I'm sorry but KG can't **** with Dirk Nowitzki.

[lilteapot]

KG is a great defender, good scorer, had range, great athlete, but Dirk was a far superior offensive player, more clutch and has greater intangibles. One on one, Dirk is killing KG 9/10 times.

[light]

KG is a great defender, good scorer, had range, great athlete, but Dirk was a far superior offensive player, more clutch and has greater intangibles. One on one, Dirk is killing KG 9/10 times.

KG is a much better all around player though. He's the more complete player. Depends on what you want I suppose. I prefer KG because I want his defense and passing ability too.

[AussieSteve]

Charles Barkley > than both of them.

But yep Dirk trumps KG. KG is more of a Pippen type player. Elite 2nd option, but not going to be the first option on a championship calibre team. KG never scored more than 35 points in a playoff game. Not once.

[warriorfan]

It is an interesting comparison. Kg was a transcendent defensive player and Dirk was a transcendent offensive player. Both players are better at the other sides of the ball than they usually get credit for. Both have a ring they finally got later in their careers. KG’s prime got wasted a bit in Minnesota but he was still able to be a great player. KG probably should have gotten the FMVP for their title. KG used to get rated extremely high on other sites because of his advanced on and off numbers based stats. He has some of the best impact stats ever recorded according to some metrics. KG’s prime would have been more appreciated if he didn’t play in Minnesota. KG brings true 1-5 defense, elite perimeter defense, rim protection, and rebounding. Very high basketball iq. Prime KG has no weaknesses besides not being an ideal first option scoring. Every other box that you want from a power forward he checks. Dirk brings his unique versatility offensively by his spacing of the floor and shot creation out of the PF position to the likes we have never seen before. Dirk also was a solid rebounder and an underrated defender for many years. Overall they are both close but I would give KG the slight edge. When adding up both sides of the ball I believe he had a small amount of more impact.

[Axe]

It is an interesting comparison. Kg was a transcendent defensive player and Dirk was a transcendent offensive player. Both players are better at the other sides of the ball than they usually get credit for. Both have a ring they finally got later in their careers. KG’s prime got wasted a bit in Minnesota but he was still able to be a great player. KG probably should have gotten the FMVP for their title. KG used to get rated extremely high on other sites because of his advanced on and off numbers based stats. He has some of the best impact stats ever recorded according to some metrics. KG’s prime would have been more appreciated if he didn’t play in Minnesota. KG brings true 1-5 defense, elite perimeter defense, rim protection, and rebounding. Very high basketball iq. Prime KG has no weaknesses besides not being an ideal first option scoring. Every other box that you want from a power forward he checks. Dirk brings his unique versatility offensively by his spacing of the floor and shot creation out of the PF position to the likes we have never seen before. Dirk also was a solid rebounder and an underrated defender for many years. Overall they are both close but I would give KG the slight edge. When adding up both sides of the ball I believe he had a small amount of more impact.
Good to know that both stalwarts can play good defense, unlike stephen curry.

[tpols]

'04 KG was a different animal. I do agree that Dirk's unreal shooting, scoring, general orchestrating, and clutch ability are better than Garnett's... but the thing is Garnett is a GOAT defender. Like top 5 all time. And he was still very good offensively, so nah... can't agree with what you're saying.

[light]

Charles Barkley > than both of them.

But yep Dirk trumps KG. KG is more of a Pippen type player. Elite 2nd option, but not going to be the first option on a championship calibre team. KG never scored more than 35 points in a playoff game. Not once.

No one ever said scoring wins championships.

Kevin Garnett's career Playoff Defensive Rating is ninety-freaking-nine. 99! That's fantastic.

And check out KG's accolades versus Dirk's:

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/Garnett-vs-Dirk.png

Garnett is the better basketball player overall.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Overall they are both close but I would give KG the slight edge.


https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/garneke01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nowitdi01.html



Yea, hard for me to admit, but slight edge to KG.

I guess it depends on which era you're playing in.

Old School - KG

Today's Game - Dirk

[tanibanana]

Their head to head match-up and playoff series pefectly sums it up.

[rawimpact]

KG being a significantly better defender puts him ahead.

Bullshit accolades like All star MVP and TRB leader do not count.

This is a lot closer than it looks because most of KG's accolades came when he colluded whereas Dirk did it on a single team and as the clear cut man... not to mention his championship as an underdog.

[raiderfan19]

The answer is it depends on what else you have. If you have an all time team, KG makes a ton more sense as he is perhaps the most malleable player ever. Hes a legit all time defender and can adjust to whichever form of defense you need. KG is also obviously a very useful offensive player. The advantage for dirk is that he is an actual go to scorer that an all time offense can be built around. KG wasnt. So if you are starting from scratch dirk is the better player to build around. If you are picking an all time team, KG is much more likely to be on it, as any all time team is obviously already going to have go to scoring.

[TheGoatest]

KG should be ranked above Dirk, Malone and Barkley. He has the best all-round career accomplishments. Too bad he didn't win Finals MVP in 2008. That was practically a co-co-FMVP between him, Pierce and Allen.

[dankok8]

I've had this discussion many times with DMAVS and other. KG was a comfortably better basketball player in my eyes. Dirk is a scoring machine but a big man that doesn't defend the paint well is a problem. If you don't put an elite defensive big along Dirk like Chandler his team simply won't win. Dirk has that glaring weakness that KG doesn't and it doesn't make up for Dirk being a better iso scorer. KG isn't just a good defender either. He can be argued as the modern defensive GOAT.

[FKAri]

I guess it depends on which era you're playing in.

Old School - KG

Today's Game - Dirk


Old School - Tie

Today's Game - KG

A guy that can defend like KG is more valuable now than ever. His ability to pass and hit open jumpers is also more valuable today than ever. Whereas his lack of strength and size isn't much of a factor.

[Derka]

One is a guy I want out there if I need a stop to save a win.

The other is the guy I want taking the last shot.

[DMAVS41]

I've had this discussion many times with DMAVS and other. KG was a comfortably better basketball player in my eyes. Dirk is a scoring machine but a big man that doesn't defend the paint well is a problem. If you don't put an elite defensive big along Dirk like Chandler his team simply won't win. Dirk has that glaring weakness that KG doesn't and it doesn't make up for Dirk being a better iso scorer. KG isn't just a good defender either. He can be argued as the modern defensive GOAT.

Too many absolutes.

Dirk came within a missed shot or just not an extra foul call away from winning a title in 2006 (after already beating the defending champs in the Spurs) with Damp / Diop, a borderline bad coach, and no other All-NBA caliber player on the roster. Unless you are using a new definition of the word "elite"...you are just wrong.

Conversely, one could argue that unless you surround KG with multiple All-NBA or at least All-Star caliber players and an above average coach, you can't win.

In case you are wondering, it is a lot harder to get the collection of help that KG won with than it is Dirk almost won with...and then eventually won with.

I'd also love to know who you think the "elite" defensive big was on the 03 Mavs...and why a team like that "couldn't win"...

[ArbitraryWater]

KG being a significantly better defender puts him ahead.

Bullshit accolades like All star MVP and TRB leader do not count.

This is a lot closer than it looks because most of KG's accolades came when he colluded whereas Dirk did it on a single team and as the clear cut man... not to mention his championship as an underdog.

No, lol

[ArbitraryWater]

Old School - Tie

Today's Game - KG

A guy that can defend like KG is more valuable now than ever. His ability to pass and hit open jumpers is also more valuable today than ever. Whereas his lack of strength and size isn't much of a factor.

Dafuq?

Dirk literally ushered in what todays game is.

Think for a sec lol

[DMAVS41]

Dafuq?

Dirk literally ushered in what todays game is.

Think for a sec lol

They are referencing defense where Dirk would be picked on more often in today's game.

This is true in my opinion, but I also think most here view Dirk only as the player from 2011 onward and don't realize how athletic he was for his size.

[dankok8]

Too many absolutes.

Dirk came within a missed shot or just not an extra foul call away from winning a title in 2006 (after already beating the defending champs in the Spurs) with Damp / Diop, a borderline bad coach, and no other All-NBA caliber player on the roster. Unless you are using a new definition of the word "elite"...you are just wrong.

Conversely, one could argue that unless you surround KG with multiple All-NBA or at least All-Star caliber players and an above average coach, you can't win.

In case you are wondering, it is a lot harder to get the collection of help that KG won with than it is Dirk almost won with...and then eventually won with.

I'd also love to know who you think the "elite" defensive big was on the 03 Mavs...and why a team like that "couldn't win"...

Wouldn't you say that the gap between their defense is much bigger than the gap between their offense? It's worth remember that KG wasn't the scorer Dirk was but was a better offensive rebounder, better ball handler, better passer. He still brought a ton to his team offensively.

It's not that it's impossible to win without a defensive anchor in the middle but it's difficult. I think it's much easier to build a title team around KG than around Dirk. His overall lift to a team is much higher based on RAPM for example and his skill sets such as team defense, rebounding, and good passing out of the post are highly beneficial to any team. When Dirk shoots poorly he doesn't bring much to his team whereas Garnett could score 10 points and still be the best player on the court. I think his overall game clearly lags behind Garnett's.

We can agree to disagree. I respect your opinions on this though because you usually back things up with facts!

[DMAVS41]

Wouldn't you say that the gap between their defense is much bigger than the gap between their offense? It's worth remember that KG wasn't the scorer Dirk was but was a better offensive rebounder, better ball handler, better passer. He still brought a ton to his team offensively.

It's not that it's impossible to win without a defensive anchor in the middle but it's difficult. I think it's much easier to build a title team around KG than around Dirk. His overall lift to a team is much higher based on RAPM for example and his skill sets such as team defense, rebounding, and good passing out of the post are highly beneficial to any team. When Dirk shoots poorly he doesn't bring much to his team whereas Garnett could score 10 points and still be the best player on the court. I think his overall game clearly lags behind Garnett's.

We can agree to disagree. I respect your opinions on this though because you usually back things up with facts!

Yes, the gap between the defense was bigger than the gap between offense, but I don't think that is how one arrives at the true value of a player. You could say the same thing comparing KG to Magic Johnson, yet Magic was comfortably a better basketball player overall than KG.

Also, as I've always said, taking KG over Dirk is absolutely fine. I just disagree with your argument in your post. Dirk had 3 real chances at a title in his career...and only one of them was with an elite defensive anchor. So I just think your statement you about "simply not winning" is very close to objectively false based on what we watched. I also think you are way too hard on Dirk for defense. For starters, he was a great defensive rebounder for much of his career. In addition, he was good enough defensively to play the most minutes on a team with Steve Nash (on the short list of worst guard defenders ever) and without anyone really noteworthy on defense...and see his team finish 9th on defense. Take a look at the 03 roster and I think you'll retract your statement.

I also think your take "when Dirk shoots poorly he doesn't bring much" is incredibly flawed. Again, elite defensive rebounder, elite screen setter on offense that often commanded doubles (drawing a big away from the basket) off the ball. The modern term for that to describe it has been "gravity"...Dirk just being on the floor opens everything up for his teammates in a rare way that very few players in NBA history did...and even less bigs did. He also got to the foul line a lot and converted at all-time great rates.

So, take KG because you value his versatility, defense, and all around skillset more...that is fine...just don't take KG for reasons that don't hold up. KG needed more help than Dirk to come close to winning and actually winning...and saying Dirk doesn't impact the game much when his shot is off...not only is false, but I'm not sure it even makes sense to talk about a player in that sense when the guy is so consistently good that he's putting up 26/10/3 over a 12 year stretch in the playoffs. When trying to get to the real impact/value of a player, probably doesn't make sense to talk about "when they are off"...if the norm is greatness.

[StrongLurk]

They are the same "tier of player" if we are being honest. Anyone who says one is way better is not worth having a bball discussion with.

Choosing one over the other comes down to personal preference and current team makeup.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

KG is a beta and could never be a #1 option scorer on a title team. Idiot for wasting his entire prime on twolves (outside of 1 season).

Dirk also should of left Mavs way sooner but at least he proved he can be a #1 scoring option.

[Gohan]

No, lol

This I’m taking dirk all day over kg

[Uncle Drew]

KG is a beta and could never be a #1 option scorer on a title team. Idiot for wasting his entire prime on twolves (outside of 1 season).

Dirk also should of left Mavs way sooner but at least he proved he can be a #1 scoring option.

Garnett literally led the 08 Celtics in scoring. Good for Garnett that he stayed loyal and went as far as he could with the Wolves. Not everyone likes to quit on franchises and tamper their way to another stacked core.

[dankok8]

Yes, the gap between the defense was bigger than the gap between offense, but I don't think that is how one arrives at the true value of a player. You could say the same thing comparing KG to Magic Johnson, yet Magic was comfortably a better basketball player overall than KG.

Also, as I've always said, taking KG over Dirk is absolutely fine. I just disagree with your argument in your post. Dirk had 3 real chances at a title in his career...and only one of them was with an elite defensive anchor. So I just think your statement you about "simply not winning" is very close to objectively false based on what we watched. I also think you are way too hard on Dirk for defense. For starters, he was a great defensive rebounder for much of his career. In addition, he was good enough defensively to play the most minutes on a team with Steve Nash (on the short list of worst guard defenders ever) and without anyone really noteworthy on defense...and see his team finish 9th on defense. Take a look at the 03 roster and I think you'll retract your statement.

I also think your take "when Dirk shoots poorly he doesn't bring much" is incredibly flawed. Again, elite defensive rebounder, elite screen setter on offense that often commanded doubles (drawing a big away from the basket) off the ball. The modern term for that to describe it has been "gravity"...Dirk just being on the floor opens everything up for his teammates in a rare way that very few players in NBA history did...and even less bigs did. He also got to the foul line a lot and converted at all-time great rates.

So, take KG because you value his versatility, defense, and all around skillset more...that is fine...just don't take KG for reasons that don't hold up. KG needed more help than Dirk to come close to winning and actually winning...and saying Dirk doesn't impact the game much when his shot is off...not only is false, but I'm not sure it even makes sense to talk about a player in that sense when the guy is so consistently good that he's putting up 26/10/3 over a 12 year stretch in the playoffs. When trying to get to the real impact/value of a player, probably doesn't make sense to talk about "when they are off"...if the norm is greatness.

The KG vs. Magic example you gave doesn't work because offense is way more important than defense for a PG. For big men it's another story and defense is as important as offense when you're a C/PF.

KG had a good chance at a title in 2004 with a shitty Wolves team that by all indications would have missed the playoffs without him. With KG on the court they had a +9.8 net rating and with KG off the court they had a -10.9 net rating which would have finished worst in the league by a huge margin. And by the way this isn't a one-year wonder result either. In 2003 we see the same thing. A very good Wolves team with KG and the worst team in the league when KG is sitting.

