RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #5 (Tim Duncan)

[Texas Chuck]

Duncan vs Dream

I'd like to discuss some of the points made against Duncan both in this, but also regarding KG. Mostly focused on theory here though.

The first is this notion that Dreams' athleticism makes him a better defender than Duncan based on this alone. Now make no mistake Dream was an all-time great defender, a top 5 all-time guy who was a great individual and team defender and led some great team defenses. But the same is true of Duncan. It's just missing the highlights and the gaudy block and steal numbers.

To help illustrate that while athleticism certainly helps, it's not enough to conclude you are superior, let's look at some other defenders. On one hand you have Marcus Camby, DeAnde Jordan, Hassan Whiteside. These are long, athletic shot-blocking marvels. Camby a 2x DPOY, the others less storied but have made some all-D teams. Then on the other hand we give you Marc Gasol, Al Horford. Not great athletes but great defenders in their own right. Defense is about a lot more than just athleticism.

And then the argument is well for today's game you have to be more of a horizontal defender, but let's look at today. Best defenders are Giannis--your mobile archetype, Bam(similar, but less), Gobert, Embiid, and Brook Lopez --all much more traditional bigs and then finally in the bubble this emergence of AD as maybe becoming the great defender we always thought we were getting out of school.

The traditional bigs more than still hold their own defensively even today. But remember that Dream and Duncan didn't play today. Through 2006 other than Duncan himself the single biggest impediment to titles was Shaq. On a champion in 06, 2nd in MVP in 05, in the Finals the 4 years prior. Now in 06 Wade took primacy over Shaq by the end of the year, Lebron had arrived, and Dirk and Dallas had established they had to be dealt with(short stay on top sadly). But even past that all the way up to 2010 Pau Gasol was a 1b on the best team in the league.

So its not even fair to say to Duncan you should be defending against the game played right now because that was never what he faced, but we see that traditional bigs today are very effective. Wrong argument to make but one that doesn't hold up even when its made.

[Gibson22]

1) Wilt
2) Shaq
3) Duncan

hope I can expand, if I don't just don't count me vote, don't even need to tell me

[eminence]

I would say it's mainly longevity for me that holds Hakeem back vs KG, Duncan of course has all the same success advantages he holds vs KG as well. Think his defense slipped quicker as he aged than the other two did, which makes sense to me as his game was always more dependent on athleticism than the other two.

Seemed like Hakeem could still turn it on defensively as late as 1998, judging by the Playoff series he had against the #1 ranked offense Jazz that year.

Maybe he lacked the overall consistency to do it more regularly at that stage, but Hakeem also wasn't 'load-managed' the way Duncan was in the 2nd half of his career, playing 34 mpg from 28 to 33 yrs of age and 29 mpg after 34 yrs of age...

Historically, Duncan's defensive impact also seem to been 'slipping' once the Spurs entered the turn of the decade in 2010, but as soon as the Spurs got rid of Gary Neal and mediocre Richard Jefferson and substituted them with Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green and more minutes for Thiago Spiltter instead of DeJaun Blair and Matt Bonner, Duncan seemed to quickly rediscovered his defensive ability over the offseason

So... I feel like that kinda proves my longevity point. That's his 14th season and was pretty much his last relevant one. That's the '09 ('10 if you don't count his rookie season) for KG and the '11 season for Duncan. To that point the minutes total for each was:

Hakeem 44006 minutes
KG 42625
Duncan 44687

With the '99 lockout marginally lowering KG/Duncan's. There's really almost nothing there in terms of minutes gap. Both went on to do a notable (obviously lesser than their prime) amount more. Hakeem... didn't.

[ZeppelinPage]

Lets examine the whole "Wilt had to change his playstyle or the team couldn't win" narrative.

Literally the only player people tend to do this for is Wilt, and the reason for that is because a narrative (heavily pushed by media members) began to formulate as Wilt started to lose every year to a better team. The Celtics had a higher SRS than the Warriors in all but two years of the 60s--and that's not even counting their all-time great defense. He had vastly inferior teams and was taking the 7+ SRS Celtics to the wire. In the '62 series, his team had a 6 SRS differential and he lost off a game winning shot.

Now for a deeper dive (using facts) on Wilt regarding passing, team play, and his "playstyle."

Wilt plays the same way (just better) than every other center in NBA history. He has similar usage numbers to players like Shaq, Kareem, Robinson, Hakeem, etc. Out of every other all-time great in NBA history, Wilt is the only one where we bring up "playstyle" and "he couldn't make his teammates better." Well, is Ben Simmons playing with LeBron James going to magically make him better at shooting to space the floor? There is only so much a player can do to really make a teammate better--in the end, it's the player taking the shots, making the reads, defending the ball, etc. Wilt, from '64 onward, has passing stats as good as any all-time great center, yet everyone wants to bring up his '67 season (which just so happens to coincide with his best teammates.) For his entire prime, he had to play the greatest defensive team of all time. A team that game planned around him specifically by using doubles and illegal defense tactics that they could get away with in the 60s.

1964
In 1964, Alex Hannum joins the team and convinces Wilt to implement a passing-based game which goes in the opposite direction of the way he had been coached up until this point. He listens to his coach, drops his FGA by 6 and begins converting those into assists. Yet, the offense under Hannum actually gets 2.2 points worse than in '63.

