^^ This is what I was alluding to,
mogrovejo.
It's not that his teams were oozing with talent and he was an utter failure not winning a championship or putting his team in contention, it's that the talent discrepancy, from probably about the '99-00 season through '04 just wasn't all that great; the top 2 players, yeah (although KG was supposedly on Tim's level), but the actual talent moving down the roster you could argue favored the Wolves in the early '00's.
The Spurs had a better constructed team with a strong veteran presence, but look at the names and All-Star appearances of the respective supporting casts; how is it that the Wolves were among the highest scoring teams, usually top 3 with Dallas and Sacramento, and actually one of the most efficient when it comes to turnovers, if they were devoid of talent?
Tim was carrying some pretty weak teams in the early 00's and the notion that he's always had these great players, giving him such a huge advantage over KG, is just a myth; it's funny that the Spurs only first round exit (well, up until last year) happened to occur when Tim was forced to sit out in '00. You'd think all those great players could've got to the second round following a championship year . . .
With all due respect (and I sincerely mean that), you're kinda making my point.
KG was the more physically gifted and talented player, yet he wasn't as dominant or effective. He didn't endear himself to his teammates the way Duncan did; he didn't maximize his potential the way Tim was able to.
See, I was probably too simplistic with the 'He didn't take his ass to the block' rhetoric, there's obviously more than one way to skin a cat. But the point is this: he didn't command the ball and/or put his imprint on the game the way he was capable of offensively.
And I never said he had to be Tim Duncan, I said he could've played more like him offensively; there's no doubt about. Maybe he's not built to play it for quite the percentage of the game Duncan was able to but it could've been close. And there's no excuse for the amount of time he'd spend on the perimeter in the guts of a game always making the unnecessary extra pass or pulling the string on an 18' jumper (something teammates were fully aware of and it's another thing I alluded to that grated on them because of the treatment he commanded and the false bravado he displayed); is there a reason someone like Kevin Durant and his slight frame can dominate the free throw line like he's been and KG couldn't find similar success? I don't think so.
And this is where so many go wrong when it comes to Jordan: he was arguably the best post player in the game and dominated from the free throw line down like no 2-guard had before. That's why he shot the ball over 50% and they could run their offense through him so effectively; the Triangle with Jordan was as good as having a dominant Big because you essentially got the same high-percentage opportunities and their continuity was such that it didn't compromise their defense; the Bulls were one of the most versatile and well-rounded teams this league has ever seen. But what people remember are the dunks, fadeaways and 3-point shots, things that were exciting highlights, but not the meat of what garnered his dominance.
And this we agree on; and it's a big reason when they had comparable talent Duncan's teams were more successful.
Tim's game, at ude and personality allowed Pop and the Spurs to build a scheme, system and environment for players to thrive unlike many players ever; Tim's always been the Russell of this generation in my eyes. The actual skill set (which you alluded to) was a big part of that, as it's easier to build from the inside out and find the type of vets and cheap talent to surround the perimeter to compliment, but it was also about the makeup of the man: what you saw was what you got. His teammates pulled for him and genuinely wanted him to succeed.
This biggest difference in my view has always been between the ears when comparing the two. It's the comfort level they have in themselves and the acceptance of the roles and responsibilities each has been given. It's the way they react to criticism, the media, and the way they treat their teammates. It's the type of character they've displayed under adversity and the way they've conducted themselves under pressure; Tim's come up short on his fair share of occasions but it's never been on account of effort or an unwillingness to risk being the goat. KG, more times than not, over the course of his career, didn't want to risk being the goat.
Whereas Tim didn't give a damn about anything other than winning the game and not letting down his teammates or organization, KG was worried about his image or how he'd be viewed; there's an insecurity that's plagued his career and we now see it in the form of his all-too-contrived schoolyard bully routine.
There was a time early in KG's career that I actually rooted for the guy. He possessed loads of talent, brought some great enthusiasm and he played the game with a certain amount of joy; he was 'The Kid.' But first round failures and constant criticism that he was soft created and/or fueled an insecurity that's turned me off to him and I genuinely believe has left him worse for the wear.
I realize I may come off as a hater when it comes to KG, I'm a Spurs fan on a Spurs board, but I don't allow myself to discredit greatness on account of someone's lack of likability (which is subjective of course). I've never been a fan of Kobe, but it's never been for a lack of respect for his game. And I don't deny the Hall-of-Fame player KG is, I simply have to ask others to pump the brakes from time-to-time (especially when it comes to the inevitable underrating of the understated Duncan).
That's all I got to say about that.
Reply With Quote
at any fan thinking KG > Duncan, Duncan has one weakness and that's his FT shooting, KG doesn't have half the offensive skills Duncan does. If we're talking better defender then we have an argument, as for better overall player? You've gotta be re ed to pick KG.
