KG aint better than Sir Charles :no:
Printable View
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.