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

[Owly]

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.

No I don't think having Duncan on longer is a bad thing ... this was never stated nor implied. Nor was plus/minus called “a perfect measurement of individual player impact”. And nor am I seeing your end position wildly attacked.

And +/- is indeed noisy.

But follow the logic.
Someone has decided to discuss "on a title team"
You either raise this or accept this as a premise for discussion (post 167)

I still don't agree with this idea of calling Manu the best player on a title team

Presumably then "title team" is important.
Teams win titles by outscoring their opponents in the playoffs.
On/off and NetRtg are somewhat minutes ambivalent.
Raw +/- on the same team for a run allows us to see who correlated with the goodness that we are celebrating in a way that rewards people for being on the court where that generates more positive results.
At a given level of impact per minute, by using raw +/- Manu is seeing his limited minutes (to the extent that is the case) accounted for ("penalized" if one sees it that way, though properly so).
And yet ... the results are what they are.

When someone highlights additional minutes within this context ... the implication is surely extra value is being generated beyond what is being accounted for ... but this measure rewards minutes on the court where the team succeeds.

What is the "misuse" here?
It'd be one thing if there were no caveats. Or if it were given by itself, out of nowhere, with no context. But when someone's starting point is "title team" looking how much a player actually correlates with the winning seems relevant.

There have always been the caveats about noise sample sizes etc. Still given Manu's
a) long-term impact signal
b) better box aggregate numbers in that playoff run
c) very sizable +/- lead (again, using raw +/- that would reward players on a succeeding team for being on the court more, so long as they succeed)
.. you could see how people get to a conclusion.

I don’t understand the idea that it’s a “misuse” to suggest the cumulative evidence gives Manu a good case for the better player/year, especially where either the focus is exclusively on the playoffs or if there is a heavy tilt on playoffs and the title outcome (both of which most people do substantially more than I would be inclined to). It doesn't mean one can't get to other conclusions. And I haven't checked every post closely. Still I'm not seeing the misuse here.

[Owly]

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.

I think it was more than just "X was running it" and more - my reading is suggestions of outcome manipulation, voters voting multiple times, vote trading ... though I very much don't know the ins and outs of how much of each thing, distribution across the two projects etc. Though who the runner was likely also altered the willingness of others to take part in votes and discussion too.
So 13/16 is probably meaningless (in the above context especially as a number without listing voters so one can index whether a voters opinion carries any weight).

But as I say that in turn only matters if you're willing to defer to those numbers as a proxy argument rather than debate it out. As I've said mileage may vary so what gets precedence is absolutely up for grabs. And as others noted mainstream views would be pro-Duncan if you're appealing to a consensus. But I think it's better to actually have the debate.

[Cavsfansince84]

No I don't think having Duncan on longer is a bad thing ... this was never stated nor implied. Nor was plus/minus called “a perfect measurement of individual player impact”. And nor am I seeing your end position wildly attacked.

And +/- is indeed noisy.

But follow the logic.
Someone has decided to discuss "on a title team"
You either raise this or accept this as a premise for discussion (post 167)

I still don't agree with this idea of calling Manu the best player on a title team
Presumably then "title team" is important.
Teams win titles by outscoring their opponents in the playoffs.
On/off and NetRtg are somewhat minutes ambivalent.
Raw +/- on the same team for a run allows us to see who correlated with the goodness that we are celebrating in a way that rewards people for being on the court where that generates more positive results.
At a given level of impact per minute, by using raw +/- Manu is seeing his limited minutes (to the extent that is the case) accounted for ("penalized" if one sees it that way, though properly so).
And yet ... the results are what they are.

When someone highlights additional minutes within this context ... the implication is surely extra value is being generated beyond what is being accounted for ... but this measure rewards minutes on the court where the team succeeds.

What is the "misuse" here?
It'd be one thing if there were no caveats. Or if it were given by itself, out of nowhere, with no context. But when someone's starting point is "title team" looking how much a player actually correlates with the winning seems relevant.

There have always been the caveats about noise sample sizes etc. Still given Manu's
a) long-term impact signal
b) better box aggregate numbers in that playoff run
c) very sizable +/- lead (again, using raw +/- that would reward players on a succeeding team for being on the court more, so long as they succeed)
.. you could see how people get to a conclusion.

I don’t understand the idea that it’s a “misuse” to suggest the cumulative evidence gives Manu a good case for the better player/year, especially where either the focus is exclusively on the playoffs or if there is a heavy tilt on playoffs and the title outcome (both of which most people do substantially more than I would be inclined to). It doesn't mean one can't get to other conclusions. And I haven't checked every post closely. Still I'm not seeing the misuse here.

