# Why KG is better than Duncan



## socco

This is very long, so i wouldn't start reading if you're not commited.



> Originally posted by <b>Greg Ostertag!</b>!
> I disagree.
> 
> At the very least the Wolves could have made it past the first round. Troy Hudson was dropping 30 points on the Lakers with relative ease, Wally Sczerbiak was an All-Star last year, Nesterovic is arguably a borderline top 5 center. Kendall Gill, Joe Smith, Rod Strickland and Marc Jackson are solid vets of the bench.
> 
> There is a *marked* difference between first-round exit and winning the NBA Championship, is there not? Remember, Tim Duncan's supporting cast, like Minnesota, was a thrown together bunch of journeymen and youth, but he was able to do what it took to take all focus off them, through his own phenomenal play. This allowed them to play their A-game, and I don't think Kevin Garnett is anywhere near this level yet.


The least they could do is beat the 3-time defending champions? Hudson was the only guy playing other than KG. Wally was an all-star last year, but he had at most 5 good games this whole season, playoffs and regular season combined. Gill, Smith, Strickland, and Jackson are all guys that nobody wants. They aren't much special. Look at the two teams, they aren't close.

Centers: Robinson and Rasho are about even. But Robinson has the experience and leadership. Willis and Jackson are about the same too, but again the leadership and experience gives the slight edge to Willis.

PF: I'll list KG as the PF, so KG and Duncan aren't discussed here. Smith and Trent compared to Rose. Trent is a short strong guy who has no control over himself. He flys all over the place. Smith is a black Mark Madsen/Eduardo Najera. He would be looked at the same way they are if he was white and not drafted #1 overall. He is pretty much a clone of those two. Plus the Wolves ruined the franchise on him. Joe Smith of all people, that's sad. But the edge goes slightly to the Wolves, two guys for the Wolves to Just Malik for the Spurs.

SF: Bowen and Wally. Yes Wally was an all-star a year ago, that's in most part due to KG. But that was not this year anyways. He had at most 5 good games this year, and they were all in the reg. season. He played absolutely horrible in the playoffs, it was pathetic. Plus he is on eof the worst dribblers and defenders i've seen. Bowen is very similar to Wally in the fact that they are both good shooters. Wally can make FTs actually though. But what really sets these two apart, since FTs aren't a huge part of the game, is defense. Bowen shut down, yes you heard me, shut down Kobe in the first two games of that series. Wally is the worst defenders i've ever seen. The Spurs also have Danny Ferry, one of the 10 best 3-point shooters in the game today. And he doesn't even play much. Edge to the Spurs definately.

SG: Peeler and Jackson. Peeler is an inconsistent shooter, as is Jackson. Peeler is a pretty good defender, as is Jackson. Peeler can be a pretty good shooter when he's on his game, as is Jackson. They are pretty much equal. Gill and Ginobili. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Ginobili is an amazing player. He's out of control at times, but he is really really good. Gill is a nice veteran, but there's not much special about him. The Spurs also have Steve Smith, one of the 10 best 3-point shooters in the game today. And he doesn't even play much. Big edge to the Spurs.

PG: Hudson and Parker. Hudson isn't really the starting PG, in the offseason he would've seemed like the 4th string, behind Brandon, Billups, and Strickland. But Brandon was still injured, Billups was gone, and Stickland wasn't ready yet. Midway through the season Strickland took over the job and the Wolves were hot as hell. Then he got injured. He never recovered in time to be productive. Hudson was really hot in the first round. Parker is inconsistent, just like Hudson. When he's on, as in 2 of the 1st 3 finals games, he is great. He actually outplayed Jason Kidd 2 of the first 3 games. Jason Kidd people, not Derek Fisher. The Spurs also have Speedy who was a key in the finals. The Spurs also have Steve Kerr, one of the 10 best 3-point shooters in the game today. Edge to the Spurs.

Now that i've shown how much better the Spurs guys are than the Wolves I'll discuss the two main guys. But for reference to how good the Spurs are, remember game 6 of the Spurs-Lakers series. They just dominated the Lakers and made them look like a really crappy team. That sgame showed me alot, the Spurs are a great team!

KG vs Duncan. I'll start with the stats. KG 23 points, Duncan 23.3 points. Basically even. KG 13.4 boards, Duncan 12.9 boards. Slight edge to KG. KG 1.57 blocks, Duncan 2.93 blocks. Edge to Duncan. KG 1.38 Steals, Duncan .68 Steals. Edge to KG. KG 6.0 assists, Duncan 3.9 assists. Edge to KG. KG 50.2FG%, Duncan 51.3FG%. Slight edge to Duncan. KG 28.2 3FG%, Duncan 27.3 3FG%. Slight edge to KG. KG 75.1FT%, Duncan 27.0FT%. Edge to KG. KG 2.79TO, Duncan 3.06 TO. Edge to KG. KG 2.4Fouls, Duncan 2.9Fouls. Edge to KG. Efficiency rating(from nba.com) KG 32.07, Duncan 29.94. Edge to KG. Nestle Cruch Time Stat(from nba.com) KG 301(1st), Duncan 274(6th). Edge to KG. And now the stat that by definition shows how valuable a player is, the +/- stat(per 48mins, on the floor compared to off it) KG +25.3(1st), Duncan +15.0(2nd). I want you guys to understand how frickin crazy that is right there. The Wolves are 25 points better a game with KG on there team while the Spurs are 15 better. 15 seems like alot, but 25 is amazing. And that stat shows just how valuable a player is. And then the Cruch Time Stat shows how good they are at the end of games, and KG is first there as well. You might think McGrady would be high, cus his team sucks, but he's only +12.3. KG is only the 3rd player ever to have 4 or more consecutive 20/10/5 seasons, the other two were Wilt and Bird, both of whom won two or more MVPs during that span. all of them in the final years of that span too. Garnett is the most difficult guy to go up against. You can't back him down, cus he's a big guy. And you can't go around him cus he's so quick and has long arms. I don't like the contract argument, cus for one it has nothign to do with what the people do on the court. Look at Shaq in LA. His contract is almost the same as KG's yet they have enough money to sign some guy named Kobe Bryant, and build a team that went on to win 3 straight championships. The reason we're in salary trouble is because of the ridiculous Joe Smith fiasco. We ruined the franchise on him, and haven't made an effort to save it with any good free agents. Then we just wasted alot of money on Wally, who recently proved himself as a horrible player. You guys also say Duncan knows how to win, and KG doesn't. A franchise record 51 wins, pretty much all by himmslef, isn't knowing how to win? Great teams show themselves int he playoffs, so you need a great team to win. One player can't do it for you. That is the sole reason why the Wovles haven't won in the 1st round, cus the Wovles suck, Kg is just that good to get him them to the playoffs every year. Name another player during these past 7 years in KG's place that would hav ethe Wovles in the playoffs every year. You can't, because there isn't one. I challenge you to find a player that would, because i really doubt you'll be abe to find one. People were giving alot of credit to Duncan cus he led the Spurs in scoring, rebounding, assists, and blocks in the finals. Well KG led the Wolves in scoring, assists, rebounds, blocks, and steals for the entire season and was just .3 assists short of doing it in the playoffs as well. He has the most assists of any player who wasn't a PG. And he's a 7'1" SF/PF. You wouldn't expect 6 assists a game from a 7-footer, but he does it. He had more boards than Duncan, even though he plays on the perimeter much more. He's got a higher shooting percentage as well, and he plays more on the perimeter. And then there's the fact that the Wolves lost their top 2 PGs recently, Brandon to injury and Billups ot the Pistons. And KG had to deal with the tragic death of his good friend, Malik Sealey a year ago. And then almost the whole team was injured this year. Hudson and Strickland both were, Wallay was, Smith and Rasho were. Those are 5 of the Wolves 6 best guys other than KG, and they were all injured this year. Yet KG still led them to a franchise record 51 wins and for the first time, home-court advantage with the 4th seed in the playoffs, and this is in the west. With all that stuff going wrong in the East, it would be impossible to be the 4th seed, yet he did it in the WEST! He's the definition of a leader. When Loren Woods was having trouble with the coaches, KG called a metteing with just him and the coaches before a game to discuss it. He actually called a meeting, like he was the one in charge. And I've seen him take away the whiteboard from Saunders during timeouts and draw up plays. What other player in the league does that? Especially one that just turned 27. I could see a guy like MJ or a veteran around the age of 37 doing that, but not a young 27 year old. I'm not sure you would see anybody call a meeting like KG did though, not even a seasoned veteran. There's not a single flaw in his game. Here's a great article I found about this topic, it was written while ago, 3/12/03, but it's still very good: http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1162/article11112.asp
I don't see how you can say Duncan is better. Duncan is an amazing player, he's just unbelievable. But KG is somehow better than that. It's hard to believe, cus Duncan is so good, but KG is better. Many of you brought up the point that Duncan's supporting cast wasn't that highly touted. Well most of the poeple i know, incluing myself, didn't think the Wolves would make the playoffs. At the beginning of the year most fans are hoping for a NBA title. I hate to say this, but i was thinking for the Wolves that LeBron was the better possibiliy. Then add in all the injuries during the season, and LeBron would seem like a very good possibility. But instead they get a frachise record 51 wins and home court advantage in the playoffs, the 4th beset team in the regular season in the whole league! 4th best in the Midwest Division would seem like a stretch, but 4th in the whole league. Now that's overcoming the odds. It's too bad most of you don't get to see him, cus nobody ever gets a chance to watch the Wolves. You're missing out on something special. I'm open to defending my position on this if for some reason you disagree.
Damn that took a long time, my hands hurt. :sigh: 
:thinking::thinking:


----------



## Nevus

I still don't think so, but you really did a lot of work on that and it is a very debatable issue. In my mind, Duncan and Garnett are stratospherically better than everyone else in the league.

Tim Duncan is just intangibly better in my opinion. All other things being equal, I believe Duncan would still make a bit more of a difference in a game.

Both of them are still not at their peaks... not even close, in my opinion.


----------



## HKF

How can Garnett be better when he has NEVER got out of the first round. Duncan has WON 2 CHAMPIONSHIPS.


----------



## rocketeer

great post. that took a lot of effort and had some pretty good stuff in it. i still disagree though. garnett and duncan are definately the top 2 players in the league. easily. but i would list duncan at 1 and kg at 2. really, they are equal. i can't really find a way to seperate them by who is better because both of them are just so good. but i would give duncan the top spot because he is the league mvp and he carried his team to the nba title. i think that gives him a slight edge even if the players are equal.


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> great post. that took a lot of effort and had some pretty good stuff in it. i still disagree though. garnett and duncan are definately the top 2 players in the league. easily. but i would list duncan at 1 and kg at 2. really, they are equal. i can't really find a way to seperate them by who is better because both of them are just so good. but i would give duncan the top spot because he is the league mvp and he carried his team to the nba title. i think that gives him a slight edge even if the players are equal.


How can the edge be slight? Garnett has never won a playoff series. Ever. He doesn't elevate to victories in the playoffs. I can't believe the lack of respect Duncan gets and the amount of respect Garnett gets. Garnett is a great player, but just like we can't make excuses for McGrady, we can't make excuses for him. I mean Garnett has lost SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> 
> 
> How can the edge be slight? Garnett has never won a playoff series. Ever. He doesn't elevate to victories in the playoffs. I can't believe the lack of respect Duncan gets and the amount of respect Garnett gets. Garnett is a great player, but just like we can't make excuses for McGrady, we can't make excuses for him. I mean Garnett has lost SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW.


garnett didn't lose 7 years in a row by himself. his team lost 7 years in a row. and duncan's team is better than garnett's team. and that is not because duncan is way better than garnett. duncan has the better supporting cast. the point guards and centers are about even. every other matchup is in the spurs favor. wally disappeared against the lakers, so what do you think he would do with bowen guarding him? it's not kg's fault that he doesn't have much talent around him and that only one other guy on his team stepped it up in the playoffs.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> 
> 
> How can the edge be slight? Garnett has never won a playoff series. Ever. He doesn't elevate to victories in the playoffs. I can't believe the lack of respect Duncan gets and the amount of respect Garnett gets. Garnett is a great player, but just like we can't make excuses for McGrady, we can't make excuses for him. I mean Garnett has lost SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW.


As I said in my post, name a player who could take KG's place and made it into the playoffs all 7 of those years. There isn't one. The playoffs are definately different than the regular season. Because all the good teams step it up to the top notch. That's why the Lakers were the favorites to win the title coming into the playoffs, even though they were the 5th seed. They have been known to step it up, even if they struggled in the regular season. Great teams can do that. The Wolves are not a great team by any means. You need a great team to win in the West in the playoffs. Everybody steps it up, and teams are exposed for what they really are, a prime example is Wally Szczerbiak, his true game was shown in the playoffs this year. You need an great to to win in the playoffs, it's a team event, one player cannot possibly do it, or at least in the west he can't.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> As I said in my post, name a player who could take KG's place and made it into the playoffs all 7 of those years. There isn't one.


tim duncan could have. shaq is another name that comes to mind. i'm not sure about this year with his injuries but he could have the 1st 6. but duncan could have.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> 
> tim duncan could have. shaq is another name that comes to mind. i'm not sure about this year with his injuries but he could have the 1st 6. but duncan could have.


Possibly, i doubt it, but he's only been in the league for 6 years anyways, so he couldn't. And the Wolves definately wouldn't've made it this year with Shaq.


----------



## junh

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> How can Garnett be better when he has NEVER got out of the first round. Duncan has WON 2 CHAMPIONSHIPS.


Not to mention TD won back-to-back MVP!


----------



## Nevus

I do believe that if Duncan were on the Wolves instead of Kevin Garnett, they would be a substantially more successful team.


----------



## Debt Collector

I think KG is awesome, and maybe next year/ year after can be the best guy in the league, but right now, especially after game 6, Duncan is the flat out best player in the nba, and one of the top 5 big men ever. KG is knocking at his door however, i bet if you told us last year that Duncan was bar none the best big man in the league and not Shaq, people would have laughed....


----------



## buduan

This year KG stepped up to Duncans level. I say it's a push at this point.

To the poster that stated the Spurs are a thrown together team. WTF are you talking about? They are a very well put together team. Pop isn't a great coach, but he's one he!! of a GM. 

The Wolves really shot themselves in the foot with that secret deal with Joe (not worth a no. 1 pick) Smith. Who knows what happens if Marbury accepts his role and the dollars and the Wolves get to keep their pick.

McHale, what a Celtic moron.


----------



## tenkev

I disagree with your evaluation of Szcerbiak and Bowen. Most people think Bowen is a good shooter, but that is BULL. He definately is not a good shooter, he just only takes shots when he is wide open. And he's wide open ALOT. Bowen will never take a shot when someone is in his face. Never. Yes, he's a great defender and Szcerbiak is not, but to say that they are even close offensively is laughable.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>tenkev</b>!
> I disagree with your evaluation of Szcerbiak and Bowen. Most people think Bowen is a good shooter, but that is BULL. He definately is not a good shooter, he just only takes shots when he is wide open. And he's wide open ALOT. Bowen will never take a shot when someone is in his face. Never. Yes, he's a great defender and Szcerbiak is not, but to say that they are even close offensively is laughable.


Bowen is asked to make 3's. I believe he led the league in 3pt. percentage this past year. He's much better offensively than Wally is offensively.

And they aren't "wide" open 3's. He has people closing out on him or at least a hand in his face.

He can't create his own shot, but either can Wally really.  What part of Wally's offensive reportoire do you think makes him so superior?


----------



## tenkev

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> Bowen is asked to make 3's. I believe he led the league in 3pt. percentage this past year. He's much better offensively than Wally is offensively.
> 
> And they aren't "wide" open 3's. He has people closing out on him or at least a hand in his face.
> 
> He can't create his own shot, but either can Wally really. What part of Wally's offensive reportoire do you think makes him so superior?


Bowen is asked to make three's because if he doesn't, defenses will collapse on Tim Duncan. The reason Bowen led the league in 3pt percentage is because of Duncan and the fact that Duncan draws so many double teams. The ONLY time Bowen shoots is when he gets a wide open look off of a Duncan double team. Wally Szcerbiak can shoot with a man in his face, off the dribble, in the lane, on the perimeter, medium range J's. The man can flat out shoot. 

All Bowen can do offensively is shoot wide open 3's. That's it. He can't create shots for himself or teammates. He can't handle the ball too well. He can't shoot when a man is in his face. 

Doesn't it seem like just too much of a coincidence that Bowen's rise as a three point shooter just happened to coincide with when he joined #21's team?


----------



## Kicito

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> Bowen is asked to make 3's. I believe he led the league in 3pt. percentage this past year. He's much better offensively than Wally is offensively.


There is no way Bowen is better offensively than Wally. Alright, Bowen leads the league in 3pt. % but Wally is close behind (.441 to .421). Wally scored much more this season than Bowen (17.6ppg to 7.1ppg) 'cause he's asked to, he has much more offensive moves and can actually do other things with the ball than shoot like Bowen.

And yes, Bowen only takes WIDE OPEN shoots 'cause nobody defends on him. The Spurs actually play 4 on 5 in offense. Bowen's defenser usually double team Duncan every time, and people "closing out on him" or that "hand in his face" arrives most of the time late because of the defensive rotation.

My point is than Wally is much better offensively, he has people who actually guard him and even with that he's still a better shooter than Bowen.

With that being said, their role on their team are not the same, one is here to score and the other is here to defend So you can argue about which one is better, it just depends on what you're looking for . . .


----------



## LionOfJudah

I'd take Timmy over KG.

The way Timmy acts on the court is outstanding. Not saying that KG acts like Ron Artest, but Timmy has hung around David Robinson for a while and it shows.


Besides Timmy can guard Shaq if you need him to.


----------



## Kmasonbx

> Originally posted by <b>Kicito</b>!
> 
> 
> There is no way Bowen is better offensively than Wally.


I think he meant Bowen is much better offensively than Wally is defensively, which is very tru. I'd take Bowen on my team before Wally, while Bowen isn't going to score 20, only the elite players in the league are actually going to score 20 on him, he is the best on the ball defender in the league. Wally probably gives up more points than he scores, and he is strictly a spot up shooter, he isn't creating anything off the dribble, he is a very overrated player.

People using the championship issue to argue their point is irrelevant. The first championship the Spurs won came with Robinson playing at a high level, so that was two big men who were tough to match up with, than you have Sean Elliot who was an all-star in San Antonio and than you have Avery Johnson, who isn't a great basketball player but he is a great leader. This year like Garnett, Duncan was the only star on the team, but his supporting cast is so much better. People are a little high on Troy Hudson because of what he did against the Lakers, but remember what Bibby did against them last year, and than look at what he did this year. Hudson is great shooter who thrived against a team that doesn't have a clue as to how to guard the pick and roll. Hudson is good, he's better than Parker, but Speedy Claxton is a very good PG, and I don't even know who the T Wolves backup is, so at point I would give the advantage to the Spurs, because as we saw in Games 5 and 6 when Parker isn't playing well they can turn to Speedy and not drop off at all, and even play better. Malike Rose is a great 6th man, and is better than any PF the T Wolves have other than KG, so again I give the Spurs the edge. So it is clear the Spurs have a much better supporting cast which is why they are better than the T Wolves, not because Duncan is so much better than Garnett. The fact that the T Wolves are 25 points better with Garnett in the game shows how valuable he is to the Wolves, the Spurs are 15 points with Duncan, and thats 2nd in the league. So that shows that Garnett is probably the most valuable player to his team in the league.

I feel Garnett is the most gifted player in the NBA, he's 7 feet and can do the things he does. Duncan is the most efficient player in the league. There are pretty equal players, but I go with Duncan by a slight edge. I think the fact that he plays in the post he creates more opportunities for his perimeter players because he is constantly double teamed.


----------



## kg_theGREATEST

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> 
> 
> How can the edge be slight? Garnett has never won a playoff series. Ever. He doesn't elevate to victories in the playoffs. I can't believe the lack of respect Duncan gets and the amount of respect Garnett gets. Garnett is a great player, but just like we can't make excuses for McGrady, we can't make excuses for him. I mean Garnett has lost SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW.


The reason I dont respect Duncan no more is because he got the MVP two years in a row when clearly he shouldnt have gotten it.Last year Jason Kidd should've gotten it hands down and Kg should have gotten it this year no doubt, come on he led the league in double-doubles and triple doubles for second place!!

Kg led his team to the 4 spot in the playoffs and had to go against the best 5 seed in the history of the NBA and Wally doesnt show up to play at all but Troy steps if only he played D on Fisher they couldve flip the playoffs upside down and I was surprised they won 2 games. Kg was doing everything TD was doing now imagine where the TWolves would be if they had some decent players. 

next years plans if I was the TWolves GM to be continued in the TWolves forum.


----------



## HKF

Sometimes facts get in the way. I don't understand how all these people can say Garnett is better than Duncan when in the playoffs this myth has been disproved time and time again. Next year KG isn't getting out of the first round either. The Lakers, Kings, Spurs, Mavs will get better, so we'll still be talking about how KG is so great but his team sucks, how bout he takes a PAY-CUT.


----------



## SirHinn

So your telling me if the Spurs offered TD the same contract that KG has in Minnesota, he wouldn't take it?? You say he is overpayed etc etc, but who's fault is that. Minnesota was the one who offered him that kind of money. Any other player would have accepted that contract guaranteed. So time to get off KG's back because even your boy or anyone else would have taken that offer.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>junh</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to mention TD won back-to-back MVP!


That's my point, KG deserved MVP this year over Duncan.



> Originally posted by <b>tenkev</b>!
> I disagree with your evaluation of Szcerbiak and Bowen. Most people think Bowen is a good shooter, but that is BULL. He definately is not a good shooter, he just only takes shots when he is wide open. And he's wide open ALOT. Bowen will never take a shot when someone is in his face. Never. Yes, he's a great defender and Szcerbiak is not, but to say that they are even close offensively is laughable.


