Garnett or Duncan? Who is the PF GOAT?
By: Joey Handel and Carter
This is the second installment of our Unculture Argument series, in which our contributors duke it out over a given topic in article form. Today’s argument: who is the greatest power forward in NBA History? Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan?
Carter: Alright, welcome to another round of our Unculture Argument series. Today we’re going to be going to have it out over the title of greatest Power Forward in NBA history. I’m joined today by Joey Handel, who just wrote a great article on the role of DA’s in the future of the post-Bernie left. I will be arguing for Tim Duncan. Joey will try and defend Kevin Garnett’s sorry ass final three years in the league.
Joey: Shots fired! Jokes aside, my argument is that while Tim Duncan is one of the all-time greats and absolutely the more decorated of the two, Kevin Garnett was a more talented and versatile basketball player, which was reflected in their stats and play styles.
Carter: The skill for skill argument is probably your most potent one, but at the end of the day Tim Duncan was the most reliable franchise centerpiece of the 2000s and first half of the 2010s. For almost two decades, the Big Fundamental was a defensive anchor and dominant post scorer for the Spurs, leading them to 5 titles in what was essentially three different eras of play. That’s what makes him the greatest four to ever play the game.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It should be mentioned that we did not address the issue of Duncan being listed at Center for several years and starting at that position for many games. We are more interested in comparing their contributions on the court than getting into positional semantics.
J: I think we should start off pretty broadly, talking about both players’ general strengths on both sides of the ball, who has advantages where, and whatnot. As we go on we can get into the more technical details, intangibles, and more pointed stats.
OFFENSE
C: I think that’s a good way to structure this conversation. Okay, so on the offensive side of the ball, the first thing I would offer is that Tim Duncan averaged 2 more points per game (PPG) than Kevin Garnett, and at a higher field goal percentage (FG%). Shall we move on to defense?
J: Hang on a second, that’s missing just a bit of context. For starters, it is not fair to take the PPG stats at face value, as Duncan was a four year player in college, so he was much more polished coming into the draft. Garnett was coming straight out of high school. The Spurs gave him a much larger role, starting nearly 15 more minutes per game and starting all 82 games compared to Garnett’s 43. Also, Duncan is the better scorer in the post, but Garnett had a much better all-around scoring game. A much larger portion of his shots came from 10 feet out and beyond, and he hit those shots with much more efficiency than Duncan.
C: Sure, Garnett definitely stretched the floor for his teammates in a way that Duncan was never able to, especially in the Celtics era. Duncan would develop one of the most effective shots in basketball history with the midrange bank shot, so you can’t act like he had no variety in his scoring. Also, that highly efficient post play was the most important contribution to the success of the anemic Spurs offense in the 2000s. He led the team in scoring from 1998 to 2010 as a whole, and in each individual year with the exception of 2006 and 2008. I would also offer that Duncan’s skill on the offensive boards is overlooked. The momentum of games and series were shifted on the second chance points he generated. Garnett never generated that level of production on the glass.
J: Fair point, Duncan definitely had the advantage on offensive boards, but Garnett was no scrub. For an entire decade, Garnett averaged at least 2.5 offensive rebounds, including 3 of the 4 years he led the entire league in rebounding. I think it is also a point that lacks context, as Garnett often operated outside of the paint, taking deep mid-range shots away from the glass and not being in as good of a position to get offensive boards as Duncan. And while Duncan was a great passer out of the post, Garnett was an elite ball handler and passer for a big man. He regularly averaged between 4 and 6 assists during his time in Minnesota and it was able to involve his teammates in a way that Duncan was not necessarily able to.
C: This feels like the reverse of the offensive rebounding argument. Sure, Garnett was probably the superior passer, and given the different systems, Garnett deserves more credit for generating scoring plays for the Timberwolves. But like you said, Duncan was no scrub, and playing next to (admittedly even more skilled distributor) Boris Diaw in the 2014 Finals you got to see just how advanced his ability to dissect a defense through the passing game was.
