#21 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[DatAsh]

The Raps went from a +5.2 offense in 2018 to a +2.7 offense last year. There's no evidence that making Kawhi the singular first option helps your offense, and there's actually evidence of the opposite. Being the only option is good when you're on untalented teams and taking them higher than they'd be otherwise, but if you hold back great offenses and can't fit in to them it makes you a ballhog and that's not a positive by any stretch of the imagination.

I think it's great that you're bringing data to back up your points. It is interesting that the Raptors got worse on offense by replacing Demar with Kawhi, at least statistically. You acknowledge that the offense actually didn't get worse, despite what the stats say, because of Kawhi's floor raising abilities, which I agree with. You also call this -2.5 dropoff as "falling off a cliff". It's definitely a significant drop, but I'm not sure I'd call it falling off a cliff

A few things going on here, I think

1. I really don't think Kawhi was giving it his all in the regular season. Replacing a good player who's giving it his all with a better player who's not trying is hard is going to give an unrealistic view of the actual difference, at least in terms of championship odds, where the better player starts playing hard in the playoffs.

2. I think we may be seeing a situation where Kawhi's tendencies to over isolate might be holding back the "real" offense of Toronto, in the sense that it's not making it any better(ceiling), or even making it a bit worse, but it's also giving them essentially an entirely separate "second" offense that they can run if the primary offense isn't doing well. He very well may be making the primary offense worse(say dropping it to +4), and the secondary offense very well might be even worse than the primary(say +3). That's going to drag down regular season offensive ratings, where you're essentially always running your primary offense, and now also adding in a slightly worse secondary offense. However, in the postseason, your opponents will start to figure out your primary offense game by game. It starts out +4 in game 1, drops to +2 in game 2, then drops to +0 in game 3. Now you have a secondary +3 isolation/PnR offense you can run through Kawhi that forces the defense to readjust and waste extra games trying to counter, and ultimately slows the rate that your overall offense declines over the series.

We saw a similar thing with the pre and post Durant Warriors. The Warriors offense didn't really get all that much better in the regular season. Durant kinda disrupted that primary motion offense, but he gave them an entirely separate offense they could run that made them much tougher to counter in the postseason.

I would say we saw a similar thing with Lebron's 09-10 Cleveland teams in comparison to his Miami teams. Those best Cleveland teams were a one trick pony that had one of the best tricks ever, but over the course of seven games, you could beat them if you could figure out that one trick. The Miami teams had that same trick(arguably not even as good), but they had 1-2 other tricks up their sleeve if you could figure out the first.


Now, given that you're not arguing that Kawhi made the Raptors worse, the question (at least in your mind) is whether or not 2016 Kawhi could have improved them to a greater degree.

Looking at isolation and pick and roll offense, as I think those are the two most important sets to look at when trying to evaluate the strength of that "secondary" offense that Kawhi could bring.

*Looking at playoffs here as that's where I think 2019 Kawhi was truly going all out

Isolation
2016 Kawhi: 2.1 pos, 0.62 ppp
2019 Kawhi: 5.0 pos, 0.95 ppp

PnR
2016 Kawhi: 2.5 pos, 1.02 ppp
2019 Kawhi: 6.3 pos, 1.01 ppp

He was way, way better in isolation. More than double the volume on way better efficiency. Doubling the volume while maintaining efficiency would mean he's improved a lot, but this says to me that 2019 Kawhi is in a different league as an isolation player.

Looking at pick and roll, again he more than doubled his volume, this time while merely maintaining his efficiency. Again I would say that 2019 he was a far better pick and roll player.

These two things combined lead me to believe that 2019 Kawhi was a far better "give me the ball and let me make something happen" player. In my eyes, the strength of that "give me the ball and let me make something happen" ability is the basis for the strength of that secondary offense I mentioned earlier that makes the Raptor's offense so much harder to counter in the playoffs.

2016 Kawhi might play more within the primary offense as a catch and shoot guy(his assisted % was way higher in 2016), and he might even make that primary offense slightly better, but I think their secondary offense would get way worse(maybe to the point where it's no longer worth using), and ultimately their playoff offense would get worse.


Now that's offense. Looking at defense...hmm...I honestly don't really have a good counter. If you want to say something "dropped off a cliff" from 2016 to 2017, this is where it's absolutely justified. I can't think of a better way to describe it. Kawhi's defense dropped of a huge cliff from 2016 to 2017(and never recovered). This has nothing to do with impact metrics either, as it was obvious within the first 1/4th of the season, where impact metrics basically don't exist. Maybe the biggest defensive drop off I've ever seen in a single year. He wasn't a bad defender in 2017, but I went from watching Spurs games in 2016 thinking "this is the best perimeter defender I've ever seen", to watching games in 2017 thinking "this guy is...average? He's a pretty good man defender, but also a lazy help defender that gives up a ton of free points"

Honestly, taking into account defense, I really do think you make a decent case for 2016 Kawhi. One thing I will say is that I think 2019 Kawhi is more capable of giving up offensive primacy to regain that defensive impact that 2016 Kawhi is of taking on more offensive primacy in trade for his defensive impact, but I don't have any stats to back that up.

PS: Where do you find league wide ORTG? and where do you find individual player defensive efficiency based on play type(ex: Kawhi was "x" ppp on PnR)?

[No-more-rings]

Kawhi did also seem to pick his defense up in the playoffs, similar to what Kobe perhaps did in a few of his runs..I don’t have the numbers on it but he seemed way above average defensively in the playoffs.

[ardee]

Man this is hard. Really didn't think about who I was going to vote after Kobe was in until now. Could go so many ways. Think I'll go:

1. 2015 Chris Paul

He has a really solid case as the best player in the league that year. Blake missed a bunch of games but he still led the Clippers to a 6.8 SRS and the best offense in the league. At least regular season wise it's a feat comparable to 2008 Kobe. 19-5-10 on 49-40-90, 60% TS, 26 PER, numbers are definitely there. The Spurs series was masterful and it truly marked his ascenion to Point God. I can't really put the Rockets loss on him at all, now when we averaged 26-10 efficiently for the last 3 games. The one missed game, well, if 2016 Curry is already in with 7 missed Playoff games, then that is a moot point here.

