Is the Duncan/Garnett debate finally settled?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Is it completely 100% a closed book? Is it finally not even an argument?

[suitedkings]

It was never really a debate.

[OrEmuN]

4 rings vs 1 ring. Enuff' said

[mookie2001]

But Garnett screams after he dunks

[Cant_Be_Faded]

there were some people who always said it was never really a debate

i was definitely one of them but there were enough people calling it a debate to make it a debate

i'm just asking

is the debate over
can we all look back in agreeance and laugh now

[NewJerSpur]

I'm going off-topic on this one early, I know, but there's something that been nipping at me for a bit and has not been brought up by any analysts:

A piece was done of ESPN regarding KG's "intimidation factor" defensively and how he extends himself as an enforcer through blocking shots that don't count when a play is blown dead. I guess because it has become such a trend in the league as of late they were trying to acknowledge it for the psychological effect it may have on the opposition. The thing that hasn't made sense to me about all that is that everytime he comes down on his knees from one of those leaps he's putting more wear-and-tear/mileage on his lower body, needlessly at that. Never understood why someone on the team hasn't gotten in his ear to tell him to ease off the throttle when the whistle is blown, especially given the issues he's had the last few years with his lower body?

Not trying to hi-jack the thread, just something that's been on my mind since I saw that piece.

[Avitus1]

Whatever debate there was Timmy won.

[TheChillFactor]

Let's let the Tru Warier settle this one:

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


-Ron Artest

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What is funny is that a large part of the debate seriously was only due to the fact that Garnett showed alot of emotion when dunking and blocking.

Seriously. That was most of the reason they were ever mentioned in the same sentence ever.

[J_Paco]

Unlike many people here, I've absolutely loved Kevin Garnett throughout his Hall-of-Fame career. Garnett is (IMO) the most versatile forward, other than Lebron James or Larry Bird, to ever play in the NBA. But, the notion that he's ever really been Duncan's equal throughout the entirety of their careers is ridiculous. They've been equals, throughout parts of their careers, but Duncan has always had the upperhand with his ability to score and defend in the low-post.

[Obstructed_View]

I'm sorry, but when was it a debate? Like ten years ago?

[Sigz]

Garnett is a bitch.

[coyotes_geek]

This hasn't been a debate since 2003.

[TIMMYD!]

This hasn't been a debate since 2003.

I think it hasn't been a debate since 1999, when Tim showed he could carry a team to the Finals and win which Garnett didn't do until two years ago even though it was more of Pierce.

[Libri]

Garnett is a bitch.

This

[daslicer]

I would say after seeing Garnett get ejected just several minutes ago that Tim definitely has the mental edge on this dipshit. What an idiot he could also possibly get suspended for what he just did. You would never see Duncan do what KG just did espescially in a playoff game.

[Dex]

Finally?

It's been over for a while.

[mogrovejo]

Typical over-emotional, insecure Spurs fans. Nothing to see here.

[ShoogarBear]

Typical over-emotional, insecure Spurs fans. Nothing to see here.

So, I guess it isn't settled then, huh? KG and Duncan, even-Stephen? Or maybe KG better?

[angelbelow]

what do you mean by finally? I will say that its more obvious now a days compared to a few years ago but I dont think KG was ever seriously considered to be a better player.

[Dex]

This won't get old anytime soon.

http://nsa15.casimages.com/img/2010/03/29/1003290432566819.gif

[SAtown]

Typical over-emotional, insecure Spurs fans. Nothing to see here.

Seems to me that the only insecure person in this whole debate is KG himself. Nothing screams it more than blindly throwing elbows and running away like a little bitch. Typical KG, no surprises here

[mogrovejo]

So, I guess it isn't settled then, huh? KG and Duncan, even-Stephen? Or maybe KG better?

I've already discussed this issue many times in this forum. Most of you guys are just too emotional to analyse basketball and have this kind of conversations. :toast

[DPG21920]

Just seeing a self-conscious Celtic fan having to defend any and everything related to the team he roots for. Runs like a dog to a bone any time something is said. Nothing to see. We should probably stop saying anything about the Celtics because this guy is far too emotional about them. Because of his own issues, he feels the need to defend everything.

[mogrovejo]

Just seeing a self-conscious Celtic fan having to defend any and everything related to the team he roots for. Runs like a dog to a bone any time something is said. Nothing to see. We should probably stop saying anything about the Celtics because this guy is far too emotional about them. Because of his own issues, he feels the need to defend everything.
:lol:lol Not really, but whatever.

[mookie2001]

When Garnett makes a play he yells and pounds his chest!

emotion wins again, case closed nothing to see here

[DPG21920]

:lol:lol Not really, but whatever.

We should just stop, because you are clearly too emotional. Using two laughing emoticons is a clear sign of deeper issues.

[Blackjack]

There should be a debate, as there's no reason why KG couldn't have had a similar impact, but his insecurity and bitchassness wouldn't allow it.

Instead he shied away from being called 7' because that would mean he'd have to take his ass to the paint and take the punishment; settling for jumpers and not paying the price to best help his team was the easy way out.

Plus, his constant insecurity and need to not be viewed as soft had him concoct a fugazi image that grated on his teammates and eventually brought resentment; being comfortable in your own skin and conducting yourself in the right way, as a teammate and professional, tends to net better results. (see: Duncan, Tim)

IOW, the debate never had much merit.

[Marcus Bryant]

is it completely 100% a closed book? Is it finally not even an argument?

4 > 1.

[mogrovejo]

KG didn't take his ass to the paint not because he was soft - the man lead the NBA in rebounding for years and softies can't rebound that well. He was just a different kind of player, the first of a type of big man that now is becoming pretty common and will be dominant in the future.

You can't play in the blocks in the NBA without lower body strength and KG simply never had it - well, he has a little now but when he entered the league he wasn't even close. OTOH, he could do other things.

I also doubt that KG was ever a bad teammate, but that's part of the Spursfan mythology and doesn't even make an acceptable issue for a serious basketball discussion.

[Blackjack]

Bad teammate is relative.

He wasn't bad in the sense he was overtly critical or that he didn't put the work in during practice, but he was always perfectly willing to accept the premise that his team didn't have talent (a myth perpetuated by his fanboys) and he was always portraying a false image; he wanted the credit and to be viewed as the General on the court but when it came time to put up or shut up, he was always looking for his inferior talent to bail his ass out. Thus the resentment and less than enthusiastic teammates.

[Blackjack]

Oh, and the excuse for him not going to the post are lame. There's no reason on Earth a guy with the moves and latitude he's been afforded when it comes to the pivot foot, that he couldn't have played in the post much more often.

No one's saying to be Shaq but he could've been a lot closer to Duncan; which would've been much more beneficial to his team.

[benefactor]

Like Findog said, Duncan is a 1 and Garnett is a 1.5. There is nothing to debate because one would need two 1's in order to have a debate.

[Man In Black]

NO, it's not over but only because the talking heads at the 4-Letter influence it to be not over.
Supposedly, KG's a defensive genius and he gets lots of 1st team D votes and he even has a DPOY. Tim should already have 2. Bowen should have at least 1.

But reality...Tim's never been the lesser player. More efficient, more dominant in his play, and more effective in results. Tim Duncan-Will retire as the greatest PF to ever play the game.

[michaelwcho]

Just playing devil's advocate, but if you had put Garnett on the Spurs and Duncan in Minnesota, what would have happened?

Could Garnett have won a ring with the Admiral? What about with Parker and Ginobili backing him up? Or were Sprewell and the Alien just as good?

[mogrovejo]

Bad teammate is relative.

He wasn't bad in the sense he was overtly critical or that he didn't put the work in during practice, but he was always perfectly willing to accept the premise that his team didn't have talent (a myth perpetuated by his fanboys) and he was always portraying a false image; he wanted the credit and to be viewed as the General on the court but when it came time to put up or shut up, he was always looking for his inferior talent to bail his ass out. Thus the resentment and less than enthusiastic teammates.

What? Not sure what you mean. You think those Wolves teams had any kind of talent? Most of them were absolutely awful.


Oh, and the excuse for him not going to the post are lame. There's no reason on Earth a guy with the moves and latitude he's been afforded when it comes to the pivot foot, that he couldn't have played in the post much more often.

No one's saying to be Shaq but he could've been a lot closer to Duncan; which would've been much more beneficial to his team.

Well, Duncan was never able to guard smaller players, to defend the pick'n'roll or to close-out on shooters nearly was well as Garnett. Why do you think that is?

Guys with Garnett body type generally don't play in the blocks. How many times have you seen Anthony Randolph or Austin Daye there?

[mogrovejo]

Just playing devil's advocate, but if you had put Garnett on the Spurs and Duncan in Minnesota, what would have happened?

Could Garnett have won a ring with the Admiral? What about with Parker and Ginobili backing him up? Or were Sprewell and the Alien just as good?

Hmm... I think the Spurs wouldn't have won the 2003 ring. They would have won the others.

Duncan would have never won a ring in Minny. People forget Cassell got injured, that Sprewell wasn't playing defense anymore and how absolutely awful was that supporting cast. I mean, most of the guys in the rotation were out of the league 2 seasons later.

Not sure if Boston would have won in 2008 with Duncan instead of Garnett. It'd change the defensive quality of the team quite a bit. Never thought about this, need some more time.

[ezzizle]

This won't get old anytime soon.

http://nsa15.casimages.com/img/2010/03/29/1003290432566819.gif

lol this didn't make the top 10 blocks on nba.com
so sad

[CaptainAmerica]

Was this ever a legit debate? Duncan has been dominant on both ends of the floor for over a decade and never had to be "fake tough" to impact game. Duncan is the epitome of a professional. KG is a great player but started fading fast after 2007 and overall, just behaves like a "punk". He will never be on Duncan's level.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

I agree that Duncan probably wouldn't have won a ring in Minnesota. Not sure how well Garnett would've meshed with David, though.

Remember a big reason for Duncan's immediate impact was Robinson's conscious decision to turn over control of the offense to the youngster (which, if you've ever heard him talk about it, was far from an easy decision to make). I honestly believe Timmy's humility went a long way towards easing that transition. Not sure if the same would've happened with a young Kevin Garnett, especially recalling the fact that the Spurs' recent experience with trying to mesh Rodman with Robinson didn't sit well at all with The Admiral.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I agree that Duncan probably wouldn't have won a ring in Minnesota. Not sure how well Garnett would've meshed with David, though.

Remember a big reason for Duncan's immediate impact was Robinson's conscious decision to turn over control of the offense to the youngster (which, if you've ever heard him talk about it, was far from an easy decision to make). I honestly believe Timmy's humility went a long way towards easing that transition. Not sure if the same would've happened with a young Kevin Garnett, especially recalling the fact that the Spurs' recent experience with trying to mesh Rodman with Robinson didn't sit well at all with The Admiral.

duncan wouldve gotten out of the first round

[KenziE]

Let's let the Tru Warier settle this one:

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


-Ron Artest


did artest really say that? if so that only shows what impact timmy has on him... seriously for artest to even notice how timmy operates that is pretty amazing

artest knows a punk when he sees one and he knows KG is a POSER (ask anthony peeler)

[LoneStarState'sPride]

duncan wouldve gotten out of the first round

True.

[michaelwcho]

Well... that first round thing is kinda BS. When did the Timberwolves ever lose to a lesser team? They lost to teams they were supposed to lose to.... if we look at the rosters, we would find that even with Duncan, they would still lose to them. Let's remember, Duncan has always had good teammates. When Garnett finally got good teammates, he happened to win a title, too.

Garnett actually is slightly favored in the statistical department. This is amazing given that he plays further from the basket, and therefore should be expected to have a lower FG% and rebounds.

Still, unless it's Michael Jordan, I prefer a franchise player who parks his butt near the basket. It's where the action is.

[mogrovejo]

duncan wouldve gotten out of the first round

I doubt it. In which season? Those teams were really bad and teams with only one marquee player are generally easy to beat in a series. The exception are generally top-tier defensive teams like the 76ers with AI and the Cavs with LBJ a couple of seasons ago, but Duncan wouldn't make those Wolves teams defensive juggernauts more than Garnett.


