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

[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.

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.

I mean, 2 of those losses were the last 2 games of the season where everyone was rested, so really they were 2-3. It's a small sample, and I'm not sure it's does much to refute the larger trend of 34-9 without Manu from 03 to 06. It would just make it 36-12.

[Cavsfansince84]

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)

Granted its as fair to bring up some people calling it corrupted(ostensibly due to AEnigma running it though I think that idea prob applies more to the MJ years) but my overall point was just that asserting Manu>Duncan is an uphill battle to begin with and how even the same arguments that we see here still resulted in Duncan having 13/16 1st place votes. Which someone can take to mean that those voters just didn't take +/- stuff seriously enough or perhaps that there's other factors that should be given more precedence in these things.

[DraymondGold]

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)

Granted its as fair to bring up some people calling it corrupted(ostensibly due to AEnigma running it though I think that idea prob applies more to the MJ years) but my overall point was just that asserting Manu>Duncan is an uphill battle to begin with and how even the same arguments that we see here still resulted in Duncan having 13/16 1st place votes. Which someone can take to mean that those voters just didn't take +/- stuff seriously enough or perhaps that there's other factors that should be given more precedence in these things.

One comment on the reference to the latest POY project is that numerous people in that project explicitly said they were not ranking best player of the year. People had varied criteria, but in many years explicitly decided to not rank based on who was the better player, nor who performed best, and instead rank based on... some other set of criteria, which varied per person and frankly to me was somewhat inconsistent and indecipherable. Given the small number of voters, this was often enough to sway votes towards different players.

Your point may still stand that the average person would prefer 05 Duncan > 05 Manu, but popular opinion may not be right, and at a minimum the POY voting shares may not accurately measure which player is considered better by well-informed fans/analysts.

I say this as someone who's not ready to vote for Manu quite this high (though I do think he's massively underrated in popular opinion, underrated at his peak ~05-07ish, and imagine he'll make my top 25 at some point).

[lessthanjake]

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)

Yeah, probably almost half of the votes in that basically came from the same person. That said, I don’t think that that is really what caused this particular result. As one of the main proponents of Ginobili having been the Spurs best player in 2005, even I would say that the general view is that Duncan was better than Ginobili, even in that 2005 year. But I think that that is largely borne out of people reflexively concluding that the guy who was a greater player in general and who was contemporaneously perceived as leading the team must have been the team’s best player that year. As recently as that RPOY project, I think even I would’ve reflexively put Duncan ahead of Ginobili (despite knowing that when I watched that team at the time, I found Ginobili to be scarier). Part of what has me voting Ginobili as high as I am here is that for purposes of this project I recently dug into quite a lot of information that related to this question, and that information genuinely caused me to move away from the reflexive conclusion that I’d previously defaulted to. I posted a lot of that information a couple threads ago. It wasn’t information that I found while trying to support a conclusion I’d already come to, but rather information that I found that actually materially helped move me to an even more positive conclusion regarding Ginobili. So yeah, for me personally, people generally putting Duncan ahead in that project doesn’t really move me, since I know it’s a bit of a heterodox view to have Ginobili ahead of Duncan that year, and even I reflexively took the opposite view until I really dug into things very recently.

[Cavsfansince84]

One comment on the reference to the latest POY project is that numerous people in that project explicitly said they were not ranking best player of the year. People had varied criteria, but in many years explicitly decided to not rank based on who was the better player, nor who performed best, and instead rank based on... some other set of criteria, which varied per person and frankly to me was somewhat inconsistent and indecipherable. Given the small number of voters, this was often enough to sway votes towards different players.

Your point may still stand that the average person would prefer 05 Duncan > 05 Manu, but popular opinion may not be right, and at a minimum the POY voting shares may not accurately measure which player is considered better by well-informed fans/analysts.

I think that point would have a little more strength to it if this poy project were being linked from some other site but this is the poy from this exact same board. Anyhow, my real point was only that Manu being > Duncan that year is an uphill battle to begin with. As I also said, I see him basically as a 1b that year, similar to what Kobe was in 01 and similar to how some will say Kobe was better than Shaq in the 01 playoffs. Not necessarily a right/wrong opinion, but Duncan's defense carries weight to it like almost no other player since Russell and its worth noting that Pop wanted the offense run through him despite going against one of the best paint defenses of all time.

[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.

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?

On this question of the 2014 Spurs, I do think it’s clearly right that it was a quintessential example of an ensemble cast. That said, the idea that Ginobili was clearly below other players on the team seems definitely wrong. If we look at three-year RAPM from 2013-2015, Ginobili ranks #1 on the Spurs. He also ranked #1 on the Spurs in four-year RAPM from 2013-2016, as well as #1 on the Spurs in both two-year RAPM timeframes that include 2014. In various stats that are either box or box-impact hybrids (such as EPM, BPM, and WS/48), he generally ranks #2 on the Spurs in 2014, behind only Kawhi. As always with Ginobili, there’s a question of the minutes issue. None of the Spurs played very high minutes in 2014, but Duncan, Kawhi, and Parker did play meaningfully more minutes than him. All that said, I think there’s probably a better case for Ginobili as the best player on that team than there is that there were a bunch of Spurs better than him. But of course it definitely isn’t as impressive as 2005, since 2005 wasn’t some ensemble cast where Ginobili looks like he may well have been the first among equals, but rather a year where the Spurs were a much more top-heavy team which had two stars and won the title despite one of those stars being pretty banged up in the playoffs.

[iggymcfrack]

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.

