Peak Kevin Garnett vs. Peak Tim Duncan

[Dave3]

I know there have been way too many "prime__ vs. prime ___" threads, but I think this one might actually produce some worthwhile discussion, so bare with me.

To most people, it's easily established that Duncan has had a far more illustrious career than Kevin Garnett, garnering multiple first team all defense awards, multiple first team ALL NBA, 4 championships, and 3 finals MVP's and repeat MVP performances. However, when the discussion shifts to comparing both players at their absolute peak, the discussion isn't as clear cut.

When Kevin Garnett was in the Western conference, Duncan's team would more often than not walk away with the victory, but that was affected heavily by the surrounding players.

Kevin Garnett is however known for having an incredibly explosive prime, averaging upwards of 24 ppg, 14 rpg, and 5-6 apg while shooting 50% FG and 75+% from the free throw line, an area which Duncan struggled with. He provided his team with versatility and intensity unmatched by almost anyone this decade.


Duncan's highest scoring output was 25.5 ppg on 51%, and he was able to add 13 rpg on top of that, while recording a respectable 3.7+ apg in his peak years. He was however not as versatile as Garnett, and was also erratic from the free throw line, shooting 80% one year, but dipping all the way down to 60% two years later.


My question to you is who would you take at their absolute peak. If you had to take one of them for only one year at their best (in the first round of a league wide draft, so you have no other players yet), who would you take?

[Bernie Nips]

Hahaha, KG is getting a lot of attention on here lately.

It's completely interchangeable to me. The top 4 PF positions are... KG, Barkley, Duncan, Malone.

I personally would pick KG.

[Dave3]

Hahaha, KG is getting a lot of attention on here lately.

It's completely interchangeable to me. The top 4 PF positions are... KG, Barkley, Duncan, Malone.

I personally would pick KG.

I was a huge fan of KG, till about last year when he started acting like some immature prick. In Minnesota he still had an intensity about him, but not the immature cockiness he has now. I always thought he was very close to Duncan if not better in the 2002-2005 period of time, but had bad luck with poor supporting casts/coaching. Most people at the time thought Duncan was better, but I'm wondering how people will see them now that their careers are almost over and you'd have to be looking back to judge the quality of their play.

[KG5MVP]

2002-2008 KG was better than Duncan

[1987_Lakers]

2002-2008 KG was better than Duncan

2003 Duncan > 2003 Garnett

[Bernie Nips]

I was a huge fan of KG, till about last year when he started acting like some immature prick. In Minnesota he still had an intensity about him, but not the immature cockiness he has now. I always thought he was very close to Duncan if not better in the 2002-2005 period of time, but had bad luck with poor supporting casts/coaching. Most people at the time thought Duncan was better, but I'm wondering how people will see them now that their careers are almost over and you'd have to be looking back to judge the quality of their play.

That will be interesting. Fans like players in history who struggled through adversity (read: poor teams) and still managed to shine, and carry the teams on their shoulders. So it could well be that in 10, 20 years time, KG comes across as the more complete player.

I do believe KG has always been a better all-round player, but Tim Duncan was the best at what he did and needed to do... Mr Fundamentals. Like I said, they're interchangeable. I would just go for KG as I think if you put the right team around him at his peak, that team would go down in history like the 86 Celtics or something.

[Bernie Nips]

2003 Duncan > 2003 Garnett

KG put up 23/13.4/6!!/1.4/1.6 on 50% shooting, carrying a pretty mediocre team to a then-franchise record 51 wins.

At the very least I would call them equal, with Timmy winning out MVP honors for having a better team.

[Carbine]

What's this "interchangeable" stuff I'm reading? They are much different players - about as different as two "post" players can be.

Garnett is a jump-shooting big man. His points came off pick and pops, high post face ups and the occasional turn around jumper from the post, or a hook if he was feeling good. But his offense was perimeter based.

His defensive strength was defending pick and rolls. He could defend the post as well, but it wasn't his calling card like a Kendrik Perkins is right now, it wasn't blocking shots like a David Robinson.... his defense can be summed as versatile.

Duncan is a low post player. He takes the majority of his shots from a post up position. His bank shot is about as "perimeter" as he gets.

Duncan' defensive strengths were defending the hoop, excellent rotations. He could defend the pick and roll well. Could defend the post. He was the definition of an anchor back there because he was always in position to change a shot/block shots/force an extra pass.

Both players had different stengths and played much differently. The Spurs would've had to really change there whole system if Garnett played for them as he was not a post-scorer like Duncan...instead the Spurs would've been a jump shooting team.

[Alhazred]

I'd go with Duncan. I used to like KG quite a bit before he left Minnesota, though.

[Big#50]

KG the stat padding king<Tim

[ProfessorMurder]

What's this "interchangeable" stuff I'm reading? They are much different players - about as different as two "post" players can be.

Garnett is a jump-shooting big man. His points came off pick and pops, high post face ups and the occasional turn around jumper from the post, or a hook if he was feeling good. But his offense was perimeter based.

His defensive strength was defending pick and rolls. He could defend the post as well, but it wasn't his calling card like a Kendrik Perkins is right now, it wasn't blocking shots like a David Robinson.... his defense can be summed as versatile.

Duncan is a low post player. He takes the majority of his shots from a post up position. His bank shot is about as "perimeter" as he gets.

Duncan' defensive strengths were defending the hoop, excellent rotations. He could defend the pick and roll well. Could defend the post. He was the definition of an anchor back there because he was always in position to change a shot/block shots/force an extra pass.

Both players had different stengths and played much differently. The Spurs would've had to really change there whole system if Garnett played for them as he was not a post-scorer like Duncan...instead the Spurs would've been a jump shooting team.

Duncan made a living off the elbow jumpers for a while back when the Admiral was still playing. (If I remember correctly)

[Carbine]

Duncan made a living off the elbow jumpers for a while back when the Admiral was still playing. (If I remember correctly)

No he didn't.

[Bernie Nips]

I meant interchangeable in terms of the quality of their play.. Neither was a 'better' player than the other.

[Showtime]

KG has never had the low post game of Duncan, nor the post defense. He's a great versatile forward, but what set a prime Duncan apart was his superior inside game on both ends of the court.

[ProfessorMurder]

No he didn't.

Well f*ck it, not the first time I've said something retarded while tired.