KG Passes Bird on Scoring List. Is He More Clutch than LB..Better Than Duncan?

[BballTim]

Tooo lazy to look, but how many more years has KG played than Larry played, 4 or 5? KG a great player and future hall of famer, but no comparison to Bird in my opinion.

That's both a point in favor of Bird and against him.

I think it helps him more. We never really saw a truly broken down Bird hobbling around being the 8th man on a team.

  No, a truly broken down Bird hobbled around to put up 20/10/7 at the age of 35. He wasn't really the 8th man type...

[Chief]

On the all time points list. 

KG... 21,792 on 49.7% career shooting
Bird... 21,791 on 49.6% career shooting

KG is a great player, but he's still not in Larry's class, in my mind.

Larry: 24.3 ppg, 10.0 reb, 6.3 ast, .514 eFG%

KG: 20.0 ppg, 11.0 reb, 4.1 ast, .502 eFG%

Of course, the impact of each player goes beyond their stats.  Both are elite Hall of Famers, but Larry was simply better.

I agree. It's not even close.

[Big Ticket]

On the all time points list. 

KG... 21,792 on 49.7% career shooting
Bird... 21,791 on 49.6% career shooting

KG is a great player, but he's still not in Larry's class, in my mind.

Larry: 24.3 ppg, 10.0 reb, 6.3 ast, .514 eFG%

KG: 20.0 ppg, 11.0 reb, 4.1 ast, .502 eFG%

Of course, the impact of each player goes beyond their stats.  Both are elite Hall of Famers, but Larry was simply better.

I agree. It's not even close.

I in no way intended this to be a "KG > Bird" thread... just thought some people might be interested in a current Celtic passing one of the two or three most legendary Celtics in career points.

But while I agree Bird is a "greater" player in their legacies.... to say "it's not even close" is a gross exaggeration, in my opinion.  Yes, Bird has the titles and 3 MVPs.  He also had McHale, Parrish, DJ, Ainge, Maxwell... it's really not a fair comparison.  You all saw what KG means to a team a couple years ago.  That was the first and only time he's ever been to a postseason with enough ammo, so to speak, to really have a chance.  People point to 2003-2004 and say "but he couldn't win with Cassell and Sprewell!" and I laugh.  Cassell and Sprewell??? Seriously?  If those two guys, at ages 34 and 32 respectively, make up the best supporting cast of KG's 12 year career in Minnesota... well I think my point on "more titles" being somewhat irrelevant is justified.  (And I won't even bring up that Cassell was injured and hobbling around in the games he even suited up for in the WCF against LA that year... and it STILL took a career night from Kareem Freakin' Rush to knock KG out in 6 games).

It's too bad that he didn't have more opportunities, or any in his prime, but every year KG has been to the playoffs on a good team, they've won the title.  Yes, it's only 1, but that is the situation he's been placed in.  As I said, you all saw what he could bring to a team his first year with the Celtics... well that guy was maybe 75% the player that he was in his prime, when few people really saw him night in, night out.  I didn't have the pleasure of watching the prime of Bird's career, but the way he's talked and written about, the feeling people got watching him every night... that is the same way I felt watching KG every night.  Knowing you had a chance to win because of just that one guy, even when the rest of the team should probably be in another profession.

Now... rant over - sorry, I'm been away from the board for quite a while! - like I said, I agree Bird is definitely a "greater" player in terms of legacy, absolutely, one of the best ever.  But "not even close"?  No.  It's a matter of 12-15 places on the all time players list, in a game that has seen countless thousands.  To me a dozen spots is far from being "not close".

[PierceMVP08]

On the all time points list. 

KG... 21,792 on 49.7% career shooting
Bird... 21,791 on 49.6% career shooting

KG is a great player, but he's still not in Larry's class, in my mind.

Larry: 24.3 ppg, 10.0 reb, 6.3 ast, .514 eFG%

KG: 20.0 ppg, 11.0 reb, 4.1 ast, .502 eFG%

Of course, the impact of each player goes beyond their stats.  Both are elite Hall of Famers, but Larry was simply better.

I agree. It's not even close.

I in no way intended this to be a "KG > Bird" thread... just thought some people might be interested in a current Celtic passing one of the two or three most legendary Celtics in career points.

But while I agree Bird is a "greater" player in their legacies.... to say "it's not even close" is a gross exaggeration, in my opinion.  Yes, Bird has the titles and 3 MVPs.  He also had McHale, Parrish, DJ, Ainge, Maxwell... it's really not a fair comparison.  You all saw what KG means to a team a couple years ago.  That was the first and only time he's ever been to a postseason with enough ammo, so to speak, to really have a chance.  People point to 2003-2004 and say "but he couldn't win with Cassell and Sprewell!" and I laugh.  Cassell and Sprewell??? Seriously?  If those two guys, at ages 34 and 32 respectively, make up the best supporting cast of KG's 12 year career in Minnesota... well I think my point on "more titles" being somewhat irrelevant is justified.  (And I won't even bring up that Cassell was injured and hobbling around in the games he even suited up for in the WCF against LA that year... and it STILL took a career night from Kareem Freakin' Rush to knock KG out in 6 games).

It's too bad that he didn't have more opportunities, or any in his prime, but every year KG has been to the playoffs on a good team, they've won the title.  Yes, it's only 1, but that is the situation he's been placed in.  As I said, you all saw what he could bring to a team his first year with the Celtics... well that guy was maybe 75% the player that he was in his prime, when few people really saw him night in, night out.  I didn't have the pleasure of watching the prime of Bird's career, but the way he's talked and written about, the feeling people got watching him every night... that is the same way I felt watching KG every night.  Knowing you had a chance to win because of just that one guy, even when the rest of the team should probably be in another profession.

Now... rant over - sorry, I'm been away from the board for quite a while! - like I said, I agree Bird is definitely a "greater" player in terms of legacy, absolutely, one of the best ever.  But "not even close"?  No.  It's a matter of 12-15 places on the all time players list, in a game that has seen countless thousands.  To me a dozen spots is far from being "not close".

Obviously there is a bias there for you but if you never saw bird play I would say your basing your opinion on half of the facts.  For that same reason I can't fully agree or disagree with you because I never saw bird.  However, I doubt any of the stories told about KG years after he retires will come close to Bird's and you can't truly put a price on that killer instict Bird had, and KG seemingly never had.  That might be the difference between great player and great winner.

[BballTim]

Now... rant over - sorry, I'm been away from the board for quite a while! - like I said, I agree Bird is definitely a "greater" player in terms of legacy, absolutely, one of the best ever.  But "not even close"?  No.  It's a matter of 12-15 places on the all time players list, in a game that has seen countless thousands.  To me a dozen spots is far from being "not close".

  While I agree with much of your post, it's like comparing the top 3 players in the league with players that are top 6-8. The gap can be seen as small or very big.

[jdpapa3]

I don't think KG/Bird comparisons should be discussed, but something that irks me is that Duncan is given the nod in any KG/Duncan debates. I seriously wonder how KG would've fared alongside the Admiral or Ginobili and Parker. It's wayyyyy closer than most would have you believe.

[connerhenry43]

I don't think KG/Bird comparisons should be discussed, but something that irks me is that Duncan is given the nod in any KG/Duncan debates. I seriously wonder how KG would've fared alongside the Admiral or Ginobili and Parker. It's wayyyyy closer than most would have you believe.

KG in his prime really carried some Twolve teams with minimal talent around him. the year he had marbury and spree, he went to the WCF.

that being said, i would probably take duncan over kg, but it is close.

[PierceMVP08]

I don't think KG/Bird comparisons should be discussed, but something that irks me is that Duncan is given the nod in any KG/Duncan debates. I seriously wonder how KG would've fared alongside the Admiral or Ginobili and Parker. It's wayyyyy closer than most would have you believe.

KG in his prime really carried some Twolve teams with minimal talent around him. the year he had marbury and spree, he went to the WCF.

that being said, i would probably take duncan over kg, but it is close.

You might be able to make this argument better than the bird one, however, as Bill Simmons always states, Duncan always came up huge in big games.  KG never really did that.  Granted he didn't play in as many big games, especially in his early years, and didn't get a chance to develop that.  Still a lot of that has to be natural and it seems KG doesn't really have that.  So I give the nod to Duncan as well.

[DivingCowens]

Obviously Kobe gets more pub than anyone in the league (except maybe Bron), but the coverage makes sense in that Kobe broke the Lakers' team record.  He scored all of those points for the Lakers.  That is a bigger deal considering the history of the franchise and that he passed the logo. Reading any sort of KG or Bird comparison is futile since thats not what the story is really about.

[jdpapa3]

I don't think KG/Bird comparisons should be discussed, but something that irks me is that Duncan is given the nod in any KG/Duncan debates. I seriously wonder how KG would've fared alongside the Admiral or Ginobili and Parker. It's wayyyyy closer than most would have you believe.

KG in his prime really carried some Twolve teams with minimal talent around him. the year he had marbury and spree, he went to the WCF.

that being said, i would probably take duncan over kg, but it is close.

