UhuhPanicoUhuh

They are cool, but <<<I Rosetta start where the Isis end>>> You've said it all.

Kleiza also has a career high of 41 points... :D Donjunio, that’s partly true, but it seems to me that if I place him behind Duncan, Nowitzki, Barkley, and Malone, it can't be called sacrilege. And best role player ever isn't even a joke; for example, this year in Toronto, the big ticket was Reggie Evans. :D

You're probably confusing him with your beloved Chris Bosh back in Toronto, when he was known as Mr. Box Score (not that it was any different in Miami). That was just some good, healthy rivalry, but I must admit KG did that job much better; after all, he was The Big Ticket, which didn’t necessarily mean victory.

It's funny that you keep commenting by using my way of doing things as your argument. <<<Then for goodness' sake, I don't know a damn thing about Nowitzki and Garnett>>> We're talking about Nowitzki and Garnett, you shit troll.

Look Larrok, I'm not going to do the statistical analysis, let's give 8 because you've called Nowitzki's shot unguardable (unlike KG) as well, and 10 to the German (for clutchness and because if you don't give it to him, who else are you going to give it to right now...). Then if you want I can keep going by telling you that it’s harder to make a basket than to avoid one, while those who are labeled as specialists are good at only two things: defense and rebounding. In your little table, "offense" should have a significantly higher value compared to the other categories... @nes: "the one who scores one more basket wins, you can also not concede a single basket, but if you don't score, you don't win." this is the part you took literally, don't start now with your usual tornado of nonsensical phrases and if you want, I can send you a private message saying: disappear.

Dear Nes, my reasoning goes for the absurd, it's clear that if the Mavs didn’t have a defensive system to secure themselves in the last 5 minutes, they wouldn’t have won anything. Try to imagine a lineup made up of five great defenders, then on offense, would you score? Would you win the game? It's always the same with you, you take everything literally and insist on talking even when you don’t know a damn thing.

Post 53 seems to be written by Franco Lauro.

Nowitzki has never been known for his defensive play, and a series played with good intensity certainly won't turn him into a good defender; he never was, and he never will be. I repeat, he's a mere role player or not much more. Garnett, on the other hand, is the Einstein of defense, a living manual on how to guard all 5 positions, but not just that; he's a player capable of changing the mentality of an entire team, truly planets apart in this respect. Dirk rightly belongs in that group of champions mostly because he was absolutely unguardable on offense, a jumper he could hit in the face of anyone from any position. But if we’re making a comparison: the best Garnett is a 9 on offense, a 10 on defense; the best Nowitzki is a 9.5 on offense, a 5.5 on defense. There’s really no comparison. If you give Garnett a 9 on offense, it’s offensive to only give the German a 9.5. Be careful with the 9s. You don’t understand two things: 1) the winner is the one who scores one more basket; you might not allow even a single basket, but if you don’t score, you don’t win. (especially in the last 20 seconds) 2) "Garnett is the one who IN THE LOCKER ROOM determines the WE AGAINST ALL mentality"; on the court, he’s not as much of a leader as he is with his words in the locker room.

Are we still calling the German guy "the ticket booth guy"? Look, in these playoffs, I wasn’t exactly amazed by the offensive phase; Dallas won because the only “ticket booth guy” they had (Peja) was benched for the entire series. The German recognized he couldn’t be the weak link of the defensive chain, and he demonstrated that in the series against Miami, so please let’s stop calling him a ticket booth guy. As for Garnett, I repeat, if we put him after those four, then it’s fine, otherwise, we can start talking about overvaluation, IN MY OPINION. The only difference between Garnett and LeDouche is that the former didn’t challenge the leadership (at least the offensive one) of the star in the place where he went begging for a ring. Then he got lucky that Bynum wasn’t around, but that’s that.

<<<But what a second fiddle! The best Garnett has been one of the top 2 or 3 ever in his role; he's in the conversation with Duncan, Barkley, Malone, and Nowitzki>>> Duncan, Nowitzki, Barkley, Malone, and Garnett. I could even agree with that order. <<<One of the most complete players of all time, an insane defender both on man and team defense, a superb scorer capable of attacking the rim consistently while also having a mid-range shot that is a sure thing>>> I agree, but lately he seems to have suffered too much from the absence of the junkyard dog Perkins, trained by himself, without whom the C's defense has proven to be anything but impenetrable. <<<Superhuman rebounder (6 consecutive years over 12 rebounds per game)>>> Now there's Kevin Love; in Minnie, they churn out rebounders like they're on a factory line. <<<An above-average passer for a big man>>> Okay. <<<I repeat, if instead of ending up in the basketball desert of Minnesota he had found himself in a San Antonio with 55, 62, and 59 wins in the three seasons from 1994 to '97...his fingers would be completely covered in rings.>>> Here, I could have just cited the "if" :D Why didn’t he bolt after his rookie contract (like Shaq did from Orlando) and choose his preferred destination? He tried to be the leader, like Nowitzki, but he didn’t succeed. When he realized that with that big contract in Minnie things were going badly, he went elsewhere. Not exactly the ideal image of a franchise player.