Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

[BoNafidde]

Do they still win 4 championships?
Is KG crowned the GOAT PF?

Or

Does Duncan lead the T Wolves to championships?

[heyhey]

replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs...

notsureifsrs.jpg

:facepalm


but ignoring your typo yea I think KG under popovich wins at least 2 championships.

[Yung D-Will]

Might as well take the question farther.

Replace Barkley with Duncan on the Spurs

Replace Malone with Duncan on the spurs

[magnax1]

Well, there is no way in hell that Duncan wins Minnesota a championship, but idk whether KG wins 4 or not. I'd say that most likely he does.

[magnax1]

Replace Barkley with Duncan on the Spurs
The defense allows another 10 ppg


Replace Malone with Duncan on the spurs
I need a choking emoticon

[Penny37]

Well, there is no way in hell that Duncan wins Minnesota a championship, but idk whether KG wins 4 or not. I'd say that most likely he does.
No way he wins four. He's nowhere near the offensive player that Duncan is. I'd honestly be surprised if they won one.

[04mzwach]

How about MJ on the Spurs, with Duncan? Oh yeah... :facepalm

[tpols]

No way he wins four. He's nowhere near the offensive player that Duncan is. I'd honestly be surprised if they won one.
What? Their scoring averages and efficiencies are nearly identical in the playoffs and regular seasons during their primes. That literally makes no sense. Garnett was every bit the scorer duncan was. And his ability to anchor a defense was just as good too. Just look at what he's transformed this boston team into. These guys are neck and neck as individual players.

[magnax1]

No way he wins four. He's nowhere near the offensive player that Duncan is. I'd honestly be surprised if they won one.
Duncan was a better on the ball scorer, KG was a better passer and off the ball player. I'd rather have Duncan as a scorer, but to say KG is "nowhere near" is a massive exaggeration.

[Yung D-Will]

The defense allows another 10 ppg


I need a choking emoticon
Except for the fact that Barkley is a far better offensive player then KG and a better offensive player than Duncan

[bbms]

Would Duncan have a bodyguard like David Robinson early career?

I think Garnett is already the GOAT PF.

[LilBTheBasedGod]

I'm surprised this isn't a KG5MVP thread.

Probably worse because Duncan fits in their system better and doesn't get injured as much.

[TrueRob]

ignoring your typo yea I think KG under popovich wins at least 2 championships.

This. And Duncan wins nothing in Minnesota.

[Yung D-Will]

And then we come to the harsh reality that none of these hypotheticals mean a thing and Duncan has 4 championships whiles Garnett only has one.

[magnax1]

Except for the fact that Barkley is a far better offensive player then KG and a better offensive player than Duncan
That's true, but even so you go from two top 10 offensive players (during their time period) and two of the three best defensive players to probably a top 2 or 3 (tough to say if Magic was better) offensive player in his peak and who at his best was an average defender, I think that's a pretty obvious choice. The gap between defense is huge compared to the gap between the their offense. I'd say that during Barkleys very best year he was probably equal to Duncan or KG.maybe

[magnax1]

And then we come to the harsh reality that none of these hypotheticals mean a thing and Duncan has 4 championships whiles Garnett only has one.
And then you come to the harsh reality that championships is a stupid way to compare players.

[TrueRob]

Current KG > Current Duncan.
Prime KG ≈ Prime Duncan.

[Yung D-Will]

That's true, but even so you go from two top 10 offensive players (during their time period) and two of the three best defensive players to probably a top 2 or 3 (tough to say if Magic was better) offensive player in his peak and who at his best was an average defender, I think that's a pretty obvious choice. The gap between defense is huge compared to the gap between the their offense. I'd say that during Barkleys very best year he was probably equal to Duncan or KG.maybe


The Gap between Peak Barkley and Peak Garnett's offensive game was just as big as the gap between their defense.

I have Barkley above any PF not named Duncan.

[ShaqAttack3234]

What? Their scoring averages and efficiencies are nearly identical in the playoffs and regular seasons during their primes. That literally makes no sense. Garnett was every bit the scorer duncan was. And his ability to anchor a defense was just as good too. Just look at what he's transformed this boston team into. These guys are neck and neck as individual players.

Nah, I don't care what the stats are, Duncan was the better offensive player. And if we are talking stats, Duncan has multiple series where he averaged around 30 ppg in the playoffs.

Tim was a superior low post player and a guy who knew when to be assertive and take over. KG deferred too much sometimes and he settled for jump shots and tried to play like a small forward at times, which he did well, but I think his teams would have benefitted more from him posting up more often and when he did face up, attacking the rim more.

Defensively, I also think Duncan was better. KG guarded the perimeter better, but Duncan's impact was more like your traditional interior defensive anchor due to his superior shot blocking, post defense and the ability to guard centers more effectively.

[Yung D-Will]

And then you come to the harsh reality that championships is a stupid way to compare players.


And then you come to the Harsh reality that you and maybe 5% of the forum are the only people who actually believe that:oldlol:

[Micku]

I dunno. Maybe. KG is similar to Duncan, and the coach is one of the best coaches out there.

[magnax1]

And then you come to the Harsh reality that you and maybe 5% of the forum are the only people who actually believe that:oldlol:
It doesn't matter what % of people believe the truth, when it is the truth. If you win, you aren't the one winning, your team is. There isn't anything much more simple and obvious then that in basketball.

[KG5MVP]

David Robinson and Bruce Bowen are really underrated for the Spurs

[XxSMSxX]

You guys need to stop bringing up those bad memories with all those crappy ass minnesota teams i had to watch KG play for :(

[Myth]

Well, there is no way in hell that Duncan wins Minnesota a championship, but idk whether KG wins 4 or not. I'd say that most likely he does.

I say there is a chance in 2004.

However, these scenarios are always kind of dumb, because teams have been built around their stars' strengths, so who knows how well Duncan fits with those teams and who knows how well KG fits with the Spurs (Spurs were a perfect fit for Duncan, so I'd be surprised if KG works out as well on that team).

[Horatio33]

I think the big difference between Duncan and Garnett is Duncan would play hard during the regular season, but had an extra playoff gear where when his team needed him to have a monster series and hit clutch shots 9/10 he would come through. KG played every game as if it was Game 7 of the Finals. Which is great but a Game 6 WCF is more important than @Memphis in January. Duncan's numbers go up in the playoffs, KG's stay the same as his regular season numbers.

KG Career Regular Season PPG 19.7 RPG 10.8 APG 4.1 FG% 49.8

Career Playoff PPG 20.2 RPG 11.2 APG 4.0 FG% 47.4


TD Career Regular Season PPG 20.9 RPG 11.5 APG 3.2 FG% 50.8

Career Playoff PPG 23.0 RPG 12.4 APG 3.5 FG% 50.2

Duncan's points and rebounds go up quite a bit, Garnett's stay pretty much the same. Duncan's FG% goes down slighty and Garnett's goes down over 2 percentage points, while Duncan shoots over 50% in Reg and Post seasons, Garnett manages neither.

[Bigsmoke]

i dont know.

[SsKSpurs21]

I say there is a chance in 2004.

However, these scenarios are always kind of dumb, because teams have been built around their stars' strengths, so who knows how well Duncan fits with those teams and who knows how well KG fits with the Spurs (Spurs were a perfect fit for Duncan, so I'd be surprised if KG works out as well on that team).

great point.

during Duncans prime, the team was built around him. Pop and RC surrounded him with shooters. our entire game plan was to drop the ball to duncan down low and let him work...if the double or triple came he would kick out to the open shooter. I dont think KG can demand that double the way duncan did down low.

[Harison]

Do they still win 4 championships?
Is KG crowned the GOAT PF?

Or

Does Duncan lead the T Wolves to championships?
Duncan doesnt win with the Wolves, thats for sure.

KG could win 4 with the Spurs, but their brilliant office would have to adjust roster slightly. While both players impact is remarkably similar, teams would have to adjust to their superstars strong points. For example I think KG would average ~2PPG less but Manu, Parker and the rest of the player would benefit more from KG since he is better passer and doesnt mind to pass to open player instead of forcing the shot. KG and TD are both selfless, but KG is up there with Russell as ultimate team players.

[Harison]

I say there is a chance in 2004.

Since Minny had many injures in '04 Playoffs, Garnett played pretty much every role from PG to center, Duncan cannot do that.

[rmt]

I think the big difference between Duncan and Garnett is Duncan would play hard during the regular season, but had an extra playoff gear where when his team needed him to have a monster series and hit clutch shots 9/10 he would come through. KG played every game as if it was Game 7 of the Finals. Which is great but a Game 6 WCF is more important than @Memphis in January. Duncan's numbers go up in the playoffs, KG's stay the same as his regular season numbers.

KG Career Regular Season PPG 19.7 RPG 10.8 APG 4.1 FG% 49.8

Career Playoff PPG 20.2 RPG 11.2 APG 4.0 FG% 47.4


TD Career Regular Season PPG 20.9 RPG 11.5 APG 3.2 FG% 50.8

Career Playoff PPG 23.0 RPG 12.4 APG 3.5 FG% 50.2

Duncan's points and rebounds go up quite a bit, Garnett's stay pretty much the same. Duncan's FG% goes down slighty and Garnett's goes down over 2 percentage points, while Duncan shoots over 50% in Reg and Post seasons, Garnett manages neither.

This. Some people love the daily intensity of Garnett but give me Duncan who performs better against better competition when it counts in the playoffs.

[Horatio33]

KG and TD are both selfless, but KG is up there with Russell as ultimate team players.

So Duncan isn't an ultimate team player. His teams have an over .700 record since he joined the league.

[gts]

The spurs would have built a defensive dynamo around KG... there's a good chance the spurs actually repeat one of their titles with a KG team

both are great players duncan maybe a little better than kg but the credit goes to the spurs front office for knowing what types of players to surround their franchise players with

[ginobli2311]

first off:

duncan was a superior offensive player than kg. kg is more versatile, but duncan had a bigger impact and was far more dominant. kg was never really a dominant offensive player....at least not like duncan. duncan could control an entire game and series on the low block. he had to be doubled and really when you have to double a low post player you are screwed.

so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point.



now. duncan was not winning anything in minny with the same relative talent kg had. the only year there would have even been a chance was 04.....and i simply don't think duncan could have won that series without cassell. he might have forced a game 7....but i don't think there is much of chance to beat the lakers or the pistons in 04.


and that is why titles are a bit over-rated when it comes to judging players. its a factor of course, but far too many people on here and in the sports world judge nba players on solely titles or weight titles too heavily.

just look at duncan and kg:

duncan has played on around 8 or 9 teams with a legit chance to win it all.
if you count 04 for kg (which probably wasn't legit)....kg has played on a total of 3 teams with a legit chance to win it all.

and that simply is not a fair comparison whatsoever.

so, like always, you need to delve deeper into why duncan is better (which he is). and its because he was more dominant offensively and because he was a better paint protector defensively. duncan is a superior one on one defender on the low block and a better rim protector and a bit better at off the ball shot blocking as well.

but i do think this is a bit closer than most people have it.

[Harison]

So Duncan isn't an ultimate team player. His teams have an over .700 record since he joined the league.
How about this outlandish idea - team record might have something to do with a teams quality? Isnt Celtics doing better with an old KG since Big3 was formed than the Spurs? :pimp:

[rmt]

Duncan doesnt win with the Wolves, thats for sure.

KG could win 4 with the Spurs, but their brilliant office would have to adjust roster slightly. While both players impact is remarkably similar, teams would have to adjust to their superstars strong points. For example I think KG would average ~2PPG less but Manu, Parker and the rest of the player would benefit more from KG since he is better passer and doesnt mind to pass to open player instead of forcing the shot. KG and TD are both selfless, but KG is up there with Russell as ultimate team players.

Duncan wouldn't have stayed with the Wolves after his rookie contract. If he was seriously considering Orlando after the Spurs had already won the championship, he wouldn't have stayed in Minn if they didn't seriously put a contending team around him. Even Kobe would have bailed on the Lakers if they hadn't gotten Gasol. Staying in Minn. is the only thing I fault with KG - he should have taken less and gone to a team with a better chance of winning, but he has made a lot more money than TD throughout his career.

Well, what does it say about Duncan since he still has slightly better career stats even without the hypothetical 2 PPG less. Spurs were built around Duncan - his team mates got lots of wide open shots from double teams on him. For most of his career, it was a steady diet of "4 down" - throw it in to Duncan surrounded by shooters.

Team play is the last thing that anyone should be mentioning against TD - other than Russell and maybe, Magic, he is the ultimate team player.

[Harison]

duncan was a superior offensive player than kg. kg is more versatile, but duncan had a bigger impact and was far more dominant. kg was never really a dominant offensive player....at least not like duncan. duncan could control an entire game and series on the low block. he had to be doubled and really when you have to double a low post player you are screwed.

You overrating Duncan and underrating KG. Duncan is slightly better scorer with slightly higher efficiency, but also inferior passer (which is a part of the offense btw).

Everyone is touting how good Duncan is in the Playoffs, lets see how much more dominant Duncan was:

Best series:
Duncan '02: 27.6/14.4/5.0 with FG% 45.3
Duncan '03: 24.7/15.4/5.3 with FG% 52.9

Garnett '03: 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4
Garnett '04: 24.3/14.6/5.1 with FG% 45.2

You can pretty much swap their best Playoffs performances, how similar their were, I'm not even including Garnett's 24.0/18.7/5.0 series.

So how again Duncan is more dominant offensive player? If we talk about defense, I agree Duncan is better defending centers, while Garnett is better at defending all four other positions on the flour, including quicker hands to be much better at steals.

Just watch KG in the prime, posted in other threads just few days ago:

Kevin Garnett vs Sacramento Kings 2004 Playoffs Game 3: 30/15/5/3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVQwMl2NDI

Garnett: 2004 vs Kings Playoffs GM7: 32/21/4/5/2 - one of the best Game 7 performances All-time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4

Garnett vs Los Angeles Lakers 2003 playoffs Game 3: 33/14/4/4/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8jjcJUkco

How about other KG Playoffs games, like 35/20/7, 31/18/4, 30/19/4 vs Lakers, 32/21/2/4/5 vs Denver, and many other games. Its just strange how people quickly forget what beast KG was in the prime, probably because rarely anyone watched crappy franchise like Wolves.

[Pointguard]

I think the big difference between Duncan and Garnett is Duncan would play hard during the regular season, but had an extra playoff gear where when his team needed him to have a monster series and hit clutch shots 9/10 he would come through. KG played every game as if it was Game 7 of the Finals. Which is great but a Game 6 WCF is more important than @Memphis in January. Duncan's numbers go up in the playoffs, KG's stay the same as his regular season numbers.

KG Career Regular Season PPG 19.7 RPG 10.8 APG 4.1 FG% 49.8

Career Playoff PPG 20.2 RPG 11.2 APG 4.0 FG% 47.4

TD Career Regular Season PPG 20.9 RPG 11.5 APG 3.2 FG% 50.8

Career Playoff PPG 23.0 RPG 12.4 APG 3.5 FG% 50.2

Duncan's points and rebounds go up quite a bit, Garnett's stay pretty much the same. Duncan's FG% goes down slighty and Garnett's goes down over 2 percentage points, while Duncan shoots over 50% in Reg and Post seasons, Garnett manages neither.

There are a whole lot of things that you are overlooking. One is that KG came straight out of HS so his early numbers can be skewed a bit - along with health issues later on. Two is that Minny usually only had KG as an offensive weapon so in the playoffs its much easier to key in on him and affect his FG%. While in his prime KG's numbers in the playoffs were staggering: 27 ppg 15.7 rebs and 5.2 assist one year; 24ppg 18.7 rebs and 5 assist another year, and 24ppg, 14.6 and 5 assist another year. In his healthy Boston run his ppg did go up 2 ppg as well.

I was doing this post as Harrison did his above so some of it is redundant

[Dbrog]

What? Their scoring averages and efficiencies are nearly identical in the playoffs and regular seasons during their primes. That literally makes no sense. Garnett was every bit the scorer duncan was. And his ability to anchor a defense was just as good too. Just look at what he's transformed this boston team into. These guys are neck and neck as individual players.

Completely different way of scoring though. KG = High Post, Duncan = Low Post. Low Post will always be better (especially if you are a great passes) because of the floor spacing (more offensive rebounds and wide open perimeter shots). That is why Duncan's scoring was "better."

[ginobli2311]

You overrating Duncan and underrating KG. Duncan is slightly better scorer with slightly higher efficiency, but also inferior passer (which is a part of the offense btw).

Everyone is touting how good Duncan is in the Playoffs, lets see how much more dominant Duncan was:

Best series:
Duncan '02: 27.6/14.4/5.0 with FG% 45.3
Duncan '03: 24.7/15.4/5.3 with FG% 52.9

Garnett '03: 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4
Garnett '04: 24.3/14.6/5.1 with FG% 45.2

You can pretty much swap their best Playoffs performances, how similar their were, I'm not even including Garnett's 24.0/18.7/5.0 series.

So how again Duncan is more dominant offensive player? If we talk about defense, I agree Duncan is better defending centers, while Garnett is better at defending all four other positions on the flour, including quicker hands to be much better at steals.

Just watch KG in the prime, posted in other threads just few days ago:

Kevin Garnett vs Sacramento Kings 2004 Playoffs Game 3: 30/15/5/3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVQwMl2NDI

Garnett: 2004 vs Kings Playoffs GM7: 32/21/4/5/2 - one of the best Game 7 performances All-time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4

Garnett vs Los Angeles Lakers 2003 playoffs Game 3: 33/14/4/4/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8jjcJUkco

How about other KG Playoffs games, like 35/20/7, 31/18/4, 30/19/4 vs Lakers, 32/21/2/4/5 vs Denver, and many other games. Its just strange how people quickly forget what beast KG was in the prime, probably because rarely anyone watched crappy franchise like Wolves.

no. i'm not. i'm a huge KG fan. i love his game. but he simply was not the dominant low post scorer that duncan was. kg was more versatile and in a lot of ways a more complete player than duncan in terms of skill set.

that is not what i'm debating.

i simply believe that duncan had an ability to control and dominate a game and series in a way that kg could not. and that really doesn't show up in the stats.

i'm not debating whether or not kg is great. he's in my top 15 all time actually. so i love KG. i just know for sure 100% that if i had to build a team around duncan or kg for their best 10 years of their careers....i would take duncan.

and usually that is how i determine which player is better when two players are very close like kg and duncan.

ultimately, i don't think you fully understand just how important it is for winning to have a dominant back to the basket post player like duncan or shaq in this era. as good as kg was.....he wasn't in their league in terms of offensive dominance.

[Crown&Coke]

Coaching had a lot to do with TD winning.

Pop>>>>>>>>>>>Flip, and I might be underselling it.

KG on the Spurs wins at least 3 imo.

[Pointguard]

You overrating Duncan and underrating KG. Duncan is slightly better scorer with slightly higher efficiency, but also inferior passer (which is a part of the offense btw).

Everyone is touting how good Duncan is in the Playoffs, lets see how much more dominant Duncan was:

Best series:
Duncan '02: 27.6/14.4/5.0 with FG% 45.3
Duncan '03: 24.7/15.4/5.3 with FG% 52.9

Garnett '03: 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4
Garnett '04: 24.3/14.6/5.1 with FG% 45.2

You can pretty much swap their best Playoffs performances, how similar their were, I'm not even including Garnett's 24.0/18.7/5.0 series.

So how again Duncan is more dominant offensive player? If we talk about defense, I agree Duncan is better defending centers, while Garnett is better at defending all four other positions on the flour, including quicker hands to be much better at steals.

Just watch KG in the prime, posted in other threads just few days ago:

Kevin Garnett vs Sacramento Kings 2004 Playoffs Game 3: 30/15/5/3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVQwMl2NDI

Garnett: 2004 vs Kings Playoffs GM7: 32/21/4/5/2 - one of the best Game 7 performances All-time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4

Garnett vs Los Angeles Lakers 2003 playoffs Game 3: 33/14/4/4/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8jjcJUkco

How about other KG Playoffs games, like 35/20/7, 31/18/4, 30/19/4 vs Lakers, 32/21/2/4/5 vs Denver, and many other games. Its just strange how people quickly forget what beast KG was in the prime, probably because rarely anyone watched crappy franchise like Wolves.
When you say offense a lot of people do not include the whole gamut - KG was setting his team up. KG was getting assist out of guys that couldn't create on their own. In fact KG had made Nesterovic look so good one year that SA stole him from Minny and paid him like a true up and coming center. Then they found out it was KG that made him look good. To me assist is part of offense. People really downplay that. Those guys had to be spoon fed in Minny - they needed KG to score. So KG's offense was far beyond his own simple points. A casual fan isn't going to get it but for those really into the game, its there.

On defense its too hard to call. Myself I give it to KG because he communicates better and is therefore tied to the other players on the floor. The Boston teams were anchored around KG's ability to communicate close outs and ruin the thought of penetration. One on one defense is a bit simplistic and doesn't take into account other dynamics.

[game385]

There's no way of knowing. Championships are won by a combination of great players. Great Leadership. Great coaching. and Good management making the right moves.

Some teams are run so poorly that even the greatest players couldn't win there.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Well, there is no way in hell that Duncan wins Minnesota a championship, but idk whether KG wins 4 or not. I'd say that most likely he does.
Well it's not like Duncan won 4 in a row, 3 in a row, or hell ... even back to backs. His championships were sprinkled through out the decade, which makes them less remarkable and memorable as well. Jordan (three peat), Hakeem (back to back), Jordan (three peat), Shaq (three peat), Kobe (back to back)... makes the teams, years more memorable. Plus, no matter what ANYONE tells you. The 1999 championship does not count.

:oldlol:


Duncan and the Spurs, while very good (not great) were never AS impressive and AS dominant as people make them out to be . One of the absolute best teams of the decade, no question ... but they weren't like some unstoppable force. And that has ALWAYS been a roster laced with talent, and willing role player, all put together by a top three coach in the game annually? It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest KG in his prime years, who on an individual evaluation I would possibly rate as a slightly better player than Duncan, at the very LEAST equal ... how would he not at least win 1 or 2 rings? I think KG would actually be able to put together a back to back for them on at least once. He may not get 4, but I think he would get at the very least 1 or 2 rings.

As players, KG and Duncan are neck and neck. I don't think one player has any specific skill advantages over the other, and I certainly don't think either has any "intangibles" that separates them the way some intangibles can separate players of equal skill and ability, etc.

Duncan certainly isn't winning ANY rings in Minnesota. Believe that Duncan / Spurs groupies. Don't sit here and act like KG wasn't a winner. All he needed was capable pieces. Don't act like Latrell Spreewell at the stage in his career he was at was a capable second option on a championship level team. On a championship level team, even in his absolute prime, he's be a 3rd or 4th option at best. KG didn't have any super clutch Manu Ginobili's, Tony Parkers, Robert Horrys, Michael Finleys, Malik Roses, David Robinsons, etc.

In the year he went to the WCF, KG's 2nd best player was ... TROY HUDSON. Just brew on that for a second. People want to complain about what LeBron had to work with supporting cast wise. Look what KG did with that cast ... in the WEST. When it was during the era where the West was the Varisty, and the East didn't even look like J.V. teams, they straight up looked like middle school competition.

I just wish KG had say a Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, a Stephon Marbury (who didn't go crazy, and wasn't selfish) ... a legit second star to play with for the prime of his career that would pick up the slack where KG was clearly lacking. He needed someone who could score, handle the ball, and be the focus of the opposing defense down the stretch of big games to take pressure of Garnett, who had to do EVERYTHING under the sun for the T-Wolves.

[guy]

I could see him winning 2-3 titles in 99, 05, and 07. There wasn't another great team in 99 and Duncan didn't do anything in 05 or 07 that I don't think KG could've done as well, but 05 was so close vs. the Pistons that its probably a toss-up. There's no way I think he could've done what Duncan did in 03 though. Assuming Duncan goes to the Celtics in 08, the Celtics still win in 08.

[alenleomessi]

KG aint better than Sir Charles :no:

[Samurai Swoosh]

KG aint better than Sir Charles :no:
Yes he is ... Charles played little defense. I'd take KG over Barkley.

[rmt]

There are a whole lot of things that you are overlooking. One is that KG came straight out of HS so his early numbers can be skewed a bit - along with health issues later on. Two is that Minny usually only had KG as an offensive weapon so in the playoffs its much easier to key in on him and affect his FG%. While in his prime KG's numbers in the playoffs were staggering: 27 ppg 15.7 rebs and 5.2 assist one year; 24ppg 18.7 rebs and 5 assist another year, and 24ppg, 14.6 and 5 assist another year. In his healthy Boston run his ppg did go up 2 ppg as well.

I was doing this post as Harrison did his above so some of it is redundant

This is one thing I don't get - people have choices and they have to live with the consequences of their decisions/actions. KG decided to skip college and also to stay in Minn. after his rookie contract. Should he get a bye/brownie points because he made these decisions while Duncan stayed in college the whole 4 years and came out more NBA-ready?

On the flip side of KG's FG% being affected, then his numbers should be up because he just took more shots since he was on bad teams - again, his decision.


There's no way I think he could've done what Duncan did in 03 though. Assuming Duncan goes to the Celtics in 08, the Celtics still win in 08.

Also agree with this. Spurs rebuilt around TD. Rookie Manu and 2nd year Parker were nowhere near the players they are today or near Cassell and Spree. TD carried the 2003 team.

Nobody knows what would have happened if they were switched. All we know is what really happened which (so far) is TD has 4 rings to 1 for KG.

[guy]

I just wish KG had say a Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, a Stephon Marbury (who didn't go crazy, and wasn't selfish) ... a legit second star to play with for the prime of his career that would pick up the slack where KG was clearly lacking. He needed someone who could score, handle the ball, and be the focus of the opposing defense down the stretch of big games to take pressure of Garnett, who had to do EVERYTHING under the sun for the T-Wolves.

KG would've been the perfect teammate for AI. A totally unselfish defensive big man that could still score when he needed to. There places in history might be completely different if that happened. And it actually could've happened if the Sixers took KG instead of Stackhouse in the previous draft. And KG actually had a less productive rookie year then Stackhouse, so the Sixers could've still won the lottery the next year to get AI, in fact there chances would've been even greater.

[04mzwach]

I'm surprised this isn't a KG5MVP thread.

