Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #13-#14 Spots

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote 1:
Dwight Howard 2011
For me he should have been the MVP. One of the best defenders in the modern era, took a team that was much weaker than the other contenders very far and made em the best defensive unit in the league.

11 Howard was a defensive monster and a very good offensive player: as a roll player he was super efficient, he crashed offensive boards hard, great finisher at the rim. Could create, tough it was not ideal, and drew a ton of fouls.

Vote 2:
Kevin Durant 2017
It was seen as an unfair move joining GSW. And it was. And the reason why is... KD was that damn good. They were already great, but with KD they rolled over the entire NBA. Superb scorer, playing within the system (unlike in the next year), his best defensive years too. KD was a machine and I think it's time that he is up in the discussion.

Vote 3:
Kawih Leonard 2019
Superb two way player and took the ring to Toronto. Great shooter, and an important piece of their defense (that was absolutely excelent) while being the focal point on offense, providing high scoring at very high efficiency.

Vote 4:
Steve Nash 2006
One of the best playmakers ever to play the game, ultra efficient shooter and quite honestly he maybe should have shot a lot more. The transformation of the Suns when he got in was stunning and Nash proved value way beyond his stat line. Turned them into the best offense in the league, and with almost the same roster the had before he made everyone a lot better.

Wish Nash got a ring, honestly I feel he's evaluated often as Dirk would be without 11 and it sounds unfair.
Just don't put him further up the list cause Steve was not a good defender, but I think he had the most offensive impact of everyone available.

Kawhi is already voted in, you have to change your voting.

Done, thanks!

[f4p]

Vote

1. Kevin Durant 2014 > 2016 > 2017
2. Steve Nash 2005 > 2006 > 2007
3. Manu Ginobili 2005 > 2006 > 2007
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015

Alright, I'm pulling the trigger and put not one controversial choice in Manu, but two with Draymond.

I've talked quite a lot about how I really don't know where to place Manu because of his minutes, but I did feel a bit of a tipping point in my mind as I consider the next batch of players.

The comparison between Ginobili & Harden is strange in that they've been linked for so long, and yet their signature styles of play evolved quite differently. Harden in his style racked up massive volume and was named MVP, Ginobili in his did not. But while Ginobili's style would yield the same type of innings-eater value of Harden, I do think Ginobili is the player you'd rather have if you have a supporting cast solid enough to expect a star talent to lead them through the playoff gauntlet.

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

[lessthanjake]

Vote

1. Kevin Durant 2014 > 2016 > 2017
2. Steve Nash 2005 > 2006 > 2007
3. Manu Ginobili 2005 > 2006 > 2007
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015

Alright, I'm pulling the trigger and put not one controversial choice in Manu, but two with Draymond.

I've talked quite a lot about how I really don't know where to place Manu because of his minutes, but I did feel a bit of a tipping point in my mind as I consider the next batch of players.

The comparison between Ginobili & Harden is strange in that they've been linked for so long, and yet their signature styles of play evolved quite differently. Harden in his style racked up massive volume and was named MVP, Ginobili in his did not. But while Ginobili's style would yield the same type of innings-eater value of Harden, I do think Ginobili is the player you'd rather have if you have a supporting cast solid enough to expect a star talent to lead them through the playoff gauntlet.

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

So I do think there’s a lot being glossed over in the bolded. You key in on the 2009 to 2011 time period. But, as you concede, Ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs. And, in 2011, Ginobili played with a broken arm in the playoffs (and missed the first game of the playoffs, which the Spurs lost). So the only year that your implication could at all be reasonably applied to would be 2010. And, in that year, the Spurs beat a Mavs team that would win the title the next year, and then proceeded to be swept by the Nash Suns. But, of course, in the bolded you’ve also decided to carve out any series against the Nash Suns as somehow not counting, so it seems a bit odd to draw some negative implication about how good the Spurs were based on the one time they actually lost to the Suns.

Anyways, more generally, I’d also say that on its face it seems a bit absurd to say that there wasn’t enough success from a team for there to have been two all-time greats on the team when the players won 4 titles together and their team had the most sustained regular season excellence of any team in NBA history.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote

1. Kevin Durant 2014 > 2016 > 2017
2. Steve Nash 2005 > 2006 > 2007
3. Manu Ginobili 2005 > 2006 > 2007
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015

Alright, I'm pulling the trigger and put not one controversial choice in Manu, but two with Draymond.

I've talked quite a lot about how I really don't know where to place Manu because of his minutes, but I did feel a bit of a tipping point in my mind as I consider the next batch of players.

The comparison between Ginobili & Harden is strange in that they've been linked for so long, and yet their signature styles of play evolved quite differently. Harden in his style racked up massive volume and was named MVP, Ginobili in his did not. But while Ginobili's style would yield the same type of innings-eater value of Harden, I do think Ginobili is the player you'd rather have if you have a supporting cast solid enough to expect a star talent to lead them through the playoff gauntlet.

