RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #5

[rebirthoftheM]

To add to the case against Duncan, does the lack of dominance of his championship squads in 99, 03, 05, and 07 aka during his prime, bother anyone?

The Spurs were at their most dominant in 14, when the offense was revolutionised to move away from Duncan Centric Land, and by 14, hell even 13, Duncan's minutes and overall role on the team had reduced far below other ATG players during their championship years (Kareem is probably the closest parallel). The Spurs best run with prime/peak Duncan was in 03, and even then, the dominance displayed by the team (especially in light of Dirk's Injury) is beneath many other championship runs from ATG greats. Even in 05, when he had Manu Balling out, the team was far less dominant than a lot of other championship squads led by ATGs.

I based this off looking at the ORTG/DRTG differential of his playoff squads, and then finding the differentials between them and the average Adjusted ORTG/DRTG of the teams he faced. I then accounted for the SRS of the playoff opponents he faced during those years, and then accounted for the standard deviation of the SRS of the opponents (to try and account for consistency of competition- a massive issue in the eastern conference as of late and the 80s west).

From all the years Duncan reached the WCF at the minimum from 99-14 (excluding 01 as I assume it is not pretty), I got:

14 Spurs (Historically Great)

13 Spurs (Strong runner-up)

03 Spurs
99 Spurs

05 Spurs
08 Spurs (WCF)
07 Spurs

99-07 batch rates lower than all of Jordan's Championship Bull Squads, 12 Heat & 16 Cavs, 15 Warriors, 11 Mavs and 08-10 Lakers amongst other things. LBJ's 17 Cavs, Curry's 16 Warriors also rate higher than Spurs 99, 05 & 07.

[Narigo]

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain
Second Vote: Tim Duncan

Wilt proably has the best stamina out of anyone in NBA History. Wilt usually play almost the entire game with almost little rest. He is usually called on to be best offense and defensive player for almost 48 minutes a night and for at least 72 or more games a season. That incredible. Not to mention, he was very impactful all the way to to his final season.

If Wilt played today, his prime would have lasted a bit longer. From 60-68 Wilt played a total of 33,044 minutes. From 00-10, Kobe Bryant played a total of 32,311. From 04-14 LeBron played a total of 33,276. I think you get my point. Wilt with reasonable mintues would have at least 10-12 prime seasons today.

I might edit more later

[drza]

Anywho, lost in all this chatter about how high Russell could jump (lol), next thread I'd appreciate some input on KG's 90's seasons. I feel like the prevailing thought on them is solid allstar level seasons, but not too special, but looking back at some stats/Minny's play at the time I feel that that take underrates him by quite a bit.

I'm with eminence - I want to see more about his 90's seasons.

This sounded interesting, especially since I've written quite a bit in previous threads about Duncan and I've written several posts in the last day about Wilt and how he compares. Since they're the two frontrunners for this spot, and so far no one's really engaged or pushed back on any of my recent posts, it seems like a good time to do something different. So, 90s KG. (I'm posting this very late on the night before this thread ends, so I'm likely to re-post it in the #6 thread).

KG graduated high school the same year that I did, so I paid attention that he was drafted. But I was going to school myself, Georgia Tech, so I didn't have as much time to watch the NBA as I had before and would in a few years. I got to Tech the same year as Stephon Marbury, who electrified campus, and when he went to the pros I paid more attention to his team...the Timberwolves, who the year before had drafted Garnett. So, let's step back a bit and look at Timberwolves history, and how KG came in and changed it. And try to get a better grip on what level his seasons were.

The Timberwolves were an expansion team that came into existence in 1990. Like almost all expansion teams, they basically reaked. In the three years before the 1995 season, they averaged 18 wins a year. In 1995 they won 21 games with a -8.22 SRS. Their main players to end the season was Isaiah Rider, Christian Laettner, Doug West and Tom Gugliotta.

KG as rookie, 95 - 96 season
In the 1995 draft, the Timberwolves became the first team to draft a player straight out of high school in decades. Garnett was a great prospect, but there was no template on what to expect from high schoolers. He started off the season coming off the bench. Googs, Rider, and Laettner were the main starters with Sam Mitchell and Terry Porter also in the mix. Here's a Youtube video of highlights from KG's first career game:

Watch on YouTube

There are some fun elements in this five minute video. First, it's incredible how skinny he is. Second, right from jump, he's playing small forward (he's guarding Walt Williams). He comes off the bench, but one of the announcers mentioned that in preseason he was the team's leading shot-blocker. He has a couple of really good passes, one of them a semi-no look on the break off a steal. And, he knocks down a 22-footer from the top of the key to show that he already had a solid jumper even straight out of high school.

KG came off the bench for the first 40 games of his rookie season, as the team tried to take it slow with him. In the games before he became a full-time starter (he did have one spot start in there), KG averaged 19.5 minutes per game, in which he scored 6.3 points (40.6% FG, 69% FT), grabbed 3.8 rebounds, dished 1.2 assists, blocked 0.9 shots, and added 0.8 steals with 1.2 turnovers. His average game score was 5.1. The Timberwolves were 11 - 29 in those 40 games (28% win percentage), similar to the pace that led them to their 21 - 61 record the year before (26% win percentage)

About halfway through the season, he moved into the starting line-up. And he immediately began to play more like a future impact player. Garnett was "all legs and arms", as my grandma used to say, and he was youthful exuberance. He started hitting the glass, and more aggressively looking for his shot. He was everywhere on defense, guarding everyone. In some of the Youtube games I came across, I saw him guarding every position. He has multiple plays guarding point guards (see next clip, against Boston, for him on Dee Brown on multiple plays). Against the Lakers, he guarded everyone from Magic Johnson to Elden Campbell. He was stupidly mobile for a 7-footer, and also seemed to have springs in his legs. He was aggressive on help defense, and since he defended everyone from point guards to centers, the angles of his help defense are unique. On offense, he was comfortable operating in the post with his back to the basket; his jumper was a bit flat, but he showed he could knock it down out to 22 feet; and he showed good court vision with a real willingness to pass. Here's a video from later in his rookie season, in his best scoring effort of the season against Boston.

Watch on YouTube

KG ended up with 33 points (14-for-21 FG, 5-for-6 FT), eight boards, four assists, three blocks, a steal and three turnovers. A few things I noticed in clip. The first two touches they show are both post-ups on the right block, and on consecutive moves he spins over opposite shoulders, making the resulting jumper in middle and getting fouled when he spun baseline. Also in this clip, he switches onto Dee Brown twice on D, once getting a steal and in the other forcing a contested jumper. He also, in the clip, has a nice on-ball blocked shot that he blocks softly to himself, then gets the rebound (and showboats a bit).

