Retro Player of the Year 2004-05 UPDATE — Tim Duncan

lessthanjake · Post #41 » by **lessthanjake** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:07 am

Djoker wrote:
70sFan wrote:
Djoker wrote:I re-watched Game 7 and Manu finished with an efficient 23 points but 6 of those points came in the final minute to ice the game. Duncan was the one who was constantly doubled and tripled and gave the others open looks from three. Manu just exploited the gaps that Duncan's presence created. And that's just the offensive end.

Do you think Duncan's FMVP was a good choice taking everything into account?

Yes I do. Duncan for me was the clear Finals MVP. Stats ignore that Duncan getting the defensive attention opened things up for everyone else. The Pistons' game plan was to stop Duncan; Manu and others just ate off of exploiting gaps. And then there's the other side of the floor where Duncan anchored one of the better defenses in history.

I’m not entirely opposed to this viewpoint, but it is worth noting that the Spurs played 39 minutes with Manu on and Duncan off in that series, and they did score 109.68 points per 100 possessions in those minutes. Meanwhile, they scored 103.93 points per 100 possessions with Duncan on. If we narrowed it down to Manu off and Duncan on, the Spurs scored 104.39 points per 100 possessions (but actually got destroyed on the other end, such that they had an awful -17.66 net rating in those minutes). With both of them on, it was 103.79 points per 100 possessions. Obviously the minutes sample sizes here are tiny, so I wouldn’t draw any broad conclusion about the players based on this, but when talking about what happened in this series in particular it does seem relevant. The Spurs offense actually scored more efficiently with Manu on and Duncan off than it did with any other combination of those two players on and off.

Maybe that’s just random and Duncan was actually having far more impact with them both on the floor than Manu was. But I will say that is also generally consistent with the rest of those playoffs too. In the other three series combined, the Spurs scored only 102.01 points per 100 possessions with Manu off and Duncan on. They scored 114.89 points per 100 possessions with Manu on and Duncan off. These series were a bit different than the finals in that they scored even more with them both on (119.56 points per 100 possessions), but they did function much more efficiently with Manu on and Duncan off than vice versa. The same is true if we looked at the regular season too. And the same is true if we looked at what happened in the 2006 and 2007 playoffs combined too, as well as the 2005-2007 regular seasons combined. The Spurs in that era did just seem to function better with Manu on and Duncan off than vice versa. And while one could posit that that was a result of lineup differences on both teams in those minutes, Manu’s ORAPM is consistently higher in that era too so that can’t really explain it.

In other words, in this era for the Spurs, I think the data consistently tells us that Manu was a more offensively impactful player than Duncan. And how the Spurs offense did in the minutes with and without each of them in that 2005 Finals is also consistent with that. I do think this suggests Manu was doing more than just exploiting the gaps created by Duncan—certainly at least in the minutes Duncan wasn’t on the court, where they clearly were fine without relying on Duncan!

Which isn’t to say you’re wrong that Duncan was the focal point for both teams when he was on the floor. But it is to say that the Spurs functioned well when Manu was the focal point with Duncan off. And, in any event, it’s not inherently the case that the guy who is the focal point is the most impactful one offensively. That’s usually the case, but if someone is good enough at “eating off of exploiting gaps” they can actually be more impactful for the team, especially if the guy who is the focal point isn’t exactly an elite offensive hub (which Duncan wasn’t at this point). And this is especially important against an incredible defense such as the Pistons. Having a guy like Manu avoids situations like what the Nuggets had in the playoffs last year against the Timberwolves, where Jokic kept getting doubled but the defense consistently recovered super well and no one was capable of exploiting it so the offense sputtered.

DirtyDez · Post #42 » by **DirtyDez** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:39 am

Nash had a better postseason than any non-Spur champion. You never would’ve guessed Shaq was considered the MVP favorite during that playoff run.

Side note, the 05’ Heat are underrated and better than the 06’ title team. Eddie Jones, Damon Jones, Haslam and Mourning were solid role players and as a team shot 39% from 3 in the playoffs. If Wade doesn’t get hurt I think it’s their title.

lessthanjake · Post #43 » by **lessthanjake** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:39 am

One_and_Done wrote:In 07 D'Antoni continued to largely play a 7 man rotation. His token 8th men in the Spurs series, in games 1-6, played a total of 8, 7, 6, 4, 3 and 13 minutes. In addition the 7th guy in minutes in games 1 and 6 got 12 and 16 minutes. He was playing a 6-7 man rotation almost exclusively, like he did for most of his career. Marion and Raja Bell averaged over 42mpg that series. Nash played 39mpg.

The game you cite there with 3 minutes for the Suns player with the 8th most minutes was the game with multiple suspensions to rotation players. Anyone would agree they definitely had very little depth that game! Anyone would’ve played a short rotation that game. If we take that game out of the mix, the 8th man played a total of 38 minutes in 5 games. In 5 games in the 2005 series, the 8th man played a total of 1 minute and 16 seconds in the entire series. This is super different, and is obviously a reflection of D’Antoni adjusting to having more depth on his team.

And we could do the same thing about the 7th man. The 7th man played a total of 62 minutes in the 2005 series against the Spurs. In 2007, the Suns 7th man played a total of 115 minutes in the 5 non-suspension games against the Spurs. Again, this is clearly a reflection of D’Antoni adjusting to actually having playable bench players. More generally, the 2007 Suns had 8 players who averaged at least 15 minutes per game in the playoffs. The 2005 Suns had 6 such players.

I think it’s fine to identify that D’Antoni didn’t prefer large rotations, but the 2005 Suns were extreme even for him. They were extreme because they had a very bad bench. Their 8th man was a second-year Leandro Barbosa, and the team was a disaster when D’Antoni played him in the playoffs (-15.3 net rating in those minutes), so he stopped doing so. And their 7th man was Steven Hunter, who was bad but had to get some minutes because you needed at least two players in the rotation who could play center. The 2005 Suns weren’t a team with a passable bench that just wasn’t being played because of Mike D’Antoni. They were a team that did not have a passable bench outside of Jackson.

Hook_Em · Post #44 » by **Hook_Em** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:56 am

The short rotations weren’t on D’Antoni. Robert Sarver notoriously penny pinched throughout their window letting key players go, not using exceptions and selling off draft picks:
.

Sarver said his biggest regret of his 11 years as managing partner was not extending Johnson before that 2004-05 season started. Johnson wanted a six-year, $50 million contract. Sarver would not budge from $45 million, a difference of $833,333 per year.

.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nba/suns/2015/06/05/phoenix-suns-2004-05-season-franchise-revival/28417913/
.
Also Suns draft picks from 04-07’ that were traded or sold.
.

Djoker · Post #45 » by **Djoker** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:10 am

lessthanjake wrote:
Djoker wrote:
70sFan wrote:Do you think Duncan's FMVP was a good choice taking everything into account?

Yes I do. Duncan for me was the clear Finals MVP. Stats ignore that Duncan getting the defensive attention opened things up for everyone else. The Pistons' game plan was to stop Duncan; Manu and others just ate off of exploiting gaps. And then there's the other side of the floor where Duncan anchored one of the better defenses in history.

I’m not entirely opposed to this viewpoint, but it is worth noting that the Spurs played 39 minutes with Manu on and Duncan off in that series, and they did score 109.68 points per 100 possessions in those minutes. Meanwhile, they scored 103.93 points per 100 possessions with Duncan on. If we narrowed it down to Manu off and Duncan on, the Spurs scored 104.39 points per 100 possessions (but actually got destroyed on the other end, such that they had an awful -17.66 net rating in those minutes). With both of them on, it was 103.79 points per 100 possessions. Obviously the minutes sample sizes here are tiny, so I wouldn’t draw any broad conclusion about the players based on this, but when talking about what happened in this series in particular it does seem relevant. The Spurs offense actually scored more efficiently with Manu on and Duncan off than it did with any other combination of those two players on and off.

Maybe that’s just random and Duncan was actually having far more impact with them both on the floor than Manu was. But I will say that is also generally consistent with the rest of those playoffs too. In the other three series combined, the Spurs scored only 102.01 points per 100 possessions with Manu off and Duncan on. They scored 114.89 points per 100 possessions with Manu on and Duncan off. These series were a bit different than the finals in that they scored even more with them both on (119.56 points per 100 possessions), but they did function much more efficiently with Manu on and Duncan off than vice versa. The same is true if we looked at the regular season too. And the same is true if we looked at what happened in the 2006 and 2007 playoffs combined too, as well as the 2005-2007 regular seasons combined. The Spurs in that era did just seem to function better with Manu on and Duncan off than vice versa. And while one could posit that that was a result of lineup differences on both teams in those minutes, Manu’s ORAPM is consistently higher in that era too so that can’t really explain it.