Well... that first round thing is kinda BS. When did the Timberwolves ever lose to a lesser team? They lost to teams they were supposed to lose to.... if we look at the rosters, we would find that even with Duncan, they would still lose to them. Let's remember, Duncan has always had good teammates. When Garnett finally got good teammates, he happened to win a title, too.

Garnett actually is slightly favored in the statistical department. This is amazing given that he plays further from the basket, and therefore should be expected to have a lower FG% and rebounds.

Still, unless it's Michael Jordan, I prefer a franchise player who parks his butt near the basket. It's where the action is.

I think the biggest advantage Duncan has over Garnett is being a more traditional center - he's easier to build around, it's easier to find complementary players for him (especially during the first 6/7 seasons of the last decade, now the game is evolving in a different direction).

[jestersmash]

DID SOMEONE SAY CELTICS!?

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3483/c1rondo.jpg

RAJON RONDO??!

YEAH MAN HES A FUCKING ALL STAR POINT GUARD

CHRIS PAUL? STEVE NASH? KIDD? BILLUPS? DAVIS? ARENAS? FUCKING JOKES COMPARED TO RONDO

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/4995/c2pierce.jpg

PAUL PIERCE IS THE GREATEST SHOOTING GUARD EVER

FORGET THE FACT THAT KOBE SCORED 81 POINTS IN A SINGLE GAME AND WON 3 CHAMPIONSHIPS

OR THAT WADE IS AN NBA FINALS MVP AND HAS A CHAMPIONSHIP

PAUL PIERCE LED THE FUCKING CELTICS TO THE EASTERN CONFERENCE FINALS IN 2002 BY HIMSELF AND THEN GOT FUCKING DESTROYED BY THE NETS

WHO ELSE CAN SAY THEY HAVE DONE THAT? NO ONE THATS WHO

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6116/c3garn.jpg

KEVIN GARNETT IS ABOVE EVERY OTHER POWER FORWARD'S SKILL

I MEAN FUCK GODAMN HES BEEN IN THE NBA FOR OVER 12 YEARS AND HAS ONE CHAMPIONSHIP TO SHOW FOR IT YET BUT HES STILL IN HIS PRIME

HE MAKES CHARLES BARKLEY IN HIS PRIME LOOK LIKE A GODAMN LITLTE BITCH

DIRK NOWITZKI WON THE MVP LAST YEAR? PFT FUCK THAT GARNETT WON IT LIKE 5 YEARS AGO

WHO CARES THAT DUNCAN HAS 4 CHAMPIONSHIPS AND ALMOST EVERY YEAR THE SPURS REACH THE FINALS

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/575/c4wut.png

WHO WANTS TO FUCK WITH THAT? THE MIAMI HEAT DONT WANT NONE

I LOVE THE BOSTON CELTICS, THEY ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8416/c5boston.jpg

TIM DUNCAN
AINT GOT SHIT
ON ME

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7789/c6bos.jpg

YOUR 2010 NBA NO FUCK THAT BASKETBALL CHAMPIONS OF THE UNIVERSE


http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3483/c1rondo.jpghttp://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4545/crayray.jpghttp://img709.imageshack.us/img709/4995/c2pierce.jpghttp://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6116/c3garn.jpg
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/3574/clasty.jpg

[samikeyp]

Garnett is the better athlete, Duncan is the better basketball player. IMO, that is most important. I don't or never disliked KG, but to me, TD is better.

[MateoNeygro]

I've never really had a problem with Garnett mainly because I've never felt inclined to pay him one iota of attention. I don't think he's ever been as good as Duncan all around as a leader, a winner, on the block, help defense etc. Duncan by a mile.

[Capt Bringdown]

As I've said before, as if we needed another reason to hate the Lakers, there's their complete collapse in '08 that allowed Garnett to weasel his way into a championship.

Gasol has grown up a lot since that series, but he's probably the only big man in the league soft enough to be intimidated by Garnett's cornball routine.

And although PJ owns the championship record, getting punked by the likes of Doc Rivers is an episode the zen master would like to forget I reckon.

[MateoNeygro]

KG didn't take his ass to the paint not because he was soft - the man lead the NBA in rebounding for years and softies can't rebound that well. He was just a different kind of player, the first of a type of big man that now is becoming pretty common and will be dominant in the future.

You can't play in the blocks in the NBA without lower body strength and KG simply never had it - well, he has a little now but when he entered the league he wasn't even close. OTOH, he could do other things.

I also doubt that KG was ever a bad teammate, but that's part of the Spursfan mythology and doesn't even make an acceptable issue for a serious basketball discussion.

I agree 100%, they are different types of players. Regardless of what position they play their styles are much different. I've never seen evidence that KG was a bad team mate either infact I'd argue that he's a good team mate. Usually bad team mates are hung out to dry at one point or another through the media or other such outlets. Especially with the development of things like facebook and especially twitter.

[mystargtr34]

I still think Garnett has his argument, he's become under rated career wise because of the way his production has fallen off the past two years - but once he retires people will look back and realise he's done things in his career no one else has, and i mean in history.

Having said that, no body in their right mind could really argue Garnett>Duncan career wise because of the difference in overall success - but i think a debate can still be made for KG.

[HarlemHeat37]

It would be very biased for anybody to say there wasn't an argument as overall players when they were both at their peaks..KG is my 2nd favorite non-Spur, I've always loved his game and I've always respected him, even though Timmy is my favorite player..

When Garnett was in his prime, they were very similar from an impact standpoint..both great passers, both very unselfish, both great rebounders and elite defenders..

KG has always been a more versatile defender with his ability to defend outside and his superior ability to defend the pick and roll..Duncan was better on the interior due to his size IMO..

Offensively, Garnett had the edge in passing and had a better outside shot..Duncan had the better inside game and had a better killer instinct IMO..KG's lack of being "clutch" is overplayed IMO, but Duncan was always more willing to impose his will IMO..

I don't think there's much of a difference in leadership though..

Career-wise, there's obviously no argument for KG here, Duncan has him beat by a good margin..a lot of it might be due to circumstances, but it is what it is..

As for swapping them..if Minnesota had Duncan, there's no way they win a title..they just didn't have enough talent to do that kind of damage, and even if you believe Duncan was a much superior player, it certainly wasn't by a large enough margin to make up for their lack of talent..

As for putting KG with the Spurs..I don't think they win the title in 2003, so I'll eliminate that..they would definitely win in 1999 IMO..even though I think KG's style and Robinson's style would clash due to both of them having more of a face-up style, the competition wasn't strong enough for there to be a difference IMO..

2007 would be a lock IMO..Phoenix was really the only competition that season, and while I believe Timmy was a worse matchup for Phoenix offensively, KG used to torch the Suns on a regular basis, so I don't think there would have been enough of a difference..

I don't think the Spurs would win in 2005, just because it was so close..KG and Horry wouldn't fit together nearly as well as Duncan and Horry's in-out combo..with a series that was decided in a game 7, I think something like that would make a significant difference in the outcome..

So overall, I think the Spurs still win in 1999 and 2007 with KG, but I don't think they win in 2003 or 2005..I don't think Minny wins any titles with Duncan, and the Celtics title would be debatable(I don't know if Duncan-Perkins would work defensively, but it's certainly arguable)..

KG vs. Timmy is close if we're talking peaks IMO, but Duncan's style of play and slightly better killer instinct(IMO) puts him ahead for me..career-wise, there's obviously no argument..

A lot of people dislike KG..I'm not speaking about anybody in particular in this thread or anything, but NBA fans in general seem to forget the impact he used to have due to his antics on the court these days..KG has a legit argument vs. Karl Malone in the PF debate IMO..

[TheSullyMonster]

but once he retires people will look back and realise he's done things in his career no one else has, and i mean in history.
.

Like? He put up some good numbers for a few years, sure. But were they really historically great or unprecedented?

[HarlemHeat37]

His 20-10-5 streak did set NBA history actually, IIRC..

KG at his peak is arguably closer to Shaq and Duncan than Kobe was at his peak IMO..

[jjktkk]

Fortunatetly, Ducan always had the superior supporting cast. But even head to head, Duncan always had the edge. KG, was always having to go to war with a empty squirt gun.

[NewJerSpur]

Prior to Marbury's voluntary exit from Minnesota, I recall the T'Wolves playing us very tough in '99....always wondered what might have happened had Steph stuck around.

[Blackjack]

What? Not sure what you mean. You think those Wolves teams had any kind of talent? Most of them were absolutely awful.


Let's remember, Duncan has always had good teammates. When Garnett finally got good teammates, he happened to win a title, too.

^^ This is what I was alluding to, mogrovejo.

It's not that his teams were oozing with talent and he was an utter failure not winning a championship or putting his team in contention, it's that the talent discrepancy, from probably about the '99-00 season through '04 just wasn't all that great; the top 2 players, yeah (although KG was supposedly on Tim's level), but the actual talent moving down the roster you could argue favored the Wolves in the early '00's.

The Spurs had a better constructed team with a strong veteran presence, but look at the names and All-Star appearances of the respective supporting casts; how is it that the Wolves were among the highest scoring teams, usually top 3 with Dallas and Sacramento, and actually one of the most efficient when it comes to turnovers, if they were devoid of talent?

Tim was carrying some pretty weak teams in the early 00's and the notion that he's always had these great players, giving him such a huge advantage over KG, is just a myth; it's funny that the Spurs only first round exit (well, up until last year) happened to occur when Tim was forced to sit out in '00. You'd think all those great players could've got to the second round following a championship year . . .


Well, Duncan was never able to guard smaller players, to defend the pick'n'roll or to close-out on shooters nearly was well as Garnett. Why do you think that is?

Guys with Garnett body type generally don't play in the blocks. How many times have you seen Anthony Randolph or Austin Daye there?

With all due respect (and I sincerely mean that), you're kinda making my point.

KG was the more physically gifted and talented player, yet he wasn't as dominant or effective. He didn't endear himself to his teammates the way Duncan did; he didn't maximize his potential the way Tim was able to.

See, I was probably too simplistic with the 'He didn't take his ass to the block' rhetoric, there's obviously more than one way to skin a cat. But the point is this: he didn't command the ball and/or put his imprint on the game the way he was capable of offensively.

And I never said he had to be Tim Duncan, I said he could've played more like him offensively; there's no doubt about. Maybe he's not built to play it for quite the percentage of the game Duncan was able to but it could've been close. And there's no excuse for the amount of time he'd spend on the perimeter in the guts of a game always making the unnecessary extra pass or pulling the string on an 18' jumper (something teammates were fully aware of and it's another thing I alluded to that grated on them because of the treatment he commanded and the false bravado he displayed); is there a reason someone like Kevin Durant and his slight frame can dominate the free throw line like he's been and KG couldn't find similar success? I don't think so.



Still, unless it's Michael Jordan, I prefer a franchise player who parks his butt near the basket. It's where the action is.

And this is where so many go wrong when it comes to Jordan: he was arguably the best post player in the game and dominated from the free throw line down like no 2-guard had before. That's why he shot the ball over 50% and they could run their offense through him so effectively; the Triangle with Jordan was as good as having a dominant Big because you essentially got the same high-percentage opportunities and their continuity was such that it didn't compromise their defense; the Bulls were one of the most versatile and well-rounded teams this league has ever seen. But what people remember are the dunks, fadeaways and 3-point shots, things that were exciting highlights, but not the meat of what garnered his dominance.


I think the biggest advantage Duncan has over Garnett is being a more traditional center - he's easier to build around, it's easier to find complementary players for him (especially during the first 6/7 seasons of the last decade, now the game is evolving in a different direction).

And this we agree on; and it's a big reason when they had comparable talent Duncan's teams were more successful.