In the second half of the season, with Garnett starting, the Wolves went 15 - 27 (36% win percentage, but worse MOV than first half). In the 42 games after he became a full-time starter, Garnett would play 36.9 minutes per game, averaging 14.1 points (53% FG, 67% FT) with 8.5 boards, 2.4 assists, 2.3 blocks, 1.3 steals and 1.6 turnovers.

Second year, 96 - 97 season
After finishing the previous season 26 - 56, in the offseason the Wolves drafted Ray Allen, but swapped his rights on draft night for Marbury. Marbury and KG were friends from childhood, and were styled to be the next generation Stockton and Malone. Right away, it was clear that the Wolves were a different team. Led by KG, Marbury and Tom Gugliotta they started piling up wins at a rate unseen in franchise history (low bar, but still).

The only Youtube clip I can find for '97 is them against the Bulls. It was put together by a Bulls fan, but there are a few Wolves highlights in there.

Watch on YouTube

Some points of interest from clip. KG is being guarded mainly by Rodman, and at least in the plays shown in the clip, he was giving it to him. At about the 5:30 mark on the clip, then in a montage from about 8 minutes to about 9 minutes, it's just a sequence of KG post-ups, defended mainly by Rodman, where KG just does his drop-step and shoots right over him. Shows his comfort in scoring from the block, and out to the midrange jumper. Around 9:45, KG is guarding Pippen, but helps off onto Jordan (actually overhelps), and Pip goes to the rim and get sthe pass for an easy shot. At 12 minute mark, KG and Rodman get into a pogo contest for the rebound. It's interesting, because one of Rodman's strengths is the quickness of his jumps, but KG gets up and down just as quickly for three straight jumps and wins the match-up as Rodman knocks it out of bounds. This is the lead-up to the famous Rodman-kicks-cameraman incident.

On the season, Googs, KG and Marbury lead the squad. Gugliatta has by-far the best season of his career next to Garnett (a phenomenon that would be common in KG's career) and made his only All Star team (ditto); Marbury makes the All-Rookie team; Garnett makes his first All Star team as well; and the Wolves win a team-record 40 games and make the playoffs. In the postseason they face the Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler Rockets (57 - 25), and the young Wolves look happy just to be there as they are swept by the veterans.

On the season, Garnett averages 17 points (54% TS), 8 boards, 3.1 assists, 2.1 blocks, 1.4 steals and 2.3 turnovers. He leads the team in win shares, BPM and VORP while Googs leads the squad in PER.

Third year, 97 - 98 season
After the success of the year before, the Wolves entered the '98 season feeling like a team on the rise. Garnett and Marbury were a year older and more experienced, and Googs was looking to build on his All Star season. And for the first half of the season, things went fairly well according to schedule. Here's a Youtube clip from their game against the Bulls in that period, where the baby Wolves snuck a win over the 2-time defending champs.

Watch on YouTube

The Wolves straight-up out-energied them. In the clip, KG spent quite a lot of time on Jordan. Jordan quicked past him several times to score; KG ripped him clean once; on another, KG helped onto MJ and blocked his shot but teammate called for foul. KG was everywhere on the boards again, even in game featuring Rodman, and always sprinting the court. He hit clutch jumper with 30 seconds left to seal the upset.

At the 41 game mark, the Wolves were 24 - 17, on pace for by-far the best season in team history. Up to this point, Garnett was averaging 17.3 pts (50 % FG, 76% FT) with 9.1 boards, 4 asts, 2 TOs, 1.6 stl, 2 blk. But, at that very point, Googs had to leave to have surgery on bone spurs in his ankle. He wouldn't play another game that season, nor would he ever play another game in a Timberwolves uniform.

After Googs went down, Garnett had to take a more active role as both a scorer and rebounder. Over the last 41 games, in which the Wolves went 21 - 20, Garnett averaged 19.7 points (48% FG, 73% FT) with 10.1 boards, 4.5 assists, 2.7 TOs, 1.8 steals and 1.7 blocks.

The Wolves would finish with the best record in team history and make the playoffs, both accomplishments for the second straight year. Their reward was a match-up with the 61-win Sonics. In the playoffs Gary Payton gave Stephon Marbury fits, as Marbury struggled to average only 13.8 points on 30.6% FG% with 7.6 assists and 3.6 TOs (regular season, Steph had been 17.7 pts, 42% FG, 8.6 asts/3.1 TOs). And Googs was long gone, on the sidelines. But through four games, Garnett led his young squad toe-to-toe with the more powerful Sonics. Powered by his 18 points (52% FG, 86% FT), 11 boards, 4.3 assists, 3 TOs, 2.5 blocks & 0.8 steals, the Wolves went back to Seattle for the deciding Game 5 tied 2 - 2. Alas, they weren't ready for the big time yet. Garnett had a disastrous Game 5, scoring 7 points (27% FG, 50% FT) with only 4 boards, 3 assists and a whopping 10 turnovers. Terrible way to end the season, but on the whole was a very, very promising season.

In addition, 1998 is the first season that we have PI-RAPM for. Garnett's boxscore numbers were very good, especially for a 21-year old, but they weren't quite as good as the 1998 Rookie of the Year, Tim Duncan, who was in the process of taking the NBA by storm. Interestingly, though, it was Garnett that would finish 5th in the NBA in PI-RAPM for the year, behind Shaq, Zo, Mookie and Jordan and just ahead of Tim Hardaway, John Stockton and Karl Malone. Duncan would finish 23rd. Looking at the offense/defense breakdown, Garnett came in a very respectable 34th in ORAPM (slightly behind Duncan's 29th-place finish) that season. But it was in defensive impact where KG shined, finishing 14th (just behind Olajuwon). This would support the notion that Garnett's unique brand of versatile, be-everywhere defense was already making a bigger impact on his team's scoring margins than his box score stats would suggest (a trend that would be true for the length of his career).

Fourth year, 98 - 99 season

Garnett would get a huge contract extension in the offseason that many credit as the one that led directly to the NBA lockout. Also, it was widely rumored that Gugliotta and Marbury couldn't get along, and Googs would leave for Phoenix. The lockout lasted into 1999, a huge disruption, but eventually the league would start back up with a shortened, 50-game season planned. Through the first 18 games, Garnett and Marbury continued to show growth in their games (even if there was clear rust in their shots), as they led the Wolves to a 12 - 6 record out of the gates. Garnett was averaging 19.9 points (45% FG, 74% FT) with 11 boards, 4.3 assists, 2.8 TOs, 1.9 blocks and 2.5 steals. But, it turns out that Googs wasn't the only Wolves star that Steph couldn't get along with anymore. Amid swirling rumors that Marbury was jealous of Garnett's status as the franchise player, Marbury would force a trade that sent him to New Jersey. The Timberwolves could have accepted a young Sam Cassell back in the trade, but instead opted for a talented but injured point guard named Terrell Brandon.