Probably worse because Duncan fits in their system better and doesn't get injured as much.
Doesn't get injured as much? Check his career as a T-wolve before you talk. :facepalm

[Harison]

no. i'm not. i'm a huge KG fan. i love his game. but he simply was not the dominant low post scorer that duncan was.

I'm not debating Duncan is more dominant low-post player, I agree with that, but its not the same as "more dominant offensive player" which I debunked.



i simply believe that duncan had an ability to control and dominate a game and series in a way that kg could not. and that really doesn't show up in the stats.
Kings in '04 wouldnt agree with that, when KG almost single-handedly beat them playing almost all positions. Thats something Duncan never did. Probably this type of thinking about Duncan is born off Spurs success, which again is strongly influenced by the team and coaching.



i'm not debating whether or not kg is great. he's in my top 15 all time actually. so i love KG. i just know for sure 100% that if i had to build a team around duncan or kg for their best 10 years of their careers....i would take duncan.
I would pick depending what I have on my team, i.e. if I need center, I'm picking Duncan, if PF - Garnett.



ultimately, i don't think you fully understand just how important it is for winning to have a dominant back to the basket post player like duncan or shaq in this era. as good as kg was.....he wasn't in their league in terms of offensive dominance.
Arguably two most dominant offensive players Jordan and Bird werent post players, and specifically in this era its wings/perimeter players age, not centers. Duncan is perfect for center position, as PF he could use more range and skills a la KG or Dream.

[SayTownRy]

His championships were sprinkled through out the decade, which makes them less remarkable and memorable as well...

The 1999 championship does not count...

Duncan and the Spurs, while very good (not great) were never AS impressive and AS dominant as people make them out to be ...


:facepalm

[SinJackal]

KG definitely doesn't win 4 titles. Assuming KG started his career when Duncan did, KG wouldn't have been good enough to win in 1999, as Duncan was already a great player his 1st-2nd years, while KG wasn't. Duncan had to carry his team on his back throughout the playoffs in 2003. KG was a good, but not elite player at that point in his career (6 seasons in). He wouldn't have won anyway.

2005, KG might've won a title, assuming KG's defense was anywhere near Duncan's, which it wasn't. 2007, maybe, since this was Duncan's worst statistical year while winning a title, and KG would've been in his prime.

So, I could see one title. Two maybe, in a huge stretch. 4? Hell no.

As for Duncan winning any in Minnesota, I'd guess he'd leave rather than stay there if they weren't putting a good enough team around him, and try to win somewhere who will do that. But I think he would've at least seeded better, and gotten out of the first round more than once, and possibly taken them to the Finals and won the year KG got them to the WCF. Duncan's gotten more out of his teammates than KG has. Let's not forget how many times KG missed the playoffs entirely, and been knocked out in round 1 repeatedly when he has gotten there. He doesn't exactly have a sparkling record of winning before going to Boston.



And then you come to the harsh reality that championships is a stupid way to compare players.

Not as stupid as excluding record and success when comparing players. The game's all about winning, not stuffing the stat sheet as much as you can while winning at a barely 50% rate.

[Harison]

When you say offense a lot of people do not include the whole gamut - KG was setting his team up. KG was getting assist out of guys that couldn't create on their own. In fact KG had made Nesterovic look so good one year that SA stole him from Minny and paid him like a true up and coming center. Then they found out it was KG that made him look good. To me assist is part of offense. People really downplay that. Those guys had to be spoon fed in Minny - they needed KG to score. So KG's offense was far beyond his own simple points. A casual fan isn't going to get it but for those really into the game, its there.
Exactly, offense isnt just scoring and efficiency, but also passing, range, skills, screens, etc, and considering everything, there is little difference between KG and TD. Claiming either one of them is more dominant than another is misleading.



On defense its too hard to call. Myself I give it to KG because he communicates better and is therefore tied to the other players on the floor. The Boston teams were anchored around KG's ability to communicate close outs and ruin the thought of penetration. One on one defense is a bit simplistic and doesn't take into account other dynamics.
Agreed as well, ability to cover all 5 positions while communicating and holding everyone accountable, plus inspiring others to become better defenders is quite remarkable, and this area KG shines over Duncan.

[SsKSpurs21]

the dominance of Tim Duncan

Hakeem (1995) and Duncan (2003) are the only NBA superstars to lead their teams to NBA championships without a single all-star or all-NBA teammate.

Tim Duncan is one of 2 players in NBA history to win a title (2003) with his #2option averaging less than 15 PPG in the playoffs

Tim Duncan is also one of two players, the other being Bill Russell, to win championships with two rosters that had only themselves in common. In Duncan's case, there was not one player left from the 1999 team in 2007.

[tpols]

the dominance of Tim Duncan

Hakeem (1995) and Duncan (2003) are the only NBA superstars to lead their teams to NBA championships without a single all-star or all-NBA teammate.

Tim Duncan is one of 2 players in NBA history to win a title (2003) with his #2option averaging less than 15 PPG in the playoffs

Tim Duncan is also one of two players, the other being Bill Russell, to win championships with two rosters that had only themselves in common. In Duncan's case, there was not one player left from the 1999 team in 2007.
Yea but in 2003 duncan went up against a nets team that also didn't have any other stars on it besides jason kidd. That finals was pretty much a cake walk for the spurs. They had a better coach, and better teammates surrounding their star player(kidd MADE that team; they were much worse off without kidd than the spurs were without duncan imo). They were easy favorites there.

Let me put it this way IF the nets were to have won that series it would've done a shitload more for kidd's legacy than it did for duncan's. So this whole 'only players in history' is kind of misleading.

That being said, duncan had a fantastic performance that year.

But for the thread topic, while KG may not have won as many titles with the spurs(you can't say anyone in the history of the game would've DEFINITELY won 4 titles on those spurs teams), duncan sure as hell would've never won anything in minnesota either. Shitty coach. Shitty teammates. Poor system. Pretty much the opposite of what duncan had despite his whole 'second option' argument(which isn't needed for every player and every system). KG was as dominant in Minny as duncan could have ever been.

[XxSMSxX]

KG definitely doesn't win 4 titles. Assuming KG started his career when Duncan did, KG wouldn't have been good enough to win in 1999, as Duncan was already a great player his 1st-2nd years, while KG wasn't. Duncan had to carry his team on his back throughout the playoffs in 2003. KG was a good, but not elite player at that point in his career (6 seasons in). He wouldn't have won anyway.

2005, KG might've won a title, assuming KG's defense was anywhere near Duncan's, which it wasn't. 2007, maybe, since this was Duncan's worst statistical year while winning a title, and KG would've been in his prime.

So, I could see one title. Two maybe, in a huge stretch. 4? Hell no.

As for Duncan winning any in Minnesota, I'd guess he'd leave rather than stay there if they weren't putting a good enough team around him, and try to win somewhere who will do that. But I think he would've at least seeded better, and gotten out of the first round more than once, and possibly taken them to the Finals and won the year KG got them to the WCF. Duncan's gotten more out of his teammates than KG has. Let's not forget how many times KG missed the playoffs entirely, and been knocked out in round 1 repeatedly when he has gotten there. He doesn't exactly have a sparkling record of winning before going to Boston.




Not as stupid as excluding record and success when comparing players. The game's all about winning, not stuffing the stat sheet as much as you can while winning at a barely 50% rate.

Duncan is not winning a title with that 04 cast, Michael Jordan wouldn't be able to win a title with that cast. and stop acting like Duncan was on some other level defensively than Garnett

[ginobli2311]

I'm not debating Duncan is more dominant low-post player, I agree with that, but its not the same as "more dominant offensive player" which I debunked.


Kings in '04 wouldnt agree with that, when KG almost single-handedly beat them playing almost all positions. Thats something Duncan never did. Probably this type of thinking about Duncan is born off Spurs success, which again is strongly influenced by the team and coaching.


I would pick depending what I have on my team, i.e. if I need center, I'm picking Duncan, if PF - Garnett.


Arguably two most dominant offensive players Jordan and Bird werent post players, and specifically in this era its wings/perimeter players age, not centers. Duncan is perfect for center position, as PF he could use more range and skills a la KG or Dream.


you did not debunk anything. duncan was a more dominant offensive player because he required a double team on the low block while kg really did not.

kg is more versatile...you seem to keep getting that confused. so much of what you say is true, but you are taking it too far. are you saying that kg was as good as shaq offensively? because shaq couldn't shoot, wasn't a great passer, couldn't dribble, couldn't make free throws, couldn't run a pick and pop. kg could simply hurt you in so many more ways offensively than shaq, but i don't think anyone would say kg is even close to shaq in terms of offensive dominance.

while not the same gap, duncan was more dominant offensively.

take a look at all the stats and advanced stats:

in the playoffs:

duncan averaged more points and rebounds and was 3% better from the field. his rebound and block percentage were better. he more than doubled kg in defensive and offensive win shares and overall win shares in less than double the games. his win shares per 48 is much better. duncan's ts% and efg% are better.

while i'm not using only these stats, they do confirm what i saw. and what i saw was a more dominant player in duncan than kg and these stats confirm what i saw with my eyes.

duncan also has a better offensive and defensive rating in the playoffs as well.

while i don't think duncan would have won a title in minny, i think he could have had a little more regular season success and possibly gotten out of the first round a couple more times. if kg was on the spurs in place of duncan i see him winning at least two titles...maybe 3. but i don't think kg could have won a title on the 03 spurs....in fact i'd bet a ton of money he couldn't have gotten by the shaq/kobe lakers that year.

i'm not saying it isn't close. it is. i just think there is an edge for duncan here in terms of impact and level of play.

[ginobli2311]

Yea but in 2003 duncan went up against a nets team that also didn't have any other stars on it besides jason kidd. That finals was pretty much a cake walk for the spurs. They had a better coach, and better teammates surrounding their star player(kidd MADE that team; they were much worse off without kidd than the spurs were without duncan imo). They were easy favorites there.

Let me put it this way IF the nets were to have won that series it would've done a shitload more for kidd's legacy than it did for duncan's. So this whole 'only players in history' is kind of misleading.

That being said, duncan had a fantastic performance that year.

But for the thread topic, while KG may not have won as many titles with the spurs(you can't say anyone in the history of the game would've DEFINITELY won 4 titles on those spurs teams), duncan sure as hell would've never won anything in minnesota either. Shitty coach. Shitty teammates. Poor system. Pretty much the opposite of what duncan had despite his whole 'second option' argument(which isn't needed for every player and every system). KG was as dominant in Minny as duncan could have ever been.

uhhhhhh.

he also dominated the kobe/shaq lakers in 03.

[magnax1]

As for Duncan winning any in Minnesota, I'd guess he'd leave rather than stay there if they weren't putting a good enough team around him, and try to win somewhere who will do that. But I think he would've at least seeded better, and gotten out of the first round more than once, and possibly taken them to the Finals and won the year KG got them to the WCF. Duncan's gotten more out of his teammates than KG has. Let's not forget how many times KG missed the playoffs entirely, and been knocked out in round 1 repeatedly when he has gotten there. He doesn't exactly have a sparkling record of winning before going to Boston.
I want you to explain to me how Duncan would've gotten the TWolves to the finals with Derick Martin starting point guard, and Trenton Hassell, Olowakandi and an injured Wally playing big minutes? Especially with no backup PG, would Duncan play PG like KG did?





Not as stupid as excluding record and success when comparing players. The game's all about winning, not stuffing the stat sheet as much as you can while winning at a barely 50% rate.
I don't think I ever did exclude winning. In fact the reason KG is so great is because he took super shitty teams to the playoffs, and played great when he got there. The only thing I did is take into account that basketball isn't and individual game where winning titles equates to how to good you are. If Duncan and KG were boxers what you're saying might make a little bit of sense.

[Anaximandro1]

Spurs win zero championship.

Spurs don't have enough firepower,so Duncan needs to score a lot on the biggest stages;Garnett can't do that.To make things worse,Tim Duncan is a better rim protector and a better interior defender.

1999

Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-0 over Lakers

Duncan averaged 29 pts,10.8 rbs,3.3 as.,2 blk

Finals/ Spurs 4-1 over Knicks

Duncan averaged 27.4 pts,14.1 rbs,2.4 as.,2.2 blk

2002

Western Conference Semifinals / Lakers 4-1 over Spurs

LA was the better team but Duncan averaged 29 pts,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk

2003

Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Lakers

Duncan averaged 28 pts,11.8 rb,4.8 as,1.3 blk


Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-2 over Mavs

Duncan averaged 28 pts,16.7 rb,5.8 as,3 blk


Finals / Spurs 4-2 over Nets

Duncan averaged 24.2 pts,17.0 rb,5.3 as,5.3 blk


2005

Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Sonics

Duncan averaged 25.2 pts,10.3 rb,2.5 as,2.5 blk


Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-1 over Suns

Duncan averaged 27.4 pts,13.8 rb,3.2 as,1.8 blk


2006

Western Conference Finals / Mavs 4-3 over Spurs

Duncan averaged 32.2 pts,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk


2007

Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Suns

Duncan averaged 26.8 pts,13.7 rb,1.1 as,4.1 blk

[Harison]

you did not debunk anything. duncan was a more dominant offensive player because he required a double team on the low block while kg really did not.

kg is more versatile...you seem to keep getting that confused. so much of what you say is true, but you are taking it too far. are you saying that kg was as good as shaq offensively? because shaq couldn't shoot, wasn't a great passer, couldn't dribble, couldn't make free throws, couldn't run a pick and pop. kg could simply hurt you in so many more ways offensively than shaq, but i don't think anyone would say kg is even close to shaq in terms of offensive dominance.

while not the same gap, duncan was more dominant offensively.
You take MINOR difference in scoring and efficiency, IGNORE everything else about the offense, and say one player is more dominant than another? :oldlol: Oh, and while you place TD and Shaq on the same level, THATS where actual difference offensively is, Duncan is NOT Shaqs caliber. It just shows how much you overrate Duncan.



duncan averaged more points and rebounds and was 3% better from the field. his rebound and block percentage were better. he more than doubled kg in defensive and offensive win shares and overall win shares in less than double the games. his win shares per 48 is much better. duncan's ts% and efg% are better.

while i'm not using only these stats, they do confirm what i saw. and what i saw was a more dominant player in duncan than kg and these stats confirm what i saw with my eyes.

duncan also has a better offensive and defensive rating in the playoffs as well.
Its funny how you quote TEAM based stats as a prove of a player as better than another :oldlol: KG had to do more, and he did, including Playoffs. He was all over the floor while providing +/- impact on the team FAR greater than Duncan ever did. Maybe Duncan would have helped Wolves as much... maybe not, he isnt as versatile and couldnt play all 5 positions on both sides of the floor. All these stats just show what a luxury is to play in the solid team with an All-time great coach.



while i don't think duncan would have won a title in minny, i think he could have had a little more regular season success and possibly gotten out of the first round a couple more times. if kg was on the spurs in place of duncan i see him winning at least two titles...maybe 3. but i don't think kg could have won a title on the 03 spurs....in fact i'd bet a ton of money he couldn't have gotten by the shaq/kobe lakers that year.

i'm not saying it isn't close. it is. i just think there is an edge for duncan here in terms of impact and level of play.
KG took '03 Lakers to 6 games almost by himself, why do you think he wouldnt have a chance with a better team with a much better coach? Didnt KG had 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4 against the same Lakers, which could very well be the best Duncan performance? The very series you're speaking about Duncan stats were 28/11.8/4.8, and honestly Garnett did better. Actually Spurs blew '03 Lakers away in GM2 with Duncan having 12 points only, it just shows Spurs were pretty solid team, even without All-star 2nd option.

[ginobli2311]

You take MINOR difference in scoring and efficiency, IGNORE everything else about the offense, and say one player is more dominant than another? :oldlol: Oh, and while you place TD and Shaq on the same level, THATS where actual difference offensively is, Duncan is NOT Shaqs caliber. It just shows how much you overrate Duncan.


Its funny how you quote TEAM based stats as a prove of a player as better than another :oldlol: KG had to do more, and he did, including Playoffs. He was all over the floor while providing +/- impact on the team FAR greater than Duncan ever did. Maybe Duncan would have helped Wolves as much... maybe not, he isnt as versatile and couldnt play all 5 positions on both sides of the floor. All these stats just show what a luxury is to play in the solid team with an All-time great coach.


KG took '03 Lakers to 6 games almost by himself, why do you think he wouldnt have a chance with a better team with a much better coach? Didnt KG had 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4 against the same Lakers, which could very well be the best Duncan performance? The very series you're speaking about Duncan stats were 28/11.8/4.8, and honestly Garnett did better. Actually Spurs blew '03 Lakers away in GM2 with Duncan having 12 points only, it just shows Spurs were pretty solid team, even without All-star 2nd option.


dude. look.

i told you a lot of why duncan is better won't show up in the stats. i never put duncan on the same level as shaq in terms of offensive dominance. you are now twisting my words or not comprehending.

because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg. when one player demands a double team (especially a low post guy) it creates a ton of problems for the opposing team.

duncan commanded a double. kg did not. that is a huge difference when it comes to winning in the playoffs.

look. i'm saying i think duncan was slightly better. i'm saying that kg could have possibly won 3 titles on the spurs. i just don't think he could have won in 03. its just my opinion.

i love kg. love him. have him top 14 all time and the 2nd best pf ever. he is certainly in duncan's league as a player. i just prefer duncan for all the reasons i gave you.

dominant low post presence and dominant post defender/rim protector provides so much value for winning in the nba. and those are two things that duncan was better than kg at.

now. if you put alonzo mourning next to kg....then its a totally different story because you would rather have a zo/kg duo than a duncan/zo duo. so it begins to get into a team oriented thing at some point.

but the thread is about kg vs duncan and how many titles kg would win in duncan's place. and i am very comfortable saying all but the 03 title.

[mashbelly]

Duncan > KG

[Harison]

dude. look.

i told you a lot of why duncan is better won't show up in the stats. i never put duncan on the same level as shaq in terms of offensive dominance. you are now twisting my words or not comprehending.

How nice, Duncan offensive monster but you dont see in stats :oldlol: And also your claim "like duncan or shaq in this era. as good as kg was.....he wasn't in their league in terms of offensive dominance." is what I debunked several times now, and while you put TD next to Shaq... That was my another point, Shaq is on whole another level what concerns offensive dominance compared to BOTH TD and KG, who as I PROVED, are very similar in the offensive end.



because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg. when one player demands a double team (especially a low post guy) it creates a ton of problems for the opposing team.

duncan commanded a double. kg did not. that is a huge difference when it comes to winning in the playoffs.
Thats simply not true, did you watched videos I linked? KG was offen double teamed while he provided easy points to teammates, and since KG has better court vision and could play as a PG, he can setup his teammates more often and easier than Duncan can from low post double-teams only. There is a reason why KGs APG is higher than Duncans. Btw did you watched '08 Finals? Lakers double or even tripple teamed KG as soon as he touched the ball, so what you are saying doesnt tell the whole picture, or even half of it.



look. i'm saying i think duncan was slightly better. i'm saying that kg could have possibly won 3 titles on the spurs. i just don't think he could have won in 03. its just my opinion.
Actually KG would have won in '03 slightly easier than Duncan with Spurs, not only because obviously KG played better against Lakers (27.0/15.7/5.2 is superior to 28/11.8/4.8), but also because KG with DRob would provide better team defense than TD with DRob. None of them could do anything vs prime Shaq, but unlike Duncan, KG would be superior help defender against Kobe and helping denying ball to Shaq.

[ginobli2311]

How nice, Duncan offensive monster but you dont see in stats :oldlol: And also your claim "like duncan or shaq in this era. as good as kg was.....he wasn't in their league in terms of offensive dominance." is what I debunked several times now, and while you put TD next to Shaq... That was my another point, Shaq is on whole another level what concerns offensive dominance compared to BOTH TD and KG, who as I PROVED, are very similar in the offensive end.


Thats simply not true, did you watched videos I linked? KG was offen double teamed while he provided easy points to teammates, and since KG has better court vision and could play as a PG, he can setup his teammates more often and easier than Duncan can from low post double-teams only. There is a reason why KGs APG is higher than Duncans. Btw did you watched '08 Finals? Lakers double or even tripple teamed KG as soon as he touched the ball, so what you are saying doesnt tell the whole picture, or even half of it.


Actually KG would have won in '03 slightly easier than Duncan with Spurs, not only because obviously KG played better against Lakers (27.0/15.7/5.2 is superior to 28/11.8/4.8), but also because KG with DRob would provide better team defense than TD with DRob. None of them could do anything vs prime Shaq, but unlike Duncan, KG would be superior help defender against Kobe and helping denying ball to Shaq.

agree to disagree.

you have not proven or debunked anything. whether you want to admit it or not. tim duncan was a better post player on offense. thats just a fact. another fact is that duncan commanded a double team more often than kg.

but regardless. agree to disagree.

[Harison]

agree to disagree.

you have not proven or debunked anything. whether you want to admit it or not. tim duncan was a better post player on offense. thats just a fact. another fact is that duncan commanded a double team more often than kg.

but regardless. agree to disagree.
The most famous TD series vs '03 Lakers are inferior to similar KGs series, but as I see, it doesnt matter to you nor is a prove of anything :confusedshrug:

TD is better post player - sure, I always agreed to that, but once again, its not the same as better offensive player, since KG provides better passing, better floor spacing, more aggressive screens, etc. When you combine everything what contributes to offense, its clear not one of them is more dominant than another.

Its also true TD commands double teams more often, but passing out of it isnt automatically superior to PF who can play as a PG and find open teammate anywhere, regardless if its from double-team, fast break, or simply left open.

[ginobli2311]

The most famous TD series vs '03 Lakers are inferior to similar KGs series, but as I see, it doesnt matter to you nor is a prove of anything :confusedshrug:

TD is better post player - sure, I always agreed to that, but once again, its not the same as better offensive player, since KG provides better passing, better floor spacing, more aggressive screens, etc. When you combine everything what contributes to offense, its clear not one of them is more dominant than another.

Its also true TD commands double teams more often, but passing out of it isnt automatically superior to PF who can play as a PG and find open teammate anywhere, regardless if its from double-team, fast break, or simply left open.

but you still are trying to equate everything on only stats. and stats don't do it justice always. shaq's stats don't do him justice. some of td's stats don't do him justice.

as i said before. kg was a more complete offensive player than duncan. but i don't feel he was as dominant because he didn't demand a double and wasn't a guy you could go to down on the low block as much as duncan.

this really has nothing to do with kg for me. its about duncan providing something that very few players of all time could. a low post presence and dominance on both ends.

kg had some amazing series and great years. nobody is saying otherwise.

[Harison]

but you still are trying to equate everything on only stats. and stats don't do it justice always. shaq's stats don't do him justice. some of td's stats don't do him justice.

as i said before. kg was a more complete offensive player than duncan. but i don't feel he was as dominant because he didn't demand a double and wasn't a guy you could go to down on the low block as much as duncan.

this really has nothing to do with kg for me. its about duncan providing something that very few players of all time could. a low post presence and dominance on both ends.

kg had some amazing series and great years. nobody is saying otherwise.
Sure stats dont tell the full picture. Lets pretend KG is on Spurs... Manu and Parker LOVES to drive to the basket... KG pulls away big man and finds open teammate cutting to the basket for easy points. Now Duncan sitting in the post and passing out the ball to perimeter for a jumper... Who do you think helps teammates to get easier points with higher efficiency?

Both tactics have positives and negatives, but when you already have DRob sitting in the post, it gets crowded with TD being the most effective there too. DRob (or any other center) would complement KG better than Duncan, unless we drop "TD is PF" and consider him a center, then its another topic. For example TD with KG would be an insanely good duo, complementing each other perfectly :applause:

[lukekarts]

KG on the Spurs wouldn't replace Duncan's impact.

He would have been capable of winning when Robinson was on the team. But post Robinson, Duncan has basically been the Spurs Center (albeit listed as PF) for a lot of the time - he guards them at least. KG is a great defender but not a help defender like Duncan, so the Spurs would have to be shaped differently.

It's hard to say really. Both players have had similar impact over their careers but in different ways. I like for like swap doesn't work but I think the team's potential is the same.

[ginobli2311]

Sure stats dont tell the full picture. Lets pretend KG is on Spurs... Manu and Parker LOVES to drive to the basket... KG pulls away big man and finds open teammate cutting to the basket for easy points. Now Duncan sitting in the post and passing out the ball to perimeter for a jumper... Who do you think helps teammates to get easier points with higher efficiency?

Both tactics have positives and negatives, but when you already have DRob sitting in the post, it gets crowded with TD being the most effective there too. DRob (or any other center) would complement KG better than Duncan, unless we drop "TD is PF" and consider him a center, then its another topic. For example TD with KG would be an insanely good duo, complementing each other perfectly :applause:

now you are changing the arguments and shifting the focus. of course kg would be better in some situations than duncan would. talk about stating the obvious.

but what you fail to realize is that both parker and manu were not great players yet in 03. that team needed a dominant low post presence to carry them through the playoffs. and once again....kg's overall versatility wouldn't have been enough to carry that team to a title. the guys you reference above weren't ready to do what you speak of consistently and robinson was a shell at that point.

i have no doubt in my mind that a kg led spurs lose to the lakers in 03. no doubt.

nearly every standard and measure has duncan as the better player. his PER is better. his stats are better. he commanded more attention offensively and was harder to game plan for. he was a better low block defender and rim protector.

and he was more dominant. and that dominance is what allowed the spurs to win titles...especially the 03 title. and that doesn't show up in the stats....even though duncan's stats are superior.

3 more points per game and 1 more rebound on 3% better from the field.

but i've already given you all that and you just ignore it. you ignore that duncan scored at over 50% from the field in the playoffs 8 times out of 12 trips to the playoffs. KG? 1 time out of 10 trips to the playoffs.

you see? things like that actually matter. like when duncan shot 57% over 13 games in the playoffs one year.

please dude. you think you won this debate....but you didn't. any knowledgeable fan knows this.

and fyi. stop acting like robinson was still elite in 03. he was a 20 minute a game role player that gave the spurs like 8 points and 7 boards in the playoffs. so that kind of blows you argument out of the water. manu wasn't even close to the player he would become and parker was hardly great and was seriously inconsistent and inefficient.

parker shot 40%
jackson shot 41%
manu shot 39%
rose shot 42%
bowen shot 37%
claxton shot 44%

LOL....not one rotation player other than robinson shot over 44% in 03. so good luck with you "kg will set them all up" idea. nope. that spurs team needed a dominant post presence on both ends. not a versatile 7 footer.
:cheers:

[rmt]

Sure stats dont tell the full picture. Lets pretend KG is on Spurs... Manu and Parker LOVES to drive to the basket... KG pulls away big man and finds open teammate cutting to the basket for easy points. Now Duncan sitting in the post and passing out the ball to perimeter for a jumper... Who do you think helps teammates to get easier points with higher efficiency?

