Peaks project update: #11

[E-Balla]

Early 20s. I don't rank ABA players, just don't have enough context, so 1980 is his peak for me.

Sent from my SM-G615F using RealGM mobile app

Do you rank NBA players from the late ABA, because the leagues were pretty evenly matched by then?

Nope, because the above is a subjective opinion.

I know people like to provide a lot of intricate explanations for it regarding the change in team and circumstances, but the fact is Erving's production dropped heavily from one league to another. At the end of the day, there have been other great players going to vastly different team situations and maintaining most if not all of their production. If LeBron could go from unipolar megastar in 2010 to being a part of a trio in 2011 and still maintain most of his RS production, why can't Erving? He had more capable teammates on his 1977 team but he was clearly still the best player on the team and should've at least come close to his 1976 production.

The most obvious explanation suggests that the drop was due to the fact that he went to a tougher league, which means his 1976 ABA season doesn't merit being ranked very high.

I mean that was only in the regular season though. In the 77 postseason which is probably Kareem and Walton's best he averaged 29/7/6 on 61 TS% in the ECF and Finals. Was arguably the best player on the floor along with peak Bill Walton.

[E-Balla]

We have a lot more than just points/assists/turnovers/shooting available from 1988-90. It is not like we are talking about the 1950s here.

Robinson blows Ewing away https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Patrick+Ewing&player_id1_select=Patrick+Ewing&player_id1=ewingpa01&y1=1990&player_id2_hint=David+Robinson&player_id2_select=David+Robinson&player_id2=robinda01&y2=1995 in Win Shares, BPM... And that carries over to the postseason, despite his dips. If you look at the year to year top ten list for any of those statistics, Robinson is a perpetual leader in the regular season and still a reliable presence in the postseason; Ewing, on the other hand, only makes sporadic appearances in the back end of the lists. Now, those metrics are not perfect, but they say substantially more than points/assists/shooting, and in Robinson’s case they track well with the RAPM data we do have. To say nothing of their comparative WOWY values.

Umm... That's because of the vastly different competition they played in the playoffs. As you can clearly see in the statistics I posted when Robinson was up against average or good defenses (he NEVER played an elite defense in that whole span in the playoffs and most defenses he played flat out sucked) his production was under Ewing's. I'm not really judging guys on how they play cupcake teams, and Robinson beat up cupcake teams regularly. Looking at overall numbers you lose that, no one on earth questions whether or not Robinson can beat up bad teams, but if that's all he can do what use is that when we're discussing top 15 players ever? Everyone getting a mention can beat up cupcake teams.

I was going to bring the bolded up too, Robinson is 15th in Elgee's WOWY score to Ewing's 17th. The idea he's clearly ahead of Ewing isn't really all that consistent with the data I see, it's only before you apply context to the numbers that he looks clearly better. After applying context, prime to prime they seem even, and I'd say given Ewing's high peak and low valley compared to Robinson's consistency, 90 Ewing is probably better for your team if you want to win a ring with them as your top guy (which is what I mainly judge guys off).

[liamliam1234]

We have a lot more than just points/assists/turnovers/shooting available from 1988-90. It is not like we are talking about the 1950s here.

Robinson blows Ewing away https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Patrick+Ewing&player_id1_select=Patrick+Ewing&player_id1=ewingpa01&y1=1990&player_id2_hint=David+Robinson&player_id2_select=David+Robinson&player_id2=robinda01&y2=1995 in Win Shares, BPM... And that carries over to the postseason, despite his dips. If you look at the year to year top ten list for any of those statistics, Robinson is a perpetual leader in the regular season and still a reliable presence in the postseason; Ewing, on the other hand, only makes sporadic appearances in the back end of the lists. Now, those metrics are not perfect, but they say substantially more than points/assists/shooting, and in Robinson’s case they track well with the RAPM data we do have. To say nothing of their comparative WOWY values.

Umm... That's because of the vastly different competition they played in the playoffs. As you can clearly see in the statistics I posted when Robinson was up against average or good defenses (he NEVER played an elite defense in that whole span in the playoffs and most defenses he played flat out sucked) his production was under Ewing's. I'm not really judging guys on how they play cupcake teams, and Robinson beat up cupcake teams regularly. Looking at overall numbers you lose that, no one on earth questions whether or not Robinson can beat up bad teams, but if that's all he can do what use is that when we're discussing top 15 players ever? Everyone getting a mention can beat up cupcake teams.

I was going to bring the bolded up too, Robinson is 15th in Elgee's WOWY score to Ewing's 17th. The idea he's clearly ahead of Ewing isn't really all that consistent with the data I see, it's only before you apply context to the numbers that he looks clearly better. After applying context, prime to prime they seem even, and I'd say given Ewing's high peak and low valley compared to Robinson's consistency, 90 Ewing is probably better for your team if you want to win a ring with them as your top guy (which is what I mainly judge guys off).

None of that is a counter. I specifically criticised you for only using the basest possible statistics, and your response is just to blandly refer to them again. There is no adjustment for minutes or possessions, no actual comparison of their respective defences... Just an indication that, in what was apparently a very small sample size for Robinson, Ewing had the most marginal of superficial box score advantages in a highly specific context. Woo hoo. At a certain point the “quality of competition” thing gets ridiculous. Magic played in a joke of a conference; how much of his playoff numbers should we dismiss? How about Lebron during his eight-year Finals run? What exactly is the formula to calculate just how much to subtract off their VORP or whatever because of playing bad teams/defences?