You might be able to make this argument better than the bird one, however, as Bill Simmons always states, Duncan always came up huge in big games.  KG never really did that.  Granted he didn't play in as many big games, especially in his early years, and didn't get a chance to develop that.  Still a lot of that has to be natural and it seems KG doesn't really have that.  So I give the nod to Duncan as well.

2004(his only real team)
Game Clincher against Denver: 25, 8 dimes, 7 boards
Game 7 against Sacto: 32 and 21 and his team scored 83  
Game 6 Loss to LA: 22 and 17

He averaged 27 and 16 in the playoffs the year before. It's a case of something that has been spewed time after time and is regurgitated as fact when it can't be further from the truth.

[Big Ticket]

Now... rant over - sorry, I'm been away from the board for quite a while! - like I said, I agree Bird is definitely a "greater" player in terms of legacy, absolutely, one of the best ever.  But "not even close"?  No.  It's a matter of 12-15 places on the all time players list, in a game that has seen countless thousands.  To me a dozen spots is far from being "not close".

  While I agree with much of your post, it's like comparing the top 3 players in the league with players that are top 6-8. The gap can be seen as small or very big.

I agree it is a matter of perspective... in that 3 spots can seem like a small difference, yet it seems much larger when you say the 7th best player in the league will never be on the level of the 2nd best player.

[drza44]

Interesting direction this has taken, and not one I'd have expected when the thread began.  I wouldn't think anyone would argue that KG was a better scorer than Bird just because he passed him on the all-time scoring list so I'm surprised that this has turned into a KG vs Bird thread.

That said.

One of the ironies that I've spoken of continuously since KG has put on the green is that the Celtics added arguably the best player of his generation to the team...only very few Celtic fans realize it because they weren't really following KG before he got to Boston.

I see in this thread people saying that KG was a top 5-8 player of this generation, and using that to illustrate the difference between comparing someone ranked 7th with someone ranked first.  The problem is, there's almost no way to logically rank KG that low.  The absolute worst you could put KG in the 2000s and support it logically is 4th, and even then it's 4th-a-lot-closer-to-1st than 7th.  By a lot of objective measures he very well could be the best player of his time.

So in that respect, I see absolutely no problem comparing KG to Bird.  Unlike some in this thread, I did get to watch Larry Bird's career.  He was always one of the top 2 or 3 players in the game for his generation, with several years when he was the best.  He had one of the largest on-court impacts I've ever seen, and the numbers don't always due that impact justice.

The thing is, everything I wrote in the previous paragraph could just as easily have applied to Garnett as well.  In the history of the NBA, no superstar player has ever had to do as much with as little as Garnett over the course of a career.  None has faced the level of competition that KG consistently faced in the postseason with as little help as KG had.  This isn't even an opinion statement, it's as close as a sport can come to objective fact.  You can argue with me if you want, and I'd gladly take on the debate (though it would further derail this topic) because I've spent some time on this over the years, but you'd lose. 

Garnett's career is almost like a science project.  It's like someone said, "let's build a player that is the basketball descendant/combination of Larry Bird's genes with Bill Russell's, only let's put him in the worst possible position to succeed and see what happens".  If I let myself I can get pretty sad that now, when KG FINALLY has a team worthy of making his legend, his body has started giving out on him.  It's a real shame.

Nevertheless, there's still no reason that KG can't be compared to Bird, or anyone else in history.  He's reached the point where he has accomplished things that only the best-of-the-best have ever done, and (like all of the greatest) he has his own unique accomplishments that no one has ever done.  Whether you consider him top-25, top-15, or top-whatever on the unofficial "All-Time List", he's earned the right to be mentioned with the best.

[PierceMVP08]

I don't think KG/Bird comparisons should be discussed, but something that irks me is that Duncan is given the nod in any KG/Duncan debates. I seriously wonder how KG would've fared alongside the Admiral or Ginobili and Parker. It's wayyyyy closer than most would have you believe.

KG in his prime really carried some Twolve teams with minimal talent around him. the year he had marbury and spree, he went to the WCF.

that being said, i would probably take duncan over kg, but it is close.

You might be able to make this argument better than the bird one, however, as Bill Simmons always states, Duncan always came up huge in big games.  KG never really did that.  Granted he didn't play in as many big games, especially in his early years, and didn't get a chance to develop that.  Still a lot of that has to be natural and it seems KG doesn't really have that.  So I give the nod to Duncan as well.

2004(his only real team)
Game Clincher against Denver: 25, 8 dimes, 7 boards
Game 7 against Sacto: 32 and 21 and his team scored 83  
Game 6 Loss to LA: 22 and 17

He averaged 27 and 16 in the playoffs the year before. It's a case of something that has been spewed time after time and is regurgitated as fact when it can't be further from the truth.