Yeah, Manu’s bulk numbers on a slow paced team in one of the lowest paced seasons in league history aren’t going to look very good. This doesn’t mean his on/off numbers are just random noise that are unsubstantiated by the box score though. In the 2003 playoffs, Manu had a 3.7 BPM on .522 TS%. In the same playoffs, in a season he personally said was his peak, Kobe put up a 3.7 BPM on .531 TS%. Again, I’m not saying rookie Manu was incredible or anything, but it’s silly to just act like he wasn’t making meaningful contributions to their championship when he was objectively their second best player.

A lot of Manu’s contributions in 2003 were on the defensive end as he hadn’t really figured out how to fit it into the offense yet one year removed from being overseas. He was 3rd among all players in the playoffs in STL% and 4th in DBPM. This is substantiated by the impact data where he’s one of the best wing defenders of all-time over the course of his career.

So yes, if you take the elite defender from 2003 and then add in peak Steph Curry level efficient scoring and playmaking in 2005, it’s a hell of a player!

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.

Sure, it was an ensemble cast. Of course. It’s not a season that you can just ignore like it doesn’t count though when you’re counting the season right before, but not the one where he’s 1st or 2nd on the team in the playoffs on a championship team in just about every comprehensive stat. It would be like saying “Shaq didn’t win that much. He only went to the Finals 4 times between 1996 and 2005.”

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?

Well the players selected so far have all been all-time greats. They all have fantastic stats and a lot of them had to do it alone. Chris Paul’s the last player left who was able to be massively impactful as a lone star. After that we get to players who were incredible #2s like Manu, Draymond, AD, and Kevin Durant. The only player selected so far that I would take Manu over is Kobe.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

So, perfectly reasonable to conclude that Duncan was the best Spurs that year and I don’t mean to imply otherwise.

But all that stuff about how much he was scoring is just a product of the offense Pop chose to run - he’s not magically getting points, he’s getting passes from teammates with the intent of him shooting in the post because Pop thought that this was the best offense to use at the time.

Was it the best offense to use generally? No, pace and space took over in the years that followed because it was superior.

Was it the best offense for the Spurs to use? Well, the Spurs had their best offense after they moved away from post volume scoring, so generally I’d say no, it wasn’t.

I feel like this is where we flout the great divide in conversation:

Do we know that teams don’t try to play through interior bigs today like the Spurs did with Duncan? Yes, I think most of do know this.

Are we willing then to go back and ask whether teams from the past - even those that one the title - could have been better with better strategy? For many, it just seems like a hard No.

Because the Spurs won a title using Duncan as a first option, many simply will not entertain the idea it was a sub-optimal move.

For myself though, I think it’s actually critical to examine the champions to see what low hanging fruit they missed.

Re: MVP like Russell with defense. I very much see it like this generally for Duncan what I push back against is the idea that Duncan should be the offensive MVP just because he scored the most.

In fact I think Pop could have taken a page from Red and not defaulted to making his big the offensive star - Red was ahead of his time in this while Pop was not yet ahead of his time on this front, and wouldn’t get there until Duncan got older.

Last I should make clear: The fact that the impact indicators are so strong for Manu over Duncan in this one year is both weird and totally fitting with the commentary during the playoffs.

The commentary obviously can’t really say Duncan’s issues were or were not enough to drop him, but the fact the day favors Manu specifically when Duncan was receiving a good amount of criticism shouldn’t seem coincidental.

Clearly many just can’t believe he was that much less effective than normal because the team won and he scored the most points, but while he was certainly part of the team winning, his scoring volume is just a choice the coach made.

And I’ll say: I expect the Celtics could have won titles with Russell as a volume scorer too. But what they couldn’t do, regardless of Russell’s offensive role, is when because of offense.

I’d say there’s something similar going with the Spurs except that when they became contenders again in the 2010s, the offense was roughly as strong as the defense even before Kawhi emerged. So the Spurs maybe could have won with offense, they just weren’t ever going to have a Duncan-led offense as good as a Duncan-led defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lessthanjake]

One comment on the reference to the latest POY project is that numerous people in that project explicitly said they were not ranking best player of the year. People had varied criteria, but in many years explicitly decided to not rank based on who was the better player, nor who performed best, and instead rank based on... some other set of criteria, which varied per person and frankly to me was somewhat inconsistent and indecipherable. Given the small number of voters, this was often enough to sway votes towards different players.

Your point may still stand that the average person would prefer 05 Duncan > 05 Manu, but popular opinion may not be right, and at a minimum the POY voting shares may not accurately measure which player is considered better by well-informed fans/analysts.

I think that point would have a little more strength to it if this poy project were being linked from some other site but this is the poy from this exact same board. Anyhow, my real point was only that Manu being > Duncan that year is an uphill battle to begin with. As I also said, I see him basically as a 1b that year, similar to what Kobe was in 01 and similar to how some will say Kobe was better than Shaq in the 01 playoffs. Not necessarily a right/wrong opinion, but Duncan's defense carries weight to it like almost no other player since Russell and its worth noting that Pop wanted the offense run through him despite going against one of the best paint defenses of all time.

So I want to dive into that 2001 Lakers example a bit, because I think it at least instinctively feels like a much closer example than the other examples that were used in the last thread (which I believe were Giannis/Middleton and Kobe/Gasol). It’s a similar example where people generally default to saying the all-time-great big man who generally led the team was better overall that year while conceding that there’s an argument that he wasn’t better in the playoffs. I think there’s a couple really important distinctions here, though, including (1) Ginobili has a much stronger case for having been better in the regular season than Kobe does; and (2) the gap in the playoffs between the two was bigger, in part since Duncan wasn’t fully healthy. These distinctions end up meaning that that default view is actually right about 2001, while I don’t think it is right about 2005.

