NBA Best Player By Decade

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Well of course Barkley would have struggled to guard Duncan. He was half a foot (or more, probably closer to seven or eight inches; it was often reported that he was actually closer to 6'4 than 6'6) shorter. I don't think Duncan/Garnett head to head was all that different. Both good players, one just happened to be lucky enough to play for a relevant franchise.

 

Garnett and Duncan's career numbers are practically identical, with a slight edge to each in certain categories. Duncan is not definitively, inarguably better. There is an argument for Garnett.

 

Just as you would take Kobe 10/10 times over Duncan, I'd take Duncan 10/10 times over Garnett. Duncan in his prime was much more of a force than Garnett ever was.

[BwareDWare94 723]

In their respective primes, Garnett was a force on a bad team, constantly making them overachieve. Duncan was a force on a great team in a great system. There wasn't much, if any, separation when you consider their respective situations.

 

The best team that Garnett was on in Minnesota pales in comparison to pretty much any team Duncan has ever been on.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Playoff stats:

 

Point per game: 22.3 Duncan 19.5 Garnett

Rebounds: 12.1 Duncan 11.0 Garnett

Assists: 3.5 Garnett 3.4 Duncan

FG %: Duncan .501 Garnett .476

Blocks: 2.5 Duncan 1.4 Garnett

 

Who's the better player here? You keep throwing the word system around to handicap Duncan, but have you ever stopped to consider that the system was built AROUND him!? That's exactly how it was! Until recently when the Spurs transitioned to a predominant pick and roll offense, Duncan was everything to that team. Their offense started and ended with Duncan in the post. You can't say Duncan benefited from playing in a system when he was thew reason that system existed. lol. I understand you don't like Duncan or the Spurs, but you can't allow that to pour over into questioning whether he's the greatest PF ever. There's honestly no debate in my mind or most other people's minds.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Well, then people need to question why they let things like championships define an individual's quality instead of a team's quality.

 

There is practically no difference in those stats.

[The Admiral 28]

As stated above - Duncan is the sole reason the system exists. Without Tim, the Spurs culture does not exist. They can both shoot a good jump shot - but Tim has way better post moves and footwork. Both can pass the ball extremely well. I will say that Garnett is/(was) a more versatile defender, but Tim defends the rim so much better.

 

Garnett/Barkley/Malone were all great HOF PF's, but Tim is the best out of all of them - mainly due to his dominance in each and every category that matters for a PF, hence - The Big Fundamental.

 

Only in the past 3 years has the offense changed to give more emphasis on Tony, btw. It ALL Went through Timmy in the 00s.

 

Your opinion is obviously not going to change but I don't see a case you have brought up that is strong enough to suggest Timmy isn't the greatest PF of all time. (And if those stats were reversed, I bet you would be bringing them up in every post)

Edited November 19, 2013 by The Admiral

[BwareDWare94 723]

I have not said that he isn't. I've just said that Garnett and Barkley are in the discussion.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Tim Duncan is not underrated. Everbody knows that he's top 3 PF with Barkley and Garnett, potentially #1. I tend to give Barkley the edge because he was barely 6'6.

 

 

I have not said that he isn't. I've just said that Garnett and Barkley are in the discussion.

Backpedal much? Sounds like you finally realized how stupid you initial argument for Barkley was. I hate to be such an asshole to you because I genuinely like you dude, but you're just being silly.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Yea, penalizing Duncan for being bigger than Barkley is like punishing Shaq for being huge. It doesn't matter what makes you the best. The fact is you are. And I actually don't know why you say those stats aren't that much different. When you put everything together, it's a lot different. Duncan scored almost 3 more points per game, a whole rebound more per game, 1 more blocked shot per game. As close as playoff games tend to be, that "little" difference can and often does make the difference between a win and a loss. Simply put, Duncan elevated his game more in the playoffs than Garnett did.

