Does Dirk with title surpass KG

[drza]

Nicely done.

I'd only add that Dirk is just now in his offensive peak, so a 2004-2009 metric is misleading. In fact, i'd say his offensive peak is from 2009-now.

If the #'s say the same using that information, then you have more ground to stand on, though still not an airtight argument.

Well, Engelmann has a 5-year APM calculation from 2007 to now. I don't know how the absolute magnitude of the numbers match up between Engelmann's and Ilardi's calculation styles, though I will note that several players look pretty similar on offense (Nash +8.8 in Ilardi/ +8.9 in Engelmann; LeBron +8.0 / +6.8; Kobe +7.6 / +7.3; Wade +7.0 / +7.6).

Anyway, in Engelmann's 2007 - present APM he has Dirk with an offensive APM of +5.0 and a +7.9 overall, while KG's offensive APM is +2.9 with a +7.8 overall (Overall, Dirk and KG are 4th and 5th in the league over that stretch behind LeBron, Nash and Wade).

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking

Now, we know that KG has taken on a lesser offensive role for the Celtics than he did for the Wolves (plus he's further from his peak) so his drop in offensive APM makes sense. And again, we don't know exactly how the numbers from the two studies match up but, like the other leaders, Dirk's offensive APM between the two systems is almost identical (+4.7 in Ilardi's, +5.0 in Engelmann's).

[mysticbb]

According to Ilardi's 2004 - 2009 APM calculation (just catching the peaks of both players, with more of Dirk's offensive prime included than KG's), the top offensive players in the NBA over that stretch were: Steve Nash (+8.8), LeBron James (+8.0), Kobe Bryant (+7.6), Chris Paul (+7.5), Dwyane Wade (+7), and...Kevin Garnett (+6.3). Dirk also measured out extremely well on offense (+4.7), but it certainly wasn't an area where he put any space between he and KG.

It is actually from 2003 to 2009, which means it includes the best seasons of Garnett in which he posted incredible high APM numbers with +23.2, +19.0 and +16.3 as his best 3 years. Nowitzki can't touch this, especially during that time span with +14.8, +11.6 and +10.8 as his best seasons. The interesting thing is that Nowitzki posted higher APM numbers in 2001 and 2002 than Garnett. And since 2009 Nowitzki has now 3 seasons in a row with a higher APM. So, outside of the time span of 2003 to 2007, Nowitzki has actually better APM numbers in average. And while we can easily assume that Garnett makes the bigger impact on defense (which is backed up by all available DAPM numbers), we have to make the assumption that besides Garnett's 3 freak years, Nowitzki has a higher offensive APM than Garnett.

To give an impression here we can use RAPM numbers, the offensive RAPM by Engelmann for Nowitzki vs. Garnett:

2006: 3.9 vs. 1.4
2007: 4.5 vs. 1.7
2008: 3.6 vs. 2.5
2009: 1.8 vs. 0.9
2010: 1.6 vs. 0.2
2011: 4.5 vs. 1.7
2006-2011: 6.5 vs. 2.9
2008-2011: 5.0 vs. 1.1

In all of those instances number for Nowitzki is higher than Garnett's. Thus we can assume that the 2003-2009 values are heavily influences by 3 years only in which Garnett had indeed the higher offensive impact.

Well, overall Nowitzki is a level below Garnett in terms of peak regular seasons. So, the only argument for Nowitzki would be the longevity. Nowitzki has again a +14.4 APM, he is leading the league in RAPM with +7.3 so far. If we complete the numbers from 1999 to 2010 with the current numbers, we are getting an average APM for Nowitzki and Garnett of +10.7, better than any other player during the time span. Duncan ends up with +10.0 and James with +10.6.
The difference between Nowitzki and Garnett is the consistency. Nowitzki has a standard deviation of 2.2 while Garnett has 6.2. Now, the question would be: Do I take the player who is more consistent in a 12 year span or the guy with the much higher peak (btw, Duncan has also the higher peak values in comparison to Nowitzki)?

