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

[penbeast0]

Sorry, I have missed most of this.

Vote: Russell -- I have voted for him at #1 and the reasons still apply. He dominated his era to an extent that no one, not LeBron, not Jordan, not Kareem, has approached in NBA history.

Next Vote: Wilt -- the greatest individual talent to ever play. He was blocked by Russell, my vote as GOAT. But discounting his playoffs against Russell and Boston, his playoff series winning % was better than that of Jordan and blows LeBron and Kareem out of the water. He was the greatest scorer in NBA history, then accepted a coach's decision to focus on defense and became the greatest defender in the league after Russell's retirement. I just don't find Duncan, Hakeem, or Shaq to measure up in terms of impact though there may be a longevity advantage.

Nominate: Magic -- I have been nominating Mikan because I thought that other than my top 5, he's the only other candidate that had at least an outside argument about GOAT impact. But if we are getting to the Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq level, then Magic deserves to be in the mix. Willing to listen to Curry arguments.

[70sFan]

I think Shaq vs Wilt would be a very interesting comparison in the next thread. I wonder how you view their primes and what are the main advantages one has over the other.

[eminence]

Voting post, same as last round, so a bit short

1. Bill Russell
2. Tim Duncan

Nominate: Kevin Garnett

Bill:
+Win win win win.
+On film and in data an all-time level of defensive play.
+Strong end of career impact signal.
+If one believes in his early years he actually has pretty darn good longevity.

Tim:
+Modern win win win win.
+On film and in data an all-time level of defensive play.
+Strong career long impact signal.
+Elite longevity.

Kevin:
-Lose lose lose lose.
+Strong contender for #2 impact signal of the last third of NBA history (accounting for league size really significantly more than that).
+Breadth of skill perhaps unmatched in league history.
+Elite longevity.

[eminence]

Sorry, I have missed most of this.

Vote: Russell
Next Vote: Wilt
Nominate: Magic

Think Doc would probably appreciate some quick reasoning here at least on the main vote.

[penbeast0]

AEnigma and lessthanjake, if you can't keep your personal sniping out of your posts, we will have to remove you from the project. That would be a shame because both of you are making a serious attempt to bring strong arguments with data in support but the name calling and bickering makes this project far less enjoyable for others to have to wade through. My suggestion is you put each other on ignore and don't attempt to answer each other's specific points. Make your own arguments then let them stand on their own merits.

[f4p]

The issue with his playoffs pre-93 is that it's a limited sample, where he's often playing bad teams over small samples.

but he's not. in 1986 he got a +6.8 opponent and a +9.1 opponent. in 1990, he got a +6.7 opponent. in 1991, he got a +6.7 opponent. for an average 3.22 opponent. that's not huge, but it's actually above magic and larry's average career opponent (2.7 and 2.8) and not far off Duncan's career opponent of 3.9. the difference between 3.2 and 3.9 is not going to shift someone from putting up good numbers to putting up bad numbers.

also:
kareem = 2.6
russell = 2.4

[ijspeelman]

I think Shaq vs Wilt would be a very interesting comparison in the next thread. I wonder how you view their primes and what are the main advantages one has over the other.

These guys are incredibly similar impact wise to me. They almost have opposite things going on.

For Wilt, elite defense with questionable offensive impact. Not that Wilt was a bad offensive per se, but his volume and efficiency did not translate to team ORTG even with guys like Paul Arizin, Hal Greer, and Chet Walker. It was when Wilt stopped being a volume scorer (and his move to LAL) when his teams started having top ORTG seasons.

Wilt's Team's ORTG ranking by year

Spoiler:

1959-60 PHW 7/8
1960-61 PHW 6/8
1961-62 PHW 4/9
1962-63 PHW 5/9
1963-64 SFW 7/9
1964-65 pt 1 SFW 9/9
1964-65 pt 2 PHI 5/9
1965-66 PHI 6/9
1966-67 PHI 1/10
1967-68 PHI 4/12
1968-69 LAL 2/14
1969-70 LAL 8/14
1970-71 LAL 4/17
1971-72 LAL 1/17
1972-73 LAL 2/17

For Shaq, elite offense with questionable defensive impact. Shaq's team historically were middle of the pack to below average in DRTG (with the exception of 1999-00 where they were rated as first). Shaq was a solid post defender, but was never a guy who consistently teleported over to deter/block shots like Hakeem, Robinson, Garnett, or Duncan so his team defense was mainly suspect. It got worse and worse as he aged to where he was a negative on the floor by the end of his career.

Shaq's Team's DRTG rank by year

Spoiler:

1992-93 ORL 12/27
1993-94 ORL 15/27
1994-95 ORL 13/27
1995-96 ORL 12/29
1996-97 LAL 8/29
1997-98 LAL 11/29
1998-99 LAL 23/29
1999-00 LAL 1/29
2000-01 LAL 21/29
2001-02 LAL 7/29
2002-03 LAL 19/29
2003-04 LAL 8/29
2004-05 MIA 6/30
2005-06 MIA 9/30
2006-07 MIA 8/30
2007-08 pt 1 MIA 26/30
2007-08 pt 2 PHO 16/30
2008-09 PHO 26/30
2009-10 CLE 7/30 (started each game, but near half and 23.4MPG)
2010-11 BOS 2/30 (started all, but one game, but near a third and 20.3MPG)

[lessthanjake]

Just to provide some data I’ve been looking at, especially since there’s been some talk about teams’ average margin of victory when guys played versus when they didn’t:

If we look at how the Warriors did in average margin of victory in games with and without Steph Curry from 2013-2014 to present, we get the following:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2013-2014 to 2022-2023

With Steph: +7.97
Without Steph: -4.63

This is an enormous lift. But I do think it’s a bit of an unfair comparison, since the off games are to some degree swamped by one season Steph barely played, where the Warriors were abnormally weak (2019-2020). So let’s look at the numbers excluding that season:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2013-2014 to 2022-2023 (excluding 2019-2020)

With Steph: +8.12
Without Steph: -2.50

This is of course a bit less bad on the without-Steph front, but indicates an *incredible* lift.

Now let’s look at some more specific timeframes—in particular, the peak dynasty years, as well as the non-peak-dynasty years:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019

With Steph: +10.57
Without Steph: -1.90

This is actually crazy. The average MOV over that 5-season span with Steph playing is completely insane. I’m not certain, but I’d wager it’s probably the best average MOV any player has ever had in a 5-year span! And, in the meantime, that same team had an average margin of victory of -1.90 in the 52 games Steph didn’t play in that timeframe. It’s breathtaking! I don’t think there’s really anything else like this in NBA history in terms of raw lift and the heights being lifted to (it’s harder to lift a team to higher heights).

But what about the non-dynasty years? Obviously there were years where the team wasn’t as talented and players (including perhaps Steph himself) weren’t at their very best levels. The Warriors did get a title in those years, of course, but it was definitely a different environment, and we know the team wasn’t as dominant. What do Steph’s numbers look like in those years?

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV in 2013-2014 + 2020-2021 to 2022-2023

With Steph: +4.77
Without Steph: -3.04

This is, of course, less insane than the peak dynasty years, but we’re still looking at very strong impact numbers here, even when we’re basically focusing on all the least strong years of Steph’s prime. In the era these numbers came from (i.e. mostly higher scoring than most eras), that’s basically roughly equivalent to taking a 33-win team and making it a 53-win team. Not as good as the dynasty years, but still a substantial lift in these numbers!

[f4p]

Just to provide some data I’ve been looking at, especially since there’s been some talk about teams’ average margin of victory when guys played versus when they didn’t:

If we look at how the Warriors did in average margin of victory in games with and without Steph Curry from 2013-2014 to present, we get the following:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2013-2014 to 2022-2023

With Steph: +7.97
Without Steph: -4.63

This is an enormous lift. But I do think it’s a bit of an unfair comparison, since the off games are to some degree swamped by one season Steph barely played, where the Warriors were abnormally weak (2019-2020). So let’s look at the numbers excluding that season:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2013-2014 to 2022-2023 (excluding 2019-2020)

With Steph: +8.12
Without Steph: -2.50

This is of course a bit less bad on the without-Steph front, but indicates an *incredible* lift.

