Duncan vs. KG facts.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

That is a big thing for me with KG. I am not asking him to win a le but in the last few years he can't even lead those Wolves teams to an 8 seed. Duncan would have got them in the playoffs i know he would have.

Well it's difficult to debate things when the reason is "I know he would have".

[SRJ]

A lot to chew on in this thread - I think conqueso's post puts the baby to bed, but let's just have a look.

Taking da suns fan's numbers at their face value (and we cannot, but let's do it for the sake of this exercise) what does it even mean?

DA SUNS FAN'S STATS:

Garnett: 21.7, 12.1, 5.1, 52.6
Duncan: 20.3, 11.2, 2.8, 49.1

I have a couple of points of contention in connection with these stats:

1) The gaps in these numbers are not vast. In fact, they're insignificant: 1.4 points, 0.9 rebounds, 2.3 assists, and 2.7 FG% points is hardly a resounding victory considering that the Spurs have won the great majority of the games. These narrow statistical edges are supposed to offset 27-14?

2) Is the whole idea of Spurs victories predicated on Duncan out-statisticizing (I just made up a new word!) his opponent? Let's just consider a hypothetical Wolves-Spurs game - Spurs 91, Wolves 86, 2:07 left to go. Gregg Popovich diagrams a play during a timeout:

POP: Okay. We need to create some separation here to hold them off. Tim, you've got 18 points on 5-11, 8 rebounds, 2 assists, and a block. Garnett has 23 on 8-14, 11 recounds, 5 assists, a block, and two steals. Now, we'll run 4-down, and you need to get a basket or assist out of it. You close that stat gap with KG and we'll win this thing.

See, that doesn't seem likely. Simple strategy based upon personnel dictates that Tim will try to use his superior squad to it's full effect, while Garnett will see the ball more than Duncan because his teammates are less able to make plays than Duncan's teammates are.

As a matter of fact, Duncan was on the opposite end of this in 2002. He damn near averaged 30 and 20 against the Lakers in the second round of the playoffs, but the Spurs lost four out of five in that series. One man cannot beat a team, and that's what Garnett has run into against the Spurs for the most part.

I'll take KG on my team any old time, and all in all he has had a career that 99.98% of us would sell our mothers for. But I fail to see what a meager head-to-head statistical advantage proves in this instance.

[Ockham]

I posted this months back in another forum, but I think it's relevant here:

There’s always a tension in these "greater player" debates: on the one hand, you want to count winning percentage, playoff success, and championships, while on the other, you know that these are team accomplishments. That’s why these kinds of debates often devolve into arguments like this:

“Yeah, well if ____ had been on the ______’s, he would have won ____ rings too!”
“No he wouldn’t!”
“Yes he would!”

This happens a lot, I’ve noticed, with Duncan/Garnett debates. But whenever it happens, the annoying thing is that there doesn’t seem to be a fully satisfying empirical or rational way to go about supporting your side, either way.

So here’s how I’ve tried to deal with this sort of move lately. While we may not be able to know how Garnett would have performed as a Spur (or for that matter how Chamberlain would have performed as a Celtic, etc.), we can do the following. We can investigate how “chemistry-friendly” players were during their careers: were they able to flourish with only certain players around them, or did they show the ability to flourish in many different kinds of cir stances? If they were extremely chemistry-friendly, and they were successful, then it’s more likely that they would have had success anywhere. If they weren’t chemistry-friendly, or less so, then success in other sorts of cir stances is at least doubtful.

So, for example, Magic Johnson is as chemistry-friendly as it gets: not only did he flourish on drastically different Laker teams, he was the best player on college and high school basketball championship teams. Bill Russell rates highly here as well, not just because of his success with very different Celtic squads, but because he led college teams to championships. Interestingly, Jordan doesn’t do as well on this feature. (This doesn’t mean that Jordan isn’t greater overall than Russell or Magic. But it’s an interesting fact nonetheless.)

If we apply this to the Duncan/KG debate, I think it’s helpful. We’ll never know exactly how KG would have done in a Spurs jersey, nor exactly what TD would have done had he been stuck in Minnesota. But we do know that Duncan has led 3 very different Spurs teams to 4 championships, showing that he can win, as the best player on the team, in different sorts of cir stances. We have little to no evidence that KG can do this. I think this helps to resolve the tension somewhat.

[ambchang]

I'm just curious to see how KG does with a decent team for the first time in his career. And an old washed up version of Sprewell and Cassel doesn't count as having good teammates.