The way he controlled games this year was unreal, his BBIQ was ludricious.

2. 2008 Chris Paul

Basically just as good in every way as 2015 but less experienced and a slightly worse shooter. Raw numbers are utterly absurd (even better in 2009, which is IMO the 2nd best regular season for a PG after 2016 Curry, but of course he was terrible in the Playoffs). Absurd Playoffs too, 30.7 PER for a PG is just wtf.

3. 1990 Charles Barkley

It's clearly his peak IMO. All the numbers favor it over 1993. The main reason 1993 gets votes is those two ridiculous games 5 and 7 performances against Seattle, but I'm not putting 2016 LeBron over 2013 LeBron based on 2 games either. Dragged a very uninspiring Sixers team to the 2nd ranked offense in the league with God-like scoring and honestly pretty underrated playmaking. If he was even a Dirk-like defender he'd be in contention for a top 12 peak.

[Bel]

1. 1990 Barkley
2. 1989 Barkley
3. 1993 Barkley

Moses being the next player I have in mind with a clear edge over everyone remaining.

Like Ardee, I believe that Sixer's Barkley was significantly better than 93 Barkley except perhaps in leadership. His athleticism really dropped off after his 91 MCL injury, and he couldn't sustain his Curry-level shooting percentages after that with less explosiveness and fewer freebie rebound->fast break points. But Barkley in 1990 led the second best offense in the league with a rather weak supporting cast: he made Hershey Hawkins look like an all star (which he never was seen as again) by giving him so many open looks from all the doubles and triples Barkley drew, especially after offensive rebounds. He didn't get the option to show a 93 Sonics level performance, but in 90 he lost to the second best team in the league in the second round (the Bulls outperformed the Blazers vs Detroit). He did still have some great playoff games vs the cavs https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1990-05-01-2746120-story.htmland the Bulls though despite demanding far more attention than he got on Phoenix, where his teammates were much better.

Nor was he an actual minus on D like some who haven't watched him have claimed; this is a distortion from his later career reputation after injuries and fatness made him a terrible defender, but this does not apply to his peak Philly years. His +/- on D from Harvey Pollack overall paints him as a plus defender from 86-90 (-2.3, -4.8 +1.4, -0.4, +0.6) . Dipper13's stat tracking paints him as a great 1on1 post defender, which matches what I've seen watching games. "his opponents shot 103/282 FG (36.5%) against him in the low post." This is how he was seen at the time:

"Look at the candidates for MVP and the MVPs of the past," said Sixers swingman Derek Smith. "They've always had an all-star teammate or two. Without Charles, this basketball team is way down there." Smith later said: "Charles Barkley may not have been named Player of the Week or Player of the Month, but if he's not the MVP, they ought to abolish the award and never give it out again."

"I seriously thought that Charles would win it because of what I believe the credentials were - to make your team better and improve the situation within a team," Jordan said. "You look at what was expected of Philly and what they did and who was the main reason for that, and it all led to Charles Barkley."


To give an idea of how he looked next to Jordan, here's a quick look at their RS match:

Watch on YouTube

. Obviously Jordan was significantly better in the playoffs, but David Robinson is already voted in despite a way worse playoffs, and 1990 is Jordan's second best season...How many of the guys have we voted in so far that would look at the same level as Jordan side-by-side?

Even two years later, Barkley was the consensus best player on the Dream team, and Philly imploded after he left worse than Minny imploded after KG left. All this despite Barkley only getting traded for players and no assets (KG was traded for a larger mix of players and assets due to supply/demand imbalance), and all-star Jeff Hornacek received in the trade found the situation so bad he demanded an immediate trade out of Philly. He was seen at the same level as Bird, Magic, and Jordan even by 1988, written by a Boston columnist:

Sixers' star has 3 peers: Magic, Bird and Jordan

PHILADELPHIA — The season is less than a quarter over and, already, the hallowed of the hoop world are making way for another to join their ranks.

Before this season started, there were three certifiable, indisputable, non-negotiable big-impact playing legends: Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan. To that exalted list you can now add Charles Barkley. Maybe it was an oversight not to have included him before. Now, there is no doubt.

“He has always been up there as far as I’m concerned,” lauded Bird, who will bring his Boston Celtics into the Spectrum Tuesday to meet Barkley’s 76ers. “He comes to play. He plays hard. And he puts numbers on the board. He’s just a great basketball player.”

Last year, his third in the league, Barkley broke through and made the second All-Star team, won the rebounding title and participated in his first All-Star Game. He has picked everything up a notch this year to the point where he is the clubhouse leader for Most Valuable Player.

He is second in scoring, and first in field-goal percentage as well as ferocity. Frankly, the Sixers would be lost without him. And they know it.

“I’ve been involved in this game for 15 seasons and I do not make rash decisions,” said Hubie Brown, the former New York Knicks coach and now doing television commentary for 76er games. “But after watching this man and looking at him as a basketball player, he is in that category with Bird, Magic and Jordan, with people who fill up every stat.”

And, Brown noted, “I have noticed one thing about him this year. I haven’t heard the word ‘immature’ mentioned when people are talking about him.”

Barkley, incredibly, has turned from trash talker to eminence grise, practically overnight. Whereas, last year he ripped Bird, Johnny Most, his teammates (“wimps and complainers”) and talked with the same pugnacity he showed on the court, this year he is Churchillian by comparison.

He was composed, patient and cooperative after the Sixers’ 124-87 defeat Sunday (although he did try to smash a chair during the game). Two years ago, the Boston Garden might have been razed in a Barkley tantrum.

“I’m still disappointed, but inside, I’ve learned to live with things like this,” he said. “Hey, these are my guys. I’ve got to keep them alive. I just have to remind them this is not the end of the world.”

This is his team. In actuality, it was his team last year, but it also was Julius Erving’s farewell season, so, Barkley was, we now see, a statesman-in-waiting.

So far this season, he has led the team in scoring in 19 of the 20 games, in rebounding in 15 of the 20 games, and even joined his teammates in a Christmas video singing “Santa Claus Is Coming To Town.”