If we look at the boxscore numbers from 2000 to 2011, we get this:

RS: http://bkref.com/tiny/vuNWF
Playoffs: http://bkref.com/tiny/jHO2a

Nowitzki beats out everyone in terms of WS over that time span. And he seperates himself more better in the playoffs from Garnett. That is an important thing to consider here. But we also have to keep in mind that Garnett missed the playoffs during his prime due to a freaking bad supporting cast, thus the numbers in the playoffs are biased against Garnett.

Anyway, for the timespan from 2000 to 2011 Nowitzki can be placed ahead of Garnett. Now, Garnett has a couple of more seasons and the much higher peak level (even though Garnett never reached Nowitzki peak level play in the playoffs, if my calculations are correct, Nowitzki has a +25.7 APM and a +12.6 RAPM in the playoffs this season so far, additional to that a league leading 29.2 PER and 0.289 WS/48, Garnett never had a playoff season with a better than 26 PER or 0.26 WS/48, Nowitzki has 4 of those). So, if we rank by "prime" Garnett takes that, if we rank by overall average playing level + longevity Nowitzki has a chance to catch up Garnett in about 1 or 2 seasons.

But that's the point...there WAS another star that Pierce was playing off of. And that other star led their team in scoring over a championship run...yet, because of Pierce's name KG gets no credit for that. It's just a weird dynamic.

Correct, Garnett was the better player and first option during the 2008 championship run.

Edit:

Well, Engelmann has a 5-year APM calculation from 2007 to now. I don't know how the absolute magnitude of the numbers match up between Engelmann's and Ilardi's calculation styles, though I will note that several players look pretty similar on offense (Nash +8.8 in Ilardi/ +8.9 in Engelmann; LeBron +8.0 / +6.8; Kobe +7.6 / +7.3; Wade +7.0 / +7.6).

Ridge regression will surpress the outliers closer to the mean. The crazy high numbers of Garnett and Duncan during the mid 2000's would be likely around what we can see in RAPM now for a guy like James with +10 in a long term sample and around +7 in the short term sample. Just to give you an impression.

It should also be noted that RAPM is the better APM in terms of predicting out of sample data. That is outlined by Engelmann (2011). Engelmann also has a link to Joe Sill's paper about RAPM, that is a great read to start.

PS: I hadn't seen your post when I started writing mine.

[Vince Strong]

I already have Dirk ahead of KG.

Can we create a page just for ridiculous AUF posts?

then we would never have the pleasure of reading your posts.

[Optimism Prime]

I can see the argument for "Dirk's sustained excellence as franchise player over the past decade" vs "KG's playoff woes/missing the playoffs/teaming up with the big 3". I don't think it's the best argument to be made, but I can understand the logic.

Of course, Dirk had an owner who was willing to spend and make moves; Garnett was shackled with Minnesota's FO incompetence. So there's that as the counterpoint argument.

[drza]

It is actually from 2003 to 2009, which means it includes the best seasons of Garnett in which he posted incredible high APM numbers with +23.2, +19.0 and +16.3 as his best 3 years. Nowitzki can't touch this, especially during that time span with +14.8, +11.6 and +10.8 as his best seasons. The interesting thing is that Nowitzki posted higher APM numbers in 2001 and 2002 than Garnett. And since 2009 Nowitzki has now 3 seasons in a row with a higher APM. So, outside of the time span of 2003 to 2007, Nowitzki has actually better APM numbers in average. And while we can easily assume that Garnett makes the bigger impact on defense (which is backed up by all available DAPM numbers), we have to make the assumption that besides Garnett's 3 freak years, Nowitzki has a higher offensive APM than Garnett.

Good post as always, and I figured we'd be hearing from you soon. Haven't digested the whole post yet, but I wanted to point out that from all I've ever seen your bolded part above is in error. Ilardi's APM measurement was from the start of the 2003-04 season through the end of the 2008-09 season, so he actually missed KG's 2002-03 season with the +23.2 APM. In other words, if Ilardi's measurement would have actually included KG's APM peak season he likely would have had an even bigger gap over Dirk.

