Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan

[dell71]

Thats not my point. I was addressing Esjay saying that the Spurs being the better the better overall team consistently had a lot to do with Duncan himself. He was a huge part of their success, no doubt. But it doesn't change the fact that the guys around him were of much higher caliber than the guys around Garnett. More than once, the Spurs WERE the best team in the NBA. The Wolves never came close, and methinks that has little to do with Garnett's own shortcomings.

It's different playing even caliber teams (say, the Lakers of that era and the Spurs were always an even match, the Wolves however were THOROUGHLY outclassed) than a poor franchise like the Wolves, with average at best coaching, trying to play over their heads and win a championship. And then, when they don't, it's some sort of testament to KG being a flawed player.

You're just doing the exact opposite. Your crediting KG with the Wolves success and absolving him of any of their failures. When you're the best player on your basketball team & supposed to be an elite player you have to share in both credit AND blame. So the fact that Minnesota never came close HAS to have something to do with Garnett.

I'm not "rewarding" him for anything. But I think it's silly to look at both and act like they've played with similar talent when it's clear to anyone they haven't. And I'm not taking away anything from Duncan, he's an all timer. Is it really a slight to him to say that he played for one of the best coaches of this era? Or that Tony Parker is 10x better than an old Cassell? Of course not...

The slight is inferring that Duncan is merely benefitting from playing with them & for Pop when the reverse, that they benefit from having him, is at least as true and in my opinion much more so. Look back at NBA history. The overwhelming majority of championship teams played their best ball from the inside out, and had a dominant post player. KG proved time and again its difficult to win at the highest levels with him as your best offensive player. Hell, look at the year he finally won a title. The fact that he was the best all around player on the team and will go down historically as by far the best player on the team but with the game on the line he was the 3rd option on offense should be telling.

Yes, I was extremely disappointed when he, Allen & Pierce did a group interview with ESPN (before the playoffs even started) & when asked who gets the last shot he (and Pierce as well) were practically screaming that Allen should get it.

Dwight Freeney is jealous of your spin, senser.

Nice.

[dell71]

I'm not "crediting" him with anything. Quit drawing lines guys, it's played.

I just made the statement that it's downright laughable to expect a guy to win championships on teams that aren't championship caliber. If LeBron James wins a ring with an 8 man rotations of guys named Joe, god bless him. But if he doesn't, it doesn't infer HE has shortcomings so much as it does those around him.

The difference between the two that I would draw goes back the fact that KG plays a post-players position. Most championship teams are built around post-players. One of the major problems of the Cavs that got exposed by Orlando was the lack of post-presence. Therefore, if LeBron wins a title "with an 8 man rotation of guys named Joe" then he would join a select few swing-type players to do so. Garnett was supposed to be that caliber post player. Again, I agree he's one of the best PFs to ever play...just a couple notches below Duncan.

I'm going to quit reading here, because thats not at all what I'm doing. If you would care to discuss what I AM discussing, we're free to pick this conversation back up at any time.

How is this not what you're discussing? You've said a few times how he's played with such great players and such a great coach as if how good they're perceived to be has nothing to do with him. My opinion, based on history and logic, is that having a player like Duncan who dominates the middle automatically makes everyone around him better. Or put another way, I seriously doubt a Spurs team with Parker and Ginobli but without Duncan would be anything more than a team struggling to make the playoffs each year. And I doubt those same players with Garnett would've won titles for much the same reason he didn't win them in Minnesota, he doesn't command the attention necessary free up others and doesn't take over games, but that's just my take.

[ryne candy]

I'd have to say Duncan is the best PF in my time. The fact that Malone was not able to get a ring despite having one of the best if not the best assist guys has him fall short.

From what I read and hear Bob Petit is the best ever.....a player from the 50's.

From players I know:

Tim Duncan
Karl Malone
KG
Sir Charles
Have no idea

[dell71]

Malone is in many opinions THE best PF to ever play, played with one of the best passers ever, under a great coach, and doesn't really see all that much criticism for not getting a ring. It's tough, especially when you're playing with below average talent. And YES, those Wolves teams qualify as such. I mean, you can argue the ability of the guys around KG for the sake of this argument, but outside of it? Doubtful, dell. Just being honest.

