Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

[MMM]

Duncan might of been better at protecting the rim in close but KG was better at preventing teams from getting there to begin with. KG still anchoring one of the best defensive teams in the league going into his 16th??? season indicates to me that he was probably the better defensive player. With all that being said TD was a superior from my view point but KG is close and the fact that he could lead Boston to a title indicates to me that in his Prime if he had a better cast he would be able to have a few rings. Will I said he could win the 4 TD has, no but I think 2 and maxing out at 3 is possible for him.

[Harison]

drza44,

The reason I posted Rasho's comments was that he played with both KG and TD for many years. I could pull out tons of quotes on how good both KG and TD are as leaders but not any from another player who actually played with them both.

To me, Rasho's comments were about the intangibles and KG not being "mentally strong enough to be a team leader" and "a true team leader that scores in clutch moments" as the difference between KG and TD - not stats.

And I'm female - not male.

As mentioned by drza44, Rasho didnt get along well with KG, so its possible he used an opportunity to bite KG. Or you think as long as comment favors TD, it must be absolute truth? Btw, in '08 or '09 NBA GMs voted who is the best team leader, KG was voted as by far the best, with TD having only 11% of votes.

Or we can talk how he came to Celtics and completely changed team mentality, enforcing different culture and players not only had to step up (including stars like Pierce and Ray), but also were held accountable by KG. If anything, it shows strong mentality, weak ones dont (and even cant) do that

What concerns clutch moments, KG doesnt mind to pass to an open teammate if he is defended, thats just smart play, and not a sign of weakness. Bird did that, Jordan did as well, so did Russell, three greatest clutch players of All-time. On the other hand, if we take your words "a true team leader that scores in clutch moments" as the definition of clutchness, thats what Kobe do, forces the shot regardless if its smart play or not. I guess to each its own what they want of the clutch player to do.

We can also instead of rehashing generic claims go for the data, and as posted by drza44, TD and KG clutch data is a carbon copy, very similar. We dont even have to go far in the past, in '08 Celtics championship season, with two amazing clutch players like Ray and Pierce, it was KG who was BY FAR the best 4th quarter player in the Playoffs, by both as leading scorer, rebounder, and with much better efficiency than either Pierce or Ray. I'm not even talking about defense (clutch as well), which was primary reason why Celtics won at all.

[Monkey D Dragon]

Do they still win 4 championships?
Is KG crowned the GOAT PF?

Or

Does Duncan lead the T Wolves to championships?

Can we replace ur mom with ur dad?

That should answer all ur question

[ginobli2311]

I was responding specifically to rmt, who in post #90 gave some specific examples of Duncan's big postseason performances, then in post #124 called me out for not responding to his previous post about KG not having big postseason performances. Since he asked me twice for that info, I would say it was perfectly reasonable for me to answer as I did. Also, in his post #124, he gave a quote from a player suggesting that KG wasn't a leader on those Celtics...wouldn't the logical thing for me to do, then, be to give him quotes from others that were closer to the situation that supported my statement? Your protest here doesn't make much sense.



I don't have a problem with you saying "Duncan was a superior offensive player", but if you say it then I'm going to ask you to support that with facts and not just supposition. In return, I will post my own analysis. That's the nature of a discussion. But what has happened repeatedly in this thread is, you make a declarative statement in Duncan's favor, I counter with an opinion in KG's favor with lots of objective stats or even anecdotes to support my opinion, then you respond testily (either you call me confused or some other negative comment) and proceed to ignore my analysis. That doesn't lend to a very positive exchange.

Examples (from this thread):

1) You: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not. " - post 63 of the thread

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota..." with detailed analysis of 4 different offensive sets that Minnesota ran often, where the double would come from, and how KG would counter it - post #79

You: "what i don't agree with is that kg demanded a double as much as duncan. in all of the games i watched of both players in the playoffs....i saw duncan hard doubled far more often." - post 82, and "also. i don't need a history lesson. - post 83

(No response to my analysis outside of a snarky-sounding comment that you don't need a history lesson, and then a re-statement of your opinion).

