# Is the gap between KG and Duncan as big as you thought?



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Disclaimer: It's only been three games. But this serves as some interesting food for thought.

I've said for a couple of years now that the Duncan vs. Garnett debate has been over, and I live in ND, so all Minnesota games have been on the basic cable package, so I can't be accused of not seeing KG enough. But he looks like a different player out there. Last year, yeah, he racked up the stats, but I didn't see many games where he just dominated like these. The team without him on the floor is like night and day. If he keeps this up, he's gotta be the favorite for MVP.

Now, as I mentioned, it's only three games in. It's too early to say that Garnett has erased that gap between him and Tim. But the more you watch him, the more you realize what he can bring when he has some legit players around him. 

Basically - when we acquired Garnett - how big did you think the gap between him and Duncan is/was? Why? What do you think now? Where do you have him in terms of overall ranking?

Personally, I've got Duncan, Bryant, and James before Garnett, in that order.

Thoughts?


----------



## 35553 (May 13, 2006)

P-Dub34 said:


> Basically - when we acquired Garnett - how big did you think the gap between him and Duncan is/was? Why? What do you think now? Where do you have him in terms of overall ranking?


If Duncan is 10, i would Garnett say was a strong 8.5-9/10. They both post up similar numbers but i just felt Duncan was the better leader and therefore lead his team to victory, this is probably due to the fact he had better team mates.

The gap has definitely decreased. I would still have to put Duncan in front of Garnett purely because he has won Championship rings. But the way he is playing now, its hard to imagine Garnett without rings if he were placed in Duncan's situation. But for me its really a toss of the coin.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

I don't think the gap comes in on-court performance. Its the playoffs and the championships. To use the ranking system in the post above, if Garnett is a ten (which he is), Duncan is an all-time legend.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I think the knock on Garnett has been that he is so intense during the regular season where he burns himself out come April. Some people thought that was the main reason the Wolves lost in the playoffs that year when they had Spree and Cassell. I don't know if it is true, but it is something to think about for this season because it looks like he will be playing a lot of basketball beyond April.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Garnett is a great leader... when he has players to lead, people are seeing that again now. If he has talented guys around him he can utilise all his abilities that other big guys dont have (passing etc).
He is as talented as anyone in this league as far as abilities are concerned, there is no one with this guys skillset. Duncan is easier to build around, hes a true low post guy and the Spurs were able to capatalize on that, they build great teams around him through smart management, and they... as well as Duncan deserve everything they have got.
However.... Garnett gave his all to an organization that has failed miserably at everything other than drafting "The Kid", as a long time fan i saw better than anyone what they were doing and its redicuilous that Mchale still has a job.
The thing keeping KG a notch below Duncan to most people is the team success arguement, i pray that this Celtics team can get Garnett the ring(s) that he deserves (and will earn). So people can at least fathom what i already knew

Garnett is AS good as Duncan

flame away lol.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Second MVP wont hurt either


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Garnett is AS good as Duncan


See, until he puts up 30/15 games like it's routine in the playoffs en route to 4 chips and 3 Finals MVPs, you really can't say that. You can argue about teams until you're blue in the face, but the fact is Duncan makes everybody around him better. Up 'til last year Parker wasn't a reliable big game guy. Duncan also defends, scores, and makes plays in the low post better than Garnett. That's not a slight to KG - but you take a great low post player over a great high post player anyday. He's got very good teammates, yeah, but when it comes down to it - if you have to pick a player to build around to win a championship - Tim Duncan is your guy. 

Overall, Tim's impact on the game is greater, on both ends. The guy only having 2 MVPs is sad. He also could've won about 5 or 6 DPoYs in the last 10 years. Just watching TD play in the playoffs is the difference - watch this year. He'll go for 35/14/5/2 and nobody will make a thread about it, because it's a routine performance in the big time for him. We're talking about very arguably the greatest power forward of all time and a consensus Top 10-12 player all time against Garnett, here. 

Bottom line - if SA offers us Duncan for Garnett - Ainge would accept in a heartbeat. There's no way KG takes San Antone to four chips - he's not a dominating #1 scorer and guy you can feed in the post in the playoffs and have an automatic bucket if he's singled or a wide open shot if he's doubled.

Way to make me kill my own argument, jerk.:biggrin:


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

I realise Duncan is an easier player to build around, and really that does make him more valuable to start a team with.

KG is as good of a basketball player as Duncan Though, ive believed that since the end of '02.

They play the game in very different ways, Garnetts passion is going to get him a ring here in boston.... i just hope he can get a couple so people dont think this is so clear cut.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

Duncan is like Roger Federer - methodical, precise, calm, but completely dominating. Garnett is like Rafael Nadal - passionate, overpowering, and also dominating but just doesn't have all the accomplishments. Nadal may one day overtake Federer, but until then, Federer is the man to beat. That's how I see Duncan and Garnett.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Its not, and as long as KG keeps playing in the post I really see both players as 1a and 1b. In the years prior to this, when KG simply wouldnt go in the post then yes you could make the arguement that TD was better, but right now with the way KG is playing, you could even venture to say that he is better than TD.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Personally, I've got Duncan, Bryant, and James before Garnett, in that order.
> 
> Thoughts?




all kobe does is score...and lebron cant hit a jumper for his life...KG should be ahead of both of them but still behind duncan


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I never really thought the gap was all that big. It really only shows up in that Duncan is best defensive bigman in the NBA, while Garnett is probably #2. Duncan is one of the most complete defenders at the 4/5 in NBA history, while Garnett is merely one of the best of this era. Offensively I'd say that it's a wash, when you have someone that passes like Garnett you need to surround him with shotmakers, something the T'wolves never did save one season. Here in Boston he has two of the best in the NBA, so he's going to run roughshod over the NBA. So, this year he's going to have a bigger impact on the offensive end than Duncan. If Boston improves by 30 wins or more, it's probably enough to lock him up an MVP.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> all kobe does is score...and [strike]lebron[/strike] Antoine Walker cant hit a jumper for his life...KG should be ahead of both of them but still behind duncan


There, corrected that for you. :bsmile:


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> all kobe does is score...


Yeah, better than anybody not named Jordan in the last forty years. If you're saying "all he does is score" with the numbers he puts up you're saying the exact same about Paul Pierce.



> and lebron cant hit a jumper for his life...KG should be ahead of both of them but still behind duncan


Like hitting a jumper should be the determining factor of who's better. James just dropped 32/15/13 last night, incidentally. Led a bunch of scrubs past the Pistons. Had a 32/7/6 season. The guy is a prodigy.

Both of them are above Garnett, but if KG keeps playing like this, who knows.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

The thing is we're talking about two of the best big men in the game right now. I've always thought Duncan didn't get the respect he deserved and I feel the same about Garnett. 

Success in the post season is partially dependent on who you're playing with....speaking of Kobe....so you can't necessarily decide purely on post season. 

They both have incredible work ethic, are leaders, can always be depended on for production, and I feel that they both make those around them better. 

I don't feel there is a gap. They are both amazing. 
Having said that, I never like to see Duncan on the other side of the court during playoffs...but then I WILL be glad we've got Garnett.


----------



## Jenness (Apr 18, 2007)

For whatever reason, Duncan's been better than Garnett in fourth quarters and obviously in the playoffs, though having a lot more talent around him than Garnett could have something to do with that perception. But it's hard to say who's better. I'd lean towards Duncan but it's hard to untangle the disparity in teammates and coaching/GMs. The one-on-one matchups between them have been mostly equal, as they both cancel each other out by holding the other's game down.

To me, the biggest tragedy in KG's career is the Joe Smith contract debacle and the stripping of 5(?) draft picks. Except for one year, that Minny team had no influx of new talent and they subsisted on second round picks and middling free agents. They really had no shot to be legitimate contenders.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Yeah, better than anybody not named Jordan in the last forty years. If you're saying "all he does is score" with the numbers he puts up you're saying the exact same about Paul Pierce.
> 
> 
> Like hitting a jumper should be the determining factor of who's better. James just dropped 32/15/13 last night, incidentally. Led a bunch of scrubs past the Pistons. Had a 32/7/6 season. The guy is a prodigy.
> ...



Id rathe KG give me 23 points on 14 shots than kobe give me 40 points on 42 shots...and kobe isnt even in the same breath as jordan when it comes to scoring...jordan REGULARLY shot between 52 and 54% from the field in his career and even at the tail end of his bulls career shot 49%...kobe shoots between 43 and 46% regularly which is a HUGE dropoff from jordans numbers over the course of the season...just because kobe is putting up 40 and 50 regularly doesnt mean anything...he takes so many shots that if someone like pierce or tmac were to take the same amount they would have the same stats...

and James with his triple double in a loss last night shot 42% and shot less than 50% from the ft line...KG on the other hand shot over 70% from the field and scored 23 on only 14 shots while adding 13 rebs and 7 ast, and he would have had more had the game not been a complete blowout...sure in the long term one would rather have lebron because hes 10 years younger...but right now KG is the better player


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

I never thought Duncan was too far behind KG, but the gap may be stretching


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Id rathe KG give me 23 points on 14 shots than kobe give me 40 points on 42 shots...


