corrections i think you're right. i actually wouldn't be bothered if Dirk was as high as 27 on that list. i underrated him and can't even figure out why.

Don't get me wrong this isn't me saying he's not top 50 but I certainly can't see him over Dirk.

pgm, im gonna do some stuff to the presentation of the list similar to how i'm doing with the wrestlers list, but i won't change any positions or anything. just wanted to let you know so you didn't think i was taking over or anything. just wanted to add some pics and short bios and info and stuff.

you thinking about doing a revision any time soon though? just curious.

Yea, please do that. I'll be good.

I will make changes soon. I should be getting some free time soon, although I'm completely swamped now. It desperately needs some changes at the moment, so I'm sorry I've been negligent.

Connie Hawkins, niggas.

first profile


1. Michael Jordan
Michael Jordan was the most dominant player of the late 80s and 90s: a relentless competitor, an athletic specimen, and a brilliant basketball mind. He became the most feared player of his generation at both ends of the court and perhaps the most iconic sports figure in pop culture, ever.
Position: Shooting Guard (Small Forward, Point Guard)
Number: 23 (Chicago Bulls, Washington Wizards), 45 (Chicago Bulls)
Drafted: 1st Round, 3rd Pick in 1984 (Chicago Bulls)
Retired: 2003 (15 seasons)
Teams: Chicago Bulls (13 seasons), Washington Wizards (2 seasons)
Team Success: 6 NBA Championships, 6 NBA Finals Appearances, 8 NBA Conference Finals Appearances, 13 NBA Playoff Appearances
Individual Accomplishments: 5 NBA MVPs, 6 NBA Finals MVPs, 14 All-Star Appearances, 2 All-Star MVPs, 10x All-NBA 1st Team (1x All-NBA 2nd Team), 9x NBA All-Defensive 1st Team
Career Per Game Stats (NBA Rank): 30.1 ppg (1st), 6.2 rpg, 5.3 apg (81st), 2.3 spg (3rd), 0.8 bpg, .497 FG%
Career Totals (NBA Rank): 32,292 pts (3rd), 6,672 rebs, 5,633 asts (35th), 2,514 stls (2nd), 893 blks (93rd), 27.9 PER (1st)

#65

Is the difference between kevin garnett and tim duncan really that great? Their career numbers are so similar, even when we get down to defensive win shares, offensive win shares, deffensive and offensive ratings.

I think Duncan just benefited more from better teams, because Garnett would usually always be voted higher in the defensive player of the year award, while duncan was usually below garnett in voting , and yet duncan would get on the defensive team 1st and sometimes garnett would not. Doesnt really make sense...

Obviously duncan is on more all nba teams, but is it relevant? if they are so close in winshares and defensive shares, should duncan have always been the key over garnett, or was it just duncan was on the better teams, so usually the easier player to pick from.

i think over the years people have given too much credit to Duncan's supporting cast imo. granted he's played with a couple excellent players. but a lot of those players benefited greatly from playing with him, because he was always a dominant threat in the post even though people don't recognize it. his assists numbers come from his post game, as opposed to Garnett's which come from him running the offense at the top of the key most of the time. Garnett was never a great post player, and it shows in his FG% and is one of the main reasons he had a hard time always dominating offensively at the end of games, because he's largely a jump shooter when compared to other PFs.

look at some of those championships Duncan won. 2003, with a 37 year old David Robinson about to fall down, a 20 year old Tony Parker still finding his game, Bruce Bowen who could barely find a job before he went to SA, and the next best players were a young Stephen Jackson and Malik Rose. and they went through a stacked Dallas team and a 3 peat Lakers team on their way to the finals without even having to have a game 7. mainly because Duncan had a playoff line of 25, 15, and 5.

look at their playoff PERs. Tim Duncan has 7 seasons with higher playoff PERs than Garnett's best season. that's a huge difference imo.

I overplay the supporting cast? You absolutely underplay his supporting cast. Wow, yup, in 2003 it was all duncan. Give me a break, you didnt give any of those players right there any praise at all. His playoff pers are higher because he was always a higher seed, and played lower seeds, and then would play more games. most of garnetts playoffs were one and dones. Best players (ill take a page from you) an old sam cassell, and sprewell in his last season? Besides with the celtics, he made it out of the first round with the wolves once, and he put up 24/14.6/5.3 great numbers and taking them to the conference finals.

the bold is simply not true. yes, that would make sense if all they played was the first round. most of the time, the T-Wolves would have a seed 4-6. SA would have to play a 7 or 8 seed sure, but in the second round they'd have to play a 3 or 4, then they'd have to play the conference finals and sometimes the finals. 3 rounds of games with opponents equal to or better than Garnett's opponent. which doesnt matter, since we have 3 examples of Garnett going deep in the playoffs (granted the last one was post-surgery) and none of those seasons did he have a higher PER than Duncan's 7th best season.

