Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063
70sFan wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:I think him choosing not to include prime West,prime Robertson and ABA Dr.J has to do with lack of sufficient footage for a 20 minute video if I had to guess.
He stated that his project started post merger, so no West and Big O.
That said, we have a lot of NBA Julius games. He probably thinks that Julius peaked in the ABA - so he also doesn't count.
HeartBreakKid wrote:70sFan wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:I think him choosing not to include prime West,prime Robertson and ABA Dr.J has to do with lack of sufficient footage for a 20 minute video if I had to guess.
He stated that his project started post merger, so no West and Big O.
That said, we have a lot of NBA Julius games. He probably thinks that Julius peaked in the ABA - so he also doesn't count.
Yes, but that's why I think he chose to keep it post merger, lack of sufficient footage.
sansterre wrote:The success of a star's season is:
Individual performance + Teammate performance - Opposition +/- Luck
HeartBreakKid wrote:Why wouldn't someone like Dirk be able to carry them in other situations? We've seen him in many situations and he's almost always had incredible series. Does Durant's defense really make him more portable because offensively Dirk is a more seemingless fit and he's more associated with better offenses than Durant is.
Don't mean to attack the messenger here, but it just seems odd. Dirk and portability go hand in hand quite well.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
GSP wrote:When Elgee did Backpicks his peak rating for Kd was on the same level as Jerry/Oscar IIRC which was a bit above the Kobe, Dirk, Wade, Nash, Cp3, Julius and then Chuck, Ewing, Malones level. Not sure why he didn't do a vid on Oscar/Jerry but he is high on Kd closer to the general public than the Pc board which is generally anti-Kd but I doubt it's some conspiracy for views considering the Backpicks stuff which got ppl heated here at the time. But he was even high on Kd when he posted here back in his early Okc days up his last. Before he reevaluated 2016 he had Steph and Kd above Bron and broke down Kds game and said ppl were putting too much emphasis on the final 3 games. But it seems he changed his mind since viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1459214
Not sure why Giannis was named but I think he'd prolly put him around the bigs levels. Kawhi he was generally lower on than most even after 2019 I don't think he had him as a top 3 player that season but he might be higher on 16 or 17. Even still he has Kd a clear edge.
As not sure why Harden was brought up by anyone here. Elgee has a podcast out on Wade VS Kobe VS Harden and he sees Harden as a clear tier below those 2 at least. And this pod was released just a year ago so I doubt anything has changed considering he was low on Harden being very turnover prone, his bad defense in comparison to those 2 and Harden being a bad offball player and not providing much of any value when he doesn't have the ball (on both ends)
But in his home dwelling...the hi-top faded warrior is revered. *Smack!* The sound of his palm blocking the basketball... the sound of thousands rising, roaring... the sound of "get that sugar honey iced tea outta here!"
sansterre wrote:The success of a star's season is:
Individual performance + Teammate performance - Opposition +/- Luck
SideshowBob wrote:GSP wrote:When Elgee did Backpicks his peak rating for Kd was on the same level as Jerry/Oscar IIRC which was a bit above the Kobe, Dirk, Wade, Nash, Cp3, Julius and then Chuck, Ewing, Malones level. Not sure why he didn't do a vid on Oscar/Jerry but he is high on Kd closer to the general public than the Pc board which is generally anti-Kd but I doubt it's some conspiracy for views considering the Backpicks stuff which got ppl heated here at the time. But he was even high on Kd when he posted here back in his early Okc days up his last. Before he reevaluated 2016 he had Steph and Kd above Bron and broke down Kds game and said ppl were putting too much emphasis on the final 3 games. But it seems he changed his mind since viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1459214
Not sure why Giannis was named but I think he'd prolly put him around the bigs levels. Kawhi he was generally lower on than most even after 2019 I don't think he had him as a top 3 player that season but he might be higher on 16 or 17. Even still he has Kd a clear edge.
As not sure why Harden was brought up by anyone here. Elgee has a podcast out on Wade VS Kobe VS Harden and he sees Harden as a clear tier below those 2 at least. And this pod was released just a year ago so I doubt anything has changed considering he was low on Harden being very turnover prone, his bad defense in comparison to those 2 and Harden being a bad offball player and not providing much of any value when he doesn't have the ball (on both ends)
Aren't these 3 year peaks? I think its easier to say that Durant's best consecutive three years are better than some of the others that have been excluded, even if I don't agree (Dirk/Wade 09-11 is >any KD stretch, Nash/Chuck I think as well, Paul is harder as he's up and down and hits similar highs).
He always seemed to focus to Dirk's passing, even if in my view it's not very logical.Texas Chuck wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:Why wouldn't someone like Dirk be able to carry them in other situations? We've seen him in many situations and he's almost always had incredible series. Does Durant's defense really make him more portable because offensively Dirk is a more seemingless fit and he's more associated with better offenses than Durant is.
