Duncan vs KG debate from a neutral fan base

[Kamnik]

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=705104&start=0

Some crazy Duncan love from raptors fans.

Most of them gave such respect to TD i had a smile on my face whole time while reading the responses.

:smokin





Took casual fans outside SA 10 years and 4 rings to see the truth. :dizzy

[Obstructed_View]

?

[Solid D]

Kamnik, do you have a link to those sentiments?

[Kamnik]

?

im a noob poster i guess :lol

i forgot to paste the link after writing the post :bang

fixed it

[phxspurfan]

Honestly, If I wanted to take a nap I'd throw on a Tim Duncan Highlight Reel. Sure, he's probably the best player of the three, but if I had to choose (for right now) I'd take Garnett - Guy can Ball still. I'd rather my team be entertaining, but that's just me.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Alwasy felt that KG never had as a good a chance as td. td has always had great surrounding players, coaches. KG had an Okay team with Spree and Cassell but it was never near as good as it was made out to be - they seriously overachieved.

[ggoose25]

Duncan isn't black enough for people to like him.

[exstatic]

Alwasy felt that KG never had as a good a chance as td. td has always had great surrounding players, coaches. KG had an Okay team with Spree and Cassell but it was never near as good as it was made out to be - they seriously overachieved.
I am WAY sick of this shit.

Starbury
Gugliotta
Brandon
Sczerbiak
Cassell

These are folks who were All Stars while playing with KG.

DRob
Tony
Manu, once

These are folks who were All Stars while playing with Tim.

KG's problem has never been his supporting cast, it's the fact that he's a part of it. He disappears in crunch time.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I am WAY sick of this shit.

Starbury
Gugliotta
Brandon
Sczerbiak
Cassell

These are folks who were All Stars while playing with KG.

DRob
Tony
Manu, once

These are folks who were All Stars while playing with Tim.

KG's problem has never been his supporting cast, it's the fact that he's a part of it. He disappears in crunch time.

For the most part you are right, he still COULD have won with some of those teams - but's it's stretch to say that they were anywhere near as likely to win a championship as any of the Spurs teams - except that one year where he had spree and cassell, just maybe)

Those other teams were bordeline contenders, though. It's a fact.

But we've seen what Flip can accomplish with good teams. Nothing. (see pistons)

They could have been contenders had they had decent coach who was able to utilize the role players and mold them around Garnett better.

(coaching strategy AND discipline has a lot to do with which teams do/do not reach their potential i.e. Suns)

It's what Popovich gives the Spurs, and he does it so well that he is half the reason why the Spurs have been as successful as they have been and are up to now.

And he gets NO fucking respect.

And I am WAY sick of that

[Texas_Ranger]

NIce. :)

[judaspriestess]

nice, thanks for posting!!

[TheAuthority]

For the most part you are right, he still COULD have won with some of those teams - but's it's stretch to say that they were anywhere near as likely to win a championship as any of the Spurs teams - except that one year where he had spree and cassell, just maybe)

Those other teams were bordeline contenders, though. It's a fact.

But we've seen what Flip can accomplish with good teams. Nothing. (see pistons)

They could have been contenders had they had decent coach who was able to utilize the role players and mold them around Garnett better.

(coaching strategy AND discipline has a lot to do with which teams do/do not reach their potential i.e. Suns)

It's what Popovich gives the Spurs, and he does it so well that he is half the reason why the Spurs have been as successful as they have been and are up to now.

And he gets NO fucking respect.

And I am WAY sick of that

Popovich shouldn't get any credit. He doesn't deserve it. The players win the games, and his decisions have lost the Spurs an entire series, just on his moves alone. See: San Antonio/Dallas, 2006

[Ronaldo McDonald]

yea, whatever. I've read of the shit you've spewed on this board before, so I'm not going to bother typing up a response.

[MI21]

I'm not going to read the link, becuase over the last 7 years I've read everything that can be possibly be written about Duncan vs Garnett.

I will say this though: If it was Duncan going to the Celtics, do you think anyone would be betting against them to at the minimum, make the finals?

[TheAuthority]

yea, whatever. I've read of the shit you've spewed on this board before, so I'm not going to bother typing up a response.

Really? Maybe because you've got nothing to counter with.

[Kamnik]

Popovich shouldn't get any credit. He doesn't deserve it. The players win the games, and his decisions have lost the Spurs an entire series, just on his moves alone. See: San Antonio/Dallas, 2006


Hard to say who THE BEST coach at this moment is.


But Pop is in top 3 for sure in my opinion.


He isn't perfect as noone is but he is one hell of a coach, co-GM and players have immense respect for him all over the league.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i had enough of this clown name KG who always get a green pass for his teams failure...give me a fuckn break.

[Supreme_Being]

Duncan OWNS Garnett. 'Nuff said.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Who cares really? TD got 4 rings, and KG don't have none. KG will go down as one of the greats and he's a future hall of famer for sure, but TD will go down as the best at his position by a lot.

[bdubya]

Popovich shouldn't get any credit. He doesn't deserve it. The players win the games, and his decisions have lost the Spurs an entire series, just on his moves alone. See: San Antonio/Dallas, 2006

So you'd be willing to talk trade, Saunders for Pop?

[TDMVPDPOY]

Who cares really? TD got 4 rings, and KG don't have none. KG will go down as one of the greats and he's a future hall of famer for sure, but TD will go down as the best at his position by a lot.

greats? i think one of the best...

greats>best imo

1.legend
2-3. greats
4-5 best

[nfg3]

Popovich shouldn't get any credit. He doesn't deserve it. The players win the games, and his decisions have lost the Spurs an entire series, just on his moves alone. See: San Antonio/Dallas, 2006

Anyone that states that a coach doesn't deserve any credit for a team's success has absolutely no clue to what they are talking about. How did you escape from your village? Or is the hamster dead and the wheel just keeps spinning? This post obviously fails to live up to the unusually low standards that you have set for yourself.

Auerbach, Jackson, Riley, Holtzman, Daley???????? These guys must obviously be stiffs. If that was the case then why have them? Just go and let the guys play and figure out what to do on the fly! Streetball!!! Yeah and that's is going to win against a well coached team. If they contribute nothing to the mix then they are useless. In your opinion it seems that they don't deserve credit when the team wins BUT they deserve the blame when the team loses? Right?

[K-State Spur]

TD has had a better supporting cast, but too many people use KG's supporting cast as a crutch in this debate.

The Sports Guy said it best - could anybody imagine a team with Tim Duncan ever not making the playoffs?

[hitmanyr2k]

KG's problem has never been his supporting cast, it's the fact that he's a part of it. He disappears in crunch time.

Exactly. I routinely watched KG run from the ball when playoff games were hanging in the balance. He would pound his chest and act like the baddest MF alive for the first 3 qtrs but when the 4th qtr came he got the deer in headlights look and let the team success depend mainly on his subordinates while he faded into the background.

It wasn't until the 2003 and 2004 playoffs where he FINALLY grew a backbone and started becoming a factor in the 4th qtr.

[JamStone]

Could you imagine the Spurs GM being stupid enough to do an under-the-table deal with one of the "then" core players that resulted in losing that player plus three first round draft picks over the course of Tim Duncan's first 9 seasons in the league? Could you imagine the Spurs front office trading away a Stephon Marbury type of talent after only a couple seasons? Could you imagine the Spurs trading Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric AND giving a first round draft pick in the deal? Can you imagine the Spurs signing Trenton Hassell and Mark Madsen to multi-year deals? Can you imagine the Spurs having two point guards on the roster with substantial contracts, then drafting another point guard in the lottery, then signing another point guard for the FULL MLE all in the same off-season?

For all of Kevin Garnett's faults, from not coming up big in the fourth quarter of big games to not raising the level of play by his teammates, his BIGGEST FAULT had been his blind, unending loyalty to such an inept GM in Kevin McHale.

Tim Duncan is the better player, the better winner. Talent-wise, it's awfully close and I could argue, again talent-wise, that Kevin Garnett is the better player. And, it's no slight to Tim Duncan that he was brought to such a great franchise with smart decision makers. But, at the very least, you have to consider that the failings of Kevin McHale and the Timberwolves front office factored in greatly to the failings of Kevin Garnett as a player and the failings of the Timberwolves as a team.

[JamStone]

greats? i think one of the best...

greats>best imo

1.legend
2-3. greats
4-5 best


KG will go down as one of the greatest players ever, just like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, neither of which won titles either.

KG's numbers are astonishing. NINE straight years of 20/10/4? It's just ridiculous.

He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game, whether you want to admit it or not. He's already a Hall of Fame lock like Tim, Shaq, Kobe, Kidd, and Iverson.

And, to those who ask whether one can imagine Tim Duncan ever missing the playoffs ... if I put Tim Duncan on the Timberwolves in place of Kevin Garnett the previous two seasons, I still think they miss the playoffs. That's how fucked up of a job I think Kevin McHale did over there.

[hitmanyr2k]

KG will go down as one of the greatest players ever, just like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, neither of which won titles either.

KG's numbers are astonishing. NINE straight years of 20/10/4? It's just ridiculous.

He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game, whether you want to admit it or not. He's already a Hall of Fame lock like Tim, Shaq, Kobe, Kidd, and Iverson.

And, to those who ask whether one can imagine Tim Duncan ever missing the playoffs ... if I put Tim Duncan on the Timberwolves in place of Kevin Garnett the previous two seasons, I still think they miss the playoffs. That's how fucked up of a job I think Kevin McHale did over there.

Duncan's supporting roleplayers in '02 and '03 are worse than anything KG has ever had...seriously. The Spurs had no business winning a title in '03 with that roster. In fact I would say Garnett's supporting players were better that year by far.

[TDMVPDPOY]

posting 20/14/4?? wtf gives a shit if you avg monster stats that dont amount to wins....

tim duncan is always about winning>individual stats

[Ronaldo McDonald]

The Spurs aren't called the best ORGANiZATON for nothing. Duncan is a piece, an extremely large piece of what makes them the best. You can't just attibute all of the Spurs success to just one player.

[JamStone]

posting 20/14/4?? wtf gives a shit if you avg monster stats that dont amount to wins....

tim duncan is always about winning>individual stats

Well so was Steve Kerr, but you're not going to put his name into a conversation of the best guards ever to play the game.

Basketball is a team sport. You need teammates and coaches to help win.

That takes nothing away from what Tim Duncan has accomplished. It's just fact. If you are going to compare INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS, your trump card argument cannot be WINNING GAMES because winning games takes a TEAM, not just a mere individual.

The discussion compares individuals. Sure, winning can be a consideration. But, it's not an end-of-debate argument. Still takes a team to win.

If you're just going to say so-and-so won more games or won more titles and that's it, then don't even get into a discussion that is comparing individuals.

[Oh, Gee!!]

posting 20/14/4?? wtf gives a shit if you avg monster stats that dont amount to wins....



so let's take george gervin out of the mix when we talk about great players

[Findog]

Duncan's supporting roleplayers in '02 and '03 are worse than anything KG has ever had...seriously. The Spurs had no business winning a title in '03 with that roster. In fact I would say Garnett's supporting players were better that year by far.


I'm not jumping in here to say anything about Garnett positive or negative, but are you serious?

Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, David Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Steve Kerr, that team shouldn't have won a title?????? Parker was more inconsistent back then, but he was still good enough to start for a title team. Duncan's one of the five best players of all time, but even he needs a good supporting cast. I'm sorry, but that supporting cast trumps Wally, Chauncey and Rasho. Billups has got to be the most overrated PG in the game, there's a reason he was on team number six when he got to Detroit. He's in the perfect situation there.

Duncan > Garnett, but he's also been surrounded by more talent than Garnett. I can't believe either item is still up for debate.

[Warlord23]

Weak take, Jamstone. Comparisons between individuals can be centered around stats and talent, like you're doing. But anybody who follows this or any other team sport understands and acknowledges qualities that are exhibited by individuals which have a significant impact on their team's success.

Examples of such attributes:
1. Franchise big men v/s franchise guards: Is prime Kobe more talented than prime Shaq? Yes. Would you find a single GM or coach who would choose to build a team around prime Kobe than prime Shaq? No.

2. Unselfish playmakers v/s gunners: Prime Marbury has had seasons with 24 PPG and 8 APG. Prime Kidd has never cracked 17 PPG. Would any GM/coach take prime Marbury over Kidd? No.

