I'm really shocked that people think Duncan/Garnett is a toss-up.

I'm really shocked that people think Duncan/Garnett is a toss-up.

If you go by the numbers, that is pretty much what it is. Duncan has slight statistical edges in PER as well as WS/48.

As far as Bryant, as we have covered at length, his value and the weight of his contribution tends to be overstated by the MSM and a lot of Lakers fans, and understated by stat guys and a lot of opposing fans, for very obvious reasons. Here are the basic metrics for the four guys in career terms:

WS/WS48/PER
Duncan 182/.214/24.8
Garnett 186/.189/23.2
Bryant 170/.184/23.4
Nowitzki 170/.209/23.5

Bryant and Nowitzki's O/D WS breakdowns are pretty much identical:

Bryant 121/49
Nowitzki 120/50

Also, here are Duncan's and Garnett's career TS and EFG:

Duncan: .552/.508
Garnett: .549/.503

Nowitzki's TS is .580, due to the 3s.

It is an unprovable counterfactual, but I am pretty sure that if Garnett had played in San Antonio and Duncan had played in Minnesota and then Boston, the ring counts would be the same. To actually separate them, I think you would need detailed play-by play breakdowns of 4th quarters over 8 or 10 years, video, tracking data, etc, which is why I am generally not that into assertions about who-was-better-than-who.

Duncan has slight statistical edges in PER as well as WS/48.

Of course, Duncan didn't play in the NBA when he was 18,19, 20, or 21. This increases his WS/48 relative to the other three (while decreasing his traditional stats and total WS.)

I enjoyed this breakdown of 5, 4, 3, and 2-man units. As with all statistical analyses of the NBA in 2012-13, the main lesson is that LeBron James is incredible.

[253] Fair point and something I hadn't really considered despite taking that into account in my LBJ/MJ post from last page.

[252] Part of my Duncan over KG argument is post-season performance. I realize that Duncan has had more chances to play in the post-season but I feel Duncan's definitely performed better there. Of course some of that may be due to the ages at which they played their postseason games.

Of course, Duncan didn't play in the NBA when he was 18,19, 20, or 21.

Correct. But even if you look at peak years, rather than career totals, you get a similar picture. Garnett's best PER and WS/WS/48 (2004) are actually higher than any one year that Duncan has had.

Garnett has never had a postseason as good as Duncan's 2003 and 2006, and that is probably the best argument for Duncan (and is essentially the basis of where Simmons put them, 7th and 22nd). OTOH, Garnett didn't play in postseason from ages 28-30, and Duncan was in postseason with better teams around him.

Somewhere in the original thread, I did about a 5000 word Duncan/Garnett post. I don't really mind if people ultimately prefer Duncan, but I'm glad we've reached a point where we discuss Garnett versus Duncan, Bryant, Robinson, Olajuwon, and Kareem rather than Elvin Hayes or Rick Barry.

Also, Duncan's just closer to being a center, right? I mean, both are centers now as their careers wind down, but Garnett went from SF to PF to C, while Duncan has gone from PF/C to C. Garnett weighs less and favors jump shots over postups. And naturally, center is measured against a lower replacement value than PF/SF.

Kobe vs. Duncan is interesting. My gut says Kobe, but I'd have to really look at it.

Also, Duncan's just closer to being a center, right?

Yeah.

My gut says Kobe, but I'd have to really look at it

I have been a Lakers fan since I was a kid, but I don't see it that way. I also am not sure that comparing Kobe to three 6'11" guys is the best way to evaluate him, although I of course did it myself.

This might belong in an OT thread - or the college one - but...
Is it sexist to claim that women's basketball has better fundamentals than the men's game? I think it is - which is not at all a knock on that game, but a function of resources, history, and so on.

Duncan over Kobe.
I really like part of rr's take on Bryant, how (paraphrasing badly) deceptively remarkable that he's managed to do as much as he has as a player with his 'merely great' tools.

is better fundies expressed by the lack of scoring or competitive games?

