Peaks Project #7

[bastillon]

I would credit Duncan's offensive superiority in the playoffs in 03 vs 04 Garnett to the skill set difference in how they attack defenses. Duncan had a much higher draw rate and had more inside volume. From this point, he gravitated the defenses in around and used his passing / post up game / face up game to attack defenses depending on whether they doubled or not. Garnett posted up much less and while of a medium height between players like Dirk and Durant he couldn't drive like either of them and pressure the basket that way. He had a very good face up game and that is generally how he got to the basket but I think he underused in favor of jumpers.

I'm pretty sure KG would be attacking Amare, Najera, Horry/Medvedenko and Kenyon all night long. I mean Duncan was basically playing against mismatches in the western conference. Obviously he's gonna give you good results under those circumstances. You have to take context into account. It's not quite that simple.

Look at Duncan's/Garnett's common opponents: Lakers 03, Lakers 04 pretty much the same individual stats. There is no evidence that Duncan produced better results under the same circumstances. Those stats don't even take into account that KG was playing in a sh*tty team with far worse coaching/players around him so it was harder to perform well statistically, I mean KG was a POINT FORWARD in 04 WCF (your WTF! moment right there).

[bastillon]

I appreciate your work and data that you provide but I would ask of you to try to keep the data more focused to the year in question. We are voting for 2003 Duncan so I don't really see the relevance in bringing up splits from 2001.

I brought up data from Duncan's entire career. The data shows a consistent trend throughout Duncan's entire playoff career - facing quality defenders, Duncan struggled offensively. Just because Duncan didn't face anybody worth a damn in 2003 doesn't mean that his obvious offensive weaknesses went away. It's not like Duncan woke up one day in 2003 and started shooting midrange jumpshots efficiently or being even remotely as athletic as other all time greats. This might not be an issue facing Amare and Vin Baker. But you better make sure you have a lot of athleticism against the likes of David Robinson or Hakeem.

You should be looking at context more. How will you explain Duncan 03 being better than Duncan 02? The latter could do everything at the same level + shot FTs over 10% better (by far his career high). It's not that Duncan 03 was better than Duncan 02 or 01. It's that he won the title. Oh, people of the world, the magical title, which makes everyone automatically better. Nah, it doesn't work that way. He won the title because his team was the best that year (due to injuries, mind you, they were actually like a 4th best team, as was consistently the case in 01-03).

[RebelWithACause]

We actually have +/- for Dr. J and Moses Malone!

Thank you fpliii! Here's my take on several players based on the data you provided:

• Dr J

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1976-77   2940   4,1   -1,9   6,0
1977-78   2429   1,1   0,5   0,6
1978-79   2802   0,6   0,7   -0,1
1979-80   2812   0,9   -2,0   3,0
1980-81   2874   -0,5   6,2   -6,7
1981-82   2789   9,2   -0,8   10,0
1982-83   2421   7,2   -3,1   10,3
1983-84   2683   7,0   2,6   4,4
1984-85   2535   -1,3   1,9   -3,2
1985-86   2474   4,9   0,3   4,6
1986-87   1918   0,4   4,2   -3,8


I don’t like what I see here ;] Late 70s numbers might be explained by bad team fit or knees, but ’80 and – especially - ’81 (WTF happened here?) seasons also don’t look good. Around +10 net in his two best years is very good result, but is that enough to be considered top 15 player of all time?

Erving also doesn’t look that impressive on defense as I thought. Definitely wasn’t liability on that end of the floor, but also nothing special here (whathis STL and BLK numbers might suggest), he looks more like around average defender.

Overall I’m very disappointed with Doc’s numbers and I would have to reconsider my opinion about him and rank him lower.

• Moses

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1982-83   2922   8,2   -7,4   15,6
1983-84   2613   10,4   7,1   3,3
1984-85   2957   18,8   -2,8   21,7
1985-86   2706   8,9   1,8   7,2
1993-94   618   -7,1   -2,1   -5,0


Very inconsistent results year by year, so I’m not sure what to think about them. But no doubt Moses was great on offense and his +18.8 ortg and net +21.7 in ’85 is GOAT level stuff. But defensively there’s a lot of noise. In one year he looks like all defensive level center, while very next one like the worst defender in the NBA. Any thoughts?

1. Why does Erving look average as a defender at best when he came to the NBA?
Why should he be so much better on that end in 76? Doesn't make sense.
People tend to say he just played less but produced almost identical numbers per 36 in his NBA days, yet the offensive impact was never off the charts?!
You might want to mention the fit on that team , but to make such a minimal difference on offense from 77-80 when supposedly you had a Top10 All Time peak in 76? Can some of the Erving supporters chime in here?

2. People reference Moses' gaudy boxscore stats and that those numbers and his skillset don't translate to impact?
What do you say now after seeing the data?


Not a participant, but disappointed of the discussion of the project.
Participation really slipping already too.
Drza, Spaceman and Sideshowbob with great posts though.
Also don't like the direction of the huge boxscore craze that sways many posters...

