Tim Duncan or KG

[wdleehi]

Tim Duncan is a great player, but his teammates are far superior to the that of KG's.

Duncan posted Kendrick Perkins numbers and the Spurs beat us without Parker.

That is sufficient evidence that the Spurs team were and are far more valuable than any of KG's T-Wolves team.

Celtics got to the the 2nd round of the playoffs without KG.


Plus, if you really want to go that way, KG lost to a Spurs team with a slumping Duncan and no Parker. 

I remember last year's playoffs very clearly.

C's barely got into the 2nd round, needing Rondo to average a triple double to get passed a mediocre Bulls team.

KG losing to a slumping Duncan and no Parker clearly shows the greatness of Manu Ginobli and the greatness that is Greg Popavich.

Had Paul or Ray gone down rather than KG I doubt we'd got past the first round last year.

The Celtics would of had a better chance to win the title last year if KG had been healthy and one of the two star swingmen where out. 

[drza44]

Too much of the team's success was tied into their swarming, help defense and that particular team is one where KG's style/advantages

C's help defense was a team effort, couched by Thibodeau, and it worked when everyone was involved, not just KG in the high post. But true, it messes with KG's playing style better.

I think LeBron and (if we got that far) Kobe would have both been too much for that team

In other words, they'd both go off for 50-70 ppg and blow us out of the water? I think... like the media, you're overestimating the wingman extraordinare myth. At best, they'd get perhaps a few points or assists advantage, w/ TD instead of KG, as neither of them would drive to the hoop, as aggressively, with the twin towers of KP-TD down there. Likewise, PP along with Posey seemed to stick to the primadonnas pretty nicely for much of those series.

Whoa, jump to conclusions much?  50 - 70 ppg?  Where on earth did you get that out of what I posted?  We barely beat the Cavs as it was, sneaking past them in a game 7 that was a 1-point game until the end.  We beat the Lakers in 6, but in 3 of our 4 wins the game was in doubt with under 2 minutes left.  LeBron or Kobe wouldn't have had to score anywhere near 50, if they could have averaged what they did but on a slightly higher efficiency that would likely have been enough for one or both of those teams to surpass us that year.

Now, here's the flipside... how would the Cavs prevent TD from dropping 30-40 ppg on them? In fact, with
Duncan, we have a scoring machine down low and one other scoring wingman, Pierce, who can score from anywhere on the floor. And TD would force the Cavs to run constant doubles on him, with immediate kick outs to House, Pierce, and others for open jumpers. That's a very difficult team to beat esp when neither the Cavs nor the Lakers have an answer for a one-two top scoring franchise players. They can stop one or the other but not both.

What makes you think that the 2008 version of Tim Duncan was capable of dropping 30 - 40 ppg on anyone?  The 2008 version of Tim Duncan averaged 20.2 points on 45% field goal shooting in the playoffs, similar volume but less efficient than KG's 20.4 points on 50% field goal shooting.  The 2008 version of Duncan scored 30 or more points exactly twice in the playoffs, the same number of times that KG did.  It is a huge, and frankly unsupportable leap in logic that suddenly Duncan would have outscored KG by a huge margin when what actually happened suggests the exact opposite.

[drza44]

If Duncan had of gotten performances like what Ray + Pierce did to LA in the Finals from Ginobili and Parker ... the Spurs would have blown the Lakers out of the water.

Perhaps.  But the flip side is that if Duncan had gotten performances like what Ray + Pierce did against Cleveland Duncan's team likely doesn't get past the Cavs.

[Who]

If Duncan had of gotten performances like what Ray + Pierce did to LA in the Finals from Ginobili and Parker ... the Spurs would have blown the Lakers out of the water.

Perhaps.  But the flip side is that if Duncan had gotten performances like what Ray + Pierce did against Cleveland Duncan's team likely doesn't get past the Cavs.

I disagree, I think Duncan beats Cleveland too with those performance levels.

It was only a year prior when San Antonio trounced Cleveland in the Finals with the Spurs team defense similarly suffocating LeBron James.

[drza44]

If Duncan had of gotten performances like what Ray + Pierce did to LA in the Finals from Ginobili and Parker ... the Spurs would have blown the Lakers out of the water.

Perhaps.  But the flip side is that if Duncan had gotten performances like what Ray + Pierce did against Cleveland Duncan's team likely doesn't get past the Cavs.

I disagree, I think Duncan beats Cleveland too with those performance levels.

It was only a year prior when San Antonio trounced Cleveland in the Finals with the Spurs team defense similarly suffocating LeBron James.

There's certainly room for disagreement, but your point could support either of our cases.  2 reasons in particular stand out to support mine over yours:

1) Wasn't the same Cavs team.  LeBron progression and the big 2008 trade IMO made the '08 playoffs Cavs more similar to the '08-'09 team that won 66 games than the '06-07 team that the Spurs faced.  Not sure how to quantify/support that, but I certainly doubt that if those teams would have met in the '08 Finals the Spurs would have swept...or frankly, even won.

2) That Spurs team got dramatically better performances from Manu/Parker against the Cavs than the Celtics got from Pierce/Allen.  Manu and Parker averaged more than 42 points on a bit better than 48% shooting, while Pierce and Ray contributed less than 29 points on less than 38% shooting.  Which was my point all along, if Duncan would have gotten the support from his two lieutenants that KG got from his, it was likely an entirely different story.  Certainly wouldn't have been a sweep by the Spurs, I'll tell you that.

[Who]

If Duncan had of gotten performances like what Ray + Pierce did to LA in the Finals from Ginobili and Parker ... the Spurs would have blown the Lakers out of the water.

Perhaps.  But the flip side is that if Duncan had gotten performances like what Ray + Pierce did against Cleveland Duncan's team likely doesn't get past the Cavs.

I disagree, I think Duncan beats Cleveland too with those performance levels.

It was only a year prior when San Antonio trounced Cleveland in the Finals with the Spurs team defense similarly suffocating LeBron James.

There's certainly room for disagreement, but your point could support either of our cases.  2 reasons in particular stand out to support mine over yours:

1) Wasn't the same Cavs team.  LeBron progression and the big 2008 trade IMO made the '08 playoffs Cavs more similar to the '08-'09 team that won 66 games than the '06-07 team that the Spurs faced.  Not sure how to quantify/support that, but I certainly doubt that if those teams would have met in the '08 Finals the Spurs would have swept...or frankly, even won.

I agree with the first part about the Cavs being better in 2008 than 2007 and I agree that the Spurs or a Duncan led Celtics wouldn't have swept the 2008 Cavs. I disagree that the 2008 Cavs team would have won. It would have remained a long difficult series (because of Pierce/Ray, otherwise a sweep again) but I believe the Duncan led Celtics would have been strong favourites to win out.

2) That Spurs team got dramatically better performances from Manu/Parker against the Cavs than the Celtics got from Pierce/Allen.  Manu and Parker averaged more than 42 points on a bit better than 48% shooting, while Pierce and Ray contributed less than 29 points on less than 38% shooting.  Which was my point all along, if Duncan would have gotten the support from his two lieutenants that KG got from his, it was likely an entirely different story.  Certainly wouldn't have been a sweep by the Spurs, I'll tell you that.

I agree that the Spurs got more out of Parker and Manu but I disagree that a Duncan led Celtics team wouldn't have been able to beat the Cavs due to Pierce's + Ray's play.

I think Duncan's increased willingness to be a low post player and to be a go-to scorer would opened up the Celtics offense both for increased individual contributions from Duncan and from opening up the game more for his teammates.

I also think that Cleveland would have no answer to the Celtics' offense when they put James Posey at the four alongside Duncan with Pierce/Ray/Rondo like the Cavs had no answer for Robert Horry a year earlier.

