Who's a better player? Duncan Or Garnett?

I was watchin a tape where I saw these two guys going at it, TD is quite unstoppable but KG did a good job.
Which of the two, do you think is a better player? TD or KG?

I personally think KG since he is much more versitile (spelling?) than TD. TD is pure fundamentals though. Please dont use arguments as KG cant get his team out of the first round, that's why he isnt as good as TD, if TD were put on the Wolves, I doubt he wouldve made it out of the first round.
One thing I think TD is better at than KG is taking the game into his hands. KG tries hard, but the difference is he just cant deliver when needed most (Fourth Quarter), whereas TD has the knack of knocking down the most important shots when he's called upon.

My pick would be KG (but I'm not sure as you'll notice, read further!!) , he's a very good player and a defender. He is very unselfish, but this same thing (his unselfishness) can become the downside of his game.

I've typed why I think Garnett is better, but I could just as well make up excuses to why he isnt that good. Mainly his unselfishness can cost his team the game. He should learn to take control. He tends to dissappear when most needed by his team. Whereas TD shows up at exactly that moment.
The only difference between the two players' I think is, that TD delivers when needed and KG will just produce what is standard. What I mean is...You know that KG can give you a solid 20 and 10, so can TD. But if TD was needed to produce 30 and 15, he WOULD, whereas KG doesnt. KG gives you the normal production.

If KG could perform like TD, meaning produce when needed, I think he would be out of the first round, KG mostly scores during the first, second and third period and when the fourth period ariives (time to close out the game) he seems to disappear.
I think with the addition of Spree and Cassell this should not be the case anymore. Now I think, KG will produce more in the Fourth since he wont be as exhausted as he is normally because he does the bulk of the scoring.

I really cannot understand how KG cannot get out of the first round with players like Wally (not that he's great, but he can give you 15 and 5.) and a exceptional (though underrated IMHO) Troy Hudson and TD can win a championship with the likes of guys like Bowen and Parker (Not dissing Parker but the man is incosistant.)
Yeah, you could say that The Admiral was helpfull but he wasnt that much of a factor, although he did help. The point is TD is the focus of the defense and he knows that. Why is he the focus? He's the focus because he can score, dish, block and rebound.
KG can do these too, yet he isnt as dominating as TD.

Strange how both these players are much alike and yet are not much alike. Hope that made sense.

So help me out of my dillemma and tell me who do you think is a better player?

Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett?

I am even more confused then when I started out.

good question. i like both a lot but i would say td by a hair. i don't think kg utilizes his size as much as he needs to.. if he played inside a little more instead of hitting jumpshots from 15 feet and such then i'd pick him.. the guy has great post moves but it just doesnt seem like he wants to play inside.. td on the other hand, he can play inside incredibly well and he goes outside only if its really necessary.. i think td knows how to use his size to his advantage better than kg..

i still love them both coz theyre fucking beautiful.

i still love them both coz theyre fucking beautiful.

Don't even think it Stevan and others.

KG better than TD and best in the league

I think they got the same level.......TD & KG were MVP candidates for years, but TD has a better team.....

KG better than TD and best in the league

Yeah, just like Obie Trice is the best rapper in the world without having an album released, right? TD all the way!

just like Obie Trice is the best rapper in the world without having an album released, right?

u'll see...

duncan because duncan is a big man playing a big man game, while garnett is a big man playing the small forward/point forward game. the jordan era was unique, but the truth is, much more often than not, you need a big man with big man game to win the championship.

it is very debatable as to whether garnett has/had a better supporting cast..... maybe duncan just unconciously made his lower-tier players look better by drawing more attention inside and spreading the defensive coverage. in comparison kg has a beautiful mid range game, but a mid range game doesnt create as much defensive havoc.

anyway, this season we'll really find out whether its true td had a better supporting cast than kg and whether that mattered because kg's supporting cast is now, at the very least, equal to duncans.

i choose tim duncan. theres a reason basketball experts chose him as back to back mvp, there is a reason he is only the 2nd player ever to be named to both the all-nba and all-defensive team in each of his first 5 (and counting) seasons, and is also only the 2nd player since larry bird and 7th in history to be named to the all nba first team for his first 5 (and coutning) seasons.

the experts are experts for a reason and i wholeheartedly agree that td is number one in the league, he has all the credentials to match his game and is the main reason for his own championships. in my mind, for now, there is no debate.

as for kg = more versatile? yes, i agree.

