How many Duncan years over 2004 KG?

[lessthanjake]

I waffle between 0 and 2 (which would be 2002 and 2003). I think I lean towards 2 though. Am pretty high on Duncan’s peak.

[Special_Puppy]

I guess 98 to 07; Duncan's full prime, depending on whether you use the timing of the 00 injury to exclude that year.

Rookie Duncan over Peak Garnett is insane

[Texas Chuck]

I mean taking rookie Timmy over KG is a step too far, but it feels far less egregious than saying Timmy has zero seasons as good as 04 KG. Because the only reason 04 KG stands out is because he got to play with peak Sam Cassell which mean the team success looks entirely different. But he's not meaningfully better than either 03 or 05 KG and frankly 06-08 KG isn't much worse than that 3 year peak.

I just don't believe KG could possibly have 3-6 years better than any Duncan year but that's basically what one is saying if they claim 04 KG stands above every Duncan year. And all the excuses used for why the RAPM is what matters and the lack of team success should just be hand waved away disappears when compared with 03 Duncan who wins a title with a roster worse than the ones used to justify first round exit after first round exit for KG.

I don't know exactly how many Duncan seasons are better than the best KG season, but its definitely some. He was just a better player and because their primes overlapped so much in the same conference, I just can't ignore that Duncan teams were going to be HCA teams and advance in the playoffs almost every single year no matter the roster. And there aren't actually that many years that all of Duncan, Manu, and Parker are in their primes together yet we minimize Duncan by acting if that's every year of his career while pretending like KG played with Ricky Davis every year instead of realizing he played with more all-stars than the 3rd great PF of this era, Dirk, who also gets the he always had great teammates knock.

KG is so beloved on this board, we have narrative things to justify a level his career doesn't. And again, this is not me saying KG isn't great. I'm a Dirk homer and the last time I voted in a top 100 project I voted KG in ahead of Dirk. But neither guy is on the level of Tim freaking Duncan.

[Ol Roy]

I think age-34 Sam Cassell became an All-Star for the first time because he got to play with peak Garnett, not because he had suddenly hit his own peak.

[tsherkin]

I think age-34 Sam Cassell became an All-Star for the first time because he got to play with peak Garnett, not because he had suddenly hit his own peak.

Hard to tell, given how much of his prime where his stats were suppressed by playing alongside Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson. Didn't set a career-high in APG, set his career-high in PPG by 0.1. Shooting didn't look THAT much different compared to the previous 4 seasons, though he did set his career-high in 3P%, very likely due to Garnett's presence. But Cassell was always a strong playmaker with an elite mid-range game and at least a capable 3pt shooter, so it's tough to really lay all that on KG.

[Texas Chuck]

I think age-34 Sam Cassell became an All-Star for the first time because he got to play with peak Garnett, not because he had suddenly hit his own peak.

I knew his age would come up....

First of all there are not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 teams that had their best runs in like a 30 year stretch when Sam Cassell played for them. Not a coincidence. He was a very good, very underappreciated player for years. But he was an all-NBA player and a top 10 MVP guy (hard to do playing with the actual MVP btw) and when he hurt himself they were quickly eliminated from the playoffs.

Of course he benefits from getting to play with KG. But when looking at the KG team success in Minnesota, pretending like its some outlier performance by KG and not the addition of an elite co-star by focusing on age..... nah that's not what we should do. Because KG was that good the season before. And the season after.

04 KG is a great, MVP level year. It is not better than every year by a notably better player, Tim Duncan. And that's okay. It doesn't diminish KG. But we shouldn't over-react to the team success. Especially since the whole KG case requires us to minimize team success. Emphasizing it sans context when its convenient? We really shouldn't.

[LakerLegend]

None. At least not definitively.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I don't know exactly how many Duncan seasons are better than the best KG season, but its definitely some. He was just a better player and because their primes overlapped so much in the same conference, I just can't ignore that Duncan teams were going to be HCA teams and advance in the playoffs almost every single year no matter the roster. And there aren't actually that many years that all of Duncan, Manu, and Parker are in their primes together yet we minimize Duncan by acting if that's every year of his career while pretending like KG played with Ricky Davis every year instead of realizing he played with more all-stars than the 3rd great PF of this era, Dirk, who also gets the he always had great teammates knock.

KG is so beloved on this board, we have narrative things to justify a level his career doesn't. And again, this is not me saying KG isn't great. I'm a Dirk homer and the last time I voted in a top 100 project I voted KG in ahead of Dirk. But neither guy is on the level of Tim freaking Duncan.

You make it sound like if they switched places, Duncan would've been taking those Wolves teams deep into the playoffs and winning titles year after year like he did in SA, and Garnett would've led those Spurs teams to perennial first round exits. I really, really don't believe that's the case, and I think you are minimizing the overall difference in roster quality.