Now let’s look at some more specific timeframes—in particular, the peak dynasty years, as well as the non-peak-dynasty years:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019

With Steph: +10.57
Without Steph: -1.90

This is actually crazy. The average MOV over that 5-season span with Steph playing is completely insane. I’m not certain, but I’d wager it’s probably the best average MOV any player has ever had in a 5-year span! And, in the meantime, that same team had an average margin of victory of -1.90 in the 52 games Steph didn’t play in that timeframe. It’s breathtaking! I don’t think there’s really anything else like this in NBA history in terms of raw lift and the heights being lifted to (it’s harder to lift a team to higher heights).

But what about the non-dynasty years? Obviously there were years where the team wasn’t as talented and players (including perhaps Steph himself) weren’t at their very best levels. The Warriors did get a title in those years, of course, but it was definitely a different environment, and we know the team wasn’t as dominant. What do Steph’s numbers look like in those years?

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV in 2013-2014 + 2020-2021 to 2022-2023

With Steph: +4.77
Without Steph: -3.04

This is, of course, less insane than the peak dynasty years, but we’re still looking at very strong impact numbers here, even when we’re basically focusing on all the least strong years of Steph’s prime. In the era these numbers came from (i.e. mostly higher scoring than most eras), that’s basically roughly equivalent to taking a 33-win team and making it a 53-win team. Not as good as the dynasty years, but still a big lift in these numbers!

ok, but this is where i get into what do these numbers mean and let's check the playoffs. steph's team does indeed seem to miss him in the regular season, even showing no signs of missing kevin durant when KD was there. and yet in the playoffs, we get a different story.

steph has missed 12 games in the playoffs, and the warriors have gone 9-3 and won those games by an average MOV of 9.83. their opponents weren't world beaters but were still a weighted average of +1.7 SRS. so far from the negatives they show themselves as in the regular season, in the playoffs they are absolutely drilling 45-46 win competition like a dominant team. and i'm being generous and not counting game 4 against 2016 houston as an "off" game for steph even though he only played 18 minutes, shot horribly (2-9) and had a 0 +/- in a game the warriors won by 27.

[lessthanjake]

Hmm

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).

Yeah, I don't think that sort of analysis leads to where you think it does...

Magic Johnson(3x MVP) 1980-1991
Lakers are +0.8 without, +7.5 with

Micheal Jordan(5x MVP) 1985-1998
Bulls are +1.3 without, +6.1 with

Hakeem(1x MVP) 1985-1999
Rockets are -2.8 without. +2.5 with

And that is the regular-season...

Hakeem’s number still don’t look all that good there, particularly as it is going to be more difficult to lift a team in raw terms the better they are. Like, even on their face, those numbers for Hakeem roughly suggest going from about a 34-win team to a 47 or 48 win team. Whereas, for Jordan, they are roughly suggestive of going from a 44 or 45 win team to a 57-win team. In raw wins-added terms, the former looks slightly better, but I’d say the latter is definitely better in reality. (Of course, this is all abstracted, because we’re looking at numbers over many years, not any lift in a particular season. And in any event, the Jordan numbers are also pretty biased by the fact that the vast majority of the missed games are in a couple years in the team’s heyday when Pippen was in his prime, etc., while the games Jordan played are obviously naturally much more evenly distributed. I don’t really think that that sort of thing is at play as much with Hakeem’s numbers).

Also, these are career-wide numbers for Hakeem, and the discussion in question was actually specifically about Hakeem’s first 8 seasons. In Hakeem’s first 8 seasons, here’s the numbers:

With Hakeem: +1.79
Without Hakeem: -2.74

These raw differences are not suggestive of having very high impact numbers during that timeframe. And, notably, since the actual scale of the numbers isn’t high (i.e., not lifting to a high number), it’s rendered even less impressive than the raw numerical difference would suggest IMO. Meanwhile, again, the actual limited snippets of pure impact data we do have from the time period (i.e. Squared’s stuff) supports the inference that Hakeem’s impact metrics in that time period were likely not all that great. (Please also note that the “without Hakeem” numbers are actually increased by almost a full point by one 56-point loss in the 1986-1987 season. Of course, getting destroyed like that without Hakeem is relevant, but still seems worth noting as an outlier that is probably making Hakeem look a bit better overall here than he’d have typically looked if we had full impact data).

[70sFan]

I think Shaq vs Wilt would be a very interesting comparison in the next thread. I wonder how you view their primes and what are the main advantages one has over the other.

These guys are incredibly similar impact wise to me. They almost have opposite things going on.

For Wilt, elite defense with questionable offensive impact. Not that Wilt was a bad offensive per se, but his volume and efficiency did not translate to team ORTG even with guys like Paul Arizin, Hal Greer, and Chet Walker. It was when Wilt stopped being a volume scorer (and his move to LAL) when his teams started having top ORTG seasons.

Wilt's Team's ORTG ranking by year

Spoiler:

1959-60 PHW 7/8
1960-61 PHW 6/8
1961-62 PHW 4/9
1962-63 PHW 5/9
1963-64 SFW 7/9
1964-65 pt 1 SFW 9/9
1964-65 pt 2 PHI 5/9
1965-66 PHI 6/9
1966-67 PHI 1/10
1967-68 PHI 4/12
1968-69 LAL 2/14
1969-70 LAL 8/14
1970-71 LAL 4/17
1971-72 LAL 1/17
1972-73 LAL 2/17

For Shaq, elite offense with questionable defensive impact. Shaq's team historically were middle of the pack to below average in DRTG (with the exception of 1999-00 where they were rated as first). Shaq was a solid post defender, but was never a guy who consistently teleported over to deter/block shots like Hakeem, Robinson, Garnett, or Duncan so his team defense was mainly suspect. It got worse and worse as he aged to where he was a negative on the floor by the end of his career.

Shaq's Team's DRTG rank by year

Spoiler:

1992-93 ORL 12/27
1993-94 ORL 15/27
1994-95 ORL 13/27
1995-96 ORL 12/29
1996-97 LAL 8/29
1997-98 LAL 11/29
1998-99 LAL 23/29
1999-00 LAL 1/29
2000-01 LAL 21/29
2001-02 LAL 7/29
2002-03 LAL 19/29
2003-04 LAL 8/29
2004-05 MIA 6/30
2005-06 MIA 9/30
2006-07 MIA 8/30
2007-08 pt 1 MIA 26/30
2007-08 pt 2 PHO 16/30
2008-09 PHO 26/30
2009-10 CLE 7/30 (started each game, but near half and 23.4MPG)
2010-11 BOS 2/30 (started all, but one game, but near a third and 20.3MPG)

I wouldn't equate team numbers with their ability (or lack of) to anchor top teams on either side of the floor. Wilt for example didn't have much to work with in the early 1960s - take a look at the TS Add numbers for his teammates (Rodgers, Grabowski, Hightower, Sauldsberry etc).

[lessthanjake]

Just to provide some data I’ve been looking at, especially since there’s been some talk about teams’ average margin of victory when guys played versus when they didn’t:

If we look at how the Warriors did in average margin of victory in games with and without Steph Curry from 2013-2014 to present, we get the following:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2013-2014 to 2022-2023

With Steph: +7.97
Without Steph: -4.63

This is an enormous lift. But I do think it’s a bit of an unfair comparison, since the off games are to some degree swamped by one season Steph barely played, where the Warriors were abnormally weak (2019-2020). So let’s look at the numbers excluding that season:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2013-2014 to 2022-2023 (excluding 2019-2020)

With Steph: +8.12
Without Steph: -2.50

This is of course a bit less bad on the without-Steph front, but indicates an *incredible* lift.

