Coaching had a lot to do with TD winning.
Pop>>>>>>>>>>>Flip, and I might be underselling it.
KG on the Spurs wins at least 3 imo.
Printable View
Coaching had a lot to do with TD winning.
Pop>>>>>>>>>>>Flip, and I might be underselling it.
KG on the Spurs wins at least 3 imo.
[QUOTE=Harison]You overrating Duncan and underrating KG. Duncan is [I]slightly [/I]better scorer with [I]slightly [/I]higher efficiency, but also inferior passer (which is a part of the offense btw).
Everyone is touting how good Duncan is in the Playoffs, lets see how much more dominant Duncan was:
Best series:
Duncan '02: 27.6/14.4/5.0 with FG% 45.3
Duncan '03: 24.7/15.4/5.3 with FG% 52.9
Garnett '03: 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4
Garnett '04: 24.3/14.6/5.1 with FG% 45.2
You can pretty much swap their best Playoffs performances, how similar their were, I'm not even including Garnett's 24.0/18.7/5.0 series.
So how again Duncan is more dominant offensive player? If we talk about defense, I agree Duncan is better defending centers, while Garnett is better at defending all four other positions on the flour, including quicker hands to be much better at steals.
Just watch KG in the prime, posted in other threads just few days ago:
Kevin Garnett vs Sacramento Kings 2004 Playoffs Game 3: [B]30/15/5/3/3[/B]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVQwMl2NDI[/url]
Garnett: 2004 vs Kings Playoffs GM7: [B]32/21/4/5/2[/B] - one of the best Game 7 performances All-time:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4[/url]
Garnett vs Los Angeles Lakers 2003 playoffs Game 3: [B]33/14/4/4/2[/B]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8jjcJUkco[/url]
How about other KG Playoffs games, like [B]35/20/7[/B], [B]31/18/4[/B], [B]30/19/4[/B] vs Lakers, [B]32/21/2/4/5[/B] vs Denver, and many other games. Its just strange how people quickly forget what beast KG was in the prime, probably because rarely anyone watched crappy franchise like Wolves.[/QUOTE]
When you say offense a lot of people do not include the whole gamut - KG was setting his team up. KG was getting assist out of guys that couldn't create on their own. In fact KG had made Nesterovic look so good one year that SA stole him from Minny and paid him like a true up and coming center. Then they found out it was KG that made him look good. To me assist is part of offense. People really downplay that. Those guys had to be spoon fed in Minny - they needed KG to score. So KG's offense was far beyond his own simple points. A casual fan isn't going to get it but for those really into the game, its there.
On defense its too hard to call. Myself I give it to KG because he communicates better and is therefore tied to the other players on the floor. The Boston teams were anchored around KG's ability to communicate close outs and ruin the thought of penetration. One on one defense is a bit simplistic and doesn't take into account other dynamics.
There's no way of knowing. Championships are won by a combination of great players. Great Leadership. Great coaching. and Good management making the right moves.
Some teams are run so poorly that even the greatest players couldn't win there.
[QUOTE=magnax1]Well, there is no way in hell that Duncan wins Minnesota a championship, but idk whether KG wins 4 or not. I'd say that most likely he does.[/QUOTE]
Well it's not like Duncan won 4 in a row, 3 in a row, or hell ... even back to backs. His championships were sprinkled through out the decade, which makes them less remarkable and memorable as well. Jordan (three peat), Hakeem (back to back), Jordan (three peat), Shaq (three peat), Kobe (back to back)... makes the teams, years more memorable. Plus, no matter what ANYONE tells you. The 1999 championship does not count.
:oldlol:
Duncan and the Spurs, while very good (not great) were never AS impressive and AS dominant as people make them out to be . One of the absolute best teams of the decade, no question ... but they weren't like some unstoppable force. And that has ALWAYS been a roster laced with talent, and willing role player, all put together by a top three coach in the game annually? It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest KG in his prime years, who on an individual evaluation I would possibly rate as a slightly better player than Duncan, at the very LEAST equal ... how would he not at least win 1 or 2 rings? I think KG would actually be able to put together a back to back for them on at least once. He may not get 4, but I think he would get at the very least 1 or 2 rings.
As players, KG and Duncan are neck and neck. I don't think one player has any specific skill advantages over the other, and I certainly don't think either has any "intangibles" that separates them the way some intangibles can separate players of equal skill and ability, etc.
Duncan certainly isn't winning ANY rings in Minnesota. Believe that Duncan / Spurs groupies. Don't sit here and act like KG wasn't a winner. All he needed was capable pieces. Don't act like Latrell Spreewell at the stage in his career he was at was a capable second option on a championship level team. On a championship level team, even in his absolute prime, he's be a 3rd or 4th option at best. KG didn't have any super clutch Manu Ginobili's, Tony Parkers, Robert Horrys, Michael Finleys, Malik Roses, David Robinsons, etc.
In the year he went to the WCF, KG's 2nd best player was ... TROY HUDSON. Just brew on that for a second. People want to complain about what LeBron had to work with supporting cast wise. Look what KG did with that cast ... in the WEST. When it was during the era where the West was the Varisty, and the East didn't even look like J.V. teams, they straight up looked like middle school competition.
I just wish KG had say a Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, a Stephon Marbury (who didn't go crazy, and wasn't selfish) ... a legit second star to play with for the prime of his career that would pick up the slack where KG was clearly lacking. He needed someone who could score, handle the ball, and be the focus of the opposing defense down the stretch of big games to take pressure of Garnett, who had to do EVERYTHING under the sun for the T-Wolves.
I could see him winning 2-3 titles in 99, 05, and 07. There wasn't another great team in 99 and Duncan didn't do anything in 05 or 07 that I don't think KG could've done as well, but 05 was so close vs. the Pistons that its probably a toss-up. There's no way I think he could've done what Duncan did in 03 though. Assuming Duncan goes to the Celtics in 08, the Celtics still win in 08.
KG aint better than Sir Charles :no:
[QUOTE=alenleomessi]KG aint better than Sir Charles :no:[/QUOTE]
Yes he is ... Charles played little defense. I'd take KG over Barkley.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]There are a whole lot of things that you are overlooking. One is that [B]KG came straight out of HS so his early numbers can be skewed a bit[/B] - along with health issues later on. Two is that Minny usually only had KG as an offensive weapon so in the playoffs its much easier to key in on him and affect his FG%. While in his prime KG's numbers in the playoffs were staggering: 27 ppg 15.7 rebs and 5.2 assist one year; 24ppg 18.7 rebs and 5 assist another year, and 24ppg, 14.6 and 5 assist another year. In his healthy Boston run his ppg did go up 2 ppg as well.
I was doing this post as Harrison did his above so some of it is redundant[/QUOTE]
This is one thing I don't get - people have choices and they have to live with the consequences of their decisions/actions. KG decided to skip college and also to stay in Minn. after his rookie contract. Should he get a bye/brownie points because he made these decisions while Duncan stayed in college the whole 4 years and came out more NBA-ready?
On the flip side of KG's FG% being affected, then his numbers should be up because he just took more shots since he was on bad teams - again, his decision.
[QUOTE=guy]There's no way I think he could've done [B]what Duncan did in 03[/B] though. Assuming Duncan goes to the Celtics in 08, the Celtics still win in 08.[/QUOTE]
Also agree with this. Spurs rebuilt around TD. Rookie Manu and 2nd year Parker were nowhere near the players they are today or near Cassell and Spree. TD carried the 2003 team.
Nobody knows what would have happened if they were switched. All we know is what really happened which (so far) is TD has 4 rings to 1 for KG.