In fact, we do not even need to compare prime to prime. Ewing’s supposedly other-worldly 1990 featured him finishing the playoffs... 17th in WS/48 (.155) and 18th in BPM (4.2). In the same playoffs, Robinson finished 4th (.219) and 6th (7.0), respectively. They each played ten games, so two series each. Robinson had the third-best metrics in his conference, with Magic and Vlade grabbing the top two slots. Ewing was fringe top ten in his own conference. And that is your peak? What, was Ewing just uniquely disadvantaged in his path compared to other eastern conference contenders as well? That level of extreme diminishment is not dismissible just because he played some tougher defences. If you are going to argue those numbers are somehow wholly misrepresentive of his actual performance, you better provide a hell of a lot more support than merely giving some basic averages, citing the fact he played the 1990 Celtics and Pistons, and then calling it a job well done.

[WarriorGM]

By the way, after looking at the selections 1-10, I don't think this can seriously be considered a plausible peaks project. It might just as well be called a run-of-the mill top 10 players list. A realistic peak list might see the same name more than once and not hew so closely to a generic top 10 list. As it is I think people are being swayed to rank peaks as they would a generic ranking list. It would have been better to come up with a top regular season peak list and a top playoffs season peak list and then combine them weighting the regular season and the playoffs as one wishes.

1. Not a great criticism when you do not bother to give an argument for why other players were clearly peaking higher. What, do you feel we have been unfair to Westbrook and his first round exit? Are you really taking Robinson in the playoffs over any of the top ten (apart from maybe Russell)?

2. Double the work with half the interest. Regular season is famously not too meaningful in isolation; who wants to quibble whether 2004 Garnett or 1994-96 Robinson deserve to be above Jordan when we know once the games actually matter, they are a tier below? And playoff sample sizes are so small it would become an absolute mess after the top ten or so. And spoiler: they would be basically the same names you see now. Which brings me to the next, and most pertinent, point...

3. The best players are considered the best because... they showed they were the best. There are plenty of players with better longevity than Magic or Bird or Russell; they are special because they were superstars for basically their entire career. Yes, thus far this is close to the overall ranking of this forum, because the top guys were the few to combine MVP seasons with dominant playoff runs. With apologies to Willis Reed, that seems like a pretty easy recipe for peak performance.

4. When you weigh playoffs highly, you tend to favour guys who won in their prime. What prime winners does it look like we will overlook in the next twelve or so spots? (Apart from the famously exceptional Pistons, I guess.) Robertson and Robinson, and kind-of West, will make it in without having won in their primes. Oh, and probably McGrady. That is it because playoffs, and playoff success, matter a lot. Yeah, maybe that is close to the GOAT project, but Karl Malone’s likely drop, and McGrady’s likely addition, do illustrate the differences. And this will become ever more apparent once we go through the title winners: Stockton will deservedly fall far below Harden and Westbrook, and I expect Isiah fans will receive some small amount of retribution for the frustration they felt with his overall ranking.

1. I find Magic Johnson in the top ten in terms of peak unconvincing. Played in a comparatively weak conference next to Kareem. Great numbers but others have better numbers. In comparison to Bird at least the Celtics had the really dominant stretch of home court supremacy. When I hear peak, I also want to hear the words dominance and records in the air. Bill Russell is also problematic because while he arguably maintained his peak the longest, in a strictly year-by-year way of looking at things he played two less rounds of playoffs every year than many later players. It is illogical to value playoffs so much as you seem to argue but then place a guy who played two rounds less so high.

2. You don't seem to be isolating the performance in the year from other conclusions you have drawn outside of it. As I said this exercise called a peaks project might as well be just another vanilla player ranking list.

3. Again you show why calling this a peak list is useless. It is hopelessly compromised by how you seem them in their whole career.

4. I find the process currently used dubious because it encourages mixing and matching to get a desired outcome. Do playoffs matter so much? Why aren't Dirk, Walton, and Barry ahead of Magic? As I said better to come up with a peak regular season list and then separately a peak playoffs season list. Afterward weight the importance of the regular season to the playoffs and then combine. Less bias.

[liamliam1234]

Messed up your quote tag.

1. I find Magic Johnson in the top ten in terms of peak unconvincing. Played in a comparatively weak conference next to Kareem. Great numbers but others have better numbers. In comparison to Bird at least the Celtics had the really dominant stretch of home court supremacy. When I hear peak, I also want to hear the words dominance and records in the air. Bill Russell is also problematic because while he arguably maintained his peak the longest, in a strictly year-by-year way of looking at things he played two less rounds of playoffs every year than many later players. It is illogical to value playoffs so much as you seem to argue but then place a guy who played two rounds less so high.

2. You don't seem to be isolating the performance in the year from other conclusions you have drawn outside of it. As I said this exercise called a peaks project might as well be just another vanilla player ranking list.

3. Again you show why calling this a peak list is useless. It is hopelessly compromised by how you seem them in their whole career.

