Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, trex_8063, Doctor MJ, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Quotatious

HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 18,447
And1: 14,461
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#821 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm

70sFan wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I think him choosing not to include prime West,prime Robertson and ABA Dr.J has to do with lack of sufficient footage for a 20 minute video if I had to guess.

He stated that his project started post merger, so no West and Big O.

That said, we have a lot of NBA Julius games. He probably thinks that Julius peaked in the ABA - so he also doesn't count.



Yes, but that's why I think he chose to keep it post merger, lack of sufficient footage.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 16,525
And1: 12,145
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#822 » by 70sFan » Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:25 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
70sFan wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I think him choosing not to include prime West,prime Robertson and ABA Dr.J has to do with lack of sufficient footage for a 20 minute video if I had to guess.

He stated that his project started post merger, so no West and Big O.

That said, we have a lot of NBA Julius games. He probably thinks that Julius peaked in the ABA - so he also doesn't count.



Yes, but that's why I think he chose to keep it post merger, lack of sufficient footage.

Yeah, you're right then. It's not only about video - we have more than enough footage to make 20+ minutes video. It's about lack of full games and not enough footage from single seasons - after all, it's a peak series.
KTM_2813
Senior
Posts: 737
And1: 660
Joined: Mar 23, 2016
     

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#823 » by KTM_2813 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:12 pm

I'm very curious about the Durant video. The cynical side of me wonders if it will clearly be a "I need to pay the bills" video, which I would understand, but I don't personally think that Durant belongs. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor convinces me otherwise.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,649
And1: 56,634
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#824 » by Texas Chuck » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:13 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:Why wouldn't someone like Dirk be able to carry them in other situations? We've seen him in many situations and he's almost always had incredible series. Does Durant's defense really make him more portable because offensively Dirk is a more seemingless fit and he's more associated with better offenses than Durant is.

Don't mean to attack the messenger here, but it just seems odd. Dirk and portability go hand in hand quite well.



As I recall he was never high on Dirk when he posted here. But yeah Dirk never gets credit for portability I think in part because he always stayed in Dallas, but what I think people tend to overlook is just how frequently Dallas turned over their roster. The 03 team looks nothing like the 06-07 teams which look nothing like the 11 team and there were other significant changes even with the various eras.

Sucks for me as such a huge Dirk homer I'd have loved to see his treatment of him. But if he finds KD a more interesting subject I think its defensible for sure.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
User avatar
SideshowBob
General Manager
Posts: 9,002
And1: 6,143
Joined: Jul 16, 2010
Location: DC Metropolitan
 

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#825 » by SideshowBob » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:47 pm

GSP wrote:When Elgee did Backpicks his peak rating for Kd was on the same level as Jerry/Oscar IIRC which was a bit above the Kobe, Dirk, Wade, Nash, Cp3, Julius and then Chuck, Ewing, Malones level. Not sure why he didn't do a vid on Oscar/Jerry but he is high on Kd closer to the general public than the Pc board which is generally anti-Kd but I doubt it's some conspiracy for views considering the Backpicks stuff which got ppl heated here at the time. But he was even high on Kd when he posted here back in his early Okc days up his last. Before he reevaluated 2016 he had Steph and Kd above Bron and broke down Kds game and said ppl were putting too much emphasis on the final 3 games. But it seems he changed his mind since viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1459214

Not sure why Giannis was named but I think he'd prolly put him around the bigs levels. Kawhi he was generally lower on than most even after 2019 I don't think he had him as a top 3 player that season but he might be higher on 16 or 17. Even still he has Kd a clear edge.