Now let’s look at some more specific timeframes—in particular, the peak dynasty years, as well as the non-peak-dynasty years:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019

With Steph: +10.57
Without Steph: -1.90

This is actually crazy. The average MOV over that 5-season span with Steph playing is completely insane. I’m not certain, but I’d wager it’s probably the best average MOV any player has ever had in a 5-year span! And, in the meantime, that same team had an average margin of victory of -1.90 in the 52 games Steph didn’t play in that timeframe. It’s breathtaking! I don’t think there’s really anything else like this in NBA history in terms of raw lift and the heights being lifted to (it’s harder to lift a team to higher heights).

But what about the non-dynasty years? Obviously there were years where the team wasn’t as talented and players (including perhaps Steph himself) weren’t at their very best levels. The Warriors did get a title in those years, of course, but it was definitely a different environment, and we know the team wasn’t as dominant. What do Steph’s numbers look like in those years?

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV in 2013-2014 + 2020-2021 to 2022-2023

With Steph: +4.77
Without Steph: -3.04

This is, of course, less insane than the peak dynasty years, but we’re still looking at very strong impact numbers here, even when we’re basically focusing on all the least strong years of Steph’s prime. In the era these numbers came from (i.e. mostly higher scoring than most eras), that’s basically roughly equivalent to taking a 33-win team and making it a 53-win team. Not as good as the dynasty years, but still a big lift in these numbers!

ok, but this is where i get into what do these numbers mean and let's check the playoffs. steph's team does indeed seem to miss him in the regular season, even showing no signs of missing kevin durant when KD was there. and yet in the playoffs, we get a different story.

steph has missed 12 games in the playoffs, and the warriors have gone 9-3 and won those games by an average MOV of 9.83. their opponents weren't world beaters but were still a weighted average of +1.7 SRS. so far from the negatives they show themselves as in the regular season, in the playoffs they are absolutely drilling 45-46 win competition like a dominant team. and i'm being generous and not counting game 4 against 2016 houston as an "off" game for steph even though he only played 18 minutes, shot horribly (2-9) and had a 0 +/- in a game the warriors won by 27.

The playoff games you mention were not against great teams, and 8 of the 12 were home games. At worst, I could throw them into the “Without Steph” averages (which actually would work fine IMO since disproportionately home games against slightly above-average opponents is roughly average difficulty), and Steph would still look incredible overall. For instance, if you add those playoff games in, the “Without Steph” portion becomes -3.67 in the full sample, -1.27 in the full sample excluding 2019-2020, and +0.30 in the peak-dynasty years. It doesn’t really change a whole lot.

[Ambrose]

All this discussion has done is make me more unsure how I prefer more between Russell and Duncan.

[OhayoKD]

Note: This will be my voting post.

As I have already made fairly large explanations for my first two-picks you can expect this one to be shorter. Let's start by summarizing the case for my #1(not simply for this thread, but also for era-relative prime) pick:

It’s specifically the 5 year span after Robinson’s retirement where the Spurs defense was 7 points better than league average. And while it’s true that there were more points scored per possession in the 2000s, it wasn’t a lot more as that was a pretty defensive era as well. My point is that they’re even comparable defenders, then even if Russell had say 15% more impact on the defensive end, Duncan’s superior offense, longevity, and competition are enough to swing the comparison in his direction.

Fair enough on D-rob(and I don't neccesarily disagree with your assessment in an absolute sense), But I was not referring to the era being "defensive". I was referring to this:



This manifests in d-rating too:




And again, smaller gaps are a natural byproduct of a smaller-league regardless of talent-level(which was lower)

With that out of the way, since I am only using era-considerations as a tie-breaker, for #1 I am going

Bill Russell

For convenience I shall mostly defer to my betters:

Spoiler:

VOTE: Bill Russell
Nominate: George Mikan Kevin Garnett

Russell’s Celtics led the league in regular season SRS for the first ten years of his career, and they were three points clear of the next best team on six occasions. He literally never lost a Game 7, nor did he ever lose a 1-2 or 2-3 series where he played five games. He maintained a winning record on the road (4-1), as an SRS underdog (3-1), and as a road SRS underdog (2-1), with the one common exception there being against the greatest team in the history of the league at that time. Russell retired with a 3-1* record against Bob Pettit (#25 in the last top 100), a 3-0 record against Oscar Robertson (#14 in the last top 100), a 6-0 record against Elgin Baylor (#33 in the last top 100), a 6-0 record against Jerry West (#13 in the last top 100), a 5-0 record against the pair of them, and a 7-1 record against Wilt Chamberlain (#6 in the last top 100).

He closed his career by serving as a player-coach and was consequently one of the few players to be the best player on title teams with distinct rosters and head coaches. In that role, he:

- came back 3-1 on the road against an 8-SRS defending champion 76ers team;
- won the title over a Lakers team that had generated an even higher MoV when West played than the MoV of those 76ers;
- and then repeated as champions by winning three road series (only matched by the 1995 Rockets), including series against the Wilt/West/Baylor super-team and against a Knicks team that with DeBusschere had been even better than those 1968 76ers and Lakers teams.

By my personal count he was the best player in his league at least six times; no remaining candidate hits six even with a generous assessment. I voted him at #2 and think he has the easiest #1 case. While I understand voting him lower based on questions over his inability to recreate his impossible defensive outlier status in later eras, that to me is only one element of “greatness”, and with Russell’s level of separation in every other element, those concerns are not enough for me to move him outside of this enshrined top four.

Absolutely no one dominated their own league like Russell did. You look at other sports… Henri Richard had 11 titles, but over a larger timespan and not all as the best player. Yogi Burrell had 10 titles, and again over a longer timespan and not all as the best player. Russell went 11/13 while coming fresh off two NCAA titles, and he was the best player on his team for every one of them (as is disproportionately the case in basketball). He is the greatest individual winner in team sports, and he always will be.
...

But then we get later career Russell and the thing that is hard to shake about his case. Now the playoff resiliency goes up. Now better teams start showing up. Russell loses to the first +5 team he ever faces, but it's a juggernaut in the 1967 76ers. After 8 titles. Can't go 13 for 13. But then, as age seems to be catching up to him, at least statistically, he faces a similarly dominant Philly team the next years and takes them down. After being down 3-1. With 9 titles in the bag, this would have been the time to ride off into the sunset. Instead, Russell is fighting as hard as ever. By all accounts I've ever heard, he was Jordan-level maniacal about winning (without making his teammates hate him). He wins a title with 7.1% title odds at the beginning of the playoffs. All those early 70+% title odds seasons made it all look too easy, but now we have proof that he can win when it seems too difficult.

The next year, on his last legs, he faces 3 teams with near SRS parity to his own (2 slightly above) and again somehow wins. Now he's just showing off. This took him up to the biggest delta between actual and expected championships (for stars who weren't also on the Celtics), which is impressive as there wasn't a lot of delta to be had early in his career with how dominant his teams were. Should we point out that he won while scoring 7 ppg on 31% shooting over the last 4 games of the finals? Probably. Again, something to be said about your teammates needing to do 90+% of the scoring while you just focus on defense. In that 1968 series against Philadelphia, Havlicek almost averaged a triple double. But the winning. I praise Jordan for always coming through, well here's a guy who basically came through at the same level, and did it for twice as many seasons. And the winning stopped when he left. Even with all the era concerns, there doesn't seem to be a way for me to have Russell below 4th or off Mount Rushmore, and others obviously have him all the way up to 1st, and for good reasons. Fought through racism, innovated how to play the game, crazy competitive, kept the drive going all the way until the very last play of the last game 7 of his last finals, beloved by teammates, revered by other NBA players, the best winner ever.

6 needs to be greater than 11. A supporting cast that looks like a top quartile team without you needs to be worse than a cast that ends up looking like a bottom quartile one. Having a regular season SRS three points clear of the next best team on three occasions needs to be better than doing so on six occasions. Being theoretically maybe a conceivably comparable impact standout if we squint needs to put you on the same impact level of a clear and repeatedly demonstrated standout. Or in the tidiest summary, no matter what, if it is inconvenient to this image of an infallible Jordan, lesser separation from the pack needs to be reframed as better than greater separation.
…
But ultimately that just ends up wrapping around into a better argument for Duncan at this spot anyway.