He is averaging 29.1 points and 12.6 rebounds a game. He is shooting 62 percent from the field, 65 percent from two-point range. The NBA record is 72.7 percent, set by Wilt Chamberlain in 1972-73.

He is playing an average of 38.9 minutes a game. He is second in assists to the estimable Maurice Cheeks. And, remember, he is doing it all in the trenches at the amazing height of 6-5 on his tiptoes, and with his customary, considerable (260 pounds) girth.

“I find it uncanny his ability to take the punishment he takes and get to the basket, get the free throw or make the pass. He’s double- and triple-teamed on every possession,” Brown said. “You really have to love his unselfishness and his ability to make that pass on the break. If you’re free, he’ll get you the ball.

“And,” Brown continued, “the thing you really appreciate about Charles Barkley as a coach is the shooting percentage. And you underscore that with an asterisk for his threes (three-point shots). That takes courage for a man of that size to do that. You don’t think of him as a perimeter player.”

Sunday represented Barkley’s worst outing of the season. Eighteen points, two rebounds, four turnovers. What had preceded that game, however, was a remarkable stretch in which he personally carried the Sixers to six victories in seven games and included quotes from his rivals and coaches usually reserved for the likes of Bird, Magic and Jordan.

Against Portland, he had 38 points and 24 rebounds in 42 minutes. Portland Trail Blazers Coach Mike Schuler called Barkley “a man among boys.” He had 32 points, 14 rebounds and six steals against the San Antonio Spurs.

But the game people still are talking about was last Thursday in New York against the Knicks. Barkley played 46 minutes and had 40 points, 17 rebounds, five assists and three steals. He had 19 points in the first quarter, 27 at the half, and then scored 11 points in the final 4:08 after the Knicks had cut a 16-point deficit to 91-86.

“He has had some special games, but that one in New York was one of his best,” said Sixer Coach Matt Guokas. “He just dominated. He scored when he had to, got the rebounds, did everything. It was one of the greatest performances I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot.”

The Knicks, too, were impressed. Knicks Coach Rick Pitino said if Barkley wasn’t the best player in the league, “he’s close to it.” And rookie Mark Jackson, who has played against Bird, added, “I can truthfully, honestly say that he’s the best basketball player I’ve faced. You can do nothing but admire him.”

Barkley purports to take all this in stride. He enjoys the limelight, the money (more than $1 million a year) and, above all, the games. The competition.

“Offensively, I think I’ve improved some this season. Obviously the experience helps,” he said. “And that carries over to the other areas. I’m playing with more confidence too. If I take a jump shot now, I feel like I’m going to hit it, not like I’m just trying to get rid of the ball.”

Does he feel at all honored to be included in such august company as Bird, Magic and Jordan?

“Sure. They’re all great competitors,” he said. “But everyone has their own opinion. I never worry about what anyone else says.”

Since I was tagged in an earlier thread about why people are posting less now: Some of these posts and selections seem so outlandish and divorced from reality I've lost interest compared to previous GOAT lists. The logic of player vs player at some of these rankings is not consistent at all, and a lot of these placements as we go beyond #10 seem quite arbitrary. I wonder if the very minute debates and specialized discussions has resulted in a loss of focus and lack of general context of player vs player: it seems like in several threads there's so much debate over very specialized points, which then the votes go in a different direction with very little discussion. In other words, the analysis/talk to vote direction seems way off, even though a lot of the analysis is great.

[FrogBros4Life]

Quoting lots of people here, because there were a lot of separate responses from the last few threads I wanted to reply to in conjunction with each other:

After reading the last two threads, I've come to the conclusion that I may have been underrating Patrick Ewing a bit. I was planning on starting to campaign for 2016 Draymond now that Robinson is off the board, but after reading the conversations about Ewing, I think I rate peak Ewing over peak Draymond, and maybe over peak Robinson(still not sure on that).


2. 1994 Ewing - definitely worse box score stats than 1990, but he was older, which generally coincides with less box score stats and more actual impact. Led the Knicks to not only the #1 defense, but arguably the best defense ever. I see peak Ewing as a +1.5-2.5 offense, +4.75-5.75 defense player.

3. 1993 Ewing - arguably better box score stats than 1994 when you look at the playoffs, but still very close. Knicks were still the number one defense this year, but not in the consideration for best all time.

What's the argument for 94 Ewing over any of 89-93? I get that his team did better but if you want to talk about his defense 92 and 93 are much better seasons with 93 being the only 60 win team Ewing was ever on despite having less talent than the 94 Knicks (who added Doc at PG).

Also the 93 Knicks are quite literally the best defense of all time. How is the team with the best relative DRTG since Bill Russell, "not in the consideration for the best all time?"

Here's the top 10 defenses since 76 by z-score:

Code: Select all

RANK   Team   Offense   Defense   Total [anchor]
#01   93 NYK   -0.64   -2.77   +2.14 [Patrick Ewing]
#02   04 SAS   -0.20   -2.49   +2.30 [Tim Duncan]
#03   08 BOS   +0.79   -2.49   +3.28 [Kevin Garnett]
#04   94 NYK   -0.17   -2.46   +2.29 [Patrick Ewing]
#05   07 CHI   -0.53   -2.36   +1.83 [Ben Wallace]
#06   14 IND   -0.81   -2.33   +1.52 [Roy Hibbert, Paul George]
#07   16 SAS   +1.23   -2.33   +3.56 [Kawhi Leonard]
#07   07 SAS   +0.95   -2.26   +3.21 [Tim Duncan]
#08   05 SAS   +0.44   -2.24   +2.68 [Tim Duncan]
#09   11 CHI   +0.33   -2.13   +2.46 [Joakim Noah, Luol Deng]
#10   11 BOS   -0.32   -2.13   +1.81 [Kevin Garnett]

Their playoff DRTG doesn't look too hot but he played Reggie Miller in round 1 (I've argued before he's a top 10ish offensive postseason player ever and his regularized scoring production in the playoffs from 92-96 is the same as Curry's regularized regular season production from 15-19) and MJ in the ECF which made their postseason DRTG look bad. Against the Hornets in round 2, the one team not featuring one of the top 10ish offensive players in postseason history, they held Zo and LJ to a -9.0 ORTG vs their regular season average a series after they tore up the Celtics defense.

