Curry vs Duncan, who ranks higher all time?

[OdomFan]

Duncan - Better team player.

[tsherkin]

Duncan - Better team player.

By what method of evaluation?

[OhayoKD]

Duncan - Better team player.

By what method of evaluation?

Pretty consistent RAPM edge despite sub-optimal context(best years staggering with the backsup for a co-star he has lots of overlap with). Probably better from a wowy approach(both are monsters there) if you replaced regular-season results with postseason results(though 2017 might be the best year for either from that lens).

Definitely more proven across different context and does represent a generally more successful and impactful archetype.

I think Duncan's main advantage though is he gets better in the playoffs following his best regular-seasons. Might prefer Curry if we we took a "average impact throughout eras" though then again the 60's and 70's would be very favorable for Duncan.

Duncan

- Beat LBJ in 2014
.

...This is pretty much always a terrible argument, but it's especially wierd to bring up against Steph of all people.

[tsherkin]

Pretty consistent RAPM edge despite sub-optimal context

Not quite the question I was asking. RAPM has its pros and cons, but I was asking what counts as team play and which aspects does Tim outperform Steph in.

Definitely more proven across different context and does represent a generally more successful and impactful archetype.

Yes, well, we've seen his decline, and we've seen him have the opportunity to slot into a lesser role as other guys around him stepped up. Steph has yet to find that opportunity.

I think Duncan's main advantage though is he gets better in the playoffs following his best regular-seasons.

This, I'm with. Steph, as good as he is, does still suffer from the issues with high-volume 3pt shooting, even at his percentages. The variance becomes a problem over shorter samples than a full RS, like a playoff series.

[OhayoKD]

Pretty consistent RAPM edge despite sub-optimal context

Not quite the question I was asking. RAPM has its pros and cons, but I was asking what counts as team play and which aspects does Tim outperform Steph in.

Oh, gotcha.

Definitely more proven across different context and does represent a generally more successful and impactful archetype.

Yes, well, we've seen his decline, and we've seen him have the opportunity to slot into a lesser role as other guys around him stepped up. Steph has yet to find that opportunity.[/quote]
Wasn't really referring to 2014 though it doesn't hurt. More how the Spurs had very different systems and co-stars between different wins in his prime and how he was able to output maybe "best since kareem and before lebron" impact next to a guy who played his position and also offered big impact as a paint-protector (something I often reference when arguing for paint-protection as more portable than shooting).

Steph starts excelling team-wise and statistically right as Draymond becomes a starter in the 2014 playoffs. Falls off a cliff statistically(on/off wise at least) overnight when he has to do the "play with a dude who plays your position" thing. And then there's the team minute distribution.

There's just more "how situational is this" type of questions with steph than there are with duncan.

I think Duncan's main advantage though is he gets better in the playoffs following his best regular-seasons.

This, I'm with. Steph, as good as he is, does still suffer from the issues with high-volume 3pt shooting, even at his percentages. The variance becomes a problem over shorter samples than a full RS, like a playoff series.

[/quote]
Yeah, even with the somewhat shaky RAPM, I firmly see Steph as, at least in the right situation, on a very short shortlist in the regular season. At his best, I'd say he's probably even more valuable there than the likes of MJ and Hakeem. But he loses ground in the postseason.

[tsherkin]

Wasn't really referring to 2014 though it doesn't hurt. More how the Spurs had very different systems and co-stars between different wins in his prime and how he was able to output maybe "best since kareem and before lebron" impact next to a guy who played his position and also offered big impact as a paint-protector (something I often reference when arguing for paint-protection as more portable than shooting).

Oh yeah, you won't get me denying Tim's excellence. I was a big fan of his when everyone was calling him "boring," lol. And he adapted well to increased prominence given as Parker and Manu gained Pops' confidence, for sure. Tim was very much okay with not being a volume scoring leader, and then later, being used as an offensive decoy. But there was that middle space where he was just fine moving the ball, letting them eat, operating in different contexts.

I don't know that I'd call that being a "better" team player just because he had a context which Steph hasn't experienced, but it's certainly a thing which happened and Duncan handled it very, very well.