[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]
I just wish KG had say a Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, a Stephon Marbury (who didn't go crazy, and wasn't selfish) ... a legit second star to play with for the prime of his career that would pick up the slack where KG was clearly lacking. He needed someone who could score, handle the ball, and be the focus of the opposing defense down the stretch of big games to take pressure of Garnett, who had to do EVERYTHING under the sun for the T-Wolves.[/QUOTE]
KG would've been the perfect teammate for AI. A totally unselfish defensive big man that could still score when he needed to. There places in history might be completely different if that happened. And it actually could've happened if the Sixers took KG instead of Stackhouse in the previous draft. And KG actually had a less productive rookie year then Stackhouse, so the Sixers could've still won the lottery the next year to get AI, in fact there chances would've been even greater.
[quote=LilBTheBasedGod]I'm surprised this isn't a KG5MVP thread.
Probably worse because Duncan fits in their system better and doesn't get injured as much.[/quote]
Doesn't get injured as much? Check his career as a T-wolve before you talk. :facepalm
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]no. i'm not. i'm a huge KG fan. i love his game. but he simply was not the dominant low post scorer that duncan was. [/QUOTE]
I'm not debating Duncan is more dominant low-post player, I agree with that, but its not the same as "more dominant offensive player" which I debunked.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
i simply believe that duncan had an ability to control and dominate a game and series in a way that kg could not. and that really doesn't show up in the stats. [/QUOTE]
Kings in '04 wouldnt agree with that, when KG almost single-handedly beat them playing almost all positions. Thats something Duncan never did. Probably this type of thinking about Duncan is born off Spurs success, which again is strongly influenced by the team and coaching.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
i'm not debating whether or not kg is great. he's in my top 15 all time actually. so i love KG. i just know for sure 100% that if i had to build a team around duncan or kg for their best 10 years of their careers....i would take duncan.[/QUOTE]
I would pick depending what I have on my team, i.e. if I need center, I'm picking Duncan, if PF - Garnett.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
ultimately, i don't think you fully understand just how important it is for winning to have a dominant back to the basket post player like duncan or shaq in this era. as good as kg was.....he wasn't in their league in terms of offensive dominance.[/QUOTE]
Arguably two most dominant offensive players Jordan and Bird werent post players, and specifically in this era its wings/perimeter players age, not centers. Duncan is perfect for center position, as PF he could use more range and skills a la KG or Dream.
[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]His championships were sprinkled through out the decade, which makes them less remarkable and memorable as well...
The 1999 championship does not count...
Duncan and the Spurs, while very good (not great) were never AS impressive and AS dominant as people make them out to be ...
[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
KG definitely doesn't win 4 titles. Assuming KG started his career when Duncan did, KG wouldn't have been good enough to win in 1999, as Duncan was already a great player his 1st-2nd years, while KG wasn't. Duncan had to carry his team on his back throughout the playoffs in 2003. KG was a good, but not elite player at that point in his career (6 seasons in). He wouldn't have won anyway.
2005, KG might've won a title, assuming KG's defense was anywhere near Duncan's, which it wasn't. 2007, maybe, since this was Duncan's worst statistical year while winning a title, and KG would've been in his prime.
So, I could see one title. Two maybe, in a huge stretch. 4? Hell no.
As for Duncan winning any in Minnesota, I'd guess he'd leave rather than stay there if they weren't putting a good enough team around him, and try to win somewhere who will do that. But I think he would've at least seeded better, and gotten out of the first round more than once, and possibly taken them to the Finals and won the year KG got them to the WCF. Duncan's gotten more out of his teammates than KG has. Let's not forget how many times KG missed the playoffs entirely, and been knocked out in round 1 repeatedly when he has gotten there. He doesn't exactly have a sparkling record of winning before going to Boston.
[QUOTE=magnax1]And then you come to the harsh reality that championships is a stupid way to compare players.[/QUOTE]
Not as stupid as excluding record and success when comparing players. The game's all about winning, not stuffing the stat sheet as much as you can while winning at a barely 50% rate.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]When you say offense a lot of people do not include the whole gamut - KG was setting his team up. KG was getting assist out of guys that couldn't create on their own. In fact KG had made Nesterovic look so good one year that SA stole him from Minny and paid him like a true up and coming center. Then they found out it was KG that made him look good. To me assist is part of offense. People really downplay that. Those guys had to be spoon fed in Minny - they needed KG to score. So KG's offense was far beyond his own simple points. A casual fan isn't going to get it but for those really into the game, its there.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, offense isnt just scoring and efficiency, but also passing, range, skills, screens, etc, and considering everything, there is little difference between KG and TD. Claiming either one of them is more dominant than another is misleading.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]
On defense its too hard to call. Myself I give it to KG because he communicates better and is therefore tied to the other players on the floor. The Boston teams were anchored around KG's ability to communicate close outs and ruin the thought of penetration. One on one defense is a bit simplistic and doesn't take into account other dynamics.[/QUOTE]
Agreed as well, ability to cover all 5 positions while communicating and holding everyone accountable, plus inspiring others to become better defenders is quite remarkable, and this area KG shines over Duncan.
the dominance of Tim Duncan
Hakeem (1995) and Duncan (2003) are the only NBA superstars to lead their teams to NBA championships without a single all-star or all-NBA teammate.
Tim Duncan is one of 2 players in NBA history to win a title (2003) with his #2option averaging less than 15 PPG in the playoffs
Tim Duncan is also one of two players, the other being Bill Russell, to win championships with two rosters that had only themselves in common. In Duncan's case, there was not one player left from the 1999 team in 2007.
[QUOTE=SsKSpurs21]the dominance of Tim Duncan
Hakeem (1995) and Duncan (2003) are the only NBA superstars to lead their teams to NBA championships without a single all-star or all-NBA teammate.
Tim Duncan is one of 2 players in NBA history to win a title (2003) with his #2option averaging less than 15 PPG in the playoffs
Tim Duncan is also one of two players, the other being Bill Russell, to win championships with two rosters that had only themselves in common. In Duncan's case, there was not one player left from the 1999 team in 2007.[/QUOTE]
Yea but in 2003 duncan went up against a nets team that also didn't have any other stars on it besides jason kidd. That finals was pretty much a cake walk for the spurs. They had a better coach, and better teammates surrounding their star player(kidd MADE that team; they were much worse off without kidd than the spurs were without duncan imo). They were easy favorites there.
Let me put it this way IF the nets were to have won that series it would've done a shitload more for kidd's legacy than it did for duncan's. So this whole 'only players in history' is kind of misleading.
That being said, duncan had a fantastic performance that year.
But for the thread topic, while KG may not have won as many titles with the spurs(you can't say anyone in the history of the game would've DEFINITELY won 4 titles on those spurs teams), duncan sure as hell would've never won anything in minnesota either. Shitty coach. Shitty teammates. Poor system. Pretty much the opposite of what duncan had despite his whole 'second option' argument(which isn't needed for every player and every system). KG was as dominant in Minny as duncan could have ever been.
[QUOTE=SinJackal]KG definitely doesn't win 4 titles. Assuming KG started his career when Duncan did, KG wouldn't have been good enough to win in 1999, as Duncan was already a great player his 1st-2nd years, while KG wasn't. Duncan had to carry his team on his back throughout the playoffs in 2003. KG was a good, but not elite player at that point in his career (6 seasons in). He wouldn't have won anyway.
2005, KG might've won a title, assuming KG's defense was anywhere near Duncan's, which it wasn't. 2007, maybe, since this was Duncan's worst statistical year while winning a title, and KG would've been in his prime.
