RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #5 — 2003 Tim Duncan

[One_and_Done]

I think there is a weird disconnect in the last couple threads where they are turning into pseudo goat career arguments which I don't really understand. Taking Russell for instance, I am very high on Russell and view him as a clear top 4 player of all time but that does not mean that I think he must have had a top 7 peak for instance because the highest bar that can be cleared in a single season is a title. So 11 titles in a career doesn't mean more than 2 in a given year. Also, if Duncan had continued at his 02-04 pace for another 4-6 years I think we'd have a goat tier that includes him in it. I'm also seeing very little argument for specific years that people are voting for which seems kind of strange. It just seems like very vague arguments being made that lack clarity. That's my .02 as someone who is checking on the threads every so often.

Is a bit of a controversial component of these discussions but "how did the player do in the surrounding years to his peak" has been used widely in peaks projects for a while, even though honestly it startrd at first as a very targeted anti 2009 lebron argument

If we look at the whole surrounding prime russeal years near whatever year you choose as his peak the persistent success, and particularly the persistently outlirr defense result are a nice feather in russel peak argument

How much this should be weighted is fairly subjevtive however

I wouldn't say it started in 09. Back in 00-04 people were pointing out that the Lakers were sub-500 without Shaq, but played at a 60+ win pace without Kobe. The record with/without was a big part of Bill Walton's MVP case all the way back in the 70s.

[falcolombardi]

My vote post (subject to be changed later if i change my mind as i am very unsure about the 5-9 range )


First: some of the players i gave thought to ans what i consider their stlrenghts and weaknesses from different angles at a nutshell

Duncan
Pro: 2 way big, atg defense, strong if outlier-ish 1st option run as a scorer/offense engine as a isolationist, great intangibles, monster impact signals (RAPM), perfect to pair with any perimeter offense star, playofr riser

Cons: not a "portable" offense option due to being more of a iso scorer albeit the point is a bit overstated as he was a solid passer and strong rebounder, spurs in 2003 were not an atg dominant team (albeit it was with a truly lone star roster as neither robinson, ginobili or parker were anywhere stars that season), his play style in both ends seems a bit less of a clean fit in the modern game than in the 00's

Russel
Pro: goat-defense footprint, goat team success in-era, absurd impact signals from the little we can infer in stats like wowy and boston results before akd after him, very likely a playoff riser if his absurd playoffs and game 7 record is anythingh to go by, his athletism is absurd and seems very mobile for the modern game

Cons: essentially two big thinghs, playing in the less developed 60's, and not having good offensive stats scoring wise, this means that he would need to maintain a -sizable- (hard at the upper levels of defensive impact) over players like duncan to be a better player today (depends also how much you weight modern ttanslation vs in era impact) and while not as much as with mikan, using era strenght as more of a tiebreaker for players whose dominance of their leagues was withinh the same ballpark would let him pretty high still for a top 5 case tho

Shaq

Pros: at his best, seemingly more of a 2-way player than the likes of jokic/curry (albeit i have some thoughts on shaq "near dpoy" year for the cons section), has 1 truly outlier team playoff result in 2001 (albeit that is a different year than his healthier "2nd dpoy" 2000 regular season), impacts the game on and off ball both by a huge amount in offense so fits easily with almost any sort of non interior center star

Cons: is a center whose value comes from offense, meaning that like with jokic (spoilers for later) he comes with what i generally consider a inherent weakness to offensive center stars in not being viable lead ball handlers and always being somewhat dependant in tjeir teams getting them the ball in good spots and vulnerable to trapping passing lanes and being blindsided from post up positions compared to a guard or wing facing up with more dribble options (like jokic this year, spoilers again)

Terrible attitude issues that honestly he was lucky to get away with and which drove some serious locker room issues with kobe (also admittedly a difficult star to deal with himself) him putting literal feced in teammates tootbrushes may not be karl malone level bad to a team today but is pretty bad still

I am doubtful of how trult strong his defense was in 2000, seems like a strong post defender and rim protector but his team D didnt hold up in the playoffs at all and the little spacing and pick and roll pull up game of the 00's always seemed to do a lot of damage to him defensively, imagine it today, his peak years weight would be brutal on his knees in todays league pace too and i am unsure if he had the discipline to maintain orlando weight

Nikola jokic

Pros: literally has proven to dominante in the modern game, strong reliable workhorse (pun not intended) in the reg season, easy to fit with other stars offensively, good team leader, monster impact metrics, extremely versatile offensive game

Cons: i am not in the "jokic is bad defensively camp" quite, but also think drapm or d-lebron or other metrics painting him as a strong defensive players dont pass the eyw test, truly atrocious foot speed for rim protection is an albatross around a team that limits both defensive ceiling and flexibility around whay front courts you can build around him to maintain a balanced contender

Like with shaq, and while i think jokic passing, dribbling and shooting game make him a lot more versatile in sone ways than shaq, he is still vulnerable to strong defenses that either match his size in the interior with size (two bigs/1 huge center) or kill his passing lanes and dribble with fast/long snaller defenders as we have seen with okc whick killed his assits/turnovers game) or minnesota and clippers last 2 years

