Offense Only - 02/03 Duncan & 03/04 KG vs 19/20 Giannis

[freethedevil]

okay? he's still not come near the range of team siutations we've seen kg in.

Actually, Garnett's role was pretty consistent for most of his career. We've seen him in Minny where his role was consistent (and not optimal for him BTW) and we've seen him in reduced role in Boston. actually fair.

And ultimately passing is more scalable than iso an dkg is undisputably the better passer. So he would be the more scalable.

So would you call Chris Webber a more scalable player than Duncan as well? Because Webber was undoubtfully a better passer.
idon't have a strong opinion, but that's not a ridiculous thing for me to consider at all. Scalablity is not how valuable you are. It's how little value you lose on better teams.

Because 08 kg was definitely kg's offensive prime

I think it was to be honest, not his peak but he was still in his prime during that season. If you want to talk only about peaks, then we've never seen peak Duncan in similar situation either - he had to carry Spurs rosters when he was at his best.
i agree its his prime overall, but that was because of a defensive improvement, if we're just talking offense, then ir eally don't see how one can reasonably consider 08 kg part of that.
It doesn't change the fact that we've seen prime Duncan (2007) and prime Garnett (2008) in reduced roles. Nothing suggest that one is much more scalable than the other.

Garnett has a bit more versatile skillset, but he also isn't as disciplined player offensively as Duncan and that thing matters when you play on all-time great team. Both fared quite well in various roles, so I don't get why should we discredit Duncan here because he's not as good passer...
not sure how disicpline relates to the concept of being scalable. Not sure where duncan's being discredited either. If we have no proof either way directly, then to ask who is more scalable, we need to assess skillsets and what is likely to fit better. Passing always fits, isolation loses value on better and better teams. KG's more scalable in theory and there's nothing in terms of practice to dispute this, so kg being more scalable seems the logical conclusion.

[E-Balla]

Completely irrelevant to peak duncan but good job.

It's irrelevant how exactly? If anything peak Duncan was flat out better so I'd imagine peak Duncan on that team would be even better.

i don't think you understand the concept of scalability. Its not about what your team does, its about how well YOU retain your value. Duncan's offensive impact plummeted on, a whopping +5 offense. How in the world does that indicate he's asn sscalable than KG? Thee is "zero evidence" to indicate duncan was super portable offensively at his apex, so "the game isn't played on spreadsheets" is a red herring.

His impact plummeted because he was old. Once he lost weight he got back some of his quickness and was effective enough to be arguably the most impactful offensive player on the 2013 Spurs and to be the clear 2nd option on the 2014 Spurs. But let's ignore the 12-14 Spurs and focus only on 05-07 because that's undeniably still Tim Duncan when he was Tim Duncan.

From 05 to 07 Duncan played 56 postseason games. I'm sure we can agree that's a large sample, especially since he played almost 2100 minutes in that period. On average the Spurs had a +5.7 offense in those postseasons.

Tim averaged 23.6 ppg on 56 TS%, Manu averaged 18.8 ppg on 61 TS%, and TP averaged 19.4 ppg on 51 TS%. I say all that to say his offensive support was good, but nothing like prime Pierce and Ray Allen, and they still were able to sustain a +5.7 offense over 3 consecutive postseasons until Duncan fell out of his peak form following 07 (which was his last 1st team all pro until 2013 and his last top 5 MVP finish).

Ignoring 97 (which was a 3 game run) KG's best postseason offense was the +4.2 he had next to prime Ray Allen and prime Paul Pierce. How is he more scalable?

KG was never presented with the teammates for a great offense when he was one of the most valable offensive players in the league. 08 is completely irrelevant.

Lmao wait so when did KG's offensive peak end? Let me guess, 2007?

You're only saying 2008 isn't KG in his offensive prime because it suits your argument. I've never heard anyone say it wasn't his offensive prime because it clearly was. He led a team that had prime Ray Allen (his career high scoring season was 07 and when he was healthy they played like a top 5 offense and in 06 he led the #3 offense) and prime Paul Pierce (he averaged 25 ppg on 57 TS% in 07) in both regular season and postseason ORTG and postseason offensive on/off but you want to say he was washed by then? He was the leading postseason scorer over Ray Allen and Paul Pierce but he wasn't in his prime? Let me guess Ray and PP were magically washed in 08 too?