Best winner ever, and there's more evidence suggesting he was the most impactful player ever(for championship winning at least) than there is for him not being that.

My 2nd vote will be...

TIm Duncan

Going to end up repeating myself but I'll let Trex start us off:

Spoiler:

Then there is, of course, the less granular team-based indicators of impact…..

*In 19 years, the Spurs NEVER failed to win 50+ games (that is: their win% was > .600 every single year for nearly two decades). Their cumulative win% during Duncan’s tenure was .710 (that is: they won 58 or so games ON AVERAGE).

**In 19 years, they never failed to achieve an SRS above +3 (the single worst was +3.30); they only had two seasons out of 19 in which they failed to achieve an SRS above +5 (which, historically, is roughly contender level). The 19-year average SRS for the Duncan Spurs was +6.55!!

***They not only made the playoffs in all 19 seasons, they only four times failed to get PAST the 1st round (and one of those was when, due to the brutally competitive WC and the way the seedings rolled out, they had to face a top 3-4 Clippers team in the 1st round [lost in 7 games]).

****They made it as far as the conference finals NINE times (again, in this brutal Western Conference). They went to the finals SIX times, winning five of those (and came about as close as you can possibly come in that one loss).

Somethings you might have seen before but...

Concentrated/multi-season-adjustments(relative to Jordan), AKA "The Ohayo special"

Spoiler:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107489778#p107489778
TLDR:
-> 2004/2005 Spurs with improved help from 03 are roughly a 48-win team
-> 1999 D-rob's production and minutes degrades from 1998 after career-crippling injury, peak D-rob leads teams similar to the 94 bulls
-> Spurs win 4 championships with support i'd estimate at weak(2003) to good-but-not-stacked(1999, 2005, 2007), always winning at least 50, (for the regular-season, hit +7 in 1999(60-win pace w-l), hit +6 in 2002 and +5.3 in 2003 with 58 and 60 actual wins respectively, and look significantly better using standard deviation or comparing to the field)
-> Language was too strong/definitive, but 1999 is dominant and 2007/2005 are impressive considering the opposition quality
-> Looks great in a box/impact hybrid
-> Input Duncan's 3-5 years as similar to Mike's(mantain the internal-scaling) and Ben's formula probably puts Duncan's CORP ahead
(I used the wrong BPM, disregard those notes)

Impact(raw and lineup-adjusted)

Spoiler:

raw extended
1998-2015 Duncan: +7.4 with, +1.4 without
1998-2008 Duncan: +7.7 with, +0.6 without



RAPM(Cheema)
5-year peaks(rs and playoffs):

Career-wide(rs and playoffs):

5-year Rolling


In Summary

Hakeem, by "box" looks very similar(rs and playoffs) and is a similar type of player as a guy who arguably sports the best non-lebron(recently voted as a comfortable #1) apm portfolio since 1997(notably including Shaq, KG, Curry, and MJ when he played on his 2nd and 5th best regular season teams).

And finally, since there has been alot of talk about Duncan as a playoff performer:

At his apex (’02-04), he actually upped his efficiency and creation in 44 playoff games. That’s not a cherry-picked sample, either — any three-year playoff stretch until 2006 would look similar. Duncan’s often lauded for his ’03 season, but his 2002 season may have been more impressive. The Spurs posted a +4.4 rORtg in 60 games with Robinson, Tony Parker and sharpshooter Steve Smith (who shot 47 percent from 3) while Duncan posted career bests in scoring volume and efficiency. These are commendable results, consistent with Duncan’s package; his isolation scoring and post-creation lifted San Antonio’s floor

-> percentiles going down is natural since lesser players are filtered out,
-> duncan improves by all the granular and "aggregate" measures listed for both the rs and the postseason(excepting o-load by a hair) with the most notable jump coming in his creation(think of passer-rating as efficiency and box-oc as "volume")

For comparison, here's a player often valued as a better playoff force:


-> Is basically the same granularly with marginal improvement here or there
-> Aggregates split, but since the granular stuff mostly sees improvement let's say he's a slight riser/mantainer

I am very high on Hakeem(last post on the last page is an argument for him being 5th/a best-of-his-era candidate), but Duncan's raw "impact" does look better for whatever that's worth, he has more proof of concept with 4 championships in different systems with differing degrees of help, and he can be directly credited off-the-court for the 13. 14, 16, and 17 Spurs as an atypical paycut enabled the construction of those rosters.

Thus, ultimately I favor Duncan. As for my nomination...

Anyway, I hope people do support Garnett like crazy. I would draft him over Duncan for any league with anything close to modern spacing at the very least...but my ranking will not be tied to this here.

Know what, Doc? I'll take you up on that. But first, I want to share some thoughts about the guy who I've had KG closest to.

I think Shaq vs Wilt would be a very interesting comparison in the next thread. I wonder how you view their primes and what are the main advantages one has over the other.

I think one important thing to tackle would be the idea of Shaq being "unstoppable"(even though this unstoppability is not reflected in playoff results outside of 2001 alongside a jordan-like Kobe performance). Shaq is "unstoppable" 1 on 1, much like Durant, provided he gets to his spots. But I do not think that makes him "unstoppable" overall, even relative to the better defensive players his "unstoppability" supposedly advantages him against(so much so that his relatively disappointing "impact on winning" is dismissed as noise). As I've briefly taken f4p's mantle as the project's hakeem defender(without his permission, to be clear), I may as well start with an example of where Hakeem is able to "stop" him via positional defense:

Spoiler:

Hakeem forced 6 turnovers...

Here is Hakeem forcing 10 turnovers in one on one situations with Shaq over the series by either stripping him or playing good positional defense, beating him to the spot and drawing an offensive foul or making him shuffle the feet. Note the two plays in the first game that were called travels should have been actually called offensive fouls, but same result in the end; dead ball turnover.

Watch on YouTube

Shaq had the highest TO series of his career (5.3 per game), and Hakeem’s good positional defense clearly had a major part in that. This is significant and in the boxscore it shows in Shaq’s offensive rating, -9 compared to the sum of the previous three series (as well as lower than his career, as well as prime avg). But people are so hung up over FG%. Add the turnovers and Shaq's PPP is nothing special.

And while OP posted good information (though I like to know things in even more detail, as in location/type of each shot and how the defense played it, I also track each game separately in the playoffs, IF I'm to draw conclusions from stats the way they are presented in the OP), but most people here seem to be using it the wrong way and assuming it means Shaq outplayed Hakeem, when that didn't happen. What about the superior help defense? Hakeem single handedly probably created 20+ turnovers in that series, changed more shots, was a more active defensive presence. Hakeem's teammates hit threes at a better rate in the series (9 threes per game at 39.6%, Shaq's hit 10.25 @ 34.7%), but how much is it due to Hakeem's more dynamic, unpredictable playmaking in the post? What about the fact Hakeem can beat double teaming by stepping out on the perimeter and take on a higher volume role if that's the strategy his team wants to use (Hakeem didn't have stretches where he didn't score for like 10+ minutes, unlike Shaq)? What about the fact Hakeem can play off the ball spotting up from midrange jumpers all over the court opening up the paint for his teammates? Hakeem was the better all around presence and this was in a year (1995) when his on court activity had began slipping compared to previous years ('93 and '94). Whatever though. 10 years from now people are going to act like Durant didn’t get outplayed by LeBron in the finals because he scored 30.6 ppg on 55 FG%/65TS% and LeBron only scored 28.6 ppg on 47%/55.7 TS%.