3. Low-post big men v/s jump-shooting big men: Prime Malone had similar stats to prime Hakeem, and for a greater length of time. And he played with a top 5 PG of all time. No GM would pass up Hakeem for Malone though.

4. Clutchness: Dirk Nowitzki is a terrific scorer and a good passer and rebounder. His problem is his effectiveness goes down in the last few minutes of the game. Players like Nash, Manu or Billups exhibit the opposite.

Going purely by stats, Zach Randolph > Rasheed, Jefferson > Manu, Arenas > Nash, etc etc.

If there was a redraft of all the greats in the post-Jordan era, Duncan and Shaq would go 1 and 2 (or the other way round). Every coach, scout and GM in this league knows Garnett doesn't belong in the Shaq/Duncan conversation.

Interestingly, they used to say this about Iverson, about how he can't be blamed for having a pathetic team. Well, he got Carmelo, Camby, Nene and still got bounced in the first round.

Luckily for us, the Garnett argument ends after this year. No more "Poor KG doesn't have the help" arguments. After the Celtics get tossed in the 2nd round, Garnett-lovers won't have the "if only" arguments to fall back on.

[ambchang]

For the millionth time, 03 Spurs were not great at all. The players surrounding Duncan was either monstrously young and inexperienced (Parker, Manu, Jackson) or old and ready for retirement (Robinson, Kerr, Willis, Ferry, Steve Smith. It's really sad when geriatric players like Kerr and Willis were even brought up as key ingredients to the team). The only players that were in their primes was Duncan, Rose and Bowen. Then there are players like Claxton.
Parker averaged 15.5 ppg, had 5.3 assts but 2.4 TO that year, he was constantly making poor decisions, and he had a poor outside shot. Manu averaged 7.6 ppg, and was out of control with the ball. Yes he had talent and it could be seen, but he was definitely not what you would call a future All-Star. That tandem was far and away worse than Terrell Brandon, Stephon Marbury or Sam Cassell.
Robinson had a terrible back, and was on his last legs. He averaged 8.5 ppg for the season, less than half is career average, and less then 1/3 of his prime. The final game of 13/17 was so significant was because nobody thought he could ever pull such a performance off.
The 03 team, without Duncan, would have easily been a 25 to 30 win team, but it won 60 games and the title. That team was, in terms of talent, no where close to the 04 Wolves, or even the 98, 00, or 02 Wolves, except of course, other than Duncan.

[JamStone]

Weak take, Jamstone. Comparisons between individuals can be centered around stats and talent, like you're doing. But anybody who follows this or any other team sport understands and acknowledges qualities that are exhibited by individuals which have a significant impact on their team's success.

I didn't say comparisons should be centered only around stats and talent. In fact, I specifically wrote, "Sure, winning can be a consideration."

I even think when you take everything into consideration, Tim Duncan is a better player than Kevin Garnett. I was criticizing the argument that someone would simply look at winning and say that's the end of the debate, which TDMVPDPOY insinuated in his post.

How great would Michael Jordan have been had he been selected by Portland in the draft and had to share not only touches but fourth quarter touches with Clyde Drexler? How great would Magic have been had he not been on a team with Kareem for so long?

Look, great players are great players. And, great players can be a huge part of the success of a team and organization. But, they don't do it alone. And, some great players are in perfect situations for them to become great players, while other great players are put in situations where they put up great individual stats but don't quite have enough to win titles.

Is Steve Nash a two-time league MVP if Mark Cuban matches Phoenix's offer a few years ago? Does Ben Wallace even make a mark in the league if he stays a role player on Orlando's bench? Does James Worthy become one of the best players ever if he's not getting transition passes from Magic Johnson?

I don't discount a player making his teammates and team better. I don't discount a player who always seems to be on winning teams. I don't. But, I don't give them the full credit either. And, I don't scoff at great numbers just because a some of the great stats happened to be on non-playoff teams.

Do KG's numbers not matter when he was leading the Timberwolves to 50 win seasons? Do they not matter when he led Minnesota to the best record in the league and finally made it to a conference finals?

I don't discount Tim Duncan and the great things he's done in his career. Again, I think he's a better player than KG because of some of those things. But, I don't simply say Duncan won rings and KG didn't, therefore Duncan is better. No. And, I look at the situation Tim Duncan came into with David Robinson helping him transition into the NBA and allowing him to grow with less pressure on him. And, then I look at Kevin Garnett being drafted by a relatively new franchise, just 6 years into the league, and being run by what has become blatantly obvious an incompetent GM, and I look at how KG was still able to become one of the best players in the league.

Now, does that make KG better than Duncan? No. But, I'm prepared to say skill-wise and talent-wise, it's more of a toss-up than anything.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Weak take, Jamstone. Comparisons between individuals can be centered around stats and talent, like you're doing. But anybody who follows this or any other team sport understands and acknowledges qualities that are exhibited by individuals which have a significant impact on their team's success.

Examples of such attributes:
1. Franchise big men v/s franchise guards: Is prime Kobe more talented than prime Shaq? Yes. Would you find a single GM or coach who would choose to build a team around prime Kobe than prime Shaq? No.

2. Unselfish playmakers v/s gunners: Prime Marbury has had seasons with 24 PPG and 8 APG. Prime Kidd has never cracked 17 PPG. Would any GM/coach take prime Marbury over Kidd? No.

3. Low-post big men v/s jump-shooting big men: Prime Malone had similar stats to prime Hakeem, and for a greater length of time. And he played with a top 5 PG of all time. No GM would pass up Hakeem for Malone though.

4. Clutchness: Dirk Nowitzki is a terrific scorer and a good passer and rebounder. His problem is his effectiveness goes down in the last few minutes of the game. Players like Nash, Manu or Billups exhibit the opposite.

Going purely by stats, Zach Randolph > Rasheed, Jefferson > Manu, Arenas > Nash, etc etc.

If there was a redraft of all the greats in the post-Jordan era, Duncan and Shaq would go 1 and 2 (or the other way round). Every coach, scout and GM in this league knows Garnett doesn't belong in the Shaq/Duncan conversation.

Interestingly, they used to say this about Iverson, about how he can't be blamed for having a pathetic team. Well, he got Carmelo, Camby, Nene and still got bounced in the first round.

Luckily for us, the Garnett argument ends after this year. No more "Poor KG doesn't have the help" arguments. After the Celtics get tossed in the 2nd round, Garnett-lovers won't have the "if only" arguments to fall back on.


Nice post. So many people discount the intangibles that players like Tim and Manu bring to the team and ultimately their team's success. It's all about the stats and flash over substance. In part, that's one reason that Garnett led teams kept getting bounced out in the first round while Tim has 4 NBA rings. Tim's got "it", while Garnett doesn't.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Now, does that make KG better than Duncan? No. But, I'm prepared to say skill-wise and talent-wise, it's more of a toss-up than anything.

Agreed! But what sets Duncan apart from Garnett is that Tim does a better job of getting his team mates involved. He makes the extra pass, he puts himself in a position to grab a key rebound. He just plays intelligent basketball and does the little, subtle, not-on-the-stat-sheet things that make his team better.

Their skill set is too close to call.

[Reggie Miller]

JamStone and Warlord23 make some very good points. However, no one has mentioned the one major "tangible" difference between Duncan and Garnett. Duncan has a complete low post game; Garnett does not. If Garnett had worked as hard as Duncan to develop back to the basket moves, he might have a championship as well.

Although I will freely admit that I am often wrong, this doesn't even seem debatable to me. The problem with these sorts of arguments is that "potential" and hypothetical situations are meaningless. What matters are the choices that KG made. Garnett chose not to play in college. Garnett chose not to restructure his contract. Garnett chose not to develop the full range of skills we should expect from a player of his size.

Did McHale sabotage Garnett's career? Obviously, having the worst GM in the NBA has not helped him any. However, Garnett has not developed to his full potential, and Garnett can only blame himself for that.

Duncan seems to understand that there is only one way to lead an organization over the long haul: leading by example. Screamers, manipulators, and "motivators" may get results short-term by alternately cajoling and terrorizing a team, but they don't get compared to Bill Russell. (I'm not saying that Garnett is a tyrant; in fact, I don't know much about "behind the scenes" with the Timberwolves at all.) This is very rare, but it isn't an "intangible," becuase it shows on the scoreboard. I don't think you will ever find anyone who would claim that Duncan has not fully developed his potential as a player, except maybe Chip Engeland.

Duncan is not entirely without flaws. I think it is pretty obvious that pressure bothers him more than say, Michael Jordan. Despite this fact, Duncan just wins anyway. To be honest, I think I like Timmy so much precisely becuase he is humble, still gets nervous about big games, and behaves like a so-called "normal" guy. It's part of who he is.


P.S. Just for the record, if Reggie Miller had worried about being a team leader on the defensive side of the ball, the Pacers probably would have won a championship by now also. That's why these "if" arguments seem pointless to me. Virtually no one develops to their full potential in today's NBA. Saying, "if Player X wanted or needed to do Y, then he could" is verbal static. That's usually true of any NBA caliber player; the reality is few ever do it.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

JamStone and Warlord23 make some very good points. However, no one has mentioned the one major "tangible" difference between Duncan and Garnett. Duncan has a complete low post game; Garnett does not. If Garnett had worked as hard as Duncan to develop back to the basket moves, he might have a championship as well.

Although I will freely admit that I am often wrong, this doesn't even seem debatable to me. The problem with these sorts of arguments is that "potential" and hypothetical situations are meaningless. What matters are the choices that KG made. Garnett chose not to play in college. Garnett chose not to restructure his contract. Garnett chose not to develop the full range of skills we should expect from a player of his size.

Did McHale sabotage Garnett's career? Obviously, having the worst GM in the NBA has not helped him any. However, Garnett has not developed to his full potential, and Garnett can only blame himself for that.

Duncan seems to understand that there is only one way to lead an organization over the long haul: leading by example. Screamers, manipulators, and "motivators" may get results short-term by alternately cajoling and terrorizing a team, but they don't get compared to Bill Russell. (I'm not saying that Garnett is a tyrant; in fact, I don't know much about "behind the scenes" with the Timberwolves at all.) This is very rare, but it isn't an "intangible," becuase it shows on the scoreboard. I don't think you will ever find anyone who would claim that Duncan has not fully developed his potential as a player, except maybe Chip Engeland.

Duncan is not entirely without flaws. I think it is pretty obvious that pressure bothers him more than say, Michael Jordan. Despite this fact, Duncan just wins anyway. To be honest, I think I like Timmy so much precisely becuase he is humble, still gets nervous about big games, and behaves like a so-called "normal" guy. It's part of who he is.

a good coach would have had him develope that part of his game early on. Just like pop has tony working with a shooting coach.

[Reggie Miller]

a good coach would have had him develope that part of his game early on. Just like pop has tony working with a shooting coach.

So an alleged "All Time Great" needs someone to hold his hand? I'm sorry, but a player his size has no excuse not developing those skills on his own, if necessary.

You are correct in that better coaching would have addressed this on Day One. However, Garnett is not a blameless victim, either.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

He was 18 when he came into the league. That was part of the problem also.

Players do what coaches ask of them. If flip never asked KG to work on his post game more because he told him to concentrate on other things then who is to blame?

Dipshit Flip

Even more surprising is the fact that McHale never explained this to Garnett.

[smeagol]

TD got 4 rings, and KG don't have none.

What happened to your grammar?


KG will go down as one of the greats and he's a future hall of famer for sure

Not a lock by any stretch of the imagination.

[JamStone]

JamStone and Warlord23 make some very good points. However, no one has mentioned the one major "tangible" difference between Duncan and Garnett. Duncan has a complete low post game; Garnett does not. If Garnett had worked as hard as Duncan to develop back to the basket moves, he might have a championship as well.

Although I will freely admit that I am often wrong, this doesn't even seem debatable to me. The problem with these sorts of arguments is that "potential" and hypothetical situations are meaningless. What matters are the choices that KG made. Garnett chose not to play in college. Garnett chose not to restructure his contract. Garnett chose not to develop the full range of skills we should expect from a player of his size.

Did McHale sabotage Garnett's career? Obviously, having the worst GM in the NBA has not helped him any. However, Garnett has not developed to his full potential, and Garnett can only blame himself for that.

Duncan seems to understand that there is only one way to lead an organization over the long haul: leading by example. Screamers, manipulators, and "motivators" may get results short-term by alternately cajoling and terrorizing a team, but they don't get compared to Bill Russell. (I'm not saying that Garnett is a tyrant; in fact, I don't know much about "behind the scenes" with the Timberwolves at all.) This is very rare, but it isn't an "intangible," becuase it shows on the scoreboard. I don't think you will ever find anyone who would claim that Duncan has not fully developed his potential as a player, except maybe Chip Engeland.

Duncan is not entirely without flaws. I think it is pretty obvious that pressure bothers him more than say, Michael Jordan. Despite this fact, Duncan just wins anyway. To be honest, I think I like Timmy so much precisely becuase he is humble, still gets nervous about big games, and behaves like a so-called "normal" guy. It's part of who he is.


P.S. Just for the record, if Reggie Miller had worried about being a team leader on the defensive side of the ball, the Pacers probably would have won a championship by now also. That's why these "if" arguments seem pointless to me. Virtually no one develops to their full potential in today's NBA. Saying, "if Player X wanted or needed to do Y, then he could" is verbal static. That's usually true of any NBA caliber player; the reality is few ever do it.



A really well thought-out and well reasoned opinion. And, I would agree with much of it. Again, for the record, I think Tim Duncan is the better overall player, taking all factors into consideration.

I can make a few comments about developing full potential and skills. For some time, Kevin Garnett and the Timberwolves appeared to prepare KG to play more and more small forward. In fact, he played small forward for the majority of the 1998-99 season and 2001-02 seasons.

And, if you want to talk about developing skills, I would give the edge to Kevin Garnett over Tim Duncan in terms of perimeter skills, ball-handling, range of jumpshot, and perimeter defense. So, you can question his low post skills on offense, but he absolutely developed his skills in other areas.

And, most would agree that KG has the advantage in athleticism.

Now, if you want to talk about how Tim Duncan wins more and is better down the stretch of big games or has a better low post set of skills, I would agree with all of that. I am just taking into consideration EVERYTHING.

I don't think you can ignore the fact that Tim Duncan had David Robinson and Gregg Popovich and a front office that continually made smart personnel decisions while Kevin Garnett entered a six year old franchise with big men like Doug West and Christian Laettner and a GM that is most certainly one of the worst NBA GMs in the past 20 years.

I think Tim Duncan is definitely better than Kevin Garnett. But, I think it's a lot closer than many people would admit. And, I think Kevin Garnett, without any comparison with Duncan, is still one of the greatest players to play the game in the history of the NBA.

[Reggie Miller]

A really well thought-out and well reasoned opinion. And, I would agree with much of it. Again, for the record, I think Tim Duncan is the better overall player, taking all factors into consideration.

I can make a few comments about developing full potential and skills. For some time, Kevin Garnett and the Timberwolves appeared to prepare KG to play more and more small forward. In fact, he played small forward for the majority of the 1998-99 season and 2001-02 seasons.

And, if you want to talk about developing skills, I would give the edge to Kevin Garnett over Tim Duncan in terms of perimeter skills, ball-handling, range of jumpshot, and perimeter defense. So, you can question his low post skills on offense, but he absolutely developed his skills in other areas.

And, most would agree that KG has the advantage in athleticism.

Now, if you want to talk about how Tim Duncan wins more and is better down the stretch of big games or has a better low post set of skills, I would agree with all of that. I am just taking into consideration EVERYTHING.

I don't think you can ignore the fact that Tim Duncan had David Robinson and Gregg Popovich and a front office that continually made smart personnel decisions while Kevin Garnett entered a six year old franchise with big men like Doug West and Christian Laettner and a GM that is most certainly one of the worst NBA GMs in the past 20 years.

I think Tim Duncan is definitely better than Kevin Garnett. But, I think it's a lot closer than many people would admit. And, I think Kevin Garnett, without any comparison with Duncan, is still one of the greatest players to play the game in the history of the NBA.

I will return your compliment; this too is a well-reasoned and presented argument.

I would add only one point. Garnett may have better perimeter skills, ball-handling, range of jumpshot, and perimeter defense. (Duncan is pretty good for his size also.) At any rate, we will assume that Garnett has much better "guard" skills (for lack of a better term). The problem is that Garnett is 6'11" and 250 lbs. A player of his size should be able to play with his back to the basket, in my mind.

Garnett has no business playing like a wing in today's NBA. I say this because the league is very short of talented big men at the moment, and Garnett's impact would be even greater. Traditionally, the talent disparity at PF/C is significant; currently, the gap is insurmountable.* (Consider who Duncan matched up against in the playoffs, for example.)

* This problem appears to be self-perpetuating in that even mediocre big men leave for the NBA early, thus guaranteeing future mediocrity.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

What happened to your grammar?



Not a lock by any stretch of the imagination.

mvp = ticket into hall of fame

[mavs>spurs2]

I'm not jumping in here to say anything about Garnett positive or negative, but are you serious?

Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, David Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Steve Kerr, that team shouldn't have won a title?????? Parker was more inconsistent back then, but he was still good enough to start for a title team. Duncan's one of the five best players of all time, but even he needs a good supporting cast. I'm sorry, but that supporting cast trumps Wally, Chauncey and Rasho. Billups has got to be the most overrated PG in the game, there's a reason he was on team number six when he got to Detroit. He's in the perfect situation there.

Duncan > Garnett, but he's also been surrounded by more talent than Garnett. I can't believe either item is still up for debate.

I wouldn't go that far, I can think of more than 5 off the top of my head, but he's up there in the top 10-15.

Jordan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic, Robertson, Shaq in his prime, etc

I will agree with you about Billups, I think hes barely better than your average starting pg at best. Nash, Kidd, Parker, Paul, Derron Williams, B Davis are all better than him IMO.

[JamStone]

I will return your compliment; this too is a well-reasoned and presented argument.

I would add only one point. Garnett may have better perimeter skills, ball-handling, range of jumpshot, and perimeter defense. (Duncan is pretty good for his size also.) At any rate, we will assume that Garnett has much better "guard" skills (for lack of a better term). The problem is that Garnett is 6'11" and 250 lbs. A player of his size should be able to play with his back to the basket, in my mind.

Garnett has no business playing like a wing in today's NBA. I say this because the league is very short of talented big men at the moment, and Garnett's impact would be even greater. Traditionally, the talent disparity at PF/C is significant; currently, the gap is insurmountable.* (Consider who Duncan matched up against in the playoffs, for example.)

* This problem appears to be self-perpetuating in that even mediocre big men leave for the NBA early, thus guaranteeing future mediocrity.


Of course, Garnett came into the league weighing closer to 210 pounds than 250 pounds. And, actually until a few summers ago, KG was playing at a weight closer to 225 than 250. Additionally, similar things could have been said of Larry Bird when he came into the league at 6-9 (closer to 6-10) and about 220 pounds, which was at the time the size and height of an average power forward. And, Bird will go down as one of the 2 or 3 best small forwards of all time, if not THE best.

And, Kevin Garnett came in at a time where perimeter skills for big men were en vogue. Charles Barkley, Derrick Coleman, Chris Webber were all stars in the league and had well rounded, developed skills for big men. Traditional big men like Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone weren't exactly having NBA Championship success.

And, despite not having traditional back-to-the-basket skills, Kevin Garnett was still putting up 20+ points rather efficiently.

I think Kevin Garnett has all the business in the world to play the wing. He has the athleticism, agility, and quickness to do so. So, why not? Against certain teams, it's a definite advantage where he can face-up slower big forwards and get past them going to the basket. And, you'll find very few players in the universe that can contest his fade-away jumper.

But, at any rate, sure I believe he should have worked on his low post moves more. But, as I mentioned above, it was only a few summers ago that he bulked up to 250-260. For most of his career, he was under 230 and didn't always have the overall strength to consistently back-down a defender and overpower them. That's why he played so much in the mid-post and developed that fade-away jumper in the mid-post and the baseline.

[Reggie Miller]

I don't think you can ignore the fact that Tim Duncan had David Robinson and Gregg Popovich and a front office that continually made smart personnel decisions while Kevin Garnett entered a six year old franchise with big men like Doug West and Christian Laettner and a GM that is most certainly one of the worst NBA GMs in the past 20 years.

I think Tim Duncan is definitely better than Kevin Garnett. But, I think it's a lot closer than many people would admit. And, I think Kevin Garnett, without any comparison with Duncan, is still one of the greatest players to play the game in the history of the NBA.

I forgot to address this last part.

McHale is probably the worst GM in the history of the NBA. Isiah Thomas may offer up some stiff competition, but he did inherit some of his problems from his predecessor. (He managed to destroy the CBA all by his lonesome, however.) I can't imagine anyone else trashing a franchise over Joe Smith. There is no question that KG should have been surrounded with better talent, or at least the Timberwolves were denied three opportunities to get better (not to mention some of the bizarre McHale trades).

The most interesting question to me about Garnett is how good would he be if he did play in the low post? Obviously, he is missing out on some easy points at the very least.

[SpursIndonesia]

Garnett's great, but TD's a legend. What does set them apart ? Timmy's ability to rally his teammates around him, he's not only make his teammates better (Garnett does that too, in a different style), but he has his teammates outmost respect and dedication to reach the common goal of winning championships.

From the quotes that i've heard from his teammates, all of them are just striving very hard to get their job done, mostly because they respects TD's personal hardwork and solid support upon them. There's no drama in the team regarding him and his teammates, and his unselfishness & humbleness really win his team heart.

[exstatic]

Now, if you want to talk about how Tim Duncan wins more and is better down the stretch of big games or has a better low post set of skills, I would agree with all of that.
That's the bottom line, though, isn't it? If you just care about quarters one thru three, then there wasn't much difference between Dominique and MJ. Dominique was more athletic, and some would argue, more entertaining. Jordan won the big games and the rings. There is a certain mental edge that some players have over others. MJ had it. Bird had it. TD has it. KG never has.

[JamStone]

That's the bottom line, though, isn't it? If you just care about quarters one thru three, then there wasn't much difference between Dominique and MJ. Dominique was more athletic, and some would argue, more entertaining. Jordan won the big games and the rings. There is a certain mental edge that some players have over others. MJ had it. Bird had it. TD has it. KG never has.


To varying degrees sure. Is Magic Johnson clearly better than Oscar Robertson because he has more titles? Bill Russell the better player than Wilt the Stilt? Is Isiah Thomas in his prime clearly a better player than Allen Iverson in his prime? Titles are absolutely a factor, but are they the only factor? As long as both have four, can neither Shaq or Tim Duncan be a better player than the other?

I stated that winning and titles are a consideration, but not the only consideration. I stand by that.

Kevin Garnett may or may not have ever been on a team good enough to win a title. But, we know for sure he's never been to the Finals to show if he would have elevated his game on the biggest stage.

So, again, if winning and only winning is the bottom line, Robert Horry could be considered better than Michael Jordan, Magic, Duncan, and Shaq, right? But, then the counter-argument is that Michael, Magic, Duncan, and Shaq were the best players on their respective teams and put up better individual stats, right? Well, then winning and only winning is not the bottom line ... right?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I wouldn't go that far, I can think of more than 5 off the top of my head, but he's up there in the top 10-15.

Jordan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic, Robertson, Shaq in his prime, etc

I will agree with you about Billups, I think hes barely better than your average starting pg at best. Nash, Kidd, Parker, Paul, Derron Williams, B Davis are all better than him IMO.


I think most people will agree once Duncan retires, that he has surpasses Larry Legend and Hakeem, if Duncan wins another championship and continues to play at a high level for another 4 to 5 years, most will probably give him a slight edge over shaq as well

[samikeyp]

Something I have said numerous times here but it bears repeating.

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

[41times]

i'm not going to say who is greater than who because they are both great in different ways. I do agree that KG is a better athlete and Timmy has a better Basketball IQ but they are both great.

But here is a thought. If switched KG for Duncan over the last 9 years how many rings would the Spurs have won? I would argue that KG would have 4 rings just like Timmy.

[duncan228]

Something I have said numerous times here but it bears repeating.

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

Keep repeating it.

It ends the arguement.

Duncan's game has never been about athleticism, although he could jump a little higher in his younger days.

Duncan's game is his brilliance, his basketball IQ. His way of seeing the floor and making the right play/decision.

Of course, his almost perfect fundamentals don't hurt.

Duncan has proven to be a winner with whatever cast of characters are around him. He leads this team by example and an incredible work ethic.

