Peak Kevin Garnett vs. Peak Tim Duncan

[Dave3]

I know there have been way too many "prime__ vs. prime ___" threads, but I think this one might actually produce some worthwhile discussion, so bare with me.

To most people, it's easily established that Duncan has had a far more illustrious career than Kevin Garnett, garnering multiple first team all defense awards, multiple first team ALL NBA, 4 championships, and 3 finals MVP's and repeat MVP performances. However, when the discussion shifts to comparing both players at their absolute peak, the discussion isn't as clear cut.

When Kevin Garnett was in the Western conference, Duncan's team would more often than not walk away with the victory, but that was affected heavily by the surrounding players.

Kevin Garnett is however known for having an incredibly explosive prime, averaging upwards of 24 ppg, 14 rpg, and 5-6 apg while shooting 50% FG and 75+% from the free throw line, an area which Duncan struggled with. He provided his team with versatility and intensity unmatched by almost anyone this decade.


Duncan's highest scoring output was 25.5 ppg on 51%, and he was able to add 13 rpg on top of that, while recording a respectable 3.7+ apg in his peak years. He was however not as versatile as Garnett, and was also erratic from the free throw line, shooting 80% one year, but dipping all the way down to 60% two years later.


My question to you is who would you take at their absolute peak. If you had to take one of them for only one year at their best (in the first round of a league wide draft, so you have no other players yet), who would you take?

[Bernie Nips]

Hahaha, KG is getting a lot of attention on here lately.

It's completely interchangeable to me. The top 4 PF positions are... KG, Barkley, Duncan, Malone.

I personally would pick KG.

[Dave3]

Hahaha, KG is getting a lot of attention on here lately.

It's completely interchangeable to me. The top 4 PF positions are... KG, Barkley, Duncan, Malone.

I personally would pick KG.
I was a huge fan of KG, till about last year when he started acting like some immature prick. In Minnesota he still had an intensity about him, but not the immature cockiness he has now. I always thought he was very close to Duncan if not better in the 2002-2005 period of time, but had bad luck with poor supporting casts/coaching. Most people at the time thought Duncan was better, but I'm wondering how people will see them now that their careers are almost over and you'd have to be looking back to judge the quality of their play.

[KG5MVP]

2002-2008 KG was better than Duncan

[1987_Lakers]

2002-2008 KG was better than Duncan

2003 Duncan > 2003 Garnett

[Bernie Nips]

I was a huge fan of KG, till about last year when he started acting like some immature prick. In Minnesota he still had an intensity about him, but not the immature cockiness he has now. I always thought he was very close to Duncan if not better in the 2002-2005 period of time, but had bad luck with poor supporting casts/coaching. Most people at the time thought Duncan was better, but I'm wondering how people will see them now that their careers are almost over and you'd have to be looking back to judge the quality of their play.

That will be interesting. Fans like players in history who struggled through adversity (read: poor teams) and still managed to shine, and carry the teams on their shoulders. So it could well be that in 10, 20 years time, KG comes across as the more complete player.

I do believe KG has always been a better all-round player, but Tim Duncan was the best at what he did and needed to do... Mr Fundamentals. Like I said, they're interchangeable. I would just go for KG as I think if you put the right team around him at his peak, that team would go down in history like the 86 Celtics or something.

[Bernie Nips]

2003 Duncan > 2003 Garnett

KG put up 23/13.4/6!!/1.4/1.6 on 50% shooting, carrying a pretty mediocre team to a then-franchise record 51 wins.

At the very least I would call them equal, with Timmy winning out MVP honors for having a better team.

[Carbine]

What's this "interchangeable" stuff I'm reading? They are much different players - about as different as two "post" players can be.

Garnett is a jump-shooting big man. His points came off pick and pops, high post face ups and the occasional turn around jumper from the post, or a hook if he was feeling good. But his offense was perimeter based.

His defensive strength was defending pick and rolls. He could defend the post as well, but it wasn't his calling card like a Kendrik Perkins is right now, it wasn't blocking shots like a David Robinson.... his defense can be summed as versatile.

Duncan is a low post player. He takes the majority of his shots from a post up position. His bank shot is about as "perimeter" as he gets.

Duncan' defensive strengths were defending the hoop, excellent rotations. He could defend the pick and roll well. Could defend the post. He was the definition of an anchor back there because he was always in position to change a shot/block shots/force an extra pass.

Both players had different stengths and played much differently. The Spurs would've had to really change there whole system if Garnett played for them as he was not a post-scorer like Duncan...instead the Spurs would've been a jump shooting team.

[Alhazred]

I'd go with Duncan. I used to like KG quite a bit before he left Minnesota, though.

[Big#50]

KG the stat padding king<Tim

[ProfessorMurder]

What's this "interchangeable" stuff I'm reading? They are much different players - about as different as two "post" players can be.

Garnett is a jump-shooting big man. His points came off pick and pops, high post face ups and the occasional turn around jumper from the post, or a hook if he was feeling good. But his offense was perimeter based.

His defensive strength was defending pick and rolls. He could defend the post as well, but it wasn't his calling card like a Kendrik Perkins is right now, it wasn't blocking shots like a David Robinson.... his defense can be summed as versatile.

Duncan is a low post player. He takes the majority of his shots from a post up position. His bank shot is about as "perimeter" as he gets.

Duncan' defensive strengths were defending the hoop, excellent rotations. He could defend the pick and roll well. Could defend the post. He was the definition of an anchor back there because he was always in position to change a shot/block shots/force an extra pass.

Both players had different stengths and played much differently. The Spurs would've had to really change there whole system if Garnett played for them as he was not a post-scorer like Duncan...instead the Spurs would've been a jump shooting team.

Duncan made a living off the elbow jumpers for a while back when the Admiral was still playing. (If I remember correctly)

[Carbine]

Duncan made a living off the elbow jumpers for a while back when the Admiral was still playing. (If I remember correctly)

No he didn't.

[Bernie Nips]

I meant interchangeable in terms of the quality of their play.. Neither was a 'better' player than the other.

[Showtime]

KG has never had the low post game of Duncan, nor the post defense. He's a great versatile forward, but what set a prime Duncan apart was his superior inside game on both ends of the court.

[ProfessorMurder]

No he didn't.

