Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[limbo]

Duncan's advantages over Cousins are purely based on the fact that he was taller and significantly longer... which allowed him to be a more effective finisher around the basket....

Those aren't skill-based attributes... Those are athletic advantages you are either born with or not....

In terms of skill-based attributes, Cousins was a better shooter with more range and had a better handle. Cousins would frequently take Bigs off the dribble from the top of the key and finish inside. Duncan had an underrated face-up drive from the high post, but he wasn't as fluid as Cousins with his dribble.

Cousins also had the ability to make good passes, as he averaged around 5 apg before his career ending injury on the Pelicans, although he was kind of turnover prone.

Anyway, like i said, Cousins problem wasn't his skill, it was everything else... His IQ, his attitude, his injuries, no great basketball role models early in his NBA career, and then spending most of his prime on one of the worst franchises in the league...

Cousins needed exactly what Duncan had. A stand up organisation with veteran players and a firm coaching hand to help guide him and build around his ability to play both inside out. Instead he got the Kings who let him freestyle on offense because he was their best talent and surrounded him with trash.

That said, Cousins deserves most of the blame because he was a overgrown baby, but his skillset was the last of his issues...

[70sFan]

Duncan's advantages over Cousins are purely based on the fact that he was taller and significantly longer... which allowed him to be a more effective finisher around the basket....

Those aren't skill-based attributes... Those are athletic advantages you are either born with or not....

It's true that Duncan had physical advantages over Cousins, but these are not reasons why he's better offensive player. Besides, Cousins is absurdaly long - I doubt that Duncan was singificantly longer than him. Cousins also had his share of physical advantages over Duncan - he's stronger for example.

In terms of skill-based attributes, Cousins was a better shooter with more range

This is not true and I already said you why:

2014-17 Cousins: 38.5% from 3-10, 34% from 10-16, 38.6% from 16-3P, 34.5% from three
2000-03 Duncan: 45.9% from 3-10, 41.4% from 10-16, 39.1% from 16-3P, 23.7% from three

The only advantage Cousins has over Duncan shooting-wise is that he peaked in an era when centers are asked to take threes while Duncan played when coaches didn't encourage bigs to shoot. Duncan is vastly more efficient midrange shooter and it's not even close.

Even in terms of FT shooting, peak Cousins has no advantage over peak Duncan (74% vs 72%).

and had a better handle. Cousins would frequently take Bigs off the dribble from the top of the key and finish inside. Duncan had an underrated face-up drive from the high post, but he wasn't as fluid as Cousins with his dribble.

Again, that's false. You seem to judge player's handles based on how it looks, not how efficient it really is. Duncan was known for beating bigs off the dribble consistently in his prime and he was often guarded by quicker defenders as he faced forwards more than Cousins. Boogie handles look nice on highlights, but he's turnover prone.

Cousins also had the ability to make good passes, as he averaged around 5 apg before his career ending injury on the Pelicans, although he was kind of turnover prone.

Kind of? He averaged 5 turnovers in the same season and he averages more turnovers than assists per game...

Anyway, like i said, Cousins problem wasn't his skill, it was everything else... His IQ, his attitude, his injuries, no great basketball role models early in his NBA career, and then spending most of his prime on one of the worst franchises in the league...

Cousins needed exactly what Duncan had. A stand up organisation with veteran players and a firm coaching hand to help guide him and build around his ability to play both inside out. Instead he got the Kings who let him freestyle on offense because he was their best talent and surrounded him with trash.

That said, Cousins deserves most of the blame because he was a overgrown baby, but his skillset was the last of his issues...

Yeah, let's talk how Demarcus Cousins - much worse and less skilled player - would become Tim Duncan had he got drafted by the Spurs...

[GYK]

I watched it. I never felt Duncan had a significant peak(though prime). Still liked how it’s essentially Duncan being elite at all traditional big men aspects of basketball at traditional big men levels. He shows to be more of center than a PF.
Every GOAT level player doesn’t need to be greatest at every aspect of basketball. He’s an excellent post scorer and paint protector. His all around game and athleticism(especially coordination for his weight) is enough to take him over a scorer or super athlete or anyone who excels somewhere greater than him.

[sansterre]

I watched it. I never felt Duncan had a significant peak(though prime). Still liked how it’s essentially Duncan being elite at all traditional big men aspects of basketball at traditional big men levels. He shows to be more of center than a PF.
Every GOAT level player doesn’t need to be greatest at every aspect of basketball. He’s an excellent post scorer and paint protector. His all around game and athleticism(especially coordination for his weight) is enough to take him over a scorer or super athlete or anyone who excels somewhere greater than him.

In terms of *actual* ability, I'm not sure where to put his prime.

But Duncan's kind of like Keyser Sose. The greatest trick he ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist (as an Alpha).

The crazy thing about Duncan is that he only ever did what the team needed him to. If the team needed a playmaker from the 4, he did it. If the team needed a 27% usage ISO player to generate looks where the rest of the offense could not, he could do that too. But when his team didn't need those things, he stepped back. Which makes it hard to know where his abilities truly peaked.

But in terms of what he actually did, 2003 is clearly it. Duncan carried the crap out of that team. That was the year where their MO seemed to be "Timmy, we need everything you've got to give" and he sure as heck gave everything. Every other year you can point to Robinson, or Manu/Parker, or Kawhi + the Spurian Horde but in 2003 it was pretty much just him. His passing in those playoffs was on another level. It wasn't like Jokic or anything, but he made it clear that the offense could run with him being the hub reasonably well.

Of all the years in my Top 100 project, that team may have been the biggest revelation. It was like watching Clark Kent decide that it was time to find a phone booth. Unreal.

[GYK]

I watched it. I never felt Duncan had a significant peak(though prime). Still liked how it’s essentially Duncan being elite at all traditional big men aspects of basketball at traditional big men levels. He shows to be more of center than a PF.
Every GOAT level player doesn’t need to be greatest at every aspect of basketball. He’s an excellent post scorer and paint protector. His all around game and athleticism(especially coordination for his weight) is enough to take him over a scorer or super athlete or anyone who excels somewhere greater than him.

In terms of *actual* ability, I'm not sure where to put his prime.

But Duncan's kind of like Keyser Sose. The greatest trick he ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist (as an Alpha).

The crazy thing about Duncan is that he only ever did what the team needed him to. If the team needed a playmaker from the 4, he did it. If the team needed a 27% usage ISO player to generate looks where the rest of the offense could not, he could do that too. But when his team didn't need those things, he stepped back. Which makes it hard to know where his abilities truly peaked.

But in terms of what he actually did, 2003 is clearly it. Duncan carried the crap out of that team. That was the year where their MO seemed to be "Timmy, we need everything you've got to give" and he sure as heck gave everything. Every other year you can point to Robinson, or Manu/Parker, or Kawhi + the Spurian Horde but in 2003 it was pretty much just him. His passing in those playoffs was on another level. It wasn't like Jokic or anything, but he made it clear that the offense could run with him being the hub reasonably well.

Of all the years in my Top 100 project, that team may have been the biggest revelation. It was like watching Clark Kent decide that it was time to find a phone booth. Unreal.

I would say 02 was his peak. 03 he won but Parker emergence is more of factor than improvement from Duncan.
I have no problem praising Duncan. I can go on myself. 98-10 he was averaging 21/11/3 on 55TS% with 1st team defense. It’s a ridiculous long prime even as he was being conserved for the post season. A near guarantee post scorer(if post scoring #’s were always available I’m sure he would rank higher than most scorers per possession with lower volume. He’s just more dominant on limited moves than the more versatile post scorers but not dominant enough to have a Shaq like approach). Excellent screen setter. Rim roller. I can’t remember him much in the dunker spot to highlight his involvement in plays as a passer or screener. Enough skill to drive with a live dribble. A massive FT rate with great conversion ability.
I still wouldn’t have highlighted his peak. I know lesser players have better numbers on offense but considering his 21/11/3 on 55TS for 13 seasons he has A level two way play for longer than most.

[Odinn21]

I still wouldn’t have highlighted his peak. I know lesser players have better numbers on offense but considering his 21/11/3 on 55TS for 13 seasons he has A level two way play for longer than most.

Duncan was a 25 ppg scorer under a 21 ppg sheep's cloth.

From 1998-99 to 2006-07;
21.9 ppg 11.9 rpg 3.2 apg 0.8 spg 2.5 bpg on .551 ts in regular seasons (+2.7 rts) on a 95.6 ppg team
21.0 ppg 11.6 rpg 4.0 apg 0.5 spg 2.8 bpg on .556 ts in 38 playoffs 1st rounds games on a 96.1 ppg team
25.3 ppg 13.3 rpg 3.5 apg 0.7 spg 2.7 bpg on .562 ts in 91 playoffs games past 1st rounds on a 93.7 ppg team

In that time frame, Duncan played
5 playoff series against prime O'Neal and outscored Shaq in 3 of 'em, 3-2.
4 playoff series against prime Bryant and outscored Kobe in 1 of 'em, 1-3. (1999 is the difference between Kobe and Shaq)
3 playoff series against prime Nowitzki and outscored Dirk in 3 of 'em, 3-0.

