Where would 04’ Kevin Garnett rank today?

[Hair Jordan]

He’d be in the 15-20 range. Dude was overrated historically by the general public and criminally overrated by most posters on this board. His offense was streaky and inconsistent because he feasted on long jump shots. He didn’t have the offensive arsenal or mindset to carry a team on his back. Dude got bounced out of the first round for SEVEN CONSECUTIVE SEASONS He was basically a poor man’s Scottie Pippen with more height and a better PR team. He was really a second banana masquerading as a leading man who got away with it during the regular season only to get comically exposed during the playoffs. He needed an alpha like Paul Pierce to win.

[dygaction]

He’d be in the 15-20 range. Dude was overrated historically by the general public and criminally overrated by most posters on this board. His offense was streaky and inconsistent because he feasted on long jump shots. He didn’t have the offensive arsenal or mindset to carry a team on his back. Dude got bounced out of the first round for SEVEN CONSECUTIVE SEASONS He was basically a poor man’s Scottie Pippen with more height and a better PR team. He was really a second banana masquerading as a leading man who got away with it during the regular season only to get comically exposed during the playoffs. He needed an alpha like Paul Pierce to win.

Not a KG fan but you are hating... His 2004 was an outlier for him but genuinely great season. Should be fairly secure at top 5 especially given Embiid's health and Giannis' recent struggle.
I don't think KG was overrated historically by the general public or media. He is usually ranked around 15-20 by most media voting. Cannot argue this board though.

[tsherkin]

He’d be in the 15-20 range. Dude was overrated historically by the general public and criminally overrated by most posters on this board. His offense was streaky and inconsistent because he feasted on long jump shots. He didn’t have the offensive arsenal or mindset to carry a team on his back. Dude got bounced out of the first round for SEVEN CONSECUTIVE SEASONS He was basically a poor man’s Scottie Pippen with more height and a better PR team. He was really a second banana masquerading as a leading man who got away with it during the regular season only to get comically exposed during the playoffs. He needed an alpha like Paul Pierce to win.

This is an awful post filled with stuff debunked for years and years. Like... 20 years. How are you still trying to peddle this trash? Even in the context of describing a more appropriate rating for Garnett (which isn't an indefensible angle of debate), this approach makes it impossible to take seriously.

[Hair Jordan]

He’d be in the 15-20 range. Dude was overrated historically by the general public and criminally overrated by most posters on this board. His offense was streaky and inconsistent because he feasted on long jump shots. He didn’t have the offensive arsenal or mindset to carry a team on his back. Dude got bounced out of the first round for SEVEN CONSECUTIVE SEASONS He was basically a poor man’s Scottie Pippen with more height and a better PR team. He was really a second banana masquerading as a leading man who got away with it during the regular season only to get comically exposed during the playoffs. He needed an alpha like Paul Pierce to win.

This is an awful post filled with stuff debunked for years and years. Like... 20 years. How are you still trying to peddle this trash? Even in the context of describing a more appropriate rating for Garnett (which isn't an indefensible angle of debate), this approach makes it impossible to take seriously.

Dude got bounced out of the first round SEVEN consecutive seasons. If Giannis or Embiid or Jokic got bounced in the first round for SEVEN consecutive seasons they’d get absolutely roasted by the media and rightfully so. Why does KG get a free pass? 7 straight first round exits is a horrific mark on his resume. That’s a fact. One that’s casually ignored (or forgotten). He didn’t have the scoring ability required to lift his team in the playoffs. KG was a 20/10 guy which is nice but not anything special. 20/10 is Chris Webber/Rasheed Wallace/Patrick Ewing type s**t. Good but hardly great. He wasn’t going to post a 45/20 when needed like Barkley or Malone could. He just didn’t have a 5th gear. He was an advanced metric stat monster but those metrics didn’t translate to his on court game. He was one of those guys who looks better on paper. Kinda like a NFL draft combine freak receiver who’s 6’4”, 220 lb, 3% body fat, runs a 4.3 forty, 40” vert, benches 225 thirty times but can’t catch a football That’s who KG was. The facts don’t care about your opinions. Sorry.

[tsherkin]

Dude got bounced out of the first round SEVEN consecutive seasons. If Giannis or Embiid or Jokic got bounced in the first round for SEVEN consecutive seasons they’d get absolutely roasted by the media and rightfully so. Why does KG get a free pass? 7 straight first round exits is a horrific mark on his resume. That’s a fact.

Because context is more important than emotional appeals.

One that’s casually ignored (or forgotten). He didn’t have the scoring ability required to lift his team in the playoffs.

That isn't forgotten. It's even be specifically discussed in this very thread. But there is also the truth of the offensive lift his passing provided.

He was an advanced metric stat monster but those metrics didn’t translate to his on court game.

That actually isn't correct unless you are limited to the idea that volume scoring is the only way to impact a game.

[web123888]

I'd rather have Jokic and Doncic. He would be close with Giannis and the rest.

[lessthanjake]

To me, Luka is the line here. I think 2004 Garnett is better than Luka. But I think those I have above Luka are probably better than 2004 Garnett. That includes (in no particular order): Jokic, Giannis, SGA, and Embiid when healthy. My confidence level in Giannis and SGA being better isn’t super high, though, and obviously the “when healthy” caveat for Embiid is a huge one.

[capfan33]

Only person I would for sure take over him is Jokic. Giannis is interesting because I do think they are somewhat similar players, but I take him over Giannis as a second option, I think it's close to 50/50 overall. So I think he's third at worst.

[Redmoon]

top 3 minimum. Only one I'd really have over him at this point is Jokic right now.

[ardee]

To me, Luka is the line here. I think 2004 Garnett is better than Luka. But I think those I have above Luka are probably better than 2004 Garnett. That includes (in no particular order): Jokic, Giannis, SGA, and Embiid when healthy. My confidence level in Giannis and SGA being better isn’t super high, though, and obviously the “when healthy” caveat for Embiid is a huge one.

Really don't see an argument for SGA and Embiid over Luka. Neither have shown the Playoff resiliency he has and his RS production is equal to theirs if not better.

Top 3 in the league are clearly Jokic, Luka and Giannis to me, and I would say KG has a debate for the 3-4 spot with Giannis.

[lessthanjake]

To me, Luka is the line here. I think 2004 Garnett is better than Luka. But I think those I have above Luka are probably better than 2004 Garnett. That includes (in no particular order): Jokic, Giannis, SGA, and Embiid when healthy. My confidence level in Giannis and SGA being better isn’t super high, though, and obviously the “when healthy” caveat for Embiid is a huge one.

Really don't see an argument for SGA and Embiid over Luka. Neither have shown the Playoff resiliency he has and his RS production is equal to theirs if not better.

Top 3 in the league are clearly Jokic, Luka and Giannis to me, and I would say KG has a debate for the 3-4 spot with Giannis.

What makes me a bit more down on Luka than that is his impact numbers. His teams just never do that much better when he’s on the court. This year is probably his best year in this regard, but I still have a long-term concern with him relating to this, where I just would need to see more of him actually showing solid impact to be convinced that he is at the same level as those other players. Or perhaps he could just have an incredible playoff run that proves to me that, even if he’s not wildly impactful in the regular season, his playoff resilience makes up for it. I realize that part of him having such iffy impact numbers has been that he’s spent a lot of time playing with Kyrie or Brunson and is relatively staggered with them, so the on-off undersells things. But I’m just still not convinced. I do think the weakness in the impact numbers is at least in part genuinely reflective of issues like defensive weakness, a lack of activity off the ball, etc. All that said, I think it’s reasonable to disagree with me on this.

[Colbinii]

I think KG could be number 1.

It's important to remember Jokic and the Nuggets didn't beat a single team better than the 2004 Sacramento Kings or 2004 Los Angeles Lakers.

In Fact, the SRS of the teams the Nuggets faced were pitiful.

-.22, 2.08, 0.43 and -.13. That's basically playing 4 low-end playoff teams.

I can only imagine the backlash of opponents SRS if it were LeBron.

[Ambrose]

I could see 2-4, but realistically 2nd.

[Ambrose]

I think KG could be number 1.

It's important to remember Jokic and the Nuggets didn't beat a single team better than the 2004 Sacramento Kings or 2004 Los Angeles Lakers.

In Fact, the SRS of the teams the Nuggets faced were pitiful.

-.22, 2.08, 0.43 and -.13. That's basically playing 4 low-end playoff teams.

I can only imagine the backlash of opponents SRS if it were LeBron.

I think we can all agree that SRS doesn't do a good job of capturing the quality of last year's opponents.

The version of LA that Denver played wasn't a 0.43 SRS team. They didn't play the team that started 2-10 with Westbrook, or a group missing LeBron/AD for nearly 30 games/piece. They played the post-tradeline version that was arguably the hottest team in the league.

The version of Miami they played wasn't a -0.13 team. That was a team that knocked off a 3.61 SRS, 2.99 SRS and 6.38 SRS.

Min was missing Towns most of the year, but he played against Denver, although Naz/Jaden didn't. Phoenix didn't have Durant the whole year but played against Denver, though they also didn't have time to gel with him either.

Every team they played was materially different from the overall season numbers. I can't think of a run where SRS would be less useful.

[Colbinii]

The version of LA that Denver played wasn't a 0.43 SRS team. They didn't play the team that started 2-10 with Westbrook, or a group missing LeBron/AD for nearly 30 games/piece. They played the post-tradeline version that was arguably the hottest team in the league.

Okay, what were they?

The Lakers literally beat a one-handed Ja Morant team while Ja played in just 5 games [and again, literally had 1 hand].

In round 2 the Lakers beat a 1.66 SRS Golden State Warriors team who in round 1 barely squeeked by a 2.30 SRS Sacramento Kings team.

The version of Miami they played wasn't a -0.13 team. That was a team that knocked off a 3.61 SRS, 2.99 SRS and 6.38 SRS.

This is because Miami was hot from 3 though. They weren't hot from 3 in the NBA FInals, which means Miami was very much a -0.13 team it the NBA Finals.

Min was missing Towns most of the year, but he played against Denver, although Naz/Jaden didn't. Phoenix didn't have Durant the whole year but played against Denver, though they also didn't have time to gel with him either.

Towns was putrid and Gobert was hurt most of last year with massive back pains.

Phoenix isn't any better this year with Durant [2.53 SRS this year, 2.08 last year].

Both of these teams RS SRS paints them accurately to their playoff levels last year.

Every team they played was materially different from the overall season numbers. I can't think of a run where SRS would be less useful.

I disagree. I don't see Miami, Minnesota or Phoenix being any different than their regular season SRS in the series they played Denver.

Like come on. None of these teams [Minnesota, Miami, Lakers, Phoenix] were actual title contenders or close to it.

SRS may not be perfect, but let's not pretend this was some amazing run Denver did. They played mediocre [at best] playoff teams.

[Ambrose]

The version of LA that Denver played wasn't a 0.43 SRS team. They didn't play the team that started 2-10 with Westbrook, or a group missing LeBron/AD for nearly 30 games/piece. They played the post-tradeline version that was arguably the hottest team in the league.

Okay, what were they?

The Lakers literally beat a one-handed Ja Morant team while Ja played in just 5 games [and again, literally had 1 hand].

In round 2 the Lakers beat a 1.66 SRS Golden State Warriors team who in round 1 barely squeeked by a 2.30 SRS Sacramento Kings team.

The version of Miami they played wasn't a -0.13 team. That was a team that knocked off a 3.61 SRS, 2.99 SRS and 6.38 SRS.

This is because Miami was hot from 3 though. They weren't hot from 3 in the NBA FInals, which means Miami was very much a -0.13 team it the NBA Finals.

Min was missing Towns most of the year, but he played against Denver, although Naz/Jaden didn't. Phoenix didn't have Durant the whole year but played against Denver, though they also didn't have time to gel with him either.

Towns was putrid and Gobert was hurt most of last year with massive back pains.

Phoenix isn't any better this year with Durant [2.53 SRS this year, 2.08 last year].

Both of these teams RS SRS paints them accurately to their playoff levels last year.

Every team they played was materially different from the overall season numbers. I can't think of a run where SRS would be less useful.

