Build around KG or DIRK?

[tsherkin]

I think some people missed this line. I haven't said not to use statistics or that they are not useful in creating a pov. What is going on is that some people are VERY liberal with how much of statistics they use. Then once they put these numbers out there, if others don't agree with that conclusion then comes the:

Some people are overly concerned with the numbers, yes. Some people are overly concerned with not using the numbers, with ignoring what they suggest because it doesn't square with their preconceptions. I think all drza is saying (and a chunk of what I'm saying) is that ignoring those numbers without proper investigation isn't a wise policy. It's not that the numbers themselves are some Grail analysis that gives you 100% clear insight into a player, I think any half-way honest analyst realizes that numbers require context just as much as most eye tests require numbers. It's a supportive relationship, not an exclusionary one.

You can use all the stats you want. You can apply them in any way that you want. It doesn't make any of them FACT.

Actually, a lot of the stats used are DEFINITIVELY fact. What conclusions you draw from them, as drza said, is a different story. That becomes interpretation, and you need to be far more careful about how you interpret the numbers than you do in declaring them fact. Your scoring efficiency? That's a fact, not a supposition, for example. It says something fairly specific, of course, and you need to know what it is that is being said, or the old "Maggette = awesomez!" argument comes about, so you require context. Does the player hold the ball a lot? How MUCH are they shooting? How do they perform home/away, RS/PS, maybe look at some offensive RAPM, etc, etc. You can broaden your scope beyond one specific number as you look for consistency or inconsistency in what the single number tells you. Adding that to a context-sensitive description of the player (who does he play with, what's the team system, how good is the coach, etc) begins to paint a proper, full picture of what's going on.

The whole KG argument becomes an interesting one, because a lot of people don't like to acknowledge that he boot-strapped them to 50-win seasons but never had the appropriate help he needed to do a lot more than what was actually accomplished, apart from 03-04, when he was as competitive as anyone while remaining the same player he'd been the previous half decade or so. At the time, and in retrospect, it is patently obvious that KG's supporting casts paled compared to what we saw from San Antonio and Dallas. McHale was a terrible trainwreck of a team management official and the front office's tampering scandal cost them much in terms of first round pick opportunities, etc. The Allen for Marbury trade was not a wise move, either.

This all started because it was pointed out that if you want to compare players using the results of their teams, you need to account for the elements of those teams beyond the primary player in question. In the case of the Wolves... they sucked. A lot. Their coaches were inferior to what we saw from the Spurs (and Nellie noticeably held back the Mavs) and the supporting casts didn't really match up in any way, shape or form either.

In the case of Garnett, it's become functionally apparent that his team was holding him back. The WC was really, really rough when he was there and he didn't have the talent around him to do more than he did. Magically, though, he became a DPOY and a champion once he was off of the Wolves. Suddenly, what everyone who was defending him before the move to Boston was saying became true. The talent matched the requisite level for championship contention, his defense came to the fore with a good coaching staff and he captained an All-Time great defense on a team that won a title. That says a lot, no? That's a narrative that happens to square with basically everything that people were saying about Garnett ahead of time, and it meshes with what the stats tend to say as well.

It's the synergy of quantitative and qualitative analysis that makes for the vision of the whole. You can't rely on just one or the other, and if you one contrasts with the other, you don't ignore it... you investigate further. People are steeped deeply in their myths and truisms in sport, especially if they are long-held views. Sometimes, not always but sometimes, statistical analysis will help reverse an old thought process that was long-held but has proven untrue.

[Texas Chuck]

In the case of Garnett, it's become functionally apparent that his team was holding him back. The WC was really, really rough when he was there and he didn't have the talent around him to do more than he did. Magically, though, he became a DPOY and a champion once he was off of the Wolves. Suddenly, what everyone who was defending him before the move to Boston was saying became true. The talent matched the requisite level for championship contention, his defense came to the fore with a good coaching staff and he captained an All-Time great defense on a team that won a title. That says a lot, no? That's a narrative that happens to square with basically everything that people were saying about Garnett ahead of time, and it meshes with what the stats tend to say as well.

I'll accept this.

However whats getting lost in all this focus on KG and his Minny situation is that even giving KG the complete benefit of the doubt for results in Minny is that Dirk is still the superior player. The difference in PS play remains quite staggering both from a statistical standpoint and what we have witnessed with our eyes. Everyone says Dream is clearly better than Admiral in large part because of the PS yet in this debate Dirk's enormous PS advantage is getting swept under the rug.

Id love to move past the whole KG in Minny debate while acknowledging I am largely and incorrectly responsible for it. I admit I was too hard on him for his team failures in Minny. I was wrong. I feel like Dirk is getting lost in this whole narrative and that just proving KG played outstanding while in Minny in no way proves he is the better player.

[tsherkin]

I'll accept this.

However whats getting lost in all this focus on KG and his Minny situation is that even giving KG the complete benefit of the doubt for results in Minny is that Dirk is still the superior player. The difference in PS play remains quite staggering both from a statistical standpoint and what we have witnessed with our eyes. Everyone says Dream is clearly better than Admiral in large part because of the PS yet in this debate Dirk's enormous PS advantage is getting swept under the rug.

Mmm... Dirk's enormous PS advantage in scoring, is what you actually mean here. What about the large difference in defensive impact and passing? How does that factor in?

Dirk is a fantastic player, of course, and far better at scoring in the postseason than Garnett has ever proven himself to be. KG has one PS of 25+ ppg and that was a 6-game series in 02-03, during which he played over 44 mpg. He's never been a volume scorer. He was, however, booked for 4-5 apg in the playoffs (or 8.8 in that one 4-game series), coupled with typically 20-24 ppg... though he struggled with efficiency in the playoffs, particularly because he hasn't drawn fouls that foul and he relies a lot on his jumper (and isn't Dirk, as it happens, who is stupid-good on what are typically the most inefficient shots in the game).

The thing is, while Dirk has a crushing advantage as a scorer (and, if I'm being honest, as an overall offensive player), how does Garnett's considerably superior, DPOY-caliber defense change the narrative here (if you'll pardon the use of that word)?

Does Dirk's offensive dominance outweigh Garnett's defensive dominance? That's the question one must ask in deciding who is the better player.

[Texas Chuck]

KG averages one more assist than Dirk in the PS and in no way is creating more good looks for his teammates. I obv cant prove that statistically but we've all seen recently in action in 2011. I didnt bring it up because I dont see how creating for teammates is really an edge for either guy but if I was assigning an edge it has to go to Dirk for how much space and open looks his presence creates.

KG is obv a much better defensive player but Dirk has held his own in the PS against the best of the best including KG. The limited stats we have on individual defenders dont show an enormous edge to KG either in the counting stats or in things like on-court/off-court. Defense is much more about the team so while KG is obviously a much much better individual defender Dirk can still be a big part of a really good team defense as we have seen in the post-Nellie Mavs teams.

This forum and you specifically has long given the advantage to the offensive guy over the defensive guy. Why are you changing your narrative in this debate? While they are both 7 footers neither guy is a traditional big man which has long been the only position where defense has been valued over offense. You destroy Kidd in a comparison against Nash when the only clear edge Nash has is scoring. Passing is a wash and everything else heavily favors Kidd. This change in your position seems unlike you and Im curious about why. Is it simply a case of believing KG to be such a defensive outlier that he can be the exception to the rule?

[tsherkin]

KG averages one more assist than Dirk in the PS and in no way is creating more good looks for his teammates. I obv cant prove that statistically but we've all seen recently in action in 2011. I didnt bring it up because I dont see how creating for teammates is really an edge for either guy but if I was assigning an edge it has to go to Dirk for how much space and open looks his presence creates.

This is why I said "Dirk has a crushing advantage as a scorer (and, if I'm being honest, as an overall offensive player)," yes?

This forum and you specifically has long given the advantage to the offensive guy over the defensive guy. Why are you changing your narrative in this debate?

Devil's advocate, and mind that when I favor certain players over another, it's almost never simply because one is an offensive player over a defensive player. It's more of a holistic approach where I'm of the belief that a given player exerts a greater effort with his offense than the other guy does with his defense... frequently when we're talking about man defenders, instead of team defenders.

You destroy Kidd in a comparison against Nash when the only clear edge Nash has is scoring. Passing is a wash and everything else heavily favors Kidd. This change in your position seems unlike you and appear to be you simply having a preference for KG and thus switching your long established stance.

