Does Dirk with title surpass KG

[Earl Sweatshirt]

I have Dirk above KG. Individual defense is over valued, and while KG is a great passer, Dirk is no slough. Moreover, as the undisputed number one option, Dirk has had far more success.

[Doctor MJ]

If Dirk wins the title this year. Would he have had a better career than Kevin Garnett to this point? They both would have 1 title and 1 MVP. They both also would have lost 1 trip to the finals. Dirk however was the clear cut best player on both of his teams. Right now doesn't even play with another all-star while KG was playing with 2 or 3 others. If Dirk wins the title doesn't he have a good case to be ranked above KG in any all-time rankings.

He'll have a case, but no imho he will not surpass KG. I simply don't think he is as good of a player as KG was.

[PrinceJames]

Lets be real here, when has a PF ever been the dominant force in scoring or leading in the clutch? Garnett is by the superior player over Dirk. Even when the ESPN draft was on Dirk wasnt even drafted amongst the players and Garnett was taken 2nd round. Garnett was domninant on Minnesota and people tend to forget that. I think he was more dominant than Duncan ever was, Duncan was just on better teams.

[kasino]

with a title I can't argue against Dirk
KG had some time on the Wolves that hurt his career

[richboy]

KG does have the advantage on defense. It could be said that Dirk has a pretty big advantage on offense as well.:

No you couldn't.

You would only be able to say that Dirk has a pretty big advantage as a SCORER, not on offense in general.

Passing is offense too, and KG is a considerably better playmaker. Not ALL that far off as a scoring weapon, either. Dirk's a career 23 ppg player on about 58% TS (though that average is more like 24.5 ppg if you ignore his earliest seasons). KG is a career 19.5 ppg scorer... but he's 2 years older and started younger. In his prime, he was mostly around 22 ppg... and 5-6 apg on about 54% TS.

So what you see is primarily a difference as a scoring threat, even though Garnett was above league average in efficiency and not dissimilar in volume while also presenting a rather large playmaking advantage.

It's a tough call in a general sense, but there's no clear offensive advantage one way or the other, IMO.

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

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.

KG no question has the advantage as a passer. If Dirk was as good a passer as KG he be a much better player than KG. He be close if not better than Bird. His lack of passing lowers him as a player. To me I don't think KG's advantage as a passer makes it up.

Personally I think a lot of KG's passing is a lot of high post stuff. I give him credit for that. For big men I think its the easiest kind of passing. If Dirk played in that Minnesota offense I think he could have put up bigger assist numbers.

[Doctor MJ]

Lets be real here, when has a PF ever been the dominant force in scoring or leading in the clutch? Garnett is by the superior player over Dirk. Even when the ESPN draft was on Dirk wasnt even drafted amongst the players and Garnett was taken 2nd round. Garnett was domninant on Minnesota and people tend to forget that. I think he was more dominant than Duncan ever was, Duncan was just on better teams.

It's really hard to understand you dude. Try to give more context and not to skip around so much.

[ChuckTheD]

KG of 04's getting underrated.

[Joseph17]

It depends. I would rather have Dirk as a number 1 option and I would rather have KG as a number 2 option. It's hard to rank who is better because they are different. One is an excellent scorer who could consistently take over games and the other is an excellent all around player.

[Doctor MJ]

It depends. I would rather have Dirk as a number 1 option and I would rather have KG as a number 2 option. It's hard to rank who is better because they are different. One is an excellent scorer who could consistently take over games and the other is an excellent all around player.

Your last sentence isn't objectionable, but I chafe at the first. While you could accurately use it to mean "Ideally I have a good enough scorer on my team that Garnett is only the second scoring option", typically when people talk in these terms they mean "If I don't have a star I pick the Number 1 option, if I do I pick the Number 2". The problem with that here is that Garnett's impact is absolutely top tier.

Hence, regardless of whether or not I have an offensive star on my team, they only time I'd pick Dirk over Garnett is if I have everything but a great scorer on my team. In other words, if I'm in a case where "picking for need" gives Dirk a big edge, then I pick Dirk, otherwise I go with the best player available which is Garnett.

