Resolving Tension in "Greater Player" Debates

[Ockham]

If you hate “Who’s Better?” or “Who’s the Greatest?” NBA player debates, please skip this thread. If not, read on.

There’s always a tension in these debates: on the one hand, you want to count winning percentage, playoff success, and championships, while on the other, you know that these are team accomplishments. That’s why these kinds of debates often devolve into arguments like this:

“Yeah, well if ____ had been on the ______’s, he would have won ____ rings too!”
“No he wouldn’t!”
“Yes he would!”

This happens a lot, I’ve noticed, with Duncan/Garnett debates. But whenever it happens, the annoying thing is that there doesn’t seem to be an empirical or rational way to go about supporting your side, either way.

So here’s how I’ve tried to deal with this sort of move lately. While we may not be able to know how Garnett would have performed as a Spur (or for that matter how Chamberlain would have performed as a Celtic, etc.), we can do the following. We can investigate how “chemistry-friendly” players were during their careers: were they able to flourish with only certain players around them, or did they show the ability to flourish in many different kinds of circumstances? If they were extremely chemistry-friendly, and they were successful, then it’s more likely that they would have had success anywhere. If they weren’t chemistry-friendly, or less so, then success in other sorts of circumstances is at least doubtful.

So, for example, Magic Johnson is as chemistry-friendly as it gets: not only did he flourish on drastically different Laker teams, he was the best player on college and high school basketball championship teams. Bill Russell rates highly here as well, not just because of his success with very different Celtic squads, but because he led college teams to championships. Interestingly, Jordan doesn’t do as well on this feature. (This doesn’t mean that Jordan isn’t greater overall than Russell or Magic. But it’s an interesting fact nonetheless.)

If we apply this to the Duncan/KG debate, I think it’s helpful. We’ll never know exactly how KG would have done in a Spurs jersey, nor exactly what TD would have done had he been stuck in Minnesota. But we do know that Duncan has led 3 very different Spurs teams to championships, showing that he can win, as the best player on the team, in different sorts of circumstances. We have little to no evidence that KG can do this. I think this helps to resolve the tension somewhat.

Thoughts?

[monosylab1k]

Duncan is a better player than KG any way you slice it.

Duncan in his prime would destroy KG in his prime.

[MajorMike]

I have always thought KG was sort of like ARod. Puts up amazing stats durting the year but fizzles when it comes down to winning Championships. I think KG anywhere else would be a lot like ARod was at his other stops - a yearly MVP Candidate with no Rings.

[stretch]

Duncan is a better player than KG any way you slice it.

Duncan in his prime would destroy KG in his prime.
i dont know about destroy, but in the final 5 minutes of a game, Duncan is definitely more reliable than KG has ever been.

[JamStone]

I don't see this as resolving the debate. It's just another argument that doesn't prove anything either way.

I think KG throughout his career was the more individually talented basketball player. I think Tim Duncan is the better winner. Take it how you want to take it.

[stretch]

I don't see this as resolving the debate. It's just another argument that doesn't prove anything either way.

I think KG throughout his career was the more individually talented basketball player. I think Tim Duncan is the better winner. Take it how you want to take it.
Agreed. And if I had to choose, i will take a winner in a heartbeat.

[Agloco]

Ah yes, the old Tom Brady versus Peyton Manning argument (before SB XLI)..........

It all comes down to supporting cast. Most great players need that in order to become champs. Garnett had one for about a year (Cassell, Spree and Wallyworld.....). Duncan has had one virtually his entire career.

The most notable exception to the rule is Michael Jordan. But he's an abberation with regard to a lot of arguments.......

[ambchang]

Ah yes, the old Tom Brady versus Peyton Manning argument (before SB XLI)..........

It all comes down to supporting cast. Most great players need that in order to become champs. Garnett had one for about a year (Cassell, Spree and Wallyworld.....). Duncan has had one virtually his entire career.