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

Well let's put it like this: Here's Harden's top +/- per 100 years in the playoffs:

1. Thunder '12 9.9
2. Nets' 21 9.4
3. Thunder '11 7.1
4. Rockets '18 6.7
5. Rockets '19 4.9

And for Ginobii, his years above this:

1. Spurs '16 15.9
2. Spurs '03 15.9
3. Spurs '14 15.7
4. Spurs '04 11.0
5. Spurs '06 10.5
6. Spurs '05 10.3

So it's not a question of which players teams were doing better with that player on the floor in the playoffs.

Now mind you, I'm not looking to say that a simple stat like this should end discussion about who deserves to rank higher in this project, but just in response to the idea that Harden was leading superior playoff teams than Ginobili, no, that's really not what we were seeing.

You then allude to Ginobili not being the alpha Harden was on those playoff teams, and generally this is a pretty understandable reason to prefer others over Ginobili. But we should keep in mind:

a) We don't get to an actual Harden-led team until we're done to the 4th slot with the 6.7 Rockets performance, meaning that basically both these guys have their big on-court +/- rates next to more respected stars, but Ginobili's numbers are way higher.

b) While many will understandably disagree with me, to me the idea of Duncan was an offensive alpha that Ginobili was dependent on is just a quirk of Pop making a bad decision that didn't keep the Spurs from still winning 4 titles over 11 years. Good luck trying to win a chip today while insisting on Duncan as your primary scorer.

c) Though as I say that, I'd expect you'd assume that Duncan would get demoted to an offensive sidekick next to Harden when you imagine them playing together, and I heartily endorse that that's what should be done whether you have Ginobil, or Harden, or any other solid pace & space perimeter star.

Re: "Spurs won only 2 titles in the next 10 years". I mean, the idea that we're having a debate involving Harden where the fact that a guy won only 2 of his 4 titles in a given 10 year span is supported to help the ever-ringless Harden is just silly.

Not saying Harden couldn't have been on a championship team, but it just never makes sense to me to argue that others should have been able to win even more rings if they were as good as the guy who played with KD, Westbrook, Paul, Kyrie, Embiid, Kawhi & PG and didn't get any.

Re: "harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023". I struggle to believe that you actually see this as significant generally, and all the more so when trying to use it against a player whose team won a 2nd round game 11 times in his 15 year career.

Like I'd be skeptical that you really believed in this if you were using it for one of the few guys in history who had done it a better rate than Ginobili, but you're using it for a guy with less of that success than Ginobili. Feels like you're cherry picking advantages for Harden because you're just sure those advantages have to be meaningful because they support Harden.

Harden absolutely has meaningful arguments in this comparison, but winning a game in the 2nd round isn't something I think anyone really see as that signiciant.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote

1. Kevin Durant 2014 > 2016 > 2017
2. Steve Nash 2005 > 2006 > 2007
3. Manu Ginobili 2005 > 2006 > 2007
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015

Alright, I'm pulling the trigger and put not one controversial choice in Manu, but two with Draymond.

I've talked quite a lot about how I really don't know where to place Manu because of his minutes, but I did feel a bit of a tipping point in my mind as I consider the next batch of players.

The comparison between Ginobili & Harden is strange in that they've been linked for so long, and yet their signature styles of play evolved quite differently. Harden in his style racked up massive volume and was named MVP, Ginobili in his did not. But while Ginobili's style would yield the same type of innings-eater value of Harden, I do think Ginobili is the player you'd rather have if you have a supporting cast solid enough to expect a star talent to lead them through the playoff gauntlet.

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

OK, now you're reaching incredibly hard to downgrade Manu. He didn't win enough because he only won 2 titles in between the 2003 titles and 2014 titles where he was absolutely instrumental for both? In the 2003 playoffs, he averaged 28 MPG and was second on the team in VORP. Of the 7 guys who got regular minutes, Duncan had an on/off of +23.1 with the starters, Manu had an on/off of +22.9 with the bench, and everyone else was negative. Manu's net rating of +15.9 was 6.8 points higher than Duncan's. In 2014, Manu was tied for 2nd in playoff VORP. Of the 7 players who got regular minutes, Manu led the team in both net rating and on/off with his 15.7 net rating and +12.1 on/off easily outpacing Kawhi's 12.5 and +7.0.

So basically, in 12 years, Manu was basically the most instrumental player for 1 championship run and the 2nd most instrumental player for 3 more. Over that period, the Spurs won between 50 and 63 games every single season. When Manu personally was on the floor, they had a net rating of +10.6 in the regular season and +8.3 in the playoffs. Let's compare that to Stephen Curry, probably the most consistent winner of the play-by-play era. Curry had a net rating of +10.6 in the regular season and +7.7 in the postseason so actually slightly worse. Draymond Green clocks in at +9.3 and +8.7. Shaq from the advent of the play-by-play era in 1997 through his final championship in 2006 was +9.1 in the regular season and +5.6 in the playoffs. Duncan and Manu won more than any duo ever except for Jordan and Pippen or possibly Magic and Kareem. Well I suppose Russell and Sam Jones too. But comparing them to Stockton and Malone is ridiculous. They're the winningest duo this century.

