Where does 2008 KG rank in the league this year?

[HeartBreakKid]

But I really hate the need to exaggerate how badly KG had it. We do this with literally no other player on this board.

I guess this is where I disagree. I don't see it as an exaggeration(except maybe 04). Those teams were absolutely all time level bad outside of KG.

We do this with literally no other player on this board.

I see this as a good thing, as it's a more honest take at what happened. The reason you don't see it with any other player is because we've never seen any other player of that caliber that was anywhere near as unfortunate as KG when it comes to the quality of their teammates.

I think it would be weirder if we weren't constantly bringing it up in these ATG player comparisons. Players are inevitably judged by their success to at least some degree, and it makes no sense to hold KG to the same standard of success when he had no where near the same level of help. I think it's necessary to bring up just how bad his teammates were to do a proper comparison, as it helps to contextualize his relative lack of success for someone of that caliber.

If people overstate how bad the early 00''s Wolves were, it doesn't come close to how much people overrate how stacked the Celtics in 08 were and they overachieved immensely on defense in terms of talent level.

It's crazy now, because no one was picking the Celtics to win the title before the season, and most people didn't have them coming out of the east at all. They weren't considered a superteam until people had to re-write the narrative because of how wrong they were about Garnett not providing a mammoth amount of lift.

The original take on Garnett was that his +/- was only so impressive compared to others because the team was so bad that he was basically just providing lift for a bottom feeder and couldn't be that impactful on a contender, and carrying all of the load isn't as impressive if it's not on a great team. Then he goes to Boston and leads a historic defense, and the tteam dominates way above everyone's expectations going in, and the story becomes that he's only producing this well because he's in the perfect role, on a superteam that is so stacked that they can't fail. He isn't allowed to have the best metrics in the league on a bad team or on a great team without it being a knock against him

I basically stay out of KG threads now, because after 2008, basically everything the KG supporters thought all along was validated. He got a championship supporting cast and won on the first try, even though the prediction was that they'd win 48-50 games and go down to the Pistons or Cavs at best.

The goal posts have shifted so much on what KG should or would or couldn't do over the nearly 20 years I've been here, that it's not even worth an argument anymore. Numbers don't matter, except when they don't favor Garnett.

Exactly.

To a large % of critics he's in a win-lose situation.Timberwolves suck and that's his career. Celtics are an asterisk team because they have "two hall of famers". A team that wasn't even favored to win the East and was filled with a bunch of "losers" is too stacked to count. But meanwhile half of the top 20 all time players played for the same club and were teammates with each other.

Their second finals run they weren't even expected to get out the second round and they were all moving like they were middle aged except Rondo. If they had won the title they would be among the least impressive championship teams talent wise.


Another win-lose situation Garnett gets trapped in are the T-Wolves not having a great defense. They're an offensive slanted team so naturally they had good offensive ratings. Yet the knock against Garnett is his offense because he doesn't have high volume. So he gets blasted for the T-Wolves having a bad defense but no credit for anchoring good offenses.

[tsherkin]

The original take on Garnett was that his +/- was only so impressive compared to others because the team was so bad that he was basically just providing lift for a bottom feeder and couldn't be that impactful on a contender, and carrying all of the load isn't as impressive if it's not on a great team. Then he goes to Boston and leads a historic defense, and the tteam dominates way above everyone's expectations going in, and the story becomes that he's only producing this well because he's in the perfect role, on a superteam that is so stacked that they can't fail. He isn't allowed to have the best metrics in the league on a bad team or on a great team without it being a knock against him

I dunno, I think a lot of people looked at Garnett suddenly having all that offense, particularly after the acquisition of Ray-Ray, and some heads turned. Mine certainly did. It was a magnificent setup for Garnett and it ended the best way possible for him... and then two years later, they nearly did it again. Had they enjoyed more health, we might be having very different discussions. Also, if they hadn't increased Rondo's primacy, that might also have been good, because damn.

KG was very good. I think Boston illustrated his ideal usage: don't float him as a high-end volume scorer, because he wasn't, particularly come the playoffs. But on a team like Boston, he could be your primary scorer... you just don't have to lean on him for 25 ppg. He could comfortably score 18-20 ppg, have two other competent and efficient scorers propping up the team offense, good spacing... and he could wield his passing to best effect. Plus of course his defensive impact.

