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

[Cavsfansince84]

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).

idk about calling Duncan really banged up in those finals. He was coming off of a 27/14/3 series on 59% ts vs the Suns but obviously both teams specialized in slowed down, grind it out styles of play which made for an ugly finals. Which is partly why Manu's hot 3 pt shooting stood out so much. So if one team has a guy being argued as a top 15-17 peak of the century and a teammate who is a top 5 player of all time albeit at like 80% of full strength that team prob shouldn't struggle that much with a team like the Pistons but again it's just one series and Duncan was known for having poor shooting series at times. I'm honestly not drawing too much from that but I don't think mentioning their w/l and srs each year is some major reach. I mean come on, that's just basic team info. I think you need to realize that I'm not here to bring down Manu. What I'm doing is bringing up things that may or may not be signs of impact that you might not like but someone else such as myself might consider worth mentioning. That's not some sin on a bb discussion board.

[lessthanjake]

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).

idk about calling Duncan really banged up in those finals. He was coming off of a 27/14/3 series on 59% ts vs the Suns but obviously both teams specialized in slowed down, grind it out styles of play which made for an ugly finals. Which is partly why Manu's hot 3 pt shooting stood out so much. So if one team has a guy being argued as a top 15-17 peak of the century and a teammate who is a top 5 player of all time albeit at like 80% of full strength that team prob shouldn't struggle that much with a team like the Pistons but again it's just one series and Duncan was known for having poor shooting series at times. I'm honestly not drawing too much from that but I don't think mentioning their w/l and srs each year is some major reach. I mean come on, that's just basic team info. I think you need to realize that I'm not here to bring down Manu. What I'm doing is bringing up things that may or may not be signs of impact that you might not like but someone else such as myself might consider worth mentioning. That's not some sin on a bb discussion board.

Duncan did pretty well against the Suns, but the Suns played small ball with one of the worst defensive big men ever at C (Amare—an awful defender, who has incomprehensibly bad DRAPM throughout his career). It was about as good a matchup as Duncan could’ve gotten in the entire annals of possible opponents across NBA history (and FWIW, in the little bit of the series in which Amare was not on the floor, Duncan scored just 19.45 points per 75 possessions, on 41.18% TS%). He really struggled offensively in every other series, not posting a positive rTS% in any of them (not to mention that the Spurs actually had a worse rDRTG in those playoffs than they’d had in any prior playoffs in Duncan’s career). He didn’t only struggle against the Pistons. And we know why—given that he had barely gotten back from injury before the playoffs started (and hadn’t even gotten off of a minutes restriction before the playoffs). You say Duncan was at 80%. Assigning an exact percent is an arbitrary exercise, so I won’t bother quibbling with that number. But, whatever percent we might say he was at, he was definitely far from 100%. And the Pistons were a great team. So the idea that Ginobili can’t have been genuinely great because the Spurs struggled to beat the Pistons in those circumstances seems really wild to me (to be clear, I recognize that you’re not the main one making this argument). The fact that they got to the Finals and beat a great Pistons team at all despite Duncan being well below his normal level is a big part of what makes Ginobili’s year so great! And it’s certainly hard to articulate how anyone that hasn’t already been voted in actually accomplished anything more impressive in the playoffs.

Anyways, the following isn’t really in response to you, since you’re not the main one making this argument, but I will say that I do think that “If this guy were so good, his team would’ve won this series even more easily than they did” is a pretty weak type of argument since it’s inherently nitpicky and based on a small sample. It’s even weaker than normal here, due to Duncan not really being healthy and the Pistons being a strong title-winning team, not to mention most of the other candidates at this point didn’t win a title and the rest had a teammate playing better than 2005 Duncan. But it’s *always* a type of argument that is inherently quibbling at the edges of a success and doing so on the basis of a small sample of games.

Finally, to be clear, I wasn’t saying that merely reciting team record constitutes a “reach” (though I did note that the team record data you provided wasn’t exactly fulsome, and I provided more fulsome information in that regard). What I was saying is that it is a reach to argue that Ginobili cannot have been that great based on the fact that the Spurs struggled to beat the Pistons. It’s an argument that you were not the main one making, so it wasn’t even really addressed specifically to you, and I did specifically note that at the end of that paragraph.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

So I'll chime in here, quoting y'all together and just giving some thoughts:

* Not really my main focus here but I actually think Ben Wallace deserves significant POY consideration for '03-04, and consideration for a spot in this very project. Do I think he should make it? Well, I don't have a list yet so we'll see.

