Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan

[FirstTimer]

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.



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.


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.


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?


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.

Best post of the thread by far.

I'm out of thanks so forgive me Dell.

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

STFU

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

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

Thank you you two.

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

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.

Good posts

[Senser81]

This has been an interesting debate. My take is "while Garnett could, Duncan did". We all remember Terry Bradshaw, not as many people remember Ken Anderson.

That said, I think Malone is the best PF of all-time, even better than Duncan. The guy was a machine from his early 20's until he was 40. One of the most productive players in NBA history. He could score inside, outside, rebound.

[mgoblue2290]

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

You are a complete moron. Duncan has averaged a double double in every season for his career. Garnett hasn't done that, in fact I think there were 5 seasons where he didn't average a double double.

So according to you, Garnett isn't a beast either but just another run of the mill 20-10 forward, right?


Also as far as the whole Garnett bringing energy thing goes, thats just ridiculous. So by getting all pumped and yelling, he brings some sort of energy other players can't? By this logic Rasheed Wallace is an energizer and apparently a leader.

[Senser81]

So by getting all pumped and yelling, he brings some sort of energy other players can't? By this logic Rasheed Wallace is an energizer and apparently a leader.

All I know is that when Rasheed Wallace is on the floor, "both teams play hard".

[Whatupdoe44]

ok my pick is Kevin Garnett over Tim Duncan..


Tim Duncan is nasty too but i give KG the edge because he plays better defense and has a better mid range

thats quite debatable, both have outstanding shots IMO, tough to say which is better