Both tactics have positives and negatives, but when you already have DRob sitting in the post, it gets crowded with TD being the most effective there too. DRob (or any other center) would complement KG better than Duncan, unless we drop "TD is PF" and consider him a center, then its another topic. For example TD with KG would be an insanely good duo, complementing each other perfectly :applause:

Back in 03 playoffs, Manu and especially Parker were not the finishers in the paint (or passers) that they are now. Manu was a rookie and averaged 9 PPG and 2.9 asst. Parker was a 2nd year player (got benched a lot for Speedy Claxton - even in the final game of the Finals) averaged 14.7 PPG and 3.5 asst.

It was a steady diet of 4down - Duncan in the low post waiting for the double team and dishing to team mates for open 3s (Kerr, Bowen, S. Jackson, Manu). Also, TD's 5.3 assts doesn't include those baskets where an extra pass was made but resulted from the double team.

Robinson played limited mins. in 03 playoffs - averaging 7.8 PPG and was not "sitting in the post" but playing a more defensive role. Why is Duncan knocked for being able to play/guard both positions (PF and C) but KG gets brownie points for his versatility?

[ginobli2311]

Back in 03 playoffs, Manu and especially Parker were not the finishers in the paint (or passers) that they are now. Manu was a rookie and averaged 9 PPG and 2.9 asst. Parker was a 2nd year player (got benched a lot for Speedy Claxton - even in the final game of the Finals) averaged 14.7 PPG and 3.5 asst.

It was a steady diet of 4down - Duncan in the low post waiting for the double team and dishing to team mates for open 3s (Kerr, Bowen, S. Jackson, Manu). Also, TD's 5.3 assts doesn't include those baskets where an extra pass was made but resulted from the double team.

Robinson played limited mins. in 03 playoffs - averaging 7.8 PPG and was not "sitting in the post" but playing a more defensive role. Why is Duncan knocked for being able to play/guard both positions (PF and C) but KG gets brownie points for his versatility?

this.

maybe he'll listen to you. he keeps acting like parker/manu were elite players in 03 and keeps insisting that a kg/robinson duo would be amazing.

i honestly don't think he watched the spurs that year. parker was out of control often and highly inefficient. same with manu. and robinson was a shell and merely a 20 minute a game role player.

[Harison]

but what you fail to realize is that both parker and manu were not great players yet in 03. that team needed a dominant low post presence to carry them through the playoffs. and once again....kg's overall versatility wouldn't have been enough to carry that team to a title. the guys you reference above weren't ready to do what you speak of consistently and robinson was a shell at that point.
While Parker and Manu werent in primes yet, but Spurs as a team was solid and better than Minny, and even better than Lakers if we exclude Shaq with Kobe. As was an example of Duncan scoring only 12 points yet Spurs blowing Lakers out of the water in GM2.

DRob even way after his prime was better than Perkins in '08 for the Celtics, and yet Celtics were one of the top All-time teams defensively (including post D), guess why? Perkins or DPOY guy you underrate here? After KG went down in '09, suddenly Celtics were only average defensively.



i have no doubt in my mind that a kg led spurs lose to the lakers in 03. no doubt.
Thats your opinion. KG was better than Duncan vs Lakers, yet you think he would lose :facepalm



nearly every standard and measure has duncan as the better player. his PER is better. his stats are better. he commanded more attention offensively and was harder to game plan for. he was a better low block defender and rim protector.
If you like advanced stats, KGs peak was better, and while Duncan has his advantages (which you overstate), so has KG (which you ignore). After some thinking its obvious Minny would do worse with Duncan, while Spurs pretty much the same with KG. Still as I said in the first post about it, Spurs brilliant front office would adjust roster to use their superstar strong points better.



3 more points per game and 1 more rebound on 3% better from the field.

but i've already given you all that and you just ignore it. you ignore that duncan scored at over 50% from the field in the playoffs 8 times out of 12 trips to the playoffs. KG? 1 time out of 10 trips to the playoffs.

you see? things like that actually matter. like when duncan shot 57% over 13 games in the playoffs one year.
You are comparing 19 years old KG from HS vs 21+ years Duncan from college. When we compare primes, difference is non existent or KG did even better. Or how about KGs increased efficiency while playing on a better team? Things like that actually matter.



and fyi. stop acting like robinson was still elite in 03. he was a 20 minute a game role player that gave the spurs like 8 points and 7 boards in the playoffs. so that kind of blows you argument out of the water. manu wasn't even close to the player he would become and parker was hardly great and was seriously inconsistent and inefficient.

parker shot 40%
jackson shot 41%
manu shot 39%
rose shot 42%
bowen shot 37%
claxton shot 44%

LOL....not one rotation player other than robinson shot over 44% in 03. so good luck with you "kg will set them all up" idea. nope. that spurs team needed a dominant post presence on both ends. not a versatile 7 footer.

As I said above, Robinson was better than Perkins, and watch what post-prime KG did with the Celtics.

While you quote shooting %, we have one unique example as mentioned by pointguard - Nesterovic. With KG he was scoring 11.2 with 52.5%, immediately after joining Spurs he dropped to 8.7 with 46.9%. I guess spoon feeding from KG works better :oldlol: Its unanimous KG is a better passer than Duncan, why its so hard for you to admit Spurs players would benefit from that as well?

[rmt]

While Parker and Manu werent in primes yet, but Spurs as a team was solid and better than Minny, and even better than Lakers if we exclude Shaq with Kobe. As was an example of Duncan scoring only 12 points yet Spurs blowing Lakers out of the water in GM2.

DRob even way after his prime was better than Perkins in '08 for the Celtics, and yet Celtics were one of the top All-time teams defensively (including post D), guess why? Perkins or DPOY guy you underrate here? After KG went down in '09, suddenly Celtics were only average defensively.


Thats your opinion. KG was better than Duncan vs Lakers, yet you think he would lose :facepalm


If you like advanced stats, KGs peak was better, and while Duncan has his advantages (which you overstate), so has KG (which you ignore). After some thinking its obvious Minny would do worse with Duncan, while Spurs pretty much the same with KG. Still as I said in the first post about it, Spurs brilliant front office would adjust roster to use their superstar strong points better.


You are comparing 19 years old KG from HS vs 21+ years Duncan from college. When we compare primes, difference is non existent or KG did even better. Or how about KGs increased efficiency while playing on a better team? Things like that actually matter.


As I said above, Robinson was better than Perkins, and watch what post-prime KG did with the Celtics.

While you quote shooting %, we have one unique example as mentioned by pointguard - Nesterovic. With KG he was scoring 11.2 with 52.5%, immediately after joining Spurs he dropped to 8.7 with 46.9%. I guess spoon feeding from KG works better :oldlol: Its unanimous KG is a better passer than Duncan, why its so hard for you to admit Spurs players would benefit from that as well?

How can you exclude Shaq and Kobe?????

Don't think you can compare an 08 Boston team with 3 franchise players to 03 Spurs team with not one All-star or All-NBA player other than TD. The memorable thing about the 03 team was Duncan's brilliance. Robinson was 38 years old (his last year) with a bad back. A better comparison for defense would be the 99 Spurs when Robinson was still good or 05 when Bowen had reached his prime & Horry showed up. I also think that TD was more clutch than KG.

Would KG be able to carry the 03 Spurs roster to a ring? I don't think so. Would TD be able to win with the 08 Celtics roster in place of KG? I'd bet more money on this than on the former.

[Duncan21formvp]

Do they still win 4 championships?
Is KG crowned the GOAT PF?

Or

Does Duncan lead the T Wolves to championships?

No Duncan is better than KG. KG would only win with the 2007 or maybe 2005 Spurs. 1999 or 2003 he has no shot to win with them.

[Harison]

Don't think you can compare an 08 Boston team with 3 franchise players to 03 Spurs team with not one All-star or All-NBA player other than TD. The memorable thing about the 03 team was Duncan's brilliance. Robinson was 38 years old (his last year) with a bad back. A better comparison for defense would be the 99 Spurs when Robinson was still good or 05 when Bowen had reached his prime & Horry showed up. I also think that TD was more clutch than KG.

Would KG be able to carry the 03 Spurs roster to a ring? I don't think so. Would TD be able to win with the 08 Celtics roster in place of KG? I'd bet more money on this than on the former.
You missed the point, Celtics '08 quality was better, however not defensively without KG, if he transformed that team to an All-time great D team, imagine what he could do with the players who are known for their defense along with a better coach? Old DRob was still better than Perkins (actually his Drtg was almost the same as prime Duncans), Bowen was also better than anyone on Celtics not named KG, Manu also better than Pierce or Ray on D. Just because Spurs didnt had 2nd All-star, doesnt mean they werent a solid team.

About Duncan brilliance in '03 - there is no question about that, and I always had immense respect for that championship run. But KG was even more brilliant than Duncan vs Lakers in '03 Playoffs (you have seen the stats, one of the games linked to this very topic), he makes Spurs team defense even better since DRob perfectly complements him, no redundancy, plus great other defenders like Bowen, etc., while delivering extraordinary performance. Yet some say KG cant win the Spurs '03 :facepalm

[XxSMSxX]

No Duncan is better than KG. KG would only win with the 2007 or maybe 2005 Spurs. 1999 or 2003 he has no shot to win with them.

You really think KG, a year before his MVP season has NO shot to win in 03? i can see 99 but really? :facepalm

[drza44]

i'm not debating whether or not kg is great. he's in my top 15 all time actually. so i love KG. i just know for sure 100% that if i had to build a team around duncan or kg for their best 10 years of their careers....i would take duncan.

Ginobili, I'm addressing this to you because I know you're actually a fan of both players but think Duncan's slightly better. I've seen you defend KG in many different threads. But as I follow this thread, I don't agree with your logic for WHY you're choosing Duncan. If you believe Duncan to be better, that's cool, but I'd like you to at least read what I type and consider if maybe your stated reasons for choosing Duncan are worth mulling further. I admit in advance this will likely be long, and some of the things I'll say have been touched upon more concisely by Harrison, but in going into more detail I'm hoping to provide a bit more relevant context and thus either a) make my point more strongly or b) give you more specific critical points from which to draw your distinction for why you believe Duncan to be better. Hopefully you read all of this. :lol



take a look at all the stats and advanced stats:

in the playoffs:

duncan averaged more points and rebounds and was 3% better from the field. his rebound and block percentage were better. he more than doubled kg in defensive and offensive win shares and overall win shares in less than double the games. his win shares per 48 is much better. duncan's ts% and efg% are better.

I think this is an important place to start. There have been posts in this thread arguing both sides, that Duncan's career playoff numbers are better or that Garnett was just as good in their primes. The key for this thread, IMO, is to start with the latter. The career numbers have their utility, but we are trying to get a sense for how KG compared with Duncan during the title years, most specifically the last three after Robinson was no longer primed. I suggest we should take a look at their numbers from the 02/03 season to '07-08. Why those years? Well, for one the 02-03 season is when Garnett moved full-time to power forward. For two, this stretch goes from peak (they finished 1-2 in MVP vote in both 03 and 04) to just past prime championships (led teams to rings in 07 and 08) for both players, giving a reasonable range to compare them. And for three (later in this post) 82games.com started keeping their stats in 2002-03, giving us a richer tapestry of stats to make our evaluations.

From 2002-03 to 2007-08, here are their postseason stats:

Duncan: 23 points (50% FG, 68% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 107 games

Garnett: 23 points (48% FG, 77% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 50 games

As you can see, what Garnett and Duncan produced in the boxscores in their primes was very similar. The game is obviously about more than boxscores, and I will continue my case below, but I wanted a visual record in this thread that showed what the box scores say about them in this period. Now, this isn't a replacement for career numbers and we can debate elsewhere how much relevance KG's 14 and 7 last season (over 24 games) might have in this thread. But for now, I just want you to consider that there wasn't just this self-evident postseason improvement for Duncan's postseason numbers over Garnett's in their prime. They produced very similarly.




i told you a lot of why duncan is better won't show up in the stats.

because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg. when one player demands a double team (especially a low post guy) it creates a ton of problems for the opposing team.

duncan commanded a double. kg did not. that is a huge difference when it comes to winning in the playoffs.

Moving out of numbers, you're repeating something here that I've seen before, but that I don't think bears up under closer scrutiny. Let's start with your last line: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not." This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota, just as much the focus of opposing defenses as Duncan was.

If he posted on the low blocks he was doubled ruthlessly, and his go-to move to counter that was the turnaround fade-away turning away from the direction of the double-team. In many cases (especially when his casts were really weak) teams took to double/tripling him before the entry pass. KG's man would set up playing post-D behind him, the on-ball defender would sag off of the wing passer into KG's lap and then either the weak-side perimeter defender or the weak-side post defender (depending on the angle of the pass) would hedge off of their man ready to triple KG on the catch. This wasn't a rare strategy. Garnett was double-teamed pretty much as a rule for most of his tenure in Minnesota.

In fact, a good chunk of the high-post sets that Minnesota used Garnett for were used to make it harder to double him, but he was still always the fulcrum that the defense swarmed around. For example, the play "elbow" posted Garnett on the side of the free throw line, forcing the double to come from perscribed directions that he could either shoot over or pass out of. This benefited his teammates that could shoot, most specifically Wally Szczerbiak, who made a living for years planting his feat as the outlet release shooter that got open looks off those doubles.

Another popular set was for KG to post at the top of the key, then the PG would throw the ball up very high and let KG jump to get it and then pivot to break down the defense while the guard cut to the wing. Depending on the direction the 2nd defender came from, KG could either hit the shooter for a baseline three or dump it down to the center (for a direct shot), or else swing it to a wing and then either re-post or initiate a pick-and-roll/pop. This set didn't leave much room for KG to attack/shoot directly, but those high-low passes or lasers to the baseline three got a lot of easy buckets for Rasho and Anthony Peeler.

Then, finally, there was the large number of pick-and-roll or pick-and-pops that the Wolves ran to get KG in motion and force the defense off-balance. This was a bread-and-butter play, and was a strong reason why Chauncey Billups, Troy Hudson and Sam Cassell all saw their careers take a big uptake when they came to Minnesota.

All of which ties back to the other parts of your above quoted passage: "because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg." This is a repeat of the basketball trusim: ""low post offense wins championships". The thing is, KG's combination of efficient personal scoring (from both the interior and perimeter) and passing ability isn't often seen. There aren't many test cases.

The reason that low-post offense is so powerful is that it facillitates high efficiency offense both for the individual and for the team. But Garnett, despite playing a more perimeter game, once he moved full-time to PF KG routinely produced similar individual scoring efficiencies and offensive efficiencies to Duncan while routinely facilitating team offense on a similar if not higher level. True, Duncan's low post game fits more stylistically into the traditional view of what a big man should be. But when you look at the reasons for WHY the traditional big man generally experiences success, the fact that Garnett accomplishes the same thing in different ways isn't an indication that Duncan's way is BETTER. It's simply an alternate way to do things.


look. i'm saying i think duncan was slightly better. i'm saying that kg could have possibly won 3 titles on the spurs. i just don't think he could have won in 03. its just my opinion.

i love kg. love him. have him top 14 all time and the 2nd best pf ever. he is certainly in duncan's league as a player. i just prefer duncan for all the reasons i gave you.

Obviously no one would denounce you for thinking that Duncan was slightly better. But I do question the validity of the stated reasons. Duncan and Garnett produced very similar postseason box score numbers in their prime, he produced very similar individual scoring efficiencies in their primes, and Garnett demonstrated that he could orchestrate high-efficiency offenses using his scoring, passsing, and decision-making as well. And if we brought +/- stats into it, Garnett actually outperforms Duncan there in both the regular and postseason which argues against the notion that Duncan was having a bigger impact outside of the stats.

Then, for 2003 specifically, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, in 2003 the road to the title went through LA. Both Garnett and Duncan led teams against those Lakers, played 6 games, and dominated the series. You have mentioned several times that you are extremely confident that Garnett couldn't have led the Spurs by LA the way Duncan did, but you haven't really given a rebuttal (that I've seen) for what dominance that Duncan expressed in that series that KG didn't.

Again, as through this whole thread, my point isn't to attack. It's to point out where I believe your stated opinion hasn't been fully supported. So to that end, I invite you to counter any of my stated points and/or also make a more firm case for why you believe what you do about 2003. And not just in generalities (i.e. post offense is just better, without regard to the pretty well documented individuals involved) or falling back to pure opinion (i.e. I just believe it, it's my opinion). Let's get some meat in this...what exactly did you see from Duncan and not from KG in 2003 that firms your convictions. Let's see if we can at least form a better articulation of why you believe Duncan to be better.

[XxSMSxX]

Ginobili, I'm addressing this to you because I know you're actually a fan of both players but think Duncan's slightly better. I've seen you defend KG in many different threads. But as I follow this thread, I don't agree with your logic for WHY you're choosing Duncan. If you believe Duncan to be better, that's cool, but I'd like you to at least read what I type and consider if maybe your stated reasons for choosing Duncan are worth mulling further. I admit in advance this will likely be long, and some of the things I'll say have been touched upon more concisely by Harrison, but in going into more detail I'm hoping to provide a bit more relevant context and thus either a) make my point more strongly or b) give you more specific critical points from which to draw your distinction for why you believe Duncan to be better. Hopefully you read all of this. :lol



I think this is an important place to start. There have been posts in this thread arguing both sides, that Duncan's career playoff numbers are better or that Garnett was just as good in their primes. The key for this thread, IMO, is to start with the latter. The career numbers have their utility, but we are trying to get a sense for how KG compared with Duncan during the title years, most specifically the last three after Robinson was no longer primed. I suggest we should take a look at their numbers from the 02/03 season to '07-08. Why those years? Well, for one the 02-03 season is when Garnett moved full-time to power forward. For two, this stretch goes from peak (they finished 1-2 in MVP vote in both 03 and 04) to just past prime championships (led teams to rings in 07 and 08) for both players, giving a reasonable range to compare them. And for three (later in this post) 82games.com started keeping their stats in 2002-03, giving us a richer tapestry of stats to make our evaluations.

From 2002-03 to 2007-08, here are their postseason stats:

Duncan: 23 points (50% FG, 68% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 107 games

Garnett: 23 points (48% FG, 77% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 50 games

As you can see, what Garnett and Duncan produced in the boxscores in their primes was very similar. The game is obviously about more than boxscores, and I will continue my case below, but I wanted a visual record in this thread that showed what the box scores say about them in this period. Now, this isn't a replacement for career numbers and we can debate elsewhere how much relevance KG's 14 and 7 last season (over 24 games) might have in this thread. But for now, I just want you to consider that there wasn't just this self-evident postseason improvement for Duncan's postseason numbers over Garnett's in their prime. They produced very similarly.




Moving out of numbers, you're repeating something here that I've seen before, but that I don't think bears up under closer scrutiny. Let's start with your last line: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not." This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota, just as much the focus of opposing defenses as Duncan was.

If he posted on the low blocks he was doubled ruthlessly, and his go-to move to counter that was the turnaround fade-away turning away from the direction of the double-team. In many cases (especially when his casts were really weak) teams took to double/tripling him before the entry pass. KG's man would set up playing post-D behind him, the on-ball defender would sag off of the wing passer into KG's lap and then either the weak-side perimeter defender or the weak-side post defender (depending on the angle of the pass) would hedge off of their man ready to triple KG on the catch. This wasn't a rare strategy. Garnett was double-teamed pretty much as a rule for most of his tenure in Minnesota.

In fact, a good chunk of the high-post sets that Minnesota used Garnett for were used to make it harder to double him, but he was still always the fulcrum that the defense swarmed around. For example, the play "elbow" posted Garnett on the side of the free throw line, forcing the double to come from perscribed directions that he could either shoot over or pass out of. This benefited his teammates that could shoot, most specifically Wally Szczerbiak, who made a living for years planting his feat as the outlet release shooter that got open looks off those doubles.

Another popular set was for KG to post at the top of the key, then the PG would throw the ball up very high and let KG jump to get it and then pivot to break down the defense while the guard cut to the wing. Depending on the direction the 2nd defender came from, KG could either hit the shooter for a baseline three or dump it down to the center (for a direct shot), or else swing it to a wing and then either re-post or initiate a pick-and-roll/pop. This set didn't leave much room for KG to attack/shoot directly, but those high-low passes or lasers to the baseline three got a lot of easy buckets for Rasho and Anthony Peeler.

Then, finally, there was the large number of pick-and-roll or pick-and-pops that the Wolves ran to get KG in motion and force the defense off-balance. This was a bread-and-butter play, and was a strong reason why Chauncey Billups, Troy Hudson and Sam Cassell all saw their careers take a big uptake when they came to Minnesota.

All of which ties back to the other parts of your above quoted passage: "because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg." This is a repeat of the basketball trusim: ""low post offense wins championships". The thing is, KG's combination of efficient personal scoring (from both the interior and perimeter) and passing ability isn't often seen. There aren't many test cases.

The reason that low-post offense is so powerful is that it facillitates high efficiency offense both for the individual and for the team. But Garnett, despite playing a more perimeter game, once he moved full-time to PF KG routinely produced similar individual scoring efficiencies and offensive efficiencies to Duncan while routinely facilitating team offense on a similar if not higher level. True, Duncan's low post game fits more stylistically into the traditional view of what a big man should be. But when you look at the reasons for WHY the traditional big man generally experiences success, the fact that Garnett accomplishes the same thing in different ways isn't an indication that Duncan's way is BETTER. It's simply an alternate way to do things.



Obviously no one would denounce you for thinking that Duncan was slightly better. But I do question the validity of the stated reasons. Duncan and Garnett produced very similar postseason box score numbers in their prime, he produced very similar individual scoring efficiencies in their primes, and Garnett demonstrated that he could orchestrate high-efficiency offenses using his scoring, passsing, and decision-making as well. And if we brought +/- stats into it, Garnett actually outperforms Duncan there in both the regular and postseason which argues against the notion that Duncan was having a bigger impact outside of the stats.

Then, for 2003 specifically, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, in 2003 the road to the title went through LA. Both Garnett and Duncan led teams against those Lakers, played 6 games, and dominated the series. You have mentioned several times that you are extremely confident that Garnett couldn't have led the Spurs by LA the way Duncan did, but you haven't really given a rebuttal (that I've seen) for what dominance that Duncan expressed in that series that KG didn't.

Again, as through this whole thread, my point isn't to attack. It's to point out where I believe your stated opinion hasn't been fully supported. So to that end, I invite you to counter any of my stated points and/or also make a more firm case for why you believe what you do about 2003. And not just in generalities (i.e. post offense is just better, without regard to the pretty well documented individuals involved) or falling back to pure opinion (i.e. I just believe it, it's my opinion). Let's get some meat in this...what exactly did you see from Duncan and not from KG in 2003 that firms your convictions. Let's see if we can at least form a better articulation of why you believe Duncan to be better.


:applause: very well said

[Harison]

drza44, pleasure as always to read your posts, you could post more often. Btw, could you post Duncans and KG clutch data? I remember you did extensive analysis last year.



The reason that low-post offense is so powerful is that it facillitates high efficiency offense both for the individual and for the team. But Garnett, despite playing a more perimeter game, once he moved full-time to PF KG routinely produced similar individual scoring efficiencies and offensive efficiencies to Duncan while routinely facilitating team offense on a similar if not higher level. True, Duncan's low post game fits more stylistically into the traditional view of what a big man should be. But when you look at the reasons for WHY the traditional big man generally experiences success, the fact that Garnett accomplishes the same thing in different ways isn't an indication that Duncan's way is BETTER. It's simply an alternate way to do things.
Exactly, like example with Bird - he is MUCH better offensive player than Duncan, yet he wasnt post player. Points are points, regardless from where its scored. Just saying "post player is automatically better offensive player" is hardly wise. Does post player opens up things better for teammates? Depends, in this case we dont see it in any way, Duncans APG isnt higher, +/- players impact on the team is vastly better by KG, even an example of Wolves player joining Spurs and suddenly doing worse, both PPG and FG% wise.



Then, for 2003 specifically, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, in 2003 the road to the title went through LA. Both Garnett and Duncan led teams against those Lakers, played 6 games, and dominated the series. You have mentioned several times that you are extremely confident that Garnett couldn't have led the Spurs by LA the way Duncan did, but you haven't really given a rebuttal (that I've seen) for what dominance that Duncan expressed in that series that KG didn't.
Exactly, ironically Garnett played better vs Lakers, yet some argue just because Duncan is more post player, it gives automatic advantage... In what way? And thats not even counting there was DRob too, who was still better than Perkins in '08 Celtics, and better than any center KG played with in Minny.

[ginobli2311]

like i said before.

i value a more dominant low post player more than you. i agree withe almost everything you say. its why i have kg in my top 14 all time.

what i don't agree with is that kg demanded a double as much as duncan. in all of the games i watched of both players in the playoffs....i saw duncan hard doubled far more often.

look. we both agree that both players are very very close in terms of overall impact. so why do i have duncan slightly higher.

1. he was a better back to the basket player and when your team is in a bind....its easier to say "throw it in to duncan on the low block" than it was to say "go get us a basket kg"

2. duncan was a better interior defender than kg. he protected the rim a little better and could guard other low post bigs a bit better as well.

again. if you don't think those are sound reasons....thats fine. but i think those reasons are more than legit and i have explained myself in detail numerous times.

and i stand by my conclusion that i just don't see kg carrying a team to a title the way duncan did in 03. that doesn't mean i think kg would have no chance....i just don't think he would....but i'm hardly certain.

so we are in total agreement other than my reasons.... fine. to the person that says a point is a point. LOL...completely false. try comparing shaq's points in the playoffs to ewing's or howard's. in terms of offensive impact its night and day. dominance is the key word for me. kg had it....duncan had a bit more.

i respect your opinion and glad you took the time to write all that, but it won't change my mind and its not going to change my view of the two players i watched over and over again. i've seen dirk absolutely destroy kg. i've seen duncan get destroyed. i've seen both play great and both play poorly.

you say you have no problem with someone choosing duncan. what reasons would you be ok with?

