Dirk is better than KG.

[Halipender]

and KG isn't even on the same planet as Dirk when it comes to offense.
People like to talk about how KG was surrounded by crap but Dirk took Dampier to the Finals.

Dirk had Nash, couldnt do anything.
Dirk was always surrounded by great players, much better then KG.
Dirk won a title, thanks to tyson Chandler who covered his deficiency on defensive end.

[Djahjaga]

The gaps may be the same but the actual weight of the gaps is not the same. You can replace what KG brought defensively a lot easier than you can replace with what Dirk brings on offense.

I would say it's the other way around. Dirk is a revolutionary in terms of being a 7 foot floor spacer extreme, but if you think the advantages he brings to a team with his range can compare to the overall defensive impact of someone like Garnett, you're kidding yourself.

Look no further than the defensive anchor on Dirk's own championship team, Tyson Chandler. When he came and made them a top defensive team, you know what people said? They said he did for them what KG did for the Celtics, albeit to a (much) lesser degree.

Granted, this isn't 99 and Dirk isn't getting dunked on by perimeter players twice a month, but there is no aspect of defense where he isn't head and shoulders behind Garnett.

But even if his man-to-man D and help D were somewhat on par with Garnett's, he doesn't come close to organizing a defense like Garnett does (and he's one of the best in history in this case, so not only can Dirk not replicate it, you'd be hardpressed to find someone that would). KG had the highest on/off court +/- for the majority of his career, and that's because of his ability to take otherwise average or even terrible defensive teams and make play superior defense. A lot of that is him covering for his guys, but a lot of it is also him understanding everyone's role on offense and barking orders, telling people where to be, what to do. That's something very few people can bring to a team to the degree Garnett does.

Yes, but this is my point. I've talked about this before. If you were grading them scientifically it would be something like this.

KG is a 10 on defense/rebounding...Dirk is a 5

KG is a 8 on offense....Dirk is a 9 or 9.5

You'd get 18 vs 14.5

I'm sorry, but if anyone actually thinks KG is 20% better than Dirk...you are just objectively nuts.

Let's take a different example. What about Nash vs KG. Nash would essentially be a 1 or 2 (if we are being kind) on defense. He's literally one of the worst defensive players ever. So you are looking at a 11 or 12 if you award nash a 10 on offense..which i don't think he deserves...but you get my point.

How about Magic Johnson? Is Gary Payton better than him? I could go on and on. There are certain things that players bring to the table that defy simplistic breakdowns and measurements.

And my argument would be that Dirk has those things and that is what makes a debate that should be one sided on paper....but in reality it's a tough call.

I think I disagree.

You're right that all-time greats transcends simplistic arguments, but the examples you gave all come with qualifiers. You have to consider, like Locked_Up did, the weight of the qualities and also the impact the players' strengths and corresponding weaknesses have on his team.

For Nash and Magic, the fact that they couldn't play D wasn't nearly as important as they legendary ability to run the offense. Perimeter D from the PG position will always be less important than interior D. This is conveniently relevant to our KG/Dirk debate. You can't talk about Dirk's rebounding and then ignore his average impact on the defensive end. For certain positions, certain attributes are more important than they are for others. Dirk's ability to score on anyone, at anytime, in any scheme creates matchup problems and wins games. But there's a reason his teams didn't win until they got a stable interior defensive presence to make-up for his deficiencies as a rim protector and defensive quarterback.

In short, Garnett's skillset is more valuable to a team. I think that handily translates to him being a better player.

[Just2McFly]

Who disputed that for KG's 2001-2007 years?

the person i quoted in this thread first

[DMAVS41]

Despite all of that it is perfectly fair to say that he only recently shed the soft label once and for all after winning the chip two seasons ago. Thats just the way sports work. Dirk is an unconventional big, if he never won that fmvp he never wouldve got the respect he gets now since people would write him off for not defending the way the typical star big does. Btw 2011 dirk is the best version of dirk.

What kind of response is that? That him shedding the label means more than his actual play?