Has a relatively weak slate of top end teams beat (2 versions of kawhi clippers essentially, with the 2020 one being a very solid win in particular) none of which came in his likely peak year of choice in 2023 where he got some relatively favorable defensive mstchups facing lankier centers (would have been interesting to see him vs, lets say the huge embiid instead of the smaller davis/adebayo)

Someone like shaq may not have his shooti g or passing, but arguably his size makes him a more unstoppable "glass cannon" forcing teams to adapt to him too much defensively to be able of exploiting him offensively, aka flipping the table zigging vs the modern zagging meta

Jokic may have this effect too, as he arguably did vs okc forcing then to go big with 2 centers to stop him, but also i wonder if it was truly goign 2-big to stop jokic what killed okc offense or just everyone in okc having a **** shooting series with wide open shots or injured wrists instead

This is a bit nitpicking, he still won a ring with a good/not great roster so i am not trying to be too harsh (i am considering him for a top 5 peak after all) but those thinghs give me pause

Curry

Pros- goat tier portability, monster impact metrics, led both high end championship teams ("ceiling raising") and defensive minded rosters depending on him ogfensively to a ring (offense floor raising) obviously proven in the modern game

Weakness- i think some of his playoff drop outside the overly stacked durant/curry duo runs are a bit ignored and somewhat masked by really great teams, is a "1-way" (this doesnt mean bad defensively, but ratjer than almost all his value above average point guatds comes from offense) player but his best non-drop off (to a still great impact) playoff runs

So how do i rank them

1- duncan 2003 (alt 2002)to me the most "clean" profile that fits almost all of what i look into for this project

2- russel 1964 (alt 1962) i am not completely convinced (aka not convinced) that russel would be a top 10 player ever if everyone was put in a time machine to debut as college rookies in 2010, but i am confident that to match someone who has essentially "perfect" results and signs of value in his own era (would be maybe 1st in a fully relative to era peak rankinh which i believe no one here truly/sincerely does) and did so in a much bigger, much closer rules wise, racially integrated league than lets say, mikan (who wouldnt be as good as russel regardless)

So it feels like i am meeting him in the middle by putting him right after duncan/hakeem, whose peak seasons were both monstruous "carry jobs" with playoff rising, is a bit arbitrary and could easilh move him below the shaq/jokic/curry and maybe others true, but here i put the "bar"

3- curry 2017 (2019>2022>2016)

This is a bit tricky to me but if i am being consistent i need to downgrade shaq a bit for his huge personality/commitment concerns

Between him and jokic i see both as monster atg top 5 contenders for offense goat, with neutral to slight plus defense, however i need to give curry a bit of a tiebreaker for having more "proven" success

Is not jokic fault he has had worst teams, but there is an argument, hipothetical as it is, that him occupyng the center spot puts more of a defensive ceiling on a roster and that his offense is a tiny bit more vulnerable to truly great defenses due to again, being dependant on his guards tl get opem/get him the ball to a degree

[OhayoKD]

I think there is a weird disconnect in the last couple threads where they are turning into pseudo goat career arguments which I don't really understand. Taking Russell for instance, I am very high on Russell and view him as a clear top 4 player of all time but that does not mean that I think he must have had a top 7 peak for instance because the highest bar that can be cleared in a single season is a title. So 11 titles in a career doesn't mean more than 2 in a given year. Also, if Duncan had continued at his 02-04 pace for another 4-6 years I think we'd have a goat tier that includes him in it. I'm also seeing very little argument for specific years that people are voting for which seems kind of strange. It just seems like very vague arguments being made that lack clarity. That's my .02 as someone who is checking on the threads every so often.

Is a bit of a controversial component of these discussions but "how did the player do in the surrounding years to his peak" has been used widely in peaks projects for a while, even though honestly it startrd at first as a very targeted anti 2009 lebron argument

If we look at the whole surrounding prime russeal years near whatever year you choose as his peak the persistent success, and particularly the persistently outlirr defense result are a nice feather in russel peak argument

How much this should be weighted is fairly subjevtive however

I wouldn't say it started in 09. Back in 00-04 people were pointing out that the Lakers were sub-500 without Shaq, but played at a 60+ win pace without Kobe. The record with/without was a big part of Bill Walton's MVP case all the way back in the 70s.

Falco is talking about the use of surrounding years, not WOWY

[One_and_Done]

Is a bit of a controversial component of these discussions but "how did the player do in the surrounding years to his peak" has been used widely in peaks projects for a while, even though honestly it startrd at first as a very targeted anti 2009 lebron argument

If we look at the whole surrounding prime russeal years near whatever year you choose as his peak the persistent success, and particularly the persistently outlirr defense result are a nice feather in russel peak argument

How much this should be weighted is fairly subjevtive however

I wouldn't say it started in 09. Back in 00-04 people were pointing out that the Lakers were sub-500 without Shaq, but played at a 60+ win pace without Kobe. The record with/without was a big part of Bill Walton's MVP case all the way back in the 70s.