I think enough debate has occurred in this thread regarding Manu at this point. I never said anything about being wildly attacked(that's kind of ridiculous hyperbole) and the relevance of Manu being the best player on a title team is subjective. I decided it was worth discussion but at the same time its not some litmus test of itself as to whether he belongs on a ballot ahead of quite a few other players being given consideration at this time. Anyhow, I think most people have voted and more Manu discussion should wait until the next voting thread or the one after depending on how the discussion goes.

[lessthanjake]

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

(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.

I think it was more than just "X was running it" and more - my reading is suggestions of outcome manipulation, voters voting multiple times, vote trading ... though I very much don't know the ins and outs of how much of each thing, distribution across the two projects etc. Though who the runner was likely also altered the willingness of others to take part in votes and discussion too.
So 13/16 is probably meaningless (in the above context especially as a number without listing voters so one can index whether a voters opinion carries any weight).

But as I say that in turn only matters if you're willing to defer to those numbers as a proxy argument rather than debate it out. As I've said mileage may vary so what gets precedence is absolutely up for grabs. And as others noted mainstream views would be pro-Duncan if you're appealing to a consensus. But I think it's better to actually have the debate.

I just want to note also that it’s not exactly right to say that “the same arguments that we see here” were made in the RPOY thread. For instance, I posted about Ginobili in that RPOY thread, but I didn’t even argue he was better than Duncan that year. I merely said he should be on peoples’ ballots and probably even in the top 3. And, as I’ve mentioned before, that’s because even I was still reflexively thinking that Duncan should be ahead of him. I looked at more data in the meantime and changed my conclusion. Given that I’ve presented a whole lot of Ginobili data in this project that I had not looked at back then and am consequently making an argument for him to be ahead of Duncan that I was not making back then, I don’t think it’s right to say that the same arguments were made in both projects. Certainly I wasn’t making the same arguments.

That said, even if we account for the fact that a significant portion of the RPOY votes were very likely actually just OhayoKD and the fact that not all the same arguments were actually made back then, I imagine a non-corrupted project that actually did have all the same arguments made probably still would’ve put Duncan ahead of Manu. But, from my perspective, that’s just a result of people reflexively assuming that the guy who is higher on the all-time-greatness scale and was contemporaneously considered to be the guy leading the team must’ve played better in that particular year. It’s an assumption that is virtually always right, but I think this is an exception to that, and I think that becomes clearer the more you dive into things.

[Cavsfansince84]

I just want to note also that it’s not exactly right to say that “the same arguments that we see here” were made in the RPOY thread. For instance, I posted about Ginobili in that RPOY thread, but I didn’t even argue he was better than Duncan that year. I merely said he should be on peoples’ ballots and probably even in the top 3. And, as I’ve mentioned before, that’s because even I was still reflexively thinking that Duncan should be ahead of him. I looked at more data in the meantime and changed my conclusion. Given that I’ve presented a whole lot of Ginobili data in this project that I had not looked at back then and am consequently making an argument for him to be ahead of Duncan that I was not making back then, I don’t think it’s right to say that the same arguments were made in both projects. Certainly I wasn’t making the same arguments.

That said, even if we account for the fact that a significant portion of the RPOY votes were very likely actually just OhayoKD and the fact that not all the same arguments were actually made back then, I imagine a non-corrupted project with all the same arguments made probably still would’ve put Duncan ahead of Manu. But, from my perspective, that’s just a result of people reflexively assuming that the guy who is higher on the all-time-greatness scale and was contemporaneously considered to be the guy leading the team must’ve played better in that particular year. It’s an assumption that is virtually always right, but I think this is an exception to that, and I think that becomes clearer the more you dive into things.

Guys, the reference to the recent retro project was not meant to be some huge point. This whole peaks project does not revolve around Manu Ginobili either. It was just my way of saying that there's more things to consider than just impact data. At the end of the day I'm not pro or anti Manu. I'm just looking to discuss the merits of players making ballots and as I've also said, the strength of whatever results come from this project are not in any single voter's sense of being right, it's from taking all the votes together as a whole with different perspectives of what a peak entails. If everyone in this project saw impact metrics as the end all be all of player goodness then I don't think this project would serve much purpose or would be all that interesting to take part in. I wasn't really referencing the outcome of the retro vote as a major point for or against though and honestly, if its as corrupted as some are claiming then maybe it shouldn't be linked to this board anymore.

[lessthanjake]

One thing I will note is that I think it’s a valid point to say that even if Ginobili was better than Duncan in 2005 it doesn’t necessarily mean that 2005 Ginobili must be put above some other players under consideration. I agree that it’s not dispositive. But, for me, if one of the league’s most impactful players is the best player on a title-winning team, then that weighs *really* highly in an assessment of the greatness of that player’s year. It’s true that it’s not dispositive—after all, for instance, I am voting for Nash above Ginobili in this thread, I voted for 2004 Garnett over a host of star players who were the best player on a title-winning team, 2009 LeBron got voted in as LeBron’s best year, etc. But it’s a very big deal. And I think it’s a big deal to more than just me, given who has been voted in already and who hasn’t. I also think the fact that it’s a very big deal is why discussion of Ginobili has focused a lot on that question, even though, for instance, my initial long post about Ginobili (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119700820#p119700820) mentioned a lot more than just that. So I think it’s definitely a very important factor, even if it’s possible to vote for someone else over Ginobili despite concluding that Ginobili was the Spurs’ best player in 2005. At the very least, I assume that if, like me, someone moves from believing that Duncan was the 2005 Spurs’s best player to concluding that it was actually Ginobili, that would likely notably increase their ranking of Ginobili in this project, regardless of whether they’d be voting for him quite yet at this point.

