I'm sorry but KG can't **** with Dirk Nowitzki.

[DMAVS41]

2002 is partially on KG and 2009 is almost fully on KG. I've never considered getting injured an excuse. It's definitely on the player. 2010 I don't know if I'd single out KG to any significant extent though. The Celtics' strong defense is the main reason they got to within one game of the title as that team was average on offense. Perkins going down in the Finals had more to do with their loss than KG underperforming or something.

Cool...if you are going to say Dirk cost his team in 06...especially given the fact that they won off of Dirk's legendary performance against the Spurs...it is pretty hard to say KG didn't play a role in the loss in 10.

So it seems like we more or less agree on the above couple posts...I'm struggling to see where this "comfortably better" stuff comes in...because most of the stuff you are saying about Dirk one could say about KG in some form or another.

I take the definition of "comfortably better"...and correct me if I'm wrong...that a team starting from scratch should always draft KG over Dirk knowing how their careers went and their impact. I just can't get there with KG...I can see a team taking KG over Dirk of course, but you seem to be arguing that it is an obvious answer.

Duncan would be an obvious answer, but I don't think KG would be. KG is part of that next all-time great tier of forwards that, imo, can be argued in many different orders in compelling ways.

[dankok8]

Cool...if you are going to say Dirk cost his team in 06...especially given the fact that they won off of Dirk's legendary performance against the Spurs...it is pretty hard to say KG didn't play a role in the loss in 10.

So it seems like we more or less agree on the above couple posts...I'm struggling to see where this "comfortably better" stuff comes in...because most of the stuff you are saying about Dirk one could say about KG in some form or another.

I take the definition of "comfortably better"...and correct me if I'm wrong...that a team starting from scratch should always draft KG over Dirk knowing how their careers went and their impact. I just can't get there with KG...I can see a team taking KG over Dirk of course, but you seem to be arguing that it is an obvious answer.

Duncan would be an obvious answer, but I don't think KG would be. KG is part of that next all-time great tier of forwards that, imo, can be argued in many different orders in compelling ways.

A prime KG with Nash and Finley (or a comparable duo alongside him) could legit be a dynasty. It would be an unstoppable team IMO. Post 2008 KG is already out of his prime so the criticism regarding his runs in 2009 and 2010 is much much less legacy defining than Dirk's failures in 2003, 2006 and 2007. You can say KG in 2002 slightly underachieved (while averaging 24/19/5 BTW) but that Wolves team had no chance at a title. They would get curb-stomped in the next round regardless. 50 wins and +3.58 SRS is not a contender. It just isn't. On the other hand the 2003 Mavs with 60 wins +7.90 SRS, 2006 Mavs with 60 wins +5.96 SRS and 2007 Mavs with 67 wins +7.28 SRS are definitely contenders. If you're claiming the talent level is even remotely close, you're not being objective.

There is very little separating peak Duncan and peak KG actually. Put KG on the Spurs and Duncan on the Wolves and not much would change. Duncan is a better iso scorer than KG but KG is more mobile defensively, a better ball handler... Their prime stats and impact metrics are just about identical except 2002-2004 Duncan's teams without him were around -1 net rating and 2002-2004 KG's were around -10 net rating. KG's supporting cast was just garbage. I would give Duncan a major edge in terms of legacy but only a very slight edge for who's better in their primes. I think 2003 and 2004 KG can compare favorably to any Duncan year. 2008 can also compare to any Duncan season minus 2002 and 2003.

[DMAVS41]

A prime KG with Nash and Finley (or a comparable duo alongside him) could legit be a dynasty. It would be an unstoppable team IMO. Post 2008 KG is already out of his prime so the criticism regarding his runs in 2009 and 2010 is much much less legacy defining than Dirk's failures in 2003, 2006 and 2007. You can say KG in 2002 slightly underachieved (while averaging 24/19/5 BTW) but that Wolves team had no chance at a title. They would get curb-stomped in the next round regardless. 50 wins and +3.58 SRS is not a contender. It just isn't. On the other hand the 2003 Mavs with 60 wins +7.90 SRS, 2006 Mavs with 60 wins +5.96 SRS and 2007 Mavs with 67 wins +7.28 SRS are definitely contenders. If you're claiming the talent level is even remotely close, you're not being objective.

There is very little separating peak Duncan and peak KG actually. Put KG on the Spurs and Duncan on the Wolves and not much would change. Duncan is a better iso scorer than KG but KG is more mobile defensively, a better ball handler... Their prime stats and impact metrics are just about identical except 2002-2004 Duncan's teams without him were around -1 net rating and 2002-2004 KG's were around -10 net rating. KG's supporting cast was just garbage. I would give Duncan a major edge in terms of legacy but only a very slight edge for who's better in their primes. I think 2003 and 2004 KG can compare favorably to any Duncan year. 2008 can also compare to any Duncan season minus 2002 and 2003.