Some information to draw out these distinctions:

- In 2005, Ginobili had a regular season EPM of 6.4, compared to 6.0 for Duncan. That’s a rate stat, but in EPM Wins, Ginobili had 14.2 while Duncan had 11.7. In contrast, in 2001, Shaq had a regular season EPM of 5.3 and Kobe had a regular season EPM of 3.7. In terms of EPM Wins, it was 16.4 for Shaq compared to 12.6 for Kobe. So EPM tells us that Manu was a bit better than Duncan in the 2005 regular season, while also telling us that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe in the 2001 regular season. There is no playoff EPM for 2001, so we can’t compare, but Ginobili had a +7.3 playoff EPM, compared to +1.7 for Duncan, and Ginobili had 5.1 EPM Wins in the playoffs compared to 2.5 for Duncan. I think it is difficult to imagine that there’d be anything like this disparity between Kobe and Shaq in 2001.

- In 2005, Ginobili had a RAPTOR of 9.2, compared to 7.1 for Duncan. Meanwhile, in 2001, Shaq had a RAPTOR of 6.2, compared to 6.4 for Kobe. I believe this is RS+Playoffs. So this metric suggests that across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili was solidly ahead of Duncan, while Shaq and Kobe were basically dead even.

- In 3-year RS+Playoff RAPM (via NBArapm) from 2004-2006 and 2005-2007, Manu and Duncan were #1 and #2 in the NBA, with the person who is 1st depending on which timeframe we use. In 2-year RAPM from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, it’s the exact same story. Shaq and Kobe look completely different. In all the 3-year RAPM timeframes that include 2001, Shaq was ranked #2 in the NBA. Meanwhile, Kobe was ranked 22nd, 29th, and 51st in those same timeframes. If we looked at 2-year timeframes instead, Shaq is ranked 2nd and 1st in the timeframes that include 2001, while Kobe is ranked 14th and 18th. So this RAPM measure suggests that Duncan and Ginobili were similarly impactful in that era, while telling us that Shaq and Kobe were miles apart.

- In terms of BPM, Duncan was slightly ahead of Manu in the regular season, with 7.6 compared to 6.9 for Manu. But Manu was way ahead in the playoffs, with 9.2 compared to 5.5 for Duncan. VORP is the non-rate-stat version of BPM, and across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili had a higher VORP than Duncan (7.1 for Ginobili vs. 7.0 for Duncan). In contrast, Shaq had a 7.7 regular season BPM in 2001, compared to just 4.8 for Kobe. Meanwhile, in the playoffs, both Shaq and Kobe had a 6.5 BPM. Across RS+Playoffs, Shaq had a 8.5 VORP, significantly ahead of Kobe’s 6.2. So BPM indicates to us that Manu was slightly better than Duncan overall in 2005, and that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe overall in 2001.

- In terms of Win Shares, Duncan was very slightly ahead of Ginobili in regular season WS/48 (0.245 vs. 0.240), but Ginobili was significantly ahead in the playoffs (0.260 vs. 0.191). Similar to the above with VORP, in the non-rate-stat version of the stat, Ginobili is the one with more Win Shares across RS+Playoffs, with 15.2 Win Shares, compared to 14.7 for Duncan. In contrast, Shaq was significantly ahead of Kobe in WS/48 (0.245 vs. 0.196), while they both had the exact same WS/48 in the playoffs (0.260). Not surprisingly, Shaq ended up with notably higher total Win Shares across RS+Playoffs (18.6 vs. 15.1). So, again, Win Shares indicates to us that Manu was slightly better than Duncan overall in 2005, and that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe overall in 2001.

- In terms of raw on-off, across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili had a +16.98 on-off with a +14.66 ON value in 2005, compared to a +13.32 on-off and a +13.01 ON value for Duncan. Meanwhile, in 2001, Shaq had a +16.46 on-off with a +9.16 ON value, while Kobe had a +11.87 on-off with a +8.25 ON value. So raw on-off data indicates that Ginobili was a bit better than Duncan and that Shaq was a bit better than Kobe.

- In xRAPM, Duncan is slightly ahead of Ginobili (with a 6.9 compared to 6.4 for Ginobili). In contrast, Shaq is miles ahead of Kobe in 2001 xRAPM, with 6.2 compared to 3.5 for Kobe.

Overall, while it’s very close, I think the fairest reading of this data would indicate that Ginobili was actually the slightly better player overall across the entire 2005 year. Meanwhile, this data would indicate that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe across the entire 2001 year. The data also suggests that there was a definite gap between Ginobili and Duncan in the 2005 playoffs, while not actually suggesting that with regards to Shaq and Kobe.

So yeah, I think the case for Ginobili being a better player than Duncan in 2005 is *much* stronger than the case for Kobe being a better player than Shaq in 2001. Indeed, I think the case for Ginobili is a little stronger than the case for Duncan, while Kobe has essentially no decent case at all for being above Shaq.

An analogous situation with Shaq and Kobe would’ve been if you did something like stitch together the 2003 regular season and the 2001 playoffs together. And, even then, Ginobili’s case for being the better player is probably better just because the gap in the playoffs was larger in 2005 than in 2001 and the playoffs are the most important games. So like, maybe if we took the 2003 regular season, and the 2001 playoffs, but had Shaq be banged up in the playoffs and the Lakers still win the title but not as easily. That’s actually an analogous situation. And if that had happened, I think that year for Kobe would rightfully be lauded very highly and one would be right to say he was better than Shaq that year.

[Doctor MJ]

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 what I’d say here is that all of this is just people’s opinions.