KG was dope. His biggest problem is that he didn't match the fan ideal of the BIG PPGGZZZZZZ focal star, IMHO. And of course he wasn't a Jordan clone wing dunk machine, which was the prevailing THING at the time.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I don't know how you measure accomplished. They basically have the same amount of accomplishments. Kobe does have one more ring which comes from a head to head in a 7 game finals series with Garnett's own team, that seems pretty much equal to me? Finals MVP I guess? I think being the best player on your team is more important than that.

I assume you're being literal as in Kobe has a bit more All defense and all-star selections. But considering he is a more popular player it about evens out. I mean no one is going to sit there and say that Kobe Bryant is a more accomplished defender than Garnett. Kobe has 18 selections and Garnett has 15, but who is seriously going to consider Kobe in his last 2 seasons an all-star caliber player, he was voted in because he is the most popular player of all time lol. His 98 selection pretty much comes from being on the Lakers as well, he wasn't THAT good back then.

Kobe playing for the Lakers made a big difference in how he is perceived (also him being a perimeter player). Also, you didn't really remove the Shaq years you probably just removed 3 rings, that's not the same thing. If Shaq isn't there then how do the 04 Lakers get past the 04 Wolves? Their accolades are roughly equal outside of rings, with Kobe edging it out but that makes sense given his status. What makes you feel he is way more accomplished?

They're both MVP caliber players. They both ever never the undisputed best players for a long period of time like Jordan or James. They're both all time great players on one side of the ball (offense is glorified way more than defense though). They're both capable two way players. They were both good all-star caliber players for a very long time (they got into the league almost the same year and at the same age). When their teams were relatively even they had about the same amount of success and we even saw them play head to head with those rosters.

Am I misreading or did you say Kobe has 1 more ring lol

What do you think?!

You said “kobe does have one more ring” lol

[Ron Swanson]

I don't like when we handwave criticisms of KG's offense to just "PPGzz" either though. The biggest problem with Garnett is that he wasn't a top-tier offensive hub relative to his contemporaries, and we know this because:

A) He just wasn't as efficient (+618 Ts added through 12 seasons with Minnesota). For comparison, Duncan was at +1,067 Ts added through his first 12 seasons on similar volume.
B) Like D-Rob, his playoff scoring resiliency (18.9 PPG per-36 on 51% TS, 6 out of 8 Minnesota playoff runs of sub-league average TS), and play-making efficiency (1.69 vs. 1.39 AST/TO) dipped noticeably and consistently.
C) Even when surrounded with "good" offensive talent, those Big-3 Celtics teams arguably never reached their potential offensively (their lone Top-6 team ORTG ironically came in 2009 when Garnett missed 25-games)
D) Never generated rim/foul pressure (4.8 FTA per-36) comparable to his positional contemporaries (Dirk, Duncan, Amare)

I mean, yeah, of course his efficiency shot up the second you put him in an ideal situation with two All-Star level shot creators (Ray and Pierce), and an above-average secondary facilitator (Rondo), while reducing his scoring and play-making responsibilities.
I'd expect as much for even high usage, heliocentric superstars. Defense is almost always additive so it just reinforced the long held notion that KG was an historical outlier level defender who was simply stuck with bad team defense/defenders (I'd agree). But what I don't agree with is that KG was ever stuck with bad offensive talent outside of those last years. That we'd be critiquing those 2002-2005 Minnesota offenses might seem nit-picky, but when I constantly hear people holding up KG has arguably the GOAT two-way peak, then these things matter.

[HeartBreakKid]

Am I misreading or did you say Kobe has 1 more ring lol

What do you think?!

You said “kobe does have one more ring” lol

Well, unless you think I am unaware that Kobe has 5 rings then you misread.

[MyUniBroDavis]

What do you think?!

You said “kobe does have one more ring” lol

Well, unless you think I am unaware that Kobe has 5 rings then you misread.