There is no evidence based on what transpired on the court either way,

No there's plenty of evidence. We've seen Duncan with Manu and TP while still in his prime for 3 years. We saw KG with Ray Allen and PP while still in his prime for a season. You just want to ignore this because it doesn't serve your argument.

so we have to look at skillsets and what do you know, kg was a much better passer at his peak than duncan was. duncan was a better isolation scorer. The latter historically results in reduced impact on better offences, the former does not. Therefore, in the absence of any compelling evidence otherwise, the best bet is KG is more scalable offensively. Fyi, same thing applies to defense as rim protection scales up worse than switching.

Wait now rim protection doesn't scale up? So you mean to tell me Tim Duncan has consistently led better defenses than anyone but Bull Russell while playing 2 different positions but he's not versatile enough to be as scalable defensively as KG? Ok...

You want to look at skillsets because looking at reality shows Duncan is undeniably better.

But you've provided zero evidence of duncan being able to retain his offensive impact on a great offense, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Scroll up. I didn't think I had to go pull the numbers for you to prove Duncan was playing on great offenses in 05-07 but I did. Now going forward how about you provide evidence for your claims, or don't bother responding.

[therealbig3]

KG isn't just a better passer than Duncan, he's a far better shooter too. That's a big difference in terms of scalability.

IMO, KG was slightly better on both sides of the ball.

[therealbig3]

The Celtics offense was usually underwhelming because they had one of the most flawed PGs in history dominating the ball on offense (Rondo). KG was leading really good offensive teams in Minnesota when he had competent offensive guards around him.

And if you're then going to dock KG for those Celtics offenses, then you have to give him equal praise for their defense, which was clearly mainly due to KG.

Also, the Celtics playoff offense in 08 was as good as any Spurs playoff offense led by Duncan: 08 Celtics were +5.0 with Garnett on the court, 05 Spurs were +5.1 with Duncan on the court.

Also, beyond the Rondo situation, which Duncan did not deal with (I also don't think Pierce and Allen are better than Parker and Manu), he had way better coaching (Rivers is clearly not a good coach, certainly not on Pop's level), and this is where any difference in team offense comes from, rather than any difference between Duncan and Garnett.

[sikma42]

I really think KGs passing ability has been overstated since his retirement. Duncan could make all the reads required and was good enough to draw a double team. We have seen KG leveraged to the tilt and imo wasnt much to write home about. He is an all time great but he couldn't score consistently and I'd never want to rely on that turn around junpshot.

KG isn't just a better passer than Duncan, he's a far better shooter too. That's a big difference in terms of scalability.

IMO, KG was slightly better on both sides of the ball.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[AdagioPace]

KGs defense fluctuated during his career. He was not always 08-2012 level(despite looking always great because of the abysmal minny floor). Also, defense is a more scalable concept than offense...per se. Duncan rim protection and help defense scaled perfectly with Drob, with Bowen only, etc.... Now passing and shooting are a big plus for KG but as a peak post season "offender" Duncan showed way more in 2002, 03, 2006 than kg his entire career

[Jaivl]

Tim averaged 23.6 ppg on 56 TS%, Manu averaged 18.8 ppg on 61 TS%, and TP averaged 19.4 ppg on 51 TS%. I say all that to say his offensive support was good, but nothing like prime Pierce and Ray Allen

Considering playoff #s of "prime Pierce and Allen" and offensive depth it seems like it was decently better, actually. Not much better, but a bit better.

[E-Balla]

Tim averaged 23.6 ppg on 56 TS%, Manu averaged 18.8 ppg on 61 TS%, and TP averaged 19.4 ppg on 51 TS%. I say all that to say his offensive support was good, but nothing like prime Pierce and Ray Allen

Considering playoff #s of "prime Pierce and Allen" and offensive depth it seems like it was decently better, actually. Not much better, but a bit better.