Bowen led the league in 3-point shooting. Both Wally and Bowen are shooters. Bowen is better way outside, Wally is good in the midrange area. So that seems pretty even. Wally is not athletic at all, and is a horrible defender. Bowen isn't really an athletic guy either, but he's an amazing defender. Wally can't shoot off the dribble either. He's the worst dribbler on the team, and he's a SG/SF. Hell, Rasho can hadnle the ball better than Wally. The worst part about that is that he tries to drive to the lane and do nice dribbling moves, but turns it over all the time. 



> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> Sometimes facts get in the way. I don't understand how all these people can say Garnett is better than Duncan when in the playoffs this myth has been disproved time and time again. Next year KG isn't getting out of the first round either. The Lakers, Kings, Spurs, Mavs will get better, so we'll still be talking about how KG is so great but his team sucks, how bout he takes a PAY-CUT.


He's probly gonna, but other teams have had success with one high payed player. Remember Jordan for the Bulls? He was payed around $30M a year probly, and they still could build a championship supporting cast around him. Then there's some guy named Shaq who gets just about as much as Kg, and oh ya, they just won 3 championships in a row. The Joe Smith fiasco and huge contracts for non-contributors like Brandon, Szczerbiak, and Marc Jackson are the reason we aren't in a great place financially.


----------



## BeatJunkie1972

How the hell someone can argue KG is better than Tim Duncan is beyond me. 2 regular seasons mvp 2 final mvps 2 world titles vs someone who has accomplished nothing in the post season other than other teams stepping stone.


----------



## socco

If you read my first post you'd see how you can argue that, and you'd see that KG actually is better. Duncan has a great team around him. KG has NOBODY! Don't you guys understand that? He's probly has the worst supporting cast of any star in the history of the game. I love my Wolves, but they are just pathetic.


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> If you read my first post you'd see how you can argue that, and you'd see that KG actually is better. Duncan has a great team around him. KG has NOBODY! Don't you guys understand that? He's probly has the worst supporting cast of any star in the history of the game. I love my Wolves, but they are just pathetic.


That's funny I thought McGrady had the worst supporting cast. I think it is time to stop making excuses and let the results show that this guy is a better version of Scottie Pippen. Duncan is a better version of Karl Malone.


----------



## KG_And1

The reason why the Spurs are more successful than the Wolves is quite simple, David Robinson. 

The Admiral was named a TOP 50 player, and having a TOP 50 player in the history of the NBA sure helps a lot. David Robinson has been in the league for over a decade, he knows what to do to win. Duncan has learned a great deal of skills from this guy, and if you don't think so you're ignorant. KG has had no one to learn from, except Sam Mitchell...Sam who? Exactly. KG has been cheated by his own team, McHale and his Joe Smith signing, Stephon Marbury leaving for Terrell Brandon and the future draft pick which would turn out to be Wally Z.

Leadership, that's what wins basketball games, and having a TOP 50 player alongside you is more than enough to win an NBA championship. Though, Duncan can be argued as the best basketball player in the league right now as he's won 2 rings, and 2 MVPs. 

*KG should have gotten it in 02-03 btw...


----------



## Crossword

Wasn't everyone saying that Robinson was equal to Jason Collins? 

STOP CHANGING YOUR STORIES!!!! How come Duncan can't get any respect? He knocks off Shaq, wins his 2nd MVP, wins his 2nd championship with a team SLIGHTLY better than KG's, and people are so down on him? Face it, KG is amazing but he's not at Duncan's level yet.


----------



## Kmasonbx

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> Wasn't everyone saying that Robinson was equal to Jason Collins?
> 
> STOP CHANGING YOUR STORIES!!!! How come Duncan can't get any respect? He knocks off Shaq, wins his 2nd MVP, wins his 2nd championship with a team SLIGHTLY better than KG's, and people are so down on him? Face it, KG is amazing but he's not at Duncan's level yet.


You misunderstood what he was saying, Duncan and Robinson have played together for 6 years, 6 years ago Robinson was a great player. Robinson taught Duncan how to be a leader. 

Duncan's supporting cast is much better than Garnett's. There is really no comparison. Garnett is everything to his team, like q brought up before his team is 25 points with him on the court, the next closest is 15 and thats Duncan. Personally I feel Duncan has a slight edge over Garnett, but to say Garnett is not on Duncan's level is just ridiculous.


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> You misunderstood what he was saying, Duncan and Robinson have played together for 6 years, 6 years ago Robinson was a great player. Robinson taught Duncan how to be a leader.
> 
> Duncan's supporting cast is much better than Garnett's. There is really no comparison. Garnett is everything to his team, like q brought up before his team is 25 points with him on the court, the next closest is 15 and thats Duncan. Personally I feel Duncan has a slight edge over Garnett, but to say Garnett is not on Duncan's level is just ridiculous.


But the reason why the Spurs got Duncan was because they lost Robinson for the year, the year before. Robinson's downside began that year and he really hasn't been an All-Star player since. Remember when he was dominating he was getting 25 and 12 a game. He couldn't do that after that debalitating bad injury.

If the Celtics had got Duncan instead, we would be talking about the Celtics being in the Finals multiple times and Rick Pitino would still be the coach and the Spurs would have no championships at all.


----------



## Kmasonbx

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> 
> 
> But the reason why the Spurs got Duncan was because they lost Robinson for the year, the year before. Robinson's downside began that year and he really hasn't been an All-Star player since. Remember when he was dominating he was getting 25 and 12 a game. He couldn't do that after that debalitating bad injury.
> 
> If the Celtics had got Duncan instead, we would be talking about the Celtics being in the Finals multiple times and Rick Pitino would still be the coach and the Spurs would have no championships at all.


Duncan's first year Robinson was still a 20 and 10 player, I think he got something like 21 and 12, he was actually the team's leading rebounder if I'm not mistaken (I don't feel like looking it up). Your comment about the Celtics is a given, Duncan is a great player, I feel he is the best player in the league, but he is not head and shoulders above Garnett. If Duncan is a 10, Garnett is a solid 9.8, there isn't much of a gap. I think once Garnett leaves Minnesota he will get the praise he deserves.


----------



## pizzoni

*Duncan is better*

Duncan is better, It is simple.

The support cast is equal, but the T´Wolves got Wally who can really shoot the ball and walk. If the Spurs had a great shooter who could play (Kerr and Smith couldn´t do this year), they would have sweep everyone not named Lakers in the Playoffs.

Ducan is way better at the post, and the game were always about post players (Shaq, Wilt, Bill), only Jordan won in this league without a great post players (although Rodman and Cartwright might desagree).

And Duncan can check Garnett but Garnett can´t check Duncan it is simple as that.

When the Lakers got they 3 championships, was always Bryant who beat the Spurs, not Shaq. When they got a good perimiter defender (Bowen), they beat the crap out of LA (Although I don´t think that they would do it in 2000 or 2001).





> Originally posted by q!
> As I said in my post, name a player who could take KG's place and made it into the playoffs all 7 of those years. There isn't one.


Duncan, Shaq (Would have made through the finals), Bryant, T-Mac, Pierce (Would won at least one series in the last 7 years), Iverson, Malone, maybe Payton, Kidd, Marbury...

And Garnett make twice as much than Duncan (If Duncan care more about money than winning, he would have sign with Orlando).

Pizzoni

Ps. If Brandon were health the T´Wolves would have won a serie in this year or last year (If he were health they would have a better record).

My english is a little rusty, so ignore the mistakes.


----------



## Crossword

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> You misunderstood what he was saying, Duncan and Robinson have played together for 6 years, 6 years ago Robinson was a great player. Robinson taught Duncan how to be a leader.
> 
> Duncan's supporting cast is much better than Garnett's. There is really no comparison. Garnett is everything to his team, like q brought up before his team is 25 points with him on the court, the next closest is 15 and thats Duncan. Personally I feel Duncan has a slight edge over Garnett, but to say Garnett is not on Duncan's level is just ridiculous.


I said Garnett is not on Duncan's level, but I didn't mean it that way. There is still a gap between them. I said KG is amazing and he is. In my opinion he's the 2nd best player in the game. But there is still a gap between Duncan and Garnett, even though it's not very big. There's still a gap, and that's why until there is NO gap, he's not on Duncan's level.

Anyway, Duncan's supporting cast is not MUCH better than KG's. It is better, but not by that much. Starting point guard (Parker vs. Hudson) is pretty even, starting shooting guard (Peeler vs. Jackson) is pretty even - they're both really streaky shooters - but the edge goes to Jackson, starting small forward (Bowen vs. Szczerbiak) goes to Minnesota, starting center (Robinson vs. Nesterovic) is pretty even, but Rasho is younger so he gets the nod. So it comes down to the benches. San Antonio has Ginobili, Rose, and Claxton, Smith, Willis, and Kerr. Minnesota has Gill, Jackson, Smith, Trent, Strickland. San Antonio wins that one, and even then it's not by a landslide either. Smith, Willis and Kerr didn't play more than 12 minutes a game this season, if you want to bring up the minutes issue.

Duncan has a better supporting cast, but not by much.


----------



## Kmasonbx

The starting 5 for the Spurs isn't much better than the T Wolves, but I don't think there is any comparison when talking about the benches. Ginobili, Rose and Claxton proved their worth throughout. The only player on Minnesota's bench that is really worth mentioning is Rod Strickland, ( I forgot he was the backup). So it's clear the Spurs bench is much better, don't try and downplay Duncan's supporting cast, they have the best group of role players in the league. Althought Kerr didn't play much he came up huge in 3 of the spurs most important games this year, game 6 against Dallas and games 5 and 6 against the Nets. The T Wolves have nobody that would have been able to do that.

Pizzoni, 

There is no way the team's supporting casts are equal for the reason I've stated above. And there are maybe only 2 players would have enjoyed the same type of success with Garnett's supporting cast and thats Duncan and maybe Shaq at 100%, not the Shaq that we saw this year.


----------



## socco

Robinson is better than Rasho. Maybe not a better player really, about the same, but better to the team. Robinson's age is actually what gives him the edge over Rasho, not the other way around. The Wolves don't have a leader on the team other than KG. The Spurs have many. That matters just as much as talent does, if not more. I know Wally was an all-star, KG made him one but that doesn't even matter, but Bowen is better. The can both only shoot on offense. I don't care if Bowen gets open shots, cus he makes them, and that's all that counts. When comparing two guys here, we should discuss what they do, even if conditions help them, they score the points, and that's all that counts. Wally gives up alot of good opportunities cus he tries to drive and dribble. Bowen doesn't do that because he can't, but Wally does do it even though he can't. And then there's the defense part. It's is not even close. Even if Wally had an edge on offense, which would be very slight if any, then the defense makes up for it and then some, actualy and then alot. Did you guys see the first 2 games in particular against the Lakers by Bowen? He basically shut down Kobe. I know you can't shut down Kobe, but compared to what Kobe usually does nad how hard he has to work for it, Bowen completely shut him down. And this is Kobe Bryant, one of the top players in the league. I can recall in a regular seaosn game between the Wolves and Lakers, Kobe was about 5-10 feet away from Wally, kinda jogging it down, and did a little cross over and Wally falls on his @$$. Wally is actually the worst defender i've seen. The Spurs have the best defensive team(numbers don't say so, but they do). The Spurs also have 3 of the top 10 3-point shooters and none of them even play. That says something about how good their team when that many good guys don't play. Ya they're old, but they all played quite a bit in the past few years. Ferry and Smith both started a year or two ago. 


Duncan, Shaq (Would have made through the finals), Bryant, T-Mac, Pierce (Would won at least one series in the last 7 years), Iverson, Malone, maybe Payton, Kidd, Marbury...

Duncan wasn't around every year, so it'd be tough to win, as was Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce, Marbury, and maybe more, i'm not sure exactly how much exp they all got. They would be lucky to get 30 wins this past year with Shaq. And Kidd and Payton definately couldn't. Remember when Marbury was here, and not just in Kg's place, along with him. Pierce wouldn't have one a series if he were in KG's place, i have no clue what u r thinking there. Iverson wouldn't either. Malone would have no chance this year with the Wolves, not even close. You really have no clue how good KG is. If you think guys like Marbury and Pierce are even close to him, u really have no clue at all.

How can you guys defend the +/- stat. The point of that stat is determining who's more valuable. People said a year ago that he didn't take over at the end of games, but guess what, he did this year. In fact, since you guys don't see the Wolves well have to look at stats, Teh Crunch Time Stat. Which again determines just how good a player is at the end of games, and again Kg is the best. And then the efficiency rating made by nba.com has Kg in 1st AGAIN. The only thing you guys can say bad about him is the playoff thing, which ISN'T HIS FAULT. His team is absolutely horrible. I don't know how you guys can sit here and say that the two teams are close, because they aren't. Did you guys watch anybody other than Duncan in the Spurs games this playoffs? The Spurs are an amazingly great team. They just dominated the Lakers, made them look like little girls. They sucked against the Nets and some agains tthe Mavs, but dominated against the good team. To repeat myself though, how do you argue against the HUGE diffencial in the +/- stat. The stat that DEFINES valuable. And it's not a close race, KG is FAR FAR FAR better than anybody else in the league. It's not even close. He's probly the best defender and rebounder in the game, i'd say ahead of Ben Wallace, but at least 2nd in both of those behind Ben. He's the most versitile defender. He can't hang with Shaq, but there are less than 5 guys in the league that stand a chance of not getting dominated by Shaq when's he's hungry. KG is a little guy, really skinny, so you can't blame him for not being able to guard Shaq.
I don't understadn why you guys don't realize that KG is the best. I doubt you read my firsst post then, cus that pretty much explained the whole thing, and you can't argue against the stuff inthere, cus it's right. I personally am a huge fan of Duncan. You might not believe me, but I am. During the playoffs everybody was calling Duncan boring, but I enjoyed watching him ALOT. Not in the Finals of course, that was horrible basketball by those two teams. KG is the best, face the facts.


----------



## Captain Obvious

Well said q i totally agree with you. I've made some posts defending Garnett in other threads like these and no one tries to counter the fact that Garnett is #1 in efficiency, crunch-time, and plus/minus. All they say is "Duncan knows how to win". Yeah, Garnett would too if he were on the Spurs instead of Duncan :yes:


----------



## pizzoni

*You are just a Garnett fan*

So, you are saying that if the Lakers offer Shaq to the T´Wolves for Garnett they wouldn´t do it?!?!

Or If the Spurs offer Duncan to the T´Wolves for Garnett they wouldn´t do it????


I really think that McHale would jump in any of this trades. 

Garnett isn´t just the Scorer that Duncar or Shaq are. I agree that Garnett is a better all aroud player then bout, but he isn´t near close in the Post player that Duncan or Shaq are.

Garnett is the 4th better player in the NBA.

Duncan 
Shaq
Kobe
Garnett
T-Mac.

Pizzoni


----------



## socco

*Re: You are just a Garnett fan*



> Originally posted by <b>pizzoni</b>!
> So, you are saying that if the Lakers offer Shaq to the T´Wolves for Garnett they wouldn´t do it?!?!
> 
> Or If the Spurs offer Duncan to the T´Wolves for Garnett they wouldn´t do it????
> 
> 
> I really think that McHale would jump in any of this trades.
> 
> Garnett isn´t just the Scorer that Duncar or Shaq are. I agree that Garnett is a better all aroud player then bout, but he isn´t near close in the Post player that Duncan or Shaq are.
> 
> Garnett is the 4th better player in the NBA.
> 
> Duncan
> Shaq
> Kobe
> Garnett
> T-Mac.
> 
> Pizzoni


Yes, that is what I'm saying. And if he did, it would be for 1 reason only, Garnett saying that he will not resign. If he says he might, there's no way the Wolves would deal him, unless they get Shaq ADN Kobe, and that of course would never happen. Garnett is like .3 less in scoring than Duncan is. Kobe isn't nearly the post player Kg is, so why do you have him ahead? Your reason that KG isn't the best seems to be that he isn't a post player, even though he is good when he does play in the post. About 2/3 of the league aren't post players, so it doesn't make sense to put Duncan and Shaq ahead of KG just because of that. 

Another thing for you guys who only have the fact that KG hasn't made it out of the 1st round. I have about 50 other things that i stated in my first post that are in favor of KG over Duncan, so the simple fact that he hasn't made it out of the first round(this is not even considering the fact that that's not his fault and not a legitimate diss on him) overrides all of those other things? That doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>MagicStick</b>!
> Well said q i totally agree with you. I've made some posts defending Garnett in other threads like these and no one tries to counter the fact that Garnett is #1 in efficiency, crunch-time, and plus/minus. All they say is "Duncan knows how to win". Yeah, Garnett would too if he were on the Spurs instead of Duncan :yes:


But the numbers are similar, actually they are about the same, but all the intangibles go to Duncan. Duncan is damn near unstoppable in the 4th Quarter. His free-throw shooting sometimes is mediocre but in the last two games against the Nets he shot 80% which made fouling a bad proposition for the Nets. Tim Duncan dominates in the regular season and playoffs, not just the first round. When Garnett gets out of the FIRST ROUND ONCE, come talk to me and I will say he is on Duncan's level, that is unless Duncan wins another title next year also.


----------



## pizzoni

*Garnett is great, but not the Greatest*

I believe that Garnett is a wonderfull player, but I don´t think he is better than Duncan or Shaq, look for the past seasons.

I agree that Garnett was the most improved player in the top ten player.

Like I wrote before, If Brandon was health I truly believe that the T´Wolves would content for the title the last two seasons.
(If Brandon play his best game, they would problably made one west final)

But, I truly believe too that Garnett support cast is as good as Duncan or T-Mac or Pierce (who only play with Walker and crap).




> Your reason that KG isn't the best seems to be that he isn't a post player, even though he is good when he does play in the post.


I not said that he isn´t a good post player, I said that he doesn´t have near the post game of Shaq or Duncan. 


Pizzoni


----------



## socco

*Re: Garnett is great, but not the Greatest*



> Originally posted by <b>pizzoni</b>!
> I believe that Garnett is a wonderfull player, but I don´t think he is better than Duncan or Shaq, look for the past seasons.
> 
> I agree that Garnett was the most improved player in the top ten player.
> 
> Like I wrote before, If Brandon was health I truly believe that the T´Wolves would content for the title the last two seasons.
> (If Brandon play his best game, they would problably made one west final)
> 
> But, I truly believe too that Garnett support cast is as good as Duncan or T-Mac or Pierce (who only play with Walker and crap).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I not said that he isn´t a good post player, I said that he doesn´t have near the post game of Shaq or Duncan.
> 
> 
> Pizzoni


Have you read my posts? The supporting Cast of Garnett compared to Duncan is not close. Pierce has some guy name Antoine Walker who is ok. McGrady's got nothing. McGrady and Peirce are both in the East too, it don't take much to win in the east. Your reason why Garnett isn't teh best player seems to be because he's not as good of a post player as Shaq or Duncan. Why is this your reason for who's the best player? When there are ALOT of reasons why Garnett IS the best player in the game, and all you have to say he's not is because he's not a post player. MJ was the best, he wasn't a post player. Your only reason for Kg not being the best is the fact that he's not a post player, so it doens't make sense.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> 
> 
> But the numbers are similar, actually they are about the same, but all the intangibles go to Duncan. Duncan is damn near unstoppable in the 4th Quarter. His free-throw shooting sometimes is mediocre but in the last two games against the Nets he shot 80% which made fouling a bad proposition for the Nets. Tim Duncan dominates in the regular season and playoffs, not just the first round. When Garnett gets out of the FIRST ROUND ONCE, come talk to me and I will say he is on Duncan's level, that is unless Duncan wins another title next year also.


The numbers aren't that similar. For the main ones, they are close, but teh efficiency, +/-, and clutch rating, which are the most important because they say how good a player is overall, are all highly in favor of KG. He usually misses FTs towards the end, he missed two at the end of a Suns game, and then Marbury hit the game winner. Speaking of damn-near unstoppable, Kevin Garnett. I doubt you watch his much, so look at the Nestle Crunch Time Stat, KG is #1. So once Garnett gets a half way decent team around him that will put him on Duncan's level? That don't make sense.


----------



## socco

To sum up the argument why some think Duncan is better than KG, these are the things you guys have said so far here:
KG hasn't got out of the 1st round
KG isn't a dominant post player like Duncan

My response to that:
I'v compared the two teams a tleast twice so far, and the Spurs are much better. The only responses about this topic I've seen from you guys goes like this, "The Spurs supporting players aren't that much better than the Wolves." No explanation with it, just stating that. But I've gone through it a couple times and showed that it's not even close, in favor of the Spurs
Since when do we decide the best player in the league just because of where they play on the court? MJ was the best in his time and probly ever, and he wasn't a post player. So why is just the fact that Kg isn't as good of a post player as Duncan is enough to say that Duncan is better than KG? The answer, it's not enough.
Those are the only arguments I've seen so far, and they aren't that valid. Then add in all of the things I stated in my original post, but these two, even if they were accurate, are supposed to outway all those things favoring Garnett? I don't think so.


----------



## jawn100

It's not as comlicated as some of you all make it out to be.

Duncan puts up superstar numbers and his team wins rings...KG puts up superstar numbers and his team wins nothing. 

All of these if's dont matter. The truly great players find a way to win no matter who is around them. There is a reason that people like KG and T-Mac dont win anything. Id rather have Kobe, Duncan or a healthy Shaq, any day. Winning is not just an accomplishment...its a character trait. Some people just dont have it. Rings don't lie and rings justify greatness. 
It's like the Derek Jeter baseball argument. If you base your team around an A-Rod guy your sure to have A GUY with lot hall of fame numbers. If you base around Jeter your sure to have A TEAM WITH CHAMPIONSHIPS. thats what justifies greatness.