2) You: "i could talk about kg's inept play in tight games at times" - post 83

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof... Here's what I found:" followed by a detailed list of each player's clutch stats every year since 2002-03 that shows KG's and Duncan's performance in crunch time to be practically identical. - post 86

You: "you are having a hard time comprehending a few things. its ok. but listen. when someone says "kg's inept play at times"....that does not mean they are saying that he is inept. you need to understand that for purposes of this debate and any debate. you can't use that to go off on a tangent about kg's play late in games. the simple matter is in my opinion kg disappeared late in games more often than duncan. " - post 92

(Again, a bit of snark, followed by dismissing my tangible support as a tangent, then you re-stating your opinion that runs counter to my analysis without any further support).

3) You "duncan was a superior offensive player than kg. ... so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point." - post 34 and "duncan was a better low post player" post 92.

Me: "Our point of contention isn't whether or not Duncan is the better post player, but whether Garnett's other strengths are sufficient to bridge or even go beyond Duncan's. I believe yes, you believe no. But that Duncan is better on the blocks isn't something I'm contending against." post 114

You: "again you confuse things. for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player"


See, at this point I do start to get confused. If every time I engage you on a subject, addressing something you said directly, you deflect and then recant what you said, only to ignore my support and re-state your previously held view...how am I supposed to debate with that? What would be the point? At this point I guess you're right, you've stated where you stand, I've offered a counter-opinion with what I believe to be reasonable support, and you disagree. I guess there's no particular reason for us to continue to address each other unless something new is brought to the table.

ok.

i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.

i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play.

also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help.

so that would be a problem when kg has to go up against some tough front lines....which he inevitably would have.

and again. not everything shows up in the stats. although i don't know why you keep referencing stats when all the stats and advanced stats are either even or slightly favor duncan.

post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)

therefore, because duncan is better at those aspects of the game, i'll take duncan over kg simply because their level of play and impact is the same.

basically your argument goes:

"you can't prove duncan was better than kg because i can rattle off stats and head to head games and instances in which kg was great and kg could have done this or that"

well. ok. that is fine. and you can't prove at all what kg would have done as the man on a title team in his prime. but we did just witness kg get destroyed in game 7 of the nba finals by gasol/bynum. we did just witness kg come up extremely small on the boards in the nba finals. i've never seen duncan dominated on the glass that badly in the finals or really any playoff series. only 1 game over 6 boards? not good. not good at all.

i have so much i could hammer kg with but i don't want to because i love kg. and that is the problem with debates like this. i'm trying to debate you without being hard on kg.....and just praising duncan.

so i'll summarize exactly my point and you tell me what is wrong with them in your mind:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better interior defender

because i think those two things are the most important aspect of winning in the nba.....i have duncan slightly over kg because overall their level of play and impact is so similar

forget everything else that has been said. please tell me if you refute those two things or their importance.

[tpols]

ok.

i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.

i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play.

also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help.

so that would be a problem when kg has to go up against some tough front lines....which he inevitably would have.

and again. not everything shows up in the stats. although i don't know why you keep referencing stats when all the stats and advanced stats are either even or slightly favor duncan.

post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)

therefore, because duncan is better at those aspects of the game, i'll take duncan over kg simply because their level of play and impact is the same.

basically your argument goes:

"you can't prove duncan was better than kg because i can rattle off stats and head to head games and instances in which kg was great and kg could have done this or that"

well. ok. that is fine. and you can't prove at all what kg would have done as the man on a title team in his prime. but we did just witness kg get destroyed in game 7 of the nba finals by gasol/bynum. we did just witness kg come up extremely small on the boards in the nba finals. i've never seen duncan dominated on the glass that badly in the finals or really any playoff series. only 1 game over 6 boards? not good. not good at all.

i have so much i could hammer kg with but i don't want to because i love kg. and that is the problem with debates like this. i'm trying to debate you without being hard on kg.....and just praising duncan.

so i'll summarize exactly my point and you tell me what is wrong with them in your mind:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better interior defender

because i think those two things are the most important aspect of winning in the nba.....i have duncan slightly over kg because overall their level of play and impact is so similar

forget everything else that has been said. please tell me if you refute those two things or their importance.

Yea.. that kind of bs because this is not prime KG anymore. This is old KG. We aren't judging duncan last year for getting swept by the suns are we? Because it's only fair if you want to criticize garnett and his performance last year.

