#9 Highest Peak of All Time (Duncan '03 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

Good observation, but step away from the literal here. Do you know of any stretch 4's who are known for playing great, traditional, power forward defense? I mean, they put "power" in the name for a reason.

you can't use your prejudice against good shooting bigs to affect your judgement of the hard evidence. data clearly shows you Dirk has been making a good defensive impact. it's got nothing to do with his team being built in a certain way, it's about his style of play on offense (first back on defense, doesn't turn the ball over, makes his teammates better so they don't turn the ball over and make more shots) helping to cut transition baskets. this has always been the case. but now Dirk also improved as a man defender, pick and roll defender, and IMO he's better at rotating as well. he's just a lot more experienced, a lot smarter.

Dude. Dirk's RAPM is like ALL offense until '10-11. Then all of a sudden his defensive RAPM jumps to All-D team levels from nil, meanwhile his Offensive stuff remains elite but not best-in-the-game the whole time. You really think that's happening because in his 13th year in the league Dirk figured out how to play defense?

I think the "odd" part of it is that Dirk's "peak" here came years after developing his strongest weapons, happened with the team improving in his weaker areas, and happened so dramatically as to take everyone by surprise. You put those things together, and it seems to me pretty clear that in addition to Dirk rounding out his game, you had the team that invented on/off data as we know it making adjustments that allowed their star to make huge leaps in on/off data.

can you elaborate ?

I'll try, not knowing exactly what you want though:

I'm accusing the Dallas Mavericks of competence. i'm accusing them of of general basketball wherewithal as well as state-of-the-art analytics, but more than anything else, patience. Whereas other teams start getting antsy and blow up teams that come close to a title under the mistaken impression that they are improving their team, the Mavs stuck with Dirk after people said to relegate him to sidekick in the 2007 off-season and eventually designing a team that made max use of his talents.

I'll also accuse them of some luck though as it is pretty clear to me that had the Mavs had to face literally any other of the recent champions, they'd have gotten their doors blown off. Included in this would be the '12 Heat.

[colts18]

I'll also accuse them of some luck though as it is pretty clear to me that had the Mavs had to face literally any other of the recent champions, they'd have gotten their doors blown off. Included in this would be the '12 Heat.

The Lakers were a 6 SRS team and the favorite to win the title that year. No one ever said they were a weak team. That's way too much hindsight bias. The Mavs blew out a good team

As I mentioned before, the 2011 Heat were better than the 2012 version. They had a 27-6 record entering the finals and finally getting back a healthy Haslem and Miller. They were massive favorites and no one was saying that the Mavs got lucky at the time.

[Dr Positivity]

I think the Mavs could take the 2010 Lakers. Quietly not that impressed by that Lakers team. Maybe one of the easiest paths to the Finals since the 80s in either conference, and then they kind of gutted it out against an old Boston team. And a weak SRS by champion standards

[Doctor MJ]

I wouldn't think as highly of Dirk. He got the opportunity to face the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat and he stepped up more than your typical superstar is expected. He didn't have a good team and no one would have blamed him if they lost to the Lakers or even the Heat. Yet he rose above that won both series without HCA. That moves him up. No one here blames KG for losing to the Lakers, like no one would have blamed Dirk for losing to a better Lakers team than the 04 Lakers, not only that but he swept them without HCA. Winning without HCA like that is better than losing in 6 with HCA.

Then Dirk's clutch performance led his team to a beat a real good Heat team (better than the 12 version). The Heat entered the Finals with a 27-6 record with a 9.55 SRS. Some of those games didn't even include healty Haslem and Miller, so the Heat were on track to be a legitimate juggernaut. Then Dirk beats them without HCA after being down 1.75. His 4th quarters singlehandedly won the series for the Mavs.

Whoa. You just seem so out there to me here. This "singlehandedly" stuff.

The two upsets you talk about, let's take a look at them:

Against the Lakers, they won in a sweep because they won the two home games. Yes, there was the blowout clinch loss just like there is every time Kobe loses a series, but the meat of the series was the two games in LA. First, let's see how these two offense and defenses stacked up in the regular season compared to the league mean:

Lakers: +3.7, +3.0
Mavs: +2.4, +2.3

Okay, so both of these teams are basically balanced clubs. The Lakers look better, but they also didn't have Dallas' injury issues. Could be either team's series, but we shouldn't expect either club's offense or defense to change drastically.