[RSCD3_]

I would credit Duncan's offensive superiority in the playoffs in 03 vs 04 Garnett to the skill set difference in how they attack defenses. Duncan had a much higher draw rate and had more inside volume. From this point, he gravitated the defenses in around and used his passing / post up game / face up game to attack defenses depending on whether they doubled or not. Garnett posted up much less and while of a medium height between players like Dirk and Durant he couldn't drive like either of them and pressure the basket that way. He had a very good face up game and that is generally how he got to the basket but I think he underused in favor of jumpers.

I'm pretty sure KG would be attacking Amare, Najera, Horry/Medvedenko and Kenyon all night long. I mean Duncan was basically playing against mismatches in the western conference. Obviously he's gonna give you good results under those circumstances. You have to take context into account. It's not quite that simple.

Look at Duncan's/Garnett's common opponents: Lakers 03, Lakers 04 pretty much the same individual stats. There is no evidence that Duncan produced better results under the same circumstances. Those stats don't even take into account that KG was playing in a sh*tty team with far worse coaching/players around him so it was harder to perform well statistically, I mean KG was a POINT FORWARD in 04 WCF (your WTF! moment right there).

Raw Nene, Post injury Webber, and a well past prime Karl Malone aren't scrubs but I think the difference is overstated but I digress.

Anyways my main gripe is about how Peak KG only shot 22.9% with a Draw Rate of 28.9 FTR% of his shots at the rim and 56% of his shots were mid range jumpers. Now KG was a combined 45.3 FG% from 10-23 those shots which is above average but still the balance between his good efficiency (67.7 EFG% on 0-3 shots and 81.1 FT%) on the volume he had and his love of jumpers. For reference Duncan shot 29.5% of his shots from 0-3 with an efficiency near equal to Garnett on 67.8 EFG% and had a Draw Rate of 45.5 FTR ( 57% higher than Garnett ) although admittedly his FT% is 71.0 Percent compared to Garnett, i feel that the edge still goes to Duncan.

He also had an assisted% of 66.3 which implies that he took most of his offense in the flow of the game and there's not a lot wrong with that but it means that he has to rely on his teammates more than someone like Duncan who had a rate of 47.5% assisted. Is it that strange that when KG's unassisted % goes down by 13% that his scoring efficiency dropped and duncan rose by 5% so essentially theyre both at 52-53 and duncan has around a 6% TS advantage.

Also these jumpers that are literally 75-76% of all Garnett's shots arent off the dribble, he's assisted on 66% of them in the RS, and and that number drops to 53% in the playoffs and there's certainly some level of correlation as the EFG% drops from 44.9 to 38.9 and this leads me to believe that no matter if garnett was a more talented passer than duncan, his lesser ability to apply pressure at the rim lent to the passing advantage not being as great as the talent disparity.

His scoring methods attracted less attention by principle because they were easier to contain without help and the cost/reward was more acceptable than an open three or cut to the basket if they decided to double him. This should usually boost a players scoring and take their assists down a little but KG managed to suffer on both fronts. I think its just part of the skillset while more portable and additive to great players, doesnt have the same floor as duncan and thats part of the reason I like him more offensively. I think that Garnett works well in a system but can run into trouble when he is looked as a guy to do it all, and he's less of a threat to throw a defensive system out of whack. I think KG nor Duncan is optimally used like this offensively but I think Duncan definitely outperforms KG here. I dont think KG on the Spurs would give them enough offense to win the title in 2003. I

If there's one thing I need answered by the PC board intelligentsia on here about Garnett's offense it's this...

Forgetting all of the stats I still have one concern about how successful offensively a player can be as a facilitator if he is neither a man who put pressure on teams by A. (Attacking the basket) B. (Launching 3 pointers). If one is neither of these... how much pressure can he apply to smart defenses that try to take away his playmaking?

[Quotatious]

1. Why does Erving look average as a defender at best when he came to the NBA?

Well, maybe he was. With so few full games of pre Moses Sixers available, it's hard to tell (we would have to watch a ton of games to be sure about that, offense requires less game footage than defense to make accurate assumptions about, because boxscore does an excellent job measuring offense, compared to how well it measures defense - which is not well at all).

I would say Doc is probably around Kobe's level defensively (defensive stats aren't kind to Kobe, either, and make him look like perhaps the most overrated defender of all-time, compared to how good his defensive reputation is, and how many All-Defensive teams he made). The difference is that Doc seemed to be a better help defender, Kobe a better 1 on 1 defender.

Why should he be so much better on that end in 76? Doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure about that. We've seen huge fluctuations in terms of defensive impact from some superstars - 1999 to 2000 Shaq is probably the best example - in '99, he was seriously a below average defender (RAPM, team DRtg, very poor pick & roll defense and even something as trivial as career-low blocks per game, all indicate that Shaq was a poor defender in '99), while in 2000, he was a legit DPOY candidate.

Hell, even Jordan's defensive impact in '93 seems really dubious, considering that the Bulls were better defensively without him in '94 (at least in the RS).

Could be similar with Doc. None of his teammates on the Nets that year except for Brian Taylor was known as a great defender, yet the Nets had the best defense in the ABA (but realistically, how much of a defensive impact can a 6'2'' guard like Taylor have? I don't believe it was enough to anchor the best defense in the league). Also, one thing that stands out about '76 Doc, when you compare that season to any other season of his career, is the fact that he made the All-Defensive 1st team. That's the only time in his career when he did. As much as I dislike All-Defensive teams, that really makes me wonder. Similar as '83 Moses, who looks much better defensively compared to the rest of his career, even based on the numbers you posted.

