Kevin Garnett was better than Tim Duncan

[G35]

i'll never understand this myth that greats are supposed to "elevate" a bunch of trash teammates to championship levels.

It shouldn't be held against Garnett that he played on bad teams the majority of his career in a ridiculously tough West.
The same way people need to stop holding it against Iverson and they did it against LeBron before he went to Miami.


Magically Kevin Love will become an all time great when he inevitably wins a couple championships with LeBron in Cleveland, as if he coincidently became a better player now that he gets LeBron and Kyrie instead of Rubio and Kevin Martin

No one is saying KG should have won any championships in Minnesota. His best shot was in 2004 and there were injuries, that is all understood. However, compared to other greats that have played with poor rosters he did not do any better and in fact is on the less impressive side of doing any heavy lifting.

Barkley - took an average Sixers roster in 1990 and took them to #1 in their division getting to the 2nd rd. In 1991 Johnny Dawkins is hurt and the Sixers make it in as a 5th seed and upset the Milwaukee Bucks in the 1st rd.

David Robinson - despite having SIX COACHES in 6 years takes his team to the playoffs every year and despite some horrible rosters (1992, 1993, 1994 only one other player had a PER over 15 and that was Del Negro) was able to lead his team to the 2nd rd

Lebron James - documentation of his poor support is well documented and granted he did play in the less arduous eastern conference but he did far more heavier lifting than KG

Moses Malone - his playoff run in 1981 taking a very average Rockets team and beating Magic/KAJ along the way to a finals appearance

Dikembe Mutumbo - He was the main force behind the upset of the #1 seeded Supersonics led by Payton/Kemp and were the first 8th seed to beat a #1 seed.

Dominique Wilkins - in the 1980's the eastern conference was the tougher conference; the Celtics, Sixers, Bucks, Pistons were all formidable opponents and I don't recall Nique having great talent around him. IIRC Doc Rivers was his best supporting player, possibly Kevin Willis or Spud Webb.

Now you can say all these players were lucky, or had some divine intervention, or it was poor matchups. Which may be true, you have to be lucky as well as good. But these players weren't lucky every year, many years they were bounced out in the first rd year because they played a superior opponent. But you would think that for someone who is touted to have the impact KG supposedly has he would have had one year where he did something special and got his team out of the first rd. In 12 years he did that once, and to compound that three of those years his team missed the playoffs.

That has been repeated several times in critiques of KG, and the ususal response is, "Well if KG was drafted to San Antonio he would have five rings and Tim would have none!" First you don't know that, we do know with Duncan the Spurs got five rings, that is not debateable. You can't just take one for one and get the same results. Just like you can't just replace Bill Russell with any great big man and get 11 rings, I doubt there is anyone else who could replicate Russells play.

However, the question I would ask is let's turn this around, you say KG would do as well in Duncan's position in SA...do you think Duncan would do worse in Minnesota? Would he miss the playoffs three straight years? Would Duncan lose in the first round 7 straight years? How hard is it to replicate KG's performance in Minnesota? Who couldn't do what KG did in Minnnesota......

[ceiling raiser]

The reason I became less open to the ideas presented is because I knew that the Kg group was being dishonest, the moment they started to argue Garnett over Shaq. For someone to actually sit there and argue, that KG's impact was greater than Shaq, a guy who was arguably the most dominant player in nba history., showed me that the Kg group was more interested in getting their player voted in high, than they were in being honest how good he was as a player.

Uh, this is incredibly insulting dude.

People have agendas, doesn't mean they're bad posters. It was just clear to me that they had a goal in mind. It's amazing how much more I've enjoyed reading the post from after KG was voted in. I've felt like I've learned a lot more, and the arguments were much more honest in trying to represent just how good a player was. I've absolutly loved, reading post on Moses, D-Rob, Dirk, Barkley , Petit and Ewing. I've learned more in the last handful of threads, than the first 11, which were dominated by arguments about The merits of ramp and associated annoyances.

The funny thing is, I'm the guy who people say overrate Kg, when I talk about him in real life. And I'm the one who put in the time to upload his highlights and all that stuff, yet somehow that project managed to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I didn't vote KG until after Hakeem was selected, but after some of the conversation in the project, I'd probably support Garnett at the #6 spot. Even though you're not referring to me presumably since my first KG vote was at slot #10, I do take tremendous offense at the bolded by association. Some of KG's more vocal supporters (drza, Doc, etc.) did their research, and did their due diligence to address concerns. I feel that their arguments and evidence were convincing enough to sway me (I've generally been slightly high on Garnett, but through the discussion in the project, I'm probably higher on him). If people take issue with the posts individuals have made in support of Garnett, the threads remain open, and anybody can jump in and try to refute claims. I also have to strongly disagree about the past few threads. I've appreciated some of the conversation, but there's been a ton of discussion of box score stats and accolades, which has really caused me to become disengaged at times.

As for the comments about Shaq...it's tough, and I do think he, Duncan, Garnett, and Hakeem are relative peers (and along with the first four players selected, are a clear top 8 all-time for me...I don't have a GOAT/best ever list, but I'm confident enough that by the criteria I value, Russell/MJ, Wilt/Kareem, and those four bigs form three distinct tiers). I started watching in Shaq's rookie season and he's my favorite player ever, and along with Olajuwon, was one of the two most dominant guys I've seen live (obviously I missed MJ's absolute peak, as well as Bird, Kareem, and others). Over the years I never really believed he was significantly better than Duncan or vice versa, and I still feel the same way. I do think he relies too much on his turnaround, and guarded away from the rim a good deal, but with some cold, hard evidence (namely shutupandjam's Synergy post up numbers for Duncan/KG/Dirk and the RAPM numbers to evaluate guys defensively).

Anyhow though, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have absolutely nothing invested in the order of selection in the project. All I'm looking to do is learn more about players, and share my take (and some new information on a given guy, if I have it, every once in a while). But the constant posts categorically dismissing the KG arguments without an attempt to refute the evidence point-by-point, as well as claims that the participants have been disingenuous, really, really rubs me the wrong way.

I usually try to resist posting in these types of threads, but I couldn't help myself. I know you're a quality poster and a good guy from reading what you've written here and on ISH (and though I haven't used your channel personally, I do appreciate your effort in sharing tape with people who haven't yet seen some of the games you're featuring), but I was really taken aback by this post.

[WhateverBro]

Dominant fashion? The 08 celtics went 16-10 in the playoffs , and had 2 7 game series against inferior teams when they had home court. Calling the 08 celtics dominant is almost disrespectful after what we just saw from the Spurs.

And no they didn't win based on KG's abilties, they won on Thib's defensive schemes, who has shown he can produce elite defenses with or without KG. Thibs produced elite defenses consistently without KG on the bulls, a feat KG wasn't able to consistently achieve without Thibs on the wolves. Thibs has achieved that with a barrage of injuries, changing lineups, and a defensive liability like Carlos Boozer. So it's clear to me who was the mastermind behind Boston's success

No actually. I've stated in numerous times that I feel the position that most directly impacts a teams offensive rating is the point guard, whiles big men have the biggest impact on a teams defensive rating.