So, I could see one title. Two maybe, in a huge stretch. 4? Hell no.
As for Duncan winning any in Minnesota, I'd guess he'd leave rather than stay there if they weren't putting a good enough team around him, and try to win somewhere who will do that. But I think he would've at least seeded better, and gotten out of the first round more than once, and [B]possibly taken them to the Finals and won the year KG got them to the WCF. [/B] Duncan's gotten more out of his teammates than KG has. Let's not forget how many times KG missed the playoffs entirely, and been knocked out in round 1 repeatedly when he has gotten there. He doesn't exactly have a sparkling record of winning before going to Boston.
Not as stupid as excluding record and success when comparing players. The game's all about winning, not stuffing the stat sheet as much as you can while winning at a barely 50% rate.[/QUOTE]
Duncan is not winning a title with that 04 cast, Michael Jordan wouldn't be able to win a title with that cast. and stop acting like Duncan was on some other level defensively than Garnett
[QUOTE=Harison]I'm not debating Duncan is more dominant low-post player, I agree with that, but its not the same as "more dominant offensive player" which I debunked.
Kings in '04 wouldnt agree with that, when KG almost single-handedly beat them playing almost all positions. Thats something Duncan never did. Probably this type of thinking about Duncan is born off Spurs success, which again is strongly influenced by the team and coaching.
I would pick depending what I have on my team, i.e. if I need center, I'm picking Duncan, if PF - Garnett.
Arguably two most dominant offensive players Jordan and Bird werent post players, and specifically in this era its wings/perimeter players age, not centers. Duncan is perfect for center position, as PF he could use more range and skills a la KG or Dream.[/QUOTE]
you did not debunk anything. duncan was a more dominant offensive player because he required a double team on the low block while kg really did not.
kg is more versatile...you seem to keep getting that confused. so much of what you say is true, but you are taking it too far. are you saying that kg was as good as shaq offensively? because shaq couldn't shoot, wasn't a great passer, couldn't dribble, couldn't make free throws, couldn't run a pick and pop. kg could simply hurt you in so many more ways offensively than shaq, but i don't think anyone would say kg is even close to shaq in terms of offensive dominance.
while not the same gap, duncan was more dominant offensively.
take a look at all the stats and advanced stats:
in the playoffs:
duncan averaged more points and rebounds and was 3% better from the field. his rebound and block percentage were better. he more than doubled kg in defensive and offensive win shares and overall win shares in less than double the games. his win shares per 48 is much better. duncan's ts% and efg% are better.
while i'm not using only these stats, they do confirm what i saw. and what i saw was a more dominant player in duncan than kg and these stats confirm what i saw with my eyes.
duncan also has a better offensive and defensive rating in the playoffs as well.
while i don't think duncan would have won a title in minny, i think he could have had a little more regular season success and possibly gotten out of the first round a couple more times. if kg was on the spurs in place of duncan i see him winning at least two titles...maybe 3. but i don't think kg could have won a title on the 03 spurs....in fact i'd bet a ton of money he couldn't have gotten by the shaq/kobe lakers that year.
i'm not saying it isn't close. it is. i just think there is an edge for duncan here in terms of impact and level of play.
[QUOTE=tpols]Yea but in 2003 duncan went up against a nets team that also didn't have any other stars on it besides jason kidd. That finals was pretty much a cake walk for the spurs. They had a better coach, and better teammates surrounding their star player(kidd MADE that team; they were much worse off without kidd than the spurs were without duncan imo). They were easy favorites there.
Let me put it this way IF the nets were to have won that series it would've done a shitload more for kidd's legacy than it did for duncan's. So this whole 'only players in history' is kind of misleading.
That being said, duncan had a fantastic performance that year.
But for the thread topic, while KG may not have won as many titles with the spurs(you can't say anyone in the history of the game would've DEFINITELY won 4 titles on those spurs teams), duncan sure as hell would've never won anything in minnesota either. Shitty coach. Shitty teammates. Poor system. Pretty much the opposite of what duncan had despite his whole 'second option' argument(which isn't needed for every player and every system). KG was as dominant in Minny as duncan could have ever been.[/QUOTE]
uhhhhhh.
he also dominated the kobe/shaq lakers in 03.
[QUOTE]As for Duncan winning any in Minnesota, I'd guess he'd leave rather than stay there if they weren't putting a good enough team around him, and try to win somewhere who will do that. But I think he would've at least seeded better, and gotten out of the first round more than once, and possibly taken them to the Finals and won the year KG got them to the WCF. Duncan's gotten more out of his teammates than KG has. Let's not forget how many times KG missed the playoffs entirely, and been knocked out in round 1 repeatedly when he has gotten there. He doesn't exactly have a sparkling record of winning before going to Boston.[/QUOTE]
I want you to explain to me how Duncan would've gotten the TWolves to the finals with Derick Martin starting point guard, and Trenton Hassell, Olowakandi and an injured Wally playing big minutes? Especially with no backup PG, would Duncan play PG like KG did?
[QUOTE]Not as stupid as excluding record and success when comparing players. The game's all about winning, not stuffing the stat sheet as much as you can while winning at a barely 50% rate.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I ever did exclude winning. In fact the reason KG is so great is because he took super shitty teams to the playoffs, and played great when he got there. The only thing I did is take into account that basketball isn't and individual game where winning titles equates to how to good you are. If Duncan and KG were boxers what you're saying might make a little bit of sense.
Spurs win zero championship.
Spurs don't have enough firepower,so Duncan needs to score a lot on the biggest stages;Garnett can't do that.To make things worse,Tim Duncan is a better rim protector and a better interior defender.
[B]1999[/B]
[B]Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-0 over Lakers[/B]
Duncan averaged 29 pts,10.8 rbs,3.3 as.,2 blk
[B]Finals/ Spurs 4-1 over Knicks[/B]
Duncan averaged 27.4 pts,14.1 rbs,2.4 as.,2.2 blk
[B]2002 [/B]
[B]Western Conference Semifinals / Lakers 4-1 over Spurs[/B]
LA was the better team but Duncan averaged 29 pts,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk
[B]2003[/B]
[B]Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Lakers[/B]
Duncan averaged 28 pts,11.8 rb,4.8 as,1.3 blk
[B]Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-2 over Mavs[/B]
Duncan averaged 28 pts,16.7 rb,5.8 as,3 blk
[B] Finals / Spurs 4-2 over Nets[/B]
Duncan averaged 24.2 pts,17.0 rb,5.3 as,5.3 blk
[B]2005[/B]
[B]Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Sonics[/B]
Duncan averaged 25.2 pts,10.3 rb,2.5 as,2.5 blk
[B]Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-1 over Suns[/B]
Duncan averaged 27.4 pts,13.8 rb,3.2 as,1.8 blk
[B]2006[/B]
[B]Western Conference Finals / Mavs 4-3 over Spurs[/B]
Duncan averaged 32.2 pts,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk
[B]2007[/B]
[B]Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Suns[/B]
Duncan averaged 26.8 pts,13.7 rb,1.1 as,4.1 blk
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]you did not debunk anything. duncan was a more dominant offensive player because he required a double team on the low block while kg really did not.
kg is more versatile...you seem to keep getting that confused. so much of what you say is true, but you are taking it too far. are you saying that kg was as good as shaq offensively? because shaq couldn't shoot, wasn't a great passer, couldn't dribble, couldn't make free throws, couldn't run a pick and pop. kg could simply hurt you in so many more ways offensively than shaq, but i don't think anyone would say kg is even close to shaq in terms of offensive dominance.
while not the same gap, duncan was more dominant offensively.[/QUOTE]
You take MINOR difference in scoring and efficiency, IGNORE everything else about the offense, and say one player is more dominant than another? :oldlol: Oh, and while you place TD and Shaq on the same level, THATS where actual difference offensively is, Duncan is NOT Shaqs caliber. It just shows how much you overrate Duncan.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
duncan averaged more points and rebounds and was 3% better from the field. his rebound and block percentage were better. he more than doubled kg in defensive and offensive win shares and overall win shares in less than double the games. his win shares per 48 is much better. duncan's ts% and efg% are better.
while i'm not using only these stats, they do confirm what i saw. and what i saw was a more dominant player in duncan than kg and these stats confirm what i saw with my eyes.
duncan also has a better offensive and defensive rating in the playoffs as well. [/QUOTE]
Its funny how you quote TEAM based stats as a prove of a player as better than another :oldlol: KG had to do more, and he did, including Playoffs. He was all over the floor while providing +/- impact on the team FAR greater than Duncan ever did. Maybe Duncan would have helped Wolves as much... maybe not, he isnt as versatile and couldnt play all 5 positions on both sides of the floor. All these stats just show what a luxury is to play in the solid team with an All-time great coach.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
while i don't think duncan would have won a title in minny, i think he could have had a little more regular season success and possibly gotten out of the first round a couple more times. if kg was on the spurs in place of duncan i see him winning at least two titles...maybe 3. but i don't think kg could have won a title on the 03 spurs....in fact i'd bet a ton of money he couldn't have gotten by the shaq/kobe lakers that year.
i'm not saying it isn't close. it is. i just think there is an edge for duncan here in terms of impact and level of play.[/QUOTE]
KG took '03 Lakers to 6 games almost by himself, why do you think he wouldnt have a chance with a better team with a much better coach? Didnt [B]KG had 27.0/15.7/5.2[/B] with FG% 51.4 against the same Lakers, which could very well be the best Duncan performance? The very series you're speaking about [B]Duncan stats were 28/11.8/4.8[/B], and honestly Garnett did [B][I]better[/I][/B]. Actually Spurs blew '03 Lakers away in GM2 with Duncan having 12 points only, it just shows Spurs were pretty solid team, even without All-star 2nd option.
[QUOTE=Harison]You take MINOR difference in scoring and efficiency, IGNORE everything else about the offense, and say one player is more dominant than another? :oldlol: Oh, and while you place TD and Shaq on the same level, THATS where actual difference offensively is, Duncan is NOT Shaqs caliber. It just shows how much you overrate Duncan.
Its funny how you quote TEAM based stats as a prove of a player as better than another :oldlol: KG had to do more, and he did, including Playoffs. He was all over the floor while providing +/- impact on the team FAR greater than Duncan ever did. Maybe Duncan would have helped Wolves as much... maybe not, he isnt as versatile and couldnt play all 5 positions on both sides of the floor. All these stats just show what a luxury is to play in the solid team with an All-time great coach.
KG took '03 Lakers to 6 games almost by himself, why do you think he wouldnt have a chance with a better team with a much better coach? Didnt [B]KG had 27.0/15.7/5.2[/B] with FG% 51.4 against the same Lakers, which could very well be the best Duncan performance? The very series you're speaking about [B]Duncan stats were 28/11.8/4.8[/B], and honestly Garnett did [B][I]better[/I][/B]. Actually Spurs blew '03 Lakers away in GM2 with Duncan having 12 points only, it just shows Spurs were pretty solid team, even without All-star 2nd option.[/QUOTE]
dude. look.
i told you a lot of why duncan is better won't show up in the stats. i never put duncan on the same level as shaq in terms of offensive dominance. you are now twisting my words or not comprehending.
because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg. when one player demands a double team (especially a low post guy) it creates a ton of problems for the opposing team.
duncan commanded a double. kg did not. that is a huge difference when it comes to winning in the playoffs.
look. i'm saying i think duncan was slightly better. i'm saying that kg could have possibly won 3 titles on the spurs. i just don't think he could have won in 03. its just my opinion.
i love kg. love him. have him top 14 all time and the 2nd best pf ever. he is certainly in duncan's league as a player. i just prefer duncan for all the reasons i gave you.
dominant low post presence and dominant post defender/rim protector provides so much value for winning in the nba. and those are two things that duncan was better than kg at.
now. if you put alonzo mourning next to kg....then its a totally different story because you would rather have a zo/kg duo than a duncan/zo duo. so it begins to get into a team oriented thing at some point.
but the thread is about kg vs duncan and how many titles kg would win in duncan's place. and i am very comfortable saying all but the 03 title.
Duncan > KG
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]dude. look.
i told you a lot of why duncan is better won't show up in the stats. i never put duncan on the same level as shaq in terms of offensive dominance. you are now twisting my words or not comprehending.[/QUOTE]
How nice, Duncan offensive monster but you dont see in stats :oldlol: And also your claim "like duncan or shaq in this era. as good as kg was.....he wasn't in their league in terms of offensive dominance." is what I debunked several times now, and while you put TD next to Shaq... That was my another point, Shaq is on whole another level what concerns offensive dominance compared to BOTH TD and KG, who as I PROVED, are very similar in the offensive end.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg. when one player demands a double team (especially a low post guy) it creates a ton of problems for the opposing team.
duncan commanded a double. kg did not. that is a huge difference when it comes to winning in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
Thats simply not true, did you watched videos I linked? KG was offen double teamed while he provided easy points to teammates, and since KG has better court vision and could play as a PG, he can setup his teammates more often and easier than Duncan can from low post double-teams [I]only[/I]. There is a reason why KGs APG is higher than Duncans. Btw did you watched '08 Finals? Lakers double or even tripple teamed KG as soon as he touched the ball, so what you are saying doesnt tell the whole picture, or even half of it.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
look. i'm saying i think duncan was slightly better. i'm saying that kg could have possibly won 3 titles on the spurs. i just don't think he could have won in 03. its just my opinion. [/QUOTE]
Actually KG would have won in '03 slightly [I]easier [/I]than Duncan with Spurs, not only because obviously KG played better against Lakers (27.0/15.7/5.2 is superior to 28/11.8/4.8), but also because KG with DRob would provide better [B]team [/B]defense than TD with DRob. None of them could do anything vs prime Shaq, but unlike Duncan, KG would be superior help defender against Kobe and helping denying ball to Shaq.
[QUOTE=Harison]How nice, Duncan offensive monster but you dont see in stats :oldlol: And also your claim "like duncan or shaq in this era. as good as kg was.....he wasn't in their league in terms of offensive dominance." is what I debunked several times now, and while you put TD next to Shaq... That was my another point, Shaq is on whole another level what concerns offensive dominance compared to BOTH TD and KG, who as I PROVED, are very similar in the offensive end.
Thats simply not true, did you watched videos I linked? KG was offen double teamed while he provided easy points to teammates, and since KG has better court vision and could play as a PG, he can setup his teammates more often and easier than Duncan can from low post double-teams [I]only[/I]. There is a reason why KGs APG is higher than Duncans. Btw did you watched '08 Finals? Lakers double or even tripple teamed KG as soon as he touched the ball, so what you are saying doesnt tell the whole picture, or even half of it.
Actually KG would have won in '03 slightly [I]easier [/I]than Duncan with Spurs, not only because obviously KG played better against Lakers (27.0/15.7/5.2 is superior to 28/11.8/4.8), but also because KG with DRob would provide better [B]team [/B]defense than TD with DRob. None of them could do anything vs prime Shaq, but unlike Duncan, KG would be superior help defender against Kobe and helping denying ball to Shaq.[/QUOTE]
agree to disagree.
you have not proven or debunked anything. whether you want to admit it or not. tim duncan was a better post player on offense. thats just a fact. another fact is that duncan commanded a double team more often than kg.
but regardless. agree to disagree.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]agree to disagree.
you have not proven or debunked anything. whether you want to admit it or not. tim duncan was a better post player on offense. thats just a fact. another fact is that duncan commanded a double team more often than kg.
but regardless. agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]
The most famous TD series vs '03 Lakers are inferior to similar KGs series, but as I see, it doesnt matter to you nor is a prove of anything :confusedshrug:
TD is better post player - sure, I always agreed to that, but once again, its not the same as better offensive player, since KG provides better passing, better floor spacing, more aggressive screens, etc. When you combine everything what contributes to offense, its clear not one of them is more dominant than another.
Its also true TD commands double teams more often, but passing out of it isnt automatically superior to PF who can play as a PG and find open teammate anywhere, regardless if its from double-team, fast break, or simply left open.
[QUOTE=Harison]The most famous TD series vs '03 Lakers are inferior to similar KGs series, but as I see, it doesnt matter to you nor is a prove of anything :confusedshrug:
TD is better post player - sure, I always agreed to that, but once again, its not the same as better offensive player, since KG provides better passing, better floor spacing, more aggressive screens, etc. When you combine everything what contributes to offense, its clear not one of them is more dominant than another.
Its also true TD commands double teams more often, but passing out of it isnt automatically superior to PF who can play as a PG and find open teammate anywhere, regardless if its from double-team, fast break, or simply left open.[/QUOTE]
but you still are trying to equate everything on only stats. and stats don't do it justice always. shaq's stats don't do him justice. some of td's stats don't do him justice.
as i said before. kg was a more complete offensive player than duncan. but i don't feel he was as dominant because he didn't demand a double and wasn't a guy you could go to down on the low block as much as duncan.
this really has nothing to do with kg for me. its about duncan providing something that very few players of all time could. a low post presence and dominance on both ends.
kg had some amazing series and great years. nobody is saying otherwise.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]but you still are trying to equate everything on only stats. and stats don't do it justice always. shaq's stats don't do him justice. some of td's stats don't do him justice.
as i said before. kg was a more complete offensive player than duncan. but i don't feel he was as dominant because he didn't demand a double and wasn't a guy you could go to down on the low block as much as duncan.
this really has nothing to do with kg for me. its about duncan providing something that very few players of all time could. a low post presence and dominance on both ends.
kg had some amazing series and great years. nobody is saying otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Sure stats dont tell the full picture. Lets pretend KG is on Spurs... Manu and Parker LOVES to drive to the basket... KG pulls away big man and finds open teammate cutting to the basket for easy points. Now Duncan sitting in the post and passing out the ball to perimeter for a jumper... Who do you think helps teammates to get easier points with higher efficiency?
Both tactics have positives and negatives, but when you already have DRob sitting in the post, it gets crowded with TD being the most effective there too. DRob (or any other center) would complement KG better than Duncan, unless we drop "TD is PF" and consider him a center, then its another topic. For example TD with KG would be an insanely good duo, complementing each other perfectly :applause:
KG on the Spurs wouldn't replace Duncan's impact.
He would have been capable of winning when Robinson was on the team. But post Robinson, Duncan has basically been the Spurs Center (albeit listed as PF) for a lot of the time - he guards them at least. KG is a great defender but not a help defender like Duncan, so the Spurs would have to be shaped differently.
It's hard to say really. Both players have had similar impact over their careers but in different ways. I like for like swap doesn't work but I think the team's potential is the same.
[QUOTE=Harison]Sure stats dont tell the full picture. Lets pretend KG is on Spurs... Manu and Parker LOVES to drive to the basket... KG pulls away big man and finds open teammate cutting to the basket for easy points. Now Duncan sitting in the post and passing out the ball to perimeter for a jumper... Who do you think helps teammates to get easier points with higher efficiency?
Both tactics have positives and negatives, but when you already have DRob sitting in the post, it gets crowded with TD being the most effective there too. DRob (or any other center) would complement KG better than Duncan, unless we drop "TD is PF" and consider him a center, then its another topic. For example TD with KG would be an insanely good duo, complementing each other perfectly :applause:[/QUOTE]
now you are changing the arguments and shifting the focus. of course kg would be better in some situations than duncan would. talk about stating the obvious.
but what you fail to realize is that both parker and manu were not great players yet in 03. that team needed a dominant low post presence to carry them through the playoffs. and once again....kg's overall versatility wouldn't have been enough to carry that team to a title. the guys you reference above weren't ready to do what you speak of consistently and robinson was a shell at that point.
i have no doubt in my mind that a kg led spurs lose to the lakers in 03. no doubt.
nearly every standard and measure has duncan as the better player. his PER is better. his stats are better. he commanded more attention offensively and was harder to game plan for. he was a better low block defender and rim protector.
and he was more dominant. and that dominance is what allowed the spurs to win titles...especially the 03 title. and that doesn't show up in the stats....even though duncan's stats are superior.
3 more points per game and 1 more rebound on 3% better from the field.
but i've already given you all that and you just ignore it. you ignore that duncan scored at over 50% from the field in the playoffs 8 times out of 12 trips to the playoffs. KG? 1 time out of 10 trips to the playoffs.
you see? things like that actually matter. like when duncan shot 57% over 13 games in the playoffs one year.
please dude. you think you won this debate....but you didn't. any knowledgeable fan knows this.
and fyi. stop acting like robinson was still elite in 03. he was a 20 minute a game role player that gave the spurs like 8 points and 7 boards in the playoffs. so that kind of blows you argument out of the water. manu wasn't even close to the player he would become and parker was hardly great and was seriously inconsistent and inefficient.
parker shot 40%
jackson shot 41%
manu shot 39%
rose shot 42%
bowen shot 37%
claxton shot 44%
LOL....not one rotation player other than robinson shot over 44% in 03. so good luck with you "kg will set them all up" idea. nope. that spurs team needed a dominant post presence on both ends. not a versatile 7 footer.
:cheers:
[QUOTE=Harison]Sure stats dont tell the full picture. Lets pretend KG is on Spurs... [B]Manu and Parker LOVES to drive to the basket[/B]... KG pulls away big man and finds open teammate cutting to the basket for easy points. Now Duncan sitting in the post and passing out the ball to perimeter for a jumper... Who do you think helps teammates to get easier points with higher efficiency?
Both tactics have positives and negatives, but when you already have DRob sitting in the post, it gets crowded with TD being the most effective there too. DRob (or any other center) would complement KG better than Duncan, unless we drop "TD is PF" and consider him a center, then its another topic. For example TD with KG would be an insanely good duo, complementing each other perfectly :applause:[/QUOTE]
Back in 03 playoffs, Manu and especially Parker were not the finishers in the paint (or passers) that they are now. Manu was a rookie and averaged 9 PPG and 2.9 asst. Parker was a 2nd year player (got benched a lot for Speedy Claxton - even in the final game of the Finals) averaged 14.7 PPG and 3.5 asst.
It was a steady diet of 4down - Duncan in the low post waiting for the double team and dishing to team mates for open 3s (Kerr, Bowen, S. Jackson, Manu). Also, TD's 5.3 assts doesn't include those baskets where an extra pass was made but resulted from the double team.
Robinson played limited mins. in 03 playoffs - averaging 7.8 PPG and was not "sitting in the post" but playing a more defensive role. Why is Duncan knocked for being able to play/guard both positions (PF and C) but KG gets brownie points for his versatility?
[QUOTE=rmt]Back in 03 playoffs, Manu and especially Parker were not the finishers in the paint (or passers) that they are now. Manu was a rookie and averaged 9 PPG and 2.9 asst. Parker was a 2nd year player (got benched a lot for Speedy Claxton - even in the final game of the Finals) averaged 14.7 PPG and 3.5 asst.
It was a steady diet of 4down - Duncan in the low post waiting for the double team and dishing to team mates for open 3s (Kerr, Bowen, S. Jackson, Manu). Also, TD's 5.3 assts doesn't include those baskets where an extra pass was made but resulted from the double team.
Robinson played limited mins. in 03 playoffs - averaging 7.8 PPG and was not "sitting in the post" but playing a more defensive role. Why is Duncan knocked for being able to play/guard both positions (PF and C) but KG gets brownie points for his versatility?[/QUOTE]
this.
maybe he'll listen to you. he keeps acting like parker/manu were elite players in 03 and keeps insisting that a kg/robinson duo would be amazing.
i honestly don't think he watched the spurs that year. parker was out of control often and highly inefficient. same with manu. and robinson was a shell and merely a 20 minute a game role player.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
but what you fail to realize is that both parker and manu were not great players yet in 03. that team needed a dominant low post presence to carry them through the playoffs. and once again....kg's overall versatility wouldn't have been enough to carry that team to a title. the guys you reference above weren't ready to do what you speak of consistently and robinson was a shell at that point.[/QUOTE]
While Parker and Manu werent in primes yet, but Spurs as a team was solid and better than Minny, and even better than Lakers if we exclude Shaq with Kobe. As was an example of Duncan scoring only 12 points yet Spurs blowing Lakers out of the water in GM2.
DRob even way after his prime was better than Perkins in '08 for the Celtics, and yet Celtics were one of the top[B] All-time teams defensively[/B] (including post D), guess why? Perkins or DPOY guy you underrate here? After KG went down in '09, suddenly Celtics were only average defensively.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
i have no doubt in my mind that a kg led spurs lose to the lakers in 03. no doubt.[/QUOTE]
Thats your [I]opinion[/I]. KG was better than Duncan vs Lakers, yet you think he would lose :facepalm
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
nearly every standard and measure has duncan as the better player. his PER is better. his stats are better. he commanded more attention offensively and was harder to game plan for. he was a better low block defender and rim protector. [/QUOTE]
If you like advanced stats, KGs peak was better, and while Duncan has his advantages (which you overstate), so has KG (which you ignore). After some thinking its obvious Minny would do worse with Duncan, while Spurs pretty much the same with KG. Still as I said in the first post about it, Spurs brilliant front office would adjust roster to use their superstar strong points better.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
3 more points per game and 1 more rebound on 3% better from the field.
but i've already given you all that and you just ignore it. you ignore that duncan scored at over 50% from the field in the playoffs 8 times out of 12 trips to the playoffs. KG? 1 time out of 10 trips to the playoffs.
you see? things like that actually matter. like when duncan shot 57% over 13 games in the playoffs one year.[/QUOTE]
You are comparing 19 years old KG from HS vs 21+ years Duncan from college. When we compare primes, difference is non existent [B]or [/B]KG did even better. Or how about KGs increased efficiency while playing on a better team? [B]Things like that actually matter.[/B]
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
and fyi. stop acting like robinson was still elite in 03. he was a 20 minute a game role player that gave the spurs like 8 points and 7 boards in the playoffs. so that kind of blows you argument out of the water. manu wasn't even close to the player he would become and parker was hardly great and was seriously inconsistent and inefficient.
parker shot 40%
jackson shot 41%
manu shot 39%
rose shot 42%
bowen shot 37%
claxton shot 44%
LOL....not one rotation player other than robinson shot over 44% in 03. so good luck with you "kg will set them all up" idea. nope. that spurs team needed a dominant post presence on both ends. not a versatile 7 footer.
[/QUOTE]
As I said above, Robinson was better than Perkins, and watch what post-prime KG did with the Celtics.
While you quote shooting %, we have one unique example as mentioned by pointguard - Nesterovic. With KG he was scoring 11.2 with 52.5%, immediately after joining Spurs he dropped to 8.7 with 46.9%. I guess spoon feeding from KG works better :oldlol: Its unanimous KG is a better passer than Duncan, why its so hard for you to admit Spurs players would benefit from that as well?
[QUOTE=Harison]While Parker and Manu werent in primes yet, but Spurs as a team was solid and better than Minny, and even better than Lakers if we [B]exclude Shaq with Kobe[/B]. As was an example of Duncan scoring only 12 points yet Spurs blowing Lakers out of the water in GM2.
DRob even way after his prime was better than Perkins in '08 for the Celtics, and yet Celtics were one of the top[B] All-time teams defensively[/B] (including post D), guess why? Perkins or DPOY guy you underrate here? After KG went down in '09, suddenly Celtics were only average defensively.
Thats your [I]opinion[/I]. KG was better than Duncan vs Lakers, yet you think he would lose :facepalm
If you like advanced stats, KGs peak was better, and while Duncan has his advantages (which you overstate), so has KG (which you ignore). After some thinking its obvious Minny would do worse with Duncan, while Spurs pretty much the same with KG. Still as I said in the first post about it, Spurs brilliant front office would adjust roster to use their superstar strong points better.
You are comparing 19 years old KG from HS vs 21+ years Duncan from college. When we compare primes, difference is non existent [B]or [/B]KG did even better. Or how about KGs increased efficiency while playing on a better team? [B]Things like that actually matter.[/B]
As I said above, Robinson was better than Perkins, and watch what post-prime KG did with the Celtics.
While you quote shooting %, we have one unique example as mentioned by pointguard - Nesterovic. With KG he was scoring 11.2 with 52.5%, immediately after joining Spurs he dropped to 8.7 with 46.9%. I guess spoon feeding from KG works better :oldlol: Its unanimous KG is a better passer than Duncan, why its so hard for you to admit Spurs players would benefit from that as well?[/QUOTE]
How can you exclude Shaq and Kobe?????
Don't think you can compare an 08 Boston team with 3 franchise players to 03 Spurs team with not one All-star or All-NBA player other than TD. The memorable thing about the 03 team was Duncan's brilliance. Robinson was 38 years old (his last year) with a bad back. A better comparison for defense would be the 99 Spurs when Robinson was still good or 05 when Bowen had reached his prime & Horry showed up. I also think that TD was more clutch than KG.
Would KG be able to carry the 03 Spurs roster to a ring? I don't think so. Would TD be able to win with the 08 Celtics roster in place of KG? I'd bet more money on this than on the former.
[QUOTE=BoNafidde]Do they still win 4 championships?
Is KG crowned the GOAT PF?
Or
Does Duncan lead the T Wolves to championships?[/QUOTE]
No Duncan is better than KG. KG would only win with the 2007 or maybe 2005 Spurs. 1999 or 2003 he has no shot to win with them.
[QUOTE=rmt]
Don't think you can compare an 08 Boston team with 3 franchise players to 03 Spurs team with not one All-star or All-NBA player other than TD. The memorable thing about the 03 team was Duncan's brilliance. Robinson was 38 years old (his last year) with a bad back. A better comparison for defense would be the 99 Spurs when Robinson was still good or 05 when Bowen had reached his prime & Horry showed up. I also think that TD was more clutch than KG.
Would KG be able to carry the 03 Spurs roster to a ring? I don't think so. Would TD be able to win with the 08 Celtics roster in place of KG? I'd bet more money on this than on the former.[/QUOTE]
You missed the point, Celtics '08 quality was better, however not [B]defensively[/B] without KG, if he transformed that team to an [B]All-time great D[/B] team, imagine what he could do with the players who are known for their defense along with a better coach? Old DRob was still better than Perkins (actually his Drtg was almost the same as prime Duncans), Bowen was also better than anyone on Celtics not named KG, Manu also better than Pierce or Ray on D. Just because Spurs didnt had 2nd All-star, doesnt mean they werent a solid team.
About Duncan brilliance in '03 - there is no question about that, and I always had immense respect for that championship run. But KG was even more brilliant than Duncan vs Lakers in '03 Playoffs (you have seen the stats, one of the games linked to this very topic), he makes Spurs team defense even better since DRob perfectly complements him, no redundancy, plus great other defenders like Bowen, etc., while delivering extraordinary performance. Yet some say KG cant win the Spurs '03 :facepalm
[QUOTE=Duncan21formvp]No Duncan is better than KG. KG would only win with the 2007 or maybe 2005 Spurs. 1999 or 2003 he has no shot to win with them.[/QUOTE]
You really think KG, a year before his MVP season has NO shot to win in 03? i can see 99 but really? :facepalm
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
i'm not debating whether or not kg is great. he's in my top 15 all time actually. so i love KG. i just know for sure 100% that if i had to build a team around duncan or kg for their best 10 years of their careers....i would take duncan.[/quote]
Ginobili, I'm addressing this to you because I know you're actually a fan of both players but think Duncan's slightly better. I've seen you defend KG in many different threads. But as I follow this thread, I don't agree with your logic for WHY you're choosing Duncan. If you believe Duncan to be better, that's cool, but I'd like you to at least read what I type and consider if maybe your stated reasons for choosing Duncan are worth mulling further. I admit in advance this will likely be long, and some of the things I'll say have been touched upon more concisely by Harrison, but in going into more detail I'm hoping to provide a bit more relevant context and thus either a) make my point more strongly or b) give you more specific critical points from which to draw your distinction for why you believe Duncan to be better. Hopefully you read all of this. :lol
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
take a look at all the stats and advanced stats:
in the playoffs:
duncan averaged more points and rebounds and was 3% better from the field. his rebound and block percentage were better. he more than doubled kg in defensive and offensive win shares and overall win shares in less than double the games. his win shares per 48 is much better. duncan's ts% and efg% are better.[/quote]
I think this is an important place to start. There have been posts in this thread arguing both sides, that Duncan's career playoff numbers are better or that Garnett was just as good in their primes. The key for this thread, IMO, is to start with the latter. The career numbers have their utility, but we are trying to get a sense for how KG compared with Duncan during the title years, most specifically the last three after Robinson was no longer primed. I suggest we should take a look at their numbers from the 02/03 season to '07-08. Why those years? Well, for one the 02-03 season is when Garnett moved full-time to power forward. For two, this stretch goes from peak (they finished 1-2 in MVP vote in both 03 and 04) to just past prime championships (led teams to rings in 07 and 08) for both players, giving a reasonable range to compare them. And for three (later in this post) 82games.com started keeping their stats in 2002-03, giving us a richer tapestry of stats to make our evaluations.
From 2002-03 to 2007-08, here are their postseason stats:
Duncan: 23 points (50% FG, 68% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 107 games
Garnett: 23 points (48% FG, 77% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 50 games
As you can see, what Garnett and Duncan produced in the boxscores in their primes was very similar. The game is obviously about more than boxscores, and I will continue my case below, but I wanted a visual record in this thread that showed what the box scores say about them in this period. Now, this isn't a replacement for career numbers and we can debate elsewhere how much relevance KG's 14 and 7 last season (over 24 games) might have in this thread. But for now, I just want you to consider that there wasn't just this self-evident postseason improvement for Duncan's postseason numbers over Garnett's in their prime. They produced very similarly.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
i told you a lot of why duncan is better won't show up in the stats.
because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg. when one player demands a double team (especially a low post guy) it creates a ton of problems for the opposing team.
duncan commanded a double. kg did not. that is a huge difference when it comes to winning in the playoffs. [/quote]
Moving out of numbers, you're repeating something here that I've seen before, but that I don't think bears up under closer scrutiny. Let's start with your last line: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not." This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota, just as much the focus of opposing defenses as Duncan was.
If he posted on the low blocks he was doubled ruthlessly, and his go-to move to counter that was the turnaround fade-away turning away from the direction of the double-team. In many cases (especially when his casts were really weak) teams took to double/tripling him before the entry pass. KG's man would set up playing post-D behind him, the on-ball defender would sag off of the wing passer into KG's lap and then either the weak-side perimeter defender or the weak-side post defender (depending on the angle of the pass) would hedge off of their man ready to triple KG on the catch. This wasn't a rare strategy. Garnett was double-teamed pretty much as a rule for most of his tenure in Minnesota.
In fact, a good chunk of the high-post sets that Minnesota used Garnett for were used to make it harder to double him, but he was still always the fulcrum that the defense swarmed around. For example, the play "elbow" posted Garnett on the side of the free throw line, forcing the double to come from perscribed directions that he could either shoot over or pass out of. This benefited his teammates that could shoot, most specifically Wally Szczerbiak, who made a living for years planting his feat as the outlet release shooter that got open looks off those doubles.
Another popular set was for KG to post at the top of the key, then the PG would throw the ball up very high and let KG jump to get it and then pivot to break down the defense while the guard cut to the wing. Depending on the direction the 2nd defender came from, KG could either hit the shooter for a baseline three or dump it down to the center (for a direct shot), or else swing it to a wing and then either re-post or initiate a pick-and-roll/pop. This set didn't leave much room for KG to attack/shoot directly, but those high-low passes or lasers to the baseline three got a lot of easy buckets for Rasho and Anthony Peeler.
Then, finally, there was the large number of pick-and-roll or pick-and-pops that the Wolves ran to get KG in motion and force the defense off-balance. This was a bread-and-butter play, and was a strong reason why Chauncey Billups, Troy Hudson and Sam Cassell all saw their careers take a big uptake when they came to Minnesota.
All of which ties back to the other parts of your above quoted passage: "because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg." This is a repeat of the basketball trusim: ""low post offense wins championships". The thing is, KG's combination of efficient personal scoring (from both the interior and perimeter) and passing ability isn't often seen. There aren't many test cases.
The reason that low-post offense is so powerful is that it facillitates high efficiency offense both for the individual and for the team. But Garnett, despite playing a more perimeter game, once he moved full-time to PF KG routinely produced similar individual scoring efficiencies and offensive efficiencies to Duncan while routinely facilitating team offense on a similar if not higher level. True, Duncan's low post game fits more stylistically into the traditional view of what a big man should be. But when you look at the reasons for WHY the traditional big man generally experiences success, the fact that Garnett accomplishes the same thing in different ways isn't an indication that Duncan's way is BETTER. It's simply an alternate way to do things.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]look. i'm saying i think duncan was slightly better. i'm saying that kg could have possibly won 3 titles on the spurs. i just don't think he could have won in 03. its just my opinion.
i love kg. love him. have him top 14 all time and the 2nd best pf ever. he is certainly in duncan's league as a player. i just prefer duncan for all the reasons i gave you.[/QUOTE]
Obviously no one would denounce you for thinking that Duncan was slightly better. But I do question the validity of the stated reasons. Duncan and Garnett produced very similar postseason box score numbers in their prime, he produced very similar individual scoring efficiencies in their primes, and Garnett demonstrated that he could orchestrate high-efficiency offenses using his scoring, passsing, and decision-making as well. And if we brought +/- stats into it, Garnett actually outperforms Duncan there in both the regular and postseason which argues against the notion that Duncan was having a bigger impact outside of the stats.
