Is it OK to say Garnett in 2003-04 season had nearly as much as help Duncan in had in 2002-03?

[Odinn21]

I was having a discussion about this and wanted to carry it on here.

(All figures are from NBA.com)

The Spurs in 2002-03 regular season had 103.9 ortg - 98.1 drtg, +5.8 net rating. Duncan had 105.6 ortg - 96.4 drtg. +9.2 net rating. (+3.4 relative net rating)
The Wolves in 2003-04 regular season had 104.2 ortg - 98.1 drtg, +6.1 net rating. Garnett had 106.3 ortg - 96.7 drtg. +9.6 net rating. (+3.5 relative net rating)

The Spurs in 2003 playoffs had 102.2 ortg - 96.3 drtg, +5.9 net rating. Duncan had 104.0 ortg - 94.7 drtg. +9.3 net rating. (+3.4 relative net rating)
The Wolves in 2004 playoffs had 101.3 ortg - 101.3 drtg, 0 net rating. Garnett had 103.2 ortg - 99.9 drtg. +3.3 net rating. (+3.3 relative net rating)

When I did some calculation about with and without net ratings;
Tim Duncan played 3182:28 minutes in 2002-03 season, out of 3918 total. That is 81.23%. The team had +9.2 net rating with him and -8.9 without him. So, difference between on/off net ratings is 18.1.
Kevin Garnett played 3235:05 minutes in 2003-04 season, out of 3951 total. That is 81.88%. The team had +9.6 net rating with him and -9.7 without him. So, difference between on/off net ratings is 19.3.

Tim Duncan played 1021:18 minutes in 2003 playoffs, out of 1157 total. That is 88.27%. The team had +9.3 net rating with him and -19.7 without him. So, difference between on/off net ratings is 29.0.
Kevin Garnett played 783:08 minutes in 2004 playoffs, out of 869 total. That is 90.12%. The team had +3.3 net rating with him and -30.1 without him. So, difference between on/off net ratings is 33.4.

---

Looking at these, I don't how to interpret. The regular season numbers are close enough. Without him net ratings are within decimals. Difference numbers are also close. 18.1 is 93.8% of 19.3.
And I find difference numbers in playoffs also close. The gap and percentage is skewed a bit due to percent of played minutes. But that -30.1 net rating without Garnett (9.88% of the time) is horrendous. Way worse than what the Spurs had without Timmy.

Regular season numbers and difference numbers in playoffs making me want to say 'yes, KG got help on similar level'. That -30.1 value is keeping me from it.

What do you guys say?

[eminence]

I think they're close casts, Cassell the clear 3rd best player on either squad, but Spurs deeper. Spurs probably had a bit higher ceiling (they underplayed a rookie Manu, he was ready to go from day 1). Overall I'd go Spurs cast by a slim margin, but I'm fully comfortable with someone calling them equal. All prior to Cassell injury obviously.

[Jaivl]

Yeah, although Cassell is easily better than anyone on the Spurs, KG's best cast was about as good as Duncan's worst.

[Homer38]

And to be fair with Garnett is that in their series against the Lakers,Sam Cassell had played only 64 minutes in this series,so he was almost a non-factor...Darrick Martin had 3 start in the series against the lakers….He was so bad...Just to look at his career number!


https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/martida01.html

[70sFan]

I'd say their teams are comparable talent-wise. Wolves were more talented offensively for me, but Spurs had some nice defensive core with old Admiral, Bowen and Rose.

Cassel was really good in that season and after his injury they got worse than 2003 Spurs.

[Texas Chuck]

He clearly had more, but that doesn't fit people's narrative so instead of saying all-NBA Sam Cassell, they always describe him as 34 year old Sam Cassell.

And the ironic thing is they do this thinking it makes KG look better when in fact it only does the opposite. It makes him look like he needs excuses. Nah, KG showed when you give him some talent, he can lead a legit contender. That season proved that, then he went to Boston and should have forever put it to rest.

[No-more-rings]

I think there isn't a major difference yeah, though getting to the playoffs Duncan was significantly better than KG, so it basically throws away any debate for KG as the better player in their peak imo.

KG's 04 playoffs stats: 25 PER, 51.3 ts%, 6.2 BPM
Duncan 03- 28.4 PER, 57.7 ts%, 11.6 BPM

I didn't bother throwing up their raw volume since it was nearly identical with Duncan slightly leading in most categories.

[Jaivl]

He clearly had more, but that doesn't fit people's narrative so instead of saying all-NBA Sam Cassell, they always describe him as 34 year old Sam Cassell.

Seeing as you're literally the only one in this thread that called him that instead of "the clear 3rd best player between both teams"... care to explain?

[An Unbiased Fan]

2003 Spurs cast are ridiculousy underrated

[wutevahung]

And to be fair with Garnett is that in their series against the Lakers,Sam Cassell had played only 64 minutes in this series,so he was almost a non-factor...Darrick Martin had 3 start in the series against the lakers….He was so bad...Just to look at his career number!


https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/martida01.html

I remember after Cassell's injury, KG often had to bring the ball up, pass to the PG, then run to the high post/low post , screens for other players, come out to get the ball, make plays.

the PG/C depth of that team is just...ridiculously bad. C- Olowokandi, Johnson, Oliver Miller. PG- Cassell, Hudson, Martin.