But that wasn't really the point I was making. You we're acting like KG teams being bad at protecting the paint was a stretch, when the Wolves feel below the league averge defensively multiple times I'm KG's prime. So it's not like they were locking teams down.

Yes, in dominant fashion. They were one of the most dominant teams in league history in the regular season, and they were also one of the best (if not the best) defensive teams of all-time. They were dominant in every single way and a couple of flukes in the playoffs doesn't change that. It's like saying the Spurs weren't dominant this year because of the Dallas series.

It's also easier to just cite their record, without actually looking up what really happened. Let's go through the series;

1st round: BOS won four games by an average of 25.5 points.
1st round: BOS lost three games by an average of 5.7 points.

2nd round: BOS won four games by an average of 8 points.
2nd round: BOS lost three games by an average of 13.3 points.

3rd round: BOS won four games by an average of 8.75 points.
3rd round: BOS lost two games by an average of 12.5 points. (skewed by game 4 blowout)

Finals: BOS won four games by an average of 15.25 points. (skewed by game 6 blowout)
Finals: BOS lost two games by an average of 5.5 points.

I'll give you that the Cleveland series was a tough one, but again, stuff happens. Dallas pushed Spurs to 7 games this year, yet the Spurs won the championship in a dominant matter, wouldn't you say? Atlanta were crushed by the Celtics, and lucked out on three close wins. There really was no question as to who was going to win the series, the only series that was actually close was the one against Cavs.

And no, they weren't dominant because of Thibs schemes. Did that help? Sure. But Garnett has lead elite defensive teams without Thibs too. Wolves were average defensively because of KG - and that's a compliment to him. The cast was horrendous, I don't know how you can gloss over this. Garnett lead a big man rotation of Olowokandi, Ervin Johnson (pretty good, but limited), Madsen and Trent to a top 6 defense in '04. Not to mention that Flip was on the sideline. The supporting cast and coaching matters, so citing his teams DRtg on the Wolves, but disregarding them on the Celtics because Thibs spirit somehow coached them after he left, doesn't make much sense to me.

Ok, it's great that you "feel" that PGs that directly impacts a teams ORtg, but do you have any statistical evidence of this being true? And my second point would be that even if this is true - it wouldn't matter because Garnett played heavy minutes as the de facto point guard for many of those top 5 offenses that the Wolves had. You who pride yourself in having seen KG more than 98 % of this board, should have known this, no? Because I find it hard to believe that you actually believe that Troy Hudson had more impact on Wolves top 5 ORtg in 2003, compared to KG..?

And yes, I do find it hard to believe that Garnetts teams were getting destroyed at the rim when their DRtg has been average, to elite over his career. I also find it ridiculous to blame this on his pick-n-roll defense, which is notoriously known for being the best in league history. He was playing the exact same pick-n-roll defense over his Boston career, and was slightly worse at it, and they managed to be elite defensively. So yes, I am very skeptical that Garnetts p&r defense has had a negative influence on his team being able to protect the rim.

[ceiling raiser]

BTW Purch apologies if I came off as confrontational, wasn't my intent. I was just surprised and a bit frustrated, meant no disrespect at all, just wanted to share my feelings on the matter.

[Shot Clock]

I read a lot of references to Duncan carrying his team in 2003. Even ignoring the fact that his teammates actually carried the team at some key times that run, I'd like to point out that this run wasn't exactly of an epic proportion. In 2003 there were 3 challengers for the title. SAS, Dallas and Sac. The Lakers were self imploding and struggling hard, there was no switch to flip. Sacramento lost Webber and that ended their hopes. Dallas lost Dirk. 2003 might qualify as the weakest playoff assembly of teams in at least the last 30 years. Lets look at that "run"

Playoffs
44 Win Phoenix team (1.57 SRS)
20 year old Amare guarding him
Good support from his team throughout, this series was never in doubt

Next up Lakers (squeaked out 50 wins the last day of the season, this was a Laker team in trouble)
Kobe has a torn shoulder needing surgery, shot poorly but kept shooting
Fox goes out, George sprains his ankle but plays most of the series performing poorly
Duncan is being guarded by the fearsome Robert Horry. (fearsome in comparison to Amare's D) His offense certainly wasn't fearsome (0-18 from downtown)
No depth, LA was done.

"Coming into this series, they (the Lakers) decided to let me do what I had to do and shut everybody else down," Duncan said.

Dallas
Their only real competition and in the third game Dallas loses:
Dirk
Shawn Bradley
Evan Eschmeyer (injured before this game)
Now Dallas had one big man left in LaFrentz, no one at all besides him.

Then it was Jersey who LA had swept the previous year and this Jersey team may have been worse. When they hit Jersey with Kenyon who was an above average defender but overmatched by the much bigger Duncan. His efficiency dropped off like we saw against most decent defenders that Duncan rarely faced. (Malone, Wallace etc)

So yah, he won the title but that had to be the most fortuitous path to a title ever. Not exactly comparable to other situations where players have carried their teams to unexpected wins. This path was paved for him.

[Purch]

Dominant fashion? The 08 celtics went 16-10 in the playoffs , and had 2 7 game series against inferior teams when they had home court. Calling the 08 celtics dominant is almost disrespectful after what we just saw from the Spurs.

And no they didn't win based on KG's abilties, they won on Thib's defensive schemes, who has shown he can produce elite defenses with or without KG. Thibs produced elite defenses consistently without KG on the bulls, a feat KG wasn't able to consistently achieve without Thibs on the wolves. Thibs has achieved that with a barrage of injuries, changing lineups, and a defensive liability like Carlos Boozer. So it's clear to me who was the mastermind behind Boston's success

No actually. I've stated in numerous times that I feel the position that most directly impacts a teams offensive rating is the point guard, whiles big men have the biggest impact on a teams defensive rating.

But that wasn't really the point I was making. You we're acting like KG teams being bad at protecting the paint was a stretch, when the Wolves feel below the league averge defensively multiple times I'm KG's prime. So it's not like they were locking teams down.

Yes, in dominant fashion. They were one of the most dominant teams in league history in the regular season, and they were also one of the best (if not the best) defensive teams of all-time. They were dominant in every single way and a couple of flukes in the playoffs doesn't change that. It's like saying the Spurs weren't dominant this year because of the Dallas series.

It's also easier to just cite their record, without actually looking up what really happened. Let's go through the series;

1st round: BOS won four games by an average of 25.5 points.
1st round: BOS lost three games by an average of 5.7 points.

2nd round: BOS won four games by an average of 8 points.
2nd round: BOS lost three games by an average of 13.3 points.

3rd round: BOS won four games by an average of 8.75 points.
3rd round: BOS lost two games by an average of 12.5 points. (skewed by game 4 blowout)

Finals: BOS won four games by an average of 15.25 points. (skewed by game 6 blowout)
Finals: BOS lost two games by an average of 5.5 points.

