Peak Kevin Garnett vs. Peak Tim Duncan

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan, no question in my mind.

Duncan was a better low post player, better shot blocker and defender, IMO, better overall scorer and more clutch. Other than handle the ball, shoot jumpers and free throws, KG did not do a single thing better than Duncan. Rebounding was basically a wash and KG was no better than Duncan as a passer(despite the assist numbers). Give me Duncan, any day of the weak.

[D.J.]

In terms of stats, peak KG was better. Peak KG was around 2003-2004. Duncan was slightly before that. For me, I'd rather have Duncan. He was a monster on defense, a solid passer for a big man, and extremely clutch. Garnett may have been more versatile on defense and was a better perimeter shooter, but his post defense wasn't as good and he had a tendency to get a bit passive. Duncan's play was never passive.

[ThaKid]

Heres the way i see it. Tim Duncan was blessed with a great Spurs supporting cast since he entered the league, and hes been lucky to play in that system that worked for his whole career with the same kind of team and coach. Garnett on the other hand was never blessed with that kind of squad, maybe talent wise yes (Spreewell, Casell, Marbury, Madsen) and hes never really played with a team (on Min) that gelled as well as the Spurs have this decade.

So basically Tim Duncan will most likely be higher on the GOAT list cause of wins and championships because he had a great team to compliment his skills and vice versa. Dont get me wrong im not trying to take anything away from Duncan. But i feel if Garnett was in the same situation (not literally on the Spurs, but the same kind of chemistry) he would be top 10 and maybe even better than Duncan. So my point is yes Duncan had the success because he is a great player, but 1-on-1 or if i had to start my franchise, then i would pick Garnett because to me he has more heart and hustle. He was also more agile and packed the stat sheets. So yea really not trying to take anything away from duncan, but I would pick KG and i feel if he had the same situation as TD he would prolly be 1 up higher on the list for best PFs than KG.

[Carbine]

Didn't Garnetts team not make the playoffs 3 straight years?

I find it really, really hard to believe had Duncan been in a bad situation that he would let his team lose to the tune of missing 3 straight playoffs.

[D.J.]

Didn't Garnetts team not make the playoffs 3 straight years?

I find it really, really hard to believe had Duncan been in a bad situation that he would let his team lose to the tune of missing 3 straight playoffs.

The T-Wolves missed the playoffs in 2005 because Sprewell's play diminished and Cassell only played in 59 games. In 2006, they were in rebuilding mode. Even Michael Jordan's first three seasons, the Bulls were 38-44, 30-52, and 40-42.

[Carbine]

That's the point, Jordan was just getting started.... Garnett failed to make the playoffs consecutively after he got his MVP award, i.e he was at or near the top of his game.

[D.J.]

That's the point, Jordan was just getting started.... Garnett failed to make the playoffs consecutively after he got his MVP award, i.e he was at or near the top of his game.

That has nothing to do with Garnett. That team was a three man team. When you have Sprewell only averaging 12 PPG and Cassell only playing in 59 games, it's going to be hard to make the playoffs. The following year, Wally Szcerbiak was traded. In retrospect, Garnett stayed in Minnesota longer than he should have.

[Carbine]

It has nothing to do with Garnett? If he was as good as Duncan, and had as much impact on wins as Duncan had, than he wouldn't miss the playoffs in consecutive seasons when he was at or near the top of his game. The NBA is a superstar driven league. It's not like Garnett was injured a lot during those two years, he only missed a combined six games in two years.

It's hard to defend Garnett on that one. Like I said, it's hard to imagine Duncan missing the playoffs two years in a row at or near his peak, no matter how average his supporting cast was.

[D.J.]

It has nothing to do with Garnett? If he was as good as Duncan, and had as much impact on wins as Duncan had, than he wouldn't miss the playoffs in consecutive seasons when he was at or near the top of his game. The NBA is a superstar driven league. It's not like Garnett was injured a lot during those two years, he only missed a combined six games in two years.