KG and Finley is not a legit dynasty and I think I've finally realized the extent to which you over-rate KG and the contradictions. You again are making a straw-man argument. I never said the 02 Wolves were contenders. I said the gap between the 02 Wolves and the 02 Mavs was actually quite similar to the gap between the 06 Mavs and the 06 Spurs...and if it isn't, then you are under-rating Dirk. You are calling 06 a failure for Dirk and 02 a slight underachievement. This is not arguing in good faith based on your own analysis. Like I said, you aren't consistent. One was a dog to get out of the 2nd round and made the finals with an all-time great series and legendary game 7...the other got swept and couldn't score efficiently against the player you say kills his team on defense (no elite big either) and one of the worst defenses in the league around him. Cool, tell me more...

02 Wolves - 50 wins / 3.58 SRS / 51 expected wins vs. 02 Mavs - 57 wins / 4.41 SRS / 53 expected wins

06 Mavs - 60 wins / 5.96 SRS / 58 expected wins vs. 06 Spurs - 63 wins / 6.69 SRS / 61 expected wins

So, care to explain why you expect Dirk to lead his team to a title while playing the above team in round 2, but don't expect KG to get his team out of the first round playing a player you call comfortably inferior? Dirk wasn't the best player in that Spurs series...you don't think he was and neither do I....yet KG was comfortably the best player in his series in 02 against the Mavs according to you. Now, look at your expectations...you think nothing of Dirk winning...call that year a failure...and yet you barely can bring yourself to say anything negative about KG.

This doesn't make sense if you actually believe KG was comfortably better than Dirk. If you did...your expectations for KG would me much higher than you are letting on here.

If you are going to actually argue that 03 and 06 are failures. I just don't see how most of KG's career isn't a failure. Certainly 02, 04, 05-07 (missed playoffs), 09, and 10 are failures...using your standard of surface level analysis and no context.

But, we have jumped around so much now, lets get back to your two claims:

1. Dirk needs an elite big to win...you have now admitted you were wrong

2. Dirk doesn't make much of an impact if he's off...lets try this one another way...could you explain to me why KG led teams in Minnesota performed so poorly defensively for a lot of the years he was there?

[dankok8]

KG and Finley is not a legit dynasty and I think I've finally realized the extent to which you over-rate KG and the contradictions. You again are making a straw-man argument. I never said the 02 Wolves were contenders. I said the gap between the 02 Wolves and the 02 Mavs was actually quite similar to the gap between the 06 Mavs and the 06 Spurs...and if it isn't, then you are under-rating Dirk. You are calling 06 a failure for Dirk and 02 a slight underachievement. This is not arguing in good faith based on your own analysis. Like I said, you aren't consistent. One was a dog to get out of the 2nd round and made the finals with an all-time great series and legendary game 7...the other got swept and couldn't score efficiently against the player you say kills his team on defense (no elite big either) and one of the worst defenses in the league around him. Cool, tell me more...

02 Wolves - 50 wins / 3.58 SRS / 51 expected wins vs. 02 Mavs - 57 wins / 4.41 SRS / 53 expected wins

06 Mavs - 60 wins / 5.96 SRS / 58 expected wins vs. 06 Spurs - 63 wins / 6.69 SRS / 61 expected wins

So, care to explain why you expect Dirk to lead his team to a title while playing the above team in round 2, but don't expect KG to get his team out of the first round playing a player you call comfortably inferior? Dirk wasn't the best player in that Spurs series...you don't think he was and neither do I....yet KG was comfortably the best player in his series in 02 against the Mavs according to you. Now, look at your expectations...you think nothing of Dirk winning...call that year a failure...and yet you barely can bring yourself to say anything negative about KG.

This doesn't make sense if you actually believe KG was comfortably better than Dirk. If you did...your expectations for KG would me much higher than you are letting on here.

If you are going to actually argue that 03 and 06 are failures. I just don't see how most of KG's career isn't a failure. Certainly 02, 04, 05-07 (missed playoffs), 09, and 10 are failures...using your standard of surface level analysis and no context.

But, we have jumped around so much now, lets get back to your two claims:

1. Dirk needs an elite big to win...you have now admitted you were wrong

2. Dirk doesn't make much of an impact if he's off...lets try this one another way...could you explain to me why KG led teams in Minnesota performed so poorly defensively for a lot of the years he was there?

I think you're failing to grasp just how garbage those Wolves rosters were. Here since you asked for it. I'm gonna pull stats for 2003 and 2004 Garnett since those years were his peak and he had his "best" supporting casts. 2004 was the only Wolves team you could call contenders.