Great response. I was going by memory with Ewing, and I may have gotten years mixed up. Whichever year it was that they were arguably the best defense ever is my vote for peak Ewing.

With that being said I think 92 is his best individual defensive season. They were the 2nd ranked defense, Ewing was 2nd team all defense, His best 2 way season is probably 89 when he averaged 1.5 spg, 3.5 bpg, and led a career best +3.3 offense.

Looking at Ewing's career in more detail now, I'm switching to an earlier peak(1990). I had 93 mixed up with 94 in my mind, but after putting more thought and research into it, I think I've got to go with 1990. I think the Knick's improvement can be reasonably attributed to the additions of Pat Riley, Xavier McDaniel, Anthony and others, as well as general improvement of other players.

I could see Ewing as a +1-2 offense, +4-5 defense player

I’m liking Kobe 08 and 09 for my next two but torn in regards to Ewing vs Moses.

Any good arguments for Ewing and what year should I look at. I know his scoring peak was earlier but he anchored better teamz with worse boxscore production a few years later.

Ok....so.....I'm going to take something of a bifurcated approach here as I'll be responding to two major points that I disagree with. 1.) The 92-93 Knicks were unarguably a better defensive team than the 93-94 Knicks, & 2.) That 90 and 92 are Ewing's top 2 choices for peak seasons.

I'll start with #1:


By any account, both the 92-93 & the 93-94 Knicks are among the best defensive teams of all time. I might agree that the 92-93 version was better in a vacuum while arguing that circumstantially, the 93-94 team was the superior defensive unit. I will get into the merits of each in a sec, but I first wanted to comment on EBalla using Z-Scores to "prove" that the 92-93 team was not only better defensively than the 93-94 team, but that they were the best defensive team, period since 76.

So, Z-Scores are a way to do a comparative analysis. In fact, they are a great way to do a comparative analysis. But they aren't the only way to do a comparative analysis, and in some cases, may also not be the "best" way to do a comparative analysis.

To illustrate this, I want to look at team win totals from some of the best regular season squads in the history of the league.

1.) 2015-2016 Warriors: 73-9
2.) 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls: 72-10
3.) 1996-1997 Chicago Bulls: 69-13
4.) 1971-1972 LA Lakers: 69-13
5.) 1966-1967 Philadelphia Sixers: 68-13* (81 game season)
6.) 1985-86 Boston Celtics: 67-15
7.) 1999-2000 LA Lakers: 67-15
8.) 2016-2017 Warriors: 67-15
9.) 2015-2016 San Antonio Spurs: 67-15


Of these 9 teams, wanna take a guess at which one has the best Z-Score? Surprise, Surprise....it's actually the 2016-2017 Warriors (67-15), who barely beat out of the 73 win Warriors from a year prior with a Z-Score of 2.3636363636363636363636363636364‬ compared to a Z-Score of 2.3442541943626808059342556167536‬. Not only that, but if we are going by Z-Score, the 86 Celtics print out as better than the 96 Bulls despite winning 5 less games, and the 2015-2016 Spurs print out as better than the the 69 win Chicago Bulls of the 96-97 season. In fact, the 96-97 Bulls have the lowest Z-Score of any team listed (1.8197223561344711364865212394949‬), despite winning the 3rd most amount of games.

Now, I think even the most devout of stat heads wouldn't touch the argument that the 2016-2017 Warriors were a better regular season team than their 73 win counterpart, but if we only look at Z-Scores, that is the conclusion that the data arrives at. There are several factors at play here, but for the sake of brevity in an otherwise lengthy post, it is partially because in most other Z-Scores taken of total populations (think: exam scores), the mean would change in any given semester, or data set. But for an NBA season, the mean win total is always the same (as long as the number of games in the season remains unchanged). For exam scores, one student scoring a 100 doesn't have to come at the expense of another student scoring a 0. But with NBA win totals, one team's victory (+1), must always come at the expense of another team's defeat (-1). So, even though the mean win total will remain unchanged, the distribution, or "balance", will vary in any given season based on how even or top heavy the team talent levels are. So, the 73 win warriors for example, appear to suffer a bit when looking at Z-Scores because there is a lot more variance for that season (VAR=186.333) compared to the next year's season (VAR=121). What's not necessarily accurately accounted for here though (compared to something like exam score distribution) is that the variance is (in part) higher in 2016 because you had 2 historically great winning teams (Warriors and Spurs) "stealing" wins not just from every team, but both disproportionately from the other Western Conference teams whom they played at least twice as often.

On the topic of Z-Scores....Eballa....in that table you posted did you calculate those values yourself or did you pull them from some publicly available database/spreadsheet? When I calculate them myself I get very similar but slightly different numbers than what you have posted for some of them. For instance, you have the 93 Knicks offense at -0.64, while I have it coming out to -0.602. For the 94 Knicks, you have their defense at -2.46, while I have it coming out as -2.39. If you calculated these yourself, did you round any of your numbers?

Having said that, I again, won't outright disagree that the 93 Knicks were better defensively than the 94 Knicks, only that using a Z-Score comparison as the only way to prove this, might not be as clear cut as you are thinking. For example, if we just look at rDRTG, the 93 and 94 Knicks rank 7th and 8th all time respectively (all time, not just since 76). So let's dig into the data a little deeper for these two teams.

