 |
| Duncan and KG are about as different as they come, but their legacies will forever be compared. (Credits: Nathaniel S. Butler/NBA E via Getty Images) |
Kevin Garnett was drafted, a lanky, athletic, intense power forward out of high school in 1995. Tim Duncan was drafted, a polished, fundamentally sound, quiet power forward out of Wake Forest in 1997. Though the two entered in different years, they were both born in 1976, less than a month apart. But little did they know that they would emerge as the two best 4s of their generation and maybe even of all-time. Now that both are in the twilight of their careers, the question remains who was the better power forward?
At first glance it seems like a landslide in Duncan's favor. His postseason success overwhelms Garnett's. It's not even on the same planet. Four rings to one. Two Finals MVPs to none. Straight up, 204 playoff games to 131. There is no question, Duncan's postseason play has put him on the forefront of not only this argument but of all-time. It's impossible to argue against postseason success, but there's a different issue that might never get discussed in the future.
KG much like Allen Iverson in his day was a top-5 player, but more vitally he was a top-5 player on what would've been a lottery team without him. He averaged at least 21 points, 11 rebounds and four assists in all of his seasons in Minnesota from 1999 on. As a natural four unlike a LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony or a Kevin Durant, KG was putting up that innovative "new power forward" numbers far before the idea of having a versatile four was thought of. But it's not about the numbers he put it up, it's about the teams he played on.
Garnett never played on a team like Duncan when KG was in Minnesota. He never had the supporting cast that Timmy had. There were no other future hall-of-famers on his squad. His best teammates were aging veterans Latrell Sprewell and Sam Cassell as well as Stephon Marbury. Not much of a comparison when you put them up against David Robinson, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker as well as the slew of well constructed role players that the flawless Spurs organization surrounded Duncan with. Garnett was playing with garbage, Duncan was playing with gold.
When KG left to join the first "super team" in Boston, he clearly left with a serious chip on his shoulder. The guy had only gotten out of the first round once, yet he was a NBA MVP and was clearly considered a superstar. Of course, once he got to Boston he won his first championship and many think he would've had a second if Perkins didn't go down in that Lakers, Celtics rematch. Either way, he clearly showed that once he was surrounded by a true supporting cast, he became a "postseason winner."
I'm not much for posturing, but I actually am. I don't think the Garnett, KG discussion is as lopsided as many people think. For one, their best seasons are all pretty much similar, though Garnett's assists totals are a bit higher (out of necessity). For two, Duncan's personality makes me question if he could have thrived as much if he was in a different market. Timmy's quiet, we know that all too well. He doesn't want the limelight, he just wants championships. In San Antonio, he became a god almost instantly. Would that have happened in New York, Chicago, L.A. or Boston? You would hope that he has the "heart of a champion" no matter where he played, but you never know with some guys. The perfect situation could bolster the perfect result. KG's personality on the other hand? A big market's dream. He's got a fiery personality both on and off the court. He's a proven player on both sides of the ball and ever since he came to Boston he's exhibited this aura. He's your consummate superstar, even if he likes to play (and talk) a little too dirty at times.
You have to think back about the NBA's dark ages (the early 2000s) and think about what dominated the sport. For one, players were emulating what the NBA thought was gangster (criminal) rap personas. Two, the sport was dominated by teams, not as much individual superstars. Plus the markets that dominated, New Jersey, San Antonio and Detroit weren't exactly sexy. To make matters worse, the player who most people considered to be the best at the time was Duncan, possibly the most boring superstar in the history of basketball. Actually he's probably the most boring person to ever do something "great" in the history of the world. I'm not kidding. The personality, at least publicly, was lacking for Duncan and for the Spurs as a whole. That meant the NBA couldn't really override their "thug issue" or whatever they wanted to call it with exciting basketball.
Now that's not Duncan's fault. I'm not blaming him for being stone-faced all the time and playing a style of basketball that is meant to perform rather than excite. But I think there's something to be said of personality in terms of all-time greatness. I'm not talking about personality as electric as a Shaq or Dominque, but someone who at least has a pulse. Duncan's bland, we get that. And it doesn't really take away from his legacy that much. But it still matters. The Big Fundamental will always go down as someone who wasn't interesting and in some twisted, overanalyzed way that makes him sort of interesting. Right?
Overall I'm not saying that Garnett is better than Duncan, especially not if Timmy can pick up another ring and beat the Heat, whom many already consider one of the greatest teams of all-time (ehhhhhhuhhhhh). However, I am saying that you should give the argument a little bit more thought. Just speculate what could've been if Garnett played with Kobe or Iverson or anyone for that matter in his prime years. Duncan played with three future hall-of-famers in his prime. As much as one player can affect the outcome of a basketball game, it is still a team sport. Name me one player that won by himself, like he had no sidekick, that had no great player supporting him. You can't. It's impossible. It's why AI never won. It's why KG never won in Minnesota. It's why Dwight Howard never would've won in Orlando or LeBron wasn't winning anything in Cleveland.
So while speculation about the "what-if" is always a tired thought, it's a legitimate one here. Switch Garnett with Duncan and you will see a difference guaranteed. Would it be five titles? Can't be sure, but I know Garnett would've collected at least three. He's just too damn good. Just like Duncan.
Ironic that these two are reported to hate each other's guts because they will always go down in history together. I know Duncan will always get the nod simply out of the way we operate as the jury of NBA lore; this is a success-driven league. If you win we remember you for winning. If you lose we only remember your losing. But let's not leave Garnett out in the cold, there's something about Garnett that makes me think he's an unlucky version of Bill Russell. Call me crazy but I'd draft Garnett over Duncan if the choice was in front of me. It just feels right. And yes, I just went there.
0 comments:
Post a Comment