Tim's game, attitude and personality allowed Pop and the Spurs to build a scheme, system and environment for players to thrive unlike many players ever; Tim's always been the Russell of this generation in my eyes. The actual skill set (which you alluded to) was a big part of that, as it's easier to build from the inside out and find the type of vets and cheap talent to surround the perimeter to compliment, but it was also about the makeup of the man: what you saw was what you got. His teammates pulled for him and genuinely wanted him to succeed.

This biggest difference in my view has always been between the ears when comparing the two. It's the comfort level they have in themselves and the acceptance of the roles and responsibilities each has been given. It's the way they react to criticism, the media, and the way they treat their teammates. It's the type of character they've displayed under adversity and the way they've conducted themselves under pressure; Tim's come up short on his fair share of occasions but it's never been on account of effort or an unwillingness to risk being the goat. KG, more times than not, over the course of his career, didn't want to risk being the goat.

Whereas Tim didn't give a damn about anything other than winning the game and not letting down his teammates or organization, KG was worried about his image or how he'd be viewed; there's an insecurity that's plagued his career and we now see it in the form of his all-too-contrived schoolyard bully routine.

There was a time early in KG's career that I actually rooted for the guy. He possessed loads of talent, brought some great enthusiasm and he played the game with a certain amount of joy; he was 'The Kid.' But first round failures and constant criticism that he was soft created and/or fueled an insecurity that's turned me off to him and I genuinely believe has left him worse for the wear.

I realize I may come off as a hater when it comes to KG, I'm a Spurs fan on a Spurs board, but I don't allow myself to discredit greatness on account of someone's lack of likability (which is subjective of course). I've never been a fan of Kobe, but it's never been for a lack of respect for his game. And I don't deny the Hall-of-Fame player KG is, I simply have to ask others to pump the brakes from time-to-time (especially when it comes to the inevitable underrating of the understated Duncan).

http://www.legalmoviesdownloads.com/movie_screenshots/Forrest_Gump/Forrest_Gump_2.jpg

That's all I got to say about that.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

4 > 1.

I actually appreciate this post more than you (MB) would ever imagine.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

NO, it's not over but only because the talking heads at the 4-Letter influence it to be not over.
Supposedly, KG's a defensive genius and he gets lots of 1st team D votes and he even has a DPOY. Tim should already have 2. Bowen should have at least 1.

But reality...Tim's never been the lesser player. More efficient, more dominant in his play, and more effective in results. Tim Duncan-Will retire as the greatest PF to ever play the game.

Rack him. Thispego if you did not anoint this man as knowing basketball I will punch you in your baby having face.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The greatest thing about the big three of the celtics is that each and every one of them is a born loser. They all got smegma-slapped season-in and season-out.

But they were star-crossed players that just happened to all end up on the right team at the right season at the right time.


They got their championship, and are therefore always deserving respect. But when you compare said players to other championship-toting players the discussion remains wide open.


Garnett is a giant piece of shit compared to Duncan, AND THAAAATS THE BOTTOM LINE




CUZ
STONE
COLD


SAID
SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[TIMMYD!]

Everyone’s been telling me that as a big man, no matter how much I prepare myself, you learn your toughest lesson when you go down to San Antonio. The other day [former NBA player and Blazers assistant coach] Monty Williams pulled me aside and told me: “That guy down there” — meaning Tim Duncan — “has had surgery on his left knee. He can only jump about this high [holds his fingers about an inch apart]. He won’t say a word to you, and he will Bust. Your. A–.”

Oden/Monty Williams on Tim

[Muser]

:lmao at any fan thinking KG > Duncan, Duncan has one weakness and that's his FT shooting, KG doesn't have half the offensive skills Duncan does. If we're talking better defender then we have an argument, as for better overall player? You've gotta be retarded to pick KG.

[sefant77]

It was never really a debate.

!

Some douches here said comparing Duncan with Dirk is an insult, i say comparing this clown Garnett with Duncan is the real insult.

And Rodmans quote is one of the best NBA related quotes all time, its just so true. Rodman also barely yelled and screamed.

[Cane]

There is no real comparison. Duncan is the superior winner, basketball player, and person on and off the court.

KG was talented and great himself but not to the level Duncan was. His real crux was his mentality; he got into shit with his teammates all the time and his entourage must be covered with bruises from his elbows. Coming straight out of HS hindered his maturity and he's doing shit nowadays thats probably going to get his dumbass suspended even though he was injured for his team last year in the playoffs - what a piece of shit!

[mogrovejo]

^^ This is what I was alluding to, mogrovejo.

It's not that his teams were oozing with talent and he was an utter failure not winning a championship or putting his team in contention, it's that the talent discrepancy, from probably about the '99-00 season through '04 just wasn't all that great; the top 2 players, yeah (although KG was supposedly on Tim's level), but the actual talent moving down the roster you could argue favored the Wolves in the early '00's.

The Spurs had a better constructed team with a strong veteran presence, but look at the names and All-Star appearances of the respective supporting casts; how is it that the Wolves were among the highest scoring teams, usually top 3 with Dallas and Sacramento, and actually one of the most efficient when it comes to turnovers, if they were devoid of talent?

Tim was carrying some pretty weak teams in the early 00's and the notion that he's always had these great players, giving him such a huge advantage over KG, is just a myth; it's funny that the Spurs only first round exit (well, up until last year) happened to occur when Tim was forced to sit out in '00. You'd think all those great players could've got to the second round following a championship year . . .



With all due respect (and I sincerely mean that), you're kinda making my point.

KG was the more physically gifted and talented player, yet he wasn't as dominant or effective. He didn't endear himself to his teammates the way Duncan did; he didn't maximize his potential the way Tim was able to.

See, I was probably too simplistic with the 'He didn't take his ass to the block' rhetoric, there's obviously more than one way to skin a cat. But the point is this: he didn't command the ball and/or put his imprint on the game the way he was capable of offensively.

And I never said he had to be Tim Duncan, I said he could've played more like him offensively; there's no doubt about. Maybe he's not built to play it for quite the percentage of the game Duncan was able to but it could've been close. And there's no excuse for the amount of time he'd spend on the perimeter in the guts of a game always making the unnecessary extra pass or pulling the string on an 18' jumper (something teammates were fully aware of and it's another thing I alluded to that grated on them because of the treatment he commanded and the false bravado he displayed); is there a reason someone like Kevin Durant and his slight frame can dominate the free throw line like he's been and KG couldn't find similar success? I don't think so.




And this is where so many go wrong when it comes to Jordan: he was arguably the best post player in the game and dominated from the free throw line down like no 2-guard had before. That's why he shot the ball over 50% and they could run their offense through him so effectively; the Triangle with Jordan was as good as having a dominant Big because you essentially got the same high-percentage opportunities and their continuity was such that it didn't compromise their defense; the Bulls were one of the most versatile and well-rounded teams this league has ever seen. But what people remember are the dunks, fadeaways and 3-point shots, things that were exciting highlights, but not the meat of what garnered his dominance.



And this we agree on; and it's a big reason when they had comparable talent Duncan's teams were more successful.

Tim's game, attitude and personality allowed Pop and the Spurs to build a scheme, system and environment for players to thrive unlike many players ever; Tim's always been the Russell of this generation in my eyes. The actual skill set (which you alluded to) was a big part of that, as it's easier to build from the inside out and find the type of vets and cheap talent to surround the perimeter to compliment, but it was also about the makeup of the man: what you saw was what you got. His teammates pulled for him and genuinely wanted him to succeed.

This biggest difference in my view has always been between the ears when comparing the two. It's the comfort level they have in themselves and the acceptance of the roles and responsibilities each has been given. It's the way they react to criticism, the media, and the way they treat their teammates. It's the type of character they've displayed under adversity and the way they've conducted themselves under pressure; Tim's come up short on his fair share of occasions but it's never been on account of effort or an unwillingness to risk being the goat. KG, more times than not, over the course of his career, didn't want to risk being the goat.

Whereas Tim didn't give a damn about anything other than winning the game and not letting down his teammates or organization, KG was worried about his image or how he'd be viewed; there's an insecurity that's plagued his career and we now see it in the form of his all-too-contrived schoolyard bully routine.

There was a time early in KG's career that I actually rooted for the guy. He possessed loads of talent, brought some great enthusiasm and he played the game with a certain amount of joy; he was 'The Kid.' But first round failures and constant criticism that he was soft created and/or fueled an insecurity that's turned me off to him and I genuinely believe has left him worse for the wear.

I realize I may come off as a hater when it comes to KG, I'm a Spurs fan on a Spurs board, but I don't allow myself to discredit greatness on account of someone's lack of likability (which is subjective of course). I've never been a fan of Kobe, but it's never been for a lack of respect for his game. And I don't deny the Hall-of-Fame player KG is, I simply have to ask others to pump the brakes from time-to-time (especially when it comes to the inevitable underrating of the understated Duncan).

http://www.legalmoviesdownloads.com/movie_screenshots/Forrest_Gump/Forrest_Gump_2.jpg

That's all I got to say about that.

I don't care for that cheap high-school psychology that fills most of your post so I'll pass on it. To me that's all nonsense that depends on fuzzy perceptions and preconceptions about the players. You can't present a single indication that Garnett isn't an excellent locker-room presence and leader so you resort to that kind of weird stuff like "he was worried with his image". You remind me of the guys who say Duncan wants to be listed as a PF even though he's a center because he's insecure about his place in history, All-NBA teams and stuff like that.

Those Wolves teams were generally pretty good offensively, although not elite, but you're confusing scoring per game with offensive quality and offensive talent with overall talent. The only talented team they had was the one that made the ECF and they just got too injured to advance further - and even that team had an horrible supporting cast, much weaker than anything the Spurs had in the last 10 years.

The Spurs had always more talented and it wasn't even close. In the early 2000s the best player for the Wolves was Wally Szczerbiak. Before him, Terrel Brandon. Are we really comparing them to the Spurs 2nd best playerd in the Duncan era?

KG isn't Durant. To me writing this "is there a reason someone like Kevin Durant and his slight frame can dominate the free throw line like he's been and KG couldn't find similar success? I don't think so" shows either a deep lack of understanding of the game of basketball or that you're just allowing your passions to cloud your judgement. Unless you believe there's no reason why Durant can't pass or rebound as Garnett, or score as efficiently as Garnett.

KG wasn't more phisically gifted than Duncan, IMO. He had and has different physical traits: he's more agile and quicker, absolutely. To me, if there's one thing that Garnett did in a level that noone else did in history was defending the pick'n'roll - and his combination of length, mobility and awareness certainly helped. Duncan is way stronger, he's a much better post defender than KG could have ever been. They had different games. Duncan has been a center for most of his career; KG a face-up forward. You're overestamating KG's athletic skill-set when compared to Duncan; you're grossly underestimating the importance of body strength and different body types. See what happened to Jermaine O'Neal's career after he and the Pacers decided they wanted him more on the blocks for a good cautionary tale.

I don't really care much for Garnett or Duncan, the last player I was kind of a fan of was Dee Brown I think. I believe most of this discussions are permeated with too much emotion. I have no idea how the fact that you're a Spurs fan in a Spurs board changes who the players are.

Btw, it's amazing how Spurs fans are so extremely insecure about Duncan and always worried about being underrated or better than this or that. That's one thing fans from other teams are always saying in the NBA forum and I have to reckon they're absolutely right. Not sure if it's amusing or sad. And honestly, the idea that basketball leaders must be stand up guys who their teammates really like (and that's actually the case with KG - his insane work ethic and smarts/hard working/talkative nature on the court make him that kind of leader) is truly bizarre. Bird and McHale hated each other off the court, Bird would never rebound the ball for anyone, he'd even threaten role-players if they scored lots of points and steal the spot-light from him. Jordan was even worse, he had the habit of mentally torturing his teammates. The fact that Spurs fans resort so often to so much nonsense talk when they're discussing Duncan, the stupid "winner" argument - like if Duncan would have been a worse player if he had spend his entire career surrounded by the Wallys and Trenton Hassells of the world or going on going on against Jordan and Pippen then in that scenario he'd be a lesser player and not deserve the same amount of respect - saddens me.

