Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[Odinn21]

The next one is Garnett 2003-04.

Edit;
Watched the episode and I think it was good, but as someone who has been a side to a Duncan-Garnett comparison for nearly 2 decades, I didn't like it TBH due to some small and unnecessary jabs.
This is an actual statement in the episode;
"And amazingly when both KG and Duncan were on the court for those 12 games, their teams scored the exact same number of points."
(He was talking about 12 games in 2002, 2003 and 2004 regular seasons.)
Like Garnett was playing with bums and Duncan was having a blast like it was 2014 Spurs and not the early '00s Spurs going from old broken structure to new inexperienced structure.
Also those games had 2.5 ppg gap. It wasn't like that happened when the gap was 15 ppg...
I just don't see the point of this without a bias. We also have +/- data for Garnett vs. O'Neal, Duncan vs. O'Neal. O'Neal episode didn't have such details and I'm sure Duncan will get none too, at least not positively.

Also the part on Garnett's offense was mostly "but he didn't have good help".
He mentions the Wolves having subpar three point shooting was a part of it. He compared Garnett's situation to how Olajuwon succeeded when Olajuwon had proper outside shooting and how Garnett didn't have that. Maybe, just maybe Garnett's scoring gravity wasn't good and big enough to put his teammates optimal positions. I mean, come on...
This was a great post about what I'm talking about;
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=86037180#p86037180

Garnett was in a sort of purgatory, offensively.
Qualitatively speaking, not enough inside presence (Duncan), not enough outside pull (Dirk), not as good as Jokic as a passer.
Anyway, isn't Taylor going chronologically anymore?

Yeah, indeed. Garnett was a good offensive player to have but some of the issues the Wolves were having were related to Garnett's own and not his teammates.

Yeah, Since Jordan he's been jumping around.
Episodes;
11. Garnett '03-'04
10. Bryant '06-'08
9. O'Neal '00-'01
8. Olajuwon '93-'95
7. Robinson '94-'96
6. Jordan '89-'91
5. Magic '87-'89
4. Bird '85-'86
3. Abdul-Jabbar '77-'79
2. Walton '77-'78
1. Intro with Chamberlain and Russell

[70sFan]

I'm ready for Garnett>Duncan narrative and I don't expect Ben to change my mind, but I will listen and make notes anyway.

By the way, I have watched around 30 1993 and 1994 Rockets games recently and Hakeem indeed played with very good spacing. He also was far from ideal passer, though to his credit ge could find easy openings. It doesn't matter in comparison to KG though, because Hakeem still created a lot of open looks and he was considerably better and more dangerous scorer.

[drza]

Commenting in real time (since I was so very late to this thread), but I personally liked the Wilt/Russell video. I think it accomplished the goal it set out to do. It wasn't a "best peak, Wilt or Russell" post, but instead was essentially taking some of the arguments developed/hashed out on this board in the various projects and putting some numbers and easy to understand graphics to it. As some pointed out back in November when it was being discussed, another purpose of this video was to set the stage for the type of analysis (both video anecdotal and more comprehensively quantitative) that Ben does, and that this type of approach can deviate from or even contradict some of the "given" expectations from the boxscores or previous thought. I enjoyed it

[HeartBreakKid]

The next one is Garnett 2003-04.

Edit;
Watched the episode and I think it was good, but as someone who has been a side to a Duncan-Garnett comparison for nearly 2 decades, I didn't like it TBH due to some small and unnecessary jabs.
This is an actual statement in the episode;
"And amazingly when both KG and Duncan were on the court for those 12 games, their teams scored the exact same number of points."
(He was talking about 12 games in 2002, 2003 and 2004 regular seasons.)
Like Garnett was playing with bums and Duncan was having a blast like it was 2014 Spurs and not the early '00s Spurs going from old broken structure to new inexperienced structure.
Also those games had 2.5 ppg gap. It wasn't like that happened when the gap was 15 ppg...
I just don't see the point of this without a bias. We also have +/- data for Garnett vs. O'Neal, Duncan vs. O'Neal. O'Neal episode didn't have such details and I'm sure Duncan will get none too, at least not positively.