Throughout Duncan's career, he had DRob(who was still a very good two-way player the first few years of Duncan's career, like 98-01, and then still a good defensive role player thereafter), Elliot, Manu, Parker, Kawhi, and (for his last season) LMA. Additionally, he had a front office that consistently brought in quality ancillary pieces and a GOAT tier coach who almost always got the most out of them: Mario Elie on the 99 team, SJax on the 03 team, Bowen(one of the premiere 3&D guys of a generation), Horry, Finley, older Richard Jefferson, older post-injury McDyess, George Hill, Tiago Splitter, Boris Diaw, Danny Green(another premiere 3&D guy), etc.

The best players KG played with from 98-99 until he got traded were Terrell Brandon, Wally Szczerbiak, Billups, Troy Hudson, Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Ricky Davis, Marco Jarik, etc.

You don't have to defend Cassell to me, I'm on that train, and Billups is Billups, but it's still an underwhelming list on the whole.

And I also wouldn't downplay the Pops factor. Coaching matters - just look at those Wolves teams, where they were winning 40-50+ games a year up until Flip Saunders was fired, and then fell off a cliff for KG's last two years there.

And I know you don't need to be told who all was on Dirk's Mavs teams, but I also disagree with the notion that Garnett played with better players in Minnesota than Dirk did. AS nods aside, Dirk got to play with Nash, Finley, NVE, Antawn Jamison, Josh Howard, Devin Harris, Jason Terry, Tyson Chandler, Jason Kidd(who, yes, was still impactful on that 2011 title run going by on/off and RAPM), Shawn Marion, Peja Stojakovic, etc. I would certainly take that group over the Wolves' teammates above.

All of this is not to say that KG > Duncan. I have no particular attachment to Garnett and I have Duncan over him. But I also feel that there is very little significant individual statistical gap between them - despite being very different players stylistically - and that the resume gap is more to do with Garnett being drafted to a terrible franchise and Duncan being drafted to a great one than it is with Duncan being intrinsically that much greater than Garnett. I feel like this is somewhat borne out by Garnett's immediate success in Boston. So where Duncan is on my list(and it's fluctuated), I usually have Garnett one spot below(and Dirk a few spots beyond that).

As for the original question, I probably would take, at minimum, 03 Duncan over 04 Garnett. Maybe 2002.

[One_and_Done]

I don't know exactly how many Duncan seasons are better than the best KG season, but its definitely some. He was just a better player and because their primes overlapped so much in the same conference, I just can't ignore that Duncan teams were going to be HCA teams and advance in the playoffs almost every single year no matter the roster. And there aren't actually that many years that all of Duncan, Manu, and Parker are in their primes together yet we minimize Duncan by acting if that's every year of his career while pretending like KG played with Ricky Davis every year instead of realizing he played with more all-stars than the 3rd great PF of this era, Dirk, who also gets the he always had great teammates knock.

KG is so beloved on this board, we have narrative things to justify a level his career doesn't. And again, this is not me saying KG isn't great. I'm a Dirk homer and the last time I voted in a top 100 project I voted KG in ahead of Dirk. But neither guy is on the level of Tim freaking Duncan.

You make it sound like if they switched places, Duncan would've been taking those Wolves teams deep into the playoffs and winning titles year after year like he did in SA, and Garnett would've led those Spurs teams to perennial first round exits. I really, really don't believe that's the case, and I think you are minimizing the overall difference in roster quality.

Throughout Duncan's career, he had DRob(who was still a very good two-way player the first few years of Duncan's career, like 98-01, and then still a good defensive role player thereafter), Elliot, Manu, Parker, Kawhi, and (for his last season) LMA. Additionally, he had a front office that consistently brought in quality ancillary pieces and a GOAT tier coach who almost always got the most out of them: Mario Elie on the 99 team, SJax on the 03 team, Bowen(one of the premiere 3&D guys of a generation), Horry, Finley, older Richard Jefferson, older post-injury McDyess, George Hill, Tiago Splitter, Boris Diaw, Danny Green(another premiere 3&D guy), etc.

The best players KG played with from 98-99 until he got traded were Terrell Brandon, Wally Szczerbiak, Billups, Troy Hudson, Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Ricky Davis, Marco Jarik, etc.

You don't have to defend Cassell to me, I'm on that train, and Billups is Billups, but it's still an underwhelming list on the whole.

And I also wouldn't downplay the Pops factor. Coaching matters - just look at those Wolves teams, where they were winning 40-50+ games a year up until Flip Saunders was fired, and then fell off a cliff for KG's last two years there.