Falco is talking about the use of surrounding years, not WOWY

I'd say that definitely predates 2009 too.

[OhayoKD]

I wouldn't say it started in 09. Back in 00-04 people were pointing out that the Lakers were sub-500 without Shaq, but played at a 60+ win pace without Kobe. The record with/without was a big part of Bill Walton's MVP case all the way back in the 70s.

Falco is talking about the use of surrounding years, not WOWY

I'd say that definitely predates 2009 too.

Probably but it is more prominently used against Lebron because as the #1 thread demonstrated, as far as actual non-hypothetical play is concerned, 2009 Lebron is basically impossible to argue against for anyone drafted after 1977, even in a strict era-relative sense.

[OhayoKD]

I think there is a weird disconnect in the last couple threads where they are turning into pseudo goat career arguments which I don't really understand. Taking Russell for instance, I am very high on Russell and view him as a clear top 4 player of all time but that does not mean that I think he must have had a top 7 peak for instance because the highest bar that can be cleared in a single season is a title. So 11 titles in a career doesn't mean more than 2 in a given year. Also, if Duncan had continued at his 02-04 pace for another 4-6 years I think we'd have a goat tier that includes him in it. I'm also seeing very little argument for specific years that people are voting for which seems kind of strange. It just seems like very vague arguments being made that lack clarity. That's my .02 as someone who is checking on the threads every so often.

Having potentially the strongest era-relative prime ever does not neccesitate he had a top 7 peak, no. It does however place the burden on the various people arguing his peak wasn't actually all that, to provide actual evidence/argumentation for Bill Russell who, like other players, sees fluctuation in terms of basketball reference numbers, team indicators, and playoff results, being such a uniquely monotone player otherwise outright inferior players peaked higher. Or, at the very least anything with explanatory value that whatever given year from the russell alternative with a true peak was better or more valuable.

It is interesting to me then, that no one running this "russell had a great prime but no peak!" have made any attempt to argue for this. It's almost like it's a lazy excuse to put players with higher PPG higher.

More specifically really no one placing Wilt over Russell has offered reasoning beyond pointing to his team being more successful. Because obviously the reason the Sixers won in 1967 was Wilt being way more better than he was at any other point. Not the excellent team that was very good without him and featured a soon-to-be top MVP candidate as a co-star. Not the perfect coaching/schematic fit. No, the one time Wilt beats Russell it is because Wilt is better, not just than the Russell of 1967, but any Bill Russell to have ever played.

The reality is no one really knows what the "peak vs average prime year" gap for Bill Russell is because there is basically no footage and the available box-score currently ignores defensive production basically completely. Thus it makes natural sense to focus on assessing Russell's baseline and comparing that to what others offer.

However, as doing this makes it very difficult to argue against the guy who always wins, often with seemingly unremarkable teams, even when he himself is the coach facing all-time competition, the last couple of threads have been spent "countering" this by exploiting the paucity of "peak" information to push, with completely unwarranted confidence, that Bill Russell didn't have a peak.

This is known as arguing from ignorance and if you have to argue from ignorance that someone's peak should be ranked much lower than their prime....then you probably should just be ranking their peak around where you have their prime.

[AEnigma]

In thread one, the goal of my voting post was to discuss my general approach and then to explain why I had Lebron at the top of the ballot. In thread two, my focus pivoted to Kareem, who was not on my ballot but by the time I voted had already won, meaning it would be my only opportunity to talk about him. In thread three, I was burnt out on the Jordan debate and wanted to move on. And in the last thread, my voting post was all about Hakeem, with mild commentary on the comparison with Duncan and Shaq.

For this thread, my two priorities are justifying Duncan at the top of my ballot and picking a third name. As I wrote in the prior thread, Duncan compares well with Hakeem (for more dedicated comparisons on both sides, I encourage people to read through the #6 thread of the 2022 Peaks Project). He maintains effectiveness across two positions, and his only real matchup “weakness” in the postseason is that extremely strong and physical post defenders could give him more trouble than we see with other first option bigs at this level (which I find far less concerning than Shaq’s defence or free throw shooting). And for as much is made of Shaq having an “outlier” peak, it is Duncan’s 2002/03 which tends to look farther removed from his (still elite) average prime level of play in both the regular season and postseason. I also am more impressed by Duncan’s postseason head-to-head with Shaq, with the acknowledgment that Shaq got the better of him in 2001 and that there was no opportunity in 2000.

For the third name, I am looking at Russell, Magic, Garnett, and Wilt. I think Garnett is the “best” player there, but any vote for him would be more heavily based around his (near-GOAT) regular season play, and I would rather save that profile for a bit later (for reasons expressed last thread). I am still wrestling with Magic versus Russell, in that I similarly think Magic is “better” but Russell’s defence stands out more than Magic’s offence.

