Starting a Franchise...Prime KG or Lebron?

[singlepurposeac]

Yeh, only titles count. Carrying a dud team to 66 wins, or a finals appearance, is exactly the same as leading a more talented to to 46 wins and a first round exit (or not even making the playoffs at all). How stupid of me. Only rings count.

I laugh at your suggestion Lebron's team in the last few years was more talented than "most of" KG's teams. I'm not going to repeat the analysis already given here, you can go back and read it yourself, but it is a laughable contention, and even were the teams about the same, or slightly favouring Lebron, it wouldn't explain the huge gulf in results.

[Bruh Man]

Yeh, only titles count. Carrying a dud team to 66 wins, or a finals appearance, is exactly the same as leading a more talented to to 46 wins and a first round exit (or not even making the playoffs at all). How stupid of me. Only rings count.

I laugh at your suggestion Lebron's team in the last few years was more talented than "most of" KG's teams. I'm not going to repeat the analysis already given here, you can go back and read it yourself, but it is a laughable contention, and even were the teams about the same, or slightly favouring Lebron, it wouldn't explain the huge gulf in results.

Well Lebron is going to win less games this year with a better supporting cast than last year. Sure KG lost in the 1st round a couple times but I'm sure he would have loved to play the Wizards or Hawks instead of Spurs and Lakers.

[singlepurposeac]

It's Lebron's first year with a wholly new team who has no depth and needs to work out how to play together. And they're still one of the best teams in the NBA. Teams also coast and plateau in the NBA, very few teams win over 67 games, it's the law of diminishing returns, even the best teams will rarely win more than around 60+ To try and judge this singular year and ignoring everything else is pretty ridiculous (like say, how are the Cavs doing).

Lebron played good teams too, but as we've established, his support cast sucked. I actually don't blame Ferry for that, I blame Paxson (long story), but those teams still looked better than KG. I mean, KG wouldn't be PLAYING the Spurs or Lakers if his teams weren't mediocre over the course of the season, would he? He's only playing them in (some) of the first round failures because he couldn't carry a more talented team as far in the first place. And in post 2004 KG didn't even get them to the playoffs. It's obvious from your sig you have an agenda and are not interested in discussing this seriously.

[Alex_De_Large]

Obviously LBJ. KG doesnt get you 70 wins without a decent supporting cast.

[Shaq Daddy]

Obviously LBJ. KG doesnt get you 70 wins without a decent supporting cast.

Give prime Garnett a player like Dwyane Wade and they win 70 games

[drza]

In regards to the thread related remark above; Lebron did alot more with the Cavs than KG did with the (often more talented) Wolves teams...

How did KG do in the 7 years prior to 2004? How did he do in the 3 years following 2004? How would you compare the support casts of Lebron's recent Cavs teams to KG's support casts? ...

Yeh, only titles count. Carrying a dud team to 66 wins, or a finals appearance, is exactly the same as leading a more talented to to 46 wins and a first round exit (or not even making the playoffs at all). How stupid of me. Only rings count.

I laugh at your suggestion Lebron's team in the last few years was more talented than "most of" KG's teams. I'm not going to repeat the analysis already given here, you can go back and read it yourself, but it is a laughable contention, and even were the teams about the same, or slightly favouring Lebron, it wouldn't explain the huge gulf in results.

I grouped these posts together to respond to, because you keep saying the same thing. The thing is, I addressed these points on page 5 of this thread before you said any of this, back when you were determined to turn this into a KG vs Duncan thread...and you've never really replied to my points. It was a fairly in-depth post touching on their early careers, early prime, and peak to-date when their supporting casts have been similar. I'm not going to completely re-post, but here is what I wrote comparing their early primes (a period that covers LeBron's Finals run that you keep trumpeting):

If you look at LeBron's 2006-08 seasons vs KG's 2000 - 2002 seasons I don't see much difference outside of circumstance. They were each beasting individually (consistent top-5 MVP seasons, peaking at 2nd in the MVP vote), carrying supporting casts with similar talent levels to about 50 wins per year, and establishing themselves on the short list of best players in the game. The biggest difference to many is that LeBron won 5 playoff series in those 3 years (including a Finals run in 2007) whereas KG's Wolves bowed out in the first round in each year. But here is where context is important:

Cavs 06 - 08: 48.3 wins per season
Playoff wins over 42-win Wizards, 41-win Wizards, 41-win Nets, 53-win Pistons, and 43-win Wizards
Playoff losses to 64-win Pistons, 58-win Spurs, 66-win Celtics

Wolves 00 - 02: 49 wins per season
Playoff losses to 59-win Trail Blazers, 58-win Spurs, 57-win Mavs

The Cavs and Wolves were very similar caliber teams, but the Cavs got to fatten up in the postseason on a series of mediocre teams that the Wolves just didn't get to face. But when they faced teams of similar quality, the postseason playoff results were the same.