Also the part on Garnett's offense was mostly "but he didn't have good help".
He mentions the Wolves having subpar three point shooting was a part of it. He compared Garnett's situation to how Olajuwon succeeded when Olajuwon had proper outside shooting and how Garnett didn't have that. Maybe, just maybe Garnett's scoring gravity wasn't good and big enough to put his teammates optimal positions. I mean, come on...
This was a great post about what I'm talking about;
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=86037180#p86037180

Garnett was in a sort of purgatory, offensively.
Qualitatively speaking, not enough inside presence (Duncan), not enough outside pull (Dirk), not as good as Jokic as a passer.
Anyway, isn't Taylor going chronologically anymore?

Dirk was a killer because of his mid range game. Garnett is pretty much near the top of 4s when it comes to range, especially for his era and prior. Not as good as Dirk from outside, but outside shot isn't why Dirk is elite.

I think it's a bit off to say that he's in purgatory as a passer because Jokic - who is the best passing big ever is better. This is like saying Tim Duncan is in purgatory offensively, because he is not as good inside as Shaq.

[70sFan]

The next one is Garnett 2003-04.

Edit;
Watched the episode and I think it was good, but as someone who has been a side to a Duncan-Garnett comparison for nearly 2 decades, I didn't like it TBH due to some small and unnecessary jabs.
This is an actual statement in the episode;
"And amazingly when both KG and Duncan were on the court for those 12 games, their teams scored the exact same number of points."
(He was talking about 12 games in 2002, 2003 and 2004 regular seasons.)
Like Garnett was playing with bums and Duncan was having a blast like it was 2014 Spurs and not the early '00s Spurs going from old broken structure to new inexperienced structure.
Also those games had 2.5 ppg gap. It wasn't like that happened when the gap was 15 ppg...
I just don't see the point of this without a bias. We also have +/- data for Garnett vs. O'Neal, Duncan vs. O'Neal. O'Neal episode didn't have such details and I'm sure Duncan will get none too, at least not positively.

Also the part on Garnett's offense was mostly "but he didn't have good help".
He mentions the Wolves having subpar three point shooting was a part of it. He compared Garnett's situation to how Olajuwon succeeded when Olajuwon had proper outside shooting and how Garnett didn't have that. Maybe, just maybe Garnett's scoring gravity wasn't good and big enough to put his teammates optimal positions. I mean, come on...
This was a great post about what I'm talking about;
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=86037180#p86037180

Garnett was in a sort of purgatory, offensively.
Qualitatively speaking, not enough inside presence (Duncan), not enough outside pull (Dirk), not as good as Jokic as a passer.
Anyway, isn't Taylor going chronologically anymore?

Dirk was a killer because of his mid range game. Garnett is pretty much near the top of 4s when it comes to range, especially for his era and prior. Not as good as Dirk from outside, but outside shot isn't why Dirk is elite.

I think it's a bit off to say that he's in purgatory as a passer because Jokic - who is the best passing big ever is better. This is like saying Tim Duncan is in purgatory offensively, because he is not as good inside as Shaq.

I agree - not being Dirk in shooting or Jokic in passing doesn't necessarilly make you unable to be elite offensive player. On the other hand, I do think that Garnett is very well-rounded offensive player who lacked one strong aspect of offensive game that could make him dominant offensive player.

It doesn't matter though when you are as good as KG defensively.

[AdagioPace]

The next one is Garnett 2003-04.

Edit;
Watched the episode and I think it was good, but as someone who has been a side to a Duncan-Garnett comparison for nearly 2 decades, I didn't like it TBH due to some small and unnecessary jabs.
This is an actual statement in the episode;
"And amazingly when both KG and Duncan were on the court for those 12 games, their teams scored the exact same number of points."
(He was talking about 12 games in 2002, 2003 and 2004 regular seasons.)
Like Garnett was playing with bums and Duncan was having a blast like it was 2014 Spurs and not the early '00s Spurs going from old broken structure to new inexperienced structure.
Also those games had 2.5 ppg gap. It wasn't like that happened when the gap was 15 ppg...
I just don't see the point of this without a bias. We also have +/- data for Garnett vs. O'Neal, Duncan vs. O'Neal. O'Neal episode didn't have such details and I'm sure Duncan will get none too, at least not positively.

Also the part on Garnett's offense was mostly "but he didn't have good help".
He mentions the Wolves having subpar three point shooting was a part of it. He compared Garnett's situation to how Olajuwon succeeded when Olajuwon had proper outside shooting and how Garnett didn't have that. Maybe, just maybe Garnett's scoring gravity wasn't good and big enough to put his teammates optimal positions. I mean, come on...
This was a great post about what I'm talking about;
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=86037180#p86037180

Garnett was in a sort of purgatory, offensively.
Qualitatively speaking, not enough inside presence (Duncan), not enough outside pull (Dirk), not as good as Jokic as a passer.
Anyway, isn't Taylor going chronologically anymore?