If KG and T-Mac average 40 ppg for the next 10 years and have nothing to show for it are you all gonna say that its still a supporting cast thing? I dont care who you are what sort of numbers you can put up. If you can't get to championships or deep into playoffs consistently you are worthless. Show me something. Hollatchaboy!!


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>Kicito</b>!
> 
> 
> There is no way Bowen is better offensively than Wally. Alright, Bowen leads the league in 3pt. % but Wally is close behind (.441 to .421). Wally scored much more this season than Bowen (17.6ppg to 7.1ppg) 'cause he's asked to, he has much more offensive moves and can actually do other things with the ball than shoot like Bowen.
> 
> And yes, Bowen only takes WIDE OPEN shoots 'cause nobody defends on him. The Spurs actually play 4 on 5 in offense. Bowen's defenser usually double team Duncan every time, and people "closing out on him" or that "hand in his face" arrives most of the time late because of the defensive rotation.
> 
> My point is than Wally is much better offensively, he has people who actually guard him and even with that he's still a better shooter than Bowen.
> 
> With that being said, their role on their team are not the same, one is here to score and the other is here to defend So you can argue about which one is better, it just depends on what you're looking for . . .


It was a typo. I meant Bowen is better offensively than Wally is DEFENSIVELY.

Are you telling me that Wally doesn't get wide open looks off of double teams on Garnett?


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> wins his 2nd championship with a team SLIGHTLY better than KG's, and people are so down on him?


Once you quit exagerrating you'll see that Duncan and Garnett are comparable.


----------



## tenkev

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> 
> The numbers aren't that similar. For the main ones, they are close, but teh efficiency, +/-, and clutch rating, which are the most important because they say how good a player is overall, are all highly in favor of KG.


A. The NBA.com efficiency ranking stat is ridiculously terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. And the fact that they've gotten people like you to place stock in it is equally terrible. 

B. +/- is a pretty good stat, but what it really shows is how much better a player is than his backup. Obviously Malik Rose is a much better player than either Joe Smith or whoever is backing up Garnett at any given time.

C. The Nestle Clutch rating has some use, but really doesn't mean that much. Like in the efficiency rating they just add up all the boxscore stats, which is pointless.


----------



## tenkev

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> It was a typo. I meant Bowen is better offensively than Wally is DEFENSIVELY.
> 
> Are you telling me that Wally doesn't get wide open looks off of double teams on Garnett?


Garnett does NOT command double teams like Duncan does. Not even close. Sure, Garnett may create an open look for Wally a couple times a game, but not anywhere near the amount of times that Duncan does. I wish double teams were kept as a stat, Duncan and Shaq would be leading the NBA by a whole lot.


----------



## RoRo

good point. the lakers did not double garnett in their series. kg couldn't make the lakers pay, kg's team loses. lakers try single coverage on duncan, he tears apart madsen, walker, and even shaq in the series clincher. 

and if we're talking about efficency ratings, it's not like garnett is the runaway leader here. kg's 32.07 vs td's 29.94. they're 1 and 2 in the league.

so if i had to pick between the two i'd take duncan. why? cuz points in the paint are higher percentage shots and you're more likely to get to line banging in the paint then shooting jumpers. these are essentials in the fourth quarter and those are two areas where i see duncan being better. plus duncan is the most patient guy passing out of double teams. most people pass to the first open guy they see, duncan waits and waits until he sees an advantage.

mj was the best post player on the bulls btw. all the bulls centers were jump shooters because mj and pip posted on a regular basis.


----------



## IV

Both are all NBA on both sides of the ball.
Both are perennial allstars.
Both carry his team as the only superstar.

But Tim is a 2 times MVP, and a 2 time NBA champion.
You can argue that KG is better, because that is a matter of opinion, but you can't argue that Tim isn't the greater of the two. 
He clearly is that!


----------



## Nevus

It says a lot about a player that in two of the four playoff series, the opposing team regularly <i>triple</i>-teamed him when he got the ball.

I think it's fairly obvious that Tim Duncan is more feared than any other player besides Shaq, by a good margin.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>tenkev</b>!
> 
> 
> A. The NBA.com efficiency ranking stat is ridiculously terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. And the fact that they've gotten people like you to place stock in it is equally terrible.
> 
> B. +/- is a pretty good stat, but what it really shows is how much better a player is than his backup. Obviously Malik Rose is a much better player than either Joe Smith or whoever is backing up Garnett at any given time.
> 
> C. The Nestle Clutch rating has some use, but really doesn't mean that much. Like in the efficiency rating they just add up all the boxscore stats, which is pointless.


How can you say the efficiency rating is terrbile? So stats mean absolutely nothing? I know they don't mean everything, but the stats don't lie. It's not always Joe Smith in for Kg, alot of times it would be Wally too, who is supposed to be an all-star. Boxscore stats aren't pointless. They don't mean everything, but you can't just not look at the stats at all. I know that the average person on here probly saw two or three Wolves games during the reg. season. So what else do you guys have to look at other than stats? Ya, the crunch time stat just adds up all the stats. Then what should we go by, wins? Duncan and KG are equal in close games in wins. And again, stats aren't pointless, that's why they keep them. 

About the doubleteaming thing, KG does get doulbed alot. Not sa much as Duncan and Shaq of course, but that's because they're only post players. That's who teams can double and do double. You rarely see a perimeter player being double-teamed. 



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Both are all NBA on both sides of the ball.
> Both are perennial allstars.
> Both carry his team as the only superstar.
> 
> But Tim is a 2 times MVP, and a 2 time NBA champion.
> You can argue that KG is better, because that is a matter of opinion, but you can't argue that Tim isn't the greater of the two.
> He clearly is that!


My point is that Tim didn't deserve two MVPs. And he isn't clearly the better of the two.



> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> so if i had to pick between the two i'd take duncan. why? cuz points in the paint are higher percentage shots and you're more likely to get to line banging in the paint then shooting jumpers. these are essentials in the fourth quarter and those are two areas where i see duncan being better. plus duncan is the most patient guy passing out of double teams. most people pass to the first open guy they see, duncan waits and waits until he sees an advantage.


Shots in the paint are usually a higher percentage, I agree. But Duncan's FG% is 51.3 compared to KG's 50.2. That's nearly identical, and one player is shooting all his shots right close to the basket. And Duncan is not better in the 4th. You obvioulsy don't watch the Wolves and don't know how amazing KG is in the 4th, so again all you could reference to is the stats. Which again, like almost every other situation here, favor KG as the best in the league.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> My point is that Tim didn't deserve two MVPs.


What kind of a point is that? That's more like envy.



> And he isn't clearly the better of the two.


Read it again, i said he is clearly the *greater* of the two!
and that he is.


----------



## Nevus

Tim Duncan has proven, as you have to do in order to be considered a great player, that he can lead a good team to a high level of success. It's not Kevin Garnett's fault that his team sucks, but like it or not he hasn't proven that he can lead a good team. 

He will have to get a good team around him to ever have the chance to prove he is as great as Duncan. Carrying a mediocre team can't establish someone at that level.


----------



## HKF

You are not going to convince anyone that Garnett is better than Timmy. Like someone said earlier. If you single him all game, he will do what he does to the Nets. Bowen got so many open looks against the Lakers it was ridiculous. And remember the Lakers didn't double team Garnett, because Garnett faded down the stretch. When Garnett finally decides on the PF position and gets down and dirty in the post AND WINS ONE PLAYOFF SERIES PLEASE! then make the comparison but until then there is no way anyone who is sane is gonna take Garnett over Duncan especially if you want to win a champioship.


----------



## IV




----------



## 33

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> You are not going to convince anyone that Garnett is better than Timmy. Like someone said earlier. If you single him all game, he will do what he does to the Nets. Bowen got so many open looks against the Lakers it was ridiculous. And remember the Lakers didn't double team Garnett, because Garnett faded down the stretch. When Garnett finally decides on the PF position and gets down and dirty in the post AND WINS ONE PLAYOFF SERIES PLEASE! then make the comparison but until then there is no way anyone who is sane is gonna take Garnett over Duncan especially if you want to win a champioship.


Right now Duncan is better than KG. But in KGs defense, the Wolves have not had a first round draft pick in like 3 or four years which stunts the growth of a franchise pushing for a title run.


----------



## Reece Gaines

well if you ask me, I think there both the same.There both made of MVP material!


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> What kind of a point is that? That's more like envy.
> 
> 
> 
> Read it again, i said he is clearly the *greater* of the two!
> and that he is.


What do you mean "greater" of the two. Please define "greater" for me then. I tkae it you think KG is the better of the two then, since you didn't deny that, correct me if I'm wrong though. I think I showed you in about 20 different ways that KG was more valuable to his team than Duncan. The only points you guys have had are the playoffs, which voting was done before them so that shouldn't matter, and that KG isn't a low post player. Iverson isn't either, he got the MVP a few years ago. And like I siad before, i love Duncan. He's an amazing player, during these playoffs he has grown into one of my favorite players as well. My two favorites are Ben and Yao, then probly KG and Duncan. So it's not like I hate Duncan or anything. KG is just better, and I think I've shown that in multiple, multiple ways.



> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> You are not going to convince anyone that Garnett is better than Timmy. Like someone said earlier. If you single him all game, he will do what he does to the Nets. Bowen got so many open looks against the Lakers it was ridiculous. And remember the Lakers didn't double team Garnett, because Garnett faded down the stretch. When Garnett finally decides on the PF position and gets down and dirty in the post AND WINS ONE PLAYOFF SERIES PLEASE! then make the comparison but until then there is no way anyone who is sane is gonna take Garnett over Duncan especially if you want to win a champioship.


Garnett didn't fade down the stretch. He hasn't faded down the stretch all year, except for a few times, but so has Duncan and all other stars in the league. When Garnett decides to play PF and get down and dirty in the post? For one, he plays ALOt in the post actually. It's not as low as Duncan or Shaq, but he still makes just about as many of his shots as those two do. And he's not gonna decide to play Pf. He has to play EVERYTHING. Duncan has had the opportunity to play with one of the greatest centers of all time, and didn't have to play center and guard Shaq all the time. A point could be made that he hasn't had the opportunity to play C, his true position, so it's ok that he plays PF. Same with Kg. Except in his case they have nobody at SF or PF, or any other position for that matter, so he has to do everything. As I said before, he plays in the post, not the low low post, but he plays very well with his back to the basket. He has his little fade-away pretty much mastered. And that shot is unstoppable. He's not a big guy, ya he's tall but he's not a low post player, so why does he have to go out of his game and do that to be considered the greatest. He posts up more than MJ did, yet MJ was one of the greatest ever, if not the greatest ever.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>Reece Gaines</b>!
> well if you ask me, I think there both the same.There both made of MVP material!


I think we all agree that guys are pretty damn special.


----------



## Nevus

> He has his little fade-away pretty much mastered. And that shot is unstoppable.


I love that shot... it <i>is</i> a totally unguardable move. I wish I had taped some of the Minnesota-LA series...


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> 
> 
> I love that shot... it <i>is</i> a totally unguardable move. I wish I had taped some of the Minnesota-LA series...


The only thing I dohn't like about it is sometimes he fades too much against littler guys. He still makes it, but he doesn't need to fade against well pretty much 95% of the league, cus he's so tall and long and can elevate over pretty much everybody. It's a pretty move though. In a game, I think it against the Sonics or something, he had a really nice one. He was 2 ft inside the 3-point line in the corner. Tripled-teamed as time was winding down in the 1st. He fades out of bounce and away from all 3 of them at the buzzer and swishes it. I knew it was in all the way, cus it's KG and he always makes those great shots. But it was pretty incredible, one of the best shots i've ever seen. It woulda been nicer at the end of a game to win it, but it was still great.


----------



## Wallyhopp

I didnt read any of the garbage about stats. it's all about winning.

DUNCAN is winning and maintaining his monster stats.

kKG cant do that.

Thats the bottonline.

The originial poster of this thread is wrong.!


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> What do you mean "greater" of the two. Please define "greater" for me then.


His significance is more overwhelming to the game because of what he has accomplished. KG is not nearly as accomplished.



> I tkae it you think KG is the better of the two then, since you didn't deny that, correct me if I'm wrong though.


I dont think KG is better than him. One can argue who is better either way. 
However, I know that Tim is greater because he has done more with his career in less time.



> I think I showed you in about 20 different ways that KG was more valuable to his team than Duncan. The only points you guys have had are the playoffs, which voting was done before them so that shouldn't matter, and that KG isn't a low post player. Iverson isn't either, he got the MVP a few years ago. And like I siad before, i love Duncan. He's an amazing player, during these playoffs he has grown into one of my favorite players as well. My two favorites are Ben and Yao, then probly KG and Duncan. So it's not like I hate Duncan or anything. KG is just better, and I think I've shown that in multiple, multiple ways.


You're opinion is your own and its valid, and quite a few reporters happen to agree with you. However, twice as many reporters happen to agree that Duncan is the MVP this year and the majority rules.


----------



## Kmasonbx

> Originally posted by <b>jawn100</b>!
> It's not as comlicated as some of you all make it out to be.
> 
> Duncan puts up superstar numbers and his team wins rings...KG puts up superstar numbers and his team wins nothing.
> 
> All of these if's dont matter. The truly great players find a way to win no matter who is around them. There is a reason that people like KG and T-Mac dont win anything. Id rather have Kobe, Duncan or a healthy Shaq, any day. Winning is not just an accomplishment...its a character trait. Some people just dont have it. Rings don't lie and rings justify greatness.
> It's like the Derek Jeter baseball argument. If you base your team around an A-Rod guy your sure to have A GUY with lot hall of fame numbers. If you base around Jeter your sure to have A TEAM WITH CHAMPIONSHIPS. thats what justifies greatness.


To win you need a great team around you, no 1 player wins by himself. Jordan didn't win anything until he got a great supporting cast around him, he won 1 playoff game his first 3 or 4 seasons. Then when Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant began to develop as players that is when the Bulls started contending. No matter how great a player is he can't win a thing without other players helping him, remember basketball is a team game, it takes a team to win. 

Your baseball argument is even worse, you put A Rod on the Yankees and they have won 6 straight world series titles, and if you put Jeter on the Rangers, they are even further in last place. A Rod is the greatest offensive shortstop ever, and is better on defense than Jeter. A Rod can't pitch, while Jeter has Clemens, Mussina, Wells, and in the past, Cone, Gooden and El Duque. Please make valid arguments!!!!!1


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>Wallyhopp</b>!
> I didnt read any of the garbage about stats. it's all about winning.
> 
> DUNCAN is winning and maintaining his monster stats.
> 
> kKG cant do that.
> 
> Thats the bottonline.
> 
> The originial poster of this thread is wrong.!


KG has won too. He won 51 games this year by himself, a frachise record i might add. Duncan won 60, but it took a good team to help him out with that.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> His significance is more overwhelming to the game because of what he has accomplished. KG is not nearly as accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think KG is better than him. One can argue who is better either way.
> However, I know that Tim is greater because he has done more with his career in less time.
> 
> 
> 
> You're opinion is your own and its valid, and quite a few reporters happen to agree with you. However, twice as many reporters happen to agree that Duncan is the MVP this year and the majority rules.


It's not twice as many. And since when does what reporters think decide what actually is the truth? This is the first time I've ever heard somebody say greater. Just because someone has a greater impact doesn't make them better. Just because reporters say Duncan is more valuable, doesn't mean he is. HAve you ever took in the fact that maybe they are wrong?


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> To win you need a great team around you, no 1 player wins by himself. Jordan didn't win anything until he got a great supporting cast around him, he won 1 playoff game his first 3 or 4 seasons. Then when Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant began to develop as players that is when the Bulls started contending. No matter how great a player is he can't win a thing without other players helping him, remember basketball is a team game, it takes a team to win.
> 
> Your baseball argument is even worse, you put A Rod on the Yankees and they have won 6 straight world series titles, and if you put Jeter on the Rangers, they are even further in last place. A Rod is the greatest offensive shortstop ever, and is better on defense than Jeter. A Rod can't pitch, while Jeter has Clemens, Mussina, Wells, and in the past, Cone, Gooden and El Duque. Please make valid arguments!!!!!1


That's exactly what i say. It's amazing that he put the Wolve sinto the 4th position all by himself. Especially in the playoffs, it's hard to win. Great teams step it up and are unstoppable if you don't have a great team as well. All the players who have titles have had great players around them. It would be foolish to expect a human to take the team KG has and do anything with it in the playoffs at all.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> 
> KG has won too. He won 51 games this year by himself, a frachise record i might add. Duncan won 60, but it took a good team to help him out with that.


Its easy for you to underate KG's teammates to support your arguement. They're not nearly a poor group of guys the way you make it seem. Your just reaching for something that's not there.



> It's not twice as many. And since when does what reporters think decide what actually is the truth?


My mistake, it was not twice as many. It was 91 more votes that favored Duncan. And that is the truth. You're opinion is not the truth, the majorities opinion, at least in the society of basketball, is what makes Tim Duncan the MVP. You know, I can't just want Dr. J to be the greatest of all time, and because I said so, its true. C'mon man.



> This is the first time I've ever heard somebody say greater. Just because someone has a greater impact doesn't make them better. Just because reporters say Duncan is more valuable, doesn't mean he is. HAve you ever took in the fact that maybe they are wrong?


You keep arguing better and I wont argue with that because(AGAIN) you can argue in circles either way, but Tim is greater. The voters(reporters) that say he is can be wrong in your mind, but that would still make him the MVP, meaning he is the MVP. He had more votes than any other player. Its a fair, your opinion may not be.

Greater..... You dont really have an arguement for that because there isn't one. Although, I'm interested to see what you'll come up with.

You have to except this sooner than later.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> That's exactly what i say. It's amazing that he put the Wolve sinto the 4th position all by himself. Especially in the playoffs, it's hard to win. Great teams step it up and are unstoppable if you don't have a great team as well. All the players who have titles have had great players around them. It would be foolish to expect a human to take the team KG has and do anything with it in the playoffs at all.


He didn't put Minny in the 4th seed all by himself. They won and lost as a team. 

And TD only has one other great player with him this year, and that's a 17 year veteran named David Robinson, who just retired.


----------



## Kmasonbx

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Its easy for you to underate KG's teammates to support your arguement. They're not nearly a poor group of guys the way you make it seem. Your just reaching for something that's not there.


Well I agree with q, that KG's supporting cast is terrible. It's so bad nobody had the T Wolves in the top 6 in the west, and considering KG is a consensus top 4 player in the NBA, that is saying his supporting cast is awful. Give KG another player that can create his own shot, and the Wolves are contenders. Don't even claim Wally can create his own shot, he is a spot up jump shooter, Troy Hudson does most of his damage off the pick and roll and in transition. 

Like I said I personally believe Duncan is the better player of the two, but by a slight margin. The main reason is I believe Duncan is more of a defensive force in the paint, he blocks and alters so many shots. KG is the most versatile defender, but defenders don't get to the basket and see KG and get nervous, Duncan has the affect on players. Duncan is a better post player than Garnett, while Garnett is a better perimeter player. They are very nearly equal as players but after this postseason I would have to take Duncan. Prior to the postseason I would have said KG was the best player in the league.


----------



## IV

Terrible is definately the wrong word. They may not be the best supporting cast, but terrible?


----------



## theyoungsrm

I got to three pages in this thread got tired of reading so I'm just going to make a few points and move on......

1)	The idea that Duncan is better than Garnett because the Wolves haven't made the playoffs is the most ill conceived, illogical, half thought out, intellectually lazy arguments I’ve heard on this board. (And I post on the Bulls board and have to read all of NugzFan BS). If I I’m the commissioner of the league and I decide that I’m going to make the paraplegic all-star team the next Charlotte franchise and then put Duncan on that team and they never make the playoffs again, does that make Duncan a worst player in some magical way. No, it doesn’t, it just means his team isn’t good. Now I can respect your opinion if you say and defend that the Wolves supporting cast is comparable to the Spurs. But please save that KG has never won stuff for somewhere else. At least try to make a argument to go with that empty claim you dolts.
2)	While were on the topic over supporting casts, I think the Spurs cast is heads and tails better. First off I’d offer the stats that initial post presented that explained the +/- ratios. That should at least quite the people some people. But other than that the fact remains that the Wolves second best player is Wally who although is a great offensive player (certainly heads and tails better than Bowen in every single offensive category except for hitting threes so wide open you get lonely and homesick) just gives it right back up on defense. As for the rest of the supporting cast Hudson is a marginal PG at best who looked 1000 times better than he really is because he had some good games on a national stage (call it the Stephen Jackson syndrome) Raso who is an average-to-above average center and a bunch of other no-name jabronies including Joe Smith who ruined the franchise (the GM didn’t shoot himself in the foot, he shot himself in the face with a shotgun) and Kendall Gill (I-L-L…….I-N-I) whose best days came when Nate McMillion, Hersey Hawkins, and Mitch Richmond were great SG….
3)	Ehhhh…I’ve already typed too much….I’m going bowling…..I’ll finish this when I get back....either way u go just try to make logical arguements...


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>theyoungsrm</b>!
> 1)	The idea that Duncan is better than Garnett because the Wolves haven't made the playoffs is the most ill conceived, illogical, half thought out, intellectually lazy arguments I?ve heard on this board. (And I post on the Bulls board and have to read all of NugzFan BS). If I I?m the commissioner of the league and I decide that I?m going to make the paraplegic all-star team the next Charlotte franchise and then put Duncan on that team and they never make the playoffs again, does that make Duncan a worst player in some magical way. No, it doesn?t, it just means his team isn?t good. Now I can respect your opinion if you say and defend that the Wolves supporting cast is comparable to the Spurs. But please save that KG has never won stuff for somewhere else. At least try to make a argument to go with that empty claim you dolts.


