Thread Tools

Display Modes

IV · 06-24-2003, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by q!

I would much rather have Mark Madsen's career. It's all about the championships my friend. Please let me know the reasons other than the rings that he is better than. The only one I can remember is that he is a low-post player, that's not a reason why someone is better though, so I would like to hear your reasons.

Awards, accolades, titles, dominance, size(which does make a difference), stats, are all reason why Duncan is better than KG.
In one sentence, Tim Duncan has done more with his career in less time than KG and that is why he's a better player.
Why do you think KG is better?

If KG keeps the same pace without ever winning a title he will still be in the hall of fame. Mark Madsen could win another 5 rings the same way he has and not be a hall of famer. His career has not been more successful than KG's at all.

socco · 06-24-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IV!

Awards, accolades, titles, dominance, size(which does make a difference), stats, are all reason why Duncan is better than KG.
In one sentence, Tim Duncan has done more with his career in less time than KG and that is why he's a better player.
Why do you think KG is better?

If KG keeps the same pace without ever winning a title he will still be in the hall of fame. Mark Madsen could win another 5 rings the same way he has and not be a hall of famer. His career has not been more successful than KG's at all.

Mark Madsen has has a better career than Kg. He's accomplished the goals that every player has coming inot the league. I would much rather succeed in my goals than be a good player but not do what I set out to do. REad my first posst, I gave you the specifics why Garnett is better than Duncna. You could go into detail on your reasons. You just named vauge areas and didn't explain why Duncan is supposed to be better in those areas and why that overall makes him a better player. KG dominates just as much if not more than Duncan, they both have size, and if size is a reason why Duncan is better, than you must not be too fond of guys like AI. And the stats are so much in Kg's vavor it's not even funny. The basic ones are pretty even, but the ones that count, like the efficiency rating which is the total of all stats, crunch time rating which says how good they are when it really counts at the end of games, and the amazing disparity in the +-/ stat which is the definition of valuable are all in KG's favor as the best in hte league over every player, not just beating Duncan. I want to see some real reasons why Duncan is better. Besides him being a low-post player which isn't a reason because that just means on average big guys are better than smaller guys, or his team success which is based on having a good team around him in addition to his skills, and the MVP awards which clearly should've gone to KG this season and I can easily prove that to you if you think I haven't already. Please give me some real reasons why Duncan is a better player than KG, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

PauloCatarino · 06-24-2003, 02:44 PM

I'd like to throw a little wood into the fire:

You're discussing who's better - Duncan or KG, right?
Well, as far as i can tell, they guard eachother when the Spurs play the Wolves, don't they?
Who has the better stats in the Spurs/Wolves games?
That should enlight the argument...

el_Diablo · 06-24-2003, 04:15 PM

+/- shows us only how important garnett is to the wolves, not necessarily how good a player he is.

on the other hand, maybe KG should have been the MVP? most VALUABLE player.

socco · 06-24-2003, 06:32 PM

Of cousre he should've been MVP, lol. Someone said earlier that it can't be that hard to do that on a crappy team, which we all know the Wolves are. And also lead that crappy team in pts, reb, ast, stl, and blk this season. Yet he turned that crappy team into the 4th best team in the leaguge.

tenkev · 06-24-2003, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by q!

Mark Madsen has has a better career than Kg. He's accomplished the goals that every player has coming inot the league. I would much rather succeed in my goals than be a good player but not do what I set out to do. REad my first posst, I gave you the specifics why Garnett is better than Duncna. You could go into detail on your reasons. You just named vauge areas and didn't explain why Duncan is supposed to be better in those areas and why that overall makes him a better player. KG dominates just as much if not more than Duncan, they both have size, and if size is a reason why Duncan is better, than you must not be too fond of guys like AI. And the stats are so much in Kg's vavor it's not even funny. The basic ones are pretty even, but the ones that count, like the efficiency rating which is the total of all stats, crunch time rating which says how good they are when it really counts at the end of games, and the amazing disparity in the +-/ stat which is the definition of valuable are all in KG's favor as the best in hte league over every player, not just beating Duncan. I want to see some real reasons why Duncan is better. Besides him being a low-post player which isn't a reason because that just means on average big guys are better than smaller guys, or his team success which is based on having a good team around him in addition to his skills, and the MVP awards which clearly should've gone to KG this season and I can easily prove that to you if you think I haven't already. Please give me some real reasons why Duncan is a better player than KG, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

I already told you efficiency rating is terrible. How can you not see that just adding up the positive stats and subtracting the negative ones is bogus?

Nestle Crunch Rating is just the efficiency rating at the end of the game. Efficiency rating is crap, so Nestle Crunch is crap.

**Johnny Mac** · 06-24-2003, 08:17 PM

how many titles has mark madsen led his team to ? ZERO
how many titles has garnett led his team to ? ZERO

atleast KG leads his team though

how many titles has duncan LED his team to? TWO

thats the difference. The madsen/KG/Duncan comparison is horrible. Madsen is a roleplayer thrown into a comparison of franchise players.

socco · 06-24-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John The Cool Kid!
how many titles has mark madsen led his team to ? ZERO
how many titles has garnett led his team to ? ZERO

atleast KG leads his team though

how many titles has duncan LED his team to? TWO

thats the difference. The madsen/KG/Duncan comparison is horrible. Madsen is a roleplayer thrown into a comparison of franchise players.