2002-2003 Wolves
With KG - 108.5 ORtg (3rd) 102.4 DRtg (10th) +6.1 NetRtg (3rd)
Without KG - 93.4 ORtg (28th) 110.9 DRtg (29th) -17.5 NetRtg (29th)

2003-2004 Wolves
With KG - 108.3 ORtg (3rd) 98.5 DRtg (5th) +9.8 NetRtg (1st)
Without KG - 93.8 ORtg (29th) 104.6 DRtg (19th) -10.8 NetRtg (29th)

2002-2003 Wolves were second last in the league in offense and last on defense when KG sat on the bench! -17.5 NetRtg with KG sitting isn't just a bad team. It's by far the worst in the league. In fact it's a historically bad team.

2003-2004 Wolves which were a contending team and playing at top 5 level on both offense and defense with KG on the court dropped to dead last on offense and below average on defense when he sat. They also fell to worst in the league levels in Net Rating.

KG's impact on those teams was astounding. But carry on...

I never denied that Wolves were underdogs to Mavs in 2002 by roughly the same level as the Mavs were in 2006 to the Spurs.

Let's look at the 2006 Mavs and 2007 Mavs since those were contending Dallas teams.

2005-2006 Mavs
With Dirk - 113.9 ORtg (1st) 105.5 DRtg (14th) +8.4 NetRtg (1st)
Without Dirk - 102.6 ORtg (26th) 102.4 (3rd) +0.2 NetRtg (15th)

2006-2007 Mavs
With Dirk - 115.6 ORtg (1st) 103.9 DRtg (5th) + 11.7 NetRtg (1st)
Without Dirk - 101.0 ORtg (30th) 101.7 DRtg (5th) -0.7 NetRtg (15th)

Admittedly the historically good offense fell off the cliff without Dirk but even the Wolves saw a similar dropoff without KG. The difference is that the Wolves' defense also fell of the cliff while the Mavs' defense improved when Dirk sat!

Prime KG would have killed to play on a team whose Net Rating was +0.2 or -0.7 when he sat on the bench. Based on that yes I do think that if KG had what Dirk had in terms of rosters that he would have won multiple titles. I'm almost sure of it based on these impact stats. Nash was an offensive dynamo almost on the level of Dirk and Finley was another all-star to put alongside them. I see no difference between old KG/Pierce/Allen and Dirk/Nash/Finley. If Dirk is as good as KG he should be able to win within that trio.

Admittedly from 2005-2007 KG's impact dropped but it's impossible to maintain the level of impact that KG has in 2003 and 2004. Those were legendary one-of-a-kind carry jobs by KG. I can think of Kareem who did something similar in the 70's and Lebron in the late 00's. The list is very short. In 2005 the Wolves won 44 games and missed the playoffs. In 2006 Cassell left and Szczerbian and Ricky Davis missed half the season to injury. In 2007 even Wally left. I really don't think I'm being biased when I say that those Wolves teams were really terrible.

And why you insist on 2009 and 2010 is beyond me. KG was past his prime at that point. Mind you those Celtics were relying on their defense not their offense and KG was clearly their best player until 2013 when he was just washed up and went to the Nets. Again Pierce wasn't some offensive dynamo as you speak of him putting up 20/5/4 on average efficiency and Ray Allen in Boston was basically putting up Jason Terry numbers from 2008-2012. Don't overrate the talent on those Celtics teams.

[DMAVS41]

I'm actually not....I've already talked about how little help KG had.

I'm just using your own arguments against you. You said Dirk was a failure in 06, but you don't hold KG to the same standard. It was equally as hard for Dirk to beat the 06 Spurs as it would have been for KG to beat the 02 Mavs based on your own line of thinking. Do you not see the contradiction? I posted the numbers you were using...the gap between those teams were about the same. And, even worse, you are arguing that the Wolves had the clear cut best player in the series...whereas we all know Duncan was the best player in 06...making it even harder on Dirk according to your own logic.

Why I brought up 09 and 10? To make you consistent. Also, Dirk won a title as the clear cut best player on his team at the same age KG was in the 09 season. So I'm not sure how the hell you think the "he wasn't in his prime" argument works in KG's favor on that one. Makes no sense.

Again, nobody actually thinks KG played with great help in Minny...I'm just holding you to a level of consistency people should have when debating. So if Dirk is failure in 03 and 06...you better believe KG was a failure often as well. Also, it isn't like KG did anything with those teams either...of course we are grading on a curve. KG just lost series after series...it isn't like I'm arguing he should have made a title run in 02. I just think it is absurd to call Dirk a failure in 06, but give KG a pass when the gap between the Spurs/Mavs and Mavs/Wolves was pretty much identical on your own standard of record and SRS.

And the results make it even more absurd. The "clearly worse" player beats the defending champs with a legendary performance and leads his team to the finals. According to you...that is a failure. But the "clearly better" player gets swept out of round 1 and lets the guy playing his position dominate the shit out of the series and can't score efficiently at all against a terrible defense without an elite defensive big. You call that essentially nothing, perhaps a slight underachievement. If you can't see that walking contradiction...you aren't able to have a real debate.