Is it sexist to claim that women's basketball has better fundamentals than the men's game? I think it is - which is not at all a knock on that game, but a function of resources, history, and so on.

Not necessarily? But whenever someone says "this basketball competition has better fundamentals than that competition" I wonder what they mean by fundamentals. For all I know, when they say "fundamentals" they mean "less dunking" or something.

Melo has made a living trailing the break this year. Apparently the Clippers haven't watched any Knicks games yet.

To be clear, I don't consider myself knowledgable about the women's game - I consider this an opportunity for discussion and education.

Parity (in college in particular): I think that's separate and driven by larger roster sizes and a relative lack of future opportunities to play pro, among other things. There's more incentive to be just another cog at a powerhouse.

What are fundamentals: not dunking is probably part of it. Um, making the right pass, boxing out, shooting form, and so on. Part good technique, part code for playing like it's 1958. (Meant as joke, critique of WBB, and slam on male commentators - a capacity I'm acting in with this post)

****

The Clips are too busy shooting videos and commercials to *watch* TV.

Duncan has been primarily a center since the Rasho/Nazr days ended after the 2006 season. Elson/Thomas/Splitter have also played center for the Spurs since then, but mostly Duncan. I have no problem with people referring to Duncan as either a PF/C for his career as he'll likely log about an equal amount of minutes at each when all is said and done, but it's kind of weird when you hear people talk about him in the present sense as a PF when he hasn't really played the position in over 5 years.

Also, I'm more of a prime guy, than career. So maybe that is why I think Kobe is a little overrated.

Speaking of Kidd, ABC just pointed out that 1994-95 co-ROYs Kidd and Hill are going head to head on the court in 2013.

At what age does it become more common to shift, um, upward on the positional spectrum (like from PF to C), if any? I've guessed ~33 but never looked into it. (Also don't know how common it is)

The college game can be brutal. All it takes is one really tall girl and you win the title. I dont mean this as a slam on the players or coaches, just that those games are hard to watch. often blow outs and even when the good schools face off it never seems to be that close. (my main exposure to womens bball is watch the ND womens team (which happens to be a power school))

Similar subject, but what do people think of Robinson vs Olajuwon? Like Garnett vs Duncan, they always seemed like pretty comparable players to me, but the latter is ranked much higher on every list I've seen. Simmons had Dream 11th and Admiral 29th. Really? They've even got the same number of ringzz, for guys like Simmons who care deeply about such things.

Should the one playoff series in 1995 when they played each other head-to-head that Hakeem dominated really carry so much weight? Or is it that Olajuwon won his titles in his prime as the undisputed best player on the team whereas Robby didn't get any until he took a backseat to Timmy D? (though they were actually a lot closer in 1999 than people seem to remember)

What are fundamentals: not dunking is probably part of it. Um, making the right pass, boxing out, shooting form, and so on. Part good technique, part code for playing like it's 1958. (Meant as joke, critique of WBB, and slam on male commentators - a capacity I'm acting in with this post)

Yeah, the "play like it's 1958" is what I often wonder when I hear people talk of fundamentals (usually when someone is a saying men's CBB has it, and the NBA doesn't). I don't know any of the games well enough to know the state of women's fundamentals as in good technique, but I think I know what you're getting at when wondering if it's sexist. It's used as a back-handed compliment. "She has a good personality" sort of thing.

Hakeem got lucky that Jordan retired for a bit!

Who are other greats to shift on the spectrum? The predominance of great centers takes them out of the convo. I guess Dwight played some 4 while his body filled out (like Davis now). There are guys who moved to the two due to loss of speed (Kidd, Billups) or never really being a one to start (Tyreke, Terry, Crawford). It seems like 4 to 5 would be the most common move.

Rightly or wrongly, Robinson's rep was permanently damaged when Olajuwon eviscerated him in the 95 playoffs. The "stolen MVP" narrative is so juicy that it stuck and Robinson was always seen as inferior by many.