4. I find the process currently used dubious because it encourages mixing and matching to get a desired outcome. Do playoffs matter so much? Why aren't Dirk, Walton, and Barry ahead of Magic?

1a. And yet you still are not naming anyone with “better numbers”. Magic peaked as clearly the best passer/playmaker in NBA history. That is a deserved top ten peak.

1b. Playing fewer rounds only means you pad your stats less against overmatched teams. What, you think Russell’s numbers suffered because he could not beat up on eight-seeds? By seed/SRS, his average playoff opponent was better than the average playoff opponent of most.

2. Lot of words to say nothing. Yet even with that paragraph, you could not be bothered to offer an alternate formulation.

3.This is just a more concise version of 2, but just as baseless. Back yourself up rather than making these vague claims of bias.

4. The “mixing and matching” complaint is more pointlessness (weird, almost as if there is not a set rule for judging players). But oh, look, you actually offered some names. Now feel free to show how their numbers are better than any of the guys in the top ten. Bonus points if you do it for Rick Barry, lol. What a laughable inclusion. You really that bent out of shape over Walton (probably will make the top fifteen) and Dirk (probably top twenty)? Frankly, I am glad most of the people here have resisted the urge to be suckered in by the Bill Simmons-esque deification of Walton, or the “defeated x hall-of-famers” narrative of Dirk.

[WarriorGM]

1a. And yet you still are not naming anyone with “better numbers”. Magic peaked as clearly the best passer/playmaker in NBA history. That is a deserved top ten peak.

I don't find Magic's superiority obvious at all.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/pi/shareit/xfb4N

One of those is Magic 86-87. One of those is Bird 85-86. The others haven't been included in the top ten for this project. You can probably identify who Magic is but I don't think the numbers show he's clearly superior. Or Bird for that matter.

[liamliam1234]

I would say Magic and Bird definitely have two of the three best there, and since I presume the best one is Curry, his case has been covered rather thoroughly. So that is one arguable guy playing on the most talented roster in NBA history, specifically next to another player who many were discussing as the best in the NBA. Not exactly a strong counter-point.

[E-Balla]

None of that is a counter.

It is. You want stats that don't exist. Can you find David Robinson's playoff BPM by series to be able to calculate his BPM vs different qualities of defenses? If not, like I said, you're looking for numbers that don't exist. I don't get what's so hard to understand here.

I specifically criticised you for only using the basest possible statistics, and your response is just to blandly refer to them again. There is no adjustment for minutes or possessions, no actual comparison of their respective defences...

1. There doesn't need to be a minute or possession adjustment, are you serious? If one played more minutes than the other that's added value and the possessions are most likely extremely close. I feel like you're just being extra for the hell of it. Have I used per 100 numbers any other time? How many people here have not used per 100 numbers and until now it was not a problem?

2. The statement I was responding to was about offensive production only. That's why defensive production wasn't mentioned, we weren't talking about it.

Just an indication that, in what was apparently a very small sample size for Robinson,

And you think this why? Over 60% of his playoff games qualify for this. It's just that Ewing has games against elite defenses, and Robinson has none. Where Ewing has career playoff games against teams like the 93 Bulls, Robinson has career playoff games against the 95 Suns.

Ewing had the most marginal of superficial box score advantages in a highly specific context.

"Against good defenses," is a highly specific context in the conversation of who is a better player? Interesting given you've argued against Curry for the same reason...

Woo hoo. At a certain point the “quality of competition” thing gets ridiculous. Magic played in a joke of a conference; how much of his playoff numbers should we dismiss?

Did Magic see a steep drop in production against great defenses? Nope. We can reasonably assumed he still would've played well against great defenses given the fact that when he did play great defenses he did play well.

How about Lebron during his eight-year Finals run? What exactly is the formula to calculate just how much to subtract off their VORP or whatever because of playing bad teams/defences?

Are you ranking players off VORP here? Does one boxscore aggregate number have that much of an effect on your rankings? If not why is this relevant here? His boxscore stats went from better than Ewing to slightly under Ewing, why assume his offensive advanced stats were still well over Ewing? You have to know this is a stretch.

To add to that if you love BPM so much Ewing in 90 has a higher OBPM than Robinson in 95 so... Yeah...

In fact, we do not even need to compare prime to prime. Ewing’s supposedly other-worldly 1990 featured him finishing the playoffs... 17th in WS/48 (.155) and 18th in BPM (4.2). In the same playoffs, Robinson finished 4th (.219) and 6th (7.0), respectively. They each played ten games, so two series each. Robinson had the third-best metrics in his conference, with Magic and Vlade grabbing the top two slots. Ewing was fringe top ten in his own conference. And that is your peak?

Umm... And? Who cares about boxscore aggregate statistics. And who cares about comparing first options to Ewing to second options like rookie David Robinson?

What, was Ewing just uniquely disadvantaged in his path compared to other eastern conference contenders as well? That level of extreme diminishment is not dismissible just because he played some tougher defences. If you are going to argue those numbers are somehow wholly misrepresentive of his actual performance, you better provide a hell of a lot more support than merely giving some basic averages, citing the fact he played the 1990 Celtics and Pistons, and then calling it a job well done.

