RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #3 (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)

[mailmp]

Which is why the drain at the beginning is minimal. And even at the beginning they still had Connie Hawkins and Spencer Haywood and guys like Mel Daniels who would have likely been strong players in the NBA, not to mention a slew of other respectable guards and bigs. Mind you the NBA also added two teams in 1968 (increasing the player pool by twenty percent) and another two teams in 1969.

[Owly]

I'll be very blunt about few Garnett votes; those make no sense at all. His peak isn't top 5 level. His prime isn't top 5 level. His longevity and overall career value aren't top 5 level. His resume isn't there. All there is glorified +/- numbers. Even as great he was, his playoff play also doesn't stack up against the competition for the top 5. Saying he is one of the top 5 players the league has ever seen is a overcorrection for him being in a bad team for majority of his prime.

Garnett over Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain is ridiculous. Garnett is better than Abdul-Jabbar because Abdul-Jabbar has no reliable +/- and wowyr data while Garnett is the king of regular season +/- data? Gotta love that process.

To say it's "king of regular season +/- data" is a touch simplistic ... beyond actually looking at the cases made (which without reading back properly may not have been fully developed yet) ... his raw playoff plus minus is actually better (caveat: being playoffs this data will be uneven in distribution over career, opponent quality etc).

I'd also posit that the idea that his longevity "isn't there" isn't uncontentious. He's 9th in career WS, 5th in Career VORP in the VORP era. Of course neither says he should be in yet. But they put him in the ballpark for consideration on the ballot and above or among many of those mentioned. In both cases fairly close to Duncan. I wouldn't necessarily argue for him here but the idea that it's "just" RS "glorified" +/-, seems both a casual dismissal of quite an important thing (especially when not just raw +/-) and inaccurate (not just good for RS +/-, case tends to go on other stuff such as portability/scalability).

I don't know where he should land and would like to see the pro case put forward more (not that I'll necessarily understand it all). But this seems too casual a dismissal.

[penbeast0]

Mel Daniels was an NBA first round pick who signed with the ABA, Rick Barry was an All-NBA guy, Billy Cunningham was a marginal all-star guy as was Joe Caldwell.

There were more but the ABA was more about discovering buried talent than signing big NBA names, just like the expansion opened up opportunities for guys who had not gotten big opportunities where they were to be legit NBA stars (Paul Westphal in Dallas, Alex English in Milwaukee/Indiana, etc.).

[Owly]

Which is why the drain at the beginning is minimal. And even at the beginning they still had Connie Hawkins and Spencer Haywood and guys like Mel Daniels who would have likely been strong players in the NBA, not to mention a slew of other respectable guards and bigs. Mind you the NBA also added two teams in 1968 (increasing the player pool by twenty percent) and another two teams in 1969.

Hawkins isn't a drain because he wasn't in the NBA.

Haywood isn't a drain at the beginning because he enters the ABA in '69-70 and would not have been eligible to play in the NBA that year anyhow (and indeed enters the NBA sooner than he would have done had the ABA not existed).

Daniels' box-composites are a fair way off Zelmo Beaty's peak ABA numbers (at age 31 and 32). Daniels (9th pick in the draft) is a loss to the NBA but at the beginning where would he rank among NBA centers, below Chamberlain and Russell, below Unseld and Hayes when they arrive, and Thurmond, below Beaty ... It's hard to know for sure because he played such ... non-NBA competition at the pivot. But say he's the clear biggest -non Barry - loss in year 1 ... the NBA's lost maybe a middle of the pack caliber starting center?

Per my previous post I do think there is a loss of players who would have made the expanded NBA. And in the second round Jimmy Jones, Beck and Netolicky had good ABA careers. But it is not the loss of many high end 4 year college players who would have been expected to replete the talent pool. It's not losing a Gilmore or even an Issel (those higher on Daniels may disagree).

[The Master]

I'd also posit that the idea that his longevity "isn't there" isn't uncontentious.

KGs longevity is very underrated, in age of 36, he was the best player on +2.3 SRS team anchoring -6.4 relDRTG defense, and that team was close to make finals appearance, not to mention in that postseason KG was one of the best players in a league with preposterous +36 on/off and solid 19-10 on 54 TS%. But he can fly under the radar because after 2009 injury he was nowhere near volume All-NBA players play with, but his impact on defense was ridiculous even in his last season in Boston (as 37yo), and he was still very portable on offense with his jumper and passing (what would be more useful in a team more talented offensively than Celtics in that period), much more than typical defense-oriented anchors are. But this is one of areas you'll discuss in a week or so from now.

[King Ken]

My top 5 of all time is Duncan, Jordan, LeBron, Russell and Kareem

[drza]

The offenses only got elite when the legendary point guards were around. And those offenses with Kareem + point guard played more similar to the offenses of those point guards without Kareem, than they did like Kareem’s offenses without them.