[ginobli2311]

also. i don't need a history lesson. i watched them both play their entire careers and actually met kg a couple times.

i also don't need someone to tell me they had similar production and had similar impact. i know this.

again. it boils down to what you prefer. and in this case i prefer the player that is a little bit better suited to anchor the interior defense and post on the low block. that is just my preference.

we will simply never know what kg could or would have done. its a shame.

i don't really like debating this because it ends up harping on kg's flaws for me....and i love kg. but i could talk about kg's inept play in tight games at times, how he kind of takes a back seat willingly at times, how dirk absolutely destroyed him in the playoffs a few times. how he just doesn't look comfortable taking over the way dirk and duncan did in the playoffs at times.

there is a lot more depth to a conversation like this, but i'd rather not have it.

i prefer duncan. lets just leave it a that.

[Chris Quinn]

they wont be as GOOD

[JohnWall2]

cant see dat

[drza44]

also. i don't need a history lesson. i watched them both play their entire careers and actually met kg a couple times.

i also don't need someone to tell me they had similar production and had similar impact. i know this.

again. it boils down to what you prefer. and in this case i prefer the player that is a little bit better suited to anchor the interior defense and post on the low block. that is just my preference.

we will simply never know what kg could or would have done. its a shame.

I'm actually replying to both of your posts, but there wasn't a lot of meat in your previous one so I figure this is a good place to start. And based on your tone here, I didn't do a good job getting all of my points across to you. Fair enough. I'll try again, and if it doesn't work, eh, at least we tried.

I wasn't trying to give you a history lesson, or lecture you, or whatever. But we don't know each other at all, a few of your posts have struck me as interesting over time, and this is a particular issue we both have a lot of interest in. So, I would like to really chop it up with you, so we really nail down exactly what we believe and why. I've had a few of these through the years with posters I respect (usually on the RealGM site, since over here I haven't had any luck getting someone to engage). There's a guy at RealGM named Mysticbb that is a huge Nowitzki guy, and we used to bump heads all the time until we hashed it out in a few threads, and now...we probably still don't agree, but going through it sharpened both of us up and when we see each other in threads we know a) where the other is coming from and b) that agree or not, we can respect that the other is going to have something strong to say. Have had similar KG/Duncan bashes with different people through the years. Have been recently having several about Nash. To me, that's why I post on message boards. It's not about being right all the time, or trying to make some type of name as a poster, it's about really hashing out what each side believes and why. I actually enjoy getting deep into it, because if it never goes any further than surface analysis then what's the point of being on a message board? I can have that level of argument at the barber shop. I come on here because I want someone to point out why I'm wrong, or to listen while I point out why they are, or for us to break it down until we each see exactly where we agree to disagree.

We aren't there yet. In fact, after your previous post, maybe that's not what you like to do. Because frankly, all you did in your last post was regurgitate exactly what you said in the posts that I quoted. I know you think Duncan is better. I know Duncan has more center related skills than KG (post offense, defending centers). My whole purpose in that long (long, long) post I gave before was to say "these are the reasons that I don't think having center skills necessarily makes you better, so will you please explain to me in some level of detail why you believe it does". I gave you all of the history because a) we don't know each other and b) I was establishing that I'm qualified to speak on this in depth. It's easy to say "this guy was doubled more" and then have someone else say "I watch too, and no he wasn't", and nothing is really added to the debate. But if I can describe to you the exact sets that the Wolves were running, where the double team usually comes from, how Garnett as an individual tended to respond to those doubles, and how the Wolves coach tried to counter his getting doubled...I would think that would be worth a little more in the conversation than just "he got doubled too".


i don't really like debating this because it ends up harping on kg's flaws for me....and i love kg. but i could talk about kg's inept play in tight games at times, how he kind of takes a back seat willingly at times, how dirk absolutely destroyed him in the playoffs a few times. how he just doesn't look comfortable taking over the way dirk and duncan did in the playoffs at times.

there is a lot more depth to a conversation like this, but i'd rather not have it.

i prefer duncan. lets just leave it a that.

Yes! The bold is exactly what I want to see from you, and no, I don't want to just leave it at that. Because just like the center-related stuff, the bolded points are things that people say about KG that in my experience just don't hold up under scrutiny. And ultimately, that's the problem for me. If you think Duncan is better, then we should be able to point out some specific reasons why. And if your stated reasons all deal with issues that don't survive scrutiny, then you should know that so you don't keep repeating urban legends. On the other hand, if I'm out in left field and things like the bolded really ARE true, then please, please break it down for me so I can see my error and not look silly making cases that don't make sense. That's what I'm looking for. You're confident you're right. I'm confident I'm right. Based on the reasons you've stated so far, I think I can poke holes in your case. To that end, I made an extra long case of my own in detail so that you could go ahead and poke holes in my case. I'll even briefly add a few more here, in answer to your boldeds:

1) KG's inept play in tight games. This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof. As Harrison pointed out earlier in the thread, I was in a thread that really hashed it out and I went through and looked at all of the crunch time data 82games.com has, which runs back to the 02-03 season (according to 82games.com, "clutch" is defined as 4th quarter or overtime, game within 5 points either way).. Here's what I found:

2002-03: Garnett 30.4 points/48 min on 53% EFG; Duncan 33.1 points, 49%
2003-04: Garnett 34.8 points/48 min on 47% EFG; Duncan 33.2 points, 41%
2004-05: Garnett 32.1 points/48 min on 48% EFG; Duncan 29.9 on 40%
2005-06: Garnett 32.2 points/48 min on 42% EFG; Duncan 27.8 on 40%
2006-07: Garnett 25.2 points/48 min on 39% EFG; Duncan 33.2 on 58%
2007-08: Garnett 21.1 points/48 min on 41% EFG; Duncan 27.7 on 53%
2008-09: Garnett 25.5 points/48 min on 65% EFG; Duncan 27.8 on 47%

*Totals *: KG: 28.8 points on 48%; Duncan: 30.4 points on 47% (*These totals are just taking the 7 years above and averaging, which isn't exactly right because it doesn't count exactly how the totals and minutes might change from year to year. But by the law of large numbers, this should at least be a reasonable estimate).

As you can see, over at least the majority of their careers there is hardly any difference at all in how Garnett and Duncan score in clutch situations. They produce almost the same scoring output on almost the same percentages.

2) "KG got destroyed by Dirk": Not enough room in this already long post to get deep on this here, but this is another conversation I've had many times (most pointedly with the Mystic guy I mentioned above). KG and Dirk only played each other in the playoffs once (2002), and there were many, many reasons for why Dirk's and KG's numbers look like they do from that series. For one, Dirk was balling, take nothing away. But Dirk's team absolutely SHREDDED the Wolves, and KG (as the only help defender) was playing off him a lot. There's a reason that Dirk only had 2 total assists in the series...he was being a finisher, because he never had to create since his man was helping out on others. I'll cut it short for now but again, if this is something you want to follow up more with in another post I'm glad to continue. Plus, Dirk dropped 50 on Duncan in the postseason, so I'm not exactly sure that Dirk's '02 series against the Wolves really helps make a distinction in Duncan's favor over Garnett.

3) KG doesn't take over playoff games like Duncan or Dirk. I believe this is a case of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as they were, especially at his peak. Garnett had a bunch of video game postseason performances in 2003 and 2004 (like the games in that thread earlier this week), but then he didn't have any more playoff appearances until his slightly-past-prime 2008 run (where again, he was the main "take-over" guy on those Celtics). He had a bunch of take-over games relative to the amount of games he had to work with...he just didn't have that many to work with. Now, if you want to have a side discussion on WHY he wasn't in the playoffs as much as Duncan or Dirk we can hash that out too, but I don't see any evidence to support your stance. Unless you can show me some.

So now, ball is in your court. If you want to just stick with "Duncan's got more center in him, I think he's better, we agree to disagree" then I guess this conversation has run it's course. But if you're interested in showing me where what I think isn't right and really getting to the gist of why you believe Duncan is better (or not)...well, your shot.

[Penny_Hardaway]

I'm actually replying to both of your posts, but there wasn't a lot of meat in your previous one so I figure this is a good place to start. And based on your tone here, I didn't do a good job getting all of my points across to you. Fair enough. I'll try again, and if it doesn't work, eh, at least we tried.

I wasn't trying to give you a history lesson, or lecture you, or whatever. But we don't know each other at all, a few of your posts have struck me as interesting over time, and this is a particular issue we both have a lot of interest in. So, I would like to really chop it up with you, so we really nail down exactly what we believe and why. I've had a few of these through the years with posters I respect (usually on the RealGM site, since over here I haven't had any luck getting someone to engage). There's a guy at RealGM named Mysticbb that is a huge Nowitzki guy, and we used to bump heads all the time until we hashed it out in a few threads, and now...we probably still don't agree, but going through it sharpened both of us up and when we see each other in threads we know a) where the other is coming from and b) that agree or not, we can respect that the other is going to have something strong to say. Have had similar KG/Duncan bashes with different people through the years. Have been recently having several about Nash. To me, that's why I post on message boards. It's not about being right all the time, or trying to make some type of name as a poster, it's about really hashing out what each side believes and why. I actually enjoy getting deep into it, because if it never goes any further than surface analysis then what's the point of being on a message board? I can have that level of argument at the barber shop. I come on here because I want someone to point out why I'm wrong, or to listen while I point out why they are, or for us to break it down until we each see exactly where we agree to disagree.

We aren't there yet. In fact, after your previous post, maybe that's not what you like to do. Because frankly, all you did in your last post was regurgitate exactly what you said in the posts that I quoted. I know you think Duncan is better. I know Duncan has more center related skills than KG (post offense, defending centers). My whole purpose in that long (long, long) post I gave before was to say "these are the reasons that I don't think having center skills necessarily makes you better, so will you please explain to me in some level of detail why you believe it does". I gave you all of the history because a) we don't know each other and b) I was establishing that I'm qualified to speak on this in depth. It's easy to say "this guy was doubled more" and then have someone else say "I watch too, and no he wasn't", and nothing is really added to the debate. But if I can describe to you the exact sets that the Wolves were running, where the double team usually comes from, how Garnett as an individual tended to respond to those doubles, and how the Wolves coach tried to counter his getting doubled...I would think that would be worth a little more in the conversation than just "he got doubled too".



Yes! The bold is exactly what I want to see from you, and no, I don't want to just leave it at that. Because just like the center-related stuff, the bolded points are things that people say about KG that in my experience just don't hold up under scrutiny. And ultimately, that's the problem for me. If you think Duncan is better, then we should be able to point out some specific reasons why. And if your stated reasons all deal with issues that don't survive scrutiny, then you should know that so you don't keep repeating urban legends. On the other hand, if I'm out in left field and things like the bolded really ARE true, then please, please break it down for me so I can see my error and not look silly making cases that don't make sense. That's what I'm looking for. You're confident you're right. I'm confident I'm right. Based on the reasons you've stated so far, I think I can poke holes in your case. To that end, I made an extra long case of my own in detail so that you could go ahead and poke holes in my case. I'll even briefly add a few more here, in answer to your boldeds:

1) KG's inept play in tight games. This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof. As Harrison pointed out earlier in the thread, I was in a thread that really hashed it out and I went through and looked at all of the crunch time data 82games.com has, which runs back to the 02-03 season (according to 82games.com, "clutch" is defined as 4th quarter or overtime, game within 5 points either way).. Here's what I found:

2002-03: Garnett 30.4 points/48 min on 53% EFG; Duncan 33.1 points, 49%
2003-04: Garnett 34.8 points/48 min on 47% EFG; Duncan 33.2 points, 41%
2004-05: Garnett 32.1 points/48 min on 48% EFG; Duncan 29.9 on 40%
2005-06: Garnett 32.2 points/48 min on 42% EFG; Duncan 27.8 on 40%
2006-07: Garnett 25.2 points/48 min on 39% EFG; Duncan 33.2 on 58%
2007-08: Garnett 21.1 points/48 min on 41% EFG; Duncan 27.7 on 53%
2008-09: Garnett 25.5 points/48 min on 65% EFG; Duncan 27.8 on 47%

*Totals *: KG: 28.8 points on 48%; Duncan: 30.4 points on 47% (*These totals are just taking the 7 years above and averaging, which isn't exactly right because it doesn't count exactly how the totals and minutes might change from year to year. But by the law of large numbers, this should at least be a reasonable estimate).

As you can see, over at least the majority of their careers there is hardly any difference at all in how Garnett and Duncan score in clutch situations. They produce almost the same scoring output on almost the same percentages.

2) "KG got destroyed by Dirk": Not enough room in this already long post to get deep on this here, but this is another conversation I've had many times (most pointedly with the Mystic guy I mentioned above). KG and Dirk only played each other in the playoffs once (2002), and there were many, many reasons for why Dirk's and KG's numbers look like they do from that series. For one, Dirk was balling, take nothing away. But Dirk's team absolutely SHREDDED the Wolves, and KG (as the only help defender) was playing off him a lot. There's a reason that Dirk only had 2 total assists in the series...he was being a finisher, because he never had to create since his man was helping out on others. I'll cut it short for now but again, if this is something you want to follow up more with in another post I'm glad to continue. Plus, Dirk dropped 50 on Duncan in the postseason, so I'm not exactly sure that Dirk's '02 series against the Wolves really helps make a distinction in Duncan's favor over Garnett.

3) KG doesn't take over playoff games like Duncan or Dirk. I believe this is a case of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as they were, especially at his peak. Garnett had a bunch of video game postseason performances in 2003 and 2004 (like the games in that thread earlier this week), but then he didn't have any more playoff appearances until his slightly-past-prime 2008 run (where again, he was the main "take-over" guy on those Celtics). He had a bunch of take-over games relative to the amount of games he had to work with...he just didn't have that many to work with. Now, if you want to have a side discussion on WHY he wasn't in the playoffs as much as Duncan or Dirk we can hash that out too, but I don't see any evidence to support your stance. Unless you can show me some.

So now, ball is in your court. If you want to just stick with "Duncan's got more center in him, I think he's better, we agree to disagree" then I guess this conversation has run it's course. But if you're interested in showing me where what I think isn't right and really getting to the gist of why you believe Duncan is better (or not)...well, your shot.


Great post, and the previous one you made too.

But you didnt really tell who is better in your opinion (Duncan or Garnett) and what do you think would happen if you replace Timmy with KG in the 00s Spurs. Or maybe you actually did and I missed that part.

Im interested in your opinion because I want to have a debate with you.

You did point out (very precisely btw) the false myths and urban legends surrounding Kevin Garnett, which I mostly agree with.

[drza44]

Those numbers above are ridiculous. KG has been Duncan's equal in crunch time? I'm going to have to call BS on that one. How do you think KG got the "second option on offense" label? How do people think he doesn't have the mentality to be the go-to-guy etc?

I can tell you exactly where the "KG is a 2nd option" urban legend came from. In 2000 KG made a leap, having his best year and finishing second in the MVP vote. He was generating buzz, and the "KG or Duncan?" debate was taking shape. He led the Wolves to the first 50-win season in franchise history, and for his reward he got to play against the 60-win super stacked Blazers in the first round (that should have won the title if not for one of the most massive 4th quarter chokes in history, but I digress). Anyway, the Blazers had a great interior defense led by Sheed Wallace and Sabonis, and they threw the kitchen sink at KG. And he couldn't buy a bucket. So instead of continuing to force it, he started setting up his teammates. KG had triple-doubles in 2 of the 4 games in the series, and went for 17/10/9 in another game. But the team just wasn't strong enough, and lost. But the buzz coming out of the series was that KG should have been scoring more instead of racking up the assists, which was the first time that I started hearing the "too passive" stuff.

The next season the Wolves won 47 games and for their reward got to face the Duncan/Robinson Spurs. KG played Duncan to a stand still, but in one of the games that was close at the end he broke down the defense and got doubled, then passed it to a wide open teammate for an open jumper in the lane. The teammate missed, the Wolves lost, and Magic Johnson (who was one of the guest studio analysts) made the comment that if Garnett was going to be one of the greats he couldn't pass in that situation. That the pass was the right basketball play, but that he had to be more selfish and take the last shot. After that, the reputation took a life of it's own. Despite the fact that by the time he peaked in 2003 he WAS actively taking over games late, and that this has continued over his career, once a narrative had been established it's really hard to break it. Most people aren't ones to let facts get in the way of a good opinion.


Those stats don't tell us Duncan actually creates his offense through dominant low-post play while most of KG's points come from wide open jumpers from the top of the key with his man playing off of him. Of course, I have no data to prove my claim but my observation is based on the numerous amount of times I've seen these two play. No statgeekery will make me think otherwise.

As I said before, people aren't ones to let facts get in the way of their opinion. Just think for a moment about what you're saying, and who was on those Wolves teams. In 2002-03 the Wolves' perimeter players were Troy Hudson (undrafted, journeyman shooting guard in a point guard's body), Anthony Peeler and Wally Szcerbiak. Not a creator amongst them. In fact, Garnett led the team in assists that year. So you want to tell me who was getting Garnett these "wide open jumpers" in close games? Garnett, in fact, was also the leading assist man on his team in 2004-05. In 2006 and 2007, he was playing with luminaries like Marko Jaric, Mike James, Hudson, Marcus Banks, Trenton Hassell and Ricky Davis as his wings. Yet again...who exactly was setting up these "wide open shots" for KG in crunch time? Taken further, seeing as how those guys all suck...why on earth would any team leave KG "wide open" ever? Short answer: they didn't. Teams were throwing everything at Garnett, praying that one of the other guys would be the one to shoot.

So not only are you saying "just ignore the stats because they don't support my point", you're also espousing a point that makes absolutely no sense given the knowns about the situation.

[rmt]

3) KG doesn't take over playoff games like Duncan or Dirk. I believe this is a case of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as they were, especially at his peak. Garnett had a bunch of video game postseason performances in 2003 and 2004 (like the games in that thread earlier this week), but then he didn't have any more playoff appearances until his slightly-past-prime 2008 run (where again, he was the main "take-over" guy on those Celtics). He had a bunch of take-over games relative to the amount of games he had to work with...he just didn't have that many to work with.

Sorry using the reason of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as Duncan doesn't wash. In Duncan's very first playoff game, he had 32/10 on 57.1% shooting. He averaged 21/9 as a rookie in 9 playoff games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199804230PHO.html

Here's a video of Duncan as a rookie taking over his first playoff game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_fD0QA5g1E

From his first playoff game to 21/20/10/8 in last game of 03 Finals to hitting a falling away jump shot over Shaq (but leaving .4 on the clock) to hitting a 3 pter against the Suns, Duncan has been taking over games and hitting clutch shots throughout his entire career.

[drza44]

Great post, and the previous one you made too.

But you didnt really tell who is better in your opinion (Duncan or Garnett) and what do you think would happen if you replace Timmy with KG in the 00s Spurs. Or maybe you actually did and I missed that part.

Im interested in your opinion because I want to have a debate with you.

You did point out (very precisely btw) the false myths and urban legends surrounding Kevin Garnett, which I mostly agree with.

Hopefully I can do this post justice tonight, kind of time constrained and used a bunch on that last post. If not, I'll come back to it later. But as to your question, which was the OP, I should answer.

I've always felt that Garnett and Duncan should have been THE debate for their generation. The Magic vs Bird, Manning vs Brady, no-right-answer-but-everyone-weighs-in comparison. Unfortunately, because of the way things played out in Minnesota we never really got to see them go at it on the big stage. Which sucks. But whatever.

Anyway, they're exactly the same age (born a month apart) but one came to the pros from HS and the other went to college. Coming out of college in '97, I think Duncan was more polished than Garnett. Plus, he went to a professional, playoff-tested team with David Robinson as a mentor while KG cut his teeth on a laughing-stock franchise that needed him to be a leader before he could legally drink. So I think, off the bat, Duncan was a bit better than Garnett.

Then, there was a period from the lockout until about 2001 when I thought they were roughly even, just doing things differently in different situations. Then, in the 2001-02 season Duncan peaked and moved beyond KG. In 02-03 KG hit his own peak, and they were both just ridiculous. I've always felt that KG was a bit better that year, but for obvious reasons (that being the year that earns Duncan his highest praises) many don't agree with me. But from that point, I think Garnett surpassed him and has been the slightly better player.

As for the actual OP, how many rings would KG have if he'd been drafted by the Spurs...I've played this out in threads like this before, but unfortunately I don't know where those posts are so I'll have to go through it again. I won't speculate on 1995 - 1997 since Duncan wasn't in the league then. But after that:

1998: Duncan was still better then than Garnett was, so probably no ring. Interestingly, though, that was in Garnett's small forward phase so it's possible that he'd have fit more naturally next to Robinson than Duncan did (since Duncan had played center in college, and he and Robinson had to learn how to play as twin towers). Nevertheless, I say no ring then.

1999: Interesting year. This was the strike year, and coming out of the strike I think Duncan still had more offensive polish than Garnett early on. The Spurs started off the season just good that year, but about half-way through they hit a defensive pinnacle and just crushed everyone through the 2nd half of the shortened year then cruised through the playoffs. Defensively, I think Garnett and Robinson that year would have formed just as strong of a unit and that the team as a result would have been just as strong in the regular season. By the time the postseason came around, Garnett had closed whatever gap there may have been between he and Duncan. The Spurs and the Wolves actually faced off in the first round that year, and Garnett edged him in the individual match-up. I think swapping out the 2 of them that year wouldn't have made a difference, the Spurs would still win the title. They weren't even challenged (the Wolves gave them 1 of only 2 playoff losses that year), so they still win that one.

2000: That year Garnett slightly outplayed Duncan in the season (2nd in MVP vote), and then Duncan was hurt for the postseason. Robinson still had his fastball as well. So it'd have been interesting. That was the year Shaq went nuts and Kobe started coming of age, and the Blazers were stacked as well. But with a healthy Robinson and Garnett the Spurs would have least had a shot at defending their title. I'll say they would have been contenders.

2001: Robinson had the last dregs of his fastball, but he also (if I'm not mistaken) was playing hurt there by the end. Either way, Duncan was absolutely balling and they still got throttled by the Lakers in the playoffs. Those Lakers were on a mission, and I don't think swapping KG in for Duncan would have taken them from a sweep loss to a win. So no title that year.

2002: Robinson was definitely hurting that year, Duncan outplayed KG in the regular season and balled out in the playoffs as well, and they still didn't have enough to even slow down the Lakers. Again, I don't see the swap changing that. So no title that year.

2003: Duncan and KG were both nuts that year. I thought KG was slightly better, but flip a coin. Either way, the KG-led Spurs would have still been just as strong in the regular season and won their first round match-up easily. Which leaves the Lakers match-up. In 2003 KG's Wolves and Duncan's Spurs both played 6 games against the Lakers. KG put up slightly better individual box score numbers than Duncan but his team lost while Duncan's won. I've always maintained that the biggest difference between the two teams was the caliber of defenders on San Antonio. Both casts were pedestrian "talent-wise", but the Spurs had great defenders at 4 of the 5 positions led by one of the best defensive players of all time in Duncan. The Wolves had 3 of the worst perimeter defensive players at their position in the NBA next to KG, with a pedestrian center. Not surprisingly, it was Kobe more than Shaq that killed the Wolves. Shaq got his, but his numbers against the Wolves and Spurs were very similar. Kobe's scoring numbers were the same in the 2 series, but he was much less efficient on offense and had to force it a lot more against the Spurs (showed up in the assist/turnover numbers especially, as well as in the scoring numbers of the Lakers supporting cast IIRC). Also, Kobe injured his shoulder late in the Wolves series and maybe wasn't his full best against San Antonio. Nevertheless, KG IMO gives those Spurs just as big of a chance to win as Duncan did against the Lakers. In the WCF the Spurs would have faced the Mavs, in which Dirk got hurt, so they still advance to the Finals. And in the Finals they still face the much lesser Nets from the junior conference. Spurs get the ring.

2004: Garnett was flat out the best player in the world that year. The Spurs/Lakers series that year was very close as it was (.4 seconds separated it), and with Garnett being a smidge better than Duncan it may have been enough to put them over the top. If so, they win the WCF against either Duncan's Wolves with all of the point guards injured or against a Kings team that KG owned. Solid shot at a Spurs repeat, but would have been a great Finals with Detroit. Call them contenders.

2005: Garnett was still at his peak, Duncan was balling too but had to play hurt late in the year. Didn't matter, as Manu went nuts along side him in the postseason. KG on that team that year, they still should win the title.

2006: Duncan battled ankle or foot injuries that year IIRC, but the Spurs still won 63 games so that didn't matter. In the postseason he was strong. KG was still a beast, healthier so therefore a bit better in the regular season. Unfortunately no postseason performance to compare to, but there's no reason to expect he'd underperform. Those Spurs were contenders anyway, and were within a great toss-up series with the Mavs from being the Finals favorites. With KG instead of Duncan they'd have still been contenders. Hard to say much more than that what happens.

2007: (Running out of time, got to wrap this up): Same story. KG was just as good in the regular season, no postseason to compare to, but should have fielded a team of similar strength. Since the Mavs got put out by the Warriors and KG owned those Suns historically, Spurs probably win again.

2008: Manu was hurting against the Lakers, which left Duncan outgunned. Same thing probably happens to KG, so no title.

2009: KG hurt himself, Spurs didn't have it anyway.

2010: KG trying to recover, still not himself, Spurs probably don't have it.

So, all told, I see 7 seasons where the KG-led Spurs could have legitly contended based on what actually happened those years. Probably don't win all 7 of course, but within the scope of how much we can predict based on a what if, I think he at least matches the 4 that Duncan's Spurs accomplished.