[Cavsfansince84]

One thing I will note is that I think it’s a valid point to say that even if Ginobili was better than Duncan in 2005 it doesn’t necessarily mean that 2005 Ginobili must be put above some other players under consideration. I agree that it’s not dispositive. But, for me, if one of the league’s most impactful players is the best player on a title-winning team, then that weighs *really* highly in an assessment of the greatness of that player’s year. It’s true that it’s not dispositive—after all, for instance, I am voting for Nash above Ginobili in this thread, I voted for 2004 Garnett over a host of star players who were the best player on a title-winning team, 2009 LeBron got voted in as LeBron’s best year, etc. But it’s a very big deal. And I think it’s a big deal to more than just me, given who has been voted in already and who hasn’t. I also think the fact that it’s a very big deal is why discussion of Ginobili has focused a lot on that question, even though, for instance, my initial long post about Ginobili (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119700820#p119700820) mentioned a lot more than just that. So I think it’s definitely a very important factor, even if it’s possible to vote for someone else over Ginobili despite concluding that Ginobili was the Spurs’ best player in 2005. At the very least, I assume that if, like me, someone moves from believing that Duncan was the 2005 Spurs’s best player to concluding that it was actually Ginobili, that would likely notably increase their ranking of Ginobili in this project, regardless of whether they’d be voting for him quite yet at this point.

I'm curious though based on what you say here whether Chauncey or Ben will make any ballots before this period of the project is over. Personally, I am pretty high on both but idk if 'best player on a title team' by itself is enough to get them on a ballot soon. Which is why I don't think it's enough to place Manu on one either yet.

[Owly]

No I don't think having Duncan on longer is a bad thing ... this was never stated nor implied. Nor was plus/minus called “a perfect measurement of individual player impact”. And nor am I seeing your end position wildly attacked.

And +/- is indeed noisy.

But follow the logic.
Someone has decided to discuss "on a title team"
You either raise this or accept this as a premise for discussion (post 167)

I still don't agree with this idea of calling Manu the best player on a title team
Presumably then "title team" is important.
Teams win titles by outscoring their opponents in the playoffs.
On/off and NetRtg are somewhat minutes ambivalent.
Raw +/- on the same team for a run allows us to see who correlated with the goodness that we are celebrating in a way that rewards people for being on the court where that generates more positive results.
At a given level of impact per minute, by using raw +/- Manu is seeing his limited minutes (to the extent that is the case) accounted for ("penalized" if one sees it that way, though properly so).
And yet ... the results are what they are.

When someone highlights additional minutes within this context ... the implication is surely extra value is being generated beyond what is being accounted for ... but this measure rewards minutes on the court where the team succeeds.

What is the "misuse" here?
It'd be one thing if there were no caveats. Or if it were given by itself, out of nowhere, with no context. But when someone's starting point is "title team" looking how much a player actually correlates with the winning seems relevant.

There have always been the caveats about noise sample sizes etc. Still given Manu's
a) long-term impact signal
b) better box aggregate numbers in that playoff run
c) very sizable +/- lead (again, using raw +/- that would reward players on a succeeding team for being on the court more, so long as they succeed)
.. you could see how people get to a conclusion.

I don’t understand the idea that it’s a “misuse” to suggest the cumulative evidence gives Manu a good case for the better player/year, especially where either the focus is exclusively on the playoffs or if there is a heavy tilt on playoffs and the title outcome (both of which most people do substantially more than I would be inclined to). It doesn't mean one can't get to other conclusions. And I haven't checked every post closely. Still I'm not seeing the misuse here.

I think enough debate has occurred in this thread regarding Manu at this point. I never said anything about being wildly attacked(that's kind of ridiculous hyperbole) and the relevance of Manu being the best player on a title team is subjective. I decided it was worth discussion but at the same time its not some litmus test of itself as to whether he belongs on a ballot ahead of quite a few other players being given consideration at this time. Anyhow, I think most people have voted and more Manu discussion should wait until the next voting thread or the one after depending on how the discussion goes.

The point wrt "wild attack" ... (since I assume it's generating confusion with "ridiculous" being thrown around) ... is your end point isn't even getting questioned. It's just the lines of argumentation offered that are coming into question. I guess at the margin throwing it out, and then foreclosing it, as a potential justification for why generic, unstated "people" might be taking heat on the "misuse" of a stat, given, as I argued, I can't see it happening. But it isn't suggested you were saying this.

