Peaks Project #7

[trex_8063]

Thru post #60:

Tim Duncan - 35
Kevin Garnett - 14
David Robinson - 10
Larry Bird - 7
Magic Johnson - 7
Bill Russell - 5
Julius Erving - 4
Bill Walton - 1

Calling it for Duncan. '03 appears the clear majority (13:1 over '02). Will have the #8 thread up shortly.

[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?

Garnett's offense can be broken down like this:

-Spacing
-PnR (Roll/Pop)
-High-Post
-Low-Post
-Mid-Post
-Screens

Remember, there is overlap between these offensive skills/features; I'm trying to give a broad-strokes perspective here.

Let's talk about his shooting really quick, and then dive in. What I want to consider is how and which of these traits show up in the box-score, as well as which would be resilient in the face of smarter defenses.


-Has range out to the 3 pt line but practically/effectively speaking, he's going out to ~22 feet.
-From 10-23 feet, shot 47.7% in 03 (9.6 FGA/G), 45.2% in 04 (11.0 FGA/G), 44.6% in 05 (8.3 FGA/G), 48.4% in 06 (8.4 FGA/G)
-16-23 ft range, he's assisted on ~77% over those 4 years
-Shooting at the big-man positions is a conundrum - shooting 4/5s are often associated with weak (breakeven) or bad (negative) defense. Garnett is one of the few exceptions in that not only is he an elite shooter, there's virtually no defensive opportunity cost to playing him over anyone in history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When he's on the ball, he can utilize his exceptional ball-handling skills to create separation and knock it down. When he's off the ball, he's always a threat to convert - the fact that he's assisted so frequently on 16-23 ft shots means they're mostly coming on a Pick and Pop or a drive and kick, which means a lot of them are open. He's usually shooting around 45% overall from there, so we're looking at high 40s on open shots and low-mid 40s on created ones. BOTH of those numbers are strong, and that's where the first offensive trait comes; Spacing. His shooting spaces the floor. A LOT - despite the fact that he doesn't shoot 3s, he forces bigs out of the paint and opens up the lane. Because he's not a 3-point shooter though, this effect doesn't really show up in the box-score. And yet, this effect will always be present; doesn't matter how much a defense slows down his raw production in the playoffs, the spacing effect will always be present - he's going to try and create shots from out there and he's going to pop/spot-up; give him space/leave him open and he'll convert at .95-1.00 PPP (which is very strong in the halfcourt). Cover him/recover on him with a little guy and he'll just shoot right over. His man has to come out and try and cover him, and this means that there will always be a marginal improvement for the rest of the team with regards to the lane being open. The only real way to reduce this? Have someone at the 1-3 that can cover him (has the size/strength to cope with his shot/inside game for stretches at a time), but even then, you might yield a disadvantage with one of your bigs covering a small ball-handler.

So next, his PnR game. Crucially, he's a dual threat, he's deadly popping out (as demonstrated above) but even crazier rolling to the basket (high 60s-70ish finishing, that includes post/isolation, thus baskets on the roll would likely be higher. The rolls are similar (though not equal) to drives to the basket and aside from finishing offer an opportunity to kick it out. THIS aspect is captured fairly well by the box-score (rolls into finishes - FG%, finishes - PTS, kick outs - direct assists). This is also one that good PnR defense teams can slow down. Close off the PnR by stopping the ball handler (aggressive blitz/trap to force the ball out their hands before the PnR is initiated, or drop center, ice sideline to deny the ball-handler middle), or rely on strong rotations into the lane to close off easy baskets off a roll. When we talk about his postseason dips (mainly PPG and TS%), this is mostly where they're coming from (and face up game which I'll get to later).

So now, the post options. The high post probably yields the largest fraction of his offensive impact. His scoring skills (again, ball-handling to set up midrange game, quickness/explosion to attack the basket straight on, catch&shoot/spotup, etc.) means that he draws a great amount of attention here, again, pulling a big away from the restricted area and up to the free throw line. This is significant because he can spot and capitalize on any off ball movement, use his passing to force rotations until an opportunity is created, play the give and go with a small. Essentially, there are a ton of options available here due to his gravity and diversity, yet almost none of this will show up in the box-score. Unless he hits a cutter with a wide open lane or a shooter with a wide open corner, he's not going to be credited with the assist.

Imagine - he sucks/turns the attention of the defense to himself, a cutter sees an opening and zips in from the wing, which forces a defender from the corner to come over and protect the basket, leaving a shooter open. Garnett hits the cutter who dishes it out, or he kicks the ball out to the perimeter and it is swung around to the open shooter. Garnett's pressure created the opening, and his passing/vision got the ball where it needed to go, but he's given no credit in the box-score.

Give and go is another example - at the top of the key, he gets the ball, his man (a big) is now worried about his shot and starts to close in, the lane has one less protector, the PG who just threw it in to him now curls around him with a quick handoff, his defender now runs into Garnett or his man and the PG gets an open lane to the basket. If someone has rotated over, a shooter will be open, if not, free layup for the PG, or a kick out for a reset for Garnett in the high/mid-block area. IF it works out that the PG gets an opening up top on the handoff, then he may get a pullup and Garnett is credited with an assist, but in most scenarios, it will play out that again, Garnett gets no box-score credit.

The effect of this play on the offense is resilient, its going to remain present against strong defenses. It doesn't matter how strong your rotations are or what kind of personnel you have, the key is that adjustments have to be made to combat a talented high-post hub, and when adjustments are made, there is always a cost (which means the defense must yield somewhere) and therein lies the impact. This is one of the most defense-resistant AND portable offensive skillsets that one can have (you're almost never going to have issue with fit) and its what made Garnett, Walton, 67 Chamberlain, so valuable.

Mid-Post and face-up game are a little more visible in the box-score (similar to PnR). Mostly comprised of either blowing by the defender and making quick moves to the basket (and draw a foul) or setting up the close-mid-range shot. This is his isolation offense, something that will tend to suffer against stronger, well equipped defenses that can close off the lane, which sort of strips away the "attack the basket, draw free throws" part and reduces it to just set up mid-range jumpshots. Garnett's obviously great at these, but taking away the higher-percentage inside shots will hurt his shooting numbers, volume, and FTA bit. The key then is, how disciplined is the defense. Yes they can close the paint off, but can they do so without yielding too much somewhere else - was there a missed rotation/help when someone left his man to help cover the paint. If yes, then there is impact, as there is anytime opportunities are created, if no then its unlikely any opportunity was created and the best option becomes to just shoot a jumper. This is the other feature of his game that isn't as resilient in the face of smart defenses.

The low-post game is crucial because it provides both a spacing effect and the additional value of his scoring. While he lacks the upper body strength to consistently finish inside against larger bigs, he can always just shoot over them at a reliable % instead, and against most matchups he's skilled enough back-to-basket and face-up that he can typically get to the rim and score. Being able to do this means that he draws attention/doubles, and he's one of the best at his position ever at capitalizing by passing out to an open shooter or kicking it out to swing the ball around the perimeter to the open guy (in case the double comes from the opposite corner/baseline) and all of this action tends force rotations enough that you can get some seams for cuts as well. Outside of scoring or making a direct pass to the open guy, the hockey assists won't show up in the box-score. But, more importantly, there is a crucial utility in having a guy diverse enough that he can play inside and out equally effectively - lineup diversity. He fills so many staples of an offense himself that it allows the team to run more specialized lineups/personnel that might not conventionally work, and this forces defenses to adjust (! that's a key word here). He doesn't have to do anything here that shows up in the box-score, all he needs to do is be on the floor. You can argue the low-post ability as a 50/50 box-score/non-box-score, but I'd lean towards giving the latter more weight.

Finally screens. The effect of Garnett's screens is elite, because of his strong lower body base and because of the diversity of his offensive threat (and he just doesn't get called for moving screens). Its tough for most players to go through/over a Garnett screen, which makes him ideal for setting up jumpers and cutters off the ball. When he's screening on the ball, everyone involved has to worry about his dual scoring threat, and when that happens, that gives the ball-handler that much more space to work with. Marginal on a single possession, significant when added up over the course of ~75 possessions, and extremely resilient - how do you stop good screens? You don't really, you just stay as disciplined as possible. And this effect is completely absent in the box-score.

So what's important now is to consider the fact that most of Garnett's offense does not show up in the box-score! And I wouldn't call what he does on the floor the "little things" (this is just something people have been conditioned to say, most things that aren't covered in the box-score have become atypical/unconventional or associated with grit/hustle, despite the fact that these are pretty fundamental basketball actions/skills). Something like 75-80% of his offensive value just simply isn't tracked by "conventional" recordkeeping, yet the focus with Garnett is almost always on the dip in scoring and efficiency. So what if the 20% that is tracked has fallen off. Even if that aspect of his game fell off by 50% (it hasn't), the rest of his game is so fundamentally resilient that I'm not even sure what degree of defense it would take to neutralize it (at least to an effective degree, I'm welcome to explanations), and that still puts him at 80-90% of his max offensive impact (given the increased loads he was typically carrying in the playoffs, I doubt it even went that low). The generalized argument against him of course tends to be "where are the results", and quite frankly it needs to be hammered home that his Minnesota casts were actually that bad. Not mid 2000s Kobe/Lebron bad, like REALLY bad, like worst of any top 10 player bad.

[bastillon]

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.

I don't understand this logic. What difference does it make for Russell's own individual performance if everyone else in the league sucks or not? His mediocre (more like awful but whatever) scoring didn't stop being an issue just because he didn't face teams that could exploit it. Put '62 Russell on a modern team vs modern defenses and he would have issues. You should look at skillset rather than raw stats. While Russell's defensive dominance would easily translate to modern eras, his scoring would not (for sure not at 20 ppg with above average efficiency like in '62).

[Quotatious]

While Russell's defensive dominance would easily translate to modern eras, his scoring would not (for sure not at 20 ppg with above average efficiency like in '62).

I agree with that. In today's game, I would expect Russell to average about 10-15 ppg on 50% TS or something like that, so really poor, but the thing is, I put some emphasis on era-relative performance. I don't think it's 100% fair to compare the skills of the 60s stars to 90s stars, or today's stars. "Time machine" comparisons are also a factor for me, but I still focus more on how good every player was relative to his own era. Otherwise, we have to speculate, and we'll never know if we are right or not. Russell was a decent scorer for his era in '62. Especially in the playoffs. I'm not going to act like he was horrible just because I imagine him being bad today, if you just put '62 Russell into today's game, giving him no time to adjust. I think most people on this board approach it the same way as I do.

To each his own, though.

[Dr Positivity]

Re: Russell's efficiency. League average eFG in 1960, 1962 and 1965 respectively is .41, .426 and and .426. Russell's eFG in those years are .467, .457 and .438. eFG in 2015 is .496. If we scaled up Russell's TS% by the same amount as eFG rose league wide from 60s to 2015, he would be the equivalent of about .582 TS% in 1960, .559 in 1962 and .542 in 1965, compared to current league average of .538. This is similar arc to Joakim Noah who's efficiency peaked in 08-09, but was .531 in his all around career year in 13-14.