[Muser]

The "Duncan had a better team" argument is bullshit. Jordan had Pippen/Rodman/Kerr/Harper etc. on his team, does that bring him down too? How about Kobe? He had Shaq/Horry/Gasol/Odom/Fisher. Just because the Spurs FO aren't retarded and know how to build a winning squad don't discredit Duncan.

[samikeyp]

Because I think Duncan was a better player makes me insecure?

Um...ok?

Aww man....:depressed

:lol

[diego]

You can't present a single indication that Garnett isn't an excellent locker-room presence

i used to be a fan of garnett (my folks lived in minnesota before I was born so my dad rooted for their teams, as did I, despite growing up in DC) but I agree with Blackjack's theory that losing and the criticism that came with it changed him, and finally winning it, instead of relaxing him, gave him more bravado

and though he's no jailblazer, the whole story with the rook (rickert?) that garnett punched because he had the audacity to score on him, doesnt reflect favorably on KG as a teammate at all.

and for all your defensiveness, numerous spurs fans have argued that peak to peak they were pretty even, and that KG had avantages over duncan in several areas. if you are really going to continue dismissing everyone here, why don't you actually make an argument for KG > Duncan over their careers? i'd be very interested to hear it, as you yourself said in an earlier post that duncan is easier to build around.

[mogrovejo]

Because I think Duncan was a better player makes me insecure?

Um...ok?

Aww man....:depressed

:lol

You clearly have serious troubles with reading comprehension.


and for all your defensiveness, numerous spurs fans have argued that peak to peak they were pretty even, and that KG had avantages over duncan in several areas. i'd be very interested to hear it, as you yourself said in an earlier post that duncan is easier to build around.

I wasn't talking about all Spurs fans.


if you are really going to continue dismissing everyone here

I wasn't dismissing everyone here. Sorry if my generalization about "Spurs fans" was written in a way that made you take it literally.


why don't you actually make an argument for KG > Duncan over their careers?

Why would I make that argument? I don't think that's the case.



i'd be very interested to hear it, as you yourself said in an earlier post that duncan is easier to build around.Yeps.

[mogrovejo]

The "Duncan had a better team" argument is bullshit. Jordan had Pippen/Rodman/Kerr/Harper etc. on his team, does that bring him down too? How about Kobe? He had Shaq/Horry/Gasol/Odom/Fisher. Just because the Spurs FO aren't retarded and know how to build a winning squad don't discredit Duncan.

I think you are into a huge misunderstanding. Nobody was discrediting Duncan because he had a better team. I'm saying I wouldn't discredit him either if the Spurs FO were a bunch of retards. THat wouldn't make me appreciate Duncan less. Can you understand the difference? What about you, what are your thoughts on this?

I'm a Celtics fan, I dont' have much of a problem with stars with great teams around them winning lots of rings.

[DPG21920]

Wow, this guy has some serious issues. He simply cannot let this go. Also, he tries to play the "holier than thou" card, while he himself uses ad hominem arguments. This is scary.

[mogrovejo]

Wow, this guy has some serious issues. He simply cannot let this go. Also, he tries to play the "holier than thou" card, while he himself uses ad hominem arguments. This is scary.

Your posts in this thread are all excellent contributions for a basketball discussion.

[mookie2001]

dude i took a psychology class in college, youre insecure, you may need to talk to someone about your issues

[Killakobe81]

I'm going off-topic on this one early, I know, but there's something that been nipping at me for a bit and has not been brought up by any analysts:

A piece was done of ESPN regarding KG's "intimidation factor" defensively and how he extends himself as an enforcer through blocking shots that don't count when a play is blown dead. I guess because it has become such a trend in the league as of late they were trying to acknowledge it for the psychological effect it may have on the opposition. The thing that hasn't made sense to me about all that is that everytime he comes down on his knees from one of those leaps he's putting more wear-and-tear/mileage on his lower body, needlessly at that. Never understood why someone on the team hasn't gotten in his ear to tell him to ease off the throttle when the whistle is blown, especially given the issues he's had the last few years with his lower body?

Not trying to hi-jack the thread, just something that's been on my mind since I saw that piece.

This. I agree.
I liked KG on minny and to be honest preferred hi hyper demeanor compared to how calm and cool Tim is (I guess I played similar to KG but less of an ass)

BUT Tim's game was never in doubt and is light years ahead of Duncan's
Also agree with OP not much of a debate.

[DPG21920]

You clearly have serious troubles with reading comprehension.



I wasn't talking about all Spurs fans.



I wasn't dismissing everyone here. Sorry if my generalization about "Spurs fans" was written in a way that made you take it literally.



Why would I make that argument? I don't think that's the case.


Yeps.


Your posts in this thread are all excellent contributions for a basketball discussion.

Yes, the above posts from you are mind-blowingly good basketball discussions.

Congrats. You have issues and it's scary you don't realize it. Let it go Lewy.

[DJB]

What? Not sure what you mean. You think those Wolves teams had any kind of talent? Most of them were absolutely awful.



That's a load of horseshit. Timmy could have won a title with Sprewell and Cassell. Piece of cake. I hate it when people play the "Garnett never had Manu and Tony" card. Fuck that. Sprewell and Cassell had just as much talent in their time while playing with KG as Tony and Manu had in 2003/2005.

GTFO :nope

[Killakobe81]

Btw, it's amazing how Spurs fans are so extremely insecure about Duncan and always worried about being underrated or better than this or that. That's one thing fans from other teams are always saying in the NBA forum and I have to reckon they're absolutely right. Not sure if it's amusing or sad. And honestly, the idea that basketball leaders must be stand up guys who their teammates really like (and that's actually the case with KG - his insane work ethic and smarts/hard working/talkative nature on the court make him that kind of leader) is truly bizarre. Bird and McHale hated each other off the court, Bird would never rebound the ball for anyone, he'd even threaten role-players if they scored lots of points and steal the spot-light from him. Jordan was even worse, he had the habit of mentally torturing his teammates. The fact that Spurs fans resort so often to so much nonsense talk when they're discussing Duncan, the stupid "winner" argument - like if Duncan would have been a worse player if he had spend his entire career surrounded by the Wallys and Trenton Hassells of the world or going on going on against Jordan and Pippen then in that scenario he'd be a lesser player and not deserve the same amount of respect - saddens me.

Dont normally agree with this guy (mojogrove above) ...but he brings a great point about Spur fans and haters in general ...

When you (haters) don't like a player: Kobe, kG, etc. Resort to talking about what "kind" of guy the player is or teammate they are ...

I remember Bird not getting along with Mchale, Magic not getting along with Kareem Jordan sucker punching Kerr and MENTALLY DESTROYING Stacy King...not to mention Kobe vs. Shaq

But what did they all have in common? Titles. Lot's of 'em. Many great players are pricks. Spurs have a bunch of good guys and that is GREAT ESPECIALLY in a small market like SA.

BUT being an A$$hole: Kobe, KG, Kareem and Bird ...doesnt detract at ALL from your greatness.

Problem is many on NBA fanforums ignore the douchebag behavior of guys they like: Bowen (in SA), Jordan pretty much everywhere, Lebron's dancing, and Cp3's tantrums

BUT crucify: KG, Kobe, McHale the Bad boys etc which is bullshit.

[DPG21920]

dude i took a psychology class in college, youre insecure, you may need to talk to someone about your issues

See, this guy knows. We could be posting with the next grey Hannibal Lector.

[Killakobe81]

And Duncan is great but really a center ...I know sensitive subject here but come on!

THE NBA is full of this crap (Not just Spurs) just like Amare is NOT a center ...

I just say Duncan is the third greatest post PLAYER I have ever seen ...JUST behind Hakeem a notch below Kareem and above Shaq ...

[Killakobe81]

When you take titles, leadership etc in to play ...Duncan is greater than both Shaq and Hakeem ...

[TampaDude]

Duncan >>>>> Garnett

/thread

[mogrovejo]

That's a load of horseshit. Timmy could have won a title with Sprewell and Cassell. Piece of cake. I hate it when people play the "Garnett never had Manu and Tony" card. Fuck that. Sprewell and Cassell had just as much talent in their time while playing with KG as Tony and Manu had in 2003/2005.

GTFO :nope

You're aware Cassell was injured, right? You're aware that Olowkandi was their starting center, 33 years old Derrick Martin their starting PG, Hoiberg in his last NBA season was logging +30 mpg and guys like Mark Madsen were important part of the rotation, right? And that we're not exactly talking about prime Sprewell here.

[DPG21920]

Wow, this guy has some serious issues. He simply cannot let this go. Also, he tries to play the "holier than thou" card, while he himself uses ad hominem arguments. This is scary.




Geez, all this obsession because you're owned in an internet-based basketball discussion? Well, two or three discussions? That's not healthy, boy.



Your posts in this thread are all excellent contributions for a basketball discussion.


:lobt2:

[mogrovejo]

Geez, I found myself an internet stalker.:wow

[DPG21920]

Geez, I found myself an internet stalker.:wow

Another ad hominem argument. Boston fans are classy and add so much to the basketball discussion. Raise the bar Hannibal.

[mogrovejo]

Hmm... I think the Spurs wouldn't have won the 2003 ring. They would have won the others.

Duncan would have never won a ring in Minny. People forget Cassell got injured, that Sprewell wasn't playing defense anymore and how absolutely awful was that supporting cast. I mean, most of the guys in the rotation were out of the league 2 seasons later.

Not sure if Boston would have won in 2008 with Duncan instead of Garnett. It'd change the defensive quality of the team quite a bit. Never thought about this, need some more time.

I think they'd still win, although I'm not sure. 75-25 they would. The big man rotation would be a lot less versatile and slower - I think the D would still be elite but not as good. The offense.. Rondo+Perkins+Duncan together would create serious spacing problems. I think Posey would get a lot more minutes and Perkins+Powe+PJ less. Anyway, eventually would still be enough to win the title.

[DJB]

You're aware Cassell was injured, right? You're aware that Olowkandi was their starting center, 33 years old Derrick Martin their starting PG, Hoiberg in his last NBA season was logging +30 mpg and guys like Mark Madsen were important part of the rotation, right? And that we're not exactly talking about prime Sprewell here.

Cassell averaged 19.8ppg when he played w/ KG and was injured for half of one season. Our starting center in 2007 was Fabricio Oberto. Avery Johnson was 34 when we won in 1999. Danny Ferry was an important part of our rotation in 1999. Latrell Sprewell was prime enough to average 17ppg when playing w/ KG.


Any more brain busters?

Once again: GTFO :nope

[samikeyp]

You clearly have serious troubles with reading comprehension.

I thought it was pretty clear it was not a serious post...apparently not. Sorry my post was written in a way that made you take it literally.

:toast


(again...having fun)

[m33p0]

if duncan was in minny, they would have been able to sign/draft better players, the joe smith incident wouldn't have happened.

and... can you honestly see garnett take that 3 in the '08 suns series? more likely, he would have passed it to someone else.

[MosesGuthrie]

I wasn't talking about all Spurs fans.


I wasn't dismissing everyone here. Sorry if my generalization about "Spurs fans" was written in a way that made you take it literally.


It was probably the way you referred to "Spurs fans". By this you gave the indication (albeit not true) that you were lumping all fans together.

[MosesGuthrie]

I thought it was pretty clear it was not a serious post...apparently not.

:toast

I thought it was pretty clear with the :lol but then again, I have seen your posting style here before so I kind of knew it.

[ABrooks111]

I'm no KG hater, but he never has been, and never will be able to hold Duncan's jock.

It's science. :wakeup

[NFGIII]

I would say after seeing Garnett get ejected just several minutes ago that Tim definitely has the mental edge on this dipshit. What an idiot he could also possibly get suspended for what he just did. You would never see Duncan do what KG just did espescially in a playoff game.

That is one reason that I believe TD was superior to KG even though I believe that KG was the better athlete. Imagine if KG had played down low more, thereby expanding his game, while playing under control?


