Where would 04’ Kevin Garnett rank today?

[Ambrose]

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

I mean you completely skipped over the last Suns/Wolves part, outside of the 0.5 SRS, which was the least important element of it. The LA/Mia stuff was somewhat addressed, but I wouldn't say it was addressed well.

I know what you said. I specifically took issue with one part of your post, using SRS as a barometer for the quality of opponents Jokic faced. I stated that due to the abnormal circumstances, that's a poor way to evaluate that run, and nothing you have provided has made me think otherwise. At no point did I say "Jokic's opponents were better than KG's" or "Jokic's played teams as good as the Kings/Lakers".

[OhayoKD]

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

I mean you completely skipped over the last Suns/Wolves part, outside of the 0.5 SRS, which was the least important element of it. The LA/Mia stuff was somewhat addressed, but I wouldn't say it was addressed well.

I know what you said. I specifically took issue with one part of your post, using SRS as a barometer for the quality of opponents Jokic faced. I stated that due to the abnormal circumstances, that's a poor way to evaluate that run, and nothing you have provided has made me think otherwise. At no point did I say "Jokic's opponents were better than KG's" or "Jokic's played teams as good as the Kings/Lakers".

PSRS is probably more useful for that specific playoff run

[TheGOATRises007]

I would put him thereabouts with Giannis/Luka

So arguably top 3.

I actually think his defense would be more pronounced today personally.

[dygaction]

I would put him thereabouts with Giannis/Luka

So arguably top 3.

I actually think his defense would be more pronounced today personally.

Then it would be ~top 5 as you still have Jokic and Embiid is back playing

[TheGOATRises007]

I would put him thereabouts with Giannis/Luka

So arguably top 3.

I actually think his defense would be more pronounced today personally.

Then it would be ~top 5 as you still have Jokic and Embiid is back playing

True, I forgot about Embiid for a second.

[OdomFan]

He'd be one of the top in the league period. A specific numbered rank doesn't really matter if you ask me. Any team today would be lucky to have a guy like him on their roster that can guard the 2-4 like he could. He'd be even better today. Would not need to add consistent 3's to his game either.

[tsherkin]

Any team today would be lucky to have a guy like him on their roster that can guard the 2-4 like he could.

With you here.

Would not need to add consistent 3's to his game either.

Less so here.

Scoring was not Garnett's forte. In 04, he was scoring well for the time because there was a dearth of quality offense. But his scoring was very much centered around bombing 20-footers, which would not be good policy in today's game and had problems even back then. He was bombing 6.3 FGA/g from 16-23 feet, and while he shot 44.8% (which was quite good at the time), he turned that into 54.7% TS. That's not a style which benefits from the changes to today's game, and that's like 3.5% below league average in today's environment. There would be some changes just due to the tempo of today's game, for sure, but Garnett loved the high post and popping for Js out of the PnR or from hand-offs and stuff. He'd have to shoot less, add threes, and/or be surrounded by better scorers in order for that to fly at the volume he was shooting in 2004, otherwise he'd be sabotaging his own offensive value.

[ShotCreator]

Very good passer, meh scorer now but he was killing it in-era. A DPOY candidate. Very, very jumper heavy (like a third of his shots were long twos), so I don't envision him suddenly and dramatically increasing his draw rate in today's game. A little boost for transition play, though. He was a 54.7% TS guy (which was +3.1% rTS at the time), but even with a boost to his 2FG% and even assuming he still plays like 40 mpg, and even if you give him a mediocre 3pt shot, where would he be?

In 04, Garnett shot 50.6% inside the arc, which is about 4% below current league average. KG was always knocked for being largely allergic to contact and preferring fades over going hard to the rim and such, and his shooting distribution is reasonably consistent over his career. So let's preserve that, but give him a 33% 3pt shot on 3 3PA/g while boosting his 2FG% by 4% due to pace and magic, yeah?

Let's round his 19.6 FGA/g up to 20 for simplicity's sake, then bring us down to 17 FGA/g at 54.5% FG (league average today), then add those 1/3 3P shots and his .289 FTr and 79.1% FT. And that brings us to 53.5% TS. So let's give him another 4.5% boost to his 2FG, since he was about 4.5% above league average in his own time. We'll say that raw change is actually 8.5% now, because Reasons (TM). This, mind, has him shooting 59% inside the arc. Now we're talking about a 56.9% TS player. Now let's take the 83.5% FT from his final year as a volume scorer in Minnesota. 57.4% TS (0.7% below league average today).

Okay. Let's tweak the 3pt shooting. Let's give him a 35% 3pt shot (57.5% TS) and then change the volume to 5 3PA/g. 54.6% TS, so let's back away from that, we've worsened. Okay. Let's be generous. Let's say that even though we actually see a lower overall draw rate and KG was a jumper-heavy guy who didn't initiate/create contact very well in reality, let's say he increased his draw rate dramatically. Let's use his best Minny-era draw rate, which was .411 from 2006. That seems reasonable, because that's a little after the rules change (although in the first 2 seasons, where the refs were going bonkers). 59.2% TS, or +1.1%.

