Printable View
[QUOTE=BoNafidde]Do they still win 4 championships?
Is KG crowned the GOAT PF?
Or
Does Duncan lead the T Wolves to championships?[/QUOTE]
No Duncan is better than KG. KG would only win with the 2007 or maybe 2005 Spurs. 1999 or 2003 he has no shot to win with them.
[QUOTE=rmt]
Don't think you can compare an 08 Boston team with 3 franchise players to 03 Spurs team with not one All-star or All-NBA player other than TD. The memorable thing about the 03 team was Duncan's brilliance. Robinson was 38 years old (his last year) with a bad back. A better comparison for defense would be the 99 Spurs when Robinson was still good or 05 when Bowen had reached his prime & Horry showed up. I also think that TD was more clutch than KG.
Would KG be able to carry the 03 Spurs roster to a ring? I don't think so. Would TD be able to win with the 08 Celtics roster in place of KG? I'd bet more money on this than on the former.[/QUOTE]
You missed the point, Celtics '08 quality was better, however not [B]defensively[/B] without KG, if he transformed that team to an [B]All-time great D[/B] team, imagine what he could do with the players who are known for their defense along with a better coach? Old DRob was still better than Perkins (actually his Drtg was almost the same as prime Duncans), Bowen was also better than anyone on Celtics not named KG, Manu also better than Pierce or Ray on D. Just because Spurs didnt had 2nd All-star, doesnt mean they werent a solid team.
About Duncan brilliance in '03 - there is no question about that, and I always had immense respect for that championship run. But KG was even more brilliant than Duncan vs Lakers in '03 Playoffs (you have seen the stats, one of the games linked to this very topic), he makes Spurs team defense even better since DRob perfectly complements him, no redundancy, plus great other defenders like Bowen, etc., while delivering extraordinary performance. Yet some say KG cant win the Spurs '03 :facepalm
[QUOTE=Duncan21formvp]No Duncan is better than KG. KG would only win with the 2007 or maybe 2005 Spurs. 1999 or 2003 he has no shot to win with them.[/QUOTE]
You really think KG, a year before his MVP season has NO shot to win in 03? i can see 99 but really? :facepalm
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
i'm not debating whether or not kg is great. he's in my top 15 all time actually. so i love KG. i just know for sure 100% that if i had to build a team around duncan or kg for their best 10 years of their careers....i would take duncan.[/quote]
Ginobili, I'm addressing this to you because I know you're actually a fan of both players but think Duncan's slightly better. I've seen you defend KG in many different threads. But as I follow this thread, I don't agree with your logic for WHY you're choosing Duncan. If you believe Duncan to be better, that's cool, but I'd like you to at least read what I type and consider if maybe your stated reasons for choosing Duncan are worth mulling further. I admit in advance this will likely be long, and some of the things I'll say have been touched upon more concisely by Harrison, but in going into more detail I'm hoping to provide a bit more relevant context and thus either a) make my point more strongly or b) give you more specific critical points from which to draw your distinction for why you believe Duncan to be better. Hopefully you read all of this. :lol
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
take a look at all the stats and advanced stats:
in the playoffs:
duncan averaged more points and rebounds and was 3% better from the field. his rebound and block percentage were better. he more than doubled kg in defensive and offensive win shares and overall win shares in less than double the games. his win shares per 48 is much better. duncan's ts% and efg% are better.[/quote]
I think this is an important place to start. There have been posts in this thread arguing both sides, that Duncan's career playoff numbers are better or that Garnett was just as good in their primes. The key for this thread, IMO, is to start with the latter. The career numbers have their utility, but we are trying to get a sense for how KG compared with Duncan during the title years, most specifically the last three after Robinson was no longer primed. I suggest we should take a look at their numbers from the 02/03 season to '07-08. Why those years? Well, for one the 02-03 season is when Garnett moved full-time to power forward. For two, this stretch goes from peak (they finished 1-2 in MVP vote in both 03 and 04) to just past prime championships (led teams to rings in 07 and 08) for both players, giving a reasonable range to compare them. And for three (later in this post) 82games.com started keeping their stats in 2002-03, giving us a richer tapestry of stats to make our evaluations.
