Garnett VS Nowitzki-Year By Year Since 2001

[WhateverBro]

The problem is KG has never played close to an offensive level as DIRK. Look at his Minnesota days and you can understand that KG doesn't have the capabilities to carry a team offensively like DIRK does.

To say that Garnett hasn't played close to the offensive level of Dirk is also a hyperbole. As NO-KG-AI pointed out, he's lead some great offensive squads in the past and was always the one who the offense was built around. He was a great offensive player in his prime, I don't see how you can look at his numbers objectively and say that he wasn't.

Again, no one is claiming that Garnett is Dirk offensively. But to act like the difference between their offensive impact is as large as the diffrence in their defensive impact is silly.

[Texas Chuck]

drza,

you arent reading your stats correctly. Lets take 2007 for example. Dirk's MAvs won 35 more games than KG's Wolves. So essentially you are telling me that Howard,Jet,Harris,Damp et all are worth 35 more wins than Ricky Davis and co? I find that almost impossible to believe. Or take 2006 are those same guys worth 27 more wins than Szerbiak and Co? Thats what you are having us believe by stating that KG lifted his teams to the same level as Dirk. The truth is that Dirk is worth a lot more wins when he is the clear number one than KG is. I could go through more years but I think you see my point.

The reason for that is simple--its much easier to find role players to pick up the small rebounding difference between the two (and yes its small. Dirk is almost equally a defensive rebounder and his usage makes him far less of an offesnive one) and you can hide Dirk defensively. In other words the things Dirk is better at are simply worth more. Its why Danny Fortson and Reggie Evans and Popeye Jones never got huge contracts and moved from team to team.

Again KG is a hell of a player and all of those things you talk about his defense and distribution and scoring are true--they just arent as valuable as Dirk's otherworldly offensive production and how much he elevates his game across the board come playoff time. Raw numbers just dont tell the whole story as much as you want them to.

[Texas Chuck]

Also I want to stress that Im not saying that the things KG bring arent as important to winning as Dirk's offensive effiency. Defense and Rebounding are extremely important. Using Dirk's Mavs as an example: we essentially traded Steve Nash and Jamison for Devin Harris and Erick Dampier. That is a horrific downgrade in talent but this was the move that propelled us to the 2006 finals and 67 wins before the horrible GSW debacle. My point is a guy as bad as Damp can make up for what KG brings that Dirk doesnt. Now Dirk had a legit big man to guard the post and protect the paint. Ricky Davis/Wally Scerbiak/Starbury/Gugs, etc could never come close to helping KG with what Dirk brings that he lacks.

Dirk's skills are simply worth more because of their rarity. You can surround Dirk with role players and it works wheras surrounding KG with role players doesnt work.

[ahonui06]

drza,

you arent reading your stats correctly. Lets take 2007 for example. Dirk's MAvs won 35 more games than KG's Wolves. So essentially you are telling me that Howard,Jet,Harris,Damp et all are worth 35 more wins than Ricky Davis and co? I find that almost impossible to believe. Or take 2006 are those same guys worth 27 more wins than Szerbiak and Co? Thats what you are having us believe by stating that KG lifted his teams to the same level as Dirk. The truth is that Dirk is worth a lot more wins when he is the clear number one than KG is. I could go through more years but I think you see my point.

The reason for that is simple--its much easier to find role players to pick up the small rebounding difference between the two (and yes its small. Dirk is almost equally a defensive rebounder and his usage makes him far less of an offesnive one) and you can hide Dirk defensively. In other words the things Dirk is better at are simply worth more. Its why Danny Fortson and Reggie Evans and Popeye Jones never got huge contracts and moved from team to team.

Again KG is a hell of a player and all of those things you talk about his defense and distribution and scoring are true--they just arent as valuable as Dirk's otherworldly offensive production and how much he elevates his game across the board come playoff time. Raw numbers just dont tell the whole story as much as you want them to.

Also I want to stress that Im not saying that the things KG bring arent as important to winning as Dirk's offensive effiency. Defense and Rebounding are extremely important. Using Dirk's Mavs as an example: we essentially traded Steve Nash and Jamison for Devin Harris and Erick Dampier. That is a horrific downgrade in talent but this was the move that propelled us to the 2006 finals and 67 wins before the horrible GSW debacle. My point is a guy as bad as Damp can make up for what KG brings that Dirk doesnt. Now Dirk had a legit big man to guard the post and protect the paint. Ricky Davis/Wally Scerbiak/Starbury/Gugs, etc could never come close to helping KG with what Dirk brings that he lacks.

Dirk's skills are simply worth more because of their rarity. You can surround Dirk with role players and it works wheras surrounding KG with role players doesnt work.

This perfectly sums everything up. Great job Texas Chuck.