Garnett has game, anyone can see that.
I think coming straight out of high school, as someone said earlier, did hurt him. Duncan's 4 years at Wake helped him immensly.

But Garnett has never been able to get to that next level. We can debate why for years, and we have.

The bottom line is in the Trophy Case.

[Oh, Gee!!]

that about sums it up

[ambchang]

i'm not going to say who is greater than who because they are both great in different ways. I do agree that KG is a better athlete and Timmy has a better Basketball IQ but they are both great.

But here is a thought. If switched KG for Duncan over the last 9 years how many rings would the Spurs have won? I would argue that KG would have 4 rings just like Timmy.

I tend to disagree, and I will try to rationalize it.
The way the Spurs are built is with Duncan controlling the inside offense, with slashers (Parker, Ginobili), and three point shooters to compliment Duncan. On defense, perimeter defenders drive their man to the baseline, cutting out their options, and have Duncan over to help on defense.
While Garnett is arguably close to Duncan's level as a team defender, and possibly a better man-to-man defender, his inability to carry a team inside-out on offense will destroy the whole Spurs gameplan.
Without Duncan, there would be no driving lanes, without Duncan, there would be no wide open three pointers.
Duncan is vital to the Spurs success, and the only person during this time frame that could have given the Spurs similar success was possbly Shaq, but then Shaq's defense is nowhere close to Duncan's.

[spursfan09]

i'm not going to say who is greater than who because they are both great in different ways. I do agree that KG is a better athlete and Timmy has a better Basketball IQ but they are both great.

But here is a thought. If switched KG for Duncan over the last 9 years how many rings would the Spurs have won? I would argue that KG would have 4 rings just like Timmy.

Since when has KG ever showed he can be counted on like TD has? And don't even get me started on defense.

[spursjustice]

KG has a higher ceiling in terms of athletic ability... he has (or rather, had) the potential to be better than Duncan... so much better... but potential is fool's gold... Duncan has the fundamentals, smarts and quiet desire to win... and the biggest difference in my humble opinion, is the way he treats his teammates...

[exstatic]

To varying degrees sure. Is Magic Johnson clearly better than Oscar Robertson because he has more titles?
You'd have peeps on both sides of that and its not a good comparison with KG because Oscar DID get his ring.


Bill Russell the better player than Wilt the Stilt?
I would say Russell was a much better overall player than Wilt and again its not a good comparison with KG because Wilt DID get his ring.

Is Isiah Thomas in his prime clearly a better player than Allen Iverson in his prime?
Yes. There were two PGs that had a huge impact on the small man's game in the modern era, which I will arbitrarily define as 1980 to today: Isaiah for relentless use of the crossover dribble, and Tim Hardaway for doing the same on the move.


Titles are absolutely a factor, but are they the only factor? As long as both have four, can neither Shaq or Tim Duncan be a better player than the other?
I never said it was the only factor, but with two players, if you never saw them and only compared stats, it's a hell of an indicator of dominance.


Kevin Garnett may or may not have ever been on a team good enough to win a title. But, we know for sure he's never been to the Finals to show if he would have elevated his game on the biggest stage.
Y'see, I think that's huge. A lot of folks bag on Stockton, Malone, Ewing and Barkley for not having a ring, but at least they took their teams there, once for Barkley, and twice for the other 3.


So, again, if winning and only winning is the bottom line, Robert Horry could be considered better than Michael Jordan, Magic, Duncan, and Shaq, right? But, then the counter-argument is that Michael, Magic, Duncan, and Shaq were the best players on their respective teams and put up better individual stats, right? Well, then winning and only winning is not the bottom line ... right?
Please stick to the comparison of franchise players and leave your fallacious Horry and Steve Kerr arguments at the door. Winning or not winning a ring is a valid measuring stick for similar players who shared an era. In the case of TD vs KG, it's not like it's 1-0. Tim has four fucking rings, and Garnett got one brief whiff of NBA Finals panty odor before his nuts retracted into his abdominal cavity like they usually do when a game or series is on the line. He's a fucking choker who doesn't want the ball late.

[Mojazz]

We also have our own Filipino style conversation regarding this issue and it took 26 thread pages and running...

you can view it here, here's the link.
http://forum.philboxing.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=77247

[JamStone]

You'd have peeps on both sides of that and its not a good comparison with KG because Oscar DID get his ring.

So, if KG wins just one, that changes everything?



I would say Russell was a much better overall player than Wilt and again its not a good comparison with KG because Wilt DID get his ring.

Ok, fine, Billups better than Stockton? Tony Parker better than Jason Kidd? Cedric Maxwell better than Dominique Wilkins.





Yes. There were two PGs that had a huge impact on the small man's game in the modern era, which I will arbitrarily define as 1980 to today: Isaiah for relentless use of the crossover dribble, and Tim Hardaway for doing the same on the move.

Isiah Thomas was a hero and idol of mine growing up. But, he never won a league MVP. And, if you look at the team Iverson took to the Finals and compare the talent to the Detroit Pistons championship teams with Isiah, as well as looking at individual stats, one can easily make an argument that Iverson will go down as the better player.



I never said it was the only factor, but with two players, if you never saw them and only compared stats, it's a hell of an indicator of dominance.

No, but you did say "bottom line." I'm not making an argument on players I never saw. I'm talking about Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan. And, go back and read what I wrote. All I'm saying is that while championships and winning are factors, you simply cannot use that as the trump argument.



Y'see, I think that's huge. A lot of folks bag on Stockton, Malone, Ewing and Barkley for not having a ring, but at least they took their teams there, once for Barkley, and twice for the other 3.

Karl Malone's first NBA Finals was in his 12th season in the league. And, he had John Stockton. Has Kevin Garnett ever played with a player as good as Stockton? Remember his best chance at an NBA Finals appearance in 2004, Cassell couldn't play?



Please stick to the comparison of franchise players and leave your fallacious Horry and Steve Kerr arguments at the door. Winning or not winning a ring is a valid measuring stick for similar players who shared an era. In the case of TD vs KG, it's not like it's 1-0. Tim has four fucking rings, and Garnett got one brief whiff of NBA Finals panty odor before his nuts retracted into his abdominal cavity like they usually do when a game or series is on the line. He's a fucking choker who doesn't want the ball late.

But, again, back to your comment that the bottom line is winning and titles, right? Why is it only the bottom line for franchise players? That's one of my points to begin with. I don't just look at championships.

As for KG caving with the series on the line in 2004. In the two elimination games (games 5 and 6) of the 2004 Western Conference Finals, he averaged 26 points and 18 rebounds. And, in those games, the Wolves started Darrick Martin, Trenton Hassell, and either Olowokandi or Ervin Johnson. Come on. Cassell was out. Sprewell wasn't 100%. Their front court was KG, Ervin Johnson, Kandi, and Mark Madsen. Choke? Against Shaq, Kobe, Payton, and Karl Malone? How did they win two games in that series?

But, that's fine. KG hasn't won an NBA title, and he hasn't even been to an NBA Finals. You can use that as your deciding factor. I look at more than just winning titles.

[SequSpur]

Duncan 4 KG Minus 4.

Topic Closed.

[Holt's Cat]

How is this even a debate?

[TheAuthority]

How is this even a debate?

To anyone who knows NBA basketball, it isn't.

edit: I also want to say I'm a fan of Garnett. It isn't like I'm a Duncan fan that hates Garnett. Tim is just clearly the better player. I would think that is obvious to almost anyone.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Karl Malone's first NBA Finals was in his 12th season in the league. And, he had John Stockton. Has Kevin Garnett ever played with a player as good as Stockton? Remember his best chance at an NBA Finals appearance in 2004, Cassell couldn't play?

You can use that as your deciding factor. I look at more than just winning titles.

The thing with KG is that he had good PGS around him during his career, just that he pissed them after there couple of seasons with him...marbury/billups for example...Clearly there is something wrong here with KG if his willing to accept his team mates...now ppl are talkin about switching KG with TDs teams, and im sure a young TP/GINOBOLI/STEPH wouldve been traded already instead of sticking around waiting for them to pan out...

teams/rebuilding dont win championships overnight, it takes years, team chemistry, the right pieces to win one....KG seems like a guy who looks at short term goals instead of long term prospects...

And im sure KG is not about winning, its about him pulling in the money as much as he can then starts to worry about winning championships, thats the mind of todays atheletes...its all about the money...

[TDMVPDPOY]

We also have our own Filipino style conversation regarding this issue and it took 26 thread pages and running...

you can view it here, here's the link.
http://forum.philboxing.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=77247

man that thread is so in detail, that it makes KGfans exposed and see the green light

[Reggie Miller]

Since Mojazz is obviously too modest to toot his own horn, I will. Awesome post here:

http://forum.philboxing.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=77247


I have cut and pasted Mojazz's post as follows:


"I want that poster above to comment on these:

1. BY AWARDS AND TITLES, TD IS MORE ACCOMPLISHED

AWARDS / TD / KG
NBA titles 4 0
Finals MVP 3 0
Season MVP 2 1
All-Star Game MVP 1 1
All-NBA 1st Team 9 3
All-Defensive 1st Team 7 6
Rookie of the Year Yes No
Draft Pick 1st 5th

In addition, TD was a member of the All-NBA 2nd Team once and the All-Defensive 2nd Team thrice, which made him only player in NBA annals to be named to both All-NBA and All-Defensive teams in all of 10 seasons. He’s on track to surpass K. Malone’s record of 11 All-NBA 1st Team selections and Jordan’s 9 All-NBA 1st Team. KG was a 4-time rebounding leader though TD still has better career average in that department than KG.

2. BY STATISTICS, TD HAS SUPERIOR NUMBERS

TD’s career overall stats are slightly superior to KG. In fact, TD has consistently averaged 20ppg/10rpg+ in each of his 1st 8 seasons joining Shaq, Olajuwon, Jabbar, Wilt and Pettit as only players to accomplish the feat. The big disparity in their nos. though is the most important. TD is shooting a lot better than KG particularly in the playoffs with the latter’s horrendous .458FG. KG in fact isn’t only missing the shots but disappearing at endgames, worse he can’t make any good decisions on the court. Just for the record, KG only had a career-high 47 points in 2005 after almost a decade of playing, only his 3rd 40th game (Szczerbiak was even ahead of KG to score most points with 44), no wonder Amare ridiculed him during that game. TD’s career-high was 53 in 2001. Another difference in their game is on the defensive end. KG is overrated as a defensive player. Though he has more steals than TD, he isn’t an intimidating presence at the middle.

3. TD MAKES BIG-TIME PLAYS WHILE KG FLOPS

TD’s individual brilliance in the playoffs is to say the least magnificent. In series-clinching Game 6 of NBA Finals vs. the Nets, he had an insane near quadruple-double 21 pts., 20 rebs., 10 asts. and 8 blks. (a Finals record); against Nowitzki and the Mavs in 2003, a back-to-back 32-15 and 34-24 was just normal for him; against Shaq he would put up 37-16 in series-clinching Game 6 of West semis that would shed a tear on Kobe’s face. And KG’s best performance so far in the big stage? What about the 32-21 effort in Game 7 vs. the Kings in 2004 – and nothing else. He flopped again vs. LA (who got lucky with Fisher’s 0.4 secs. shot over the Spurs) in West finals with a 22-17 effort but with team-high 8 TOs.

4. IN HEAD-TO-HEAD, TD REIGNS SUPREME

TD and KG met twice in the playoffs, the former being 6-2 in playoff bouts with the latter. In Game 1 of 1999 Round 1, TD set the tone on the opening series when he scored 26 pts. and grabbed 12 rebs. Again, in Round 1 of 2001 playoffs, TD chipped in 33 pts., had 15 rebs., and a 15-foot bank shot over KG with 12.7 seconds left that all sealed the Spurs’ 87-82 win. Game 2 was even a laugher for the Spurs who were all smiles in the 2nd half in a lopsided win as TD held KG to 5 of 13 shooting in a celebrated mismatch of 2 PFs.

5. AS TEAMMATES, TD IS THE LEADER OF THE PACK

TD and KG both played in the 1999 Olympic qualifying tourney, and TD was the 2nd leading scorer (after Payton), leading rebounder and shot blocker of that US team. The duo was also a common fixture in the West teams during All-Star games. Again, TD is shooting more accurately than KG, and he averages a double-double in every outing (in fact he along Magic and Wilt are only players to put up a double-double in the All-Star games).

