Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

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

[QUOTE=drza44]
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]
Exactly, like example with Bird - he is MUCH better offensive player than Duncan, yet he wasnt post player. Points are points, regardless from where its scored. Just saying "post player is automatically better offensive player" is hardly wise. Does post player opens up things better for teammates? Depends, in [B]this [/B]case we dont see it in any way, Duncans APG isnt higher, +/- players impact on the team is vastly better by KG, even an example of Wolves player joining Spurs and suddenly doing worse, both PPG and FG% wise.

[QUOTE=drza44]
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. [/QUOTE]
Exactly, ironically Garnett played better vs Lakers, yet some argue just because Duncan is more post player, it gives automatic advantage... In what way? And thats not even counting there was DRob too, who was still better than Perkins in '08 Celtics, and better than any center KG played with in Minny.

like i said before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i prefer duncan. lets just leave it a that.

they wont be as GOOD

cant see dat

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]also. i don't need a history lesson. i watched them both play their entire careers and actually met kg a couple times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]i don't really like debating this because it ends up harping on kg's flaws for me....and i love kg. [B]but i could talk about kg's inept play in tight games at times, how he kind of takes a back seat willingly at times, how dirk absolutely destroyed him in the playoffs a few times. how he just doesn't look comfortable taking over the way dirk and duncan did in the playoffs at times.[/B]

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

i prefer duncan. lets just leave it a that.[/QUOTE]

Yes! The bold is exactly what I want to see from you, and no, I don't want to just leave it at that. Because just like the center-related stuff, the bolded points are things that people say about KG that in my experience just don't hold up under scrutiny. And ultimately, that's the problem for me. If you think Duncan is better, then we should be able to point out some specific reasons why. And if your stated reasons all deal with issues that don't survive scrutiny, then you should know that so you don't keep repeating urban legends. On the other hand, if I'm out in left field and things like the bolded really ARE true, then please, please break it down for me so I can see my error and not look silly making cases that don't make sense. That's what I'm looking for. You're confident you're right. I'm confident I'm right. Based on the reasons you've stated so far, I think I can poke holes in your case. To that end, I made an extra long case of my own in detail so that you could go ahead and poke holes in my case. I'll even briefly add a few more here, in answer to your boldeds:
[B]
1) KG's inept play in tight games.[/B] This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof. As Harrison pointed out earlier in the thread, I was in a thread that really hashed it out and I went through and looked at all of the crunch time data 82games.com has, which runs back to the 02-03 season (according to 82games.com, "clutch" is defined as 4th quarter or overtime, game within 5 points either way).. Here's what I found:

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

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

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

2) [B]"KG got destroyed by Dirk"[/B]: Not enough room in this already long post to get deep on this here, but this is another conversation I've had many times (most pointedly with the Mystic guy I mentioned above). KG and Dirk only played each other in the playoffs once (2002), and there were many, many reasons for why Dirk's and KG's numbers look like they do from that series. For one, Dirk was balling, take nothing away. But Dirk's team absolutely SHREDDED the Wolves, and KG (as the only help defender) was playing off him a lot. There's a reason that Dirk only had 2 total assists in the series...he was being a finisher, because he never had to create since his man was helping out on others. I'll cut it short for now but again, if this is something you want to follow up more with in another post I'm glad to continue. Plus, Dirk dropped 50 on Duncan in the postseason, so I'm not exactly sure that Dirk's '02 series against the Wolves really helps make a distinction in Duncan's favor over Garnett.
[B]
3) KG doesn't take over playoff games like Duncan or Dirk. [/B]I believe this is a case of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as they were, especially at his peak. Garnett had a bunch of video game postseason performances in 2003 and 2004 (like the games in that thread earlier this week), but then he didn't have any more playoff appearances until his slightly-past-prime 2008 run (where again, he was the main "take-over" guy on those Celtics). He had a bunch of take-over games relative to the amount of games he had to work with...he just didn't have that many to work with. Now, if you want to have a side discussion on WHY he wasn't in the playoffs as much as Duncan or Dirk we can hash that out too, but I don't see any evidence to support your stance. Unless you can show me some.

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

[QUOTE=drza44]I'm actually replying to both of your posts, but there wasn't a lot of meat in your previous one so I figure this is a good place to start. And based on your tone here, I didn't do a good job getting all of my points across to you. Fair enough. I'll try again, and if it doesn't work, eh, at least we tried.