You're hating right now, straight up. Bryant RARELY, almost never, takes 40+ shots to get 40 points. Come on now. He took 46 shots to score 81. GTFO with that nonsense.



> and kobe isnt even in the same breath as jordan when it comes to scoring...jordan REGULARLY shot between 52 and 54% from the field in his career and even at the tail end of his bulls career shot 49%...kobe shoots between 43 and 46% regularly which is a HUGE dropoff from jordans numbers over the course of the season...


Who said Bryant was as good as Jordan? You're getting in a huff over nothing.



> just because kobe is putting up 40 and 50 regularly doesnt mean anything...he takes so many shots that if someone like pierce or tmac were to take the same amount they would have the same stats...


Please. Easy to say, hard to do. If Pierce could've lit up for 50 every night last year, he would have. It would've helped win some games. You make it sound like scoring 40 nightly in this league is easy. It's not. You cannot seriously watch Bryant and Pierce play and say they are on the same level as scorers.



> and James with his triple double in a loss last night shot 42% and shot less than 50% from the ft line...KG on the other hand shot over 70% from the field and scored 23 on only 14 shots while adding 13 rebs and 7 ast, and he would have had more had the game not been a complete blowout...sure in the long term one would rather have lebron because hes 10 years younger...but right now KG is the better player


There's an argument that Garnett is better than James, but it's not a strong one. James is the most complete swingman this league's seen in a long, long, time, is a dominating scorer, is primarily resposibile for the Cavaliers production. Taking that team to the NBA Finals, regardless of what you may think, wasn't easy, especially with the scrubs he plays with.

Bryant is clearly better than Garnett, but you could make an argument for James. Again, if this were midseason last year, you wouldn't be lodging any complaint over a claim like this. Just because he's lit it up in three games and we're 3-0 doesn't mean you should lose sight of what these guys have been doing for the last four years. In the last three years, outside of Duncan and maybe Bryant, there's been no player in the NBA as essential to his team winning than LeBron James. Period. 



> I never thought Duncan was too far behind KG, but the gap may be stretching


Well, I was expecting "Allen is better than both," this this is almost as good in terms of ridiculous response and laugh value.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

If they both keep playing at the level they're playing at right now, the MVP race this year will probably come down to Lebron and Garnett, going to the team with more wins. Right now, it looks like Boston will be that team. You guys have a serious team on your hands here. 

Lebron's first game this year was one of his worst of his professional career, and I think it's safe to say it was probably an anomaly. In the other games this year, he's working on 32.0/10.3/9.3 with 2.5 blocks per game and 2 steals per game. It's also safe to say he probably won't keep up THOSE numbers for the entire season, but his dedication to rebounding the ball more has been visibly striking so far this year.

Most of all, his improvement over the past two years (especially this year) has come on the defensive end. He's playing incredible man defense and incredible help defense right now. He's blocking shots, making crisp rotations, and bodying up his man on defense. And he's taking the toughest defensive assignment on the other team unless he's in foul trouble (he guarded Deron Williams last night). I'm very serious when I say he's been one of the top 5 perimeter defenders in the league so far this year. The year is young of course, but his dedication to that end is remarkable. I wish more people could have a chance to see it.

With all that said, Garnett has played even better this year. 

It's going to be an interesting race to the MVP. I'm really excited about this basketball season.

EDIT - Although at this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see Chris Paul make a run at it if the Hornets keep winning.


----------



## abwowang (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't think there is that big of a gap. First of all, they are different power forwards. 

I also have this to say: 
If KG and TD switched teams, KG would have just as many rings as TD got.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> If KG and TD switched teams, KG would have just as many rings as TD got.


No.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> No.


You might not be trying to act this way, but in this thread you seem to be stating all your opinions as if they're indisputable facts. Not really in the mood to pick out each comment I disagree with, but I just had to say that.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> You might not be trying to act this way, but in this thread you seem to be stating all your opinions as if they're indisputable facts. Not really in the mood to pick out each comment I disagree with, but I just had to say that.


He said Garnett would have four rings if he was a Spur. I said no. I'm pretty confident that I'm right and he's not, so that's how I'm going to reply. Most of us are adults here; I think we can handle ourselves sans kid gloves.

