Who ranks higher all-time?

— Kyrie or Dame

— KG or Dirk

— Nash or CP3

— Hakeem or Kobe

— Kawhi or Jokić

— Oscar or West

— Bill or Wilt

— Jordan or LeBron

— Magic or Duncan

— Curry or Bird

Reply with your answers to all 10 ⬇️⬇️⬇️ pic.twitter.com/MkbdCN1fbP

— Ball (@BallMuse23) July 10, 2023

Because it's the off season and this topic circulates around this time every year, I wanted to put my propaganda unbiased thoughts on the matter in writing...

Thesis: Kevin Garnett, under any lens or through any criteria, was never better than Dirk Nowitzki.

A brief preamble before I get started:

• Most nephews on the bird app or Reddit only remember the last decade of Dirk's career and assume that's who he always was. They forget the mobile terror he used to be during the early aughts; pushing the ball up court for the Mavs offense like a galloping gazelle.
• KG has 2 fan bases that will stan for him (Wolves and Celts) so in terms of 'zealots' defending their guy, KG has that advantage. (I'll gladly admit to my own bias as a staunch acolyte in the Church of Swish.)
• I am not saying KG isn't a top 25 player or even one of the best 2 way players of his era. I am saying as someone who watched both players, whose careers overlapped almost entirely, that KG was never better than Dirk.

So let's get into it.

Point 1: Head to Head.
I would argue that KG's MVP season was one of the best individual 2 way seasons of all time. BUT…
Dirk owned KG. Specifically, when the Mavs SWEPT the Wolves in 2002 in a series that Dirk DOMINATED (Dirk averaged 33-16-3 on 53/73/89 splits that series. That's god tier ****.)

I'll see Wolves/KG stans counter with; "Dirk had more help!" To that I say; both teams had the same # of All Stars (2) and in Rd 1 of 2002 playoffs:

• Dirks teammates averaged 79.4 pts/game on 54% TS
• KG's teammates averaged 78 pts/game on 53.5% TS

Statistically, the Wolves supporting cast and Mavs supporting cast were almost identical that series…and Minnesota got SWEPT. Garnett also had more than double the turnovers than Dirk, which prolly had something to do with it.

Point 2: Team Success
Dirk CONSISTENTLY had better regular season success. 11 straight years of 50 wins with a grand total of 3 all stars around him [Finley, Nash, Josh Howard] for his career (4 if you count 36 yr old Jason Kidd being selected as an injury replacement in 2010) plus 15x playoff berths.In the HISTORY of the NBA, only 3x has a franchise stacked 50+ wins in consecutive seasons for more than a decade:
1- Spurs (00-17)
2- Showtime Lakers (80-91)
3- Mavs (01-11)

That's it.

Compare the insane list of HALL OF FAME level talent in their primes that contributed to those runs for LA and SA vs what Dirk and the Mavs had.

The point is; if you had Dirk on your team, you were lethal on offense and guaranteed a playoff berth in the West, no matter who else was on the roster. Dirk was arguably the single best floor raiser the NBA has ever seen.

Despite the embarrassing 1st Rd loss to the Warriors in '07, the fact that the Mavs won 67 games with the below starting lineup is one of the most incredible NBA feats (only 13 teams EVER have won 67 or more):
- Eric Dampier
- Devin Harris
- Josh Howard
- Dirk
- Jason Terry

KG was great on offense too, but not in a way that buoyed wins. Of the 12 years KG spent in Minnesota, his team only won 50 games 4 times and went three straight years of missing the playoffs during his prime. All time greats don't do that. (It's why I was so hard on Luka this past season.)

In terms of playoff success, they both won 1 championship. KG won his by fleeing the west to form a super team with 2 other all time greats in their prime. Dirk won his with a collection of very good role players, but no all stars, in the West and against arguably the best Super Team ever [pre warriors].

Dirk was the best player on a championship team and KG was simply not. KG joined a super team. Dirk went through a super team.

Point 3: Offense vs Defense
Offense is more important than defense.

Every time this debate comes up, the argument is typically framed as an All Time NBA Defender vs an All Time NBA Scorer. But that framing is disingenuous b/c it implies that defense is as valuable or scarce as elite scoring. Historically, it's infinitely harder to find an offensive player in Dirk's stratosphere than to find someone with KGs level of defense. KG was an elite defender, but he could not stop players like Dirk or Duncan for the life of him and often wouldn't be able to match up with them for fear of foul trouble.

KG was also no slouch on offense, but Dirk was pantheon level great who's efficiency, gravity, and effect on the other team's defense is rivaled only by the likes of MJ, Lebron, Kobe, Kareem, KD, Steph, Jokic, Harden (and hopefully 1 day, Luka).

If your offense stagnated and the clock was close to 0, having a 7ft assassin that could nail an efficient shot at literally any point on the court is the single biggest asset any team can have. Dirk's average defense paired with the Ferrari engine of his offense was simply more valuable to team success. [If Wemby develops a reliable jumper, it's why the spurs will contend every year for a decade plus]

Point 4: Revolutionize the Game
Maybe this shouldn't count, but I see it used all the time when talking about MJ's GOAT status, so I think it's fair game here.

Dirk wasn't the first big man to shoot from range, but he is the living embodiment of the "Stretch 4" archetype. The idea of 7ft-ers operating outside of the post or hoisting 3 point shots was a novelty and hardly taken seriously (shoutout Manute Bol) before Dirk. Dirk didn't invent the mold, but perfected it and weaponized it. He catapulted the 80/90s era, lumbering, brute force big man, into the modern era of space and pace. And in doing so, he created a wholly unique and unstoppable shot that is trademarked specifically to him; the one legged fade. His impact on the game will be felt forever.

All of this is to ignore the contributions he had as a non American. Whether it's Hakeem, Yao, Ginobli, Parker or Giannis....Dirk belongs in the pantheon of players who helped push the NBA borders beyond North America.

In more ways than one, you simply cannot tell the story of the NBA without mentioning Dirk Nowitzki.

Conclusion:
In the era that Dirk and KG were at their most productive, iso scoring was as valuable as it ever was. Dirk and Kobe were the "A tier" ISO scorers of their era, and as such, Dirks skillset correlated stronger to winning. Inversely, KG's skill set was somewhat cannibalized.

The primary argument for Dirk is that as a number 1 option, Dirk's teams had significantly more success than KG's. The rebuttal is usually that Dirk had better teammates, but this ignores that in an era when teams were regularly scoring under 90 points, it's Dirk's all time offensive ability that allowed for his teammates elevated play. To say "KG didn't have help" is to insinuate that Dirk did. That's simply not true. No player has had less all-star help than Dirk while attaining the same amount of team success, and it's really not even close. Dirk allowed the Mavs to run a modern offense ten years ahead of the curve.

If you wanna take the argument to quantifiable factors, when it comes to accolades, it's a wash. All NBA appearances are a tie and both have an MVP. KG has his defensive accolades, but Dirk has a final's MVP and much more team success. Statistically, KG has slightly better counting stats, but the key quantifiable difference for Dirk comes with the playoffs.

Upon Dirk's retirement, of the top 100 in NBA Scoring history, only 1 player has a larger bump across the 4 box score categories, collectively, than Dirk (Hakeem). And NO player in NBA history has a larger bump in PPG and RPG from Reg Season to Playoffs than Dirk.

Which player in nba history has the most clutch points in a single playoff run? Dirk.

When the games mattered most, Dirk was at his best.

Most KG arguments devolve into hypotheticals or use arbitrary bookends for what is considered a player's 'Peak'. I cant help but think that when people argue for KG, what they are saying is that right now they would rather have KG than Dirk. Or that it would be easier to start a team from scratch with KG. Regardless, when you look at what actually happened on court when it actually mattered, Dirk was the better player.

Garnett over Dirk. Didn't even have to think about it really.