[eminence]

Only 2 in 10 is hilarious.

[Cavsfansince84]

I still don't agree with this idea of calling Manu the best player on a title team. Was he really good in the 05 playoffs? For sure but even if you want to use +/- to try and say he was better than Tim, Duncan was still Duncan. He put up 27/14 in the wcf, 25/10 vs Seattle and was the go to guy on offense while anchoring the defense and played 100 more minutes in the playoffs than Manu did. It's not like Duncan is just about the numbers either, he's often mentioned as the single guy people would most want to build a team around in an all time draft. You can't just hand wave all of that away when talking about this stuff. Just like Russell even in 69 was still the most valuable Celtic.

[Jaivl]

Vote

1. Kevin Durant 2014 > 2016 > 2017
2. Steve Nash 2005 > 2006 > 2007
3. Manu Ginobili 2005 > 2006 > 2007
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015

Alright, I'm pulling the trigger and put not one controversial choice in Manu, but two with Draymond.

I've talked quite a lot about how I really don't know where to place Manu because of his minutes, but I did feel a bit of a tipping point in my mind as I consider the next batch of players.

The comparison between Ginobili & Harden is strange in that they've been linked for so long, and yet their signature styles of play evolved quite differently. Harden in his style racked up massive volume and was named MVP, Ginobili in his did not. But while Ginobili's style would yield the same type of innings-eater value of Harden, I do think Ginobili is the player you'd rather have if you have a supporting cast solid enough to expect a star talent to lead them through the playoff gauntlet.

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

OK, now you're reaching incredibly hard to downgrade Manu. He didn't win enough because he only won 2 titles in between the 2003 titles and 2014 titles where he was absolutely instrumental for both? In the 2003 playoffs, he averaged 28 MPG and was second on the team in VORP. Of the 7 guys who got regular minutes, Duncan had an on/off of +23.1 with the starters, Manu had an on/off of +22.9 with the bench, and everyone else was negative. Manu's net rating of +15.9 was 6.8 points higher than Duncan's. In 2014, Manu was tied for 2nd in playoff VORP. Of the 7 players who got regular minutes, Manu led the team in both net rating and on/off with his 15.7 net rating and +12.1 on/off easily outpacing Kawhi's 12.5 and +7.0.

So basically, in 12 years, Manu was basically the most instrumental player for 1 championship run and the 2nd most instrumental player for 3 more. Over that period, the Spurs won between 50 and 63 games every single season. When Manu personally was on the floor, they had a net rating of +10.6 in the regular season and +8.3 in the playoffs. Let's compare that to Stephen Curry, probably the most consistent winner of the play-by-play era. Curry had a net rating of +10.6 in the regular season and +7.7 in the postseason so actually slightly worse. Draymond Green clocks in at +9.3 and +8.7. Shaq from the advent of the play-by-play era in 1997 through his final championship in 2006 was +9.1 in the regular season and +5.6 in the playoffs. Duncan and Manu won more than any duo ever except for Jordan and Pippen or possibly Magic and Kareem. Well I suppose Russell and Sam Jones too. But comparing them to Stockton and Malone is ridiculous. They're the winningest duo this century.

I mean, none of the titles except for 2005 were Duncan and Manu... more like Duncan and Manu, Duncan and Manu and Parker, or even Duncan and Manu and a bunch of guys clearly better than Manu.

On the other hand, except for a couple of notable exceptions we're talking about... like... Harden and Trevor Ariza? Harden and PJ Tucker and the corpse of Westbrook? Hardly fair.

[f4p]

Vote

1. Kevin Durant 2014 > 2016 > 2017
2. Steve Nash 2005 > 2006 > 2007
3. Manu Ginobili 2005 > 2006 > 2007
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015

Alright, I'm pulling the trigger and put not one controversial choice in Manu, but two with Draymond.

I've talked quite a lot about how I really don't know where to place Manu because of his minutes, but I did feel a bit of a tipping point in my mind as I consider the next batch of players.

The comparison between Ginobili & Harden is strange in that they've been linked for so long, and yet their signature styles of play evolved quite differently. Harden in his style racked up massive volume and was named MVP, Ginobili in his did not. But while Ginobili's style would yield the same type of innings-eater value of Harden, I do think Ginobili is the player you'd rather have if you have a supporting cast solid enough to expect a star talent to lead them through the playoff gauntlet.

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

So I do think there’s a lot being glossed over in the bolded. You key in on the 2009 to 2011 time period. But, as you concede, Ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs. And, in 2011, Ginobili played with a broken arm in the playoffs (and missed the first game of the playoffs, which the Spurs lost).

to be clear, it was kind of a duncan/ginobili point. ginobili actually put up the 2nd best numbers of his playoff career in 2011 even with the injury (basically tied with 2004/2010), so it should really go to what duncan didn't do that caused them to lose to an 8th seed.