Dirk was honestly never even "soft"...but certainly has not been soft since the 05 season. People just didn't know or care.

And I disagree about 11 Dirk being the best. You give plenty of other versions of Dirk the kind of help and coaching he got in 11 and you'd see. I don't think most people understand just how good he was all the way back to 03...let alone 06.

It is all connected. Having the right team around you allows a player to play at his optimal level. Lucky players get that often in their careers....unfortunately most players just don't.

[DMAVS41]

I would say it's the other way around. Dirk is a revolutionary in terms of being a 7 foot floor spacer extreme, but if you think the advantages he brings to a team with his range can compare to the overall defensive impact of someone like Garnett, you're kidding yourself.

Look no further than the defensive anchor on Dirk's own championship team, Tyson Chandler. When he came and made them a top defensive team, you know what people said? They said he did for them what KG did for the Celtics, albeit to a (much) lesser degree.

Granted, this isn't 99 and Dirk isn't getting dunked on by perimeter players twice a month, but there is no aspect of defense where he isn't head and shoulders behind Garnett.

But even if his man-to-man D and help D were somewhat on par with Garnett's, he doesn't come close to organizing a defense like Garnett does (and he's one of the best in history in this case, so not only can Dirk not replicate it, you'd be hardpressed to find someone that would). KG had the highest on/off court +/- for the majority of his career, and that's because of his ability to take otherwise average or even terrible defensive teams and make play superior defense. A lot of that is him covering for his guys, but a lot of it is also him understanding everyone's role on offense and barking orders, telling people where to be, what to do. That's something very few people can bring to a team to the degree Garnett does.



I think I disagree.

You're right that all-time greats transcends simplistic arguments, but the examples you gave all come with qualifiers. You have to consider, like Locked_Up did, the weight of the qualities and also the impact the players' strengths and corresponding weaknesses have on his team.

For Nash and Magic, the fact that they couldn't play D wasn't nearly as important as they legendary ability to run the offense. Perimeter D from the PG position will always be less important than interior D. This is conveniently relevant to our KG/Dirk debate. You can't talk about Dirk's rebounding and then ignore his average impact on the defensive end. For certain positions, certain attributes are more important than they are for others. Dirk's ability to score on anyone, at anytime, in any scheme creates matchup problems and wins games. But there's a reason his teams didn't win until they got a stable interior defensive presence to make-up for his deficiencies as a rim protector and defensive quarterback.

In short, Garnett's skillset is more valuable to a team. I think that handily translates to him being a better player.

But you could say that about every player. Shaq only won having an all time great sg coupled with a top 5 coach of all time. Kobe has only won having the best front court in the NBA. KG only won playing with two first ballot hall of famers still playing at an elite level. Magic, Bird...on and on and on.

Yes, you need a defensive minded center like Chandler and a quality shot maker on the perimeter and quality coaching and a solid team around Dirk to win.

Are you honestly going to say that same isn't true in some form or another with every other all time great player? Look at the teams Kobe needed to win his titles. Every single title team he had was better on the court and in coaching than what Dirk had. Same with Magic. Same with Bird. Same with Lebron's Heat both in 11 when they lost and last year.

You find me other examples in the history of the game with the kind of help and coaching Dirk has had...that have won 50 11 straight seasons and had similar success...etc. You will only find it with Duncan...who has won the most with the least in NBA history.

Dirk plays a unique version of pf....he's not a center. You put Chandler next to Dirk and that solves every single problem that you could nitpick on Dirk for. I don't think that is asking so much when Kobe gets Shaq and Phil Jackson and vice versa. KG gets Allen and Pierce and Rondo. Lebron gets Wade and Bosh.

I mean come one. Dirk won in 11 going through one of the toughest roads to the title in the last 30 years with much less help than most championship squads have.

[Djahjaga]

It is all connected. Having the right team around you allows a player to play at his optimal level. Lucky players get that often in their careers....unfortunately most players just don't.