Unlike many people here, I've absolutely loved Kevin Garnett throughout his Hall-of-Fame career. Garnett is (IMO) the most versatile forward, other than Lebron James or Larry Bird, to ever play in the NBA. But, the notion that he's ever really been Duncan's equal throughout the entirety of their careers is ridiculous. They've been equals, throughout parts of their careers, but Duncan has always had the upperhand with his ability to score and defend in the low-post.

Agreed. I really don't think anyone could agrue that KG wasn't a dominant player in the NBA. I think that TD and KG had similar yet slightly different skill sets which made them different players. TD always had, prior to KG in Boston, a better team around him. Coaches, too.


There should be a debate, as there's no reason why KG couldn't have had a similar impact, but his insecurity and bitchassness wouldn't allow it.

Instead he shied away from being called 7' because that would mean he'd have to take his ass to the paint and take the punishment; settling for jumpers and not paying the price to best help his team was the easy way out.

Plus, his constant insecurity and need to not be viewed as soft had him concoct a fugazi image that grated on his teammates and eventually brought resentment; being comfortable in your own skin and conducting yourself in the right way, as a teammate and professional, tends to net better results. (see: Duncan, Tim)

IOW, the debate never had much merit.

That is one of the main reasons that I think TD will better considered the better player overall. He played a traditional 4/5 and banged in the paint over his career. KG shied away from that type of contact and played away from the rim more so.

Once again a demonstration of the mental toughness that TD displayed constantly which KG showed only occasionally. IIRC Jack Nicklaus stated that in pro golf all the players had pretty much had the same skills. It was those players that displayed the mental toughness and discipline that usually won the tournaments. And those constituted roughy 10% of the Tour.

I've always liked KG game myself. Though I will never be a fan of smack talk and that emotional style of play he needs to given credit for what he has done on the court. He gets into the HOF on the first ballot. Frankly there is no debate on that issue. IHMO


And Duncan is great but really a center ...I know sensitive subject here but come on!

THE NBA is full of this crap (Not just Spurs) just like Amare is NOT a center ...

I just say Duncan is the third greatest post PLAYER I have ever seen ...JUST behind Hakeem a notch below Kareem and above Shaq ...

Agreed to a certain point. After Drob's retirement TD starting playing the 5 alot more. But not until the departure of Rasho and Nazr did he play the 5 more so than the 4.

[Blackjack]

You clearly have serious troubles with reading comprehension.

Oh, the irony . . .


I don't care for that cheap high-school psychology that fills most of your post so I'll pass on it. To me that's all nonsense that depends on fuzzy perceptions and preconceptions about the players. You can't present a single indication that Garnett isn't an excellent locker-room presence and leader so you resort to that kind of weird stuff like "he was worried with his image". You remind me of the guys who say Duncan wants to be listed as a PF even though he's a center because he's insecure about his place in history, All-NBA teams and stuff like that.

Great take. We shouldn't listen to how players and teammates talk about and act around someone; put any stock into the validity of Marbury's issues because he was a malcontent (issues that many had but were either more mature, more professional or not talented enough to say much about); or put any stock into how a guy has a significant change in approach and demeanor after constant criticism for coming up short and coming off as soft.

You've obviously not followed KG all that closely until he landed on your team, so I'll excuse the overemotional, dismissive take of your boy; maybe that insecurity thing plagues you too?


Those Wolves teams were generally pretty good offensively, although not elite, but you're confusing scoring per game with offensive quality and offensive talent with overall talent. The only talented team they had was the one that made the ECF and they just got too injured to advance further - and even that team had an horrible supporting cast, much weaker than anything the Spurs had in the last 10 years.

Outside of Duncan and Robinson (the former supposedly an equal, for some, to KG and the latter post-injuries and dominant status), I'd like to hear all the All-Stars or All-Star-snubbed players Duncan played with from the time he entered the league until '05; that 'only talented team' KG had went to the WCF, by the way; which you would have known had you really followed him before he came to your team. ;)


The Spurs had always more talented and it wasn't even close. In the early 2000s the best player for the Wolves was Wally Szczerbiak. Before him, Terrel Brandon. Are we really comparing them to the Spurs 2nd best playerd in the Duncan era?

KG isn't Durant. To me writing this "is there a reason someone like Kevin Durant and his slight frame can dominate the free throw line like he's been and KG couldn't find similar success? I don't think so" shows either a deep lack of understanding of the game of basketball or that you're just allowing your passions to cloud your judgement. Unless you believe there's no reason why Durant can't pass or rebound as Garnett, or score as efficiently as Garnett.

Yup, that definitely be some irony . . .

I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of the game and I'll let my words on this board stand for themselves. The point, which, again, you failed to comprehend or lack the understanding to acknowledge, had nothing to do with a comparison of skill set or the type of player they are: it's about the willingness to pay the price (physically and mentally) and the fact that a slighter frame is no excuse.


KG wasn't more phisically gifted than Duncan, IMO. He had and has different physical traits: he's more agile and quicker, absolutely.

He's taller, longer, more athletic and has more ball skills. He's not more physically gifted?

If you want to make an argument that his gifts had him less effective because it made him more of a Swiss Army Knife than a full-out assault weapon or brute-force object, fine. But to say he didn't hit the genetic lottery or that he wasn't more gifted than Duncan physically is comical; KG's one of the most impressive and freakish athletes this game has ever seen.


To me, if there's one thing that Garnett did in a level that noone else did in history was defending the pick'n'roll - and his combination of length, mobility and awareness certainly helped. Duncan is way stronger, he's a much better post defender than KG could have ever been. They had different games.

Other than me not being familiar with that dude 'noone', I agree. (He sure seems to come up a lot on this board.)


Duncan has been a center for most of his career; KG a face-up forward.

Really? Did his career start around '06? Maybe you'd like to claim Robinson as a power forward since he was more of a face-up player and less skilled in the post than KG?


You're overestamating KG's athletic skill-set when compared to Duncan; you're grossly underestimating the importance of body strength and different body types. See what happened to Jermaine O'Neal's career after he and the Pacers decided they wanted him more on the blocks for a good cautionary tale.

I - Run - E . . .

More than one way to skin a cat, brah. Again, it's about paying the price and utilizing one's skills in a way that gives a team the best chance to win. In my view, which is one that's watched him from pretty much the time he entered the league, he failed to do so.


I don't really care much for Garnett or Duncan, the last player I was kind of a fan of was Dee Brown I think. I believe most of this discussions are permeated with too much emotion. I have no idea how the fact that you're a Spurs fan in a Spurs board changes who the players are.

You sure seem pretty emotionally invested in KG; bumping insignificant threads and defending his honor on every end of this board . . .

See, I've been posting here for over 2 years now ... and, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not throwing tantrums about my favorite players on a daily, or even weekly basis, or hanging out in the NBA forum defending their honor; I don't have a problem with those who do, regardless of team or player, but I'm not one you can successfully paint with that brush . . .

As to the fact that I'm a Spurs fan posting on a Spurs board, it could easily be viewed as if I don't give a fair shake when it comes to comparisons or debates, as it pertains to the Spurs (a rooting interest), so that's what I was alluding to; I may dislike certain players, but I respect game and don't waste much time, if any, degrading or dismissing the abilities of players I'm none-too-fond of.


[QUOTE]Btw, it's amazing how Spurs fans are so extremely insecure about Duncan and always worried about being underrated or better than this or that. That's one thing fans from other teams are always saying in the NBA forum and I have to reckon they're absolutely right. Not sure if it's amusing or sad.

Eye runny . . .

You're pretty good with that brush. Misguided and devoid of facts, as it pertains to this poster, but good nonetheless. :tu



And honestly, the idea that basketball leaders must be stand up guys who their teammates really like (and that's actually the case with KG - his insane work ethic and smarts/hard working/talkative nature on the court make him that kind of leader) is truly bizarre.Bird and McHale hated each other off the court, Bird would never rebound the ball for anyone, he'd even threaten role-players if they scored lots of points and steal the spot-light from him. Jordan was even worse, he had the habit of mentally torturing his teammates. The fact that Spurs fans resort so often to so much nonsense talk when they're discussing Duncan, the stupid "winner" argument

They don't have to be choir boys, pillars of the community or even liked ... but they have to be respected and capable of instilling fear; the latter can come from the thought of reprisal or the idea of letting one down. (IOW, you can be an ass or exude class, but you can't be absent when the greatest of responsibility's passed; disappearing acts and allowing blame to be put on your teammates, being a prime example -- Johnny Cochran ain't got shit on this dude!)


- like if Duncan would have been a worse player if he had spend his entire career surrounded by the Wallys and Trenton Hassells of the world or going on going on against Jordan and Pippen then in that scenario he'd be a lesser player and not deserve the same amount of respect - saddens me.

The education system saddens me; and I thought I should've went to college . . .

Ira Knee.

[mogrovejo]

Cassell averaged 19.8ppg when he played w/ KG and was injured for half of one season. Our starting center in 2007 was Fabricio Oberto. Avery Johnson was 34 when we won in 1999. Danny Ferry was an important part of our rotation in 1999. Latrell Sprewell was prime enough to average 17ppg when playing w/ KG.


Any more brain busters?

Once again: GTFO :nope

Dude, they made the Conference Finals and than Cassell got injured. That team was Garnett, a old Sprewell and a bunch of D-Leaguers. Madsen was one of their best players. They still took the Lakers to 6 games, the same Lakers that had eliminated Duncan's Spurs in the previous round. What's so difficult to understand about this?

It's this radicalism that makes some Spurs fans look bad.


That is one reason that I believe TD was superior to KG even though I believe that KG was the better athlete. Imagine if KG had played down low more, thereby expanding his game, while playing under control?

Agreed. I really don't think anyone could agrue that KG wasn't a dominant player in the NBA. I think that TD and KG had similar yet slightly different skill sets which made them different players. TD always had, prior to KG in Boston, a better team around him. Coaches, too.

That is one of the main reasons that I think TD will better considered the better player overall. He played a traditional 4/5 and banged in the paint over his career. KG shied away from that type of contact and played away from the rim more so.

Once again a demonstration of the mental toughness that TD displayed constantly which KG showed only occasionally. IIRC Jack Nicklaus stated that in pro golf all the players had pretty much had the same skills. It was those players that displayed the mental toughness and discipline that usually won the tournaments. And those constituted roughy 10% of the Tour.

I've always liked KG game myself. Though I will never be a fan of smack talk and that emotional style of play he needs to given credit for what he has done on the court. He gets into the HOF on the first ballot. Frankly there is no debate on that issue. IHMO

Agreed to a certain point. After Drob's retirement TD starting playing the 5 alot more. But not until the departure of Rasho and Nazr did he play the 5 more so than the 4.

Is the reason why Duncan was never as good as Garnett defending the pick'n'roll, taking people off the bounce and closing out on shooters mental? Was Duncan too soft to do all those things at the same level of Garnett?


if duncan was in minny, they would have been able to sign/draft better players, the joe smith incident wouldn't have happened..

LOL. Why?

[mogrovejo]

Oh, the irony . . .

reat take. We shouldn't listen to how players and teammates talk about and act around someone; put any stock into the validity of Marbury's issues because he was a malcontent (issues that many had but were either more mature, more professional or not talented enough to say much about); or put any stock into how a guy has a significant change in approach and demeanor after constant criticism for coming up short and coming off as soft.

You've obviously not followed KG all that closely until he landed on your team, so I'll excuse the overemotional, dismissive take of your boy; maybe that insecurity thing plagues you too?



Outside of Duncan and Robinson (the former supposedly an equal, for some, to KG and the latter post-injuries and dominant status), I'd like to hear all the All-Stars or All-Star-snubbed players Duncan played with from the time he entered the league until '05; that 'only talented team' KG had went to the WCF, by the way; which you would have known had you really followed him before he came to your team. ;)



Yup, that definitely be some irony . . .

I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of the game and I'll let my words on this board stand for themselves. The point, which, again, you failed to comprehend or lack the understanding to acknowledge, had nothing to do with a comparison of skill set or the type of player they are: it's about the willingness to pay the price (physically and mentally) and the fact that a slighter frame is no excuse.



