Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

[rmt]

I think the big difference between Duncan and Garnett is Duncan would play hard during the regular season, but had an extra playoff gear where when his team needed him to have a monster series and hit clutch shots 9/10 he would come through. KG played every game as if it was Game 7 of the Finals. Which is great but a Game 6 WCF is more important than @Memphis in January. Duncan's numbers go up in the playoffs, KG's stay the same as his regular season numbers.

KG Career Regular Season PPG 19.7 RPG 10.8 APG 4.1 FG% 49.8

Career Playoff PPG 20.2 RPG 11.2 APG 4.0 FG% 47.4


TD Career Regular Season PPG 20.9 RPG 11.5 APG 3.2 FG% 50.8

Career Playoff PPG 23.0 RPG 12.4 APG 3.5 FG% 50.2

Duncan's points and rebounds go up quite a bit, Garnett's stay pretty much the same. Duncan's FG% goes down slighty and Garnett's goes down over 2 percentage points, while Duncan shoots over 50% in Reg and Post seasons, Garnett manages neither.

This. Some people love the daily intensity of Garnett but give me Duncan who performs better against better competition when it counts in the playoffs.

[Horatio33]

KG and TD are both selfless, but KG is up there with Russell as ultimate team players.

So Duncan isn't an ultimate team player. His teams have an over .700 record since he joined the league.

[gts]

The spurs would have built a defensive dynamo around KG... there's a good chance the spurs actually repeat one of their titles with a KG team

both are great players duncan maybe a little better than kg but the credit goes to the spurs front office for knowing what types of players to surround their franchise players with

[ginobli2311]

first off:

duncan was a superior offensive player than kg. kg is more versatile, but duncan had a bigger impact and was far more dominant. kg was never really a dominant offensive player....at least not like duncan. duncan could control an entire game and series on the low block. he had to be doubled and really when you have to double a low post player you are screwed.

so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point.



now. duncan was not winning anything in minny with the same relative talent kg had. the only year there would have even been a chance was 04.....and i simply don't think duncan could have won that series without cassell. he might have forced a game 7....but i don't think there is much of chance to beat the lakers or the pistons in 04.


and that is why titles are a bit over-rated when it comes to judging players. its a factor of course, but far too many people on here and in the sports world judge nba players on solely titles or weight titles too heavily.

just look at duncan and kg:

duncan has played on around 8 or 9 teams with a legit chance to win it all.
if you count 04 for kg (which probably wasn't legit)....kg has played on a total of 3 teams with a legit chance to win it all.

and that simply is not a fair comparison whatsoever.

so, like always, you need to delve deeper into why duncan is better (which he is). and its because he was more dominant offensively and because he was a better paint protector defensively. duncan is a superior one on one defender on the low block and a better rim protector and a bit better at off the ball shot blocking as well.

but i do think this is a bit closer than most people have it.

[Harison]

So Duncan isn't an ultimate team player. His teams have an over .700 record since he joined the league.

How about this outlandish idea - team record might have something to do with a teams quality? Isnt Celtics doing better with an old KG since Big3 was formed than the Spurs?

[rmt]

Duncan doesnt win with the Wolves, thats for sure.

KG could win 4 with the Spurs, but their brilliant office would have to adjust roster slightly. While both players impact is remarkably similar, teams would have to adjust to their superstars strong points. For example I think KG would average ~2PPG less but Manu, Parker and the rest of the player would benefit more from KG since he is better passer and doesnt mind to pass to open player instead of forcing the shot. KG and TD are both selfless, but KG is up there with Russell as ultimate team players.

Duncan wouldn't have stayed with the Wolves after his rookie contract. If he was seriously considering Orlando after the Spurs had already won the championship, he wouldn't have stayed in Minn if they didn't seriously put a contending team around him. Even Kobe would have bailed on the Lakers if they hadn't gotten Gasol. Staying in Minn. is the only thing I fault with KG - he should have taken less and gone to a team with a better chance of winning, but he has made a lot more money than TD throughout his career.