That would be inaccurate, though, because there's a HUGE difference in positional defensive value between KG, who plays the 4/5 these days and has long been a help defense 4, and the PG position, where it's inconsistent man defense and defensive rebounding for Kidd (and with considerably less offensive value compared to Nash). Not the same thing at all.

Also, I'll thank you to keep your comments about my personal preferences to yourself and argue the elements of the debate, not the posters involved.

[Texas Chuck]

I will honor your last request and I did realize my last line wasnt fair--you can see I edited it while you were responding. I was honestly just surprised by your position in this case.

[drza]

drza,

I appreciate you taking the time to put together those numbers for me on the teammates of the big 3 pfs. Im glad you pointed out that those numbers arent really an accurate representation but they do give us a little more basis for discussion. Those numbers do appear to show that I have in fact minimized the difference between the various supporting casts. I am publicly acknowledging that here.

I feel somewhat bad that you felt the need to do all of that work just due to my posts. Those posts you quote are a result of my frustration wiht a couple of posters who seemed to make no other arguments other than defense and terrible teammates over and over and over.

I think team success always has a place in player debates. I cant imagine ever removing it. In no way do I think it is the only factor or even the most important factor. But it is a significant factor. I have posted lots of other reasons why I think Dirk is the better player that I wont rehash here. KG clearly has a statistical edge in the RS just as surely as Dirk has a dominant statistical edge in the PS. I didnt bother to go into things like clutch play because again they are harder to quantify but Dirk has countless enormous clutch shots and plays in huge moments esp deep into the PS. KG has some as well but not to the degree of Dirk.

I appreciate the reply, as you are really the person I was most talking to here. Ahouni really has no interest in discussion, and G35 is really dug into proving his position to the point that debate doesn't usually prove fruitful. You're just as vocal in the KG/Dirk debate, but I note that you also generally try to support your position. I can respect that, even if I don't necessarily agree. And it lets us at least have a reasonable discussion.

Re team success: I agree that team success does have a place in player debates...but it has to be used intelligently. Team success is going to be (strongly) shaped by the caliber of teammate, which was really all I was trying to get across with the last post. If you're willing to acknowledge that (as you seem to be from your last couple of posts) then we can actually get into KG vs Dirk, which is where the real meat is anyway. I already look forward to replying to your most recent post the next time the kids let me, as you introduce both postseason success (individually) and offensive impact outside-of-scoring to the mix, and both of those are rich areas for discussion.

[tsherkin]

It's less that I've changed my position and more that I'm playing Devil's Advocate, as I said.

KG is still a good offensive player; most of the time when I favor an offensive player over a defensive one, it's that the defensive one isn't a very good offensive player.

Kidd is an overrated offensive impact player who happened to be a very good defensive rebounder and help defender. He also remains a good man defender, at least in bursts. His teams were rarely notable for their offense, but when he had success in New Jersey, he was at the core of their defensive effort and ability to jump out in transition off of missed shots and forced turnovers (working hand in hand with Kenyon Martin in that regard). That coupled with the weak, weak quality of the EC in the early 2000s gave him a rep that kind of outstrips him in comparison to a lot of other PGs who are less effective on D (like Paul or Nash, for example) but whom are much higher-impact offensive weapons.

There's a bit of a gap in the type of scenario we're discussing here, right? Garnett is a DPOY for a reason; his man defense isn't much to write home about in comparison with Dirk, who is also a good positional defender, but his help defense and defensive rebounding (even compared to Dirk's playoff averages) are typically quite a bit better. He doesn't block a ton of shots (and never has) but he's long and laterally mobile, so he contests shots, cuts off driving angles and secures the possession with the DREB, which helps.

Context is important, though, and Dirk has shown a noticeable decline in his defensive rebounding mostly only since Kidd, Marion, Haywood and ultimately Chandler were added to the team's roster. He didn't HAVE to rebound on the defensive glass quite so much as he once did, so the gap is at least somewhat inflated by the teammate factor. Still, even post-prime Garnett is as good or better than Dirk at his PS rebounding peak, so we can still acknowledge that he's a better defensive rebounder and I don't think anyone with eyes will doubt that Garnett is a better help defender. And if you want to have fun, there's a +4.7 in their respective RS defensive RAPM in the 2008 season.

I should add a sidebar noting the difference between Garnett/Dirk NOW and Garnett/Dirk at their respective peaks, too. Defensively, Garnett is still exerting a significant impact in the PS but his offensive efficacy is considerably below even his own career PS average. Right now, I could very much see a pro-Dirk argument. Prime to prime, though, I'm curious. KG had some 110-120 ORTG PS showings (including 112 in the title year), and if he's producing at that level, then his defense becomes that much more of a playing chip in this discussion.

So, acknowledging that I'm tripping and stumbling all over the place in a semi-coherent ramble, we come back to the idea of who we build around, which means we're concerned primarily with prime play, rather than post-prime play.

I could be swayed by a pro-Dirk argument, I should leave that hanging out there. I like Dirk, and I think he's one of the deadliest scorers in the league, even though he doesn't regularly rack up 28+ ppg. Perhaps precisely because he knows how best to balance the times when he should shoot a lot and go for a high points total and when to just swing the ball and work within the offense, and given his penchant for getting ridiculously good come the playoffs almost every year, and especially since 08.

In the highest peak project, Doctor MJ is talking about KG's defense possibly surpassing Dwight's impact, which to me suggests that the quality of his defense (given a non-useless coach and some non-liability teammates) is high enough to at least make the idea of him bridging the gap worth discussion. Not an adamant truth, mind, not something I'm advancing as definitively true, just something I'm curious enough to investigate as a possibility.

Does that clarify?

[drza]

However whats getting lost in all this focus on KG and his Minny situation is that even giving KG the complete benefit of the doubt for results in Minny is that Dirk is still the superior player. The difference in PS play remains quite staggering both from a statistical standpoint and what we have witnessed with our eyes. Everyone says Dream is clearly better than Admiral in large part because of the PS yet in this debate Dirk's enormous PS advantage is getting swept under the rug.

Id love to move past the whole KG in Minny debate while acknowledging I am largely and incorrectly responsible for it. I admit I was too hard on him for his team failures in Minny. I was wrong. I feel like Dirk is getting lost in this whole narrative and that just proving KG played outstanding while in Minny in no way proves he is the better player.

KG is obv a much better defensive player but Dirk has held his own in the PS against the best of the best including KG. The limited stats we have on individual defenders dont show an enormous edge to KG either in the counting stats or in things like on-court/off-court. Defense is much more about the team so while KG is obviously a much much better individual defender Dirk can still be a big part of a really good team defense as we have seen in the post-Nellie Mavs teams.

RE: KG's postseason impact

Now that we're focusing on the individual players as opposed to only team results, it's time to start having some fun. You reference a commonly held view around here, that Dirk has been a better postseason performer than KG. I disagree. I agree that Dirk has been a more successful postseason SCORER than KG, both by volume and by efficiency, but in overall impact I contend that KG has arguably been the best individual postseason performer of his generation. I obviously expect that you'll disagree, and I look forward to hopefully some going back-and-forth on this. But I made a really long post on this subject last summer during the Top 100 project, and I think this is a good place to begin that gives a) a lot of context and b) some solid quantitative arguments as well (that speaks to the underlined portions of your quotes above). I'm not going to put it in a quote box, but the following is all text that I originally wrote in that project last year (found here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1126186&start=15 ).


We know that Garnett's TS% drops a bit in the postseason and that he isn't the volume scorer that some of these all-time players are. On the other hand, I contend that Garnett's postseason impact is as big or bigger than some of the top-10 players already voted in. Scoring is naturally the first thing that people consider, so it is incumbent on me to make the case that Garnett's results aren't a case of a player struggling a bit (TS% or PER) but still being great...it's that Garnett's postseason impact tends to be HUGE, and that the TS% really isn't that relevant when it comes to judging him. Know off the bat that as I make my case I'll be looking at team impact as best I can, including +/- info where it's available and team trends as well. I'm going to start with 1999 (first year KG was All NBA), going into more detail from 1999 - 2001 as it was before any +/- info is available. From 2002 on I'll probably use less description and rely on the trends I've already shown, the postseason +/- trends, and the known regular season APM info as well as I argue about impact. As always, it's up to the reader to determine if I make my case.