In other words, in this era for the Spurs, I think the data consistently tells us that Manu was a more offensively impactful player than Duncan. And how the Spurs offense did in the minutes with and without each of them in that 2005 Finals is also consistent with that. I do think this suggests Manu was doing more than just exploiting the gaps created by Duncan—certainly at least in the minutes Duncan wasn’t on the court, where they clearly were fine without relying on Duncan!

Which isn’t to say you’re wrong that Duncan was the focal point for both teams when he was on the floor. But it is to say that the Spurs functioned well when Manu was the focal point with Duncan off. And, in any event, it’s not inherently the case that the guy who is the focal point is the most impactful one offensively. That’s usually the case, but if someone is good enough at “eating off of exploiting gaps” they can actually be more impactful for the team, especially if the guy who is the focal point isn’t exactly an elite offensive hub (which Duncan wasn’t at this point). And this is especially important against an incredible defense such as the Pistons. Having a guy like Manu avoids situations like what the Nuggets had in the playoffs last year against the Timberwolves, where Jokic kept getting doubled but the defense consistently recovered super well and no one was capable of exploiting it so the offense sputtered.

The samples sizes are incredibly tiny. I really wouldn't put any stock on it. Plus I'd always be wary of taking the impact of a smaller minute player over a larger minute player. Funnily enough, Duncan is the victim of the same situation with Robinson from 1998-2001. Impact metrics say Robinson > Duncan and in fact Robinson has the best 4-year PS ON-OFF differential on record IIRC. Not sure about the minute cutoffs with that but yea. Either way, since Manu played a ton off the bench, he may have played a bigger proportion of his minutes against bench units than Duncan did. That could easily produce the results you presented. Either way, lineup data can be a piece of the puzzle but not all of it or even most of it IMO. There's just too many possible confounding variables. Given Manu's statistical production even on a per minute basis, it doesn't make sense that he would be as impactful as Duncan who is a massive two-way player. And all that's without even watching the game. From watching Game 7, I got an impression that Duncan was way more influential on the outcome.

B-Mitch 30 · Post #46 » by **B-Mitch 30** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:59 am

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Steve Nash

While Phoenix’s rise from the ashes this season can be attributed a bit to Amar'e Stoudemire taking a huge leap forward, the facts are that the Suns were still the league’s best offense next year, when he missed the entire season with injury. Nash clearly emerged as the league’s best playmaker until Jokic, as the team improved by 33 wins and nearly made the Finals.

2. Manu Ginobili

For a brief period, Manu was arguably the best player in the world, as he led Argentina’s national team to an upset over a loaded team USA in the Olympics before winning a gold medal. Once he returned to the NBA, he proved an incredible force, as San Antonio’s offense improved to one of the best in the league with him as a starter. The Spurs were 6th in eFG and 12th in offensive rebounding and turnover percentage, and Manu contributed in all phases of the game, being the team’s most efficient scorer, 2nd best passer, and a good rebounder, while improving in the playoffs on his way to a championship.

3. Shaquille O’Neal

The Heat’s offense was very similar to San Antonio’s this year, with the main difference being they were better at drawing fouls but worse at offensive rebounding than the Spurs, and vice versa. None of that was Shaq’s fault, as he was 10th in the NBA in offensive rebounds, and averaged 22.9 points per game on the best field goal percentage in the league. His stats did take a hit in the playoffs, but his efficiency was still absurd, and Miami nearly made the Finals.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Ben Wallace

Detroit’s defense continued to be arguably the best in the NBA, and unlike his main rival, Tim Duncan, Ben played in nearly every game, only missing significant time due to his Malice in the Palace suspension.

2. Tim Duncan

While Manu did contribute a lot defensively, the bulk of the Spurs defensive excellence was still clearly due to Duncan’s play, despite his missed time. As an added bonus, Tim also played well in the postseason, defeating one of the best offenses ever in the Suns, and outplaying Wallace in the Finals.

3. Kevin Garnett

Even though Minnesota didn’t make the playoffs this year, their defense was still formidable, being 9th in eFG, 13th in defensive rebounding, and 4th in fouls per field goal attempt. Like he did for the last few seasons, KG led the team in every stat category, and was clearly the only reason the Timberwolves weren’t a 20 win team.

Player of the Year

1. Manu Ginobili

Manu was 2nd only to Duncan in plus-minus this season, and the playoff leader in the stat. Unlike the years where he was a sixth man, you can’t say this was because he was facing backups, as he started 74 games, while Duncan appeared in only 66. Besides his great all around offensive game, Manu was an excellent and disciplined guard defender, rarely gambling when he didn’t have to, while still racking up steals. Combined with his Olympics performance, and I think you could say he might have been the best player in the world in 2005.

2. Steve Nash

As the era of LeBron approaches, it’s hard to find any contemporary of his who could match his playmaking, let alone exceed it. Nash was exactly that player, being one of the best passers and shooters ever, and maybe the best finisher who never dunked in a game.

3. Shaquille O’Neal

Even though Shaq is getting up there in age, the Heat’s defense was very good, particularly in eFG and rebounding, which Shaq clearly contributed to by leading the team in both categories. Despite his playoff difficulties, Shaq was at worst the second best player in Miami, after all, it’s hard to call scoring nearly 20 points per game on 55.8% shooting bad.

4. Kevin Garnett

I don’t think I’ve ever put a no-postseason player on my list, but I’m going to give KG some credit for playing in every game, and the Timberwolves having arguably the worst front office of this period.

5. Tim Duncan

In my opinion this was the last year of Duncan’s prime, and certainly a good season in every respect. However, Tim is placed here because of all the time he missed and Manu being the better player in my view.

And now, by the request of Ohayo, and with apologies to Kola, here’s my top five players if they were Sopranos characters:

1. Manu Ginobili = Furio

Both are Italian (well most Sopranos characters are Italian, but Furio is from the boot if you know what I mean) and both are extremely creative and competent at their jobs:

Watch on YouTube

2. Steve Nash = Christopher

Both of them have had a lot of stuff happen to their noses (Nash getting his broken a lot, and Christopher getting mocked for having a big honker and later being killed from having it closed while he was bleeding from his lungs).

3. Shaq = Tony

Both are big fat guys, both can be very witty, and if a certain anecdote by Gary Payton is true, both are prone to sociopathic behavior towards their colleagues.

4. KG = Silvio

Like Silvio, KG stuck around forever, and could do basically anything you could ask of a player. Play the best defense you’ve ever seen? Check. Be literally the only guy to shoot 20-foot twos efficiently? Check. Be the voice of reason for a miserable prick like Tony Soprano? Check. Kill some mob guys trying to switch sides in a war? Check.

5. Tim Duncan = Bobby

Both were big guys known for their friendliness and professionalism, while being kind of awkward in social settings.

Thanks for creating this format I guess Kola.

OhayoKD · Post #47 » by **OhayoKD** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:08 am

Voting Post

1. Tim Duncan
2. Steve Nash

2 legitimate #1 candidates for me this year. Duncan, the best healthy player, WOWY and RAPM darling, and debatable FMVP of a gauntlet-defeating champion.

Nash, the MVP, anchor of one of the biggest turnarounds in nba history, and anchor of GOAT offenses for the regular-season and the postseason again and again.

The knock on Duncan is Manu's on/off and his post-injury drop-off. To knock Nash you can look at the Mavericks, RAPM, and a team-wide postseason drop-off as the wingiest regular-season team with the second highest SRS didn't even prove the biggest test for the eventual champion.

Like with Magic in 89, and Jabbar in 75, I don't view fluke injuries as a reason to tank a player and the Spurs consistently surprising Manu-less performances (at least in the regular-season) does a little bit to cool the Manu consideration though that doesn't work so well with a playoff focus. Still Duncan averaged 4 more minutes than Manu, played more minutes with the "bad" Spurs and I'd say faced more difficult matchups positionally. Nash has more questions with weaker answers imo and whatever the offense, the Suns needed to be more competitive for me to let the postseason catapult Nash to #1.

7-games and I'd probably switch my ballot.

3. Kevin Garnett

Was the best player last year and seems that much of the team drop-off is situational more than Garnett. The "healthy" Timberwolves were still a 50-win team according to Ben's full-strength whatever and they won 45 actual games so I don't really see "wow he missed the playoffs" as a reason to put him below unambiguously inferior players. On a functional team he's probably pushing Duncan as my #1.