Their playoff numbers were practically the same as their regular season numbers. Those guys are flat out better players than Manu and Tony, but next to KG they had an underwhelming offense.

[HeartBreakKid]

I really think KGs passing ability has been overstated since his retirement. Duncan could make all the reads required and was good enough to draw a double team. We have seen KG leveraged to the tilt and imo wasnt much to write home about. He is an all time great but he couldn't score consistently and I'd never want to rely on that turn around junpshot.

KG isn't just a better passer than Duncan, he's a far better shooter too. That's a big difference in terms of scalability.

IMO, KG was slightly better on both sides of the ball.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

There wouldn't be any reason to have Garnett post up nearly as much in today's game. Back then it was expected you post up if you were a certain height, even if it wasn't your strength.

Garnett's style and strengths weren't properly understood, even though they all coincide well with producing elite offense.

[E-Balla]

The Celtics offense was usually underwhelming because they had one of the most flawed PGs in history dominating the ball on offense (Rondo). KG was leading really good offensive teams in Minnesota when he had competent offensive guards around him.

And if you're then going to dock KG for those Celtics offenses, then you have to give him equal praise for their defense, which was clearly mainly due to KG.

Rondo only started taking control of the ball in 2009. 2008 he was still only averaging 10 ppg and 5 apg (10/7 in the playoffs). That's the same as Mario Chalmers on the 2014 Heat. And KG wasn't leading better offenses than the 08 Celtics. Like I said before the best postseason offense he was ever on in a more than 3 game series was the 08 Celtics. In 04 the Wolves had a -0.5 ORTG in the playoffs (and don't blame the Cassell injury because they had a -2.3 offense before he got hurt). In 03 they had a +0.3 offense against the Lakers.

It's like you're forgetting the biggest knock on KG's offense - his postseason offense was consistently disappointing. And yeah of course he gets credit for that defense, but read the first two words in the title of his thread and tell me why you're even mentioning it? Not to mention we're comparing him to Duncan who always anchored amazing defenses too.

Also, the Celtics playoff offense in 08 was as good as any Spurs playoff offense led by Duncan: 08 Celtics were +5.0 with Garnett on the court, 05 Spurs were +5.1 with Duncan on the court.

And the 06 Spurs were a +11.2 with Duncan on the court.. The 99 Spurs were a +5.7 with Duncan on the court. The 02 Spurs were a +8.1 with Duncan on the court. All better than KG's best, all with completely different roster types (one with the twin towers, one with young TP and no D. Rob, one with All Stars Manu/TP).

[E-Balla]

I really think KGs passing ability has been overstated since his retirement. Duncan could make all the reads required and was good enough to draw a double team. We have seen KG leveraged to the tilt and imo wasnt much to write home about. He is an all time great but he couldn't score consistently and I'd never want to rely on that turn around junpshot.

KG isn't just a better passer than Duncan, he's a far better shooter too. That's a big difference in terms of scalability.

IMO, KG was slightly better on both sides of the ball.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

There wouldn't be any reason to have Garnett post up nearly as much in today's game. Back then it was expected you post up if you were a certain height, even if it wasn't your strength.

Garnett's style and strengths weren't properly understood, even though they all coincide well with producing elite offense.

He posted up about a third of his possessions. Same ball park as Lamarcus Aldridge or Joel Embiid. Hell, he produced elite (regular season) offenses in real life! His teams just didn't hold up offensively in the postseason. Consistently.

[HeartBreakKid]

I really think KGs passing ability has been overstated since his retirement. Duncan could make all the reads required and was good enough to draw a double team. We have seen KG leveraged to the tilt and imo wasnt much to write home about. He is an all time great but he couldn't score consistently and I'd never want to rely on that turn around junpshot.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

There wouldn't be any reason to have Garnett post up nearly as much in today's game. Back then it was expected you post up if you were a certain height, even if it wasn't your strength.

Garnett's style and strengths weren't properly understood, even though they all coincide well with producing elite offense.

He posted up about a third of his possessions. Same ball park as Lamarcus Aldridge or Joel Embiid. Hell, he produced elite (regular season) offenses in real life! His teams just didn't hold up offensively in the postseason. Consistently.