From 2002-03 to 2007-08, here are their postseason stats:
Duncan: 23 points (50% FG, 68% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 107 games
Garnett: 23 points (48% FG, 77% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 50 games
As you can see, what Garnett and Duncan produced in the boxscores in their primes was very similar. The game is obviously about more than boxscores, and I will continue my case below, but I wanted a visual record in this thread that showed what the box scores say about them in this period. Now, this isn't a replacement for career numbers and we can debate elsewhere how much relevance KG's 14 and 7 last season (over 24 games) might have in this thread. But for now, I just want you to consider that there wasn't just this self-evident postseason improvement for Duncan's postseason numbers over Garnett's in their prime. They produced very similarly.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
i told you a lot of why duncan is better won't show up in the stats.
because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg. when one player demands a double team (especially a low post guy) it creates a ton of problems for the opposing team.
duncan commanded a double. kg did not. that is a huge difference when it comes to winning in the playoffs. [/quote]
Moving out of numbers, you're repeating something here that I've seen before, but that I don't think bears up under closer scrutiny. Let's start with your last line: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not." This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota, just as much the focus of opposing defenses as Duncan was.
If he posted on the low blocks he was doubled ruthlessly, and his go-to move to counter that was the turnaround fade-away turning away from the direction of the double-team. In many cases (especially when his casts were really weak) teams took to double/tripling him before the entry pass. KG's man would set up playing post-D behind him, the on-ball defender would sag off of the wing passer into KG's lap and then either the weak-side perimeter defender or the weak-side post defender (depending on the angle of the pass) would hedge off of their man ready to triple KG on the catch. This wasn't a rare strategy. Garnett was double-teamed pretty much as a rule for most of his tenure in Minnesota.
In fact, a good chunk of the high-post sets that Minnesota used Garnett for were used to make it harder to double him, but he was still always the fulcrum that the defense swarmed around. For example, the play "elbow" posted Garnett on the side of the free throw line, forcing the double to come from perscribed directions that he could either shoot over or pass out of. This benefited his teammates that could shoot, most specifically Wally Szczerbiak, who made a living for years planting his feat as the outlet release shooter that got open looks off those doubles.
Another popular set was for KG to post at the top of the key, then the PG would throw the ball up very high and let KG jump to get it and then pivot to break down the defense while the guard cut to the wing. Depending on the direction the 2nd defender came from, KG could either hit the shooter for a baseline three or dump it down to the center (for a direct shot), or else swing it to a wing and then either re-post or initiate a pick-and-roll/pop. This set didn't leave much room for KG to attack/shoot directly, but those high-low passes or lasers to the baseline three got a lot of easy buckets for Rasho and Anthony Peeler.
Then, finally, there was the large number of pick-and-roll or pick-and-pops that the Wolves ran to get KG in motion and force the defense off-balance. This was a bread-and-butter play, and was a strong reason why Chauncey Billups, Troy Hudson and Sam Cassell all saw their careers take a big uptake when they came to Minnesota.
All of which ties back to the other parts of your above quoted passage: "because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg." This is a repeat of the basketball trusim: ""low post offense wins championships". The thing is, KG's combination of efficient personal scoring (from both the interior and perimeter) and passing ability isn't often seen. There aren't many test cases.
The reason that low-post offense is so powerful is that it facillitates high efficiency offense both for the individual and for the team. But Garnett, despite playing a more perimeter game, once he moved full-time to PF KG routinely produced similar individual scoring efficiencies and offensive efficiencies to Duncan while routinely facilitating team offense on a similar if not higher level. True, Duncan's low post game fits more stylistically into the traditional view of what a big man should be. But when you look at the reasons for WHY the traditional big man generally experiences success, the fact that Garnett accomplishes the same thing in different ways isn't an indication that Duncan's way is BETTER. It's simply an alternate way to do things.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]look. i'm saying i think duncan was slightly better. i'm saying that kg could have possibly won 3 titles on the spurs. i just don't think he could have won in 03. its just my opinion.