Also, as we've talked about in the past I note that you do a lot of averaging of APM from year to year, when in older discussions you were the one that argued against that and said that the multi-year calculations were much more accurate than averaging a bunch of single seasons. As far as I know no one has put together a multi-year study back to 2001, but I'd be very curious to see what a 2001 - 2011 APM looked like. But considering that we have a 2004 - 2009 where KG has a huge lead over everyone and an overlapping 2007 - 2011 study where KG and Dirk are tightly clustered near the lead, and that 2003 was (as you pointed out) KG's ultimate APM peak... I would be extremely shocked if KG didn't have a sizable lead over Dirk (and everyone else) in a decade-long APM calculation.

[mysticbb]

Good post as always, and I figured we'd be hearing from you soon. Haven't digested the whole post yet, but I wanted to point out that from all I've ever seen your bolded part above is in error. Ilardi's APM measurement was from the start of the 2003-04 season through the end of the 2008-09 season, so he actually missed KG's 2002-03 season with the +23.2 APM. In other words, if Ilardi's measurement would have actually included KG's APM peak season he likely would have had an even bigger gap over Dirk.

Uh, correct, it starts in 2003/04. I always switch between several studies and get lost in the years. The 2002/03 numbers are from Dan Rosenbaum, not from Iliardi.
And Nowitzki posted his highest APM with +14.8 also in 2002/03, thus the assumption you make might be not correct.

Also, as we've talked about in the past I note that you do a lot of averaging of APM from year to year, when in older discussions you were the one that argued against that and said that the multi-year calculations were much more accurate than averaging a bunch of single seasons. As far as I know no one has put together a multi-year study back to 2001, but I'd be very curious to see what a 2001 - 2011 APM looked like. But considering that we have a 2004 - 2009 where KG has a huge lead over everyone and an overlapping 2007 - 2011 study where KG and Dirk are tightly clustered near the lead, and that 2003 was (as you pointed out) KG's ultimate APM peak.

I agree with everything here.

.. I would be extremely shocked if KG didn't have a sizable lead over Dirk (and everyone else) in a decade-long APM calculation.

Well, from 2000 to 2002 the average for Garnett is +7.5, Nowitzki has +10.7 and Duncan +11.3. Even Bryant has a higher average with +8.5 than Garnett (those numbers are again just yearly averages). If we include the 2002/03 season we get +11.5 for Garnett, +11.7 for Nowitzki, +13.5 for Duncan and +9.0 for Bryant. Thus it is very well possible that we see Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki much closer together in a 2000 to 2011 sample than the 2003-2009 sample.

[jumpman28]

I always have to facepalm when i see these threads. Garnett is better, but they are CLEARLY on the same tier and anyone who doesn't think so for either side of the debate, is an ignorant homer.

[richboy]

Even with Kg advantage as a passer I can't say he is close to the offensive weapon as Dirk. Especially since I do think Dirk is a pretty good passer himself. He isn't on the KG level but he has improved to the point that you play with fire double teaming him.

Dirk has a career offensive rating of 117. Has career high offensive ratings of 123. KG career high offensive rating is 118. His career average is 111. That is a pretty solid gap. The league average is usually around 107. KG is no question a very good offensive player. He just isn't anything historic. Dirk also just blows him away in offensive win share, TS

There is some interesting stuff here regarding Dirk vs KG on offense ONLY, worth further discussion. We all know that Dirk has a slight advantage in scoring volume and (with his 3s and FTs) an advantage in scoring efficiency as well. When you factor in that his offensive game is very similar to a freak 7-foot shooting guard, and what this means about his ability to get shots late in games, some are arguing offense as a clear advantage area for Dirk in this comparison.

On the other hand, we've got tsherkin (hard to remember not to capitalize that) and a few others pointing out that with KG's advantages in playmaking he could arguably be on Dirk's level offensively as well.

