One of the great basketball “what ifs” is how we’d view the Kevin Garnett vs Tim Duncan debate if they swapped the franchises that drafted them.
Would Duncan have won a championship in Minnesota without Gregg Popovich and multiple Hall of Fame teammates? Would the Spurs still have won five rings with Garnett as their centrepiece? It’s incredibly difficult to identify just how much of a team’s successes (or failures) is determined by an individual player, yet fans often use team achievements or lack thereof to judge a player’s career (such as how we consider Robert Horry’s career vs Charles Barkley’s).
The LeBron James vs Michael Jordan debate has similarities to the Garnett vs Duncan debate. You are comparing one player who had the fortune of being drafted to a team with a Hall of Fame coach (Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich) and a Hall of Fame general manager (Jerry Krause and RC Buford) that drafted/recruited elite teammates (Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Ron Harper, Horace Grant and Toni Kukoc for Jordan. David Robinson, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Kawhi Leonard and Bruce Bowen for Duncan) against another player who was drafted by a basketcase of a franchise but overachieved with subpar teammates before leaving for championship glory elsewhere.
Considering “what ifs” is necessary if we want to intelligently evaluate a player’s career and separate individual success from team success, but it’s difficult to analyse things that never happened. Danny Ainge is arguably the best GM in the NBA, but in 2015 he almost traded four first-round picks (two of which turned into Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum) to Charlotte in order to draft Justice Winslow.
It was only by dumb luck that the Hornets decided they wanted Frank Kaminsky more than four first-round picks, and Ainge was able to move on and build the Celtics into the championship contender we see today. Should we consider Ainge in a different light given his near-miss? At the very least we have to conclude that not everything he touches turns to gold.
What if Duncan and MJ were drafted to dud franchises?
(Image: Flickr/Jason H Smith CC-BY-2.0)
I personally don’t think Duncan or MJ would have been able to elevate the Timberwolves or the Cavaliers to a championship if they had the supporting casts that KG and James had – Jerry Krause was partly right when he said that organisations win championships.
With that being said, I also don’t think LeBron and Garnett would have had the same level of success that MJ and Duncan did if they had been drafted by competent franchises. MJ would still have a compelling case for the GOAT even if he and Lebron exchanged championship accolades, so I presume MJ fans default to the rings argument because that requires less effort than engaging in proper debate with millennials on the internet.
Bell31
Roar Rookie
PS don't know why my response isn't broken into the paragraphs I set out!
Bell31
Roar Rookie
As always, good to debate GOAT topics with you :) I sort of know what you mean by people sometimes over-rating rings, but I'm not sure the 2 examples make your point enough --- I think many see Horry for 'who he was' --- a career 9 point, 4 rebound player (or thereabouts), who just had a special quality of stepping up in the big moments to make one magical play --- I think he had something like 7 such moments in his career which were pretty special. Also I'm not sure Barkley is under-rated - he was probably under-rated outside the US at least pre the dreamteam olympics but raised his profile considerably post that --- career average stats of around 23 ppg, 12 rpg, 4 apg, 1.5 spg, and 1 bpg, put him in illustrious company (NBA top 20). Wonderful stats, but without commensurate team success, it's hard to see him breaking into the top 10, contrasting mainly with players with 3 rings plus. KG is a valid point as he seems to have wasted away in Minnesota, but I think that LeBron and MJ both waited similar years to have good teams around them to win a title (that Bulls team didn't really come into their own until 90-91 when Pippen/Grant found their groove). Generally, I kind of see nuance with team stats as relevant when trying to split the difference (eg, resolve tie-breakers between similar level stars) --- I think the balance of individual (raw averages and advanced metrics) and team stats provides sufficient nuance --- but you know I think that already! Personally, I don't knock Le Bron for his finals legacy - he has 4 titles and that's the main thing and also made 10 finals series --- the only real relevance for me in that sort of stat is splitting the difference with the likes of MJ and Jabaar in the GOAT debate.
Three Step Euro Pod
Roar Rookie
Hey matey, I see Horry and Barkley as examples of the excesses of the rings argument - people overrate Horry because he has 7 rings and underrate Barkley because he has no rings. Appreciate your point re: LeBron teaming up with Bosh and D-Wade. LeBron and KG were able to eventually get elite teammates, but that was only after having prime years of their careers wasted thanks to organisational ineptitude in Cleveland and Minnesota. As long as there's nuance I don't mind using team stats. I'd say LeBron's finals performances against the Warriors in 2017 and 2018 were much more impressive than the championship runs in 2012, 2013 and 2020, but according to the rings argument 2017 and 2018 are blights on his record. The 2011 finals are a fair knock on his legacy though - he was a complete no-show in a series they should've won.
Bell31
Roar Rookie
Thanks for your GOAT series - you know I like a good GOAT debate! You also know I like 'stats', so you can probably guess I'm going to say 'what if's' are slippery slopes and can also become circular arguments. For instance, I think it's a stretch to say MJ has 'elite team-mates' --- I'm ok with 'elite team-mate' (Pippen), and then you could probably put Grant in the 'very good / all-star category', along with potentially Rodman (albeit 1D). Harper was not really elite by the time he reached Chicago, and Kukoc was 'good+', but not elite. Then you can mount the 'LeBron had Bosh and Wade' argument for 4 Finals in a row, but only won 2 titles (if I recall correctly), as saying he didn't lack for elite team-mates to get more titles. Also, I think NBA is one of those rare sports, when the link between individual stardom and team success is probably clearer than other team sports due to numbers on a court at any one time, and so I think it's reasonable to judge GOAT based on individual + team stats. The Horry vs Barkley reference --- can you clarify why this comparison? Whilst horry is 'big shot rob', he is not recognised as a 'star' (or team leader), whereas Barkely is clearly recognised as a star (and team leaader) - he has been ranked in the top 20 all-time (albeit his lack of career team success probably prevents him from being ranked higher).
astro
Roar Rookie
"Considering “what ifs” is necessary if we want to intelligently evaluate a player’s career"...is it? Scenarios which came close to happening are fun to think about, like what if the Lakers let Kobe go to the Bulls in 2007, but what if you switched Lebron and MJ, is a stretch.