The problem with that thinking is that you assume 1974 Oscar and 1980 Magic are legendary point guards, but they weren't. Especially Magic, who until 1983/84 wasn't an all-time great floor general. He was very good and versatile offensive player, but he wasn't elite playmaker or scoring threat then. He was more like better version of Ben Simmons, his halfcourt offense was extremely limited.

Oscar was very good floor general, but he lacked athleticism in 1974 which turned him into very slow and passive offensive player. At times he struggled with pressure and his driving game was gone - he relied almost strictly on his midrange shot (except that he wasn't much of a catch and shooter either).

Technically, it's true that Kareem didn't lead all-time great teams without Magic and Oscar, but consider three things:

1. Magic wasn't elite offensive player at least until 1982, arguably later. Oscar wasn't elite offensive player in 1974 either.

2. Kareem played with dreadful rosters in 1975-77 period, then he got a team with some decent names, no coaching, no defense and no structure.

3. These 1978-79 teams were good offensively by the way. Kareem also led excellent offensive team as a rookie in 1970.

Basically, it's like saying that Jordan couldn't lead any good offensive teams without Pippen. Or blaming James for mediocre Cavs offenses before 2009.

Responding to the last line...is it, though? Again, from the quote you posted from (offense only):

Bucks (2 years of Kareem, no Oscar): ORtg-rel: +1.7
Bucks (4 years of Kareem & Oscar): ORTg-rel: 4.2
Royals (Oscar’s entire career): ORtg-rel: +3.3

Lakers (4 years of Kareem, no Magic): ORtg-rel: 1.8
Lakers (10 years of Kareem & Magic): ORtg-rel: +4.9
Lakers (2 years of Magic, no Kareem): ORtg-rel: +5.1

First, I think your 1-off arguments about Oscar slowing by 74 and Magic being only elite but not legendary in his first few seasons is weakened by the facts that a) the trends posted above are multi-year samples and thus not really well-rebutted by looking at those individual seasons. Infact, as I follow your lead and go year-by-year, b) more importantly, the ORatings, if broken down the way you're describing, more closely follow the levels of the point guards than they do Kareem's.

Bucks (first 2 years of Kareem/Oscar): ORtg-rel: +5.7
Bucks (last 2 years of K/O, O getting old): ORTG-rel: +2.7

Lakers (first 3 years of Kareem/Magic): ORtg-rel: +3.2
Lakers (next 3 years, M legend/K getting old): ORTG-rel +5.1

Looking at it more granularly, the way you describe, actually strengthens my point, because the offensive success is even more tightly coupled to the career arcs of the legendary point guards and more un-coupled with the career arc of Kareem.

The Bucks offense was absurd when Oscar still had his fastball and Kareem was at the start of his career. Then, when Oscar got older the offense fell off, despite that Kareem should've been moving toward his peak seasons.

Then, the exact opposite happened with the Lakers. The Lakers offense improved to really good during Magic's first 3 years, but as you point out Magic wasn't what he would grow to be, yet. So, in the 3 years after you point out that Magic reached legendary status, the Lakers' offense jumped up into the mega-elite right along with him...despite the fact that Kareem was now getting towards the twilight of his career.

This doesn't at all align with your Jordan/Pippen rebuttal. While yes, the Bulls didn't win championships until Pippen and Phil arrived, the team was very clearly growing right along with Jordan. And when Jordan left, while Pippen was able to keep the team respectable, there was a clear fall-off without Mike. Not as much with Kareem, when his elite offenses looked much like the offenses that the legendary point guards were able to lead without him.

Similarly, your LeBron example doesn't track because the Cavs' offenses very clearly improved along LeBron's career trajectory. It's not like Steve Nash joined the team after '08 and the offenses improved, then fell off again as Nash got old but LeBron continued to improve. Not the same thing.

And let me be clear, none of what I've posted is to suggest Kareem is anything but elite. He was clearly one of the best players in history, and clearly would be expected to have a positive impact on his team. I've just been pointing out that, compared to some of his contemporaries in the GOAT conversations, Kareem's impact doesn't seem to be as good as theirs. Particularly a player like Russell, who does seem be the clear catalyst and centerpiece of the Celtics' defensive and championship dynasty.

[Owly]

Mel Daniels was an NBA first round pick who signed with the ABA, Rick Barry was an All-NBA guy, Billy Cunningham was a marginal all-star guy as was Joe Caldwell.

There were more but the ABA was more about discovering buried talent than signing big NBA names, just like the expansion opened up opportunities for guys who had not gotten big opportunities where they were to be legit NBA stars (Paul Westphal in Dallas, Alex English in Milwaukee/Indiana, etc.).

?

Fwiw, given the discussion above, Caldwell and Cunningham weren't really lost "at the beginning". Caldwell joining in the ABA's fourth season (as did Beaty, though he - like Barry - was felt as an absence from the NBA a year earlier) and Cunningham in its sixth.

[penbeast0]

Was it 6? Wow, thought it was earlier. But yeah, if you are limiting it to 68-69, it's pretty much Rick Barry (and arguably Daniels). The other early stars were relative unknowns like Larry Brown, guys like Connie Hawkins and Roger Brown who had been blackballed from the NBA for association with gamblers, or guys like Larry Jones of Bill Melchionni who had been buried on NBA benches.

[Doctor MJ]

I'll be very blunt about few Garnett votes; those make no sense at all. His peak isn't top 5 level. His prime isn't top 5 level. His longevity and overall career value aren't top 5 level. His resume isn't there. All there is glorified +/- numbers. Even as great he was, his playoff play also doesn't stack up against the competition for the top 5. Saying he is one of the top 5 players the league has ever seen is a overcorrection for him being in a bad team for majority of his prime.

Garnett over Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain is ridiculous. Garnett is better than Abdul-Jabbar because Abdul-Jabbar has no reliable +/- and wowyr data while Garnett is the king of regular season +/- data? Gotta love that process.

So others have already said things in more detail but I feel I should say:

I consider Garnett's first superstar level impact season to be his 3rd season and his last to be his 17th season. That's 15 years.
Very few players can match that kind of longevity.

[trex_8063]

The Curious Case of Timothy Duncan

Spoiler: I think Duncan is underrated; grossly so in the mainstream, but even a tiny bit here on RealGM. I’ll get to the evidence or arguments pursuant to that. But first---although this might seem backwards---I’m going to start with the reasons WHY [imo] people tend to under-credit him…..

1.


His game doesn’t really contain the moments of flashy brilliance (a la Magic or Bird [or Nash or Ginobili]), nor the jaw-dropping aerial acrobatics of someone like Jordan (or Kobe, or Vinsanity). I mean, his primary nickname was “The Big Fundamental”. Check your thesaurus; you wanna know a synonym for fundamental?: basic.

And basic isn’t sexy. It doesn’t sell. Sometimes it even flies so far under the radar that people don’t even recognize the value of it.
But when done consistently, and very very well [and by an understated NBA-level athlete], “basic” is really damn effective.

Doesn’t hurt that he did this while also being nearly 7-feet tall, too. Which brings me to the 2nd reason why he’s undercredited…..


2. He’s so bloody tall!
Both casual fans and media tend to not identify with the bigs.

In the 90s when the mythology of Jordan and his indisputable GOATness was being established, in discussions about who was 2nd-greatest [‘cause you didn’t dare question who was THE greatest], it invariably revolved around two candidates: Magic and Bird. Kareem would occasionally be name-dropped (though usually as more of a dark horse candidate). Wilt would RARELY be mentioned; and Russell was mentioned not at all.

What do these latter four individuals have in common? They were all bigs.

I think it’s partly because we can maybe fantasize about ourselves dominating a game like the smaller guys, doing things like dribbling, shooting from the outside, and passing, etc.

Most of us can’t imagine controlling a game with the [often decidedly less sexy] acts of changing [or just deterring] shots at the rim, securing rebounds, or being a threat in the post.

99.9% of us are nowhere near big enough to even imagine what that’s like. So we don’t identify with the guys for whom that’s their bread and butter.

And perhaps there’s some more subtle subconscious bias against bigs, ingrained in us from media.
Certainly in literature, folklore, and tv/movies, “giants” are almost invariably portrayed in an evil or at least unflattering way: the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk (bad guy); ogres in multiple sources; the giants in Game of Thrones are portrayed as ugly, brutish, and possibly of lower intelligence; the Lenny character in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men [who has been parodied in Looney Tunes] is a pitifully simple-minded oaf who doesn’t understand his own strength---->the “big and dumb” motif has been repeated in many shows/movies, actually. Etc etc…..

Whatever the reason(s), many don’t wish to sympathize with the NBA’s great big men.

If two players are of basically equal dominance on the court, but one is 6’6” and the other is 7’1”.......the mainstream will almost unanimously crown the shorter guy as the “greater” player.
I’ve even had discussions with posters here who have explicitly stated they don’t much credit guys who seem to rely on their size and/or only seem to come to some degree of dominance thru being so bloody huge.
They say it’s “harder” for a guy to dominate the game when he doesn’t have that advantage of basically being a giant.
They say they’re more impressed with a player who can achieve dominance thru something other than that kind of outlier height (though they never seem to want to walk all the way down this path of reasoning to proclaiming someone like Muggsy Bogues one of the most remarkable/best players ever; there’s apparently an arbitrary stop-point of non-tallness).

I could just as arbitrarily say I’m more impressed with the [tall] player being able to achieve that same level of dominance while being so much slower. It’s no different.


