Highest Reasonable Ranking alltime for Kevin Garnett?

JordansBulls · Post #1 » by **JordansBulls** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:09 am

Winsome Gerbil · Post #2 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:59 am

Well...personally I don't buy him as even Top 15. Just not dominant enough a a scorer despite his greatness elsewhere, and his defensive greatness was more man on man than as a stone wall rim protector making every guy on his team better by covering all their mistakes.

That said I don't wince TOO badly when people slip him into the Top 15. There's always recency bias vs. old timer mythology with comparisons vs. guys like Moses, Dr. J, Jerry West etc. So...maybe. Maybe. I just don't see him as that level of iconic though.

Any of the other placements though I do consider unreasonable. He was not a Top 10 all time guy. At no point did he dominate the sport at the level of those Top 10 guys. So last choice in the poll. Top 15 is as high as I'm willing to discuss without just a SMH.

Narigo · Post #3 » by **Narigo** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:26 am

Top 5 is unreasonable to me. But he has a good case for the Top 10

Blackfyre · Post #4 » by **Blackfyre** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:57 am

Definitely TOP 15. He has no business being mentioned among TOP 10 players of all time.

Like Winsome said he wasn't dominant scorer and IMO his defense tends to get overrated. If I remember correctly he had only handful of PO games with 30 or more points (he was the first option for a long time, so he had plenty of opportunities). He was best suited to be second or third option offensively on a championship team.

His defense was elite but it's impact doesn't compare very well to superstar offensive players or other defensive juggernauts when they had poor supporting casts around them. It's clearly evident when you watch where his T-Wolves ranked defensively each year.

For example, when Kobe was healthy for a full year and had crap around him he led 7th and 8th best offenses in the league ('06 & '07). Most years Wolves were either 15th or 16th team defensively. Not bad considering what he was dealt but nothing special either when compared to other guys who supposedly were having similar defensive impact. Just look at what Hakeem did when his teams were poor and you see that they never fell below 10th in defensive rating and for most years they were one of the best defensive teams in the league.

With Robinson, Duncan, Mutombo etc the same thing applies. I think the team KG is on has a much lower floor defensively compared to his contemporaries and for that reason I won't rank his defense on the par with classical rim protectors.

Drylick · Post #5 » by **Drylick** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:29 am

Not even top 15

Post #6 » by **Quotatious** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:56 am

Pretty close to Duncan. Top 10 would be reasonable for sure, to me. Not sure about exactly how high, but top 10 would be my answer. Over Bird, likely (comparable prime and much better longevity). Look what KG did in Boston when he was 30+ years old - Bird had a comparable supporting cast in his prime - put early/mid 2000s KG on those Celtics teams from 2008 to 2013, and he would be viewed in a MUCH more favorable way. Defensive edge that KG has over Larry is massive (Bird was better on offense, obviously, but I actually think the defensive gap might be just as big if not bigger - Larry had his fair share of disappointing playoff performances offensively).

lorak · Post #7 » by **lorak** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:19 am

Top 5.

LoyalKing · Post #8 » by **LoyalKing** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:35 am

top 15 pretty close to David Robinson, who peaked higher and was better defensively in my opinion, but loses on longevity due to starting old in the NBA because of the army.

Can't see him as a top 10 player of all-time when his best Finals stats are 18ppg/13rgp/3apg @ 47%TS against Pau Gasol. Plus, for a guy with such a huge defensive reputation on the board, I think anchoring mediocre defenses in Minnesota is pretty underwhelming regardless the supporting cast. His defenses were in average the 15th best in the NBA during his 12-year spam in Minny and even in the single year that he stands out, his defense wasn't even in the top 5.

All the guys considered the best defensive anchors in the NBA (Howard, Robinson, Hakeem, Duncan) were able to anchor elite defensive teams even when they had a poor supporting cast.

mihail_petkov · Post #9 » by **mihail_petkov** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:53 am

LoyalKing wrote:Can't see him as a top 10 player of all-time when his best Finals stats are 18ppg/13rgp/3apg @ 47%TS against Pau Gasol. Plus, for a guy with such a huge defensive reputation on the board, I think anchoring mediocre defenses in Minnesota is pretty underwhelming regardless the supporting cast. His defenses were in average the 15th best in the NBA during his 12-year spam in Minny and even in the single year that he stands out, his defense wasn't even in the top 5.

All the guys considered the best defensive anchors in the NBA (Howard, Robinson, Hakeem, Duncan) were able to anchor elite defensive teams even when they had a poor supporting cast.

Garnett was past his prime in 08. He was still very good defensively - 99 DRTG during the finals.

In 2004 Wolves had 2nd best SRS, 5th best offense and 6th best defense. Garnett produced 112 ORTG, 91.6 DRTG with teammates - Sam Cassell, Sprewell (negative all season), Trenton Hassell, Fred Hoiberg, Wally Szczerbiak (for 28 games) as best players. Lost in WCF to Lakers in 6 when his second best player Cassell didn't play in 4 of the 6 games. If Cassell was healthy most probably Wolves would have won the championship. It looks pretty good for me.

AdagioPace · Post #10 » by **AdagioPace** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:55 am

as high as 11 as low as 15

Maybe he has an argument over Hakeem on longevity and RS effort, but I don't see him cracking the top 10 which is full of playoff overachievers. He would be the ugly duckling out there

In such case we should also reconsider Malone. It makes things difficult.
the only players I would put in the top 10 on the basis of regular season ALONE are only 3: Jordan,Lebron,Kareem, but they also did much more.

A player whose regular season is dominant enough and his playoffs underwhelming such to still grant him the top 10 is yet to exist in reality
(DRob is maybe the closer thing possible to this strange figure but his longevity is not good. His replacement value for 10 years must have been absurd though,even higher than KG!)

Dr Spaceman · Post #11 » by **Dr Spaceman** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:14 am

The highest reasonable ranking? Meaning the highest ranking you can make an argument for?

GOAT. If you believe an accurate picture of him is painted by RAPM and the other on/off metrics, only the top of the top (thinking Jordan, LeBron, Russell) can be argued as having a comparable peak and as of this moment none are close ITO longevity.

Now I myself wouldn't make this argument. But it's pretty straightforward. I do think those who are putting him as low as 15 are focusing waaaaaaaay too much on one single aspect of the game, and as a matter of fact I'd call it straight up hypocritical if your top 10 contains Magic, Bird or Russell yet Garnett is not allowed.

Anyway, I'd agree with those who would say there's not a huge separation between he and Duncan in either direction. I rank Garnett higher because I think he peaked higher, but they're strikingly similar and I think anyone who thinks Duncan is hugely ahead should te-evaluate exactly what they think made Duncan so Greta in the first place.

mischievous · Post #12 » by **mischievous** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:19 am

Undisputed GOAT.

70sFan · Post #13 » by **70sFan** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:25 am

I don't see him over Kareem, Russell, Jordan. Very tough to see him over Duncan and James. Wilt, Hakeem and Shaq are also probably too good in my opinion. So 9th is the highest I can see him. Maybe 7-8th cause he can be ranked ahead over Hakeem and Shaq-Wilt. I personally don't see it.

AdagioPace · Post #14 » by **AdagioPace** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:48 am

Dr Spaceman wrote:The highest reasonable ranking? Meaning the highest ranking you can make an argument for?

GOAT. If you believe an accurate picture of him is painted by RAPM and the other on/off metrics, only the top of the top (thinking Jordan, LeBron, Russell) can be argued as having a comparable peak and as of this moment none are close ITO longevity.

Now I myself wouldn't make this argument. But it's pretty straightforward. I do think those who are putting him as low as 15 are focusing waaaaaaaay too much on one single aspect of the game, and as a matter of fact I'd call it straight up hypocritical if your top 10 contains Magic, Bird or Russell yet Garnett is not allowed.

Anyway, I'd agree with those who would say there's not a huge separation between he and Duncan in either direction. I rank Garnett higher because I think he peaked higher, but they're strikingly similar and I think anyone who thinks Duncan is hugely ahead should te-evaluate exactly what they think made Duncan so Greta in the first place.

yeah, KG was surely the epitome of "the most valuable player on a bad team", he incarnated that role maybe better than anyone else in history (we don't have data for Drob)
On this basis though calling him the "absolute best" seems quite an overreaction.

Ballexpert · Post #15 » by **Ballexpert** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:53 am

Anyone saying top 5 or higher, need to have their brain examined.

SlowPaced · Post #16 » by **SlowPaced** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:56 am

There's zero argument for him over Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Wilt, Duncan, Shaq, Russell, Magic and Hakeem. The rest is arguable, so I'd say Top 10.

I personally have him outside the Top 15, though. #16.

Post #17 » by **Quotatious** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:10 am

Dr Spaceman wrote:Anyway, I'd agree with those who would say there's not a huge separation between he and Duncan in either direction. I rank Garnett higher because I think he peaked higher, but they're strikingly similar and I think anyone who thinks Duncan is hugely ahead should te-evaluate exactly what they think made Duncan so Greta in the first place.

The only argument that can be used to back that up, is team success, without paying too much attention to career circumstances of both. Hell, let's even assume that Duncan was indeed better in the playoffs...Garnett was better in RS, a sample that takes far higher percentage of their games into account, than playoffs. Sure, postseason is more important, but considering their careers consist in just 10-15% of playoff games, that has to be properly weighed (i.e. shouldn't be weighed more heavily than RS, 50/50 at most).

I have Duncan ahead, but I think KG should be no farther than 3 spots away from him on a good all-time list.

AdagioPace · Post #18 » by **AdagioPace** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:30 am

Quotatious wrote:The only argument that can be used to back that up, is team success, without paying too much attention to career circumstances of both. Hell, let's even assume that Duncan was indeed better in the playoffs...Garnett was better in RS, a sample that takes far higher percentage of their games into account, than playoffs. Sure, postseason is more important, but considering their careers consist in just 10-15% of playoff games, that has to be properly weighed (i.e. shouldn't be weighed more heavily than RS, 50/50 at most).

this is notion tha KG was better than TD in RS is also a bit "blurry"
97-2003, 2013-2016, and 2007 are in favour of Duncan. That's 9-10 years of sample size.
Maybe only his Regular season peak is better than TD but even this is open to intepretation and peak is usually considered as combined with PS.

AdagioPace · Post #19 » by **AdagioPace** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:33 am

Quotatious wrote:The only argument that can be used to back that up, is team success, without paying too much attention to career circumstances of both. Hell, let's even assume that Duncan was indeed better in the playoffs...Garnett was better in RS, a sample that takes far higher percentage of their games into account, than playoffs. Sure, postseason is more important, but considering their careers consist in just 10-15% of playoff games, that has to be properly weighed (i.e. shouldn't be weighed more heavily than RS, 50/50 at most).

this is notion that KG was better than TD in RS is also a bit "blurry"
97-2003, 2013-2016, and 2007 are in favour of Duncan. That's 9-10 years of sample size.
Maybe only his Regular season peak is better than TD but even this is open to intepretation and peak is usually considered as combined with PS.

curious how those career circumstances that you consider "impairing factors" for him, might have actually helped Garnett in the RAPM discussion

double..sorry

Post #20 » by **Quotatious** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:34 am

AdagioPace wrote:this is notion tha KG was better than TD in RS is also a bit "blurry"
97-2003, 2013-2016, and 2007 are in favour of Duncan. That's 9-10 years of sample size.
Maybe only his Regular season peak is better than TD but even this is open to intepretation and peak is usually considered as combined with PS.

Regular season, I see it as:

1998 - Duncan
1999 - Duncan
2000 - Garnett
2001 - Tie
2002 - Duncan
2003 - Tie
2004 - Garnett
2005 - Garnett
2006 - Garnett
2007 - Duncan
2008 - Garnett
2009 - Duncan (Garnett injured)
2010 - Duncan
2011 - Garnett
2012 - Tie
2013 - Duncan

So, theoretically Duncan has the edge in 7 seasons and Garnett in 6, with three seasons that can go either way, but Garnett has the edge in more prime years (2000 to 2008).