As for his skillset Russell is an all time great athlete, offensive rebounder, basketball IQ, I'd be surprised if he wasn't an efficient scorer in modern day. At the time the Celtics were as far away from understanding offensive efficiency is good as you can get. They thought shooting faster was good offensively because they get more possessions. If Russell knew what Tyson Chandler does analytically maybe his shot selection is different. Personally I feel Noah is the low end for projecting Russell's offense against modern competitors when taking into account Russell should be a significantly more athletic version, and likely more intelligent

[bastillon]

Re: Russell's efficiency. League average eFG in 1960, 1962 and 1965 respectively is .41, .426 and and .426. Russell's eFG in those years are .467, .457 and .438. eFG in 2015 is .496. If we scaled up Russell's TS% by the same amount as eFG rose league wide from 60s to 2015, he would be the equivalent of about .582 TS% in 1960, .559 in 1962 and .542 in 1965, compared to current league average of .538. This is similar arc to Joakim Noah who's efficiency peaked in 08-09, but was .531 in his all around career year in 13-14.

As for his skillset Russell is an all time great athlete, offensive rebounder, basketball IQ, I'd be surprised if he wasn't an efficient scorer in modern day. At the time the Celtics were as far away from understanding offensive efficiency is good as you can get. They thought shooting faster was good offensively because they get more possessions. If Russell knew what Tyson Chandler does analytically maybe his shot selection is different. Personally I feel Noah is the low end for projecting Russell's offense against modern competitors when taking into account Russell should be a significantly more athletic version, and likely more intelligent

I like Tyson Chandler comparison more actually. Except he can't shoot FTs. So poor man's Tyson Chandler in terms of scoring.

[trex_8063]

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.

I'll agree match-ups (perhaps especially so for low-post players) end up being very important (though fwiw, I disagree with labeling Oliver Miller and 36-year-old AC Green a better post-defense duo than Kenyon Martin and Jason Collins----and that's before giving any consideration to team defense).
And I'll concede Hakeem may have been more consistent than Duncan across an array of match-ups.....I simply think you're overstating this wrt Duncan. Your choice of words, calling him "terribly" inconsistent, describing some of his variance as "MASSIVE", etc.....it's as though you're trying to suggest he's an outlier in this regard, which isn't true. Perhaps he's not the beacon of consistency he's often made out to be, but he's not an outlier in the other direction.
And as far as Hakeem being more consistent in this regard, I'll only concede this is the case in the playoffs; I'm not as sure about rs. Take, for example, how he did against Robinson in the rs in '95 (the same year he infamously "destroyed" Robinson in the WCF):

1st meeting
Hakeem - 20 pts, 8 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 5 blk, 3 tov, 40.2% TS, 79 ORtg/103 DRtg (-24)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 2 blk, 1 tov, 67.6% TS, 138 ORtg/94 DRtg (+44)
Result: Spurs win

2nd meeting
Hakeem - 19 pts, 10 reb, 0 ast, 2 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 45.8% TS, 82 ORtg/91 DRtg (-9)
David - 18 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 48.0% TS, 89 ORtg/96 DRtg (-7)
Result: Spurs win

3rd meeting
Hakeem - 47 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 7 tov, 61.7% TS, 105 ORtg/101 DRtg (+4)
David - 23 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 5 stl, 0 blk, 3 tov, 45.3% TS, 92 ORtg/99 DRtg (-7)
Result: Rockets win

4th meeting
Hakeem - 36 pts, 14 reb, 2 ast, 3 stl, 4 blk, 6 tov, 49.1% TS, 98 ORtg/106 DRtg (-8)
David - 25 pts, 9 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 3 tov, 55.5% TS, 113 ORtg/103 DRtg (+10)
Result: Spurs win

5th meeting
Hakeem - 30 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 3 blk, 3 tov, 48.1% TS, 100 ORtg/112 DRtg (-12)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 2 blk, 9 tov, 37.9% TS, 74 ORtg/102 DRtg (-28)
Result: Spurs win

6th meeting
Hakeem - 25 pts, 6 reb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 2 blk, 4 tov, 47.7% TS, 94 ORtg/136 DRtg (-42)
David - 31 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 3 blk, 2 tov, 68.8% TS, 148 ORtg/105 DRtg (+43)
Result: Spurs win

So in 6 meetings, Robinson had the better game in 3-4 of them (vs. only 2 for Olajuwon).
Overall statlines in these six games:
Hakeem - 29.5 pts, 9.7 reb, 2.8 ast, 1.3 stl, 3.5 blk, 4.5 tov, 49.8% TS
93 ORtg/108.2 DRtg (-15.2)
^^^^This is substantially worse than he did against the rest of the field in the rs.
David - 22.2 pts, 10.3 reb, 3.3 ast, 2.2 stl, 2.8 blk, 3.7 tov, 52.7% TS
109 ORtg/99.8 DRtg (+9.2)
Spurs win rs series 5-1.


Additionally, even if we agree that the match-ups are the more important factor, I would disagree that TEAM defense is irrelevant (if that's what you are trying to say). And further, I think the presence very good/elite low-post defenders will often lead to (contribute to) reasonably good team defenses. In other words, I think there will be a fair bit of overlap in what you are calling good post defenses and what Elgee was defining as good defenses.
So I don't find the data to be as invalid as you suggest.

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.