I think a Duncan led Celtics still beat Cleveland.

[TitleMaster]

The reason why Duncan gets to drop 30-40 against the Cavs on the '08 Celts is that the frontline is now the bruising twin towers of KP and TD. Realize, that's kinda like having a low scoring (but a slightly slower, yet very muscular 34 year old Robinson) who can crash the boards and keep guys like Ilgauskas off one's back. The post-Robinson era Spurs forced Duncan to play all roles in the paint so he couldn't focus on his ability to put up points. Thus, with a twin towers setup, this allows TD to be a scoring machine than a person who needs to be at all places at once. The Cavs don't have a power ladened frontline, just an adequate one. This is a complete mismatch.

Likewise, James will get hot and thus, the Cavs will win a couple of games, whenever he can't *miss*, but in this case, the Celts, with a consistent low post scoring machine, will able to get a lot of open shooters (Posey, House, Pierce) an opportunity to keep the game in motion. James won't have a non-stop hand hot and be able to blitz through the defenses for any more than a couple of contests.

If KG had a post game like TD, the '08 playoffs would have been a lot shorter. The Celts clearly had shooters & slashers but the ability to jar an opponent, from the inside, was never there.

[drza44]

I agree that the Spurs got more out of Parker and Manu but I disagree that a Duncan led Celtics team wouldn't have been able to beat the Cavs due to Pierce's + Ray's play.

I think Duncan's increased willingness to be a low post player and to be a go-to scorer would opened up the Celtics offense both for increased individual contributions from Duncan and from opening up the game more for his teammates.

I also think that Cleveland would have no answer to the Celtics' offense when they put James Posey at the four alongside Duncan with Pierce/Ray/Rondo like the Cavs had no answer for Robert Horry a year earlier.

I think a Duncan led Celtics still beat Cleveland.

Interesting debate.  I tend to think the exact opposite when it comes to the two section that I highlighted.  I think you are over-estimating Duncan's scoring potential against the Cavs and underestimating how much Parker and Ginobili opened up their offense. 

To whit, in 4 regular season games against the Cavs from the 06-07 and 07-08 seasons, Duncan averaged 21.5 points on 43% FG shooting.  In the 4 Finals games against the Cavs in '07, Duncan averaged 18.3 points on 45% FG shooting.  There is nothing at all to suggest that Duncan's more interior-based offense was well suited as a go-to scorer against the Cavs than what KG provided (19.6 ppg on 55% FG over the 7 games).

In fact, when you look at the Cavs' frontline personnel and defensive strategy I could make a strong case that Duncan's preference for the post worked AGAINST his scoring potential against the Cavs.  The Cavs had a lot of big guys on their frontline that like to bang and defend the paint hard, but that weren't as comfortable once they moved outside of the paint.  KG's ability to operate comfortably from both inside and out could be a big reason that he shot 55% from the field against the Cavs while Duncan was shooting a much lower percentage.

On that Spurs offense, it was Parker's and Ginobili's ability to penetrate and either score or create, in tandem with Duncan's scoring ability, that broke down the Cavs' defense.  Parker and Ginobili weren't playing off of Duncan's post, though, they were usually the initiators themselves.  Horry wasn't hitting 3s purely off of defenses sagging to Duncan, he was hitting 3s off of Parker and Ginobili breaking down the D and finding the open man.  So if you take away Parker and Ginobili's brilliance that series and replace it with Ray shooting blanks, Pierce being down as often as he was up, and Rondo's inexperience and compound that with Duncan having trouble getting his shot against the big Cavs frontline I don't see where Posey (or Horry) is getting the open shots that you project.

If anything, the more I look into it, the more it seems to me that Duncan's presence instead of KG on that '08 team would have hindered both the offense AND the defense against the Cavs.  Maybe not to huge degrees, but again, our margin was thin anyway.  I think replacing KG with Duncan makes that margin solidly worse.

