how often does "floor raising" win rings compared to "ceiling raising"

[LukaTheGOAT]

This might make sense in theory, but let's be honest - how Garnett is so much more portable then? He was at his best when he took a lot of midrange shots and we all know no team would have him play that way. Unless you assume that he'll have three point range, but then I could assume a lot of things about Duncan as well.

I don't know, it does seem like a stat created by Ben to give credit for players who played the "right way".

The thinking is that Garnett provides more spacing with shooting, and also being a better passer (which is considered by Ben to maybe a the most scalable skill). Ben thinks isolation scoring, does not scale super well which hurts Duncan in this theory. Therefore, Ben believes, that KG can maintain more value with other ball-dominant guys more so than Duncan.

I know that, but this theory doesn't stack up to reality. Duncan worked extremely well with ball-dominant duo of Parker and Manu and his impact remained top notch (which you can see no further than at 2007).

You can say "but they didn't have ATG offense in 2007!", but the truth is that KG never anchored a better offense in Boston. 2007 Spurs had +5.7 offense with Duncan on the floor, while 2008 Celtics had +6.1 offense with KG on the floor.

Duncan didn't carry his whole offensive value through post up isolations. He wasn't as good passer as KG, but was still excellent (after 2001 he reached elite level for a bigman). He was far better inside finisher that made him more of a threat in P&R situations and gave him more inside gravity. He was excellent offensive rebounder which is a very scalable skill. Meanwhile Garnett's shooting is good, but shooting a lot of midrange shots isn't super portable. Most offenses wouldn't like him to take too many of these shots.

I don't know, in this comparison I don't see how Garnett can be seen as super portable guy, while Duncan is seen as negative in this case. I'm aware of Ben's explainations but they aren't convincing to me.

Yeah, Ben doesn't really like either guy as #1 option, and therefore he liked KG mode as a #2. In theory he just really believes in his skillset I guess.

[70sFan]

The thinking is that Garnett provides more spacing with shooting, and also being a better passer (which is considered by Ben to maybe a the most scalable skill). Ben thinks isolation scoring, does not scale super well which hurts Duncan in this theory. Therefore, Ben believes, that KG can maintain more value with other ball-dominant guys more so than Duncan.

I know that, but this theory doesn't stack up to reality. Duncan worked extremely well with ball-dominant duo of Parker and Manu and his impact remained top notch (which you can see no further than at 2007).

You can say "but they didn't have ATG offense in 2007!", but the truth is that KG never anchored a better offense in Boston. 2007 Spurs had +5.7 offense with Duncan on the floor, while 2008 Celtics had +6.1 offense with KG on the floor.

Duncan didn't carry his whole offensive value through post up isolations. He wasn't as good passer as KG, but was still excellent (after 2001 he reached elite level for a bigman). He was far better inside finisher that made him more of a threat in P&R situations and gave him more inside gravity. He was excellent offensive rebounder which is a very scalable skill. Meanwhile Garnett's shooting is good, but shooting a lot of midrange shots isn't super portable. Most offenses wouldn't like him to take too many of these shots.

I don't know, in this comparison I don't see how Garnett can be seen as super portable guy, while Duncan is seen as negative in this case. I'm aware of Ben's explainations but they aren't convincing to me.

Yeah, Ben doesn't really like either guy as #1 option, and therefore he liked KG mode as a #2. In theory he just really believes in his skillset I guess.

That's probably the reasoning, but I don't think anything in their careers proved that KG was so much better as the second option. Or that Duncan's impact isn't scalable to smaller roles. Duncan's whole post-2004 career actually proves that negative portability value is completely baseless.