Over the next 32 games, the Wolves would struggle to re-find their balance without Marbury. Brandon only played in 21 of the games as he nursed his injuries, and KG would miss three games as well. The Wolves would close the season 13 - 19, to end the season .500 and make the playoffs for the third straight season. In the last 29 regular season games he played that year, Garnett increased his scoring but saw his blocks fall off the table to the tune of 21.3 pts (47% FG, 67% FT), 10 reb, 4.3 ast, 2.9 TO, 1.5 stl, 1.3 blks.

In the playoffs, the Wolves would get the #1 seeded (and soon-to-be NBA champion) Spurs. While the Wolves were clearly outclassed, this gave us our first Garnett vs Duncan head-to-head match-up in the playoffs. They wouldn't disappoint. The Spurs won the series 3 - 1, but the 8th-seeded Wolves challenged them more than any of their higher-seeded foes on the way to their championship. In the head-to-head:

Duncan averaged: 18.8 points (51.8% TS), 10.8 reb, 3.3 ast, 3 blk, 0.8 steal, 1.8 TO
Garnett averaged: 21.8 points (48.9% TS), 12 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 blk, 1.5 steal, 3.3 TO

For the rest of the playoffs, Duncan would have much more success scoring than he had against Garnett...

Duncan (after 1st rd): 24.6 points (58.7% TS), 11.7 reb, 2.7 ast, 2.5 blk, 0.8 stl, 3.5 TO

This is also the second year we have of PI-RAPM, and again Garnett shined there. Garnett finished 6th in the league in PI-RAPM in 1999 (Duncan improved to 10th). Looking at the breakdown, again Garnett finished slightly behind Duncan in offensive RAPM (34th, vs Duncan's 30th) but ahead in defensive RAPM (Garnett 8th, again essentially tied with Olajuwon, with Duncan 31st).

Summary
Garnett played four full seasons in the 90s. Almost all of them had some sort of big shake-up mid-season, and we can see his production and the team's outlook change with each one. As far as accolades, he was a two-time All Star (but, there was no All Star Game during lockout-shortened 1999, which would have been his third selection). He made 2nd team All Rookie in 1996, and 3rd team All NBA in 1999.

KG showed the tools that he would build upon, from his first game. His combination of length and mobility may just be unprecedented in NBA history, as not only was he playing small forward at 7-foot, but he was spending legitimate numbers of possessions defending guards (in the video clips, we saw him 1-on-1 several times on Jordan and Dee Brown). He was playing a lot of help defense all over the court, starting to show his rebounding chops, and generally being a nuissance on defense. He also showed a great comfortability and repertoire of post moves on offense, had soft touch on his fadeaway and mid-range jumper, and displayed range out to 22 feet. He also had great court vision and was a willing passer.

Just as they would in his prime, these tools helped him put up strong boxscore numbers. However, just like in his prime, his on-court impact was clearly better than those numbers. Playing next to KG, Gugliotta had the best season of his career and made his only All Star game. Marbury was looking electric, like a superstar in his own right, but after he left Garnett he would go on to be a marginal impact player at pretty much every stop for the rest of his career.

Garnett would finish 5th and 6th in PI-RAPM for 1998 and 1999, demonstrating the big impact that he was having on his team's scoring margins even as a very young player. Early in his career, it was his defensive impact that would outpace his offense. While that flipped in his prime in Minnesota, he returned to that defensive bent later in his career with the Celtics.

We also got our first Garnett/Duncan head-to-head playoffs match-up in the 90s, and KG more than held his own (if only someone could have neutralized that Robinson guy, it may have been a more interesting series).

All told, not a bad first few years at all for a guy that would still be making strong impacts out to at least year 18.

[drza]

Oh yeah, my vote.

1st: Kevin Garnett
2nd: Tim Duncan

With the sheer number of words in the previous post (as well as my various Duncan & Garnett posts in the project thus far), I'm not planning to add more words here unless TRex says I have to.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Yes, ok, so arguments for:

5) Wilt
6) Magic

I can see the main issue this round is probably Wilt v. Duncan, so I'll angle toward that.

I truly consider this to be rather obvious: Wilt Chamberlain, was greater, more dominant, more important than Tim Duncan. By quite a lot actually. There is the huge era question, but of course that is there with Russell too, and to a lesser degree with Kareem.

You have a player that basically led the NBA in everything for 7 straight seasons to start his career, THEN, the narrative goes, he got serious and started just winning it all by doing something else unprecedented. Then he capped things by turning into Bill Russell as an old man for another GOAT level team.

It was a different era, stats were inflated etc. etc. But everybody's stats being inflated does not explain how Wilt would actually LEAD the league in points for 7 straight years. And more amazingly, lead the league in FG% 4 times in those 7 years. Oh, and lead the league in rebounding 5 of the first 7 years (and 11 of his 14 years overall).

In the modern era we've never seen anything like that level of dominance. To illustrate just how ludicrous dominance of that level looks like I've prepared a little demonstration here. I'm taking Wilt's numbers every year of his first 7 years in the NBA, comparing it to the #2 guy in the NBA during that era (i.e. in 1962-83 Wilt averaged 44.8ppg, the #2 scorer Elgin Baylor averaged 34.0ppg) to produce a percentage gap, and then I'm going to apply it to the modern era to show you what it would look like if a player did that today (if Wilt was #2 or lower in a stat, I'll adjust the percentage the other way).

I'll include my work in invisible ink below each season.