1999: Wolves played the Spurs in the playoffs. The Wolves were 25 - 25 with a -0.2 SRS, while the Spurs were 37 - 13 with a +7.1 SRS, 1st in league. The Spurs ended the season on a huge run, and ran through the playoffs on the way to the title, going 15 - 2. Garnett was matched up on Tim Duncan, and here are their averages against each other that series followed by Duncan's averages over the rest of the playoffs (against Lakers, Trailblazers and Knicks):

Garnett averaged: 21.8 points (44.3% FG, 4.3 FTM/game), 12 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 blk, 1.5 stl
Duncan averaged: 18.8 points (46% FG, 4.3 FTM/game), 10.8 reb, 3.3 ast, 3 blk, 0.8 stl
Duncan (non-Wolves): 24.6 points (52.5% FG, 6.9 FTM/game), 11.7 reb, 2.7 ast, 2.5 blk, 0.8 stl

Similarly, in the season the Spurs averaged 92.8 ppg on 45.6% FG
In the first round against the Wolves, the Spurs averaged 86.8 ppg on 44.3% FG
In the rest of the playoffs, the Spurs averaged 88.9 ppg on 45.3% FG

2000: Wolves played the Blazers in the playoffs. The Wolves were 50 - 32 with a +2.7 SRS, while the Blazers were 59 - 23 with a +6.4 SRS, 2nd in league. The Blazers were one of two legitimate title contenders that year, and were an epic 4th quarter choke in game 7 of the WCF away from the title. Garnett was matched up on Rasheed Wallace.

Garnett averaged 18.8 points (38.5% FG, 3.3 FTM/game), 10.8 reb, 8.8 ast, 0.8 blk, 1.3 stl

Here is what I wrote about that series in a previous thread: in that series KG had 2 triple-doubles in 4 games; was obviously drawing the defenses attention (I like NO-KG-AI's description on page 1: "that was about as much double and triple teaming as I've ever seen a team do") and distributing well (9 apg) which helped contribute to teammates shooting well; he defensively erased the best player on the opposing team in his 1-on-1 match-up (Sheed averaged 13.5 ppg in 42 min/game against Wolves in round 1, 22.3 pp42 against Jazz and Lakers in next 2 rounds), and was the anchor for a defense that held the Blazers to 3 pp 100 possessions fewer than the Jazz and Lakers were able to in the next 2 rounds (Blazers averaged 97.5 ppg, 47% FG reg season; 87.3 ppg, 43.6% against Wolves).

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1118778&start=45

2001: Wolves played Spurs again in the playoffs. Wolves were 47 - 35 (+1.8 SRS), Spurs were 58 - 24 (+7.9 SRS, 1st in league). Garnett was again matched up on Tim Duncan, and here are their averages against each other that series followed by Duncan's averages over the rest of the playoffs (Mavs and Lakers):

Garnett averaged: 21 points (46.6% FG, 7.5 FTM/game), 12 reb, 4.3 ast, 1.5 blk, 1 stl
Duncan averaged: 22.5 points (46% FG, 5.5 FTM/game), 13 reb, 3.5 ast, 2 blk, 1 stl
Duncan (non-Wolves): 25.2 points (49.7% FG, 6 FTM/game), 15.1 reb, 3.9 ast, 3 blk, 1.1 stl

Similarly, in the season the Spurs averaged 96.2 ppg on 46.1% FG
In the first round against the Wolves, the Spurs averaged 88.5 ppg on 42.9% FG
In the rest of the playoffs, the Spurs averaged 92.9 ppg on 44.3% FG

Quick summary: Already TL;DR, but some key points.

From 1999 - 2001, KG averaged 20.5 points (42.8% FG, 49.9% TS), 11.6 reb, 5.6 apg, 23.2 PER in the postseason and the Wolves lost all 3 series. Now, you can stop there and say that Garnett had some shooting trouble but still posted overall good numbers but his team couldn't get out of the first round. Or, you can note that:

1) In 3 straight years the Wolves faced either the best or 2nd best team in the NBA in the first round

2) In those 3 years, KG faced off against 3 straight all-world power forwards (including twice against the consensus best PF of all time), who also are very arguably the 2 best defensive PFs (outside of KG) of their generation.

3) Over those 3 series, Garnett held Duncan and Sheed to about 76% of what they scored against their other postseason opponents. In other words, he cut their scoring by about 1/4. This is huge, against superstar opponents.

4) Over those 3 series, the Spurs and Blazers both experienced consistent and sizable scoring drops against the Wolves (average 8 fewer ppg, 2.6% lower FG% against the Wolves compared to regular season), and in all 3 instances the Spurs and Blazers then improved both their ppg and their FG% against their remaining postseason opponents outside of the Wolves.

5) Over those 3 series, Garnett either scored or assisted on more than 38% of the Wolves' points.

Even those sympathetic to Garnett tend to compare him to other greats by saying things like, "Garnett had good numbers and was obviously a defensive anchor, but player X was just a better scorer and ...". To me, that misses the point. Garnett's impact on the court was massive, well beyond just a dominant scoring presence, because he was having massive effects on the game with his defense, rebounding and playmaking. It's not just a "start with scoring, give a few bonus points for defense and passing" kind of thing. It's more like a list of several ways in which a player can impact a game, scoring being one of them, and KG making big marks in all of the categories (including scoring) for a combination that can't be touched by any other individual of his generation. His team might not have won, but KG's individual impact in the postseason was massive. How massive? Well, let's try to quantify it a bit more specifically for the future years but in a cliff notes format, using available +/- info.

2002 - 2004:
Garnett averaged 24.9 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 5.1 apg, 2.1 bpg, 1.4 spg, 25.2 PER over 27 games.

In those years the Wolves faced the Shaq/Kobe Lakers twice, the 57-win Mavericks, the 55-win Kings, and the early Carmelo Nuggets in the postseason. I'll point out that, unlike in the examples above, Dirk Nowitzki and the Mavs posted excellent offensive numbers against the 2002 Wolves. I've said before that to my view the Mavs as a team just overwhelmed the Wolves' inferior perimeter defensive players and KG was spread too thin trying to help, but there are many that believe that Dirk just outplayed him. I won't even argue that here, it's not germane to the point. Suppose, for this post, I stipulate that one series to be the exception to KG's general rule of postseason match-ups, so that I can stay with the overall point.

One has to take postseason +/- results with large grains of salt because of the sample size issue. When looking at an individual season, I don't even pay much attention to results for any less than 2 rounds, and even for long playoff runs I note the +/- results more as a data point to be vetted and compared with the other information we have at hand. That said, when the same thing keeps happening again and again year after year, and it is totally consistent with the other data we have, I think that we start having something worth talking about.

So, I want you to keep in mind all of the non-box-score/non-scoring impacts that I pointed out in more detail for the 1999 - 2001 playoff runs when you read that from 2002 - 2004, KG's postseason on/off +/- was +21.4 in 1173 minutes on court and 125 minutes off. Still not rigorous by any means, still not enough minutes (especially off-court) for comfort, but a definite trend is taking shape. A +21.4 net on/off would be huge, but to put it in perspective based on current players that have already been voted into the top-10 in this project:

*Shaq topped that mark in the 2004 playoffs (+28.4), and presumably did it previously as well though I haven't run his numbers for 2002 or 2003. He hasn't touched it in the years since.

*Duncan topped that mark in his legendary 2003 postseason run (+23.4), but he's never really approached it since (I don't have his 2002 calculated) and never had a 3-year run anywhere near that.

*Kobe has never come close to that mark in any postseason from 2003 on (I don't have his 2002 calculated).

Again, not conclusive. Small sample size. Just a data point, with comparisons for perspective, which is consistent with the more in-depth analysis I did from the three previous playoff performances. Something to chew on when you look at the other data that you usually use for analysis.

2008:

Garnett averaged 20.4 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.1 bpg, 1.3 spg, 23.0 PER over 26 games.

In that championship run the Celtics faced the Kobe/Pau Lakers that had been scorching since the Gasol trade, the 59-win Pistons, a LeBron-led Cavs team and the Hawks. Getting straight to the point, a journey over to basketballvalue.com tells us that in the 2008 postseason http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers. ... C&team=BOS :

*Garnett had an on/off +/- of +19.9 in 987 minutes on court, 261 minutes off court, and the team was -10 per 48 min in the time Garnett was off the court.