Yes, the 31-win 1963 Warriors had a higher ORtg than the '64 Hannum-lead team. So, Wilt increased his assists, began passing more and... the team performed worse offensively. Why is that? Because his teammates were worse. It had nothing to do with Wilt passing or scoring more, because either way was going to contribute. Looking over the roster, it becomes obvious that starting Nate Thurmond at PF as a rookie killed spacing and hurt their offense. One might also point out Wayne Hightower (-85.4 TS Add) getting more minutes and Gary Phillips (-105.1) getting worse. If anything, Wilt posting a lower TS Added from passing out more was probably the biggest cause, he dropped his FGA and was giving more shots to bad offensive players (Rodgers, Thurmond, Hightower, Phillips, etc.) and it made their offense worse. Hannum arguably made a team with essentially the same roster worse by having Wilt shoot less.

1966
Lets move on to 1966--this year, Wilt averaged 5.2 assists, at the time a career high. It was good for 7th in the league and 20th per 36 (behind only Red Kerr for a C.) Wilt posted a 26 USG% (pre-78) and lead a 76er team that liked to share the ball in shots. He finished 8th in FGA per 36. This Wilt isn't volume scoring Wilt. He is leading the team in shots, yes, but the team as a whole is sharing the shooting load and Wilt is leading the entire team in assists. He is blending scoring and passing at this point. Also, I just want to point out that this team had a total of 3 players that were positive in TS Added (Wilt, Chet Walker and Hal Greer--yes, that's it.)

1967
Okay, so now here comes the big point--that 76er team finished 6th in ORtg. The next year, the '67 76ers obviously posted the highest ORtg in NBA history up to that point. So, what was the difference between the two teams beside Wilt's playstyle?

First, they lost Al Bianchi (-92.9 TS Add) and added Larry Costello (33.2 TS Add) for 49 games.

Second, rookie Billy Cunningham improved from -30.5 to 57.9--this can't entirely be from Wilt's increased passing in '67 because Cunningham played at a plus efficiency level for virtually the rest of his career. I chalk it up to more of a general second year improvement, especially when factoring in his slight regression in '68 with increased passing from Wilt. The sophomore Cunningham helped their offense improve further.

Third, Chet Walker vastly improved and perhaps even had a hot year, going from 65.1 to 180.1. He regressed back down to previous levels in '68, even with Wilt passing more. During '69 onward he came back into form and had increased efficiency across the board (even FT%) for the rest of his career.

Fourth, Wali Jones went from being a severe negative efficiency-wise to slightly below average (-131.1 to -15.4.)

Basically, the offense was amazing because a few different players improved and they had a better roster. There is no evidence as to all these players improving specifically because of Wilt's passing, as in '68 his passing increased and some of these players regressed to their previous selves. The ORtg drop-off in '68 with Wilt increasing his passing was because of both Wilt and Chet Walker having a massive shooting slump in the first couple months of the season; as well as a large regression back to previous form for Wali Jones. Hal Greer actually played much better than in '67. It seems to me that the team simply regressed for a part of the season (most likely as a result of Wilt's shooting slump in Oct/Nov) and couldn't get back on track until later, which leads me into my next point:

1968
The '68 76ers were playing on a level similar to that of the '67 offense in the final two months of the season, posting similar PPG numbers and closing out the year with a fantastic 24-5 record. During these two months (Feb and March,) Wilt was averaging 10.6 and 11.9 AST, respectively. Their offense became closer to that '67 level and was their two highest scoring months on the season. Anyone that says his increased passing somehow made the 76ers worse is flat out wrong, and frankly I can't believe that this is even an argument that goes against him.

At this point, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for Wilt. The guy averages 5 assists with 33 PPG, not enough. He averages 8.6 assists, now he isn't scoring enough and hurting his team. The 76ers were at their best in '68 when Wilt was assisting higher than ever. Needless to say, there is zero factual evidence that Wilt passing more somehow hurt his offense, after looking at the splits.

One final point on the Wilt playstyle discussion with an example from the '68 season:

Towards the end of November, the 76ers were a solid but slightly disappointing 15-7. The media was discussing how Wilt could no longer score, how he had lost his ability to put up points and was being forced to pass because of it. Well, Wilt decided to change his playstyle to prove the media wrong--that he could still score. He reverted back to his old scoring self, putting up 30.5 PPG and lowering his assists to 5.2, while taking 20.5 FGA per game. This is pretty comparable to his '64 and '66 season where he averaged similar points/efficiency.

The 76ers went 15-2, their best month of the season. Their only losses? A close OT game vs the Lakers and a 1-point loss at Boston. Similar to the '66 version of Wilt, just better teammates. The '68 team was having success whether Wilt scored or passed the ball, and even his teammates were efficient while Wilt was putting up these high scoring performances (Cunnginham and Jones were about the same in efficiency, and Chet Walker posted his best month of the year.)

Like any other all-time great center, putting up high efficiency scoring is going to help your team win. But in the end, your teammates need to perform as well, especially in a team-based era like the 60s.

[Odinn21]

Duncan's just missing the highlights and the gaudy block and steal numbers.

I'd go on a limb and say Duncan was the smartest defensive big in the league history.
1643 games, 3588 blocks, 15 defensive goaltendings (rs+ps)
That has to be some sort of a record. A rim protector having a defensive goaltending for every 239 blocks.

[Doctor MJ]

So wanted to start off with just some thoughts now that we're past the Big 4.