3. Too Stoic


Duncan doesn’t have the emotional expressions of joy (a la Magic). He doesn’t have a boyish or playful exuberance (a la Shaq). He doesn’t engage in shows of machismo or “look how fierce I am” outbursts (a la KG, maybe Jimmy Butler, or even Lebron [flexes his muscles]). He doesn’t have the flashes of almost psychotic competitiveness, the “you think you’re better than me?” answer to challenges that weren’t even uttered, but which [even imagined] provided Jordan’s drive.

No, Duncan was probably more often accused of having the stoicism of a robot. That left many a casual observer feeling, well…..bored by him.

They couldn’t [or at least didn’t want to] identify with a guy who went about his job as one of the world’s greatest basketball players with the same professional reserve you’d expect of someone punching the clock before sitting down in their cubical office space.


4. Small Market
He played his entire career in one of the smallest markets in the NBA. For that reason alone, he’d already have less spotlight on him than most similar-tiered superstars.


5. Not a “scorer”
I mean, he did score [and a lot]. But that wasn’t really his calling card (especially late in his career), and he would happily sacrifice primacy if it was for the betterment of the team. But when you’re not averaging something close to 30 ppg, the casual fan [for some reason--->namely poor understanding of what actually produces impact in basketball, imo] can easily dismiss you as not REALLY one of the greatest in the game.



All of these reasons sort of compound on each other to make him a somewhat under-credited individual.
But at this point (damn near TL;DR already) I suppose I should get on to some points that illustrate that he is underrated at all….


So How Good Was He?
He was awfully damn good at the game of basketball. Hopefully we all watched him play, so I’ll try to provide the evidence by way of:
*looking at media-awarded accolades (fwiw)
**providing the statistical backing,
***and then backing it up with some tangible measures of impact.
And I do so looking at both peak and full career (with some snippets of prime).

In terms of media accolades:
*He was a 2-time MVP, and is 9th all-time in MVP award shares.
**He’s tied for 2nd all-time (only Lebron has bested him) in All-NBA selections.
***He’s tied for 4th all-time in All-NBA 1st Team selections.
****He’s tied for 5th all-time in All-Star selections
*****He’s #1 all-time in total All-Defensive selections (with 15 [8 1st Team nods])

So he’s looking pretty substantial there.

Let’s now take a look at his likely peak season [‘03]; and to put it into perspective, I’m going to compare it to the peak season of another big, a big many hold in extremely high esteem: Hakeem Olajuwon.

‘03 Duncan (rs, per 100 poss): 31.6 pts @ +4.5% rTS, 17.5 reb, 5.3 ast, 0.9 stl, 4.0 blk, 4.2 tov, 3.9 pf.
‘94 Hakeem (rs, per 100 poss): 33.7 pts @ +3.7% rTS, 14.7 reb, 4.4 ast, 2.0 stl, 4.6 blk, 4.2 tov, 4.5 pf.

‘03 Duncan (playoffs, per 100 poss): 30.6 pts @ +5.8% rTS, 19.1 reb, 6.6 ast, 0.8 stl, 4.1 blk, 3.9 tov, 4.0 pf.
‘94 Hakeem (playoffs, per 100 poss): 35.9 pts @ +4.0% rTS, 13.7 reb, 5.3 ast, 2.2 stl, 5.0 blk, 4.5 tov, 4.4 pf.

Overall, he sort of looks comparable [statistically] in both rs and playoffs. Both players led their teams to a title with relatively underwhelming [for a title team] supporting casts (Hakeem arguably a little more so).
The ‘03 Spurs were the better team in terms of record, net rating (both rs and playoffs, if I’m not mistaken), and SRS.
Duncan was #1 in the league in NPI RAPM and 4th in PI RAPM [according to J.E.’s numbers, though one other source had him as #1 in PI RAPM, too]; that’s for the whole year (rs and playoff combined). Hakeem was 3rd in the league in rs-only APM (distantly behind #1 David Robinson).


I’d previously (last thread) mentioned looking at players’ CAREER cumulative production/efficiency above replacement level as measured by PER and WS/48 (defining “replacement level” as PER 13.5 and WS/48 of .078 for rs, 12.5 and .064 for playoffs), using a modifier in the equation such that an average PER [15.0] carries the same value as an average WS/48 [.100], and weight playoff minutes 3.25x as meaningful as rs minutes.

If using raw PER and WS/48, and with no weighting for strength of era, Duncan comes out 5th all-time, even ahead of other longevity giants who also played [mostly] for good teams; guys like Karl Malone, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O’Neal, and Dirk Nowitizki…..all trail Duncan in this (only LBJ, KAJ, MJ, and Wilt come out ahead).

If instead of raw PER and WS/48, I use scaled PER and WS/48 (to account for era-to-era, or even year-to-year differences in how common it is to deviate so far from the mean), and still no accounting for era…...Duncan remains at 5th all-time.

