Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

[ginobli2311]

Oh look, a stupid post by tpols who lies and makes up bogus stats to suit his argument. What a shocker this is!


#1: Duncan has played with vastly different teams. No player on the 2007 championship Spurs was on the 1999 Spurs. The turnover from the 1999 squad and the 2003 squad was huge, as were the 2003 to 2007 squads.

Proof

In 2003, only three players (aside from Duncan), were still on the team from the 1999 championship squad. Those three players were:

A vastly declind David Robinson who was only putting up 7.8/6.6/1 per game in the playoffs, nearly equally declined throughout the regular season (8.5 ppg), as opposed to the '99 DRob who was good for 16/10/3 in both the regular season and the playoffs, not to mention a much bigger defensive force who could stay on the floor for more than a mere 23 minutes a game.

Malik Rose, a 6'7" roleplayer.

And Steve Kerr, a guy who played 12 minutes a game, played below average D', and was there for nothing but taking 2-3 3s when he was in ala Matt Bonner now, only far worse.

The 2003 Spurs were clearly vastly different from the 1999 Spurs. Two roleplayers were still on the team (one of which was extremely unimportant in terms of overall impact). And one very declined former star who was a vital cog in the 1999 title run.


Now look at the turnover from the 2003 squad and the 2007 squad.

Only three players from the 2003 Spurs team were on the 2007 team.

Zero players from 1999 were on the 2007 team besides Duncan.

So don't sit there like a clown and pretend like Duncan's had the same cast around him forever. He hasn't. Just like now, he has only three players from the 2007 squad on the 2011 squad. Zero from 1999, two from 2003.


Your excuse making and explaining away is getting extremely old. It's all you ever do.

Duncan has won repeatedly with vastly different teams because he's a great player who does not need great pieces around him to win. 2003 is a perfect example of this. KG was consistent in nothing but underachieving while putting up great stats.

In the end, Duncan won at a minimum of an over .600 pace every single seasond despite changing rosters. KG has repeatedly faltered when his rosters have changed, sometimes not even cracking .500, and rarely cracking 50 win at all prior to going to play with Ray Allen and Paul Peirce.

You can make excuses all you want, but in the end, KG couldn't make it happen. Duncan did. The Spurs had no titles pre-Duncan just like the Wolves didn't. Duncan brought SA four. KG: zero to Minnesota.

So no, I would say KG hasn't demonstrated the ability to be effective in different systems any better than Duncan, since A: He barely won at all in Minnesota. B: He's been pretty average in 2 of his 3 years in Boston. Duncan is now playing in a fast-paced offense and doing just fine, with the best record in the NBA and top power ranked team. And C: He didn't win titles in 2 different systems. He only won one in one system.

Duncan can play his game regardless of the roster that's out there. He wins period. He also does more of then non-statistical aspects of the game. He's a better leader, and a better winner.

KG put up good stats on underachieving teams. Duncan put up good stats while winning titles. That's why Duncan is better than KG. He willed his team to win no matter who he had around him. KG got lost in the shuffle multiple times, failing to even reach .500.

good post. tpols is just a moron. duncan has won with vastly different teams....just like i said.

i do think you are a little hard on kg....but i guess its necessary to drive home our points. kg was a great player....he just wasn't duncan. and its not just titles. duncan was simply a better basketball player for all the reasons i gave.....and those qualities made it easier for the spurs to win titles with duncan than it would have been with kg.

its hard for me because i love kg and think he's a great great player that got screwed for the majority of his career playing on terrible teams with little to no help and poor coaching.

but that doesn't mean much for this debate.

duncan was better. all the stats in the world won't change my opinion on what i saw with my eyes for over a decade now. and the stats favor duncan as well. LOL

[tpols]

Oh look, a stupid post by tpols who lies and makes up bogus stats to suit his argument. What a shocker this is!


#1: Duncan has played with vastly different teams. No player on the 2007 championship Spurs was on the 1999 Spurs. The turnover from the 1999 squad and the 2003 squad was huge, as were the 2003 to 2007 squads.

Proof

In 2003, only three players (aside from Duncan), were still on the team from the 1999 championship squad. Those three players were:

A vastly declind David Robinson who was only putting up 7.8/6.6/1 per game in the playoffs, nearly equally declined throughout the regular season (8.5 ppg), as opposed to the '99 DRob who was good for 16/10/3 in both the regular season and the playoffs, not to mention a much bigger defensive force who could stay on the floor for more than a mere 23 minutes a game.

Malik Rose, a 6'7" roleplayer.

And Steve Kerr, a guy who played 12 minutes a game, played below average D', and was there for nothing but taking 2-3 3s when he was in ala Matt Bonner now, only far worse.

The 2003 Spurs were clearly vastly different from the 1999 Spurs. Two roleplayers were still on the team (one of which was extremely unimportant in terms of overall impact). And one very declined former star who was a vital cog in the 1999 title run.


Now look at the turnover from the 2003 squad and the 2007 squad.

Only three players from the 2003 Spurs team were on the 2007 team.

Zero players from 1999 were on the 2007 team besides Duncan.

So don't sit there like a clown and pretend like Duncan's had the same cast around him forever. He hasn't. Just like now, he has only three players from the 2007 squad on the 2011 squad. Zero from 1999, two from 2003.


Your excuse making and explaining away is getting extremely old. It's all you ever do.

Duncan has won repeatedly with vastly different teams because he's a great player who does not need great pieces around him to win. 2003 is a perfect example of this. KG was consistent in nothing but underachieving while putting up great stats.

In the end, Duncan won at a minimum of an over .600 pace every single seasond despite changing rosters. KG has repeatedly faltered when his rosters have changed, sometimes not even cracking .500, and rarely cracking 50 win at all prior to going to play with Ray Allen and Paul Peirce.

You can make excuses all you want, but in the end, KG couldn't make it happen. Duncan did. The Spurs had no titles pre-Duncan just like the Wolves didn't. Duncan brought SA four. KG: zero to Minnesota.

So no, I would say KG hasn't demonstrated the ability to be effective in different systems any better than Duncan, since A: He barely won at all in Minnesota. B: He's been pretty average in 2 of his 3 years in Boston. Duncan is now playing in a fast-paced offense and doing just fine, with the best record in the NBA and top power ranked team. And C: He didn't win titles in 2 different systems. He only won one in one system.

Duncan can play his game regardless of the roster that's out there. He wins period. He also does more of then non-statistical aspects of the game. He's a better leader, and a better winner.

KG put up good stats on underachieving teams. Duncan put up good stats while winning titles. That's why Duncan is better than KG. He willed his team to win no matter who he had around him. KG got lost in the shuffle multiple times, failing to even reach .500.

For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could. Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)

[SinJackal]

good post. tpols is just a moron. duncan has won with vastly different teams....just like i said.

i do think you are a little hard on kg....but i guess its necessary to drive home our points. kg was a great player....he just wasn't duncan. and its not just titles. duncan was simply a better basketball player for all the reasons i gave.....and those qualities made it easier for the spurs to win titles with duncan than it would have been with kg.

its hard for me because i love kg and think he's a great great player that got screwed for the majority of his career playing on terrible teams with little to no help and poor coaching.

but that doesn't mean much for this debate.

duncan was better. all the stats in the world won't change my opinion on what i saw with my eyes for over a decade now. and the stats favor duncan as well. LOL

Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to. KG was also simply not as good of a player as Duncan. It's definitely NOT that simple.

If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough.


The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.

That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.

Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice. Drexler got there twice. Hakeem three times. Shaq a crapload of times (3 different teams no less, and may do it with 4 this year). Robinson twice (and WCF prior to Duncan, with several 50+ win seasons). Jordan six times. Kobe 7 times. LeBron's been there already. Wade's been there and won already. Dirk got there once, been in the WCF multiple times. Gary Payton got to the Finals.. Barkley got there.

KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . .last year is early enough for us all to remember). KG's in the low end of the all time greats, in terms of winning, conference finals, and finals appearances. Duncan is in the high end. While I think rings are an overrated way to measure who's better in general, I don't think long-term success is a bad way to measure players at all. Duncan's been successful pretty much every season. . .KG has only been noticeably successful 2-3 seasons.

That's my main measuring stick here. Plus the fact that I think the parts of Duncan's game that he's better at than KG in are more important to team success and playoff success. KG is a great player. Definitely. But he is not a top tier great imo due to his lack of success. Every other all time great managed to win regardless of their rosters. I think there is something to be said for that.

So just to be clear, I think KG is easily an all time great. Top 30 even. I'm not trying to say he doesn't deserve a high ranking. He does. But his lack of success definitely hurts his reputation to me.

[SinJackal]

For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could. Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)

What relevance does that have to the discussion? Duncan won titles with completely different cores, including two titles with zero players that were on the team for his first title. Somethign which 100% debunks your claim that he had the same team for all his titles.

Also, you are arguing KG and Duncan. KG's only title was with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. If KG manages to win again this year, it would be with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce (and Rondo and Perkins). I believe that makes your intended point a joke, and completely worthless the second that you typed it out.

Garnett did not win in Minnesota. And I would debate that he turned them into a contender. They had Sam Cassell and Latreel Sprewell added to the team. KG didn't turn that team into anything prior to that, and the team flopped the year after they reached the WCF. I don't consider that to be "dominance". He had one season that was basically comparable to what would be considered an average season for Duncan in terms of success. Mid 50's wins, WCF and done. Average season, and considered a failure of a season for a player like Duncan.


The Boston team also had a lot more turnover than just KG. I think you are giving KG too much credit. Rondo and Perkins became a year older, and a year better. Glen Davis was added. Ray Allen was added. Eddie House was added. Sam Cassell was added. PJ Brown was added. Tom Thibodeau, the well-known defensive mind behind the Celtics' defense, was also added to the team that offseason. KG was not the only new piece. Do not give him all the credit.

I already proved Duncan didn't win with the same team every year, so I'm not sure why you're repeating that lie of a statement again and acting like somehow ends the discussion. You were wrong again as usual.

[ginobli2311]

Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to. KG was also simply not as good of a player as Duncan. It's definitely NOT that simple.

If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough.


The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.

That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.

Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice. Drexler got there twice. Hakeem three times. Shaq a crapload of times (3 different teams no less, and may do it with 4 this year). Robinson twice (and WCF prior to Duncan, with several 50+ win seasons). Jordan six times. Kobe 7 times. LeBron's been there already. Wade's been there and won already. Dirk got there once, been in the WCF multiple times. Gary Payton got to the Finals.. Barkley got there.

KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . .last year is early enough for us all to remember). KG's in the low end of the all time greats, in terms of winning, conference finals, and finals appearances. Duncan is in the high end. While I think rings are an overrated way to measure who's better in general, I don't think long-term success is a bad way to measure players at all. Duncan's been successful pretty much every season. . .KG has only been noticeably successful 2-3 seasons.

That's my main measuring stick here. Plus the fact that I think the parts of Duncan's game that he's better at than KG in are more important to team success and playoff success. KG is a great player. Definitely. But he is not a top tier great imo due to his lack of success. Every other all time great managed to win regardless of their rosters. I think there is something to be said for that.

So just to be clear, I think KG is easily an all time great. Top 30 even. I'm not trying to say he doesn't deserve a high ranking. He does. But his lack of success definitely hurts his reputation to me.

yea. kg's loyalty really hurt him. kg even admitted this....he should have left when he had the chance. but he didn't want to and wanted to remain loyal to the team that drafted him. and it really hurt his career.

most of the all time greats found a way to win. although again, circumstances allowed that to happen. unfortunately for kg....those circumstances didn't occur until after his 10 best years. and its a shame.

we just witnessed lebron play 7 years of his career on a team that didn't give him much of a chance to win titles. and he got out and gave himself a chance to win now, but i hardly think its fair to say that lebron doesn't belong in the same sentence as hakeem or kobe because of his failure to win in cleveland.

i agree with almost everything you say. i just think titles can be a bit over-rated. not in duncan's case, but in a lot of other cases. i just don't think titles make a player great.

