Winsome Gerbil wrote:TheProfessor wrote:Winsome Gerbil wrote:
The "Tim Duncan game" where he was suddenly so exposed to you happened in his 3rd season when he was 22, not yet a superstar, and his team was embroiled in a scandal whereby its departing owners were intentionally trying to lose and steal the team out of town to another city, Major League style.
BTW, his TS% from his first year emerging under Mike Malone until the year he blew out his achilles:
Boogie Cousins Age 23-27 TS%
Age 23: .555
Age 24: .545
Age 25: .538
Age 26: .562
Age 27: .583
Tim Duncan Age 23-27 TS%
Age 23: .555
Age 24: .536
Age 25: .576
Age 26: .564
Age 27: .534
Luckily the Spurs were able to survive Duncan's chucking.
Great now let's use TS+ or rTS and normalize for era, pretty sure we paint a different picture now. Also Duncan was never known for his efficent scoring more so his other skills which Boogie lacks in spades. So yes, luckily the spurs were able survive his chucking.
The only "skill" that Duncan had that Boogie did not was the all time defense, which is of course a fair thing. Both guys were elite rebounders, defensively in particular, Boogie was a better hallhandler and passer, and driven by his era, extended his range further than Duncan (I don't consider that a positive, just an inevitability -- Duncan coming up in the 2000-eens would have been forced to play the 3pt chucker too. Gotta keep those "driving lanes" open for your lessers). Duncan was actually more finessy in the post with his turnarounds and fadeaway, Boogie was to the hoop and drawing fouls. Boogie game was MORE skilled, but also more high risk, and so his turnovers were a demerit. Occasional risky passes, but also offensive fouls and the risk of a center driving the ball into traffic as opposed to a stationary post move. Overall efficiency worked out similarly:
Boogie Cousins Age 23-27 PER
Age 23: 26.1
Age 24: 25.2
Age 25: 23.6
Age 26: 25.8
Age 27: 26.5
Tim Duncan Age 23-27 PER
Age 23: 24.8
Age 24: 23.8
Age 25: 27.0
Age 26: 26.9
Age 27: 27.1
But you know what DIDN'T work out similarly? Gregg Popovich vs...Keith Smart/Mike Malone/Tyrone Corbin/George Karl/Dave Joeger and David Robinson/Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili etc. vs...Kosta Koufos/Ben McLemore/Rudy Gay. Tim Duncan's stable personality would obviously have been better to build around, but you put him on those Kings and have them make all the same roster moves around him, switch coaches and GMs every year, and blow every draft pick while the idiot owners were either trying to steal the team or lead the staff in Stauskas chants, and we're having a "how good was Tim Duncan?" thread after he retired with zero rings.
lol, i've seen it all, are we really having a legit duncan vs cousins comparison?
cousins is a better ball handler and passer, based on what exactly?
yes, and cousins was just an innocent bystander of the kings instability? he was as an unstable player as they come, and contributed to the overall chaos.