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

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. Duncan
2. Garnett
3. Wilt

I have been impressed with the level of discussion in this thread.

Duncan has the longest and highest level prime of players I am seriously considering, including Garnett, Wilt and Dirk.

Statistical Profile:
Tim Duncan RS ('98-'10): 25.0 PER, 162.3 WS (.219 WS/48), 3.8 OBPM, 72.8 VORP
Tim Duncan PS ('98-'10): 25.7 PER, 28.6 WS (.204 WS/48), 4.2 OBPM, 15.0 VORP

Wilt Chamberlain RS ('60-'67): 29.3 PER, 163.2 WS (.268 WS/48)
Wilt Chamberlain PS ('60-'67): 27.8 PER, 16.9 WS (.254 WS/48)

Kevin Garnett RS ('98-'08): 25.0 PER, 139.6 WS (.206 WS/48), 5.0 OBPM, 75.2 VORP
Kevin Garnett PS ('98-'08): 23.4 PER, 9.6 WS (.161 WS/48), 4.2 OBPM, 6.2 VORP

Dirk Nowitzki RS (''01-'11): 24.6 PER, 152.4 WS (.226 WS/48), 5.3 OBPM, 64.7 VORP
Dirk Nowitzki PS ('01-'11): 24.7 PER, 22.1 WS (.207 WS.48), 5.7 OBPM, 11.2 VORP

Non-Prime years:

The Spurs in 2011 were disappointing, Duncan was bad in the post-season and the Spurs dynasty appeared to be nearing an end. Duncan would ignore all doubters in 2012, anchoring a team which went 19-2 in Duncan's final 21 regular season games. In 2013 and 2014 Duncan was the defensive anchor and key contributor on 2 NBA Finals team, finally getting over the hump for the final time in 2014. Duncan's game 6 in the 2013 NBA Finals was an all-time classic performance, as were his game 3's against the Lakers and Grizzles.

Wilt had very productive years in 1969 and 1971 with the Lakers. His impact was felt largely after changing his style of play after 1966, following the 76ers disappointing post-season. Wilt was finally able to put it all together on a team in 1972 while Wilt missing 1970 highlighted his impact as the Lakers were significantly worse in this season compared to 1969 and 1971. Wilt really is the closest player statistically to Jordan and James over a "shorter prime" period and his "non-prime" years which I touched on above simply out match any other players on this list when looked at on a year to year basis.

Kevin Garnett's prime is difficult to contextualize but I will focus on his "non-prime" years here. Garnett was already the best player on a playoff team at the age of 20, which is rarely seen in the NBA's vast history. His 1997 was a great carry job on the defensive end where Garnett's versatility shined and his fluid offense set the tone for one of the greatest careers in NBA History. Garnett's 2009 campaign was ruined by injury but his following 2010-2012 campaigns still featured high impact seasons from both ends of the court. Although Garnett's offense started to slip in 2013, his defense was still at a near all-time level from a per-minute basis.

Dirk's non-prime years really slip in comparison to the rest of the field here. Dirk was actually very respectable in his 5 year campaign from 2012 through 2016. He was an efficient volume scorer in this period but his defense and playmaking both took a noticeable hit in the impact department, where in comparison Garnett/Duncan/Wilt were all very good defenders late into their careers. This defining difference is the deciding factor in putting Dirk at a happy 4th in this comparison.

[SHAQ32]

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?

Portability, shot-selection; to a lesser degree, coachability, and team success (and team success isn't a major factor in my thought process, but it plays).

[SHAQ32]

5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Bird

Duncan has a record 31 All League selections, was among the best on both ends for most of his career. Magic and Bird dominated the 80's, one in the East, the other in the West. The only thing keeping them from getting past Duncan and Russell (who I had originally at 6) higher is longevity, due to health and injury.

I dont think Magic or Bird should be getting much traction yet. If they are, so should Hakeem and Dirk.

Dirks prime was 5 more seasons and he was nearly as good as Bird offensively.

Re: Dirk vs Bird - what are your thoughts on Dirk's relative lack of team success? Dirk and the Mavs were consistently losing in the first or second round of the playoffs, even though talent was never a problem. Michael Finley, Steve Nash; sprinkled years of solid vets/role players like Shawn Bradley, Antoine Walker, Juwan Howard, Nick Van Exel, etc. Antawn Jamison, Jerry Stackhouse, Keith Van Horn... the list kinda goes on and on.

And I'm not saying that all of those guys played to their potential while on the Mavs, I'm just saying the talent was there.

No disrespect to Dirk either as I'm pretty high on him too.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Tim Duncan
3. Magic Johnson

So I think my opinion on Garnett is pretty clear. I am a smidge more impressed with KG than I am TD. I think that the difference in their team success was largely about franchise upbringing. I think Garnett has a good case for being more impactful than Duncan in their time, and I think on top of that KG was held back by primitive coaching strategy that would evolve in his wake. I also think Garnett is a more potent leader. I think Duncan's a great guy to have when you've got a great coach who always seems to know what it takes to win, but if you need someone to grab hold of a less than optimal locker room, the Big Ticket is your man.

But I wouldn't have Duncan right next to him if I wasn't also incredibly impressed by Duncan. The long run of success that made the Spurs the gold standard for the NBA was basically the wave of Tim Duncan's career. That's just incredible.

For the last spot I surprised myself. I was expecting to have Hakeem. Here's the thing though, I always used to have Magic ahead of Hakeem and only switched it based on an evaluation of longevity vs prime. And if that sounds abstract, yup, which is why it doesn't necessarily take much for me to sway me one way or another.

Tonight I went with Magic. Why?

Y'know, a dozen exceptional seasons is nothing to sneeze at. His career feels cut short to me, because of course it was, but he didn't play for that short of a time, and he didn't have a major fraction of his career that he was spinning his wheels.

Hakeem's got him beat on longevity to a degree still of course, but I think Magic was incredible. I mean, there's a reason why LeBron specifically looked to make Magic comparisons when he was coming out as a prospect. It's on the model of Magic that LeBron built in what we now call the heliocentric approach.

[LA Bird]

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Wilt Chamberlain

Duncan is the last player in my GOAT tier. He anchored the most successful dynasty in NBA history and the Spurs were a top team for almost 20 years with him. His 03 championship run is among the best peaks in NBA history and he was a good playoffs performer over his career. He is the 2nd best defensive player ever and his offense is good enough for the Spurs to be a consistently top two way team. I value longevity a lot and the only players with better longevity at his level are #1 and #2 on my list. Duncan is also one of the best team leaders and brings a stability to his franchise that the next two guys don't.

Everyone knows Shaq's peak is one of the best but his longevity is often overlooked. He was the best offensive center in his prime and led postseason offenses comparable to those led by the best perimeter players, a feat no other C has achieved. Shaq's defensive impact didn't look bad for the era he was playing in despite questionable PnR reputation. He is sometimes criticized for peaking against weak competition but Mourning, Mutombo and post-injury Robinson is still a pretty good group of top centers.

Wilt is probably the most interesting player to analyze. Unlike a Stockton who was basically the same player for his entire career, Wilt went through various stages where his playstyle was vastly different. I feel 50ppg Wilt would be looked upon a lot more favorably on this board if Sam Jones had missed the game winner and the Warriors had went on to win the ring. It would give Wilt 3 titles won across 3 franchises playing 3 completely different roles and his volume scoring would be viewed positively as another part of his incredible versatility rather than as a negative narrative - that he was statpadding and could only win when not shooting so much. However, even when he was passing more later, both of his best teams (67 PHI, 72 LAL) had 5+ offenses in the regular season that declined to <2 in the playoffs. Wilt was an all time level defender but I feel like his offense could be so much better given his skills and GOAT athleticism.