[tpols]

What relevance does that have to the discussion? Duncan won titles with completely different cores, including two titles with zero players that were on the team for his first title. Somethign which 100% debunks your claim that he had the same team for all his titles.

Also, you are arguing KG and Duncan. KG's only title was with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. If KG manages to win again this year, it would be with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce (and Rondo and Perkins). I believe that makes your intended point a joke, and completely worthless the second that you typed it out.

Garnett did not win in Minnesota. And I would debate that he turned them into a contender. They had Sam Cassell and Latreel Sprewell added to the team. KG didn't turn that team into anything prior to that, and the team flopped the year after they reached the WCF. I don't consider that to be "dominance". He had one season that was basically comparable to what would be considered an average season for Duncan in terms of success. Mid 50's wins, WCF and done. Average season, and considered a failure of a season for a player like Duncan.


The Boston team also had a lot more turnover than just KG. I think you are giving KG too much credit. Rondo and Perkins became a year older, and a year better. Glen Davis was added. Ray Allen was added. Eddie House was added. Sam Cassell was added. PJ Brown was added. Tom Thibodeau, the well-known defensive mind behind the Celtics' defense, was also added to the team that offseason. KG was not the only new piece. Do not give him all the credit.

I already proved Duncan didn't win with the same team every year, so I'm not sure why you're repeating that lie of a statement again and acting like somehow ends the discussion. You were wrong again as usual.

Lie? He won three championships in his prime after he was an established elite player on the same exact teams(I'm not talking about when he was a rookie on a already great defensive team).

And on those three championship teams in his prime he had the same exact core of players(gino, parker, bowen +role players), the same coach, and the same slow paced style/schemes.

He's been on the same team is whole career and has had the same coach.

KG has been on different teams with completely different players, coaches schemes, and systems and has made both teams contenders.

I don't know what you're arguing here. KG clearly has shown the ability to transverse his game to different systems/teams better than duncan because he has succeeded, in his prime, in different systems and on different teams.

There's no argument here. You're just stanning duncan as usual. Leave the basement for once dawg.

[LA_Showtime]

I don't think they'd do very well. KG is injured. Stupid.

[SinJackal]

Lie? He won three championships in his prime after he was an established elite player on the same exact teams(I'm not talking about when he was a rookie on a already great defensive team).

And on those three championship teams in his prime he had the same exact core of players(gino, parker, bowen +role players), the same coach, and the same slow paced style/schemes.

He's been on the same team is whole career and has had the same coach.

KG has been on different teams with completely different players, coaches schemes, and systems and has made both teams contenders.

I don't know what you're arguing here. KG clearly has shown the ability to transverse his game to different systems/teams better than duncan because he has succeeded, in his prime, in different systems and on different teams.

There's no argument here. You're just stanning duncan as usual. Leave the basement for once dawg.

Yes lie.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

That's a lie. Period.


As for them being the same teams, wrong again. Parker and Ginobili were nowhere near the same players in 2003 as they were in 2005 and 2007. Ginobili was a rookie, still getting used to the NBA and not getting a lot of touches, and Parker was still a very raw PG that Popovich wanted to trade away to get a better one.

Regardless of this, Duncan has already won titles with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CORES, 1999 vs 2005 or 2007. No players from the 1999 team were on the 2005 and 2007 teams.

Every single title he's won has had no more than 3 players from the previous title he won on them.

Regardless of all of that, Duncan has won four titles, and contended for a title nearly every single season. You're looking for some cheap way to explain away Duncan's success. The way you always provide arguments (poorly).


What it boils down to is this. KG has won one title, and contended for a title only three times. Two of these three times was with the Celtics. Duncan has won four titles, and contended for a title nearly every single season of his career. You can pretend all you want that Duncan's success "doesn't count" due to some frivelous reason or another, and that KG's lack of success is negated by another frivelous reason. In the end, Duncan was contending for titles for nearly 100% of his career. KG: 20% of his.

No matter how you may try to spin it, and explain it away, those are facts that you cannot erase. For all of KG's merits that you think are so important such as playing well on two different paced systems (his stats impressive didn't translate, btw), KG was barely a winner throughout his career. Duncan always was. What this means is, Duncan was a huge success in the system provided. KG's teams kept changing around to figure out what would work since barely anything was working. And when it did finally work, it didn't work for more than a season.

Duncan's been good nearly every year. The only times he actually DIDN't contend were when either he, or a key player on his team got injured during or prior to the playoffs. Injuries to Duncan's team were the only things stopping him from contneding.

Try and explain it away all you want with frivelous points. You can't change history. And you can't change what each player has done. Duncan has been better than KG.

Hilarious though, that you've failed so hard in this topic that you're resorting to acting like my destruction of your weak ass points somehow don't matter because I'm a Duncan fan. Nice try, Lakers and Celtics bandwagon troll.

[magnax1]

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.

[rmt]

The Spurs won titles mainly because of Duncan's low post game and defense. When he sucked in the defensive attention his shooters benefitted from wide open jumpers and moving the ball around before the defense could recover.

I don't think KG is taking down Shaq and the Lakers in '03 with a rookie Ginobili and 2nd year Tony Parker. I doubt KG is taking down the Pistons in 2005 either...even with Ginobili and Parker reaching star status. KG's game is too perimeter oriented...similar to Dirk and Chris Webber. When that jumpshot isn't falling he can't punish a team in the paint the way Duncan can. When you have perimeter players like Ginobili and Parker the last thing you need is a 7 footer out on the perimeter taking long jumpers pretending he's a freakin guard. You need a PF that's gonna go down on the low block, do work and get your team high percentage shots by scoring or sucking in double teams and getting shooters wide open. That's what Duncan did year after year in his prime for the Spurs. You can't replace that with KG.

Totally agree. And in the second half of '05 Finals game 7, Duncan got the Pistons' front line in foul trouble, commanding double teams and leading to wide open 3s.

"You could tell when he caught the ball, how much more physical he was, getting in position and bumping and grinding and getting shots and making sure he got toward the rim, so that when people came at him he was in good position to open up a teammate," Popovich said.

"A lot of the shots they made, open shots, came as a result of us having a hard time guarding him," [Larry] Brown said. "That's why he's such a great player."

"Rasheed was strapped all game," Brown said. "If you don't have your big people with the ability to play aggressively on Duncan, you've got no shot."

http://www.nba.com/games/20050623/DETSAS/recap.html

[ginobli2311]

Totally agree. And in the second half of '05 Finals game 7, Duncan got the Pistons' front line in foul trouble, commanding double teams and leading to wide open 3s.

"You could tell when he caught the ball, how much more physical he was, getting in position and bumping and grinding and getting shots and making sure he got toward the rim, so that when people came at him he was in good position to open up a teammate," Popovich said.

"A lot of the shots they made, open shots, came as a result of us having a hard time guarding him," [Larry] Brown said. "That's why he's such a great player."

"Rasheed was strapped all game," Brown said. "If you don't have your big people with the ability to play aggressively on Duncan, you've got no shot."

http://www.nba.com/games/20050623/DETSAS/recap.html

exactly. perfect post.

these are the thing i've been trying to get across in this thread. this stuff doesn't show up in the box score. kg could simply not do this night in night out in the playoffs the way duncan could. its a big reason why duncan was better. it all goes back to being a dominant low post player and completely controlling the game and how the other team plays.

hopefully they take notice. well done.

[Pointguard]

Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to.

Help me out but aren't you one of these guys that couldn't sleep when Lebron left Clevelend??? Yet you have no shame in saying this. Some people are just loyal guys. It makes the world go round. KG was out of HS and Minny
showed him a loyalty no other basketball player had been shown in the history of the sport with the contract he signed - it was the only contract of its kind. He grew up poor and said yeah, and perhaps he should be grateful. KG has made about 40 million more than Duncan who is the exact same age. So I don't fault him. It's the card he was dealt.

If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough.

1)The Spurs was a serious basketball organization that had a player development plan.
2)Minny didn't have a basketball plan. Name me another player that was developed in Minny???
3)SA developed their players. a)TD had a good college background, B)a great mentor in Robinson, C)a solid big man coach in Pop, D)they operated in a structured system, E)their defense was ranked high in the conference F)their offense had solid players and definitive roles G)Discipine existed in all levels of the organiztion
4)Amazingly without little to offer in any of those categories from his organization... KG was basically self taught in a badly managed situation yet he outscores, outrebounds, out assisst, is more efficient, more productive, has more responsibility, with less support and structure yet was consistently this way in their prime. TD only has the advantage in blocks and FG%. One caveat for KG is that they let him play TD straight up and he outblocks TD in their matchups.
5)Hard to develop without support structure and sytems when you are unique in your gifts. KG is definitely one of the most versatile players in the history of the game. Having lead the league in PER/Efficiency, productivity and DPOY he also was more effective in holding down the most positions in the league on both sides of the ball.
6)KG could post up but his team didn't have a setup man... If he had shooters the post made sense but these guyst couldn't create their own shot either.
7)With structure, support, and managment built on winnig his responsibilities of rebounding, setting up the offense, being the main scorer and assist man, being the 2 people on defense, spreading the floor, the creative guy, leading by example...etc. could have been alleviated. But it wasn't. Yet Kg never took a play off. After the giant contract and 7 straight losses KG played harder than any other player out there.

Aall of this to say he could have been developed in any area. With less responsibility and more support he could have been in the post since he has real natural strength and tremendous dedication.

The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.
That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.

When KG had help he won. Cassell and Sprewell were on their last legs and he won respectfully with them. Nobody wins with those teams in Minny. No one player ever had the responsibility KG had in Minny. Those guys couldn't create, they weren't defensive minded, the couldn't shoot, there wasn't a team strength or a direction in which management was going. When Nestervic showed some promise, San Antonio stold him from Minny. San Antonio found out that KG made Nesterovic look better than he was.

Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice.
KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . .last year is early enough for us all to remember).

Whoa, and you act like you delivering prestigious info!!! Do you and Ginobli know what the word healthy means. You look at KG this year and yall are both incapable of making a distinction!!! Do yall only look at the ball when the game is on??? Yo, this is the game without the helmets on. And you rolling like you in the know! "last year is easy..." last year you were probably in the insane asylum. How in the world are you going to evaluate a player when you can't tell if one of the most agile big man is limping. Then you don't read the post either. You are making it brutal for the rest of us. I'm out.

[jlauber]

I still enjoy reading the intelligent posts on this subject. There are many good arguments for BOTH Duncan and KG here. Ultimately, at least IMHO, is that Duncan did get four rings, while KG languished with bad teams for many years. BUT, we got a good indication of what might have been, when Garnett won with a dominating team in 2008.

Of all of the player vs. player discussions on this forum...I really think TD and KG are about as close as it gets. Furthermore, if KG gets a ring this year, I think he has a legitimate case of at least knocking on the door of the all-time Top-10.

[Wuxia]

For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could. Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)

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?

[Big#50]

I still enjoy reading the intelligent posts on this subject. There are many good arguments for BOTH Duncan and KG here. Ultimately, at least IMHO, is that Duncan did get four rings, while KG languished with bad teams for many years. BUT, we got a good indication of what might have been, when Garnett won with a dominating team in 2008.

Of all of the player vs. player discussions on this forum...I really think TD and KG are about as close as it gets. Furthermore, if KG gets a ring this year, I think he has a legitimate case of at least knocking on the door of the all-time Top-10.

KG in the top ten? No ****ong way. One of the biggest stat padders in Minny. The guy would yell at his players if they didn't let him grab a board. It ia easy to pad your stats when a team is just letting you get yours. He had no post game. His D out in perimeter is what made him unique. Duncan shits on him.
Someone post the Artest quote.