Fine to take my words as just one man’s opinion, but the same is true for those who have a different opinion.

Also fine to tread carefully when considering a minority viewpoint - and definitely don’t side with me because I’m me.

But the fact that others disagree with my assessment shouldn’t directly affect my assessment - I shouldn’t change my stance just because most disagree.

On the other hand, I shouldn’t change try to understand why they think and thought what they did, and I should consider what I agree with about their reasoning and what I don’t.

And I have. I really don’t think there’s anything about the thinking process of 2005 Finals MVP voting, for example, that I don’t understand. Not an insult toward them, it’s just that it’s generally pretty straight forward to figure out how the media thinks because communication is what they do.

So where is the divergence happening? Reputation, scoring volume, and minutes played largely cover it I think. As in, I don’t see it coming from me valuing Duncan’s defense less than they did - I actually think they tended to underrate his defense as they overrated his offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cavsfansince84]

So I want to dive into that 2001 Lakers example a bit, because I think it at least instinctively feels like a much closer example than the other examples that were used in the last thread (which I believe were Giannis/Middleton and Kobe/Gasol). It’s a similar example where people generally default to saying the all-time-great big man who generally led the team was better overall even if there’s an argument that he wasn’t better in the playoffs. I think there’s a couple really important distinctions here, though, including (1) Ginobili has a much stronger case for having been better in the regular season than Kobe does; and (2) the gap in the playoffs between the two was bigger, in part since Duncan wasn’t fully healthy. These distinctions end up meaning that that default view is actually right about 2001, while I don’t think it is right about 2005.

Some information to draw out these distinctions:

- In 2005, Ginobili had a regular season EPM of 6.4, compared to 6.0 for Duncan. That’s a rate stat, but in EPM Wins, Ginobili had 14.2 while Duncan had 11.7. In contrast, in 2001, Shaq had a regular season EPM of 5.3 and Kobe had a regular season EPM of 3.7. In terms of EPM Wins, it was 16.4 for Shaq compared to 12.6 for Kobe. So EPM tells us that Manu was a bit better than Duncan in the 2005 regular season, while also telling us that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe in the 2001 regular season. There is no playoff EPM for 2001, so we can’t compare, but Ginobili had a +7.3 playoff EPM, compared to +1.7 for Duncan, and Ginobili had 5.1 EPM Wins in the playoffs compared to 2.5 for Duncan. I think it is difficult to imagine that there’d be anything like this disparity between Kobe and Shaq in 2001.

- In 2005, Ginobili had a RAPTOR of 9.2, compared to 7.1 for Duncan. Meanwhile, in 2001, Shaq had a RAPTOR of 6.2, compared to 6.4 for Kobe. I believe this is RS+Playoffs. So this metric suggests that across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili was solidly ahead of Duncan, while Shaq and Kobe were basically dead even.

- In 3-year RS+Playoff RAPM (via NBArapm) from 2004-2006 and 2005-2007, Manu and Duncan were #1 and #2 in the NBA, with the person who is 1st depending on which timeframe we use. In 2-year RAPM from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, it’s the exact same story. Shaq and Kobe look completely different. In all the 3-year RAPM timeframes that include 2001, Shaq was ranked #2 in the NBA. Meanwhile, Kobe was ranked 22nd, 29th, and 51st in those same timeframes. If we looked at 2-year timeframes instead, Shaq is ranked 2nd and 1st in the timeframes that include 2001, while Kobe is ranked 14th and 18th. So this RAPM measure suggests that Duncan and Ginobili were similarly impactful in that era, while telling us that Shaq and Kobe were miles apart.

- In terms of BPM, Duncan was slightly ahead of Manu in the regular season, with 7.6 compared to 6.9 for Manu. But Manu was way ahead in the playoffs, with 9.2 compared to 5.5 for Duncan. VORP is the non-rate-stat version of BPM, and across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili had a higher VORP than Duncan (7.1 for Ginobili vs. 7.0 for Duncan). In contrast, Shaq had a 7.7 regular season BPM in 2001, compared to just 4.8 for Kobe. Meanwhile, in the playoffs, both Shaq and Kobe had a 6.5 BPM. Across RS+Playoffs, Shaq had a 8.5 VORP, significantly ahead of Kobe’s 6.2. So BPM indicates to us that Manu was slightly better than Duncan overall in 2005, and that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe overall in 2001.

- In terms of Win Shares, Duncan was very slightly ahead of Ginobili in regular season WS/48 (0.245 vs. 0.240), but Ginobili was significantly ahead in the playoffs (0.260 vs. 0.191). Similar to the above with VORP, in the non-rate-stat version of the stat, Ginobili is the one with more Win Shares across RS+Playoffs, with 15.2 Win Shares, compared to 14.7 for Duncan. In contrast, Shaq was significantly ahead of Kobe in WS/48 (0.245 vs. 0.196), while they both had the exact same WS/48 in the playoffs (0.260). Not surprisingly, Shaq ended up with notably higher total Win Shares across RS+Playoffs (18.6 vs. 15.1). So, again, Win Shares indicates to us that Manu was slightly better than Duncan overall in 2005, and that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe overall in 2001.

- In terms of raw on-off, across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili had a +16.98 on-off with a +14.66 ON value in 2005, compared to a +13.32 on-off and a +13.01 ON value for Duncan. Meanwhile, in 2001, Shaq had a +16.46 on-off with a +9.16 ON value, while Kobe had a +11.87 on-off with a +8.25 ON value. So raw on-off data indicates that Ginobili was a bit better than Duncan and that Shaq was a bit better than Kobe.