Here's how each team did on offense compare to their own regular season averages in the 2 LA games:

Lakers: -6.3, -16.6
Mavs: -2.7, -1.3

Alright then, so clearly what happened here is that the Lakers got completely and utterly shut down by the Mav defense. This wasn't Dirk going off. This wasn't an unstoppable Dallas offense in general. It was the Lakers offense, not functioning, and if we're going to be charitable to Dallas and say they caused a victory, it was their staggering defense that did it.

Heat series? Do I even need to go into such detail here? There were two stories to this series:

1. Wow, Dwyane Wade is going nuclear!
2. Wow, LeBron James is sucking!

That's it man. This wasn't Dirk going nuts by any means. I actually can't even fathom calling him the best player in the series. That was Wade. Had the Heat won the title, people would talk about Wade's series amongst the greatest in all of history. There ain't nobody taking about Dirk like that now.

So yeah, I think you've got winning bias all over you. I think Dirk deserves a ton of credit for the title, but this isn't a guy burning so hot that his team simply had to win a title a la Erving in '76. This was a very, very smart team with some really great defensive choices playing some more talented teams at just the right time.

[Doctor MJ]

I think the Mavs could take the 2010 Lakers. Quietly not that impressed by that Lakers team. Maybe one of the easiest paths to the Finals since the 80s in either conference, and then they kind of gutted it out against an old Boston team. And a weak SRS by champion standards

Well, I think the general rule of thumb is that you shouldn't take a Kobe team seriously by its SRS. It's bizarre given his reputation as a workaholic, but again and again his team's seem to catch fire or go cold.

In 2011, right after the all-star break, that team was playing well enough to destroy everyone else in the league easily, but by RS end, they hated each other again and didn't show up.

In 2010, they simply caught fire in the 2nd round and played excellent from then on out. I find it amusing that you knock their SRS, when they actually swept the 3rd best SRS team in the league and absolutely no one shocked.

Also of note your "old Boston" team was the one who systematically crushed the dreams of the 2 best SRS teams. Both the Lakers and Celtics were old savvy veterans. Not saying they could turn it on at will, but teams like that have a tendency to get sometimes get in jawdropping grooves. Such was the case in 2010.

[Doctor MJ]

I'll also accuse them of some luck though as it is pretty clear to me that had the Mavs had to face literally any other of the recent champions, they'd have gotten their doors blown off. Included in this would be the '12 Heat.

The Lakers were a 6 SRS team and the favorite to win the title that year. No one ever said they were a weak team. That's way too much hindsight bias. The Mavs blew out a good team

Let's go back here. Saying a sweep is a "blow out" isn't enough depth for this. The Mavs won the series because they won on the road in the first two games, and then the Lakers give up...like they typically do when they get too far down. The Mavs won those first two games with a healthy dose of luck, and the part that wasn't luck was defense, not a single handed Dirk.

As I mentioned before, the 2011 Heat were better than the 2012 version. They had a 27-6 record entering the finals and finally getting back a healthy Haslem and Miller. They were massive favorites and no one was saying that the Mavs got lucky at the time.

Let's be very clear what "lucky" means here.

The Mavs' game plan was superb. Their plan to take LeBron out of his element worked not only well, but I imagine better than they could have ever dreamed. It's absolutely not luck that the Mavs could beat the Heat given their strategy working so well.

No one thought the Mavs had a prayer of winning another title though. No one thought, "Wow, the Mavs are the new kings of the NBA. You have to think they're going to keep winning until someone else improves to the point they can beat them." Nope. Every said, "What an incredible fluke. Props to everyone involved, but they probably will lose in the first round again next year."

As far as the '11 Heat being better than the '12 Heat. Nah. Not for the NBA finals they weren't. The '12 Heat were playing the Mavs on steroids and they simply ripped their heart out. Why? Because LeBron's the best player in the world unless you can make him go through an existential crisis. The Mavs were not going to do that 2 years in a row. LeBron had adapted physically and mentally, he was ready.