I'm a very strongly opinionated person, but I'm not irrational. I will read and reply intelligently to all posts directed towards mine. I may not agree with you, but that's what a message board is for. If how I come off rubs you the wrong way, well... that's unfortunate. It's how I post. If that bothers people, the option to not reply to them is omnipresent.

EDIT: Reading a lot of what I said, I've posted a lot of things that are either facts or as close to certainty as things can get in basketball.



> You're hating right now, straight up. Bryant RARELY, almost never, takes 40+ shots to get 40 points. Come on now. He took 46 shots to score 81.


Factual.



> In the last three years, outside of Duncan and maybe Bryant, there's been no player in the NBA as essential to his team winning than LeBron James.


Not certain fact, but it's pretty darn close. 



> Please. Easy to say, hard to do. If Pierce could've lit up for 50 every night last year, he would have. It would've helped win some games. You make it sound like scoring 40 nightly in this league is easy. It's not. You cannot seriously watch Bryant and Pierce play and say they are on the same level as scorers.


Factual.



> Just watching TD play in the playoffs is the difference - watch this year. He'll go for 35/14/5/2 and nobody will make a thread about it, because it's a routine performance in the big time for him. We're talking about very arguably the greatest power forward of all time and a consensus Top 10-12 player all time against Garnett, here.


Factual.

I'm not trying to be a jerk; really, I'm not. But the reason I might come off as thinking I'm right is because I make sound arguments that are based on facts. I'm not making this stuff up, man.

I do appreciate the heads-up, though.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

The main comments were "See, until he puts up 30/15 games like it's routine in the playoffs en route to 4 chips and 3 Finals MVPs, you really can't say that. You can argue about teams until you're blue in the face, but the fact is Duncan makes everybody around him better", "Bryant is clearly better than Garnett", and the basic idea that there was a large gap between the two. The Kobe think I would say is simply not true. In fact I'd say that all three of the other elite players mentioned in this thread are better than him. And the first one is a case where you were being irrational and making an unsound argument. A player who has no playoff games in his career could hypothetically be better than a guy who has won 15 championships and 15 Finals MVPs. Having those accolades doesn't make you shoot the ball better, pass better, rebound better, defend better, etc. It's a typical irrational argument that is used a lot in the comparison between these two players, and is really used a lot in comparing players in all sports.

btw, maybe if you have anything more to say we should take this to pms? I don't really plan on getting into a deep discussion on where Duncan and Garnett rank, and we'd only be bringing this thread off-topic (even more so than I have already).


----------



## Trayhezy (May 19, 2006)

I am as impressed with anyone with KG's start and I am happy to see the team I once loved doing well again, but KG has not yet reached the level of Duncan as a player. Duncan has rings and KG has numbers. People have said that if KG was on Duncans teams he would have rings. Yet never consider if Duncan was on KG's teams he might have better numbers. 

Duncan is the better post player. He is regularly guarded by big physical guys and can still dominate the post. KG usually steps out when played by a bigger physical guy. I also feel that the step out game to about 17 feet is a wash. Also while KG is a great defender, he does not defend the big bangers as well as Duncan can. Therefore I think Duncan can dominate the interior much better than KG against the top teams when the playoffs come which is why he has 4 rings. People often forget the Duncan is a center who plays power forward.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

socco said:


> The main comments were "See, until he puts up 30/15 games like it's routine in the playoffs en route to 4 chips and 3 Finals MVPs, you really can't say that. You can argue about teams until you're blue in the face, but the fact is Duncan makes everybody around him better"


You'll have to elaborate what you disagree with about this statement. I mean, clearly Garnett makes players around him better (see the way they plummeted when he picked up foul #5 in the T.O. game), but I just don't feel he impacts the game as much as Duncan does.

Additionally, what I was alluding to with the rings and MVPs - that's what sets Tim away from KG. Those accomplishments aren't a fluke. How many other players have won four chips as the undisputed best player, 3 Finals MVPs (should've been four) without another Top 25 player on his team? 

Garnett is simply going to have to put up legendary games in the playoffs before I can rank him with Duncan. He's got the perfect opportunity this year. We shall see. 



> "Bryant is clearly better than Garnett", and the basic idea that there was a large gap between the two. The Kobe think I would say is simply not true.


You know what? I did go overboard there. I was trying to stress how I felt that Bryant was better and I took it too far. That's my bad. What I meant to say is, I don't really think twice about putting Bryant ahead of KG overall.