This is a gross exaggeration: the gap between Dirk/other generational special offensive talents and Antoine Walker/chucker is significantly larger than +/- 8 ORtg and 5 pts.

The sample size on a playoff series (even one that goes 7 games) is so small that these kinds of swings are not MASSIVE (in fact, as I'll demonstrate below, they are entirely commonplace). And frankly it's this type of false rhetorical spin---combined with a) your tendency to rule invalid any data which runs counter to the point you want to make, b) failing to see similar flaws in the player you were advocating for (more on that fairly nearby below), and c) stating false conjecture as though it’s established fact (more on that toward the end)---which has me suspicious that you're pushing an agenda that is influenced more by bias than anything else. If you are, I'm sure nothing I say will get you to budge on any point. But for any easily-influenced individuals still reading, I'm just unable to let propaganda fly unchecked.

Now, on the topic of it being commonplace variance: let's just have a look at the stars for a single team (Lakers) over a span of 5 years ('00-'04), which are basically all prime years for both Shaq and Kobe, and even includes Shaq's peak and near-peak years......

'00 Kobe
1st rd: 27.8 ppg at 114 ORtg
WCSF: 21.0 ppg at 106 ORtg
WCF: 20.4 ppg at 109 ORtg
Finals: 15.6 ppg at 96 ORtg

Note the swing -6.8 ppg and -8 ORtg from 1st to 2nd round. Note then the -4.8 ppg and -13 ORtg swing from WCF to Finals (and that the difference from best series to worst is -12.2 ppg and -18 ORtg). And Shaq, fwiw.....

Shaq ‘00
1st rd: 29.4 ppg at 115 ORtg
WCSF: 30.2 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCF: 25.9 ppg at 111 ORtg
Finals: 38.0 ppg at 116 ORtg

I personally don't find this to be big (or meaningful) variance, but if +/- 5 ppg and 8 ORtg was MASSIVE, than perhaps you do consider the swing from WCF to Finals to be pretty big. Less important since all of them were excellent, though.

Shaq ‘01
1st rd: 27 ppg at 113 ORtg
WCSF: 33.3 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCF: 27 ppg at 106 ORtg
Finals: 33 ppg at 115 ORtg

-6.3 ppg and -10 ORtg going from 2nd round to CF....

Kobe ‘02
1st rd: 26 ppg at 102 ORtg
WCSF: 26.2 ppg at 107 ORtg
WCF: 27.1 ppg at 103 ORtg
Finals: 26.8 ppg at 119 ORtg

ppg remarkably steady, but based on other factors (namely shooting efficiency and turnovers) we have a +/- 17 ORtg swing from his best to worst series this year.

Shaq ‘02
1st rd: 25.7 ppg at 119 ORtg
WCSF: 21.4 ppg at 100 ORtg
WCF: 30.3 ppg at 109 ORtg
Finals: 36.3 ppg at 126 ORtg

-4.3 ppg and -19 ORtg swing from 1st round to 2nd; and the bounce back up like a yo-yo in the final rounds. Variance of +/- 14.9 ppg and 26 ORtg between best and worst series this year.

Kobe ‘03
31.8 ppg at 113 ORtg
32.3 ppg at 103 ORtg

ppg again steady, but a -10 ORtg swing.

Kobe ‘04
1st round: 24.4 ppg at 111 ORtg
WCSF: 26.3 ppg at 103 ORtg
WCF: 24.3 ppg at 106 ORtg
Finals: 22.6 ppg at 90 ORtg

From best series to worst, the ppg swing is only +/- 1.8, but it's +/- 21 on ORtg.

Shaq ‘04
1st rd: 16.2 ppg at 95 ORtg
WCSF: 22.5 ppg at 111 ORtg
WCF: 20.7 ppg at 111 ORtg
Finals: 26.6 ppg at 111 ORtg

+/- 10.4 ppg and 16 ORtg difference between best and worst series here.


So as you can [hopefully] see, it's not hard to find series-to-series swings which are equal (if not larger) than the ones you outlined for Duncan. All you have to do is pick nearly any team that gets at least past the 1st round for a few years in a row, and scrutinize their stars' performance in each series. It's literally that easy to find examples (because this is just that commonplace).

In fact, I'll even demonstrate it is the case even for the guy you've been trying to prop up: Hakeem Olajuwon. Take a look at his series-to-series performance for each year of his prime in which they went PAST the first round:

Hakeem Olajuwon ‘87
1st rd: 27.3 ppg at 132 ORtg
WCSF: 30.5 ppg at 117 ORtg

Pretty big drop in ORtg, though I think you would agree it's pretty irrelevant because even the 2nd series is still quite elite.

Hakeem ‘93
1st round: 29.2 ppg at 115 ORtg
WCSF: 23.1 ppg at 109 ORtg

-6.1 ppg and -6 ORtg. 109 is down around average for that year in the NBA, too (league avg was 108 in rs that year).

Hakeem ‘94
1st round: 34.0 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCSF: 28.7 ppg at 107 ORtg
WCF: 27.8 ppg at 109 ORtg
Finals: 26.9 ppg at 105 ORtg

-7.1 ppg and -11 ORtg from best to worst.

Hakeem ‘95
1st round: 35.0 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCSF: 29.6 ppg at 104 ORtg
WCF: 35.3 ppg at 111 ORtg
Finals: 32.8 ppg at 107 ORtg

-5.4 ppg and -12 ORtg from 1st round to 2nd.

Hakeem ‘96
1st round: 26.5 ppg at 105 ORtg
2nd round: 18.3 ppg at 97 ORtg

^^Very similar to the swings you noted for Duncan (the swings you labeled "massive"); ppg swing even larger.