92-93 Knicks
================

Pace = 94.5 (23rd of 27th)

League Average Pace = 96.8

Pace differential = -2.3

dRTG = 99.7 (1st)

League Average dRTG = 108

dRTG differential = -8.3

Opp PPG = 95.4 (1st)

League Average Opp PPG = 105.3

Opp PPG differential = -9.9

Opp FGA/G = 80.7 (1st)

League Average Opp FGA/G = 86

Opp FGA/G differential = -5.3

Opp FG% = 42.6 (1st)

League Average Opp FG% = 47.3

Opp FG% differential = -4.7

Opp FTA/G = 31.5 (24th of 27)

League Average Opp FTA/G = 27.7

Opp FTA/G differential = +3.8 (+ is bad here)

DEFREB% = 72.1 (1st)

League Average DEFREB% = 68

DEFREB% differential = +4.1

TO% = 14.9 (6th)

League Average TO% = 14

TO% differential = +0.9


93-94 Knicks
==========================

Pace = 92.8 (24th of 27)

League Average Pace = 95.1

Pace differential = -2.3

dRTG= 98.2 (1st)

League Average dRTG = 106.3

dRTG differential = -8.1

Opp PPG = 91.5 (1st)

League Average Opp PPG = 101.5

Opp PPG differential = -10

Opp FGA/G = 78.7 (1st)

League Average Opp FGA/G = 84.4

Opp FGA/G differential = -5.7

Opp FG% = 43.1 (1st)

League Average Opp FG% = 46.6

Opp FG% differential = -3.5

Opp FTA/G = 28.5 (17th out of 27)

League Average Opp FTA/G = 26.6

Opp FTA/G differential = +1.9

DEFREB% = 71.4 (1st)

League Average DEFREB% = 67.8

DEFREB% differential = +3.6

TO% = 16 (2nd)

League Average TO% = 14.3

TO% differential = +1.7


So....we see the league as a whole played a little faster in the 93 season, but the Knicks were a -2.3 relative pace team in both 93 and 94. The 93 team was better in dRTG differential, OPP FG%, OPP FG% differential, DEFREB%, and DEFREB% differential. The 94 team was better in raw dRTG, Opp PPG, Opp PPG differential, Opp FGA/G, Opp FGA/G differential, Opp FTA/G, Opp FTA/G differential, TO% and TO% differential. Aside from the 93 team having an -8.3 rdRTG to the 94 teams's -8.1 rdRTG, the 93 team forced opponents to shoot at a worse % and then rebounded a better % of those missed shots. But the 94 team, while allowing opponents to shoot a bit better from the field, actually allowed fewer total shots to even be attempted, forcing more turnovers, and sending teams to the free throw line LESS often than the year before. The 94 team also held opponents to a lower total PPG AND a lower PPG relative to the league average than the 93 team, and while not a totally defensive stat, the 94 team also had a net rating that was over 1 full point better than the 93 team (7.5 vs. 6.4).

Now, just on these stats, I would say you couldn't go wrong with either year as the better defense. They both print out better or worse relative to each other in certain categories. I will concede however, that rdRTG is probably the most commonly used "all in one" defensive stat to compare team defenses, and again the 93 team does come out ever so slightly ahead (-8.3 to -8.1), so, again, in a vacuum, I'd be willing to say the 93 team was better.

However....this is where it gets interesting. While I think the 94 team featured better teammates around Ewing ON PAPER, we also have to account for health and availability. So let's look at number of games missed by key rotational pieces for both seasons.

92-93 number of games missed
==============================
Ewing: 1
Oakley: 0
Starks: 2
Mason: 1
Smith: 1
Rivers: 5
Anthony: 12

Aside from Greg Anthony missing 12 games, we see the 93 Knicks core players were pretty darn healthy throughout the regular season. They were available night in and night out even if most of their averages weren't as good as the following year. Ewing at least knew who he was going to be taking the floor with for pretty much the entire season. Now let's look at number of games missed in the 93-94 season


93-94 number of games missed
=============================
Ewing: 3
Oakley: 0
Starks: 23
Mason: 9
Smith: 39
Rivers: 63
Harper: 28
Anthony: 2


Ok....so we see A LOT more player games missed this season. Starks missed almost 1/3 of the season. Smith missed almost 1/2 of the season. Rivers only played in 19 games before missing the rest of the year. Harper was a mid season acquisition who only played with the team for 54 games, and came off the bench for 27 of those, and Mason missed 8 more games than the year before.

We can actually divide the 94 season into 4 parts. The pre-Derek Harper Knicks and the post-Derek Harper Knicks, with each of these two parts being divided into 2 smaller periods. For the pre Harper Knicks we have 1.) The 19 games where Rivers played and 2.) the 9 games between Rivers injury and Harper's arrival where Tony Campbell was soaking up a lot of the guard minutes. For the post Harper Knicks we have the 27 games where he came off the bench behind Greg Anthony upon first joining the team, and then the 27 games he started to finish the season. We will exclude the 9 game sample after Rivers injury before Harper's arrival, but let's take a closer look at the other 3 "parts" of that season.

For the entire season, the 94 Knicks had a dRTG of 98.2.

For the 19 games that Rivers played, the Knicks had a dRTG of 97.1

For the 27 games where Harper came off the bench behind Anthony, the Knicks had a dRTG of 100.5

For the 26 games where Harper started and Ewing played (Ewing had one "load management" game during this stretch), the Knicks had a dRTG of 97.9

So clearly, the 27 games with Anthony starting and Harper coming off the bench brought down the total dRTG for the season. But as for just the 19 games where Rivers played vs the 27 games where Harper started, the difference looks much more even, but still in Rivers' favor. However....the average oRTG of the teams the Knicks played in the 19 games with Rivers was 105.7....and the average oRTG of the teams the Knicks played in the 26 games Harper started was 106.2. So, not only were the Knicks playing slightly weaker offensive opposition in the 19 games with Rivers, but they were doing so with the benefit of the team that played the entire previous season together (making it to the conference finals) as well as had an entire training camp and pre-season together this year. Not only was Harper thrown into the mix halfway through the year, and played a slightly stronger average offensive opponent in the 27 games he started, but here's the real kicker....Starks only played in 4 of the 27 games that Harper started, and Starks and Harper didn't start A SINGLE regular season game together that year. In fact, due to Starks injury and Harper's suspension in the second round, Harper and Starks didn't start their first game together until game 7 of the Chicago series. Hubert Davis was starting at SG for every game that Harper started....and while I've been critical of Starks being a bit overrated as a defender in the past, he was most certainly a major upgrade as a defender over Davis.

So we aren't just looking at the relative defensive impact in terms of Harper starting vs Rivers starting, but rather Rivers and Starks as a backcourt vs. Harper and Davis as a backcourt. And that the Knicks had virtually the same dRTG with Harper and Davis as they did with Rivers and Starks while playing stronger offenses....that is a HUGE testament to how much of an upgrade Harper was as a defender over Rivers, who himself was not a bad defender.