Did you just imply that the Twolves supporting cast is as bad as a group of paraplegics? WOW 



> Ehhhh?I?ve already typed too much?.I?m going bowling?..I?ll finish this when I get back....either way u go just try to make logical arguements...


You could use a little work in that department as well.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> He didn't put Minny in the 4th seed all by himself. They won and lost as a team.
> 
> And TD only has one other great player with him this year, and that's a 17 year veteran named David Robinson, who just retired.


Actually, he did pretty much win by himself. SA doesn't have big name stars, but they have very good players. Watching them in the playoffs, they are a great team. They are deceptive like that. You don't see any great guys other than Duncan, but they play great as a team.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Its easy for you to underate KG's teammates to support your arguement. They're not nearly a poor group of guys the way you make it seem. Your just reaching for something that's not there.
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, it was not twice as many. It was 91 more votes that favored Duncan. And that is the truth. You're opinion is not the truth, the majorities opinion, at least in the society of basketball, is what makes Tim Duncan the MVP. You know, I can't just want Dr. J to be the greatest of all time, and because I said so, its true. C'mon man.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep arguing better and I wont argue with that because(AGAIN) you can argue in circles either way, but Tim is greater. The voters(reporters) that say he is can be wrong in your mind, but that would still make him the MVP, meaning he is the MVP. He had more votes than any other player. Its a fair, your opinion may not be.
> 
> Greater..... You dont really have an arguement for that because there isn't one. Although, I'm interested to see what you'll come up with.
> 
> You have to except this sooner than later.


Believe me, I watch these guys 80 times a year, they ain't anything special. Not even average, it's pretty pathetic. Duncan get's more national exposure(which is kinda sad cus he's only in Sa, not a big time city). And the bigger cities get more voters, cus there are "national writers" there. And Shawn Elliot from ESPN gets a vote too, i wonder who he voted for. I'm not syaing all these guys voted form Duncan just cus they are from there, but it's a good possibility. There were 5 voteds from SA guys compared to 2 for MN guys. So there's where the lead got started, and then everybody else wasn't exposed to KG at all, so they didn't vote for him. MVP is more of a popularity contest among voters than it is of who is the most valuable. These voters at least know something, and respect how good Duncan is compared to a popular guy to the fans like Kobe, but they aren't exposed to KG. Yes Duncan has had a greater impact on basketball than KG has. But so have many people who aren't near the skill level of KG. For example, Robert Horry has done more. He's not by any means better, or even close to as good as KG, but he is what you would call "greater", because he's done more for the game. IF KG wer in NY, Chicago, or LA, he would've run away with the MVP, and be the most popular guy in the league, i am 100% sure of that.


----------



## Kmasonbx

> Originally posted by <b>theyoungsrm</b>!
> I got to three pages in this thread got tired of reading so I'm just going to make a few points and move on......
> 
> 1)	The idea that Duncan is better than Garnett because the Wolves haven't made the playoffs is the most ill conceived, illogical, half thought out, intellectually lazy arguments I’ve heard on this board. (And I post on the Bulls board and have to read all of NugzFan BS). If I I’m the commissioner of the league and I decide that I’m going to make the paraplegic all-star team the next Charlotte franchise and then put Duncan on that team and they never make the playoffs again, does that make Duncan a worst player in some magical way. No, it doesn’t, it just means his team isn’t good. Now I can respect your opinion if you say and defend that the Wolves supporting cast is comparable to the Spurs. But please save that KG has never won stuff for somewhere else. At least try to make a argument to go with that empty claim you dolts.
> 2)	While were on the topic over supporting casts, I think the Spurs cast is heads and tails better. First off I’d offer the stats that initial post presented that explained the +/- ratios. That should at least quite the people some people. But other than that the fact remains that the Wolves second best player is Wally who although is a great offensive player (certainly heads and tails better than Bowen in every single offensive category except for hitting threes so wide open you get lonely and homesick) just gives it right back up on defense. As for the rest of the supporting cast Hudson is a marginal PG at best who looked 1000 times better than he really is because he had some good games on a national stage (call it the Stephen Jackson syndrome) Raso who is an average-to-above average center and a bunch of other no-name jabronies including Joe Smith who ruined the franchise (the GM didn’t shoot himself in the foot, he shot himself in the face with a shotgun) and Kendall Gill (I-L-L…….I-N-I) whose best days came when Nate McMillion, Hersey Hawkins, and Mitch Richmond were great SG….
> 3)	Ehhhh…I’ve already typed too much….I’m going bowling…..I’ll finish this when I get back....either way u go just try to make logical arguements...


I completely agree with every word you said, I always felt the "this player has won while this player has won nothing" is the easiest and worst reasoning for saying why 1 player is better than another. This is the same thing that happens with Kobe and T Mac and in the Wilt vs. Russell debates. If your going to say 1 player is better use a real reason, team's win championships, not players.

And IV yes the T Wolves supporting cast is TERRIBLE. Wally can score but can't stop me from scoring, Troy Hudson is a jumpshooter, Rod Strickland can't shoot, and can't score anymore, Joe Smith is a below average player now, Rasho is in the middle of the pack of centers in the league, and that isn't saying much at all. Rod Strickland and Anthony Peeler are the only serviceable bench players on the Wolves. The rest are just filling up roster spots. And neither of them would be considered in the top 15 best bench players. So that just shows how bad KG's supporting cast is.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> good point. the lakers did not double garnett in their series. kg couldn't make the lakers pay, kg's team loses. lakers try single coverage on duncan, he tears apart madsen, walker, and even shaq in the series clincher.


Compare TD's stats to KG's stats against the Lakers this year in the playoffs.

The difference (and only difference) was better teammates for TD.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>theyoungsrm</b>!
> I got to three pages in this thread got tired of reading so I'm just going to make a few points and move on......
> 
> 1)	The idea that Duncan is better than Garnett because the Wolves haven't made the playoffs is the most ill conceived, illogical, half thought out, intellectually lazy arguments I’ve heard on this board. (And I post on the Bulls board and have to read all of NugzFan BS). If I I’m the commissioner of the league and I decide that I’m going to make the paraplegic all-star team the next Charlotte franchise and then put Duncan on that team and they never make the playoffs again, does that make Duncan a worst player in some magical way. No, it doesn’t, it just means his team isn’t good. Now I can respect your opinion if you say and defend that the Wolves supporting cast is comparable to the Spurs. But please save that KG has never won stuff for somewhere else. At least try to make a argument to go with that empty claim you dolts.
> 2)	While were on the topic over supporting casts, I think the Spurs cast is heads and tails better. First off I’d offer the stats that initial post presented that explained the +/- ratios. That should at least quite the people some people. But other than that the fact remains that the Wolves second best player is Wally who although is a great offensive player (certainly heads and tails better than Bowen in every single offensive category except for hitting threes so wide open you get lonely and homesick) just gives it right back up on defense. As for the rest of the supporting cast Hudson is a marginal PG at best who looked 1000 times better than he really is because he had some good games on a national stage (call it the Stephen Jackson syndrome) Raso who is an average-to-above average center and a bunch of other no-name jabronies including Joe Smith who ruined the franchise (the GM didn’t shoot himself in the foot, he shot himself in the face with a shotgun) and Kendall Gill (I-L-L…….I-N-I) whose best days came when Nate McMillion, Hersey Hawkins, and Mitch Richmond were great SG….
> 3)	Ehhhh…I’ve already typed too much….I’m going bowling…..I’ll finish this when I get back....either way u go just try to make logical arguements...


Look at my first post, you haven'ttyped anyhting yet, lol. I agree with most of your points though.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>tenkev</b>!
> 
> 
> Garnett does NOT command double teams like Duncan does. Not even close. Sure, Garnett may create an open look for Wally a couple times a game, but not anywhere near the amount of times that Duncan does. I wish double teams were kept as a stat, Duncan and Shaq would be leading the NBA by a whole lot.


That's completely false.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Both are all NBA on both sides of the ball.
> Both are perennial allstars.
> Both carry his team as the only superstar.
> 
> But Tim is a 2 times MVP, and a 2 time NBA champion.
> You can argue that KG is better, because that is a matter of opinion, but you can't argue that Tim isn't the greater of the two.
> He clearly is that!



He has had better teams. Both of those MVP's were undeserved.

He is not better. They are now equal.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> You are not going to convince anyone that Garnett is better than Timmy. Like someone said earlier. If you single him all game, he will do what he does to the Nets. Bowen got so many open looks against the Lakers it was ridiculous. And remember the Lakers didn't double team Garnett, because Garnett faded down the stretch.


They didn't double TD either, so what's your point?

That the Spurs had a better supporting cast?

Thank you for pointing that out.


----------



## Johnny Mac

garnet and duncan are the best players in the league, both LEAD their team in most categories, both got their teams to the playoffs. Duncans team won, Garnetts didnt. 

When Kg puts up the same numbers, and still gets to the finals and leads his team, he will get mvp. 

MVPs last 10 years, MOST were in the finals, NONE were out in the 1st round. 

Jordan, Malone, Duncan, Iverson, Shaq, Hakeem

I cant think right now, but mvp's gotta get their team out of the first round, theres VERY FEW exceptions for an mvp who doesnt.


----------



## Nevus

Tim Duncan's team went through the playoffs with Duncan leading his team in points, rebounds, assists, and blocked shots, and they won the whole thing. The team's entire offense and defense is organized around him. His team is one of the league's elite and one of two teams to win a championship since the Bulls. No matter what you think of Kevin Garnett, giving the MVP trophy to Tim Duncan is a very defensible choice.


----------



## el_Diablo

Duncan and Garnett are clearly the two best players in the NBA at the moment, and after the regular season I thought that Garnett would have deserved the MVP award. (But the MVP award doesn't necessarily mean the player who gets it is the _best_ player, but the most valuable to his team.)

One thing that hasn't been pointed out yet is that how much better Tim Duncan makes his teammates. Think about Bruce Bowen and Stephen Jackson, aren't these former CBA players? Tony Parker, a second year point guard? The question that needs to be asked; would these guys be as good if not playing with TD? What is the effect that KG has to his teammates?

Think about Duncan's effect to the Spurs' team defense. How many shots he alters in addition to the ones he blocks? How much easier it is for the perimeter players, when they always know that TD is waiting in the paint to help out, if opponent slips by?

And about those free throws, anyone remember game 4 of the 'wolves-lakers series? 

All in all, these guys are almost even but when nothing else separates them, one has to use their teams success to define who is better.

Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree...


----------



## tenkev

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> That's completely false.


Well, I wish we had some way to prove that, but we don't. Maybe someone here at Bballboards will be kind enough to go through all the Spurs and TWolves games and give us accurate info on who got double teamed the most, and how many of those double teams resulted in open shots.


----------



## HKF

I'm done arguing this because some of you are just blinded by facts and continue to say that Garnett is better, the funny thing is we have always used playoff performance to judge how good a player is. I mean this is what makes Malone better than Barkley. 

Duncan has two Finals MVP's. He has beaten KG head to head in the playoffs and if they switched teams I guarantee the Lakers would have beat the Spurs, but they might not have beat the Wolves.


----------



## Crossword

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> Once you quit exagerrating you'll see that Duncan and Garnett are comparable.


I'm not exaggerating. ANyone who says Garnett's team is MUCH worse than Duncan's is exaggerating. And I know they're comparable, I just think Duncan's better. What are you trying to prove?


----------



## Crossword

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> Actually, he did pretty much win by himself. SA doesn't have big name stars, but they have very good players. Watching them in the playoffs, they are a great team. They are deceptive like that. You don't see any great guys other than Duncan, but they play great as a team.


Buddy, the Spurs' supporting cast didn't show up until the playoffs. Nobody said Tony Parker was a top 5 point guard, nobody even tried to argue it, before the playoffs. Nobody was saying Stephen Jackson is even starting material until the playoffs. Nobody was saying David Robinson could still play until game 6 of the finals! You can't use the regular season as an excuse to under-rate the Wolves' players because last time I checked, Tony Parker averaged 15 & 5, Jackson 11 points, Robinson 8 points & 8 boards, and Manu Ginobili only 7 points. SEVEN POINTS in the regular season and now everyone's saying he's better than anyone on the Wolves' roster? Please.... Troy Hudson averaged 14 & 5.5 for the Wolves, comparable to Parker's stats. Wally averaged better than 17 points per, better than any Spurs not named Tim Duncan in the regular season. And Rasho? He averaged 11 points per, with 6.5 rebounds.

Don't tell me the Duncan's supporting cast outplayed Garnett's in the regular season. And yes, you guys were talking about the regular season, unless you wouldn't make any references to KG "winning 51 games by himself". Like IV said - and I've never been so much in agreement with you man - they won and lost those games as a TEAM, and nobody on the Spurs not named Tim Duncan had as big of an offensive impact as Szczerbiak anyway.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> Tim Duncan's team went through the playoffs with Duncan leading his team in points, rebounds, assists, and blocked shots, and they won the whole thing. The team's entire offense and defense is organized around him. His team is one of the league's elite and one of two teams to win a championship since the Bulls. No matter what you think of Kevin Garnett, giving the MVP trophy to Tim Duncan is a very defensible choice.


That is amazing to lead your team in 4 of the 5 major categories. As a matter of fact, KG did that too, he was .3 asts away from leading in all 5 during the playoffs. And oh ya, he led the Wolves in ALL 5, points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, for the entire regular season! If you want to talk valuable, put this together with teh incredibly amazing difference in the +/- stat, and how in the world does KG not get the MVP?
I think we all agree here, or at least the majority of us do, that Duncan and Kg are the two best player sin the league. These guys are just special.



> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> Duncan and Garnett are clearly the two best players in the NBA at the moment, and after the regular season I thought that Garnett would have deserved the MVP award. (But the MVP award doesn't necessarily mean the player who gets it is the _best_ player, but the most valuable to his team.)
> 
> One thing that hasn't been pointed out yet is that how much better Tim Duncan makes his teammates. Think about Bruce Bowen and Stephen Jackson, aren't these former CBA players? Tony Parker, a second year point guard? The question that needs to be asked; would these guys be as good if not playing with TD? What is the effect that KG has to his teammates?
> 
> Think about Duncan's effect to the Spurs' team defense. How many shots he alters in addition to the ones he blocks? How much easier it is for the perimeter players, when they always know that TD is waiting in the paint to help out, if opponent slips by?
> 
> And about those free throws, anyone remember game 4 of the 'wolves-lakers series?
> 
> All in all, these guys are almost even but when nothing else separates them, one has to use their teams success to define who is better.
> 
> Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree...


KG and Duncan both missed key FTs at the end of games in this year's postseason. KG inthat game as you mentioned, and Duncan against the Suns. What effect has Kg on his teammates? Oh he just made WALLY SZCZERBIAK into an all-star, not much. Did you watch the Lakers-Wolves series, I take it you did cus of the missed FT comment. Wally was absolutey horrible. I think he almost average 15 points, but if he played like that in a training camp and wasn't known as an all-star player, he'd be lucky to make the team. And he has, along with Kevin McHale(about the only thing McHale has done right) made Rasho Nesterovich into a pretty good center. He's one of the softest players in the league, but he's actually kinda respectable, and that's because of KG tutoring him, and teaching him alot. Duncan does have a big impact on the Spurs defense. But again, KG has more. He is the defense. Look at the defenders they have in the starting lineup: Rasho, soft, but not absolutely horrible. Wally, possibly the worst I'ce ever seen. Peeler, he's got quick hands, can't shut down a guy, but he's respectable. Hudson, pushing Wally for the worst I've seen. Now look at what Duncan has to work with. Robinson, a very good defender, one of the best of his time, and still very good. Bowen, shut down KOBE BRYANT in the first two games of that series. Possibly the best perimeter defender in the league. Jackson, not a standout, but a pretty good defender himself. Parker, not known for his defense, but again he can contain most PGs if he needs to. KG is the entire defense for the Wolves, that's the main reason he doesn't have more blocks and steals. He can never stay on one guy, and block him. He has to make up for other players mistakes. Ben Wallace gets all his blocks on weakside help, but Kg doesn't do this much, cus he's all over the place on defense, trying to stop whoever is the biggest threat on the court. What other player can hang with PFs and PGs? Not many if any.


----------



## Nevus

Q, it's great that Garnett led his team in those things too, but my point was that Duncan did that and his team won the NBA championship. That makes it a lot more of an accomplishment. In fact he is the first player to ever lead his team in those four categories during a championship run.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> 
> 
> Buddy, the Spurs' supporting cast didn't show up until the playoffs. Nobody said Tony Parker was a top 5 point guard, nobody even tried to argue it, before the playoffs. Nobody was saying Stephen Jackson is even starting material until the playoffs. Nobody was saying David Robinson could still play until game 6 of the finals! You can't use the regular season as an excuse to under-rate the Wolves' players because last time I checked, Tony Parker averaged 15 & 5, Jackson 11 points, Robinson 8 points & 8 boards, and Manu Ginobili only 7 points. SEVEN POINTS in the regular season and now everyone's saying he's better than anyone on the Wolves' roster? Please.... Troy Hudson averaged 14 & 5.5 for the Wolves, comparable to Parker's stats. Wally averaged better than 17 points per, better than any Spurs not named Tim Duncan in the regular season. And Rasho? He averaged 11 points per, with 6.5 rebounds.
> 
> Don't tell me the Duncan's supporting cast outplayed Garnett's in the regular season. And yes, you guys were talking about the regular season, unless you wouldn't make any references to KG "winning 51 games by himself". Like IV said - and I've never been so much in agreement with you man - they won and lost those games as a TEAM, and nobody on the Spurs not named Tim Duncan had as big of an offensive impact as Szczerbiak anyway.


Let me ask you something, how many regular season games of the Wovles did you watch? 1, 2? I'm not saying that's bad, but I watched about 75, I think I know a little about how horrible these guys are. 



> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> I'm done arguing this because some of you are just blinded by facts and continue to say that Garnett is better, the funny thing is we have always used playoff performance to judge how good a player is. I mean this is what makes Malone better than Barkley.
> 
> Duncan has two Finals MVP's. He has beaten KG head to head in the playoffs and if they switched teams I guarantee the Lakers would have beat the Spurs, but they might not have beat the Wolves.


Possibly, I doubt it though. And the only reason they would've won is because KG can't hang with Shaq as good as Duncan. But neither can Pierce, Iverson, Bryant, T-Mac, Kidd, and almost everybody in the league. And Duncan actually wasn't on him a whole lot. I think with the way everybody other than Duncan was playing and then bring in KG and his huge desire to win, and I'm pretty sure they woulda still taken care of them.
Blinded by facts? What facts? Just that he has a better team, and therefore has had success in the playoffs. Malone had Stockton man, that's why he did good. Every team and player that has had success in the playoffs has had good if not great players around him. KG just simply doesn't have that. Or I might be blinded by the fact that KG isn't a low-post player. Ya know what, that's not really a great argument for why a player is better than someone else. AI isn't a post-player, he's still one of the best players in the league though. Or I might be blinded by the fact that Duncan won 2 straight MVPs, but wait a second, that's what I'm arguing about. That KG is better and was the MVP of last season. But the facts about the amazing difference in the definition of valuable, the +/- stat, is crazily in KG's favor. And the NBA's own stat system which is the most highly praized system for evaluating players is in KG's favor. And that one of the knocks on Kg before, clutch time, also is in his favor as the best in the league with the Crunch Time Stat. Or KG leading the league oin both triple doubles and doubled doubles. Or KG being only the 3rd player in NBA history to record 4 straight 20/10/5 seasons, with the other two both winning 2 or more MVPs during that time. But I'm the one blinded by the facts? Sorry, I don't think so. :no:


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> Q, it's great that Garnett led his team in those things too, but my point was that Duncan did that and his team won the NBA championship. That makes it a lot more of an accomplishment. In fact he is the first player to ever lead his team in those four categories during a championship run.


It is really good what he did. But KG did it for 82 games! An entire season he was the best in all 5 of the major categories! I doubt that that has ever happened before, I might be wrong, I'm just guessing it hasn't. That is amazing, for 82 games he was the best at everything(major catgegories) on his team.


----------



## Nevus

Garnett is one of my favorite players and he is truly awesome, but leading a mediocre team in those stats for the regular season is not quite as impressive as leading a championship team in those stats for the postseason.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> Garnett is one of my favorite players and he is truly awesome, but leading a mediocre team in those stats for the regular season is not quite as impressive as leading a championship team in those stats for the postseason.


I understand what you're trying to say. But then the craziest part of it all hits ya, this "mediocre" team, which they are at best, was led by KG to the 4th best record in the league!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not like they were just a team that barely got in, they were the 4th best in the whole nba. And they had to play in the west too. And KG still led them in all 5 of those categories, compared to the 4 Duncan had!


----------



## Nevus

I understand what you are trying to say too, but I believe Tim Duncan is the more valuable player.


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> I understand what you are trying to say too, but I believe Tim Duncan is the more valuable player.


This not worth arguing Nevus, let's just let it go. You have a championship, q can have the KG's better label and all the first round exits he desires.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> 
> 
> This not worth arguing Nevus, let's just let it go. You have a championship, q can have the KG's better label and all the first round exits he desires.


Why let it go? This is good, fun discussion. It's a bit tiring at times, but it's good stuff. And it's not like I'm arguing some stupid, way out there point. And I'm not acting like a child, I think my posts have had a good amount on knowledge and thought put into them, and I've made good points. 
Unfortunately there probly will be more 1st round exits unless we can make a big move  (the West is gettin alot better and we'd have to beat SA, Dallas, Sac, or LA, which are all nearly impossible), but I can always hope.:yes:


----------



## dsakilla

Kevin Garnett is more talented than Duncan, but there aren't many more talented than Garnett. Garnett does need some help, but the fact is that Duncan dominates games on offense and defense. Garnett is a very good defense of player, but he doesn't dominate defensively like Timmie D. Duncan this year was as dominant as Shaq has been the last three years, and because of his remarkable overall playoff performance, he is the better of the two. Duncan has better role players than Garnett, but not by a huge margin, but look at what Duncan did with the team compared to K-G. The thing in my opinion that separates these two is: 

1)Duncan is a more dominant defensive player
2)Garnett is not as aggressive as Duncan overall. For example, Garnett has a top-notch mid-range jump shot, but he settles for that way too much. Garnett can blow past any PF that his guarding him, and shoot over any SF on him. So why doesn't he take it to the basket most of the time? From all the times i have watched him he isn't as aggressive as he should be.