Dirk was a killer because of his mid range game. Garnett is pretty much near the top of 4s when it comes to range, especially for his era and prior. Not as good as Dirk from outside, but outside shot isn't why Dirk is elite.

I think it's a bit off to say that he's in purgatory as a passer because Jokic - who is the best passing big ever is better. This is like saying Tim Duncan is in purgatory offensively, because he is not as good inside as Shaq.

I agree that versatility is a skill in itself. In any case the brief discussion I was taking part of with Odinn revolved around trying to identify KG's strong offensive arguments/pillars in the PS. Duncan's inside presence was functional to the scope and quite feared. PS: I'm aware of the years and years of video analysis made on KG here (by drza and others) so I think I have a parachute.

[HeartBreakKid]

Garnett was in a sort of purgatory, offensively.
Qualitatively speaking, not enough inside presence (Duncan), not enough outside pull (Dirk), not as good as Jokic as a passer.
Anyway, isn't Taylor going chronologically anymore?

Dirk was a killer because of his mid range game. Garnett is pretty much near the top of 4s when it comes to range, especially for his era and prior. Not as good as Dirk from outside, but outside shot isn't why Dirk is elite.

I think it's a bit off to say that he's in purgatory as a passer because Jokic - who is the best passing big ever is better. This is like saying Tim Duncan is in purgatory offensively, because he is not as good inside as Shaq.

I agree that versatility is a skill in itself. In any case the brief discussion I was taking part of with Odinn revolved around trying to identify KG's strong offensive arguments/pillars in the PS. Duncan's inside presence was functional to the scope and quite feared. PS: I'm aware of the years and years of video analysis made on KG here (by drza and others) so I think I have a parachute.

Garnett's passing was plenty functional and is up there with the best passing PF's of all time. You make it seem like Jokic undermines him, but with that being said then Duncan is nowhere near the top of the best paint scorers. Basically, you're trying to say Garnett is not the best at any single aspect of offense which is true - but neither is Tim Duncan.

[AdagioPace]

Garnett's passing was plenty functional and is up there with the best passing PF's of all time. You make it seem like Jokic undermines him, but with that being said then Duncan is nowhere near the top of the best paint scorers. Basically, you're trying to say Garnett is not the best at any single aspect of offense which is true - but neither is Tim Duncan.

paint scoring is not the point here though. Gravity and subsequent passing, Ftr and foul-trouble inducing presence, offensive rebounding.....I'm not saying anything special. Duncan was quite specialized at being an inside force. End of discussion and of ambiguity

[Odinn21]

Garnett's passing was plenty functional and is up there with the best passing PF's of all time. You make it seem like Jokic undermines him, but with that being said then Duncan is nowhere near the top of the best paint scorers. Basically, you're trying to say Garnett is not the best at any single aspect of offense which is true - but neither is Tim Duncan.

All of the things you talked about are good and accurate.

It's obvious that both weren't the best in any single aspect on offense. But Duncan's scoring helped his team in a way that Garnett's passing didn't in the playoffs.
(Also passing/scoring of big men is kind of like defensive evaluation of bigs vs. wings/guards. One has a bigger value by default.)

I'll say this to show how I mean exactly;
When you look at passing, Garnett was the better passer.
When you look at scoring, Duncan was the better scorer.
When you look at the gaps in those 2 categories, Garnett's edge looks bigger. (But is it actually?)

However, Duncan's scoring + passing combination was stronger than Garnett's scoring + passing combination. Because while Duncan's scoring created high value shots for his teammates, Garnett's scoring skill set was one of the reasons why the Wolves had a poor offensive ceiling.
Also Duncan's scoring output was considerably better than Garnett's. Duncan reached a scoring output Kevin Garnett never had and the gap in scoring is bigger than what their ppg and ppx numbers on their BBRef profile pages would suggest if you do not look further.
In 2002 and 2003 playoffs, in the playoffs series after the 1st rounds, Duncan averaged 27.2 ppg and 5.2 apg on .560 ts when the Spurs as a team scored 94.0 ppg on .525 ts. In those 4 playoff series, Duncan had 6.8 obpm which is on par with prime O'Neal, Barkley and Curry (granted, much much smaller sample size compared those 3). Even for a very short time, Duncan matched offensive quality of those names.
Duncan in his prime ('99-'07) was a 25.3 ppg & 3.5 apg player on a 93.7 ppg team when needed and Duncan at his very best ('02-'03) was a 27.2 ppg & 5.2 apg player on a 94.0 ppg team.

