Convince Me Garnett Is Higher Than Nowitzki AllTime

[Jotaro Durant]

when nowitkzi won his ring it tough for me to put garnett over him.............garnett one my faves and i see ppl put him top of nowitzki so whats reasoning?

:milton

[DMAVS41]

Same tier...either or.

Before this year I had KG higher than Dirk...and still do. And what KG is doing this year is immensely impressive. While Dirk is still better, the gap isn't near as big as it was last year.

Huge years from Duncan and KG in terms of regaining their form.

Anybody claiming Dirk is clearly better than KG or the other way around is heavily biased and just trolling.

[It's A VC3!!!]

I really like Dirk's game for the most part. And their careers will both earn them a HOF introduction after they retire but I will give an edge to Garnett. Garnett did it all. Defended, rebounded,passed and scored. Dirk scores, and only rebounds on some nights. Both HOF players who had great careers though.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

KG is the more diverse player, all around, and obviously a vastly superior defender and rebounder.
Aside from Dirk's great outside shooting, his other major positive is last year's very impressive performance.

Nod goes to KG for overall body of work.

[Stern]

KG has been better than.dirk this year.

[Bigsmoke]

KG can do more shit out there on the court.

[StateOfMind12]

They are two completely different players. Dirk is better at carrying a lesser talented team while Garnett is better at playing with a more talented team because he can maximize everybody's potential. KG is just a once in a lifetime player but so is Dirk for that matter.

I think it's apples and oranges to be honest and you definitely can't go wrong with either. I flip flop everyday between who should be ranked higher.

[rodman91]

FMVP. (Garnett has none)

Won championship as franchise player. (Garnett was part of big three)

Elite playoff stats. (Better than Garnett)

Reached playoffs 2 times with totally different teammates (Garnett was a part of dynasty level team)

He made Mavs contender level most of his career.

One legged fadeaway. (Probably most unguardable shoot since skyhook)

What Nowitzki gave NBA so far. Garnett has been impressive. Probably most complete player ever in NBA history but he doesn't have such impressive accomplishments. GOAT rankings heavily depends on that.

If we forget all accomplishments... Garnett is good to great at almost every things about basketball.But Dirk is elite at things what makes him special. 7 footer with elite shooting skill and unguardable signature shot makes him
better player than Garnett.

[Doranku]

KG is one of those guys who can flourish on any team. He has no weaknesses that need to be covered up like Dirk does with his defense.

The first team he ever played on that was a legit title contender he won a title with and walked away with the DPOY award. The Celtics probably would have won in '09, too, if KG was healthy and they were a game away (possibly a Perkins injured away) from winning in '10 as well.

Dirk is a better scorer than KG, but that's about it. KG is a better rebounder, passer/playmaker, defender (by a mile), leader, and is better at all the little stuff like setting screens, etc.

I don't really see how Dirk has an argument over KG.

[DMAVS41]

KG is one of those guys who can flourish on any team. He has no weaknesses that need to be covered up like Dirk does with his defense.

The first team he ever played on that was a legit title contender he won a title with and walked away with the DPOY award. The Celtics probably would have won in '09, too, if KG was healthy and they were a game away (possibly a Perkins injured away) from winning in '10 as well.

Dirk is a better scorer than KG, but that's about it. KG is a better rebounder, passer/playmaker, defender (by a mile), leader, and is better at all the little stuff like setting screens, etc.

I don't really see how Dirk has an argument over KG.

That is because you boil the game down in the wrong way and you'll never fully understand it.

LOL

[niko]

I am relativelt sure Garnett is higher than Nowitzki more of the time. I don't think Dirk is high that often,but maybe when he hooked up with his old baby mama. But Garnett seems high always.

[Owl]

The gulf on defense. Dirk has floated between poor and average, KG was consistently amongst the elite defenders. This (plus edges in rebounding, passing), more than make up for Dirk's significantly superior scoring (which was high usage and efficient).

[Bigsmoke]

They are two completely different players. Dirk is better at carrying a lesser talented team while Garnett is better at playing with a more talented team because he can maximize everybody's potential. KG is just a once in a lifetime player but so is Dirk for that matter.

I think it's apples and oranges to be honest and you definitely can't go wrong with either. I flip flop everyday between who should be ranked higher.

carrying a T-wolves team to 52 wins with Wally Szczerbiak and garbage doesnt count?

The Mavs last year didnt have star power but guys that know there roles with a great comination of veterans and youth that can match up in any pace and style and plus were very well coached.

KG's T-wolves on the other hand had KG leading his team in every statistical category.

[Doranku]

That is because you boil the game down in the wrong way and you'll never fully understand it.

LOL

:roll: Great argument.

I'm sorry, but if you ask actual NBA players who they'd rather play with, prime KG or prime Dirk, I'd bet 8/10 pick KG. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand basketball. Prime KG's defensive prowess is more valuable to a team than anything Dirk EVER had to offer. Just because KG wasn't fortunate enough to play with the talent that Dirk has been surrounded with nearly his ENTIRE CAREER doesn't mean KG's impact should be overlooked.

This isn't even an argument if Dirk doesn't get ridiculously hot last year at the right time. You think KG is going to let his team get punked by the 8 seed Warriors on a 67 win team? You think KG is gonna let his team blow a 2-0 lead in the Finals w/ HCA? LOL, delusional.

KG only lost twice in the playoffs w/ HCA, and both were to the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. I'm pretty sure Dirk has more first round upset losses in the playoffs than that. :roll:

You're an idiot if you think Dirk > KG. And you're trying to tell me I don't understand basketball, LOL. For the majority of his career, Dirk had a gaping hole in his defensive and leadership skills, and his teams suffered because of that. KG, on the other hand, was leading a pack of ragtag scrubs to the playoffs year in and year out while Dirk was choking with a much better supporting cast.

[rodman91]

KG is one of those guys who can flourish on any team. He has no weaknesses that need to be covered up like Dirk does with his defense.

The first team he ever played on that was a legit title contender he won a title with and walked away with the DPOY award. The Celtics probably would have won in '09, too, if KG was healthy and they were a game away (possibly a Perkins injured away) from winning in '10 as well.

Dirk is a better scorer than KG, but that's about it. KG is a better rebounder, passer/playmaker, defender (by a mile), leader, and is better at all the little stuff like setting screens, etc.

I don't really see how Dirk has an argument over KG.

Garnett is better than Kobe in that case. He does everything almost better except scoring and clutch shots.

Garnett is PF version of Scottie Pippen. It makes him great player as overall but he is not the guy who can score 50 point when team needs.He is not the guy who can go to anytime when offense collapsed. He is not the guy you expect making miracles.

Also Nowiztki's accomplishments are better than Garnett's. Garnett was best or second best player in that team. Nowitzki was certainly best. :confusedshrug:

[Doranku]

The gulf on defense. Dirk has floated between poor and average, KG was consistently amongst the elite defenders. This (plus edges in rebounding, passing), more than make up for Dirk's significantly superior scoring (which was high usage and efficient).

:applause: Yep, well said. The only way I could see someone putting Dirk above KG is if you completely ignore defensive impact which is what guys like DMavs41 like to do.

[rodman91]

People who think Garnett was better than Nowitzki, should think sameway about Lebron over Kobe without a question.

:rolleyes:

[Doranku]

Garnett is better than Kobe in that case. He does everything almost better except scoring and clutch shots.

Garnett is PF version of Scottie Pippen. It makes him great player as overall but he is not the guy who can score 50 point when team needs.He is not the guy who can go to anytime when offense collapsed. He is not the guy you expect making miracles.

Also Nowiztki's accomplishments are better than Garnett's. Garnett was best or second best player in that team. Nowitzki was certainly best. :confusedshrug:

KG is certainly not a better passer/playmaker than Kobe, and prime Kobe was one of the best defensive guards in the league. The gap is much smaller defensively between Garnett and Bryant than it is for Garnett and Dirk. Kobe also has a bigger edge in scoring over Garnett than Dirk does.

Both KG and Dirk were the best players on their respective teams when they won titles, and unless you somehow want to put Dirk's blowing of a 2-0 lead in the Finals w/ HCA as a credit to him, then I don't see how that's relevant.

Also, both have an MVP. KG has a DPOY. Dirk doesn't. How exactly are his accomplishments better than KG? :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

The idea that favoring total skills means you dont understand the game is funny to me. There are, were, and always will be more casual fans who think the best scorer is the best player than people who are somehow too in love with being complete.

The Dirk/KG argument pretty much always has come down to how much you value scoring.

I see it as the exact same thing as Nique vs Pippen or maybe Drexler vs Pippen(though Drexler was closer to pippen skill by skill than this comparison probably gives him credit for).

There will always be people who want the guy who might drop 57. I want that guy too. But not at the expense of the total game. Just isnt what I look for first.

Blame the Hawk fans I came up around.

[albas89]

KG is the better all around player. Dirk is clearly better offensively but Garnett is simply devastatingly better on the other end of the floor!
Dirk might be a better leader of his team and his performance during the 2011 playoffs will go down to history, but Garnett is the type of player who doesn't really have any flaws! Put KG in the 2000s decade Mavs and he would have a serious argument over Duncan by now, having won multiple championships...

[CelticBaller]

Dirk scores

KG does everything else

[DMAVS41]

:applause: Yep, well said. The only way I could see someone putting Dirk above KG is if you completely ignore defensive impact which is what guys like DMavs41 like to do.

Not at all. It's defensive impact that makes them on the same tier. LOL

Then you would rank KG over Kobe then right? Because KG's defensive impact and rebounding destroy Kobe's.

Unfortunately for the simple minded folks, that isn't how the game works. Its not an offense vs offense and defense vs defense thing.

Being able to be the go to player for a team in the playoffs and in close games is probably the single most important aspect a player can have.

Guys like Dirk and Kobe have this...KG really doesn't...or not on their level at all.

You also can't ignore having a pf that can do what Dirk can do in terms of floor spacing and pick and roll...etc. can do for an offense.

If defense mattered as much as you claim it does in all these discussions about Dirk...then your boy Kobe would be far worse all time.

It's like the old Barkley vs KG debates. Again..same tier for me. But if defense mattered as much as you claim, then Barkley would have no argument whatsoever. And it's silly to claim that KG is easily or clearly better than Barkley. Because anyone that saw them both plays knows that to be a joke.

And thus...the game can't be broken down the neat and clean way you want it to. Its about overall impact regardless of how a player makes his impact.

How would you rank Robinson vs Dirk? Or how about Nash vs Payton? Are both Robinson and Payton just clearly better? How about Magic vs a guy like KG or Payton? How much does defense matter there?

Oh, and since the Mavs stopped playing run and gun after 04. They have been around the 9th or 10th best defensive team overall from 05 to present. Doing that with a whole host of players that are hardly defensive superstars. Somehow Dirk, being the worst defender of all time, didn't prevent his teams from doing that. But I'm sure you'll tell me that teams with Terry, Howard, Van horn, Finley, Stackhouse, Damp, and Diop should be elite defensive teams and that Dirk held them back. Right? LOL

[Carbine]

Nique wasn't this unique though. Not as an offensive player.

Dirk is the best pick and roll big in the league. If he's not actually getting the ball, he's creating gigantic driving lanes or open shots for his teammates because of the attention he receives.

...and now he finally pounds smaller guys down low. Legit post game now....couldn't say that when Matt Barnes was pushing him off the block and those little guards the Warriors were putting on him in that collapse were getting the best of him.

....and that's just part of it. He's like 7'0 or 7'1 with one of the best triple threat games in the league. Not flashy handles but gets to where he needs to get with it. Very good and willing passer, regardless of his assist per game numbers.

Garnett is probably a more ideal guy to build around because of his defense.

....but in a playoff series, I'd probably take Dirk. Whenever the have played vs. each other on the same court, I've usually come away thinking Dirk impacted the game more and got the best of Garnett.

[Doranku]

Not at all. It's defensive impact that makes them on the same tier. LOL

Then you would rank KG over Kobe then right? Because KG's defensive impact and rebounding destroy Kobe's.

Unfortunately for the simple minded folks, that isn't how the game works. Its not an offense vs offense and defense vs defense thing.

Being able to be the go to player for a team in the playoffs and in close games is probably the single most important aspect a player can have.

Guys like Dirk and Kobe have this...KG really doesn't...or not on their level at all.

You also can't ignore having a pf that can do what Dirk can do in terms of floor spacing and pick and roll...etc. can do for an offense.

If defense mattered as much as you claim it does in all these discussions about Dirk...then your boy Kobe would be far worse all time.

It's like the old Barkley vs KG debates. Again..same tier for me. But if defense mattered as much as you claim, then Barkley would have no argument whatsoever. And it's silly to claim that KG is easily or clearly better than Barkley. Because anyone that saw them both plays knows that to be a joke.

And thus...the game can't be broken down the neat and clean way you want it to. Its about overall impact regardless of how a player makes his impact.

How would you rank Robinson vs Dirk? Or how about Nash vs Payton? Are both Robinson and Payton just clearly better? How about Magic vs a guy like KG or Payton? How much does defense matter there?

Why are you acting like Kobe is as bad of a defender as Dirk is? Prime Kobe was one of (if not the best) perimeter defender in the league for 6-7 years. Also, Dirk and KG is a fair comparison because they're both 4s. Are we going to act like we're going to compare a 4 and a 2 in the same way that players of the same position are compared? Just doesn't make sense to do that.

I'd take a guy like Dirk over Robinson because, like you said, Dirk has that "it" factor where he can succeed as the go to player. Robinson, on the other hand, is the PF version of LeBron. Amazing regular season numbers with numerous choking in the playoffs.

But KG proved that he could anchor his team to a title. He did in '08, almost did it in '10, and probably would have done it in '09 if he was healthy. Him setting the tone defensively for that '08 Celtics team was unquestionably the reason they won 66 games and a title that year. He put their defense on another level, and that was JUST as important as Dirk being able to hit a couple of tough shots down the stretch.

Also, as for the PG comparisons, defense among PGs is a lot less important than it is for big men down low. Nash and Payton, to me, is a toss-up for this reason. And obviously I'd take Magic over both KG and Payton. You can't compare PG defense to big men defense. It doesn't make sense to weight them the same, especially when a guy like KG could come out on the perimeter and effectively guard PGs for a play or two.

[rodman91]

KG is certainly not a better passer/playmaker than Kobe, and prime Kobe was one of the best defensive guards in the league. The gap is much smaller defensively between Garnett and Bryant than it is for Garnett and Dirk. Kobe also has a bigger edge in scoring over Garnett than Dirk does.

Both KG and Dirk were the best players on their respective teams when they won titles, and unless you somehow want to put Dirk's blowing of a 2-0 lead in the Finals w/ HCA as a credit to him, then I don't see how that's relevant.

Also, both have an MVP. KG has a DPOY. Dirk doesn't. How exactly are his accomplishments better than KG? :oldlol:

Dirk has FMVP.He was the franchise player easily. Garnett was a part of big three and couldn't win FMVP. Nowitzki made Mavs contender every year while Garnett went Celtics for ring chasing. Nowitzki has better playoffs stats. (he is in extremely elite group)

Reaching finals 2 time with almost entire different teammates is better statement than reaching with somewhat fantasy roster.

KG was best player in Celtics? or Pierce? Questinable. Celtics had juggernaut roster in those years compared to teams they have been faced as well.

Lastly, KG was hell of a passer/playmaker and Wolves were using him as pointforward sometimes as well.

Peak season:
Garnett:6.0 apg
Kobe : 6.0 apg

Career: (despite he has been playing as PF/C for years)
Garnett:4.0 apg
Kobe: 4.7 apg

Garnett better rebounder by far, better defender by far, slightly less/equal playmaker.

The reason people don't consider Garnett better than Kobe, he hasn't been able to carry a team offense,clutch player, someone who lead his team to titles. Being elite/legendary at things really matters is more valuable than being best all around player.

[DMAVS41]

Why are you acting like Kobe is as bad of a defender as Dirk is? Prime Kobe was one of (if not the best) perimeter defender in the league for 6-7 years. Also, Dirk and KG is a fair comparison because they're both 4s. Are we going to act like we're going to compare a 4 and a 2 in the same way that players of the same position are compared? Just doesn't make sense to do that.

I'd take a guy like Dirk over Robinson because, like you said, Dirk has that "it" factor where he can succeed as the go to player. Robinson, on the other hand, is the PF version of LeBron. Amazing regular season numbers with numerous choking in the playoffs.

But KG proved that he could anchor his team to a title. He did in '08, almost did it in '10, and probably would have done it in '09 if he was healthy. Him setting the tone defensively for that '08 Celtics team was unquestionably the reason they won 66 games and a title that year. He put their defense on another level, and that was JUST as important as Dirk being able to hit a couple of tough shots down the stretch.

Also, as for the PG comparisons, defense among PGs is a lot less important than it is for big men down low. Nash and Payton, to me, is a toss-up for this reason. And obviously I'd take Magic over both KG and Payton. You can't compare PG defense to big men defense. It doesn't make sense to weight them the same, especially when a guy like KG could come out on the perimeter and effectively guard PGs for a play or two.


You just said it yourself. Guards don't impact the game defensively as much as bigs. So how can Kobe be more valuable than a guy like KG if defense is this important?

I don't disagree with your take on the above for the most part...and it gets to the point. It's about impact.

You don't care much about defense for Magic or Nash because it really just didn't matter that much.

Well, at the same time, Dirk is a unique player...he's not a typical PF...and his inability to play defense on the level of KG is more than made up by his elite offensive skill set and crunch time play and ability to carry a team offensively consistently in the playoffs and late in games. Something I question if KG could ever do.

And again....you act like Dirk is a much worse defender than he has been. Since the Mavs stopped playing run and gun in 04, Dirk's teams have routinely finished around the 9th or 10th best defensive teams in the league....rarely having elite defensive players. Last year was really the only time I'd say Dirk had truly great defensive help around him. And they were great defensively with Dirk on the floor. So that impact becomes somewhat marginalized.

And also...a guy like Payton was so good defensively...he did have a big impact. And if defense mattered as much as you claim it does....there would be no debate between a guy like Nash (actually one of the worst defenders ever) and him. But we all know its not cut and dry like that. Why? Because the game can't be broken down the way you want it to be.

[DMAVS41]

Dirk has FMVP.He was the franchise player easily. Garnett was a part of big three and couldn't win FMVP. Nowitzki made Mavs contender every year while Garnett went Celtics for ring chasing. Nowitzki has better playoffs stats. (he is in extremely elite group)

Reaching finals 2 time with almost entire different teammates is better statement than reaching with somewhat fantasy roster.

KG was best player in Celtics? or Pierce? Questinable. Celtics had juggernaut roster in those years compared to teams they have been faced as well.

Lastly, KG was hell of a passer/playmaker and Wolves were using him as pointforward sometimes as well.

Peak season:
Garnett:6.0 apg
Kobe : 6.0 apg

Career: (despite he has been playing as PF/C for years)
Garnett:4.0 apg
Kobe: 4.7 apg

Garnett better rebounder by far, better defender by far, slightly less/equal playmaker.

The reason people don't consider Garnett better than Kobe, he hasn't been able to carry a team offense,clutch player, someone who lead his team to titles. Being elite/legendary at things really matters is more valuable than being best all around player.

This.

Because if you broke it all down offense vs offense and defense vs defense....KG would come out ahead.

And everyone knows that shouldn't be the case.

[Kblaze8855]

And it's silly to claim that KG is easily or clearly better than Barkley. Because anyone that saw them both plays knows that to be a joke.




Barkley was arguably a better rebounder and had just as many guard skills and was right there as a passer and some would say better. Its not really the same.

Dirk vs KG is scoring vs literally every single other thing the game asks of a player. KG vs Barkley is scoring and rebounding vs all aspects of defense with similar skills those issues aside. Barkley had a more well rounded game than I think you have implied.

KG and Dirk are far more different than KG and Barkley. You could argue Dirk has a bigger edge in scoring than Barkley does but thats a whole long discussion.

Really...I cant think of a more accurate analogy to the question than Nique vs Pippen. Maybe Payton vs Iverson? I might side with Iverson there when he has no advantage anywhere that isnt an aspect of scoring.

But thats a shooting guard asked to score 30 a game vs a point...so maybe it doesnt work? I dont know. **** it...

Argument doesnt need to be had again. I just dont see how anyone claims itspeople who dont know the game who favor total players. Know nothing fans have been behind the most flashy bigtime scorer forever....

Scoring will always get the love of people who dont look deeper. I think that fact should be considered when you say such things....

[SCdac]

Before this year I had KG higher than Dirk...and still do.