[Doctor MJ]

If you factor in injury, The Spurs were a +10 SRS team in the games Duncan played in 2005. Duncan was the main catalyst of that team. That team went 13.9 SRS in the games Ginobili missed and 7.2 in the games he played. In the games Duncan/Ginobili played, I estimated their SRS at about 10.4. So they were an elite team before injuries struck in the 2nd half of the season.

This is a good point truly, but I do think it makes sense to appreciate the scale of those Celtic teams.

The '05 Spurs season grouped by 20 games stretches looks like this:

16-4
15-5
16-4

If I try to find the best 30 game stretch for them all year, I don't see anything better than 24-6.

Now compared, the first 30 games for the '08 Celtics? 27-3.
How about, the first 30 games for the '09 Celtics? 27-3.

That Spur team was quite good, and injuries cause us to underrate it, but both the first 2 Big 3 Celtic teams came out of the stretch in significantly more dominant fashion than even the Spurs.

[colts18]

Let's go back here. Saying a sweep is a "blow out" isn't enough depth for this. The Mavs won the series because they won on the road in the first two games, and then the Lakers give up...like they typically do when they get too far down. The Mavs won those first two games with a healthy dose of luck, and the part that wasn't luck was defense, not a single handed Dirk.

Wait you are going to get on me for having winning bias, then make a statement like that. That's like the equivalent of the people who said the Red Sox won't win the Series in 2004 just because they choked the previous 86 years. I hope you realize how off it is to say something like. Tell me, when was the last time the Lakers gave up like they typically do when down pre 2011? Please tell me. And I'm guessing you also thought LeBron/Dirk wouldn't win titles because they would choke like they always do.

[lorak]

FG% on 16-23 feet shots in the playoffs:
06-08: 30.2%
09: 48.6%
10: 38.9%
11: 37.8%
12: 33.3%

You have to try and think deeper when you post stats like these. Ask yourself more questions -- don't just rote post data. What's the giant obvious difference about LeBron's playoffs in 2008, 2010, 2011 2012 and 2009??

*Thinking**

The correct answer? He didn't play the Celtics in 2009.

Against non-Boston defenses, the results look like this:

2008: 34%
2009: 48%
2010: 47%
2011: 40%
2012: 31%

Then you should also include the sample size, which is 60-70 shots in 09, 11 and 12 (~30 in 08 and 10). Which means the difference between 2012 and 2009 on long 2's is about 11 makes (22 points). The difference between 2011 LeBron's "outside shot" -- why are we ignoring 3's here? -- and 2009 is 5 makes over the course of the playoffs. Well within standard variance on a 40% proposition. Of course, you should also note that in Miami he's taking 4 per game, down from the 5-6 he used to take in Cleveland.

If you want the quality of his outside, you should include the 3-ball too. Vs. Non-celtic teams, it looks like this:

2008: 33%
2009: 41%
2010: 48%
2011: 37%
2012: 31%

So it still doesn't prove bastillon's point - that LeBron was better jump shooter during 2012 post season.

[Doctor MJ]

Let's go back here. Saying a sweep is a "blow out" isn't enough depth for this. The Mavs won the series because they won on the road in the first two games, and then the Lakers give up...like they typically do when they get too far down. The Mavs won those first two games with a healthy dose of luck, and the part that wasn't luck was defense, not a single handed Dirk.

Wait you are going to get on me for having winning bias, then make a statement like that. That's like the equivalent of the people who said the Red Sox won't win the Series in 2004 just because they choked the previous 86 years. I hope you realize how off it is to say something like. Tell me, when was the last time the Lakers gave up like they typically do when down pre 2011? Please tell me. And I'm guessing you also thought LeBron/Dirk wouldn't win titles because they would choke like they always do.

Okay, I apologize for being pithy. You're really not aware of the Lakers issues on this front? Here are the list of times that they had to either win on the road or go fishing in the Kobe era:

'12 2nd round Game 5, lose by 16
'11 2nd round Game 4, lose by 36
'08 Finals Game 6, lose by 39
'07 1st Round Game 5, lose by 9
'06 1st Round Game 7, lose by 31

On in the 5 seasons where Kobe's led the Lakers and they've faced back-against-the-wall games on the road, they are 0-5, and their average performance is to lose by 26.