As not sure why Harden was brought up by anyone here. Elgee has a podcast out on Wade VS Kobe VS Harden and he sees Harden as a clear tier below those 2 at least. And this pod was released just a year ago so I doubt anything has changed considering he was low on Harden being very turnover prone, his bad defense in comparison to those 2 and Harden being a bad offball player and not providing much of any value when he doesn't have the ball (on both ends)


Aren't these 3 year peaks? I think its easier to say that Durant's best consecutive three years are better than some of the others that have been excluded, even if I don't agree (Dirk/Wade 09-11 is >any KD stretch, Nash/Chuck I think as well, Paul is harder as he's up and down and hits similar highs).
But in his home dwelling...the hi-top faded warrior is revered. *Smack!* The sound of his palm blocking the basketball... the sound of thousands rising, roaring... the sound of "get that sugar honey iced tea outta here!"
KTM_2813
Senior
Posts: 737
And1: 660
Joined: Mar 23, 2016
     

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#826 » by KTM_2813 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:49 pm

Just watched the LeBron video. I'll say this: I think that if someone's introduction to basketball was through this series, and they were a completely blank slate, they would conclude that LeBron was the GOAT based on the video. Of all the players covered thus far, LeBron came off as the most impressive, at least to me.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that LeBron is the GOAT or that these videos are the definitive source of truth. I'm just saying that based on these videos alone, LeBron kind of stands out the most. This could be due to the Jordan video feeling perhaps a bit too critical at times, who knows. I just felt that the LeBron one was presented as the most "OMG!!!" of the bunch. Curious to hear if others came away with the same impression.
User avatar
GSP
RealGM
Posts: 12,705
And1: 7,213
Joined: Dec 12, 2011
     

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#827 » by GSP » Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:28 pm

SideshowBob wrote:
GSP wrote:When Elgee did Backpicks his peak rating for Kd was on the same level as Jerry/Oscar IIRC which was a bit above the Kobe, Dirk, Wade, Nash, Cp3, Julius and then Chuck, Ewing, Malones level. Not sure why he didn't do a vid on Oscar/Jerry but he is high on Kd closer to the general public than the Pc board which is generally anti-Kd but I doubt it's some conspiracy for views considering the Backpicks stuff which got ppl heated here at the time. But he was even high on Kd when he posted here back in his early Okc days up his last. Before he reevaluated 2016 he had Steph and Kd above Bron and broke down Kds game and said ppl were putting too much emphasis on the final 3 games. But it seems he changed his mind since viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1459214

Not sure why Giannis was named but I think he'd prolly put him around the bigs levels. Kawhi he was generally lower on than most even after 2019 I don't think he had him as a top 3 player that season but he might be higher on 16 or 17. Even still he has Kd a clear edge.

As not sure why Harden was brought up by anyone here. Elgee has a podcast out on Wade VS Kobe VS Harden and he sees Harden as a clear tier below those 2 at least. And this pod was released just a year ago so I doubt anything has changed considering he was low on Harden being very turnover prone, his bad defense in comparison to those 2 and Harden being a bad offball player and not providing much of any value when he doesn't have the ball (on both ends)


Aren't these 3 year peaks? I think its easier to say that Durant's best consecutive three years are better than some of the others that have been excluded, even if I don't agree (Dirk/Wade 09-11 is >any KD stretch, Nash/Chuck I think as well, Paul is harder as he's up and down and hits similar highs).


Not necessarily, Timmy was 02-03, Kg 03-04, Shaq 00-01, Bron 12-13 etc. I'd imagine Kd will be 16-17 altho some here seem to think it's 13-14 for his peak
User avatar
Ryoga Hibiki
Head Coach
Posts: 6,349
And1: 2,107
Joined: Nov 14, 2001
Location: Warszawa now, but from Northern Italy

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#828 » by Ryoga Hibiki » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:45 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:Why wouldn't someone like Dirk be able to carry them in other situations? We've seen him in many situations and he's almost always had incredible series. Does Durant's defense really make him more portable because offensively Dirk is a more seemingless fit and he's more associated with better offenses than Durant is.

Don't mean to attack the messenger here, but it just seems odd. Dirk and portability go hand in hand quite well.



As I recall he was never high on Dirk when he posted here. But yeah Dirk never gets credit for portability I think in part because he always stayed in Dallas, but what I think people tend to overlook is just how frequently Dallas turned over their roster. The 03 team looks nothing like the 06-07 teams which look nothing like the 11 team and there were other significant changes even with the various eras.

