PDA

View Full Version : Swap teams, Who really is better?



_KB24_
03-29-2009, 11:51 PM
If you were to switch KG and Tim Duncan's teams when they both first came to the NBA, ( lets just assume KG never went to Boston) and have KG with the Spurs with Robinson and Duncan with the Wolves of 4-5 years ago, who would be a better player?

JordansBulls
03-29-2009, 11:55 PM
If you were to switch KG and Tim Duncan's teams when they both first came to the NBA, ( lets just assume KG never went to Boston) and have KG with the Spurs with Robinson and Duncan with the Wolves of 4-5 years ago, would would be a better player?

The guy with the 3 finals mvps and who actually led his team to the title.

Everything is based on what happens.

It's like saying what happens if you give France the army Germany had in WW II who would have won.

Chaudhry
03-30-2009, 12:10 AM
The guy with the 3 finals mvps and who actually led his team to the title.

Everything is based on what happens.

It's like saying what happens if you give France the army Germany had in WW II who would have won.

lol well not really... france had different objectives then Germany... france wouldn't have instigated...

in this case both would have the same goals...

i don't think they would have won as much... they still may have gotten one or two... but i don't think they'd get 4...

their games are similar enough that they could be substituted in for each other... meaning the both have an outside shot, and an inside presence... garnett is obviously more versatile and athletic but i think duncan is smarter... i think 2 of the championships were accredited to a good team and two to a smart, savy team...(i came to that conclusion randomly)

then the other thing is their locker room presence, parker and ginobili aren't really guys who get too riled up so i think their personalities match with duncan, i dunno if there would be a clash with garnett, but...

Chaudhry
03-30-2009, 12:13 AM
oh and in terms of the better player, i think both would be worse... duncan would not have won so he'd be a boring karl malone (in terms of comparing skill) meaning he wouldn't be adored as he is... and KG wouldn't be seen as the guy who carried a crappy team... he wouldn't be getting the same numbers cause he wouldn't need too... so they'd be exactly as they are now, with duncan being a hair above, when compared to each other but much worse when compared to other bigmen

IndyRealist
03-30-2009, 12:14 AM
The Wolves were crippled because KG signed a $126M contract on a small market team with no hopes of being able to pay for quality support players. The same thing would have happened in San Antonio.

Hawkeye15
03-30-2009, 11:03 AM
KG. The Spurs organization is so much better run, he would have benefited while Tim would have not. The Wolves were never able to surround Garnett with talent because they overpaid him, and signed mid level players to huge deals. The Spurs would never have given anyone that money, and they always find talent.

sp1derm00
03-30-2009, 11:46 AM
You can't go wrong with either choice. Both are great defenders, KG a little more emphatic on defense than TD... but TD is more fundamentally sound which leads to higher FG% and more consistency. It's hard to say that the Spurs needed anymore defense than it already has... the Spurs are a great defensive team and they don't rack up a lot of fouls playing defense. This translates to teams having to earn their points the hard way. Not sure if KG would be able to anchor that kind of defense the way TD has.

Hawkeye15
03-30-2009, 12:59 PM
You can't go wrong with either choice. Both are great defenders, KG a little more emphatic on defense than TD... but TD is more fundamentally sound which leads to higher FG% and more consistency. It's hard to say that the Spurs needed anymore defense than it already has... the Spurs are a great defensive team and they don't rack up a lot of fouls playing defense. This translates to teams having to earn their points the hard way. Not sure if KG would be able to anchor that kind of defense the way TD has.

KG finally got some talent around him last year, and his team was #1 in defense, and he was DPOY, so I think the answer is yes, he can

bostncelts34
03-30-2009, 04:44 PM
Duncan NOR kG would of ever won a chip' in minny. You saw what happened when you surrounded KG with talent in boston, and this is later in his career. Take some 5 years of his age, put him with ginboli,parker,bowen ect. Im sure he would of won 3+ titles.

Hes 1/1 with real talent around him (kg). He has a CHANCE to make it 2/2.

_KB24_
03-30-2009, 07:57 PM
You can't go wrong with either choice. Both are great defenders, KG a little more emphatic on defense than TD... but TD is more fundamentally sound which leads to higher FG% and more consistency. It's hard to say that the Spurs needed anymore defense than it already has... the Spurs are a great defensive team and they don't rack up a lot of fouls playing defense. This translates to teams having to earn their points the hard way. Not sure if KG would be able to anchor that kind of defense the way TD has.

Tim Duncan had the opportunity to play with a HOF center in David Robinson who was the anchor on defense until his final 2-3 seasons.

RealistRocket34
03-31-2009, 12:00 AM
Duncan would have a better chance since he led a team with no all-stars in 2003 to the finals and winning it all. I think Duncan fits in better with the Spurs though than KG does.

Hellcrooner
03-31-2009, 12:11 AM
young kg would have clashed with robinson, unhappy ending.