[ginobli2311]

Yea.. that kind of bs because this is not prime KG anymore. This is old KG. We aren't judging duncan last year for getting swept by the suns are we? Because it's only fair if you want to criticize garnett and his performance last year.

the problem is that it would have happened in kg's prime more often if he had to go up against a great front line unless he had a good big center next to him.

duncan is simply more suited to dominate the paint against other teams front lines.

and duncan still got 10 boards a game last year in the playoffs. kg averaged 7....and like 5 in the finals.

[Wuxia]

do you KG fans honestly believe he would have won in 03 with that Spurs cast? That team was not very good, and that was Duncan's most impressive CHIP IMO. Any other year I can let it slide, but that year he totally carried the Spurs that entire playoff putting up ridiculous stats and beat some great teams in the Suns, Lakers, and Mavs. DRob was on in last legs and really didn't do much until the finals against a pretty bad Nets team.

I have never seen anyone carry a team like that since Hakeem.

[Big#50]

Someone post the Artest quote.

[Pointguard]

ok.
i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.

The simple counter is that given more room by having other dependable scorers and KG's scores more. He had a lot of responsibilites on top of his scoring.

i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play.

Neither does the other team strategy to stop one dependable scorer minus a much more structured, all around better offensive deployment, creating for non-scorers to score - not just assist, leading his team in every offensive strategy, the distraction of leading the league in rebounds and somehow efficiency for three years. A lot doesn't come up on the score board.

also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help.

Comon Gin, you don't read the papers or bother putting things in context. You really think a healthy KG that lead the league in rebounding for three years while Duncan was in his prime couldn't out rebound Gasol whom he had a 14 reb to 8 advantage careerwise a couple of years back.

post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)

Welcome to a new century!!! Jordan, Wade, Kobe outnumber the big boys.
Its not about where you play - its about how you play. KG was at the helm of one of the best defensive teams ever. But I will repeat TD had some winning Hoodoo going on, tho.

[LosBulls]

And then we come to the harsh reality that none of these hypotheticals mean a thing and Duncan has 4 championships whiles Garnett only has one.

Garnett got drafted by the Timberwolves while Duncan got drafted by the Spurs.

[Wuxia]

Comon Gin, you don't read the papers or bother putting things in context. You really think a healthy KG that lead the league in rebounding for three years while Duncan was in his prime couldn't out rebound Gasol whom he had a 14 reb to 8 advantage careerwise a couple of years back.

or it could be something inevitable like aging. notice how kg's rebounding numbers are steadily decreasing every year and Gasol's rebounding numbers have increased? kg couldn't get any rebounds in that series because gasol took them all away from him.

[OldSchoolBBall]

What's up with people not being able to properly express a replacement scenario lately? A few days ago we had "replace Kobe with MJ on the '91-'93 Bulls" and now we have "replace KG with Duncan" when what's actually being asked is what happens if we replace Duncan with KG. Hence, the thread title should be "replace KG FOR Duncan" or, better still, "replace Duncan with KG."

[Pointguard]

or it could be something inevitable like aging. notice how kg's rebounding numbers are steadily decreasing every year and Gasol's rebounding numbers have increased? kg couldn't get any rebounds in that series because gasol took them all away from him.

Wow, you tell one guy he was lost... and a second comes behind him bragging about his lack of a GPS. Is this the land of the lost? The last three days here.... its like the board needs an intelligence interpreter. Yo, I feel like Mr. Rogers in here, sometimes.

KG didn't get rebounds because he wasn't fully healed - its in the dang quotation! KG has been hurt the last two years. However if they played earlier this year, Gasol would have been outrebounded again. If KG was healthy there are some big differences. The reason why people call Gasol, Gasoft til this day is because KG left him feeling like the Tin Man the last time he was healthy. Gasol isn't a big time rebounder now either.

[hitmanyr2k]

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.

[SinJackal]

How has duncan won consistently with different teams? He's always been on the spurs under the same coach running the same defensive schemes and playing the same slow paced style. For the past three championships past the lockout he has had parker, ginobli, and a bunch of defensive role players. Literally the same thing year in and year out.

KG is the one that has shown that he can make a huge impact on any team he's put on. He dragged terrible casts with the twolves to the WCF and to the playoffs every single year he was with them. And then he went to boston and turned that team into an all time great defensive team and perrenial powerhouse.

I'm sorry but that statement made no sense. Duncan has been a part of the same system for his entire span of dominance and it is KG who has demonstrated the ability to be effective in multiple different systems.

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.