Garnett VS Nowitzki-Year By Year Since 2001

[ahonui06]

01-Kevin GArnett
02-Kevin Garnett
03-Kevin Garnett
04-Kevin Garnett
05-Kevin Garnett
06-Tie
07-Dirk Nowitzki
08-Kevin Garnett
09-Dirk Nowitzki
10-Dirk Nowitzki
11-Dirk Nowitzki
12-Kevin Garnett

[AnaheimRoyale]

There were definitely years Dirk was better, so this is a fair discussion... overall though I'll take KG (who is overrated a little, but still better than Dirk)

[Texas Chuck]

[Don't forget Texas Chuck to chime in regarding how overrated Garnett was.

KG is terribly overrated

My knock on KG is and will always be he didnt win in Minny and so when you compare him against Dirk/Duncan the two guys he naturally is going to be compared to he falls short. That was a dozen years. A dozen. Hes been terrific in Boston because he is one of the elite complementary players of all time. Hes up there with Pippen,McHale,Worthy. His particular skill set does not translate into being the alpha dog. I know KG fans hate hearing but the evidence is right there in front of them.

That doesnt change what a great player KG is--hes unbelievable and I long dreamed of him playing next to Dirk. I have said many times in this forum that I might rank KG ahead of Dirk had he gotten Boston past Miami and then past OKC this year. He carried a terribly banged up Boston team on his back and I was in awe of how well he played. Just like I rank Pippen ahead of many traditional franchise players.

I also think KG has every chance to pass Dirk in my rankings since Boston has every chance to be contending with Miami for a couple more years while Dirk may end his career struggling to get out of the 2nd round. And yeah its mostly about winning for me. Sorry to all you stats/advanced stats guys but Im about the winning. Dirk has done it far more consistently and as the lead dog the entire time so hes ahead.

[Rapcity_11]

His particular skill set does not translate into being the alpha dog.

According to your (and many others) narrow view of basketball.

Alpha dog =/= great volume scorer.

[Texas Chuck]

His particular skill set does not translate into being the alpha dog.

According to your (and many others) narrow view of basketball.

Alpha dog =/= great volume scorer.

absolutely not---but yeah they should be able to close out games offensively and KG has never been that guy for a winning team. Dirk isnt even a great volume scorer--he is in fact a hyper-effienct scorer. He would easily have been averaging 30+ had he been a high volume guy.

But thats not even it for me. The dozen years he was the lead dog he got out of the 1st round once and missed the playoffs 3 straight years. Thats not alpha stuff--sorry.

edit: and I want to add and stress that not being the alpha doesnt mean you cant be an all-time great. I know I write his everytime I post about KG but his supporters start seeing red and apparantly miss it.

[drza]

My knock on KG is and will always be he didnt win in Minny and so when you compare him against Dirk/Duncan the two guys he naturally is going to be compared to he falls short. That was a dozen years. A dozen. Hes been terrific in Boston because he is one of the elite complementary players of all time. Hes up there with Pippen,McHale,Worthy. His particular skill set does not translate into being the alpha dog. I know KG fans hate hearing but the evidence is right there in front of them.

That doesnt change what a great player KG is--hes unbelievable and I long dreamed of him playing next to Dirk. I have said many times in this forum that I might rank KG ahead of Dirk had he gotten Boston past Miami and then past OKC this year. He carried a terribly banged up Boston team on his back and I was in awe of how well he played. Just like I rank Pippen ahead of many traditional franchise players.

I also think KG has every chance to pass Dirk in my rankings since Boston has every chance to be contending with Miami for a couple more years while Dirk may end his career struggling to get out of the 2nd round. And yeah its mostly about winning for me. Sorry to all you stats/advanced stats guys but Im about the winning. Dirk has done it far more consistently and as the lead dog the entire time so hes ahead.