* And yes it does make sense to wonder why two stars of sufficient quality can't have more success than they did, though we should consider that winning 4 championships together isn't exactly a small amount of achievement here.

* But I'm certainly not going to talk like it's impossible to imagine the Spurs being better than they were.

From '97-98 to '09-10, the Spurs rOrtg was never better than +3.6.
And in the same time frame, the rDRtg was better than that every single year.

So the place to improve was on offense.

As for what would have been done better, well, I don't think I've been shy about saying a more perimeter-oriented offensive attack.

[Special_Puppy]

For context Duncan suffered a major ankle injury shortly before the playoffs and as a result Duncan was performing below his ATG standards until the tail end of the 2006 season https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/sports/basketball/best-in-west-the-spurs-lose-duncan-for-24-weeks.html

[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...

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.

Ginobili didn't get used the way stars usually do... so isn't that a reason to question whether he was a bonafide star? Surely there is a reason he wasn't used more. Maybe injuries, conditioning, Pop somehow being completely clueless (this reason I don't buy...) or a combination of the above?

[Cavsfansince84]

Ginobili didn't get used the way stars usually do... so isn't that a reason to question whether he was a bonafide star? Surely there is a reason he wasn't used more. Maybe injuries, conditioning, Pop somehow being completely clueless (this reason I don't buy...) or a combination of the above?

He intuitively knew that Manu would not hold up playing over 30mpg and would excel as a 6th man and he was right. I think it's as simple as that. What stands out about that is how many guys who were as good as Manu was would accept a career role like that? Not too many. So I don't really hold that against him, I think he did it for the good of the team and trusted Pop. Plus he was already 25 by the time he got over so was probably eager to do w/e it took to get playing time and then he wins titles right away so that prob reinforced that it was a good thing for him in the long run.

[iggymcfrack]

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.

What you have is one of the greatest defenses of all-time who had shut down 2 superstars in their prime the year before completely shutting down Parker and Duncan and unable to stop Ginobili. Duncan and Parker were as inefficient relative to Manu as Kobe was to Shaq. But whereas Shaq was unable to make up for his superstar teammate unable to make a shot, Manu still managed to carry the Spurs to victory through incredible crunch time play. Here's how all the stars performed in those 2 series:

Manu: 19 PPG on .636 TS%
Shaq: 27 PPG on .615 TS%
Duncan: 21 PPG on .471 TS%
Parker: 14 PPG on .471 TS%
Kobe: 23 PPG on .456 TS%

The efficiency margins are actually larger between Manu and Duncan/Parker than they were between Shaq and Kobe. But would you say "well Shaq only scored because Kobe drew so much attention, Kobe was the real MVP of the Lakers because he took the most shots"? Would you say "how could Shaq possibly lose with such an incredible superstar teammate like Kobe?" You had 5 star players across 2 NBA Finals against an all-time defense and 2 of them were transcendent while the other 3 couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I think that speaks very well for Manu and Shaq.

[70sFan]

So, I just want to point out that the Spurs had 102.0 ORtg in the 2005 Finals with Manu on the floor according to NBA.com. I'm still struggling to see what makes this performance top 15 worthy.

Anyway, I will count the votes within next few hours. I hope I will find the time to vote myself and if anyone didn't manage to do that, you still have a few hours left.

[iggymcfrack]

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.

I certainly don't think Nash should be voted in any time soon. My whole case for Manu is that he was the best player in the entire NBA during what a lot of people consider Nash's peak season. When they played head to head in the Western Conference Finals, here are their plus/minuses:

Manu: +8, +4, +8, +3, +15

Nash: +4, -1, -15, +11, -4

So Manu is positive every game and nets out at +38 while Nash finishes at -5 for the series. So Manu basically smashed Nash head-to-head, he has better box numbers in the regular season and postseason, has better impact numbers in the regular season and postseason, and then goes on to have one of the most efficient Finals of all-time against an all-time defense while his teammates are helpless, coming through clutch in Game 7 to carry them to victory. Like what am I missing here?