And as far as game-to-game swings, check out the difference between Game 3 and game 4 in the '95 WCF:

Game 3
Hakeem - 43 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 5 blk, 2 tov, 63.7% TS, 127 ORtg/122 DRtg (+5)
Game 4
Hakeem - 20 pts, 14 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 5 tov, 39.5% TS, 76 ORtg/105 DRtg (-29)

-23 pts, +1 ast, +3 tov, -24.2% TS, -51 ORtg. That's fairly substantial, to say the least.

And be aware I do not intend any of this to be a slant against Hakeem. This is all presented as evidence in support of the notion that the swings you're labeling as "massive" are, in fact, entirely routine.

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.

Yeah, I'll withdraw the comment calling 25 or 20 arbitrary. I suppose they technically are, but one cannot make the comparison you’re making without picking a cut-off; and though arbitrary, they make sense.
I guess what it is that I object to is the variable being scrutinized: raw ppg. I object because it's a category for which Hakeem has the advantage (both because no one is arguing Duncan is a better volume scorer, and also for contextual reasons, which I'll touch on below).

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.

Not sure I agree with your stance regarding supporting cast and situation. When we're scrutinizing individual ppg, better supporting casts (i.e. additional legit scoring options) means the star is going to get somewhat less primacy (and consequently his ppg is likely to go down). By '05, when Parker and Ginobili were really getting up to speed, I'd argue Duncan was "enjoying" less primacy than Hakeem had around his peak (to me, late '95---after Drexler arrived---is the only time in the sample you looked at where Hakeem had a legit second option). Really it boils down to the usage%, which are somewhat close (though clearly a little bit in Hakeem's favor).

As to your statement that slower pace leads to MORE scoring opportunities…...that is a patently false statement, at least if we’re talking about a per game basis. I guess that's how Wilt got nearly 40 FGA/G in '62 (>29 FGA/36 minutes).....because they were really taking their time to set up and get him the ball down low (except that their pace was 131.1).

There’s a nugget of truth to what you saying if referring to an increased proportion of shots (like per 100 possessions) to be given to your low-post scorer. But that doesn't translate into more shots PER GAME.

As it happens, I went thru from year-by-year from '74 to '08, selecting for PF's and C's who played at least 40 games and >27 mpg (basically isolating for starting big men in each year), and obtained an estimated average FGA/100 possessions and FTA/100 possessions (and thus the average true shooting attempts/100 possessions) for each year for PF/C’s. And long story short: the difference is not large enough to create the INVERSE relationship you are attempting to pass off as true.

e.g. if I look at the first 11 years post-merger ('77-'87) where the avg pace NEVER falls <100 (avg of 103.1 over those years), vs. the 11 recent years where the pace was <92 EVERY SINGLE YEAR (avg <91).......the difference is only 2.2 TSA/100 possessions (about 42.6 TSA/100 possessions for the slow-paced circa-2000 era, vs. 40.4 TSA/100 in those first 11 years post-merger.

The difference between the circa-2000 era and '93-'95 is......well, they actually averaged MORE attempts per 100 possessions in the mid-90’s, despite the higher pace. Part of that obviously is related to WHO is in the league at that time. But even if we determine the small pace shift from ~95 down to '90 does allow for +1 TSA/100 possessions for the slower era guys (which there’s nothing to suggest that’s the case, fwiw; it’s not like ~95 pace is so fast there’s no time for anything in the half-court; but just for the sake of argument…)......they'll still fall ~1 TSA/48 minutes BEHIND the guys who play a 95 pace (because those guys are getting 5 more possessions per game).

In short, your assertion is simply untrue on a per game basis (again: per game being what you’ve compared).

[bastillon]

I think we differ fundamentally on idea of inconsistency. To me when you score 25 pts every game and then explode for 40+ in some of them, that doesn't make you inconsistent. It means you're consistently great and sometimes you can raise to an even higher level. Inconsistency comes in when you can't even make an impact because suddenly you're mediocre.

Spoiler:

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.

I'll agree match-ups (perhaps especially so for low-post players) end up being very important (though fwiw, I disagree with labeling Oliver Miller and 36-year-old AC Green a better post-defense duo than Kenyon Martin and Jason Collins----and that's before giving any consideration to team defense).
And I'll concede Hakeem may have been more consistent than Duncan across an array of match-ups.....I simply think you're overstating this wrt Duncan. Your choice of words, calling him "terribly" inconsistent, describing some of his variance as "MASSIVE", etc.....it's as though you're trying to suggest he's an outlier in this regard, which isn't true. Perhaps he's not the beacon of consistency he's often made out to be, but he's not an outlier in the other direction.
And as far as Hakeem being more consistent in this regard, I'll only concede this is the case in the playoffs; I'm not as sure about rs. Take, for example, how he did against Robinson in the rs in '95 (the same year he infamously "destroyed" Robinson in the WCF):

1st meeting
Hakeem - 20 pts, 8 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 5 blk, 3 tov, 40.2% TS, 79 ORtg/103 DRtg (-24)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 2 blk, 1 tov, 67.6% TS, 138 ORtg/94 DRtg (+44)
Result: Spurs win

2nd meeting
Hakeem - 19 pts, 10 reb, 0 ast, 2 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 45.8% TS, 82 ORtg/91 DRtg (-9)
David - 18 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 48.0% TS, 89 ORtg/96 DRtg (-7)
Result: Spurs win