IversonIsKrazy
03-31-2009, 12:28 AM
My god, KG's squad is so underrated. I'll admit that Duncan had the better squard from the years of 1997-2001. But when KG & TD were in their prime, it was different. Look at these stats from 2004.

Cassel: 19.7ppg, 7.3apg
Sprewell: 16.8ppg

Tony: 15.4ppg, 5.5apg
Manu: 12.8ppg

KG had the better squad from the years of 2001-2005. By then Duncan had 3 rings, 3 finals MVP's, and 2 season MVP's. KG had 0 rings, 0 finals appearance, 2 MVP's.

Also, u say that KG had no surrondings, not only look at the stats, but how that FUCCKK are the t'wolves supposed to get quality players if KG was getting payed $28m yearly. Duncan took a HUGE pay-cut for a better team, in the year of 04, he was making $13m yearly.

Duncan is the greatest PF of all-time. Duncan is better than KG. Simple as that.

_KB24_
03-31-2009, 01:35 AM
KG had the better squad from the years of 2001-2005. By then Duncan had 3 rings, 3 finals MVP's, and 2 season MVP's. KG had 0 rings, 0 finals appearance, 2 MVP's.

Also, u say that KG had no surrondings, not only look at the stats, but how that FUCCKK are the t'wolves supposed to get quality players if KG was getting payed $28m yearly. Duncan took a HUGE pay-cut for a better team, in the year of 04, he was making $13m yearly.

Duncan is the greatest PF of all-time. Duncan is better than KG. Simple as that.

If you think that, your just stupid. KG probally had the better team for no more than 1 or 2 seasons because Sprewell only lasted a year there. I can guarantee you that KG never made 28m yearly. He won MVP only once with Sprewell and Cassell to prove that if you can give him atleast one or two guys who dont ****ing suck, he can do something. Duncan is good but KG is the better individual player hands down.

madiaz3
03-31-2009, 01:37 AM
If you think that, your just stupid. KG probally had the better team for no more than 1 or 2 seasons because Sprewell only lasted a year there. I can guarantee you that KG never made 28m yearly. He won MVP only once with Sprewell and Cassell to prove that if you can give him atleast one or two guys who dont ****ing suck, he can do something. Duncan is good but KG is the better individual player hands down.

maybe more talented but td's intangibles are too much

KG2TB
03-31-2009, 02:10 AM
My god, KG's squad is so underrated. I'll admit that Duncan had the better squard from the years of 1997-2001. But when KG & TD were in their prime, it was different. Look at these stats from 2004.

Cassel: 19.7ppg, 7.3apg
Sprewell: 16.8ppg

Tony: 15.4ppg, 5.5apg
Manu: 12.8ppg

KG had the better squad from the years of 2001-2005. By then Duncan had 3 rings, 3 finals MVP's, and 2 season MVP's. KG had 0 rings, 0 finals appearance, 2 MVP's.

Also, u say that KG had no surrondings, not only look at the stats, but how that FUCCKK are the t'wolves supposed to get quality players if KG was getting payed $28m yearly. Duncan took a HUGE pay-cut for a better team, in the year of 04, he was making $13m yearly.

Duncan is the greatest PF of all-time. Duncan is better than KG. Simple as that.

You're looking plainly at numbers and failing to understand that Tony Parker and Manu are better than Cassel and Sprewell. Is there a stat for horrible shots taken? If so, Cassel and Spree would have both been on the list during that year. Manu and Tony are both smart players who are very team oriented.

As for the topic...it's a tough question and impossible to answer. Obviously KG would have fared better on the Spurs than the Wolves. Duncan is on a superbly coached, well scouted, beautifully put together franchise. KG played on, well..the Wolves. I don't know if either would have won titles if they swapped teams, but in my mind, they're equal players. If it came down to it though, I'd rather have KG on my team but you can't go wrong either way.

JJ81
03-31-2009, 01:06 PM
Timmy D. No question

IBleedPurple
03-31-2009, 02:15 PM
Dumb thread. What if Dennis Rodman and Latrell Sprewell were on the same team in the Finals, and literally killed the star players on the other team? How would the series be finished? We can play what-ifs forever

Hellcrooner
03-31-2009, 02:22 PM
The difference is Duncan is a humble guy that does what it has to be done, if its score score if its deffend deffend, amnu is humble enough to go to the bench and Parker more or less accepts taking different roles in every game.

now compare that with x millions is not eough to feed my family........

KG2TB
03-31-2009, 05:13 PM
The difference is Duncan is a humble guy that does what it has to be done, if its score score if its deffend deffend, amnu is humble enough to go to the bench and Parker more or less accepts taking different roles in every game.

now compare that with x millions is not eough to feed my family........

:nod:

king4day
03-31-2009, 05:15 PM
Wolves prob woulda gotten a ring out of it in the long run.
As great as KG has been, he was too young when he entered the league. Robinson wouldn't have had his ring and dare I say, Ewing would have...