Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[PistolPeteJR]

Also, I know this forum is sick of LeBron and all, but I’m super pumped for next week. I’ve been an avid LeBron fan (though I feel the need to defend myself from the get-go and say I consider myself to be objective in my takes on him lol) for a very long time.

Having Ben break him down like this despite similar projects in the past is exciting.

[colts18]

Really enjoyed the Duncan episode. I was specifically intrigued by the fact that his peak on/off in the playoffs was so vastly different that other nearby three-year stretches he had. Ben mentions an increased role for guys like Parker and Ginobili as a possible contributing factor to this, but it can’t be the main reason, can it? There’s got to be some focal reason surrounded by a number of other reasons. That’s one giant difference.

It has nothing to do with any of that. On/off is completely meaningless in small samples especially in the playoffs when most of the time Duncan spent on the bench is in garbage time.

Here is an exercise. I'm going to list LeBron's playoff on/off rated from the highest to lowest.

On-Off
30.7
24.6
24.3
24.2
23.2
20
15.3
8.6
8.4
7.5
0.8
0.2
-14.7
-21.1

Off the top of your head without looking, could you guess which LeBron postseason is #1 and which one is in last place?

Spoiler:

Season On-Off
2016-17 +30.7
2007-08 +24.6
2011-12 +24.3
2006-07 +24.2
2009-10 +23.2
2015-16 +20
2019-20 +15.3
2013-14 +8.6
2008-09 +8.4
2017-18 +7.5
2014-15 +0.8
2012-13 +0.2
2010-11 -14.7
2005-06 -21.1

Would you have guessed that his 2013 championship run was his 3rd worst? What about 2008 being his 2nd best postseason? On/off needs a massive sample before it becomes meaningful.

[Odinn21]

Really enjoyed the Duncan episode. I was specifically intrigued by the fact that his peak on/off in the playoffs was so vastly different that other nearby three-year stretches he had. Ben mentions an increased role for guys like Parker and Ginobili as a possible contributing factor to this, but it can’t be the main reason, can it? There’s got to be some focal reason surrounded by a number of other reasons. That’s one giant difference.

It really is about the general team quality.

Here's minute per game numbers for Duncan;
2001- 38.7 mpg in rs / 40.5 mpg in ps
2002- 40.6 mpg in rs / 42.2 mpg in ps
2003- 39.3 mpg in rs / 42.5 mpg in ps
2004- 36.6 mpg in rs / 40.5 mpg in ps
2005- 33.4 mpg in rs / 37.8 mpg in ps * (Duncan had a sprained ankle in the 2nd half of the March, up until that point he was on 34.6 mpg)

As you can see Duncan's minutes fell as the team improved. If you look at his per 75 or 100 numbers, you would see that he was insanely consistent from season to another, he just started to play less.

Postseason +/- data is a too small sample size to begin with. If we would consider the drastic change in Duncan's minutes coming from improved overall team quality, it's no wonder.

The other time frames of Duncan on that graph;
'98-'00- Robinson basically outnumbering Duncan in that regard is the reason. In '99, Duncan was basically playing every relevant minutes with anyone while no one else on the primary unit came close to his playtime. Duncan averaged more than 43 minutes in '99 playoffs and Robinson averaged slightly over 35 minutes.
'04-'06- I already addressed the major factors, also Duncan had a negative On/Off change in 2005 playoffs as an outlier due to his injury.

[ShotCreator]

Really enjoyed the Duncan episode. I was specifically intrigued by the fact that his peak on/off in the playoffs was so vastly different that other nearby three-year stretches he had. Ben mentions an increased role for guys like Parker and Ginobili as a possible contributing factor to this, but it can’t be the main reason, can it? There’s got to be some focal reason surrounded by a number of other reasons. That’s one giant difference.

Mentioned this in the best every year since 2000 2000 thread from a few weeks back, but to me Duncan has an insane 4 year peak from 99/00 to 02/03. Afterwards, he couldn’t sustain absolute max output at the same time anymore.