3rd meeting
Hakeem - 47 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 7 tov, 61.7% TS, 105 ORtg/101 DRtg (+4)
David - 23 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 5 stl, 0 blk, 3 tov, 45.3% TS, 92 ORtg/99 DRtg (-7)
Result: Rockets win

4th meeting
Hakeem - 36 pts, 14 reb, 2 ast, 3 stl, 4 blk, 6 tov, 49.1% TS, 98 ORtg/106 DRtg (-8)
David - 25 pts, 9 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 3 tov, 55.5% TS, 113 ORtg/103 DRtg (+10)
Result: Spurs win

5th meeting
Hakeem - 30 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 3 blk, 3 tov, 48.1% TS, 100 ORtg/112 DRtg (-12)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 2 blk, 9 tov, 37.9% TS, 74 ORtg/102 DRtg (-28)
Result: Spurs win

6th meeting
Hakeem - 25 pts, 6 reb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 2 blk, 4 tov, 47.7% TS, 94 ORtg/136 DRtg (-42)
David - 31 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 3 blk, 2 tov, 68.8% TS, 148 ORtg/105 DRtg (+43)
Result: Spurs win

So in 6 meetings, Robinson had the better game in 3-4 of them (vs. only 2 for Olajuwon).
Overall statlines in these six games:
Hakeem - 29.5 pts, 9.7 reb, 2.8 ast, 1.3 stl, 3.5 blk, 4.5 tov, 49.8% TS
93 ORtg/108.2 DRtg (-15.2)
^^^^This is substantially worse than he did against the rest of the field in the rs.
David - 22.2 pts, 10.3 reb, 3.3 ast, 2.2 stl, 2.8 blk, 3.7 tov, 52.7% TS
109 ORtg/99.8 DRtg (+9.2)
Spurs win rs series 5-1.


Additionally, even if we agree that the match-ups are the more important factor, I would disagree that TEAM defense is irrelevant (if that's what you are trying to say). And further, I think the presence very good/elite low-post defenders will often lead to (contribute to) reasonably good team defenses. In other words, I think there will be a fair bit of overlap in what you are calling good post defenses and what Elgee was defining as good defenses.
So I don't find the data to be as invalid as you suggest.

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.

This is a gross exaggeration: the gap between Dirk/other generational special offensive talents and Antoine Walker/chucker is significantly larger than +/- 8 ORtg and 5 pts.

The sample size on a playoff series (even one that goes 7 games) is so small that these kinds of swings are not MASSIVE (in fact, as I'll demonstrate below, they are entirely commonplace). And frankly it's this type of false rhetorical spin---combined with a) your tendency to rule invalid any data which runs counter to the point you want to make, b) failing to see similar flaws in the player you were advocating for (more on that fairly nearby below), and c) stating false conjecture as though it’s established fact (more on that toward the end)---which has me suspicious that you're pushing an agenda that is influenced more by bias than anything else. If you are, I'm sure nothing I say will get you to budge on any point. But for any easily-influenced individuals still reading, I'm just unable to let propaganda fly unchecked.

Now, on the topic of it being commonplace variance: let's just have a look at the stars for a single team (Lakers) over a span of 5 years ('00-'04), which are basically all prime years for both Shaq and Kobe, and even includes Shaq's peak and near-peak years......

'00 Kobe
1st rd: 27.8 ppg at 114 ORtg
WCSF: 21.0 ppg at 106 ORtg
WCF: 20.4 ppg at 109 ORtg
Finals: 15.6 ppg at 96 ORtg

Note the swing -6.8 ppg and -8 ORtg from 1st to 2nd round. Note then the -4.8 ppg and -13 ORtg swing from WCF to Finals (and that the difference from best series to worst is -12.2 ppg and -18 ORtg). And Shaq, fwiw.....

Shaq ‘00
1st rd: 29.4 ppg at 115 ORtg
WCSF: 30.2 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCF: 25.9 ppg at 111 ORtg
Finals: 38.0 ppg at 116 ORtg

I personally don't find this to be big (or meaningful) variance, but if +/- 5 ppg and 8 ORtg was MASSIVE, than perhaps you do consider the swing from WCF to Finals to be pretty big. Less important since all of them were excellent, though.

Shaq ‘01
1st rd: 27 ppg at 113 ORtg
WCSF: 33.3 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCF: 27 ppg at 106 ORtg
Finals: 33 ppg at 115 ORtg

-6.3 ppg and -10 ORtg going from 2nd round to CF....

Kobe ‘02
1st rd: 26 ppg at 102 ORtg
WCSF: 26.2 ppg at 107 ORtg
WCF: 27.1 ppg at 103 ORtg
Finals: 26.8 ppg at 119 ORtg

ppg remarkably steady, but based on other factors (namely shooting efficiency and turnovers) we have a +/- 17 ORtg swing from his best to worst series this year.

Shaq ‘02
1st rd: 25.7 ppg at 119 ORtg
WCSF: 21.4 ppg at 100 ORtg
WCF: 30.3 ppg at 109 ORtg
Finals: 36.3 ppg at 126 ORtg

-4.3 ppg and -19 ORtg swing from 1st round to 2nd; and the bounce back up like a yo-yo in the final rounds. Variance of +/- 14.9 ppg and 26 ORtg between best and worst series this year.

Kobe ‘03
31.8 ppg at 113 ORtg
32.3 ppg at 103 ORtg

ppg again steady, but a -10 ORtg swing.