(I may write a post later on why Garnett has dropped a couple of places for me if I have the time. Still top 10 but I used to have him as high as 5/6 shortly after joining this forum)

[Owly]

5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson

My case for Bird:
1) Bird is probably the best all-around player of all time. In terms of all-around game - outside shooting, mid range shooting, shooting off the catch, shooting off the dribble, hitting clutch shots, scoring inside off drives, scoring inside off post moves, scoring on the break, FT shooting. One of the best shooters ever...then you have rebounding - one of the best rebounding forwards ever.

Then you have passing - one of the best passers ever. Outside of Stockton and Magic, I'd say Bird is the best passer ever. The dude saw the game 2 steps ahead of everyone else, so he could make reads / see passes virtually no one else could, his instincts were off the charts. Jordan and Kobe were both amazing scorers and good passers. Magic was an amazing passer and a good scorer. Bird meanwhile was an all-time great at scoring AND passing. Only guy who can maybe say that is LeBron and he's already on the list. Bird would literally make perfect passes to teammates setting them up for dunks...while sitting on his butt. He'd set up teammates for baskets with perfect passes...while throwing the pass through the legs of his opponent. He'd throw passes the entire length of the court, and it would still be an absolute laser of a pass, right on the money - passes that most other players could only dream of making.

Then you have defense, the most underrated part of Bird's game. Bird made 2 all-NBA defensive teams but you have to consider the era that he played in. Overall as a league, there was a TON of competition to make all-defensive teams back in Bird's era. There was more defense being played back then - dudes were really getting up in each other's jock, dudes were really going at it and givin' em hell when they played D back then. If Bird played today, he would make at least 5 or 6 all defensive teams. On the flip side, Chris Paul has made 9 all defensive teams and LeBron has made 6...because not as many elite defensive players anymore. You put those 2 dudes in the 80s and you can cut their all defensive selections in half. Not to mention, Bird made one of the greatest defensive plays in NBA history, coming out of nowhere, showing tremendous anticipation by stealing the inbounds pass from Isiah Thomas in game 5 of the 1987 eastern conference finals. That was one of the greatest games of all time and one of the best, most hard fought playoff series' of all time and Bird made the play that won the game and decided the series.

Larry Bird on defense:

Watch on YouTube

2) The Celtics improved by 32 wins after they drafted Bird. They went 29-53 the year before they got Bird in 78-79. That was the 2nd worst record in the entire league. Then in 79-80, Bird was only a rookie but he made that much of a difference - they went 61-21, sweeping the Rockets in the 1st round of the playoffs before falling to the Sixers in the 2nd round - a Sixers team that gave the Lakers a really tough series in the NBA finals. 

So a 32 win improvement after drafting Bird. Let's compare that to Duncan - the Spurs actually won LESS games and fared worse in the playoffs in Duncan's rookie year compared to 95-96 before they drafted Duncan. We're obviously not counting 96-97 when Robinson missed the whole season to injury. The Warriors improved by 17 wins after drafting Wilt and the Lakers improved by 13 wins after drafting Magic. Both of those are very impressive, but pale in comparison to the impact Bird had after arriving in Boston. 

3) Let's look at where Bird finished in MVP voting from 1980 to 1988, the first 9 years of his career:

79-80, 4th place

80-81, 2nd place

81-82, 2nd place

82-83, 2nd place

83-84, 1st place

84-85, 1st place

85-86, 1st place

86-87, 3rd place

87-88, 2nd place

Bird won 3 consecutive MVPs. The only other players to win 3 MVPs in a row? Russell and Chamberlain. Bird's career is even more impressive when you consider not only did he win 3 MVPs in a row, but he was 2nd place in MVP voting FOUR times. He finished top 4 in MVP voting every year for each of the first 9 years of his career. That is simply insane and is one of the reasons why guys like Duncan and Garnett don't belong in the same conversation as Bird...especially considering Bird did all of this in a much tougher, more competitive era. 

Nobody else has come close to being that good every year for a 9 year stretch, except for MAYBE Jordan, LeBron, Kareem and Russell. The 4 guys already off the board, so seems logical that Bird is the next guy on this list. 

4) Loyalty is important. It was important to Bird. If we''re talking about. guy who is top 5 of all time, this needs to be a guy who a) never demanded to be traded (that eliminates Magic) b) won a title with the team that drafted him (that eliminates Shaq, Wilt and Garnett) c) never had a feud with a star teammate which resulted in one of the greatest players ever getting traded (that eliminates Shaq) and c) stayed with one team for his whole career 

That leaves Bird and Duncan. We all know how much of a great team guy Duncan was and loyal to the Spurs. But we also know that he got LUCKY by getting drafted onto a team with the perfect situation a) The Spurs went 59-23 the last year Robinson was healthy before drafting Duncan b) Duncan could learn the ropes as an NBA player and specifically as a big man in the NBA by playing alongside Robinson, one of the greatest centers ever c) he had Popovich, arguably the greatest coach ever and d) drafted by a team in a smaller market, San Antonio so less pressure, less media frenzy which is perfect for Duncan as a quiet, keep to himself kind of guy. My question is, would Duncan have been such a perfect teammate and so loyal to the franchise that drafted him and would be be seen as this perfect locker room guy if he wasn't drafted into THE perfect situation? I highly doubt it. Duncan got lucky. Bird meanwhile was a quiet kid from a small town and a tiny college. Boston was not the ideal team for him to get drafted by because a) a coach that the players didn't really like..they even got swept by the Bucks in 83 on purpose so he would get fired b) Boston is a big city, a big market, TONS of media pressure/scrutiny which Bird hated..especially since Magic joined the Lakers at the same time and this was right after the 2 of them went head to head in the most watched college basketball game of all time (still to this day) and Magic goes to LA, another big market. So media their entire career, especially from their rookie year is hyping up Bird vs Magic, black guy vs white guy. Magic and his personality, he loved it, it didn't bother him. Bird, he was not that type of guy, he hated the spotlight, so having that spotlight/pressure on him made it 10x more difficult for him to perform. Yet, STILL he did. Still, he won Rookie of the year and not Magic, still Bird won THREE MVP awards before Magic ever won 1. 

5) You'd be hard pressed to find a player who was more clutch than Bird. He even hit FOUR game tying/winning shots in the same game!

Watch on YouTube

6) Arguably the greatest playoff series of all time is the 81' ECF, sixers vs Celtics. The Sixers made the NBA finals in 80, 82 and 83. So yeah, in 81 they were GOOD. And the Sixers were up 3 games to 1. Then what?

In game 5, his team had their back against the wall. They had to either win or go home. What did Bird do? He only put up 32 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals and 2 blocks, leading the Celtics to a 2 point win. Game 6? Again, the Celtics facing elimination. Bird puts up 25 points, 16 rebonds, 4 assists and 2 blocks. Celtics win by 2. Game 7, this one is it, for all the marbles. Bird, only in his second season out of college and facing a Sixers team that was smack dab in the middle of making 3 trips to the NBA finals in 4 years. He puts up 25 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 steals, 2 blocks and only 1 turnover. Basically a perfect game and the Celtics needed him to be, because they won by 1 point! Celtics win the series, go to the finals and beat the Rockets. Oh and that wasn't even his best season!