> In fact I'd say that all three of the other elite players mentioned in this thread are better than him. And the first one is a case where you were being irrational and making an unsound argument. A player who has no playoff games in his career could hypothetically be better than a guy who has won 15 championships and 15 Finals MVPs. Having those accolades doesn't make you shoot the ball better, pass better, rebound better, defend better, etc.


I already touched on this earlier. I'll add that Duncan is one of the greatest all time defending the post and is better on the low block offensively than Garnett. I mentioned previously that you gotta take a dominant low post player over a dominant high post player. You gotta. Garnett's impact on a game just doesn't add up to Duncan's. Tim skates through the regular season, but you have to be a hater to deny what he does every single year in the playoffs sets him clearly apart from the rest of the NBA. The accolades - the championships, the Finals MVPs - those are just by-products of him proving every single year in the playoffs who the best player in the NBA really is.

I understand how my argument with accolades could've been misconstrued. I should've explained better. That should clear it up.



> It's a typical irrational argument that is used a lot in the comparison between these two players, and is really used a lot in comparing players in all sports.


The point of any sport is to win. 

Tim Duncan does that better than any other player in the NBA. He's been the easiest guy in the NBA to build a team around for ten years. When you're comparing Jordan and Bryant, should you ignore the MVPs, Finals MVPs, etc.? No way. You get these awards for a reason (unless your name is Steve Nash). Since the goal of basketball is to win, it's important to note how well guys do it. Personally, if you swap Garnett with Duncan, I don't think the Spurs win 4 chips, especially considering up until last year Parker was notorious for disappearing in big games. He doesn't dominate the low post on both ends like Tim does...he just doesn't. He's a premier high post player.



> btw, maybe if you have anything more to say we should take this to pms? I don't really plan on getting into a deep discussion on where Duncan and Garnett rank, and we'd only be bringing this thread off-topic (even more so than I have already).


Ehh, not a big thing. I think I've cleared up all of the points you had beef with.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

funny that you are SO against the point that you actually raised with this thread PDub  lol

Career Regular Season:

Duncan: 21.8 ppg, 11.9 rbg, 3.2 apg, 0.8 spg, 2.4 bpg
Garnett: 20.5 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.7 bpg

Career Playoff:
Duncan: 23.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 3.5 apg, 0.7 spg, 2.8 bpg
Garnett: 22.3 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 5.0apg, 1.3 spg, 1.9 bpg


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

I know. I honestly feel that I've been underrating Garnett, but not to this point. 

And, as we all know, the statistics do not tell the whole story.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> Garnett is simply going to have to put up legendary games in the playoffs before I can rank him with Duncan. He's got the perfect opportunity this year. We shall see.
> 
> 
> You know what? I did go overboard there. I was trying to stress how I felt that Bryant was better and I took it too far. That's my bad. What I meant to say is, I don't really think twice about putting Bryant ahead of KG overall.


Since we're talking about the playoffs and Kobe, I just want to say that Kobe + Shaq + some great role players in guys like Fisher, Horry, and Fox = championships. Kobe + guys who are not Shaq = missing playoffs or first round exits. Fact. Kobe can put up serious numbers. I don't disagree with that. But then again, Jerry Stackhouse nearly won the scoring title one year. Iverson's been scoring profusely for years, but he doesn't have a ring. You can argue that Kobe also is great with rebounds and assists and getting to the line. But then so is Pierce. So is Garnett. I really don't think you can accurately compare two players unless they've played on teams with comparable supporting casts. And frankly, Shaq was way more than part of a supporting cast. 

Pierce's best teammate was Antoine Walker. Garnett's best teammate was probably Wally. Duncan has had Robinson, Parker, and Ginobili. All of those guys and Shaq are better than Walker or Wally. If Kobe had been on those Timberwolves or Celtics teams instead of Garnett and Pierce, would they have been that much better? I really don't think they would have. Would Duncan have made those teams better? Harder to say. I think the Celtics would have been better because he plays a different position than Pierce and would have made up for their lack of an inside presence. The Wolves, on the other hand, may not have been terribly different. But we'll never know. 