So here's what we get from a new era Wilt Chamberlain, 2010-2017:

2010-11: 33.5pts (.600FG%) 17.2reb
37.6/31.2 (Twyman)=x1.21 .461/.477 (Sears)=x.97 27.0/24.0 (Russell)=x1.13
2011-12: 30.8pts (.710FG%) 16.5reb
38.4/34.8pts (Baylor)=x1.10 .509/.488 (Twyman)=x1.04 27.2/23.9 (Russell)=x1.14
2012-13: 45.9pts (.624FG%) 13.5reb
50.4/31.6pts (Bellamy)=x1.60 .505/.519 (Bellamy)=x0.97 25.6/23.6 (Russell)=x1.09
2013-14: 42.2pts (.677FG%) 14.0reb
44.8/34.0pts (Baylor)=x1.32 .528/.527 (Bellamy)=x1.00 24.3/23.6 (Russell)=x1.03
2014-15: 33.2pts (.706FG%) 13.5reb
36.9/31.4 (Oscar)=x1.18 .524/.527 (Lucas)=x0.99 22.3/24.7 (Russell)=x0.90
2015-16: 33.7pts (.705FG%) 14.1reb
34.7/31.0 (West)=x1.12 .510/509 (Bellamy)=x1.00 22.9/24.1 (Russell)=x0.95
2016-17: 33.8pts (.778FG%) 15.2reb
33.5/31.3 (West)=x1.07 .540/.536 (Green)=x1.01 24.6/22.8 (Russell)=x1.08

That is what all time greatness looks like. Even if he couldn't get past Golden State. That player is untouchable. And that is what I think these super-GOAT candidates have to be. So beyond the normal player that guys facing them aren't even trying to beat them, have no idea of outperforming them, they are just trying to hang on and avoid the poster. Jordan was that way, LeBron was that way, maybe Shaq at his peak, magic leading the Showtime break. And Wilt. Wilt scared the beejeesus out of people, and he should have. Comparatively a great player like Duncan is just conventional. Just one of the greats. But he wasn't otherworldly. Wilt was.

[Dr Positivity]

To add to the case against Duncan, does the lack of dominance of his championship squads in 99, 03, 05, and 07 aka during his prime, bother anyone?

The Spurs were at their most dominant in 14, when the offense was revolutionised to move away from Duncan Centric Land, and by 14, hell even 13, Duncan's minutes and overall role on the team had reduced far below other ATG players during their championship years (Kareem is probably the closest parallel). The Spurs best run with prime/peak Duncan was in 03, and even then, the dominance displayed by the team (especially in light of Dirk's Injury) is beneath many other championship runs from ATG greats. Even in 05, when he had Manu Balling out, the team was far less dominant than a lot of other championship squads led by ATGs.

I based this off looking at the ORTG/DRTG differential of his playoff squads, and then finding the differentials between them and the average Adjusted ORTG/DRTG of the teams he faced. I then accounted for the SRS of the playoff opponents he faced during those years, and then accounted for the standard deviation of the SRS of the opponents (to try and account for consistency of competition- a massive issue in the eastern conference as of late and the 80s west).

From all the years Duncan reached the WCF at the minimum from 99-14 (excluding 01 as I assume it is not pretty), I got:

14 Spurs (Historically Great)

13 Spurs (Strong runner-up)

03 Spurs
99 Spurs

05 Spurs
08 Spurs (WCF)
07 Spurs

99-07 batch rates lower than all of Jordan's Championship Bull Squads, 12 Heat & 16 Cavs, 15 Warriors, 11 Mavs and 08-10 Lakers amongst other things. LBJ's 17 Cavs, Curry's 16 Warriors also rate higher than Spurs 99, 05 & 07.

It's a fair point and more proof of "lack of dominance" for the Spurs core is that they lost to 04 Lakers and 06 Mavericks. Presumably, a truly dominant Spurs era should had taken a team like those two. Is the biggest reason the Spurs didn't 3peat when they had the right players and right timing, that peak Duncan wasn't on the level peak Shaq, Bird or Wilt? Possibly. OTOH it's a team sport and it's hard to just pin the team results all on one player, especially when his team was champion level successful anyways. The missing link between them and dominance could be something like "Parker wasn't as good as his boxscore" (logical based on both his good but not great RAPM performances at the time, old Parker doing not holding up well in RPM, and in general +/- results of players who don't impact the game as floor stretchers or defenders off the ball) as anything to with Duncan for all we know. Bowen's RAPM career is mediocre for usual 3 and D standards, it appears his offensive weaknesses were so big that it outweighed being able to hit wide open 3s at 40%. It their impact wasn't quite as big as a real HOF caliber PG and awesome 3 and D guy it makes more sense that Spurs didn't dominate. I'm pretty confident thinking Duncan and Manu could be the top 2 on an ultra dominant team, they were the top 2 players in RAPM in 2005 and both in top 3 in 2006 and 2007, top 4 in 2008. Both have no diminishing returns problems on teams with other all-stars. Curry/Draymond level combo, but the rest of the team isn't as stacked as the Warriors

[Dr Positivity]

Yes, ok, so arguments for:

5) Wilt
6) Magic

I can see the main issue this round is probably Wilt v. Duncan, so I'll angle toward that.

I truly consider this to be rather obvious: Wilt Chamberlain, was greater, more dominant, more important than Tim Duncan. By quite a lot actually. There is the huge era question, but of course that is there with Russell too, and to a lesser degree with Kareem.

You have a player that basically led the NBA in everything for 7 straight seasons to start his career, THEN, the narrative goes, he got serious and started just winning it all by doing something else unprecedented. Then he capped things by turning into Bill Russell as an old man for another GOAT level team.

It was a different era, stats were inflated etc. etc. But everybody's stats being inflated does not explain how Wilt would actually LEAD the league in points for 7 straight years. And more amazingly, lead the league in FG% 4 times in those 7 years. Oh, and lead the league in rebounding 5 of the first 7 years (and 11 of his 14 years overall).

In the modern era we've never seen anything like that level of dominance. To illustrate just how ludicrous dominance of that level looks like I've prepared a little demonstration here. I'm taking Wilt's numbers every year of his first 7 years in the NBA, comparing it to the #2 guy in the NBA during that era (i.e. in 1962-83 Wilt averaged 44.8ppg, the #2 scorer Elgin Baylor averaged 34.0ppg) to produce a percentage gap, and then I'm going to apply it to the modern era to show you what it would look like if a player did that today (if Wilt was #2 or lower in a stat, I'll adjust the percentage the other way).

I'll include my work in invisible ink below each season.