KG is the most versatile of the two. He has the quickness and skill to play in the backcourt, though he remains suited to the frontcourt. Duncan has an uncanny shooting touch for a big man though - like KG he can knock down the 18 foot jumper, and his ability to bank shots off the glass from tough angles is amazing.

I'm inclined to say that Duncan is the better player. As individuals, they're about the same. KG may be more versatile, but Duncan excels at the positions he is familiar with. I think you have to factor in team success and the ability to perform when it matters most. Even if you don't count the two championships, Duncan is better at being the player who can dominate when need be - the go to guy in the clutch. KG doesn't seem as comfortable in that role.

No doubt Duncan is the man. KG is good and all, but Duncan just knows exactly what to do and does it pretty quitely. KG probably has more moves and can do more than Duncan ( like play more position), but Duncan is just a solid PF/C that does everything written in the book.

both great players. if i had to start a team, i would pick duncan. garnett's great and is probably more versatile. but duncan can deliver quarters 1-4

definatly Duncan...although Duncan is not flashy he plays a very fundamentally game...he excel at the position that he does best but if we're saying who can play more positions i'd have to go with KG...and yes u don't see KG making lots of clutch shot..the truth is he doesn't wanna be the man..even though he could be one...so Wally Sczerbiak always has to shoot the clutch shots for him..even though he's not the franchise type player..

I know that it's kinda off topic but still i would like to go on about that uniqueness of the jordan era(he went against the likes of malone,the admiral and ewing and even kemp in their prime, which aren't easy to handle) and the fact u now need an big man, i believe this is very true cuz in another topic we looked at the guards and(correct me if im wrong)but i though we came to the conclusion that most of the top guards are in the EAST(tmac,pierce,ai,vince,...),especially shooting guards i mean then, so though u could say their guards are stronger they still have the lower hand in the league(au contraire with live where u are unstoppable with a great SG ), and the east is quite a bit lower cuz their lack of quality big men and well-rounded(good at all positions) teams(lack of depth,though the pistons are quite a balanced team). Just wanted to know ur guys opinion

It is strange, as there was a greater number of above average to great centres during the 90s, yet having a good centre did not provide the advantage it does now. The early 90s Knicks had a frontcourt that could bully pretty much any of today's frontcourts, but they couldn't get past the Bulls teams of the 90s, with the exception the Jordan-less 1994 Bulls.

I don't think a superstar centre would be necessary if the talent was spread more evenly over the two conferences. There's so many talented big men in the Western Conference you need a strong frontcourt to make it to the NBA Finals.

An Eastern team could probably defeat a Western team with a superstar big man if the rest of the matchups favoured them. But every West team with a good or great big man also has talent elsewhere. If Shaq was the only dominant player on the Lakers' roster, they wouldn't have been as dominant as they have been. It would have been a similar situation to Orlando had Kobe not become the player that he is.

If a team can compensate for the lack of a dominant big man then they can still matchup well with a team that does have a dominant big man. But that's difficult to do out West where there is so much frontcourt talent, and even more difficult for Eastern teams as most of them do not have the firepower to answer the challenge that Western teams present.

I think Duncan would have taken the Wolves to the Conference Finals or Finals if he was playing their instead of Garnett the last couple of years. Duncan is that valuable. Garnett lacks clutch play and inside toughness compared to Duncan.

It is strange, as there was a greater number of above average to great centres during the 90s, yet having a good centre did not provide the advantage it does now. The early 90s Knicks had a frontcourt that could bully pretty much any of today's frontcourts, but they couldn't get past the Bulls teams of the 90s, with the exception the Jordan-less 1994 Bulls.

