[Minstrel]

My questions are:

1- Till this day, who do you think is the better player?

Kevin Garnett.

2- Where do you rank both players All-Time?

Garnett, arguably top-15.
Iverson, arguably top-35.

3- How do you rank AI, KG and Kobe?

Kevin Garnett
Kobe Bryant
Allen Iverson

 

[Minstrel]

I'd actually take Iverson over Garnett for the all-time list as of now. What exactly seperates Garnett from Malone or Barkley?

I don't understand the question. Both of those guys are top-15 caliber players. You act like they're mediocre or merely good players that Garnett needs to be far better than to be highly ranked in history.

Now, Garnett in his most impressive stat (rebounds) is a low 27th of all time, behind the likes of Johnny Kerr, Bill Bridges, Neil Johnston and Walter Dukes. It just doesn't seem to stack up to Iverson's scoring prowess.

Garnett's greatness is not dominance of a single statistical category, but his incredible all-around game combined with great defense and great size. Would you put Tim Duncan ahead of Iverson? Duncan doesn't dominate any statistical category like Iverson does scoring. But I think it's pretty consensus that Duncan is the greater player.

 

[Minstrel]

I've seen people rank Garnett in the top 15 of all time, which is usually down to people only following basketball for 5-10 years.

I've followed basketball since around 1985, and I place Garnett around the top-15 all-time.

More because of their dominance when it comes to the W and leading their team, which is a big deal when ranking for me. A player can put up fantastic stats, but they're useless without some success.

Personally, I don't feel it's logical to penalize players for who their teammates were. Garnett has been an amazing player...it's a shame he never had the horses around him to help him reach the ultimate team goal, but that's not his fault, as far as I can see. Any more than it would be Jordan's fault not to win any titles if he had been surrounded by the Christian Laettners and Sam Mitchells of the league.

Duncan has been fortunate to have support for his greatness in players like (declining but still very good) David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, Emmanuel Ginobili...basically, very solid and overall talented supporting casts. Garnett hasn't been so fortunate. I think that is a credit and demerit to the GMs in question, not to the players.

Why do you think nearly every player (depending on personal opinion) in the top 20 has led their team or been apart of an NBA final?

Because the greatest players have a higher chance of being on a successful team by virtue of having themselves on their team. But that's only a higher chance, not an ironclad guarantee, no matter how good the player. Bad management can successfully create supporting casts bad enough or mediocre enough that even the greatest players can't lift them to the highest team level.

Garnett is an all-round player, but so was Chris Webber who has nearly identical stats. What seperates them besides Garnett's 1 MVP?

Fabulous defense. Individual defense may be slightly less important than individual offense, but defense is still a huge component of the game. It's the difference between being Kobe Bryant and Dominique Wilkins. It's not exactly the same, since Bryant also has an edge in passing, but it's a lot of the difference.