If you don't want to call it "giving up", I'll defer to an expert:

Close-out games are actually kind of easy, teams tend to fold if you come out and play hard in the beginning, so we want to come out and establish an early lead and protect it.

Now, you might say, okay, sounds like a pretty diagnosis in general (ironic given how Bynum got crucified for the statement, but he was right to get crucified for actually SAYING it before an elimination game), but here's how opponents have done against the Lakers in the same time frame in the same situation:

2-5, average game lost by 5.7 points.

You see, Bynum's an expert on what the Lakers actually tend to in these situations, and that's why he was confused when the opposing team showed more heart.

2 notes I have to make:

1) I'm a Laker fan, and I'm very hard on my time. Any time you hear me be pithy about a Laker, understand that I've got particular vested issues there.

2) I'm drawing the line in the Kobe era for practicality's sake, but these issues really aren't new. The Shaq Lakers made it a habit to get swept seemingly every year until Phil showed up.

EDIT: Suffice to say, when I hear people talk about the Lakers as style over substance, no heart, fairweather fans, etc, it really bugs me, but I can't really disagree. The Lakers are easily the greatest franchise in NBA history (yes, easily over the Celtics), but they aren't exactly known for pulling victory out of the jaws of defeat.

[ElGee]

Stern, when you move your game in more, you don't need your jump shot to be as good. LBJ took less outside ones and did more around the basket. I don't understand why this is an issue.

I'm amazed with all the KG-Duncan talk, no one has brought up 2009 until Doc a few moments ago.

The 2008 Celtics, controlling for Ray Allen (72g) and throwing out final game:

Garnett In (64g): 9.5 SRS
Garnett Out (8g): 3.9 SRS

2009 Celtics Celtics
Garnett In (57g): 9.3 SRS
Garnett Out (24g): 3.3 SRS

That's with Glen Davis and some Leon Powe backing up Garnett. The 2009 Celtics PS SRS was 2.9. In 2008, it was 7.5 in 2008. Of course, that's assuming the 08 Lakers a "7.3" team...since the 08 Lakers with Gasol were 10.5 SRS to close the year and 11.7 SRS in the WC playoffs. The offense with Gasol in (42g) to that point was 115.7...which would be the GOAT offense. They scored 103.8 pts/100 pos against Boston. That's a freaking lockdown.

This was late-prime KG. Clearly non-peak. What are Tim Duncan's best teams? 2005 (7.8 SRS) or 2007 (8.4 SRS)? The 05 Spurs had a 9.1 SRS if we control for Manu (61g) and -0.9 without him (13g). Given the sample though, it should be noted in the "would-be corroborating year," 2004, the Spurs were +7.9 w Duncan in (13g) and +4.2 without him. The 05 Spurs PS SRS was 7.9, and the adjustment for them would be in the OTHER direction (Joe Johnson breaking his face and all).

It just seems to me people are ignoring how good the Celtics were with Garnett before his injury in Utah. They were, frankly, looking dynastic. (And seeing what happened in 2010, I don't see how you can say a 3-peat isn't *likely.*) Again, this is end-of-prime Garnett -- he's clearly better from 03-05. In 04, he gets one more shot with a decent team, and they post a 6 SRS with health issues galore, Trenton Hassell starting at the 3 and a what, slightly above average Sprewell at the 2??

Unfortunately they lose Cassell in the PS...the Lakers were a 6.2 SRS team with the big 4 in (Malone missed half the year) heading into the Minny series, and they won in 6. Minny beat a 5 SRS Sac team in the round before. So the 03 Spurs beat a 4 SRS team (Shaq in) in LA, the Mavs w/out Dirk and the Nets. Garnett's Wolves in 04 beat a 5 SRS Sac team, lose Cassell and bow to the 6.2 Lakers (with big 4 in) in 6. All with a supporting cast that, statistlcally, was clearly worse in the PS than the 03 Spurs that everyone loves to hate.

[therealbig3]

And to be fair, the Spurs were up 2-1 against the Mavs with Dirk in, and could very well have won the series anyway...and the Mavs were an 8 SRS team that year.

It seems to me that people are ignoring how good the 05 and 07 Spurs were (with Duncan in his late prime as well, clearly not on the same level he was at in 02 or 03). I mean, when healthy, they were incredibly dominant as well, and were posting a 10+ SRS.