I don't think a superstar centre would be necessary if the talent was spread more evenly over the two conferences. There's so many talented big men in the Western Conference you need a strong frontcourt to make it to the NBA Finals.

An Eastern team could probably defeat a Western team with a superstar big man if the rest of the matchups favoured them. But every West team with a good or great big man also has talent elsewhere. If Shaq was the only dominant player on the Lakers' roster, they wouldn't have been as dominant as they have been. It would have been a similar situation to Orlando had Kobe not become the player that he is.

If a team can compensate for the lack of a dominant big man then they can still matchup well with a team that does have a dominant big man. But that's difficult to do out West where there is so much frontcourt talent, and even more difficult for Eastern teams as most of them do not have the firepower to answer the challenge that Western teams present.

This just shows how awesome Jordan was. Winning 6 titles with Cartwreight/Longley.

Definitely, though Cartwright's defense was underrated. I believe it was during the 1991 season (the first title year) that he held every opposing centre below their season average. A great big man doesn't necessarily guarantee a title, though it can be a great advantage.

Definitely, though Cartwright's defense was underrated. I believe it was during the 1991 season (the first title year) that he held every opposing centre below their season average. A great big man doesn't necessarily guarantee a title, though it can be a great advantage.

Yeh thats a good point. The Bulls may not have had a Shaq but they always had toughness up front. Cartwreight, Grant, Rodman are certainly in that category. They really needed Rodman, and it showed in MJ's comeback season when they had Kukoc and Longley upfront and lost to the Magic in 6 (admittedly Jordan was a bit rusty but the Rockets (The Dream) may have got them if the Magic didn't).

Agreed. But speaking of the role of big men in a team's success (and moving the discussion back towards KG and Duncan), this past season KG had Nesterovic and TD had The Admiral.

Nesterovic's 2002/2003 Stats:
11.3 ppg
6.5 rpg
1.5 apg
1.51 bpg

Robinson's 2002/2003 Stats:
8.5 ppg
7.9 rpg
1.0 apg
1.73 bpg

Looking at those numbers, one has to consider whether both teams would have had the same amount of success. Would Duncan still have won the title with Nesterovic (who had a decent year), rather than The Admiral (who was declining, but was still capable and had plenty of experience)? Or is KG's supporting cast responsible for the T'Wolves lack of success, rather than a weakness in his game?

Or is KG's supporting cast responsible for the T'Wolves lack of success, rather than a weakness in his game?

the t'wolves would be shit without kg. so blame the supporting cast, blame the allstar ( ) szczerbiak. dig these stats for kg in the playoffs: 27, 15.7, 5.2, 1.67, 1.67. u can't ask anymore from the man

well not all supporting cast for the Wolves deserved to be blamed....Troy Hudson stepped up in the playoffs...but that wasn't enough to take the T-Wolves past the first rd...

Or is KG's supporting cast responsible for the T'Wolves lack of success, rather than a weakness in his game?

the t'wolves would be shit without kg. so blame the supporting cast, blame the allstar ( ) szczerbiak. dig these stats for kg in the playoffs: 27, 15.7, 5.2, 1.67, 1.67. u can't ask anymore from the man

Well judging from his mammoth contract, I think you could ask for more. If your paying a player $28 Million in a season, as coach/GM you can ask him to do whatever the hell you want.

its tim duncan-san antonio spurs!
of course tim is better! KG is bad.
go timmy go!

KG is bad.

if averaging 23 PPG, 13.4 RPG, 6 APG plus 1.38 spg and 1.57 bpg than your right, he is bad.

KGwill always be better than tim duncan

Tim Duncan has had one of the 50 greastest players on his side and wat has KG had Wally's World . Wally was an absolute no show in this years playoffs. I give troy his props for doing alittle something in a couple of games but thats it. Joe Smith #1 pick no show. We already know we TB was a no show. KG is the best in the league and of course if he had Duncan's team he would of been out the first round.