And I know you don't need to be told who all was on Dirk's Mavs teams, but I also disagree with the notion that Garnett played with better players in Minnesota than Dirk did. AS nods aside, Dirk got to play with Nash, Finley, NVE, Antawn Jamison, Josh Howard, Devin Harris, Jason Terry, Tyson Chandler, Jason Kidd(who, yes, was still impactful on that 2011 title run going by on/off and RAPM), Shawn Marion, Peja Stojakovic, etc. I would certainly take that group over the Wolves' teammates above.

All of this is not to say that KG > Duncan. I have no particular attachment to Garnett and I have Duncan over him. But I also feel that there is very little significant individual statistical gap between them - despite being very different players stylistically - and that the resume gap is more to do with Garnett being drafted to a terrible franchise and Duncan being drafted to a great one than it is with Duncan being intrinsically that much greater than Garnett. I feel like this is somewhat borne out by Garnett's immediate success in Boston. So where Duncan is on my list(and it's fluctuated), I usually have Garnett one spot below(and Dirk a few spots beyond that).

As for the original question, I probably would take, at minimum, 03 Duncan over 04 Garnett. Maybe 2002.

We hear these repeated narratives about how D.Rob was still really good, and how Duncan had a lot of help every year, but they just aren’t borne out in reality.

Let’s start with D.Rob. His narrative of still being really good in his later years is driven primarily by advanced stats, combined with name recognition. In 2002 it was Wally S, KG’s team mate, who made the West all-star team; not D.Rob. The Spurs were 15-3 in games D.Rob missed in 03 (and 10-3 in games rookie Manu missed). The idea is batted around that D.Rob was still secretly super impactful, and that D is hard to measure. The latter is true, but the evidence that D.Rob still had a big defensive presence is purely based on advanced stats (that are often wrong). The most important indicator of D.Rob’s defensive value is what happened after he left. The Spurs replaced his minutes with Rasho/Horry/Hedo; 1 horrible defender, 1 defender who is ok in the playoffs but mails it in during the RS, and 1 decent help defender who is a bad man defender… yet the Spurs defence improved. Not only did it improve, it improved substantially. It suggests Duncan was the one really driving winning, and anchoring the Spurs D.

From 01-03, Duncan’s support casts were bad. The worst was in 02, though the horrible guard rotation he had in 01 is genuinely underrated. It was hideous. Go look at the stats of the non-Duncan Spurs in the 2001 WCFs v.s the Lakers. They have numbers so bad they look made up, and having watched the games they honestly undersell how useless everyone not named Duncan was. In 2002 D.Rob wasn’t even healthy v.s the Lakers, missing most of the games, and Duncan guarded him (something KG could never do). The result was Shaq having a horrible series compared to the rest of his playoff run. D.Rob on the other hand might as well have been invisible. In the closeout game of the Lakers series in 2002 Duncan had 34 & 25… and D.Rob had 0 & 3. Stats can be misleading, but that speaks pretty loudly. The Spurs lost that game by only 6 points, and were tied heading into the final quarter.

In 2002 KG had a team of Brandon/Billups (once Brandon went down, Billups played like an all-star as their starter), Wally who made an all-star team that year, Joe Smith, Rasho, and Anthony Peeler. That’s a better support cast than Duncan had in 2002, yet the Wolves won 8 fewer games than the Spurs, had an SRS 3 points worse, and got waxed 3-0 in the first round by the Mavs. So yes, if their roles were reversed the Wolves would have been more successful, and the Spurs less so.

Pop is a great coach, but this isn’t the NFL. In the NBA coaches are a small part of the equation compared to players. They put guys into a position to succeed (or not), but they can’t make bad players good. If they could the Spurs wouldn’t have been out of the playoffs the past 6 years.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

98-03 Duncan over KG. I already said in previous threads, even KG at the pinnacle of his career wasnt overly impressive in the playoffs for someone who was the MVP of the league.

[A_Fernz23]

2002 and 2003

[OldSchoolNoBull]

We hear these repeated narratives about how D.Rob was still really good, and how Duncan had a lot of help every year, but they just aren’t borne out in reality.

Let’s start with D.Rob. His narrative of still being really good in his later years is driven primarily by advanced stats, combined with name recognition. In 2002 it was Wally S, KG’s team mate, who made the West all-star team; not D.Rob. The Spurs were 15-3 in games D.Rob missed in 03 (and 10-3 in games rookie Manu missed). The idea is batted around that D.Rob was still secretly super impactful, and that D is hard to measure. The latter is true, but the evidence that D.Rob still had a big defensive presence is purely based on advanced stats (that are often wrong). The most important indicator of D.Rob’s defensive value is what happened after he left. The Spurs replaced his minutes with Rasho/Horry/Hedo; 1 horrible defender, 1 defender who is ok in the playoffs but mails it in during the RS, and 1 decent help defender who is a bad man defender… yet the Spurs defence improved. Not only did it improve, it improved substantially. It suggests Duncan was the one really driving winning, and anchoring the Spurs D.