Assuming both their careers ended today, why do you have KG on top?

just curious as to why you think KG is better/ranked higher right now and last year too.

[Harison]

KG is one of those guys who can flourish on any team. He has no weaknesses that need to be covered up like Dirk does with his defense.

The first team he ever played on that was a legit title contender he won a title with and walked away with the DPOY award. The Celtics probably would have won in '09, too, if KG was healthy and they were a game away (possibly a Perkins injured away) from winning in '10 as well.

Dirk is a better scorer than KG, but that's about it. KG is a better rebounder, passer/playmaker, defender (by a mile), leader, and is better at all the little stuff like setting screens, etc.

I don't really see how Dirk has an argument over KG.

Good post.

Dirk is a better scorer, and is more clutch. However offense doesnt end with scoring - passing, screens and rebounding counts too, and in those areas KG is better, making TOTAL offensive impact close.

Then we have defense.... All-time great defensive player vs rather average defender. While I understand some fans dont value defense, but its what wins championships more often than not. Dirk couldnt win for a decade with offensively stacked team (Suns deja-vu), but once he got DPOY level big-man... The rest is history.

Then we have intangibles. KG installed his culture and attitude as soon as he came to a stored franchise, whats more - he inspired two other All-star HOF'ers to play defense too. Never before '08 Ray and Pierce were know as good defenders, now they are - and they admitted its because of Garnetts influence. Dirk is a great player, but he simply doesnt have such leadership.

Bottom line: there are a lot of arguments in Garnetts favor, and not so many in Dirk's. Two-way elite big man without shortcomings vs elite one-way player. Whats more - there is NO GM who would pick Dirk over KG if they knew their careers, even Cuban would pick Garnett over Dirk.

[Doranku]

[/B]

This.

Because if you broke it all down offense vs offense and defense vs defense....KG would come out ahead.

And everyone knows that shouldn't be the case.

We can agree to disagree. I'm not saying it isn't close, I just think that KG should be ahead. And it's not just because of offense/offense and defense/defense comparisons. The main thing that sets KG ahead of Dirk, imo, is that he didn't have any glaring weaknesses that needed to be addressed through personnel. He didn't need a Tyson Chandler. He's one of those special players who can flourish with any team.

That, to me, makes him more valuable than Dirk.

[StateOfMind12]

carrying a T-wolves team to 52 wins with Wally Szczerbiak and garbage doesnt count?

The Mavs last year didnt have star power but guys that know there roles with a great comination of veterans and youth that can match up in any pace and style and plus were very well coached.

KG's T-wolves on the other hand had KG leading his team in every statistical category.
Dirk would have gotten past the 1st round with one of those T'Wolves teams before 2004. Dirk never had a strong supporting cast either and he still made deep playoff runs and did major damage in the post-season while KG never really did.

Like I said, Dirk is better at carrying a lesser team than KG but KG is better at maximizing a talented team's potential than Dirk.

[DMAVS41]

Barkley was arguably a better rebounder and had just as many guard skills and was right there as a passer and some would say better. Its not really the same.

Dirk vs KG is scoring vs literally every single other thing the game asks of a player. KG vs Barkley is scoring and rebounding vs all aspects of defense with similar skills those issues aside. Barkley had a more well rounded game than I think you have implied.

KG and Dirk are far more different than KG and Barkley. You could argue Dirk has a bigger edge in scoring than Barkley does but thats a whole long discussion.

Really...I cant think of a more accurate analogy to the question than Nique vs Pippen. Maybe Payton vs Iverson? I might side with Iverson there when he has no advantage anywhere that isnt an aspect of scoring.

But thats a shooting guard asked to score 30 a game vs a point...so maybe it doesnt work? I dont know. **** it...

Argument doesnt need to be had again. I just dont see how anyone claims itspeople who dont know the game who favor total players. Know nothing fans have been behind the most flashy bigtime scorer forever....

Scoring will always get the love of people who dont look deeper. I think that fact should be considered when you say such things....


Its just two offensive minded power forwards vs a more well rounded player.

I'd say Dirk has played better defense than Barkley and was more clutch as well...etc.

No comparison is going to be perfect.

The simple fact remains that can't break players down the way most people do with this offense vs offense and defense vs defense approach.

You, whether you know it or not, do this in your breakdowns because I know you rank Dirk over Malone. Well, Malone was simply a more well rounded player. Better defender and rebounder and probably a slightly better passer most of his career. And while he wasn't KG on defense...he was also better than KG offensively.

So how on earth could Dirk be better than Malone using the breakdown that people love to use? The answer is he couldn't. The answer is that some things about the game can't be measured like that. Like Dirk's skill set and what it means for a team in the playoffs. Like Dirk's ability to create match up problems and impact the game hugely on offense without ever touching the ball.

I know you know this because I've seen you rank Dirk over Malone....and in order to get to that point, you have to delve more deeply into what "impact" players actually have.

And in terms of total impact, its an insult to Dirk to claim KG is on a different level (not saying you said this)....

[DMAVS41]

We can agree to disagree. I'm not saying it isn't close, I just think that KG should be ahead. And it's not just because of offense/offense and defense/defense comparisons. The main thing that sets KG ahead of Dirk, imo, is that he didn't have any glaring weaknesses that needed to be addressed through personnel. He didn't need a Tyson Chandler. He's one of those special players who can flourish with any team.

That, to me, makes him more valuable than Dirk.

Yes he did. He needed a Paul Pierce. Holy shit dude....now needing Tyson Chandler to win a title proves you aren't as good as somebody that needed Paul Pierce and Ray Allen and a solid supporting cast?

And what team hasn't Dirk flourished with? He's played on run and gun teams, slow it down defensive teams like 05, he's played with average players and won 67 games, he's played with horrible centers, and finally a good one last year.

Wow. Just could not disagree more. LOL @ Dirk needed Chandler to win meaning anything while KG needed a far better player in Pierce and your boy Kobe needed Shaq and Gasol (and Phil Jackson)....:facepalm

[StateOfMind12]

Bottom line: there are a lot of arguments in Garnetts favor, and not so many in Dirk's. Two-way elite big man without shortcomings vs elite one-way player. Whats more - there is NO GM who would pick Dirk over KG if they knew their careers, even Cuban would pick Garnett over Dirk.
And what are you basing this on? Do you have any evidence or proof that this is true?


We can agree to disagree. I'm not saying it isn't close, I just think that KG should be ahead. And it's not just because of offense/offense and defense/defense comparisons. The main thing that sets KG ahead of Dirk, imo, is that he didn't have any glaring weaknesses that needed to be addressed through personnel. He didn't need a Tyson Chandler. He's one of those special players who can flourish with any team.

That, to me, makes him more valuable than Dirk.
He wasn't a very good playoff performer and you can go check and his scoring and his scoring efficiency if you want proof. The playoffs/clutch is what ultimately separates Kobe from KG anyways cause if Kobe didn't have that advantage than I would suspect the majority would have KG over Kobe.

[DMAVS41]

Assuming both their careers ended today, why do you have KG on top?

just curious as to why you think KG is better/ranked higher right now and last year too.

Because I think KG was a little better at his absolute peak and I really think KG could have done some special things if given the right help throughout his career.

But it's literally a flip the coin situation. Has been for me for a long time. I think Dirk will likely finish over him on my list simply because I think Dirk will continue to play at an elite level for longer.

[DMAVS41]

Good post.

Dirk is a better scorer, and is more clutch. However offense doesnt end with scoring - passing, screens and rebounding counts too, and in those areas KG is better, making TOTAL offensive impact close.

Then we have defense.... All-time great defensive player vs rather average defender. While I understand some fans dont value defense, but its what wins championships more often than not. Dirk couldnt win for a decade with offensively stacked team (Suns deja-vu), but once he got DPOY level big-man... The rest is history.

Then we have intangibles. KG installed his culture and attitude as soon as he came to a stored franchise, whats more - he inspired two other All-star HOF'ers to play defense too. Never before '08 Ray and Pierce were know as good defenders, now they are - and they admitted its because of Garnetts influence. Dirk is a great player, but he simply doesnt have such leadership.

Bottom line: there are a lot of arguments in Garnetts favor, and not so many in Dirk's. Two-way elite big man without shortcomings vs elite one-way player. Whats more - there is NO GM who would pick Dirk over KG if they knew their careers, even Cuban would pick Garnett over Dirk.


The bold is complete and total utter bullshit. Cuban picking KG over Dirk is laughable knowing how their careers played out.

All Cuban would do differently is not play run and gun up to 04, not hire Avery, and he would have found a way to get a legit center and a decent 2nd option and would have won 3 titles.

LOL @ Cuban taking KG over Dirk.....

[Harison]

And what are you basing this on? Do you have any evidence or proof that this is true?

What proof do you want over hypothetical situation? Its just common sense, no GM in his right mind would pick Dirk over KG.



He wasn't a very good playoff performer and you can go check and his scoring and his scoring efficiency if you want proof. The playoffs/clutch is what ultimately separates Kobe from KG anyways cause if Kobe didn't have that advantage than I would suspect the majority would have KG over Kobe.

Who isnt a good Playoff performer, KG? 27.0/15.7/5.2 looks good to me, or how he almost single-handedly dismantled a better Kings team with one of the best GM7 performances ever, or Championship with 20.4/10.5/3.3 with DPOY defense also looks great.

What concerns clutch moments, why people still believe in a myth Garnett isnt clutch? He was as clutch as Duncan during their primes, and KG was leading 4Q player on Celtics, ahead of Ray/Pierce, who are among the most clutch players in NBA.

[DMAVS41]

What proof do you want over hypothetical situation? Its just common sense, no GM in his right mind would pick Dirk over KG.



Who isnt a good Playoff performer, KG? 27.0/15.7/5.2 looks good to me, or how he almost single-handedly dismantled a better Kings team with one of the best GM7 performances ever, or Championship with 20.4/10.5/3.3 with DPOY defense also looks great.

What concerns clutch moments, why people still believe in a myth Garnett isnt clutch? He was as clutch as Duncan during their primes, and KG was leading 4Q player on Celtics, ahead of Ray/Pierce, who are among the most clutch players in NBA.

The way you say things like that is exactly the problem in these threads. It's so unreasonable to say such a thing after the last 14 years we've watched them play.

Just so biased its absurd.

[Kblaze8855]

Dirk vs malone isnt a total skillset thing. Its known i dont like malone and despite some peoples claims...i dont dislike dirk and have no reason to not want him on my team.

Plus him being a better total player depends on when you mean. Ive often said karl gets credit for being all he ever was at one time and he just wasnt. Dirk now is probably as good a passer as malone before he got old. Dirk in his youth was rebounding about like karl in his mvp days. He went a good while under 10 a game. And he was rarely as good a give him the ball and watch him work scorer as dirk.

Karl given credit for all he ever was is a lot hetter than dirk at any single point. But give them the same treatment? Its worth discussing.

[StateOfMind12]

What proof do you want over hypothetical situation? Its just common sense, no GM in his right mind would pick Dirk over KG.
I suggest that you don't speak upon every current GM and every GM that has ever worked as a GM that they would take KG over Dirk if you don't have any valid proof that 100% of them would take KG over Dirk.


Who isnt a good Playoff performer, KG? 27.0/15.7/5.2 looks good to me
So you are using one series to backup how KG was a good playoff performer, and the one series where KG lost? If you look at every post-season run KG had in his career, you would see that overall and the majority of his playoff runs and series aren't great. I'm not saying KG has never had a great playoff run or a great playoff series. I'm just saying overall and the majority of KG's playoff runs and series, he wasn't that great of a playoff performer.



or how he almost single-handedly dismantled a better Kings team with one of the best GM7 performances ever, or Championship with 20.4/10.5/3.3 with DPOY defense also looks great.
Kings were a better team? :confusedshrug:

I do think KG was great in that series but overall KG was not a great playoff performer, he was just a good playoff performer at best.

I have nothing against KG either, I love him actually, but this was an obvious flaw of his.

[DMAVS41]

Dirk vs malone isnt a total skillset thing. Its known i dont like malone. Plus him being a better total player depends on when you mean. Ive often said karl gets credit for being all he ever was at one time and he just wasnt. Dirk now is probably as good a passer as malone before he got old. Dirk in his youth was rebounding about like karl in his mvp days. He went a good while under 10 a game. And he was rarely as good a give him the ball and watch him work scorer as dirk.

Karl given credit for all he ever was is a lot hetter than dirk at any single point. But give them the same treatment? Its worth discussing.

And you aren't breaking it down the way people break it down for Dirk vs KG. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to do that.

Your post above is exactly what I'm talking about. It's just swept under the rug that Dirk often commands a double while KG never really did in the playoffs. It's swept under the rug that Dirk was a beast on the defensive boards pretty much his entire career.

How much is ft shooting late in close games worth? Or having the skill set to have an offense run through a player for not only a playoff game...but entire playoff series consistently coming through late?

Its more than just the boiled down simplistic comparisons.

It doesn't work and never will. It leads people to say things like Pippen was better than Magic and that KG is on a different tier than Dirk.

[miles berg]

You cant just make a list for each guy and expect to decide it that way.

Look, this thing has been argued to death for the last 10 years and quite frankly it shouldnt. Both are all time greats, both are former MVP, both led teams to the Finals twice and to a championship once, and both are first ballot HOFers.

It just comes down to who you like more. Very similiar to Barkley -vs- Malone, it is just preference.

[DMAVS41]

What proof do you want over hypothetical situation? Its just common sense, no GM in his right mind would pick Dirk over KG.



Who isnt a good Playoff performer, KG? 27.0/15.7/5.2 looks good to me, or how he almost single-handedly dismantled a better Kings team with one of the best GM7 performances ever, or Championship with 20.4/10.5/3.3 with DPOY defense also looks great.

What concerns clutch moments, why people still believe in a myth Garnett isnt clutch? He was as clutch as Duncan during their primes, and KG was leading 4Q player on Celtics, ahead of Ray/Pierce, who are among the most clutch players in NBA.

Numbers in the playoffs?

How about these numbers:

26/10/3 58% TS vs 20/11/4 52% TS

But let me guess. Your numbers matter and mine don't...right?

[Harison]

I suggest that you don't speak upon every current GM and every GM that has ever worked as a GM that they would take KG over Dirk if you don't have any valid proof that 100% of them would take KG over Dirk.

I'm using common sense, while you are making unreasonable demands (mildly speaking :lol)



So you are using one series to backup how KG was a good playoff performer, and the one series where KG lost? If you look at every post-season run KG had in his career, you would see that overall and the majority of his playoff runs and series are sub par for an all-time great at least.

KG played in Playoffs better than in Regular season (yes, I watched, while you didnt, nor even checked the stats), and he lost to MUCH better team with prime Shaq and Kobe, while playing with scrubs himself.

How is that sub-par? You are making unreasonable demands, again.



Kings were a better team? :confusedshrug:

I do think KG was great in that series but overall KG was not a great playoff performer, he was just a good playoff performer at best.

Yes, Kings were absolutely better. And yes, you can think whatever YOU want, it doesnt change any facts.

[StateOfMind12]

KG played in Playoffs better than in Regular season (yes, I watched, while you didnt, nor even checked the stats), and he lost to MUCH better team with prime Shaq and Kobe, while playing with scrubs himself.

How is that sub-par? You are making unreasonable demands, again.
I don't think you comprehended what I said correctly. I said overall and the majority of KG's playoff performances, series, and runs, he is not a great playoff performer, just a good one at the very best. KG definitely played great in that series vs. the Lakers in 2003 but that is just one. If you look at KG's general playoff play, it is not great at all and it is closer to sub-par than it is great.



Yes, Kings were absolutely better. And yes, you can think whatever YOU want, it doesnt change any facts.
Last I checked, the T'wolves were 1st in the West that season. Kings were 4th and 5th? I really don't recall the last time a 4th/5th seed was the favorite over a 1st seed.

[amfirst]

Prime wise... I'll go with dirk, but I'll take Garnett if i had a complete team becuase he is not as good as dirk as option one.

[Harison]

I don't think you comprehended what I said correctly. I said overall and the majority of KG's playoff performances, series, and runs, he is not a great playoff performer, just a good one at the very best. KG definitely played great in that series vs. the Lakers in 2003 but that is just one. If you look at KG's general playoff play, it is not great at all and it is closer to sub-par than it is great.

I addressed both your claims, its ridiculous to claim he isnt a great Playoffs performer when he played even better in the Playoffs than RS.

"just one", really? You just proving you know nothing about Garnett's career.



Last I checked, the T'wolves were 1st in the West that season. Kings were 4th and 5th? I really don't recall the last time a 4th/5th seed was the favorite over a 1st seed.

What you dont understand as well, higher seed doesnt always mean a better team. Like KG managed to get a higher seed with scrubs over prime Shaq and Kobe. Was he also favorite to win? :lol Think, think. :kobe:

[Owl]

Dirk would have gotten past the 1st round with one of those T'Wolves teams before 2004. Dirk never had a strong supporting cast either and he still made deep playoff runs and did major damage in the post-season while KG never really did.

Like I said, Dirk is better at carrying a lesser team than KG but KG is better at maximizing a talented team's potential than Dirk.
Don't necessarily disagree with the general point but Dirk hardly "never had a strong supporting cast" (I also don't think Dirk takes those T-Wolves out of the 1st round, besides KG those teams sucked).

e.g. 03-04 Mavs http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2004.html
Nash, Jamison, good Marquis Daniels, Michael Finley, Josh Howard, Danny Fortson, Antoine Walker, Shawn Bradley.
I think with Garnett on that team they might have gone all the way (part of that is KG is a better fit adding D to a good offensive team, which kind of goes along with your theory), part of it is timing (Garnett at his peak and that time, Dirk's absolute peak was maybe 2-3 of years later) and part of it is that KG's peak is better than Dirk's peak.

[StateOfMind12]

I addressed both your claims, its ridiculous to claim he isnt a great Playoffs performer when he played even better in the Playoffs than RS.

"just one", really? You just proving you know nothing about Garnett's career.
I am saying you just used one to prove that KG was a great playoff performer. I know KG has had great playoff series, great playoff runs, and such but overall he was not a great playoff performer.




What you dont understand as well, higher seed doesnt always mean a better team. Like KG managed to get a higher seed with scrubs over prime Shaq and Kobe. Was he also favorite to win? :lol Think, think. :kobe:
I don't recall anyone saying the Kings were the favorite over the T'Wolves in that series but the T'wolves vs. Lakers is not a good analogy since the T'Wolves were the 4th seed while the Lakers were the 5th seed. Those series can and usually do go either way whereas a 1st seed vs. a 4th/5th seed usually have the 1st seed as the favorite.

[StateOfMind12]

Don't necessarily disagree with the general point but Dirk hardly "never had a strong supporting cast" (I also don't think Dirk takes those T-Wolves out of the 1st round, besides KG those teams sucked).

e.g. 03-04 Mavs http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2004.html
Nash, Jamison, good Marquis Daniels, Michael Finley, Josh Howard, Danny Fortson, Antoine Walker, Shawn Bradley.
I think with Garnett on that team they might have gone all the way (part of that is KG is a better fit adding D to a good offensive team, which kind of goes along with your theory), part of it is timing (Garnett at his peak and that time, Dirk's absolute peak was maybe 2-3 of years later) and part of it is that KG's peak is better than Dirk's peak.
I think if KG were in Dirk's position in Dallas, Dallas would have been better in the early 2000s oppose to the late 2000s whereas with Dirk they were better in the late 2000s than the early 2000s. The early 2000s Mavericks were far more talented than the late 2000s Mavericks but the late 2000s Mavericks maximized Dirk's game more than the early 2000s did.

Like I said, KG meshes and maximizes talent better than Dirk does but Dirk anchors and carries teams better than KG does.

[paperstreet]

Dirk has shown he can be the best player and carry his team to a title.
KG has not.

[Harison]

I am saying you just used one to prove that KG was a great playoff performer. I know KG has had great playoff series, great playoff runs, and such but overall he was not a great playoff performer.

Overall KG did better in Playoffs than RS, overall KG always won when his team was favorite, never lost to underdog.

In any case:

basketball-reference.com -> That way

<- Youtube.com This way, there are plenty of Garnett's series and games online, catch up on what you missed.



I don't recall anyone saying the Kings were the favorite over the T'Wolves in that series but the T'wolves vs. Lakers is not a good analogy since the T'Wolves were the 4th seed while the Lakers were the 5th seed. Those series can and usually do go either way whereas a 1st seed vs. a 4th/5th seed usually have the 1st seed as the favorite.

Its a fact Kings were better, very few though otherwise. Kings had a stacked team with a HoF coach, and since you dont remember (or most likely havent watched the series), brush up the history. Making baseless claims on the face value wont get you anywhere.