Sucks for me as such a huge Dirk homer I'd have loved to see his treatment of him. But if he finds KD a more interesting subject I think its defensible for sure.
He always seemed to focus to Dirk's passing, even if in my view it's not very logical.
He was not finding the best opening like Garnett, but he was still good enough to make the easy play and to know his limits, as his TO rate shows.
And all this was enough to have all time great offenses, even when he didn't have that much offensive help.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app
Odinn21
Veteran
Posts: 2,665
And1: 2,010
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#829 » by Odinn21 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:50 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:Why wouldn't someone like Dirk be able to carry them in other situations? We've seen him in many situations and he's almost always had incredible series. Does Durant's defense really make him more portable because offensively Dirk is a more seemingless fit and he's more associated with better offenses than Durant is.

Don't mean to attack the messenger here, but it just seems odd. Dirk and portability go hand in hand quite well.


As I recall he was never high on Dirk when he posted here. But yeah Dirk never gets credit for portability I think in part because he always stayed in Dallas, but what I think people tend to overlook is just how frequently Dallas turned over their roster. The 03 team looks nothing like the 06-07 teams which look nothing like the 11 team and there were other significant changes even with the various eras.

Sucks for me as such a huge Dirk homer I'd have loved to see his treatment of him. But if he finds KD a more interesting subject I think its defensible for sure.

Dirk's performances in such different setups despite not playing for another team is one of the reason why I think Taylor should think about his portability and scalability evaluation TBH.
Dirk wasn't a brute that kept getting offensive boards, his passing wasn't top notch, his movement was good for his size but not particularly good or great in general. But his ability to put the ball down with such height and ability to keep forcing physical contacts made him great in different styles despite not being a primary ball handler.

And it wasn't like Dirk led offenses lacked efficiency.
2002 Mavs +7.7 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +9.0 rORtg in playoffs
2003 Mavs +7.1 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +11.9 rORtg in playoffs
(Let's face it, 2004 should've never happened. :lol: )
2005 Mavs +4.2 rORtg in reg. season (4th) & +9.1 rORtg in playoffs
2006 Mavs +5.6 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +7.9 rORtg in playoffs
2007 Mavs +4.8 rORtg in reg. season (2nd) & -0.8 rORtg in playoffs
2008 Mavs +3.6 rORtg in reg. season (8th) & +3.8 rORtg in playoffs
2009 Mavs +2.2 rORtg in reg. season (6th) & +7.4 rORtg in playoffs
2010 Mavs +1.6 rORtg in reg. season (10th) & +1.3 rORtg in playoffs
2011 Mavs +2.4 rORtg in reg. season (8th) & +7.3 rORtg in playoffs

Now, it obvious that Nowitzki should get heat for 2007 playoffs, regular season offenses looks more mortal after 2007 and 2008/2010 playoffs rORtg values do not particularly stand out. But!
His performances against the Hornets in '08, the Nuggets in '09 and the Spurs in '10, those were very special. It wasn't like Nowitzki kept sh.tting the bed after 2007 then suddenly he was a force again in 2011 playoffs. His performance against the Nuggets in '09 still might be his best offensive single series.

TBH, if I was making such a series and I was to limit myself at 15, I might snub Nowitzki because it's just too hazy to pick. To me, 2006 stays as his peak pretty clearly despite the issues against quicker defenders because his aggressiveness defense and rebounding was just way higher. But 2007 is not a favourable season to pick. Not that 2005 was underwhelming for him but you know he had better seasons.
Then none of 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 regular seasons stands out enough or particularly because for example Wade in 2009-10 seasons had to play regular season as if was the playoffs so his team could make the playoffs. Dirk didn't have that element in those 4 regular seasons. Also other than 2011 postseason runs weren't deep enough (this is not a dig at Dirk, I mentioned this as too small of a sample size to build on).

But, then again, snubbing Nowitzki and having Durant doesn't make much sense because postseason sample size is big enough to establish that Durant in the playoffs wasn't the force he was in regular seasons. Other than 2007, Nowitzki was a good playoff performer with +7 or better rORtg offense in his pocket, and Dirk proved himself with different coaches and supporting casts.
I mean if Durant made the cut with 2013-14 time span, denying Wade also doesn't make because Wade in 2009-10 was arguably better than Durant in regular seasons (in 3 of those 4 seasons - they played regular seasons at their highest motors) and Wade performed better than Durant in the actual playoffs.
And I hope Durant made it in with 2013-14 because having 2017-18 Durant next to such company would be even more questionable.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Statlanta
Head Coach
Posts: 6,408
And1: 4,524
Joined: Mar 06, 2016

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#830 » by Statlanta » Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:44 am

For me the only narrative you can give me to say Garnett > Duncan is that the latter started with HOF leadership with another Greatest Peaks candidate. KG had to will Minnesota up while Duncan could grow with Pop while learning from Robinson. Everything else is just aesthetics
Djoker
Junior
Posts: 299
And1: 168
Joined: Sep 12, 2015

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#831 » by Djoker » Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:01 am

I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.

Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.

I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 18,447
And1: 14,461
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#832 » by HeartBreakKid » Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:11 am

Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.

Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.

I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.


But on average the Timberwolves did have good offenses.

The video are peak seasons and was primarily about 2003 and 2004, why would he talk about lesser seasons? He used 2008 as a way to show what would happen if he had talent on his team.

He did the same thing with other players. David Robinson had the same narrative, jumped to the 99 season when he had another star to play with.
User avatar
GSP
RealGM
Posts: 12,705
And1: 7,213
Joined: Dec 12, 2011
     

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#833 » by GSP » Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:14 am

Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.

Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.

I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.


Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever

You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman
LukaTheGOAT
Junior
Posts: 483
And1: 304
Joined: Dec 25, 2019
 

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#834 » by LukaTheGOAT » Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:35 pm

GSP wrote:
Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.

Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.

I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.


Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever

You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman


KG's impact metrics were down from 05-07, but I would say depending on what you look at they are relatively comparable to Duncan during that span. I don't blame KG for not making the PS those years, but I guess my issue with Ben's conclusion's stems from this:

I'm curious how exactly Ben is determining CORP, and the value of portability. I understand his reasoning, that he believes KG can fit better in many different situations, but how can he be so confident that ceiling raising is more valuable than Duncan's floor-raising efforts. And based off his evaluations on portability of stars since the year 1991 or so, it seems like the best player on championship teams tend to have neutral portability at best. This could mean that positive port stars are rare, but I would argue there have been many positive port stars like Robinson, Garnett who didn't win until later in their careers; couldn't this potentially be a hint that if those guys were better floor-raisers in exchange for some of their portability, they might've experienced some more team success?

I'll end on this. The 08 Celtics won a championship, but they were forced to 7 games twice during that run against not so great teams. I am not convinced that scalability is nearly as important. It matters, but I do think history tells us that floor-raisers are more valuable in random championship odds, simply because front offices are not that great and a lack of capital means, meshing players who fit well is not always a possibility. I’d rather have KG play for my team in the Olympics than Duncan, but that is a unique situation and far from the norm. More times than not, you want Duncan who is a better #1 and #2 option than KG.

Portability of Best Players on Championship Teams (According to his Evaluations)

20: Neutral
19: Neutral
18: Positive
17: Positive
16: Neutral
15: Positive
14: Neutral (Duncan)
13: Negative
12: Negative
11: Neutral
10: Neutral
09: Neutral
08: Positive
07: Negative
06: Negative
05: Negative
04: Neutral (Wallace)
03: Negative
02: Neutral
01: Neutral
00: Neutral
99: Negative
98: Neutral
97: Neutral
96: Neutral
95: Negative
94: Negative
93: Neutral
92: Neutral
91: Neutral

All I'm saying is I'm seeing plenty of neutral portability guys and the only example of positive port guys winning it multiple years in a row is with the Warriors, which might be the most well constructed team ever; a rarity basically.
MatsuiStan
Ballboy
Posts: 18
And1: 5
Joined: Feb 25, 2021

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#835 » by MatsuiStan » Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:39 pm

70sFan wrote:
limbo wrote:
70sFan wrote:Yeah, except that Gobert plays nothing like 2015 Duncan on offense.


You're right. Gobert is a much more efficient finisher but less used as a passer i guess.. Other than that there's really not that much of a difference. We're talking about incremental stuff here in the grand scheme of offensive structures.

Gobert is a player who lives strictly off P&R finishes and offensive rebounding. He's also one of the best screen setter ever. That's when his offensive resposibilities ends.