I will say this though, if Minnesota would have beaten the Lakers, and even taken a couple of games from the Spurs, then my opinion might be different. But how can you argue with Duncan after he almost had a freakin quadruple double?


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>dsakilla</b>!
> Kevin Garnett is more talented than Duncan, but there aren't many more talented than Garnett. Garnett does need some help, but the fact is that Duncan dominates games on offense and defense. Garnett is a very good defense of player, but he doesn't dominate defensively like Timmie D. Duncan this year was as dominant as Shaq has been the last three years, and because of his remarkable overall playoff performance, he is the better of the two. Duncan has better role players than Garnett, but not by a huge margin, but look at what Duncan did with the team compared to K-G. The thing in my opinion that separates these two is:
> 
> 1)Duncan is a more dominant defensive player
> 2)Garnett is not as aggressive as Duncan overall. For example, Garnett has a top-notch mid-range jump shot, but he settles for that way too much. Garnett can blow past any PF that his guarding him, and shoot over any SF on him. So why doesn't he take it to the basket most of the time? From all the times i have watched him he isn't as aggressive as he should be.
> 
> I will say this though, if Minnesota would have beaten the Lakers, and even taken a couple of games from the Spurs, then my opinion might be different. But how can you argue with Duncan after he almost had a freakin quadruple double?


Duncan isn't a more dominating defender. If you don't want to go up against him, shoot it from outside. What can you do to not go at KG? He can stop you outside or inside. Teh reason Duncan has alot more blocks than Kg is that he can afford to stay down low because he's not nearly as good of a perimeter defender and actually has some help, the best defense in the league, along with him. KG is the whole defense, he's got two of teh worst I've ever seen, Wally and Hudson, in the backcourt, so he has to make up for them. And KG should go to the basket more, he shouldn't settle for outside shots. But he still makes them, he's only like 1% worse shooter than Duncan, and he takes most of his shots in the mid-range area and fading away. Hee should go to the basket, but if he still makes just about as many, why is that a reason why Duncan is better? That's how good KG is, he's actually better than a guy who nearly put up a quad-dub in the finals! Those were KG-like numbers by Duncan, except with blocks too. That was an amazing performance, but KG is still, it's hard to believe but he is, better.


----------



## Arclite

TD and KG are the (almost exact) same age, both already have amazing career stats, and Duncan already has accomplished more than many of the all-time greats. He's just 27, and the way he plays he will have a long, illustrious career and go down as one of the greatest ever.

Though I believe Garnett has *somewhat* doomed himself with his contract, his skills for a player his size are unreal and unmatched by anyone in the NBA, and I truly believe that will take him far one day.

So, who is better? If Garnett had won the MVP this year and lead the Wolves to a championship, logically everyone would say they're both equally great. But he didn't. He lost in the first round... again. Because of that, while one might not be "better" than the other, it is pretty easy to tell as of now who the "greater" one is.


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> Why let it go? This is good, fun discussion. It's a bit tiring at times, but it's good stuff. And it's not like I'm arguing some stupid, way out there point. And I'm not acting like a child, I think my posts have had a good amount on knowledge and thought put into them, and I've made good points.
> Unfortunately there probly will be more 1st round exits unless we can make a big move  (the West is gettin alot better and we'd have to beat SA, Dallas, Sac, or LA, which are all nearly impossible), but I can always hope.:yes:


I'm not saying let it go because you are being dumb or anything. Not at all. Your posts are very well thought out, but to me this is like the Kobe/T-Mac threads, no one is going to change their minds on these at all. I think we should bring this back up next season right before the season starts, because even though this discussion has been civil I don't know if I could read 45 more posts supporting what we just said over and over again. Maybe if someone that hasn't been in this thread brought new stuff that we could look at. I will say that I would take Duncan over Garnett because I want to win championships, but that takes nothing away from Garnett as a player, he just won't bring you a title IMO.


----------



## theyoungsrm

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you just imply that the Twolves supporting cast is as bad as a group of paraplegics? WOW
> 
> 
> 
> You could use a little work in that department as well.


How? I made an arguement....now you can make the same. I'll break it down in language even little people with little brains can understand. First, a team's success does not determine the indivdual talent of a player. It just doesn't make logical since. It's a team game.....Tim Duncan did not win the NBA finals and Kevin Garnett did not lose in the first round, the Spurs and Wolves did that respectively. All I'm asking is for people to move beyond that simple, undeveloped arguement. Secondly, I argued that the Spurs supporting cast was better than Wolves. Now, the poster above must of not understood my analogy probably because he was enamored with the size of the word "paraplegics", but the anology basically meant that no matter the supporting cast, the player's talent level remains the same. Therefore again I'm trying to prove the point that a teams talent does not determine a player's talent ,talent, nor does a team success determine a player's talent level. (i.e. if Tim Duncan was on a really bad team he'd still be as good as he now)


----------



## theyoungsrm

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> TD and KG are the (almost exact) same age, both already have amazing career stats, and Duncan already has accomplished more than many of the all-time greats. He's just 27, and the way he plays he will have a long, illustrious career and go down as one of the greatest ever.
> 
> Though I believe Garnett has *somewhat* doomed himself with his contract, his skills for a player his size are unreal and unmatched by anyone in the NBA, and I truly believe that will take him far one day.
> 
> So, who is better? If Garnett had won the MVP this year and lead the Wolves to a championship, logically everyone would say they're both equally great. But he didn't. He lost in the first round... again. Because of that, while one might not be "better" than the other, it is pretty easy to tell as of now who the "greater" one is.


This makes no sense. Let's say Duncan gets traded to the Nuggets for a bucket of chicken....and the Nuggets win 40 games....then lets say the Wolves win a championship or just does better than the new Nuggets.....does Garnett suddenly become better or "greater". No, unless greater just means...."have a better team"


----------



## Nevus

Well, I'm not going to discuss this any more right now but it has been very interesting and there are not two more deserving guys in the league of this kind of support. I'm glad that the attention is in the right place. I'm content to say that these are far and away the two most valuable players in the league and that I love to watch both of them.


----------



## Arclite

> Originally posted by <b>theyoungsrm</b>!
> 
> This makes no sense. Let's say Duncan gets traded to the Nuggets for a bucket of chicken....and the Nuggets win 40 games....then lets say the Wolves win a championship or just does better than the new Nuggets.....does Garnett suddenly become better or "greater". No, unless greater just means...."have a better team"


In a league where success is defined by championships and individual accolades, greatness is not only determined by how good you are, but how the team you lead performs on the biggest stage (playoffs).

I'm not trying to take anything away from KG's ability to play ball, but how would having 2 MVP's and 2 championship rings vs. 6 first round exits _not_ suggest a higher degree of greatness?

Part of MJ's greatness are his MVP's and six rings. Part of Duncan's greatness are his MVP's and rings. KG doesn't have either.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>tenkev</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I wish we had some way to prove that, but we don't. Maybe someone here at Bballboards will be kind enough to go through all the Spurs and TWolves games and give us accurate info on who got double teamed the most, and how many of those double teams resulted in open shots.


As somebody that invested in NBA League Pass this past season, I can say that I saw almost every Wolves game and more than half of the Spurs games. Garnett gets as much attention if not more than Duncan.

Check the assists please. It isn't like Garnett is breaking down the defense and kicking out to shooters. He gets doubled and he finds the open man.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not exaggerating. ANyone who says Garnett's team is MUCH worse than Duncan's is exaggerating. And I know they're comparable, I just think Duncan's better. What are you trying to prove?


What a joke.

And to answer your question, that you know nothing about Duncan or KG. 

KG showed this year that he is at TD's level.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>theyoungsrm</b>!
> 
> 
> How? I made an arguement....now you can make the same. I'll break it down in language even little people with little brains can understand. First, a team's success does not determine the indivdual talent of a player. It just doesn't make logical since. It's a team game.....Tim Duncan did not win the NBA finals and Kevin Garnett did not lose in the first round, the Spurs and Wolves did that respectively. All I'm asking is for people to move beyond that simple, undeveloped arguement.


Saying that Tim Duncan couldn't win with a group of parapalegics is not a proper way of support the argument that KG couldn't win because his teammates are not up to par. You could have constructed that argument in a better way. 

I agree that the teams success does not make one player better than the next. But I does give the winner the edge as far as greatness.



> Secondly, I argued that the Spurs supporting cast was better than Wolves. Now, the poster above must of not understood my analogy probably because he was enamored with the size of the word "paraplegics", but the anology basically meant that no matter the supporting cast, the player's talent level remains the same. Therefore again I'm trying to prove the point that a teams talent does not determine a player's talent ,talent, nor does a team success determine a player's talent level. (i.e. if Tim Duncan was on a really bad team he'd still be as good as he now)


Do you realize that the point your making leaves us with no conclusion as to who is actually the better player. You only disregarding his respective teams contributions. And trust me everyone gets the point you are trying to make, its just poorly worded. 

KG and Duncan statistics are similar. The Spurs during the regular season average 96ppg (for) and 90ppg (against). The Wolves 98ppg (for) 96ppg (against). As you can see there isn't much disparity between these teams overall performances, yet you all continue to harp on the illusion that KG's teammates are "terrible."

Now let's forget about team success and stats, look at the awards. 

KG entered the league in 95. He's been an allstar 6 times, one time allstar MVP. 2 time all NBA first team, 2 time all NBA second team, and 1 times all NBA third team. He's been a 4 time all NBA defender 2000-2003. That's not a bad resume at all.

Now Duncan entered the league in 97. Rookie of the year. He been a 5 time NBA allstar, won the MVP once. Is a 2 time league MVP. He's been an all NBA first teamer every year he's been in the league. He's been an All league defender every year. 2nd team as a rookie, and 1st every year since. 

As you can see, according to history and not speculation Duncan has done much more with his career than KG has in less time. IMO, he is the better player, and is definately the greater player.

Youngsrm, you can't make more of a compelling arguement for KG than that. All you can do is reply with a bunch of off topic insults.

*NEXT!*


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> 
> 
> In a league where success is defined by championships and individual accolades, greatness is not only determined by how good you are, but how the team you lead performs on the biggest stage (playoffs).
> 
> I'm not trying to take anything away from KG's ability to play ball, but how would having 2 MVP's and 2 championship rings vs. 6 first round exits _not_ suggest a higher degree of greatness?
> 
> Part of MJ's greatness are his MVP's and six rings. Part of Duncan's greatness are his MVP's and rings. KG doesn't have either.


Bravo! :clap:


----------



## pizzoni

*To make it simple*

To ends the argument.

The Spurs sign Malone for one year, and help him break the score record, and keep it cap space for 2004.

In 2004 with a BIG cap space they sign Garnett, but him togheter with Duncan and create the 3rd real dinaty in NBA.

Celtics in the 60ths 
Bulls in the 90ths
Spurs in the 21 century

Parker
Ginobilli
Who cares!!!!!
Garnett
Duncan

It would be awesome.

To dream more...
Duncan contract, Garnett and Mac Grady end next years...
If the Spurs don´t sign some one with big bucks

They will be able to sign all 3 for 10, 11 million a year for seven years.

Parker
Ginobilli
Mac-Grady
Garnett
Duncan

Bench: Anyone who walks, chew gum, former greats who wanna a ring.

Pizzoni
I drink to much last night


----------



## Cris

i dont disigree that kg is better than duncan, why because duncan does the some thing over and over, no new dunks, same numbers and i get bored
with K.G. you see him w/a fast break im expecting a jam 
with duncan all you see is a pass
:sigh:


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>longlivelal</b>!
> i dont disigree that kg is better than duncan, why because duncan does the some thing over and over, no new dunks, same numbers and i get bored
> with K.G. you see him w/a fast break im expecting a jam
> with duncan all you see is a pass
> :sigh:


HUH???? This doesn't make sense.


----------



## Crossword

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> And to answer your question, that you know nothing about Duncan or KG.
> 
> KG showed this year that he is at TD's level.


Yes, I know nothing about Duncan or KG. Well yeah, but like you do? Do you know them? No... neither do I. But I know about their games. And I know that Duncan is better than KG from what I've seen. And since he's better, they can't be on the same level. They can only be on the same level if they are equal. And they're not in my opinion.


----------



## numb555

> Originally posted by <b>longlivelal</b>!
> i dont disigree that kg is better than duncan, why because duncan does the some thing over and over, no new dunks, same numbers and i get bored
> with K.G. you see him w/a fast break im expecting a jam
> with duncan all you see is a pass
> :sigh:


See wat too much POT does to ur brain?


----------



## JonMatrix

*McHale is at fault for Minnesota's troubles*

Kevin McHale is to blame for the troubles the TWolves are having,not KG. He has carried this team on his back since midway through his rookie season.

McHale gave KG that large contract but didn't want to resign Marbury to a similar deal,which is what Marbury thought he should've gotten. So Marbury gets ticked off and gets traded for the injury prone Terrel Brandon,whose contract they are still trying to get rid of today. McHale shouldn't have signed KG to that kind of ridiculous deal. No one else would have paid him THAT much. If it wasn't for McHale,Marbury might still be there today and wearing a championship ring with KG.

Then there was the drafting of Rasho in 1998,he played in like 2 games his rookie year and basically did nothing significant until his fourth year. Then he gets hyped as a good center when his career high for ppg is 11.2 and for rpg is 6.5 in a career high 30 minutes per game. And now he is going to get a big contract from McHale because he likes him. They could've had Rashard Lewis,Cuttino Mobley,Ricky Davis,or Al Harrington.

Then lets look at the 1999 draft......6th overall pick, Wally. He was picked ahead of Andre Miller,Jason Terry (both of whom could have made up for the loss of Marbury),Shawn Marion,Richard Hamilton,and Corey Maggette. 

They also had the 14th overall pick which they used on......Will Avery. Who you ask? Exactly,a huge BUST. They could've had Ron Artest,James Posey,Dion Glover,Jeff Foster,Kenny Thomas,Jumaine Jones,Devean George,hell even a gamble on Leon Smith could've worked.....KG could've helped him adjust the NBA life that Smith is still struggling to learn. Smith clearly has talent.

Then there was the whole Joe Smith situation.......which when combined with McHale being a moron....costing them a few first rounders. They could've had Michael Redd in 2000. In 2001 they could've had either of the Collins brothers,Brendan Haywood,Gerald Wallace,Samuel Dalambert,Jamaal Tinsley,Tony Parker,Gilbert Arenas,Trenton Hassel,or Earl Watson. In 2002 they could've had Chris Jefferies,Carlos Boozer,or Rasual Butler.

Imagine how good this team could be even without Marbury if McHale had any sense at all.

PG-Jason Terry/Jamaal Tinsley
SG-Ron Artest/Michael Redd
SF-KG
PF-Boozer
C-Brandan Haywood/Jarron Collins
_______________
PG-Gilbert Arenas
SG-Corey Maggette/Michael Redd
SF-KG
PF-Kenny Thomas/Boozer
C-Brandan Haywood/Jarron Collins
________________
PG-Andre Miller/Tony Parker
SG-Artest/Michael Redd
SF-KG
PF-Harrington
C-Jason Collins/Jarron Collins

those are just a few examples of how this team COULD have turned out. But McHale isn't a good GM,he's a man who got a job because he was a good player. And as we know,good players don't always make good GMs.


----------



## KG_And1

*Re: McHale is at fault for Minnesota's troubles*



> Originally posted by <b>JonMatrix</b>!
> Kevin McHale is to blame for the troubles the TWolves are having,not KG. He has carried this team on his back since midway through his rookie season.
> 
> McHale gave KG that large contract but didn't want to resign Marbury to a similar deal,which is what Marbury thought he should've gotten. So Marbury gets ticked off and gets traded for the injury prone Terrel Brandon,whose contract they are still trying to get rid of today. McHale shouldn't have signed KG to that kind of ridiculous deal. No one else would have paid him THAT much. If it wasn't for McHale,Marbury might still be there today and wearing a championship ring with KG.
> 
> Then there was the drafting of Rasho in 1998,he played in like 2 games his rookie year and basically did nothing significant until his fourth year. Then he gets hyped as a good center when his career high for ppg is 11.2 and for rpg is 6.5 in a career high 30 minutes per game. And now he is going to get a big contract from McHale because he likes him. They could've had Rashard Lewis,Cuttino Mobley,Ricky Davis,or Al Harrington.
> 
> Then lets look at the 1999 draft......6th overall pick, Wally. He was picked ahead of Andre Miller,Jason Terry (both of whom could have made up for the loss of Marbury),Shawn Marion,Richard Hamilton,and Corey Maggette.
> 
> They also had the 14th overall pick which they used on......Will Avery. Who you ask? Exactly,a huge BUST. They could've had Ron Artest,James Posey,Dion Glover,Jeff Foster,Kenny Thomas,Jumaine Jones,Devean George,hell even a gamble on Leon Smith could've worked.....KG could've helped him adjust the NBA life that Smith is still struggling to learn. Smith clearly has talent.
> 
> Then there was the whole Joe Smith situation.......which when combined with McHale being a moron....costing them a few first rounders. They could've had Michael Redd in 2000. In 2001 they could've had either of the Collins brothers,Brendan Haywood,Gerald Wallace,Samuel Dalambert,Jamaal Tinsley,Tony Parker,Gilbert Arenas,Trenton Hassel,or Earl Watson. In 2002 they could've had Chris Jefferies,Carlos Boozer,or Rasual Butler.
> 
> Imagine how good this team could be even without Marbury if McHale had any sense at all.
> 
> PG-Jason Terry/Jamaal Tinsley
> SG-Ron Artest/Michael Redd
> SF-KG
> PF-Boozer
> C-Brandan Haywood/Jarron Collins
> _______________
> PG-Gilbert Arenas
> SG-Corey Maggette/Michael Redd
> SF-KG
> PF-Kenny Thomas/Boozer
> C-Brandan Haywood/Jarron Collins
> ________________
> PG-Andre Miller/Tony Parker
> SG-Artest/Michael Redd
> SF-KG
> PF-Harrington
> C-Jason Collins/Jarron Collins
> 
> those are just a few examples of how this team COULD have turned out. But McHale isn't a good GM,he's a man who got a job because he was a good player. And as we know,good players don't always make good GMs.


I totally agree with this post.

Here's something to think about. Let's look at a Franchise as a Family, such as the ones with Parents and Children. Now, in reality there are different types of family, such as the rich, the poor, and the middle income families. The San Antonio Spurs will be labeled as the 'Wealthy Family', they've got $$, The Admiral, and a Family that doesn't know how to get into trouble like the Wolves. Now, Tim Duncan was luckily enough to be born (drafted) by the Spurs, he has everything a player wants: A Big Brother (David Robinson) and a Future (First Round Picks, a good GM, and a Good Coach.

Now, let's take a look at KG. He was born into a trouble family (The T-Wolves). The T-Wolves' GM gets into trouble quite frequently: Joe Smith incident, Marbury wanting to leave, giving too much money to some children and not others (KG's Massive contract). The family was already corrupt as well, the Wolves had no real star player, Christian Laetner and Tom Gugliotta were the go-to-guys, which doesn't say much...and they left! KG, a star had been born into a life of misery, but he's been able to stay focused and has even helped his family get into the playoffs. 

KG and Duncan are both great players, but it's how they came into the NBA that is affecting their careers. 

*Yeah, pretty weak analogy but oh well...:grinning:


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, I know nothing about Duncan or KG. Well yeah, but like you do? Do you know them? No... neither do I. But I know about their games. And I know that Duncan is better than KG from what I've seen. And since he's better, they can't be on the same level. They can only be on the same level if they are equal. And they're not in my opinion.



You thought I meant personally? WTF?

What a joke. 

Let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## Crossword

I was being sarcastic.

Anyway yeah it's going nowhere between us. Just let this thing die down...


----------



## theyoungsrm

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> 
> 
> In a league where success is defined by championships and individual accolades, greatness is not only determined by how good you are, but how the team you lead performs on the biggest stage (playoffs).
> 
> I'm not trying to take anything away from KG's ability to play ball, but how would having 2 MVP's and 2 championship rings vs. 6 first round exits _not_ suggest a higher degree of greatness?
> 
> Part of MJ's greatness are his MVP's and six rings. Part of Duncan's greatness are his MVP's and rings. KG doesn't have either.


I defintely respect your point, but I think it's important to understand that a player can be great on a bad team and even greater than a star on a great team. I don't believe Michael Jordan was great because the Bulls won 6 championships, I believe he was great because he was a lock down defender, great offensive player, and a clutch performer. Did he just suddenly become so much greater in 1991 than he was in 1990(when they didn't get it)? No, the reason why they turned the corner was because the team improved, they were able to put better pieces with him. At the point where you can identify other players for the rise in success, you can therefore assume that the team performance can not be equated with that players performance. So to rap this up I believe that Tim Duncan's team accomplishments are not a great measuring point for his indivdual talent because a team performace relies on a team to play great not just one performer.