1. I love that there are several of us supporting KG. I still think it will likely be a good while before he gets in and that's fine.

2. I appreciate trex's Top 3 vote set up because it will allow me to better represent the guy I want to vote for while still leaving room to make a pragmatic vote. But now the real work begins for him, and whoever else spends some time doing the tallying. Let's all be appreciative of the work they're doing.

3. After Garnett & Duncan to me it's hazy as to where I'll go next and so what I really want to do is talk about particular player comparisons that are salient to me.

- Shaq vs Garnett/Duncan/most anybody. Shaq's really hard to peg unless you're someone who is extremely focused on peak play. Honestly, I never feel that confident about where to place him. I completely understand anyone who thinks I rate him too low, but while I can be very forgiving when a guy plays for multiple teams, when I start to get the impression that someone is inherently unstable, I take that very seriously. I also note that this is the type of thing that's informed by my experience in my work life. Many of us have worked with that brilliant coder/engineer/whatever who for whatever reason lost his morale and is now gumming up the works.

- Shaq vs Wilt. To be clear I see these two as quite similar except that Shaq's impact just wasn't anywhere near as uneven or fragile as Wilt's.

- Shaq vs Hakeem specifically. I tend to get hung up here in particular. While I consider Hakeem a more spectacular player than KG or Duncan, I don't see him as a guy who as reliably impact the game as KG, Duncan, or Shaq. Intangible-wise, his attitude over the course of his career was closer to KG/Duncan than Shaq, but he still had some issues.

- Hakeem vs Magic/Bird. Whereas I see the longevity of KG/Duncan being too much to top for Magic/Bird, I'm on the fence about Hakeem's longevity.

- Kobe vs Magic. So, we're now officially in a world where the Lakers are Kobe's franchise rather than Magic's. I honestly didn't think that was possible, but were there now. Kobe played for a lot longer so it makes plenty of sense to ask whether Kobe should be higher on the GOAT list than Magic. Obviously I have issues with Kobe's track record. To me he's a guy whose longevity is considerably shorter than it at first appears because he spent his first few years focusing on building his superstar acumen rather than helping his team win, and then spent his last few years focusing on being Kobe rather than helping his team win. Is that enough to keep him from being above Magic?

- Wilt vs Oscar/West. For the record I've always sided with Wilt here and expect to in this project as well, but I think you can make a case that both Oscar & West contributed more value to their franchises in their career.

- Finally, I think Karl Malone deserves a mention. I tend to see him as an afterthought relative to guys of this stature, but should I? He was very good for a very long time.

[limbo]

.

Another question. How do you factor in, if at all, 'era' pros and cons when it comes to prime Hakeem and Duncan.

Specifically, do you think playing in the slowest and least offensively productive (based on ORtg) era of the early 00's benefited a player of Duncan's strengths and weaknesses in any meaningful way? Possibly making Duncan look better offensively (as it more suited his skillset, playing a slower, methodical, post game) while maybe also boosting his defensive impact - because he had to defend a weaker league in terms of offensive prowess in that sense.

I think you said you don't value the 90's that highly, even compared to the early 00s? The early 90's pace is akin to 2015-2018, and far surpasses that of the early 00's. ORtg is a bit closer, though notably weaker from 1998 to 2004.

[70sFan]

Lets examine the whole "Wilt had to change his playstyle or the team couldn't win" narrative.

Literally the only player people tend to do this for is Wilt, and the reason for that is because a narrative (heavily pushed by media members) began to formulate as Wilt started to lose every year to a better team. The Celtics had a higher SRS than the Warriors in all but two years of the 60s--and that's not even counting their all-time great defense. He had vastly inferior teams and was taking the 7+ SRS Celtics to the wire. In the '62 series, his team had a 6 SRS differential and he lost off a game winning shot.

Now for a deeper dive (using facts) on Wilt regarding passing, team play, and his "playstyle."

Wilt plays the same way (just better) than every other center in NBA history. He has similar usage numbers to players like Shaq, Kareem, Robinson, Hakeem, etc. Out of every other all-time great in NBA history, Wilt is the only one where we bring up "playstyle" and "he couldn't make his teammates better." Well, is Ben Simmons playing with LeBron James going to magically make him better at shooting to space the floor? There is only so much a player can do to really make a teammate better--in the end, it's the player taking the shots, making the reads, defending the ball, etc. Wilt, from '64 onward, has passing stats as good as any all-time great center, yet everyone wants to bring up his '67 season (which just so happens to coincide with his best teammates.) For his entire prime, he had to play the greatest defensive team of all time. A team that game planned around him specifically by using doubles and illegal defense tactics that they could get away with in the 60s.

1964
In 1964, Alex Hannum joins the team and convinces Wilt to implement a passing-based game which goes in the opposite direction of the way he had been coached up until this point. He listens to his coach, drops his FGA by 6 and begins converting those into assists. Yet, the offense under Hannum actually gets 2.2 points worse than in '63.