7) Sure, he may have had better teammates, but the fact is Bird was the best player on the Celtics when his Celtics team swept Jordan's Bulls not once but twice in the playoffs. Here's some highlights of what Bird did against Jordan:

Watch on YouTube

8) What other player could showcase so much skill and talent in a single game that they not only lead their team to a win, but they do it against a good team, they score 60 points in that game and they make so many incredible shots that literally players on the opposing team's bench are falling over each other in awe of how good the player is they are going against? Seriously, who else could so something like this?

Watch on YouTube

Even more impressive is that Bird was literally calling some of his shots. He would tell the defender where he was gonna shoot the ball from and still make the shot. He called his shot, saying he was going to fall into the Hawks trainer's lap as he shot the ball - he did it - and he made the shot! Not to mention this game was just a few days after teammate Kevin McHale set the Celtics franchise record for points in a game - so Bird went and broke it in this game. 

9) Oh yeah, and the left handed game...who else could do this? No one but Bird:

Watch on YouTube

10) Bird says his best game ever was game 6 of the 86 finals, when he led the Celtics to the win, closing out the Rockets ( a really good, underrated team) and clinching the title. Bird posted 29 points, 11 rebounds, 12 assists, 3 steals and only 2 turnovers. Celtics win by 17. 

11) If that game vs the Rockets was his best game, the regular season game vs the Jazz might be his 2nd best game ever. You know, the one where he had a triple double...after 3 quarters of play! He refused to go back in the game for the 4th quarter, even though he was 1 steal shy of a quadruple double. He played just 3 quarters and 33 minutes but had 30 points, 12 rebounds, 10 assists and 9 steals. 

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/larry-bird-near-quadruple-double-game-vs-utah-jazz-in-1985-that-was-what-id-call-a-great-game/

12) Still not impressed? How about a play that pretty much no other player ever (except MAYBE Jordan or Dr. J) could have made, but even more impressive because it turned out to be the game winning shot in an NBA finals game!

Watch on YouTube

13) Kareem played against Wilt and he played against Jordan. But Kareem says Bird was the best player he ever played against. 

14) Magic could have said Russell, he could have said Kareem, he could have said Jordan, Wilt or Oscar. But he said that Bird was the GOAT. 

15) In closing, I'd just like to say that the one thing most of you will point to as being Bird's flaw is lack of longevity. Let me address that here. First off, keep in mind that you should either a) only take longevity into account when comparing players from the same era or b) if taking longevity into account with players from different eras you must consider that because of many factors, it's easier for a 70s player to have a longer career than a 60s player, it's easier for an 80s player to have a longer career than a 70s player, etc. 

This is because over time, the conditions have improved which allow players to play longer (less physical play, better travel conditions with 1st class hotels, private jets for modern players, improved sports medicine, nutrition, weight training, strength and conditioning, players in modern era less likely to play hurt, less likely to play through pain, star players in modern era play less minutes per game, players in modern era have more days off between games to recover, facilities have improved over time, so has equipment, etc. 

That's why Bird's longevity might look bad by today's standards. But in his era, playing for 13 seasons - 1 where he was injured most of the season so 12 full seasons. In his era, that was actually good longevity. McHale played 13 seasons, Isiah played 13 seasons, Magic played 12 seasons. Alex English played 14 full seasons but his rookie year he only averaged 5 points a game so pretty much he only played 13 seasons too. Sikma played 14 seasons. Bobby Jones played 11 seasons. 

Sure, Bird wasn't as good during the 3 seasons he played after the back surgery, but he was still an all-star all 3 of those seasons and he made 2nd team all-NBA in one of those seasons. So a) he was still very good during his last 3 seasons after the surgery and b) he was just so damn good during those first 9 years, literally had arguably the best 9 year stretch of any player ever - that IMO you put those 12 years together and you have a top 3 or 4 player of all time, definitely top 5. Maybe no one else on this board agrees with me, but that's ok. I know there's many others out there who know how good Bird was, who know the impact he had on the league, on the game of basketball and how much his teammates and opponents respected him. 

1) Shooting and D. Arguably he never put them together. His All-D 2nd team selections are 82-84, his best shooting seasons are 85-88 and especially 87-88.

The passing grows taking a big uptick in '84. That probably leaves something like his MVP window (84-86) as the best compromise but he wasn't everything at once.

Best shooters ever ... depends on how you frame it (very strong peak).

"One of the best rebounding forwards ever." - No. Rodman, Fortson, Evans, Ansley, Lane, Willis, Tarpley, Larry Smith, Landsberger, Thomas Robinson ... Power forwards ... yes, specialists ... yes, better rebounders than Bird ... yes. If you say small forwards, or forwards aobe a cetain threshold of other responsibilities, then that claim works much better.

If defensive competition was so much better ... I'd be inclined to disagree but so long as you have Roundfield and Pressey and Dunn (and Danny Vranes?) high for standing out above outstanding competition it'd be internally consistent. Not sure I get the Paul shade here, i may be wrong but I think the data has him as impactful versus his peers. So unless the case is the 80s were absolute-terms better ... well that would be quite a tangent.

2) You can certainly make a case for Robinson skewing the baseline. The idea that "obviously" it doesn't count and that '96 (rather than internal '98 Duncan off sample and metrics based on impact) are the best measure is ... dubious. One could say "obviously" we don't compare Boston owned by John Y Brown with Archibald injured, a coaching change, a player-coach, somewhat unstable roster to a more stable ownership, stable roster, stable professional dedicated full season coach and a healthy Archibald. Or you could look systematically at all factors. But presenting the Spurs as worse for having Duncan (and, a small thing, a taste thing, but SHOUTY CAPS in the same sentence) you lost my attention here. Though I do see in writing this that listing players that played more seasons gives Bird good longevity.

Spoiler:

Whilst not greatly pertinent. This loses minute loads. Longevity of quality is what is important.
Actual high year players starting their career in the years around Bird

Kevin Willis
Moses Malone
Robert Parish
John Stockton
James Edwards
Hakeem Olajuwon
Terry Cummings
Tree Rollins
Rick Mahorn
Buck Williams
Dale Ellis
Caldwell Jones
Otis Thorpe
Eddie Johnson (forward)
Sam Perkins
Jerome Kersey
Charles Barkley
Tom Chambers
Derek Harper
Bill Cartwright
Ricky Pierce
Clyde Drexler
Dominique Wilkins
Alex English
Adrian Dantley
Walter Davis
Maurice Cheeks

this counting NBA only several such players played in Europe too

[Owly]

5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Bird

Duncan has a record 31 All League selections, was among the best on both ends for most of his career. Magic and Bird dominated the 80's, one in the East, the other in the West. The only thing keeping them from getting past Duncan and Russell (who I had originally at 6) higher is longevity, due to health and injury.

I dont think Magic or Bird should be getting much traction yet. If they are, so should Hakeem and Dirk.

Dirks prime was 5 more seasons and he was nearly as good as Bird offensively.

Re: Dirk vs Bird - what are your thoughts on Dirk's relative lack of team success? Dirk and the Mavs were consistently losing in the first or second round of the playoffs, even though talent was never a problem. Michael Finley, Steve Nash; sprinkled years of solid vets/role players like Shawn Bradley, Antoine Walker, Juwan Howard, Nick Van Exel, etc. Antawn Jamison, Jerry Stackhouse, Keith Van Horn... the list kinda goes on and on.

And I'm not saying that all of those guys played to their potential while on the Mavs, I'm just saying the talent was there.