But what about Russell’s direct rival? Even if Russell was advantaged prime for prime, Wilt’s seasonal quality was much more variable, so Wilt could have the better peak year. This is especially plausible if we focus on schematic value, with Russell being relatively stable but Wilt seeing immense variation across three teams and a variety of coaches. So I do see the argument that specifically in 1967 Wilt might have reached a level that Russell never did… but I also do not think it is by enough that I could give it the confidence usually afforded to that stance:

1962-65 Celtics with Russell: .761 win percentage (62.4-win-pace), +8.6 differential
1967/68 76ers with Wilt: .798 win percentage (65.4-win-pace), +9 differential

Is it plausible the 76ers had less than a three-win advantage in supporting cast? Absolutely. Is there any reason to be confident about it? No. And I would not say the 1967 76ers were an appreciably better postseason team than the 1964 Celtics either, nor would I say they were appreciably more dependent on Wilt for their postseason success than the Celtics were on Russell. So if Wilt is not clearly ahead of Russell at his absolute peak, then I personally would rather go with the guy who was much more proven in the postseason. I said this all in the first thread, but Russell:

- literally never lost a single-elimination NBA game (11-0);
- never lost a series when he had a lead;
- never lost a 1-2 or 2-3 series where he played five games;
- maintained a winning series record on the road (4-1), as an SRS underdog (3-1), and as a road SRS underdog (2-1).

I do not want to penalise Wilt relative to someone like Walton, because Wilt had plenty of reasonably impressive performances outside of 1967. Relative to Russell, though, yeah, I personally think I would need to see more than just the one year to ignore Russell’s unprecedented near-infallibility.

1. Tim Duncan (2003 > 2002)
2. Shaquille O’Neal (2000)
3. Bill Russell (1964 > 1962)

[70sFan]

May I ask why so many people put 1964 over any other 1960-65 season for Russell? I don't say I am against it, but I wonder if it's not caused strictly by DRtg estimations.

[AEnigma]

May I ask why so many people put 1964 over any other 1960-65 season for Russell? I don't say I am against it, but I wonder if it's not caused strictly by DRtg estimations.

That is one part of it. Another is just the optics of seeing a spike in performance once Cousy left. Yet another is the temporality of 1964 being a more natural midpoint in his prime. The main reason for me though is the more dominant postseason run: beating two 4-SRS teams 4-1, with only two single digit wins and no home losses, stands out more than winning back-to-back home game 7s by a single basket against what I would call similar competition quality. Couple that with the outlier estimated defensive rating, and it seems intuitively true to me that 1964 would be his peak. It may well be 1962, but in terms of making our best guesses based on the information available, I lean toward 1964 for those reasons.

[Joao Saraiva]

While I can agree with a lot of your points I never mentioned Shaq as an elite defender. I already stated I understand the flaws for not covering enough ground, for not wanting to get out on the perimeter and never said his rim protect was at elite level, but it was still good enough as a presence in the paint. I think the man to man D was good and the rim protection too, making him a positive on that end in 2000 - never told he was elite or something.

[trelos6]

I think you can go any year from 62-65 for Russell.

I lean ‘64 due to the team being crazy good defensively. But he scores more in ‘62 (11.6, +1%), and ups his scoring and efficiency in the playoffs.

‘65 he was very efficient in the playoffs and probably at his peak as a creator. But considering sample size for the playoffs is 10-14 games, you can really pick whichever season.

[70sFan]

May I ask why so many people put 1964 over any other 1960-65 season for Russell? I don't say I am against it, but I wonder if it's not caused strictly by DRtg estimations.

That is one part of it. Another is just the optics of seeing a spike in performance once Cousy left. Yet another is the temporality of 1964 being a more natural midpoint in his prime. The main reason for me though is the more dominant postseason run: beating two 4-SRS teams 4-1, with only two single digit wins and no home losses, stands out more than winning back-to-back home game 7s by a single basket against what I would call similar competition quality. Couple that with the outlier estimated defensive rating, and it seems intuitively true to me that 1964 would be his peak. It may well be 1962, but in terms of making our best guesses based on the information available, I lean toward 1964 for those reasons.

I think it's reasonable, although I will provide a few thoughts on that matter:

1. Cousy retirement seemed to give the Celtics the overall improvement, which could indeed indicate Russell's impact getting larger. At the same time, the Celtics took a notable dip on offense and I think it's because Russell took the playmaking duties for the first time in his career and he didn't handle it too well. That is why it's worth considering 1965 as even better year, because Russell got another year of experience and seemed to handle this role better.

2. This offensive struggles didn't hurt the Celtics overall, but I wonder how much of that you can put on Russell's shoulder and how much of that are the strategic changes in rotations etc. The question of Russell's defensive impact difference between 1963 and 1964 remains unanswered without more data, I just wonder if such impact even exists.

3. The Celtics were very dominant in the playoffs, which is a very strong point to consider, especially against 1962. I wonder how to look at that in comparison to 1961 for example (though the Celtics faced better competition in 1964). Another thing is that the Warriors, although a very solid team in the RS, we're deeply flawed in their roster construction. They had no perimeter creation outside of Guy Rodgers (who by all accounts seems to be a net negative offensive player, despite his passing chops) and no perimeter scoring at all. Such team was definitely easier to contain than 1962 Warriors or especially 1965 Sixers, despite the better SRS in the RS.