[colts18]

Unfortunately they lose Cassell in the PS...the Lakers were a 6.2 SRS team with the big 4 in (Malone missed half the year) heading into the Minny series, and they won in 6. Minny beat a 5 SRS Sac team in the round before. So the 03 Spurs beat a 4 SRS team (Shaq in) in LA, the Mavs w/out Dirk and the Nets. Garnett's Wolves in 04 beat a 5 SRS Sac team, lose Cassell and bow to the 6.2 Lakers (with big 4 in) in 6. All with a supporting cast that, statistlcally, was clearly worse in the PS than the 03 Spurs that everyone loves to hate.

Of course you can make those same adjustments for Dirk's 2011 run. The Blazers were a 1.84 SRS, but that team was actually stronger than that. They got Wallace in the middle of the season and had a +4.83 MOV in games he played (+7.1 when he started) with Portland. Camby and Roy also missed time that season and came back for the playoffs healthy. That's an elite team right there and a few predicted that they would beat Dallas. I would put that team close to the level of the 04 Kings.

Of course the Lakers were relatively healthy but Bynum missed games as usual. He came back for the playoffs so the Lakers were at full strength with Bynum. That Lakers team was better than the 04 version IMO. There was a reason they entered the playoffs as favorites even ahead of the Heat.

The Heat played at a 27-6 pace entering the finals with a +9.55 SRS. This doesn't even include the fact that Haslem didn't play most of those games and he entered the finals healthy and was known as a good defender vs. Dirk. If the Heat won that series, people might look back at them fondly and say they were an all-time great team. The 6.76 SRS they had wasn'y indicative of their true value because of a few injuries and the fact that in the playoffs the bench shortened so they could get rid of the negatives like Howard, Arroyo, Big Z, Dampier, Maglooire, etc. Remember that the Heat were a +14 team with the Big 3 on the court. The Big 3 played 40 MPG in the finals plus adding Miller and Haslem and playing Chalmers more over the dregs at PG they had before. They were a true 8 SRS team IMO.

Remember that the Heat dispatched a strong 62 win Bulls team without HCA. That Bulls team won 62 games despite injuries to Noah and Boozer. When both of them started, they were 24-5 (68 win pace) with a +8.14 MOV.. Even in 2012 with Rose-Boozer-Noah-Rose they were 26-4 (71 win pace) with a +10.37 MOV. The Bulls were an elite team and they were shutdown by an even more elite Heat team. That Heat team lost to the Mavs led by Dirk

[Revv]

Yes, there was the blowout clinch loss just like there is every time Kobe loses a series,

hater.

[Revv]

In 2011, right after the all-star break, that team was playing well enough to destroy everyone else in the league easily, but by RS end, they hated each other again and didn't show up.

In 2010, they simply caught fire in the 2nd round and played excellent from then on out. I find it amusing that you knock their SRS, when they actually swept the 3rd best SRS team in the league and absolutely no one shocked.

Also of note your "old Boston" team was the one who systematically crushed the dreams of the 2 best SRS teams. Both the Lakers and Celtics were old savvy veterans. Not saying they could turn it on at will, but teams like that have a tendency to get sometimes get in jawdropping grooves. Such was the case in 2010.

so much fail.

the 2011 didn't all of a sudden "hate" each other. the problem was kobe being nowhere near healthy and pau having his wost playoffs ever.

in 2010 it was again kobe's knee. which is why they played much better after he got his knee drained.

how can a "laker fan" not know this? lmao.

[mysticbb]

Of course you can make those same adjustments for Dirk's 2011 run.

Do you honestly think that people care? Nobody is talking about the clear drop in average playing level in the league from 2011 to 2012. Do you see anyone mentioning it? And yet, the team which was worse against worse competition is now considered better even though TWO of their Top3 players showed a clear drop in performance level (Wade and Bosh). It just fits the narrative, that the 2011 Heat lost, because James faltered. Nothing else. All of the sudden James improved so much, and we now consider it an reasonable explanation despite trying to convince people that Nowitzki in 2009 or 2010 was the same as in 2011. A clear bias, not seen by those who consider themselves unbiased.