*Pierce (+8.0) and Allen (+8.3) had much lower marks, and more interestingly, when either Pierce or Allen were off the court the Celtics still broke even. Compared to how when Garnett was off the court, the Celtics went through the floor (-10/48 off court).

Conclusions: NOW, I think this is a trend worth putting some weight into. KG's +/- results in the Celtics' championship run looked exactly like they had in his last three postseasons in Minnesota. In fact, if you put 2008 with KG's 3 previous playoff runs, you see him posting an on/off +/- of up near 20 over a 6 year period that encompasses 4 playoffs, 53 games, more than 2000 minutes on-court and almost 400 minutes off-court, and two entirely different teams. Some other things to keep in mind:

*KG's postseason on/off +/- from 2002 - 2008 crushes any of the other players of his generation over that time period. Duncan was at +7.4 (03 - 08; 4135 min on, 980 min off), Kobe was +5.4 (03 - 08, 2885 min on, 348 min off), and Dirk was +3.1 (03 - 08; 2913 min on, 425 min off). The only player that we've mentioned that was close was LeBron, who was +17.5 (06 - 08; 2046 min on, 178 min off)

*This is very consistent with the regular season results that we have. From 2004 - 2009 Ilardi's APM calculation already indicated that KG dwarfed the rest of the NBA over that 6 years.

*Again, we can see on the court how this could be. KG was carrying huge loads for his teams in multiple areas, and was doing a lot of things at an extremely high level. People say "great defense" or "great all around" player, but I don't think many really internalize that when it comes to Garnett. He was impacting the game in such a huge way even in addition to his strong scoring.

*For those keeping track at home, I started this long post for the 1999 postseason and finished it with the 2008. So that's a solid decade of top-5 caliber play from Garnett, including large swatches of MVP-caliber production with a historic peak. Just a point to indicate that Garnett's longevity and quality stacks up well to anyone at this point.

[ahonui06]

KG has the most excuses ever for a player considered to be a Top 5 PF. It was never his fault in Minnesota just everyone elses.

Just like how you've made excuses for Dirk every season until 2011? You know, if Dirk is so great, why just one ring? Shouldn't he be the leader of the decade in rings?

*end ahouni06-style argument*

Actually, I'm willing to bet he only became a "DIRK" fan after 2011 Finals

Obviously you haven't seen my posting history. I am and always will be loyal to DIRK.

[Texas Chuck]

drza,

Holy Toledo thats a lot to digest. Give me some time to reread all that several times and to attempt to digest it. I already know I have a couple questions for you but I need more time because Im a bit overwhelmed atm. Just wanted to let you know quickly that again I appreciate all the work you put into that.

[Texas Chuck]

drza,

to help me with some context can you provide me with your scource for this statistical information? Obv I want to check and see how Dirk specifically compares but also other strong defenders from this generation. Those stats all look really impressive but its hard for me to accurately weight them without some additional perspective. I dont want to minimize his impact so I need some basis for comparison.

Those are really impressive stats on KG's impact defensively. Again I dont have a way in my mind to fully put that into context yet but until I do Im certainly going to give him the benefit of the doubt because I dont think you would post all of that if it wasnt of the dominant variety. Excellent work.

Interesting point about the one time these 2 all-time greats met in the PS: Minny actually began that series trying the same tactic the Heat tried in the 2011 finals--they put their best defender on the secondary scorer-- in this case Garnett started the series guarding Finley. This didnt really work out very well and they eventually abandoned it. Dallas also inserted Eddie Najera into the starting lineup as their answer to KG. Sadly the one time these 2 met in the PS they didnt actually guard each other for large portions of the series. Individually KG was great as was Dirk. I agree with ur contention that Dirk,Nash,Finely,NVE was just too much firepower for Minny to deal with. I do think Dirk was the best player in that series but Im fine with calling it basically a wash. Its certainly not a meaningful sample size either way.


Ive been accused (not unfairly) of minimizing KG's postseason defensive impact. But lets talk about Dirk at the other end. I feel like the same thing is happening the other direction itt from KG supporters. I hear a lot of well Dirk is better at scoring but thats it. Like the edge is somehow insignificant. The edge is enormous offensively just like KG has the enormous edge defensively.

I looked through the top 20 career PS scorers. MJ is obviously the GOAT here and it isnt close. But after him Dirk is right up there in the conversation with KAJ,Shaq,Dream, and perhaps West. And clearly better than guys like Kobe,Iverson,Baylor,Petit,Wade, Mailman. He is a top 5 PS scorer of all time and I think a realistic argument can be made that he is the 2nd best scorer ever in the playoffs. His efficiency destroys most of the other contenders and his versitility it could be argued gives him the edge over the elite centers because of his uncanny ability at 7 feet to get his own shots at any time.

Dirk is also a top 10 all time playoff FT shooter. Having a guy who makes 90% is really helpful when he draws 9FTA (2x as many as KG fyi) and having him to help you seal wins at the end of games.

And if we want to talk about spectular individual years. Dirk's 2011 run of dominant and clutch scoring against defenses ranked in order 14th, 6th, 11th and 5th matches up more than favorably with KG's 08 PS performance. 28/8/61% TS And how many game winning shots did Dirk hit in the PS? He led a complete dismanting of the 2-time defending champs who had 3 of the 4 best players. Then he led his veteran squad past a not quite ready OKC team but again 3 of the 4 best players were on the other side. And again in the finals where 3 of the 4 best players were on the other side and where many people would have suggested at the start of the playoffs the 2 best players were on the other team. And in those tightly contested finals Dirk came up big in the 4th quarters time after time. Never scoring fewer than 8 and the difference between him and Lebron in the 4th quarters decided the series. The man is seriously clutch Thats a stupid good performance against elite players. And statistically he was even more impressive in 2006.

Bonus Dirk clutchness nugget: Shots taken in the last minute of the game to tie or take the lead since 2000: of the ten players with the most attempts the 2nd highest percentage is Lebron at 36.4%. Dirk shoots 44.0%.

I honestly dont know how to fairly sort out which to weight more heavily--KG's defensive brilliance combined with being a very good offensive player or Dirk's offensive brilliance combined with being an adequate defender. You have already shown me evidence suggesting that team results arent a fair way of sorting this. And I dont think either of us believe stats tell the complete picture.

In going back and forth you about have me convinced that Dirk is not a better individual performer than KG. I still maintain Dirk is easier to build around tho.

[tsherkin]

We know that Garnett's TS% drops a bit in the postseason and that he isn't the volume scorer that some of these all-time players are.

OK, right off of the bat I want to address this.

Garnett's TS% drops from a career 54.9% in the RS to 52.3% in the PS. That's not "a bit," that's 2.6%. That's a pretty significant drop. Now, some of that includes his very early twenties, but given that he was typically playing 4 games and then being done, it doesn't harm his overall average that much and he's still only had two postseason runs with the Celtics where he was very close to league average TS%. In the title run, he was 0.2% above league average and this past season, he was actually +1.4% over league average. Garnett has been a very, very weak scorer in the playoffs through the majority of his career at all stages thereof... and he's posted an ORTG of 110+ only three times in the PS (97, 01, 08).

Next, I want to point out that on 4-game samples during which he's playing 41-44 mpg, the data is going to be incredibly noisy, so those APM studies are going to have some significant issues. You note this somewhere around the 02-04 range, though, so that's good.

You start to argue quality of teams faced, and that's fine: I think most sensible posters realize that with crap teams, KG was dragging them into the playoffs only to get spanked... usually by the Spurs. He had little hope to beat a lot of the teams he faced and no one should really penalize him for that too harshly. But when you're trying to fashion an argument about who is the best postseason performer of the generation and you take an already second-tier scoring threat and have him decline as much as he did, well, that's less effective. His 01 run was pretty amazing, I mean he rocked a 7.5% TOV (!!!) while doing the 21/12/4 thing on ~ 57% TS. You can make a single-series claim about his efficacy there against the Spurs (who were the best defense in the league that year), but I'm not really seeing how him doing that is a ton better than what Dirk did against them in 2006.

We are, however, getting back to the root of the debate I was trying to generate before, about KG's defensive efficacy versus Dirk's scoring.