[ginobli2311]

drza.

i respect your opinion, but now your shifting the focus a little and twisting my words.

i'm not saying kg was inept in late games. again. i'm not saying he was. but he has been at times.....and he has been more times than duncan.

you seem to fail to even acknowledge simple facts:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better rim protector and defensive anchor in paint
3. duncan was a better man to man defender on the low block
4. duncan's playoff and regular season numbers are slightly better
5. overall the advanced stats slightly favor duncan
6. duncan was more efficient in the playoffs

some strong opinions i have:

1. duncan was better suited to take over a playoff game in the 2nd half and when the game got tight. why? because he wasn't the facilitator that kg was. and again. i don't even really consider this much of an advantage for duncan, but it relates back to duncan winning in 03 (which is the debate in this thread). and that spurs team needed a player to take over and dominate in order to win....and that is what duncan provided.


you are having a hard time comprehending a few things. its ok. but listen. when someone says "kg's inept play at times"....that does not mean they are saying that he is inept. you need to understand that for purposes of this debate and any debate. you can't use that to go off on a tangent about kg's play late in games. the simple matter is in my opinion kg disappeared late in games more often than duncan. that does not mean kg was a bad late game player....he clearly was not. but compared to duncan, he was worse imo.

"dirk destroyed kg at times"...uhhhhhh....he did. thats just a fact. again. i'm not saying dirk is better. not saying that is a reason why duncan is better. i'm simply pointing out something that happened in kg's elite years. and here is the difference. kg should have been better suited to stop dirk. but he couldn't really stop him (especially in the 02 playoffs).

"duncan took over more playoff games" again....fact. nothing to dispute here. are there potential reasons why? of course. but again...thats just a fact. duncan dominated more in the playoffs as evidenced by his superior career playoff numbers. again...is that my only reason? nope.

see. at some point you need to acknowledge a few of the things duncan just did better. i could flip your constant "well kg never had this or that or never had the opportunity for this or that" stuff with the following:

duncan's numbers on worse teams would skyrocket. his usage would go up and his shot attempts would go up. he'd carry more of the load so all his numbers across the board would destroy kg's if he was in kg's situation. you see? we can both play that game. imagine what duncan would do if he was playing on .500 teams. he increase his output a ton.

so again. what wins in the playoffs? defense and rebounding.

and duncan was a better rebounder than kg in the playoffs.
and i think duncan had a bigger overall impact on defense in the playoffs? again. why? because he was a better interior anchor/paint protector and he could defend other bigs one on one a bit better.

so we have two players we both agree that are very similar.

duncan has proven more often he can dominate in the playoffs and has more of an ability to take over games.

duncan is a better low post player that can get you easier baskets (as evidenced by duncan's better efficiency). there is also more to this. duncan can get other bigs in foul trouble and wear them out a bit on the low block to an extent kg really couldn't and rarely did.

duncan was a better defensive anchor.

i'll take duncan. like i said a thousand times i agree with almost everything you say, but you are under-rating duncan's ability to control a game and seriously over-rating kg's willingness to take over games. in the right situation....kg's game would do better than duncan's. but if i had to choose one to build a team around? i take duncan because i know he can be that guy that dominates consistently and has no qualms getting the ball play in play out on the low block. and that is how i prefer to play the game.

[Dan Gilbert]

We'll give you Jamison for either :cheers:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=37w7q3h
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=3xm2emx

[T-bomb 25]

What? Their scoring averages and efficiencies are nearly identical in the playoffs and regular seasons during their primes. That literally makes no sense. Garnett was every bit the scorer duncan was. And his ability to anchor a defense was just as good too. Just look at what he's transformed this boston team into. These guys are neck and neck as individual players.Your insane especially about the defense.:facepalm

[T-bomb 25]

KG is great but Duncan is noticably better.....its really not very close,even as great as KG is.

[Pointguard]

see. at some point you need to acknowledge a few of the things duncan just did better. i could flip your constant "well kg never had this or that or never had the opportunity for this or that" stuff with the following:

duncan's numbers on worse teams would skyrocket. his usage would go up and his shot attempts would go up. he'd carry more of the load so all his numbers across the board would destroy kg's if he was in kg's situation. you see? we can both play that game. imagine what duncan would do if he was playing on .500 teams. he increase his output a ton.

There are things that both did better than the other, nobody in this thread ever said KG was categorically better. Duncan numbers wouldn't skyrocket on a worse team. On bad teams without structure like Minny, they would just collapse on a single good player. Duncan's FG% would decrease, his rebounding would decrease, his team wouldn't channel players into him for blocks, his feeds in the post would be worse, the double on him would be quicker and his morale down a bit.

When you play in a structured system like Duncan its harder to double him. When you have guys that can create their own shot and finish like Gin and Parker, its harder to double. Bowen, Mario Ellie, Gin and Steve kerr were hitting that outside shot, its harder to double. When you have guys quick off the dribble like Sean Elliot, Claxton, Steven Jackson and Parker, its harder to double. You have leaders like Avery Johnson and David Robeson you have better disciplined players, its harder to double you.

Wally and Hudson never factored heavy in opposing teams scouting reports and they always missed a lot of games. Rod Strickland, Cassell and Sprewell were all over 33 years of age when they played with KG and in their last years. KG was key to getting 90% of the players off that weren't older players in the league. Like I stated before, Minny's upper office was so bad that SA stold Nesterovic because KG made him look better than he was. He wasn't the same player in SA. TD is an easier double target because he wasn't as versatile as KG offensively and was going to be on certain sweet spots on the floor.

In a more structered offense KG learns to be in the low post more often. I say this because KG developed his game as much as anybody in the league ever, and did so without the benefit of a mentor, college or good managment. KG always had the strength to play in the post. He would have had the speed, agility and handle advantage there as well. But his training grounds was in Minny. Spilt milk so I won't go there. But no, I don't think TD becomes better on Minny.

You bring up Dirk a lot but I recall Joe Smith on Dirk a lot and KG on Howard most of the time. They were protecting KG because Dirk was running behind screens all the time. I don't think that's a fair call out if you seen the games. KG has outplayed Dirk in H2H competition, even outscoring him along with the rebounds, assist blocks and steals. And a guy can get hot behind screens and a short playoff series. Definitely not a fair call out. I wouldn't even call it an exception to the rule. I would call Amare, Duncan's exception to the rule. He has done it more than once to TD and since Amare became of age he has the advantage on Duncan in H2h comp too - well in points.


so again. what wins in the playoffs? defense and rebounding.
and duncan was a better rebounder than kg in the playoffs.
Once again, structure verses no structure in the rebounding department. KG had the responsibility of getting his teammates off and playing the role of set-up man. He was frequently out of position to rebound, yet in his prime he is definitely a better rebounder in the regular season and at least an equal rebounder in the playoffs. If KG had a true powerforward role for his team and wasn't responsible for keeping Wally's man out of the paint as well, KG unquestionably outrebounds TD.


and i think duncan had a bigger overall impact on defense in the playoffs? again. why? because he was a better interior anchor/paint protector and he could defend other bigs one on one a bit better.
I agree here. This is most certainly true for most of their careers. But you have to take into account that KG anchored one of the best defenses ever. Tho past his prime, teams could not get in the paint when he was in the back calling shifts and angles. This defense is superior than the at the rim defense (see the layup line Kobe and teammates execute on SA in '08 and then the harsh Laker reality they get with Boston). There was no SA team equal to Boston's defense in '08 and SA had a more experienced coach and better defensive pieces in a lot of years. Something that KG was denied because of Minny's neglect. I also give KG the defensive edge because he communicates better than TD. Defense at the rim is not the way to play defense.


duncan is a better low post player that can get you easier baskets (as evidenced by duncan's better efficiency). there is also more to this. duncan can get other bigs in foul trouble and wear them out a bit on the low block to an extent kg really couldn't and rarely did.

True

duncan was a better defensive anchor. not when KG joined a franchise of equal stature. So not when their defensive games peaked.


i'll take duncan. like i said a thousand times i agree with almost everything you say, but you are under-rating duncan's ability to control a game and seriously over-rating kg's willingness to take over games. in the right situation....kg's game would do better than duncan's. but if i had to choose one to build a team around? i take duncan because i know he can be that guy that dominates consistently and has no qualms getting the ball play in play out on the low block. and that is how i prefer to play the game.
I can see your point but you are talking to Drza.

[jlauber]

drza.

i respect your opinion, but now your shifting the focus a little and twisting my words.

i'm not saying kg was inept in late games. again. i'm not saying he was. but he has been at times.....and he has been more times than duncan.

you seem to fail to even acknowledge simple facts:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better rim protector and defensive anchor in paint
3. duncan was a better man to man defender on the low block
4. duncan's playoff and regular season numbers are slightly better
5. overall the advanced stats slightly favor duncan
6. duncan was more efficient in the playoffs

some strong opinions i have:

1. duncan was better suited to take over a playoff game in the 2nd half and when the game got tight. why? because he wasn't the facilitator that kg was. and again. i don't even really consider this much of an advantage for duncan, but it relates back to duncan winning in 03 (which is the debate in this thread). and that spurs team needed a player to take over and dominate in order to win....and that is what duncan provided.


you are having a hard time comprehending a few things. its ok. but listen. when someone says "kg's inept play at times"....that does not mean they are saying that he is inept. you need to understand that for purposes of this debate and any debate. you can't use that to go off on a tangent about kg's play late in games. the simple matter is in my opinion kg disappeared late in games more often than duncan. that does not mean kg was a bad late game player....he clearly was not. but compared to duncan, he was worse imo.

"dirk destroyed kg at times"...uhhhhhh....he did. thats just a fact. again. i'm not saying dirk is better. not saying that is a reason why duncan is better. i'm simply pointing out something that happened in kg's elite years. and here is the difference. kg should have been better suited to stop dirk. but he couldn't really stop him (especially in the 02 playoffs).

"duncan took over more playoff games" again....fact. nothing to dispute here. are there potential reasons why? of course. but again...thats just a fact. duncan dominated more in the playoffs as evidenced by his superior career playoff numbers. again...is that my only reason? nope.

see. at some point you need to acknowledge a few of the things duncan just did better. i could flip your constant "well kg never had this or that or never had the opportunity for this or that" stuff with the following:

duncan's numbers on worse teams would skyrocket. his usage would go up and his shot attempts would go up. he'd carry more of the load so all his numbers across the board would destroy kg's if he was in kg's situation. you see? we can both play that game. imagine what duncan would do if he was playing on .500 teams. he increase his output a ton.

so again. what wins in the playoffs? defense and rebounding.

and duncan was a better rebounder than kg in the playoffs.
and i think duncan had a bigger overall impact on defense in the playoffs? again. why? because he was a better interior anchor/paint protector and he could defend other bigs one on one a bit better.

so we have two players we both agree that are very similar.

duncan has proven more often he can dominate in the playoffs and has more of an ability to take over games.

duncan is a better low post player that can get you easier baskets (as evidenced by duncan's better efficiency). there is also more to this. duncan can get other bigs in foul trouble and wear them out a bit on the low block to an extent kg really couldn't and rarely did.

duncan was a better defensive anchor.

i'll take duncan. like i said a thousand times i agree with almost everything you say, but you are under-rating duncan's ability to control a game and seriously over-rating kg's willingness to take over games. in the right situation....kg's game would do better than duncan's. but if i had to choose one to build a team around? i take duncan because i know he can be that guy that dominates consistently and has no qualms getting the ball play in play out on the low block. and that is how i prefer to play the game.

Great post!

[jlauber]

There are things that both did better than the other, nobody in this thread ever said KG was categorically better. Duncan numbers wouldn't skyrocket on a worse team. On bad teams without structure like Minny, they would just collapse on a single good player. Duncan's FG% would decrease, his rebounding would decrease, his team wouldn't channel players into him for blocks, his feeds in the post would be worse, the double on him would be quicker and his morale down a bit.

When you play in a structured system like Duncan its harder to double him. When you have guys that can create their own shot and finish like Gin and Parker, its harder to double. Bowen, Mario Ellie, Gin and Steve kerr were hitting that outside shot, its harder to double. When you have guys quick off the dribble like Sean Elliot, Claxton, Steven Jackson and Parker, its harder to double. You have leaders like Avery Johnson and David Robeson you have better disciplined players, its harder to double you.

Wally and Hudson never factored heavy in opposing teams scouting reports and they always missed a lot of games. Rod Strickland, Cassell and Sprewell were all over 33 years of age when they played with KG and in their last years. KG was key to getting 90% of the players off that weren't older players in the league. Like I stated before, Minny's upper office was so bad that SA stold Nesterovic because KG made him look better than he was. He wasn't the same player in SA. TD is an easier double target because he wasn't as versatile as KG offensively and was going to be on certain sweet spots on the floor.

In a more structered offense KG learns to be in the low post more often. I say this because KG developed his game as much as anybody in the league ever, and did so without the benefit of a mentor, college or good managment. KG always had the strength to play in the post. He would have had the speed, agility and handle advantage there as well. But his training grounds was in Minny. Spilt milk so I won't go there. But no, I don't think TD becomes better on Minny.

You bring up Dirk a lot but I recall Joe Smith on Dirk a lot and KG on Howard most of the time. They were protecting KG because Dirk was running behind screens all the time. I don't think that's a fair call out if you seen the games. KG has outplayed Dirk in H2H competition, even outscoring him along with the rebounds, assist blocks and steals. And a guy can get hot behind screens and a short playoff series. Definitely not a fair call out. I wouldn't even call it an exception to the rule. I would call Amare, Duncan's exception to the rule. He has done it more than once to TD and since Amare became of age he has the advantage on Duncan in H2h comp too - well in points.

Once again, structure verses no structure in the rebounding department. KG had the responsibility of getting his teammates off and playing the role of set-up man. He was frequently out of position to rebound, yet in his prime he is definitely a better rebounder in the regular season and at least an equal rebounder in the playoffs. If KG had a true powerforward role for his team and wasn't responsible for keeping Wally's man out of the paint as well, KG unquestionably outrebounds TD.
I agree here. This is most certainly true for most of their careers. But you have to take into account that KG anchored one of the best defenses ever. Tho past his prime, teams could not get in the paint when he was in the back calling shifts and angles. This defense is superior than the at the rim defense (see the layup line Kobe and teammates execute on SA in '08 and then the harsh Laker reality they get with Boston). There was no SA team equal to Boston's defense in '08 and SA had a more experienced coach and better defensive pieces in a lot of years. Something that KG was denied because of Minny's neglect. I also give KG the defensive edge because he communicates better than TD. Defense at the rim is not the way to play defense.

True not when KG joined a franchise of equal stature. So not when their defensive games peaked.

I can see your point but you are talking to Drza.

Again, great post.

I actually enjoy reading two intelligent posts on thise topic.

IMHO, I would take either player in a heartbeat. I have long been a fan of Duncan, but the more I read and research on KG, the more impressed that I have become.

[ginobli2311]

Again, great post.

I actually enjoy reading two intelligent posts on thise topic.

IMHO, I would take either player in a heartbeat. I have long been a fan of Duncan, but the more I read and research on KG, the more impressed that I have become.

yea.

i'm actually a bigger fan of kg. i love kg. i just think duncan was ever so slightly better. its why i have kg so high all time....he simply was too close to duncan in terms of level of play and impact to be ranked more than 5 to 7 spots behind him on any list.

kg was amazing and still is. its a real shame we never to see elite kg play with elite talent. he could have torn up the the league for an 8 year stretch in the right situation.

[jlauber]

yea.

i'm actually a bigger fan of kg. i love kg. i just think duncan was ever so slightly better. its why i have kg so high all time....he simply was too close to duncan in terms of level of play and impact to be ranked more than 5 to 7 spots behind him on any list.

kg was amazing and still is. its a real shame we never to see elite kg play with elite talent. he could have torn up the the league for an 8 year stretch in the right situation.

As much as most all of us probably enjoy ranking the all-time greats, I have personally decided (maybe a New Year's resolution) to discontinue that philosophy. There have just been so many great players in the history of the NBA.

For instance, many here believe that Hakeem owned Robinson, based on their playoff battle in mid-90's. However, they faced each other 42 times in the regular season, and IMHO, the numbers show almost a complete draw...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

And, to be honest, I think that if most of the great players, and in their primes, played against each other, there would probably be very little difference. Some were better offensive players, to be sure, while others were better defenders. Some were more efficient than others, while some had better range. Some were better rebounders, and some were better passers. And some, like Russell and Duncan, probably elevated the play their teammates better than others. But, overall, these top tier players would all be great. And given the right surrounding personnel (and here again, it would probably be a different criteria for each), they would probably all be winners and champions.

So, for me at least, I am just going to provide a little history in my major posts, but I will try to refrain from disparaging any other great players in the process.

[TheJester21]

I would always marvel on how goddamn skilled these players were back in their primes and their still a joy to watch today. I watched the Celtics game on Christmas game and KG looked unstoppable even while guarded by Dwight Howard, even in his post injury state. Timmy certainly has slowed down but I still believe he will be a force in the playoffs as he always has been.

Wouldn't it be great to see the two go against each other in the finals this coming June?

[Pointguard]

yea.

i'm actually a bigger fan of kg. i love kg. i just think duncan was ever so slightly better. its why i have kg so high all time....he simply was too close to duncan in terms of level of play and impact to be ranked more than 5 to 7 spots behind him on any list.

kg was amazing and still is. its a real shame we never to see elite kg play with elite talent. he could have torn up the the league for an 8 year stretch in the right situation.

I agree with you overall. I think KG gets dogged a lot because he was in a hole that he didn't create. Overall, I think a great organization got nearly all the greatness they could in TD while a bad organization had a great player who put forth a great effort in KG. In the end they were remarkably similiar in effect and play but TD got more out of it. Plus TD has this incredible intangible that kept winning in close quarters despite not having the talent. KG has great intangibles as well but without structure it couldn't be transformed into wins.

TD has done the most with the least of any player, if you ask me.

[Pointguard]

As much as most all of us probably enjoy ranking the all-time greats, I have personally decided (maybe a New Year's resolution) to discontinue that philosophy. There have just been so many great players in the history of the NBA.

For instance, many here believe that Hakeem owned Robinson, based on their playoff battle in mid-90's. However, they faced each other 42 times in the regular season, and IMHO, the numbers show almost a complete draw...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

And, to be honest, I think that if most of the great players, and in their primes, played against each other, there would probably be very little difference. Some were better offensive players, to be sure, while others were better defenders. Some were more efficient than others, while some had better range. Some were better rebounders, and some were better passers. And some, like Russell and Duncan, probably elevated the play their teammates better than others. But, overall, these top tier players would all be great. And given the right surrounding personnel (and here again, it would probably be a different criteria for each), they would probably all be winners and champions.

So, for me at least, I am just going to provide a little history in my major posts, but I will try to refrain from disparaging any other great players in the process.

Funny thing is when I looked at the Robinson/Hakeem numbers they look remarkably similiar to TD/KG H2Hs. Funny how things level off or how greats equal greats in comparisons in basketball. I think there isn't a lot of differential in the top 7 greatest (Duncan is in this party), where situations might be the only difference??? Then the next 8, where I have Hakeem, Robinson and KG in that group who suffer because of accomplishments and situations (Management, coaches, franchise, ability to get the most out of a super talent, etc.) But its hard to be hardcore about rank and order in basketball. It seems more defnitive in other sports and where wins doesn't factor in as much in conversations.

[dankok8]

KG on the Spurs would almost certainly win a title in 05 and 07. Duncan didnt play all too well these years especially in the Finals and the 05 FMVP should have gone to Manu imo. 99, KG was too young so I don't think he could lead them all the way and 2003 Duncan put in a performance very few could replicate so I have my doubts. Thus I say KG would bring them 2 titles.

[Zack Ryder]

these threads sucks bro

[Anaximandro1]

KG is great but Duncan is noticably better.....its really not very close,even as great as KG is.
This.Its not close.Ginobli bring up some excellent points


1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better rim protector and defensive anchor in paint
3. duncan was a better man to man defender on the low block
4. duncan's playoff and regular season numbers are slightly better
5. overall the advanced stats slightly favor duncan
6. duncan was more efficient in the playoffs


Duncan needed to play out of his mind to help the Spurs compete until both Parker and Manu matured in the second half of the decade.In short,the Spurs roster lacked firepower and a young big man next to Duncan.


2002

Western Conference Semifinals / Lakers 4-1 over Spurs

LA was the better team but Duncan averaged 29 pts,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk


2006

Western Conference Finals / Mavs 4-3 over Spurs

Duncan averaged 32.2 pts,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk


Duncan won four rings because he usually had an extra gear.He was able to completely dominate on the biggest stage,against all the big teams.

Lakers


1999 Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-0 over Lakers

Duncan averaged 29 pts,10.8 rbs,3.3 as.,2 blk

Game 3 Duncan put 37/14/4/1

Game 4 Duncan put 33/14/4/1


2002 Western Conference Semifinals / Lakers 4-1 over Spurs

Duncan averaged 29 pts,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk

Game 4 Duncan put 30/11/6/4

Game 5 Duncan put 34/25/4/2


2003 Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Lakers

Duncan averaged 28 pts,11.8 rb,4.8 as,1.3 blk

Game 4 36/9/5

Game 5 27/14/5/1

Game 6 37/16/4/2



Mavs


2001 Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-1 Over Mavs

Duncan averaged 26.8 pts,17.4 rb,3.6 as,2 blk


Game 1 31/13/1/2

Game 2 25/22/6/1

Game 4 29/18/5/0

Game 5 32/20/3/5


2003 Western Conference Finals/ Spurs 4-2 Over Mavs

Duncan averaged 28 pts,16.7 rb,5.8 as,3 blk

Game 1 40/15/7/1

Game 2 32/15/5/3

Game 3 34/24/6/6

Game 4 21/20/7/4

2006 Western Conference Semifinals / Mavs 4-3 Over Spurs

Duncan averaged 32.2 pts,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk

Game 1 31/13/4/2

Game 3 35/12/2/2

Game 4 31/13/6/3

Game 5 36/12/4/3

Game 7 41/15/6/3

Suns




2005 Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-1 over Suns

Duncan averaged 27.4 pts,13.8 rb,3.2 as,1.8 blk

Game 1 28/15/4/1

Game 2 30/8/2/0

Game 3 33/15/3/3

Game 5 31/15/4/3


2007 Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Suns

Duncan averaged 26.8 pts,13.7 rb,1.1 as,4.1 blk

Game 1 33/16/1/3

Game 2 29/11/2

Game 3 33/19/3

Game 6 24/13/1/9


2008 Western Conference First Round / Spurs 4-1 over Suns

Duncan averaged 24.8 pts,13.8 rb,2.6 as,2.4 blk

Game 1 40/15/5/3

Game 5 29/17/3



I think he at least matches the 4 that Duncan's Spurs accomplished.
Spurs win zero championship because:

1) Tim Duncan Playoff version was in another level.

2) It's easier to build around a dominant post player


Duncan numbers wouldn't skyrocket on a worse team. .

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Seriously,people need to stop using ad hoc arguments.

BTW,Dirk vs KG is a much better comparison.Dirk has been better since 2006 and destroyed KG in 2002.

[Pointguard]

Spurs win zero championship because:
1) Tim Duncan Playoff version was in another level.
2) It's easier to build around a dominant post player
Hahahah, welcome to the 1980's! And its obvious you didn't read and comprehend the thread.



:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Seriously,people need to stop using ad hoc arguments.

BTW,Dirk vs KG is a much better comparison.Dirk has been better since 2006 and destroyed KG in 2002.

I find that interesting because KG has three efficiency and rebounding titles - two of them would have been Duncan's only ones - with his DPOY award. And he was the most versatile PF ever. Does Dirk have more assist than Duncan too? I know Dirk scored more - I never looked up Dirk's stats. Did he have more steals than Duncan too? Otherwise the comparison to KG doesn't seem as interesting.

Seriously, read the thread. KG wasn't on Dirk like that in that series. And unlike Duncan, KG out does Dirk in every category in h2h matchups -points, assist, steals, blocks just like he does TD in their prime in h2h matchups - yes he even outblocks TD in H2H matchups cause they allowed him to focus on TD.

[jlauber]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=garneke01&p2=nowitdi01

In 32 regular season H2H games (perhaps not matched up against one another, however)...


Dirk at 23.1 ppg, 8.5 rpg, .462 FG%, .882 FT%, .393 3pt%, 2.1 apg, 0.8 bpg

KG at 23.3 ppg, 12.2 rpg, .524 FG%, .777 FT%, .294 3pt%, 4.6 apg, 1.3 bpg

[ginobli2311]

Hahahah, welcome to the 1980's! And its obvious you didn't read and comprehend the thread.



I find that interesting because KG has three efficiency and rebounding titles - two of them would have been Duncan's only ones - with his DPOY award. And he was the most versatile PF ever. Does Dirk have more assist than Duncan too? I know Dirk scored more - I never looked up Dirk's stats. Did he have more steals than Duncan too? Otherwise the comparison to KG doesn't seem as interesting.

Seriously, read the thread. KG wasn't on Dirk like that in that series. And unlike Duncan, KG out does Dirk in every category in h2h matchups -points, assist, steals, blocks just like he does TD in their prime in h2h matchups - yes he even outblocks TD in H2H matchups cause they allowed him to focus on TD.


before i get into kg vs dirk. let me say that i think kg is clearly better...and its really not very close for me.

but those stats with dirk for his career or h2h won't tell the entire story because one of dirk's best qualities is his late game play. its something that dirk has huge over kg. dirk is uber clutch and has proven time and time again he can carry a team down the stretch of a tight game. he makes his free throws and consistently makes huge shots. that is something that both kg and duncan could not do.

just pointing that out. my approx. rankings all time for kg/dirk/duncan

duncan around 7th all time
kg around 14th all time
dirk around 25th all time

[Pointguard]

before i get into kg vs dirk. let me say that i think kg is clearly better...and its really not very close for me.

but those stats with dirk for his career or h2h won't tell the entire story because one of dirk's best qualities is his late game play. its something that dirk has huge over kg. dirk is uber clutch and has proven time and time again he can carry a team down the stretch of a tight game. he makes his free throws and consistently makes huge shots. that is something that both kg and duncan could not do.

just pointing that out. my approx. rankings all time for kg/dirk/duncan

duncan around 7th all time
kg around 14th all time
dirk around 25th all time
Hey Gin, Once again I am with you overall - maybe a notch higher on each of them and Dirk closer to 35ish. Dirk is good in the clutch in general, but KG was on a far inferior team and they break even. So his late game heroics didn't distinguish him from KG as mentioned above. If Dirk makes good on his finals appearance I would give him the nod in clutch play on TD. Since TD has done and seen it all, and I fell asleep when he did it, I still think, IMHO, he has Dirk in that regards too.