I believe Cassell made the All Star team in 04, and Sprewell averaged 17 ppg that year, hardly washed up.

[Capt Bringdown]

Let KG have his whimpering little fans and their petty research projects.

[Nathan Explosion]

Just read this, courtesy of ESPN TrueHoop.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/...Your-Ammo.html

I just got a very interesting email, though, from a basketball fan who is also a marketing professor who does applied econometric research at the University of Southern California. Kenneth Wilbur writes:

Duncan tends to stand closer to the basket while his teammates have the ball. Garnett usually stands farther away.

Thus, when a teammate drives for a lay-up, Garnett's defender is better able to help defend against the driving offensive player. This makes Garnett's teammates more likely to be going 1-on-2, while Duncan's teammates are going 1-on-1. Duncan's defender is less likely to help, since Duncan is just a short pass away from a high-percentage dunk attempt.

Win Score, PER, and other systems do not observe where a player stands when other players attempt to shoot. Thus they may misattribute performance among individual players.

There are many other unobserved aspects of play that could have similar effects. For example: willingness to set a pick, deliver a hard foul, move without the ball, and many aspects of team defense. People who know basketball would probably agree that Duncan is better than Garnett in many of these areas.

Some suggestive evidence is available from changes in teammate performance when they join or leave Garnett's or Duncan's teams. Players' roles and abilities change over time, so take this with a grain of salt. But you can see some evidence for Simmons' argument.

Marko Jaric
.414 FG% w/ Clippers in 04-05
.399 FG% w/ T-wolves in 05-06

Mike James
.469 FG% w/ Raptors in 05-06
.432 FG% w/ T-wolves in 06-07

Ricky Davis
.464 FG% w/ Celtics in 05-06
.429 FG% w/ T-Wolves in 05-06

All three are "slasher" types who are potentially affected by the unobserved positioning variable discussed above.

The larger point is that Win Score, PER, and the rest of current-generation basketball statistics should be seen as a complement to informed basketball observation, but they ARE NOT a subs ute for experts' basketball observations. (Though they are may be better than many casual fans' basketball observations.) It is possible to correct the deficiencies in these statistical measures, but doing so will require much better data and a more sophisticated class of models.

[Obstructed_View]

I believe Cassell made the All Star team in 04, and Sprewell averaged 17 ppg that year, hardly washed up.

But what people are missing is that Cassell and Spre don't win because they are talented, they win because they are driven to win. The reason that KG won with those guys is that he had someone to win games for him because he's never demonstrated an ability to do it. That's why I always refer to him as the best role player in the NBA.

David Robinson had way more talent than KG; his pre-Duncan numbers show it. It didn't translate into playoff success.

KG's never had an assassin's mindset, and surrounding him with all-stars isn't going to suddenly make him show up big in crunch time.

[Obstructed_View]

Per 48 minute statistics are completely useless. They don't support my argument.

[MONTENEGRINO]

If it matters, here is one vote from Europe, so - neutral.
Tim is way better and much more valuable player than KG, who is better only in marketing issues. There are no players who can compare with TD in matters of efficiency.
Tim Duncan won 4 rings. KG went in conference finals only 1 time...
Methinks that whole thread has no point at all...

[Spurminator]

Personally, I don't think that Duncan would've taken the Wolves team to the playoffs. Not a slight on Duncan, I think he's the best player in the league, but it's foolish to assume that a big man can simply carry his team to the playoffs.

I think it's completely safe to assume it, given what NBA History has shown us about big men on Tim Duncan's level. At the very least it's safe to assume Tim Duncan would not have failed to make the Playoffs three years in a row. Aside from KG, when was the last time an "elite" big man failed to lead his team to the Postseason three years in a row? Particularly in an Expansion era when more than HALF of the teams in the NBA qualify for Postseason play?

[SpursDynasty]

If it's stats you want, go with KG.

If you want championships, go with Duncan.

Yep, it's all about team ball and team defense, two things Garnett knows nothing about. I wish I could find that Ron Artest quote regarding Duncan kicking Garnett's ass and winning the damn championship or something like that...

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Yep, it's all about team ball and team defense, two things Garnett knows nothing about. I wish I could find that Ron Artest quote regarding Duncan kicking Garnett's ass and winning the damn championship or something like that...

Garnett is an excellent team player, and an excellent team defender. He just needs the team.

[Gino20]

Duncan is not called, "The best PF of all-time" for nothing. KG is a very good player, but Timmy D is a great player...