His offensive performances fell off a tad after 2003, except times where he was getting lit up a bit in 06 and 07, with several front courts having notable playoff performances over him, and his being in the midst of some shoot-outs.
His rebounding, and really all motor-related abilities went down on defense. Deflections, rim protection, etc.

In my opinion a ton of guys really truly peak in their early to mid 20s. Rarely can guys play at insane effort levels all the time in their late 20‘s. Even 13 LeBron clearly lost some motor from 09. I think a lot of people notice the physical difference between 88 or 89 Jordan and say 91 and 92, etc.

[HeartBreakKid]

The Tim Duncan video kind of reminded me of this cringe thread where the overwhelming majority of people voted Tim Duncan as having the best bankshot in this section.

It kind of reinforced that this section is just as heavily drenched by narratives as the general board because no one in their right mind should think Tim Duncan has the best bank shot - it's just a shot associated with his image.

[PistolPeteJR]

Really enjoyed the Duncan episode. I was specifically intrigued by the fact that his peak on/off in the playoffs was so vastly different that other nearby three-year stretches he had. Ben mentions an increased role for guys like Parker and Ginobili as a possible contributing factor to this, but it can’t be the main reason, can it? There’s got to be some focal reason surrounded by a number of other reasons. That’s one giant difference.

It has nothing to do with any of that. On/off is completely meaningless in small samples especially in the playoffs when most of the time Duncan spent on the bench is in garbage time.

Here is an exercise. I'm going to list LeBron's playoff on/off rated from the highest to lowest.

On-Off
30.7
24.6
24.3
24.2
23.2
20
15.3
8.6
8.4
7.5
0.8
0.2
-14.7
-21.1

Off the top of your head without looking, could you guess which LeBron postseason is #1 and which one is in last place?

Spoiler:

Season On-Off
2016-17 +30.7
2007-08 +24.6
2011-12 +24.3
2006-07 +24.2
2009-10 +23.2
2015-16 +20
2019-20 +15.3
2013-14 +8.6
2008-09 +8.4
2017-18 +7.5
2014-15 +0.8
2012-13 +0.2
2010-11 -14.7
2005-06 -21.1

Would you have guessed that his 2013 championship run was his 3rd worst? What about 2008 being his 2nd best postseason? On/off needs a massive sample before it becomes meaningful.

Haven’t opened the spoiler yet, but I would guess 2009 for tops and as I hit “reply with quote” saw that 2006 is worst lol

[PistolPeteJR]

The Tim Duncan video kind of reminded me of this cringe thread where the overwhelming majority of people voted Tim Duncan as having the best bankshot in this section.

It kind of reinforced that this section is just as heavily drenched by narratives as the general board because no one in their right mind should think Tim Duncan has the best bank shot - it's just a shot associated with his image.

All this subforum is, with all due respect to all posters whether significant contributors or not, is another group of people who, to varying degrees, actively make efforts to cast as-objective-as-they-can looks at different elements of the game, be it players, teams, schemes, etc.

What is missing here in comparison to the GB is the habitual and immature closed-mindedness that fosters trolling, subjectivity that does more harm than good, and a negative settling for surface-level, elementary observations that basketball analysis has come a long way from.

[Texas Chuck]

In my opinion a ton of guys really truly peak in their early to mid 20s.

I think very few superstars peak this early. The vast majority peak in their early 30's or late 20's. Body can still do most of what a 22 year old body can do, but the mind is pretty far ahead. Most of the exceptions are guys who have injuries really.

[PistolPeteJR]

In my opinion a ton of guys really truly peak in their early to mid 20s.

I think very few superstars peak this early. The vast majority peak in their early 30's or late 20's. Body can still do most of what a 22 year old body can do, but the mind is pretty far ahead. Most of the exceptions are guys who have injuries really.