This perfectly defines KG's career, especially in comparison to players like Duncan, Kobe, and, to a lesser degree, Dirk.

KG had half the talent (before Boston) on his teams than these guys did.

[DMAVS41]

This perfectly defines KG's career, especially in comparison to players like Duncan, Kobe, and, to a lesser degree, Dirk.

KG had half the talent (before Boston) on his teams than these guys did.

Again. Nobody is disputing that.

But there has to be something to the fact that Dirk did things like get to the finals in 06 and led his 07 team to 67 wins...while KG's teams didn't do anything outside of 04.

And I get it, but then you have to look at what a guy like Lebron was doing with garbage around him.

I totally agree KG didn't have much to work with, but he also didn't do much that blows you away given what he had either.

[red1]

What kind of response is that? That him shedding the label means more than his actual play?

Dirk was honestly never even "soft"...but certainly has not been soft since the 05 season. People just didn't know or care.

And I disagree about 11 Dirk being the best. You give plenty of other versions of Dirk the kind of help and coaching he got in 11 and you'd see. I don't think most people understand just how good he was all the way back to 03...let alone 06.

It is all connected. Having the right team around you allows a player to play at his optimal level. Lucky players get that often in their careers....unfortunately most players just don't.

I have seen dirks entire career and what he did in the 2011 playoffs is undoubtedly him at his best. The reason I take kg over him is that kg is easier to build around and brings more to the table, his advantages at all of the other aspects of the game make up for the scoring advantage. It would be easier to find a scoring wing than it would be to find another big defensive anchor.

[Djahjaga]

Again. Nobody is disputing that.

But there has to be something to the fact that Dirk did things like get to the finals in 06 and led his 07 team to 67 wins...while KG's teams didn't do anything outside of 04.

And I get it, but then you have to look at what a guy like Lebron was doing with garbage around him.

I totally agree KG didn't have much to work with, but he also didn't do much that blows you away given what he had either.

The one year KG had a solid team around him, he made it to the Western Conference Finals and took the Lakers to 6 games with a hobbled Sam Cassell as his second best player (this has been mentioned before).

The 07 Mavs team was fantastic during the regular season, yeah, but if KG is going to lose points for not ever winning 67 games, Dirk has to lose points for losing in the first round with the best team in the league (regardless of the Warriors being a tough matchup for them).

If KG has the same level of talent around him (not the same players and same system) that Dirk had for his 07 team and a comparable build around him the way Dirk was built around for that team, he wouldn't get bounced in the first round. I would bet money on that hypothetical KG team to go all the way.


I'm not one of the idiots saying "it's KG and it's not even close," but I think there's a relatively clear answer, even if the players themselves are close to each other in impact and ability.

[Djahjaga]

But you could say that about every player. Shaq only won having an all time great sg coupled with a top 5 coach of all time. Kobe has only won having the best front court in the NBA. KG only won playing with two first ballot hall of famers still playing at an elite level. Magic, Bird...on and on and on.

Yes, you need a defensive minded center like Chandler and a quality shot maker on the perimeter and quality coaching and a solid team around Dirk to win.

Are you honestly going to say that same isn't true in some form or another with every other all time great player? Look at the teams Kobe needed to win his titles. Every single title team he had was better on the court and in coaching than what Dirk had. Same with Magic. Same with Bird. Same with Lebron's Heat both in 11 when they lost and last year.

You find me other examples in the history of the game with the kind of help and coaching Dirk has had...that have won 50 11 straight seasons and had similar success...etc. You will only find it with Duncan...who has won the most with the least in NBA history.

Dirk plays a unique version of pf....he's not a center. You put Chandler next to Dirk and that solves every single problem that you could nitpick on Dirk for. I don't think that is asking so much when Kobe gets Shaq and Phil Jackson and vice versa. KG gets Allen and Pierce and Rondo. Lebron gets Wade and Bosh.

I mean come one. Dirk won in 11 going through one of the toughest roads to the title in the last 30 years with much less help than most championship squads have.