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Duncan is not called, "The best PF of all-time" for nothing. KG is a very good player, but Timmy D is a great player...

This is true. Duncan is probably a top ten player of all time, where as Garnett is like top 25. Both are great players, but Duncan is on another level.

[leemajors]

Garnett is an excellent team player, and an excellent team defender. He just needs the team.

he's not a bad defender, but i don't think he can be as effective an anchor in a defense like duncan is.

[td4mvp21]

he's not a bad defender, but i don't think he can be as effective an anchor in a defense like duncan is.

Exactly. Garnett can never have the same impact offensively AND defensively as Tim Duncan. Also, Garnett is a pretty good team player. He usually averages 4-5 apg. That should tell you that he doesn't have ty teammates if he's able to consistently rack up the assists.

[Obstructed_View]

Rasho is an excellent team player, and an excellent team defender. He just needs the team.

[conqueso]

Per 48 minute statistics are completely useless. They measure imaginary things.

Are you completely re ed? Per 48 minute stats are the ONLY meaningful way to compare two similar players. For two players who are both good scorers, one's stats may be superior to the others, but only because THEY PLAY MORE MINUTES PER GAME. Taking similar players and projecting their stats over 48 minutes ELIMINATES ANY DISCREPANCY CAUSED BY MORE MINUTES PLAYED. It's leveling the playing field for statistical comparison.

So, for example, KG plays more minutes than Duncan, probably because he's on a team where he's the number one dude and they rely on his output more. Or possibly because the TWolves suck so bad that they average margin of victory is low. Duncan, on the other hand, need not play as much since the Spurs can get production from other areas, and also because they blow the out of lousy teams and Duncan spends the fourth quarters chillin' on the bench laughing and joking around with the boys.

It's not fair to compare their overall stats to each other when they play different amount of minutes. That's why per 48 minute stats are vital. They aren't imaginary at all...it's the same as a stat like "Points per minute played," just multiplied by 48. So instead of comparing Duncan's .78 points per minute to Garnett's .76 points per minute or whatever, it's just extending that over the course of the game.

Eat a moron.

[ambchang]

Sigh, it seems like every couple of years, some troll comes in and rehash this topic, while getting the stat-conscious bunch to follow him/her.

For their careers statistics:
Garnett: 20.5 ppg, 4.5 apg, 11.4 rpg, 1.7 bpg, 1.4 spg, 2.6 TO, 2.5 F, 49.1% FG and 78% FT in 38.3 mpg.
Duncan: 21.8 ppg, 3.2 apg, 11.9 rpg, 2.5 bpg, 0.8 spg, 2.9 TO, 2.7 F, 50.9% FG and 68% FT in 37.5 mpg.

Since Duncan has slightly better stats in slightly less minutes, trolls will bring up head to head and falsify some information. According to basketball-reference.com, in the head to head matchups, Garnett did NOT outrebound Duncan, and only outscored him by 0.2 ppg, with more fouls, more turnovers, shot worse from the field, and a crappier record.

Spurs over Wolves 20-13 in regular season:
Garnett: 21.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.3 blks, 1.5 spg, 3.4 TO, 3.5 Fouls, 44.6 FG, 77.1 FT in 39.6 mpg.
Duncan: 21.0 ppg, 12.2 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.9 blks, 0.5 spg, 2.5 TO, 2.5 Fouls, 45.8 FG, 61.9 FT in 38.9 mpg.

And in the playoffs, Spurs 6-2 over the Wolves:
Garnett: 21.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 4 apg, 1.8 blk, 1.4 spg, 2.4 TO, 2.9 fouls, 45.3 FG, 79.7 FT in 41.9 mpg.
Duncan: 20.6 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.4 apg, 2.5 blk, 0.9 spg, 2.3 TO, 2.8 PF, 46.4 FG, 69.6 FT in 40.5 mpg.

So Garnett got slightly better head to head numbers in the playoffs, which according to Garnett supporters, can overcome the record because Garnett got crappy teammates, but this is simply false.

Garnett had Marbury, Googs, Terrell Brandon, Sprewell, Cassell, and Sczerbiak as his teammates at one point or another, and frequently a few of them together.
Duncan had Robinson, Elliott, Parker and Ginobili. Not to mention an over the hill Elliott when Duncan joined, and Robinson only played 2 good years with Duncan (good meaning not frequently injured, which is not even close to his prime). Duncan won the championship with Robinson averaging 8.5 ppg, Parker in his 2nd year with Speedy Claxton coming in to save his ass during the playoffs, and a rookie Ginobili averaging less than 10 ppg, and this team that won the championship is supposed to have better talent than the 04 Wolves?

In 2001, Duncan had Derek Anderson as his team’s 2nd leading scorer, Robinson averaging 14.4 / 8.6, Antonio Daniels, Terry Porter, Ferry, Rose etc … and won 58 games, got the Midwest division le, and lost in the WCF to the Lakers. In the same year, Garnett had Terrell Brandon, Szczerbiak, Peeler, Billups and Rasho, and the Wolves won 45 games and got kicked out of the 1st round by, who else but the Spurs?

Duncan with his low post game opens up the 3 pt shooters and lanes to the basket, making a free flowing offense much more possible. Garnett, as good as he is, cannot do the same and is often dominant of the ball. Garnett is an excellent defender, but he cannot anchor the defense like Duncan could because of the styles they play.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Are you completely re ed? Per 48 minute stats are the ONLY meaningful way to compare two similar players. For two players who are both good scorers, one's stats may be superior to the others, but only because THEY PLAY MORE MINUTES PER GAME. Taking similar players and projecting their stats over 48 minutes ELIMINATES ANY DISCREPANCY CAUSED BY MORE MINUTES PLAYED. It's leveling the playing field for statistical comparison.

So, for example, KG plays more minutes than Duncan, probably because he's on a team where he's the number one dude and they rely on his output more. Or possibly because the TWolves suck so bad that they average margin of victory is low. Duncan, on the other hand, need not play as much since the Spurs can get production from other areas, and also because they blow the out of lousy teams and Duncan spends the fourth quarters chillin' on the bench laughing and joking around with the boys.

It's not fair to compare their overall stats to each other when they play different amount of minutes. That's why per 48 minute stats are vital. They aren't imaginary at all...it's the same as a stat like "Points per minute played," just multiplied by 48. So instead of comparing Duncan's .78 points per minute to Garnett's .76 points per minute or whatever, it's just extending that over the course of the game.

Eat a moron.

Per 48 minute statistics are bull . Literally. They don't measure actual production, they measure what might have been. You can just make the (valid) point that Garnett might have slightly better statistics because he played more minutes, but you can't for sure say that Duncan would be better if they both played forty-eight minute games. Some players are better conditioned to last more of a grind. There's no way you can come up with a statistic that measures things like how fatigued a player is and how that would affect their game. Forty-eight minute stats measure that never happened, and that's their problem.

24 points is 24 points, whether it comes in five minutes or fifty. It's what's on the scoreboard at the end of the game, not what could have happened if players were able to maintain the same statistical output over a full game (which they can't).

[FromWayDowntown]

24 points is 24 points, whether it comes in five minutes or fifty. It's what's on the scoreboard at the end of the game, not what could have happened if players were able to maintain the same statistical output over a full game (which they can't).

So, if Player A scores 24 points in 42 minutes and Player B scores 22 points in 37 minutes, are you saying that it's conclusive that Player A is the better scorer?

[MrChug]

This guy did all that research, gets flamed, looks like a moron, and the Suns STILL won't get KG.

...and even if they did, he wouldnt put you over the top.

[ShoogarBear]

Just read this, courtesy of ESPN TrueHoop.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/...Your-Ammo.html

I just got a very interesting email, though, from a basketball fan who is also a marketing professor who does applied econometric research at the University of Southern California. Kenneth Wilbur writes:

If you go to the blog, Wilbur has a followup in the comments:

Here is a bit more support for the positioning claims I made above. According to NBA.com HotZones (http://www.nba.com/hotzones/popup.html): Duncan took 752 shots in the zone closest to the basket this year, making 61.3%... far more than Garnett , who only took 451 shots in the zone closest to the basket (making 58.1%). Even Tony Parker took more close-range shots than Garnett, 554 to 451 (making 63%).

Think about that. Tony Parker scores more in the paint than Kevin Garnett. Maybe that says more about TP than KG, but still.

[Cry Havoc]

If you go to the blog, Wilbur has a followup in the comments:


Think about that. Tony Parker scores more in the paint than Kevin Garnett. Maybe that says more about TP than KG, but still.

Duh. Parker is a better post-player than Garnett.

Sheesh, Shoog, do I have to spell everything out for you?

[mavs>spurs2]

MrChugs sig is in hilarious....you do know that KG and Duncan make about the same money right?