I suppose it's after I have to explain that a point nobody was saying (good player playing more is somehow bad) ... was a point nobody was saying... maybe the assumption is other people are hypothesizing or asserting made up positions back to you? I don't know how to say that without it potentially reading as chippy but ... there's nothing saying you were arguing that was the case so I'm struggling to fathom where that is coming from.

People are free to do what they want but I'm inclined to agree that the Manu well is probably tapped for me for this thread at least - but several more posts have come since I typed this, including from yourself - so as I say the debate will be what it will be.

[Cavsfansince84]

The point wrt "wild attack" ... (since I assume it's generating confusion with "ridiculous" being thrown around) ... is your end point isn't even getting questioned. It's just the lines of argumentation offered that are coming into question. I guess at the margin throwing it out, and then foreclosing it, as a potential justification for why generic, unstated "people" might be taking heat on the "misuse" of a stat, given, as I argued, I can't see it happening. But it isn't suggested you were saying this.

I suppose it's after I have to explain that a point nobody was saying (good player playing more is somehow bad) ... was a point nobody was saying... maybe the assumption is other people are hypothesizing or asserting made up positions back to you? I don't know how to say that without it potentially reading as chippy but ... there's nothing saying you were arguing that was the case so I'm struggling to fathom where that is coming from.

People are free to do what they want but I'm inclined to agree that the Manu well is probably tapped for me for this thread at least - but several more posts have come since I typed this, including from yourself - so as I say the debate will be what it will be.

My point was that the 100 min adv to Duncan was being sort of dismissed based on +/- data which seemed to say it didn't matter because Manu's +/- is better overall anyhow. I might have misread something that was being said but this whole Manu discussion became sort of overly repetitive anyhow to where the same data has been posted many times. My point was that regardless of what +/- says, having Duncan on the floor for an extra 100 minutes is a big plus.

[Djoker]

In 2003 and 2004, Duncan is much better than Manu. There's no need to look at WOWY for those seasons IMO.

From 2005-2008 is where it's more debatable.

2005-2008 Spurs WOWY

Without Duncan (24 games): 13-11 W-L, -1.8 MOV
Without Ginobili (40 games): 27-13 W-L, +4.4 MOV

Not the end all be all by any means but food for thought...

[Doctor MJ]

I just want to note also that it’s not exactly right to say that “the same arguments that we see here” were made in the RPOY thread. For instance, I posted about Ginobili in that RPOY thread, but I didn’t even argue he was better than Duncan that year. I merely said he should be on peoples’ ballots and probably even in the top 3. And, as I’ve mentioned before, that’s because even I was still reflexively thinking that Duncan should be ahead of him. I looked at more data in the meantime and changed my conclusion. Given that I’ve presented a whole lot of Ginobili data in this project that I had not looked at back then and am consequently making an argument for him to be ahead of Duncan that I was not making back then, I don’t think it’s right to say that the same arguments were made in both projects. Certainly I wasn’t making the same arguments.

That said, even if we account for the fact that a significant portion of the RPOY votes were very likely actually just OhayoKD and the fact that not all the same arguments were actually made back then, I imagine a non-corrupted project with all the same arguments made probably still would’ve put Duncan ahead of Manu. But, from my perspective, that’s just a result of people reflexively assuming that the guy who is higher on the all-time-greatness scale and was contemporaneously considered to be the guy leading the team must’ve played better in that particular year. It’s an assumption that is virtually always right, but I think this is an exception to that, and I think that becomes clearer the more you dive into things.

Guys, the reference to the recent retro project was not meant to be some huge point. This whole peaks project does not revolve around Manu Ginobli either. It was just my way of saying that there's more things to consider than just impact data. At the end of the day I'm not pro or anti Manu. I'm just looking to discuss the merits of players making ballots and as I've also said, the strength of whatever results come from this project are not in any single voter's sense of being right, it's from taking all the votes together as a whole with different perspectives of what a peak entails. If everyone in this project saw impact metrics as the end all be all of player goodness then I don't think this project would serve much purpose or would be all that interesting to take part in. I'm wasn't really referencing the outcome of the retro vote as a major point for or against though and honestly, if its as corrupted as some are claiming then maybe it shouldn't be linked to this board anymore.

So let me say:

I consider the worth of talking about some players to be bigger than what they specifically warrant based on their specifics, and Ginobili is one of those guys, which is why I've spoken so much about him here while trying to emphasize that it's really hard to know where to place him.

This to say that I appreciate your pushback. Were Ginobili to get inducted onto this list early with limited discussion, it would not be a good thing at all in my assessment because it would just be deviation from common opinion without any food for thought, and the food for thought is more important to me than any particular result.