You said Kobe does have one more ring in quotes right lol

[tsherkin]

I don't like when we handwave criticisms of KG's offense to just "PPGzz" either though. The biggest problem with Garnett is that he wasn't a top-tier offensive hub relative to his contemporaries, and we know this because:

Sure, if that was for me, I was being brief. We know that Garnett didn't stand up to his peers as a scorer. We know that Dirk was better, we know that Shaq was better, we know that Karl Malone was better, we know that a whole bunch of wings were better. Scoring was something he did, but he wasn't elite at. 01-07, he was a 55.2% TS guy on the back of 05 and 06 (the only seasons where he was actually at or above 55% TS) but... league average was lower then, so his TS+ is better. He was at 102, 103, then 107, 106, 107, 110 and 101. After 01, of course, he didn't see 54% TS in the playoffs again until 2008, and that was after taking a few years off because Minny wasn't making it.

His passing and everything led to him being a pretty noteworthy offensive player, though obviously more valuable on D than on O. He's an interesting one. The early 2000s were all about trying to build this model of team that was kind of stupid, with a few exceptions. There was this intense focus on finding that ONE GUY who could float your offense, sort of building on what MJ had done in Chicago... but even then, it wasn't an accurate representation. It's part of why we saw guys like Vince and McGrady and then a bunch of small guards like Francis and Davis and what have you languishing. Naturally, team management quality and luck play in, but there was this notion at the time that STAR PLUS ROLEPLAYERS EQUALS GOOD. And that really wasn't how things worked.

I think people have to shout loudly when they aren't being heard at all, though, and then adapting thereafter can be a bit challenging. KG was really good, but in his own time, he was often dismissed because he didn't stack up as a scorer. This isn't surprising given how people treat Russell.

[NO-KG-AI]

But what I don't agree with is that KG was ever stuck with bad offensive talent outside of those last years. That we'd be critiquing those 2002-2005 Minnesota offenses might seem nit-picky, but when I constantly hear people holding up KG has arguably the GOAT two-way peak, then these things matter.

The Wolves weren't super bad offensively, but they also weren't anything special at all, and they also didn't underachieve. They were landing in the top 5 a lot of years on teams that weren't special talents. The Wolves were still a bit stuck in that early 00's style of play, but mostly Flip Saunders did a good job of using KG's ability to space the floor and pass the ball better than most coaches would at the time to really open up things for their more aggressive style combo guards.

I think they more overachieved than underachieved though.

As far as two-way GOAT or whatever, that term never makes sense to me. All players play both ways, whoever has the best overall impact on the game is the best two way player. And KG is not the best player of all time, or even in the discussion for it, but I think a lot of guys have been granted more of a seat at the table in that argument than they deserve in recent years, but we'll leave that for another topic.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, that starts to get bad. 2004 was an outlier for him; that actually was a good team, had it stayed healthy. Cassell was amazing that year. Sprewell, despite his customary dogcrap scoring was an excellent defender for them. Hassell, Hoiberg, Wally Z (crap defender, though), they had some decent role pieces. Someone has already mentioned EJ.

...some of the worst players to ever graze the league (could add Ricky Davis to that group), transformed into "decent role pieces" by the power of the ever-incompetent Minnesota Timberwolves and Kevin Garnett, kind of proving my point.

not to undervalue what Gobert has been, managing a #9 defense last year with a single positive defender was nuts, but the bulk of his defensive results are with great defensive help (Ricky Rubio, Derrick Favors, Royce O'Neale, Joe Ingles, decent replacement in Niang, Mitchell was not bad when engaged).

This is far from an apples to apples comparison, cannot really go "hahaha! Gobert top 5 defenses vs Garnett top 15 defenses".

I think the reverse is true. Whenever KG's Minnesota career is brought up, the throwaway line is "bad teammates". Generally, overexaggerated by some as worst teammates ever. Over 12 years he had only mediocre to bad defenses. This means something and cannot be ignored or dismissed.

In comparison in their first 12 seasons this is how many top 5 defenses the following players had (remembering KG had zero):
Hakeem 8
Ewing 7
Robinson 9
Duncan 12
Russell 12
Dikembe 6
Hayes 7
Wilt 10
Eaton 5 (4 out of the 5 years he played more than 30 minutes/game)
Ben Wallace 5
Rudy Gobert 4 (out of 10)
Draymond Green 6 (out of 10)

As this is over a 12 year period, many were able to have great defenses with a variety of teammates and coaches. As I've said many times before, I still think that KG is an all time great defender but some put him as a top five defender of all time. That just doesn't make sense when he cannot elevate a defense to the same level as some of the great rim protectors.