- In xRAPM, Duncan is slightly ahead of Ginobili (with a 6.9 compared to 6.4 for Ginobili). In contrast, Shaq is miles ahead of Kobe in 2001 xRAPM, with 6.2 compared to 3.5 for Kobe.

Overall, while it’s very close, I think the fairest reading of this data would indicate that Ginobili was actually the slightly better player overall across the entire 2005 year. Meanwhile, this data would indicate that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe across the entire 2005 year. The data also suggests that there was a definite gap between Ginobili and Duncan in the playoffs, while not actually suggesting that with regards to Shaq and Kobe.

So yeah, I think the case for Ginobili being a better player than Duncan in 2005 is *much* stronger than the case for Kobe being a better player than Shaq in 2001. Indeed, I think the case for Ginobili is a little stronger than the case for Duncan, while Kobe has essentially no case at all.

I can fully concede what this data is saying with reference to Shaq-Kobe and Duncan-Manu but at the same time it doesn't necessarily change what I said about them above. I think Shaq was the Lakers' best player and Duncan was the Spurs' best player. You can make a case with the above data that Manu was closer to Duncan than Kobe was to Shaq on a per minute basis but Kobe was also playing 41mpg to 30 for Manu and the next highest Laker in bpm that year after their big 2 was Rick Fox at .5. Meanwhile the Spurs generally speaking from 05-14 were known for having deep benches and in 05 specifically their next best player by bpm after TD/Manu was Horry at 3.0 and then they still have Parker, Barry and Bowen. I think Manu playing lower minutes opens the door for a lot of possible on/off skewering tbh. It's like when people say Pop held Manu back with his lower mpg; yet despite only 25.4 mpg for his career he avged 66 games played. So imagine if he'd tried playing him like 33-34mpg most years. Chances are he starts missing playoffs and is injured even more. I mean we can go and forth on this forever I don't think its really worth it. I'm still planning to vote Manu pretty high anyhow.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

The small sample concern made a lot of sense early in Manu’s career

By the end though what we can see is that every single time the Spurs win a title in the 21st century, Manu is their playoff plus minus leader.

Doesn’t prove he was the best player, but it does mean I don’t think calling it noise is a good answer.

Regarding Duncan having a bad plus minus in the time without Manu and it seeming absurd to say they were in some way bad minutes from Duncan, I’d say there’s a key thing here:

Manu and Duncan are totally different types of players, so while we might say the data points to Manu being the more impactful, the direct comparison is more about what replaced Manu in those minutes.

This is why it makes sense to point to bad backups being a boon for a player’s On-Off or RAPM that wouldn’t hold true in all circumstances.

Of course the thing here is:

The classic theory of Duncan-Parker-Ginobili is generally assumed to be one where there was two perimeter stars and just one interior star, and that should yield great impact for the interior guy, and thus doesn’t explain what we see.

On the other hand, if Pop’s early offensive scheme wasn’t actually optimal for the talent available, and Manu being Manu broke that scheme in a way that led to major offensive improvement, then this actually makes a lot of sense.

That’s oversimplistic though too as eventually Pop changes his strategy to be more forward thinking and yet Manu’s impact indicators never really fade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lessthanjake]

So I want to dive into that 2001 Lakers example a bit, because I think it at least instinctively feels like a much closer example than the other examples that were used in the last thread (which I believe were Giannis/Middleton and Kobe/Gasol). It’s a similar example where people generally default to saying the all-time-great big man who generally led the team was better overall even if there’s an argument that he wasn’t better in the playoffs. I think there’s a couple really important distinctions here, though, including (1) Ginobili has a much stronger case for having been better in the regular season than Kobe does; and (2) the gap in the playoffs between the two was bigger, in part since Duncan wasn’t fully healthy. These distinctions end up meaning that that default view is actually right about 2001, while I don’t think it is right about 2005.

Some information to draw out these distinctions:

- In 2005, Ginobili had a regular season EPM of 6.4, compared to 6.0 for Duncan. That’s a rate stat, but in EPM Wins, Ginobili had 14.2 while Duncan had 11.7. In contrast, in 2001, Shaq had a regular season EPM of 5.3 and Kobe had a regular season EPM of 3.7. In terms of EPM Wins, it was 16.4 for Shaq compared to 12.6 for Kobe. So EPM tells us that Manu was a bit better than Duncan in the 2005 regular season, while also telling us that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe in the 2001 regular season. There is no playoff EPM for 2001, so we can’t compare, but Ginobili had a +7.3 playoff EPM, compared to +1.7 for Duncan, and Ginobili had 5.1 EPM Wins in the playoffs compared to 2.5 for Duncan. I think it is difficult to imagine that there’d be anything like this disparity between Kobe and Shaq in 2001.

- In 2005, Ginobili had a RAPTOR of 9.2, compared to 7.1 for Duncan. Meanwhile, in 2001, Shaq had a RAPTOR of 6.2, compared to 6.4 for Kobe. I believe this is RS+Playoffs. So this metric suggests that across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili was solidly ahead of Duncan, while Shaq and Kobe were basically dead even.

- In 3-year RS+Playoff RAPM (via NBArapm) from 2004-2006 and 2005-2007, Manu and Duncan were #1 and #2 in the NBA, with the person who is 1st depending on which timeframe we use. In 2-year RAPM from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, it’s the exact same story. Shaq and Kobe look completely different. In all the 3-year RAPM timeframes that include 2001, Shaq was ranked #2 in the NBA. Meanwhile, Kobe was ranked 22nd, 29th, and 51st in those same timeframes. If we looked at 2-year timeframes instead, Shaq is ranked 2nd and 1st in the timeframes that include 2001, while Kobe is ranked 14th and 18th. So this RAPM measure suggests that Duncan and Ginobili were similarly impactful in that era, while telling us that Shaq and Kobe were miles apart.