Then, for 2003 specifically, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, in 2003 the road to the title went through LA. Both Garnett and Duncan led teams against those Lakers, played 6 games, and dominated the series. You have mentioned several times that you are extremely confident that Garnett couldn't have led the Spurs by LA the way Duncan did, but you haven't really given a rebuttal (that I've seen) for what dominance that Duncan expressed in that series that KG didn't.
Again, as through this whole thread, my point isn't to attack. It's to point out where I believe your stated opinion hasn't been fully supported. So to that end, I invite you to counter any of my stated points and/or also make a more firm case for why you believe what you do about 2003. And not just in generalities (i.e. post offense is just better, without regard to the pretty well documented individuals involved) or falling back to pure opinion (i.e. I just believe it, it's my opinion). Let's get some meat in this...what exactly did you see from Duncan and not from KG in 2003 that firms your convictions. Let's see if we can at least form a better articulation of why you believe Duncan to be better.
[QUOTE=drza44]Ginobili, I'm addressing this to you because I know you're actually a fan of both players but think Duncan's slightly better. I've seen you defend KG in many different threads. But as I follow this thread, I don't agree with your logic for WHY you're choosing Duncan. If you believe Duncan to be better, that's cool, but I'd like you to at least read what I type and consider if maybe your stated reasons for choosing Duncan are worth mulling further. I admit in advance this will likely be long, and some of the things I'll say have been touched upon more concisely by Harrison, but in going into more detail I'm hoping to provide a bit more relevant context and thus either a) make my point more strongly or b) give you more specific critical points from which to draw your distinction for why you believe Duncan to be better. Hopefully you read all of this. :lol
I think this is an important place to start. There have been posts in this thread arguing both sides, that Duncan's career playoff numbers are better or that Garnett was just as good in their primes. The key for this thread, IMO, is to start with the latter. The career numbers have their utility, but we are trying to get a sense for how KG compared with Duncan during the title years, most specifically the last three after Robinson was no longer primed. I suggest we should take a look at their numbers from the 02/03 season to '07-08. Why those years? Well, for one the 02-03 season is when Garnett moved full-time to power forward. For two, this stretch goes from peak (they finished 1-2 in MVP vote in both 03 and 04) to just past prime championships (led teams to rings in 07 and 08) for both players, giving a reasonable range to compare them. And for three (later in this post) 82games.com started keeping their stats in 2002-03, giving us a richer tapestry of stats to make our evaluations.
From 2002-03 to 2007-08, here are their postseason stats:
Duncan: 23 points (50% FG, 68% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 107 games
Garnett: 23 points (48% FG, 77% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 50 games
As you can see, what Garnett and Duncan produced in the boxscores in their primes was very similar. The game is obviously about more than boxscores, and I will continue my case below, but I wanted a visual record in this thread that showed what the box scores say about them in this period. Now, this isn't a replacement for career numbers and we can debate elsewhere how much relevance KG's 14 and 7 last season (over 24 games) might have in this thread. But for now, I just want you to consider that there wasn't just this self-evident postseason improvement for Duncan's postseason numbers over Garnett's in their prime. They produced very similarly.
Moving out of numbers, you're repeating something here that I've seen before, but that I don't think bears up under closer scrutiny. Let's start with your last line: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not." This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota, just as much the focus of opposing defenses as Duncan was.
If he posted on the low blocks he was doubled ruthlessly, and his go-to move to counter that was the turnaround fade-away turning away from the direction of the double-team. In many cases (especially when his casts were really weak) teams took to double/tripling him before the entry pass. KG's man would set up playing post-D behind him, the on-ball defender would sag off of the wing passer into KG's lap and then either the weak-side perimeter defender or the weak-side post defender (depending on the angle of the pass) would hedge off of their man ready to triple KG on the catch. This wasn't a rare strategy. Garnett was double-teamed pretty much as a rule for most of his tenure in Minnesota.
In fact, a good chunk of the high-post sets that Minnesota used Garnett for were used to make it harder to double him, but he was still always the fulcrum that the defense swarmed around. For example, the play "elbow" posted Garnett on the side of the free throw line, forcing the double to come from perscribed directions that he could either shoot over or pass out of. This benefited his teammates that could shoot, most specifically Wally Szczerbiak, who made a living for years planting his feat as the outlet release shooter that got open looks off those doubles.
Another popular set was for KG to post at the top of the key, then the PG would throw the ball up very high and let KG jump to get it and then pivot to break down the defense while the guard cut to the wing. Depending on the direction the 2nd defender came from, KG could either hit the shooter for a baseline three or dump it down to the center (for a direct shot), or else swing it to a wing and then either re-post or initiate a pick-and-roll/pop. This set didn't leave much room for KG to attack/shoot directly, but those high-low passes or lasers to the baseline three got a lot of easy buckets for Rasho and Anthony Peeler.
Then, finally, there was the large number of pick-and-roll or pick-and-pops that the Wolves ran to get KG in motion and force the defense off-balance. This was a bread-and-butter play, and was a strong reason why Chauncey Billups, Troy Hudson and Sam Cassell all saw their careers take a big uptake when they came to Minnesota.
All of which ties back to the other parts of your above quoted passage: "because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg." This is a repeat of the basketball trusim: ""low post offense wins championships". The thing is, KG's combination of efficient personal scoring (from both the interior and perimeter) and passing ability isn't often seen. There aren't many test cases.
The reason that low-post offense is so powerful is that it facillitates high efficiency offense both for the individual and for the team. But Garnett, despite playing a more perimeter game, once he moved full-time to PF KG routinely produced similar individual scoring efficiencies and offensive efficiencies to Duncan while routinely facilitating team offense on a similar if not higher level. True, Duncan's low post game fits more stylistically into the traditional view of what a big man should be. But when you look at the reasons for WHY the traditional big man generally experiences success, the fact that Garnett accomplishes the same thing in different ways isn't an indication that Duncan's way is BETTER. It's simply an alternate way to do things.
Obviously no one would denounce you for thinking that Duncan was slightly better. But I do question the validity of the stated reasons. Duncan and Garnett produced very similar postseason box score numbers in their prime, he produced very similar individual scoring efficiencies in their primes, and Garnett demonstrated that he could orchestrate high-efficiency offenses using his scoring, passsing, and decision-making as well. And if we brought +/- stats into it, Garnett actually outperforms Duncan there in both the regular and postseason which argues against the notion that Duncan was having a bigger impact outside of the stats.
Then, for 2003 specifically, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, in 2003 the road to the title went through LA. Both Garnett and Duncan led teams against those Lakers, played 6 games, and dominated the series. You have mentioned several times that you are extremely confident that Garnett couldn't have led the Spurs by LA the way Duncan did, but you haven't really given a rebuttal (that I've seen) for what dominance that Duncan expressed in that series that KG didn't.
Again, as through this whole thread, my point isn't to attack. It's to point out where I believe your stated opinion hasn't been fully supported. So to that end, I invite you to counter any of my stated points and/or also make a more firm case for why you believe what you do about 2003. And not just in generalities (i.e. post offense is just better, without regard to the pretty well documented individuals involved) or falling back to pure opinion (i.e. I just believe it, it's my opinion). Let's get some meat in this...what exactly did you see from Duncan and not from KG in 2003 that firms your convictions. Let's see if we can at least form a better articulation of why you believe Duncan to be better.[/QUOTE]
:applause: very well said