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

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



Yes! The bold is exactly what I want to see from you, and no, I don't want to just leave it at that. Because just like the center-related stuff, the bolded points are things that people say about KG that in my experience just don't hold up under scrutiny. And ultimately, that's the problem for me. If you think Duncan is better, then we should be able to point out some specific reasons why. And if your stated reasons all deal with issues that don't survive scrutiny, then you should know that so you don't keep repeating urban legends. On the other hand, if I'm out in left field and things like the bolded really ARE true, then please, please break it down for me so I can see my error and not look silly making cases that don't make sense. That's what I'm looking for. You're confident you're right. I'm confident I'm right. Based on the reasons you've stated so far, I think I can poke holes in your case. To that end, I made an extra long case of my own in detail so that you could go ahead and poke holes in my case. I'll even briefly add a few more here, in answer to your boldeds:
[B]
1) KG's inept play in tight games.[/B] This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof. As Harrison pointed out earlier in the thread, I was in a thread that really hashed it out and I went through and looked at all of the crunch time data 82games.com has, which runs back to the 02-03 season (according to 82games.com, "clutch" is defined as 4th quarter or overtime, game within 5 points either way).. Here's what I found:

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

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

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

2) [B]"KG got destroyed by Dirk"[/B]: Not enough room in this already long post to get deep on this here, but this is another conversation I've had many times (most pointedly with the Mystic guy I mentioned above). KG and Dirk only played each other in the playoffs once (2002), and there were many, many reasons for why Dirk's and KG's numbers look like they do from that series. For one, Dirk was balling, take nothing away. But Dirk's team absolutely SHREDDED the Wolves, and KG (as the only help defender) was playing off him a lot. There's a reason that Dirk only had 2 total assists in the series...he was being a finisher, because he never had to create since his man was helping out on others. I'll cut it short for now but again, if this is something you want to follow up more with in another post I'm glad to continue. Plus, Dirk dropped 50 on Duncan in the postseason, so I'm not exactly sure that Dirk's '02 series against the Wolves really helps make a distinction in Duncan's favor over Garnett.
[B]
3) KG doesn't take over playoff games like Duncan or Dirk. [/B]I believe this is a case of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as they were, especially at his peak. Garnett had a bunch of video game postseason performances in 2003 and 2004 (like the games in that thread earlier this week), but then he didn't have any more playoff appearances until his slightly-past-prime 2008 run (where again, he was the main "take-over" guy on those Celtics). He had a bunch of take-over games relative to the amount of games he had to work with...he just didn't have that many to work with. Now, if you want to have a side discussion on WHY he wasn't in the playoffs as much as Duncan or Dirk we can hash that out too, but I don't see any evidence to support your stance. Unless you can show me some.

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


Great post, and the previous one you made too.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=BlackJoker23] Those numbers above are ridiculous. KG has been Duncan's equal in crunch time? I'm going to have to call BS on that one. [B]How do you think KG got the "second option on offense" label? How do people think he doesn't have the mentality to be the go-to-guy etc?[/B] [/quote]

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

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

[QUOTE=BlackJoker23]Those stats don't tell us Duncan actually creates his offense through dominant low-post play while [B]most of KG's points come from wide open jumpers from the top of the key with his man playing off of him.[/B] Of course, I have no data to prove my claim but my observation is based on the numerous amount of times I've seen these two play. No statgeekery will make me think otherwise. [/quote]

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

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

[QUOTE=drza44]
3) KG doesn't take over playoff games like Duncan or Dirk. I believe this is a case of [B]Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as they were[/B], especially at his peak. Garnett had a bunch of video game postseason performances in 2003 and 2004 (like the games in that thread earlier this week), but then he didn't have any more playoff appearances until his slightly-past-prime 2008 run (where again, he was the main "take-over" guy on those Celtics). He had a bunch of take-over games relative to the amount of games he had to work with...he just didn't have that many to work with.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Penny_Hardaway]Great post, and the previous one you made too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

drza.

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

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

you seem to fail to even acknowledge simple facts:

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

some strong opinions i have:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

duncan was a better defensive anchor.

