Duncan or Garnett?

Who is the better player? Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett?

I believe that this is one of the debates that will have no ending. These players are two of the best, if not the top two, players in the NBA right now. Duncan, a no-flash, fundamentally sound, efficient low-post man has won 4 Championships with the San Antonio Spurs. While the Super Athlete, Do-It-All Garnett is trying to start anew and win his first crown with the new and improved Boston Celtics.

Are Kevin Garnett's "not good enough supporting cast" in Minnesota the real reason for their misfortunes? Or is he missing something that Duncan is doing so effectively? In my opinion, its the latter reason. Kevin Garnett is 7 feet tall, but when you think about Kevin Garnett, "low-post" is not one of the things you'll think about him. This is one aspect of basketball which Duncan has mastered so well. With a dominant post-up game, Duncan not only can score down low, he also creates a lot of opportunities and shots for the other Spurs. Garnett usually starts out his plays at high post, then drives towards the basket or takes the long jumper. Yes, Garnett is an excellent outside shooter, but a low post option or a kick out to an open teammate is still a better option. With not posting down low, Garnett doesn't get that much double teams like Duncan.

In Boston, he has Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. I think Garnett should start becoming a low post player. This is one aspect of his game where in he is so good at, but doesn't utilize. If he starts getting double teamed down low, then you'll have open looks for Pierce, Allen, and even James Posey.

Right now, I'd have to say that Duncan is the better player because he has utilized the aspects of his game that are useful to winning more. But Kevin Garnett is a better athlete. So if he starts learning how to use his skills better, we may even see him win more championships than Duncan with his supporting cast.