No, I'm NOT some revisionist saying previous champions have won without help (though Hakeem got pretty close, I guess). But I am saying there is no one in NBA history that was gonna take some of those Minny teams much farther than KG did.

I brought up the Chandler thing because I'm saying he acted as a sort of KG-lite for that team, and it resulted in a title. Granted, Dirk played out of his mind, and I'm not saying Chandler was worth more to that team than Dirk, but I think he was harder to replace. And I definitely think what he brings correlates more closely to winning than what Dirk brought.

We repeat the whole "defense wins championships" mantra religiously, but it's clear very few actually believe it.

Edited: I said I was some revisionist idiot by accident...lol

[DMAVS41]

No, I'm NOT some revisionist saying previous champions have won without help (though Hakeem got pretty close, I guess). But I am saying there is no one in NBA history that was gonna take some of those Minny teams much farther than KG did.

I brought up the Chandler thing because I'm saying he acted as a sort of KG-lite for that team, and it resulted in a title. Granted, Dirk played out of his mind, and I'm not saying Chandler was worth more to that team than Dirk, but I think he was harder to replace. And I definitely think what he brings correlates more closely to winning than what Dirk brought.

We repeat the whole "defense wins championships" mantra religiously, but it's clear very few actually believe it.

Edited: I said I was some revisionist idiot by accident...lol

We'll just have to agree to disagree then...because I think Dirk is infinitely harder to replace than Dirk. I just think that vastly inflates the value of a player like Chandler.

Pierce, for example, is definitely more valuable than Chandler in my opinion. In 08, Pierce's game 7 against Lebron....that value just trumps what you are talking about I think.

I think defense is a huge part of winning a title. But team defense and individual defense are two completely different things. You can have a guy like Dirk at pf and still have a great defensive team without stacking a team hugely or anything like that.

I guess I don't understand why Dirk has been made into a guy that needs a lot to win...when in reality he needed much less than just about every championship team in the history of the league.

Honestly I think you are putting KG on the level of Duncan. If he were...then I would agree with what you are saying. But I'm of the opinion that Duncan is just on another level than both Dirk and KG...so I have a hard time seeing KG lead a team with Terry/Chandler as the 2nd / 3rd best player to a title...going through the likes of the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat...

But I could see Duncan doing it.

[Pointguard]

You are so full of sh*t. Marion and Kidd had the best defensive run of all time?

Well there are only two ways to look at it.

One, the Mavs were the luckiest team ever in having SG Wade and Kobe be off and Durant and Lebron be off which would basically make it a fluke run.

Two, either Kidd and Marion had the greatest defensive run.

Apparently you believe it was fluke run. Which one is it Creepy?

Dirk had the 3rd most 4th quarter scoring average of all time. He was the finals leading rebounder of both teams. He played better man-to-man defense than Chandler for most games (see Aldridge's scoring against him compared to his scoring when Dirk covered him). While obviously Chandler was the defensive anchor, Dirk did so much more than just scoring.

I never expected you to understand how Chandler plays defense. Do you know what Anchor means? If you really think Dirk is a better defender than Chandler you are so far gone, Creepy, I don't know what to think. We're talking about carrying a team. Dirk averaged 8 rebounds a game in the playoffs - that's not carrying anything. His responsibility was scoring. He took care of his piece of the pie which was distributed pretty evenly.

Even in the finals the last three games of the finals Jason Terry was much more efficient (58% from 25 of 43 shooting to Dirk's 37.5% from 24 of 64) in the last three games and was close in scoring (22 to 25.6ppg).

Oh, and said Kobe got vastly outplayed in the semi-finals by Dirk. It was not even close. And the reason for Dirk not winning a single game in the year after the championship? Well, for starters, how about that almost the complete team was gone? Three of the finals starters?

Would this really matter if you carried the team?

[DMAVS41]

Well there are only two ways to look at it.

One, the Mavs were the luckiest team ever in having SG Wade and Kobe be off and Durant and Lebron be off which would basically make it a fluke run.