The APM data is very interesting, and squares well with his impact (primarily as a defender)... but at the same time, there is a data point that you're excluding, right? From 99-03, KG won 5 games in the postseason, then won 10 in the deep run in 04 and didn't return to the playoffs with the Wolves. Now context. Injuries, abysmal management (Cassell for Marko Jaric? REALLY? JOE SMITH!! YOU BASTARDS! and so forth), but if you're looking at his contributions and you see how one-sided KG's were angling towards the defensive element, then it starts to become an issue. You can't just defend your opponent; in a game of basketball, you can't shut an opponent down, you need to score as well. From everything I've seen, there IS a slight, small bias towards offensive value (at least where star players are concerned) that's not generated via narrative alone. Especially at the paces at which the Wolves and the Spurs/Blazers/etc were playing in the early 00s, the notion that "each possession counts" isn't just a truism, it's a major point of contention.

So I offer a counter-point. Since the number of games isn't that bad, let's look at KG's Minny postseason career and see how it played out from 99-04.

99 versus the eventual-champion Spurs.

Hard to REALLY ream him for this one because they had Duncan and Robinson, but that kind of casually back-slides KG's rep away from where you're going. In any case, he opened up with 21 points on 54.3% TS (9/18 FG, 3/3 FT), 8 boards, 1 assist, 5 blocks, 4 fouls and 5 turnovers. They lost, of course, and for the moment, we'll pretend as if KG's performance comes in isolation so that I don't have to spend 8 years discussing what his teammates did or didn't do in this post. We'll acknowledge their role tacitly. Here we're seeing, though, that Garnett was coughing it up something fierce. 20.6% TOV against 31% USG, not his best game. Game 2, they win. 23 points on 22 shots (11/22 FG, 1/2 FT). 50.3% TS, but there, I think that's a bit misleading to call that a "bad" performance. Certainly not dominant, and this time he brought the rebounding, then added 6 assists to 4 turnovers. Again, not really pushing hard on offense, and given that he didn't have any other scorers, the Wolves would have likely been better off if he'd been a little less effective on D and a little more effective on offense, since everyone and their mom knew that he was basically the only major scorer on that squad, the only real threat. Games 3 and 4, they lost of course. 9/19, 5/6 for 23 points, 12 boards, 2 AST / 3 TOV. Then here's the killer. Game 4 was a 7-point loss and he shot 6/20 FG and 8/12 at the line. Realistically, he left 7-9 points on the board from what he'd have posted just making 45% FG and around 80% FT, very normal numbers for him. This is a single-game, single-series performance at the beginning of his All-NBA era (and he's far from alone in having poor performances), but as we start to watch him coming up short in key moments and close games like that, it begins to detract from the overall picture you're painting of the "most dominant postseason performer from 99-08" kind of thing, right? That right there is a game that kind of mirrors Dirk against the Warriors.

2000, against Portland:

Opens up with a 6/20 performance, no FTAs. 12/10/11 triple-double, but the triple-double belies his overall performance. With 26.2% usage and him shooting 30% FG without any FTAs, that's a rough, rough performance. And it was a 3-point loss. The not-Garnett Wolves shot 53% FG. Meantime, Sheed played well: didn't shoot much, but was 6/10 for 15 points (3/3 FT).

Game 2. 25/10/5, 4 TOV, 4 PF. 50% FG, 7/10 FT, 56.4% TS against 31.4% USG. Really, a good game. 4-point loss. Were he a more dominant scorer, that might have mattered, but Sealy, Wally Z and Sam Mitchell were rough enough that I'll actually post that they shot a combined 7/17. Sheed was crap. So, this one stands as a contrast to the first.

Game 3. A win. Middling TS (52.3%), but actually his best offensive game of the series. 11/22 FG and 1/1 from downtown (heh), he brought the rebounding and passing from the first game (13 boards, 10 assists, 2 turnovers). He played his mind out and his teammates actually supported him a lot (Brandon was 10/16 for 28 points that night).

Game 4. Elimination game #2 in this series and KG goes for a 5/20. 1/2 3P, 6/6 FT. 17 points on 37.5% TS. 10 boards, 9 assists, 3 turnovers. But WOW was he ever bad shooting that night, and that's his second major stinker in the series and his third over two consecutive postseason matchups (e.g. his 3rd in 8 games).

2001 vs SAS:

25/13/6Game 1. , 55.8% TS, really a good game overall. Only 1 turnover, 50% FG, 70% FT (10 FTA), just looking really good. It was a loss, but it can hardly be blamed on KG.

Game 2. Welcome to Crapsville, population, YOU. 5/13 FG, but 8/8 FT gives him a 54.5% TS. 12 boards, 2 assists, 2 turnovers, 112 ORTG. Another rough shooting night for him, though, and he played only 32 minutes because of some foul trouble, but mainly because it was garbage time after 3. The Wolves shot something stupid like a tenth of a percent off of their franchise-worst in the playoffs and they committed 20 turnovers. It was embarrassing. KG was part of a team-wide failure that game. This is, I believe, the year after Sealy was killed and right around Joe Smith time.

Game 3, token win time. 22/8/4, 1 TOV. 8/10 FT. 59.8% TS. KG did a great job of getting to the line in this series, it was very atypical for him. This was a great game from Garnett though, and they won.

Game 4, elimination game. 6/13 shooting, 19/15/5, 2 turnovers, 5 fouls, 7/8 FT for 57.5% TS but they were crushed, a 13-point loss. Duncan shot terribly (8/23) and D-Rob had 4 fouls by the 3rd. Wolves were down 8 after 3, but down only 1 at halftime.

2002, 3-game sweep by Dallas.

Game 1. 6/18 FG, 6/6 FT, 46% TS. 21 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 turnovers. Dirk put 30/15 on the Wolves, shooting 10/19 from the field and 9/10 at the line.

Game 2. PHENOMENAL game from Garnett. 9/19 FG, 13/17 at the line (12-point loss), 18 boards and 4 assists. 58.5% TS. Absolutely fantastic. Wasn't enough, but it's hard to blame him. 25 a piece from Billups and Wally Z (both shooting over 52%, nearly 53% FG). 31/15 from Dirk (42.9% FG, 9/10 FT, 4 steals).

Game 3, elimination time. 9/19 FG, 4/9 FT in a 13-point loss. 47.4% TS. 17 boards, 5 assists, 6 turnovers, 5 fouls. Another weak game at the point of elimination. Minny won the 2nd and 4th quarters, but they permitted Dallas to score 40 first-quarter points and started the game in a 12-point hole from which they never recovered. Down by 10 at the half, they lost the 3rd by 8 points and then won the 4th by 5. Dirk dropped 39/17 on 11/17 FG, 14/16 FT, crushing the Wolves like a bug.

For the record, KG was 3/10 from the field in the second half, hitting his first 2 shots and then going 1/8 after that. He had 4 offensive boards, split a pair of FTs, assisted Wally Z on a 3 and a 21-footer and had a turnover. That was his contribution during the second half of the elimination game. He had a bunch of defensive boards as well, but I wasn't logging those, I was looking at offensive performance, since we've already established that he's been a very high-impact defender. But in an elimination game, to disappear that way in the second half (which raises those old ghosts that people spoke of at the time of KG being a choker in the playoffs) is... not good. And what we're seeing here is the reason that narrative came about, because this isn't the first or second bad game we've seen from him in this stretch as far as poor performance in an elimination game, and over a comparatively small sample of games, we've seen him stinking it up on offense quite a lot... more than once in a game winnable had he performed at a less-than-terrible level. It does tell us that his defense and rebounding were THAT AWESOME, though, to continually show the kind of impact they did... and it also explains that his teammates were really not helping him out a ton on the defensive end at all, as it happens. At times, Brandon (prior to his injury) and Billups (prior to him being moved) were contributors, but it's still clear that they were outmatched. Dirk's Mavs were coming at the Wolves with him, Finley, Nash and Van Exel, right? Nash was 3/9 under the arc in Game 3... but 3/7 from downtown, 10/10 at the line and had 11 assists. Billups was 5/16 and 4/7 at the line. Brandon was gone. Wally Z was 5/12 (though 9/10 at the line). Anthony Peeler was 4/7 from 3 off of the bench (but 2/6 under the arc). Garnett's terrible TS% mostly extends from 4/9 FT shooting and the 3 or 4 points he left on the board are significant but yeah, the biggest issue is how poorly he played in the second half. In his defense, the common motif of saying he's nothing but a jump shooter is at least a little harsh on his rep, because of the 10 shots he took, only one was from farther than 8 feet. Some of those were his favored turn-over-right-shoulder fades from the left block, but he got a four-footer and two shots off of offensive rebounds, one of which drew those 2 FTAs. He just hit nothing when it mattered.

OK, ramble over.

2003 vs Lakers. This is a 6-game series, the longest KG has played in the PS to this point in his career. Two wins!

Game 1. 11/21 FG, 1/4 FT. 14 boards, 7 assists, 2 turnovers, great D. 46 minutes played, loss. 19-point blowout, as it happens. There really wasn't a lot of hope for them to win this series; while the Lakers didn't repeat as champions, it was still the Shaq/Kobe Lakers coming off of their third straight title. Shaq had 32/10 and Kobe carved them up for 39. The Wolves flatly didn't have anyone who could defend either of those guys and Flip Saunders has never been a particularly good defensive coach, so there was no strong scheme in place, either. It was "here's hoping KG is magic!" I mean, they were putting Szczerbiak on Kobe, that's just asking for trouble. They were buried after the first, down 16 points. They never finished a quarter closer than 12 points.

Game 2. Explosion. 15/21 shooting, 4/6 at the line, 20 boards, 7 assists, 2 turnovers, 35 points. I don't even need to post the TS, you know it's insane. Remarkable game, and a win. Just about what was needed from him in order to beat this team. 37 points and 10 assists from Troy Hudson (!!!!!!) certainly helped, though. They were up by 13 at the half and then by 22 after an opening tear in the 3rd.

Game 3. 33/14/4, 2 steals, 4 blocks, 4 turnovers and 6 fouls. 15/31 shooting, one of the most aggressive performances of Garnett's entire career in a 4-point OT win. 27 points from Hudson. One of those "questionable officiating" nights, heh. 3 fouls in 3 minutes in the 4th for Garnett, then fouled out in the opening part of OT. Kobe got a four-point play when Wally Z apparently fouled him without touching him. Then there was that thing with Rick Fox where Wally "stepped out of bounds" as Rick grabbed his jersey, which was unique. They won, though, so it was OK.

4th quarter KG? 4 boards (2 offensive), an assist at the rim and a turnover on an offensive foul. He was 3/8 FG and 2/2 FT for 8 points. He took one shot inside of 10 feet and 4 shots from 14+ feet. Lots and lots of jumpers. Got blocked by Shaq the one time he shot around the rim.

Game 4. 10/21 FG, 1/3 3PA, 7/9 FTA. 18 boards, 5 assists, 4 turnovers. 56.1% TS in a 5-point loss. Solid performance. 34/23 from Shaq didn't help. Kobe shot like crap (7/25) but got to the line at will (16/17 FT). With about 2 minutes left in the third, the Wolves were up by 11 but then the Lakers went on an 8-0 run to close the quarter and Kobe hit a 3 early in the 4th to tie it. About halfway through the fourth, the Wolves were up by 5, but L.A. reeled off another 8-0 run. Stayed close down the wire; Shaq got an OREB off of a Kobe miss to give L.A. a 3-point lead with 19 seconds remaining... and KG missed both free throws when he was fouled. Kobe hit 2 FTs, Garnett stuck a jumper. Shaq had more offensive boards than the Timberwolves. The Lakers had 18 offensive boards and scored 29 points off of them.

Second half play from Garnett.

He had 3 assists and a turnover (Kobe stripped him) in the 3rd. He TECHNICALLY shot 1/7, but that includes a 43-foot heave at the buzzer. He was really 1/6, which is still terrible, missing his last 5 (or 6, counting the 3) shots after hitting a shot around the rim. 2 of his shots were inside of 15 feet.

In the fourth, he was 4/6, including a three, but he was 2/4 at the line, missing two big ones with about 16 seconds left, as I mentioned. He also had an assist. When he stuck the three with about a half-minute left, they were down 1.

Little rough. If he hadn't sucked in the 3rd, they might have built a better cushion and taken that game. Instead, L.A. evened the series.

Game 5. 11/23, 1/2 3P, 2/4 FT, 50.5% TS. 25/16/3, 3 TOV. 30-point blowout. KG played 43 minutes, conjuring that old thought about he gets a bunch of numbers in garbage time. Minny was down 7 at the half, down 21 after 3 and down 30 at the end of the game. We'll look at KG's second half performance, offense-only in the third and then what he did once the game was long-decided in the fourth.

In the third, he got a pass picked off by Kobe, he had an assist and he shot 4/8 for 9 points (1/2 from 3). Pretty solid performance all told, with two shots at the rim and two others within 7 feet. OK, so now we're going to look at the 4th Q, which starts with the Wolves down 21 points, and we're going to see what KG racked up in garbage time.

He played about 9.5 minutes in the fourth, leaving down 28 with about 2:38 to go. 1 offensive rebound (his own miss after getting blocked by Brian Shaw at the rim) and 4 defensive rebounds. It was the only offensive rebound he had all game and 4 of his 15 defensive boards. He split a pair of FTs and shot 1/3 from the field.

Doesn't much look like he racked up too many box score data points. He wasn't dominating and bringing them closer, they were getting pounded and Flip took him out eventually. Again though, it was the reigning champs, so the outcome wasn't really a huge surprise to anyone, especially as the team thinned from a few years prior, as scary as that is to say. They had to play some out-of-their-minds offense in order to get those two wins.

Game 6, elimination time, KG's favorite!

9/21 FG, 0/1 3P, 0/2 FT. 41.1% TS, 83 ORTG. He was terrible on O. 12 boards, 5 assists, 3 steals, 3 turnovers, 18 points. Not a good game. Good box score line, but not a good game. Played 44 minutes in a 16-point loss. Wolves were up by 5 after 1, down 4 after 2, down 6 after 3 and lost the 4th quarter by 10. Shaq had 8 offensive boards to Minny's 11. The 2nd and 4th quarters were the bad ones for Minny. The 4th was bad defensively, but the 2nd was bad offensively, with them scoring only 13 points.

Rough game. Minny went on a 9-0 run to close the third... and then Kobe opened up the fourth with 10 of the 14 points he'd score in the quarter, with L.A. opening the quarter on an 18-2 run. Shaq had 9 assists, Kobe 8 (total, not in the quarter). L.A.'s passing was just ridiculous that game. It took 6.5 minutes for the Wolves to score their first basket in the 4th.

In the 2nd, KG played the last 9 minutes. He had a pair of assists, a picked off pass and shot 2/5, scoring 4 of their 13 points... but involved in 8. Were he a more dominant scorer, that could have helped, but it's hard to nit-pick that performance in this series over much.

4th Q. An assist, two turnovers, 2/5 shooting (including Devean George blocking him), leaves with 1:56 remaining, down by 18.


The next one will be a post all on its own for the 2004 postseason.

[drza]

I love it, tsherkin. I won't have time to reply for awhile today, most likely, but I'm looking forward to your follow-ups and I'll definitely be replying before it's all said and done.

Ditto for you, Texas Chuck. I love that this has turned into an actual discussion, with info being exchanged on both sides. Look forward to getting back into it later.

[drza]

drza,

to help me with some context can you provide me with your scource for this statistical information? Obv I want to check and see how Dirk specifically compares but also other strong defenders from this generation. Those stats all look really impressive but its hard for me to accurately weight them without some additional perspective. I dont want to minimize his impact so I need some basis for comparison.

Actually, I can go ahead and answer this part. Unfortunately, the answer is that I cobbled it together over time from several different sources. For example, the 1-on-1 matchups with Duncan I got from their basketball-reference and/or ESPN game logs, I believe. Once I had Duncan's individual numbers in the games against Minnesota, I could subtract them from his total numbers for those playoffs runs and average over the remaining games to get his postseason averages against everyone else.

The 1-on-1 matchup data vs Rasheed came from calculations that someone else (ElGee, maybe?) did in the Retro Player of the Year project. I don't know the exact page of the thread, but it has to be in the 2000 thread somewhere.

The +/- data (per 100 possessions) from 2007 - 2012 is available on basketballvalue.com.