He has accomplished the goals of his career. That's all I was saying. Duncan didn't LEAD his team to two title, he led them to the last one, but wasn't the main big time leader in the first one. Robinson was just as much a factor. I'm saying Madsen has had a more successful career, but that doesn't mean he's a better player.

tenkev, So stats mean absolutely nothing. T-Mac scores more points than Eduardo Najera, but the point stat is terrible, it just adds up all the time you put it in the basket. You could score 100 times but it doesn't matter if you're not helping your team out. What's wrong with adding up the positive stats and subtracting the negatives? What would you like for a stat that tries to determine how good a player is overall. There has to be one that isn't "bogus". The one I use in my fantasy league awards more points for things that are harder to do, like blocks and steals, and KG leads by even more in that one. How can you give absolutely no credit to statistics at all. There's a reason why they keep stats ya know. They don't just do it for the hell of it.

Yet again I ask this, What reasons do you guys have for Duncan being better. Rings isn't a legitimate reason, that's the reason he's had a "greater" career. Not a reason for how good someone is as I've shown in the Mark Madsen case. Being a low-post player doesn't make someone a better basketball player either. That's just ridiculous. I want to hear some real reasons why you think Duncan is better.

rocketeer · 06-24-2003, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by q!

He has accomplished the goals of his career. That's all I was saying. Duncan didn't LEAD his team to two title, he led them to the last one, but wasn't the main big time leader in the first one. Robinson was just as much a factor. I'm saying Madsen has had a more successful career, but that doesn't mean he's a better player.

madsen hasn't had close to the career garnett has had. it is not even close. madsen won titles as a bench player. he made no signifigant contribution in winning the title. all he has is a ring and nothing else. saying that his career is better than the career of a current top 5 player in the league makes no sense. with zero championships, garnett's career is still a million times better than madsen's.

Quote:

Originally posted by q!

So stats mean absolutely nothing. T-Mac scores more points than Eduardo Najera, but the point stat is terrible, it just adds up all the time you put it in the basket.

tmac is a way better player than najera. why compare them? that is almost as bad as the garnett/madsen comparison. do you know which team wins the game every single time? the team with the most points. so points is the most important stat of all. scoring and defense are the two main things.

**Johnny Mac** · 06-24-2003, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by q!

He has accomplished the goals of his career. That's all I was saying. Duncan didn't LEAD his team to two title, he led them to the last one, but wasn't the main big time leader in the first one. Robinson was just as much a factor. I'm saying Madsen has had a more successful career, but that doesn't mean he's a better player.

tenkev, So stats mean absolutely nothing. T-Mac scores more points than Eduardo Najera, but the point stat is terrible, it just adds up all the time you put it in the basket. You could score 100 times but it doesn't matter if you're not helping your team out. What's wrong with adding up the positive stats and subtracting the negatives? What would you like for a stat that tries to determine how good a player is overall. There has to be one that isn't "bogus". The one I use in my fantasy league awards more points for things that are harder to do, like blocks and steals, and KG leads by even more in that one. How can you give absolutely no credit to statistics at all. There's a reason why they keep stats ya know. They don't just do it for the hell of it.

Yet again I ask this, What reasons do you guys have for Duncan being better. Rings isn't a legitimate reason, that's the reason he's had a "greater" career. Not a reason for how good someone is as I've shown in the Mark Madsen case. Being a low-post player doesn't make someone a better basketball player either. That's just ridiculous. I want to hear some real reasons why you think Duncan is better.

Madsens and KG's expectations coming into the league were completely different, so success would be based on that. And I still dont see the comparison having any relevance, due to the leadership factor.

What reasons do you have that KG is better than Duncan? I never said KG isnt on his level, but the title of the thread is "Why KG is better than duncan"...and I proved why thats false. Duncan is a little better.

UNDERSTAND THIS: KGs efficiency rating is just above Duncans, but Duncan does it at a WAY HIGHER LEVEL because his team is way better.

EXAMPLE: if a player for a LAST PLACE team putting up the SAME numbers as a player for the FIRST PLACE team...both are without a doubt the leaders on their team. Whos better? If you say the last place teams player, your just not thinking straight.

Duncan puts up Garnett type numbers, AND wins games and titles.

Duncan is a winner, KG is not a winner yet.