In game 1, Shaq outplayed Hakeem offensively but again, with defense factored in (especially in the second half), it's hard to say. Game 2, Hakeem outplayed Shaq. While I agree you can't just throw away Shaq's second half, the fact that Shaq went something like 15 minutes without scoring while his team was getting its ass kicked (by Hakeem) is hard to overlook. Game 3, very efficient game for Shaq but Hakeem was the better all-around player on the court again to me, at worst it's a wash. Game 4, Hakeem outplayed him heavily. Regarding the point of "quiet" stretches, Shaq’s volume could be limited by double teaming. This is often an issue with post players when you build your offense around them, you can limit their volume significantly (which is why Hakeem is maybe the best 4 around 1 center ever, more dynamic playmaker, more versatile scorer, amazing at making adjustments to different defenses), it was easier to quiet him through double teaming than Hakeem who could step out and beat doubles. Anyways, I've always maintained Shaq and KAJ are the greatest offensive centers (though in the playoffs, Hakeem is closer to them than a lot of people realize) so if you want to say Shaq had the better series offensively, I would find it acceptable (though would ultimately disagree, more like a wash), but "outplaying" someone to me means who made the most impact and who was the superior presence on the court, which was Hakeem.

Look, NOBODY stops Shaq when he gets position on you or in a one on one situation if he gets enough dribbles in. I’m not sure what new piece of information people are finding here, Shaq’s FG% would be higher because of the type of shots he takes and because he's unstoppable against basically any kind of a defender in single coverage. Hakeem took away some of the efficiency by generally playing solid D on post ups and by forcing turnovers, but still, when Shaq gets position, it’s over (keeping Shaq under 1 PPP is a great accomplishment though). I will admit, I'm a little surprised by Hakeem's individual efficiency vs. Shaq based on what is written in OP. Hakeem didn't really have an efficient series overall by his standards, but that seems lower than expected. Shaq played very disciplined individual defense on Hakeem, Shaq's post defense in general is very good because of what wide body he has, I would have to track the games myself to see if those numbers are accurate and account for the help defense on each shot as well as opportunities that were created more so by teammates than Hakeem/Shaq themselves, among other things (as I mentioned, I like to know things in even more detail than what is written in OP). But really, if you can watch and understand the game, all this stuff isn’t even needed.

I agree that the idea that "Hakeem dominated" Shaq isn't an accurate picture of what happened, but he clearly showed him self to be the superior player. Shaq likely says “he embarrassed me” because of the way the series ended. Hakeem outplayed him heavily in game 4, especially in the second half. He was completely outclassed in that game. Sometimes that's what people remember most, how a series ends, whether wrongly or not, but that's a reason why I think that narrative took off.

Regardless, it's a 4 game sample size, I prefer to breakdown a player's game to analyze skills that stay consistent in the long run than rely on stats from a handful of games which is subject to variance. BTW, I really don't understand some posts in this thread saying that "this is the only argument peak Hakeem had over peak Shaq", if that's really what you believe, then I think you need to gain a deeper understanding of the game and of what makes both players so great. If 4 games makes you change your opinion drastically in either direction (ie. Hakeem is better than Shaq!! or Shaq is better than Hakeem!1!!), then I think you need to change your methodology of evaluating players a little bit. Neither player was at his peak in this series, Hakeem closer to his than Shaq, but the point of peak Hakeem > peak Shaq was never built on him allegedly dominating Shaq for 4 games or even him being a superior offensive player to Shaq. Hakeem's greatness lies in his ability to impact the game in so many ways on both ends of the floor. He's the closest thing to a one man team for that reason, because he covers up more flaws for a team than any player...ever. But that's another discussion.

Shaq can also be "stopped" on the other end of the floor, something which came at play in the one(and really only one) season where he comabined a great regular season with a championship(thanks for the info 70's!):

Spoiler:

I know nothing about this source, but these numbers don't line up with NBA.com stats:

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting?Season=1999-00&dir=A&sort=Less%20Than%205%20ft.%20FG%20PCT

If you take a look on Lakers opponents shooting profile, it looks quite odd. Lakers were 8th in opp. FG% in the paint, which is good of course but not top tier. On contrary, Lakers seems to look like absolutely elite at defending jumpshots. They were the best in opp. FG% both from midrange and three point line. Although some of it certainly was the fact that Shaq was a solid rim protector (allowing his teammates to be more agressive on perimeter), giving Shaq all the credit for that doesn't sound reasonable to me. Like, you can't convince me after watching over 30 2000 Lakers games that Shaq was the reason for their best 3P shooting defense...

About rim protection - it's true that Shaq was a solid rim protector. Lakers finished 3rd in opp. FGA and 8th in FG% in the paint that season, which definitely puts them among the best in the league. Unfortunately, it didn't translate to the playoffs, coming from 57.5% on 22.9 FGA to 59.6% on 23.6 FGA (and keep in mind that defensive environment became way better in the playoffs). Part of that is because Shaq was intimidating, but fairly limited rim protector. He could make you rethink it twice with his sheer size, but you can also take him away from actions relatively easily - as he had low motor and rarely got advanced reads right.

You actually bring up very solid point regarding Shaq's man defense. That's definitely his strength and here is where I'd see his highest value. We do know that man defense has his ceilling in value though, you usually don't become the best defender in the league strictly because of his man defense.

All in all, I didn't want to call Shaq bad defender but he's not elite. He's a player with some very important strengths and weaknesses, depending on matchup he could either be key factor on defense or be exploited.

For those who wish to dismiss this because the Lakers won, here's is a write-up on how his defense was exploited in losses:

Spoiler:

According to BBref gamescore Hakeem was better overall:

GmSc - Game Score; the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, (40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.).
https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html

My point was Shaq had several cases of poor pick and roll defense as a trend, I'll address other things as I have time later.

Shaq's pick-and-roll defense is a no-go

PRO BASKETBALL: NBA FINALS NOTES

AUBURN HILLS, Mich. -- The Los Angeles Lakers' shoddy pick-and-roll defense probably will improve only when Shaquille O'Neal decides it's necessary.

Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton practically scored at will on the play during the first two games of the NBA Finals, usually on picks set by Ben Wallace. O'Neal has the responsibility to stop the point guard's penetration, but sometimes the superstar center doesn't feel like it.

When asked how the Lakers will adjust to the Pistons' bread-and-butter play, coach Phil Jackson managed to slip in another gentle dig at his big man.

"It's probably going to be interesting to see what he does," Jackson said before Game 3 on Thursday night. "Because a lot of times, he'll play it soft in the early parts of the game.

"We hound him to get out there, and he'll come on out later in the game when it becomes critical, depending upon his foul situation and what his level of condition is in the game, as far as tired or active or whatever."

https://www.nwitimes.com/sports/other/professional/shaqs-pick-and-roll-defense-is-a-no-go/article_f63cb549-3157-5f37-b204-ae0cf0145367.html

Karl Malone teaches the pick and roll, calls Shaq and Barkley the worst PnR defenders

So many things to love in this clip of Karl Malone demonstrating the pick and roll on the NBA TV set recently.

It’s all great, but I especially enjoyed his point of emphasis to “make sure Ostertag is out of the way.” Other great lines:

“If he’s not going to put any pressure on me, I’ll slip that all day long–and I mean all day long.”

“I didn’t try to catch the ball all the time; I just wanted to knock it down.”

Karl even names names:

“The pick and roll is designed to put pressure on people who didn’t want to [defend] it. Shaquille O’Neal and Charles Barkley, the absolute worst big men to ever play the pick and roll. We loved it coming down the stretch, because we knew they didn’t want to play it.”

Malone’s eyes are also like dinner plates at the end when Sam Mitchell is explaining how he would guard Karl in the post. It’s all Malone can do to resist saying “That’s what you’d do??? No wonder I scored a million points on you.”

https://saltcityhoops.com/karl-malone-teaches-the-pick-and-roll-calls-shaq-and-barkley-the-worst-pnr-defenders/

[/quote]

Empirically speaking, he doesn't always look like a match for Duncan or Garnett in the regular season. And while Garnett didn't really have an opportunity to demonstrate his playoff-chops outside of 2004(where he was fantastic), Shaq has had strong playoff help again and again and hasn't really established himself as particularly resilient whether we look at results, impact, or granular analysis.