From 01-03, Duncan’s support casts were bad. The worst was in 02, though the horrible guard rotation he had in 01 is genuinely underrated. It was hideous. Go look at the stats of the non-Duncan Spurs in the 2001 WCFs v.s the Lakers. They have numbers so bad they look made up, and having watched the games they honestly undersell how useless everyone not named Duncan was. In 2002 D.Rob wasn’t even healthy v.s the Lakers, missing most of the games, and Duncan guarded him (something KG could never do). The result was Shaq having a horrible series compared to the rest of his playoff run. D.Rob on the other hand might as well have been invisible. In the closeout game of the Lakers series in 2002 Duncan had 34 & 25… and D.Rob had 0 & 3. Stats can be misleading, but that speaks pretty loudly. The Spurs lost that game by only 6 points, and were tied heading into the final quarter.

In 2002 KG had a team of Brandon/Billups (once Brandon went down, Billups played like an all-star as their starter), Wally who made an all-star team that year, Joe Smith, Rasho, and Anthony Peeler. That’s a better support cast than Duncan had in 2002, yet the Wolves won 8 fewer games than the Spurs, had an SRS 3 points worse, and got waxed 3-0 in the first round by the Mavs. So yes, if their roles were reversed the Wolves would have been more successful, and the Spurs less so.

Pop is a great coach, but this isn’t the NFL. In the NBA coaches are a small part of the equation compared to players. They put guys into a position to succeed (or not), but they can’t make bad players good. If they could the Spurs wouldn’t have been out of the playoffs the past 6 years.

Well, first of all, I said this:

he had DRob(who was still a very good two-way player the first few years of Duncan's career, like 98-01, and then still a good defensive role player thereafter)

and you spend two paragraphs talking mostly about 2002 and 2003. DRob's regular season numbers in 98, 99 and 00:

21.6ppg/10.6rpg/2.6bpg on +5.7 rTS, +6.4 on/off
15.8ppg/10.0rpg/2.4bpg on +5.3 rTS, +4.4 on/off
17.8ppg/9.6rpg/2.3bpg on +4.5 rTS, +3.5 on/off

And his playoff numbers in 98, 99, and 00:

19.4ppg/14.1rpg/3.3bpg on -2.8 rTS, +18.4 on/off in 9 games
15.6ppg/9.9rpg/2.4bpg on +5.2 rTS, +35.0 on/off in 17 games
23.5ppg/13.8rpg/3.0bpg on -6.0 rTS, +25.2 on/off in 4 games

Yeah his efficiency dropped in the playoffs twice as was his wont, and the on/offs in the playoffs are almost certainly inflated, but the point is he was still very much a legit #2 for THOSE FIRST FEW YEARS with Duncan.

As for 02 and 03, all I said was that he was a very good defensive role player. Not that he was the best defensive player on the team, or that he was anchoring or driving the team defense, or anything of the sort. Just that he was a good defensive role player. Which the individual metrics indicate he was.

You point out the big increase in team defensive rating in 2004. It's a nearly five point improvement. Obviously Duncan is the anchor and the main driver, but unless you think 2004 Duncan was that much better of a defender than 2003 Duncan, there's got to be an explanation for why the increase. because I simply don't believe it can be an addition-by-subtraction thing in losing DRob.

I know you don't like RAPM but that's what makes my case. If you look at Rasho Nesterovic, his DRAPM in 2004 is 2.43. DRob's in 2003 was 3.30. So I would say Rasho largely replicates the impact of old DRob.

But if you look at Stephen Jackson in 2003, it's a -1.61 DRAPM. He was gone in 2003, and in his place Manu was given a bigger role. Manu's 2004 DRAPM is 0.84 - not impressive in a vacuum but a 2.45 point increase over SJax. And Manu only got better over time. He's got 1.39(2003-2005) and 1.47(2004-2006) three-year DRAPMs.

Also the other player taking SJax's minutes in 2003 was Hedo, who obviously does not have a good defensive reputation, but posted a career high 2.38 DRAPM in 2004. Which does raise an eyebrow and seems fluky, but he sustained it in the playoffs too, so I don't know.

Rob Horry was also added for nothing, and recorded a 1.37 DRAPM in 2003-04.

My overall point here is not that Duncan was anything other than the driving force and anchor(because he was), or that Hedo was secretly some great defender, but just that there might be reasons why the Spurs' team defense did what it did in 2004 that aren't as simple as "The Spurs were an elite defense in 2004 so DRob couldn't have had any defensive value in 2003!"

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, because I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this.

[One_and_Done]

I think D.Rob probably was a hindrance by 03. The guy could barely move. He would have been a solid defensive option at the 5 for most teams, but on the Spurs that already had Duncan there he was pretty redundant.