Well f*ck it, not the first time I've said something retarded while tired.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan, no question in my mind.

Duncan was a better low post player, better shot blocker and defender, IMO, better overall scorer and more clutch. Other than handle the ball, shoot jumpers and free throws, KG did not do a single thing better than Duncan. Rebounding was basically a wash and KG was no better than Duncan as a passer(despite the assist numbers). Give me Duncan, any day of the weak.

[D.J.]

In terms of stats, peak KG was better. Peak KG was around 2003-2004. Duncan was slightly before that. For me, I'd rather have Duncan. He was a monster on defense, a solid passer for a big man, and extremely clutch. Garnett may have been more versatile on defense and was a better perimeter shooter, but his post defense wasn't as good and he had a tendency to get a bit passive. Duncan's play was never passive.

[ThaKid]

Heres the way i see it. Tim Duncan was blessed with a great Spurs supporting cast since he entered the league, and hes been lucky to play in that system that worked for his whole career with the same kind of team and coach. Garnett on the other hand was never blessed with that kind of squad, maybe talent wise yes (Spreewell, Casell, Marbury, Madsen) and hes never really played with a team (on Min) that gelled as well as the Spurs have this decade.

So basically Tim Duncan will most likely be higher on the GOAT list cause of wins and championships because he had a great team to compliment his skills and vice versa. Dont get me wrong im not trying to take anything away from Duncan. But i feel if Garnett was in the same situation (not literally on the Spurs, but the same kind of chemistry) he would be top 10 and maybe even better than Duncan. So my point is yes Duncan had the success because he is a great player, but 1-on-1 or if i had to start my franchise, then i would pick Garnett because to me he has more heart and hustle. He was also more agile and packed the stat sheets. So yea really not trying to take anything away from duncan, but I would pick KG and i feel if he had the same situation as TD he would prolly be 1 up higher on the list for best PFs than KG.

[Carbine]

Didn't Garnetts team not make the playoffs 3 straight years?

I find it really, really hard to believe had Duncan been in a bad situation that he would let his team lose to the tune of missing 3 straight playoffs.

[D.J.]

Didn't Garnetts team not make the playoffs 3 straight years?

I find it really, really hard to believe had Duncan been in a bad situation that he would let his team lose to the tune of missing 3 straight playoffs.


The T-Wolves missed the playoffs in 2005 because Sprewell's play diminished and Cassell only played in 59 games. In 2006, they were in rebuilding mode. Even Michael Jordan's first three seasons, the Bulls were 38-44, 30-52, and 40-42.

[Carbine]

That's the point, Jordan was just getting started.... Garnett failed to make the playoffs consecutively after he got his MVP award, i.e he was at or near the top of his game.

[D.J.]

That's the point, Jordan was just getting started.... Garnett failed to make the playoffs consecutively after he got his MVP award, i.e he was at or near the top of his game.


That has nothing to do with Garnett. That team was a three man team. When you have Sprewell only averaging 12 PPG and Cassell only playing in 59 games, it's going to be hard to make the playoffs. The following year, Wally Szcerbiak was traded. In retrospect, Garnett stayed in Minnesota longer than he should have.

[Carbine]

It has nothing to do with Garnett? If he was as good as Duncan, and had as much impact on wins as Duncan had, than he wouldn't miss the playoffs in consecutive seasons when he was at or near the top of his game. The NBA is a superstar driven league. It's not like Garnett was injured a lot during those two years, he only missed a combined six games in two years.

It's hard to defend Garnett on that one. Like I said, it's hard to imagine Duncan missing the playoffs two years in a row at or near his peak, no matter how average his supporting cast was.

[D.J.]

It has nothing to do with Garnett? If he was as good as Duncan, and had as much impact on wins as Duncan had, than he wouldn't miss the playoffs in consecutive seasons when he was at or near the top of his game. The NBA is a superstar driven league. It's not like Garnett was injured a lot during those two years, he only missed a combined six games in two years.

It's hard to defend Garnett on that one. Like I said, it's hard to imagine Duncan missing the playoffs two years in a row at or near his peak, no matter how average his supporting cast was.


Basketball is a team game. When your team is a three man team and the other two are injured or playing horribly, you don't stand a chance. Duncan's teammates may not have been the greatest, but they all knew their roles and they were certainly better than guys like Troy Hudson, Michael Olowokandi, and Ervin Johnson.

Put a prime Duncan on the T-Wolves from 2005-2007 and they will still miss the playoffs. They were that bad as a team.

[dyna]

The were different players,

Duncan has always been a true center playing against fowards and with a great supporting cast (including a top 10 center all time) around him from the beginning.

For me all time duncan was better but in their peaks they were neck to neck.

[G.O.A.T]

Heres the way i see it. Tim Duncan was blessed with a great Spurs supporting cast since he entered the league, and hes been lucky to play in that system that worked for his whole career with the same kind of team and coach. Garnett on the other hand was never blessed with that kind of squad, maybe talent wise yes (Spreewell, Casell, Marbury, Madsen) and hes never really played with a team (on Min) that gelled as well as the Spurs have this decade.

So basically Tim Duncan will most likely be higher on the GOAT list cause of wins and championships because he had a great team to compliment his skills and vice versa. Dont get me wrong im not trying to take anything away from Duncan. But i feel if Garnett was in the same situation (not literally on the Spurs, but the same kind of chemistry) he would be top 10 and maybe even better than Duncan. So my point is yes Duncan had the success because he is a great player, but 1-on-1 or if i had to start my franchise, then i would pick Garnett because to me he has more heart and hustle. He was also more agile and packed the stat sheets. So yea really not trying to take anything away from duncan, but I would pick KG and i feel if he had the same situation as TD he would prolly be 1 up higher on the list for best PFs than KG.

Whenever I read posts like these I have the same question:

Do think the Spurs great chemistry and four championship runs starting when Duncan arrived is just a coincidence?

To me the reasons why Duncan won four titles are the same reasons why he is better than Garnett in terms of peak, prime, career and even versatility (yes, you don't have to be ultra-athletic to be versatile.) It's the subtle things, how he makes people better; how guys like Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, Sean Elliott, Bruce Bowen and so many more can just focus on their individual strengths because of all Duncan does to cover up their weaknesses. Another reason Duncan's teammates were better is because Duncan took significantly less money and never threatened or left the impression that he might leave.

