Garnett VS Nowitzki-Year By Year Since 2001

[MisterWestside]

It's okay WhateverBro. Apparently none of those other facts are relevant. I'm sure Dirk would've loved to play with those whiners and two different head coaches in 2011 instead of the support he had.

I never said that I use them as some sort of "substitute". Read carefully.

Oh I am. I'm reading the posts of someone who just puts up the on-off/+/-numbers (as if they're the only valid numbers that are available to use!) and accepts them as gospel. Yes, on-off/RAPM tells you everything about the game! Everything!

Do as you please, mystic.

[ahonui06]

Nothing wrong with different people having different criteria to value players.

It is weird, because you were rather quick attributing losses of the Mavericks to everyone else except of Nowitzki (coaches, Terry, Kidd, etc. pp). Why don't you give Garnett the same benefit of doubt? Do you think Nowitzki with a bunch of even worse players around him would have achieved anything? You know that the success of a team is depending on the overall team performance, that includes the performance level of the teammates as well.

I attribute some of the postseason losses to DIRK. DIRK should take the majority of the blame for the 2007 Warriors series for example.

What benefit of the doubt does KG deserve? He had a mediocre to average supporting cast like DIRK during the mid-2000s. The only difference was KG missed the playoffs 3 years in a row during his prime. He just doesn't have the offensive skillset DIRK has to lead a team with limited offensive weapons. Some of the fault may be the front office for not surrounding him with better complementary pieces, but the fact of the matter is that DIRK just got better results on an annual basis since 2001.

[drza]

Nothing wrong with different people having different criteria to value players.

It is weird, because you were rather quick attributing losses of the Mavericks to everyone else except of Nowitzki (coaches, Terry, Kidd, etc. pp). Why don't you give Garnett the same benefit of doubt? Do you think Nowitzki with a bunch of even worse players around him would have achieved anything? You know that the success of a team is depending on the overall team performance, that includes the performance level of the teammates as well.

I attribute some of the postseason losses to DIRK. DIRK should take the majority of the blame for the 2007 Warriors series for example.

What benefit of the doubt does KG deserve? He had a mediocre to average supporting cast like DIRK during the mid-2000s. The only difference was KG missed the playoffs 3 years in a row during his prime. He just doesn't have the offensive skillset DIRK has to lead a team with limited offensive weapons. Some of the fault may be the front office for not surrounding him with better complementary pieces, but the fact of the matter is that DIRK just got better results on an annual basis since 2001.

This is the crux of the matter. Dirk has never remotely played under the conditions of the last couple of Wolves teams. Dirk was never even in a situation like the 2003 Wolves, but the 2006 or 2007 Wolves were just on another level. A few things to note about those teams:

1) The overall talent level was really bad

2) The fit-ability of those teams was really bad. There were no overlapping skill sets among the supporting cast, there was no stylistic synergy, and there was bad attitudes on top of that.

3) The coaching on those teams was horrid. Casey was in his first head coaching chance, and it blatantly showed. And then he got replaced with Randy Wittman who is still, by winning percentage, one of the worst coaches that has ever lived.

4) The team vibe was AWFUL on those teams. Because of the Cassell/Jaric trade, the '06 and '07 Wolves actually had huge incentive not to be mediocre. They owed the Clippers a pick that was only top-10 protected, so if they finished better than the 10th worst team in the league they would lose their much coveted 1st round draft pick (and this is after having already lost a bunch of those in the Joe Smith debacle).

5) Let's follow up on (4), here, that the Wolves front office actually had an incentive to lose. And let's compound that by looking at the time course of both of those seasons:

In both '06 and '07 the Wolves were playing about .500 ball through the first half of the season. Then, the team makes a huge overhaul move (in '06 they traded Wally and Kandi for Davis and Blount, and in '07 they fired Casey to bring in Wittman). In both instances the overhaul move results in a steep fall-off that results in them falling off the playoffs pace by a handfull of games. Then, instead of buckling down to get back into it, the team starts experimenting with starting even younger, less ready point guards (Marcus Banks in late '06, Randy Foye in late '07). Finally, with the playoffs assuredly missed but the team still playing a bit too well to secure the draft pick, in both seasons the Wolves sat KG with about 5 or 6 games left just to make sure they didn't accidentally win too much.

:Shrugs: I really don't expect to convince you or TC of anything at this point. That is what it is. But to try to paint KG's situation in Minnesota as anything remotely similar to Dirk in Dallas is just grossly misguided. They weren't even in the same stratosphere of bad-ness.

[HilltopperJay]

The following point was addressed by one of the more vocal Dirk advocates in the Lebron/Duncan thread:

This sums up the entire thread when comparing two elite superstars:

4 > 1

I'm fairly certain that 1=1. Would this not mean KG & Dirk are equal? I am by no means saying this a valid means for comparing players (it obviously is not for many reasons), I just think some consistency in evaluation would be nice.

You cannot compare Dirk & KG on the merits of "winning". They were not in the same situations or surrounded with the same level of talent for the entirety of their careers.

[WhateverBro]

I attribute some of the postseason losses to DIRK. DIRK should take the majority of the blame for the 2007 Warriors series for example.

What benefit of the doubt does KG deserve? He had a mediocre to average supporting cast like DIRK during the mid-2000s. The only difference was KG missed the playoffs 3 years in a row during his prime. He just doesn't have the offensive skillset DIRK has to lead a team with limited offensive weapons. Some of the fault may be the front office for not surrounding him with better complementary pieces, but the fact of the matter is that DIRK just got better results on an annual basis since 2001.

In reply to the bolded. And after those three years and he was traded and won the the title as the best player while leading one of the most dominant teams in the history of the NBA. What does this tell you?

[ahonui06]

The following point was addressed by one of the more vocal Dirk advocates in the Lebron/Duncan thread:

This sums up the entire thread when comparing two elite superstars:

4 > 1

I'm fairly certain that 1=1. Would this not mean KG & Dirk are equal? I am by no means saying this a valid means for comparing players (it obviously is not for many reasons), I just think some consistency in evaluation would be nice.

You cannot compare Dirk & KG on the merits of "winning". They were not in the same situations or surrounded with the same level of talent for the entirety of their careers.

You're right. 1 = 1. So since they both have a title it's why we are having the debate between these two.

[Texas Chuck]

drza,

you dont have to convince me KG was in a far worse situation. I have conceded that point from the very beginning.