The +/- data (per 48 minutes) from 2004 - 2011 postseason used to be available on 82games.com, but the site has slipped and some of the older data sets are no longer accessible (though I had some of that data already written into spreadsheet form from before the site stopped working).

Probably the most comprehensive (in terms of years) source for +/- data is now basketball-reference.com, as they have it from 2001 - current, but unfortunately they only do "on-court" +/- data. That's not the worst thing, though, as with on-court +/- data and the overall team scoring data it's not hard to calculate on/off +/- for all of those years. It's a bit of a nuissance and time, though, which is why I haven't gone through yet and gone back to 2001 for all the main players.

Hope that helps.

[tsherkin]

2004, Denver, Sacramento and the Lakers.

Denver series was a 4-1 series victory. Sacramento a 4-3 victory and the L.A. series was a 6-game loss.

DEN

Game 1. 13/30 FG, 4/6 FT. 30/20/4 with 5 turnovers. Gaudy totals, 46% TS, 14-point win. Cassell carried them with a 40-point game on 16/24 shooting, with 5/6 from 3 and 3/3 at the line. As was typical, Sprewell sucked on offense. Because he sucked at everything not related to choking people and playing defense. *grumble* At least he played good D that year. I'm not bitter. At all. 30 shots in 36 minutes was a bit excessive from Garnett, especially with that level of performance, but it happened. He was taking shots mainly because, apart from Cassell, not a lot of other guys on the team could generate and hit shots. An offensive mainstay from previous runs, Wally Z, was coming off of the bench and he sucked. Hassell did well. That's about it. Spree was 2/11, but 7/8 at the line. CRAP he was bad from the field, though. Brick City.

Game 2. 20/22/10. Triple double, yay! 9/27 shooting, 2/2 FT.... BOOOOOOO! 35.9% TS. Not his best game. 44 minutes played in a win. Spree earned his contract on that one, though, 11/17, including a random 7/8 from downtown, and 2/3 FT for 31 points that floated the team. Cassell was 6/17 and 0/4 from downtown, an expected regression after the previous game (still a rough night, though). The bench was 9/13 with 1 3PM and 8/9 from the line. Aww yeah, total team production!

Game 3. 24/11/8, 4/7 FT, 56.9% TS. A loss, actually, but still a good performance from KG. Unlike the double-digit knock-offs in the first two games, the Wolves were actually themselves knocked off by 21 points. Spree scored a bunch, continuing an atypical shooting trend by going 3/8 from downtown and scoring 25 points. Cassell was 4/11, but 2/4 from 3 for 10 points. Szczerbiak was 4/12. The bigger issue was Nene going 7/8 and the Wolves getting SMOKED on the glass, 53 to 36. Camby's 8 offensive boards (among 16 total) helped the Nuggets have 20 offensive boards total. Second-chance points FTW. Denver was +12 in the first, which is how this game was buried, but they were +1, +6 and +2 in the following quarters.

Game 4. 27/14/5, 5 turnovers. 8/17 shooting... and 11/15 at the line. Win.

Game 5. 9/16 FG, 10/13 FT, 28/7/8 with 6 turnovers in the close-out game. 6/13 FG, 2/3 3P and 12/12 FT for 26 points from first-time All-Star Alien.

And that was the Denver series. KG finally had a good game in the final game of a series, heh.

Sacramento.

This one looks good for KG, especially in the elimination game.

Game 1. It doesn't start that way, though. 16/18/7 with 6 turnovers on 6/21 shooting to open the series in a loss.

Game 2. 28/11/4 with 6 blocks in a win. 8/16 FG, 12/14 FT.

Game 3. 30/15/3 with 5 blocks, 11/23 FG, 8/9 FT in a win.

Game 4. 19/21/6 with 5 turnovers in a loss, 8/18 FG, 1/3 3P, 2/2 FT, 50.3% TS.

Game 5. 9/21 FG, 5/6 FT, 23/12/3 with 8 turnovers in a 12-point win. Sacramento up and couldn't hit ANYTHING but free throws that game. Spree keeps making me look bad for my earlier comment with his 13/21 shooting for 34 points, but I maintain what I said... this was atypical for him and he'd prove it as early as the following season. Plus, he's a jackass. Bad, BAD game from KG, though; coughing it up all over the place, shooting terribly, etc.

Game 6. 8/19 FG, 3/4 FT, 19/10/5 with 5 turnovers and 5 fouls in a loss. Another rough game from Garnett, and against a team that wasn't a particularly imposing defense, either. Divac/Webber, really? Garnett should have eaten that alive to help them earn some rest before the WCFs, but instead he was falling flat on his face.

Game 7. Elimination game and redemption time for KG. 32/21/2. 4 steals, 5 blocks, 2 turnovers... and defense behind that validates those numbers. He was... everywhere. And he scored 14 points in the fourth quarter, which we'll talk about in a second. Arguably the best playoff game he managed before Boston, certainly one of the best he's ever played.

He played 46 minutes, and they needed him, finishing ahead by only 3 points. Wolves were up 10 at the half with a strong first quarter, then both teams sucked ass in the second, but the Wolves sucked 4 points less, so they came out ahead (Minny outscored the Kings 19-15 that quarter). KG generally held Webber in check, though Old Webber wasn't that hard to keep in check... contest his soft jumpers and you're gold. Aww yeah, knee injuries... Anyway, 4th Q, KG goes hard to the rim. 1/3 from the line, but 6/8 from the field (including a 3) and 4 of those shots were at the rim, none farther than 8 feet except the 3. It was beautiful. He and Wally Z connected a couple of times for easy shuffles that left Garnett cleaning up around the basket and it was just dominant.

Boom, series. What a birthday! He scored 13 straight at one point in that quarter. He had some big, big defensive plays as well, though that's kind of assumed. I will never forget the way Webber looked, reaching for air, after KG crossed him and dunked.

Lakers.

Game 1. 16/10/2 with 4 turnovers, 7/15 shooting. Not a great night in a loss. This was a slow, slow game, so the overall numbers are a little deceiving, but you'd hope for more over 45 minutes. Malone matched Garnett with 17/11/4, frustrating him a lot. Karl, when healthy, was a really big part of what the Lakers did that year, and had he been healthy the entire season, things might have ended differently than they did. Anyway, Minny got within 4 late in the 4th before they committed a turnover and Malone stopped Garnett on an attempt, then Fish stuck a dagger 3. In deference to Minny in this series, Cassell was enduring a low-back injury and they were again outmatched in terms of top-end talent. Shaq did the 27/18/5 thing, obliterating Minny's quadruple teams. It was grimly amusing to watch balloon-like Oliver Miller and pint-sized Mark Madsen trying to guard Shaq, whose 5 offensive boards were more than Minny's 3. Same old song and dance.

Game 2. 24/11/3 in a win, 50% FG, 3/5 at the line, hitting his only 3 as well. Cassell played only 43 seconds because of the injury. L.A. was 15/29 at the line, Shaq was 4/10 from the field (Ervin Johnson outscored him in the first half!) and Kobe was 10/24. Karl Malone had 5 turnovers. The bench was 5/13, Payton and George combined to go 4/16. It was brutal.

Game 3. 22/1/7, 4 turnovers, fouled out. 9/21 FG, 1/2 3P, 3/4 FT. Not a great game in an 11-point loss, especially when they were down only 5 going into the 4th. Cassell scored 18 points in 26 minutes. Of Shaq's 17 boards, 7 were on the offensive glass. Minny had 9. Shaq was an appalling 8/22 at the line but went 7/10 from the field to score 22 points. Kobe was 5/12 from the field (2/6 from 3) but 10/11 at the line to also score 22 points. Shaq did make 6 of his last 9 FTAs when the Wolves went Hack-a-Shaq in the 4th. KG scored one bucket in the last 18 minutes, but there was a lot of question about the equality of the officiating. KG fouled out, but only had 4 FTAs while Malone did play him fairly rough... and KG fouled out after having only 2 fouls in the previous pair of games (none in Game 2, as it happens). Definitely at least some curiosity there. Still, when you go

Game 4. 12/24, 1/2, 3/4. 28/13/9 with 4 turnovers in 47 minutes of a 7-point loss. The Wolves were +1, -6, -10 and +8 by quarter. Cassell played only 5 minutes. Spree was 4/18. Wally Z was 6/15 FG, hit his only 3 and was 6/6 at the line off of the bench. Shaq had 19/19, Fisher scored 15 off the bench and Kobe had 31 (18 in the 3rd). Can't really blame KG here. Wasn't an ultra-dominant, legendary performance, but it was still a rather impressive one. 12/11/8 from Malone definitely helped L.A.'s case, though.