[Owly]

I still don't agree with this idea of calling Manu the best player on a title team. Was he really good in the 05 playoffs? For sure but even if you want to use +/- to try and say he was better than Tim, Duncan was still Duncan. He put up 27/14 in the wcf, 25/10 vs Seattle and was the go to guy on offense while anchoring the defense and played 100 more minutes in the playoffs than Manu did. It's not like Duncan is just about the numbers either, he's often mentioned as the single guy people would most want to build a team around in an all time draft. You can't just hand wave all of that away when talking about this stuff. Just like Russell even in 69 was still the most valuable Celtic.

Mileage may vary about how much this matters, this stuff is noisy but ...

2005 playoffs Duncan does play circa 100 extra minutes - 868 minutes to 776. And what more do the Spurs with Duncan do with the extra 92 minutes ...

Well with Manu the plus minus is +169
And with Duncan it's +73.

So if you were to hold all prior to that point equal ... the extra Duncan on minutes ... give you -96 points over the extra 92 minutes.

Now it wasn't some tidy all other minutes together and it's all blow in this one tidy, extremely bad set of minutes. But to the point one wants to emphasize the minutes advantage ... you see what it gets you. The winning is much more in the Manu minutes than the Duncan ones.

As I say how much that means is up to you.

[One_and_Done]

I still don't agree with this idea of calling Manu the best player on a title team. Was he really good in the 05 playoffs? For sure but even if you want to use +/- to try and say he was better than Tim, Duncan was still Duncan. He put up 27/14 in the wcf, 25/10 vs Seattle and was the go to guy on offense while anchoring the defense and played 100 more minutes in the playoffs than Manu did. It's not like Duncan is just about the numbers either, he's often mentioned as the single guy people would most want to build a team around in an all time draft. You can't just hand wave all of that away when talking about this stuff. Just like Russell even in 69 was still the most valuable Celtic.

Yeh, it's plainly wrong, and many things bear that out. The most compelling is the team results. If advanced/impact stats were correct, and Manu was the secret star of the Spurs, then it would show up in the win loss record. Instead it's the opposite.

03: 10-3 in games Manu missed
04: 4-1 in games Manu missed
05: 8-0 in games Manu missed
06: 12-5 in games Manu missed

Then you look at the inverse. In 05 the Spurs were 6-7 without Duncan. In 05 they were 9-7.

I think it's pretty obvious who the most impactful player was, and I say that as someone who loved Ginobili.

[Cavsfansince84]

Mileage may vary about how much this matters, this stuff is noisy but ...

2005 playoffs Duncan does play circa 100 extra minutes - 868 minutes to 776. And what more do the Spurs with Duncan do with the extra 92 minutes ...

Well with Manu the plus minus is +169
And with Duncan it's +73.

So if you were to hold all prior to that point equal ... the extra Duncan on minutes ... give you -96 points over the extra 92 minutes.

Now it wasn't some tidy all other minutes together and it's all blow in this one tidy, extremely bad set of minutes. But to the point one wants to emphasize the minutes advantage ... you see what it gets you. The winning is much more in the Manu minutes than the Duncan ones.

As I say how much that means is up to you.

Again, do you think having Duncan on the court for an extra 100 minutes is ever really going to be a bad thing? Plus/minus is not a perfect measurement of individual player impact, especially in small samples. I know this has been said before about a 1000 times on this board but it always bears repeating when people imo sort of misuse it on here. I conceded that Manu was great in the 05 playoffs and the truth is I have been a big fan of Manu the player for 20 years, I just can't point to him being the best player on a title team the same way I would with most guys and you can't overlook the fact that this is prime Tim Duncan he is playing next to. He was at best 1b that year imo. Similar to how I look at Kobe in 01.

[lessthanjake]

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

So I do think there’s a lot being glossed over in the bolded. You key in on the 2009 to 2011 time period. But, as you concede, Ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs. And, in 2011, Ginobili played with a broken arm in the playoffs (and missed the first game of the playoffs, which the Spurs lost).

to be clear, it was kind of a duncan/ginobili point. ginobili actually put up the 2nd best numbers of his playoff career in 2011 even with the injury (basically tied with 2004/2010), so it should really go to what duncan didn't do that caused them to lose to an 8th seed.

Yeah, I mean part of the response to what you’re saying is also that Duncan had his best years in the first half of his career. In the years that Duncan and Ginobili were both on the Spurs and Duncan was actually in the heart of his prime, the Spurs won 3 titles in 5 years.

