larry bird or kevin garnett

he was addicted to gambling and cheated on his wife....many would say he is

and a shitload of athletic players like stoudemire, howard, wade, james, bosh, anthony would demolish those players...

Not really. Fundamentals > athleticism, and besides, Jordan, Pippen, Drexler, Dominique, and a handful of others were athletic freaks.

I'm going to disagree with you when you call Garnett a "second banana" and how he doesn't have a "killer instinct". I think that is 100% false. Just because he hasn't won doesn't mean he doesn't have a killer instinct. In fact, Garnett has been extremely clutch over his career (especially the past 3 years).

Well, I see your point, but my perception about KG is exactly that he would be a great 2nd option on a contending team, ala Pippen. Of course he has the ability to win games by his own, but he seldom puts that on display, he's too willing to defer to others, where there are no "others". I can't remember many games where KG had a preposterous offensive display, although he always comes up great all-around stats. I never saw a game of his where I would say to myself " whoa, he can't be stopped..". I assume you did, because, well, you're a Minny fan . Guys like Bird, Jordan, et al would be fed the ball in crunch situations and make something happen, and that's what sets them apart. I just don't think Garnett has that in him.
Having said this, If I had the chance to build a team from an all-time pool, I would be hard pressed not to pick KG with my 2nd choice.

You've never seen a game where Garnett could not be stopped? I could name 82 games from last year alone.

Offensively, Garnett probably isn't one of the best player of all time but he does everything well. He comes up in the clutch with a key rebound, key hustle play or a key shot. This year Garnett has hit atleast 8 clutch baskets so far this year.

Garnett can take over a game in the 4th quarter, and he has over his career. But because he doesn't go out there and get 30 points a night people assume he's a great "second banana". I'm sure Garnett would fit perfectly next to Kobe or McGrady but that doesn't mean he is a "second banana". Garnett probably has the most unstoppable shot in the league (turn-around fade away on the baseline). Garnett can get his shot up anytime he wants to and he can get it in a variety of ways. He can post up on you and bang you inside, he can shoot that fade-away, he can nail a jumper or he can take you off the dribble. Calling him a "second banana" isn't doing Garnett justice, in my opinion.

Larry Bird in a minute. KG isnt as good as Bird at all. Bird was by far the most clutch, thoughest, smartest most dedicated player too the game.

Larry Bird! One of the most "intelligent" basketball players in the NBA. As what you have guys pointed out, he's not fast but he can deceive and fake his defenders to score, he can rebound by boxing out his taller and opponents who can jump higher than him, he has a deadly perimeter shots... that's smart basketball, basic yet effective. Anytime, I would definitely choose basketball I.Q. over basketball athleticism. Afterall, using ones smart plays and decisions will win games, not just athelticism...

KG gets my vote for one reason. Magius's post said "if i were picking one of either today."

Personally, I think that a handful of players from the 80's and early 90's would demolish player's in today's era due to basketball smarts and strong fundamentals.

and a shitload of athletic players like stoudemire, howard, wade, james, bosh, anthony would demolish those players...

Did you watch the last Olympic games? You know, the ones where athletic players like Stoudamire, Wade, James, Melo, Marion, Jefferson and co got schooled by teams with a much more oldschool fundamentals heavy style.

Now go back to the 92 Olympic Games where the "old school" players (including those athletic freaks Bird, Stockton, Magic, Laetner, Mullin, Ewing) demolished every other team. Sure the rest of the world has caught up, players from other nations are getting more athletic but they remain fundamentally and tactically sound. Americans (imo) have also gotten more athletic but their fundamentals development and bball IQ has gone backwards.

What would happen if you took the best group of players from the eighties or early 90's and put them up against the best of todays superstars. IMO todays athletic freaks would lose 9/10.

Read my sig

Larry Bird in a hearbeat. Bird was deadly behind the line, one of the best shooters of all time, one of the best clutch players of all time, and one of the smartest player with the highest IQ basketball of all time. I'd say he's the most fundamentally sound player of all time as well, sort of what T Duncan is.

``They play the game the way it's supposed to be played,'' Iverson said. ``It's not about athletics. That's the game the way Karl Malone and John Stockton play it. It's good for kids to see how the game is supposed to be played.''

just curious who iverson was referring to in that quote? it was recent right? just cant seem to recall.

i dont think garnetts a second banana, i think garnett needs a second banana. i've never really seen him completely take over a game that mattered, but im sure he could if had a tmac or ray allen or kobe, and i believe either of those three would be considered 'second banana' to garnett were they teaammates.

while we're on the topic of fundementals, beau_boy04 brings up a good point... the big fundemental. where would tim duncan rank against larry bird? though their strengths lie in different areas, and their games are very different considering duncan is more of pf/c and bird a sf/pf lite, a lot of the descriptions ive been reading of bird could be said of duncan. not to mention strangely similar individual and team accomplishments (btw, player and talent wise i think nowitzki is the closest thing to bird we have):

they're both back to back mvps, they both have 3 championships, bird has 2 final mvps to duncan's 3, they both won roy, they've both been 1st team all nba for at least their first 7 years.

bird was obviously the more explosive and creative scorer, but duncan is obviously the better post defender/shotblocker and rebounder. bird doesnt need his guards as much as he is money clutch, but duncan doesnt need mchale, and despite never playing with another hall of famer in his prime is on pace to exceed bird in terms of individual and team accomplishments.

in fact another interesting comparison that ive done before is the hakeem duncan one. the reason i did it, is that if you compared their first 7 seasons the numbers are eerily similar. hakeem only exploded/reached his true peak in his 9th. i know ive asked it before, but i cant help thinking if duncan is possibly destined for the same. having a good team and earlier success than hakeem may very well be his downfall as he really doesnt have as much to prove or drive him, but you know what they say, real winners never really win because they're always searching for the next.

i dont really care if theres no answer, just that discussion and opinion are provoked. my opinion is that, when all is said and done, by the end of his career i believe duncan will exceed both, but at the moment i would choose either over him. i think its just the 'wine' factor, i.e. legends get better with age.

You bring up some good points there. A Hakeem - Duncan comparison is much better that bird/duncan.

Id take hakeem...though like you said, Tim can still improve. Its a really tough choice.

``They play the game the way it's supposed to be played,'' Iverson said. ``It's not about athletics. That's the game the way Karl Malone and John Stockton play it. It's good for kids to see how the game is supposed to be played.'' <------- Its a quote by Iverson following Team USA's thrashing by Puerto Rico in the 2004 Olympic Games.

Definately Bird. KG's great and he's an MVP candidate every year, but Bird is one of the greatest players of all time.