Doc not making a big positive impact for the Sixers at least makes sense considering who he was playing with - Bobby Jones and Caldwell Jones were both elite defenders, and they were bigmen, so it's much easier to buy that idea, than the idea of Brian Taylor anchoring the '76 Nets defense.

People tend to say he just played less but produced almost identical numbers per 36 in his NBA days, yet the offensive impact was never off the charts?!
You might want to mention the fit on that team , but to make such a minimal difference on offense from 77-80 when supposedly you had a Top10 All Time peak in 76? Can some of the Erving supporters chime in here?

2. People reference Moses' gaudy boxscore stats and that those numbers and his skillset don't translate to impact?
What do you say now after seeing the data?

I don't see how that '81 rating would make any sense. Sixers won 62 games with extremely high SRS (7.76), tied for the best record in the league, and Erving was BY FAR their top offensive option in terms of FGA, scoring average and usage (except for '82, when Toney had slightly higher usage, but Doc was still by far their leading scorer and shot taker). We are talking about 10 PPG difference between Erving and the second leading scorer on the Sixers, in those seasons. That trend is the same in '80, '81 and '82, Sixers also had very similar team success, and nothing about Erving as a player really changed from season to season, between '80 and '82, yet his offensive impact was so different? So much better in '82? It doesn't make sense, to me.

Also don't like the direction of the huge boxscore craze that sways many posters...

Well, I guess I'm one of those people who could be "accused" of having a boxscore craze, but personally, I'm strongly opposed to evaluating players based on impact stats alone. You have to take usage/role into account, and heavily so. You think that certain players are asked to score in high volumes by coincidence? To me that's impossible. Some players are trusted to carry an entire team because they are elite creators with great skills. So, for example, I don't buy Draymond Green, Khris Middleton or even Kawhi Leonard as top 5-10 caliber players in the league right now, just because they have great RAPM numbers. Well, Kawhi to me is a borderline top 10 player, but I don't think he's even close to any of LeBron, Curry, Harden, Westbrook, CP3, Davis or Durant (or at least he definitely wasn't close to them last season). Usage/offensive responsibilities matter a lot. You can't build a team around Leonard the same way as you can do it around those guys. Players like Green or Middleton are just "super role players", as I like to call guys like them, but you really can't build a team around them, they would be very poor as a traditional stars, asked to carry a team offensively.

If you looked at the list of the top 10 players in the league based on RAPM and then based on an "all in one" boxscore stat, be it PER, WS/48, BPM or whatever, they would be about the same in terms of accuracy/credibility. I would even say that the boxscore stats would usually give you a slightly more accurate list.

I'm not saying that to imply that boxscore stats should be accepted and relied on as the only source of reliable knowledge about the game, certainly not - in fact, I use all stats, including RAPM, on/off court splits etc., but I just don't believe that the so-called "impact stats" are inherently more valuable than boxscore stats. I think they are equally important, and we should look at every available stat and see what it indicates, in effort to find the right balance.

Maybe I'll sound like a casual fan right now, but when a guy has as much team success, receives as much praise/accolades, and has as great stats (even just raw stats, but also great boxscore metrics) as '76 Dr. J had, I don't think I really need "impact stats" to tell me how good he was (even the lack of game footage isn't a big deal, I already feel like I have enough evidence to make the assumption that he was an all-time elite player that year).

[eminence]

Wooh, a bigman ballot. Things should get pretty interesting after this set to me.

1st Ballot: Tim Duncan 02-03 - Voted for him since #5, high level offense, high level defense, played great in the playoffs.

2nd Ballot: Kevin Garnett 03-04 - Some of the best "impact" stats we've ever seen, went with KG over Robinson because I felt he normally did a bit better job on the boards (not just due to Rodman in this particular season) and also when they struggled (relative to other superstars) to score in the playoffs that KG's offense initiation continued to have a large impact for his team.

3rd Ballot: David Robinson 94-95 - Can be pretty easily argued as the best defender of the lot (and against Russell for best defender ever), but I just feel like relative to the other two his offense was the most easily limited due to being based more primarily around scoring than either KG or Duncan.


So I haven't thought too far past these three guys so I'm really excited to get into the next group. A whole ton of guys to look at: Russell, Moses, Ewing, Karl, Dirk, Barkley, Pettit?, Bird, DrJ, Durant, Wade, Paul, Curry, Magic being the guys I think of at first. It'll be fun

[PaulieWal]

Wooh, a bigman ballot. Things should get pretty interesting after this set to me.

1st Ballot: Tim Duncan 02-03 - Voted for him since #5, high level offense, high level defense, played great in the playoffs.

2nd Ballot: Kevin Garnett 03-04 - Some of the best "impact" stats we've ever seen, went with KG over Robinson because I felt he normally did a bit better job on the boards (not just due to Rodman in this particular season) and also when they struggled (relative to other superstars) to score in the playoffs that KG's offense initiation continued to have a large impact for his team.

3rd Ballot: David Robinson 94-95 - Can be pretty easily argued as the best defender of the lot (and against Russell for best defender ever), but I just feel like relative to the other two his offense was the most easily limited due to being based more primarily around scoring than either KG or Duncan.


So I haven't thought too far past these three guys so I'm really excited to get into the next group. A whole ton of guys to look at: Russell, Moses, Ewing, Karl, Dirk, Barkley, Pettit?, Bird, DrJ, Durant, Wade, Paul, Curry, Magic being the guys I think of at first. It'll be fun

Great post .

[RSCD3_]

Wooh, a bigman ballot. Things should get pretty interesting after this set to me.

1st Ballot: Tim Duncan 02-03 - Voted for him since #5, high level offense, high level defense, played great in the playoffs.

2nd Ballot: Kevin Garnett 03-04 - Some of the best "impact" stats we've ever seen, went with KG over Robinson because I felt he normally did a bit better job on the boards (not just due to Rodman in this particular season) and also when they struggled (relative to other superstars) to score in the playoffs that KG's offense initiation continued to have a large impact for his team.

3rd Ballot: David Robinson 94-95 - Can be pretty easily argued as the best defender of the lot (and against Russell for best defender ever), but I just feel like relative to the other two his offense was the most easily limited due to being based more primarily around scoring than either KG or Duncan.


So I haven't thought too far past these three guys so I'm really excited to get into the next group. A whole ton of guys to look at: Russell, Moses, Ewing, Karl, Dirk, Barkley, Pettit?, Bird, DrJ, Durant, Wade, Paul, Curry, Magic being the guys I think of at first. It'll be fun

Great post .

Thoughts on my post about the resiliency of Duncan's offense vs Garnett's offense come playoff time?

[trex_8063]

That is one of the most common mistakes people make when it comes to evaluating Tim Duncan. "Consistency". What does that mean to be consistent? To me it means that there is less variance in your performance. That you are going to perform regardless of your opposition. That you are not a streaky player and deliver at a certain level no matter what day is it.

Now let's take this definition of consistency and apply this for Tim Duncan:
Series to series variance. Duncan has showed a massive variance in his performance, and this is a continuing trend throughout his best years. He torches poor post defenses, and then gets shut down several games in a row by guys like Karl Malone and Horace Grant.

It's merely another method, but fwiw the data (of Elgee's) that SideShowBob provided in post #26 of this thread paints an entirely different picture than what you suggest.

Let's take 2001 Duncan as an example.
01 - vs. KG: 22/13/3.5/104 ORtg
01 - vs. Juwan Howard: 27/17/3.6/107 ORtg
01 - vs. Horace Grant: 22/13/4.3ast/4.5tov, 54% TS, 99 ORtg

That is a MASSIVE variance in performance series-to-series. You can see that Duncan explodes vs. weak defense of Mavs, but is otherwise unimpressive.

It is??? zomg, he went from 22 ppg up to 27! His ORtg varied by a whole 8.0 from best series to worst! Also, the Mavs defense was -0.4 to league avg that year.

Day-to-day variance. Duncan has also showed a similar trends in-series.

Fair enough.

You wanna talk about consistency? Let me show you consistency:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=game&year_min=1993&year_max=1995&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=HOU&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_c=Y&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts&order_by_asc=Y

Consistency is what the true monster was delivering. Out of 56 games with at least 30 mins played, Hakeem scored 25 or more pts in 46/56 games. He scored less than 20 pts TWICE. That is a ridiculous consistency, considering what monsters he was facing every series. I mean to face 13 games against David Robinson and Patrick Ewing and still score 25+ in 11/13 games?

Now let's do the same for Duncan:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=game&year_min=2001&year_max=2007&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=SAS&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=Y&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_g=&pos_is_gf=&pos_is_f=&pos_is_fg=&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&is_dbl_dbl=&is_trp_dbl=&order_by=pts&order_by_asc=Y&offset=100

Out of 106 games, he had 57 games where he had less than 25 pts. 41 with less than 22 pts. 25 with less than 20 pts. 15 games with 15 pts or less. Basically 1/4th of Duncan's games he scored less than 20 pts in the postseason. Is that consistency?

To pick a nit, you didn't quite "do the same for Duncan" (and it was 13 games at 15 pts or less). You selected for Olajuwon's best 3 seasons, then selected a SEVEN-year sample for Duncan.
Not that it makes a huge difference, but if we actually "do the same for Duncan" (and select a peak 3-year period, say....'02-'04), like so:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=game&year_min=2002&year_max=2004&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=SAS&opp_id=&is_playoffs=Y&round_id=&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts

.....it doesn't look quite as.......idk what is was supposed to look like with these sort of arbitrary cut-offs (more on that below); but now 23 of 43 games with <25 pts (basically the same proportion: 53.5% as opposed to 53.8% you proposed), but only 14 of 43 with <22 (32.6% vs 38.7%), 8 of 43 with <20 (18.6% vs 23.6% in the data-set you provided), 15 or less in 4 of 43 (9.3% vs.12.3%).

Let's take it further and let's look at some games vs quality opponents (30 minutes played):
-vs. Sheed Blazers/Pistons
-2/10 games 25+ pts
-4/10 games less than 20 pts

-vs. KG Wolves
-2/7 games 25+ pts
-4/7 less than 20 pts

-vs. Grant/Malone Lakers
-3/10 games 25+ pts
-4/10 games 15 or less pts

-vs. Varejao
-0/4 games 25+ pts
-2/4 games less than 15 pts

-vs. Tyson Chandler
-0/7 games 25+ pts
-5/7 less than 20 pts
-2/7 10 pts or less

The only thing consistent about Duncan's performances is that he is underwhelming vs quality opponents. Between KG/Sheed/Grant/Malone/Varejao/Chandler, Duncan has had 7/38 games 25+ pt games. He has been consistently underperforming.

Again, I don't quite get the arbitrary cut-off points (25 pts or 20 pts), which ignores context (role, supporting cast, etc, as well as other components of offensive performance, or performance in general--->not saying this latter group would favor Duncan, but we don't know from this data), and which also appears designed to favor Hakeem: a) no one, even his supporters here, has suggested Duncan is a better volume scorer than Hakeem. b) pace differences: avg pace of the Spurs from the years you cited ('01-'07) was 89.4; avg pace of the Rockets was 94.5. Not a linear relationship, but I'm not going to pretend there's NO relationship between pace and scoring (which is relevant when we're basing the comparison on arbitrary point-total cut-offs).

Not necessarily questioning your conclusion (well, maybe a little), but am questioning the method. There just definitely seems to be a lot of spin in the above.

It turns out that Duncan had pretty glaring weaknesses on offense. He was a major disappointment against quality defenders. Duncan has shown profficiency in owning poor defensive frontlines, but what good is it if you wanna win the title? You would have to luck out like Spurs did in 03 when top3 contenders dealt with significant injuries. If those teams were fully healthy, it would be highly unlikely Spurs would've won the title.

While you cite '03 specifically, the first line of the bolded statement would seem to imply a GENERAL impression about Duncan. As in it's tough to build a true contender around him.....is that your stance? Really?

3) Where does this leadership transpire? When? Can you point me to a game where you can see Duncan's leadership making impact on the game? I am tired of talking about leadership as if it was a unicorn. This is not about being quiet. Quite to the contrary, leadership means that you have to be vocal and active. You have to communicate.
My post from previous thread:
[spoiler]

Tim Duncan-esque leadership on defense? How is that a thing? I could definitely see "Waltonesque" "KG-esque" or "Ewing-like", considering that those guys are great examples of defensive leadership. Tim Duncan was never vocal, didn't exactly tell people what to do. The leader of San Antonio Spurs on defense was clearly Popovich. There's no need to give Duncan credit for this, specifically because Duncan is already such a great player that he doesn't need to get superficially hyped up. Duncan was never at this level in that respect. I can point you to numerous KG games where he's hyping up everyone on defense, telling them where to be at all times etc. We also have a lot of accounts saying how much it means to have KG on defense, how he makes other play better (Doc, Pierce, people from Brooklyn). I can point to 77 finals as primary example of Walton's leadership on defense. Show me any game where Duncan exerts his leadership.

Some "experts" on this site often mention how Duncan is a 'quiet leader'. WTF is that even supposed to mean? As in 'ain't no leader, just artificially gets hyped up as one'? Leadership isn't some magical unicorn that you don't see in-game. It's about actions. Communication. Energy. The sh*t you saw from Ray Lewis on the Ravens. That's leadership.

I get the impression you've never met or had in your life a "quiet leader". And consequently have come to conclusion that such a thing doesn't exist, that the only way someone can lead is by telling others what to do.

But one can lead by example. One can nurture a positive environment. Someone can encourage class by being classy. One can choose to use few words, but endeavor to make those words count; and if he's well-respected, people will generally listen up (I wish I could find that one .gif of Duncan motioning everyone to him in the time-out and start talking, and how ten Spurs jerseys hustle to a circle around him and shut up and listen).
And there is such a thing as work-place culture (and a basketball team is just that: a work place). Tim Duncan contributes to that team-first culture (see the Pop interview below); how can anyone else be selfish or petty when the one guy who's the most "justified" in acting like he's special simply doesn't? You can't, not without appearing like an unbelievable ass.
Listen to the what Tony Parker says about him, too. The respect and admiration is just oozing from these guys.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgjp7nLkjA[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfqIUoqqSNg[/youtube]

At any rate, it may be your belief that there is only one type of leader: someone with a stern and intimidating countenance, barking orders, screaming triumphantly at good plays, and otherwise motivating or chastising his teammates. But your believing that doesn't make it so.

If you wish to hold to the belief that there's no such thing as a quiet leader.....idk, agree to disagree.

At any rate, I am getting the genuine impression of an anti-Duncan agenda. It's all negative, all criticism. You've literally had NOTHING good to say about him from what I've read, but can only find fault. Some of the arguments seem to have a sort of rhetorical or data-set "spin" on them, to be against him by design; and other portions seem openly hostile toward him. So I may have utterly wasted my time here, but there it is anyway.....