4. Lebron James

A 17-win, -9.5 SRS team turned into 34-win, -3 with a rookie teenage Lebron. You want to WOWYR that? Assume 06 Boozer is as good as 04 Boozer, ignore all the games he played in 2003, and subtract -2 from -3 - -9. The result is +4. In 2005 that 34-win team turns into a 42-win team. -3 becomes +0.2. That's a 9-point turnaround Lebron is driving, 7 if we take out Boozer about as clumsily and unfavorably to Lebron as possible. And with that Lebron is an effecient high volume scorer, on top of averaging the 7 assists and 7 rebounds he generally averages for his career. We're a year shy of 7-assist Lebron creating like this:

Spoiler:

ceoofkobefans wrote:I don't do all that extra **** you do but i also tracked this game for bron (as well as wade) and here are my results

LeBron
22 Double teams drawn (5 PTS 1-1 FGA, 3-3 FTA, 2 shooting fouls drawn, 1 and 1, 20 Passes where teammates shot 8-12 on FGs and 2-4 on 3PAs, as well as a hockey assist. He had a bad pass TOV and created 13 shots where his teammates shot 6-10 and 2-4 from 3 and drew 3 SFD)
4 Triple Teams drawn (2 PTS, 1-1 FGA, 3 Passes, 0-3 FGA, 0-3 3PA, 2 shots created, 0-2 FGA, 0-2 3PA)
4 screens defeated
4 screens defeated by
18 shots created (8-14 FGA, 2-7 3PA, 3 SFD, 1 teammate offensive goaltending)
2 Shots created for him (0-2 FGA, 0-2 3PA)
9 Blow Bys
8 Blow Bys Allowed
6 Shot Contests (1 SFC)
2 Altered shots
7 Open Shots Allowed (3-7 FGA, 1-2 3PA)
7 Steal attempts, 2 Steals (5 Gambles, 1 steal)
1 Intercepted Pass
20 Points allowed
8-16 opponent FGA (2-5 on contests)
1-3 opponent 3PA (0-1 on contests)
3-3 opponent FTA (2 Shooting fouls committed 1 and 1 allowed)
58.8 TS% allowed

Dwyane Wade
14 Double Teams Drawn (4 Pts,1-2 FGA, 2-4 FTA, 2 SFD, 10 Passes, 4-8 teammate FGA, 0-3 3PA, 6 shots created, 2-6 FGA, 0-3 3PA)
3 Triple Teams Drawn (1 non shooting foul drawn, 2 passes that lead to another pass)
7 Shots Created (3-7 FGA, 0-3 3PA)
3 Shots created for him (1-3 FGA, 1-2 3PA *note one of these created shots was off of a screen where he missed the shot)
6 blow bys
3 blow bys allowed
3 Shot contests (1 Shooting foul committed)
1 Altered shot
5 Open shots allowed (2-4 FGA, 1 Shooting foul committed)
4 Steal attempts, 1 steal (4 gambles, 1 steal)
1 intercepted pass
4 block attempts (1 SFC)
11 Points Allowed
4-8 opponent FGA (0-2 on contests)
3-5 Opponent FTA (3 SFC, 1 and 1 allowed)
55 TS% Allowed

Shots against Lebron by shot location
Restricted area: 4-5 FGA (1-1 Open shots, 1-2 Contested shots)
Paint: 2-2 (2-2 contested shots)
mid range: 0-2 (0-1 open, 0-1 contested)
long 2s: 1-4 (1-3 open, 0-1 contested)
Above the break 3s: 0-2 (0-1 open, 0-1 contested)
corner 3s: 1-1 (1-1 open)

Shots against Wade by shot location
restricted area: 3-5 (0-2 Contested, 1-1 open)
Paint: 0-0
mid range: 0-0
long 2s: 1-3 (1-2 open)

LeBron when matched up with Wade
4 Possessions
7 Points
3-3 FGA
1-1 FTA (1 and 1 allowed from Michael Doleac)
1 Pass (lead to another pass)
1 Double Team (3 Pts, 1-1 FGA, 1-1 FTA)

Wade when matched up with LeBron
19 Possessions
13 Points
6-11 FGA
0-1 3PA
1-1 FTA (1 and 1 on Bron)
1 turnover (1 lost ball recovered by LeBron)
5 Passes (0-2 FGA, 0-2 3PA, 3 teammate passes, 1 Hockey Assist, 2 shots created, 0-2 FGA, 0-2 3PA)
4 Open Shots allowed by Bron (1-4 FGA, 0-1 3PA)
2 double teams (lead to the 2 created shots)
2 Triple Teams (1 non shooting foul from Varejao, 1 pass that lead to another pass)

Spoiler:

Keep in mind, with the way CEO tracks creations,
this play counts

Play 3: Hakeem roll, 1994 Finals
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13GyFE-Fd_ONgEsRbARhr-4IO3s5Z91A1/view?usp=sharing

this play does not:

Play 1: Lebron dribble+dump, 2007 Finals
https://youtu.be/5wV4upjIN_g?t=92

That's not to say it's not a legitimate approach, but it is one which will tend to go against ball-dominant players as well those as playing with limited ball-handlers and shooters. And still, Lebron's playmaking looks incredible relative to his assist average.

Is it possible that the creation-per assist or most-gravity-of-any-perimiter-player-ever wasn't there in 2005? Sure. Is it possible Lebron was this ginormous defensive sieve? Sure. But lebron averaged 8 more minutes than anyone else on a defense that was fine and much improved from when he arrived, is 2-years away from looking like potentially the best defender on an elite 2007 defense, and "possibility" inofitself means little.

Oh, and then there's context:

Spoiler:

For his career, excluding extremely helpful samples from 2003 and 2011, Lebron teams go from a 35% percent winning percentage to a 64% winning percentage. For the first 20 years his teams average a trip to the conference finals. Even at 21 he was acting as a defacto coach while running his team's offense and defense prior to leading 3 of the clutchest teams in recorded nba history(as of 2013) with statistically terrible help(2009(1st!), 2010, 2006) and posting the best statistical portfolio of the last 50 years.

I won't put Lebron higher, this year. as he's sitting on his worst signals of his career if you ignore 2003. That said, for those who enjoy made-up formulas and the selective consideration of basketball actions. There's a #1 argument for you courtesy of a wins-added lead in Real-Plus-Minus. Eventually he'll become an IBM goat leading that formula thrice in 5.

He's the best perimeter player ever. That this wasn't understood after he turned 24 really says more about those who covered him than Lebron himself.

5. Manu Ginobli

There's a case for him as the best playoff player as well as a case courtesy of Doctor MJ that Popovich held Ginobili back. The WOWY stuff goes from hurting him to helping him in the playoffs, unlike Duncan's previous co-star. Wouldn't begrudge anyone putting him as high as 1 but I just have a hard time getting there.

OPOY

1. Steve Nash
2. Lebron James
3. Dirk

DPOY

1. Ben Wallace
2. Tim Duncan
3. Yao Ming

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #48 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 7:58 am

Will share my thoughts.

Duncan: He was the best player on the champs, the #1 RAPM in the league, and the Finals MVP. It would seem difficult to make any kind of case against him here. Regarding the debate about Duncan, Manu, and the FMVP...I don't feel strongly either way, as I think Manu's numbers support an argument. Having said that, I think in order to justify NOT giving it to the Top 10 all time player in his prime, I would need to feel more strongly about it than I do. Honestly, I have stronger feelings about the 2007 FMVP. That should've been Duncan and not Parker.

Shaquille O'Neal: The guy came to Miami and immediately caused their win total to increase by +17, their SRS to increase +5.63, and their Net Rtg to increase by +6.5, while putting up the #5 RAPM in the league, the highest RS on/off on his team, and he was the only player in Top 5 contention other than Manu and Sheed to post a positive PO on/off:

Manu +19.9
Sheed: +4.3
Shaq +1.3
Nash -0.5
Big Ben: -1.2
Dirk -5.2
Duncan -5.3
Garnett: N/A
Kobe: N/A
LeBron: N/A

He took a team that was a "middle of the pack playoff seed only because the conference is on the weak side" kind of team to within a game of the Finals.

I've long though Shaq doesn't get enough credit for his first two years in Miami(especially 2006, but that's for the next thread, I guess.)

Steve Nash: You affect a turnaround like that, you're gonna make the list. The 2004 Suns had D'Antoni for 2/3 of the season and Amare and Marion for more games than not, and were terrible. Nash joins and they're immediately a contender. The only thing that gives me pause here is that he's the only guy in Top 5 consideration other than maybe Big Ben who is an active negative on one side of the ball. It's not like all of the other names are great defenders, but they all at least have positive D-RAPMs, while Nash is sitting at -1.22. So that gives me some pause, but the impact signal is too great to ignore, between the team's turnaround and Nash's +14.9 RS on/off. While we're on the subject of Nash:

AEnigma wrote:Wavering a bit on my #1 here, but want to be careful to be consistent with how I vote in 2007, where I also have Duncan and Nash as the top two players.