Yes Duncan was drafted by a better franchise and in his first few years playing alongside David Robinson in his late prime was a huge advantage, but look at the other players on those Spurs rosters; look at the 2003 Spurs, how is that roster any better than what Garnett had for the first four years of the decade and Duncan won a title with it.

[redhonda76]

We all know KG is versatile but he plays in the position of a big man. I rather have a low post big man than a high post big man. Duncan puts so much pressure on the defense than KG ever did.

Anyone who knows basketball knows Prime Duncan > Prime KG and its not even close.

[Carbine]

Basketball is a team game. When your team is a three man team and the other two are injured or playing horribly, you don't stand a chance. Duncan's teammates may not have been the greatest, but they all knew their roles and they were certainly better than guys like Troy Hudson, Michael Olowokandi, and Ervin Johnson.

Put a prime Duncan on the T-Wolves from 2005-2007 and they will still miss the playoffs. They were that bad as a team.

When is the last time a great player coming off an MVP season who is still at or near his prime didn't make the playoffs for two consecutive years?

I'm pretty sure the number to that answer is zero.

That hurts Garnett. Duncan has shown nothing to say that he wouldn't make the playoffs with a poor supporting cast.... he won a championship in 2003 with a supporting cast that had no business of being champions, or really anything past the second round.

[SayTownRy]

2003

/thread imo

[Dave3]

Looks like the general consensus is Duncan, just like it was in 2003. I thought looking back people might see things in a different light. Appreciate the replies.

[ViNsAnItY1990]

Duncan) Garnett

[Freshprince619]

Give me prime Kg ANYDAY! Better rebounder, defender, scorer, intimidates players, can play on ball defense on guards, he can hit 20 footers. I cant see one think Timmy does better then him. The dude won MVP and Defensive player of the year all in the same year. Whens the last time thats been done? Rings and all that dont mean nothing when Duncan had the most stacked team for a good 4 5 years

[Samurai Swoosh]

Honestly, they're interchangable for me ...

[TimeConfidence]

Duncan. No offense to Garnett or any power forward out there, but Duncan is the greatest and best power forward of all-time and it's not close at alll.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

KG put up 23/13.4/6!!/1.4/1.6 on 50% shooting, carrying a pretty mediocre team to a then-franchise record 51 wins.

And Duncan takes that team to the WCF or finals. There's the difference.

For Christ sakes, Garnett couldn't get out of the first round until his team added Cassell and Spree.

For Christ sakes part II, Garnett couldn't win a title until he was traded to a team with Pierce and Allen.

Notice a pattern here?

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Give me prime Kg ANYDAY! Better rebounder, defender, scorer, intimidates players, can play on ball defense on guards, he can hit 20 footers. I cant see one think Timmy does better then him. The dude won MVP and Defensive player of the year all in the same year. Whens the last time thats been done? Rings and all that dont mean nothing when Duncan had the most stacked team for a good 4 5 years

Most staked team? lol

The '99 team started 8-8.

The 2003 team saw a Mcdyce like Robinson and three newish players who didn't get very good minutes win the title.

Neither of those teams were "stacked."

P.S.

Better defender? lol

Better rebounder? In the 14 years Garnett has been in the NBA he's racked up 12,037 rebounds. In the 12 years Tim Duncan has been in the NBA, he's racked up 11,148 rebounds. So basically he has 889 more rebounds in 2 more years of NBA playing time. Duncan averaged in the mid 900's hie first three seasons. So basically, if Duncan came into the league the same time as Garnett, he'd have more career rebounds.

Duncan also has more career blocked shots.

[Bernie Nips]

And Duncan takes that team to the WCF or finals. There's the difference.

For Christ sakes, Garnett couldn't get out of the first round until his team added Cassell and Spree.

For Christ sakes part II, Garnett couldn't win a title until he was traded to a team with Pierce and Allen.

Notice a pattern here?

yeah, Duncan's always had a better team.

[TimeConfidence]

yeah, Duncan's always had a better team.
Sorry bud, Duncan in 2003 was one of the few players ever in NBA History to win the NBA Finals and have no all-stars on the team. (Other than himself of course). The other one is Hakeem Olajuwon in 1994.

[rmt]

Duncan - does whatever is needed to win - from clutch 3s to going up against the Wallaces in 05. Carried one of the worst teams to win a championship in 2003.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

yeah, Duncan's always had a better team.

Maybe better than the Wolves but that also speaks to Garnett's inability to make the players around him better. You know, what Tim and Nash do.

[thejumpa]

Interchangeable players. KG would have won 4+ titles on those Spurs teams. He does everything Duncan does but the rings and Spurs dynasty puts him into an elite class(as it should). If not for that BS injury, I think KG would have had 2 titles and been fighting for his 3rd. It sucks to see the player you grew up on struggling so much, but it is what it is. Injuries are a part of the game.

Duncan is a beast, though. Even though the Spurs suck right now, he is 33 player better than most PF's/C's out there. I can't remember another player that, at age 33, could be built around to win a championship. Not Shaq, not Kobe....

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Interchangeable players. KG would have won 4+ titles on those Spurs teams.

Nope. Nope. Nope.


He does everything Duncan does but the rings and Spurs dynasty puts him into an elite class(as it should).

Holy crap, did you watch the NBA before 2 weeks ago? Duncan and Garnett are not similar players, esp. in their peaks.


If not for that BS injury, I think KG would have had 2 titles and been fighting for his 3rd.

They weren't beating the Lakers and it wouldn't have been KG, it'd have been KG, Allen and Pierce.


It sucks to see the player you grew up on struggling so much, but it is what it is. Injuries are a part of the game.

Same way an injury to Duncan kept the Spurs from repeating in 2000.


Duncan is a beast, though. Even though the Spurs suck right now, he is 33 player better than most PF's/C's out there. I can't remember another player that, at age 33, could be built around to win a championship. Not Shaq, not Kobe....

Which speaks to why Duncan has and still is better than Garnett.

[G.O.A.T]

Interchangeable players. KG would have won 4+ titles on those Spurs teams.

I see no basis for saying this. Could it happen sure, but it's far from likely.