I disagree. I don't see Miami, Minnesota or Phoenix being any different than their regular season SRS in the series they played Denver.

Like come on. None of these teams [Minnesota, Miami, Lakers, Phoenix] were actual title contenders or close to it.

SRS may not be perfect, but let's not pretend this was some amazing run Denver did. They played mediocre [at best] playoff teams.

Well, post tradeline the Lakers were 18-8 despite LeBron missing 15 of those games. I don't know how to calculate SRS but comparing the basic numbers puts them somewhere between Philly (4.37) and Boston (6.38), while mostly missing their best player. They also won both of those series in 6 games as the lower seed, with MOV's of 7.5 and 2.8 over the defending champions. I don't see an argument for how they weren't substantially better than a 0.43 SRS team.

If you want to say that -0.13 accurately reflects a Heat team that was 1 game away from making three finals in four years and write that off as simply being hot shooting, which oddly only stopped against Denver, then by all means. Don't expect me to find that convincing though. I mean we're only a few days out from someone literally saying Jimmy Butler has side missions during the regular season.

Isn't using this season's SRS (which is higher...) ignoring Phoenix making multiple trades and having a completely different roster this year? Kevin Durant played 8 games in Phoenix prior to the playoffs, in those games they went 8-0. Overall, they were 12-1 with him prior to facing Denver. They were 37-37 without him. So no, I don't think SRS is useful here either.

For Minnesota, Towns is always putrid in the postseason, so that's not new. I'm not even arguing they were better or worse, simply different enough that the SRS isn't reflective. I'm not positive, but pretty sure Minnesota played 0 regular season games where Towns played and Jaden/Naz didn't. Imo having a playoff squad you didn't have once in the regular season is a solid indicator that using SRS might not be a great idea.

I'm not saying it was some all-time great run, by any means. I'm also not saying SRS is a generally bad stat. What I did say is I can't think of a time where SRS was less useful because of how different the rosters were come the postseason.

And that point holds true.

[Fundamentals21]

He's better than Shai, Kawhi, Tatum and Embiid. Luka, Jokic and Giannis have a case over him. 04 KG had some sick handles, passing, rebounding and defense. He had a 24/6 type offensive production, it was very strong. His RAPM skyrocketed that year, so something was cooking well in Minny. In the playoffs he wasn't easy to deal with.

Guys like Kobe, Shaq or KG would wreck this league now IMO. Lots of Jokic supporters, but I can see the gang winning titles in today's league as well.

[Colbinii]

Well, post tradeline the Lakers were 18-8 despite LeBron missing 15 of those games. I don't know how to calculate SRS but comparing the basic numbers puts them somewhere between Philly (4.37) and Boston (6.38), while mostly missing their best player. They also won both of those series in 6 games as the lower seed, with MOV's of 7.5 and 2.8 over the defending champions. I don't see an argument for how they weren't substantially better than a 0.43 SRS team.

But end of the year stuff is always wonky.

Look at who the Lakers actually beat.

Minnesota in the Play-In without Gobert.
Tanking Utah.
Phoenix without Durant/Booker.
Lost to Clippers.
Tanking Jazz.
Tanking Rockets.
Split the Bulls.
Split the Wolves.
Beat OKC.
Beat Phoenix [No Mikal/Cam].
Beat Orlando.
Lost to Mavs.
Lost to Rockets.
Beat Pelicans no Zion.
Lost to Knicks.
Beat Raptors.
Beat the Grizzles [No Ja]
Beat the Thunder [No SGA]
Beat the Warriors
Lost to Grizzles
Beat the Warriors [No Curry]
Beat the Pelicans [No Zion]

If you want to say that -0.13 accurately reflects a Heat team that was 1 game away from making three finals in four years and write that off as simply being hot shooting, which oddly only stopped against Denver, then by all means. Don't expect me to find that convincing though. I mean we're only a few days out from someone literally saying Jimmy Butler has side missions during the regular season.

I am just stating facts.

Isn't using this season's SRS (which is higher...) ignoring Phoenix making multiple trades and having a completely different roster this year? Kevin Durant played 8 games in Phoenix prior to the playoffs, in those games they went 8-0. Overall, they were 12-1 with him prior to facing Denver. They were 37-37 without him. So no, I don't think SRS is useful here either.