Yes, the 31-win 1963 Warriors had a higher ORtg than the '64 Hannum-lead team. So, Wilt increased his assists, began passing more and... the team performed worse offensively. Why is that? Because his teammates were worse. It had nothing to do with Wilt passing or scoring more, because either way was going to contribute. Looking over the roster, it becomes obvious that starting Nate Thurmond at PF as a rookie killed spacing and hurt their offense. One might also point out Wayne Hightower (-85.4 TS Add) getting more minutes and Gary Phillips (-105.1) getting worse. If anything, Wilt posting a lower TS Added from passing out more was probably the biggest cause, he dropped his FGA and was giving more shots to bad offensive players (Rodgers, Thurmond, Hightower, Phillips, etc.) and it made their offense worse. Hannum arguably made a team with essentially the same roster worse by having Wilt shoot less.

1966
Lets move on to 1966--this year, Wilt averaged 5.2 assists, at the time a career high. It was good for 7th in the league and 20th per 36 (behind only Red Kerr for a C.) Wilt posted a 26 USG% (pre-78) and lead a 76er team that liked to share the ball in shots. He finished 8th in FGA per 36. This Wilt isn't volume scoring Wilt. He is leading the team in shots, yes, but the team as a whole is sharing the shooting load and Wilt is leading the entire team in assists. He is blending scoring and passing at this point. Also, I just want to point out that this team had a total of 3 players that were positive in TS Added (Wilt, Chet Walker and Hal Greer--yes, that's it.)

1967
Okay, so now here comes the big point--that 76er team finished 6th in ORtg. The next year, the '67 76ers obviously posted the highest ORtg in NBA history up to that point. So, what was the difference between the two teams beside Wilt's playstyle?

First, they lost Al Bianchi (-92.9 TS Add) and added Larry Costello (33.2 TS Add) for 49 games.

Second, rookie Billy Cunningham improved from -30.5 to 57.9--this can't entirely be from Wilt's increased passing in '67 because Cunningham played at a plus efficiency level for virtually the rest of his career. I chalk it up to more of a general second year improvement, especially when factoring in his slight regression in '68 with increased passing from Wilt. The sophomore Cunningham helped their offense improve further.

Third, Chet Walker vastly improved and perhaps even had a hot year, going from 65.1 to 180.1. He regressed back down to previous levels in '68, even with Wilt passing more. During '69 onward he came back into form and had increased efficiency across the board (even FT%) for the rest of his career.

Fourth, Wali Jones went from being a severe negative efficiency-wise to slightly below average (-131.1 to -15.4.)

Basically, the offense was amazing because a few different players improved and they had a better roster. There is no evidence as to all these players improving specifically because of Wilt's passing, as in '68 his passing increased and some of these players regressed to their previous selves. The ORtg drop-off in '68 with Wilt increasing his passing was because of both Wilt and Chet Walker having a massive shooting slump in the first couple months of the season; as well as a large regression back to previous form for Wali Jones. Hal Greer actually played much better than in '67. It seems to me that the team simply regressed for a part of the season (most likely as a result of Wilt's shooting slump in Oct/Nov) and couldn't get back on track until later, which leads me into my next point:

1968
The '68 76ers were playing on a level similar to that of the '67 offense in the final two months of the season, posting similar PPG numbers and closing out the year with a fantastic 24-5 record. During these two months (Feb and March,) Wilt was averaging 10.6 and 11.9 AST, respectively. Their offense became closer to that '67 level and was their two highest scoring months on the season. Anyone that says his increased passing somehow made the 76ers worse is flat out wrong, and frankly I can't believe that this is even an argument that goes against him.

At this point, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for Wilt. The guy averages 5 assists with 33 PPG, not enough. He averages 8.6 assists, now he isn't scoring enough and hurting his team. The 76ers were at their best in '68 when Wilt was assisting higher than ever. Needless to say, there is zero factual evidence that Wilt passing more somehow hurt his offense, after looking at the splits.

One final point on the Wilt playstyle discussion with an example from the '68 season:

Towards the end of November, the 76ers were a solid but slightly disappointing 15-7. The media was discussing how Wilt could no longer score, how he had lost his ability to put up points and was being forced to pass because of it. Well, Wilt decided to change his playstyle to prove the media wrong--that he could still score. He reverted back to his old scoring self, putting up 30.5 PPG and lowering his assists to 5.2, while taking 20.5 FGA per game. This is pretty comparable to his '64 and '66 season where he averaged similar points/efficiency.

The 76ers went 15-2, their best month of the season. Their only losses? A close OT game vs the Lakers and a 1-point loss at Boston. Similar to the '66 version of Wilt, just better teammates. The '68 team was having success whether Wilt scored or passed the ball, and even his teammates were efficient while Wilt was putting up these high scoring performances (Cunnginham and Jones were about the same in efficiency, and Chet Walker posted his best month of the year.)

Like any other all-time great center, putting up high efficiency scoring is going to help your team win. But in the end, your teammates need to perform as well, especially in a team-based era like the 60s.

I love when I can read some counter arguments about Wilt's offensive impact that are not mine

You've made some interesting points, especially about 1968. The worst thing about this year is that had Sixers not got almost whole roster injured in playoffs (including Wilt who played with bruised knee if I remember correctly), they would have likekly repeat the title and nobody would ever say a negative thing about Wilt being assist leader.

I think that a lot of criticism about Wilt are caused by lack of solid data and film breakdown. There are many things people often say about him that are assumptions which we can't prove right or wrong. I love Ben's work as much as anyone, but his article about Wilt is the perfect example of what I'm saying - he has hypothesis about Wilt, which could be true but he can't prove it and there are plenty of counter arguments to what he believes.