[seanbrock 1,684]

And as far as Garnett goes like it's been said numerous times in this thread already, both Duncan and KG can hit those 15 ft jumpers, but Duncan is INFINITELY better in the post offensively. Like...it's not even close. Kind of an important point when you're debating who the best PF of all time is. Personally as great as KG has been I'd rank a few guys ahead of him including Barkley. He's just been soft offensively inside his entire career. Great, great player and defender but he's just not close to Duncan. You can make any excuse for him you want but the fact is when you put on the tape it's pretty clear who the better player is. Duncan can just do so much more.

 

As a side note, I'm kind of shocked nobody has tried to make a case for Kobe really as the best of the last decade. It's kind of turned into an alltime PF rankings contest. Kobe has a way better case than Garnett lol.

 

Oh and I could definitely argue that Dirk with his insane 2011 postseason beating Kobe, Durant and the Heat who could very well 3 peat is better than KG...actually I'm just going to say it. Dirk>KG.

Edited November 19, 2013 by seanbrock

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Top 10 players from 2000-2010 are probably Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Nash, KG, Kidd, Iverson, Dirk, LeBron, and Wade. Maybe not in that order, but most of those guys gotta be close to those rankings. Guys like Ray Allen, Tony Parker, Paul Pierce, Dwight Howard, etc... would be just on the outside looking in.

[BwareDWare94 723]

 

Tim Duncan is not underrated. Everbody knows that he's top 3 PF with Barkley and Garnett, potentially #1. I tend to give Barkley the edge because he was barely 6'6.

 

 

I have not said that he isn't. I've just said that Garnett and Barkley are in the discussion.

Backpedal much? Sounds like you finally realized how stupid you initial argument for Barkley was. I hate to be such an asshole to you because I genuinely like you dude, but you're just being silly.

 

 

I had forgotten about that, yes. I think we have to consider Barkley because he was so short. It makes what he was capable of even more amazing.

 

I would give Duncan the edge at #1, obviously, but I'm just trying to say that both Barkley and Garnett have arguments available.

 

And sean, it's absolutely silly to say that Duncan is MUCH better than Garnett. Better in the post. Garnett was a better rebounder, probably a slightly better defender, and certainly a better jump shooter and free throw shooter.

 

Each guy has the edge in different areas. Obviously Duncan has aged better. He was able to lean up to deal with his age. Garnett really couldn't do anything, physically. It's too bad, but that's just how it goes, sometimes.

Edited November 20, 2013 by BwareDWare94

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Eh, I wouldn't call Garnett a better defender than Duncan. Maybe he could defend more positions on the floor, but near the rim, Duncan was the best defender in the NBA for a long time, hence the fact that Duncan's career blocked shots (2,666 blocks in 1,188 games) dwarfs Garnett's (1,976 in 1,332 games). Garnett is also not a better rebounder than Duncan for their careers. Duncan has 11.2 RPG during his career, while Garnet has 10.4. Shooting is honestly the only area where Garnett was better, but everywhere else, Duncan either draws even or surpasses Kevin.

[BwareDWare94 723]

In his prime, Garnett was definitely a better rebounder. It just so happens that he's outplayed his fuel tank. He should have retired 3 years ago.

[The Admiral 28]

So you give the edge to Barkley and then you give it back to Duncan... Point proven I suppose.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I actually don't even agree that Barkley is in the top 3 PF. I would take Duncan, Malone, and Garnett all over Barkley.

 

Now I want to go back to what sean stated originally in his first post. He said Kareem is underrated in all time best discussions. I definitely agree and I would also throw Magic Johnson in there as well. You can't disregard a guy like Magic. You're talking about a guy who was by far the best passer that professional basketball has ever seen. Not even Steve Nash was close in my mind. Magic is pretty much the only guy that ever struck fear into another team solely because of his passing abilities. He also averaged 19.5 PPG on top of all of his assists and 7.2 rebounds per game. Most people say MJ was the best ever and fail to even open up to a discussion about it, but I would personally put Magic right there with him still. I know most people will disagree and that's fine.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Magic was too weak of defense to be better than Jordan.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I didn't say he was better, just that you can at least make the argument without sounding foolish. I will say, though, that as an OVERALL offensive threat, I can't see how anyone could deny that Magic was just as much of a threat as MJ. Maybe he couldn't shoot 3's with great success, but as I stated earlier, he scored 19.5 PPG while being the greatest passer of all time, and no one else is close. Just for the sake of argument, let's create a place where every assist is worth 2 points for your team.