Two, either Kidd and Marion had the greatest defensive run.

Apparently you believe it was fluke run. Which one is it Creepy?

I never expected you to understand how Chandler plays defense. Do you know what Anchor means? If you really think Dirk is a better defender than Chandler you are so far gone, Creepy, I don't know what to think. We're talking about carrying a team. Dirk averaged 8 rebounds a game in the playoffs - that's not carrying anything. His responsibility was scoring. He took care of his piece of the pie which was distributed pretty evenly.

Even in the finals the last three games of the finals Jason Terry was much more efficient (58% from 25 of 43 shooting to Dirk's 37.5% from 24 of 64) in the last three games and was close in scoring (22 to 25.6ppg).

Would this really matter if you carried the team?

It never ceases to amaze me how under-rated Dirk really is.

[Djahjaga]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then...because I think Dirk is infinitely harder to replace than Dirk. I just think that vastly inflates the value of a player like Chandler.

Pierce, for example, is definitely more valuable than Chandler in my opinion. In 08, Pierce's game 7 against Lebron....that value just trumps what you are talking about I think.

I think defense is a huge part of winning a title. But team defense and individual defense are two completely different things. You can have a guy like Dirk at pf and still have a great defensive team without stacking a team hugely or anything like that.

I guess I don't understand why Dirk has been made into a guy that needs a lot to win...when in reality he needed much less than just about every championship team in the history of the league.

Honestly I think you are putting KG on the level of Duncan. If he were...then I would agree with what you are saying. But I'm of the opinion that Duncan is just on another level than both Dirk and KG...so I have a hard time seeing KG lead a team with Terry/Chandler as the 2nd / 3rd best player to a title...going through the likes of the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat...

But I could see Duncan doing it.

I'm fine with us disagreeing

But I do want to clear some things up. Regarding the difference between individual and team defense, I agree. What I'm saying is that KG impacts your team defense on such a level that it's almost irreplaceable. What he does for the defense is what Magic Johnson or Steve Nash did for the offense. He organizes it into a coherent, working machine. The difference is, on a given night he could also dominate offensively, whereas Nash and Magic could never do so defensively. Just like Magic and Nash, however, there are limits to his "magic." He can't take a team of defensive scrubs and turn them into the best defensive team in the league, and yet that's what he was forced to do for most of his career. If the league didn't fine Minny 5 (!) draft picks in a row for the whole Joe Smith fiasco, we might be having a different conversation right now.

Regarding the Pierce game, KG had those games too, on the offensive end. But he also had analogous games on the defensive end. And those are harder to see and remember. You can't say, "Oh, remember KG's stifling D in that one game against so-and-so! He limited him to 6-14 shooting and basically won the game with his D!" And that works against KG. But he had those games, even if his defensive impact went far beyond locking one dude down for the night (and I'll admit, there were better one-on-one defenders, though not very many in the history of the game). And the reason Pierce was free to go at Lebron the way he did was because Garnett kept the team composed and were able to limit the contribution from the rest of the Cavs. Garnett has an impact that is altogether less noticed, but just as real, and (as I'm arguing) more impactful than someone just scoring a sh*t-ton of points.

So, I'm not saying KG needs (or can win with) Terry/Chandler. In fact, he would make Chandler redundant. What I'm saying is, with an comparable, analogous level of talent and an analogous build around KG, he would have won multiple times, or at least been vastly more successful than he has been.

To put it in other words, you obviously don't build around KG the way you do around Dirk; you need a different system and different players to suit KG's abilities. If you were to translate the players Dirk had on the 2011 championship team (or even some of the ones from earlier in the decade, 05-07, maybe 03) to pure talent, and put that on a KG team and mold it into the corresponding players he would need around him, he would be just as successful, if not more, than Dirk.

Dirk may have not had a super-stacked team in 2011, but he's had some pretty stacked ones in the past. Nothing like Kobe-Shaq on one team, but pretty serious, nonetheless.

[willds09]

Dirk iz better