Lastly, if nothing after the 08 season counts...KG simply wasn't good long enough to warrant being "comfortably better" than someone like Dirk.

[dankok8]

I'm actually not....I've already talked about how little help KG had.

I'm just using your own arguments against you. You said Dirk was a failure in 06, but you don't hold KG to the same standard. It was equally as hard for Dirk to beat the 06 Spurs as it would have been for KG to beat the 02 Mavs based on your own line of thinking. Do you not see the contradiction? I posted the numbers you were using...the gap between those teams were about the same. And, even worse, you are arguing that the Wolves had the clear cut best player in the series...whereas we all know Duncan was the best player in 06...making it even harder on Dirk according to your own logic.

Why I brought up 09 and 10? To make you consistent. Also, Dirk won a title as the clear cut best player on his team at the same age KG was in the 09 season. So I'm not sure how the hell you think the "he wasn't in his prime" argument works in KG's favor on that one. Makes no sense.

Again, nobody actually thinks KG played with great help in Minny...I'm just holding you to a level of consistency people should have when debating. So if Dirk is failure in 03 and 06...you better believe KG was a failure often as well. Also, it isn't like KG did anything with those teams either...of course we are grading on a curve. KG just lost series after series...it isn't like I'm arguing he should have made a title run in 02. I just think it is absurd to call Dirk a failure in 06, but give KG a pass when the gap between the Spurs/Mavs and Mavs/Wolves was pretty much identical on your own standard of record and SRS.

And the results make it even more absurd. The "clearly worse" player beats the defending champs with a legendary performance and leads his team to the finals. According to you...that is a failure. But the "clearly better" player gets swept out of round 1 and lets the guy playing his position dominate the shit out of the series and can't score efficiently at all against a terrible defense without an elite defensive big. You call that essentially nothing, perhaps a slight underachievement. If you can't see that walking contradiction...you aren't able to have a real debate.

Lastly, if nothing after the 08 season counts...KG simply wasn't good long enough to warrant being "comfortably better" than someone like Dirk.

You are deflecting a few of my arguments...

I said that Dirk in 2006 was a failure because he lost to a relatively unimpressive Heat team (52 wins +3.69 SRS) with Dirk underperforming. He did beat the Spurs which was nice. And not sure why you brought up Duncan when Duncan arguably outplayed Dirk in that series or at the very minimum played him to a draw. It was the Mavs' supporting cast that outplayed the Spurs' supporting cast.

I don't see the 2009 season and later as being the "real" Kevin Garnett because he played fewer minutes but in terms of impact he was still a monster. How was Garnett responsible for the Celtics' failures apart from his injury? Celtics were way better with him on the floor than without. In fact every year from 2009 to 2012 the Celtics were the #1 defense with Garnett on the floor and fell off without him. They even fell off on offense by a significant margin without KG. KG was probably still the best defensive player in the league in those years.

Comparing KG on the Wolves and Dirk on the Mavs is a false equivalency. Dirk's teams were usually around water level with 0 Net Rating when Dirk sat whereas KG's teams were anywhere from worst in the league to even historically bad when KG sat. That's a disparity in supporting casts that even GOAT-level players can't make up for. Replace KG with Michael Jordan or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and the Wolves don't do squat because those teams were garbage.

Tell me this. When was KG a clear favorite in a series and lost? When was Dirk a clear favorite in a series and lost? I can't think of any for KG. I can think of 2006 Finals and 2007 R1 for Dirk. KG never had disappointments of that magnitude...

Show me some numbers or facts. Not simply attacking me for how I supposedly present my arguments. Discussing supporting casts is a subjective argument but numbers are objective. Give me some numbers showing that Dirk is better. I gave you plenty of numbers showing that KG destroys Dirk and has pantheon-level (top 12) impact at his best. These numbers indicate that if KG had 0 Net Rating teams like Dirk had in 2006 and 2007 when he sat on the bench that his teams would in all likelihood win championships based on his overall impact.

[DMAVS41]

Not deflecting at all. Please tell me you aren't one of those "Lebron is better off to lose in the finals" people...also, you have repeatedly said the Mavs had a good chance to win in 06 against the Spurs. Why then, based on your own criteria, do you not think the 02 Wolves had as good of a chance? Especially when you think the Wolves had the best player in the series. Actually address this...has nothing to do with the finals...and even then that is a bad argument.

I never said 09 KG was the real KG...another straw-man. I said that Dirk won a title as the clear cut best player at the same age. The fact that he was hurt and you blame him for the loss...is part of your evaluation of players. I do not agree with you...I would never call 03 a failure for Dirk or 09 a failure for KG...injuries matter, of course, but Dirk was almost never injured his entire career. It wasn't an issue. I'm going off of what you have said. You have said you blame players for injuries...not me.