and as far as their supporting casts go. "old cassell and sprewell" trump.
2003 Spurs (minutes per, points, rebounds, assists, FG%, PER)
1 Tim Duncan 42.5 24.7 15.4 5.3 .529 28.4
2 Tony Parker 33.9 14.7 2.8 3.5 .403 11.9
3 Stephen Jackson 33.8 12.8 4.1 2.7 .414 12.0
4 Manu Ginobili 27.5 9.4 3.8 2.9 .386 15.0
5 Malik Rose 23.3 9.3 5.8 1.0 .419 13.3
6 David Robinson 23.4 7.8 6.6 0.9 .542 17.7
7 Bruce Bowen 31.3 6.9 2.9 1.6 .372 8.9

2004 T-Wolves
1 Kevin Garnett 43.4 24.3 14.6 5.1 .452 25.0
2 Latrell Sprewell 42.9 19.8 4.4 4.0 .421 17.7
3 Sam Cassell 31.1 16.6 2.5 4.4 .465 19.6
4 Wally Szczerbiak 24.8 11.8 3.3 1.7 .420 15.5
5 Trenton Hassell 26.2 7.7 2.4 1.5 .521 12.5
6 Fred Hoiberg 24.3 6.4 3.7 1.3 .453 13.9
7 Ervin Johnson 19.8 2.7 4.7 0.7 .500 10.3

there is no way that Duncan had a better supporting cast than Garnett here. both Sprewell and Cassell are better than anyone Duncan had. Duncan's next best player was kept to 23 minutes a game because of age and his next two top scorers shot 40% and 41% from the field. Garnett had the 5th highest FG% on his team during the playoffs (lower than his PG).

the gap obviously isnt huge here. and i'm not trying to say Garnett is some hack. because i believe he is worthy of top 25 all-time and is the 4th best player of his generation behind Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe. but Duncan has 4 rings on two completely different rosters (he is the only hold-over from the 99 team who was on the 07 team) and at least one of them came to him while he was the only all-star on his team (99 he had a younger Admiral and by 05 and 07 Manu and Parker were legit). Garnett never made it out of the first round without two all-stars in his supporting cast and failed to even make the playoffs three straight years in his prime. i mean, honestly, how many all-time greats can say they failed to make the playoffs three straight times in their prime, regardless of the talent surrounding them. hell, Kobe gets knocked for just missing the playoffs once and even he came back to make them the next two years with a supporting cast of Odom, Smush Parker and Kwame Brown. seriously, his 3rd and 4th best players were Smush Parker and Kwame Brown and he made the playoffs. Garnett in 05 still had Sprewell and Cassell and Wally and missed out on the playoffs while Pau Gasol took the Grizzlies to the playoffs over him.


i will give Garnett a ton of credit. he battled through with a lot of bad teams. he played great defense. he was a hell of a competitor. but at the end of the day, Duncan took 4 teams to championships and never had a bad season in terms of individual success or team success. hell, he never even got bounced in the first round until two years ago. he has 2 MVPs, the 5th highest playoff PER in NBA history (MJ, Mikan, LeBron, Shaq then Duncan), 9th highest in MVP shares, and 13 straight All-NBA selections, including 8 first-team selections to start his career.

their resumes are just not equal.

The playoff per doesnt really matter when the guy who is 7th is probably the best defensive player in the league at that time, so that sort of proves how little at times stats matter.

Im not saying that garnett is better, but i just dont see how they are seperated by such a large gap. duncan at 14 and garnett over 20 spots further down? Im saying put garnett higher up, not lower duncan

personally i have Garnett at 24th and Duncan at 7th, so i agree with you a lot that Garnett should be higher.

If this were true why are most of the best playoff PER performances by guys who were one and dones? In fact the best ever put up was Hakeem for one series against Boston. Sounds like a load of bullshit to me.

Furthermore that 2003 team clearly did not have a great supporting cast. It was really no better than the team Garrnett took to the conference finals and got dumptrucked with in Minnesota. I think you grossly underestimate his defense (no surprise there everyone does) because what he does is so understated it doesn't look as spectacular as what Garnett does.

I think the Garnett having teams miss the playoffs three straight years is a huge point. Let's say Dirk were to win a championship this year. What would put Garnett over him overall? Dirk is certainly the better and more gifted offensive player. He's more "clutch" (although I cringe at that stat). More to the point like Duncan he always raised his game in the playoffs (Garnett's game in contrast has always pretty much shrunk in the playoffs). Just going by evidence of my eyes he was not playing well for half of the Celtics finals run in 2008 and that was the large factor in why Atlanta and Cleveland took them to 7. His intensity has always been there but the game wasn't always. And I think the fact that the Mavs have consistently won 50 or more games with Dirk as clearly their best player would work in his favor assuming a title.