I'm not arguing that Kobe and Duncan aren't great players. I just don't think it's fair to say they're so far ahead of other players because they won titles. If the Cavs had won the title last year, I would say that there would be no question that Lebron was way ahead of other players because he would have done it without that much help against a great team. Kobe and Duncan had help when they won their titles, not to mention great coaches. Pierce and Garnett have not had that luxury. Ray Allen had decent help in Robinson and Cassell, but he has better help now. If these guys can pull off a championship run, they'll still be the same players they were. The team they're on is what counts, and I think the Lakers are perfect proof of that.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> I know. I honestly feel that I've been underrating Garnett, but not to this point.
> 
> And, as we all know, the statistics do not tell the whole story.


then why does KG have to average 30 and 15 for a playoff series among other things? lol 

Nah i do realise the general concensus is that Duncan > Garnett, but from seeing so much of both player of the last few years i cant put one above the other as far as basketball talent is concerned... yes duncan is easier to build around, a more valuable player per-se... but put the right players around Garnett to utilise his skills and he is just AS good, hes getting a chance to prove that now.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

I guess it comes down to whether you think Duncan's shot in Game 5, 2004 Western semis was clutch or not. It was the loooooong weird hook shot before Fisher's. I think it was more impressive, skill wise.

The point is to win the game, and it didn't happen. But that didn't come from the quality of that shot.

Kevin Garnett can be just as good or better than Tim Duncan but if Duncan's team does better he will get more credit. Some people prefer Manu to Lebron or Kobe, though he doesn't play the game of basketball as well. Is Tony Parker as good as Jason Kidd or Steve Nash?

I see how the team success between two very similar player can be the "edge". But that's career, not player quality. That's greatness, not production. Tim Duncan has had a greater career than Garnett.

I think the postseason in all sports is, aside from dominant runs like the 00-01 Lakers, too random to determine which team is truly the best. The postseason is for entertainment, and it is good at that. If you wanted to find whether people enjoy listening to country music, you wouldn't go best 3/5, 4/7, 4/7. You would survey 500 people.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

Avalanche said:


> funny that you are SO against the point that you actually raised with this thread PDub  lol
> 
> Career Regular Season:
> 
> ...


And just to give Pierce some love...

Career Regular Season:

Kobe: 24.6 ppg, 5.2 rbg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.6 bpg
Pierce: 23.6 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.7 spg, 0.7 bpg

Career Playoff:
Kobe: 23.3 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.3 spg, 0.7 bpg
Pierce: 24.5 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 4.7 apg, 1.8 spg, 1.1 bpg

And yes, I realize Kobe didn't play much his first two years, so his stats are deflated a bit. But still, stat-wise, Pierce is pretty comparable. Pierce's stats will likely go down this year, especially in points and rebounds, because of KG and Allen, but he'll get his numbers a lot easier than in the past. 

Anyway, this just goes to show that numbers still don't mean much if you don't have a team around you that can get you to the next level.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Anyway, this just goes to show that numbers still don't mean much if you don't have a team around you that can get you to the next level.


Partially true. It also goes to show you that numbers shouldn't be taken as the be and and end all of how good a basketball player is.



> then why does KG have to average 30 and 15 for a playoff series among other things? lol


A 30/15 game from Duncan (or Garnett for that matter) is totally different for a 30/15 game from Shawn Marion, say.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Partially true. It also goes to show you that numbers shouldn't be taken as the be and and end all of how good a basketball player is.
> 
> 
> A 30/15 game from Duncan (or Garnett for that matter) is totally different for a 30/15 game from Shawn Marion, say.


Who says that? A lot of people use statistics to formulate opinions and predictions because people like to decide, but they aren't arrogant enough to claim certainty and that only stats matter. 

I think KG is better but I can't prove you're wrong, especially statistically. I can defend my position and refute yours, but not disprove it. I can do that for KG vs. Jerome James, heh.

I'm not at all sure about that last part about Marion unless Duncan fouls out about 3 people. Why hate? The difference in teams doesn't make 30-15 totally different (key is totally). Does Nash help with the 15 boards?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Where do people get this idea that Duncan is clutch from?


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Tim's as clutch as you can be for a big man. I'm no expert, but three Finals MVPs _probably_ means that he plays pretty well when it matters the most.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Tim's as clutch as you can be for a big man. I'm no expert, but three Finals MVPs _probably_ means that he plays pretty well when it matters the most.


Remember that conversation we had on the general board. Something about the guys TD plays with. Manu, Parker and Robert Horry are pretty clutch players. I cant recall the last time TD made a big free throw in the dying minutes of a game, or when a play was ran for him to hit a big shot. However, I do recall the numerous times that those 3 players have hit countless clutch shots

Matter of fact the only clutch shot I ever recall him making was against the Lakers and that was a lucky heave. On the defensive end, he is as good as they come, but since we are comparing him to KG, I dont think his D is that much better than KG's


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Remember that conversation we had on the general board. Something about the guys TD plays with. Manu, Parker and Robert Horry are pretty clutch players.