Typically, when viewers think that players usually peak early (I’ve seen this narrative before) think so because of the trickery that a younger, more athletic body can have on the watcher. Think first-stint Cavs LeBron, for instance.

Obviously though, there are way more nuances to the game than the physical aspect of it. The thing is, it’s the easiest to discern.

This post is not intended with any disrespect toward you, ShotCreator. Just offering my edifying two cents.

[Djoker]

I liked the Duncan video. Ben's assessment of his impact largely mirrors mine where I see Duncan as a solid offensive force but clearly below the great offensive bigs but at the same time a defensive monster. One area where I think maybe Timmy didn't get enough mention is setting some mean screens. I love his ground-based defense and low fouling rates. A lot of great defensive bigs tended to foul a lot more than Timmy which doesn't show up in FG% stats but still lets the other team put up points on the board.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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
- on the raw on/off in the mid to late 00s, I think it's very easy to explain. When you have an All NBA level guy coming off the bench and play so many minutes without you it's easy to see this stat being suppressed. Still, RAPM was always seeing him as a Top5 guys (and Ginobili as well)
- No Dirk? Doing Robinson, Kobe and Garnett but no Dirk doesn't make much sense to me...

[AdagioPace]

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
- on the raw on/off in the mid to late 00s, I think it's very easy to explain. When you have an All NBA level guy coming off the bench and play so many minutes without you it's easy to see this stat being suppressed. Still, RAPM was always seeing him as a Top5 guys (and Ginobili as well)
- No Dirk? Doing Robinson, Kobe and Garnett but no Dirk doesn't make much sense to me...

yep. RAPM numbers for 05, 06 and especially 07 are excellent historically.
Taylors' narrative is that Duncan's impact fell after his peak years but this is only because he's obsessed with his personal definition of scalability. He watches players ---->he sees if they have qualities associated with HIS version of scalability (a sort of bland confirmation bias)----> Duncan isn't a good midranger/outside shooter, he's a post-up player ------> proceeds to be lower on him.

for example: he didn't talk about his screen setting and his huge gravity in the post (even though he briefly mentioned his aggressiveness). Without talking about these things duncan might as well be comparable to a slighlty better Zach Randolph offensively.

he didn't talk about how post-'04 TD, despite not being the overwhelming offensive heliocentric piece, was still crucial for the Spurs offense, until '08 at least, adapting to a completely different form of cohabitation (which somehow it's given for granted)

I think "Duncan having less primacy" doesn't necessarely mean "Duncan taking a back seat" in the spurs offensive plan. I think that Taylor flew over this transition with too much superficiality.

PS: to be fair, the video was only about his peak years so there's was no additional time

[zimpy27]

It was smart of Ben not to put LeBron up first as it's possible that every other player analysis would have been tainted for some due to the hate for his positive analysis of LeBron. Even though it's chronological, I noted he doesn't have the LeBron image on any of his promo stuff for the channel.

He does an excellent job of giving credit to great basketball players and focussing on that. Been loving this series.

[Timmyyy]

Really enjoyed the Duncan episode. I was specifically intrigued by the fact that his peak on/off in the playoffs was so vastly different that other nearby three-year stretches he had. Ben mentions an increased role for guys like Parker and Ginobili as a possible contributing factor to this, but it can’t be the main reason, can it? There’s got to be some focal reason surrounded by a number of other reasons. That’s one giant difference.

Why shouldn't it? Half the story of On/Off isn't even influenced by the player in question. It's out of their control. And even worse your On/Off gets a boost when players you share the court the least with suck big time. Timmy had a comparatively weak supporting cast from 2001-2003 especially the bench players. That got better the more Parker and Ginobili emerged, especially for the bench because of Manu. That heavily influences the Off-part which is half of the whole stat.

When you then keep in mind that Duncan still had top of the league like impact in the 2004-2007 stretch according to RAPM (so he still was a big time player), this is the best explanation we have. Although of course Duncan had one or the other worse than usual PO-series offensively in that stretch, that doesn't feel like the systematic underlying factor of this considering his main impact comes from defense especially on the better teams he was on.