He does everything Duncan does

He is not the same quality defensive anchor or post threat. Two staples of nearly 80% of the NBA's champions.


Spurs dynasty puts him into an elite class(as it should). If not for that BS injury, I think KG would have had 2 titles and been fighting for his 3rd. It sucks to see the player you grew up on struggling so much, but it is what it is. Injuries are a part of the game.

Duncan is a beast, though. Even though the Spurs suck right now, he is 33 player better than most PF's/C's out there. I can't remember another player that, at age 33, could be built around to win a championship. Not Shaq, not Kobe....

Duncan and Garnett are all-time great players, but it is the winning that separates them. It's not as if were comparing 3rd options; if you are the teams superstar, your team is a contender and their success depends more on you than anyone else. Everyone's goal is to win, the most talented player or team does not always win, but it takes great talent to win. Therefore Duncan's ability to win more consistently than Garnett and really anyone else (with only Shaq and Kobe close) in his era. Garnett is the fourth star of this era. The Isiah Thomas or Charles Barkley or Karl Malone of the 1980's and 1990's. The Bob Pettit or Elgin Baylor of the 1950's and 1960's. The guy right after the guys who defined the era.

[thejumpa]

Well, tough to argue against claims like that. True, KG isn't a mirror image of Tim Duncan, and doesn't have the same low post game, but I see no reason as to why San Antonio could have not have built around him. Minnesota was just a horrible team...for years and years. Someone said that the Spurs would have been a jumpshooting team. Anyone care to elaborate more on this?

[theguru]

Frankly Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, and Charles Barkley are all interchangeable for me. If I had to rank the 4:
1.) Karl Malone
2.) Tim Duncan
3.) Kevin Garnett
4.) Charles Barkley

Frankly though, all 4 players were unbelievable in their primes.

[thejumpa]

I see no basis for saying this. Could it happen sure, but it's far from likely.



He is not the same quality defensive anchor or post threat. Two staples of nearly 80% of the NBA's champions.



Duncan and Garnett are all-time great players, but it is the winning that separates them. It's not as if were comparing 3rd options; if you are the teams superstar, your team is a contender and their success depends more on you than anyone else. Everyone's goal is to win, the most talented player or team does not always win, but it takes great talent to win. Therefore Duncan's ability to win more consistently than Garnett and really anyone else (with only Shaq and Kobe close) in his era. Garnett is the fourth star of this era. The Isiah Thomas or Charles Barkley or Karl Malone of the 1980's and 1990's. The Bob Pettit or Elgin Baylor of the 1950's and 1960's. The guy right after the guys who defined the era.

My 4+ rings comment was all hypothetical. Let me ask you this, if the Spurs had KG, would they had missed the playoffs and/or not gotten out of the first round for X amount of years? What kind of team would the Spurs had been?

While I can agree that KG isn't on the same level as TD as far as defense goes, I think he is good enough. They are about equal in terms of All Defensive Teams. Off the top of my head Duncan may have 1 year more. Even at his age and current health, KG's defense is still pretty good(when his knee isn't bothering him much of course).

However, this could be a biased KG fan talking out of his ass. The guy has been my favorite for years now. It really is sad to see him right now and know that he won't be playing in 2 years. Maybe less.

[Duncan21formvp]

Duncan quite easily.

[Bigsmoke]

Timmy

[hwliuLAP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-H416OnHdw&feature=fvw

People may forget that Timmy even used to have a face up game when he was younger. IMO his bank shot was near unguardable. While KG and Duncan may be a tie defensively, I'd take Duncan offensively during his peak easily.

I don't consider KG a great offensive player, he was always a defense first then offense.

I'm not sure what part of Duncan's game can anyone ever criticize about besides maybe the FT% and being boring.

[fubu05]

Duncan>KG. I have never seen KG on a top 10 lists, however Duncan makes it up there at times(although its still controversial). Nuff said. The guy was beastin, and the impressive thing about him was that the dude had a long ass prime, he didn't just peak one year and then drop. To be fair though, KG had a decently long prime as well. Only knock on timmy was that he couldn't win Back-to-Back.

[magnax1]

Heres what I've always thought about KG. KG from 00-05 is better then any year of Duncan's career (except maybe 03 is comparable to the end of KG's prime). However, Duncan was better every year before and after 00-05. So basically prime vs. prime KG was just better. better passer, rebounder, probably better defender, as good of a scorer. Duncan was more clutch, and thats about it. Duncan just got lucky enough to play with some much better team mates.

[guiguinho86]

Heres what I've always thought about KG. KG from 00-05 is better then any year of Duncan's career (except maybe 03 is comparable to the end of KG's prime). However, Duncan was better every year before and after 00-05. So basically prime vs. prime KG was just better. better passer, rebounder, probably better defender, as good of a scorer. Duncan was more clutch, and thats about it. Duncan just got lucky enough to play with some much better team mates.

Garnett played alongside the likes of Gugliotta, Marbury, Cassell, Brandon, Sprewell, Billups (and the often underrated Mark Madsen). That's not too bad.

[D.J.]

When is the last time a great player coming off an MVP season who is still at or near his prime didn't make the playoffs for two consecutive years?

I'm pretty sure the number to that answer is zero.

That hurts Garnett. Duncan has shown nothing to say that he wouldn't make the playoffs with a poor supporting cast.... he won a championship in 2003 with a supporting cast that had no business of being champions, or really anything past the second round.


I fail to see your logic here. You're saying it's Garnett's fault that Cassell was injured, Sprewell was playing horribly, and Szczerbiak was traded? Despite Cassell only playing in 59 games and Sprewell playing horribly, the T-Wolves only missed the playoffs by one game. After 2005, they went into rebuilding mode. Just about every MVP I can think of was on a team that had at least a solid supporting cast. Garnett had two guys and the rest of the team stunk. Once Cassell and Sprewell were gone, that was it.

And the Spurs supporting cast is really underrated. Not only did they know their roles and play them well, but they had(still have) a great coach.

[G.O.A.T]

And the Spurs supporting cast is really underrated. Not only did they know their roles and play them well, but they had(still have) a great coach.

This is such a cop out argument. Even if that was true it's Duncan who gets the most credit for players fitting into their roles. That only happens if they respect and trust the superstar as well as the coach. Duncan has always shown Pop respect and the rest of the players had to follow.

[Y2Gezee]

I go with KG

[D.J.]

This is such a cop out argument. Even if that was true it's Duncan who gets the most credit for players fitting into their roles. That only happens if they respect and trust the superstar as well as the coach. Duncan has always shown Pop respect and the rest of the players had to follow.


It's not a cop out at all. If a team has players that fit into their roles and respect the coach, it's the coach that deserves credit. Everyone seemed to understand their role in Boston in 2008. Does Garnett get credit for that?

[G.O.A.T]

It's not a cop out at all. If a team has players that fit into their roles and respect the coach, it's the coach that deserves credit. Everyone seemed to understand their role in Boston in 2008. Does Garnett get credit for that?

Yes, of course. Is there any chance they win that title without KG? Doc Rivers os a joke as a coach, or at least he was. Is there any chance that team listens to him if KG isn't on board?

It is a cop out, because your stating an opinion like a fact, ignoring a very good point. The 2003 Spurs roster man for man is not better than most of the T-Wolves that supported KG from 2000-2004.

[Wuxia]

Give me prime Kg ANYDAY! Better rebounder, defender, scorer, intimidates players, can play on ball defense on guards, he can hit 20 footers. I cant see one think Timmy does better then him. The dude won MVP and Defensive player of the year all in the same year. Whens the last time thats been done? Rings and all that dont mean nothing when Duncan had the most stacked team for a good 4 5 years

When did this happen?

[Big#50]

Heres what I've always thought about KG. KG from 00-05 is better then any year of Duncan's career (except maybe 03 is comparable to the end of KG's prime). However, Duncan was better every year before and after 00-05. So basically prime vs. prime KG was just better. better passer, rebounder, probably better defender, as good of a scorer. Duncan was more clutch, and thats about it. Duncan just got lucky enough to play with some much better team mates.
LOL KG stat padding king is not a better passer or defender. More assists don't equal better passer. KG is still a top 25 player in my eyes but Tim is on a higher level.

[D.J.]

Yes, of course. Is there any chance they win that title without KG? Doc Rivers os a joke as a coach, or at least he was. Is there any chance that team listens to him if KG isn't on board?

It is a cop out, because your stating an opinion like a fact, ignoring a very good point. The 2003 Spurs roster man for man is not better than most of the T-Wolves that supported KG from 2000-2004.


Terrell Brandon was better Tony Parker. I don't disagree with that. Parker was better than the T-Wolves Chauncey Billups. Ginobili was at least equal to Anthony Peeler. Bruce Bowen played far better defense than Kendall Gill and Wally Szczerbiak. David Robinson, even at 36-37 years old, was much better defensively than Rasho Nesterovic, Joe Smith, and Marc Jackson. Stephen Jackson and Malik Sealy were about equal. There's nothing that suggests that Garnett had better teammates. It's not a coincedence than when his two best teammates went down or left, the team sucked.

[Wuxia]

Well, tough to argue against claims like that. True, KG isn't a mirror image of Tim Duncan, and doesn't have the same low post game, but I see no reason as to why San Antonio could have not have built around him. Minnesota was just a horrible team...for years and years. Someone said that the Spurs would have been a jumpshooting team. Anyone care to elaborate more on this?

You do realize its much easier to build your team around a post scorer right? Like mentioned above, KG has never had a post game nor was he ever the defensive anchor Duncan was. Its the same reason why Duncan, SHaq, Hakeem will always be a tier above KG.

[KG5MVP]

Ask any NBA player whos better during their primes, they all say KG, even Chuck said so, and Chuck is never wrong.

[D.J.]

Ask any NBA player whos better during their primes, they all say KG, even Chuck said so, and Chuck is never wrong.


Garnett is better stats-wise. Duncan had more of an impact on games, especially on the defensive end.

[Anaximandro1]

Duncan is better stats-wise.


Duncan career regular season 21.3 ppg(50.8%),11.7 rpg,2.3 bpg

Garnett career regular season 19.9 ppg(49.7%), 10.9 rpg,1.6 bpg


Playoffs

Duncan 23.3 ppg(50.3%),12.6 rpg,2.6 bpg

Garnett 21.6 ppg(47%), 12.4 rpg,1.6 bpg



Peak Tim Duncan

2001-2002

Season 25.5 ppg,12.7 rpg,2.5 bpg

Playoffs 27.6 ppg,14.4 rpg,4.3 bpg

2002-2003

Season 23.3 ppg,12.9 rpg,2.9 bpg

Playoffs 24.7 ppg,15.4 rpg,3.3 bpg


Peak Kevin Garnett

2003-2004

Season 24.2 ppg,13.9 rpg,2.2 bpg

Playoffs 24.3 ppg,14.6 rpg,2.3 bpg

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tim_duncan/career_stats.html

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kevin_garnett/career_stats.html

[Wuxia]

I'd go with Duncan. In 2003, his playoff performance was just ridiculous. In the closing game of the NBA finals, 21 points, 21 rebounds, 10 assists, 8 blocks. One of the best statline I have ever seen, much less in an NBA finals game.

[Fatal9]

I want to spit in the face of people who are picking KG.

[EricForman]

duncan all day everyday. here's why

1: those of you who claims duncan's always had this super cast is wrong. true his cast wasn't bad but it never jumped out on paper preseason nor were they ever more "talented" than say the Lakers/Kings/Mavs/Portland teams from the early 2000s or the recent Boston/Suns/Lakers/Detroit squads. Duncan's cast can't be argued to be vastly superior to his peers (say, what Kobe or Shaq or DWade was working with when they won their rings)

2: check Kg's stats in elimination games his first 5 or 6 years. he had some real bad stink bombs. meanwhile, duncan,f rom his second season on, was the man and carried his team. KG plays the same in November and in May. Duncan pacse himself and then come playoff time he'll drop a 33/15. watch how many times he broke the suns' heart from 05 to 08. those Suns teams were more talented 1-4 except the big men spot.

3: Duncan's won over 50 games every year of his career. KG went three years missing the playoffs. again, i dont believe the talent gap between their casts is that different. can any of you picture Duncan on a 30 win team no matter how bad his cast is? i can't. you switch Duncan with Iverson on say, the 05 Sixers squad and they win 55 games int he East. Duncan's proven time and time again--just give him a shooter, an athletic guy and another body and he'll get you 50 wins. He's done it with at least 2, or 3 different supporting casts.