6. TD IS A PERENNIAL WINNER, KG IS A SORE LOSER

KG’s team missed the playoffs 4 times and had an NBA record 7 consecutive Round 1 exit. He was also swept twice in the post-season. TD’s team achieved the ff.:

 Spurs are 4-time NBA champs which ranked them No. 4 in the all-time list of championship teams (behind only the Lakers, Celts and Bulls) despite joining the league only in 1976
 Spurs are 4-0 in the NBA Finals series and 16-6 (.727) in Finals games which is the highest winning percentage in Finals history
 Spurs are 6-time Divisional winners and made the playoffs in all of 10 seasons, the longest current streak in the NBA today
 Spurs compiled an overall regular season record of 501-205 (.709), the best winning percentage in all 4 US major pro leagues (NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL) in the last 10 years
 Spurs currently recorded its 8th straight 50th win in 2006-07 season, the 4th longest streak in NBA history
 Spurs currently has the 2nd highest all-time regular season winning percentage among current NBA teams behind only the Lakers

7. TD MAKES TEAMMATES BETTER AND IS A PERFECT LEADER

Just for the record, TD is the only player other than Russell, to lead the same team to championships with 11 different teammates. Manu was only 57th pick in 1999 draft and Parker only 28th pick in 2001 draft. The 2 international players were rebuffed by other teams. In their rookie seasons, Parker only averaged 9.2 points on .42FG while Manu – 7.6 on .44FG. A year after teaming with TD, both improved to average a combined 26.3 ppg at .45FG clip. Another key player was Bowen, a perennial All-Defensive Team member. Playing in his 1st 7 seasons for 3 different teams, Bowen shot a dismal .36FG; at SA he bettered his shooting touch to .42FG and even led the NBA in 3-point accuracy in 2002-03. All these were attributed to TD because he creates wide-open shots for his teammates by attracting double teams or through screen/rolls, and his wide cover and nifty passes provide opportunities for easy penetration and jumpers.

The following composed the Wolves’ team which included former or future All-Stars Billups, Marbury, Cassell, Sprewell, Szczerbiak, Gugliotta, Brandon and Porter, and others like isiah Rider, spud webb, strickland, olowakandi, marc jackson, etc. You could tell from the ESPN commentators how KG handled his team and himself in the playoffs. Magic for one had criticized KG over the years for not taking over and dominate a game as like other great big men. The only good series KG had was in 2004 West finals vs. LA. Though KG averaged 23.66 pts. and 13.5 rebs. a game, he also led the team in turnovers with 3.67 while shooting a not so impressive .463FG.

8. TD HAS MORE POLISHED SKILLS THAN KG

a. Low-post (back-to-the-basket) = TD advantage
b. Low-post (face-up) = TD advantage
c. Medium range jumper = TD advantage
d. Interior defense = TD advantage
e. Help defense = TD advantage
f. Fade-aways, baby hooks, up-&-under, pivots, bank shots = TD advantage
g. Dribble penetration = TD advantage
h. Kick-outs (spotting open teammates) = TD advantage"

[mathbzh]

I believe Duncan > Garnett.
They have comparable talents but Duncan is the perfect teammate and a proven winner. Moreover Duncan uses his skills at full efficiency and not Garnett.

But I don't think the answer is so obvious than the question can't be asked. By some "measurements" KG looks better than TD. (re)Opening the debate just give us an occasion to really how great TD really is.

But Garnett is still a great player and to be honnest he only had one shot at winning a title and failed short against the Lakers after a strong series with something like 24 ppg 13 rbds and 5 asts. JamStone has given a lot of solid argument to prove that Garnett is not only a player stacking up statistics. Garnett is the third best bigs of his era behind Duncan and Shaq. Some people here could give a piece of respect for that.

Hopefuly we will have Spurs vs. Celtics in the Finals. Duncan will prove he is still the best and Garnett will prove he is a great player.

[mathbzh]

1. BY AWARDS AND TITLES, TD IS MORE ACCOMPLISHED

AWARDS / TD / KG
NBA titles 4 0
Finals MVP 3 0
Season MVP 2 1
All-Star Game MVP 1 1
All-NBA 1st Team 9 3
All-Defensive 1st Team 7 6
Rookie of the Year Yes No
Draft Pick 1st 5th

In addition, TD was a member of the All-NBA 2nd Team once and the All-Defensive 2nd Team thrice, which made him only player in NBA annals to be named to both All-NBA and All-Defensive teams in all of 10 seasons. He’s on track to surpass K. Malone’s record of 11 All-NBA 1st Team selections and Jordan’s 9 All-NBA 1st Team. KG was a 4-time rebounding leader though TD still has better career average in that department than KG.

Dirk = MVP
DPOY = Campy
Finals MVP = TP
...
These awards don't prove much
The worse is the draft position (should I say Kwame Brown?)




2. BY STATISTICS, TD HAS SUPERIOR NUMBERS

TD’s career overall stats are slightly superior to KG. In fact, TD has consistently averaged 20ppg/10rpg+ in each of his 1st 8 seasons joining Shaq, Olajuwon, Jabbar, Wilt and Pettit as only players to accomplish the feat. The big disparity in their nos. though is the most important. TD is shooting a lot better than KG particularly in the playoffs with the latter’s horrendous .458FG. KG in fact isn’t only missing the shots but disappearing at endgames, worse he can’t make any good decisions on the court. Just for the record, KG only had a career-high 47 points in 2005 after almost a decade of playing, only his 3rd 40th game (Szczerbiak was even ahead of KG to score most points with 44), no wonder Amare ridiculed him during that game. TD’s career-high was 53 in 2001. Another difference in their game is on the defensive end. KG is overrated as a defensive player. Though he has more steals than TD, he isn’t an intimidating presence at the middle.

The "intimidating" part is true but is not relevant in the stats comparison.
Actually TD and KG have very similar statistics. All you say is true but:
KG has
- more assists (4.5 vs. 3.2)
- 49% Fg against TD 50% but with 78% FT against 68%
- less turnover (2.57 vs 2.88) and less fouls (2.5 vs 2.70).

I think the stats can't give you the best of the two. Even in playoff you can't really see a big difference except for the FG% (I agree this one is important).





3. TD MAKES BIG-TIME PLAYS WHILE KG FLOPS

TD’s individual brilliance in the playoffs is to say the least magnificent. In series-clinching Game 6 of NBA Finals vs. the Nets, he had an insane near quadruple-double 21 pts., 20 rebs., 10 asts. and 8 blks. (a Finals record); against Nowitzki and the Mavs in 2003, a back-to-back 32-15 and 34-24 was just normal for him; against Shaq he would put up 37-16 in series-clinching Game 6 of West semis that would shed a tear on Kobe’s face. And KG’s best performance so far in the big stage? What about the 32-21 effort in Game 7 vs. the Kings in 2004 – and nothing else. He flopped again vs. LA (who got lucky with Fisher’s 0.4 secs. shot over the Spurs) in West finals with a 22-17 effort but with team-high 8 TOs.


Unfair take a look at Garnett number for the lakers series they were huge. And the TO thing is just funny.
7/4/6/7/2/7/2 these are Duncan's TO during the 2004 series against the Lakers.
And obviously someone forgot Garnett had 30 pts/19rbds/4ast and 0 TO in a 98-96 win during the game five.



4. IN HEAD-TO-HEAD, TD REIGNS SUPREME

TD and KG met twice in the playoffs, the former being 6-2 in playoff bouts with the latter. In Game 1 of 1999 Round 1, TD set the tone on the opening series when he scored 26 pts. and grabbed 12 rebs. Again, in Round 1 of 2001 playoffs, TD chipped in 33 pts., had 15 rebs., and a 15-foot bank shot over KG with 12.7 seconds left that all sealed the Spurs’ 87-82 win. Game 2 was even a laugher for the Spurs who were all smiles in the 2nd half in a lopsided win as TD held KG to 5 of 13 shooting in a celebrated mismatch of 2 PFs.

not much to say TD proved who is the boss



5. AS TEAMMATES, TD IS THE LEADER OF THE PACK

TD and KG both played in the 1999 Olympic qualifying tourney, and TD was the 2nd leading scorer (after Payton), leading rebounder and shot blocker of that US team. The duo was also a common fixture in the West teams during All-Star games. Again, TD is shooting more accurately than KG, and he averages a double-double in every outing (in fact he along Magic and Wilt are only players to put up a double-double in the All-Star games).


You should not talk about olympics if you plaid for TD greatness and all star game is a joke.




6. TD IS A PERENNIAL WINNER, KG IS A SORE LOSER

KG’s team missed the playoffs 4 times and had an NBA record 7 consecutive Round 1 exit. He was also swept twice in the post-season. TD’s team achieved the ff.:

 Spurs are 4-time NBA champs which ranked them No. 4 in the all-time list of championship teams (behind only the Lakers, Celts and Bulls) despite joining the league only in 1976
 Spurs are 4-0 in the NBA Finals series and 16-6 (.727) in Finals games which is the highest winning percentage in Finals history
 Spurs are 6-time Divisional winners and made the playoffs in all of 10 seasons, the longest current streak in the NBA today
 Spurs compiled an overall regular season record of 501-205 (.709), the best winning percentage in all 4 US major pro leagues (NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL) in the last 10 years
 Spurs currently recorded its 8th straight 50th win in 2006-07 season, the 4th longest streak in NBA history
 Spurs currently has the 2nd highest all-time regular season winning percentage among current NBA teams behind only the Lakers


Known facts




7. TD MAKES TEAMMATES BETTER AND IS A PERFECT LEADER

Just for the record, TD is the only player other than Russell, to lead the same team to championships with 11 different teammates. Manu was only 57th pick in 1999 draft and Parker only 28th pick in 2001 draft. The 2 international players were rebuffed by other teams. In their rookie seasons, Parker only averaged 9.2 points on .42FG while Manu – 7.6 on .44FG. A year after teaming with TD, both improved to average a combined 26.3 ppg at .45FG clip. Another key player was Bowen, a perennial All-Defensive Team member. Playing in his 1st 7 seasons for 3 different teams, Bowen shot a dismal .36FG; at SA he bettered his shooting touch to .42FG and even led the NBA in 3-point accuracy in 2002-03. All these were attributed to TD because he creates wide-open shots for his teammates by attracting double teams or through screen/rolls, and his wide cover and nifty passes provide opportunities for easy penetration and jumpers.


The following composed the Wolves’ team which included former or future All-Stars Billups, Marbury, Cassell, Sprewell, Szczerbiak, Gugliotta, Brandon and Porter, and others like isiah Rider, spud webb, strickland,



olowakandi,

...
:rollin




marc jackson, etc. You could tell from the ESPN commentators how KG handled his team and himself in the playoffs. Magic for one had criticized KG over the years for not taking over and dominate a game as like other great big men. The only good series KG had was in 2004 West finals vs. LA. Though KG averaged 23.66 pts. and 13.5 rebs. a game, he also led the team in turnovers with 3.67 while shooting a not so impressive .463FG.


Once again you go back to statistics



8. TD HAS MORE POLISHED SKILLS THAN KG

a. Low-post (back-to-the-basket) = TD advantage
b. Low-post (face-up) = TD advantage
c. Medium range jumper = TD advantage
d. Interior defense = TD advantage
e. Help defense = TD advantage
f. Fade-aways, baby hooks, up-&-under, pivots, bank shots = TD advantage
g. Dribble penetration = TD advantage
h. Kick-outs (spotting open teammates) = TD advantage"

So Garnett doesn't have the advantage in any skills???? not even something as stupid as FT shooting???


This comparison is completely biased
...

And Duncan is the best

[mathbzh]

I don't like people trying to bring KG down just to prove TD greatness.

KG is a beast but Duncan is the best... so Duncan is the greatest of all time.

To become a legend you need to have big competitors and KG is a big competitor.

[upTD]

Dirk = MVP
DPOY = Campy
Finals MVP = TP
...
These awards don't prove much


OK，How to prove KG to be great?

can you take something to prove KG?

[41times]

OK，How to prove KG to be great?

can you take something to prove KG?

In KG's defense on this one, they never give the MVP to a player who is not on one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league. So KG had no shot at it, even though his numbers were not that much less than Dirks.

And KG has the highest effeciancy rating in the NBA almost every year.

[upTD]

In KG's defense on this one, they never give the MVP to a player who is not on one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league. So KG had no shot at it, even though his numbers were not that much less than Dirks.