----------



## theyoungsrm

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Saying that Tim Duncan couldn't win with a group of parapalegics is not a proper way of support the argument that KG couldn't win because his teammates are not up to par. You could have constructed that argument in a better way.
> 
> I agree that the teams success does not make one player better than the next. But I does give the winner the edge as far as greatness.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the point your making leaves us with no conclusion as to who is actually the better player. You only disregarding his respective teams contributions. And trust me everyone gets the point you are trying to make, its just poorly worded.
> 
> KG and Duncan statistics are similar. The Spurs during the regular season average 96ppg (for) and 90ppg (against). The Wolves 98ppg (for) 96ppg (against). As you can see there isn't much disparity between these teams overall performances, yet you all continue to harp on the illusion that KG's teammates are "terrible."
> 
> Now let's forget about team success and stats, look at the awards.
> 
> KG entered the league in 95. He's been an allstar 6 times, one time allstar MVP. 2 time all NBA first team, 2 time all NBA second team, and 1 times all NBA third team. He's been a 4 time all NBA defender 2000-2003. That's not a bad resume at all.
> 
> Now Duncan entered the league in 97. Rookie of the year. He been a 5 time NBA allstar, won the MVP once. Is a 2 time league MVP. He's been an all NBA first teamer every year he's been in the league. He's been an All league defender every year. 2nd team as a rookie, and 1st every year since.
> 
> As you can see, according to history and not speculation Duncan has done much more with his career than KG has in less time. IMO, he is the better player, and is definately the greater player.
> 
> Youngsrm, you can't make more of a compelling arguement for KG than that. All you can do is reply with a bunch of off topic insults.
> 
> *NEXT!*


The analogy only highlights the arguement that I'm trying to make that when considering or comparing the merits of a player on an indivdual level, it is illogical to use a team performance to answer that question. Maybe you can say that it could be a tiebreaker, but you would have to establish the fact that both teams supporting casts were the same and that one of indivduals you are comparing pushed their team over the top. The problem with that is is that it is just like comparing the players on an indivdual level, which is what you were trying to do. It is a circle.

As for the conclusion, I never said who was better. My intial post only tried to establish the fact that KG is getting a raw deal if your using team success to establish who's better. Saying that KG doesn't get past the first round isn't a good arguement on why he's inferior to Duncan. Now if you wanna say he's a better lleader, better post player, better defender, that's fine because those are reasons why he is better and they identify his personal traits, not factors that are effected by nine other players.

Now you go on to argue that Duncan is superior because of awards. I believe using an awards isn't a great way either. Let me explain. First MVP awards only determine who is more valuable to their team, not who is the best player of the year. Also MVP awards routinely ignore players from bad or average teams for reasons I don't understand (It's not the MVPCT, {Contending Team} its titled the MVP) The phenomon excludes a large group of players therefore I wouldn't use it to justify anything. You also advance that Duncan was the Rookie of the Year, that award is flawed when comparing these players because it isolates only one year, it usually is a popularity contest, both players their rookie year weren't the A-stars of their team, and Duncan was a four year college player and KG came from HS so it is simple and correct to assume that he'd be more raw and have more untapped potential. Now I'll argee that the first team award is a telling stat, because KG and TD play the same position they are directly compared so one being on the first team and one being on the second team is telling that one is better than another. Now the All-Star awards don't matter in determining who's better because its a popularity contest to get into the actual game and to get minutes anmd nobody plays at full intensity 99% of the time....

Ok so back where we started I'm not making a arguement for KG at all....I haven't decided myself....but I do know how to fairly determine who better....look how they player, take note of their personal attributes, talents, etc. and say who better. It aint about awards and wins when you wanna know who's better one on one. Oh and no insults in this one


----------



## PauloCatarino

If KG's failure in leading the team is due to his lack of supporting cast, he should accept a pay cut, so the Wolves could bring some quality players.
Yeah, right. Like it's bound to happen!


----------



## rocketeer

is this the next kobe-tmac arguement?


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>theyoungsrm</b>!
> 
> 
> The analogy only highlights the arguement that I'm trying to make that when considering or comparing the merits of a player on an indivdual level, it is illogical to use a team performance to answer that question. Maybe you can say that it could be a tiebreaker, but you would have to establish the fact that both teams supporting casts were the same and that one of indivduals you are comparing pushed their team over the top. The problem with that is is that it is just like comparing the players on an indivdual level, which is what you were trying to do. It is a circle.


I agree that a teams success doesn't determine how good a member of that team actually is. However, it will ultimately determine that players place in NBA history pertaining to greatness. 



> As for the conclusion, I never said who was better. My intial post only tried to establish the fact that KG is getting a raw deal if your using team success to establish who's better. Saying that KG doesn't get past the first round isn't a good arguement on why he's inferior to Duncan. Now if you wanna say he's a better lleader, better post player, better defender, that's fine because those are reasons why he is better and they identify his personal traits, not factors that are effected by nine other players.


Agreed



> Now you go on to argue that Duncan is superior because of awards. I believe using an awards isn't a great way either. Let me explain. First MVP awards only determine who is more valuable to their team, not who is the best player of the year. Also MVP awards routinely ignore players from bad or average teams for reasons I don't understand (It's not the MVPCT, {Contending Team} its titled the MVP) The phenomon excludes a large group of players therefore I wouldn't use it to justify anything. You also advance that Duncan was the Rookie of the Year, that award is flawed when comparing these players because it isolates only one year, it usually is a popularity contest, both players their rookie year weren't the A-stars of their team, and Duncan was a four year college player and KG came from HS so it is simple and correct to assume that he'd be more raw and have more untapped potential. Now I'll argee that the first team award is a telling stat, because KG and TD play the same position they are directly compared so one being on the first team and one being on the second team is telling that one is better than another. Now the All-Star awards don't matter in determining who's better because its a popularity contest to get into the actual game and to get minutes anmd nobody plays at full intensity 99% of the time....


There are different ways to judge players. Who is better will always be a matter of ones opinion. Who is greater is defined by the accomplishments a players has acheived. Tim Duncan has done more in less time than Kevin Garnett. His stat sheet proves that he is a greater player than Kevin Garnett. 
I bet if they both ended their careers today. Tim Duncan would be a lock for the hall of fame, KG would not.



> Ok so back where we started I'm not making a arguement for KG at all....I haven't decided myself....but I do know how to fairly determine who better....look how they player, take note of their personal attributes, talents, etc. and say who better. It aint about awards and wins when you wanna know who's better one on one.


You haven't said one way of the other, but you seem to favor KG in this argument. If you think he is better or greater becuase his personal attributes, talents, etc sway your decision, cool! But I say, personal attributes, talent, etc all add up to what Tim Duncan has accomplished over the last 6 years in the NBA. He is already undeniably one of the greatest players to ever play the game of basketball. 




> Oh and no insults in this one


:greatjob:


----------



## RocketFan85

Because he is.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree that a teams success doesn't determine how good a member of that team actually is. However, it will ultimately determine that players place in NBA history pertaining to greatness.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed
> 
> 
> 
> There are different ways to judge players. Who is better will always be a matter of ones opinion. Who is greater is defined by the accomplishments a players has acheived. Tim Duncan has done more in less time than Kevin Garnett. His stat sheet proves that he is a greater player than Kevin Garnett.
> I bet if they both ended their careers today. Tim Duncan would be a lock for the hall of fame, KG would not.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't said one way of the other, but you seem to favor KG in this argument. If you think he is better or greater becuase his personal attributes, talents, etc sway your decision, cool! But I say, personal attributes, talent, etc all add up to what Tim Duncan has accomplished over the last 6 years in the NBA. He is already undeniably one of the greatest players to ever play the game of basketball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :greatjob:


Here's a question for you IV.

In 1988, who did you consider the better player? Nique or MJ?

Nique led his team to a game 7 in the ECF's against one of the greatest franchises in the history of sports and got into one of the most memorable duels of all time.

While MJ was bounced out of the playoffs.

Now Nique was on a better team and went deeper into the playoffs, and by your logic was the better player because of it.

MJ was on a inferior team and didn't advance as far. He hadn't advanced really at all in the previous....oh....4 years.

What do you say? Nique was better because his team advanced further?

Or was MJ better despite being bounced constantly out of the playoffs on a inferior team.

I eagerly await your response.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's a question for you IV.
> 
> In 1988, who did you consider the better player? Nique or MJ?
> 
> Nique led his team to a game 7 in the ECF's against one of the greatest franchises in the history of sports and got into one of the most memorable duels of all time.
> 
> While MJ was bounced out of the playoffs.
> 
> Now Nique was on a better team and went deeper into the playoffs, and by your logic was the better player because of it.
> 
> MJ was on a inferior team and didn't advance as far. He hadn't advanced really at all in the previous....oh....4 years.
> 
> What do you say? Nique was better because his team advanced further?
> 
> Or was MJ better despite being bounced constantly out of the playoffs on a inferior team.
> 
> I eagerly await your response.


Okay Eagerboy, this wont take long.

What do you mean, "by my logic?"
You are confused. I dont believe you read this thread carefully.

MJ was better in 1988. And no that is not my position in this debate. Tim Duncan is not better than KG because his team has won two titles, and KG gets bounced in the first round ever year for the last 7 years. Tim Duncan is a better/greater player than KG because he has accomplished more not only team wise, but individually than KG in less time.

Maybe your just a fan on the opposite side of the argument and you read what you want to see instead of what I wrote.

Duncan is better because he's been a All NBA first teamer on both sides of the ball every year since his rookie season when he was also rookie of the year, and he's a 2 time MVP. This years MVP. 

Why is it that unsuccessful players fans think they can compare these players to those who are not only great, but they stand above all with their success, individually or otherwise?

You can not make a respectable argument to why KG is better than Tim Duncan. At least, I have yet to hear it. "KG fan" has done nothing in this thread but argue why Tim Duncan is not as good as his fans and the rest of the league they he is.


----------



## buduan

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Okay Eagerboy, this wont take long.
> 
> What do you mean, "by my logic?"
> You are confused. I dont believe you read this thread carefully.
> 
> MJ was better in 1988. And no that is not my position in this debate. Tim Duncan is not better than KG because his team has won two titles, and KG gets bounced in the first round ever year for the last 7 years. Tim Duncan is a better/greater player than KG because he has accomplished more not only team wise, but individually than KG in less time.
> 
> Maybe your just a fan on the opposite side of the argument and you read what you want to see instead of what I wrote.
> 
> Duncan is better because he's been a All NBA first teamer on both sides of the ball every year since his rookie season when he was also rookie of the year, and he's a 2 time MVP. This years MVP.
> 
> Why is it that unsuccessful players fans think they can compare these players to those who are not only great, but they stand above all with their success, individually or otherwise?
> 
> You can not make a respectable argument to why KG is better than Tim Duncan. At least, I have yet to hear it. "KG fan" has done nothing in this thread but argue why Tim Duncan is not as good as his fans and the rest of the league they he is.


O.K. big ego, why don't you check yourself. First of all do you even know what my argument IS in this thread? Or do you just like to read your own words?

Do you know who my team is? How about my favorite player? Didn't think so, so quit talking out of your.....well you know.

Who cares what Duncan did every year leading up to this year. The fact is KG proved that THIS year he is at Duncan's level. Yeah that's right anal boy, my argument isn't that KG is better. It's that he is at his level and if he had similar talent around him like TD he would have been as successful if not more THIS season.

Judging by your avatar, we root for the same team. How embarassing.

So let me get this straight, MJ was better than Nique. But TD is better than KG?

Might I suggest you change your name to III BTW. We didn't get the 4peat this year in case you didn't notice.

Effin bandwagoners.


----------



## tenkev

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> 
> So let me get this straight, MJ was better than Nique. But TD is better than KG?
> 
> Might I suggest you change your name to III BTW. We didn't get the 4peat this year in case you didn't notice.
> 
> Effin bandwagoners.


Side note: I can remember IV saying how much he admired Tim Duncan's game long before the playoffs and long before anyone thought the Spurs had a chance to win the title.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> If KG's failure in leading the team is due to his lack of supporting cast, he should accept a pay cut, so the Wolves could bring some quality players.
> Yeah, right. Like it's bound to happen!


To start, KG has no failures in leading his team. He's the probly greatest leader of any in the whole league. There's no way to measure that, but I truly believe he is. And he likely will take a pay cut. I just saw his house for the first time on Thursday, and believe me, he don't need any more money. Why would he demand top money again? Watching him, I can see it in his actions that all he wants to do is win. Guys that are inot money are usually guys running around and having fun. Kg, especiallly in the playoffs this year, was all about business. Instead of jumping around and pumping up the crowd, he contained himself and focused on the game. There was a nice article in _Slam_ that talked about a little incident where he let his emotions out, and his game suffered. To sum up my poit, KG has a HUGE desire to win, and it would surprise me more than anything if he didn't take a cut in his salary.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> There are different ways to judge players. Who is better will always be a matter of ones opinion. Who is greater is defined by the accomplishments a players has acheived. Tim Duncan has done more in less time than Kevin Garnett. His stat sheet proves that he is a greater player than Kevin Garnett.
> I bet if they both ended their careers today. Tim Duncan would be a lock for the hall of fame, KG would not.


We are talking about who the better basketball player is. Not who has had a greater impact on the history of the game so far. Of course Duncan has had a greater impact, that doesn't mean he's a better player though. If I could have Duncan's or KG's career, I would have Duncan's. If I could have Duncan's or Kg's game, I would have KG's. Duncan has had a more successful career, but Mark Madsen has also had a more successful career than KG. That's no argument for him being better though, and being better is what this argument was intended to be about.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>buduan</b>!
> O.K. big ego, why don't you check yourself. First of all do you even know what my argument IS in this thread? Or do you just like to read your own words?
> 
> Do you know who my team is? How about my favorite player? Didn't think so, so quit talking out of your.....well you know.


All of that is irrelavant.



> Who cares what Duncan did every year leading up to this year. The fact is KG proved that THIS year he is at Duncan's level. Yeah that's right anal boy, my argument isn't that KG is better. It's that he is at his level and if he had similar talent around him like TD he would have been as successful if not more THIS season.


If that's your arguement make it, instead of counter arguing an argument that I never made.



> Judging by your avatar, we root for the same team. How embarassing.


Yes, that is embarassing.



> So let me get this straight, MJ was better than Nique. But TD is better than KG?


Very good.



> Might I suggest you change your name to III BTW. We didn't get the 4peat this year in case you didn't notice.


Suggestion noted, but my name has nothing to do with a Laker 4 peat.



> Effin bandwagoners.


Tell me about it.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>tenkev</b>!
> 
> 
> Side note: I can remember IV saying how much he admired Tim Duncan's game long before the playoffs and long before anyone thought the Spurs had a chance to win the title.


:yes:


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> We are talking about who the better basketball player is. Not who has had a greater impact on the history of the game so far. Of course Duncan has had a greater impact, that doesn't mean he's a better player though.


I believe better players do have a greater impact on the game and that's why I feel TD is better. KG is a great player and he's easily in Duncan's league, but TD is the best big man in the game right now. He's not the MVP for nothing. And no being MVP doesn't mean best player in the league, IMO, Kobe is the best player in the league. But Tim is the better of these two. I dont think there are many GM's in the league that would take KG over Duncan. :nonono:



> If I could have Duncan's or KG's career, I would have Duncan's. If I could have Duncan's or Kg's game, I would have KG's. Duncan has had a more successful career, but Mark Madsen has also had a more successful career than KG. That's no argument for him being better though, and being better is what this argument was intended to be about.


That's an analogy to the extreme. And No Mark Madsen has not had a better career than KG. You are the main one who says players who win titles are not better due to the fact, so how has Madsen had a better career than KG? 
You are kidding, right? :whoknows:


----------



## socco

Madsen had a better career. He has the rings to prove it. But KG is a better player. It's the same in the Duncan-KG case, not to that much of an extreme but that's the case. The only reason you guys have for Duncan being better is that he has championships, which is because he has a way better team. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> Madsen had a better career. He has the rings to prove it. But KG is a better player. It's the same in the Duncan-KG case, not to that much of an extreme but that's the case. The only reason you guys have for Duncan being better is that he has championships, which is because he has a way better team. It just doesn't make sense.


It doesn't make sense because that's not the point. Duncan is better for more reasons than his rings.

And No mark Madsen has not had a great career, that's ridiculous.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> It doesn't make sense because that's not the point. Duncan is better for more reasons than his rings.
> 
> And No mark Madsen has not had a great career, that's ridiculous.


I would much rather have Mark Madsen's career. It's all about the championships my friend. Please let me know the reasons other than the rings that he is better than. The only one I can remember is that he is a low-post player, that's not a reason why someone is better though, so I would like to hear your reasons.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> I would much rather have Mark Madsen's career. It's all about the championships my friend. Please let me know the reasons other than the rings that he is better than. The only one I can remember is that he is a low-post player, that's not a reason why someone is better though, so I would like to hear your reasons.


when players are about equal, rings can be part of the arguement. garnett and duncan are pretty much equal. you could make a case for either of them being better. but i think when you have 2 equal players, you can start looking at their accomplishments to break the tie. that is why duncan is better. they are equal, but he wins the mvp, championship, and pretty much every other award tie breaker there could be. 

garnett is so much better than madsen, that his rings don't matter. madsen didn't earn his rings, he just happened to be on a team with shaq and kobe. garnett at least carried his team to the playoffs.


----------



## IV

*for the umpteenth time!*



> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> I would much rather have Mark Madsen's career. It's all about the championships my friend. Please let me know the reasons other than the rings that he is better than. The only one I can remember is that he is a low-post player, that's not a reason why someone is better though, so I would like to hear your reasons.


Awards, accolades, titles, dominance, size(which does make a difference), stats, are all reason why Duncan is better than KG. 
In one sentence, Tim Duncan has done more with his career in less time than KG and that is why he's a better player.
Why do you think KG is better?

If KG keeps the same pace without ever winning a title he will still be in the hall of fame. Mark Madsen could win another 5 rings the same way he has and not be a hall of famer. His career has not been more successful than KG's at all.


----------



## socco

*Re: for the umpteenth time!*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Awards, accolades, titles, dominance, size(which does make a difference), stats, are all reason why Duncan is better than KG.
> In one sentence, Tim Duncan has done more with his career in less time than KG and that is why he's a better player.
> Why do you think KG is better?
> 
> If KG keeps the same pace without ever winning a title he will still be in the hall of fame. Mark Madsen could win another 5 rings the same way he has and not be a hall of famer. His career has not been more successful than KG's at all.


Mark Madsen *has* has a better career than Kg. He's accomplished the goals that every player has coming inot the league. I would much rather succeed in my goals than be a good player but not do what I set out to do. REad my first posst, I gave you the specifics why Garnett is better than Duncna. You could go into detail on your reasons. You just named vauge areas and didn't explain why Duncan is supposed to be better in those areas and why that overall makes him a better player. KG dominates just as much if not more than Duncan, they both have size, and if size is a reason why Duncan is better, than you must not be too fond of guys like AI. And the stats are so much in Kg's vavor it's not even funny. The basic ones are pretty even, but the ones that count, like the efficiency rating which is the total of all stats, crunch time rating which says how good they are when it really counts at the end of games, and the amazing disparity in the +-/ stat which is the definition of valuable are all in KG's favor as the best in hte league over every player, not just beating Duncan. I want to see some real reasons why Duncan is better. Besides him being a low-post player which isn't a reason because that just means on average big guys are better than smaller guys, or his team success which is based on having a good team around him in addition to his skills, and the MVP awards which clearly should've gone to KG this season and I can easily prove that to you if you think I haven't already. Please give me some real reasons why Duncan is a better player than KG, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.


----------



## PauloCatarino

I'd like to throw a little wood into the fire:

You're discussing who's better - Duncan or KG, right?
Well, as far as i can tell, they guard eachother when the Spurs play the Wolves, don't they?
Who has the better stats in the Spurs/Wolves games?
That should enlight the argument...


----------



## el_Diablo

+/- shows us only how important garnett is to the wolves, not necessarily how good a player he is.

on the other hand, maybe KG should have been the MVP? most VALUABLE player.


----------



## socco

Of cousre he should've been MVP, lol. Someone said earlier that it can't be that hard to do that on a crappy team, which we all know the Wolves are. And also lead that crappy team in pts, reb, ast, stl, and blk this season. Yet he turned that crappy team into the 4th best team in the leaguge.


----------



## tenkev

*Re: Re: for the umpteenth time!*



> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> Mark Madsen *has* has a better career than Kg. He's accomplished the goals that every player has coming inot the league. I would much rather succeed in my goals than be a good player but not do what I set out to do. REad my first posst, I gave you the specifics why Garnett is better than Duncna. You could go into detail on your reasons. You just named vauge areas and didn't explain why Duncan is supposed to be better in those areas and why that overall makes him a better player. KG dominates just as much if not more than Duncan, they both have size, and if size is a reason why Duncan is better, than you must not be too fond of guys like AI. And the stats are so much in Kg's vavor it's not even funny. The basic ones are pretty even, but the ones that count, like the efficiency rating which is the total of all stats, crunch time rating which says how good they are when it really counts at the end of games, and the amazing disparity in the +-/ stat which is the definition of valuable are all in KG's favor as the best in hte league over every player, not just beating Duncan. I want to see some real reasons why Duncan is better. Besides him being a low-post player which isn't a reason because that just means on average big guys are better than smaller guys, or his team success which is based on having a good team around him in addition to his skills, and the MVP awards which clearly should've gone to KG this season and I can easily prove that to you if you think I haven't already. Please give me some real reasons why Duncan is a better player than KG, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.


I already told you efficiency rating is terrible. How can you not see that just adding up the positive stats and subtracting the negative ones is bogus? 

Nestle Crunch Rating is just the efficiency rating at the end of the game. Efficiency rating is crap, so Nestle Crunch is crap.


----------



## Johnny Mac

how many titles has mark madsen led his team to ? ZERO
how many titles has garnett led his team to ? ZERO

atleast KG leads his team though

how many titles has duncan LED his team to? TWO

thats the difference. The madsen/KG/Duncan comparison is horrible. Madsen is a roleplayer thrown into a comparison of franchise players.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> how many titles has mark madsen led his team to ? ZERO
> how many titles has garnett led his team to ? ZERO
> 
> atleast KG leads his team though
> 
> how many titles has duncan LED his team to? TWO
> 
> thats the difference. The madsen/KG/Duncan comparison is horrible. Madsen is a roleplayer thrown into a comparison of franchise players.


