If KG played for the Mavs and Dirk played for the Wolves all the time, KG would've won multiple championships, and Dirk would've had nothing.
If you think this is a valid point, I'll simply ask: Do you think that if you swap Dirk for Duncan on that 2011 Mavs team, that the Mavs would have won? Does that suggest that Dirk is now better than Duncan? Or does it actually suggest that the 2011 Mavs team was perfectly constructed around Dirk's strengths and weaknesses, and that you couldn't just plug in any other PF? Why is being the "goto" guy the end all-be all? Kobe was the go-to guy on the Shaq-Kobe teams. Rudy Gay is the goto guy on the current Raptors. Harden is the goto guy on the Rockets. Hell, the 95 Rockets in Game 1 of the Finals gave the ball to Drexler on the last shot, not Hakeem. And if being a dbag meant anything on the GOAT list, I guess Jordan is no longer #1. I didn't say the fans are better. I just don't really think there's a huge correlation between playing ability and the ability to recognize talent, which has been demonstrated by the fact that there's utterly no correlation between how good a NBA player was as a pro and how good they are at managing a team - heck, there's no correlation between how good they are as a player and how good they are as a coach, as Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, and Jason Kidd all demonstrate.
No he wasn't. Look at the stats. Kobe may have been the closer, but throughout the game, Shaq was the #1 option. When you're the #1 option, you know that the defense focuses on you, and if you don't perform well, your team will most likely lose. There's more pressure and responsibility. That's why winning a championship as the clear #1 option (like Dirk) carries a lot more weight than winning a championship by committee (like Garnett).
If you don't think KG is on the short list of greatest defensive players ever, you either don't know basketball or you're completely delusional. Was Russell a lesser defender because Wilt routinely torched him? Was Dream overrated defensively because Shaq averaged 28 ppg on 60% shooting in the '95 Finals?
Hilarious you point that out yet people are downplaying how good Dirk was offensively (Bird like shooting) for a 7 footer. Simple fact is as good as KG was defensively he never took over a game with just his defense the way Dirk could take over a game offensively.
Oh, so we're moving the goalposts away from "Garnett wasn't the closer" to "Garnett wasn't the #1 option on offense, because clearly who gives a crap about defense." Okay. Even if KG wasn't the #1 option on offense, he was still by far the best player. He was a MVP candidate that year, not Pierce. He had a PER above 25, Pierce and Allen didn't even reach 20. He was more efficient than Pierce offensively, had a far higher on/off impact on the court...and none of what I've said touches on defense, which is a big freaking deal for big men like him and Dirk. Like I've said, Pierce and Allen are being significantly overrated here because of their names. Neither of them were as good as say, Pau. Or Wade, or a young Kobe, or an old Shaq. Yes, Dirk's supporting cast didn't have a clear cut second option, but that's because the team was built around Dirk to rebound and hit 3's. It's similar to the "Oh, Iverson was so awesome because he carried that **** team to the 2001 Finals, never mind that team was built to accommodate Iverson's ball-hogging tendencies", except that of course Dirk blows Iverson out of the water offensively.
whats so hard to understand? KG was good defensively but his defense was hardly a game changer. On the other hand Dirk on offense....well enough said.
If Garnett wasn't a game changing defensive force, I don't know if anyone was. In general I agree with your larger point, but I have to take issue with this analogy. I watched pretty much every game of the Sixers 2000-01 season, many of them live. As good as that supporting cast was defensively, and as unselfish(/inept at getting their own shots) as they were, they weren't the type of players you would ideally want to surround Iverson with on offense. Aaron McKie was generally the only other guy on the court with shooting range outside of 15 feet; the driving lanes to the basket were extremely narrow. It was legitimately amazing the way AI was able to fit through those seams and get to the rim on such a consistent basis.
I don't want to say you do not know what you are talking about, but maybe you do not understand the true defensive presence that KG really brought every night. He not only was a great individual defender who could defend post AND perimeter for his position, but he also brought up his team's defense as a whole. I would definitely argue that KG was a defensive game changer. To answer your question of "what's so hard to understand", I have a hard time understanding how you do not understand that KG was a defensive game changing monster.
First of all, I haven't moved any goalposts. You asked why being the "go-to" guy was so important, and I answered. Paul Pierce had a PER of 19.6. Are you really going to make a fuss over 0.4 PER difference? And don't downplay how important Pierce/Allen were to that Celtics team. Both of them were on the all-star team that year, and both of them had comparable usage numbers to Garnett. Didn't Pierce make the all-nba 3rd team that year? Look at the stats: Garnett: 19 ppg (59% TS), 9 rpg, 3 apg, 1 spg, 1 bpg Pierce: 20 ppg (60% TS), 5 rpg, 5 apg, 1 spg Allen: 17 ppg (58% TS), 4 rpg, 3 apg, 1 spg You really think Pierce/Allen's contributions were "significantly overrated"?