I've posted before about my views on the 99 Spurs. Honestly, I think D.Rob was a bit overrated even then.
viewtopic.php?t=2367353

[lessthanjake]

I don't know exactly how many Duncan seasons are better than the best KG season, but its definitely some. He was just a better player and because their primes overlapped so much in the same conference, I just can't ignore that Duncan teams were going to be HCA teams and advance in the playoffs almost every single year no matter the roster. And there aren't actually that many years that all of Duncan, Manu, and Parker are in their primes together yet we minimize Duncan by acting if that's every year of his career while pretending like KG played with Ricky Davis every year instead of realizing he played with more all-stars than the 3rd great PF of this era, Dirk, who also gets the he always had great teammates knock.

KG is so beloved on this board, we have narrative things to justify a level his career doesn't. And again, this is not me saying KG isn't great. I'm a Dirk homer and the last time I voted in a top 100 project I voted KG in ahead of Dirk. But neither guy is on the level of Tim freaking Duncan.

You make it sound like if they switched places, Duncan would've been taking those Wolves teams deep into the playoffs and winning titles year after year like he did in SA, and Garnett would've led those Spurs teams to perennial first round exits. I really, really don't believe that's the case, and I think you are minimizing the overall difference in roster quality.

Throughout Duncan's career, he had DRob(who was still a very good two-way player the first few years of Duncan's career, like 98-01, and then still a good defensive role player thereafter), Elliot, Manu, Parker, Kawhi, and (for his last season) LMA. Additionally, he had a front office that consistently brought in quality ancillary pieces and a GOAT tier coach who almost always got the most out of them: Mario Elie on the 99 team, SJax on the 03 team, Bowen(one of the premiere 3&D guys of a generation), Horry, Finley, older Richard Jefferson, older post-injury McDyess, George Hill, Tiago Splitter, Boris Diaw, Danny Green(another premiere 3&D guy), etc.

The best players KG played with from 98-99 until he got traded were Terrell Brandon, Wally Szczerbiak, Billups, Troy Hudson, Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Ricky Davis, Marco Jarik, etc.

You don't have to defend Cassell to me, I'm on that train, and Billups is Billups, but it's still an underwhelming list on the whole.

And I also wouldn't downplay the Pops factor. Coaching matters - just look at those Wolves teams, where they were winning 40-50+ games a year up until Flip Saunders was fired, and then fell off a cliff for KG's last two years there.

And I know you don't need to be told who all was on Dirk's Mavs teams, but I also disagree with the notion that Garnett played with better players in Minnesota than Dirk did. AS nods aside, Dirk got to play with Nash, Finley, NVE, Antawn Jamison, Josh Howard, Devin Harris, Jason Terry, Tyson Chandler, Jason Kidd(who, yes, was still impactful on that 2011 title run going by on/off and RAPM), Shawn Marion, Peja Stojakovic, etc. I would certainly take that group over the Wolves' teammates above.

All of this is not to say that KG > Duncan. I have no particular attachment to Garnett and I have Duncan over him. But I also feel that there is very little significant individual statistical gap between them - despite being very different players stylistically - and that the resume gap is more to do with Garnett being drafted to a terrible franchise and Duncan being drafted to a great one than it is with Duncan being intrinsically that much greater than Garnett. I feel like this is somewhat borne out by Garnett's immediate success in Boston. So where Duncan is on my list(and it's fluctuated), I usually have Garnett one spot below(and Dirk a few spots beyond that).

As for the original question, I probably would take, at minimum, 03 Duncan over 04 Garnett. Maybe 2002.

We hear these repeated narratives about how D.Rob was still really good, and how Duncan had a lot of help every year, but they just aren’t borne out in reality.

Let’s start with D.Rob. His narrative of still being really good in his later years is driven primarily by advanced stats, combined with name recognition. In 2002 it was Wally S, KG’s team mate, who made the West all-star team; not D.Rob. The Spurs were 15-3 in games D.Rob missed in 03 (and 10-3 in games rookie Manu missed). The idea is batted around that D.Rob was still secretly super impactful, and that D is hard to measure. The latter is true, but the evidence that D.Rob still had a big defensive presence is purely based on advanced stats (that are often wrong). The most important indicator of D.Rob’s defensive value is what happened after he left. The Spurs replaced his minutes with Rasho/Horry/Hedo; 1 horrible defender, 1 defender who is ok in the playoffs but mails it in during the RS, and 1 decent help defender who is a bad man defender… yet the Spurs defence improved. Not only did it improve, it improved substantially. It suggests Duncan was the one really driving winning, and anchoring the Spurs D.