So, if in 94 the Knicks would have had the team health they enjoyed in 93, while also having the benefit of having Harper go through training camp with them and start the entire season, it seems they would have rather easily ended the season with better defensive numbers than the previous season in virtually every category. In fact, the 94 Knicks set a playoff record (which I believe still stands) for most games holding an opponent under 95 points (23 games). The fact that it's even something of a toss up at all given all of the injury factors is amazing, and helps explain why I think 94 is Ewing's peak, which I will segue into now....

#2:

I think an argument can be made for 92-94 as Ewing's peak. I'd personally pick 94 for reasons I will explain below. Cecil made a good point in a previous thread about how Ewing was one of the rare 2 way superstar big men whose offensive and defensive peaks didn't intersect in the same season. By this I mean that most people assume Ewing to have peaked offensively in 90 due to his gaudy box score stats, while defining his defensive peak a few years down the line during the Riley years. There's some truth to this, but I wouldn't call it completely accurate. I think there is enough evidence pointing to either 93 or 94 as his best defensive years that I shouldn't need to go into further detail explaining that, but once we adjust for pace his offensive numbers in 94 are better than 92 and 93, and comparable to his numbers in 90. Most people don't seem to adjust for pace when comparing box score stats of teams that play at a fast tempo to those who play at a slower one, and I think failing to do so doesn't give you a full understanding of a player's offensive value.

All counting stats per 100 possessions (regular season)
================================================

90 Ewing: 36.2 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.2 steals, 5.0 blocks TS%:59.9 rTS%: +6.2 scr%: 26.4

92 Ewing: 32.3 ppg, 15.1rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.4 steals, 4.0 blocks TS%:56.3 rTS%: +3.2 scr%: 23.6

93 Ewing: 33.1 ppg, 16.6rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.3 steals, 2.7 blocks TS%:54.6 rTS%: +1 scr%: 23.8

94 Ewing: 33.7 ppg, 15.4rpg, 3.1 apg, 1.6 steals, 3.8 blocks TS%:55.1 rTS%: +2.3 scr%: 24.9




So 90 looks to be his clear offensive peak even after adjusting for pace....but it's close. The difference in his per 100 scoring average in 90 and 94 is one and a quarter baskets (2.5) and his difference in blocks per game is 1.2, both in favor of 1990. But 94 has Ewing coming out ahead in rebounds, assists and steals. Ewing's efficiency was clearly the best in 90, but he was a better defender in the other years, leading the league in both dRTG and DWS in both 93 and 94. Even though Ewing's offense is better in 90, it appears close enough between 90 and the other years that we need to include defense to see when he was truly his most impactful. I think in that case, either 93 or 94 looks to be his total peak, with 94 looking better overall from a numbers perspective than 93. And again, the fact that the 94 Knicks defense was about as good as the 93 Knicks, and the 93 Knicks "only" won 3 more games despite the massive difference in number of games missed by Ewing's teammates in both years, to me suggests Ewing was just playing at his highest level in the 94 season.

In 93, Ewing's two highest scoring teammates were Starks and Charles Smith. In 94, Starks and Smith missed a combined 62 games. His starting point guard from the previous year, only played 19 games, and the new starting point guard only "started" 27. You would expect a massive drop off in both team results and individual offensive output because of this....with Starks and Smith missing so many games, defenses could focus even more attention on Ewing, and without a stable point guard situation, he was tasked with creating more offense for himself. Yet in 94 (compared to 93), Ewing averaged more points and assists, and a higher scr% on better efficiency than the previous year.


Ewing's playoff scoring in 90 is by far the best of his career, but his defense in the 94 playoffs was the best of his career. I think the stakes were a little higher in 94 though, and by that point they were playing a style that was built more around defense than offense. I think you can certainly make a case for 90 as Ewing's overall peak, especially if you value offensive volume + efficiency more than defensive impact, but I think 94 is heavily underrated as being Ewing's best overall season when you look at what he did with so many guys missing so many games. His elite play on both sides of the ball throughout the first 3 rounds of the 94 playoffs, and his valiant defensive effort in the 94 Finals are just icing on the cake. I think his 91-95 years in general are all marginalized as just being "all star level" as opposed to "all nba" level coupled with "all time" defensive level impact, but that's another post altogether.

I'm gonna close this with a quick note on Ewing as a clutch playoff performer. He's generally remembered as being unreliable in big moments, mainly due to his missed layup in game 7 against Indiana in 95, and his overall underwhelming offensive in the 94 Finals, but Ewing was a much more trustworthy clutch player than he's credited for. I can give at least 6 examples off the top of my head where he made a game winning or game tying shot in the playoffs, but since we are talking 90 vs 94 as his peak, I will leave you guys with a clip of Ewing leading a one man gang rally against the Bulls in game 3 of the 94 playoffs. The Bulls would go on to win the game on a prayer shot from Toni Kukoc, but Ewing went on a personal 8-0 run in the final minute and a half to tie the game with 2 seconds left on a dazzling display of offense (and a key steal on Bill Cartwright). A long jumper, a space clearing post up play, a slight head fake at the 3 point line then driving the ball in for a layup like a guard, and finally, his patented sweeping hookshot in the paint. And they were all offensive opportunities generated by Ewing himself. Harper had gotten ejected earlier in the game and this was Ewing just going to work. You could absolutely contend for a title with him year in and year out as your best offensive and defensive player. The Knicks made it to at least the second round of the playoffs for 9 straight years (!), 4 Conference Finals appearances, and 2 Finals appearances during his prime.

Watch on YouTube

[E-Balla]

Looking at isolation and pick and roll offense, as I think those are the two most important sets to look at when trying to evaluate the strength of that "secondary" offense that Kawhi could bring.

*Looking at playoffs here as that's where I think 2019 Kawhi was truly going all out

Isolation
2016 Kawhi: 2.1 pos, 0.62 ppp
2019 Kawhi: 5.0 pos, 0.95 ppp

PnR
2016 Kawhi: 2.5 pos, 1.02 ppp
2019 Kawhi: 6.3 pos, 1.01 ppp

He was way, way better in isolation. More than double the volume on way better efficiency. Doubling the volume while maintaining efficiency would mean he's improved a lot, but this says to me that 2019 Kawhi is in a different league as an isolation player.