1/3rd is a lot though, that's what I am saying - LMA and Embiid are relatively heavy post players for this era aren't they? In today's game his pick and roll play would probably increase.

Yes the T-Wolves actually did have good offenses. Could always be better.

[NO-KG-AI]

As for the portability argument, I think KG is more portable than Duncan, but that Duncan is still one of those most portable players ever in the front court, and I'm not saying it's enough to put KG ahead of Duncan as an offensive player.

[70sFan]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

They were amazing, some people quickly forget how skilled they were on both ends of the court.

[Odinn21]

They were amazing, some people quickly forget how skilled they were on both ends of the court.

Man, there are two particular things I love about them. One for each.
I've always liked KG's shooting form.
And Timmy's move going under the defender's arms, that was just a masterpiece. I've never seen a player using / utilizing that movement. Getting played great defense and shot'd be contested, and with the smallest gap - Timmy's gone scoring.

[sikma42]

I really think KGs passing ability has been overstated since his retirement. Duncan could make all the reads required and was good enough to draw a double team. We have seen KG leveraged to the tilt and imo wasnt much to write home about. He is an all time great but he couldn't score consistently and I'd never want to rely on that turn around junpshot.

KG isn't just a better passer than Duncan, he's a far better shooter too. That's a big difference in terms of scalability.

IMO, KG was slightly better on both sides of the ball.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

There wouldn't be any reason to have Garnett post up nearly as much in today's game. Back then it was expected you post up if you were a certain height, even if it wasn't your strength.

Garnett's style and strengths weren't properly understood, even though they all coincide well with producing elite offense.

Then he is going to be shooting a lot of mid range jumpers, because that's what he did for a lot of his career. I'm really big on being able to create offense when your team needs it, and KG didn't have that ability. He got his points a lot like Kevin Love did, when he was actually good. He has a varied skill set (obviously much more athletic and some other key differences) and fits into an offense very well and can hit the shots created for him at a high level. But there is a ceiling there. Duncan can fit well into any offense but can also turn into a hub whenever it's needed. That's the special part about him that KG didn't have and imo will always be the separator. No matter what the other team is doing to slow your offense down in the playoffs...you have an ace up your sleeve at all times and a superstar humble enough not to care about that number being called or not.

[therealbig3]

The Celtics offense was usually underwhelming because they had one of the most flawed PGs in history dominating the ball on offense (Rondo). KG was leading really good offensive teams in Minnesota when he had competent offensive guards around him.

And if you're then going to dock KG for those Celtics offenses, then you have to give him equal praise for their defense, which was clearly mainly due to KG.

Rondo only started taking control of the ball in 2009. 2008 he was still only averaging 10 ppg and 5 apg (10/7 in the playoffs). That's the same as Mario Chalmers on the 2014 Heat. And KG wasn't leading better offenses than the 08 Celtics. Like I said before the best postseason offense he was ever on in a more than 3 game series was the 08 Celtics. In 04 the Wolves had a -0.5 ORTG in the playoffs (and don't blame the Cassell injury because they had a -2.3 offense before he got hurt). In 03 they had a +0.3 offense against the Lakers.

It's like you're forgetting the biggest knock on KG's offense - his postseason offense was consistently disappointing. And yeah of course he gets credit for that defense, but read the first two words in the title of his thread and tell me why you're even mentioning it? Not to mention we're comparing him to Duncan who always anchored amazing defenses too.

Also, the Celtics playoff offense in 08 was as good as any Spurs playoff offense led by Duncan: 08 Celtics were +5.0 with Garnett on the court, 05 Spurs were +5.1 with Duncan on the court.

And the 06 Spurs were a +11.2 with Duncan on the court.. The 99 Spurs were a +5.7 with Duncan on the court. The 02 Spurs were a +8.1 with Duncan on the court. All better than KG's best, all with completely different roster types (one with the twin towers, one with young TP and no D. Rob, one with All Stars Manu/TP).