Well, what does it say about Duncan since he still has slightly better career stats even without the hypothetical 2 PPG less. Spurs were built around Duncan - his team mates got lots of wide open shots from double teams on him. For most of his career, it was a steady diet of "4 down" - throw it in to Duncan surrounded by shooters.

Team play is the last thing that anyone should be mentioning against TD - other than Russell and maybe, Magic, he is the ultimate team player.

[Harison]

duncan was a superior offensive player than kg. kg is more versatile, but duncan had a bigger impact and was far more dominant. kg was never really a dominant offensive player....at least not like duncan. duncan could control an entire game and series on the low block. he had to be doubled and really when you have to double a low post player you are screwed.

You overrating Duncan and underrating KG. Duncan is slightly better scorer with slightly higher efficiency, but also inferior passer (which is a part of the offense btw).

Everyone is touting how good Duncan is in the Playoffs, lets see how much more dominant Duncan was:

Best series:
Duncan '02: 27.6/14.4/5.0 with FG% 45.3
Duncan '03: 24.7/15.4/5.3 with FG% 52.9

Garnett '03: 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4
Garnett '04: 24.3/14.6/5.1 with FG% 45.2

You can pretty much swap their best Playoffs performances, how similar their were, I'm not even including Garnett's 24.0/18.7/5.0 series.

So how again Duncan is more dominant offensive player? If we talk about defense, I agree Duncan is better defending centers, while Garnett is better at defending all four other positions on the flour, including quicker hands to be much better at steals.

Just watch KG in the prime, posted in other threads just few days ago:

Kevin Garnett vs Sacramento Kings 2004 Playoffs Game 3: 30/15/5/3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVQwMl2NDI

Garnett: 2004 vs Kings Playoffs GM7: 32/21/4/5/2 - one of the best Game 7 performances All-time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4

Garnett vs Los Angeles Lakers 2003 playoffs Game 3: 33/14/4/4/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8jjcJUkco

How about other KG Playoffs games, like 35/20/7, 31/18/4, 30/19/4 vs Lakers, 32/21/2/4/5 vs Denver, and many other games. Its just strange how people quickly forget what beast KG was in the prime, probably because rarely anyone watched crappy franchise like Wolves.

[Pointguard]

I think the big difference between Duncan and Garnett is Duncan would play hard during the regular season, but had an extra playoff gear where when his team needed him to have a monster series and hit clutch shots 9/10 he would come through. KG played every game as if it was Game 7 of the Finals. Which is great but a Game 6 WCF is more important than @Memphis in January. Duncan's numbers go up in the playoffs, KG's stay the same as his regular season numbers.

KG Career Regular Season PPG 19.7 RPG 10.8 APG 4.1 FG% 49.8

Career Playoff PPG 20.2 RPG 11.2 APG 4.0 FG% 47.4

TD Career Regular Season PPG 20.9 RPG 11.5 APG 3.2 FG% 50.8

Career Playoff PPG 23.0 RPG 12.4 APG 3.5 FG% 50.2

Duncan's points and rebounds go up quite a bit, Garnett's stay pretty much the same. Duncan's FG% goes down slighty and Garnett's goes down over 2 percentage points, while Duncan shoots over 50% in Reg and Post seasons, Garnett manages neither.

There are a whole lot of things that you are overlooking. One is that KG came straight out of HS so his early numbers can be skewed a bit - along with health issues later on. Two is that Minny usually only had KG as an offensive weapon so in the playoffs its much easier to key in on him and affect his FG%. While in his prime KG's numbers in the playoffs were staggering: 27 ppg 15.7 rebs and 5.2 assist one year; 24ppg 18.7 rebs and 5 assist another year, and 24ppg, 14.6 and 5 assist another year. In his healthy Boston run his ppg did go up 2 ppg as well.

I was doing this post as Harrison did his above so some of it is redundant

[Dbrog]

What? Their scoring averages and efficiencies are nearly identical in the playoffs and regular seasons during their primes. That literally makes no sense. Garnett was every bit the scorer duncan was. And his ability to anchor a defense was just as good too. Just look at what he's transformed this boston team into. These guys are neck and neck as individual players.