If I use my own intricate [though basically subjective] rating of years/eras, Duncan moves into 4th all-time (whether using raw or scaled figures).

If using a BPM model, well, he’s 6th *all-time (*or since 1973) in rs VORP, and 3rd *all-time in playoff VORP.

So he’s got the statistical chops of a top 5(ish) player, at least if you put any emphasis [at all] in a “total career value” type model.

And it’s not empty statistical value.
Duncan’s peak full-season [rs and playoff combined] PI RAPM is exceeded only by Lebron in the data-ball era.
Duncan’s best 10-years combined PI RAPM is 4th (behind only Lebron, Garnett, and Shaq).

Then there is, of course, the less granular team-based indicators of impact…..

*In 19 years, the Spurs NEVER failed to win 50+ games (that is: their win% was > .600 every single year for nearly two decades). Their cumulative win% during Duncan’s tenure was .710 (that is: they won 58 or so games ON AVERAGE).

**In 19 years, they never failed to achieve an SRS above +3 (the single worst was +3.30); they only had two seasons out of 19 in which they failed to achieve an SRS above +5 (which, historically, is roughly contender level). The 19-year average SRS for the Duncan Spurs was +6.55!!

***They not only made the playoffs in all 19 seasons, they only four times failed to get PAST the 1st round (and one of those was when, due to the brutally competitive WC and the way the seedings rolled out, they had to face a top 3-4 Clippers team in the 1st round [lost in 7 games]). fwiw, another was a year Duncan got injured and missed the playoffs.

****They made it as far as the conference finals NINE times (again, in this brutal Western Conference). They went to the finals SIX times, winning five of those (and came about as close as you can possibly come in that one loss).

*****The AVERAGE Spurs defense during his tenure was -5.1 rDRTG. I just want to point out that that is, for instance, better than ANY defense Hakeem Olajuwon ever anchored. EVER! The 19-year average of a Tim Duncan-led defense was better than the peak [-4.9 rDRTG] Hakeem-led defense. Seriously think about that.


"The Pop Factor"
“But Tim always had Popovich [the real architect of Spurs success].”

We’ve heard this refrain before, haven’t we? It wasn’t Tim, it was Pop who single-handedly drew miracles out of mediocrity. It was Pop’s system that engineered the defensive dynasty that AVERAGED a -5.1 rDRTG over 19 years (peaking at an historic Russell Celtic-level -8.8 rDRTG [this AFTER Robinson retired, too]).

Well, Pop’s still there; but look how quickly the dynasty crumbled once Tim was gone. They had another fantastic year immediately after his retirement, although Tim had a hand in that [more on that to follow].
But just one year separated from his departure and two things happened that NEVER happened in his 19 years: they won fewer than 50 games and had an SRS < 3. They also lost in the 1st round (which had occurred only four times in 19 Duncan years). This would repeat itself the following year.
They’ve had a BELOW AVERAGE defense for two years in a row.
And this season they had an actual losing record, negative SRS, and missed the playoffs entirely.

They still have 4-time All-Star [most recently two years ago] DeMar DeRozan, who was also All-NBA 2nd Team two years ago, and is still in his prime. They still have LaMarcus Aldridge, who although getting on in years has aged fantastically well, and was an All-Star as recently as last year, and All-NBA 2nd Team two years ago.
They had a couple decent limited-minute veteran role players in Patty Mills and Rudy Gay. They have a few promising [though definitely not star quality] young players in guys like Derrick White, Dejonte Murray, and Jakob Poetl.

We’re not asking for a contender with this cast, but maybe just a playoff team?? If Pop is the true architect of prior Spurs success, surely he could manage that with this cast, right?

I don’t mean this to sound so disparaging of Gregg Popovich. I absolutely do think he’s on the short-list of greatest coaches ever. But something is missing…..


Tim’s Leadership

Sure, it was a give and take; but you might say Tim gave more than he took in their relationship. As great a coach as Popovich was and is, that dynastic winning culture just doesn’t work without Tim.
Especially about 4-5 years ago, you had multiple franchises trying to emulate the Spurs culture……..but [to quote ThaRegul8r] “try as they might to replicate the Spurs' recipe, all of them are forced to concede at a certain juncture that they're missing one essential ingredient: They don't have Tim Duncan.”

You don’t have to take it from me [or from ThaRegul8r]. You can take it from Pop himself.

When being interviewed wrt the winning culture that “he creates”, Pop responded:

Before you start handing out applause and credit to anyone else in this organization for anything that's been accomplished, remember it all starts with and goes through Timmy.

Spurs general manager R.C.Buford is on record saying:

Tim's contributed to our success in so many ways for so long. I know people continue to point it out, and it needs to be pointed out, the support and what he's allowed us to do, but this is nothing new.

And….

The truth is we all work for Timmy.