Again, nobody is comparing the help. KG had much worse help...stop pretending like I'm saying otherwise. He had much worse help...however, he also had much worse results. You forget that last part. You argue as if the results were similar...they weren't.

KG didn't play in enough series for this mean anything. It isn't an argument because his playoff career pre Boston involved only 2 series wins. The guy literally only won 2 playoff series his entire time in Minnesota. And then played 1 year in Boston before, according to you, he killed the team in 09 and nothing else really matters. He didn't carry the burden of being a true franchise player in the playoffs in a real way to even evaluate this series disappointment stuff.

Sure, KG's efficiency is a problem for me in the playoffs. He was at 52% TS for his prime in the playoffs and didn't score enough. He was only able to muster a 106 ortg and I think that is a real weakness. I don't want my clear cut best player scoring so inefficiently while not making other offensive players better the way that a Dirk level offensive player does. KG's "impact stats" you use inflate him a bit based on his circumstances...like you said...his teams were not very good...so he has a huge impact on them. He'd have less of an impact on better teams...so you can't have that both ways. Context is needed.

When you say things like "destroy"...it is hard to take your seriously. The only "destroying" that went on between the two is when KG talked shit before the one playoff series they played...and by your own criteria, the Wolves had a good chance to win... KG scored, as usual, at an inefficient clip...and his defense made little to no impact in the series....and got swept out of the first round.

But, I really want to focus on that. Do you retract the 06 Spurs stuff or are you going to be consistent and hold KG to the same standards you hold Dirk to? That is interesting to me...because you seem to hold Dirk to higher a higher standard even though you claim he's a "comfortably inferior" player.

[DMAVS41]

Let me try to clean this up a bit...you can disregard the above post as I'll try to make this more concise (a real problem for me)

1. I do not have any issue, at all, with someone saying they think KG is better than Dirk. I think compelling arguments can be made and have said as much in every variation of this debate. I would personally take Dirk, but in no way am I arguing that is the clear or obvious answer.

2. Most people don't realize how much is unknown with KG. I think it is fair to have a lot of questions about how he and his teams would actually perform with him as the clear cut best player. I think 04 does a lot for thinking KG would have great success, but the question is...how great? Which leads to...

3. I really think you undervalue just how great of a stretch the Mavs went on under Dirk. I think you should look at this article and also just reflect on the year in year out success of the Mavs with Dirk leading the way with all the turnover for the franchise during that time.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-been-better/

4. Hopefully you will address what I view as the contradictions concerning the 06 Mavs vs. Spurs and 02 Wolves vs. Mavs series

5. What was the point of the Tyson Chandler or "elite big" anyway? I know you've retracted it, but Tyson / All-Star or All-NBA player would just be standard for championship winning teams. I'm still not understanding why you think that is a knock on Dirk that'd he'd need something like Tyson and a better version of Jason Terry to win titles. Most titles are won with better help than, some with considerably better help.

6. I agree the stats you've presented are good. I'm not disputing them, but you've also agreed that a solely statistical analysis isn't how you would go and you wouldn't rank KG that high. I think that is smart. It begins to overvalue a lot of meaningless regular season games on an average or bad team playing for very little. It isn't meaningless of course...I put weight on it and give KG a lot of benefit off of some of those measures given his career in Minny didn't give a lot of great information in the playoffs, but I think there should be some consideration to not just giving KG "dynasties with Michael Finley" given what we actually know.

7. The burden of proof is on you, I don't have to provide anything. I can just try to knock down your arguments. You made the claim that KG is "comfortably better", that Dirk needed an "elite big", Dirk's limited impact when missing matters, and that the 06 Mavs beating the 06 Spurs was more or less "expected" while the 02 Wolves shouldn't be expected to even compete with the 02 Mavs. You are putting forth those claims...so I actually don't have to do much other than say I disagree and give you reasons why.

[dankok8]

It's all good man.

1. I think KG is the clear and obvious answer.

2. I don't think there is as much unknown with KG as you claim. He won in Boston with what is a pretty standard supporting cast. Rondo in 2008 hasn't yet come into his own, Allen put up Terry-type stats but actually shot very poorly in the playoffs and Pierce was ok. Like I said 20/5/4 from Pierce isn't earth-shattering. Needing that kind of cast alongside you to win doesn't say much bad about KG. Those Boston teams weren't stacked at all historically-speaking. In the following years Rondo improved but Pierce and Allen declined.

Looking at KG's impact in 2003 and 2004 it's hard to imagine him not winning at least 1 title with Nash and Finley for 3 years. Again the 2004 Wolves went from 3rd in ORtg and 5th in ORtg with him on the floor and +9.8 Net Rating to 29th in ORth and 19th in DRth with a -10.9 Net Rating. That's insane.