For what it's worth, Olajuwon had a great half decade before Robinson entered the league, including a Finals trip. By the time Olajuwon was gone, Robinson was a clear #2 behind Duncan. It's like Olajuwon added Howard's career to date to an otherwise comparable career. I think that's a better argument than one playoff series.

I don't either, puck - I've probably watched 6 or 7 halves total this year (which were kind of sloppy, but whatever).
When I look at stats, I see things that are indicative of a lower relative calibre of play (more TO-STL, for one) but it can be heard to disentangle strategy and the fact that the players are closer to each other in size as factors.
But, yeah, you've captured a lot of what I was getting at. (And to be clear - I think this is okay. We shouldn't expect the women's game to be a copy of the men's game - it's its own thing.)

Mainly 4->5, but we've seen it across the board, position wise, I think.
Magic was an interesting case of this, of course.

I take Robinson, but there's good arguments both ways.

[274] I was going to say as much in light of my personal belief that Dream is the greatest C ever, but...the stats are HEAVILY in Robinson's favor even acknowledging Hakeem playing almost half a decade more at a high level.

EDIT: Watching the ESPN/ABC studio crew and one of the most interesting things about broadcasting to me is if/when guys choose to dumb down their analysis. I have no doubt that Simmons is more knowledgable than everyone he is on the panel with and I wonder how difficult it must be for him to bite his tongue at some of the stuff they throw out as analysis. Similarly, I wonder what goes through Lowe's mind at times when he is on the podcast with Simmons.

EDIT 2:

MT @JADubin5 "The Knicks are not playing defense like they did the first two months."-Magic Johnson. D-Rtg first 2 months: 102.7 ... Since: 102.8

Looking at the numbers again, Hakeem really does have bigger career advantages than I would've thought. Peak is still a good argument, though.

Edit: I meant with counting stats, due to the longer career. Admiral is much higher on the advanced stats. Maybe they're not as similar of players as I thought. It's a peak vs career argument.

Why does Robinson have such a huge OWS advantage? He shot more FTs, but not insanely more, and TS, eFG, PER, and other offense based advanced stats are way closer.

FWIW, w/r/t Duncan vs. Garnett, here are the Def Rtgs for BOS & SAS since Garnett joined the Celtics (going backwards from last season):

SAS: 10, 11, 8, 5, 3
BOS: 1, 2, 5, 2, 1

Lotta variables, of course, and SAS is up so far this season. Still, might be worth factoring in.

SAS has, of course, had a vastly better offense for much of that stretch.

I also am not sure that comparing Kobe to three 6'11" guys is the best way to evaluate him, although I of course did it myself.

Right. Naturally, my argument that Duncan was playing tougher-to-replace positions would apply to Kobe as it did to Garnett -- in fact, even more so. So if I'm going to say Garnett was worse than Duncan but Kobe was better than Duncan, that would mean Kobe was a lot better than Garnett. That does sound questionable. I'm really not sure. I guess the easiest way to weasel out of it is to say that all three guys are still playing at such a high level (even after all these years, which is crazy, but true) that evaluating their careers is premature.

Is it sexist to claim that women's basketball has better fundamentals than the men's game?

No, but I think it's inaccurate :-)

I was going to say as much in light of my personal belief that Dream is the greatest C ever, but...the stats are HEAVILY in Robinson's favor even acknowledging Hakeem playing almost half a decade more at a high level.

Yeah, this is an inconvenient fact for me as well.

AROM did some awesome game log review of Robinson/Olajuwon over their career in one of the earlier threads. The report, from what I remember, basically showed that Robinson did a really good job guarding Olajuwon. Olajuwon had an out of his mind series playing at unsustainable level, and Robinson had a poor series.

Bill Simmons and pretty much all writers prefer a narrative to rigorous analysis. And the easy narrative is that Olajuwon owns Robinson because of one series. (Edit: This isn't to say it isn't close. It is, I just think a lot of people/writers think it isn't close in Olajuwon's favor.) Olajuwon did legitimately have better stats in the playoffs over his career, while Robinson's stats were worse.

I was young back then and I watched a lot of the Spurs, being in San Antonio. I didn't see nearly as much of Houston, but I don't think people truly appreciate how bad his supporting cast was pre-Duncan. It was an awful team. They were a 20 win team before he joined and they were a 20 win team when he missed the full season. They were a 50-60 win team in between. None of the other all-time greats have something that drastic on their resume. I wish there were +/- stats back then. He carried that team. Olajuwon had a pretty weak cast as well, but it felt better to me at the time.

Why does Robinson have such a huge OWS advantage? He shot more FTs, but not insanely more, and TS, eFG, PER, and other offense based advanced stats are way closer.


Robinson's prime TS% was significantly better than Hakeem's. Hakeem was great, and I'd rather have Hakeem or Robinson than Shaq. But I think Hakeem has developed some mythic legend, especially about his offense, that wasn't really accurate.

I think Duncan/Garnett is a very true toss up. Because of that, I'm going to go with Duncan. 4 main reasons:

1. He's bigger. In his prime, he was able to often guard Shaq. Garnett is a great interior defender, and got the max out of his slight frame. But I think in one-on-one low post defending, I'd take Duncan.
2. Better playoff resume. Garnett I think had a fairly earned reputation as being a guy who would play hot potato with the ball in the late stages of the playoffs. I think that Boston is/was a perfect team in that he never had to have the offense run through him in late game situations.
3. All things equal I prefer my big guys to be able to get their points in the post, I think it helps with court spacing.
4. Duncan's not an #######. This means something to me, even if I'm not exactly sure what.

Again, none of this is that big of a deal. But I think the statistics show it as being a tossup, and I think these are fair things to use as a tiebreaker.

I think the earlier point made about if Garnett would be different if he came into a system with Popovich and Robinson is a fair question to ask, though.

They were a 20 win team before he joined and they were a 20 win team when he missed the full season. They were a 50-60 win team in between. None of the other all-time greats have something that drastic on their resume.

LeBron and Cavs.

I don't think people truly appreciate how bad his supporting cast was pre-Duncan. It was an awful team. They were a 20 win team before he joined and they were a 20 win team when he missed the full season. They were a 50-60 win team in between. None of the other all-time greats have something that drastic on their resume. I wish there were +/- stats back then. He carried that team. Olajuwon had a pretty weak cast as well, but it felt better to me at the time.

This is true, but it's also true of many 90's teams. That's kinda just the way teams were built back then; one or two superstars, and then a bunch of filler. Simmons pointed out the lack of depth of several high win 90's teams in his book and used that as a reason to rank them lower than their record says they should be. I don't agree with his doing that, but it does kinda seem like there weren't as many quality supporting players back then as there is now.

There are lots of narrative similarities between pre-Boston Garnett and pre-Duncan Robinson.

spivey

as a non-basketball fan i suspect the legend of hakeem is somewhat traced to the fact that he was incredibly elegant and fluid in his play. he was really pleasant to watch

if that makes any sense

duncan is kind of clunky

I really like a lot of what Spivey wrote in 283. Some comments:

1. He's bigger. In his prime, he was able to often guard Shaq. Garnett is a great interior defender, and got the max out of his slight frame. But I think in one-on-one low post defending, I'd take Duncan.

It doesn't help KG's case that in his eight playoff appearances in Minnesota, four times his teams got kicked by Duncan's Spurs and Shaq's Lakers. There were two true low post monsters in KG's era, and not only wasn't he one of them, he was as helpless to stop them as everyone else was.

In a way, KG's all-around greatness kind of hurts him because it's hard to highlight just one aspect of his game, and his team defensive value is basically invisible to the naked eye.

2. Better playoff resume. Garnett I think had a fairly earned reputation as being a guy who would play hot potato with the ball in the late stages of the playoffs. I think that Boston is/was a perfect team in that he never had to have the offense run through him in late game situations.