My board right now would be:
1. CP3
2. Manu
3. Dray
4. AD
5. Westbrook
6. KD

And then I'm not even sure who's next. Could be Harden, Nash, or some other people I haven't thought of yet.

[iggymcfrack]

So, I just want to point out that the Spurs had 102.0 ORtg in the 2005 Finals with Manu on the floor according to NBA.com. I'm still struggling to see what makes this performance top 15 worthy.

Anyway, I will count the votes within next few hours. I hope I will find the time to vote myself and if anyone didn't manage to do that, you still have a few hours left.

I feel like looking at Manu in terms of ORtg really undersells his defense. I think he's almost a LeBron level defender in his athletic prime. It's a huge part of his impact. Also, the Pistons were an all-time defense that completely wrecked the rest of the Spurs' offense. Parker and Duncan were scoring at almost 2004 Kobe level efficiency from the Finals the year before.

[70sFan]

So, I just want to point out that the Spurs had 102.0 ORtg in the 2005 Finals with Manu on the floor according to NBA.com. I'm still struggling to see what makes this performance top 15 worthy.

Anyway, I will count the votes within next few hours. I hope I will find the time to vote myself and if anyone didn't manage to do that, you still have a few hours left.

I feel like looking at Manu in terms of ORtg really undersells his defense. I think he's almost a LeBron level defender in his athletic prime. It's a huge part of his impact. Also, the Pistons were an all-time defense that completely wrecked the rest of the Spurs' offense. Parker and Duncan were scoring at almost 2004 Kobe level efficiency from the Finals the year before.

So, I know that the Pistons were amazing defensively and I certainly don't think the Spurs struggling against them is any shot at Manu. I am just pointing out that the Spurs won the finals with their defense. They needed Manu's offense badly but you'd have to believe that Manu was responsible in large amount of Spurs defensive success. He was certainly a very good guard defender, but I definitely disagree that he's "almost LeBron" level. Duncan had rough moments in the playoffs due to injury (against the fast paced Suns in particular), but he was remarkably good in the finals on that end.

It reminds me a little bit of Sam Jones case for the best postseason player in the mid-60s Celtics. His scoring was critical for the Celtics success, but I don't believe it was the most important part of the Spurs potency.

[lessthanjake]

So, I just want to point out that the Spurs had 102.0 ORtg in the 2005 Finals with Manu on the floor according to NBA.com. I'm still struggling to see what makes this performance top 15 worthy.

Anyway, I will count the votes within next few hours. I hope I will find the time to vote myself and if anyone didn't manage to do that, you still have a few hours left.

So I think it’s worth noting that the Spurs had the third highest ORTG that any team had against those 2004-2006 Pistons. And most teams did *far* worse. The 2004-2006 Pistons had the fourth best three-year playoff rDRTG in NBA history amongst spans where a team actually played three playoffs.

The only teams that did better offensively against that all-time great Pistons defense were (1) the 2006 Heat, being led by a player’s peak that we’ve already voted for; and (2) the 2006 Bucks in a first-round series the Pistons easily won where the Pistons offense actually was dominant and most of the games were blowouts and the Pistons’s core guys didn’t really play their normal playoff minutes (Ben Wallace played only 31 MPG in the series, for instance).

So the Spurs actually had a good offensive performance when we understand the context that they were against one of the few greatest playoff defenses in NBA history. The only offensive performance in an actually competitive series that was better against the Pistons was authored by a peak we voted in three threads ago. And, given Manu’s gargantuan +13.2 rTS% in the series while Duncan and Parker both had -3.3 rTS%, the main reason the Spurs offense actually did well seems pretty clear. (And, of course, none of this is mentioning that Manu was a genuinely great defender at that point, so his impact was on both ends).

[lessthanjake]

So, I just want to point out that the Spurs had 102.0 ORtg in the 2005 Finals with Manu on the floor according to NBA.com. I'm still struggling to see what makes this performance top 15 worthy.

Anyway, I will count the votes within next few hours. I hope I will find the time to vote myself and if anyone didn't manage to do that, you still have a few hours left.

I feel like looking at Manu in terms of ORtg really undersells his defense. I think he's almost a LeBron level defender in his athletic prime. It's a huge part of his impact. Also, the Pistons were an all-time defense that completely wrecked the rest of the Spurs' offense. Parker and Duncan were scoring at almost 2004 Kobe level efficiency from the Finals the year before.

So, I know that the Pistons were amazing defensively and I certainly don't think the Spurs struggling against them is any shot at Manu. I am just pointing out that the Spurs won the finals with their defense. They needed Manu's offense badly but you'd have to believe that Manu was responsible in large amount of Spurs defensive success. He was certainly a very good guard defender, but I definitely disagree that he's "almost LeBron" level. Duncan had rough moments in the playoffs due to injury (against the fast paced Suns in particular), but he was remarkably good in the finals on that end.

It reminds me a little bit of Sam Jones case for the best postseason player in the mid-60s Celtics. His scoring was critical for the Celtics success, but I don't believe it was the most important part of the Spurs potency.

I’d be pretty hesitant about a conclusion that the Spurs won with defense in that series. Their rORTG and rDRTG in that series were exactly the same (EDIT: Actually, if we look at PBPstats numbers instead of BBREF, the Spurs had a notably better rORTG in the series than rDRTG, and in fact had a subpar rDRTG—i.e. the Pistons scored more efficiently against the Spurs than they had scored in the regular season). And even that almost certainly undersells the Spurs offense because that era’s Pistons were a significantly better defense in the playoffs than in the regular season, while the same wasn’t true of their offense (which is important because rORTG and rDRTG are measuring as compared to the Pistons’s regular season numbers). The Pistons were a lot better on defense than they were on offense, so the raw ORTG and DRTG numbers may make it feel like the Spurs won with defense, but I don’t think that’s really what happened.

And, more generally, I should note that the Spurs rORTG in the 2005 playoffs was better than their rDRTG (the first time this happened in the Tim Duncan era). So yeah, despite Duncan’s offensive struggles in the playoffs, the 2005 Spurs were a better playoff offense than they were a playoff defense.

[Jaivl]

Currently leaning (this is not a vote):

13. 2017 Kevin Durant (> 16 > 14)
14. 2020 Anthony Davis (> 18)
15. 2005 Steve Nash (> 06 > 07)
16. 2015 Chris Paul (> 14 > 08)

I'm not yet sold on Ginóbili this high. I found the plus/minus dissection by LTJ quite enlightning, though, and he surely climbed quite a few spots for me, from 25ish to 20ish.

But at the end of the day, in terms of playoff performance that's still a one year outlier peak not that dissimiliar to Davis', as not really a lead guy on offense, on limited possessions (both by minutes and SA's glacial pace, remember RAPM is per 100 poss. A guy like Nash played about 30% more possessions per game than Manu! -- around 81 vs 62). His defensive signal is also probably inflated a bit by shooting luck, but he is a turnover generating machine (although not quite Ricky Rubio), so I can mostly buy it.

I better see those Terry Porter votes FAST on the next project.

Coming next: Harden, Embiid (don't even know what to do with him yet), Draymond, Doncic, T-Mac, Manu, Westbrook, Howard, more or less in order.

Please take this as my vote.

Extremely against the deterministic nature of the discussion about whoever was the best player on a title team.

Much less when some talents raced on a Brawn GP (Duncan, Parker, Horry, Bowen, Barry and a coach at the forefront of the league) and others raced on a Minardi (the unparallelled spacing of E'Twaun Moore, old Rajon Rondo AND Jrue Holiday on the same starting lineup, coached by "Alvin Gentry").

But I gotta say, there's a non-zero chance that Manu is that good, and Duncan's mid to late career offense would be overrated in contrast.

[iggymcfrack]

I feel like looking at Manu in terms of ORtg really undersells his defense. I think he's almost a LeBron level defender in his athletic prime. It's a huge part of his impact. Also, the Pistons were an all-time defense that completely wrecked the rest of the Spurs' offense. Parker and Duncan were scoring at almost 2004 Kobe level efficiency from the Finals the year before.

So, I know that the Pistons were amazing defensively and I certainly don't think the Spurs struggling against them is any shot at Manu. I am just pointing out that the Spurs won the finals with their defense. They needed Manu's offense badly but you'd have to believe that Manu was responsible in large amount of Spurs defensive success. He was certainly a very good guard defender, but I definitely disagree that he's "almost LeBron" level. Duncan had rough moments in the playoffs due to injury (against the fast paced Suns in particular), but he was remarkably good in the finals on that end.