He's taller, longer, more athletic and has more ball skills. He's not more physically gifted?

If you want to make an argument that his gifts had him less effective because it made him more of a Swiss Army Knife than a full-out assault weapon or brute-force object, fine. But to say he didn't hit the genetic lottery or that he wasn't more gifted than Duncan physically is comical; KG's one of the most impressive and freakish athletes this game has ever seen.



Other than me not being familiar with that dude 'noone', I agree. (He sure seems to come up a lot on this board.)



Really? Did his career start around '06? Maybe you'd like to claim Robinson as a power forward since he was more of a face-up player and less skilled in the post than KG?



I - Run - E . . .

More than one way to skin a cat, brah. Again, it's about paying the price and utilizing one's skills in a way that gives a team the best chance to win. In my view, which is one that's watched him from pretty much the time he entered the league, he failed to do so.



You sure seem pretty emotionally invested in KG; bumping insignificant threads and defending his honor on every end of this board . . .

See, I've been posting here for over 2 years now ... and, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not throwing tantrums about my favorite players on a daily, or even weekly basis, or hanging out in the NBA forum defending their honor; I don't have a problem with those who do, regardless of team or player, but I'm not one you can successfully paint with that brush . . .

As to the fact that I'm a Spurs fan posting on a Spurs board, it could easily be viewed as if I don't give a fair shake when it comes to comparisons or debates, as it pertains to the Spurs (a rooting interest), so that's what I was alluding to; I may dislike certain players, but I respect game and don't waste much time, if any, degrading or dismissing the abilities of players I'm none-too-fond of.

Eye runny . . .

You're pretty good with that brush. Misguided and devoid of facts, as it pertains to this poster, but good nonetheless. :tu




They don't have to be choir boys, pillars of the community or even liked ... but they have to be respected and capable of instilling fear; the latter can come from the thought of reprisal or the idea of letting one down. (IOW, you can be an ass or exude class, but you can't be absent when the greatest of responsibility's passed; disappearing acts and allowing blame to be put on your teammates, being a prime example -- Johnny Cochran ain't got shit on this dude!)



The education system saddens me; and I thought I should've went to college . . .

Ira Knee.I'm sorry for the orthographic mistakes, English isn't my first language.

I don't have time to answer point by point, especially to the childish personal remarks, but I'll sum it up:

- your understanding of athleticism is wrong. Duncan was a very athletic player.

- saying that a slighter frame is no excuse to play in the post is just bizarre. Lower body strength is essential to play the post effectively. I can elaborate on this if you want. Garnett was never a low post player; like Durant is not the playmaker Garnett is; or Duncan doesn't have their ability to hit long jumpers. To explain this from a soft/tough perspective is just crazy.

- I still can't understand why the fact that you being a Spurs fan affects the way you view the players. My opinion about a player doesn't change a bit depending on the team he's playing for.

[Blackjack]

Well, let me preface this by saying: I meant what I said in the other thread about having another quality poster contributing here. There's plenty we have agreement on, as it pertains to scouting and physical attributes, and how they translate to the game (plenty of which have been made clear to me in the actual meat of your posts), and it was never my intention to personally attack; I'm a smartass by nature and some of your remarks came off as condescending and/or disingenuous.

Having said that, if that's the take you took from my post ... we've reached an impasse. Maybe it's the language barrier you've just brought to my attention, or maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to present my argument in a comprehensible fashion.

As to the three points:

- No, no it's not . . .

- There's more than one way to skin a cat means: the same effectiveness can come in myriad forms.

- My being a Spurs fan has nothing to do with the way I view other players. But my being a Spurs fan seemed to contribute to your response. It's pretty commonplace when it comes to these debates, so I pointed out that that commonly perceived notion wasn't in play with myself.

Bottom line:

Duncan > Garnett (as has always been the case); that is how this started, eh?

[NFGIII]

Is the reason why Duncan was never as good as Garnett defending the pick'n'roll, taking people off the bounce and closing out on shooters mental? Was Duncan too soft to do all those things at the same level of Garnett?

No, physical. KG was a better athlete and quicker. He had the attributes to do what you said he could, TD wasn't as gifted but has learned to max out what talent he has, which is considerable. KG jsut wasn't as mentally strong as TD. IF you're 7' you need to get into the paint and bang. And that goes for Dirk, too. You can't teach height so anyone gifted to be 7' and not willing to go into the paint on a regular basis presents a problem for me. As a coach I would be in their face about that.

Just imagine TD's personality in KG's body. What a monster that would be.

[mogrovejo]

No, physical. KG was a better athlete and quicker. He had the attributes to do what you said he could, TD wasn't as gifted but has learned to max out what talent he has, which is considerable. KG jsut wasn't as mentally strong as TD. IF you're 7' you need to get into the paint and bang. And that goes for Dirk, too. You can't teach height so anyone gifted to be 7' and not willing to go into the paint on a regular basis presents a problem for me. As a coach I would be in their face about that.

The reason why Garnett doesn't play the low post game is because he doesn't have the physical traits to do it. How can you bang if you don't have the lower body strength to hold position?

Find me another player with Garnett body type who's a low post scorer, a bruiser and a banger. You can't? Conclusion: they're all soft mentally!

Can't people understand how bizarre this reasoning is?

Geez, there's Jermaine O'Neal example, for Pete's sake! It's not like this is exactly a speculative issue. As a coach, you'd be a danger for your players with that mindset.


Just imagine TD's personality in KG's body. What a monster that would be.

I don't know if it'd be a monster of not. I know it wouldn't be a banger in the paint though.

[mogrovejo]

And Garnett never had a problem being physical in the paint - that's why he was the best rebounder in the league and one of the best rebounders in the history of the game. If this doesn't disprove the "mentally soft" theory I don't know what to say.

Hold position in the blocks? That's an entirely different issue. He has pretty good technique, gets excellent leverage, gets wide and low, for a player of his type he's actually pretty good... but the strength just isn't there to be a dominant banger.

[m33p0]

maybe someone ought to show duncan's first playoff game. thin as a stick but made williams earn his nickname 'hot rod'.

[MADTOBY]

Go spurs go!

[TD4THREE]

And Garnett never had a problem being physical in the paint - that's why he was the best rebounder in the league and one of the best rebounders in the history of the game. If this doesn't disprove the "mentally soft" theory I don't know what to say.

Hold position in the blocks? That's an entirely different issue. He has pretty good technique, gets excellent leverage, gets wide and low, for a player of his type he's actually pretty good... but the strength just isn't there to be a dominant banger.Let me ask you something, do you think Hakeem olajuwon was a great low post player simply because he had some lower body strength advantage? Or Gasol for that matter?

[NFGIII]

I'm sorry for the orthographic mistakes, English isn't my first language.

You're doing great so keep it up. Since I don't either speak or write another lanauge I'm envious. :toast



- saying that a slighter frame is no excuse to play in the post is just bizarre. Lower body strength is essential to play the post effectively. I can elaborate on this if you want. Garnett was never a low post player; like Durant is not the playmaker Garnett is; or Duncan doesn't have their ability to hit long jumpers. To explain this from a soft/tough perspective is just crazy.

I understand what you're saying and to a certain extent will grant you credit but in the NBA almost every team that has won a title has had a dominant/legit 5. Without one you just don't get one. Small ball/jump shooting teams wont ever win a ring. And just look at the last ten years to see that point - TD and Shaq both have 4 rings and the other two years the Lakers had Bynum and Gasol while the Celtics had both Perkins and Powe. Even the Bulls with MJ had a 5 to help out. KG and Boston win with the help of Perkins and Powe. Without a 5 helping out there are very little 2nd chance points due to the lack of offensive rebounds.

I'll always believed that if you are that tall then you have to learn how to play down low. If that means that you bulk up beyond what you think you want to is not a relevant point. You're 7' so get your ass down low. In the case of KG he didn't want to do that and therefore needed better role players along with a couple of superstars to get a ring. There is nothing wrong with being a 7' player shooting Js and playing away from the rim. But considering the history of this game at the championship level you need to have a legit 5 clogging the paint and getting rebounds in order for that 7' to be able to play that way. Otherwise you may and probably do play well but ultimately will not win it all.

Look at the Mavs in recent years. They have one of the best 7' jump shooters to ever play the game but went after Dmpier and this year Hayward in order to compliment Dirk. I believe that the Mavs releazied that they were never going to compete against the elite teams until they got themselves a legit 5.

[mogrovejo]

Let me ask you something, do you think Hakeem olajuwon was a great low post player simply because he had some lower body strength advantage? Or Gasol for that matter?

Of course not. In that case, Mark Eaton or Chuck Hayes would have been great low post scorers.


I understand what you're saying and to a certain extent will grant you credit but in the NBA almost every team that has won a title has had a dominant/legit 5.

Sure, as long as you consider Perkins, Ben Wallace and all those bums who played with Jordan dominant 5s.

I understand the point about the rebounds and it takes physical and mental toughness to rebound the ball but rebounding-wise Garnett was as good or better than Duncan for most of his career.


I'll always believed that if you are that tall then you have to learn how to play down low. If that means that you bulk up beyond what you think you want to is not a relevant point.

And this is where you need to study Jermaine O'Neal's career.

[Blackjack]

Alright, so I'm done with the Duncan/KG debate but I'm unable to leave well-enough alone at the moment . . .


Find me another player with Garnett body type who's a low post scorer, a bruiser and a banger. You can't? Conclusion: they're all soft mentally!

Can't people understand how bizarre this reasoning is?


And Garnett never had a problem being physical in the paint - that's why he was the best rebounder in the league and one of the best rebounders in the history of the game. If this doesn't disprove the "mentally soft" theory I don't know what to say.

How would one's ability to defensive rebound (which does require a certain amount of physicality, effort and willingness to mix it up) have anything to do with mental-toughness; there've been plenty of mentally weak/passive offensive players that could defend and/or rebound.


Geez, there's Jermaine O'Neal example, for Pete's sake! It's not like this is exactly a speculative issue. As a coach, you'd be a danger for your players with that mindset.

Actually, that's completely speculative. To say O'Neal's injuries solely came about from a change and play and not from minutes and the amount he was the focal point, that's purely speculative; some people happen to just be injury-prone or don't take care of themselves properly. Or would you dispute that?


Hold position in the blocks? That's an entirely different issue. He has pretty good technique, gets excellent leverage, gets wide and low, for a player of his type he's actually pretty good... but the strength just isn't there to be a dominant banger.

What does being a dominant banger have to do with not taking your ass to the box in crunch time? Honestly; where did you get this notion people expected him to be Shaq?

Look at it like an evolutionary chart: Shaq - Duncan - Garnett

No one's asking them to be one-and-the-same; there's no excuse for the guy to float at 18' when the game's on the line.

[TDfan2007]

Well I had a long-winded comparison of them in their primes, but it got erased so I'll just leave you guys with this:

During their prime years (2001-2007) Tim and KG met once in the playoffs, 2001.

Tim outplayed Kevin in all but one game (the game Minny won) and the Spurs won the series fairly easily 3-1.

btw here's who the Spurs were sporting in their starting lineup:

Terry Porter (over the hill)
Derek Anderson (WAY overrated)
Danny Ferry (:lol)
Tim Duncan
David Robinson (aging and often-injured, still great on D)

I'll give the rest later, but the idea that Tim had an amazing supporting cast for his whole career is complete horseshit. From 2005 and on, yes, his supporting cast was fantastic, at least on the perimeter.

[smrattler]

I think the debate should be KG and Dirk.

That would be a closer debate.

Neither belongs in the same debate with Duncan.

I always thought the only debate with Duncan would be post-90s Shaq.

Though Duncan is a PF, he and Shaq went head to head a lot in crunch time and collected 8 rings in, what, 10 years?

[mogrovejo]

How would one's ability to defensive rebound (which does require a certain amount of physicality, effort and willingness to mix it up) have anything to do with mental-toughness; tGarnett was a very good offensive rebounder as well. You say it requires physicality and willingness to mix it up and then you say doesn't have anything to do with mental-toughness?