The most notable exception to the rule is Michael Jordan. But he's an abberation with regard to a lot of arguments.......
? In 2003, Parker, a 2nd year PG, was the 2nd leading scorer on the Spurs, the only person who was anything close to an all-star was Duncan. That supporting cast was without a doubt worse than Garnett's lone successful team, and yet it won the championship.
Jordan had Pippen and Horace Grant/undercontrol Rodman for the 6 championships, that was an awesome supporting cast that was tailor made for Jordan (no ball-handling PG, shooters, and tough interior defenders)

[confined]

duncan had robinson, manu, and parker
KG had.....ummmmm yeah

[ambchang]

duncan had robinson, manu, and parker
KG had.....ummmmm yeah
That is about as misleading as it gets. Robinson was on his last season. Yes, he was still a great defender, but his offensive skills had diminished greatly. Parker was in his second season, prone to mistakes , and wilted under pressue (Remember Speedy Claxton and Steve Kerr coming to the rescue in the playoffs?), Manu was a rookie who averaged 20 mpg, and averaged 7.6 ppg. Yeah, awesome supporting cast.
The 04 Wolves team had Cassell averaging close to 20 and 7, Sprewell at 17 ppg. Yeah, I would easily say that the 03 Spurs had a weaker supporting cast than the 04 Wolves. In fact, nobody thought the Spurs would do anything that year at the beginning of the season, the big bad Lakers were more or less written in for a 4-peat.

[Spurminator]

The Duncan/Garnett debate ended three years ago, except maybe in some areas of Minnesota.

[MajorMike]

I agree with supporting cast. In 2003, DRob's knees were toast and Manu had more minutes while Malik had as many. After game 3 when Tony started to tank, Speedy had almost as many minutes as Tony. When the game was on the line at the end of Game 6, Speedy, Malik and Manu were in the game for the run that gave us the win, not DRob and Tony.

[sprrs]

Yeah in '03 virtually no one expected the Spurs to run off with the championship. Going by the roster, most people thought they were going to do what they could with that season and prepare for their first season without DRob.

[Agloco]

? In 2003, Parker, a 2nd year PG, was the 2nd leading scorer on the Spurs, the only person who was anything close to an all-star was Duncan. That supporting cast was without a doubt worse than Garnett's lone successful team, and yet it won the championship.
Jordan had Pippen and Horace Grant/undercontrol Rodman for the 6 championships, that was an awesome supporting cast that was tailor made for Jordan (no ball-handling PG, shooters, and tough interior defenders)



Without a doubt eh?

I beg to differ

You're saying that Ginobili, Parker, Robinson and Jackson were worse than Spree, Cassell and Wallyworld?

Problem is, you're looking at what the picture was BEFORE it played out. You gotta look at it as it stood afterwords....

Your argument that Parker was somehow an insignificant part of the puzzle that year because he faltered in one game is nonsense.....

As for Jordan. it was always on his sholders to win it. Other than Kerr and Paxson hitting game winners, I can't recall ANYONE else having the ball in crunch time other than Jordan.

[mardigan]

Without a doubt eh?

I beg to differ

You're saying that Ginobili, Parker, Robinson and Jackson were worse than Spree, Cassell and Wallyworld?

Problem is, you're looking at what the picture was BEFORE it played out. You gotta look at it as it stood afterwords....

Your argument that Parker was somehow an insignificant part of the puzzle that year because he faltered in one game is nonsense.....

As for Jordan. it was always on his sholders to win it. Other than Kerr and Paxson hitting game winners, I can't recall ANYONE else having the ball in crunch time other than Jordan.