While I appreciate the disclaimers in this post and your follow-up, the main issue I have with your stance is that it isn't supported by anything. Consider the underlined above:

"(KG has) been terrific in Boston because he is one of the elite complementary players of all time"

The very first question that pops up in retort to this statement is...who was he complimentary to? When the Celtics won their championship, Garnett was clearly the best player on the team. There really shouldn't be any debate about this. All of the other "all time great" complimentary players that you mention...Pippen, Worthy, Mchale...all of them were clearly playing a secondary role to the (to use your term) alpha on their teams. I don't even necessarily agree that those guys couldn't have been alphas in their own right, but that's not even the point. The point is, if your defining them as "complimentary" because that was the role that they played for their teams, how can you possibly justify including KG in that group when he was the defining player on his championship squad?

I think you're just wrong when it comes to your characterization of KG's Minnesota days, and your dismissal of statistics terribly weakens the strength of any conclusion that you might make, but those are really separate debates from my point here. I'm glad to have those discussions as well, but here I'm really more curious about your response to my above paragraph...how can KG "only" be a complimentary player, when he's already proven that he could win as the main guy?

[Texas Chuck]

do you not see the differnence between KG being 1a in Boston to being the true number 1 in Minny? And Im not dismissing statistics. Im simply stating winning is why they play. And if the statistics are reasonably close as I think everyone can agree they are in a KG v Dirk debate shouldnt we give an edge to the guy who won a lot more when they were both clearly the sole number 1 guy?

I mean of the 3 elite PFs of this era its Duncan at the top by a sizable margin, followed imo by Dirk, and followed right behind him by KG. Does KG suffer because he played for the one of the worst run franchises in all of sports--yeah that sucks but we have to deal in the realities not the what-ifs.

[drza]

do you not see the differnence between KG being 1a in Boston to being the true number 1 in Minny? And Im not dismissing statistics. Im simply stating winning is why they play. And if the statistics are reasonably close as I think everyone can agree they are in a KG v Dirk debate shouldnt we give an edge to the guy who won a lot more when they were both clearly the sole number 1 guy?

I mean of the 3 elite PFs of this era its Duncan at the top by a sizable margin, followed imo by Dirk, and followed right behind him by KG. Does KG suffer because he played for the one of the worst run franchises in all of sports--yeah that sucks but we have to deal in the realities not the what-ifs.

Again, I'm glad to have some of the other debates that would ensue if I countered all of your points here, but first I want to really get an answer for the question I posed in my last response.

You say that Garnett is one of the all-time great complimentary players, "up there with Pippen,McHale,Worthy". This is your statement, and the exact examples that you gave. But I point out two very clear issues with this stance:

1) Garnett won as clearly the best player on his team, which by-definition a complimentary player shouldn't be able to do.

2) Pippen, McHale, and Worthy were all clearly complimentary TO another player that was the actual best player on their individual teams. Garnett, though, was the best player on his team that won...he was not complimentary to anyone.

Based on these two facts, I don't see how your stance can be defended. Do you?

(And after we hash this out, I'll gladly address the other points that you make in this rebuttal).

[Nowitness]

Inspired by the Duncan VS Kobe thread, these guys have been two of the best PFs in the league for about a decade. Who was the best every year though?

2001-
2002-
2003-
2004-
2005-
2006-
2007-
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-

IMO:

2001-KG
2002-Dirk
2003-KG
2004-KG
2005-Dirk
2006-Dirk
2007-KG (yes even when Dirk got the MVP, on his own, KG was a much better rebounder)
2008-KG
2009-Dirk
2010-Dirk
2011-Dirk
2012-KG

I've got them even, what about you?

You realize that in 2007 not only was DIRK the MVP, but KG also missed the playoffs for a third consecutive season.....

Didn't I even say with Dirk's MVP? I'm going off individual stuff, sorry if I upset you. Plus let's not forget, we collapsed in the playoffs that year.

[SDChargers#1]

2003 was DIRK. He led Dallas to the WCFs before Ginobili injured his knee.
2005 was also DIRK. KG didn't even make the playoffs that year.

I can't really penalize KG and give Dirk credit just because KG was in a bad situation whereas Dirk was in a good one or not as bad of one.

2002 was the only tough one for me but I do understand 2005. 2003? That is easily KG, KG was the 2nd best player in the league that season behind Duncan.