The Blazers were a 1.84 SRS, but that team was actually stronger than that. They got Wallace in the middle of the season and had a +4.83 MOV in games he played (+7.1 when he started) with Portland. Camby and Roy also missed time that season and came back for the playoffs healthy. That's an elite team right there and a few predicted that they would beat Dallas. I would put that team close to the level of the 04 Kings.

The Blazers after the trade had a 5.35 SRS (excluding the last game, in which they did not play their best players). The Thunder after the trade (Perkins for Green) had 6.58 SRS (excluding the last game against the Bucks, when Durant&Co. played 20 min in a OT game). The Lakers were a +6 SRS team, as you mentioned, the Heat for the last part of the season were a nearly +10 SRS team. That is not an easy path to the title at all.
And now, people want to argue that teams, which were either similar or worse against the weaker opponents of 2012 are now somewhat incredible better while there is NO evidence for that at all. It is just based on the fantasy that LeBron James somehow was not himself in the 2011 finals and somehow became incredible stronger in 2012. That Wade played worse in 2012, that Bosh suffered the injury and was negative effected by that? Doesn't matter at all, the Heat somehow became incredible better despite ALL the evidence points to the opposite.

[therealbig3]

Updated count:

03 Duncan - 5 (PTB Fan, C-izMe, Josephpaul, Dr Positivity, SDChargers#1)

09 LeBron - 4 (colts18, therealbig3, Doctor MJ, ardee)

12 LeBron - 2 (ElGee, DavidStern)


Duncan takes the lead, with 09 and 12 LeBron splitting votes.

[drza]

Vote: 2004 Kevin Garnett

[bastillon]

Do you honestly think that people care? Nobody is talking about the clear drop in average playing level in the league from 2011 to 2012. Do you see anyone mentioning it? And yet, the team which was worse against worse competition is now considered better even though TWO of their Top3 players showed a clear drop in performance level (Wade and Bosh). It just fits the narrative, that the 2011 Heat lost, because James faltered. Nothing else. All of the sudden James improved so much, and we now consider it an reasonable explanation despite trying to convince people that Nowitzki in 2009 or 2010 was the same as in 2011. A clear bias, not seen by those who consider themselves unbiased.

you don't think James improved from 2011 to 2012 ? I also thought Heat were worse as a team than the year before because of Wade and Bosh playing with injuries. I predicted OKC to dismantle them before Scott Brooks decided to be a moron and stop playing small after it had worked so well vs Spurs. but considering the Heat were worse as a team it's even more impressive that James dominated so much to lead them to that title. as you once argued, his off ball performance in '11 finals was a failure. he was no longer a dominant iso pnr player in '12, he was a post up threat. he changed his style and it served him well.

The Blazers after the trade had a 5.35 SRS (excluding the last game, in which they did not play their best players). The Thunder after the trade (Perkins for Green) had 6.58 SRS (excluding the last game against the Bucks, when Durant&Co. played 20 min in a OT game). The Lakers were a +6 SRS team, as you mentioned, the Heat for the last part of the season were a nearly +10 SRS team. That is not an easy path to the title at all.

Lakers were definitely not a 6 SRS team. they were 2-5 to finish the season (2 wins came against Spurs who have secured the top spot and Sacramento) and it's common knowledge Kobe's knee was nowhere near good.

but yeah, Blazers, Thunder and Heat were legit.

[bastillon]

Vote: 2004 Kevin Garnett

I love KG but his postseason comes up short in comparison to LeBron 12. the latter had to overcome major obstacles as well but he delivered. I remember KG having some poor shooting games, particularly against the Kings. he had some monster performances as well but his offense was inconsistent. defensive gap was still pretty big no doubt, even though LeBron was guarding all 5 positions very well in those playoffs, but definitely there was a bigger gap on offense. Garnett couldn't singlehandedly take over games offensively.

Updated count:

03 Duncan - 5 (PTB Fan, C-izMe, Josephpaul, Dr Positivity, SDChargers#1)

09 LeBron - 4 (colts18, therealbig3, Doctor MJ, ardee)

12 LeBron - 2 (ElGee, DavidStern)


Duncan takes the lead, with 09 and 12 LeBron splitting votes.

I'm voting 12 LeBron as well. perfect SF to build around. incredible playoff performer under pressure. dominant defender when it counts. much better than he had ever been.