all sorts of back-to-backs and even a back-to-back-back, and even averaged 19/9.5/2.5 bpg while doing it. before getting sacrificed on the altar of prime shaq in the playoffs, with no david robinson's or malik rose's or mark bryant's around to help him out at a much older age than when duncan would get lots of help guarding shaq. it's just a very difference team experience for an older player to get to be in an ideal role, instead of still trying to play the greatest hits when you aren't on that level any more.

.....
At the same time, it sticks in my craw a bit when Duncan gets a major longevity boost over other guys who were literally MVP-type to a more advanced age, and I just think people need to consider for themselves what that means.

For easy reference, here's the last Top 5 MVP year by age for the players in question, along with others who have gotten nomination votes:

Wilt 36
Russell 34
Hakeem 33
Curry 32
Shaq 32
Garnett 31
Magic 31
Duncan 30
Mikan 29 (technically pre-MVP award's existence)

Again, if you personally have a different Top 5 list - as I know I do - you may seen things very differently and you should vote based on how you see things...but if you didn't realize that Duncan stopped being seen as an MVP-type player at a relatively young age, I think you should ponder that.

exactly, i think duncan started showing cracks as a dominant low-post scorer as early as 2004 and 2005, though he did bounce back with an extremely good 2006 playoffs, but then after that it's hard to say when he was ever at the "championship starter kit" level ever again after 2007. again, someone like hakeem, not considered to have the same longevity, is at age 31-34 from 1994-1997, which matches up with the spurs low point from 2008-2011, when the spurs roster with parker and ginobili could hardly be painted as a less talented roster than hakeem was playing with over those 4 years. now maybe someone has duncan with more value before that stretch, but hakeem and duncan did not play their early 30's as equals and then duncan just started piling on more longevity and value. i would say hakeem, who was knocking off Showtime as a 23 year old, almost certainly would have the advantage by age 34, even if you have 22-30 duncan over 22-30 hakeem. and given the switch in value that people tend to give to older duncan happening right as team circumstances got way better for duncan and way worse for hakeem, it's hard not to think that team circumstances helped duncan a lot in the post-34 longevity battle.

[trelos6]

#4: Bill Russell
#5: Tim Duncan

Nominate: Kevin Garnett

Bill Russell had 4 amazing seasons where he was the undisputed best player in the world, highlighted with the single best defensive season IMO, 1964. He had another 11 seasons where he was arguably a top 3 player in the league, and his entire 13 year career, he was at a DPOY level. Of course, we all know his resume: 11 championships, 5x league MVP. With the players from the 60's, sure they played fewer seasons on average, but Russell averaged 42mpg in his career, and 45mpg in the playoffs.

Tim Duncan had 2 seasons where he was the undisputed best player, 10 where he was arguably a top 3 player, and 15 seasons as an all nba / all D level player. There is no one else in history who had this defensive impact for 15 seasons, the closest being Russell and KG. We know the resume, 5x champ, 2 x MVP, 3x fMVP. Although his defense is what gets him up this high, he wasn't a slouch on the other side. Peaking at 25.1 pp75 at +5.6 rTS%, and in the playoffs he had 7 straight years of 26.1 pp75 at +4rTS%. This was the early 2000's as well, where scoring was a lot harder to come by. His peak can be seen from 2000-2007, where he had an average PIPM of +6.34. Shaq peaked at +7.2, Hakeem +7.3 both for one season. By no means a fancy stat, but simple counting totals mean a lot, as it shows production over time. Duncan has scored 26496 points in RS, and another 5172 pts in the playoffs. This places him 10th all time in scoring totals, and that wasn't his calling card.

I'll throw out a nomination to KG. He's coming up soon, and can be argued against the likes of Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt etc.

[OhayoKD]

I personally think the distribution of "skill" between lebron and Jordan is off(">>>" by "playmaking" and "=" by "defense" both seem dubious in opposite directions), but they've both been voted in already so I guess i'll skip to the main-attraction...

This 5 year run without Robinson, just from a team DRtg perspective is very comparable to the Celtics best 5 year run defensively from 1960-1964 where they posted rDRtgs of -6.2, -7.6, -8.5, -8.5, and -10.8. If the Celtics were 8 points better than league average on defense during their best run and the Spurs were 7 points better during their best run with the Celtics probably having a better defensive team around Russell than the Spurs had around Duncan, I don't see how you can say they weren't at least close on that end. Meanwhile scoring the ball, it's not close. Here are career numbers for both including a much more lengthy decline period for Duncan since he had a longer career:

Here's the thing. -8 in 1960-1964 is not the same as -8 in the 2000's. Taking Duncan because you think he's better in a vacuum is fine, but those d-ratings do not necessarily reflect defensive parity...even if we did assume russell had more or the same defensive help(David Robinson might disagree, not to mention the degree the pattern of post-rookie team drop-offs(which are quite large(8-points in 70) even overall).

Well, let's get this out of the way.....

VOTE: Tim Duncan

Thank you for that post, it was a pleasure to read!