Incidentally, when I first stopped lurking and actually posted on RealGM it was because that was how I felt about Steve Nash, and in some contexts he'd still be the guy I'd bring up, but mostly the PC board has been there and done that already.

This is a thing that Ben & I talked a lot about over the years before he did his Backpicks 40 and the question of who was most worth discussing at length for the purpose of making people think and learn about basketball. We agreed back then that it made sense to start with either Wilt (as he did in Backpicks 40) or Wilt & Russell (as he did in Greatest Peaks), but that it wasn't because Wilt was the GOAT but because understanding why he may not be the GOAT was the key thing for people to ponder.

Right now, I think putting a lot of thought to re-examining Ginobili here, and that will always be true to some degree, but how true it is will wax and wane.

In terms of more recent guys that strike me like this, perhaps the most interesting is Alex Caruso who in some ways is a more extreme variant of Ginobili. We've all come to know that at the NBA level bigs > smalls at defense... and then here comes Caruso who seems to be able to be similarly impactful to an elite defensive big per minute. Is that the lesson? If that's the lesson, will we see more teams employ a Caruso-like player in very limited minutes in an evolution similar to relief pitchers in baseball?

More will be revealed.

[Cavsfansince84]

In 2003 and 2004, Duncan is much better than Manu. There's no need to look at WOWY for those seasons IMO.

From 2005-2008 is where it's more debatable.

2005-2008 Spurs WOWY

Without Duncan (24 games): 13-11 W-L, -1.8 MOV
Without Ginobili (40 games): 27-13 W-L, +4.4 MOV

Not the end all be all by any means but food for thought...

Well, this is one of the reasons to push back on the +/- stuff which we've mentioned before. It's like there's more to the picture than just +/- and box score added on top. Manu's case is not quite as rock solid as it's being made out to be imo. Just as I also mentioned the depth of the Spurs roster and then having Pop to manage it all. That's also part of what made the Spurs so successful as a team for so long.

[Doctor MJ]

In 2003 and 2004, Duncan is much better than Manu. There's no need to look at WOWY for those seasons IMO.

From 2005-2008 is where it's more debatable.

2005-2008 Spurs WOWY

Without Duncan (24 games): 13-11 W-L, -1.8 MOV
Without Ginobili (40 games): 27-13 W-L, +4.4 MOV

Not the end all be all by any means but food for thought...

So first let me say that just generally I'd expect Duncan to look better than Ginobili here because I think Duncan generally was the more valuable player, so I'm not really looking to push back.

But I do think it's worth noting that Duncan only missed one extended period of time in that entire run, the 12 game span from 67-78 in '04-05.

In that span the Spurs went 8-4, which at least superficially matches what we see with Ginobili.

But we should also consider Ginobili's minutes.
In the playoffs Ginobili would play 30+ minutes in 18 of 23 games.
In the 12 game span, he only played 30+ minutes 5 times - with the Spurs winning all 5 of those games.

Just another case of it being really hard to evaluate what Ginobili was capable of, because he didn't get used like stars normally get used.

[lessthanjake]

One thing I will note is that I think it’s a valid point to say that even if Ginobili was better than Duncan in 2005 it doesn’t necessarily mean that 2005 Ginobili must be put above some other players under consideration. I agree that it’s not dispositive. But, for me, if one of the league’s most impactful players is the best player on a title-winning team, then that weighs *really* highly in an assessment of the greatness of that player’s year. It’s true that it’s not dispositive—after all, for instance, I am voting for Nash above Ginobili in this thread, I voted for 2004 Garnett over a host of star players who were the best player on a title-winning team, 2009 LeBron got voted in as LeBron’s best year, etc. But it’s a very big deal. And I think it’s a big deal to more than just me, given who has been voted in already and who hasn’t. I also think the fact that it’s a very big deal is why discussion of Ginobili has focused a lot on that question, even though, for instance, my initial long post about Ginobili (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119700820#p119700820) mentioned a lot more than just that. So I think it’s definitely a very important factor, even if it’s possible to vote for someone else over Ginobili despite concluding that Ginobili was the Spurs’ best player in 2005. At the very least, I assume that if, like me, someone moves from believing that Duncan was the 2005 Spurs’s best player to concluding that it was actually Ginobili, that would likely notably increase their ranking of Ginobili in this project, regardless of whether they’d be voting for him quite yet at this point.

I'm curious though based on what you say here whether Chauncey or Ben will make any ballots before this period of the project is over. Personally, I am pretty high on both but idk if 'best player on a title team' by itself is enough to get them on a ballot soon. Which is why I don't think it's enough to place Manu on one either yet.

I think that’s where the “one of the league’s most impactful players” part comes in. Ben Wallace and Chauncey Billups weren’t coming in anywhere near the top of the league in individual impact and box measures like Ginobili did in 2005. Sometimes an ensemble cast is just an ensemble cast (I’m not going to be voting for anyone on the 2014 Spurs either, for instance). But if individual data tells us a guy was one of the league’s best players *and* he’s the best player on a title-winning team, then that weighs really highly to me.

I suspect I will be at least considering Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace towards the very end of this project, though (both of whom I tend to think were better than Billups). Rasheed Wallace in particular is a player I think is very underrated. But that’s a discussion for another day.

In 2003 and 2004, Duncan is much better than Manu. There's no need to look at WOWY for those seasons IMO.

From 2005-2008 is where it's more debatable.

2005-2008 Spurs WOWY

Without Duncan (24 games): 13-11 W-L, -1.8 MOV
Without Ginobili (40 games): 27-13 W-L, +4.4 MOV

Not the end all be all by any means but food for thought...

So I think the WOWY data is probably the best pro-Duncan data point (along with DPM, which is just *super* high on Duncan throughout his entire career).

I think it’s worth noting, though, that in the 2005 year specifically, the Spurs might’ve only been 9-7 in games Duncan missed, but they had a +11.00 net rating in Ginobili’s minutes in those games. Across 2005-2007 as a whole, it was 11-9 without Duncan, but with a +9.92 net rating with Ginobili on the court. In those same years, they had a +10.87 net rating with Duncan on the floor in games Ginobili missed. So both of these guys had the team doing similarly well in these years when they were on the court and the other guy missed the game. The biggest difference is just that in those games Duncan missed, the Spurs had a -11.39 net rating with Ginobili off the court, while they had only a -3.93 net rating with Duncan off the court in the games Ginobili missed. The number in 2005 specifically was -11.54 in minutes Ginobili was off the floor in games Duncan missed.

If we expand out the number of years we look at for this we end up with different numbers and we can certainly get to spans where the Spurs did a decent bit better with Duncan on the floor in games Ginobili missed than vice versa. But we could also expand it out through the end of their time together (i.e. 2005-2016) and they did a bit better with Ginobili on in games Duncan missed than vice versa (+7.92 vs. +6.80). Ultimately, this WOWY stuff is pretty noisy, which is why changing the timespan a bit can often change the numbers a lot. And, as applied to the timeframe that’s most relevant here I actually think the main thing this data really tells us is that in the particular games Duncan missed, the Spurs happened to perform quite badly with Ginobili off the court (though I’ll grant that the harm from this fact is exacerbated by Ginobili playing fewer minutes per game).

[iggymcfrack]

One thing I will note is that I think it’s a valid point to say that even if Ginobili was better than Duncan in 2005 it doesn’t necessarily mean that 2005 Ginobili must be put above some other players under consideration. I agree that it’s not dispositive. But, for me, if one of the league’s most impactful players is the best player on a title-winning team, then that weighs *really* highly in an assessment of the greatness of that player’s year. It’s true that it’s not dispositive—after all, for instance, I am voting for Nash above Ginobili in this thread, I voted for 2004 Garnett over a host of star players who were the best player on a title-winning team, 2009 LeBron got voted in as LeBron’s best year, etc. But it’s a very big deal. And I think it’s a big deal to more than just me, given who has been voted in already and who hasn’t. I also think the fact that it’s a very big deal is why discussion of Ginobili has focused a lot on that question, even though, for instance, my initial long post about Ginobili (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119700820#p119700820) mentioned a lot more than just that. So I think it’s definitely a very important factor, even if it’s possible to vote for someone else over Ginobili despite concluding that Ginobili was the Spurs’ best player in 2005. At the very least, I assume that if, like me, someone moves from believing that Duncan was the 2005 Spurs’s best player to concluding that it was actually Ginobili, that would likely notably increase their ranking of Ginobili in this project, regardless of whether they’d be voting for him quite yet at this point.

I'm curious though based on what you say here whether Chauncey or Ben will make any ballots before this period of the project is over. Personally, I am pretty high on both but idk if 'best player on a title team' by itself is enough to get them on a ballot soon. Which is why I don't think it's enough to place Manu on one either yet.

I feel like the main difference is that Duncan was largely the consensus best player in the league for 2005 (he easily won the non-controversial RPOY vote a decade ago for instance). So if you show that Manu was more valuable to the Spurs than Duncan, it follows that there was a very good case he was the best player in the league that year.

The 2004 Pistons on the other hand are one of 3 teams in the last 35 years with a true ensemble cast where there’s no real POY-level candidate. In 2004, KG, Duncan, Shaq, and Dirk were pretty clearly the top players in the league ahead of any of the Pistons. In 2005, none of those players are clearly ahead of Manu.

In fact, I don’t see a player left on the board other than Manu who has a real case as being the best player in the league for any given year. I’d say he was outright the best player in the league, but even if you disagree with that, I think it’s pretty clear he has a better case for being POY in 2005 than any other remaining player has for being POY in any given year.