[Homer38]

2003 Spurs cast are ridiculousy underrated

On defense,maybe but their offense was garbage without Duncan….In 2003 Parker and Ginobili was not the players that they become later in their career

[NO-KG-AI]

I think the Spurs talent was a little more spread out and could sustain injuries or bad play from an individual better.

Both were title contenders because of peak play from a top 10ish all time guy, but neither was likely to win in a real strong year IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[An Unbiased Fan]

2003 Spurs cast are ridiculousy underrated

On defense,maybe but their offense was garbage without Duncan….In 2003 Parker and Ginobili was not the players that they become later in their career

But SA was a team built around defense. Essentially a Baltimire Ravens of the NBA type squad. Very much like the 00s Pistons were. People always look as support and pick offensive roleplayers over defensive ones, which undervalues many squads.

Roleplayers in general don't have much of an impact on offensive, outside of 3pt specialists. A medicore offensive player with great defensive has far more impact. Think Iggy, Bowen. Then you get to the HOF caliber types like Rodman and Big Ben.

[Homer38]

2003 Spurs cast are ridiculousy underrated

On defense,maybe but their offense was garbage without Duncan….In 2003 Parker and Ginobili was not the players that they become later in their career

But SA was a team built around defense. Essentially a Baltimire Ravens of the NBA type squad. Very much like the 00s Pistons were. People always look as support and pick offensive roleplayers over defnesive ones, which undervalues many squads.

Roleplayers in general don't have much of an impact on offensive, outsid eof 3pt specialists. A medicore offensive player with great defensive has far more impact. Think Iggy, Bowen. Then you get to the HOF caliber types like Rodman and Big Ben.

Yes but a team still need for the most part a above average offense(the 2004 pistons is one of the few exception) to win the title and the spurs were 7th in offensive rating in 2003 despite that 20 years old Tony Parker was their second best in PPG and in minutes(regular season or playoffs) in this team.

[An Unbiased Fan]

On defense,maybe but their offense was garbage without Duncan….In 2003 Parker and Ginobili was not the players that they become later in their career

But SA was a team built around defense. Essentially a Baltimire Ravens of the NBA type squad. Very much like the 00s Pistons were. People always look as support and pick offensive roleplayers over defnesive ones, which undervalues many squads.

Roleplayers in general don't have much of an impact on offensive, outsid eof 3pt specialists. A medicore offensive player with great defensive has far more impact. Think Iggy, Bowen. Then you get to the HOF caliber types like Rodman and Big Ben.

Yes but a team still need for the most part a above average offense(the 2004 pistons is one of the few exception) to win the title and the spurs were 7th in offensive rating in 2003 despite that 20 years old Tony Parker was their second best in PPG and in minutes(regular season or playoffs) in this team.

Histoirically, defensive teams do much better in the playoffs. And Parker was 20, but so was Kobe/Magic on the early Laker teams. TP still was a 16 ppg player. They also had Stephen Jackson, Manu as a roleplayer, Brose Bowen, and DRob in the Dwight role on defense.

Not saying this is some super team, but the roleplayers get zero credit, and that's wrong.

[G35]

Two of the weakest championship casts of the last 30 years are:

1994 Rockets

2003 Spurs

Duncan had to carry that team more than any of the Spurs title teams.

Parker was horrible in the playoffs getting pulled in the finals for Speedy Claxton.

DRob was on his last legs. Duncan did some serious heavy lifting winning a championship with this team.....

[Joao Saraiva]

It's not like the Spurs are waaaay better. But they are. Not big, but clear gap.

Also better coach helps a lot.

[Odinn21]

I'd say their teams are comparable talent-wise. Wolves were more talented offensively for me, but Spurs had some nice defensive core with old Admiral, Bowen and Rose.

Cassel was really good in that season and after his injury they got worse than 2003 Spurs.

I find it interesting that Cassell might be the best PG in 2003-04 season. Kidd wasn't as good as 2002 or 2003. Nash wasn't in Phoenix yet. And considering how they performed, I'd say Cassell was the best in this particular season.

[VoodooPriest]

Two of the weakest championship casts of the last 30 years are:

1994 Rockets

2003 Spurs

Duncan had to carry that team more than any of the Spurs title teams.

Parker was horrible in the playoffs getting pulled in the finals for Speedy Claxton.

DRob was on his last legs. Duncan did some serious heavy lifting winning a championship with this team.....

The basketball gods paved the way for them too with injuries abound and fodder opponents in the finals. Beating all-time competition in Kenyon Martin Duncan was.

[No-more-rings]

Two of the weakest championship casts of the last 30 years are:

1994 Rockets

2003 Spurs

Duncan had to carry that team more than any of the Spurs title teams.

Parker was horrible in the playoffs getting pulled in the finals for Speedy Claxton.

DRob was on his last legs. Duncan did some serious heavy lifting winning a championship with this team.....

The basketball gods paved the way for them too with injuries abound and fodder opponents in the finals. Beating all-time competition in Kenyon Martin Duncan was.

I don't see why this should take away from their season though. You can really make the "weak competition" claim about a lot of great players.

For example at Magic's peak, he faced really weak competition. Does that take away from his greatness?

What about Lebron facing 2 negative SRS teams in each of his 2013 & 2014 playoff runs? I never hear those runs get downplayed.

You play what's put in front of you, and the fact just is you won't always be facing multiple great teams.