KG or Tim Duncan?

[Who]

Kevin Garnett has aged much better than Timmy and has been the more effective player over the last couple of seasons.

But shouldn't that be because of the development of Rondo/ KG was given easier looks?

The biggest difference for me is their respective defensive contributions as they have aged.

Duncan has declined considerably and shrunk from an all-world defender to a solid one while KG is still a top two defensive big man in the league today.

Duncan dropped off defensively in the 2009 season and has continued to decline since.

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

Offensively and rebounding are similar (at this point).

KG has a slight edge offensively but both are best used as third/fourth options. As facilitators for team offense rather than go-to guys. Boston switched KG to this role in 2009 but San Antonio didn't cop on until this past season. They should have done so a few years ago though. I think it would have allowed San Antonio to be more successful (switching the offense over to Manu + Tony sooner).

Statistically, Timmy's rebounding is slightly better but part of that is him playing the five while KG plays the four. Better opportunities there (closer to basket). I think the difference in terms of relative (relative to position) rebounding contribution is minimal.

[paulcowens]

For some reason, folks are bound and determined to think of players as similar to parts on a machine;  interchangeable.  Any time you get a chance to upgrade parts, of course you do it, and to decide whether it's a good idea or not, it's always assumed to be just a matter of running the numbers. 

But see, I DON'T ever want the NBA to be like the NFL.  I don't want the players to be treated like machine parts - and even in the NFL it doesn't quite work out that way all the time (cf Doug Flutie vs Rob Johnson).

Sure, if you just totally discount the human factor, Duncan over KG is a nobrainer.  But KG has been the heart of our team for four years, the man more responsible than anyone else for reviving Celtic Pride.  How do you even entertain the thought of switching him out.  How can one possibly assume that Duncan would have had that same effect?   Something almost miraculous happened here in Celtics Land.

So would the seventies Celtics have been a better team if we had McAdoo instead of Cowens?
What about Wilt instead of Russell?   No one would take such questions seriously for a moment.

[CaptainJackLee]

I'm not sure the Celtics would have won the title in 07/08 with Duncan instead of Garnett. A big man rotation of Duncan-Perkins-PJ Brown-Posey-Powe... they'd have faced the same issues the Spurs - Duncan-Oberto-Thomas-Horry - had versus the Lakers that same year, not enough speed to handle Kobe's dribble penetration, the triangle side-shifts and Gasol and Odom's speed and offensive range. I think they'd have needed to play with Posey at the 4 as their default line-up - which would mean no Posey on Kobe, so no rest for Allen/Pierce and at the same time a lower quality team defense.

I don't think they'd have won in 08/09 either. Duncan was already too slow to pair up with Perkins and expect high-level defensive results.

In the last 2 years Garnett has been fairly superior to Duncan.

I think it's Garnett by a fair margin assuming the rest of the roster remains the same. With a different roster, well, it depends on the changes.

[LilRip]

i've always been a KG guy. Even when TD was winning titles. (i even had KG's minny jersey and during his MVP year, i ponied up and bought his shoes. he was still And1 then) so I'm pretty biased. lol

[Chris]

I remember thinking in 2007 that Duncan was starting to decline, and I don't remember thinking that about KG.  KG had really been remarkably healthy to that point, and I feel like he was the better bet to stay healthy because of his Gumbyesque physique. 

If we are talking about these guys in their primes, I might go Duncan, but 2007, I like KG.

[kn 99]

I'm not sure the Celtics would have won the title in 07/08 with Duncan instead of Garnett. A big man rotation of Duncan-Perkins-PJ Brown-Posey-Powe... they'd have faced the same issues the Spurs - Duncan-Oberto-Thomas-Horry - had versus the Lakers that same year, not enough speed to handle Kobe's dribble penetration, the triangle side-shifts and Gasol and Odom's speed and offensive range. I think they'd have needed to play with Posey at the 4 as their default line-up - which would mean no Posey on Kobe, so no rest for Allen/Pierce and at the same time a lower quality team defense.

I don't think they'd have won in 08/09 either. Duncan was already too slow to pair up with Perkins and expect high-level defensive results.

In the last 2 years Garnett has been fairly superior to Duncan.