The people who feel Malone is best PF ever do so based mostly on stats. The rest of us in fact, do penalize him for not winning anything by ranking him below Duncan. Duncan was by far the best player on 4 championship teams. Fine, you can say he played with better players than KG (I'll get back to this again in a minute) but it's not like his teams were always the most talented. He won titles when Shaq & Kobe were together and it's certainly arguable that his teams were also less talented than the ones Sacramento, Portland, Phoenix and Dallas ran out there at various times during his career.

Quit with the ASSumptions, dell.

To compare, Kobe and LeBron are 1A and 1B players in the league, both carry their teams in clutch time. Kobe has Gasol and Odom, LeBron has Varejao and JJ Hickson in similar roles. Kobe won a ring this year, he was the catalyst for that team, MVP, all time great, the whole nine. But OUTSIDE of him, does anyone think the guys in Cleveland are comparable to the guys in LA? No. Thats not to say "Oh Kobe only won because...", thats just not burying your head in the sand for argument's sake.

Again, the difference here is arguing swing players as opposed to big men. Winning titles without a dominant big man is rare. Winning titles without at least an all-star caliber big man is practically unheard of. Therefore, Kobe having Gasol is a huge advantage over every big man LeBron has ever had. I'm not denying this at all.

When comparing Duncan and Garnett, they ARE the big men. They're supposed to be the ones who lead their teams to titles because their dominance makes the game much easier for their teammates. In my opinion, Duncan has done this, KG has not.

The Spurs were a well run franchise. They were a good team prior to winning that lottery. They drafted well internationally. The Wolves were a hapless franchise, by and large, outside of drafting KG. They lost 5 first round picks while the Spurs made the most out of theirs. You have Flip Saunders who has turned into a punch line, Kevin McHale who is a joke of a GM himself (or a joke of a coach now). Then you have Popavich who is incredibly highly thought of around the league.

I don't understand why these are facts outside of this argument, but contested here for whatever reason.

Those facts aren't outside the argument but I prefer to give more credence to what a guy actually did rather than come up with reasons why he didn't.

By the logic you're using I'd have to say that Allen Iverson is historically a better player than Kobe (to drag him back in) because he really has played with an 8 man rotation of guys named Joe for most of his career and consistently led them to the playoffs (once to the finals) while Kobe has had the luxury of playing with far better players.

Crazy idea: you're a list guy. Let's say you make a list of the top 5 or 10 coaches in the NBA. Do you leave Pop off? Likely not, you're probably going to put him top 3. But in this topic, we're supposed to act like he's not?

This is true but great coaches in the NBA don't win without consistently having great players. I just don't see why that's part of the equation. Do we downgrade Bill Russell & all those Celtic greats of the 60s for having Red Auerbach? Or Jordan, Pippen, Shaq & Kobe for having Phil Jackson? Of course not, so why should we do that to Tim Duncan for having Pop?

For the record, I think Duncan is slightly better than Garnett. BUT, the argument I got into from the start of this page was the Spurs being better because of Duncan. Tony Parker isn't magically better than a busted up Sam I Am because The Big Fundamental is passing him the ball. He's just better. I don't think acknowledging as much is expecting a lot, but people seem to disagree for whatever reason.......

The thing is, I do believe he's better because Duncan is passing him the ball. It's because Duncan is passing the ball to him as a wide open shooter or only having to deal with one defender because most of the attention is on Duncan. Even on plays Duncan doesn't touch the ball he's getting guys open because he's still commanding attention. That's the aspect of his game that wins championships and it's the aspect most missing from KG's game.

Call it an ASSumption if you want, but I don't think you honestly believe that the Spurs team, as it has been comprised during Tim Duncan's career, would be anything other than mediocre without him.

[SuperNova854]

My pick is Garnett.

I dont get how people think Tim Duncan is the best player since Jordan. He only gets 20 and 10 a night. Anyone can get 20 and 10. If he were to get like 28 ad 14 a night then i would say wow he a beast. Anyone can get 20 and 10 a night. Its not very hard to avg 20 and 10

[Archer]

My pick is Garnett.