Up until 2007, Duncan was consistently a top 3 guy in three-year RAPM, but once post-2007 years are added to the mix at all he doesn’t end up higher than 6th (meanwhile, for 5-year RAPM, he remains in the top 3 in 2004-2008, but then falls out of it for good). In the 2008-2016 phase of Duncan’s career, he was still a really good player, but that version of Duncan was not actually playing at a top-tier all-time-great level IMO. He’s a top-tier all-time great overall because he had a fantastic first half of his career and then had a long glide path as a really good player in the second half of his career. So yeah, what happened with Duncan and Ginobili is that when Duncan was still genuinely one of the best players in the league, these guys won 3 titles in 5 years (and one of those titles actually came with Duncan pretty banged up in the playoffs and playing worse than normal). After that, when Duncan was no longer at the same level as before, they still won one title together and won at over a 58-win pace over the course of 9 years (and never won fewer than 50 games). I think this is very impressive, and actually reflects quite well on Ginobili (as well as Duncan, but he’s also already voted in so how it reflects on him is less directly relevant).

[One_and_Done]

Duncan's last prime season was 07, and he was a qualitatively worse player compared to 03. That said, despite his nagging injuries and drop from his peak, he was still the best player in the league over the course of the season.

[f4p]

Vote

1. Kevin Durant 2014 > 2016 > 2017
2. Steve Nash 2005 > 2006 > 2007
3. Manu Ginobili 2005 > 2006 > 2007
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015

Alright, I'm pulling the trigger and put not one controversial choice in Manu, but two with Draymond.

I've talked quite a lot about how I really don't know where to place Manu because of his minutes, but I did feel a bit of a tipping point in my mind as I consider the next batch of players.

The comparison between Ginobili & Harden is strange in that they've been linked for so long, and yet their signature styles of play evolved quite differently. Harden in his style racked up massive volume and was named MVP, Ginobili in his did not. But while Ginobili's style would yield the same type of innings-eater value of Harden, I do think Ginobili is the player you'd rather have if you have a supporting cast solid enough to expect a star talent to lead them through the playoff gauntlet.

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

Well let's put it like this: Here's Harden's top +/- per 100 years in the playoffs:

1. Thunder '12 9.9
2. Nets' 21 9.4
3. Thunder '11 7.1
4. Rockets '18 6.7
5. Rockets '19 4.9

And for Ginobii, his years above this:

1. Spurs '16 15.9
2. Spurs '03 15.9
3. Spurs '14 15.7
4. Spurs '04 11.0
5. Spurs '06 10.5
6. Spurs '05 10.3

So it's not a question of which players teams were doing better with that player on the floor in the playoffs.

Now mind you, I'm not looking to say that a simple stat like this should end discussion about who deserves to rank higher in this project, but just in response to the idea that Harden was leading superior playoff teams than Ginobili, no, that's really not what we were seeing.

You then allude to Ginobili not being the alpha Harden was on those playoff teams, and generally this is a pretty understandable reason to prefer others over Ginobili. But we should keep in mind:

a) We don't get to an actual Harden-led team until we're done to the 4th slot with the 6.7 Rockets performance, meaning that basically both these guys have their big on-court +/- rates next to more respected stars, but Ginobili's numbers are way higher.

b) While many will understandably disagree with me, to me the idea of Duncan was an offensive alpha that Ginobili was dependent on is just a quirk of Pop making a bad decision that didn't keep the Spurs from still winning 4 titles over 11 years. Good luck trying to win a chip today while insisting on Duncan as your primary scorer.

i mean duncan is obviously just the overall alpha, in the sense that he was the top 10 all time franchise player. i'm not just talking offense. but of course, let's look at those ginobili numbers,which peak in the 15's and stop around +10. and first let's note that 2021 james harden was something like +21 per 48 minutes before playing half his playoff minutes on a hamstring tear and then 2018 james harden, his best chance at a big number, was +14 per 48 minutes in the first 2 rounds of 2018 (i.e. against normal +3.5 competition) before still managing to be a total of -1 in the first 5 games against the 2018 warriors, a team that would obviously nuke a lot of the best numbers i'm about to mention for other people voted in. and then harden was about +14 in the first round of 2019 before again getting an all-time warriors team for about 60% of his playoff minutes. i'm not thinking 2021 giannis or 2023 jokic or even 2025 shai are keeping their top numbers with those opponents for 40-60% of their playoff minutes.

if i look at others already voted in:
1. lebron's best +13.7 is 4th on ginobili's list but he would have 5 overall seasons above ginobili's 10.3, but this is expected for lebron.
2. duncan - can't really do duncan since he's on the same team
3. jokic - not a single season would make ginobili's list, only 3 positive seasons and one is +0.7. +9 in 2023 not exactly against the 2018 warriors.
4. curry - even he only has 2 seasons that would make ginobili's list, and on the most stacked teams of all time in 2017 and 2018, and only 2017 is above the +15's from ginobili.
5. shaq - only 2 seasons that make ginobili's list, one obviously in 2001 next to kobe on a heater and one just barely at +10.4 in 1997 (weirdly kobe is also +12 this year but they lost so easily, what happened?)
6. garnett - 2008 just ties ginobili's lowest number of +10.3 (after basically 12 years of negatives to start his career)
7. giannis - only gets one year on ginobili's list, +10.4 in 2019
8. wade - a peak lebron assisted +10.2 in 2012 which wouldn't make ginobili's list and then +7's in 2005 and 2006
9. kawhi - factoring out the years he played with ginobili, he doesn't have a year that would make ginobili's list (+8.9 in 2019, +3.2 in 2021)
10. shai - no year on ginobili's list, even playing on the highest SRS team of all time (+9.6 in 2025)
11. dirk - 2011 just misses ginobili's list at +10.2 and then quickly drops to +5.2 and +1.7 with only 4 positive years in his whole career
12. kobe - a +15.3 in 2001 and +14.5 (133 minutes as a rookie) in 1997, then 9.7 in 2009 and down to +5.2 after that.