I hope to get some footage from 1965 ECF at the beginning of next month, if you believe it'd be significant then I can share it when I get it. Right now, I have quite a lot of mid-1960s footage, so if anyone would like to see and try to get some impression out of it - I can share clips as well.

[Doctor MJ]

Question for those who rank Duncan notably higher than Hakeem.

What's the rationale? Is it mostly a tail-end longevity thing and/or winning?

Because as far as i can tell, both seem extremely similar in what they gave and could give to you offensively in most areas. Both their prime and career production as scorers/passers seem to match up, with Duncan maybe bein a slightly better passer at his peak, while Hakeem being a slightly better postseason scorer (especially in '94 and '95).

Hakeem is also widely regarded as one of the best defensive players of all-time, so i assume Duncan is not making any ground over him on that side of the court for most of you.

And even if we accept that Duncan is ahead due to better longevity and winning, shouldn't then Hakeem be somewhere in the vicinity after Duncan due to similar profiles, or is that longevity gap so big that you would rather squeak Wilt, Shaq, Magic, Bird and maybe someone else as well ahead of Hakeem?

Idk, the dynamic of Duncan/Hakeem being separated by tail-end longevity being enough to justify putting a guy like Magic in between who is notorious for having weak longevity just seems weird to me... If you're someone who values what Duncan brings to your team over what Magic brings, then the same should probably apply with Hakeem vs. Magic?

But maybe that's just me.

Tail-end longevity is a thing here, but it's not just that Duncan played longer. Duncan saw his scoring primacy fall off pretty gracefully as the Spurs pivoted to Parker/Ginobili. While you might think "Hakeem didn't have Parker/Ginobili", he did have Barkley & Drexler. If I had Barkley, I don't think I'd be building my offense around Hakeem.

I also think that Hakeem's impact was more uneven. Duncan basically came in as Duncan when he was the Spurs' lead scorer as a rookie, while Hakeem was a completely different beast on offense a decade into his career. Meanwhile on defense while Hakeem was more spectacular, I also think he was more error prone.

Re: Magic. I've often had both Duncan and Hakeem ahead of Magic but as I said in my last post, it's an open question for me whether Hakeem's longevity is enough to give him the edge.

[ZeppelinPage]

I love when I can read some counter arguments about Wilt's offensive impact that are not mine

You've made some interesting points, especially about 1968. The worst thing about this year is that had Sixers not got almost whole roster injured in playoffs (including Wilt who played with bruised knee if I remember correctly), they would have likekly repeat the title and nobody would ever say a negative thing about Wilt being assist leader.

I think that a lot of criticism about Wilt are caused by lack of solid data and film breakdown. There are many things people often say about him that are assumptions which we can't prove right or wrong. I love Ben's work as much as anyone, but his article about Wilt is the perfect example of what I'm saying - he has hypothesis about Wilt, which could be true but he can't prove it and there are plenty of counter arguments to what he believes.

I hope to get some footage from 1965 ECF at the beginning of next month, if you believe it'd be significant then I can share it when I get it. Right now, I have quite a lot of mid-1960s footage, so if anyone would like to see and try to get some impression out of it - I can share clips as well.

The '65 film you got earlier this week was quite fantastic, and I think it showed good examples against some arguments people (like you said, such as Ben Taylor) have against Wilt (willingness to pass, willingness to move around around in the post, etc.)

[Doctor MJ]

For me Hakeem peaks as high as Duncan but he has less years at that level. I feel Hakeem was headed for a non top 20 career up until 93. And even within his peak on offense, I believe his defense declined by 95 and 96. I only having playing at his peak offensive level with ATG defense for 93 and 94. The earlier years he is ATG on defense but worse on offense, then later he maintains his great offense but is worse on defense.

How much of that is specifically due to Hakeem having more 'chaos' in his career from '87 to '92, where his teams were going through a lot of player and coaching changes. Throw in some injuries and drug suspensions to the mix there.

Otherwise, i agree. I'm not overly impressed with Hakeem post 1995, and even his '95 year, i believe it to be notably weaker than either '93 or '94... Though he did show up on as good as ever in the 1997 Playoffs.

I also value Duncan's intangibles more than Hakeem, I don't mind Hakeem's but Duncan's impact on Spurs culture is otherworldly.

How much credit goes to Robinson and Popovich military-influenced leadership? They were on the team a year before Duncan, though not with great success, but when Robinson was injured for most of the year, you can't really blame them.

Duncan was definitely a nice guy who had the team in mind before himself, so he should be credited for that. But part of me is imagining an alternate universe where Duncan gets drafted by some bum franchise where they continually post sub .500 records and Duncan is getting chewed apart for being ''too nice'' or lacking 'killer-instinct'.

Anyway, i rank Duncan higher than Hakeem too, i'm just scouring information here, like wondering how much Hakeem is to be blamed for the lack of success pre 1993.

Great points.

I think the elephant in the room here is that Duncan came into the NBA as the most polished rookie since Kareem and Hakeem came in quite raw. So yes, Duncan was in a stable environment with Pop & Robinson and this mattered (Duncan leaves SA in free agency otherwise), but put him pretty much anywhere I expect he produces right away.

[70sFan]

I find Duncan and Hakeem very close all-time. I have both ahead of Shaq for what it's worth.

[70sFan]

For me Hakeem peaks as high as Duncan but he has less years at that level. I feel Hakeem was headed for a non top 20 career up until 93. And even within his peak on offense, I believe his defense declined by 95 and 96. I only having playing at his peak offensive level with ATG defense for 93 and 94. The earlier years he is ATG on defense but worse on offense, then later he maintains his great offense but is worse on defense.

How much of that is specifically due to Hakeem having more 'chaos' in his career from '87 to '92, where his teams were going through a lot of player and coaching changes. Throw in some injuries and drug suspensions to the mix there.

Otherwise, i agree. I'm not overly impressed with Hakeem post 1995, and even his '95 year, i believe it to be notably weaker than either '93 or '94... Though he did show up on as good as ever in the 1997 Playoffs.

I also value Duncan's intangibles more than Hakeem, I don't mind Hakeem's but Duncan's impact on Spurs culture is otherworldly.

How much credit goes to Robinson and Popovich military-influenced leadership? They were on the team a year before Duncan, though not with great success, but when Robinson was injured for most of the year, you can't really blame them.

Duncan was definitely a nice guy who had the team in mind before himself, so he should be credited for that. But part of me is imagining an alternate universe where Duncan gets drafted by some bum franchise where they continually post sub .500 records and Duncan is getting chewed apart for being ''too nice'' or lacking 'killer-instinct'.

Anyway, i rank Duncan higher than Hakeem too, i'm just scouring information here, like wondering how much Hakeem is to be blamed for the lack of success pre 1993.

Great points.

I think the elephant in the room here is that Duncan came into the NBA as the most polished rookie since Kareem and Hakeem came in quite raw. So yes, Duncan was in a stable environment with Pop & Robinson and this mattered (Duncan leaves SA in free agency otherwise), but put him pretty much anywhere I expect he produces right away.

This is highly underrated point - Duncan was ready from day one to dominate. He was arguably the best player in WCSF with peak Malone and prime Admiral on the floor and he was the best player in the league by 2nd season.

[70sFan]

I love when I can read some counter arguments about Wilt's offensive impact that are not mine

You've made some interesting points, especially about 1968. The worst thing about this year is that had Sixers not got almost whole roster injured in playoffs (including Wilt who played with bruised knee if I remember correctly), they would have likekly repeat the title and nobody would ever say a negative thing about Wilt being assist leader.

I think that a lot of criticism about Wilt are caused by lack of solid data and film breakdown. There are many things people often say about him that are assumptions which we can't prove right or wrong. I love Ben's work as much as anyone, but his article about Wilt is the perfect example of what I'm saying - he has hypothesis about Wilt, which could be true but he can't prove it and there are plenty of counter arguments to what he believes.

I hope to get some footage from 1965 ECF at the beginning of next month, if you believe it'd be significant then I can share it when I get it. Right now, I have quite a lot of mid-1960s footage, so if anyone would like to see and try to get some impression out of it - I can share clips as well.

The '65 film you got earlier this week was quite fantastic, and I think it showed good examples against some arguments people (like you said, such as Ben Taylor) have against Wilt (willingness to pass, willingness to move around around in the post, etc.)

I agree and all of these against Nate Thurmond

[limbo]

- Shaq vs Garnett/Duncan/most anybody. Shaq's really hard to peg unless you're someone who is extremely focused on peak play. Honestly, I never feel that confident about where to place him. I completely understand anyone who thinks I rate him too low, but while I can be very forgiving when a guy plays for multiple teams, when I start to get the impression that someone is inherently unstable, I take that very seriously. I also note that this is the type of thing that's informed by my experience in my work life. Many of us have worked with that brilliant coder/engineer/whatever who for whatever reason lost his morale and is now gumming up the works..

You're concerned about Shaq's value off the court, while i'm here wondering what's stopping teams from cooking this dude defensively with the resources these teams have nowadays that they didn't have in Shaq's prime (more talented/versatile players, better understanding of spacing, most contending teams fielding a higher baseline of shooting/passing, more emphasis on ball-movement, more sophisticated/better developed schemes for perimeter players to exploit weak pnr defenders, matchup hunt etc.)

The weaknesses that Shaq displayed over the course of his prime would be even more pronounced now, and elite teams are more ready to pounce on them. At least that's how i see it.

[Cavsfansince84]

Question on Hakeem - how much did he benefit from the 2 best players in the league having career shortened in the 2 years he won titles? - Magic, MJ. It wasnt the passing of time like Bird, it was guys at an all-time level calling it quits - two of them. Somebody had to win the titles, and Hakeem beat out Barkley, Malone, Robinson. He's the one who got it done, but pretty sure if one of those three won they are the guy being brought up.

Magic would have been 34 & 35 in the two years Hakeem's Rockets were winning. ie passing of time would have caught up to him to some degree. I don't discount his titles on the basis of MJ being out either because imo MJ burnt himself out. Hakeem was still there and playing at his highest level and so won. Its not like those rings were handed to him or he was on stacked teams. He just went out there out competed his competition and I think he would have beaten MJ also at that point.

[limbo]

Tail-end longevity is a thing here, but it's not just that Duncan played longer. Duncan saw his scoring primacy fall off pretty gracefully as the Spurs pivoted to Parker/Ginobili. While you might think "Hakeem didn't have Parker/Ginobili", he did have Barkley & Drexler. If I had Barkley, I don't think I'd be building my offense around Hakeem.

I think there's something to be said about Parker and Ginobili having the opportunity to slowly grow into their offensive roles over time, especially as younger players with a blank canvas to hone and mold their styles to specifically how the Spurs wanted them to play and then gradually expand on their roles while Duncan took a more backseat. Houston relied on Hakeem to be a huge volume scorer for most of his prime, including, most importantly, his two title years, and then suddenly threw Drexler and Barkley at him at the tail end of everyone's career like ''there you go, now learn how to play with each other''...

So while i do think Duncan was more self-aware in that sense than Hakeem, i also wouldn't go overly harsh on the old dog. Hakeem did seem to progressively lower his FGA and took on a more supporting role after 1995... The only exception being the 1998 Playoffs, where Barkley missed the last two games and Hakeem averaged 24 FGA in those games...

I also think that Hakeem's impact was more uneven. Duncan basically came in as Duncan when he was the Spurs' lead scorer as a rookie, while Hakeem was a completely different beast on offense a decade into his career. Meanwhile on defense while Hakeem was more spectacular, I also think he was more error prone.

Hakeem was definitely more raw coming into the league than Duncan, and i think that is most pronounced in the playmaking gap between the two early on. That said, Hakeem raw athleticism was superior to Duncan's which helped him make up the fact that he was less polished as a younger player. If you look at Hakeem's Playoff performances in the 80's, his scoring was arguably better than Duncan's. More efficient and less turnover prone.

[trex_8063]

Question for those who rank Duncan notably higher than Hakeem.

What's the rationale? Is it mostly a tail-end longevity thing and/or winning?

For me it's three primary things.....

*Yes, the longevity. Not only did he play one additional season, he played >150 more rs games and ~3,100 more rs minutes (not to mention all the additional playoff mileage). And what's more he was NEVER ineffectual in there: his WORST year is his final season, and even there he was still at least the 3rd-best player on a contender-level team.
By comparison, Hakeem's got at least two seasons ('00 and '02) that basically don't add anything (even for me). Tim was probably more "NBA ready" right off the bat too (i.e. I think his rookie season is better than Hakeem's).
All of that combines to somewhat significant edge in overall longevity as it pertains to career value.

**The leadership and off-court team contributions ("makes his own luck") that I elaborated on in previous threads ("The Curious Case of Timothy Duncan").

***I actually think Duncan is the little better defender, especially when looking at entire careers [will hopefully find time to elaborate on this later in response to another poster]: there isn't a single year where Duncan wasn't a major impact on the defensive end......the same can likely not be said for Hakeem.

[Doctor MJ]

Lets examine the whole "Wilt had to change his playstyle or the team couldn't win" narrative.

Literally the only player people tend to do this for is Wilt, and the reason for that is because a narrative (heavily pushed by media members) began to formulate as Wilt started to lose every year to a better team.

Adrian Dantley would like a word.

But look I understand that Wilt is the most polarizing player in the history of the game - which says something about his massive historical significance - and thus all manner of criticisms have been thrown his way, but for me it comes down to:

If his scoring had the kind of impact people assume it did, then why did his team offenses do so much better when he wasn't scoring so much?

This isn't some crazy thing to ask. We'd certainly be asking if of Jordan if we saw the same thing. It's super-super discrepant and literally any basketball analyst who hasn't seriously thought about it isn't someone to be taken that seriously. It's a question crying out for everyone to think very hard about.

Before I jump down to your '67 point, I will say that I try not to be so judgmental of people who seriously look at this conundrum and come to different conclusions than I did. The key point for me is that if you refuse to even look into it, then you're trying to defend sacred cows rather than earnestly look from history wherever historical analysis takes you.

1967
Okay, so now here comes the big point--that 76er team finished 6th in ORtg. The next year, the '67 76ers obviously posted the highest ORtg in NBA history up to that point. So, what was the difference between the two teams beside Wilt's playstyle?

First, they lost Al Bianchi (-92.9 TS Add) and added Larry Costello (33.2 TS Add) for 49 games.

Second, rookie Billy Cunningham improved from -30.5 to 57.9--this can't entirely be from Wilt's increased passing in '67 because Cunningham played at a plus efficiency level for virtually the rest of his career. I chalk it up to more of a general second year improvement, especially when factoring in his slight regression in '68 with increased passing from Wilt. The sophomore Cunningham helped their offense improve further.

Third, Chet Walker vastly improved and perhaps even had a hot year, going from 65.1 to 180.1. He regressed back down to previous levels in '68, even with Wilt passing more. During '69 onward he came back into form and had increased efficiency across the board (even FT%) for the rest of his career.

Fourth, Wali Jones went from being a severe negative efficiency-wise to slightly below average (-131.1 to -15.4.)

Basically, the offense was amazing because a few different players improved and they had a better roster. There is no evidence as to all these players improving specifically because of Wilt's passing

Your points about '67 segue smoothly enough into '68 that I can't cleanly cut it, so I'll split it here and repeat some of your language below for context.

So first: I think it needs to be really emphasized that adding Larry Costello on to Michael Jordan's roster would not make it make sense for Jordan to become the last scoring option.

You can't talk meaningfully about the '66-67 76ers unless you address the thing that is by far the most important thing:

That a new coach came in, made the offense play dramatically different such that "the greatest scorer in history" was not featured as a scorer, and the result was a vast improvement.

Why would any new coach do this unless he saw a big problem? He wouldn't.
So what was the problem? If the problem was Al Bianchi, then why did you need to have Wilt shoot so much less?

I always feel a need to emphasize how stupid Hannum would have looked if the offense went into the toilet, and how obvious that would be to any coach in that circumstance. Hannum knew he was taking a big risk with this shift, he must have thought it was important, and the results bear it out.

There is no evidence as to all these players improving specifically because of Wilt's passing, as in '68 his passing increased and some of these players regressed to their previous selves. The ORtg drop-off in '68 with Wilt increasing his passing was because of both Wilt and Chet Walker having a massive shooting slump in the first couple months of the season; as well as a large regression back to previous form for Wali Jones. Hal Greer actually played much better than in '67. It seems to me that the team simply regressed for a part of the season (most likely as a result of Wilt's shooting slump in Oct/Nov) and couldn't get back on track until later, which leads me into my next point:

1968
The '68 76ers were playing on a level similar to that of the '67 offense in the final two months of the season, posting similar PPG numbers and closing out the year with a fantastic 24-5 record. During these two months (Feb and March,) Wilt was averaging 10.6 and 11.9 AST, respectively. Their offense became closer to that '67 level and was their two highest scoring months on the season. Anyone that says his increased passing somehow made the 76ers worse is flat out wrong, and frankly I can't believe that this is even an argument that goes against him.

At this point, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for Wilt. The guy averages 5 assists with 33 PPG, not enough. He averages 8.6 assists, now he isn't scoring enough and hurting his team. The 76ers were at their best in '68 when Wilt was assisting higher than ever. Needless to say, there is zero factual evidence that Wilt passing more somehow hurt his offense, after looking at the splits.

One final point on the Wilt playstyle discussion with an example from the '68 season:

Towards the end of November, the 76ers were a solid but slightly disappointing 15-7. The media was discussing how Wilt could no longer score, how he had lost his ability to put up points and was being forced to pass because of it. Well, Wilt decided to change his playstyle to prove the media wrong--that he could still score. He reverted back to his old scoring self, putting up 30.5 PPG and lowering his assists to 5.2, while taking 20.5 FGA per game. This is pretty comparable to his '64 and '66 season where he averaged similar points/efficiency.

The 76ers went 15-2, their best month of the season. Their only losses? A close OT game vs the Lakers and a 1-point loss at Boston. Similar to the '66 version of Wilt, just better teammates. The '68 team was having success whether Wilt scored or passed the ball, and even his teammates were efficient while Wilt was putting up these high scoring performances (Cunnginham and Jones were about the same in efficiency, and Chet Walker posted his best month of the year.)

Like any other all-time great center, putting up high efficiency scoring is going to help your team win. But in the end, your teammates need to perform as well, especially in a team-based era like the 60s.

I think it's important not to fall into the trap that equates an increase in APG as simply more of a good thing.

As I've said earlier in this project, I think we can be pretty sure that Hannum didn't put a hard limit on how much Wilt should shoot compared to pass. What we're talking about is Wilt being asked to look "more" for opportunities for his teammates. How much more would be ideal? That depends on a great many variables.

If the defense thinks Wilt is likely to shoot, then he has gravity which leaves his teammates open. Him learning to better recognize this and exploit it means getting his teammates more and better shots, which is how you end up with the apparently contradictory fact that his teammates raised both volume and efficiency underneath the scheme.

If the defense thinks Wilt is going to pass, then they don't leave his teammates open as much. Each Wilt pass is thus less valuable to say nothing of the missed scoring opportunities now that his opponents are leaving him in more space and he's not exploiting it.

Goldilocks is the word here. You're trying to find balance. Go too far in the direction that made you better and you're going to get worse again.

And of course that's before you get into stuff like Wilt specifically prioritizing passes to guys more likely to give him assists and him avoiding shooting altogether against teams with good interior defenders to max out his FG%. We can debate how true and how important such things are, but the nature of analytics is always that if you focus too much on numbers that are not the end goal, you tend to micro-optimize yourself into a lower ceiling.

And what we know about Wilt is that he was obsessed with these type of stats in a way few other players in history have been. He saw stats as a way to prove what he could do and that they mattered in their own right, and it undoubtedly was symptomatic of a certain forest-for-the-trees myopia.

Re: splits in '67-68 seem to indicate the team was at its best when Wilt assisted the most. This is a great point to bring up! I don't have any particular counterpoint to make.

What I'd say is that this is where Wilt changing teams again makes things so tough. If Wilt had stuck around the 76ers averaging a huge amount of assists and winning title after title, then we'd be able to confidently say the best way to build around Wilt was to have him be pass-first.

The fact that instead we only had one outlier team ORtg before the numbers went back down and then poof he's on another team and they aren't taking the leap I'm sure everyone at the time expect hurts.

And in the end that's probably the key point: People are left trying to understand why Wilt didn't win more and over the course of his career it became harder and harder to deny that there were often things were gumming up the works even if they weren't entirely sure what was the most problematic thing all the time.

[Doctor MJ]

This is highly underrated point - Duncan was ready from day one to dominate. He was arguably the best player in WCSF with peak Malone and prime Admiral on the floor and he was the best player in the league by 2nd season.

Well thank you and it was definitely a pro-Duncan point but as you say, it's arguable. All of the on/off correlation in the playoffs points to Robinson, particularly on defense, being the essential piece.