It's hard to defend Garnett on that one. Like I said, it's hard to imagine Duncan missing the playoffs two years in a row at or near his peak, no matter how average his supporting cast was.

Basketball is a team game. When your team is a three man team and the other two are injured or playing horribly, you don't stand a chance. Duncan's teammates may not have been the greatest, but they all knew their roles and they were certainly better than guys like Troy Hudson, Michael Olowokandi, and Ervin Johnson.

Put a prime Duncan on the T-Wolves from 2005-2007 and they will still miss the playoffs. They were that bad as a team.

[dyna]

The were different players,

Duncan has always been a true center playing against fowards and with a great supporting cast (including a top 10 center all time) around him from the beginning.

For me all time duncan was better but in their peaks they were neck to neck.

[G.O.A.T]

Heres the way i see it. Tim Duncan was blessed with a great Spurs supporting cast since he entered the league, and hes been lucky to play in that system that worked for his whole career with the same kind of team and coach. Garnett on the other hand was never blessed with that kind of squad, maybe talent wise yes (Spreewell, Casell, Marbury, Madsen) and hes never really played with a team (on Min) that gelled as well as the Spurs have this decade.

So basically Tim Duncan will most likely be higher on the GOAT list cause of wins and championships because he had a great team to compliment his skills and vice versa. Dont get me wrong im not trying to take anything away from Duncan. But i feel if Garnett was in the same situation (not literally on the Spurs, but the same kind of chemistry) he would be top 10 and maybe even better than Duncan. So my point is yes Duncan had the success because he is a great player, but 1-on-1 or if i had to start my franchise, then i would pick Garnett because to me he has more heart and hustle. He was also more agile and packed the stat sheets. So yea really not trying to take anything away from duncan, but I would pick KG and i feel if he had the same situation as TD he would prolly be 1 up higher on the list for best PFs than KG.

Whenever I read posts like these I have the same question:

Do think the Spurs great chemistry and four championship runs starting when Duncan arrived is just a coincidence?

To me the reasons why Duncan won four titles are the same reasons why he is better than Garnett in terms of peak, prime, career and even versatility (yes, you don't have to be ultra-athletic to be versatile.) It's the subtle things, how he makes people better; how guys like Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, Sean Elliott, Bruce Bowen and so many more can just focus on their individual strengths because of all Duncan does to cover up their weaknesses. Another reason Duncan's teammates were better is because Duncan took significantly less money and never threatened or left the impression that he might leave.

Yes Duncan was drafted by a better franchise and in his first few years playing alongside David Robinson in his late prime was a huge advantage, but look at the other players on those Spurs rosters; look at the 2003 Spurs, how is that roster any better than what Garnett had for the first four years of the decade and Duncan won a title with it.

[redhonda76]

We all know KG is versatile but he plays in the position of a big man. I rather have a low post big man than a high post big man. Duncan puts so much pressure on the defense than KG ever did.

Anyone who knows basketball knows Prime Duncan > Prime KG and its not even close.

[Carbine]

Basketball is a team game. When your team is a three man team and the other two are injured or playing horribly, you don't stand a chance. Duncan's teammates may not have been the greatest, but they all knew their roles and they were certainly better than guys like Troy Hudson, Michael Olowokandi, and Ervin Johnson.

Put a prime Duncan on the T-Wolves from 2005-2007 and they will still miss the playoffs. They were that bad as a team.

When is the last time a great player coming off an MVP season who is still at or near his prime didn't make the playoffs for two consecutive years?

I'm pretty sure the number to that answer is zero.

That hurts Garnett. Duncan has shown nothing to say that he wouldn't make the playoffs with a poor supporting cast.... he won a championship in 2003 with a supporting cast that had no business of being champions, or really anything past the second round.

[SayTownRy]

2003

/thread imo

[Dave3]

Looks like the general consensus is Duncan, just like it was in 2003. I thought looking back people might see things in a different light. Appreciate the replies.