[Who]

It is not James Posey or Robert Horry getting more shots ... it's Boston's ability to spread the floor and create more space for their scorers to work with.

It's a lot more difficult for Cleveland's two big men to defend a James Posey on the perimeter than it is to defend Kendrick Perkins or PJ Brown in the paint. Both individually and more importantly in terms of team defense.

That additional space makes Rondo more effective, Ray Allen more effective, Paul Pierce more effective and Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett more effective (offensively speaking). It's harder to send effective help defense when the floor is spread out like that. Particularly against a low post scorer.

[drza44]

The reason why Duncan gets to drop 30-40 against the Cavs on the '08 Celts is that the frontline is now the bruising twin towers of KP and TD. Realize, that's kinda like having a low scoring (but a slightly slower, yet very muscular 34 year old Robinson) who can crash the boards and keep guys like Ilgauskas off one's back. The post-Robinson era Spurs forced Duncan to play all roles in the paint so he couldn't focus on his ability to put up points. Thus, with a twin towers setup, this allows TD to be a scoring machine than a person who needs to be at all places at once. The Cavs don't have a power ladened frontline, just an adequate one. This is a complete mismatch.

Likewise, James will get hot and thus, the Cavs will win a couple of games, whenever he can't *miss*, but in this case, the Celts, with a consistent low post scoring machine, will able to get a lot of open shooters (Posey, House, Pierce) an opportunity to keep the game in motion. James won't have a non-stop hand hot and be able to blitz through the defenses for any more than a couple of contests.

If KG had a post game like TD, the '08 playoffs would have been a lot shorter. The Celts clearly had shooters & slashers but the ability to jar an opponent, from the inside, was never there.

Again, based on some of the things I just posted in my last response to Who, there isn't anything to support your proposition of a Duncan scoring mismatch against the Cavs.

1) Over 8 games in that time period against the Cavs that spanned both the regular and post season Duncan produced similar volume scoring as KG but at a much lower shooting percentage against the Cavs.  There's just nothing at all to suggest that all of a sudden he would increase his scoring volume by 10 points and 10 percentage points.

2) In the 22 postseason games that Duncan has played since KG has been traded to the Celtics, Duncan has averaged 20.5 points on 47% FG against such stalwart defensive frontlines as the Suns, Hornets, Lakers and Mavericks.  Some of those were solid defensive frontlines, but certainly no stronger (if even as strong) as the Cavs' defensive front lines.

3) Perk has developed into a very solid young center.  But in 2008, he was not what he is now.  You're talking about a guy that averaged 6.1 rebounds and 1.3 blocks over the whole playoffs.  Against the Cavs in particular, he had five or fewer rebounds in 5 of the 7 games.  It is beyond a stretch to suggest that Perk's presence would all of a sudden make Duncan turn into an entirely different player. 

And again, if anything, Perk's game fits better next to KG's anyway.  Duncan and Robinson worked because both were quick, versatile and supremely talented.  Duncan a decade later is almost purely a center, and Perk can't operate from the high-post to get out of Duncan's way like DRob could. 

I know we're debating hypotheticals, but I just don't see any facts among the available data to support any of your assertions.

[LB3533]

I think Tim Duncan might have helped improve/increase our team's 3 point shooting totals, it remains to be seen if that would have made the Cavs series an easier one.

[drza44]

It is not James Posey or Robert Horry getting more shots ... it's Boston's ability to spread the floor and create more space for their scorers to work with.

It's a lot more difficult for Cleveland's two big men to defend a James Posey on the perimeter than it is to defend Kendrick Perkins or PJ Brown in the paint. Both individually and more importantly in terms of team defense.

That additional space makes Rondo more effective, Ray Allen more effective, Paul Pierce more effective and Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett more effective (offensively speaking). It's harder to send effective help defense when the floor is spread out like that. Particularly against a low post scorer.

I understand the principal of spacing, I just don't think you're applying it right.  The '07 Spurs and '08 Celtics had similar distributions of shooters versus players in the paint.  In the frontcourt in particular, the Cavs still had to deal with similar scoring potential with inside/outside capabilities whether it was KG/Perk or Duncan/Horry (or Posey).  The difference is, the Cavs' defense is more geared towards stopping interior players.  Which means that in the Spurs combo, the lesser big was effective on the perimeter but the main offensive big man was less effective against the Cavs because he was the one trying to operate against the strength of the team's defense.  Meanwhile, on the Celtics, the lesser big may have struggled a bit but they were able to get consistent volume scoring at good efficiency from their primary big man because he was versatile enough to score from places that made the Cavs bigs uncomfortable.  If they tried to put Ben Wallace on him KG took advantage of him outside.  If they tried to put Joe Smith on him KG abused him in the paint.  Like every other point in this debate so far, I don't see how KG wasn't a better fit for this team against the Cavs than Duncan would have been.

The real difference between the two offenses were the perimeter players.  And before you credit that to Duncan, again, I submit that Parker and Ginobili were doing more attacking to break the defense down than dropping it into Duncan and playing off of him.  The big difference, to me, is that the Spurs' perimeter engines a) could get into the lane and score consistently or create shots for others off their own initiation and b) couldn't be guarded by LeBron (who also made a big jump defensively between '07 and '08). 

Rondo could get into the lane, but he was inconsistent and wasn't really a scoring threat yet.  Pierce is Pierce, but LeBron was able to make life difficult for him so he couldn't break the D down like he usually does.  And Ray couldn't hit the broad side of a barn nor do anything off the dribble.  Contrast that with Parker, who could penetrate like Rondo but average 25 points on 50% shooting if the defense didn't adjust.  Contrast that with Ginobili, who didn't have to worry about LeBron on defense but couldn't be stopped by Delonte. 

We're a bit in the spin cycle, here, as it seems that you credit relatively more of the Spurs' offensive success against the Cavs to Duncan than I do.  And let me be clear, I absolutely think that Duncan's presence on offense helped Manu and Parker relative to most bigs they would play with.  The difference is that I don't think Duncan's impact in that area is larger than KG's, so when only swapping the two bigs I think we have to look at the difference in the perimeter players for the offense.  Said another way, the advantages that Manu and Parker had over Pierce and Ray against the Cavs is larger than any advantage Duncan might arguably have had over KG (especially when the results suggest that KG was actually the one with the advantage).

[Who]

We're a bit in the spin cycle, here, as it seems that you credit relatively more of the Spurs' offensive success against the Cavs to Duncan than I do. 

It's not that I give more credit to Duncan for helping Manu + Parker ...

It is that I think Duncan could have done that if needed. He could have generated more offensive opportunities for guys like Manu + Parker, or Pierce + Ray, if his team needed him to. Not that he did that in the 2007 Finals but rather that he is capable of it.

Rondo could get into the lane, but he was inconsistent and wasn't really a scoring threat yet. 

Rondo had huge problems playing against Cleveland's two long shot blocking threats. Remove one of those players from the equation in the Posey at PF lineup, either because they're on the perimeter or because Cleveland have gone small, and Rondo will be a lot more effective taking it to the rim. Both as a scorer and as a creator for others. Which means more high percentage shots in the paint and on the perimeter on drive and kicks.

Additionally, Wally Szczerbiak would have a lot less help in containing Ray Allen which would have made his life a lot more difficult. Ditto for LeBron and Pierce and how LeBron chose to handle that would decide how much better Pierce played (disciplined man-to-man D or take more team defensive responsibilities).

Cleveland would have a very difficult time handling Tim Duncan in the post against that lineup. They wouldn't be able to send a second large player in a double. They would have been more readily punished by shooters or by dribble penetration (Rondo) if they doubled from the perimeter. Similar to the problems the Cavs had against Orlando in the playoffs last season with Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis.

---------------------------------------------------

When Boston played big with Duncan and Perk ... I don't think there is much of a difference for the Celtics.