Completely different way of scoring though. KG = High Post, Duncan = Low Post. Low Post will always be better (especially if you are a great passes) because of the floor spacing (more offensive rebounds and wide open perimeter shots). That is why Duncan's scoring was "better."

[ginobli2311]

You overrating Duncan and underrating KG. Duncan is slightly better scorer with slightly higher efficiency, but also inferior passer (which is a part of the offense btw).

Everyone is touting how good Duncan is in the Playoffs, lets see how much more dominant Duncan was:

Best series:
Duncan '02: 27.6/14.4/5.0 with FG% 45.3
Duncan '03: 24.7/15.4/5.3 with FG% 52.9

Garnett '03: 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4
Garnett '04: 24.3/14.6/5.1 with FG% 45.2

You can pretty much swap their best Playoffs performances, how similar their were, I'm not even including Garnett's 24.0/18.7/5.0 series.

So how again Duncan is more dominant offensive player? If we talk about defense, I agree Duncan is better defending centers, while Garnett is better at defending all four other positions on the flour, including quicker hands to be much better at steals.

Just watch KG in the prime, posted in other threads just few days ago:

Kevin Garnett vs Sacramento Kings 2004 Playoffs Game 3: 30/15/5/3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVQwMl2NDI

Garnett: 2004 vs Kings Playoffs GM7: 32/21/4/5/2 - one of the best Game 7 performances All-time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4

Garnett vs Los Angeles Lakers 2003 playoffs Game 3: 33/14/4/4/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8jjcJUkco

How about other KG Playoffs games, like 35/20/7, 31/18/4, 30/19/4 vs Lakers, 32/21/2/4/5 vs Denver, and many other games. Its just strange how people quickly forget what beast KG was in the prime, probably because rarely anyone watched crappy franchise like Wolves.

no. i'm not. i'm a huge KG fan. i love his game. but he simply was not the dominant low post scorer that duncan was. kg was more versatile and in a lot of ways a more complete player than duncan in terms of skill set.

that is not what i'm debating.

i simply believe that duncan had an ability to control and dominate a game and series in a way that kg could not. and that really doesn't show up in the stats.

i'm not debating whether or not kg is great. he's in my top 15 all time actually. so i love KG. i just know for sure 100% that if i had to build a team around duncan or kg for their best 10 years of their careers....i would take duncan.

and usually that is how i determine which player is better when two players are very close like kg and duncan.

ultimately, i don't think you fully understand just how important it is for winning to have a dominant back to the basket post player like duncan or shaq in this era. as good as kg was.....he wasn't in their league in terms of offensive dominance.

[Crown&Coke]

Coaching had a lot to do with TD winning.

Pop>>>>>>>>>>>Flip, and I might be underselling it.

KG on the Spurs wins at least 3 imo.

[Pointguard]

You overrating Duncan and underrating KG. Duncan is slightly better scorer with slightly higher efficiency, but also inferior passer (which is a part of the offense btw).

Everyone is touting how good Duncan is in the Playoffs, lets see how much more dominant Duncan was:

Best series:
Duncan '02: 27.6/14.4/5.0 with FG% 45.3
Duncan '03: 24.7/15.4/5.3 with FG% 52.9

Garnett '03: 27.0/15.7/5.2 with FG% 51.4
Garnett '04: 24.3/14.6/5.1 with FG% 45.2

You can pretty much swap their best Playoffs performances, how similar their were, I'm not even including Garnett's 24.0/18.7/5.0 series.

So how again Duncan is more dominant offensive player? If we talk about defense, I agree Duncan is better defending centers, while Garnett is better at defending all four other positions on the flour, including quicker hands to be much better at steals.

Just watch KG in the prime, posted in other threads just few days ago:

Kevin Garnett vs Sacramento Kings 2004 Playoffs Game 3: 30/15/5/3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVQwMl2NDI

Garnett: 2004 vs Kings Playoffs GM7: 32/21/4/5/2 - one of the best Game 7 performances All-time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4

Garnett vs Los Angeles Lakers 2003 playoffs Game 3: 33/14/4/4/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8jjcJUkco

How about other KG Playoffs games, like 35/20/7, 31/18/4, 30/19/4 vs Lakers, 32/21/2/4/5 vs Denver, and many other games. Its just strange how people quickly forget what beast KG was in the prime, probably because rarely anyone watched crappy franchise like Wolves.