As Shaq is at a disadvantage as a regular-season performer(dispute if you feel differently), I am curious what makes people so confident he's a better playoff performer than say--Garnett-- who, while dropping big numbers(without a proper primary ball-handler like Shaq has had for the duration of his career(penny, kobe, wade, lebron) to get him the rock in his "spots"), took the healthy version of that shaq-malone-kobe-payton superteam to 6(by mov, a very competitive 2ppg series) after winning 58-wins in a raw-srs carry job(years from kareem, russell, and wilt probably have cases with era-adjustment) only really rivalled(and likely exceeded) by Lebron's 2009(you might note that is literally the most impressive rs "signal" of this project's #1).

Note those numbers really don't capture what he was doing on defense where I'd say he looked Adish that series while committing very few errors/breakdowns(Game 4 was particularly impressive to me on that end for those who are curious).

Regardless, given the extent Shaq's case is built on 2000, I think it's fair to ask if that one-year flash was as good or better than Garnett's(I lean towards no). And pairing that with a significant longevity advantage, as well as a significantly more valuable(empirically) RS prime, I'm willing to give The Big Ticket the benefit of the doubt, much as we do with the Big Diesel.

Nominate

Kevin Garnett

[ty 4191]

I think Shaq vs Wilt would be a very interesting comparison in the next thread. I wonder how you view their primes and what are the main advantages one has over the other.

These guys are incredibly similar impact wise to me. They almost have opposite things going on.

For Wilt, elite defense with questionable offensive impact.

Wilt's Team's ORTG ranking by year

Spoiler:

1959-60 PHW 7/8
1960-61 PHW 6/8
1961-62 PHW 4/9
1962-63 PHW 5/9
1963-64 SFW 7/9
1964-65 pt 1 SFW 9/9
1964-65 pt 2 PHI 5/9
1965-66 PHI 6/9
1966-67 PHI 1/10
1967-68 PHI 4/12
1968-69 LAL 2/14
1969-70 LAL 8/14
1970-71 LAL 4/17
1971-72 LAL 1/17
1972-73 LAL 2/17

I wouldn't equate team numbers with their ability (or lack of) to anchor top teams on either side of the floor. Wilt for example didn't have much to work with in the early 1960s - take a look at the TS Add numbers for his teammates (Rodgers, Grabowski, Hightower, Sauldsberry etc).

I do wonder about strength of teammates/depth of rosters, with Wilt compared to others.

Did the latter two make their teammates better? For sure, to an extent. But, the talent HAS to be there, and the infrastructure, and the management. LeBron nearly always had, and for sure, Russell always had it.

I think Wilt gets docked unfairly 1959-1960 through 1965-1966 for having, overall, severely subpar personnel around him.

Do people wonder why none of WIlt's teams won 1960-1966? Look at his teammates and coaches, for one:

I don't think you comprehend how bad Wilt's teammates and coaches (teams) were 1960-1965.

Consider Wilt played his first three/formative years with coaches that 1) had little to no experience 2) were lousy and 3) totally misused and misunderstood Wilt.

--Neil Johnston: Coached only 2 years in the NBA, was fired after 1961.

--Frank McGuire: Coached 1 year in the NBA, resigned after 1962.

--Bill Feerick: 2 years NBA experience, total, when he took over. Was fired after 1 year.

And, Wilt also had total garbage teammates on the Warriors.

I little study. "Teammates' True Shooting Added.". Since TS Added is already adjusted for Era/Offensive Context, I though it might be instructive/useful to look at the quality of teammates, offensively, for Kareem and Wilt.

Here are the results. I committed the offensive contributions of all three, for every season, from the team offensive output. Summed up teammates' TS Added. 0 would be league average offensive teammates, negative, poor offensive teammates, etc.

Code: Select all

Kareem Teammates' TS Added

1970   182
1971   405
1972   154
1973   271
1974   153
1975   -85
1976   -126
1977   -276
1978   -3.1
1979   197
1980   289
1981   -46
1982   -1
1983   256
1984   337
1985   513
1986   380
1987   520
1988   395
1989   587

Sum   +4102
Per 82 Games: +205

Code: Select all

Wilt Teammates' TS Added

1960   -404
1961   -407
1962   -295
1963   -435
1964   -419
1965   -377
1966   -221
1967   226
1968   -14
1969   145
1970   13
1971   182
1972   385
1973   77

Sum   -1544
Per 82 Games: -95.4

Wilt gets great coaching that uses him properly, great teammates, and then (in his old age, for that era), suddenly wins .718 of his games during the entire second half of his career. His teams set the record for wins twice (two *different* teams, no less).

Coaches and GMs who either overtly disliked/hated and/or totally mismanaged Wilt.

-Neil Johnston
-Ed Gottlieb
-Frank McGuire
-Bob Feerick
-Dolph Schayes
-Butch Van Breda Kolff
-Fred Schaus

Coaches who understood him well, treated him well, and used him properly/to his full potential:

-Alex Hannum
-Bill Sharman

In 14 years he only had two coaches that ever understood him, and that he could count on. That's only 6 of his 14 seasons.

Here are his team’s records for 4 of those years:

1. 68-13 (all time record for wins)
2. 62-20
3. 69-13 (all time record for wins, different team)
4..60-22

That's a .793 winning percentage for 4 years. On two different franchises!

[Doctor MJ]

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.

I agree with everything you write lj.

I think Duncan certainly has an argument over Shaq just based on prime, but the fact that Duncan's type of longevity allowed the Spurs to continue to compete for so long while Shaq burnt bridges repeatedly certainly matters to me.

[f4p]

Shaq stuff:

Empirically speaking, he doesn't always look like a match for Duncan or Garnett in the regular season. And while Garnett didn't really have an opportunity to demonstrate his playoff-chops outside of 2004(where he was fantastic), Shaq has had strong playoff help again and again and hasn't really established himself as particularly resilient whether we look at results, impact, or granular analysis.

As Shaq is at a disadvantage as a regular-season performer(dispute if you feel differently), I am curious what makes people so confident he's a better playoff performer than say--Garnett--

well, there's just the fact that shaq ripped everybody apart for 3 years and won 3 titles doing it and garnett, as much as people might want to point to his impact or his defensive RAPM and such, felt like he really could be limited in the playoffs in a way that was problematic and not easily cancelled out by great defense or explained by having a bad supporting cast. shaq also got to a finals by beating michael jordan and then gave prime hakeem everything he wanted as a 22 year old. i'm also not sure shaq isn't resilient. by age 22-31 normalized box composite, i have shaq going from 0.711 in the regular season to 0.730 in the postseason. so he's increasing compared to others.

he also shows strong actual vs expected championship. his +136% number is higher than everybody in the last Top 25 except hakeem, kobe, and wade (i don't know if kobe and wade are there because of shaq or vice versa). his absolute +2.3 titles is better than all but 5 of the top 30. garnett, for all his terrible teams, ended up with 0.77 expected championships, so his 1 that he won isn't that far out of line with what was expected (and this only counts playoffs played, so 2009 is not bumping up his expected number).

i do agree with the idea that when the defense actually got a body between shaq and the basket, he wasn't actually that efficient at post-ups, at least relative to his reputation. it's just that he was kind of like the inside version of steph running around on the perimeter, where one misstep, one lean the wrong way and steph runs away from you and gets you pinned on a pick and gets an open 3. with shaq, one slight mis-positioning and he had you on his hip and it was over. whether in transition where he pinned you early before 3 seconds was allowed to be called, when the lakers swung the ball and he rolled across your body and sealed you, on the shaw-shaq redemption if you fronted him, on offensive rebounds where he carved out space. there wasn't a second to take a breath without the possibility of getting dunked on. which is how he was just basically a 28-30 ppg playoff scorer for a decade straight.

