Tim Duncan or KG

[drza44]

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).

Whether your first paragraph is true or not (I could quibble, but I want to stay focused) isn't relevant to the point I was making.  We spent several posts debating Duncan's impact vs KG in 2008, with me pointing out that what Duncan had done in similar circumstances didn't appear in any way more impactful than what KG had done.  My stance was that KG helped lead the Celtics past the Cavs with much less than what Duncan received from his teammates in 2007.

Then, you posted what I believe to be the crux of our disagreement: you said essentially that what Duncan had actually done wasn't the key, it was that he COULD do more than he had done if his teammates weren't so strong.  My rebuttal to your statement was that I don't think Duncan could do more, that at this point he is not what he used to be.

Thus, to that particular point, it's no longer about Duncan vs KG.  It's about 2008 Duncan vs the past Duncans that had stepped up like you suggested.  If your point was that in 2007 Duncan didn't have to pull out the big guns because his team didn't need it, then he should have really turned it up as an individual in 2008 and 2009 because the team DID need him.  But he didn't.  As an individual, Duncan didn't perform any better either over the playoffs as a whole or in elimination series in 2008 or 2009 than he did in 2007.

So, bringing it back to the topic, I say that the facts don't bear out your assertion that Duncan could have stepped it up more against the Cavs if Ginobili/Parker were producing at the level that Pierce and Allen did.  The last two games of the '07 Finals were decided by 3 and 1 points respectively, so it's not like Duncan could just coast on offense anyway.  And when you pair that with him performing at the exact same level the next two years (which includes the 2008 that is under debate), it seems much more likely that Duncan simply doesn't have that extra gear that you describe anymore.  Which is okay, as he's in his 30s and no longer at his peak.  That's no disrespect to him.  But it does make it hard to support the notion that Duncan would suddenly have stepped up his game in green when he couldn't in black and silver.

ETA.  Anyway, TP for the good debate. 

[Who]

My stance was that KG helped lead the Celtics past the Cavs with much less than what Duncan received from his teammates in 2007.

This is true -- it's also why it took Boston seven games and why San Antonio knocked Cleveland out in four games. Not because of Duncan or KG but because Parker + Ginobili played better than Pierce + Ray.

It's about 2008 Duncan vs the past Duncans that had stepped up like you suggested.  If your point was that in 2007 Duncan didn't have to pull out the big guns because his team didn't need it, then he should have really turned it up as an individual in 2008 and 2009 because the team DID need him.  But he didn't.  As an individual, Duncan didn't perform any better either over the playoffs as a whole or in elimination series in 2008 or 2009 than he did in 2007.

Tim Duncan was phenomenal throughout the playoffs in 2007. In the Finals against the Cavs specifically, Duncan did not need to be the main offensive option because Tony Parker was tearing apart the Cavs defense. If Parker was struggling, and as a result if the Spurs gave Duncan more touches and shot attempts due to his teammates struggling, Duncan could have contributed more offensively both individually and collectively.

I don't see what the problem is with what Tim Duncan did in 2008 or 2009. He struggled a bit offensively against the Lakers in the Conference Finals but he was dominant offensively against Phoenix, New Orleans and against Dallas. None of those three teams were able to stop him.

New Orleans is actually a great example of what I was talking about ... about Duncan forcing double teams and creating higher percentage shots for his teammates. He did that all series long and that was the reason San Antonio's offense was as effective as it was against New Orleans. Without Duncan creating those shots for his shooters, the Spurs supporting cast would have barely scored against that team.

I don't know ... I see his performances in those series as supporting evidence and you see it as evidence to the contrary.

I thought Duncan was still a dominant force offensively against those teams.

ETA.  Anyway, TP for the good debate

Likewise

[Who]

Kevin Garnett vs Cavaliers

• Regular Season 2008 = 3 games = 15.3ppg in 34mpg shooting 45% from the field
• Playoffs 2008 = 7 games = 19.6ppg in 39mpg shooting 54.5% from the field
• Regular Season 2009 = 2 games = 14.5ppg in 33.3mpg shooting 43% from the field

Note: Garnett scored between 13-17 points four times in that playoff series against Cleveland. He had three high scoring games (25-28 points).

Tim Duncan vs the Cavs

• 2007 Regular Season = 2 games = 21.5ppg in 38mpg while shooting 48% from the field
• 2007 NBA Finals = 4 games = 18.3ppg in 37mpg while shooting 44.6% from the field
• 2008 Regular Season = 2 games = 21.5ppg in 40.5mpg while shooting 39.5% from the field

Note: Duncan was dominant in the first two games (23.5ppg on 57.6% shooting) and struggled in the final two games (13ppg on 30% shooting).

[LB3533]

Yea, Duncan could not dominate against the Nets last night & the Spurs needed Duncan to come through, he couldn't against the worst team in the NBA.

I feel that if KG was less selfish and he took more shots, he would be averaging around his career numbers for us. He wouldn't be shooting 55%, but closer to to 50% than 45%.