I dont get how people think Tim Duncan is the best player since Jordan. He only gets 20 and 10 a night. Anyone can get 20 and 10. If he were to get like 28 ad 14 a night then i would say wow he a beast. Anyone can get 20 and 10 a night. Its not very hard to avg 20 and 10

Its also not hard to be the best player on a shitty team ... it is however alot harder to be the best player on a good team . Duncan made the people around him better , this is almost common knowledge . He won 4 rings something in which most players will never get to replicate . He was also the best player on all 4 of them teams , and there was also more talented teams in the league at the time .

Being the best is not always about stats . Its funny that people are trying to somewhat dimish his rings and legacy by talking about how good his team was.

Btw , basing a player soley of stats is one of the most retarded things "sports fans" do . And by stats i mean PPG , RPG and such

[Esjay]

My pick is Garnett.

I dont get how people think Tim Duncan is the best player since Jordan. He only gets 20 and 10 a night. Anyone can get 20 and 10. If he were to get like 28 ad 14 a night then i would say wow he a beast. Anyone can get 20 and 10 a night. Its not very hard to avg 20 and 10

Shut up. You know how many averaged 20/10 last season? 2. D12 and Chris Bosh. Add CP3 if we're counting assists.

[dell71]

What it comes down to for me, is we have two players who are somewhat close in ability. When this is the case, I favor the results, even completely understanding the differing situations.

Comparing it to the age old argument of Russell vs. Chamberlain, many many basketball historians favor Russell (incidentally, I do not). When asked why they favor Russell they point to his 11 championships. Nevermind, that he played with at least 2 other HOFers at all times, consistently having far better teams than Wilt, or that he played for Auerbach, "arguably" the greatest coach of all time. In the case of Duncan and KG, I'm going with the rings. And watching these two play for their entire career, I'm just not convinced that if you switch the two, KG would be wearing more rings.

[A Tasty Burgerr]

I have to admit I am glad I steered clear of this thread :couch:

[Archer]

I think i would have to go with Kevin Garnett. Don't get me wrong Tim Duncan is one hell of a player, but Kevin Garnett bring a lot of needed energy to your team he can average the same stats as Tim Duncan can! Tim Duncan is great fundamental wise, but i'm taking KG!

Maybe Duncan should have beated his chest more and screamed then hed be a better player with more "energy"

Right?

[Esjay]

Do you understand what that does to a team though? Do you play basketball?

I used to and it doesn't do shit.

[Esjay]

So you're telling me that energy doesn't affect how you play at all? Well sir you my friend are incorrect. Energy has a lot to do with your crowd and it gets your momentum started. If you say that has no affect on the outcome of ANY GAME then I really don't understand where you are coming from.

No, I'm not saying energy has no effect. But just because you don't see Duncan screaming like a lunatic and pounding his chest every 20 seconds doesn't mean he doesn't bring energy.

[Esjay]

How does he bring energy then?

By playing hard? Are you stupid?

[dell71]

How does he bring energy then?

You don't think having a guy scoring points, grabbing boards and blocking shots energizes his team?

[Archer]

So you're telling me that energy doesn't affect how you play at all? Well sir you my friend are incorrect. Energy has a lot to do with your crowd and it gets your momentum started. If you say that has no affect on the outcome of ANY GAME then I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Im saying that beating your chest and screaming at the top of your voice does not mean you are a better player and doesnt even mean you bring "energy" . In no way does it seperate two players

Personally i would rather have a leader who is calm and looks like hes done it all a million times before in the clutch ahead of somebody who is running around beating his chest like a lunatic ...... im not saying what Garnett does has no effect on the team but there is different types of leaders .

Duncan "riles the team up" by commanding so much respect that a 3ball is wide open or scoring , rebounding and blocking shots .

Horry or Bowen hitting a bigtime 3 did enough to get the crowd going for San Antonio , they didnt need somebody running around screaming . And when it comes down to it , its all about winning . Its not about getting the crowd going crazy , its about winning . If you manage to get them going on the way to winning then great .

The fact is that Duncan is/was the leader of all them Spurs teams , and is probably one of the best leaders of a team that we have seen in a long time.