It reminds me a little bit of Sam Jones case for the best postseason player in the mid-60s Celtics. His scoring was critical for the Celtics success, but I don't believe it was the most important part of the Spurs potency.

I’d be pretty hesitant about a conclusion that the Spurs won with defense in that series. Their rORTG and rDRTG in that series were exactly the same (EDIT: Actually, if we look at PBPstats numbers instead of BBREF, the Spurs had a notably better rORTG in the series than rDRTG, and in fact had a subpar rDRTG—i.e. the Pistons scored more efficiently against the Spurs than they had scored in the regular season). And that almost certainly undersells the Spurs offense because that era’s Pistons were a significantly better defense in the playoffs than in the regular season, while the same wasn’t true of their offense (and rORTG and rDRTG are measuring as compared to the Pistons’s regular season numbers). The Pistons were a lot better on defense than they were on offense, so the raw ORTG and DRTG numbers may make it feel like the Spurs won with defense, but I don’t think that’s really what happened.

And, more generally, I should note that the Spurs rORTG in the 2005 playoffs was better than their rDRTG (the first time this happened in the Tim Duncan era). So yeah, despite Duncan’s offensive struggles in the playoffs, the 2005 Spurs were a better playoff offense than they were a playoff defense.

Yeah, the Spurs definitely won with their offense more than their defense. Here's how they did relative to other Pistons opponents in the '04 and '05 playoffs:

Bucks: 95.3 ORtg, 109.3 DRtg
Nets: 91.9 ORtg, 95.6 DRtg
Pacers: 86.6 ORtg, 89.6 DRtg
Lakers: 95.2 ORtg, 105.7 DRtg
Sixers: 101.3 ORtg, 110.2 DRtg
Pacers: 93.5 ORtg, 101.8 DRtg
Heat 100.6 ORtg, 104.3 DRtg
Spurs: 102.3 ORtg, 104.5 DRtg

So of the Pistons' 8 playoff opponents in their back-to-back Finals runs, the Spurs had the best offensive performance of any team, but they only had the 5th best defensive performance with the majority of teams actually performing better. The Spurs having that kind of outlier offensive performance with Parker and Duncan both having a TS% of .471 is crazy. It really shows what a massive impact Manu had for them in the Finals.

[70sFan]

I’d be pretty hesitant about a conclusion that the Spurs won with defense in that series. Their rORTG and rDRTG in that series were exactly the same (EDIT: Actually, if we look at PBPstats numbers instead of BBREF, the Spurs had a notably better rORTG in the series than rDRTG, and in fact had a subpar rDRTG—i.e. the Pistons scored more efficiently against the Spurs than they had scored in the regular season).

So, I checked NBA.com numbers to see what picture they paint:

2005 Pistons in RS: 103.9 ORtg, 99.6 DRtg
2005 Pistons in PS before the Finals: 103.9 ORtg, 97.3 DRtg
2005 Pistons in the Finals: 103.6 ORtg, 102.1 DRtg

Spurs relative numbers: +2.5 rORtg, -0.3 rDRtg

You are right - their relative numbers show that Spurs offense was more successful than their defense. I back off my claim, thank you.

At the same time, we do have to keep in mind that posting 102.1 ORtg is not something I'd call an epic offensive performance even taking into account the relative numbers.

And that almost certainly undersells the Spurs offense because that era’s Pistons were a significantly better defense in the playoffs than in the regular season, while the same wasn’t true of their offense (and rORTG and rDRTG are measuring as compared to the Pistons’s regular season numbers).

2005 Pistons were slightly better defensively in the first 3 rounds than in the RS, but not massively.

And, more generally, I should note that the Spurs rORTG in the 2005 playoffs was better than their rDRTG (the first time this happened in the Tim Duncan era). So yeah, despite Duncan’s offensive struggles in the playoffs, the 2005 Spurs were a better playoff offense than they were a playoff defense.

I think people misunderstands Duncan's struggles when they call it "offensive" struggles. Duncan struggled throughout the playoffs on both ends of the floor. It's the reason why the Suns did so much damage on usually very resilient Spurs defense - Duncan just couldn't keep up with the uptempo Suns offense. It's not true that Duncan only struggled with scoring, his defense wasn't on usual level either. Just compare how he did against the Spurs 2 years later, when he was healthier.