The reason I mention off nights is because when a guy averages 26 ppg it doesn't mean he's putting up 26 points every night. There is a lot of variance. Dirk with all of his considerable gravity is still a relatively unimpactful player when he has a bad shooting night compared to KG who is a huge difference maker on the defensive end of the floor.

[DMAVS41]

The KG vs. Magic example you gave doesn't work because offense is way more important than defense for a PG. For big men it's another story and defense is as important as offense when you're a C/PF.

KG had a good chance at a title in 2004 with a shitty Wolves team that by all indications would have missed the playoffs without him. With KG on the court they had a +9.8 net rating and with KG off the court they had a -10.9 net rating which would have finished worst in the league by a huge margin. And by the way this isn't a one-year wonder result either. In 2003 we see the same thing. A very good Wolves team with KG and the worst team in the league when KG is sitting.

The reason I mention off nights is because when a guy averages 26 ppg it doesn't mean he's putting up 26 points every night. There is a lot of variance. Dirk with all of his considerable gravity is still a relatively unimpactful player when he has a bad shooting night compared to KG who is a huge difference maker on the defensive end of the floor.

I disagree with your assertion about Magic / KG. Yes, defense is more important for bigs, but what KG is missing, in my view, is actually the most important attribute for winning...which is being main offense generator for a team...and I'm not saying he wasn't great offensively, he was...he's just not on the level Dirk was. With basketball it is about pairing with players and teammates...I might agree with you if it was only one player, but even then the more valuable aspect is transcendent offense for an individual. You earlier basically said Dirk needs Tyson Chandler to win. Okay, I actually don't think that is true, but say I agree. I'd then argue KG needs Pierce...and, well, Pierce is harder to find than Tyson. And, again, you still haven't explained to me what elite defensive big Dirk had in 03 or 06...I'm still waiting on that.

Also, defensive impact is extremely team based...KG's all-time elite defense (and I agree he was all-time great) meant absolutely nothing in the playoffs in 02...when that guy with "a lot of variance" torched his team for 33/16 69%TS...variance doesn't just impact offense...it impacts every player...even defensive ones...so that is a non-point...averages and what players do is what we judge them on.

Again, I disagree, he's not a relatively unimpactful player when he's missing some shots. You are basically saying...he's not as good as he normally is when he's not playing as good as he normally does. Either he has more impact when he's off than you are giving him credit for...or he rarely had enough of those games for it to matter...because the results given the circumstances where just too historically good.

Zoom out though...11 straight 50 win seasons, multiple trips to the finals, a title, multiple coaches, tons of roster overturn...no great 2nd options or anything post Nash...only one "elite big"....

The argument that Dirk is harder to build around because of his style is really just a bad argument. Why are all these other guys that are easier to build around not putting up careers like him with similar help? Why do all these other all-time greats need more help to win? Why does Anthony Davis, for example, have to run to Lebron and can't do shit with a player like Jrue Holiday, but Dirk can almost win it all with Jason Terry / Josh Howard and a bad coach...if what Davis brings is so much more valuable for a big?

At some point you just have to admit that his style provided more impact than the old traditional way of playing and thinking.

04 KG was amazing...one of the best seasons for any player I've ever seen. Again, have no issue with someone taking KG...it is your arguments that I have issue with.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Garnett literally led the 08 Celtics in scoring. Good for Garnett that he stayed loyal and went as far as he could with the Wolves. Not everyone likes to quit on franchises and tamper their way to another stacked core.

KG averaged .7 more PPG and couldn't even win finals MVP. That's not a clear cut 1st scoring option, that's a shared scoring load like LeBron/Davis were and LeBron/Irving were. KG was also 3rd in PPG in the finals. So even 2014 kawhi had a better scoring load as he was 2nd in PPG during finals. Pretty sad for KG that's his peak wow Hahahaha

Yeah I guess not everybody can take a shithole with a record of 2-7 to a championship. That is Lowry/Vanvleet/Siakam record together this season.

Everything you say about basketball is cancer. Stop watching basketball or I should say stop pretending like you watch basketball.

[SouBeachTalents]

KG averaged .7 more PPG and couldn't even win finals MVP. That's not a clear cut 1st scoring option, that's a shared scoring load like LeBron/Davis were and LeBron/Irving were. KG was also 3rd in PPG in the finals. So even 2014 kawhi had a better scoring load as he was 2nd in PPG during finals. Pretty sad for KG that's his peak wow Hahahaha

Yeah I guess not everybody can take a shithole with a record of 2-7 to a championship. That is Lowry/Vanvleet/Siakam record together this season.

Everything you say about basketball is cancer. Stop watching basketball or I should say stop pretending like you watch basketball.
How'd the Raptors do last year? Surely Kawhi advanced further in the playoffs than they did

[HBK_Kliq_2]

How'd the Raptors do last year? Surely Kawhi advanced further in the playoffs than they did

He's too busy whopping your ass in finals LeBron. If he's not doing that, he's leading the greatest offensive of all time like this season.

Kawhi beat 1st team all NBA Luka. Raptors beat caris levert. STFU

[Bay Area Baller]

Your analysis of Dirk iza game changer. Who knew Dirk'soffensive capabilities is > than a couple of blocks a game and Garnettes D. If what your saying is true Dirks 2011 championship is worth more than Kevin Garnettes entire time with the Timberwolves before he colluded with Boston and a prime Pierce who carried the team. I reiterate your analysis of Dirk is spot on, iza game changer when I review these old Mavs games. Kudos.

[dankok8]

I disagree with your assertion about Magic / KG. Yes, defense is more important for bigs, but what KG is missing, in my view, is actually the most important attribute for winning...which is being main offense generator for a team...and I'm not saying he wasn't great offensively, he was...he's just not on the level Dirk was. With basketball it is about pairing with players and teammates...I might agree with you if it was only one player, but even then the more valuable aspect is transcendent offense for an individual. You earlier basically said Dirk needs Tyson Chandler to win. Okay, I actually don't think that is true, but say I agree. I'd then argue KG needs Pierce...and, well, Pierce is harder to find than Tyson. And, again, you still haven't explained to me what elite defensive big Dirk had in 03 or 06...I'm still waiting on that.

Also, defensive impact is extremely team based...KG's all-time elite defense (and I agree he was all-time great) meant absolutely nothing in the playoffs in 02...when that guy with "a lot of variance" torched his team for 33/16 69%TS...variance doesn't just impact offense...it impacts every player...even defensive ones...so that is a non-point...averages and what players do is what we judge them on.

Again, I disagree, he's not a relatively unimpactful player when he's missing some shots. You are basically saying...he's not as good as he normally is when he's not playing as good as he normally does. Either he has more impact when he's off than you are giving him credit for...or he rarely had enough of those games for it to matter...because the results given the circumstances where just too historically good.

Zoom out though...11 straight 50 win seasons, multiple trips to the finals, a title, multiple coaches, tons of roster overturn...no great 2nd options or anything post Nash...only one "elite big"....

The argument that Dirk is harder to build around because of his style is really just a bad argument. Why are all these other guys that are easier to build around not putting up careers like him with similar help? Why do all these other all-time greats need more help to win? Why does Anthony Davis, for example, have to run to Lebron and can't do shit with a player like Jrue Holiday, but Dirk can almost win it all with Jason Terry / Josh Howard and a bad coach...if what Davis brings is so much more valuable for a big?

At some point you just have to admit that his style provided more impact than the old traditional way of playing and thinking.

04 KG was amazing...one of the best seasons for any player I've ever seen. Again, have no issue with someone taking KG...it is your arguments that I have issue with.

KG is missing that elite isolation scorer pedigree. KG can actually score quite well and efficiently to boot playing within a team offense. He has good footwork in the post, money from midrange, can move really well off ball to receive lobs etc... but most importantly. You mentioned "offense generator". KG was a hell of an offense generator because KG is an elite passer from the post. He can make passes ranging from good to great which is why he meshes so well with other talent. Again he couldn't get you buckets at high % in iso situations but that's literally the only weakness in his game. And I'm not sure it's that important. He could have had a closer like Chauncey Billups or even Kyle Lowry. He didn't need an (older) Pierce.

Dirk's results in the playoffs actually weren't as good as you claim IMO. He made 2 Finals and 1 more Conference Finals (2003) where he got hurt. The rest of his career he was losing in the 1st or 2nd round sometimes even with high-seeded teams like in 2007 and 2010. There was plenty of variance in Dirk's performances. And I recall the 2006 Finals loss being the direct result of Dallas' defense being completely inept to stop Wade's penetration to the rim which pretty much ties into Dirk's weaknesses. And you are ignoring the years Dirk had Nash and Finley. Those two guys were great 2nd and 3rd options to have.

Let me be clear. I am only criticizing Dirk's style in relation to elite two-way bigs like KG which he lags significantly behind. I still have him around #20 all time. I have KG around #17 or so we are not talking huge gap but I don't hesitate to take KG over Dirk. Perhaps I was a little bit too strong in my stance.

I think both of us are smart enough to identify both players' strengths and weaknesses but we simply weigh them differently! :cheers:

[KKittles30]

Garnett is the 3rd best PF in NBA history and It's not even close. Barkely is 4th... and the ONLY reason Dirk is 5th is because he scored so much...It's funny how Dirk scoring a ton makes him better than KG or Sir Charles but, Malone out scored them all including Duncan by a ton but, Scoring never matters in that debate oddly.

All time Top 25 rankings

Points:

Garnett- 18th
Dirk- 6th
Barkley- 26th


Rebounds:

Garnett- 9th
Barkley-19th
Dirk-27th


Assists:

Garnett- 50th
Dirk- 146th
Barkley- 102nd


Steals:

Garnett- 18th
Dirk-88th
Barkley- 26th


Blocks:

Garnett-18th
Dirk- 52nd
Barkley-122nd

[BigShotBob]

Where was all of KG's legendary defense in the playoffs against Dirk when he averaged 30 against him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF_ehaEogEY

Dirk > KG it's not that close to me honestly.

[Gohan]

Y’all tellin me dirk wouldn’t of won with the 08 or 10 celtics

[KKittles30]

I love you just ignore the fact of what Dirk gave up to KG like he wasn't also getting torched too though? Also in that video you see KG guarding him 1 on 1 rarely because back then a PF didn't hang out at the 3pt. line

Dirk- 33.0Pts. 15.7Reb 0.7Ast 3.0stl 1.3Blk

KG- 24.0Pts. 18.7Reb 5.0Ast 1.7Stl 1.7Blk

[KKittles30]

Y’all tellin me dirk wouldn’t of won with the 08 or 10 celtics

Not against the Lakers no .. Dirk played 0 defense ....and barely rebounded...Garnet was the Finals MVP and they didn't give it to him because he had just joined the team. But his defense was the difference.

[Reggie43]

Both are obviously mvp level players but Garnett was better for his work on both ends of the floor.

[SouBeachTalents]

People making extreme arguments in this debate are laughable. They're both MVP level, top 20 all time players who have completely different strengths & weaknesses; who you'd take would ultimately come down to what your team would need. Personally, I'd probably go with KG more often than not, but Dirk would make more sense depending on the makeup of your team

[BigShotBob]

I love you just ignore the fact of what Dirk gave up to KG like he wasn't also getting torched too though? Also in that video you see KG guarding him 1 on 1 rarely because back then a PF didn't hang out at the 3pt. line

Dirk- 33.0Pts. 15.7Reb 0.7Ast 3.0stl 1.3Blk

KG- 24.0Pts. 18.7Reb 5.0Ast 1.7Stl 1.7Blk

Put KG's shooting percentage

[Smoke117]

KG is a great defender, good scorer, had range, great athlete, but Dirk was a far superior offensive player, more clutch and has greater intangibles. One on one, Dirk is killing KG 9/10 times.

Then I guess it's a good thing basketball isn't tennis then huh? Garnett to me was clearly the more overall higher impact player throughout their careers. Who would win one on one doesn't mean jack shit.

[DMAVS41]

KG is missing that elite isolation scorer pedigree. KG can actually score quite well and efficiently to boot playing within a team offense. He has good footwork in the post, money from midrange, can move really well off ball to receive lobs etc... but most importantly. You mentioned "offense generator". KG was a hell of an offense generator because KG is an elite passer from the post. He can make passes ranging from good to great which is why he meshes so well with other talent. Again he couldn't get you buckets at high % in iso situations but that's literally the only weakness in his game. And I'm not sure it's that important. He could have had a closer like Chauncey Billups or even Kyle Lowry. He didn't need an (older) Pierce.

Dirk's results in the playoffs actually weren't as good as you claim IMO. He made 2 Finals and 1 more Conference Finals (2003) where he got hurt. The rest of his career he was losing in the 1st or 2nd round sometimes even with high-seeded teams like in 2007 and 2010. There was plenty of variance in Dirk's performances. And I recall the 2006 Finals loss being the direct result of Dallas' defense being completely inept to stop Wade's penetration to the rim which pretty much ties into Dirk's weaknesses. And you are ignoring the years Dirk had Nash and Finley. Those two guys were great 2nd and 3rd options to have.

Let me be clear. I am only criticizing Dirk's style in relation to elite two-way bigs like KG which he lags significantly behind. I still have him around #20 all time. I have KG around #17 or so we are not talking huge gap but I don't hesitate to take KG over Dirk. Perhaps I was a little bit too strong in my stance.

I think both of us are smart enough to identify both players' strengths and weaknesses but we simply weigh them differently! :cheers:

KG was not an elite offense generator. He was not going to be the best offensive player on elite offenses that were able to consistently perform...especially in crunch time in the playoffs. When you say that is the "only weakness" in his game...I'd probably disagree, but even if I agreed...that ability is of supreme importance for winning in the NBA. Guys that can have that impact on and off the ball are extremely rare and I don't think you are giving enough weight to that.

No player is perfect and there is a reason Dirk isn't a top 10 player of all-time. You seem to use Dirk's own success against him like most do as if he was playing with the kind of help that wins titles historically outside a couple years of his career...which he wasn't. Ignoring them Nash / Finley? I've written about the 03 Mavs multiple times and you keep failing to tell me who the elite defensive big on that team was and why that team couldn't have won a title. You also continue to fail the "elite big" question in 06....focusing on one aspect of the Finals like the Mavs couldn't have won with a better coach or better perimeter players. Again, it isn't your conclusion that is the issue...it is the pretty much just false claims and bad arguments.

If a player plays with the kind of help Dirk did throughout his career and has his results playing completely different styles under completely different coaches (at one point a straight up bad coach) with tons of roster turnover and changing rules...and puts the consistent individual success and consistent team success...almost always without what you claim he had to have...it just becomes a bad argument.