He has accomplished the goals of his career. That's all I was saying. Duncan didn't *LEAD* his team to two title, he led them to the last one, but wasn't the main big time leader in the first one. Robinson was just as much a factor. I'm saying Madsen has had a more successful career, but that doesn't mean he's a better player. 

tenkev, So stats mean absolutely nothing. T-Mac scores more points than Eduardo Najera, but the point stat is terrible, it just adds up all the time you put it in the basket. You could score 100 times but it doesn't matter if you're not helping your team out. What's wrong with adding up the positive stats and subtracting the negatives? What would you like for a stat that tries to determine how good a player is overall. There has to be one that isn't "bogus". The one I use in my fantasy league awards more points for things that are harder to do, like blocks and steals, and KG leads by even more in that one. How can you give absolutely no credit to statistics at all. There's a reason why they keep stats ya know. They don't just do it for the hell of it. 

Yet again I ask this, What reasons do you guys have for Duncan being better. Rings isn't a legitimate reason, that's the reason he's had a "greater" career. Not a reason for how good someone is as I've shown in the Mark Madsen case. Being a *low*-post player doesn't make someone a better basketball player either. That's just ridiculous. I want to hear some real reasons why you think Duncan is better.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> He has accomplished the goals of his career. That's all I was saying. Duncan didn't *LEAD* his team to two title, he led them to the last one, but wasn't the main big time leader in the first one. Robinson was just as much a factor. I'm saying Madsen has had a more successful career, but that doesn't mean he's a better player.


madsen hasn't had close to the career garnett has had. it is not even close. madsen won titles as a bench player. he made no signifigant contribution in winning the title. all he has is a ring and nothing else. saying that his career is better than the career of a current top 5 player in the league makes no sense. with zero championships, garnett's career is still a million times better than madsen's.




> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> So stats mean absolutely nothing. T-Mac scores more points than Eduardo Najera, but the point stat is terrible, it just adds up all the time you put it in the basket.


tmac is a way better player than najera. why compare them? that is almost as bad as the garnett/madsen comparison. do you know which team wins the game every single time? the team with the most points. so points is the most important stat of all. scoring and defense are the two main things.


----------



## Johnny Mac

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> He has accomplished the goals of his career. That's all I was saying. Duncan didn't *LEAD* his team to two title, he led them to the last one, but wasn't the main big time leader in the first one. Robinson was just as much a factor. I'm saying Madsen has had a more successful career, but that doesn't mean he's a better player.
> 
> tenkev, So stats mean absolutely nothing. T-Mac scores more points than Eduardo Najera, but the point stat is terrible, it just adds up all the time you put it in the basket. You could score 100 times but it doesn't matter if you're not helping your team out. What's wrong with adding up the positive stats and subtracting the negatives? What would you like for a stat that tries to determine how good a player is overall. There has to be one that isn't "bogus". The one I use in my fantasy league awards more points for things that are harder to do, like blocks and steals, and KG leads by even more in that one. How can you give absolutely no credit to statistics at all. There's a reason why they keep stats ya know. They don't just do it for the hell of it.
> 
> Yet again I ask this, What reasons do you guys have for Duncan being better. Rings isn't a legitimate reason, that's the reason he's had a "greater" career. Not a reason for how good someone is as I've shown in the Mark Madsen case. Being a *low*-post player doesn't make someone a better basketball player either. That's just ridiculous. I want to hear some real reasons why you think Duncan is better.


Madsens and KG's expectations coming into the league were completely different, so success would be based on that. And I still dont see the comparison having any relevance, due to the leadership factor. 

What reasons do you have that KG is better than Duncan? I never said KG isnt on his level, but the title of the thread is "Why KG is better than duncan"...and I proved why thats false. Duncan is a little better. 

UNDERSTAND THIS: KGs efficiency rating is just above Duncans, but Duncan does it at a WAY HIGHER LEVEL because his team is way better. 

EXAMPLE: if a player for a LAST PLACE team putting up the SAME numbers as a player for the FIRST PLACE team...both are without a doubt the leaders on their team. Whos better? If you say the last place teams player, your just not thinking straight. 

Duncan puts up Garnett type numbers, AND wins games and titles. 

Duncan is a winner, KG is not a winner yet. 

I dont think you'll ever see otherwise because you think duncan is boring, or love KGs game, or something is holding you back from seeing what most unbias fans on this site realize without a doubt. Its not something that has just been accepted, its been looked deep into, and after looking deep into the facts of each players accomplishments, and seeing them play a whole lot, it only strengthens my opinion that duncan is the better player.


----------



## socco

I was one of the few people in the world as it seemed that actually enjoyed watching Tim Duncan in the playoffs. While the media was going on about how boring he was, I was loving watching him. As I said before, he's one of my top 10 favorite players. I liked your comparison of how Duncan puts up numbers like KG, they aren't quite as good as KG's, but they are closer than everybody else. The thing you guys forget though is that the Wolves were the 4th best team in the league!!!!!!!!! He put up those amazing numbers on the 4th best team in the entire NBA. We all know the Wolves suck and are crappy, so how in the hell do they become the 4th best in the whole league? That's one of the most amazing things. People always say he doesn't know how to win. He pulled this crappy team to a frachise record 50 wins! Duncan wins in the playoffs cus he has a good team around him. In the playoffs, the great teams step it up a notch. Only the great teams can do this, and the poor teams are exploited. This is what happens with the Wolves. KG somehow drags them into the playoffs, then the other team just smuthers us because they are a much better team. The Spurs don't have big-name guys and don't get much credit for having a good team. But they showed during the playoffs that they are the best team in the league. As crazy as it may sound, it doesn't matter if you have great players in the playoffs. You need a great *team* to win then, and the Wolves simply don't have that.
How did you prove that statement to be false? The only thing you guys have is the playoff thing, which doesn't work because you have success in the playoffs when you have a *great team*, not one great player dragging a bunch of nobodys around. And the only other thing you have is that KG isn't a low-post player. Even though most of his scoring comes in the post, it has to be right next to the basket, where all you need is size to get your defender off you and then put it in. It shouldn't matter where you post up, KG makes just a slight percentage less of his shots than Duncan, even though he shoots from farther out. So being a low post player doesn't make Duncan better either. But you've proved me wrong? How? I've had many points that showed how KG is better. Those 3 stats, efficiency, crunch-time, and +/- give KG a HUGE edge. Thow in the fact that he's a better leader (Duncan's a good leader, but not as much as KG) and I don't see how Duncan is better. I've seen the fact that he has 2 MVPs used too, which is stupid because that's part of my point, that KG definately deserved MVP this year over Duncan. The only reason you would have there that Duncan deserved it is that his team was a whole 10 games better and that stupid low-post argument. Can you guys please try to find a real reason why you think Duncan is better, or admit that he isn't. Look at my original post, and you'll see plenty of *valid* reasons favoring KG, yet you have none favoring Duncan.


----------



## Johnny Mac

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> I was one of the few people in the world as it seemed that actually enjoyed watching Tim Duncan in the playoffs. While the media was going on about how boring he was, I was loving watching him. As I said before, he's one of my top 10 favorite players. I liked your comparison of how Duncan puts up numbers like Kg, they aren't quite as good as KG's, but they are closer than everybody else. The thing you guys forget though is that the Wolves were the 4th best team in the league!!!!!!!!! He put up those amazing numbers on the 4th best team in the entire NBA. We all know the Wolves suck and are crappy, so how in the hell to they become the 4th ebst in the whole league? That's one of the most amazing things. People always say he doesn't know how to win. He pulled this crappy team to a frachise record 50 wins! Duncan wins in the playoffs cus he has a good team around him. In the playoffs, the great teams step it up a notch. Only the great teams can do this, and teh poor teams are exploited. This is what happens with the Wolves. KG somehow drags them inot the playoffs, then the other team just smuthers us because they are a much better team. The Spurs don't have big-name guys and don't get much credit for having a good team. But they showed during the playoffs that they are the best team in the league. As crazy as it may sound, it doesn't matter if you have great players in the playoffs. You need a great *team* to win then, and the Wolves simply don't have that. How did you prove that statement to be false? The only thing you guys have is the playoff thing, which doesn't work because you have success in the playoffs when you have a *great team*, not one great player dragging a bunch of nobodys around. And the only other thing you have is that KG isn't a low-post player. Even though most of his scoring comes in the post, it has to be right next to the basket, where all you need is size to get your defender off you and then put it in. It shouldn't matter where you post up, KG makes just a slight percentage less of his shots than Duncan, even though he shoots from farther out. So being a low post player doesn't make Duncan better either. But you've proved me wrong? How? I've had many points that showed how KG is better. Those 3 stats, efficiency, crunch-time, and +/- give KG a HUGE edge. Thow in the fact that he's a better leader (Duncan's a good leader, but not as much as KG) and I don't see how Duncan is better. I've seen the fact that he has 2 MVPs used too, which is stupid because that's part of my point, that KG definately deserved MVP this year over Duncan. The only reason you would have there that Duncan deserved it is that his team was a whole 10 games better and that stupid low-post argument. Can you guys please try to find a real reason why you think Duncan is better, or admit that he isn't. Look at my original post, and you'll see plenty of *valid* reasons favoring KG, yet you have none favoring Duncan.


Every stat I throw at you, you find a way to justify why its wrong..."oh teams win in the playoffs, not players"

well, that game 6 in the playoffs against the lakers by duncan was more of a solo performance than anything KG has ever done at a playoff level. 

DUNCAN IS THE REASON THEY ARE A TEAM. You honestly think Stephen Jackson can create his own offense????? he can barely dribble. Bruce bowen has no offense unless hes open for three, duncan opens that option up for him. Tony parker is good, but he played no better than troy hudson these playoffs. Duncan creates for the spurs, he draws constant double teams. He opens up kerr, parker, bowen, jackson, claxton for open shots. When teams double him from the post, hes a great passer and finds Rose and Robinson for easy buckets. 

Duncan was the best player (by far) on the best team (by far) and still finished 2nd in effiency ratings.

I want you to go skill for skill, and tell me what garnett is better/worse at than duncan (rebounding, shooting, blocks, defense, scoring etc)...do that for me, I'm interesting to see what you make of that, because in my mind duncan takes 80% of the categories, but go ahead.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> We all know the Wolves suck and are crappy, so how in the hell to they become the 4th ebst in the whole league?


if they suck and are crappy, they would not be the 4th best team in the league. garnett's supporting cast is very underrated(though not as underrated as duncan's). hudson is a good player. he really stepped it up in the playoffs and that is really the only reason the wolves had a chance against the lakers. wally is also a good player. he didn't show up in the playoffs, but he was definately huge in getting the wolves the 4th best record. gill, peeler, and strickland are all decent guys to have as role players. they definately aren't terrible. rasho is also a pretty good player. he is a top 10 center. and jackson and smith aren't terrible to have coming off the bench. it is not a bunch of terrible players and then garnett. there are some other good guys on the wolves and they obviously play well together as a team if they were able to get the 4th best record.

no one is saying that duncan is way better than garnett. we(or at least i am) saying that they are pretty much equal players, but since duncan has the rings and the mvps, he gets a slight edge as to who the better player is.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> 
> if they suck and are crappy, they would not be the 4th best team in the league. garnett's supporting cast is very underrated(though not as underrated as duncan's). hudson is a good player. he really stepped it up in the playoffs and that is really the only reason the wolves had a chance against the lakers. wally is also a good player. he didn't show up in the playoffs, but he was definately huge in getting the wolves the 4th best record. gill, peeler, and strickland are all decent guys to have as role players. they definately aren't terrible. rasho is also a pretty good player. he is a top 10 center. and jackson and smith aren't terrible to have coming off the bench. it is not a bunch of terrible players and then garnett. there are some other good guys on the wolves and they obviously play well together as a team if they were able to get the 4th best record.
> 
> no one is saying that duncan is way better than garnett. we(or at least i am) saying that they are pretty much equal players, but since duncan has the rings and the mvps, he gets a slight edge as to who the better player is.


That's the amazing thing about Garnett. These guys are crappy, yet he still somehow has them at the 4th best in the league. Wally was a big reason they were the 4th best? He was out half the year and didn't produce much at all once he got back. He might've had 5 good games the whole year, if that. He might've been the 7th or 8th biggest reasons the Wovles were #4 in the league. Hudson should not be a starting point guard in the NBA. He's not the type of player who starts. He would be nice off the bench sometimes, but isn't a starter. He's also a horrible defender, as is Wally. Rasho is as soft as a teddy bear, if not softer. He was nothing when he came into he league, so KG sent alot of time getting him towards respectability. Jackson and Trent play out of control. Smith is a black overhyped version of Mark Madsen and Eduardo Najera, who ruined the franchise financially. Gill is old and slow on defense, and he's still our 3rd or 4th best defender. Peeler is one of the most inconsistent shooters in the league. Strickland was out for a while, he went down around the all-star break I believe, and never made a full recovery. Mike Wilks was at many times the 2nd best PG on the active roster, and he got cut by Atlanta! Plus we had to deal with losing our 2 best PGs, Brandon and Billups, and KG had to deal with the tragic death of one of his best friends, Malik Sealey. This team is horrible. You say "if they suck and are crappy, they would not be the 4th best team in the league." That's why it's so amazing. These guys are crappy. You guys have discredited most of the stats KG has because he plays on a crappy team. But now once I say how KG is an amazing player if he can lead a bunch of crappy players to being the 4th best in the NBA, then they aren't crappy.
I don't see why you insist on settling that they are equal as players. They are both amazingly great, but if you try reading what I've posted, you'd see that they aren't equal, KG is better.
What part of Duncan's game makes him a better player than KG. For a moment forget about the titles and everything. What makes him better when he's on the court than KG? I already know the answer to this, it's nothing. Because he isn't better.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Every stat I throw at you, you find a way to justify why its wrong..."oh teams win in the playoffs, not players"
> 
> well, that game 6 in the playoffs against the lakers by duncan was more of a solo performance than anything KG has ever done at a playoff level.
> 
> DUNCAN IS THE REASON THEY ARE A TEAM. You honestly think Stephen Jackson can create his own offense????? he can barely dribble. Bruce bowen has no offense unless hes open for three, duncan opens that option up for him. Tony parker is good, but he played no better than troy hudson these playoffs. Duncan creates for the spurs, he draws constant double teams. He opens up kerr, parker, bowen, jackson, claxton for open shots. When teams double him from the post, hes a great passer and finds Rose and Robinson for easy buckets.
> 
> Duncan was the best player (by far) on the best team (by far) and still finished 2nd in effiency ratings.
> 
> I want you to go skill for skill, and tell me what garnett is better/worse at than duncan (rebounding, shooting, blocks, defense, scoring etc)...do that for me, I'm interesting to see what you make of that, because in my mind duncan takes 80% of the categories, but go ahead.


Did you watch game 6 in the Lakers series? That was the game that got me loving the Spurs as a team. That was the best team basketball I've seen all year. Everybody for the Spurs was just amazing in that game. It wasn't all Duncan. It wasn't even close to all Duncan. And Teams do win in the playoffs. Great teams step it up then, do they not? The Lakers were probly favored to win the title, even though they were the 5th seed. That's becasue they are known as a great team, and would for sure step up their game in the playoffs. Hell, they don't even play the regular season any more. They just sit back, maybe get some surgery done, hog the ball a little, and then start playin once the playoffs come around. KG plays great in the playoffs. Go look back through the stats if you don't remember or haven't seen the games in the past. KG is the main reason they ever have a chance in the playoffs. Nobody else can step it up though. Hudson played th ebest basketball by far of his life, and we still lost. That's because it takes a full team effort. We had 2 players playing the Laker series, how are you going to win with 2 guys playing? KG is the reason the Wolves are a team. You honestly think they would've won more than 20 games this year without KG? It wouldn't surprise me to see 15 or less wins without him. Kg draws double-teams too. It's jsut too bad the other guys can't make the shots. Tony Parker outplayed Jason Kidd in 2 of the first 3 games. Hudson outplayed Derek Fisher. There's a bit of a difference in skill level of who they were goin up against too.
I will go skil-by-skill comparing the two guys. I don't got time right now, but I'll get started tonight and probly finish up tomorrow.


----------



## Johnny Mac

Based on playoff numbers 

Scoring - KG (27.0 to 24.7)
Rebounding - KG (15.7 to 15.4)
Defense - Duncan (3.92 combined block/steals to 3.34)
Passing - Duncan (5.3 to 5.2)
Free Throws - Duncan (67.7 to 60.7)
----------------------------
Winning - Duncan

I think scoring is the only legitimate win for KG on that list though. But I'll give KG the nod in the categories he led in. 

Garnetts efficiency rating was 35.24 in 44.2 minutes per game
Duncans efficiency rating was 34.94 in 42.5 minutes per game

Factor in those 1.7 minutes a game more that garnett had, then its like this: 

Boost Duncans minutes up to 44.2 a game: 
Garnett = 35.24
Duncan = 35.53

Reduce Garnetts minutes to 42.5 a game: 
Garnett = 34.64
Duncan = 34.94

If your going to play the stats game you gotta factor in everything. Duncans effiency rating is BETTER than garnetts in the playoffs, AND he won the title. Case closed! 

Advantage - Duncan


----------



## kflo

as mentioned already, the +/- measures, relatively, how much better than your replacement you are than someone else is than their replacement. hardly proof of who the better player is.

effeciency rating measures your statistical contributions. david robinson won alot of effeciency rating titles, yet was clearly behind hakeem and jordan (at least) as a player overall.

the statistical measures are nice, they're hardly proof, as you seem to be touting it.

duncan is a dominant interior defender. much more so than garnett. sa held opponents to 40% fg% in the playoffs. duncan is a huge reason for that. the impact (of a dominant interior defender) is greater come playoff time (you don't think it had anything to do with kidd's struggles?). 

duncan is a more dominant post presence offensively. this has an enormous impact on a team, creating spacing, ball movement, mismatches.

duncan just plays bigger than garnett. they're close, obviously. both great players. i'll take the guy who i'd rather throw the ball to if i needed a bucket (and don't feed me garnett's crunch time numbers). i'll take the dominant interior defender. and importantly, i'll take the guy with a chance head-to-head against shaq. all of those things, imo, factor into postseason success. 

you want to give all the weight to individual stats and none to the fact that duncan's team is far more successful. 

and btw, to claim robinson was equally responsible for the '99 title is pretty ludicrous, imo. particularly when you look at their +/- and effeciency ratings  from that season/postseason.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> What part of Duncan's game makes him a better player than KG. For a moment forget about the titles and everything. What makes him better when he's on the court than KG? I already know the answer to this, it's nothing. Because he isn't better.


i have the same question for you. what part of kg's game makes him better than duncan? either way the answer is the same. nothing. which is why i say they are equal players. duncan just would be put above kg in any list i would make because he has the rings and mvps.


----------



## KG_And1

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Based on playoff numbers
> 
> Scoring - KG (27.0 to 24.7)
> Rebounding - KG (15.7 to 15.4)
> Defense - Duncan (3.92 combined block/steals to 3.34)
> Passing - Duncan (5.3 to 5.2)
> Free Throws - Duncan (67.7 to 60.7)
> ----------------------------
> Winning - Duncan
> 
> I think scoring is the only legitimate win for KG on that list though. But I'll give KG the nod in the categories he led in.
> 
> Garnetts efficiency rating was 35.24 in 44.2 minutes per game
> Duncans efficiency rating was 34.94 in 42.5 minutes per game
> 
> Factor in those 1.7 minutes a game more that garnett had, then its like this:
> 
> Boost Duncans minutes up to 44.2 a game:
> Garnett = 35.24
> Duncan = 35.53
> 
> Reduce Garnetts minutes to 42.5 a game:
> Garnett = 34.64
> Duncan = 34.94
> 
> If your going to play the stats game you gotta factor in everything. Duncans effiency rating is BETTER than garnetts in the playoffs, AND he won the title. Case closed!
> 
> Advantage - Duncan


:laugh: This is the most idiotic argument I've read yet. Duncan played 4 series while Garnett played only 1. Duncan played against teams that consisted of the Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, and Nets. The only team that could hold their own against Duncan is the Lakers...and Garnett's club faced these Lakers. 

- Maybe if you compared Duncan's game against the Lakers along with KG's game against them Lakers you'd have a valid argument...but the one you threw out is laughable.


----------



## Johnny Mac

^^are you joking me?!?!?

Its much harder to maintain a high efficiency rating for 24 games, than it is for 6. 

and I'm not a firm believer in stats, I believe in what I see, but the guy who made this thread claims that stats are the bottom line of why KG is better, and everything else doesnt matter...so by proving duncans stats are equal or better, it completely destroys that argument.


----------



## IV

*Re: Re: for the umpteenth time!*



> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> Mark Madsen *has* has a better career than Kg. He's accomplished the goals that every player has coming inot the league. I would much rather succeed in my goals than be a good player but not do what I set out to do.


That is insanely ridiculous.

After KG has been a perennial allstar, all league nbaer on both sides of the ball, one of the best all around players in the league, you think Mark Madsen has had a better career because he has been the twelveth man on a 3 time championship team. How can you be so foolish? Is Steve Kerr, a 5 time NBA champion, a greater point guard than John Stockton?



> REad my first posst, I gave you the specifics why Garnett is better than Duncna. You could go into detail on your reasons. You just named vauge areas and didn't explain why Duncan is supposed to be better in those areas and why that overall makes him a better player.


There's no reason to go into specifics as to why Tim is better, I've already done so. But to summarize for the last time, In 5 years, Tim Duncan has done more than KG has in 7 years individually and teamwise.