I'll give you that the Cleveland series was a tough one, but again, stuff happens. Dallas pushed Spurs to 7 games this year, yet the Spurs won the championship in a dominant matter, wouldn't you say? Atlanta were crushed by the Celtics, and lucked out on three close wins. There really was no question as to who was going to win the series, the only series that was actually close was the one against Cavs.

And no, they weren't dominant because of Thibs schemes. Did that help? Sure. But Garnett has lead elite defensive teams without Thibs too. Wolves were average defensively because of KG - and that's a compliment to him. The cast was horrendous, I don't know how you can gloss over this. Garnett lead a big man rotation of Olowokandi, Ervin Johnson (pretty good, but limited), Madsen and Trent to a top 6 defense in '04. Not to mention that Flip was on the sideline. The supporting cast and coaching matters, so citing his teams DRtg on the Wolves, but disregarding them on the Celtics because Thibs spirit somehow coached them after he left, doesn't make much sense to me.

Ok, it's great that you "feel" that PGs that directly impacts a teams ORtg, but do you have any statistical evidence of this being true? And my second point would be that even if this is true - it wouldn't matter because Garnett played heavy minutes as the de facto point guard for many of those top 5 offenses that the Wolves had. You who pride yourself in having seen KG more than 98 % of this board, should have known this, no? Because I find it hard to believe that you actually believe that Troy Hudson had more impact on Wolves top 5 ORtg in 2003, compared to KG..?

And yes, I do find it hard to believe that Garnetts teams were getting destroyed at the rim when their DRtg has been average, to elite over his career. I also find it ridiculous to blame this on his pick-n-roll defense, which is notoriously known for being the best in league history. He was playing the exact same pick-n-roll defense over his Boston career, and was slightly worse at it, and they managed to be elite defensively. So yes, I am very skeptical that Garnetts p&r defense has had a negative influence on his team being able to protect the rim.

You didn't prove anything about what made them dominant.

Your logic is based on point differential to correlate with dominance. The issue with that is that it makes no sense in this context at all.

You are not dominating a series if you can't win a single game on the road and you're trading wins. Thats ridiculous. Any series that goes 7 games is not dominating in any fashion. A dominating series is the equivlant of what the Spurs did to the Heat, in which they not only had the point differential but also finished the series in 5 games and dominated on the road.

To be completly honest, the idea that any 7 game series, can be considered dominant in either direction is flat out laughable in my eyes. And no, the Spurs playing in the toughest western conference in years, in a single 7 game series, doesn't not discredit them the same way, that being unable to win on the road against the Cavs and Hawks does the 08 celtics. 1 fluke series? Maybe, 2 7 game series? Not buying it

It's great to have a 60+ win regular season, but I'd you have a sub par championship run, then you're dominance is definitely in question. To be completly honest the 08 celtics playoff run is one of the weakest in recent memory, when you consider they had homecourt throughout.


The Two "elite defenses" Kg has anchored without Thibs are "2011, 2012, 2013, 2004" since you're making the assumption that the celtics stopped running Thibs defensive schemes after he left (even though I contest that highly).

1996: 20th in the league in defensive rating
1997: 15th in the league in defensive rating
1998: 23rd in the league in defensive rating
1999: 11th in the league in defensive rating
2000: 12th in the league in defensive rating
2001: 16th in the league in defensive rating
2002: 15th in the league in defensive rating
2003: 16th in the league in defensive rating
2004: 6th in the league in defensive rating
2005: 15th in the league in defensive rating
2006: 10th in the league in defensive rating
2007: 21st in the league in defensive rating
2008: 1st in the league in defensive rating
2009: 2nd in the league in defensive rating
2010: 5th in the league in defensive rating
2011: 2nd in the league in defensive rating
2012: 1st in the league in defensive rating
2013: 7th in the league in defensive rating
2014: 20th in the league in defensive rating

So in 4 out of the 16 years KG played without Thibs, he anchored elite defenses.

Here's what Thibs has done without Garnett:

2011: 1st in the league in defensive rating
2012: 2nd in the league in defensive rating
2013: 6th in the league in defensive rating
2014: 2nd in the league in defensive rating

So Thibs has created elite defenses every single year 4/4 without Garnett. This is with Boozer( one of the worst/softest defenders at his position)replacing who you guys argue is the best p&r defender of all time.
It's obvious to me who was behind those great defenses

I don't know what you're even trying to imply in that paragraph. Watch my videos, KG runs point for significant stretches. I've seen it multiple times. I was never question if Kg was the best offensive player on those wolves teams. My assertion is simply that Defensive anchors and playmaking point guards seem to be responsible for the biggest spikes in a teams offensive/defensive ratings.

Im on my I pad, so Im not gonna go and nitpick through more data, but go look at the aquasitionon of Nash, Kidd, Motombo , Tyson, ext and see the spike in offensive/defensive rating. It's an obvious thing.

[Albanian Damien]

I think the reason that it's so hard to rank KG and why there's so much argument surrounding him is because most people really have no idea how to gauge his talent. For example, when arguing for Kobe it's easy to make a comparison to Jordan because of how similar their games were. From there you can see where he excelled or where his flaws were. The same thing can be said for Shaq and Duncan when you compare them to the other great centers this league has seen(Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, DRob etc). All of those aforementioned players are aiming for standards of excellence set by their predecessors. However, KG is really the most unique player in NBA history. I brought up this in another thread where it was ignored so I felt it was more appropriate to bring it up here. I've seen people call him a better Pippen or AK47. To me, these are the laziest fan comparisons you can possibly make because they're games are literally nothing alike. Kevin Garnett was 7'1 or 6'13" by his own account. So it's natural for people to compare him to other centers. However, many forget that he was drafted at SF. You can say that he should have played in the low post more often. However, at his frame that simply was not a realistic option. He was never going to be a guy who could bang down low. The fact that he played as aggressive as he did in the post was impressive on his own. So you can be mad at the 7 footer didn't bang in the low post and hold that against him. However, no one holds it against Dirk. Now while Garnett is the offensive player as the aforementioned Dirk. He is clearly a superior defender (top 5 all time IMHO), and a better defender than Duncan. Now people will point out BPG however I will also argue that Garnett was such a well known defender that he had the Bill Russell effect. For those who don't know what I'm talking about:

"The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot."