And, I'll ask again, why did Anthony Davis do essentially nothing with a player like Jrue Holiday if what he provides is so much more valuable than what Dirk did? I'd like to know why Dirk gets criticized at for his 06 resume when he's upsetting the champs in round 2 going against Duncan...and a player that supposedly does more to help win like Davis...can't sniff any type of success until he goes to play with Lebron James.

I won't pretend to know exactly what KG needed to win, but I see no evidence that you needed less around KG to win than Dirk...which is basically the argument you are ultimately making.

Like I said, at some point, when the results given the circumstances are as good as they were for Dirk...it might be time to admit the traditional view doesn't hold up that well, but I'd love to hear why guys like Davis can't put together similar runs as team leads if they provide better chances for winning.

[DMAVS41]

Not against the Lakers no .. Dirk played 0 defense ....and barely rebounded...Garnet was the Finals MVP and they didn't give it to him because he had just joined the team. But his defense was the difference.

Cool, so averaging over 10 rebounds per game for a 12 year stretch in the playoffs is now known as "barely rebounded"...and Dirk could beat the likes of Miami and the Spurs on his best teams with less help than the 08 Celtics, but he couldn't beat the Lakers with more help.

Again, make better arguments.

[DMAVS41]

I love you just ignore the fact of what Dirk gave up to KG like he wasn't also getting torched too though? Also in that video you see KG guarding him 1 on 1 rarely because back then a PF didn't hang out at the 3pt. line

Dirk- 33.0Pts. 15.7Reb 0.7Ast 3.0stl 1.3Blk

KG- 24.0Pts. 18.7Reb 5.0Ast 1.7Stl 1.7Blk

But that is the point.

Everyone seems to want to not talk about it when KG's defense made no impact. It is a TEAM GAME...and you can't just give credit to KG's defense if it makes no impact at times. That was my point about variance going both ways earlier. I'm not disputing that KG on defense was a monster. He's still under-rated in that area in my opinion, he might be one of the two or three best defenders ever.

But, similar to when a great offensive player doesn't make as much of an impact for a variety of reasons...KG's defense meant absolutely nothing in that series. Nothing. The Mavs torched him and his team...and the player he talked shit about before the series...lit his ass up.

So when comparing players...you also have to talk about what kind of pairings are needed for them to excel with and build a team around. This is why the "Dirk needs Chandler" argument fails. Not only is it basically provably false given reality, but every player is going to need to pair up with certain types of players. Hell, most of the best players of all-time didn't win shit without a ton of help. The fact that someone thinks "Dirk needs Tyson" is an argument against Dirk just cracks me up. Go down the list of the types of players/teams the best players won with almost all of the time...teams like the 06 and 11 Mavercks are at the very bottom of supporting casts in rankings like that...in fact, 538 already did that and we they were towards the bottom. So it just doesn't make sense as an argument.

If you want to go on and on about KG's defense...and then when it means nothing...say "well, yea, but KG didn't guard certain guys back then"...not only invalidates your argument, but shows how valuable Dirk was. Even perhaps a top 5 defender ever that played Dirk's position...couldn't stop him at all in an era that was far easier to play defense in than it is now.

[TheGoatest]

Dirk was a far superior offensive player

Dirk was a far superior scorer, but considering the fact that passing, which KG was better at, is also a part of offense, Dirk was certainly not a far superior offensive player.

KG on the other hand was a far superior defender, and unlike Dirk with certain aspects of offense (passing, offensive rebounding), KG was far better at all aspects of defense than Dirk: One on one defense, team defense, help defense, perimeter defense, interior defense, shot blocking and defending the passing lanes. And he was also a better defensive rebounder.


One on one, Dirk is killing KG 9/10 times.

You're probably right about this, although it's probably more like 7/10 because KG could defend Dirk much better than vice versa.

However, when someone makes a thread comparing two players on this forum, isn't it automatically implied that they're comparing them within a team player context, which is what NBA basketball is, and not some streetball 1-on-1 pickup game?

[dankok8]

KG was not an elite offense generator. He was not going to be the best offensive player on elite offenses that were able to consistently perform...especially in crunch time in the playoffs. When you say that is the "only weakness" in his game...I'd probably disagree, but even if I agreed...that ability is of supreme importance for winning in the NBA. Guys that can have that impact on and off the ball are extremely rare and I don't think you are giving enough weight to that.

No player is perfect and there is a reason Dirk isn't a top 10 player of all-time. You seem to use Dirk's own success against him like most do as if he was playing with the kind of help that wins titles historically outside a couple years of his career...which he wasn't. Ignoring them Nash / Finley? I've written about the 03 Mavs multiple times and you keep failing to tell me who the elite defensive big on that team was and why that team couldn't have won a title. You also continue to fail the "elite big" question in 06....focusing on one aspect of the Finals like the Mavs couldn't have won with a better coach or better perimeter players. Again, it isn't your conclusion that is the issue...it is the pretty much just false claims and bad arguments.

If a player plays with the kind of help Dirk did throughout his career and has his results playing completely different styles under completely different coaches (at one point a straight up bad coach) with tons of roster turnover and changing rules...and puts the consistent individual success and consistent team success...almost always without what you claim he had to have...it just becomes a bad argument.

And, I'll ask again, why did Anthony Davis do essentially nothing with a player like Jrue Holiday if what he provides is so much more valuable than what Dirk did? I'd like to know why Dirk gets criticized at for his 06 resume when he's upsetting the champs in round 2 going against Duncan...and a player that supposedly does more to help win like Davis...can't sniff any type of success until he goes to play with Lebron James.

I won't pretend to know exactly what KG needed to win, but I see no evidence that you needed less around KG to win than Dirk...which is basically the argument you are ultimately making.

Like I said, at some point, when the results given the circumstances are as good as they were for Dirk...it might be time to admit the traditional view doesn't hold up that well, but I'd love to hear why guys like Davis can't put together similar runs as team leads if they provide better chances for winning.

2003 Mavs were 1st in ORtg and 9th in DRtg. 2006 Mavs were 1st in ORtg and 11th in DRtg. It's clear as day that defense held those teams back. The evidence is there with Duncan, Nash and Wade all torching the Mavs in the 2006 postseason. I seem to recall Kobe and Lebron also averaging ridiculous numbers on the Mavs in the 05-06 regular season. Defense was the reason the Mavs in 2006 didn't win a title. In 2003 Dirk's injury happened so we don't know that would have happened if he was healthy. They didn't have defensive bigs in those years. That's the whole point.

It could be that Dirk is underrated and impacts the game "more than using the traditional view" or it could be that those Mavs teams were a lot better than given credit for. There are two possibilities to consider there.

At the end of the day based on the ON/OFF numbers I posted, RAPM stats etc. I just don't see how Dirk was as impactful as KG. Garnett's teams collapsed without him to a much greater extent than Dirk's teams. And KG was still comfortably the best player on the 2008 Celtics. That's obvious if you compare his and Pierce' total impact on the game. They are not even on the same tier.

[tpols]

2003 Mavs were 1st in ORtg and 9th in DRtg. 2006 Mavs were 1st in ORtg and 11th in DRtg. It's clear as day that defense held those teams back. The evidence is there with Duncan, Nash and Wade all torching the Mavs in the 2006 postseason. I seem to recall Kobe and Lebron also averaging ridiculous numbers on the Mavs in the 05-06 regular season. Defense was the reason the Mavs in 2006 didn't win a title. In 2003 Dirk's injury happened so we don't know that would have happened if he was healthy. They didn't have defensive bigs in those years. That's the whole point.

It could be that Dirk is underrated and impacts the game "more than using the traditional view" or it could be that those Mavs teams were a lot better than given credit for. There are two possibilities to consider there.

At the end of the day based on the ON/OFF numbers I posted, RAPM stats etc. I just don't see how Dirk was as impactful as KG. Garnett's teams collapsed without him to a much greater extent than Dirk's teams. And KG was still comfortably the best player on the 2008 Celtics. That's obvious if you compare his and Pierce' total impact on the game. They are not even on the same tier.

This is ridiculous... Dirk beat Duncan in 2006 with way less help (manu/parker > anybody on the mavs), and you are using that against him.

:biggums:

[DMAVS41]

2003 Mavs were 1st in ORtg and 9th in DRtg. 2006 Mavs were 1st in ORtg and 11th in DRtg. It's clear as day that defense held those teams back. The evidence is there with Duncan, Nash and Wade all torching the Mavs in the 2006 postseason. I seem to recall Kobe and Lebron also averaging ridiculous numbers on the Mavs in the 05-06 regular season. Defense was the reason the Mavs in 2006 didn't win a title. In 2003 Dirk's injury happened so we don't know that would have happened if he was healthy. They didn't have defensive bigs in those years. That's the whole point.

It could be that Dirk is underrated and impacts the game "more than using the traditional view" or it could be that those Mavs teams were a lot better than given credit for. There are two possibilities to consider there.

At the end of the day based on the ON/OFF numbers I posted, RAPM stats etc. I just don't see how Dirk was as impactful as KG. Garnett's teams collapsed without him to a much greater extent than Dirk's teams. And KG was still comfortably the best player on the 2008 Celtics. That's obvious if you compare his and Pierce' total impact on the game. They are not even on the same tier.

I wrote a long post, but deleted it...lets try this another way.

Do you think the 06 Mavs would have won the title if you replace Jason Terry with Klay Thompson and Avery Johnson with Rick Carlisle?

Also, in no way did I ever argue that Pierce was on KG's level...nor would I ever dispute the enormous impact KG had on those teams.

You said maybe I'm under-rating the help...well, if we go off of your on/off numbers...Dirk's help was not noteworthy really ever in his prime. Virtually every year of his prime saw his team get torched when he left the floor. Of course he had more help than KG, but I don't think Dirk's help looks very good in comparison to the other supporting casts that players were winning titles with.

So it seems a bit unfair to hold Dirk to a certain standard that I don't think even better players would be held to.

[DMAVS41]

And to be clear, I'm not even saying they'd beat the Heat in 06 for sure with that...I do think they would, but I'm not saying it is a lock.

I'm just still struggling to understand the point of saying Dirk "simply can't win" without Tyson. Are you arguing that the 06 Mavs would have lost to the 99 Knicks or the 07 Cavs?

I mean, it really seems like that claim just doesn't hold up, but correct me here...because it isn't like a team has any control of the competition. The Mavs could have just as easily been playing a really weak team in the finals that they'd stomp...so I'm confused.

[BigShotBob]

I see the point about Dirk torching KG head to head isn't brought up. I wonder why?

All of that "legendary" defense meant absolutely nothing to Dirk. Nothing. He made KG look like a turnstile. And back then Dirk could face up and do two dribble pull-ups in KG's face. Nothing but net.

KG just isn't the offensive engine that you would want to make a legitimate deep playoff run because he wasn't nearly as explosively a scorer as Dirk or as efficient in ANY area. Not from Mid-Range, not from the post, and definitely not from three.

This is why this argument needs to die and it's really not all that close to me. Their distance is skillset and offensive repertoire is far, far too vast. And KG's defense does not and cannot make up the difference since he literally can not guard Dirk even remotely.

[Reggie43]

How many playoff matchups did they have? Were they actually guarding each other? What did their matchups look like through the course of their careers or do we judge thus matchup based on three whole games lol

[tpols]

How many playoff matchups did they have? Were they actually guarding each other? What did their matchups look like through the course of their careers or do we judge thus matchup based on three whole games lol

The more I think about it I think it's much easier to acquire elite defensive talent than offensive talent in the draft. You see guys like rodman, dray, ben wallace etc. all second rounders but unreal defenders. Bruce Bowen and Michael Cooper are two of the best shutdown man defenders ever and they went undrafted. When was the last time you saw a GOAT offensive player taken that late?

Dirk owned Duncan AND Garnett in the playoffs. Two defensive GOATs. He beat them and even at times with less help. He dismantled the peak Heat with Lebron and Wade. The guy is criminally underrated.

[dankok8]

And to be clear, I'm not even saying they'd beat the Heat in 06 for sure with that...I do think they would, but I'm not saying it is a lock.

I'm just still struggling to understand the point of saying Dirk "simply can't win" without Tyson. Are you arguing that the 06 Mavs would have lost to the 99 Knicks or the 07 Cavs?

I mean, it really seems like that claim just doesn't hold up, but correct me here...because it isn't like a team has any control of the competition. The Mavs could have just as easily been playing a really weak team in the finals that they'd stomp...so I'm confused.

I didn't mean to say he can't win without Tyson just that winning without a good defensive big man alongside him would be difficult because the team would always be subpar defensively. The 99 Knicks and 07 Cavs are some of the worst teams to ever make the Finals. Yes the Mavs could beat them but what would that prove? 2004 Wolves would beat them too. People acknowledge the difficulty of title runs. That also goes to Dirk's credit with the 2011 title run being among the more difficult ones.

I'm not holding Dirk to a higher standard. He had significantly better supporting casts in Dallas than KG had in Minny. KG never had players anywhere close to the level of Nash who went on to Phoenix to win back-to-back MVP's. Finley was also better than any Wolves player. From 04-05 onwards, KG's Wolves teams were hot garbage considering Wally and Ricky Davis were always injured. When KG went to Boston he had better casts than Dirk to kind of even things out.

[ArbitraryWater]

Dirk absolutely shredded Garnett in their H2H matchup


KG's defense was rendered useless



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHdTYU-lGpw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF_ehaEogEY

[dankok8]

I see the point about Dirk torching KG head to head isn't brought up. I wonder why?

All of that "legendary" defense meant absolutely nothing to Dirk. Nothing. He made KG look like a turnstile. And back then Dirk could face up and do two dribble pull-ups in KG's face. Nothing but net.

KG just isn't the offensive engine that you would want to make a legitimate deep playoff run because he wasn't nearly as explosively a scorer as Dirk or as efficient in ANY area. Not from Mid-Range, not from the post, and definitely not from three.

This is why this argument needs to die and it's really not all that close to me. Their distance is skillset and offensive repertoire is far, far too vast. And KG's defense does not and cannot make up the difference since he literally can not guard Dirk even remotely.

You're talking about a 3-game miniseries where Dirk had Nash and Finley and KG had Wally Szczerbiak as his second option. Look at their career H2H stats and note that quite a few games happened post 2008 with a clearly past prime KG against a still prime Dirk. Let's look at a little larger sample size of all their career regular season games.

37 Regular Season H2H Matchups

Dirk: 23.1 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 2.1 apg, 0.6 spg, 0.8 bpg on 58.5 %TS with 1.7 topg in 38.0 mpg
Garnett: 21.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.2 spg, 1.2 bpg on 57.3 %TS with 2.5 topg in 36.8 mpg

Don't see how Dirk outperformed KG at all especially considering the rather huge team defense edge in favor of KG. Anyways I don't even recall how often the two defended each other so the whole "Dirk torched Garnett" post may not even be accurate.