 

Magic Johnson: 19.5 PPG 11.2 APG.

 

Michael Jordan: 30.1 PPG 5.3 APG

 

- 19.5 + (11.2 x 2) = 41.9

- 30.1 + (5.3 x 2) = 40.7

 

A marginal difference, and this is not an exact science, of course... but if I were to coin the best offensive player ever, for me it's Magic.

 

No doubt, Jordan is one of the best defensive players ever, and Magic doesn't compare to him in that regard. However, there is something else to consider.

 

Magic Johnson has 30 career playoff Triple Doubles, and I think it's safe to assume that number likely would have been larger if his career lasted longer than it did. This is the most all time by a wide margin. Jordan only had 28 career Triple Doubles, and this even includes his entire regular season career. If you take defense completely out of the equation, it's actually Magic that becomes the better player.

 

When you factor defense back in, I think that makes it a draw in all honesty. Maybe you could count on Jordan to lock his guy down in addition to scoring a lot, but Magic was an absolute force as much as or more than Jordan in everything that did not include defense. We know Jordan was a far better pure scorer, but as overall offensive threats to the other team, Magic is right there and maybe slightly higher. All those assists meant there were a lot of guys getting easy shots at the rim, and no defense is/was able to do anything about that.

 

Because of that, if I were starting an all-time team and I had the #1 overall pick, I would feel comfortable taking Magic over MJ. magic could never beat MJ in a 1 on 1 game, but as this post makes clear, I hope, my argument is that magic can impact a team at least as much as, if not slightly more than MJ.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I don't like the triple-double argument because Johnson played a position that leads to a lot more triple doubles (LeBron James notwithstanding). You might be right that Johnson was better on offense, but 5.3 assists is a lot for a shooting guard. If Johnson was a better offensive player, it wasn't by much. I'd take the slight drop in offense in order to have one of the best defenders ever.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Sarge makes some god points. I'd still take Jordan over Johnson. I don't think Jordan was THAT much better than everybody else who ever played.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I don't like the triple-double argument because Johnson played a position that leads to a lot more triple doubles (LeBron James notwithstanding). You might be right that Johnson was better on offense, but 5.3 assists is a lot for a shooting guard. If Johnson was a better offensive player, it wasn't by much. I'd take the slight drop in offense in order to have one of the best defenders ever.

 

LeBron and Magic are essentially the same player, only difference being LeBron is a better scorer and Magic was a better passer. If LeBron passed more, he would be Magic Johnson. If Magic Johnson had scored more, he would be LeBron James. Lebron may officially be labelled a SF, but for all intents and purposes, he is a PG. That's where the term Point Forward comes from, anyway. I still think people need to realize that LeBron as a player is much more similar to magic than he is to Jordan. In terms of playing style, Kobe is the closest thing to Jordan.

 

And while being a Point Forward like LeBron and Magic may lead to more triple double chances, Jordan was by far the go-to scorer on his team. I usually like to stick as close to facts as possible, but Magic definitely would have scored more had he not shared a team with perhaps the greatest offensive center ever to play. He would have had less assists, then, of course. But my point is that Jordan scored a lot more because he was in a position to score more, and it was vital to his team to score more. Magic was certainly able to score, as evidence of his 19.5 PPG career average, but he knew the team was at its best when he was shredding defenses apart as the best passer ever. I guess what I'm trying to say is, while Jordan was obviously a superior scorer, I actually don't think it's by as much of a margin as the numbers indicate. There were nights when magic was a dominant scorer and people thought he could play that way all the time if he wanted/had to.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Sarge