Re: Battle of the 21's I love the comparison..Kevin Garnett is better individually and plays with the heart of a champion..but he has NEVER played with an all star, championship capable team which is mandatory if you even want a shot. He got to the WCF in the first year playing with Cassell and Sprewell who are both sub par to the players Duncan played with to get a championship. He plays like a champion but never has had a CHAMPIONship. Duncan on the other hand doesn't fill the stat sheet up as well, but the dude is hella dominant, dominance is what you look for in a player because that certain dominance is always what leads you to championships. Dominant big men are the primary function to a foundation of a championship.I think both these players are amazing and KG could easily get a title (IMO) with a cast that Duncan played with. Honestly the comparison is SO DEEP that you can't even directly approve one person as the better player when asked on the spot...you can also argue that KG is at a certain level of "dominance" but his "dominance" level isn't up to the bar Duncan is at yet, so as MUCH AS I DISLIKE Tim...Duncan is the better player..
Re: Battle of the 21's Duncan, without question. Kevin Garnett is the more versatile player, but Tim Duncan's skills, leadership, will to win, and championship resume (basically he's a winner) make him the better player in my eyes.Yeah, KG never had close to the supporting cast Duncan has had, but KG never really took over at the end of games offensively like superstars are supposed to do. You can have crappy players around you, but if you're as good as KG supposedly is, then you should be able to ATLEAST get out of the first round once without guys like Cassell and Sprewell around you. Garnett is a great individual talent, but he is overrated in terms of being a player who can lead and/or carry a team.
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jul 22 2006, 05:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Duncan, without question. Kevin Garnett is the more versatile player, but Tim Duncan's skills, leadership, will to win, and championship resume (basically he's a winner) make him the better player in my eyes.Yeah, KG never had close to the supporting cast Duncan has had, but KG never really took over at the end of games offensively like superstars are supposed to do. You can have crappy players around you, but if you're as good as KG supposedly is, then you should be able to ATLEAST get out of the first round once without guys like Cassell and Sprewell around you. Garnett is a great individual talent, but he is overrated in terms of being a player who can lead and/or carry a team.</div>You cant carry a team past the 1st round with scrubs as your teammates, noone has gotten to the big one with sh*tty teammates
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You cant carry a team past the 1st round with scrubs as your teammates, noone has gotten to the big one with ****ty teammates</div>Sprewell, Cassell, and Sczerbiak are by no means bad teammates.
Re: Battle of the 21's If you mean all-around skills then Im going with KG. He's the better scorer imo. He can shoot the jumper, dunk over oppenents, put it up over, up and under, post moves, drive, etc..He also has averaged more ppg then Tim in the past 3 consecutive seasons. He also out-rebounded Tim 12 to 11 this year. It's not much, but still. He is also more athletic, the better passer and the better stealer then Tim. Tim might have the edge on shot blocking and defense, and also post moves, but that's probably it.If you bring into account the 3 championships, and the 3 Finals MVP's then yes, it's probably Duncan. It depends what you mean.
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hang Eleven @ Jul 22 2006, 08:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sprewell, Cassell, and Sczerbiak are by no means bad teammates.</div>Are they to be compared anywhere near Ginobli and Parker? Shaq? David Robinson? Scottie and Dennis?Nope. Cassell is the only IMO and he had ONE YEAR with KG and they got to the WCF in that one year
Re: Battle of the 21's Actually, now that I think of it, look at the "help" TD had in his 2003 title. He had a young Parker and Ginobili, and an aging David Robinson. I'll get the stats for proof.http://www.nba.com/spurs/stats/2002/index.html
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 22 2006, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, now that I think of it, look at the "help" TD had in his 2003 title. He had a young Parker and Ginobili, and an aging David Robinson. I'll get the stats for proof.http://www.nba.com/spurs/stats/2002/index.html</div>true but Robinson was still considered a high profilic star, Parker averaged just about the same besides 3 PPG less too..look at every other championship though
Re: Battle of the 21's He averaged 8.5 and 8...and I said he was CONSIDERED a profilic star...still, the Spurs were 6th on Offense and 3rd on defense...the Sixth man averaged 10 and 6....The team played great as a whole even though noone had an immediate impact because of their name.
Re: Battle of the 21's Im going to go with the homer pic and go with Tim Duncan.First of all, he is one of the best winners in the game of basketball. He is a leader, and one of the best teammattes a guy could ask for.Now that's all said, he has some of the best footwork for a bigman in the league if not the best. He has practically invented the 15-19 foot bankshot off of the glass and he has done it to perfection. He has been selected to first team all defense more times than i can remember and he always has averaged over 2 blocks per game. You can look at the stat sheets and say, KG is the better player. But Duncan's game and resume goes much further past that. He has 3 world championships, 2 MVP's, 3 World Championshi MVP's, he has been first team all NBA every year in his career besides 2005, he has been first team all defense numerous times, and he also won the humanitarian award along with David Robinson(they split it).....Ill take Tim Duncan
Re: Battle of the 21's duncan is a center so ill take him there and he said it his self thats he's a center and prefers that postion he might play it this season too but overall kg never had a great supporting cast when he did he went to the finals but wally averaged like 7 points as there best bench player thats bad
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (His Greatness @ Jul 22 2006, 03:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You cant carry a team past the 1st round with scrubs as your teammates, noone has gotten to the big one with sh*tty teammates</div>Allen Iverson did. Rofl, considering he's in your signature.
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Jul 22 2006, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Allen Iverson did. Rofl, considering he's in your signature.</div>Allen is the only exception because Iverson is god And besides...thats one person...