I freely admit that LeBron progressed faster in his early career than KG did (reaching super-elite status by year 3 instead of year 5). But to date, both players have shown they could produce similarly in similar circumstances. The 46-win/first round exit argument ultimately is pretty weak, since we can easily look at the situation and tell there's more to the story than what you're pushing.

[singlepurposeac]

Your career narrative is totally false Drza. You're trying to compare KG and Lebron over an arbitrary period, rather than looking at them holistically. KG has 7 first round exits, and 3 playoff failures after 2004 which we can look at, but instead we are told to only direct our eyes towards an extremely limited sample, Lebron from age 21-23, and KG from age 23-25. Even then, your analysis of that false narrative is completely unconvincing. Lebron did not suddenly get significantly extra talent in 2009 and 2010, and certainly the talent he had in those years is little different to many of the teams KG had and failed with. Lebron became better as a player in 09 and 10, but instead of considering this (something that is widely accepted) we're supposed to ignore it in favour of his superior team? Please. There is no way you can argue that the talent gap of their teams was so different that you can justify the radically different results of Lebron 2009 & 2010 v.s KG from 2000-2003, and 2005-2007.

I note though that apparently anything KG did "pre-2000" apparently doesn't count. I'll be sure to remember this for TD comparisons, since KG was apparently alot worse, and not at all comparable to later KG.

You are a KG fan, and you're right, it does show in your posts, which are ridiculous. Wow, "if only we could imagine what would have happened in 2003, if KG had been given stars like Mo Williams and JJ Hickson, he could very well have won 66 games". Do you even hear yourself? Why didn't 2000-2002 KG win anything close to that? Why didn't post 2004 KG make the playoffs! Yes, because team mates like Mo Williams and old man Z-Ill were the difference between 66 wins and 33 wins. You have KG goggles on.

[drza]

and I cant even express how idiotic your quotes about Joe Smith were... you actually said he was better than D-Rob...

Joe Smith was better than 36-37 year old D.Rob, a guy who struggled to stay on the court, barely played in the playoffs, was old and slow. There's no shame in that, the man was 37 years old! Nor do the numbers really draw any doubt on that claim, D.Rob put up 12-8 in the 2002 regular season in the 29.5 mpg he could manage, followed up by playing 20mpg in the 4/10 playoff games he was healthy to play in, and posting 4.5ppg and 5.8rpg...

When Joe Smith played for the Wolves he was between 23 and 27, the prime of his career. He posted generally better numbers, wasn't hampered by age and slow, and was a role player of significant repute and value, to the point that he was offered an 86 million dollar contract by you guys. He would have been overpaid if he took it of course, but there is a reason he was getting offered huge money, people regarded him as a very, very good role player. He played strong D for one. I don't especially care what his PER was, of all the things PER measures badly, defence is among the worst.

This is just really, really poor. The first time you said that Smith of '02 was better than Robinson of '02 I tried to let it go. I considered looking for one of those "Can't tell if serious" gifs, but decided it wasn't even worth it. But you're persisting at this nonsense. This doesn't even deserve a serious response, but you refuse to even let me look the other way from your ignorance. It has to stop.

Spurs fans (not sure if you're one or not, but it holds true for many other Spurs fans I've encountered) are funny about Robinson. He's their guy, but they are perfectly willing to throw him under the bus to make Duncan look better. When it's not even needed. Duncan is all-world on his own. He doesn't need his best teammate to be denigrated to try to boost him further.

Anyway, no, Joe Smith in 2002 was in no way, shape or form in the neighborhood of 2002 David Robinson as a player. Bastillion already posted some of their stats, which you condescendingly attempt to dismiss because they show how silly your statement is. But the really funny thing is, the stats barely even begin to tell the story of how much better 2002 Robinson was than Smith. Let's start with a common-sense look at them.

Robinson was 7-1 and diesel. Smith was 6-10 and slim. As such, Robinson was a legitimate NBA center and Smith was a thin PF that could not hold his post defense against any post player of note. This made Robinson a much better interior 1-on-1 defender and legitimate defensive post presence. This is significant.

Secondly, Robinson (even at age 36) was still an excellent help defender. I'm not even a huge adherent of blocks and steals as defensive benchmarks, but Robinson more than doubled Smith in both categories in 2002. Smith's go-to defensive maneuver was to try to draw charges, and he was reasonable at it. But that's a much more limited, much less intimidating way to play defense. It would be like arguing that Big Baby is a better help defender than Tyson Chandler because he's better able to draw charges. It's ludicrous. No, 2002 Robinson was also a much better interior help defender than Smith and a legitimate co-defensive anchor in the post. This is significant.

Third, Robinson (even at age 36) was a much better rebounder than Smith. He averaged 2 more rebounds per game, with higher offensive-, defensive- and total rebounding percentages than Smith. So not only was Robinson a better 1-on-1 defender and a much better team defender, but he was also much more valuable on the glass than Smith. This is significant.