Is your point about the fable that Garnett disappears in crunch time?


Actually, that's completely speculative. To say O'Neal's injuries solely came about from a change and play and not from minutes and the amount he was the focal point, that's purely speculative; some people happen to just be injury-prone or don't take care of themselves properly. Or would you dispute that?

Long story short: O'Neal was perfectly healthy. Then the Pacers decided they want him to be more of a banger. He added a lot of weight to his frame. After that, injuries started piling one. Later one, the Pacers brass admitted it was a mistake to add so much weight to O'Neal's frame and O'Neil regretted going for it.

What's exactly speculative about it? I don't have the time now, but I can write a few posts about this issue later on, maybe in the off-season. Saying "I'll always believed that if you are that tall then you have to learn how to play down low. If that means that you bulk up beyond what you think you want to is not a relevant point" is an extremely dangerous mentality that fortunately doesn't exist any more, at least at the NBA level.

[diego]

Why would I make that argument? I don't think that's the case.


Yeps.

So you agree that duncan > kg, but dont agree with how people make the argument? thats fair, but you didn't say clearly that you agree duncan > kg, making your position look unreasonable.

[HarlemHeat37]

The problem here is that a lot of Spurs fans are being unreasonable..

Duncan at his peak being better than KG at his peak is perfectly reasonable, but saying there's no argument or it's not close is simply wrong IMO..at their peaks, they were close..

Career-wise, the argument isn't close, but that could be due to circumstances more than anything..

[Blackjack]

Garnett was a very good offensive rebounder as well. You say it requires physicality and willingness to mix it up and then you say doesn't have anything to do with mental-toughness?

Is your point about the fable that Garnett disappears in crunch time?

Very good offensive rebounder? Meh. Re-read what I originally said: What does defensive rebounding (what he was exceptional at) translate to mental toughness on the offensive end?

It wasn't a fable that you'd find him floating on the perimeter for the majority of his time in Minnesota or making unnecessary extra passes come crunch time; I witnessed it.


O'Neal was perfectly healthy. Than the Pacers decided they want him to be more of a banger. He added a lot of weight to his frame. After that, injuries started piling one. Later one, the Pacers brass admitted it was a mistake to add so much weight to O'Neal's frame and O'Neil regretted going for it.

What's exactly speculative about it? I don't have the time now, but I can write a few posts about this issue later on, maybe in the off-season.

I didn't follow O'Neal as closely as Garnett, given the TD-KG connections and him being a division foe, so maybe you're right. Maybe; it's still speculative on you and the Pacers part.

Being correct and rationalizing are two different things. (But I would be interested in a writeup at some point. :tu)


Saying "I'll always believed that if you are that tall then you have to learn how to play down low. If that means that you bulk up beyond what you think you want to is not a relevant point" is an extremely dangerous mentality that fortunately doesn't exist any more, at least at the NBA level.

You're addressing the wrong person with that one . . .

[mogrovejo]

So you agree that duncan > kg, but dont agree with how people make the argument? thats fair, but you didn't say clearly that you agree duncan > kg, making your position look unreasonable.

I generally don't see much of a point in discussing >>> and <<<, let alone emotional over-the-top rants.

I disagree with you, I think my position is more than reasonable. If I could have picked a player at the start of their careers, I'd have picked Duncan, because he's a more dominant scorer + easier to build around being a prototypical center. The way the game is evolving, maybe I'd pick Garnett if it was now, I don't know. I think the Spurs wouldn't have wont he 2003 title with Garnett replacing Duncan; the Celtics would have a smaller chance of winning in 2008 but they probably could still win it and that they're different players.

I'm more interested in discussing basketball stuff - like the reason why Garnett isn't a low post player and if turning him into one would have been a good decision, for example.

[Blackjack]

The problem here is that a lot of Spurs fans are being unreasonable..

Duncan at his peak being better than KG at his peak is perfectly reasonable, but saying there's no argument or it's not close is simply wrong IMO..at their peaks, they were close..

Career-wise, the argument isn't close, but that could be due to circumstances more than anything..

Were they close at one point? I'd have no problem with that. But KG's never had the type of impact on the game Tim's had because of the nature of their games and, IMO, the mental makeup.

I contend that if you give them the same supporting cast, as equally a calibrated team one could assemble around them, Duncan's team would be more successful. For on-court reasons (in that it's easier to build and succeed with a team with his skill set) and off-court reasons (as his consistency, personality-wise and professionally-speaking are more beneficial to those who surround him).

[mogrovejo]

Very good offensive rebounder? Meh. Re-read what I originally said: What does defensive rebounding (what he was exceptional at) translate to mental toughness on the offensive end?

It wasn't a fable that you'd find him floating on the perimeter for the majority of his time in Minnesota or making unnecessary extra passes come crunch time; I witnessed it.


Adjusting for the shot-location of their own shots, Duncan and Garnett were similar offensive rebounders. In their primes, Garnett's OR% would be about 8-9ish, Duncan's about 9-10ish.

Anyway, I thought your point was that Garnett was mentally soft and would shy away from physical contact; after all it's about his crunch time scoring.

You witnessed that like lots of NBA fans witnessed Kobe being hyper-clutch and Billups being Mr. Big Shot. I think a well-known website will publish an article about this particular issue during the Summer (a statistically based article), I'll come back to this thread then.

[Blackjack]

Lies, damn lies and statistics; I trust my own eyes. :lol

But I was serious about the O'Neal writeup. I would like to see it.

[Spurminator]

The supposedly great supporting casts Duncan was blessed with were only as great as Duncan made them. Manu and Parker have obviously grown into All Star caliber players but they weren't even close yet in 2003. We'll never know, but it's difficult to conceive of any 1999-2008 Duncan-led team ever missing the Playoffs.

Garnett has had a good career but he's not a top tier HOFer. He was a Championship-level 2nd-in-command stuck being 1st in command on mediocre teams that he wasn't good enough to make better. He could've been Scottie Pippen if he'd had a Michael Jordan.

Garnett and Kobe? That's a dynasty. Garnett and any AS caliber player that was not as good as him? Contender at best. Garnett and role players? First round fodder at best, Lottery team at worst. He's got a lot of bark, but he's no alpha dog.

[Killakobe81]

One check mark for Duncan>KG is clutch. Now im not a big 82 games fan or PER but my "eye" test tells me Duncan was more reliable late ...not that KG was a choker but not as clutch as Tim.

[ohmwrecker]

I'm more interested in discussing basketball stuff - like the reason why Garnett isn't a low post player and if turning him into one would have been a good decision, for example.

I don't think Garnett would've been better off bulking up. He doesn't have the frame for it, his skill set does not require bulk, it would've slowed him down and possibly, shortened his career.
I am not a Garnett fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he's getting short changed as a post player. He got a jumper his man has to respect, a quick first step and a good variety of footwork and spin moves with his back to the basket. He has obviously deteriorated somewhat, but has the BBIQ to make up for it.
Where he is deficient compared to Duncan, besides the obvious physical differences, is the in between post game. When Duncan is backing down and spins, he has a variety of shot releases that he can employ. Whereas Garnett has either the jumper or getting right to the rim, Duncan has the hook, floater, up and under, finger roll and can use the glass. Garnett is capable of using these shots, but is much less effective as Duncan.
The biggest problem with Garnett is his attitude. He is a hothead and a fake tough guy and I think it effects his game, teammates and his impact on the game.
Early in his career, Garnett used to get in Duncan's face and try to get physical with him to mess with his head. Duncan would never react outwardly. He would just take KG into the post and whip his ass.
Head to head Duncan owns KG. That is why there is no debate.

[mogrovejo]

The fact that are so many Spurs fans that believe Garnett wasn't the best player in the Celtics 08 team that won the title is all the evidence necessary their view of Garnett is more emotional and related to his rivalry with Duncan than proper basketball analysis.

[ohmwrecker]

The fact that are so many Spurs fans that believe Garnett wasn't the best player in the Celtics 08 team that won the title is all the evidence necessary their view of Garnett is more emotional and related to his rivalry with Duncan than proper basketball analysis.
Never said anything of the kind. He was, absolutely, the best player on the '08 Celtics. You don't really seem to be comprehending what is being said.

[mogrovejo]

The biggest problem with Garnett is his attitude. He is a hothead and a fake tough guy and I think it effects his game, teammates and his impact on the game.

I disagree Garnett is a hothead. He may act like one, but hotheads play out of control and do stupid things that hurt their team. That's not the case with Garnett. He's smart and generally under control. I'm not even sure of what is a fake tough guy.

I think his emotion (or his emotional antics, as Garnett himself is a very cold player whose game quality rarely oscillates much) helps his teammates significantly + the home crowd. They fire them up.


Early in his career, Garnett used to get in Duncan's face and try to get physical with him to mess with his head. Duncan would never react outwardly. He would just take KG into the post and whip his ass. Head to head Duncan owns KG. That is why there is no debate.

Garnett isn't effective enough defending bigger centers like Duncan. He should never defend Duncan pretty much teh same way Duncan rarely defends Dirk.

[mogrovejo]

Never said anything of the kind. He was, absolutely, the best player on the '08 Celtics. You don't really seem to be comprehending what is being said.

Wanna bet? I'm serious. We can both transfer an amount to a paypal account owned by the site owners, for example.

[TD 21]

No, they weren't close at their peaks, Harlem. Statistically, yes. Impact wise? No. Duncan was an elite rim protector and help defender that could single handedly anchor a defense, as well as a dread naught pivot scorer who had to be double and occasionally even triple teamed. That meant that an entire offense could be based off of him and run through him. Garnett couldn't be counted on to do either of these things.

I would describe Duncan as a mix of O'Neal power and Garnett'e finesse. He was/is the best of both worlds.

mogrovejo, since when is Duncan a "bigger center"? He's not even a true center. Generally when they used to play head to head, Duncan was at 248 then. Garnett was 220. They're both 6-11, though I've heard more than once that Garnett is actually 7-1 (don't know whether that's true). Clearly, Duncan had a strength advantage, but don't act like Duncan was better because he was bigger.

[ohmwrecker]

I disagree Garnett is a hothead. He may act like one, but hotheads play out of control and do stupid things that hurt their team. That's not the case with Garnett. He's smart and generally under control. I'm not even sure of what is a fake tough guy.
He is a smart basketball player, but I don't think his attitude did anything to help his team until he got to the Celtics and had some other vets to support him.
A fake tough guy is a dude who acts tough, but when it comes to actually fighting someone his own size, he runs. I've seen KG do this his entire career. He is a bully and usually picks on smaller players.

[ohmwrecker]

Wanna bet? I'm serious. We can both transfer an amount to a paypal account owned by the site owners, for example.

I would do that, but I am not sure what we are betting on.

[duncan228]

Meanwhile...

Garnett suspended for Game 2 of playoff series (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-celtics-garnettsuspended)

Kevin Garnett has been suspended by the NBA for the Boston Celtics second playoff game against the Miami Heat.

The one-game suspension was imposed Sunday for hitting Quentin Richardson of the Miami Heat in the head with an elbow with 40 seconds left in Boston’s 85-76 win in Game 1 on Saturday night.

The league also fined Richardson $25,000.

The altercation occurred near Miami’s bench while Boston’s Paul Pierce lay on the floor with an apparent right shoulder injury. Garnett said he wanted to make room for Pierce as Heat players stood nearby. During the confrontation, Garnett and Richardson exchanged words.

[ohmwrecker]

Like I was saying . . .

[benefactor]

I disagree Garnett is a hothead. He may act like one, but hotheads play out of control and do stupid things that hurt their team.

Meanwhile...

Garnett suspended for Game 2 of playoff series (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-celtics-garnettsuspended)

Kevin Garnett has been suspended by the NBA for the Boston Celtics second playoff game against the Miami Heat.

The one-game suspension was imposed Sunday for hitting Quentin Richardson of the Miami Heat in the head with an elbow with 40 seconds left in Boston’s 85-76 win in Game 1 on Saturday night.

The league also fined Richardson $25,000.