[Yung D-Will]

lol.

[Yung D-Will]

lol.

Top 4 pf's of all time

Duncan
Barkley
Malone
Garnett

[XxSMSxX]

Top 4 pf's of all time

Duncan
Barkley
Malone
Garnett


Is that in order?

[drza44]

you seem to fail to even acknowledge simple facts:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better rim protector and defensive anchor in paint
3. duncan was a better man to man defender on the low block
4. duncan's playoff and regular season numbers are slightly better
5. overall the advanced stats slightly favor duncan
6. duncan was more efficient in the playoffs

Sorry for the several-day delay in my response, life interferes. I'm starting here because I think this is the most important part of your post, but if time/space permits I'll address some of your other issues below.

Here's the thing. Some of what you wrote above are facts, some aren't. And, beyond that, some are things that I don't (and haven't) ever disagreed with that don't really make your case . To whit:

"1. duncan was a better low post player"
I agree with this, and unless I'm mistaken I've acknowledged it in each of my posts so far. Though there are many similarities in Garnett and Duncan, it's clear that Duncan has more natural "center" in him than Garnett does. My point all along has been that having center skills does not by definition make you a better player. While Duncan has some abilities that Garnett does not, Garnett also has some that Duncan does not. Our point of contention isn't whether or not Duncan is the better post player, but whether Garnett's other strengths are sufficient to bridge or even go beyond Duncan's. I believe yes, you believe no. But that Duncan is better on the blocks isn't something I'm contending against.

"2. duncan was a better rim protector and defensive anchor in paint
3. duncan was a better man to man defender on the low block"

I group these two together, because they are on the same subject and also contain elements of both truth and ... conjecture is too strong of a word, but let's just say that the parts that are true don't imply the meaning that your usage suggests. Duncan's sphere of influence is more centered around the rim than Garnett's, he thus does more shot contention at the rim/blocks more shots, and his larger size makes him better suited to guard huge centers in the post than Garnett. To those ends, I agree with your statements.

However, I disagree with the notion that these things make Duncan a more valuable defensive commodity than Garnett. The general meme, even among those that style Garnett and Duncan as similar defensive assets, is something like Duncan is better defending the paint, Garnett better at defending the perimeter, it is more valuable to defend the paint, and thus Duncan is the more valuable team defender. But this isn't an accurate depiction of Garnett's defensive impact. Garnett doesn't just match-up 1:1 with players outside of the paint, he covers huge amounts of ground as a help defender...perhaps unparalleled in NBA history. Garnett is often cited as the best pick-and-roll defender in the NBA, but his ability to offer help defense from the top-of-the-key to the rim, from sideline to sideline, improves the caliber of a team's defense in a way that a rim-protector never could.

The reason that dominant rim protectors (almost universally centers outside of Duncan) are so prized as defenders is because their help-defense at the rim makes the entire defense better. Perimeter defenders can be more aggressive on their men and take more risks, and the other big is more freed up to play strong individual defense and crash the boards, when there is a dominant rim protector at his back. What Garnett's defense does, essentially, is extend that "rim protector effect" out from an area with about a 10-foot radius around the rim to an area with about a 20-foot radius around the rim.

Now, one man's influence on a defense can't, by itself, turn crap into sugar. But what it can do is drastically improve whatever is already there. That is why, despite not leading top team-defenses until getting to Boston, Garnett's defensive +/- measure over his prime is so far and away the best in the NBA that it looks like a misprint. Duncan's defensive +/- from 2003 - 2009 is a very strong +4.8 according to a 7-year study done by Ilardi, one of the best marks in the NBA that is in a cluster between +4 and +5.2 that includes every DPoY winner that played the entirety of that span (Wallace +5.2, Artest +5.1, Camby +4.2). Every DPoY except one, that is. Garnett's +7.8 defensive +/- from 03 to 09 stands as an outlier, with no other full-time player even coming close. It's not that Duncan isn't a hugely valuable defender, it's that Garnett's defensive impact is so large and unique that even Duncan's doesn't match it.

4. duncan's regular season numbers are slightly better
5. overall the advanced stats slightly favor duncan

Again, these are grouped for being very similar and for being not quite accurate. There are essentially two different types of "numbers" out there to evaluate players: boxscore stats, and +/- stats, two very different ways of judging someone. And when you look across the board, the majority of the advanced stats that are out there actually work out in favor of Garnett over our period of interest. There were a whole slew of articles about that last year as authors of each advanced stat came out with "best of the decade" lists. To whit:

Box score stats:

PER (2000 - 2009): Duncan 25.5, Garnett 25.5 (Basketball-reference.com)

Win Shares (2000 - 2009): Duncan 129.8, Garnett 130.5 (Basketball-reference.com)

Wins produced (1998 - 2007): Duncan 200, Garnett 234 http://www.wagesofwins.com/GarnettDuncan.html

WARP (2000 - 2009): Duncan 183.3, Garnett 196.7 ( http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=532 )

+/- stats:

Wayne Winston's adjusted +/- (decade): Duncan +11.2, Garnett +11.7 http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=158

Stephen Ilardi's APM (2003 - 2009): Duncan +8.0, Garnett + 14.1 https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AnGzTFTtSPx_dE9xcTVITjhRSDdfRkJ5MHJ2cU1nb 0E&hl=en#gid=0

This list of "advanced stats" is pretty exhaustive, among those generally reported to the public. I've seen a few other more esoteric articles as well from other math geeks, but they also tend to favor Garnett. Anyway, the point of all of this isn't to say that the numbers prove positive that Garnett is better, but by the same token they show it's not accurate at all to say that the numbers or advanced stats favor Duncan during the time period under question in this thread.

4. duncan's playoff numbers are slightly better
6. duncan was more efficient in the playoffs

Continuing the previous section and adding #6 to it, this is another mix of truth and not-quite-truth. In the postseason there are fewer advanced stats available and smaller sample sizes to work with. As far as I can tell, the available advanced postseason stats are the Basketball-reference stats (PER and Win Shares) and the 82games.com stats (on-court/off-court +/- and Roland Rating). But you

[XxSMSxX]

Sorry for the several-day delay in my response, life interferes. I'm starting here because I think this is the most important part of your post, but if time/space permits I'll address some of your other issues below.

Here's the thing. Some of what you wrote above are facts, some aren't. And, beyond that, some are things that I don't (and haven't) ever disagreed with that don't really make your case . To whit:

"1. duncan was a better low post player"
I agree with this, and unless I'm mistaken I've acknowledged it in each of my posts so far. Though there are many similarities in Garnett and Duncan, it's clear that Duncan has more natural "center" in him than Garnett does. My point all along has been that having center skills does not by definition make you a better player. While Duncan has some abilities that Garnett does not, Garnett also has some that Duncan does not. Our point of contention isn't whether or not Duncan is the better post player, but whether Garnett's other strengths are sufficient to bridge or even go beyond Duncan's. I believe yes, you believe no. But that Duncan is better on the blocks isn't something I'm contending against.

"2. duncan was a better rim protector and defensive anchor in paint
3. duncan was a better man to man defender on the low block"

I group these two together, because they are on the same subject and also contain elements of both truth and ... conjecture is too strong of a word, but let's just say that the parts that are true don't imply the meaning that your usage suggests. Duncan's sphere of influence is more centered around the rim than Garnett's, he thus does more shot contention at the rim/blocks more shots, and his larger size makes him better suited to guard huge centers in the post than Garnett. To those ends, I agree with your statements.

However, I disagree with the notion that these things make Duncan a more valuable defensive commodity than Garnett. The general meme, even among those that style Garnett and Duncan as similar defensive assets, is something like Duncan is better defending the paint, Garnett better at defending the perimeter, it is more valuable to defend the paint, and thus Duncan is the more valuable team defender. But this isn't an accurate depiction of Garnett's defensive impact. Garnett doesn't just match-up 1:1 with players outside of the paint, he covers huge amounts of ground as a help defender...perhaps unparalleled in NBA history. Garnett is often cited as the best pick-and-roll defender in the NBA, but his ability to offer help defense from the top-of-the-key to the rim, from sideline to sideline, improves the caliber of a team's defense in a way that a rim-protector never could.

The reason that dominant rim protectors (almost universally centers outside of Duncan) are so prized as defenders is because their help-defense at the rim makes the entire defense better. Perimeter defenders can be more aggressive on their men and take more risks, and the other big is more freed up to play strong individual defense and crash the boards, when there is a dominant rim protector at his back. What Garnett's defense does, essentially, is extend that "rim protector effect" out from an area with about a 10-foot radius around the rim to an area with about a 20-foot radius around the rim.

Now, one man's influence on a defense can't, by itself, turn crap into sugar. But what it can do is drastically improve whatever is already there. That is why, despite not leading top team-defenses until getting to Boston, Garnett's defensive +/- measure over his prime is so far and away the best in the NBA that it looks like a misprint. Duncan's defensive +/- from 2003 - 2009 is a very strong +4.8 according to a 7-year study done by Ilardi, one of the best marks in the NBA that is in a cluster between +4 and +5.2 that includes every DPoY winner that played the entirety of that span (Wallace +5.2, Artest +5.1, Camby +4.2). Every DPoY except one, that is. Garnett's +7.8 defensive +/- from 03 to 09 stands as an outlier, with no other full-time player even coming close. It's not that Duncan isn't a hugely valuable defender, it's that Garnett's defensive impact is so large and unique that even Duncan's doesn't match it.

4. duncan's regular season numbers are slightly better
5. overall the advanced stats slightly favor duncan

Again, these are grouped for being very similar and for being not quite accurate. There are essentially two different types of "numbers" out there to evaluate players: boxscore stats, and +/- stats, two very different ways of judging someone. And when you look across the board, the majority of the advanced stats that are out there actually work out in favor of Garnett over our period of interest. There were a whole slew of articles about that last year as authors of each advanced stat came out with "best of the decade" lists. To whit:

Box score stats:

PER (2000 - 2009): Duncan 25.5, Garnett 25.5 (Basketball-reference.com)

Win Shares (2000 - 2009): Duncan 129.8, Garnett 130.5 (Basketball-reference.com)

Wins produced (1998 - 2007): Duncan 200, Garnett 234 http://www.wagesofwins.com/GarnettDuncan.html

WARP (2000 - 2009): Duncan 183.3, Garnett 196.7 ( http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=532 )

+/- stats:

Wayne Winston's adjusted +/- (decade): Duncan +11.2, Garnett +11.7 http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=158

Stephen Ilardi's APM (2003 - 2009): Duncan +8.0, Garnett + 14.1 https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AnGzTFTtSPx_dE9xcTVITjhRSDdfRkJ5MHJ2cU1nb 0E&hl=en#gid=0

This list of "advanced stats" is pretty exhaustive, among those generally reported to the public. I've seen a few other more esoteric articles as well from other math geeks, but they also tend to favor Garnett. Anyway, the point of all of this isn't to say that the numbers prove positive that Garnett is better, but by the same token they show it's not accurate at all to say that the numbers or advanced stats favor Duncan during the time period under question in this thread.

4. duncan's playoff numbers are slightly better
6. duncan was more efficient in the playoffs

Continuing the previous section and adding #6 to it, this is another mix of truth and not-quite-truth. In the postseason there are fewer advanced stats available and smaller sample sizes to work with. As far as I can tell, the available advanced postseason stats are the Basketball-reference stats (PER and Win Shares) and the 82games.com stats (on-court/off-court +/- and Roland Rating). But you’re right, Duncan does better at the efficiency-based stats on B-R (Duncan 26.6 PER, 0.22 WS/48 vs KG’s 23.9 PER, 0.17 WS/48) from 2000 –2009.

On the other hand, Garnett smashed him in the postseason +/- stats. From 2003 – 09, Duncan sported a strong on-court/off-court +/- of +7.1, but Garnett was a whopping +16.8 in the postseason over that same stretch. So while the available stats support your statement that Duncan was more efficient in the postseason, they also support the counter-notion that KG was having a bigger impact on his team’s wins than Duncan was on his. Both sets of stats, for what they’re worth, are likely heavily influenced by the supporting cast. But the same bottom line holds as in the previous section…as individuals, the available numbers don’t support your notion that Duncan was slightly better in either the postseason or the regular season during the years that I’m arguing KG would have kept the Spurs contenders.


Spittin that ether :applause: excellent post once again drza. Btw how is that defensive +/- calculated? It's not like the regular box score +/- is it?

[rmt]

drza44, why are your stats from previous post the years 2003-09 (regarding Stephen Ilardi's APM)? Seems like you're cherry-picking KG's best years and leaving out TD's best years for that particular stat. All the other numbers for the wider span of years are very close.

[Big#50]

Are we seriously arguing KG is better than Duncan?

[Pointguard]

Great work Drza44.

The range KG covers by feet on defense is probably the most vast in history by a seven footer. The way he keeps people out of the paint is superior. He's rarely out of position and getting dunked on with frequency like Duncan does because he makes better decisions much quicker and gets there before the offensive player gets momentum. Its hard to pick and role on his side or where he can help. Few people have ever communicated shifts, closeouts, switches, fallbacks and traps like he does on defense. The full range of his defense is rarely discussed.

[drza44]

drza44, why are your stats from previous post the years 2003-09 (regarding Stephen Ilardi's APM)? Seems like you're cherry-picking KG's best years and leaving out TD's best years for that particular stat. All the other numbers for the wider span of years are very close.

The biggest reason for the 2003 - 2009 APM stats is that those are the only years where the stat is available. 82games.com didn't start keeping track of the +/- stats until 2002-03, and as far as I know that data isn't publicly available anywhere else from before that season.

But practically speaking, those are the main areas of question in this thread anyway. From my post that answers the OP (1st post on page 7 of this thread), I argue that KG would have kept the Spurs contending in '99 and made them contenders in 2000 (the year Duncan was hurt for the postseason). But that he wouldn't have made them contenders in '01 or '02 because Duncan was brilliant those years and still couldn't get the Spurs past the Lakers. So really, the most controversial years as far as this thread goes are the 2003 - 2009 seasons. Those are the years when Duncan led the Spurs to three titles, and those are the years I'm arguing that KG would have been able to accomplish the same or better. So to that end, it makes sense that these are the years that get covered most stringently in this thread (especially since, as I mentioned before, we have more available stats to make better informed analysis for those years).

[Wuxia]

drza44, why are your stats from previous post the years 2003-09 (regarding Stephen Ilardi's APM)? Seems like you're cherry-picking KG's best years and leaving out TD's best years for that particular stat. All the other numbers for the wider span of years are very close.

i notice this too. and +/- stats are garbage. seriously who looks at this stuff.....

[Wuxia]

The biggest reason for the 2003 - 2009 APM stats is that those are the only years where the stat is available. 82games.com didn't start keeping track of the +/- stats until 2002-03, and as far as I know that data isn't publicly available anywhere else from before that season.

But practically speaking, those are the main areas of question in this thread anyway. From my post that answers the OP (1st post on page 7 of this thread), I argue that KG would have kept the Spurs contending in '99 and made them contenders in 2000 (the year Duncan was hurt for the postseason). But that he wouldn't have made them contenders in '01 or '02 because Duncan was brilliant those years and still couldn't get the Spurs past the Lakers. So really, the most controversial years as far as this thread goes are the 2003 - 2009 seasons. Those are the years when Duncan led the Spurs to three titles, and those are the years I'm arguing that KG would have been able to accomplish the same or better. So to that end, it makes sense that these are the years that get covered most stringently in this thread (especially since, as I mentioned before, we have more available stats to make better informed analysis for those years).

even if i were to concede that their defensive impact is equal(which i don't believe BTW). duncan's impact on the offensive ends far exceeds what KG can contribute. those Spurs team from 2000-2006 rely so much on Duncan for their offense. most of their sets consist of bringing the ball up court and drop it down to duncan and stand around to see if he can score on the post. if he gets double kick it out for a 3. this is literally 90% of their offense. KG does not have the post presence to command that kind of attention/double team that Duncan can create.

[ginobli2311]

drza44

again you confuse things.

for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player.

me saying that duncan was a better post defender and rim protector does not mean i'm saying duncan was a better overall defensive player.

look. we both agree that the players are very very close to each other in terms of level of play and impact.

so again. would i rather have the versatile guy that doesn't dominate the low block on offense, but can space the floor and play multiple positions?

for me...i'd rather have the low post guy.,

would i rather have the more versatile defender that can guard more positions or the guy that can guard the post and protect the paint better?

for me....i'd rather have the low post defender and rim protector.

you've already conceded that duncan was superior at both of those things. and i've already conceded kg was superior in other areas on both ends.

so for the last time. i'd prefer to have the dominant low post presence on offense and the better paint protector on defense. that is the difference for me. i think that wins more in the playoffs. it has throughout nba history. we'll never know if kg's style could have reproduced what duncan did. its a shame that kg wasted so much of his career in minny.

once again everything you say with i pretty much agree with and i respect your opinion. i just disagree with it.

[drza44]

drza44

again you confuse things.

for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player.

me saying that duncan was a better post defender and rim protector does not mean i'm saying duncan was a better overall defensive player.

look. we both agree that the players are very very close to each other in terms of level of play and impact.

so again. would i rather have the versatile guy that doesn't dominate the low block on offense, but can space the floor and play multiple positions?

for me...i'd rather have the low post guy.,

would i rather have the more versatile defender that can guard more positions or the guy that can guard the post and protect the paint better?

for me....i'd rather have the low post defender and rim protector.

you've already conceded that duncan was superior at both of those things. and i've already conceded kg was superior in other areas on both ends.

so for the last time. i'd prefer to have the dominant low post presence on offense and the better paint protector on defense. that is the difference for me. i think that wins more in the playoffs. it has throughout nba history. we'll never know if kg's style could have reproduced what duncan did. its a shame that kg wasted so much of his career in minny.

once again everything you say with i pretty much agree with and i respect your opinion. i just disagree with it.

I'm not confused, I'm just forcing clarity into our statements. Take a look at the difference between what you wrote in your earlier statements that led to my disagreement and subsequent rebuttals:


duncan was a superior offensive player than kg. kg is more versatile, but duncan had a bigger impact and was far more dominant. kg was never really a dominant offensive player....at least not like duncan. duncan could control an entire game and series on the low block. he had to be doubled and really when you have to double a low post player you are screwed.

so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point.

...

so, like always, you need to delve deeper into why duncan is better (which he is). and its because he was more dominant offensively and because he was a better paint protector defensively. duncan is a superior one on one defender on the low block and a better rim protector and a bit better at off the ball shot blocking as well.


Now, compare that to your statement above. See the difference? In the early statements you were saying point-blank that while it may be close, Duncan was definitely the better player, whereas now you are saying that they each have strengths and weaknesses, and that you simply prefer Duncan's style. That's a big difference, and what I've been trying to get at all along.

You once asked me in this thread what I would consider a reasonable stance for someone preferring Duncan over Garnett. That's it, what you just typed in your most recent statement. If you say "I can't really prove one way or the other which one is better, but I prefer Duncan's style" then ok, I can't really argue with a preference. That's an 'agree to disagree' place. But if you say "They're close, but Duncan is definitively better and thus that's why I prefer Duncan" then that's a different statement, and one I'd ask you to defend as I offer counter-evidence. You seem to have moved away from the latter, and have settled more into the former. If that's the case then yes, I'm (finally) willing to agree-to-disagree.

[rmt]

The biggest reason for the 2003 - 2009 APM stats is that those are the only years where the stat is available. 82games.com didn't start keeping track of the +/- stats until 2002-03, and as far as I know that data isn't publicly available anywhere else from before that season.

But practically speaking, those are the main areas of question in this thread anyway. From my post that answers the OP (1st post on page 7 of this thread), I argue that KG would have kept the Spurs contending in '99 and made them contenders in 2000 (the year Duncan was hurt for the postseason). But that he wouldn't have made them contenders in '01 or '02 because Duncan was brilliant those years and still couldn't get the Spurs past the Lakers. So really, the most controversial years as far as this thread goes are the 2003 - 2009 seasons. Those are the years when Duncan led the Spurs to three titles, and those are the years I'm arguing that KG would have been able to accomplish the same or better. So to that end, it makes sense that these are the years that get covered most stringently in this thread (especially since, as I mentioned before, we have more available stats to make better informed analysis for those years).

drza44, I appreciate the time you took to explain your POV. However, I don't agree with some of your points. In particular, your using the reason of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as Duncan to explain why KG doesn't take over playoff games like TD (see post #90 which you never did address).

I still haven't read anything to convince me that KG could have carried a team such as the 03 Spurs to a championship. So far, only Hakeem has taken a similar type team to a ring.

I agree that on the 07 and 08 championship teams, they are probably both interchangeable. I'm not sure whether the battles against the Suns in 05, 07, 08 would have gone the same way with KG as TD was a big part of why they got by the Suns (they had to double team him & eventually tried Shaq to counter him).

I'll leave you with the thoughts of some one who played many years with the both of them (4 years with KG and 3 years with TD):

Reporters question:

You played alongside the best two PFs of the last 15 years Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett who both won an MVP award and a championship ring. Who made a bigger impression on you?

Rasho:

I have to say Duncan. He is a true team leader. Garnett is a phenomenal player with great physical abilities but I don't think he is mentally strong enough to be a team leader. If he would have stayed in Minessota I don't think he would ever win a ring. He did the right move by going to Boston because there is Paul Pierce who is a true team leader that scores in clutch moments.

Link(in Slovenian): http://www.rtvslo.si/sport/kosarka/r...entance/231773

[drza44]

drza44, I appreciate the time you took to explain your POV. However, I don't agree with some of your points. In particular, your using the reason of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as Duncan to explain why KG doesn't take over playoff games like TD (see post #90 which you never did address).

Fair enough, though I do think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that KG doesn't take over playoff games like Duncan, I was saying that he in fact DID take over playoff games like Duncan but that many didn't notice/remember it because he wasn't in as many games. But KG absolutely has taken over his share of postseason games that match up well with Duncan at his best. Some examples:

1999 and 2001: Garnett played Duncan to a stand still in both series.

2002: Garnett goes for 19/21/6 in game 1; 31/18/4/3/2 in game 2; and 22/17/5 in game 3. Hard to blame him for the team's loss.

2003: Garnett goes for 35, 20 and 7 to lead the Wolves to their first win in the series, then follows that up with a 33 point, 14 reb, 4 ast, 4 blk, 2 steal game to steal a second win on the road (including 8 points in the last 4 minutes of the 4th Q).

2004: That whole playoff run was littered with takeover games. There was his 30/20 game to open the playoffs, his 20/22/10 triple-double, his 30/15/3/3/5 game 3 to lead the Wolves to a road win over the Kings (he scored 15 points in the 4th Q and OT). Then, of course there's the 32/21/2/5/4 effort to win the first game 7 of his career, in which he made all of his team's FGs in the 4th Q.

2008: Again, there are take-over games throughout the postseason. I see Cavs game 1 where KG overcame Pierce and Allen combining to shoot 2-for-18 from the field with 10 turnovers to lead the Cs to a win...KG scored 28 in that game, including the game-tying jumper with 1 minute left and the game-winning drive with 20 seconds left. "Presumably, LeBron will rebound. So will Pierce and Allen. The difference was that KG didn't have an off night when his team needed him more than any other time this season to be on. THAT is worthy of the label "MVP." http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/8211/shanoffs_wake-up_call_kg_mvp-ish,_bron_not#ixzz0vkdwfz2l

Or the 33 point effort in game 5 against the Pistons, in which he hit the game-clinching free throws with 3 seconds left on the clock. "Here's the big deal. When Garnett went to the foul line with 3.4 seconds left, the sellout crowd of 18,624 at TD Banknorth Garden, who squirmed in their seats when the Detroit Pistons pulled within 100-99 with 1:36 remaining, held their collective breath. The Celtics needed Garnett, who hit his previous six attempts from the line, to be Mr. Clutch after he induced Rasheed Wallace to commit his fifth personal. After he made the first free throw, Garnett wasted no time in hoisting up the second, leaving no doubt which 2 points ranked as the biggest of his 33-point effort in last night's intense 106-102 victory over the Pistons in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals." http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2008/05/29/garnett_made_it_look_routine/


Or his huge game in the Championship closeout game against the Lakers, where he had 17 points/6 boards/3 assists at the half and only stopped at 26/14/4 because the Lakers gave up and the game turned into one of the biggest blowouts in NBA Finals history. [I]"Setting aside the dramatic comebacks that we

[ginobli2311]

I'm not confused, I'm just forcing clarity into our statements. Take a look at the difference between what you wrote in your earlier statements that led to my disagreement and subsequent rebuttals:



Now, compare that to your statement above. See the difference? In the early statements you were saying point-blank that while it may be close, Duncan was definitely the better player, whereas now you are saying that they each have strengths and weaknesses, and that you simply prefer Duncan's style. That's a big difference, and what I've been trying to get at all along.

You once asked me in this thread what I would consider a reasonable stance for someone preferring Duncan over Garnett. That's it, what you just typed in your most recent statement. If you say "I can't really prove one way or the other which one is better, but I prefer Duncan's style" then ok, I can't really argue with a preference. That's an 'agree to disagree' place. But if you say "They're close, but Duncan is definitively better and thus that's why I prefer Duncan" then that's a different statement, and one I'd ask you to defend as I offer counter-evidence. You seem to have moved away from the latter, and have settled more into the former. If that's the case then yes, I'm (finally) willing to agree-to-disagree.

ok. that is fine.

but i still think duncan was the superior offensive player because of his low post dominance.

and i still think duncan was the superior defender because of his paint protection.

i was just laying it out very simply for you in my last post. its not just style. there is more substance to duncan's style than kg's. that is how i feel. can i prove it? well....as well as you can prove something that is not factual. you keep posting stats and numbers. and almost always they are either the exact same or duncan is a little bit better overall.

factor that in with what we've seen duncan do (win consistently with a variety of different teams) and i keep coming back to duncan is slightly better than kg.

there is really no argument that kg is better. just opinion. but looking totally at the facts and what has happened.....there is an argument that duncan is slightly better. and that is the difference.

[tpols]

ok. that is fine.

but i still think duncan was the superior offensive player because of his low post dominance.

and i still think duncan was the superior defender because of his paint protection.

i was just laying it out very simply for you in my last post. its not just style. there is more substance to duncan's style than kg's. that is how i feel. can i prove it? well....as well as you can prove something that is not factual. you keep posting stats and numbers. and almost always they are either the exact same or duncan is a little bit better overall.

factor that in with what we've seen duncan do (win consistently with a variety of different teams) and i keep coming back to duncan is slightly better than kg.

there is really no argument that kg is better. just opinion. but looking totally at the facts and what has happened.....there is an argument that duncan is slightly better. and that is the difference.
How has duncan won consistently with different teams? He's always been on the spurs under the same coach running the same defensive schemes and playing the same slow paced style. For the past three championships past the lockout he has had parker, ginobli, and a bunch of defensive role players. Literally the same thing year in and year out.

KG is the one that has shown that he can make a huge impact on any team he's put on. He dragged terrible casts with the twolves to the WCF and to the playoffs every single year he was with them. And then he went to boston and turned that team into an all time great defensive team and perrenial powerhouse.

I'm sorry but that statement made no sense. Duncan has been a part of the same system for his entire span of dominance and it is KG who has demonstrated the ability to be effective in multiple different systems.

[ginobli2311]

also.

you keep giving us examples of kg's greatness. why? is anyone here disputing that he is great? like i've said before....he's my 14th best player right now and that could change for the better depending on how kg finishes his career...etc.

i could go run down a ton of quotes about duncan or run down all of his killer playoff and finals performances.

we get it. you love kg and think he's better than duncan. thats cool. we just disagree. we don't need you to show us why kg was/is so amazing. we already know this.

you seem to keep having problems with what i say. you have a problem with me saying "duncan was a superior offensive player".... that is my opinion. you have two guys with virtually the same numbers offensively. duncan is slightly more efficient. and duncan was the better low post player. and that puts him over the top for me. its fine if you don't agree. but its more than a valid reason simply because throughout the history of the nba....dominant post players have won titles year in year out.

does this mean kg couldn't have or wouldn't have? of course not.

same thing can be said about the interior defense as well. two players that have a very similar impact, but one is the better interior defender. again....i think interior defense is more important so i'll take duncan.

its not just style. there is substance to that style. i have nba history on my side and i've seen duncan do it. you have the hypothetical of what kg could have done.

and if you really want to get down to it. just look at last year's nba finals. kg couldn't board in that series against bynum/gasol. just look at game 7. 3 rebounds in 38 minutes and his team desperately needed someone to board. you can come up with excuses all you want, but a stronger interior presence would not get hammered so badly on the boards. and once again this brings me back to duncan being the superior interior presence on both ends. kg grabbed over 6 boards in 1 game of the finals this year. and rebounding was of supreme importance.

[ginobli2311]

How has duncan won consistently with different teams? He's always been on the spurs under the same coach running the same defensive schemes and playing the same slow paced style. For the past three championships past the lockout he has had parker, ginobli, and a bunch of defensive role players. Literally the same thing year in and year out.

KG is the one that has shown that he can make a huge impact on any team he's put on. He dragged terrible casts with the twolves to the WCF and to the playoffs every single year he was with them. And then he went to boston and turned that team into an all time great defensive team and perrenial powerhouse.

I'm sorry but that statement made no sense. Duncan has been a part of the same system for almost all of his span of dominance and it is KG who has demonstrated the ability to be effective in multiple different systems.


he won with robinson and without him. we won with parker and manu and without them.

that is different teams. the spurs with robinson are far different than the spurs with manu/parker.

they are different teams made up of different players. it makes perfect sense.

and the current spurs are far different as well.

[tpols]

he won with robinson and without him. we won with parker and manu and without them.

that is different teams. the spurs with robinson are far different than the spurs with manu/parker.

they are different teams made up of different players. it makes perfect sense.
He won ONE championship with a still great defensively drob averaging 16/10 as a rookie after the lockout and then got bounced every year until 03. Then he won in the 2000s, while he was in his prime, on the exact same team year in and year out(gino+parker+bowen+defensive role players). His whole prime he played and won with the same team. And his whole career he played for the same team, the same coach, the same slow paced style, and the same schemes. KG has proven much more in this department than duncan.

[Kiddlovesnets]

The Spurs will probably be without the title of 1999 or 2003, but I can still see them winning in 2005 and 2007(assuming Mavs are upset as before). The current Spurs team operates well with or without Duncan, this is a team in which everyone comes to play.

[icemanfan]

Well, there is no way in hell that Duncan wins Minnesota a championship, but idk whether KG wins 4 or not. I'd say that most likely he does.
LMFAO what total shit. He would have at least won one. KG isn't fit to hold Tim's Jock. Tim totally owned his ass when he was in Minny. What an asinine thing to say.

[drza44]

also.

you keep giving us examples of kg's greatness. why? is anyone here disputing that he is great? like i've said before....he's my 14th best player right now and that could change for the better depending on how kg finishes his career...etc.

i could go run down a ton of quotes about duncan or run down all of his killer playoff and finals performances.

we get it. you love kg and think he's better than duncan. thats cool. we just disagree. we don't need you to show us why kg was/is so amazing. we already know this.

I was responding specifically to rmt, who in post #90 gave some specific examples of Duncan's big postseason performances, then in post #124 called me out for not responding to his previous post about KG not having big postseason performances. Since he asked me twice for that info, I would say it was perfectly reasonable for me to answer as I did. Also, in his post #124, he gave a quote from a player suggesting that KG wasn't a leader on those Celtics...wouldn't the logical thing for me to do, then, be to give him quotes from others that were closer to the situation that supported my statement? Your protest here doesn't make much sense.


you seem to keep having problems with what i say. you have a problem with me saying "duncan was a superior offensive player".... that is my opinion. you have two guys with virtually the same numbers offensively. duncan is slightly more efficient. and duncan was the better low post player. and that puts him over the top for me. its fine if you don't agree. but its more than a valid reason simply because throughout the history of the nba....dominant post players have won titles year in year out.

I don't have a problem with you saying "Duncan was a superior offensive player", but if you say it then I'm going to ask you to support that with facts and not just supposition. In return, I will post my own analysis. That's the nature of a discussion. But what has happened repeatedly in this thread is, you make a declarative statement in Duncan's favor, I counter with an opinion in KG's favor with lots of objective stats or even anecdotes to support my opinion, then you respond testily (either you call me confused or some other negative comment) and proceed to ignore my analysis. That doesn't lend to a very positive exchange.

Examples (from this thread):

1) You: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not. " - post 63 of the thread

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota..." with detailed analysis of 4 different offensive sets that Minnesota ran often, where the double would come from, and how KG would counter it - post #79

You: "what i don't agree with is that kg demanded a double as much as duncan. in all of the games i watched of both players in the playoffs....i saw duncan hard doubled far more often." - post 82, and "also. i don't need a history lesson. - post 83

(No response to my analysis outside of a snarky-sounding comment that you don't need a history lesson, and then a re-statement of your opinion).

2) You: "i could talk about kg's inept play in tight games at times" - post 83

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof... Here's what I found:" followed by a detailed list of each player's clutch stats every year since 2002-03 that shows KG's and Duncan's performance in crunch time to be practically identical. - post 86

You: "you are having a hard time comprehending a few things. its ok. but listen. when someone says "kg's inept play at times"....that does not mean they are saying that he is inept. you need to understand that for purposes of this debate and any debate. you can't use that to go off on a tangent about kg's play late in games. the simple matter is in my opinion kg disappeared late in games more often than duncan. " - post 92

(Again, a bit of snark, followed by dismissing my tangible support as a tangent, then you re-stating your opinion that runs counter to my analysis without any further support).

3) You "duncan was a superior offensive player than kg. ... so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point." - post 34 and "duncan was a better low post player" post 92.

Me: "Our point of contention isn't whether or not Duncan is the better post player, but whether Garnett's other strengths are sufficient to bridge or even go beyond Duncan's. I believe yes, you believe no. But that Duncan is better on the blocks isn't something I'm contending against." post 114

You: "again you confuse things. for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player"


See, at this point I do start to get confused. If every time I engage you on a subject, addressing something you said directly, you deflect and then recant what you said, only to ignore my support and re-state your previously held view...how am I supposed to debate with that? What would be the point? At this point I guess you're right, you've stated where you stand, I've offered a counter-opinion with what I believe to be reasonable support, and you disagree. I guess there's no particular reason for us to continue to address each other unless something new is brought to the table.

[Sroek]

KG isn't on the Spurs, Duncan is.

[tpols]

Drza,

ginobli often does this in debates. I've never seen him budge from whatever agenda/opinion he comes in with. You could show him stats, proof, whatever, and he'll always nitpick at something, think he has 'beat' you in the debate, and then throw in a little insult. It's really not worth it to debate with him but if you want to continue dismissing his opinions that's fine with me:cheers:

Personally, I think KG is every bit as good a basketball player as duncan and the only reason duncan is thought more highly of is because he won more(while being on vastly superior teams).

[rmt]

drza44,

The reason I posted Rasho's comments was that he played with both KG and TD for many years. I could pull out tons of quotes on how good both KG and TD are as leaders but not any from another player who actually played with them both.

To me, Rasho's comments were about the intangibles and KG not being "mentally strong enough to be a team leader" and "a true team leader that scores in clutch moments" as the difference between KG and TD - not stats.

And I'm female - not male.

[MMM]

Duncan might of been better at protecting the rim in close but KG was better at preventing teams from getting there to begin with. KG still anchoring one of the best defensive teams in the league going into his 16th??? season indicates to me that he was probably the better defensive player. With all that being said TD was a superior from my view point but KG is close and the fact that he could lead Boston to a title indicates to me that in his Prime if he had a better cast he would be able to have a few rings. Will I said he could win the 4 TD has, no but I think 2 and maxing out at 3 is possible for him.

[Harison]

drza44,

The reason I posted Rasho's comments was that he played with both KG and TD for many years. I could pull out tons of quotes on how good both KG and TD are as leaders but not any from another player who actually played with them both.

To me, Rasho's comments were about the intangibles and KG not being "mentally strong enough to be a team leader" and "a true team leader that scores in clutch moments" as the difference between KG and TD - not stats.

And I'm female - not male.
As mentioned by drza44, Rasho didnt get along well with KG, so its possible he used an opportunity to bite KG. Or you think as long as comment favors TD, it must be absolute truth? Btw, in '08 or '09 NBA GMs voted who is the best team leader, KG was voted as by far the best, with TD having only 11% of votes.

Or we can talk how he came to Celtics and completely changed team mentality, enforcing different culture and players not only had to step up (including stars like Pierce and Ray), but also were held accountable by KG. If anything, it shows strong mentality, weak ones dont (and even cant) do that :cheers:

What concerns clutch moments, KG doesnt mind to pass to an open teammate if he is defended, thats just smart play, and not a sign of weakness. Bird did that, Jordan did as well, so did Russell, three greatest clutch players of All-time. On the other hand, if we take your words "a true team leader that scores in clutch moments" as the definition of clutchness, thats what Kobe do, forces the shot regardless if its smart play or not. I guess to each its own what they want of the clutch player to do.

We can also instead of rehashing generic claims go for the data, and as posted by drza44, TD and KG clutch data is a carbon copy, very similar. We dont even have to go far in the past, in '08 Celtics championship season, with two amazing clutch players like Ray and Pierce, it was KG who was BY FAR the best 4th quarter player in the Playoffs, by both as leading scorer, rebounder, and with much better efficiency than either Pierce or Ray. I'm not even talking about defense (clutch as well), which was primary reason why Celtics won at all.

[Monkey D Dragon]

Do they still win 4 championships?
Is KG crowned the GOAT PF?

Or

Does Duncan lead the T Wolves to championships?


Can we replace ur mom with ur dad?

That should answer all ur question

[ginobli2311]

I was responding specifically to rmt, who in post #90 gave some specific examples of Duncan's big postseason performances, then in post #124 called me out for not responding to his previous post about KG not having big postseason performances. Since he asked me twice for that info, I would say it was perfectly reasonable for me to answer as I did. Also, in his post #124, he gave a quote from a player suggesting that KG wasn't a leader on those Celtics...wouldn't the logical thing for me to do, then, be to give him quotes from others that were closer to the situation that supported my statement? Your protest here doesn't make much sense.



I don't have a problem with you saying "Duncan was a superior offensive player", but if you say it then I'm going to ask you to support that with facts and not just supposition. In return, I will post my own analysis. That's the nature of a discussion. But what has happened repeatedly in this thread is, you make a declarative statement in Duncan's favor, I counter with an opinion in KG's favor with lots of objective stats or even anecdotes to support my opinion, then you respond testily (either you call me confused or some other negative comment) and proceed to ignore my analysis. That doesn't lend to a very positive exchange.

Examples (from this thread):

1) You: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not. " - post 63 of the thread

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota..." with detailed analysis of 4 different offensive sets that Minnesota ran often, where the double would come from, and how KG would counter it - post #79

You: "what i don't agree with is that kg demanded a double as much as duncan. in all of the games i watched of both players in the playoffs....i saw duncan hard doubled far more often." - post 82, and "also. i don't need a history lesson. - post 83

(No response to my analysis outside of a snarky-sounding comment that you don't need a history lesson, and then a re-statement of your opinion).

2) You: "i could talk about kg's inept play in tight games at times" - post 83

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof... Here's what I found:" followed by a detailed list of each player's clutch stats every year since 2002-03 that shows KG's and Duncan's performance in crunch time to be practically identical. - post 86

You: "you are having a hard time comprehending a few things. its ok. but listen. when someone says "kg's inept play at times"....that does not mean they are saying that he is inept. you need to understand that for purposes of this debate and any debate. you can't use that to go off on a tangent about kg's play late in games. the simple matter is in my opinion kg disappeared late in games more often than duncan. " - post 92

(Again, a bit of snark, followed by dismissing my tangible support as a tangent, then you re-stating your opinion that runs counter to my analysis without any further support).

3) You "duncan was a superior offensive player than kg. ... so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point." - post 34 and "duncan was a better low post player" post 92.

Me: "Our point of contention isn't whether or not Duncan is the better post player, but whether Garnett's other strengths are sufficient to bridge or even go beyond Duncan's. I believe yes, you believe no. But that Duncan is better on the blocks isn't something I'm contending against." post 114

You: "again you confuse things. for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player"


See, at this point I do start to get confused. If every time I engage you on a subject, addressing something you said directly, you deflect and then recant what you said, only to ignore my support and re-state your previously held view...how am I supposed to debate with that? What would be the point? At this point I guess you're right, you've stated where you stand, I've offered a counter-opinion with what I believe to be reasonable support, and you disagree. I guess there's no particular reason for us to continue to address each other unless something new is brought to the table.


ok.

i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.

i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play.

also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help.

so that would be a problem when kg has to go up against some tough front lines....which he inevitably would have.

and again. not everything shows up in the stats. although i don't know why you keep referencing stats when all the stats and advanced stats are either even or slightly favor duncan.

post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)

therefore, because duncan is better at those aspects of the game, i'll take duncan over kg simply because their level of play and impact is the same.

basically your argument goes:

"you can't prove duncan was better than kg because i can rattle off stats and head to head games and instances in which kg was great and kg could have done this or that"

well. ok. that is fine. and you can't prove at all what kg would have done as the man on a title team in his prime. but we did just witness kg get destroyed in game 7 of the nba finals by gasol/bynum. we did just witness kg come up extremely small on the boards in the nba finals. i've never seen duncan dominated on the glass that badly in the finals or really any playoff series. only 1 game over 6 boards? not good. not good at all.

i have so much i could hammer kg with but i don't want to because i love kg. and that is the problem with debates like this. i'm trying to debate you without being hard on kg.....and just praising duncan.

so i'll summarize exactly my point and you tell me what is wrong with them in your mind:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better interior defender

because i think those two things are the most important aspect of winning in the nba.....i have duncan slightly over kg because overall their level of play and impact is so similar

forget everything else that has been said. please tell me if you refute those two things or their importance.

[tpols]

ok.

i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.

i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play.

also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help.

so that would be a problem when kg has to go up against some tough front lines....which he inevitably would have.

and again. not everything shows up in the stats. although i don't know why you keep referencing stats when all the stats and advanced stats are either even or slightly favor duncan.

post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)

therefore, because duncan is better at those aspects of the game, i'll take duncan over kg simply because their level of play and impact is the same.

basically your argument goes:

"you can't prove duncan was better than kg because i can rattle off stats and head to head games and instances in which kg was great and kg could have done this or that"

well. ok. that is fine. and you can't prove at all what kg would have done as the man on a title team in his prime. but we did just witness kg get destroyed in game 7 of the nba finals by gasol/bynum. we did just witness kg come up extremely small on the boards in the nba finals. i've never seen duncan dominated on the glass that badly in the finals or really any playoff series. only 1 game over 6 boards? not good. not good at all.

i have so much i could hammer kg with but i don't want to because i love kg. and that is the problem with debates like this. i'm trying to debate you without being hard on kg.....and just praising duncan.

so i'll summarize exactly my point and you tell me what is wrong with them in your mind:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better interior defender

because i think those two things are the most important aspect of winning in the nba.....i have duncan slightly over kg because overall their level of play and impact is so similar

forget everything else that has been said. please tell me if you refute those two things or their importance.
Yea.. that kind of bs because this is not prime KG anymore. This is old KG. We aren't judging duncan last year for getting swept by the suns are we? Because it's only fair if you want to criticize garnett and his performance last year.

[ginobli2311]

Yea.. that kind of bs because this is not prime KG anymore. This is old KG. We aren't judging duncan last year for getting swept by the suns are we? Because it's only fair if you want to criticize garnett and his performance last year.

the problem is that it would have happened in kg's prime more often if he had to go up against a great front line unless he had a good big center next to him.

duncan is simply more suited to dominate the paint against other teams front lines.

and duncan still got 10 boards a game last year in the playoffs. kg averaged 7....and like 5 in the finals.

[Wuxia]

do you KG fans honestly believe he would have won in 03 with that Spurs cast? That team was not very good, and that was Duncan's most impressive CHIP IMO. Any other year I can let it slide, but that year he totally carried the Spurs that entire playoff putting up ridiculous stats and beat some great teams in the Suns, Lakers, and Mavs. DRob was on in last legs and really didn't do much until the finals against a pretty bad Nets team.

I have never seen anyone carry a team like that since Hakeem.

[Big#50]

Someone post the Artest quote.

[Pointguard]

ok.
i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.

The simple counter is that given more room by having other dependable scorers and KG's scores more. He had a lot of responsibilites on top of his scoring.


i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play. Neither does the other team strategy to stop one dependable scorer minus a much more structured, all around better offensive deployment, creating for non-scorers to score - not just assist, leading his team in every offensive strategy, the distraction of leading the league in rebounds and somehow efficiency for three years. A lot doesn't come up on the score board.


also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help. Comon Gin, you don't read the papers or bother putting things in context. You really think a healthy KG that lead the league in rebounding for three years while Duncan was in his prime couldn't out rebound Gasol whom he had a 14 reb to 8 advantage careerwise a couple of years back.



post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)
Welcome to a new century!!! Jordan, Wade, Kobe outnumber the big boys.
Its not about where you play - its about how you play. KG was at the helm of one of the best defensive teams ever. But I will repeat TD had some winning Hoodoo going on, tho.

[LosBulls]

And then we come to the harsh reality that none of these hypotheticals mean a thing and Duncan has 4 championships whiles Garnett only has one.

Garnett got drafted by the Timberwolves while Duncan got drafted by the Spurs.

[Wuxia]

Comon Gin, you don't read the papers or bother putting things in context. You really think a healthy KG that lead the league in rebounding for three years while Duncan was in his prime couldn't out rebound Gasol whom he had a 14 reb to 8 advantage careerwise a couple of years back.


or it could be something inevitable like aging. notice how kg's rebounding numbers are steadily decreasing every year and Gasol's rebounding numbers have increased? kg couldn't get any rebounds in that series because gasol took them all away from him.

[OldSchoolBBall]

What's up with people not being able to properly express a replacement scenario lately? A few days ago we had "replace Kobe with MJ on the '91-'93 Bulls" and now we have "replace KG with Duncan" when what's actually being asked is what happens if we replace Duncan with KG. Hence, the thread title should be "replace KG FOR Duncan" or, better still, "replace Duncan with KG."

[Pointguard]

or it could be something inevitable like aging. notice how kg's rebounding numbers are steadily decreasing every year and Gasol's rebounding numbers have increased? kg couldn't get any rebounds in that series because gasol took them all away from him.
Wow, you tell one guy he was lost... and a second comes behind him bragging about his lack of a GPS. Is this the land of the lost? The last three days here.... its like the board needs an intelligence interpreter. Yo, I feel like Mr. Rogers in here, sometimes.

KG didn't get rebounds because he wasn't fully healed - its in the dang quotation! KG has been hurt the last two years. However if they played earlier this year, Gasol would have been outrebounded again. If KG was healthy there are some big differences. The reason why people call Gasol, Gasoft til this day is because KG left him feeling like the Tin Man the last time he was healthy. Gasol isn't a big time rebounder now either.

[hitmanyr2k]

The Spurs won titles mainly because of Duncan's low post game and defense. When he sucked in the defensive attention his shooters benefitted from wide open jumpers and moving the ball around before the defense could recover.

I don't think KG is taking down Shaq and the Lakers in '03 with a rookie Ginobili and 2nd year Tony Parker. I doubt KG is taking down the Pistons in 2005 either...even with Ginobili and Parker reaching star status. KG's game is too perimeter oriented...similar to Dirk and Chris Webber. When that jumpshot isn't falling he can't punish a team in the paint the way Duncan can. When you have perimeter players like Ginobili and Parker the last thing you need is a 7 footer out on the perimeter taking long jumpers pretending he's a freakin guard. You need a PF that's gonna go down on the low block, do work and get your team high percentage shots by scoring or sucking in double teams and getting shooters wide open. That's what Duncan did year after year in his prime for the Spurs. You can't replace that with KG.

[SinJackal]

How has duncan won consistently with different teams? He's always been on the spurs under the same coach running the same defensive schemes and playing the same slow paced style. For the past three championships past the lockout he has had parker, ginobli, and a bunch of defensive role players. Literally the same thing year in and year out.

KG is the one that has shown that he can make a huge impact on any team he's put on. He dragged terrible casts with the twolves to the WCF and to the playoffs every single year he was with them. And then he went to boston and turned that team into an all time great defensive team and perrenial powerhouse.

I'm sorry but that statement made no sense. Duncan has been a part of the same system for his entire span of dominance and it is KG who has demonstrated the ability to be effective in multiple different systems.

Oh look, a stupid post by tpols who lies and makes up bogus stats to suit his argument. What a shocker this is!


#1: Duncan has played with vastly different teams. No player on the 2007 championship Spurs was on the 1999 Spurs. The turnover from the 1999 squad and the 2003 squad was huge, as were the 2003 to 2007 squads.

Proof

In 2003, only three players (aside from Duncan), were still on the team from the 1999 championship squad. Those three players were:

A vastly declind David Robinson who was only putting up 7.8/6.6/1 per game in the playoffs, nearly equally declined throughout the regular season (8.5 ppg), as opposed to the '99 DRob who was good for 16/10/3 in both the regular season and the playoffs, not to mention a much bigger defensive force who could stay on the floor for more than a mere 23 minutes a game.

Malik Rose, a 6'7" roleplayer.

And Steve Kerr, a guy who played 12 minutes a game, played below average D', and was there for nothing but taking 2-3 3s when he was in ala Matt Bonner now, only far worse.

The 2003 Spurs were clearly vastly different from the 1999 Spurs. Two roleplayers were still on the team (one of which was extremely unimportant in terms of overall impact). And one very declined former star who was a vital cog in the 1999 title run.


Now look at the turnover from the 2003 squad and the 2007 squad.

Only three players from the 2003 Spurs team were on the 2007 team.

Zero players from 1999 were on the 2007 team besides Duncan.

So don't sit there like a clown and pretend like Duncan's had the same cast around him forever. He hasn't. Just like now, he has only three players from the 2007 squad on the 2011 squad. Zero from 1999, two from 2003.


Your excuse making and explaining away is getting extremely old. It's all you ever do.

Duncan has won repeatedly with vastly different teams because he's a great player who does not need great pieces around him to win. 2003 is a perfect example of this. KG was consistent in nothing but underachieving while putting up great stats.

In the end, Duncan won at a minimum of an over .600 pace every single seasond despite changing rosters. KG has repeatedly faltered when his rosters have changed, sometimes not even cracking .500, and rarely cracking 50 win at all prior to going to play with Ray Allen and Paul Peirce.

You can make excuses all you want, but in the end, KG couldn't make it happen. Duncan did. The Spurs had no titles pre-Duncan just like the Wolves didn't. Duncan brought SA four. KG: zero to Minnesota.

So no, I would say KG hasn't demonstrated the ability to be effective in different systems any better than Duncan, since A: He barely won at all in Minnesota. B: He's been pretty average in 2 of his 3 years in Boston. Duncan is now playing in a fast-paced offense and doing just fine, with the best record in the NBA and top power ranked team. And C: He didn't win titles in 2 different systems. He only won one in one system.

Duncan can play his game regardless of the roster that's out there. He wins period. He also does more of then non-statistical aspects of the game. He's a better leader, and a better winner.

KG put up good stats on underachieving teams. Duncan put up good stats while winning titles. That's why Duncan is better than KG. He willed his team to win no matter who he had around him. KG got lost in the shuffle multiple times, failing to even reach .500.

[ginobli2311]

Oh look, a stupid post by tpols who lies and makes up bogus stats to suit his argument. What a shocker this is!


#1: Duncan has played with vastly different teams. No player on the 2007 championship Spurs was on the 1999 Spurs. The turnover from the 1999 squad and the 2003 squad was huge, as were the 2003 to 2007 squads.

Proof

In 2003, only three players (aside from Duncan), were still on the team from the 1999 championship squad. Those three players were:

A vastly declind David Robinson who was only putting up 7.8/6.6/1 per game in the playoffs, nearly equally declined throughout the regular season (8.5 ppg), as opposed to the '99 DRob who was good for 16/10/3 in both the regular season and the playoffs, not to mention a much bigger defensive force who could stay on the floor for more than a mere 23 minutes a game.

Malik Rose, a 6'7" roleplayer.

And Steve Kerr, a guy who played 12 minutes a game, played below average D', and was there for nothing but taking 2-3 3s when he was in ala Matt Bonner now, only far worse.

The 2003 Spurs were clearly vastly different from the 1999 Spurs. Two roleplayers were still on the team (one of which was extremely unimportant in terms of overall impact). And one very declined former star who was a vital cog in the 1999 title run.


Now look at the turnover from the 2003 squad and the 2007 squad.

Only three players from the 2003 Spurs team were on the 2007 team.

Zero players from 1999 were on the 2007 team besides Duncan.

So don't sit there like a clown and pretend like Duncan's had the same cast around him forever. He hasn't. Just like now, he has only three players from the 2007 squad on the 2011 squad. Zero from 1999, two from 2003.


Your excuse making and explaining away is getting extremely old. It's all you ever do.

Duncan has won repeatedly with vastly different teams because he's a great player who does not need great pieces around him to win. 2003 is a perfect example of this. KG was consistent in nothing but underachieving while putting up great stats.

In the end, Duncan won at a minimum of an over .600 pace every single seasond despite changing rosters. KG has repeatedly faltered when his rosters have changed, sometimes not even cracking .500, and rarely cracking 50 win at all prior to going to play with Ray Allen and Paul Peirce.

You can make excuses all you want, but in the end, KG couldn't make it happen. Duncan did. The Spurs had no titles pre-Duncan just like the Wolves didn't. Duncan brought SA four. KG: zero to Minnesota.

So no, I would say KG hasn't demonstrated the ability to be effective in different systems any better than Duncan, since A: He barely won at all in Minnesota. B: He's been pretty average in 2 of his 3 years in Boston. Duncan is now playing in a fast-paced offense and doing just fine, with the best record in the NBA and top power ranked team. And C: He didn't win titles in 2 different systems. He only won one in one system.

Duncan can play his game regardless of the roster that's out there. He wins period. He also does more of then non-statistical aspects of the game. He's a better leader, and a better winner.

KG put up good stats on underachieving teams. Duncan put up good stats while winning titles. That's why Duncan is better than KG. He willed his team to win no matter who he had around him. KG got lost in the shuffle multiple times, failing to even reach .500.


good post. tpols is just a moron. duncan has won with vastly different teams....just like i said.

i do think you are a little hard on kg....but i guess its necessary to drive home our points. kg was a great player....he just wasn't duncan. and its not just titles. duncan was simply a better basketball player for all the reasons i gave.....and those qualities made it easier for the spurs to win titles with duncan than it would have been with kg.

its hard for me because i love kg and think he's a great great player that got screwed for the majority of his career playing on terrible teams with little to no help and poor coaching.

but that doesn't mean much for this debate.

duncan was better. all the stats in the world won't change my opinion on what i saw with my eyes for over a decade now. and the stats favor duncan as well. LOL

[tpols]

Oh look, a stupid post by tpols who lies and makes up bogus stats to suit his argument. What a shocker this is!


#1: Duncan has played with vastly different teams. No player on the 2007 championship Spurs was on the 1999 Spurs. The turnover from the 1999 squad and the 2003 squad was huge, as were the 2003 to 2007 squads.

Proof

In 2003, only three players (aside from Duncan), were still on the team from the 1999 championship squad. Those three players were:

A vastly declind David Robinson who was only putting up 7.8/6.6/1 per game in the playoffs, nearly equally declined throughout the regular season (8.5 ppg), as opposed to the '99 DRob who was good for 16/10/3 in both the regular season and the playoffs, not to mention a much bigger defensive force who could stay on the floor for more than a mere 23 minutes a game.

Malik Rose, a 6'7" roleplayer.

And Steve Kerr, a guy who played 12 minutes a game, played below average D', and was there for nothing but taking 2-3 3s when he was in ala Matt Bonner now, only far worse.

The 2003 Spurs were clearly vastly different from the 1999 Spurs. Two roleplayers were still on the team (one of which was extremely unimportant in terms of overall impact). And one very declined former star who was a vital cog in the 1999 title run.


Now look at the turnover from the 2003 squad and the 2007 squad.

Only three players from the 2003 Spurs team were on the 2007 team.

Zero players from 1999 were on the 2007 team besides Duncan.

So don't sit there like a clown and pretend like Duncan's had the same cast around him forever. He hasn't. Just like now, he has only three players from the 2007 squad on the 2011 squad. Zero from 1999, two from 2003.


Your excuse making and explaining away is getting extremely old. It's all you ever do.

Duncan has won repeatedly with vastly different teams because he's a great player who does not need great pieces around him to win. 2003 is a perfect example of this. KG was consistent in nothing but underachieving while putting up great stats.

In the end, Duncan won at a minimum of an over .600 pace every single seasond despite changing rosters. KG has repeatedly faltered when his rosters have changed, sometimes not even cracking .500, and rarely cracking 50 win at all prior to going to play with Ray Allen and Paul Peirce.

You can make excuses all you want, but in the end, KG couldn't make it happen. Duncan did. The Spurs had no titles pre-Duncan just like the Wolves didn't. Duncan brought SA four. KG: zero to Minnesota.

So no, I would say KG hasn't demonstrated the ability to be effective in different systems any better than Duncan, since A: He barely won at all in Minnesota. B: He's been pretty average in 2 of his 3 years in Boston. Duncan is now playing in a fast-paced offense and doing just fine, with the best record in the NBA and top power ranked team. And C: He didn't win titles in 2 different systems. He only won one in one system.

Duncan can play his game regardless of the roster that's out there. He wins period. He also does more of then non-statistical aspects of the game. He's a better leader, and a better winner.

KG put up good stats on underachieving teams. Duncan put up good stats while winning titles. That's why Duncan is better than KG. He willed his team to win no matter who he had around him. KG got lost in the shuffle multiple times, failing to even reach .500.
For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could. Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though:cheers: (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)

[SinJackal]

good post. tpols is just a moron. duncan has won with vastly different teams....just like i said.

i do think you are a little hard on kg....but i guess its necessary to drive home our points. kg was a great player....he just wasn't duncan. and its not just titles. duncan was simply a better basketball player for all the reasons i gave.....and those qualities made it easier for the spurs to win titles with duncan than it would have been with kg.

its hard for me because i love kg and think he's a great great player that got screwed for the majority of his career playing on terrible teams with little to no help and poor coaching.

but that doesn't mean much for this debate.

duncan was better. all the stats in the world won't change my opinion on what i saw with my eyes for over a decade now. and the stats favor duncan as well. LOL

Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to. KG was also simply not as good of a player as Duncan. It's definitely NOT that simple.

If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough.


The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.

That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.

Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice. Drexler got there twice. Hakeem three times. Shaq a crapload of times (3 different teams no less, and may do it with 4 this year). Robinson twice (and WCF prior to Duncan, with several 50+ win seasons). Jordan six times. Kobe 7 times. LeBron's been there already. Wade's been there and won already. Dirk got there once, been in the WCF multiple times. Gary Payton got to the Finals.. Barkley got there.

KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . .last year is early enough for us all to remember). KG's in the low end of the all time greats, in terms of winning, conference finals, and finals appearances. Duncan is in the high end. While I think rings are an overrated way to measure who's better in general, I don't think long-term success is a bad way to measure players at all. Duncan's been successful pretty much every season. . .KG has only been noticeably successful 2-3 seasons.

That's my main measuring stick here. Plus the fact that I think the parts of Duncan's game that he's better at than KG in are more important to team success and playoff success. KG is a great player. Definitely. But he is not a top tier great imo due to his lack of success. Every other all time great managed to win regardless of their rosters. I think there is something to be said for that.

So just to be clear, I think KG is easily an all time great. Top 30 even. I'm not trying to say he doesn't deserve a high ranking. He does. But his lack of success definitely hurts his reputation to me.

[SinJackal]

For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could. Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though:cheers: (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)

What relevance does that have to the discussion? Duncan won titles with completely different cores, including two titles with zero players that were on the team for his first title. Somethign which 100% debunks your claim that he had the same team for all his titles.

Also, you are arguing KG and Duncan. KG's only title was with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. If KG manages to win again this year, it would be with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce (and Rondo and Perkins). I believe that makes your intended point a joke, and completely worthless the second that you typed it out.

Garnett did not win in Minnesota. And I would debate that he turned them into a contender. They had Sam Cassell and Latreel Sprewell added to the team. KG didn't turn that team into anything prior to that, and the team flopped the year after they reached the WCF. I don't consider that to be "dominance". He had one season that was basically comparable to what would be considered an average season for Duncan in terms of success. Mid 50's wins, WCF and done. Average season, and considered a failure of a season for a player like Duncan.


The Boston team also had a lot more turnover than just KG. I think you are giving KG too much credit. Rondo and Perkins became a year older, and a year better. Glen Davis was added. Ray Allen was added. Eddie House was added. Sam Cassell was added. PJ Brown was added. Tom Thibodeau, the well-known defensive mind behind the Celtics' defense, was also added to the team that offseason. KG was not the only new piece. Do not give him all the credit.

I already proved Duncan didn't win with the same team every year, so I'm not sure why you're repeating that lie of a statement again and acting like somehow ends the discussion. You were wrong again as usual.

[ginobli2311]

Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to. KG was also simply not as good of a player as Duncan. It's definitely NOT that simple.

If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough.


The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.

That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.

Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice. Drexler got there twice. Hakeem three times. Shaq a crapload of times (3 different teams no less, and may do it with 4 this year). Robinson twice (and WCF prior to Duncan, with several 50+ win seasons). Jordan six times. Kobe 7 times. LeBron's been there already. Wade's been there and won already. Dirk got there once, been in the WCF multiple times. Gary Payton got to the Finals.. Barkley got there.

KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . .last year is early enough for us all to remember). KG's in the low end of the all time greats, in terms of winning, conference finals, and finals appearances. Duncan is in the high end. While I think rings are an overrated way to measure who's better in general, I don't think long-term success is a bad way to measure players at all. Duncan's been successful pretty much every season. . .KG has only been noticeably successful 2-3 seasons.

That's my main measuring stick here. Plus the fact that I think the parts of Duncan's game that he's better at than KG in are more important to team success and playoff success. KG is a great player. Definitely. But he is not a top tier great imo due to his lack of success. Every other all time great managed to win regardless of their rosters. I think there is something to be said for that.

So just to be clear, I think KG is easily an all time great. Top 30 even. I'm not trying to say he doesn't deserve a high ranking. He does. But his lack of success definitely hurts his reputation to me.

yea. kg's loyalty really hurt him. kg even admitted this....he should have left when he had the chance. but he didn't want to and wanted to remain loyal to the team that drafted him. and it really hurt his career.

most of the all time greats found a way to win. although again, circumstances allowed that to happen. unfortunately for kg....those circumstances didn't occur until after his 10 best years. and its a shame.

we just witnessed lebron play 7 years of his career on a team that didn't give him much of a chance to win titles. and he got out and gave himself a chance to win now, but i hardly think its fair to say that lebron doesn't belong in the same sentence as hakeem or kobe because of his failure to win in cleveland.

i agree with almost everything you say. i just think titles can be a bit over-rated. not in duncan's case, but in a lot of other cases. i just don't think titles make a player great.

[tpols]

What relevance does that have to the discussion? Duncan won titles with completely different cores, including two titles with zero players that were on the team for his first title. Somethign which 100% debunks your claim that he had the same team for all his titles.

Also, you are arguing KG and Duncan. KG's only title was with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. If KG manages to win again this year, it would be with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce (and Rondo and Perkins). I believe that makes your intended point a joke, and completely worthless the second that you typed it out.

Garnett did not win in Minnesota. And I would debate that he turned them into a contender. They had Sam Cassell and Latreel Sprewell added to the team. KG didn't turn that team into anything prior to that, and the team flopped the year after they reached the WCF. I don't consider that to be "dominance". He had one season that was basically comparable to what would be considered an average season for Duncan in terms of success. Mid 50's wins, WCF and done. Average season, and considered a failure of a season for a player like Duncan.


The Boston team also had a lot more turnover than just KG. I think you are giving KG too much credit. Rondo and Perkins became a year older, and a year better. Glen Davis was added. Ray Allen was added. Eddie House was added. Sam Cassell was added. PJ Brown was added. Tom Thibodeau, the well-known defensive mind behind the Celtics' defense, was also added to the team that offseason. KG was not the only new piece. Do not give him all the credit.

I already proved Duncan didn't win with the same team every year, so I'm not sure why you're repeating that lie of a statement again and acting like somehow ends the discussion. You were wrong again as usual.
Lie? He won three championships in his prime after he was an established elite player on the same exact teams(I'm not talking about when he was a rookie on a already great defensive team).

And on those three championship teams in his prime he had the same exact core of players(gino, parker, bowen +role players), the same coach, and the same slow paced style/schemes.

He's been on the same team is whole career and has had the same coach.

KG has been on different teams with completely different players, coaches schemes, and systems and has made both teams contenders.

I don't know what you're arguing here. KG clearly has shown the ability to transverse his game to different systems/teams better than duncan because he has succeeded, in his prime, in different systems and on different teams.

There's no argument here. You're just stanning duncan as usual. Leave the basement for once dawg.:oldlol:

[LA_Showtime]

I don't think they'd do very well. KG is injured. Stupid.

[SinJackal]

Lie? He won three championships in his prime after he was an established elite player on the same exact teams(I'm not talking about when he was a rookie on a already great defensive team).

And on those three championship teams in his prime he had the same exact core of players(gino, parker, bowen +role players), the same coach, and the same slow paced style/schemes.

He's been on the same team is whole career and has had the same coach.

KG has been on different teams with completely different players, coaches schemes, and systems and has made both teams contenders.

I don't know what you're arguing here. KG clearly has shown the ability to transverse his game to different systems/teams better than duncan because he has succeeded, in his prime, in different systems and on different teams.

There's no argument here. You're just stanning duncan as usual. Leave the basement for once dawg.:oldlol:

Yes lie.


Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

That's a lie. Period.


As for them being the same teams, wrong again. Parker and Ginobili were nowhere near the same players in 2003 as they were in 2005 and 2007. Ginobili was a rookie, still getting used to the NBA and not getting a lot of touches, and Parker was still a very raw PG that Popovich wanted to trade away to get a better one.

Regardless of this, Duncan has already won titles with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CORES, 1999 vs 2005 or 2007. No players from the 1999 team were on the 2005 and 2007 teams.

Every single title he's won has had no more than 3 players from the previous title he won on them.

Regardless of all of that, Duncan has won four titles, and contended for a title nearly every single season. You're looking for some cheap way to explain away Duncan's success. The way you always provide arguments (poorly).


What it boils down to is this. KG has won one title, and contended for a title only three times. Two of these three times was with the Celtics. Duncan has won four titles, and contended for a title nearly every single season of his career. You can pretend all you want that Duncan's success "doesn't count" due to some frivelous reason or another, and that KG's lack of success is negated by another frivelous reason. In the end, Duncan was contending for titles for nearly 100% of his career. KG: 20% of his.

No matter how you may try to spin it, and explain it away, those are facts that you cannot erase. For all of KG's merits that you think are so important such as playing well on two different paced systems (his stats impressive didn't translate, btw), KG was barely a winner throughout his career. Duncan always was. What this means is, Duncan was a huge success in the system provided. KG's teams kept changing around to figure out what would work since barely anything was working. And when it did finally work, it didn't work for more than a season.

Duncan's been good nearly every year. The only times he actually DIDN't contend were when either he, or a key player on his team got injured during or prior to the playoffs. Injuries to Duncan's team were the only things stopping him from contneding.

Try and explain it away all you want with frivelous points. You can't change history. And you can't change what each player has done. Duncan has been better than KG.

Hilarious though, that you've failed so hard in this topic that you're resorting to acting like my destruction of your weak ass points somehow don't matter because I'm a Duncan fan. Nice try, Lakers and Celtics bandwagon troll.

[magnax1]

I love Sinjackal's Duncan has won more, therefore he is better argument. In reality, individual players level of play does not boil down to how much they win, as you said.

[rmt]

The Spurs won titles mainly because of Duncan's low post game and defense. When he sucked in the defensive attention his shooters benefitted from wide open jumpers and moving the ball around before the defense could recover.

I don't think KG is taking down Shaq and the Lakers in '03 with a rookie Ginobili and 2nd year Tony Parker. I doubt KG is taking down the Pistons in 2005 either...even with Ginobili and Parker reaching star status. KG's game is too perimeter oriented...similar to Dirk and Chris Webber. When that jumpshot isn't falling he can't punish a team in the paint the way Duncan can. When you have perimeter players like Ginobili and Parker the last thing you need is a 7 footer out on the perimeter taking long jumpers pretending he's a freakin guard. You need a PF that's gonna go down on the low block, do work and get your team high percentage shots by scoring or sucking in double teams and getting shooters wide open. That's what Duncan did year after year in his prime for the Spurs. You can't replace that with KG.

Totally agree. And in the second half of '05 Finals game 7, Duncan got the Pistons' front line in foul trouble, commanding double teams and leading to wide open 3s.

"You could tell when he caught the ball, how much more physical he was, getting in position and bumping and grinding and getting shots and making sure he got toward the rim, so that when people came at him he was in good position to open up a teammate," Popovich said.

"A lot of the shots they made, open shots, came as a result of us having a hard time guarding him," [Larry] Brown said. "That's why he's such a great player."

"Rasheed was strapped all game," Brown said. "If you don't have your big people with the ability to play aggressively on Duncan, you've got no shot."

http://www.nba.com/games/20050623/DETSAS/recap.html

[ginobli2311]

Totally agree. And in the second half of '05 Finals game 7, Duncan got the Pistons' front line in foul trouble, commanding double teams and leading to wide open 3s.

"You could tell when he caught the ball, how much more physical he was, getting in position and bumping and grinding and getting shots and making sure he got toward the rim, so that when people came at him he was in good position to open up a teammate," Popovich said.

"A lot of the shots they made, open shots, came as a result of us having a hard time guarding him," [Larry] Brown said. "That's why he's such a great player."

"Rasheed was strapped all game," Brown said. "If you don't have your big people with the ability to play aggressively on Duncan, you've got no shot."

http://www.nba.com/games/20050623/DETSAS/recap.html

exactly. perfect post.

these are the thing i've been trying to get across in this thread. this stuff doesn't show up in the box score. kg could simply not do this night in night out in the playoffs the way duncan could. its a big reason why duncan was better. it all goes back to being a dominant low post player and completely controlling the game and how the other team plays.

hopefully they take notice. well done.

[Pointguard]

Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to.
Help me out but aren't you one of these guys that couldn't sleep when Lebron left Clevelend??? Yet you have no shame in saying this. Some people are just loyal guys. It makes the world go round. KG was out of HS and Minny
showed him a loyalty no other basketball player had been shown in the history of the sport with the contract he signed - it was the only contract of its kind. He grew up poor and said yeah, and perhaps he should be grateful. KG has made about 40 million more than Duncan who is the exact same age. So I don't fault him. It's the card he was dealt.


If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough.
1)The Spurs was a serious basketball organization that had a player development plan.
2)Minny didn't have a basketball plan. Name me another player that was developed in Minny???
3)SA developed their players. a)TD had a good college background, B)a great mentor in Robinson, C)a solid big man coach in Pop, D)they operated in a structured system, E)their defense was ranked high in the conference F)their offense had solid players and definitive roles G)Discipine existed in all levels of the organiztion
4)Amazingly without little to offer in any of those categories from his organization... KG was basically self taught in a badly managed situation yet he outscores, outrebounds, out assisst, is more efficient, more productive, has more responsibility, with less support and structure yet was consistently this way in their prime. TD only has the advantage in blocks and FG%. One caveat for KG is that they let him play TD straight up and he outblocks TD in their matchups.
5)Hard to develop without support structure and sytems when you are unique in your gifts. KG is definitely one of the most versatile players in the history of the game. Having lead the league in PER/Efficiency, productivity and DPOY he also was more effective in holding down the most positions in the league on both sides of the ball.
6)KG could post up but his team didn't have a setup man... If he had shooters the post made sense but these guyst couldn't create their own shot either.
7)With structure, support, and managment built on winnig his responsibilities of rebounding, setting up the offense, being the main scorer and assist man, being the 2 people on defense, spreading the floor, the creative guy, leading by example...etc. could have been alleviated. But it wasn't. Yet Kg never took a play off. After the giant contract and 7 straight losses KG played harder than any other player out there.

Aall of this to say he could have been developed in any area. With less responsibility and more support he could have been in the post since he has real natural strength and tremendous dedication.



The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.
That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.
When KG had help he won. Cassell and Sprewell were on their last legs and he won respectfully with them. Nobody wins with those teams in Minny. No one player ever had the responsibility KG had in Minny. Those guys couldn't create, they weren't defensive minded, the couldn't shoot, there wasn't a team strength or a direction in which management was going. When Nestervic showed some promise, San Antonio stold him from Minny. San Antonio found out that KG made Nesterovic look better than he was.



Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice.
KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . .last year is early enough for us all to remember).
Whoa, and you act like you delivering prestigious info!!! Do you and Ginobli know what the word healthy means. You look at KG this year and yall are both incapable of making a distinction!!! Do yall only look at the ball when the game is on??? Yo, this is the game without the helmets on. And you rolling like you in the know! "last year is easy..." last year you were probably in the insane asylum. How in the world are you going to evaluate a player when you can't tell if one of the most agile big man is limping. Then you don't read the post either. You are making it brutal for the rest of us. I'm out.

[jlauber]

I still enjoy reading the intelligent posts on this subject. There are many good arguments for BOTH Duncan and KG here. Ultimately, at least IMHO, is that Duncan did get four rings, while KG languished with bad teams for many years. BUT, we got a good indication of what might have been, when Garnett won with a dominating team in 2008.

Of all of the player vs. player discussions on this forum...I really think TD and KG are about as close as it gets. Furthermore, if KG gets a ring this year, I think he has a legitimate case of at least knocking on the door of the all-time Top-10.

[Wuxia]

For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could. Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though:cheers: (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)

did i read this wrong or did you call those Minnesota team a title contender? i remember something like 7 straight first round exits, 1 WCF, and a couple of lottery years over a span of a decade. you call that a contender?

[Big#50]

I still enjoy reading the intelligent posts on this subject. There are many good arguments for BOTH Duncan and KG here. Ultimately, at least IMHO, is that Duncan did get four rings, while KG languished with bad teams for many years. BUT, we got a good indication of what might have been, when Garnett won with a dominating team in 2008.

Of all of the player vs. player discussions on this forum...I really think TD and KG are about as close as it gets. Furthermore, if KG gets a ring this year, I think he has a legitimate case of at least knocking on the door of the all-time Top-10.
KG in the top ten? No ****ong way. One of the biggest stat padders in Minny. The guy would yell at his players if they didn't let him grab a board. It ia easy to pad your stats when a team is just letting you get yours. He had no post game. His D out in perimeter is what made him unique. Duncan shits on him.
Someone post the Artest quote.

[Anaximandro1]

Ron Artest on Tim Duncan



"I remember one time Kevin Garnett was mushing him, and shoving him in the face; and Tim Duncan didn't do anything, he didn't react. He just kicked Kevin Garnett's ass, and won the damn championship. You know what I'm sayin'? That's gangsta. Everybody can show emotion, dunk on somebody, scream and be real cocky; but Tim Duncan is a ... he's a pimp."


:lol

[SinJackal]

I love Sinjackal's Duncan has won more, therefore he is better argument. In reality, individual players level of play does not boil down to how much they win, as you said.

A cute stance to have, when you're arguing for the guy that hasn't won nearly as much.

Let me put this to you a simpler way.

Let's say you're playing some online FPS. Let's use Halo as an example. You come across some guy with this killer, badass kills/death ratio. Like 5/1. Dude's amazing, rarely dies, gets 5 times as many kills as he does deaths. Then there's another guy, with a 3/1 ratio. Not as impressive, but still good.

At first glance, it's easy to say the 5/1 guy is better. But is he? You look closer, and the 5/1 guy loses nearly every match, and the 3/1 guy wins nearly every match. That doesn't make sense. Or does it? Watching them both play, the 5/1 guy does nothing but hide and look to potshot people who are already getting attacked, stealing kills, sniping people, and running away and hiding anyone someone gets close.

Meanwhile the 3/1 guy is a gangster, always in the action, helping people out, trashign the opposition at an alarming rate, but happens to draw some deaths in the process due to his pimp ass style of play.

At this point, it's obvious you want the 3/1 guy on your team. He doesn't abandon you, and he isn't out looking for his own stats. He helps out and wants to win that shit.

Now let's look at KG and Duncan. Duncan's stats are actually better than KG's career, and similar during their primes. So let's say that 3/1 guy is actually also a 5/1 guy. Only his style of play is the same great style. He's not out looking for himself, doesn't steal kills, and helps out his buddies so he gets the W even if it means he loses a kill or two.

Now it becomes obvious who's the better player. The guy who's style of play leads to wins, as opposed to the guy who puts up the same kill/death ratio (or stats), but has a style of play that fails to lead to wins or titles.


That's the difference between the two. And yes, winning DOES matter. lol@you saying it doesn't. It lets us weed out the pretenders from the contenders when the stats are similar. Monta Ellis is putting up similar numbers to Kobe, but he's not as good as Kobe. We all know this. This is because Kobe wins. Ellis doesn't.

If you still do not understand the concept of winning, then I don't know how else to explain it to you (and you are probably biased). It seems obvious to me, and a lot of other people. Duncan's game leads to wins. KG is a versetile player who puts up good numbers, but it needs a lot of support in order to win, since he doesn't do the things that can carry a team the way Duncan did.

KG went to a perfect situation in Boston to play with two superstars, and stopped being a selfish ballplayer (stats dropped significantly), and ended up winning a title.

Even Shaq admitted that once he stopped being selfish for touches and stats, he started winning more games and eventually titles. You can be a great player and put up great stats, but it does not always lead to wins. Duncan "got it" from day ONE. KG did NOT. That is the main reason their careers turned out so different

[Artillery]

did i read this wrong or did you call those Minnesota team a title contender? i remember something like 7 straight first round exits, 1 WCF, and a couple of lottery years over a span of a decade. you call that a contender?

You didn't read it wrong - Tpols is just a dumbass. This is the guy that said the Laker's backcourt was head and shoulders aboves the Spurs(when SA's backcourt is ranked first in the league by a WIDE margin)