Interesting debate, and since you brought some of the box score advanced stats into the mix I'd like to point out that we also have years of adjusted +/- numbers as well that go right through each player's peak years. Normally I only see the offensive APM numbers really talked about in Nash threads, and I've been seeing more talk about defensive APM lately. But the Offensive APM stats have a story to tell here, as well.

According to Ilardi's 2004 - 2009 APM calculation (just catching the peaks of both players, with more of Dirk's offensive prime included than KG's), the top offensive players in the NBA over that stretch were: Steve Nash (+8.8), LeBron James (+8.0), Kobe Bryant (+7.6), Chris Paul (+7.5), Dwyane Wade (+7), and...Kevin Garnett (+6.3). Dirk also measured out extremely well on offense (+4.7), but it certainly wasn't an area where he put any space between he and KG.

So, here's the thing. Dirk is an outstanding volume scorer on excellent efficiency, and those are things that the box score advanced stats love. They are also what we often look at traditionally as great offense. But there's no denying that in his prime, KG was also one of the best offensive weapons in the game. The way he did it wasn't always traditional, but he was consistently leading top-5 offenses where he was the leading scorer and often the leading assist man as well. Whether you love the +/- data or not, there's no denying that they measure SOMETHING. Especially over such a long period of time.

So yeah, APM is only one type of stat. It's certainly not a closed case. And Dirk has an excellent argument as a better offensive player than Garnett. But even if he's better on offense, it's not by much. And KG has his own offensive arguments to make as well. And no matter which is better offensively, they were both ELITE offensive players. I think that often gets lost with Garnett, since his style was so non-traditional and then later in his career he's become known more for his defense.

Then I have my eyeball test. KG was a very good offensive player. I just don't think he was a guy that could carry a great offense. 22 and 12 is what I would expect. Very good numbers but if I was building a team around KG I would want someone like a Paul Pierce. I don't think I need a better offensive player than Dirk to win a title. I might need some players to anchor the defense. I might need someone who can create on the perimeter a little. I could win a title running my offense threw Dirk.

This is also interesting, because it brings up the difference that often exists between our impressions and reality. I've seen folks in this thread say that Garnett's not a true "#1 option" or that he can't be the main offensive weapon on a champion. Yet he was the leading scorer AND the leading 4th quarter scorer on the '08 title team. Ah, but he had Paul Pierce on his team, which of course works against him.

Only, if you compare Pierce in the '08 postseason to "lesser" second options like Terry this year or Manu Ginobili in '05, you see that Terry and Ginobili matched Pierce's scoring volume but in about 5 fewer minutes on much higher shooting efficiencies, they matched his assist rate, and they dwarfed his offensive advanced box stats (i.e. PER, win shares).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=2008

Now don't get me wrong, in a draft I'd take Pierce over Terry every day of the week and twice on Sundays. And given no other star to play off of, I have no doubt that Pierce's production would be the better of the two like it always used to be. But that's the point...there WAS another star that Pierce was playing off of. And that other star led their team in scoring over a championship run...yet, because of Pierce's name KG gets no credit for that. It's just a weird dynamic.

KG was a very good offensive player. When I think about elite offensive talent he doesn't come to mind. I think of individuals who when the game is on the line. You know who is going to get the ball. You load up your defense against him. It doesn't matter he still finds a way to put the ball in the basket.

Now the numbes say KG is a great offensive player. What I see is KG spending most of the time doing pick and pop plays. Am I going to build a team for a big man to spend most of his time shooting pop jump shots. He has a post game but its not amazing. What dominate aspect does KG have to his offensive attack. That is kind of why I say he needs a Pierce. Pierce is almost unstoppable to stop on the bounce. Has a ridiculous post game for a SF. Has those mid range shots that are money. If Pierce and Kg were both in there prime Pierce to me would clearly be a better offensive player than KG. I don't think Pierce is as good as Dirk.

I've never heard anyone refer to KG as being unguardable. In reality I think the thought around the league has been KG is going to put up his numbers but against the highest level of competition he is a guy that can be stopped.