[MisterWestside]

Dirk's skills are simply worth more because of their rarity. You can surround Dirk with role players and it works wheras surrounding KG with role players doesnt work.

Except they're NOT the same role players.

I'll take Dirk's role players over KG's role players in Minnesota. Every time.

[Rapcity_11]

Dirk's skills are simply worth more because of their rarity. You can surround Dirk with role players and it works wheras surrounding KG with role players doesnt work.

Except they're NOT the same role players.

I'll take Dirk's role players over KG's role players in Minnesota. Every time.

Yup. For some reason (well laziness or agenda suiting) the roleplayer analysis is general terrible. Roleplayers are just grouped as "roleplayers" even though there is a massive difference between positive value ones and negative value ones. And this difference likely won't show up in box-scores.

[ahonui06]

Dirk's skills are simply worth more because of their rarity. You can surround Dirk with role players and it works wheras surrounding KG with role players doesnt work.

Except they're NOT the same role players.

I'll take Dirk's role players over KG's role players in Minnesota. Every time.

Yup. For some reason (well laziness or agenda suiting) the roleplayer analysis is general terrible. Roleplayers are just grouped as "roleplayers" even though there is a massive deference between positive value ones and negative value ones. And this difference likely won't show up in box-scores.

I didn't realize a starting lineup supporting cast of Devin Harris-Adrian Griffin-Josh Howard-Erick Dampier was positive along with the great Jason Terry, Marquis Daniels and Keith Van Horn coming off the bench. That team went to the Finals thanks to DIRK.

[MisterWestside]

didn't realize a starting lineup supporting cast of Devin Harris-Adrian Griffin-Josh Howard-Erick Dampier was positive along with the great Jason Terry, Marquis Daniels and Keith Van Horn coming off the bench. That team went to the Finals thanks to DIRK.

That supporting cast played well. Above-average box metrics and +/- numbers for the players that played the most minutes (Harris being the lone exception).

Dirk was the best player on that team. He also didn't play with trash in the playoffs. Far from it.

[mysticbb]

Except they're NOT the same role players.

I'll take Dirk's role players over KG's role players in Minnesota. Every time.

While I agree, that "role players" != "role players", keep in mind that the 2005 Timberwolves actually outscored their counterparts when Garnett was off the court. A luxury Nowitzki never had. Even though the Mavericks on paper looked better than the Timberwolves, in a lot of cases they just simply didn't play like that.

Anyway, the thread is about a year-by-year comparison. I'm not sure how it ended up in a discussion about a career comparison. We had such threads with enough discussion already multiple times.

[EGarrett]

Obviously, DIRK destroyed KG in the postseason, but that's expected. DIRK is one of the greatest playoff performers in NBA history. His stats raise across the board quite significantly whereas KG remains right around his regular season numbers.

KG from 2002-2004 in the playoffs, 25 points, 15 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 2 blocks per.

Oh I get it...as a Dirk fan, rebounding, defense and passing don't count. Shine on you crazy diamond.

[WhateverBro]

While I agree, that "role players" != "role players", keep in mind that the 2005 Timberwolves actually outscored their counterparts when Garnett was off the court. A luxury Nowitzki never had. Even though the Mavericks on paper looked better than the Timberwolves, in a lot of cases they just simply didn't play like that.

Anyway, the thread is about a year-by-year comparison. I'm not sure how it ended up in a discussion about a career comparison. We had such threads with enough discussion already multiple times.

You got any other instances than 2005 Timberwolves in which they outscored their counterparts when Garnett is off the court? Why I'm asking is because I'm not surprised that the 2005 version did well because that was arguably a more talented version of the '04 version of the team but Spree and Cassell threw the season away by destroying the locker room. IIRC the team missed the playoffs by what, 2 games or so? And also made major strides after McHale took over the coaching but it was a little too late to save the season.

Anyway, what I wanted to point out that that teams problem wasn't talent. It was Cassell and Spree who played like absolute trash before the trade deadline and I remember well how they joked about how they weren't traded during the trade deadline etc. Sadly, Flip had lost the players and McHale should've taken over earlier and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[mysticbb]

You got any other instances than 2005 Timberwolves in which they outscored their counterparts when Garnett is off the court?

No, no other season for which we have the data available. I also just wanted to point out that "role players" != "role players" goes in both ways. People are quick with the names, but seem to have trouble to make a proper evaluation about how they played.

In average the supporting cast on the Timberwolves was really bad, but Nowitzki's supporting cast was also below the level of a typical contender so far.

[WhateverBro]

You got any other instances than 2005 Timberwolves in which they outscored their counterparts when Garnett is off the court?

No, no other season for which we have the data available. I also just wanted to point out that "role players" != "role players" goes in both ways. People are quick with the names, but seem to have trouble to make a proper evaluation about how they played.