So here's what we get from a new era Wilt Chamberlain, 2010-2017:

2010-11: 33.5pts (.600FG%) 17.2reb
37.6/31.2 (Twyman)=x1.21 .461/.477 (Sears)=x.97 27.0/24.0 (Russell)=x1.13
2011-12: 30.8pts (.710FG%) 16.5reb
38.4/34.8pts (Baylor)=x1.10 .509/.488 (Twyman)=x1.04 27.2/23.9 (Russell)=x1.14
2012-13: 45.9pts (.624FG%) 13.5reb
50.4/31.6pts (Bellamy)=x1.60 .505/.519 (Bellamy)=x0.97 25.6/23.6 (Russell)=x1.09
2013-14: 42.2pts (.677FG%) 14.0reb
44.8/34.0pts (Baylor)=x1.32 .528/.527 (Bellamy)=x1.00 24.3/23.6 (Russell)=x1.03
2014-15: 33.2pts (.706FG%) 13.5reb
36.9/31.4 (Oscar)=x1.18 .524/.527 (Lucas)=x0.99 22.3/24.7 (Russell)=x0.90
2015-16: 33.7pts (.705FG%) 14.1reb
34.7/31.0 (West)=x1.12 .510/509 (Bellamy)=x1.00 22.9/24.1 (Russell)=x0.95
2016-17: 33.8pts (.778FG%) 15.2reb
33.5/31.3 (West)=x1.07 .540/.536 (Green)=x1.01 24.6/22.8 (Russell)=x1.08

That is what greatness looks like. Even if he couldn't get past Golden State. That player is untouchable. And that is what I think these super-GOAT candidates have to be. So beyond the normal player that guys facing them aren't even trying to beat them, have no idea of outperforming them, they are just trying to hang on and avoid the poster. Jordan was that way, LeBron was that way, maybe Shaq at his peak, magic leading the Showtime break. And Wilt. Wilt scared the beejeesus out of people, and he should have. Comparatively a great player like Duncan is just conventional. Just one of the greats. But he wasn't otherworldly. Wilt was.

Thanks for this and damn, Wilt was a ridiculous scorer

[rebirthoftheM]

Spoiler:

To add to the case against Duncan, does the lack of dominance of his championship squads in 99, 03, 05, and 07 aka during his prime, bother anyone?

The Spurs were at their most dominant in 14, when the offense was revolutionised to move away from Duncan Centric Land, and by 14, hell even 13, Duncan's minutes and overall role on the team had reduced far below other ATG players during their championship years (Kareem is probably the closest parallel). The Spurs best run with prime/peak Duncan was in 03, and even then, the dominance displayed by the team (especially in light of Dirk's Injury) is beneath many other championship runs from ATG greats. Even in 05, when he had Manu Balling out, the team was far less dominant than a lot of other championship squads led by ATGs.

I based this off looking at the ORTG/DRTG differential of his playoff squads, and then finding the differentials between them and the average Adjusted ORTG/DRTG of the teams he faced. I then accounted for the SRS of the playoff opponents he faced during those years, and then accounted for the standard deviation of the SRS of the opponents (to try and account for consistency of competition- a massive issue in the eastern conference as of late and the 80s west).

From all the years Duncan reached the WCF at the minimum from 99-14 (excluding 01 as I assume it is not pretty), I got:

14 Spurs (Historically Great)

13 Spurs (Strong runner-up)

03 Spurs
99 Spurs

05 Spurs
08 Spurs (WCF)
07 Spurs

99-07 batch rates lower than all of Jordan's Championship Bull Squads, 12 Heat & 16 Cavs, 15 Warriors, 11 Mavs and 08-10 Lakers amongst other things. LBJ's 17 Cavs, Curry's 16 Warriors also rate higher than Spurs 99, 05 & 07.

It's a fair point and more proof of "lack of dominance" for the Spurs core is that they lost to 04 Lakers and 06 Mavericks. Presumably, a truly dominant Spurs era should had taken a team like those two. Is the biggest reason the Spurs didn't 3peat when they had the right players and right timing, that peak Duncan wasn't on the level peak Shaq, Bird or Wilt? Possibly. OTOH it's a team sport and it's hard to just pin the team results all on one player, especially when his team was champion level successful anyways. The missing link between them and dominance could be something like "Parker wasn't as good as his boxscore" (logical based on both his good but not great RAPM performances at the time, old Parker doing not holding up well in RPM, and in general +/- results of players who don't impact the game as floor stretchers or defenders off the ball) as anything to with Duncan for all we know. Bowen's RAPM career is mediocre for usual 3 and D standards, it appears his offensive weaknesses were so big that it outweighed being able to hit wide open 3s at 40%. It their impact wasn't quite as big as a real HOF caliber PG and awesome 3 and D guy it makes more sense that Spurs didn't dominate. I'm pretty confident thinking Duncan and Manu could be the top 2 on an ultra dominant team, they were the top 2 players in RAPM in 2005 and both in top 3 in 2006 and 2007, top 4 in 2008. Both have no diminishing returns problems on teams with other all-stars. Curry/Draymond level combo, but the rest of the team isn't as stacked as the Warriors

You hit it on the nail, which is what I've been trying to get at. We generally understand that we can't simply equate team success= better player because it'd be unfair, and therefore we don't punish TD in 06 because we all know he did all he could v the Mavericks, especially coming back from an injury riddled season. But by that same token... we shouldn't heap all praises on someone for his team successes or not provide other players with the same beneficial approach. TD seems to get special treatment in this respect... He gets it either directly (he is the reason why their D was so great, which is partially true, but of course we know the Spurs system and culture+ their excellent role players over the years enabled this) or indirectly (i.e. he fostered such a great culture that they keep on winning even though he is retired). If the same approach was applied to other ATGS then I'd like like fair enough... at least it is consistent. But it most certainly is not, as many resort back to "favorable circumstances" argument with other players. I doubt any other ATG would get the passes like TD (and in an earlier post I laid out some of his individual failures in the RS, which seemingly is ignored). Heck his 04 performance v the Lakers, after taking a 2-0 lead and getting back swept is ignored completely. Dude went 4/14 in game 3, 5/13 in game 4 and 7/18 in game 6, all losses, yet we hear/see no scrutiny.

TD more so than any other dude (other than perhaps Bill Russell- i wonder what they share in common?) seemingly gets the benefit of the doubt when things mess up on his end, and when it goes good, it is primarily because of his unselfishness and leadership. I just find this particular approach misplaced.

As for Bowen, he was perfect for the Duncan-Centric team of the early/mid 00s Spurs, and therefore his offensive liability was not a biggie since the Spurs didn't even care for much/were a so-so offensive team in the PS. Without Bowen in 03 for example, they have nobody to contain Kobe, which probably leads to a Lakers win. His role was quite significant given their particular structure.

The problem with the TD centric team structure, particularly on offense, is that it never created the levels of dominance we've seen from other ATGs with their squads in the PS, and it has almost everything to do with the underwhelming Spurs offense during TD's peak/prime. At this level of comparison, we need to nit-pick between the greats, and therefore merely leading teams to rings is not going to suffice. Dominance is what matters here. And what we know is that Spurs demonstrated great dominance in the PS, the likes of which even the 05 and 07 Spurs, who were stocked with talent could not come close to matching, only after they revolutionized their offense and TD in general was playing sub 30mpg and was not featured as much on that end. Literally the Spurs reached new heights when TD was past-prime. This would indictment against any other player (e.g. Wilt) but not for TD.