I disagree, Shaq, Kobe, and TMac were all right there with KG

[Texas Chuck]

I guess my take is that while you can argue KG was the best player on the 08 Celtics you can also argue that Truth was. But for the sake of arguments let me agree with your contention that KG is the CLEAR best player on that team. That doesnt mean hes still not a complimentary player. I disagree that complimentary = worse.

But Ill go even further and agree with you that my characterization of KG as "merely" a complimentary player is incorrect. That still doesnt address his Minny days. Its his days as a Twolf that make my case and hurt yours but you havent addressed that.

[WhateverBro]

I guess my take is that while you can argue KG was the best player on the 08 Celtics you can also argue that Truth was. But for the sake of arguments let me agree with your contention that KG is the CLEAR best player on that team. That doesnt mean hes still not a complimentary player. I disagree that complimentary = worse.

But Ill go even further and agree with you that my characterization of KG as "merely" a complimentary player is incorrect. That still doesnt address his Minny days. Its his days as a Twolf that make my case and hurt yours but you havent addressed that.

What would that argument be, lol?

[Texas Chuck]

Im not saying Truth was better in 08. What I am saying is its really close and it is. People forget what a great defender Truth was that year too. He played ten more games--gave u 20/5/5 in the regular season and playoffs. Id give a slight edge to KG but only a slight. Its nothing like the edge KG had over the 2nd best player in Minny (cept the one WCF year with Cassell) and nothing like Dirk any year ( esp since Nash left).

I mean if you are going to remain convinced that KG was the dominant singular player on the 2008 Celtics then yeah my arguments seem misguided but ask Celtics fans and I think most will agree it was really close.

[NO-KG-AI]

The scoring difference would have to be huge to make up for the defensive and rebounding impact KG had. KG had one of the biggest impacts we've ever seen defensively that year. Paul Pierce wasn't even close to being elite, much less an all time great defensive big man.

Oh.. and KG still led them in scoring.

[WhateverBro]

Im not saying Truth was better in 08. What I am saying is its really close and it is. People forget what a great defender Truth was that year too. He played ten more games--gave u 20/5/5 in the regular season and playoffs. Id give a slight edge to KG but only a slight. Its nothing like the edge KG had over the 2nd best player in Minny (cept the one WCF year with Cassell) and nothing like Dirk any year ( esp since Nash left).

I mean if you are going to remain convinced that KG was the dominant singular player on the 2008 Celtics then yeah my arguments seem misguided but ask Celtics fans and I think most will agree it was really close.

What? I know it doesn't fit your agenda but seriously. The only advantage Pierce is supposed to have was scoring and he didn't even have that advantage during the playoffs. Seriously, do you not see the problem with your argument when Garnett surpasses him in every basketball category, yet the difference between them is slight? Garnett edges him offensively and blows him out defensively, yet it's debatable, how?

I don't understand this, at all. Even the most hard-core Pierce fans on the Celtics board all agree that Garnett clearly was their best player during their title run.

[Texas Chuck]

Ill concede the point. My mind must be clouded by the job Truth did on Kobe in the finals that year.

Now make a sound argument for his Minny failures and I will make my sig something along the lines of KG > Dirk.

[ahonui06]

Inspired by the Duncan VS Kobe thread, these guys have been two of the best PFs in the league for about a decade. Who was the best every year though?

2001-
2002-
2003-
2004-
2005-
2006-
2007-
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-

IMO:

2001-KG
2002-Dirk
2003-KG
2004-KG
2005-Dirk
2006-Dirk
2007-KG (yes even when Dirk got the MVP, on his own, KG was a much better rebounder)
2008-KG
2009-Dirk
2010-Dirk
2011-Dirk
2012-KG

I've got them even, what about you?

You realize that in 2007 not only was DIRK the MVP, but KG also missed the playoffs for a third consecutive season.....

Didn't I even say with Dirk's MVP? I'm going off individual stuff, sorry if I upset you. Plus let's not forget, we collapsed in the playoffs that year.

Dallas collapsing in the playoffs means they made the postseason. KG couldn't say that in 2007. He just missed the playoffs for the 3rd season in a row during his prime.

