Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

[Anaximandro1]

Ron Artest on Tim Duncan

"I remember one time Kevin Garnett was mushing him, and shoving him in the face; and Tim Duncan didn't do anything, he didn't react. He just kicked Kevin Garnett's ass, and won the damn championship. You know what I'm sayin'? That's gangsta. Everybody can show emotion, dunk on somebody, scream and be real cocky; but Tim Duncan is a ... he's a pimp."

[SinJackal]

I love Sinjackal's Duncan has won more, therefore he is better argument. In reality, individual players level of play does not boil down to how much they win, as you said.

A cute stance to have, when you're arguing for the guy that hasn't won nearly as much.

Let me put this to you a simpler way.

Let's say you're playing some online FPS. Let's use Halo as an example. You come across some guy with this killer, badass kills/death ratio. Like 5/1. Dude's amazing, rarely dies, gets 5 times as many kills as he does deaths. Then there's another guy, with a 3/1 ratio. Not as impressive, but still good.

At first glance, it's easy to say the 5/1 guy is better. But is he? You look closer, and the 5/1 guy loses nearly every match, and the 3/1 guy wins nearly every match. That doesn't make sense. Or does it? Watching them both play, the 5/1 guy does nothing but hide and look to potshot people who are already getting attacked, stealing kills, sniping people, and running away and hiding anyone someone gets close.

Meanwhile the 3/1 guy is a gangster, always in the action, helping people out, trashign the opposition at an alarming rate, but happens to draw some deaths in the process due to his pimp ass style of play.

At this point, it's obvious you want the 3/1 guy on your team. He doesn't abandon you, and he isn't out looking for his own stats. He helps out and wants to win that shit.

Now let's look at KG and Duncan. Duncan's stats are actually better than KG's career, and similar during their primes. So let's say that 3/1 guy is actually also a 5/1 guy. Only his style of play is the same great style. He's not out looking for himself, doesn't steal kills, and helps out his buddies so he gets the W even if it means he loses a kill or two.

Now it becomes obvious who's the better player. The guy who's style of play leads to wins, as opposed to the guy who puts up the same kill/death ratio (or stats), but has a style of play that fails to lead to wins or titles.


That's the difference between the two. And yes, winning DOES matter. lol@you saying it doesn't. It lets us weed out the pretenders from the contenders when the stats are similar. Monta Ellis is putting up similar numbers to Kobe, but he's not as good as Kobe. We all know this. This is because Kobe wins. Ellis doesn't.

If you still do not understand the concept of winning, then I don't know how else to explain it to you (and you are probably biased). It seems obvious to me, and a lot of other people. Duncan's game leads to wins. KG is a versetile player who puts up good numbers, but it needs a lot of support in order to win, since he doesn't do the things that can carry a team the way Duncan did.

KG went to a perfect situation in Boston to play with two superstars, and stopped being a selfish ballplayer (stats dropped significantly), and ended up winning a title.

Even Shaq admitted that once he stopped being selfish for touches and stats, he started winning more games and eventually titles. You can be a great player and put up great stats, but it does not always lead to wins. Duncan "got it" from day ONE. KG did NOT. That is the main reason their careers turned out so different

[Artillery]

did i read this wrong or did you call those Minnesota team a title contender? i remember something like 7 straight first round exits, 1 WCF, and a couple of lottery years over a span of a decade. you call that a contender?

You didn't read it wrong - Tpols is just a dumbass. This is the guy that said the Laker's backcourt was head and shoulders aboves the Spurs(when SA's backcourt is ranked first in the league by a WIDE margin)