I think it's Garnett by a fair margin assuming the rest of the roster remains the same. With a different roster, well, it depends on the changes.

very true, perk needs a mobile forward next to him, which we got with kg. with timmy that might have not worked out so well

[BASS_THUMPER]

kg

duncan cant fire the team like kg

[LeoMoreno]

kg

duncan cant fire the team like kg

That and... They're both used to being the best players on the team. KG is used to teamwork and helping others. Timmeh is like a landlord. Like he's there only to receive the ball when others can't make a shot. Too much independence there. (imho)

[ManUp]

It's a tough decision. I guess Garnett based on the assumption that if he had a better supporting cast he'd have been just as successful career wise. Garnett is the better defender, but Duncan is the more conventional low post presence and a more willing and impactful scorer.

[mgent]

In 2007, fresh off of Duncan leading San An to the title, I would have picked Tim Duncan over KG but it would have been the wrong choice.

Kevin Garnett has aged much better than Timmy and has been the more effective player over the last couple of seasons.

Thats actually a ridicoulous concept...KG missed half a season and all of the playoffs the year we were trying to repeat (never happened to duncan) and was a shell of himself all the next season...Last year Duncan looked done and KG had a bit of a bounce back year, i guess that must be what ur basing that off of

I was also confused by that statement.  Duncan has been significantly better then Garnett in every season except last year and it hasn't really been close.  Not only has he played more games, he played more minutes per game, was more efficient, and had better totals.  Now some of that certainly could have been as a result of their respective roles, but the numbers don't lie.

My view of their performances

2008 -- Garnett = Duncan -- the two best big man in the league. Comparable output.

2009 -- Duncan > Garnett -- Garnett outplaying Duncan until he got injured. Duncan hurt and slowed late in season but still played and gave his team a solid performance in the playoffs which is much better than KG's absence due to injury. I would have expected the Celtics to make the Conference Finals or NBA Finals runner up with Timmy.

2010 -- Garnett > Duncan -- Timmy's harsh decline defensively and lack of athleticism leads to San Antonio losing in the second round to Phoenix because Timmy can't defend the pick and roll or cover as much ground defensively as he used to. Meanwhile, KG is a leading figure in Boston making the Finals.

2011 -- Garnett >> Duncan -- large advantage for KG by this point due to the huge difference in each player's respective defensive contributions. Comparable rebounders. Slight edge offensively for KG too.

That is exactly how I would rate them for the past 4 years.

Duncan would have been interesting because he would've given more of an inside-out style that we've been lacking the last couple years, which plays more to the strengths of Pierce and Ray but less to Rondo's.

I personally would go with KG not even taking into consideration that he fit so well with Perk, although Duncan + Powe/Posey would've worked and in hindsight, with injuries, probably would've yielded at least 1 more banner.

[Surferdad]

I didn't even hestiate in choosing Duncan.  He would have simply a better piece to build around.  Of course I love KG, but please the team would have been totally different so you can't use that 'better fit for our team' argument.

[LB3533]

Having Duncan would have forced Doc to play either PP or Ray off the bench.

Rondo's game would not have developed as fast as it currently has due to the above and due to missing out on KG's versatile game.

[Eja117]

In 2007, if Danny had a choice of whether to pick KG or Tim Duncan to add to the Celtics at the time, who would you rather have had in green? Do you think we'd be better off with KG or Duncan?

To me, personally, I prefer Garnett because of his intensity playing and the soul he brings to the team. Duncan is a better choice on the offensive side, and I'd imagine he'd convert more offensively with Rondo's help. In terms of D, they are about the same caliber except I don't see Tim screaming like a mad man and banging his head on things.

Which is exactly why I like Duncan more. Keep your screaming, intensity, head banging and soul. I prefer good old soulless rings.

If Tim just pounded his chest more and threw more powder in the sky we'd think of him as one of the top two or three players ever, and that's pathetic.

Everybody talk like they got something to say, but nothing comes out when they move their lips. Just a bunch of gibberish, and you mother fudgers act like you forgot about Tim.

[LilRip]

did you guys see the post on the home page about Rondo = Duncan? i found it quite ridiculous tbh but whatever. there's little else to discuss during a lockout.

it's a tangent to the main topic, but given our main team (of old RA,PP,KG) how about current Rondo v. young Duncan?

i personally would go with 22-yo Duncan over 25-yo Rondo. with TD in the lineup, i think we'd be able to do well even with a questionable starting PG.

[RAG50K]

22 year old Duncan<<<Rondo. The guy was an absolute beast in 1998-99.He averaged 21-11 a game with two and a half blocks.