And of course like all other posters were saying, additionally to On/Off not being good to evaluate the goodness of a player, like at all, in this small of a sample it is even more useless for that purpose, because outliers like the offensively not so good series he had in that span all of a sudden carry more weight.

[zimpy27]

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
- on the raw on/off in the mid to late 00s, I think it's very easy to explain. When you have an All NBA level guy coming off the bench and play so many minutes without you it's easy to see this stat being suppressed. Still, RAPM was always seeing him as a Top5 guys (and Ginobili as well)
- No Dirk? Doing Robinson, Kobe and Garnett but no Dirk doesn't make much sense to me...

This is greatest peaks. I think it is possible that Garnett did have an equal or better peak. I also don't know if Dirk had a particularly epic peak. Dirk was amazing for a long time and is obviously an all time great but perhaps didn't have a great peak to discuss. Doing a video on Dirk may have done him a disservice with the stats in comparison to the others.

[frica]

In my opinion a ton of guys really truly peak in their early to mid 20s.

I think very few superstars peak this early. The vast majority peak in their early 30's or late 20's. Body can still do most of what a 22 year old body can do, but the mind is pretty far ahead. Most of the exceptions are guys who have injuries really.

Even if we take a sport that's purely explosive and reliant on quickness and speed 100m sprinters do tend to peak mid-20s to late 20s. And then you have some exceptional cases like Kim Collins peaking at 40 years!

Bolt peaked a little early at 23 but peaked (similar level) again 3 years later.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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
- on the raw on/off in the mid to late 00s, I think it's very easy to explain. When you have an All NBA level guy coming off the bench and play so many minutes without you it's easy to see this stat being suppressed. Still, RAPM was always seeing him as a Top5 guys (and Ginobili as well)
- No Dirk? Doing Robinson, Kobe and Garnett but no Dirk doesn't make much sense to me...

This is greatest peaks. I think it is possible that Garnett did have an equal or better peak. I also don't know if Dirk had a particularly epic peak. Dirk was amazing for a long time and is obviously an all time great but perhaps didn't have a great peak to discuss. Doing a video on Dirk may have done him a disservice with the stats in comparison to the others.

He already called Dirk a top3 playoff scorer of all time, after jordon and LeBron.
That alone shows that he has a case and should have been in this list.

[zimpy27]

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
- on the raw on/off in the mid to late 00s, I think it's very easy to explain. When you have an All NBA level guy coming off the bench and play so many minutes without you it's easy to see this stat being suppressed. Still, RAPM was always seeing him as a Top5 guys (and Ginobili as well)
- No Dirk? Doing Robinson, Kobe and Garnett but no Dirk doesn't make much sense to me...

This is greatest peaks. I think it is possible that Garnett did have an equal or better peak. I also don't know if Dirk had a particularly epic peak. Dirk was amazing for a long time and is obviously an all time great but perhaps didn't have a great peak to discuss. Doing a video on Dirk may have done him a disservice with the stats in comparison to the others.

He already called Dirk a top3 playoff scorer of all time, after jordon and LeBron.
That alone shows that he has a case and should have been in this list.

Well, what years would you highlight for Dirks peak?

Note that there was no Big O, no Malone, no Dr J, no West. Also great players but perhaps no stand out peak. Walton got a nod but he isn't in many top 30 player lists.

[Jaivl]

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
- on the raw on/off in the mid to late 00s, I think it's very easy to explain. When you have an All NBA level guy coming off the bench and play so many minutes without you it's easy to see this stat being suppressed. Still, RAPM was always seeing him as a Top5 guys (and Ginobili as well)
- No Dirk? Doing Robinson, Kobe and Garnett but no Dirk doesn't make much sense to me...

This is greatest peaks. I think it is possible that Garnett did have an equal or better peak. I also don't know if Dirk had a particularly epic peak. Dirk was amazing for a long time and is obviously an all time great but perhaps didn't have a great peak to discuss. Doing a video on Dirk may have done him a disservice with the stats in comparison to the others.

He already called Dirk a top3 playoff scorer of all time, after jordon and LeBron.
That alone shows that he has a case and should have been in this list.

So you use his argument as proof of the dubious claim of Dirk being a top3 playoff scorer of all time (and I say dubious not because he's far off, but because that list is notably missing Kareem) and at the same time you chastise the same guy for omitting him on... his... peaks project? Maybe he is perfectly aware of his impact, but... he just did not make the last cut? While very probably being really close?

[Odinn21]

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.

The breakdown of the last 2 episodes;
- "Garnett on offense had these issues" then in the next sentence "but he didn't have good teammates".
- "Duncan did or did not do these things great" then in the next sentence "here's a comparison to Garnett".
Like Duncan did not have a worse offensive unit around him at his peak seasons.

---

I want anyone who has peak Garnett over peak Duncan to argue back against me on the following (including Taylor himself if decides to step down to forums);

- Comparison of the supporting casts
2002 Spurs vs. 2003 Wolves

Spoiler:

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

2003 Spurs vs. 2004 Wolves

Spoiler:

The Spurs were god on awful on offense. Did you know that the team went scoreless without Timmy in the **** Western Conference Finals for 7 and a half minute. They went 0-18 without Duncan on the court in game 3.
Sam Cassell was the best player on either team other than Duncan and Garnett. The Wolves had better offensive unit. The Spurs had more depth and their defense was better.
Cassell's injury in the WCF makes the Wolves the worse supporting cast.

The next 3 best scorers on those teams

Spoiler:

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

Here's OBPM of the supporting casts (with regards to playtime)

Spoiler:

2002 Spurs besides Duncan; -0.61 OBPM in r. season & -0.77 OBPM in playoffs
2003 Spurs besides Duncan; -0.44 OBPM in r. season & -0.67 OBPM in playoffs
2003 Wolves besides Garnett; -0.56 OBPM in r. season & -0.43 OBPM in playoffs
2004 Wolves besides Garnett; -0.60 OBPM in r. season & -0.44 OBPM in playoffs

- Their situations in those teams were like 1989/1990 Jordan or 2009 James. Those teams got cogged in the playoffs, especially in later rounds because they were so limited and turned to their superstars for points.
Tim Duncan in 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons

Spoiler:

24.4 pts 3.2 oreb 3.8 ast on .570 ts (+5.0 rts, +1.9 ts add per 36), 5.2 obpm on a 96.3 ppg team in R. Seasons [105.8 ORtg w/ & 99.6 ORtg w/o]
21.5 pts 3.4 oreb 5.3 ast on .594 ts (+9.8 rts, +3.1 ts add per 36), 5.2 obpm on a 94.6 ppg team in Playoffs 1st rounds [107.8 ORtg w/ & 89.5 ORtg w/o]
27.2 pts 3.9 oreb 5.2 ast on .560 ts (+4.7 rts, +2.0 ts add per 36), 6.8 obpm on a 94.0 ppg team in Playoffs after 1st rounds [104.4 ORtg w/ & 90.0 ORtg w/o]
Duncan's points and assisted accounted for;
33.99% of the Spurs total points and 40.95% when he was on court in regular seasons
35.62% of the Spurs total points and 40.50% when he was on court in playoffs 1st rounds (the missed game 4 against the Sonics in '02 excluded)
41.23% of the Spurs total points and 45.53% when he was on court in playoffs games past 1st rounds
Duncan's trajectory is Jordan/James-like. Surely not his overall production, but his trajectory from regular season to playoffs, especially after 1st rounds.