I hear people about the passing. My thinking is I just don't think he is creating offense with his passing that Dirk isn't. Let me give an example. Dwight Howard averages 1 assist per game. Al Horford gets almost 4 assist per game. Does Al Horford create more offense for his teammates than Dwight Howard. Not any game I'm watching. Pretty much every open 3 that the Magic get is often because of attention Dwight is getting.

In the playoffs Dirk is getting 2.6 apg. Yet Dallas is getting wide open 3s because of Dirk. I really wish the NBA had a way to measure the "Hockey Assist". I understand that KG is getting 5 apg most years. Even a couple around 6. I just don't think KG creates something that Dirk doesn't create. He just gets more credit for it.

Now I understand the idea that KG is a better player. I'm personally going back and fourth with who it is. I just don't think offensively the two are very close. Matter of fact I would suggest if Dirk had played on teams with less offensive talent he could be a 30 ppg type of guy. I really think KG maxed out his offensive scoring ability. On a more talented team like the Celtics I'm not sure he would have even been a 20 ppg scorer.

[drza]

KG was a very good offensive player. When I think about elite offensive talent he doesn't come to mind. I think of individuals who when the game is on the line. You know who is going to get the ball. You load up your defense against him. It doesn't matter he still finds a way to put the ball in the basket.

I understand that so much of basketball discussion is going to be opinion-based. The thing that bugs me is when an opinion becomes so ingrained as to become almost "fact" without any evidence to support it. For example, in Minnesota teams DID know KG was going to get the ball and loaded up their defenses against him. When things got especially bad late in the Mchale years teams didn't even pretend they were going to guard the Marko Jarics and Trenton Hassells of the squad late in games. Instead, when KG posted, they would have his man play him from behind to try to push him off the block, then the strong-side wing defender would sag completely off the man with the ball to front KG and deny the entry (essentially daring his man to shoot, knowing he couldn't). Then, as a kicker, a weak-side defender (usually guarding the man at either the top of the key or on the weakside elbow 3-pt line) would also sag off of his man to the free throw line to be in position to break on an entry pass to triple KG. This was a defense that opponents regularly played late in games during the middle part of the decade...that's why I can describe it in such detail.

And yet, despite the extra attention KG was able to match the acknowledged-clutch Tim Duncan in crunch time year-in and year-out. I've written about it many times myself, but here's a link from someone that formalized the comparison: http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/10/the ... ince-2003/ , with the money quote:

"A criticism often volleyed toward Kevin Garnett is his reluctance to take over games down the stretch. Of course, most bigs are hampered by this. And, with regards to his chief rival, Tim Duncan, KG’s clutch performance is quite similar. He’s nearly identical with TD over the last 8+ seasons, and outperformed him in his 3-year peak. "

Now the numbes say KG is a great offensive player. What I see is KG spending most of the time doing pick and pop plays. Am I going to build a team for a big man to spend most of his time shooting pop jump shots. He has a post game but its not amazing. What dominate aspect does KG have to his offensive attack. That is kind of why I say he needs a Pierce. Pierce is almost unstoppable to stop on the bounce. Has a ridiculous post game for a SF. Has those mid range shots that are money. If Pierce and Kg were both in there prime Pierce to me would clearly be a better offensive player than KG. I don't think Pierce is as good as Dirk.

This seems to be tortured logic IMO. If I understand it correctly, you're saying that we should ignore that the multi-year numbers show KG's huge offensive impact...and we should also ignore that KG was the main scorer on a championship run with Pierce still in his athletic prime (30 years old, 10th season) with KG a bit past his (32 years old, 13th season)...and we should ignore them because you think that if they had been paired together during KG's peak (when he was actually compiling the dominant offensive numbers) he would have taken more of a backseat to Pierce than he did when he was past his prime? And that, therefore, since Pierce isn't as good of an offensive player as Dirk, that must mean KG isn't either?