[Cavsfansince84]

I feel like the main difference is that Duncan was largely the consensus best player in the league for 2005 (he easily won the non-controversial RPOY vote a decade ago for instance). So if you show that Manu was more valuable to the Spurs than Duncan, it follows that there was a very good case he was the best player in the league that year.

The 2004 Pistons on the other hand are one of 3 teams in the last 35 years with a true ensemble cast where there’s no real POY-level candidate. In 2004, KG, Duncan, Shaq, and Dirk were pretty clearly the top players in the league ahead of any of the Pistons. In 2005, none of those players are clearly ahead of Manu.

In fact, I don’t see a player left on the board other than Manu who has a real case as being the best player in the league for any given year. I’d say he was outright the best player in the league, but even if you disagree with that, I think it’s pretty clear he has a better case for being POY in 2005 than any other remaining player has for being POY in any given year.

On one hand yes, on the other though, you have 1 team with what seems to be the two best players in the league and pretty decent supporting cast getting taken to 7 games(that was tied after 3 qtr) by another team with no guys close to them in impact but obviously with as you say an ensemble cast. I'm not sure if this fully adds up tbh. Maybe its a case of team strength showing out or maybe it could also mean that someone on the Pistons was having larger impact than we realize or that maybe TD/Manu don't stand out as much that year as we think either.

[f4p]

In 2003 and 2004, Duncan is much better than Manu. There's no need to look at WOWY for those seasons IMO.

From 2005-2008 is where it's more debatable.

2005-2008 Spurs WOWY

Without Duncan (24 games): 13-11 W-L, -1.8 MOV
Without Ginobili (40 games): 27-13 W-L, +4.4 MOV

Not the end all be all by any means but food for thought...

Well, this is one of the reasons to push back on the +/- stuff which we've mentioned before. It's like there's more to the picture than just +/- and box score added on top. Manu's case is not quite as rock solid as it's being made out to be imo. Just as I also mentioned the depth of the Spurs roster and then having Pop to manage it all. That's also part of what made the Spurs so successful as a team for so long.

it's not that i don't like ginobili. i even voted him basically where the board did in the top 100 (although looking back, we overshot), it's just that i find it odd that his impact numbers are apparently so profound that they dominate everybody but apparently only really come into play at certain times. in some cases, the needle threaded is so fine that, after only voting for people who have won rings so far, and feeling so persuaded by the cases of manu (and/or draymond) as massive impact guys with 4 rings during dynastic runs, they need to be above a more accomplished player like james harden, because winning and impact are important, but not before we squeeze in our first ringless inductee in steve nash, a guy seemingly behind harden by any measure that isn't team ORtg. lower in Engelmann RS+PS RAPM (48th vs 22nd), lower in playoff only RAPM (59th vs 8th), lower in playoff on/off, best playoff ON would be tied for 4th in harden's career, worse in box score, best team 2007 suns is probably 2 tiers worse than harden's best team the 2018 rockets and probably not as good as the 2019 rockets. with winning a title being very important but 2005 nash literally being ahead of ginobili from the same year who did win the title as the best player.

[f4p]

I feel like the main difference is that Duncan was largely the consensus best player in the league for 2005 (he easily won the non-controversial RPOY vote a decade ago for instance). So if you show that Manu was more valuable to the Spurs than Duncan, it follows that there was a very good case he was the best player in the league that year.

The 2004 Pistons on the other hand are one of 3 teams in the last 35 years with a true ensemble cast where there’s no real POY-level candidate. In 2004, KG, Duncan, Shaq, and Dirk were pretty clearly the top players in the league ahead of any of the Pistons. In 2005, none of those players are clearly ahead of Manu.

In fact, I don’t see a player left on the board other than Manu who has a real case as being the best player in the league for any given year. I’d say he was outright the best player in the league, but even if you disagree with that, I think it’s pretty clear he has a better case for being POY in 2005 than any other remaining player has for being POY in any given year.

On one hand yes, on the other though, you have 1 team with what seems to be the two best players in the league and pretty decent supporting cast getting taken to 7 games(that was tied after 3 qtr) by another team with no guys close to them in impact but obviously with as you say an ensemble cast. I'm not sure if this fully adds up tbh.

and that's what i really meant in my other post when i brought up stockton and malone. not that duncan and ginobili are stockton and malone, but just like people bristle when malone gets put Top 20 and people try to put stockton Top 30 and they say "but shouldn't that lead to more winning, doesn't one of them have to take the hit in these rankings?". if duncan is so amazing he might be POY, and ginobili is so amazing he might be POY if duncan isn't, and they've got parker and horry and bowen, etc, then they should be a machine just chopping down other contending teams like the 1996/1997 bulls or the 2001 lakers or the 2017 warriors, not just barely scraping by the 2005 pistons thanks to a robert horry miracle. it feels like someone of the 2 is more like 8th best, not 2nd best.

[Cavsfansince84]

and that's what i really meant in my other post when i brought up stockton and malone. not that duncan and ginobili are stockton and malone, but just like people bristle when malone gets put Top 20 and people try to put stockton Top 30 and they say "but shouldn't that lead to more winning, doesn't one of them have to take the hit in these rankings?". if duncan is so amazing he might be POY, and ginobili is so amazing he might be POY if duncan isn't, and they've got parker and horry and bowen, etc, then they should be a machine just chopping down other contending teams like the 1996/1997 bulls or the 2001 lakers or the 2017 warriors, not just barely scraping by the 2005 pistons thanks to a robert horry miracle. it feels like someone of the 2 is more like 8th best, not 2nd best.

Well, to argue both sides of this, had TD not gotten injured that year its possible that in retrospect we look back and see the 05 Spurs as an atg team. So considering that Tim was prob only at about 80% of his usual 99-04 self and how they kept feeding him the ball so much even while going up against a Ben/Sheed front court in the finals, maybe that's part of it. It's worth bringing up though I think because its not like the 04-05 Pistons despite nearly winning b2b titles were a real juggernaut. They won 54 games each year and their highest srs was 5.04. That's not super great. There's a lot to consider really.
One of the questions I ask myself when I have 2-3 players very close and am trying to fill out a ballot is which guy I'd most want in a vacuum as my best player over a season+ a playoff run. I find it hard to think I'd want a 30-32mpg Manu without someone like TD next to him over some of these other guys who still aren't in yet. It's like even if we say he was better than Tim after the injury(because I think Tim was clearly better before that, he was having a great season) he still had at worst like the 4th best player in the league next to him who is also an atg def anchor. So ya, idk how we'd view Manu had Duncan been out for like 40+ games which is what KD had to deal with in 2014 and still led them to a strong season.

[lessthanjake]

and that's what i really meant in my other post when i brought up stockton and malone. not that duncan and ginobili are stockton and malone, but just like people bristle when malone gets put Top 20 and people try to put stockton Top 30 and they say "but shouldn't that lead to more winning, doesn't one of them have to take the hit in these rankings?". if duncan is so amazing he might be POY, and ginobili is so amazing he might be POY if duncan isn't, and they've got parker and horry and bowen, etc, then they should be a machine just chopping down other contending teams like the 1996/1997 bulls or the 2001 lakers or the 2017 warriors, not just barely scraping by the 2005 pistons thanks to a robert horry miracle. it feels like someone of the 2 is more like 8th best, not 2nd best.

Well, to argue both sides of this, had TD not gotten injured that year it’s possible that in retrospect we look back and see the 05 Spurs as an atg team. So considering that Tim was prob only at about 80% of his usual 99-04 self and how they kept feeding him the ball so much even while going up against a Ben/Sheed front court in the finals, maybe that's part of it. It's worth bringing up though I think because it’s not like the 04-05 Pistons despite nearly winning b2b titles were a real juggernaut. They won 54 games each year and their highest srs was 5.04. That's not super great. There's a lot to consider really.

Regarding that era’s Pistons, I think this kind of obscures that they won 64 games with a 6.24 SRS the next season with the same core. And it also obscures that they added a genuinely great player to their roster during the 2004 season. In the 2004-2006 time period starting after the Pistons got Rasheed Wallace, the Pistons won at a 60-win pace in the regular season with a +6.80 net rating. That’s what that team did in the regular season with that core group. And they were even better than that in the playoffs. They had a +9.18 playoff relative net rating over the course of those three years. And their playoff rDRTG was one of the best ever. Amongst teams that actually played in three straight playoffs, that era’s Pistons’s three-year playoff rDRTG was behind only (1) the 1998-2000 Spurs; (2) the 1971-1973 Bucks; (3) the 1996-1998 Bulls; and (4) the 1988-1990 Pistons. That era’s Pistons was a genuinely great team. They weren’t some GOAT team contender, but they had been a very worthy champion and were a more than worthy finalist.

I really think it’s a reach to downplay the Spurs (and particularly Ginobili) based on the notion that if Duncan and Ginobili really were that good then they would have beaten the Pistons more easily. As you note, if Duncan had been fully healthy, then they probably *would’ve* beaten the Pistons more easily, despite how good the Pistons were. But either way, having a tough series win against that era’s Pistons is not some indictment on a team, and I think it’s really reaching to suggest it is. And it’s even more reaching when the Spurs had one of their two best players really banged up and not playing at his normal level. When you’ve got a star player who is really banged up and not at his normal level in the playoffs, you should lose to a team like those Pistons, and the implication from winning a hard-fought series in that circumstance should be that the team’s other star was amazing, not somehow that that second star couldn’t possibly also be super great. (Note: I know you’re not exactly making the point I’m arguing against, so I’m more responding to this exchange more generally, rather than your post specifically).