[Who]

My views on Duncan's 2008 + 2009 Playoff Runs

• Phoenix -- Duncan outplayed Shaq + Amare but the real story was how brilliant Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker were. Duncan had one out of this world offensive performance (that terrific Game One), two very good games, and two games where he struggled with his shot.
• New Orleans -- The Hornets bothered Duncan all series long with Tyson Chandler's length and defensive play + with constant double teams. New Orleans may have won the series if they choose to defend Duncan straight up but they did not and Timmy picked apart the Hornets' scrambling help defense all series long.
• Lakers -- Duncan struggled to dominate offensively in this series. The Lakers defended him straight up with Pau Gasol through the first three quarters and Gasol's length caused him problems. In the final period, LA regularly sent double teams and none of the Spurs were able to provide adequate help. On the other end of the floor, Duncan was constantly dealing with Gasol and Odom. As a result, the single coverage + defensive duties, Duncan was tired towards the end of games and wasn't able to be a dominant scorer. This coupled with his lack of help from his teammates lost the Spurs the series. Still, Duncan averaged 17.5 rebounds a night to make sure he was finding a way to help his team.
• Mavericks -- Duncan was unstoppable in the post. He scored between 25-30 points three times. In another game, the Spurs routed the Mavs with Tony Parker leading the way in the third quarter with Duncan taking a backseat offensively. In the other game, Duncan was poor and San Antonio got destroyed.

To be clear -- If Cleveland defended Duncan straight up in the low post + Boston got their poor performances from Pierce and Ray ... I do not think the Celtics win that series. But that wasn't the case and I don't believe it would have changed with Duncan in KG's place.

[drza44]

It's about 2008 Duncan vs the past Duncans that had stepped up like you suggested.  If your point was that in 2007 Duncan didn't have to pull out the big guns because his team didn't need it, then he should have really turned it up as an individual in 2008 and 2009 because the team DID need him.  But he didn't.  As an individual, Duncan didn't perform any better either over the playoffs as a whole or in elimination series in 2008 or 2009 than he did in 2007.

Tim Duncan was phenomenal throughout the playoffs in 2007. In the Finals against the Cavs specifically, Duncan did not need to be the main offensive option because Tony Parker was tearing apart the Cavs defense. If Parker was struggling, and as a result if the Spurs gave Duncan more touches and shot attempts due to his teammates struggling, Duncan could have contributed more offensively both individually and collectively.

I don't see what the problem is with what Tim Duncan did in 2008 or 2009. He struggled a bit offensively against the Lakers in the Conference Finals but he was dominant offensively against Phoenix, New Orleans and against Dallas. None of those three teams were able to stop him.

New Orleans is actually a great example of what I was talking about ... about Duncan forcing double teams and creating higher percentage shots for his teammates. He did that all series long and that was the reason San Antonio's offense was as effective as it was against New Orleans. Without Duncan creating those shots for his shooters, the Spurs supporting cast would have barely scored against that team.

I don't know ... I see his performances in those series as supporting evidence and you see it as evidence to the contrary.

I thought Duncan was still a dominant force offensively against those teams.

Again, I feel like I should disclaim that I'm not comparing Duncan vs the average player or even Duncan vs the very good, I'm comparing Duncan with himself.  Duncan may have been a dominant offensive player in 2007, 08 and 09.  My point was that he wasn't any better in 08 or 09 than he was in 07, so why is it logical to suggest that if he were on the Celtics suddenly he would have upped his game against the Cavs in particular in a way that he didn't show that he could.  Across all of these posts, my point can be summed up in 3 short bullets:

1) Against the Cavs in both the regular season and playoffs in 07 and 08, Duncan was about a 20 point scorer on about 44% shooting.  This was similar volume to what he produced in general in the playoffs, but on lesser efficiency.  It would suggest to me that he had trouble scoring against the Cavs frontline, relatively speaking.

2) As you point out, Duncan performed at a very similar level in the '07 (where they won a title), '08 and '09 (both of which his team lost) playoffs.  This was true for the playoffs as a whole, and specifically in the series where the team lost.

3) Thus, if Duncan tended to have (relative) trouble scoring and passing efficiently against the Cavs (both regular and postseason) and he was playing at the same level in the '08 and '09 postseasons as he was in the '07 postseason, there isn't anything to support that he would suddenly have operated more efficiently against the Cavs for the Celtics in '08 than he did for the Spurs in '07.

Which brings us full circle back to KG.  KG did play at a higher level offensively against the Cavs in the '08 playoffs than Duncan did against the Cavs in that time period (I see your follow-up point about KG in the regular season against the Cavs, but he did step it up against them in the postseason.  Duncan, individually, had the same efficiency issues against the Cavs in the postseason as he had in the regular season).  KG scored and produced assists at similar volumes to Duncan but much more efficiently (10% higher FG, twice the assist/TO ratio).  I just see nothing to support that Duncan would stop having trouble being efficient against the Cavs if he played for the Celtics, when his performance against them was consistent over 2 years (regular and postseason) and his overall playoff performance as a whole was also consistent over 3 years in differing circumstances. 

There's just nothing I can see to base a "Duncan would perform better offensively against the Cavs in '08 for the Celtics than he did in either the regular or postseason for the Spurs from 06-08" stance upon.  And if he didn't, if he was even just a bit less effective than KG against the Cavs, that would have been enough to swing a series that went down to the wire as it was.

(If I wasn't already there, by this point I definitely feel like I'm repeating myself so I'll cede the floor to you for a final comment if you like, and will try not to respond again...unless of course I can't help myself  )

[TitleMaster]

From this debate, my impression of TD, as a hard to stop post player, is what's being challenged.

In other words, he's no Hakeem Olajuwon and thus, won't generate the type of difficulties which pretty much every team would have against him, down low.

[thedawg]

That´s easy like Sunday morning.  Tim Duncan all the way! I still think he would have won plenty of rings if we had got him  through the lottery as we were supposed to.