Don't mean to attack the messenger here, but it just seems odd. Dirk and portability go hand in hand quite well.
As I recall he was never high on Dirk when he posted here. But yeah Dirk never gets credit for portability I think in part because he always stayed in Dallas, but what I think people tend to overlook is just how frequently Dallas turned over their roster. The 03 team looks nothing like the 06-07 teams which look nothing like the 11 team and there were other significant changes even with the various eras.
Sucks for me as such a huge Dirk homer I'd have loved to see his treatment of him. But if he finds KD a more interesting subject I think its defensible for sure.
Texas Chuck wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:Why wouldn't someone like Dirk be able to carry them in other situations? We've seen him in many situations and he's almost always had incredible series. Does Durant's defense really make him more portable because offensively Dirk is a more seemingless fit and he's more associated with better offenses than Durant is.
Don't mean to attack the messenger here, but it just seems odd. Dirk and portability go hand in hand quite well.
As I recall he was never high on Dirk when he posted here. But yeah Dirk never gets credit for portability I think in part because he always stayed in Dallas, but what I think people tend to overlook is just how frequently Dallas turned over their roster. The 03 team looks nothing like the 06-07 teams which look nothing like the 11 team and there were other significant changes even with the various eras.
Sucks for me as such a huge Dirk homer I'd have loved to see his treatment of him. But if he finds KD a more interesting subject I think its defensible for sure.
) Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.
Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.
I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.
Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.
Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.
I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.
GSP wrote:Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.
Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.
I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.
Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever
You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman
70sFan wrote:limbo wrote:70sFan wrote:Yeah, except that Gobert plays nothing like 2015 Duncan on offense.
You're right. Gobert is a much more efficient finisher but less used as a passer i guess.. Other than that there's really not that much of a difference. We're talking about incremental stuff here in the grand scheme of offensive structures.
Gobert is a player who lives strictly off P&R finishes and offensive rebounding. He's also one of the best screen setter ever. That's when his offensive resposibilities ends.
Duncan had much more sophisticated role on 2015 Spurs. It's not a diss on Gobert, I have him as credible MVP candidate this year, but equating Duncan to Gobert in responsibilties, styles or abilities doesn't make any sense.
GSP wrote:Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.
Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.
I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.
Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever
You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman
MatsuiStan wrote:70sFan wrote:limbo wrote:
You're right. Gobert is a much more efficient finisher but less used as a passer i guess.. Other than that there's really not that much of a difference. We're talking about incremental stuff here in the grand scheme of offensive structures.
Gobert is a player who lives strictly off P&R finishes and offensive rebounding. He's also one of the best screen setter ever. That's when his offensive resposibilities ends.
Duncan had much more sophisticated role on 2015 Spurs. It's not a diss on Gobert, I have him as credible MVP candidate this year, but equating Duncan to Gobert in responsibilties, styles or abilities doesn't make any sense.
Honestly, gobert's screen-setting is probably as valuable to the jazz as everything duncan did for the spurs .
And defense gobert is way above any post 12 duncan.
LukaTheGOAT wrote:GSP wrote:Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.
Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.
I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.
Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever
You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman
KG's impact metrics were down from 05-07, but I would say depending on what you look at they are relatively comparable to Duncan during that span. I don't blame KG for not making the PS those years, but I guess my issue with Ben's conclusion's stems from this:
I'm curious how exactly Ben is determining CORP, and the value of portability. I understand his reasoning, that he believes KG can fit better in many different situations, but how can he be so confident that ceiling raising is more valuable than Duncan's floor-raising efforts. And based off his evaluations on portability of stars since the year 1991 or so, it seems like the best player on championship teams tend to have neutral portability at best. This could mean that positive port stars are rare, but I would argue there have been many positive port stars like Robinson, Garnett who didn't win until later in their careers; couldn't this potentially be a hint that if those guys were better floor-raisers in exchange for some of their portability, they might've experienced some more team success?
I'll end on this. The 08 Celtics won a championship, but they were forced to 7 games twice during that run against not so great teams. I am not convinced that scalability is nearly as important. It matters, but I do think history tells us that floor-raisers are more valuable in random championship odds, simply because front offices are not that great and a lack of capital means, meshing players who fit well is not always a possibility. I’d rather have KG play for my team in the Olympics than Duncan, but that is a unique situation and far from the norm. More times than not, you want Duncan who is a better #1 and #2 option than KG.
Portability of Best Players on Championship Teams (According to his Evaluations)
20: Neutral
19: Neutral
18: Positive
17: Positive
16: Neutral
15: Positive
14: Neutral (Duncan)
13: Negative
12: Negative
11: Neutral
10: Neutral
09: Neutral
08: Positive
07: Negative
06: Negative
05: Negative
04: Neutral (Wallace)
03: Negative
02: Neutral
01: Neutral
00: Neutral
99: Negative
98: Neutral
97: Neutral
96: Neutral
95: Negative
94: Negative
93: Neutral
92: Neutral
91: Neutral
All I'm saying is I'm seeing plenty of neutral portability guys and the only example of positive port guys winning it multiple years in a row is with the Warriors, which might be the most well constructed team ever; a rarity basically.