No disrespect to Dirk either as I'm pretty high on him too.

This might be easier to respond to with a clarification on what you expected from Dallas each year and whether you think Dirk was responsible for any underachievement. Then if you find that consistently or on average they are underachieving and he is contributing to that gives Dirk advocates a specific case to answer for.

[eminence]

Got to get a vote in, didn't get my 3rd spot nearly as seriously considered as I'd hoped, but ahh well.

1. Tim Duncan - Been voting for him for awhile now, not much to reiterate. 2nd most career defensive value in my estimation, top 10 peak (minimum, after Russell I have trouble ordering), but killer defensive longevity. Always a steady rock on offense, capable of being a low level anchor or of fitting in on a higher level attack. Team culture points through the roof.

2. Kevin Garnett - Impact king, GOAT portability, great longevity, another top 5 career defender (I'd put slightly behind Duncan due to starting a bit slower and slightly less consistent). Offensively even more skilled, capable of anchoring a top level attack and had the skills to fit in anywhere. Doesn't earn the Duncan culture points, but no real negative there either imo. Will repeat that he'd be my 2nd pick to start a franchise behind only LeBron.

3. Wilt Chamberlain - A bit of a placeholder for now, I want to dive into this slot a lot more, as it's the start of the 2nd tier for me. Wilt had it all athletically and when he locked in I think he has a serious argument for best player ever. The problem being of course that it didn't seem like he locked in all that often. Come playoff time though he usually showed up pretty reliably. More impressed by his playoff defense than his offense, unfortunately didn't seem to bring that same intensity during the RS all the time. Poor FT shooter greatly hurts such a high volume offensive player in my mind. Still, a worthy choice at this point, though not sure he'll still be my pick after diving in more.

[Texas Chuck]

This might be easier to respond to with a clarification on what you expected from Dallas each year and whether you think Dirk was responsible for any underachievement. Then if you find that consistently or on average they are underachieving and he is contributing to that gives Dirk advocates a specific case to answer for.

drza made a post 4 or 5 years ago suggesting that Dirk's playoff impact prior to the development of his post game was less than his reputation would suggest. Hopefully when the discussion is more seriously centered around Dirk he will share his data/reasoning again. The 02 loss to the Kings would appear to be largely on Dirk, but not sure a 2nd round exit to the Kings is that much of an underachievement. 03 he gets hurt and misses games in the WCF, but not an underachievement. In 04 they lose to the Kings again, but Dirk is literally the only guy who shows up. He's bad in the 1st against Houston in 05, but the team advances and he's fine against the Suns, but Nash goes supernova so it doesn't matter. 07 we know about it--its his 11 Finals essentially. And then the post game.

So drza's numbers will show a different story than that cursory overview. As a Dirk stan I look at the Dallas talent particularly starting in 05 and think we aren't putting enough weight in the RS overachieving and thus some of the early exits may be more what should be expected from some of those teams.

For example the poster above who runs down the big names Dirk played with. Of course many of those names he only played with for a year or a year and a bit--Juwan, NVE, Van Horn, Jamison, Walker. Some of them were bad in Dallas--Walker, Stackhouse, Van Horn.

I mean we might as well thrown in he played with Rodman, Danny Manning, Elton Brand, Chris Kaman, Tim Hardaway Sr, Luka. None of whom are remotely relevant or played any major impact in the career of Dirk.

[Jordan Syndrome]

5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Bird

Duncan has a record 31 All League selections, was among the best on both ends for most of his career. Magic and Bird dominated the 80's, one in the East, the other in the West. The only thing keeping them from getting past Duncan and Russell (who I had originally at 6) higher is longevity, due to health and injury.

I dont think Magic or Bird should be getting much traction yet. If they are, so should Hakeem and Dirk.

Dirks prime was 5 more seasons and he was nearly as good as Bird offensively.

Re: Dirk vs Bird - what are your thoughts on Dirk's relative lack of team success? Dirk and the Mavs were consistently losing in the first or second round of the playoffs, even though talent was never a problem. Michael Finley, Steve Nash; sprinkled years of solid vets/role players like Shawn Bradley, Antoine Walker, Juwan Howard, Nick Van Exel, etc. Antawn Jamison, Jerry Stackhouse, Keith Van Horn... the list kinda goes on and on.

And I'm not saying that all of those guys played to their potential while on the Mavs, I'm just saying the talent was there.

No disrespect to Dirk either as I'm pretty high on him too.

Talent was never a problem except it was less than his opponents.

The talent Dirk's teams had for a majority of his career was less than his opponents and less than other title contenders in most years.

[Jordan Syndrome]

This might be easier to respond to with a clarification on what you expected from Dallas each year and whether you think Dirk was responsible for any underachievement. Then if you find that consistently or on average they are underachieving and he is contributing to that gives Dirk advocates a specific case to answer for.

drza made a post 4 or 5 years ago suggesting that Dirk's playoff impact prior to the development of his post game was less than his reputation would suggest. Hopefully when the discussion is more seriously centered around Dirk he will share his data/reasoning again.

It was. Dirk's lack of a passing/playmaking game also hindered his ability to make teammates better and his gravity really took off once he had a consistent post-game. Once Dirk started playing closer to the basket and became a gravity hub (I think around 2005) his impact really made it to that next level.

[Texas Chuck]

This might be easier to respond to with a clarification on what you expected from Dallas each year and whether you think Dirk was responsible for any underachievement. Then if you find that consistently or on average they are underachieving and he is contributing to that gives Dirk advocates a specific case to answer for.

drza made a post 4 or 5 years ago suggesting that Dirk's playoff impact prior to the development of his post game was less than his reputation would suggest. Hopefully when the discussion is more seriously centered around Dirk he will share his data/reasoning again.

It was. Dirk's lack of a passing/playmaking game also hindered his ability to make teammates better and his gravity really took off once he had a consistent post-game. Once Dirk started playing closer to the basket and became a gravity hub (I think around 2005) his impact really made it to that next level.

It started with the 07-08 season actually. He and Holger worked every off-season to add elements to his game and after GSW embarrassed Dallas mostly defending him with wings they knew he needed a post game to counter that. The high post game was born that off-season.

[Jordan Syndrome]

drza made a post 4 or 5 years ago suggesting that Dirk's playoff impact prior to the development of his post game was less than his reputation would suggest. Hopefully when the discussion is more seriously centered around Dirk he will share his data/reasoning again.

It was. Dirk's lack of a passing/playmaking game also hindered his ability to make teammates better and his gravity really took off once he had a consistent post-game. Once Dirk started playing closer to the basket and became a gravity hub (I think around 2005) his impact really made it to that next level.

It started with the 07-08 season actually. He and Holger worked every off-season to add elements to his game and after GSW embarrassed Dallas mostly defending him with wings they knew he needed a post game to counter that. The high post game was born that off-season.

Yes but Dirk already started moving in towards the basket and his impact was increasing in 2005 due to the departure of Nash.

[70sFan]

Garnett vs Duncan, high-level view

(note: as long as this post is, I also had a lot of screen shots that I took to illustrate the points during the scouting portion. Unfortunately, my images don't seem to show up here. Not sure what I did wrong, I tried both imgur and ImgBB, but neither worked. If anyone has suggestions let me know, and I can go back and edit the screenshots in).

So, the great debate continues. I've been having versions of this debate for 20ish years, but it's never less fun to do. And each time I do, I tend to learn something.