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (His Greatness @ Jul 22 2006, 05:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You cant carry a team past the 1st round with scrubs as your teammates, noone has gotten to the big one with sh*tty teammates</div>I'm not saying he should have gotten to the Finals or the WCF with sh*tty teammates... but if he was as great a leader as people say he is, he would have atleast been able to make it out of the first round once or twice without Cassell and Sprewell. Wally Sczcerbiak is a decent second option.KG just isn't the type of player who can carry a team on his back... with the exception of his MVP season in '03-04, he shys away from taking the big shots down the stretch of important games. Hell, even in his MVP season Cassell was their #1 option in crunch time.
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jul 22 2006, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not saying he should have gotten to the Finals or the WCF with sh*tty teammates... but if he was as great a leader as people say he is, he would have atleast been able to make it out of the first round once or twice without Cassell and Sprewell. Wally Sczcerbiak is a decent second option.KG just isn't the type of player who can carry a team on his back... with the exception of his MVP season in '03-04, he shys away from taking the big shots down the stretch of important games. Hell, even in his MVP season Cassell was their #1 option in crunch time.</div>Dude, it was his first season with them, you don't expect immediate results from one move, you need to give them more time to get used to each other....KG has NEVER HAD ONE consecutive teammate as a second option, all his teammates have changed and he constantly has to adjust, which is also another shallow in how the team plays. Szcerbiak is good offensively but a liability on defense, he's one dimensional. Plus Cassell and Sprewell are nowhere even NEAR the other teammates of other championship contenders ...He's not? He's the only reason the Wolves stay in the playoff hunt despite the change of rosters just about every season, and sub par teammates in general. Clutch ability doesn't define who's better, although its an amazing trait to possess, you don't need it to be better than someone, ALTHOUGH Tim Duncan IS BETTER IMO..and Cassell was known for his clutch play bro, that's why he was taking the shots...
Re: Battle of the 21's When you compare the roster of the spurs in 2003, and even in 99, Minny's team was just as good if not better than the Spurs. They had a young Parker who was immature and not near the player he is today. David Robinson who was over the hill in 2003 and still on the downfall of his career in 99. And in 2003, Manu was just as good as Casell or Sprewell. For the T-Wolves to win 60 games that season, you know that they had to have had a good ball club with the right pieces in order to get themselves a ring. When it comes down to it, Timmy is just a better winner and he knows what to do in crunchtime.
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (His Greatness @ Jul 22 2006, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dude, it was his first season with them, you don't expect immediate results from one move, you need to give them more time to get used to each other....KG has NEVER HAD ONE consecutive teammate as a second option, all his teammates have changed and he constantly has to adjust, which is also another shallow in how the team plays. Szcerbiak is good offensively but a liability on defense, he's one dimensional. Plus Cassell and Sprewell are nowhere even NEAR the other teammates of other championship contenders ...He's not? He's the only reason the Wolves stay in the playoff hunt despite the change of rosters just about every season, and sub par teammates in general. Clutch ability doesn't define who's better, although its an amazing trait to possess, you don't need it to be better than someone, ALTHOUGH Tim Duncan IS BETTER IMO..and Cassell was known for his clutch play bro, that's why he was taking the shots...</div>You are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying he should have won it all in his first season with Cassell and Sprewell (which I think they would have made it to the Finals had Cassell not been injured in the WCF)... I'm saying he should have been able to lead a team out of the first round ATLEAST once WITHOUT Cassell and Sprewell (before they arrived in Minnesota) if he's as great a leader as everybody makes him out to be (i.e. media, fans, etc.). He's NOT a great leader... he can't carry a team on his back... and thus he is overrated as a leader.He had Marbury for three years... Szczerbiack for six-and-a-half years... he had Troy Hudson... Trenton Hassell... he's had some capable players around him, but he just doesn't demand the ball at the end of games, and that is what holds him back. I'm not questioning his skills or his will to win, but he's just not a great leader, can't carry a team on his back... and thus is overrated as a leader.If he is as GREAT a big man as people claim him to be, you would think he would be able to atleast get his team out of the first round atleast ONCE without Cassell and Spree.The only reason KG won that MVP in 2003-04 was because of Cassell and Spree. They were the reason that team made it as far as they did... not Garnett.
Re: Battle of the 21's <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Jul 22 2006, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When you compare the roster of the spurs in 2003, and even in 99, Minny's team was just as good if not better than the Spurs. They had a young Parker who was immature and not near the player he is today. David Robinson who was over the hill in 2003 and still on the downfall of his career in 99. And in 2003, Manu was just as good as Casell or Sprewell. For the T-Wolves to win 60 games that season, you know that they had to have had a good ball club with the right pieces in order to get themselves a ring. When it comes down to it, Timmy is just a better winner and he knows what to do in crunchtime.</div>Very well said bro, I agree with it all except for the roster comment:<u>In 1999...</u>-David Robinson was STILL playing amazing, he was STIL the same defensive monster dude...he put up 16 and 10 which is better than anyone KG ever even played with-The whole squad had good role players...and they had Avery <u>In 2003...</u>-The Admiral was far past his prime but was still averaging 8.5 and 8, solid numbers but not "ADMIRAL" numbers...Parker was also putting up solid stats, basically the same as today but like a 2 PPG Boost, well because that was arguably Duncan's best season and Tony steadily got more touches...Manu is not at the level he is today, well because he barely took any shots that season, Duncan was the go to guy that season and although he still is, the scoring options are slowly becoming split and going different directions. And remeber Kerr? He could be called a Wally World type player but better shooter.And keep in mind KG had Sam and Latrell for ONE SEASON