I literally never made an argument for 90 Ewing because that was not the point. The point was that Robinson's offense wasn't the level of regular season Ewing, it was the level of Ewing period. Why you're talking about all this, I have no idea, it has nothing to do with anything I've said in any of these posts. If you want to address what I'm talking about, you can do that. If you want to talk about 90 Ewing, we'll get there when I'm voting for him.

[liamliam1234]

None of that is a counter.

It is. You want stats that don't exist. Can you find David Robinson's playoff BPM by series to be able to calculate his BPM vs different qualities of defenses? If not, like I said, you're looking for numbers that don't exist. I don't get what's so hard to understand here.

Why do we need to do it by series. Ewing only made it past the conference semi-finals twice during his prime, and Robinson only did it once. If Ewing was so uniquely disadvantaged in his average playoff opponent, then it should not be too hard to draw out the difference in average opponent quality relative to average performance. And that may be an annoying amount of work, but hey, that is the standard if you are going to die on this hill that the only reason Ewing is considered worse is because his level of competition was just so much higher. Weird position for someone who has had to defend the same type of argument being thrown against Julius Erving.

I specifically criticised you for only using the basest possible statistics, and your response is just to blandly refer to them again. There is no adjustment for minutes or possessions, no actual comparison of their respective defences...

1. There doesn't need to be a minute or possession adjustment, are you serious? If one played more minutes than the other that's added value and the possessions are most likely extremely close. I feel like you're just being extra for the hell of it. Have I used per 100 numbers any other time? How many people here have not used per 100 numbers and until now it was not a problem?

2. The statement I was responding to was about offensive production only. That's why defensive production wasn't mentioned, we weren't talking about it.

I am saying when it is that marginal of a superficial advantage for Ewing, things like per minute/possession production matter and could explain the difference; and it might not, but the point is we have no idea because you went as basic as possible.

And defence comes into play as soon as you said you would take Ewing’s peak over Robinson’s. If I misinterpreted and you only meant that in the context of their offensive peaks – which I would still dispute, but whatever – then we can drop it.

Just an indication that, in what was apparently a very small sample size for Robinson,

And you think this why? Over 60% of his playoff games qualify for this. It's just that Ewing has games against elite defenses, and Robinson has none. Where Ewing has career playoff games against teams like the 93 Bulls, Robinson has career playoff games against the 95 Suns.

Give me Robinson’s offensive performance against Hakeem over Ewing’s any day.

Ewing had the most marginal of superficial box score advantages in a highly specific context.

"Against good defenses," is a highly specific context in the conversation of who is a better player? Interesting given you've argued against Curry for the same reason...

I have basically stayed out of the Curry conversation apart from saying his peak should not be considered notably above Magic’s. I do not recall ever tying his peak performance to how he handled top defences.

Woo hoo. At a certain point the “quality of competition” thing gets ridiculous. Magic played in a joke of a conference; how much of his playoff numbers should we dismiss?

Did Magic see a steep drop in production against great defenses? Nope. We can reasonably assumed he still would've played well against great defenses given the fact that when he did play great defenses he did play well.

How about Lebron during his eight-year Finals run? What exactly is the formula to calculate just how much to subtract off their VORP or whatever because of playing bad teams/defences?

Are you ranking players off VORP here? Does one boxscore aggregate number have that much of an effect on your rankings? If not why is this relevant here? His boxscore stats went from better than Ewing to slightly under Ewing, why assume his offensive advanced stats were still well over Ewing? You have to know this is a stretch.

To add to that if you love BPM so much Ewing in 90 has a higher OBPM than Robinson in 95 so... Yeah...

Hence the “or whatever”. You can pretty much take your pick of the metric.

And coincidentally 1990 was also almost certainly Ewing’s worst defensive performance from 1988-97. But even then, his offence that year was a massive outlier for his career. So he has one freak season where he starts to outproduce Robinson solely at the weaker facet of both of their games, and suddenly he is a better peak player? Come on.

In fact, we do not even need to compare prime to prime. Ewing’s supposedly other-worldly 1990 featured him finishing the playoffs... 17th in WS/48 (.155) and 18th in BPM (4.2). In the same playoffs, Robinson finished 4th (.219) and 6th (7.0), respectively. They each played ten games, so two series each. Robinson had the third-best metrics in his conference, with Magic and Vlade grabbing the top two slots. Ewing was fringe top ten in his own conference. And that is your peak?

Umm... And? Who cares about boxscore aggregate statistics. And who cares about comparing first options to Ewing to second options like rookie David Robinson?

Weird to see a second option lead his team in points. Congratulations to Cumming outproducing him marginally in ten games of the playoffs, on worse efficiency, but that hardly supersedes the regular season sample. This is what I am talking about in terms of disingenuousness.

But I can use 1991 if you prefer. I can use most years of Robinson’s prime, in fact, because unlike Ewing he had more than one good offensive season – and somehow he managed to have those seasons without sacrificing his defensive aptitude to do it.

What, was Ewing just uniquely disadvantaged in his path compared to other eastern conference contenders as well? That level of extreme diminishment is not dismissible just because he played some tougher defences. If you are going to argue those numbers are somehow wholly misrepresentive of his actual performance, you better provide a hell of a lot more support than merely giving some basic averages, citing the fact he played the 1990 Celtics and Pistons, and then calling it a job well done.