[StateOfMind12]

Overall KG did better in Playoffs than RS, overall KG always won when his team was favorite, never lost to underdog.

In any case:

basketball-reference.com -> That way

<- Youtube.com This way, there are plenty of Garnett's series and games online, catch up on what you missed.
I would like to hear how KG was better in the playoffs than in the RS. I absolutely would love to hear it. There is a reason why KG isn't ranked as high as Duncan or why the Duncan-KG debate isn't even close and it is because Duncan had the extra gear for the post-season while KG didn't. Duncan was a great playoff performer whereas KG was only a good playoff performer at best.




Its a fact Kings were better, very few though otherwise. Kings had a stacked team with a HoF coach, and since you dont remember (or most likely havent watched the series), brush up the history. Making baseless claims on the face value wont get you anywhere.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on who was the favorite, but do you have any evidence that the Kings were overall the favorite of that series like in an article or something? If not then I really couldn't careless because I could go ahead and say Kobe never lost as the favorite either when in reality he was the favorite many time according to analysts, articles, etc. and he has lost many times in those situations.

[Harison]

Dirk has shown he can be the best player and carry his team to a title.
KG has not.

You mean leading scorer and rebounder on a team, while anchoring its defense, doesnt mean he is the best man on his team? :confusedshrug:

:durantunimpressed:

[Harison]

@ StateOfMind12

As I said:

basketball-reference.com -> That way

<- Youtube.com This way, there are plenty of Garnett's series and games online, catch up on what you missed.

You barely know what KG did, and your opinion isnt supported by anything, neither facts, nor context.

Next time before making any claims, check the links above first, and then ask more knowledgeable posters, because your ignorance is staggering.

[StateOfMind12]

You barely know what KG did, and your opinion isnt supported by anything, neither facts, nor context.

Next time before making any claims, check the links above first, and then ask more knowledgeable posters, because your ignorance is staggering.
And what is your opinion supported by? I'm not going to pull up numbers because I already know KG's numbers got much worse in the post-season than in the regular season.

Next time before making any claims, give me some evidence, and then ask more knowledgeable posters, because your ignorance is staggering.

[paperstreet]

You mean leading scorer and rebounder on a team, while anchoring its defense, doesnt mean he is the best man on his team? :confusedshrug:

:durantunimpressed:

not taking away from garnett. I love his game.
but dirk had one of the greatest post-seasons in any sport. ever.
lucky? maybe. but
KG could never do that. and I'll give dirk the edge because of it.

[Harison]

And what is your opinion supported by? I'm not going to pull up numbers because I already know KG's numbers got much worse in the post-season than in the regular season.

Next time before making any claims, give me some evidence, and then ask more knowledgeable posters, because your ignorance is staggering.

Ignore it is, and I really suggest you to visit those links, because you really dont make any sense. You dont know neither numbers, nor context, nor anything really. A sad case of probably a very young mind who refuses to increase his knowledge :confusedshrug:

[Harison]

not taking away from garnett. I love his game.
but dirk had one of the greatest post-seasons in any sport. ever.
lucky? maybe. but
KG could never do that. and I'll give dirk the edge because of it.

Lets use some logic:

"Dirk has shown he can be the best player and carry his team to a title.
KG has not."

KG was the leading scorer and rebounder for the Celtics '08 in the Playoffs:

Garnett: 20.4/10.5/3.3 with 49.5 FG%
Pierce: 19.7/5.0/4.6 with 44.1 FG%

and Celtics won because of one of the best defenses All-time, anchored by Garnett.

and KG was BY FAR the leading scorer in the clutch in the Playoffs.

You still want to make a case of KG not being the best player on his team, and carrying it to the title? :wtf:

[paperstreet]

Lets use some logic:

"Dirk has shown he can be the best player and carry his team to a title.
KG has not."

KG was the leading scorer and rebounder for the Celtics '08 in the Playoffs:

Garnett: 20.4/10.5/3.3 with 49.5 FG%
Pierce: 19.7/5.0/4.6 with 44.1 FG%

and Celtics won because of one of the best defenses All-time, anchored by Garnett.

and KG was BY FAR the leading scorer in the clutch in the Playoffs.

You still want to make a case of KG not being the best player on his team, and carrying it to the title? :wtf:

KG had a much better cast, and while he may have been the "best" player, he couldn't even win FMVP.
And you missed the point. Dirk accomplished something great this last postseason with the clutch shots, incredible scoring, 48 points on 12-15 from the field, etc.
KG hasn't shown he can do that. I am not taking away what he has accomplished, but he'll always be remembered for doing it with much better help than dirk had.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Because Garnett plays defense. /thread

[Harison]

KG had a much better cast, and while he may have been the "best" player, he couldn't even win FMVP.

You are switching the subject, do you agree now KG was the best player on the Championship team?

If yes, we can move to the next subject:

FMVP went to a streaky scorer, Parker also won over Duncan, and he actually deserved it more than Pierce over KG, and yet there is no doubt in my mind TD was more valuable than Parker. What to speak of KG over Pierce.



And you missed the point. Dirk accomplished something great this last postseason with the clutch shots, incredible scoring, 48 points on 12-15 from the field, etc.

There is no question Dirk had a great Playoffs run last post-season, overall, I remember cheering for him when exploded in the clutch in some games. However in Finals he was carried by his team, the fact most fans somehow forgot. When Mavs were down 1-2, and team needed Dirk the most, he went the rest of the games 37% from 2PT, and 20% from 3PT. Mavs were winning some games despite of Dirk, like last game he was 1-12 by the halftime and yet Mavs were winning.

When two-way superstars have bad nights (KG, TD, Dream, etc), they still heavily contribute in other ways. What Dirk contributes when he cant score?..

So lets not call that "one of the greatest post-seasons in any sport. ever." Dirk was great (overall), but it would really diminish actually epic performances by MJ, Dream, etc. if we put Dirk on the same page.



KG hasn't shown he can do that. I am not taking away what he has accomplished, but he'll always be remembered for doing it with much better help than dirk had.

Surely Celtics '08 were a better team than '11 Mavs, however considering KG instantly won (post-prime) when he got a quality team while Dirk had a great team almost all his career, you arent really doing Dirk a favor by bringing team's support. Give KG Mavs all his career, and we would probably see more rings than one.

[DMAVS41]

You are switching the subject, do you agree now KG was the best player on the Championship team?

If yes, we can move to the next subject:

FMVP went to a streaky scorer, Parker also won over Duncan, and he actually deserved it more than Pierce over KG, and yet there is no doubt in my mind TD was more valuable than Parker. What to speak of KG over Pierce.



There is no question Dirk had a great Playoffs run last post-season, overall, I remember cheering for him when exploded in the clutch in some games. However in Finals he was carried by his team, the fact most fans somehow forgot. When Mavs were down 1-2, and team needed Dirk the most, he went the rest of the games 37% from 2PT, and 20% from 3PT. Mavs were winning some games despite of Dirk, like last game he was 1-12 by the halftime and yet Mavs were winning.

When two-way superstars have bad nights (KG, TD, Dream, etc), they still heavily contribute in other ways. What Dirk contributes when he cant score?..

So lets not call that "one of the greatest post-seasons in any sport. ever." Dirk was great (overall), but it would really diminish actually epic performances by MJ, Dream, etc. if we put Dirk on the same page.



Surely Celtics '08 were a better team than '11 Mavs, however considering KG instantly won (post-prime) when he got a quality team while Dirk had a great team almost all his career, you arent really doing Dirk a favor by bringing team's support. Give KG Mavs all his career, and we would probably see more rings than one.


The bold is exactly what you are missing. Even when he's not playing great. Although his finals was something like 26/10/3 41% shooting with absurdly good clutch play....hardly carried by his team.

He does so much to create match up issues. Hell, Dirk just standing in the corner at the 3 point line spaces the floor in ways that other 7 footers really have just never done.

Even when he's off, if you don't double him late in games...he's going to get to the ft line.

His pick and roll play is almost impossible to stop with a guard that can shoot and pass because it either creates a mismatch, gives a wide open lane to the ball handler, or opens up a weak side corner three. Dirk does all of that without touching the ball.

Which again is why normal simplistic breakdowns don't do Dirk justice. he didn't win 50 plus 11 times in a row and have some of the best playoff numbers by accident. He did stuff like that because he's been amazing for the last 12 years or so.

What other star player would you expect to win a title with the likes of Terry, Howard...etc? Or win with what they had last year? Seriously...do you really think any version of KG is winning with the Mavs last year? Because I sure as hell don't.

And Dirk has not had great teams around him his entire career. Just total and utter BS. He's had some really good teams...never great. Dirk has never even played with a great player. Nash didn't become "great" until the Suns and Finley had declined (not that he was ever great)....LOL at comparing the 08 Celtics to the kind of help Dirk has had. You give Dirk a team like the 08 Celtics at any point in his career and they are without a doubt a title favorite.

Pierce and Ray Allen? ROFL....

[knickswin]

this is like the 10th thread since last june discussing this topic.

personally, I think Garnett is super overrated as a scorer. he actually is--and always has been--pretty inefficient for a big man who shoots free throws well. he has had quite a few seasons with TS% in the low 50's and even one in the high 40's. this is because his post game is very, very soft. too often he can get forced to take those bad turnaround jumpers. it's not just guys like dirk and kobe who are better scorers than garnett. I would say even guys like Chris Bosh and Pau Gasol have more than solid cases over him.

but he is a great intangibles player, great defender, (was) a great rebounder, and a great passer.

still go with dirk, though, who I think has had some of the best individual performances of the past decade and has had several impressive playoff runs (2006 and 2011 being most noticeable, but he was also impressive other years).

[Derka]

On his best day, Nowitzki couldn't hope to be the defender that KG is.

Offensively, Nowitzki is the better and more consistent offensive player...but let's not forget that KG's offensive dropoff really came when he joined the C's and sacrificed a lot of his offense to Ray and Paul. Prior to that, he was a solid 20+ per game scorer in Minnesota.

I still give it to KG.

[Doranku]

Yes he did. He needed a Paul Pierce. Holy shit dude....now needing Tyson Chandler to win a title proves you aren't as good as somebody that needed Paul Pierce and Ray Allen and a solid supporting cast?

And what team hasn't Dirk flourished with? He's played on run and gun teams, slow it down defensive teams like 05, he's played with average players and won 67 games, he's played with horrible centers, and finally a good one last year.

Wow. Just could not disagree more. LOL @ Dirk needed Chandler to win meaning anything while KG needed a far better player in Pierce and your boy Kobe needed Shaq and Gasol (and Phil Jackson)....:facepalm

Awesome, won 67 games and lost in the first round. :facepalm What an accomplishment.

The point is he needs a SPECIFIC TYPE OF PLAYER to succeed. How is this hard to understand? Dirk has been surrounded by plenty of talent throughout his career. From Nash, prime Finley, Josh Howard, Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion, Stackhouse... he's always had solid players around him. But he wasn't able to win until he was paired with a defensive minded center.

LOL @ thinking KG exclusively needed a player like Pierce. You always complain about how stars need legitimate second options: when did KG even have anyone nearly as good/clutch as Jason Terry? Hell, even prime Finley was better than anything KG played with. Mo f*cking Williams would probably have been KG's best second option for the majority of his career.

We don't have the luxury of knowing how KG would have done being surrounded by talented players like Dirk has been over his entire career. Instead, all we know is that he won a title in his first year where he had a viable supporting cast, and likely would have won another if it weren't for injury.

lol @ bringing Kobe into this btw. Kobe proved he can win as the man and as a second fiddle to a superior player. What more do you want from him?

[veilside23]

WOW dirk >>>> duncan too? because Dirk is a much better scorer than duncan as well.. dirk can hit three's duncan cant.???


Kg in his his best days was KG = TD even without a ring .. they where that close.

dont start by saying kg needed a ray allen and a pp to win his ring.

i dont want to start by giving names...

THE ONLY WAY I WOULD PUT DIRK OVER KG IS IF DIRK STILL WINS THE TITLE RIGHT NOW ... I would even change my avatar and put dirks face in it..

Because right now even at 35 years of age.. KG is still better than DIRK...

Accomplishments? Dirk had more ... :)

Kids these days....

[Kews1]

KG is miles better than Dirk, its not that close at all stop humoring yourselfs. With a good team his whole career KG could have pushed into the top tier of players. Dirk is a great player and he deserves his credit for his ring but in terms of where they stack up Dirk is just a great whereas KG is a legend

[heyhey]

He does so much to create match up issues. Hell, Dirk just standing in the corner at the 3 point line spaces the floor in ways that other 7 footers really have just never done.

Even when he's off, if you don't double him late in games...he's going to get to the ft line.

His pick and roll play is almost impossible to stop with a guard that can shoot and pass because it either creates a mismatch, gives a wide open lane to the ball handler, or opens up a weak side corner three. Dirk does all of that without touching the ball.
.

this all can be applied to KG as well and KG can run fastbreaks by himself, set up his teammates better as a point forward, and score in the post when asked.

KG > dirk all time when speaking of ability, talent, impact, performance. Dirk is getting more support now because of that spetacular playoff run but that's still just one season.

I'm not even a garnett fan

[Myth]

Garnett's prime was better than Dirk's IMO, and I hate that bastard while being a fan of Dirk. The defensive end is what separates them IMO. Dirk earned his FMVP, but KG was more than capable of winning a chip as the man, but he only had 1 year where the team around him had a chance while he was the man.

[NumberSix]

KG > Dirk. How is this even a question? :confusedshrug:

[ILLsmak]

He's not. It's as said, the same...

What Dirk did last year was comparable to what Wade did in 06 except that Dirk was the undisputed best player. Basically the ONLY player who was a go-to scorer.

In light of last year, I think Dirk moved up immensely in the all-time rankings.

-Smak

[knickswin]

this all can be applied to KG as well and KG can run fastbreaks by himself, set up his teammates better as a point forward, and score in the post when asked.

KG > dirk all time when speaking of ability, talent, impact, performance. Dirk is getting more support now because of that spetacular playoff run but that's still just one season.

I'm not even a garnett fan

why is it just one season though? garnett was not very successful in minnesota. not that it's all his fault because he was dealing with mostly bad teams, but every year except 2004 when they were out west together, dirk's team had more playoff success. dirk through out his career has had far more big time playoff performances than garnett. this wasn't just last year, either. he has had monstrous showings going back to 2002.

as far as offensive weapons and scorers . . . they're really not close. past ten years dirk has been averaging 21-27ppg with TS% ranging from .56%-.61%. garnett we'll go from '99-'09 instead because he's obviously past his prime. he's been averaging 15-24ppg on TS% ranging from .49%-.59% (with his average being around .55%). those are very different numbers. dirk is a much deadlier pick and pop player because he has better range and size. he also has a much better face-up game than garnett ever had. his mid post game he developed a few years ago is better than garnett's post game ever was.

I don't know why I keep getting suckered into this debate. I personally feel dirk gets disrespected in this discussion and garnett gets overrated, but I guess I'm not going to change people's minds.

[rodman91]

this is like the 10th thread since last june discussing this topic.

personally, I think Garnett is super overrated as a scorer. he actually is--and always has been--pretty inefficient for a big man who shoots free throws well. he has had quite a few seasons with TS% in the low 50's and even one in the high 40's. this is because his post game is very, very soft. too often he can get forced to take those bad turnaround jumpers. it's not just guys like dirk and kobe who are better scorers than garnett. I would say even guys like Chris Bosh and Pau Gasol have more than solid cases over him.

but he is a great intangibles player, great defender, (was) a great rebounder, and a great passer.

still go with dirk, though, who I think has had some of the best individual performances of the past decade and has had several impressive playoff runs (2006 and 2011 being most noticeable, but he was also impressive other years).


Let's look at all Top 5 PF's FTA (career wise)
Malone: 8.9
Barkley: 8.1
Duncan: 6.7
Nowitzki: 6.5
Garnett : 4.7

So how come super athletic,intense,franchise player in one of the weakest team in history gets so less FTA compared to other all time greats? Simple. He has never been a dominant force at offense. He might get 20 points but his impact on offense has never at those guys level. He was too passive too be first option scorer.

Let's look at peak FTA years

Malone: 11.5
Barkley: 10.8
Duncan: 8.5
Nowizkti: 9.1
Garnett: 6.7

Again how come this tall,athletic,versatile,intense player at his peak year was only able to get as much as FTA "soft european jumpshooter" got all career?

Malone,Barkley,Duncan,Nowitzki were great scorers so they draw too many calls. Garnett wasn't. He couldn't draw many calls even in extremely weak team.

Look at these:
Elton Brand: 5.5
Pau Gasol: 6.0
Chris Bosh: 7.0 (notice his FTA dropped last 2 years due to passive role)
Chris Webber: 4.7 (Interestingly other great PF who has been accused to be somewhat passive at offense has similar FTA for both career and peak.)

As talented as Garnett,Webber,Pippen or similar players they had bad habit of settling for jumpers or expecting other teammate to take care of scoring. Garnett,Pippen were intense defenders but polar opposite scorers.

[veilside23]

Let's look at all Top 5 PF's FTA (career wise)
Malone: 8.9
Barkley: 8.1
Duncan: 6.7
Nowitzki: 6.5
Garnett : 4.7

So how come super athletic,intense,franchise player in one of the weakest team in history gets so less FTA compared to other all time greats? Simple. He has never been a dominant force at offense. He might get 20 points but his impact on offense has never at those guys level. He was too passive too be first option scorer.

Let's look at peak FTA years

Malone: 11.5
Barkley: 10.8
Duncan: 8.5
Nowizkti: 9.1
Garnett: 6.7

Again how come this tall,athletic,versatile,intense player at his peak year was only able to get as much as FTA "soft european jumpshooter" got all career?

Malone,Barkley,Duncan,Nowitzki were great scorers so they draw too many calls. Garnett wasn't. He couldn't draw many calls even in extremely weak team.

Look at these:
Elton Brand: 5.5
Pau Gasol: 6.0
Chris Bosh: 7.0 (notice his FTA dropped last 2 years due to passive role)
Chris Webber: 4.7 (Interestingly other great PF who has been accused to be somewhat passive at offense has similar FTA for both career and peak.)

As talented as Garnett,Webber,Pippen or similar players they had bad habit of settling for jumpers or expecting other teammate to take care of scoring. Garnett,Pippen were intense defenders but polar opposite scorers.



ok now so FTA is the topic being able to go to the FT gives you the edge to one player.. dont we see a trend here...

the one that dirk has over kg is scoring... nothing else..

and lol at stat and bosh being comparable to kg...

get that out from here...

KG makes those guys look ordinary even if he is way older than them...

something that dirk cant and wont ever do.

[veilside23]

kg may struggle offensively but still exerts hell of an effort overall..

when dirk struggles ... :rolleyes:

[maybeshewill13]

KG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk

Next.

[knickswin]

Let's look at all Top 5 PF's FTA (career wise)
Malone: 8.9
Barkley: 8.1
Duncan: 6.7
Nowitzki: 6.5
Garnett : 4.7

So how come super athletic,intense,franchise player in one of the weakest team in history gets so less FTA compared to other all time greats? Simple. He has never been a dominant force at offense. He might get 20 points but his impact on offense has never at those guys level. He was too passive too be first option scorer.

Let's look at peak FTA years

Malone: 11.5
Barkley: 10.8
Duncan: 8.5
Nowizkti: 9.1
Garnett: 6.7

Again how come this tall,athletic,versatile,intense player at his peak year was only able to get as much as FTA "soft european jumpshooter" got all career?

Malone,Barkley,Duncan,Nowitzki were great scorers so they draw too many calls. Garnett wasn't. He couldn't draw many calls even in extremely weak team.

Look at these:
Elton Brand: 5.5
Pau Gasol: 6.0
Chris Bosh: 7.0 (notice his FTA dropped last 2 years due to passive role)
Chris Webber: 4.7 (Interestingly other great PF who has been accused to be somewhat passive at offense has similar FTA for both career and peak.)

As talented as Garnett,Webber,Pippen or similar players they had bad habit of settling for jumpers or expecting other teammate to take care of scoring. Garnett,Pippen were intense defenders but polar opposite scorers.

right. and that is what I feel gets overlooked when discussing garnett. his scoring arsenal is not as strong or diverse as some of his peers. he was also quite inefficient. a lot of years he was more inefficient than Kobe if you go by TS%.

[rodman91]

ok now so FTA is the topic being able to go to the FT gives you the edge to one player.. dont we see a trend here...

the one that dirk has over kg is scoring... nothing else..

and lol at stat and bosh being comparable to kg...

get that out from here...