Let's look at his impact in Boston which as you say in point 6) is a better team. Individual impacts are generally smaller on good teams.

2008 Celtics: +16.4 NetRtg with KG, +4.6 NetRtg without KG
2009 Celtics: +14.3 NetRtg with KG, +3.6 NetRtg without KG
2010 Celtics: +7.7 NetRtg with KG, 0.0 NetRtg without KG
2011 Celtics: +13.0 NetRtg with KG, -3.1 NetRtg without KG
2012 Celtics: +7.5 NetRtg with KG, -3.4 NetRtg without KG

On average the Celtics were ~12 points per 100 possessions better with KG on the floor. He essentially lifted a 45-win type team to a 65-win type team in his mid 30's based on these differentials. And that's also evident from the struggles of the 2009 Celtics which were without KG.

You said that KG had much worse casts but also much worse results in Minny. I agree but there is a problem with this kind of linear reasoning. When the supporting cast is below a certain level you can't even expect a GOAT-level player to lead them to let alone through the playoffs consistently. Kareem couldn't lead a few teams in the 70's to above .500. Neither could MJ in the mid-80's. Is MJ in 1987 or Kareem in 1976 not better than Dirk in 2006 because Dirk had much more success? I don't think that's right. Not saying KG is on MJ's or Kareem's level but you get the point.

There is a certain minimum level of supporting cast that is needed. Below that, team success drops off the cliff.

3) Dirk had a great stretch but he also had great casts. Prime Nash + Finley is at least as good as old Pierce + old Allen. Somehow you don't acknowledge that. Terry, Howard, Stack, Daniels, Harris is very good as well... Those Mavs teams in 2006 and 2007 didn't have any superstar outside of Dirk but they were incredibly deep. That's evident from the fact that those guys held the fort and the team didn't collapse when Dirk sat on the bench.

4) There is no contradiction here. I wouldn't consider 06 Mavs losing to the 06 Spurs (if they did) as a failure just like I don't consider 02 Wolves losing to the 02 Mavs as a failure. When you're an underdog and lose it can't be a failure. But Dirk losing the 2006 Finals and 2007 1st round... Those are failures. I agree that KG didn't have a lot of chances to fail in Minny because his teams were always trash but he had chances to fail in Boston. Did he? Realistically did the Celtics underachieve any year from 2008 to 2012 while KG was still an All-NBA caliber performer? I don't think so.

5) I didn't retract it. I just shouldn't have set it in such absolute terms. I think Dirk does need a defensive big man alongside him to cover for his weaknesses. You mentioned a few times that we don't have a lot of information about KG in the playoffs in Minny... It's true but we do have 2004. A putrid team without him that is a contender with him reaches the WCF and if Cassell doesn't get hurt maybe wins the title. You think KG with Nash setting him up and another all-star like Finley wouldn't win a title that year? Just replace Cassell and Szczerbiak with Nash and Finley. Logic tells us that the Wolves easily win the title. You don't think putting 24/15/5 albeit on 51 %TS while being the best defender in the league is good enough? The shooting efficiency isn't great but that's what happens when you're in the focal point of defenses all the time. With Nash throwing him dimes he would probably shoot considerably better.

6) I wouldn't rank KG that high out of respect to players who actually went out and won multiple titles. They had better circumstances but the game is still about winning. Impact can put KG above guys who won a bit more but I can't put KG over let's say Kobe who won 5 titles. That would be asinine considering the value of winning. I still value achievements particularly championships. But when discussing the best peaks KG is arguably top 10. He's that good. Dirk's peak simply isn't on that level. And since KG and Dirk won a similar amount and had similar careers KG easily takes it in my eyes.

7) Fair enough.

[DMAVS41]

1. I know. I think this view is flawed.

2. KG did not win with a standard supporting cast. Not at all. Some of the same numbers/metrics you use to prop up KG, when applied to his supporting cast in 08..rates them very high. Take a look;
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...porting-casts/

The analysis was done in 2015, but KG's teammates tied for 4th best teammate rating. Dirk's 06 help rates much worse and Dirk's 11 help rates significantly worse. These measures aren't everything, but they line up with what my opinion is coming in.

In 2010, KG isn't listed as the best player, but even if he was...his help would be considerably better than both of Dirk's teams as well on this metric.

Yes, there is a minimum level needed. I'm not saying KG underachieved in Minny....I said he didn't really do anything noteworthy outside of 1 year and it hard to just project things with so much unknown. For example, claiming he'd have a dynasty with Michael Finley.

3. The 03 Mavs were great. A true title contending team. We view fluke injuries differently. I don't think they make a player worse, but apparently you do. Not like it was a failure anyway, using your own logic, the Spurs were favored after just beating the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

Again, disagree about the Mavs post 03...you are over-rating them. They were good, not great.