I literally never made an argument for 90 Ewing because that was not the point. The point was that Robinson's offense wasn't the level of regular season Ewing, it was the level of Ewing period. Why you're talking about all this, I have no idea, it has nothing to do with anything I've said in any of these posts. If you want to address what I'm talking about, you can do that. If you want to talk about 90 Ewing, we'll get there when I'm voting for him.

It was not at the level of Ewing. Ewing had all of one year where he could offensively claim to be on par with Robinson; in every other year, he is offensively blown out of the water. And that offensive production was accompanied by a defensive dip, so he still falls below on aggregate. This reads like you came up with a hot take but do not want to be bothered to fully commit to backing it up.

[LA Bird]

Final totals as at the deadline are:

1) 04 Garnett = 32.0 points
2) 76 Dr J = 30.0 points
3) 77 Walton = 20.0 points
4) 64 Oscar = 19.5 points
5) 16 Curry = 17.0 points

Spoiler:

lebron3-14-3 didn't list all 3 picks so his vote wasn't counted. Lou Fan and GeorgeMarcus's second vote had all 3 picks but voted after the deadline and so weren't counted either.

04 Garnett wins.

[DatAsh]

I feel like you are not really explaining your reasoning though. Duncan consistently elevated (or at least maintained) in the playoffs, whereas Garnett did not. That is not a question of sample size. I would take Duncan’s average playoff from 1999 to 2007 over Garnett’s peak playoffs in 2003 and 2004.

Sorry, I didn't want to derail the thread with Duncan vs Garnett, as Duncan was already voted in. I'll explain a bit more now that both guys are in.

Essentially, there's a very large gap between the 2 when looking at regular season and post season impact metrics, with Garnett usually having a +2ish advantage.

Now, although playoffs are included in the sample, regular season makes up the majority of the sample, so if I have good reason to believe that either player's regular season play doesn't accurately reflect their post season play, then my rankings could change.

Relatively speaking, I do think Duncan's offense seems to be more playoff resilient, and for that reason he closes most of that +2.0 gap, but, it's a substantial gap. Given that Garnett's teams were lower seeded and facing a higher average talent, it's tough to compare their statistics directly in a fair way. Elgee's playoff performers video takes into account defenses faced, so I'll use his numbers.

Garnett:
-0.1 OBPM
-0.7 Pts/75
-2.3 TS%
+0.0 Creation
+0.7 Turnovers
-0.5 Passer rating
+0.5 Offensive load

He classifies Garnett as one of the players who sees a slight decline in the playoffs, relative to what would be expected given the defenses he faced. He's not one of the guys that sees a significant decline, like Robinson, Curry, or Harden, but he does decline somewhat.

If his RS + PS sample measures him as +11, the conclusion I draw from this data is that his PS only impact is less than +11. How much less? I wish I knew , as that's where the crux lies.

Duncan:
Elgee doesn't give Duncan's numbers directly, but he says that his profile is similar to that of Lebron James; ie he's among the group of players who don't really get better, but also don't really get worse. His relative impact change is less than the few players who actually improve(Reggie, Jordan, Olajuwon, ect.), but better than the majority of players that decline, of which Garnett is included.

If his RS + PS sample measures him as +9, the conclusion I draw from this data is that his PS only impact is probably about the same.


Is Garnett's playoff decline enough to cover that +2 gap? For me, at the moment, not quite(but very close). I definitely am somewhat on the fence here, and could very well be leaning Duncan in the future.

Keep in mind this is just my personal reasoning, and I lean heavily in favor of impact stats. If you're more of a box score stats guy, I definitely could see where a "Duncan and it's not close" conclusion is valid. I don't think a more box score leaning approach is invalid, it's just not for me.

[Odinn21]

Duncan:
Elgee doesn't give Duncan's numbers directly, but he says that his profile is similar to that of Lebron James; ie he's among the group of players who don't really get better, but also don't really get worse. His relative impact change is less than the few players who actually improve(Reggie, Jordan, Olajuwon, ect.), but better than the majority of players that decline, of which Garnett is included.

I didn't understand why Elgee only focused Hakeem's prime and didn't do that for Duncan in that video.

From 1998-99 to 2006-07, Tim Duncan
in rs; 21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on 55.1% ts // 26.8 eff - 0.720 eff/m - 25.5 per - 2.3 obpm - 4.1 dbpm
in po; 24.0 ppg 12.8 prg 3.7 apg 0.7 spg 2.8 bpg on 56.0% ts // 29.3 eff - 0.733 eff/m - 27.0 per - 3.5 opbm - 4.2 dbpm

By Elgee's criterias TD in his prime;
+ 1.2 OBPM
+ 0.8 Pts/75
+ 0.9 TS%
* I don't know how he calculates Turnovers, Creation, Passer rating and Offensive load.

TD is one of the those players which elevates his level of play in playoffs. Big time.

And these are just box score values.
From 2000-01 to 2006-07;
Duncan played 552 regular season games and the Spurs were outscored by 233 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-0.42 ppg)
Duncan played 113 postseason games and the Spurs were outscored by 138 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-1.22 ppg)

[DatAsh]

Duncan:
Elgee doesn't give Duncan's numbers directly, but he says that his profile is similar to that of Lebron James; ie he's among the group of players who don't really get better, but also don't really get worse. His relative impact change is less than the few players who actually improve(Reggie, Jordan, Olajuwon, ect.), but better than the majority of players that decline, of which Garnett is included.