KG makes those guys look ordinary even if he is way older than them...

something that dirk cant and wont ever do.

It's says Garnett was passive at scoring wise. Not saying Bosh and Pau were better players. :lol

Dirk made everyone and their team ordinary last playoffs. That's something Garnett never did. :confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

Dirk = short white guy

[veilside23]

It's says Garnett was passive at scoring wise. Not saying Bosh and Pau were better players. :lol

Dirk made everyone and their team ordinary last playoffs. That's something Garnett never did. :confusedshrug:


dirk made it ? its all dirk ?? IF its all dirk they should still be at the top.

To say that kg never dominated in the playoffs is a joke ... seriously...

i dont even want to discuss it...

Pau gasol >> dirk for sure..

[bigt]

I think when it comes down to it, Garnett is the better overall basketball player, but if you had to pick one of them for a team, a lot would depend on what kind of team you had.

Dirk is a highly specialised player, and for him to really succeed, you cannot pair him with just anyone. Garnett would be much easier to build around. He does everything, and whenever you have a defensive anchor and somebody who can also be a playmaker, picking players to go with him becomes easy.

I love both guys' games, and although I personally prefer Dirk, I consider Garnett the better player. But I'd be more than happy to have either on my side that's for sure. What Dirk did in the playoffs last year is something you'll get out of very few people.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Being more all around doesn't automatically make you better, but I do think KG was better. Dirk's scoring is a clear advantage, and he is a more complete and effective all around player(particularly '07-'11) than given credit for as he cut down on 3s, improved his mid-range game, improved his defense to the point where he became average ect.

But Garnett was just a remarkable talent. He was getting 13-14 rpg while stepping out and guarding screen/rolls, being able to handle switches, contesting shots and being as active defensively as anyone, not just camping out in the paint and waiting, especially since he was on the perimeter offensively a lot as well. He did 2 other things that were exceptionally rare for a 7 footer. One is that he used to actually get assigned to perimeter players, I've seen him lock down T-Mac who was a guard. Marcus Camby used to guard players like that at times when he was a Knick, but the list is short.

The other is that he used to sometimes run screen/rolls as the ball handler. That's how he could set up his teammates in every way imaginable. He'd throw good entry passes, find guys going back door when he was in the high post, and make gorgeous over the shoulder passes to cutters from the low post as well as give and goes.

I did at times question him as far as carrying a team with scoring, not due to skill set, but mentality. But I like what people have said in defense of Garnett, that it sounds crazy to criticize a guy for playing team basketball. I understand it's not that simple, but unselfishness deserves praise. It's actually one of the things that hurt his '08 MVP chances(despite finishing 3rd).

But even as a scorer, the '03 and '04 versions of KG looked fully capable of carrying the load as a scorer to me. He was more aggressive and more capable than ever. '04 was his peak and he was clearly the best player in the league that season, imo, but he was just as good in '03, just with a worse cast.

Skills have always been amazing. Unusual athleticism for his size, ball handling skills, great passer, great shooter out to 20 feet(a lot of talk about him developing a 3 point shot in '02 even), good go to move with the turnaround ect. He probably could have drove a little more when he faced up, but minor complaint.

KG had more talent around him when he did win a title, but Dirk had more opportunities to win throughout his prime(one was taken away when he was injured in '03), and regularly had much more talented teams than KG before Boston.

Some thought Dallas was the most talented team in '02 and '03 when they had Nash, Finley, Dirk and Van Exel(though I think Sacramento was). They also had essentially 5 all-star caliber players in '04 with Dirk, Nash, Finley, Jamison and Antoine Walker, though the team was horrible defensively and lacked a center.

The '05 team also looked very good when they finished 16-2 under Avery Johnson, he emphasized defense more, and they had a lot of offensive firepower on the perimeter.

Oddly, the 2 teams he's reached the finals with were among the least talented he's played on. For example, I didn't even think of Dallas winning a title when Butler went down. I thought they'd beat Portland, and lose to LA. I did think they'd beat OKC after they beat LA, but thought they'd lose to Miami.

I actually think Dirk has been the more impressive playoff performer in general than Garnett, but there's no denying that Dirk was a lot more fortunate in his prime years than KG was.

KG faced a more talented team every single season he was in the playoffs with Minnesota. Aside from Cassell, the only year he had a top 25 player during his prime was '00 when he had Terrell Brandon, but little outside of them with rookie Wally Szczerbiak, Malik Sealy and Rasho, and he had to face an incredibly stacked Blazer team. And I don't think your 2nd best teammate defines how much "help" you have, but it's not like he had the most well rounded casts either.


FMVP. (Garnett has none)

He was still the best player and most valuable for the entire playoff run. He led them in scoring and rebounding averaging over 20/10/3, anchored their defense and also led them in 4th quarter scoring, iirc.


Won championship as franchise player. (Garnett was part of big three)

true, they didn't build around him exclusively, but the team's greatest strength and identity can be attributed most to Garnett.

I mean the '83 Sixers didn't build around Moses either, they were already a finals team and signed Moses as a free agent as the final piece, but he still gets the most credit, and rightfully so as the best player in the NBA that year and for his dominant playoff run.



The first team he ever played on that was a legit title contender he won a title with and walked away with the DPOY award.

Yeah, and that says a lot considering he was already 32. He would've had a chance in '04 if not for Cassell's injury. That team was built around a big 3 as well with some having Cassell as the best PG(I had him second behind Kidd who was in the last year of his prime), and Sprewell who was a legitimate scorer and very good defender, still a borderline all-star. And that team still had clear flaws. Their centers were Michael Olowokandi, Ervin Johnson and Oliver Miller. Wally Szczerbiak and Troy Hudson were the 2nd and 3rd scorers from '03, and both played less than 30 games in '04. Plus, Trenton Hassell was a starter, and while he was a good defender, he was a player who was not an offensive threat giving them 2 non-factors offensively in their starting lineup. Mark Madsen was a rotation player on that team. :oldlol:

And all he did that year was come the second closest ever to a unanimous MVP(behind only '00 Shaq), get the best record in the West and get to game 6 of the WCF. What's even more remarkable about this is that this was a Laker team with a very effective Karl Malone, not the team that got smacked around by Detroit. Plus Cassell essentially played just 2 games in the series since he missed 2 entirely and played just 1 and 5 minutes in 2 of the ones he did suit up for. And in game 6, Minnesota had a lead entering the 4th before Kareem Rush hit three of his six 3s in the quarter.

Prior to Cassell's injury, he had two 40 point playoff games that season and was averaging 21 ppg on 47% shooting and 48% on 3s while making 20 threes in 9 games.


The Celtics probably would have won in '09, too, if KG was healthy and they were a game away (possibly a Perkins injured away) from winning in '10 as well.

Good point, the '09 Celtics before KG's injury were the only one that were on par with the '08 team. They were 44-11 and outscoring opponents by 9.3 ppg prior to KG's injury. They also finished first in 3P% at almost 40%, and aside from '08, they were the only big 3 Celtic team that didn't get outrebounded by opponents. Despite KG missing 25 games, the Celtics outrebounded opponents by a dominant 4.5 rpg in '09, even better than '08 when they were +3.1 on the boards.

They were still the best defensive team, but also easily the best offensive team out of these big 3 Celtics teams. KG had stepped back as the clear 2nd option with Pierce establishing himself as the 1st option that year which was a difference. But Ray Allen was also much better in '09, he had some slumps in '08 and had the most trouble fitting in, but he had a fantastic year in '09. Rondo, Perkins and Big Baby also improved a ton. Rondo damn near averaged a triple double in the playoffs, Perkins also matched Dwight, and Big Baby proved to be a legit scorer.

Combine the extra talent with the experience of winning a title, and you could argue they'd have been better than the '08 team since the experience probably would've helped them avoid inferior opponents extending series, like the Hawks and Cavs did in '08.

If KG was even as good as he was in '11 or this year in '10, Boston could've won in '10. Actually, they were good enough as it is, but especially with Perkins healthy or a less limited Garnett.

Not that "what ifs" should count as accomplishments, but I believe looking back that if KG hadn't gotten injured in '09 that the Celtics would have at least repeated and probably 3peated. I also believe the Wolves probably would've won in '04 with a healthy Cassell.


Put KG in the 2000s decade Mavs and he would have a serious argument over Duncan by now, having won multiple championships...

An interesting thought, especially the big 3 Mavs with Nelson with all of that offensive talent surrounding KG. Of course, he wouldn't automatically make them a good defensive team. Those teams simply didn't have defensive-minded players or a defensive-minded coach, they'd msot likely be better defensively with KG, but as we saw when KG played under Flip Saunders who was an offensive coach, his teams were often mediocre defensively despite KG's excellent defense.

KG on the Avery Johnson Mavs teams would've been interesting because Avery slowed down the team and emphasized defense more, plus they had more size and bulk with Dampier/Diop. Having KG could've more fully realized Avery's vision. But with that being said '06 and '07 were actually the only 2 years prior to KG's injury that I thought Dirk was better than KG.

Even so, the '07 team in particular could've been very good with KG. They were a greatly improved defensive team as it was, and they had scorers with Josh Howard emerging as an all-star, Jason Terry, Stackhouse as one of the more explosive bench scorers and Devin Harris becoming a threat.

Some of those teams were suited more to Dirk's strengths, though, as is usually the case when you build around your franchise player,

I still wouldn't have KG as high as Duncan, though. I just consider Duncan the better player.

[DMAVS41]

this all can be applied to KG as well and KG can run fastbreaks by himself, set up his teammates better as a point forward, and score in the post when asked.

KG > dirk all time when speaking of ability, talent, impact, performance. Dirk is getting more support now because of that spetacular playoff run but that's still just one season.

I'm not even a garnett fan

No. Not even close to the level that Dirk does it. Which is why these simplistic breakdowns are garbage.

[DMAVS41]

Awesome, won 67 games and lost in the first round. :facepalm What an accomplishment.

The point is he needs a SPECIFIC TYPE OF PLAYER to succeed. How is this hard to understand? Dirk has been surrounded by plenty of talent throughout his career. From Nash, prime Finley, Josh Howard, Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion, Stackhouse... he's always had solid players around him. But he wasn't able to win until he was paired with a defensive minded center.

LOL @ thinking KG exclusively needed a player like Pierce. You always complain about how stars need legitimate second options: when did KG even have anyone nearly as good/clutch as Jason Terry? Hell, even prime Finley was better than anything KG played with. Mo f*cking Williams would probably have been KG's best second option for the majority of his career.

We don't have the luxury of knowing how KG would have done being surrounded by talented players like Dirk has been over his entire career. Instead, all we know is that he won a title in his first year where he had a viable supporting cast, and likely would have won another if it weren't for injury.

lol @ bringing Kobe into this btw. Kobe proved he can win as the man and as a second fiddle to a superior player. What more do you want from him?


Yes. Dirk needs a decent center next to him to win it I guess. Although he didn't have much at center in 06 when he made the finals or 03 (essentially no center) when he made the WCF before going down.

KG needs something specific as well. A solid wing player (definitely better than Terry by the way) to create and score and help close out games. Paul Pierce is a first ballot hall of famer. LOL at you acting like needing a Chandler type player is worse than needing Paul Pierce and a better cast than Dirk has ever had by the way. Remember game 7 against Lebron in 08. When Pierce dropped 41 to save the Celtics? That is what KG needs. And don't for a second try to say that Chandler is near Pierce. Pierce is just a far better and more valuable player.

I brought up Kobe for the simple reason that acting like Dirk needs a good center next to him is no different than Kobe needing far better bigs next to him to win. Kobe factually has needed Shaq and Gasol to win. He wasn't won without either of them. He hasn't even won a playoff series without either of them. So this whole Chandler thing is absurd. Makes no sense. Its not a weakness to need a Chandler type player.

Why should Dirk be expected to win with so much less than all these other players? Makes no sense.

Oh...and you knocking Dirk for 07 is fine. I just ask that you use some context on that regular season and actually evaluate the roster and not just spew out 67 wins. You really think that was the 7th best or whatever team in NBA history? Like the 09 Cavs...that team grossly over achieved in the regular season and it bit them in the ass in the playoffs when they just didn't have a ton of good players, Dirk was awful, and the coach lost his mind.

But this whole Chandler thing needs to stop. The dude averaged like 8 points and 9 boards in the playoffs last year. How on earth you can put him on such a high level and knock Dirk for needing an 8/9 center is beyond me.

[DMAVS41]

And to address some other points here.

Nobody with a brain thought the 02 Mavs were the best team. That is non sense. The Kings and Lakers were much better.

In 03 you could say they were arguably the most talented, but I still wouldn't say best. Although I could have definitely seen them winning it all if Dirk doesn't get hurt in game 3. They won game 1 in SA with Dirk dropping like 40 and 15 iirc.

04? See. This is where if you didn't follow the team you just wouldn't know. On paper they look great. Although I will continue to say that run and gun does not win. But Finley had declined quite a bit and Nash was battling a back and issue and other nagging issues all year...especically towards the end of the year. It was a team that was all offense and no defense....and still lacked that consistent 2nd guy. Nowhere near a title caliber team. In the playoffs, as usual, Dirk was a beast and everyone else was pretty bad...other than Daniels iirc.

The 05 did have some promise. Still lacked that 2nd guy though and everything was new...from Terry to Avery to Stackhouse. But you saw the potential there.....and then 06 happened.

Again. Just by going off playoff seeding, the Mavs have overachieved in the playoffs more than they have underachieved under Dirk. The only 2 years they last before they were supposed to was in 07 and 10. And 2010 could not have been more of a coin flip series against the Spurs.

Once again its generally BS perceptions that people have and they just can't let them go.

You generally don't win a title without a consistent 2nd option the likes of a Gasol or Pierce. Trying to win without that and without having a decent center while playing run and gun, despite how "talented" a roster is, is extremely difficult.

True Mavs fans know that the 3 years this team had a chance to win were 03, 06, and 11. And I say 06 only because of the results. Beating the Spurs without homecourt in the 2nd round in the midst of their best run (only 1 playoff loss in 3 years...to the Mavs mind you...only team to beat them between 05 and 07) was unlikely to say the least. And what are the results in those years? WCF and Dirk gets hurt, trip to the finals, and title. I'm ok with those results considering the Mavs never had the best team in the league at any point.

[Carbine]

Chandlers 8/9 makes it sound like he wasn't all that important. Like it could be replaced by any number of guys in the league - when in reality his presence alone on defense, which numbers don't account for like his rotations, communication and overall defensive mind-frame which rubbed off on the team.

His impact wasn't that of a typical 8/9 player.

[DMAVS41]

Chandlers 8/9 makes it sound like he wasn't all that important. Like it could be replaced by any number of guys in the league - when in reality his presence alone on defense, which numbers don't account for like his rotations, communication and overall defensive mind-frame which rubbed off on the team.

His impact wasn't that of a typical 8/9 player.

And I never said that. I said it becomes a joke when people say Dirk needed Chandler to win as if it is a negative. And then turn around and ignore that KG needed Paul Pierce...a player who happens to just be significantly better than Chandler.

It's just hilarious.

[veilside23]

And I never said that. I said it becomes a joke when people say Dirk needed Chandler to win as if it is a negative. And then turn around and ignore that KG needed Paul Pierce...a player who happens to just be significantly better than Chandler.

It's just hilarious.

did any body say that chandler is better than pierce??? well lets see i will rest my argument if dirk still wins it this year... PROVE TO ME that he doesnt need a decent center that is top 5 right now .. like what ive said he would be the 2nd best PF in my eyes if he wins it this year...

Kg on the other hand after winning it in 08 came close to actually win it 3 straight times if only he didnt get injured the following year and if perk didnt get injured during game 7.

[DMAVS41]

did any body say that chandler is better than pierce??? well lets see i will rest my argument if dirk still wins it this year... PROVE TO ME that he doesnt need a decent center that is top 5 right now .. like what ive said he would be the 2nd best PF in my eyes if he wins it this year...

Dirk didn't have that in 06 when he made the finals and was literally 5 minutes or not getting screwed by the refs in game 5 from winning the title. He didn't have anywhere close to a top 5 center.

And he didn't have a great 2nd guy either.

So basically you want Dirk to win a title without a good center and without a good 2nd guy. Who has ever done that again? Oh yea...Duncan and Hakeem. You won't find anyone else doing shit like that.

Which is exactly my point. Why does Dirk have to win with so much less than these other players?

And clearly plenty of people think Chandler and Pierce are on the same level...because Dirk needing Chandler has somehow become a negative for Dirk. Like...Dirk won it, but he had Chandler. Which is so ****ing absurd its comical.

Prove to me that KG doesn't need two first ballot hall of famers on his team to win. If KG wins without that I'll rest my argument. LOL...Sigh....

[Kblaze8855]

Topics like this are why I cant tell what you think about Chandler. Hes either a climate changing super important tone setting beast whos loss made a massive impact or...




But this whole Chandler thing needs to stop. The dude averaged like 8 points and 9 boards in the playoffs last year. How on earth you can put him on such a high level and knock Dirk for needing an 8/9 center is beyond me.



I suspect if I said "Chandler put up like 8/9...its not that big a deal" this turns into a whole...thing. Not that ive ever said anything to that effect.....

[RaininTwos]

dmavs changes his views on people to help dirk in each argument. i dont see why people take him seriously.

[DMAVS41]

Topics like this are why I cant tell what you think about Chandler. Hes either a climate changing super important tone setting beast whos loss made a massive impact or...





I suspect if I said "Chandler put up like 8/9...its not that big a deal" this turns into a whole...thing. Not that ive ever said anything to that effect.....

Chandler is what he is. He was the 2nd best player on the Mavs last year. He's a really good, but not great player.

I don't know why you are confused. He's basically Noah. Really good, but you wouldn't put him in the class of a guy like Paul Pierce.

And you certainly wouldn't say something like this if the Bulls win this year:

Well, Rose did win, but he needed Noah to win. Its just a laughably absurd statement when, as a 2nd best player on a title winning team, a guy like Chandler is just far below average.

And so when I see claims like the above in a KG vs Dirk debate...ignoring that KG had Pierce, a far better player, it just doesn't work.

I have made my thoughts about Chandler very clear. Very solid center that can finish around the rim, set good screens, and play quality defense. He's basically Noah to me. I don't want to get into a huge Chandler debate, but I'd probably rank Noah ahead of him...but its either or to me.

So I hope that clears up how I view Chandler.

[DMAVS41]

dmavs changes his views on people to help dirk in each argument. i dont see why people take him seriously.

Yes. I'm sorry. Tyson Chandler is better than Paul Pierce and its a joke that Dirk needed a player so great like Chandler to win the title.

Dirk needing Chandler to win takes the shine off the title.

LOL @ anyone thinking the above should be said....but it clearly is what most of you morons are getting at. And its just historically idiotic if you have watched the NBA for more than a couple years.

[veilside23]

Prove to me that KG doesn't need two first ballot hall of famers on his team to win. If KG wins without that I'll rest my argument. LOL...Sigh....


were pierce and allen still that great? if they were they would be counting Cships like crazy... and am pretty sure that dirk did not carry that team ALONE!.. he needed every freaking support he can get.


Admit it scoring is the only edge of dirk over kg but not by a mile .. however talk about other things am not sure if dirk can do this.

20k points
10k rebounds
5k assist
1.5 blocks
1.5k steals

basketball is a team game 1 on 1 dirk may win over kg 4 times out of 10 .

[DMAVS41]

where pierce and allen still that great? if they were they would be counting Cships like crazy... and am pretty sure that dirk did not carry that team ALONE!.. he needed every freaking support he can get.


Admit it scoring is the only edge of dirk over kg but not by a mile .. however talk about other things am not sure if dirk can do this.

20k points
10k rebounds
5k assist
1.5 blocks
1.5k steals

basketball is a team game 1 on 1 dirk may win over kg 4 times out of 10 .


I have made my arguments why Dirk's offense is so much more valuable than KG's.

And again. I still rank KG over Dirk all time. I just will oppose anyone claiming they are on different tiers.

I'm more curious to understand why having Chandler is being used against Dirk, but KG having a much better player in Pierce.....and having Ray Allen as well isn't brought up by anyone other than me.

Oh...and the Mavs had a much tougher road to the title. Much tougher. LOL@ Hawks, Cavs, Pistons, Lakers vs Blazers, Lakers, Thunder, Heat
Mavs went 16-5 and Celtics went 16-10 as well.

[veilside23]

I have made my arguments why Dirk's offense is so much more valuable than KG's.

And again. I still rank KG over Dirk all time. I just will oppose anyone claiming they are on different tiers.

I'm more curious to understand why having Chandler is being used against Dirk, but KG having a much better player in Pierce.....and having Ray Allen as well isn't brought up by anyone other than me.

