Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

[QUOTE=rmt]Totally agree. And in the second half of '05 Finals game 7, Duncan got the Pistons' front line in foul trouble, commanding double teams and leading to wide open 3s.

"[B]You could tell when he caught the ball, how much more physical he was, getting in position and bumping and grinding and getting shots and making sure he got toward the rim, so that when people came at him he was in good position to open up a teammate[/B]," Popovich said.

"[B]A lot of the shots they made, open shots, came as a result of us having a hard time guarding him," [Larry] Brown said. "That's why he's such a great player[/B]."

"Rasheed was strapped all game," Brown said. "If you don't have your big people with the ability to play aggressively on Duncan, you've got no shot."

[url]http://www.nba.com/games/20050623/DETSAS/recap.html[/url][/QUOTE]

exactly. perfect post.

these are the thing i've been trying to get across in this thread. this stuff doesn't show up in the box score. kg could simply not do this night in night out in the playoffs the way duncan could. its a big reason why duncan was better. it all goes back to being a dominant low post player and completely controlling the game and how the other team plays.

hopefully they take notice. well done.

[QUOTE=SinJackal]Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to. [/quote]
Help me out but aren't you one of these guys that couldn't sleep when Lebron left Clevelend??? Yet you have no shame in saying this. Some people are just loyal guys. It makes the world go round. KG was out of HS and Minny
showed him a loyalty no other basketball player had been shown in the history of the sport with the contract he signed - it was the only contract of its kind. He grew up poor and said yeah, and perhaps he should be grateful. KG has made about 40 million more than Duncan who is the exact same age. So I don't fault him. It's the card he was dealt.
[quote]
If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough. [/quote]
1)The Spurs was a serious basketball organization that had a player development plan.
2)Minny didn't have a basketball plan. Name me another player that was developed in Minny???
3)SA developed their players. a)TD had a good college background, B)a great mentor in Robinson, C)a solid big man coach in Pop, D)they operated in a structured system, E)their defense was ranked high in the conference F)their offense had solid players and definitive roles G)Discipine existed in all levels of the organiztion
4)Amazingly without little to offer in any of those categories from his organization... KG was basically self taught in a badly managed situation yet he outscores, outrebounds, out assisst, is more efficient, more productive, has more responsibility, with less support and structure yet was consistently this way in their prime. TD only has the advantage in blocks and FG%. One caveat for KG is that they let him play TD straight up and he outblocks TD in their matchups.
5)Hard to develop without support structure and sytems when you are unique in your gifts. KG is definitely one of the most versatile players in the history of the game. Having lead the league in PER/Efficiency, productivity and DPOY he also was more effective in holding down the most positions in the league on both sides of the ball.
6)KG could post up but his team didn't have a setup man... If he had shooters the post made sense but these guyst couldn't create their own shot either.
7)With structure, support, and managment built on winnig his responsibilities of rebounding, setting up the offense, being the main scorer and assist man, being the 2 people on defense, spreading the floor, the creative guy, leading by example...etc. could have been alleviated. But it wasn't. Yet Kg never took a play off. After the giant contract and 7 straight losses KG played harder than any other player out there.

Aall of this to say he could have been developed in any area. With less responsibility and more support he could have been in the post since he has real natural strength and tremendous dedication.

[quote]
The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.
That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.[/quote]
When KG had help he won. Cassell and Sprewell were on their last legs and he won respectfully with them. Nobody wins with those teams in Minny. No one player ever had the responsibility KG had in Minny. Those guys couldn't create, they weren't defensive minded, the couldn't shoot, there wasn't a team strength or a direction in which management was going. When Nestervic showed some promise, San Antonio stold him from Minny. San Antonio found out that KG made Nesterovic look better than he was.

[quote]
Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice.
KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . [B].last year is early enough for us all to remember[/B]). [/quote]
[SIZE="4"]Whoa,[/SIZE] and you act like you delivering prestigious info!!! Do you and Ginobli know what the word healthy means. You look at KG this year and yall are both incapable of making a distinction!!! Do yall [B]only[/B] look at the ball when the game is on??? Yo, this is the game without the helmets on. And you rolling like you in the know! "last year is easy..." last year you were probably in the insane asylum. How in the world are you going to evaluate a player when you can't tell if one of the most agile big man is limping. Then you don't read the post either. You are making it brutal for the rest of us. I'm out.

I still enjoy reading the intelligent posts on this subject. There are many good arguments for BOTH Duncan and KG here. Ultimately, at least IMHO, is that Duncan did get four rings, while KG languished with bad teams for many years. BUT, we got a good indication of what might have been, when Garnett won with a dominating team in 2008.

Of all of the player vs. player discussions on this forum...I really think TD and KG are about as close as it gets. Furthermore, if KG gets a ring this year, I think he has a legitimate case of at least knocking on the door of the all-time Top-10.