I didn't understand why Elgee only focused Hakeem's prime and didn't do that for Duncan in that video.

From 1998-99 to 2006-07, Tim Duncan
in rs; 21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on 55.1% ts // 26.8 eff - 0.720 eff/m - 25.5 per - 2.3 obpm - 4.1 dbpm
in po; 24.0 ppg 12.8 prg 3.7 apg 0.7 spg 2.8 bpg on 56.0% ts // 29.3 eff - 0.733 eff/m - 27.0 per - 3.5 opbm - 4.2 dbpm

By Elgee's criterias TD in his prime;
+ 1.2 OBPM
+ 0.8 Pts/75
+ 0.9 TS%
* I don't know how he calculates Turnovers, Creation, Passer rating and Offensive load.

TD is one of the those players which elevates his level of play in playoffs. Big time.

And these are just box score values.
From 2000-01 to 2006-07;
Duncan played 552 regular season games and the Spurs were outscored by 233 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-0.42 ppg)
Duncan played 113 postseason games and the Spurs were outscored by 138 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-1.22 ppg)

How are you adjusting for relative defense? Are you sure it’s the same way Elgee does it? If not, I’m going with Elgee’s conclusion that Duncan maintains, rather than improves. If you can reverse engineer his methods and show them, though, that would be incredibly helpful. It would definitely lead me to reconsider my stance.

I agree with you in that I wish Elgee had gone into specifics on all the players mentioned. I'm guessing he cut it short for time reasons.

[Odinn21]

Duncan:
Elgee doesn't give Duncan's numbers directly, but he says that his profile is similar to that of Lebron James; ie he's among the group of players who don't really get better, but also don't really get worse. His relative impact change is less than the few players who actually improve(Reggie, Jordan, Olajuwon, ect.), but better than the majority of players that decline, of which Garnett is included.

I didn't understand why Elgee only focused Hakeem's prime and didn't do that for Duncan in that video.

From 1998-99 to 2006-07, Tim Duncan
in rs; 21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on 55.1% ts // 26.8 eff - 0.720 eff/m - 25.5 per - 2.3 obpm - 4.1 dbpm
in po; 24.0 ppg 12.8 prg 3.7 apg 0.7 spg 2.8 bpg on 56.0% ts // 29.3 eff - 0.733 eff/m - 27.0 per - 3.5 opbm - 4.2 dbpm

By Elgee's criterias TD in his prime;
+ 1.2 OBPM
+ 0.8 Pts/75
+ 0.9 TS%
* I don't know how he calculates Turnovers, Creation, Passer rating and Offensive load.

TD is one of the those players which elevates his level of play in playoffs. Big time.

And these are just box score values.
From 2000-01 to 2006-07;
Duncan played 552 regular season games and the Spurs were outscored by 233 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-0.42 ppg)
Duncan played 113 postseason games and the Spurs were outscored by 138 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-1.22 ppg)

How are you adjusting for relative defense? Are you sure it’s the same way Elgee does it? If not, I’m going with Elgee’s conclusion that Duncan maintains, rather than improves. If you can reverse engineer his methods and show them, though, that would be incredibly helpful. It would definitely lead me to reconsider my stance.

I agree with you in that I wish Elgee had gone into specifics on all the players mentioned. I'm guessing he cut it short for time reasons.

What I was saying, if Hakeem is considered among the improving lot, so should Duncan.

His main point/criteria is OBPM increase compared to regular season level.
Hakeem's OBPM from 1986 to 1995 rises to 3.2 (ps) from 1.7 (rs) (shown as 1.4 in the video)
Hakeem's OBPM from 1985 to 1999 rises to 2.6 (ps) from 1.4 (rs) (shown as 1.1 in the video)

If that is the case;
Duncan's OBPM from 1999 to 2007 rises to 3.5 (ps) from 2.3 (rs)
Duncan's OBPM from 1998 to 2015 rises to 1.9 (ps) from 1.5 (rs)

Maybe Duncan's number is not improving a lot as a whole career look. But if Elgee ranks Zeke* at 5th with 8 playoffs and 111 games, then ranks Hakeem at 4th while mentioning Hakeem's prime play (10 playoffs, 102 games), it's just cherry picking not including Duncan (8 playoffs, 129 games).

Also Elgee compares Zeke's career regular season OBPM to career playoffs OBPM. The issue with that is Zeke didn't play in the playoffs in his first 2 and last 2 seasons of his career. If Elgee were to compare the seasons which Zeke played in the playoffs to achieve a healthier result, his increase volume would be 0.7. Not 1.1 which is shown in the video.

I can't reverse engineer his methods but I think you're putting too much faith into his work. Not that I'm saying his works should be disregarded. But it's always best to be skeptic.

[DatAsh]

I didn't understand why Elgee only focused Hakeem's prime and didn't do that for Duncan in that video.