And KG has the highest effeciancy rating in the NBA almost every year.

KG 's numbers were not that much less than Dirks. but, less than Dirks

and KG 's team is not one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league.

so,

that is why he is not MVP.

[SpursIndonesia]

mathbzh, if only i can give you the reputation point, i would. Great post and points regarding the issue ! :)

[lebomb]

If switched KG for Duncan over the last 9 years how many rings would the Spurs have won? I would argue that KG would have 4 rings just like Timmy.


I completely disagree.....Tim makes his teammates better, KG does not. KG had at one point in his carrier arguably as good of teammates as Tim has......KG could not get it done. Not even CLOSE.

Tim D. >>>>>>> KG

[duncan228]

Just curious, how many times a year do we have this debate?

It never goes away.

[41times]

I completely disagree.....Tim makes his teammates better, KG does not. KG had at one point in his carrier arguably as good of teammates as Tim has......KG could not get it done. Not even CLOSE.



Well i think it is a 2 way street. I agree Tim makes his teammates better but you can not sit there and say that Parker, Ginob, Bowen, Robinson (for 1 title) did not make Timmy better. They absolutely did.

KG's effeciency is tops in the league and i still contend that the Spurs would have 3 or 4 rings if KG had played in place of Duncan the last 10 years. For all i know you might have beaten the Lakers during their 3 year run with him???

and for all who say it ain't so just how many rings would you have today if they had been switched?????

[ChumpDumper]

and for all who say it ain't so just how many rings would you have today if they had been switched?????One probably, maybe two. David Robinson would have been our inside scorer -- then nobody.

[Reggie Miller]

One probably, maybe two. David Robinson would have been our inside scorer -- then nobody.

Word.

I still don't think people are grasping the significance of a PF who refuses to play inside. (Well, people outside of Dallas anyway...)

[lebomb]

Well i think it is a 2 way street. I agree Tim makes his teammates better but you can not sit there and say that Parker, Ginob, Bowen, Robinson (for 1 title) did not make Timmy better. They absolutely did.

KG's effeciency is tops in the league and i still contend that the Spurs would have 3 or 4 rings if KG had played in place of Duncan the last 10 years. For all i know you might have beaten the Lakers during their 3 year run with him???

and for all who say it ain't so just how many rings would you have today if they had been switched?????


Look.....this is the team the Timberwolves had in 2003 when they could not get past the lakers.....whom the Spurs beat and won their 2nd title.

Ervin Johnson
Sam Cassell
Latrell Sprewell
Garnett
Wally Szerbiak
Troy Hudson
Rasho...........just to name a few players.

If Garnett was the man......how come he couldnt nut up and will his team to a title that year?

[lebomb]

The 2003 teams.....this is how I stacked them up

Sam Cassell > Tony (Sam was a vet, Tony still young)
Latrell Sprewell > Manu at the time
Garnet = Tim ( I will give this a wash, even tho TD is better to me)
Rasho = David (David was on his last legs, even tho Rasho is meh)
Wally = Bowen (Wally better off., Bowen D.)

Basically these teams were VERY, VERY even and yet the Spurs won the title and the wolves lost to the Lakeshow.


:rolleyes

[JamStone]

Look.....this is the team the Timberwolves had in 2003 when they could not get past the lakers.....whom the Spurs beat and won their 2nd title.

Ervin Johnson
Sam Cassell
Latrell Sprewell
Garnett
Wally Szerbiak
Troy Hudson
Rasho...........just to name a few players.

If Garnett was the man......how come he couldnt nut up and will his team to a title that year?


Uhhhhh neither Sprewell nor Cassell were on the Timberwolves team in 2002-03.

[lebomb]

Uhhhhh neither Sprewell nor Cassell were on the Timberwolves team in 2002-03.


OK.....whatever......2003-2004 When the Lakers won it all. Garnett STILL could not get them over the top.

The Spurs did in 2003 and 2005.

Im sorry, I think Garnett is like Dirk......a regular season guy.

[41times]

Look.....this is the team the Timberwolves had in 2003 when they could not get past the lakers.....whom the Spurs beat and won their 2nd title.

Ervin Johnson
Sam Cassell
Latrell Sprewell
Garnett
Wally Szerbiak
Troy Hudson
Rasho...........just to name a few players.

If Garnett was the man......how come he couldnt nut up and will his team to a title that year?

Because the T-Wolves line-up (minus KG) was not nearly as good as the Spurs line-up (minus Timmy) that's why.

Surely you are not suggesting that the T-Wolves line-up above is/was as good as the Spurs are you? Puhleez

Robinson
Parker
Ginob
Horry
Bowen
Jackson
Rose

[Brutalis]

It's not biased to say compared to team achievements and personal heights KG is not in the same list of players as Duncan as far as legendary status is concerned.

Most people that say different are juvenile NBA fans or uneducated ones at that. And the rest just that stupid and arrogant.

From an NBA historical standpoint Duncan is among Russel, Wilt, Hakeem, Jordan, Bird, Magic and Shaq status. With close followers such as Isiah Thomas and Kareem.

But from a streetball 1on1 matchup they could have traded beatings throughout both their careers.

The difference being a personal thing. Everyone says Duncan is a winner Duncan is a winner, but what it means is under pressure, in any big game, against star team or player, him and the Spurs will step it up. It's not the same with KG even we he had his chances to perform in the playoffs. Barkley can be crying the same thing just about. Malone. No longer are any of these players considered better, or more historically 'made' than Tim Duncan. After this summer, and now possibly more to the list, he could even stretch his status now that it's progressed.

Simply put, this thread should be about Duncan vs Hakeem or Duncan vs Russel. KG? Uh, first floor.

[JamStone]

The thing with KG is that he had good PGS around him during his career, just that he pissed them after there couple of seasons with him...marbury/billups for example...Clearly there is something wrong here with KG if his willing to accept his team mates...now ppl are talkin about switching KG with TDs teams, and im sure a young TP/GINOBOLI/STEPH wouldve been traded already instead of sticking around waiting for them to pan out...

Complete B.S. Stephon Marbury was a great talent, but he was still a 19-20 year old point guard who didn't know how to manage a game or run a team. And, it was Marbury who demanded a trade because he was unable to play second fiddle to KG. Look at Marbury's career and tell me his attitude while at Minnesota was a product of KG not being bale to "accept his teammtes." Yeah ok. :rolleyes Chauncey Billups, when he played with Garnett, was still a journeyman point guard who only got playing time because Terrell Brandon was a walking hospital. And, Billups didn't stay because Saunders and McHale told him that Terrell Brandon was still the starting point guard in the summer of 2002. Kevin Garnett never had an established leader at point guard like Avery Johnson until Sam Cassell, and the one year he played with Sam Cassell, he made it to the conference finals where he lost, in part because Sam Cassell was injured for those playoffs. The problem with some Spurs fans is that as much as they will claim they see Kevin Garnett's talents as a basketball player, they will find a way to rip him any way they can. Yes, he has his shortcomings. But, when it comes down to winning games and championships, that's something that must be placed not only on the superstar of a team, but his teammates, his coaches, and the front office that builds the team.



teams/rebuilding dont win championships overnight, it takes years, team chemistry, the right pieces to win one....KG seems like a guy who looks at short term goals instead of long term prospects...

Newsflash: Kevin Garnett is not and never was the GM of the Minnesota Timberwolves. At the end of the day, he did not have final say on personnel decisions, even if he had an influence. If someone offered you $120 million to play basketball, are you going to say no??? When you're a 23 year old kid? Yeah, right, all Kevin Garnett's fault. He even restructured his deal when the CBA allowed that so the Wolves could make better moves. He wasn't the one who offered Joe Smith an under-the-table, wink-wink deal that ended up costing the franchise three first round draft picks in five years. That is ridiculous to point to a 22-25 year old Kevin Garnett and blame him for the personnel decisions and not looking at long term prospects of a team he merely plays on. He wasn't playing for RC Buford and Gregg Popovich. He was playing for Kevin McHale. The same guy that traded Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric and for good measure gave the Clippers a first round draft pick too. The same guy that had Marko Jaric, Troy Hudson on long term deals, drafted Randy Foye and then gave Mike James the full MLE all in the same summer. Need four point guards???? The same guy that drafted three 6-foot-3 combo guards one draft after the other, McCants, Bracey Wright, Randy Foye. The same guy who finally had success with Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell and decides to trade one and not work out a deal with the other. And, it's Kevin Garnett's fault he didn't look at long term prospects for the Timberwolves? That's a joke of a comment.




And im sure KG is not about winning, its about him pulling in the money as much as he can then starts to worry about winning championships, thats the mind of todays atheletes...its all about the money...

All you're sure about is jack squat. That much is proven by your post. KG wants to win as much as any player in the league. And, the only thing that ever was a constraint on that desire to win was his loyalty to the city of Minneapolis and the Timberwolves franchise. People make so much about the greed of a modern day pro athlete, well, KG shows loyalty and he's still criticized for it. should he have been like Charles Barkley or Allen Iverson or Vince Carter or Kobe Bryant and either demand a trade or fake injury or pout until the team does something or cause a media circus? No, he still went out there in the last two losing seasons and put up MVP type numbers despite not having any help on his team. He showed loyalty to the organization and the city by not demanding a trade. But, when it was all but apparent that a trade was the best thing for both parties, he finally agreed.

Just because a player doesn't win championships, it doesn't mean he doesn't have the desire to win championships. That's a ridiculous statement. It's a team game. It generally more often times than not requires a great team to win championships. Kevin Garnett never had a great team. He had some good teams. But, he was never on a great team.

I don't believe for a minute that Kevin Garnett is NOT about winning championships. I don't believe for a minute he's only concerned about money.

But believe what you want.

[JamStone]

OK.....whatever......2003-2004 When the Lakers won it all. Garnett STILL could not get them over the top.

The Spurs did in 2003 and 2005.

Im sorry, I think Garnett is like Dirk......a regular season guy.



Uhhhhh keep typing misinformation.

The Lakers did not win it all in 2003-04. The Pistons beat the Lakers in 2003-04 in the NBA Finals.

And, the Timberwolves had a great season that year because Sprewell and Cassell really made them a very good team. Cassell was injured for the playoffs in 2003-04.

Oh, and the Spurs lost to that same Lakers team in the 2003-04 playoffs.

[lebomb]

Because the T-Wolves line-up (minus KG) was not nearly as good as the Spurs line-up (minus Timmy) that's why.

Surely you are not suggesting that the T-Wolves line-up above is/was as good as the Spurs are you? Puhleez

Robinson
Parker
Ginob
Horry
Bowen
Jackson
Rose


Yes I do......parker sucked back then.....we had speedy claxton playing all the minutes. manu didnt even produce much in 2003. He avg. like 6-7pts a game. Robinson was a mere shell of himself. Sjax had just come into his own a bit. The Wolves lineup with Cassell, Sprewell, Szerbiak and Garnett was every bit as good as a young Parker, Ginobilli and Timmy. You are thinking of these guys NOW, but in 2003 they were newbies basically.

[Brutalis]

Yes I do......parker sucked back then.....we had speedy claxton playing all the minutes. manu didnt even produce much in 2003.

Yeah we won the title and Parker and Manu didn't do shit in the 03 run huh...

:rolleyes

[lebomb]

Uhhhhh keep typing misinformation.

The Lakers did not win it all in 2003-04. The Pistons beat the Lakers in 2003-04 in the NBA Finals.

And, the Timberwolves had a great season that year because Sprewell and Cassell really made them a very good team. Cassell was injured for the playoffs in 2003-04.

Oh, and the Spurs lost to that same Lakers team in the 2003-04 playoffs.


My bad......Im confused on the carry over on the years.....doesnt matter really. Point is.....when the Wolves had that great team that dominated the division......they chocked it away. Something a Tim D. team has yet to do. Garnett didnt step it up, sorry.........just the facts and the amount of rings the Wolves have prove it. :music

[lebomb]

Yeah we won the title and Parker and Manu didn't do shit in the 03 run huh...

:rolleyes

Parker and Manu in 2003 were SHELLS of what they are now.....I was there in person of at least 1 to 2 playoff series in 99, 03, 05, and 07. Parker got his ass chewed by everyone in the 2003 playoffs and Manu got limited minutes compared to now.

You know.......this is just dumb.......