Oh...and the Mavs had a much tougher road to the title. Much tougher. LOL@ Hawks, Cavs, Pistons, Lakers vs Blazers, Lakers, Thunder, Heat
Mavs went 16-5 and Celtics went 16-10 as well.


cant blame people because with chandler they play better overall..

[DMAVS41]

cant blame people because with chandler they play better overall..

Of course they do. You can't just lose a player like Chandler, replace him with nothing, and not expect a drop off.

Maybe you are confused. Do you honestly think the Celtics could lose Paul Pierce for the playoffs and be just as good?

The argument makes no sense and neither does your post.

Once again Dirk is held to a higher standard than just about any player in history. You said it yourself. You want Dirk to win without a good center and without a legit 2nd guy to prove his greatness. Why should Dirk have to do something that KG never did. Jordan never did. Shaq never did. Kobe never did. Magic and Bird never did.

Why does Dirk have to do that? My god. A big three of Dirk, Terry, and Chandler is one of the worst big threes to ever win the title in NBA history.

Wake the **** up....

[veilside23]

well i am on this thread to prove that kg is better than dirk and i think ive done it.

Worst big three ever ? They were just a complete team... Its funny people would often have the idea that in order to win a chips you have to have a big three... :D

[DMAVS41]

well i am on this thread to prove that kg is better than dirk and i think ive done it.

Worst big three ever ? They were just a complete team... Its funny people would often have the idea that in order to win a chips you have to have a big three... :D

Almost every title won is about having at least two elite players.

You haven't proven anything. All you have done is make crazy arguments about over-rating the shit out of Chandler and ignoring all the things that make Dirk great.

You've accomplished that.....well done.

[Owl]

I have made my arguments why Dirk's offense is so much more valuable than KG's.

And again. I still rank KG over Dirk all time. I just will oppose anyone claiming they are on different tiers.

I'm more curious to understand why having Chandler is being used against Dirk, but KG having a much better player in Pierce.....and having Ray Allen as well isn't brought up by anyone other than me.

Oh...and the Mavs had a much tougher road to the title. Much tougher. LOL@ Hawks, Cavs, Pistons, Lakers vs Blazers, Lakers, Thunder, Heat
Mavs went 16-5 and Celtics went 16-10 as well.
Had me until bolded. The bolded seems to imply that the Mavs were better than the Celtics and that just isn't true. Those Celtics are underrated because they only won one title and people got so excited about Kobe (who had been making trade demands) getting not only an emerging Bynum but also Gasol for apparently nothing that that became the story and the Lakers became the media favourites. That Celtic team has 7th greatest margin of victory (10.26) and SRS (9.31) of all time. Citing playoff records whilst ignoring that the Celtic team was one of the great champions whilst Dallas was essentially coming somewhat out of the left field (4.26 margin of victory, 4.41 SRS 202nd best SRS season of all time, 8th best that year). No disrespect because they go the chip and that's all they'll care about. But don't pick and choose stats and make like Dallas were better than Boston, because they weren't in Boston's league.

[SCdac]

Chandlers 8/9 makes it sound like he wasn't all that important. Like it could be replaced by any number of guys in the league - when in reality his presence alone on defense, which numbers don't account for like his rotations, communication and overall defensive mind-frame which rubbed off on the team.

His impact wasn't that of a typical 8/9 player.

I agree, claiming Chandler as just an "8/9" kind of player is understating him. He might have been "really good, but not great" as an overall player (as some say in this thread), but let's not kid ourselves, Chandler was a great, elite defensive player. He finished the year #3 in Defensive Player of the Year voting.

Even Dirk acknowledged how much Chandler had an impact... (and obviously it's not all translated to raw statistics).




"Tyson, to me, turned everything around this summer when we signed him," Dirk Nowitzki said Tuesday. "I think he came off a two-year injury and we didn't really know what to expect. But looking back now, that was almost the key signing. His positive energy, his defense I think is really what turned this whole thing around and what really won us the playoffs. Every big game down the stretch we did it with defense."
http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/06/dirk-nowitzki-adding-tyson-chandler-last.html

Those are some highly complimenting comments... Seriously... And I don't think it's just Dirk being modest. He had the exact same comments (ie. "changing the team for the better") before the playoffs even started, but I can't find the links.

[Smoke117]

**** this thread. We've seen this thread about a million times.

[DMAVS41]

Had me until bolded. The bolded seems to imply that the Mavs were better than the Celtics and that just isn't true. Those Celtics are underrated because they only won one title and people got so excited about Kobe (who had been making trade demands) getting not only an emerging Bynum but also Gasol for apparently nothing that that became the story and the Lakers became the media favourites. That Celtic team has 7th greatest margin of victory (10.26) and SRS (9.31) of all time. Citing playoff records whilst ignoring that the Celtic team was one of the great champions whilst Dallas was essentially coming somewhat out of the left field (4.26 margin of victory, 4.41 SRS 202nd best SRS season of all time, 8th best that year). No disrespect because they go the chip and that's all they'll care about. But don't pick and choose stats and make like Dallas were better than Boston, because they weren't in Boston's league.

Did I ever say the Mavs were better? Nope. But they played tougher teams in the playoffs. Just a fact really.

[DMAVS41]

I agree, claiming Chandler as just an "8/9" kind of player is understating him. He might have been "really good, but not great" as an overall player (as some say in this thread), but let's not kid ourselves, Chandler was a great, elite defensive player. He finished the year #3 in Defensive Player of the Year voting.

Even Dirk acknowledged how much Chandler had an impact... (and obviously it's not all translated to raw statistics).


http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/06/dirk-nowitzki-adding-tyson-chandler-last.html

Those are some highly complimenting comments... Seriously... And I don't think it's just Dirk being modest. He had the exact same comments (ie. "changing the team for the better") before the playoffs even started, but I can't find the links.

But who is disputing that Chandler was a key part of the Mavs. Hell, I've said repeatedly we was the 2nd most valuable player on our roster last year.

There is a difference between a really good player like Chandler and Paul Pierce though.

The insanity of claiming that Dirk's title means less because he won with Chandler...while ignoring that KG won with Paul Pierce...and Ray Allen mind you is just astonishing.

That is exactly how Chandler gets over-rated. My god...hearing most people talk about him on here you'd think he was better than Pau Gasol in 2010 or something. Is their hatred for Dirk really so high that somehow winning with Chandler devalues Dirk's ring.

Again. These people are arguing for KG...it literally makes no sense. Not only did KG need more help to win, but he had an easier road to the title.

Its so funny as well. I totally called this last year after Dirk won. I said all the people that hated on him his entire career would find a way to make it all about the team and not Dirk. That they would over-rate the shit out of his help and downplay the teams he beat.

And its a joke. 28/8/3 61% TS and by far the best clutch playoff run a player has had since MJ...by far. Nobody came even close to Dirk's 59%efg and 76%TS in crunch time in the playoffs. Nobody.

And he did that without an elite 2nd option almost always necessary to win titles in the NBA as a superstar.

Its beyond a joke to downplay his title last year because he had Chandler.

[Owl]

Did I ever say the Mavs were better? Nope. But they played tougher teams in the playoffs. Just a fact really.
Well I didn't see the relevence to the central argument Garnett versus Nowitzki.
So I assumed the implication of going through a tougher playoff run with less losses was that the Mavs were better. And whatever the point was you were comparing the two teams. And doing so based just on the playoff runs was giving a very partial impression of how those two teams matched up. I thought it best to rectify that.

[DMAVS41]

Well I didn't see the relevence to the central argument Garnett versus Nowitzki.
So I assumed the implication of going through a tougher playoff run with less losses was that the Mavs were better. And whatever the point was you were comparing the two teams. And doing so based just on the playoff runs was giving a very partial impression of how those two teams matched up. I thought it best to rectify that.

Its not central, but this thread got derailed a bit by pro KG supporters claiming that Dirk needing Chandler takes the shine off his title.

Which is of course an absurdity because KG needed a far better player to win.

So its a moot point. Its not like I ever brought up KG needing Pierce once before Chandler was brought up.

Why? Because its stupid and doesn't have any relevance. But the KG supporters were getting trounced so hard that they had to grasp at straws to even post something. And they grasped at the wrong straw because it was one of the dumber notions I've read on here in a while.

LOL:

Dirk needed Chandler to win....ROFL....so what?

[SCdac]

But who is disputing that Chandler was a key part of the Mavs. Hell, I've said repeatedly we was the 2nd most valuable player on our roster last year.

There is a difference between a really good player like Chandler and Paul Pierce though.

The insanity of claiming that Dirk's title means less because he won with Chandler...while ignoring that KG won with Paul Pierce...and Ray Allen mind you is just astonishing.

That is exactly how Chandler gets over-rated. My god...hearing most people talk about him on here you'd think he was better than Pau Gasol in 2010 or something. Is their hatred for Dirk really so high that somehow winning with Chandler devalues Dirk's ring.

Again. These people are arguing for KG...it literally makes no sense. Not only did KG need more help to win, but he had an easier road to the title.

Its so funny as well. I totally called this last year after Dirk won. I said all the people that hated on him his entire career would find a way to make it all about the team and not Dirk. That they would over-rate the shit out of his help and downplay the teams he beat.

And its a joke. 28/8/3 61% TS and by far the best clutch playoff run a player has had since MJ...by far. Nobody came even close to Dirk's 59%efg and 76%TS in crunch time in the playoffs. Nobody.

And he did that without an elite 2nd option almost always necessary to win titles in the NBA as a superstar.

Its beyond a joke to downplay his title last year because he had Chandler.

I'm not downplaying anything, keep your arguments with other people with other people... I was only saying that everybody, from his own teammates to the media, knows Chandlers impact on last seasons team. It's not something ISH just conjured up. In the playoffs defense is all important, hell in general it's important. Just as easy as it is to overrate somebody... it is to underrate them too. Chandler was by far their best defensive player (Marion coming next), whereas KG was a leader for the Celtics and Timberwolves in almost every aspect. The difference between Pierce's scoring and KG's was very small (KG lead scoring in the playoffs), and KG's overall impact is the reason I'd personally take him over Dirk.

Here's another quote from Dirk well before they won the championship:


"I don't think Ray [Allen] or Paul Pierce were great defenders before K.G. got there," Nowitzki said. "But, K.G., with his energy, his defense, his mentality and his high-octane self, he kind of changed the whole momentum on the defense. I think that's what Tyson did here."
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba/news/story?id=5939497

Coincidentally, he's also raving about Garnett's impact.

[bdreason]

It's called defense. KG is an all-time great. Dirk is average at best.

[magnax1]

Tyson Chandler did not change the defensive culture in Dallas. The team the year before with Haywood starting was basically just as good on D as the championship team. The trade for Butler and Haywood was what really changed the teams outlook.
Secondly, Dirk just did not make the impact that KG did in their respective primes. The only portion of the game where Dirk holds an edge is scoring, and KG was still a 24ish ppg scorer in his prime.

[DMAVS41]

I'm not downplaying anything, keep your arguments with other people with other people... I was only saying that everybody, from his own teammates to the media, knows Chandlers impact on last seasons team. It's not something ISH just conjured up. In the playoffs defense is all important, hell in general it's important. Just as easy as it is to overrate somebody... it is to underrate them too. Chandler was by far their best defensive player (Marion coming next), whereas KG was a leader for the Celtics and Timberwolves in almost every aspect. The difference between Pierce's scoring and KG's was very small (KG lead scoring in the playoffs), and KG's overall impact is the reason I'd personally take him over Dirk.

Here's another quote from Dirk well before they won the championship:


http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba/news/story?id=5939497

Coincidentally, he's also raving about Garnett's impact.

Again...who is disputing Chandler's importance.

He was the 2nd most valuable member of the team last year. What more do you want me or anyone to say?

[DMAVS41]

Tyson Chandler did not change the defensive culture in Dallas. The team the year before with Haywood starting was basically just as good on D as the championship team. The trade for Butler and Haywood was what really changed the teams outlook.
Secondly, Dirk just did not make the impact that KG did in their respective primes. The only portion of the game where Dirk holds an edge is scoring, and KG was still a 24ish ppg scorer in his prime.

Its more than just ppg, but why would you use regular season numbers? Especially when Dirk really has elevated his game when it matters most.

[Shepseskaf]

Its more than just ppg, but why would you use regular season numbers? Especially when Dirk really has elevated his game when it matters most.
Didn't you just get into a 40-page battle about Dirk's legacy about a month ago?

Seriously, if Dirk visits ISH he would by embarrassed by you -- as you should of yourself.

We all get that he's your hero, but he does have very big flaws. Just acknowledge those, and move on.

[magnax1]

Its more than just ppg, but why would you use regular season numbers? Especially when Dirk really has elevated his game when it matters most.
I'm not. 00-04 playoffs KG averaged 24 ppg (24-14-5 total) over 35 games. 08-11 playoffs Dirk averaged 27 ppg (27-9-3 total) over 42 games.
And I never said it was about ppg. Dirk attracts more attention from his scoring, but it doesn't matter because KG had a far superior impact in terms of creating shots for others.

[DMAVS41]

I'm not. 00-04 playoffs KG averaged 24 ppg (24-14-5 total) over 35 games. 08-11 playoffs Dirk averaged 27 ppg (27-9-3 total) over 42 games.
And I never said it was about ppg. Dirk attracts more attention from his scoring, but it doesn't matter because KG had a far superior impact in terms of creating shots for others.

I could not disagree more with that statement about a far superior impact in terms of creating shots.

Once again the versatility of Dirk offensively and his uniqueness goes unappreciated.

Agree to disagree.

[SCdac]

Tyson Chandler did not change the defensive culture in Dallas. The team the year before with Haywood starting was basically just as good on D as the championship team. The trade for Butler and Haywood was what really changed the teams outlook.
Secondly, Dirk just did not make the impact that KG did in their respective primes. The only portion of the game where Dirk holds an edge is scoring, and KG was still a 24ish ppg scorer in his prime.

As for the bold, why would Dirk on numerous accounts say otherwise?

Caron Butler and Haywood were on the team that got booted in the 2010 first round, and furthermore, Butler wasn't really a part of the 2011 championship run and Haywood was a 15 MPG bench player who barely played in the Finals...

Neither had Chandler's impact, that's pretty obvious if you ask me, and I've watched plenty of the Mavs during this time period.

[DMAVS41]

Didn't you just get into a 40-page battle about Dirk's legacy about a month ago?

Seriously, if Dirk visits ISH he would by embarrassed by you -- as you should of yourself.

We all get that he's your hero, but he does have very big flaws. Just acknowledge those, and move on.

Uhhhh. Did I ever say Dirk had no flaws? Of course he does. So does KG. Acknowledge those and move on please.

[magnax1]

I could not disagree more with that statement about a far superior impact in terms of creating shots.

Once again the versatility of Dirk offensively and his uniqueness goes unappreciated.

Agree to disagree.
There's no reason to agree to disagree when KG is one of the best passing bigs ever. You're so biased it's insane. Saying Dirk creates more is like saying Moses Malone creates more for others then Bill Walton.

[DMAVS41]

As for the bold, why would Dirk on numerous accounts say otherwise?

Caron Butler and Haywood were on the team that got booted in the 2010 first round, and furthermore, Butler wasn't really a part of the 2011 championship run and Haywood was a 15 MPG bench player who barely played in the Finals...

Neither had Chandler's impact, that's pretty obvious if you ask me, and I've watched plenty of the Mavs during this time period.

You do realize we just added Chandler last year. We didn't lost anything...we just got him.

Then this year...we just lost him and didn't replace him at all.

Like...does it really need to be explained that losing a quality defensive center like Chandler and not replacing him is going to make a team worse? Or that just adding him without losing anyone is going to make a team better?

We have been as good or better defensively this year without him. But not having him has hurt our team because we didn't replace him.

If we had signed Kaman? We'd be about as good, if not better, than we were last year.

It really isn't as hard as you are making it. And that is the point....people acting like the Mavs just never did anything of note before Chandler. He was the missing piece on a team in order to allow that team to win the title. He was the 2nd best player.

Nothing more. He's not an all nba player. He's not worth 15 million a year. He's probably not even a top 25 player in the league. He is what he is. A borderline 10/10 guy that plays great defense. He's Noah.

Would anyone really have the audacity to claim that Rose winning the title this year would mean less because he has Noah? :wtf:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

KG was, is, and always will be better. Dude was like a souped up Scottie Pippen in his prime.

[DMAVS41]

There's no reason to agree to disagree when KG is one of the best passing bigs ever. You're so biased it's insane. Saying Dirk creates more is like saying Moses Malone creates more for others then Bill Walton.

Again. Stop putting words in my post. Did I say Dirk creates more? No. I simply said I disagreed with you saying that KG "was far superior in creating shots"

I disagree with that. I think KG was a better playmaker, but in terms of his teammates getting good looks. I don't give him much of an edge, if at all, over Dirk.

Which once again goes back to people not understanding how Dirk impacts the game without the ball in his hands on offense. The driving lanes that open up. The weak side threes. His quality passing out of doubles. His all time great turnover rate for his usage...etc.

If you want to say slightly better or marginally better...I won't disagree much because its moot to me. But far superior? LOL...sorry.

And it is you that is biased if you think "far superior" is the right phrase to be used.

[magnax1]

As for the bold, why would Dirk on numerous accounts say otherwise?

Caron Butler and Haywood were on the team that got booted in the 2010 first round, and furthermore, Butler wasn't really a part of the 2011 championship run and Haywood was a 15 MPG bench player who barely played in the Finals...

Neither had Chandler's impact, that's pretty obvious if you ask me, and I've watched plenty of the Mavs during this time period.
What one person says is really irrelevant. The Mavs this year with Haywood starting have been just as good on D, and with Haywood starting in 2010 they were just as good on D. Those are true statistically.
The 2010 team got booted in the first round, but the difference between 2010 and 11 was never defense. Peja, Stevenson, Kidd, Barea, and Terry were all on fire from range in 11. That's what really won them a championship.

[SCdac]

Again...who is disputing Chandler's importance.

He was the 2nd most valuable member of the team last year. What more do you want me or anyone to say?

But why was the 5th leading scorer in the RS and and 6th leading scorer for the Mavs in the playoffs.... the second best player? ... What makes him different than when 30 year old Dampier was the 6th leading scorer for the Mavs? There's a defensive impact of Chandler's that is hard to quantify. "Not being as good as Paul Pierce" is really not argument to downgrade KG's run, because Garnett was probably the best offensive and defensive on that team...

DMAVS, I find it interesting you currently have Garnett as a better player than Dirk, yet you go far out of your way saying pretty much the opposite. Seems kind of disingenuous.

[DMAVS41]

What one person says is really irrelevant. The Mavs this year with Haywood starting have been just as good on D, and with Haywood starting in 2010 they were just as good on D. Those are true statistically.
The 2010 team got booted in the first round, but the difference between 2010 and 11 was never defense. Peja, Stevenson, Kidd, Barea, and Terry were all on fire from range in 11. That's what really won them a championship.

Now this is a good post. Although I do think Chandler's defense was a key as well.

But you are dead on about how on fire the Mavs were. And that is the real problem with the current team. We lost Chandler and got nobody because of Odom...and the offense has been atrocious. Terry, Kidd, Marion, and some of the new guys just simply haven't had it this year.

And Dirk, at least for the first month of the season, wasn't playing that great.

Again...if the Mavs had just 1 more player....like we did last year...we'd be roughly as good or better actually. Put Kaman on this current team and I think we would have gotten the 3 seed.

[DMAVS41]

But why was the 5th leading scorer in the RS and and 6th leading scorer for the Mavs in the playoffs.... the second best player? ... What makes him different than when 30 year old Dampier was the 6th leading scorer for the Mavs? There's a defensive impact of Chandler's that is hard to quantify. "Not being as good as Paul Pierce" is really not argument to downgrade KG's run, because Garnett was probably the best offensive and defensive on that team...

DMAVS, I find it interesting you currently have Garnett as a better player than Dirk, yet you go far out of your way saying pretty much the opposite. Seems kind of disingenuous.

Let me be clear:

1. I'm not downgrading KG's run. I simply said its not fair to downgrade Dirk's run for having Chandler and not mentioning that KG had a better player. How can you not agree with that?

2. Chandler is clearly better than Dampier and its not even worth debating...its obvious.

3. Its the people claiming that KG was/is clearly better that I debate with. They are on the same tier and rightfully so. In fact, you'll find many more all time ranking lists with Dirk ahead at this point. I actually still have KG ahead...I would have moved Dirk ahead this year, but KG found the fountain of youth and has probably been as good as Dirk this year...or only slightly worse.