4. Yes, there is...because you aren't giving proper credit to Dirk upsetting the Spurs and aren't holding KG accountable for getting swept. If KG and the Wolves had upset the Mavs in 02...you'd be using as evidence, but aren't using Dirk beating the Spurs as evidence because it doesn't go with your argument. I also don't see how one can be a failure if said player/team go further in the playoffs than expected. Also, again, go look at the Heat rating in 06...dead even with the Mavs based on metrics you think have merit.

Yes, KG doesn't have something like 07 on his career resume, but he also doesn't have a series in which he performed great and his team upset a team like the 06 Spurs...and sure as shit doesn't have anything close to leading a team like the 11 Mavs to a title as the clear cut best player. Again, this is the contradiction and double standard...you aren't mentioning the other side...and that kind of exemplifies why I think you aren't being fair.

5. Dirk benefits from a defensive big. We all agree with that. The problem is that Dirk almost won a title without an elite defensive big while also having a bad coach and good, but not great teammates. When Dirk can beat a team like the 06 Spurs and get to the finals without what you claim he needs, it kind of destroys your argument. In addition, a defensive big is not noteworthy...as I've said before, Tyson and a guy like Ray Allen would just be standard for a title winning team...and Dirk never even had something that good...so I don't see the point of continuing to argue this.

You are wrong here...it sounds good, but then you have to come back to reality in which Shaq/Kobe failed to win the title. Logic would tell you that Shaq/Kobe are going to win that title. Could they? Absolutely...I think the 03 Mavs probably win if Dirk doesn't get hurt...but nothing is a lock either way. In addition, logic tells me Dirk would easily win the title with the 09 Celtics...so I don't see how one counts and the other doesn't.

6. I think impact is hard to fully judge with a player like KG who had such a limited playoff resume...and, again, he was super inefficient in the playoffs in his prime as well...it is hard to just start granting things. They won a similar amount? What? Dirk won a ton more than KG. What are you talking about? You can't use regular season stats to prop up KG and then tell me that all the winning Dirk did in the regular season means nothing.

The Mavericks from 00 through 12 had one of the best runs any NBA franchise has ever had. Again...with by far the least amount of help around the star than any of the other top teams on the dynasty article below. Actually take the time to look at this...you are ignorant to the kind of historical success the Mavs had with Dirk. The Mavs were one of the worst franchises in all of sports before he got there.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-been-better/

And that is with Dirk as the franchise player...he didn't leave the franchise and join a few other first ballot hall of famers and get success that way. Come on man, that is crazy to argue. Again, I'm not saying KG should have done as well given his circumstances, but you aren't even beginning to understand the Mavs run if you think they won the same as the best player on teams.

[dankok8]

2. Those analyses from 538 are based on playoff +/- numbers from three rounds. 12-20 game samples are far too small and prone to noise.

I gave you the Celtics' ones. From the +/- data the 2008-2012 the Celtics were around a 45-win team without KG and a 65-win team with him. And that's supported by their 2009 struggles barely beating a .500 Bulls team in those epic overtimes then losing to the Magic who were a weak contender especially with injury to Jameer IIRC.

I didn't say dynasty with Finley. I said a potential dynasty with prime Nash + Finley. That's a better cast than KG ever had in this career including the Celtics. Dirk had them for 3 seasons... Now the 2003 Mavs were a contender and arguably lost due to Dirk's injury and some of Mavs' limitations may have been due to poor fit. KG may have made them better than Dirk simply because of fit because Nash and Finley were offense only players but still.

It's not unreasonable to say peak KG (as opposed to older KG) could have had a dynasty with a cast of supporting players probably better than his Boston one.


3. 60 wins and +7.90 SRS is too good to just call them merely good. They were a contender. I don't know how you can dismiss Nash and Finley as a supporting cast.

4. I give Dirk credit. But too many of those Mavs teams were good but not contenders even with good casts and too many did better in the regular season than the playoffs. There was something maybe inherently flawed about the designs of those teams. Perhaps the lack of ... post defense. They had a 7-foot superstar who couldn't help them in that area. Of course not all is black and white and Dirk was fantastic in his role. My only point is that maybe KG's role is more optimal to building a championship team than Dirk's role. Does a big men who's an 8 on offense and a 10 on defense elevate an already good team higher than a guy who is a 10 on offense and a 5 on defense? I certainly think so.

KG did beat a 55-win Kings team in 2004 that was more talented than the Wolves and played an epic series including an epic Game 7.

5. Why would Dirk win a title on the 2009 Celtics? And what does that have to do with anything? KG and the Celtics would have probably won had KG not gotten injured. Even the media widely acknowledge that. In fact so many people say that the Celtics without injury threepeat from 2008-2010. Why do they say that? Perhaps they recognize KG's enormous impact even a bit past his prime.