One playoff year does not put him on the level of Duncan.  Think about all the years and games Duncan came up huge.  I don't even have time to look that up.  KG played in big games before and after that year and didn't come up big.  To say it can't be further from the truth is pretty funny.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not stating that KG has never come up big, because he has.  It's just that he will never be considered a clutch player.  Whether he could have been is up to debate, but the fact is that he never relished that role and has not fulfilled it.  That is why he has had the success he has had here with other guys to take the end of game burden.  Just one of the many reasons this teams works so well.

[Big Ticket]

I don't think KG/Bird comparisons should be discussed, but something that irks me is that Duncan is given the nod in any KG/Duncan debates. I seriously wonder how KG would've fared alongside the Admiral or Ginobili and Parker. It's wayyyyy closer than most would have you believe.

KG in his prime really carried some Twolve teams with minimal talent around him. the year he had marbury and spree, he went to the WCF.

that being said, i would probably take duncan over kg, but it is close.

You might be able to make this argument better than the bird one, however, as Bill Simmons always states, Duncan always came up huge in big games.  KG never really did that.  Granted he didn't play in as many big games, especially in his early years, and didn't get a chance to develop that.  Still a lot of that has to be natural and it seems KG doesn't really have that.  So I give the nod to Duncan as well.

2004(his only real team)
Game Clincher against Denver: 25, 8 dimes, 7 boards
Game 7 against Sacto: 32 and 21 and his team scored 83  
Game 6 Loss to LA: 22 and 17

He averaged 27 and 16 in the playoffs the year before. It's a case of something that has been spewed time after time and is regurgitated as fact when it can't be further from the truth.

One playoff year does not put him on the level of Duncan.  Think about all the years and games Duncan came up huge.  I don't even have time to look that up.  KG played in big games before and after that year and didn't come up big.  To say it can't be further from the truth is pretty funny.

I actually think the "Duncan always comes up big" is a pretty big myth.  Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were the guys that came up huge in the clutch quite often.  Yes, Duncan has had his moments... plenty of them.  But a TON of the clutch buckets the Spurs needed were provided by those two guards.

[Big Ticket]

Interesting direction this has taken, and not one I'd have expected when the thread began.  I wouldn't think anyone would argue that KG was a better scorer than Bird just because he passed him on the all-time scoring list so I'm surprised that this has turned into a KG vs Bird thread.

That said.

One of the ironies that I've spoken of continuously since KG has put on the green is that the Celtics added arguably the best player of his generation to the team...only very few Celtic fans realize it because they weren't really following KG before he got to Boston.

I see in this thread people saying that KG was a top 5-8 player of this generation, and using that to illustrate the difference between comparing someone ranked 7th with someone ranked first.  The problem is, there's almost no way to logically rank KG that low.  The absolute worst you could put KG in the 2000s and support it logically is 4th, and even then it's 4th-a-lot-closer-to-1st than 7th.  By a lot of objective measures he very well could be the best player of his time.

So in that respect, I see absolutely no problem comparing KG to Bird.  Unlike some in this thread, I did get to watch Larry Bird's career.  He was always one of the top 2 or 3 players in the game for his generation, with several years when he was the best.  He had one of the largest on-court impacts I've ever seen, and the numbers don't always due that impact justice.

The thing is, everything I wrote in the previous paragraph could just as easily have applied to Garnett as well.  In the history of the NBA, no superstar player has ever had to do as much with as little as Garnett over the course of a career.  None has faced the level of competition that KG consistently faced in the postseason with as little help as KG had.  This isn't even an opinion statement, it's as close as a sport can come to objective fact.  You can argue with me if you want, and I'd gladly take on the debate (though it would further derail this topic) because I've spent some time on this over the years, but you'd lose. 

Garnett's career is almost like a science project.  It's like someone said, "let's build a player that is the basketball descendant/combination of Larry Bird's genes with Bill Russell's, only let's put him in the worst possible position to succeed and see what happens".  If I let myself I can get pretty sad that now, when KG FINALLY has a team worthy of making his legend, his body has started giving out on him.  It's a real shame.

Nevertheless, there's still no reason that KG can't be compared to Bird, or anyone else in history.  He's reached the point where he has accomplished things that only the best-of-the-best have ever done, and (like all of the greatest) he has his own unique accomplishments that no one has ever done.  Whether you consider him top-25, top-15, or top-whatever on the unofficial "All-Time List", he's earned the right to be mentioned with the best.

   TP