Tim D > Garnett period. Late

[JamStone]

Manu, Bruce Bowen, and Stephen Jackson > Wally, Anthony Peeler, and Kendall Gill
50% David Robinson, Malik Rose still (17 pt/12 rbd) > Marc Jackson, Rasho Nesterovic (15 pt/10.5 rbd)

I guess I'll give the slight edge at point guard to the Wolves in 2003:

Troy Hudson, 10 mpg Rod Strickland slightly > young Tony Parker, Speedy Claxton, Steve Kerr

But, it's only debatable.

[JamStone]

My bad......Im confused on the carry over on the years.....doesnt matter really. Point is.....when the Wolves had that great team that dominated the division......they chocked it away. Something a Tim D. team has yet to do. Garnett didnt step it up, sorry.........just the facts and the amount of rings the Wolves have prove it. :music


More and more B.S.

The one year the Wolves were great was 2003-04. And, much of that success was bringing Cassell and Sprewell to the team. Cassell was injured for the playoffs. The back-up point guard was Darrick Martin.

Please stop.

And, in the two elimination games against the Lakers in the 2004 Conference Finals, KG averaged 26 points and 18 rebounds.

[lebomb]

More and more B.S.

The one year the Wolves were great was 2003-04. And, much of that success was bringing Cassell and Sprewell to the team. Cassell was injured for the playoffs. The back-up point guard was Darrick Martin.

Please stop.

And, in the two elimination games against the Lakers in the 2004 Conference Finals, KG averaged 26 points and 18 rebounds.


Yo....whatever. I just looked at the 2003 playoffs for the Spurs......manu avg. about 7pts a game......Tony disappeared down the stretch.....several games of only 3-7pts. So stop with the excuses, Tim D. had a young Stephen Jackson and an old David Robinson and still got it done. Tim Carried the team and still willed them to a title.

You obviously have your own opinion.....you think Garnett is the man, I think Tim D. is.

What will be the excuse if Boston doesnt win it all and Garnett misses another title??? Garnett has lots of help now. Pierce and Allen??? We will see.

[JamStone]

It's not biased to say compared to team achievements and personal heights KG is not in the same list of players as Duncan as far as legendary status is concerned.

Most people that say different are juvenile NBA fans or uneducated ones at that. And the rest just that stupid and arrogant.

From an NBA historical standpoint Duncan is among Russel, Wilt, Hakeem, Jordan, Bird, Magic and Shaq status. With close followers such as Isiah Thomas and Kareem.

But from a streetball 1on1 matchup they could have traded beatings throughout both their careers.

The difference being a personal thing. Everyone says Duncan is a winner Duncan is a winner, but what it means is under pressure, in any big game, against star team or player, him and the Spurs will step it up. It's not the same with KG even we he had his chances to perform in the playoffs. Barkley can be crying the same thing just about. Malone. No longer are any of these players considered better, or more historically 'made' than Tim Duncan. After this summer, and now possibly more to the list, he could even stretch his status now that it's progressed.

Simply put, this thread should be about Duncan vs Hakeem or Duncan vs Russel. KG? Uh, first floor.


KG hasn't had as many opportunities in huge playoff games, especially past the first round because his teams were not good enough to be in those positions. His one true chance was in the 2004 conference finals against the Lakers without Sam Cassell.

Duncan has come up very big many times in huge games deep in a playoff run.

What about game 5 of the 2005 NBA Finals when Duncan missed about 5,834,605 free throws but was bailed out by late game heroics by Robert Horry? What about the countless times over the last few playoffs where it was Manu Ginobili with the ball in his hands in the closing possession because he was the most reliable free throw shooter? What about Tony Parker being the difference in winning a title last season?

You see, Tim Duncan is great. He's a legend. If he retired today, he'd go down as the best power forward ever to have played in the game. I don't think many people are arguing against that.

For me, it's about tearing down Kevin Garnett. No, KG is not at the same level as Tim Duncan from a historical standpoint of winning titles. But, talent-wise, there is every argument to be made that KG is on par with Duncan. And, many of my arguments in this thread speak on how success as an individual player as it pertains also to team success and championship success must be shared with teammates, coaches, and the front office, whether it is for the glory of that championship success or the blame for the lack of such success.

No one can deny Tim Duncan's greatness as a championship and as an individual talent.

But, too much blame is placed squarely on Kevin Garnett's shoulders for the lack of success he's had in the pursuit of playoff glory and NBA titles.

[mavs>spurs2]

The 2003 teams.....this is how I stacked them up

Sam Cassell > Tony (Sam was a vet, Tony still young)
Latrell Sprewell > Manu at the time
Garnet = Tim ( I will give this a wash, even tho TD is better to me)
Rasho = David (David was on his last legs, even tho Rasho is meh)
Wally = Bowen (Wally better off., Bowen D.)

Basically these teams were VERY, VERY even and yet the Spurs won the title and the wolves lost to the Lakeshow.


:rolleyes

You got it all wrong, it goes more like this

Sam Cassel = Tony Parker ( even though tony was young, cassell was injured)
Sprewell> Manu at the time
Garnett = Tim
Rasho < David (even at that age he was a better defender, shot blocker, rebounder, and inside scorer)
Wally< Bowen (wally sucks)

03 might have been the weakest spur team of the past 8-9 years but they were still better than Garnett's supporting cast. Not to mention Spurs bench > Wolves bench even though that isn't saying much.

[JamStone]

Yo....whatever. I just looked at the 2003 playoffs for the Spurs......manu avg. about 7pts a game......Tony disappeared down the stretch.....several games of only 3-7pts. So stop with the excuses, Tim D. had a young Stephen Jackson and an old David Robinson and still got it done. Tim Carried the team and still willed them to a title.

And, Stephen Jackson averaged 13 ppg and Malik Rose averaged 9 ppg in the 2003 playoffs. What's your point? Manu wasn't a featured player in 2003. But, he made a difference. Rather Manu off the bench than an old Kendall Gill or Anthony Peeler. Rather Tony Parker than Darrick Martin.

I agree that the 2003 Spurs team was not that great and Tim Duncan carried that team farther than it probably had a right going. That's why Tim Duncan is great.

I have not once said that Tim Duncan is not great. I have not once infered, implied, or explicitly stated that Kevin Garnett is better than Tim Duncan. You get things twisted.




You obviously have your own opinion.....you think Garnett is the man, I think Tim D. is.

As I just stated, I think Tim Duncan is great, a legend. Today, he is the best power forward ever to play in the NBA. I'm just not about tearing down KG and his situation in order to prop Tim Duncan higher than he already is.



What will be the excuse if Boston doesnt win it all and Garnett misses another title??? Garnett has lots of help now. Pierce and Allen??? We will see.

There's no excuse to be made. I don't know if he'll win a title this year, but I absolutely see him making at least a trip or two to the NBA Finals in the next 3-4 years with the star help he now has. This year might be too soon since they now have little depth and it's their first year together. But, if the three stars stay healthy and he doesn't at least make it to the NBA Finals in the next 3-4 years, then it's a problem.

[lebomb]

KG hasn't had as many opportunities in huge playoff games, especially past the first round because his teams were not good enough to be in those positions. His one true chance was in the 2004 conference finals against the Lakers without Sam Cassell.

Duncan has come up very big many times in huge games deep in a playoff run.

What about game 5 of the 2005 NBA Finals when Duncan missed about 5,834,605 free throws but was bailed out by late game heroics by Robert Horry? What about the countless times over the last few playoffs where it was Manu Ginobili with the ball in his hands in the closing possession because he was the most reliable free throw shooter? What about Tony Parker being the difference in winning a title last season?

You see, Tim Duncan is great. He's a legend. If he retired today, he'd go down as the best power forward ever to have played in the game. I don't think many people are arguing against that.

For me, it's about tearing down Kevin Garnett. No, KG is not at the same level as Tim Duncan from a historical standpoint of winning titles. But, talent-wise, there is every argument to be made that KG is on par with Duncan. And, many of my arguments in this thread speak on how success as an individual player as it pertains also to team success and championship success must be shared with teammates, coaches, and the front office, whether it is for the glory of that championship success or the blame for the lack of such success.

No one can deny Tim Duncan's greatness as a championship and as an individual talent.

But, too much blame is placed squarely on Kevin Garnett's shoulders for the lack of success he's had in the pursuit of playoff glory and NBA titles.


Its not like the Wolves didnt try to place talent around Garnett......nothing happened with it. Like you said......you had Marbury and Billups (whom won with Detroit)......I dont know........I just dont think Garnett is as basketball smart as Timmy D. Tim does the right thing at the right time (especially in the playoffs) .....this is where Ive always seen Garnetts weakness and him faultering. Just because he avg. 26pts and 18 boards doesnt mean he made good decisions during the game. Maybe he didnt share the ball enough??? Tims numbers are alot lower than other many times, because he sees the court and gets people the ball......did/does Garnett do that???

[lebomb]

You got it all wrong, it goes more like this

Sam Cassel = Tony Parker ( even though tony was young, cassell was injured)
Sprewell> Manu at the time
Garnett = Tim
Rasho < David (even at that age he was a better defender, shot blocker, rebounder, and inside scorer)
Wally< Bowen (wally sucks)

03 might have been the weakest spur team of the past 8-9 years but they were still better than Garnett's supporting cast. Not to mention Spurs bench > Wolves bench even though that isn't saying much.


Even with your changes.......it still adds up to a pretty even matchup IMHO.

[lebomb]

You guys have a good one......nice debate.

[Reggie Miller]

KG wants to win as much as any player in the league. And, the only thing that ever was a constraint on that desire to win was his loyalty to the city of Minneapolis and the Timberwolves franchise. People make so much about the greed of a modern day pro athlete, well, KG shows loyalty and he's still criticized for it...

Just because a player doesn't win championships, it doesn't mean he doesn't have the desire to win championships. That's a ridiculous statement. It's a team game...

I don't believe for a minute that Kevin Garnett is NOT about winning championships. I don't believe for a minute he's only concerned about money...


In the final analysis, I think virtually every player in the NBA wants to win more than anything. Sure, there are exceptions, just like in any advocation. I know we can all name several players (perhaps even dozens of players) that did not have the desire to win or work ethic to make it in the league. However, these guys are the exceptions.

Even the guys that are more or less coasting on natural talent or size had to work pretty hard at some point to make it. (I'm not sure when, or for how long, but they put some time in on the court at some point.)

What I do believe is that the vast majority of these guys do not understand what it takes to win at the professional level. This is compounded by the fact that most NBA players are used to winning and dominating. They are used to being the big fishes in small ponds. When they are cast into the ocean (NBA), it's truly a sink or swim situation, with little or no real support or instruction from the crummier organizations.

Another problem is the power and sense of entitlement that many players have today. No one is forcing them to go beyond their comfort zone. No one close to them is questioning their commitment to winning (and the people who do criticize are often dismissed as "losers" for voicing this opinion on the internet, talk radio, etc.). It is much easier to get rid of an entire front office than to overhaul a roster, and everyone knows it.

I guess the best analogy is the old saying, "Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but no one wants to die." Every player in the NBA wants to win (sure beats the hell out of losing, right?), but few have the commitment and structure to realize their true potential. To me, KG is in this last category. How much of the blame he needs to shoulder personally is something we will never know. I do know that no one is ever completely innocent in these matters, becuase ultimately, every player in the league is responsible for his actions or inaction.

All that said, I have never thought of Garnett as a "bad" guy, just a guy who would win more games if he played his position properly.

[JamStone]

Its not like the Wolves didnt try to place talent around Garnett......nothing happened with it. Like you said......you had Marbury and Billups (whom won with Detroit)......I dont know........I just dont think Garnett is as basketball smart as Timmy D. Tim does the right thing at the right time (especially in the playoffs) .....this is where Ive always seen Garnetts weakness and him faultering. Just because he avg. 26pts and 18 boards doesnt mean he made good decisions during the game. Maybe he didnt share the ball enough??? Tims numbers are alot lower than other many times, because he sees the court and gets people the ball......did/does Garnett do that???


Marbury was a 19-20 year old egomaniac. You can't even begin to compare him as a similar talent to what Tim Duncan had in David Robinson. Robinson was an established superstar who was also humble enough to let Tim Duncan be the star of the team. Starbury wanted to be the star of a team. Billups was the back-up point guard for the Wolves when he played with KG. And, he was treated like the back-up as well. It's a complete joke to even start to compare Marbury and Billups when he played with Minnesota with the likes of David Robinson, and even guys like Avery Johnson and Sean Elliot, who were established veterans who understood what it took to win and were willing to be team players. Marbury was an egomaniac who wanted to be the best player on the planet. Billups was a journey man point guard who played for five teams in five seasons and was fighting for his next contract. How can you even begin to say that is putting the type of talent around KG that would be condusive to championship success?