That's a direct quote from the greatest defender of all time. I think Garnett definitely did that. So while he didn't constantly average over 2 BPG, I will argue it's because players just didn't challenge him as much for fear of the aforementioned. Some people call it the Bill Russell effect. Football fans probably know it was the Richard Sherman effect. However the effect is the same regardless of what you call it. When you are at the top of your class in defense, like Garnett often was then people will stop challenging you. I know this is only a highlight reel and not game footage but lets be honest I don't think Duncan ever intimidated his opponents like this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGJxcYxUDg[/youtube]

LeBron is the only other player in modern times I've seen with the level of defensive prowess as well as the ability to cover ground the way KG did. Another argument people will often make is that Garnett never scored 40 points in a playoff game in his career. Which is a very fair argument. However, as I've been trying to illustrate you don't need to score like MJ or Kobe to be considered an all time great. That is where all this debate comes from. People are so used to the best player on their team being a Shaq or MJ type player where you can just throw the ball to them and get out of their way. That was clearly not a strength of Garnett's. However, I don't think it was the weakness that his critics make it out to be. Here is game footage of Garnett on the Wolves:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tgFM64yotE[/youtube]

I think this game best highlights Garnetts entire stint in Minnesota. This is in 2004-2005 right after his MVP season and If you look at the stats before the game even starts. He put up 23/19/8 in the previous to beat MVP Nash and the Suns by 4 points. In this video he puts up a career high 47 points only to lost by 7. If you actually pay attention to KG during the course of a game. You'll see that this man literally made everything happen for his team on both ends of the floor and more often than not it was futile efforts. Now you can say other stars had no help either but that would be a lie. I can argue that no other superstar had to carry as much of a load as Garnett did for his Timberwolves. So going back to OP's point. I rank, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron all higher than Garnett on the all time list. That is because they were more impactful players. However, Garnett was just as every bit as talented as any of them. So if you're building a team, unless you were specifically planning to build around Duncan as you're best player there's nothing wrong with picking KG over him. And thats all I have to say about that

[Purch]

BTW Purch apologies if I came off as confrontational, wasn't my intent. I was just surprised and a bit frustrated, meant no disrespect at all, just wanted to share my feelings on the matter.

It's cool. I understand where you're coming from. I personally just haven't viewed what took place in the earlier threads nearly as positivly as you have. People telling me that I should disregard everything from reduced efficency in the postseason, to settling for long jumpers, to leading sub par defenses, to not utalizing his post game enough.. Ext just rubbed me the wrong way. I' always take both the good with the bad when it comes to any player, and to me, the project seemed to attempt to discredit all the weaknesses of Garnett whiles propping up the weaknesses of other players. Which is why I felt it was a big agenda driven. I have nothing but respect for guys like Doctor MJ, but I feel that Garnett got a pass for every critisim people had about him , whether it was shrugged off or simply attributed to his teamates. I wouldn't have an issue with this, if I felt the players he was getting compared to were afforded this same luxury.

It's funny that you bring up ISh, cause I tend to be arguing for Kg as a top 15ish player on that forum, whiles here it takes me out of my comfort some, and forces me to go against a player I have a hell of a lot of respect for. But when I feel people are going in the extreme opposite direction.. Then it's the position that I have to take.

It might have been because of the way ISH perceived him that I started to upload vids of him in the first place. Who knows though cause I could have just been bored.

And on the current state of the project, I've really enjoyed the diversity of perspectives at the moment, Especilly the increased activity of Shaqattack, who's perspective I put higher than most people on this forum, because of the respect I have for the time he puts in watching footage.

Also I'm not one of those guys who won't change their mind if I feel honest arguments are being made. Since this project started I've changed the position of the following players

1. Russell (became my number 2)
2. Kareem (moved down)
3. Duncan moved up
4. Bird moved down
5. Shaq moved up
6. D-rob moved up
7. Moses moved down
8. Barkley moved down ( Due to longevity issues)
9. Malone moved down
10 . West moved above Oscar ( I think)
11. Lebron moved up

So I've been open to change as long as I belived in what I was being sold in the project.

[Jonny Blaze]

I think the reason that it's so hard to rank KG and why there's so much argument surrounding him is because most people really have no idea how to gauge his talent. For example, when arguing for Kobe it's easy to make a comparison to Jordan because of how similar their games were. From there you can see where he excelled or where his flaws were. The same thing can be said for Shaq and Duncan when you compare them to the other great centers this league has seen(Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, DRob etc). All of those aforementioned players are aiming for standards of excellence set by their predecessors. However, KG is really the most unique player in NBA history. I brought up this in another thread where it was ignored so I felt it was more appropriate to bring it up here. I've seen people call him a better Pippen or AK47. To me, these are the laziest fan comparisons you can possibly make because they're games are literally nothing alike. Kevin Garnett was 7'1 or 6'13" by his own account. So it's natural for people to compare him to other centers. However, many forget that he was drafted at SF. You can say that he should have played in the low post more often. However, at his frame that simply was not a realistic option. He was never going to be a guy who could bang down low. The fact that he played as aggressive as he did in the post was impressive on his own. So you can be mad at the 7 footer didn't bang in the low post and hold that against him. However, no one holds it against Dirk. Now while Garnett is the offensive player as the aforementioned Dirk. He is clearly a superior defender (top 5 all time IMHO), and a better defender than Duncan. Now people will point out BPG however I will also argue that Garnett was such a well known defender that he had the Bill Russell effect. For those who don't know what I'm talking about:

"The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot."

That's a direct quote from the greatest defender of all time. I think Garnett definitely did that. So while he didn't constantly average over 2 BPG, I will argue it's because players just didn't challenge him as much for fear of the aforementioned. Some people call it the Bill Russell effect. Football fans probably know it was the Richard Sherman effect. However the effect is the same regardless of what you call it. When you are at the top of your class in defense, like Garnett often was then people will stop challenging you. I know this is only a highlight reel and not game footage but lets be honest I don't think Duncan ever intimidated his opponents like this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGJxcYxUDg[/youtube]

LeBron is the only other player in modern times I've seen with the level of defensive prowess as well as the ability to cover ground the way KG did. Another argument people will often make is that Garnett never scored 40 points in a playoff game in his career. Which is a very fair argument. However, as I've been trying to illustrate you don't need to score like MJ or Kobe to be considered an all time great. That is where all this debate comes from. People are so used to the best player on their team being a Shaq or MJ type player where you can just throw the ball to them and get out of their way. That was clearly not a strength of Garnett's. However, I don't think it was the weakness that his critics make it out to be. Here is game footage of Garnett on the Wolves:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tgFM64yotE[/youtube]

I think this game best highlights Garnetts entire stint in Minnesota. This is in 2004-2005 right after his MVP season and If you look at the stats before the game even starts. He put up 23/19/8 in the previous to beat MVP Nash and the Suns by 4 points. In this video he puts up a career high 47 points only to lost by 7. If you actually pay attention to KG during the course of a game. You'll see that this man literally made everything happen for his team on both ends of the floor and more often than not it was futile efforts. Now you can say other stars had no help either but that would be a lie. I can argue that no other superstar had to carry as much of a load as Garnett did for his Timberwolves. So going back to OP's point. I rank, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron all higher than Garnett on the all time list. That is because they were more impactful players. However, Garnett was just as every bit as talented as any of them. So if you're building a team, unless you were specifically planning to build around Duncan as you're best player there's nothing wrong with picking KG over him. And thats all I have to say about that

Im going to keep it KISS....very simple.

The problem with all of this is that all of these talents Kevin Garnett possessed did not lead to wins in the playoffs.

They only led to wins when he was on a stacked Super team with four total all stars.. A stacked Super team that only won one title.

I could buy his lack of scoring prowess if it led to a lot of playoff wins.....but it did not.

His lack of being a dominant scorer is the direct reason why his teams only won two playoff series in 12 years.

Everything you described in your post Hakeem Olajuwon or Duncan was capable of doing...and guess what?

They were also both damn near impossible to stop on the low block.

I understand that realgm loves to believe that scoring isn't that important...or that other things make up for scoring....but the biggest reasons for KG's lack of playoff suceess was that he was not a dominant scorer. I am old school. Most of the best players in NBA history were dominant, dominant, dominant at scoring the ball.

The other parts of their game...rebounding, defense, assists...etc complimented their ability to put the ball in the hole.

I think you guys want to make Kevin Garnett to be greater than what he really is because some of you want to believe that being "versatile" is more important than being a dominant scorer.

Does not mean he wasn't a very good player and an all time great in his prime....but Its get tiring watching you guys try to say he is better than players with better stats, more team success and that clearly pass the eyeball test as being better than Garnett (Dirk, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe..etc)

He competes with Scottie Pippen in terms of being the Greatest Robin of all time.

[ceiling raiser]

BTW Purch apologies if I came off as confrontational, wasn't my intent. I was just surprised and a bit frustrated, meant no disrespect at all, just wanted to share my feelings on the matter.

It's cool. I understand where you're coming from. I personally just haven't viewed what took place in the earlier threads nearly as positivly as you have. People telling me that I should disregard everything from reduced efficency in the postseason, to settling for long jumpers, to leading sub par defenses, to not utalizing his post game enough.. Ext just rubbed me the wrong way. I' always take the good with the bad when it comes with player, and to me, the project seemed to attempt to discredit all the weaknesses of Garnett whiles propping up the weaknesses of other players. Which is why I felt it was a big agenda driven. I have nothing but respect for guys like Doctor MJ, but I feel that Garnett got a pass for every critisim people had about him. I wouldn't have an issue with this, if I felt the players he was getting compared to we're afforded this same luxury.

I think there are things I perceive as legitimate weaknesses to KG (overreliance on jumpers and overcommitting to horizontal defense), but to me it's more about weighting the good and the bad. I think after the first four guys (who also have issues), the next batch IMO—Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, KG—all rate similarly when both sides of the ledger are taken into account.

I don't want to jump into the conversation since I've barely skimmed the thread, but I'm 100% opposed to ignoring weaknesses for players. In my analysis (not that criteria are any more correct than anybody else's, but to me it makes the most sense), I try to remain as consistent as possible, and if that doesn't seem to be the case, I encourage any and all posters to call me out on it. Just a few notes though:

1) Again, while it's a pretty shot, the turnaround jumper frustrated me a ton (though not when he was playing LA, obviously). But as long as it originates as a back-to-the-basket play, Synergy catches it. We don't have the numbers from some of KG's and Duncan's peak seasons since shutupandjam's dataset starts with 04-05 (combined regular season + playoffs), but the numbers to bare out that KG posted up a comparable amount to Duncan:

viewtopic.php?p=40788751#p40788751

I was as surprised as anyone when I read that, but I trust Synergy here. I don't have the same level of access that shutupandjam does, but with my fan account to mysynergysports.com (anyone can sign up BTW, it's pretty cheap as well...$20 gives you complete access to all players and teams from 09-10 to the present), there don't seem to be any mislabeled plays listed as post-ups. It's really hard for me to argue with this.

2) Regarding leading subpar defenses...team DRtg tells us how a defensive unit performed, whether or not a guy was on the floor. stats.nba.com has DRtg when players are on the floor, but it doesn't take into account teammates and opponent lineups. I don't want to push the issue since I know some people aren't as interested in RAPM, but ridge regression is a peer-reviewed statistical method, and based on the nature of the dataset we have, the method is highly applicable to the output from the play-by-play data we have. I respect your POV and won't try and sway you.

Also, as I've said before, I only trust acrossthecourt's 97-00 data and gotbuckets.com's 08-14 data. J.E. has posted numbers from 01-07, but the dataset was incomplete, and he doesn't seem to be as transparent with the priors he's using. I do think this file is very useful: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/14y.html, though I'm not taking it as a straight ranking (besides, I think it's best to compare guys in comparable roles...I was brainstorming about roles here: viewtopic.php?p=40982973#p40982973 ; I value your opinion a ton, so if you have time and are interested in the topic, I'd love to hear your thoughts) since it's missing the first few years of some players (Shaq, KG, Duncan, etc.). But anyhow, in the pre-play-by-play era I depend on WOWY and relative ORtg/DRtg in absence of anything else, so I understand where you're coming from here.

Anyhow, sorry to rant again. Not looking for an argument/debate, just wanted to give my thoughts quickly. Thanks for your response.

[ceiling raiser]

It's funny that you bring up ISh, cause I tend to be arguing for Kg as a top 15ish player on that forum, whiles here it takes me out of my comfort some, and forces me to go against a player I have a hell of a lot of respect for. But when I feel people are going in the extreme opposite direction.. Then it's the position that I have to take.

It might have been because of the way ISH perceived him that I started to upload vids of him in the first place. Who knows though cause I could have just been bored.

And on the current state of the project, I've really enjoyed the diversity of perspectives at the moment, Especilly the increased activity of Shaqattack, who's perspective I put higher than most people on this forum, because of the respect I have for the time he puts in watching footage.

Also I'm not one of those guys who won't change their mind if I feel honest arguments are being made. Since this project started I've changed the position of the following players

1. Russell (became my number 2)
2. Kareem (moved down)
3. Duncan moved up
4. Bird moved down
5. Shaq moved up
6. D-rob moved up
7. Moses moved down
8. Barkley moved down ( Due to longevity issues)
9. Malone moved down
10 . West moved above Oscar ( I think)
11. Lebron moved up

So I've been open to change as long as I belived in what I was being sold in the project.

Just wanted to respond to this quickly:

1) I generally post from different perspectives on both sites as well. I try to remain consistent, but the communities have different general sentiments on players, so I tend to react differently. On ISH, older players get disrespected a ton, so I go out of my way to defend Russell and the like there. It isn't as necessary here, so I tend to discuss different topics.

2) As for diversity, I agree 100%. I'm happy Owly has been posting as well. Just like Shaqattack, he dude knows a ton, and his contributions really are valuable. ThaRegul8r is a tremendous asset as well. He has a massive library of qualitative information on players (he's inspired me to start amassing my own database...it's minuscule but I'm working on it in my spare time), that really complements some of the quantitative analysis that's been done. Specific, detailed first-hand accounts really flesh out players and teams from eras before I started watching.