Don't think you're taking opponent defense into account. Because with Duncan on the court, I have the 01 Spurs at +1.8, and the 03 Spurs at +3.2. The 08 Spurs were -0.2 (worse than 04 Wolves FWIW).

I have the 04 Wolves at +1.2 with KG on the court in those playoffs, relative to the defense they faced.

Didn't realize there was on/off data for 99 Spurs, you have it?

Furthermore, the Rondo/Chalmers comparison doesn't make sense, because Chalmers was at least a great floor spacer, while Rondo doesn't space the floor at all. IMO, he's been a negative offensive player his entire career pretty much, and it only got worse the more he touched the ball. Just because he was still a role player in 08 doesn't mean he didn't affect their offense. And either way, you look at a playoff run for Duncan in 06, where the Spurs offense did great, but you're ignoring the defense (I get it, the question is about offense vs defense, but these things don't exist in a vacuum), where Duncan was imo straight up bad defensively and it was a tradeoff that ultimately led to them losing the series. I think where a player focuses their energy and what the coaches are emphasizing is huge, and can't be ignored when comparing these players. KG in 08 and the Celtics overall were clearly a defensive-oriented team that would play certain players and employ certain strategies and expend their energy in a way that would sacrifice some of their offensive performance for the sake of their defense. So the fact that they put up a +5.0 offense with KG on the court is actually pretty impressive. The only Spurs offenses that did clearly better under Duncan was in 02 and 06, more offensively oriented teams (in 02 because Robinson got hurt, and 06 because Duncan's mobility was affected and his defensive performance suffered badly) that ended up doing much worse on defense.

The balance between offense and defense and probably the biggest difference here, COACHING, can't be ignored when talking about their offense.

The only time KG was in a similar situation, in his proper role as a defensive anchor on a more defensive oriented team, with great teammates that could take the burden off him offensively, was 08. I would say 98, 99, 01, 03, 04, 05, 07, and 08 were all similar situations for Duncan. I didn't see the on/off numbers for 98 and 99, and none of those other offenses were clearly better than the 08 Celtics offense.

I also think 02, 04, and 06 suffer from nearly as much of a small sample size issue as KG's runs in Minnesota outside of 04. Spurs only made the 2nd round all of those years. The teams I've mainly focused on studying the playoff offense for have been conference finalists or better.

[E-Balla]

Don't think you're taking opponent defense into account. Because with Duncan on the court, I have the 01 Spurs at +1.8, and the 03 Spurs at +3.2. The 08 Spurs were -0.2 (worse than 04 Wolves FWIW).

I have the 04 Wolves at +1.2 with KG on the court in those playoffs, relative to the defense they faced.

Are you serious? None of those years are the years I put... Of course your calculations for a totally different season are different. Way to avoid the point which was that Duncan played for better offenses than KG ever has. The 01, 03, and 08 Spurs (why even mention 08 Tim wasn't in his prime at all) are irrelevant to the point you originally made here:

Also, the Celtics playoff offense in 08 was as good as any Spurs playoff offense led by Duncan

Are you going to admit this wasn't true?

Didn't realize there was on/off data for 99 Spurs, you have it?

It's on bballref now and it's been on nba.com for years.

Furthermore, the Rondo/Chalmers comparison doesn't make sense, because Chalmers was at least a great floor spacer, while Rondo doesn't space the floor at all. IMO, he's been a negative offensive player his entire career pretty much, and it only got worse the more he touched the ball. Just because he was still a role player in 08 doesn't mean he didn't affect their offense.

Here's what you wrote:

The Celtics offense was usually underwhelming because they had one of the most flawed PGs in history dominating the ball on offense (Rondo).

So now you're saying he wasn't dominating the ball but he's so bad it didn't matter, even though that's the exact criticism you made of him? Moving the goalposts much?

The Spurs offense looked bad with Bruce Bowen too.

And either way, you look at a playoff run for Duncan in 06, where the Spurs offense did great, but you're ignoring the defense (I get it, the question is about offense vs defense, but these things don't exist in a vacuum), where Duncan was imo straight up bad defensively and it was a tradeoff that ultimately led to them losing the series. I think where a player focuses their energy and what the coaches are emphasizing is huge, and can't be ignored when comparing these players.

