Kleiza is definitely 10s groups player he played with 85 since his youth days.He was super tallented offensive kid that played with Sharas generation from bench in 00s.His best years and both all tournaments performances comes in 10s.
We talk about when player played, not when he was born. We had facts how our 90's, 00's, 10's generations looked, and Kleiza snatched 3 tournaments in 10's, that it. He scored a bit more point in 10s (379pts) than 00's (328pts), but he was doing that for much weaker teams as well in 10's. He's in the middle of those generations and he played more tournaments in 00's. We talk only facts here, nothing else matters. If doesn't matter how good could D-Mo potentially be, it doesn't matter how many great tournaments could Kleiza have if healthy. It doesn't matter now, we have what we had.
I don't argue about Marciulionis and Sabonis numbers.I argue about Kurtinaitis and Karnisovas numbers and time in history were 4 players only scoring our team was winning 1/4 and semifinal games .
7 players got minutes, 4 players plays like 35 min ( usually Sabonis 40 ,Marciulionis 38) and 4 players scores all teams points that what boxscore says about our 1992-1996 NT close playoof games .
When we look video Garastas plays alot zone defence to save energy of players and giving lots of half open treepointers that 90s players was hitting on bad %.
Game was totally different, today such not moving defence would be murdered in djordjevic 95 style hitting multiple 3s by best players.If coach wants to play more seriuos defence teams need to use more than 6 players.
Historically Karnisovas,Kleiza,Siskauskas is in same bracket ,but first one has way bigger average because played in 90s with 4 players scoring and lots of qualification games in 90s.
Kurtinaitis in that period was 32-36 old when scored all those points and he is top 5 scorer in ltu basketball history yeah right
And you underrate Kurtinaitis and Karnisovas highly. Don't look just at 1995 final where all key players were tired already. Watch some of 1992 games, that team legit defensively, the hands where really active, they stole and deflected many possessions, it was generally a great team at both ends. Sure, there's differences between 90s and today's ballgame, but you highly underrate 90s.
Your argument about playing time is also suspect. Kurtinaitis actually was still heck of a player in his 32-34. These players were balling so much because they
could do that. They not only played a lot, but they were good with those minutes and it lead to wins. In other words, you play as
much only if you are really good. Look at 2019 WC, Campazzo and Scola played 30mpg, that happens even in today's game. If 90's had 4 players who could play 35min, it means we had 4 great players. It's not because Garastas was saving their ass, it's because they were great

If you can play tons of minutes, it's good, it's great. Not everyone can do it and that's why they can be just a role players. You undervalue Kurtinaitis points just because he was old? That's ridiculous. So Argentina won silver 2019 only in their dreams? That didn't happen? Cause you know they were lead by a grandpa and it wasn't 90's, so that never happened, right?

There's 7 players in 2019 WC who played at least 33 minutes, 22 players who played more than 30 minutes. Your idea that 90's was a walk in the park and thus players could play so much is false. Even in today's FIBA game players as Mils, Ingles, Satoransky, Schroder, Delly and so on play 30min and other key players are close to that. The difference isn't that big. It's funny that when a guy is good, and he actually earns his minutes and huge role because he is good, you come and undervalue this achievement. You mixed up the achievement and brilliance with weakness.