From 01-03, Duncan’s support casts were bad. The worst was in 02, though the horrible guard rotation he had in 01 is genuinely underrated. It was hideous. Go look at the stats of the non-Duncan Spurs in the 2001 WCFs v.s the Lakers. They have numbers so bad they look made up, and having watched the games they honestly undersell how useless everyone not named Duncan was. In 2002 D.Rob wasn’t even healthy v.s the Lakers, missing most of the games, and Duncan guarded him (something KG could never do). The result was Shaq having a horrible series compared to the rest of his playoff run. D.Rob on the other hand might as well have been invisible. In the closeout game of the Lakers series in 2002 Duncan had 34 & 25… and D.Rob had 0 & 3. Stats can be misleading, but that speaks pretty loudly. The Spurs lost that game by only 6 points, and were tied heading into the final quarter.

In 2002 KG had a team of Brandon/Billups (once Brandon went down, Billups played like an all-star as their starter), Wally who made an all-star team that year, Joe Smith, Rasho, and Anthony Peeler. That’s a better support cast than Duncan had in 2002, yet the Wolves won 8 fewer games than the Spurs, had an SRS 3 points worse, and got waxed 3-0 in the first round by the Mavs. So yes, if their roles were reversed the Wolves would have been more successful, and the Spurs less so.

Pop is a great coach, but this isn’t the NFL. In the NBA coaches are a small part of the equation compared to players. They put guys into a position to succeed (or not), but they can’t make bad players good. If they could the Spurs wouldn’t have been out of the playoffs the past 6 years.

A few things:

1. There is obviously a lot more to the Spurs getting better defensively in 2004 than you are acknowledging. Robinson had a lot of minutes off the court in 2003. It was not a very small sample at all. It was 2294 minutes! And in those 2294 minutes, the non-Robinson 2003 Spurs had a DRTG that was over 8 points worse than the 2004 Spurs DRTG. The Spurs as a team simply improved a lot defensively in 2004—not a surprise when there was a fair bit of roster turnover. The non-Robinson guys who left the Spurs after 2003 were basically uniformly the guys who the Spurs did worst defensively with (Stephen Jackson, Steve Smith, Speedy Claxton, Danny Ferry). Kevin Willis is the only guy who the 2003 Spurs did particularly badly with defensively that actually remained on the 2004 team, but his minutes were cut by more than 50%. That is the pretty obvious explanation for the 2004 Spurs getting better defensively. They shed their worst defensive players. It’s not that David Robinson somehow was not a big defensive positive despite all individual impact data telling us that he was.

2. You can say David Robinson looked stiff or whatever and that impact data can be wrong, but the situation of David Robinson in these years is actually a really good sample. For one thing, there’s plenty of years to look at. Robinson looks great across large samples of years (i.e. things like 5-year RAPM). He’s also really good across any smaller snippet you want to look at. For instance, he’s even 13th in the NBA in two-year RAPM in 2002+2003 (as per NBArapm). The fact that he’s great across any sample you look at indicates that his large-sample data isn’t just reliant on one outlier year or something. This should probably give us even more confidence in it. Secondly, Robinson’s impact data should actually be more reliable than most players’ impact data. This is because the limiting factor in terms of reliability is typically the “off” sample. The “off” sample is generally the smallest part and for players that play a ton of minutes it can be rather small, even with a several-year-long sample. But Robinson didn’t play high minutes, so his “off” sample is significantly larger than it is for most players we typically talk about. That increases the reliability of his impact data. In other words, there’s a lot of markers of reliability on Robinson’s great impact data in the years he played with Duncan. You can ignore his impact data if you want, but it basically comes down to ignoring it for no other reason than that it *could* be wrong and that you don’t want to believe it.

3. You mention how the team did in games without Robinson and without Manu in 2003, but what the Spurs did in games without those guys are part of the RAPM data. They’re not exactly independent pieces of information. Robinson’s RAPM in that era was fantastic regardless. And Ginobili had great RAPM in 2003 regardless as well (his 2-year RAPM in 2003—which obviously only counted 2003 for him, since that was his rookie year—was ranked 15th in the NBA, as per NBArapm). If the team did well in the relatively small number of games these guys missed but their RAPM was still great, that basically means that the team did very badly in the minutes they were off the court in the games they played. It’s not really clear why we should regard that as better than the opposite, especially when the number of missed games isn’t very high.

4. Related to #3 above, Ginobili was an absolute impact monster. One of the most impactful players of his generation. He was already very impactful in 2003 (as mentioned above, his 2-year RAPM in 2003 was ranked 15th). This was not a fluke either of course, since he would go on to be an impact monster for over a decade. Of course, 2003 was his rookie year and he did improve with time, but we should remember that Ginobili was a 25-year-old rookie with a lot of non-NBA professional experience—he was not your typical rookie.