[trex_8063]

Thru post #49:

Tim Duncan - 30
Kevin Garnett - 12
David Robinson - 7
Bill Russell - 5
Larry Bird - 4
Julius Erving - 4
Magic Johnson - 2
Bill Walton - 1

Will be calling it around 11am EST tomorrow.

.

Have you cast ballots yet? Pickin's for DRob just seems a little slim right now.

[trex_8063]

General question: at what point do we begin considering Kevin Durant? Seems like he's not out of the discussion for too much longer, no?
'14 was one of the best pure scoring seasons in NBA history, imo. Also a more than decent rebounding and passing SF that year; and his defense was at least "OK" (long and quick enough to at least make some nice gambles and help D plays). I feel he belongs in the conversation around the same time as guys like Moses, Dirk, Barkley, etc.
Am I wrong?

For me 14 KD is slightly, very slightly behind 09 Wade.

Where do you think Wade comes in for you vis-a-vis Barkley, Dirk, Moses?

In the same general vicinity. I actually thought about listing Wade right alongside them, but chickened out because he's somewhat polarizing. Didn't want some critic chiming in with a super-useful "lol, Wade is no where near these guys" post (nor the less likely opposite from one of his stans).

[SideshowBob]

If there's one thing I need answered by the PC board intelligentsia on here about Garnett's offense it's this...

Forgetting all of the stats I still have one concern about how successful offensively a player can be as a facilitator if he is neither a man who put pressure on teams by A. (Attacking the basket) B. (Launching 3 pointers). If one is neither of these... how much pressure can he apply to smart defenses that try to take away his playmaking?

Yeah, I'm in the middle of this right now, but I'll finish tomorrow afternoon.

TL;DR - Most of Garnett's offensive game isn't well represented by the boxscore, reducing it to just being centered around playmaking doesn't quite summarize it either.

[Joao Saraiva]

1. Magic Johnson 1987
RS: 23.9 PPG 12.2 APG 6.3 RPG 1.7 SPG 0.5 BPG 3.8 TOPG 27 PER 60.2ts% 26.3 WS/48.
In the regular season the Lakers won 65 games. It wasn't only Magic, they had a great team. Still Magic was the best player on that team, and the greats that played with him profited from his great leadership and amazing passing skills. He was scoring good volume, on great efficiency, and his playmaking was at the level that few ever reached (maybe Stockton?). He won the MVP award this season.

Playoffs: 21.8 PPG 12.2 APG 7.7 RPG 1.7 SPG 0.4 BPG 2.8 TOPG 26.2 PER 60.7ts% 26.5 WS/48.
Lakers just destroyed their oponents in the West. So Magic scored less points than he could have. But let's see his finals performances:
26.2 PPG 13 APG 8 RPG 2.3 SPG 0.3 BPG on 59%ts. He had 2 TOPG. So his assist/TO ratio is not comparable to any other player I've ever seen playing in the finals. He outscored Bird, with more efficiency, he had a ton more assists, and was only 2 RPG behind him and turned the ball much less. He even had more steals than Bird! What a great display to end a great season. Magic ended up winning the finals MVP, obviously.

2. Larry Bird 1986
25.8 PPG 9.8 RPG 6.8 APG 25.6 PER 58 ts% 24.8 WS/48
Scoring, rebounding, playmaking and efficiency. Truly amazing offensive impact from Larry the legend. He missed the 50/40/90 by 0.4% from FT, but I guess that's fine.
Dominated the league in PER, WS/48, VORP and BPM.
Celtics won 67 games and had a 9.06 SRS. That's absolutely elite in the regular season. #3 ORTG, #1 DRTG.

In the playoffs:
25.9 PPG 9.3 RPG 8.2 APG 23.9 PER 61.5 ts% 26.3 WS/48
Again a triple double machine, with high efficiency and team success.
In the finals the Celtics defeated Hakeem's Rockets. And Bird was even closer to the triple double average: 24 PPG 9.7 RPG 9.5 APG

Bird won both the MVP and the finals MVP this season.
And if you think his stats are amazing, you should watch him play that season. His impact goes even further, since his ball movement was absolutely terrific.
He also provided a 3 point threat that would still be very effective nowadays. That means he was ahead of his era in that regard, and that's a big plus in my evaluation.

3. Tim Duncan 2003
23.3 PPG 12.9 RPG 3.9 APG 0.7 SPG 2.9 BPG 26.9 PER 56.4 ts% 24.8 WS/48
I could go with Tim Duncan 2002 or 2003, I feel like they're basically at the same exact tier. I went with Duncan 03 because his playoff run was longer only.

He scored good volume, with good efficiency and had great advanced stats. His team also won 60 games in 03.

Overall he had a spectacular impact - good scoring, fantastic rebounding, great passing (yes some bigs had more APG, but I always felt he's a top player at his position moving the ball and keeping withint the system), great defense (94 DRTG and very good DWS, DBPM). I think all his major impact in the other areas compensates for the gap between other stars and him scoring wise (yes I'm higher on Kobe's scoring, Wade's scoring, T-Mac's, etc.)