As for sharing the ball enough, check assists totals. If anything, KG has been criticizing for sharing the ball too much. And, I'd say it's a lot easier to share the ball when you trust your teammates as opposed to not knowing if your teammates are going to come through. Duncan has always been on teams where the team dynamics had a lot of trust. That's one of the great things about how Popovich coaches. Same can't be said for how Flip Saunders coaches those Timberwolves teams in the early 2000s. And, right there again is an example of an independent factor helped Tim Duncan be as great as he's been, coaching.

[Spurminator]

What it boils down to for me is that Kevin Garnett has missed the Playoffs three straight years, and it hasn't been close. I can't fathom Tim Duncan EVER missing the Playoffs, much less missing 3 years in a row.

Something to keep in mind when comparing Duncan's supporting casts to KG's is that it's not a simple discussion of who had the better cast. We're talking about teams that WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP vs. a team that (most of the time) didn't make it past Round One. So even if Duncan's supporting cast was better, was it that much better?

Talentwise, I believe they are about equal. I think Duncan's talents are more relevant for his position, but they both are capable from a strictly talent standpoint of leading a Championship team. Where KG is lacking is his ability to inspire teammates. Players love playing with Duncan. Players take pay cuts to join or stay with the Spurs, and a big part of that is Duncan.

Players pay lip service to Garnett, but there are clear problems with his leadership. Not every instance was his fault, but there has been a pattern.

- Marbury left to get out of KG's shadow
- Wally never got along with KG
- Spreewell was unwilling to return to the Wolves unless they gave him an insane amount of money
- He punched a rookie in practice
- Randy Wittman publically questioned KG's leadership this past season.

This, IMO, is the biggest difference between Duncan and KG.

The rings vs. no rings argument is often a weak one, but here it's not just a matter of 4 vs. none. It's 4 vs. not even CLOSE. In my Spurs homer mind, this argument was settled in 2003... and it's only gotten more conclusive since then.

I know it's a long shot but I'm kind of hoping Boston misses the Playoffs this year. I think that would be a pretty definitive answer for everyone.

[lebomb]

..........came back for one quick read........and one final comment. Remember basically all the Spurs championship teams have been completely different......not close to the same cast of stars.....except for the main 3 for the last 3 ships. The Spurs have won with placing totally new individuals around Tim for the last 10yrs. That says one hell of alot about coaching....but a one helluva, helluva lot about Tim D. :king

[Reggie Miller]

I know it's a long shot but I'm kind of hoping Boston misses the Playoffs this year. I think that would be a pretty definitive answer for everyone.

Even then, you would have people saying, "Sure he has Pierce and Allen, but who else? Their team has no depth..."

People who like a player will always make excuses. I finally wised up when I realized that two of my favorite players (Miller and Barkley) never won a title because they were not team leaders defensively. Hell, Barkely even admits it.

[JamStone]

What it boils down to for me is that Kevin Garnett has missed the Playoffs three straight years, and it hasn't been close. I can't fathom Tim Duncan EVER missing the Playoffs, much less missing 3 years in a row.

I can't imagine Kevin Garnett ever missing the playoffs playing for RC Buford or Gregg Popovich.



Something to keep in mind when comparing Duncan's supporting casts to KG's is that it's not a simple discussion of who had the better cast. We're talking about teams that WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP vs. a team that (most of the time) didn't make it past Round One. So even if Duncan's supporting cast was better, was it that much better?

It's a fair point. But, I could contend that the overwhelming majority of those Timberwolves teams that lost in the first round were simply not better than the teams that beat them. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, only once in those 7 first round exits did the Timberwolves have a better record than their opponent. Only once in those 7 first round playoff losses did they have homecourt advantage. Those teams really were not very good compared to the other Western Conference elite until the 2002-03 season. And, even then it was against the three-time defending Champion LA Lakers who took the regular season easy after three straight titles. Not really much of an advantage winning one more regular season game than those Lakers that year.

Did Tim Duncan elevate the play of his teammates? Absolutely. KG really couldn't do the same, but perhaps his teammates were just really not that good.



Talentwise, I believe they are about equal. I think Duncan's talents are more relevant for his position, but they both are capable from a strictly talent standpoint of leading a Championship team. Where KG is lacking is his ability to inspire teammates. Players love playing with Duncan. Players take pay cuts to join or stay with the Spurs, and a big part of that is Duncan.

Like you said, "part" of it is Duncan. I think much of it is the organization itself and how prudent and smart they've proven to be with personnel decisions. Weigh that just as much, because at the end of the day, who a player plays "for" might be as much of a factor as who a player plays "with." Take Duncan and KG out of the equation, and you get to play with a team that's coached by Gregg Popovich and run by RC Buford or a team that is coached by Flip Saunders/Duane Casey and run by Kevin McHale. No Duncan and no KG on either team. Which team do you choose?




Players pay lip service to Garnett, but there are clear problems with his leadership. Not every instance was his fault, but there has been a pattern.

- Marbury left to get out of KG's shadow
- Wally never got along with KG
- Spreewell was unwilling to return to the Wolves unless they gave him an insane amount of money
- He punched a rookie in practice
- Randy Wittman publically questioned KG's leadership this past season.

This could be true, but I think it's more conjecture than anything. Marbury hasn't exactly proven to be a team player either. Wally hasn't proven to be a winner without KG. Sprewell's idiocy has nothing to do with KG. And, Ricky Rickert wasn't a rookie. He was training camp fodder who wasn't going to make the team anyway. Randy Wittman can criticize KG all he wants. When head coaches are on a sinking ship, they will say a lot of things. Popovich has before questioned many of the Spurs players' toughness and desire, including Duncan. Mostly in a ploy to motivate those players. Thing is, you tend to forget those criticisms because the Spurs win.




This, IMO, is the biggest difference between Duncan and KG.

The rings vs. no rings argument is often a weak one, but here it's not just a matter of 4 vs. none. It's 4 vs. not even CLOSE. In my Spurs homer mind, this argument was settled in 2003... and it's only gotten more conclusive since then.

Got no problem with that. In fact, I've said several times that I'm not arguing against the notion that Duncan is better. He certainly is. I argue at the notion of tearing down KG in the process. KG isn't as great as Duncan. But, then again, what other power forwards have been? The other great power forwards like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley don't touch Duncan either, and they were considered the top 2 or 3 PFs in the history of the game for a while before Duncan. My whole point is that KG is not that far off, especially if you consider only talent. Moreover, I still contend that much of Tim Duncan's success that separates him from another great player like KG is the situation he found himself in with the Spurs organization, teammates like David Robinson and Avery Johnson and then Manu and Tony, and the Spurs' front office. Now, I'm not saying if you switch KG with Tim, that KG wins four titles and Tim wins zero. But, if you did in fact switch them and their franchises, I certainly don't think it would still be the same, Tim 4 and KG 0.



I know it's a long shot but I'm kind of hoping Boston misses the Playoffs this year. I think that would be a pretty definitive answer for everyone.

I'm obviously a KG fan. But, I hope the opposite. Not necessarily this year, but in the next 3 years, I hope KG wins a title to prove that it was more Kevin McHale's fault than anything. The only problem with KG now is that he still plays for a moron in Danny Ainge.

[Spurminator]

I can't imagine Kevin Garnett ever missing the playoffs playing for RC Buford or Gregg Popovich.

Maybe not... But I really can't even imagine Kevin McHale assembling a team that Tim Duncan couldn't lead to the Playoffs. I know that's just conjecture, but I really think you'd have to have the worst of the worst... and not just bad talent, but destructive.


I'm obviously a KG fan. But, I hope the opposite. Not necessarily this year, but in the next 3 years, I hope KG wins a title to prove that it was more Kevin McHale's fault than anything. The only problem with KG now is that he still plays for a moron in Danny Ainge.

Yeah another part of me thinks it would be great theater for KG and Duncan to meet in the Finals. So if the argument has to be settled that way, I'm all for that too. :)

[Darrin]

Both players are Hall-of-Fame bound. Both players are among my favorite to watch. Their flavors are different and let's be thankful for that. If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd take Duncan. The truth is I look forward to seeing Kevin Garnett 14 times next year (before the postseason).

[Kamnik]

My topic going 5 pages....

Something must be wrong.... :lol

Offseason sucks if you are a Spur fan. :wakeup

[ambchang]

From reading these threads, I am assured that Parker and Ginobili both hit the ground running coming into the league, that they were the All-Stars they were back in 2002 and 2003, better than Terrell Brandon, Szcerbiak, Cassell and Sprewell in their respective primes, that Robinson was his MVP self all the way up till he retired, that Horry saved Duncan's butt in all 4 championships, that the Spurs FO is so great that Duncan should be honoured to play for the Spurs. That lucky bastard, if anything, Duncan should pay the Spurs $18 million to play with them.

[JamStone]

You don't read very well.

[upTD]

You don't read very well.

all in all, KG < TD.

[Findog]

Is this thing still going on?

Two points:

1) Garnett has not had as good of a situation as Duncan. Duncan's had better coaches, better supporting players, a better GM, etc.

2) Straight up, Duncan is still better than KG. If you trade them straight up for each other in 1998, the Spurs are still an elite team, probably would've won a title, but they wouldn't have four titles. The T-Wolves wouldn't be a dynasty, or even have a title at all probably, but they would've made it out of the first round more than once, and they wouldn't have missed the playoffs three years running.

[team-work]

Hi, Spurs fans! I haven't posted for a while, but I'm constantly reading the posts.

This topic has aroused my interest for a long time. I think so many good points have already been mentioned & need not be repeated. Duncan is my long-time favorite player but I also like KG (a of my few favorite non-Spurs player).

May I shift the discussion from "who's the better player" to "who's the rarer player to find?" I think talented players like KG, Kobe, Lebron James are difficult to find, but people like Duncan, who's so dedicated to winning, enjoys working with teammates, so good at basketball fundamentals, are even rarer.

[TDMVPDPOY]

ppl like to play the blame game td had good management etc...

thats just like saying jordan benifited playin under phil and etc...replace him with clyde and he would win also....

thats just a lame excuse that could be use for everyone....

[mathbzh]

ppl like to play the blame game td had good management etc...

thats just like saying jordan benifited playin under phil and etc...replace him with clyde and he would win also....

thats just a lame excuse that could be use for everyone....

Even before winning a title Jordan proved he was the best 28 pts / 6 rbds / 6 ast shooting 51% in his rookie season is just enough to understand this.

But the question is interresting. How great would you judge Jordan if is carreer had broken (for an injury or anything else) in 1990 before he had the teammates to win a title?

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Even before winning a title Jordan proved he was the best 28 pts / 6 rbds / 6 ast shooting 51% in his rookie season is just enough to understand this.

But the question is interresting. How great would you judge Jordan if is carreer had broken (for an injury or anything else) in 1990 before he had the teammates to win a title?

In my opinion, whether he won 6 nba titles or 0, zilch, nada - his place in nba history would still be the same. Let's face it, there's never ever been anyone that could do the things he did. He was just so extraordinary and exciting to watch. Everybody would love to watch him just to see what he would do next. I run out of superlatives just trying to describe him.

I like Mike!

[41times]

so now that KG has some real talent surrounding him in Boston (or at least 2 other guys with talent) how far will Boston go? I predict to the Finals and lose to the West.

[ambchang]

so now that KG has some real talent surrounding him in Boston (or at least 2 other guys with talent) how far will Boston go? I predict to the Finals and lose to the West.
That team is poorly constructed, with no point and inside scoring. It perhaps would come out of the East, but I am putting my $ on the Bulls, especially if they can acquire a decent inside scorer. Then it's Cavs, Heat and Pistons. Boston is probably #5 in my book.

[exstatic]

But the question is interresting. How great would you judge Jordan if is carreer had broken (for an injury or anything else) in 1990 before he had the teammates to win a title?
Dominique's peer and equal. 'Nique put up some pretty damn good numbers himself, and was probably a flashier player. Most of you peeps aren't old enough to remember Jordan described as a choker and loser who couldn't win the big game. If he exits at the point in time named above, that would have been his legacy.