6. See points 2) 3) and 4).

I think ultimately you and I understand each other but just see things a little differently!

[DMAVS41]

2. I don't think they are. It says it is based on a multi-year statistical plus/minus. Regardless, we all know the level of KG's help in 08 was better than what Dirk had in 06 and 11...pretending otherwise seems a bit silly.

03 - Mavs... -7.8 points per 100 without Dirk
06 - Mavs... +.2 points per 100 without Dirk
11 - Mavs... -5.4 points per 100 without Dirk

08 - Celtics... +4.6 points per 100 without KG
09 - Celtics... +3.7 points per 100 without KG

Funny, you'd think supporting casts as you good as you claim for Dirk wouldn't get destroyed without him on the court. Just a thought.

3. What? I literally called the 03 Mavericks great...a true title contender. I have no idea what you are responding to. I simply said I don't view a fluke injury like you do. You blame the player...so you have to hold both Dirk and KG accountable for 03 and 09. Also, the Spurs were favorites...really not sure what you are reading. Go read my post above...I legit said exactly what you said I didn't say.

4. It's called not having a great 2nd guy. No need to over think it...please show me the other franchises that had as much success as the Mavs did around Dirk without a great 2nd option. Also, you probably aren't fully aware of what you are even saying in reference to the playoffs. I can run it down for you;

01 - Overachieved...upset the Jazz in round 1
02 - Expected...swept KG and lost to Kings
03 - Expected...made the WCF and lost (Dirk injured)
04 - Expected...lost to Kings (nash hurt)
05 - Expected...lost to Suns
06 - Overachieved...upset Spurs in round 2 and made finals
07 - Underachieved...Warriors loss in round 1
08 - Expected...lost to Hornets
09 - Overachieved...upset the Spurs in round 1
10 - Underachieved...lost to the the Spurs
11 - Overachieved...won the title as underdogs to get out of round 2

All told, there were 2 rather large over-achievements in 06 and 11...and one rather large under-achievement in 07. Reality matters...

5. What? You are talking about KG winning in 03 in place of Dirk when he got hurt. Why wouldn't I respond with Dirk winning in place of KG when KG got hurt? Not sure the confusion. Why would he win? Because he was one of the best players in the league and he'd be playing with a ton of help...not sure what you are talking about.

6. Those aren't points against what happened. Dirk factually won more. They did not win a similar amount unless you ignore a ton of their time as the actual best player on a franchise.

[HoopsNY]

Way too much dissecting going on here. One thing that is forgotten is that the Mavs had a good to great defensive team many years with Dirk, and that was due to the supporting cast. Guys like Dampier, Finley, and even Lafrentz were formidable, Finley in particular. There's no way you can draw an equivalent between Minnesota's cast and Dallas'.

DRTG Rankings

2001: 13th
2003: 9th
2005: 9th
2006: 11th
2007: 5th
2008: 9th
2011: 8th

Dallas was a very good defensive team, and not because of Dirk.

[jbryan1984]

I love both. Its so close imo. But I have to give the upper hand to KG. He was a better all around player and much better on defense. Lets not forget, Garnett's best years were in Minnesota where had possibly the least amount of help of any franchise player in the history of the game. He had washed up Sprewell and Sam Cassell at one point for a few years. I think it was 04, they made the WCF's. Dirk on the other hand, had pretty much a title contending team for the majority of his career, loaded with allstars in and out.

[DMAVS41]

Way too much dissecting going on here. One thing that is forgotten is that the Mavs had a good to great defensive team many years with Dirk, and that was due to the supporting cast. Guys like Dampier, Finley, and even Lafrentz were formidable, Finley in particular. There's no way you can draw an equivalent between Minnesota's cast and Dallas'.

DRTG Rankings

2001: 13th
2003: 9th
2005: 9th
2006: 11th
2007: 5th
2008: 9th
2011: 8th

Dallas was a very good defensive team, and not because of Dirk.

Nobody has drawn an equivalent in the supporting casts, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

But your post actually makes the opposite argument you think it does...if you can build good to great defenses around Dirk without having a bunch of great defenders on the team...then his defense isn't much of a weakness then.

Take the 03 team, for example, for starters...Nash and Nick played a ton of minutes...neither of them were average defenders...Nash was an all-time bad defender. In addition, that team got 6.1 points worse on defense per 100 possessions when Dirk was off the court. There was nobody on that team that was just some amazing defender anchoring it...they had some good defenders in Finley/Najera/Griffin, but nothing crazy...

And they were able to rank 9th on defense while playing Nellie ball.

At some point...the arguments just don't even live in reality. They either straw-man...like the above...claiming I've drawn an equivalent...or they bend over backwards to pretend that Dirk was just some terrible defender...even though not a lot actually backs it up.