Fourth, Robinson (even at age 36) was a better offensive player than Smith. Smith's offense at that stage in his career consisted primarily of the spot-up mid-range jumper (set up by someone else) and the occasional put-back. He had no offensive moves, and was generally not accounted for by the opposing defense. Robinson, on the other hand, was still able to manufacture scoring to some degree and was putting pressure on opposing defenses that still were very aware of him. This showed up in Robinson generating almost twice as many free throw attempts as Smith, which contributed to him scoring a bit more despite receiving more defensive respect. This is significant.

Fifth, Robinson (even at age 36) was healthier and playing more minutes than Smith. You mention that Robinson played only 29 mpg, without mentioning that Smith played only 26.7. Robinson played 78 regular season games before injuries slowed him for the postseason, while Smith could manage only 72. In the 4 games he did play Robinson only made it through 20 mpg, but in the '02 playoffs Smith only played 14 minutes a night.

Sixth, Robinson in 2002 especially was a much bigger intangibles guy than Smith. Robinson was a former MVP and a former champion that was still playing a key part on a contender. There's an inherent gravitas, an inherent respect that comes from that both in your own locker room and in the opposing team's thought process. Smith had none of that weight. And in fact, after the debacle between he and Wolves management that led to David Stern gutting the squad, Smith's presence was likely as much distraction as anything else. Either way, this is yet another area in which 2002 Robinson was just way more valuable to the Spurs than Smith was to the Wolves.

2002 Joe Smith wasn't in the same stratosphere as 2002 David Robinson. You know who 2002 David Robinson was? He was 2011 Tim Duncan. Again, stats aren't necessarily the be-all here, but even a quick statistical look shows which two of 2002 Robinson, 2002 Smith, and 2011 Duncan were more alike: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=2011

Robinson at 36 (in his 13th year) played almost the exact same minutes as Duncan (age 34 in his 14th year), has produced almost the exact same stats across the board as Duncan, and oh, by the way, was even playing for the same coach in the same system. '11 Duncan is a much, much, MUCH better comp for '02 Robinson than Joe Smith. And I dare you to tell me that 2002 Smith is on the same planet as 2011 Duncan. Come on, I dare you.

You know what the 2002 Wolves would have looked like with 2011 Duncan in place of Joe Smith? Hint: suddenly, they have the best interior defense in the league (with the possible exception of that prime Duncan/Robinson combo in San Antonio). Suddenly, with their defense locked in place and a legitimate 1-2 offensive big man combo, the shooters on the Wolves are a lot more valuable and their offense looks better. You know who the 2002 Wolves with '11 Duncan would look like? You guessed it, the 2002 Spurs.

Bottom line: saying that Smith was better than Robinson in 2002 is asinine. There's no other way to put it. It is silly, and makes you look like a homer at best or incompetent at worst. And frankly, it makes it difficult to take anything else that you say on the subject seriously.

[NO-KG-AI]

LOL, someone believes Joe Smith was good on defense? AND better than D-Rob? That's the best part of this thread.

[singlepurposeac]

I love Robinson, but by that stage in his career he was almost totally washed up. He was old, slow, mechanical, and very tired. I remember almost choking on my beer when he scored a driving layup in the 2003 finals, and the reaction of the commentators wasn't far off. Players get old, lots of them, and when they do they can become awful. D.Rob wasn't the first, it was sad to see Hakeem in Toronto, or Ewing on the Magic, or Gilmore towards the end.

2011 Tim Duncan was an all-star, but more to the point he's on a deep team who is able to survive resting him for the playoffs, and who is winning left right and centre. It's normal, understandable even, to put up reduced stats on a good team, KG sure did when he went to Boston. But D.Rob was not on the 2011 Spurs, nor the 2008 Celtics. He was playing on a Spurs team that was famous for it's shallowness and lack of talent. For you to look at his 12-8, and conclude he was similar to Duncan this year tells me you're just looking at the box score.

Joe Smith was a very solid role player. I haven't been picking out Smith in any one year (like 2002), his role and success varied a little on the wolves from year to year, he wasn't famed for his consistency. But Smith was a more valuable player around this time than D.Rob. I won't limit Smith to one season, though I could easily post his numbers from this season or that season to show he had better numbers, because the most important thing Smith gave was being healthy and being a good defender, who didn't creak at the knees. D.Rob was so exhausted from having to play 29 minutes a game in 2002 he basically died in the playoffs, and was a non-factor. 2003 he was significantly worse as a player, on paper and in reality. I spent some time watching him, just as I had the misfortune of seeing Toronto Hakeem and Orlando Ewing. It wasn't a pretty sight.