In the playoffs Duncan was superb once again.
24.7 PPG 15.4 RPG 5.3 APG 3.3 BPG 28.4 PER 57.7 ts% 27.9 WS/48
The Spurs ended the Laker dinasty, with Tim Duncan outplaying Shaq. He scored more, rebounded more, assisted more, had better defensive impact and was nearly as efficient. Doing this against peak Shaq is no easy task, and that's also a big plus for me in the 2002 vs 2003 Duncan debate.

Then the Spurs faced the Mavs with Dirk Nowtizki. Again Tim Duncan absolutely crushed Dirk in every department, even scoring-wise (in both PPG and ts%!).

And in the finals... he just keps going with his epic run. Even tough he wasn't as consistent in the finals as he was against the Lakers he still had really great games:
G1: 32 pts, 20 rebs, 6 ast, 3 stls and 7 blocks
G6: 21 pts, 20 rebs, 10 ast, 8 blocks

These two are must see games if you're a fan of Tim Duncan.

If Ben Wallace didn't have such a extraordinary defensive impact, Tim could have joined Hakeem as the 2nd player to win the MVP, FMVP and DPOY. He didn't win the last one, but his impact was still fantastic.

[Dr Spaceman]

1. David Robinson 1995
2. Kevin Garnett 2004
3. Tim Duncan 2003

Congrats to Duncan.

HM: Steph Curry 15

[eminence]

Russell, Moses, Ewing, Karl, Dirk, Barkley, Pettit?, Bird, DrJ, Durant, Wade, Paul, Curry, Magic

List of guys I threw together earlier to start looking at for the 10 spot, anybody else I should be including/slipped my mind. I think I'll toss in Kobe and Tmac. Had Pettit as a question due to era, but I think he deserves the inclusion.

And this is why I always do things ahead of time... Guys I missed on first thought: Oscar, West, Walton, Howard, maybe some of the guys from this year (Harden/Davis/Westbrook).

[bastillon]

trex,

To address some of your points:

1. In general, I was trying to show you a trend that Duncan is consistently underperforming vs. quality defenders. ElGee's data was based on team defenses, but that misses the point. In the postseason matchups is what really matters. When Duncan's matchup got tough, his production on offense was poor for a superstar. That's all. Based on that sample you can't say Duncan had no weaknesses offensively. He had huge weakness - scoring vs. quality defenders. His poor performances also had impact on his team, for example Spurs had 90 and 96 ORtg vs Lakers in 01 and 04. This is what happens when your best player is guarded single coverage and can't get it done.

2. Variance from 27 pts / 107 ORtg to 22 pts / 99 ORtg is huge. It's basically a difference between Dirk Nowitzki and Antoine Walker. It remains a mystery why you are mocking this. It does seem pretty relevant whether my player is one of the best offensive players of his generation or a low efficiency chucker.

3. Duncan's sample size from 02-04 looks really good because he didn't face almost any good defenders. This is why I took a larger sample size, especially since Duncan's offense didn't change that much. Remember my goal was to show Duncan's performances vs. quality defenders. If my goal was to show Duncan's performances vs. bad defenses I might've taken 02-04 period as an example since his matchups were so atrocious on defense (Vin Baker, Amare, Najera, Horry/Medvedenko to name a few). Therefore it made no sense to narrow it down to 02-04 when he faced 1 quality defender (Karl Malone) and the trash I mentioned above.

Now remember once again, we are talking about quality defenders: KG, Sheed, Karl Malone, Horace Grant, Varejao, Tyson Chandler. Look at those matchups from all angles you want. Use whatever cutoffs you want. No matter how you slice it, Duncan's performances in those matchups were poor offensively. Did he even score 20 pts in half of those games? That is the point I was trying to hammer down.

Again, I don't quite get the arbitrary cut-off points (25 pts or 20 pts), which ignores context (role, supporting cast, etc, as well as other components of offensive performance, or performance in general--->not saying this latter group would favor Duncan, but we don't know from this data), and which also appears designed to favor Hakeem: a) no one, even his supporters here, has suggested Duncan is a better volume scorer than Hakeem. b) pace differences: avg pace of the Spurs from the years you cited ('01-'07) was 89.4; avg pace of the Rockets was 94.5. Not a linear relationship, but I'm not going to pretend there's NO relationship between pace and scoring (which is relevant when we're basing the comparison on arbitrary point-total cut-offs).

Not necessarily questioning your conclusion (well, maybe a little), but am questioning the method. There just definitely seems to be a lot of spin in the above

You are accusing me of being arbitrary but WTF is wrong with 25 ppg cutoff? Seems like a pretty objective and reasonable criterion to me. I am using the same benchmark for both players. 25 ppg is a round number which pretty much represents high scoring volume which we expect from superstars in the playoffs.

I did not ignore context. I used only years where Duncan and Hakeem were anchors of their offense. How does that ignore their roles? Now supporting cast, coaching, system, pace all favors Duncan (yes, slower pace favors b2b bigs bc their volume is higher when they can set up down low). I didn't ignore that. You have to understand my goal: it was to show Duncan's performances vs quality defenders (Hakeem was just a point of comparison).

While you cite '03 specifically, the first line of the bolded statement would seem to imply a GENERAL impression about Duncan. As in it's tough to build a true contender around him.....is that your stance? Really?