Okay. Now we've reached someone who is at least moderately worth 20 FGA/g. And all it took was an extra 8.5% FG, the best FT% and FTr of his career' (neither from the season we're discussing) and a 35% 3pt shot.

If we got THAT version of 2004 Kevin Garnett translating into today, he'd be an okay first-option scorer who passes really well for his size (which increases his overall offensive utility, obviously) and a DPOY candidate.

That smells like a top 5 guy to me. I'm not very high on his scoring. I wasn't during his actual career and I don't think his game translates super well today. I think a much better option would be to have him shooting a lot less and focusing more on his utility as a playmaker. Of course, as I alluded to earlier, 04 Garnett was playing 40 mpg. In today's game, that's very unlikely. Miles Bridges is topping the league at 37.9 mpg right now. You have to go back to 2016 to find 38+ mpg, and 2011 to find 40+ mpg. Garnett was an 18 FGA36 guy, which given his dubious intersection with scoring efficiency still isn't awesome, but somewhat more tolerable (particularly with his passing and defense). And I think he'd be amenable to using himself more as a decoy than as a volume scorer, he never really evidenced a DESIRE to shoot all the shots in his career. Quite the opposite, really. Which is good, because it really wasn't his forte.

Top 5, though, for that passing and that defense.

And I get whatever pushback from my stat heavy takes. None, absolutely none of basketball works like this. This is like determining what team will win on a specific night based on literally what they average on offense and defense.

Any single assumption that has KG basically playing offense - and especially producing offense statistically, the same way in this era of 6'5 shooting guards getting center minutes, a pace of over 96 on average, and an average ORTG, not even PPG, ORTG of 117.7(!), is categorically absurd. On every single level.

This is like saying he'd be a worse defender because his defenses would give up **** loads more ORTG today. Regardless of the defenses rank compared to the league.

BTW - Don't get emotional from this post I'm not attacking you. God could've posted this and I'd have the exact same response word for word.

[tsherkin]

And I get whatever pushback from my stat heavy takes. None, absolutely none of basketball works like this. This is like determining what team will win on a specific night based on literally what they average on offense and defense.

Any single assumption that has KG basically playing offense - and especially producing offense statistically, the same way in this era of 6'5 shooting guards getting center minutes, a pace of over 96 on average, and an average ORTG, not even PPG, ORTG of 117.7(!), is categorically absurd. On every single level.

This is like saying he'd be a worse defender because his defenses would give up **** loads more ORTG today. Regardless of the defenses rank compared to the league.

BTW - Don't get emotional from this post I'm not attacking you. God could've posted this and I'd have the exact same response word for word.

I understand you're not attacking me. We can disagree amicably well enough.

Garnett was jumper-heavy. He wasn't generally a particularly efficient scorer in his own time, and his style of play didn't lend itself to high efficiency going forward. He would, no doubt, be more efficient in the absolute sense today. I wouldn't expect him to be a 54.7% TS guy today. The tempo is faster, there is less time spent in halfcourt sets, there's better passing, there's better spacing.

But if you think a guy who shied away from playing in the post in his actual career would do that more today, that's not gonna happen. If you think he was gonna do more than shoot mostly jumpers, that's also not likely to happen. He'd probably showcase a decent three, though: for all his various faults in his capacity as a volume shooter, KG was very good at shooting, and that would likely extend to the 3. Also, he wouldn't be playing 40 mpg and he likely wouldn't be taking 19.5, 20 FGA/g either. He was a 18 FGA36 guy who logged heavy minutes. That's likely to bear out, especially BECAUSE he was such a good playmaker. He moved the ball when it made sense to and when he saw openings.

My complaint isn't that he'd be low-impact on O; I think he'd be a strongly-positive offensive player. But he wasn't a top-tier scorer and his style wouldn't translate to elite scoring now, that's plainly evident.

[DSMok1]

I think peak Garnett could be very close to equal with Jokic. The numbers have Garnett as perhaps the best defender of the past 25 years. Coupled with excellent offense, though obviously not on Jokic's, .... I think the gap on defense in Garnett's favor could very possibly be greater than the gap in offense in Jokic's favor.

I picked #1.

The 3-year prior-informed RAPM data sets have four different Garnett stints above Jokic '21-23.

[OdomFan]

Any team today would be lucky to have a guy like him on their roster that can guard the 2-4 like he could.

With you here.

Would not need to add consistent 3's to his game either.

Less so here.

Scoring was not Garnett's forte. In 04, he was scoring well for the time because there was a dearth of quality offense. But his scoring was very much centered around bombing 20-footers, which would not be good policy in today's game and had problems even back then. He was bombing 6.3 FGA/g from 16-23 feet, and while he shot 44.8% (which was quite good at the time), he turned that into 54.7% TS. That's not a style which benefits from the changes to today's game, and that's like 3.5% below league average in today's environment. There would be some changes just due to the tempo of today's game, for sure, but Garnett loved the high post and popping for Js out of the PnR or from hand-offs and stuff. He'd have to shoot less, add threes, and/or be surrounded by better scorers in order for that to fly at the volume he was shooting in 2004, otherwise he'd be sabotaging his own offensive value.