Correct me if I've misinterpreted your quote in any way, because that seems to me to be your stance...and again, if it is, there's no real way to argue it outside of saying that none of the facts support your stance. It's not theoretical that a prime KG was consistently leading top-5 offenses as the leading scorer (always) and leading assist man (regularly), nor that he was an elite offensive player (as "the numbers" support), nor that he was the leading scorer on a championship run over a closer-to-prime-years Pierce. Those aren't hypotheticals, they actually happened. That those facts don't fit your impression...I"m not really sure how to reconcile that.

[NO-KG-AI]

I don't think KG is equal to Dirk offensively, but the fact that you can make a coherent argument that the gap isn't huge, it speaks volumes, because the defensive gap is absolutely massive, and the difference between a guy getting 8-9 rebounds, and a guy getting 14 is also huge.

[Sedale Threatt]

That's the difference to me, regardless of a ring. There's an entire half of the game where Dirk can't hold Garnett's jock. Doesn't mean he's not fantastic, but he's not close to the all-around player Garnett is.

[Sedale Threatt]

Garnett has quite a falloff between his regular season and postseason numbers, while Dirk is one of the few players who actually put up better stats in the playoffs (although he failed in the playoffs in his peak years which has really damaged his reputation).

Dirk is 4th all time in playoff WS/48 and 7th all time in playoff PER. Only LeBron, Duncan, Howard and Shaq (minus his twilight years) are close to that among current players. Garnett is 58th and 25th. Kobe is 49th and 20th.

Dirk's playoff numbers are quite significantly better than Garnett's:
PER 25.1 vs 21.7, WS/48 0.213 vs. 0.151, TS% 58.5 vs. 51.9
Those are huge gaps and TS% of 51.9 is not good at all for an almost 7ft player.

This year is the 4th time Dirk has the highest playoff WS/48 in the league - that has only been done by Jordan and Kareem before.

This is a great point, though.

[fudgie]

Dirk has a pretty significant advantage on late game offense to KG IMO. Who was it that called KG the greastest three quarter player of all time?

[Masigond]

I don't think KG is equal to Dirk offensively, but the fact that you can make a coherent argument that the gap isn't huge, it speaks volumes, because the defensive gap is absolutely massive, and the difference between a guy getting 8-9 rebounds, and a guy getting 14 is also huge.

Garnett was a great rebounder during his peak but he wasn't a 14 rpg-guy for that long. So it's not fair to compare this number with Dirk's career average.

Actually it's Kevin's 10.7 to Dirk's 8.4, or 14 to 10 (Dirk averaged 9.9 twice) in their best years, and Kevin's 11.1 to Dirk's 10.6 in the playoffs for their careers. Not that very different, eben though KG had real monster numbers for several years in the playoffs (18.7 / 15.7 / 14.6) while Nowitzki maxed out at about 12-13 (the latter once in 2002).

[richboy]

I understand that so much of basketball discussion is going to be opinion-based. The thing that bugs me is when an opinion becomes so ingrained as to become almost "fact" without any evidence to support it. For example, in Minnesota teams DID know KG was going to get the ball and loaded up their defenses against him. When things got especially bad late in the Mchale years teams didn't even pretend they were going to guard the Marko Jarics and Trenton Hassells of the squad late in games. Instead, when KG posted, they would have his man play him from behind to try to push him off the block, then the strong-side wing defender would sag completely off the man with the ball to front KG and deny the entry (essentially daring his man to shoot, knowing he couldn't). Then, as a kicker, a weak-side defender (usually guarding the man at either the top of the key or on the weakside elbow 3-pt line) would also sag off of his man to the free throw line to be in position to break on an entry pass to triple KG. This was a defense that opponents regularly played late in games during the middle part of the decade...that's why I can describe it in such detail.

And yet, despite the extra attention KG was able to match the acknowledged-clutch Tim Duncan in crunch time year-in and year-out. I've written about it many times myself, but here's a link from someone that formalized the comparison: http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/10/the ... ince-2003/ , with the money quote:

"A criticism often volleyed toward Kevin Garnett is his reluctance to take over games down the stretch. Of course, most bigs are hampered by this. And, with regards to his chief rival, Tim Duncan, KG’s clutch performance is quite similar. He’s nearly identical with TD over the last 8+ seasons, and outperformed him in his 3-year peak. "

He was matching the clutch time numbers of Tim Duncan while getting bounced out of the first round? I'm not following that. What sample size is this based on. Your kind of giving me the same thing that you accused me of. Basketball is not played in a vacuum where every team plays the same defense. That is what really bugs me.There are teams that played KG straight up because they knew he would get his 20-30 but it wasn't his nature to go get 40-50. While Dirk will put 50 on you no problem no hesitation if you don't defend him correct.

I'll say it again. What was the dominate aspect of KG's offensive game. Your saying he was a domiante post player? I was on this board for years defending the fact that KG didn't go in the post as much as Duncan. When everyone said Duncan had much more impact offensively than KG because he was in the low post. In reality its a questionable if KG is on the Duncan level. Duncan has a dominate aspect to his game. I've yet to hear what KG does that you have to stop. He going to post you up and then he going to go mid-range on you. He has a good post game but nothing unreal.

I think it would be a fair statement to say Charles Barkley and Karl Malone are much better offensive players than KG. Would you agree with that statement. In my eyes it seems like your underrating Dirk. I understand KG was a good offensive player. Good is nice but Dirk is unstoppable. I would put him up offensively with Larry Bird. I would rather defend Karl Malone than have to defend Dirk.

I understand that KG has the defense and rebounding. Like I said I'm not sure who I would take as the best player. Right now I would lean KG. However in my book if Dirk wins a title this year he would have done something that KG could not do. I say it again. KG could not take a team by himself in his prime to a title. Dallas has no other all-star players. Most of the rest of the roster is spot up shooters.

KG has the advantage with defense and rebounding. He also has that advantage on Larry Bird. Ignoring titles d9es anyone think KG is a better player than Bird. That can't be the end discussion with Dirk vs KG. These two players in the same conference for much of there career. They both one a MVP. They both had MVP candidate seasons.Dallas pretty much for much of there career had much more success than the Timberwolves.

These two played in the playoffs. KG averaged 24 and 19. Got plenty of help from Wally Z and Chauncey Billups who both averaged over 20. They were swept. The best player in that series was Dirk. Despite being guarded by KG he averaged 33 and 16 for the series. Dallas didn't even have much more talent than that Minnesota team.

Dirk has played years in the league. Has almost always been on a team that was a contender. Has not really played with another all-star level player. Even Steve Nash wasn't Steve Nash when he played with him. Yet the Mavericks are consistently in the hunt for a title. Anytime Dirk is out they look horrible. On the flip side KG carried bad teams to the playoffs. However consistently was bounced out. I'm just saying him not being a dominate offensive player is part of the reason.

This seems to be tortured logic IMO. If I understand it correctly, you're saying that we should ignore that the multi-year numbers show KG's huge offensive impact...and we should also ignore that KG was the main scorer on a championship run with Pierce still in his athletic prime (30 years old, 10th season) with KG a bit past his (32 years old, 13th season)...and we should ignore them because you think that if they had been paired together during KG's peak (when he was actually compiling the dominant offensive numbers) he would have taken more of a backseat to Pierce than he did when he was past his prime? And that, therefore, since Pierce isn't as good of an offensive player as Dirk, that must mean KG isn't either?

You say he averaged 20 points past his prime like he was doing much better in his prime. Paul Pierce won Finals MVP if I'm correct. Who was the guy that carried the Celtics Game 7 againt the Cavs? Paul Pierce in his prime was a 26 ppg scorer that lived on the free throw line and was close to unguardable. Him and Kobe are the only NBA players I've seen score 50 points in 2 quarters. Yes I'm saying Paul Pierce in his prime would have been the number 1 option offensively. You could say KG would be the better player. Offensively I'm saying Pierce would have been the guy.

He has a nice turn around jumper. Thats enough to equal Dirk? I'm sorry I just don't buy it. I think KG on most talented offensive teams is a 18 ppg scorer. He averaged 24 points in one season and he took 20 shots to get it.