Why do I think it's not as important for the finals? Because the finals was a slugfest, teams averaged 10 possessions less than in the WCF and I think the difference actually undersells the real difference in the pace of the game. Duncan did far better defensively in that environment, because he didn't need to try to catch these younger, faster and healthier Suns guys.

I have no problem with calling Manu the MVP of the finals. I don't think his performance separates him from the rest of the candidates here or that it's better than anything from the guys left. I don't think it's some kind of carryjob either, even on the offensive end. I don't mind people voting for Manu, but it's too early for me. I can't see Manu above someone like Chris Paul personally.

[70sFan]

So, I know that the Pistons were amazing defensively and I certainly don't think the Spurs struggling against them is any shot at Manu. I am just pointing out that the Spurs won the finals with their defense. They needed Manu's offense badly but you'd have to believe that Manu was responsible in large amount of Spurs defensive success. He was certainly a very good guard defender, but I definitely disagree that he's "almost LeBron" level. Duncan had rough moments in the playoffs due to injury (against the fast paced Suns in particular), but he was remarkably good in the finals on that end.

It reminds me a little bit of Sam Jones case for the best postseason player in the mid-60s Celtics. His scoring was critical for the Celtics success, but I don't believe it was the most important part of the Spurs potency.

I’d be pretty hesitant about a conclusion that the Spurs won with defense in that series. Their rORTG and rDRTG in that series were exactly the same (EDIT: Actually, if we look at PBPstats numbers instead of BBREF, the Spurs had a notably better rORTG in the series than rDRTG, and in fact had a subpar rDRTG—i.e. the Pistons scored more efficiently against the Spurs than they had scored in the regular season). And that almost certainly undersells the Spurs offense because that era’s Pistons were a significantly better defense in the playoffs than in the regular season, while the same wasn’t true of their offense (and rORTG and rDRTG are measuring as compared to the Pistons’s regular season numbers). The Pistons were a lot better on defense than they were on offense, so the raw ORTG and DRTG numbers may make it feel like the Spurs won with defense, but I don’t think that’s really what happened.

And, more generally, I should note that the Spurs rORTG in the 2005 playoffs was better than their rDRTG (the first time this happened in the Tim Duncan era). So yeah, despite Duncan’s offensive struggles in the playoffs, the 2005 Spurs were a better playoff offense than they were a playoff defense.

Yeah, the Spurs definitely won with their offense more than their defense. Here's how they did relative to other Pistons opponents in the '04 and '05 playoffs:

Bucks: 95.3 ORtg, 109.3 DRtg
Nets: 91.9 ORtg, 95.6 DRtg
Pacers: 86.6 ORtg, 89.6 DRtg
Lakers: 95.2 ORtg, 105.7 DRtg
Sixers: 101.3 ORtg, 110.2 DRtg
Pacers: 93.5 ORtg, 101.8 DRtg
Heat 100.6 ORtg, 104.3 DRtg
Spurs: 102.3 ORtg, 104.5 DRtg

So of the Pistons' 8 playoff opponents in their back-to-back Finals runs, the Spurs had the best offensive performance of any team, but they only had the 5th best defensive performance with the majority of teams actually performing better. The Spurs having that kind of outlier offensive performance with Parker and Duncan both having a TS% of .471 is crazy. It really shows what a massive impact Manu had for them in the Finals.

So, I already touched most of these points and I backed off my claim about defense first, but I want to emphasize that focusing on 102.3 ORtg like some kind of amazing performance doesn't convince me. The Spurs offense still wasn't that good, even if they did better than most to score on the Pistons.

[eminence]

Abbreviated ballot:

13. Chris Paul - 2015 - Very good offensive shot creator for himself and others (a bit of the very top tier), 2nd best ball control ever (limits his turnovers, creates them on the other end), as good of defender as one can reasonably expect for someone with his offensive burden/size.

14. Draymond Green - 2016 - Paired with Curry to form the best duo of the era, complement one another damn near perfectly. A pretty decent secondary offensive piece even when his shot isn't on, this season he was outright into fringe allstar level on offense with his shot going in. Best defender of his mini era. Extremely impressive PO performance, cooking Harden with Curry injured, and a bigtime Game 7 in the Finals. May have been a bit higher if he didn't rack up so many techs.

