Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

[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.