C: Basically the argument for Garnett as the superior offensive player is versatility: he could score from more spots on the floor and was the better distributor. The argument for Duncan is reliability: for 20 years you could rely on 20 points per game, 3 offensive rebounds, and for him to make the right play at the right time.
DEFENSE
C: Let’s move onto defense, where I think this will get significantly more heated. What’s your case for Garnett as the superior defensive player?
J: Similar to their offensive games, Garnett was a much more versatile defender. He had the size to defend big men, he had the speed to keep up with guards, and he had the intensity and awareness to be able to switch between the two on the fly. As far as impact goes, his teams in Minnesota were pretty average defenses through no fault of his own. For example, in 2002–2003, Garnett’s Timberwolves were a slightly above average defense when he was on the floor and 8.5 points worse without him per opponent ORtg. In most of his years in Minnesota, that number was never below 4. During his time in Boston, that number never went below 4 until the 2012 season. Whether the team’s defense was good or bad, his impact was felt all the same. When he went to Boston at 31, he was the defensive anchor of a team with the second best relative defense since 1970. That was the year Garnett won Defensive Player of the Year.
C: Here’s what I’ll say about that: Garnett was switchable in the pre-switching defense era. If you want to have the conversation about whose game translates better to basketball today, I’d be hard pressed to make the case for Duncan. But during both Timmy and Garnett’s primes, defensive philosophy was still heavily based around protecting the paint and fighting through screens to keep guards on guards. Ultimately, you have to judge both on their most important job on defense at the time: guarding the opposing bigs and protecting the paint on drives. Duncan altered and blocked more shots at the rim and shut down some of the most dominant big men of all time in one-on-one matchups. Although he never won Defensive Player of the Year, he finished top 5 in voting several times, and garnered the most All-Defense selections of all time. (Also, I don’t think On/Off statistics are that convincing of an argument for Garnett over Duncan, their numbers look extremely similar during their primes, both creating about a 4 point swing in Opponent Offensive Rating from 1996 to 2013).
J: While I don’t disagree on the prevailing philosophy at the time, I don’t think that it is fair to hold Garnett’s existence outside of the post against him. As his 2003 season where he led the Timberwolves in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks will tell you, Garnett was forced to do it all on an awful Timberwolves team for years on both ends of the ball. Just like it isn’t fair to hold Duncan operating mostly in the post against him, it isn’t fair to hold the opposite against Garnett. Duncan didn’t go outside of the post as much because he didn’t really need to. The Spurs had enough firepower that they could let Duncan stick to his strengths. The Timberwolves needed Garnett to switch, go outside the paint, intercept passing lanes, and do just about anything you can imagine. And Garnett did all of that at an elite level. He’s suffocating Clyde Drexler here, blocking an older Karl Malone with elite quickness here, inhaling a Chris Webber dunk attempt here, and giving help on a pick and roll here. Very few players were ever asked to do so much on defense for their team, and none have done all this at the level that Garnett did. While the Celtics teams he joined were much better on defense, he still displayed these traits.
C: That’s a pretty fair assessment of KG’s portfolio on defense for the Timberwolves years, but on the Celtics he was surrounded by a collection of incredible defensive talent: Rondo was picking off defenders left and right, Ray Allen, Tony Allen, Rasheed Wallace, the roster was chock full of plus-defenders. Here’s what I would concede: Garnett’s defensive peak might be the greatest of all time, but the level Duncan sustained into his age 35 season was unprecedented.
INTANGIBLES
C: Alright, let’s take this plane into initial descent. Let’s get into some of the more specific differences between their games and their resumes. We want to hit intangibles, regular season-playoff performances, and specific statistical arguments that make our case.