Of course not. Duncan is a great two-way player. I am questioning his impact on offense, which is apparently vastly overrated. Dude can't score vs. quality defenders. That is why his team was never great offensively in the playoffs.

[70sFan]

Why everyone think that Russell is poor scorer? It's not his big advantage and over the career he wasn't impressive scorer. But when you look at his peak (I think about 1962) he was pretty good and clearly above average. Also, when you are big on playoffs, his scoring numbers from 1962 playoffs are very comparable to Robinson and Garnett. Neither of them are clearly better passers. On the other hand, Russell is clearly the best defender EVER (so better than KG and Admiral) and he is clearly better rebounder (big gap vs Admiral, smaller but still difference vs KG).
When you strong on playoffs, just look at Russell vs Wilt matchup in conference finals. Russell played his best series vs Wilt that year. I think this is the only year when Bill played even with Wilt (I would still give Chamberlain slight edge, he had worse team and played really good). Well, his FG% vs Wilt is poor compared to rest of the playoffs, but not many players could have good scoring series vs prime Wilt (even past prime to be fair).

[bastillon]

Why everyone think that Russell is poor scorer? It's not his big advantage and over the career he wasn't impressive scorer. But when you look at his peak (I think about 1962) he was pretty good and clearly above average. Also, when you are big on playoffs, his scoring numbers from 1962 playoffs are very comparable to Robinson and Garnett. Neither of them are clearly better passers. On the other hand, Russell is clearly the best defender EVER (so better than KG and Admiral) and he is clearly better rebounder (big gap vs Admiral, smaller but still difference vs KG).
When you strong on playoffs, just look at Russell vs Wilt matchup in conference finals. Russell played his best series vs Wilt that year. I think this is the only year when Bill played even with Wilt (I would still give Chamberlain slight edge, he had worse team and played really good). Well, his FG% vs Wilt is poor compared to rest of the playoffs, but not many players could have good scoring series vs prime Wilt (even past prime to be fair).

Everyone thinks that Russell is a poor scorer because they have seen his:
a) footage (post moves, jumpshooting etc)
b) efficiency

It is impossible to be a good scorer and look this bad on tape. Disclaimer: I am a big Russell fan and have argued for him for years. But scoring is not the way to go. Great player. Not a scorer.

[Quotatious]

Why everyone think that Russell is poor scorer? It's not his big advantage and over the career he wasn't impressive scorer. But when you look at his peak (I think about 1962) he was pretty good and clearly above average. Also, when you are big on playoffs, his scoring numbers from 1962 playoffs are very comparable to Robinson and Garnett. Neither of them are clearly better passers. On the other hand, Russell is clearly the best defender EVER (so better than KG and Admiral) and he is clearly better rebounder (big gap vs Admiral, smaller but still difference vs KG).
When you strong on playoffs, just look at Russell vs Wilt matchup in conference finals. Russell played his best series vs Wilt that year. I think this is the only year when Bill played even with Wilt (I would still give Chamberlain slight edge, he had worse team and played really good). Well, his FG% vs Wilt is poor compared to rest of the playoffs, but not many players could have good scoring series vs prime Wilt (even past prime to be fair).

Everyone thinks that Russell is a poor scorer because they have seen his:
a) footage (post moves, jumpshooting etc)
b) efficiency

It is impossible to be a good scorer and look this bad on tape. Disclaimer: I am a big Russell fan and have argued for him for years. But scoring is not the way to go. Great player. Not a scorer.

Well, while Russell is clearly outclassed by any other all-time great as a scorer, I think 70sFan's point about Russell being decent for his era in 1962, is a good one. He scored clearly better in the playoffs that year (22.4 ppg on 51.9% TS, compared to 18.9 on 48.9% TS in the regular season - his playoff TS% is 4.0% higher than the league average in '62).

That's why I consider '62 to be Russell's peak - his mediocre scoring wasn't as big of an issue as it was in some of his other seasons.

[Clyde Frazier]

Ballot #1 - 03 Duncan

We sorta forget that Mr. Consistency was a really dominant player who played major minutes at his best. An excellent regular season topped of by a stellar championship run makes him more than deserving.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2003-nba-finals-nets-vs-spurs.html

Ballot #2 - 87 Magic

Magic was a unique and special player. Took his game to another level that season, especially when relied on more as a primary offensive option. He led the lakers to league best 67-15 record and ultimately the championship against the celtics.

RS - 23.9 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 12.2 APG, 1.7 SPG, .5 BPG, 60.2% TS, 124 ORTG, .263 WS/48

PS - 21.8 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 12.2 APG, 1.7 SPG, .4 BPG, 60.2% TS, 129 ORTG, .265 WS/48

Ballot #3 - 86 Bird

I can't help but tie magic and bird together here. They're 2 of the best on the fly decision makers the league has ever seen, and that's something you can't teach. I'll have to start looking closely at kidd to see where I'll rank him since i put him in that group as well.

Bird, similar to Duncan had a great regular season in 86, but took his game even further in the playoffs averaging nearly a triple double on 61.5% TS en route to the title.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1986-nba-finals-rockets-vs-celtics.html

[Yes, championship heavy, I know. Still not a requirement for me to be a player's peak, just fitting in these situations.]