I think KG's rep takes an unfair hit on that, but seven straight first round exits won't help your rep.

Lebron is unstoppable.

Good god.

LeBron is amazing.

LeBron and Cavs.


They didn't become good right away, but it's fair to say that Robinson at 24 came into the league and played at an all-time great level right out of the gate. Where as LeBron was still a raw teenager.

To rank the guys mentioned a lot here:

Robinson > Olajuwon > Shaq > Duncan > Garnett > Kobe > Nowitzki > Kidd > Nash > Pierce > Allen

I think the top 5 are very close, though. And last year I'd have probably ranked them a little different. I'm not sure where I'd put Karl Malone here. But to me, the fact that he didn't consistently have better teams than Robinson/Olajuwon despite having John F'n Stockton is enough to know I'd rank him below both of them.

spivey

as a non-basketball fan i suspect the legend of hakeem is somewhat traced to the fact that he was incredibly elegant and fluid in his play. he was really pleasant to watch

if that makes any sense

duncan is kind of clunky

+1

Hakeem was one of the two most-interesting post players to watch of my lifetime, with McHale (Dantley if you go back to my real youth.) After his first couple of years, his footwork was really a thing of beauty. Like McHale (though with different moves and abilities) he had become so sound that he could be creative without losing his balance or advantage. Unlike McHale he had enough spring to develop that little baseline fadeaway that was impossible to guard.

Robinson was to me more brutally efficient. Terrific, probably better, but not more fun to watch. He had great strengths and a great awareness of his weaknesses. Probably all in all, I can take the argument he's better than Hakeem, but I don't fault people for the sense they got in watching Hakeem that he was doing something almost no one else could do. some of this is just the size difference. Hakeem had to be magnificent to get shots off since he couldn't bulldoze people. Robinson had some truly great size (non-Shaq division.)

Duncan is a great, and almost beautiful, post player but just doesn't have the capacity to do the creative things that Hakeem could do. For executing the basics, though, how to pin a man, how to drop step and shield the body, how to step baseline then spin back to the middle for the little hook, he's about as great as you could imagine. Shaq's footwork fundamentals is underrated, in part because he dunked balls in situations where other people would have banked the shot, in part because he didn't have the body to execute the prettier step throughs. But even accounting for his size and strength, he did an amazing job at showing for the ball, giving great targets, pinning men on his ample backside, and moving away from his defender. There were some things he simply could not do, but the things he could do he did the right way almost every time.

But Dantley in my memory had the most-insanely agile post moves. A wizard. The real old-timers said Cliff Hagan--also undersized--was similar, not a great athlete but remarkable at finding angles and spinning the ball crazily off the backboard.

They didn't become good right away, but it's fair to say that Robinson at 24 came into the league and played at an all-time great level right out of the gate. Where as LeBron was still a raw teenager.

I was referring to the Cavs pre/post-Decision performance. Not as good a fit as Robinson's success from his rookie year though I suppose.

I grew up on Magic and Bird and Jordan, Shaq and Duncan and Hakeem, and I gotta think that right now Lebron James is playing the best basketball that's ever been played in the history of the NBA.

I was referring to the Cavs pre/post-Decision performance. Not as good a fit as Robinson's success from his rookie year though I suppose.


I think LeBron is definitely a fair example to bring up. Part of why it's hard to find a good corollary is normally when you add a great player, at least in the current NBA, you're putting good parts around them. Robinson's prime run being being bookended by terrible performances does strongly suggest that he made that team about 30 wins better over the course of the season. Which is insane.

i keep hearing that wade is getting old and not the same player and then i check and he's averaging 21 a game and shooting over 50 percent

boy if that's washed up i wnat the equivalent in my life

ha, ha

LeBron does anything and everything you'd ever ask a small forward to do. I do think he's going to go down as the greatest of all time.

is he really a small forward? because from what i read he guards everyone.

seems like he's a basketball player. period