Garnett....

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

They should just make a KG v. Dirk episode on Deadliest Warrior.

That could finally settle this.

KG slays Dirk with a knife then kills himself when he goes to thump his chest while still holding the weapon.

[endrity]

How about this for another simple, basic argument:

DAF says Garnett is more of a leader than Dirk. Now, despite the fact that Garnett turned into a complete , I am not going to say that Garnett isn't someone other players might follow.

But what about this: If the Mavs win 50 this season, very likely at the moment, it will be their 10th straight season with at least 50 wins. This puts them in a very rare company. But more importantly, the only player to have been here for all this period is Dirk. In fact this current team is the third cast of players that the Mavs have used to build around Dirk. And all these teams always have won 50. Now, I don't know how you people define leadership, but the most relevant definition would be of a player who leads his team to victories. Well, empirically speaking, is there anyone who has a better argument than Dirk? To lead three different group of player to consistent contention is pretty "leader-ish" to me.

[JamStone]

This has gotten pretty interesting. I'll put two cents in really quick about the 2008 Celtics. KG's value in leadership and defense can't be understated. Those two things he brought positively impacted that team more than any tangible statistics could prove. It's hard to compare intangibles. Dirk would have brought more scoring and a solid all around game. Would it have made a similar impact? It's hard to tell. KG is exactly what that team needed to be successful, not just from a skills point of view, but leadership, defense, approach, and mentality. As great as Dirk is, he's not a vocal or emotional leader. I don't know if he would have inspired the whole team to play at that level especially defensively the way KG did.

I would posit this as well, I think with Dirk, they have no problem beating Detroit or Cleveland and probably still beat that Lakers squad that wasn't quite on the same page yet. But, funny enough, with Dirk replacing KG, I'm not convinced they beat the Atlanta Hawks in the first round. Joe Johnson was the hero in those Hawks wins, but Josh Smith was coming of age. His athleticism and aggressiveness was everything KG could handle and more. The three games the Hawks won, Josh Smith played balls out. And KG scored well in that first round series. So it wasn't that he wasn't bringing it offensively. Could Dirk contain Josh Smith enough? I don't know.

[monosylab1k]

Swap Gasol with Dirk for the 09 Lakers and they sweep the Rockets....

Swap Gasol with Dirk and the Lakers beat the Celtics in 08. When Dirk and KG go head to head, historically Dirk has made KG his .

[mogrovejo]

He and Pierce were the co-mvps of that team in the regular season, but ask any Celtics fan who was more instrumental in the playoffs and they'll say Pierce. They couldn't have won a le without either one of those guys, but Pierce was their best player in the playoffs. Again, it just goes to show why Garnett is a 1.5 and not a 1: he can't carry a team offensively in crunch time like Pierce. And Pierce is a 1.5 and not a 1 because for years he sloughed off the responsibility of being a #1 guy and a leader. For all of Garnett's faults as a and somebody who you can't run your offense through in the last five minutes of a game, he is somebody that inspires his teammates with his work ethic and gets everybody to fall in line behind his example.

Maybe if it a Celtics fan who didn't see the playoff games?

Garnett was the most important player in the Celtics during the regular season and the playoffs and it wasn't that close.

[mogrovejo]

The problem with the Dirk=KG argument is that Garnett is/was a superior player in pretty much everything except, at times, scoring.

Only the brainwashed WC fans who overrate scoring could make this kind of argument.

In terms of non-scoring contributions, Garnett was on a completely different planet when compared to Dirk - way better defender, rebounder, passer.

[mogrovejo]

Walker/Garnett were the vocal leaders due to his peculiar personality, but Pierce was the leader of every Celtics team since O'Brien arrival, including the championship one.

People overrate this kind of stuff anyway. Lots of guys can/would be leaders. The reason people consider them bad leaders is 99% related with the quality of the teammates around them (good enough to win les or not).