So open question — and this is automatically irrelevant for those who think 2007 Duncan > 2005 Duncan and 2005 Nash > 2007 Nash — is Nash’s RPoY case stronger this year, where he (rightly) won MVP, earned the 1-seed, and went to the conference finals but lost in a relatively uncompetitive five games (albeit with some teammate injury context) to the champion Spurs led by Finals MVP Duncan (although many argue Manu should have won), or in 2007, where he comes second in MVP voting and is a second round exit to the champion Spurs (Parker wins Finals MVP, and many argue Duncan should have won), but the series is much more competitive (reasonably could call it the “true” Finals) and arguably decided by some reactionary one-way suspensions which would only ever occur in this limited period immediately following Malice.

On Duncan’s side, I am comfortable saying Duncan’s regular season was better in 2007 and that in 2007 he did not have a teammate perform as well as Manu did in 2005; mixed on any other definite statements pertaining to that comparison.

TBH, I don't think I'd put Nash over Duncan in either year, but to answer your question, I probably think Nash has a stronger case in 2005, because of the narrative of the Suns' turnaround, higher RS on/off than in 07, and deeper playoff run than in 07.

But I also think his actual strongest MVP/RPoY case is in 2006 when he got the Amare-less Suns two games away from the Finals while posting a +20.3 on/off in the playoffs.

Manu: I never really took notice of just how strong Manu's impact numbers in the mid-late 00s are until Doctor MJ made it his mission to promote Manu during last year's Top 100 project. They are unusually strong for a #2 option on a title team. Not only the #1 RAPM and the #1 RS on/off in the league, but his PO on/off dwarves all the other Top 5 contenders at a monstrous +19.9.

A few of you have pointed out that Manu shot poorly in several Finals games, but he was still impacting those games in other ways. In a one point win in a classic Game 5(the Robert Horry game), Manu scored 15 points on 16 shots for a 31% FG, but he also dished 9 assists(to only 2 turnovers). Robert Horry hit four three-pointers in the 4th quarter and OT, and Manu assisted him on three of them, including the game winner with 5.8 seconds left in OT. That game may have flipped the title and Manu made a real impact down the stretch despite the poor shooting, on the road no less.

In the Game 6 loss, Manu scored 21 points on 41% FG, but he also grabbed 10 boards. And in the decisive Game 7 when everything was on the line, he put up 23 points on 13 shots for 61.5% FG.

I would say the only true dud of the series for him was Game 3, when he scored 7 points on 6 shots with 0 assists and 6 turnovers.

Manu seems to be the season's most polarizing player, with some buying into the impact numbers and some not, but It's hard for me to think of the 2004-05 season without thinking of him.

Dirk Nowitzki: So I have a real tough time deciding between Dirk and KG for this season. One prominent voice here has said that it drives him crazy that Garnett won't get as much love now as he did for the previous season because of team results when he's essentially the same player.

Here's the thing - when you're looking at 8-10 guys that all have legitimate Top 5 arguments and who all have strong numbers, and it gets difficult to separate one from another, it is only natural to look at team factors as a kind of tiebreaker. I think most of us do. Of course we do. Otherwise why wasn't Nash in the Top 5 for 2003-04 when he wasn't a much different player than in 2004-05?

So yes, in a tight race, Dirk getting two games away from the WCF while Garnett didn't make the playoffs makes a difference here.

There's also this: Garnett's RS on/off this season of +0.7 is the second lowest of his career; only on the failed 2013-14 superteam in Brooklyn did he record a lower one, -1.2. If we look only at Minnesota and Boston and nothing after, the next lowest on/off is the +6.8 he recorded in 97-98.

It is easy to say that his team was bad, that Cassell missed 23 games and didn't start all the games he did play, etc. But the Wolves roster(and win total, and SRS, and Net Rtg) was even significantly worse in the following two seasons(i.e. the post Flip Saunders era) and Garnett's on/off still bounced way back up to +10.8 in 06 and +14.8 in 07.

I don't know exactly why his on/off dipped so much this season(especially when his RAPM remained high), but it did. So between the DNQ and the almost career low RS on/off, while Dirk made a decent playoff run and posted a +13.4 RS on/off, leading his team to withstand the loss of a proven impact player in Nash, I'm leaning towards Dirk in a difficult decision here between the two.

Honorable Mentions:

Kevin Garnett - obviously.

Big Ben/Rasheed - Even though the Pistons got a game away from repeating, I think the 2005 team was even more of an ensemble effort than the 2004 team that won the title. I think both Wallaces' individual numbers were better in 2004. This was a full team effort, and I think it's difficult to make a case for either being Top 5 this season.

Paul Pierce - The 2005 Celtics weren't as bad as the 2004 Celtics, but they weren't good either, and Pierce carried them to a playoff berth and nearly won a playoff series that went the full seven games against a Pacers team featuring Jermaine O'Neal and Reggie Miller playing his final playoffs.

Jason Kidd - Still putting up very good impact numbers, but a first-round playoff loss makes it hard to argue for him this season.

LeBron James - He had a pretty impressive season particularly for a second-year 20 year old, but there's too many other strong contenders this season. LeBron is going be Top 5 if not Top 2 for like ten straight seasons. We don't need to start putting him there prematurely.

Tracy McGrady - Solid season getting Houston to the playoffs with Yao.

konr0167 · Post #49 » by **konr0167** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:38 am

Duncan (Best player until his injury and still good enough to lead san antonio to a championship beating Nash-suns handily)

Nash (Leads +7 and 62-win GOAT offense with a 40 win turn-around)

KG (Misses the playoffs but prob still a top 2 player and would have made playoffs with 45 wins most seasons)

Dirk (Mavericks win 58 and are +5.9 SRS despite losing Steve Nash. Probably end best offensive player but gets outplayed pretty bad. )

Lebron (+0.3 srs and 42 isn’t alot but pretty impressive if you remember they were -9.6 before he joined. 27/7/7 on .55% true shooting looks pretty good. Also nearly 3 points SRS higher than the Lakers )

homecourtloss · Post #50 » by **homecourtloss** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:44 pm

RPotY

1. Tim Duncan. Again this stretch from 1998 to 2007 is probably the most underrated out of all the greats’ best stretches. 2005 was no different. 2005 might his best defensive season as well.

2. Nash. An offensive genius who was the engine for that Suns’ historic offense. Might as well put this here since it will come again; Nash is in light green:

3. KG. He’s still the same player he was a year ago, but plays for a team that does not have the ability to field a competent roster.

4. Manu. Incredible impact numbers, incredible playoff run.

5. LeBron. The leap from first year rookie out of high school to second year as an impact player doesn’t get enough credit. It’s pretty clear in year two that he’s on the “best in the world” world trajectory by lifting a roster of detritus to respectable competitiveness with an advanced offensive creation game, increased efficiency, and defensive awareness.

lessthanjake · Post #51 » by **lessthanjake** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:46 pm

Djoker wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
Djoker wrote:
Yes I do. Duncan for me was the clear Finals MVP. Stats ignore that Duncan getting the defensive attention opened things up for everyone else. The Pistons' game plan was to stop Duncan; Manu and others just ate off of exploiting gaps. And then there's the other side of the floor where Duncan anchored one of the better defenses in history.

I’m not entirely opposed to this viewpoint, but it is worth noting that the Spurs played 39 minutes with Manu on and Duncan off in that series, and they did score 109.68 points per 100 possessions in those minutes. Meanwhile, they scored 103.93 points per 100 possessions with Duncan on. If we narrowed it down to Manu off and Duncan on, the Spurs scored 104.39 points per 100 possessions (but actually got destroyed on the other end, such that they had an awful -17.66 net rating in those minutes). With both of them on, it was 103.79 points per 100 possessions. Obviously the minutes sample sizes here are tiny, so I wouldn’t draw any broad conclusion about the players based on this, but when talking about what happened in this series in particular it does seem relevant. The Spurs offense actually scored more efficiently with Manu on and Duncan off than it did with any other combination of those two players on and off.

Maybe that’s just random and Duncan was actually having far more impact with them both on the floor than Manu was. But I will say that is also generally consistent with the rest of those playoffs too. In the other three series combined, the Spurs scored only 102.01 points per 100 possessions with Manu off and Duncan on. They scored 114.89 points per 100 possessions with Manu on and Duncan off. These series were a bit different than the finals in that they scored even more with them both on (119.56 points per 100 possessions), but they did function much more efficiently with Manu on and Duncan off than vice versa. The same is true if we looked at the regular season too. And the same is true if we looked at what happened in the 2006 and 2007 playoffs combined too, as well as the 2005-2007 regular seasons combined. The Spurs in that era did just seem to function better with Manu on and Duncan off than vice versa. And while one could posit that that was a result of lineup differences on both teams in those minutes, Manu’s ORAPM is consistently higher in that era too so that can’t really explain it.