4. I keep thinking about 1964 series against the Royals, because that's the key to understand Russell's performance. Looking at the boxscore, Russell played MUCH better the season before but the Celtics struggled much more as well, going to 7 games. I don't remember what happened to Oscar in that series, was he injured or something like that? If not, then it's an extremely hard puzzle to solve. On one hand, being absurdly dominant against one of the best offensive teams of the decade looks extremely impressive. On the other, do we really believe that Russell was so much better between 1963 and 1964 that it made such a drastic difference in the overall (and Oscar's) performance?

5. I know that people don't care about Russell's offensive game, but this Royals series is again a mystery. In his prime, Russell usually did very well against non-Wilt teams in the playoffs offensively and his boxscore numbers were absolutely horrible in that one. As I said, I think it's the matter of new role he didn't take too well and I think we should take that into account. For all the defense-first guys we always look at the offense in peaks project. I am quite sure that Hakeem didn't peak defensively in 1994 for example. Duncan is more arguable, but I can see 2004 or 2007 above 2003 defensively (2005 pre-injury was probably the best). Yet we still recognise their development as offensive players and I think we should do the same with Russell, especially if we don't have any strong arguments for his defensive impact diminishing.

None of these points are against 1964 choice, I am just wondering.

[AEnigma]

2025 #5 Greatest Peak Result: 2003 Tim Duncan



I recorded 21 ballots for this thread. No player won a majority of first place ballots; however, Duncan won the head-to-head against all other named players. 2003 was the selected season by a majority (12/15) of ballots expressing a preference. The top three respective head-to-head records are recorded below:

Tim Duncan wins 14-6 over Bill Russell.
Shaquille O’Neal wins 10-8 over Bill Russell.
Tim Duncan wins 14-7 over Shaquille O’Neal.

The 21 voters were:
Elpolo_14, trelos6, Verticality, Busywithbball, Djoker, IlikeSHAIguys, metta-tonne, OhayoKD, One_and_Done, Ol Roy, capfan33, Joao Saraiva, reardonwd, emn_010, falcolombardi, homecourtloss, tsherkin, VanWest82, ceoofkobefans, Samurai, and AEnigma.

If you voted and do not see your name listed, please let me know; always possible that I missed someone.

The #6 Greatest Peaks thread will open shortly.

[BusywithBball]

May I ask why so many people put 1964 over any other 1960-65 season for Russell? I don't say I am against it, but I wonder if it's not caused strictly by DRtg estimations.

That is one part of it. Another is just the optics of seeing a spike in performance once Cousy left. Yet another is the temporality of 1964 being a more natural midpoint in his prime. The main reason for me though is the more dominant postseason run: beating two 4-SRS teams 4-1, with only two single digit wins and no home losses, stands out more than winning back-to-back home game 7s by a single basket against what I would call similar competition quality. Couple that with the outlier estimated defensive rating, and it seems intuitively true to me that 1964 would be his peak. It may well be 1962, but in terms of making our best guesses based on the information available, I lean toward 1964 for those reasons.

I think it's reasonable, although I will provide a few thoughts on that matter:

1. Cousy retirement seemed to give the Celtics the overall improvement, which could indeed indicate Russell's impact getting larger. At the same time, the Celtics took a notable dip on offense and I think it's because Russell took the playmaking duties for the first time in his career and he didn't handle it too well. That is why it's worth considering 1965 as even better year, because Russell got another year of experience and seemed to handle this role better.

2. This offensive struggles didn't hurt the Celtics overall, but I wonder how much of that you can put on Russell's shoulder and how much of that are the strategic changes in rotations etc. The question of Russell's defensive impact difference between 1963 and 1964 remains unanswered without more data, I just wonder if such impact even exists.

3. The Celtics were very dominant in the playoffs, which is a very strong point to consider, especially against 1962. I wonder how to look at that in comparison to 1961 for example (though the Celtics faced better competition in 1964). Another thing is that the Warriors, although a very solid team in the RS, we're deeply flawed in their roster construction. They had no perimeter creation outside of Guy Rodgers (who by all accounts seems to be a net negative offensive player, despite his passing chops) and no perimeter scoring at all. Such team was definitely easier to contain than 1962 Warriors or especially 1965 Sixers, despite the better SRS in the RS.

4. I keep thinking about 1964 series against the Royals, because that's the key to understand Russell's performance. Looking at the boxscore, Russell played MUCH better the season before but the Celtics struggled much more as well, going to 7 games. I don't remember what happened to Oscar in that series, was he injured or something like that? If not, then it's an extremely hard puzzle to solve. On one hand, being absurdly dominant against one of the best offensive teams of the decade looks extremely impressive. On the other, do we really believe that Russell was so much better between 1963 and 1964 that it made such a drastic difference in the overall (and Oscar's) performance?

