Ryoga Hibiki wrote: Odinn21 wrote:
Ryoga Hibiki wrote:Comments on the Duncan Video:
- I always perceive him wanting to say Garnett is better but somehow he doesn't want to make such a statement so directly. That's why he keeps adding some subtle comments here and there to suggest that
I'll be pretty blunt about this, his bias towards Garnett always has been there and the reason I don't like Duncan's episode even though it has many good qualities.
I understand where both ElGee and drza are going when they are rating so high Garnett while having some reserves on Timmeh, but in my view they are going way to far with it.
Yeah, I agree.
Both Garnett and Duncan are in the category "first tier on D, second tier on O", as none of the two is an optimal offensive player.
And then they get to the level that Garnett's skill are amazing as a glue guy, so you can put him next to another iso player and shooters and he's going to absolutely supercharge that offence, moreso than Timmeh. More range, better passer, better at moving the ball while still providing secondary scoring. I have no problem saying that in the team like 08/10 Boston Garnett was a better fit.
Having such team is a big luxury to begin with, especially in the salary cap era. This goes against their portability approach. If Garnett needs that much fluidity on offense to be better than Duncan while he can not reach that level without that type of offensive help, then he's not the better player.
Also, ElGee or drza do not look at the Spurs in the mid '00s when Duncan didn't experience a health issue. That team was still Duncan centric but did not rely on him like they did in 2002 and 2003.
2005; Duncan had a sprained ankle in mid March '05. Before that the injury, the Spurs were 6th in ORtg with +3.0 relative value. +5.7 rORtg w/ Duncan and -2.6 rORtg w/o Duncan.
Duncan's minutes were lower because the team could afford to play him less. If we look at his per 100 numbers though;
33.3 pts 18.2 reb 4.4 ast 1.1 stl 4.3 blk 3.2 tov
Those pts (only '02 better) and reb (only '04 better) numbers would be his career 2nd best by that point. Blk and tov numbers would be his best, and his per possession efficiency also would be the best.
2006; Duncan had to play the regular season with jogger's heel.
2007; Duncan had a healthy season and the Spurs were 5th in ORtg with +3.3 relative value. +5.8 rORtg with Duncan and -2.3 rORtg w/o Duncan. Per 100 numbers;
31.4 pts 16.6 reb 5.4 ast 1.3 stl 3.7 blk 4.4 tov
Still in line with his prior prime numbers.
It wasn't like Duncan oriented but more talented/skillfull offense sucked later on. Duncan in his prime when healthy was capable of leading a top 5 calibre offense in the league under proper circumstances.
Looking at what could've been with Garnett and ignoring what already happened with Duncan? That's a no.
But, and this ElGee sometimes addresses it, Timmeh was clearly better if asked to be the primary engine. And, very important, he showed that he was good enough to be the primary offensive engine for a championship team (while still scaling back in later years as Parker and Manu partially took over). Yes, that stile has a ceiling, but how should we address it once we see that such ceiling is high enough for the purpose of winning a championship?
In the videos, he subtlety implied the limitations of Duncan carried offenses but he did not do the same for Garnett.
I mean, it doesn't have to be labelled as championship winning offense. Duncan's style worked better in the playoffs because he was able to go through contacts better, his scoring volume was higher thanks to that and he also put his matchups into foul troubles far often than Garnett. In the playoffs basketball where the court gets smaller because everything directly a matter of adjustment, Duncan played better.
That means, combined with their similar defensive impact, that there are more combinations of Duncan teams than Garnett teams that are good enough to get there, even if arguably the Garnett teams can potentially peak higher, because those super talented teams are very difficult to build when you have already a supermax player on the roster as those real offensively great #1 never come cheap.
Again this is about more of the same. We think of Duncan, Garnett, Ewing, Robinson, even Olajuwon, as not ideal offensive centrepieces. But the issue is 80% of the teams in the league at any random point would be dying to have these players as their offensive centrepiece because their ceiling was a big issue to begin with. Before this high scoring games craziness, the teams were dying to have a 20+ ppg scorer. I mean Andre Iguodala was treated as the offensive leader for it at one point.
Including Russell, Abdul-Jabbar, Jordan, James, Chamberlain and O'Neal, the poster boys of the peaks, no player can be a goat level defensive impact and a goat level offensive impact at the same time.
If Garnett needs more complementary pieces than the others in that tier, then it's a con on his part.
I would add that I think Timmeh was a better leader, but on my side this is some serious speculation as I never was in those locker rooms...
Well, it's like the Condorcet method we've been using in the top 100 projects. Duncan wouldn't lose to anyone in leadership department. He might get tied by some, but he wouldn't lose.