Steph starts excelling team-wise and statistically right as Draymond becomes a starter in the 2014 playoffs. Falls off a cliff statistically(on/off wise at least) overnight when he has to do the "play with a dude who plays your position" thing. And then there's the team minute distribution.

His raw on/off peaks 15-19, which nicely lines up with most of his OBPM peak and a lot of his best O-EPM years. Little extension out to 2021, but you get the idea. I realize you enjoy RAPM and WOWY and stuff over these, but it's worth looking at. And it makes sense that his impact is lessened as the league efficiency environment started to rise, and his peak efficiency began to ebb. He was a wild beast in 2016 and 2018, for example, during the RS.

So I dunno. He definitely wasn't getting in the way of anyone else on the team. That just isnt' how his style of play works.

Yeah, even with the somewhat shaky RAPM, I firmly see Steph as, at least in the right situation, on a very short shortlist in the regular season. At his best, I'd say he's probably even more valuable there than the likes of MJ and Hakeem. But he loses ground in the postseason.

Yes, that makes sense to me. His postseason performance just doesn't touch the upper bound of postseason performance we've seen from some guys, that much is clear. He's had some good ones, like he crushed it in 2015 and he was good again in 2017 (though that is occluded by the presence of Durant, of course. And then from series to series, Steph is less consistent than someone like Duncan, because he relies on those 3s, which are lower raw FG% than the shots TD was taking. TD, I think, would struggle a little more in today's environment because of the change in raw efficiency, but that's only as a volume scorer. His D would still be helping to even things out and position him maybe still in about the same position relative to Steph in the playoffs, potentially. Tim was great.

[dk1115]

duncan

[One_and_Done]

Duncan for sure.

[Doctor MJ]

Yes there are ranking here but I'd like to see a 1 on 1 argument as to who is better all time.


Similarities: 2 MVPs, 4-5 championships, same number of non-1st All-NBA selections

Pro Curry: Scoring championships, led Olympic team to Gold (Tim led to a Bronze), all time greatest 3 shooter, higher career BPM (6.5 vs 5.6)

Pro Tim: 10-4 lead in 1st Team All-NBA, 15-0 All-Defense teams, 3 finals MVP to Curry's 1



What are your thoughts?

So it's still Duncan for me, though I'll say

a) Curry's got a peak argument
b) Curry's still playing
c) NBA voters have largely been all wrong about Curry's accolades and should be embarrassed, so I don't like seeing that in the conversation.

Also: I wouldn't say Duncan "led" that team to the Bronze so much as showed he had no leadership impact outside of a specific context where all the other players knew that it was "Tim's team". What the team needed was someone who really could be a firey leader, played both sides of the ball, and had a super-high BBIQ like the 2000 team had in Garnett. Replacing Duncan with Garnett would have helped, or replacing Iverson/Marbury with a high BBIQ pace & space guard like Argentina had would have done the trick of course.

[OhayoKD]

Yes there are ranking here but I'd like to see a 1 on 1 argument as to who is better all time.


Similarities: 2 MVPs, 4-5 championships, same number of non-1st All-NBA selections

Pro Curry: Scoring championships, led Olympic team to Gold (Tim led to a Bronze), all time greatest 3 shooter, higher career BPM (6.5 vs 5.6)

Pro Tim: 10-4 lead in 1st Team All-NBA, 15-0 All-Defense teams, 3 finals MVP to Curry's 1



What are your thoughts?

So it's still Duncan for me, though I'll say

a) Curry's got a peak argument
b) Curry's still playing
c) NBA voters have largely been all wrong about Curry's accolades and should be embarrassed, so I don't like seeing that in the conversation.

Also: I wouldn't say Duncan "led" that team to the Bronze so much as showed he had no leadership impact outside of a specific context where all the other players knew that it was "Tim's team". What the team needed was someone who really could be a firey leader, played both sides of the ball, and had a super-high BBIQ like the 2000 team had in Garnett. Replacing Duncan with Garnett would have helped, or replacing Iverson/Marbury with a high BBIQ pace & space guard like Argentina had would have done the trick of course.