The altercation occurred near Miami’s bench while Boston’s Paul Pierce lay on the floor with an apparent right shoulder injury. Garnett said he wanted to make room for Pierce as Heat players stood nearby. During the confrontation, Garnett and Richardson exchanged words.
:downspin:

[NFGIII]

Meanwhile...

Garnett suspended for Game 2 of playoff series (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-celtics-garnettsuspended)

Kevin Garnett has been suspended by the NBA for the Boston Celtics second playoff game against the Miami Heat.

The one-game suspension was imposed Sunday for hitting Quentin Richardson of the Miami Heat in the head with an elbow with 40 seconds left in Boston’s 85-76 win in Game 1 on Saturday night.

The league also fined Richardson $25,000.

The altercation occurred near Miami’s bench while Boston’s Paul Pierce lay on the floor with an apparent right shoulder injury. Garnett said he wanted to make room for Pierce as Heat players stood nearby. During the confrontation, Garnett and Richardson exchanged words.

I think we have another example of the lack of mental toughness here. Game won and he goes ahead and does that? Pretty flimsy excuse about trying to clear space for his bro PP. For whatever reason he just plain and simple lost it and took it out on the Heat. Real smart there KG.

[m33p0]

punching a rookie during practice just because he was having a good game doesn't qualify as being a hot head?

[mogrovejo]

No, they weren't close at their peaks, Harlem. Statistically, yes. Impact wise? No. Duncan was an elite rim protector and help defender that could single handedly anchor a defense, as well as a dread naught pivot scorer who had to be double and occasionally even triple teamed. That meant that an entire offense could be based off of him and run through him. Garnett couldn't be counted on to do either of these things.

Too bad that Duncan never anchored a defence as good as the one Garnett anchored in 2008.


He is a smart basketball player, but I don't think his attitude did anything to help his team until he got to the Celtics and had some other vets to support him.
A fake tough guy is a dude who acts tough, but when it comes to actually fighting someone his own size, he runs. I've seen KG do this his entire career. He is a bully and usually picks on smaller players.

I find that odd. I know lots of pro basketball players. They don't want to fight. KG is a pro, he's not playing in some street playground, of course he don't want to fight people.

He picks on bigger players a lot; for some odd reason people just liked that fable and ran away with it. Fans will be fans.


I think we have another example of the lack of mental toughness here. Game won and he goes ahead and does that? Pretty flimsy excuse about trying to clear space for his bro PP. For whatever reason he just plain and simple lost it and took it out on the Heat. Real smart there KG.

How many times have that happened?

[mogrovejo]

I would do that, but I am not sure what we are betting on.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4249398&postcount=120


Never said anything of the kind. He was, absolutely, the best player on the '08 Celtics. You don't really seem to be comprehending what is being said.

[mogrovejo]

Lies, damn lies and statistics; I trust my own eyes..

That's very wise if you're a Duncan fan trying to put down Garnett. Advanced basketball analytics won't be nice for the guys trying to make that case.

One way to see how undervalued Garnett was and how much worse his supporting casts were relatively to Duncan's is to see how their teams performed when they were out of the floor.

[TDfan2007]

Okay so let's compare these two in their primes (2001-2007):

Scoring
This category is probably where Tim has the greatest edge. KG had one patented go-to move, the baseline turnaround. It was a solid move (since he never got called for shuffling his feet as he did it) that was unblockable. Garnett also had arguably the best mid-range J of any big man along with Dirk.

Tim didn't have a go-to move. His bank-shot was indefensible unless you crowded him, in which case he'd blow by you. He had every post move in the book (moves, counter-moves, left hand, right hand, etc.) and could even shoot pull up jumpers with a relatively high percentage. Tim's only offensive weakness was FT shooting. He was too strong for quick guys and too quick for strong guys.

Advantage Tim

Passing:

KG averaged more assists, but that was based purely on the different offensive schemes the Spurs and Wolves ran. KG would make great passes to cutters and 3 point shooters from the top of the key while Tim would do most of his damage passing out of double-teams (often here he wouldn't get the assist because his pass would lead to an extra swing then shot). Later on when the offense was more diversified Tim showed he could make those passes from the top of the key (mainly to Tony) as well. Both guys are two of the best passing big men ever.

Advantage: even

Defense:

KG was the slightly better rebounder statistically, I'm not entirely sure what else to base this on. KG was better at pressuring the ball handler off pick and rolls, but Tim was also amazing at hedging and recovering. Tim was the better shotblocker while KG was better at playing passing lanes. KG was more versatile, Tim was more effective. Tim's advantage was in protecting the paint, which forced teams to take much lower percentage shots against the Spurs defense. This ability of Tim to play game-changing defense is what gives him the slight edge here.

Advantage: Tim

Intangibles:

Both were fantastic leaders, Tim really didn't start leading the Spurs till 2003, but from that point forward there was no better leader in the NBA. KG had an intensity and competitive fire that had to rub off on his teammates. He was a great team player (sometimes to a fault).

As far as clutch play and elevating one's game in the playoffs, it isn't even close. Tim is one of the best playoff performers in the past 20 years along with Jordan and Shaq. No big man has been more clutch than Tim (arguments can be made for Dirk). Games 5 and 7 of the 2006 WCSF against Dallas are all the proof one needs, but if you want take a look at Game 6 of the 2005 WCSF (goes apeshit in the 4th against a VERY physical Sonics team despite an ankle sprain) and game 7 of the 2005 Finals are good examples too.

Advantage: Tim

As far as teammates go, once again, Tim didn't have much from 2001-2004 and he still won 1 championship and got out of the first round every year. Oh and in 2000 without Tim, the same team that won a championship the year before got annihilated in the first round 3-1.

So yes, it's closer than most Spurs fans will admit, but even in their primes Tim had the edge.

[Blackjack]

I'm off to the game but you're ridiculous.

I'm not putting down KG's game but the persona he portrays and the clowns that feel the need to take down Tim, or demean him, to make a case for Garnett.

Tim > KG; get over it, you'll live a much happier life. :toast

[mogrovejo]

The idea that they were even in passing is just too far-fetched. It's just too ridiculous. Garnett is probably the best passing big man of the last 20 years. He's a higher assist rate than Webber. The idea that Garnett didn't have the ability to play game-changing defence is just too bizarre as well.

This conversation is difficult because you guys are Spurs and Duncan fans and are too emotionally invested. So you end up making outlandish declarations that make an interesting debate almost impossible.

[mogrovejo]

I'm off to the game but you're ridiculous.

All right, but I'm not the kind of person that engages in conversation with persons who resort to this kind of nonsense and lack of manners.


I'm not putting down KG's game but the persona he portrays and the clowns that feel the need to take down Tim, or demean him, to make a case for Garnett.

Nobody here put down Duncan. I really don't care about the persona. I care about the players personality to the extent it impacts their basketball production. The rest is just stuff I have little or no interest for.

[ohmwrecker]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4249398&postcount=120

Again, I never said that Garnett wasn't the best player on the '08 Celtics. So, if that is the bet . . . I guess, I win. Feel free to send me some money.
If you are suggesting that we bet on something as subjective as how "most" Spurs fans feel about KG and why, then I have no idea how we could reasonably determine a definitve answer.

[da_suns_fan]

LOL Spurs fan. For years Garnett fan said that he was just as good as TD but just on a crappy team.

The first year KG is on a good team, he makes it to WCF. The second time, he wins a championship.

KG was always the far superior talent.

[mogrovejo]

Again, I never said that Garnett wasn't the best player on the '08 Celtics. So, if that is the bet . . . I guess, I win. Feel free to send me some money.
If you are suggesting that we bet on something as subjective as how "most" Spurs fans feel about KG and why, then I have no idea how we could reasonably determine a definitve answer.

Huh? I've never said you made such a statement. Where did you get that idea from? Here's what I wrote:

The fact that are so many Spurs fans that believe Garnett wasn't the best player in the Celtics 08 team...

I can easily provide links to posts authored by many Spurs fans in this board, for example, stating exactly that, in many different ways.

[BillMc]

Garnett is a top 15 power forward of all time. Maybe top ten.

Duncan is #1.

The only place Garnett is better is fantasy land, like that old commercial where Duncan needed the entire neighborhood to guard him...

[Mixability]

Whenever theres a question of who to start a franchise with, Duncans name is always in the mix with Kobe, Jordan, Kareem, Bird, etc. I've never heard anyone mentioning putting their franchises trust in a player like KG.

[TD 21]

Too bad that Duncan never anchored a defence as good as the one Garnett anchored in 2008.

03-04 Spurs, I'm fairly certain, have the best single season defensive efficiency mark of all-time. Even if they slightly trail the 07-08 Celtics, look how many plus defenders that team had compared to the Spurs teams Duncan anchored post-Robinson. He clearly had a bigger impact defensively.

[Fernando TD21]

I was a fan of Garnett before he started acting like an idiot. Very talented and versatile player.
This article (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/142709-kevin-garnett-vs-tim-duncan-can-it-be-broken-down) has some interesting takes in the comments section. I'll copy and paste a comment regarding the difference in talent level between Duncan's supporting cast and Garnett's supporting cast:


First championship in the strike shorten year of 98-99 the top three players were Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_.

Duncan 21.7 points per game, Robinson 15.8 points per game, and Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ 11.2 point per game.

Role players
Avery Johson
Mario Elie
Jaren Jackson

Kevin Garnett's team of 98-99
Kevin Garnett 20.8 points per game
Stephon Marbury 17.7 points per game
Terrell Brandon 14.2 points per game
Joe Smith 13.7 points per game
Sam Mitchell 11.2 points per game

Role players:
Anthony Peeler
Dennis Scott
Malik Sealy
Bobby Jackson
Dean Garrett

The Spurs only had three players averaging double digits in points the Timberwolves had five players in double digits in scoring.

How about 2002-2003 season for the Spurs and their next championship

Spurs scorers
Tim Duncan 23.3 points per game
Tony Parker 15.5 points per game
Stephen Jackson 11.8 points per game
Malik Rose 10.4 points per game

Role players:
David Robinson
Bruce Bowen
Manu Ginboli
Steve Smith
Speedy Claxton

Timberwolves scorers:
Kevin Garnett 23 points per game
Wally Szczerbiak 17.6 points per game
Troy Hudson 14.2 points per game
Rasho Nesterovic 11.2 points per game

Role Players:
Kendall Gill
Anthony Peeler
Joe Smith
Rod Strickland
Gary Trent
I don't think the talent level is so far apart as some people claim.




BUT Tim's game was never in doubt and is light years ahead of Duncan's
:lol



Btw, it's amazing how Spurs fans are so extremely insecure about Duncan and always worried about being underrated or better than this or that. That's one thing fans from other teams are always saying in the NBA forum and I have to reckon they're absolutely right. Not sure if it's amusing or sad.
:lol Most fans do that. It's funny how you mention Spurs fans doing this for Duncan and even add that fans from other teams talk about this. Yet you ignore the fact that Lakers fans will do that for Kobe, Cavs fans will do that for Lebron, Dallas fans will do it for Dirk, etc...


Oh, the irony . . .



Great take. We shouldn't listen to how players and teammates talk about and act around someone; put any stock into the validity of Marbury's issues because he was a malcontent (issues that many had but were either more mature, more professional or not talented enough to say much about); or put any stock into how a guy has a significant change in approach and demeanor after constant criticism for coming up short and coming off as soft.
..
..
..
:tu


The reason why Garnett doesn't play the low post game is because he doesn't have the physical traits to do it. How can you bang if you don't have the lower body strength to hold position?

I actually agree with this. Garnett is athletically superior to Duncan regarding speed and jumping but when it comes to strength Duncan has the edge.

[ohmwrecker]

Huh? I've never said you made such a statement. Where did you get that idea from? Here's what I wrote:

The fact that are so many Spurs fans that believe Garnett wasn't the best player in the Celtics 08 team...

I can easily provide links to posts authored by many Spurs fans in this board, for example, stating exactly that, in many different ways.

OK. Why would I want to bet on something I don't believe to be true?