5. I know that people don't care about Russell's offensive game, but this Royals series is again a mystery. In his prime, Russell usually did very well against non-Wilt teams in the playoffs offensively and his boxscore numbers were absolutely horrible in that one. As I said, I think it's the matter of new role he didn't take too well and I think we should take that into account. For all the defense-first guys we always look at the offense in peaks project. I am quite sure that Hakeem didn't peak defensively in 1994 for example. Duncan is more arguable, but I can see 2004 or 2007 above 2003 defensively (2005 pre-injury was probably the best). Yet we still recognise their development as offensive players and I think we should do the same with Russell, especially if we don't have any strong arguments for his defensive impact diminishing.

None of these points are against 1964 choice, I am just wondering.

This is very good conversation. I think I will stick to year 1962 but very fair point for 1964 too

[Top10alltime]

3. 1963-64 Wilt (61-62, 66-67, 67-68)

Most people consider 66-67 to be Wilt's peak, but for me, Wilt didn't really stand out enough as a playmaker or on defence enough to beat out this iteration of Wilt. (Although, I will say that 67 Wilt has a case). There are two things for me taking him over 67..

-> Wilt, at least by the numbers, was a better defender. He also seemed to be a better interior defender, and had better rim deterrence, by the film that is available. He wasn't all that active though, and a worse defender in transition (due to spending so many minutes on the court), and his effectiveness guarding perimeter seemed to stay mostly the same..

-> Wilt was better scorer off of offensive rebounding (he was still GOAT lvl at that in 67), and great interior scorer, with ATG rim pressure. He also had a much worse team than in 67 Sixers, so it was much harder to lift his team to the offensive heights when he had terrible support in 64 Warriors

As a basketball player, Wilt looks like better defensive player on film and with the stats, also this is a elite defensive season at worst, sub GOAT defensive season to me, since rim protection was very valued in 60s and that led to anchoring a -6 defence (he still had good help in Thurmond, but Thurmond was a rookie and hadn't emerged). His low fouling might be attributed to him having little discipline, but I have yet to see proof of this.

Wilt had ATG scoring season (expected from a top 10-15 scorer in history), averaging insane amount of point for a post big, on high efficiency: (28.0 IA pts/75 on +5.2 rTS), one of his greatest scoring seasons ever. This is on top of the incredible gravity he had, the rim pressure he had, along with hitting fadeaways at a reasonable clip, for bigs:

Prime games (1962-68):

All shots: 157/255 FGA (61.6 FG%)

All fadeaways: 50/109 FGA (45.9 FG%)
From left block: 37/78 FGA (47.4 FG%)
From right block: 6/15 FGA (40.0 FG%)
Non-post fadeaways: 7/16 FGA (43.8 FG%)

All finger rolls: 17/30 FGA (56.7 FG%)
From left block: 5/12 FGA (41.7 FG%)
From right block: 9/14 FGA (64.3 FG%)
Non-post finger rolls: 3/4 FGA (75.0 FG%)

As a playmaker, he exposed double-teams like in 1966-67 on the ball, he could hit his open man. Off-ball, he provided value as playmaker, using his gravity to leave open teammates for shots.

4. 2002-03 Duncan (01-02, 03-04)

A historic carry-job with one of the worst high winning supporting casts in NBA history.
Robinson is given too much credit defensively. Duncan is much better rim protector
Look at the Spurs record without him(Drob). 15-3. +6.0 Net. Spurs also 10-3 without Manu. This was a historic carry job. Insane floor raising year by Tim Duncan.


Tim Duncan was a GOAT lvl defensive player, even as a PF (giving up his preferred role to Drob), with all-time motor, his elite interior defense, roaming, and is fairly switchable. Here’s an example of his defense from tracking… (and overall play)

2003 NBA Finals Game 1 Duncan tracking (offense only)

Defence has already been done for this game, then we shall do offence.

For those who want to see defense, here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2457016

Here is what I will be tracking -

Scoring -
Mid range shots - (MID)
Rim shots (R)
Post shots (P)
Put-back shots (PB)
Three point shots (3)
Offensive contest (OCT)
Uncontested (UOCT)
FD (foul drawn)

Playmaking -
DTOs (defenders taken out)
EDTOs (effective defenders taken out)
Creation
SC (screen assists)
Double

Ball-handling -
BB (Ball brought up)