4. What I find disingenuous is the people using Chandler as the reason the Mavs won. No...Dirk was the main reason. And while Chandler was important, so were a lot of other players. And I'm sorry, while Chandler was great for us and I really like him as a player...he's just no better than a guy like Noah. And I just find it comical that nobody would ever dream of downplaying Rose because of Noah.

[magnax1]

Which once again goes back to people not understanding how Dirk impacts the game without the ball in his hands on offense. The driving lanes that open up. The weak side threes. His quality passing out of doubles. His all time great turnover rate for his usage...etc.
All those things, except for the 3 pointers, KG does too. He's also one of the best passers at his position ever. Once again this is not close.


And it is you that is biased if you think "far superior" is the right phrase to be used.
No, I'm not biased, because I actually consistently back it up. You asked me to use prime playoff stats, and I did. Guess who's are far superior? You keep talking about people not getting impact instead of skill, the only impact where Dirk is clearly better is scoring. For KG? Passing, defense, and rebounding are on a whole different level.

[SCdac]

What one person says is really irrelevant. The Mavs this year with Haywood starting have been just as good on D, and with Haywood starting in 2010 they were just as good on D. Those are true statistically.
The 2010 team got booted in the first round, but the difference between 2010 and 11 was never defense. Peja, Stevenson, Kidd, Barea, and Terry were all on fire from range in 11. That's what really won them a championship.

What the best player on the team says, and the face of the Mavericks, is "really irrelevant"? did I just read that? :oldlol: ... Geez, talk about trying to downplay Tyson Chandler. The dude who finished in DPOY voting only behind Howard and Garnett last season. Don't be offended when I take Dirk Nowitzki's opinion of his own team over yours...

[DMAVS41]

All those things, except for the 3 pointers, KG does too. He's also one of the best passers at his position ever. Once again this is not close.


No, I'm not biased, because I actually consistently back it up. You asked me to use prime playoff stats, and I did. Guess who's are far superior? You keep talking about people not getting impact instead of skill, the only impact where Dirk is clearly better is scoring. For KG? Passing, defense, and rebounding are on a whole different level.

KG does not do those things. He does not demand the offensive attention Dirk does...not in the post...and certainly not at the 3 point line.

And being at the 3 point line is the big key.

You don't back up anything actually....especially when everything objective rates Dirk as, to use your words, a "FAR SUPERIOR" offensive force.

Oh...and we haven't touched on clutch play either.

[magnax1]

Now this is a good post. Although I do think Chandler's defense was a key as well.

But you are dead on about how on fire the Mavs were. And that is the real problem with the current team. We lost Chandler and got nobody because of Odom...and the offense has been atrocious. Terry, Kidd, Marion, and some of the new guys just simply haven't had it this year.

And Dirk, at least for the first month of the season, wasn't playing that great.

Again...if the Mavs had just 1 more player....like we did last year...we'd be roughly as good or better actually. Put Kaman on this current team and I think we would have gotten the 3 seed.
Another big difference is Kidd. He's been playing like Fisher on offense. I honestly thought he was the 2nd best player on the team last year, but he's not even doing a great job of creating shots for others this year. He's still playing good D, but he's just fallen off the map offensively. Hopefully he turns it on in the playoffs again.

[magnax1]

What the best player on the team says, and the face of the Mavericks, is "really irrelevant"? did I just read that? :oldlol: ... Geez, talk about trying to downplay Tyson Chandler. The dude who finished in DPOY voting only behind Howard and Garnett last season. Don't be offended when I take Dirk Nowitzki's opinion of his own team over yours...
I'm saying Dirk's opinion doesn't really mean shit when it is the opposite of what statistical facts say.

[magnax1]

KG does not do those things. He does not demand the offensive attention Dirk does...not in the post...and certainly not at the 3 point line.
He demanded a similar although not as large amount of attention in terms of scoring in his best couple of years. He was much better at actually using that attention to create for others, because he was a much better passer.
And he does do those things. He spaces the floor to basically 20 feet out, which is really something only a few bigs do.



You don't back up anything actually....especially when everything objective rates Dirk as, to use your words, a "FAR SUPERIOR" offensive force.
I didn't say he was a far superior offensive force. That's the only thing I will give Dirk, he was a better scorer, and similar overall in offensive impact, but they're very similar on that side. Rebounding and defensive impact are not very similar. KG is one of the greatest rebounder and defenders ever. Dirk was a good rebounder, and a poor defender. You can act like rebounding and defense don't have very similar impact in comparison to offense, but they do, and when there is as large of a gap as there is here, it's hard not to give KG a clear advantage.

[SCdac]

I'm saying Dirk's opinion doesn't really mean shit when it is the opposite of what statistical facts say.

What, are you watching the game through a box score or something? :oldlol:

Watching the team, it was obvious Chandler made them a much better defensive team.

But what Dirk says "doesn't really mean shit"... I got it :rolleyes:

Not even worth arguing about.

[Carbine]

I'm saying Dirk's opinion doesn't really mean shit when it is the opposite of what statistical facts say.

TYou're basically saying everything is quantifiable by stats.

:facepalm

[DMAVS41]

He demanded a similar although not as large amount of attention in terms of scoring in his best couple of years. He was much better at actually using that attention to create for others, because he was a much better passer.
And he does do those things. He spaces the floor to basically 20 feet out, which is really something only a few bigs do.



I didn't say he was a far superior offensive force. That's the only thing I will give Dirk, he was a better scorer, and similar overall in offensive impact, but they're very similar on that side. Rebounding and defensive impact are not very similar. KG is one of the greatest rebounder and defenders ever. Dirk was a good rebounder, and a poor defender. You can act like rebounding and defense don't have very similar impact in comparison to offense, but they do, and when there is as large of a gap as there is here, it's hard not to give KG a clear advantage.

But that is my point. We actually agree more than you think.

My big thing is this. You can't break players down offense vs offense and defense vs defense.

And here is why.

KG would be about an 8 on offense and 10 on defense.

Dirk would be a 10 on offense and a 4 or 5 on defense.

And 18 vs 14/15 is just not illustrative of how close they are in terms of overall impact.

What you say about defense and play making and KG's ability (at times) to score are all parts of the reason I rank him ahead of Dirk right now. And, as I said before, I think KG's peak was a little better.

Having said that though, there are certain aspects of Dirk's game that get lost in discussions like this. Yes there is the more versatile scoring and higher ppg....but its more than that. It's being able to have an offense run through Dirk night in night out in the playoffs. Its being able to provide more versatility by going to the 3 point line (yes..that matters), its being able to make big free throws and big shots at a rate KG can't. The value of being able to throw the ball to a guy and say: "go to work" in a tight game in the playoffs is immense.

I feel like a lot of that gets lost in these simplistic breakdowns. Because on paper KG should be a lot better than Dirk if defense matters that much....but in reality he just hasn't been. There just isn't much evidence to claim that.

So on paper you get something like an 18 vs 14. When in reality it would be something like 18 vs 17.5....

That is my point. I have no problem with you saying KG deserves to be ranked higher...because I actually agree. However, saying things like "clear" or "far superior" or "easily" is where you lose me....and I'd imagine you'd lose a lot of people that don't just "hate" Dirk....

And again....find me some current lists with KG ranked higher. It's not like its just me saying they are on the same tier. Take Bill Simmons for example. KG is a Celtic. He loves KG. He ranks Dirk clearly and decisively ahead of KG. Is he a Dirk homer? Its not just me thinking they are close. Plenty of people actually rank Dirk clearly higher...which I disagree with. So acting like I'm so biased Dirk homer for saying that they are on the same tier as players is just not true and can't be supported.

I'd be interested to see a list done after the title last year that ranks KG even over Dirk....let alone clearly or decisively.

[DMAVS41]

What, are you watching the game through a box score or something? :oldlol:

Watching the team, it was obvious Chandler made them a much better defensive team.

But what Dirk says "doesn't really mean shit"... I got it :rolleyes:

Not even worth arguing about.

But no...you would be wrong. When healthy this year the Mavs have looked great defensively. Wright and Mahinmi have stepped up...and the addition of West has helped a ton in guard defense.

This year the Mavs just aren't any worse defensively. Its offensively that is the big difference. Its not just stats either. Watch the games...the Mavs have played really good defense all year when Haywood and West have played.

So no, you would be wrong.

Chandler did more than defend also. He set great screens...rolled hard to the basket to draw attention. Was an excellent offensive rebounder, and was a great vocal leader. All things we sorely miss.

His defensive impact was great, but we have pretty much picked up the slack. We are slightly, if at all, worse defensively without him when healthy. Sorry.

[SCdac]

Dallas Mavericks defensive coach from last season:

[quote][B]

[DMAVS41]

Dallas Mavericks defensive coach from last season:



I guess what this guy says doesn't mean shit either :facepalm

And maybe with that group last year he did....and maybe that culture change has stayed with this team.

But I'm sorry...this Mavs team when healthy has played defense at nearly the exact same level as it did last year.

Maybe that might not continue in the playoffs, but acting like the Mavs have dropped off defensively this year is just plain false.

There is nothing to support that at all. Sorry...

[magnax1]

TYou're basically saying everything is quantifiable by stats.

:facepalm
I'm saying taking biased quotes over facts is stupid, which isn't even close to saying to saying everything is quantifiable by stats. Chandler is an upgrade over Haywood, but not nearly as much as people seem to think, and a lot of is it because of the fact that he was a good pick and roll partner.

[SCdac]

But no...you would be wrong. When healthy this year the Mavs have looked great defensively. Wright and Mahinmi have stepped up...and the addition of West has helped a ton in guard defense.

This year the Mavs just aren't any worse defensively. Its offensively that is the big difference. Its not just stats either. Watch the games...the Mavs have played really good defense all year when Haywood and West have played.

So no, you would be wrong.

Good defense hardly equals championship level defense to me. Chandler made them a championship level defensive team, and it's not entirely about stats or opposition's PPG in a season in which PPG is down all around. Being able to compensate without him defensively hardly means he didn't have a huge impact. I'm sure his impact helped teach the team in general too

[DMAVS41]

Good defense hardly equals championship level defense to me. Chandler made them a championship level defensive team, and it's not entirely about stats or opposition's PPG in a season in which PPG is down all around. Being able to compensate without him defensively hardly means he didn't have a huge impact. I'm sure his impact helped teach the team in general too

But I never said he didn't have a huge impact. He did. But so has West, Haywood, Wright, and Marion this year.

It remains to be seen if this team can defend at the level it did last year. But I'm sorry...its not just about the stats....the Mavs have played great defense this year when healthy.

Its about watching the games. West and Wright have contributed a ton. Barea was very weak defensively and West playing has helped a lot.

You would think logically that we are much worse defensively, but its just not true no matter how you break it down. So you can't expect people that actually know what they are talking about to just go along with your narrative...because its not supported by anything that has happened so far.

If it changes...then it will change. But it didn't all year.

The difference in this Mavs team is offense. Did Chandler impact offense? Hell yes. And we didn't replace him with anyone. Odom was a failed experiment. We brought him in to be the 2nd best player on our team and he ended up being the worst.

Of course we are worse this year overall. I just don't get why people can't see the obvious right in front of them.

[ConanRulesNBC]

I'd rank Dirk higher than Garnett. I love Garnett but Dirk at least won with the team he's been on his whole career. I know the T'Wolves front office did a terrible job surrounding Garnett with the right talent and Garnett had no other choice but to go to the Celtics. But yeah I'd take Dirk.

[magnax1]

But that is my point. We actually agree more than you think.

My big thing is this. You can't break players down offense vs offense and defense vs defense.

And here is why.

KG would be about an 8 on offense and 10 on defense.

Dirk would be a 10 on offense and a 4 or 5 on defense.

And 18 vs 14/15 is just not illustrative of how close they are in terms of overall impact.

What you say about defense and play making and KG's ability (at times) to score are all parts of the reason I rank him ahead of Dirk right now. And, as I said before, I think KG's peak was a little better.

Having said that though, there are certain aspects of Dirk's game that get lost in discussions like this. Yes there is the more versatile scoring and higher ppg....but its more than that. It's being able to have an offense run through Dirk night in night out in the playoffs. Its being able to provide more versatility by going to the 3 point line (yes..that matters), its being able to make big free throws and big shots at a rate KG can't. The value of being able to throw the ball to a guy and say: "go to work" in a tight game in the playoffs is immense.

I feel like a lot of that gets lost in these simplistic breakdowns. Because on paper KG should be a lot better than Dirk if defense matters that much....but in reality he just hasn't been. There just isn't much evidence to claim that.

So on paper you get something like an 18 vs 14. When in reality it would be something like 18 vs 17.5....

That is my point. I have no problem with you saying KG deserves to be ranked higher...because I actually agree. However, saying things like "clear" or "far superior" or "easily" is where you lose me....and I'd imagine you'd lose a lot of people that don't just "hate" Dirk....


I do take into account things like Dirk's versatility, but if you're saying it's 18 vs 17.5 it's just under rating defense and rebounding. They impact the game equally as much as offense, and that's why a lot of people seem to over rate teams that are stacked on the top vs teams with talent spread across the whole team like last years Mavs.
How it should be broke down is like this
KG
Defense-9.5 (If Russell was a 10)
Offense-8.0 (if Jordan was a 10)
Posession of the ball (rebounding)-9.0 (If Rodman was a 10)
Dirk-
Offense-9.0
Defense-4.5
rebounding-7.5
Of course, rebounding is only part of possession of the ball, but it's the largest part.
This break down goes hand in hand with how they, and other players seem to impact their teams. KG brought Sam Cassell, old Sprewell, and little else to the conference finals. Dirk brought similarly talented (probably slightly more really) teams in 08 and 09 to the first and second round.

[DMAVS41]

I do take into account things like Dirk's versatility, but if you're saying it's 18 vs 17.5 it's just under rating defense and rebounding. They impact the game equally as much as offense, and that's why a lot of people seem to over rate teams that are stacked on the top vs teams with talent spread across the whole team like last years Mavs.
How it should be broke down is like this
KG
Defense-9.5 (If Russell was a 10)
Offense-8.0 (if Jordan was a 10)
Posession of the ball (rebounding)-9.0 (If Rodman was a 10)
Dirk-
Offense-9.0
Defense-4.5
rebounding-7.5
Of course, rebounding is only part of possession of the ball, but it's the largest part.
This break down goes hand in hand with how they, and other players seem to impact their teams. KG brought Sam Cassell, old Sprewell, and little else to the conference finals. Dirk brought similarly talented (probably slightly more really) teams in 08 and 09 to the first and second round.

Find me a current list that agrees with you. Find me one list that even has KG ranked over Dirk...let alone to the extent you want.

Good debate, but I just disagree big time with your breakdown.

[SCdac]

But I never said he didn't have a huge impact. He did. But so has West, Haywood, Wright, and Marion this year.

It remains to be seen if this team can defend at the level it did last year. But I'm sorry...its not just about the stats....the Mavs have played great defense this year when healthy.

Exactly, it remains to be seen. You can't get knocked out of the regular season for having non-championship level defense. As it is, the Mavericks dragged into the playoffs, and it's not solely because they can't outscore teams. We'll see how they do... My "narrative" isn't that the Mavs haven't been able to compensate (when did I ever say that?)... I'm saying (and Dirk/Mavs' defensive coach too) Chandler, from 2010 to 2011, turned the Mavs defense around, and he was a contender for DPOY. That is not deniable. Implying his defense was in some way easily replaced doesn't really deny his impact for a team that went all the way. You and me both know he had a huge impact, and obviously he's not a completely one sided player either. Do you think they were just as good defensively in 2010? As a team they've been able to compensate for his loss, but that's like saying a team without Amare (Phx in 06) being able to compensate without him means that he meant very little, when it's not really true.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nobody with a brain thought the 02 Mavs were the best team. That is non sense. The Kings and Lakers were much better.

Before addressing points, you might want to read them again and make sure you read correctly, which you didn't.

I never said the '02 or '03 Mavs were the best team, I said some thought they were the most talented, and I even said that I thought Sacramento was both years.


The Dallas Mavericks and Sacramento Kings are now the NBA's two most talented teams. - 2/25/2002


"They're the best team in the league, definitely one of the most talented,'' said Paul Pierce - 1/10/2003

http://espn.go.com/nba/recap/_/id/230110006/boston-celtics-vs-dallas-mavericks

I don't share that opinion, but it's irrelevant to my statement.


In 03 you could say they were arguably the most talented, but I still wouldn't say best. Although I could have definitely seen them winning it all if Dirk doesn't get hurt in game 3. They won game 1 in SA with Dirk dropping like 40 and 15 iirc.

Best team? '03 Kings when healthy were the best, imo, best in '02 was either LA or Sacramento, maybe a healthy kings team was better, but arguably LA since they won.

I also suspected the Spurs would've still beaten Dallas in '03 even with a healthy Dirk so I'd also call them better(even if they weren't as talented as Dallas).

With all teams healthy, the '03 Mavs were the 4th best team, imo, but second most talented.

So before you get all worked up and start tossing around insults, make sure you actually read what I wrote if you're going to respond to it.


04? See. This is where if you didn't follow the team you just wouldn't know. On paper they look great. Although I will continue to say that run and gun does not win. But Finley had declined quite a bit and Nash was battling a back and issue and other nagging issues all year...especically towards the end of the year. It was a team that was all offense and no defense....and still lacked that consistent 2nd guy. Nowhere near a title caliber team. In the playoffs, as usual, Dirk was a beast and everyone else was pretty bad...other than Daniels iirc.

Again, if you had read what I wrote before choosing to respond, then you'd know I mentioned they were horrible defensively and completely lacked a center, even more than other Mavs teams.

You're assuming I didn't follow this team based on nothing other than your lack of reading comprehension skills. I remember Nash's back, I remember it being mentioned as a reason for Cuban not re-signing him as well as his minutes being watched.

He was still one of the best point guards in the league, and Finley wasn't at his peak, but he was still a very good SG, at worst a year or 2 past his prime.

Lack of a consistent number 2 guy? :oldlol: They had 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th options ect. Offense was not their problem, at all, gtfo with that bullshit. This wasn't the '03 Spurs or '94 Rockets. The '04 Mavs had at least 4 guys capable of averaging 20+ a game, these were proven scorers, it just happened that most of them

I never said they were even a well built team, I just mentioned that they pretty much had an all-star lineup, and they did. But wirth several of those players being horrible defenders, Dirk and Walker having to spend most of the time at center, and tweeners like Jamison and Walker being redundant, it's easy to see why they had their problems.


The 05 did have some promise. Still lacked that 2nd guy though and everything was new...from Terry to Avery to Stackhouse. But you saw the potential there.....and then 06 happened.

Problem with '05 was the center position again and that there were just better teams such as Phoenix(who they lost to) and San Antonio.

I wouldn't call scorers a problem once they got healthy and had their rotation set. In their final 18 games under Avery Johnson, they had 6 guys averaging double figures(Dirk, Van Horn, Howard, Terry, Finley, Stackhouse).

That's multiple scoring threats who could create their own shot and multiple shooters. But it was all on the perimeter and somewhat redundant. I will also say that their rotation didn't have that much time together with injuries, acquisition and coaching change.

So there were problems with that team, I just don't see scoring or scorers as one of them. And they did get past the first round with Dirk playing really poorly, which rarely happens. Outside of '07, that was his worst postseason, and the 1st round was easily among his worst series.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

God, this thread has been to death. It is about a 50/50 split on who's the better player. Those 50% that prefer one will not change the other 50% about their player.

Why continually talk about the same damn topic over and over again?

[DMAVS41]

Before addressing points, you might want to read them again and make sure you read correctly, which you didn't.

I never said the '02 or '03 Mavs were the best team, I said some thought they were the most talented, and I even said that I thought Sacramento was both years.

- 2/25/2002

- 1/10/2003

http://espn.go.com/nba/recap/_/id/230110006/boston-celtics-vs-dallas-mavericks

I don't share that opinion, but it's irrelevant to my statement.



Best team? '03 Kings when healthy were the best, imo, best in '02 was either LA or Sacramento, maybe a healthy kings team was better, but arguably LA since they won.

I also suspected the Spurs would've still beaten Dallas in '03 even with a healthy Dirk so I'd also call them better(even if they weren't as talented as Dallas).

With all teams healthy, the '03 Mavs were the 4th best team, imo, but second most talented.

So before you get all worked up and start tossing around insults, make sure you actually read what I wrote if you're going to respond to it.



Again, if you had read what I wrote before choosing to respond, then you'd know I mentioned they were horrible defensively and completely lacked a center, even more than other Mavs teams.