One last thing; Duncan in 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons got similar amount of help from his teammates when we compare to the help Garnett got in 2002-03 and 2003-04 seasons.
I understand the point of mentioning "but his teammates sucked" for Garnett as a career retrospective because his teammates sucked hard for real. In their peak seasons however, both legends got similar amount of help. Maybe Duncan still got a little more but even if there's a gap, it's not as big as many to believe.

[sansterre]

One last thing; Duncan in 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons got similar amount of help from his teammates when we compare to the help Garnett got in 2002-03 and 2003-04 seasons.
I understand the point of mentioning "but his teammates sucked" for Garnett as a career retrospective because his teammates sucked hard for real. In their peak seasons however, both legends got similar amount of help. Maybe Duncan still got a little more but even if there's a gap, it's not as big as many to believe.

With the understanding that BPM is pretty imperfect:

Duncan's teammates in '02: 9.5 total VORP (-0.7 ppx no Duncan)
Duncan's teammates in '03: 9.2 total VORP (-5.6 ppx no Duncan)

Garnett's teammates in '03: 4.5 total VORP (-17.5 ppx no Garnett)
Garnett's teammates in '04: 7.4 total VORP (-10.9 ppx no Garnett)

Duncan's '02: 45.7% Helio for a +6.3 SRS team
Duncan's 03: 45.6% Helio for a +5.7 SRS team
Garnett's 03: 65.9% Helio for a +2.5 SRS team
Garnett's '04: 57.4% Helio for a +5.9 SRS team

I will happily agree that people wildly overrate Duncan's teammate quality in those early seasons.

But BPM seems fairly sure that Garnett had it harder on the teammate front.

And +/- suggests that the Spurs handled business a heck of a lot better without Duncan than the Wolves did without Garnett.

Neither of these is ironclad by a long shot. Just objective observations on the matter.

[70sFan]

And +/- suggests that the Spurs handled business a heck of a lot better without Duncan than the Wolves did without Garnett.

True, but interestingly Spurs didn't do any better in playoffs than Wolves going by +/-.

[sansterre]

And +/- suggests that the Spurs handled business a heck of a lot better without Duncan than the Wolves did without Garnett.

True, but interestingly Spurs didn't do any better in playoffs than Wolves going by +/-.

Well, Duncan's two years are -15 and -14 without Duncan while Garnett's are -16 and -24.2 ppx (if I'm understanding your point). So they're closer, but still worse for Garnett.

I didn't post the numbers because the sample size is so small in the playoffs and +/- is noisy regardless.

But again, none of this really unseats the "the difference between the two was closer than people think". This definitely suggests that Garnett had it worse, but that it was hardly a night/day difference.

[Odinn21]

...

Up until Cassell's injury in the playoffs, 2003 Spurs and 2004 Wolves were on the same level as supporting casts.
Cassell was the best player (other than the obvious 2 of course) on either team and the Spurs had slightly better depth.

Garnett's +/- in 2004 playoffs is skyrocketed by the 1st round series against the Nuggets.

https://on.nba.com/3paRmhL
According to the numbers on there; 2004 Wolves after the 1st rounds were -1.1 NRtg team with Garnett on court and they were -4.7 NRtg team without him.

https://on.nba.com/3d0ZIG8
According to the numbers on there; 2003 Spurs after the 1st rounds were +9.5 NRtg team with Duncan on court and they were -22.8 NRtg team without him.

This is not to say the Wolves were better. This is just to show how wonky postseason +/- data.

There's a reason why we don't rely on postseason +/- data. And also there's a reason why we do not rely on raw-unadjusted +/- data. Both were in the top percentile in those 3 seasons (RAPM).

As for BPM/VORP based approach, some of the main rotation players as Szczerbiak, Olowokandi and Hudson missed so many games in 2003-04 regular season. No wonder the team's total VORP suffered.
Another thing is, David Robinson is loved by BPM design. VORP is the cumulative version of BPM but VORP design doesn't take away enough. 37 yo Robinson is overstated in BPM/VORP numbers.
In short, injuries on Minny team and BPM's love for Robinson are the reasons for VORP and helio numbers.

Another note; the Spurs couldn't score a single point in 7 and a half minute when Duncan was off the court against the Mavs in game 3 of 2003 WCF. The team actually went 0-18 in those minutes. 2003 Spurs were a good defensive team that dumped their offense on Duncan, the next best things on offense were inefficient Parker/Jackson scored on whatever Duncan created for them.

It should be interesting to realize that between 2003 Spurs without Duncan and 2004 Wolves without Garnett, the Wolves were the better offensive unit (again, until Cassell's injury).

Cassell's injury in the playoffs and Hudson's/Olowokandi's/Szczerbiak's injuries in 2003-04 regular season make 2003 Spurs the better supporting cast but the comparison is there.

As for 2002 Spurs vs. 2003 Wolves, the 2nd and the 3rd highest scorers on the Spurs would rank the 4th and the 5th on the Wolves. Again, overall quality was close.
Heck, it looks like the injuries are tiebreakers. Robinson was injured against the Lakers, Duncan was defending O'Neal and carrying an offense all by himself. I mean, in a way it was like James' performance against the Magic in 2009 and it was against O'Neal.
I mean, Bruce Bowen was the Spur with the 2nd highest playtime. Malik Rose was the best (offensive and general) help Duncan got in the playoffs...
On the Wolves, Szczerbiak wasn't good in the playoffs but Troy Hudson had the scoring streak of his life. Interestingly he had a higher obpm than Garnett in the playoffs...

Here's O-VORP shares in the playoffs (BPM is replaced with OBPM in the VORP formula);
2002 Duncan 56.74% share
2003 Duncan 56.95% share
2003 Garnett 48.92% share
2004 Garnett 44.11% share

I believe this is pretty similar to your helio.

---

On overall, the Spurs provided more help to Duncan with their depth on defensive players. The Wolves provided better offensive help to Garnett. 2003 Szczerbiak and Hudson, 2004 Cassell and Sprewell, these are better scorers than any scorer Duncan had as a teammate in those frames...

Edit; Another interesting thing about this is Flip Saunders was a better coach than Gregg Popovich on offense at that time.

Very curious what Taylor will say about the scoring level of Duncan's teammates in Duncan's peak seasons. Curious if he'll say anything about it.

[therealbig3]

So if this is a top 15 post-merger, and Garnett and Duncan seem like the next two to get in, this is what we have so far (chronologically):

1. Walton
2. Kareem
3. Bird
4. Magic
5. Jordan
6. Robinson
7. Olajuwon
8. Shaq
9. Kobe
10. Garnett
11. Duncan
12. ?
13. ?
14. ?
15. ?

LeBron is obviously going to make it, and I think Curry will make it as well. So that leaves two spots. Who do we think is going to get those? And if this is in general chronological order, then that leaves us 2 guys that are within the last 10-15 years or so. Would think it comes down to 2 of Wade, Dirk, Harden, Durant, CP3, and Nash. Maybe Giannis is in the mix as well.

And if we are firmly into the 2000s/2010s at this point, any omissions from earlier eras that surprise anyone? Cuz it looks like Ewing, both Malones, and Barkley missed the cut, and I know that he thought highly of Barkley and K. Malone specifically, at least in previous projects. He at one point had K. Malone with a similar peak to Kobe, and Barkley with a higher peak than either, but he probably did re-evaluate them and came to the conclusion that Kobe peaked higher than either.

Ewing did seem like a little worse version of Robinson, on both sides of the ball, but he had one graphic in there that demonstrated that Ewing was the best out of all the 90s bigs in terms of defending shots at the rim, in terms of opponent FG%. So I'm a little surprised that a defensive beast like him got left out.

[therealbig3]

Just finished the Kobe video, it's a great watch. Kobe was kind of a combo of Jordan and Olajuwon on offense, without that godly level of physical ability to overwhelm his defenders. Like Jordan, his mindset was to look for his shot first and foremost, and then looked to pass when that got bottled up, using his scoring ability to pressure the defense and generate open looks for teammates. Very similar to Jordan in terms of his catch and go ability, the jump passing, and the "contort-ability" to get off difficult shots and passes.