Tony Parker has been notoriously absent from big games in the playoffs until last year.



> I cant recall the last time TD made a big free throw in the dying minutes of a game, or when a play was ran for him to hit a big shot.


When was the last time you saw a gamewinning shot play drawn up for a big man? Oh yeah, that's right.

Either way, saying he doesn't make big shots means you didn't watch much of his four championships. There are way, way more "big shots" than the buzzer beater. A big bucket to stop a run late. A big defensive play. Creating open opportunities for teammates late. I guess to you "clutch" only means shots with less than a minute left. But that's crazy. "Clutch" means you show up when it matters the most in big games. And if you're going to argue that Tim Duncan isn't consistently coming up huge on the biggest stage, then we're done here, because then it ceases to be a difference in opinion and just becomes a fraudulent statement. You don't just get bestowed with three Finals MVPs. You earn them by having huge games at the biggest possible moments.



> However, I do recall the numerous times that those 3 players have hit countless clutch shots


Please. Ginobili, yes. Horry? Sprinkles in some big shots at opportune times. Parker? He's choked every year until last. If you can't remember Duncan hitting big shots in the playoffs you either aren't paying attention or you're a hater. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but saying Duncan doesn't make huge plays at crucial moments in the playoffs is just pure ignorance.

Measuring "clutch" simply by buzzer beaters is just a narrow view, that's all.



> I dont think his D is that much better than KG's


This really isn't a difference in opinion as it is just false. He defends the low block damn near as well as anyone in history. He could've won five or six DPoYs in the last ten years. He anchors the best defense in the league when his starting guards are Tony Parker and Mike Finley (both defensive liabilities) and his 5 is always a stiff. Teams don't schedule entire gameplans around Garnett. They do for Tim. Garnett is a totally different kind of defender and while he's terrific, he doesn't control the entire block area like Duncan. 

I'm really convinced you don't watch much of Tim in the playoffs. Regular season? Maybe some of these claims are true. But playoffs? Not a hope, man.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> Since the goal of basketball is to win, it's important to note how well guys do it.


This is a team sport though. There are too many other factors to dumb it down to just winning. Reminds me of hearing NFL analysts compare the Patriots and Colts by position. For the majority of the team they talked about what the players actually do on the field. But when it came to the QB position the _only _thing they said was that Brady had 3 rings compared to Manning's 1. As if it was impossible for a player with 1 ring to be better than a player with 3 rings. Again, that's a classic example of illogical thinking. 



P-Dub34 said:


> *This really isn't a difference in opinion as it is just false.* He defends the low block damn near as well as anyone in history. He could've won five or six DPoYs in the last ten years. He anchors the best defense in the league when his starting guards are Tony Parker and Mike Finley (both defensive liabilities) and his 5 is always a stiff. Teams don't schedule entire gameplans around Garnett. They do for Tim. Garnett is a totally different kind of defender and while he's terrific, he doesn't control the entire block area like Duncan.


When you back up that statement with nothing but your opinions, it probably tells you that it actually is just a difference of opinion.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> This is a team sport though. There are too many other factors to dumb it down to just winning. Reminds me of hearing NFL analysts compare the Patriots and Colts by position. For the majority of the team they talked about what the players actually do on the field. But when it came to the QB position the only thing they said was that Brady had 3 rings compared to Manning's 1. As if it was impossible for a player with 1 ring to be better than a player with 3 rings. Again, that's a classic example of illogical thinking.


You still don't understand. I already addressed this in a previous post (eg. these accolades being a byproduct of Duncan's play...you either missed or selectively ignorned that).



> When you back up that statement with nothing but your opinions, it probably tells you that it actually is just a difference of opinion.


Watch Tim Duncan play and watch Garnett play. It's obvious who the better post defender is. It's not an opinion. Since there's no really accurate statistics to measure defensive play, it comes down to watching them play. If you're going to sit there and say Garnett plays in the low block (on both ends)...well... you're beyond salvage.

Regardless... we are making little headway here.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Tony Parker has been notoriously absent from big games in the playoffs until last year.
> 
> 
> When was the last time you saw a gamewinning shot play drawn up for a big man? Oh yeah, that's right.
> ...


Remember the series against the Lakers, the one were the Spurs lost. The biggest knock was his woeful shooting down the stretch, particularly free throws.

Lol are you saying Ginobli doesnt hit clutch shots. The one guy that actually barrrels into the paint with reckless abandon when his team needs a basket. I cant recall how many times he has hit a desperation shot during clutch time to help his team out. Everyone remembers Horry because he has built that reputation for himself as a clutch shooter. But give some credit where its due, Manu has had his fair share of clutch baskets.