Game 5. 30/19/4 in a 2-point win. 10/23 shooting, but 10/11 at the line. 17/13 from Shaq, but he fouled out. 8/19 FG for Kobe (3/8 3P, 4/6 at the line) for 23 points (6 boards, 7 assists, 4 turnovers). 17/9/3 with 5 fouls from Malone. 17 points from Fisher off the bench. Wasn't enough. KG was that good. Spree stopped sucking, which helped. Hoiberg and Wally helped as well, combing for 25 points off of the bench on 8/19 shooting (1/4 from 3, 8/10 at the line).

Game 6, elimination time.

22/17/2. 8 turnovers, 6 fouls. 9/20 shooting, 4/6 FT. Not a good night for Garnett in a 6-point loss.

8/22 shooting balanced against 11/11 FT for Spree, scoring a team-high 27 points. Turnovers hurt, a lot. Basically, the not-Garnett portion of the team played at their usual level. Nothing special, nothing terrible. Guys shot pretty well, no one was really brutal. Garnett just crumbled, but it's true that Cassell wasn't there for the whole game again (that's, what, 4 games where he played 5 minutes or less?).

10/10/7 from Malone. 20 points and 4 assists from Kobe. He shot terribly, 6/17 from the field. 1/3 from downtown, 7/11 at the line. 25/11 from Shaq, 5 offensive boards. 4 turnovers, 5 fouls. 6/8 FG (including 6/7 from 3) helped Kareem Rush score 18 points that really carried L.A., though. Minny was up 1 going into the 4th quarter, fighting back from an 11-point deficit after the first quarter. I'll look at the 1st and 4th for KG.

BTW, Kobe and Shaq spent most of the first 3 quarters in foul trouble. The Wolves were 24/26 at the line, Garnett being the only one to miss FTAs.

Garnett's first quarter was ugly. He had an assist, but 3 turnovers (an offensive foul, Malone stealing it and a bad pass). He hit a technical free throw courtesy of Gary Payton and was 0/2 from the field, checking out with 5 minutes remaining after fouling Shaq in the act.

4th quarter.

More sloppy play. An assist, but 3 turnovers (traveling, an offensive foul and a picked-off pass). 0/1 at the line. 2/4 on shots that mattered (he chucked a 3 and missed with 22 seconds left, down 7). The free throw came when he drew a shooting foul on Shaq. He committed his 6th foul with about 19 seconds left and fouled out.

Brutal.

So there we have it, a look at KG's postseason career in Minnesota. You'd have to overcome a lot of serious offensive concerns to claim that the APM numbers are really good evidence of his dominance, particularly given his penchant for coming up dry when it matters the most. There was some questionable officiating in that series but it didn't cause him to screw everything up on every play, and 8 turnovers can't really be put down to Malone cheating each time (especially since a few of them were Kobe stealing bad passes). Malone was pulling the chair on him all series, but he did it to Malone the series prior and it's been an effective post-D technique for forever and a day, and isn't illegal. KG was so used to the body that when Malone started pulling it, he caused all manner of trouble for Garnett, which is hilarious to me given Garnett's penchant for turning AWAY from the defender for the fade from the block.

In any case, this should serve as a counterpoint to drza's post. It's not definitive, but it's a matching data set that contradicts the APM finding by pointing out how rough Garnett was in certain situations and I think the data clearly shows several games where Garnett's poor offensive performance cost the Wolves some close games that, while they probably wouldn't have changed the tide of the series, would have changed the tone of his career narrative. I don't think it's fair to say at all that he's the most dominant postseason performer during any stretch of his career. I think it's functionally apparent that the Lakers had two better postseason performers, that you could make a very strong argument for Duncan and, in more recent times, you have to start looking at Dirk and Lebron, as well as individual seasonal bursts from a guy like Wade in 06, or even a burst of performances from someone like T-Mac who had some outstanding runs in Orlando and even a few in Houston... just as short as most of Garnett's, too, so it matches up nicely.

More to the point, several of those guys made the playoffs as often or more during that same period of time. There were reasons for it, but KG missed the playoffs from 05-07, meaning he's got a smaller overall sample than many of these other guys.

Food for debate, in any case.

[tsherkin]

I love it, tsherkin. I won't have time to reply for awhile today, most likely, but I'm looking forward to your follow-ups and I'll definitely be replying before it's all said and done.

Ditto for you, Texas Chuck. I love that this has turned into an actual discussion, with info being exchanged on both sides. Look forward to getting back into it later.

Yeah man, this is starting to become good fun.

[Texas Chuck]

drza,

to help me with some context can you provide me with your scource for this statistical information? Obv I want to check and see how Dirk specifically compares but also other strong defenders from this generation. Those stats all look really impressive but its hard for me to accurately weight them without some additional perspective. I dont want to minimize his impact so I need some basis for comparison.

Actually, I can go ahead and answer this part. Unfortunately, the answer is that I cobbled it together over time from several different sources.
Hope that helps.

Yeah it will. thanks.

[Swimmer]

This is fantastic information, guys. Thanks a lot.

Quick question for drza -- Do you have a take on KG's lost years (2005-7)? Was there any evidence of a decline in play in KG, or a decline from his teammates? Obviously, there was a lot of team unrest in 2005.

We see again in 2008 that KG is alive and well, but I'm wondering if that just comes from better offensive teammates --> more personal focus on defensive end + easier offense --> a rejuvenation of sorts, rather than a consistent (possibly a slowly declining, due to age) KG from around 1999/2000 - 2008/9.

I guess relevant to this topic, and not totally off from what TC/ahonui were saying, there are certainly advantages to having a player who maintains his production regardless of the situation (read: really bad in MIN).

[tsherkin]

Obviously, there was a lot of team unrest in 2005.

Things to keep in mind regarding 05-07:

KG was rocking 22, 13.5 (league lead) and 5.7 in 05, on 56.7% TS. He continued to play very strong defense. Led the league in WS, posted his highest ORTG pre-Boston (117, peaked at 118 in 08 with Boston), posted the third-highest DWS of his career, etc, etc. He was a statistical marvel. 82 games played and everything. Cassell played 59 games. Sprewell's D fell of of a cliff... and it was the last season he'd ever play in the NBA (which is hilarious, because he turned down a contract extension offer from the Wolves and then never made it back into the NBA).

The year after, Garnett had the temerity to miss 6 games and the Wolves traded Sam Cassell AND A FIRST for Marko Jaric, who sucks. Except at marrying Adriana Lima, at which he is awesome. They have two kids, and I hate him, lol. Wally Z played 40 games before the trade, when he, Kandi, Dwayne Jones and a first were sent to Boston for Ricky Davis (d'oh!), Mark Blount, Marcus Banks and some nonsense. Not long after, Wally Z would have knee surgery that he'd needed for a while and had hampered him in Minny. Troy Hudson played only 36 crappy games due to injury. He could hit the three... and could do nothing else well. And was gone for over half the season. Ricky Davis was a toolbag, Mark Blount couldn't D up or rebound (or score at better than league-average efficiency, aww yeah 15-footers all day long...), Marcus Banks sucked like a vacuum and yeah... that was 2006. Bad management and injuries.

2007, Minny proved AGAIN that their management were toolbags. Sitting at 20-20 under Dwayne Casey, they fired him (even though that represented a significant improvement over the 33 wins they'd had the season prior) and named Randy Wittman the interim head coach. Wittman proceeded to coach the same roster to a 12-30 record in the second half of the season. Garnett tailed off noticeably on offense, though he led the league in defensive rebounding. Ricky Davis was way worse than his gaudy averages and percentages suggested because he was one of the dumbest and most selfish players I've ever seen, Eddie Griffin was a wreck who played only 13 games (and then actually died in a car crash the offseason)....

It's understandable. Minnesota endured some absolutely garbage management in those years, just bad decision after oversight after mistake for years. McHale murdered the Timberwolves (and actually Glen Taylor wasn't innocent in that respect either).