RealGM

In todays league would you rather start a new team with Dirk or KG?

I would like Garnett more. Think todays league is more forgiving (in theory) to some potential limitations KG might have as a potential first option and sole/main catalyst on offense, while a heavier emphasis on decision making and movement to playing “optimal” style of offense would set him up better. With doubts of his mid-range translating well, see CP3 Durant DeRozan and others. Defensively, I think when keyed in he would have a very firm case to be the best player in the league.

As for Dirk, I think he would still be a scoring machine like he was through all of his prime - but as a 4, there could be smaller matchups that give him troubles now and then and he isn’t as outlier as a spacer as he was in the 2000s. I also think some of his defensive limitations would be amplified in an era when he can be exploited in space more often. (This is no knack at Dirk either, as one who is high on his impact and scoring ability).

KG does incredibly well at all of the things the data ball era emphasizes. I think he would be better today than he was in his time. More PnR, high post passing, switch defending.

Dirk would be a scoring monster in this era. My man was shooting 53% from mid-range on 9 attempts per game and 40% from 3 in 2011, imagine how hyper efficient he'd be in a 5-out offence with mismatches being exploited and such. His defence would be concerning though. Imagine him having to defend Giannis or Zion in space.

KG would be 2016 Draymond on steroids though so I'm taking him.

Dirk Nowitzki. Jokic is showing the value of having a big man anchor your offense.

Statlanta wrote:Dirk Nowitzki. Jokic is showing the value of having a big man anchor your offense.

Jokic is likely the best passing center in NBA history. While Dirk had many great talents, playmaking wasn’t one of them.

KG in any era. He’s a better player

Will never understand the argument of KG over Dirk. Duncan of course, not debatable. But Dirk is better than KG

daoneandonly wrote:Will never understand the argument of KG over Dirk. Duncan of course, not debatable. But Dirk is better than KG

Reading is a good way to understand.

Colbinii wrote:

daoneandonly wrote:Will never understand the argument of KG over Dirk. Duncan of course, not debatable. But Dirk is better than KG

Reading is a good way to understand.

Watching si better. Dirk never had superstar talent around him and managed to take his team farther than KG. The one time KG did, he had Pierce and Allen and in an inferior conference.

daoneandonly wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

daoneandonly wrote:Will never understand the argument of KG over Dirk. Duncan of course, not debatable. But Dirk is better than KG

Reading is a good way to understand.

Watching si better. Dirk never had superstar talent around him and managed to take his team farther than KG. The one time KG did, he had Pierce and Allen and in an inferior conference.

Right...but there are 100s of posts on this website with a significant amount of data, screen shots from games and overviewing what exactly made each player great. Some of these posts are providing serious arguments for KG and some for Dirk. The point is, if you say "I can never understand..." this means you are either completely biased towards one of these players [which you are] or you simply haven't put in the 100s of hours of comparing these players like many have on this board.

Both players have arguments ahead of one another based on one's criteria, but to say "You can't understand why KG has an argument" shows you putting little effort into this comparison other than "I love the Mavs and Drik".

Colbinii wrote:

daoneandonly wrote:

Colbinii wrote:
Reading is a good way to understand.

Watching si better. Dirk never had superstar talent around him and managed to take his team farther than KG. The one time KG did, he had Pierce and Allen and in an inferior conference.

Right...but there are 100s of posts on this website with a significant amount of data, screen shots from games and overviewing what exactly made each player great. Some of these posts are providing serious arguments for KG and some for Dirk. The point is, if you say "I can never understand..." this means you are either completely biased towards one of these players [which you are] or you simply haven't put in the 100s of hours of comparing these players like many have on this board.

Both players have arguments ahead of one another based on one's criteria, but to say "You can't understand why KG has an argument" shows you putting little effort into this comparison other than "I love the Mavs and Drik".

I think eveyrone holds some bias for certain players, especially ones on their own team. But like I said, Duncan is clearly ahead of Dirk, and when he calls it a wrap, Giannis will be too. But I have Dirk as #3 in the best PF ever convo.

daoneandonly wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

daoneandonly wrote:
Watching si better. Dirk never had superstar talent around him and managed to take his team farther than KG. The one time KG did, he had Pierce and Allen and in an inferior conference.

Right...but there are 100s of posts on this website with a significant amount of data, screen shots from games and overviewing what exactly made each player great. Some of these posts are providing serious arguments for KG and some for Dirk. The point is, if you say "I can never understand..." this means you are either completely biased towards one of these players [which you are] or you simply haven't put in the 100s of hours of comparing these players like many have on this board.

Both players have arguments ahead of one another based on one's criteria, but to say "You can't understand why KG has an argument" shows you putting little effort into this comparison other than "I love the Mavs and Drik".

I think eveyrone holds some bias for certain players, especially ones on their own team. But like I said, Duncan is clearly ahead of Dirk, and when he calls it a wrap, Giannis will be too. But I have Dirk as #3 in the best PF ever convo.

That's fine--you aren't addressing the underlying issue of your original statement, and at this point I assume you won't.

I don't know, it's very close. I think KG had a slight edge in the 2000s but that Dirk gets slightly more benefit from the era shift. If this was going to be my team's best offensive player then I'd definitely take Dirk, otherwise I'd probably take the safe pick and go with KG.

I will say I'd enjoy watching Dirk more in this era. It would be so fun seeing him jack up 7-8 threes per game and driving on hard close outs into wide open lanes instead of the clogged drains he faced in the 2000s. I think he would average 30+ PPG on 60+ TS%.

Colbinii wrote:

daoneandonly wrote:

Colbinii wrote:
Right...but there are 100s of posts on this website with a significant amount of data, screen shots from games and overviewing what exactly made each player great. Some of these posts are providing serious arguments for KG and some for Dirk. The point is, if you say "I can never understand..." this means you are either completely biased towards one of these players [which you are] or you simply haven't put in the 100s of hours of comparing these players like many have on this board.

Both players have arguments ahead of one another based on one's criteria, but to say "You can't understand why KG has an argument" shows you putting little effort into this comparison other than "I love the Mavs and Drik".

I think eveyrone holds some bias for certain players, especially ones on their own team. But like I said, Duncan is clearly ahead of Dirk, and when he calls it a wrap, Giannis will be too. But I have Dirk as #3 in the best PF ever convo.

That's fine--you aren't addressing the underlying issue of your original statement, and at this point I assume you won't.

And you're taking away from the thread by choosing to harp on some literal verbiage. The debate has been going on for years so yes I've read plenty on it, and I don't agree with the vast majority of the arguments. I can present a laundry list of things to prove my case, but it wont convince anyone just as all the why KG is betetr hasnt changed my stance.

In today's league, hmm.

Dirk's style of offense, particularly when he was younger, certainly suits. He'd have to shoot more from 3, and it bears mention that if we get Dirk as he actually played, he didn't come into the league with that dirty mid-post game of his, but rather as more of a face-up guy. He'd score well, and of course he draws lots of attention, but the lack of playmaking still means he'd generally need a lead guard next to him driving the offense with screen action.

Then again, Garnett was never an elite scorer either, though he did take a little more flak than he probably should have for being asked to anchor nothing in Minnesota. He clearly had the tools to be part of a title team, and he would be remembered differently if Spree and Alien had remained healthy in 2004, since that was a pretty reasonable shot at a title for them.

I don't know. Garnett's D would be nice and the talent level and strategic evolution make it seem a little simpler to find complementary perimeter talent. You could stick a short guard or two and some decent spacers around him and he'd be pretty nasty. With Dirk, you'd still have to flesh out the D as well as the offense, which makes life a little more difficult. I guess it kind of evens out, though, when you consider the difference in offense between the two? Or at least lessens the gap.

Tough call. Garnett had a lot of tools which would be useful today. You put a lead guard with him and he certainly had the range and the roll to be an effective PnR partner. He was also an excellent high-post passer, so that helps out. And obviously his defense was good.

Really the only thing Dirk was better at was scoring. The question then becomes, is that enough to make him more valuable?

Don't get sucked in, Chuck. Don't get sucked in.

I hate this "all Dirk does better is score". That's just totally reductive of the enormous gap in offensive impact between the two players. We can talk all we want about KG''s passing and no question he was a higher volume playmaker. But Dirk created way more quality looks for teammates than KG ever did. And that matters. A lot.

Nothing new or fresh to add, but Dirk's threat on the court went way beyond his individual scoring.

Texas Chuck wrote:Don't get sucked in, Chuck. Don't get sucked in.

I hate this "all Dirk does better is score". That's just totally reductive of the enormous gap in offensive impact between the two players. We can talk all we want about KG''s passing and no question he was a higher volume playmaker. But Dirk created way more quality looks for teammates than KG ever did. And that matters. A lot.

Nothing new or fresh to add, but Dirk's threat on the court went way beyond his individual scoring.

As someone who literally just argued for KG, while taking into account his passing, it annoys me when people act as if KG is anything better than a positionally good passer at his position.

Blah blah better passer rating than Stockton my ass. When he was surrounded by talent his passing was barely utilised. Furthermore, it's hard for me to parse his passing talents with the fact that he was a negative on offence for the last few years of his career. How tf does a 7ft, floor spacing big man with passing accumen ever end up as a negative on offence.

Mini-rant aside, yeah for all Garnet's abilities are worth the gap between him and Dirk on offence is massive.

daoneandonly wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

daoneandonly wrote:Will never understand the argument of KG over Dirk. Duncan of course, not debatable. But Dirk is better than KG

Reading is a good way to understand.

Watching si better. Dirk never had superstar talent around him and managed to take his team farther than KG. The one time KG did, he had Pierce and Allen and in an inferior conference.

Dirk over KG any era.

Era or no era....Whats really going to change? KG other than his one MVP wasn't even leading above average much less elite defenses in his Minnesota prime.

Dirk played with a variety of casts the '00s and his teams were still truly elite offenses.

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:

daoneandonly wrote:

Colbinii wrote:
Reading is a good way to understand.

Watching si better. Dirk never had superstar talent around him and managed to take his team farther than KG. The one time KG did, he had Pierce and Allen and in an inferior conference.

Dirk over KG any era.

Era or no era....Whats really going to change? KG other than his one MVP wasn't even leading above average much less elite defenses in his Minnesota prime.

Dirk played with a variety of casts the '00s and his teams were still truly elite offenses.

What about outside of Minnesota? Why doesn't that count?