Says Sean Elliott (played four seasons with Tim, winning one title):

We all see it R.C.’s way. We’re not dumb. We all know we wouldn’t have any rings without Timmy. Everybody understands that. We all feel like we’re working for Timmy.

If there’s a “Pop System/Factor” at play, it’s Tim’s presence that allows it to flourish. To again paraphrase statements made by ThaRegul8r in the past: Tim let himself be coached, which set the example for everyone else, thus empowering Gregg Popovich.
The system and the partnership worked so well because Popovich could coach Tim Duncan. This sounds pretty basic [and I suppose it is]. But in an era where superstars constantly flex their power, and coaches live in fear of getting on the wrong side of the superstar (and potentially being fired as a result), they tend to only yell at the lesser players, and allow the superstar to get away with anything.

Popovich didn’t have to worry about the usual BS. He had security [and authority] provided him by Tim Duncan. Pop would openly yell at Duncan in practice, and Tim would quietly accept it without complaint, would communicate respectfully and ultimately always defer to Pop’s judgment.

And the franchise player sets the tone for everyone else.

When your main guy at the top is nearly devoid of an ego, you will field a roster of players devoid of egos. Teams take on the personalities of their best player.

The Spurs were able to craft a coveted locker-room environment, where no one whined about minutes or shots or lack of spotlight because their star player embodied it.

But again, you don’t have to take it from me….

There's not an ounce of MTV in him. His approach is totally unique in today's world. […] He couldn't care less about himself.

Even in a day and age of promoting the individual, he didn’t allow anything about himself to take away from the good of the group.

In terms of humility, he’s a different animal in today’s world. I’m not sure the systems that are in place now allow someone to grow up that untainted. In that way, you may never see another like him.

Leadership Beyond the Practice/Locker-room/Media Persona
“But Duncan always had excellent supporting casts.”

We’ve heard this refrain, too, no?

But Duncan is one of the few players for whom it doesn’t carry a ton of weight. That’s not to say that he didn’t have mostly good casts [he did]. But in his case, he facilitated their formation.

Remember the 2014 Spurs team? This team that seemed somehow greater than the sum of its parts? Let’s recall a few of those “parts”; in particular: Boris Diaw, Danny Green, and Patty Mills.

These guys combined for 28.4 ppg @ >59% TS, 9.6 rpg, 6.1 apg [3.4 topg] in the rs, and similar overall production in the playoffs, as well as comprising one of their most key defensive role players [Green], and a guy who provided them a ton of versatility on offense in particular and crucial “matching up” cog [Diaw].
Specifically in the 2014 Finals, this trio combined for 25.6 ppg @ 60.8% TS, 12.0 rpg, 8.6 apg [and only 3.0 topg]. Diaw in particular led the team in assists and was 2nd in rebounds during the series. A 2014 article was lauding the contributions of “role players” on that team, and described Diaw in particular as “a vital piece to the team’s success” and a “secret weapon”.

Well, backtrack to 2012, it is documented that Duncan voluntarily took a pay-cut to enable the Spurs to sign Diaw, Green, and Mills to the contracts they were asking for.

Although the wheels have pretty well fallen off the success bus now, the Spurs did have an excellent year in ‘17, just after Tim’s retirement.
But it seems Tim had a hand in that too: he voluntarily took a pay cut in ‘15 (and I think ‘14 as well) to allow the Spurs the cap space to acquire his replacement LaMarcus Aldridge, as well as re-signing Kawhi Leonard.
In essence, he was sacrificing for a team he would not even be part of; just looking out for the future after he was gone.

He supposedly took “team friendly” contracts at other points along the way. And indeed we can see that in his 19 playing years he earned more than $53M less than Shaquille O’Neal did [in 19 years], nearly $90M less than Kobe Bryant did [in 20 years], and $105M less than Kevin Garnett did [in 21 years, also mostly for a small market team].

Where most superstars are making demands or asking the franchise “what can you do for me?”----be it for greed, prestige, or petty competition [like “so and so over there is making $X, so I want $X+1”]: even Bill Russell is guilty of the latter [when Wilt got his then-historic $100,000 contract, Russell negotiated a contract for $100,001, just to make a point]----Tim was asking, “What do you need from me? You need me to take less? Fine, let’s do what we gotta do to put us in a position to win.”

So you can’t try to use good supporting casts as a detracting point for Tim Duncan without first acknowledging that he’s partly responsible for obtaining those casts.


Tim Duncan is quite simply the single-greatest team leader in the history of the game, imo. The impact he had OFF the court on his own success, and that of his team, is potentially so substantial that if someone were to rank him as the GOAT, I’d not argue them. I may not agree, but I’d at least acknowledge “I get it”.



