To say Duncan's and KG's stats are similar means you already lost because if KG was on Duncan's teams his stats would have been better due to how much easier the game would have been for him playing with more talent.
?
When KG went to a team with more talent, didn't his stats actually decline, rather than improve? Isn't that the historical trend, that players often put up empty stats on bad teams, and see statistical declines on good ones?
Give KG, in his prime, a Kobe or Shaq type compliment and he has a hand full of rings too.
Sure he would. If Duncan played next to Shaq, he'd have more rings, as well. However, Duncan never had more than good complementary players for teammates; none of an aged Robinson, Manu, or Parker are elite superstars in the class of Kobe or Shaq. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing in relation to Duncan.
Duncan has four rings to one for KG. Duncan has better stats, almost across the board. Duncan has never been in the lottery, and has only lost in the first round twice (compared to four lottery trips and seven consecutive first round losses for KG).
I'm not sure why we're having this argument; generally, the player with better stats and more rings is given the respect he deserves. I guess not when his rival wears green, though.
By the way, please don't call me immature. I don't belittle you or call you names, and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.
Has nothing to do with wearing Green. Garnett came to a situation where his minutes were reduced and his role changed. The decrease in statistics for KG in Boston has to do with a combiation of minutes decreased, role change, and the fact he was coming to Boston. If Pierce was going to Minnesota I question if his numbers would have decreased like they did. When you say stats you can't just talk about points. As individuals you can not say Garnett is not in these guy's league. In the end you have to judge who is better based on that. They can't control who they play with... most of the time. I guess the past week has proved otherwise.
For the sake of argument lets look at these guys in their primes from when Duncan entered the league to when KG went to Boston. Lets look at these numbers because your argument against giving Garnett the respect he deserves seems to have to do with his lack of success in Minnesota.
During that span KG actually had the edge in numbers. KG played a little over one minute more per game than Duncan. They were practically identical in points, fg %, and turnovers. Duncan had the edge in blocks but KG makes up for it with his steals. KG bettered duncan in rebounds, assists, and ft% by a fair margin. During this time frame is when both were in theie primes and the unquestioned firs option on their teams. I will argue that if Pierce went to Minnesota KG would not have been the second option he was in Boston. Minnesota was his team, his organization, where he was the captain and the offense built around him. Duncan has never had to go through a change like Garnett did in 2008.
Statistics prove Kg was Duncan's equal in this regard. Give Kg more perimeter weapons and his assists, fg%, and defensive statistics likely improve. His rebounding likely stays the same as his offensive rebounds decrease but his defensive boards increase. Of course assume his minutes dont fluctuate too much. These statements can be reasonably assumed because in lessoning KG's offensive burden he can allocate more energy and focus to doing all the other things on the court, besides scoring, that makes him the unique talent he is.
Think I am being dishonest look at the attachment and verify it with the Career Statistics for both players on NBA.com under Players.
To say KG is not on the same level as Duncan is to unfairly hold against him the lack of putting talent around him. a more fair statement is to say Kevin Mcale is not on the same level as RC Buford.
It was not KG who traded Ray Allen for Marbury, signed Joe Smith to a max deal, or traded Brandon Roy for Randy Foye.