A case in point in 2001 -02 played on a defense with Billups, Joe Smith and Rasho Nesterovic. It was a 15th ranked defense. As we know, Billups and Rasho went on to start on great defenses on the Pistons and Spurs. Joe Smith was a decent defender. Even Wally (the last starter) was not completely terrible.

In comparison, David Robinson was able to have a number one defense with Rod Strickland, Sean Elliot, Willie Anderson and Terry Cummins. A number three defense with Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Sean Elliot and Charles Smith.
Hakeem had a number four defense with Rod McCray, Sleepy Floyd, Allen Leavell and Jim Petersen.

I could list off many more. But the point is clear. All-time great defenders have the ability to elevate defenses into a sum greater than its parts. These players are invariably great rim protectors. KG was not able to play on a top five defense in 12 years. He had some terrible teammates but he also had some good and some average defensive teammates.

So, I'm going to jump in here with some data I've compiled recently inspired by the recent thread about Curry not being on more Top 10 offenses.

It occurred to me that I'm more interested in how many times a player when they were on the court saw their team performing "Above One", as in better than the top team in the league in that year.

I can only do this going back to '96-97 of course, but here's the leaderboard for defense in that timespan:

1. Tim Duncan 14
2. Bruce Bowen 6
(tie) David Robinson 6
(tie) Kevin Garnett 6
(tie) Danny Green 6
(tie) Rudy Gobert 6

And for the record, here are other players you listed who played predominantly in this era:

Draymond Green 3
Dikembe Mutombo 2
Ben Wallace 1

So then first, obviously Duncan's massive number here is what's really salient. I'm going to put that off to the side for the moment to speak to what you're describing.

You're arguing that Garnett wasn't able to lead to great defense as well as the guys in the top tier...but Garnett trumps most of those guys when you use a metric like this that doesn't hold a guy back based on the limitations of his teammates.

Now, further disclosure, Garnett's 6 years were his 6 years in Boston. That certainly leaves an opening to say it was about his supporting cast...but this is where I think it makes sense to remind that we do have RAPM, and Garnett looks fantastic by those metric in those years relative to his teammates.

Back to Duncan:

I do think stats like this show what a close-to-unique career Duncan was able to have and it's understandable why some would talk about him as a GOAT candidate...but it's important to keep in mind that the bigger trend here is that of the Spurs rather than Duncan. Duncan retires after '15-16, the following year the Spurs were once again the best defense in the league which helped Danny Green continue to add to his tally.

So I wouldn't want to argue that Duncan and only Duncan could ensure Above-One level defense throughout his whole career, rather the more likely thing to me is that in the modern NBA the guys who make up the consensus "top tier" were not able to elevate their team's to elite levels by themselves.

[Red Beast]

...some of the worst players to ever graze the league (could add Ricky Davis to that group), transformed into "decent role pieces" by the power of the ever-incompetent Minnesota Timberwolves and Kevin Garnett, kind of proving my point.

not to undervalue what Gobert has been, managing a #9 defense last year with a single positive defender was nuts, but the bulk of his defensive results are with great defensive help (Ricky Rubio, Derrick Favors, Royce O'Neale, Joe Ingles, decent replacement in Niang, Mitchell was not bad when engaged).

This is far from an apples to apples comparison, cannot really go "hahaha! Gobert top 5 defenses vs Garnett top 15 defenses".

I think the reverse is true. Whenever KG's Minnesota career is brought up, the throwaway line is "bad teammates". Generally, overexaggerated by some as worst teammates ever. Over 12 years he had only mediocre to bad defenses. This means something and cannot be ignored or dismissed.

In comparison in their first 12 seasons this is how many top 5 defenses the following players had (remembering KG had zero):
Hakeem 8
Ewing 7
Robinson 9
Duncan 12
Russell 12
Dikembe 6
Hayes 7
Wilt 10
Eaton 5 (4 out of the 5 years he played more than 30 minutes/game)
Ben Wallace 5
Rudy Gobert 4 (out of 10)
Draymond Green 6 (out of 10)

As this is over a 12 year period, many were able to have great defenses with a variety of teammates and coaches. As I've said many times before, I still think that KG is an all time great defender but some put him as a top five defender of all time. That just doesn't make sense when he cannot elevate a defense to the same level as some of the great rim protectors.