When I look at a player whose statistical, impact, and accomplishment profile looks rather easily top 8 (and arguably top 5 [VERY likely from a total career value standpoint]), and then add on consideration of his extraordinary leadership resume [I mean, it doesn't sell shoes, but I still think it's pretty relevant in a discussion of basketball greatness], it makes him a LOCK on my "Mount Rushmore".
As I go on about him, I'm actually questioning if I want to put him above KAJ as #3 on my list.

[Doctor MJ]

Was it 6? Wow, thought it was earlier. But yeah, if you are limiting it to 68-69, it's pretty much Rick Barry (and arguably Daniels). The other early stars were relative unknowns like Larry Brown, guys like Connie Hawkins and Roger Brown who had been blackballed from the NBA for association with gamblers, or guys like Larry Jones of Bill Melchionni who had been buried on NBA benches.

I really see the ABA's success relative to the NBA being about two early waves of saying "Yes" to players the NBA said "No".

The first involved Hawkins and Brown among others who the NBA oh-so-righteously banned due to gambling. Looking back from a modern lens I find the NBA really ugly here. In the case of Hawkins and Brown you're talking about two poor Black youths who grew up in the neighborhood where gambling was happening and the NBA banned them for life for that.

Clearly the chain of logic was "We don't allow any players into the NBA unless they have high character!"...and that basically lasted until NBA teams realized what they were missing out on.

I do understand why leagues like the NBA saw gambling as an existential threat to take seriously. but jesus, the ENTIRE issue was that big money was being bet by gamblers on athletes in poverty who weren't getting a dime, and the response of the NCAA and NBA was basically classify anyone who grew up in the wrong neighborhood as corrupt.

So the ABA says "Yes" where the "NBA" says no, that means they get Connie Hawkins, and the league's reputation is built around him. Even though he leaves in 2 years, having Hawkins meant that the ABA had someone with world-class talent right from the start.

Then we get that second wave where they go after underclassmen and get guys like Gilmore and Erving who the NBA just assumed would be theirs.

I should mention Rick Barry as well as getting him was quite the coup, but it's really something the NBA basically left the door open for a rival league by embracing sanctimonious posturing that they'd abandon the moment they realized it was costing them something significant.

[Odinn21]

I'll be very blunt about few Garnett votes; those make no sense at all. His peak isn't top 5 level. His prime isn't top 5 level. His longevity and overall career value aren't top 5 level. His resume isn't there. All there is glorified +/- numbers. Even as great he was, his playoff play also doesn't stack up against the competition for the top 5. Saying he is one of the top 5 players the league has ever seen is a overcorrection for him being in a bad team for majority of his prime.

Garnett over Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain is ridiculous. Garnett is better than Abdul-Jabbar because Abdul-Jabbar has no reliable +/- and wowyr data while Garnett is the king of regular season +/- data? Gotta love that process.

So others have already said things in more detail but I feel I should say:

I consider Garnett's first superstar level impact season to be his 3rd season and his last to be his 17th season. That's 15 years.
Very few players can match that kind of longevity.

It's very hard to say Garnett stayed as a superstar after 2008. He was injury riddled. The closest he came was 2012.

Also, Abdul-Jabbar had more seasons in a time having 12+ season career was harder and his average level was better. Chamberlain had 13 seasons from beginning of the '60s to early-mid '70s.

Garnett with 15 seasons (more like 12 or 13 actually) ain't passing those names in longevity or average prime level.

Another things is, wowyr is awful thing to use to compare players. Have you seen the list? Yao Ming has a better prime value than Jerry West, Dirk Nowitzki, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan.
Let's make a case for Ming over those names.
No one in their mind is saying Ming at his best was better / more valuable player than Jerry West at his best. No one.

Ming is not an outlier that I decided to skew things BTW. Sidney Moncrief is 6th on that list, after Magic-Stockton-Robinson-Jordan-Nash. 7th is Dikembe Mutombo. DeAndre Jordan and Dan Majerle are also ahead of Russell, Abdul-Jabbar, Garnett and Duncan.

Again, the way you and drza approach +/- driven data is flawed as usual.
First; you talk like +/- numbers appear out of thin air. Not caring about on court production is a fundamental mistake. +/- data is useful when you recognize them as player winning by how much in their given time and given role.
Second; you think about those times like they had the tools we have now.
Third; +/- driven data doesn't translate well into postseason evaluation. Even when I gave you ElGee's numbers about O'Neal leading an offensive dynasty in the playoffs, I did that while knowing that the sample size was more than a full season (121 games to be precise).

I think you have seen my posts enough to know that I'm also high on Garnett, especially more so than general perception. But your approach is going overboard.