J: Fair point about Duncan’s longevity. As far as intangibles go, I think that Garnet’s presence as the leader of those Wolves’ teams, his intensity and unmatched trash talking, and being the defensive anchor of those elite Celtics defenses are extremely significant. I do concede in advance that Duncan himself was the anchor to several elite Spurs defenses as well. However, as great as Duncan was, he was not nearly as good at intimidating his opponents and firing up his own team as Garnett was.
C: Nobody in their right mind would want to have KG in their ear for 48 minutes. Nor would someone with all their brain cells want to make him mad. These_are_the_facts.gif. Every basketball historian remembers that classic performance in Game 7 against the Kings in 2004, and the incredible “Ready for War” answer he gave in a presser before the game.
Duncan had a different style of leadership, and one I would argue was in no way inferior to Garnett’s brash and public style. Duncan has long been lauded as one of the greatest teammates in NBA history, and Spurs coach Gregg Popovich has always maintained that none of the team’s success would have been possible without Tim acting as his second-in-command. You’ve touched on Kevin’s versatility on the court, but I would argue that Timmy’s record shows that he was the more versatile team leader off the court. Despite the Spurs front office rotating in and out dozens of role players, and Pop adapting the offense to match the changes in their roster and in the broader game, Tim played the give and take game to the tune of winning at least 60% of their games every season.
J: While it is impossible to argue that Duncan was not the heart and soul of many far more successful teams, I do not think that is Garnett’s fault. While he would have been great regardless of where he was drafted, Duncan was put into the best situation anybody could possibly ask for. He had one of the greatest big men ever on the tail end of his career in David Robinson, one of the greatest coaches ever (although we did not know it at the time), and joined arguably the best run franchise of the 2000s. This is not to take away from Tim Duncan or his leadership, but show the stark contrast with Garnett’s situation. Before Garnett came along, the young Timberwolves had not only never made the playoffs, they never cracked 30 wins. To this day, their management continues to be a laughingstock. Unless they suddenly turn things around, they are about to waste their third superstar big man of the 2000s in Karl-Anthony Towns. With Duncan and the Spurs organization, I think that there is a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg dynamic. Until leaving for Boston, Garnett dealt with dysfunction, while Duncan had top-tier coaching and management for the entirety of his career. So while Duncan absolutely deserves credit for being able to adapt to the changing Spurs teams, he was lucky enough to be on a team that knew how to change effectively. When Garnett was finally given competence, he proceeded to win a ring and be in serious contention for the next few years. If Garnett himself does not get injured in 2009 and if Perkins does not go down in 2010, there is a very real chance that he has three rings (although that is purely hypothetical).
C: The point you keep making about the structure around Duncan vs the structure around Garnett is well-taken. Sussing out how much Duncan is responsible for the Spurs success vs the context around him, or to what extent Garnett would have thrived under the same conditions is a little bit of a fool’s errand. Suffice it to say that Garnett leading a truly awful supporting cast in Minnesota to the 1 seed in the West (above the Kobe-Shaq Lakers and Duncan’s Spurs) might be his crowning individual achievement. You already touched on rings, so let’s move onto my favorite angle here: Playoff resume. Let’s talk.
PLAYOFFS
J: This is where you probably have me. It is worth considering that while Garnett had a significant drop off in the playoffs, he did not have as significant of a sample size as Duncan, Duncan had over 100 more career playoff games than Garnett. A common knock on Garnett’s Minnesota years is the first-round exits, but it is worth considering in 5 out of their 7 first round exits, they were a 6 seed or worse, so it would not be fair to expect them to come out of those series. There is certainly a chance that Garnett would still struggle even if his Timberwolves got further into the playoffs, but his numbers are over the course of a much smaller number of games, most of which were at the tail end or past his prime.
C: Yeah that’s a fairly underwhelming defense of Garnett’s playoff record, but given what you had to work with I suppose it’s to be expected.