A case in point in 2001 -02 played on a defense with Billups, Joe Smith and Rasho Nesterovic. It was a 15th ranked defense. As we know, Billups and Rasho went on to start on great defenses on the Pistons and Spurs. Joe Smith was a decent defender. Even Wally (the last starter) was not completely terrible.

In comparison, David Robinson was able to have a number one defense with Rod Strickland, Sean Elliot, Willie Anderson and Terry Cummins. A number three defense with Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Sean Elliot and Charles Smith.
Hakeem had a number four defense with Rod McCray, Sleepy Floyd, Allen Leavell and Jim Petersen.

I could list off many more. But the point is clear. All-time great defenders have the ability to elevate defenses into a sum greater than its parts. These players are invariably great rim protectors. KG was not able to play on a top five defense in 12 years. He had some terrible teammates but he also had some good and some average defensive teammates.

So, I'm going to jump in here with some data I've compiled recently inspired by the recent thread about Curry not being on more Top 10 offenses.

It occurred to me that I'm more interested in how many times a player when they were on the court saw their team performing "Above One", as in better than the top team in the league in that year.

I can only do this going back to '96-97 of course, but here's the leaderboard for defense in that timespan:

1. Tim Duncan 14
2. Bruce Bowen 6
(tie) David Robinson 6
(tie) Kevin Garnett 6
(tie) Danny Green 6
(tie) Rudy Gobert 6

And for the record, here are other players you listed who played predominantly in this era:

Draymond Green 3
Dikembe Mutombo 2
Ben Wallace 1

So then first, obviously Duncan's massive number here is what's really salient. I'm going to put that off to the side for the moment to speak to what you're describing.

You're arguing that Garnett wasn't able to lead to great defense as well as the guys in the top tier...but Garnett trumps most of those guys when you use a metric like this that doesn't hold a guy back based on the limitations of his teammates.

Now, further disclosure, Garnett's 6 years were his 6 years in Boston. That certainly leaves an opening to say it was about his supporting cast...but this is where I think it makes sense to remind that we do have RAPM, and Garnett looks fantastic by those metric in those years relative to his teammates.

Back to Duncan:

I do think stats like this show what a close-to-unique career Duncan was able to have and it's understandable why some would talk about him as a GOAT candidate...but it's important to keep in mind that the bigger trend here is that of the Spurs rather than Duncan. Duncan retires after '15-16, the following year the Spurs were once again the best defense in the league which helped Danny Green continue to add to his tally.

So I wouldn't want to argue that Duncan and only Duncan could ensure Above-One level defense throughout his whole career, rather the more likely thing to me is that in the modern NBA the guys who make up the consensus "top tier" were not able to elevate their team's to elite levels by themselves.

Thanks for that. It is interesting data. Of course, the measure is problematic for all of the usual obvious reasons. But any measure tells some sort of a story. I'll be predictable and say that the 6 in Boston is not overly supportive of Garnett. If he had one or two in Minnesota that would change things. I do not hold RAPM as a great indicator that can be relied upon as it is just too noisy. Again, it is interesting and of interest. If anything, the data shows the importance of scheme when it comes to defense. It is also interesting that Gobert is in the mix.

[AEnigma]

And why exactly do you think RAPM is “noisy” over fifteen to twenty years.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm going to strongly object to the notion that Duncan's outlier impact can be dismissed as just lucky man on good team. The Spurs having a top notch defense with Kawhi at the heart of it really doesn't do one thing to discount what was achieved over two decades with Timmy.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm going to strongly object to the notion that Duncan's outlier impact can be dismissed as just lucky man on good team. The Spurs having a top notch defense with Kawhi at the heart of it really doesn't do one thing to discount what was achieved over two decades with Timmy.

Hmm, so I'd object to the interpretation of my post as being dismissive of Duncan.

I posted a stat where he looked incredibly good.
I acknowledged this and said positive things about what it said for his career accomplishment.
And then I also acknowledged that team context mattered.

Let me add a little bit more for context though.

I think there's general agreement that to players are more able to have extreme offensive impact than defensive impact in the modern NBA. Folks should correct me if I'm wrong, but working under the assumption that this is indeed the case, as well as the recognition that this was not always so, and rule changes were part of that change...