[NBASTATMAN]

In all reality Duncan is the second best player since MJ... Shaq being the best... Kobe third and Kg fourth... I am rating them based on what they provide to their teams...

[chitownsfinest]

To the people using the argument of Duncan's superior supporting cast in favor of KG, I assure you to look over the 00-01 to 03-04 seasons again. Duncan's teams had no legit number two guy and featured casts of wash-ups (Willis, Ferry, Porter), young and inexperienced players (Parker, Ginobili, and Jackson), guys who are past their primes but still effective (Robinson), and role players (Bowen, Claxton, Rose) and yet Duncan led these teams to 55+ wins in each of those 4 years, 2 conference final appearances, and one championship as well. KG had comparable casts during that period but could not lead his team to nowhere near as much success then Duncan did (Duncan had much superior coaching though). Duncan did some of the best job at anchoring a defense a player has ever done and even led some defenses on a historical scale. Those 4 seasons imo put the supporting cast argument to waste and really showed that Duncan indeed had more impact then Kg did.

[thejumpa]

You do realize its much easier to build your team around a post scorer right? Like mentioned above, KG has never had a post game nor was he ever the defensive anchor Duncan was. Its the same reason why Duncan, SHaq, Hakeem will always be a tier above KG.

You do realize that you never answered my question right?

[artificial]

Duncan. And that's no disrespect to Garnett.

One of the biggest assets of Garnett was his terrific versatility. I even remember he had to bring the ball up court in one playoff series (I think it was when Troy Hudson was the starting PG) because he was the best dribbler on the court for his team, besides being a pretty good passer. He could really stretch the court with his nice range and great first step. His defense was not only about one on one or help-D, but he also motivated his teammates as an energizer on the court.

However, I don't remember him having many go-to moves in which he could rely down the stretch -although he developed a very, very reliable jumper-. As good as his defense was, he never was a downlow intimidator the way Duncan was. Sure, different kind of players. And I'd rather have a lowpost threat.

And the main reason I put Duncan above Garnett? Duncan did whatever you asked of him in order to win, especially when it really mattered. Need him to keep players honest in the paint? Done. Want him to defer to his teammates, so they can build confidence? He was a great offense initiator. Need him to score a do-or-die basket? Watch the bankshot fall. Justify the MVP's? He usually put up monster stats in games where his team needed him the most.


Bottomline, I love Garnett and think of him as a one of a kind player. But if I had to trust a team on either of them? I have stronger confidence in Duncan to get the job done.

[Wuxia]

You do realize that you never answered my question right?


Someone said that the Spurs would have been a jumpshooting team. Anyone care to elaborate more on this?

This is your question correct? Garnett is a jump shooter. If he was on the Spurs, they would have to find a dominant post player. This believe or not is not an easy task. Many teams do not have a post game and utilize a run and gun attack; therefore they are more likely to become a jump shooting team. Its much easier to have a dominant post player and fill the team with shooters as those are a dime a dozen, which is why the dominant post presence(Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem) is so valuable.

Off course this is all hypothetical, but you wanted an answer to your hypothetical scenario.

[Bernie Nips]

Duncan is better stats-wise.

Duncan career regular season 21.3 ppg(50.8%),11.7 rpg,2.3 bpg

Garnett career regular season 19.9 ppg(49.7%), 10.9 rpg,1.6 bpg


Playoffs

Duncan 23.3 ppg(50.3%),12.6 rpg,2.6 bpg

Garnett 21.6 ppg(47%), 12.4 rpg,1.6 bpg

Peak Tim Duncan

2001-2002

Season 25.5 ppg,12.7 rpg,2.5 bpg

Playoffs 27.6 ppg,14.4 rpg,4.3 bpg

2002-2003

Season 23.3 ppg,12.9 rpg,2.9 bpg

Playoffs 24.7 ppg,15.4 rpg,3.3 bpg


Peak Kevin Garnett

2003-2004

Season 24.2 ppg,13.9 rpg,2.2 bpg

Playoffs 24.3 ppg,14.6 rpg,2.3 bpg


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tim_duncan/career_stats.html

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kevin_garnett/career_stats.html

You read it here first, the only stats in basketball are points, rebounds and.... blocks.

[ThaRegul8r]

Give me prime Kg ANYDAY! Better rebounder, defender, scorer, intimidates players, can play on ball defense on guards, he can hit 20 footers. I cant see one think Timmy does better then him. The dude won MVP and Defensive player of the year all in the same year. Whens the last time thats been done?

I'm trying to remember when Garnett did this, let alone anyone else. Maybe age has affected my memory. Help me out here.

[veilside23]

people who can say that they trust duncan because he has been with the spurs the whole time.. and they won more ring that kg...

its just senseless duncan play with drob kg never had that kind of player with him.. pierce is good alright but drob elliot parker and manu are all better than the players that kg had all through out his career...

[Richard 23]

I'm a Celtic's fan and I am going with Duncan. Best PF of all time.

[veilside23]

I'm a Celtic's fan and I am going with Duncan. Best PF of all time.


i could always claim am a celtic fan as well :) who owns ur account?

[feyki]

Duncan, no question in my mind.

Duncan was a better low post player, better shot blocker and defender, IMO, better overall scorer and more clutch. Other than handle the ball, shoot jumpers and free throws, KG did not do a single thing better than Duncan. Rebounding was basically a wash and KG was no better than Duncan as a passer(despite the assist numbers). Give me Duncan, any day of the weak.

...

[rmt]

I miss all those posters - substantive, well thought-out, knowledgeable. Whatever happened to them? (And why am I still here?:rolleyes: when the quality of posters has gone so far down)

To all those who complain about KG's team mates - he had chances to leave MIN and yet signed 3 contracts with them - took the money (not that I blame any player for doing so) but you can't have it all (back then) and taking big money affects the quality of the team around you. And do you all think that it's coincidence that all those players who played/passed through SAS reached their potential there? Sure, part of it was Pop but part was also Duncan who allowed Pop to coach. And I'm gonna miss TD so.