> KG dominates just as much if not more than Duncan, they both have size, and if size is a reason why Duncan is better, than you must not be too fond of guys like AI.


Size is a major part of dominance in the game of basketball. KG does not have the size that Tim has. Understand the difference between being tall and having size. KG is an inch shorter and 40+ pounds lighter. He is not as physically imposing as Tim Duncan.



> And the stats are so much in Kg's vavor it's not even funny. The basic ones are pretty even, but the ones that count, like the efficiency rating which is the total of all stats, crunch time rating which says how good they are when it really counts at the end of games, and the amazing disparity in the +-/ stat which is the definition of valuable are all in KG's favor as the best in hte league over every player, not just beating Duncan.


KG is a great player and he does it all. Don't think I think less of him because he is not, IMO, better than Duncan. 



> I want to see some real reasons why Duncan is better. Besides him being a low-post player which isn't a reason because that just means on average big guys are better than smaller guys.


Big guys do have an overwhelming advantage in this game. 



> or his team success which is based on having a good team around him in addition to his skills, and the MVP awards which clearly should've gone to KG this season and I can easily prove that to you if you think I haven't already.


You haven't proved that because you can't. Your opinion does not matter when it comes to who will be named the MVP of the league. Those who follow these players all year long, write about them, interview them, and watch them play all year long have the final say so. It is a collection of many unbias professional voters, It fair man.



> Please give me some real reasons why Duncan is a better player than KG, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.


5 first team NBA awards
4 first team all NBA defensive awards; 1 2nd team award.
Rookie of the year
2 league MVP awards
2 titles
2 finals MVP awards
1 allstar MVP award

all that in 5 years to KG's 7.

Why do you make me keep posting this?

BTW, if Madsen has had a better career than KG, how the hell is KG better than Duncan?


----------



## D5

*Re: Re: Re: for the umpteenth time!*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> That is insanely ridiculous.
> 
> After KG has been a perennial allstar, all league nbaer on both sides of the ball, one of the best all around players in the league, you think Mark Madsen has had a better career because he has been the twelveth man on a 3 time championship team. How can you be so foolish? Is Steve Kerr, a 5 time NBA champion, a greater point guard than John Stockton?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to go into specifics as to why Tim is better, I've already done so. But to summarize for the last time, In 5 years, Tim Duncan has done more than KG has in 7 years individually and teamwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Size is a major part of dominance in the game of basketball. KG does not have the size that Tim has. Understand the difference between being tall and having size. KG is an inch shorter and 40+ pounds lighter. He is not as physically imposing as Tim Duncan.
> 
> 
> 
> KG is a great player and he does it all. Don't think I think less of him because he is not, IMO, better than Duncan.
> 
> 
> 
> Big guys do have an overwhelming advantage in this game.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't proved that because you can't. Your opinion does not matter when it comes to who will be named the MVP of the league. Those who follow these players all year long, write about them, interview them, and watch them play all year long have the final say so. It is a collection of many unbias professional voters, It fair man.
> 
> 
> 
> 5 first team NBA awards
> 4 first team all NBA defensive awards; 1 2nd team award.
> Rookie of the year
> 2 league MVP awards
> 2 titles
> 2 finals MVP awards
> 1 allstar MVP award
> 
> all that in 5 years to KG's 7.
> 
> Why do you make me keep posting this?
> 
> BTW, if Madsen has had a better career than KG, how the hell is KG better than Duncan?


Pwned.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> ^^are you joking me?!?!?
> 
> Its much harder to maintain a high efficiency rating for 24 games, than it is for 6.
> 
> and I'm not a firm believer in stats, I believe in what I see, but the guy who made this thread claims that stats are the bottom line of why KG is better, and everything else doesnt matter...so by proving duncans stats are equal or better, it completely destroys that argument.


Stats aren't accurate when you play only 6 games, especially compared to playing 24. I've had a bunch of points other than stats of why KG is better. Some of you try to totally discredit all teh stats though. I know they don't mean everything, but you have to take them into consideration. Duncan's stats are equal or better in the playoffs where he actually had on average easier competition than KG. The toughest team they played was LA, which is the team the Wolves played too. KG is a better leader, gets his teammates more involved, has a greater impact on how his teammates do(he turend Wally into an all-star and Rasho into a serviceable big man). What does Duncan have? A better team and plays lower in the post where he should make alot ihgher percentage of shots. The MVPs don't work, cus KG was obviously the most valuable player this season. Kg is the best defender in the league. Sure people don't want to go down low on Duncan, so then they can shot out high. With KG, you can't do either. The only guy he can't guard very effectively is probly Shaq. Duncan can't guard SGs or PGs. He can somewhat contain Shaq, but that's all he's got over KG on D. KG has an outside game as well as a great inside game. He finds his teammates even more than Duncan does, and is the most unselfish player on the team. Duncan does had the titles, but that can't be your only reason, because he has a great team around him as well. I haven't ever said that stats are the only reason why KG is better. In fact the only thing I've said on that matter is that stats don't mean everything, but you can't just ignore them because they don't favor your side. I don't ignore the titles. I give him credit for it, but it's not enough to make him a better player.


----------



## Johnny Mac

How can KG be a better leader than Duncan if Duncan LED his team to the title and KG LED his team to a first round exit. That makes no sense. Leadership is based on how far you take your team, no matter how talented. 

Shooting - KG
Rebounding - Duncan
Passing - Duncan
Defense - Duncan
Post Game - Duncan

Most categories are close but I think Duncan takes everything other than scoring. 

2 Titles - Duncan
Advantage - Duncan

Me and IV are in agreement on this, which means its basically an unofficial FACT, because me and him are on opposite ends of the spectrum on most things. 

Q, I think you have an obvious bias, and I see no reason to keep posting in this thread because your stating the same things over and over and their all opinionated. You cant prove for fact KG is better, but I can prove for fact that Duncan is the two-time MOST VALUABLE PLAYER, and two-time NBA CHAMPION. 

Your opinion against Facts...I'll take the facts in an instant.


----------



## RoRo

i'm a firm believer in a players ability to get to the free throw line. and this is why i take td over kg. after reading some of the posts it's obvious these two guys are the tops in the nba in terms of production and efficency. fine, but on the whole td gets to the line more often than kg.

in the la series td went to the line 57 times. garnett made it to the line 28 times. why all the fuss? drawing fouls does a couple of things. it puts the opposing team in foul trouble which leads to more free throws for your whole team. it also takes the edge off of an aggressive defense - they're afraid to put you on the line so they're not 'in your face' as much. 

one of the biggest things td was able to do in the lakers series was get shaq in foul trouble. 

td makes his living close to the basket. that's a good thing imo. he's the best in the nba at drawing contact. if he doesn't make the shot he's likely to get a foul call or better yet he's in position for an offensive rebound. if kg insists on the turn around 18 footers, the three point shot, or the pull up jumpers in crunch time he better hit 75% of them otherwise he'll never see past the first round.


----------



## numb555

> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> i'm a firm believer in a players ability to get to the free throw line. and this is why i take td over kg. after reading some of the posts it's obvious these two guys are the tops in the nba in terms of production and efficency. fine, but on the whole td gets to the line more often than kg.
> 
> in the la series td went to the line 57 times. garnett made it to the line 28 times. why all the fuss? drawing fouls does a couple of things. it puts the opposing team in foul trouble which leads to more free throws for your whole team. it also takes the edge off of an aggressive defense - they're afraid to put you on the line so they're not 'in your face' as much.
> 
> one of the biggest things td was able to do in the lakers series was get shaq in foul trouble.
> 
> td makes his living close to the basket. that's a good thing imo. he's the best in the nba at drawing contact. if he doesn't make the shot he's likely to get a foul call or better yet he's in position for an offensive rebound. if kg insists on the turn around 18 footers, the three point shot, or the pull up jumpers in crunch time he better hit 75% of them otherwise he'll never see past the first round.


Amen To that!


----------



## superdude

Kg is overated. What has he ever done to be considered a better player than Duncan.:yes:


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> KG is a better leader, gets his teammates more involved, has a greater impact on how his teammates do(he turend Wally into an all-star and Rasho into a serviceable big man).


what about what duncan has done with his teammates? look at what he did to stephen jackson. how about speedy claxton. robinson still very effective at the end of his career. same with willis and kerr. malik rose. parker. ginobili. bowen. none of these guys would be as good without duncan. he turned a decent group of players into a championship team. garnett turned a decent group of players into a playoff team.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> How can KG be a better leader than Duncan if Duncan LED his team to the title and KG LED his team to a first round exit. That makes no sense. Leadership is based on how far you take your team, no matter how talented.
> 
> Shooting - KG
> Rebounding - Duncan
> Passing - Duncan
> Defense - Duncan
> Post Game - Duncan
> 
> Most categories are close but I think Duncan takes everything other than scoring.
> 
> 2 Titles - Duncan
> Advantage - Duncan
> 
> Me and IV are in agreement on this, which means its basically an unofficial FACT, because me and him are on opposite ends of the spectrum on most things.
> 
> Q, I think you have an obvious bias, and I see no reason to keep posting in this thread because your stating the same things over and over and their all opinionated. You cant prove for fact KG is better, but I can prove for fact that Duncan is the two-time MOST VALUABLE PLAYER, and two-time NBA CHAMPION.
> 
> Your opinion against Facts...I'll take the facts in an instant.


Are you kidding me. Calling a meeting to sort out a player(Loren Woods) getting out of hand. Taking away the white board from a good coach in Flip Saunders and drawing up plays for the team. Hwo much more of a leader can you be. If anything goes wrong with the team, it's up to KG to sort things out and get evrything under control. And he does it every time. KG is a better shooter, rebounder, passer, and defender. Duncan has a better post game. Duncan does have 2 titles, you need a little more than that for a reason why someone is a better player though.I have no bias. I love Tim Duncan. I'm one of the few who think he's fun to watch.How are my facts opinionated? Your stuff is. Your opinion is that just because a player has a better team and plays further in the post, that he's better. Even though the other guy is a better shooter, passer, rebounder, defender, and leader. And he is BY FAR the most valuable player in the league. The +/- stat again. It's not just who comes in for you. KG has a variety of players coming in for him, and Duncan has Malik Rose who would start in MN coming in for him. Duncan got 2 MVP awards, but *did not deserve this last one for sure*.
You don't think I've given you facts. What about all teh statistics way in KG's favor, those are facts. What about the fact that KG should've been MVP this year, which if you want I can go over again to you because it's very obvious to me that he was the most valuable player in the league.



> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> i'm a firm believer in a players ability to get to the free throw line. and this is why i take td over kg. after reading some of the posts it's obvious these two guys are the tops in the nba in terms of production and efficency. fine, but on the whole td gets to the line more often than kg.
> 
> in the la series td went to the line 57 times. garnett made it to the line 28 times. why all the fuss? drawing fouls does a couple of things. it puts the opposing team in foul trouble which leads to more free throws for your whole team. it also takes the edge off of an aggressive defense - they're afraid to put you on the line so they're not 'in your face' as much.
> 
> one of the biggest things td was able to do in the lakers series was get shaq in foul trouble.
> 
> td makes his living close to the basket. that's a good thing imo. he's the best in the nba at drawing contact. if he doesn't make the shot he's likely to get a foul call or better yet he's in position for an offensive rebound. if kg insists on the turn around 18 footers, the three point shot, or the pull up jumpers in crunch time he better hit 75% of them otherwise he'll never see past the first round.


Duncan is a career 71% FT shooter and 70.7% in the playoffs. KG is a career 75.6% FT shooter and 74.8% in the playoffs. This year Duncan was 71% and 67.7%(24 games). KG was 75.1% and 60.7%(6 games). Duncan is not a good FT shooter. KG ain't that great either, but he's better than Duncan. Sure Duncan gets to the line more, but it don't matter if you can't make them. And about Kg insisting on all those shots in crunch time, what's wrong with that? Actually he doesn't always do that. I think it was game 4, maybe 5, when he drove to the lane at the end and drew a foul on Shaq. Then he went to the line and missed 2. If he would've tried to take a shot instead of getting fouled, I would bet you alot that it woulda gone in and that might have changed the series. He does make his shots at the end of games. He's one of the best players at the end of games. The Crunch Time Stat shows that he's at least one of the elite in the closing moments. (Shaq is actually the best in the NBA at drawing contact, but he doesn't count cus he just runs people over) Let me ask you something, how many times have teams been afraid of putting Duncan on the line? Sometimes when he's hot, but not often. Why should KG have to change his game and go down low when he makes almost as many shooting outside. If he can dominate, why does it matter where he does it, as long as he does it? If the middle is where alot of the points are scored, which is what many of you have said earlier. Why isn't it good that KG opens that up for his teammates to get easier buckets rather than making them stay outsie and shoot from there? If KG can do just fine outside, then he should give his teammates the chance to get a higher percentage shot inside.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> 
> what about what duncan has done with his teammates? look at what he did to stephen jackson. how about speedy claxton. robinson still very effective at the end of his career. same with willis and kerr. malik rose. parker. ginobili. bowen. none of these guys would be as good without duncan. he turned a decent group of players into a championship team. garnett turned a decent group of players into a playoff team.


How in the world can you compare these two teams. If you have watched them, even just in the playoffs, you would see the huge differences in the guys other than teh 2 stars. The Wolves had 1 other player actually playing in the playoffs this year, the Spurs had everybody playing brilliantly as a team. Show me some specific examples of how he's a better leader. I don't want to here that his team won and KG's lost in the 1st round. Then Rasheed Wallace is a better leader than MJ becasue his team actually made it to the playoffs, and they were in the harder conference too.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> Even though the other guy is a better shooter, passer, rebounder, defender, and leader.


garnett is not a better passer, defender, rebounder, or leader than duncan. he might be a better shooter but even that could be debated. and if there is an advantage either way in these categories, it really isn't big enough to make a difference. but garnett is not better than duncan. just because he plays more on the perimeter and plays on a worse team doesn't make him a better all round player.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> How in the world can you compare these two teams. If you have watched them, even just in the playoffs, you would see the huge differences in the guys other than teh 2 stars. The Wolves had 1 other player actually playing in the playoffs this year, the Spurs had everybody playing brilliantly as a team. Show me some specific examples of how he's a better leader. I don't want to here that his team won and KG's lost in the 1st round. Then Rasheed Wallace is a better leader than MJ becasue his team actually made it to the playoffs, and they were in the harder conference too.


i know that the spurs are the better team and duncan was a better supporting cast. but how much of that is duncan making them better and how much is them already being that good? bowen would be nothing but a defender if duncan didn't get him open 3s. ginobili and jackson depend on duncan to give them open shots and more room to drive the lanes. parker does some on his own but get a lot of help from duncan. rose and robinson are open a lot when duncan is double and triple teamed. 



> I don't want to here that his team won and KG's lost in the 1st round.


you don't want to here it, but that is at least part of the reason why. i never said duncan is a better leader but he is at least just as good of a leader as garnett. garnett had a chance to take over for the twolves and give them a 3-1 lead(i think it was 3-1 but it might have been 3-2). garnett couldn't take the game over and they lost. duncan led his team to victory. whether it was a better team or not, he carried them past the team that garnett couldn't beat.



> Then Rasheed Wallace is a better leader than MJ becasue his team actually made it to the playoffs, and they were in the harder conference too.


saying ridiculous things like this doesn't help your arguement any. the blazers have tons of talent and if they had a leader, they would be much better than they are. mj is old on a terrible team. but this analogy isn't relavent. duncan's supporting cast isn't nearly as good as wallace's and garnett's supporting cast isn't as bad as mj's.


----------



## Johnny Mac

The bottom line is KG wants what Duncan has, MVP awards, and NBA Titles. 

you wont ever see otherwise, and whatever to that...I wont ever see otherwise either, because I'm confident that duncan is better, and all these people who agree with me only make my opinion stronger. 

Good day. 

oh and by the way, this is officially the new kobe/tmac argument. 

:laugh:


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> The bottom line is KG wants what Duncan has, MVP awards, and NBA Titles.
> 
> you wont ever see otherwise, and whatever to that...I wont ever see otherwise either, because I'm confident that duncan is better, and all these people who agree with me only make my opinion stronger.
> 
> Good day.
> 
> oh and by the way, this is officially the new kobe/tmac argument.
> 
> :laugh:


Not exactly. KG wants NBA Titles, he doens't care about MVP awards. I'm not saying Duncan does either or anything, I'm just saying KG could care less about MVPs. Please don't say that. There are too many idiots arguing about Kobe and T-Mac, I don't think we have any idiots arguing about this.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> 
> garnett is not a better passer, defender, rebounder, or leader than duncan. he might be a better shooter but even that could be debated. and if there is an advantage either way in these categories, it really isn't big enough to make a difference. but garnett is not better than duncan. just because he plays more on the perimeter and plays on a worse team doesn't make him a better all round player.


Garnett had way more assists than Duncan in the regular season. He is the best rebounder. Maybe Ben Wallace is that, but he's the only guy who can rebound in Detroit. KG can guard anybody in the league other than Shaq. Duncan can guard about 1/2 to 2/3 of the league, including Shaq. I'd rather have KG there. KG is the Timberwolves. When I talk about the Wolves with my friends, I often say KG instead of the Wolves, it's just a force of habit. I've given you examples of what an amazing leader he is. You used the fact that Duncan's team has accomplished more as your reasons why he's a better leader. KG's and Duncan's teams are comparitive to Sheed's and MJ's. Rasheed has a better team than MJ, he's got more talent around him too. So since he *LED* his team into the playoffs, while MJ *LED* his team to another lottery pick. You need some reasons other than the success of a team for why he is a better leader. MJ is one of the best leaders in the game, or at least he was. Just because his team sucked doesn't mean he's not as good of a leader.


----------



## Johnny Mac

I think you underestimate what duncan does for his teammates. Hes the one who makes them look like the supporting cast your making them out to be. 

I'd take duncans defense over KGs, what kind of records has KG set in that category? 

I'd take duncans rebounding over KGs, KG doesnt have anyone else on his team that can rebound, duncan has drob also scooping in close to ten boards a game, which takes away a few from his statline. 

I'd take duncans passing over KGs, after those crisp smooooooth passes I saw in the playoffs, theres no doubt in my mind. Passes to rose for layups, passes Drob for alleyoops, passes to perimeter players in and out the lane for easy shots. No brainer in my mind. 

KG has a better outside shot, duncan is not weak in that category though. Duncans low post game is better than KGs, although KG is not weak in that category either. 


Thats my assessment. Agree or disagree, but thats what I think from what I've watched and seen with my own two eyes.


----------



## socco

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I think you underestimate what duncan does for his teammates. Hes the one who makes them look like the supporting cast your making them out to be.
> 
> I'd take duncans defense over KGs, what kind of records has KG set in that category?
> 
> I'd take duncans rebounding over KGs, KG doesnt have anyone else on his team that can rebound, duncan has drob also scooping in close to ten boards a game, which takes away a few from his statline.
> 
> I'd take duncans passing over KGs, after those crisp smooooooth passes I saw in the playoffs, theres no doubt in my mind. Passes to rose for layups, passes Drob for alleyoops, passes to perimeter players in and out the lane for easy shots. No brainer in my mind.
> 
> KG has a better outside shot, duncan is not weak in that category though. Duncans low post game is better than KGs, although KG is not weak in that category either.
> 
> 
> Thats my assessment. Agree or disagree, but thats what I think from what I've watched and seen with my own two eyes.


You claim that KG is more of a perimeter player, and you are correct there. So how does a guy who plays SF or PF and is out on the perimeter more get more boards than someone who is a PF or C and plays most of the time down low? The answer is, that he is a better rebounder. So Duncan is a better defender because of records in defensive stats? KG as I've said before, can gaurd 99% of the players in the league. Duncan might be around 60% or 70%. KG *IS* the defense for the Wolves. He can't sit back and get blocks or steals, because he has to make up for the poor defenders around him. Look at the two teams and compare them defensively. Robinson is one of the greatest defenders of his time, and is still pretty good. Rasho is soft, and not anything special. Wally is an absolutely horrible defender, Bowen is an absolutely amazing defender. Peeler is an ok defender, Jackson is also an ok defender. Hudson is an absolutely horrible defender, Parker isn't know for his D, but is a pretty good defender. Duncan has a great defensive team. If he just has to worry about his man, and not what the other 4 opposing players are doing, then he's gonna get more stats because he can concentrate on that one guy. KG has to not only guard pretty much everybody, he has to do it pretty much every possesion. He has to come over and help out the other guys, and still try to watch his own guy as well. KG had 6 assists in the regular season. He led his team in assists for the entire regular season. And oh ya, he's 7'1". How many guys that big are close to leading their team in assists for an entire season? Not many, if any. He had more assists than any player that isn't a point guard. KG does have a better outside shot, Duncan does have a pretty nice one when he's got it going though as well. It looks weird though, it looks like he's pushing it, cus he has it so far out in front of him. But if it goes in, that's all that matters. KG made Wally into an all-star, enough said. If you watched the Wolves-Lakers series, I think you know how much that means. And he basically created the Rasho we see today. He's working on his agressiveness lately.


----------



## Johnny Mac

I'm ready to conclude this

Their both great players, I'd take duncan over KG...I guess Q would do KG over duncan. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Me and IV are in agreement on this, which means its basically an unofficial FACT, because me and him are on opposite ends of the spectrum on most things.


I dont know what a unofficial FACT is, , but for us to agree on something it is a monumental occasion!



> Q, I think you have an obvious bias, and I see no reason to keep posting in this thread because your stating the same things over and over and their all opinionated. You cant prove for fact KG is better, but I can prove for fact that Duncan is the two-time MOST VALUABLE PLAYER, and two-time NBA CHAMPION.
> 
> Your opinion against Facts...I'll take the facts in an instant.


:yes:


----------