Duncan had much more sophisticated role on 2015 Spurs. It's not a diss on Gobert, I have him as credible MVP candidate this year, but equating Duncan to Gobert in responsibilties, styles or abilities doesn't make any sense.

Honestly, gobert's screen-setting is probably as valuable to the jazz as everything duncan did for the spurs .

And defense gobert is way above any post 12 duncan.
Djoker
Junior
Posts: 299
And1: 168
Joined: Sep 12, 2015

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#836 » by Djoker » Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:53 pm

GSP wrote:
Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.

Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.

I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.


Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever

You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman


I'm not arguing one bit how bad those Wolves teams were. They were trash in terms of talent and had major injuries as well IIRC. The issue is that an objective analysis of KG still has to discuss those years and not just gloss over them especially when 2008 Garnett in Boston is still considered a peak/prime KG. You can't just pretend those years don't exist even if you (rightfully) give him a pass for them.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 16,525
And1: 12,145
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#837 » by 70sFan » Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:57 pm

MatsuiStan wrote:
70sFan wrote:
limbo wrote:
You're right. Gobert is a much more efficient finisher but less used as a passer i guess.. Other than that there's really not that much of a difference. We're talking about incremental stuff here in the grand scheme of offensive structures.

Gobert is a player who lives strictly off P&R finishes and offensive rebounding. He's also one of the best screen setter ever. That's when his offensive resposibilities ends.

Duncan had much more sophisticated role on 2015 Spurs. It's not a diss on Gobert, I have him as credible MVP candidate this year, but equating Duncan to Gobert in responsibilties, styles or abilities doesn't make any sense.

Honestly, gobert's screen-setting is probably as valuable to the jazz as everything duncan did for the spurs .

And defense gobert is way above any post 12 duncan.

Sure, but Spurs needed Duncan to play his role. Gobert wouldn't be able to fit into that role.
User avatar
AdagioPace
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,835
And1: 5,744
Joined: Jan 03, 2017
Location: Contado di Molise
   

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#838 » by AdagioPace » Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:07 pm

LukaTheGOAT wrote:
GSP wrote:
Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.

Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.

I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.


Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever

You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman


KG's impact metrics were down from 05-07, but I would say depending on what you look at they are relatively comparable to Duncan during that span. I don't blame KG for not making the PS those years, but I guess my issue with Ben's conclusion's stems from this:

I'm curious how exactly Ben is determining CORP, and the value of portability. I understand his reasoning, that he believes KG can fit better in many different situations, but how can he be so confident that ceiling raising is more valuable than Duncan's floor-raising efforts. And based off his evaluations on portability of stars since the year 1991 or so, it seems like the best player on championship teams tend to have neutral portability at best. This could mean that positive port stars are rare, but I would argue there have been many positive port stars like Robinson, Garnett who didn't win until later in their careers; couldn't this potentially be a hint that if those guys were better floor-raisers in exchange for some of their portability, they might've experienced some more team success?

I'll end on this. The 08 Celtics won a championship, but they were forced to 7 games twice during that run against not so great teams. I am not convinced that scalability is nearly as important. It matters, but I do think history tells us that floor-raisers are more valuable in random championship odds, simply because front offices are not that great and a lack of capital means, meshing players who fit well is not always a possibility. I’d rather have KG play for my team in the Olympics than Duncan, but that is a unique situation and far from the norm. More times than not, you want Duncan who is a better #1 and #2 option than KG.

Portability of Best Players on Championship Teams (According to his Evaluations)

20: Neutral
19: Neutral
18: Positive
17: Positive
16: Neutral
15: Positive
14: Neutral (Duncan)
13: Negative
12: Negative
11: Neutral
10: Neutral
09: Neutral
08: Positive
07: Negative
06: Negative
05: Negative
04: Neutral (Wallace)
03: Negative
02: Neutral
01: Neutral
00: Neutral
99: Negative
98: Neutral
97: Neutral
96: Neutral
95: Negative
94: Negative
93: Neutral
92: Neutral
91: Neutral

All I'm saying is I'm seeing plenty of neutral portability guys and the only example of positive port guys winning it multiple years in a row is with the Warriors, which might be the most well constructed team ever; a rarity basically.