[Canomad]

yes

[joeyAdaMan]

why would he? when he's not a better player? DIRK is an offensive monster decent rebounder and respectable defender but prime KG gave you EVERYTHING

[parapooper]

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.

[tsherkin]

Personally I think a lot of KG's passing is a lot of high post stuff. I give him credit for that. For big men I think its the easiest kind of passing. If Dirk played in that Minnesota offense I think he could have put up bigger assist numbers.

I don't think so, personally. I mean, I agree it was mostly high post stuff, but I don't see Dirk putting up 5 assists per game if their roles were switched. He's good, but Garnett was one of the best ever (positionally). I'm really not seeing it.

Ah well; you bring up a pretty well-reasoned point, I just happen not to believe it, so I'll just agree to disagree while noting that I respect your argument.

[SDChargers#1]

Dirk is clearly CLEARLY the better offensive player to Garnett. Dirk has averaged 23+ points 9 times in his career to Garnett's 2. And 25+ four times to Garnett's 0. And has done it all on MUCH better efficiency.

For comparison, there is more of a difference in Garnett and Dirk's efficiency than Kobe and Jordan's (almost double actually).

However, Garnett's advantage on defense trumps Dirk's advantage on offense. Dirk is average at best at defense while Garnett is a about a top 10 all time defender. Add in that Garnett is a better passer and advantage Garnett.

I would like to note though that Dirk is having a legendary playoffs right now, if he finishes the playoffs at this current rate (29/8 on 64% TS) I may have to put him right at Garnett level.

Garnett has never been shown to be able to lead a team like what Dirk is doing right now (I realize Garnett had one playoff run where he put up 24/15, but it was only on 51% TS, that pretty much loses his advantage on rebounding IMO).

[Harry10]

nope...... Dirk will never be on KG, Duncan, or Hakeem's level, because basketball guys are not going to give Dirk respect because his defense is sht.

if Dirk wins, he will be known as only being able to win, because he is two years younger than KG and Duncan, and could only win when Kobe, KG, and Duncan got older and on the decline.

every basketball guy knows that prime Dirk is not on the same level as prime KG or prime Duncan and 35yr will be worst than 35yr KG and Duncan.

Dirk's at age 32yr has a PER of 23, while KG and Duncan at age 32 had a PER of 25

[Masigond]

Garnett's playmaking is a very nice thing regarding his own stats and his versatility but I don't think that it helped his teams that much. Is it that much better than letting your point guard and wing men handle the ball and create for the team?
OK, with players who can't do it (Szczerbiak comes to mind who was a black hole) it might be an advantage.

Garnett in his prime was such a great jack of all trades that you might prefer him but I don't think that his overall effect was that big: He was (is) one of the best individual defenders but he could not anchor a great team defense like Duncan did. The Celtics could do it because they had a great coach (Thibs) and other players who bought into the concept. The Wolves were a mediocre defensive team for most years, though. Garnett's scoring was good but not great as taking all those midrange shots without drawing many fouls could not produce a scoring efficiency on an elite level (again: it was good but not that way above league average - he was more of a very dependable volume scorer).
So IMO he was best as he was used with the Celtics: As a premier rebounder (in his prime he was even better) and as a player who would be assigned on the opponent's best offensive players to create havoc. Other than that he was a good complementary player (second to third option player on offense, sometimes being the playmaker). That's a very good all-star and All-NBA level player but so is Dirk. I think they are about even (Garnett's peak was a little higher IMO, but Nowitzki's better longevity and reliable play in the playoffs - don't let those two series against the Heat and the Warriors fool you too much. That's long ago and Dirk's been great ever since and in several series before - make up for it), and a title for Dirk won't change that much.

[picc]

Elite playmaking....

Lets not act like KG was a point guard. He was a good playmaker, for a big man. This isn't Steve Nash we're talking about.

No... He was an elite play maker, for a big man.

Oh, please pardon my transgression.

[drza]

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.

[picc]

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.

[rocopc]

No