[Texas Chuck]

The crazy thing about Duncan is that he only ever did what the team needed him to. If the team needed a playmaker from the 4, he did it. If the team needed a 27% usage ISO player to generate looks where the rest of the offense could not, he could do that too. But when his team didn't need those things, he stepped back. Which makes it hard to know where his abilities truly peaked.

But in terms of what he actually did, 2003 is clearly it. Duncan carried the crap out of that team. That was the year where their MO seemed to be "Timmy, we need everything you've got to give" and he sure as heck gave everything. Every other year you can point to Robinson, or Manu/Parker, or Kawhi + the Spurian Horde but in 2003 it was pretty much just him. His passing in those playoffs was on another level. It wasn't like Jokic or anything, but he made it clear that the offense could run with him being the hub reasonably well.

Of all the years in my Top 100 project, that team may have been the biggest revelation. It was like watching Clark Kent decide that it was time to find a phone booth. Unreal.

Great post. And its why he continues to be so underrated(despite generally being rated highly ). He just did not care what his statistical output was or what his role was or what his minutes were. It was what does it take to win this game here tonight. What can I do to make these guys around me most effective.

And the proof is absolutely in the pudding. The Spurs teams results with Tim Duncan are absolutely absurd and we almost never really stop and appreciate it. Instead we let guys steal the narrative with well they never repeated so..... They played in the toughest conference in NBA history in the toughest division in NBA history and every year they were facing giants in the Western playoffs. They had to go through LA, they had to go through the Nash Suns, they had to go through the Dirk Mavs.

All they did was win and win and win some more. Because of Timmy. And like Russell who made a bunch of guys HoFers, Timmy gets discredited because his teammates played well and Pop was there. None of that happens if not for Duncan. Pop gets fired by 2001. Robinson's career is Patrick Ewing's. Parker and Manu probably bounce around the league. Who knows what Kawhi becomes?

We do not appreciate this man enough. He was the ultimate team guy and in a team sport that needs to count for more.

[ThaRegul8r]

The crazy thing about Duncan is that he only ever did what the team needed him to.

Isn't that the whole point?

[Odinn21]

James video is up on Patreon for the highest paying subscribers.
I don’t know if I should not be spoiling but the next one is Kevin Durant and he’ll finish the series with Stephen Curry.
Denying Moses, Barkley, Nash, Nowitzki, Wade and then having Durant doesn’t make much sense to me but I’m sure he’ll answer questions about it.

[HeartBreakKid]

Curry and Durant did play together so perhaps he feels that they are connected. Plus, Durant is seen by the public largely as the second guy behind James of this era.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I like how you translated me saying you can't build an offense around Duncan in this era into 'he is questioning Duncan...'

You can't build an offense around Gobert either... Doesn't mean he is still not one of the best players in the league (primarily based on defense of course).

Bruh, teams have been trying to build around guys like AD, Cousins, KAT, Lopez, Vucevic... These are some of the best offensive Bigs in NBA history... Maybe it's a stretch putting Lopez and Vuc in that category, lol, but they are definitely two of the best shooting Bigs ever... They've struggled mightily to do anything of note as offensive engines... But you think a guy with Duncan skillset would be able to do better, when there's absolutely zero evidence for it?

KAT rated out offensively in 2020 as a better offensive player than Jokic in a majority of plus-minus offensive metrics. Of course, Jokic started off the season slow, but KAT also had his injuries and setbacks. We don't know how KAT would do in the PS, but the point is that KAT most definitely can be an offensive centerpiece based on regular season performances. He has the passing that a big like AD lacks to do it.

Kat got bodied by Clint Capela in the playoffs......

That wasn't in 2020.

[LukaTheGOAT]

James video is up on Patreon for the highest paying subscribers.
I don’t know if I should not be spoiling but the next one is Kevin Durant and he’ll finish the series with Stephen Curry.
Denying Moses, Barkley, Nash, Nowitzki, Wade and then having Durant doesn’t make much sense to me but I’m sure he’ll answer questions about it.

Durant snuck in because he considers him more portable than the guys you mentioned and he believes Durant's defense stacks up pretty well with that group, especially relative to position if you have him at the 3. He isn't huge on carry jobs, so peak runs from Moses, Wade, and Nowitzki are only so valuable if he thinks you can retain that value in other situations (which is always a headache of an argument).

