who's better, garnett or duncan?

Question

if you look their resumes, you'll probably say that duncan is better.. but duncan is in a good organization in spurs while garment spent over 10 years to a team that cant build a team around him (except for 2003 - 2004 season where he had sprewell and cassell, garnett needs only two stars, not superstars to elevate his team from pretenders to contenders)..

Answer 1

Garnett also sucked up a mighty hefty chunk of his team's salary thus tying his team's hands. He made 28 million one year, 25 million the year before and 22 million the year before that. He wised up and had his contract re-worked.

Besides if Garnett played for a crummy team that isn't Tim Duncan's fault.

Answer 2

Garnett is fairly stable, yet Timmy is an all-time great. Playoff overall performance separates the greats - Duncan's 4 jewelry and conserving the Spurs a perennial tension in the west is a lot greater effective to Garnett's 7 rapidly first around exits + a million ring after he joined a collection with a million, possibly 2 different corridor of famers.

Answer 3

Duncan is very likely an all-time-top-ten player.

Garnett is not, although if they re-picked the top 50 players ever, he would have a good chance of being included. Garnett could very well be a top 40 player of all time, but not much higher than that.

Duncan is better though. And Minnesota has never been a serious championship contender... they snuck into the Western Conference finals one year, but that's been it for them. Even if they had managed to get past the Lakers, they'd go down in 4 straight to that Pistons team.

Answer 4

KG has more athleticism and is a little bit better rebounder then Duncan is at this point. Duncan fits the definition of someone who is skilled and does the fundamentals well as in the footwork and using glass. KG has a little bit more range then Duncan and can pass a little bit better, but in the end it's the fundamentals that win out. That's why Duncan has the edge slightly over Garnett.

Answer 5

Duncan. People keep mentioning Duncan's supporting cast, but David Robinson was 33 when the Spurs won their first championship, and Parker and Ginobili were little known and lightly regarded rookies when they entered the league. Duncan elevated their games while barely sacrificing his own. And he's won 4 championships while Garnett has escaped the first round just once in his career (although I expect that to change this season).

Answer 6

both are phenomenal players. they play the game like it should be played but in different ways. kg plays the game like there's no tomorrow and leaves it all on the court. his athleticsm and enthusiam for the game is contagious and fun to watch. duncan on the the other hand plays the game so efficiently and plays it using the fundamentals of the game. it's can be downright boring to watch but its damn effective.
i look at it this way. i put duncan slightly ahead of kg...not because of the rings (though that could help a lot) but b/c he's a 'closer'. or a person who u can depend on for a big play when u need it in crunch time. kg has done that...but not on the stage that duncan has. if u go back to the spurs title run in 2003...where they beat the lakers in wc semi-finals...game 6 vs. la...duncan took over that game and totally destroyed shaq (who at the time was considered the most dominant if not best player in the world). that opened up conversation at to who really was the best player.

do i think kg in that position wouldve performed the same way, with the same stakes and in the same position (a close up game against the lakers on the road)? no.

as great as player as kg is...even if kg wins a title this year...he will still be a hair or so below td.

Answer 7

Duncan is younger, has both college and pro experience, is a better shooter, and a player that is feared more. Sure Duncan has had the better coaching, role model (David Robinson), and players around him and Garnett is great despite lacking those, but Duncan is still better and would probably win a 1 on 1 against him.

Answer 8

Duncan, is simply the greatest. He has the college experience at Wake Forest, while Garnett has only gone to High School at Farragaut Academy. Tim Duncan also has the championships, the better personality, and is just an all around great guy.

Answer 9

They are both in the elite group of forwards in the leauge. Garnett is more athletic, quick, and intense, which makes him fun to watch. Duncan has good shot blocking skills and a nice 5-10 foot jumper off the glass. The edge has to go to Duncan with the rings.

Answer 10

People here answer with bias and personal view. Some of them are dumb, can't make critical thinking. I am not from mini. or san antonio. This is how I break it down.

-- Career stats, they are very close with ppg and rpg. Over all stats sheet goes for Duncan. 1-0 Duncan.

-- Don't say about rings and who's got a better supporting cast. If you choose this way then, 2-0 for Duncan, because if you have a better supporting cast then you have to share the ball with other more, so your stats has to go down (if Duncan play in Mini. I bet I will have better stat than Kevin, no body but him to score, rebound)

-- Duncan has more impact in the game more than Kevin (imagine that if they have same supporting cast). Ducan demand double teams more. 3-0 Duncan.

-- Ducan has degree in psychology major so he make better decision ( which shown and proven) and seem to share more with his teammates. This one extra so 31/2-0 for Ducan.

Let me know your thought, I don't think you can't argue this if breaking down like this.

Answer 11

You can't go wrong with Duncan. He's won more championships than garnett and is just as much a superstar on the team.