Reflecting on Duncan's personality, impact and legacy:

http://www.nba.com/2016/news/features/david_aldridge/07/18/morning-tip-teammates-opponents-reflect-on-tim-duncan/

[greatest-ever]

For me it's Duncan by a small but noticeable margin. He was a much better scorer come playoff time at their peaks.

Kg 04 playoffs: 18 games 24.3 ppg on 51.3 ts%
Duncan 03 playoffs: 24 games 24.7 ppg on 57.7 ts%, similar volume but the efficiency difference is huge.

I can't see picking KG when the scoring difference is there, and other areas are comparable.

[SamuraiSWISH]

KG easily. He had less to work with. Oh and actually led USA to a gold medal. And not the most embarrassing Olympics of all time.

[Pointguard]

For me it's Duncan by a small but noticeable margin. He was a much better scorer come playoff time at their peaks.

Kg 04 playoffs: 18 games 24.3 ppg on 51.3 ts%
Duncan 03 playoffs: 24 games 24.7 ppg on 57.7 ts%, similar volume but the efficiency difference is huge.

I can't see picking KG when the scoring difference is there, and other areas are comparable.
TS% is a garbage stat in measuring great bigs. Too many stats are better than TS%.

[SamuraiSWISH]

TS is stupid because free throw percentage, an unguarded, referee discretion awarded shot can see field goal percentage mightily either up or down. It's a dumb stat.

[Pointguard]

TS is stupid because free throw percentage, an unguarded, referee discretion awarded shot can see field goal percentage mightily either up or down. It's a dumb stat.
Exactly.

Shaq, Duncan, Wilt, Russell and Hakeem all suffered in TS% In fact of the top ten GOATs only Magic, who you never hear it ever quoted is top 25 in TS% and he's at 9.

[rmt]

TS is stupid because free throw percentage, an unguarded, referee discretion awarded shot can see field goal percentage mightily either up or down. It's a dumb stat.

Well, in the case of TD vs KG comparison, wouldn't TS be more detrimental to TD than to KG (because of his worse free throw percentage) and still the gap is in TD's favor. They are both PFs - so any stat is a comparison between 2 similar types - this isn't between a comparison between a guard and a PF - that might favor one position over another.

[Young X]

Kevin is better.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Garnett versatility defensively trumps the shit out of Duncan. Garnett can guard smaller players and come out on the pick / roll yet still be able to switch, move his feet to contest shots of perimeter players.

He's also a more versatile scorer. Only difference career wise is David Robinson, Coach Pop, Parker, Manu and Leonard for the duration of his career. The Spurs are the Patriots of the NBA. So well run.

KG wasted his career on a bum Minneosta franchise, with only one year they were slightly talented enough KG immediately took them to the conference finals.

Give him Duncan and Spurs caliber roster when he was past his prime in Boston? Immediate dominant championship run. Went to the Finals again with older veteran players, and after being crippled with injury.

Was so beastly with adequate help he forced prime LeBron, Wade and Bosh to team up just to take them down.

[Young X]

Garnett versatility defensively trumps the shit out of Duncan. Garnett can guard smaller player and come out on the pick / roll yet still be able to switch, move his feet to contest shots of perimeter players.

He's also a more versatile scorer. Only difference career wise is David Robinson, Coach Pop, Parker, Manu and Leonard for the duration of his career. The Spurs are the Patriots of the NBA. So well run.

KG wasted his career on a bum Minneosta franchise, with only one year they were talented enough KG immediately took them to them to the conference finals.

Give him Duncan and Spurs caliber roster when he was past his prime in Boston? Immediate dominant championship run. Went to the Finals again with older veteran players, and after being crippled with injury.

Was so beastly with adequate help he forced prime LeBron, Wade and Bosh to team up just to take them down.All facts.

Imagine if you gave 26-30 year old Garnett his 2008-2012 Celtics supporting cast.

[SamuraiSWISH]

All facts.

Imagine if you gave 26-30 year old Garnett his 2008-2012 Celtics supporting cast.
I would have loved to have just seen a Kobe / Garnett team. Surround them with shooters. Ugh, such a perfect fit. Especially in that 2005 - 2007 era when both were suffering from dog shit caliber teammates. It would've been the Kobe / Gasol duo on steroids. No physical or mental softness either.

[Young X]

I would have loved to have just seen a Kobe / Garnett team. Surround them with shooters. Ugh, such a perfect fit. Especially in that 2005 - 2007 era when both were suffering from dog shit caliber teammates. It would've been the Kobe / Gasol duo on steroids. No physical or mental softness either.I always said the perfect match made in heaven would be Garnett and Jordan. The intensity on both ends, competitiveness, midrange game.

And there wouldn't be any ego issues because KG is unselfish. It's basically an even more dominant Pippen & Jordan.

Kobe would be the same thing. They would dominate the league in a similar fashion to Shaq and Kobe. Too bad the best Minnesota could do was give KG Wally Sczerbiak and Trenton Hassell.

[Smoke117]

Kevin Garnett's 2004 season is one of the most underrated MVP campaigns of all time...that's a top 10 season ever.

[rmt]

Garnett versatility defensively trumps the shit out of Duncan. Garnett can guard smaller players and come out on the pick / roll yet still be able to switch, move his feet to contest shots of perimeter players.

He's also a more versatile scorer. Only difference career wise is David Robinson, Coach Pop, Parker, Manu and Leonard for the duration of his career. The Spurs are the Patriots of the NBA. So well run.

KG wasted his career on a bum Minneosta franchise, with only one year they were slightly talented enough KG immediately took them to the conference finals.

Give him Duncan and Spurs caliber roster when he was past his prime in Boston? Immediate dominant championship run. Went to the Finals again with older veteran players, and after being crippled with injury.

Was so beastly with adequate help he forced prime LeBron, Wade and Bosh to team up just to take them down.

Versatility is over-rated. No one says that xxx is better than Shaq because of versatility. Doesn't matter if xxx has more skills - what is important is impact and I'm assuming most would prefer Shaq over xxx (and we're not talking MJ here).

I would prefer Duncan's post offense and defense than KG's versatility because (at that time) it was more conducive to winning.

[Young X]

^ You know what's also more conducive to winning? Playing for a winning organization.