[Findog]

The problem with the Dirk=KG argument is that Garnett is/was a superior player in pretty much everything except, at times, scoring.

Only the brainwashed WC fans who overrate scoring could make this kind of argument.

In terms of non-scoring contributions, Garnett was on a completely different planet when compared to Dirk - way better defender, rebounder, passer.

Dirk - 23, 9 and 3 for his career on .509% eFG.

KG - 20, 11 and 4 for his career on .502% eFG.

Playoffs:

Dirk - 26, 11 and 3 in 97 career playoff games. Finals Runner Up as a #1 guy.

KG - 22, 12 and 4 in 73 career playoff games. Conference Finals appearance as a #1 guy. Championship as a #2 guy.

So in the playoffs Garnett got you 1 more rebound and 1 more assist. Yeah, he's on a completely different planet when it comes to passing and rebounding. And he was such a better passer and rebounder that he's played in 24 fewer playoff games.

Garnett was the much better defender, and a marginally better passer and rebounder, Dirk was the far better and more efficient scorer. In his prime he worked himself into an adequate defender as opposed to the sieve that he was in the Nelson days. A direct comparison is hard because Dirk has had good but not great supporting casts in Dallas but never had anything like Pierce and Allen in Boston, whereas KG was surrounded by complete dreck in Minnesota save for one year.

All I know is this - Dirk came within inches of a le in 2006 with Josh Howard and Jason Terry as his main sidekicks, which was in the middle of his prime. I'd argue that he was playing better this season than he was in 2006 until Carl Landry tried to eat his elbow. KG was in his prime in 2004 and finally had a good supporting cast -- I think we can agree that Sprewell and Cassell and the role players they had is comparable to Howard/Terry and the 2006 Mavs role players. Minnesota got to the Conference Finals where they never really threatened the Lakers. The Mavs at least beat a championship-caliber team in the Spurs. They also stayed at the elite level whereas Minnesota fell apart with that exact same cast and failed to make the playoffs the next year.

The closest I can come to a direct comparison is KG's 2004 season to Dirk's 2006 season. They're both 1.5 players. You can make an argument that Garnett has had a better career because he has a le as a #2 guy and Dirk doesn't, and he's won more defensive player of the year awards, but in their prime, with the same caliber of a supporting cast, you can't tell me KG was a decisively better player than Dirk.

[Findog]

Maybe if it a Celtics fan who didn't see the playoff games?

Garnett was the most important player in the Celtics during the regular season and the playoffs and it wasn't that close.

Regular season - KG.

Playoffs, and especially the Finals - Pierce.

[JamStone]

KG was probably the Celtics best player in the first three rounds of the 2008 playoffs. He wasn't the closer, but he was their best player for each series before the Finals. With the exception of a couple games (like game 7 against Cleveland), KG was the reason they got to the NBA Finals.

Paul Pierce was the best player on the 2008 Celtics in the NBA Finals, not before then.

[mogrovejo]

Regular season - KG.

Playoffs, and especially the Finals - Pierce.

You're nuts. KG was the best player in every series till the finals. In the first 2 ones he was leap and bound above Pierce.

[mogrovejo]

Dirk - 23, 9 and 3 for his career on .509% eFG.

KG - 20, 11 and 4 for his career on .502% eFG.

Playoffs:

Dirk - 26, 11 and 3 in 97 career playoff games. Finals Runner Up as a #1 guy.

KG - 22, 12 and 4 in 73 career playoff games. Conference Finals appearance as a #1 guy. Championship as a #2 guy.

Check the rates. Raw numbers are for children.

In his prime, Garnett was the best rebounder in the league. He lead the league in DR% for four years in a row.

Dirk max rebounding rate was never above 15%. Garnett is in his 12th season with a reb. rate above 15%. He got seasons of 20%.

This is the difference between one of the best rebounders in the league and an average/slightly bellow average rebounder.

If you call this a marginally better rebounder you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.