Meanwhile someone like Shaq, who gets scrutinized a lot (and I myself scrutinize himself for his toxic behavior) in 00 and 02, when he was the undisputed best player on his squad, lead more dominant RS runs (well in the case of 00, only slightly better especially when you consider Kobe was injured for most of the finals and was but an all-star that year) than anything TD did between 99-07. The 99, 05 and 07 Spurs were no more less talented than the 00 and 02 Lakers. The 02 Lakers in particular were nothing special at all in terms of depth, and really were not structured well.

And forget about 01, when Shaq co-anchored the most dominant PS run we've seen in modern history.

TD ain't the only dude who has multiple rings. But there are several players IMO who anchored their squads to more dominance, and given this, his consistency shouldn't override everything else.

Seems like he is about to sweep Shaq, but I'm really surprised by this. During their primes, barely anybody thought the two were on equal levels.

[eminence]

I see that all the time now "During their primes nobody thought Duncan was on Shaq's level". And I don't know who y'all were hanging out with, but outside of LA that certainly wasn't the case. MVP finishes from '98 to '05.

Shaq-4 Duncan-5
Duncan-3 Shaq-6
Shaq-1 Duncan-5
Duncan-2 Shaq-3
Duncan-1 Shaq-3
Duncan-1 Shaq-5
Duncan-2 Shaq-6
Shaq-2 Duncan-4

Shaq average - 3.75
Duncan average - 2.875

RPOY over the same time period

Shaq-3 Duncan-6
Duncan-1 Shaq-2
Shaq-1 Duncan-6
Shaq-1 Duncan-2
Shaq-1 Duncan-2
Duncan-1 Shaq-5
Duncan-2 Shaq-3
Duncan-1 Shaq-4

Shaq average - 2.5
Duncan average - 2.625

If that isn't two players with similarly perceived primes I don't know who is.

[Jaivl]

Vote: Kevin Garnett
Second vote: Tim Duncan

Not really much to say yet.

[eminence]

Back on track and voting with micah

Vote: Tim Duncan
Feel like I've done this a couple times now, but the reasons I am so high on Duncan:
-Defensive longevity and effectiveness. In his prime on a tier with anyone not named Russell, and stayed effective on that end longer than anyone (though KG is close).
-Very good offensive player who played his roles quite effectively. Had a back to the basket and a face up game, moved the ball from anywhere on the court. Game meshed well with others.
-Intangibles/off-court as good as anyone.

Alternate: Kevin Garnett
-drza's excellent review of 90's KG is enough to make me feel good about this one.
-Had an entire career in Minnesota that would put him in the top 15 alltime, and then came around and had some more great great seasons in Boston as well.
-Like Duncan an absolutely top tier defender with a very good offensive game that meshes well with others.
-Below Duncan due to some injury issues and fading just a bit earlier (no Pop to keep him fresh).

[andrewww]

If Lebron is considered the more consistently dominant playe ranked ahead of Duncan, it does raise a question of (selective) winning bias for Duncan when his teams were generally inferior to the Lakers, and I do think It seems the lion's share of the success is credited to Duncan when the last 3 Finals squads in 07/13/14 could realistically have seen 3 different FMVPs not named Duncan (Manu/Green/Kawhi). Compare that to the top heavy Lakers and its a surprise to me that Shaq and Kobe have literally zero mentions for consideration at this time in the project, and all 3 (Shaq/Kobe/Duncan) are generally considered the best players of the 2000s. Didnt alot of posters say Duncan is KG (offensively but with a better post game, but less rangy defensively though both are more defense-first imo), and if so if you are being consistent then Duncan AND KG would both be above everyone else on the project.

Seems there is growing herd mentality for those whom we selectively give credit to for winning but not other players who were just as accomplishe and with greater peaks.

[Gibson22]

So currently Wilt got 9, Duncan 8, with a pending vote for Duncan (he said he will explain the vote later). How many hours left? I'm rooting for Wilt cause eventually MJ KAJ LBJ BILL WILT are the players in my top 5 (even if I would swap wilt and bill, lebron and kareem). I'm rooting really hard for wilt, actually, I'm going to kill myself if he doesn't get this fifth place.

[Senior]

Offense
I'm going to again present some comparison of his data (mostly just the offensive figures) vs Hakeem, who is almost universally considered a better offensive big (some would have us believe by a large margin, too)....

Peak Olajuwon '93-’94
Per 100 poss (rs): 33.6 pts, 4.5 ast, 4.1 tov @ 57.10% ts (+3.89% to league)
PER 26.3, .222 WS/48, 111 ORtg/96 DRtg (+15), BPM +7.0 in 40.2 mpg
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 34.3 pts, 5.5 ast, 4.5 tov @ 56.8% ts (+3.6% to league)
PER 27.3, .213 WS/48, 110 ORtg/97 DRtg (+13) in 43.1 mpg

Peak Duncan '02-’03
Per 100 poss (rs): 32.5 pts, 5.1 ast, 4.2 tov @ 57.03% ts (+5.04% to league)
PER 27.0, .253 WS/48,113 ORtg/95 DRtg (+18), BPM +6.9 in 39.9 mpg
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 32.2 pts, 6.6 ast, 4.3 tov @ 56.9% ts (+4.9% to league)
PER 29.3, .270 WS/48, 114 ORtg/93 DRtg (+21) in 42.5 mpg


Career Olajuwon
Per 100 possessions (rs): 30.3 pts, 3.4 ast, 4.1 tov @ 55.3% TS (+2.13% rTS)
PER 23.6, .177 WS/48, 108 ORtg/98 DRtg (+10), +4.9 BPM in 35.7 mpg
Per 100 possessions (playoffs): 33.7 pts, 4.1 ast, 3.8 tov @ 56.9% TS
PER 25.7, .189 WS/48, 112 ORtg/101 DRtg (+11), +7.1 BPM in 39.6 mpg

Career Duncan
Per 100 possessions (rs): 29.7 pts, 4.7 ast, 3.8 tov @ 55.1% TS (+1.98% rTS)
PER 24.2, .209 WS/48, 110 ORtg/96 DRtg (+14), +5.5 BPM in 34.0 mpg
Per 100 possessions (playoffs): 29.7 pts, 4.4 ast, 3.6 tov @ 54.8% TS
PER 24.3, .194 WS/48, 110 ORtg/99 DRtg (+11), +5.9 BPM in 37.3 mpg

In short, Duncan is much better offensive player than he's often given credit for.

