I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste.
Well, OK, but according to the 'taste' of most head coaches, sportswriters and other NBA analysts, Duncan is a far better player than KG as of right now.
Like PJ said, Duncan was 1st team All-NBA and 2nd team All-Defense. He also finished 7th in MVP voting. KG was not even really on the map for those awards.
So if according to your taste KG is equal, that's obviously OK, but you have to recognize that it is a minority opinion.
Don't really care.
To me, a lot of this whole thread keeps waiving over the obvious. It is silly to compare the teams based on KG vs Duncan, PP vs Manu, Rondo vs Parker and so on using this last season as the comparison basis, considering that outside of KG & PP, none of the principles on the C's were even 'all there' for the whole season.
Comparing how well KG or any individual played between two teams with such radically different fortunes seems dubious at an exacting level. Team effects DO effect how the individuals perform, even elite superstars. And it also most definitely affects how fans / writers / coaches perceive players. So I'm not particularly worried about whether my opinion is 'minority' or not. I detailed the basis for my opinion and I'll stand by it.
The OP's premise, flawed or not, should only be viewed from the hopeful lens of how well the proposed lineups (on either team) might fair if healthy and performing at at least their recent nominal performance ratings.
But the criticisms that are based purely on how crappy THIS year went for the C's don't particularly impress me.
OK, so you don't like comparisons (a) based on last year, (b) based on qualitative factors because those are affected by team records, and you want to see performance at (c) "nominal performance ratings."
I'll address all three of those by using quantitative metrics rather than the qualitative evaluations, and by extending the comparison to the last six years rather than only last year.
Take a look at PER with each player's rank among all NBA players:
KG TD KG rank TD rank
2007-08 25.42 24.05 4 9
2008-09 21.32 24.51 18 5
2009-10 19.51 24.79 30 5
2010-11 20.67 21.94 24 14
2011-12 20.47 22.60 34 14
2012-13 19.25 24.45 38 6
So, by this objectively calculated number you see a clear decline for KG, while TD's performance this year is competitive with those from five years ago.
Note that your point about how the "team is doing" influencing such rankings is not really borne out here. Plenty of players have high PERs on teams with losing records - including KG, who had terrific PERs on those mediocre MIN teams. And while KG's PER has declined as the team's record has declined, it's more likely that the causality runs the other way - he's not as good, so the team is performing worse.
If you don't like PER you can pick any other relevant metric you want, old-school or advanced, and you'll see the same pattern. KG has declined by more than TD.
And, coming back to a point I've made again and again, you win rings in the NBA with top 10 players, often by having two such guys. It is very simple. By no metric do we have even one, while the Spurs have two. They are much better positioned to run it back.
You completely missed the point of my comment about 'nominal' expectations - that was meant to say how you should look at the OP's proposed _roster_. That wasn't meant to be specific to the KG v TD comparison.
Yeah, PER is skewed too heavily by counting & utilization stats and yeah, I've criticized it pretty heavily before so if i p--- on it right now, it has nothing to do with the KG v TD companions. PER has always been one of my least favorite stats. There are tons of articles already on the web pointing out its flaws so I won't bother here. But in particular, PER comparisons break down quickly when comparing across different roles. About the only thing I like to use PER for is to compare a player to himself over time or between two players in the same role on the same team. Other than that, it's a pretty useless stat.
PER is only 'objectively calculated' in the sense that the math it uses is the same for all players. But it is not an objectively derived calculation. PER, like all such derived stats, is the result of an arbitrary weighting of inputs - and that weighting is completely subjective.
I don't think my point anywhere has been that KG has been 'better' than Duncan. My point is that they do different things.
Right off the bat, KG's lower shot utilization (Duncan has typically attempted about 2 or 3 extra shots per game) is going to kill KG's PER comparison with TD. Duncan has only had a USG% under 26% once in his career. He's been SAS' primary scoring option for most of his seasons. KG has been secondary or third option behind Pierce and even sometimes Ray since coming to Boston. His USG% has not been above 26% once.
You can argue that that makes Duncan better, if you want. I would argue that their roles on their respective teams are simply different. Duncan plays closer to the basket. He's got a great guard to feed him and great outside shooters to stretch the defense and give him chances at put-backs. He's clearly excelled in this role. KG's role is different. He plays farther from the basket and used his superior perimeter shooting and great passing to facilitate his teammates' ability to get to the basket.
It's pretty telling that, even though Duncan has taken a much larger share of his shots 'At Rim' (pretty much those 2-3 extra shots per game have been 'at rim') KG's eFG% has consistently been higher:
| Year] | KG | TD |
| 2007-08] | 54% | 50% |
| 2008-09] | 53% | 50%% |
| 2009-10] | 52% | 52% |
| 2010-11] | 53% | 50% |
| 2011-12] | 51% | 49% |
| 2012-13] | 50% | 50% |
Basically, even though he's taking a larger share of shots from outside, KG is a consistently more efficient shooter than Duncan.
Again, this doesn't mean that KG is 'better' than Duncan. This points out that he has abilities that make it advantageous to USE him in different ways than you would use Duncan.