Missing one of your points. Minnesota was a very efficient offense. You want to call them top 5 that is fine. You want to give that credit to KG that is fine. At the same time you can't say KG was great defensively and Minnesota was a mediocre defense. So who is taking the blame for the Minnesota defense since KG taking all the credit for the Timberwolve offense. Why is a team with KG as its anchor worse defensively most years than a team with Dirk as its anchor defensively.

mavericks one year started Dirk, Steve Nash, Mike Finley, Raef Lafrentz and was a top 10 defense.KG was on one elite defensive team in Minnesota. Numbers say your right. Minnesota was a top 5 offense most years. Close to Dallas most years. Why many years they aren't close to Dallas defensively then. Especially if were going to call KG one of the best defensive players of all time.

[Sedale Threatt]

While Dirk will put 50 on you no problem no hesitation if you don't defend him correct.

Which is why he's done it three times in more than 1,100 career games.

I would put him up offensively with Larry Bird.

He's a comparable shooter, maybe even better on his day, but Bird's play-making puts him in an entirely different category. Plus, he was a WAY better defensive player than he's given credit for being, and certainly better than Dirk. So that whole tangent doesn't even apply.

However in my book if Dirk wins a title this year he would have done something that KG could not do. I say it again. KG could not take a team by himself in his prime to a title. Dallas has no other all-star players.

While this is technically true, isn't it a bit disingenuous considering the array of contributions they're getting? I mean, even Barea is playing like an All-Star these last few games. Dirk has never lacked for talent on his teams, and this year is no different. Certainly not in the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

Garnett has quite a falloff between his regular season and postseason numbers, while Dirk is one of the few players who actually put up better stats in the playoffs (although he failed in the playoffs in his peak years which has really damaged his reputation).

Dirk is 4th all time in playoff WS/48 and 7th all time in playoff PER. Only LeBron, Duncan, Howard and Shaq (minus his twilight years) are close to that among current players. Garnett is 58th and 25th. Kobe is 49th and 20th.

Dirk's playoff numbers are quite significantly better than Garnett's:
PER 25.1 vs 21.7, WS/48 0.213 vs. 0.151, TS% 58.5 vs. 51.9
Those are huge gaps and TS% of 51.9 is not good at all for an almost 7ft player.

This year is the 4th time Dirk has the highest playoff WS/48 in the league - that has only been done by Jordan and Kareem before.

This is a great point, though.

Agree. So amazing that Dirk's still known as a playoff choker when on average he's actually become one of the biggest playoff gainers around.

[Doctor MJ]

While Dirk will put 50 on you no problem no hesitation if you don't defend him correct.

Which is why he's done it three times in more than 1,100 career games.

+1

I always marvel at people bringing up outlier games when talking about who they'd pick generally. What matter is what you can count on, not what happens in their freak games. Freak games don't reliably win you playoff series.

[Doctor MJ]

That's the difference to me, regardless of a ring. There's an entire half of the game where Dirk can't hold Garnett's jock. Doesn't mean he's not fantastic, but he's not close to the all-around player Garnett is.

In general I hate this argument, because people assume a false equivalence to the impact of star's on both sides of the court. For example, until the emergence of the recent string of point guards, the gap between the best and worst defensive point guards in the league was small compared to the gap between Nash and the 2nd best point guard in the league on offense.

With that said, I've come to believe Garnett really has had a defensive impact that rivals the offensive impact of all but a few superstars in the league. When you add in that he truly was a Top 10 level offensive player at his peak, that two way combination really is very hard to top.

[G35]

While Dirk will put 50 on you no problem no hesitation if you don't defend him correct.

Which is why he's done it three times in more than 1,100 career games.

+1

I always marvel at people bringing up outlier games when talking about who they'd pick generally. What matter is what you can count on, not what happens in their freak games. Freak games don't reliably win you playoff series.

How many people rate Magic as one of the best off of one freak game that he never duplicated again......