Was KG capable of taking over in the 4th? Or do you think his game was not polished enough for that?
I think it's because both TD and Larry had superior scoring skill. Bill Russell's bball iq was higher than bball iq of Kyrie Irving, but because latter has superior scoring skill it looks like he playing chess and Russell, well, don't
Was KG capable of taking over in the 4th? Or do you think his game was not polished enough for that?
His game was not polished enough for that
Not as polished as Duncan obviously, but I thought it was polished enough to get it done in crunch time. He just seemed to maybe lack confidence to attempt to do it, imo. Might sound ridiculous for a guy who was as animated as he was, but I think some of that rah-rah stuff was a front to cover for his own insecurities.
I hear you. We're on the same boat, tbh... just nowhere near an explosive offense.
And if Duncan and Garnett both debuted in 1965, Duncan would've be better... Neither guy had a dependable three point shot, so I'm guessing if they were coming up now, the work they'd do to improve in that area would be part of the difference. I'd argue Duncan showed that he shined in the big moments his whole career, regardless of the opponents' style of basketball. A lot of this debate comes down to temperament and image. Garnett had the brash personality, the trash talking, the exaggerated "passion" on the court. For some observers, that probably played better on TV and in the media. He fits the generic mold of badass, with at ude. But Garnett also has a long history of alienating teammates, of beefs with players and coaches, of trade demands, etc... Duncan had none of that. And Duncan leads 5-1 in rings. In the same era. Duncan was pretty impressive as a 37 year old playing on a bum knee in 2014, where he was an important cog in the championship winning "Beautiful Game" scheme that beat LeBron, Wade, and Bosh in their prime. Garnett never pulled off something like that.
Agree with you.
KG could take over in the 4th from time to time, but I think he couldn't do it as well and consistently like Dirk for example. He was good shooter and post player, but it wasn't enough. He couldn't shoot contested shots as well as Dirk and he coudn't score and drew doubles in the post as well as Timmy. Maybe he was too unselfish, maybe he knew his abilities well and smartly decided to deffer or maybe he was afraid. Maybe it's combination of some or all of those factors. I don't know. He was definetely worse at scoring than Dirk and TD.
What I disagree with you is that Timmy had much higher bball iq. They were equal. Garnett's rotations on defense were sharp, he was communicator, mlb on defense. On offense he made sharp, lightning-quick decisions with the ball, great passer. His awareness on both ends of the floor was fantastic.
I think Bill Russell deffered on offense too and for a reason. But he was one of the smartest players ever. Nobody says he had low or average bball iq because of that. Same thing with KG
On the side note, let's just appreciate KG. He was fantastic. Scoring, rebounding, passing, defense - it's joy to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iiai4sjV698
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiSlZrNCTgM
In the second clip KG is taking over ... with his defense and passing . And he often contributed that way . I think people to focused on scoring in the clutch .
Speculation like this changes everything for me..
You Tim Duncan..
Oh defensively, sure. He was just as good at reading an offense as Duncan was, and he covered more ground and was versatile enough to cover more players, imo... Was mainly talking about his offensive choices in crunch time that used to drive me nuts and have me screaming at the TV . And I was no Wolves fan, I just felt as though he could have done better.
So only in some hypothetical alternate universe would KG ever be better than Tim.
KG was always good but not great offensively. He could do everything, but he wasn't absolutely elite at one specific skill. His jumper wasn't as pure as Dirk's, he couldn't quite handle the ball like Giannis, he couldn't dominate in the low post like Timmy. I don't think it was a mentality or I.Q issue, but simply a skills issue.
That was his main problem then, and it would be his main problem anytime. When you pay a supermax for a guy that can't quite close games down the stretch, it puts you at a disadvantage from a team building perspective. Because that means you have to use the second salary slot for a guy that isn't simply a second option, but more of a 1B. And that is hard to do, you need to get extra lucky to get a player that good for a type of discount. That is why KG's ultimate success came when TWO, not one, perennial All-Stars, at the tail end of their prime, decide to sacrifice money for the sake of a championship. And while KG was the best player on those Celtics, at the of the game the ball went either to Pierce or for a Ray jumper.
Also true
KG >>>> LeBron >>>>> Jordan
I'm not buying it tbh.
Duncan would be completely unstoppable down low which IMO gives him the edge even in this era. I dont get this whole "as a big you have to shoot threes to survive" meme. As long as you're mobile on defense, you can stay on the court in today's game (which is the main argument when ppl say Shaq couldn't play today). Giannis is the league MVP and is extremely unreliable outside the paint, so I don't see how Duncan would be any less dominant
Agreed. I look at a guy like Jokic who is slow as but teams can't play small ball against him simply because his post up game is too strong to defend with small ball.
duncan was able to keep up easily while he was older in the 2014 roster, he'd be fine today.
40 year old Duncan was the best player of the best iteration of today's NBA: the 2014 Spurs. Imagine beast-mode prime Duncan. No contest.
Completely agree. Prime Timmy used to show on screens, then recover to the paint to block shots. And there isn't a player in the league now other than maybe Steven Adams who would've given him trouble on the other end.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)