The coaches and voters agree with me. D.Rob hadn't made an all-star team that year, he lost out to Wally World (!), and hadn't made a defense team since I think 98. Nor was it some conspiracy against D.Rob, Deke at the same age, on a worse team, with comparable stats, was making all-star games and defensive teams. D.rob just wasn't very good by that stage.

[drza]

Your career narrative is totally false Drza. You're trying to compare KG and Lebron over an arbitrary period, rather than looking at them holistically. KG has 7 first round exits, and 3 playoff failures after 2004 which we can look at, but instead we are told to only direct our eyes towards an extremely limited sample, Lebron from age 21-23, and KG from age 23-25. Even then, your analysis of that false narrative is completely unconvincing. Lebron did not suddenly get significantly extra talent in 2009 and 2010, and certainly the talent he had in those years is little different to many of the teams KG had and failed with. Lebron became better as a player in 09 and 10, but instead of considering this (something that is widely accepted) we're supposed to ignore it in favour of his superior team? Please. There is no way you can argue that the talent gap of their teams was so different that you can justify the radically different results of Lebron 2009 & 2010 v.s KG from 2000-2003, and 2005-2007.

I note though that apparently anything KG did "pre-2000" apparently doesn't count. I'll be sure to remember this for TD comparisons, since KG was apparently alot worse, and not at all comparable to later KG.

You are a KG fan, and you're right, it does show in your posts, which are ridiculous. Wow, "if only we could imagine what would have happened in 2003, if KG had been given stars like Mo Williams and JJ Hickson, he could very well have won 66 games". Do you even hear yourself? Why didn't 2000-2002 KG win anything close to that? Why didn't post 2004 KG make the playoffs! Yes, because team mates like Mo Williams and old man Z-Ill were the difference between 66 wins and 33 wins. You have KG goggles on.

You're very poor at this. I've been in many of these debates around here, and debating with you is much more like arguing with BGil or SilverBullet than Tsherkin or Sedale Threatt. And that's not a compliment.

First, as I said, my primary KG/LeBron post in this thread covered their entire careers to date, not just a 3-year period. I went from draft to current. But instead of re-posting verbatim the entirety of something that I posted a page ago, I thought I could just reference you to the post and give you an example of what I was talking about. Apparently, I was wrong. So, remedial summary:

LeBron's NBA career matured quicker than KG's. But at each stage of their career arcs to date, their team results with similar talent have been similar. I gave the example that you quote above for what they did in their early primes (00-02 KG, 06 - 08 LeBron) with barely adequate support, and the team results were almost identical.

I also point out that in '03-'04 (KG) and '09-'10 (LeBron), they again played very similarly as individuals and maximized their teams. These are what I consider to be their peak years to-date...so yes, to respond, LeBron did get better in those years...and KG did as well. The '09 Cavs sans LeBron were better than the '03 Wolves sans KG, thus it isn't surprising that the Cavs had better team results despite similar individual play from the stars. The '10 Cavs sans LeBron were similar to the '04 Wolves sans KG, and thus their team results were similar.

You bring up the years after '04, but LeBron has no correlate of support at his peak in the same galaxy of poorness as what KG had on those '06 and '07 teams. Makes those years not especially useful in a situation-to-situation comparison like I've been making. But we do know how KG performed as an individual and how the Celtics performed as a team during the 2008 regular season, which is a more reasonable comparison to LeBron's current situation in Miami. And as I posted before, the individuals have performed similarly but (to this point in the season) the Celtics had greater team success with a similar caliber supporting cast.

Bottom line, there's no need for vitriol here. You call me out for being a "KG fan" as though it's a bad thing, but it's not even a necessary part of this discussion. In fact, in the last few days I've been seeing YOU mention KG a lot more than I have. Just like you tried to make this thread into a KG vs Duncan debate, I've seen you bring up KG and "KG fans" several times in the Duncan vs Olajuwon thread as well. Clearly, you are on fire to put KG in his (perceived) place with respect to what you believe about Duncan. That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But again, this is a debate that's been on-going for years and you frankly aren't really adding anything particularly innovative to it. You've got your opinion. I've got mine. Let's just keep it moving.

[singlepurposeac]

You bring up the years after '04, but LeBron has no correlate of support at his peak in the same galaxy of poorness as what KG had on those '06 and '07 teams

I'm afraid it's you who can't do this very well, but I guess I thought I was being clear enough when I talked about a false narrative. Unless you believe KG got worse in 05-07, we don't need to "imagine" what Lebron's career will be like in the future, we can assess KG's achievements for what they are. Intelligent posters here, who you attempt to invoke as a lame put down, don't try and compare players value through artificial "year by year" comparisons. It's certainly not how people try to evaluate Nash, rather they look at what he did once he did hit his peak.

Your claim is as follows (as near as one can tell anyway):
1) KG didn't become "elite" until 2000 (age 23)
2) KG didn't "peak" until 2003-04, where he apparently hit a level not unlike 09 and 10 Lebron.
My question is what happened to peak KG in 05-07, did he get worse? And if your argument really is that KG didn't become elite until 23, didn't hit his peak until 26, and then was no longer at his peak at 28, how can you possibly reconcile that with your claims that KG is in any way comparable to Duncan, who certainly doesn't have such a short elite and peak period?

That's the problem with your narrative, it's trying to create the illusion that we dare not look at KG after 04, until we've seen Lebron from 11-13. That's ludicrous, unless KG somehow got worse.

Do you seriously think KG's cast was so much worse in 05-07 that you can justify the radically different results? After all, as long as KG didn't get worse, there's no reason we can't compare 09 and 10 Lebron and his support cast to KG 05-07.

[UDRIH14]

oi drza and bastilon

care to explain why rasho manage to win a ring playing alongside duncan compared to his time with KG?

[bastillon]

oi drza and bastilon

care to explain why rasho manage to win a ring playing alongside duncan compared to his time with KG?

not sure if serious...

when Duncan won a title in 2005, Rasho wasnt even their 1st center (that'd be Nazr Mohammed who was playing great for them in 05 postseason. by the time playoffs started, Rasho became a 7 mpg player so thats probably why they won - he didnt play all that much

[bastillon]

asserting ridiculous things, like D.Rob was still awesome. D.Rob played 20mpg in the 2002 playoffs (in only 4 games out of 10!), and was worse the following year overall. His numbers were terrible in the postseason, and mediocre in the regular season. Claiming he was posting 20PER or whatever it a ridiculous way of measuring value. If I extrapolate Tiago Splitter's per minute stats he looks awesome too, but there's a reason he's riding the pine, just like there is a reason the Spurs didn't play D.Rob or Bowen or S.Jax alot. Probably why most of your argument rests on the "intangibles" of the player. And anyway, if PER is the go to stat, what does PER say about the rest of Duncan's team in 2002 (or the whole team in 2003)? In fact looking at PER both KG and TD were better players than Hakeem ever was. But I'm consistent in that I don't put much value in a silly super stat like PER, and I look across the board at what a player contributed.

jeez you really ARE dumb. your argument wasnt that Duncan achieved so much in the postseason (in fact he didnt so...), it was about him lifting those teams to 58W in the REGULAR season. now D-Rob in the RS had 10+ WS, .200 WS48 and 20 PER.

http://bkref.com/tiny/QvFBI

this is the list of players who accomplished all 3 feats at the same time since lockout. I certainly wouldnt say they're scrubs. now consider that boxscore stats actually UNDERrepresent Robinson's impact, because his excellent defense was the reason why he was great in the first place. you're the only guy on the planet who thinks 2002 D-Rob was a scrub. his playing time was limited but still put up 15/10/2.5 per36 on good efficiency. he didnt play as many mins, but was still plenty productive (10 WS/.200 WS48/20 PER).

We have the deepest team we've had for one (guys like Hill, Blair, Jefferson have all taken a step forward this year, Neal coming out of nowhere, etc). We've traditionally had at least 1 or 2 bad starters, and a weak bench. This year we're deep all over the place, we have 5 good to great starters, which includes Manu and Parker playing like all-stars (something we didn't have in say 2002 or 2003), R.Jefferson shooting the best of his career, in fact we have the best 3pt shooting team in the NBA. That, and a nice schedule and a good focus for the regular season has allowed us to win more than expected, and I'm thrilled.

none of that is irrelevant here. either way Pop has consistently overachieved with decent talent in the regular season. the same thing occured in 2002. whats so hard to understand ? basically you could argue that Manu is leading Spurs to the best record in the league without stellar supporting cast so he's #1 right now. thats how your rationale behind Duncan's greatness looks like. Timmy was great that year but he wasnt the only reason they were winning. there were really good role players - Daniels, Malik Rose, S.Smith were all comparable to the guys you mentioned.

Flip Saunders has shown himself to be a very good coach. Maybe not the best coach at winning titles (not many coaches win titles anyway), but the "Flip sucks" stuff got thrown out a long time ago. He coached Detroit to a 64 win season that was eerily reminiscent of this years Spurs run, out of nowhere, and after the team was supposedly past it (and had lost Ben Wallace). The team posted 2 more seasons with him, of 53 and 59 wins, and made it to the ECF's all 3 years. Flip is an excellent coach.

I dont blame Flip for their losses, he was alright. the point remains though, not in the same stratosphere with Popovich.