You're assuming I didn't follow this team based on nothing other than your lack of reading comprehension skills. I remember Nash's back, I remember it being mentioned as a reason for Cuban not re-signing him as well as his minutes being watched.

He was still one of the best point guards in the league, and Finley wasn't at his peak, but he was still a very good SG, at worst a year or 2 past his prime.

Lack of a consistent number 2 guy? :oldlol: They had 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th options ect. Offense was not their problem, at all, gtfo with that bullshit. This wasn't the '03 Spurs or '94 Rockets. The '04 Mavs had at least 4 guys capable of averaging 20+ a game, these were proven scorers, it just happened that most of them

I never said they were even a well built team, I just mentioned that they pretty much had an all-star lineup, and they did. But wirth several of those players being horrible defenders, Dirk and Walker having to spend most of the time at center, and tweeners like Jamison and Walker being redundant, it's easy to see why they had their problems.



Problem with '05 was the center position again and that there were just better teams such as Phoenix(who they lost to) and San Antonio.

I wouldn't call scorers a problem once they got healthy and had their rotation set. In their final 18 games under Avery Johnson, they had 6 guys averaging double figures(Dirk, Van Horn, Howard, Terry, Finley, Stackhouse).

That's multiple scoring threats who could create their own shot and multiple shooters. But it was all on the perimeter and somewhat redundant. I will also say that their rotation didn't have that much time together with injuries, acquisition and coaching change.

So there were problems with that team, I just don't see scoring or scorers as one of them. And they did get past the first round with Dirk playing really poorly, which rarely happens. Outside of '07, that was his worst postseason, and the 1st round was easily among his worst series.

Uhhhhh. I wasn't even responding to you. I didn't even read your post other than the first few line...no offense.

I just was giving my take on the Mavs teams strengths and weaknesses. That is why I didn't quote you.

But I will respond to your claim about the 04 team...which is just wrong. Here is what happened in the playoffs:

Nash 14 points 39% shooting
Finley 13 points 38% shooting
Jamison 13 points 45% shooting
10 points 36% shooting

Sorry...no. They didn't have a legit 2nd championship caliber player that year. Unless of course you think Marquis Daniels was that.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Before addressing points, you might want to read them again and make sure you read correctly, which you didn't.

I never said the '02 or '03 Mavs were the best team, I said some thought they were the most talented, and I even said that I thought Sacramento was both years.

- 2/25/2002

- 1/10/2003

http://espn.go.com/nba/recap/_/id/230110006/boston-celtics-vs-dallas-mavericks

I don't share that opinion, but it's irrelevant to my statement.



Best team? '03 Kings when healthy were the best, imo, best in '02 was either LA or Sacramento, maybe a healthy kings team was better, but arguably LA since they won.

I also suspected the Spurs would've still beaten Dallas in '03 even with a healthy Dirk so I'd also call them better(even if they weren't as talented as Dallas).

With all teams healthy, the '03 Mavs were the 4th best team, imo, but second most talented.

So before you get all worked up and start tossing around insults, make sure you actually read what I wrote if you're going to respond to it.



Again, if you had read what I wrote before choosing to respond, then you'd know I mentioned they were horrible defensively and completely lacked a center, even more than other Mavs teams.

You're assuming I didn't follow this team based on nothing other than your lack of reading comprehension skills. I remember Nash's back, I remember it being mentioned as a reason for Cuban not re-signing him as well as his minutes being watched.

He was still one of the best point guards in the league, and Finley wasn't at his peak, but he was still a very good SG, at worst a year or 2 past his prime.

Lack of a consistent number 2 guy? :oldlol: They had 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th options ect. Offense was not their problem, at all, gtfo with that bullshit. This wasn't the '03 Spurs or '94 Rockets. The '04 Mavs had at least 4 guys capable of averaging 20+ a game, these were proven scorers, it just happened that most of them

I never said they were even a well built team, I just mentioned that they pretty much had an all-star lineup, and they did. But wirth several of those players being horrible defenders, Dirk and Walker having to spend most of the time at center, and tweeners like Jamison and Walker being redundant, it's easy to see why they had their problems.



Problem with '05 was the center position again and that there were just better teams such as Phoenix(who they lost to) and San Antonio.

I wouldn't call scorers a problem once they got healthy and had their rotation set. In their final 18 games under Avery Johnson, they had 6 guys averaging double figures(Dirk, Van Horn, Howard, Terry, Finley, Stackhouse).

That's multiple scoring threats who could create their own shot and multiple shooters. But it was all on the perimeter and somewhat redundant. I will also say that their rotation didn't have that much time together with injuries, acquisition and coaching change.

So there were problems with that team, I just don't see scoring or scorers as one of them. And they did get past the first round with Dirk playing really poorly, which rarely happens. Outside of '07, that was his worst postseason, and the 1st round was easily among his worst series.

Fantastic post. People forget that 2003 team was deadly. There was a thread made a couple months ago about how far they could have gone had Dirk not been hurt.

Edit: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=250720

[DMAVS41]

Exactly, it remains to be seen. You can't get knocked out of the regular season for having non-championship level defense. As it is, the Mavericks dragged into the playoffs, and it's not solely because they can't outscore teams. We'll see how they do... My "narrative" isn't that the Mavs haven't been able to compensate (when did I ever say that?)... I'm saying (and Dirk/Mavs' defensive coach too) Chandler, from 2010 to 2011, turned the Mavs defense around, and he was a contender for DPOY. That is not deniable. Implying his defense was in some way easily replaced doesn't really deny his impact for a team that went all the way. You and me both know he had a huge impact, and obviously he's not a completely one sided player either. Do you think they were just as good defensively in 2010? As a team they've been able to compensate for his loss, but that's like saying a team without Amare (Phx in 06) being able to compensate without him means that he meant very little, when it's not really true.

I'm saying this:

So far this year, the Mavs have played as good as better defense without Chandler when healthy. It's not that Chandler didn't impact them a lot on defense...he did....

But the additions of Wright and West have improved the defense as well. And Haywood, when he's played, has stepped up his game as well.

And Marion has defended better this year as well in my opinion.

If that changes...then it changes. But at this point, right now, the Mavs defense has not suffered at all. Its been all offense as to why this team has struggled.

Those are really just facts too....really not worth debating facts.

Now, if you want to make the claim that the Mavs won't be able to defend in the playoffs. I'm with you and I don't know how I feel about this team doing that. But that is a prediction....we just saw the whole season unfold...and the Mavs have not suffered defensively at all really.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Uhhhhh. I wasn't even responding to you. I didn't even read your post other than the first few line...no offense.

I just was giving my take on the Mavs teams strengths and weaknesses. That is why I didn't quote you.

Ok, well who mentioned the '02 and '03 team before I did? That's why I assumed you were responding to me because I don't remember anyone else mentioning them or saying they were the best, or even a statement you could misinterpret as the best, unless I missed something, mine was the closest to fitting that.


But I will respond to your claim about the 04 team...which is just wrong. Here is what happened in the playoffs:

Nash 14 points 39% shooting
Finley 13 points 38% shooting
Jamison 13 points 45% shooting
10 points 36% shooting

Sorry...no. They didn't have a legit 2nd championship caliber player that year. Unless of course you think Marquis Daniels was that.

What the hell does this have to do with my claim? Did I ever say his teammates played well in the playoffs?

All I said was that they had a lot of offensive talent and essentially an all-star lineup.

His teammates underachieved, it wasn't that they didn't have enough offense, it was that his teammates didn't play well enough offensively in the playoffs. They all played below their talent level except Dirk.

It had nothing to do with them lacking anything offensively, that team had a ridiculous amount of offensive talent, more than you can ask for.

The point your trying to make would be like me saying Shaq needed better offensive players around him in '98 because of how they performed in the WCF that they lost, and using their stats to back it up.

Jones- 15 ppg on 41%
Kobe- 10 ppg on 37%
Fox- 10 ppg on 41%
Van Exel- 9 ppg on 24%
Fisher- 6 ppg on 35%
Horry- 5 ppg on 36%
Campbell- 3 ppg on 21%

Yet, it would be ridiculous to say they didn't have enough offense on the roster considering they were the most talented team in the league(a claim I didn't make for the '04 Mavs), they just didn't play well enough, same exact thing with Dirk's teammates in the Sacramento series.

I don't know if you somehow interpreted my statement as suggesting Dirk had enough help offensively to beat Sacramento in that series. Because I never suggested that given how his teammates performed in that particular series.

[DMAVS41]

Ok, well who mentioned the '02 and '03 team before I did? That's why I assumed you were responding to me because I don't remember anyone else mentioning them or saying they were the best, or even a statement you could misinterpret as the best, unless I missed something, mine was the closest to fitting that.



What the hell does this have to do with my claim? Did I ever say his teammates played well in the playoffs?

All I said was that they had a lot of offensive talent and essentially an all-star lineup.

His teammates underachieved, it wasn't that they didn't have enough offense, it was that his teammates didn't play well enough offensively in the playoffs. They all played below their talent level except Dirk.

It had nothing to do with them lacking anything offensively, that team had a ridiculous amount of offensive talent, more than you can ask for.

The point your trying to make would be like me saying Shaq needed better offensive players around him in '98 because of how they performed in the WCF that they lost, and using their stats to back it up.

Jones- 15 ppg on 41%
Kobe- 10 ppg on 37%
Fox- 10 ppg on 41%
Van Exel- 9 ppg on 24%
Fisher- 6 ppg on 35%
Horry- 5 ppg on 36%
Campbell- 3 ppg on 21%

Yet, it would be ridiculous to say they didn't have enough offense on the roster considering they were the most talented team in the league(a claim I didn't make for the '04 Mavs), they just didn't play well enough, same exact thing with Dirk's teammates in the Sacramento series.

I don't know if you somehow interpreted my statement as suggesting Dirk had enough help offensively to beat Sacramento in that series. Because I never suggested that given how his teammates performed in that particular series.

Again. I did not quote you for that reason. Sorry for the confusion.

I never said he didn't have enough offense on that team going into the playoffs. I said they lacked a legit championship caliber 2nd best player. I felt that before the playoffs (mainly because Nash was hurt and Finley just looked old)...and I always have really not liked Jamison (more than willing to admit I might be biased about Jamison..but just don't think he's very good)

And, of course, I feel like my thoughts were validated in the actual playoffs.

I know you don't really agree on my take on what it takes to win titles, but I firmly believe that you either need a solid 1-2 punch of all nba type players....or, if you have a 1 star team, a team that can defend. The 04 Mavs obviously didn't have either. That is why I was so dismissive of them back then and why I am now. I know you don't feel that way about what it takes to win, but I do. I just see overwhelming amounts of evidence for it.

I don't think we really disagree much here at all. Thanks for explaining your take on 04. I agree. Again...I never said Dirk didn't have enough offensive help in 04 to win. I said they lacked that 2nd guy and that the team really wasn't a legit contender.

Also I agree with your take in 05. Dirk didn't play well. If he had, the results might have been different. However, I really felt like that team needed a little more time...even though they were so good under Avery. I also think the Suns and Spurs were just better teams in 05. But you could definitely see the signs, like i said in my initial post, that that team could compete on a different level than pretty much any other Mavs team to date other than 03.

I also never disputed how awesome the Mavs were in 03. They were the 2nd best team in the league in my opinion...arguably the best with a healthy Dirk. I won't go as far as to say that the Mavs win in 03 if Dirk doesn't get hurt...but I do like their chances. I think that series for sure goes 7....and I think the Mavs have a slight advantage in a game 7 against that Spurs team.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I never said he didn't have enough offense on that team going into the playoffs. I said they lacked a legit championship caliber 2nd best player. I felt that before the playoffs (mainly because Nash was hurt and Finley just looked old)...and I always have really not liked Jamison (more than willing to admit I might be biased about Jamison..but just don't think he's very good)

In the early 2000's, I never remember thinking about the Mavs as the team who was going to win the title, or even the second most likely team so they weren't disappointments to me. They got the same questions Phoenix did in the mid 00's about their defense, physicality, relying on jumpers ect.

Finley had lost a bit by '04, but he was still one of the better SG, imo. Put up 19/5/3 on a FG% slightly above league average(44%), while making 2+ 3s per game at 41%. Pretty damn good while sharing the ball with a lot of scorers. He lost more in '05 to me, but was still averaging 18 per game the first half before the offense became more balanced late in the season.

I also still thought Nash played well in 2004, I didn't think he had quite as good of a season as he did when he was all-nba 3rd team in '02 and '03, but aside from Kidd, Cassell and Baron, what other PG were better? Maybe Marbury, though he's a giant debate himself. At least top 5 at his position. Put up 15/9 on percentages of 47/41/92. 3rd in assists, just 0.4 behind first place Kidd, 0.1 behind 2nd place Marbury and 1.2 ahead of 4th place Baron Davis.

I like Jamison because he could score, but I also don't think he was ever that good. He could always score, but he wasn't a big impact player to me. Regardless, he did score, 15 ppg in 29 mpg off the bench winning the 6th man award. He was coming off a 22 ppg season with the Warriors and averaged 21 the next season in Washington.

I do think Finley and Nash are assets and guys I'd typically rely on, though they didn't prove it in '04. Jamison is fine as a scorer to me,


And, of course, I feel like my thoughts were validated in the actual playoffs.

Well, they certainly didn't play like the best(or most prolific) offensive team in the playoffs as they were in the playoffs. Whether that's due to your theory, or the argument that they lacked a real post player and relied too much on jumpers to succeed, or the players flat out choking is speculation.


I know you don't really agree on my take on what it takes to win titles, but I firmly believe that you either need a solid 1-2 punch of all nba type players....or, if you have a 1 star team, a team that can defend. The 04 Mavs obviously didn't have either. That is why I was so dismissive of them back then and why I am now. I know you don't feel that way about what it takes to win, but I do. I just see overwhelming amounts of evidence for it.

Yeah, that's where we disagree. I think in most cases you just have to be good at both ends, and really good at one of those ends. Obviously some talented players, and I believe a good coach are necessary(though Miami might prove me wrong on that one if they win this year).


I don't think we really disagree much here at all. Thanks for explaining your take on 04. I agree. Again...I never said Dirk didn't have enough offensive help in 04 to win. I said they lacked that 2nd guy and that the team really wasn't a legit contender.

The main difference is that I disagree on your theory on what's a necessity to win, what's a legit number 2 guy ect.

We both agree that they weren't a real contender, and a flawed team. I just think the flaw was having so many scorers at the complete lack of defense, and having so many jump shooters at the complete lack of a center or real inside presence. And to add to that, two tweeners in Walker and Jamison.

Pretty much the problem with past Don Nelson teams, making it easy to see it was a team he assembled, and also easy to see why he has so many critics.

Not surprising that they were the 4th worst defensive team, and gave up the second most points. Almost cancels out them being easily the best regular season offensive team and scoring far more points than anyone else.

Very similar to past Don Nelson teams, like Run TMC, for example. Very few playoff teams are that bad defensively.


Also I agree with your take in 05. Dirk didn't play well. If he had, the results might have been different. However, I really felt like that team needed a little more time...even though they were so good under Avery. I also think the Suns and Spurs were just better teams in 05. But you could definitely see the signs, like i said in my initial post, that that team could compete on a different level than pretty much any other Mavs team to date other than 03.

Yeah, it is tough to expect a championship when you have a midseason/late season coaching change as well as their playoff rotation having barely played together, the latter being a point I've made for why Ewing leading the upset over the '90 Celtics is so impressive. And a team can be better than you without it necessarily being an indictment of your team. As proven by their '06 finals appearance and '07 regular season, their '05 team was the start of a team that could compete with anyone, with a few changes and a few players growing.


I also never disputed how awesome the Mavs were in 03. They were the 2nd best team in the league in my opinion...arguably the best with a healthy Dirk. I won't go as far as to say that the Mavs win in 03 if Dirk doesn't get hurt...but I do like their chances. I think that series for sure goes 7....and I think the Mavs have a slight advantage in a game 7 against that Spurs team.

That was actually the one year they were probably a legitimate contender under Nelson, they had the same core by midseason '02, but just seemed better in '03, probably due to more time together and Dirk's own improvement.

I'd still take a healthy Kings, the Spurs and the Lakers over Dallas in '03, though. The Kings were on their own level as far as talent, and despite some questions regarding mental-toughness, they were still built to win. The Lakers finished the season looking like the 3-time defending champs. They still had pretty much the same team they did in '02 with a few differences in roles/performances, and their small forwards injured.

[pauk]

I cant... because he isnt higher up than Nowitzki, close, but not higher

[ILLsmak]

I'm back to summarize my post. I feel I should do this every seven pages or so. REALIGN THE THREAD WITH THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.


Even if someone was a huge Dirk dick rider, they would have sounded like an imbecile saying Dirk was better than KG before last year. It all comes down to how much you value that run.

I am not a 'gets carried away' person usually, but I was watching the Mavs and was in awe. That was a rare feat.

KG has never played that well in his career. Could he have, if things were a little different and he was on another team? Maybe, but he didn't.

Dirk's run was one of the greatest ever, period, and I value a run like that hugely when it comes to ranking players all-time. All of this shit about consistency and potential... I wanna see it, even if it's just for a moment.

Like the time I saw Barg own the Cavs and I was like... oh, he's actually a much more amazing player than I thought.

I already thought Dirk was good... but after that run, it's like OGOD. I mean you can start putting him over all kinds of people, in my opinion, after that. You can put him in the discussion for the greatest PF ever assuming you're not counting TD. And yes, it's that serious to me.

Edit: And saying DIRK isn't a prototype PF, who cares? AI wasn't a prototype 1. With a great player, you build it around them. Every player has weaknesses.

-Smak

[pauk]

Agree ILLsmak...

Dirk stepped up like he never did before and like not many did before.... i couldnt believe my eyes what i was seeing after watching him that regular season... and watching him this season.... completely different player, totally unexpected to do what he did.... he just couldnt ****ing miss in the clutch entire god damn playoffs... and its not like he had a stacked team or something... that was an amazing Championship run...

[DMAVS41]

In the early 2000's, I never remember thinking about the Mavs as the team who was going to win the title, or even the second most likely team so they weren't disappointments to me. They got the same questions Phoenix did in the mid 00's about their defense, physicality, relying on jumpers ect.

Finley had lost a bit by '04, but he was still one of the better SG, imo. Put up 19/5/3 on a FG% slightly above league average(44%), while making 2+ 3s per game at 41%. Pretty damn good while sharing the ball with a lot of scorers. He lost more in '05 to me, but was still averaging 18 per game the first half before the offense became more balanced late in the season.

I also still thought Nash played well in 2004, I didn't think he had quite as good of a season as he did when he was all-nba 3rd team in '02 and '03, but aside from Kidd, Cassell and Baron, what other PG were better? Maybe Marbury, though he's a giant debate himself. At least top 5 at his position. Put up 15/9 on percentages of 47/41/92. 3rd in assists, just 0.4 behind first place Kidd, 0.1 behind 2nd place Marbury and 1.2 ahead of 4th place Baron Davis.

I like Jamison because he could score, but I also don't think he was ever that good. He could always score, but he wasn't a big impact player to me. Regardless, he did score, 15 ppg in 29 mpg off the bench winning the 6th man award. He was coming off a 22 ppg season with the Warriors and averaged 21 the next season in Washington.

I do think Finley and Nash are assets and guys I'd typically rely on, though they didn't prove it in '04. Jamison is fine as a scorer to me,



Well, they certainly didn't play like the best(or most prolific) offensive team in the playoffs as they were in the playoffs. Whether that's due to your theory, or the argument that they lacked a real post player and relied too much on jumpers to succeed, or the players flat out choking is speculation.



Yeah, that's where we disagree. I think in most cases you just have to be good at both ends, and really good at one of those ends. Obviously some talented players, and I believe a good coach are necessary(though Miami might prove me wrong on that one if they win this year).



The main difference is that I disagree on your theory on what's a necessity to win, what's a legit number 2 guy ect.

We both agree that they weren't a real contender, and a flawed team. I just think the flaw was having so many scorers at the complete lack of defense, and having so many jump shooters at the complete lack of a center or real inside presence. And to add to that, two tweeners in Walker and Jamison.

Pretty much the problem with past Don Nelson teams, making it easy to see it was a team he assembled, and also easy to see why he has so many critics.

Not surprising that they were the 4th worst defensive team, and gave up the second most points. Almost cancels out them being easily the best regular season offensive team and scoring far more points than anyone else.

Very similar to past Don Nelson teams, like Run TMC, for example. Very few playoff teams are that bad defensively.