Wierd to take the bronze as indicative and the spurs as anomalous. Curry and Duncan are in a similar boat as far as leadership goes anyway to me. They are positive in that they are willing to sacrifice money for winning and the avoid the typical "overestimating what you know" that most fiery nba players showcase when given greater power, and can suppress some of their individuality if it benefits the team.

They do not have the same potential off-court impact of a Russell, or to a lesser degree someone like Lebron, though in the latter case they avoid some of the negatives(westbrook trade), but that's pretty rare anyway. Theoretically a Draymond or Chris Paul would be more influential outside of basketball play but you have to weigh some substantial negatives there too.

As for accolades I'd say Duncan probably should have one more MVP (1999) and you can argue it for Steph (2017 though Lebron would also have a pretty good on-the-merits case as well). Steph, just going by play, should have one more finals MVP (2015) and you could argue one for Duncan (2014).

Similarly underrated by media voters for accolades I think

[migya]

One led Team USA to Gold with a historic performance. The other one got bronze and then never competed internationally again.

So Lebron is no comparison to the Gold medal winner, particularly when that one carried him when it counted in such run.

[migya]

duncan, amazing defensively player and in his prime a phenomenal offensive guy

Yea, he anchored and most of the time carried his team on both ends. Curry just never had that impact defensively and argument can be made that without a very good playmaker (Draymond), another top 10, at least, alltime outside shooter (Klay), and pretty talented team with some proven veterans arguably still in their prime (Iguodala and Bogut), Curry wouldn't have been as free to score as well as he did, his strength.

[One_and_Done]

It's definitely Duncan.

[Cavsfansince84]

At this point I don't think there's much of a reasonable way to have Curry higher. I think it would be different had he played without KD from 2017-2019 and had more or less the same results but that doesn't seem likely given the games he missed here and there in the playoffs and in the rs. I also think his prime is over. Probably in 2023 but he's still at a high level of post prime play. Much like LeBron has been since 2020. I don't think he'll have much in the way of team success from here on out either(short of leaving the Warriors which probably won't happen).

[Bad Bart]

Not saying Duncan wasn't incredible on that 2003 run, but I think the Admiral deserves a lot of credit for the defense as well. He had a 94 Defensive Rating and 3.0 DBPM for those playoffs. And in 1999 he had an 87 defensive rating with a 4.5 DBPM.

[OhayoKD]

Not saying Duncan wasn't incredible on that 2003 run, but I think the Admiral deserves a lot of credit for the defense as well. He had a 94 Defensive Rating and 3.0 DBPM for those playoffs. And in 1999 he had an 87 defensive rating with a 4.5 DBPM.

Why are you using DBPM and defensive rating

[Bad Bart]

Not saying Duncan wasn't incredible on that 2003 run, but I think the Admiral deserves a lot of credit for the defense as well. He had a 94 Defensive Rating and 3.0 DBPM for those playoffs. And in 1999 he had an 87 defensive rating with a 4.5 DBPM.

Why are you using DBPM and defensive rating

What should I be using? (honest question)

[OhayoKD]

Not saying Duncan wasn't incredible on that 2003 run, but I think the Admiral deserves a lot of credit for the defense as well. He had a 94 Defensive Rating and 3.0 DBPM for those playoffs. And in 1999 he had an 87 defensive rating with a 4.5 DBPM.

Why are you using DBPM and defensive rating

What should I be using? (honest question)

For one, looking at how the defenses did without him or as their role diminised is a good starting point. If you go by the few minute stretches robinson looks super impactful. Less so if you look at the games (Spurs went 15-3 without in 2003). Moreover using actual defensive rating(basketball reference version is just combining defensive box-stats), the Spurs defense was as good without him in 2004 as it was in 2003. 1999 David Robinson played significantly more minutes and should probably not be grouped with 2003 Robinson but 2003 Robinson scoring high on rate-stats and on/off while playing 13 less minutes than Duncan probably shouldn't be taken too seriously.

If you want to use basketball reference box-score, rebounding+blocks is a decent proxy for rim-protection and Duncan absolutely dwarfs his teammates there.

Ideally you would also intergrate tape with a particular focus on rim-load and efficacy (paint-protection) since you're comparing two major paint-protectors but if you that's too much work you're better off just looking at the og counting numbers than some arbitrary formula.