Kobe ‘04
1st round: 24.4 ppg at 111 ORtg
WCSF: 26.3 ppg at 103 ORtg
WCF: 24.3 ppg at 106 ORtg
Finals: 22.6 ppg at 90 ORtg

From best series to worst, the ppg swing is only +/- 1.8, but it's +/- 21 on ORtg.

Shaq ‘04
1st rd: 16.2 ppg at 95 ORtg
WCSF: 22.5 ppg at 111 ORtg
WCF: 20.7 ppg at 111 ORtg
Finals: 26.6 ppg at 111 ORtg

+/- 10.4 ppg and 16 ORtg difference between best and worst series here.


So as you can [hopefully] see, it's not hard to find series-to-series swings which are equal (if not larger) than the ones you outlined for Duncan. All you have to do is pick nearly any team that gets at least past the 1st round for a few years in a row, and scrutinize their stars' performance in each series. It's literally that easy to find examples (because this is just that commonplace).

In fact, I'll even demonstrate it is the case even for the guy you've been trying to prop up: Hakeem Olajuwon. Take a look at his series-to-series performance for each year of his prime in which they went PAST the first round:

Hakeem Olajuwon ‘87
1st rd: 27.3 ppg at 132 ORtg
WCSF: 30.5 ppg at 117 ORtg

Pretty big drop in ORtg, though I think you would agree it's pretty irrelevant because even the 2nd series is still quite elite.

Hakeem ‘93
1st round: 29.2 ppg at 115 ORtg
WCSF: 23.1 ppg at 109 ORtg

-6.1 ppg and -6 ORtg. 109 is down around average for that year in the NBA, too (league avg was 108 in rs that year).

Hakeem ‘94
1st round: 34.0 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCSF: 28.7 ppg at 107 ORtg
WCF: 27.8 ppg at 109 ORtg
Finals: 26.9 ppg at 105 ORtg

-7.1 ppg and -11 ORtg from best to worst.

Hakeem ‘95
1st round: 35.0 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCSF: 29.6 ppg at 104 ORtg
WCF: 35.3 ppg at 111 ORtg
Finals: 32.8 ppg at 107 ORtg

-5.4 ppg and -12 ORtg from 1st round to 2nd.

Hakeem ‘96
1st round: 26.5 ppg at 105 ORtg
2nd round: 18.3 ppg at 97 ORtg

^^Very similar to the swings you noted for Duncan (the swings you labeled "massive"); ppg swing even larger.


And as far as game-to-game swings, check out the difference between Game 3 and game 4 in the '95 WCF:

Game 3
Hakeem - 43 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 5 blk, 2 tov, 63.7% TS, 127 ORtg/122 DRtg (+5)
Game 4
Hakeem - 20 pts, 14 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 5 tov, 39.5% TS, 76 ORtg/105 DRtg (-29)

-23 pts, +1 ast, +3 tov, -24.2% TS, -51 ORtg. That's fairly substantial, to say the least.

And be aware I do not intend any of this to be a slant against Hakeem. This is all presented as evidence in support of the notion that the swings you're labeling as "massive" are, in fact, entirely routine.

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.

Yeah, I'll withdraw the comment calling 25 or 20 arbitrary. I suppose they technically are, but one cannot make the comparison you’re making without picking a cut-off; and though arbitrary, they make sense.
I guess what it is that I object to is the variable being scrutinized: raw ppg. I object because it's a category for which Hakeem has the advantage (both because no one is arguing Duncan is a better volume scorer, and also for contextual reasons, which I'll touch on below).

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.

Not sure I agree with your stance regarding supporting cast and situation. When we're scrutinizing individual ppg, better supporting casts (i.e. additional legit scoring options) means the star is going to get somewhat less primacy (and consequently his ppg is likely to go down). By '05, when Parker and Ginobili were really getting up to speed, I'd argue Duncan was "enjoying" less primacy than Hakeem had around his peak (to me, late '95---after Drexler arrived---is the only time in the sample you looked at where Hakeem had a legit second option). Really it boils down to the usage%, which are somewhat close (though clearly a little bit in Hakeem's favor).

As to your statement that slower pace leads to MORE scoring opportunities…...that is a patently false statement, at least if we’re talking about a per game basis. I guess that's how Wilt got nearly 40 FGA/G in '62 (>29 FGA/36 minutes).....because they were really taking their time to set up and get him the ball down low (except that their pace was 131.1).

There’s a nugget of truth to what you saying if referring to an increased proportion of shots (like per 100 possessions) to be given to your low-post scorer. But that doesn't translate into more shots PER GAME.

As it happens, I went thru from year-by-year from '74 to '08, selecting for PF's and C's who played at least 40 games and >27 mpg (basically isolating for starting big men in each year), and obtained an estimated average FGA/100 possessions and FTA/100 possessions (and thus the average true shooting attempts/100 possessions) for each year for PF/C’s. And long story short: the difference is not large enough to create the INVERSE relationship you are attempting to pass off as true.

e.g. if I look at the first 11 years post-merger ('77-'87) where the avg pace NEVER falls <100 (avg of 103.1 over those years), vs. the 11 recent years where the pace was <92 EVERY SINGLE YEAR (avg <91).......the difference is only 2.2 TSA/100 possessions (about 42.6 TSA/100 possessions for the slow-paced circa-2000 era, vs. 40.4 TSA/100 in those first 11 years post-merger.

