Okay and none of that has to do with our defense debate. Tim is the superior player, as he is the Greatest PF of All Time BUT KG is a superior post player in his career. Not a big margin but he is
The Skunker!!!
haters gonna hate
What's with Laker fans and early 00's revisionist history? I mean, it's fun troll bait and all, but after a while, doens't it get boring?
A check casher who commands a double team.
Duncan hands down behind the back blind folded
Duncan is better I agree, but those that say he is better on defense ...not so sure. both were two of the better defenders of their era, but KG could guard guys that Tim duncan either could not or the coaches did not trust to guard. Although skinny KG could guard pretty much most of the bigger guys Tim guarded, but was not a liabilty when sitche don to smaller, quicker players. Even at his advanced age KG is still better at this and the gap has gotten larger.
Offensively to me, especially in the post, is where Tim "outclasses" KG. His bankshot in his prime was a thing of beauty, his passing game (though not as good as KG's), improved mightily over the years and I would say not far behind. He was one of the best paint/rim protectors I have ever seen ...despite his limited athletic gifts. And he made more funny half-hooks and runners in the lane then any bigman, primarily because he was not a freak like shaq or had the grace of hakeem. He maxed out his potential because you can see the time he spent honing Magic/Bird/MJ era ...unlike many on here I give him a slight edge on shaq, and slightly behind Hakeem as far as individiual greatness.
But 4>2 ... LOL
That was before he took up the tired old bag.
Maybe, but maybe not, at least as it applies to offense.
In his prime, is Elton Brand a better power forward than Dirk Nowitzki because Elton would dominate inside the paint? If you score 2 points, it's 2 points whether it's a slam dunk or a 19 foot jumper. You don't get extra bonus points for scoring in the post.
I do agree with most here that Duncan's low post presence at both ends is probably one of the distinctions that go in Duncan's favor. KG's defensive versatility was great but it's not necessarily what you need from your PF. Duncan stayed in the paint on defense, guarded the post, and defended the rim. KG wasn't a slouch at any of those things, but he wasn't as good as Duncan.
It's probably really close between the two from 2001-08. The championships will skew most people's opinion. As far as individual talent goes, the argument is there for KG. KG was much more of a freak athlete and had better perimeter skill that made him uniquely great as a 7 foot PF. On talent alone, there's a case for KG. But in sports, results matter. Winning matters.
I was a bigger fan of KG than Duncan over the last decade, but I'd take Duncan over KG 9 times out of 10 on my team, knowing they'd have a better chance to win.
Agree and agree.
One thing though yes protecting the paint is more vital since that is where most high % shots come from. But the NBA is a heavy iso and pnr league and KG's ability to show hard and recover ... maybe the best in the NBA over the past 15-20. Plus his ability to switch and be a credible defender in isolation makes him extremly valuable in today's NBA. two of the best PF defenders in NBA history but both did things differently. KG's game despite a serious injury has "aged better" and although KG may not catch him in rings KG's career numbers will probably eclipse Tim's except maybe in PER or win shares ...
It will be a very interesting debate if KG puts up similar numbers the next few years and duncan's declines or stays where it is now. But like you say because of his post game and the rings especially for me, it's tim.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 06-02-2011 at 11:34 AM.
Duncan, but KG was a monster in his prime. Too bad for him he stayed on those ty Minny teams for so long.
Garnett was a more versatile defender while Duncan was a better defensive anchor. Garnett was a better midrange shooter while Duncan was a much better post player.
Duncan > Garnett
A better thread is "Garnett > Dirk??" honestly
People are seriously discussing this???
Duncan >>>>> KG
Always and forever...
Duncan > KG
But the gap between the two in their primes is not nearly as big as many Spurs fans think. They are two different types of players, so the comparison gets skewed by the opinion of what style of play is better. Effectiveness isn't dependent on style. The way Dirk plays as a PF is a testament to that.
What if KG went to the Spurs in 2004 to replace DRob??? More 'ships for San Antonio???
If all things being equal, the championships can be the deciding factor, which applies in this case.
Shouldn't this be more of a DRob vs. KG debate? Both won MVPs and led their teams to #1 seeds, but didn't win les until they became 2nd or 3rd banana, where their defense was their primary asset.
DRob was a bigger winner as the #1 guy, and 2>1 les over KG when they were 2nd/3rd banana.
I take Dave, and I love Dave. But light years ahead of that is Duncan.
Duncan>>>>DRob>KG
Nope. You could never and you would never run your offense through KG in crunch time the way you could with Duncan.
Sure. But that wasn't my point. I also chose Duncan over KG. And the championships are a factor. But I think the championships have skewed the perception that the gap is much wider than it actually is. As individual players, they are very comparable in terms of production.
And this has been talked about before on these boards. While you can give an individual some credit for winning championships, certainly when they are the main guy and Finals MVPs of most of those championships, les are still mostly a team accomplishment that requires more than just one individual being great. And that goes even for Duncan in 2003, Jordan, Hakeem, or other examples where one individual player was by far the most important piece. Winning it all still required help from teammates.
As I said, Duncan > KG. I just disagree that it's not even a debatable topic. KG in his prime was one of the most uniquely great players this league has ever seen. And there are things KG was able to do that Duncan could not. Vice versa obviously. It's a better debate than some people might lead you to believe.
FWIW:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=duncati01
Head to heads show they are pretty much dead even over their careers.
Also, when comparing the career stats, note that Duncan has played on the Spurs, which has predominantly been a slower-paced, lower scoring team than any team Garnett was on.
Duncan has demonstrated that he is easier to build around, as his ability to score in the low post in such a varied way relieved a lot of stress in the playoffs.
Don't get me wrong, Garnett was great, but the general consensus is that Duncan is a top 10 all-time NBA player, while Garnett isn't. On top of that, both pretty much had their peaks around 01 to 08. Basic logic flows that Duncan > Garnett.
enough said.
Dirk's never had the help that KG has had. The help I'm talking about is from the years KG has played with the Celtics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