agree, after a certain level, any difference in "portability" becomes a sort of luxury, only expendable in a restricted set of circumstances.
In any case it's all very subjective after a certain point. It gets noisy conceptually especially when the two 2 players in a comparison have both shown to be effective in several succesfull scenarios with other stars.
yeah, Wade and Bron didn't reach a platonic ideal and they "only" 2-peated (!) with pretty impressive teams would tell you Sansterre.

the curious thing is that Garnett might be a better floor raiser AND a better ceiling raiser than Duncan for teams like Minnesota (WOAT) and Golden State (GOAT)....but Duncan retains the coveted trademark of a better playoffs player, which is widely expendable.
"La natura gode della natura; la natura trionfa sulla natura; la natura domina la natura" - Ostanes
sansterre
Senior
Posts: 707
And1: 1,038
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#839 » by sansterre » Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:50 pm

LukaTheGOAT wrote:
GSP wrote:
Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.

Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.

I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.


Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever

You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman


KG's impact metrics were down from 05-07, but I would say depending on what you look at they are relatively comparable to Duncan during that span. I don't blame KG for not making the PS those years, but I guess my issue with Ben's conclusion's stems from this:

I'm curious how exactly Ben is determining CORP, and the value of portability. I understand his reasoning, that he believes KG can fit better in many different situations, but how can he be so confident that ceiling raising is more valuable than Duncan's floor-raising efforts. And based off his evaluations on portability of stars since the year 1991 or so, it seems like the best player on championship teams tend to have neutral portability at best. This could mean that positive port stars are rare, but I would argue there have been many positive port stars like Robinson, Garnett who didn't win until later in their careers; couldn't this potentially be a hint that if those guys were better floor-raisers in exchange for some of their portability, they might've experienced some more team success?

I'll end on this. The 08 Celtics won a championship, but they were forced to 7 games twice during that run against not so great teams. I am not convinced that scalability is nearly as important. It matters, but I do think history tells us that floor-raisers are more valuable in random championship odds, simply because front offices are not that great and a lack of capital means, meshing players who fit well is not always a possibility. I’d rather have KG play for my team in the Olympics than Duncan, but that is a unique situation and far from the norm. More times than not, you want Duncan who is a better #1 and #2 option than KG.

Portability of Best Players on Championship Teams (According to his Evaluations)

20: Neutral
19: Neutral
18: Positive
17: Positive
16: Neutral
15: Positive
14: Neutral (Duncan)
13: Negative
12: Negative
11: Neutral
10: Neutral
09: Neutral
08: Positive
07: Negative
06: Negative
05: Negative
04: Neutral (Wallace)
03: Negative
02: Neutral
01: Neutral
00: Neutral
99: Negative
98: Neutral
97: Neutral
96: Neutral
95: Negative
94: Negative
93: Neutral
92: Neutral
91: Neutral

All I'm saying is I'm seeing plenty of neutral portability guys and the only example of positive port guys winning it multiple years in a row is with the Warriors, which might be the most well constructed team ever; a rarity basically.

This is a really interesting post; great thought process and documentation!

But I kind of wanted to follow up here.

Ben seems to use the word "Portability" to mean "how much of their value they retain when they play as something other than the best offensive player on their team". He (and others) may quibble with that characterization, but that's how I've come to read it.

Well here's the problem. You know whose portability we can be sure of? Guys that aren't playing as the best part of their offense have portability that's very easy to observer. Guys like Scottie Pippen are clearly portable because they're demonstrating that portability. Draymond Green was obviously portable. Pau Gasol in '08-10 was obviously portable. Guys who were the best player on their offense but with a non-ball-dominant skillset are obviously portable (Reggie Miller, Kevin Durant, etc.).

But guys that are playing as the ball-dominant best players on their teams? Absolutely nothing they're doing is demonstrating portability, because they're not playing in the environment designed for it. You could never be sure of Jordan's portability, because he (rightly) dominated the crap out of the offense his whole career. So players who are the best players on championship teams don't really need to demonstrate portability, which makes the exercise somewhat problematic.

Here's the issue I have with the concept. Don't get me wrong, I think the entire thought journey of portability is incredibly valuable.