06 wasn't the only example and he played 2 series in 06.

The only Spurs offenses that did clearly better under Duncan was in 02 and 06, more offensively oriented teams (in 02 because Robinson got hurt, and 06 because Duncan's mobility was affected and his defensive performance suffered badly) that ended up doing much worse on defense.

In 02 they had a -5.6 defense in the playoffs.

The balance between offense and defense and probably the biggest difference here, COACHING, can't be ignored when talking about their offense.

The only time KG was in a similar situation, in his proper role as a defensive anchor on a more defensive oriented team, with great teammates that could take the burden off him offensively, was 08. I would say 98, 99, 01, 03, 04, 05, 07, and 08 were all similar situations for Duncan. I didn't see the on/off numbers for 98 and 99, and none of those other offenses were clearly better than the 08 Celtics offense.

I also think 02, 04, and 06 suffer from nearly as much of a small sample size issue as KG's runs in Minnesota outside of 04. Spurs only made the 2nd round all of those years. The teams I've mainly focused on studying the playoff offense for have been conference finalists or better.

Small sample? Those are all multiple series runs.

[70sFan]

Yeah, the argument that Duncan led good offenses only when Spurs defense collapsed is made out of nothing.

1999 Spurs: +3.8 offense, -7.3 defense
2002 Spurs: +3.8 offense, -5.6 defense
2005 Spurs: +5.7 offense, -3.1 defense
2006 Spurs: +9.6 offense, +2.6 defense
2007 Spurs: +3.2 offense, -6.0 defense

2006 is the exception and unsuprisingly, it was the season when Duncan dealt with injuries.

[therealbig3]

Are you serious? None of those years are the years I put... Of course your calculations for a totally different season are different. Way to avoid the point which was that Duncan played for better offenses than KG ever has. The 01, 03, and 08 Spurs (why even mention 08 Tim wasn't in his prime at all) are irrelevant to the point you originally made here:

I'm looking at all of the relevant seasons, nobody is trying to avoid anything. Not sure why 08 is all of a sudden a non-prime year, but 07 is routinely included as part of his prime. 08 was a better season than 06, outside of the playoffs. Why would we ignore it, because he didn't play nearly as well in the playoffs?

BTW, Spurs offense in 99 with Duncan on was +1.9.

Are you going to admit this wasn't true?

Fair, I was mainly looking at comparably deep playoff runs between them. But I still don't think it's fair in that case to compare playoff runs with 2 rounds to playoff runs of 3 or more. Variety of opponents matters too.

So now you're saying he wasn't dominating the ball but he's so bad it didn't matter, even though that's the exact criticism you made of him? Moving the goalposts much?

The Spurs offense looked bad with Bruce Bowen too.

It was pointed out that the Celtics offense in general wasn't that impressive despite Pierce and Allen on the team (not just for a single season, but for KG's whole run with Boston), so Rondo dominating the ball plays a key part of that, that was certainly the case for most of KG's time there.

For 08 specifically, Rondo did not dominate the ball as much, but he still had negative offensive value and hurt their spacing.

And you keep comparing Rondo to elite outside shooters like Bowen and Chalmers, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

In 02 they had a -5.6 defense in the playoffs.

And this is why focusing on a playoff run of just two rounds is problematic, because they got shut down by the Lakers in round 2, but absolutely dominated the Sonics in round 1. Overall, their offensive numbers look really good.

But yeah, I was wrong about assuming their defense struggled in the 02 playoffs. They actually defended really well, but they couldn't score at all against the Lakers in round 2.

Small sample? Those are all multiple series runs.

02 is a sample size of 11 games vs 2 opponents, vs 08 for Garnett which is a sample size of 26 games vs 4 opponents, and those extra 2 opponents were both strong defensive teams. It's beyond the realm of possibility that the Spurs offense normalizes to what we saw in virtually every other playoff run that Duncan had in an additional 5, 6, 7+ games, let alone another 16? Unless he goes full 06 and the defense gets completely sacrificed.