Garnett's assist rate is above Chris Webber

All I know is this - Dirk came within inches of a le in 2006 with Josh Howard and Jason Terry as his main sidekicks, which was in the middle of his prime. I'd argue that he was playing better this season than he was in 2006 until Carl Landry tried to eat his elbow. KG was in his prime in 2004 and finally had a good supporting cast -- I think we can agree that Sprewell and Cassell and the role players they had is comparable to Howard/Terry and the 2006 Mavs role players. Minnesota got to the Conference Finals where they never really threatened the Lakers. The Mavs at least beat a championship-caliber team in the Spurs. They also stayed at the elite level whereas Minnesota fell apart with that exact same cast and failed to make the playoffs the next year.

Dude, are you nuts? When have you started actually watching games? I mean, you're aware Cassell got injured in the playoffs, right? ANd that Sprewell was a 33 years old in the downside of his career? Ant that the supporting cast was absolutely horrible? I mean, Garnett had to play the point guard position in some games...

[mogrovejo]

Garnett was the best scorer in crunch time for the Celtics during the 07/08 playoffs.

You guys simply didn't watch the games and pretend you did - that's my only explanation.

You watched the finals when Pierce and Allen came up big (as they should, being guarded by the pathetic Lakers wing defenders).

[mogrovejo]

I'm not sure what to say of someone who thinks Garnett was a marginally better rebounder than Dirk. We're comparing arguably the best rebounder of his generation to a guy who's hardly average for his position.

Just shows how clueless/biased some people are.

I forgot the passing. Assists per 100 possessions:

Garnett: 20.3%
Chris Webber: 20.2%
Dirk Nowitzki: 13%

I mean, what are we comparing? DIrk is a very good passer for a big man, but Garnett is one of the bests ever in the history of the league.

Garnett, like guys like Bogut today (obviously on a different level), is wildly underrated due to the quality of his team. Ginobili is in a similar situation. He's been a top-15 player in the NBA for most of his career, top-10 player in some years. If he was in a different ballclub this would be pretty consensual.

[JamStone]

In his prime, KG was the second best rebounder after Ben Wallace.

[TheMACHINE]

LOL at George Hill clearly fouling Garnett in that play.

anyways.. garnett.

[Findog]

Dude, are you nuts? When have you started actually watching games? I mean, you're aware Cassell got injured in the playoffs, right? ANd that Sprewell was a 33 years old in the downside of his career? Ant that the supporting cast was absolutely horrible? I mean, Garnett had to play the point guard position in some games...

Yeah Sprewell was terrible that year. He played in all 82 games and averaged 20, 5 and 4 with 2 steals on .481 eFG% in the playoffs. He was TERRIBLE. And you're telling me I didn't watch the T-Wolves play in the 2004 playoffs? I know how good Garnett was in Game 7 against the Kings. As for Cassell, do you honestly believe that they would've beaten the Lakers if he hadn't gotten hurt in the second game? And you're honestly telling me that a core of Sprewell, Cassell, Szerbiak is not comparable to Terry, Howard and Harris?

I'm not sure what to say of someone who thinks Garnett was a marginally better rebounder than Dirk. We're comparing arguably the best rebounder of his generation to a guy who's hardly average for his position.

Garnett in his prime was a better rebounder, but he wasn't "on another plane" or whatever you want to call it. And I'm pretty sure there were more available rebounds to grab since the T-Wolves and their opponents didn't shoot as well as the Don Nelson Mavericks and their opponents. Style of play and pace plays a factor in that. And yeah, Garnett is a slightly better passer, but it's not a surprise he has a higher assist rate when Dirk's job is to score for his team in crunch time (better and more efficient scorer) whereas Webber and Garnett's job is to get scared and pass out of double teams.

[in2deep]

Dirk's shooting >>> Garnetts
Garnett's D >>>>>>> Dirk's
Garnett's Rebounding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk's

[Findog]

In his prime, KG was the second best rebounder after Ben Wallace.