The year Jordan retired, Scottie Pippen was still good enough to lead the Bulls to the ECF. And the 03 argument is true, that 1 year, and I stress that one year, the Wolves did have a better supporting cast, they also had Troy Hudson who was pretty damn good at that time. The Spurs had a bunch of young, unproven players. Besides Robinson, (who averaged less than 09 points a game that year, the Spurs didnt have much. The difference was the play of the superstars, and Duncan wouldnt let us lose

[Agloco]

The year Jordan retired, Scottie Pippen was still good enough to lead the Bulls to the ECF. And the 03 argument is true, that 1 year, and I stress that one year, the Wolves did have a better supporting cast, they also had Troy Hudson who was pretty damn good at that time. The Spurs had a bunch of young, unproven players. Besides Robinson, (who averaged less than 09 points a game that year, the Spurs didnt have much. The difference was the play of the superstars, and Duncan wouldnt let us lose



I tend to forget details over time, but the one thing I do remember is how badly Timmy abused Shaq in that 03 series. It got ugly.

I think I'm getting 03 and 04 confused. Our boys did turn out to be pretty good after all.........

Pippen is as good a second banana as there ever was IMO. Jordan has a good supporting cast no doubt but outside of Pippen and Rodman, there's a big falloff.

BTW, inch for inch I believe Rodman to be the best rebounder the league has ever seen.

[mardigan]

I tend to forget details over time, but the one thing I do remember is how badly Timmy abused Shaq in that 03 series. It got ugly.

I think I'm getting 03 and 04 confused. Our boys did turn out to be pretty good after all.........

Pippen is as good a second banana as there ever was IMO. Jordan has a good supporting cast no doubt but outside of Pippen and Rodman, there's a big falloff.

BTW, inch for inch I believe Rodman to be the best rebounder the league has ever seen.

No doubt, the only person I would put up with him is Barkley

[ambchang]

Without a doubt eh?

I beg to differ

You're saying that Ginobili, Parker, Robinson and Jackson were worse than Spree, Cassell and Wallyworld?

Problem is, you're looking at what the picture was BEFORE it played out. You gotta look at it as it stood afterwords....

Your argument that Parker was somehow an insignificant part of the puzzle that year because he faltered in one game is nonsense.....

As for Jordan. it was always on his sholders to win it. Other than Kerr and Paxson hitting game winners, I can't recall ANYONE else having the ball in crunch time other than Jordan.

What do you mean after the fact? You mean because the Spurs won the championship, therefore the supporting cast was better, or do you mean Parker and Gino turned out to be allstars?
If it was the 1st argument, then what is there to argue, the result justified the supporting cast's greatness.
If it was the later, it is totally illogical, you look at a players contribution DURING that time frame, not 3 years after. Would you say the Jazz didn't capitalize on Deron Williams last year because he was an all-star this year? I wouldn't, because Deron WIlliams wasn't that good last year, and made vast improvements this year. I look at the scenario WHILE it was playing out.
Fact is, Parker was a 2nd year PG who was prone to bad decisions, and it wasn't one game, he did it in both the Dallas AND the Nets series, and no, he was significant, in fact, he was the BEST player outside of Duncan offensively throughout the season, but it doesn't change the fact that he was unreliable and was a 2nd year PG that was no where close to an all-star he is today. Manu was a rookie who showed flashes of brilliance, but was not consistent in any sense. Cassell was an all-star in 2004 and Sprewell averaged almost 18 points that season.
And Jordan handling the ball during crunch time = he had a bad supporting cast? Where the hell did this come from? It just means that Jordan is the best crunch time player on the team, and who is going to argue that? Fact is, during Jordan's two years off to play baseball, the Bulls won 55 and 47 games in the regular season and advanced to the semifinals both years. Not championship ball, but at least good enough to make the playoffs.

[samikeyp]

IMO, KG is the better athlete, Duncan is the better basketball player.

Regardless, they are both HOF'ers.

[exstatic]

duncan had robinson, manu, and parker
KG had.....ummmmm yeah
Szcerbiak All Star in Minny
Cassell All Star in Minny
Brandon All Star in Minny
Marbury All Star in Minny
Gugliotta All Star in Minny

Cry me a fucking river.

[bdictjames]

KG would destroy Duncan one-on-one.

But in a team situation, Duncan wins. Just as the author said, he has always been chemistry-friendly with possibly any team.