Who were the legit bigs on Duncan's teams over the years, 2002-2003 included? 37 year old D.Rob who barely played in the playoffs? Malik 'fat ass' Rose? Nazr, Rasho, Oberto, 40 year old K.Willis? Joe Smith is definitely better than most if not all of those guys, even Kandi man is as useful as a few, Googs is better than all of them. And anyway, Rasho was certainly serviceable enough, if limited, when we got him.

you're missing the point, not only there was a hole at C, but there were 2 PFs in the starting line-up. both starting bigs (Joe and Rasho) were just poor players. Rasho was a poor player for Spurs as well but they had perimeter talent to make up for his deficiencies (as well as Popovich, who made him look like a good defender! he was never a good defender before or after that, but then again - Matt Bonner looks like a good defender under Pop). neither 2002 nor 2003 Spurs had holes at any positions like Wolves of that time did.

All you've really said above is that it's hard to build a team around KG than it is around TD, because of course Duncan would have just played inside, and thrived with a jump shooting, tough on D Joe Smith. He would have thrived with jump shooters like Peeler and Wally (far better than Bonner or S.Smith). KG on the other hand would have been far less valuable than Duncan, because KG isn't as much of an inside scorer, he can't stay inside and suck in multiple defenders on every play for Bowen, he can't provide the same inside intimidation Duncan does. Sure, KG is more "versatile" or whatever, that's like saying Spud Webb is more versatile than Shaq... who cares, I know which one is the more valuable player. KG's skill set just isn't as valuable, that's the whole point. And you guys HAD Porter, a younger Porter! I notice Googs and Marbury don't even get a mention above (nor do some others I named), and Brandon and Billups, superior to our 2002 or 2003 PG's, are dismissed with "they play PG, and KG is a jump shooter". It's still great to have a far superior PG!

can you even read ????
I said top players on Wolves were playing the same position which is why they didnt fit well and you're talking some sh*t about Duncan providing intimidation ? when Tony Parker plays with Chris Paul theoretically you have 2 all-stars on your team but nobody is expecting you to succeed playing both at the same time. this is why fit matters more than talent. Wolves didnt fit well, unlike the Spurs.

(btw... so who's now providing intimidation for the Celtics ? 35 year old Garnett ? or maybe its Krstic ? how about Jeff Green ? KG provides plenty of intimidation)

Fit perfectly? There's a reason our 2002 team varied from our 2003 team (and from many of our teams, who were constantly overhauled around this period), it's because they didn't fit perfectly, alot of the players around Duncan were trash. Steve Smith, Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose, S.Claxton, etc.

some points you made...

bastillon: Spurs fit well, there was a balance between shooters, defenders, shotblockers, rebounders, ballhandlers and post threats
singlepurpose: Spurs sucked

you didnt even respond to my point.

Joe Smith was better than 36-37 year old D.Rob

yeah I hear you, based on superior defense

[LarsV8]

I consider Lebron an unmatched regular season player. His size, speed, grace, power is just outstanding. You can pretty much pencil his teams in for 50+ wins, HCA and a lot of excitement. Unfortunately with his skillset you are basically building around an isolation wing player which I feel is flawed. Isolation players are good to have on a team when you need a bucket late and defense picks up, but Lebron has proven to be a rather poor in late game situations due to his lack of a consistent jump shot. Its hard to build around a guy like that as we have seen now twice. A lot of excitement, but not much substance. Also I just dont think this cat is very smart....at all.

KG is the total package. His skillset is complimentary to multiple styles of play and his defense can always be a backbone. You always take a big over a small because they are harder to come by.

So yea, for me, KG all day every day.

[singlepurposeac]

The regular season is relevant, and so is the postseason, especially since KG failed to get out of the first round 7 times in a row.

You cite some PER related fact, but I don't know why, since I told you I don't think much of PER, and I already asked you; if PER is the go to stat, how do you reconcile that with your claims about Hakeem?

D.Rob wasn't a "scrub" in 2002, I have been saying what he's not though. He was not "a defensive all-star" or "an all-star" or "one of the most valuable defenders in the NBA" as you so ludicrously claimed. He was an above average defender for his position, which is still reasonably valuable, with the problem that he was very slow, old, mechanical, etc. We obviously have very different views of Joe Smith, so let me give a more current example. D.Rob was basically like an older, more limited Nene. Taller, but less athletic, less able to run, slower, it about evens out (I'd much rather have Nene obviously, but you get the idea). Except he couldn't play more than 29 mpg, and even that puts him out of commission for the playoffs. Having someone like that as your 2nd best player on an playoff team is not a good look. On a team as shallow as the 2002 Spurs it's astounding.

Manu is not "#1 right now" (by which I assume you mean MVP), Manu (and the whole Spurs team) simply have luxuries that no previous Tim Duncan team has had. Even in good years for the Spurs, like the 2005 and 2007 title team, the team lacked the sort of depth and balance it has today. It's not like these are new and strange facts to present. In 2005 the team had Nazr and Rasho sharing C duties. The wing line up was much more shallow too, actually giving minutes to guys like Devin Brown, and Big Dog dragged out of retirement. Before we acquired Nazr (who played 23 games that year) we had to give minutes to Malik Rose, who was suckier than he'd ever been before (Knicks fans couldn't believe how bad he was). Even B.Barry, who was a decent role player for us over his time here, took the standard year to adapt. And this was his first year, where he looked horridly out of place (in his first few months here the 3PT% would bring a cringe to Spurs fans). His shooting was significantly worse in 2005 than in 2004, and picked up quite a bit the following year, before getting back to 2004 levels in 2007. And shooting was most of Barry's game at this stage in his career.

The Spurs now have a good player at every position, and a good back up at every position (sometimes 2), have 2-3 all-stars, and the best 3PT shooting team in the NBA. That's why Duncan has been able to play a reduced role (in the same way KG in Boston played a reduced role, though obviously Duncan isn't as good as KG was in 2008 or anything, that's no the point). Your suggestion Tim Duncan this year resembles 2002 D.Rob is just totally absurd.

To compare the 2002 team to the 2011 Spurs team is embarrassing for you, it really is. Tony at PG is an all-star, and has a great back up in George Hill. In 2002 the PG was a rookie Tony who was far, far worse. At SG in 2011 we have Manu Ginobili, who just made the all-star team, and usually gets an honourable mention in the MVP discussions. In 2002 we had the incredibly mediocre and stupid Antonio Daniels, a guy who only made it to the NBA on the back of his athleticism, and who couldn't defend well either. At SF the Spurs in 2011 had Jefferson, who is playing vastly better than last year, and is shooting far and away career bests from the 3PT line, he also plays D and is a proven role player (at times a borderline all-star) aged 30. Off the bench the Spurs have G.Neal, who has played great this year, and is also shooting great, he reminds one alot of S.Jax in 2003 actually, a nice spark off the bench. In 2002 we had Steve Smith, a player who had degraded so much he had only one skill left, shooting (and taking technical FT's), who couldn't defend, couldn't create his shot, couldn't rebound, couldn't do anything. Competing for minutes with A.Daniels and Charles Smith (who got 19mpg!) he played less than D.Rob. Steve was out of the NBA in less than 3 years, all of which only served to show how bad he had become. After this season Charles Smith played less than 50 NBA games. In 2011 we have D.Blair, the Veteran McDyess, Bonner shooting disgustingly good % from the field, and even the young Splitter has been invaluable, alongside a still all-star Duncan (though given the amount of rest and limited role he's been able to play, he probably doesn't deserve to make it out West... if he was required to play a bigger role though, he would be, something we'll see in the playoffs). In 2002 we had Malik Rose, who can't touch Blair's bootstraps, peak Duncan and D.Rob (who in fairness would probably be of similar value to the combined presence of Blair and McDyess). If you can't see the gaping difference in the balance and depth on the teams you're insane.

In as much as a single player can carry a team to victory, as Hakeem did in 1994, or Erving in 1976, or Lebron in 09 and 10, Duncan did it in 2002 and 2003. He had nothing to work with, it was pitiful.

Flip is a very good coach then, capable of coaching a team to an unexpected 64 win season. That's all we need to know really. Coaching can't be blamed when KG has 7 first round failures, 3 prime seasons out of the playoffs, and a number of mediocre seasons even among the playoff ones. KG is a great player of course, comparing him to anyone who isn't Duncan, Kareem, Lebron, Wilt, etc, he'd come off very well in terms of team carrying ability. There are only about 10-12 guys on another level, but Duncan and Lebron are 2 of them.

You just try and blame it all on the coaching. Rasho was a bad defender for us, but Popp made him good! Bonner was a bad defender elsewhere, but good for us! It's such obvious homerism. The 2002-2003 Spurs had holes everywhere except PF.

You've basically said it's harder to build around KG, because he didn't have an intimidating presence inside. Neither did Duncan though, he was that presence. It's not my fault KG can't fill that role, it's his, and it hurts your argument he is able to have the same impact. Most teams don't have an interior defender who can intimidate the other team, that's quite rare, if KG needs one to compare to Duncan then that hurts him.

[bastillon]

your respond has nothing to do with my points. I may remind you I was comparing 2002 Wolves and Spurs. so:

1.Popovich is known for overachieving with decent talent. even now, or few years back when Spurs were dealing with injuries from big three, they always stayed .500 team at the very least. it applies to Spurs 2002, it applies to Spurs 2011, whats so hard to understand ? obviously they wouldnt win 58 games in 02 with or 65 games this year with Flip Saunders as their coach. Flip had some good years but he never exceeded expectations the way Popovich did time and time again. obviously Flip was a poor playoff coach, always making wrong adjustments etc (which is why those 64W team you keep talking about, didnt even reach the finals in the pathetic east, and thats after 2 consecutive finals appearances in 2004 and 2005).