i love kg. love him. have him top 14 all time and the 2nd best pf ever. he is certainly in duncan's league as a player. i just prefer duncan for all the reasons i gave you.[/QUOTE]
Obviously no one would denounce you for thinking that Duncan was slightly better. But I do question the validity of the stated reasons. Duncan and Garnett produced very similar postseason box score numbers in their prime, he produced very similar individual scoring efficiencies in their primes, and Garnett demonstrated that he could orchestrate high-efficiency offenses using his scoring, passsing, and decision-making as well. And if we brought +/- stats into it, Garnett actually outperforms Duncan there in both the regular and postseason which argues against the notion that Duncan was having a bigger impact outside of the stats.
Then, for 2003 specifically, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, in 2003 the road to the title went through LA. Both Garnett and Duncan led teams against those Lakers, played 6 games, and dominated the series. You have mentioned several times that you are extremely confident that Garnett couldn't have led the Spurs by LA the way Duncan did, but you haven't really given a rebuttal (that I've seen) for what dominance that Duncan expressed in that series that KG didn't.
Again, as through this whole thread, my point isn't to attack. It's to point out where I believe your stated opinion hasn't been fully supported. So to that end, I invite you to counter any of my stated points and/or also make a more firm case for why you believe what you do about 2003. And not just in generalities (i.e. post offense is just better, without regard to the pretty well documented individuals involved) or falling back to pure opinion (i.e. I just believe it, it's my opinion). Let's get some meat in this...what exactly did you see from Duncan and not from KG in 2003 that firms your convictions. Let's see if we can at least form a better articulation of why you believe Duncan to be better.
[QUOTE=drza44]Ginobili, I'm addressing this to you because I know you're actually a fan of both players but think Duncan's slightly better. I've seen you defend KG in many different threads. But as I follow this thread, I don't agree with your logic for WHY you're choosing Duncan. If you believe Duncan to be better, that's cool, but I'd like you to at least read what I type and consider if maybe your stated reasons for choosing Duncan are worth mulling further. I admit in advance this will likely be long, and some of the things I'll say have been touched upon more concisely by Harrison, but in going into more detail I'm hoping to provide a bit more relevant context and thus either a) make my point more strongly or b) give you more specific critical points from which to draw your distinction for why you believe Duncan to be better. Hopefully you read all of this. :lol
I think this is an important place to start. There have been posts in this thread arguing both sides, that Duncan's career playoff numbers are better or that Garnett was just as good in their primes. The key for this thread, IMO, is to start with the latter. The career numbers have their utility, but we are trying to get a sense for how KG compared with Duncan during the title years, most specifically the last three after Robinson was no longer primed. I suggest we should take a look at their numbers from the 02/03 season to '07-08. Why those years? Well, for one the 02-03 season is when Garnett moved full-time to power forward. For two, this stretch goes from peak (they finished 1-2 in MVP vote in both 03 and 04) to just past prime championships (led teams to rings in 07 and 08) for both players, giving a reasonable range to compare them. And for three (later in this post) 82games.com started keeping their stats in 2002-03, giving us a richer tapestry of stats to make our evaluations.
From 2002-03 to 2007-08, here are their postseason stats:
Duncan: 23 points (50% FG, 68% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 107 games
Garnett: 23 points (48% FG, 77% FT), 13 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl/blks, 3 TOs, 50 games
As you can see, what Garnett and Duncan produced in the boxscores in their primes was very similar. The game is obviously about more than boxscores, and I will continue my case below, but I wanted a visual record in this thread that showed what the box scores say about them in this period. Now, this isn't a replacement for career numbers and we can debate elsewhere how much relevance KG's 14 and 7 last season (over 24 games) might have in this thread. But for now, I just want you to consider that there wasn't just this self-evident postseason improvement for Duncan's postseason numbers over Garnett's in their prime. They produced very similarly.
Moving out of numbers, you're repeating something here that I've seen before, but that I don't think bears up under closer scrutiny. Let's start with your last line: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not." This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota, just as much the focus of opposing defenses as Duncan was.