Possession 1 - 0:19 - Duncan gets ball from Parker, pass into Robinson drawing foul.
Possession 2 - 1:25 - Duncan with ball short corner, ball tipped away out of bounds.
Possession 3 - 3:00 - Jackson gets ball tripled, to Duncan going in for dunk, drawing foul and missing FT. (Duncan - 1/1 R, 1 FD, 1 UOCT)
Possession 4 - 4:07 - Duncan off of steal in transition brings up ball, hand it off to Jackson making post shot. (Duncan - 1 creation, 1 BB)
Possession 5 - 5:00 - Duncan stands in post in transition, Spurs score.
Possession 6 - 5:49 - Duncan gets bounce pass, doubled, behind back pass to Jackson, to Drob for dunk. (Duncan - 2 DTOs, 1 EDTO, 1 doubled)
Possession 7 - 6:19 - Duncan waits on top of key, Spurs miss shot.
Possession 8 - 6:36 - Duncan bring up ball, doubled, pass to Drob airballing shot. (Duncan - 4 DTOs, 2 EDTOs, 2 doubled, 2 BB)
Possession 9 - 7:52 - Duncan goes into block, trapped, Spurs turnover.
Possession 10 - 8:07 - Duncan bring ball up, pass to Malik who draws foul.
Then Duncan gets ball on block, heads into deep post triple teamed defense collapses. Then pass to Malik making shot. (Duncan - 6 DTOs, 3 EDTOs, 3 doubled, 3 BB, 2 creation)
Possession 11 - 9:12 - Duncan gets ball on left block, doubled, draws foul missing fadeaway in post.
After Duncan with ball on elbow, gives it down to Parker turning it over. (Duncan - 2 FD, 0/1 P, 4 doubled, 1 OCT)
Possession 12 - 9:53 - Duncan in block when Spurs goes on fastbreak, blocked shot.
Possession 13 - 10:07 - Duncan waits in block and Spurs miss shot.
Possession 14 - 12:06 - Duncan waits in block, drawn foul by Jackson.
Possession 15 - 13:20 - Duncan waits in block again as Manu makes a layup.
Possession 16 - 14:00 - Duncan in post, as Tony draws a foul.
Possession 17 - 15:15 - Jackson tries to pass to Duncan instead throwing it out of bounds.
Possession 18 - 15:55 - Spurs transition and can't make layup, putback missed by Claxton.
Possession 19 - 16:47 - Duncan sets a screen for Manu, who gives it to Claxton making shot.
START OF 2Q
Possession 20 - 18:50 - Duncan gets ball on short corner, draws double, finds Claxton, swing out to Jackson missing. (Duncan - 5 doubled, 8 DTOs, 4 EDTOs)
Possession 21 - 19:42 - Duncan gets the ball, goes into deep position missing shot, draws foul. (Duncan - 2/2 R, 3 FD, 2 OCT)
Possession 22 - 22:17 - Duncan gets ball on right block, draws double, bounce pass to Jackson making shot on key. (Duncan - 6 doubled, 10 DTOs, 5 EDTOs, 3 creation)
23:26 - Duncan off
27:50 - Duncan on
Possession 23 - 28:24 - Duncan gets ball in deep post, doubled and blocked at rim. (Duncan - 7 doubled)
Possession 24 - 30:20 - Duncan waits in low post, Drob makes dunk.
Possession 25 - 30:50 - Duncan screens Kidd, gets ball on key, pass out to Jackson, ball knocked out.
Possession 26 - 32:10 - Duncan moves into post, but ball stolen initiating Nets transition.
Possession 27 - 32:22 - Manu going up for a layup and in, missing.
Possession 28 - 32:50 - Duncan in post, as Stephen Jackson makes layup.
Possession 29 - 33:20 - Duncan bring up ball, pass out of double, waits in post as Drob missing dunk. (Duncan - 8 doubled, 12 DTOs, 6 EDTOs, 4 BB)
Possession 30 - 35:10 - Duncan helps with a screen, rolls, draws foul on double missing.
Then Duncan goes to catch airball by Parker, doubled and makes close shot (Duncan - 10 doubled, 4 FD, 1/3 P, 2 UOCT)
Possession 31 - 36:02 - Duncan tries to wait for ball in post, Jackson makes and1.
Possession 32 - 37:03 - Duncan waiting on block, Manu gets blocked.
Possession 33 - 37:29 - Duncan moving to left block, post up missing fadeaway. (Duncan - 11 doubled, 2/4 P, 3 UOCT)
Possession 34 - 39:13 - Duncan finds ball on short corner, draws double, commits turnover on pass. (Duncan - 12 doubled)
Possession 35 - 39:35 - Duncan waiting in post as Drob misses jumper.
Possession 36 - 40:20 - Duncan gets ball on elbow, misses tough shot at elbow. (Duncan - 2/5 P, 3 OCT)
Possession 37 - 40:57 - Duncan slow in transition as Bowen misses contested shot.
START OF 3Q
Possession 38 - 42:31 - Duncan waiting in post as Bowen nails 3.
Possession 39 - 43:00 - Duncan slow to run other side of court, Jackson misses reverse layup.
Then Duncan boxes out for offensive board, misses layup as he draws foul. Duncan hits both FTs. (Duncan - 2/3 R, 5 FD, 4 OCT)
Possession 40 - 45:06 - Duncan gets ball on key, draws double and kick to Parker, screen, Parker hits open 3. (Duncan - 12 doubled, 1 SC, 4 creation, 14 DTOs, 7 EDTOs)

Final tally -

Scoring:
4 OCT
3 UOCT
2/5 P (Post shots)
2/3 R (Rim shots)
5 FD (foul drawn)

Playmaking:
12 doubled
1 SC
4 creation
14 DTOs
7 EDTOs

Ball-handling:
4 BB

We can also see how he is an elite offensive player with his sustainable post scoring, respectable gravity, elite rim touch, as well as his respectable playmaking (good passing bag, all-time screener, great PnR player, etc).