From 1998-99 to 2006-07, Tim Duncan
in rs; 21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on 55.1% ts // 26.8 eff - 0.720 eff/m - 25.5 per - 2.3 obpm - 4.1 dbpm
in po; 24.0 ppg 12.8 prg 3.7 apg 0.7 spg 2.8 bpg on 56.0% ts // 29.3 eff - 0.733 eff/m - 27.0 per - 3.5 opbm - 4.2 dbpm

By Elgee's criterias TD in his prime;
+ 1.2 OBPM
+ 0.8 Pts/75
+ 0.9 TS%
* I don't know how he calculates Turnovers, Creation, Passer rating and Offensive load.

TD is one of the those players which elevates his level of play in playoffs. Big time.

And these are just box score values.
From 2000-01 to 2006-07;
Duncan played 552 regular season games and the Spurs were outscored by 233 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-0.42 ppg)
Duncan played 113 postseason games and the Spurs were outscored by 138 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-1.22 ppg)

How are you adjusting for relative defense? Are you sure it’s the same way Elgee does it? If not, I’m going with Elgee’s conclusion that Duncan maintains, rather than improves. If you can reverse engineer his methods and show them, though, that would be incredibly helpful. It would definitely lead me to reconsider my stance.

I agree with you in that I wish Elgee had gone into specifics on all the players mentioned. I'm guessing he cut it short for time reasons.

What I was saying, if Hakeem is considered among the improving lot, so should Duncan.

His main point/criteria is OBPM increase compared to regular season level.
Hakeem's OBPM from 1986 to 1995 rises to 3.2 (ps) from 1.7 (rs) (shown as 1.4 in the video)
Hakeem's OBPM from 1985 to 1999 rises to 2.6 (ps) from 1.4 (rs) (shown as 1.1 in the video)

If that is the case;
Duncan's OBPM from 1999 to 2007 rises to 3.5 (ps) from 2.3 (rs)
Duncan's OBPM from 1998 to 2015 rises to 1.9 (ps) from 1.5 (rs)

Maybe Duncan's number is not improving a lot. But if Elgee ranks Zeke* at 5th with 8 playoffs and 111 games, then ranks Hakeem at 4th while mentioning Hakeem's prime play (10 playoffs, 102 games), it's just cherry picking not including Duncan (8 playoffs, 129 games).

Also Elgee compares Zeke's career regular season OBPM to career playoffs OBPM. The issue with that is Zeke didn't play in the playoffs in his first 2 and last 2 seasons of his career. If Elgee were to compare the seasons which Zeke played in the playoffs to achieve a healthier result, his increase volume would be 0.7. Not 1.1 which is shown in the video.

I can't reverse engineer his methods but I think you're putting too much faith into his work. Not that I'm saying his works should be disregarded. But it's always best to be skeptic.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions, assuming that your methods are sound, I'm just wondering about your methods, and the math behind them. How are you accounting for relative defense when calculating change in OBPM and change in TS%? How is Elgee?

Why does he classify Duncan among the group that neither improves or declines? Why do you classify Duncan among the group that improves "big time"? Surely, you must being using a different method of accounting for relative defense than Elgee, given that you come to a much different conclusion. Why do you disagree with Elgee's method?

I do put a lot of faith in Elgee's methods, as I see him as a much better analyst than myself. That mostly comes from reading his posts on here and reading his blogs.

[DatAsh]

I didn't understand why Elgee only focused Hakeem's prime and didn't do that for Duncan in that video.

From 1998-99 to 2006-07, Tim Duncan
in rs; 21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on 55.1% ts // 26.8 eff - 0.720 eff/m - 25.5 per - 2.3 obpm - 4.1 dbpm
in po; 24.0 ppg 12.8 prg 3.7 apg 0.7 spg 2.8 bpg on 56.0% ts // 29.3 eff - 0.733 eff/m - 27.0 per - 3.5 opbm - 4.2 dbpm

By Elgee's criterias TD in his prime;
+ 1.2 OBPM
+ 0.8 Pts/75
+ 0.9 TS%
* I don't know how he calculates Turnovers, Creation, Passer rating and Offensive load.

TD is one of the those players which elevates his level of play in playoffs. Big time.

And these are just box score values.
From 2000-01 to 2006-07;
Duncan played 552 regular season games and the Spurs were outscored by 233 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-0.42 ppg)
Duncan played 113 postseason games and the Spurs were outscored by 138 when Duncan wasn't on the court. (-1.22 ppg)

How are you adjusting for relative defense? Are you sure it’s the same way Elgee does it? If not, I’m going with Elgee’s conclusion that Duncan maintains, rather than improves. If you can reverse engineer his methods and show them, though, that would be incredibly helpful. It would definitely lead me to reconsider my stance.

I agree with you in that I wish Elgee had gone into specifics on all the players mentioned. I'm guessing he cut it short for time reasons.

What I was saying, if Hakeem is considered among the improving lot, so should Duncan.

His main point/criteria is OBPM increase compared to regular season level.
Hakeem's OBPM from 1986 to 1995 rises to 3.2 (ps) from 1.7 (rs) (shown as 1.4 in the video)
Hakeem's OBPM from 1985 to 1999 rises to 2.6 (ps) from 1.4 (rs) (shown as 1.1 in the video)

If that is the case;
Duncan's OBPM from 1999 to 2007 rises to 3.5 (ps) from 2.3 (rs)
Duncan's OBPM from 1998 to 2015 rises to 1.9 (ps) from 1.5 (rs)

Maybe Duncan's number is not improving a lot as a whole career look. But if Elgee ranks Zeke* at 5th with 8 playoffs and 111 games, then ranks Hakeem at 4th while mentioning Hakeem's prime play (10 playoffs, 102 games), it's just cherry picking not including Duncan (8 playoffs, 129 games).