In other words, in this era for the Spurs, I think the data consistently tells us that Manu was a more offensively impactful player than Duncan. And how the Spurs offense did in the minutes with and without each of them in that 2005 Finals is also consistent with that. I do think this suggests Manu was doing more than just exploiting the gaps created by Duncan—certainly at least in the minutes Duncan wasn’t on the court, where they clearly were fine without relying on Duncan!

Which isn’t to say you’re wrong that Duncan was the focal point for both teams when he was on the floor. But it is to say that the Spurs functioned well when Manu was the focal point with Duncan off. And, in any event, it’s not inherently the case that the guy who is the focal point is the most impactful one offensively. That’s usually the case, but if someone is good enough at “eating off of exploiting gaps” they can actually be more impactful for the team, especially if the guy who is the focal point isn’t exactly an elite offensive hub (which Duncan wasn’t at this point). And this is especially important against an incredible defense such as the Pistons. Having a guy like Manu avoids situations like what the Nuggets had in the playoffs last year against the Timberwolves, where Jokic kept getting doubled but the defense consistently recovered super well and no one was capable of exploiting it so the offense sputtered.

The samples sizes are incredibly tiny. I really wouldn't put any stock on it. Plus I'd always be wary of taking the impact of a smaller minute player over a larger minute player. Funnily enough, Duncan is the victim of the same situation with Robinson from 1998-2001. Impact metrics say Robinson > Duncan and in fact Robinson has the best 4-year PS ON-OFF differential on record IIRC. Not sure about the minute cutoffs with that but yea. Either way, since Manu played a ton off the bench, he may have played a bigger proportion of his minutes against bench units than Duncan did. That could easily produce the results you presented. Either way, lineup data can be a piece of the puzzle but not all of it or even most of it IMO. There's just too many possible confounding variables. Given Manu's statistical production even on a per minute basis, it doesn't make sense that he would be as impactful as Duncan who is a massive two-way player. And all that's without even watching the game. From watching Game 7, I got an impression that Duncan was way more influential on the outcome.

The sample sizes in the Finals are definitely incredibly tiny, but it says something that is consistent with what we see in larger samples in this era. And Ginobili probably did play against bench units a bit more, but that’s the sort of thing that RAPM corrects for, and RAPM still has Ginobili as the more impactful player offensively. I’d also note that I did some analysis a while back that found the Spurs did really great with Ginobili on the floor and the other team actually having more starters on than the Spurs did, so I don’t think Ginobili was just farming high ON numbers when his team was at an advantage: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2386462. I just think there’s a lot of data telling us that Ginobili was the more impactful offensive player.

And normally I’d share your skepticism that someone without massive statistical production would have such huge impact, but here I’m not skeptical of it because it actually aligns with my experience watching the Spurs. As I’ve noted before, I really disliked the Spurs in that era (not for any particular reason). I rooted very hard against them in every series they played—probably more than I’ve rooted against any other NBA team. And I grew to hate Ginobili because it always felt to me like he made good things happen for the Spurs whenever he was on the court. I genuinely feared him being on the court more than I did Duncan. So, for me, when I later have seen impact data telling me that Ginobili was extremely impactful, it doesn’t seem surprising to me at all. It makes sense to me because it totally aligns with how I felt watching the Spurs back then. But I can understand someone who didn’t have that experience at the time being more skeptical.

Djoker · Post #52 » by **Djoker** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:10 pm

lessthanjake wrote:
Djoker wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
I’m not entirely opposed to this viewpoint, but it is worth noting that the Spurs played 39 minutes with Manu on and Duncan off in that series, and they did score 109.68 points per 100 possessions in those minutes. Meanwhile, they scored 103.93 points per 100 possessions with Duncan on. If we narrowed it down to Manu off and Duncan on, the Spurs scored 104.39 points per 100 possessions (but actually got destroyed on the other end, such that they had an awful -17.66 net rating in those minutes). With both of them on, it was 103.79 points per 100 possessions. Obviously the minutes sample sizes here are tiny, so I wouldn’t draw any broad conclusion about the players based on this, but when talking about what happened in this series in particular it does seem relevant. The Spurs offense actually scored more efficiently with Manu on and Duncan off than it did with any other combination of those two players on and off.

Maybe that’s just random and Duncan was actually having far more impact with them both on the floor than Manu was. But I will say that is also generally consistent with the rest of those playoffs too. In the other three series combined, the Spurs scored only 102.01 points per 100 possessions with Manu off and Duncan on. They scored 114.89 points per 100 possessions with Manu on and Duncan off. These series were a bit different than the finals in that they scored even more with them both on (119.56 points per 100 possessions), but they did function much more efficiently with Manu on and Duncan off than vice versa. The same is true if we looked at the regular season too. And the same is true if we looked at what happened in the 2006 and 2007 playoffs combined too, as well as the 2005-2007 regular seasons combined. The Spurs in that era did just seem to function better with Manu on and Duncan off than vice versa. And while one could posit that that was a result of lineup differences on both teams in those minutes, Manu’s ORAPM is consistently higher in that era too so that can’t really explain it.

In other words, in this era for the Spurs, I think the data consistently tells us that Manu was a more offensively impactful player than Duncan. And how the Spurs offense did in the minutes with and without each of them in that 2005 Finals is also consistent with that. I do think this suggests Manu was doing more than just exploiting the gaps created by Duncan—certainly at least in the minutes Duncan wasn’t on the court, where they clearly were fine without relying on Duncan!

Which isn’t to say you’re wrong that Duncan was the focal point for both teams when he was on the floor. But it is to say that the Spurs functioned well when Manu was the focal point with Duncan off. And, in any event, it’s not inherently the case that the guy who is the focal point is the most impactful one offensively. That’s usually the case, but if someone is good enough at “eating off of exploiting gaps” they can actually be more impactful for the team, especially if the guy who is the focal point isn’t exactly an elite offensive hub (which Duncan wasn’t at this point). And this is especially important against an incredible defense such as the Pistons. Having a guy like Manu avoids situations like what the Nuggets had in the playoffs last year against the Timberwolves, where Jokic kept getting doubled but the defense consistently recovered super well and no one was capable of exploiting it so the offense sputtered.

The samples sizes are incredibly tiny. I really wouldn't put any stock on it. Plus I'd always be wary of taking the impact of a smaller minute player over a larger minute player. Funnily enough, Duncan is the victim of the same situation with Robinson from 1998-2001. Impact metrics say Robinson > Duncan and in fact Robinson has the best 4-year PS ON-OFF differential on record IIRC. Not sure about the minute cutoffs with that but yea. Either way, since Manu played a ton off the bench, he may have played a bigger proportion of his minutes against bench units than Duncan did. That could easily produce the results you presented. Either way, lineup data can be a piece of the puzzle but not all of it or even most of it IMO. There's just too many possible confounding variables. Given Manu's statistical production even on a per minute basis, it doesn't make sense that he would be as impactful as Duncan who is a massive two-way player. And all that's without even watching the game. From watching Game 7, I got an impression that Duncan was way more influential on the outcome.

The sample sizes in the Finals are definitely incredibly tiny, but it says something that is consistent with what we see in larger samples in this era. And Ginobili probably did play against bench units a bit more, but that’s the sort of thing that RAPM corrects for, and RAPM still has Ginobili as the more impactful player offensively. I’d also note that I did some analysis a while back that found the Spurs did really great with Ginobili on the floor and the other team actually having more starters on than the Spurs did, so I don’t think Ginobili was just farming high ON numbers when his team was at an advantage: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2386462. I just think there’s a lot of data telling us that Ginobili was the more impactful offensive player.

And normally I’d share your skepticism that someone without massive statistical production would have such huge impact, but here I’m not skeptical of it because it actually aligns with my experience watching the Spurs. As I’ve noted before, I really disliked the Spurs in that era (not for any particular reason). I rooted very hard against them in every series they played—probably more than I’ve rooted against any other NBA team. And I grew to hate Ginobili because it always felt to me like he made good things happen for the Spurs whenever he was on the court. I genuinely feared him being on the court more than I did Duncan. So, for me, when I later have seen impact data telling me that Ginobili was extremely impactful, it doesn’t seem surprising to me at all. It makes sense to me because it totally aligns with how I felt watching the Spurs back then. But I can understand someone who didn’t have that experience at the time being more skeptical.