Like Olajuwon, shot selection was an issue, but his ability to hit tough shots meant that he had a playoff resilience against tougher opponents as a result. That graphic where it showed that Kobe was able to score from pretty much anywhere on the court with decent efficiency says it all...he generated defensive gravity wherever he was on the court, and I think that's what led to him being one of the best offensive players ever, with team PS offenses that were short of GOAT level, but were very, very strong and among the better ones in recent history.

I also agree that Kobe's defense was a slight positive at best...good but not on Jordan's level (I think Jordan's motor/physical ability is the main reason why).

[Goudelock]

The guy's bread and butter was the shot you most want to give up, a heavily contested long two. That made him impossible all game long and then the game wasn't any harder for him when the screws tightened un the last couple of minutes. Every year if you were projecting season wins in any model you'd have to make a Dirk adjustment because Dallas always smashed the win total their point differential suggested they should have. What a dude.

I thought AussieBuck's post in the GB's Dirk thread was worth sharing here. Like has been discussed with Kobe and Olajuwon, his ability to take and make tough shots during the regular season meant his efficiency probably could have been higher (although it was pretty damn good). But that meant in the postseason, his efficiency didn't really drop because he was already used to making those kinds of tough shots.

[Odinn21]

I will post this on Patreon when Taylor releases Duncan's episode, am posting this in here right now as a journal because I'm on a borrowed PC and can not reach my cloud storage.

Here's how Garnett squandered compared to Duncan on offense at their peak.
I looked at play-by-play data to see their contribution to the team's overall scoring output. As both aspects, the total and the total while they were on the court. Here's the numbers;

Duncan's points and assists led to 2773 points in 2001-02 regular season, which was 34.96% of team's total and also 41.38% of team's total when he was on the court. (5.4 obpm)
Duncan's points and assists led to 2593 points in 2002-03 regular season, which was 33.01% of team's total and also 40.51% of team's total when he was on the court. (5.0 obpm)
Garnett's points and assists led to 2948 points in 2002-03 regular season, which was 36.64% of team's total and also 42.68% of team's total when he was on the court. (6.0 obpm)
Garnett's points and assists led to 2895 points in 2003-04 regular season, which was 37.34% of team's total and also 44.29% of team's total when he was on the court. (6.8 obpm)

Duncan's points and assists led to 348 points in 2002 playoffs, which was 38.20% of team's total and also 46.51% of team's total when he was on the court. (6.6 obpm)
Duncan's points and assists led to 880 points in 2003 playoffs, which was 38.68% of team's total and also 43.08% of team's total when he was on the court. (6.2 obpm)
Garnett's points and assists led to 230 points in 2003 playoffs, which was 38.14% of team's total and also 41.51% of team's total when he was on the court. (4.8 obpm)
Garnett's points and assists led to 657 points in 2004 playoffs, which was 39.70% of team's total and also 43.25% of team's total when he was on the court. (3.6 obpm)

Duncan's points and assists led to 195 points in 2002 playoffs after the 1st round, which was 45.45% of team's total and also 48.50% of team's total when he was on the court. (6.4 obpm)
Duncan's points and assists led to 696 points in 2003 playoffs after the 1st round, which was 40.18% of team's total and also 44.76% of team's total when he was on the court. (6.9 obpm)
Garnett's points and assists led to 443 points in 2004 playoffs after the 1st round, which was 37.48% of team's total and also 40.56% of team's total when he was on the court. (3.6 obpm)

Duncan's trajectory from regular season to playoffs (also to after 1st rounds) is almost like prime Jordan or prime James. When he was asked to have a bigger output, he did. Garnett simply didn't.
On another note, Garnett didn't face a single top 5 or -2.0 rDRtg team.
The defenses they faced in the playoffs;
Duncan in 2002: +1.1 rDRtg & 17th Sonics / -2.8 rDRtg & 7th Lakers
Duncan in 2003; -1.1 rDRtg & 11th Suns / +1.1 rDRtg & 19th Lakers / -1.3 rDRtg & 9th Mavs / -5.5 rDRtg & 1st Nets
Garnett in 2003; +1.1 rDRtg & 19th Lakers
Garnett in 2004; -0.2 rDRtg & 13th Nuggets / +2.0 rDRtg & 21st Kings / -1.6 rDRtg & 8th Lakers

That hard of a drop in offensive output can not be only boiled down to "but teammates sucked". And even then, Duncan had less capable scorers as his teammates in those seasons.