[tpols]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF_ehaEogEY

Wow... Garnett could not guard Dirk at all.

Not only was he getting J'ed, Dirk was blowing by him at will because Garnett was so scared of the jumper. He had him in a chess match check mate.

[DMAVS41]

If you don't put an elite defensive big along Dirk like Chandler his team simply won't win.

So, just to be clear...you are now admitting that you don't stand by this statement and are essentially agreeing with me on this point. Which was that there is evidence that Dirk could win without an elite big.

Yes, the 04 Wolves would beat either of those teams likely, but I don't think they'd have much of a prayer beating the 06 Spurs...which you seem to ignore in your analysis. In part because KG's help was worse, but also in part, in my opinion, because of what KG would be missing offensively to win that series. It isn't just about the finals...the 06 Mavericks beat the Spurs during their peak...they were the only team to beat the Spurs in the playoffs in that 3 year stretch. You can't just ignore that man.

Again, who said Dirk didn't have better help than KG? I've never made such claim and you don't see me talking about how inept the Wolves were with KG leading the franchise only winning 2 playoff series in his entire time there irrc or how the team defense almost never cracked even the top 10. I don't say they stuff because it would be a bad arguments.

So, of course Dirk had more help, but having more help doesn't mean he didn't overachieve with his help. It feels like you are confusing the two. KG went to Boston and had a legit title winning squad around him. Dirk never had a team as good as the 08 Celtics around him and probably only the 03 team could be argued as fitting the historical standard for a title winning team.

So it does seem like you are holding him to a higher standard if a decade of 50 plus wins, multiple deep playoff runs, a finals birth as an underdog, a title as a huge underdog, and 12 years in the playoffs of 26/10/3 on great efficiency while having all-time great impact off the ball and being one of the most clutch players in NBA history.

I don't know...better players needed more to win or didn't accomplish some of this stuff...and it does seem like you are conveniently ignoring just how hard it is to win without a loaded team.

[DMAVS41]

You're talking about a 3-game miniseries where Dirk had Nash and Finley and KG had Wally Szczerbiak as his second option. Look at their career H2H stats and note that quite a few games happened post 2008 with a clearly past prime KG against a still prime Dirk. Let's look at a little larger sample size of all their career regular season games.

37 Regular Season H2H Matchups

Dirk: 23.1 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 2.1 apg, 0.6 spg, 0.8 bpg on 58.5 %TS with 1.7 topg in 38.0 mpg
Garnett: 21.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.2 spg, 1.2 bpg on 57.3 %TS with 2.5 topg in 36.8 mpg

Don't see how Dirk outperformed KG at all especially considering the rather huge team defense edge in favor of KG. Anyways I don't even recall how often the two defended each other so the whole "Dirk torched Garnett" post may not even be accurate.

I agree with you that such a small sample in the 03 series is meaningless as to who was better, but I'd be careful about making the team defense argument. The Wolves never really played good to great team defense outside a couple of years...even with KG...and you might blame that all on teammates...and that is probably fair, but you'd then have to ask why the Wolves felt the need to get more offense around KG...the teams actually performed quite well offensively for the most part...defense was their weakness...which is really kind of funny considering what you've been going on about.

Also, the reason people bring that up is to show that transcendent offense can't be gauged like you seem to want to. You can't classify guys like Curry Dirk...to use modern examples...with the gap stuff you talked about earlier. That offense can be so good that there is nothing the opponents can do...regardless of how great they are defensively...and that series was a glimpse into that imo.

And, of course, KG talked shit before the series...and looked foolish for doing so.

And, what is also a bit funny is...you'd think a series like that would make a KG fan like and value Dirk more. There is no doubt that KG is, again, an all-time great defender...we all agree on that...and for a player to do some of the things Dirk can do against the likes of a KG or Duncan...should make people not say negative things about KG or Duncan (because we already all agree how elite they were defensively), but to acknowledge the offensive greatness of Dirk and maybe admit it was more impactful than traditional thinking dictates. Just a thought...

[dankok8]

Did you guys watch the videos AW posted?

There are a total of only 7 plays by my count where KG is defending Dirk. There is a play where Dirk is running the court with a full head of steam and just gets to the rim. You can't try to stop him or it's a foul. One play Dirk beats KG off the dribble and gets a foul as well. This was the best play. Two plays KG is called for pretty soft fouls that easily could be no-calls. The other three plays Dirk just hits very difficult contested jumpers over Garnett's outstretched hand. On all other scores Dirk was defended by other players. A meaningful footage will show misses as well. We know Dirk made 7 field goals on KG. How many did he miss? Also worth noting that making 7 shots means next to nothing in the big picture. The sample size is insanely tiny.

[ArbitraryWater]

Did you guys watch the videos AW posted?

There are a total of only 7 plays by my count where KG is defending Dirk. There is a play where Dirk is running the court with a full head of steam and just gets to the rim. You can't try to stop him or it's a foul. One play Dirk beats KG off the dribble and gets a foul as well. This was the best play. Two plays KG is called for pretty soft fouls that easily could be no-calls. The other three plays Dirk just hits very difficult contested jumpers over Garnett's outstretched hand. On all other scores Dirk was defended by other players. A meaningful footage will show misses as well. We know Dirk made 7 field goals on KG. How many did he miss? Also worth noting that making 7 shots means next to nothing in the big picture. The sample size is insanely tiny.

Stop trolling dude.

Dirk averaged 33 ppg on 53% shooting that series, and KG could have defended him more but decided not to.

You just might be able to guess why.

Probably not because his defense was such a big success.

[DMAVS41]

Did you guys watch the videos AW posted?

There are a total of only 7 plays by my count where KG is defending Dirk. There is a play where Dirk is running the court with a full head of steam and just gets to the rim. You can't try to stop him or it's a foul. One play Dirk beats KG off the dribble and gets a foul as well. This was the best play. Two plays KG is called for pretty soft fouls that easily could be no-calls. The other three plays Dirk just hits very difficult contested jumpers over Garnett's outstretched hand. On all other scores Dirk was defended by other players. A meaningful footage will show misses as well. We know Dirk made 7 field goals on KG. How many did he miss? Also worth noting that making 7 shots means next to nothing in the big picture. The sample size is insanely tiny.

We don't need to watch the replay, at least I don't, I watched the series...and Dirk was the best player in that series and KG's defense impacted the game very little and Dirk's offense impacted the game a lot. Also, he didn't miss a lot of shots in that series...he shot incredibly well.

See, this was my point above...your reaction just shows you can't think outside the traditional box on this stuff. You are literally watching a 7 footer in Dirk play a style that neutralizes what KG can do defensively because if you put KG on Dirk...it drags him away from the basket opening other things up and Dirk can still score efficiently enough against that great defense...and if you don't put KG on Dirk...he's going to torch your team if you don't double.

If you can't see the value in that going beyond simple analysis...I give up.

And yes, the sample size means nothing overall...but how the games went does mean something. It is a glimpse into what Dirk level offense can do to even the best defensive players ever at times.

[dankok8]

DMAVS

I'm responding to both of your posts.

I never meant Chandler literally. Maybe it came across like that. I just meant that Dirk needs a defensive big alongside him to cover for his weaknesses and those don't grow on trees. The thing is that Garnett's Wolves casts were so poor that we don't know what KG really needed to win. There is a reason a lot of people consider peak KG (including Ben Taylor) as a top 10 player ever. I would never rank him that high but the fact that there are legitimate arguments for that should make people stop and reconsider. KG had an insane lift on his teams. The 2004 Wolves that contended for a championship were the worst team in the league without him. Think about that!

I get your argument about transcendent offense but Dirk is not a GOAT-level offensive player. He's not on Curry's level IMO. Or guys like Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Lebron, Bird etc. He is probably top 10 though.

At the end of the day, let's agree to disagree. I've explained where I'm coming from I think.

[dankok8]

We don't need to watch the replay, at least I don't, I watched the series...and Dirk was the best player in that series and KG's defense impacted the game very little and Dirk's offense impacted the game a lot. Also, he didn't miss a lot of shots in that series...he shot incredibly well.

See, this was my point above...your reaction just shows you can't think outside the traditional box on this stuff. You are literally watching a 7 footer in Dirk play a style that neutralizes what KG can do defensively because if you put KG on Dirk...it drags him away from the basket opening other things up and Dirk can still score efficiently enough against that great defense...and if you don't put KG on Dirk...he's going to torch your team if you don't double.

If you can't see the value in that going beyond simple analysis...I give up.

And yes, the sample size means nothing overall...but how the games went does mean something. It is a glimpse into what Dirk level offense can do to even the best defensive players ever at times.

Good post. I agree. That's why Dirk is one of the 10 best offensive players ever. However, the way Stephen Jackson in GS stopped Dirk one-on-one makes me think that if Dirk went up against KG he would have a lot of poor shooting series like he did in the 2007 first round as well. Dirk also didn't shoot too well in both of his Finals. Let's not pretend like he always shot well. Against a defender as good as KG, the simple law of averages tells me he would shoot significantly under his usual %'s.

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS

I'm responding to both of your posts.

I never meant Chandler literally. Maybe it came across like that. I just meant that Dirk needs a defensive big alongside him to cover for his weaknesses and those don't grow on trees. The thing is that Garnett's Wolves casts were so poor that we don't know what KG really needed to win. There is a reason a lot of people consider peak KG (including Ben Taylor) as a top 10 player ever. I would never rank him that high but the fact that there are legitimate arguments for that should make people stop and reconsider. KG had an insane lift on his teams. The 2004 Wolves that contended for a championship were the worst team in the league without him. Think about that!

I get your argument about transcendent offense but Dirk is not a GOAT-level offensive player. He's not on Curry's level IMO. Or guys like Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Lebron, Bird etc.

At the end of the day, let's agree to disagree. I've explained where I'm coming from I think.

I know you didn't mean literally Chandler...you said elite big...which you now have said you no longer think because there was no "elite big" on those other teams you've admitted could have won titles against weaker competition or just giving Dirk some legit championship level help.

Disagree about Dirk not being an offensive GOAT level player. He definitely was and I think if you actually look at his impact given his circumstances...it just becomes obvious, but you seem to want to argue that guys like Terry and Josh Howard and a bunch of older players were way better than any legit analysis would have them...is what was really going on.

Which seems odd given your reliance and on/off...Dirk's teams in his prime roughly -3 points per 100 possessions without him on the floor. You'd think these great supporting casts would have actually performed like it at some point if that was really what was going. Hell, in 2011...the supporting cast was -5.4 points per 100 without Dirk...which is terrible for a team trying to win a title.

Again, perhaps that big German had something to do with it.

[DMAVS41]

Good post. I agree. That's why Dirk is one of the 10 best offensive players ever. However, the way Stephen Jackson in GS stopped Dirk one-on-one makes me think that if Dirk went up against KG he would have a lot of poor shooting series like he did in the 2007 first round as well. Dirk also didn't shoot too well in both of his Finals. Let's not pretend like he always shot well. Against a defender as good as KG, the simple law of averages tells me he would shoot significantly under his usual %'s.

Nobody with a brain is ever going to argue that a certain player always played well or didn't struggle at times. I've never argued it and never would.

You could say the same thing about KG...I've watched he and his teams get absolutely torched on defense.

I'm not sure why you think only one applies.

[dankok8]

I know you didn't mean literally Chandler...you said elite big...which you now have said you no longer think because there was no "elite big" on those other teams you've admitted could have won titles against weaker competition or just giving Dirk some legit championship level help.

Disagree about Dirk not being an offensive GOAT level player. He definitely was and I think if you actually look at his impact given his circumstances...it just becomes obvious, but you seem to want to argue that guys like Terry and Josh Howard and a bunch of older players were way better than any legit analysis would have them...is what was really going on.

Which seems odd given your reliance and on/off...Dirk's teams in his prime roughly -3 points per 100 possessions without him on the floor. You'd think these great supporting casts would have actually performed like it at some point if that was really what was going. Hell, in 2011...the supporting cast was -5.4 points per 100 without Dirk...which is terrible for a team trying to win a title.

Again, perhaps that big German had something to do with it.

Well I can agree that neither KG or Dirk had championship casts for most of their careers. KG predictably won with his best casts and Dirk didn't when he had his best cast circa 2003. Again I'm repeating myself but the fact that Ben Taylor and even some other fans of analytics have KG in their top 10 says to me that you may be underrating KG's impact. Ben has KG #8 and Dirk at #18.

Where would you rank Dirk purely as an offensive player? Who would you have above him?

[DMAVS41]

Well I can agree that neither KG or Dirk had championship casts for most of their careers. KG predictably won with his best casts and Dirk didn't when he had his best cast circa 2003. Again I'm repeating myself but the fact that Ben Taylor and even some other fans of analytics have KG in their top 10 says to me that you may be underrating KG's impact. Ben has KG #8 and Dirk at #18.

Where would you rank Dirk purely as an offensive player? Who would you have above him?

I have no issue with Ben ranking KG that high because it is consistent. On his analysis...it makes sense and I think KG being 8 is fair. I just disagree that his analysis is the best way to find the true impact of a player. His analysis plays a role for sure, but it is limited.

How am I under-rating KG? I'd literally have no problem with someone putting him like 12th all-time, again, depending on the criteria...and I've said that I have no issue with someone taking KG over Dirk. My issue is when the reason for doing so is "can't win without an elite big" (which you now have conceded was a bad argument) and doesn't make much of an impact when off...because I find those to both be bad arguments.

And would just like some acknowledgement that great defensive players also lack impact at times...again, the Wolves with KG were not great defensive teams. Often times, they were straight up average or not good...and then you'll say...yea, but it was teammates. And I'll say...exactly...and then all I will ask is to take the same look at Dirk. So when it is absolutely fine for KG to lead the 16th best defense at near his peak for you...I want you to reflect on why that is and take that same attitude toward evaluating Dirk given his circumstances.

My push to you is that you are analyzing one much differently than the other. Totally fine that KG anchors a subpar defense, but you'll go on and on about the Mavs not winning a title as a team substantial dogs to get out of the 2nd round...with Dirk not having much noteworthy help at all historically to win titles. Just doesn't seem consistent.

Where is Dirk offensively? Probably Curry-level...I think he's essentially the big version of Curry and I think a lot of people don't realize that because Dirk actually didn't play with much great help offensively after Nash left...and that is where the most people know him from. I can't even imagine what Dirk would have been able to do playing on perfectly built teams around him like Curry had for much of his prime/peak.

[Pointguard]

Dirk is a hard figure. Where he ranks all time is always going to be hard. Where he ranks among power forwards even harder. Dirk was great offensively and definitely among the top PFs. The hard questions are was he a top offensive force among his contemporaries? Shaq, Durant, Wade, Curry, Kobe, Lebron, Kawhi, Duncan and Harden were all top notch offensive players who consistently played at a higher offensive tier than Dirk. Its not fair to say Dirk is on their level - he wasn't. That's seven/eight contemporaries who were top notch offensive killers or 9's or 10's on an offensive scale. And all had a second facet to their game that Dirk just doesn't have. On the too close to call right now are McGrady, Barkley and K Malone. Next year I have Giannis and Donicic joining that group and soon to surpass him. Durant does everything better than Dirk and most things a lot better. Dirk's range is not in the conversation of Curry or Harden, both of whom could lead the league in assist. The big thing amongst all these players is that the successful ones played for an organization that provided structure. Durant is Dirk on steroids and he doesn't win until he gets a structured team.

For years people had Russell number one on defensive ability/leadership alone. But he had great structure with his team. Dirk is a hard one to figure on several levels.

[dankok8]

I have no issue with Ben ranking KG that high because it is consistent. On his analysis...it makes sense and I think KG being 8 is fair. I just disagree that his analysis is the best way to find the true impact of a player. His analysis plays a role for sure, but it is limited.

How am I under-rating KG? I'd literally have no problem with someone putting him like 12th all-time, again, depending on the criteria...and I've said that I have no issue with someone taking KG over Dirk. My issue is when the reason for doing so is "can't win without an elite big" (which you now have conceded was a bad argument) and doesn't make much of an impact when off...because I find those to both be bad arguments.

And would just like some acknowledgement that great defensive players also lack impact at times...again, the Wolves with KG were not great defensive teams. Often times, they were straight up average or not good...and then you'll say...yea, but it was teammates. And I'll say...exactly...and then all I will ask is to take the same look at Dirk. So when it is absolutely fine for KG to lead the 16th best defense at near his peak for you...I want you to reflect on why that is and take that same attitude toward evaluating Dirk given his circumstances.

My push to you is that you are analyzing one much differently than the other. Totally fine that KG anchors a subpar defense, but you'll go on and on about the Mavs not winning a title as a team substantial dogs to get out of the 2nd round...with Dirk not having much noteworthy help at all historically to win titles. Just doesn't seem consistent.

Where is Dirk offensively? Probably Curry-level...I think he's essentially the big version of Curry and I think a lot of people don't realize that because Dirk actually didn't play with much great help offensively after Nash left...and that is where the most people know him from. I can't even imagine what Dirk would have been able to do playing on perfectly built teams around him like Curry had for much of his prime/peak.

Ok so if you can see KG at #12 wouldn't that make him better than Dirk? Can you see Dirk at #12 all time?

I shouldn't have said "He can't win without a defensive big." I should have said "In all likelihood it's difficult for him to win without a defensive big." That's a softer statement I admit and doesn't sound definitive. After all we can't prove what Dirk could and couldn't win with just make a hypothesis based on his strengths and weaknesses as a player. My apologies for using a bit of hyperbole there.

When were Mavs huge dogs when they made deep runs? 60 wins in 2003, 60 wins in 2006, 57 wins in 2011? What am I missing? You can say they weren't favorites but solid dogs? I'm not sure.

I strongly disagree with ranking Dirk as high as Curry offensively. Curry is an unbelievable ballhandler and a much better playmaker. You can make Curry start your offense whereas Dirk sets up in the post waiting for a pass. They are different players and Dirk has the advantage of height but even as pure shooters I'd give Curry a solid edge. As a shooter, I don't think anyone is on Curry's level to be fair. Although there is a caveat that the current era is softer. I think in the early 00's maybe Curry wouldn't be as good as he is now. The possibility of that is very much there. However my gut tells me that Curry's overall offensive game is superior.

Defensive impact also varies but it's more consistent than offensive impact. Very small samples can skew the reality sometimes. In that footage for instance it's not even that KG played poor defense but Dirk simply made exceptional plays. Hitting jumpers over outstretched hands of KG is very difficult as is beating him to the cup if you're a 7-footer. Dirk being able to do that on a handful of possessions doesn't reflect poorly on KG's defense. I judge KG by his complete body of work. Even in his mid 30's circa 2012 he could have been DPOY because I can't think of a better defensive anchor even in that late age. Boston full of old veterans was still the best defense in the league in 2012. Thanks largely to KG... IIRC he was 2nd to Lebron in RAPM that season and first in DRAPM.

[DMAVS41]

Ok so if you can see KG at #12 wouldn't that make him better than Dirk? Can you see Dirk at #12 all time?

I shouldn't have said "He can't win without a defensive big." I should have said "In all likelihood it's difficult for him to win without a defensive big." That's a softer statement I admit and doesn't sound definitive. After all we can't prove what Dirk could and couldn't win with just make a hypothesis based on his strengths and weaknesses as a player. My apologies for using a bit of hyperbole there.

When were Mavs huge dogs when they made deep runs? 60 wins in 2003, 60 wins in 2006, 57 wins in 2011? What am I missing? You can say they weren't favorites but solid dogs? I'm not sure.

I strongly disagree with ranking Dirk as high as Curry offensively. Curry is an unbelievable ballhandler and a much better playmaker. You can make Curry start your offense whereas Dirk sets up in the post waiting for a pass. They are different players and Dirk has the advantage of height but even as pure shooters I'd give Curry a solid edge. As a shooter, I don't think anyone is on Curry's level to be fair. Although there is a caveat that the current era is softer. I think in the early 00's maybe Curry wouldn't be as good as he is now. The possibility of that is very much there. However my gut tells me that Curry's overall offensive game is superior.

Defensive impact also varies but it's more consistent than offensive impact.

I'm trying hard man, but I legit think you aren't being fair. I have repeatedly said that I think it is absolutely fair for someone to take KG over Dirk. That means I think a solid argument can be made for ranking KG ahead of Dirk. So if someone ranked KG 12th, yes...it would make him better than Dirk. I have two issues with your position that I thought I have made clear...

1. Bad arguments
2. Claiming KG was "comfortably" better

That is what I disagree with.

In 2006 they were underdogs to get out of the 2nd round. That is a fact. Also, you are using Dirk's greatness against him. Actually evaluate his team in 06 and tell me why they should be considered to beat the Duncan led Spurs. They were coming off a title, had a better player in Duncan, better supporting cast, and one of the best coaches ever. They also had homecourt. Do you not see my point and your contradiction? You go on and on about how KG is comfortably better...which means you'd then have to argue Duncan in the same way because he was better than KG...yet you then find it no big deal that Dirk can lead a team that wasn't as good with pretty much just a bad coach and beat them during the best 3 year stretch they had? While doing 27/13/3 65% TS and playing a legendary game 7? You are either ignorant of what happened or too biased to give Dirk proper credit.

In 2011, many people had them losing in round 1. That team was awful all year without Dirk on the floor as I've said earlier. They then had to beat the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat...yes, they were big dogs and almost nobody gave them a chance to win it all. Again, these are just facts.

Your take on Curry / Dirk shows how much you miss when it comes to evaluating Dirk. You really should take the time to read this...
https://grantland.com/the-triangle/steve-nash-george-karl-and-others-on-dirk-nowitzki-and-the-unguardable-play/


Thinking that Dirk just goes to the post and waits for the pass is such an absurd simplification of Dirk's offensive impact...I'm really surprised someone like you actually would argue that. My guess is that you don't actually believe some of what you are saying at this point. I said Dirk was the big version of Curry and Curry-level...I'm not going to quibble about a slight edge either way. What I'm saying is that you aren't coming close to grasping Dirk's impact on offense if you think he was merely a post player waiting for the ball. I really encourage you to read the article and reflect on how many open shots and lanes to the rim were generated for just Jason Terry alone off variations of a simple play in which Dirk never even touches the ball.

Nobody said it indicates bad defense by KG. Another strawman. I said that it shows, at times, how meaningless even one of the best defenders can be in a game or series. Variance goes both ways. That isn't saying KG played bad defense...it is saying that his great defense made little to no impact because that is the nature of the game at times...and that series was an example of it...and of course that is true for offensive greats as well. My point is that it cuts both ways...and you seem perfectly okay to use that logic when KG is anchoring poor defenses, but not okay using the same logic when hold Dirk to account for not winning titles without the historical levels of help almost always necessary. This doesn't seem consistent.

I judge them on their entire body of work as well. As late as 2014 for Dirk at age 35...he was playing with a team in which Monta Ellis played the most minutes, didn't have elite bigs, and still got them basically to 50 wins and took the Spurs to 7 (the future champs) in round 1. Dirk actually didn't play very well in that series, but it actually is a great example of what his presence can do...it is an example of your "off" arguments and how even with him not scoring efficiently...at age 35...he still was leading a team against the future champs to a deciding game with rag tag group that doesn't even make sense as a team.

The results, what we all actually watched, are just too good for some of the positions you are taking...and it forces people to start playing this weird game where they just talk about how many wins a team had (ignoring Dirk being the main cause for the wins) in a way to inflate how good they were because they know the actual players or makeup of the team wasn't that great. Like I said before, it would be similar to me just positing all the terrible records KG led teams had, how they struggled on defense, how KG's playoff career is not noteworthy for an all-time great...etc. But I don't do that because while it would work in shifting the debate and playing your own game back at you...I don't believe those are good arguments. I believe one of the best players ever could be saddled with such bad circumstances that he doesn't win more than a couple playoff series in his time there.

It is the same thing people do with Giannis. They pretend like the Bucks of the last couple years were say better than they actually were because of their regular season wins...acting like Giannis isn't the driving force for that...and then using it against him when the Bucks play a team with better or equal players. It isn't to say Giannis is perfect of course, but maybe judging him on a certain standard isn't fair when the teams winning titles have better players around their stars.

I'd be much more open to your arguments if Dirk had the same results, but played with prime Ray Allen instead of Terry and had a Tyson Chandler style big most of his career. Then I'd agree...and that needs to be remembered. The type of teams having playoff success and title runs were made up of multiple elite all-nba level players and great coaching year after year after year. Often people look at things as either good or bad...no, there is the middle. Dirk's help was good...it just wasn't great overall...at times it was...but too many people, including you, judge him like he had prime Ray Allen and Tyson...and not Jason Terry and Damp.

[dankok8]

DMAVS

Actually I could say you're being a bit unfair the way you're responding to my posts. Perhaps my tone isn't right?

I never claimed that Dirk's entire offensive game is waiting for the ball in the post. I just tried to contrast his and Curry's styles in a relatively broad manner. Of course Dirk generated a lot of off-ball spacing. I've mentioned that myself in earlier posts. I thought what I said in earlier posts still applies and I don't need to repeat it. I said myself that I see Dirk as a top 10 offensive player ever. I think we don't need to discuss Dirk's offense anymore because I'm sure that's a reasonable take...

Dirk won about as many titles as you could expect a guy with his casts in those conferences to win. I never claimed he was an underachiever. I just pointed out the weaknesses in his game from watching him play. In 2006 he wasn't a massive underdog. That Dallas team was stacked with scorers like Terry, Howard, Stackhouse, Daniels... They had a shot IMO. And yes Dirk was a monster in that series. As was Duncan but Dirk's inferior cast came through. You can't deny that.

2014 Spurs? Yea... I agree with you on that one as on most else. Like I said maybe the tone of my posts is wrong. I don't think what I've been saying is unreasonable i.e. a bad argument.

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS

Actually I could say you're being a bit unfair the way you're responding to my posts. Perhaps my tone isn't right?

I never claimed that Dirk's entire offensive game is waiting for the ball in the post. I just tried to contrast his and Curry's styles in a relatively broad manner. Of course Dirk generated a lot of off-ball spacing. I've mentioned that myself in earlier posts. I thought what I said in earlier posts still applies and I don't need to repeat it. I said myself that I see Dirk as a top 10 offensive player ever. I think we don't need to discuss Dirk's offense anymore because I'm sure that's a reasonable take...

Dirk won about as many titles as you could expect a guy with his casts in those conferences to win. I never claimed he was an underachiever. I just pointed out the weaknesses in his game from watching him play. In 2006 he wasn't a massive underdog. That Dallas team was stacked with scorers like Terry, Howard, Stackhouse, Daniels... They had a shot IMO. And yes Dirk was a monster in that series. As was Duncan but Dirk's inferior cast came through. You can't deny that.

2014 Spurs? Yea... I agree with you on that one as on most else. Like I said maybe the tone of my posts is wrong. I don't think what I've been saying is unreasonable i.e. a bad argument.

Well, yea to the bold if you are talking about maybe like 15 players ever. Like I've said...better players than Dirk needed more help than that. Shaq, for example, didn't win a damn thing without a top 25 player of all-time in their primes and with two of the best coaches ever.

So I'm not understanding the argument.

When you add the word "massive" to underdog in 2006...I'm not sure what the point is. Nobody is arguing they didn't have a chance. I'm simply stating the fact that the Spurs were favored...which makes the Mavs underdogs to get out of the 2nd round that year. And so it gets hard to understand the "comfortably better" argument when by your own standards...you expected Dirk to win 50 every year, upset teams like the Duncan Spurs, and win a title with one of the weaker supporting casts against tough competition.

As for the supporting cast coming through...well, in one sense...sure...they won the series. In another...not really. Terry was inefficient and wasn't a strength on defense at all. Some other guys struggled with scoring like Stack. In that series, nobody on the Mavs was as good as Manu was...

See, this is my point...there are different standards for Dirk to keep alive the traditional narrative. How it was in the past and how it is now when discussing him. You claimed having Daniels in part made them stacked offensively. He was putrid in that series and didn't even play a lot.

You would only expect a team like the 06 Mavs to beat the 06 Spurs if they had one of the best players ever.

[dankok8]

Well, yea to the bold if you are talking about maybe like 15 players ever. Like I've said...better players than Dirk needed more help than that. Shaq, for example, didn't win a damn thing without a top 25 player of all-time in their primes and with two of the best coaches ever.

So I'm not understanding the argument.

When you add the word "massive" to underdog in 2006...I'm not sure what the point is. Nobody is arguing they didn't have a chance. I'm simply stating the fact that the Spurs were favored...which makes the Mavs underdogs to get out of the 2nd round that year. And so it gets hard to understand the "comfortably better" argument when by your own standards...you expected Dirk to win 50 every year, upset teams like the Duncan Spurs, and win a title with one of the weaker supporting casts against tough competition.

As for the supporting cast coming through...well, in one sense...sure...they won the series. In another...not really. Terry was inefficient and wasn't a strength on defense at all. Some other guys struggled with scoring like Stack. In that series, nobody on the Mavs was as good as Manu was...

See, this is my point...there are different standards for Dirk to keep alive the traditional narrative. How it was in the past and how it is now when discussing him. You claimed having Daniels in part made them stacked offensively. He was putrid in that series and didn't even play a lot.

You would only expect a team like the 06 Mavs to beat the 06 Spurs if they had one of the best players ever.

Thing is that in 2006 and 2011 the Mavs overachieved. I never denied that. But how about other years like 2007 and 2010 where they underachieved. Even in 2003 you could say they underachieved because of Dirk's injury. I think Nash and Finley would both be the 2nd best player on the Spurs that year IMO. Parker and Manu were super young in 2003 and Robinson was on his last legs essentially a role player. Dirk literally cost his team a potential title that year. I don't blame him for it but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Dirk to win a title over his entire career. He also played fairly poorly in the 2006 Finals and got totally outplayed by Wade who is similarly ranked to Dirk on all time lists. If Dirk played better Mavs win in 2006. If he didn't get injured and played well in 2003 they would have have a good chance to win as well. One can reasonably say that both of those losses are on Dirk.

[DMAVS41]

Thing is that in 2006 and 2011 the Mavs overachieved. I never denied that. But how about other years like 2007 and 2010 where they underachieved. Even in 2003 you could say they underachieved because of Dirk's injury. I think Nash and Finley would both be the 2nd best player on the Spurs that year IMO. Parker and Manu were super young in 2003 and Robinson was on his last legs essentially a role player. Dirk literally cost his team a potential title that year. I don't blame him for it but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Dirk to win a title over his entire career. He also played fairly poorly in the 2006 Finals and got totally outplayed by Wade who is similarly ranked to Dirk on all time lists. If Dirk played better Mavs win in 2006. If he didn't get injured and played well in 2003 they would have have a good chance to win as well. One can reasonably say that both of those losses are on Dirk.

Blaming Dirk for 03 is fair as long as you are going to hold all players to those same standards. For example, holding KG responsible for the Celtics not winning in 09 and 10 because of his injuries and regression.

Under these thoughts as well, I'm not sure how you'd give KG a pass for 02. Getting destroyed like that...I mean...how is that loss not partially on KG when he's supposed to dominate defensively? The Wolves gave up a 118 ortg in that series and then couldn't score well against one of the worst defenses either. Why again does that series not matter according to you? The Wolves won 50 and had the 6th best SRS. The Mavs won 57 and had the 4th best SRS. The Wolves had the 4th best offense in the league and were playing the 25th ranked offense.

Maybe if KG didn't score so inefficiently in that series, they would have had a chance. I mean...51% TS against Dirk and a bad defense...I mean...you'd think KG could dominate offensively. Kind of odd that he couldn't crack a 110 ortg and scored so poorly. Maybe that Big German going for 69% TS and 133 ortg had something to do with the sweep.

Kind of odd that you expect the Mavs to beat the Spurs, but claim the Wolves just had no chance to even compete with the Mavs in 02. I don't see how that makes sense...the differences are actually pretty similar.

See, I just don't think you are consistent...but, prove me wrong...be consistent and tell me that you agree that the loss in 02 is partially on KG and that the failures in 09 and 10 are on him because of injuries / playing poorly.

[dankok8]

Blaming Dirk for 03 is fair as long as you are going to hold all players to those same standards. For example, holding KG responsible for the Celtics not winning in 09 and 10 because of his injuries and regression.

Under these thoughts as well, I'm not sure how you'd give KG a pass for 02. Getting destroyed like that...I mean...how is that loss not partially on KG when he's supposed to dominate defensively? The Wolves gave up a 118 ortg in that series and then couldn't score well against one of the worst defenses either. Why again does that series not matter according to you? The Wolves won 50 and had the 6th best SRS. The Mavs won 57 and had the 4th best SRS. The Wolves had the 4th best offense in the league and were playing the 25th ranked offense.

Maybe if KG didn't score so inefficiently in that series, they would have had a chance. I mean...51% TS against Dirk and a bad defense...I mean...you'd think KG could dominate offensively. Kind of odd that he couldn't crack a 110 ortg and scored so poorly. Maybe that Big German going for 69% TS and 133 ortg had something to do with the sweep.

Kind of odd that you expect the Mavs to beat the Spurs, but claim the Wolves just had no chance to even compete with the Mavs in 02. I don't see how that makes sense...the differences are actually pretty similar.

See, I just don't think you are consistent...but, prove me wrong...be consistent and tell me that you agree that the loss in 02 is partially on KG and that the failures in 09 and 10 are on him because of injuries / playing poorly.

2002 is partially on KG and 2009 is almost fully on KG. I've never considered getting injured an excuse. It's definitely on the player. 2010 I don't know if I'd single out KG to any significant extent though. The Celtics' strong defense is the main reason they got to within one game of the title as that team was average on offense. Perkins going down in the Finals had more to do with their loss than KG underperforming or something.

[DMAVS41]

2002 is partially on KG and 2009 is almost fully on KG. I've never considered getting injured an excuse. It's definitely on the player. 2010 I don't know if I'd single out KG to any significant extent though. The Celtics' strong defense is the main reason they got to within one game of the title as that team was average on offense. Perkins going down in the Finals had more to do with their loss than KG underperforming or something.

Cool...if you are going to say Dirk cost his team in 06...especially given the fact that they won off of Dirk's legendary performance against the Spurs...it is pretty hard to say KG didn't play a role in the loss in 10.

So it seems like we more or less agree on the above couple posts...I'm struggling to see where this "comfortably better" stuff comes in...because most of the stuff you are saying about Dirk one could say about KG in some form or another.

I take the definition of "comfortably better"...and correct me if I'm wrong...that a team starting from scratch should always draft KG over Dirk knowing how their careers went and their impact. I just can't get there with KG...I can see a team taking KG over Dirk of course, but you seem to be arguing that it is an obvious answer.

Duncan would be an obvious answer, but I don't think KG would be. KG is part of that next all-time great tier of forwards that, imo, can be argued in many different orders in compelling ways.

[dankok8]

Cool...if you are going to say Dirk cost his team in 06...especially given the fact that they won off of Dirk's legendary performance against the Spurs...it is pretty hard to say KG didn't play a role in the loss in 10.

So it seems like we more or less agree on the above couple posts...I'm struggling to see where this "comfortably better" stuff comes in...because most of the stuff you are saying about Dirk one could say about KG in some form or another.

I take the definition of "comfortably better"...and correct me if I'm wrong...that a team starting from scratch should always draft KG over Dirk knowing how their careers went and their impact. I just can't get there with KG...I can see a team taking KG over Dirk of course, but you seem to be arguing that it is an obvious answer.

Duncan would be an obvious answer, but I don't think KG would be. KG is part of that next all-time great tier of forwards that, imo, can be argued in many different orders in compelling ways.

A prime KG with Nash and Finley (or a comparable duo alongside him) could legit be a dynasty. It would be an unstoppable team IMO. Post 2008 KG is already out of his prime so the criticism regarding his runs in 2009 and 2010 is much much less legacy defining than Dirk's failures in 2003, 2006 and 2007. You can say KG in 2002 slightly underachieved (while averaging 24/19/5 BTW) but that Wolves team had no chance at a title. They would get curb-stomped in the next round regardless. 50 wins and +3.58 SRS is not a contender. It just isn't. On the other hand the 2003 Mavs with 60 wins +7.90 SRS, 2006 Mavs with 60 wins +5.96 SRS and 2007 Mavs with 67 wins +7.28 SRS are definitely contenders. If you're claiming the talent level is even remotely close, you're not being objective.

There is very little separating peak Duncan and peak KG actually. Put KG on the Spurs and Duncan on the Wolves and not much would change. Duncan is a better iso scorer than KG but KG is more mobile defensively, a better ball handler... Their prime stats and impact metrics are just about identical except 2002-2004 Duncan's teams without him were around -1 net rating and 2002-2004 KG's were around -10 net rating. KG's supporting cast was just garbage. I would give Duncan a major edge in terms of legacy but only a very slight edge for who's better in their primes. I think 2003 and 2004 KG can compare favorably to any Duncan year. 2008 can also compare to any Duncan season minus 2002 and 2003.

[DMAVS41]

A prime KG with Nash and Finley (or a comparable duo alongside him) could legit be a dynasty. It would be an unstoppable team IMO. Post 2008 KG is already out of his prime so the criticism regarding his runs in 2009 and 2010 is much much less legacy defining than Dirk's failures in 2003, 2006 and 2007. You can say KG in 2002 slightly underachieved (while averaging 24/19/5 BTW) but that Wolves team had no chance at a title. They would get curb-stomped in the next round regardless. 50 wins and +3.58 SRS is not a contender. It just isn't. On the other hand the 2003 Mavs with 60 wins +7.90 SRS, 2006 Mavs with 60 wins +5.96 SRS and 2007 Mavs with 67 wins +7.28 SRS are definitely contenders. If you're claiming the talent level is even remotely close, you're not being objective.

There is very little separating peak Duncan and peak KG actually. Put KG on the Spurs and Duncan on the Wolves and not much would change. Duncan is a better iso scorer than KG but KG is more mobile defensively, a better ball handler... Their prime stats and impact metrics are just about identical except 2002-2004 Duncan's teams without him were around -1 net rating and 2002-2004 KG's were around -10 net rating. KG's supporting cast was just garbage. I would give Duncan a major edge in terms of legacy but only a very slight edge for who's better in their primes. I think 2003 and 2004 KG can compare favorably to any Duncan year. 2008 can also compare to any Duncan season minus 2002 and 2003.

KG and Finley is not a legit dynasty and I think I've finally realized the extent to which you over-rate KG and the contradictions. You again are making a straw-man argument. I never said the 02 Wolves were contenders. I said the gap between the 02 Wolves and the 02 Mavs was actually quite similar to the gap between the 06 Mavs and the 06 Spurs...and if it isn't, then you are under-rating Dirk. You are calling 06 a failure for Dirk and 02 a slight underachievement. This is not arguing in good faith based on your own analysis. Like I said, you aren't consistent. One was a dog to get out of the 2nd round and made the finals with an all-time great series and legendary game 7...the other got swept and couldn't score efficiently against the player you say kills his team on defense (no elite big either) and one of the worst defenses in the league around him. Cool, tell me more...

02 Wolves - 50 wins / 3.58 SRS / 51 expected wins vs. 02 Mavs - 57 wins / 4.41 SRS / 53 expected wins

06 Mavs - 60 wins / 5.96 SRS / 58 expected wins vs. 06 Spurs - 63 wins / 6.69 SRS / 61 expected wins

So, care to explain why you expect Dirk to lead his team to a title while playing the above team in round 2, but don't expect KG to get his team out of the first round playing a player you call comfortably inferior? Dirk wasn't the best player in that Spurs series...you don't think he was and neither do I....yet KG was comfortably the best player in his series in 02 against the Mavs according to you. Now, look at your expectations...you think nothing of Dirk winning...call that year a failure...and yet you barely can bring yourself to say anything negative about KG.

This doesn't make sense if you actually believe KG was comfortably better than Dirk. If you did...your expectations for KG would me much higher than you are letting on here.

If you are going to actually argue that 03 and 06 are failures. I just don't see how most of KG's career isn't a failure. Certainly 02, 04, 05-07 (missed playoffs), 09, and 10 are failures...using your standard of surface level analysis and no context.

But, we have jumped around so much now, lets get back to your two claims:

1. Dirk needs an elite big to win...you have now admitted you were wrong

2. Dirk doesn't make much of an impact if he's off...lets try this one another way...could you explain to me why KG led teams in Minnesota performed so poorly defensively for a lot of the years he was there?

[dankok8]

KG and Finley is not a legit dynasty and I think I've finally realized the extent to which you over-rate KG and the contradictions. You again are making a straw-man argument. I never said the 02 Wolves were contenders. I said the gap between the 02 Wolves and the 02 Mavs was actually quite similar to the gap between the 06 Mavs and the 06 Spurs...and if it isn't, then you are under-rating Dirk. You are calling 06 a failure for Dirk and 02 a slight underachievement. This is not arguing in good faith based on your own analysis. Like I said, you aren't consistent. One was a dog to get out of the 2nd round and made the finals with an all-time great series and legendary game 7...the other got swept and couldn't score efficiently against the player you say kills his team on defense (no elite big either) and one of the worst defenses in the league around him. Cool, tell me more...

02 Wolves - 50 wins / 3.58 SRS / 51 expected wins vs. 02 Mavs - 57 wins / 4.41 SRS / 53 expected wins

06 Mavs - 60 wins / 5.96 SRS / 58 expected wins vs. 06 Spurs - 63 wins / 6.69 SRS / 61 expected wins

So, care to explain why you expect Dirk to lead his team to a title while playing the above team in round 2, but don't expect KG to get his team out of the first round playing a player you call comfortably inferior? Dirk wasn't the best player in that Spurs series...you don't think he was and neither do I....yet KG was comfortably the best player in his series in 02 against the Mavs according to you. Now, look at your expectations...you think nothing of Dirk winning...call that year a failure...and yet you barely can bring yourself to say anything negative about KG.

This doesn't make sense if you actually believe KG was comfortably better than Dirk. If you did...your expectations for KG would me much higher than you are letting on here.

If you are going to actually argue that 03 and 06 are failures. I just don't see how most of KG's career isn't a failure. Certainly 02, 04, 05-07 (missed playoffs), 09, and 10 are failures...using your standard of surface level analysis and no context.

But, we have jumped around so much now, lets get back to your two claims:

1. Dirk needs an elite big to win...you have now admitted you were wrong

2. Dirk doesn't make much of an impact if he's off...lets try this one another way...could you explain to me why KG led teams in Minnesota performed so poorly defensively for a lot of the years he was there?

I think you're failing to grasp just how garbage those Wolves rosters were. Here since you asked for it. I'm gonna pull stats for 2003 and 2004 Garnett since those years were his peak and he had his "best" supporting casts. 2004 was the only Wolves team you could call contenders.

2002-2003 Wolves
With KG - 108.5 ORtg (3rd) 102.4 DRtg (10th) +6.1 NetRtg (3rd)
Without KG - 93.4 ORtg (28th) 110.9 DRtg (29th) -17.5 NetRtg (29th)

2003-2004 Wolves
With KG - 108.3 ORtg (3rd) 98.5 DRtg (5th) +9.8 NetRtg (1st)
Without KG - 93.8 ORtg (29th) 104.6 DRtg (19th) -10.8 NetRtg (29th)

2002-2003 Wolves were second last in the league in offense and last on defense when KG sat on the bench! -17.5 NetRtg with KG sitting isn't just a bad team. It's by far the worst in the league. In fact it's a historically bad team.

2003-2004 Wolves which were a contending team and playing at top 5 level on both offense and defense with KG on the court dropped to dead last on offense and below average on defense when he sat. They also fell to worst in the league levels in Net Rating.

KG's impact on those teams was astounding. But carry on...

I never denied that Wolves were underdogs to Mavs in 2002 by roughly the same level as the Mavs were in 2006 to the Spurs.

Let's look at the 2006 Mavs and 2007 Mavs since those were contending Dallas teams.

2005-2006 Mavs
With Dirk - 113.9 ORtg (1st) 105.5 DRtg (14th) +8.4 NetRtg (1st)
Without Dirk - 102.6 ORtg (26th) 102.4 (3rd) +0.2 NetRtg (15th)

2006-2007 Mavs
With Dirk - 115.6 ORtg (1st) 103.9 DRtg (5th) + 11.7 NetRtg (1st)
Without Dirk - 101.0 ORtg (30th) 101.7 DRtg (5th) -0.7 NetRtg (15th)

Admittedly the historically good offense fell off the cliff without Dirk but even the Wolves saw a similar dropoff without KG. The difference is that the Wolves' defense also fell of the cliff while the Mavs' defense improved when Dirk sat!

Prime KG would have killed to play on a team whose Net Rating was +0.2 or -0.7 when he sat on the bench. Based on that yes I do think that if KG had what Dirk had in terms of rosters that he would have won multiple titles. I'm almost sure of it based on these impact stats. Nash was an offensive dynamo almost on the level of Dirk and Finley was another all-star to put alongside them. I see no difference between old KG/Pierce/Allen and Dirk/Nash/Finley. If Dirk is as good as KG he should be able to win within that trio.

Admittedly from 2005-2007 KG's impact dropped but it's impossible to maintain the level of impact that KG has in 2003 and 2004. Those were legendary one-of-a-kind carry jobs by KG. I can think of Kareem who did something similar in the 70's and Lebron in the late 00's. The list is very short. In 2005 the Wolves won 44 games and missed the playoffs. In 2006 Cassell left and Szczerbian and Ricky Davis missed half the season to injury. In 2007 even Wally left. I really don't think I'm being biased when I say that those Wolves teams were really terrible.

And why you insist on 2009 and 2010 is beyond me. KG was past his prime at that point. Mind you those Celtics were relying on their defense not their offense and KG was clearly their best player until 2013 when he was just washed up and went to the Nets. Again Pierce wasn't some offensive dynamo as you speak of him putting up 20/5/4 on average efficiency and Ray Allen in Boston was basically putting up Jason Terry numbers from 2008-2012. Don't overrate the talent on those Celtics teams.

[DMAVS41]

I'm actually not....I've already talked about how little help KG had.

I'm just using your own arguments against you. You said Dirk was a failure in 06, but you don't hold KG to the same standard. It was equally as hard for Dirk to beat the 06 Spurs as it would have been for KG to beat the 02 Mavs based on your own line of thinking. Do you not see the contradiction? I posted the numbers you were using...the gap between those teams were about the same. And, even worse, you are arguing that the Wolves had the clear cut best player in the series...whereas we all know Duncan was the best player in 06...making it even harder on Dirk according to your own logic.

Why I brought up 09 and 10? To make you consistent. Also, Dirk won a title as the clear cut best player on his team at the same age KG was in the 09 season. So I'm not sure how the hell you think the "he wasn't in his prime" argument works in KG's favor on that one. Makes no sense.

Again, nobody actually thinks KG played with great help in Minny...I'm just holding you to a level of consistency people should have when debating. So if Dirk is failure in 03 and 06...you better believe KG was a failure often as well. Also, it isn't like KG did anything with those teams either...of course we are grading on a curve. KG just lost series after series...it isn't like I'm arguing he should have made a title run in 02. I just think it is absurd to call Dirk a failure in 06, but give KG a pass when the gap between the Spurs/Mavs and Mavs/Wolves was pretty much identical on your own standard of record and SRS.

And the results make it even more absurd. The "clearly worse" player beats the defending champs with a legendary performance and leads his team to the finals. According to you...that is a failure. But the "clearly better" player gets swept out of round 1 and lets the guy playing his position dominate the shit out of the series and can't score efficiently at all against a terrible defense without an elite defensive big. You call that essentially nothing, perhaps a slight underachievement. If you can't see that walking contradiction...you aren't able to have a real debate.

Lastly, if nothing after the 08 season counts...KG simply wasn't good long enough to warrant being "comfortably better" than someone like Dirk.

[dankok8]

I'm actually not....I've already talked about how little help KG had.

I'm just using your own arguments against you. You said Dirk was a failure in 06, but you don't hold KG to the same standard. It was equally as hard for Dirk to beat the 06 Spurs as it would have been for KG to beat the 02 Mavs based on your own line of thinking. Do you not see the contradiction? I posted the numbers you were using...the gap between those teams were about the same. And, even worse, you are arguing that the Wolves had the clear cut best player in the series...whereas we all know Duncan was the best player in 06...making it even harder on Dirk according to your own logic.

Why I brought up 09 and 10? To make you consistent. Also, Dirk won a title as the clear cut best player on his team at the same age KG was in the 09 season. So I'm not sure how the hell you think the "he wasn't in his prime" argument works in KG's favor on that one. Makes no sense.

Again, nobody actually thinks KG played with great help in Minny...I'm just holding you to a level of consistency people should have when debating. So if Dirk is failure in 03 and 06...you better believe KG was a failure often as well. Also, it isn't like KG did anything with those teams either...of course we are grading on a curve. KG just lost series after series...it isn't like I'm arguing he should have made a title run in 02. I just think it is absurd to call Dirk a failure in 06, but give KG a pass when the gap between the Spurs/Mavs and Mavs/Wolves was pretty much identical on your own standard of record and SRS.

And the results make it even more absurd. The "clearly worse" player beats the defending champs with a legendary performance and leads his team to the finals. According to you...that is a failure. But the "clearly better" player gets swept out of round 1 and lets the guy playing his position dominate the shit out of the series and can't score efficiently at all against a terrible defense without an elite defensive big. You call that essentially nothing, perhaps a slight underachievement. If you can't see that walking contradiction...you aren't able to have a real debate.

Lastly, if nothing after the 08 season counts...KG simply wasn't good long enough to warrant being "comfortably better" than someone like Dirk.

You are deflecting a few of my arguments...

I said that Dirk in 2006 was a failure because he lost to a relatively unimpressive Heat team (52 wins +3.69 SRS) with Dirk underperforming. He did beat the Spurs which was nice. And not sure why you brought up Duncan when Duncan arguably outplayed Dirk in that series or at the very minimum played him to a draw. It was the Mavs' supporting cast that outplayed the Spurs' supporting cast.

I don't see the 2009 season and later as being the "real" Kevin Garnett because he played fewer minutes but in terms of impact he was still a monster. How was Garnett responsible for the Celtics' failures apart from his injury? Celtics were way better with him on the floor than without. In fact every year from 2009 to 2012 the Celtics were the #1 defense with Garnett on the floor and fell off without him. They even fell off on offense by a significant margin without KG. KG was probably still the best defensive player in the league in those years.

Comparing KG on the Wolves and Dirk on the Mavs is a false equivalency. Dirk's teams were usually around water level with 0 Net Rating when Dirk sat whereas KG's teams were anywhere from worst in the league to even historically bad when KG sat. That's a disparity in supporting casts that even GOAT-level players can't make up for. Replace KG with Michael Jordan or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and the Wolves don't do squat because those teams were garbage.

Tell me this. When was KG a clear favorite in a series and lost? When was Dirk a clear favorite in a series and lost? I can't think of any for KG. I can think of 2006 Finals and 2007 R1 for Dirk. KG never had disappointments of that magnitude...

Show me some numbers or facts. Not simply attacking me for how I supposedly present my arguments. Discussing supporting casts is a subjective argument but numbers are objective. Give me some numbers showing that Dirk is better. I gave you plenty of numbers showing that KG destroys Dirk and has pantheon-level (top 12) impact at his best. These numbers indicate that if KG had 0 Net Rating teams like Dirk had in 2006 and 2007 when he sat on the bench that his teams would in all likelihood win championships based on his overall impact.

[DMAVS41]

Not deflecting at all. Please tell me you aren't one of those "Lebron is better off to lose in the finals" people...also, you have repeatedly said the Mavs had a good chance to win in 06 against the Spurs. Why then, based on your own criteria, do you not think the 02 Wolves had as good of a chance? Especially when you think the Wolves had the best player in the series. Actually address this...has nothing to do with the finals...and even then that is a bad argument.

I never said 09 KG was the real KG...another straw-man. I said that Dirk won a title as the clear cut best player at the same age. The fact that he was hurt and you blame him for the loss...is part of your evaluation of players. I do not agree with you...I would never call 03 a failure for Dirk or 09 a failure for KG...injuries matter, of course, but Dirk was almost never injured his entire career. It wasn't an issue. I'm going off of what you have said. You have said you blame players for injuries...not me.

Again, nobody is comparing the help. KG had much worse help...stop pretending like I'm saying otherwise. He had much worse help...however, he also had much worse results. You forget that last part. You argue as if the results were similar...they weren't.

KG didn't play in enough series for this mean anything. It isn't an argument because his playoff career pre Boston involved only 2 series wins. The guy literally only won 2 playoff series his entire time in Minnesota. And then played 1 year in Boston before, according to you, he killed the team in 09 and nothing else really matters. He didn't carry the burden of being a true franchise player in the playoffs in a real way to even evaluate this series disappointment stuff.

Sure, KG's efficiency is a problem for me in the playoffs. He was at 52% TS for his prime in the playoffs and didn't score enough. He was only able to muster a 106 ortg and I think that is a real weakness. I don't want my clear cut best player scoring so inefficiently while not making other offensive players better the way that a Dirk level offensive player does. KG's "impact stats" you use inflate him a bit based on his circumstances...like you said...his teams were not very good...so he has a huge impact on them. He'd have less of an impact on better teams...so you can't have that both ways. Context is needed.

When you say things like "destroy"...it is hard to take your seriously. The only "destroying" that went on between the two is when KG talked shit before the one playoff series they played...and by your own criteria, the Wolves had a good chance to win... KG scored, as usual, at an inefficient clip...and his defense made little to no impact in the series....and got swept out of the first round.

But, I really want to focus on that. Do you retract the 06 Spurs stuff or are you going to be consistent and hold KG to the same standards you hold Dirk to? That is interesting to me...because you seem to hold Dirk to higher a higher standard even though you claim he's a "comfortably inferior" player.

[DMAVS41]

Let me try to clean this up a bit...you can disregard the above post as I'll try to make this more concise (a real problem for me)

1. I do not have any issue, at all, with someone saying they think KG is better than Dirk. I think compelling arguments can be made and have said as much in every variation of this debate. I would personally take Dirk, but in no way am I arguing that is the clear or obvious answer.

2. Most people don't realize how much is unknown with KG. I think it is fair to have a lot of questions about how he and his teams would actually perform with him as the clear cut best player. I think 04 does a lot for thinking KG would have great success, but the question is...how great? Which leads to...

3. I really think you undervalue just how great of a stretch the Mavs went on under Dirk. I think you should look at this article and also just reflect on the year in year out success of the Mavs with Dirk leading the way with all the turnover for the franchise during that time.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bill-russells-celtics-were-great-tim-duncans-spurs-have-been-better/

4. Hopefully you will address what I view as the contradictions concerning the 06 Mavs vs. Spurs and 02 Wolves vs. Mavs series

5. What was the point of the Tyson Chandler or "elite big" anyway? I know you've retracted it, but Tyson / All-Star or All-NBA player would just be standard for championship winning teams. I'm still not understanding why you think that is a knock on Dirk that'd he'd need something like Tyson and a better version of Jason Terry to win titles. Most titles are won with better help than, some with considerably better help.

6. I agree the stats you've presented are good. I'm not disputing them, but you've also agreed that a solely statistical analysis isn't how you would go and you wouldn't rank KG that high. I think that is smart. It begins to overvalue a lot of meaningless regular season games on an average or bad team playing for very little. It isn't meaningless of course...I put weight on it and give KG a lot of benefit off of some of those measures given his career in Minny didn't give a lot of great information in the playoffs, but I think there should be some consideration to not just giving KG "dynasties with Michael Finley" given what we actually know.

7. The burden of proof is on you, I don't have to provide anything. I can just try to knock down your arguments. You made the claim that KG is "comfortably better", that Dirk needed an "elite big", Dirk's limited impact when missing matters, and that the 06 Mavs beating the 06 Spurs was more or less "expected" while the 02 Wolves shouldn't be expected to even compete with the 02 Mavs. You are putting forth those claims...so I actually don't have to do much other than say I disagree and give you reasons why.

[dankok8]

It's all good man.

1. I think KG is the clear and obvious answer.

2. I don't think there is as much unknown with KG as you claim. He won in Boston with what is a pretty standard supporting cast. Rondo in 2008 hasn't yet come into his own, Allen put up Terry-type stats but actually shot very poorly in the playoffs and Pierce was ok. Like I said 20/5/4 from Pierce isn't earth-shattering. Needing that kind of cast alongside you to win doesn't say much bad about KG. Those Boston teams weren't stacked at all historically-speaking. In the following years Rondo improved but Pierce and Allen declined.

Looking at KG's impact in 2003 and 2004 it's hard to imagine him not winning at least 1 title with Nash and Finley for 3 years. Again the 2004 Wolves went from 3rd in ORtg and 5th in ORtg with him on the floor and +9.8 Net Rating to 29th in ORth and 19th in DRth with a -10.9 Net Rating. That's insane.

Let's look at his impact in Boston which as you say in point 6) is a better team. Individual impacts are generally smaller on good teams.

2008 Celtics: +16.4 NetRtg with KG, +4.6 NetRtg without KG
2009 Celtics: +14.3 NetRtg with KG, +3.6 NetRtg without KG
2010 Celtics: +7.7 NetRtg with KG, 0.0 NetRtg without KG
2011 Celtics: +13.0 NetRtg with KG, -3.1 NetRtg without KG
2012 Celtics: +7.5 NetRtg with KG, -3.4 NetRtg without KG

On average the Celtics were ~12 points per 100 possessions better with KG on the floor. He essentially lifted a 45-win type team to a 65-win type team in his mid 30's based on these differentials. And that's also evident from the struggles of the 2009 Celtics which were without KG.

You said that KG had much worse casts but also much worse results in Minny. I agree but there is a problem with this kind of linear reasoning. When the supporting cast is below a certain level you can't even expect a GOAT-level player to lead them to let alone through the playoffs consistently. Kareem couldn't lead a few teams in the 70's to above .500. Neither could MJ in the mid-80's. Is MJ in 1987 or Kareem in 1976 not better than Dirk in 2006 because Dirk had much more success? I don't think that's right. Not saying KG is on MJ's or Kareem's level but you get the point.

There is a certain minimum level of supporting cast that is needed. Below that, team success drops off the cliff.