Kevin Garnett in 2002-03 and 2003-04 seasons

Spoiler:

23.6 pts 3.0 oreb 5.5 ast on .550 ts (+3.2 rts, +1.2 ts add per 36), 6.4 obpm on a 96.3 ppg team in R. Seasons [106.8 ORtg w/ & 94.4 ORtg w/o]
26.4 pts 1.7 oreb 6.0 ast on .525 ts (0.0 rts, 0.0 ts add per 36), 4.3 obpm on a 97.8 ppg team in Playoffs 1st rounds [107.8 ORtg w/ & 72.9 ORtg w/o]
23.8 pts 2.4 oreb 4.4 ast on .515 ts (+0.1 rts, 0.0 ts add per 36), 3.6 obpm on a 90.9 ppg team in Playoffs after 1st rounds [104.4 ORtg w/ & 94.1 ORtg w/o]
Garnett's points and assisted accounted for;
36.98% of the Wolves total points and 43.47% when he was on court in regular seasons
39.28% of the Wolves total points and 42.78% when he was on court in playoffs 1st rounds
37.48% of the Wolves total points and 40.56% when he was on court in playoffs games past 1st rounds
Garnett's trajectory is not on that level for sure.
Mind you, Garnett was playing like a point forward compared to Duncan. He should have had superior on-court rates to Duncan simply by nature of ball-handling.

- The quality of the competition they faced;
2002 and 2003 Spurs opponents in the playoffs

Spoiler:

2002 Sonics had +3.24 SRS (7th) & +1.1 rDRtg (17th)
2002 Lakers had +7.15 SRS (2nd) & -2.8 rDRtg (7th)
2003 Suns had +1.13 SRS (13th) & -1.1 rDRtg (11th)
2003 Lakers had +2.71 SRS (9th) & +1.1 rDRtg (19th)
2003 Mavs had +7.78 SRS (1st) & -1.3 rDRtg (9th)
2003 Nets had +4.42 SRS (4th) & -5.5 rDRtg (1st)
On average; +4.36 SRS, 6.1 SRS rank, -1.5 rDRtg, 10.6 rDRtg rank (+5.44 SRS, 4.1 SRS rank, -2.1 rDRtg, 9.1 rDRtg past 1st rounds)

2003 and 2004 Wolves opponents in the playoffs

Spoiler:

2003 Lakers had +2.71 SRS (9th) & +1.1 rDRtg (19th)
2004 Nuggets had +1.65 SRS (11th) & -0.2 rDRtg (13th)
2004 Kings had +5.41 SRS (3rd) & +2.0 rDRtg (21st)
2004 Lakers had +4.35 SRS (7th) & -1.6 rDRtg (8th)
On average; +3.69 SRS, 7.2 SRS rank, +0.4 rDRtg, 15.6 rDRtg rank (+4.92 SRS, 4.8 SRS rank, +0.3 rDRtg, 15.0 rDRtg past 1st rounds)

In his change from bad defenses to good defenses graph Taylor painted as Garnett doing better, but if that was the case, why the on earth he did worse than Duncan in the playoffs against worse defenses?

- This is what O_6 stated in the top 100 project at the time. Garnett will give you an offense with a limited ceiling due to his style.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=86037180#p86037180
If you need to unburden Kevin Garnett of scoring duties that hard, so his playoff performance would match his regular season performance, then he's not better than Tim Duncan.

- Now, all these things were mostly about offense. I'll continue with portability and then overall aspects;
Taylor has these goggles about portability meaning only in the modern game. Portability with historic players would and should mean "this players on a random team in a random time". Duncan was the better player in their time together to begin with, Duncan would be the better player from '50s to '00s as well, Garnett would be the better player in '10s and '20s.
Moving onto the aspects;
Defense? Duncan was the better rim protector, Garnett was more versatile with his mobility. Regular season RAPM numbers have both in the top 1% in DRAPM and overall RAPM.
Rebounding? Garnett has 1% over Duncan in rebounding rate and rebounds per 100.
Offense? Do negligible gap on defense and 1% gap on rebounding close the gap on offense I talked about for so long?..