LukaTheGOAT wrote:GSP wrote:Djoker wrote:I just listened to Ben's podcast on Garnett vs. Duncan. There were some good points there but he (and his cohost) largely concluded that KG's inability to manufacture isolation offense in the playoffs is not a weakness. I'm completely baffled. Yes on really good offensive teams KG doesn't have to do that and his off-ball skills like being an alley-oop target and a better midrange shooter makes him more scalable in such an offense but that's a flawed way of thinking IMO. Most championship teams are hard to build let alone a team that already has a go-to scorer and great playmaker(s) that you can just plug Garnett in. Most situations are average situations. I personally think that Duncan's ability to "carry" a team offensively to a larger degree than KG is a huge feather in his cap. In fact it's the reason why I rank Duncan over KG.
Yes KG had worse team circumstances in Minnesota but he also had much much worse team success as well. KG for all his greatness missed the playoffs for 3 straight years. Their conversation skips straight from 2004 to 2008 as if the years in-between didn't exist. KG's impact metrics in those seasons were much lower than in 2003 and 2004... and 2008. It's just glossed over.
I love KG more and I see Duncan as very slightly better. But I don't think the analysis presented by Ben on this subject was done with full transparency. Duncan's weaknesses are IMO amplified and KG's are minimized. And entire years are ignored which don't fit the narrative well. I hate to be harsh because Ben produces amazing work and I'm a big fan to say the least but that's how I feel.
Kgs casts with Sams injury from 05-07 were as bad as any alltimer had in their primes. I mean Kgs numbers were basically the same in 05 as his Mvp season. Also the Wolves won 44 games and were 11th in Srs. They are easily a playoff team in the East but they were playing in one of if not the most brutal conference ever
You realize almost all of his teammates in the 05-07 years were out of the league not long after that right? I mean most ppl who criticize Kg for not making it those years prolly cant even name a teammate besides Wally and Ricky Davis from the 06 or 07 teams without using basketball reference. Kareem missed the playoffs b2b in his prime and even tho he was injured in 75 he played all 82 the next year on a different team and still missed it but i doubt ppl are question mid-70s Kareems impact even tho he had Gail Goodrich and an alltime coach in Bill Sharman
KG's impact metrics were down from 05-07, but I would say depending on what you look at they are relatively comparable to Duncan during that span. I don't blame KG for not making the PS those years, but I guess my issue with Ben's conclusion's stems from this:
I'm curious how exactly Ben is determining CORP, and the value of portability. I understand his reasoning, that he believes KG can fit better in many different situations, but how can he be so confident that ceiling raising is more valuable than Duncan's floor-raising efforts. And based off his evaluations on portability of stars since the year 1991 or so, it seems like the best player on championship teams tend to have neutral portability at best. This could mean that positive port stars are rare, but I would argue there have been many positive port stars like Robinson, Garnett who didn't win until later in their careers; couldn't this potentially be a hint that if those guys were better floor-raisers in exchange for some of their portability, they might've experienced some more team success?
I'll end on this. The 08 Celtics won a championship, but they were forced to 7 games twice during that run against not so great teams. I am not convinced that scalability is nearly as important. It matters, but I do think history tells us that floor-raisers are more valuable in random championship odds, simply because front offices are not that great and a lack of capital means, meshing players who fit well is not always a possibility. I’d rather have KG play for my team in the Olympics than Duncan, but that is a unique situation and far from the norm. More times than not, you want Duncan who is a better #1 and #2 option than KG.
Portability of Best Players on Championship Teams (According to his Evaluations)
20: Neutral
19: Neutral
18: Positive
17: Positive
16: Neutral
15: Positive
14: Neutral (Duncan)
13: Negative
12: Negative
11: Neutral
10: Neutral
09: Neutral
08: Positive
07: Negative
06: Negative
05: Negative
04: Neutral (Wallace)
03: Negative
02: Neutral
01: Neutral
00: Neutral
99: Negative
98: Neutral
97: Neutral
96: Neutral
95: Negative
94: Negative
93: Neutral
92: Neutral
91: Neutral
All I'm saying is I'm seeing plenty of neutral portability guys and the only example of positive port guys winning it multiple years in a row is with the Warriors, which might be the most well constructed team ever; a rarity basically.
Statlanta wrote:For me the only narrative you can give me to say Garnett > Duncan is that the latter started with HOF leadership with another Greatest Peaks candidate. KG had to will Minnesota up while Duncan could grow with Pop while learning from Robinson. Everything else is just aesthetics