3) I didn't have a list going into the project (I tried putting together a preliminary one before we started, but I'm not terribly confident in it). My opinions have changed on a few players as well:

• I had Wilt as my clear number 3 before, but now I think he's arguable with Kareem.
• Dirk has moved up a bit. Robinson might, but he's high as it is. So has Ewing.
• Magic continues to move down, possibly Bird as well. I'm strongly considering slotting Kobe ahead of at least one or both (longevity is becoming very important for me). Moses is still out of my top 25.
• Baylor recently moved down, and Stockton might be trending up (I know I'm probably alone in this thinking, but I think he might be ahead of Nash and Malone).
• Still not comfortable slotting West (concerns about his handles) or Pettit (concerns about level of competition in the late 50s-early 60s) anywhere.

I'm open to changing my mind as well (though I could be even more open-minded I'm sure...went on a bit of a rant last night: viewtopic.php?p=40982894#p40982894). Nothing is set in stone, and even if the end result is the same convention, the process of thinking outside the box is still beneficial IMO.

[FX20014]

Kevin Garnett is probably the better player, but Duncan has had the better career due to fortunate circumstances. Still, I would start my franchise with either one.

[Albanian Damien]

I think the reason that it's so hard to rank KG and why there's so much argument surrounding him is because most people really have no idea how to gauge his talent. For example, when arguing for Kobe it's easy to make a comparison to Jordan because of how similar their games were. From there you can see where he excelled or where his flaws were. The same thing can be said for Shaq and Duncan when you compare them to the other great centers this league has seen(Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, DRob etc). All of those aforementioned players are aiming for standards of excellence set by their predecessors. However, KG is really the most unique player in NBA history. I brought up this in another thread where it was ignored so I felt it was more appropriate to bring it up here. I've seen people call him a better Pippen or AK47. To me, these are the laziest fan comparisons you can possibly make because they're games are literally nothing alike. Kevin Garnett was 7'1 or 6'13" by his own account. So it's natural for people to compare him to other centers. However, many forget that he was drafted at SF. You can say that he should have played in the low post more often. However, at his frame that simply was not a realistic option. He was never going to be a guy who could bang down low. The fact that he played as aggressive as he did in the post was impressive on his own. So you can be mad at the 7 footer didn't bang in the low post and hold that against him. However, no one holds it against Dirk. Now while Garnett is the offensive player as the aforementioned Dirk. He is clearly a superior defender (top 5 all time IMHO), and a better defender than Duncan. Now people will point out BPG however I will also argue that Garnett was such a well known defender that he had the Bill Russell effect. For those who don't know what I'm talking about:

"The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot."

That's a direct quote from the greatest defender of all time. I think Garnett definitely did that. So while he didn't constantly average over 2 BPG, I will argue it's because players just didn't challenge him as much for fear of the aforementioned. Some people call it the Bill Russell effect. Football fans probably know it was the Richard Sherman effect. However the effect is the same regardless of what you call it. When you are at the top of your class in defense, like Garnett often was then people will stop challenging you. I know this is only a highlight reel and not game footage but lets be honest I don't think Duncan ever intimidated his opponents like this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGJxcYxUDg[/youtube]

LeBron is the only other player in modern times I've seen with the level of defensive prowess as well as the ability to cover ground the way KG did. Another argument people will often make is that Garnett never scored 40 points in a playoff game in his career. Which is a very fair argument. However, as I've been trying to illustrate you don't need to score like MJ or Kobe to be considered an all time great. That is where all this debate comes from. People are so used to the best player on their team being a Shaq or MJ type player where you can just throw the ball to them and get out of their way. That was clearly not a strength of Garnett's. However, I don't think it was the weakness that his critics make it out to be. Here is game footage of Garnett on the Wolves:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tgFM64yotE[/youtube]

I think this game best highlights Garnetts entire stint in Minnesota. This is in 2004-2005 right after his MVP season and If you look at the stats before the game even starts. He put up 23/19/8 in the previous to beat MVP Nash and the Suns by 4 points. In this video he puts up a career high 47 points only to lost by 7. If you actually pay attention to KG during the course of a game. You'll see that this man literally made everything happen for his team on both ends of the floor and more often than not it was futile efforts. Now you can say other stars had no help either but that would be a lie. I can argue that no other superstar had to carry as much of a load as Garnett did for his Timberwolves. So going back to OP's point. I rank, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron all higher than Garnett on the all time list. That is because they were more impactful players. However, Garnett was just as every bit as talented as any of them. So if you're building a team, unless you were specifically planning to build around Duncan as you're best player there's nothing wrong with picking KG over him. And thats all I have to say about that

Im going to keep it KISS....very simple.

The problem with all of this is that all of these talents Kevin Garnett possessed did not lead to wins in the playoffs.

They only led to wins when he was on a stacked Super team with four total all stars.. A stacked Super team that only won one title.

I could buy his lack of scoring prowess if it led to a lot of playoff wins.....but it did not.

His lack of being a dominant scorer is the direct reason why his teams only won two playoff series in 12 years.

Everything you described in your post Hakeem Olajuwon or Duncan was capable of doing...and guess what?

They were also both damn near impossible to stop on the low block.

I understand that realgm loves to believe that scoring isn't that important...or that other things make up for scoring....but the biggest reasons for KG's lack of playoff suceess was that he was not a dominant scorer. I am old school. Most of the best players in NBA history were dominant, dominant, dominant at scoring the ball.

The other parts of their game...rebounding, defense, assists...etc complimented their ability to put the ball in the hole.

I think you guys want to make Kevin Garnett to be greater than what he really is because some of you want to believe that being "versatile" is more important than being a dominant scorer.

Does not mean he wasn't a very good player and an all time great in his prime....but Its get tiring watching you guys try to say he is better than players with better stats, more team success and that clearly pass the eyeball test as being better than Garnett (Dirk, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe..etc)

He competes with Scottie Pippen in terms of being the Greatest Robin of all time.

1. 2008 Boston only had 3 All stars. Rondo was often subbed out for Eddie House in 2008 because how little he impacted the game when teams would completely ignore him on offense. Also if anything it's better if you say he played with 2 All Stars. Because you're wording it so it sounds like he had much more support than he did. But KG is definitely not the first guy to play with two all stars. Go down the list of the top 10 and most have won chips with at least two other all stars if not two hall of famers in some cases.
2. KG was one of the greatest rebounders of all time, one of the greatest defenders of all time, and one of the greatest passing bigs of all time. It's totally fair for you to point out that he wasn't dominant at offense but it's also fair for me to point where he was dominant.
3. This is exactly the type of lazy comparison I was talking about. How exactly was KG a robin? By being the DPOY, 3rd in MVP voting, and leading scorer in the playoffs on a championship team? If that's a Robin then who the **** was Batman?