Also Elgee compares Zeke's career regular season OBPM to career playoffs OBPM. The issue with that is Zeke didn't play in the playoffs in his first 2 and last 2 seasons of his career. If Elgee were to compare the seasons which Zeke played in the playoffs to achieve a healthier result, his increase volume would be 0.7. Not 1.1 which is shown in the video.

I can't reverse engineer his methods but I think you're putting too much faith into his work. Not that I'm saying his works should be disregarded. But it's always best to be skeptic.

To put it more simply, how are you calculating

+ 1.2 OBPM
+ 0.8 Pts/75
+ 0.9 TS%

for Duncan?

[Odinn21]

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions, assuming that your methods are sound, I'm just wondering about your methods, and the math behind them. How are you accounting for relative defense when calculating change in OBPM and change in TS%? How is Elgee?

Why does he classify Duncan among the group that neither improves or declines? Why do you classify Duncan among the group that improves "big time"? Surely, you must being using a different method of accounting for relative defense than Elgee, given that you come to a much different conclusion. Why do you disagree with Elgee's method?

I do put a lot of faith in Elgee's methods, as I see him as a much better analyst than myself. That mostly comes from reading his posts on here and reading his blogs.

At least the shown values in his videos on YouTube, he doesn't account for relative defense. Also, I don't. If he does outside of his videos, I'm not aware of the results.

The reason why I don't agree with Elgee's outcome;

Hakeem from 1985-86 to 1994-95;
in rs; 24.4 ppg 12.4 rpg 2.7 apg 2.0 spg 3.7 bpg on 55.7% ts // 30.9 eff - 0.817 eff/m - 24.8 per - 1.7 obpm - 4.4 dbpm
in po; 28.6 ppg 11.8 prg 3.4 apg 1.7 spg 3.7 bpg on 56.0% ts // 34.0 eff - 0.826 eff/m - 26.9 per - 3.2 opbm - 4.6 dbpm

If Hakeem's considered among the improving lot, in fact he gets ranked among them;

Timmy from 1997-98 to 2006-07;
in rs; 21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on 55.1% ts // 26.8 eff - 0.720 eff/m - 25.5 per - 2.3 obpm - 4.1 dbpm
in po; 24.0 ppg 12.8 prg 3.7 apg 0.7 spg 2.8 bpg on 56.0% ts // 29.3 eff - 0.733 eff/m - 27.0 per - 3.5 opbm - 4.2 dbpm

Then Duncan should be considered among the improving players even though he doesn't get ranked.


Also, there's bit of context. 1st round performances are usually Duncan's worst playoffs series performances.
Duncan's best playoff series performances are after 1st round which is also an indicator for me. He just didn't elevate his level of play compared to regular seasons. He also performed better, at least harder, as the rounds progressed.

Edit:
I have an Excel sheet about Duncan's, Olajuwon's and O'Neal's best playoff series. (Great playoff performance for me = at least 32 eff average)
Olajuwon has 10 great playoff series performances. 6 of 'em after 1st round.
O'Neal has 12 great playoff series performances. 8 of 'em after 1st round.
Duncan has 9 great playoff series performances. 8 of 'em after 1st round.

The reason I use eff values, I can estimate it myself and more importantly it can be estimated for teams. But I am rather enthusiast, and I'm an outsider to the US, I can't make money from this, so I rather keep it simple.

[DatAsh]

Edit:
I have an Excel sheet about Duncan's, Olajuwon's and O'Neal's best playoff series. (Great playoff performance for me = at least 32 eff average)
Olajuwon has 10 great playoff series performances. 6 of 'em after 1st round.
O'Neal has 12 great playoff series performances. 8 of 'em after 1st round.
Duncan has 9 great playoff series performances. 8 of 'em after 1st round.

The reason I use eff values, I can estimate it myself and more importantly it can be estimated for teams. But I am rather enthusiast, and I'm an outsider to the US, I can't make money from this, so I rather keep it simple.

How do you account for defense when determining a "great" playoff series? It seems like Olajuwon and Duncan should need a significantly less eff value to constitute a "great" playoff series, given that their defensive impact was far higher.

[Odinn21]

How do you account for defense when determining a "great" playoff series? It seems like Olajuwon and Duncan should need a significantly less eff value to constitute a "great" playoff series, given that their defensive impact was far higher.

Well, Duncan is the one at most disadvantage among those 3. Shaq is the most offense oriented one in them. Hakeem's defensive efforts are rather shown in box score due to his huge steal and block numbers. Then there's Duncan, his defensive impact isn't that captured by box score and he played in the slowest / the most defensive era in his prime and his style was very different.

But it's very hard to establish different thresholds for different players due to style and era differences. Defensive mechanics going uncaptured is the biggest reason.

I just go along with context when I can not formulize that context into numbers. Duncan having that many makes him the most impressive in those 3. And I'm OK with my evaluation process as long as context isn't disregarded.