Once again on the defensive end TD is gold, but he isnt exactly the standard for big men for scoring during clutch time. Matter of fact I am willing to bet with you, that during the course of the game, the 4th quarter is probably when he scores the least. 

I dont know if I should take the comment about not watching TD seriously. Its almost like me bringing up the fact that you think TD is a one man show

So let me get this straight, teams dont plan to stop Parker and Ginobli and co. I am thinking teams probably want TD to go off on them rather than the perimeter players. But hey thats just my opinion. TD is a great player, but he has flaws too.

And really when KG was in Minnesotta, who else were teams trying to stop? As compared to the Spurs where TD is playing with two other all stars


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Lol are you saying Ginobli doesnt hit clutch shots.


I'd appreciate if you actually read my posts. This was said in response to your post about Manu being clutch:



P-Dub34 said:


> Please. *Ginobili, yes.*





> Once again on the defensive end TD is gold, but he isnt exactly the standard for big men for scoring during clutch time. Matter of fact I am willing to bet with you, that during the course of the game, the 4th quarter is probably when he scores the least.


I'd take that bet in a heartbeat if we're talking playoffs. 



> I dont know if I should take the comment about not watching TD seriously. Its almost like me bringing up the fact that you think TD is a one man show


Again, selective reader. In our discussion in the main forum I specifically said his teammates are terrific. You continually underestimate his impact on the basketball court.



> So let me get this straight, teams dont plan to stop Parker and Ginobli and co. I am thinking teams probably want TD to go off on them rather than the perimeter players. But hey thats just my opinion. TD is a great player, but he has flaws too.[/quot]
> If you watched the playoffs last year, almost every play ran through Tim. He was either doubled or he created a great scoring opportunity for himself nearly every time.
> 
> Duncan has flaws? Absolutely. But not that many, and saying he isn't clutch just makes no sense to me.
> ...


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

:biggrin:

Garnett with 11/6 so far in the first Q. Making me eat my words every game. I hope he makes me look like the biggest idiot in the world by season's end.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Because he usually has fantastitc stats and his team wins. 

I guess we have a different opinion on what clutch is. Horry hitting countless shots when his team needs it is clutch to me. Manu hitting acrobatic shots countless times when his team needs it is clutch to me. I already gave Timmy credit on his defense, if there was any clutch aspect to his game, thats where its at. Tell me this, when was the last time TD hit a clutch shot when his team needed a basket. Or a clutch free throw for that matter


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Tell me this, when was the last time TD hit a clutch shot when his team needed a basket. Or a clutch free throw for that matter


Countless times during the last championship run. You're limiting "clutch play" to the last minute of the game. I just think that's narrow. If there's two minutes left, the other team's on an 8-0 run, and Duncan makes a bucket to stop that momentum, that's a big, clutch shot to me. 

I just think limiting "clutch" shots to gamewinners or shots in the dying seconds is narrow. And if that's what you think is clutch, no post big in the league is clutch because they don't draw up plays for guys like that in the dying seconds.

Either way, I think we can compromise and agree that Duncan undeniably puts up huge performances in the most important games of the year. At least I hope we can, otherwise...damn...I don't know what to say, dude.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Thats a good way to put it. And really theres not too much negatives in TD's game. I do believe he is the best player in the league, I just dont think he is that far ahead of KG


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

I don't think he's miles ahead, either.

I don't know... I just get carried away sometimes.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> You still don't understand. I already addressed this in a previous post (eg. these accolades being a byproduct of Duncan's play...you either missed or selectively ignorned that).


I saw that, and I saw you continue to use that argument. Talk about what Duncan does to get those accolades rather than simply pointing out the accolades he has.



P-Dub34 said:


> Watch Tim Duncan play and watch Garnett play. It's obvious who the better post defender is. It's not an opinion. Since there's no really accurate statistics to measure defensive play, it comes down to watching them play. If you're going to sit there and say Garnett plays in the low block (on both ends)...well... you're beyond salvage.


The comment you were responding to was "I dont think his D is that much better than KG's". The question here is who the better defender is (not post defender in particular), and if there's a large difference. Defense is a lot harder to measure statistically, but there have been a few interesting articles I've seen on it (a, b, c). Maybe you need to rethink what you said, because what HB said isn't a matter of being true or false, and it's actually a pretty accurate statement.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Well KG's certainly playing like THE best player in the league right now


----------