15. Jayson Tatum - 2024 - Led an all-time team as their best offensive player, arguably their most valuable defender as well. No top tier impact areas, but good at everything I can think of.

16. Steve Nash - 2007 - Arguable pick for the best offensive player ever, obviously not so great on D if I'm only voting for him in the mid teens. Led a strong contending team that got the short end of the stick about as rough as any team ever has.

#16 vote a placeholder, I need to think about Nash vs Harden some more.

[lessthanjake]

I’d be pretty hesitant about a conclusion that the Spurs won with defense in that series. Their rORTG and rDRTG in that series were exactly the same (EDIT: Actually, if we look at PBPstats numbers instead of BBREF, the Spurs had a notably better rORTG in the series than rDRTG, and in fact had a subpar rDRTG—i.e. the Pistons scored more efficiently against the Spurs than they had scored in the regular season). And that almost certainly undersells the Spurs offense because that era’s Pistons were a significantly better defense in the playoffs than in the regular season, while the same wasn’t true of their offense (and rORTG and rDRTG are measuring as compared to the Pistons’s regular season numbers). The Pistons were a lot better on defense than they were on offense, so the raw ORTG and DRTG numbers may make it feel like the Spurs won with defense, but I don’t think that’s really what happened.

And, more generally, I should note that the Spurs rORTG in the 2005 playoffs was better than their rDRTG (the first time this happened in the Tim Duncan era). So yeah, despite Duncan’s offensive struggles in the playoffs, the 2005 Spurs were a better playoff offense than they were a playoff defense.

Yeah, the Spurs definitely won with their offense more than their defense. Here's how they did relative to other Pistons opponents in the '04 and '05 playoffs:

Bucks: 95.3 ORtg, 109.3 DRtg
Nets: 91.9 ORtg, 95.6 DRtg
Pacers: 86.6 ORtg, 89.6 DRtg
Lakers: 95.2 ORtg, 105.7 DRtg
Sixers: 101.3 ORtg, 110.2 DRtg
Pacers: 93.5 ORtg, 101.8 DRtg
Heat 100.6 ORtg, 104.3 DRtg
Spurs: 102.3 ORtg, 104.5 DRtg

So of the Pistons' 8 playoff opponents in their back-to-back Finals runs, the Spurs had the best offensive performance of any team, but they only had the 5th best defensive performance with the majority of teams actually performing better. The Spurs having that kind of outlier offensive performance with Parker and Duncan both having a TS% of .471 is crazy. It really shows what a massive impact Manu had for them in the Finals.

So, I already touched most of these points and I backed off my claim about defense first, but I want to emphasize that focusing on 102.3 ORtg like some kind of amazing performance doesn't convince me. The Spurs offense still wasn't that good, even if they did better than most to score on the Pistons.

So I get the instinct to think that a 102.3 ORTG isn’t amazing. But if you look at the numbers that iggymcfrack provided above, that 102.3 number is actually quite a bit above what teams were generally putting up against that Pistons team. And it’s not like there weren’t some extremely talented offensive players on the other teams on that list (Shaq, Wade, Kobe, etc.). When you’re facing one of the very best playoff defenses ever and on top of that it’s in a pretty low-scoring era, that’s kind of just what a good ORTG number looks like. Did the Spurs completely break the Pistons defense? No. But it’s basically impossible to completely break a team’s defense if the other volume scorers on your team have a 47.1% TS%. And, notably, 2006 Wade—who we’ve already voted in a while ago—played amazingly against the Pistons too but even he didn’t cause the Heat to completely break the Pistons defense (and that was with Wade’s co-star definitely having a better offensive series than Duncan did).

[lessthanjake]

And that almost certainly undersells the Spurs offense because that era’s Pistons were a significantly better defense in the playoffs than in the regular season, while the same wasn’t true of their offense (and rORTG and rDRTG are measuring as compared to the Pistons’s regular season numbers).

2005 Pistons were slightly better defensively in the first 3 rounds than in the RS, but not massively.

The 2004-2006 Pistons had a playoff rDRTG that was 2.7 points better than in the RS, while their playoff rORTG was only 0.1 points better than their RS rORTG. One might argue that’s not *massive* but it’s definitely important context for an opponent’s rORTG and rDRTG in a series against them. The Pistons defense got meaningfully better in the playoffs, while their offense did not.