I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste.
Well, OK, but according to the 'taste' of most head coaches, sportswriters and other NBA analysts, Duncan is a far better player than KG as of right now.
Like PJ said, Duncan was 1st team All-NBA and 2nd team All-Defense. He also finished 7th in MVP voting. KG was not even really on the map for those awards.
So if according to your taste KG is equal, that's obviously OK, but you have to recognize that it is a minority opinion.
Don't really care.
To me, a lot of this whole thread keeps waiving over the obvious. It is silly to compare the teams based on KG vs Duncan, PP vs Manu, Rondo vs Parker and so on using this last season as the comparison basis, considering that outside of KG & PP, none of the principles on the C's were even 'all there' for the whole season.
Comparing how well KG or any individual played between two teams with such radically different fortunes seems dubious at an exacting level. Team effects DO effect how the individuals perform, even elite superstars. And it also most definitely affects how fans / writers / coaches perceive players. So I'm not particularly worried about whether my opinion is 'minority' or not. I detailed the basis for my opinion and I'll stand by it.
The OP's premise, flawed or not, should only be viewed from the hopeful lens of how well the proposed lineups (on either team) might fair if healthy and performing at at least their recent nominal performance ratings.
But the criticisms that are based purely on how crappy THIS year went for the C's don't particularly impress me.
OK, so you don't like comparisons (a) based on last year, (b) based on qualitative factors because those are affected by team records, and you want to see performance at (c) "nominal performance ratings."
I'll address all three of those by using quantitative metrics rather than the qualitative evaluations, and by extending the comparison to the last six years rather than only last year.
Take a look at PER with each player's rank among all NBA players:
KG TD KG rank TD rank
2007-08 25.42 24.05 4 9
2008-09 21.32 24.51 18 5
2009-10 19.51 24.79 30 5
2010-11 20.67 21.94 24 14
2011-12 20.47 22.60 34 14
2012-13 19.25 24.45 38 6
So, by this objectively calculated number you see a clear decline for KG, while TD's performance this year is competitive with those from five years ago.
Note that your point about how the "team is doing" influencing such rankings is not really borne out here. Plenty of players have high PERs on teams with losing records - including KG, who had terrific PERs on those mediocre MIN teams. And while KG's PER has declined as the team's record has declined, it's more likely that the causality runs the other way - he's not as good, so the team is performing worse.
If you don't like PER you can pick any other relevant metric you want, old-school or advanced, and you'll see the same pattern. KG has declined by more than TD.
And, coming back to a point I've made again and again, you win rings in the NBA with top 10 players, often by having two such guys. It is very simple. By no metric do we have even one, while the Spurs have two. They are much better positioned to run it back.
You completely missed the point of my comment about 'nominal' expectations - that was meant to say how you should look at the OP's proposed _roster_. That wasn't meant to be specific to the KG v TD comparison.
Yeah, PER is skewed too heavily by counting & utilization stats and yeah, I've criticized it pretty heavily before so if i p--- on it right now, it has nothing to do with the KG v TD companions. PER has always been one of my least favorite stats. There are tons of articles already on the web pointing out its flaws so I won't bother here. But in particular, PER comparisons break down quickly when comparing across different roles. About the only thing I like to use PER for is to compare a player to himself over time or between two players in the same role on the same team. Other than that, it's a pretty useless stat.
PER is only 'objectively calculated' in the sense that the math it uses is the same for all players. But it is not an objectively derived calculation. PER, like all such derived stats, is the result of an arbitrary weighting of inputs - and that weighting is completely subjective.
I don't think my point anywhere has been that KG has been 'better' than Duncan. My point is that they do different things.
Right off the bat, KG's lower shot utilization (Duncan has typically attempted about 2 or 3 extra shots per game) is going to kill KG's PER comparison with TD. Duncan has only had a USG% under 26% once in his career. He's been SAS' primary scoring option for most of his seasons. KG has been secondary or third option behind Pierce and even sometimes Ray since coming to Boston. His USG% has not been above 26% once.
You can argue that that makes Duncan better, if you want. I would argue that their roles on their respective teams are simply different. Duncan plays closer to the basket. He's got a great guard to feed him and great outside shooters to stretch the defense and give him chances at put-backs. He's clearly excelled in this role. KG's role is different. He plays farther from the basket and used his superior perimeter shooting and great passing to facilitate his teammates' ability to get to the basket.
It's pretty telling that, even though Duncan has taken a much larger share of his shots 'At Rim' (pretty much those 2-3 extra shots per game have been 'at rim') KG's eFG% has consistently been higher:
| Year] | KG | TD |
| 2007-08] | 54% | 50% |
| 2008-09] | 53% | 50%% |
| 2009-10] | 52% | 52% |
| 2010-11] | 53% | 50% |
| 2011-12] | 51% | 49% |
| 2012-13] | 50% | 50% |
Basically, even though he's taking a larger share of shots from outside, KG is a consistently more efficient shooter than Duncan.
Again, this doesn't mean that KG is 'better' than Duncan. This points out that he has abilities that make it advantageous to USE him in different ways than you would use Duncan.
KG's at his most valuable when you have another big man who can play in the low-post. Because offensively KG forces at least one big defender to come out of the paint to guard him - sometimes two. And defensively it allows KG to focus on the high paint.
This is why KG & Shaq were such an unstoppable pair and why KG & Sully played so well together. In 378 minutes together KG & Sully posted a +10.8 net rating (points per 100 possessions) - easily the highest two-some net rating on our team for pairs that got more than 300 minutes together.
For comparison, KG & Bass played 1015 minutes together and posted a Net Rtg of -0.6 points per 100 possessions.
You may legitimately suggest that it is a flaw in KG that his game is sensitive to the type of players around him. Or you could just acknowledge the weakness in the quality of big men he's had next to him for much of the last few years.
And that who you play with has an effect.
Aside - a dream pairing would be Duncan and KG. Wow.
Topic: The Spurs show we should run it back (Read 23782 times)