The difference between the circa-2000 era and '93-'95 is......well, they actually averaged MORE attempts per 100 possessions in the mid-90’s, despite the higher pace. Part of that obviously is related to WHO is in the league at that time. But even if we determine the small pace shift from ~95 down to '90 does allow for +1 TSA/100 possessions for the slower era guys (which there’s nothing to suggest that’s the case, fwiw; it’s not like ~95 pace is so fast there’s no time for anything in the half-court; but just for the sake of argument…)......they'll still fall ~1 TSA/48 minutes BEHIND the guys who play a 95 pace (because those guys are getting 5 more possessions per game).

In short, your assertion is simply untrue on a per game basis (again: per game being what you’ve compared).

Now to address a couple of your points in short:

1.

So in 6 meetings, Robinson had the better game in 3-4 of them (vs. only 2 for Olajuwon).
Overall statlines in these six games:
Hakeem - 29.5 pts, 9.7 reb, 2.8 ast, 1.3 stl, 3.5 blk, 4.5 tov, 49.8% TS
93 ORtg/108.2 DRtg (-15.2)
^^^^This is substantially worse than he did against the rest of the field in the rs.
David - 22.2 pts, 10.3 reb, 3.3 ast, 2.2 stl, 2.8 blk, 3.7 tov, 52.7% TS
109 ORtg/99.8 DRtg (+9.2)
Spurs win rs series 5-1.

That's just poor analysis. D-Rob got thoroughly outplayed over the course of this matchup. He was outscored by 7 pts per game. Admittedly Hakeem didn't have great efficiency but you would have to take team structure into account. Rockets were dealing with some injuries in those games so it wasn't ideal environment. Still, when Robinson had a "better" game, it was by a tiny margin. When Hakeem had a better game, he outscored D-Rob by 20 pts. That's a huge difference.

'00 Kobe
1st rd: 27.8 ppg at 114 ORtg
WCSF: 21.0 ppg at 106 ORtg
WCF: 20.4 ppg at 109 ORtg
Finals: 15.6 ppg at 96 ORtg

Note the swing -6.8 ppg and -8 ORtg from 1st to 2nd round. Note then the -4.8 ppg and -13 ORtg swing from WCF to Finals (and that the difference from best series to worst is -12.2 ppg and -18 ORtg).

1st Rd was an outlier, Kobe wasn't playing at that level yet in 00. In the finals he was dealing with an injury for half the series. It doesn't make sense to even take that into account.

Shaq ‘01
1st rd: 27 ppg at 113 ORtg
WCSF: 33.3 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCF: 27 ppg at 106 ORtg
Finals: 33 ppg at 115 ORtg

-6.3 ppg and -10 ORtg going from 2nd round to CF....

First, not that big of a deal if you consider that Shaq was still playing extremely well in WCFs. He wasn't scoring 10, 12 pts like Duncan did in some of the key games. He wasn't scoring below 20 pts in most games. This was an elite frontline that did its job, but by no means Shaq was contained. That being said, his 2nd part of the series was actually quite poor when Sabonis was in the game. Still, nowhere near Duncan's performances vs. Grant/Malone/KG/Sheed/Chandler.

Hakeem ‘94
1st round: 34.0 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCSF: 28.7 ppg at 107 ORtg
WCF: 27.8 ppg at 109 ORtg
Finals: 26.9 ppg at 105 ORtg

-7.1 ppg and -11 ORtg from best to worst.

Hakeem ‘95
1st round: 35.0 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCSF: 29.6 ppg at 104 ORtg
WCF: 35.3 ppg at 111 ORtg
Finals: 32.8 ppg at 107 ORtg

-5.4 ppg and -12 ORtg from 1st round to 2nd.

Hakeem ‘96
1st round: 26.5 ppg at 105 ORtg
2nd round: 18.3 ppg at 97 ORtg

^^Very similar to the swings you noted for Duncan (the swings you labeled "massive"); ppg swing even larger.

First, in 96 Hakeem wasn't really healthy so I wouldn't take that into account. Other than that, by no means was it similar. Like I said in the beginning, there's a difference between a swing from 35 ppg to 27 ppg, than go from 27 to 19. Even in the worst series in that period (pick one), Hakeem was never struggling to score 20 pts like Duncan vs. quality defenders.

Think about this: Hakeem vs. Ewing and Robinson scored 25 pts in 11/13 games. Duncan vs. Sheed/KG/Chandler/Varejao/Malone/Grant scored 25 pts in 7/38 games. Huge difference.

[trex_8063]

Hakeem ‘95
1st round: 35.0 ppg at 116 ORtg
WCSF: 29.6 ppg at 104 ORtg
WCF: 35.3 ppg at 111 ORtg
Finals: 32.8 ppg at 107 ORtg

-5.4 ppg and -12 ORtg from 1st round to 2nd.


^^Very similar to the swings you noted for Duncan (the swings you labeled "massive"); ppg swing even larger.

.......by no means was it similar. Like I said in the beginning, there's a difference between a swing from 35 ppg to 27 ppg, than go from 27 to 19. Even in the worst series in that period (pick one), Hakeem was never struggling to score 20 pts like Duncan vs. quality defenders.

You have a definitive fixation on ppg averages when it comes to offensive performance. If someone scores 35 pts, but takes 32 FGA to do it, is that really a great offensive performance? Or what if he has 30 pts on something like 53% TS and 3 ast, but also has 5 tov.....is that really a great offensive performance?

Individual ORtg (while not a great stat, imo) is taking some of these factors into account. You noted an ORtg drop of 107 to 99 as a MASSIVE swing for Duncan. How is Olajuwon swinging from 116 down to 104 NOT a similarly huge offensive swing? (note that 104 is -4.3 to league avg for that year; 99 is only -4.0 to league avg for '01) It's OK because he still scored lots of points, is that it?