Looking at pick and roll, again he more than doubled his volume, this time while merely maintaining his efficiency. Again I would say that 2019 he was a far better pick and roll player.

The issue with this analysis is that his isolation sample in the 2016 playoffs is 21 possessions. In the regular season his efficiency was elite and his volume wasn't much lower than his volume in 2017 and 2019. 3 buckets is the gap in a 0.90 ppp and a 0.62 ppp in isolation.

Plus for the PnR three things here:

1. You posted the regular season numbers.

2. League average halfcourt efficiency is way up since 2016. In 2016 that 1.02 put him in the 95.2nd percentile but in 2019 a 1.01 put him in the 90.6th percentile.

3. Here's the playoff numbers -
2016 Kawhi: 4.0 pos, 1.13 ppp (96.7%)
2019 Kawhi: 7.5 pos, 1.06 pos, (87.3%)

Way better in 2016.

These two things combined lead me to believe that 2019 Kawhi was a far better "give me the ball and let me make something happen" player. In my eyes, the strength of that "give me the ball and let me make something happen" ability is the basis for the strength of that secondary offense I mentioned earlier that makes the Raptor's offense so much harder to counter in the playoffs.

2016 Kawhi might play more within the primary offense as a catch and shoot guy(his assisted % was way higher in 2016), and he might even make that primary offense slightly better, but I think their secondary offense would get way worse(maybe to the point where it's no longer worth using), and ultimately their playoff offense would get worse.


Now that's offense. Looking at defense...hmm...I honestly don't really have a good counter. If you want to say something "dropped off a cliff" from 2016 to 2017, this is where it's absolutely justified. I can't think of a better way to describe it. Kawhi's defense dropped of a huge cliff from 2016 to 2017(and never recovered). This has nothing to do with impact metrics either, as it was obvious within the first 1/4th of the season, where impact metrics basically don't exist. Maybe the biggest defensive drop off I've ever seen in a single year. He wasn't a bad defender in 2017, but I went from watching Spurs games in 2016 thinking "this is the best perimeter defender I've ever seen", to watching games in 2017 thinking "this guy is...average? He's a pretty good man defender, but also a lazy help defender that gives up a ton of free points"

Honestly, taking into account defense, I really do think you make a decent case for 2016 Kawhi. One thing I will say is that I think 2019 Kawhi is more capable of giving up offensive primacy to regain that defensive impact that 2016 Kawhi is of taking on more offensive primacy in trade for his defensive impact, but I don't have any stats to back that up.

PS: Where do you find league wide ORTG? and where do you find individual player defensive efficiency based on play type(ex: Kawhi was "x" ppp on PnR)?

I found league wide ORTG on basketball reference. They keep league averages each season. And NBA.com has the defensive efficiency right with the offensive efficiency. They ask if you want offensive or defensive numbers in the search settings.

[E-Balla]

Ok....so.....I'm going to take something of a bifurcated approach here as I'll be responding to two major points that I disagree with. 1.) The 92-93 Knicks were unarguably a better defensive team than the 93-94 Knicks, & 2.) That 90 and 92 are Ewing's top 2 choices for peak seasons.

I'll start with #1:

Before you do I want to point out I never said unarguably. There's definitely a case for either year, his post said there was no argument 93 was arguably the GOAT defense though, and I wanted to show him based off the numbers they are the best defense in modern NBA history.

By any account, both the 92-93 & the 93-94 Knicks are among the best defensive teams of all time. I might agree that the 92-93 version was better in a vacuum while arguing that circumstantially, the 93-94 team was the superior defensive unit. I will get into the merits of each in a sec, but I first wanted to comment on EBalla using Z-Scores to "prove" that the 92-93 team was not only better defensively than the 93-94 team, but that they were the best defensive team, period since 76.

So, Z-Scores are a way to do a comparative analysis. In fact, they are a great way to do a comparative analysis. But they aren't the only way to do a comparative analysis, and in some cases, may also not be the "best" way to do a comparative analysis.

To illustrate this, I want to look at team win totals from some of the best regular season squads in the history of the league.

1.) 2015-2016 Warriors: 73-9
2.) 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls: 72-10
3.) 1996-1997 Chicago Bulls: 69-12
4.) 1971-1972 LA Lakers: 69-12
5.) 1966-1967 Philadelphia Sixers: 68-13* (81 game season)
6.) 1985-86 Boston Celtics: 67-15
7.) 1999-2000 LA Lakers: 67-15
8.) 2016-2017 Warriors: 67-15
9.) 2015-2016 San Antonio Spurs: 67-15


Of these 9 teams, wanna take a guess at which one has the best Z-Score? Surprise, Surprise....it's actually the 2016-2017 Warriors (67-15), who barely beat out of the 73 win Warriors from a year prior with a Z-Score of 2.3636363636363636363636363636364‬ compared to a Z-Score of 2.3442541943626808059342556167536‬. Not only that, but if we are going by Z-Score, the 86 Celtics print out as better than the 96 Bulls despite winning 5 less games, and the 2015-2016 Spurs print out as better than the the 69 win Chicago Bulls of the 96-97 season. In fact, the 96-97 Bulls have the lowest Z-Score of any team listed (1.8197223561344711364865212394949‬), despite winning the 3rd most amount of games.

Now, I think even the most devout of stat heads wouldn't touch the argument that the 2016-2017 Warriors were a better regular season team than their 73 win counterpart, but if we only look at Z-Scores, that is the conclusion that the data arrives at. There are several factors at play here, but for the sake of brevity in an otherwise lengthy post, it is partially because in most other Z-Scores taken of total populations (think: exam scores), the mean would change in any given semester, or data set. But for an NBA season, the mean win total is always the same (as long as the number of games in the season remains unchanged). For exam scores, one student scoring a 100 doesn't have to come at the expense of another student scoring a 0. But with NBA win totals, one team's victory (+1), must always come at the expense of another team's defeat (-1). So, even though the mean win total will remain unchanged, the distribution, or "balance", will vary in any given season based on how even or top heavy the team talent levels are. So, the 73 win warriors for example, appear to suffer a bit when looking at Z-Scores because there is a lot more variance for that season (VAR=186.333) compared to the next year's season (VAR=121). What's not necessarily accurately accounted for here though (compared to something like exam score distribution) is that the variance is (in part) higher in 2016 because you had 2 historically great winning teams (Warriors and Spurs) "stealing" wins not just from every team, but both disproportionately from the other Western Conference teams whom they played at least twice as often.