In average the supporting cast on the Timberwolves was really bad, but Nowitzki's supporting cast was also below the level of a typical contender so far.

Ok, I figured. But yes, I agree with your point. Especially about how people are quick with the names but won't evaluate how they actually played.

[Texas Chuck]

thats exactly our point--- role players play better with Dirk on the court than they do with KG on the court. It doesnt matter their names. Dirk makes life so much easier for role players. Mavs role players get so much space created for them on the offensive end because of Dirk. They also know that as long as they defend and get the ball back that Dirk will carry them home.

Of course those role players he took to the finals twice played better than the role players KG couldnt get to the playoffs or out of the first round but the main reason for that is Dirk. This is why I get so tired of the whole teammates game.

[mysticbb]

Texas Chuck, do you think a player can make his teammates also look better on defense?

[Texas Chuck]

of course he can.

Do you honestly think KG + role players works better than Dirk + role players? Because thats basically the gist of this whole debate for me. Both guys imo are elite elite all-time great players. Both have dominant but different games. When you and others make arguments that KG is a better player than Dirk you have legitimite arguments but I would take Dirk because he wins regardless of his teammates (and he has had 6 completely different cores in his Mavs career and has won with every single one) and KG didnt.

[WhateverBro]

of course he can.

Do you honestly think KG + role players works better than Dirk + role players? Because thats basically the gist of this whole debate for me. Both guys imo are elite elite all-time great players. Both have dominant but different games. When you and others make arguments that KG is a better player than Dirk you have legitimite arguments but I would take Dirk because he wins regardless of his teammates (and he has had 6 completely different cores in his Mavs career and has won with every single one) and KG didnt.

Again, why are you implying that if two players have cores that are built on role players then their teammates impact is the same? I don't get it. Just because they both were surrounded with role players doesn't mean that the role players were as good.

As for you question, on who would work better; KG + role players or Dirk + role players, I feel that the only answer is that it would depend on what role players they were working with.

[Texas Chuck]

I mostly covered that in a earlier post showing that his role players would have to basically be worht 20+ games more a year for what you are saying to be true. If you honestly believe that then yeah this conversation has run its course.

I dont see whats so hard to believe that Dirk is easier to build around than KG because its easier to replace KG's advantages with role players than it is Dirks. Thats what I am saying. Thats why Dirk is ahead of KG imo. Not because Dirk is some vastly superior talent to KG--he isnt. But I can find guys who can rebound. I can find guys who can protect the rim. I can find guys to defend. No, not at KG's elite level but good enough to win alongside Dirk. I cant so readily find a guy who can score as efficiently as Dirk, who is an elite 4th quarter scorer, who is one of the most clutch guys in the league and who plays at a top ten all-time level in the playoffs every single year. (save one notable diaster obv)

[WhateverBro]

I mostly covered that in a earlier post showing that his role players would have to basically be worht 20+ games more a year for what you are saying to be true. If you honestly believe that then yeah this conversation has run its course.

I dont see whats so hard to believe that Dirk is easier to build around than KG because its easier to replace KG's advantages with role players than it is Dirks. Thats what I am saying. Thats why Dirk is ahead of KG imo. Not because Dirk is some vastly superior talent to KG--he isnt. But I can find guys who can rebound. I can find guys who can protect the rim. I can find guys to defend. No, not at KG's elite level but good enough to win alongside Dirk. I cant so readily find a guy who can score as efficiently as Dirk, who is an elite 4th quarter scorer, who is one of the most clutch guys in the league and who plays at a top ten all-time level in the playoffs every single year. (save one notable diaster obv)

The bolded is simply not true and is nothing you proved. All you did was taking one of Garnetts worst team records and say "hey, compare this result to this Dirk roster, are they really 20 games better?".

It's also don't know why you're acting as if it's some sort of all knowing truth that it's easier to replace rebounding and defensive anchors rather than scorers with role players. How do you prove this? Or is this just your opinion?

[Texas Chuck]

No I dont have proof you are ever going to accept.

At this point its like arguing religion where the athiest wont listen to the Christian because he doesnt accept the Bible as a legit scource and the Christian wont listen to the athiest because he doesnt believe man's reason to be the only thing that matters.

I have honestly enjoyed the discourse but neither of us is ever going to change the others mind and thats OK with me. TBH when the first KG/Dirk thread came up my view of KG was that he was extremetly overrated. Thankfully you and others have opened my eyes to his true greatness.

I know I have both a pro-Dirk bias and a pro-winning over stats bias that is hard for me to overcome. While I do my best to make sound arguments not based solely on my biases I know that realistically its impossible. Im actually a little embarrassed I have tried so hard to "win" this debate.