Reply With Quote
Duncan's supporting roleplayers in '02 and '03 are worse than anything KG has ever had...seriously. The Spurs had no business winning a le in '03 with that roster. In fact I would say Garnett's supporting players were better that year by far.
KG will go down as one of the greatest players ever, just like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, neither of which won les 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 ed 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 le in '03 with that roster. In fact I would say Garnett's supporting players were better that year by far.
posting 20/14/4?? wtf gives a if you avg monster stats that dont amount to wins....
tim duncan is always about winning>individual stats
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.
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 les and that's it, then don't even get into a discussion that is comparing individuals.
so let's take george gervin out of the mix when we talk about great players
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 le?????? Parker was more inconsistent back then, but he was still good enough to start for a le 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.
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.
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 le. 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.
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 les.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
Dip Flip
Even more surprising is the fact that McHale never explained this to Garnett.
What happened to your grammar?
Not a lock by any stretch of the imagination.KG will go down as one of the greats and he's a future hall of famer for sure
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.
mvp = ticket into hall of fame
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.
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.
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 compe ion, 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.
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.
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.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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions