Yea, this isn't going anywhere. Write off KG's defensive prowess because 'you can find a role player for it'
Well, if I wanted to live a world of extreme distortion like you're doing, I'd say it isn't going anywhere. Nowhere did I "write off" KG's defensive prowess. I'm not a Dirk fan. I'm a basketball fan. I concede that KG has been an excellent defender. I don't believe that his defense automatically makes him a better player than Dirk, not a better player to build a team around. That's not an extreme point, and there's no writing off of anything there.
That's ridiculous. We're making an individual comparison,
No, we're making a comparison of players within the context of a team sport. They're not playing one-on-one, we are (or at least I am) discussing which player can lead a team to an NBA title with the least help. I think the clear answer is Dirk, and I've given my reasons why. Patrick Ewing's inside out game and his anchoring of the Knicks' defense took his team on multiple playoff runs and almost won them a title. That despite never having a viable all star level player on the wing. Give him Pierce and Allen, and we might view him quite differently. I view him kind of similarly to KG, actually. KG to me is kind of P. Ewing as a PF, or Pippen as a PF. Which isn't an insult by any measure. I have no idea how it became some kind of world class insult to say KG is an all time great player who isn't quite the building block that other all time greats are. there is absolutely nothing outlandish about that point, regardless of how egregious KG fans pretend it is.
and you want to highlight Dirk's single skills as if they compete in a skills challenge, and throw defensive skill under the rug.
Well, you know, if this is what helps you live in the bubble in which KG is a a 20-10-5 version of Tyson chandler and Dirk was a lucky 41% shooting championship guard who was carried to a chip by NBA vagabonds, sure.
But actually, what I'm saying has been stated so fukking clearly that there's no further way to clarify it: Dirk is a player you can build a contender around, year in and year out by filling in your lineup with roleplayers. As evidenced by it happening. KG isn't. As evidenced by it never happening. This doesn't make KG a mediocre player by any means.
I can buy your emphasis on Dirk's ability to score in more volume consistently
There's nothing to buy or sell. Dirk is an offensive prodigy. Period. That's the beginning and end of it. He creates matchup problems and space for teammates in ways KG never can, despite KG's ability to see the floor well.
but if your going to dismiss one entire side of the floor as replaceable in an individual comparison, your coming across as extremely partial to Dirk.
I'm not dismissing it. I'm acknowledging it and saying that Dirk's skillset is easier to build a championship contender around than KG's.
When I brought up his numbers, I'm obviously talking about his peak years,
And dirk's peak years have been just as good, while al the years after he has sustained excellence and some years improved on excellence while KG has dipped. And the past 6 years - which are, you know, a significant part of their careers - Dirk has been playing at a higher level, and won a chip with far worse teammates. Call me completely insane for seeing those facts as relevant.
so also dismissing what he did in his prime because he hasn't done something since 2007, or whatever, is another dismissal to prove a point.
Except that never happened. I acknowledge his prime years, and pointed out that Dirk's prime years are pretty fukking good too, and that dirk maintained a level of excellence for longer - which is pretty pertinent to one's legacy. If a legacy was just based on a player's 5 best years, I could die in peace knowing Don Mattingly was going into Cooperstown. But that's not how legacy works.
All you have to defer to is one championship and a skill argument that isn't that relevant in the context of a basketball game.
Well, no, that's just another weird made up talking point you keep rehashing. what I have is Dallas' sustained excellence and status as legit contenders when the one consistent has been Dirk. I have Dirk's putting teams on his back during multiple playoff series, not just one. And he led his team on more than one impressive playoff run, which you conveniently ignore. Also, winning a championship with that cast of also-rans isn't some little thing that you can just dismiss as "all you have to defer to." I can't decide if it's militantly obtuse or plain weird to try to wave that off on some "well, you have that
one playoff run where he carried a team of also-rans to a title... but that's does little to prove he can carry a team of also-rans to a title and KG can't."
Then again, you keep bringing up Dirk's 41% shooting in the finals as some verification of him not being the Mavs' best player, as opposed to the way a small set of games allows a terrible shooting night to skew overall numbers. He had a great series vs. the Heat, in fact. That 41% in the context of the series is actually a pretty weak talking point.
With KG you have to take his skillset and stats and project and imagine he could've done what Dirk did. With Dirk... he actually did it.
It seems as though there is a fixation on using one playoff run to bump up an entire career disproportionately.
True, no other points have been made.
fukk em