I dont think you'll ever see otherwise because you think duncan is boring, or love KGs game, or something is holding you back from seeing what most unbias fans on this site realize without a doubt. Its not something that has just been accepted, its been looked deep into, and after looking deep into the facts of each players accomplishments, and seeing them play a whole lot, it only strengthens my opinion that duncan is the better player.

socco · 06-24-2003, 10:51 PM

I was one of the few people in the world as it seemed that actually enjoyed watching Tim Duncan in the playoffs. While the media was going on about how boring he was, I was loving watching him. As I said before, he's one of my top 10 favorite players. I liked your comparison of how Duncan puts up numbers like KG, they aren't quite as good as KG's, but they are closer than everybody else. The thing you guys forget though is that the Wolves were the 4th best team in the league!!!!!!!!! He put up those amazing numbers on the 4th best team in the entire NBA. We all know the Wolves suck and are crappy, so how in the hell do they become the 4th best in the whole league? That's one of the most amazing things. People always say he doesn't know how to win. He pulled this crappy team to a frachise record 50 wins! Duncan wins in the playoffs cus he has a good team around him. In the playoffs, the great teams step it up a notch. Only the great teams can do this, and the poor teams are exploited. This is what happens with the Wolves. KG somehow drags them into the playoffs, then the other team just smuthers us because they are a much better team. The Spurs don't have big-name guys and don't get much credit for having a good team. But they showed during the playoffs that they are the best team in the league. As crazy as it may sound, it doesn't matter if you have great players in the playoffs. You need a great team to win then, and the Wolves simply don't have that.
How did you prove that statement to be false? The only thing you guys have is the playoff thing, which doesn't work because you have success in the playoffs when you have a great team, not one great player dragging a bunch of nobodys around. And the only other thing you have is that KG isn't a low-post player. Even though most of his scoring comes in the post, it has to be right next to the basket, where all you need is size to get your defender off you and then put it in. It shouldn't matter where you post up, KG makes just a slight percentage less of his shots than Duncan, even though he shoots from farther out. So being a low post player doesn't make Duncan better either. But you've proved me wrong? How? I've had many points that showed how KG is better. Those 3 stats, efficiency, crunch-time, and +/- give KG a HUGE edge. Thow in the fact that he's a better leader (Duncan's a good leader, but not as much as KG) and I don't see how Duncan is better. I've seen the fact that he has 2 MVPs used too, which is stupid because that's part of my point, that KG definately deserved MVP this year over Duncan. The only reason you would have there that Duncan deserved it is that his team was a whole 10 games better and that stupid low-post argument. Can you guys please try to find a real reason why you think Duncan is better, or admit that he isn't. Look at my original post, and you'll see plenty of valid reasons favoring KG, yet you have none favoring Duncan.

**Johnny Mac** · 06-24-2003, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by q!
I was one of the few people in the world as it seemed that actually enjoyed watching Tim Duncan in the playoffs. While the media was going on about how boring he was, I was loving watching him. As I said before, he's one of my top 10 favorite players. I liked your comparison of how Duncan puts up numbers like Kg, they aren't quite as good as KG's, but they are closer than everybody else. The thing you guys forget though is that the Wolves were the 4th best team in the league!!!!!!!!! He put up those amazing numbers on the 4th best team in the entire NBA. We all know the Wolves suck and are crappy, so how in the hell to they become the 4th ebst in the whole league? That's one of the most amazing things. People always say he doesn't know how to win. He pulled this crappy team to a frachise record 50 wins! Duncan wins in the playoffs cus he has a good team around him. In the playoffs, the great teams step it up a notch. Only the great teams can do this, and teh poor teams are exploited. This is what happens with the Wolves. KG somehow drags them inot the playoffs, then the other team just smuthers us because they are a much better team. The Spurs don't have big-name guys and don't get much credit for having a good team. But they showed during the playoffs that they are the best team in the league. As crazy as it may sound, it doesn't matter if you have great players in the playoffs. You need a great team to win then, and the Wolves simply don't have that. How did you prove that statement to be false? The only thing you guys have is the playoff thing, which doesn't work because you have success in the playoffs when you have a great team, not one great player dragging a bunch of nobodys around. And the only other thing you have is that KG isn't a low-post player. Even though most of his scoring comes in the post, it has to be right next to the basket, where all you need is size to get your defender off you and then put it in. It shouldn't matter where you post up, KG makes just a slight percentage less of his shots than Duncan, even though he shoots from farther out. So being a low post player doesn't make Duncan better either. But you've proved me wrong? How? I've had many points that showed how KG is better. Those 3 stats, efficiency, crunch-time, and +/- give KG a HUGE edge. Thow in the fact that he's a better leader (Duncan's a good leader, but not as much as KG) and I don't see how Duncan is better. I've seen the fact that he has 2 MVPs used too, which is stupid because that's part of my point, that KG definately deserved MVP this year over Duncan. The only reason you would have there that Duncan deserved it is that his team was a whole 10 games better and that stupid low-post argument. Can you guys please try to find a real reason why you think Duncan is better, or admit that he isn't. Look at my original post, and you'll see plenty of valid reasons favoring KG, yet you have none favoring Duncan.

Every stat I throw at you, you find a way to justify why its wrong..."oh teams win in the playoffs, not players"

well, that game 6 in the playoffs against the lakers by duncan was more of a solo performance than anything KG has ever done at a playoff level.

DUNCAN IS THE REASON THEY ARE A TEAM. You honestly think Stephen Jackson can create his own offense????? he can barely dribble. Bruce bowen has no offense unless hes open for three, duncan opens that option up for him. Tony parker is good, but he

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes