Reply With Quote
Go spurs go!
maybe someone ought to show duncan's first playoff game. thin as a stick but made williams earn his nickname 'hot rod'.
Go spurs go!
Let me ask you something, do you think Hakeem olajuwon was a great low post player simply because he had some lower body strength advantage? Or Gasol for that matter?
You're doing great so keep it up. Since I don't either speak or write another lanauge I'm envious.
I understand what you're saying and to a certain extent will grant you credit but in the NBA almost every team that has won a le has had a dominant/legit 5. Without one you just don't get one. Small ball/jump shooting teams wont ever win a ring. And just look at the last ten years to see that point - TD and Shaq both have 4 rings and the other two years the Lakers had Bynum and Gasol while the Celtics had both Perkins and Powe. Even the Bulls with MJ had a 5 to help out. KG and Boston win with the help of Perkins and Powe. Without a 5 helping out there are very little 2nd chance points due to the lack of offensive rebounds.
I'll always believed that if you are that tall then you have to learn how to play down low. If that means that you bulk up beyond what you think you want to is not a relevant point. You're 7' so get your ass down low. In the case of KG he didn't want to do that and therefore needed better role players along with a couple of superstars to get a ring. There is nothing wrong with being a 7' player shooting Js and playing away from the rim. But considering the history of this game at the championship level you need to have a legit 5 clogging the paint and getting rebounds in order for that 7' to be able to play that way. Otherwise you may and probably do play well but ultimately will not win it all.
Look at the Mavs in recent years. They have one of the best 7' jump shooters to ever play the game but went after Dmpier and this year Hayward in order to compliment Dirk. I believe that the Mavs releazied that they were never going to compete against the elite teams until they got themselves a legit 5.
Of course not. In that case, Mark Eaton or Chuck Hayes would have been great low post scorers.
Sure, as long as you consider Perkins, Ben Wallace and all those bums who played with Jordan dominant 5s.
I understand the point about the rebounds and it takes physical and mental toughness to rebound the ball but rebounding-wise Garnett was as good or better than Duncan for most of his career.
And this is where you need to study Jermaine O'Neal's career.I'll always believed that if you are that tall then you have to learn how to play down low. If that means that you bulk up beyond what you think you want to is not a relevant point.
Alright, so I'm done with the Duncan/KG debate but I'm unable to leave well-enough alone at the moment . . .
How would one's ability to defensive rebound (which does require a certain amount of physicality, effort and willingness to mix it up) have anything to do with mental-toughness; there've been plenty of mentally weak/passive offensive players that could defend and/or rebound.
Actually, that's completely speculative. To say O'Neal's injuries solely came about from a change and play and not from minutes and the amount he was the focal point, that's purely speculative; some people happen to just be injury-prone or don't take care of themselves properly. Or would you dispute that?
What does being a dominant banger have to do with not taking your ass to the box in crunch time? Honestly; where did you get this notion people expected him to be Shaq?
Look at it like an evolutionary chart: Shaq - Duncan - Garnett
No one's asking them to be one-and-the-same; there's no excuse for the guy to float at 18' when the game's on the line.
Well I had a long-winded comparison of them in their primes, but it got erased so I'll just leave you guys with this:
During their prime years (2001-2007) Tim and KG met once in the playoffs, 2001.
Tim outplayed Kevin in all but one game (the game Minny won) and the Spurs won the series fairly easily 3-1.
btw here's who the Spurs were sporting in their starting lineup:
Terry Porter (over the hill)
Derek Anderson (WAY overrated)
Danny Ferry ()
Tim Duncan
David Robinson (aging and often-injured, still great on D)
I'll give the rest later, but the idea that Tim had an amazing supporting cast for his whole career is complete horse . From 2005 and on, yes, his supporting cast was fantastic, at least on the perimeter.
I think the debate should be KG and Dirk.
That would be a closer debate.
Neither belongs in the same debate with Duncan.
I always thought the only debate with Duncan would be post-90s Shaq.
Though Duncan is a PF, he and Shaq went head to head a lot in crunch time and collected 8 rings in, what, 10 years?
Garnett was a very good offensive rebounder as well. You say it requires physicality and willingness to mix it up and then you say doesn't have anything to do with mental-toughness?How would one's ability to defensive rebound (which does require a certain amount of physicality, effort and willingness to mix it up) have anything to do with mental-toughness; t
Is your point about the fable that Garnett disappears in crunch time?
Long story short: O'Neal was perfectly healthy. Then the Pacers decided they want him to be more of a banger. He added a lot of weight to his frame. After that, injuries started piling one. Later one, the Pacers brass admitted it was a mistake to add so much weight to O'Neal's frame and O'Neil regretted going for it.Actually, that's completely speculative. To say O'Neal's injuries solely came about from a change and play and not from minutes and the amount he was the focal point, that's purely speculative; some people happen to just be injury-prone or don't take care of themselves properly. Or would you dispute that?
What's exactly speculative about it? I don't have the time now, but I can write a few posts about this issue later on, maybe in the off-season. Saying "I'll always believed that if you are that tall then you have to learn how to play down low. If that means that you bulk up beyond what you think you want to is not a relevant point" is an extremely dangerous mentality that fortunately doesn't exist any more, at least at the NBA level.
So you agree that duncan > kg, but dont agree with how people make the argument? thats fair, but you didn't say clearly that you agree duncan > kg, making your position look unreasonable.
The problem here is that a lot of Spurs fans are being unreasonable..
Duncan at his peak being better than KG at his peak is perfectly reasonable, but saying there's no argument or it's not close is simply wrong IMO..at their peaks, they were close..
Career-wise, the argument isn't close, but that could be due to cir stances more than anything..
Very good offensive rebounder? Meh. Re-read what I originally said: What does defensive rebounding (what he was exceptional at) translate to mental toughness on the offensive end?
It wasn't a fable that you'd find him floating on the perimeter for the majority of his time in Minnesota or making unnecessary extra passes come crunch time; I witnessed it.
I didn't follow O'Neal as closely as Garnett, given the TD-KG connections and him being a division foe, so maybe you're right. Maybe; it's still speculative on you and the Pacers part.O'Neal was perfectly healthy. Than the Pacers decided they want him to be more of a banger. He added a lot of weight to his frame. After that, injuries started piling one. Later one, the Pacers brass admitted it was a mistake to add so much weight to O'Neal's frame and O'Neil regretted going for it.
What's exactly speculative about it? I don't have the time now, but I can write a few posts about this issue later on, maybe in the off-season.
Being correct and rationalizing are two different things. (But I would be interested in a writeup at some point.)
You're addressing the wrong person with that one . . .Saying "I'll always believed that if you are that tall then you have to learn how to play down low. If that means that you bulk up beyond what you think you want to is not a relevant point" is an extremely dangerous mentality that fortunately doesn't exist any more, at least at the NBA level.
I generally don't see much of a point in discussing >>> and <<<, let alone emotional over-the-top rants.
I disagree with you, I think my position is more than reasonable. If I could have picked a player at the start of their careers, I'd have picked Duncan, because he's a more dominant scorer + easier to build around being a prototypical center. The way the game is evolving, maybe I'd pick Garnett if it was now, I don't know. I think the Spurs wouldn't have wont he 2003 le with Garnett replacing Duncan; the Celtics would have a smaller chance of winning in 2008 but they probably could still win it and that they're different players.
I'm more interested in discussing basketball stuff - like the reason why Garnett isn't a low post player and if turning him into one would have been a good decision, for example.
Were they close at one point? I'd have no problem with that. But KG's never had the type of impact on the game Tim's had because of the nature of their games and, IMO, the mental makeup.
I contend that if you give them the same supporting cast, as equally a calibrated team one could assemble around them, Duncan's team would be more successful. For on-court reasons (in that it's easier to build and succeed with a team with his skill set) and off-court reasons (as his consistency, personality-wise and professionally-speaking are more beneficial to those who surround him).
Adjusting for the shot-location of their own shots, Duncan and Garnett were similar offensive rebounders. In their primes, Garnett's OR% would be about 8-9ish, Duncan's about 9-10ish.
Anyway, I thought your point was that Garnett was mentally soft and would shy away from physical contact; after all it's about his crunch time scoring.
You witnessed that like lots of NBA fans witnessed Kobe being hyper-clutch and Billups being Mr. Big Shot. I think a well-known website will publish an article about this particular issue during the Summer (a statistically based article), I'll come back to this thread then.
Lies, damn lies and statistics; I trust my own eyes.
But I was serious about the O'Neal writeup. I would like to see it.
The supposedly great supporting casts Duncan was blessed with were only as great as Duncan made them. Manu and Parker have obviously grown into All Star caliber players but they weren't even close yet in 2003. We'll never know, but it's difficult to conceive of any 1999-2008 Duncan-led team ever missing the Playoffs.
Garnett has had a good career but he's not a top tier HOFer. He was a Championship-level 2nd-in-command stuck being 1st in command on mediocre teams that he wasn't good enough to make better. He could've been Scottie Pippen if he'd had a Michael Jordan.
Garnett and Kobe? That's a dynasty. Garnett and any AS caliber player that was not as good as him? Contender at best. Garnett and role players? First round fodder at best, Lottery team at worst. He's got a lot of bark, but he's no alpha dog.
Last edited by Spurminator; 04-18-2010 at 05:15 PM.
One check mark for Duncan>KG is clutch. Now im not a big 82 games fan or PER but my "eye" test tells me Duncan was more reliable late ...not that KG was a choker but not as clutch as Tim.
I don't think Garnett would've been better off bulking up. He doesn't have the frame for it, his skill set does not require bulk, it would've slowed him down and possibly, shortened his career.
I am not a Garnett fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he's getting short changed as a post player. He got a jumper his man has to respect, a quick first step and a good variety of footwork and spin moves with his back to the basket. He has obviously deteriorated somewhat, but has the BBIQ to make up for it.
Where he is deficient compared to Duncan, besides the obvious physical differences, is the in between post game. When Duncan is backing down and spins, he has a variety of shot releases that he can employ. Whereas Garnett has either the jumper or getting right to the rim, Duncan has the hook, floater, up and under, finger roll and can use the glass. Garnett is capable of using these shots, but is much less effective as Duncan.
The biggest problem with Garnett is his at ude. He is a hothead and a fake tough guy and I think it effects his game, teammates and his impact on the game.
Early in his career, Garnett used to get in Duncan's face and try to get physical with him to mess with his head. Duncan would never react outwardly. He would just take KG into the post and whip his ass.
Head to head Duncan owns KG. That is why there is no debate.
The fact that are so many Spurs fans that believe Garnett wasn't the best player in the Celtics 08 team that won the le is all the evidence necessary their view of Garnett is more emotional and related to his rivalry with Duncan than proper basketball analysis.
Never said anything of the kind. He was, absolutely, the best player on the '08 Celtics. You don't really seem to be comprehending what is being said.
I disagree Garnett is a hothead. He may act like one, but hotheads play out of control and do stupid things that hurt their team. That's not the case with Garnett. He's smart and generally under control. I'm not even sure of what is a fake tough guy.
I think his emotion (or his emotional antics, as Garnett himself is a very cold player whose game quality rarely oscillates much) helps his teammates significantly + the home crowd. They fire them up.
Garnett isn't effective enough defending bigger centers like Duncan. He should never defend Duncan pretty much teh same way Duncan rarely defends Dirk.
Wanna bet? I'm serious. We can both transfer an amount to a paypal account owned by the site owners, for example.
No, they weren't close at their peaks, Harlem. Statistically, yes. Impact wise? No. Duncan was an elite rim protector and help defender that could single handedly anchor a defense, as well as a dread naught pivot scorer who had to be double and occasionally even triple teamed. That meant that an entire offense could be based off of him and run through him. Garnett couldn't be counted on to do either of these things.
I would describe Duncan as a mix of O'Neal power and Garnett'e finesse. He was/is the best of both worlds.
mogrovejo, since when is Duncan a "bigger center"? He's not even a true center. Generally when they used to play head to head, Duncan was at 248 then. Garnett was 220. They're both 6-11, though I've heard more than once that Garnett is actually 7-1 (don't know whether that's true). Clearly, Duncan had a strength advantage, but don't act like Duncan was better because he was bigger.
He is a smart basketball player, but I don't think his at ude did anything to help his team until he got to the Celtics and had some other vets to support him.
A fake tough guy is a dude who acts tough, but when it comes to actually fighting someone his own size, he runs. I've seen KG do this his entire career. He is a bully and usually picks on smaller players.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