The SRS is higher by .5

I'm not saying it was some all-time great run, by any means. I'm also not saying SRS is a generally bad stat. What I did say is I can't think of a time where SRS was less useful because of how different the rosters were come the postseason.

And that point holds true.

I just disagree. None of the teams Denver beat were remotely close to Sacramento or Lakers in 2004.

I haven't looked closely but this run is likely facing teams far worse than any finals team of the past 20 years.

[Ambrose]

Well, post tradeline the Lakers were 18-8 despite LeBron missing 15 of those games. I don't know how to calculate SRS but comparing the basic numbers puts them somewhere between Philly (4.37) and Boston (6.38), while mostly missing their best player. They also won both of those series in 6 games as the lower seed, with MOV's of 7.5 and 2.8 over the defending champions. I don't see an argument for how they weren't substantially better than a 0.43 SRS team.

But end of the year stuff is always wonky.

Look at who the Lakers actually beat.

Minnesota in the Play-In without Gobert.
Tanking Utah.
Phoenix without Durant/Booker.
Lost to Clippers.
Tanking Jazz.
Tanking Rockets.
Split the Bulls.
Split the Wolves.
Beat OKC.
Beat Phoenix [No Mikal/Cam].
Beat Orlando.
Lost to Mavs.
Lost to Rockets.
Beat Pelicans no Zion.
Lost to Knicks.
Beat Raptors.
Beat the Grizzles [No Ja]
Beat the Thunder [No SGA]
Beat the Warriors
Lost to Grizzles
Beat the Warriors [No Curry]
Beat the Pelicans [No Zion]

If you want to say that -0.13 accurately reflects a Heat team that was 1 game away from making three finals in four years and write that off as simply being hot shooting, which oddly only stopped against Denver, then by all means. Don't expect me to find that convincing though. I mean we're only a few days out from someone literally saying Jimmy Butler has side missions during the regular season.

I am just stating facts.

Isn't using this season's SRS (which is higher...) ignoring Phoenix making multiple trades and having a completely different roster this year? Kevin Durant played 8 games in Phoenix prior to the playoffs, in those games they went 8-0. Overall, they were 12-1 with him prior to facing Denver. They were 37-37 without him. So no, I don't think SRS is useful here either.

The SRS is higher by .5

I'm not saying it was some all-time great run, by any means. I'm also not saying SRS is a generally bad stat. What I did say is I can't think of a time where SRS was less useful because of how different the rosters were come the postseason.

And that point holds true.

I just disagree. None of the teams Denver beat were remotely close to Sacramento or Lakers in 2004.

I haven't looked closely but this run is likely facing teams far worse than any finals team of the past 20 years.

Most of this doesn't address any of the points I made, and then you frame it as a Jokic vs. KG run comparison, which is not at all what I was going for. None of this is remotely convincing. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Colbinii]

Most of this doesn't address any of the points I made

Which ones didn't I address?

I addressed the fact that the Suns are basically the same team via SRS the past 2 seasons with Durant.

I addressed the 18-8 record of the Lakers being a ton of mediocre wins.

I addressed the fact that Miami had outlier shooting in their 1st 3 rounds and when they couldn't keep it up and regressed to the larger sample of who they were [the regular season] then they were much closer to a neutral SRS team than one that could beat 3 good teams.

and then you frame it as a Jokic vs. KG run comparison, which is not at all what I was going for.

Did you not read my original post? That's literally what I said, that KG faced 2 teams who are significantly better than ANY team the Nuggets faced in the post-season.

It's important to remember Jokic and the Nuggets didn't beat a single team better than the 2004 Sacramento Kings or 2004 Los Angeles Lakers.

In Fact, the SRS of the teams the Nuggets faced were pitiful.

-.22, 2.08, 0.43 and -.13. That's basically playing 4 low-end playoff teams.

I can only imagine the backlash of opponents SRS if it were LeBron.

None of this is remotely convincing. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I feel like I addressed everything. I even provided context to why the Lakers made the WCF by beating two mediocre teams on their way there.

I am sorry you don't feel that way. Carry on