I agree with you that Kevin Garnett would have remained more efficient and very effective. But I also think Duncan would command more of the ball, more double teams, and create more shot attempts for both himself and others. And that the value of those extra shot attempts outweighs KG's individual advantage with his efficiency.

Duncan's lower efficiency + added better shot attempts ... versus ... KG's higher efficiency + lower shot attempts from teammates (who were struggling)

Just think back to how hard the Cavs ran double teams at Garnett whenever he posted up ... now imagine him doing that far more often and the havoc that would create for Cleveland. That is what Duncan will do. So even though you lose some of KG's efficiency + jump shooting threat ... I believe you gain in other areas too which negates that loss.

Overall, I think there is no real difference between a Perk + Garnett combination and a Perk + Duncan combination when playing against the Cavs. A difference in style of play and methods to achieve results, but overall, a comparable end product.

I do think there is a major advantage with Posey at power forward alongside Duncan. I also think Garnett could have had a similar advantage if Boston chose to use it + Garnett committed himself to be a scoring threat in that lineup.

----------------------------------------------------

Anyway, that is my belief of how the matchups would have played out with Duncan in KG's place against Cleveland.

[drza44]

We're a bit in the spin cycle, here, as it seems that you credit relatively more of the Spurs' offensive success against the Cavs to Duncan than I do. 

It's not that I give more credit to Duncan for helping Manu + Parker ...

It is that I think Duncan could have done that if needed. He could have generated more offensive opportunities for guys like Manu + Parker, or Pierce + Ray, if his team needed him to. Not that he did that in the 2007 Finals but rather that he is capable of it.

There were points in the rest of your post that I disagreed with (namely that Duncan/Posey would create so much more spacing than KG/whoever, when the whole Duncan/KG debate centers around KG working more from the perimeter and thus he WAS pulling one of the Cleveland bigs out of the paint and Rondo still wasn't a consistent threat.  Which makes sense, because Rondo just wasn't quite ready yet).

That said, the red highlighted area is the crux and where I want to focus.  I respect your opinion, I just don't think the facts of the last few years support it.  The Spurs have been eliminated in each of the last two years from the playoffs in series where his two perimeter scorers produced similar/better volume on better shooting than Pierce and Allen provided against the Cavs.

In '09 Duncan averaged 19.8 points on 53% shooting in the elimination series.  In '08 Duncan averaged 22.4 points on 43% shooting in the elimination series.  In '07 Duncan averaged 18.3 points on 45% shooting against the Cavs, but he didn't have to do more because Parker and Ginobili dominated offensively.

You've got to go back to the mid-2000s to find a Duncan that showed he was capable of performing at the level you suggest.  In each of the last two years (including '08, the year we're debating) Duncan has shown that he doesn't have the ability to kick it up to the level offensively that he did at his peak.  Yeah, if you replace '08 KG with '05 Duncan I think the Celtics probably still win (heck, if you replace '08 KG with '05 KG the Celtics win even easier).  But '08 Duncan showed none of the ability to step it up that you attribute to him, and since his team actually NEEDED him to do that to have a chance to win I think it's fair to suggest that what you're looking for no longer existed in Duncan by 2008.

[Who]

The 2008 Celtics had a stronger supporting cast than either of the two Spurs teams that were eliminated in the playoffs these past two seasons. They haven't had anyone as good as Rajon Rondo. Or anyone as good as Perkins (well maybe Bowen in 2008) or anyone as good as James Posey.

The lack of quality wings (Finley, Bowen, Roger Mason Jr) + the lack of interior defense/rebounding from their fellow big men (Oberto, Bonner, Elson) + inability to match up defensively against small ball lineups (following Horry's decline + departure) have had a large negative effect on the Spurs.

In comparison, the Celtics were getting a large positive contribution for their supporting cast because their supporting cast had a lot more talent in it mainly because of those three players named above (Rondo, Perk, Posey).