I'm going to be honest I can tell you barley read my post or skimmed through it because I agreed that Duncan, Shaq and Kobe were all better. Yet you're still arguing for them. What I was trying to say is that KG is one of the unique players in history who didn't need to score 30 or 40 every night for you to feel his presence. Being a dominant scorer is a two edged sword. Yes you can impact the game on any given night more than dominant defender. However, you can also be a net neutral or worse if you're not scoring 30 +. In the 2000 Portland series, many people say he had a bad series because he averaged 18.8 PPG on an abysmal 39% FG. Which is a very bad offensive performance. However when you see that he also averaged 10.8 RPG, 8.8 APG and a 3.14 Ast/To ratio you can see that even when KG's offensive game is off, he is never really off. So again I've been trying to say that everyone is used to the best player being the best scorer. and 9/10 that will always be the case. But guys like Russell, and KG are those unique tenth guys. And I want to address another point. Of course fans are going to have their bias and agendas. You do, and I do as well. However, the truth usually comes somewhere in between.

[Jonny Blaze]

I'm going to be honest I can tell you barley read my post or skimmed through it because I agreed that Duncan, Shaq and Kobe were all better. Yet you're still arguing for them. What I was trying to say is that KG is one of the unique players in history who didn't need to score 30 or 40 every night for you to feel his presence. Being a dominant scorer is a two edged sword. Yes you can impact the game on any given night more than dominant defender. However, you can also be a net neutral or worse if you're not scoring 30 +. In the 2000 Portland series, many people say he had a bad series because he averaged 18.8 PPG on an abysmal 39% FG. Which is a very bad offensive performance. However when you see that he also averaged 10.8 RPG, 8.8 APG and a 3.14 Ast/To ratio you can see that even when KG's offensive game is off, he is never really off. So again I've been trying to say that everyone is used to the best player being the best scorer. and 9/10 that will always be the case. But guys like Russell, and KG are those unique tenth guys. And I want to address another point. Of course fans are going to have their bias and agendas. You do, and I do as well. However, the truth usually comes somewhere in between.

This is a solid post.....you and I just value different things.

I do not think the Portland series is a great one for Garnett.

I understand the logic that he almost averaged a triple double....but what did it mean? It meant his team still got beat in 4 games.


I don't think you can win in the Western Conference with your best player only scoring 18 points per game in a playoff series.

To beat a team like San Antonio your best player would most likely have to average between 25-30 ppg plus do all of those other things.

That is the main reason I can't take him over much more dominant scorers like Dirk, Duncan, Hakeemm Malone...etc.

All the great things that KG does (defensive rebounding, defensive presence) does not typically make up for the fact that a team with a more dominant scorer is going to win Head to Head in the playoffs.

[Purch]

I think there are things I perceive as legitimate weaknesses to KG (overreliance on jumpers and overcommitting to horizontal defense), but to me it's more about weighting the good and the bad. I think after the first four guys (who also have issues), the next batch IMO—Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, KG—all rate similarly when both sides of the ledger are taken into account.

I don't want to jump into the conversation since I've barely skimmed the thread, but I'm 100% opposed to ignoring weaknesses for players. In my analysis (not that criteria are any more correct than anybody else's, but to me it makes the most sense), I try to remain as consistent as possible, and if that doesn't seem to be the case, I encourage any and all posters to call me out on it. Just a few notes though:

1) Again, while it's a pretty shot, the turnaround jumper frustrated me a ton (though not when he was playing LA, obviously). But as long as it originates as a back-to-the-basket play, Synergy catches it. We don't have the numbers from some of KG's and Duncan's peak seasons since shutupandjam's dataset starts with 04-05 (combined regular season + playoffs), but the numbers to bare out that KG posted up a comparable amount to Duncan:

viewtopic.php?p=40788751#p40788751

I was as surprised as anyone when I read that, but I trust Synergy here. I don't have the same level of access that shutupandjam does, but with my fan account to mysynergysports.com (anyone can sign up BTW, it's pretty cheap as well...$20 gives you complete access to all players and teams from 09-10 to the present), there don't seem to be any mislabeled plays listed as post-ups. It's really hard for me to argue with this.

I don't think those synergy numbers do justice to just how much a difference there was in the post possessions Duncan and Garnett took per game.

Like take 2005 for instance the one year Kg has more post possessions than Duncan on the surface. 740 for KG compared to 627 for Duncan

In 2005 Kg played 82 games, whiles Duncan played only 66. If you do the math that calculates for 9 post possessions per game for KG..and 9.5 post possesions for Duncan. Even though KG attempted 16.6 shots per game overall compared to Duncan's 15.8

In 2006 it get worse KG has 730 total post possesions whiles Duncan had 834. KG played 76 games, whiles Duncan played 80 games. 9.6 per game for KG and 10.4 for Duncan. Overall, Kg shot 15.7 Fga That year compared to Duncan's 14.8.

In 2007 KG has 511 post ups compared to Duncan's 864. In 07 KG played 76 games compared to Duncan's 80. For KG that's 6.7 post possesions per game, compared to Duncan's 10.8 per game. In 07 Kg took 17.6 Fga per game compared to Duncan's 14.1 Fga per game.

Now look at the minutes comparison:

2005- KG(38.1) Duncan (33.4)
2006- KG(38.9) Duncan (34.8)
2007- KG (39.4) Duncan (34.1)

So what you see here is two things. Even though Garnett always took more shots per game when their primes overlapped, he always managed to have less post possesion per game. And more importantly, in these 3 years KG averged between 4-5 more minutes per game, yet every year he had less post possesion than Duncan.

For Duncan to have less shots per game, and play 4-5 less minutes per game, and yet till averge more post possesions, it shows exactly what I've been arguing.. That KG's mentality held him back as a scorer.. because he was willing to settle for long jumpers rather than utilize his post game.

[Purch]

Were those synergy numbers just the regular season, or were post season post ups also included, cause that might have skewed my analysis

[ceiling raiser]

I don't think those synergy numbers do justice to just how much a difference there was in the post possessions Duncan and Garnett took per game.

Like take 2005 for instance the one year Kg has more post possessions than Duncan on the surface. 740 for KG compared to 627 for Duncan

In 2005 Kg played 82 games, whiles Duncan played only 66. If you do the math that calculates for 9 post possessions per game for KG..and 9.5 post possesions for Duncan. Even though KG attempted 16.6 shots per game overall compared to Duncan's 15.8

In 2006 it get worse KG has 730 total post possesions whiles Duncan had 834. KG played 76 games, whiles Duncan played 80 games. 9.6 per game for KG and 10.4 for Duncan. Overall, Kg shot 15.7 Fga That year compared to Duncan's 14.8.

In 2007 KG has 511 post ups compared to Duncan's 864. In 07 KG played 76 games compared to Duncan's 80. For KG that's 6.7 post possesions per game, compared to Duncan's 10.8 per game. In 07 Kg took 17.6 Fga per game compared to Duncan's 14.1 Fga per game.

Now look at the minutes comparison:

2005- KG(38.1) Duncan (33.4)
2006- KG(38.9) Duncan (34.8)
2007- KG (39.4) Duncan (34.1)

So what you see here is two things. Even though Garnett always took more shots per game when their primes overlapped, he always managed to have less post possesion per game. And more importantly, in these 3 years KG averged between 4-5 more minutes per game, yet every year he had less post possesion than Duncan.