2.you're severely underrating D-Rob. when he wasn't playing in the playoffs Spurs team wasnt even close to 60W they won in RS. both boxscore stats and +/- will support he was plenty valuable. you're dismissing his 10 WS / .200 WS48 (if you dont like PER thats fine, but Robinson is highly ranked by ALL metrics). I've showed you a list of post-lockout players who fulfill these requirements. great players. there's strong evidence that he was a very valuable 2nd player. Drza's excellent post that destroyed your ass, already showed his best comparison: 2011 Tim Duncan. I wholeheartedly agree. you're an idiot for thinking Joe Smith was better than D-Rob. not to mention the rationale behind this: defense since you consider that D-Rob (2.5 blk, 1.3 stls, 7 drbs per 36) was a liability on defense, why dont you tell me why Spurs regressed by 8.7 in pts allowed per48 in his absence in 03. its actually a great sample because Robinson played 1660 mins and missed over 2200. he was clearly doing something right.

3.Spurs players fit very well with each other. there was a great combination of ballhandlers, shooters, slashers, cutters, perimeter defenders, shotblockers, post threats, passers, inexperienced and veterans. contrary to this situations, there was no perimeter defenders for Wolves, no rebounding bigs next to KG, some ridiculous situations like Billups/Brandon playing the same position, KG playing SF next to Joe Smith etc.

I dont know why the hell you're comparing Spurs '11 with Spurs '02, or why would you talk about intimidation (who's now providing that for the Celtics ? Big Baby ?) and dont wanna know. focus on what we're trying to solve out. 2002 Wolves vs Spurs.

[singlepurposeac]

Why do only the 2002 Wolves get compared to the 2002 Spurs? Why don't we get to look at KG's other seasons?

You've made it unprovable (to you) that Flip "exceeded expectations time and again" because he only coached 15 years (lol, only), and you've dismissed 10 years from the sample size since it was for the Wolves and you insist on claiming he was bad. He certainly exceeded expectations all 3 of his years on the Pistons, and his other 2 years are with a rebuilding lotto team. I see no reason coaches should come into this, this is still a players game, as long as KG had a good coach fans can't complain and use it to explain away all his failures.

I watched the Spurs in 2002 and 2003, and you're totally wrong about D.Rob's overall value as a player. His relative value to other team members not named Duncan I don't much care about, all that tells you is that the rest of his team sucked, something I've been telling you for a while now.

The rest has been explained already. The discussion here was never about the 2002 Wolves, or any one year, it was about all the chances Minnesota KG had, and all the different varieties of talent, and the total failure to do anything comparable to Duncan with that talent, except for the year he had 2 all-stars, one of whom had a career year. There are 7 playoff disappointments and 3 playoff misses, trying to confine the discussion to 2002 is silly. But just limit it to 2002 for a sec, and switch the 2. The Wolves win more and get out of the first round, Joe Smith enjoying his jump shots and PF role now that he's with a true big man, and all-star wally enjoys open 3's. The Spurs meanwhile look more like the 2005-7 Wolves did, I'm not sure they'd even make the playoffs.

[bastillon]

step by step, we can get to other years later. 2002 and then 2003 were particularly mentioned by you so we'll start from here.

I dont blame Flip for their RS. his schemes sucked in the playoffs though, which he clearly proved in Detroit. he was good for Minnesota. again, you've missed my point. POPOVICH was the one I was talking about. he is noted for exceeding expectations. unless you believed in the offseason Spurs were to become a 65W team, you have to admit the same. and it's not just this year, really. from 2008-2010 they were dealing with several injuries and Pop always did great adjustments to keep his team respectable. with Duncan or no Duncan. Popovich is one of the best coaches of all time and I respect him very much, as someone who was rooting for Nash and saw Pop destroy D'Antoni time and time again with his coaching alone. what matters here is that Popovich once again led his team above expectations and used his players very well.

I wouldnt be surprised if you thought Flip Saunders would also lead that team to 58 wins, but you've lost my respect when mentioned Peeler as a good player and then completely embarassed yourself with D-Rob vs Joe Smith comparison.

as for D-Rob, I couldnt care less whether you watched him or not. there are people who watch Monta Ellis and think he's top10 player in the league. conclusion: most fans are poor in this evaluation stuff. if watching him play made you believe he was a defensive liability and worse defender than Joe Smith then you're probably one of those idiots. Im sorry but there no other way to put it. its Joe freakin Smith we're talkin about here. I still cant believe that you believe this

at this point our discussion about D-Rob has come down to this:
-boxscore stats think he was a great player
-his impact on 2003 Spurs defense was undeniable
-his closest comparison isnt Joe Smith but Tim Duncan 2011

your counterargument:
-he sucked, I've watched him play

so the reason why Wolves 2002 were worse than Spurs 2002 wasnt Duncan/KG but:
-Pop's superior coaching
-D-Rob was much better than anyone on the Wolves except KG
-fit. balance. no players out of position.