Kyrie or Dame

KG or Dirk

Nash or CP3

Hakeem or Kobe (this one was difficult)

Kawhi or Joki

Oscar or West

Bill or Wilt

Jordan or LeBron

Magic or Duncan

Curry or Bird

knoxtom said:

---

Jordan or LeBron - For 6 years Jordan was the best player ever. The rest of his career he was maybe a top 20 guy. Lebron is the 2nd best player ever but for 20 years! Lebron's career has far exceeded Jordan

---

*throws laptop out of window in disgust*

This is longer and more work than a performance review

KG's defense does not make up for Dirk's capacity for offensive domination. Dirk had 5x as many 40 point games and 3 times as many 30 point games in his career. It's why Dirk could regularly win without an all-star caliber teammate and KG couldn't. KG managed to win 50+ games twice without an all-star running mate. Dirk did it 7 times (9 if you don't include Josh Howard's injury replacement selection in '07 and Kidd's replacement selection in '10.

Dirk is a better piece to build around. Individual offensive dominance is way more important and harder to replicate in the aggregate than individual defensive dominance. It's why Dirk smoked KG in their one series they played against each other and he had a near 70% win rate against KG before KG joined a super team (60% even including the super team years, that's like having a 50 win team against KG).

Quote:

---

Point 1: Head to Head.
I would argue that KG's MVP season was one of the best individual 2 way seasons of all time. BUT…
Dirk owned KG. Specifically, when the Mavs SWEPT the Wolves in 2002 in a series that Dirk DOMINATED (Dirk averaged 33-16-3 on 53/73/89 splits that series. That's god tier ****.)

I'll see Wolves/KG stans counter with; "Dirk had more help!" To that I say; both teams had the same # of All Stars (2) and in Rd 1 of 2002 playoffs:

• Dirks teammates averaged 79.4 pts/game on 54% TS
• KG's teammates averaged 78 pts/game on 53.5% TS

---

Absolutely disingenuous to act like Garnett's supporting cast was anywhere near Dirk's at that point.

28yo Mike Finley vs WallyZ
Steve Nash vs Chauncey Billups
Nick VanExel vs Anthony Peeler

The Wolves team wasn't anywhere close to the Mavs, which is why the Mavs also finished 7 games ahead of Minn.

Ultimately, 3 head to head games in 2002 tells you nothing about their careers and who is better.

Webber had a 9-3 record against Dirk in the playoffs. I guess Webber is significantly better than Dirk?

Quote:

---

Point 2: Team Success

Dirk CONSISTENTLY had better regular season success.

---

It isn't Garnett's fault that the Wolves have been an absolute dumpster fire prior to, during, and after his career. Unquestionably one of the worst run franchises in the NBA.

Meanwhile, Dirk was blessed with an owner that would pay whatever it cost to win a title.

No question that Dirk's title is better and more important than Garnett's title.

However, it also needs to be said that Dirk didn't win until Dallas put the right players around him. What does that mean?
All-time great defensive center in Tyson Chandler. Chandler was an All-Star, All-NBA, All-Defense, and DPOY guy and that season was right in the middle of his prime.
Kidd was at the tail end of his elite, top 5 PG of all time career, and was still effective. He was a 9x All-Defensive player, and while he wasn't as good as previous years, he was the first man out the previous year for All-Defense 2nd team and still got votes for All-NBA 3rd team the championship year. Kidd finished 2011 7th in SPG, 6th in APG and in the playoffs, hit a respectable 37% from three.
Shawn Marion was a great defender that could man up on bigs as well as perimeter guys. He was one of the first real guys that was positionless the way we think now in that he couple play wing, but also play post because he was so strong and such a good rebounder. Marion never made all-defense, but was consistently one of the first out of 2nd team (would have been 3rd team 4 or 5 times if they had it) and got all-defense votes in 9 seasons, including the championship season and the year after.

Dallas had to add DPOY-level center and a portable wing/post elite defender in Marion to cover up for Dirk's defensive ineffectiveness.

I want you to tell me this: what seasons in Minnesota, would you trade Dirk's teammates for Garnett's?

Even in 2004, which was Garnett's MVP season and by far the best Wolves team and the Mavs were severely disappointing:

Nash > Cassell
Finley > Sprewell
Jamison (6MOY) > Wally (didn't play under after the AS break)
Antoine Walker > Kandi
Josh Howard > Trenton Hassell
Marques Daniels > Fred Hoiberg
Najera > Mark Madsen
Shawn Bradley >>>>>>>> Ervin not Magic Johnson

Quote:

---

Point 3: Offense vs Defense
Offense is more important than defense.

---

A great two way player is more valuable than a great one-way player. I think that Garnett's offense was closer to Dirk's offense than Dirk's defense was closer to Garnett's defense.

Quote:

---

Every time this debate comes up, the argument is typically framed as an All Time NBA Defender vs an All Time NBA Scorer. But that framing is disingenuous b/c it implies that defense is as valuable or scarce as elite scoring. Historically, it's infinitely harder to find an offensive player in Dirk's stratosphere than to find someone with KGs level of defense. KG was an elite defender, but he could not stop players like Dirk or Duncan for the life of him and often wouldn't be able to match up with them for fear of foul trouble.

---

KG also never had help until he got to Boston. Who were his perimeter defenders in Minnesota? WallyZ, Anthony Peeler, Sam Cassell, Latrell Spreewell? Garnett had two seasons of Chauncey Billips, but before Chauncey was Chauncey (he wasn't even a starter one of those seasons.) Minnesota let Chauncey sign with Detroit as a FA.

Quote:

---

KG was also no slouch on offense, but Dirk was pantheon level great who's efficiency, gravity, and effect on the other team's defense is rivaled only by the likes of MJ, Lebron, Kobe, Kareem, KD, Steph, Jokic, Harden (and hopefully 1 day, Luka).

---

I think you are a little too generous with Dirk. Dirk never finished top 3 in scoring, so it is hard to say he was a pantheon-level great. For his prime (02-11) he averaged 24.5ppg. He finished top 5 in scoring twice.

Now, Dirk was one of the most difficult shooters to defend because he combined elite shooting with an unblockable fadeaway and 7' height. However, despite his elite ability in mid-range and from 3, he was not great interior scorer, and I think that really hurt the Mavs in the playoffs, especially prior to the 11 run.

Garnett, in his prime, was a 22.5ppg scorer (00-07.) Garnett was also a significantly better passer than Dirk and Garnett also had 1 season with top 3 in the NBA scoring, while we already mentioned Dirk never made it to that level. Obviously, Dirk was a better scorer, had more tools in his toolbox and was more consistent (Garnett was only top-10 in scoring 3 times, Dirk was 10 or 12 times?), but it isn't like Garnett was not good.

For their mid-range games, both were very good shooters. From 02-14 (before his shooting started dropping) Dirk shot .478 from 16-23' while Garnett shot .455 from 00-15 or .463 if you go 04-15. Dirk's better clearly, but Garnett's shot there was also very good.

On the assist front, Dirk averaged 2.5 for his career and had just four seasons at 3.0 or higher, with a max of 3.5. Garnett averaged 3.7 assists for his entire career and had over 4.0 assists in 10 seasons and 6 seasons with 5.0 or more and one with 6.0. Having a 7' player that can reliably hit the pick and pop like Garnett did and can also create for his teammates is also very valuable.

Dirk's FT's were significantly better than Garnett's (88% vs 79%) but their floor shooting was actually quite close. Dirk's eFG barely edged out Garnett's at 51% to 50%.) Dirk was obviously a much better 3pt shooter, but back then, no one shot enough threes to make a huge difference like now when guys shoot 12+/game. Dirk never averaged over 4.9 3fga/game, so his biggest advantage was ultimately fairly negligible in practice.

Quote:

---

If your offense stagnated and the clock was close to 0, having a 7ft assassin that could nail an efficient shot at literally any point on the court is the single biggest asset any team can have. Dirk's average defense paired with the Ferrari engine of his offense was simply more valuable to team success.

---

Dirk was not an average defender most of his career. If the clock is winding down, Dirk is certainly on the short list of players I would want with the ball, and he would certainly be there before Garnett.

On the flipside, if I need a stop, I might be taking Dirk out of the game so he can't be targeted. Garnett had some years where he would be my goto guy, but he is not going to be pulled from the game if I need a basket or if I need a stop at basically any point in his career other than first couple/last couple seasons.

It seems you gloss over the importance of passing to offense, since it doesn't help Dirk at all.

You also don't seem to mention rebounding. Dirk was not a great rebounder, while Garnett has 4 rebounding titles. Dirk never topped 10.0 rebounds per game, while Garnett had 9 seasons over 10.0. I imagine you will make the argument that Dirk will have fewer offensive rebounds since he tends to play farther from the basket, and that's fine, but Dirk also only had 3 seasons with over 7.7 defensive rebounds per game, while Garnett had 7 seasons with over 9.0 defensive rebounds per game, a mark Dirk never hit.

Quote:

---

Point 4: Revolutionize the Game
Maybe this shouldn't count, but I see it used all the time when talking about MJ's GOAT status, so I think it's fair game here.

Dirk wasn't the first big man to shoot from range, but he is the living embodiment of the "Stretch 4" archetype. The idea of 7ft-ers operating outside of the post or hoisting 3 point shots was a novelty and hardly taken seriously (shoutout Manute Bol) before Dirk. Dirk didn't invent the mold, but perfected it and weaponized it. He catapulted the 80/90s era, lumbering, brute force big man, into the modern era of space and pace. And in doing so, he created a wholly unique and unstoppable shot that is trademarked specifically to him; the one legged fade. His impact on the game will be felt forever.

All of this is to ignore the contributions he had as a non American. Whether it's Hakeem, Yao, Ginobli, Parker or Giannis....Dirk belongs in the pantheon of players who helped push the NBA borders beyond North America.

In more ways than one, you simply cannot tell the story of the NBA without mentioning Dirk Nowitzki.

---

I don't know that Dirk revolutionized the game, just like Yao didn't and Wemby won't. You can't just get a 7' guy to shoot at an elite rate, and we also know that Dirk never averaged 5.0 3pt attempts per game. Dirk was crazy talented and unique, but he didn't change the game, because his skill set isn't transferrable. Steph has shot more than 4.9 threes per game in all but his first three seasons, and I think he is much more responsible for the change in the NBA's game than Dirk.

Dirk definitely helped moved to a more world-wide game, but I don't really know how to quantify that impact and don't know much about the German national teams or professional leagues there.

Dirk is certainly part of the new mold of less lumbering 7'ers like we used to see with guys like Shaq and Ewing, but we also saw that with Robinson, Hakeem, Garnett, and even Sampson before. Hell, Wilt and Russell were insanely athletic big men.

Giannis is a crazy talent and over the last 4 years has averaged 30/12/6/1/1 but I don't think he is revolutinizing the game either, because you can't just create a 7' 265lb guy with 7%BF in a lab that has the athleticism that Giannis has.

Ultimately, I think Dirk is one of the most unique offensive weapons in the NBA and I also think he had one of the all-time great playoff runs in 2011. But I do think that Dirk lovers like you do downgrade his teammates to prop him up. That was a very expertly built team. It may not have had the raw talent of a team like the 03 team, but it had the right pieces, and that is what is more important.

Quote:

---

The primary argument for Dirk is that as a number 1 option, Dirk's teams had significantly more success than KG's.

---

Which is an awful argument because the Mavs are well run with an owner who cares and the Wolves have been an absolute dumpster fire with awful management before, during, and after Garnett's career.

Quote:

---

To say "KG didn't have help" is to insinuate that Dirk did. That's simply not true.

---

Dirk had significantly better teammates season by season through their primes than Garnett did. Again, which seasons would you trade all of Dirk's teammates for all of Garnett's? You wouldn't. Dirk has significantly more help from management and from the coaches.

What about coaches? Flip Saunders vs Carlisle? Dewayne Casey vs Nellie?

Quote:

---

If you wanna take the argument to quantifiable factors, when it comes to accolades, it's a wash. All NBA appearances are a tie and both have an MVP. KG has his defensive accolades, but Dirk has a final's MVP and much more team success. Statistically, KG has slightly better counting stats, but the key quantifiable difference for Dirk comes with the playoffs.

---

Dirk was a better shooter. Better from mid-range, better from 3pt, better from the line. Garnett was better in the paint, better at rebounding, better at passing, better at perimeter defending, better at post defending, better at help defending, better at steals, better at blocking shots.

But ultimately, your premise and the arguments you take are faulty and severely slanted towards your guy. Doesn't necessarily mean that I would take Dirk or Garnett over the other.

What my ultimate conclusion would be is who I would chose would depend. I think you do need to add a better scorer to Garnett than you can get away with for Dirk, but for Dirk, you have to add more defense, which often comes at the expense of offense.

Also, the era you play in matters. I think that Garnett's skills would be better utilized today than they were then, because we are in a more positionless game, and Garnett could legitimately guard 1-5 and was probably the ultimate "switch everything" defensive guy and was a great passer as well. I think we would see a lot of running the offense through Garnett at the top of the key (career 46.5%) similar to what we see with Joker. Dirk would benefit more from the volume of threes, but Garnett's incredible defense and great passing and mid-range shooting would be utilized much better today than it was by Flip Saunders.

Quote:

---

When the games mattered most, Dirk was at his best.

---

That certainly wasn't his reputation until the 2011 Finals. Dirk blew a 2-0 lead in the Finals and lost the next 4 straight game shooting 39%/25% for the series in 2006. In 2007, Dirk took a 67-win team to a 1v8 first round loss while shooting 38%/21% for just 19ppg. Those two series were 100% of Dirk's legacy to everyone outside Dallas until 2011. The 3-point play to get to the Finals didn't matter. Some random 2002 series vs a significantly weaker Garnett team didn't matter.

Quote:

---

Most KG arguments devolve into hypotheticals or use arbitrary bookends for what is considered a player's 'Peak'. I cant help but think that when people argue for KG, what they are saying is that right now they would rather have KG than Dirk. Or that it would be easier to start a team from scratch with KG. Regardless, when you look at what actually happened on court when it actually mattered, Dirk was the better player.

---

I tend to base my version of the pyramid on who I would rather build a team around, and some points you never mentioned that I would include is who would you rather have as a teammate? I think I would rather have 2008-retirement Dirk, but not sure I would want draft-2007 Dirk. Australia did him good. I think after the 07 meltdown, Dirk was a much better teammate.

I do think Garnett had an intensity that is hard to quantify and his intensity probably helped elevate the game of some teammates, but also probably rubbed other teammates raw.

I have to respect both Garnett and Dirk's work ethics and longevity.

As a person, I would much rather have Dirk than Garnett. I think Garnett is a ****ty person, and Dirk is a great guy. Again, how to weigh and quantify that is hard to say.

I think that you shouldn't discount that Garnett would be easier to build around. Garnett was very talented offensively and one of the best of all time defensively, and I think it is easier to build around that than Dirk no matter the time period. I think that this would be more important now than it was in the 00s, because teams seem to do a better job seeking out and attacking weaknesses now.

I also think it is foolish to discount the absolute fact that Dirk was in a better situation for pretty much all his career than Garnett. Dirk had more talented teammates and better coaches in his prime than Garnett did and that makes it a tough decision.

I think you can justify picking either player depending on your philosophy and the situation. You can obviously win with either player, if you build your team correctly.

Who would I pick? Eh. It is a tougher decision than you let on. But I would rather have Dirk on my team ten times out of ten than Garnett because Dirk is a much better person.

Quote:

---

I don't think anyone other than you would think Dirk is a top 6 scorer all time

---

Then let me more specific then, lest we get into semantics.

Only 5 players in the history of the league have scored more points than Dirk Nowitzki.