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

[Odinn21]

James video is up on Patreon for the highest paying subscribers.
I don’t know if I should not be spoiling but the next one is Kevin Durant and he’ll finish the series with Stephen Curry.
Denying Moses, Barkley, Nash, Nowitzki, Wade and then having Durant doesn’t make much sense to me but I’m sure he’ll answer questions about it.

Durant snuck in because he considers him more portable than the guys you mentioned and he believes Durant's defense stacks up pretty well with that group, especially relative to position if you have him at the 3. He isn't huge on carry jobs, so peak runs from Moses, Wade, and Nowitzki are only so valuable if he thinks you can retain that value in other situations (which is always a headache of an argument).

His approach is fundamentally wrong to on 3 different levels;
- What happened in real life (with proper context of course) trumps what could/would have been in ideal situations even if those ideal situations had a big scale.
- I believe I said this many times already but... Portability should cut both ways in historical debates. It should be "if this player is on a random team in random time" and not "if this player is on random team in just 2010s/2020s".
- Proper circumstances for winning are much rarer than non-winning circumstances/conditions. The situations like 2009/2010 Heat or Mavs are way more common than the situations like 2017/2018 Warriors. Another thing about this is; ceiling raising is very important but for that to matter, properly raised floors should be there. You need to at least raise the floor to guaranteed 2nd round. Carry jobs are important because those players almost managed to get their team's floor matched with their ceiling.

Also portability argument would be very weak for Durant against Nowitzki.

[LukaTheGOAT]

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.

I'm assuming he likes Durant's off-ball movement more (when willing), might think he is a bit better as a passer and playmaker, as well as he dings Dirk because he doesn't like his defense very much at the PF position (which is one of the most important defensive positions).

[70sFan]

I kniw that KD video is narrative driven - a lot of casual fans view him as one of the greatest - but from true goodness perspective it doesn't make any sense. He doesn't have Julius, Moses, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Wade, Dirk and Giannis but has Durant? I'd take most of them over KD to be honest and I don't see him as being more portable than Dirk, Ewing, Malone or Julius.

[AdagioPace]

James video is up on Patreon for the highest paying subscribers.
I don’t know if I should not be spoiling but the next one is Kevin Durant and he’ll finish the series with Stephen Curry.
Denying Moses, Barkley, Nash, Nowitzki, Wade and then having Durant doesn’t make much sense to me but I’m sure he’ll answer questions about it.

Durant snuck in because he considers him more portable than the guys you mentioned and he believes Durant's defense stacks up pretty well with that group, especially relative to position if you have him at the 3. He isn't huge on carry jobs, so peak runs from Moses, Wade, and Nowitzki are only so valuable if he thinks you can retain that value in other situations (which is always a headache of an argument).

His approach is fundamentally wrong to on 3 different levels;
- What happened in real life (with proper context of course) trumps what could/would have been in ideal situations even if those ideal situations had a big scale.
- I believe I said this many times already but... Portability should cut both ways in historical debates. It should be "if this player is on a random team in random time" and not "if this player is on random team in just 2010s/2020s".
- Proper circumstances for winning are much rarer than non-winning circumstances/conditions. The situations like 2009/2010 Heat or Mavs are way more common than the situations like 2017/2018 Warriors. Another thing about this is; ceiling raising is very important but for that to matter, properly raised floors should be there. You need to at least raise the floor to guaranteed 2nd round. Carry jobs are important because those players almost managed to get their team's floor matched with their ceiling.

Also portability argument would be very weak for Durant against Nowitzki.

(before the discussion about Lebron anesthetizes and basically kills all my interest for this thread)

about the "real life" as opposed to "ideality": how does Elgee justifies placing Dirk's performances in his couple best PS below Durant's underwhelming PS history in OKC? (I don't want to believe he rates his time with the Warriors that high)
How does he justifies Dirk RAPM numbers against Durant's mediocre ones?
How does Elgee reconcile the facts that Durant needs a rare combination of factors (playing with a stacked roster) to express all his "portability"? Doesn't portability also work in the opposite direction?

By the way, I'm not sure Durant is more portable tbh as you and others have said.
What if he also made this choice knowing that Durant is a current polarizing player while Dirk is a retired foreign player with not a big fan base? I think he made a clear commercial choice here.

[GSP]

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 in the Poy thread 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?p=48318986#p48318986

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.

Also 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 motor, lack of counters, 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) and thus his scalability

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

[70sFan]

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.