When you say offense a lot of people do not include the whole gamut - KG was setting his team up. KG was getting assist out of guys that couldn't create on their own. In fact KG had made Nesterovic look so good one year that SA stole him from Minny and paid him like a true up and coming center. Then they found out it was KG that made him look good. To me assist is part of offense. People really downplay that. Those guys had to be spoon fed in Minny - they needed KG to score. So KG's offense was far beyond his own simple points. A casual fan isn't going to get it but for those really into the game, its there.

On defense its too hard to call. Myself I give it to KG because he communicates better and is therefore tied to the other players on the floor. The Boston teams were anchored around KG's ability to communicate close outs and ruin the thought of penetration. One on one defense is a bit simplistic and doesn't take into account other dynamics.

[game385]

There's no way of knowing. Championships are won by a combination of great players. Great Leadership. Great coaching. and Good management making the right moves.

Some teams are run so poorly that even the greatest players couldn't win there.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Well, there is no way in hell that Duncan wins Minnesota a championship, but idk whether KG wins 4 or not. I'd say that most likely he does.

Well it's not like Duncan won 4 in a row, 3 in a row, or hell ... even back to backs. His championships were sprinkled through out the decade, which makes them less remarkable and memorable as well. Jordan (three peat), Hakeem (back to back), Jordan (three peat), Shaq (three peat), Kobe (back to back)... makes the teams, years more memorable. Plus, no matter what ANYONE tells you. The 1999 championship does not count.




Duncan and the Spurs, while very good (not great) were never AS impressive and AS dominant as people make them out to be . One of the absolute best teams of the decade, no question ... but they weren't like some unstoppable force. And that has ALWAYS been a roster laced with talent, and willing role player, all put together by a top three coach in the game annually? It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest KG in his prime years, who on an individual evaluation I would possibly rate as a slightly better player than Duncan, at the very LEAST equal ... how would he not at least win 1 or 2 rings? I think KG would actually be able to put together a back to back for them on at least once. He may not get 4, but I think he would get at the very least 1 or 2 rings.

As players, KG and Duncan are neck and neck. I don't think one player has any specific skill advantages over the other, and I certainly don't think either has any "intangibles" that separates them the way some intangibles can separate players of equal skill and ability, etc.

Duncan certainly isn't winning ANY rings in Minnesota. Believe that Duncan / Spurs groupies. Don't sit here and act like KG wasn't a winner. All he needed was capable pieces. Don't act like Latrell Spreewell at the stage in his career he was at was a capable second option on a championship level team. On a championship level team, even in his absolute prime, he's be a 3rd or 4th option at best. KG didn't have any super clutch Manu Ginobili's, Tony Parkers, Robert Horrys, Michael Finleys, Malik Roses, David Robinsons, etc.

In the year he went to the WCF, KG's 2nd best player was ... TROY HUDSON. Just brew on that for a second. People want to complain about what LeBron had to work with supporting cast wise. Look what KG did with that cast ... in the WEST. When it was during the era where the West was the Varisty, and the East didn't even look like J.V. teams, they straight up looked like middle school competition.

I just wish KG had say a Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, a Stephon Marbury (who didn't go crazy, and wasn't selfish) ... a legit second star to play with for the prime of his career that would pick up the slack where KG was clearly lacking. He needed someone who could score, handle the ball, and be the focus of the opposing defense down the stretch of big games to take pressure of Garnett, who had to do EVERYTHING under the sun for the T-Wolves.

[guy]

I could see him winning 2-3 titles in 99, 05, and 07. There wasn't another great team in 99 and Duncan didn't do anything in 05 or 07 that I don't think KG could've done as well, but 05 was so close vs. the Pistons that its probably a toss-up. There's no way I think he could've done what Duncan did in 03 though. Assuming Duncan goes to the Celtics in 08, the Celtics still win in 08.