That's ridiculous. As long as he can learn to defend the 3 point shot, he can score anywhere he wants on the other side of the court that works for him. KG was a good passer too, so instead of trying to be a 3 point shooter himself. He can help get the ball into the hands of his teammate who would knock that shot down today. That's not a bad thing what so ever.

[homecourtloss]

I think peak Garnett could be very close to equal with Jokic. The numbers have Garnett as perhaps the best defender of the past 25 years. Coupled with excellent offense, though obviously not on Jokic's, .... I think the gap on defense in Garnett's favor could very possibly be greater than the gap in offense in Jokic's favor.

I picked #1.

The 3-year prior-informed RAPM data sets have four different Garnett stints above Jokic '21-23.

Interesting. I’m assuming it might be only be one or two stints about ‘22-‘24 Jokic.

[Special_Puppy]

Garnett is ahead of Jokic in 28 Year RAPM FWIW https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WMfP-GVHXCjPfp2sMnBjWB301OtO3LO7n-EKoBSl-iQ/edit#gid=0

[Ol Roy]

When I look at Garnett's 45% career efficiency from 16FT-3P and factor in today's scoring environment, I feel comfortable viewing him as a potent spot-up shooter from behind the arc. He was also an elite passer and screen setter, and I think those skills become better utilized today. He had some post moves but that wasn't his natural place on the court. He seemed to prefer the perimeter. Of course, rim protection isn't nearly as menacing today as it was then.

I could see him being used as a Jokic-lite player on offense. Defensively, his skills really hold their value across eras.

I view David Robinson as a center version of Garnett. Not as good of a passer, but very good, especially from the top of the court. Not as good of a shooter, but decent. Like Garnett, he's better positioned starting out on the perimeter. Unlike Garnett, he was a pretty unstoppable finisher, commanding double teams and drawing free throws at the same rate as Shaq. I suspect those double teams would be punished today, and consequently wouldn't occur much. I could see him being comparable to Embiid offensively, with a worse midrange and better defensive impact.

[tsherkin]

As long as he can learn to defend the 3 point shot, he can score anywhere he wants on the other side of the court that works for him.

No, that doesn't make any sense.

KG was a good passer too, so instead of trying to be a 3 point shooter himself. He can help get the ball into the hands of his teammate who would knock that shot down today. That's not a bad thing what so ever.

That doesn't bear any relevance to what I said. The passing is what would make him an above-average offensive player in today's game. His scoring issues would keep him back from being a great one.

[OdomFan]

As long as he can learn to defend the 3 point shot, he can score anywhere he wants on the other side of the court that works for him.

No, that doesn't make any sense.

KG was a good passer too, so instead of trying to be a 3 point shooter himself. He can help get the ball into the hands of his teammate who would knock that shot down today. That's not a bad thing what so ever.

That doesn't bear any relevance to what I said. The passing is what would make him an above-average offensive player in today's game. His scoring issues would keep him back from being a great one.

What do you mean it doesn't make any sense? the point of the game is to make a defensive stop, than score on your end period. There's 0 reason for KG to need to become a elite 3 point shooter today anymore than he needed to in the early 2000s. He would have been fast enough to keep up with todays guys in defending that shot. Then once the ball is in his teams hands. He can score the basketball wherever that works for him.

[tsherkin]

As long as he can learn to defend the 3 point shot, he can score anywhere he wants on the other side of the court that works for him.

No, that doesn't make any sense.

KG was a good passer too, so instead of trying to be a 3 point shooter himself. He can help get the ball into the hands of his teammate who would knock that shot down today. That's not a bad thing what so ever.

That doesn't bear any relevance to what I said. The passing is what would make him an above-average offensive player in today's game. His scoring issues would keep him back from being a great one.

What do you mean it doesn't make any sense? the point of the game is to make a defensive stop, than score on your end period. There's 0 reason for KG to need to become a elite 3 point shooter today anymore than he needed to in the early 2000s.

I'm with you that he doesn't need to be an elite 3pt shooter, but that's not really salient to anything I said. His overall scoring efficiency wasn't particularly good and his game doesn't scale well for contemporary efficiency. He was a heavy perimeter shooter by preference, and that leads to low draw rate. My point was that his overall offensive utility is limited by the major issues with his scoring game. In-era, particularly in 04, the lower overall efficiency of the time helped him a lot. But that isn't the case today, and the basic approach which made him who he was as a player on O limits his projected efficiency, particularly without elite 3pt shooting.

I agree that his defensive ability and passing would make him a good player today, but you'd have to limit his shooting volume.

[Rishkar]

Been a lot of these threads recently, and the interesting thing for me is how easily people accept that Jokic has lock on being the best player in the league. And don't get me wrong, he's having all-time impact, but interesting to consider how far back you have to go to find a player who is plausibly in competition for that number 1 spot.

I'm in the minority here, but I don't think there is any NBA player ever that I'm taking over Jokic for this era. I think this is the most talented the league has ever been, and every historical player would suffer a little if translated directly into today's game. Not a ton mind you (I've always said Bill Russell would be a top 5 player today) but enough that Jokic is my first choice