- In terms of BPM, Duncan was slightly ahead of Manu in the regular season, with 7.6 compared to 6.9 for Manu. But Manu was way ahead in the playoffs, with 9.2 compared to 5.5 for Duncan. VORP is the non-rate-stat version of BPM, and across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili had a higher VORP than Duncan (7.1 for Ginobili vs. 7.0 for Duncan). In contrast, Shaq had a 7.7 regular season BPM in 2001, compared to just 4.8 for Kobe. Meanwhile, in the playoffs, both Shaq and Kobe had a 6.5 BPM. Across RS+Playoffs, Shaq had a 8.5 VORP, significantly ahead of Kobe’s 6.2. So BPM indicates to us that Manu was slightly better than Duncan overall in 2005, and that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe overall in 2001.

- In terms of Win Shares, Duncan was very slightly ahead of Ginobili in regular season WS/48 (0.245 vs. 0.240), but Ginobili was significantly ahead in the playoffs (0.260 vs. 0.191). Similar to the above with VORP, in the non-rate-stat version of the stat, Ginobili is the one with more Win Shares across RS+Playoffs, with 15.2 Win Shares, compared to 14.7 for Duncan. In contrast, Shaq was significantly ahead of Kobe in WS/48 (0.245 vs. 0.196), while they both had the exact same WS/48 in the playoffs (0.260). Not surprisingly, Shaq ended up with notably higher total Win Shares across RS+Playoffs (18.6 vs. 15.1). So, again, Win Shares indicates to us that Manu was slightly better than Duncan overall in 2005, and that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe overall in 2001.

- In terms of raw on-off, across RS+Playoffs, Ginobili had a +16.98 on-off with a +14.66 ON value in 2005, compared to a +13.32 on-off and a +13.01 ON value for Duncan. Meanwhile, in 2001, Shaq had a +16.46 on-off with a +9.16 ON value, while Kobe had a +11.87 on-off with a +8.25 ON value. So raw on-off data indicates that Ginobili was a bit better than Duncan and that Shaq was a bit better than Kobe.

- In xRAPM, Duncan is slightly ahead of Ginobili (with a 6.9 compared to 6.4 for Ginobili). In contrast, Shaq is miles ahead of Kobe in 2001 xRAPM, with 6.2 compared to 3.5 for Kobe.

Overall, while it’s very close, I think the fairest reading of this data would indicate that Ginobili was actually the slightly better player overall across the entire 2005 year. Meanwhile, this data would indicate that Shaq was solidly better than Kobe across the entire 2005 year. The data also suggests that there was a definite gap between Ginobili and Duncan in the playoffs, while not actually suggesting that with regards to Shaq and Kobe.

So yeah, I think the case for Ginobili being a better player than Duncan in 2005 is *much* stronger than the case for Kobe being a better player than Shaq in 2001. Indeed, I think the case for Ginobili is a little stronger than the case for Duncan, while Kobe has essentially no case at all.

I can fully concede what this data is saying with reference to Shaq-Kobe and Duncan-Manu but at the same time it doesn't necessarily change what I said about them above. I think Shaq was the Lakers' best player and Duncan was the Spurs' best player. You can make a case with the above data that Manu was closer to Duncan than Kobe was to Shaq on a per minute basis but Kobe was also playing 41mpg to 30 for Manu and the next highest Laker in bpm that year after their big 2 was Rick Fox at .5. Meanwhile the Spurs generally speaking from 05-14 were known for having deep benches and in 05 specifically their next best player by bpm after TD/Manu was Horry at 3.0 and then they still have Parker, Barry and Bowen. I think Manu playing lower minutes opens the door for a lot of possible on/off skewering tbh. It's like when people say Pop held Manu back with his lower mpg; yet despite only 25.4 mpg for his career he avged 66 games played. So imagine if he'd tried playing him like 33-34mpg most years. Chances are he starts missing playoffs and is injured even more. I mean we can go and forth on this forever I don't think its really worth it. I'm still planning to vote Manu pretty high anyhow.

Okay, fair enough. The last thing I’d note on this is just that the data I provided above that went in Manu’s favor wasn’t *just* on a per-minute basis. Manu accrued more EPM Wins than Duncan in the regular season, more EPM Wins in the playoffs, had a higher VORP (i.e. non-rate-adjusted BPM) in RS+Playoffs combined, and more Win Shares in RS+Playoffs combined. These are not per-minute or per-100-possession stats. They’re aiming to measure total value and they have Manu ahead of Duncan over the course of that entire year.

[Cavsfansince84]

Okay, fair enough. The last thing I’d note on this is just that the data I provided above that went in Manu’s favor wasn’t *just* on a per-minute basis. Manu accrued more EPM Wins than Duncan in the regular season, more EPM Wins in the playoffs, had a higher VORP (i.e. non-rate-adjusted BPM) in RS+Playoffs combined, and more Win Shares in RS+Playoffs combined. These are not per-minute or per-100-possession stats. They’re aiming to measure total value and they have Manu ahead of Duncan over the course of that entire year.

Right but that's partly/mainly due to Duncan suffering a serious injury then coming back and playing like 20-25mpg until the playoffs begin. Then starting the playoffs right away and Pop still trying to feed him the ball a lot. ie Duncan was not at optimal strength and was not benefiting from taking so many shots either imo. Manu otoh is playing less minutes which in theory can or even should create much more on/off noise for a guy who is a top 5 player in the league since not only can he go all out more on a per minute basis but there's way more off that can feed into it. Like if you take Wilt for instance in a year where he's playing 47mpg with 1 off minute per game and had reduced him to 40mpg his on/off would likely skyrocket. Not an apples to apples comparison to Manu by any means but just making a point regarding mpg.