[QUOTE=tpols]For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

[B]Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could.[/B] Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though:cheers: (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)[/QUOTE]

did i read this wrong or did you call those Minnesota team a title contender? i remember something like 7 straight first round exits, 1 WCF, and a couple of lottery years over a span of a decade. you call that a contender?

[QUOTE=jlauber]I still enjoy reading the intelligent posts on this subject. There are many good arguments for BOTH Duncan and KG here. Ultimately, at least IMHO, is that Duncan did get four rings, while KG languished with bad teams for many years. BUT, we got a good indication of what might have been, when Garnett won with a dominating team in 2008.

Of all of the player vs. player discussions on this forum...I really think TD and KG are about as close as it gets. Furthermore, if KG gets a ring this year, I think he has a legitimate case of at least knocking on the door of the all-time Top-10.[/QUOTE]
KG in the top ten? No ****ong way. One of the biggest stat padders in Minny. The guy would yell at his players if they didn't let him grab a board. It ia easy to pad your stats when a team is just letting you get yours. He had no post game. His D out in perimeter is what made him unique. Duncan shits on him.
Someone post the Artest quote.

[B]Ron Artest on Tim Duncan
[/B]
[QUOTE]
"I remember one time Kevin Garnett was mushing him, and shoving him in the face; and Tim Duncan didn't do anything, he didn't react. He just kicked Kevin Garnett's ass, and won the damn championship. You know what I'm sayin'? That's gangsta. Everybody can show emotion, dunk on somebody, scream and be real cocky; but Tim Duncan is a ... he's a pimp."
[/QUOTE]

:lol

[QUOTE=magnax1]I love Sinjackal's Duncan has won more, therefore he is better argument. In reality, individual players level of play does not boil down to how much they win, as you said.[/QUOTE]

A cute stance to have, when you're arguing for the guy that hasn't won nearly as much.

Let me put this to you a simpler way.

Let's say you're playing some online FPS. Let's use Halo as an example. You come across some guy with this killer, badass kills/death ratio. Like 5/1. Dude's amazing, rarely dies, gets 5 times as many kills as he does deaths. Then there's another guy, with a 3/1 ratio. Not as impressive, but still good.

At first glance, it's easy to say the 5/1 guy is better. But is he? You look closer, and the 5/1 guy loses nearly every match, and the 3/1 guy wins nearly every match. That doesn't make sense. Or does it? Watching them both play, the 5/1 guy does nothing but hide and look to potshot people who are already getting attacked, stealing kills, sniping people, and running away and hiding anyone someone gets close.

Meanwhile the 3/1 guy is a gangster, always in the action, helping people out, trashign the opposition at an alarming rate, but happens to draw some deaths in the process due to his pimp ass style of play.

At this point, it's obvious you want the 3/1 guy on your team. He doesn't abandon you, and he isn't out looking for his own stats. He helps out and wants to win that shit.

Now let's look at KG and Duncan. Duncan's stats are actually better than KG's career, and similar during their primes. So let's say that 3/1 guy is actually also a 5/1 guy. Only his style of play is the same great style. He's not out looking for himself, doesn't steal kills, and helps out his buddies so he gets the W even if it means he loses a kill or two.

Now it becomes obvious who's the better player. The guy who's style of play leads to wins, as opposed to the guy who puts up the same kill/death ratio (or stats), but has a style of play that fails to lead to wins or titles.


That's the difference between the two. And yes, winning DOES matter. lol@you saying it doesn't. It lets us weed out the pretenders from the contenders when the stats are similar. Monta Ellis is putting up similar numbers to Kobe, but he's not as good as Kobe. We all know this. This is because Kobe wins. Ellis doesn't.

If you still do not understand the concept of winning, then I don't know how else to explain it to you (and you are probably biased). It seems obvious to me, and a lot of other people. Duncan's game leads to wins. KG is a versetile player who puts up good numbers, but it needs a lot of support in order to win, since he doesn't do the things that can carry a team the way Duncan did.

KG went to a perfect situation in Boston to play with two superstars, and stopped being a selfish ballplayer (stats dropped significantly), and ended up winning a title.

Even Shaq admitted that once he stopped being selfish for touches and stats, he started winning more games and eventually titles. You can be a great player and put up great stats, but it does not always lead to wins. Duncan "got it" from day ONE. KG did NOT. That is the main reason their careers turned out so different

[QUOTE=Wuxia]did i read this wrong or did you call those Minnesota team a title contender? i remember something like 7 straight first round exits, 1 WCF, and a couple of lottery years over a span of a decade. you call that a contender?[/QUOTE]

You didn't read it wrong - Tpols is just a dumbass. This is the guy that said the Laker's backcourt was head and shoulders aboves the Spurs(when SA's backcourt is ranked first in the league by a WIDE margin)