The upshot of all this is basically that Duncan always had at least one absolute generational impact monster on his team—either Robinson or Ginobili. In 2003, he had both. Of course, that year Robinson was in his last year and Ginobili was in his first NBA season, so neither was at their best, but they probably combined together to at least have roughly similar impact that year to one of them in a normal year. Of course, not all these years with one of those guys are equal. For instance, I’d certainly rather have 1998 Robinson than 2002 Robinson. But these guys were always very impactful and there’s just too much data supporting that to ignore it.

All that said, I do tend to think 2002 and 2003 Duncan is ahead of 2004 Garnett. Peak Duncan in those years was really really good, and I’d probably give some serious consideration for him to be a top 5 peak (would’ve thought more about that if I’d participated much in the now-aborted peaks project, but was too busy with personal stuff to contribute much, so I’m not sure exactly where I land on that).

[One_and_Done]

The upshot of all this is basically that Duncan always had at least one absolute generational impact monster on his team—either Robinson or Ginobili. In 2003, he had both. Of course, that year Robinson was in his last year and Ginobili was in his first NBA season, so neither was at their best, but they probably combined together to at least have roughly similar impact that year to one of them in a normal year

You lose me with comments like this. Yes, prime Manu was having a much bigger impact than his raw stats suggested, and D.Rob was once an MVP... but neither of them resembled those players in 03. To try and assert otherwise just strikes me as completely unobjective.

No, rookie Manu and walking corpse D.Rob were not 'equal to the impact of a normal season of MVP D.Rob/prime Manu'. That is just not a reasonable statement at all IMO.

[lessthanjake]

The upshot of all this is basically that Duncan always had at least one absolute generational impact monster on his team—either Robinson or Ginobili. In 2003, he had both. Of course, that year Robinson was in his last year and Ginobili was in his first NBA season, so neither was at their best, but they probably combined together to at least have roughly similar impact that year to one of them in a normal year

You lose me with comments like this. Yes, prime Manu was having a much bigger impact than his raw stats suggested, and D.Rob was once an MVP... but neither of them resembled those players in 03. To try and assert otherwise just strikes me as completely unobjective.

No, rookie Manu and walking corpse D.Rob were not 'equal to the impact of a normal season of MVP D.Rob/prime Manu'. That is just not a reasonable statement at all IMO.

Well, let’s look at it using two-year RAPM from the NBArapm website. Manu has a +3.5 two-year RAPM in 2003 (which really just includes 2003 for him, since he was a rookie). David Robinson had a +3.6 two-year RAPM in 2003. But if we go to 2004 (which really is just 2003 for him, since he retired), he is at just +1.5. Add the Manu and Robinson values together and we’re looking at +5.0 in impact. Which is pretty much in line with Manu’s average two-year RAPM during his stretch from 2004-2015 where he was pretty consistently top 10 (and often top 5) in the league in RAPM. And it is above all but one two-year span we have for Robinson (and the one above it was +5.1). So yeah, I’d say it’s fair to say that having the two of them combined in 2003 was pretty much equivalent to having one of them in a normal year. I’d caveat that by saying that we do not have full RAPM data for “MVP D.Rob” and that that’s not really what I was referring to when I said a “normal year.” If we had full RAPM data for pre-injury Robinson, I wouldn’t be surprised if it came out above what I calculated (particularly if we accounted for minutes played). It’s far from guaranteed—for instance, +5.0 is about what we see from prime Giannis on average, so it’s a high number—but Robinson’s raw on-off in the mid-1990s is so good that I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if he surpassed that level (and I think it’s very likely if we account for the higher minutes played than 2003 Robinson or Manu). However, I’m not asserting that Duncan had a genuine MVP teammate on his team. He doesn’t need to have anything quite like that for your arguments to be way overstating things.

[One_and_Done]

I don't place any real value on RAPM though.

[therealbig3]

I mean taking rookie Timmy over KG is a step too far, but it feels far less egregious than saying Timmy has zero seasons as good as 04 KG. Because the only reason 04 KG stands out is because he got to play with peak Sam Cassell which mean the team success looks entirely different. But he's not meaningfully better than either 03 or 05 KG and frankly 06-08 KG isn't much worse than that 3 year peak.

I just don't believe KG could possibly have 3-6 years better than any Duncan year but that's basically what one is saying if they claim 04 KG stands above every Duncan year. And all the excuses used for why the RAPM is what matters and the lack of team success should just be hand waved away disappears when compared with 03 Duncan who wins a title with a roster worse than the ones used to justify first round exit after first round exit for KG.

I don't know exactly how many Duncan seasons are better than the best KG season, but its definitely some. He was just a better player and because their primes overlapped so much in the same conference, I just can't ignore that Duncan teams were going to be HCA teams and advance in the playoffs almost every single year no matter the roster. And there aren't actually that many years that all of Duncan, Manu, and Parker are in their primes together yet we minimize Duncan by acting if that's every year of his career while pretending like KG played with Ricky Davis every year instead of realizing he played with more all-stars than the 3rd great PF of this era, Dirk, who also gets the he always had great teammates knock.