while i said he could be guarded one on one, and a team like the spurs with 2 all-time great defensive big men could make him look mortal, i'm not sure anyone destroyed the average player at his position like shaq. he was like mike tyson. below a certain threshold of center quality, he just mauled you, gave you 6 quick fouls, and put up 35/15 if it was a playoff game. people treat the 2000 Pacers like they were a joke team like the nets, but they were a real team with a center who was tall enough to affect shaq's shot and had enough heft to not be ragdolled. and shaq put up 38/17. in a series where none of his teammate cracked a 10 game score. i can easily see 2004 garnett losing that series with a not-quite-there kobe missing a game and posting a 41.1 TS%.

one thing i noticed in the peaks project from a spreadsheet i made for reasons i forget was looking at players peak season playoff rORtg's. Here they are:

2009 Kobe 7.09
2017 Kawhi 9.30
2007 Nash 7.35
1986 Bird 8.48
1987 Magic 10.80
1991 Jordan 11.88
2004 Garnett -0.48
1983 Moses 6.17
1977 Walton 2.16
1964 Oscar 2.35
1966 West 8.20

garnett posts the only negative. now i know his case isn't on offense, but people also tend to gloss over minnesota's horrible defensive team results and point to his ability to create good offenses. minnesota was a +3 offense that year and they actually did worse before cassell got injured in the playoffs so that wasn't it. his peak season and he gets a negative playoff rORtg. that's not great. i have 2000 shaq at +9.3 from a +3.2 regular season (if we're concerned that the lakers defense got worse).

even in 2008, garnett finally got a dominant team and managed to get taken to 7 games in the first round by a YMCA team and boston could barely win a road game.


shaq certainly has one of the messier cases. injured a lot, lazy and out of shape a lot, quick drop-off once he was done. but he busted out of the gate as 20 year old with probably the best age 20 season in nba history. then had the best age 21 season in nba history, posting nearly identical 29/13/3 numbers to his peak MVP season. he actually ended up with the most 20/10 seasons in history for a guy whose longevity isn't lauded.

he also got a ton of guard help with 3 all-timers and also got swept out of the playoffs an incredible 6 times. he feels like he left a lot on the table. but not enough to ignore the 13 years of dominance and repeated finals appearances and wins.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Well, to your bold, you're not wrong but I think it's actually something of a given that during Duncan's time he wasn't seen by others (players, whoever) as a Top 5 all-time guy. In that period, it was Shaq who got that kind of respect. Of course we can now point to the longevity, and that's a valid answer, but it's pretty clear to me that perception of Duncan's prime has aged remarkably well.

[DraymondGold]

Just to provide some data I’ve been looking at, especially since there’s been some talk about teams’ average margin of victory when guys played versus when they didn’t:

If we look at how the Warriors did in average margin of victory in games with and without Steph Curry from 2013-2014 to present, we get the following:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2013-2014 to 2022-2023

With Steph: +7.97
Without Steph: -4.63

This is an enormous lift. But I do think it’s a bit of an unfair comparison, since the off games are to some degree swamped by one season Steph barely played, where the Warriors were abnormally weak (2019-2020). So let’s look at the numbers excluding that season:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2013-2014 to 2022-2023 (excluding 2019-2020)

With Steph: +8.12
Without Steph: -2.50

This is of course a bit less bad on the without-Steph front, but indicates an *incredible* lift.

Now let’s look at some more specific timeframes—in particular, the peak dynasty years, as well as the non-peak-dynasty years:

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019

With Steph: +10.57
Without Steph: -1.90

This is actually crazy. The average MOV over that 5-season span with Steph playing is completely insane. I’m not certain, but I’d wager it’s probably the best average MOV any player has ever had in a 5-year span! And, in the meantime, that same team had an average margin of victory of -1.90 in the 52 games Steph didn’t play in that timeframe. It’s breathtaking! I don’t think there’s really anything else like this in NBA history in terms of raw lift and the heights being lifted to (it’s harder to lift a team to higher heights).

But what about the non-dynasty years? Obviously there were years where the team wasn’t as talented and players (including perhaps Steph himself) weren’t at their very best levels. The Warriors did get a title in those years, of course, but it was definitely a different environment, and we know the team wasn’t as dominant. What do Steph’s numbers look like in those years?

Warriors’ Regular Season Avg MOV in 2013-2014 + 2020-2021 to 2022-2023

With Steph: +4.77
Without Steph: -3.04

This is, of course, less insane than the peak dynasty years, but we’re still looking at very strong impact numbers here, even when we’re basically focusing on all the least strong years of Steph’s prime. In the era these numbers came from (i.e. mostly higher scoring than most eras), that’s basically roughly equivalent to taking a 33-win team and making it a 53-win team. Not as good as the dynasty years, but still a big lift in these numbers!

ok, but this is where i get into what do these numbers mean and let's check the playoffs. steph's team does indeed seem to miss him in the regular season, even showing no signs of missing kevin durant when KD was there. and yet in the playoffs, we get a different story.

steph has missed 12 games in the playoffs, and the warriors have gone 9-3 and won those games by an average MOV of 9.83. their opponents weren't world beaters but were still a weighted average of +1.7 SRS. so far from the negatives they show themselves as in the regular season, in the playoffs they are absolutely drilling 45-46 win competition like a dominant team. and i'm being generous and not counting game 4 against 2016 houston as an "off" game for steph even though he only played 18 minutes, shot horribly (2-9) and had a 0 +/- in a game the warriors won by 27.

Hey f4p, since I have the numbers already lying around (you presumably know I'm a bit of a Curry fan ), I'll reply to this one first. Hopefully I'll get to the Hakeem stuff in a bit.

You're right that it's important to look at playoffs! Before delving into the stats, I think it's worth going through...
Part 1. A Few Qualifiers.
Pros for playoff raw WOWY: the playoffs are super important! Duh. A given playoff game is more important for championship odds than a given regular season game, and so we might weigh playoff games more heavily.
Cons for playoff raw WOWY: Sample size. I would caution weighing a small WOWY sample too heavily: if 58 prime RAPM games are too small to believe for Hakeem (136 including 1997), then a 12-game off sample for WOWY is definitely too small to believe for Curry. The noise is massive in both.
Cons for playoff raw WOWY: Context. One of the major sources of bias in raw WOWY is that coaching can make a major difference. Better coaches (like Kerr et al) are able to adjust strategies and gameplans when players are out, especially when they have a good enough roster where other players can step up (like KD), and especially in the playoffs when they have multiple days to gameplay against just one opponent (like her). This is a reason to caution comparing raw playoff WOWY (e.g. from Curry) to raw non-playoff WOWY (from other players), at least without adjusting accordingly.
Cons for playoff raw WOWY: Diminishing Returns. For the best teams (i.e. the Curry Warriors), you get diminishing returns when a player comes back in. It's a lot easier to drag a 30 win team to a 40 win team than it is to drag a 60 win team to a 70 win team. You can statistically adjust for this (Thinking Basketball does in his pre-2016 10-year prime WOWY numbers), but so far looking at simple changes in MoV/SRS/Record (like I'm about to do lol ) may miss this...

Part 2. 2016/2018 Curry's raw Playoff WOWY:
With all that said, I think Curry's playoff WOWY may be better than you're selling it. In 2016 and 2018 playoffs, Curry had 13 healthy games (2016 R1 G1–2, 2018 R3, 2018 R4), 12 missed games (2016 R1 G3–5, 2016 R2 G1-3, 2018 R1, 2018 R2 G1), 20 games playing through injury /getting back in rhythm (2016 R2 G4-5, 2016 R3, 2016 R4, 2018 R2 G2-5). How does their playoff SRS (source: Sansterre) change in these samples?