Manu is a solid perimeter defender and overall positive defender but he's not an all-time great on that end even for his position. I don't see what he could be doing beyond the box score to impact the game to the extent you and a few others are suggesting. But evidently he very well could be. And we should always stop and re-evaluate our priors. And just because our eye test cannot see the impact doesn't rule out that the impact could be there.

Anyways, I'm not a huge fan of all-in-one box score metrics but I think the ones that measure per minute production can be helpful to see if he's super productive. Here are Manu's ranks in 2005.

2005 RS
PER: 16th
WS/48: 5th
BPM: 5th

2005 PS
PER: 6th
WS/48: 2nd
BPM: 3rd

This kind of blew me away, not gonna lie. It's not just impact metrics but box metrics are also high on him. Ok full stop. I need to reconsider here.

I too feared Manu when I rooted for other teams because he flew under the radar. The man only made 2 all-star appearances for his entire career so looking at that, I agree that he's very underrated. However, putting him on POY level is a step too far for me. He still trailed Duncan in all RS metrics above and in the PS, he played significantly less minutes than Timmy at which point I can't reasonably call him the Spurs best player. From re-watching Game 7, I also felt Duncan was the more impactful player although it could be different in other games so this could be a case of selection bias. Y'all have definitely convinced me that a podium finish isn't insane. Manu was pretty darn productive and Pop looks like an idiot for not playing him more! :lol:

I think he will be an HM for me on the ballot (behind Duncan, Nash, Shaq, Dirk, KG) which is a huge jump in my valuation. My gut was initially telling me top 15/Billups level but I think given his PS, he definitely has a case for top 5.

lessthanjake · Post #53 » by **lessthanjake** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 7:26 pm

Djoker wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
Djoker wrote:
The samples sizes are incredibly tiny. I really wouldn't put any stock on it. Plus I'd always be wary of taking the impact of a smaller minute player over a larger minute player. Funnily enough, Duncan is the victim of the same situation with Robinson from 1998-2001. Impact metrics say Robinson > Duncan and in fact Robinson has the best 4-year PS ON-OFF differential on record IIRC. Not sure about the minute cutoffs with that but yea. Either way, since Manu played a ton off the bench, he may have played a bigger proportion of his minutes against bench units than Duncan did. That could easily produce the results you presented. Either way, lineup data can be a piece of the puzzle but not all of it or even most of it IMO. There's just too many possible confounding variables. Given Manu's statistical production even on a per minute basis, it doesn't make sense that he would be as impactful as Duncan who is a massive two-way player. And all that's without even watching the game. From watching Game 7, I got an impression that Duncan was way more influential on the outcome.

The sample sizes in the Finals are definitely incredibly tiny, but it says something that is consistent with what we see in larger samples in this era. And Ginobili probably did play against bench units a bit more, but that’s the sort of thing that RAPM corrects for, and RAPM still has Ginobili as the more impactful player offensively. I’d also note that I did some analysis a while back that found the Spurs did really great with Ginobili on the floor and the other team actually having more starters on than the Spurs did, so I don’t think Ginobili was just farming high ON numbers when his team was at an advantage: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2386462. I just think there’s a lot of data telling us that Ginobili was the more impactful offensive player.

And normally I’d share your skepticism that someone without massive statistical production would have such huge impact, but here I’m not skeptical of it because it actually aligns with my experience watching the Spurs. As I’ve noted before, I really disliked the Spurs in that era (not for any particular reason). I rooted very hard against them in every series they played—probably more than I’ve rooted against any other NBA team. And I grew to hate Ginobili because it always felt to me like he made good things happen for the Spurs whenever he was on the court. I genuinely feared him being on the court more than I did Duncan. So, for me, when I later have seen impact data telling me that Ginobili was extremely impactful, it doesn’t seem surprising to me at all. It makes sense to me because it totally aligns with how I felt watching the Spurs back then. But I can understand someone who didn’t have that experience at the time being more skeptical.

Manu is a solid perimeter defender and overall positive defender but he's not an all-time great on that end even for his position. I don't see what he could be doing beyond the box score to impact the game to the extent you and a few others are suggesting. But evidently he very well could be. And we should always stop and re-evaluate our priors. And just because our eye test cannot see the impact doesn't rule out that the impact could be there.

Anyways, I'm not a huge fan of all-in-one box score metrics but I think the ones that measure per minute production can be helpful to see if he's super productive. Here are Manu's ranks in 2005.

2005 RS
PER: 16th
WS/48: 5th
BPM: 5th

2005 PS
PER: 6th
WS/48: 2nd
BPM: 3rd

This kind of blew me away, not gonna lie. It's not just impact metrics but box metrics are also high on him. Ok full stop. I need to reconsider here.

I too feared Manu when I rooted for other teams because he flew under the radar. The man only made 2 all-star appearances for his entire career so looking at that, I agree that he's very underrated. However, putting him on POY level is a step too far for me. He still trailed Duncan in all RS metrics above and in the PS, he played significantly less minutes than Timmy at which point I can't reasonably call him the Spurs best player. From re-watching Game 7, I also felt Duncan was the more impactful player although it could be different in other games so this could be a case of selection bias. Y'all have definitely convinced me that a podium finish isn't insane. Manu was pretty darn productive and Pop looks like an idiot for not playing him more!

I think he will be an HM for me on the ballot (behind Duncan, Nash, Shaq, Dirk, KG) which is a huge jump in my valuation. My gut was initially telling me top 15/Billups level but I think given his PS, he definitely has a case for top 5.

Good post! Was a bit surprised by those box ranks too actually!

One other thing I want to note is that I think Ginobili’s defense was sneakily impactful. He had a ton of energy and great reflexes, so he was very disruptive for opposing teams.

Take a look at this 28-year RAPM: https://www.nbarapm.com/datasets/LifetimeRAPM. If you sort by a player’s effect on the other team’s turnover rate, you’ll see that Ginobili ranks in the top 10 in the last 28 years in terms of his impact on the opposing team’s turnover rate.

And that large effect on turnover rate has allowed him to be ranked pretty highly in terms of DRAPM, despite not being overly impactful defensively beyond it. That 28-year RAPM has Ginobili ranked 59th overall in DRAPM. And obviously most of the people above him are big men. In terms of wings and guards, he’s right in the middle of people like Shane Battier, LeBron James, Ron Harper, Chris Paul, and Derrick White. There are some wings and guards a good bit ahead of him—guys like Alex Caruso, Tony Allen, Ron Artest, and Bruce Bowen—but it’s not many and they are generally defensive specialists.

I think there’s perhaps an argument one could make that Ginobili’s defensive impact is a result of collinearity with Duncan. But the fact that so much of his defensive impact derives from his effect on turnover rate suggests to me that that’s not really the case—that’s really an area that our eye test can tell us Manu was responsible for. Also, the fact that Ginobili came off the bench a good bit and staggered a lot with Duncan makes collinearity a lot less likely.

In any event, I think you’re right that he’s not an all-time great defender for his position. In the play-by-play era, I think that’d be reserved for guys like Caruso, Tony Allen, Bowen, etc. But I think he was in the tier just below that. And that was especially true around this time period. Obviously, Ginobili played to an old age, so his defense did eventually slip, and he did gamble too much on defense in his rookie year. But, for instance, in TheBasketballDatabase’s RAPM, Ginobili ranked 13th in five-year DRAPM in 2004-2008, and the only two non-bigs ahead of him were Battier and Bowen. Similarly, in 2005-2009, the only non-bigs ahead of him were Battier, Bowen, Tony Allen, and Ron Artest.

Basically, while I think Ginobili definitely got most of his impact on offense, I think he was a genuinely very impactful, albeit not all-time great, defender. And I think that was mostly on the back of causing turnovers.

Djoker · Post #54 » by **Djoker** » Fri Jan 10, 2025 9:08 pm

lessthanjake wrote:
Djoker wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
The sample sizes in the Finals are definitely incredibly tiny, but it says something that is consistent with what we see in larger samples in this era. And Ginobili probably did play against bench units a bit more, but that’s the sort of thing that RAPM corrects for, and RAPM still has Ginobili as the more impactful player offensively. I’d also note that I did some analysis a while back that found the Spurs did really great with Ginobili on the floor and the other team actually having more starters on than the Spurs did, so I don’t think Ginobili was just farming high ON numbers when his team was at an advantage: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2386462. I just think there’s a lot of data telling us that Ginobili was the more impactful offensive player.