For Duncan to have less shots per game, and play 4-5 less minutes per game, and yet till averge more post possesions, it shows exactly what I've been arguing.. That KG's mentality held him back as a scorer.. because he was willing to settle for long jumpers rather than utilize his post game.

Thanks for the breakdown. I'm not trying to suggest he had more than Duncan per game, just that they were comparable. It seems the drop-off for KG occurred in 07.

You mentioned minutes as well, I think we should consider normalizing for those, as well as pace. Something like:

(#post-ups) x (48/minutes) x (100/pace)

would approximate post-up tendency. We could also split from there based on single coverage, doubles, and pass-outs since shutupandjam provided that data.

It's entirely possible that I used the term "comparable" too liberally, if we can identify a difference.

Were those synergy numbers just the regular season, or were post season post ups also included, cause that might have skewed my analysis

I'm not 100% certain, but on mysynergysports.com, the numbers include regular season + playoffs, so I presume the same is true of shutupandjam's data (but he'd have to answer to be 100% positive).

[HeatRing2012]

oh look another KG thread where his die hard stans don't argue the actual product but look at the "what-if" instead.

[COM_GTFO]

Not it does not.

Tony Parker averaged 15 ppg
Stephen Jackson averaged 11 PPG
Malike Rose 10 PPG

Those were the three leading scorers after Tim Duncan on that 2003 Spurs team.

Without Tim Duncan the 2003 Spurs are a 1st round exit at best. Most likely not a playoff team.

WIth Tim Duncan the 2003 Spurs are the best team in the NBA.

Serious Question: Do you think that Could Kevin Garnett take that supporting cast to an NBA title?

Do you think that Kevin Garnett could beat the Shaq/Kobe Lakers with that supporting cast?

So teammates are only considered "good" if they post a high PPG? By that logic, Bruce Bowen was a worthless teammate. Come on, how can you be so simplistic and say "Duncan's teammates didn't put up points, so they sucked". Not every player on the roster is there to score points - that's not how you win a title.

Do I think Garnett could take that supporting cast to an NBA title? You mean, do I think prime KG could have won a title with Bruce Bowen/David Robinson/Ginobili/Parker/Jackson/Kerr/Steve Smith with Popovich coaching? Yes. Yes I do.

[WhateverBro]

You didn't prove anything about what made them dominant.

Your logic is based on point differential to correlate with dominance. The issue with that is that it makes no sense in this context at all.

You are not dominating a series if you can't win a single game on the road and you're trading wins. Thats ridiculous. Any series that goes 7 games is not dominating in any fashion. A dominating series is the equivlant of what the Spurs did to the Heat, in which they not only had the point differential but also finished the series in 5 games and dominated on the road.

To be completly honest, the idea that any 7 game series, can be considered dominant in either direction is flat out laughable in my eyes. And no, the Spurs playing in the toughest western conference in years, in a single 7 game series, doesn't not discredit them the same way, that being unable to win on the road against the Cavs and Hawks does the 08 celtics. 1 fluke series? Maybe, 2 7 game series? Not buying it

It's great to have a 60+ win regular season, but I'd you have a sub par championship run, then you're dominance is definitely in question. To be completly honest the 08 celtics playoff run is one of the weakest in recent memory, when you consider they had homecourt throughout.

Well, agree to disagree then. I fail to see how a 66 win team, that posted a SRS 9.31 (!!) and were arguably the best defensive team of all-time weren't dominant because they went to two game 7s. Luck plays a part in winning games and in a smaller sample size (playoffs) it can happen. It's not really a big deal, the ATL series was lopsided as hell. They absolutely smashed them in wins and lost a couple of close games.

The Two "elite defenses" Kg has anchored without Thibs are "2011, 2012, 2013, 2004" since you're making the assumption that the celtics stopped running Thibs defensive schemes after he left (even though I contest that highly).

1996: 20th in the league in defensive rating
1997: 15th in the league in defensive rating
1998: 23rd in the league in defensive rating
1999: 11th in the league in defensive rating
2000: 12th in the league in defensive rating
2001: 16th in the league in defensive rating
2002: 15th in the league in defensive rating
2003: 16th in the league in defensive rating
2004: 6th in the league in defensive rating
2005: 15th in the league in defensive rating
2006: 10th in the league in defensive rating
2007: 21st in the league in defensive rating
2008: 1st in the league in defensive rating
2009: 2nd in the league in defensive rating
2010: 5th in the league in defensive rating
2011: 2nd in the league in defensive rating
2012: 1st in the league in defensive rating
2013: 7th in the league in defensive rating
2014: 20th in the league in defensive rating

So in 4 out of the 16 years KG played without Thibs, he anchored elite defenses.

What is your point here? I fail to see it. I know what his teams DRtg were during the years. My point was that he did indeed lead great defenses without Thibs, and you're making my point?

Here's what Thibs has done without Garnett:

2011: 1st in the league in defensive rating
2012: 2nd in the league in defensive rating
2013: 6th in the league in defensive rating
2014: 2nd in the league in defensive rating

So Thibs has created elite defenses every single year 4/4 without Garnett. This is with Boozer( one of the worst/softest defenders at his position)replacing who you guys argue is the best p&r defender of all time.
It's obvious to me who was behind those great defenses

Yes, and that's no surprise. Chicago has great defensive pieces and Thibs is an excellent coach. It's funny that you'll argue that Thibs is the one responsible for Celtics great defense, when the only constant piece of it is KG. The arguments in 2008 was, it's not KG, it's Thibs, Tony Allen, Posey etc. Then the myth around Perkins began after 2010, when Tony Allen and Thibs left. And when he left, all that was still there was KG and Celtics were still elite defensively with him on the floor.

And you still have no answer for Wolves being ranked 6th defensively in 2004, when KG for the first time had a competent team around him. The evidence is right here, you're just ignoring it. Look at on / off splits during his years, the defense collapses with KG out and is 1st in the league with KG on the floor.

I don't know what you're even trying to imply in that paragraph. Watch my videos, KG runs point for significant stretches. I've seen it multiple times. I was never question if Kg was the best offensive player on those wolves teams. My assertion is simply that Defensive anchors and playmaking point guards seem to be responsible for the biggest spikes in a teams offensive/defensive ratings.

Im on my I pad, so Im not gonna go and nitpick through more data, but go look at the aquasitionon of Nash, Kidd, Motombo , Tyson, ext and see the spike in offensive/defensive rating. It's an obvious thing.

I don't need to watch your videos, I've most likely already seen those games, plenty of times. Yes, I understand what you were saying. But you're indirectly saying that Garnett is the most responsible for his Wolves etams offensive spikes, since he was the de facto playmaker for plenty of those teams. Yet, you responded to me by saying "No, PGs are most responsible for it!". The position doesn't matter, Garnett initiated their offense from either the top of the wing or from the low post. So if you're giving him blame based on his teams DRtg (which doesn't make sense in the first place), you should atleast give him credit for his teams ORtg because he clearly fits your critiera of being the "most responsible for the spikes in ORtg".