Guitar soup loves to troll the entire board. Just rest easy knowing that the gap between the 6th highest scorer (Dirk) and the 19th (KG), is the same as the gap between KG and the 46th scorer.

There's a reason Dirk had 11 straight 50+ win seasons in the PEAK of the western conference while KG (a "top 20 everything player") couldn't seem to hack it.

Guitarsoup said:

---

MW03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't think anyone other than you would think Dirk is a top 6 scorer all time

---

Then let me more specific then, lest we get into semantics.

Only 5 players in the history of the league have scored more points than Dirk Nowitzki.

---

Cool, he had a long career at a high level.

I wouldn't name someone one of the six best scorers of all time of they couldn't even break into top three in any season in scoring.

Drew Brees is 2nd all time in completion percentage, TDs and Passing yards. I guess that makes him the second best passer of all time.

Or he had a really long, good career.

---

Semantics. I called him a scorer, as in "someone who scores a goal or a point in a game." Only 5 more NBA players have scored more points in their collective NBA games. Take it up with the Cambridge English dictionary. Perhaps you would be more comfortable if I had said he was a "top 6 point scorer" instead.

Regardless:

KG played 50,418 NBA minutes.
Dirk played 51,368 NBA minutes.

KG scored 26,071 points in the NBA.
Dirk scored 31,560 points in the NBA.

So Dirk played 1.8% more NBA minutes than KG did, and he scored 21% more NBA points than KG did. I don't really think their offensive prowess is really all that close at all.

KG needed PEAK Ray Allen and Paul Pierce to win a championship.
Dirk won with an old Jason Kidd, past his prime Shawn Marion, and a 5'10" undrafted Puerto Rican.

Guitarsoup said:

---

We've all established and agreed that Dirk was a very good scorer. That isn't a point of debate.

If you just want to go on longevity numbers, Dirk is far behind Karl Malone - 3rd in points and 7th in rebounds.

As far as his place in all-time scorers, Dirk doesn't rate top 50 in career PPG and again was never top 3 in any one season. When that is Dirk's only elite ability, that looks pretty bad.


It's all masturbatory, because it is trying to argue about who is the 3rd or 4th best PF after Duncan and Giannis anyway. Dirk, Malone, and Garnett's resumes aren't close to Duncan and Giannis.

---

Lol Sweet own bro. I love how you wrote a diatribe against every single point I made in the OP to conclude that you'd still rather take Dirk and now you're saying that Dirk's 'only elite ability' makes him look bad. Usain Bolt 'only' had 1 elite ability but he's the fastest human to have ever lived. Dirk's elite ability placed him in a pantheon of NBA gods. His scoring neighbors are MICHAEL JORDAN and WILT CHAMBERLAIN. KG's scoring neighbors are John Havlicek and Vince Carter lol.

You can talk about PPG leaders or rebounds all you want but Dirk wasn't just some spot up shooter who did nothing else. One of FOUR players in NBA history to average 25-10 in the playoffs for their career. (KG is not one of the other 4.)

# 25 ppg PO averages: Dirk - 9 KG-1

# 30 point PO games: Dirk-46(!) KG- 9

Yes KG was much, much, much more versatile. But GS basically saying Dirk is "marginally better offensively" are just…wrong.

Apparently high leverage bucket getting doesn't matter to GS.

Wright Thompson did an exclusive interview with Michael Jordan who said this when asked which current players could be nearly as successful in his era; "I can only come up with four." He lists them: LeBron, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki." Hmm why did MJ not list KG whose whole persona was about 'toughness'?

I'll tell you...because KG was all bark and no bite. He could intimidate the lesser players and shut down a role guy, but when it came time to actually defend someone like Dirk, he wilted. He's a clown.

You can't act like an alpha and then tuck tail to be a glorified role player in someone elses pack. Dirk CARRIED the burden of the best player on a team for 11 straight years that barely scraped together competent rosters. That's real toughness.

Google "Anthony Peeler KG". A 6'4 dude who punked KG after his fake tough guy act got stale.

Dirk > KG