[ahonui06]

Ill concede the point. My mind must be clouded by the job Truth did on Kobe in the finals that year.

Now make a sound argument for his Minny failures and I will make my sig something along the lines of KG > Dirk.

Don't concede the point, Chuck. The fact of the matter is that when Boston needed a big scoring output like Game 7 against Cleveland it was Pierce who stepped up to plate and dueled with LeBron. When the Celtics were down big to the Lakers in LA, it was Pierce who mounted the comeback and put the Celtics on his shoulders to win that game. The KG fans here are making like Garnett was the clear-cut best player on that team, but in actuality the Celtics had a three-headed monster with The Truth being the heart and soul of that team.

[drza]

Ill concede the point. My mind must be clouded by the job Truth did on Kobe in the finals that year.

Now make a sound argument for his Minny failures and I will make my sig something along the lines of KG > Dirk.

Don't concede the point, Chuck. The fact of the matter is that when Boston needed a big scoring output like Game 7 against Cleveland it was Pierce who stepped up to plate and dueled with LeBron. When the Celtics were down big to the Lakers in LA, it was Pierce who mounted the comeback and put the Celtics on his shoulders to win that game. The KG fans here are making like Garnett was the clear-cut best player on that team, but in actuality the Celtics had a three-headed monster with The Truth being the heart and soul of that team.

Texas Chuck, I'll reply to you in a bit later in what has turned out to be a surprisingly cordial exchange, but I wanted to reply to this first.

Ahonui...that really isn't true. Yes, Pierce had the huge game 7 against the Cavs. It was a huge performance, and the team needed it. Pierce also had a huge game 5 against the Lakers (in a loss). But that's two games out of 26. In the other 24 games Garnett was outscoring Pierce solidly (21 ppg vs 18 ppg), and was consistently leading the way in the pivotal games (Cleve games 1, 5; Pistons games 1,3,5; Lakers games 1;4;6). Pierce was a strong player, no doubt...especially in the Lakers series, but even Pierce says that Garnett is the only irreplaceable player on the team.

There's a difference between saying one player was the best, and saying that other players weren't good. While Wade was very good this year, LeBron was the best. While Mchale was very good in '86, Bird was the best. Pierce was and is a good player...but on that championship Celtic team, Garnett was the best.

[ahonui06]

Ill concede the point. My mind must be clouded by the job Truth did on Kobe in the finals that year.

Now make a sound argument for his Minny failures and I will make my sig something along the lines of KG > Dirk.

Don't concede the point, Chuck. The fact of the matter is that when Boston needed a big scoring output like Game 7 against Cleveland it was Pierce who stepped up to plate and dueled with LeBron. When the Celtics were down big to the Lakers in LA, it was Pierce who mounted the comeback and put the Celtics on his shoulders to win that game. The KG fans here are making like Garnett was the clear-cut best player on that team, but in actuality the Celtics had a three-headed monster with The Truth being the heart and soul of that team.

Texas Chuck, I'll reply to you in a bit later in what has turned out to be a surprisingly cordial exchange, but I wanted to reply to this first.

Ahonui...that really isn't true. Yes, Pierce had the huge game 7 against the Cavs. It was a huge performance, and the team needed it. Pierce also had a huge game 5 against the Lakers (in a loss). But that's two games out of 26. In the other 24 games Garnett was outscoring Pierce solidly (21 ppg vs 18 ppg), and was consistently leading the way in the pivotal games (Cleve games 1, 5; Pistons games 1,3,5; Lakers games 1;4;6). Pierce was a strong player, no doubt...especially in the Lakers series, but even Pierce says that Garnett is the only irreplaceable player on the team.

There's a difference between saying one player was the best, and saying that other players weren't good. While Wade was very good this year, LeBron was the best. While Mchale was very good in '86, Bird was the best. Pierce was and is a good player...but on that championship Celtic team, Garnett was the best.

Garnett may have been the best player on that Celtics roster due to his rebounding and defensive impact, but Paul Pierce wasn't that far behind. Pierce was the best offensive player for Boston regardless of what the raw PPG says. KG and Pierce were separated by less than 1PPG during that postseason run.