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

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]We'll give you Jamison for either[/COLOR][/FONT] :cheers:

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

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

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

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
see. at some point you need to acknowledge a few of the things duncan just did better. i could flip your constant "well kg never had this or that or never had the opportunity for this or that" stuff with the following:

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

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

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

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

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

You bring up Dirk a lot but I recall Joe Smith on Dirk a lot and KG on Howard most of the time. They were protecting KG because Dirk was running behind screens all the time. I don't think that's a fair call out if you seen the games. KG has outplayed Dirk in H2H competition, even outscoring him along with the rebounds, assist blocks and steals. And a guy can get hot behind screens and a short playoff series. Definitely not a fair call out. I wouldn't even call it an exception to the rule. I would call Amare, Duncan's exception to the rule. He has done it more than once to TD and since Amare became of age he has the advantage on Duncan in H2h comp too - well in points.
[quote]
so again. what wins in the playoffs? defense and rebounding.
and duncan was a better rebounder than kg in the playoffs. [/quote]
Once again, structure verses no structure in the rebounding department. KG had the responsibility of getting his teammates off and playing the role of set-up man. He was frequently out of position to rebound, yet in his prime he is definitely a better rebounder in the regular season and at least an equal rebounder in the playoffs. If KG had a true powerforward role for his team and wasn't responsible for keeping Wally's man out of the paint as well, KG unquestionably outrebounds TD. [quote]

and i think duncan had a bigger overall impact on defense in the playoffs? again. why? because he was a better interior anchor/paint protector and he could defend other bigs one on one a bit better. [/quote]
I agree here. This is most certainly true for most of their careers. But you have to take into account that KG anchored one of the best defenses ever. Tho past his prime, teams could not get in the paint when he was in the back calling shifts and angles. This defense is superior than the at the rim defense (see the layup line Kobe and teammates execute on SA in '08 and then the harsh Laker reality they get with Boston). There was no SA team equal to Boston's defense in '08 and SA had a more experienced coach and better defensive pieces in a lot of years. Something that KG was denied because of Minny's neglect. I also give KG the defensive edge because he communicates better than TD. Defense at the rim is not the way to play defense.
[quote]
duncan is a better low post player that can get you easier baskets (as evidenced by duncan's better efficiency). there is also more to this. duncan can get other bigs in foul trouble and wear them out a bit on the low block to an extent kg really couldn't and rarely did.
[/quote]
True [quote]
duncan was a better defensive anchor.[/quote] not when KG joined a franchise of equal stature. So not when their defensive games peaked.
[quote]
i'll take duncan. like i said a thousand times i agree with almost everything you say, but you are under-rating duncan's ability to control a game and seriously over-rating kg's willingness to take over games. in the right situation....kg's game would do better than duncan's. but if i had to choose one to build a team around? i take duncan because i know he can be that guy that dominates consistently and has no qualms getting the ball play in play out on the low block. and that is how i prefer to play the game.[/QUOTE]
I can see your point but you are talking to Drza.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]drza.

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

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

you seem to fail to even acknowledge simple facts:

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

some strong opinions i have:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

duncan was a better defensive anchor.

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

Great post!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can see your point but you are talking to Drza.[/QUOTE]

Again, great post.

I actually enjoy reading two intelligent posts on thise topic.

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

[QUOTE=jlauber]Again, great post.

I actually enjoy reading two intelligent posts on thise topic.

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

yea.

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

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

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]yea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]yea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these threads sucks bro

[QUOTE=T-bomb 25]KG is great but Duncan is noticably better.....its really not very close,even as great as KG is.[/QUOTE]
This.Its not close.Ginobli bring up some excellent points

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

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

[CODE][B]2002

Western Conference Semifinals / Lakers 4-1 over Spurs

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

[B]2006

Western Conference Finals / Mavs 4-3 over Spurs

Duncan averaged 32.2 pts,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk
[/B][/CODE]

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

[B]Lakers[/B]

[CODE]1999 Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-0 over Lakers

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

Game 3 Duncan put 37/14/4/1

[B]Game 4 Duncan put 33/14/4/1[/B]


2002 Western Conference Semifinals / Lakers 4-1 over Spurs

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

Game 4 Duncan put 30/11/6/4

[B]Game 5 Duncan put 34/25/4/2[/B]


2003 Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Lakers

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

Game 4 36/9/5

Game 5 27/14/5/1

[B]Game 6 37/16/4/2[/B]
[/CODE]


[B]Mavs[/B]

[CODE]2001 Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-1 Over Mavs

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


Game 1 31/13/1/2

Game 2 25/22/6/1

Game 4 29/18/5/0

[B]Game 5 32/20/3/5[/B]


2003 Western Conference Finals/ Spurs 4-2 Over Mavs

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

Game 1 40/15/7/1

Game 2 32/15/5/3

Game 3 34/24/6/6

Game 4 21/20/7/4

2006 Western Conference Semifinals / Mavs 4-3 Over Spurs

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

Game 1 31/13/4/2

Game 3 35/12/2/2

Game 4 31/13/6/3

Game 5 36/12/4/3

[B]Game 7 41/15/6/3[/B][/CODE]

[B]Suns[/B]

[CODE]

2005 Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-1 over Suns

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

Game 1 28/15/4/1

Game 2 30/8/2/0

Game 3 33/15/3/3

[B]Game 5 31/15/4/3[/B]


2007 Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Suns

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

Game 1 33/16/1/3

Game 2 29/11/2

Game 3 33/19/3

[B]Game 6 24/13/1/9[/B]


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

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

Game 1 40/15/5/3

[B]Game 5 29/17/3[/B]
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=drza44] I think he at least matches the 4 that Duncan's Spurs accomplished.[/QUOTE]
Spurs win zero championship because:

1) Tim Duncan Playoff version was in another level.

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

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Duncan numbers wouldn't skyrocket on a worse team. .[/QUOTE]

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

Seriously,people need to stop using ad hoc arguments.

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

[QUOTE=Anaximandro1]
Spurs win zero championship because:
1) Tim Duncan Playoff version was in another level.
2) [B]It's easier to build around a dominant post player[/B][/quote]
Hahahah, welcome to the 1980's! And its obvious you didn't read and comprehend the thread.

[quote]
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Seriously,people need to stop using ad hoc arguments.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]before i get into kg vs dirk. let me say that i think kg is clearly better...and its really not very close for me.

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

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

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

lol.

[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]lol.[/QUOTE]

Top 4 pf's of all time

Duncan
Barkley
Malone
Garnett

[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]Top 4 pf's of all time

Duncan
Barkley
Malone
Garnett[/QUOTE]


Is that in order?

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]

you seem to fail to even acknowledge simple facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[I][B]4. duncan's regular season numbers are slightly better
5. overall the advanced stats slightly favor duncan[/I][/B]

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

[u][B]Box score stats:[/B][/u]

[B]PER (2000 - 2009):[/B] Duncan 25.5, Garnett 25.5 (Basketball-reference.com)

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

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

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

[u][B]+/- stats:[/B][/u]

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

[B]Stephen Ilardi's APM (2003 - 2009): [/B]Duncan +8.0, Garnett + 14.1 [url]https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AnGzTFTtSPx_dE9xcTVITjhRSDdfRkJ5MHJ2cU1nb0E&hl=en#gid=0[/url]

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

[I][B]4. duncan's playoff numbers are slightly better
6. duncan was more efficient in the playoffs [/I][/B]

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

[QUOTE=drza44]Sorry for the several-day delay in my response, life interferes. I'm starting here because I think this is the most important part of your post, but if time/space permits I'll address some of your other issues below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[I][B]4. duncan's regular season numbers are slightly better
5. overall the advanced stats slightly favor duncan[/I][/B]

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

[u][B]Box score stats:[/B][/u]

[B]PER (2000 - 2009):[/B] Duncan 25.5, Garnett 25.5 (Basketball-reference.com)

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

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

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

[u][B]+/- stats:[/B][/u]

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

[B]Stephen Ilardi's APM (2003 - 2009): [/B]Duncan +8.0, Garnett + 14.1 [url]https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AnGzTFTtSPx_dE9xcTVITjhRSDdfRkJ5MHJ2cU1nb0E&hl=en#gid=0[/url]

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

[I][B]4. duncan's playoff numbers are slightly better
6. duncan was more efficient in the playoffs [/I][/B]

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

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


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

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

Are we seriously arguing KG is better than Duncan?

Great work Drza44.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=drza44]The biggest reason for the 2003 - 2009 APM stats is that those are the only years where the stat is available. 82games.com didn't start keeping track of the +/- stats until 2002-03, and as far as I know that data isn't publicly available anywhere else from before that season.

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

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