On the topic of Z-Scores....Eballa....in that table you posted did you calculate those values yourself or did you pull them from some publicly available database/spreadsheet? When I calculate them myself I get very similar but slightly different numbers than what you have posted for some of them. For instance, you have the 93 Knicks offense at -0.64, while I have it coming out to -0.602. For the 94 Knicks, you have their defense at -2.46, while I have it coming out as -2.39. If you calculated these yourself, did you round any of your numbers?

I have calculated them myself but that was long ago. I don't think I rounded but I can't say for a fact as I don't remember exactly how I calculated them.

This is also all valid criticism. Z-Score is never perfect, but nothing is. It's a good tool for analysis still that tells us more about the defensive quality of the team relative to league average. The rest of this is great.

#2:

I think an argument can be made for 92-94 as Ewing's peak. I'd personally pick 94 for reasons I will explain below. Cecil made a good point in a previous thread about how Ewing was one of the rare 2 way superstar big men whose offensive and defensive peaks didn't intersect in the same season. By this I mean that most people assume Ewing to have peaked offensively in 90 due to his gaudy box score stats, while defining his defensive peak a few years down the line during the Riley years. There's some truth to this, but I wouldn't call it completely accurate. I think there is enough evidence pointing to either 93 or 94 as his best defensive years that I shouldn't need to go into further detail explaining that, but once we adjust for pace his offensive numbers in 94 are better than 92 and 93, and comparable to his numbers in 90. Most people don't seem to adjust for pace when comparing box score stats of teams that play at a fast tempo to those who play at a slower one, and I think failing to do so doesn't give you a full understanding of a player's offensive value.

All counting stats per 100 possessions (regular season)
================================================

90 Ewing: 36.2 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.2 steals, 5.0 blocks TS%:59.9 rTS%: +6.2 scr%: 26.4

92 Ewing: 32.3 ppg, 15.1rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.4 steals, 4.0 blocks TS%:56.3 rTS%: +3.2 scr%: 23.6

93 Ewing: 33.1 ppg, 16.6rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.3 steals, 2.7 blocks TS%:54.6 rTS%: +1 scr%: 23.8

94 Ewing: 33.7 ppg, 15.4rpg, 3.1 apg, 1.6 steals, 3.8 blocks TS%:55.1 rTS%: +2.3 scr%: 24.9




So 90 looks to be his clear offensive peak even after adjusting for pace....but it's close. The difference in his per 100 scoring average in 90 and 94 is one and a quarter baskets (2.5) and his difference in blocks per game is 1.2, both in favor of 1990. But 94 has Ewing coming out ahead in rebounds, assists and steals. Ewing's efficiency was clearly the best in 90, but he was a better defender in the other years, leading the league in both dRTG and DWS in both 93 and 94. Even though Ewing's offense is better in 90, it appears close enough between 90 and the other years that we need to include defense to see when he was truly his most impactful. I think in that case, either 93 or 94 looks to be his total peak, with 94 looking better overall from a numbers perspective than 93. And again, the fact that the 94 Knicks defense was about as good as the 93 Knicks, and the 93 Knicks "only" won 3 more games despite the massive difference in number of games missed by Ewing's teammates in both years, to me suggests Ewing was just playing at his highest level in the 94 season.

I wasn't arguing 93 over 94 at all for Ewing. I think 94 is clearly better. What I was saying was that 92 was better than 94 if you want a season where Ewing was a force on both ends.

In 93, Ewing's two highest scoring teammates were Starks and Charles Smith. In 94, Starks and Smith missed a combined 62 games. His starting point guard from the previous year, only played 19 games, and the new starting point guard only "started" 27. You would expect a massive drop off in both team results and individual offensive output because of this....with Starks and Smith missing so many games, defenses could focus even more attention on Ewing, and without a stable point guard situation, he was tasked with creating more offense for himself. Yet in 94 (compared to 93), Ewing averaged more points and assists, and a higher scr% on better efficiency than the previous year.


Ewing's playoff scoring in 90 is by far the best of his career, but his defense in the 94 playoffs was the best of his career. I think the stakes were a little higher in 94 though, and by that point they were playing a style that was built more around defense than offense. I think you can certainly make a case for 90 as Ewing's overall peak, especially if you value offensive volume + efficiency more than defensive impact, but I think 94 is heavily underrated as being Ewing's best overall season when you look at what he did with so many guys missing so many games. His elite play on both sides of the ball throughout the first 3 rounds of the 94 playoffs, and his valiant defensive effort in the 94 Finals are just icing on the cake. I think his 91-95 years in general are all marginalized as just being "all star level" as opposed to "all nba" level coupled with "all time" defensive level impact, but that's another post altogether.

Agreed. Ewing is extremely maligned. I think people judge him too much off how he looked late career. A common theme with him around here for example is people saying he wouldn't fit the modern NBA. He's a big with a wet jumper and he probably played the best PNR defense of all of the great 90s Cs. His game is tailor made for 2019.

[cecilthesheep]

Kawhi did also seem to pick his defense up in the playoffs, similar to what Kobe perhaps did in a few of his runs..I don’t have the numbers on it but he seemed way above average defensively in the playoffs.

Moving him to be Giannis' primary defender was arguably the adjustment that swung the Bucks series. He can still make a gigantic difference.

[LA Bird]

Final totals as at the deadline are:

1) 03 TMac = 15.0 points
2) 15 Paul = 12.0 points
T3) 83 Moses = 11.0 points
T3) 90 Barkley = 11.0 points
5) 90 Ewing = 10.5 points

03 TMac wins.

Spoiler:

Odinn21 and 2klegend didn't include a 3rd pick so their votes weren't counted.