[Big164]

Garnett is a colluder.

[rmt]

^ You know what's also more conducive to winning? Playing for a winning organization.

And you don't think that Duncan was the major reason why the Spurs are a winning organization? And you don't think that players probably reached their potential more playing with Duncan than with KG (personality-wise)?

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Kevin Garnett's 2004 season is one of the most underrated MVP campaigns of all time...that's a top 10 season ever.

This but 2004 was an all around very weak year for American basketball. Bronze medal, Duncan/Shaq fell off this year statistically. Kobe was pretty much putting up numbers he put up as a 20-21 year old in 2000. I remember Vince Carter fell off this year (he went from being a 25+ scorer to like a 22-23 ppg type of player as shown through his years on the Nets too) and T Mac had a pretty rough year compared to his insane 2003 year. The only thing that came out of the 2003-2004 season in terms of the NBA season was the hallmark of defense being more important for championship teams (2004 Pistons) and that the rookie class was full of future studs (Wade, Melo, Bosh, LeBron - 2 guaranteed possibly 3 HOFs) along with great role players (I think this draft had Josh Howard, Pietrus, Hinrick- always liked his all out play at the PG position).

[FireDavidKahn]

I think KG's absolute peak was better than Duncan, but that was only 1 year.

[FireDavidKahn]

Versatility is over-rated. No one says that xxx is better than Shaq because of versatility. Doesn't matter if xxx has more skills - what is important is impact and I'm assuming most would prefer Shaq over xxx (and we're not talking MJ here).

I would prefer Duncan's post offense and defense than KG's versatility because (at that time) it was more conducive to winning.
Duncan is not a better defender than Garnett.

Garnett is a top 5 GOAT defender.

[FireDavidKahn]

Garnett is a colluder.
:oldlol:

Garnett didn't collude shit.

He had to be talked into getting traded by Glen Taylor and the Minnesota FO.

Garnett initially was refusing to be traded.

[Odinn]

Duncan is not a better defender than Garnett.

Garnett is a top 5 GOAT defender.
Both of them aren't among top 5 goat defenders.

BTW, I don't take these versatility talks seriously. ISH where people rank KG over Moses Malone because KG was the more versatile one while Moses is clearly the superior player.

Also I wouldn't take a player who averaged 25+ pgg in a playoff series only 'twice' over Duncan.

[IGOTGAME]

it Duncan and it's always been. If you don't agree then we won't ever see eye to eye on basketball. That is how I use the question in real life.

[ArbitraryWater]

This but 2004 was an all around very weak year for American basketball. Bronze medal, Duncan/Shaq fell off this year statistically. Kobe was pretty much putting up numbers he put up as a 20-21 year old in 2000. I remember Vince Carter fell off this year (he went from being a 25+ scorer to like a 22-23 ppg type of player as shown through his years on the Nets too) and T Mac had a pretty rough year compared to his insane 2003 year. The only thing that came out of the 2003-2004 season in terms of the NBA season was the hallmark of defense being more important for championship teams (2004 Pistons) and that the rookie class was full of future studs (Wade, Melo, Bosh, LeBron - 2 guaranteed possibly 3 HOFs) along with great role players (I think this draft had Josh Howard, Pietrus, Hinrick- always liked his all out play at the PG position).

very good point... nobody ever talks about this. KG's peak season fell into one weird ass year.. never else did he have even nearly as much impact on his team again.

[Young X]

very good point... nobody ever talks about this. KG's peak season fell into one weird ass year.. never else did he have even nearly as much impact on his team again.He did the year before in 2003. What are you talking about?

[rmt]

Duncan is not a better defender than Garnett.

Garnett is a top 5 GOAT defender.

Where in my post do I say that? I repeat - I prefer Duncan's POST (offense and) defense to KG's versatility because (at that time) POST (offense and) defense was more conducive to winning.

[G0ATbe]

Garnett easily. Duncan would have a very similar career/legacy to marc gasol without the spurs system.

[Pointguard]

Both of them aren't among top 5 goat defenders. KG is, unless you underestimate the value of communication, which changed the landscape for defense forever. Teams simply could not get to the rim against the Celtics.


BTW, I don't take these versatility talks seriously. ISH where people rank KG over Moses Malone because KG was the more versatile one while Moses is clearly the superior player. I never made the claims of defensive versatility but made the other claims. So I guess you are coming for me when I wasn't even in this thread.


Also I wouldn't take a player who averaged 25+ pgg in a playoff series only 'twice' over Duncan.
I definitely have Magic and Russell over Duncan but thats me despite having Duncan ranked very high. None of the three were exactly killing it in that way. Its a silly standard to use because Duncan is less than becoming in this aspect vs other great big men.

[Annyong!]

2003 Duncan > Any year of KG.

[Im Still Ballin]

Fascinating thread. Made at the right time to look back on their respective primes. Always interesting to see what people were saying closer in time to what's being discussed.

[HighFlyer23]

Duncan is a tier above Garnett

[Im Still Ballin]

Whenever I read posts like these I have the same question:

Do think the Spurs great chemistry and four championship runs starting when Duncan arrived is just a coincidence?

To me the reasons why Duncan won four titles are the same reasons why he is better than Garnett in terms of peak, prime, career and even versatility (yes, you don't have to be ultra-athletic to be versatile.) It's the subtle things, how he makes people better; how guys like Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, Sean Elliott, Bruce Bowen and so many more can just focus on their individual strengths because of all Duncan does to cover up their weaknesses. Another reason Duncan's teammates were better is because Duncan took significantly less money and never threatened or left the impression that he might leave.

Yes Duncan was drafted by a better franchise and in his first few years playing alongside David Robinson in his late prime was a huge advantage, but look at the other players on those Spurs rosters; look at the 2003 Spurs, how is that roster any better than what Garnett had for the first four years of the decade and Duncan won a title with it.

I agree with this post. Especially the bolded. It's easier to fit around a traditional big than a seven-foot power forward that plays like a small forward. Versatility is cool, but it often comes off as gimmicky while the meat and potatoes of success are underappreciated.

[HoopsNY]

After Shaq, the next most overrated player is KG.

[Round Mound]

All i know is that Duncan is a better person.

[kawhileonard2]

All i know is that Duncan is a better person.

What do you mean?