KG is so beloved on this board, we have narrative things to justify a level his career doesn't. And again, this is not me saying KG isn't great. I'm a Dirk homer and the last time I voted in a top 100 project I voted KG in ahead of Dirk. But neither guy is on the level of Tim freaking Duncan.

Well if you’re someone that thinks KG in his prime was a little better than Duncan in his prime, then it’s not really an untenable position at all to think he has multiple seasons better than Duncan’s best. Idk, the assumption that Duncan was just the notably better player throughout their careers is obviously something not everyone agrees with, even if that’s the popular opinion.

What is egregious is to act like rookie Duncan, as polished as he is, has a case over peak KG. I don’t think anyone can actually make a reasonable case for that. Saying KG was actually the better player but in worse team situations is a played out argument, but it’s played out for a reason: there’s a good case for it.

FWIW, similar to how 02 and 03 Duncan is typically considered the best version of him, even though he was close to those levels in other seasons as well, I think that’s true for 03 and 04 KG as well. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to think 03 and 04 KG was better than 02 and 03 Duncan.

[Djoker]

Duncan's prime to me is better than Garnett's prime. Just a clearly superior player as go-to scoring is an important part of the game. Duncan proved he could carry his team in the playoffs whereas KG struggled in that capacity. That said, I do think highly of KG's peak and 2004 is a pretty un-criticisable year. Think I'd only have absolute peak Duncan which is 2002 and 2003 over it.

[homecourtloss]

The upshot of all this is basically that Duncan always had at least one absolute generational impact monster on his team—either Robinson or Ginobili. In 2003, he had both. Of course, that year Robinson was in his last year and Ginobili was in his first NBA season, so neither was at their best, but they probably combined together to at least have roughly similar impact that year to one of them in a normal year

You lose me with comments like this. Yes, prime Manu was having a much bigger impact than his raw stats suggested, and D.Rob was once an MVP... but neither of them resembled those players in 03. To try and assert otherwise just strikes me as completely unobjective.

No, rookie Manu and walking corpse D.Rob were not 'equal to the impact of a normal season of MVP D.Rob/prime Manu'. That is just not a reasonable statement at all IMO.

Well, let’s look at it using two-year RAPM from the NBArapm website. Manu has a +3.5 two-year RAPM in 2003 (which really just includes 2003 for him, since he was a rookie). David Robinson had a +3.6 two-year RAPM in 2003. But if we go to 2004 (which really is just 2003 for him, since he retired), he is at just +1.5. Add the Manu and Robinson values together and we’re looking at +5.0 in impact. Which is pretty much in line with Manu’s average two-year RAPM during his stretch from 2004-2015 where he was pretty consistently top 10 (and often top 5) in the league in RAPM. And it is above all but one two-year span we have for Robinson (and the one above it was +5.1). So yeah, I’d say it’s fair to say that having the two of them combined in 2003 was pretty much equivalent to having one of them in a normal year. I’d caveat that by saying that we do not have full RAPM data for “MVP D.Rob” and that that’s not really what I was referring to when I said a “normal year.” If we had full RAPM data for pre-injury Robinson, I wouldn’t be surprised if it came out above what I calculated (particularly if we accounted for minutes played). It’s far from guaranteed—for instance, +5.0 is about what we see from prime Giannis on average, so it’s a high number—but Robinson’s raw on-off in the mid-1990s is so good that I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if he surpassed that level (and I think it’s very likely if we account for the higher minutes played than 2003 Robinson or Manu). However, I’m not asserting that Duncan had a genuine MVP teammate on his team. He doesn’t need to have anything quite like that for your arguments to be way overstating things.

You can also use one year RAPM https://xrapm.com/table_pages/xRAPM_hist.html

Duncan in 2003 really had nobody who could help him offensively. Young Parker and rookie Manu weren’t there yet and those two struggled to create offense without Duncan. DRob was still good defensively and Manu might have been at his best defensively. Overall, the Spurs didn’t play any terrible players and also had an incredible coach who seems to draw the best out of everyone like Phil Jackson and maybe a few others did. I think the results that Duncan had make this one of the best seasons ever by anyone.

With that said, KG really had two other plus players on his team, i.e., Cassell and Spree, and Cassell was better offensively than anyone on the Spurs that year outside of Duncan. But the Wolves also played terrible players who never should have seen minutes. Trent was an awful player and Olowakandi was as well. The fact that they could be reasonable and positives on court when KG was on court speaks to his ATG floor raising impact. Olowakandi’s entire career was a negative except when he paired with KG.

So, I think I take 2003 Duncan cautiously over 2004 KG, but I can see arguments for 2004 KG and such a season it’s difficult to put anyone clearly above him.