Good playoff riser -

The SPURS
REG SZN
RECORD 60-22 -> 5.65 SRS ( top 3 In league )
Offense Rating of +2.0 rORTG ( Top 7 in league)
Defense Rating of -3.9 rDRTG ( Top 3 in league )

PLAYOFF
Playoff Offensive Rating: +1.80 (83rd), Playoff Defensive Rating: -8.65 (14th)
Playoff SRS: +10.66 (47th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +3.36 (34th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.75 (34th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -1.70 (59th)

6. 1999-00 Shaq (97-98, 00-01, 01-02)


Another big man in Shaq, tough choice between Hakeem and Shaq, ultimately I lean Hakeem due to much better defense, but I will admit that Shaq has a case, with his sub-GOAT tier offensive game, and with him still being a DPOY level defender.

Shaquille O'Neal's game is about him on the post/rim. As we know he can't stretch the floor well even like other bigs, so he relied on working for post position. Also exposed mismatches well in post, great iso player there. A great offensive rebounder, also an efficient scorer (Shaq RS: 30.3 IA pts/75 on +5.5 rTS, Shaq in PO: 29.9 IA pts/75 on +3.9 rTS). Shaq drawing fouls generating baskets did help, but it made him easier to scheme against.

Also I value his gravity, opening up floor for teammates, giving him much more value as a playmaker. He is one of the best off-ball playmakers ever in this season as well, due to his gravity. Here is what that led to, by my tracking of 00 Shaq Finals Game 2 (surprisingly, his defense isn't all that great, making me lower on this Shaq) -

My 00 Shaq tracking for the g2 finals

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9iM2mTvPlZvpOmr3epz0MkLuoRwf36lxNMvaGwlZOM/edit?usp=drivesdk

Final tally -

22x doubled
26 DTOs
12 EDTOs
7 creation
80 possessions available

13 PP
5 EPP
5 IPP

7 PPD
6 IPPD
1 EPPD
74 possessions available

Shaq had GOAT lvl gravity and scoring this game, but that increased his playmaking advantage (among others) greatly.

He also showed that he could still lift the team without his second option, proving his sub-GOAT floor raising:

Without Kobe:
Kobe started the 2000 season injured. He missed all of November. During that time, the Lakers and Shaq didn’t miss a beat at all.

11-3 record
6.61 SRS (would still be good enough to be #1 in the league)

Shaq performed admirably
28.7 PPG, 13.4 Reb, 3 AST, 59.5 FG%

More impressively is how the Lakers performed when Shaq was on the court during that span that Kobe missed.
107 O rating (+6.8 from League average)
94.3 D rating (-7.0 from league average)
+12.7 Net Rating

The most amazing thing about the above numbers is that Shaq’s full season numbers were 106 O rating and 95 D rating (11 Net) so that means the Lakers with Shaq on the court while Kobe didn’t play, played better offense and defense than the Lakers played with Shaq on the court in the games Kobe played. Shaq really stepped it up in that span.

Here is Shaq’s supporting cast during those games:
36 year old Ron Harper, 7 PPG 39.9 FG%
25 year old Derek Fisher, 6 PPG, 34.6 FG%
32 year old Glen Rice, 15.9 PPG, 43 FG%
36 year old A.C. Green, 5 PPG 44.7 FG%
2000 Shaq

Bench,
Brian Shaw
Rick Fox
Robert Horry
Travis Knight
John Celestand

Despite all of that, Shaq performed just as well and somehow got an on court 107 Offensive rating (+6.8 from league average) with Shaq on court. To put that into perspective, the #2 offense this year (Heat) are +6.5. They also played -7.0 defense which is the exact same that the 2011 Bulls and Celtics played.

In that month without Kobe, while the team played awesome with Shaq on the court, they were horrific without Shaq in that month

On court: +12 per 100
Off court: -44 in 197 minutes, (-11.17 per 100)
+23.19 per 100 possession difference

So Shaq was propping up a mediocre at best cast in Kobe’s absence to playing like the best team in the league when Shaq was on the court.

To show Shaq's true dominance at the rim, here are his FG% numbers:
FG% from 0-3 FT: 77.6% (ATG to sub-GOAT lvl)
FG% from 3-10 FT: 44.8% (efficient, still great)

Shaq was much more unstoppable, in this limited area, due to how he could finish, his GOAT rim-pressure, and his area in deep post, where he could dunk(14.7% of his shot attempts are dunks). His physical game was incredible as-well, as he overpowered opponents in this area.

2000-01 Shaq has an argument, based on if you value the PO that much (his best playoff run in his career), but for me, it is not enough to beat out his excellent RS and PO combination, as well as his DPOY lvl defensive peak.