2nd, 3rd and 4th best scorers on
2002 Spurs in r. season; Robinson 12.2 ppg 22.0 ppx on .562 ts (1.6 obpm) / S. Smith 11.6 ppg 21.6 ppx on .588 ts (0.8 obpm)/ M. Rose 9.4 ppg 23.9 ppx on .517 ts (-1.6 obpm)
2002 Spurs in playoffs; Parker 15.5 ppg 25.4 ppx on .523 ts (0.5 obpm) / M. Rose 12.9 ppg 24.7 ppx on .547 ts (1.8 obpm) / S. Smith 10.3 ppg 19.3 ppx on .514 ts (0.5 obpm)
2003 Spurs in r. season; Parker 15.5 ppg 24.4 ppx on .542 ts (1.4 obpm) / Jackson 11.8 ppg 22.4 ppx on .526 ts (-0.5 obpm) / M. Rose 10.4 ppg 22.7 ppx on .538 ts (-1.0 obpm)
2003 Spurs in playoffs; Parker 14.7 ppg 22.8 ppx on .468 ts (-1.2 obpm) / Jackson 12.8 ppg 20.0 ppx on .529 ts (-0.4 obpm) / Ginobili 9.4 ppg 18.1 ppx on .522 ts (0.5 obpm)
2003 Wolves in r. season; Szczerbiak 17.6 ppg 26.0 ppx on .567 ts (1.8 obpm) / Hudson 14.2 ppg 22.6 ppx on .531 ts (1.4 obpm) / Nesterovic 11.2 ppg 19.2 ppx on .536 ts (-0.7 obpm)
2003 Wolves in playoffs; Hudson 23.5 ppg 32.3 ppx on .574 ts (5.7 obpm) / Szczerbiak 14.5 ppg 17.5 ppx on .586 ts (-1.3 obpm) / M. Jackson 8.3 ppg 23.0 ppx on .619 ts (-0.1 obpm)
2004 Wolves in r. season; Cassell 19.8 ppg 30.5 ppx on .566 ts (4.1 obpm) / Sprewell 16.8 ppg 23.9 ppx on .493 ts (0.3 obpm) / Szczerbiak 10.2 ppg 24.7 ppx on .539 ts (1.2 obpm)
2004 Wolves in playoffs; Sprewell 19.8 ppg 24.8 ppx on .521 ts (2.0 obpm) / Cassell 16.6 ppg 28.5 ppx on .579 ts (2.0 obpm) / Szczerbiak 11.8 ppg 25.5 ppx on .546 ts (0.3 obpm)

Here's OBPM of the supporting casts (with regards to playtime);
2002 Spurs besides Duncan; -0.61 OBPM in r. season & -0.77 OBPM in playoffs
2003 Spurs besides Duncan; -0.44 OBPM in r. season & -0.67 OBPM in playoffs
2003 Wolves besides Garnett; -0.56 OBPM in r. season & -0.43 OBPM in playoffs
2004 Wolves besides Garnett; -0.60 OBPM in r. season & -0.44 OBPM in playoffs

In Garnett's case for 2004, Szczerbiak was pretty unhealthy. He missed more than 50 games in regular season and also one third (6 games) of the playoffs. On overall, one could make a claim for Trenton Hassell or Fred Hoiberg being the effective #4 scoring option on the team.
In the 6 playoff games Szczerbiak missed, Garnett scored 24.7 ppg on .544 ts on a 95.5 ppg .539 ts team.
In a situation like that, when Robinson was injured, Duncan was 29.0 ppg on .517 ts on a 85.8 ppg .487 ts team (2002 Lakers series) while he was spending some serious time on Shaquille O'Neal on defense.

In short; I just don't remember or see any evidence of Garnett being equal of Duncan on offense.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Here it is, the most controversial figure on this board:

Watch on YouTube

[Goudelock]

That breakdown of his defense was fantastic, and the critique of his scoring seemed fair. Very good scorer but not exactly amazing compared to the Jordans, Olajuwons of the world.

Discussion of his teammates seemed fair though. Makes me wonder how good he would have been if he had gotten to play with a guard like Nash or J-Kidd who could get him the ball in transition.

[freethedevil]

Here it is, the most controversial figure on this board:

Watch on YouTube

Higher than bird in the offense skewing playoff metricss and higher than just about anyone in the metrics accouting for defense.


And yeah, strong video, pretty clear garnett wasn't maximized and was still one of the most valuable players of all time.