I'm already seeing some of the usual counter-arguments come up, but with some twists. I'm also seeing some paths that lead in unproductive directions IMO (e.g. going in depth into a referendum on Sam Cassell), some points that I think are strawmen (e.g. that +/- stats are either not relevant or some sort of isolated data point to be ignored), and some that I just don't think are true (e.g. that Duncan had better longevity). So, here I'm going to address this comparison on several levels, hopefully addressing some of these points of contention but, more importantly, hopefully presenting some information that advances the conversation such that, no matter where you might stand or how entrenched your opinion is/was, hopefully we can engage and at least make each other think a bit.

10-year prime stats (box scores and raw +/-)

Spoiler:

I start here for a few reasons. The box score data across their primes helps demonstrate how similarly KG and Duncan performed in their careers. This is important, because there's a tendency in these debates for people to discuss relatively small changes like their chasmic. "Duncan is the better scorer because he played in the post!" "Well, Garnett is the better passer because he's almost a point guard!" There can be truth in statements like these, but they're matters of degree. Garnett, too, was excellent at post offense while Duncan, too, was a strong passer. By looking at the numbers, from rip, we can see that similarity and hopefully ground our debate.

Also, Duncan and Garnett had careers that overlapped temporally to a degree rarely seen outside of Magic vs Larry. While they weren't drafted the same season, Duncan and KG are the exact same age (Duncan born a month earlier) and their primes coincided very well with one another such that we can compare apples-to-apples over the same set of years. Here, I go from the 1998-99 season through the 2007-08 season. This captures all of their MVP years (including all 9 times one or the other finished top-3 in the vote), their DPoY season, the four Spurs championships of Duncan's prime & KG's chip with the Celtics, etc.).

Note: I don't believe that the box scores capture the entire game. But, again, this gives us a good baseline of production and also helps to indicate the small differences in the ways that each contributed their impacts.

99-08 basic stats comp
Duncan: 21.7 PPG (on 19.7 true shots), 11.8 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.8 SPG, 2.4 BPG, 2.8 TO (742 games, 36.9 MPG)
On-court +/-: +10.7 PP100, Off-court: +0.3, On/off +/-: +10.4 PP100

Garnett: 22.0 PPG (on 20.0 true shots), 12.2 RPG, 4.8 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1.6 BPG, 2.7 TO (759 games, 38.7 MPG)
On-court +/-: +5.0 PP100, Off-court: -3.9, On/off +/-: +12.4 PP100

A few thoughts. First, 'true shots' as used here are field goal attempts + 0.44* free throw attempts. One of the first things I'm always struck by is just how eerily similar KG's and Duncan's boxscore stats are over a full decade. There are small differences in either direction on different categories, but across the board they are in pretty close lockstep according to the boxscores.

Some areas where they differ slightly speak to their skillsets. Duncan is better at getting to the line (not shown here, but he averaged 7.5 FTA to KG's 5.7 FTA), which makes sense because he did operate more on the interior and drew more fouls. KG was a bit more active and efficient as a distributor on his teams, with a small edge in assists on equivalent turnovers. Duncan was the bigger shotblocker, Garnett more likely to generate steals. But all in all, very similar. And, as I mentioned, I don't think the boxscores are what tell the most important stories of quality, anyway, as I try to estimate how much one player was impacting the game vs another. But it is useful to see.

On the very raw +/- front, we can see some quantitative support for what we know to be true. Duncan's teams were better overall (+10.4 on-court +/- vs +5.0). Garnett's teams struggled more without him (-3.9 off-court +/- vs +0.3). Garnett had a slightly higher on/off +/- as well, but there's enough room for interpretation that, like the box scores, the raw +/- numbers aren't the best storytellers for impact that we have access to for their careers. Where available, the regressed +/- stats tell more granular stories. But the raw +/- is useful, especially in cases where we don't have as much access to regressed data.

Skillset, quantified scouting and impact
This is an important place to go next, because it addresses the notions of a) the benefits/downsides of both players' skillsets in a quantitative way. With the eye test, there's a fine line between "scouting" and "seeing what we want to see", so quantified scouting helps really pin down the degree of similarities/differences in a more meaningful way. This is also a place where we can start to try to quantify their non-boxscore impacts a bit. We want to move beyond "Duncan's a better post player" and "Garnett's a better passer", or "Player X is the better defender", but with data that is independent of the +/- approach that some don't like. So, for those that say "KG's only argument is RAPM", this section is for you.

Defense
The databall era began almost 25 years ago, now, and of players that played essentially their entire careers in it, Duncan and Garnett are the two best defensive players bar none. But, they did things a bit differently. As the box scores support, Duncan was a bit better shot-blocker while KG was more likely to get a steal. However, real defense is much more complex than that.

Duncan

Spoiler:

Duncan was a more traditional rim protector, strong at ISO post defense with a strong base that allowed him to push most non-Shaq players off their spots when they tried to establish position.

(example image)

Duncan's post defense footwork was superb, and he got a lot of his blocked shots on-ball in those ISOs. And he also had a true knack for keeping the ball in-play and/or recovering the ball after blocking the shot (something that Russell was known for)

(example image)

He was also good at helping teammates in the paint when their assignment drove to the rim, notching more weakside blocks that way.

(example image)

Duncan was very mobile, especially as a younger player, and would have been at the upper echelon of mobile centers in almost any era. He could switch off, even on guards, and hold his own in those dribble ISOs.

(example)

In my memory, Duncan also wasn't one to give in to shot fakes and get out of position...this was always a reason I thought Duncan would have done better than David Robinson in that 1995 playoff matchup with Hakeem, because I don't think Hakeem could have deeked Duncan the way he did Robinson.

(Brian Grant example)

Duncan's biggest sphere of influence was in the paint/around the rim, which showed up in his blocked shots, but also in the Spurs' ability to close down the paint on defense. Early in Duncan's career, he was sharing that duty with Robinson and potentially Robinson may have deserved more credit early on. But Duncan grew into the role, and by the early-mid 2000s when Robinson was on his way out the door, Duncan continued to anchor those mega-elite defenses from the inside-out. He was running a strong Pop defensive scheme, and he had strong defensive lieutenants on the perimeter in guys like Bruce Bowen and Manu GInobili (among others), but Duncan was the rock of the Spurs' defensive dynasty that spanned from the late 90s to the mid 2010s.

Garnett

Spoiler:

Garnett's defensive approach was different than Duncan's. Interestingly, he was excellent at many of the same things we just mentioned for Duncan. His base wasn't as strong, but he was absurdly long and lanky and used that to fight for position before the entry pass

(example)

Garnett was great at using his technique, length and explosiveness for on-ball ISO blocks

(Duncan example)

And Garnett was elite at using his quickness and anticipation to rotate down to help his teammates and defend the rim

(Example)

But here is where their defense tended to diverge a bit. While Duncan's primary sphere of influence was around the paint, Garnett disrupted all over the court. While Duncan had the strength advantage that helped in the post, KG had incredible speed for a 7-footer and was able to use it to help/switch/blow-up-opposing-possessions in unprecedented ways. And one of the interesting/ironic issues is that often Garnett was stopping opponent offensive sets directly but there's no boxscore stat for "stopped a play" or "forced a reset that ate shotclock and led to a lower percentage shot". I remember in '08 when KG won Defensive Player of the Year, I heard an analyst break down his "lack" of volume blocks and steals by pointing out that Garnett was actually rotating so quickly that he was beating opposing offenses to the spot and causing them to change their minds about shooting before they could ever get the shot up.

(Example ISO on Drexler --> forced reset)

(Example switch on Peja, stopped the shot twice then dove for the rebound)

(Example ISO on LeBron that forced reset, then switch onto Wally and steal)

One element of defense that Garnett is perhaps most known for is being the best big-man defender of the pick-and-roll, probably ever. The pick-and-roll/pop was ubiquitious during the 2000s era, and is still one of the most common sets in the game today. So, Garnett's ability to blow up that play led to a lot of busted plays, run-down shot clocks, low percentage shots and turnovers. And again, because there's no stat to count for that, it's an element of defense that you have to scout to see.

(P&R examples)

Defensive scouting stats

Spoiler:

(Note: many of the scouting data points that I'll quote in these sections comes from Ben's Top-40 players in history project: https://backpicks.com/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/;%20Some%20from%20Synergy%20sports)

Duncan's fundamental defensive positioning and decision-making came across in the defensive scouting stats ElGee included in his rankings project. He claims to have scouted 800 of Duncan's possessions between 1998 and 2008. He noted Duncan as one of the "low-error defenders" in the league, always among the top quartile in the league in defensive error rates. He also wrote that Duncan rotated notably "well" in 4 plays per 100, with about 1 "elite" rotation play per game and that this was about 2.5 times better than (for example) Shaq's rate of quality rotations. However, while Duncan covered a lot of ground for a typical big man, the outlier athletes covered more. David Robinson, for example, was credited with quality rotations about 20% more often than Duncan.

Meanwhile, in ElGee's study, Garnett measured out as making even fewer mistakes while producing more positive defensive results. KG measured out with a defensive error rate of only 0.7 errors per 100 possessions, which ranked in the 96th percentile from 03-09, and he maintained a similar rate in a study including 2,500 more scouted KG possessions from 2010 and 2011. On the other side of the coin, Garnett's hyper mobility, instincts and team/help defense translated to a frequency of "good" helping plays second only to young Hakeem Olajuwon in the study. KG's multi-year average of"over 7 good helps per 100 possessions" was better than Duncan's peak of more than 6 good helps per 100 possessions.

A couple of other notes of interest reported for Garnett included that KG's 4-year peak of a 15.8% defensive rebound rate ranked 8th in NBA history since the stat started being kept in 1974. Also, KG was able to challenge so aggressively on defense while generating one of the lowest fouling rates among big men since 1997.

Defensive impact stats

Spoiler:

I mentioned before that KG and Duncan were the two best defensive players of at least the last two decades, and the impact stats bear that out. Any number of them tell the same story, but one quick resource with cool graphs explores Jerry Englemann's 14-year RAPM study from 2001-2014: https://public.tableau.com/views/14YearRAPM/14YearRAPM?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no
Garnett (+7.7) and Duncan (+6.6) rank out as the two best defensive players over that span, both with well over 100,000 defensive possessions considered in the study.

Offense
As with defense, Garnett and Duncan had a lot of overlapping skills but approached this end of the court differently. As the box scores support, Duncan was a bit more efficient as a scorer and better able to draw fouls inside, while KG was the more productive passer with more range on his jumper. But again, real offense is much more in depth than what's in the box scores.

Post game

Spoiler:

When it comes to operating and scoring from the block, it's universally accepted that Duncan was a bit better than Garnett. He's a bit thicker, with a stronger base, and he spent more of his time posting up than Garnett did. However, Duncan wasn't exactly anchored to the paint like Shaq or Dwight Howard and could step out and hit a 15-footer as well.

Here they are, operating in the post against one another.

Duncan example: check his base positioning, ability to root down low and finish strong through contact.

Garnett example: KG is longer, lankier and quicker. It shows through in this example, though he's also able to finish through contact here.

Interestingly, data from the Scouting Analytics service Synergy pegged Garnett and Duncan as very similar in point production from post-ups during the years they were in business, 2005 - 2012. Interestingly, though Duncan posted slightly more often during this stretch (~45% of the time through 2010) than Garnett (~35% of the time), Garnett generated a higher points per possession than Duncan from post ups in six of the eight seasons (2005-2008, 2011-2012).

Shooting

Spoiler:

Both Duncan and Garnett were comfortable knocking down jumpers. Here's vid caps of them setting up and knocking down 15-footers against each other.

(example)

(example)

Both had range to occasionally step out and knock down the trey, especially in big moments where the shot was required. But Garnett was the better shooter and operated at higher volumes. According to basketball-reference.com:

Duncan/Garnett shooting 1999-2008
10-16 feet --> Duncan took 21.2% of his shots, made 40.4%
Garnett took 23.3% of his shots, made 46.6%

16 feet-3P--> Duncan took 11.6% of his shots, made 38.9%
Garnett took 29.2% of his shots, made 44.5%

3-pointers--> Duncan took 1% of his shots, made 22.4%
Garnett took 3.9% of his shots, made 27%

(Ugh. Computer ate my verbiage here. Let me try to recreate).

This scoring discussion comes down to "reliability" on one side and "spacing" on the other, as well as the question of "what's the right way for a big man to play offense"? Interestingly, there were seasons when KG shot better from the field than Duncan from everywhere on the court...posting higher percentages in the post, in the short mid-range, in the long mid-range, and from 3-point range...but Duncan still ended up with higher field goal and true shooting percentages overall because he shot more often from close to the rim, and he also drew more fouls.

While they were playing, especially in the first half of their careers, this was a big source of public criticism of Garnett (particularly when compared to Duncan). Many would say, 'a 7-footer should play in the paint, not settle for jumpers'. This is still a big point of criticism when it comes to playoff scoring efficiency, where Duncan proponents claim that Duncan's post game is more reliable in the postseason while KG's jumpers can dry up. I personally contend that a) this isn't the main reason for their small differences in scoring efficiency in the postseason and b) those differences in scoring efficiency have very little effect on their postseason offensive impacts. But I digress, as this isn't the point I'm trying to make nor is it the place to make the case. Focus.

However, we now have decades of databall information in all types of studies that go back to the 90s that have taught us just how valuable big man spacing is to team offenses. If a big man is a) a volume scorer and b) is being defended by (typically) the best big man defender on the opposing team, then that big man's ability to volume score with jumpers has a huge positive effect on the team's offense. He warps the opposing defense away from the rim, which destabilizes most defensive attacks and leaves the paint open for the rest of the offense to generate high-efficiency looks. In fact, whether the shooter is making his jumpers that day or not, the threat of his presence as a shooter drives that spacing, positive team impact.

So. While we spent much of their actual playing careers criticizing Garnett's scoring proclivities (with respect to Duncan's), by now we should really know better. We should really expect, even without having to look at their direct impact stats, that there was a good chance that Garnett's spacing was probably as valuable/more to his team than Duncan's post game. Or, at the very least, we should really be considering whether that might be the case even as we move onto another aspect of offense...

Passing

Spoiler:

Duncan was a solid passer even as a young player, but over the course of his career he developed into a genuinely good passer for a pivot. Here's a link to a Youtube compilation of Duncan making good passes: [url]

Watch on YouTube

;feature=youtu.be&t=193[/url]

In the compilation, there are a lot of instances of Duncan getting the ball as part of a play, then making a quick pass to a cutter or a teammate popping out for a 3-pointer. There are also quite a few examples of him getting a rebound and firing an outlet past half-court that ignited a fast break and easy layup. Duncan was usually able to pass out of double-teams effectively, and he typically put good pace and touch on his passes.