[Cavsfansince84]

The small sample concern made a lot of sense early in Manu’s career

By the end though what we can see is that every single time the Spurs win a title in the 21st century, Manu is their playoff plus minus leader.

Doesn’t prove he was the best player, but it does mean I don’t think calling it noise is a good answer.

Regarding Duncan having a bad plus minus in the time without Manu and it seeming absurd to say they were in some way bad minutes from Duncan, I’d say there’s a key thing here:

Manu and Duncan are totally different types of players, so while we might say the data points to Manu being the more impactful, the direct comparison is more about what replaced Manu in those minutes.

This is why it makes sense to point to bad backups being a boon for a player’s On-Off or RAPM that wouldn’t hold true in all circumstances.

Of course the thing here is:

The classic theory of Duncan-Parker-Ginobili is generally assumed to be one where there was two perimeter stars and just one interior star, and that should yield great impact for the interior guy, and thus doesn’t explain what we see.

On the other hand, if Pop’s early offensive scheme wasn’t actually optimal for the talent available, and Manu being Manu broke that scheme in a way that led to major offensive improvement, then this actually makes a lot of sense.

That’s oversimplistic though too as eventually Pop changes his strategy to be more forward thinking and yet Manu’s impact indicators never really fade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get that the impact signals are good with Manu throughout his career and I do think he was a top 10 player most years on at least a per minute basis if not top 5 but I also replied to Jake with some other points regarding on/off and whatnot that I could put here or you could just scroll up to read.

[lessthanjake]

Okay, fair enough. The last thing I’d note on this is just that the data I provided above that went in Manu’s favor wasn’t *just* on a per-minute basis. Manu accrued more EPM Wins than Duncan in the regular season, more EPM Wins in the playoffs, had a higher VORP (i.e. non-rate-adjusted BPM) in RS+Playoffs combined, and more Win Shares in RS+Playoffs combined. These are not per-minute or per-100-possession stats. They’re aiming to measure total value and they have Manu ahead of Duncan over the course of that entire year.

Right but that's partly/mainly due to Duncan suffering a serious injury then coming back and playing like 20-25mpg until the playoffs begin. Then starting the playoffs right away and Pop still trying to feed him the ball a lot. ie Duncan was not at optimal strength and was not benefiting from taking so many shots either imo. Manu otoh is playing less minutes which in theory can or even should create much more on/off noise for a guy who is a top 5 player in the league since not only can he go all out more on a per minute basis but there's way more off that can feed into it. Like if you take Wilt for instance in a year where he's playing 47mpg with 1 off minute per game and had reduced him to 40mpg his on/off would likely skyrocket. Not an apples to apples comparison to Manu by any means but just making a point regarding mpg.

Regarding the bolded, all that is just an explanation for why Duncan was not as good/valuable as he’d been in previous years. The fact that Duncan was not as good as previous years is definitely a significant reason why Ginobili was better that year. 2005 Ginobili was not as good as 2003 Duncan, for instance. But 2005 Duncan was what he was that year, and the team won the 2005 title anyways. We shouldn’t curve up 2005 Duncan in our mind as if he was fully healthy and then say he was better than Ginobili. Duncan wasn’t fully healthy. And yet the Spurs won the title anyways. That’s a huge reason why Ginobili’s 2005 year was so great!

Maybe if Duncan had been fully healthy, he’d have been clearly better and more valuable than Ginobili was that year and, in that hypothetical, the Spurs probably would’ve steamrolled their way to the title. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Ginobili led them to the title in a year where health luck was really not on their side. When your top-tier all-time-great superstar gets seriously injured late in the season and is definitely well below his normal level in the playoffs, you expect to just write off those playoffs to bad luck. The Spurs didn’t have to do that, and that’s primarily because of Ginobili.

As for the part about Ginobili’s minutes leading to better on-off, I actually genuinely think that the opposite is true. If you’re a star on a good team and you play really high minutes, a very significant portion of your “off” minutes will be garbage time. And since your team is good, that’s mostly going to be garbage time where your team is the one ahead by a lot. Due to the rubberband effect (i.e. teams do much worse the more ahead they are), we would expect your team to generally do really badly in those minutes—which will juice your on-off. The fewer minutes a star player plays, the smaller percent of the “off” minutes are just garbage time that’s heavily affected by the rubberband effect. So I think we’d generally expect a star player with more MPG to have a better on-off. And we’d definitely expect there to be less “noise” in the on-off of a guy who plays fewer minutes—since the thing that is the noisiest in on-off is the “off” sample (since it’s the smallest) and playing fewer minutes increases that sample.

That said, there is the countervailing factor that someone who plays fewer minutes is probably able to go all-out more in the minutes they play, resulting in them being more impactful in those minutes. And I imagine that genuinely is at play with Ginobili. His per-minute or per-possession impact would probably be lower if he played more. But my post was citing to non-rate-adjusted stats, so those stats are already completely punishing him for his lower minutes, and yet he still ends up ahead of Duncan over the course of the year. Also, regarding the on-off thing, I’d also note that two of the non-rate stats I cited aren’t affected by on-off anyways.

