Does Dirk with title surpass KG

[JNelson43]

Don't want to sidetrack too much and I don't particularly like linking to bleacherreport either... but here's an article that summarizes some of the more impressive Howard and Bogut stats. The author talks about Bogut being underrated because he didn't even get third place votes on 100 of 120 ballots for defensive player of the year. I agree completely, but the stats make it very hard to buy Bogut being as good as Howard defensively. He may do a thing or two better, but saying that he's as good overall is a stretch.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/670447-dwight-howard-and-andrew-bogut-a-tale-of-two-2011-all-nba-defensive-centers

One last thing, sometimes being able to stay healthy is underrated. You can't have an impact when you can't stay healthy (obviously this isn't always a player's fault, but somebody who plays every single game is taking care of himself). Howard has never missed more than 4 games in a season... talk about Dirk, he's generally been healthy as well until his problem this year.

[richboy]

I watch Joe play almost every game. You give him a superstar to play with, he's elite. He's not a #1 option but he is an elite #2. Joe gets too much hate when he's basically Pau Gasol level without a superstar.

I don't get this. Your saying he is elite if he plays with a better offensive player. When are number 2 options elite offensive players. In my book elite means at the top of the league.Not kind of good.

I'll quantify what I mean when I say can't be the number 1 option on a title team. Anybody can be a number 1 option on a title team if that team was like the Detroit Pistons. With multiple very good offensive players. Playing at an amazing level of defense. If KG played on Detroit he would have won the title and been the number 1 option. Dang if Joe Johnson played on the Pistons he would have been the best offensive player on a championship team.

I'm thinking more of how conventional teams are built. Your best player and then you have your second best player. IMO you can tell me just about any 2 players in the league and say if they are championship material if surrounded by average talent. In my book I'm more if I have KG and a conventional number 2. . Is that a championship team. For example is Joe Johnson and prime KG a NBA championship core. I'll say good team and better than what he played with in terms of Wally Z. Not a championship core in my book. Not unless you can make them an amazingly great defense. Now make it Joe Johnson and Shaq. I'll say good enough to win at least 1 title. Joe Johnson and Lebron James. Again I'll say good enough.

Now instead of Joe Johnson lets say its Carmelo Anthony. In my opinion Melo can be the best offensive player on a championship team. You need to surround him with amazing defenders. I don't think he is a better player than KG. Melo and KG together is a legit championship core. If your wondering IMO Melo and Amare are not a championship core. The need a dominate defensive impact player next to them.

I think KG can win a title as the best player. I just don't think KG can win a title as the clear cut best offensive player on the team. Not unless that team was completely stacked.

[NO-KG-AI]

KG won a title. Dirk lost a title as a favorite, up 2 games to 0 with a huge lead at the end of game 3. Dirk lost in the first round to the WARRIORS when his team won 67 games. There is nothing KG can do for the rest of his basketball career that can ever be as bad as those two things.

Dirk might have grown some balls a few years too late.

Come on, if you want to talk about failing in the first round look no further than KG's career playoff history when he was the #1 option on his team.

He couldn't get the job done.

Getting beat by LA with Troy Hudson isn't quite the same as losing to the Warriors when your team won 67 games

If KG is going to be held for first round losses to better teams, then Dirk can never get over the fact that he led the two biggest choke jobs any of us has seen in basketball.

[colts18]

KG won a title. Dirk lost a title as a favorite, up 2 games to 0 with a huge lead at the end of game 3. Dirk lost in the first round to the WARRIORS when his team won 67 games. There is nothing KG can do for the rest of his basketball career that can ever be as bad as those two things.

Dirk might have grown some balls a few years too late.

Come on, if you want to talk about failing in the first round look no further than KG's career playoff history when he was the #1 option on his team.

He couldn't get the job done.

Getting beat by LA with Troy Hudson isn't quite the same as losing to the Warriors when your team won 67 games

If KG is going to be held for first round losses to better teams, then Dirk can never get over the fact that he led the two biggest choke jobs any of us has seen in basketball.

I would rather take carrying a team to 67 wins and a 1st round loss than carrying a team to consistent 45-50 win seasons and getting out of the 1st round just 1 time.

[ElGee]

I find the whole premise of this thread ridiculously flawed.

Dirk Nowitzki has played 97 games this year. Over 1000 games in his career. And people want to (radically?) shift their view of him as a basketball player based on the next 4-7 games. That's less than 5% of the basketball he will play THIS YEAR, let alone his entire career.

In other words, how can you not be 99.9% locked in of your opinion of Dirk as a player and how he impacts the game? Think about how arbitrarily unstable it is to swing the opinion of a player so much, one way or another, by a single game or 4.

KG wasn't some loser in Minnesota with magic winning elixir in Boston. Dirk is the same Dirk today as he will be in 2 weeks (so is LeBron). What do you think goes on in a basketball game that Dirk can/will be different in 2 weeks?

[mopper8]

I find the whole premise of this thread ridiculously flawed.

Dirk Nowitzki has played 97 games this year. Over 1000 games in his career. And people want to (radically?) shift their view of him as a basketball player based on the next 4-7 games. That's less than 5% of the basketball he will play THIS YEAR, let alone his entire career.

In other words, how can you not be 99.9% locked in of your opinion of Dirk as a player and how he impacts the game? Think about how arbitrarily unstable it is to swing the opinion of a player so much, one way or another, by a single game or 4.

KG wasn't some loser in Minnesota with magic winning elixir in Boston. Dirk is the same Dirk today as he will be in 2 weeks (so is LeBron). What do you think goes on in a basketball game that Dirk can/will be different in 2 weeks?

What makes this especially true is that Dirk's opponent is good enough IMO that Dirk could actually have a phenomenal series and still lose. They're not a team that 1 guy is going to beat. And then what? Dirk isn't great?

[richboy]

KG won a title. Dirk lost a title as a favorite, up 2 games to 0 with a huge lead at the end of game 3. Dirk lost in the first round to the WARRIORS when his team won 67 games. There is nothing KG can do for the rest of his basketball career that can ever be as bad as those two things.

Dirk might have grown some balls a few years too late.

Come on, if you want to talk about failing in the first round look no further than KG's career playoff history when he was the #1 option on his team.

He couldn't get the job done.

Getting beat by LA with Troy Hudson isn't quite the same as losing to the Warriors when your team won 67 games

If KG is going to be held for first round losses to better teams, then Dirk can never get over the fact that he led the two biggest choke jobs any of us has seen in basketball.

Isn't part of the reason those teams are considered better teams because KG isn't good enough to raise them above those teams.

That is the history of some of the greatest players ever. Its not like Minnesota was playing an all-time team every year. They played some teams more talented than them. I hear though they had the most dominate big man defensively of his generation. Apparently a dominate offensive player. Why never raise above those teams.

There a strong feeling that hey if I put Shaq on those teams they probably win 1 series. I put Lebron on those teams he get at least 1 series win. Remembering Lebron James went to the finals with DAniel Gibson and Larry Hughes. Its tough to convince that not only is he not getting out of the first round. These series really aren't even competitive.

[etopn23]

KG won a title. Dirk lost a title as a favorite, up 2 games to 0 with a huge lead at the end of game 3. Dirk lost in the first round to the WARRIORS when his team won 67 games. There is nothing KG can do for the rest of his basketball career that can ever be as bad as those two things.

Dirk might have grown some balls a few years too late.

Dirk beat the Spurs to get to the finals - that series alone Dirk was more impressive than anything I've ever seen from KG. I like how people conveniently forget how a young Dirk completely torched Garnett.

The collapse against the Warriors wasn't a surprise. The Warriors rolled the Mavs that season - they'd picked up Don Nelson and gave him the perfect team to beat Dallas.

KG had literally no success before jumping ship to Boston - something Dirk (despite whatever he might say) would never even consider. Dirk toughing it out and winning a championship as the bonafide #1 option would tip the scales in his favor IMO.

You can point to KGs passing or defense, but in reality Dirks dominance offensively made him just as valuable as Garnett. The success he's had throughout his career is indicative of that.

[Kumar]

Regardless of anything that anyone posts in this thread furthermore, NBA experts, analysts, and players, even, would have Garnett over Dirk.

Case closed.

Someone lock this thread before shots are fired.

[colts18]

KG seems like one of those stat stuffer and statistical outliers. You see all these impressive stats, but they never led to a huge impact on the team like they did with other guys with impressive stats like MJ, LeBron, Hakeem. I put him more in the David Robinson category, than Duncan level. Robinson is a statistical horse, yet his impact was never as felt as the stats said they were.

[NO-KG-AI]

David Robinson was much better than Dirk.

[drza]

One thing that I've learned in this thread was that Garnett actually retired in 2007. He must have, or else the entire line of "he never got out of the first round" arguments makes zero sense.

Garnett has played in two NBA Finals, a Western Conference Final, a second round, and seven first rounds

After this season Dirk will have played in two NBA Finals, a Western Conference Final, four second rounds, and four first rounds.

For the majority of their careers Dirk has played with more talent than KG.

This thread is on the verge of jumping the shark. There's very little actual information being exchanged now. It's been reduced to folks repeating themselves and obviously not addressing/accepting points from the other side. Any information that doesn't fit into a preconceived bias is either ignored or turned into snark. I'd love to continue a debate if someone would bring something new to the table, but right now this has gotten pretty stale.

[richboy]

One thing that I've learned in this thread was that Garnett actually retired in 2007. He must have, or else the entire line of "he never got out of the first round" arguments makes zero sense.

Garnett has played in two NBA Finals, a Western Conference Final, a second round, and seven first rounds

After this season Dirk will have played in two NBA Finals, a Western Conference Final, four second rounds, and four first rounds.

For the majority of their careers Dirk has played with more talent than KG.

This thread is on the verge of jumping the shark. There's very little actual information being exchanged now. It's been reduced to folks repeating themselves and obviously not addressing/accepting points from the other side. Any information that doesn't fit into a preconceived bias is either ignored or turned into snark. I'd love to continue a debate if someone would bring something new to the table, but right now this has gotten pretty stale.

KG went to a team stacked full of all-stars and future HOFers.

Dirk Dallas teams are most comparable to his teams in Minnesota. Were they more talented yes. At the same time it wasn't like most of those teams were stacked. The last real all-star Dirk played with was Nash and he wasn't a consistent all-star back then.

The amount of success that Dirk has had is impressive when considering he truly hasn't had a "sidekick". You can make a strong case that the Dallas teams are really not much different than the Cleveland Lebron teams.

[richboy]

KG won a title. Dirk lost a title as a favorite, up 2 games to 0 with a huge lead at the end of game 3. Dirk lost in the first round to the WARRIORS when his team won 67 games. There is nothing KG can do for the rest of his basketball career that can ever be as bad as those two things.

Dirk might have grown some balls a few years too late.

Dirk beat the Spurs to get to the finals - that series alone Dirk was more impressive than anything I've ever seen from KG. I like how people conveniently forget how a young Dirk completely torched Garnett.

The collapse against the Warriors wasn't a surprise. The Warriors rolled the Mavs that season - they'd picked up Don Nelson and gave him the perfect team to beat Dallas.

KG had literally no success before jumping ship to Boston - something Dirk (despite whatever he might say) would never even consider. Dirk toughing it out and winning a championship as the bonafide #1 option would tip the scales in his favor IMO.

You can point to KGs passing or defense, but in reality Dirks dominance offensively made him just as valuable as Garnett. The success he's had throughout his career is indicative of that.

Yeah its interesting. I've mentioned about 5 times that Dirk and KG met in the playoffs. KG got over 20 a game from Billups and Wally Z. KG gets swept while being dominated by Dirk.

Game 1 Dirk 30 and 15 10/19 from the field Garnett 19 points 21 rebounds 6/18 from the field.
Game 2 Dirk 31 and 16 9/21 from the field Garnett 31 points 18 rebounds 9/19 from the field
Game 3 Dirk 39 and 17 11/17 from the field Garnett 22 points 17 rebounds 9/19 from the field

If KG had put his so called dominance over Dirk in that series they would have won it easily. The reality is the difference in the series is Dirk won the PF spot and did it pretty easy.

[drza]

KG went to a team stacked full of all-stars and future HOFers.

Dirk Dallas teams are most comparable to his teams in Minnesota. Were they more talented yes. At the same time it wasn't like most of those teams were stacked. The last real all-star Dirk played with was Nash and he wasn't a consistent all-star back then.

The amount of success that Dirk has had is impressive when considering he truly hasn't had a "sidekick". You can make a strong case that the Dallas teams are really not much different than the Cleveland Lebron teams.

*Supporting cast: When Garnett played with no supporting cast at all, his individual achievements shouldn't mean that much because he wasn't winning as much as contemporaries who had more stacked line-ups. But when he does get a better cast and wins, we shouldn't count it as much because he was no longer playing with trash. Interesting double-bind you've built.

*Supporting cast 2: the legend of Paul Pierce and Ray Allen has reached epic proportions. Because the "don't count KG's career post-2007" line of logic suggests that the '08 Celtics had the greatest supporting cast EVER. Better than any cast that Magic, Bird, Russell, Michael, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, or anyone else ever played with. It must be, because none of THEIR titles are ignored because their cast had talent.

*Supporting cast 3: At the start of the 2007 season the Celtics were not "full of All Stars and Hall of Famers". Rondo was essentially a rookie and Perkins was well established as a roll player. Pierce and Allen were both borderline HoF candidates, at best. Or, put another way, both of their resumes came up light next to Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady in the summer of '07, and no one is proclaiming Carter or TMac definite HoFs. So let's not pretend that the "Big 3" era in Boston wasn't the tipping point that likely get Pierce and Allen in. There's a reason why before the 2007-08 season began, exactly ZERO out of the 18 ESPN NBA writers predicted a Celtics title. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview20 ... -NBAChamps . All of this talk that Garnett joined a fore-gone conclusion champion team in Boston is EXTREME re-writing of history.

*Dirk's Dallas casts aren't more comparable to Minnesota than Boston, because the overall talent level in Dallas has been consistently high since he got there. Garnett's Minnesota casts weren't just bad because of the lack of All Star sidekicks...they were bad because of lack of talent from top-to-bottom. People (me included) like to pile on Mchale for those lacks, but the truth is that starting in 1998 the Wolves hit a historic run of bad luck that robbed them of the ability to get reasonable NBA-caliber talent in addition to the awful management. Starting with the lockout (and associated contract strictures of the new CBA) in '99, then Marbury forcing a trade the same year, then the Joe Smith situation a year later that cost them a slew of #1 draft picks, then starting shooting guard Malik Sealy dying a year later, to Terrell Brandon's career ender a year later, to Mchale not recognizing that Brandon was done and letting young Chauncey walk that same year, to Mchale whiffing on their only #1 pick in half a decade with a high school bust, to Eddie Griffin giving into alcoholism and killing himself...

That sequence of events over consecutive years precluded the Wolves from normal team-building during the most important years of KG's career. Instead of having starter-caliber talent as a given, then trying to find the missing piece to put them over the top, the Wolves supporting cast went backward. From nice potential with a young Marbury in '98 to "reasonable" with Brandon/Wally in 2000 to "poor" with Wally and Hudson in 2003 to "putrid" with Davis and Blount in 2006. The problem is, KG's career arc was the reverse. When Marbury was there, he was a kid himself. He started finding his level with the Brandon/Wally teams, but faced elite teams during that period. Then, by the time he peaked in '03, several years of "just find some random FA to plug holes" philosophy from the front office had surrounded KG with not only no side-kicks, but also a bunch of non-rotation level players that had to get starts. Troy Hudson, Anthony Peeler, Kendal Gill, Reggie Slater, Dean Garrett, Gary Trent, Loren Woods, Trenton Hassell, Ervin Johnson, Marcus Banks, Rashad McCants...these are guys that would struggle to make the rotation on most playoff teams, but were forced into starting on those Wolves teams.

The Mavs may not always be dripping in All Stars, but since Cuban has been there they are always 8 - 10 deep with quality players. When Nash and Finley were there as wing-men, they also had guys like Nick Van Exel and Raef LaFrentz, or Antoine Walker and Antawn Jamison as tertiary options with attending players on the bench. When Howard and Terry were the secondary players, they also had guys like Harris/Stackhouse as tertiary options with defensive role player centers and attending deep benches. And now, with Terry and Kidd as the secondary players you still have guys like Marion and Barea as tertiary options with strong defensive centers like Chandler and Haywood offering additional support.

So no, the support on Dirk's Mavs aren't comparable to KG's Wolves. They're more comparable to the post-Robinson supports the Spurs put around Duncan or the supporting cast of the mid-2000s Pistons around whoever you consider to be the best player. Dirk is the lynchpin and by-far the most important player on these Mavs, no-doubt. But he's not out there by himself. And unfortunately, much too often in Minnesota, KG was.

[stevenspartan23]

Dirk is a great player offensively and is more of an unguardable force but really doesnt play defence or rebound like KG does. but Dirty Dirk And KG have two different game styles. Dirk at the end of the day puts a dagger in KG's heart and i dont see him winning it this year but if he does he easily passes KG because he has just as many accomplishments under his belt as KG minus defensive all team awards. dirk nowitzki passes kevin garnett regardless of how this series goes.

[drza]

Yeah its interesting. I've mentioned about 5 times that Dirk and KG met in the playoffs. KG got over 20 a game from Billups and Wally Z. KG gets swept while being dominated by Dirk.

Game 1 Dirk 30 and 15 10/19 from the field Garnett 19 points 21 rebounds 6/18 from the field.
Game 2 Dirk 31 and 16 9/21 from the field Garnett 31 points 18 rebounds 9/19 from the field
Game 3 Dirk 39 and 17 11/17 from the field Garnett 22 points 17 rebounds 9/19 from the field

If KG had put his so called dominance over Dirk in that series they would have won it easily. The reality is the difference in the series is Dirk won the PF spot and did it pretty easy.

This also isn't true, though it is an understandable line of thought for someone that didn't pay a huge amount of attention to the series and is instead relying more on the box scores. I've had this particular debate several times, most often with mysticbb, comparing memories and stats and even going back and re-watching the series where possible. And while mysticbb, who is as strong of a Dirk supporter as there is, maintains that Dirk played excellent (and he did) there's just no way that anyone can really go back and re-watch that series and not recognize that KG was just outgunned by a much stronger Mavs line-up. Dirk got his, no doubt, but he got his as a part of a well-oiled machine that was creating mismatches all over the court. On the other side, Wally and Chauncey got their's as a result of a Mavs defense that focused more on Garnett and was willing to take their chances out-gunning whatever Wally and Chauncey could give. Don't believe me? I invite you to re-watch the series yourself. Below I'll write my analysis of what I saw, followed by a link to the only you-tube I can find for any of the games (game 2) that underscores my points.

*Dallas offense. The primary unit that the Mavs ran in that playoffs was Dirk, Nash, Finley, Van Exel and Raef LaFrentz. They ran essentially a spread offense, with all five players often lined up near or outside the 3-point line.

*Minnesota defense. The Wolves squad that year started KG, Wally, Billups (substitute for injured Brandon), Anthony Peeler and Rasho. They had 2 main defensive sets that year: man-to-man, and a 3-2 zone they had broken out that year due to the rule changes that took advantage of KG as a mantis/rover at the top-of-the-key.

*The match-up. The problem for the Wolves was, neither of their 2 defenses had a chance of stopping that Mavs team due to personnel. Billups had NO shot of staying with Nash off the dribble, Peeler had NO shot of staying with Van Exel off the dribble, and Wally was embarassing trying to stay with Finely off the bounce. And Rasho could not follow Raef to the 3-point line. Again, I invite anyone that doubts me to go back and watch the tape. If left 1-on-1, literally all-4 of the other Mavs had mismatches that led to extremely easy buckets on a regular basis. Thus, the Wolves' only chance of stopping a lay-up drill for the other team was for KG to help out on everyone. Which left Dirk often either shooting over much shorter players on a (late) rotation, or else just open.

*Dirk, by the numbers. Dirk was on fire that series. I take absolutely nothing away from him, as he played great. But even if you don't have the tapes, you can look into his numbers from that series and tell that he not the one breaking down the defense. More than half of Dirk's buckets were assisted, off of a teammate's set-up. It also shows up in Dirk's assists (or lack there-of), as he only had two assists total spread over 3 games (none in 2 of the games). Now, let me be clear: this was a great thing for Dirk and the Mavs. Why should someone pass who is scorching like that? But my point was just that Dirk was the finisher in that series, playing off of his other teammates breaking down the defense, and not the initiator. And the fact that 19 of his shots were assisted while he only had 2 assists of his own somewhat helps to illustrate that.

*The film. Most of that analysis comes from my memory, and obviously I could be biased on what I remember. Put it out there. Also, I don't want to make it out like Dirk NEVER scored on KG, because obviously he did. But my point is that it wasn't a 1-on-1 matchup. It wasn't Hakeem vs Robinson, where Hakeem was given the ball and went to work directly on Robinson, going through him for most of his points. No, in this case, KG was trying to help out on the entire Mavs team and Dirk was great enough to take advantage of the open shots/mismatches that his team created.

Anyway, I searched and searched on You-Tube to find film of those games to prove that I wasn't just crazy. The only footage I've found has been from game 2, in which Dirk ends up with 31 points. 20 of the points are shown in the 6-plus minute clip. Of those 20 points, only 4 of them came 1-on-1 against KG. The other 16 were in times when KG was either helping on others, playing at the top of the zone, or just in the fast break. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVmo1L83Vcc . This ratio of Dirk's points on KG vs his points overall matches with what my own memories of the series told me about how often Dirk was scoring on KG vs how often he was getting open shots because of the potency of his team.

Which again, is my point. If you didn't watch (or don't especially remember) the series, a brief perusal of the numbers would suggest that Dirk was just dominating a 1-on-1 matchup. But what actually happened was that, as was often the case in Minnesota, KG was spread too thin. He wasn't playing Dirk 1-on-1, he was playing the Mavs' offense 1-on-5. And the 5 won, with Dirk playing beautifully. Much respect. But it wasn't a case where Dirk won the matchup and thus swung the series. The reality was much more involved than that.

[mysticbb]

drza, the thing I'm missing in your post is the acknowledgment of two specific facts: First, Nowitzki scored on Garnett from midrange and by driving by him effectively, that happened in game 1 and game 3 also (especially in game 3 more often, were it also resulted in a couple of fouls for Garnett and free throws for Nowitzki). Second, and the point which might be more important, you can't run such an offense with every player as your PF, the only player is Dirk Nowitzki. The important thing for such an offense is spacing and movement, and both things require skills from the players. Now, tell me how many players in the history of the game had the range of Nowitzki, the accuracy like him and the height? And that is the difference here, the key to the impact of Dirk Nowitzki even at that time already.

You are not the only one constantly ignoring one very important aspect of a very efficient halfcourt offense. Every coach will tell you that proper spacing is the key to a good offense. And what kind of player can give you better spacing than a mobile 7ft player who can shoot the 3 with nearly 40%? And that's what happened in that Minnesota series back in 2002. The Mavericks were able to beat the Timberwolves by using an incredible offensive system which only worked best when Nowitzki was on the floor.

People can talk about individual defense as much as they like, but at the end of the day we are talking about a 5 on 5 game here. Switch Nowitzki and Garnett in 2002 and the offense of the Timberwolves becomes better, just by the fact that the spacing becomes better. Nowitzki going out to the perimeter and taking his defender with him will open up lanes for penetration much more than Garnett handling the ball in the midrange area. Yes, Garnett has the better passing game, but spacing is in the end a more important key. That's why the Mavericks can have a 141 ORtg in over 100 minutes playing time with a lineup Barea-Terry-Stojakovic-Nowitzki-Haywood in this years playoffs. Barea has so much space to penetrate, because Terry, Stojakovic and Nowitzki are forcing their defender to stay on the perimeter. And once the ball moves, they are quick and good enough passer to find the open man on the perimeter. That's how it works, and it works best with Dirk Nowitzki in the game.

Anyway, that all doesn't change my mind. Peak Garnett was better than Nowitzki, Nowitzki was overall more consistent over the last 12 years, Nowitzki doesn't need the title to surpass Garnett, but needs at least two more of such season like this one to take Garnett via consistency and longevity.

[drza]

drza, the thing I'm missing in your post is the acknowledgment of two specific facts: First, Nowitzki scored on Garnett from midrange and by driving by him effectively, that happened in game 1 and game 3 also (especially in game 3 more often, were it also resulted in a couple of fouls for Garnett and free throws for Nowitzki). Second, and the point which might be more important, you can't run such an offense with every player as your PF, the only player is Dirk Nowitzki. The important thing for such an offense is spacing and movement, and both things require skills from the players. Now, tell me how many players in the history of the game had the range of Nowitzki, the accuracy like him and the height? And that is the difference here, the key to the impact of Dirk Nowitzki even at that time already.

Welcome back, the thread has missed you.

Re: your 2 specific facts. First, you have to look at the specifics of how the 2002 playoff series is being portrayed in this thread. I have no problem acknowledging that Dirk was outstanding in that series (I think I did, in fact, several times in my last post). I also have no problem giving Nowitzki props as one of the most unique offensive talents in NBA history, nor as one of the best players. I've said multiple times before, at times when it was much less popular and long before this current playoff run, that to me Dirk is the Barkley of this generation (both in terms of player quality, and ranking with respect to his peers). So yes, Dirk brings a lot to the table that helps his team in ways unique to him. And there are very few players that could have replaced him and got similar results. And on that series specifically, as I said, I don't doubt that Dirk was also getting some of his points on KG. My point in that rebuttal post was, again, that this wasn't Hakeem vs Robinson. Firstly, because KG actually produced with Dirk on the whole (KG's 13-assist advantage bridged the 28 more points that Dirk scored, and KG's rebounding advantage helped the Wolves win the team rebounding battle), and secondly because Garnett was in no way guarding Nowitzki 1-on-1 for most of that series. And to portray it as otherwise gives an impression that isn't true.

You are not the only one constantly ignoring one very important aspect of a very efficient halfcourt offense. Every coach will tell you that proper spacing is the key to a good offense. And what kind of player can give you better spacing than a mobile 7ft player who can shoot the 3 with nearly 40%? And that's what happened in that Minnesota series back in 2002. The Mavericks were able to beat the Timberwolves by using an incredible offensive system which only worked best when Nowitzki was on the floor.

People can talk about individual defense as much as they like, but at the end of the day we are talking about a 5 on 5 game here. Switch Nowitzki and Garnett in 2002 and the offense of the Timberwolves becomes better, just by the fact that the spacing becomes better. Nowitzki going out to the perimeter and taking his defender with him will open up lanes for penetration much more than Garnett handling the ball in the midrange area. Yes, Garnett has the better passing game, but spacing is in the end a more important key. That's why the Mavericks can have a 141 ORtg in over 100 minutes playing time with a lineup Barea-Terry-Stojakovic-Nowitzki-Haywood in this years playoffs. Barea has so much space to penetrate, because Terry, Stojakovic and Nowitzki are forcing their defender to stay on the perimeter. And once the ball moves, they are quick and good enough passer to find the open man on the perimeter. That's how it works, and it works best with Dirk Nowitzki in the game.

Again, you have to look at who I'm debating against and the terms of that debate. Again, I have no problem acknowledging Dirk's strengths and how they impact the game. You know, as well as anyone, how much I like to examine the non-boxscore aspects of the game (like the impact of spacing on an offense, or of non-blocked shot help defense on a team defense), and that as evidence of these "felt-not-seen" aspects of the game I rely on advanced stats (often APM) to support my case. But in this thread, the majority of those I'm debating with are (for want of a better way to say it) constantly dumbing down the debate. The debate is constantly moved away from nuanced analysis and into just heavy-handed team-based stuff. APM results have been dismissed out of hand or outright ignored, and even using other means of support are also swept under for the sake of repeated (and tired) talking points.

As such, this whole thread has gone downhill. Instead of having this type of talk with you (which I much prefer, because it lets us get at actual aspects of how good a player is and why they effect the game like they do) we're forced to cover and re-cover ground that isn't nearly as interesting. So yeah, I'd love to debate Dirk's spacing impact on offense vs KG's offensive hub role on offense for Minnesota. I think that'd be a good sub-debate, and both of us could get something from it. Instead, you weren't posting much and I have Richboy and colts18 hinting that Dirk was having similar defensive impacts to Garnett (after all the Mavs team defenses had similar ratings to the Wolves despite "similar" support) or that we should ignore the last 4 years of Garnett's career because he no longer plays with awful teammates. Much, much less likely to have a productive exchange of info.

Anyway, that all doesn't change my mind. Peak Garnett was better than Nowitzki, Nowitzki was overall more consistent over the last 12 years, Nowitzki doesn't need the title to surpass Garnett, but needs at least two more of such season like this one to take Garnett via consistency and longevity.

Yes, I know exactly where you stand. And I'm sure you also know where I stand, but for posterity (as you and I laid out in a previous thread):

1-year peak was Garnett by a lot
3-year peak was Garnett by a lot
6-year peak was Garnett by a solid margin
9-year peak was Garnett slightly

The consistency and longevity arguments are a bit shaky, because much of the difference in Garnett's higher standard deviation was due to his much higher peak and his injury-year (according to Winston's numbers). From those numbers, if you lop off KG's 2002 - 2004 mega-peak and his 2010 injured year (and Dirk's 2 highest and 1 lowest) then they were essentially even outside of that for the 11 years from 2000 - 2010. I don't have Winston's 2011 numbers handy, but from Basketball-Value KG was still right there with Dirk again this year. KG's got plenty of longevity, plenty of consistency, and his main "inconsistency" was a huge peak that Dirk didn't match and a fluke 1-season of injury. So to me, I don't see a title from Dirk or another couple of years swinging it in his direction.

[GilmoreFan]

I don't agree with the premise of the thread (that Nowitzki is better than KG), but at the same time the pro-Dirk side makes alot of reasonable arguments. Half the reason I joined was to point that out in fact, as it's infuriating to not see answers to alot of the questions people have posed. What about the years KG had quite decent players on his team, and didn't get much of anywhere? Why are the all-stars and borderline all-stars on his team being ignored so that KG fans can focus only on the really bad years for the Wolves (like 2007 or 2003) instead of the many years when the Wolves team was not bad at all. Do those just not count for convenience?