so by your numbers, ginobili literally outdoes everyone who has been voted in, often by enormous margins. only 2017 steph and 2001 kobe crack ginobili's top 3. and no one other than shaq and curry can even get 2 seasons in ginobili's top 6. and of course, harden seemingly has several years that would make the list if he a) just sat out in 2021 instead of playing through a hamstring tear or b) didn't conveniently (for the anti-harden argument) have to take on a top 10 all time team for half of his playoff minutes in 2018 and 2019 (other 3 opponents averaged +4.2 so they weren't weak by any stretch). so i ask again from the previous thread, if you guys (you, lessthanjake, iggy) really take these numbers to mean something, why is ginobili 10 spots behind a lot of these other guys? shouldn't he be in the top 5 somewhere? the minutes difference isn't enough to make up for ginobili's on or on/off numbers. but the impact doesn't really kick in until i bring up james harden? a guy for whom the on/off (not just on) matches ginobili step for step until harden get to his mid-30's. or another out-group guy like KD?

Edit: I should also note that ginobilis massive impact numbers are enough to put him over "ever-ringless harden" but just not quite enough to put him over ever-ringless Nash and his +6.7, +5.9 peaks.

Not saying Harden couldn't have been on a championship team, but it just never makes sense to me to argue that others should have been able to win even more rings if they were as good as the guy who played with KD, Westbrook, Paul, Kyrie, Embiid, Kawhi & PG and didn't get any.

Re: "harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023". I struggle to believe that you actually see this as significant generally, and all the more so when trying to use it against a player whose team won a 2nd round game 11 times in his 15 year career.

Like I'd be skeptical that you really believed in this if you were using it for one of the few guys in history who had done it a better rate than Ginobili, but you're using it for a guy with less of that success than Ginobili. Feels like you're cherry picking advantages for Harden because you're just sure those advantages have to be meaningful because they support Harden.

i mean you just did a general board-esque listing of all the people harden "played with"? i meant it only in the sense that even duncan/ginobili could go 2 years without a second round win but we're expecting more from harden without his own duncan/ginobili? i mean look at those guys harden played with. KD and westbrook at an age 3 years younger than when ginobili joined the nba. kyrie, who he played 40 seconds with in the 2nd round in 2021. embiid, a guy this board just told Top10AllTime they definitely weren't voting for, at least certainly not in the 2022/2023 years harden played with him. PG in the year 2024 without kawhi? kawhi in the year 2025 without PG? 2020 westbrook, who i believe you think so little of that you once claimed james harden had NEGATIVE CAREER VALUE AFTER 2019 (about a 0.00001 percentile view) because he wanted to trade for westbrook instead of hoping cp3 would be healthy for once.

harden got one guy who this board actually respects like they respect duncan or steph, but obviously not as good as either, in cp3, and went 44-5 with him in cp3's one good year. and got one other pretty good situation in brooklyn and went 29-7 there in their one year together (and even those numbers show he only got to basically played half a season with each group). and posted +14/+14/+21 playoff on court's in the playoffs with those guys against the kind of competition jokic/shai/giannis and others were facing. harden didn't get a duncan for 14 straight years of basically healthy play to let us see what he would do year after year so we kind of have to extrapolate.

[lessthanjake]

I still don't agree with this idea of calling Manu the best player on a title team. Was he really good in the 05 playoffs? For sure but even if you want to use +/- to try and say he was better than Tim, Duncan was still Duncan. He put up 27/14 in the wcf, 25/10 vs Seattle and was the go to guy on offense while anchoring the defense and played 100 more minutes in the playoffs than Manu did. It's not like Duncan is just about the numbers either, he's often mentioned as the single guy people would most want to build a team around in an all time draft. You can't just hand wave all of that away when talking about this stuff. Just like Russell even in 69 was still the most valuable Celtic.

Yeh, it's plainly wrong, and many things bear that out. The most compelling is the team results. If advanced/impact stats were correct, and Manu was the secret star of the Spurs, then it would show up in the win loss record. Instead it's the opposite.

03: 10-3 in games Manu missed
04: 4-1 in games Manu missed
05: 8-0 in games Manu missed
06: 12-5 in games Manu missed

Then you look at the inverse. In 05 the Spurs were 6-7 without Duncan. In 05 they were 9-7.

I think it's pretty obvious who the most impactful player was, and I say that as someone who loved Ginobili.

The thing that really bears repeating on all this is that all of those games Manu and Duncan missed are a significant part of the larger sample of minutes that these guys played without the other, and the team still did similarly well with Ginobili on and Duncan off as they did with Duncan on and Ginobili off (with which one is ahead depending on the exact timeframe we look at).

I will also note that I am quite sure you looked up the Spurs record in games Manu missed in 2007, saw that they went 2-5 without Manu, and then decided not to post that information.

[Owly]

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

OK, now you're reaching incredibly hard to downgrade Manu. He didn't win enough because he only won 2 titles in between the 2003 titles and 2014 titles where he was absolutely instrumental for both? In the 2003 playoffs, he averaged 28 MPG and was second on the team in VORP. Of the 7 guys who got regular minutes, Duncan had an on/off of +23.1 with the starters, Manu had an on/off of +22.9 with the bench, and everyone else was negative. Manu's net rating of +15.9 was 6.8 points higher than Duncan's. In 2014, Manu was tied for 2nd in playoff VORP. Of the 7 players who got regular minutes, Manu led the team in both net rating and on/off with his 15.7 net rating and +12.1 on/off easily outpacing Kawhi's 12.5 and +7.0.

So basically, in 12 years, Manu was basically the most instrumental player for 1 championship run and the 2nd most instrumental player for 3 more. Over that period, the Spurs won between 50 and 63 games every single season. When Manu personally was on the floor, they had a net rating of +10.6 in the regular season and +8.3 in the playoffs. Let's compare that to Stephen Curry, probably the most consistent winner of the play-by-play era. Curry had a net rating of +10.6 in the regular season and +7.7 in the postseason so actually slightly worse. Draymond Green clocks in at +9.3 and +8.7. Shaq from the advent of the play-by-play era in 1997 through his final championship in 2006 was +9.1 in the regular season and +5.6 in the playoffs. Duncan and Manu won more than any duo ever except for Jordan and Pippen or possibly Magic and Kareem. Well I suppose Russell and Sam Jones too. But comparing them to Stockton and Malone is ridiculous. They're the winningest duo this century.

I mean, none of the titles except for 2005 were Duncan and Manu... more like Duncan and Manu, Duncan and Manu and Parker, or even Duncan and Manu and a bunch of guys clearly better than Manu.

On the other hand, except for a couple of notable exceptions we're talking about... like... Harden and Trevor Ariza? Harden and PJ Tucker and the corpse of Westbrook? Hardly fair.

Not to say I necessarily agree with everything you're responding to ... nor asserting Manu necessarily needs to be topping ballots right now, there's lots of great players (and I guess I'd might have had Paul in a way back now)

but I think the intent is for us to read the three equals as 2007 and "a bunch of guys clearly better than Manu" for 2014.

And I don't particularly see any case for Parker as, even broadly, Manu's equal in 2007 (even granting that Duncan has near across the board advantages so granting them equal with the minutes gap means granting them as equal-ish means allowing for larger bands).
And I don't see 2014 "a bunch of guys clearly better". It's pretty ensemble-y (and not enormously relevant for peaks) but for instance ...
he's 2nd (or 2.5th) in RS BPM (to Leonard, tied or unseen decimal places ahead of Mills)
3rd in VORP (to Leonard, Duncan)
he's 2nd in playoff BPM (to Green)
3rd in playoff VORP (or 2.5th behind Leonard and tied or unseen decimal places behind Green)
in the admittedly noisy playoff plus minus he's leading at +181
Leonard +173
Duncan +152
Green +108
Parker +106
Mills +101
Splitter +100

As such you won't be surprised to hear among rotation players he's the "on" leader at 15.7 (from Mills [14.8]) and "on-off" leader at 12.1 (from Leonard [7.0], who's narrowly ahead of Mills [6.9]) - areas where he held RS (in-rotation) leads too (both from Mills).

I'm not seeing "a bunch" that are "clearly better".

That said, as noted before, I'm not sure it matters.

[f4p]

Vote

1. Kevin Durant 2014 > 2016 > 2017
2. Steve Nash 2005 > 2006 > 2007
3. Manu Ginobili 2005 > 2006 > 2007
4. Draymond Green 2016 > 2017 > 2015

Alright, I'm pulling the trigger and put not one controversial choice in Manu, but two with Draymond.

I've talked quite a lot about how I really don't know where to place Manu because of his minutes, but I did feel a bit of a tipping point in my mind as I consider the next batch of players.

The comparison between Ginobili & Harden is strange in that they've been linked for so long, and yet their signature styles of play evolved quite differently. Harden in his style racked up massive volume and was named MVP, Ginobili in his did not. But while Ginobili's style would yield the same type of innings-eater value of Harden, I do think Ginobili is the player you'd rather have if you have a supporting cast solid enough to expect a star talent to lead them through the playoff gauntlet.

This seems a curious distinction given that harden did this several times, creating an all time team in 2018, certainly a championship caliber team in 2019, and obviously would have in 2021 if the nets stayed healthy (29-7 when harden played, +17 PSRS 1st round), while ginobili never did it.

Or if you mean ginobili is better next to an alpha, then again it seems like giving someone Tim Duncan as a starting point is a luxury not everyone gets. Imagine harden next to Duncan. A walking top 5 offense next to a walking top 5 defense. You even get to replace low impact Parker with a high impact Derek Fisher type because you don't need his volume scoring any more. After ginobilis low minutes rookie season in 2003, the spurs only won 2 titles in the next 10 years despite having super high impact ginobili and Duncan together the whole time until the 2014 spurs broke through as an ensemble with tons of talent. This feels like a Stockton Malone situation where it's hard to rank them both so high without winning more. It feels like no one should have been able to stop the spurs if both Duncan and ginobili were so good. Instead they basically lost to any +6 team they faced that wasn't the Nash suns. They didn't even win a 2nd round game from 2009 to 2011 (though ginobili missed the 2009 playoffs) while someone like harden won a 2nd round game every year from 2017 to 2023, sometimes with weak support.

OK, now you're reaching incredibly hard to downgrade Manu. He didn't win enough because he only won 2 titles in between the 2003 titles and 2014 titles where he was absolutely instrumental for both? In the 2003 playoffs, he averaged 28 MPG and was second on the team in VORP. Of the 7 guys who got regular minutes, Duncan had an on/off of +23.1 with the starters, Manu had an on/off of +22.9 with the bench, and everyone else was negative. Manu's net rating of +15.9 was 6.8 points higher than Duncan's.

and averaged 9 ppg on 39% shooting. if i'm supposed to take his +22 on/off as a real number, then ginobili's ability to impact games with 9 ppg and 39% shooting is so astronomical that his peak should clearly be #1 once he really started playing minutes and having a bigger role. if anybody else in the world averaged less than 10 ppg on sub-40% shooting for a title, i'm thinking they would not be considered anything other than a good role player for a title team, no matter how good the on/off.

In 2014, Manu was tied for 2nd in playoff VORP. Of the 7 players who got regular minutes, Manu led the team in both net rating and on/off with his 15.7 net rating and +12.1 on/off easily outpacing Kawhi's 12.5 and +7.0.

yes, he was good. but like 6 spurs led the team in some stat or the other in the regular season and playoffs. it was as ensemble as ensemble gets in the nba.

So basically, in 12 years, Manu was basically the most instrumental player for 1 championship run and the 2nd most instrumental player for 3 more. Over that period, the Spurs won between 50 and 63 games every single season. When Manu personally was on the floor, they had a net rating of +10.6 in the regular season and +8.3 in the playoffs. Let's compare that to Stephen Curry, probably the most consistent winner of the play-by-play era. Curry had a net rating of +10.6 in the regular season and +7.7 in the postseason so actually slightly worse. Draymond Green clocks in at +9.3 and +8.7. Shaq from the advent of the play-by-play era in 1997 through his final championship in 2006 was +9.1 in the regular season and +5.6 in the playoffs. Duncan and Manu won more than any duo ever except for Jordan and Pippen or possibly Magic and Kareem. Well I suppose Russell and Sam Jones too. But comparing them to Stockton and Malone is ridiculous. They're the winningest duo this century.

and again, if he is actually outdoing these all-time greats in both regular season and playoff on and on/off, why is he getting neatly slotted just in front of guys like harden and KD down here in the teens? why not above all those other guys, who he beats/trounces in a lot of these numbers, both regular season and postseason?

[Cavsfansince84]

Also worth mentioning that we did a retro poy project as recently as a year ago for 2005 and Duncan got 13/16 1st place votes while Manu got 2/16 top 3 votes despite many of the same arguments being made for him there that are being made here now. So not that this means the gap between them is that large but it's sort of hard to clearly say Manu was the best player on the 05 Spurs imo. At best a co#1 I would say.

[Owly]

Also worth mentioning that we did a retro poy project as recently as a year ago for 2005 and Duncan got 13/16 1st place votes while Manu got 2/16 top 3 votes despite many of the same arguments being made for him there that are being made here now. So not that this means the gap between them is that large but it's sort of hard to clearly say Manu was the best player on the 05 Spurs imo. At best a co#1 I would say.

So in terms of quoting results ...

1) how useful this sort of "other/overlapping people said" is ... people will vary in mileage ... it doesn't make it true. So it depends how much you trust those voices. But
2) No link is provided to actually see the merits of the arguments ... so here we're just going on the numbers.
and
3) this project has been described by a mod - if I'm reading this right as "corrupt to the core"
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2470670

The current project that is being halted is:

2025 Peaks Project

The previous project that was part of this same story was:

2024 Retro POY Project Update

...
3. While I've mentioned two specific projects that are corrupt to the core

(fwiw - I can't properly quote it - I think because it's locked - the original does link to "corrupt to the core" Retro POY project ... I'm some conflicted about even directing people there though)