[Cavsfansince84]

As for the part about Ginobili’s minutes leading to better on-off, I actually genuinely think that the opposite is true. If you’re a star on a good team and you play really high minutes, a very significant portion of your “off” minutes will be garbage time. And since your team is good, that’s mostly going to be garbage time where your team is the one ahead by a lot. Due to the rubberband effect (i.e. teams do much worse the more ahead they are), we would expect your team to generally do really badly in those minutes—which will juice your on-off. The fewer minutes a star player plays, the smaller percent of the “off” minutes are just garbage time that’s heavily affected by the rubberband effect. So I think we’d generally expect a star player with more MPG to have a better on-off. And we’d definitely expect there to be less “noise” in the on-off of a guy who plays fewer minutes—since the thing that is the noisiest in on-off is the “off” sample (since it’s the smallest) and playing fewer minutes increases that sample.

That said, there is the countervailing factor that someone who plays fewer minutes is probably able to go all-out more in the minutes they play, resulting in them being more impactful in those minutes. And I imagine that genuinely is at play with Ginobili. His per-minute or per-possession impact would probably be lower if he played more. But my post was citing to non-rate-adjusted stats, so those stats are already completely punishing him for his lower minutes, and yet he still ends up ahead of Duncan over the course of the year. Also, regarding the on-off thing, I’d also note that two of the non-rate stats I cited aren’t affected by on-off anyways.

That's what I was specifically addressing with what you bolded though, is Manu coming out on non rate stats. I get this all becomes rather convoluted in terms of what is being discussed but yes, part of how and why Manu comes out over Duncan is the injury and how he played afterwards. My other point is that Pop continuing to feed Duncan a ton of shots also kind of torpedoed some of his metrics while Manu was better able to choose his spots and had a near outlier shooting streak from 3 in those playoffs. Which ultimately got them a ring but it didn't make Duncan look so good. I'm just adding some context to it all. Does Manu have an argument over Duncan for 05? Yes. Again though, I already explained a few times that I view it as a 1a/1b situation with Duncan being the 1a.

[iggymcfrack]

Since we're having this Duncan/Manu conversation for 04/05, just for fun, let's compare their stats:

Tim Duncan (RS): 5.4 VORP on .540 TS%, 11.2 WS, 16.9 net rating, +17.8 on/off, 6.9 xRAPM
Manu Ginobili (RS): 4.9 VORP on .609 TS%, 11.0 WS, 16.6 net rating, +17.2 on/off, 6.4 xRAPM

Tim Duncan (PS): 1.6 VORP on .526 TS%, 3.5 WS, 3.3 net rating, -5.3 on/off
Manu Ginobili (PS): 2.2 VORP on .652 TS%, 4.2 WS, 10.3 net rating, +19.9 on/off

RS+PS PI RAPM: Manu Ginobili 6.4, Tim Duncan 6.0

So even if you ignore Manu's ridiculous impact edge in the postseason, even if you ignore rate stats, he still has more cumulative WS and VORP just adding up the regular season and playoffs. Like I don't see how you come away with an edge for Duncan there.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, fair enough. The last thing I’d note on this is just that the data I provided above that went in Manu’s favor wasn’t *just* on a per-minute basis. Manu accrued more EPM Wins than Duncan in the regular season, more EPM Wins in the playoffs, had a higher VORP (i.e. non-rate-adjusted BPM) in RS+Playoffs combined, and more Win Shares in RS+Playoffs combined. These are not per-minute or per-100-possession stats. They’re aiming to measure total value and they have Manu ahead of Duncan over the course of that entire year.

Right but that's partly/mainly due to Duncan suffering a serious injury then coming back and playing like 20-25mpg until the playoffs begin. Then starting the playoffs right away and Pop still trying to feed him the ball a lot. ie Duncan was not at optimal strength and was not benefiting from taking so many shots either imo. Manu otoh is playing less minutes which in theory can or even should create much more on/off noise for a guy who is a top 5 player in the league since not only can he go all out more on a per minute basis but there's way more off that can feed into it. Like if you take Wilt for instance in a year where he's playing 47mpg with 1 off minute per game and had reduced him to 40mpg his on/off would likely skyrocket. Not an apples to apples comparison to Manu by any means but just making a point regarding mpg.

I'll just say the bold here has everything to do with why 2005 is a different animal in the Duncan vs Ginobili comparison than what things typically were.

I believe Duncan was generally the more valuable player, but when the coach insists on an approach that was already sub-optimal for offensive scheme even when the player he built it around is pretty clearly not himself, the player's offensive impact ends up effectively inversely proportional to his production volume.

Honestly, if the Spurs hadn't won the title, Duncan's sub-standard play while coming back from injury is what people would have taken away from that playoffs. They were already talking in those terms during the playoffs, but when the Spurs got that chip, gradually all of that discussion faded away and 2005 became "another Duncan championship" in the minds of people looking at it all.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'll just say the bold here has everything to do with why 2005 is a different animal in the Duncan vs Ginobili comparison than what things typically were.

I believe Duncan was generally the more valuable player, but when the coach insists on an approach that was already sub-optimal for offensive scheme even when the player he built it around is pretty clearly not himself, the player's offensive impact ends up effectively inversely proportional to his production volume.

Honestly, if the Spurs hadn't won the title, Duncan's sub-standard play while coming back from injury is what people would have taken away from that playoffs. They were already talking in those terms during the playoffs, but when the Spurs got that chip, gradually all of that discussion faded away and 2005 became "another Duncan championship" in the minds of people looking at it all.

I think even if someone agrees with Manu being better than Duncan in 05 it doesn't necessarily mean he must be on a ballot right now. We've kind of argued this to death in this thread and it's like that in itself doesn't even mean be should or must be rated above guys like CP3, AD, etc. So I'll leave it at that. I think most people have already voted anyhow so if there's more Manu discussion to be had in the next thread we can continue it there or perhaps not.