RealGM

How many Tim Duncan years would you take over 2004 KG?

I guess 98 to 07; Duncan's full prime, depending on whether you use the timing of the 00 injury to exclude that year.

02 and 03

Only 2002 and 2003

Probably only 2002 and 2003, though if you view Duncan's postseason edge as significant I can also see 2001 and 2007.

2004 would be close, but don't see that with missed games.

Rookie Duncan over peak Garnett is ridiculous by the way.

2003 is the only one that really sticks out and even that can be intensely debated

Maybe none.

KG was that good in 2004.

I think 2002 and 2003 are the ones you can make a case for, and I'd personally put 2003 over KG's 2004 season.

TD had a better overall career- I definitely have him over KG, but KG's 2004 is an all time great season.

Better supporting cast: 03’ Duncan or 04’ KG?

Hook_Em wrote:Better supporting cast: 03’ Duncan or 04’ KG?

'03 Spurs I'd take pretty confidently considering their superior health, depth and coaching situation.

Zero

Hook_Em wrote:Better supporting cast: 03’ Duncan or 04’ KG?

It's the 04 Wolves.

We also saw the exact same KG in 2002 lead the Wolves to a worse record than the Spurs, with a significantly better support cast that year.

The only reason KG won the 04 MVP over Duncan was because TD missed some games with an injury, and voter fatigue. The supposedly superior Spurs support cast was 6-7 in the games TD missed, and 51-18 when he played.

One_and_Done wrote:The only reason KG won the 04 MVP over Duncan was because TD missed some games with an injury, and voter fatigue. The supposedly superior Spurs support cast was 6-7 in the games TD missed, and 51-18 when he played.

These could be factored, but it's just not true - KG had remarkable RS on his own and he 100% deserved the MVP. Just the season before, he was very close to Duncan in the MVP voting as well.

6-7 isn't a bad record, considering how much you trash these early 2000s teams.

Also, not related to the RS MVP award but Garnett did play notably better than Duncan against the Lakers in the playoffs - at least offensively.

Yeh, I disagree.

Hard to discuss that way, but feel free to whatever you want to do

One_and_Done wrote:Yeh, I disagree.

Could you expound for the purposes of the discussion in the thread? AKA it's base purpose?

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Yeh, I disagree.

Could you expound for the purposes of the discussion in the thread? AKA it's base purpose?

I expound on my views here.
viewtopic.php?t=2428798#p116367508

I just think Duncan was the more impactful player, period.

0

Low end evaluation: none

Medium evaluation: 2; 2002-03

High end evaluation: 4; 2001-2003, 2007

2002 and 2003 i am confident on, 2006 is a dark horse pick for me too

trelos6 wrote:Low end evaluation: none

Medium evaluation: 2; 2002-03

High end evaluation: 4; 2001-2003, 2007

Everyone is talking like Duncan wasn't the best player in the world in 99, in a league that included prime Shaq, who he thoroughly outplayed in a sweep. D.Rob put up 13-6 in the Lakers series, while playing only 28mpg to Duncan's 44. He was not even at the level of sidekick. The Spurs biggest win that series came in after game where D.Rob played 24 minutes, and had 10 & 4.

No chance 04 KG is sweeping those Lakers with that support cast.