With that said, this is an area of the game where Garnett has a solid advantage. Garnett was a legitimately excellent passer and offensive decision maker period, but was especially an outlier for a big man at creating opportunities for teammates. The difference between the two was clear when watching them live action, and it's just as evident when perusing Youtube blips as well.

The analogy I'd use is that of a football quarterback. Duncan was like a 1-read QB. You know, usually with young quarterbacks, their teams might simplify the playbook such that pre-snap the quarterback can look at the situation surrounding his main target, then once the play begins he has to make only one decision as to whether to make the pass or not. At that point, it becomes about whether the quarterback is physically able to get the ball where it needs to be, but he doesn't have to put a lot of thought into it. To me, many of Duncan's good passes were like that...they came in the flow of the offense, or broke up doubles, or got the fast break going but didn't require him to read the defense.

Garnett, on the other hand, was more like a veteran signal caller that could read the entire defense, make decisions on who might be open based upon some combination of the defensive set, the play being run and/or how he could force the defense to warp; and often he'd "pass a player open".

This is a very important distinction, again well beyond the number of assists, because it meant that Garnett's teams could use him regularly as an offensive hub to initiate and run the offense and create looks for his teammates. Another outcome from analyzing decades of impact stats is that big men that can initiate/run the offense/create team offense universally measure out as some of the highest impact offensive players in the game. Like spacing, big man offense initiation is something that doesn't necessarily show up in the box scores but that has a huge impact on the game. This effect is why Nikola Jokic has been measuring out as one of the best offensive players in the NBA for several years, even before his reputation caught up. It's part and parcel of why Draymond Green, especially in the pre-Durant days, consistently registered strong offensive impact stats (particularly as the center in the "Death lineup") even though he's a poor, inconsistent shooter and doesn't score at much volume.

Beyond being the visibly better passer qualitatively, Garnett's advantages over Duncan can be demonstrated quantitatively as well through scouting stats. Again, Ben scouted thousands of plays from years and years of games, and in his top-40 project he reported some passing results for both Duncan and KG.

For Duncan, Ben reported that he had "good" passing plays about two times per 100 possessions, a higher rate than his "problematic passes" to effectively post the scouting stats analog of a positive assist-to-turnover ratio but with.

Garnett, on the other hand, had a "rate of quality passing near John Stockton's". Using only peak years (between 2003 and 2008), Garnett's rate of "good" passes was over 4 per 100 possessions, a comparable score to that posted by Jason Kidd.

So, yes, Garnett was the better passer than Duncan. But the implications of that statement are much larger than just, "well, he had an extra assist per game". Garnett's ability to initiate and create team offense, then set up his teammates in good position to attack the opposing defense is an extremely scaleable skill that good coaches could build entire offenses around.

Overall offensive impact

Spoiler:

Let's start with a non +/- statistic, one that instead was another result of the scouting analytics: shots created. According to ElGee's top-40 project, Duncan produced around 7 shots created per 100 possessions during his peak years, then was closer to 4-5 shots created per 100 possessions during the surrounding seasons. In his study, that was an excellent performance, especially for a big man.

Garnett, though, was "the most prolific creator of any big man in history (if we don't count Larry Bird)". KG's creation rates were similar to his estimated non-3 Box creation marks, in the 7 created shots per 100 range on average (from 1997-2009, not just at his peak).

Now, let's shift to the +/- story. According to Jerry Englemann's yearly PI-RAPM studies, both Duncan and Garnett peaked with at least one season among the top-5 in the NBA in ORAPM (Duncan peaked at fifth one season, while Garnett peaked at 1st in ORAPM in 2004 and 2nd in 2003).

If we got a bit broader, using DocMJ's approach of normalizing RAPM to try to compare individual seasons on a more even basis, with an updated version of his spreadsheet that compiled the single-year RAPM studies available at the time, we can sort the highest offensive impacts (best 5-year averages) for all big men between 1998 and 2012. Of course, Shaq finished #1 (+8.1 5-year average) and Dirk finished #2 (+7.4 average). Garnett finished fourth (+6.2) while Duncan finished sixth (+5.6) among big men.

Finally, expanding out to the Englemann's 14-year RAPM study that spanned 2001-14, (link again: https://public.tableau.com/views/14YearRAPM/14YearRAPM?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no), Garnett posted a +2.4 ORAPM that ranked 44th (among 1,383 players evaluated) while Duncan scored +2.0 and ranked 65th.

So, in terms of offensive impact as estimated by both scouting analytics and RAPM, the story was consistent that both were strong but Garnett was slightly better. And, after the scouting breakdown, hopefully it's clearer to all why this was the case. Duncan was likely the better low-post scorer with better efficiency, but Garnett's unique brand of point-guard-level passing/shot creation, strong spacing and a still excellent post game was just more impactful overall.

Bottom line, top-down view of Garnett vs Duncan
I've really tried to give a holistic, in-depth analysis of what Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan brought to the court on both offense and defense. We started with the box scores and basic +/- data, but if you actually read all of this I hope you can see just how little the box scores are equipped to really measure a) the different elements that Duncan and Garnett brought to bear and b) how those different strengths translated to their impacts.

On both offense and defense, Duncan dominated the area right around the rim and also had good ability (for a big man) to influence the game outside of that primary sphere of influence. And on both offense and defense, Garnett was able to dominate the area around the rim but spent less time there, as his sphere of dominance expanded out to the 3-point line (and sometimes beyond) on both ends of the court. And several of KG's best strengths...his historic help defense, his GOAT pick-and-roll defense, his defensive versatility, his ability to space the court on offense and his guard-level offense initiation/passing weren't things that the box scores could catch...but they were part and parcel of why Garnett was the most impactful player of his generation.

And yes, as most of you knew coming in and the various +/- studies I've reported above indicated, the impact studies support that claim. In Englemann's 14-year study from 2001-14, Garnett edges out even LeBron for #1 on the list. I ran into Jerry recently, and he told me that even now, including data up through present (pre-bubble), KG and LeBron were still clearly 1-2 in long-term RAPM (with his decisions about how to implement his aging curve determining which ended up on top).

Not only was he the biggest impact player of his generation, Garnett also had very arguably the most portable skillset. It's why he was able to positively impact his teams under such a wide array of circumstances.

Garnett also had likely the most scaleable skillset of his generation. Dominant big man defense is almost purely additive, as is passing, as is shooting/spacing. He could lead any defensive unit, and be a beneficial contributor to any offensive unit.

Finally, Garnett is perhaps the most uniquely scarce player of all-time. Understand what I mean by that. NBA history is full of Unicorns, Freaks, Legends and Kings. Players with athletic profiles and sizes that were incredibly unique. So, that's not what I'm getting at, here. But, in NBA history it is rare to find a big man with a defensive impact even comparable to the best offensive impacts around. Even if the offensive impact might be a bit greater at the top, there were/are also more offensive players capable of generating those levels of impact. There are hardly any defenders that can do that, though. Both Garnett and Duncan were on the extremely short list worthy of mention.

However, on the other side of the ball, it is just as rare to have a big man that can initiate the offense as a hub that creates on the order of point guards. It isn't as rare to have big man shooters that can space the floor, but volume scorers that can do so are still relatively sparse.

But when you look at the Venn diagram of the most dominant defenders...that are also outstanding team offense initiators...that are ALSO excellent floor spacers that can dominate in the post as well...you're looking at an n of 1. Kevin Garnett.

Vote
1. Garnett
2. Duncan
3. Wide open...for now, let's say Magic Johnson, but I look forward to the debates in future threads.