Wanted to respond to this. I don't agree with using PER100 numbers to extrapolate post players because post players tend to thrive more in slower paces to begin with. Because the process of posting up is generally slow already, increasing the pace tends to actually take away from a strong post player's touches. Both guys put up more points on slower teams (check 88-92 Rockets vs 93-95). Duncan was on a team with guards that knew how to execute well, so it's not like you had guys breaking plays and doing whatever they wanted. They were doing the right thing by playing through Tim, but it didn't hurt his production.

A team like Seattle even tried to increase the pace to bait Houston's guards into not playing through Hakeem. Look at this article from Game 1 1993 WCSF:

Lacking alternatives, Karl went to a small lineup, and watched his club run up a 91-77 lead that proved to be too much to overcome with 7:07 remaining in a defensive matchup.

"That's sometimes how good coaches are made," Karl conceded.

Well, looky here. Like spying a dollar bill on the sidewalk, the Sonics may have stumbled across yet another look to toss at Olajuwon, the Rockets' superstar center. Call it the no-look.

Because, in this scheme, Olajuwon doesn't get to look at the ball.

With the smaller unit able to force the tempo, the Sonics ripped off nine unanswered points - the first five from Johnson, the last four from Pierce. The Sonics, as everybody knows, are at their best when things get crazy. The Rockets, on the other hand, have Olajuwon, so playing crazy usually is just plain insane.

"They're kind of an in-between team," Kloppenburg said. "They'll run, if they get the opportunities. But they mostly want the power game."

But there's nothing powerful about turnovers and wild three-pointers, which the Rockets produced when induced into an up-and-down game.

"If they're playing that way," said Johnson, who scored the Sonics' first 11 points of the fourth quarter and finished with 20, "they tend, at times, to forget about Hakeem."

Bingo.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930511&slug=1700685
For these reasons I cannot agree with using per100.

Hakeem's offensive skillset has a significant edge on Tim's. He was a better shooter, better FT shooter, more athleticism allowing him to overcome defenders more easily, better at handling doubles, similar passers, more spots where he was effective.

Most importantly, he was able to handle a larger offensive load on more resilient offenses. At Hakeem's 3 year peak he was doing 30 PPG on 56% TS against strong defensive teams. Duncan's best year of 2002 was at 28 PPG and his efficiency went into the tank against LA. His other best years are around 25 ppg.

[eminence]

Hakeem's offensive skillset has a significant edge on Tim's. He was a better shooter, better FT shooter, more athleticism allowing him to overcome defenders more easily, better at handling doubles, similar passers, more spots where he was effective.

Most importantly, he was able to handle a larger offensive load on more resilient offenses. At Hakeem's 3 year peak he was doing 30 PPG on 56% TS against strong defensive teams. Duncan's best year of 2002 was at 28 PPG and his efficiency went into the tank against LA. His other best years are around 25 ppg.

Commenting on the '02 Duncan series, and just my opinion, but it seemed pretty clearly a result of the refs 'letting them play' so to speak. He was still the most efficient/highest volume scorer in that series, over Kobe and Shaq. Hakeem wouldn't have been dropping 30 ppg on decent efficiency either in my estimation.

Also, lol at the better FT shooter, it's true, but 71% vs 70%. (Duncan in '02 actually shot better from the line than Hakeem ever did).

[Senior]

Commenting on the '02 Duncan series, and just my opinion, but it seemed pretty clearly a result of the refs 'letting them play' so to speak. He was still the most efficient/highest volume scorer in that series, over Kobe and Shaq. Hakeem wouldn't have been dropping 30 ppg on decent efficiency either in my estimation.

I don't know about how the ref tendencies went (would have to re-watch series). I do know that both teams killed each other defensively, and maybe the defensive rules played a part.

But think about the criticism Duncan got for fading late in games allowing LA to come back (SA led going into the 4th 2-3 games and lost 4-1), think about those 9/30 and 9/26 games, and think about how LA wasn't an amazing defense (especially considering their weak PF spot, LA was -2.8 DRTG in RS). Compare that to something like the 94 Finals against NY (-8.8 DRTG), filthy frontline of Ewing/Oak/Mason, perimeter defense handchecking his guards into oblivion...and Hakeem still gets 27 PPG on 56% TS. That's a better offensive performance than anything Duncan did considering the caliber of defense he faced, and when you consider his spotty track record against strong individual defenders (01 LA vs Grant, 04 LA vs Malone, 05 vs Wallace Bros), he pales in comparison to Hakeem.

Really, the only team that saw defensive success against Hakeem at his peak was the 93 Sonics (still got like 23 PPG/57% TS) but his efficiency didn't drop because they won by keeping the ball away from him - and that might not have worked had the Rockets had better or more creative guard play. Once he had the ball he was converting at a normal rate. But he killed the Jazz, killed the Spurs, killed basically everyone else. Even before his peak of 93-95 he was doing great against the likes of the Mavs and 86 Celtics. His weakness was something every post player has - you have more flexibility with how to defend them and you can get the ball away from them - and even then I believe Hakeem was better in this area because his ballhandling and range are superior to your typical center.

edit: missed the FT shooting thing, guess that was wrong. I stand by the better shooter/more range comment though. Duncan didn't really have that range as well as Hakeem when he was in his prime.

[colts18]

Oh yeah, my vote.

1st: Kevin Garnett
2nd: Tim Duncan

With the sheer number of words in the previous post (as well as my various Duncan & Garnett posts in the project thus far), I'm not planning to add more words here unless TRex says I have to.

What's the argument for KG ahead of Shaq?

[LA Bird]

1. Tim Duncan
His prime is underrated due to the Spurs slow pace deflating his box scores but this is partly offset by him playing relatively low minutes each season right after his peak. Honestly, I think Duncan peaking near the same period as Shaq who was more popular and a much better offensive player is what hurt the public perception of his prime more than anything else in retrospect. Incredible defensive longevity as the 2nd greatest defensive player of all time. Great leader and some nice articles from ThaRegul8r in earlier rounds about his ongoing impact on the franchise even post-career but I will need to think about applying some form of time discounting before giving him a perpetual bonus in the leadership category.

2. Shaquille O'Neal
Over his career, Shaq is the best offensive center in history. The value of each of his individual seasons is hurt slightly by the missed regular season games but his offensive production was consistently excellent even against tough defenses and he has the elite team offensive results to show for it. Defense is generally disappointing though and I have him ranked closer on that end to top perimeter defenders (eg. LeBron/Jordan) than the best defensive centers.