Yeah, it is tough to expect a championship when you have a midseason/late season coaching change as well as their playoff rotation having barely played together, the latter being a point I've made for why Ewing leading the upset over the '90 Celtics is so impressive. And a team can be better than you without it necessarily being an indictment of your team. As proven by their '06 finals appearance and '07 regular season, their '05 team was the start of a team that could compete with anyone, with a few changes and a few players growing.



That was actually the one year they were probably a legitimate contender under Nelson, they had the same core by midseason '02, but just seemed better in '03, probably due to more time together and Dirk's own improvement.

I'd still take a healthy Kings, the Spurs and the Lakers over Dallas in '03, though. The Kings were on their own level as far as talent, and despite some questions regarding mental-toughness, they were still built to win. The Lakers finished the season looking like the 3-time defending champs. They still had pretty much the same team they did in '02 with a few differences in roles/performances, and their small forwards injured.

Well. I'd agree with you in 04, even though I don't like Jamison, if Finley and Nash were playing like their normal selves. Obviously you remember how banged up Nash was. He had a chronic back issue and some other nagging issues as well. Those injury concerns are exactly why we didn't sign him in the off season. I just remember thinking before the playoffs in 04:

Nash is hurt and not himself, Finley looks old, and Jamison might be the least clutch player I've seen.

See, the thing for me about Jamison is that I feel like he's strictly a regular season guy. A guy that can have some big games and play well in big moments when it really just doesn't matter a lot. I felt that way back in 04 and I still feel that way today. He's a guy that is perfect for an average to poor team and he can put up good stats. But put him in a competitive playoff series? And I think you see him crumble a bit. I feel like his career has validated that opinion pretty well.

In terms of what you need to win. I do think you have to be good on both ends. Never said you didn't. But what does that mean. Well, to me, it means that you either need a really good 1-2 punch of all nba type players...playing at a high level and a solid defense. Or you need at least a very good defensive team around 1 superstar and hope that 1 superstar plays lights out like Dirk, Duncan, and Hakeem have done in title runs.

I also totally agree about coaching. I think it's like 4th on my list of title criteria. And Nelson just wasn't that guy in my opinion. Not because he couldn't coach, but because his style of play just has inherent flaws and has been proven not to succeed in the playoffs throughout the modern era of the NBA.

And it seems we agree on everything else.

Where we disagree, as usual, is what it takes to win titles. I don't want to act like I'm saying you can't win without the things I have deemed most important.....however I do believe historically that gives a team the best chance to win.

Teams rarely win without a superstar. So you need that. Then teams rarely win with a 2nd legit guy...I use the all nba type player. Usually someone in the top 15 in the league or so. Then you clearly have to be able to defend and rebound...and get stops late in tight games. Then I'd probably say coaching is next. Something along those lines.

Why I think having that consistent 2nd guy is so important is because even the best players of all time struggle in the playoffs at times. And if a team has a 2nd guy capable of not only picking up the slack consistently, but making the other team game plan around them...its a huge advantage.

Take 07 for example. You'd look at the stats and see Howard put up like 20/10 against the Warriors. Really good. He was the best Maverick in that series...I'm not discounting it. But the Mavs still lacked that legit number 2 guy....and it showed. The Warriors just said:

We will try and stop Dirk....pay a little attention to Terry...and then let everyone else do what they want.

And it worked. A big reason why was that Dirk and Terry sucked, but also because the Warriors didn't have to worry about anyone other than Dirk really. They knew Howard was going to drop over 25 in a game most likely because that isn't what type of player he is. He wasn't and isn't the type of player to actually take over a game. So I always use Paul Pierce in this example. Pierce is a guy you have to game plan around. You can't ignore him. He can take over a game...and he can take over a series. If the Mavs had Pierce in 07....they are an infinitely harder team to defend and plan for.

And I just see too much evidence to ignore that. Just look at the teams winning it all...the 2nd best players. You have Gasol, Pierce, Shaq, Kobe, Robinson (much better than people give him credit for in 99), Pippen, Drexler...etc.

There is just no way around it. Having 2 great players just makes it much easier to win titles. Yes, you need other things a well, but having 2 always gives you a chance.

And it is because it's hard to carry a team through the playoffs. Yea, Duncan did it in 03, but he also lucked out a bit. Yes, he beat the Lakers, but then didn't have to play Dirk in the WCF...and had to beat a pretty weak Nets team in the finals. Put the 03 Spurs against the competition last year and I don't think they win it. I don't think they even make the finals.

So in relation to the Mavs. What does this mean? Well, for starters, they were missing that 2nd guy pretty much Dirk's entire career. They also played an inherently flawed style up through most of the 05 season. Then, while they did improve the defense, we never had a center capable of doing much of anything of note. Like in the 06 finals. Our defense is what killed us of course. We couldn't stop Wade...our guard defense was terrible and then we didn't have a center capable of doing anything but fouling. Now, you can say that Dirk should have done more....and I don't really disagree, but if you don't give Dirk a legit 2nd guy...and you don't give him a defense capable of guarding the perimeter or the paint....and you give him Avery Johnson...I mean....I just don't see how he has enough to win when the teams winning the title have more on all fronts.

[ShaqAttack3234]

See, the thing for me about Jamison is that I feel like he's strictly a regular season guy. A guy that can have some big games and play well in big moments when it really just doesn't matter a lot. I felt that way back in 04 and I still feel that way today. He's a guy that is perfect for an average to poor team and he can put up good stats. But put him in a competitive playoff series? And I think you see him crumble a bit. I feel like his career has validated that opinion pretty well.

I've never noticed his clutch ability, but while he can definitely score, and he's a good rebounder for a tweener, particularly one who has played small forward, he just didn't seem like a big impact player to me despite big numbers. I do think that a player who clearly does 1 or 2 things well can be an asset to a team, but you also have to deal with his defense, and he clearly made the 2010 Cavs worse.


In terms of what you need to win. I do think you have to be good on both ends. Never said you didn't. But what does that mean. Well, to me, it means that you either need a really good 1-2 punch of all nba type players...playing at a high level and a solid defense. Or you need at least a very good defensive team around 1 superstar and hope that 1 superstar plays lights out like Dirk, Duncan, and Hakeem have done in title runs.

Well, if you're a dominant defensive team that requires less individual talent because we've seen that can be done with coaching and effort.

Being good to me means you play defense, have multiple guys you can go to who can create their shot(don't have to be top 10 players or superstars, imo, but it certainly doesn't hurt), you preferably have shooters, and options in the post and on the perimeter. Not to forget about rebounding, or a facilitator either. Plus, buying into your coaches system and executing is pretty much a necessity to me.

But we've seen teams win without all of these things, or even missing multiple aspects, but those are the things I look for in a good team.


I also totally agree about coaching. I think it's like 4th on my list of title criteria. And Nelson just wasn't that guy in my opinion. Not because he couldn't coach, but because his style of play just has inherent flaws and has been proven not to succeed in the playoffs throughout the modern era of the NBA.

Nelson has had 2 teams that I consider legitimate contenders, the '03 Mavs and the 80's Bucks. His other teams were simply too small and didn't play enough defense.

It often seemed like he was more interested in creating unorthodox lineups to experiment than assembling and coaching a team best suited to winning a title. Those teams may be good for the odd upset when their style ****s with a better team enough for the odd upset, which seems to be his equivalent of an NBA championship.

He took over a legitimate contender(the mid 90's Knicks) and I saw that team regularly and how stubborn Nelson was. Of course, that was the worst possible fit for Nelson.


Teams rarely win without a superstar. So you need that. Then teams rarely win with a 2nd legit guy...I use the all nba type player. Usually someone in the top 15 in the league or so. Then you clearly have to be able to defend and rebound...and get stops late in tight games. Then I'd probably say coaching is next. Something along those lines.

In a sport like basketball, superstars make more of an impact, but if you build a loaded team, they aren't an absolute necessity to me, That's all I'm saying, great players change the game, but you can build a team fully capable of winning it all without one.

Despite Isiah's reputation, I don't really view his production on those '89 and '90 Pistons as that of a true superstar or other number 1 options, he made 1 all-nba 3rd team between those years, and was a borderline top 10 guy those seasons to me. At the very least, I don't view him as a Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Wade, Kobe, or Dirk for that matter as far as his role on that team. And I do respect Isiah for the record.

Depending on who was hot they'd go to Isiah, Dumars or Vinnie on the perimeter, have both isiah and Dumars run the offense and essentially alternate guard positions. They'd also often go to Aguirre or Edwards in the post a lot depending on the night, and they had Laimbeer to run pick and pops with and stretch the defense. That team won back to back, and probably "should've" won in '88, or at the very least were so close that you know they were capable.

Then there's the '04 Pistons, who were also close enough in '05 that they proved to me they didn't need anything else on that roster, the difference was probably Sheed leaving Horry wide open in that game 5 since the series went 7. And Detroit didn't have a real superstar.

But right under the category of so close and 1 or 2 plays away were the 2010 Celtics and 2000 Blazers. '10 Celtics did have a go to scorer in Pierce and other threats, but no true elite top 5-10 guy at that point in those players careers. Didn't need anything else on the roster to win a title, the one flaw that was exposed was their rebounding, and you could argue that a healthy Perkins would've been enough to change that. Portland was even better in '00, imo, and had more than enough on their roster, having a huge meltdown to blow what's almost always a comfortable lead if anything would have to do with mental toughness and superstars aren't immune to choking either.


Why I think having that consistent 2nd guy is so important is because even the best players of all time struggle in the playoffs at times. And if a team has a 2nd guy capable of not only picking up the slack consistently, but making the other team game plan around them...its a huge advantage.

Well, I don't think there's a set level for a legit number 2 guy, I think that depends greatly on your 3rd option and the rest of your roster, or your 1st option for that matter.


Take 07 for example. You'd look at the stats and see Howard put up like 20/10 against the Warriors. Really good. He was the best Maverick in that series...I'm not discounting it. But the Mavs still lacked that legit number 2 guy....and it showed. The Warriors just said:

Dallas lost that series, imo because Golden State matched up perfectly with them, Avery Johnson made the puzzling move of going small and trying to beat the Warriors at their own game rather than playing the lineup and style that got them 67 wins. And I also believe they got in the Mavs and Dirk's head, and it's really an unlikely thing for Dirk to play as poorly as he did in that series given how we've seen him play in the playoffs for a decade, and even more unlikely that it came vs a usually mediocre defense.

The '07 Mavs were arguably the best all around roster Dirk has played on. They were an improved version of the '06 team, who I know were capable of winning it all because if not for their own meltdown of sorts.

The 2007 Mavs may have not been quite as talented as the top players on the '03 team, but they had better size, were better defensively, and probably had more threats. Terry, Howard, Stackhouse and Harris were all scoring threats you had to respect by that point.


There is just no way around it. Having 2 great players just makes it much easier to win titles. Yes, you need other things a well, but having 2 always gives you a chance.

I'm not arguing at all that having 2 great players, or even 1 of them is a luxury and is a big help to putting together a team capable of winning it all. There'd be no point in arguing that great players help you win, they wouldn't be great players if they didn't.


And it is because it's hard to carry a team through the playoffs. Yea, Duncan did it in 03, but he also lucked out a bit. Yes, he beat the Lakers, but then didn't have to play Dirk in the WCF...and had to beat a pretty weak Nets team in the finals. Put the 03 Spurs against the competition last year and I don't think they win it. I don't think they even make the finals.

Even teams with great 2nd options have had to carry equal/or even bigger offensive loads to the guys you mentioned, and a lot of that has to do with how many other threats they have offensively, and how good they are defensively.

Despite Hakeem having Drexler in '95, he had to carry his team as much as anyone, the man averaged 33, and they didn't breeze through the playoffs. Same thing with Jordan, hall of fame sidekick, but always averaging 30-35 ppg in the playoffs, and some of those years, they were involved in some close calls. Same thing with Shaq, 30-31 ppg in '00 and '01 and 29 ppg in '02. Kobe was a great 2nd option by '00, and arguably the best ever after that, but he still had to carry as big of a load as anyone, they did breeze through the '01 playoffs, but had close calls throughout '00, and again in the '02 WCF. And Wade in '06....averaging 28 ppg, he also had a great second option, but had to carry the team and we know how close they were to being finished, Kobe had Gasol in '09 and '10, but he still had to carry the team and they had some close calls, especially in '10.

[nbacardDOTnet]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/DavidRobinson_HakeemOlajuwon_KevinGarnett.jpg

The One and Only 20,000-10,000-5,000-1,500-1,500 through entire NBA history.

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/March-2011-12KevinGarnett20000-10000-5000-1500-1500club.jpg

[DMAVS41]

I've never noticed his clutch ability, but while he can definitely score, and he's a good rebounder for a tweener, particularly one who has played small forward, he just didn't seem like a big impact player to me despite big numbers. I do think that a player who clearly does 1 or 2 things well can be an asset to a team, but you also have to deal with his defense, and he clearly made the 2010 Cavs worse.



Well, if you're a dominant defensive team that requires less individual talent because we've seen that can be done with coaching and effort.

Being good to me means you play defense, have multiple guys you can go to who can create their shot(don't have to be top 10 players or superstars, imo, but it certainly doesn't hurt), you preferably have shooters, and options in the post and on the perimeter. Not to forget about rebounding, or a facilitator either. Plus, buying into your coaches system and executing is pretty much a necessity to me.

But we've seen teams win without all of these things, or even missing multiple aspects, but those are the things I look for in a good team.



Nelson has had 2 teams that I consider legitimate contenders, the '03 Mavs and the 80's Bucks. His other teams were simply too small and didn't play enough defense.

It often seemed like he was more interested in creating unorthodox lineups to experiment than assembling and coaching a team best suited to winning a title. Those teams may be good for the odd upset when their style ****s with a better team enough for the odd upset, which seems to be his equivalent of an NBA championship.

He took over a legitimate contender(the mid 90's Knicks) and I saw that team regularly and how stubborn Nelson was. Of course, that was the worst possible fit for Nelson.



In a sport like basketball, superstars make more of an impact, but if you build a loaded team, they aren't an absolute necessity to me, That's all I'm saying, great players change the game, but you can build a team fully capable of winning it all without one.

Despite Isiah's reputation, I don't really view his production on those '89 and '90 Pistons as that of a true superstar or other number 1 options, he made 1 all-nba 3rd team between those years, and was a borderline top 10 guy those seasons to me. At the very least, I don't view him as a Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Wade, Kobe, or Dirk for that matter as far as his role on that team. And I do respect Isiah for the record.

Depending on who was hot they'd go to Isiah, Dumars or Vinnie on the perimeter, have both isiah and Dumars run the offense and essentially alternate guard positions. They'd also often go to Aguirre or Edwards in the post a lot depending on the night, and they had Laimbeer to run pick and pops with and stretch the defense. That team won back to back, and probably "should've" won in '88, or at the very least were so close that you know they were capable.

Then there's the '04 Pistons, who were also close enough in '05 that they proved to me they didn't need anything else on that roster, the difference was probably Sheed leaving Horry wide open in that game 5 since the series went 7. And Detroit didn't have a real superstar.

But right under the category of so close and 1 or 2 plays away were the 2010 Celtics and 2000 Blazers. '10 Celtics did have a go to scorer in Pierce and other threats, but no true elite top 5-10 guy at that point in those players careers. Didn't need anything else on the roster to win a title, the one flaw that was exposed was their rebounding, and you could argue that a healthy Perkins would've been enough to change that. Portland was even better in '00, imo, and had more than enough on their roster, having a huge meltdown to blow what's almost always a comfortable lead if anything would have to do with mental toughness and superstars aren't immune to choking either.



Well, I don't think there's a set level for a legit number 2 guy, I think that depends greatly on your 3rd option and the rest of your roster, or your 1st option for that matter.



Dallas lost that series, imo because Golden State matched up perfectly with them, Avery Johnson made the puzzling move of going small and trying to beat the Warriors at their own game rather than playing the lineup and style that got them 67 wins. And I also believe they got in the Mavs and Dirk's head, and it's really an unlikely thing for Dirk to play as poorly as he did in that series given how we've seen him play in the playoffs for a decade, and even more unlikely that it came vs a usually mediocre defense.

The '07 Mavs were arguably the best all around roster Dirk has played on. They were an improved version of the '06 team, who I know were capable of winning it all because if not for their own meltdown of sorts.

The 2007 Mavs may have not been quite as talented as the top players on the '03 team, but they had better size, were better defensively, and probably had more threats. Terry, Howard, Stackhouse and Harris were all scoring threats you had to respect by that point.



I'm not arguing at all that having 2 great players, or even 1 of them is a luxury and is a big help to putting together a team capable of winning it all. There'd be no point in arguing that great players help you win, they wouldn't be great players if they didn't.



Even teams with great 2nd options have had to carry equal/or even bigger offensive loads to the guys you mentioned, and a lot of that has to do with how many other threats they have offensively, and how good they are defensively.

Despite Hakeem having Drexler in '95, he had to carry his team as much as anyone, the man averaged 33, and they didn't breeze through the playoffs. Same thing with Jordan, hall of fame sidekick, but always averaging 30-35 ppg in the playoffs, and some of those years, they were involved in some close calls. Same thing with Shaq, 30-31 ppg in '00 and '01 and 29 ppg in '02. Kobe was a great 2nd option by '00, and arguably the best ever after that, but he still had to carry as big of a load as anyone, they did breeze through the '01 playoffs, but had close calls throughout '00, and again in the '02 WCF. And Wade in '06....averaging 28 ppg, he also had a great second option, but had to carry the team and we know how close they were to being finished, Kobe had Gasol in '09 and '10, but he still had to carry the team and they had some close calls, especially in '10.

Well. Let me be clear. Just because you have two great players, doesn't mean that your best player doesn't have to play well.

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying it takes some of the burden off and allows them to play better because there is another player you have to worry about.

You mention Wade in 06. Yes, he played great, and did some special things in the finals. But a certain part of the reason for that was Shaq. Avery was more concerned with Shaq than Wade and designed the defense to prevent Shaq, as much as possible, from getting the ball in scoring situations.

Without Shaq...Wade just doesn't do what he did most likely.

I'm also not debating there are many ways to win.

But throughout NBA history...having 2 elite players and building a team around them simply yields more success.

Can it be done with 1 or none? Sure, but it's far less likely. And it's far less likely because its harder to do.

It takes more luck for starters. Take Duncan in 03....not a knock on him or the Spurs, but they lucked out to an extent in 03. The competition level was very weak. Yes, they beat the Lakers, but then they beat the Mavs without Dirk and a weak Nets team in the finals. Do they win having to beat the 08 Celtics or the 11 Mavs or the 11 Heat? The 09 or 10 Lakers? In my opinion....no way.

We just view this differently. It's like last year. The mavs won...without these things, but they were also 20 to 1 underdogs. Probably the most improbable title of the last 30 plus years odds wise. That is the kind of shit it takes to win often without the things I mention.

But I understand your view, I just see it much differently. To me its just factually easier to have a team built around 2 all nba type players than it is only 1.

[MavAlbert]

KG is the better all around player. Dirk is clearly better offensively but Garnett is simply devastatingly better on the other end of the floor!
Dirk might be a better leader of his team and his performance during the 2011 playoffs will go down to history, but Garnett is the type of player who doesn't really have any flaws! Put KG in the 2000s decade Mavs and he would have a serious argument over Duncan by now, having won multiple championships...


HHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

[MavAlbert]

:roll: Great argument.

I'm sorry, but if you ask actual NBA players who they'd rather play with, prime KG or prime Dirk, I'd bet 8/10 pick KG. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand basketball. Prime KG's defensive prowess is more valuable to a team than anything Dirk EVER had to offer. Just because KG wasn't fortunate enough to play with the talent that Dirk has been surrounded with nearly his ENTIRE CAREER doesn't mean KG's impact should be overlooked.

This isn't even an argument if Dirk doesn't get ridiculously hot last year at the right time. You think KG is going to let his team get punked by the 8 seed Warriors on a 67 win team? You think KG is gonna let his team blow a 2-0 lead in the Finals w/ HCA? LOL, delusional.

KG only lost twice in the playoffs w/ HCA, and both were to the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. I'm pretty sure Dirk has more first round upset losses in the playoffs than that. :roll:

You're an idiot if you think Dirk > KG. And you're trying to tell me I don't understand basketball, LOL. For the majority of his career, Dirk had a gaping hole in his defensive and leadership skills, and his teams suffered because of that. KG, on the other hand, was leading a pack of ragtag scrubs to the playoffs year in and year out while Dirk was choking with a much better supporting cast.


KG talked trash to Dirk and was punked BY DIRK and swept KGs sorry ass... KG would have to get to the finals first as the leader of his team.... and no one was going to overcome the refs in the 06 finals