[Baski]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Another easy case to make. Like in the #1 thread I'll touch on some things I find specifically remarkable:


1. Mental strength- We praise Jordan, Kobe and some others for being clutch on the court. It's not like Kareem doesn't get that type of praise, but it should be mentioned every time we discuss him as a player how he had to overcome the mental, verbal and likely physical abuse that came with being a famous black man in the 70s (and 80s), and still manage to lock in and come out as the best player in the world in the former decade. We see how important mental focus was to Jordan's game as he was burned out after 9 years, and we see how the recent racial issues threatened to end the 2020 NBA season altogether. Imagine having to go through that stress much more frequently and with far less public concern for the injustice being committed. And then ask yourself whether you feel like playing basketball.

He, along with Muhammad Ali, had the fortitude to change his name and adopt a new religion knowing full well the hardships that awaited them due to those decisions. As a Muslim, this holds special significance to me (If I remember, I'll touch on Hakeem's devotion to Islam and how awesome it was later in the project)
All of this is to say that it takes a special devotion to the sport to stick to it in times of immense stress for people like him and deliver numerous timeless performances that we can talk about decades later. Truly GOATworthy


2. I have a few more things to add but please consider this my vote. I'll get to finishing this when I settle down


2. Tim Duncan

3. Bill Russell

[No-more-rings]

Wow those vote totals are something. Russell still gaining no traction at all. And I expect that to continue because his skeptics using their criteria can continue to justify a bunch more modern players in front of him. The question will be what happens when Kareem and Duncan get in and Wilt starts picking up real traction. Truly fascinating what is happening here. Not surprised at all the first 2 spots went Lebron/Mike in some order. Not shocked Kareem is next, but am pretty surprised Russell is so far back.

And more than a bit surprised that people have this much separation between Kareem and Duncan. I need to do more work on Kareem because it seems I don't appreciate him enough.

Well if you look at the 2017 list, Russell went 4th there which seems fairly likely this time around as well. So I'm not sure things have changed that much aside from Lerbon adding significant career value. I didn't doubt much that he'd be number 1. I am sort of surprised to Magic going before Duncan, Wilt and Shaq on some of these lists though. I don't think he(Magic) really has a strong argument for top 5 though i understand why people give him props that high. He was very iconic and fun to watch.

[90sAllDecade]

1. Olajuwon
2. Kareem
3. Duncan

Of the three Olajuwon is the best defensive player in the modern era and was an all time tier offensive big in the playoffs against GOAT defensive competition, such as MVP Robinson & Rodman and 86 Boston with Parish and McHale. Both Robinson and Parish were arguably dominated in those series.

Hakeem at his peak was Kareem was the best offensive player with incredible longevity, but was not the defensive player the other two were and was outplayed by other HOF peers in the playoffs such as Willis Reed, Hakeem in 86, and Moses Malone. To his credit he played well against Wilt and Walton, although it can be debated either way. Kareem also played worse competition overall due the the entire league splitting before the ABA merger and addition of the three point line.

Duncan had great longevity and defense, but wasn't the scorer the other two were in the playoffs. But himself along with Kareem had clear team support advantages in Mt. Rushmore coaches and HOF players in their primes for the many more years than Olajuwon had to work with, who had to be both the offensive and defensive anchor on his team. Versus Magic on offense for Kareem and Robinson on defense for Duncan. Not including many more than can be listed, but time constrains my posting.

[trex_8063]

What is the difference people see in a comparison of KAJ and Duncan. Duncan's peak you can put up against anyone in history and to my estimation they have a comparable prime. I guess KAJ has a longevity advantage but not by too much I think.

Thoughts?

See post #111 itt for my thoughts on Tim Duncan.

[eminence]

I'm more of a '97 to '13 (17 seasons) KG guy myself.

[No-more-rings]

What is the difference people see in a comparison of KAJ and Duncan. Duncan's peak you can put up against anyone in history and to my estimation they have a comparable prime. I guess KAJ has a longevity advantage but not by too much I think.

Thoughts?

Kareem seemed to be a superstar for longer, for a loose definition we could probably go 99-08 for Duncan and 70-83 for Kareem so that's one thing. You could quibble with the years for start and end, but either way Kareem seems to get an edge in that regard. What constitutes a superstar might be arbitrary, but you can look at the numbers and decide for yourself on that.

I don't know...i read Drza's take on Kareem, i understand the idea his impact may have been lesser than someone like Russell or Garnett, though I'm not sure he really laid that out for Duncan. It's interesting, but I'm not really convinced though. Kareem seems to have more high level seasons, even if their peaks are very close. Duncan's RAPM year by year thorough his prime is very strong and impressive, though we just don't have that amount of data for Kareem.

[eminence]

What is the difference people see in a comparison of KAJ and Duncan. Duncan's peak you can put up against anyone in history and to my estimation they have a comparable prime. I guess KAJ has a longevity advantage but not by too much I think.

Thoughts?

I actually prefer Duncan's longevity. Probably based around thinking that KAJ was more valuable defensively than offensively in his prime and thinking he faded significantly more on that end than Duncan did by the end of his career.