I agree KG was a better rebounder, but don't you think there are more available rebounds to grab in a Pistons or T-Wolves game circa 2003 than say a Mavs game at the same time? I'm not saying Dirk was as good as KG when it came to rebounding, but he was averaged 11 a game in the playoffs when the games slow down and field-goal percentages drop. If we can't penalize KG for being on crummy Minnesota teams, then we can't penalize Dirk for playing on a run-n-gun team earlier in his career when there were fewer available rebounds to grab since neither team played much D.

If we're talking about who was a better player in their prime and a better #1 option, Dirk has a history of raising his game in the playoffs (one of only 6 guys to average a 25/11) more than Garnett does (who has also been unfairly tagged at times as a choker.)

[Findog]

Dirk's shooting >>> Garnetts
Garnett's D >>>>>>> Dirk's
Garnett's Rebounding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk's

I would put it this way:

Dirk's scoring and efficiency in doing so >> Garnett.
Garnett's defense >>> Dirk.
Garnett's passing > Dirk (somewhat misleading stat since their roles in an offense are much different - you want Dirk shooting the ball in crunch time operating out of the high post, whereas you want KG setting up near the baseline and looking for cutters) Question is, what is more effective in winning you a game? Dirk's scoring or KG's ability to deliver a nice pass to a cutter?
Garnett's rebouding >> Dirk (difference narrows in the playoffs)

[Findog]

Bottom line: Dirk and KG were both Top Five players in their prime, but they each had something holding them back from being able to ascend to that 1.0 level of Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron and Wade: Dirk's defense was never better than average and Garnett is not somebody who could take over a game in crunch time with his scoring. They're both 1.5's in my opinion.

[Cane]

Both are great players and you can't really go wrong either way.

I'm going to have to go with Dirk though. KG seems like too much to handle off the court especially a younger KG that was basically looking to start fights when things went ty which happened often being a T-wolf. I wonder how Mark Cuban and the Mavs coaches would've handled KG's antics.

[picc84]

KG is still looking to start fights often. And against the same people as back then.

(pale, under 6'6)

[Findog]

KG is still looking to start fights often. And against the same people as back then.

(pale, under 6'6)

KG plays the same way whether it's Game 7 in May or the second night of a b2b against Indiana in January. That's good and bad. Better all-around player than Dirk,and defense is more important than offense. But in his prime, was he better than Dirk? Was 2003-2004 KG better than 2006-2007 Dirk? I think it's a coin flip.

I'll put it this way: If KG is your big man, with five minutes left in the game, the opposing team will have shot 38% from the floor, but who is going to step up and carry the team offensively down the stretch? With Dirk, the Mavs status as contenders or pretenders has always hinged on if they had a competent defensive big to pair with him (not so in the Nelson years, whereas Damp has filled that role since).

It's extremely valuable to be able to man the paint defensively the way KG could, but it's also extremely important to have a #1 offensive option who can create in crunch time. Ultimately both guys are only as good as their supporting casts.

[mogrovejo]

Garnett in his prime was a better rebounder, but he wasn't "on another plane" or whatever you want to call it. And I'm pretty sure there were more available rebounds to grab since the T-Wolves and their opponents didn't shoot as well as the Don Nelson Mavericks and their opponents. Style of play and pace plays a factor in that.

You're just too basketball literate - and not humble enough to admit you're wrong and learn something - to discuss with. That's precisely why one uses rebounding rates - because style of play and pace are factored.

It's not even comparable rebounding wise. One of the bests in an era is not comparable to a bellow average rebounder. Slightly? Marginally? You're crazy.

And honestly, you're still insisting in the "slightly better passer"? It's pathetic.

Again, people who think that scoring > everything else just belong to a peculiar age of the history of basketball. This forum, populated with lots of people who still commit that mistake, is probably one of the last examples of those times. To Dirk's advantage in scoring one can call marginal - a little more points due to higher usage rate, smaller FG%.