3) Dirk had a great stretch but he also had great casts. Prime Nash + Finley is at least as good as old Pierce + old Allen. Somehow you don't acknowledge that. Terry, Howard, Stack, Daniels, Harris is very good as well... Those Mavs teams in 2006 and 2007 didn't have any superstar outside of Dirk but they were incredibly deep. That's evident from the fact that those guys held the fort and the team didn't collapse when Dirk sat on the bench.

4) There is no contradiction here. I wouldn't consider 06 Mavs losing to the 06 Spurs (if they did) as a failure just like I don't consider 02 Wolves losing to the 02 Mavs as a failure. When you're an underdog and lose it can't be a failure. But Dirk losing the 2006 Finals and 2007 1st round... Those are failures. I agree that KG didn't have a lot of chances to fail in Minny because his teams were always trash but he had chances to fail in Boston. Did he? Realistically did the Celtics underachieve any year from 2008 to 2012 while KG was still an All-NBA caliber performer? I don't think so.

5) I didn't retract it. I just shouldn't have set it in such absolute terms. I think Dirk does need a defensive big man alongside him to cover for his weaknesses. You mentioned a few times that we don't have a lot of information about KG in the playoffs in Minny... It's true but we do have 2004. A putrid team without him that is a contender with him reaches the WCF and if Cassell doesn't get hurt maybe wins the title. You think KG with Nash setting him up and another all-star like Finley wouldn't win a title that year? Just replace Cassell and Szczerbiak with Nash and Finley. Logic tells us that the Wolves easily win the title. You don't think putting 24/15/5 albeit on 51 %TS while being the best defender in the league is good enough? The shooting efficiency isn't great but that's what happens when you're in the focal point of defenses all the time. With Nash throwing him dimes he would probably shoot considerably better.

6) I wouldn't rank KG that high out of respect to players who actually went out and won multiple titles. They had better circumstances but the game is still about winning. Impact can put KG above guys who won a bit more but I can't put KG over let's say Kobe who won 5 titles. That would be asinine considering the value of winning. I still value achievements particularly championships. But when discussing the best peaks KG is arguably top 10. He's that good. Dirk's peak simply isn't on that level. And since KG and Dirk won a similar amount and had similar careers KG easily takes it in my eyes.

7) Fair enough.

[DMAVS41]

1. I know. I think this view is flawed.

2. KG did not win with a standard supporting cast. Not at all. Some of the same numbers/metrics you use to prop up KG, when applied to his supporting cast in 08..rates them very high. Take a look;
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-this-years-cavs-rank-among-lebrons-nba-finals-supporting-casts/

The analysis was done in 2015, but KG's teammates tied for 4th best teammate rating. Dirk's 06 help rates much worse and Dirk's 11 help rates significantly worse. These measures aren't everything, but they line up with what my opinion is coming in.

In 2010, KG isn't listed as the best player, but even if he was...his help would be considerably better than both of Dirk's teams as well on this metric.

Yes, there is a minimum level needed. I'm not saying KG underachieved in Minny....I said he didn't really do anything noteworthy outside of 1 year and it hard to just project things with so much unknown. For example, claiming he'd have a dynasty with Michael Finley.

3. The 03 Mavs were great. A true title contending team. We view fluke injuries differently. I don't think they make a player worse, but apparently you do. Not like it was a failure anyway, using your own logic, the Spurs were favored after just beating the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

Again, disagree about the Mavs post 03...you are over-rating them. They were good, not great.

4. Yes, there is...because you aren't giving proper credit to Dirk upsetting the Spurs and aren't holding KG accountable for getting swept. If KG and the Wolves had upset the Mavs in 02...you'd be using as evidence, but aren't using Dirk beating the Spurs as evidence because it doesn't go with your argument. I also don't see how one can be a failure if said player/team go further in the playoffs than expected. Also, again, go look at the Heat rating in 06...dead even with the Mavs based on metrics you think have merit.

Yes, KG doesn't have something like 07 on his career resume, but he also doesn't have a series in which he performed great and his team upset a team like the 06 Spurs...and sure as shit doesn't have anything close to leading a team like the 11 Mavs to a title as the clear cut best player. Again, this is the contradiction and double standard...you aren't mentioning the other side...and that kind of exemplifies why I think you aren't being fair.

5. Dirk benefits from a defensive big. We all agree with that. The problem is that Dirk almost won a title without an elite defensive big while also having a bad coach and good, but not great teammates. When Dirk can beat a team like the 06 Spurs and get to the finals without what you claim he needs, it kind of destroys your argument. In addition, a defensive big is not noteworthy...as I've said before, Tyson and a guy like Ray Allen would just be standard for a title winning team...and Dirk never even had something that good...so I don't see the point of continuing to argue this.

You are wrong here...it sounds good, but then you have to come back to reality in which Shaq/Kobe failed to win the title. Logic would tell you that Shaq/Kobe are going to win that title. Could they? Absolutely...I think the 03 Mavs probably win if Dirk doesn't get hurt...but nothing is a lock either way. In addition, logic tells me Dirk would easily win the title with the 09 Celtics...so I don't see how one counts and the other doesn't.

6. I think impact is hard to fully judge with a player like KG who had such a limited playoff resume...and, again, he was super inefficient in the playoffs in his prime as well...it is hard to just start granting things. They won a similar amount? What? Dirk won a ton more than KG. What are you talking about? You can't use regular season stats to prop up KG and then tell me that all the winning Dirk did in the regular season means nothing.

The Mavericks from 00 through 12 had one of the best runs any NBA franchise has ever had. Again...with by far the least amount of help around the star than any of the other top teams on the dynasty article below. Actually take the time to look at this...you are ignorant to the kind of historical success the Mavs had with Dirk. The Mavs were one of the worst franchises in all of sports before he got there.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bill-russells-celtics-were-great-tim-duncans-spurs-have-been-better/

And that is with Dirk as the franchise player...he didn't leave the franchise and join a few other first ballot hall of famers and get success that way. Come on man, that is crazy to argue. Again, I'm not saying KG should have done as well given his circumstances, but you aren't even beginning to understand the Mavs run if you think they won the same as the best player on teams.

[dankok8]

2. Those analyses from 538 are based on playoff +/- numbers from three rounds. 12-20 game samples are far too small and prone to noise.

I gave you the Celtics' ones. From the +/- data the 2008-2012 the Celtics were around a 45-win team without KG and a 65-win team with him. And that's supported by their 2009 struggles barely beating a .500 Bulls team in those epic overtimes then losing to the Magic who were a weak contender especially with injury to Jameer IIRC.

I didn't say dynasty with Finley. I said a potential dynasty with prime Nash + Finley. That's a better cast than KG ever had in this career including the Celtics. Dirk had them for 3 seasons... Now the 2003 Mavs were a contender and arguably lost due to Dirk's injury and some of Mavs' limitations may have been due to poor fit. KG may have made them better than Dirk simply because of fit because Nash and Finley were offense only players but still.

It's not unreasonable to say peak KG (as opposed to older KG) could have had a dynasty with a cast of supporting players probably better than his Boston one.


3. 60 wins and +7.90 SRS is too good to just call them merely good. They were a contender. I don't know how you can dismiss Nash and Finley as a supporting cast.

4. I give Dirk credit. But too many of those Mavs teams were good but not contenders even with good casts and too many did better in the regular season than the playoffs. There was something maybe inherently flawed about the designs of those teams. Perhaps the lack of ... post defense. They had a 7-foot superstar who couldn't help them in that area. Of course not all is black and white and Dirk was fantastic in his role. My only point is that maybe KG's role is more optimal to building a championship team than Dirk's role. Does a big men who's an 8 on offense and a 10 on defense elevate an already good team higher than a guy who is a 10 on offense and a 5 on defense? I certainly think so.

KG did beat a 55-win Kings team in 2004 that was more talented than the Wolves and played an epic series including an epic Game 7.

5. Why would Dirk win a title on the 2009 Celtics? And what does that have to do with anything? KG and the Celtics would have probably won had KG not gotten injured. Even the media widely acknowledge that. In fact so many people say that the Celtics without injury threepeat from 2008-2010. Why do they say that? Perhaps they recognize KG's enormous impact even a bit past his prime.

6. See points 2) 3) and 4).

I think ultimately you and I understand each other but just see things a little differently! :cheers:

[DMAVS41]

2. I don't think they are. It says it is based on a multi-year statistical plus/minus. Regardless, we all know the level of KG's help in 08 was better than what Dirk had in 06 and 11...pretending otherwise seems a bit silly.

03 - Mavs... -7.8 points per 100 without Dirk
06 - Mavs... +.2 points per 100 without Dirk
11 - Mavs... -5.4 points per 100 without Dirk

08 - Celtics... +4.6 points per 100 without KG
09 - Celtics... +3.7 points per 100 without KG

Funny, you'd think supporting casts as you good as you claim for Dirk wouldn't get destroyed without him on the court. Just a thought.

3. What? I literally called the 03 Mavericks great...a true title contender. I have no idea what you are responding to. I simply said I don't view a fluke injury like you do. You blame the player...so you have to hold both Dirk and KG accountable for 03 and 09. Also, the Spurs were favorites...really not sure what you are reading. Go read my post above...I legit said exactly what you said I didn't say.

4. It's called not having a great 2nd guy. No need to over think it...please show me the other franchises that had as much success as the Mavs did around Dirk without a great 2nd option. Also, you probably aren't fully aware of what you are even saying in reference to the playoffs. I can run it down for you;

01 - Overachieved...upset the Jazz in round 1
02 - Expected...swept KG and lost to Kings
03 - Expected...made the WCF and lost (Dirk injured)
04 - Expected...lost to Kings (nash hurt)
05 - Expected...lost to Suns
06 - Overachieved...upset Spurs in round 2 and made finals
07 - Underachieved...Warriors loss in round 1
08 - Expected...lost to Hornets
09 - Overachieved...upset the Spurs in round 1
10 - Underachieved...lost to the the Spurs
11 - Overachieved...won the title as underdogs to get out of round 2

All told, there were 2 rather large over-achievements in 06 and 11...and one rather large under-achievement in 07. Reality matters...

5. What? You are talking about KG winning in 03 in place of Dirk when he got hurt. Why wouldn't I respond with Dirk winning in place of KG when KG got hurt? Not sure the confusion. Why would he win? Because he was one of the best players in the league and he'd be playing with a ton of help...not sure what you are talking about.

6. Those aren't points against what happened. Dirk factually won more. They did not win a similar amount unless you ignore a ton of their time as the actual best player on a franchise.

[HoopsNY]

Way too much dissecting going on here. One thing that is forgotten is that the Mavs had a good to great defensive team many years with Dirk, and that was due to the supporting cast. Guys like Dampier, Finley, and even Lafrentz were formidable, Finley in particular. There's no way you can draw an equivalent between Minnesota's cast and Dallas'.

DRTG Rankings

2001: 13th
2003: 9th
2005: 9th
2006: 11th
2007: 5th
2008: 9th
2011: 8th

Dallas was a very good defensive team, and not because of Dirk.

[jbryan1984]

I love both. Its so close imo. But I have to give the upper hand to KG. He was a better all around player and much better on defense. Lets not forget, Garnett's best years were in Minnesota where had possibly the least amount of help of any franchise player in the history of the game. He had washed up Sprewell and Sam Cassell at one point for a few years. I think it was 04, they made the WCF's. Dirk on the other hand, had pretty much a title contending team for the majority of his career, loaded with allstars in and out.

[DMAVS41]

Way too much dissecting going on here. One thing that is forgotten is that the Mavs had a good to great defensive team many years with Dirk, and that was due to the supporting cast. Guys like Dampier, Finley, and even Lafrentz were formidable, Finley in particular. There's no way you can draw an equivalent between Minnesota's cast and Dallas'.

DRTG Rankings

2001: 13th
2003: 9th
2005: 9th
2006: 11th
2007: 5th
2008: 9th
2011: 8th

Dallas was a very good defensive team, and not because of Dirk.

Nobody has drawn an equivalent in the supporting casts, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

But your post actually makes the opposite argument you think it does...if you can build good to great defenses around Dirk without having a bunch of great defenders on the team...then his defense isn't much of a weakness then.

Take the 03 team, for example, for starters...Nash and Nick played a ton of minutes...neither of them were average defenders...Nash was an all-time bad defender. In addition, that team got 6.1 points worse on defense per 100 possessions when Dirk was off the court. There was nobody on that team that was just some amazing defender anchoring it...they had some good defenders in Finley/Najera/Griffin, but nothing crazy...

And they were able to rank 9th on defense while playing Nellie ball.

At some point...the arguments just don't even live in reality. They either straw-man...like the above...claiming I've drawn an equivalent...or they bend over backwards to pretend that Dirk was just some terrible defender...even though not a lot actually backs it up.

[DMAVS41]

I love both. Its so close imo. But I have to give the upper hand to KG. He was a better all around player and much better on defense. Lets not forget, Garnett's best years were in Minnesota where had possibly the least amount of help of any franchise player in the history of the game. He had washed up Sprewell and Sam Cassell at one point for a few years. I think it was 04, they made the WCF's. Dirk on the other hand, had pretty much a title contending team for the majority of his career, loaded with allstars in and out.

Cool, could you list all the all the players that made the all-star team when Dirk played with them.

You can also list all the players that made all-nba teams as well.

And, of course, please also list the franchise players that had a better run than Dirk did from 00 through 12 with similar help. There are a few perhaps, but I'm not telling you who they are.

And then, if could, please explain why those "contending supporting casts" that were "loaded with all-stars in and out" played so poorly without Dirk on the floor. Please explain why from 2000 through 2016...Dirk's teams were -3.5 points per 100 possessions with him off the floor.

Lets compare to some other star players:

Shaq -1.4
Duncan +.7
Kobe -1.1
Durant +.9
Lebron -2.6 (post Cavs)
Wade -1.9
Leonard +4
Curry -2.5
Harden +.7
Nash -.8
Russ -.2

CP3 -3.9
KG -6.2

So not only did Dirk's teams perform worse without him for the majority of his career than most of the other stars of his era (outside of KG and CP3), but he also never had the fully loaded championship favorite team at any point in his career. Maybe you could call the 03 Mavs that, but even then it gets tough when you are in a conference with Shaq/Kobe, Duncan, and KG...and it wasn't like Nash was at his peak...the tough defensive rules really limited Nash in the playoffs...and he also dealt with injuries.

Could it be that maybe you guys have to try to over-rate Dirk's help in an attempt to downplay him while also trying to hold him to a standard that not even better players are held to? Just a thought...

But, I'm open...shill me the list of titles won with a clear cut best player like the 11 Mavs in which the supporting cast was -5.4 points per 100 possessions or worse without the star on the court.

For reference, KG won his title when the supporting cast was +4.6 points per 100 all season without him on the court.