KG's at his most valuable when you have another big man who can play in the low-post. Because offensively KG forces at least one big defender to come out of the paint to guard him - sometimes two. And defensively it allows KG to focus on the high paint.
This is why KG & Shaq were such an unstoppable pair and why KG & Sully played so well together. In 378 minutes together KG & Sully posted a +10.8 net rating (points per 100 possessions) - easily the highest two-some net rating on our team for pairs that got more than 300 minutes together.
For comparison, KG & Bass played 1015 minutes together and posted a Net Rtg of -0.6 points per 100 possessions.
You may legitimately suggest that it is a flaw in KG that his game is sensitive to the type of players around him. Or you could just acknowledge the weakness in the quality of big men he's had next to him for much of the last few years.
And that who you play with has an effect.
Aside - a dream pairing would be Duncan and KG. Wow.
OK,
1. I suggested you can use other metrics than PER. They all show consistent play for TD and a decline for KG. Your eFG% numbers show this too. Like I said, pick whatever you want.
2. You do acknowledge that PER can be used to compare "a player to himself over time." That's what I was doing. KG has declined, TD has not.
3. If you're suggesting that KG's performance is dependent on having a solid low-post big man on the court with him, I don't understand. For one, your argument about KG being paired with Bass vs. Sully is incomplete. KG with Bass in 2012 was phenomenal (nearly the same at +9.1). KG paired with Bass in 2013 was much less so as you say. Wouldn't we conclude from that that KG and/or Bass declined, or something else changed, rather than something specific about how KG is better with a low post guy?
4. And, your point about KG being better at PF is also incomplete. KG's individual numbers in the second half of 2012 - after he got moved to C and paired with Bass - were much better, as was the team's overall performance and in opposition to your theory. Isn't the most plausible explanation that KG played really well in the second half of 2012, but was not as good in 2013? Rather than something about who he was paired with?
The simplest explanation for all of these facts is that KG has consistently declined over the last several years. Nearly any qualitative evaluation, any quantitative evaluation you want to pick will tell you the same thing. He can still be great in spurts, but those are getting briefer and briefer. The facts are pretty robust to who he's played with, at least given that you will have noise once you start taking smaller and smaller slices of the data.
On (1) - the numbers don't really show what you seem to think. After 2008, KG's numbers are virtually identical. His points per minute, his shot attempts and makes. His defensive rebound rates are virtually unchanged _through_ 2007-2008. The only numbers that jump out as dropping from 2008 are his points per minute - which is clearly due to a drop in FTA per minute - which in turn stems from the drop in USG%.. Basically, the only thing that really changed was KG's _role_ in the offense. In 2008 we pushed slightly more of our offense through him to the tune of a 25.5% USG% and he was getting to the lined 5.2 times per 36.. Since then, we have never had him at a USG above 24.9 and he's never gotten to the line more than 3.9 times per 36. So his points per 36 have dropped from 20.7 per 36 that year to about ~18 pretty much every year since. On roughly the same number of FGA during most of that span.
On (2) Further the numbers you posted show his PER as pretty much unchanged from 2008-2009 to the present. There is no real meaningful difference in those PER numbers: 21.3, 19.5, 20.7, 20.5, 19.3
Basically the drop in PER, USG and FTA indicate a role change after 2008 - not necessarily a decline. He's been pretty flat in all rate stats since then.
The Celtics began heavily relying on Rondo to run the offense in the 2008 playoff run, during which the percentage of shots that he assisted shot from 28.2% in the regular season up to 36.9% in those playoffs. From that point forward, Rondo's AST% has never dropped back down below 40% in regular season OR playoffs and has even busted 50% at times.
On (3) and (4) -- are you seriously suggesting that Bass of this last year's regular season played anywhere near the quality of basketball that Bass did in the second half of last season?
All along, my main point - the reason I even jumped into this thread - was to point out that the use of straight counting stats like points or blocks is inadequate for comparing the value of KG & Duncan because, while both are listed as 'C/PF' players, they play the game very differently. And I think it's pretty clear from the points I've made that that is true.
KG, even with whatever marginal declines, still is one of the elite big men in this game. He legitimately deserved his All Star selection this last year. Look around the East - a couple of the bigs like Bosh are slightly better on offense, but nowhere near as good on defense. And the only big in the east who's even close to KG in value on defense, Chandler, is a one-trick pony on offense. Kevin Garnett is still just so much more well-rounded and versatile than the vast majority of big men.
Whether KG or Duncan is, at this point, a 'better' player is, imho, very much dependent on what you want out of that position. It's easy to point to how great Duncan played this year (and he had a phenomenal season) and think that KG has fallen behind. But just two years ago it was the opposite - Duncan's numbers took a dip in 2010-11 and KG posted a very strong year in numbers. From '09-11, the Spurs couldn't manage to play more than 10 games in the playoffs before getting bumped, while KG was playing 23, 9 & 20. During those years, the whispers were (foolishly, imho) that Duncan's era was 'done'. Next year, it could be either one who posts the 'better' season.
At some point, both these guys will be 'done'. But neither of them really looks close to that day just yet.
Topic: The Spurs show we should run it back (Read 31677 times)