I disagree with your conclusion, but it's amazing post overall!

[70sFan]

One important thing about Wilt - he's absolutely in debate for GOAT rebounder and it's not because of his raw averages at all. We don't have rebounding rates from most of Wilt's prime, but here is the source on good estimates:

viewtopic.php?t=955514

Bill Russell RS career average - 19.9 TRB%
Bill Russell playoffs average - 20.9 TRB%

Wilt Chamberlain RS career average - 20.2 TRB%
Wilt Chamberlain playoffs average - 21.8 TRB%

Andre Drummond RS career average - 24.5 TRB%
Andre Drummond playoffs average - 18.6 TRB%

Dennis Rodman RS career average - 23.4 TRB%
Dennis Rodman playoffs average - 20.5 TRB%

Dwight Howard RS career average - 20.9 TRB%
Dwight Howard playoffs average - 21.5 TRB%

Given his high minutes and offensive/defensive responsibilities, I think it's fair to say that he's at least in conversation for GOAT rebounder.

[limbo]

It was. Dirk's lack of a passing/playmaking game also hindered his ability to make teammates better and his gravity really took off once he had a consistent post-game. Once Dirk started playing closer to the basket and became a gravity hub (I think around 2005) his impact really made it to that next level.

How did it hinder his ability to make his teammates better when the 2002-2004 Mavs were some of the best offenses of all-time?

Truth of the matter is that when you're playing with Nash, Finley & NVE, you're going to automatically be having less of the ball as a point of attack for the offense, as all of those guys loved to make plays off the dribble.

Now, despite their offensive dominance, i'm not suggesting there wasn't a better way for them to have played on offense, that would've been more resilient in the PS. Part of me thinks that there might have been too little restrictions/directions imposed on that roster, because there's no way a team with that much talent offensively should be having guys like Finley and NVE freestyle so much where they end up with 17-20 FGA attempts on sub .450 or even sub .400 %TS... It seem to work brilliantly during the regular season, but once the Playoffs rolled over, they couldn't just out-talent the best teams in the league by relying on random style based on hot shooting.

But then again, looking at the PS ORtg, the Mavs were usually at the Top of offensive performing teams in the Playoffs during 2002-2004 PO. Not saying their offense wasn't a problem in certain series, but their defense was terrible during that era. Couldn't defend anything, which is not surprising considering the roster/coaching heavily slanted towards offensive talent/mindset.

I mean, Dirk did have some stinkers during that period (though not more than the other top guys on some of those teams), but his impact in the Playoffs during 2001-2004 didn't seem to be significantly lower than post Nash, if at all... It just came less as an offensive post hub, and more off-ball, as a free-flowing scorer on the go.

The problem with Dallas during that period was that they just flat out sucked defensively, outside of 2003 where they were decent, and unsurprisingly, got the farthest. The rest of the Dirk/Nash/Finley era was just praying you could outgun the other team 4 out of 7 times, because you're defense will leak points like crazy regardless, which wasn't the case with Dirk teams post 2005. Those teams usually had good defenders around Dirk for the most part.

I mean, offense DEFINITELY wasn't the problem in 2002, as Dallas had BY FAR the best offensive rating in the Playoffs. Like, 5 full points above the 2nd placed team. The problem was the defense was about as bad as the offense was good. Same goes for 2003. Postseason ORtg in the Top 3 easily, DRtg in the Bottom 3 easily. Same goes for 2004... There's a trend here.

The only time Dallas didn't lose because their defense was a HUGE problem was in 2010 against the Spurs, and of course in 2011, where their defense managed to be average.

Dirk also led the league in ORAPM from 2002 to 2004 on aggregate, fwiw. But yeah, he was a more effective passer after that because he kind of had to be. He played in a different system with less playmaking talent.

[Hornet Mania]

Tim Duncan was the obvious choice for me this round. One of the greatest defensive anchors of all-time, incredible tone-setter for a franchise that epitomized success for two decades and an underrated offensive player who was legendary for being fundamentally sound.

Magic is my next choice. The offensive GOAT imo, his ability to manipulate defenses was basically unstoppable at his peak. His scoring ability was quite nice, he could get buckets when necessary, but when watching him play it's clear he's focused on getting the most buckets overall and be just as happy scoring 15 as scoring 40. The last underrated aspect to Magic was his leadership. He was extremely positive but he also had a laser focus on achieving greatness. Teammates loved playing with him because he got them all easier buckets but at the same time he held himself and the team to a high standard that resulted in consistent success. He made the Finals 8/10 times in the 80s and once more in 91 for good measure. If not for having his career being cut short due to being HIV positive I think he could have put together an overall resume that would compare favorably with even MJ and Lebron.

Shaq is next up. The GOAT peak imo. I am sympathetic to the argument that he did not maximize his talent, but at the same time that basically is just saying he had the potential to be a short-list GOAT candidate. As it is is run between 00-04 ranks among the greatest ever and he had plenty of dominant seasons outside of that run as well. He seems the clear choice after Duncan, Magic and everyone else already voted in.

Beyond Shaq I'm leaning heavily toward Wilt, then Bird or Hakeem.

My votes:
1. Tim Duncan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Shaquille O'Neal

[limbo]

Shaq is next up. The GOAT peak imo. I am sympathetic to the argument that he did not maximize his talent, but at the same time that basically is just saying he had the potential to be a short-list GOAT candidate. As it is is run between 00-04 ranks among the greatest ever and he had plenty of dominant seasons outside of that run as well. He seems the clear choice after Duncan, Magic and everyone else already voted in.

How did Shaq not maximized his talent? His prime coincided with the slowest era in modern NBA history, which plays into the hands of a player like Shaq that did not like to run/move a lot. His prime also coincided with the offensively weakest era in modern NBA history, which also played into his hands, as someone that has major weaknesses defensively, such as defending the PnR, closing out on shooters, and bad transition defense. And finally, Shaq basically never played on weak teams in terms of talent

[zimpy27]

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?

Portability, shot-selection; to a lesser degree, coachability, and team success (and team success isn't a major factor in my thought process, but it plays).

My problem with Duncan is that he had the same coach, similar players, similar systems to work in his entire career.

Without variability around him it's hard to be sure how he would respond, could his game lift a team with bad players and an incompetent coach? Would his game be less effective in a different system? We won't ever know the answers to this and because I can't be sure I cant have him higher than guys who proved they were winners in a myriad of circumstances.

[DQuinn1575]

One important thing about Wilt - he's absolutely in debate for GOAT rebounder and it's not because of his raw averages at all. We don't have rebounding rates from most of Wilt's prime, but here is the source on good estimates:

viewtopic.php?t=955514

Bill Russell RS career average - 19.9 TRB%
Bill Russell playoffs average - 20.9 TRB%

Wilt Chamberlain RS career average - 20.2 TRB%
Wilt Chamberlain playoffs average - 21.8 TRB%

Andre Drummond RS career average - 24.5 TRB%
Andre Drummond playoffs average - 18.6 TRB%

Dennis Rodman RS career average - 23.4 TRB%
Dennis Rodman playoffs average - 20.5 TRB%

Dwight Howard RS career average - 20.9 TRB%
Dwight Howard playoffs average - 21.5 TRB%

Given his high minutes and offensive/defensive responsibilities, I think it's fair to say that he's at least in conversation for GOAT rebounder.

GOAT rebounder, GOAT scoring, GOAT shot blocker, led league in assists. The case for Wilt here to me is pretty obvious