When I look at a player whose statistical, impact, and accomplishment profile looks rather easily top 8 (and arguably top 5 [VERY likely from a total career value standpoint]), and then add on consideration of his extraordinary leadership resume [I mean, it doesn't sell shoes, but I still think it's pretty relevant in a discussion of basketball greatness], it makes him a
It was between him and Bill Russell, but I'm surprising myself and going with Wilt. Had recently started doing some "CORP" considerations, and he comes out ahead of Russell in this for me (in a vacuum). Which seems predictable, really; he simply is the "bigger" talent [to me].

Would you be kind enough to share CORP evaluation for Wilt and Russell (and for Duncan, Hakeem and Shaq if that's not too much)?

Personally, as a newly self-discovered era-srs-ivist, i would say I'd have to say wilt's CORP was pretty low. Could not even hit +9 with a team that went +5 without him? Only +4 with Jerry West? I'd say the results place him well off players like hakeem, duncan, and kg. Maybe closer to dwight...

(Concur with 70's that was a great write-up)

[rk2023]

Best decades of Hakeem and Duncan by the box score (RS -> PS, data courtesy of Thinking Basketball)

Hakeem 1986 - 1995:
24.1 Adj. Points / 75 -> 27.7
2.1% rTS -> 4.4
3.4 Box Creation -> 5.2
3.4 Passer Rating -> 4.3
5.9 PIPM
5.0 BPM -> 6.9


Duncan 1998 - 2007:
24.7 Adj. Points / 75 -> 25.8
+3.0% rTS -> 4.3
3.8 Box Creation -> 4.5
4.8 Passer Rating -> 5.0
5.9 PIPM
5.2 BPM -> 6.3 (TB's Model)
4.8 AuPM/G -> 4.9

Pretty intriguing how similar the two are for what composes most of their MVP+ levels of play. A few things to note: Box Models (even TB's) aren't doing the most when it comes to quantifying defense - which both were aces at (and in which I prefer Hakeem for). Furthermore, Duncan of-course supports this decade with 9 years of all-star+ value - whereas Hakeem supports it with 7 all in all. Unsure how I would rank everything all in all, but I would separate the two spans for both. Seems almost certain Duncan takes the additive value portion, whereas I would go with Hakeem peak for peak. Prime is what is going to be the deciding factor between the two, which is close. Still do not have an answer.

[Dr Positivity]

This is a very, very hard vote.

I'll start with someone I'm not voting for, Wilt. To start with him and Russell have disadvantage to me that I rate 60s lower than late 80s through 00s. Wilt had the worst playoff clutch reputation in his time of the nominated players. And of course, he is the most complicated personality, a guy that repeatedly holding teams hostage by threatening to retire unless he got paid more, etc. vacillating between either complaining about not getting the ball enough or not being aggressive, etc. I was reading this Sports Illustrated article from 1969 with all kinds of tidbits about the Wilt experience https://vault.si.com/vault/1969/01/27/on-topbut-in-trouble While on the other hand at his best Wilt was THAT guy, I think there's too much baggage for me compared to a player like Duncan.

On Russell, I made my post for the most part last thread, for him to be top 4 all time with offensive impact that approaches let's say Draymond level (in impact, not style), he would need to be by far the best defensive player, and the team results look good for him that area, I would need to know what exactly makes him that dominant. I can't judge the blocks per game vs players like Hakeem for a variety of reasons (less spacing, pace, minutes, etc.) and Wilt showed a different player can block a lot too in that time, and nothing I've seen convinces he is playing perimeter defense like KG and Draymond or even if they even thought to in that era. Russell describes himself as mastering every inch of the court and prediction opposition movement on D, but we know players like to self aggrandize. I do give Russell credit for being a clutch god by all accounts, and A+ leadership. Still, all else equal, I rate the 60s lower than the 90s/00s as I said for Wilt.

That leaves a VERY hard choice between Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq.

Hakeem vs Duncan: You can argue both have semi-flawed offensive games compared to other players in the top 20 all time, as low post players, with non-perfect efficiency. Duncan has better longevity, the 2013 and 2014 finals seasons when he is still excellent, is the equivalent of 2000 and 2001 in Hakeem's timeline. Duncan has more "cultural impact" on the franchise, Hakeem's doesn't seem bad, but Duncan's was especially good. I have more thoughts on Hakeem and why I have him a bit lower, however I suspect he's not getting in here, so I'll save them for another thread.

That leaves Duncan vs Shaq. This is a very tough one because they provide different strengths. Shaq seems to have the more dominant peak, in 00-02 he is the outright best player in the league. Duncan is a way better leader and has a healthier consistent career, and as with Hakeem, his longevity is a bit better. I am sympathetic to the idea that Duncan got to play for a great franchise, but Shaq also got paired with a litany of superstar perimeter players and an even better coach all time than Popovich. While a part of me would hope #4 all time is a little more individually dominant than Duncan, he was still pretty damn good in seasons like 02/03 and his consistency, longevity and leadership is superb.

Vote

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaquille O'Neal

Nominate Stephen Curry