Healthy Curry, 2016/2018 Playoff Warriors: +18.8 SRS (13 games)
Curry Out, 2016/2018 Playoff Warriors: +11.9 (12 games)
Curry playing injured, 2016/2018 Playoff Warriors: + 9.8 (20 games)

Details:

Spoiler:

Curry Healthy:
2016 Round 1: Houston Rockets (+17.8 SRS eq) [2 games]
2018 Round 3: Houston Rockets (+19.6 SRS eq) [7 games. Note: Chris Paul missed 2 games, Iguodala missed 4].
2018 Round 4: Cleveland Cavaliers (+17.9 SRS eq) [4 games. Note: Iguodala missed 2 games].
average: (17.8*2 + 19.6*7 + 17.9*4)/(2 + 7 + 4) = 18.8

Curry out:
2016 Round 1: Houston Rockets (19.7 MoV + 0.34 opponent overall SRS = +20 SRS eq) [3 games]
2016 Round 2: Portland Trail Blazers (3.67 MoV + 1.7 opponent overall SRS = +5.4 SRS eq) [3 games]
2018 Round 1: San Antonio Spurs (+11.7 SRS eq) [5 games]
2018 Round 2: New Orleans Pelicans (+26.1 SRS eq) [1 game]
average: (20.0*3 + 5.4*3 + 11.7*5 + 26.1*1)/(3 + 3 + 5 + 1) = 13.4

Currying playing injured:
2016 Round 2: Portland Trail Blazers (5.5 + 1.7 = 7.2 SRS eq) [2 games]
2016 Round 3: Oklahoma City Thunder (+9.9 SRS eq) [7 games]
2016 Round 4: Cleveland Cavaliers (+10.7 SRS eq) [7 games. Note: Draymond missed 1 Game, Bogut missed 2.5 games]
2018 Round 2: New Orleans Pelicans (5.24 + 4.1 = 9.35 SRS eq) [4 games]
Average: (7.2*2 + 9.9*7 + 10.7*7 + 9.35*4)/(2 + 7 + 7 + 4) = +9.8

2016/2018 Curry's Playoff raw WOWY when healthy vs when out: + 5.4.
That's still pretty great in the playoffs, especially when you consider all those qualifiers I mentioned! He does look much worse (neutral) if you include the games you played injured too. But it's worth reiterating that here the on-signal is using 60% of games when Curry is playing injured... i.e. we're ignoring most of our healthy playoff Curry sample. ~33% of WOWY samples are negative, even among great players simply due to the noise of WOWY. It's possible noise plays a role.

Here, my takeaways are twofold: first, healthy Curry still provides massive raw WOWY lift even in the playoffs. Second, Curry performed much worse when playing through injury. So if you'd like to downgrade him for injury likelihood, go ahead -- but let's be clear that healthy Curry is still historically great in WOWY in the playoffs.

So far we've only been looking at 2 playoff runs, and there's a limit to how much you can learn in small samples. What if we start looking at a larger sample of playoff series across the full Warriors dynasty?

Part 3. Curry's Health vs Warriors Dynasty's Playoff SRS
Here is every playoff series in the Warriors Dynasty, ordered by the overall SRS of the series. When Curry/KD missed part of the series, I split it into two to try to help tease apart Curry and Durant's impact. Major injuries to Curry/KD/Klay/Dray labeled in red, KD Warriors labeled in blue, non-KD Warriors labeled in orange

2018 Round 2: New Orleans Pelicans (+26.1 SRS eq) [1 game without Curry, with KD, biased by blowout]
2017 Round 3: San Antonio Spurs (+24.9 SRS eq) [with KD, 3.25 games without Kawhi]
2016 Round 1: Houston Rockets (+20 SRS eq) [3 games without Curry, biased by blowout]
2017 Round 2: Utah Jazz (+19.6 SRS eq) [with KD]
2018 Round 3: Houston Rockets (+19.6 SRS eq) [with KD, 2 games without Chris Paul, 4 games without Iguodala. +16.7 SRS eq when both healthy]
2017 Round 1: Portland Trail Blazers (+18.3 SRS eq) [3 games with KD]
2018 Round 4: Cleveland Cavaliers (+17.9) [with KD, Iguodala missed 2 games]
2016 Round 1: Houston Rockets (+17.8 SRS eq) [2 games with Curry]
2017 Round 1: Portland Trail Blazers (+17.3 SRS eq) [2 games without KD]

2017 Round 4: Cleveland Cavaliers (+16.3 SRS eq) [with KD]
2015 Round 4: Cleveland Cavaliers (+15.9 SRS eq) [Cavs injured]
2022 Round 3: Dallas Mavericks (+15.1 SRS eq)
2019 Round 3: Portland Trailblazers (+14.3 SRS eq) [4 games without KD, Cousins]
2022 Round 4: Boston Celtics (+14.2 SRS eq)
2015 Round 2: Memphis Grizzlies (+13.9 SRS eq)
2019 Round 2: Houston Rockets (+12.8 SRS eq) [1 game without KD]
2015 Round 3: Houston Rockets (+12.7 SRS eq)

2018 Round 1: San Antonio Spurs (+11.7 SRS eq) [5 games without Curry, with KD]
2019 Round 1: Los Angeles Clippers (+10.9 SRS eq) [with KD]
2016 Round 4: Cleveland Cavaliers (+10.7 SRS eq) [Curry played injured, 1 game without Draymond, 2.5 without Bogut]
2022 Round 1: Denver Nuggets (+10.2 SRS eq) [Curry recovering / playing on bench]
2016 Round 3: Oklahoma City Thunder (+9.9 SRS eq) [Curry played injured]
2018 Round 2: New Orleans Pelicans (4 SRS eq) [4 games with Curry playing injured, with KD]
2015 Round 1: New Orleans Pelicans (+9.1 SRS eq)
2019 Round 2: Houston Rockets (+9.0 SRS eq) [5 game with KD]
2022 Round 2: Memphis Grizzlies (+7.0 SRS eq) [Gary Payton II missed 4 games, biased by 39 point blowout]
2016 Round 2: Portland Trail Blazers (+7.2 SRS eq) [2 games with Curry playing injured]
2016 Round 2: Portland Trail Blazers (+5.4 SRS eq) [3 games without Curry]
2019 Round 4: Toronto Raptors (+3.7 SRS eq) [5.75 games without KD, 1.25 games without Klay then Klay played injured, 1 game without Looney then Looney played injured, Cousins played injured, Iguodala played injured, Curry played with broken hand in non-dominant arm, bench players missed games too]

My takeaways: Single-series and sub-series data is clearly very noisy. But there's still some general trends I notice:
-At their best, the Warriors were better with KD (duh). In the top tier, 6 are the KD warriors and 3 are the non-KD Warriors.
-The healthy non-KD Curry Warriors are still an all-time dynasty. With 47 games from 11 series over 5 playoff runs, the non-KD Warriors with healthy Curry averaged +13.2 Playoff SRS. Across 5 seasons, their average playoff SRS was better than Wilt/West's 1972 Lakers, Magic's 1987 Lakers, any Hakeem team ever, any 90s/2000s Duncan team, any Garnett team ever, even Jordan's 92/97 Bulls and any LeBron Miami Heat team.
-The Warriors clearly performed worse when injured. In the bottom tier, 8/12 performances <12 SRS eq were from injury. In the top two tiers, only 5/17 performances >12 SRS eq occured during an injury. Still, even when playing injured, the teams were still capable of producing performances >5 SRS and often >9 SRS which is pretty good.
-To my eyes, Curry's injuries correlate with a bigger drop in the playoffs than KD's health. When Curry was out or playing injured, 80% of the time it correlated with a performance <12 SRS. With KD out and Curry in, the team dropped below 12 SRS only 25% of the time. Still, opponents might note the Warriors did have 2 great performances without Curry. These are 1 and 3-game sample sizes that include a 30+ point blowout, so I suspect some of this is noise, but it is interesting and could be used to argue against Curry's playoff WOWY.

Are there any trends that stand out to you or others? Did I miss anything?

[One_and_Done]

Some would have been surprised. Others not so much. JVG was calling Duncan the best player in the whole league in his 2nd year and that it wasn't close.