… That might be a little bit of a low blow. But! Garnett had what many call the “original superteam” with the Big Four Celtics, and only has one ring to show for it. He missed the playoffs in 2009 because of an injury, and the team was a shell of itself by the time they lost to the Knicks in the first round of the 2013 tournament, but you can’t explain away the 5 game drubbing in 2011 and the blowout losses in Game 6 and 7 against Miami the following year. Duncan’s record, by contrast, is the gold standard of consistently delivering the goods. He came through time after time in the biggest moments, battling through a consistently tougher Western conference, pulling out grueling 6 and 7 game series against the likes of the Shaq and Kobe Lakers, a truly unstoppable Phoenix Suns team, the ascendant Oklahoma City Thunder, etc. From the moment he came into the league, he was thrust into a starting role on a team with championship expectations. Duncan was unfazed, and by his sophomore season he was hoisting the Larry O’Brien and Bill Russell trophies. He would do so again two more times in the next six years, and sits only behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on the list of players with the longest time in between their first and last title. That’s the definition of a true winner.
J: There is no doubt that Duncan had the more successful playoff resume, but it’s not like the Spurs did not have their own share of unexplainable collapses. The most glaring, of course, is the 2011 series against the 8th seed Grizzlies. The best team in the west lost in the first round. Say what you will about Garnett’s playoff woes, but when his Timberwolves were the first seed, they had no problem putting the Nuggets away in 5 games. Another glaring collapse was in the 2012 conference finals. The Spurs took a 2–0 lead on the young Thunder (oh, what could have been) and then proceeded to lose 4 games in a row. Of course, that Thunder team was no joke, but with a 2–0 lead, the more experienced Spurs should have won the series. Yet, they didn’t even make it to a 7th game. While using this to characterize Duncan as a choker would obviously be wildly inaccurate, it is fair to say that his Spurs had some lower points.
C: You’re right, 34 and 35 year old Tim Duncan was not good enough to carry 33 and 34 year old Manu Ginobili and “Red Rocket” Matt Bonner over those teams. I apologize on his behalf. I would argue he more than made up for it with back to back Finals appearances, but maybe you disagree.
I feel like we’ve covered most of the bases of this argument, and although I’m still with the majority of NBA fans that see Timmy as the PF GOAT, I went in thinking that it wasn’t particularly close. Having seen the case, I definitely think there’s a fair argument to be made for KG, although it rests a little too much on excuses about the teams around him and injuries later in his career for my tastes. My case for Tim is pretty simple: he joined a franchise with an aging legend at the center position and not much else and proceeded to win, and then win some more, and just when you thought he was done winning, he won again. He had one of the two or three best coaches in NBA history guiding him, though I see it as an even more acute version of the Brady-Belichick relationship. The name of the game is longevity: I believe he was a more reliable scorer for a longer period of time, an equally productive defensive player, and most importantly the symbol of consistency and championship level basketball, something that you can’t say for Kevin Garnett.
J: While I can’t lie and act like I did not see the very valid argument for Duncan being the greatest power forward ever, you made some points that I haven’t really considered. I think a lot of it rests on team success, but he was the most vital part of that success so it is not fair to completely discount it. However, Garnett’s ability to do so much at a superstar level puts him over the top for me. His combination of ball handling, passing, spacing, and quickness made him like a prototype of Giannis. His elite ability to switch, defend in or outside of the paint, and acute awareness made him one of the most uniquely talented defenders the game has ever seen. His versatility on both sides of the ball was unmatched by Tim Duncan (or anybody for that matter). In my opinion, that makes Kevin Garnett the greatest power forward of all time.
That does it for our second Unculture Argument. We’ve made our arguments, and we’d love to hear which side of the debate you fall on in the responses. Additionally, if you have any suggestions for what we should debate next, hit us up, and we’ll give you credit for the inspiration.
If you enjoyed reading this piece, please consider subscribing to our Substack newsletter. You’ll get to read our stuff, hot off the presses, each time we publish.