But it makes way, way, way more sense for mid-range players than studs. Allen Iverson has a seriously limited value because he wasn't good enough to win you a championship as the #1, but he wasn't portable enough to be a legit #2 or #3 on a championship team. Whereas Draymond Green is definitively not capable of winning a championship as a #1, but as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team he can take you to the next level. The difference between the two is massive, and portability articulates that beautifully.

But saying stuff like "But Kevin Garnett would have been so much better as #2" is unquestionably true, but way less relevant. Here's how I think of it:

Think of it like it's 2k21 or something. Every player has a certain overall number of points to spend on attributes. Let's imagine that each player has an overall grade. Let's say that each league has the following:

5 players in the 95-99 range
10 players in the 90-94 range
20 players in the 85-89 range
30 players in the 80-84 range

and so on.

And each of these players' skill points can go into portable skills (off-ball offense, offensive rebounding, defense, spot-up shooting, passing) and Alpha skills (ball-dominant offense/passing, effective ISO-heavy scoring).

Imagine choosing between two 85 point players. One is slanted heavily ball-dominant, the other is slanted heavily towards portable skills. Of the two the latter is almost certainly the more valuable player (despite them having the same number of raw points) because the former is almost certainly not good enough to be the #1 on a title-winning team (Isiah Thomas may be a counterexample to this premise) but the latter can be an excellent #2 or #3 on a contender.

But here's the problem. What happens if you have a 98 point player who is slanted heavily towards portability? I mean, upside, 98 point player! You're talking one of the best players in the league, easy. Even operating as a #1 (which they're not designed for) they'll still show at the level of a Top 5 player. But if they could only play as a #2 they'd absolutely blow the doors off the league. Imagine KG with Shaq (or Duncan), or KG with LeBron or Steph. Hole-eee crap. But the problem is this: 98 point portable players are *still* better #1s than almost every player in the league but 5 or so. And the odds of the 98 point portable player actually being in that situation is really, really low.

Imagine every 98+ point ball-dominant player ever. How many of them got to be the #1 option on their team? ALL OF THEM! They're ball-dominant 98 point players!

Now imagine every 98+ point portability slanted player ever. How many of their peak seasons were as the #2 option on their team? Very, very few. You have to get lucky to get those opportunities.

If I said that "Player A is better than Player B in most situations, but if Player B gets a team that is ideally suited to him (10% chance of occurring) then Player B is better" . . . I think I basically just said that Player A is better. That we shouldn't hold against Player B that he never got to play in that optimal situation, sure . . . but Player A didn't need no stinking optimal situation.

So I get why you would argue that the portability-slanted player is better, because you'll usually see them in what are (for them) sub-optimal situations. And part of being a responsible analyst is compensating for that players playing in a sub-optimal environment. But when the optimal fit is so freaking rare for a player at that level . . .

I don't know if this adds anything to the discussion, but that's how I've come to think about it.

PS: And this is what I think is so fascinating about Russell as a portability study. He's literally *all* portability and limited ball-dominant skills. In the modern era that doesn't work; in the modern game you *cannot* be a 99 point player with limited points in ball-dominant skills. But in the pre-three point era? An outstanding defensive big had a defensive impact loosely comparable to modern offensive giants today. Which means that an all-portability big could actually reach 99 points because pumping up defense could yield such massive results. And that means that Russell was in a super-unique position, because he could be a 99-point portability star and that optimal situation discussed above (where he could be something other than the #1 option on offense) would have been true on almost every team in the league! Such a weird exception to everything!
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
nolang1
Analyst
Posts: 3,744
And1: 1,671
Joined: Aug 03, 2012

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#840 » by nolang1 » Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:29 pm

Statlanta wrote:For me the only narrative you can give me to say Garnett > Duncan is that the latter started with HOF leadership with another Greatest Peaks candidate. KG had to will Minnesota up while Duncan could grow with Pop while learning from Robinson. Everything else is just aesthetics


I don't think it takes much reading between the lines to see that his opinion is that Garnett is a more 'modern' defensive player (like Giannis plus) whereas Duncan is more of a center, and that outweighs Duncan's edge in being a 1st option on offense even if their defensive metrics were relatively similar at the time they played.

Return to Player Comparisons