Somewhat surprised by the sudden rise in Wilt votes since there wasn't any in round 3 when I last voted.

[andrewww]

I'm sure you would consider Hakeem the better offensive player (especially when called upon to score in volume), which the stats support

Yes, I agree when called upon to "carry the load" and score in volume, I've more faith in Hakeem's ability there (especially as it pertains to scaling up in the playoffs as needed). I often object to the implied gap, though.
As to the "stats supporting" this, in part this is in relation to what you later mentioned regarding Duncan being called upon less to score in extreme volume (so naturally his scoring "stats" will look a pinch lower as a result).

Perhaps you couldn't construct an elite offense with Duncan taking up large volumes of the scoring.....but on the flip-side there's evidence to suggest you couldn't with Hakeem in that position either. The best offense the Rockets ever managed prior to a post-prime Charles Barkley's arrival was +1.7 rORTG. fwiw, the '02 and '03 Spurs (outstanding defensive supporting cast, somewhat average offensive supporting cast, and Duncan carrying 28-29% usage both years) had a +2.0 rORTG both years.

, and the better defender.

I think Hakeem's defensive peak was a little higher; for whole careers......I might still go with Hakeem, but it's close. His defensive effectiveness was slipping at the end, whereas Duncan managed to be a valuable defensive player right up to the very end.

Hakeem had the ultra-athleticism to interrupt passing lanes and create turnovers better; that same athleticism allowed him to block more shots, too. However, Hakeem would sometimes go for the grand-standing swat, or was sometimes coming from away from the play (again: that athleticism) to where a block out of bounds was the only thing he could do. Not saying he swatted all of them out of bounds; but I am saying I suspect his team recovered a smaller proportion of them than Duncan's.

Duncan is probably the best of his generation at keeping the block in play (see if I can find the article about his later). He's more of the Bill Russell model in shot-blocking (except much less athletic) in that he did so by being smart, moving his feet to stay with a guy, and timing the jump (not needing to come far of the ground to simply tap the shot back; never really the kind of guy to catch a shot near the top of its arc). Between that and his extreme high team defensive IQ, sound rotational sense, etc, I'm not sure he challenged any fewer shots than Hakeem.

I also kind of like Tim's pnr defense slightly better (I always thought Hakeem was lesser in this regard than some of his contemporaries, such as Ewing or Robinson), though Hakeem is more versatile if caught on a perimeter switch (again: the athleticism).

I think Duncan's defensive impact persisted into the twilight of his career better than did Hakeem's (I suspect because his was never as reliant on athleticism as Hakeem's). So while I think Hakeem's peaked higher defensively, defensive value over entire careers is very very close, imo. I might still go with Hakeem, but it's by a near-negligible margin.


Basically, the nut-shell summary for me would be something like:
Better scorer: Hakeem, small margin
Better defender: Hakeem??? (negligible margin for whole careers)
Better passer/facilitator: Duncan, small margin (I think maybe the best I've ever seen at passing out of a double-team from the low-block)
Better rebounder: Duncan, tiny margin
Other on-court intangibles (screen-setting, floor spacing, etc, bearing in mind I'm already considering things like rotational defense and shot challenging in "defender" category above): a wash (like Timmy's screens better, Hakeem spaces the floor slightly better)
Off-court intangibles/leadership: Duncan comfortably
Longevity: small edge to Duncan

And on a side note of "career accomplishment": clear edge to Duncan. Obviously he had more favorable circumstances. I do try to "grade on a curve" by keeping in mind context, though there's only so far down the "he would've done this if that" rabbit-hole I'm willing to go.


Otherwise, with regards to suggestions of people (like me, potentially) putting "narrative blinders" on where Duncan is concerned.....your concerns are valid, and I'll try to be conscientious about this. I'm going to reflect and respond more to that point in response to rebirthoftheM later.

Senior just had a great post, but the numbers and eye test actually suggest that Hakeem was a significantly better offensive player than Duncan. Dream really didn't have any series where we say "well they lost because the opposing defense slowed him down" the way we can for Duncan on multiple instances. Duncan's intangibles alone don't make up for the wide gap in offense, and the lesser gap in defense which still exists.

Really, Shaq and Kobe deserve more discussion by now given how the Lakers won using a top heavy system whereas Duncan has always had the luxury of Pop for his entire career, and Duncan's peak in 2003 came against one of the weakest Finals teams of all time in the Nets.

If people are advocating for Russell and now Duncan for their impact in winning even though each had a leg up on the competition for their era (stacked team for Russell, Pop for Duncan), then to be consistent Shaq and especially Kobe merit more discussion especially when these 2 did it for a long time against elite competition no less, and did so when hand checking still existed.

Wilt really strikes me as the center version of Lebron in the 60s going up against the 60s version of the Spurs/Lakers led by Russell.

I can really appreciate Duncan's low maintenance, but does that really supercede players who were simply more impactful when asked to do more, and did so with similar results in circumstances that I believe weren't as optimal as the one he had in San Antonio?

[Senior]

Have to get back to work but I saw the ORTGs for the Rockets/Spurs.

Despite the RS ORTGs in Duncan's favor, the difference between the two comes out in the playoffs. From 93-95 the Rockets almost never had trouble staying steady in the playoffs whereas the Spurs from 01-03 generally had more trouble maintaining their offense in the playoffs.

In 1993 the Rockets ORTG went -3...but that drop came against the Clippers and not the Sonics...they were actually +0.4 vs SEA.

In 1994 they were +1.7 ORTG despite facing an elite defense in NY. They got a soft defense in Phoenix but they played well vs Utah and Portland

In 1995 they lit the world on fire after the Drexler trade. Close to +6 ORTG over their lackluster RS so take it with a grain of salt, but their offensive performances against quality defense like Utah and SA should be a point to Hakeem.

Compare that to Duncan's Spurs in the playoffs...01 and 02 they had major issues against LA but even in 03 when they won it all their ORTG declined from the RS (-2). Their best offensive performances came against LA and Dallas without Dirk (+5, +4), but against Phoenix and NJ their offense was something like -6, -7 ORTG. 04 same story as they blew the 2-0 lead to LA.

So...even though Duncan's RS offenses seem to outplace Hakeem's, Hakeem's Rockets generally maintained their offense better in the playoffs, which is where you would start to see significant separation in their scoring ability. And again, this wasn't just at Hakeem's peak. He always played well against the soft 80s West defenses like Portland/Seattle/Dallas, had an amazing series vs the 86 Lakers, and played above expectations against a top defense in 86 Boston (25/12 53% TS from 23/13 56% TS in the RS)