If he posted on the low blocks he was doubled ruthlessly, and his go-to move to counter that was the turnaround fade-away turning away from the direction of the double-team. In many cases (especially when his casts were really weak) teams took to double/tripling him before the entry pass. KG's man would set up playing post-D behind him, the on-ball defender would sag off of the wing passer into KG's lap and then either the weak-side perimeter defender or the weak-side post defender (depending on the angle of the pass) would hedge off of their man ready to triple KG on the catch. This wasn't a rare strategy. Garnett was double-teamed pretty much as a rule for most of his tenure in Minnesota.
In fact, a good chunk of the high-post sets that Minnesota used Garnett for were used to make it harder to double him, but he was still always the fulcrum that the defense swarmed around. For example, the play "elbow" posted Garnett on the side of the free throw line, forcing the double to come from perscribed directions that he could either shoot over or pass out of. This benefited his teammates that could shoot, most specifically Wally Szczerbiak, who made a living for years planting his feat as the outlet release shooter that got open looks off those doubles.
Another popular set was for KG to post at the top of the key, then the PG would throw the ball up very high and let KG jump to get it and then pivot to break down the defense while the guard cut to the wing. Depending on the direction the 2nd defender came from, KG could either hit the shooter for a baseline three or dump it down to the center (for a direct shot), or else swing it to a wing and then either re-post or initiate a pick-and-roll/pop. This set didn't leave much room for KG to attack/shoot directly, but those high-low passes or lasers to the baseline three got a lot of easy buckets for Rasho and Anthony Peeler.
Then, finally, there was the large number of pick-and-roll or pick-and-pops that the Wolves ran to get KG in motion and force the defense off-balance. This was a bread-and-butter play, and was a strong reason why Chauncey Billups, Troy Hudson and Sam Cassell all saw their careers take a big uptake when they came to Minnesota.
All of which ties back to the other parts of your above quoted passage: "because duncan was a more dominant post player it opened up things for his teammates much better than kg." This is a repeat of the basketball trusim: ""low post offense wins championships". The thing is, KG's combination of efficient personal scoring (from both the interior and perimeter) and passing ability isn't often seen. There aren't many test cases.
The reason that low-post offense is so powerful is that it facillitates high efficiency offense both for the individual and for the team. But Garnett, despite playing a more perimeter game, once he moved full-time to PF KG routinely produced similar individual scoring efficiencies and offensive efficiencies to Duncan while routinely facilitating team offense on a similar if not higher level. True, Duncan's low post game fits more stylistically into the traditional view of what a big man should be. But when you look at the reasons for WHY the traditional big man generally experiences success, the fact that Garnett accomplishes the same thing in different ways isn't an indication that Duncan's way is BETTER. It's simply an alternate way to do things.
Obviously no one would denounce you for thinking that Duncan was slightly better. But I do question the validity of the stated reasons. Duncan and Garnett produced very similar postseason box score numbers in their prime, he produced very similar individual scoring efficiencies in their primes, and Garnett demonstrated that he could orchestrate high-efficiency offenses using his scoring, passsing, and decision-making as well. And if we brought +/- stats into it, Garnett actually outperforms Duncan there in both the regular and postseason which argues against the notion that Duncan was having a bigger impact outside of the stats.
Then, for 2003 specifically, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, in 2003 the road to the title went through LA. Both Garnett and Duncan led teams against those Lakers, played 6 games, and dominated the series. You have mentioned several times that you are extremely confident that Garnett couldn't have led the Spurs by LA the way Duncan did, but you haven't really given a rebuttal (that I've seen) for what dominance that Duncan expressed in that series that KG didn't.
Again, as through this whole thread, my point isn't to attack. It's to point out where I believe your stated opinion hasn't been fully supported. So to that end, I invite you to counter any of my stated points and/or also make a more firm case for why you believe what you do about 2003. And not just in generalities (i.e. post offense is just better, without regard to the pretty well documented individuals involved) or falling back to pure opinion (i.e. I just believe it, it's my opinion). Let's get some meat in this...what exactly did you see from Duncan and not from KG in 2003 that firms your convictions. Let's see if we can at least form a better articulation of why you believe Duncan to be better.[/QUOTE]
:applause: very well said
[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.