We should thus expect that if there exists a defensive player so valuable he ensures an Above One defense wherever he goes, then we should see the same thing from more offensive players.

So then looking at the tallies from the offensive version of the stat, along with how many seasons they did this in a row):

1. Steve Nash 12 (all in a row)
2. Shaquille O'Neal 8 (6 in a row)
3. Chris Paul 7 (4 in a row)
(tie) LeBron James 7 (5 in a row)
(tie) Kevin Durant 7 (4 in a row)
(tie) Dirk Nowitzki 7 (4 in a row)

What I'd say in general is that it doesn't seem like these guys can really be expected to ensure this level of offense each year. Nash obviously seems like the potential exception, but even if he is, if he's the only one, then he doesn't represent norms of offensive dominance.

As I think about it, let me post again the defense leaderboard while speaking to how many times in a row they did the thing:

1. Tim Duncan 14 (10 in a row)
2. Bruce Bowen 6 (all in a row)
(tie) David Robinson 6 (all in a row)
(tie) Kevin Garnett 6 (all in a row)
(tie) Danny Green 6 (5 in a row)
(tie) Rudy Gobert 6 (3 in a row)

Now, looking at what I just posted, honestly I could see an interpretation that these defensive players are more able to ensure their dominance than the offensive players. This would not be my interpretation, but I think I'm going to end the post here and think about it some more before I try to posit conclusions.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm going to strongly object to the notion that Duncan's outlier impact can be dismissed as just lucky man on good team. The Spurs having a top notch defense with Kawhi at the heart of it really doesn't do one thing to discount what was achieved over two decades with Timmy.

Hmm, so I'd object to the interpretation of my post as being dismissive of Duncan.

I posted a stat where he looked incredibly good.
I acknowledged this and said positive things about what it said for his career accomplishment.
And then I also acknowledged that team context mattered.

Sure. But you essentially concluded with "keep in mind that the bigger trend here is that of the Spurs rather than Duncan" citing the first year after his retirement.

But you mention Dirk above. The year after he retired the Mavs posted what was to date(since surpassed numerous times obviously) the most efficient scoring offense of all-time. How ridiculous would it be though to then suggest the high level offenses built around Dirk were actually not about Dirk(or Nash I guess) but about the Mavs. I mean after all some 2nd year guy and not much else noteworthy had elite offense without him.

The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other other than the Spurs did well to identify Kawhi in the middle of the first prolonging their run and Dallas did well to be the team smart enough to go get Luka. Nothing to do with Dirk, nothing to do with Timmy.

This is why teammate arguments get so frustrating. They are used too often as convenience. Here if we are wanting to suggest that KG is Duncan's defense equal we need to find some reasons to explain why KG never had great defense in Minny(the all his teammates are trash argument posted above) or the Timmy played with elite defenders everywhere and see how good the defense was once he finally retired.

Of course Duncan played with good players. No denying that. But one of the reasons we think Bowen and Danny Green are elite defensive wings is because Duncan was behind them allowing them to play that high on-ball pressure defense you cannot play if Chris Kaman or Al Jefferson is your center.

But that's never the argument. It's always Duncan had so much help so lets discount what he did. You never explain away Nash by pointing out he got to play for two offense only coaches, that he got to play with Dirk(among other talented guys) or Amare/shooters galore. Why? Because we know Nash was legit great. We don't need to see his offense be literally number 1 every year to know that.

By that token, we know (or should) that Duncan was an absolutely elite defender. But he never self-promoted. He didn't have a superman gimmick or bulging muscles, or screamed needlessly at the sky after a big play. And because the team defense was great every year people voted for Bruce Bowen for DPOY over him which is laughable on every level.

And don't think that lack of awards doesn't influence people. Like how great can he be if he was never the best defender in the league. Except of course he actually was the best defender in the league as much as he wasn't and in the conversation for that from the very beginning almost to the very end.

I really appreciate how smart you are and how insightful you are and how you continue to push for deeper explanations of things. It's fantastic. But sometimes, the simple and obvious can be true. It could, and almost certainly was, mostly about Tim Duncan. Pop and his teammates all sure thought it was.

[Jaivl]

This is why teammate arguments get so frustrating. They are used too often as convenience. Here if we are wanting to suggest that KG is Duncan's defense equal

Equal?