And normally I’d share your skepticism that someone without massive statistical production would have such huge impact, but here I’m not skeptical of it because it actually aligns with my experience watching the Spurs. As I’ve noted before, I really disliked the Spurs in that era (not for any particular reason). I rooted very hard against them in every series they played—probably more than I’ve rooted against any other NBA team. And I grew to hate Ginobili because it always felt to me like he made good things happen for the Spurs whenever he was on the court. I genuinely feared him being on the court more than I did Duncan. So, for me, when I later have seen impact data telling me that Ginobili was extremely impactful, it doesn’t seem surprising to me at all. It makes sense to me because it totally aligns with how I felt watching the Spurs back then. But I can understand someone who didn’t have that experience at the time being more skeptical.

Manu is a solid perimeter defender and overall positive defender but he's not an all-time great on that end even for his position. I don't see what he could be doing beyond the box score to impact the game to the extent you and a few others are suggesting. But evidently he very well could be. And we should always stop and re-evaluate our priors. And just because our eye test cannot see the impact doesn't rule out that the impact could be there.

Anyways, I'm not a huge fan of all-in-one box score metrics but I think the ones that measure per minute production can be helpful to see if he's super productive. Here are Manu's ranks in 2005.

2005 RS
PER: 16th
WS/48: 5th
BPM: 5th

2005 PS
PER: 6th
WS/48: 2nd
BPM: 3rd

This kind of blew me away, not gonna lie. It's not just impact metrics but box metrics are also high on him. Ok full stop. I need to reconsider here.

I too feared Manu when I rooted for other teams because he flew under the radar. The man only made 2 all-star appearances for his entire career so looking at that, I agree that he's very underrated. However, putting him on POY level is a step too far for me. He still trailed Duncan in all RS metrics above and in the PS, he played significantly less minutes than Timmy at which point I can't reasonably call him the Spurs best player. From re-watching Game 7, I also felt Duncan was the more impactful player although it could be different in other games so this could be a case of selection bias. Y'all have definitely convinced me that a podium finish isn't insane. Manu was pretty darn productive and Pop looks like an idiot for not playing him more!

I think he will be an HM for me on the ballot (behind Duncan, Nash, Shaq, Dirk, KG) which is a huge jump in my valuation. My gut was initially telling me top 15/Billups level but I think given his PS, he definitely has a case for top 5.

Good post! Was a bit surprised by those box ranks too actually!

One other thing I want to note is that I think Ginobili’s defense was sneakily impactful. He had a ton of energy and great reflexes, so he was very disruptive for opposing teams.

Take a look at this 28-year RAPM: https://www.nbarapm.com/datasets/LifetimeRAPM. If you sort by a player’s effect on the other team’s turnover rate, you’ll see that Ginobili ranks in the top 10 in the last 28 years in terms of his impact on the opposing team’s turnover rate.

And that large effect on turnover rate has allowed him to be ranked pretty highly in terms of DRAPM, despite not being overly impactful defensively beyond it. That 28-year RAPM has Ginobili ranked 59th overall in DRAPM. And obviously most of the people above him are big men. In terms of wings and guards, he’s right in the middle of people like Shane Battier, LeBron James, Ron Harper, Chris Paul, and Derrick White. There are some wings and guards a good bit ahead of him—guys like Alex Caruso, Tony Allen, Ron Artest, and Bruce Bowen—but it’s not many and they are generally defensive specialists.

I think there’s perhaps an argument one could make that Ginobili’s defensive impact is a result of collinearity with Duncan. But the fact that so much of his defensive impact derives from his effect on turnover rate suggests to me that that’s not really the case—that’s really an area that our eye test can tell us Manu was responsible for. Also, the fact that Ginobili came off the bench a good bit and staggered a lot with Duncan makes collinearity a lot less likely.

In any event, I think you’re right that he’s not an all-time great defender for his position. In the play-by-play era, I think that’d be reserved for guys like Caruso, Tony Allen, Bowen, etc. But I think he was in the tier just below that. And that was especially true around this time period. Obviously, Ginobili played to an old age, so his defense did eventually slip, and he did gamble too much on defense in his rookie year. But, for instance, in TheBasketballDatabase’s RAPM, Ginobili ranked 13th in five-year DRAPM in 2004-2008, and the only two non-bigs ahead of him were Battier and Bowen. Similarly, in 2005-2009, the only non-bigs ahead of him were Battier, Bowen, Tony Allen, and Ron Artest.

Basically, while I think Ginobili definitely got most of his impact on offense, I think he was a genuinely very impactful, albeit not all-time great, defender. And I think that was mostly on the back of causing turnovers.

Great point about forcing turnovers. It's very interesting. And where he falls among the best perimeter defenders is also impressive. Bruce Bowen, Shane Battier... That's some seriously impressive company.

From the link you shared, Manu also seems to be really good in DFTR so he must be good at defending without fouling. Ironically, he fouled DIrk in Game 7 of the 2006 WCSF which gave up a 3pt play forcing an OT which the Spurs eventually lost. Might be one of the worst clutch fouls ever committed! Still, just one play! :lol:

Anyways he actually looks like he's an all-defense caliber guard based on the impact metrics. Of course, defense has huge error bars. Any take between slight positive and great perimeter defender is acceptable. But yea a high end valuation of Manu and he legit can be on POY ballots in 2005. I'm convinced of that now especially with the Spurs winning a title. That matters in POY. Anyways, even in 2007, I'd say he was probably comfortably better than Parker and closer to Duncan or the #1 guy on that team than to a #3 guy as conventional wisdom tells us. That's another year he could conceivably fight for a ballot spot though I'd say 2005 was his peak.

capfan33 · Post #55 » by **capfan33** » Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:56 am

1. Duncan- Got a decent amount of help from Manu, but still feel very comfortable voting for the guy in the midst of one of the greatest primes ever and he was still the focal point of everything the Spurs did. Also. think him triumphing in such a gritty and drawn out defensive series speaks well of his two-way impact.

2. Nash- Start of one of the greatest offensive stretches ever. Think he was better than Shaq was at this point and was also more important to his team.

3. Shaq- Prob prefer Garnett as a player but with Garnett missing the playoffs and the Heat being a Dwade injury from going to the finals, Shaq deserves to be higher.

4. KG- While he missed the playoffs, I don't think he was significantly worse compared to the year prior and he's too good a player to put any lower given the competition.

5. Ben Wallace- Could be convinced otherwise but someone from the Pistons should make this list and once again I think there defensive anchor is the most reasonable choice. Tempted to vote Dirk as a homer but his Houston series was horrendous and they barely squeaked by due to his poor play. Manu would've been my second choice but I don't feel strongly enough about him yet to put two Spurs on the list.

BIGJ1ER · Post #56 » by **BIGJ1ER** » Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:14 am

B-Mitch 30 wrote:Offensive Player of the Year

1. Steve Nash

While Phoenix’s rise from the ashes this season can be attributed a bit to Amar'e Stoudemire taking a huge leap forward, the facts are that the Suns were still the league’s best offense next year, when he missed the entire season with injury. Nash clearly emerged as the league’s best playmaker until Jokic, as the team improved by 33 wins and nearly made the Finals.

2. Manu Ginobili

For a brief period, Manu was arguably the best player in the world, as he led Argentina’s national team to an upset over a loaded team USA in the Olympics before winning a gold medal. Once he returned to the NBA, he proved an incredible force, as San Antonio’s offense improved to one of the best in the league with him as a starter. The Spurs were 6th in eFG and 12th in offensive rebounding and turnover percentage, and Manu contributed in all phases of the game, being the team’s most efficient scorer, 2nd best passer, and a good rebounder, while improving in the playoffs on his way to a championship.

3. Shaquille O’Neal

The Heat’s offense was very similar to San Antonio’s this year, with the main difference being they were better at drawing fouls but worse at offensive rebounding than the Spurs, and vice versa. None of that was Shaq’s fault, as he was 10th in the NBA in offensive rebounds, and averaged 22.9 points per game on the best field goal percentage in the league. His stats did take a hit in the playoffs, but his efficiency was still absurd, and Miami nearly made the Finals.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Ben Wallace

Detroit’s defense continued to be arguably the best in the NBA, and unlike his main rival, Tim Duncan, Ben played in nearly every game, only missing significant time due to his Malice in the Palace suspension.

2. Tim Duncan

While Manu did contribute a lot defensively, the bulk of the Spurs defensive excellence was still clearly due to Duncan’s play, despite his missed time. As an added bonus, Tim also played well in the postseason, defeating one of the best offenses ever in the Suns, and outplaying Wallace in the Finals.

3. Kevin Garnett

Even though Minnesota didn’t make the playoffs this year, their defense was still formidable, being 9th in eFG, 13th in defensive rebounding, and 4th in fouls per field goal attempt. Like he did for the last few seasons, KG led the team in every stat category, and was clearly the only reason the Timberwolves weren’t a 20 win team.

Player of the Year

1. Manu Ginobili

Manu was 2nd only to Duncan in plus-minus this season, and the playoff leader in the stat. Unlike the years where he was a sixth man, you can’t say this was because he was facing backups, as he started 74 games, while Duncan appeared in only 66. Besides his great all around offensive game, Manu was an excellent and disciplined guard defender, rarely gambling when he didn’t have to, while still racking up steals. Combined with his Olympics performance, and I think you could say he might have been the best player in the world in 2005.

2. Steve Nash

As the era of LeBron approaches, it’s hard to find any contemporary of his who could match his playmaking, let alone exceed it. Nash was exactly that player, being one of the best passers and shooters ever, and maybe the best finisher who never dunked in a game.

3. Shaquille O’Neal

Even though Shaq is getting up there in age, the Heat’s defense was very good, particularly in eFG and rebounding, which Shaq clearly contributed to by leading the team in both categories. Despite his playoff difficulties, Shaq was at worst the second best player in Miami, after all, it’s hard to call scoring nearly 20 points per game on 55.8% shooting bad.

4. Kevin Garnett

I don’t think I’ve ever put a no-postseason player on my list, but I’m going to give KG some credit for playing in every game, and the Timberwolves having arguably the worst front office of this period.

5. Tim Duncan

In my opinion this was the last year of Duncan’s prime, and certainly a good season in every respect. However, Tim is placed here because of all the time he missed and Manu being the better player in my view.

And now, by the request of Ohayo, and with apologies to Kola, here’s my top five players if they were Sopranos characters:

1. Manu Ginobili = Furio

Both are Italian (well most Sopranos characters are Italian, but Furio is from the boot if you know what I mean) and both are extremely creative and competent at their jobs:

Watch on YouTube

2. Steve Nash = Christopher

Both of them have had a lot of stuff happen to their noses (Nash getting his broken a lot, and Christopher getting mocked for having a big honker and later being killed from having it closed while he was bleeding from his lungs).

3. Shaq = Tony

Both are big fat guys, both can be very witty, and if a certain anecdote by Gary Payton is true, both are prone to sociopathic behavior towards their colleagues.

4. KG = Silvio

Like Silvio, KG stuck around forever, and could do basically anything you could ask of a player. Play the best defense you’ve ever seen? Check. Be literally the only guy to shoot 20-foot twos efficiently? Check. Be the voice of reason for a miserable prick like Tony Soprano? Check. Kill some mob guys trying to switch sides in a war? Check.

5. Tim Duncan = Bobby

Both were big guys known for their friendliness and professionalism, while being kind of awkward in social settings.

Thanks for creating this format I guess Kola.

Out of Curiosity - what makes you say this is Tim's last prime season? That stuck out to me in a good post overall.

Personally I'd have 07 as his last prime season, even if you have his true apex stretch ending after 05 (02-05, ala curry 15-19)

Djoker · Post #57 » by **Djoker** » Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:33 am

VOTING POST

This hasn't been an easy year to figure out the order of everything but here goes.

POY

1. Tim Duncan - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. Finals MVP. Led the Spurs to another title. This time he had more offensive help than in 2003 but his two-way play makes him the best player in the game and he led his team to the promised land. Easy choice. Averaged 20.3/11.1/2.7 on 54.0 %TS (+1.1 rTS) in the RS and then 23.6/12.4/2.7 on 52.6 %TS (+0.5 rTS) in the PS.

2. Steve Nash - 1st Team All-NBA. MVP. Nash coming to Phoenix led one of the biggest turnarounds in league history as the Suns clinched the best record in the league (though close 2nd in SRS to the Spurs). Nash was an absolute offensive dynamo. His combination of ball-handling, shooting and vision just made him unstoppable. The man never stopped moving and probing for weaknesses and he had a cast of finishers to cash in the assists. The man just made it look too easy on offense as the Suns posted an unreal +8.4 rORtg in the RS followed by a +16.2 rORtg in the PS. Of course, the defense was inadequate playing such an offensively slanted scheme (7SOL!) but Nash still did amazing things and he's the deserved MVP to me. His play only got better in the PS too but the Spurs were too balanced of a team to beat and the injury to Joe Johnson didn't help the Suns. Averaged 15.5/3.3/11.5 on 60.6 %TS (+7.7 rTS) in the RS then 23.9/4.8/11.3 on 60.4 %TS (+9.0 rTS) in the PS.

3. Kevin Garnett - 2nd Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. Yes KG missed the PS but Minnesota was in the tough Western Conference and finished with the 11th highest SRS in the league so there's only so much I can dock him for that. As an all-around player, he was only a shade behind Duncan as usual dominating on both ends of the floor. He averaged 22.2/13.5/5.7 on 56.7 %TS (+3.8 rTS) in the RS.

4. Shaquille O'Neal - 1st Team All-NBA. Shaq moving over to the East was seen as a seismic shift in the balance of power. It... wasn't quite that IMO. Shaq finished 2nd in MVP voting but as much as he was responsible for the Heat's improvement, so was the growth of Wade who by the season's end probably became the best player on the team and of course the following year ran away with the mantle. I actually had a very tough time taking Shaq here and not Wade but I went with the Big Diesel because he had the better RS and both he and Wade had injuries in the PS and fell short. Shaq averaged 22.9/10.4/2.7 on 58.3 %TS (+5.4 rTS) in the RS then 19.4/7.8/1.9 on 55.4 %TS (+3.3 rTS) in the PS. Stats are a bit misleading because of some low minute PS games. Shaq was much better down the stretch against the Pistons.

5. Dirk Nowitzki - 1st Team All-NBA. Dirk was just an offensive dynamo leading Dallas now without Nash to the 2nd best offense in the league. The roster was made of role player but Dirk had so much gravity that he made the game easier for everyone else. The Mavs also improved defensively as the Big German started slowly improving on that end and the Mavs were building a new identity that wasn't just offense. Averaged 26.1/9.7/3.1 on 57.8 %TS (+4.9 rTS) in the RS then 23.7/10.1/3.3 on 50.5 %TS (-0.5 rTS) in the PS.

HM:

Dwyane Wade - 2nd Team All-NBA. Has a case over Shaq. PS injury.

Manu Ginobili - Huge in both box and impact aggregates. Relatively weak RS. Low PS minutes despite big impact.

Kobe Bryant - Good offensive season and led Lakers to 7th best ORtg. Missed games and missed the PS so in a year as strong as this, that will get you in the HM. Potential hardly counts.

OPOY

1. Steve Nash - Maybe the best pure offensive PG ever after Magic. Deadly combo of scoring and playmaking. Unreal team offense even if unbalanced.

2. Shaquille O'Neal - Still super efficient and has crazy gravity that makes the game easier on everyone.

3. Dirk Nowitzki - Great scoring although a bit disappointing in the PS.

DPOY

1. Ben Wallace - Won DPOY for the RS. Anchored a ridiculous PS defense. He has a slightly higher motor than Duncan.

2. Tim Duncan - Anchored the #1 defense in the RS and still huge in the PS.

3. Kevin Garnett - Great all-around defender than combines vertical and horizontal game. Didn't win enough.

B-Mitch 30 · Post #58 » by **B-Mitch 30** » Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:35 am

BIGJ1ER wrote:Out of Curiosity - what makes you say this is Tim's last prime season? That stuck out to me in a good post overall.

Personally I'd have 07 as his last prime season, even if you have his true apex stretch ending after 05 (02-05, ala curry 15-19)

In 2006, his scoring is genuinely kind of bad, and while he rebounds in 2007, his numbers clearly decline after that.

ShaqAttac · Post #59 » by **ShaqAttac** » Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:00 am

DUNCAN
most impact and wins chip. Good O Great D. Cooks Nash and 60 win suns.
NASH
Mega impact and leads goat O. 60 wins but spurs smack em.
BEN WALLACE
Leads goat d and almost leads det to b2b chips.
SHAQ
prime not prime whatever but shaq makes heat improve by 17 dubs and 17 dubs alot.
BRON
look like he got big impact too making cav go from trash to okay.

70sFan · Post #60 » by **70sFan** » Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:05 am

B-Mitch 30 wrote:
BIGJ1ER wrote:Out of Curiosity - what makes you say this is Tim's last prime season? That stuck out to me in a good post overall.

Personally I'd have 07 as his last prime season, even if you have his true apex stretch ending after 05 (02-05, ala curry 15-19)

In 2006, his scoring is genuinely kind of bad, and while he rebounds in 2007, his numbers clearly decline after that.

I don't think it's reasonable to judge player's capability and prime length on scoring, when scoring is never the primary (or even secondary) thing that made the player great.

I don't see any reason to cut Duncan's prime before 2008/09 season.